Received: 29 February 2020 Accepted: 13 March 2020

DOI: 10.1002/nse2.20008

SPECIAL SECTION
Enhancing Natural Sciences Education in Postsecondary Settings

Combining problem-based learning and team-based

learning in a sustainable soil management course

Maja Krzic1 Sandra Brown2 Arthur A. Bomke2

1Faculty of Land and Food

Systems/Faculty of Forestry, University of
British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall,
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
2Faculty of Land and Food Systems,
University of British Columbia, 2357 Main
Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
Correspondence
Maja Krzic, Faculty of Land and Food Sys-
tems/Faculty of Forestry, University of
British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancou-
ver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Email: maja.krzic@ubc.ca
Abstract
Professional natural resource managers require a solid understanding of sustain-
able soil practices. Postsecondary institutions are increasingly integrating inno-
vative approaches such as hybrid problem-based learning (PBL) and team-based
learning (TBL) to train future professional land managers to tackle complex prob-
lems. This article describes the application of a hybrid PBL–TBL approach in a
combined undergraduate and graduate level course, Sustainable Soil Manage-
ment, offered at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
The course utilizes 15 modified PBL cases, where “modified PBL” refers to a
hybrid PBL–TBL approach. The course aims to provide experiential learning
opportunities for students to connect with practicing professionals and commu-
nity partners in addressing real-world issues. Course instructors identified sev-
eral challenges related to the modified PBL approach including multiple out-
comes based on data interpretation, imbalanced team composition, and com-
plex cases that demand advanced education and/or experience. However, course
instructors and students were favorable of the enhanced teaching and learning
opportunities offered by the hybrid PBL–TBL format. Student engagement was
facilitated by the practical relevance of the cases, the opportunity to incorporate
fieldwork, and interactions with external (guest) case contributors; and a bal-
ance between knowledge-based and competency-based learning outcomes was
achieved. This hybrid PBL–TBL approach could serve as a framework for other
postsecondary courses focused on sustainable management of natural resources.

1 INTRODUCTION impact the environment. Active, student-centered, and

group-based learning approaches are increasingly being
Professional natural resource managers require a solid implemented in postsecondary natural resource education
understanding of soil science concepts to be able to make in an attempt to develop career relevant competencies.
decisions and recommendations on how land use may These approaches aim to enhance student engagement,
improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and
Abbreviations: OER, open educational resources; PBL, problem-based contribute to peer-learning (Prince, Borrego, Henderson,
learning; TBL, team-based learning; UBC, the University of British Cutler, & Froyd, 2013; Santos, Figueiredo, & Vierira, 2019).
Columbia; VRH, variable retention harvesting. In soil science education, however, traditional forms of
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2020 The Authors. Natural Sciences Education published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society of Agronomy

Nat Sci Educ. 2020;49:e20008. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nse2 1 of 11

https://doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20008
2 of 11
instruction (lectures, labs, and field trips) remain predom-
inant (Krzic et al., 2018; Parr, Trexler, Khkanna, & Battisti,
2007). Although the importance of active learning has
been stressed (e.g., David & Bell, 2018; Valley, Wittman,
Jordan, Ahmed, & Galt, 2018), widespread adoption of
innovative teaching practices within agricultural, natural
resource, and soil science curricula has been limited
(McKim, Pauley, Velez, & Sorensen, 2017). In contrast,
professional programs, such as medicine and engineering,
have adopted problem-based learning and team-based
learning strategies in efforts to achieve both knowledge-
based and competency-based learning outcomes (Burgess,
McGregor, & Mellis, 2014; Farmer & Wilkinson, 2018).
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered
approach in which problems are the focal point for learn-
ing (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). Students are engaged
in solving open-ended, professionally relevant problems
in a small group setting (commonly 6–10 students per
group). Learning is self-directed with the instructors
facilitating group work by answering questions, providing
resources, and intervening when needed to keep groups
on-task (Barrows, 1996; Dolmans, Michaelsen, van Mer-
rienboer, & van den Vleuten, 2015; Wurdinger & Rudolf,
2009). In PBL, “students formulate and pursue their own
learning objectives by researching a situation, devel-
oping appropriate questions, and producing their own
solution to a problem” (Maxwell, Mergendoller, & Bel-
lisimo, 2005, p. 326). By engaging students with complex
issues, PBL encourages communication, collaboration,
knowledge integration, problem solving, and critical
thinking skills.
Team-based learning (TBL) is a learner-centered
approach in which self-managed student teams are the
focal point for learning (Parmelee, Michaelsen, Cook, &
Hudes, 2012). Team-based learning is characterized by
pre-testing of individual and team knowledge through
a “readiness assurance process” designed to ensure
familiarity with key concepts prior to students using this
knowledge to solve relevant problems. Student teams
(commonly 5–7 members) stay together for the duration
of the course and multiple teams are facilitated by a single
instructor. All teams work on the same problem simulta-
neously, commit to a position, simultaneously report, and
defend their decisions during class-wide discussions. As
teams work independently, peer assessment and feedback
are fundamental to groups evolving into self-managed
learning teams (Michaelsen, Davidson, & Major, 2014;
Parmelee et al., 2012; Sibley & Parmelee, 2008).
Both PBL and TBL engage students through real-world
problems and students apply knowledge to solve problems.
The two approaches differ, however, in how students are
exposed to key content (Dolmans et al., 2015). In PBL, stu-
dents identify the relevant content for self-study based on
KRZIC et al.
Core Ideas
∙ Hybrid problem- and team-based learning
approach is used to train future land managers.
∙ This approach involves no pre-determined out-
come, imbalanced team composition, and com-
plex cases.
∙ Student engagement is achieved by real-world
case studies and incorporation of fieldwork.
∙ Students gain soil science knowledge and soft
skills (communication, problem-solving, team-
work).
the knowledge that is needed to solve a particular prob-
lem. In TBL, instructors define the content for pre-class
study based on the knowledge required, and students are
exposed to new content prior to team discussions. A sec-
ond difference between PBL and TBL involves the role
of the instructor. In PBL there are many teachers, com-
monly one per group, whereas in TBL one instructor may
facilitate 20 or more teams. Consequently, building effec-
tive, independent, self-managed teams is critical for the
successful implementation of TBL (Michaelsen & Sweet,
2008). Recently, courses and programs have combined ele-
ments of PBL and TBL (e.g., Singh, Gupta, & Mahalak-
shmi, 2018; Vogeltanz-Holm, Olson, Borg, & Hill, 2014) to
create hybrid approaches to learning.
In this article we describe the application of a hybrid
PBL–TBL approach in a combined undergraduate and
graduate-level course, Sustainable Soil Management,
offered at the University of British Columbia (UBC),
Vancouver, Canada. The course utilizes 15 modified PBL
cases to provide experiential learning opportunities for
students to connect with professionals and community
partners in addressing real-world issues. We provide an
overview of the course, followed by a description of the
structure of the modified PBL case studies. Reflective
recommendations from the course instructors and select
student reflections are provided to assist instructors
interested in incorporating a hybrid PBL–TBL approach
in postsecondary courses focused on the sustainable
management of natural resources.
2 COURSE OVERVIEW
2.1 Approach and learning outcome
We use the hybrid approach in a combined upper-level
undergraduate and graduate-level course, Sustainable
KRZIC et al.
Soil Management (https://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:APBI402-
SOIL502), offered by the Faculty of Land and Food Sys-
tems, UBC, Vancouver, Canada. The course is generally
taken by 25–40 students. The student demographic of
the course is diverse, from third-year undergraduates
(e.g., agroecology/applied biology, forestry, science,
environmental sciences) to graduate students in either
research-based programs or course-based professional
masters programs in forestry and land–water systems. The
overarching course learning outcome is that students will
be able to apply soil physical, chemical, and biological
principles in the sustainable management of forest, agri-
cultural, urban, and constructed ecosystems. To address
this learning outcome, we simulate a real-world evalua-
tion of soil properties for the establishment of sustainable
management practices in a range of ecosystems.
Similar to standard PBL courses, our course focuses on
professionally relevant problems and small group learning;
however, unlike PBL, each instructor works with multi-
ple teams, and corrective feedback from instructors is pro-
vided during group discussions. Multiple student teams
may work on the same case or on different cases simul-
taneously. By incorporating elements from both PBL and
TBL, we are able to maintain a problem-based focus and
effectively engage a larger cohort of students through semi-
autonomous teams.
2.2 Course structure
The Sustainable Soil Management course is structured
around the soil quality concept, which is defined as the
capacity of a soil to function, within land-use and ecosys-
tem boundaries, to sustain biological productivity, main-
tain environmental quality, and promote plant, animal,
and human health (Doran, 2002). As described by Carter
et al. (1997), soil quality can be evaluated through a frame-
work based on the following hierarchy: functions, pro-
cesses, attributes or properties, indicators, and methods.
Functions deal with “what the soil does” and each func-
tion is supported by a set of specific soil processes. Soil
quality attributes are measurable soil properties that reflect
changes in soil processes of interest. If the specific soil
property cannot be measured directly, an indicator (or
proxy) is used to serve as an indirect measure. Conse-
quently, indicators should: (a) be easily measured and ver-
ifiable, (b) be sensitive to changes in soil management, and
(c) have a relatively low sampling error. Soil indicators that
are found in historical records (e.g., soil surveys) are par-
ticularly useful.
To mimic the real-world site assessments carried out by
land managers, students enrolled in the Sustainable Soil
Management course are asked to develop a soil quality
3 of 11
framework for each of the three modified PBL cases on
which they work during the course. From the data set pro-
vided or generated during the course, students then need
to identify soil quality indicators and assess if the specific
land-use is degrading or enhancing soil quality on the site
addressed by their study case. This task is well-aligned with
the PBL approach that learning is organized around inves-
tigation, explanation, and resolution of real-world prob-
lems (Barrows, 2000; Spronken-Smith, 2005).
The Sustainable Soil Management course, which is
13 weeks in duration, is divided into three modules: soil
physics, soil chemistry, and soil biology (Table 1), followed
by their integration. For each module, there are several
modified PBL case studies (Table 2), and students rank
cases based on their interest. Their preferences are taken
into consideration by instructors when designating teams
containing 4–6 members. Although students’ preferences
are considered in the construction of teams, instructors
purposefully assign students to teams with the objective of
distributing academic backgrounds and strengths among
the groups. Student teams work together for the duration
of one case, and new teams are formed for the next set of
cases. In this manner our course is both similar and dif-
ferent to TBL, where groups are purposely formed but stay
together for the entire course (Dolmans et al., 2015).
During the course, each student works on three 4-week
long modified PBL case studies. Even though cases dif-
fer in terms of type of ecosystems and management prac-
tices, all cases are structured in a similar manner and have
the same overall learning objectives as shown in Figure 1.
For the duration of each case, students work in teams in
a face-to-face classroom setting (Figure 2) to address the
learning outcomes of the case. At the beginning of each
case, students receive background information, week-by-
week learning outcomes with associated tasks and guid-
ing questions, and suggested references for their specific
case. Student teams assess site characteristics, determine
key soil indicators, and evaluate the data for their case
with respect to the impact of management practices on
soil properties. The two instructors are present in the class-
room during teamwork sessions with the intent to ensure
that each team is focussing on the most important learn-
ing issues and is on track toward solving their unique soil
management problem.
At the end of the 4-week period, each team shares their
findings with the entire class in an oral, team presenta-
tion. During the week following presentations (Table 1),
individual students are required to prepare a 1,000-word
report detailing their learning with respect to the learn-
ing outcomes of a particular case. The report must also
include a brief comparison of key soil science principles
that were relevant for all case studies addressed during the
4 weeks. This last step was designed to reinforce the notion
4 of 11 KRZIC et al.

