Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PROMOTING STUDENTS’ CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF PLANT DEFENSE RESPONSES USING THE FIGHTING PLANT LEARNING UNIT (FPLU)

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

Most students think animals are more interesting than plants as a study topic believing that plants are inferior to animals because they are passive and unable to respond to external challenges, particularly biological invaders such as microorganisms and insect herbivores. The purpose of this study was to develop an inquiry-based learning unit, the Fighting Plant Learning Unit (FPLU), which focuses on plant defense responses to biological stimuli. The study also investigated students’ perceptions of the FPLU implemented in a constructivist classroom. A total of 31 Thai science majors from grade 12 participated in this study. Multiple data-gathering techniques (quantitative and qualitative) were employed: conceptual testing, concept mapping, the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. It was found that from their active participation, the students developed a better conceptual understanding of plant defense mechanisms. In addition, they appeared to have positive attitudes toward the FPLU as evidenced by their preference for inquiry-based teaching in a constructivist learning environment. Finally, their perspectives on and appreciation of plants as active organisms had been favorably changed by the experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed, E. S., El-Essaway, A. A., Abou El-Hawa, M. E., Ezzat, S. M. & Batta Metwaly, M. (2008). Biotic and abiotic initiators for rishitin formation and accumulation in tomato. Folia Microbiologica, 42, 468–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkus, H., Kadayifci, H., Atasoy, B. & Geban, O. (2003). Effectiveness of instruction based on the constructivist approach on understanding chemical equilibrium concepts. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21(2), 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Plant Physiology Education Foundation. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from http://www.aspb.org/EDUCATION/foundation.

  • Armstrong, N., Chang, S. & Brickman, P. (2007). Cooperative learning in industrial sized biology classes. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 163–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T. & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 541–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, R. (2004). Children’s perceptions of plants following their visit to the Eden Project. Research in Science and Technology Education, 22(2), 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections on their integration. In J. Brannen (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 57–78). Aldershot, England: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to learning in science and their implications for science pedagogy: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3, 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. L. (2004). Developing a curriculum for the teaching of botany. Plant Science Bulletin, 49, 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. Y., Hsiao, C. H. & Barufaldi, J. P. (2006). Preferred-actual learning environment “space” and earth science outcomes in Taiwan. Science Education, 90, 420–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. Y. & Mao, S. L. (1999). Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 340–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta, E. L. (1997). Inquiry-based science. Strategies and techniques for encouraging inquiry in the classroom. The Science Teacher, 64, 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research method in education (5th ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curriculum Corporation (1994). Science—a curriculum profile for Australian schools. Melbourne, Australia: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBore, G. E. (2004). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in schools. In L. B. Fick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 17–35). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicke, M., Agrawal, A. A. & Bruin, J. (2003). Plants talk, but they are deaf. Trends in Plant Science, 8, 403–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledges in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droby, S., Vinokur, V., Weiss, B., Cohen, L., Daus, A., Golaschmidt, E. E. & Porat, R. (2002). Induction of resistance to Penicillium digitatum in grapefruit by the yeast biocontrol agent Candida oleophila. Phytopathology, 92(4), 393–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S. & Spensor, J. N. (1999). A guided inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 570–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, M. C. (2002). Do plants have to be intelligent? The American Biology Teacher, 64, 628–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fouts, J. T. & Mayers, R. E. (1992). Classroom environments and middle school students’ views of science. Journal of Educational Research, 85(6), 356–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (2002). Learning environment research: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In S. C. Goh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning environments: An international perspective (pp. 1–26). Singapore, Singapore: World Scientific.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. & Fisher, D. L. (1983). Student achievement as a function of person–environment fit: A regression surface analysis. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. & Fisher, D. L. (1986). Using short forms of classroom climate instruments to assess and improve classroom psychosocial environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 387–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghaouth, E. I. A., Wilson, L. C. & Wisniewski, M. (2003). Control of postharvest decay of apple fruit with Candida saitoana and induction of defense responses. Phytopathology, 93, 344–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M. & Ashman, A. F. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on students with learning difficulties in the lower elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, D. R. (1993). Plant neglect in biology education. BioScience, 43, 418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, D. R. (1996). An historical perspective on problems in botany teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 58, 340–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, D.R. (2004). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. Retrieved May 10, 2008 from http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey.html.

  • Hershey, D.R. (2005). Plant content in the national science education standard. Retrieved May 10, 2008 from http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey2.html.

  • Hoekstra, B. (2000). Plant blindness—the ultimate challenge to botanists. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 82–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A. & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8, 105–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, J. L., Shim, K. C. & Chang, N. K. (1998). A study of Korean middle school students’ interests in biology and their implications for biology education. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 989–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST) (2000). Teaching–learning science management. Bangkok, Thailand: IPST Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST) (2003). National science education standard: The basic education curriculum B.E.2544. Bangkok, Thailand: IPST Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jittham, P. (2008). The development of a learning cycle based on bromoperoxidase laboratory to promote science learning in a Thai university context. Doctoral dissertation, Mahidol University, Thailand.

  • Jittham, P., Sriwattanarothai, N., Ruenwongsa, P., Panijpan, B., Hongboontri, C. & Coll, R.K. (2008). Using the learning cycle to enhance Thai undergraduate university students’ understanding of enzyme kinetics. Proceeding of the Australian Science Education Research Association (ASERA) 39th Conference. Brisbane, Australia.

  • Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into practice, 38(2), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B. H., Fisher, D. L. & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of constructivist science learning environments in Korea. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(2), 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrenz, F. (1976). Student perception of the classroom learning environment in biology, chemistry, and physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13, 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarowitz, R. & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazorowitz, R., Hertz-Lazorowitz, R., Baird, J. H. & Bowlden, V. (1988). Academic achievement and on-task behavior of high school biology students instructed in a cooperative small investigative group. Science Education, 73, 67–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesgold, A. (2004). Contextual requirements for constructivist learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. E. & Lewis, S. E. (2008). Seeking effectiveness and equity in a large college chemistry course: An HLM investigation of peer-led guided inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 794–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, J., Arul, J., Ponnampalam, R. & Boulet, M. (1993). Induction of 6-methoxymellein and resistance to storage pathogens in carrot slices by UV-C. Journal of Phytopathology, 137, 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (1993). Science in New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moni, R. W., Beswick, E. & Moni, K. B. (2004). Using student feedback to construct an assessment rubric for a concept map in physiology. Advance in Physiological Education, 29, 197–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, H. R., Hackett, K. J. & Everett, A. S. (2007). Teaching science as investigations. Modeling inquiry through learning cycle lessons. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1992). Plant biology research and training for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National science education standards. A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approach (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, L. R. & Hammerschmidt, R. (1992). Phenolic compounds and their role in disease resistance. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 30, 369–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of the National Education Commission (1999). National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999). Bangkok, Thailand: Seven Printing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okebukola, P. A. (1986a). Cooperative learning and students’ attitudes to laboratory work. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 582–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okebukola, P. A. (1986b). The influence of preferred learning styles on cooperative learning in science. Science Education, 70, 509–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1853–1888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 429–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokop, P., Prokop, M. & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Is biology boring? Student attitudes toward biology. Journal of Biological Education, 42, 36–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, P. H., Johnson, G. B., Losos, J. & Singer, S. (2005). Biology (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (2007). Towards a new biology curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 41, 99–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadeh, I. & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salish I Research Project (1997). Secondary science and mathematics teacher preparation programs: Influences on new teachers and their students. Instrument package & user guide. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senchina, D. S. (2008). The students were right all along—plants really are boring. Plant Science Bulletin, 54, 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. (2001). Learner characteristics, learning environments and constructivist epistemologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 47, 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1999). Comprehensive approaches to cooperative learning. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 74–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soydhurum, P. (2001). Science education in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamp, N. (2004). Misconception about plant–herbivore interactions, especially plant defenses. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 85, 201–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamp, N. (2005). The problem with the message of plant–herbivore interactions in ecology textbooks. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 86, 27–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strgar, J. (2007). Increasing the interest of students in plants. Journal of Biological Education, 42, 19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamir, P. & Jungwirth, E. (1974). Botany and zoology—a curriculum problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J. & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K. & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, DC: AAA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F. (1988). The development and use of diagnostic instruments to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumper, R. (2006). Factors affecting junior high school students’ interest in biology. Science Education International, 17, 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Talking about plants—comments of primary school groups looking at plant exhibits in a botanical garden. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uno, G. E. (1994). The state of precollege botanical education. The American Biology Teacher, 56, 263–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Loon, L. C. (1997). Induced resistance in plants and the role of pathogenesis-related proteins. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 103, 753–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zee, E. H., Hammer, D., Bell, M., Roy, P. & Peter, J. (2005). Learning and teaching science as inquiry: A case study of elementary school teachers’ investigations of light. Science Education, 89, 1007–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veronese, P., Ruiz, T. M., Coca, A. M., Hernandez-Lopez, A., Lee, H., Ibeas, I. J., Damsz, B., Pardo, M. J., Hasegawa, M. P., Bressan, A. R. & Narasimhan, L. M. (2003). In defense against pathogens: Both plant sentinels and foot soldiers need to know the enemy. Plant Physiology, 31, 1580–1590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandersee, J. H. & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61, 82–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood-Robinson, C. (1991). Young peoples’ ideas about plants. Studies in Science Education, 19, 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zion, M., Slezak, M., Shapira, D., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., Orian, T., Nussinowitz, R., Court, D., Agrest, B., Mendelovici, R. & Valanides, N. (2004). Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning. Science Education, 88, 728–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology, Bangkok, Thailand

    Nantawan Nantawanit

  2. Multidisciplinary Unit, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Bhinyo Panijpan

  3. Multidisciplinary Unit, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Pintip Ruenwongsa

Authors
  1. Nantawan Nantawanit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bhinyo Panijpan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pintip Ruenwongsa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pintip Ruenwongsa.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 44 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nantawanit, N., Panijpan, B. & Ruenwongsa, P. PROMOTING STUDENTS’ CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF PLANT DEFENSE RESPONSES USING THE FIGHTING PLANT LEARNING UNIT (FPLU). Int J of Sci and Math Educ 10, 827–864 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9297-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9297-9

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation