American Journal of Botany 96(10): 1753–1759. 2009.

SPECIAL INVITED PAPER—YEAR OF SCIENCE

BOTANICAL LITERACY:
WHAT AND HOW SHOULD STUDENTS LEARN ABOUT PLANTS?1
Gordon E. Uno2
Department of Botany and Microbiology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 USA

Botanists benefit from a scientifically literate society and an interested and botanically literate student population, and we have
opportunities to promote literacy in our classes. Unfortunately, scientific illiteracy exists, in part, because students are technologi-
cally advanced but lack intellectual curiosity and rigor. Botanical illiteracy results from several interacting factors, including a lack
of interest in plants and infrequent exposure to plant science before students reach college. If scientific or botanical literacy is a
goal, we must understand what literacy means and how we can help students reach that goal. A model of biological literacy rec-
ognizes four levels; students enter courses at the lowest level possessing misconceptions about concepts; however, misconceptions
can be used to our advantage, especially by using concept inventories. Inquiry-based instruction is advocated for all science
courses, and learning theory supports inquiry. Seven principles of learning inform recommendations about how botanists should
teach, including using themes and “thinking botanically” to illustrate all biological concepts. Overall, consideration of the botani-
cal content taught is less critical than the methods used to teach that content. If botanists emphasize thinking and process skills
with an understanding of concepts, we will prepare scientifically literate students and citizens and benefit from our efforts.

Key words: botanical literacy; inquiry instruction; learning theory; misconceptions; scientific literacy; thinking skills.

Dr. Christopher Haufler organized his President’s Sympo-
sium at the 2008 Botanical Society of America annual meeting
with a goal of illuminating the problems and potential solutions
related to the current crisis in scientific literacy in the United
States. Scientific illiteracy and disinterest in science affects
botanists and other scientists, who seek federal funding for their
research programs and more qualified graduate students, who
want better teaching evaluations, who expect engaging and ef-
fective science instruction for their own children, who hope that
the botanical texts and curriculum materials they produce will
sell, and who desire public support and respect for the research
in which they are engaged. Few would argue that scientifically
literate politicians are critical to improved and sustained bud-
gets for federal funding (Huang, 2009). Scientific literacy has
also been linked to the economic well-being of a country, which
in today’s international marketplace requires a steady supply of
scientists, engineers, and technically trained personnel to pro-
duce new high-technology products (Laugksch, 2000). With
disinterested students in our classes, however, scientific illiter-
acy increases, teaching evaluations drop, and fewer students
major in botany, which leads to fewer Botany graduate students
(Uno, 1994). A general decline in support for botany as a sub-
ject of study has led to a decline in the number of institutions
hiring botanists and offering basic botany courses, which is also
related to a decrease in students majoring in agriculture as well
as an increase in uninformed administrators who make deci-
sions on hiring and course offerings (Sundberg, 2004).
1
Manuscript received 20 January 2009; revision accepted 14 May 2009.
The author thanks Christopher Haufler for organizing the symposium on
scientific literacy and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments.
2 E-mail: guno@ou.edu
doi:10.3732/ajb.0900025
1753
In terms of scientific illiteracy, those of us who teach can
point to countless examples of students who seem unprepared
even for introductory science courses, who lack critical think-
ing skills and basic knowledge, and who seem disinterested or
disengaged. Unfortunately, the problem of illiteracy within stu-
dent populations or the general public is not limited to science.
In his recently published book, The Dumbest Generation: How
the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes
Our Future, Bauerlein (2008) laments about the illiteracy of
students in history, civics, political science, the arts, and sci-
ence. Bauerlein provides both anecdotal and well-researched
data to support his contention about widespread illiteracy as
well as a general anti-intellectualism among our students and
citizens.
Bauerlein cites several reports on student activities and test
results, all pointing to the same conclusion—that the illiteracy
problem is all too common. For instance, 52% of American
high school seniors chose Germany, Japan, or Italy over the
Soviet Union as a U. S. ally in World War II. Only 41% could
name the three branches of the U. S. government, but 59%
could identify the Three Stooges by name. Sixty-four percent
could name the latest American Idol, but only 10% could iden-
tify the Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives. Of
course, these are factual items, and we should not be focusing
just on facts. However, it is distressing that students lack a
knowledge base and experience in many disciplines. In regard
to science, in 2004, 6 000 000 Chinese students tried to win a
place in the Intel Science and Engineering Fair, compared to
only 65 000 American students. Major government reports
point to disparities between foreign and American students in
terms of numbers engaged in scientific activities, performance
on exams, numbers graduating with science and engineering
degrees, and student interest in science (NSF, 2007). Certainly,
the world is flat, sensu Friedman (2005), and because of the
aforementioned disparities, the future prosperity of the United
1754 American Journal of Botany
States is in jeopardy (NAS, 2007). J. D. Miller, a political sci-
entist who studies literacy issues, estimates that while scientific
literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20–25% of
Americans are scientifically savvy and alert (Miller, 1998;
Dean, 2005). Most of the rest “don’t have a clue.” Miller argues
that people’s inability to understand basic scientific concepts
undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process,
while higher levels of scientific literacy among the general pub-
lic can translate into greater support for science and improved
public decision-making because decisions are made in the light
of an adequate understanding of science-related issues.
Even though we live in the age of information, according to
Bauerlein, students have contracted their horizon to the social
scene around them. Students are encased in immediate realities
that shut out conditions beyond a small sphere. Thus, the infor-
mation they receive and the interactions they have are very lo-
cal and superficial, so important information cannot slip through
into their consciousness—information such as what we are
teaching. More than two-fifths (44%) of college students spend
10 or fewer hours a week preparing for their classes, but aver-
age 17 hours a week socializing in person or via phone and e-
mail (NSSE, 2004). Students also say, “I can just look
information up, so why do I have to know it?” The Internet
certainly has eased the pain of “library” reports; however, if
you are asking questions that can be answered simply by stu-
dents surfing the Internet, you may be asking the wrong types of
questions and contributing to the scientific illiteracy of our stu-
dents. We instructors share the blame for scientific illiteracy;
we are very good at telling students what it is and what it does,
whether “it” is a structure or a process. However, we often fail
to involve students in thinking about how this process or struc-
ture evolved or how we know what we know based on research.
Science is an investigative process, and learning about science
and how it works is best achieved by providing students with
the opportunity to conduct science themselves.
DISCUSSION
In regard to botanical literacy and getting students to learn
more about plants, botanists are fighting an uphill battle. First,
students do not find plants or botany inherently interesting. Stu-
dent ratings of factors that influenced their choice of college
major (Marbach-Ad, 2004) showed that a general interest in
biology (4.7/5) and in humans (4.2/5) were major reasons why
students decided to major in biology, while an interest in plants
(2.1/5) was at the bottom of the list. Second, Wandersee and
Schussler (1999) coined the phrase “plant blindness” to charac-
terize the inability to see or notice plants in one’s own environ-
ment, leading to the inability to recognize the importance of
plants in the biosphere and in human affairs. While this blind-
ness seems to be universal, students entering our classes lack
the awareness of the importance of plants in their lives. A third
challenge facing botanists is that plant biology comprises less
than 20% of high school biology courses (Uno, 1994). Only
14% of the six best-selling high school biology textbooks is
devoted to the study of “plants” (including chapters on algae,
biomes and photosynthesis), and although general biological
concepts, such as cellular respiration, apply to both plants and
animals, plants are rarely discussed in these sections. Five of
six texts included laboratories, but only 20% related directly to
plants, with 32% related to nonhuman animals. For many pre-
college teachers, about 75% of classroom time and 90% of
[Vol. 96
homework assignments are related to textbook material, and
because teachers rarely receive training about plants, they use
plants less frequently as examples of natural phenomena or as
laboratory subjects. Thus, the study of plants suffers from dis-
engaged students, poor instruction, inherent disinterest in plants,
general plant blindness, and infrequent precollege exposure to
plants or botany.
There is, however, a major disconnect between the apparent
barriers to botanical literacy mentioned and the public’s general
interest in plants. For instance, gardening has been ranked in
the top 3–10 American leisure activities since 1995 (Harris In-
teractive Poll, 2008), agriculture is still a major economic enter-
prise in the United States, biofuels research has gained major
public attention, interest in human nutrition and biotechnology
has always been high, turf management and crime scene inves-
tigation (CSI) programs are growing and attracting a lot of ma-
jors, and concern about environmental issues is sky-rocketing.
These are all related, directly or indirectly, to botany, however,
mostly to the applied aspects of plant science. One recommen-
dation is to teach more courses such as Economic Botany,
Plants and the Environment, or Plant Care and Cultivation that
take advantage of these practical interests of students, or at least
to include more applied aspects of plant biology in our current
courses. Doing so has helped the Department of Botany and
Microbiology at the University of Oklahoma increase the num-
ber of botany majors from 11 to 40 (Uno, 2007).