T A B L E 1 Organization of student and instructor activities carried out in the Sustainable Soil Management course offered at the
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Week Course module Students’ activity Instructors’ activity
1 Soil physics Teamwork Lecture to introduce module
2 Teamwork Guiding teamwork
3 Teamwork Guiding teamwork
4 Team presentations Instructors’ feedback on presentations
5 Soil chemistry Preparation of individual report no. 1 and teamwork Lecture to introduce module and report marking
6 Teamwork Guiding teamwork
7 Teamwork Guiding teamwork
8 Team presentations Instructors’ feedback on presentations
9 Soil biology Preparation of individual report no. 2 and teamwork Lecture to introduce module and report marking
10 Teamwork Guiding teamwork
11 Teamwork Guiding teamwork
12 Team presentations Instructors’ feedback on presentations
13 Preparation of individual report no. 3 Report marking
– Take-home final exam Preparation of the exam report Preparation of the exam case and exam marking

T A B L E 2 List of the modified, problem-based learning (PBL) case studies used in the Sustainable Soil Management course offered at the
University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada
Course module Case study
Soil physics • Impacts of soil rehabilitation on forest landings sites on soil quality in central British Columbia
• Cattle grazing effects on grassland soils in southern interior of British Columbia
• Managing the effects of forest harvesting on soil quality in southern British Columbiaa
• Irrigation system installation and its impacts on soil quality in Rajasthan, Indiaa
• Soil erosion on sloping agricultural lands in Nepal
Soil chemistry • Effects of agricultural production on soil chemical properties at the UBC Farm
• Designing soil mixtures for closure of the Vancouver Landfilla
• Effects of site preparation treatments on soil properties and tree growth of plantation forests in the Southern
Cape forest region of South Africaa
• Soil mixtures used to cover Dunakeszi Landfill in Hungarya
• Land-use impacts on soil quality and formation on the University of British Columbia Endowment Lands
• Uneven tree growth at a woodlot on northern Vancouver Island as affected by soil propertiesa
• Soil quality assessments of community gardens in Vancouver
Soil biology • Cattle grazing effects on meso-fauna in grassland soils in the southern interior of British Columbia
• Soil fauna and forest long-term soil productivity in central British Columbiaa
• Effects of variable retention harvesting types on soil microbial communities as determined on the long-term
study sites near Campbell River on Vancouver Islanda
Note: During each course module, students chose one case that they will work on for 4 weeks.
a
Indicates cases that were developed by guest contributors from either academia, government organizations, or private consulting sector.

that soil science principles are universal across ecosys-
tems and are a basis for sustainable soil management.
It is also intended to encourage students to learn from
their peers.
At the end of the Sustainable Soil Management course,
students are given a 3-day, take-home exam where they will
integrate soil physical, chemical, and biological properties
following a format similar to case studies included in the
course. Site-specific climate and soil information are pro-
vided. Students are offered two to three options of land-use
types and asked to select one of them as the focus of the
soil quality assessment. Using the information provided,
students write a final exam paper comprised of the fol-
lowing four sections: (a) key soil properties of importance
for the selected land-use type; (b) soil quality framework
for the selected land-use with justification of each of the
soil indicators; (c) proposed management options for the
chosen land-use type; and (d) comparison of soil quality
KRZIC et al. 5 of 11

F I G U R E 1 All modified problem-based learning (PBL) case studies, used in the Sustainable Soil Management course, have the same three
learning objectives

F I G U R E 2 The Sustainable Soil Management course is offered through a hybrid problem-based learning–team-based learning format,
where students work in teams for 4 weeks at the time. During this course, each student works on total of three case studies (photo credit: Wayne
Tamagi, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada)

indicators for one of the alternative land-use options. The
final exam mark comprises 35% of the overall mark, which
also includes team presentations (21%), individual reports
(39%), and class participation (5%).
2.3 Students as teachers
lower-level undergraduate courses. Through team discus-
sions, students identify knowledge gaps and assign tasks,
work independently outside of class time, and reconvene to
share their individual findings and provide peer-feedback.
Teamwork skills are developed through accountability to
their peers.

The diversity of students enrolled in this course provides 3 MODIFIED PROBLEM-BASED

rich opportunities for students to learn from each other
during teamwork, in turn strengthening students’ confi-
dence in their own knowledge. All cases used in the Sus-
tainable Soil Management course, are sufficiently complex
that teamwork is required for students to complete the
tasks needed to address case outcomes. Emphasis is placed
on strengthening of students’ understanding of connec-
tions among individual soil science concepts covered in
LEARNING CASE STUDIES
3.1 Guest contributors
Since the initiation of the Sustainable Soil Management
course in 2004, a total of 15 modified PBL cases (Table 2)
have been developed by course instructors and nine
guest contributors, who have contributed their expertise,
6 of 11
research data, and time to prepare cases and interact with
students. Those nine colleagues came from academia (e.g.,
UBC; Stellenbosch University, South Africa; University
of Sopron, Hungary), international organizations (e.g.,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy), governmental research organizations (e.g.,
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Canada;
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Canada), and pri-
vate consulting industry (e.g., SYLVIS Environmental Inc.,
Canada). In addition to developing modified PBL cases
based on their past projects, guest contributors are also
actively involved in student learning through guest lec-
tures (in person, via Skype, or similar avenues) and provid-
ing guidance through in-person and email communication
with students during the 4 weeks of their case. Guest con-
tributors enrich student learning by broadening experien-
tial learning opportunities beyond the research focus of the
course instructors. Through interactions with guest con-
tributors students are able to learn not just about land-use
issues specific to their case study, but also about potential
job opportunities, and the range of issues facing natural
resource professionals addressing sustainable soil manage-
ment in British Columbia, Canada, and around the world.
3.2 Open case studies project at
University of British Columbia
The approach of the Sustainable Soil Management course
is well-aligned with the ongoing Open Case Studies
project at UBC (https://cases.open.ubc.ca) focused on find-
ing ways for students to contribute to public knowledge
and the creation of open educational resources (OER).
For example, graduate students in our course develop
Wikipedia articles on topics of their interest, that are of
relevance to the course, and for which there is limited con-
tent in Wikipedia. Students are very enthusiastic about this
task as illustrated by this student’s quote: “I really appre-
ciated the grad essay being tailored to serve the Wiki com-
munity. It’s awesome to have your work actually out there
in the world. . . ”
Another example of students’ contribution to OER is the
compilation of long-term student-generated soil datasets
achieved through collaboration with UBC Farm managers
and community gardeners in Riley Park in Vancouver,
British Columbia. In the majority of case studies used
in our course, students are given data that were gath-
ered during past projects. However, in the UBC Farm
and Riley Park cases, students gather soil samples in col-
laboration with the farm manager or community gar-
deners, samples are sent to a local soil testing lab, and
students then develop interpretations and recommenda-
tions about management practices with the help of the
KRZIC et al.
course instructors. This approach has allowed develop-
ment of consistent soil sampling and analytical protocols,
and provided on-going help to the UBC farm managers
(Krzic, Bomke, Sylvestre, & Brown, 2015) and Riley Park
community gardeners.
3.3 An example case study: Variable
retention harvesting
The variable retention harvesting (VRH) study carried out
on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada is one
example of the cases used in the soil biology module of
the course (Table 2). Through this case, teams evaluate
the effects of green tree retention during timber harvest-
ing on soil microbial communities and their functions.
Specifically, how dispersed, and aggregate retention har-
vesting influence microbial biomass, enzyme activities,
and species diversity. Learning outcomes, tasks, and guid-
ing questions specific for the VRH case are outlined in
Table 3, and the case is richly supported by online multi-
media resources (see https://biology.soilweb.ca).
Data for this case study were provided by a colleague
in the Faculty of Forestry at UBC, who conducted several
studies at the Silviculture Treatments for Ecosystem Man-
agement in the Sayward long-term experiment near Camp-
bell River on Vancouver Island, BC, Canada. The study site
is located in the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) biogeo-
climatic zone, where the dominant tree species are western
hemlock [Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.] and Douglas-
fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii Mirb.), the climate is humid-
maritime, and soils are loamy sand textured and classified
as Duric Humo–Ferric Podzol (Soil Classification Working
Group, 1998).
As per the learning outcome for Week 1 of the VRH
case (Table 3), students review background information
on the climate, topography, and the dominant soil type at
the study site as provided in the soil survey report (Day,
Farstad, & Laird, 1959) and the case’s website (https://
biology.soilweb.ca). This review allows students to identify
the key site characteristics of importance for tree growth.
During Week 2 of the VRH case, students focus on
the soil data collected in forested stands with treatments
that included: (a) uncut (100% retention), (b) dispersed
retention (11% retention, single trees 14–16 meters apart),
(c) aggregate retention (18% retention, retention patches
of 0.02 hectares—about 20 meters in diameter), and
(d) clearcut (0% retention). Dispersed and aggregated
retention are designed to maintain the presence of liv-
ing biological legacies on a harvested site. Aggregated
retention has a greater potential to preserve undisturbed
patches of forest floor and root activity, but its effects are
not evenly distributed throughout the harvested area.
KRZIC et al. 7 of 11

T A B L E 3 Student learning outcomes, associated tasks, and guiding questions of the variable retention harvesting (VRH) modified,
problem-based learning (PBL) case study used in the Sustainable Soil Management course, offered at the University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada
Learning outcome Students’ tasks Guiding questions
Week 1
No. 1. Identify the key ∙ Become familiar with the “It’s Alive” website ∙ What is VRH?
features of VRH. (https://biology.soilweb.ca). ∙ What are the key soil properties that are of
No. 2. Identify the major ∙ Discuss the major types of microbes in forest soils. an importance for management of Coastal
groups of microbes in Western Hemlock (CWH) biogeoclimatic
forest soils. zone forests?
∙ What are the most common types of soil
microbes in forest soils?
∙ What are the key roles of soil microbes in
forest ecosystems?

Week 2
No. 3. Evaluate the effects
of VRH on soil
microbial biomass and
enzymatic activity.
∙ Review background information on management
practices carried out on the study sites.
∙ Gain basic understanding of enzymatic activities that
affect belowground processes.
∙ Review the soil microbial biomass and enzymatic data
collected from four study treatments, and qualitatively
relate those data with ectomycorrhizal species
richness data.
∙ Assess how changes in microbial biomass and
enzymatic activity after harvesting might affect soil
quality.
∙ Which groups of soil microorganisms are
responsible for enzymes that decompose
organic matter in forest ecosystems?
∙ How do soil microbial communities
influence healthy soil functioning? How
does enzymatic activity impact soil quality?
∙ Based on the data, what can you infer about
the effects of VRH on soil microbial biomass
and enzymatic activity?

Week 3
No. 4. Identify potential
soil biological indicators
to monitor sustainable
management in CWH
forests.
∙ Review the soil microbial biomass and enzymatic
activity data collected from the dispersed and
aggregate retention treatments to assess effects of
living trees.
∙ Qualitatively relate soil microbial biomass and
enzymatic data with ectomycorrhizal species richness
data.
∙ Develop a soil quality framework that links microbial
communities and enzymatic activity to VRH.
∙ Preparation for team presentations.
∙ How far beyond retention patches were
effects of VRH noticeable on microbial
biomass and enzymatic activity?
∙ Were there any differences between
aggregate and dispersed treatments
regarding their effects on microbial biomass
and enzymatic activity?
∙ What are some strengths and limitations of
using soil microbes and enzymatic activity
to monitor soil quality in CWH forests?

Week 4
– ∙ Team presentations about key findings of the case –
study.

Note. CWH, Coastal Western Hemlock; VRH, variable retention harvesting.

