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

The idea of studio learning originated, perhaps, in architecture and art programs and more recently has grown in engineering and technical schools. Many instructors have successfully used cooperative learning in their classrooms; studio teaching is a logical extension of that approach. Studio classrooms have many different manifestations but all share common elements. They involve longer, fewer, class sessions with focused, intense, student activity. Any disconnect between laboratory and lecture time is absent because lab and lecture are combined. In fact, lectures are de-emphasized or eliminated altogether. Students work on in-depth projects instead, generally in groups, sometimes moving from one workstation to another. Tables or benches are arranged so students face each other instead of the front of the classroom. The interactive classroom promotes holistic skills, including thinking, inquiry, creativity and reflection by students, frequently involving peer review and critiquing. Table 1 compares some characteristics of a course taught as a cooperative studio class with those of a more traditionally taught science class.

A properly managed studio classroom can provide a quintessential active and cooperative learning environment. The value of such an environment has been well described by many. See for example Welch et al. (1981), Macdonald and Bykerk-Kauffman (1996), Srogi and Baloche (1997), and articles by several authors in Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science (Minstrell and van Zee, 2000). Additionally, studio teaching is consistent with goals summarized in National Research Council reports including National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (NRC, 1996). It also matches recommendations in the AAAS publication Science for All Americans by Rutherford and Ahlgren (1991), and in the NSF report Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering , and Technology (NSF, 1996). In these reports, and others, emphasis is placed on getting students actively involved in doing science and thinking like scientists. In its executive summary, the NSF report recommends that ". . . all students learn [science] by direct experience with the methods and processes of inquiry." While doing, thinking, and inquiring, students learn science and also develop key skills including collaboration, teamwork, communication, and responsibility.

An important characteristic of studio classrooms is that students have more control and responsibility for outcomes than in traditional classrooms. Instructors and teaching assistants (TAs) are mentors, acting as learning guides, providing the learning environment and materials needed for students to create their own learning. Instructors help students start on projects and are on hand as resources for students to use. Besides the instructor, learning resources include traditional texts and other reading materials, and also student peers in a class. Consequently, a key to success is that students must attend class and everyone must participate; this requires some adjustment by students who have not experienced such a classroom environment before. Most students, however, do catch on and in the end find it easier to attend fewer classes even if they are of longer duration.