Botanical literacy is a subset of biological literacy, which has
been defined in different ways. When we talk about literacy, are
we talking about (1) simply knowing what causes a particular
natural phenomenon, such as flagging of a tree, or (2) knowing
how to determine scientifically what caused the flagging, or (3)
noticing that flagging occurred and wanting to know what
caused it to happen? Biologically literate individuals demon-
strate interest and possess basic knowledge and inquiry skills,
however, to different degrees. Uno and Bybee (BSCS, 1993)
developed a model of biological literacy that recognizes four
types of literacy. With a “nominal level” of biological literacy,
students can identify terms and questions as biological in na-
ture, but may possess misconceptions of biological concepts. A
nominal level of literacy means that students recognize words,
such as xylem or pollen, as belonging to the domains of science
and botany; however, they are not able to define or describe the
word, or they possess a misconception or a naïve explanation of
the term. With a “functional level” of literacy, students can use
biological vocabulary and define terms correctly, but they
memorize responses. With a “structural level,” students under-
stand the conceptual scheme of biology, possess procedural
knowledge and skills and can explain biological concepts in
their own words. At the “multidimensional level,” students un-
derstand the place of biology among other disciplines, know the
history and nature of biology, and understand the interactions
between biology and society.
In the model described, students often enter courses with a
nominal level of literacy and often leave with only a functional
level. Thus, it is critical for instructors to first determine what
students do not know or what they think they know, however
incorrectly, before building on their knowledge. Too often, un-
fortunately, college courses are vocabulary drills, focusing on
definitions, labeling, and recognizing correct answers. Students
with excellent memories are rewarded, while their skills of
thinking, analysis, and evaluation are left undeveloped. Thus,
students often leave with a functional level of literacy; they can
function on tests, however, after an exam, the information slips
October 2009] Uno—Botanical literacy
away from their memories. Uno and Bybee encourage instruc-
tors to focus on the “higher” levels of literacy, including the
structural level, where students understand concepts and can
explain them in their own words, which provides a solid foun-
dation on which to build a strong science experience. At the
structural and multidimensional levels, students understand the
process of science and are able to conduct investigations that
lead them to understand the content of biology while honing
their thinking and process skills.
How should we attack the problem of botanical illiteracy?
There is a growing wealth of literature on how students learn
and, specifically, how they learn science (Bransford et al.,
1999). Instructors must understand how students learn and what
keeps them from learning to break through students’ superficial
social barriers facilitated by modern technology. We must get
students to take more science courses, in general, as recom-
mended by many groups, including the National Research
Council (1999), to increase the chance that students will be ex-
posed to any plant biology. We can assign popular literature as
part of reading homework; for instance, we might introduce
students to botany through Michael Pollan’s Botany of Desire
(2001) or Barbara Kingsolver’s Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
(2007). We can try to influence standardized exams; every state
has a set of standardized exams that precollege students must
take as a measure of their academic achievement. Many of these
exams are science-related, and they often drive what is taught in
the precollege science classroom. Thus, if botanists become
part of the writing team that creates a statewide exam, the ulti-
mate result could be a greater need for precollege teachers to
teach more about plants. Of course, even without these exams,
getting more botanical activities into precollege classrooms
would be highly beneficial for generating interest in plants
among future college students. Thus, all botanists should be en-
couraged to work with local schools and teachers to improve
the science curriculum and increase the amount of plant science
being taught. Through the Botanical Society of America (BSA)
project, PlantingScience, botanists can work directly with pre-
college students as they conduct investigations on plants (http://
plantingscience.org).
Another key to defeating botanical and scientific illiteracy is
the use of inquiry instruction, which has been advocated for
years by multiple science education publications and groups.
Major documents produced by premier scientific organizations,
including the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS), in conjunction with the National Science
Foundation (NSF) (Cunningham and George, 2004), provide
recommendations on how to improve undergraduate science
teaching. From Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Edu-
cation (Fox and Hackerman, 2003), comes information about
learning theory and the “seven principles of learning,” which
can serve as the foundation of inquiry instruction. The follow-
ing are the seven principles of learning with suggestions about
what can be done in science classes to increase inquiry instruc-
tion and improve scientific literacy.