Dispersed treatments more evenly maintain soil microbial
communities across the harvested area, likely due to
overlap in root systems, but are more prone to windthrow
(Beese, Deal, Dunsworth, Mitchell, & Philpott, 2019). The
clearcut system manages successive, even-aged stands
by cutting the entire stand of trees at planned intervals.
Clearcutting provides baseline data for comparing forest
health and productivity in silvicultural systems that use
partial harvesting. An even-aged (60–70 years) stand of
western hemlock and Douglas-fir adjacent to the study
treatments was also sampled.
In Week 3, students continue to review soil data and
identify additional soil biological indicators that could
potentially be used to monitor the sustainability of man-
agement practices in CWH forests. Data provided to the
students include information on enzymatic activities (e.g.,
phosphatase, peroxidase activity rates), microbial biomass,
and ectomycorrhizal species diversity. By sharing their
knowledge and experience with other members of the
team, students are able to address a complex task in a rela-
tively short period of time and to gather the relevant infor-
mation needed to address case outcomes.
8 of 11
In Week 4, each team gives a 20-minute oral presen-
tation to the whole class outlining the key findings from
their study case. Team presentations are judged based on
content, structure, and delivery. Instructors provide writ-
ten feedback on student presentations by the end of the
following day. In the subsequent week, each student
prepares a written report demonstrating their individual
learning; and individual reports are assessed based on the
content (i.e., how well the student addresses all learning
outcomes in the context of the specific case scenario), orga-
nization, and quality of writing.
4 REFLECTIONS BY COURSE
INSTRUCTORS AND STUDENTS
Recommendations from the course instructors (i.e., the co-
authors of this article) highlight key challenges faced in
the development and implementation of the hybrid PBL–
TBL approach and the impact of this approach on student
engagement and learning. Our reflections are further sup-
ported by comments extracted from annual student evalu-
ation of teaching surveys (i.e., the routine course surveys)
conducted by the university.
4.1 Case studies based on
real-world scenarios
Teaching the Sustainable Soil Management course is a
rewarding experience for instructors as we observe stu-
dents gaining the knowledge and skills required in pro-
fessional settings (e.g., farm management, private consult-
ing, policy development). Shifting the focus of teaching
and learning from the need to obtain the “right answer”
to learning how to approach a problem is challenging,
but it enhances students’ career preparation. Several stud-
ies have also found that inclusion of real-world scenar-
ios into postsecondary courses has positive effects on stu-
dent learning (e.g., Barak & Dori, 2004; Herrington, 2006).
Findings of those studies is consistent with feedback from
students in this course, as shown by representative stu-
dent quotes:
“Having real-life examples to work with, this
is a rare opportunity offered in university to
apply knowledge, rather than memorize the-
ory. The opportunities were given to apply my
knowledge from previous soil classes into real-
life situations.”
“I really enjoyed that some of the cases were
applicable to real situations and that there
KRZIC et al.
was the choice to be involved with a commu-
nity group interested in the same topic as the
class assignment.”
All modified PBL case studies used in the Sustainable
Soil Management course have an open-ended outcome(s),
complex content, and representation of multiple stake-
holders’ interests; core components necessary for the
successful incorporation of PBL in a postsecondary
curriculum (Arthur & Thompson, 1999). This course
typically includes upper-level undergraduate and grad-
uate students; therefore, they are able to address the
complex content and students generally find the course
approach to be useful to their learning as shown by
these quotes:
“I liked that this class focused on cases
and looked at real data; and that some-
times the data was not always clean/easy to
understand.”
“I was often challenged by this course and crit-
ical thinking was emphasized along with cre-
ativity in finding solutions to the issues we dis-
cussed.”
4.2 Student teamwork
Cases with no pre-defined outcome prior to in-class data
interpretation are challenging for students, but they also
provide numerous opportunities for teaching and learn-
ing (Lyon & Teutschbein, 2011). For example, instructors
help students gain a deeper understanding of soil sci-
ence concepts by guiding discussions during the teamwork
sessions. Since instructors split their time among several
teams, they do not lead the discussions, but provide guid-
ance when needed and encourage students to learn from
each other. Students’ responses to this approach have been
very positive:
“The ability to interact so closely with the pro-
fessors, as we worked through the cases, was
extremely helpful.”
“They didn’t feel like profs in your traditional
sense of ‘I lecture and mark you’ but more,
‘We’re here to help guide you’. . . ”
“I really enjoyed the diversity of students and
backgrounds that were present in this course.
Everyone brought something different to the
KRZIC et al.
table and it really allowed for a great learn-
ing environment.”
Having students with diverse backgrounds and diverse
levels of soil science knowledge in the same course is a
great opportunity; however, it also brings some challenges.
For example, all cases in this course require a solid under-
standing of soil science concepts, and not all students
will have the necessary academic background. Although
instructors purposefully assign students to teams, a bal-
anced team composition is not always possible, which
may, in turn, impact the quality of teamwork and students’
learning. This student comment summarized these issues:
“This was my first PBL course and so I was
very lost in the beginning as to what was
expected of me. It got clearer along the way,
but it was somewhat of a difficult transition.
There is a large continuum of skill-sets and
knowledge among peers, and so it was chal-
lenging to work alongside them at times.”
The small group approach of PBL is recognized for
developing critical thinking, integrating knowledge, and
problem solving within a team setting. However, the one
tutor per group approach of PBL has financial implications
and limits class size (Wells, Warelow, & Jackson, 2009).
In contrast, the TBL approach centers on independent
teams enabling large class size (Michaelsen et al., 2014),
but students receive limited input from tutors/instructors.
Our hybrid PBL–TBL approach is an intermediate solution,
where two instructors work with multiple teams. All teams
work within the same classroom, so that instructors can
