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

net/publication/365751932

ADDED VALUE OF THE PL@NTNET SMARTPHONE APPLICATION FOR THE

MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE OF LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS IN SPECIES IDENTIFICATION

Conference Paper · November 2022

DOI: 10.21125/iceri.2022.1091

CITATIONS READS

3 120

2 authors:

Vida Lang Andrej Sorgo

University of Maribor University of Maribor
21 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS 196 PUBLICATIONS 1,886 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vida Lang on 28 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ADDED VALUE OF THE PL@NTNET SMARTPHONE APPLICATION
FOR THE MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE OF LOWER
SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN SPECIES IDENTIFICATION
V. Lang, A. Šorgo
University of Maribor, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics (SLOVENIA)

Abstract
Plants are found almost everywhere, but for most, with some exceptions of very common or useful
plants, their names are a mystery. Even more, some have called the attitude toward them "plant
blindness". There are several ways to identify plants, and most of them rely on identification keys that
are available in print or online. The traditional methods for plant identification are dichotomous,
politomous, and image-based identification keys. With the invention of the computer, identification keys
have been transferred to digital and interactive formats, and more recently to smartphone formats. The
objective of the study was to determine the added value of Pl@ntNet compared to the use of traditional
image-based printed identification keys and unstructured searches on the Internet. We wanted to
compare identification results and accuracy between the three approaches. We were also interested in
student satisfaction and differences in perceived obstacles between the three methods. Of particular
interest was satisfaction with mobile technology-based plant identification, which can be considered a
bridge to avoid plant blindness. The task of the 86 14-year-old students was to identify six plant species.
Two with the help of the book, two with the help of the Internet and two with the help of Pl@ntNet. After
completing the task, the differences between the three methods were evaluated. The students were also
asked their opinion about the difficulty of the task and satisfaction with the lesson. It was noted that
students will prefer the book. When asked which implementation of plant identification they had the least
problems with, 59.3% of the respondents answered that they had the least problems identifying plants
with the Pl@ntNet application. They had the most problems with plant identification via the Internet
(79.1%). When asked which identification method they would choose if given the choice, they answered
that they (54.7%) would identify the plant using a book. Based on their experience with all methods, they
determined that the least difficult method of plant identification was using the Pl@ntNet application, and
the most difficult method of plant identification was using the Internet. The students express high level
of satisfaction with this experience. By teaching identification principles, we can provide students with
lifelong skills that they can use even after they graduate from high school.
Keywords: identification keys, plant blindness, plant identification, Pl@ntNet, smartphones.

1 INTRODUCTION
Plants are found almost everywhere, but for most, with some exceptions of very common or useful
plants, their names are a mystery. Even more, some have come to recognize the attitude toward them
as "plant blindness" [9]. People with "plant blindness" often habitually ignore plants or fail to recognise
the importance of plants, which is a major challenge for plant biodiversity conservation, scientific
research, and education. [2], p. 926, raises the question of plant blindness: "Plants fuel life on Earth by
tapping the sun's energy. But if plants are the main mediators between the physical and biological
worlds, why do most people tend to appreciate animals so much more than plants?" According to Allen
[2], the term plant blindness was introduced by Wandersee and Schussler in 1998 as "the inability to
see or notice the plants in one's own environment, leading to the inability to recognize the importance
of plants in the biosphere and in human affairs" (p. 926). There is much evidence of proposals to reduce
plant blindness [6], [12], [14] and most of these recognize plant identification as key to its prevention.
Plant species identification is a standard procedure in botany and biology classes and may also be of
interest to more general audiences such as nature lovers, hikers, and ecotourists. From this perspective,
plant identification can be considered a lifelong skill that should be learned during formal education.
Plant identification is essentially a matter of comparing an unknown specimen that someone wishes to
identify with a known plant that has already been determined and taxonomically classified. For students
and most amateur plant enthusiasts, modern taxonomic methods such as gene sequencing are
prohibitively expensive, so they rely on observation of the morphological or anatomical structure of the
plant [15] - a method also used by professional field botanists. There are several ways to identify plants

Proceedings of ICERI2022 Conference ISBN: 978-84-09-45476-1

4534
7th-9th November 2022
[8], and most of them rely on identification keys available in print or online. The traditional methods for
plant identification are dichotomous, politomous, and image-based identification keys. With the invention
of the computer, identification keys have been transferred to digital and interactive formats. One such
initiative is Keytonature, where interactive identification keys for many taxa have been developed for
both stationary and mobile computers and smartphones [13].
The latest approach is a new generation of identification keys developed on the basis of image
recognition. They work by the user providing a photo of a species of interest or its anatomical parts and
comparing it to a database of existing photos over the Internet [7]. One of the online plant identification
applications is Pl@ntNet (https://identify.plantnet.org/). Pl@ntNet is a free web-based application for cell
phones that allows plants to be identified using the camera of a smart cell phone. Since Pl@ntNet is a
tool for identifying plants from photographs, these should be uploaded to the system when better or
cheaper connections are available. It is also organized by different thematic and geographic floras, from
which it is possible to choose the one that corresponds to the region or area that interests one. The
Pl@ntNet mobile application was chosen because it does not contain advertising, it fits plant
identification into the curriculum of several school subjects and extracurricular activities, and it allows
identification by different plant parts (e.g., flowers, leaves), which is the most common situation and
experience for a hands-on naturalist. Cultivated and ornamental plants are also included in the
identification process, which is not the case with many traditional keys. Experience has shown that the
application works intuitively, so that it can be used by the untrained without a long training period.
Additionally, but not yet tested, is its possibility to be used as an additional tool for plant identification for
blind and visually impaired people [3].
The aim of this study was identification of added value of the Pl@ntNet when compared with the use of
traditional image-based printed identification key and unstructured search on the Internet. Outcomes of
identification and accuracy of identification were planned to be compared between three approaches.
In the second part of the study we were interested in satisfaction and differences with perceived
obstacles of the students with the three methods. Satisfaction with mobile technology-assisted plant
identification was of particular interest, as it can be seen as a bridge to avoid plant blindness. According
to references mobile technology-enhanced learning increases intrinsic motivation [11], which may thus
promote satisfaction. Satisfaction plays an important role in the effectiveness of mobile learning.
Satisfaction would better integrate learning with mobile technologies than dissatisfaction. It can also
determine whether learners are willing to accept mobile learning, and thus has a great impact on the
effectiveness of mobile learning. It has been helpful to identify both the advantages and disadvantages
of mobile technologies.
Therefore, one of the research questions in this study is how satisfied the participants are with using the
Pl@ntNet smartmobile application in fieldwork for plant identification.

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Participants and procedure

86 lower secondary school students participated in the study. 55.8% males and 44.2% females with an
average age of 14 years. We conducted the investigation as one of the fieldwork workshops in the
school in nature.

2.2 Instruments
The instrument consisted of three parts. The first knowledge part consists of instructions on how to
conduct the workshop, describing the workflow, followed by a teaching sheet with tables to fill in. The
instructions for students were “The teacher will show you six different plants in nature. Then you should
determine the name of the plants in three ways:
1 Two plants with the help of a book and a picture identification key book (exercise 1),
2 Two plants using a mobile phone and browsing the Internet (exercise 2) and
3 Two plants using a mobile phone and the Pl@ntNet application (exercise 3).
They were limited to 15 minutes for each of the work methods. After 15 minutes, the groups rotated so
that all students performed all 3 methods of plant identification.

4535
The second attitudes and opinions part of the instrument asked for students' opinions about the use of
a smartphone during fieldwork.
Satisfaction with using Pl@ntNet in the field was assessed on a seven-points scale where the
participants decided whether the use of the mobile phone for plant identification was: fun, educational,
understandable, easy, successful. For each item, students expressed their agreement on a 7-point
Likert scale (1- do not agree at all, 2- disagree, 3- partially disagree, 4- neither agree nor agree, 5-
partially agree, 6- agree, 7- completely agree). The scale was adapted from satisfaction scale (Debevc
et al., 2021).
The second question asked students to decide a) which exercise gave them the least difficulty, b) which
exercise gave them the most difficulty, c) if they had to repeat the exercise, which way of executing the
exercise (exercise 1, exercise 2, or exercise 3) they would choose.
For the third question, the types of execution of the exercises were arranged from the least difficult
execution (marked with the number 1) to the most difficult execution of the exercise (marked with the
number 3).
In the third part we asked for demographic questions, such as gender.

