Next Article in Journal
Stability Grade Evaluation of Slope with Soft Rock Formation in Open-Pit Mine Based on Modified Cloud Model
Previous Article in Journal
Circular Economy Approach: Recycling Toner Waste in Cement-Based Construction Materials
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 11
10.3390/su16114702
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Find the Plant—An Educational Game Fosters Plant Species Literacy

by
Petra Lindemann-Matthies
1,*,
Eve Heber
2 and
Martin Remmele
1
1
Institute of Biology, Karlsruhe University of Education, Bismarckstrasse 10, D-76060 Karlsruhe, Germany
2
Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart, Amt für Umweltschutz, Gaisburgstr. 4, D-70182 Stuttgart, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(11), 4702; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114702
Submission received: 1 April 2024 / Revised: 18 May 2024 / Accepted: 29 May 2024 / Published: 31 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Plants play a key role in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which call for a plant-aware and plant-knowledgeable public. This study investigated whether a non-digital educational game supplementary to a lecture on plant diversity can foster plant species literacy in student teachers of biology and environmental science students (n = 78). The 100 species of the lecture were displayed on playing cards together with their scientific names, plant families and symbols for further information. Two players alternately had to find out which plant their opponent had in hand by asking yes/no questions about possible characteristics of the species. Participation in the game was voluntary and took place in students’ free time. Before the game, interest in plants was moderately high and perceived competence to recognize plants was low. Students enjoyed playing the game and increased their interest in plants, their perceived competence to identify plants by species-specific morphological characteristics, and their actual plant species knowledge, as shown by an identification test on campus. A combination of a lecture and an accompanying game can thus be recommended to promote plant species literacy in higher education.

1. Introduction

1.1. Sustainable Development Goals and Lack of Plant Awareness

The ongoing loss of biodiversity due to human activities is one of the most pressing sustainability issues [1,2]. Solutions and pathways to a sustainable future are directly linked to human understanding of plants and animals, and the ecosystem processes and services they provide [3,4]. Particular attention has to be paid to plants, as plants make up the majority of living organisms due to their biomass [5], are the basis for almost all life on earth, and secure humans’ future [6]. Plants play a key role in achieving the UN SDGs [4,7,8], which calls for a plant-aware and plant-literate public [4,9,10]. However, this is often not the case. Society’s lack of attention to plants is often referred to as ‘plant blindness’ [11,12,13] or ‘plant awareness disparity’ [14]. Plant blindness manifests itself in a limited appreciation of plants, inadequate knowledge of plants and their diversity, a lack of understanding of the role of plants in ecosystem processes and, as a result, a lack of interest in plant conservation, all of which are major obstacles to combating the loss of biodiversity and to fulfilling the respective SDGs [4,7,15].
A lack of plant awareness is due to the fact that plants often grow in close proximity to each other, blend in with their surroundings when not flowering, and appear stationary in contrast to the mobility of most animals [13]. Since spatial proximity is a visual cue that humans use to group objects, individual plants are often neglected and categorized in their entirety as ‘plants’, or even as backdrop for animals [13]. Moreover, fascination in movement leads to greater interest in mobile animals than in sessile plants, and, as is closely related, to a better knowledge and recall of animals [11,12,16]. Promoting society’s awareness and knowledge of plants is therefore an important component of actions to achieve the UN SDGs [6,16,17,18,19,20], and is reflected in SDG target 4.7, which calls for learners to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development through education for sustainable development [21].

