Studio soils: Student performance in a newly restructured introductory soil science course

Background/Question/Methods

In science education there is a growing recognition that lectures are not always the most effective teaching method. While a number of studies have examined the integration of active learning strategies into lectures, these have primarily been in physics, chemistry, and biology. We studied students’ performance in an introductory soil science course before and after transition from a traditional lecture/lab structure to a ‘studio’ environment designed to promote active engagement of students in their own learning. Average grades were calculated for various assessment types (quizzes, exams, research reports, and final grades) and the fail rate was determined for each year. Pre- and post-tests covering soil science information and concepts were administered each year. The percent correct was determined for each test and the gain in score was determined by subtracting the pre-test score from the post-test score. In addition to comparing performance across years, we also looked for differences due to gender and class rank. In the second year of the studio structure, twenty-one students (12 women and 9 men) were interviewed in order to gain a better understanding of students’ perspectives on the studio-structure as a learning environment.

Results/Conclusions

Our results show that female students consistently outperformed male students for all assessment types in all years. In the lecture format, seniors outperformed juniors and sophomores across assessment types, while sophomores tended to outperform upperclassmen in the studio course. This is particularly interesting because this is a sophomore level course, but routinely more upperclassmen take the course. We found higher quiz, report, and final grades in the second year of the studio structure compared to the traditional lecture format and the first year of the studio structure. We also found that the fail rate was lower in the studio years than in the lecture year. Interview findings suggest that most students felt the studio structure was beneficial as a learning environment because of the minimized lectures, increased field and lab work, collaborative group activities, and combined nature of the course (i.e. no longer a disconnect between lecture and lab).