Principle 1. Learning with understanding is facilitated
when new and existing knowledge is structured around the
major concepts and principles of the discipline— Knowing
many disconnected facts is not sufficient for developing exper-
tise or understanding. Breadth of coverage and recall of facts
actually may hinder students’ abilities to organize knowledge
effectively. To overcome these obstacles, courses should be or-
ganized around “big ideas” or themes in biology. For instance,
1755
evolution, economic botany, plant ecology, plant diversity, and
science as an investigative process are themes that could be
used. A theme helps students integrate individual facts and con-
struct an understanding of the discipline as a whole. For in-
stance, if evolution is the theme, then for each topic taught, the
evolutionary history and evidence that led to the current under-
standing of that topic is included. Thus, during classes on pho-
tosynthesis, students might come to understand the significance
of the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll in terms of the evolu-
tion of plants (ancestors of plants in competition with photosyn-
thetic organisms that used green light). This also has the benefit
of training students to “think evolutionarily” and helps demon-
strate that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light
of evolution” (Dobzhansky, 1973). Another benefit of using an
overarching construct such as evolution is that it serves as a
constant reminder of the big ideas in biology, and this repetition
can break through students’ superficial understanding of
concepts.
If you are a botanist teaching in a general biology course, you
are most likely already trying to get your students to “think bo-
tanically.” To get them to think botanically, you use a plant
example for every major biological concept you teach, focusing
on how this information contributes to the life of a plant. Thus,
you would perhaps use Philodendron species, as opposed to an
animal, as an example when discussing cellular respiration.
Many students possess the misconception that plants photosyn-
thesize but do not have cellular respiration, which arises, in
part, because precollege teachers often focus on animals and
microorganisms when they teach cellular respiration. Thus,
botanists should also help precollege biology teachers to think
botanically in their courses, providing them with useful infor-
mation and activities.
Principle 2. Learners use what they already know to con-
struct new understandings— Learners construct interpretations
of newly encountered ideas, problems and phenomena to agree
with their own prior knowledge (constructivism)—even when
these interpretations are wrong. However, students cannot con-
struct an accurate or thorough understanding of a concept if
they possess misconceptions or naïve explanations about it.
Students will enter your course with misconceptions about a
variety of topics in science and botany, so you must first dis-
cover what students do not know. For instance, if students
“think” that all plants possess flowers and seeds (and many pos-
sess that misconception), then, for those students, mosses are
not plants, and it is difficult for them to appreciate the evolu-
tionary history of plants in general. Students who think that an
alga is a type of fungus or that a virus is a sickness caused by
bacteria (misconceptions that students possess; BSCS, 1993)
will not understand why antibiotics will not help cure their cold
or flu and why fungicides might not be effective on the algae
growing in their swimming pool.
How do you identify student misconceptions? Build a data-
base of questions students miss on your exams and the kinds of
answers they give. In addition, David Hershey (2004, 2005) has
written extensively about botanical misconceptions, and James
Wandersee (Wandersee et al., 1994) and his group in the 15°
Laboratory have published several articles dealing with alterna-
tive conceptions (http://www.15degreelab.com/index.html).
Fortunately, you can use student misconceptions to your advan-
tage. Concept inventories are research-based instruments that
measure student understanding of concepts for which students
share common alternative misconceptions and faulty reasoning.
1756 American Journal of Botany
Fig. 1. A sample biology concept inventory question (Wilson et al.,
2006). The correct answer is A. Distracters for the “Jared question” show
that students confuse matter and energy, thinking about them interchange-
ably. Instructors who are aware of misconceptions can use this thinking dur-
ing their course design. Faculty can use related sets of questions to recognize
and follow students’ faulty reasoning spanning content across a course.
Best known is the force concept inventory (FCI), consisting of
30 multiple-choice questions about Newtonian mechanics, that
is widely used in physics education (Hestenes et al., 1992). For
physicists, the answers in the FCI are obvious, but students in
introductory courses often score poorly because the incorrect
responses intentionally match common misunderstandings. As
with the physics FCI, biology inventories have the potential to
help faculty to reduce the information they attempt to cover,
place more emphasis on fundamental comprehension of core
ideas and thinking, and inform faculty of the likelihood that a
student does not understand a core concept or idea. Concept
inventories differ from typical multiple choice tests in several
important ways, including that the distracters are based on ex-
tensive research, are in students’ own words, diagnose a spe-
cific level of student conceptual understanding, and clearly
reveal where students are getting “stuck” in their thinking
(D’Avanzo, 2008) (see Fig. 1 for a sample question).
