See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233051019

Increasing the interest of students in plants

Article  in  Journal of Biological Education · December 2010

DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2007.9656102

CITATIONS READS

110 3,860

1 author:

Jelka Strgar
University of Ljubljana
8 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jelka Strgar on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Educational Research
Increasing the interest of students
in plants
Jelka Strgar
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
On first contact, students express less interest in plants than in animals. With suitable didactic methods, however, the
teacher can actively interest students in plants. In our research we attempted to quantify the influence of these methods.
184 students of three age groups took part in the experiment. We used eight plants (one artificial). We found that it was
possible to influence the level of student interest.
Key words: Attractiveness; Biology education; Experiential learning; Motivation; Plants.
Introduction
Working with living organisms is one important way by which
the quality of biological education may be improved (Lock,
1994; Hoese and Nowicki, 2001; Myers et al, 2003). Direct
contact with living things provides information and experi-
ences that are not obtainable by reading, viewing pictures, or
examining models.
Many studies indicate that, in general, people find ani-
mals more interesting than plants (Schneekloth, 1989; Reiss,
1993; Kinchin, 1999; Wandersee and Schussler, 1999; Hoek-
stra, 2000; Tunnicliffe and Reiss, 2000; Tunnicliffe, 2001;
Wandersee and Schussler, 2001). Wandersee and Schussler
introduced the term plant blindness (Wandersee and Schus-
sler, 1999). Features of ‘plant-blindness’ included
• the inability to see or notice the plants in one’s own en-
vironment
• the inability to recognise the importance of plants in the
environment and human affairs
• the inability to appreciate the aesthetic and unique bio-
logical features of plants
• the tendency to rank plants as inferior to animals.
Some authors have concluded that the reasons for neglect-
ing plants probably lie in the way our brains function and
perceive. Since we are part of the animal kingdom we auto-
matically put animals first and do not consider plants as being
equal to animals (Hoekstra, 2000; Flannery, 2002). In addi-
tion, our brains more readily notice things that are different
from the surroundings; those that stand out, move, are new,
etc (Pecjak,
c 1975; Schneekloth, 1989; Tunnicliffe, 1996).
Various authors (Wandersee, 1986; Schneekloth, 1989;
Kinchin, 1999; Wandersee and Schussler, 1999; Hoekstra,
2000) quote concrete qualities that make animals attractive
to people, among them activity, movement, physical resem-
blance to people (for instance eyes, face) and other human
qualities, such as feeding, communication by sound, various
behaviours, and reactions to humans. Plants do not have
these qualities.
Only a few studies deal with the characteristics of plants that
do stimulate interest. They quote (Wandersee and Schussler,
Students and plants | Strgar
2001) prominent and unusual features, such as leaves, prickly
stems, colourful flowers, obvious fruit, or patterns on leaves
(Tunnicliffe, 2001), size, usefulness and beauty of plants (Kra-
vanja, 1995; Tunnicliffe and Reiss, 2000). Where people do
notice and appreciate plants and find them interesting, it is in
a different way from which they appreciate plants
Animals can be more instantly appealing but appreciating
plants often benefits from the guidance and shared enthusiasm
of a third party. We have seen this in visits to botanical gar-
dens with pupils and teachers.
This study used eight examples of plants (including an arti-
ficial one) to measure how classroom interaction influences
the responses of pupils at different ages.
Method
Pupils
In the experiment 184 pupils took part:
• 69 fifth grade pupils from three elementary schools
(aged 9 to 10)
• 59 eighth grade pupils from three elementary schools
(aged 13 to 14)
• 56 university biology students (aged 20 to 23).
All three elementary schools in the project were urban
schools. The university students were enrolled in a four-year
programme at Ljubljana University and came from various
towns and different social backgrounds.
Objects
We took as our starting point the propositions that plants
attract attention by their beauty, usefulness, prominence and
their more unusual features, and the fact that movement is
a feature that also catches the attention of the observer. We
chose some plants that had immediately visible qualities, and
others whose qualities were not immediately obvious. Table 1
gives the names and descriptions of all the ‘plants’ used in
the experiment.
We assumed that the students would not know most of the
plants by name, and for easier data analysis we labelled each
object with a letter from A to H.
Volume 42 Number 1, Winter 2007 | JBE 
Strgar | Students and plants

Table 1. List of ‘plants’ used in the experiment.

English name Latin name Description Label

Peanut Arachis hypogaea Plant with fruit in a wide pot A
Himalayan blue pine Pinus wallichiana 25 cm long cone B
Osage orange Maclura pomifera Fruit C
Sensitive Plant Mimosa pudica Young plant in a pot D
Green algae Handful of strands in a transparent container filled with water E
Alice Sundew Drosera aliciae Plant in a pot F
Artificial squash Hollow plastic squash of 15 cm in diameter G
Water lettuce Pistia stratiotes Plant in a wide transparent container filled with water H

Questionnaire Analysis of results

The questionnaire had two questions:
How interesting do you find object X?
Why?
The students had to evaluate each object and give it a rat-
ing from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) and justify this score. The
students completed the questionnaire twice, firstly without
guidance and secondly after the intervention of the teacher.
Experiment
Pupils were able to move among the eight specimens freely.
They were instructed to look only and not use other senses
such as touch. After five minutes, they were given the ques-
tionnaires and asked to evaluate each object.
The second part of the experiment began immediately after
and consisted of a guided inspection that took approximately
30 minutes. The objects were the same, but this time the stu-
dents sat in a circle around the teacher who pointed out qual-
ities of each object that the students would not have been
aware of. Students were allowed to touch the objects if they
wished. In this way they gained additional information, such
as: knowledge of different stages of the underground growth
of a peanut (Arachis hypogaea); the smell of Osage orange
fruit (Maclura pomifera); the way the leaves of the Sensi-
tive Plant (Mimosa pudica) close; the sticky, elastic mucus of
the Alice Sundew leaves (Drosera aliciae); the extraordinary
lightness of the artificial squash; air bubbles on the surface of
the sunken water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) and their effects
on its buoyancy. The teacher guided students by asking ques-
tions, pointing out interesting features and encouraging them
to reflect on what they saw and experienced.
Students then repeated the same questionnaire, but with-
out being able to see their initial answers.
The answers were analysed both quantitatively and qualita-
tively. The mean value and variance of the scores given by each
pupil were calculated. Based on this information an F-test
was carried out and then the hypothesis was tested with the
t-test or Cochran-Cox approximation method.
Results
Fifth grade pupils gave the highest ratings in both evaluations
(average 3.6 and 4.0), eighth grade pupils the lowest (3.2
and 3.4), while university students’ average ratings were in
between (3.4 and 3.7).
Tables 2, 3 and 4 show the scores for each of the objects for
the different age groups in the first and second evaluations.
In the first, Osage orange, water lettuce and Himalayan Blue
Pine cones received the highest ratings from all three groups.
The lowest ratings were given by all three groups to the sun-
dew, artificial squash and peanut. Green algae were among
the high-rated plants for both fifth and eighth grade pupils,
and the Sensitive Plant with biology students.
Four objects (peanut, sensitive plant, sundew and artificial
squash) received ratings that were statistically different in
the second evaluation. For two objects (peanut and sundew)
the ratings were significantly different for all three groups.
For the sensitive plant and artificial squash, a difference was
apparent in both elementary school groups, but not in the
university group. Ratings of the other four objects (pine, Os-
age orange, algae and water lettuce) did not differ greatly
from the first evaluation to the second.
The reasons given in the first phase of the exercise can be
split into two groups. The first consists of statements justify-
ing why objects were not interesting for plants that received
lower scores (peanut, sensitive plant, sundew and artificial

Table 2. Arithmetic means of the first and the second evaluation and statistical significance of the difference between them, as rated by fifth
grade pupils (n = 69).

Arithmetic mean
Object 1st evaluation 2nd evaluation Difference Statistically significant
(two tailed t test;
2P = 0.001)
Osage orange 4.5 4.6 0.1 -
Water lettuce 4.3 4.4 0.1 -
Himalayan Blue Pine 4.1 3.8 -0.3 -
Green algae 3.6 3.5 -0.1 -
Alice Sundew 3.5 4.3 0.8 3.5*
Sensitive Plant 3.4 4.9 1.5 8.44*
Artificial squash 3.1 2.0 -1.1 4.79
Peanut 2.9 4.1 1.2 7.2
Note: *Cochran-Cox approximation method

