Accessibility as the Translation of Knowledge

What does it really mean to understand something?

Not memorise it for an exam. Not repeat a definition from a textbook. But actually grasp the understanding.

This question stayed with me throughout my Community Project from BITS Design School, where my batchmates Ashitha, Mayuka and I had the opportunity to work with Tan90, an organisation focused on experiential STEM education. Through its STEM Labs which are curriculum-aligned and fully equipped workshops, the organisation attempts to bring hands-on learning experiences to classrooms.

Tan90 Office in Bengaluru

When we first began studying the ecosystem, I assumed the primary value of experiential learning lay in making education more engaging. However, as our research progressed, a different question began to emerge: what actually allows a concept to become meaningful to a learner?

Before heading to the field, we spent time understanding the ecosystem through conversations with the STEM Educators, curriculum designers and content teams of the organisation. Through these interactions, it became evident that designing educational experiences involves much more than creating engaging activities. Every learning experience exists at the intersection of curriculum requirements, classroom realities and diverse learner needs. Balancing these factors emerged as a recurring challenge and became an important lens through which we approached our observations.

Interaction with the Content Creator and STEM Educator

When schools reopened, we had the opportunity to observe one of the STEM sessions. The classroom environment had a combination of hands-on lab activities, discussions and ongoing interactions between students and facilitators. The session was not only driven by the materials available in the lab, but also observations and conversations. This shifted my focus from the tools themselves to the learning processes unfolding around them.

What interested me here was the relationship between understanding and language. Learning is often evaluated through a student’s ability to articulate concepts using the correct terminology. However, many students appeared to recognise patterns, anticipate outcomes and explain observations before they possessed the formal vocabulary associated with those concepts.

Interestingly, moments of linguistic difficulty did not always hinder learning. Students often relied on demonstrations, gestures, observations and peer discussions to communicate what they understood. In several instances, working around language barriers seemed to encourage deeper engagement with the concept itself, requiring students to think more carefully about what they were observing rather than simply recalling terminology.

For example, while some students found it difficult to explain a concept using formal scientific terms, they were often able to point to a reaction they had observed, recreate a process or describe the outcome in their own words. Their understanding was visible, even if it did not yet fit the language typically associated with academic success. This challenged my assumptions about what evidence of learning looks like.

Grade 7 Students Performing the Lab Experiments

Students responded visibly better when they could see themselves and their surroundings in what was being taught. Rather than beginning with unfamiliar abstractions, concepts were introduced through examples that already experienced in real life. This provided context and meant something meaningful for them. It appeared to reduce the effort required to connect new information with existing knowledge, making the learning experience feel less distant and more intuitive.

Observing the facilitation process further reinforced this idea. Rather than simply delivering information, educators frequently adapted examples, explanations and questions depending on how students responded. The same concept was often communicated in multiple ways until students found a point of connection. In many ways, facilitation itself functioned as a form of translation, helping bridge the gap between abstract concepts and individual experiences.

As our observations accumulated, another pattern began to emerge. Understanding rarely seemed to result from a single activity, resource or interaction. Instead, it appeared to develop through a network of interconnected elements.

Resources such as teacher handbooks, student workbooks, educator training and hands-on learning environments each played a different role in shaping the learning experience. What became interesting was not any one component in isolation, but how these components worked together. The educator training supported facilitation, the handbooks provided structure, the workbooks extended engagement and the lab activities created opportunities for exploration. None of these elements appeared sufficient on their own and their effectiveness seemed to emerge through their interaction with one another.

Teacher’s Handbook

Another observation that stayed with me was the culmination projects undertaken by students at the end of middle school. Students had built a remote-controlled car, created a live demonstration of the butterfly lifecycle and developed several other projects using concepts they had encountered in previous sessions. What made these projects interesting was not simply the final output, but what they represented. Using components outside their original instructional context required students to reinterpret, adapt and apply their understanding in new situations. These projects suggested a shift from following instructions to taking ownership of learning.

Looking back, the most valuable insight from this project was not about STEM education itself, but about learning more broadly. Again and again, we encountered situations where understanding emerged through adaptation, interpretation and connection. Students drew meaning from familiar contexts. Educators adapted explanations to suit different learners. Concepts became clearer through experience, discussion and experimentation.

Our own research process mirrored this pattern. Through interviews, field observations and discussions, we continuously revisited and refined our assumptions. Many of our initial hypotheses evolved as we encountered new perspectives from educators, students and the broader ecosystem. Understanding, whether in a classroom or during research, rarely appeared as a sudden moment of clarity. Instead, it developed gradually through reflection, iteration and conversation.

Field Visit at Meru Academy, Banashankari

Only towards the end of the project did I realise that all of these observations were pointing towards the same idea.

Before this project, I largely associated accessibility with access: access to schools, resources, infrastructure and opportunities. What this experience revealed was that access and understanding are not necessarily the same thing. A concept can be available to a learner and still remain inaccessible if it is not presented in a form that connects with their language, experiences and existing mental models.

In that sense, accessibility is not simply about making education available. It is about translating knowledge across people, contexts and experiences until it becomes meaningful. If STEM education is to remain inclusive and impactful, its future may depend not only on expanding access, but also on improving our ability to create those translations.