Are X-labs the Future of Learning and Thinking?

PUBLISHED: Apr 1, 2019

In This Episode.

Steve and Dave look at the recent article from The Chronicle of Higher Education about James Madison University’s X-lab, and they examine rising contemporary calls for opportunities for students to innovate and problem solve.  Are X-Labs the future of learning?  Should your school have one?  In related news, Steve drops a bomb about lucite.

Episode Archive

Are X-labs the Future of Learning and Thinking?

April 1, 2019

Podcast Transcript

Voiceover: Welcome to the Critical Thinking Initiative podcast, we bring you research driven solutions to critical thinking education. Why? Because as Bertrand Russell said, most people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do so. And now your hosts Steve Pearlman and Dave Carillo.

Steve Pearlman: Hey, welcome back to the Critical Thinking Initiative podcast. I’m Steve Perlman.

Dave Carillo: I’m Dave Carillo.

Steve Pearlman: First thing we want to say is we just got back from the four CS conference. For those of you outside the comp world, that’s the conference on college composition and Communication. And it was a real pleasure to meet some of our listeners there who were able to come up to us and let us know that they’ve been listening to the podcast. We’ve got a real kick out of that because we record these things and send them off into the entire ether. And it’s kind of a kick to meet some people who have received some of it get some feedback and I think a lot of encouragement for continuing to do what we’re doing. But for those of you who are there and approached us, we really appreciate it. And we hope that as we get out into the world, more and more people will take the opportunity to introduce themselves. Let us know what they’re thinking about, what we’re doing and give us some feedback on it. Share any ideas you have and you have to wait till we’re at a conference in person. To do that, you can also reach out otherwise.

Dave Carillo: Yeah, no, we always enjoy the emails that our listeners send us. It is always a great feeling to be able to have you walk up to us and say, Hey, we we we, we know you, we hear you on the interwebs. We appreciate your podcast, that kind of thing. The conference was the first sort of concentrated dose of that kind of recognition.

Steve Pearlman: Yeah, we look at the numbers going up on the podcast and how many listeners we have, but those are just numbers on an entire website, and it’s great instead to actually know that some of those numbers are actual human beings. So today’s podcast actually comes from listeners because I don’t think we’ve ever gotten quite as many emails from listeners about a single article as with this one, which is curious. It’s not a really highly controversial one. It’s just a really interesting article. But a lot of listeners reached out to us asking us what we thought about this particular article. It was it would appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and we’ll link to it on the site. The title is no textbooks, no lectures and no right answers. Is this what higher education needs by Beth McMurtrie? And it’s about the X lab that they’ve developed at James Madison University. For those not familiar with what these X labs are, they are frequently emerging now or more frequently emerging now. And what they are is they’re sort of technological labs as well as or they can be more liberal, artsy kind of spaces where students are confronted with some wicked problems and given the space to work through those problems in different ways. So it’s sort of place for or a construct for what we can loosely refer to as project based learning or problem based learning. And they’re typically interdisciplinary, and they’re typically designed around the idea of fostering innovation and growth and critical thinking and so on and so forth.

Dave Carillo: Yeah, which is which is what the title sort of entails here. These kinds of labs in that they are constructed around the premise of problem or project based learning require there to be a more open and learning environment and a learning environment that isn’t necessarily constructed around chapters in a textbook. And that generally just pushes students out into this sort of open realm of of a particular problem or a project and asks that they learn themselves how to come to some sort of conclusion. And that’s something that this article talks about early on in a way to sort of represent what the lab is about at JMU.

Steve Pearlman: It’s kind of interesting, actually, though, that a lot of people reached out. I guess no particular article got some good mention in the Chronicle, but it’s by far not the first X lab that has existed in the country and just kind of got some recognition for what they’re doing, which is cool. But it’s interesting that so many people sort of locked onto this particular article about it, right?

Dave Carillo: Well, I’m actually very happy that so many of our listeners emailed this article to us because you know what we want to do here is we want to give you an overview of the article, but then we wanted to annotate it a bit. We see some things that the article is talking about that we feel like we we would want you to know more about. And we actually have some questions about this X lab and questions for those folks who are running it and we’d love to reach out to them at some point. So what this X lab is, is working towards is what McMurtry sort of writes earlier on. She proposes these kinds of questions here. How do you develop a course in? His students learn to be innovative, what is the role of the instructor if he no longer is the authority in the classroom? How do you evaluate students when there is no right answer and what is innovation anyhow? And so these kinds of questions permeate this sort of X lab environment. There are no tests and there are no textbook.

Steve Pearlman: And I just I want to note, I love that it’s called an X lab, and I think just putting X in front of things is such a brilliant way to make it sound intriguing.

Dave Carillo: I wonder about that. They don’t talk anything at all about that in the article, right? But it doesn’t have the same sort of ring to it. If it’s like, I don’t know the lab or something like that.

Steve Pearlman: Well, right. I mean, I want to

Dave Carillo: Have lab sounds like people are just not, I don’t know, that doesn’t have any like really kind of resonance either.

Steve Pearlman: Well, first of all, I want to have I’m going to put I’m going to call my office the X office from now on.

Dave Carillo: I don’t I’m not going to help you make that stick. You can. I’m going to I’m going to put

Steve Pearlman: It on my office x office. Try.

Dave Carillo: I wholeheartedly support that.

Steve Pearlman: I wonder why it’s not a Q lab.

Dave Carillo: I, I don’t know. That’s a good question, right? And there are a couple other letters that can probably throw punches with the Letter X.

Steve Pearlman: There’s no way R could hang with this now.

Dave Carillo: R r lab r x q can. You could be sort of maybe, maybe. So just to give you an overview of what’s going on here in terms of the article, students are presented with any number of Steve mentioned before wicked problems. So in the article, the first example we get is this idea where one of the students in this lab is given a problem to solve homelessness in the local community. And that kind of problem, among others, is what students spend their semester doing. And there’s no real conclusion at the end of this, right? A lot of these X lab type things in this particular X lab can just as well have a project that does help solve homelessness in the community as it does not solve anything at all. Students could potentially go through the whole semester and then bomb at the end. Not necessarily because they weren’t doing any work, but because that’s the nature of this kind of education.

Steve Pearlman: The student is not going to solve homelessness, and nor is that really the intention?

Dave Carillo: No, it’s not the intention.

Steve Pearlman: Homelessness is not going to be totally resolved in that community as a result of this student’s effort.

Dave Carillo: This is something that we would want to kind of delineate in or at least categorize in this particular article in this lab. There are these problems like solve homelessness in the community, which is hell of a messy problem anywhere. But then there are also problems like design a drone or that does certain things. It’s interesting that you bring that up because, yeah, I don’t think the student is necessarily going to solve homelessness, but there are projects mentioned in this article where there’s a much more concrete end to it. Yeah, which bears at least mentioning in terms of how we go through this article.

Steve Pearlman: And I think at the outset where we want to say, first of all, is that in a loose way because so many listeners reached out to us asking sort of what we thought about it this way, we want to say that we think this is great. A lot of levels. Yeah, and there should be more of this kind of experiential, messy learning, problem based learning, project based learning going on in education without question at all. So thumbs up to JMU and their X lab and everything that we’re going to, we are certainly going to put it through some of our thinking process here about it and raise some questions. But these are smaller questions within the broader stroke of saying thumbs up to this kind of thing.

Dave Carillo: Yeah, and not just because like this exists. But if you read the article, I mean, this exists in a fairly expensive and comprehensive way, mean the professors who are involved have done a lot. Even from this article, you can see they have a lot of classroom space. They have a lot of the professors and faculty from across the disciplines. They’ve partnered with a whole mess of companies and other institutions in the community. So there’s a lot of things that they’ve done to make sure that this works. Even as at the end of the article, some of those faculty members involved do express concern because it’s it’s time consuming, right? So kudos to the ones who are doing. It takes a certain amount of willingness to rethink teaching and thumbs up to those individuals who are willing to take the plunge and so on and so forth.

Steve Pearlman: If there’s an initial distinction we want to make, it’s certainly about the fact that there is a distinction between problem based learning and project based learning, and a lot of this is more project based learning. It sounds to us that is problem based learning, and there’s nothing wrong with project based learning. They’re just not exactly the same thing as problem based learning. There are two very valuable approaches, but the difference is in project based learning. There’s an outcome. There’s usually a material outcome or something to that effect. So right, project based learning would be designing a drone, and project based learning might also be and the line can get. Blurrier between the two where you are, let’s say, proposing a certain solution or an actionable solution to homelessness within a community, if there is an actual end to that where you are implementing something, we’re trying to get something implemented. Let’s say that we are going to work with local businesses to at least make sure all of the homeless have clothes that didn’t come out the article. I’m just saying that hypothetically, that turns into more of a project, whereas problem based learning is more where you’re only contending with things in the abstract world. So what might we do with racism in our culture? There’s not going to be a outcome. There’s going to be an actionable thing that people are going to go and do on a local level, necessarily with that kind of problem. You’re looking at it more globally. Again, there’s no criticism here at all. I’m just creating a distinction between what’s project based learning and what’s problem

Dave Carillo: Based on this. And I think that is an important distinction to make, though

Steve Pearlman: If there is a broad stroke critique that I’d like to make about this and all these X labs that are emerging again, this broad stroke critique falls under the broad stroke praise, but it’s that the emphasis is being placed on innovation and innovation is important, and we need people who can innovate. But so many people are not going to go on out of college into careers where the primary thing they really need to do is innovate all of the time. They need to be able to problem solve. Yes, they need to think critically, they to do a lot of things, but not innovate in the sense that these X labs are creating innovation where you’re always producing something new as a result of your efforts. And there are some people who have tracked back this weight that’s being put on innovation now to Silicon Valley and how a lot of entrepreneurs are able to go out and create these new businesses, these tech businesses based on what certainly were absolutely innovative ideas. But these X labs have emerged out of this concept that innovation itself is such a needed driving force, and I think that it is important. Certainly, there’s no question about it, but I think that there are a lot of presumptions being made about the value of innovation that’s not paying enough attention, potentially to some of the other aspects of educational growth or critical thinking as we think about it.

Dave Carillo: Well, I think it’s a really interesting point you make. And so let me see if I’m hearing you like working under the assumption that a rough definition of innovation in this context is something along the lines of developing a new way to do things, a new way to think of things, a way that may be better than the other ways out there. And that certainly takes critical thinking. It takes creative thinking to an extent. And there are these elements to this kind of innovation that essentially aim toward the sort of newness or uniqueness or creativity. And what are you saying, though, Steve, is that there isn’t necessarily going to be that kind of ongoing open space for innovation in the real world. You know, if you’re not innovating right, but you still have to solve the problem and say, well, you have no space to innovate a new framework for dealing with homelessness, you have not how new or unique something is, but how you’re able to navigate this particular problem, given the set of circumstances that exist and might be unmovable.

Steve Pearlman: And yeah, I mean, the vast majority of people going out of college into work. I could list so many professions nursing or you’re going to be a lawyer, you’re going to be a doctor, you’re going to go into business and you’re going to work at some level of business or marketing. You are not innovating in the sense that these X labs are fostering innovation. You might be problem solving a lot. You certainly need to be problem solving. What do you need to be critical thinking a lot and so on. But you’re not always embarked on the creation of something new, the creation of something different you are working with in other constructs that require other kinds of thinking. And I just don’t want these notions of these X labs, which again love them. They’re great. We need more of them, but don’t want these notions of these X labs and their emphasis on innovation to supplant and speak louder than the need for other kinds of critical thinking that’s going to exist and problem solving that’s going to happen for most people in what they’re going to go on to do in life.

Dave Carillo: Right? Just as an aside, I think you pretty much listed all the professions, right? You said marketing business lawyer, nurse, I think you hit them all. No, no

Steve Pearlman: Athlete. Athlete. Right. That’s right. Yeah, OK. As a professional athlete,

Voiceover: Steve and Dave will be right back. In the meantime, they want you to know about the critical thinking initiative, faculty and student handbooks. They provide the only unified critical thinking system that is a pedagogy for you, a thinking method for your students, a means of assessment that foregrounds critical thinking and a system that works for any discipline. With the Critical Thinking Initiative handbooks, your students will engage the subject matter of your course more meaningfully. You’ll receive more thoughtful writing and discussion, and you’ll help to cultivate the kind of thoughtful citizens essential for any strong democracy to get the joint set right now. At 20 percent off with free shipping, just use the Discount Code podcast at the Critical. Banking initiative, dawg. That’s discount code podcast for 20 percent off and free shipping, now back to Stephen Dave.

Dave Carillo: Part of what the challenge in this article that faculty Jamie TSB’s has is this idea that there’s no textbook. If there’s no test, there’s no right answer. Well, what the hell is the teacher supposed to do? In fact, the question is what is the role of the instructor if he is no longer the authority in the classroom? And I think this is really pertinent because oftentimes faculty development, at least in our case, has to do with redefining the role of the instructor and helping them get to a point where they can start to challenge their kids further than this kind of multiple choice. Or we only go from the textbook type of thinking. I just want to read out a quotation that fills in some of those blanks. And this is the quotation from an article written by Richard Miller, who I believe still runs the graduate English or humanities program at Rutgers. I probably should have looked that up. I apologize. And he says this quote the professor’s role in this new digital learning environment is not to play the part of the master of content. That’s the first part of its quotation. And I think that’s essentially what they’re getting at here is that you’re no longer master of content. You’re not just. And a lot of people have said this in a much earlier than twenty sixteen, but it can’t be said enough and thought about enough. Ferraro said it a long time ago, and there are a few others, even maybe before forever, that it wasn’t necessarily about the teacher.

Dave Carillo: Student relationship shouldn’t be, you know, nothing and can’t think about anything. And I will give you just a little bit to think about and don’t think about it other than memorize it and spit it back to me. Miller is contending with what a teacher does when a student can literally google anything at any point in their lives. And he says the professor’s role in the new digital learning environment is not to play the part of the master of content, it is to be the master of resourcefulness. In this role, the teacher models how to think in the face of an endless torrent of information, most of which is nothing more than the noise of self publication and self-promotion. And so I think he does a really good job of distinguishing exactly where we all, as teachers to some extent, stand now that it’s not just card catalogue, it’s not just there’s this textbook in. No student can get that anywhere else. There are limitless amount of information is at their fingertips. And so what do you do? And these labs are a good example of what Miller is talking about, which is we are not in control of the content now. We have to be the thinking models, we have to be the resource guides. We have to be able to help students start to think about this stuff themselves rather than tell them when they’ve thought a good thought or not.

Steve Pearlman: Right? I mean, information, thanks to the information age, thanks to the internet to a degree, right is no longer the most valuable commodity in education. It certainly doesn’t have the value that it used to have for two reasons. One, because it’s so available. Second, because there’s so much of it that what becomes more important is the actually the ability to sift through it and discern it and think about it.

Dave Carillo: Right? Exactly. The Critical Thing initiative we’re interested in cultivating the role of the instructor as a guide because the research bears it out. Students now don’t need to be tested in that multiple choice way. They need to develop a strong, metacognitive framework for navigating their world. They’re not always problem solving. By coming up with something completely new, they’re having to sift through a whole mountain of potentially bad information to get to some good information, to be able to evaluate it as such and move on it.

Steve Pearlman: Yeah, an ethical decision isn’t going to come up with something new and innovative. You have to choose an ethical right model, and reasoning is critical for that. And we need that kind of reasoning that applies to so many different things, not just ethics, but where there’s no product. There’s no new innovation at the end of that.

Dave Carillo: Right, exactly. I mean, and that’s something that’s tricky, too, and I understand where the JMU people are coming from, the kind of innovation they’re talking about or these project based experiences. I mean, if a student has never had that kind of experience before and a lot of the students that are quoted in this article would seem to be suggesting that and we know from our own research and experience and a lot of students are necessarily able to get this kind of experience or opportunity, then the project is a really good way of doing it.

Steve Pearlman: And let’s take our hats off to them. They recognize this. And the article says college students don’t lack ambition or creativity, professors here say, but the education system has trained them to think within existing boundaries and frameworks. If you put them in charge of figuring out what they need to learn, they’re willing to wrestle with uncertainty. Challenge themselves and work long hours to find answers. And that is not new news. I mean, that’s all been well established in the research on problem based learning already, but it’s good to hear it here, and it’s good that these people JMU are putting students into these constructs and seeing exactly what we knew they were going to see, which is that students are eager to engage these wicked problems and draw on resources and be problem solvers and so on. So that’s wonderful to hear it going on and see it manifesting.

Dave Carillo: Yeah, I totally agree, and it’s always good. See new outcomes that support those older outcomes, like you said, the research has been going on for quite some time, but any time we can see this resonating, that’s great news.

Steve Pearlman: On the other hand, if I can venture into a point where I would take some critique with it and it’s unfair because I don’t know fully enough of what goes on there, but the article does mention that they build a lot of their construct around process of design thinking, and I don’t think we’ve talked about this much. I don’t want to overstate this. Design thinking can be a useful model for approaching a problem, and those of you don’t know what design thinking is, you can look it up. Any Google search will show you the five steps, and there will be forty two different diagrams that will come up on design thinking,

Dave Carillo: Well, there are a lot of iterations of those five basic steps.

Steve Pearlman: Yeah, and it’s fine. It’s absolutely fine. There have been a lot of critiques of it also. First of all, in the sense that there are just so many other models out there, it was one model that was put forward of how to innovate and develop ideas. But there are so many other models for that as well so many other flow charts that one could engage. I am also very partial to Natasha Jenn’s short video, and basically it’s titled Design Thinking is bullshit. And she iterates a couple of great points about how there’s no real critique process and how there’s a push towards prototyping how real designers need what she calls just a tremendous amount of messy evidence, quote unquote messy evidence, which is a term I really like. There are also all kinds of other problems with design thinking with respect to collaboration and where brainstorming has been shown to be a very flawed process often. And it’s very often a lot better just to let individuals go off and venture out in different directions and so on. And again, I want to point out it’s not that design thinking is necessarily particularly bad. I’m not saying that at all. It’s just that I think it’s given too much weight and it’s gotten too much popularity as one particular path towards the creation of something new, as opposed to so many of the other flow charts that are available for that or models or messy processes that are out there for the same kind of idea.

Dave Carillo: Again, this is a limitation on our part because we just can’t see into the new process enough. The articles that other campuses have maker spaces, boot camps and entrepreneurship programs often designed to fuel startups at you. However, the focus is on the education process itself, and so I would be very interested in hearing about how they use design thinking in terms of the educational process. So that leads us into this last overarching concept or a question that pertains to the idea of education. What are the educational outcomes? How are they assessing them? What are they really aiming for in terms of this lab if it isn’t necessarily quote innovation or if it isn’t necessarily like a finished working project? So I think, Steve, you have that moment that can start us off.

Steve Pearlman: Yeah, the article says. Quote, If defining and teaching innovation is difficult, assessing it can be even more challenging. Instead of relying primarily on test papers and quizzes, many JMU x lab courses have started using Learning Record, which attempts to capture both what and how students learn. The portfolio style assessment system requires students to record their progress at least twice a week, focusing on what they did and what they learn from it. A student might write about the challenges of effective teamwork and interview she conducted, or some research she did, and how to fit it into her project, but says that one way to measure students development is to see how many pivots they make over the course of a semester in their explanation and analysis of a problem end quote so that that raises a lot of questions.

Dave Carillo: But there’s there’s a lot of different things that we see in here. And again, like this is not necessarily something that anybody is really fully solved and this is something that we’re always thinking about. So for instance, like the first thing that comes to my mind is this idea of measuring student development is to see how many pivots they make over the course of the semester. So in this scenario, we would want to see that a student is not going to oversimplify their project or continue to double down on an idea that they think is the right one, even as they start to see it fall apart and be able to pivot towards like

Steve Pearlman: Another plan, right? On the other hand, merely the act of pivoting isn’t really necessarily a sign of progress or thoughtfulness in itself. It is change, but I don’t know exactly what that’s telling.

Dave Carillo: Well, it’s such an interesting concept because first and foremost, we want to be able to see our students say, this isn’t working, I’m going to try something else. But what exactly are we then taking from that right? If we can see something, is it working? Is that because there’s like a lot of smoke pouring out of it? Or is it because we clearly can’t get these clothes to this population in this amount of time? I’m assuming that most students would be able to see that something wasn’t working or note a dead end and then pivot fine. But what is the development and. What I would want to find out is, are they tracking the development and strengthening of some metacognitive framework for this? It’s like not only that, I see this as a dead end, but do I understand why? Can I articulate that if I’m problem solving, if I’m running a team can articulate why this is a dead end? Do I understand why I’m pivoting to this? Is it just Plan B or is it Plan C? Because we now know that we can sort of see that Plan B is not going to work either?

Steve Pearlman: And your point about the metacognitive framework is equally what I would apply back to the question of their learning record. Merely having students write some kind of reflection can sometimes be very valuable. It also going to be vacuous. Obviously, we’re partial to our critical thinking method as a way to foster these metacognitive moves in deeper reflection, as well as to assess how students are thinking their way through a process exactly based on evidence and evaluation and so on. But that aside, it does raise questions. They might be doing a masterful job with it. Let’s be clear about that, because this is just giving us a synopsis of what’s going on. So we don’t want to give any impression here that we’re necessarily feeling as though they’re flawed in this. It’s just raising questions for us as to really what’s grounding that assessment of

Dave Carillo: That reflection, right? And if I were just going to forward your extend your idea, I would say, Hey, listeners, if you’re interested in this project based learning or problem based learning, like one of the things that you really want to focus on is is how are you going to assess your students in terms of their thinking in terms of the development of that metacognitive process? Because JMU is right on in these exams are right on it. Like sometimes like the project is not going to work out and point a project or problem based learning isn’t necessarily to come up with something that works. And what we say when we do faculty development is that it’s better to be smarter than right. And so, yeah, maybe there is a drone at the end of this and that drone flies into space as it was supposed to, and that problem has been solved. But if the drone doesn’t fly into space, that’s not necessarily a failure of the class. But then what are you measuring, right? And one of the things that you want to measure is a certain amount and ability to understand why and how it failed and to what extent you can articulate questions that come out of it. What are the future concerns and is there evidence attached to that?

Steve Pearlman: Right. And if I can build on that, then you’re also assessing and this is where it comes back to our conception of thinking. But what you have to be able to assess is the thinking process. Because look, let’s say the goal is to create this better drone and the students come up with this better drone and you say, well, how you come up with a better drone. Well, we accidentally this thing fell on to that thing and it worked. And so we have a better drone, and that’s good. There are plenty of scientific discoveries that have happened sort of quasi by accident or what have you like. Lucite was developed entirely by accident.

Dave Carillo: You have been waiting for six years to pour that fact, right? I’m assuming that you have been waiting for a long time.

Steve Pearlman: I’ve been waiting my entire life.

Dave Carillo: Steve Perlman Lucite fact in his back pocket, he is now a free man.

Steve Pearlman: How many people knew that new site was developed?

Dave Carillo: You said it didn’t mean it real. I just assumed that I was just taken aback by how quickly. Well, the other

Steve Pearlman: Example is Viagra was discovered because they were trying to find a cure for baldness.

Dave Carillo: Yeah, no. That’s right. Yeah, yeah. And I was just going to lie my way through it and just start rattling things off the airplane. Atom bomb, frozen TV dinners, all by accident. Microwave, all by accident. No thinking involved in any of these.

Steve Pearlman: So we’re look, we’re trying to say the fact that something comes out of this process that works doesn’t necessarily mean that a substantive amount of quality thinking went into it. A substantive amount of quality thinking could go into something that doesn’t work at the end of this process as well. How are we assessing the thinking that’s going on in this process along the way? And again, there’s no presumption here that at JMU, they don’t have a method of approaching this. We just don’t know. It’s just raising the question for us here.

Dave Carillo: And they do mention that they have multiple ways of assessing students, including I believe they mentioned that the National Science Foundation critical thinking test is used and then the Torrance test of creativity are the two that I think the article mentions. And we have some experience with them. And I think that’s just for another discussion entirely. But when I see this kind of project, the first two things run through my mind are, Wow, that’s so awesome that they were able to get that up and running and then wait a minute. I want to see what, to what extent there are these outcomes and I’m concerned about. And again, there’s other things here that are for another time, there are issues of transfer of learning that I think we can get to in another podcast and some other things. But those are always the two things. One that’s just awesome. And to know that it’s awesome. Let’s can I ask some questions about assessment, because that’s kind of where we are.

Steve Pearlman: Yeah, and it is awesome. And I think one of the best ways to also talk about and demonstrate that is a quote from Ludwig, who’s talking about what the students say. And she says the confidence they build from trial and error seems to have a pretty big effect because they see that a failure is in a life failure. I mean, that’s a critical lesson we talk about in previous podcasts and growth mindset and so on, and those kinds of lessons are things that colleges should be fostering in students. A lot more, and so if all the students are getting out of this is the notion that they can fail at attempting to create a bunch of things, but it’s not a reflection of them as being a failure and that to redouble their efforts and go forward, it’s great. So there are lots of great things about this. There should be more of these X labs around. We have some questions about it and would love to see more problem based learning in other areas of education that don’t result in projects and for those to get as much recognition as these sorts of things, but more power to them. And maybe we can. I don’t know. Maybe if somebody gets this to them, we can follow them or something.

Dave Carillo: That’s what I wanted to say. Like anybody out there who’s listening this from Jamie, you, Jamie, you invite them to get in touch with us because I would love to get them on the podcast and just

Steve Pearlman: Wrap and no offense to the inventor of Lucite. I mean, look, no.

Dave Carillo: Look, we still did it. We still did it. You did it. We needed it. Now we have it end of story.

Steve Pearlman: Thanks for listening, everyone. Take care.

Voiceover: Got questions about critical thinking, questions about pedagogies related to critical thinking, questions about writing, reading, grading or anything else in the critical thinking realm? Contact Stephen Dave at Info at the Critical Thinking Initiative. Talk with your questions or your feedback about the podcast. Thanks for listening.


Submit a Comment