Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

Talking about plants - comments of primary school

groups looking at plant exhibits in a botanical
garden

Sue Dale Tunnicliffe

To cite this article: Sue Dale Tunnicliffe (2001) Talking about plants - comments of primary
school groups looking at plant exhibits in a botanical garden, Journal of Biological Education,
36:1, 27-34, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2001.9655792

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2001.9655792

Published online: 13 Dec 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 266

View related articles

Citing articles: 26 View citing articles

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20

Download by: [New York University] Date: 02 March 2016, At: 01:03
 Educational Research
Talking about plants — comments
of primary school groups
looking at plant exhibits in a
botanical garden
Sue Dale Tunnicliffe
Homerton College, Cambridge, UK

There has been little work done on the early experiences of children looking at plant exhibits in botanical gar­
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:03 02 March 2016

dens. This project, a parallel study to one carried out in zoos, sought to establish what the groups talked about
and whether there were differences in content when adults were present and between single sex and mixed
groups. The conversations were collected during primary school visits to the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew,
England, whilst the groups looked at plant specimens. Transcripts of the conversations were analysed using a
systemic network. The results show that children talked spontaneously about easily observed features of
plants such as colour, shape, and smell. When cued by adults or other children in the group, children attended
to less obvious aspects. Pupil-only groups made significantly more statements than other groups, but asked
fewer questions and commented more about human use of plants. There were few differences between the
conversational content of boys-only, girls-only, and mixed groups; boys made more comments about plant
function. Older pupils made significantly more comments focused on the plants.
Key words: Primary school visit, Conversations, Plants.

Introduction or hanging baskets, or just admiring specimens seen on walks

Living organisms are an essential part of the environment, yet
we understand little about how children perceive them. A per­
son's attitude towards and understandings of 'the environment
are profoundly shaped by their attitudes towards, experiences,
and understandings of living organisms' (Tunnicliffe and Reiss,
1999b; 2000). Plants are key members of the environment.
However some people have 'plant blindness', which is the
inability to recognise the importance of plants in both the envi­
ronment and human affairs, an inability to appreciate the aes­
thetic and unique biological features of plants, and the belief
that plants are inferior to animals (Wandersee and Schussler,
2001). This paper considers the response of pupils to plants in
a botanical garden where, unlike the familiar domestic garden,
the plants on exhibit are mostly exotic.
Children learn about animals and plants from their earliest
moments (Keil, 1979). Plants are an important part of the
scenery of children's lives. Children notice these biological
organisms as they walk around both inside and outside.
Children have an understanding of vegetation which con­
tributes to their understanding of their environment. Urban
children have preferences for aspects of nature involving plants
(Simmons, 1994), but gradually adopt the adult attitude that
vegetation is worthless and utilitarian (Schneekloth, 1989).
Children learn about plants from their family, be it someone
trying to eradicate moss from the lawn, planting out flower beds
(Tunnicliffe and Reiss, 2000). Tunnicliffe and Reiss reported
that school was not a place identified by children as a source of
their knowledge about plants. Pupils admitted to learning little
from books or the media, but a lot from their own everyday
observations.
Although animals form the highest proportion of words in a
child's first vocabulary (Rinsland, 1946), the form and function
of a conversation are likely to reflect the age of the children
concerned and the objectives behind it. Bruner (1983) observed
the specific 'labelling' pattern of conversations. Children learn
to identify an organism using a basic or everyday name (Rosch
and Mervis, 1975; Brown, 1958). Markman (1989) considers
that a basic level category compromises between two different
goals of categorisations. First, maximising similarity between
category members and minimising similarity with other cate­
gories. Secondly, children intuitively want to know the names of
things that they see, because a name provides the handle for a
concept and enables it to be discussed.
Children recognise plants and animals and name them with
an everyday name or a descriptive name if they do not have the
'correct' vocabulary. When failing to recall or invent a descrip­
tive name, children refer to an unfamiliar specimen as 'plant',
although the term 'plant' is used to refer most often to the flow­
ering plants. This is similar to the usage of 'animal' to mean
'mammal' (Bell, 1981). 'Plant' is a term restricted in everyday

Journal of Biological Education (2001) 36(1) 27

 Q Talking about plants Tunnicliffe

understanding to refer to the small herbaceous Angiosperms
also referred to as flowers (Ryman, 1974). Bell (as Stead, 1980]
found that children aged 9 - 1 5 had a much narrower meaning
of the word plant than biologists. A tree for example is not con­
sidered as a plant (Bell, 1981), and everyday grouping of plants
such as weeds, vegetables, and seeds were considered equivalent
categories to 'plant', not subsets. Moreover, historical ideas,
which are not part of the consensus of scientific knowledge,
such as the idea that plants obtain food through their roots
(Barker, 1995), persist within society and are probably held by
the children and the adults who accompany them on visits.
Taxonomy is a key element of biological learning. Knowing
the accepted scientific reasons for classifying in the scientific
manner, as well as the appropriate vocabulary, is a difficult set
of concepts over which to acquire mastery. Scientific taxonomy
has to be taught together with the embedded knowledge inher­
ent within the taxonomic hierarchies. Ryman (1974) showed
that the inability of 11 year old children to classify the biologi­
cal exemplars they were given as a member or non-member of
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:03 02 March 2016
viewing plants is enabling visitors to attend to these issues and
whether the messages explicit within the exhibits reach the vis­
itors. Listening to and analysing the unsolicited conversations of
visitors is one way to ascertain whether or not this occurs.
This paper reports on the content of the conversations gener­
ated by primary school groups during educational visits to a
botanical garden in England. The schools that feature in this
study had arranged the trips for science and social educational
objectives. In most cases a talk and walk round one of the green­
houses had been booked with an education officer. The data
were collected whilst the schools had their own time to look
round and before their booked talk. One infant school
(Children were 6 years and of non Caucasian ethnic origins)
wanted the children to have the experience of using public
transport, of visiting Kew Gardens as part of learning about
English culture, and of seeing a variety of plants as part of their
science work. Other groups had particular science objectives in
mind, such as the variety of plants and adaptations to differing
habitats.

a taxonomic group suggests that the children had no grasp of The research reported in this paper seeks to find out whether
the defining attributes required to perform such a task. Striking the school groups named the plants, talked about their struc­
features, such as shape and colour, become criteria for children's tures, mentioned their physiology, and talked about other topics
constructions of particular plants and become incorporated in such as aesthetic and utilitarian aspects. This paper also looks at:
their mental models of different kinds of species. Trowbridge whether there was an effect on the conversations of the groups
and Mintzes (1985) maintain that '... students consider ambigu­ if there was an adult present; if the age of the children affected
ous and often conflicting pieces of information when classifying the topics discussed; and whether boys and girls discussed dif­
animals, ultimately arriving at a decision based on relative size ferent topics.
or perceived importance of body parts'.
Tull (1994) found that children from a small university Methodology
town in central Texas in the USA named plants in the field with In total 412 conversations were collected over a number of days
a generic name, but this term was not one that would be accept­ at the Royal Botanical Garden, Kew, UK. All the school groups
able to science teachers. Moreover, Tull found that the alloca­ were from primary schools and the pupils were mainly 7, 9, or
tion of a name stopped the individual having to admit that they 11 years old. Most of the school parties divided up the pupils so
did not know the 'correct' one. However, knowing everyday that there was between one and ten pupils per adult led group.
names is not the same as learning plant taxonomy in the scien­ It was in these subgroups that the visits were undertaken and
tific sense. Askham (1976) showed that young children can clas­ the conversations studied. The groups were walking around fol-
sify plants. However, they do not use one
particular method, but look for salient
features such as prominent leaves, colour,
or tactile features in their groupings.
Most visitors to botanic gardens
begin their visit with feelings and some
facts about both the site and the plant
exhibits (Simmons, 1994) as well as
everyday knowledge of plants. The spon­
taneous comments of primary and family
groups at animal exhibits, at skeletons in
a museum, and in botanical gardens have
been previously studied (Tunnicliffe,
1995; 1998; 1999). Finding out the com­
ments of pupils is important (Tunnicliffe
and Reiss, 1999a) as the visitors have a
mental model of the plants on exhibit.
One of the functions of botanical
gardens is to develop public understand­
ing of biodiversity and conservation biol­
ogy whose foundations lie in
identification of specimens and recogni­
tion of criterial attributes. We, as educa­
tors, can consider the extent to which Children at the Royal Botanical Garden, Kew, UK.

28 Journal of Biological Education (2001) 36(1)

 Talking about plants Tunnicliffe

r leaf mention
way that comparisons can be made between groups. It is a
no
type of analysis that changes qualitative into quantifiable
flower/fruit mention data. A systemic network was chosen because its con­
no struction, and the subsequent allocation of words and
phrases to its categories, captured the meanings of the
Anatomical stem mention utterances within the correct context. Analysis packages
~ no no
are more suitable for long interview type transcripts rather
form of growth mention than these short, often one to three word utterances,
e.g. spiky no which formed many conversations. Each topic of conver­
sation was coded according to the systemic network devel­
dimension mention oped from the work of Bliss et al. (1983). The network
no had been developed from pilot studies in which 50 con­
versations about animals had been collected and inspected
Plant focused — L other mention
no for patterns of content and form (Tunnicliffe, 1995) and
then modified for plants.
f growth mention
The network can be regarded analogously as the sets of
Functions no
no nested boxes into which the researcher puts each part of
food/photosynthesis mention the conversation. There were 56 categories in this network
no some of which are shown in Figure 1. A bar ([) indicates
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:03 02 March 2016

that an attribute may be either/or but not a member of

other
r everyday name
— Naming
1
— no common name
compare
categories
mistake
v_
Figure 1 Part of the network used in the analysis of the conversations about plants. • Exhibit focused comments which were divided into two
This section is about plant focused comments.
lowing their own agenda, sometimes they had worksheets or a
task to perform, but they were not accompanied by an
Education officer.
Conversations of these sub groups were recorded verbatim in
a notebook. Tape recording had proved too difficult because of
extraneous noises. Immediately after each visit the written con­
versations were transcribed by the same researcher. Permission
to work with the groups had been obtained in advance from all
of the schools. To facilitate the analysis of the transcripts the
data were considered in terms of units of conversations. A unit
of conversation was defined as the 'group conversation in front
of any one exhibit from the beginning of the conversation until
it ceased'. An example of a unit of conversation is shown below.
At Carnivorous plants with Year 4 pupils
Adult: 'There's a Venus Fly Trap.'
Girl: 'Oh yes! A Fly trap. It's got stuff on it!'
Adult: 'You can see one closed. It's got a fly in it.'
A systemic network was chosen to analyse the conversations.
This is a means of grouping or categorising things, in this case
conversations, to be a parsimonious representation of the data,
while preserving the relationships between categories in such a
mention both categories, whilst a bracket ({) indicates one of a
no
number of categories which a plant may have.
mention The major categories of the network were:
no • Management and social comments, such as 'Come here',
or 'Sam...';
mention • Ostensive comments such as 'Look!', 'There!';
no • Affective attitudes, including emotive comments of
'like' and 'dislike' and other comments such as expres­
mention
no
sions of care for plants;
• Exhibit access or orientation comments in which visitors
mention searched for or located the plants;
no • Interpretative comments, which included comments
such as questions and references to a source of the infor­
mention
mation proffered (such comments were called
no
Knowledge source comments);
categories: those which focused on the plants; and Other
exhibit comments, such as artefacts which were features
of exhibits, i.e., gravel, statues, or animals seen amongst
the plants. The plant-focused category was subcate-
gorised into four subordinate groups:
Environmental comments referring to the natural habitat
or endangered status or conservation issues of the species;
■ Comments on the plants' structure;
Comments on the plants' physiology (equivalent to animal
behaviour);
■ Comments on the plants' names. These included the
everyday names, e.g. pineapple; category names such as
plant, carnivorous plants, alpine plants, cactus; common
names, for example Living Stone Plants, Giant Amazon
Water Lily; and, occasionally, the botanical name, for
example Lithops species.
A theoretical 'waste basket category' for topics such as secu­
rity alert announcement comments, which were uncategorised,
was provided.
Each category of comment had a number allocated to it. For
example, an anatomical comment was number 17, which sub­
sumed more detailed anatomical comments, namely leaves 18,
flower and fruits 19, stem 20, form of growth (spiky, sticky) 21,

Journal of Biological Education (2001) 36(1) 29

 Q Talking about plants Tunnicliffe

dimensions 22, and other 2 3 . A conversation was coded as fol­ Table 2 Plant focused topics
lows: t h e n u m b e r s of t h e coding system were written over t h e Topic Percentage (n = 412)
relevant words (not all t h e words have b e e n categorised here for Anatomical 87
ease of reading). Subsequently, an entry was t y p e d into t h e — leaves 12
columns within a Minitab (1991) spread sheet. As an example, — flowers and fruits 13
— stems 3
a sentence from t h e conversation given earlier as an exemplar
— form of growth 23
received t h e following codings: 'There' is an ostensive c o m m e n t — dimensions 23
and Venus Fly Trap a C o m m o n name. — other 22
6 30 Functions 19
— growth 3
Adult: The There's a Venus Fly Trap.'
— food/photosynthesis 6
— other II
If m o r e t h a n one c o m m e n t of a particular category (e.g. a Names 66
name) occurred within a single conversation, it was n o t scored — everyday names 14
again. Hence, t h e analysis shows t h e n u m b e r of conversations — common or scientific ]()

— categorisation 10
within which a topic is mentioned, n o t t h e n u m b e r of overall
— mistake 2
times t h a t a topic is m e n t i o n e d .
' O h ' was categorised as an Emotive response (39) and in t h e
superordinate category of Affective c o m m e n t s . 'Look' was cat­
egorised as b o t h a m a n a g e m e n t c o m m a n d (2) and an ostensive T h e frequency of t h e main categories of conversational topics
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:03 02 March 2016

c o m m e n t (4), which is part of t h e Exhibit Access category are shown in Table 1. There were relatively few Affective com­
showing other visitors w h e r e to look at an exhibit. T h e size of ments compared with similar conversations at live animal exhibits
t h e plant was categorised as dimension (21) and part of t h e (Tunnicliffe, 1995). T h e comments were generally ones of plea­
superordinate category of anatomy (17). Whilst 'lilies' is a n a m ­ sure at 'pretty' flowers or disgust at a smell. There were very few
ing c o m m e n t in t h e superordinate category N a m e s (28), it is other non-Emotive, b u t Affective, comments and these mostly
also an everyday n a m e (32) and a category n a m e (34). related to the care of t h e plants. Discussion of the rarity and con­
servation of plants was not high on t h e spontaneous agenda of the
Results groups, only 8% of conversations were on these topics. Plants as
T h e r e w e r e 2 3 0 conversations in boys-only groups, 143 in girls- exhibits are easily seen so only half of conversations had an
only groups, and 39 in mixed groups. O f these conversations, 'Exhibit access' type of comments (e.g. 'Where?') and were often
138 also contained an adult: 62 of t h e adults were teachers, t h e related to pointing something out to a peer or looking for some­
rest were chaperones, parents, or governors. T h e remaining 274 thing in particular. O t h e r exhibit c o m m e n t s were heard at least
c o n v e r s a t i o n s t o o k place w h e n p u p i l s w e r e alone ( t h e once in 4 0 % of conversations and t h e largest category was that of
researcher was standing nearby, b u t was n o t included in t h e con­ setting (22%), w h e n t h e groups referred to an aspect of this such
versations). as t h e heat in t h e tropical house, the humidity elsewhere. Labels
Plant exhibits t e n d to be c r o w d e d together. Hence, visitors were referred to directly in only 5% of conversations. Overall less
walk past t h e plants and c o m m e n t w h e n a salient feature references were m a d e to t h e other aspects of the exhibit than
were .done at animal exhibits. This might be because t h e plants
attracts their attention. This is unlike t h e situation w h e r e simi­
could be seen w i t h o u t searching for t h e m so there was less need
lar research has been carried o u t in zoos, w h e r e t h e visitors walk
to find something else upon which to comment.
further b e t w e e n exhibits, so t h e r e are fewer c o m m e n t s per unit
t i m e at t h e plant exhibits.
Most school groups looking at plants talked about t h e exhibit Comments about anatomy and physiology
and all b u t 7% of t h e conversations m e n t i o n e d t h e plants. Two W h e n t h e c o m m e n t s about plants are considered in more detail
thirds n a m e d t h e plant in s o m e way. Over half of t h e groups (Table 2) they show that, of t h e 19% of t h e conversations about
talked about an anatomical feature of which t h e dimensions functions, m o s t w e r e about growing or making food, often asso­
were t h e largest category, i.e.: ciated with discussions at t h e carnivorous plants. For example, a
A Year 2 boy: ' O h look at these e n o r m o u s lilies — are those Year 2 boy said 'They eat m e a t and insects. This one eats spiders,
e n o r m o u s lily pads?' it says so on t h e label'. A second boy nearby echoed 'They eat
Adult: 'Yes.' flies, it's meat!'. T h e dimensions of t h e plants, their colour, and
size, were m e n t i o n e d t h e most (in 26% of all conversations).
Table 1 Main categories of conversation at plants as exhibits ' O t h e r c o m m e n t s ' occurred in 7% of conversations and were
Topic Percentage (n = 412) about items such as prickles. T h e most frequent function of
Management/social comments 52 plants m e n t i o n e d was growth (9%)), followed by food (3%), and
Exhibit access 49 'other' including reproduction (5%).
Other exhibit 40
Affective 28
Interactions, other than looking, with plants
— emotive 27
Environment 8 T h e opportunity to interact w i t h t h e plants with more than
Plant focused 87 sight is an i m p o r t a n t part of t h e experience of observing plants.
Anatomical 56 For example:
Functions 19
Year 2 in t h e hot h o u s e
Naming 67
Girl: 'This is silky, silky leaves'

Journal of Biological Education (2001) 36(1)

 ) Talking about plants Tunnicliffe

Table 3 Content of conversations of groups with an adult and groups without. tell her w h a t a carnivorous plant was.
Category of comment All All adults Pupib only X2ldf Probability W h e n a child shouted 'Look!' her
(n=412) (n=138) (n=274) adults/pupil
teacher asked w h a t it was and sug­
Management/Social 213 93 120 20.46 p < 0.005 gested that the girl look at t h e label
Exhibit access 200 55 145 6.27 p < 0.025
and find out. At a banana plant a
Other exhibit 164 66 98 5.57 p < 0.025
Exhibit focused 388 128 260 0.76 teacher asked her group w h a t they
Plant focused 358 114 244 3.35 could see up there, thus directing their
— anatomical 232 88 144 4.69 p < 0.05 attention to t h e developing fruits on
— functional 80 47 33 28.43 p < 0.005 t h e plant.
— naming 277 91 186 0.16
Affective 116 34 82 1.27
Conversations with and without
— emotive 113 32 HI 1.87
adults in the group
All interpretative 275 132 143 78.10 p < 0.005
— interpretative 275 132 143 78.10 p < 0.005 Conversational content varied
— knowledge 209 105 104 53.39 p < 0.005 depending on t h e social composition
Human-plant 56 49 15 63.08 p < 0.005
of t h e group (Table 3). If an adult was
— real/live 6 3 3 N/A
— environment 33 16 17 N/A present within t h e group there were
fewer Management/social comments.
Likewise there w e r e far m o r e (p <
Adult: 'Paliavia' 0.025) c o m m e n t s about Exhibit access, seeking plants, and draw­
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:03 02 March 2016

Girl: 'It smells, ugh it smells!' ing attention of others to t h e m w h e n t h e pupils were alone. It is
interesting to note that w h e n pupils were alone they also m a d e
Boy: 'We're in a jungle!' m o r e c o m m e n t s about other aspects of t h e exhibit, such as
Teacher: ' W h a t does it feel like?' paths, ponds, and garden furniture.
Boy 1 : 'A jungle' Both groups w i t h and w i t h o u t an adult m a d e similar n u m b e r s
Boy 2: 'Warm' of c o m m e n t s a b o u t plants and naming and a b o u t h u m a n / p l a n t
Boy 3: 'Rainy' interactions. Significantly (p < 0.005] m o r e c o m m e n t s about
Teacher: 'It's not rainy b u t it's damp.' anatomical features and plant functions w e r e m a d e by groups
with an adult. Likewise b o t h groups had similar n u m b e r s of
Touching plants was m e n t i o n e d in 8% of conversations and conversations with Affective, including emotive, c o m m e n t s .
occurred quite often despite notices telling visitors not to t o u c h However, significantly m o r e conversations about interpretations
plants and gardeners reinforcing this message w h e n e v e r they w e r e generated by groups with an adult, except for t h e category
saw pupils doing so. of authenticy or 'realness' of a plant and t h e environmental
aspects, including conservation.
Naming plants T h e conversations of groups w i t h an adult contained signifi­
T h e data reveal that t h e groups have an everyday system for cantly m o r e c o m m e n t s (63%) about anatomy than did pupil-
classifying t h e plants. If a n a m e was not k n o w n t h e specimen only groups (52%). W i t h i n t h e subcategories of t h e category
was referred to as a plant. For e x a m p l e at an Opuntia a Year 6 Anatomy, t h e dimensions of plants, such as its size or colour,
girl remarked 'Weird plant!' and at t h e A m a z o n i a n Water Lilies and other features such as spines, w e r e c o m m e n t e d u p o n t h e
a boy from t h e same group remarked, 'These plants are really most. For example, a year 2 girl c o m m e n t e d t h a t ' T h e edge of
cool!'. Adults and pupils used everyday names for plants and t h e leaf is b r o w n ' . 'Edge' was categorised as ' O t h e r ' and 'brown'
allocated t h e m to everyday categories: 'are those weeds amongst was allocated t o t h e s u b c a t e g o r y D i m e n s i o n w i t h i n t h e
those flowers?' was one c o m m e n t overheard. A n a t o m y grouping. T h e pupil-only groups m a d e fewer com­
Pupils delighted in recognising plants with which they were m e n t s about physiological functions of t h e plants ( 5 3 % com­
familiar. A 6 year old boy remarked, 'I know that, look at t h a t p a r e d w i t h 64%) b u t n a m e d and c o m m e n t e d on plant anatomy
one there, these little ones. I've got these sort at h o m e ! ' (Venus at similar rates.
Fly Traps}. Teachers did introduce a topic on occasion and cued All t h e groups allocated a n a m e t o plants in a similar manner,
t h e pupils into making observations as in t h e following state­ b u t pupil-only groups c o m p a r e d plants with other plants and
m e n t from a conversation with a nine year old. with other items significantly m o r e often. Most c o m m e n t s were
Teacher: ' W h a t is that plant do you about anatomical features of t h e plants of which 1 3 % m e n ­
think?' tioned leaves, 20% flowers or fruits, and 4% t h e stem. T h e fea-
Girl: 'It looks a bit like a fern.'
Table 4 Knowledge source comments for groups with and without an adult.
Teaching opportunities Category of knowledge All All adults Pupils only \2 ldf Probability
source comments (n=412) (n=138) (n=274) adults/pupil
Whilst many conversational exchanges are missed
Questions 86 67 19 96.23 p < 0.005
teaching opportunities (Tunnicliffe et al, 1997),
Statements 153 64 89 7.59 p<0.01
some teachers used viewing plants to reinforce Schools 21 16 5 N/A
other areas of the curriculum, particularly literacy. Home ref 11 6 5 N/A
For example, at t h e Giant Water Lilies a teacher Imaginary 7 1 6 N/A
asked her charges what t h e label told them. At t h e Human use 35 17 18 3.90 p < 0.05
Plants action on humans 25 11 4 10 N/A
Carnivorous plants a teacher asked her pupils to

Journal of Biological Education (2001) 36(1) 31

 Q Talking about plants Tunnicliffe

Table 5 Knowledge source comments according to type of adult with group The content of conversations at
Category of knowledge All Chaperone Teachers Pupils-only \- ldf Probabilityplants varies too if subgroups, accord­
source comments n=412 n=76 n=62 n=274 adults/pupil
ing to the gender of the children in
Questions 86 29 38 19 37.30 p < 0.005 them, male only, female only, or
Statements 153 38 26 89 8.54 p < 0.025
mixed, are considered (Table 6).
Schools 21 9 7 5 N/A
Home ref. II 5 I 5 N/A Most of the adults were female.
Imagine 7 1 0 6 N/A There were no significant differences
Human use 35 7 10 18 6.01 p < 0.05 between the different gender groups
Plants action on humans 25 1 1 4 10 N/A when they referred to anatomical fea­
tures. However, conversations of
tures mentioned had to stand out from the rest of the plant. A mixed groups engendered significantly more statements than
7 year old boy commented for example, 'Look, snake up there, did those of boys or girls. Far more mixed groups made
that plant looks like one'. It was a vine. A Year 6 boy remarked Management and social comments. For example, a 7 year old
about an Urticularia flower, 'Crocuses. They are crocus boy shouted, 'Hey! Look! banana!'. Significantly fewer Exhibit
shaped!'. access comments were made by groups with only boys.
If the numbers of conversations with teachers and chaperones Functional comments were made most often by boy-only
about knowledge sources are considered separately from those groups (65% of conversations compared with 14% for girl-only
made by pupils only (Table 4), significantly more were gener­ groups and 28% for mixed groups). The functions or physiology
ated by groups with an adult. Significantly more reference was mentioned tended to be related to growth such as 'A lily pad
grows flowers', or to feeding, particularly with reference to car­
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:03 02 March 2016

made to the human use of plants by groups containing adults

although numbers are very small, 9% of total conversations.
Likewise 6% mentioned what plants can do to humans and only
4% of pupil-only conversations alluded to this.
Pupil-only groups generated significantly fewer Interpretative
comments (52%) compared with 95% for the groups with an
adult, in which adults asked almost as many questions as the chil­
dren did, accounting for the higher figure when adults and chil­
dren are together. For example, an adult asked her group at the
Sundew plant to observe and see what happened when the fly
came. A teacher asked her Year 6 group whether any one knew
before they saw the plant that banana trees had flowers and asked
them if they could work out what the flower developed into.
Effect of the adult being a teacher or a chaperone
The 'type' of adult who accompanies the pupils during the visit
also had an effect on the content of conversations (Table 5],
Significantly more conversations of teacher groups (61%) asked
questions, and pupil-only groups made few statements and
hardly asked any questions!
nivorous plants which was a popular destination for nearly all
groups. Over two thirds of the conversations of all groups
referred to a specimen by a name even if it were simply as
'plant'. Significantly more of the conversations of mixed groups
compared the plants with something else.
Effect of age of pupils in the school groups
The age of the pupils looking at plant exhibits affected the inci­
dence of some categories of conversation (Tables 7 and 8).
Groups with older children (key stage 2) made significantly
fewer Management and social and Exhibit access comments, but
made more comments focused on the plants. However, within
the category of Plant focused comments there was no significant
difference. There was no difference in the number of conversa­
tions containing emotive and affective comments between KS1
and KS2 groups. The younger (KS1) children commented signif­
icantly more about the plants (82% of conversations), whereas
only 50% of comments were about plants amongst the KS2
groups.

Gender composition of school groups Discussion and implications for teachers

The findings reported in this paper reflect
Table 6 Main categories of comment made by school groups when looking at plants as
exhibits in Kew gardens by gender. those reported by Askham (1976) from the
Category of All Male Female Mixed X" 2df Probability USA in which he reports that children look
comments n=412 n=230 n=143 n=39 adults/pupil for salient features in their grouping systems.
Management/Soc 213 123 59 31 18.59 p < 0.005 Primary school groups look at the noticeable
Exhibit access 200 59 69 23 28.64 p < 0.005 features. They focus on particular parts of the
Other exhibit 164 99 48 17 3.56 plants such as leaves, prickly stems, colourful
Exhibit focused 388 221 131 36 3.50
flowers, obvious fruit, or pattern on leaves,
Plant focused 358 202 125 31 2.09
— anatomical 232 120 87 25 3.75 and do not use these observations to justify
— functional 80 149 20 1 1 96.98 p < 0.005 the name of the plant. Their looking is hap­
— naming 277 150 99 28 1.05 hazard, but they do recognise familiar plants
Affective 116 60 43 13 1.26 and have an anthropocentric view about
— emotive 113 57 43 13 1.99 them — eating, cultivating, or maintaining
Interpretative 275 158 93 24 1.06
them for pleasure. Functions of plants are
Knowledge source 209 125 66 18 2.73
Real/live 6 4 2 1 N/A hardly talked about, although a few conver­
Environment 33 25 6 20 N/A sations did mention seed production and
'For tables larger than 2 x 2 the mean of the expected values should be six or more for tests at the 5% obtaining food. There was no pattern to the
level; for tests at more demanding levels, like 1% or 0.1%, the minimum expected value should be some­ observations other than it is prominent and
what higher'. Therefore the Chi squared value is not given for results that fall into this category of below
minimum number expected values. unusual features that catch the attention of

32 Journal of Biological Education (2001) 36(1)

 I Talking about plants Tunnicliffe

Table 7 Content of conversations engendered at plant exhibits according to different age

Varied meanings of term 'plant'
groups. T h e data show that t h e t e r m 'plant' was used
2
Category of All Key Stage 1 Key Stage 2 X 2df Probability
in t h r e e ways: first, to refer most often to t h e
comments =412 n=164 n=248 KS1 and KS2
flowering plants (Bell, 1981); secondly, t o
Management/Social 213 99 119 6.07 p < 0.025
Exhibit access 200 90 110 4.38 p < 0.005 refer t o c u l t i v a t e d ' d o m e s t i c ' plants as
Other exhibit 164 69 95 0.58 o p p o s e d to trees and weeds, which are n o t
Exhibit focus 388 152 236 1.10 perceived to be plants (this belief was illus­
Plant focused 358 135 123 45.15 p < 0.005 trated by t h e c o m m e n t from an adult with a
— anatomical 232 88 144 0.77
group, 'You can see weeds in b e t w e e n t h e
— functional 80 26 54 2.21
— naming 277 102 175 3.14 plants'); thirdly, as an ontological category
Affective 116 49 67 0.40 (Keil, 1979). 'Plant' was also t h e n a m e used
— emotive 113 47 66 0.21 w h e n no other n a m e was forthcoming.
Interpretative 275 105 170 0.93
— knowledge source 209 74 135 3.43 Recognition and identification of
Real/live 6 3 3 N/A specimens
Environment 33 8 25 3.62
Pupils w e r e able to identify s p e c i m e n s
t h r o u g h recognising different plants and
Table 8 Knowledge source comments at plants according to age groups of speakers. other items which they had e n c o u n t e r e d else­
Category of All Key Stage 1 Key Stage 2 \2 ?df Probability where. T h e groups c o m m e n t e d about t h e
comments n=412 n=164 n-248
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:03 02 March 2016

obvious features and n a m e d t h e specimens

Knowledge source 209 74 135 3.8 with an everyday n a m e not a scientific name.
Questions 86 34 52 0.01
Using their knowledge, t h e y sought t o inter­
Statements 158 50 108 7.5 p < 0.01
School ref. 21 10 13 N/A p r e t w h a t they noticed in t e r m s which they
Home ref. 1 1 6 5 ■ N/A could understand. T h e presence of an adult
Imagination 7 1 6 N/A e n h a n c e d t h e conversational content of these
Human use 35 4 21 6.4 p<0.01 school groups in being m o r e focused on ques­
Plants action on humans 25 7 18 4.6 p < 0.05
tions a n d s t a t e m e n t s of k n o w l e d g e and,
w h e r e a topic is clearly a p p a r e n t from t h e dis­
t h e children. N o t unsurprisingly, given t h e p o w e r of m o v e m e n t play, as at t h e carnivorous plants, dialogues did occur about
to attract attention of observers, if an animal appears amongst plant physiology and form. However, such teaching dialogues
the plants, for example t h e fish u n d e r t h e A m a z o n i a n Lily pads, were n o t t h e n o r m , suggesting t h a t some teachers and t h e chap-
t h e animal takes t h e attention of t h e children away from t h e erones were neither conversant with t h e botanical p h e n o m e n o n
plants. being observed nor with t h e emphasis which could be m a d e on
relevant topics to e n h a n c e t h e pupils' curricula in science.
T h e overall impression gathered from t h e data presented in this
However, opportunities for using life skills such as reading were
study is that the children follow a similar pattern when looking at
taken as appropriate by some adults.
plants as exhibits as they do w h e n looking at animals, commenting
upon salient features (Tunnicliffe, 1995; 1999). Comparisons with
what the groups are familiar with, form a higher proportion of Science talk not in evidence
their comments at plants as exhibits. Moreover, the conversations Many of t h e conversations r e p o r t e d h e r e have a specific
indicate an everyday botany, b u t not a scientific one. labelling function (Bruner, 1983), for people have an inherent
need to categorise and t h e conversations reported in this study
Science or everyday experience? reflect this. T h e use of any n a m e t o refer to a specimen illus­
T h e visits which are discussed in this paper were educational ones, trates M a r k m a n ' s (1989) point t h a t children intuitively want to
although the data were collected w h e n the groups were not hav­ know t h e n a m e s of things t h a t they see because a n a m e is the
ing a tour with an education officer, b u t were alone with their handle for a concept and enables it to be discussed. T h e visits
teacher or chaperone or no adult present. N o t unexpectedly, could be a basis on which plant classification could be devel­
groups with an adult asked significantly more questions and m a d e oped.
more statements of knowledge uian groups without an adult.
More questions were asked w h e n the adult was a teacher. Viewing plant specimens
However, references to botanical science were relatively infre­ Teachers w o u l d benefit from planning activities on visits to
quent, conversely everyday interpretations were t h e norm. Both plant collections by being aware of t h e u n i q u e experience of
children and adults made observations and named the plants. T h e looking at plants. School groups look at animal exhibits in turn
knowledge which these visitors brought with t h e m to the gardens and in isolation (Tunnicliffe, 1995). Conversely, they view plant
was largely from their out of school experiences. T h e children exhibits generally en mass (Tunnicliffe, 1999). At plant exhibits
interpreted the plants from their own experiences and memories. people scan t h e array of specimens for something that attracts
By attending to the results of the analysis of conversations, teach­ their attention and in so doing c o m m e n t less u p o n other aspects
ers may be able to formulate questions and focus the attention of of t h e exhibit. However, t h e scanning is done serially and not
their pupils on to aspects pertinent to t h e development of the bio­ relationally. N o r do these visitors refer back to other specimens
logical understanding as well as encouraging t h e m to develop and t h e y have seen. However, teachers and botanical educators
aesthetic appreciation of plants. could encourage a comparative, interpretative, and adaptive

Journal of Biological Education (2001) 36(1) 33

 f j Talking about plants
approach to plant observations by helping t h e children (and
their accompanying adults) t o focus on a particular set of
anatomical features, such as n u m b e r of petals, leaf shape, and
their functions in structural terms. T h e n pupils might start com­
paring and relating one specimen with another, building u p a
first h a n d repertoire of biologically p e r t i n e n t observations.
Aesthetics of visits
Visits to biological specimens on display have an aesthetic and
affective aspect as well as a factual one. Whilst t h e affective and
aesthetic domains may be less pronounced in conversational con­
tent amongst plant specimens t h a n they are at animal ones
(Tunnicliffe, 1995), they are as important as t h e factual observa­
tions made. Indeed, Stevenson (1991) showed that for family
groups visiting an interactive science centre it was these very
affective memories that, six m o n t h s later, triggered any recall
about factual matters in these visitors w h e n they were inter­
viewed. Thus, whilst some of t h e elements of 'plant blindness',
as defined by Wandersee and Schussler (2001) are apparent
Downloaded by [New York University] at 01:03 02 March 2016
within t h e conversations of these primary school groups, albeit to
a greater extent than may be considered desirable by botanical
educators and curriculum advisers, its very presence suggests
that, with careful nurturing by educators, a little 'plant vision'
could be nurtured and knowledge improved. Enjoying t h e ambi­
ence and aesthetics as well as t h e emotional response elicited by
exhibits is important. Personal and social education are part of
science education too (Tunnicliffe and Reiss, 1999c). Feelings,
not facts, are t h e key to further understanding biological p h e ­
n o m e n o n and, hence, to an increase in public understanding of
science in relation to t h e environment, conservation, and sus-
tainability. If w e are to develop and encourage environmentally
literate citizens, w e need to encourage t h e affective domain in
partnership with t h e cognitive. T h e environment includes living
organisms and h o w these organisms intact with t h e non living
environment as well as each other, including h u m a n kind. If peo­
ple do not know, appreciate, and feel for that which is in t h e
environment, h o w can they feel concerned about conserving it?
Perhaps t h e development of environmental awareness and feel­
ing for it are t h e m o r e important aspects of visits o u t of school?
References
Askham L A (1976) The effects of plants on classification behaviour in
an outdoor environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13,
49-54.
Barker M (1995) A plant is an animal standing on its head. Journal of
Biological Education, 29, 203 - 208.
Bell B (1981) When is an animal not an animal? Journal of Biological
Education, 15, 202 - 218.
Bliss J, Monk M, and Ogborn J (1983) Qualitative Analysis for
Educational Research. London, UK: Croom Helm.
Brown R (1958) How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review, 65,
14-21.
34
Tunnicliffe
Bruner J (1983) Children's Talk Learning to Use Language. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Keil F C (1979) Semantic and conceptual development. An ontological per­
spective. London, UK: Harvard University Press.
Markman E (1989) Categorization and naming in children: Problems of
induction. Cambridge, Mass, USA: The MIT Press.
Minitab Inc M. (1991). Minitab. State College, PA, Minitab Inc.
Rinsland H D (1946) A Basic Vocabulary of Elementary School Children.
New York, USA: Macmillan.
Rosch E and Mervis C B (1975) Family resemblances: studies in the
internal structures of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573 - 605.
Ryman D (1994) Children's understanding of the classification of living
organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 8, 1 4 0 - 4 .
Schneekloth L H (1989) 'Where did you go?' T h e forest.' 'What did
you see?' 'Nothing.' Children's Environmental Quarterly, 6, 14 - 17.
Stead B (1980) Plants. LISP Working Paper 24. Hamilton, New Zealand:
Science Education Research Unit, University of Waikato.
Stevenson J (1991) The long term impact of interactive exhibits.
International Journal of Science Education, 13, 520 - 532.
Simmons D (1994) Urban Children's Preferences for nature: Lessons
for environmental education. Children's Environments, 11, 194 - 203.
Trowbridge J and Mintzes J J (1985) Student's alternative conceptions
of animals and animal classification. School Science and Mathematics,
85,304-316.
Tull D (1994) Elementary students' responses to questions about plant
identification: response strategies in children. Science Education, 78,
323-343.
Tunnicliffe S D (1995) Talking about animals: studies of young children
visiting zoos, a museum and a farm. Unpublished PhD thesis, King's
College, London.
Tunnicliffe S D (1998) Skeletons: putting the flesh on the bones. The
Informal Science Review, 32, 8—11.
Tunnicliffe S D (1999) Students comments on plants. Informal Learning
Review (formally Informal Science Review), 36, 1 2 - 1 3 .
Tunnicliffe S D, Lucas A M, and Osborne J F (1997) School visits to
zoos and museums: a missed educational opportunity? International
Journal of Science Education, 19, 1039 - 1056.
Tunnicliffe S D and Reiss M J (1999a) Children's recognition and iden­
tification of plants and animals: beginning to learn about sustainabil-
ity of the environment. IOSTE 9 Proceedings, 2, 696 - 702. Westville,
Durban, SA: University of Durban.
Tunnicliffe S D and Reiss M J (1999b) Talking about Brine Shrimps:
Three Ways of Analysing Pupil Conversations. Research in Science &i
Technological Education, 17, 203 - 217.
Tunnicliffe S D and Reiss M J (1999c) Opportunities for sex education
and personal and social education (PSE) through science lessons: the
comments of primary pupils when observing meal worms and brine
shrimps. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1007 - 1020.
Tunnicliffe S D and Reiss M J (2000) Building a Model of the
Environment: How do Children See Plants? Journal of Biological
Education, 34, 172 - 177.
Wandersee J H and Schussler E E (2001) Toward a theory of plant
blindness. Plant Science Bulletin, 17, 2 - 9 .
Sue Dale Tunnicliffe is a Senior research associate at Homerton
College, Cambridge, CB2 2PH, UK. Contact address: 18 Qctavia,
Bracknell, Berkshire, RGI2 7YZ, UK. Tel. + 44 (0) 1344 454283;
Fax. + 44 (0) 1344 305284; Email: sdt@sdtunnicliffe.demon.co.uk
Journal of Biological Education (2001) 36(1)