Hey Chris and Laura, yes, you’re right. Kinda taking it too far. The visual (another thing that can trick you, right?) sort of got me onto interpreting it for my own agenda. Laura is right about several things she’s said: words don’t necessarily capture everything, including emotions; diff languages express thoughts differently (and some believe impact how we think altogether); and yes, randomized controlled experiments do not equate to numbers. (Equate, get it?)
Chris ur right of course also about how we teach the literacy of each discipline/subject

So then my question is this: how come so much literature/scholarship esp in the US relies on numbers to describe and assess the very emotional experiences of teaching and learning? It’s not hiding emotions, it’s glossing over and ignoring context. I haven’t for a long time seen any quantitative study on education that, on its own, adds value to practitioners. Mixed methods, yes. I do surveys, too. But pure correlation and regression analysis and such? No.