Skip to main content

Useful Plants as Potential Flagship Species to Counteract Plant Blindness

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cognitive and Affective Aspects in Science Education Research

Part of the book series: Contributions from Science Education Research ((CFSE,volume 3))

Abstract

“Plant blindness” describes the phenomenon that people overlook plants in everyday life, resulting in a constrained view on nature. It also leads to a low interest in plants, as has been shown by several studies on students’ interests. The present study suggests counteracting plant blindness by investigating students’ interest in plants more closely. The goal is to identify groups of plants that are interesting for students and that therefore can be used as potential “flagship species” in botany lessons. A questionnaire was developed to test students’ interest in useful plants, subdivided in five subgroups: medicinal plants, stimulant herbal drugs, spice plants, edible plants and ornamental plants. There were 1299 students aged between 10 and 19 years being investigated in order to explore their interest in useful plants. The data analysis shows (for all ages and both genders) that medicinal plants and stimulant herbal drugs trigger high interest, whereas spice plants, edible plants and ornamental plants raise less interest. Mean values, however, do not allow drawing conclusions on an individual level. In order to gain better insight into the interest patterns of individual students, we used a frequency analysis. Results show that stimulant herbal drugs polarise strongly, whereas medicinal plants are interesting for almost all students. Ornamental plants are interesting for especially a group of younger students. Based on the identified interest profiles, recommendations can be made which study objects from different subgroups of useful plants should be chosen as study objects in botany lessons in order to best address students’ interest.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We take into account only those subgroups of useful plants, which best enable differentiating between different interest types because they show a clear deviation from an equal distribution in the whole sample (Pany and Heidinger 2015).

References

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Characterizing children’s spontaneous interests in science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 803–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2007). Interest in biology: A developmental shift characterized using self-generated questions. The American Biology Teacher, 69(9), 532–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2009). Identifying meta-clusters of students’ interest in science and their change with age. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 999–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., Sethi, R. J., Bry, L., & Yarden, A. (2010). Identifying students’ interests in biology using a decade of self-generated questions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blankenburg, J. S., Höffler, T. N., & Parchmann, I. (2015). Fostering today what is needed tomorrow: Investigating students’ interest in science. Science Education, 100(2), 364–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N. A., & Reece, J. B. (2011). Biology. San Francisco: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cholewa, G., Driza, M., Einhorn, S., & Felling, J. (2010). Vom Leben [About life] (Vol. 1). Wien: Ed. Hölzel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boys’ and girls’ interests in science: Have they changed since 1980? International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 557–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik [The self-determination-theory of motivation and its relevance for pedagogy]. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 39(2), 223–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87(320), 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drissner, J., Haase, H.-M., & Hille, K. (2010). Short-term environmental education – Does it work? – An evaluation of the ‘Green Classroom’. Journal of Biological Education, 44(4), 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, D. (2007). Student interests – The German and Austrian ROSE survey. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2010). Development and initial psychometric assessment of the plant attitude questionnaire. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(5), 415–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, M. C. (1991). Considering plants. The American Biology Teacher, 53(5), 306–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, M. C. (2002). Do plants have to be intelligent? The American Biology Teacher, 64(8), 628–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, J. K., Unwin, M. M., & Saunders, G. W. (2010). Name that plant! Overcoming plant blindness and developing a sense of place using science and environmental education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, S. S. (1955). The challenge to botanists. Challenge, 1(1). Retrieved from https://secure.botany.org/plantsciencebulletin/psb-1955-01-1.php

  • Hammann, M. (2011). Wie groß ist das Interesse von Schülern an Heilpflanzen? [How interested are students in medicinal plants?]. Zeitschrift Für Phytotherapie, 32(01), 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (1998). Chancengleichheit für Mädchen im Physikunterricht. Ergebnisse eines erweiterten BLK-Modellversuchs. [Equal opportunities for girls in physics education. Results from the extended BLK-pilot project]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 4(1), 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, D. R. (1992). Making plant biology curricula relevant. Bioscience, 42(3), 188–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, D. R. (2002). Plant blindness: ‘We have met the enemy and he is us’. Plant Science Bulletin, 48(3), 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, D. R. (2005). Plant content in the national science education standards. Retrieved from http://www.Actionbioscience.Org/education/hershey2.Html. 20 Dec 2016.

  • Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness-A neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10(2), 179–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kattmann, U. (2000). Lernmotivation und Interesse im Biologieunterricht [Motivation and interest in biology education]. Lehren Und Lernen Im Biologieunterricht, 13–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchin, I. M. (1999). Educational research-investigating secondary-school girls’ preferences for animals or plants: A simple’ head-to-head’ comparison using two unfamiliar organisms-A direct comparison of two. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 95–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krüger, D., & Burmester, A. (2005). Wie Schüler Pflanzen ordnen [How do students classify plants?]. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 11, 85–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberei, R., Reisdorff, C., & Franke, W. (2007). Nutzpflanzenkunde: Nutzbare Gewächse der gemässigten breiten, Subtropen und Tropen [Useful plants: Useful plants of temperate regions, subtropics and tropics]. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). ‘Loveable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: How children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löwe, B. (1987). Interessenverfall im Biologieunterricht [Decrease of interest in biology education]. Unterricht Biologie, 124, 62–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löwe, B. (1992). Biologieunterricht und Schülerinteressen an Biologie [Students’ interest in biology]. Weinheim: Dt. Studien-Verl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, J., & Horn, F. (1993). Formenkenntnis–wozu [Knowledge about plants forms and taxonomy – What for?]. Unterricht Biologie, 189(17), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pany, P. (2010). Ausgedörrt und abgetreten. Über das widrige (?) Leben von Pflanzen in Pflasterritzen [Dried and trampled down. About the hard life of plants in paving cracks]. Umwelt & Bildung, 1, 19–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pany, P. (2014). Students’ interest in useful plants: A potential key to counteract plant blindness. Plant Science Bulletin, 60(1), 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pany, P., & Heidinger, C. (2015). Uncovering patterns of interest in useful plants – Frequency analysis of individual students’ interest types as a tool for planning botany teaching units. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 1(1), 15–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Analysis of the decline in interest towards school science and technology from grades 5 through 11. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 784–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randler, C. (2008). Teaching species identification—A prerequisite for learning biodiversity and understanding ecology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogl, H., & Bergmann, L. (2003). Biologie aktiv [Active biology] (Vol. 1). Graz: Leykam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, D., Nyberg, E., Eriksen, B., & Snæbjørnsdóttir, B. (2015). ‘Plant blindness’: Time to find a cure. The Biologist, 62(3), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schirl, K., & Möslinger, E. (2011). Expedition Biologie [Biological expedition] (Vol. 1). Wien: Dorner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-Garden. Oslo: Department of Teacher Education and School Development Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The relevance of science education)–A comparative study of students’ views of science and science education (pdf), Acta Didactica 4/2004. Oslo: Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S. (2000). Science and scientists: The SAS study. Acta Didactica, 1, 1–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: An overview and key findings. Oslo: University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Reiss, M. J. (2000). Building a model of the environment: How do children see plants? Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 172–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Ueckert, C. (2007). Teaching biology—The great dilemma. Journal of Biological Education, 41(2), 51–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urhahne, D., Jeschke, J., Krombaß, A., & Harms, U. (2004). Die Validierung von Fragebogenerhebungen zum Interesse an Tieren und Pflanzen durch computergestützte Messdaten [Using computer-based data to validate a questionnaire measuring interest in animals and plants]. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 18(3), 213–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (1986). Between groups and individuals. The Individual Subject and Scientific Psychology, 113–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, C., Gack, J., Solorazano, H., & Ray, R. (2003). The effect of environmental education on schoolchildren, their parents, and community members: A study of intergenerational and intercommunity learning. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(3), 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Plants or animals – Which do junior high school students prefer to study? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(5), 415–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. (2001). Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Science Bulletin, 47(1), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Pany .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pany, P., Heidinger, C. (2017). Useful Plants as Potential Flagship Species to Counteract Plant Blindness. In: Hahl, K., Juuti, K., Lampiselkä, J., Uitto, A., Lavonen, J. (eds) Cognitive and Affective Aspects in Science Education Research. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58685-4_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58685-4_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58684-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58685-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics