RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plants

Children’s Conceptual Knowledge of Plant Structure and Function

Abstract: study examines children's drawings to examine their conceptual understanding of plant structure and function. The study explored whether the children's drawings accurately reflected their conceptual understanding about plants in a manner that could be interpreted by others. Drawing, survey and interview data was collected from 254 students in grades K- 3 in the southeastern United States. Results demonstrated that the children held a wide range of conceptions concerning plant structure and function. Younger children held very simple ideas about plants, while older children often held more complex, abstract notions about plant structure and function. Consistent with the drawings, the interviews presented similar findings.

Keywords: plants, elementary science, conceptual knowledge

Introduction and Background

During the elementary grades, children are exposed to and build understandings of biological concepts through their interactions with the world around them (NRC, 1996; 2012; Tunnicliffe, 2001; French 2004). These explanations and conceptual understandings develop from children’s direct, concrete experiences with living organisms, life cycles, ecosystems and habitats (NRC, 2012; NRC, 1996; Tunnicliffe, 2001) with much of this exploration involving the use of their senses such as touch and smell (Tunnicliffe, 2001). Despite these experiences, research has shown that both children and adults often develop understanding about the natural world that is much different than what is presented by the scientific community (e.g. Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Howe, Tolmie & Rogers, 2011; Gauld, 2012; Wee, 2012). This has been shown to be the case when examining how plants are introduced into the science curriculum.

An analysis of elementary science has demonstrated that plants are under-represented in the curriculum and that a “plant blindness” exists in our culture (Wandersee & Schussler 2001; Lally et al 2007). Young children have an innate interest in plants, but as they grow older, this interest wans (Schneekloth, 1989). This has been attributed to how plants are described – as immobile, faceless objects with a non-threatening presence (Wandersee & Schussler, 2001). Because of this perceived lack of interest by children (and adults), plants are often overlooked in the curriculum by teachers (Sanders, 2007) despite their importance within ecosystems. As a result, research regarding plants and young children has been limited (Gatt et al, 2007; Boulter et al, 2003; Tunnicliffe, 2001) particularly at the early childhood (K-3) level. In the limited studies available, Barman et al (2006) found that misconceptions about plants and plant growth are introduced and reinforced at early ages. For example, in a study by Bell (1981) children did not consider trees to be plants. It was also found that many children did not consider an organism to be a plant unless it had a flowering structure while other children thought that other organisms or even non-living things were plants because they perceived them to have a “flower” structure. In a later study by McNair and Stein (2001) many of these results were replicated; they also demonstrated that when asked to draw a plant, both children and adults typically drew a flowering plant.

Children’s Conceptions of PlantsEarly elementary years captures children in their most formative years of cognitive

development. Long before entering formal education, children begin asking questions and engaging with the natural and physical world. This engagement results in children constructing explanations

1

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plantsfor things which they observe from their everyday experiences. These explanations are often different from scientific explanations (Suping, 2003; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Howe, Tolmie & Rogers, 2011; Gauld, 2012; Wee, 2012) and are often labeled as misconceptions. In this study, the term misconception serves as a discursive marker for a wide range of terms that include, but are not limited to: alternative frameworks, pre-conceptions, prior knowledge, student ideas, and conceptions.

There has been a lack of agreement within science education about whether children’s “misconceptions” should be considered obstacles or resources for teachers to build upon (Larkin, 2012). The previous historical perspective that student ideas that were inconsistent with scientific conceptions were misconceptions has shifted over time to a position that recognizes that in the mind of the child, these are conceptions in their own right with plausibility and explanatory power for the child (NRC, 2005; Larkin, 2012). Smith and colleagues (1993) depict children’s misconceptions as “faulty extensions of productive prior knowledge” (p. 152). When misconceptions are characterized as mistakes, it minimizes the role that they play in children’s learning. Instead, misconceptions become resources that can be utilized as starting points for science instruction (Smith et al, 1993). Additionally, Vosniadou (2002) argues that misconceptions are, in fact, naïve conceptions that result from a complex process by which children organize their perceptual experiences and information that they gather from the natural and physical world. Because many of these conceptions are seen as fragmented, they may not need to be replaced, but instead, re-organized through instruction (Vosniadou, 2002).

According to the National Science Frameworks (2012), students in elementary grades (grades K-5) should understand: 1) the basic structure, growth and development of plants; 2) that plants have basic needs which include air, water, nutrients and light, all of which they can receive in their respective environments; 3) environmental changes can impact the survival of plants; 4) plants must reproduce in order to survive; 5) plants respond to external inputs (e.g. turning leaves toward the sun); and 6) the differences in characteristics between individuals of the same species provide advantages in survival. When examining plant growth needs, students’ ideas and conceptions become more complex, resulting in the emergence of various misconceptions. Where student misconceptions arise is in their conflation of ideas around what plant needs are provided by people (e.g. house plants, gardens) as opposed to what plants receive from their environment (Barmen et al, 2006). Additionally younger students will often anthropomorphize explanations around plant structure and function with respect to their own experiences (Barmen et al, 2006; Osborne & Freyberg 1985; Stein & McNair, 2002). For example, students will often ascribe that plants need food in much the same way that people need food. When they learn about plants making their own food, they will often think about that food in terms of what a plant ingests, much like how they ingest food on a daily basis (Roth, 1985; Smith & Anderson, 1984). These misconceptions often are a direct result of their own experiences with plants in their everyday lives (e.g. planting gardens, taking care of house /class plants).

Because plant structure and function play such an important role in the science education standards and frameworks, creating a progression of learning across the K-12 grade bands (NRC 1996; 2012), it is important to understand children’s thinking about these topics. Plants are the connection between the sun and energy flow on Earth. Children have experiences on daily basis with plants from an early age. Unfortunately, this has resulted in misconceptions being introduced and / or reinforced at early ages. The purpose of this study is to examine children’s conceptual knowledge of plant structure and function in early elementary classrooms. In this study we are defining early elementary as grades kindergarten through third grade. Specifically we examine through the use of drawings, surveys and interviews: What do early elementary children’s drawings indicate about their conceptions of plant structure and function?

2

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of PlantsDrawings as Representation

Drawings by children have long been thought to provide insight into a child’s representational development (Cherney et al, 2006). Additionally, research has shown (e.g. Cherney et al, 2006; Tallandini & Valentini, 1991) that children’s representations differ significantly with age, with young children often drawing simple scribbles and older children drawing objects as they are known, creating visual realism that includes perspective. These drawings become an object that can be used to represent the real thing in a concrete, symbolic representation. As children develop, the drawings that are their representations move from simple to complex and differentiated.

Because of this progress, drawing can play a significant role in the visualization of scientific ideas and concepts. Drawings will help children to construct meaning for themselves as well as allow them to share their ideas with others in varying contexts (Brooks, 2009). Drawings can also serve to help young children shift from everyday concepts to more scientific concepts. By creating visual representations of their ideas, children are more able to work at a metacognitive level, revisiting, revising and talking through complex scientific concepts. Drawing in this sense becomes both a tool of communication and problem solving around abstract ideas (Cox, 1991; Athney, 1990). By creating drawings or visualizations, students begin to move to higher order thinking while working at a conceptual level.

Conceptual Framework

Using Children’s Drawings as a Method of Conceptual AnalysisChildren’s drawings have been previously used as a mechanism to their sense making in

ways that differ from written or spoken text (Haney et al, 2004). Drawings enable children to express what they cannot always verbalize (Grunge on, 1993), with pictures often giving insight into the way that children think (Weber & Mitchell, 1995; Einarsdottir et al, 2009). While previous research has focused upon the graphic, perspective and psychological aspects of children’s drawings (e.g. Goodenough, 1926; Kellogg, 1969; Golomb, 1992; Ring 2006), recent research has begun to consider children’s drawings as ways to express meaning and understanding about their world (Stanczak, 2007). According to Cox (2005), by focusing on drawing as meaning making, it focuses the drawings away from the discourse on representation towards a focus on children’s intentions. In this sense, “drawing thus becomes a constructive process of thinking in action, rather than a developing ability to make visual reference to objects in the world (Cox, 2005, p. 123).” We argue that drawings by children involving conceptual knowledge serve as a way to document student thinking, understanding and change. By focusing upon children’s drawing process, an awareness is built around the narrative that is behind the drawings that the children create (Kress, 1997; Einarsdottir, 2009) including conceptual understanding. This narrative is connected to how children make meaning in their drawings, allowing for a connection between the social construction of their meaning and what the children strive to convey through their drawings (Light, 1985; Einarsdottir, 2009). It is important to consider these narratives in order to understand children’s intentions in their drawings. These drawings can be useful in promoting reflection by both students and teachers about the content being presented and learned (Haney et al, 2004).

In this way, drawings can be utilized to assess science conceptual knowledge, observational skills and the ability to reason. Drawings can reveal how children perceive an object, such as a plant, and how children makes sense of and represent the details of that object (Haney et al, 2004). The open-ended nature of the drawings can allow for the emphasis of ideas and concepts that are interesting to the student and give insight to their understanding (Barman, Stein, Barman & McNair, 2002; McNair & Stein, 2001).

3

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of PlantsThis is particularly useful in the early grades where students are just beginning to learn how

to write. According to Tunnicliffe (2001), what children decide to draw is critical in examining their conceptual understanding about plants. Previous studies (e.g. Bell, 1981; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Barmen, Stein, Barmen & McNair, 2002; McNair & Stein, 2001 ) have demonstrated that students conceptual understanding of what constitutes a plant is much narrower than what is defined by plant biologists. In this instance, the drawings of a plant may reflect not only what they know and understand about the structure of a plant, but may also give insight into what ideas they have regarding plant function; for example, what are the requirements for plant growth, how plants are able to reproduce and other common functions (McNair & Stein, 2001).

Research Design, Methodology, and Analysis

Study Context - School and Students This study was part of a larger design study examining the impact of the pedagogical

potential of a Plant Coloring Book created by the American Society for Plant Biologists. In this study we examined students’ conceptual knowledge of plants structure and function in order to get a baseline understanding. The study occurred in a suburban elementary school in the southeastern United States. Caldwell Elementary School 1 is a diverse elementary school in Southeastern Public School system. At the time of this study, Caldwell had 464 students in grades K-5. The student body make up is 43% Caucasian, 12% African American, 21% Latino, 3% Asian, 10% Karen/Burmese and 11% multi-racial. Additionally, 23% of the students had limited English proficiency and 47% of the students participated in the free or reduced lunch program. Students in grades K-3 participated in the study and were reflective of the school’s demographics (n=245).

Data Sources This study uses both quantitative and qualitative data to provide a holistic view of students’

conceptual knowledge of plant structure and function. Data was collected from three primary sources: 1) the Draw-A-Plant instrument; 2) a plant survey; and 3) semi-structured interviews. The data collected (1) documented the students’ conceptions about plant structure and function ; (2) captured their reasoning through discussion of their drawings; and (3) supported and refuted emerging hypothesis about students’ understandings (Barab, et al, 2002). In analyzing the data, we utilized a naturalistic inquiry with grounded interpretations (Guba & Lincoln, 1983). Data analysis adhered to the domains of interpretive research that were iterative and inductive, including emergent analytic coding (Haney et al, 2004).

Draw-A-Plant Instrument – As previously discussed, drawings can serve to document childrens’ understanding and change around a particular concept and provide a unique window in early childhood when children are beginning to learn how to write (Haney et al, 2004; McNair & Stein, 2001). Based upon this idea, the Draw-A-Scientist (DAST-C) instrument (Finson, 2003; Chambers, 1983) was adapted to plants. This instrument was designed to gain insight into children’s prior conceptual knowledge about plant structure and function.

Emergent Analytical Coding of the Draw-A-Plant Assessment - In coding the drawings, we developed and used a checklist that came from emergent analytic coding. This checklist provided a set of features that emerged in analyzing the drawings of the children. Two members of the research team independently reviewed 15 drawings and recorded the various features of the drawings. The two checklists were compared and condensed into a list of specific plant features that was then used as a draft coding sheet. This condensed list was then used to code an additional fifteen drawings. Raters worked independently to code features from the list that were either present or absent. Additionally, the raters looked for features that were

1 Caldwell Elementary is a pseudonym used for the school.

4

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plantspresent in the drawings but were absent from the code sheet. Coding results were then compared and formal descriptions were developed for structures that had a high level of agreement. Discrepancies were discussed, identifying the reasons that they occurred. Once common features were identified, a third set of 15 drawings was coded and an inter-rater reliability of r=0.95 was established. Cohen’s kappa was calculated to show that k = 0.84 which indicates that the frequency with which raters agree is much stronger than by chance alone. This kappa value indicates a strong agreement which correlates with the inter-rater reliability percentage.

Plant Survey - In addition to the Draw-A-Plant instrument, a two part survey was constructed to probe deeper into students’ conceptual knowledge. The first part of the survey was designed to determine students’ conceptual understanding of what constitutes a plant. The second portion of the survey was designed to determine students’ understanding of what plants need in order to survive in their environment. Two versions of the survey were created; version one utilized pictures and was used with children in Kindergarten and first grade while version two utilized text and was used with children in second and third grade. Both versions were reviewed by an early childhood and a science educator to ensure that the format was appropriate and that the survey was not confusing or misleading. The survey data was analyzed using SPSS and correlated to the corresponding data for the drawings. This allowed us to look across the data to understand student thinking about plant structure and function both at a large and fine grain level. Descriptive statistics and frequencies were calculated across the surveys. . Data was also compared to determine if there was a difference based upon the sex of the student

Semi-Structured Interviews – A subset of children from each grade level (N= 10 each grade /40 total) were randomly chosen and interviewed. The interview was constructed to specifically elicit student responses that would provide the researchers with a better understanding of students’ performance on the Draw-A-Plant assessment demonstrating students’ conceptions of plant structure and function. All interviews were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed by the researchers. The interviews were used to verify the coding of the drawings done by the researchers and the surveys that were taken. During the interview, children were asked questions that related specifically to these instruments and their own drawings in order to understand children’s reasoning behind their choices. For example, cards were created to replicate the plants and non-plant structures that were found in survey one. Students were asked to sort these cards into plant and non-plant structures. After sorting the cards, students were asked to explain their choices. Responses were correlated to the drawings created by the students. In the section that follows, the results from these instruments are presented and discussed.

Results and Discussion

Data analysis has revealed that the students in this study hold many of the common conceptions regarding plant structure and function common for children in this age group. Students were given a two-part assessment using the Draw-A-Plant instrument and the accompanying survey. In the first portion, students were asked to draw and label a plant and all the things that a plant would need to grow. Students were then asked to complete a survey about plant needs, functions and classification. The results from these assessments and subsequent interviews are described below.

The DrawingsThe drawing portion of the assessment provided interesting insight into students’

conceptual knowledge of plant structure and function. Drawings varied across the grade levels with students in the third grade providing much more detailed drawings and, in some cases, written explanations of their drawings than students in kindergarten, first and second

5

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plantsgrades. Additionally, the third grade students would often include other types of organisms in their drawings that they believed helped the plants growth and survival (e.g. bees, worms, birds, seeds). The results from the drawing data is described below.

In seventy-six percent of the students’ drawings across grade levels (Kindergarten through third grade), sunlight was included. (See Table 1. below). In some instances where

[Insert Table 1. About Here]

there was no sun, a light, or light bulb, was drawn in its place (See Figure 1.). What emerged in the drawing data was that students in kindergarten through second grade were consistent in how they placed sunlight in their drawings with a range between seventy and seventy-three

[Insert Figure 1. About Here]

percent. By the third grade we saw an increase of almost twenty percent in the inclusion of sunlight in their drawings to ninety-one percent (See Figure 2.). When the data from the drawings were compared to the surveys, similar results were observed in kindergarten, first and third grades. Second grade students, however, presented an interesting dichotomy. While the second grade students did not include the sun in their drawings at the same level as the third grade students, they were similar in their response to the sun on the survey portion of the assessment. The survey data indicated that they understood the necessity of sunlight while their drawings often omitted this important attribute. When asked about this in the interview, one student responded that she “just forgot to draw the sun – [she] was focusing on drawing the parts of the plant.”

[Insert Figure 2. About Here]

The current state science curriculum standards presents topics that involve plant structure and / or function in first and third grades (See Table 2.). One possible explanation for this increase in the inclusion of the sun in drawings at the third grade level might be attributed to a specific state third grade science standard and curriculum unit on Plant Growth and Adaptation. This does not, however account for the lower rate of inclusion at the first grade level. One potential reason could be that while plants are a part of the first grade science standards addressing the Needs of Living Organisms, they are not necessarily the sole focus of the standard or the curriculum used to teach that standard. The third grade standard focuses directly on plant structures as they directly relate to specific plant functions. For example, roots found in the soil are used to absorb nutrients or the function of leaves is to synthesize food for plants.

[Insert Table 2 About Here]

The curriculum units based on the standards that were used in the school did appear to have an impact on student’s conceptual knowledge about plants. For example, in the interviews which followed the drawing assessment, one of the first grade students referenced their experiences with Wisconsin Fast Plants as the reason why they believed it was important for plants to have a light (bulb) either in addition to or instead of having sunlight. Wisconsin fast plants have become an important component of the kit based curricular units that are used by school districts across the state (and country) including Caldwell Elementary in the Southeastern Public Schools.

6

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of PlantsIn another finding, air was not commonly drawn, particularly in the younger grades (K-

1). None of the drawings from the kindergarten students showed air as an important component and only four percent of the first graders included air in their drawings (See Figure 3). While the first grade students did not always include air in their drawings, this did not necessarily mean that they did not understand the role of air with plants. This was demonstrated in the following example from the interview with Logan:

Interviewer: So I see what you have on your drawing….. What can you tell me about what a plant needs in order to be able to survive/live?

Logan2: Well…. I couldn’t really draw it, but… I think air would help the plant….but I can’t really see air so I didn’t really know how to draw it so I just decided to not draw it…..but I know it is important….

Interviewer: So why do you think it’s important (air that is)?.....Logan: Hmmmm, well we need air to breathe so we can live, so I think that

plants need air like that too…..

[Insert Figure 3. About Here]

In the interviews, Logan was the only first grader that pointed out the air deficiency in his drawing. The number of students including air in their drawings jumped up to twenty-seven percent by the end of second grade. While the second grade curriculum does not include the study of plants, it does include changes in the properties of matter, weather and sound, all of which emphasize the role of air which was applied by some students to the plant context, demonstrating content transfer . The presence of air and the breakdown of air into the components (e.g. CO2, O2) was most frequently seen in the drawings of the third grade students where forty-six percent of the students included air or a component of air in their drawings. This was often designated by the word “air”, “oxygen” or “Carbon Dioxide” with swirls or dots to indicate movement. This was an interesting result given that these concepts are not addressed in the K-3 Standards. What this indicated was that in this particular classroom setting, these students had been exposed to additional science concepts not found in the third grade standards or curriculum. This could potentially reflect back upon the classroom teacher’s comfort with and understanding of the science content (e.g. Schwartz et al, 2004) and /or to the prior out of school experiences that the students bring to the classroom.

In further analysis, soil was only drawn and labeled (either as soil or dirt) in 39% of the drawings; however, students often would draw the ground and not label the ground’s consistency. When broken down further, the differences between the younger grades (K-1) and the older grades (2-3) become more apparent. In the drawings of the kindergarten and first graders, soil or ground was included in their drawings twenty-five percent of the time. This number increases to sixty-five percent of the time when looking at the drawings of the second and third grade students (See Figure 4). This may be attributed to the state standard and subsequent curricular unit in the third grade that focuses on the properties of soil.

[Insert Figure 4. About Here]

Like much of the previous research (e.g. Bell, 1981; McNair & Stein, 2001) flowering plants (See Figures 2., 3., and 4.) were drawn more frequently across the grade levels than non-flowering plants (e.g. trees). When analyzing the details of the of the drawings, stems were the most commonly draw plant structure. What was interesting was that students often did not draw

2 Pseudonyms were used for all of the student names in this study. 7

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plantsthe leaves found on plants, leaving the stems bare, particularly at the Kindergarten and first grade level where only six percent of the drawings had leaves drawn on their stems. Leaves became more frequent at the second and third grade level, being present sixty-two percent of the time. This finding at the third grade level could be attributed to the standards which address the importance of leaves for synthesizing food. Another noteworthy finding that emerged in the drawings was the the presence or absence of root structures in the drawings. Roots were more commonly found in the kindergarten and first grade drawings, appearing eighty-four percent of the time. This number decreased in the upper grades only being represented in fifty-two percent of the drawings. This was particularly interesting given the specific standards in third grade about the role of roots in the absorption of nutrients. When asked about this during the interviews, a number of different responses emerged including, “I can’t see roots so I didn’t draw them” to “I forgot to draw things underground.” In the section that follows, data from the surveys will be presented and related to the drawings.

The SurveysIs it a Plant? - In addition to the Draw-A-Plant assessment, a two part survey was given

in order to gain insight into students understanding of the classification of plants and what plants need in order to survive. At the kindergarten and first grade level, these surveys consisted of circling pictures of plants or things that came from plants and materials necessary for plants to grow. The second and third grade surveys consisted of circling pictures of plants or things that came from plants with the second survey being a traditional likert-type survey. In analyzing the survey, one finding appeared across all of the grade levels. When students were presented with pictures of things commonly known to be plants (e.g trees, flowers), they correctly identified them as seen in the chart below (Table 3.). However,

[Insert Table 3. About Here]

when presented with pictures of plants that were less common (e.g. Venus Flytrap) or were fungus, they would often mis-characterize these pictures as is seen in the chart below (Table 4)

[Insert Table 4. About Here]

Additionally, in order to determine if there was a difference between males and females in the study, a two-way ANOVA was also calculated with the survey scores as the dependent variable with sex used as the between subject variable. There was no significant effect observed due to sex of the student, indicating that there were similar conceptions among all students.

One of the most common misconceptions that students demonstrated was the notion that mushrooms are plants and not a fungus. In the interviews students talked about where they found mushrooms and how they collected them to eat which, in their conceptualization of food, made them plants. This is seen in the example from the interview with Jose shown below:

Interviewer: Can you sort these pictures into living things that you think are plants and those that are not plants? [Student sorted a series of pictures into two piles] ….. Can you tell me about what you did?

Jose: Well… that looks like grass so I know that is a plant and so is this tree and bush. [looking at the algae] I’m not sure what that is so I am going to say it isn’t plant….and this is a mushroom….. I go and pick mushrooms with my mom and

8

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plantsdad and we eat them…. So that is definitely a plant….

Interviewer: So why do you think that the mushroom is a plant?Jose: Like I said, we go and pick them like we would pick flowers

and then we eat them so they have to be a plant because it isn’t an animal.

Jose believes that the food that we eat can be classified into two groups, plants and animals. In this particular instance, he understood that the mushroom was not an animal. Since he eats mushrooms, this made the mushroom a plant. Similar types of responses occurred with the picture of the bread mold. When students were asked about a picture of bread mold, the most common response was that the mold was a bush and therefore a plant. When asked to explain further, the bread was often described as being the ground where the “bush” grew.

In the interview process, one of the ideas that arose was that students often see different types of plants as their own categories. For example, when asked to sort pictures into two categories (plants/ non-plants) one student, Mey, placed the flowers in the non-plant pile. When asked to explain her choice, Mey responded by stating that “flowers were flowers, they are their own special category that doesn’t go with plants.” Additionally students did not seem to be able to see how plants are used in other contexts. In this study, ninety-four percent of the students did not recognize that telephone poles are made from the trunks of trees. When asked about their choices, several students responded that it was a telephone pole, not a plant. When probed further about where these poles might have come from, the most common response was “from the telephone company.”

What do plants need to survive? - In the second portion of the survey, students were asked to identify materials that would help a plant to survive and grow (See Table 4.). What emerged in this portion of the survey was that there were a high number of students in all grade levels that saw light bulbs as a “need” for plants. During the interviews, when asked about this, Peter, a first grade student, talked about his experience with growing Wisconsin Fast Plants earlier in the school year. These plants were kept under a grow light in their classroom. This may have resulted in students taking away that this was needed in addition to or instead of sunlight, creating a new misconception for the students. Prior research (e.g. Davis et al, 2006; Atwood & Atwood, 1997; Trundle et al, 2002; Stoddart et al, 1993; Abell, Bryan & Anderson, 1998) has demonstrated that elementary teachers often have limited science content knowledge and are highly dependent upon curriculum materials to guide their teaching (e.g. Grossman & Thompson, 2004; Mulholland & Wallace, 2005). Curriculum materials can influence teachers pedagogical decisions and serve as a source of their own science learning (Davis & Krajcik, 2004; Grossman & Thompson, 2004; Remillard, 2005). As a result of their influence on teacher knowledge and plans, enacted curriculum can often result in teachers own misconceptions being conveyed to their students (Grossman & Thompson, 2004).

While the drawings did not necessarily demonstrate that students understood the need for air for the plants to grow and survive, this conceptual knowledge emerged in the surveys portion of the assessment. Seventy-seven percent (average) of the students across the grade levels grasped the need of the plant to be exposed to air. However, most students were not able to understand the components that make up this air, e.g. carbon dioxide, oxygen. Given that this concept is not found in the science standards of early elementary grades (NRC, 2012), this finding was not surprising. While fewer students were able to understand the impact of the components of air, there was an increase over the grade levels as students were introduced to these concepts in other science units (See Table 4.). Additionally, like the other portion of the survey, a two-way ANOVA was also calculated with the scores as the dependent variable. Sex was again used as the between subject variable with no significant effect due to sex of the children observed in this survey data. Again, this indicated that all children had similar conceptions as demonstrated

9

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plantsby this survey.

Another interesting finding emerged in this survey at the kindergarten and first grade levels. Ninety-eight percent of both kindergarten and first grade children believed that milk was important in the growth and development of plants. Additionally, ninety-six percent of the kindergarteners and ninety-eight percent of the first grade students thought that plants needed sandwiches to help them grown. This finding connects to the previous studies by Roth (1985) and Smith and Anderson (1984), which demonstrated that young children would often think about food in terms of what a plant might ingest, based upon their own life experiences. These results also connect to previous studies, which demonstrated that young children anthropomorphize explanations of plant functions (Barmen et al, 2006; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Barman, Stein, Barman & McNair, 2002).

Limitation of the Study

There are several limitations with respect to the findings that should be noted. First, this study represents the findings of one context, Caldwell Elementary School. While the population of the school was diverse, additional sites would help to demonstrate the universality of the findings. Second, this study only sought to get a baseline understanding of children’s conceptual knowledge about plant structure and function. It did not in any way connect to looking at knowledge gained from the implementation of a specific curriculum.

Conclusions and Implications

As demonstrated by the research, (e.g. Cherney et al, 2006; Tallandini & Valentini, 1991; Brooks, 2009; Cox, 1991; Einarsdottir et al, 2009; Stegelin, 2003) the use of graphic images and drawings have been shown to provide insight into the representation of ideas by children. Drawing and re-visiting their ideas allows children to clarify conceptual understandings resulting in metacognitive growth in developing ideas around complex scientific concepts. The drawings become not only a learning tool, but a formative embedded assessment that allows teacher to build up or alter their curricular approaches based upon student understanding (Katz, 1993; 1996; Palsha, 2002; Wortham, 2001). These drawings can give insight into the development of the children’s ideas over a period of time through revisiting, revising and talking through the complexities. The children’s drawings become a tool for their communication as well as way for them to demonstrate their problem solving around complex, abstract ideas (Cox, 1991) allowing them to begin to move towards conceptual level thinking.

The drawings and surveys in this study provided a great deal of insight into children’s conceptual knowledge of plant structure and function. It became clear that some of the children, across the grade levels, had basic knowledge about plant structure and in some cases plant function. The drawings also identified specific misconceptions (e.g. light bulbs are necessary for plant growth, worms giving nutrients, milk and sandwiches providing food sources) that the children had and shed light onto the particular types of experiences and information that the children had brought to the classroom. Additionally, it became apparent what topics might have been intentionally introduced in an individual classroom. This was particularly true at the third grade level where some third grade students included specific plant terminology in their drawings. For example, some students not only identified air as a component needed for plant function, but they also broke down the concept of air into carbon dioxide and oxygen. Since these are not terms or concepts that are found in other parts of the third grade curriculum, nor are they a part of the state standards, it can be assumed that the students were representing information that was presented as a part of their classroom curriculum. It is also possible that some of the information that students brought to their drawings and interviews were a result of experiences that they have

10

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plantshad at home with their parents or guardians. This was not necessarily true across all of the classrooms and provides insight into the potential conceptual understanding or comfort level of the various classroom teachers with the science content and curriculum (Davis et al, 2006; Atwood & Atwood, 1997; Trundle et al, 2002; Stoddert et al, 1993; Abell, Bryan & Anderson, 1998; Schwartz et al , 2004) .

This study also supported the results of previous work with older children and pre-service teachers (e.g. McNair & Stein, 2002; Bell, 1981; Gatt et al, 2007; Boulter et al, 2003; Tunnicliffe, 2001). For example in this study as well as previous studies, flowers/flowering plants were drawn more frequently than other types of plants (McNair & Stein, 2002). Children in this instantiation did not typically represent important concepts, such as photosynthesis, in their drawings. This was to be expected given the age of the children who participated. Most frequently, across the grade levels, simple needs were identified such as sunlight, water, and soil/nutrients. In the youngest children (Kindergarten / First Grade), even soil was often omitted with drawings starting at the bottom of the paper rather than emerging from the soil/ground. The inclusion, or lack of inclusion, may be a direct result of how these concepts are taught or introduced in the science classroom. Additionally, while children demonstrated a lack of advanced conceptual knowledge of plant structure and function in their drawings, the interviews showed that in some cases, this knowledge was present. The interviews allowed the children to talk about their drawings and representations in a way that encouraged them to work at a metacognitive level, problem solving around abstract scientific concepts and giving insight into their conceptual knowledge about plants at a higher level than what was shown in their drawings (Cox, 1991; Brooks, 2009). The drawings served as a symbolic representation of the children’s ideas and sense making about plants (e.g. Einarsdottir et al, 2009; Brooks, 2009: Stanczak, 2007).

Several things emerged from analysis of the data from this study. First, the drawings from the children in grades two and three were much easier to analyze and typically contained more detailed information about plant structure and function. The interviews in the early grades were important to ensure that our interpretation of the drawings was correct. What we found was that drawings, not only give insight into student conceptual knowledge, but they also shed light on the types of experiences that the students have been previously exposed to. These drawings are particularly useful with younger students who are just learning how to write and may not be able to fully express their ideas in written language. Across the grade levels, it was also apparent that there is a need for more exposure to plant structure and function through inquiry activities. The drawings created by the children can help teachers to develop activities that will allow the children to develop their conceptual knowledge. For example, students in the second and third grade had some understanding that air was necessary for plant growth. What was not clear was their understanding of the role that air plays in these processes. By having this knowledge about their students, teachers can develop the activities that would best serve their own students learning needs in coming to understand the role of air in the functioning of plants.

Within a science classroom, drawings can play an important role by creating the opportunity for open-ended, creative assessment that can provide teachers with insight into their students conceptual knowledge. While written assessments are still the most common forms of assessment in science classrooms, drawing can provide the types of insight that can be used to inform both teaching and learning processes. Drawing becomes “constructive process of thinking in action” (Cox, 2005, p. 123). This study has provided us with a baseline of young children’s conceptual knowledge of plant structure and function. Future studies might look at the impact of teachers’ conceptual knowledge and the role it plays in the enactment of the science curriculum in the classroom.

11

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of PlantsReferences

Abell, S. K., Bryan, L. A., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science

teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Science Education, 82(4), 491 – 509.

Athney, C. (1990). Extending thought in young children. London: Paul Chapman. Atwood, R.K. & Atwood, V.A. (1997). Effects of instruction on preservice elementary teachers'

conceptions of the causes of night and day and the seasons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(1), 1-13.

Barman, C.R., Stein, M., McNair, S., and Barman, S. (2006). Students’ Ideas about Plants andPlant Growth. The American Biology Teacher, 68(2)73-79.

Barman, C.R., Stein, M., Barman, N. and McNair, S. (2002). Assessing student ideas about plants. Science and Children, 10(1):25-29.

Bell, B.F. (1981). What is a plant: Some children’s ideas. New Zealand Science Teacher, 31: 10-14.

Boulter, C., Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Reiss, M. (2003). Probing children's understandings of the natural world. In Biology Education for the Real World: Proceedings of the 4th Conference of European Researchers in Didactic of Biology (ERIDOB). Ecole Nationale de Formation Agronomique, Toulouse, pp. 243-257.

Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing, visualization and young children’s exploration of “big ideas.” International Journal of Science Education, 31:3, 319-341.

Brown, A.L., and Kane, M.J. (1988). Pre-School children can learn to transfer: Learning to learn and learning from example. Cognitive Psychology, 20(4): 493-523.

Chambers, D.W. (1983). Stereotypical images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. ScienceEducation, 67(2): 255-266.

Cox, S. (2005). Intention and meaning in young children’s drawing. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 24(2), 115-125.

Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607 – 651.

Davis, E.A., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Supporting inquiry-oriented science teaching: Design heuristics for educative curriculum materials. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Einarsdottir, J., Dockett, S., Perry, B. (2009). Making meaning: Children’s perspectives expressed through drawings. Early Child Development and Care, 179:2, 217-232.

French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1) 138-149.

Gatt, S., Tunnicliffe, S.D., Borg, K. & Lautier, K. (2007). Young Maltese children’s ideas about plants. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3). 117-122.

Gauld, C. (2012). A study of pupils’ responses to empirical evidence. Doing Science (Rle Edu O): Images of Science in Science Education, 62.

Golomb, C. (1992). The child’s creation of a pictoral world. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.

Goodenough, F. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York: Harcourt. Grossman, P. & Thompson (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher

learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(4), 281-301.Grungeon, E. (1993). Gender implications of children’s playground culture. In P. Woods & M.

Hamersley (Eds.), Gender and ethnicity in schools: Ethnographic accounts (pp. 11-33). London: Routledge.

Haney, W., Russell, M. & Bebell, D. (2004). Drawing on Education: Using drawings to

12

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plantsdocument schooling and support change. Harvard Educational Review,

74(3)241- 271.Howe, C., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (2011). The acquisition of conceptual knowledge

in science by primary school children: Group interaction and the understanding of motion down an incline. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(2), 113-130.

Katz, L.G. (1993). What can we learn form Reggio Emilia? In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, and G. Forman (Eds.). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Katz, L.G. & Chard, S.C. (1996). The contribution of documentation to the quality of early childhood education. (ERIC Digest No. EDO-PS-96-2).

Kellogg, R. (1969). Analyzing children’s drawings. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Lally, D., Brooks, E., Tax, F.E., and Dolan, E.L. (2007). Dialogue: Public Engagement through

Plant Science. The Plant Cell, 19: 2311-2319.Light, P. (1985). The development of view specific representation considered from a socio-

cognitive standpoint. In N.H. Freeman & M.V. Cox (Eds.), Visual order: The nature and development of pictoral representation (pp. 214-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McNair, S., and Stein, M. (2001). Drawing on their understanding: Using illustrations to Invoke deeper thinking about plants. Presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science Annual Meeting. Costa Mesa, California, January,

Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: Ten years of learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 767-790.

National Research Council (2012). A Framework for Science Education. Washington D.C. : National Academies Press.

National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. M.S. Donovan & J.D. Bransford (Eds.) Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

Osborne, R.J., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. London: HeinemannPalsha, S. (2002). An outstanding education for all children: Learning from Reggio Emilia’s

approach to inclusion. In V. Fu, A. Stremmel, & L. Hill (Eds.) Teaching and learning collaborative exploration of the Reggio Emilia approach (pp109-129). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Remillard, J.T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.

Ring, K. (2006). Supporting young children drawing: Developing a role. International Journal of Education Through Art, 2(3), 195-209.

Roth, K. J. (1984) Using classroom observations to improve science teaching and curriculum materials. In C. W. Anderson (ed.), Observing Science Classrooms: Perspectives fromResearch and Practice. 1984 Yearbook of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

Sanders D (2007) Making public the private life of plants: the contribution of informal learning environments. Int J Sci Education 29(10):1209–1228.

Schneekloth L (1989) Where did you go? ‘‘The forest’’. ‘‘What did you see?’’ Nothing. Child Environ Q 6(1):14–17.

Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., & Crawford, B.A. (2004). Science teacher education developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap

13

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plantsbetween nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.

Smith, J.P., diSessa, A.A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of Learning Sciences, 3(2) 115-163.

Smith, E. L. & Anderson, C.W. (1984). Plants as producers: A case study of elementary science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 21(7) 685-698.

Stanczak, G.C. (2007). Introduction: Images, methodologies and generating social knowledge. In G.C. Stanczak (Ed.) Visual Research Methods: Image, society and representation (pp. 1-21). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Stegelin, D.A. (2003). Application of the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood science curriculum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(3) 163-170.

Stoddart, T., Connell, M., Stofflett, R., & Peck, D. (1993). Reconstructing elementary teacher candidates' understanding of mathematics and science content. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(3), 229-241.

Suping, S. (2003) ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental EducationTunnicliffe, S.D. (2001). Talking about plants: Comment of primary school groups looking at

plant exhibits in a botantical garden. Journal of Biological Education, 36(1) p. 27-35.Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., & Christopher, J. E. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers'

conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(7), 633-658.

Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naïve physics. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), "Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice" (pp. 61-76). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Wandersee, J.H. and Schussler, E.E. (2001). Toward a theory of plant blindness. PlantScience Bulletin, 47: 2-9.

Wee, B. (2012). A Cross-cultural Exploration of Children's Everyday Ideas: Implications for science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 609-627.

Weber, S. & Mitchell, C. (1995). “That’s funny, you don’t look like a teacher.”Washington D.C.: Falmer Press.

Wortham, S.C. (2001). Assessment in early childhood education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

14

RUNNING HEAD: Conceptual Knowledge of Plants

15