International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

From Flowers to Fruits: How children’s books

represent plant reproduction

Elisabeth E. Schussler

To cite this article: Elisabeth E. Schussler (2008) From Flowers to Fruits: How children’s books
represent plant reproduction, International Journal of Science Education, 30:12, 1677-1696,
DOI: 10.1080/09500690701570248

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701570248

Published online: 18 Sep 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1052

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
International Journal of Science Education
Vol. 30, No. 12, 5 October 2008, pp. 1677–1696

RESEARCH REPORT

From Flowers to Fruits: How children’s

books represent plant reproduction
Elisabeth E. Schussler*
Miami University, USA
0schusse@muohio.edu
Dr.
000002007
ElisabethSchussler
International
10.1080/09500690701570248
TSED_A_256881.sgm
0950-0693
Research
Taylor
2007
00 andReport
& Francis
(print)/1464-5289
Francis
Journal of Science
(online)
Education

Children’s trade books about science may be playing an increasing role in science instruction;
however, the potential effects on student learning are unknown. To investigate whether a subset of
books would be appropriate for classroom instruction about a specific science topic (plant repro-
duction), a selection of children’s books about plants was analysed to identify how plant reproduc-
tion was portrayed and whether the book could generate misconceptions about the topic. Three
types of data were collected from 69 children’s books: growth progression of the plant, textual
passages describing reproduction, and descriptions of illustrations related to reproduction. These
data were then sorted twice: once to identify coding categories for how plant reproduction was
shown in the books, and a second time to identify potential misconceptions in the books. Most of
the books showed plants progressing through a lifecycle that generated a fruit or seed. However,
there were three categories of explanations for this process: no mechanism, implicit mechanism,
and explicit mechanism. The analysis also identified five inaccuracies in the books that could
support misconceptions about plant reproduction. Overall, students could learn from these books
that plants make flowers that generate fruits or seeds, and that pollination or bees support this
process. However, the gaps in the explanations of plant reproduction would require the teacher to
supplement, or in some cases correct, the text. It is recommended that content experts analyse
children’s books in their area of specialty and provide teachers with recommendations about the
use of the books in classrooms.

Introduction
Children’s Trade Books in Science Instruction
It has been suggested that children’s science trade books may be playing a significant
role in children’s learning about science (Butzow & Butzow, 1989; Donovan &
Smolkin, 2002; Rice, 2002; Romance & Vitale, 1992; Royce & Wiley, 1996). Trade
books are those marketed to a general audience versus books created for a specialized

*Department of Botany, Miami University, 316 Pearson Hall, Oxford, OH 45056, USA. Email:
schusse@muohio.edu

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/121677–20

© 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500690701570248
1678 E. E. Schussler

audience, such as textbooks for schools. Sometimes called children’s picture books or
children’s literature, trade books can include fictional story books, narrative and non-
narrative informational texts, or combinations of each (Donovan & Smolkin, 2002).
Trade books represent the second most popular type of book among children
(Mechling & Oliver, 1983; the first is children’s fiction) and can be a child’s first
exposure to science (Barlow, 1991). There has been a recent trend to encourage the
use of science trade books in classroom instruction (Butzow & Butzow, 1989;
Donovan & Smolkin, 2002; Mayer, 1995; Rice, 2002) as part of a national trend to
integrate reading and writing into science instruction. It has also been suggested that
trade books may aid elementary teachers who are not as confident in their delivery of
science content (Czerniak & Lumpe, 1996; Harlen, 1997; Tilgner, 1990). Compared
with textbooks, teachers and students find trade books to be more interesting and less
confusing (Ross, 1994), and to contain more focused, up-to-date information about
a single concept (Moss, 1991; Ross, 1994). In some science classrooms, trade books
are completely replacing the use of traditional textbooks (Armbruster, 1993; Ross,
1994).
While most educators and researchers agree that science trade books can be a
positive addition to science classrooms (Butzow & Butzow, 1989; Donovan &
Smolkin, 2002; Rice, 2002; Romance & Vitale, 1992; Royce & Wiley, 1996), some
concerns have arisen about what students learn from these books. Mayer (1995)
read the same science book to 16 students (5–8 years old) and found that few gained
new factual information from the book, and some acquired incorrect ideas (miscon-
ceptions) about the science topic. Rice (2002) analysed the accuracy of 50 science
trade books and found many inaccuracies in both text and illustrations. Five of these
inaccurate science books were selected to examine whether students were able to
separate fact from fiction. The study concluded that students were unable to identify
the inaccuracies, and accepted the book as an authoritative and correct source of
information on the topic (Rice, 2002). Rice, Dudley, and Williams (2001)
documented that 7-year-old to 9-year-old students changed their answers on a pre-
content and post-content knowledge assessment to incorporate the incorrect
information in the science trade book they read. This research suggests that, without
clarification and intervention from their science teachers, students could gain
misconceptions about science topics from trade books (Miller, Steiner, & Larson,
1996).
Studies such as these have highlighted the need for teachers to carefully select
appropriate trade books for classroom use. To assist in this process, several check-
lists of criteria teachers should look for in trade books have been created (Mayer,
1995; Sudol & King, 1996). Always included on these checklists is the identification
of inaccuracies in the books (Mayer, 1995; McMillan, 1993; Rice, 2002). However,
due to teachers’ limited daily preparation time and, in some cases, limited science
background, few teachers critically analyse trade books before using them in the
classroom (Sudol & King, 1996). Since teachers may lack the time or content
knowledge to analyse children’s trade books, it is important for educators and
scientists to screen books and make teachers aware of what content they contain.
 From Flowers to Fruits 1679

The purpose of this study is to critically analyse a subset of children’s science trade
books about plants and assess the information they contain about plant reproduc-
tion. This information will then be used to make suggestions to teachers who are
interested in using children’s books to teach about plants.

Pedagogy and Plants

Instruction about plants in elementary classrooms may be a challenge for many
teachers because students are often not as interested in learning about plants as
compared with learning about animals (Kinchin, 1999; Wandersee, 1986) and effec-
tive educational resources about plants are lacking (Hershey, 1996; Uno, 1994).
Students also appear to struggle with understanding of plant concepts as evidenced
by the documented misconceptions about photosynthesis and nutrition (Canal,
1999; Ozay & Oztas, 2003; Smith & Anderson, 1984; Stavy, Eisen, & Yaakobi,
1987) and students’ limited ability to name and categorize plants (Bebbington,
2005; Ryman, 1974). Since research in the field of plant education has been limited
(see review by Wood-Robinson, 1991), other conceptually difficult topics about
plants surely exist but have yet to be documented.
A general understanding of what educators expect students of different ages
to know about plant reproduction can be gained by viewing science curriculum
requirements from various countries. For example, in the USA, the National Science
Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) expect students 5–9 years
old to understand that plants are ‘born, develop into adults, reproduce and die’, and
that organisms interact with each other and their environment. Students aged 10–13
should further understand that flowers contain structures that produce egg and
sperm for the purpose of sexual reproduction. The National Curriculum for England
(http://www.nc.uk.net) requires that students aged 5–11 years should know that
plants reproduce, how to identify flowers and their parts, and how flowers relate to
pollination and seed formation. Students older than 11 years old learn that fertiliza-
tion is the fusion of male and female reproductive cells.
Research suggests that students struggle with concepts related to plant reproduc-
tion, such as not understanding that flowers are the source of fruit and that pollina-
tion is related to sexual reproduction. As part of an analysis of the effectiveness of a
long-term unit of study on fourth-grade students’ (about 9 years old) understanding
of the flowering plant lifecycle, Schussler and Winslow (2007) analysed 81 student
drawings of a plant lifecycle before the unit of study. Earlier in the school year, these
same students had been taught about the flowering plant lifecycle using the school
district’s textbook and associated curriculum materials. Despite this prior instruc-
tion, only 84% of students drew a flower being produced by the plant, 64% drew a
seed being produced from that flower, and only three of the 81 students (4%) drew a
fruit being produced from the flower. Lewis and Wood-Robinson (2000) studied
482 students, 14–16 years old, in England and discovered that only 43% knew that
sexual reproduction occurred in plants. Those students who did not know that
sexual reproduction occurred in plants most often cited a lack of a discernable
1680 E. E. Schussler

mechanism for sexual reproduction (sex cells) in plants. Additionally, only 7% of the
students knew about pollination, and they still failed to link this process to sexual
reproduction, instead ascribing it to asexual reproduction. In his list of plant miscon-
ceptions, Hershey (2004) refers to the common confusion between pollination and
fertilization, as well as a tendency to think pollination is solely dependent on
animals. Apparently many students exhibit a fundamental lack of understanding of
how plants reproduce, particularly with respect to the production of fruit and
mechanism of sexual reproduction.

Purpose of the Study

Given the trend of using children’s trade books in science instruction, and the
challenges of teaching about plants, it seems relevant to investigate how plants are
being portrayed in trade books and whether these representations can support
instruction about plants. To narrow the study to one instructional topic, the concept
of plant reproduction was chosen. The central investigative questions were:
● How is plant reproduction portrayed in children’s science trade books about
plants?
● What potential misconceptions, if any, about plant reproduction may be fostered
by reading these books?
To answer these questions, a content analysis of science trade books about plants
was undertaken. To date, there have been very few published content analyses of
children’s science picture books (Ford, 2006; Marriot, 2002; Rice, 2002), yet stud-
ies like these can generate rich information about how children’s trade books repre-
sent science content. Goins (2004) performed a content analysis of 36 plant-centred
children’s science picture books that contained a plot and characters. She identified
plant reproduction as one of the six areas of botanical subject-matter knowledge in
the books. She concluded that students can appropriately learn about plants and
their cultural value from children’s science picture books, but she did not analyse the
specific portrayal of plant reproduction in the books. The data from this study will
be used to reflect on how using children’s trade books about plants in the classroom
may affect student understanding of plant reproduction based on how the reproduc-
tion is represented and whether its presentation is accurate and consistent with the
curriculum requirements for students.

Methods
Sample Selection
To identify an initial list of children’s trade books about plants for the study, search
engines on the Barnes and Noble web site (http://www.barnesandnoble.com) and
the Amazon web site (http://www.amazon.com) were used. The search terms ‘chil-
dren and plant’ and ‘children and garden’ were used to generate this list. Exclusion
 From Flowers to Fruits 1681

¥ Published prior to 1960

¥ Greater than 50 pages long

Initial book sample Final book sample
¥ Not having plants as a central theme

¥ Not found in local used bookstore or

public or university library

¥ Photographs as visual elements

Figure 1. Exclusion criteria

criteria (Figure 1) were used to limit the initial list to those books an elementary
teacher would most probably use to teach about plants. Because these books were
also being selected for a larger study about how plants are visually represented in
children’s books, books utilizing photographed images (versus illustrations) were
also excluded.
Based on these exclusion criteria, 108 books were located for the study. Once the
Figure 1. Exclusion criteria

books for the study were acquired, information about the title, author, plot, page
length, book type, and reading level was recorded. Based on this information, 71 of
the books were categorized as story books (fiction), 23 were informational books
(non-fiction), and 14 were dual-purpose (imparted factual information within a
story). The upper reading level of the books ranged from 5 to 12 years old, with an
average reading level of about 7 years old.

Data Collection
Each book was carefully read in its entirety by at least two researchers, paying atten-
tion to both text and illustrations. The researchers independently made notations
about the progression of plant growth shown or described in the book. For example,
some books showed a seed being planted, which then formed a seedling and a plant,
and then the plant produced a fruit. This progression from seed to fruit would have
been recorded for this book. Some books only showed fully-formed flowers that did
not change over the course of the book because there was little passage of time. In this
case, the researcher would have recorded the existence of flowers, but noted the lack
of growth or change. The researchers then used these notations to sort the 108 books
into those that described or showed a growth progression that included some aspect
of flowering plant reproduction, and those that either did not show plant growth or
did not include flowering plant reproduction. Growth progression could be any
change in the plant that would occur over time (seed changing into a plant, fully-
grown tree producing flowers, etc.). The existence of flowering plant reproduction
1682 E. E. Schussler

was determined by whether the plant produced a flower, fruit, or seed. Books in
which no change in the plant was represented, or in which no stage of reproduction
was shown (flower, fruit or seed), were removed from the study. Based on these
criteria, 39 of the 108 books were removed from further analysis.
For each of the 69 books left in the study, three types of data were collected to
capture how the book represented flowering plant reproduction: growth progression
of the plant, textual passages describing reproduction, and researcher description of
illustrations related to reproduction. These data were collected from the story pages,
as well as from pages at the back of the books. Growth progression data had already
been collected during the initial screening of the books and included the stages of
growth that were illustrated or described in the text. Stages were recorded in certain
categories generally limited to: seed, seedling, plant, sapling, tree, flower, and fruit.
Textual passages describing reproduction focused on the sentences that describe the
transition from flowers to the production of fruits and seeds, if that occurred in the
book. These data included verbatim sentences describing any stage of this process,
including any references to pollination or pollinators. Some books had no textual
data because the reproduction stopped at the flower, or it was a picture book, or the
book never directly addressed in the text what was depicted in the illustrations. To
capture events recorded in the book that were not described textually, a brief
description of events that were seen in the illustrations was also included as data.
This also included the description of pollinators that appeared on pages where the
plants were flowering. Scans of exemplary pages from each book were made for later
reference.

Coding for Reproduction Representation

These three types of data from each of the 69 books then underwent coding to cate-
gorize how reproduction was shown in each book. No a priori codes were created for
the analysis, so coding proceeded from a grounded theory perspective (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). The three types of data from each book were treated as a single unit,
and were read repeatedly and sorted until major categories emerged from the data.
These categories were then defined and given a distinguishing name. Data within
each major category was then read repeatedly to see whether they formed a cohesive
group or needed to be subcategorized. This process continued until the data from
the books could not be delimited any further. After the initial categories were
identified, a second researcher re-sorted the books using the created categories to
help refine and clarify the categorization. When both researchers agreed on the cate-
gories and book placement within the categories, the categorization was complete.

Coding for Misconceptions

To identify potential misconceptions about plant reproduction that students may
acquire from the 69 books, the books were sorted a second time based only on the
textual passages from each book. In this part of the analysis, passages from each
 From Flowers to Fruits 1683

book (rather than the book itself) were treated as a unit to allow for the identification
of multiple inaccuracies in a single book. The textual data from each book was read
and re-read to identify incorrect or potentially confusing information about plant
reproduction. Textual passages with identified misconceptions or inaccuracies were
placed in a separate document and each was read repeatedly to identify and group
misconceptions. A category was created, named, and described when the miscon-
ception occurred in two or more books. For this part of the analysis, the illustration
description was not used since these misconceptions would have to be inferred by
the student rather than directly stated.

Results
How Plant Reproduction is Represented
After analysis of the data from each of the 69 books, two major categories of repro-
duction as shown or described in the books were identified: partial reproduction
(eight books), and full reproduction (61 books). The books within the category of
full reproduction were then analysed and placed into three subcategories based on
how the mechanism of reproduction was represented: no mechanism (23 books),
implicit mechanism (16 books), and explicit mechanism (22 books). Each subcate-
gory was subsequently broken into either two or three additional subcategories,
which are described within their respective sections below. A diagram showing how
the codes are related is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Coding categories for the representation of plant reproduction

Partial reproduction. A handful of the books that were analysed (n = 8) showed

plants going through stages of growth that led to the production of flowers; however,
the book ended at that stage without any mention or image of the plants producing
fruits or seeds. For example, one book says ‘These are the flowers that blossomed
from the buds …’ and then ends at that stage of growth (Cole, H., 1995). In these
books, the focus of the story was on the beauty of the flowers that the plants
produced.

Full reproduction. More commonly shown in the books were plants that grew flow-
ers and then continued through that stage to produce fruits and/or seeds (n = 61).
Despite this commonality, the books varied widely in their explanations, or lack
thereof, of how this reproduction occurred. This difference was the basis for further
subdivision of the books into three additional categories (no mechanism for repro-
duction, implicit mechanism, and explicit mechanism).

No mechanism for reproduction. Books that fell into this category (n = 23) clearly
described plants that produced fruit and/or seed during the course of the book, but
there was no explanation of how this occurred (no mention of a pollinator or of polli-
nation or fertilization). This category was further divided into two subcategories:
1684 E. E. Schussler

All
Books
(69 books)

Partial Reproduction Full Reproduction

(8 books) (61 books)
Reproduction stopped at the Reproduction continued to
production of the flower the production of fruit or seed

No mechanism Implicit mechanism Explicit mechanism

given for reproduction for reproduction for reproduction
(23 books) (16 books) (22 books)

Plant generates Pollinator General

fruit or seed image shown pollination
(not flower) by flower described
(12 books) (8 books) (8 books)

Flower Pollinator Specific

generates fruit mentioned in pollination
or seed text described
(11 books) (8 books) (8 books)

Steps beyond
pollination
described
(6 books)

Figure 2. Coding categories for the representation of plant reproduction

those books that did not make clear the fruit or seed were generated at the site of the
flower (‘plant generates fruit or seed’, n = 12), versus those books that indicated the
flower was the site of the fruit or seed development (‘flower generates fruit or seed,’
n = 11).

● Plant generates fruit or seed. These 12 books had as the end product of reproduc-
tion either fruits or seeds, but it is not clear that the fruit or seed is generated from
the flower. Either the book never showed or mentioned a flower at all (five
books), or the flower is shown or mentioned as a step, rather than a location, of
 From Flowers to Fruits 1685

the fruit or seed production. All but one of these books visually shows the
sequence of the plant generating the fruit or seed, but does not specifically refer-
ence this growth change in the text. The only book that included text referencing
the lifecycle states: ‘The full-grown apple tree blossoms in the spring. In summer,
young apples begin to grow’ (De Bourgoing, 1991). Since most of these books did
not include written descriptions of the reproductive process, much of the
sequence of reproduction is inferred from the pictures and plot.
● Flower generates fruit or seed. These 11 books have fruits or seeds as their end prod-
uct, and it is made clear through either words or pictures that they are generated
from the flower. For example, one book describes the reproductive process as
‘The buds burst open and lots of white flowers blossomed among the green, green
leaves. When the white flowers fell off, tiny, tiny bean pods hung in their place’
(Rockwell, 1998). Another states: ‘Here’s a female pumpkin flower. A pumpkin
grows from the swelling at the base of the flower’ (Wallace, 2002). However,
despite this specificity in location of fruit and seed development, there is no
mechanism presented for how these fruits or seeds are created.

Implicit mechanism of reproduction. The books in this category (n = 16) include

either illustrations or textual reference to a pollinator (e.g., an insect such as a bee),
but the role of the pollinator in the fruit or seed production is inferred rather than
stated. None of the books in this category mention the process of fertilization. This
category was further broken down into two subcategories: pollinator(s) shown on
the same pages as the flowers (pollinator image), and pollinator mentioned in the
text, although not in reference to pollination (pollinator text).
● Pollinator image. Eight of the books had illustrations of bees or other potential
pollinators on the same pages that show or describe the flowers that eventually
changed into fruits or seeds. Often the pollinators are shown physically crawling
in and on the flowers; however, there is no textual reference to these pollinators
and therefore no indication of their role in plant reproduction. For example, one
story says ‘They grew bigger every day, and bright red flowers burst out all over
them. After the warm sunny days returned, the first beans appeared’ (Doyle,
1999). On the page that mentions the red flowers, there is a picture of the red
flowers with bees flying around them. Another book states ‘I have five petals. I am
beautiful. In time, my petals fall to the ground. Now I am a small apple’
(Marzollo, 1997). Bees are shown on the page that mentions the petals falling to
the ground. These books offer the reader an inferred, but not a direct, mechanism
for the reproduction that occurs.
● Pollinator text. In eight books, the pollinators are written about in the text, but there
is no stated connection between pollinator activity and the fruit or seed production
(including no mention of pollination). For example, one book states: ‘Bees come.
They carry pollen from each flower to their hives. The pollen helps feed young
bees. One day the flowers close up. When they open, the yellow dandelion is gone.
In its place is a feathery white ball’ (Kite, 1998). Another book states:
1686 E. E. Schussler

Every spring from now on, the flowers will open for one night only and then close in the
heat of the day. They beckon like a welcoming signal across the desert. At different
times of the day and night birds, bees, and bats come for nectar. The flowers dry up,
and after a month the bright-red fruit filled with black seeds is ripe and ready.
(Guiberson, 1993)

In both examples, there is not enough information to directly relate the visitation by
the insects, birds, or mammals to the resulting production of fruit or seed from the
flower, although it may certainly be implied.

Explicit mechanism of reproduction. Books in this final category (n = 22) define

pollination as part of the mechanism for the transition from flower to fruit or seed,
and some even explain male and female sex cells and fertilization. Subcategories
were developed to reflect this increasing complexity, with three being identified:
general pollination, specific pollination, and beyond pollination.
● General pollination. The eight books in this category either make textual reference
to pollination, mention that pollinators help ‘spread pollen’, or reference pollen
moving from one flower to another. These books link the process of pollination to
the formation of the fruits and seeds in the story. For instance:
When a bee lands on a flower, the yellow pollen sticks to its fuzzy body. Then, when it
visits another flower, some of that pollen gets left behind. The tree’s pollen is moved
from flower to flower. As this happens, the flower starts to change and seeds begin to
grow. (Llewellyn, 2004)

and ‘Bees, flies, and butterflies came to eat the sweet nectar and carried pollen
from flower to flower’ (Cherry, 2003). However, in two of the books in this cate-
gory, the information about pollination is only presented on the back page of the
book.
● Specific pollination. These eight books also reference only pollination, but either
specify that the pollen moves from the male to the female flower or that it moves
from the stamen to the pistil. This emphasizes the specificity of pollination as
compared with the more general references made in the last category, and it is the
first time that sexual reproduction can be directly inferred. For example, one book
states: ‘The bees buzz about, carrying yellow pollen from the male flowers to the
female flowers. Now pumpkins can grow’ (Pfeffer, 2004). Another states: ‘Polli-
nation happens when a grain of pollen from a stamen lands on the stigma of
another blossom’ (Gibbons, 2000). By necessity, books that reference these
specific flower parts often include a labelled picture of a flower so the reader
understands where the pollen moves from and to.
● Beyond pollination. These six books represented the most complex descriptions
of the flower to fruit process of any of the books. They specifically mention
pollination, but also go beyond pollination in some way, either mentioning
pollen tube growth or egg cells and fertilization. Often, this means the book can
seamlessly follow the entire sequence of flower to fruit or seed, such as the book
that states:
 From Flowers to Fruits 1687

If a pollen grain from a flower lands on the pistil of the same kind of flower, it grows a
long tube through the pistil into an ovule. This is the beginning of a seed. The seed
grows inside the flower, even as the flower begins to die. As the seeds become bigger,
a fruit or pod grows around them. The fruit or pod protects the seeds. (Gibbons,
1993)

Also displaying very complex information is the following description from a book:
When pollen lands on the stigma of its own kind of flower, it grows a pollen tube that
reaches down the pistil to the ovary, the female part of the flower. A sperm cell from the
pollen travels down the tube and joins with an egg cell. The fertilized egg begins to
divide and becomes a seed. (Cole, J., 1995)

Once again, labelled pictures are often required for this level of detail, and two of the
books impart much of the specifics on an extra back page. The text is much more
complex as well, with an average of 27 sentences devoted to plant reproduction in
these six books as compared with six sentences for the previous category. The books
in this final subcategory are the only ones that come close to completely describing
the mechanism of plant reproduction (references to both pollination and fertilization
are included).

Potential Misconceptions
The written text about plant reproduction from each book was also read to identify
any incorrect information that could result in the acquisition or reinforcement of
misconceptions about plant reproduction. To create a category, the inaccuracy had
to appear in at least two different books. Using this standard, five inaccuracies were
identified: pollination versus fertilization, death of flowers, ovule versus egg, pollen
dust, and sunflower ‘seeds’.

Pollination versus fertilization. The distinction between pollination and fertilization

necessitates knowing the different parts of the carpel (the female part of the flower;
sometimes called the pistil). In flowering plants, pollination occurs at the top of the
carpel called the stigma, and fertilization occurs at the bottom of the carpel after the
pollen grain grows down the length of the carpel and fertilizes the seed in the ovule
of the ovary. In three of the books, the written text describing these differences is
unclear. For instance, one book states ‘Some of the pollen falls off the bee’s body
and into the second flower. This is called pollination. Deep inside the flower, the
pollen reaches a part of the plant called the pistil. This is called fertilization’
(Schaefer, 2000). The locations for both pollination and fertilization are vaguely
defined, and although the information is not strictly inaccurate, it leaves enough
gaps in the process to be misleading. The other two books confuse the term ‘fertilize’
with the term ‘pollinate’. For example, one book describes that ‘Every creature that
drinks the nectar picks up more pollen and carries it on to fertilize the next flower’
(Bash, 2002), and another states that ‘Some pollen brushes off on the next flower
they visit, fertilizing it’ (Morrison, 2000). Technically speaking, these plants may
1688 E. E. Schussler

eventually be fertilized by that pollen, but it is most likely that the authors were
speaking of pollination in these instances.

Death of flowers. Four of the books mention the flowers or blossoms falling off after
pollination has occurred and fruit is beginning to form. Examples include one book
that says ‘When the white flowers fell off, tiny, tiny bean pods hung in their place’
(Rockwell, 1998), and another that states ‘Eventually all the flowers die, but if they
have been touched with pollen, the bases swell up fat with seeds’ (Robbins, 1990).
While it is true that the petals or anthers may fall off the flower after successful
pollination/fertilization, if the entire flower fell off the plant then the fruit would
never be able to form from the ovary of the carpel on the flower. Much like the
pollination/fertilization confusion, this is an example of the word ‘flowers’ being
used instead of ‘petals’.

Ovule versus egg. The ovule is a chamber within the ovary that contains the egg. In
the case of two books, the terms ‘egg’ and ‘ovule’ seem to be used interchangeably.
For example, one book states ‘An ovule that’s fertilized becomes a seed’ (Worth,
2001), and another says ‘At the bottom of the pistil are tiny egg cells called ovules’
(Gibbons, 1993). Once again, the main problem lies in confusion of terminology.

Pollen dust. In four of the books, the authors made reference to ‘pollen dust’ when
describing pollination. While pollen is indeed a microscopic, potentially airborne
particle that may be defined as a type of dust, there is no botanical term known as
‘pollen dust’. Examples of its use include ‘Watch out! The yellow pollen dust in the
middle of the flower will make you sneeze’ (Godwin, 2001), and ‘As the bat drinks,
the pollen dust sticks to its face and is carried along to pollinate the next bloom’
(Bash, 2002). Another book states ‘The male flowers hang from long stems that
sway in the wind and drop a dust called pollen’ (Morrison, 2000), and the fourth
book says ‘In the center of the flower are tiny stalks covered in a sticky yellow dust.
This dust is called pollen, and it has an important job’ (Llewellyn, 2004). It may be
that the authors are trying to emphasize the small size of pollen by defining it as dust
or perhaps giving the students a visual frame of reference for what pollen looks like.
However, this term also frames this plant part as more of a nuisance than as a living
part of the plant that plays a critical step in plant reproduction.

Sunflower ‘seeds’. The most striking inaccuracy, which occurred in no less than
seven books, was the naming of the fruit of a sunflower (technically, an achene) as a
‘sunflower seed’. For example, one book writes: ‘“Look at the middle of the flower.”
It was full of seeds, just like the ones Sam had planted’ (Petty, 1997). Another book
says ‘The tiny seeds ripen. Birds peck the seeds in the flower heads’ (Legg, 1998).
Every sunflower book that was coded and mentioned what formed in the flowers
misidentified the fruits as seeds.
 From Flowers to Fruits 1689

Discussion
How Plant Reproduction is Represented
One of the research questions of this study was to ascertain how plant reproduction
is being described or shown in a representative selection of children’s books about
plants. One initial finding of the study was that plant reproduction is a very common
theme in many children’s books, appearing in 69 of the 108 books studied. Also
encouraging is that, of the 69 books that showed or described plant reproduction,
almost all of them (61 books) included the production of a fruit or seed from a flow-
ering stage of the plant (the other eight books stopped reproduction at the flowering
stage). Of the 61 books showing the production of a fruit or seed, by far the most
prevalent outcome was a fruit or a fruit with seeds in it (as compared to only a seed).
This makes the results of Schussler and Winslow (2007), where only three of 81
students drew a fruit as part of their plant lifecycle, curious. Although students know
that fruits are plant products, there seems to be a disassociation between the flower
and fruit when it comes to drawing a lifecycle. This could be a result of students not
understanding the mechanism of reproduction, or perhaps because they rarely
observe a plant go through its entire lifecycle. Schussler and Winslow (2007) found
that after the long-term study of a plant lifecycle, 66% of the original 81 students
drew a fruit as part of their lifecycle. However, a follow-up study four months later
indicated that this learning gain was generally not retained (Schussler and Winslow,
unpublished data).
In the books showing the production of fruits and seeds, there was also variation
in how specific the book was about the location of fruit development. For example,
not all of the books made it clear that the fruit (and seed) are generated at the loca-
tion of the flower. At least 20 books had pictures of flowers on one page and fruits
and/or seeds on following pages, without text or images that made it clear that the
fruit developed at the location of the flower. However, more than two-thirds of
the books indicated in some way that the fruits or seeds did come from the site of the
flowers. This proportion is curiously reminiscent of the findings of Schussler and
Winslow (2007), where 40% of students drew fruits where the flowers had been
located but 26% of students drew fruits at a site other than the flower. Children’s
science trade books about plants may need to make the connection between flower
and fruit development more apparent.
One clear difference among the books was the mechanistic explanation, or lack
thereof, for the reproduction that occurred. Of the 61 books depicting the produc-
tion of fruits or seeds, 23 included no explanation for how plant reproduction
occurred. In these books, the fruit or seed was produced after the flowering stage as
if by magic. In 16 of the 61 books, there also was no written explanation for how
reproduction occurred, but potential pollinators were shown on or near the flowers
prior to fruit or seed development. This was coded in the study as an implied mech-
anism for the plant reproduction. In some cases this pollinator placement seemed to
be intentional by the author, but in others it could merely have been incidental. Only
22 of the 61 books explicitly described some mechanism for how plants produced
1690 E. E. Schussler