 JBE | Volume 42 Number 1, Winter 2007

 Students and plants | Strgar

squash), described in the following terms: “Interesting because of its unusual size”
“Too ordinary” “Interesting because of its shape”
“Nothing special” “Interesting because it floats”
“A common plant”. “Never seen before”
The second group consisted of comments about the plants “Unusual”
that were immediately of interest to students (pine, orange, “Nice colour”.
algae and water lettuce): In the second questionnaire, every object received favourable

Volume 42 Number 1, Winter 2007 | JBE 

Strgar | Students and plants

Table 3. Arithmetic means of the first and the second evaluation and statistical significance of the difference between them, as rated by eighth
grade pupils (n = 59).

Arithmetic mean
Object 1st evaluation 2nd evaluation Difference Statistically significant
(two tailed t test;
2P = 0.001)
Osage orange 4.2 3.8 -0.4 -
Green algae 3.6 3.1 -0.5 -
Water lettuce 3.5 3.6 0.1 -
Himalayan Blue Pine 3.3 2.8 -0.5 -
Artificial squash 3.0 2.0 -1.0 4.36
Alice Sundew 2.9 4.0 1.1 5.38
Sensitive Plant 2.8 3.9 1.1 5.26
Peanut 2.1 4.0 1.9 9.80*
Note: *Cochran-Cox approximation method

comments, for instance: In order to establish the influence of classroom method

“Now I know peanuts grow on this plant”
“Interesting smell”
“It moves”
“Slimy”
“Carnivorous”
“Nice to touch”
“It fooled me so well”.
For plants that scored best in the first part of the experi-
ment (pine, Osage orange, algae and water lettuce), the sec-
ond rating was either equal to the first, or only slightly lower:
the difference was 0.0-0.5. For those objects with a lower
average first rating (peanut, Sensitive Plant, sundew and ar-
tificial squash) the average second rating differed by 0.5-2.1
and in each case the differences were statistically significant.
Discussion
The age group that gave the highest scores in both evaluations
were fifth grade pupils. Eighth grade pupils gave, on aver-
age, lower ratings. University students were expected to rate
objects even lower but this was not the case (this expecta-
tion was based on our previous, as yet unpublished, research
which suggested that interest in living objects gradually
decreases with age). The explanation of our present results
probably lies in the nature of the sample. The oldest group
consisted exclusively of students who had chosen biology as
their future profession: as such they probably possessed a
greater affinity with living things and a tendency to rate these
higher than the population at large. This could be tested by
looking at the response of biology students compared to non-
biology students in an additional study.
on the interest of students in educational objects, we looked
at differences between the first and the second ratings. We
found that the average first and second ratings for some objects
differed more dramatically in some cases than in others. It
seems likely that where there was a large difference it was
due to teacher intervention. Among university students there
was no difference in scores for the Sensitive Plant, as students
already knew of it and its reaction to touch. We learned after-
wards that all the biology students in this experiment had
visited the botanical gardens where they came into contact
with it. The biology of the species is part of the student’s
plant physiology course in the third year at university.
Plants that students found interesting at first sight (pine,
orange, alga, water lettuce), maintained their interest level
(or it only dropped slightly) in the second evaluation, after
the teacher’s involvement. Those, however, that were initially
less interesting received substantially higher ratings following
the teacher’s intervention. The only exception was the artifi-
cial squash which received significantly lower second ratings.
Was the low rating for the squash a result of a lowered in-
terest in the ‘plant’, or were there other factors? We believe
that in the second evaluation students were making a judge-
ment on the deception. Younger students in particular made
straightforward observations of the objects and were more
disappointed than older ones.
In previous experiment a few years ago, the score for the
same objects was 3.3 (1 lowest, 5 highest), similar to the
scores in the current first evaluation (3.0). In the previous
experiment, however, the students were able to touch the
squash, not just observe it visually, and they recognised it as

Table 4. Arithmetic means of the first and the second evaluation and statistical significance of the difference between them, as rated by univer-
sity students (n = 56).

Arithmetic mean
Object 1st evaluation 2nd evaluation Difference Statistically significant
(two tailed t test;
2P = 0.001)
Osage orange 4.6 4.3 -0.3 -
Water lettuce 4.1 4.0 -0.1 -
Himalayan Blue Pine 3.7 3.5 -0.2 -
Sensitive Plant 3.7 4.0 0.3 -
Alice Sundew 3.4 3.9 0.5 3.85
Green algae 3.1 3.1 0.0 -
Artificial squash 2.9 2.6 -0.3 -
Peanut 2.0 4.1 2.1 13.52

 JBE | Volume 42 Number 1, Winter 2007


artificial. In our opinion, both experiments caused a cogni-
tive conflict in the students which was reflected in a higher
interest level for the squash; but in the later experiment the
factor of deceit and disappointment contributed to the sec-
ond rating.
The results show that the teacher managed to arouse the
students’ interest by showing the plants from new perspec-
tives. In all four cases the element of surprise increased the
level of interest substantially.
Educational implications
Our findings have the following implications for all levels of
education:
• Teacher involvement can increase interest in subjects
with low initial attraction, when appropriate methods
are used.
• The specialist knowledge, enthusiasm and interest of the
teacher greatly enhances their ability to interest the pu-
pils and this needs to be recognised in the training of
future teachers.
• Given the appropriate insights provided by the teacher
able to share his or her interest, plants can be shown
to be intrinsically interesting to young people. It is the
appreciation of the ‘real thing’ that provides effective
teaching. Simplistic models such as the false squash are
really no substitute.
Acknowledgements
The objects were photographed by colleagues at the Univer-
sity of Ljubljana: Objects A, D and E – Dušan Vršcaj;
c Objects
B, C and G – Borut Jurcicc c Zlobec; Object F – Jure Slatner;
and Object H – Iztok Tomažic. c
References
Flannery M C (2002) Do Plants Have To Be Intelligent? The
American Biology Teacher, 64, 628-633.
Hershey D R (1992) Making plant biology curricula relevant.
BioScience, 42, 188-191.
View publication stats
Students and plants | Strgar
Hoekstra B (2000) Plant Blindness – The Ultimate Challenge to
Botanists. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 82-83.
Hoese W J and Nowicki S (2001) Using ‘The Organism’ as a Con-
ceptual Focus in an Introductory Biology Course. The Ameri-
can Biology Teacher, 63, 176-182.
Kinchin I M (1999) Investigating secondary-school girls’ pref-
erences for animals or plants: a simple ‘head-to-head’ com-
parison using two unfamiliar organisms. Journal of Biological
Education, 33, 95-99.
Kravanja N (1995) Appeal of Outdoor Ornamental Plants. Acta
Horticulturae, 391, 191-197.
Lock R (1994) Biology - the study of living things? Journal of
Biological Education, 28, 79-80.
Myers O E, Saunders C D and Garrett E (2003) What Do Chil-
dren Think Animals Need? Aesthetic and Psycho-social Con-
ceptions. Environmental Education Research, 9, 305-325.
Pečjak V (1975) Psychology of Cognition. Ljubljana, Slovenia:
DZS (in Slovene).
Reiss M J (1993) Organisms for teaching. Journal of Biological
Education, 27, 155-156.
Schneekloth L H (1989) ‘Where did you go?’ ‘Forest.’ ‘What did
you see?’ ‘Nothing.’ Children’s Environments Quarterly, 6, 14-
17.
Tunnicliffe S D (1996) A comparison of conversations of primary
school groups at animated, preserved and live animal speci-
mens. Journal of Biological Education, 30, 195-206.
Tunnicliffe S D (2001) Talking about plants - comments of pri-
mary school groups looking at plant exhibits in a botanical
garden. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 27-34.
Tunnicliffe S D and Reiss M J (2000) Building a model of the en-
vironment: how do children see plants? Journal of Biological
Education, 34, 172-177.
Wandersee J H (1986) Plants or Animals - Which do Junior High
School Students Prefer to Study? Journal of Research in Sci-
ence Teaching, 23, 415-426.
Wandersee J H and Schussler E E (1999) Preventing Plant
Blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61, 82-86.
Wandersee J H and Schussler E E (2001) Toward a Theory of
Plant Blindness. Plant Science Bulletin, 47, 2-9.
Jelka Strgar is xxxxxx at the Biotechnical Faculty,
Department of Biology, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Email: jelka.strgar@bf.uni-lj.si
Volume 42 Number 1, Winter 2007 | JBE