Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Active projects for teaching and learning soil microbiology and applications of inoculants to increase perceived subject matter understanding and acquisition of knowledge

  • Education in Microbiology - Research Paper
  • Published:
Brazilian Journal of Microbiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Active methodologies for teaching propose tools and strategies for improving student learning by using participative and integrative approaches. These lead students to autonomous research for industry problems and solutions. This study aimed to apply active-project active methodologies to undergraduate soil microbiology and inoculant courses to verify students’ perception of their knowledge levels on these topics. Forty undergraduate students received the traditional methodology that presented theoretical contents referring to the soil microbiology and inoculants; one group of twenty also elected to receive active methodologies based instruction during which they developed active projects that were structured in seven steps: briefing, bibliographic research, problematization and resolution, solutions, abstract and banner creation, and presentation. At the end of the academic year, all students answered a questionnaire to verify the perception of their levels of knowledge of soil microbiology and inoculants. Regarding the topic of microbial inoculants, perceived knowledge was the same for both groups, but overall, the active methodologies group had higher perceived knowledge of good practices of inoculation. The two groups were clustered by a multivariate approach, confirming that the use of active projects can increase the knowledge and level of subject matter understanding. The active projects contributed to undergraduate students’ increased assimilation and perceived understanding of soil microbiology subject matter content and microbial inoculant issues. The active projects can be explored in other subdivisions of soil science, including agriculture and environmental studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prince M (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 93:223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Benintende SM, Sánchez CI, Sterren MA (2002) Proposta metodológica para ensino de microbiologia do solo. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 26:483–486. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832002000200022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Muggler CC, Pinto Sobrinho F de A, Machado VA (2006) Educação em solos: princípios, teoria e métodos. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 30:733–740. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832006000400014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beringer J (2007) Application of problem based learning through research investigation. J Geogr High Educ 31:445–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260701514033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tal T (2008) Learning about agriculture within the framework of education for sustainability. Environ Educ Res 14:273–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802178367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Field DJ, Koppi AJ, Jarrett LE et al (2017) Soil science teaching principles. Geoderma 18:9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Field DJ, Koppi AJ, Jarrett LE, Abbott LK, Cattle SR, Grant CD, McBratney AB, Menzies NW, Weatherley AJ (2011) Soil science teaching principles. Geoderma 167–168:9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.09.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis K (2019) The complex processes of agricultural education and extension. J Agric Educ Ext 25:193–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2019.1615170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lieblein G, Breland TA, Francis C, Østergaard E (2012) Agroecology education: action-oriented learning and research. J Agric Educ Ext 18:27–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.638781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Splan RK, Porr CAS, Broyles TW, Tech V (2011) Undergraduate research in agriculture: constructivism and the scholarship of discovery. J Agric Educ 52:56–64. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.04056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Myers BE, Barrick RK, Samy MM (2012) Stages of concern profiles for active learning strategies of agricultural technical school teachers in Egypt. J Agric Educ Ext 18:161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.655968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mulongo G (2013) Effect of active learning teaching methodology on learner participation. J Educ Pract 4:157–168

    Google Scholar 

  13. Diesel A, Baldez A, Martins S (2017) Os princípios das metodologias ativas de ensino: uma abordagem teórica. Revista Thema 14:268–288. https://doi.org/10.15536/thema.14.2017.268-288.404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berbel NAN (2011) As metodologias ativas e a promoção da autonomia de estudantes active methodologies and the nurturing of students’ autonomy. Semina: Ciências Sociais e Humanas 32:25–40. https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2011v32n1p25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Adhikari K, Hartemink AE (2016) Linking soils to ecosystem services - a global review. Geoderma 262:101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.009

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Field D, Koppi T, Mcbratney A (2010) Producing the thinking soil scientist

  17. Havlin J, Balster N, Chapman S, Ferris D, Thompson T, Smith T (2010) Trends in soil science education and employment. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:1429–1432. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0143

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bouma J (2014) Soil science contributions towards sustainable development goals and their implementation: linking soil functions with ecosystem services. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 177:111–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201300646

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Field DJ, Yates D, Koppi AJ, McBratney AB, Jarrett L (2017) Framing a modern context of soil science learning and teaching. Geoderma 289:117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Andrade DS, Telles TS, Leite Castro GH (2020) The Brazilian microalgae production chain and alternatives for its consolidation. J Clean Prod 250:119526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Prince MJ, Felder RM (2006) Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J Eng Educ 95:123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Konopka CL, Adaime MB, Mosele PH (2015) Active teaching and learning methodologies: some considerations. Creative Education 06:1536–1545. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.614154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pacheco GD, Amaral HF (2016) Semana de Agrárias. Centro Universitário Filadélfia, Londrina

    Google Scholar 

  24. Triola MF (2017) Introdução à Estatística – Atualização da tecnologia, 12th ed. Gen-LTC, São Paulo

  25. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2019) Past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis 3.24 V