While dealing with student misconceptions, courses must
also help students appreciate the importance of evidence and
how quality evidence is obtained. A focus on evidence is help-
ful to break through the superficial understanding students have
about a subject. Training students to look for and evaluate evi-
dence will also help replace their misconceptions with an ap-
propriate understanding of a topic. In my Introductory Botany
course, I give students newspaper and magazine articles con-
taining graphs that contradict the headline or title. “Violent
Crime Increases in Cleveland County” was the headline of an
article from our college newspaper that included a graph show-
ing that violent crime had actually decreased over time. Yet,
when asked to interpret the graph, the vast majority of students
initially agreed with the headline. Spending time on such exer-
cises may help students learn how to interpret and evaluate in-
formation and, eventually, to expect and appreciate evidence in
decision-making activities.
Principle 3. Learning is facilitated through the use of
metacognitive strategies that identify, monitor, and regulate
cognitive processes— Simply defined, metacognition is think-
ing about thinking. Cognitive processes include those think-
ing activities such as comprehending, memorizing, or
reasoning. Students use metacognitive strategies when they
plan how they will study for an exam or when they monitor
their current understanding of a subject. What does a student
need to know to solve a problem, and how does a student
know what he/she knows? Faculty should help students moni-
tor their own current level of understanding about a topic and
[Vol. 96
help them determine when their knowledge is inadequate. To
do this, you can use formative assessments (e.g., give mini-
quizzes that are not graded, or have students create drawings
of a concept you just taught to help students assess what they
do not know). Such formative assessments help students mon-
itor their understanding of a subject without the penalty of a
poor grade. Concept maps have been widely used to help stu-
dents determine their current state of understanding about bio-
logical concepts. A concept map is a tool for organizing and
representing knowledge (Mintzes et al., 1998) in which a stu-
dent constructs his or her personal visual representation of the
relationships between components, or terms, of a particular
major concept (see Fig. 2 for an example). The science educa-
tion literature is replete with helpful articles and books about
making and using concept maps; search for “Joseph D. No-
vak” whose research is foundational to the development and
use of concept maps.
You can also help your students by teaching them how to
read an article or scientific text for understanding, instead of
mechanically highlighting 80% of the text. Students can learn
to summarize what they have read and to see how an argument
is constructed based on the evidence presented. Faculty can
provide opportunities for students to observe experts as they
solve problems, so you might spend time modeling how you
approach a research question of interest. What led you to ask
your question, and what did you have to understand to be able
to ask and answer that question? Finally, instructors should
move students out of their comfort zone where they simply
copy notes from Powerpoint slides and memorize text without
understanding. Can students identify and monitor their under-
standing, i.e., do they realize they are memorizing words with-
out understanding vs. being able to explain concepts in their
own words?
Principle 4. Learners have different strategies, approaches,
abilities, and learning styles that are a function of the interac-
tion between their heredity and their prior experiences— Not
surprisingly, some students respond favorably to one kind of
instruction, whereas others benefit from a different approach.
All students, however, benefit when they are themselves en-
gaged in learning instead of just hearing information in the form
of a lecture. In addition, using only one form of assessment
benefits some students more than others. A way to overcome
these differences is to use inquiry instruction, where students
are allowed to design and conduct their own experiments or
independent projects. This can accommodate a variety of abili-
ties and learning styles because students seek their own level in
terms of the experiments they develop or activities they choose.
Plants, of course, make excellent research subjects because they
are relatively inexpensive and easy to maintain and manipulate
experimentally. There are literally hundreds of articles, books,
and websites available to help you develop appropriate assess-
ments for your students and to organize your class activities
with these assessments in mind. For instance, the National Re-
search Council’s (Pelligrino et al., 2001) “Knowing What Stu-
dents Know: The Science and Design of Educational
Assessment,” the list of Internet Resources for Higher Educa-
tion Outcomes Assessment from North Carolina State Univer-
sity at website http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/assmt/resource.
htm, and the Field-Tested Learning Assessment Guide from the
University of Wisconsin at http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/
cl1/flag/cat/cat.htm identify multiple resources on student
assessment.
