Effectiveness of Digital and Paper-Based Identification Keys for Plants with Slovenian Pre-service Teachers
Teaching about biodiversity and its conservation could be an effective way to teach the importance of different species and human dependence on ecolog.
- Pub. date: April 15, 2021
- Pages: 619-627
- 389 Downloads
- 484 Views
- 3 Citations
Teaching about biodiversity and its conservation could be an effective way to teach the importance of different species and human dependence on ecological support systems. This study compares the effectiveness of a digital and a paper-based dichotomous identification key for teaching pre-service teachers about plant species diversity. Twenty-four Slovenian teachers in pre-service training used a digital version of the key on tablet computers and twenty-nine used a paper-based version to identify woody species in the garden near their university faculty. Both keys contained the same species, identical photographs and the same sequence of steps to identify the species. The accuracy and time taken to identify the five species were measured. The participants also completed a questionnaire about the usability of the identification key. Overall, both versions of the key were equally good for determining species names. The digital version of the key was found to be more time-effective than the paper version only when multiple identification steps were required to identify species. The results confirm that those who scored better on the identification tasks have a better general opinion about the usability of the key; especially students using digital version of the key. Implications for teachers using or creating identification keys are discussed in the conclusion.
Keywords: Identification key, plants, pre-service teacher, plant determination, usability of identification key.
References
Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086
Anđić, B., Cvijetićanin, S., Maričić, M., & Stešević, D. (2018). The contribution of dichotomous keys to the quality of biological-botanical knowledge of eighth grade students. Journal of Biological Education, 53(3), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1469540
Anđić, B., Cvjetićanin, S., Lavicza, Z., Maričić, M., Novović, T., & Stešević, D. (2020). Mobile and printed dichotomous keys in constructivist learning of biology in primary school. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1763290
Andjić, B., Cvijetićanin, S., Hayhoe, S., Grujičić, R., & Stešević, D. (2019). Dichotomous keys in the botanical learning of non-visual (blind) people. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(5), 668–680. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.668
Bajd, B. (2016). Jednostavni biološki ključevi [Simplified biological keys]. Biology Education: Journal of Biology Education/ Educatio Biologiae: Časopis Edukacije Biologije, 2(1), 91–99.
Barney, E. C., Mintzes J. J., & Yen C. (2005). Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward charismatic megafauna: The case of dolphins. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(2), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.36.2.41-55
Bebbington, A. (2005). The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655963
Bell, B. F. (1981). When is an animal, not an animal? Journal of biological Education, 15(3), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1981.9654381
Bromham, L., & Oprandi, P. (2006). Evolution online: Using a virtual learning environment to develop active learning in undergraduates. Journal of Biological Education, 41(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2006.9656052
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
Dolenc-Orbanić, N., Cotič, N., & Furlan, P. (2016). Mobilno učenje na primeru spoznavanja biodiverzitete [Mobile learning about biodiversity]. Didactica Slovenica -Pedagoška Obzorja/Pedagogical Horizons, 31(1), 86–99.
Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2011). Children’s ability to recognize toxic and non-toxic fruits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(2), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75186
Huang, Y. M., Lin, Y. T., & Cheng, S. C. (2010). Effectiveness of a mobile plant learning system in a science curriculum in Taiwanese elementary education. Computers & Education, 54(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.006
Jacquemart, A. L., Lhoir, P., Binard, F., & Descamps, C. (2016). An interactive multimedia dichotomous key for teaching plant identification. Journal of Biological Education, 50(4), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1150870
Jeno, L. M., Grytnes, J. A., & Vandvik, V. (2017). The effect of a mobile-application tool on biology students' motivation and achievement in species identification: A Self-Determination Theory perspective. Computers & Education, 107, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.011
Kirchoff, B. K., Delaney, P. F., Horton, M., & Dellinger-Johnston, R. (2014). Optimizing learning of scientific category knowledge in the classroom: The case of plant identification. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-11-0224
Kos, M., & Jerman, J. (2015). Observing natural objects: characteristics of flowering plants perceived as important by 5-and 10-year-old children. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(1), 109–120. http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/abstract.php?icid=1143039
Laganis, J., Prosen, K., & Torkar, G. (2017). Classroom versus outdoor biology education using a woody species identification digital dichotomous key. Natural Sciences Education, 46(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2016.11.0032
Lawler, S. (2016). Identification of animals and plants is an essential skill set. The Conversation. https://bit.ly/2NuvMrX
Leggett, R., & Kirchoff, B. K. (2011). Image use in field guides and identification keys: review and recommendations. AoB Plants. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3077818
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
Nimis, P.L., Martellos, S., & Kodele Krašna, I. (2008). Interaktivni vodnik za določanje samoniklih in gojenih lesnatih rastlin Slovenije [An interactive guide to indigenous and introduced woody plants of Slovenia]. Key to Nature. http://dbiodbs.units.it/carso/chiavi_pub21?sc=312
Nimis, P.L., Martellos, S., Moro, A., Kodele Krašna, I., & Torkar, G. (2013). Spoznajmo lesnate rastline v okolici Pedagoške fakultete v Ljubljani [An interactive guide to woody plants in surrounding of the Faculty of Education University of Ljubljana]. Key to Nature. http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/~kemija/kljuc/species/5635.html
Patrick, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). What plants and animals do early childhood and primary students’ name? Where do they see them? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 630–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9290-7
Randler, C. (2008). Teaching species identification - A prerequisite for learning biodiversity and understanding ecology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75344
Randler, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2006). Cognitive achievements in identification skills. Journal of Biological Education, 40(4), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2006.9656038
Randler, C., & Zehender, I. (2006). Effectiveness of reptile species identification - A comparison of dichotomous key with an identification book. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(3), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75464
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Remmele, M., & Yli-Panula, E. (2017). Professional competence of student teachers to implement species identification in schools - A case study from Germany. CEPS Journal, 7(1), 29−47. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.12
Shultis, J. (2001). Consuming nature: The uneasy relationship between technology, outdoor recreation and protected areas. The George Wright Forum 18(1), 56–66.
Silva, H., Pinho, R., Lopes, L., Nogueira, A. J., & Silveira, P. (2011). Illustrated plant identification keys: An interactive tool to learn botany. Computers & Education, 56(4), 969–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.011
Skvarč, M., Glažar, S. A., Marhl, M., Skribe Dimec, D., Zupan, A., Cvahte, M., & Vičar, M. (2011). Program osnovna šola, Naravoslovje, učni načrt. [Basic school program, natural science, curriculum]. Ministrstvo za šolstvo in šport, Zavod RS za šolstvo [Ministry of Education, Science and Sport]. https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MIZS/Dokumenti/Osnovna-sola/Ucni-nacrti/obvezni/UN_naravoslovje.pdf
Stagg, B.C., Donkin, M.E., & Smith, A.M. (2015). Bryophytes for Beginners: The usability of a printed dichotomous key versus a multi-access computer-based key for bryophyte identification. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.934900
Šorgo, A. (2006). Dichotomous identification keys: A ladder to higher order knowledge about the human body. Science Activities, 43(3), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.3200/SATS.43.3.17-20
Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Reiss, M. J. (2000). Building a model of the environment: How do children see plants? Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655714
Unger, S., Rollins, M., Tietz, A., & Dumais, H. (2020). iNaturalist as an engaging tool for identifying organisms in outdoor activities. Journal of Biological Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1739114
Vinarski, M. V. (2020). Roots of the taxonomic impediment: Is the “integrativeness” a remedy? Integrative Zoology, 15(1), 2-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12393
Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (2001). Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Science Bulletin, 47(1), 2–9.
Wood, P. (2004). A dichotomous key for the identification of common British wild flower families. Journal of Biological Education, 38(3), 125–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2004.9655919