rotate between groups and provide feedback in 15- to 20-
minute mini-sessions. Class time is scheduled twice per
week (total 3 hours) so feedback is continuous. Our experi-
ence suggests that three teams per tutor is ideal (potentially
increasing to four teams per tutor), accommodating classes
of 36–48 students.
4.3 Guest contributors
Guest case contributors enrich the course content and
bring a wealth of knowledge regarding what is required
from practicing professionals. As an example, having the
CEO of a successful private environmental company tell
students that written reports need to address the so-called
five Cs of communication (i.e., correct, clear, concise, con-
sistent, and complete) is extremely valuable to students
who are about to embark on their own professional careers.
Student reflections reiterate the practical nature of this
9 of 11
course and implications for the development of career rel-
evant skills:
“[This] course is integrative, challenging, and
helps you hone a variety of skills (working
in groups, presentation, conciseness in both
writing and speaking).”
“This course is very helpful with getting a
more holistic view of soils as well as working
on public speaking, writing, and teamwork
skills, and also to get a feel for being in a con-
sulting role.”
“The case studies and the industry lectures
where amazing. It was really nice to have
those guest lecturers come in and be able to
give a very in-depth lecture on the cases they
helped develop.”
Guest contributors definitely enrich the course, but
course instructors need to work closely with them during
the development of case studies. Guest contributors are
intimately familiar with details of a given case, but they
are not fully cognizant of the level of students’ soil science
knowledge, nor mindful of the weekly tasks and final out-
puts which the students are generating. Guiding princi-
ples to develop and implement cases include: (a) consis-
tency in case structure such as weekly tasks and guiding
questions, (b) maintaining appropriate technical language
for the background of students taking the course, (c) pro-
viding supplemental online materials for concepts which
may not be familiar to all students, and (d) ongoing guid-
ance from instructors, particularly when case contributors
are interacting with students during a case. It is also worth
noting that finding the right balance between case content
and time available for each case is often quite challeng-
ing. For example, in one of the case studies developed rela-
tively early in the course’s history, instructors attempted to
address the effects of land-use on soil physical, chemical,
and biological properties (i.e., holistic soil quality) (Striv-
elli et al., 2011). That, however, turned out to be too dif-
ficult for students to complete in the 4-week time frame.
After running that case for 2 years, and attempting to refine
it, the case has been dropped. Even though that partic-
ular case turned out to be too complex, it provided the
template for development of online multimedia resources,
with background information for study cases focused on
locations far away from the UBC campus. That template
has been followed during development of the VRH case
and more recently, a case focused on forest plantations in
South Africa.
10 of 11
5 SUMMARY AND
LESSONS LEARNED
There is an ongoing need for natural resource profession-
als with a solid understanding of sustainable soil man-
agement. One way to enhance training of those profes-
sionals is through incorporation of a hybrid PBL–TBL
approach and real-world scenarios into soil science cur-
riculum. To better integrate soil science teaching with
local and global land-use issues and to stimulate stu-
dents’ interest in the discipline of soil science, the Sus-
tainable Soil Management course exposes students to
practical experience through a variety of modified PBL
case studies. Cases with multiple outcomes, imbalanced
team composition, and overly complex content have been
identified by instructors as challenges in delivering this
course. However, course instructors and students sup-
port the enhanced teaching and learning that this hybrid
PBL–TBL format offers. Student engagement is facilitated
by the practical relevance of the cases, the opportunity
to incorporate fieldwork, and interactions with external
case contributors. The course format requires students
to develop both integrative soil science knowledge and
soft skills including communication, problem-solving, and
teamwork. By combining elements from PBL and TBL
we can deliver an experiential learning opportunity to
more students without a substantive increase in faculty
resources. The outline of the Sustainable Soil Manage-
ment course provides a template to instructors interested
in incorporating a hybrid PBL–TBL approach in postsec-
ondary courses focused on the sustainable management of
natural resources.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
We are very grateful to case contributors Dr. Shan-
non Berch, Dr. Sue Grayston, Dr. Cindy Prescott, Dr.
Sietan Chieng, Dr. Balint Heil, Dr. Ben du Toit, and
Dr. Michael Curran as well as Mr. Michael van Ham
and Mr. Khalil Walji for their on-going contribution to
the Sustainable Soil Management course. We also wish
to thank current and past farm managers Tim Carter,
Melanie Sylvestre, Greg Rekken, Amy Frye, Mark Bom-
ford, and Jacob Slosberg for their technical assistance over
the years.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ORCID
Maja Krzic https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3919-3252
Sandra Brown https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5146-5973
KRZIC et al.
REFERENCES
Arthur, M. A., & Thompson, J. A. (1999). Problem-based learning in
a natural resources conservation and management curriculum: A
capstone course. Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences Edu-
cation, 28, 97–103.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2004). Enhancing undergraduate students’
chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT
environment. Sci. Educ, 89, 117–139.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and
beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learn-
ing, 68, 3–12.
Barrows, H. S. (2000). Problem-based learning applied to medical edu-
cation. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An
approach to medical education. New York: Springer.
Beese, W. J., Deal, J., Dunsworth, B. G., Mitchell, S. J., & Philpott, T.
J. (2019). Two decades of variable retention in British Columbia:
A review of its implementation and effectiveness for biodiversity
conservation. Ecological Processes, 8, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13717-019-0181-9
Burgess, A. W., McGregor, D. M., & Mellis, C. M. (2014). Apply-
ing established guidelines to team-based learning programs in
medical schools: A systematic review. Academic Medicine, 80(4),
678–688.
Carter, M. R., Gregorich, E. G., Anderson, D. W., Doran, J. W., Janzen,
