Educational Research
Exploring plant and animal content in elementary science textbooks Elisabeth E. Schussler1, Melanie A. Link-Pérez1, Kirk M. Weber2 and Vanessa H. Dollo2 1 Department of Botany and 2Department of Zoology, Miami University
Student knowledge about plants is typically less than student knowledge about animals. Textbooks are a commonly-used curriculum material in elementary grades and contain embedded cultural ideologies that may impact instruction. This study analyzed two nationally-syndicated elementary science textbook series to explore their presentation of plant and animal content. The results indicated that the amount of animal content was greater than plant content in each series. An even greater difference was found in the number of plant and animal examples used within the textbooks. There were more than twice as many animal examples as plant examples in both textbook series, and the most repeated animal examples were more likely to correspond to scientifically-appropriate classification categories. The study also identified differences in the plant and animal topics covered in the textbooks; the topic of plant parts was the plant topic with the highest coverage in each textbook series, while for animals, the topics of animal needs, adaptations and types had the highest coverage depending on the textbook series. This study suggests there may be an ideology favoring animals within these elementary science textbooks and that teachers need to supplement their instruction with additional plant information to facilitate student learning about plants. Key Words: botany, education, elementary, textbook, science
Introduction Plants are unique, diverse, and abundant life forms that serve as the material basis of human culture by their contributions to energy, habitat, oxygen, medicines, foods, lumber and textiles, and carbon storage for the planet (Balick and Cox, 1996; Stern et al, 2008). Plants are critical to the continuation of life on the planet, yet they are currently undergoing an unprecedented decline. The International Union for Conservation of Nature detailed in its 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species that 70% of the world’s plants, including 74% of all flowering plants, are threatened with extinction (IUCN, 2008). In comparison, 41% of the world’s invertebrates and 22% of vertebrate animals are threatened with extinction (IUCN, 2008). Continued loss of plant biodiversity will only exacerbate current global environmental issues, and it is vital that students understand, value, and protect the plants around them. Despite the essential role of plants in sustaining life, students of varied ages and cultures consistently know less about plants than they do about animals. A British study of over 800 students found that only 13% could name more than three of ten common wildflowers (Bebbington, 2005). Students in American elementary schools identify “plant food” or soil as the source of plant energy (Barman et al, 2003). Scottish students think chlorophyll functions only to make the leaves green or to absorb carbon dioxide (Simpson and Arnold,
1982) and American 10-year-olds have difficulties drawing a complete plant life cycle (Schussler and Winslow, 2007). Adding to this pervasive lack of knowledge about plants is the fact that American students have less interest in studying plants as compared to animals (Wandersee, 1986), and a British study confirmed that this is true even if the animal is unfamiliar to the students (Kinchin, 1999). In the United States, science textbooks form the core of a teachers’ science curriculum, particularly in the elementary grades (Tolman et al, 1998). Although textbooks are often thought of as impartial purveyors of knowledge, they are cultural artifacts that reflect the ideologies of the fields they represent (Ferguson et al, 2006). Eisner (1992) describes curriculum ideologies as materials that reflect beliefs about what should be taught about certain topics and why. Our teaching methods therefore lead to enculturation, in which our students acquire the same blind spots and prejudices that exist in the field (Roth, 2001). Given the reliance on textbooks for instruction in the United States, if there are differences in how plant and animal information is presented, the textbooks could contribute to the difference in student knowledge about plants and animals. The goal of this study was to explore the presentation of plant and animal content in two nationally-syndicated elementary science textbook series in the United States. JBE Vol 44 No 3 Summer 2010
123
Schussler, Link-Pérez, Weber and Dollo Plant and animal content in elementary textbooks We wanted specifically to compare the amount of plant to non-human animal information in these textbook series, and to explore what types of information about plants and animals were presented. Therefore, there were two objectives: ! To document the amount of information about plants as compared to animals in the textbook series, and ! To compare the prevalence of the plant and animal topics presented in the textbooks. Given the cultural context in which textbooks were created, we hypothesized that animal information would be favored over plant information in terms of both amount and topics presented.
Methods
Textbook Structure and Units of Study This study arose from an analysis of how plants were being taught to students in one school district in the Midwestern United States of America. The elementary schools in this district had recently switched from the Harcourt Science (Bell et al, 2006) textbook series to the Macmillan McGraw-Hill Science (Daniel et al, 2005) textbook series. We analyzed the first through fifth grade textbooks of each series to explore how plant and animal content were presented. Both textbook series are nationally-distributed in the United States, but have state-specific versions that match their content to the state academic content standards for each grade level. The series that were analyzed were both for the state of Ohio. Each grade level textbook consisted of content sections on earth, physical, and life sciences, which are called “Units.” Our study examined only the life science unit of each textbook. Within the unit there were chapter and lesson title pages, activity boxes, illustrations and photographs, text boxes, self-check questions, special feature pages, and lesson / chapter assessments. We chose to limit our data collection to the body of the text (the paragraphs of information) within each life science lesson. Therefore, this analysis excluded self-check questions, special features, assessments, special text boxes, activities, illustrations and photographs. The intent of the analysis was to sort the text into plant and animal content information. We found that the text of each life science lesson had sub-titled sections of content that could be sorted into plant and animal information. These sub-titled portions of each lesson were called “sub-sections” and were the units of data for the analysis. Each lesson sub-section underwent the analyses detailed in the following sections. Data Collection – Amount of Plant and Animal Content To compare the amount of animal and plant information in each textbook, each sub-section was summarized in either a word processing program or data basing program. Data that were collected included: chapter, lesson, and sub-section titles, page numbers, text summaries, and animal and plant examples used in the 124
JBE Vol 44 No 3 Summer 2010
sub-sections. During this process, it was determined that some sub-sections contained content about both plants and animals (e.g., ecology topics) or content that could not be called either (e.g., the seasons). Since our intention was to compare the amount of exclusively plant-focused content as compared to exclusively animalfocused content in the textbooks, we removed these subsections from every analysis except the identification of plant and animal examples used in the text. Number of sub-sections and pages of plant and animal content – The number of sub-sections focused on animal content and number of sub-sections focused on plant content were tallied for each grade-level textbook of each series. These were compiled by series to provide a complete picture of the curriculum since some grades focus solely on plant or animal information based on state curriculum standards. The number of pages dedicated to each sub-section was also gathered to compare the total number of pages of plant as compared to animal content in each series. Number of plant and animal examples – Data for this analysis included sub-sections that were plant-only, animal-only, neither, or mixed plant and animal content, as well as the “fun fact” text box on each lesson’s title page. We did not include animal or plant examples from the special textboxes within the lessons, vocabulary lists, features, assessments, or photograph or illustration captions. To collect data, the text was read and each plant or animal example was recorded in a data basing program. A plant or animal example was defined as a reference to a whole, identifiable organism or group of organisms (e.g., “mosses”) that was more specific than the general term “plant” or “animal.” We did not include references to generic parts of plants or animals (e.g., “flower”) unless they referred to a specific type of plant or animal to which the part belonged (e.g. “oak leaf”). We also did not include humans as examples of animals. If an example was used more than once in a textbook, the total number of uses was indicated in the data base in order to assess its frequency. The results were compiled by counting the number of unique plant or animal examples used for each grade-level textbook. The five most commonly used plant and animal examples for each textbook series were also compiled from this data set. Data Collection – Plant and Animal Topics To analyze the major plant and animal topics present in each textbook, categories were created that would represent the topics found in the textbooks. Since there were no previous studies identifying plant and animal topics in textbooks, an inductive approach to category development was taken (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The text of the Macmillan McGraw-Hill series was used to create the plant and animal categories by sorting the sub-section content specific to plants and animals into a spreadsheet of potential categories. For instance, initial categories included “seed germination,” “plant growth” and “types of animals.” Plant and animal information was sorted simultaneously and if a category for plants
Plant and animal content in elementary textbooks Schussler, Link-Pérez, Weber and Dollo was created, such as “type of plants,” then a “type of animals” category was also created. When all the content had been transferred into the spreadsheet, the categories were expanded or collapsed until all of the content could be grouped into matching plant and animal categories. There were sixteen matching plant and animal categories that emerged from this process; the categories and examples of each are shown in Table 1.
Results
Amount of Plant and Animal Content Number of sub-sections and pages of plant and animal content – In the Harcourt series (first through fifth grade), there were 26 sub-sections of exclusively plant content and 31 sub-sections of exclusively animal content, meaning that 46% of the sub-sections focused on plant content (Table 2). However, the number of pages devoted to plant and animal content in the Harcourt series was the Table 1: Plant and animal categories, and examples of each, used for the analysis of plant and animal topics in the textbook series. same (Table 2). The Macmillan McGrawHill series (first through fifth grade) had 53 sub-sections devoted to plants and Plant Category Animal Category Examples 73 sub-sections devoted to animals, meaning that only 42% of the subPlant parts Animal parts root, stem, flower, ear, teeth, internal organs sections focused on plant content Plant needs Animal needs water, oxygen, shelter, sunlight (Table 2). There were 86 pages of plant Plant types Animal types mammals, angiosperms, crop plants content and 105 pages of animal Plant growth Animal growth germination, life stages content in the Macmillan McGraw-Hill Plant reproduction Animal reproduction pollination, fertilization, heredity series, such that plants made up 45% of Plant uses Animal uses plants for clothing, seeing-eye dogs plant or animal content pages (Table 2). Plant adaptations Animal adaptations prop roots, camouflage, specific beaks Number of plant and animal examples Where plants live Where animals live rainforests, desert – The number of unique plant and animal examples used within the lesson Figure 1: The number of unique plant and animal examples used within each textbook, and totaled, for the Harcourt series (top) and the Macmillan McGraw-Hill series (bottom). 300
Number of unique examples
250
150 100 50
191 39 (50%)
86 (45%)
Total Animal Pages
39 (50%)
105 (55%)
ll
h Fo ur t
Th ird
on d
Animal examples
200 150 100 50 0 Fi rs
Total Plant Pages
A
78
250
t
Total Pages
Plant examples
ll
73 (58%)
A
31 (54%)
Fi fth
Total Animal Sub-sections
Fi fth
53 (42%)
300
h
26 (46%)
350
Fo ur t
Total Plant Sub-sections
400
Th ird
126
Macmillan McGraw-Hill
on d
57
Se c
t
Grade
Se c
Total Sub-sections
Macmillan McGraw-Hill
Animal examples
0
Number of unique examples
Harcourt
Plant examples
200
450
Table 2: The number of plant and animal sub-sections and pages for each textbook series.
Harcourt
Fi rs
The intent of this analysis was to assign each subsection to a plant or animal category that represented the main topic of that sub-section. Since each subsection often included multiple categories of information about a plant or animal, the decision was made independently by two researchers based on their judgment of the most prevalent topic of the section. The two researchers then met, discussed, and reconciled any inconsistencies to reach 100% agreement. Prior to discussion, the initial agreement for assigning subsections into categories was 79%. The number of subsections assigned to each category for each individual textbook was then compiled for the entire series. These numbers were converted to percents by dividing the number of sub-sections in each category by the total number of sub-sections for the series. The data therefore represents the prevalence of each of the 16 plant or animal topics over the entire series. In the results and discussion sections, the plant or animal “category” will be referred to as a plant or animal “topic.”
Grade
JBE Vol 44 No 3 Summer 2010
125
‘‘
Schussler, Link-Pérez, Weber and Dollo Plant and animal content in elementary textbooks sub-sections and 12.7% of the Macmillan McGraw-Hill subsections. Plant needs was the second most prevalent plant topic in the Harcourt series (12.3%) and plant types was the second most prevalent plant topic in the Macmillan McGraw-Hill series (7.9%). For animals, the topic with the highest prevalence varied by textbook series. In Harcourt, animal needs (22.8%) was the topic most often encountered in the sub-sections, followed by a tie between animal types and animal adaptations (both 12.3%). In Macmillan McGrawHill, the animal topic discussed most often was types (21.4%), followed by animal adaptations which made up 11.1% of the sub-sections. There was much more information on plant parts (15.8%) in Harcourt than there was about animal parts (3.5%). On the other hand, there was much more information about animal needs (22.8%) as compared to plant needs (12.3%) and animal adaptation (12.3%) as compared to plant adaptation (0%). For the Macmillan McGraw-Hill series, the largest differences were between
‘‘
The results of the most prevalent plant and animal topics in each textbook series also could have implications for student learning about plants
Figure 2: The percent of sub-sections focused on each plant and animal topic compiled for the entire Harcourt series (top) and the Macmillan McGraw-Hill series (bottom) 25
Plant topics
Harcourt
Animal topics
20 15 10 5
126
JBE Vol 44 No 3 Summer 2010
liv e e
tio ns
W he r
s se U
da pt a
Topics
25
Plant topics
Macmillan McGraw-Hill
Animal topics
20 15 10 5
Topics
liv e e
tio ns
W he r
s se U
da pt a
A
G ro w th ep ro du ct io n R
Ty pe s
ds ee N
ts
0 Pa r
Percent of total sub-sections
Plant and Animal Topics The prevalence of the sixteen plant and animal topics is compared for the entire Harcourt and Macmillan McGraw-Hill series in Figure 2. For both the Harcourt and Macmillan McGraw-Hill textbook series, the same eight topics represented greater than 75% of the plant and animal sub-section content: plant parts and animal parts, plant needs and animal needs, plant adaptations and animal adaptations, and plant types and animal types. In both textbook series, the topics of reproduction, growth, where they live, and their uses were collectively much less prevalent. For plants, the topic that was most prevalent in the sub-sections of both series was plant parts. It represented the main topic of 15.8% of the Harcourt
A
G ro w th ep ro du ct io n R
Ty pe s
ee N
Pa r
ds
0 ts
Percent of total sub-sections
sub-sections of each textbook increased from first through fifth grades (Figure 1). There were more animal than plant examples in each grade level textbook for each series. For any individual Harcourt textbook, the number of unique plant examples ranged as low as six to as high as 44 examples, while animal examples ranged from 15 to 77. For Macmillan McGraw-Hill, a single textbook could have as few as four to as many as 103 plant examples, while animal examples ranged from 23 to 174. For the entire Harcourt series, there were a total of 119 unique plant examples versus 239 unique animal examples. For the Macmillan McGraw-Hill series there were 174 plant examples as compared to 422 animal examples. When examining plant or animal examples that were used repeatedly over the entire textbook series, Harcourt’s most repeated plant examples were “tree,” “grass,” “moss,” “pine” and “fern” while their most repeated animal examples were “bird,” “fish,” “insect,” “frog,” and “snake / deer” (tied). Macmillan McGraw-Hill’s most repeated animal examples were the same as Harcourt’s, with the exception of “deer,” while their most repeated plant examples were “tree,” “grass,” “corn,” “cactus,” and “oak.”
Plant and animal content in elementary textbooks Schussler, Link-Pérez, Weber and Dollo the plant and animal topics of parts, types, and adaptation. The series had 12.7% of its life science subsections focused on plant parts, while only 7.1% focused on animal parts. For types, 21.4% of the sub-sections focused on animal types, while only 7.9% of the subsections focused on plant types. Once again, the topic of plant adaptations (4% of sub-sections) suffered in comparison to animal adaptations (11.1% of sub-sections).
Discussion The data from this analysis of two nationally-syndicated elementary science textbook series in the United States supported our hypothesis that there would be a greater amount of animal information presented in these textbooks. Our analysis of the number of sub-sections and number of pages of plant and animal content found that animal content was favored in the Macmillan McGraw-Hill series (58% of the sub-sections were animal topics and 55% of the pages were animal content). There were even wider differences in the number of unique plant and animal examples used in the life science subsection text. The first through fifth grade Harcourt series gave 239 unique animal examples and only 119 unique plant examples, while Macmillan McGraw-Hill’s series gave 422 unique animal examples and only 174 unique plant examples. In both textbook series, content focused more on plant parts than animal parts, but animal adaptations were discussed more than plant adaptations. These findings suggest that researchers need to probe curricula deeply when analyzing content. In the case of plant and animal content, the number of pages is roughly equivalent, but the number of example organisms and the way the topics about plants or animals are weighted are very different. For students who enter school with documented differences in their ability to name plants and animals (Bebbington, 2005), limited exposure to plant examples in elementary school may affect their ability to not only name, but also to categorize different types of plants. Literature in cognitive psychology suggests that naming an object supports human ability to categorize it (Lupyan et al, 2007), and that students need to be familiar with a diverse array of specific examples from a group to classify and sort them (Mervis and Pani, 1980). Therefore, the relative lack of plant examples in both series could make it harder to organize plants into a categorical system. Both textbook series also repeatedly use exemplar organisms from the main groups into which animals are classified: birds, fish, snakes, frogs, and insects. Plants are broadly divided into flowering plants (e.g., cacti, oak trees, corn, and grasses), gymnosperms (e.g., pine trees), seedless vascular plants (e.g., ferns), and nonvascular plants (e.g., mosses). The most common plant examples used by Macmillan McGraw-Hill (tree, grass, cactus, oak, and corn) are all examples of flowering plants, except tree which can be grouped into the flowering plants, gymnosperms, or seedless vascular plants (e.g., a tree fern), depending on the species. Harcourt’s examples of tree, grass, pine, fern, and moss did a better job of providing appropriate
Textbooks are cultural artefacts. They may limit student knowledge – and enjoyment – of plant biology.
JBE Vol 44 No 3 Summer 2010
127
Schussler, Link-Pérez, Weber and Dollo Plant and animal content in elementary textbooks classification exemplars than the Macmillan McGraw-Hill series. Textbooks could assist student learning of plant names and categorization by increasing the number and diversity of plant examples in their books. The results of the most prevalent plant and animal topics in each textbook series also could have implications for student learning about plants. The most prevalent plant topic in both textbook series was plant parts, while the same concentration was not placed on the topic of animal parts. In contrast, the topics most prevalent for animals seemed to approach animals in a more holistic way: animal needs, animal adaptations, and animal types. While there was variation between the textbooks, both had significant differences in the prevalence of animal adaptations as compared to the less prevalent topic of plant adaptations. Adaptations are often used in the animal world to highlight special features of specific organisms (e.g., cheetahs that run fast, bats that have echo-location, etc.). This dichotomy between plant parts and animal adaptations, along with the data comparing plant and animal examples, introduces a potential textbook ideology of generic plant parts and specific animal wholes. The impact on student learning could be knowledge gaps in naming plants, categorizing them, or identifying their unique adaptations, but it also could contribute to less excitement in studying “boring” generic plants (Wandersee, 1986; Kinchin, 1999). Overall, there is evidence that each textbook series supports the enculturation process of students knowing more about animals than plants (Roth, 2001). Other textbook series across the United States and the World need to be analyzed to see whether these results are generalizable for all textbooks. If so, textbook publishers should be made aware of these differences so they can increase plant examples and equalize topic coverage between plants and animals. Research is also needed on student learning from elementary curricula to measure textbook impact on student knowledge and perception of plants and animals.
Educational Implications Improving the educational outlook for botany learning is the goal of all botany educators, and they need to take an active role in making teachers aware of the differences in the presentation of plant and animal content. Botanists and botany educators can also support student learning about plants by providing teachers and publishers with additional plant examples relevant to science topics, and engaging plant adaptation examples. If students are to have a better understanding of the plant kingdom, plant adaptations and examples need to be given the same focus that animal adaptations and examples are given throughout all education levels. This will give students the ability to identify and classify the diversity of plants that exist on the planet, and encourage them to see plants as relevant and interesting organisms worthy of study. Given the current threats to plant biodiversity and the unique and important role they play on the planet, every effort needs to be made to increase opportunities for students to learn about plants. 128
JBE Vol 44 No 3 Summer 2010
Acknowledgements The authors thank the Committee for Faculty Research at Miami University for funding, Mr. Jeffrey Winslow for his support, Mr. Stephen Rybczynski for assistance with coding, and two anonymous reviewers whose comments improved the manuscript.
References Balick M J and Cox P A (1996) Plants, people, and culture: the science of ethnobotany. New York, NY: Scientific American Botany. Barman C R, Stein M, Barman N S and McNair S (2003) Students’ ideas about plants: results from a national study. Science and Children. 41 46-51. Bebbington A (2005) The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological Education. 39 63-68. Bell M J et al. (2006) Science. Orlando, FL: Harcourt School Publishers. Daniel L H, Hackett J, Moyer R H and Vasquez J (2005) Science. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Eisner E W (1992) Curriculum ideologies. In: Handbook of Research on Curriculum, ed. Jackson P W pp 302-326. New York, NY: Macmillan. Ferguson J, Collison D, Power D and Stevenson L (2006) Accounting textbooks: exploring the production of a cultural and political artifact. Accounting Education. 15 243-260. 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. Lupyan G, Rakison D H and McClelland J L (2007) Language is not just for talking. Redundant labels facilitate learning of novel categories. Psychological Science. 18 1077-1083. Mervis C B and Pani J R (1980) Acquisition of basic object categories. Cognitive Psychology. 12 496-522. Roth W (2001) “Enculturation”: acquisition of conceptual blind spots and epistemological prejudices. British Educational Research Journal. 27 5-27. Schussler E and Winslow J (2007) Drawing on students’ knowledge. Science and Children. 44 40-44. Simpson, M., and Arnold, B. (1982). The inappropriate use of subsumers in biology learning. European Journal of Science Education. 4 173-182. Stern K R, Bidlack J E and Jansky S H (2008) Introductory plant biology (Eleventh Edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Strauss A and Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Tolman M N, Hardy G R and Sudweeks R R (1998) Current science textbook use in the United States. Science and Children. 35 22-25; 44. Wandersee J H (1986) Plants or animals – which do junior high school students prefer to study? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 23 415-426.
Web Resources International Union for Conservation of Nature, http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/red_list/2008_re d_list_summary_statistics/index.cfm, Accessed October 7, 2008.
Elisabeth E. Schussler (corresponding author) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Email:
[email protected]. Melanie A. Link-Pérez is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Biology, SUNY College at Oneonta. Email:
[email protected]. Kirk M.Weber and Vanessa H. Dollo both graduated with B.S degrees from the Department of Zoology, Miami University. Emails:
[email protected] and
[email protected].
