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

Anecdotal reports and qualitative evaluations of studio teaching and learning by both instructors and students are overwhelmingly positive. Few, however, have conducted quantitative assessments comparing the effectiveness of studio teaching to more traditional approaches. Some studies show equal or better content mastery by students in studio classrooms compared with traditional classrooms (e.g., Wilson, 1997; Gaubatz, 2003; Beichner and Saul, 2003) but content mastery is only one of many potential teaching goals. Other studies (see references cited by Gaubatz, 2003) that have compared classes taught in different scheduling formats suggest that, for most students, time-intensive courses "produce comparable or enhanced academic achievement" (Gaubatz, 2003; see also Nahrgang, 1982; Bateson, 1990; Caskey, 1994; Scott, 1996, 2003; Henebry, 1997; Van Scyoc and Gleason, 1993). In studies of non-traditional teaching practices, most researchers find that innovative approaches to teaching work for most students most of the time. I suspect that some success is due to instructor enthusiasm, but some is also because traditional classrooms are not generally optimal for promoting student learning.

In studio classrooms, the processes followed in the classroom are just as important (perhaps more important) than the topics covered. Instructors base grading in large part on what the student does and how they develop intellectually. So, instructors must monitor student progress continually by observing student behavior, talking formally and informally with students, using various short assessment activities, and other means. Traditional measures of learning that focus on content mastery, such as objective exams, receive less emphasis. Consequently, a problem with changing from a traditional teaching format to a studio format is that lecture notes, projects, exams - all course materials - need to be redesigned. Although the instructor does not lecture in traditional ways, preparation takes lots of time and planning must be well done. Presenting the same material in fewer, but longer, time slots does not work. Evaluating students using standard objective exams may be inappropriate. In fact, in my studio classroom, I am not sure that exams are a good use of any of our time. (See Tewksbury, 1996, for a discussion of the value and problems associated with an "exam-less" classroom.)

CLASSROOM AND CLASS SCHEDULING

Studio teaching is not really possible in traditional lecture halls because effective group activities require that students sit together and look at each other. Some schools have purchased new furniture and completely redesigned classrooms, especially if their studio teaching involves heavy use of computers. Fortunately, we did not have to do any major redesign because we are not focusing on computers and because our Petrology classroom has large laboratory tables allowing students to sit opposite each other.

At UND, like at most colleges and universities, class lecture sessions meet for three standard 50 minute periods, or two 80 minute periods per week. Lab sessions are generally 2 hours or longer in the afternoons. To conform to this scheduling system, we have now scheduled our petrology lectures and labs back-to-back on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. The class meets for only the first 10 weeks of the 16-week semester. The "shortened" semester, implemented because of university expectations regarding contact hours and credit, gives students a more focused learning experience. Despite fewer weeks, the class included about 63 contact hours this past semester, compared with 65 contact hours in prior semesters.