fruits or seeds from flowers. Sixteen of these explanations relied entirely on pollina-
tion as the mechanism, leaving only six books (of the original 69) that described
both pollination and at least parts of fertilization as important steps in the produc-
tion of fruits and seeds by plants. These results suggest an explanation for the find-
ings of Lewis and Wood-Robinson (2000) that students do not associate plants with
sexual reproduction. By focusing solely on pollination, and only rarely mentioning
gender or sex cells in association with plants, the books are effectively neutering
sexual reproduction in plants and leaving students to guess that reproduction must
be asexual.

Potential Misconceptions
Another major focus of the study was to identify any inaccuracies about plant repro-
duction that could potentially cause readers to acquire misconceptions about the
process. Five inaccuracies were identified that each occurred in at least two of the
books. Hershey (2004) categorized plant misconceptions into five types: oversimpli-
fications, overgeneralizations, obsolete concepts or terms, misidentifications, and
flawed research. Using this classification system, almost all of the inaccuracies could
be classified as misidentification misconceptions because of their incorrect use of
terminology to describe steps in plant reproduction. For example, two of the inaccu-
racies were confusion between the names of two processes (pollination and fertiliza-
tion) and the names of two structures (ovule versus egg). Another inaccuracy arose
when the authors inadvertently substituted the word ‘flowers’ for ‘petals’ when
describing what falls off after pollination occurs. Another type of misconception is
the use of the term pollen dust, which has no botanical context. This would be cate-
gorized as an overgeneralization misconception and could be clarified by delineating
the characteristics of pollen versus dust. McMillan (1993) suggested that some
inaccuracies are the result of authors using other children’s books as reference
sources, and it may be that this is the case in the propagation of the term pollen dust.
The last, most common, inaccuracy is the misuse of the term sunflower ‘seed’ when
referring to sunflower fruit. Certainly this is a misidentification misconception, but it
is also unique because it arises from commonly accepted cultural practise. Sunflower
fruits (with the black and white hulls) as well as actual sunflower seeds are both
labelled in supermarkets as ‘sunflower seeds’.
The discovery of these inaccuracies supports the findings of Rice (2002) that chil-
dren’s books do contain misinformation on science topics. Most probably, the books
in this study were written by authors who were not botanists or even biologists.
Although it is clear in most cases that the authors have studied the topic and have
presented much of the information accurately, there were terminology details that
escaped their attention. These inaccuracies could certainly have been identified and
corrected by a botanist, which calls into question the review process of these
children’s books. In some ways, the fact that the inaccuracies are technical and
minute makes them easier to overlook; and when they are embedded in a sea of
accurate information, it also makes them easier to accept. Since research indicates
 From Flowers to Fruits 1691

that students take the information in children’s book as the authority (Rice, 2002),
these inaccuracies have the potential to support or create misconceptions about the
topic being presented (Mayer, 1995). For instance, a book that does not make clear
that flowers are the site of fruit development, and that also has an inaccuracy about
the flowers falling off after pollination, may embed improper knowledge about plant
reproduction in its readers.

Implications for Classroom Use

The overall goal of this analysis was to use the data from the study to reflect on the
use of children’s books for science instruction in school classrooms. Given the trend
toward using children’s books either to supplement or to provide science instruction
(Butzow & Butzow, 1989; Donovan & Smolkin, 2002; Mayer, 1995; Rice, 2002),
what might be the educational implications of using these particular books to
instruct about plant reproduction? As might be expected, the results of this analysis
suggest that teachers choosing to use science trade books about plants in the class-
room may encounter some positive and some negative instructional outcomes. What
follows are some generalizations about what students might or might not learn from
these books about plant reproduction.
First, this study found that since the majority of books about plants also incorpo-
rate information about plant reproduction, teachers can use trade books about
plants to instruct specifically about plant reproduction. From 61 of the books,
students would also be able to learn that plants produce fruits and/or seeds after the
plant flowers. Another learning gain for many students might be that pollination is
important to plant reproduction. Over one-half of the books either show or mention
pollen, pollinator(s), or pollination during the plant’s reproduction. Since bees are
featured prominently at these pollination stages, students may (correctly) infer that
bees are one of the most important animal pollinators for plants.
However, there are several things that students might not learn, or even informa-
tion they might learn incorrectly as a result of reading the books. As McMillan
(1993) pointed out, errors in trade books can also include the omission of facts, as
well as printed inaccuracies. For example, more than one-third of the books show
the fruit or seed being produced with no explanation of how this occurs, which may
lead students to believe that plants reproduce without a mechanism. And since
almost one-third of the books do not directly show the fruit/seed developing from
the flower, it is doubtful that students would gain this knowledge from reading those
particular books. The potential for some students to continue to disassociate the
stages of flower and fruit development in plants by reading these books is fairly high,
and might result in an incomplete understanding of even a basic plant lifecycle.
Adding to this is the largest potential for misinformation in the majority of the
books: the function of pollination. Students may learn that pollination or pollinators
are important, but have no idea what pollination is or what specific role it plays in
plant reproduction (or understand that it is related to sexual reproduction in plants).
Since the collection of nectar and pollen by pollinators is sometimes mentioned in
1692 E. E. Schussler

the books without reference to pollination, there is a danger of students focusing on

the importance of pollen to the pollinator but forgetting the benefit to the plant.
Additionally, the focus of most books on bees as pollinators may lead students to not
realize that pollination can be facilitated by other animals or even the wind. Hershey
(2004) suggested that a common misconception about plants is that they all require
animals for pollination, and students reading these books might agree with that
generalization. The focus of so many of the books on pollination would also lead the
reader to assume that pollination is the main step necessary to produce fruit and
seed, and negates the equal importance of the process of fertilization. Unfortunately,
when details of pollination and fertilization are included, they may be on the back
page of the book, which is less likely to be read. There are also a few cases where
pollination and fertilization are confused, supporting Hershey’s (2004) claim that
not understanding the difference between them is another plant misconception.
Already discussed are the potential for misconceptions from the five identified
inaccuracies that are present in the books. Since teachers rarely critically analyse
children’s books before using them in instruction (Sudol & King, 1996), there is the
potential for many of these omissions and inaccuracies to appear in instruction based
on these books.
Teachers using children’s books about plants would also be concerned about
matching the science content level with the curriculum requirements for their
students. For instance, students aged 5–9 years old in the USA need to know that
plants are born, grow into adults, reproduce, and die, and that organisms interact
with each other, according to the National Science Education Standards (National
Research Council, 1996). It is not until students are over 10 years old that specific
content related to plant sexual reproduction, such as male and female flower parts
and plant fertilization, is taught. With these standards in mind, and knowing that
most of the books in this study were within the 5-year-old to 9-nine-year old reading
level, it appears that most books are written at a level of content detail appropriate
for their target ages. All but 14 of the books focus strictly on the production of fruits
and seeds by plants and/or its relation to pollinators or pollination. It is the 14 books
that go beyond basic pollination and mention fertilization of eggs by sperm that are
introducing content that is educationally more appropriate for students of an older
age. Since the books used in this study were trade books and were not necessarily
created for school instructional use, these mismatches between reading level and
curriculum standards are not unexpected. This often means that, for classroom
instruction purposes, elementary teachers should review books about plants and
make sure that they show a plant that produces a flower, and that this flower then
generates a fruit that contains seeds. It should ideally mention a pollinator, or
perhaps show an image of a pollinator to which the teacher could refer, and mention
how the pollinator helps the plant and vice versa. Teachers may also want to view the
back page of children’s books, as they often contain additional content information
about plant reproduction.
Given that most books will not be perfectly suited for classroom instruction about
plant reproduction, it appears that teachers need to be prepared to supplement the
 From Flowers to Fruits 1693

reading of children’s trade books about plants with additional clarifications about
plant reproduction. If the book does not specifically mention that the fruit forms at
the site of the flower, they need to clarify that for the students. For a book with heavy
textual or visual references to pollinators, they need to emphasize the role of pollina-
tion in plant reproduction. Teachers may also want to do their own research and
assess the knowledge students acquire after reading children’s books about plants.
This will enable the teachers to identify and correct student misconceptions that
might arise from the books.

Conclusions and Future Directions

This study has made predictions and suggestions for how children’s books about
plants may be used in classrooms to teach about a specific topic such as plant repro-
duction. In general, it found that children’s books can be used effectively, but teach-
ers need to match the book’s content to their curriculum and be aware of the
inaccuracies and content gaps outlined in this study. They should pay close atten-
tion to the use of botanical vocabulary in the books and make sure the words are
being used correctly for students to gain an accurate understanding of the concept.
Obviously, teachers would be well-served to have subsets of books on every science
topic reviewed by content experts with these sorts of recommendations, but until
that time teachers will have to use checklists (Mayer, 1995; Sudol & King, 1996)
and their own analysis of the books to guide them in selecting appropriate books.
More importantly, the study highlights concerns that what students might learn
from children’s books about plants will not help them understand the mechanism of
sexual reproduction in flowering plants. They may understand that fruits are made
by plants but not know that flowers are the location of this process. They may
understand that pollination is somehow related to plant reproduction but be unable
to define what role it plays or even why pollen movement is necessary. This will
cause students to construct their own understanding of the process, which may
result in misconceptions. These misconceptions could subsequently be difficult to
alter when the details about male and female reproductive parts and sex cells are
later introduced.
The study has clearly identified the need for more research on the topic of plant
reproduction. In particular, the potential for disassociation between flower and fruit
production seen in the books should be further explored. The incorrect lifecycle
drawings explored by Schussler and Winslow (2007) provide evidence that current
educational practice and cultural factors such as trade books cause ingrained
misconceptions about how plants reproduce. Identifying the factors that lead to
these misconceptions and what curricular interventions are necessary to cause
conceptual change is imperative to improve student understanding of plant lifecy-
cles. One area of study is whether students need to be taught the mechanism of fruit
and seed production at an earlier age. Perhaps learning about male and female
reproductive parts or sex cells after learning about pollination is hindering the ability
of students to make sense of the process. If research finds this to be the case, then
1694 E. E. Schussler

frameworks for the curriculum will need to be altered to facilitate student under-
standing of plant reproduction.
If children’s books are going to be an increasing component of science instruction
in elementary classrooms, more studies in the future need to focus on student
learning from these resources. For instance, a useful extension of this study would
be to choose a few children’s books about plants, use them for classroom instruction,
and assess what information about plant reproduction students acquired from the
books. Perhaps teachers could choose books with known inaccuracies and see
whether students can identify the incorrect information. Investigations of when to
use the children’s books in the classroom are also necessary. For example, studies
could investigate whether they should be used to motivate learning at the beginning
of a lesson, whether they should be integrated with a hands-on activity in the middle
of the lesson, or whether they should be used as a review of information that was
learned in a lesson. With the current high level of support for the use of children’s
books being expressed by teachers, students, and educators, it is imperative for us to
begin treating them as the potentially effective instructional tools they are, rather
than just as ‘children’s books’.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the following people who contributed to the data
analysis and/or improvement of the manuscript: Nazan Bautista, Vanessa Dollo,
Cameron Hay-Rollins, Kate Kuvalanka, Melanie Link-Perez, Lauren Morimoto,
Elise Radina, and Kirk Weber. She also gratefully acknowledges the Instructional
Materials Center at Miami University (particularly Frances Yates), the Lane Public
Library Branch in Oxford, Ohio, and an anonymous reviewer whose comments
improved the manuscript.

References
Armbruster, B.B. (1993). Science and reading. The Reading Teacher, 46, 346–347.
Barlow, D. (1991). Children, books and biology. BioScience, 41, 166–169.
Bebbington, A. (2005). The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological
Education, 39, 63–67.
Butzow, C.M., & Butzow, J.W. (1989). Science through children’s literature: An integrated approach.
Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.
Canal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis and ‘inverse respiration’ in plants: An inevitable misconception?
International Journal of Science Education, 21, 363–371.
Czerniak, C.M., & Lumpe, A.T. (1996). Relationship between teacher beliefs and science
education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 247–266.
Donovan, C.A., & Smolkin, L.B. (2002). Considering genre, content, and visual features in the
selection of trade books for science instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55, 502–520.
Ford, D. (2006). Representations of science within children’s trade books. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 43, 214–235.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
 From Flowers to Fruits 1695

Goins, S.L. (2004). Botany in children’s literature: A content analysis of plant-centered children’s picture
books that have a plot and characters. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Louisiana State University.
Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom.
Research in Science Education, 27, 323–337.
Hershey, D.R. (1996). A historical perspective on problems in botany teaching. The American Biol-
ogy Teacher, 58, 340–347.
Hershey, D.R. (2004). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. Retrieved September 5,
2007, from http:// www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey.html.
Kinchin, I.M. (1999). Investigating secondary-school girls’ preferences for animals or plants: A
simple ‘head-to-head’ comparison using two unfamiliar organisms. Journal of Biological
Education, 33, 95–99.
Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division, and inheritance—Do
students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 177–195.
Marriot, S. (2002). Red in tooth and claw? Images of nature in modern picture books. Children’s
Literature in Education, 33, 175–183.
Mayer, D.A. (1995). How can we best use children’s literature in teaching science concepts?
Science and Children, 32, 16–19, 43.
McMillan, B. (1993). Accuracy in books for young readers: From first to last check. The New
Advocate, 6, 97–104.
Mechling, K.R., & Oliver, D.L. (1983). Science teaches basic skills (Vol. 1). Washington, DC:
National Science Teachers’ Association.
Miller, K.W., Steiner, S.F., & Larson, C.D. (1996). Strategies for science learning. Science and
Children, 33, 24–27.
Moss, B. (1991). Children’s nonfiction trade books: A complement to content area texts. The
Reading Teacher, 45, 26–32.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Ozay, E., & Oztas, H. (2003). Secondary students’ interpretations of photosynthesis and plant
nutrition. Journal of Biological Education, 37, 68–70.
Rice, D.C. (2002). Using trade books in teaching elementary science: Facts and fallacies. The
Reading Teacher, 55, 552–565.
Rice, D.C., Dudley, A.P., & Williams, C.S. (2001). How do you choose science trade books?
Science and Children, 38, 18–22.
Romance, N.R., & Vitale, M.R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth
elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-long
study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545–554.
Ross, E.P. (1994). Using children’s literature across the curriculum, Fastback 374. Bloomington, IN:
Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
374 467)
Royce, C.A., & Wiley, D.A. (1996). Children’s literature and the teaching of science: Possibilities
and cautions. The Clearing House, 70, 18–20.
Ryman, D. (1974). Childrens’ understanding of the classification of living organisms. Journal of
Biological Education, 8, 140–144.
Schussler, E., & Winslow, J. (2007). Drawing on students’ knowledge about plant life cycles.
Science and Children, 44, 40–44.
Smith, E.L., & Anderson, C.W. (1984). Plants as producers: A case study of elementary science
teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 685–698.
Stavy, R., Eisen, Y., & Yaakobi, D. (1987). How students aged 13–15 understand photosynthesis.
International Journal of Science Education, 9, 105–115.
Sudol, P., & King, C.M. (1996). A checklist for choosing nonfiction trade books. The Reading
Teacher, 49, 422–424.
Tilgner, P.J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science and Education, 74, 421–431.
1696 E. E. Schussler

Uno, G.E. (1994). The state of precollege botanical education. The American Biology Teacher, 56,
263–267.
Wandersee, J.H. (1986). Plant or animals—Which do junior high school students prefer to study?
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 415–426.
Wood-Robinson, C. (1991). Young people’s ideas about plants. Studies in Science Education, 19,
119–135.

Children’s Books Cited

Bash, B. (2002). Tree of life: The world of the African Boabab (tree tales). San Francisco: Sierra Club
Books.
Cherry, L. (2003). How Groundhog’s garden grew. New York: Blue Sky Press/Scholastic Inc.
Cole, H. (1995). Jack’s garden. New York: Greenwillow.
Cole, J. (1995). The magic school bus plants seeds. New York: Scholastic Inc.
De Bourgoing, P. (1991). Fruit New York: Scholastic Inc.
Doyle, M. (1999). Jody’s beans. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick.
Gibbons, G. (1993). From seed to plant. New York: Holiday House.
Gibbons, G. (2000). Apples. New York: Holiday House.
Godwin, S. (2001). From little acorns … A first look at the life cycle of an oak tree. London: Hodder
and Stoughton Childrens Division.
Guiberson, B.Z. (1993). Cactus hotel New York: Henry Holt and Company Inc.
Kite, L.P. (1998). Dandelion adventures. Brookfield, CT: The Millbrook Press Inc.
Legg, G. (1998). From seed to sunflower London: Franklin Watts.
Llewellyn, C. (2004). Tree (starting life). Minocqua, WI: Northwood Press Inc.
Marzollo, J. (1997). I am an apple. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Morrison, G. (2000). Oak tree. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company/Walter Lorraine Books.
Petty, K. (1997). Sam plants a sunflower Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel Publishing.
Pfeffer, W. (2004). From seed to pumpkin. New York: HarperCollins Childrens Books.
Robbins, K. (1990). A flower grows. New York: Dial Books/Penguin Group Inc.
Rockwell, A. (1998). One bean. New York: Walker Publishing Company Inc.
Schaefer, L.M. (2000). This is the sunflower. New York: Greenwillow/HarperCollins Children’s.
Wallace, N.E. (2002). Pumpkin day! Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish Corporation.
Worth, B. (2001). Oh say can you seed?: All about flowering plants New York: Random House Books
for Young Readers.