Pizziconi: I agree. I think the issue is that . . . the timing is critical, particularly in limited class periods. You need to . . . incorporate that active learning process in a very timed way. If you keep it too loose, you will run out of time and not achieve the objectives of the class. . . . Once you have got it down, it actually becomes. . . easy to implement. In fact, it is much more normal. I find this to be a much more conversational kind of way to be able to instruct students in ways that are much more interactive—even for the instructor.

Guilbeau: I think Vince and I also found, when we were making this transition, that in the lecture format, the fifty-minute class is almost ideal in the engineering world. It doesn't work as well for the cooperative learning class. The longer, twice-a-week format, I think, gives you more time in the class for the kind of interaction you are looking for. I think it is more prep time, but I also think it’s appropriate to do the job well—to do our job of providing an environment for students to learn. If that’s what [teaching] is about—and I think it is . . . then that’s part of my job, and I should be doing that; because honestly, the traditional “go to the board and lecture from your notes” is almost, you know, no prep time. You can; you open the textbook, you summarize what you want students to be able to do, you pull out a sample problem and you do it—and that’s very simple to do. To incorporate the cooperative learning exercises, you have to think about why you’re doing [the exercise], what your learning objectives are . . . and so [preparation for teaching] does take a little more time.