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

To maximize higher level learning, we found it absolutely necessary to take time to review and discuss outcomes at the end of each project, more than we had (perhaps unwisely) in our traditional class. Because students worked in groups, closing the learning loop required bringing the groups together to compare results. Besides discussing results, we often analyzed and critiqued the projects themselves during these discussion sessions. The plenary sessions produced some of the best teachable moments of the whole semester.

A more pedestrian problem was giving students credit for what they did so we could assign individual grades. Student responses on the assessment survey revealed no concerns about unequal participation in group activities, although I had some concerns. Clearly, some students contributed more to group activities than others and perhaps deserved more credit. An additional complication arose because one student preferred to work alone on some projects. Consequently he ended up doing much more work than some of his colleagues. Besides group projects, the class included several individual exams, quizzes and class presentations. Ultimately these individual activities were weighted quite heavily when calculating student grades. We probably undervalued group accomplishments. Because I am not sure I will have any exams the next time I teach the class, I may have to find another way to evaluate individual students.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project would not have been possible without support from the University of North Dakota's Bush Teaching Scholars Program (funded by the Archibald Bush Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota,) and UND's Office of Instructional Development. Valuable ideas and input came from discussions with other UND Bush Scholars, especially from Frank White who acted as teaching consultant. Reviews by Steve Semken and two others helped improve the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Bateson, D., 1990, Science achievement in semester and all-year courses, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v. 3, p. 233-240.

Beichner, R.J., and Saul, J.M., 2003, Introduction to the SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs) project. Proceedings of the International School of Physics, Varenna, Italy, July 2003, Available at http://www.physics.ncsu.edu:8380/physics_ed/Articles/Varenna_SCALEUP_Paper.pdf (26 August, 2004).

Belcher, J.W., 2004, Lessons learned from TEAL, USC Learning Edge, May 2004, http://w2.usc.edu/tls/thelearningedge/archives/000160.html (26 August, 2004).

Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., and Krathwohl, D.R., 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, Longmans, New York, p. 62-197.

Bosworth, K. and Hamilton, S., eds., 1994, Collaborative Learning: Underlying Processes and Effective Techniques, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, v. 59., 224 p.

Caskey, S., 1994, Learning outcomes in intensive courses, Journal of Continuing Higher Education, v. 42, p. 23-27.