  26. Sharp JJ (1991) Methodologies for problem solving: an engineering approach. Vocat Asp Educ 42:147–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408347308003631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pérez DG, Torregrosa JM (1983) A model for problem-solving in accordance with scientific methodology. Eur J Sci Educ 5:447–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528830050408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Arthurs LA, Kreager BZ (2017) An integrative review of in-class activities that enable active learning in college science classroom settings. Int J Sci Educ 39:2073–2091. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1363925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Abbey L, Dowsett E, Sullivan J (2017) Use of problem-based learning in the teaching and learning of horticultural production. J Agric Educ Ext 23:61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2016.1202846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Benintende SM, Sterren MA, Sánchez CI, et al (2011) Propuesta metodológica para el desarrollo de un Trabajo Práctico De Rizobiología

  31. Mckim AJ, Pauley CM, Velez JJ, Sorensen TJ (2018) Interdisciplinary learning opportunities in agriculture, food, natural resources, and science: the role of the teacher. J Agric Educ 59:179–196. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.02179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Brown BA, Ryoo K (2008) Teaching science as a language: a “content-first” approach to science teaching. J Res Sci Teach 45:529–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sormunen K, Juuti K, Lavonen J (2020) Maker-centered project-based learning in inclusive classes: supporting students’ active participation with teacher-directed reflective discussions. Int J Sci Math Educ 18:691–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09998-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McKim A, Pauley C, Velez J, Sorensen T (2017) Leadership learning opportunities in agriculture, food, and natural resources education: the role of the teacher. J Agric Educ 58:84–100. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.03084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Brevik EC (2009) The teaching of soil science in geology, geography, environmental science, and agricultural programs. Soil Survey Horizons 50:120. https://doi.org/10.2136/sh2009.4.0120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Whittemore CT (2007) Policy issues for education in general agriculture in UK universities. Eur J Agric Educ Ext 3:21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892249685300121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lieblein G, Francis C, Barth-Eide W, Torjusen H, Solberg S, Salomonsson L, Lund V, Ekblad G, Persson P, Helenius J, Loiva M, Seppänen L, Kahiluoto H, Porter J, Olsen H, Sriskandarajah N, Mikk M, Flora C (2000) Future education in ecological agriculture and food systems: a student-faculty evaluation and planning process. J Sustain Agric 4:49–69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v16n04_06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Moschitz H, Roep D, Brunori G, Tisenkopfs T (2015) Learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture: processes of co-evolution, joint reflection and facilitation. J Agric Educ Ext 21:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.991111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mendes IC, Souza LM, Sousa DMG et al (2019) Critical limits for microbial indicators in tropical Oxisols at post-harvest: the FERTBIO soil sample concept. Appl Soil Ecol 139:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.02.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Guimarães J (2014) Competências do Professor Universitário: A Prática Como Itinerário Para a Aprendizagem Ativa do Aluno e Para a Formação Continuada do Docente. Rev Pensamento Contemp em … 8:167–185

  41. Bouma J, McBratney A (2013) Framing soils as an actor when dealing with wicked environmental problems. Geoderma 200–201:130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2013.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The HFA thanks Dr. Miriam Maria Bernardi Miguel for her pleasant and encouragement to quality education and her contributions to the pedagogical foundation of the active teaching methodology, and thank Centro Universitário Filadélfia for the encouragement in project Biological resources and techniques used for conservation agriculture and agroecology, and Estyfany Kelle da Silva Kodaka Walichek for finalizing the diagramming of the figs. HMV acknowledges a scholarship from the National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES) at the Postgraduate Program in Conservation Agriculture at Institute of Paraná Rural Development (PPG/IAPAR). This work was partially supported by the National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES, 001). DSA is also research fellow of National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, 312996/2017-9).

Funding

This study was supported by partial supported by National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES, 001) and at National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, 312,996/2017–9).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agronomy, Centro Universitário Filadélfia (UNIFIL), Londrina, Paraná, Brazil

    Higo Forlan Amaral & Maria Paula Nunes

  2. Agroecology Professional Postgraduate Program, Universidade Estadual de Maringá (PROFAGROEC), Maringá, Paraná, Brazil

    Higo Forlan Amaral & Heder Asdrubal Montanez Valencia

  3. Conservation Agriculture postgraduate program, Instituto Agronômico do Paraná (IAPAR), Londrina, Paraná, Brazil

    Heder Asdrubal Montanez Valencia & Diva Souza Andrade

Authors
  1. Higo Forlan Amaral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Paula Nunes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heder Asdrubal Montanez Valencia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diva Souza Andrade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analyses were performed by Higo Forlan Amaral, Maria Paula Nunes, Heder Montanez Valencia, Diva Souza Andrade. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Higo Forlan Amaral, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Higo Forlan Amaral.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this paper is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the authors.

Ethical approval

Ethics approval was provided by Centro Universitário Filadélfia (UNIFIL) Ethics Committee. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to participate

The anonymization of the data for the questionnaire was ensured.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Marina Baquerizo Martinez

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• Use of active-project increases the level of students’ knowledge about soil microbiology.

• Active of teaching approach could be universal for soil sciences and related sciences.

• Active-projects are emergent tools to better knowledge soil microbial applications.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amaral, H.F., Nunes, M.P., Valencia, H.A.M. et al. Active projects for teaching and learning soil microbiology and applications of inoculants to increase perceived subject matter understanding and acquisition of knowledge. Braz J Microbiol 51, 1825–1835 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42770-020-00330-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42770-020-00330-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation