Case for a Cooperative Studio Classroom: Teaching Petrology in a Different Way, The

ABSTRACT

To improve our Petrology course, I have changed it from a lab-lecture format to one that emphasizes studio and cooperative learning. The goals of the changes are to: (1) improve student learning by covering (a smaller number of) topics in greater depth, (2) deemphasize knowledge-based learning and emphasize development of higher order thinking skills (comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation), and (3) help our students develop good habits of the mind and fundamental skills useful for lifelong learning.

The reformatted course requires that students take more responsibility for their learning. I and the teaching assistant act as mentors, guiding students as they carry out the learning process. Lab and lecture sessions are seamlessly combined. Formal lectures are short and rare. Instead, students do many group projects, studying complex problems in depth. The content covered in the semester is less than in a more traditional class but the learning is greater.

After one semester, a multipronged assessment reveals that students like the redesigned course and believe they learn more than in a traditional course. They report no major problems. I, too, have found the redesigned course to be a success. It met all of the initial goals, was successful in many other ways, and will lead to improvements in other classes and in our curricula.

INTRODUCTION

At the University of North Dakota, Petrology (Geology 320) is a junior level course required of all majors that covers general igneous and metamorphic petrology. I inherited Geology 320 from another, now retired, instructor several years ago and have not been particularly happy with the way I teach the class. I have experimented with different curricula and teaching strategies. As with many of my classes, I have found myself moving away from lectures and more toward cooperative learning and other group activities. This approach means we cover fewer topics but we cover them in greater depth.

There are several reasons why I have moved away from traditional teaching strategies; the most important being that there are better ways to promote student learning. Many teachers have found that active learning, including cooperative learning and group activities, helps students learn, and especially to develop higher order thinking skills including comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. While actively engaged, students develop good habits of the mind and the skills needed to be successful lifelong learners (Welch et al., 1981; Gabelnick et al., 1990; Bosworth and Hamilton, 1994; Macdonald and Bykerk-Kauffman, 1996; Srogi and Baloche, 1997). Additionally, many studies support the notion that "less is more," meaning that exposing students to less information can lead to better learning (e.g., Tobias, 1990; Dempster, 1993; Nelson, 2001; Fratt, 2002; D'Avanzo, 2003, and references therein).

At the University of North Dakota, the the Bush Teaching Scholars Program brings together faculty dedicated to investigating significant issues related to teaching and learning in their fields. The program, funded by the Archibald Bush Foundation (Minneapolis) is designed to create a faculty learning community focused on the scholarship of teaching that extends beyond the borders of our university. In the fall, 2003, as part of my participation in the Bush Program, I made significant changes in my Petrology class. I eliminated nearly all remaining lecturing and focused the class on cooperative and active learning by the students. To facilitate this, I integrated the "laboratory" and "lecture" parts of the class, and adjusted class meeting times to be much longer than the usual 50 minutes or an hour. In essence, I converted my classroom from the standard lab-lecture format to what some call a "studio classroom" with a focus on cooperative learning. Although the total contact hours are about the same, the class now only meets for the first 10 weeks of the 16-week semester. The reformatted class was so successful that I am now planning to change my mineralogy class in the same way.

VALUE OF THE STUDIO CLASSROOM

Some instructors at other schools have successfully used the studio format. Laws (1991), Young (1996), Walter and Hendler (1996), Wilson (1994, 1997), Rumsey (2000), Beichner and Saul (2003), Belcher (2004), and Handelsman et al. (2004) provide some basic background and discussions of the studio approach. The printed literature on studio teaching is surprisingly skimpy, however, perhaps reflecting its relatively short history. Still, many short pieces can be found on the web, and are easily tracked down using standard search engines. Most of the web articles and reports come from just a few schools, including especially the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, North Carolina State University and the California Polytechnic State University, where some departments and instructors emphasize studio learning (especially in physics and engineering). At these institutions, studio classrooms often involve computer clusters and work stations, so many reports focus on technology (e.g., Ross, 2002). The benefits and principles of studio teaching, however, do not require such technology.