2.3 Statistical procedures

Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package IBM SPSS 28.0 to answer the research
questions.
For the first knowledge part differences between previous knowledge and success of the identification
were explored by means of basic descriptive statistics.
The reliability of the scale was examined by calculating Cronbach's alpha. Given the satisfactory alpha
values and to maintain the breadth of the scale, no items were dropped from a pool even when an
increase in alpha was predicted. The Cronbach's α of the items about satisfaction with using Pl@ntNet
in the field questioner is 0.72. PCA was conducted to identify if a scale was unidimensional.
The effect size (Cohen’s h) was calculated [5] to investigate the relationship between groups.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Plant identification performance

The Table 1 shows that a very small percentage, less than 40% of students recognize the plant without
looking at any of the identification’s aids. The table shows that students had the most problems
identifying the plant using the free Internet, i.e., free web surfing. This method also spent them the most
time - they spent more time than planned on plant 3, so they could not identify plant 4. The most
successful method of plant identification was the method using identification keys from books, where
the success rate in determining the Slovenian name was 94.2% for plant 1 and 60.5% for plant 2.
Determination of the plant with the help of an application is also a successful method. Plant 5 was
correctly determined by 88.4% and plant 6 by 51.2% of the participants. We also calculated the
difference between the best result and the previous recognition (Previous recognition), where the greater
the difference, the greater the progress. The results show that the method implemented with the book
contributed to the better progress of the students in naming the plant than either of the other two
methods. Similar results were obtained with the calculated Cohen's h effect [5], showing a large effect
(1.22) for the method using the book, a small effect (0.39) for the naming method using the Internet, and
a small effect (0.44) for the determination method using the Pl@ntNet application. The comparison in
the correctness of plant naming is also shown graphically in Figure 1.

4536
 Table 1. Frequency (%) of correctly identified species using three identification methods (N = 86).

Previous Slovenian Professional

Methods Plant (P) English name Diff.* Cohen’s h
recognition name name
Book P1 39.5 94.2 93 3.5 54.7 1.3
P2 17.4 60.5 61.6 0 44.2 0.92
P1 + P2 5.8 57 57 0 51.2 1.22
Internet P3 18.6 77.9 79.1 31.4 60.5 1.27
P4 17.4 26.7 27.9 10.5 10.5 0.23
P3 + P4 11.6 26.7 27.9 10.5 15.1 0.39
Pl@ntNet P5 33.7 88.4 95.3 68.6 61.6 1.21
P6 34.9 51.2 65.1 32.6 30.2 0.33
P5 + P6 25.6 46.5 65.1 27.9 20.9 0.44
(Note: *Difference between the highest results of identification and Previous recognition.)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6

Previous recognition Professional name Slovenian name English name

Figure 1. Comparison of the correct identification of plant names.

The correctness of the plant identification was evaluated with a rank from 0 to 3. It was considered that
a rank of 0 meant that the student completely misnamed the plant or left the answer blank. Rank 1 was
used to score answers where the student correctly identified at least the group to which the plant belongs
or one of the names (Slovenian, professional, or English). Rank 2 was used to score students who
correctly assigned the plant to its family or correctly named at least two of the names (Slovenian,
professional, or English). Rank 3 means that the student correctly determined the name and species of
the plant and spelled all 3 names correctly. Table 2 shows the results of this evaluation and the
distribution of responses in ranks. Students were very good at getting the names completely correct
when identifying with the book. Plant 1 and was identified completely correctly by 81.4 % students. Plant
2 was identified completely correctly by 55.8% of the students. These percentages are lower when
identifying with the Internet and the Pl@ntNet application.

4537
 Table 2. Ranked the correctness of a given name in 0 - 3 ranks. (N = 86).

Book Internet Pl@ntNet

Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6
Rank 0 2.3 33.7 20.9 66.3 5.8 37.2
Rank 1 9.3 5.8 3.5 11.6 7.0 17.4
Rank 2 7.0 4.7 11.6 4.7 9.3 9.3
Rank 3 81.4 55.8 64.0 17.4 77.9 36.0
Average value of Rank 0 18 43.6 21.5
Average value of Rank 1 7.6 7.6 12.2
Average value of Rank 2 5.9 8.1 9.3
Average value of Rank 3 68.6 40.7 56.95
(Note: rank 0 = Wrong identification or blank answer, 3 = Complete identification of plant to species.)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6

Rank 0 Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3

Figure 2. Comparison of the correct determination of the name of plants evaluated by ranks 0 - 3.

3.2 Satisfaction with using Pl@ntNet in the fieldwork

The first question of the questionnaire aimed to find out what the students' attitudes and opinions were
about using a smartphone during fieldwork. From Table 3, it can be seen that students feel that using a
smartphone during fieldwork is successful and educational. They also think that the use of the
smartphone during the exercise was understandable, fun and unpretentious.

Table 3. Descriptive analysis of the question of satisfaction with the use of a smartphone for plant
identification in the field.

Due to the use of a smartphone to

Mean Med Mode SD PC
identify plants, the exercise was:

Successful 6.42 7.00 7 1.14 0.78

Instructive 6.13 6.00 7 1.08 0.70
Understandable 5.97 6.00 6 1.11 0.86
Fun 5.81 6.00 7 1.39 0.67
Unpretentious 5.29 6.00 6 1.68 0.50
(Note: 1- do not agree at all, 2- disagree, 3- partially disagree, 4- neither agree nor
agree, 5- partially agree, 6- agree, 7- completely agree. Explained variance: 50.7;
Eigenvalue = 2.54; Cronbach's alpha = .72)

4538
3.3 Which method of conducting plant identification would students choose?
The purpose of the second part of questionnaire was to find out which method of identifying plants in
fieldwork students were most satisfied with (Table 4). When asked which implementation of plant
identification they had the least problems with, 59.3% of respondents answered that they had the least
problems identifying plants with the Pl@ntNet application. They had the most problems with plant
identification versus the Internet (79.1%). When asked which identification method they would choose if
given the choice, they answered that they (54.7%) would identify the plant using a book.

Table 4. Analysis of the problem of difficulties in the implementation of plant identification with three different methods.

Exercise 1 Exercise 2 Exercise 3

Questions
(book) (internet) (Pl@ntNet)
With which exercise did you have the least
34.9% 5.8% 59.3%
problems?
Which exercise did you have the most
18.6% 79.1% 2.3%
difficulty with?
If you had to do the exercise again, which
54.7% 5.8% 39.5%
execution method would you choose?

Table 5. Ranked the plant identification methods by difficulty.

Method of performing the exercise 1 2 3

Exercise 1 (book) 30.2% 40.7% 29.1%
Exercise 2 (internet) 9.3% 27.9% 62.8%
Exercise 3 (Pl@ntNet) 60.5% 31.4% 8.1%
(Note: 1 - the least difficult and 3 - the most difficult implementation method.)

Students also ranked the plant identification methods by difficulty (Table 5), with 1 being the least difficult
and 3 being the most difficult implementation method. Based on their experience with all of the
implementations, they determined that the least difficult method of plant identification is using Pl@ntNet
aplication (Exercise 3) and the most difficult method of free plant identification is using the Internet
(Exercise 2).

4 CONCLUSIONS
One of the tasks that modern society places on today's teachers is to prepare students for life in the
digital age. In many countries, including Slovenia [10], school activities of studying plants are mostly
limited to the classroom. The ability to name at least the most common species would improve a
teacher's ability to do biology fieldwork [4]. Regardless of the school's technical equipment, students'
cell phones and free apps from Google Play or the App Store, etc., can be used in the classroom. Mobile
apps like Pl@ntNet Plant Identification can help students better identify plants, helping to eliminate plant
blindness. Many [6], [12], [14] have already explored that plant identification is the key to preventing
plant blindness. In this study, we describe 3 methods of plant identification (book, internet, and
Pl@ntNet) and determine their effectiveness and satisfaction.
The students themselves note that they had the most difficulty identifying plants by moving freely on the
Internet. The question here is whether they are also aware of this when they surf the Internet on a daily
basis. It can be seen that they made the least progress with this method, spent the most time, and were
themselves dissatisfied as they described this method as the most challenging to identify. They
described the Pl@ntNet application as the least demanding method for identifying plants. They also
believe that they had the least problems with the Pl@ntNet application. However, despite the fact that
they had the least problems with the application, when asked which method they would choose again
for identification, they choose not to use the Pl@ntNet application, but to identify the plant with a book.
Identifying plants with the help of the book is rated as moderately challenging by the students. From this

4539
 it can be summarized that the students do not want the easiest methods and the easiest way to the
solution, but choose a method that brings a greater effect of the correctness of the result.
It is interesting to note that although respondents selected the Pl@ntnet application as the method with which
they had the fewest problems, they would prefer to use identification sources from books for future species
identification. The result can be interpreted in light of Ackerman and Goldsmith's [1] and Torkar's [16] findings
that learners still prefer to study texts from books rather than computer or smartphone screens.

REFERENCES
[1] Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus
on paper. Journal of experimental psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18.
[2] Allen, W. (2003). Plant blindness. BioScience, 53(10), 926-926. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-
3568(2003)053%5b0926:PB%5d2.0.CO;2
[3] Anđić, B., Šorgo, A., Cvjetićanin, S., Maričić, M., & Stešević, D. (2021). Multisensory Identification
of Characteristics of Reproductive Plant-Parts by People with Blindness or People with Ultra-Low-
Vision. Exceptionality, 1-14.
[4] Bebbington, A. (2005). The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological
Education, 39(2), 63-67.
[5] Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. Hillsdale, NJ, 20-26.
[6] Colon, J., Tiernan, N., Oliphant, S., Shirajee, A., Flickinger, J., Liu, H., ... & McCartney, M. (2020).
Bringing botany into focus: Addressing plant blindness in undergraduates through an immersive
botanical experience. BioScience, 70(10), 887-900.
[7] Goëau, H., Bonnet, P., Joly, A., Bakić, V., Barbe, J., Yahiaoui, I., ... & Peronnet, A. (2013, October).
Pl@ ntnet mobile app. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp.
423-424).
[8] Hagedorn, G., Rambold, G., & Martellos, S. (2010). Types of identification keys. EUT Edizioni
Università di Trieste.
[9] Hoekstra, B. (2000). Plant blindness—the ultimate challenge to botanists. The American Biology
Teacher, 62(2), 82-83. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2000)062[0082:PBTUCT]2.0.CO;2
[10] Huang, Y. M., Lin, Y. T., & Cheng, S. C. (2010). Effectiveness of a mobile plant learning system in
a science curriculum in Taiwanese elementary education. Computers & Education, 54(1), 47-58.
[11] Jeno, L. M., Grytnes, J. A., & Vandvik, V. (2017). The effect of a mobile-application tool on biology
students' motivation and achievement in species identification: A Self-Determination Theory
perspective. Computers & Education, 107, 1-12.
[12] Jose, S. B., Wu, C. H., & Kamoun, S. (2019). Overcoming plant blindness in science, education,
and society. Plants, People, Planet, 1(3), 169-172.
[13] Nimis, P. L., Riccamboni, R., & Martellos, S. (2012). Identification keys on mobile devices: The
Dryades experience. Plant Biosystems-An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant
Biology, 146(4), 783-788.
[14] Pany, P. (2014). Students’ interest in useful plants: A potential key to counteract plant
blindness. Plant Science Bulletin, 60(1), 18-27.
[15] Santri, D. J., Anggraini, N., & Amizera, S. (2021). THE EFFECT OF USING APPLICATION BASED
ANDROID TO DEVELOPT THE KNOWLEGDE OF PLANT IDENTIFICATION FOR BIOLOGY
EDUCATION COLLEGE STUDENT. BIOEDUKASI: Jurnal Biologi dan Pembelajarannya, 19(2),
100-104.
[16] Torkar, G. (2021). Effectiveness of Digital and Paper-Based Identification Keys for Plants with
Slovenian Pre-Service Teachers. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(2), 619-627.

4540

View publication stats