H. H., & Pierce, F. J. (1997). Concepts of soil quality and their sig-
nificanceIn E. G. Gregorich & M. R. Carter (Eds.), Soil quality
for crop production and ecosystem health (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
David, C., & Bell, M. M. (2018). New challenges for education in
agroecology. Agroecology and Sustianable Food Systems, 42(6),
612–619.
Day, J. H., Farstad, L., & Laird, D. G. (1959). Soil Survey of South-
east Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands, British Columbia. (British
Columbia Soil Survey Rep. 6, Canada Department of Agriculture).
Retrieved from http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/surveys/
bc/bc6/bc6_report.pdf
Dolmans, D., Michaelsen, L., van Merrienboer, J., & van den Vleuten,
C. (2015). Should we choose between problem-based learning and
team-based learning? No, combine the best of both worlds! Medical
Teacher, 37, 354–359.
Doran, J. W. (2002). Soil health and global sustainability: Translating
science into practice. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 88,
119–127.
Farmer, J. L., & Wilkinson, L. (2018). Engineering success: Using
problem-based learning to develop critical thinking and commu-
nication skills. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education
Association, 18, 112. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13057
Herrington, J. A. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education:
Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks.
In T. C. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proc. World Conference on
E-learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Edu-
cation 2006 (pp. 3164–3173). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Krzic, M., Bomke, A. A., Sylvestre, M., & Brown, S. J. (2015). Teach-
ing sustainable soil management: A framework for using problem-
based learning. Natural Sciences Education, 44, 43–50. https://doi.
org/10.4195/nse2014.07.0015
KRZIC et al.
Krzic, M., Yates, T. T., Basiliko, N., Pare, M. C., Diochon, A., & Swal-
low, M. (2018). Introductory soil courses: A frontier of soil science
education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 98(2), 343–
356. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjss-2018-0006
Lyon, S. W., & Teutschbein, C. (2011). Problem-based learning and
assessment in hydrology courses: Can non-traditional assessment
better reflect intended learning outcomes. Journal of Natural
Resources & Life Sciences Education, 40, 199–205. https://doi.org/
10.4195/jnrlse.2011.0016g
Maxwell, N. L., Mergendoller, J. R., & Bellisimo, Y. (2005). Problem-
based learning and high school macroeconomics: A compara-
tive study of instructional methods. The Journal of Economic
Education, 36(4), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.36.4.315-
331
McKim, A., Pauley, C. M., Velez, J. J., & Sorensen, T. J. (2017). Lead-
ership learning opportunities in agriculture, food, and natural
resource education: The role of the teacher. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 58(3), 84–100. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.03084
Michaelsen, L. K., Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Team-based
learning practices and principles in comparison with cooperative
learning and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in Col-
lege Teaching, 25(3–4), 57–84.
Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of
team-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
116, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.330
Parmelee, D., Michaelsen, L. K., Cook, S., & Hudes, P. D. (2012).
Team-based learning: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 65. Med-
ical Teacher, 34(5), e275–e287. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.
2012.651179
Parr, D. M., Trexler, C. J., Khkanna, N. R., & Battisti, B. T. (2007).
Designing sustainable agriculture education: Academics’ sugges-
tions for an undergraduate curriculum at a land grant university.
Agriculture and Human Values, 24(4), 523–533.
Prince, M., Borrego, M., Henderson, C., Cutler, S., & Froyd, J.
(2013). Use of research-based instructional strategies in core chem-
ical engineering courses. Chemical Engineering Education, 47(1),
27–37.
Santos, J., Figueiredo, A. S., & Vierira, M. (2019). Innovative ped-
agogical practices in higher education: An integrative literature
review. Nurse Education Today, 72, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.nedt.2018.10.003
Sibley, J., & Parmelee, D. X. (2008). Knowledge is no longer enough:
Enhancing professional education with team-based learning. New
11 of 11
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 116, 41–53. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tl.332
Singh, N., Gupta, R., & Mahalakshmi, V. N. (2018). Multistation
exercises: A combination of problem-based learning and team-
based learning instructional design for large-enrollment classes.
Advances in Physiology Education, 42, 424–428. https://doi.org/10.
1152/advan.00023.2018
Soil Classification Working Group. (1998). The Canadian system
of soil classification (3rd ed.). Pub. 1646). Ottawa, ON: NRC
Research Press. Retrieved from https://library.carleton.ca/sites/
default/files/find/gis/metadata/cssc3_manual.pdf
Spronken-Smith, R. (2005). Implementing a problem-based learn-
ing approach to teaching research methods in geography. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, 29, 203–221. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03098260500130403
Strivelli, R. A., Krzic, M., Crowley, C., Dyanatkar, S., Bomke, A.,
Simard, S. W., & Jakoy, A. (2011). Integration of problem-based
learning and web-based multimedia to enhance soil management
course. Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences Education, 40,
215–223. https://doi.org/10.4195/jnrlse.2010.0032n
Valley, W., Wittman, H., Jordan, N., Ahmed, S., & Galt, R. (2018). An
emerging signature pedagogy for sustainable food systems edu-
cation. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 33(5), 467–480.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000199
Vogeltanz-Holm, N., Olson, L. M., Borg, K. E., & Hill, T. M.
(2014). Implementation and evaluation of a team-based learning
approach within a hybrid problem-based learning medical edu-
cation curriculum. Medical Science Educator, 24, 125–133. https:
//doi.org/10.1007/s40670-014-0008-3
Wells, S. H., Warelow, P. J., & Jackson, K. L. (2009). Problem based
learning (PBL): A conundrum. Contemporary Nurse, 33, 191–201.
Wurdinger, S., & Rudolph, J. (2009). Teaching practices that improve
student learning: Five experiential approaches. Journal of Teach-
ing and Learning, 6(1), 1–13.
How to cite this article: Krzic M, Brown S,
Bomke AA. Combining problem-based learning
and team-based learning in a sustainable soil
management course. Nat Sci Educ. 2020;49:e20008.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20008