October 2009] Uno—Botanical literacy
Fig. 2. A student’s simple concept map about photosynthesis. In de-
veloping concept maps, students are given terms (concepts) related to a
question, problem or subject area, which they then organize with the main
idea at the top and terms (often 10–25) directly related to that idea under-
neath it. Lines are drawn between related terms with a short action phrase
that describes the nature of the relationship. When two or more terms have
a similar relationship to an idea, they are placed at the same level. One term
may be cross-linked to several other terms, forming a web of ideas. Con-
cept maps can reveal a student’s misconceptions about and understanding
of a subject. Where would you add the following terms (ATP, sugar, and
stomata), and what would your action phrases be?
Principle 5. Learners’ motivation to learn and sense of self
affect what is learned, how much is learned, and how much
effort will be put into the learning process— Motivation is en-
hanced when students perceive learning tasks as interesting and
personally meaningful and when tasks are presented at an ap-
propriate level of difficulty, which doesn’t necessarily mean
that the task is easy. Some students believe their ability to learn
a particular subject or skill is predetermined, but even brief in-
terventions, such as short, self-affirming, writing assignments
may have long-term benefits for students in science (Cohen et
al., 2009). Also, by introducing topics with “hooks” that are of
interest to students, you increase their receptiveness to learn.
These hooks may not have anything to do directly with botany
but more to do with the process of science, such as “does cell
phone use really cause brain tumors, and how would you inves-
tigate this?” Finding real-life examples and research projects
that are relevant to students will help motivate them to learn.
Two other ways to increase motivation are to allow students to
investigate a question of interest to them and to create more
“need to know moments” that drive the desire to obtain infor-
mation about particular subjects. For instance, if you discover a
family member has a particular disease, you develop a need to
search the Internet and interview experts to obtain as much in-
formation you can find about symptoms, cures, and prognosis
associated with the illness. Similarly, if students are required to
become an expert on a particular topic, they need to consider
the validity of a variety of sources, or if they must design, con-
duct, and report on their own experiment, they need to deter-
1757
mine what materials they will use and how they will be used. In
addition, they must determine how to correct their experimental
design when something goes wrong and how to present their
findings. Two of several websites where students can find il-
lustrated examples of and links to interesting botanical research
and interactions between plants and humans are http://www.
botany.org (Botanical Society of America) and http://www.hu-
manflowerproject.com (Human Flower Project).
Principle 6. The practices and activities in which people en-
gage while learning shape what is learned— When students
learn subject matter in only a limited context, they often miss
seeing the applicability of that information to solve novel prob-
lems. Faculty should use learning experiences that draw directly
on real-world applications or exercises that foster problem-
solving skills and strategies. Problem-based learning, case-
study learning, and project-based learning are useful approaches.
Fortunately, all these strategies have been widely used and
well-investigated, and there is much information on their ef-
fectiveness and how to implement them in your class (see web-
sites http://www.udel.edu/pbl/ for problem-based learning,
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/case.html for
case-study learning, and http://www.edutopia.org/project-
learning for project-based learning). Learning content while
engaged in inquiry-based activities is also an effective way for
students to obtain both content and thinking skills.
Principle 7. Learning is enhanced through socially sup-
ported interactions— To enhance conceptual understanding,
faculty should provide students with opportunities to articulate
their ideas to peers and to hear and discuss the ideas of others.
Use collaborative, cooperative, and group learning, and interac-
tive discussions where students talk about their understanding
of concepts. These are all ways to capitalize on the sociality of
students. Faculty, and institutions of higher education, are cre-
ating Web-based interactive opportunities such as online
courses, hybrid courses (on site and online), and synchronous
and asynchronous online interactions including wikis, discus-
sion boards, and online mentoring (e.g., BSA’s Planting-
Science). Most colleges and universities have centers for
teaching excellence that can supply background information
and implementation support for a variety of teaching methods.
Building collaborative, socially supported teams with col-
leagues can also help you with the iterative process of your own
instructional design, helping you to develop learning goals for
your students, designing activities to meet those goals, and re-
vising your instruction based on an evaluation of progress to-
ward the goals (Miller et al., 2008). For those ready to tackle a
major revision of their courses, “Understanding by Design”
(Wiggins and McTighe, 2005) is an excellent resource on how
to develop a well-designed curriculum.
Conclusions—What should students know about plants?
There are, of course, recognized major botanical concepts that
plant biologists generally agree students should understand. For
instance, the American Society of Plant Biologists has published
12 “Principles of Plant Biology” (http://www.aspb.org/educa-
tion/foundation/principles.cfm), that are intended to help students
gain a basic understanding of plants. While these principles were
targeted for K–12 students, they are certainly appropriate for stu-
dents at all levels. For instance, one principle is: Plants require
certain inorganic elements for growth and play an essential role
in the circulation of these nutrients within the biosphere.
1758 American Journal of Botany
The BSA report “Botany for the Next Millennium” (http://
www.botany.org/bsa/millen/) suggests that “all botanists as indi-
viduals should maintain a whole-plant perspective in teaching, re-
search, and communication, whether the emphasis is on molecules
or ecosystems.” When considering what students should know,
faculty also need to cooperate with colleagues so that students can
seamlessly articulate between classes, prepared to do the work and
to build on their basic knowledge from previous courses.
When deciding what and how to teach, botanists must estab-
lish a set of goals for their own students: what should students
know, understand, and be able to do by the end of the class?
What do they want their students to remember—what are the
enduring understandings and skills that they want students to
retain well beyond the class?
Whatever content is taught, make sure that information is es-
sential to the understanding of a subject and that students are
able to connect information they learn about one concept to
other concepts. For instance, during your education to become
a professionally trained botanist, you probably learned all the
steps of the Calvin cycle and the chemical structures of its inter-
mediates. Perhaps you do not remember all the steps or struc-
tures now; however, you can explain, at least in general terms,
the importance of the Calvin cycle to a plant’s life. The ability
to do so is a demonstration of your enduring understanding of
the Calvin cycle. Your ability to understand the importance of
the arrangement of leaf tissues to the supply of carbon dioxide
for the Calvin cycle is an example of connecting ideas from dif-
ferent concepts.
While the big ideas or major concepts in botany might be
easier to identify, I predict it would be difficult for botanists to
agree on a consensus list of specific facts or terms that students
must know because each scientist has different interests and ar-
eas of expertise. Thus, such “consensus” exercises result in an
extensive laundry list of topics to cover. Instead, I recommend
that faculty should spend more time considering how enduring
content will be taught while improving the thinking and inves-
tigative skills of students. Students should also be able to dis-
cuss their understanding of concepts and focus on
problem-solving in class. It is essential for students to have both
a knowledge base and process skills to be a successful, scientifi-
cally literate student; thus, whatever content is taught, students
should engage in and understand the process of science and
how the study of botany is a scientific enterprise. It is likely that
you will never forget the experiments you conducted for your
own dissertation or thesis work, the problems you had in your
research design, and the adjustments you had to make. Those
too are enduring understandings—of the process of science—
which are also critical to producing a scientifically literate indi-
vidual. It is impossible to train a chef without ever letting
trainees taste spices or to make your child a competitive base-
ball player by simply having him/her read The Science of Hit-
ting by Ted Williams. Likewise, you cannot produce
scientifically literate students by lecturing to them; you must let
your students engage in the science of botany.
As outlined in “Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Sci-
ence, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics,” (McCray et
al., 2003), a highly desirable outcome for students in our classes
is the ability to think critically, which is desirable for both future
graduate students and biologically literate citizens. Thus, we
must emphasize inquiry process skills, providing students fre-
quent opportunities to (1) make careful observations about natu-
ral phenomena, (2) ask relevant questions, (3) hypothesize, and
plan experiments, (4) explain predictions, (5) collect and inter-
[Vol. 96
pret data (6) draw conclusions based on evidence, and (7) dis-
cuss and communicate results and their meaning.
We need to pique the interest of technologically oriented stu-
dents and learn new educational technologies ourselves so we
may reach this generation of students who learn in a different
way than we do. We should de-emphasize the endpoints of sci-
ence, the science facts, and help students recognize when they
do not understand a concept. We should capitalize on the social-
ity of students, while we take them out of their comfort zone of
passive notetaking and memorization of factual information. It
is essential that we deal with student misconceptions at the be-
ginning of each major concept and focus on thinking and the use
of evidence. Finally, we must provide students ample opportu-
nities to engage in the processes of discovery in class and to
apply their conceptual understanding and the processes of sci-
ence to their lives outside of class. If not, we risk losing a gen-
eration of future scientists and scientifically literate citizens.
LITERATURE CITED
Bauerlein, M. 2008. The dumbest generation: How the digital age stu-
pefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future. Penguin Group,
New York, New York, USA.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. 1993. Developing biologi-
cal literacy. BSCS, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA.
Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking. 1999. How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Cohen, G. L., J. Garcia, V. Purdie-Vaughns, N. Apfel, and P.
Brzustoski. 2009. Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening
to close the minority achievement gap. Science 324: 400–403.
Cunningham, S., and Y. George [eds.]. 2004. Invention and impact:
Building excellence in undergraduate science, technology, engineer-
ing and mathematics (STEM) education. American Association for
the Advancement of Science [AAAS], Washington, D.C., USA.
D’Avanzo, C. 2008. Biology concept inventories: Overview, status, and
next steps. BioScience 58: 1079–1085.
Dean, C. 2005. Scientific savvy? In U.S., not much. New York Times,
30 August. Website http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/
30profile.html.
Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light
of evolution. American Biology Teacher 35: 125–129.
Fox, M. A., and N. Hackerman [eds.]. 2003. Evaluating and improv-
ing undergraduate education in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. National Research Council, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Friedman, T. L. 2005. The world is flat. Farrar Straus and Giroux, New
York, New York, USA.
Harris Interactive Poll. 2008. U.S. leisure time plummets 20% in
2008 [online]. Website http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/
us-leisure-time-plummets-20-in-2008-hits-new-low-7470/harris-
interactive-poll-favorite-leisure-activities-december-2008jpg/ [ac-
cessed 14 April 2009].
Hershey, D. R. 2004. Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants
[online]. Website http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/her-
shey.html [accessed 23 July 2008].
Hershey, D. R. 2005. More misconceptions to avoid when teaching about
plants [online]. Website http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/
hershey3.html [accessed 23 July 2008].
Hestenes, D., M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer. 1992. Force concept
inventory. Physics Teacher 30: 141–151.
Huang, A. S. 2009. Science needs ace communicators and politicians.
Science News 175: 32.
Kingsolver, B., S. L. Hopp, and C. Kingsolver. 2007. Animal, vegetable,
miracle: A year of food life. HarperCollins, New York, New York, USA.
Laugksch, R. C. 2000. Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science
Education 84: 71–94.
October 2009] Uno—Botanical literacy
Marbach-Ad, G. 2004. Expectations and difficulties of first year college
students in biology. Journal of College Science Teaching 33: 18–23.
McCray, R. A., R. L. DeHaan, and J. A. Schuck [eds.]. 2003. Improving
undergraduate instruction in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. National Research Council, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Miller, J. D. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public
Understanding of Science 7: 203–223.
Miller, S., C. Pfund, C. M. Pribbenow, and J. Handelsman.
2008. Scientific teaching in practice. Science 322: 1329–1330.
Mintzes, J. J., J. H. Wandersee, and J. D. Novak. 1998. Teaching
science for understanding: A human constructivist view. Academic
Press, San Diego, California, USA.
National Academy of Sciences. 2007. Rising above the gathering
storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic
future. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
National Research Council. 1999. Transforming undergraduate edu-
cation in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Pellegrino, J. W., N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser [eds.]. 2001. Knowing
what students know: the science and design of educational assessment.
National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C., USA.
National Science Foundation. 2007. Asia’s rising science and technol-
ogy strength. Special report 07-319, National Science Foundation,
Arlington, Virginia, USA.
1759
National Survey of Student Engagement. 2004. Annual report.
Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University, Bloomington,
Indiana, USA.
Pollan, M. 2001. The botany of desire. Random House, New York, New
York, USA.
Sundberg, M. D. 2004. Where is botany going? Plant Science Bulletin
50: 2–7.
Uno, G. E. 1994. The state of pre-college botanical education. American
Biology Teacher 56: 263–266.
Uno, G. E. 2007. The struggle for botany majors. Plant Science Bulletin
53: 102–103.
Wandersee, J. H., J. J. Mintzes, and J. D. Novak. 1994. Research on
alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel [ed.], Handbook of
research on science teaching and learning: A project of the National
Science Teachers Association, 177–210. Macmillan, New York, New
York, USA.
Wandersee, J. H., and E. E. Schussler. 1999. Preventing plant blindness.
American Biology Teacher 61: 84–86.
Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe. 2005. Understanding by design. Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia,
USA.
Wilson, C. D., C. W. Anderson, M. Heidemann, J. Merrill, B. W.
Merritt, G. Richmond, D. F. Sibley, and J. M. Parker. 2006.
Assessing students’ ability to trace matter in dynamic systems in cell
biology. CBE Life Sciences Education 5: 323–331.