1.2. Conveying Knowledge in Higher Education

Universities play an important role in generating interest in plants and imparting botanical knowledge to future stakeholders in nature conservation and multipliers such as teachers and environmental educators [22,23,24]. However, as organismic biology has been drastically reduced at many European universities in recent decades, there is currently little room for botany and taxonomy teaching [4,25,26,27], and the question arises as to how knowledge about plant species can be taught effectively in the limited time available. This question is particularly important, as many students today, when they enter university, have hardly any botanical knowledge from school [23,24,28,29,30], family [31,32] or their own experiences [33].
Traditional lectures are the most frequently used means of conveying information in higher education [34]. They have the advantage that many students can be reached at the same time, that they are cost-effective, and that a wealth of information can be conveyed [35]. Their disadvantage, however, is that they do not always motivate students to thoroughly process what they have heard (information transmission fallacy; [34]), i.e., not much is memorized. As passive recipients of information during a lecture, students can experience monotony, a slowing down of time, restlessness, and a lack of concentration and motivation to learn, which can lead to coping strategies such as daydreaming, texting and turning to social media [36]. This does not mean that traditional lectures are unimportant or outdated, as they provide students with the necessary basis to understand the academic material, but that more student-activating elements should be included [37].
Quality assurance at universities today requires student-activating teaching and learning [37,38], and a variety of approaches have been proposed to meet these requirements [39]. Active learning is characterized by perceptual learning that goes beyond memorization, cooperative learning where students acquire knowledge together and communicate with each other, and small group activities that encourage students to engage in discovery learning or problem solving [40]. Educational games are one of many pedagogical approaches to quality education [39], and could be a promising addition to lectures in higher education. Educational games have clearly defined learning objectives and a fully established game design [41], and differ from gamification approaches that involve the integration of game design elements or patterns of action into non-game environments [42,43].

1.3. Educational Games

Educational games give students the opportunity to actively learn, which promotes learning motivation as well as knowledge acquisition and retention [39,44,45]. Through the exchange with fellow students, what has previously been heard is reproduced, discussed and, if necessary, corrected, and learning content can be successfully processed and retained [46,47]. Although educational games do not focus on entertainment but on clearly defined educational goals [41], learning takes place in a playful way, which fosters an intrinsic motivation to learn [48] and improves the retention of new subject knowledge [49]. Moreover, educational games reward players, with the reward showing that a certain level of competence has been achieved and that failure is not seen as the end, but as a step on the road to mastery [42]. In addition to cognitive learning outcomes, educational games foster peer-to-peer learning, and in doing so communication and collaboration skills [50,51], which are among the basic competencies required for sustainability [52].
Educational games can be designed for use on digital devices or as non-digital games such as card, dice or board games [53]. While several studies have investigated the impact of non-digital games on high school students’ knowledge of physiology, cell biology or genetics, e.g., [44,46,54,55] and university students’ knowledge of medicine, e.g., [56,57], hardly any study has examined the impact of games on plant species literacy. In one study on plant identification, university students and other adults played a card game in which they had to match cards according to visual characteristics or similarities in names, with the cards showing color images of plants [49]. Playing the game increased the number of correctly named plant species in an identification test, with plant identification based on superficial appearance rather than morphological characteristics [49].

1.4. Focus of the Study and Research Questions

This study is one of the first to investigate whether an educational game, which was designed to complement a lecture on plant diversity, can help to promote plant species literacy in higher education. Study participants (n = 78) were student teachers of biology and students of environmental sciences who played the game in their free time. Plant species literacy includes an interest in plants, the ability to differentiate plants based on a range of species-specific morphological traits, and knowledge about a plant’s ecology, environmental impact and conservation status [9,10,24,58,59]. Species literacy is a basic prerequisite for the perception of biodiversity and a remedy against plant blindness, and may contribute to social support for biodiversity conservation and the corresponding SDGs [4,7,9,15].
With the help of questionnaires, this study investigated (1) students’ interest in plants, i.e., their attention to plants and desire to learn more about plants, and their perceived competence to identify plants based on species-specific characteristics. Perceived competence, i.e., the perception a person has of his or her ability to perform a future task, is closely related to the likelihood that this task will actually be accomplished [60,61,62]. Students who feel competent in species identification would thus fit the profile of future teachers or environmental educators who draw attention to plants and their diversity, and impart plant species knowledge in society [63]. It was also investigated (2) whether students were of the opinion that playing the ‘Find the Plant’ game increased their interest and perceived competence in identifying plants. Increased interest and competence through playing the game could encourage participants to use similar games to promote species literacy in their future professional life. (3) It was also tested whether students liked playing the game and thought the game to be suitable for acquiring plant species literacy. Students’ opinions on advantages and disadvantages of the game were also asked for in order to evaluate success factors of the game and factors for future improvement. (4) In a species identification test, the actual ability of students’ to identify plants was investigated both before and after playing the game. The following questions guided the research:
(Q1)
How interested were participants in plants and how competent did they feel in plant identification at the start of the investigation?
(Q2)
Does the educational game increase participants’ interest in plants and perceived competence to identify plants, and are possible changes related to the frequency of play?
(Q3)
Do participants enjoy playing the game, how do they evaluate the suitability of the game for acquiring plant species literacy, and are participants’ assessments related to the frequency of play?
(Q4)
Does the game increase participants’ actual plant species literacy, and is plant identification related to lecture attendance and the prior use of the game?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Overview of Participants and Study Design

The sample consisted of 49 student teachers of biology and 29 students of environmental science, all of whom were pursuing a Master’s degree. Participants were between 22 and 38 years old (mean age = 24.8 years, SD = 2.91), and 75 were women, reflecting the gender ratio at the target university. All participants were enrolled in a lecture on plant diversity.
The lecture on plant diversity is offered every summer term (April to July) and includes 28 teaching hours. The lecture is attended by about 80 students per year and compulsory for student teachers of biology, but there is no attendance control. However, the identification of native plants is part of their later module examination. In the lecture, 100 common plant species found in Germany are introduced. Information is provided about a plant’s taxonomy, origin of name, morphology, usefulness, toxicity, conservation status, representation in literature and arts, and also about some basic genetic and evolutionary principles. To encourage students to learn the characteristic features and scientific names of the plants presented, the game ‘Find the Plant’ was developed, based on the board game ‘Guess Who’. Many variations of this game exist. An edition with dinosaurs, for example, has been published by the Natural History Museum in London. The ‘Find the Plant’ game was introduced in the first session of the lecture, in which students were also informed that after each session the plants presented were uploaded to the student internet platform in the form of playing cards for printout. Gradually, the content of the lecture could thus be practiced among the students.
Data were collected using an initial questionnaire at the beginning of the lecture period in April and a second questionnaire shortly before the end of the lecture period in July. The second questionnaire was followed by a species identification test (Figure 1). The first questionnaire was completed by 70 students and the second one by 24 students who had played the game. In the species identification test, 34 students participated. Participation in the questionnaires and species identification test was completely voluntary. Participants were assured anonymity, informed that they could revoke their data at any time, and that the species identification test was not a graded exam. They had to enter a code instead of their name in all questionnaires so that the answers from the different questionnaires cold be compared without violating participants’ anonymity.

2.2. Design and Rules of the ‘Find the Plant’ Game

Each card depicted a plant in color, of which typical features were clearly visible (Figure 2). At the top of each card the German and the scientific name of the species and its family were printed. At the bottom were symbols providing information about a plant’s toxicity, conservation status and usability.
The ‘Find the Plant’ game was usually played in three rounds. Students were free to choose with how many cards they wanted to play the game. A pilot test had shown that ten cards were a good choice to start with, as the number did not overwhelm novice players and was still attractive enough to encourage play. As the lecture progressed, there was more and more choice of cards to play with. The players could, for instance, decide whether they only wanted to play the game with species of the preceding lecture session or with all species already presented, whether they wanted to include only species of the same plant family or only plants of a certain color. In this sense, the game offered an opportunity for personal differentiation, which is seen as particularly effective for learning [64].
The game required two people sitting opposite each other. Before the game, both players received an identical set of cards, which they had to place face-up in front of them (Figure 3). The players then took a card from another pile of identical cards and took turns trying to find out which card their opponent had chosen by alternately asking yes or no questions about possible characteristics of the plant. In this way, plants were gradually eliminated and their cards turned over. Students were advised to call out the name of a plant when the respective playing card was turned over as it has been shown that verbal expressions, such as calling out what is currently perceived, improve learning and memory performance [65].
The game had been pilot-tested with 24 adult laypersons. Test persons were relatives or friends of the authors or their colleagues and had no further knowledge of plants. The game was played with ten deciduous tree species on different days and in different locations, but always with two players and in three rounds. Each game was video-recorded to identify potential problems during the game. The test persons enjoyed playing the game (mean of 4.7 ± 0.12 on a 5-step scale), regarded the rules of the game as clear and complete, and found the game suitable to train species identification skills (mean of 4.6 ± 0.12).

2.3. Questionnaires

In the first questionnaire (see Q1), students were asked about their interest in plants (5-step scale with 1—small to 5—large), whether they would like to increase their knowledge of plants (1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree), and how competent they considered themselves in identifying plants (1—incompetent to 5—competent). They were also asked whether they would like to play a new game. In addition, they were asked about their age, gender, and study subject.
In the first part of the second questionnaire (see Q2), students were asked how often they had played the game (1–2 times, more often), whether the game had changed their interest in plants (1—strongly decreased to 5—strongly increased) and whether it had changed their competence in identifying plants (1—much more incompetent to 5—much more competent). In the second part of the questionnaire (see Q3), students had to evaluate the game. They were asked whether the game is suitable for learning typical characteristics of plants, whether it fosters species knowledge, and whether it is a good complement to the lecture (answer options 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree). They were also asked whether they had enjoyed playing the game (1—little fun to 5—a lot of fun) and, in two open questions, to state what they had liked or disliked.

2.4. Species Identification Test

Through the lecture and the student internet platform, volunteers were recruited for the species identification test. Students were not informed in advance about the species used in the test and nor about the procedure. They were only informed that a short field trip was scheduled, so that they should allow about three hours in total. The test involved the identification of nine deciduous tree species before and after playing the game with these species. Deciduous trees had been the content of the lecture one week before, but the corresponding playing cards had not yet been uploaded. To begin with, all species were shown in a PowerPoint presentation in form of playing cards, but without taxonomic information. Each card was numbered so that the students could enter the German species name after the corresponding number in a questionnaire. Students were also asked whether they had attended the lecture the week before and already played the ‘Find the Plant’ game (Q4). Afterwards, students played the game with the tree playing cards (Figure 4), either in the seminar room or at another quiet place close-by.
Afterwards, two lecturers accompanied the students to a small park on campus, where the nine tree species were pointed out one after the other for identification. All the trees were fully leafed. Before the excursion, students had been instructed to remain silent and to work individually until the end of the identification exercise. They had to write down the name of each tree species on a prepared sheet of paper and to add their personal code. After all answer sheets had been collected, species names and typical features of the trees were discussed.

2.5. Data Analysis

Before playing the ‘Find the plant’ game: Pearson correlations were performed to test for a relationship between participants’ interest in plants and their desire to learn more about plants, and to test for a relationship between interest in plants and perceived competence in identifying plants. Analyses of variance were used to investigate whether the 24 students who later played the ‘Find the Plant’ game differed in interest in expanding their knowledge of plants and perceived competence in identifying plants from those who did not.
After playing the ‘Find the plant’ game: Analyses of variance were used to investigate whether interest in plants and self-assessed competence in identifying plants (see Q2) were related to the frequency class (1–2 times or more often) with which the ‘Find the Plant’ game was played. Analyses of variance were also used to investigate whether students’ assessments of the game (see Q3) and its enjoyment were related to the frequency of playing.
Species identification test: A two-factor analysis of variance was used to investigate whether tree species knowledge before (using the PowerPoint presentation) and after playing the game (using real specimens) differed. Because observations were paired, this factor (before vs. after the treatment) was combined with participant identity as a second factor. Further, two-factor analyses of variance were used to investigate whether the number of correctly identified tree species in the first identification test (PowerPoint presentation) and the second identification test (on campus) was related to attendance at the session on deciduous trees in the previous week (no, yes), whether participants had played the ‘Find the Plant’ game in their free time (no, yes), and the interaction between the two factors. All data were analyzed with the statistical package SPSS 29.0.

3. Results

3.1. Interest in Plants and Perceived Competence in Identifying Plants before Playing (Q1)

Participants were rather interested in plants and wanted to learn more about plants (Table 1). However, they felt relatively incompetent in identifying plants. Participants’ interest in plants was positively correlated with a desire to learn more about plants (r = 0.57, p < 0.001) and with self-assessed competence in plant identification (r = 0.47, p < 0.001).
Students who later on played the game were more interested in plants than the other participants (F(1,68) = 3.56, p = 0.063; means of 4.0 ± 0.23 vs. 3.5 ± 0.16) and expressed a stronger interest in expanding their knowledge of plants (F(1,68) = 3.66, p = 0.060; means of 4.7 ± 0.12 vs. 4.4 ± 0.08). However, they felt less competent in identifying plants than the others (F(1,68) = 8.42, p = 0.005; means of 2.0 ± 0.18 vs. 2.7 ± 0.13). With one exception, all participants were interested in getting to know a new game.

3.2. Interest in Plants and Perceived Competence in Identifying Plants after Playing (Q2)

After playing the ‘Find the Plant’ game, the 24 students felt that the game had increased their interest in plants and their competence in identifying plants (Table 2).
Participants’ perceived increase in interest due to the game was related to the frequency of playing the game (F(1,22) = 9.56, p = 0.005). The eleven participants who had played the game more than two times rated their increase in interest in plants higher than the 13 individuals who had played the game only once or twice (means of 4.2 ± 0.19 vs. 3.4 ± 0.18). A similar result was found for participants’ perceived increase in competence in identifying plants (F(1,22) = 13.86, p = 0.001; means of 4.5 ± 0.15 vs. 3.7 ± 0.14).

3.3. Evaluation of the ‘Find the Plant’ Game after Playing it (Q3)

Participants considered the game suitable for training and gaining plant species knowledge, regarded it as a good addition to the lecture on plant diversity, and enjoyed playing it (see Table 2).
Participants’ ratings of the game (see Q3, Table 2) were not related to the frequency with which they had played the game (all p > 0.132). Only the perceived enjoyment of the game was higher among the frequent players (F(1,22) = 8.93, p = 0.003; means of 4.6 ± 0.18 vs. 3.9 ± 0.16).
Participants liked the design of the playing cards with their compact information, which helped them to gain and retain knowledge (Table 3). The flexibility of the game, the ability to interact with peers, and the playful learning approach were also considered valuable. However, some participants would have preferred a list of technical terms for the individual plant organs accompanying the game, so that they could ask more specific questions during the game and practice the terms (Table 4).

3.4. Effect of the Game on Knowledge of Tree Species (Q4)

Playing the game significantly increased participants’ knowledge of tree species (F(1,33) = 45.30, p < 0.001). In the first species identification test (PowerPoint presentation), participants correctly identified an average of 6.0 ± 0.27 trees at the species level. In the second species identification test (on campus), an average of 8.5 ± 0.27 tree species was correctly identified. However, there were also significant differences in tree species knowledge among the individual participants (F(33,33) = 3.39, p < 0.001).
In the pretest, 66.3% of all answers were at the species level and thus recorded as correct. The other 33.7% of responses were identifications at the genus level (14.4%), confusions with other species (12.4%) and no responses (6.9%). In the posttest, 94.4% of all identifications were correct. The remaining 5.6% were genus-level identifications (1.3%), mix-ups with other species (3.6%) and no responses (0.7%).
The largest increase in knowledge was for hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) and the two lime species (Tilia cordata and T. platyphyllos), which had sometimes been confused with each other in the first identification test. Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) was already frequently recognized before the game, and so the increase in knowledge for this tree was subsequently the lowest (Figure 5).
Participants who had attended the session on deciduous trees the week before were able to correctly identify more species in the pretest than participants who had not (F(1,30) = 4.52, p = 0.042; means of 6.7 ± 0.59 vs. 4.8 ± 0.71). Participants who had played the ‘Find the Plant’ game in their free time were also able to correctly identify more species in the pretest than participants who had not (F(1,30) = 5.49, p = 0.026; means of 6.8 ± 0.62 vs. 4.7 ± 0.68).
In the posttest, there was a significant interaction between the effects of participation in the lecture and playing the game (F(1,30) = 9.09, p = 0.005). Participants who had attended the lecture did not profit from playing the game (8.9 ± 0.38 species vs. 9.0 ± 0.38), while non-attendees who played the game could identify more tree species than those who did not (6.3 ± 0.50 vs. 9.0 ± 0.43).
The flowchart (Figure 6) summarizes the main findings of the study.

4. Discussion

Already at the start of the investigation, participants expressed a moderate to rather great interest in plants and in learning about plants (see Q1), which contradicts the notion that students are interested in ‘anything but plants’ [6] (p. 327). Nevertheless, participants felt rather incompetent in identifying plants (see Q1), even though they were already on a Master’s course. This is partly due to the fact that currently only few courses in organismal biology are offered at the undergraduate level, both at the target university and at German universities in general [27]. As a result, students in biology-related degree programs often have little knowledge of plant taxonomy and identification [23,24]. Moreover, the changing leisure activities of young people [66], a lack of near-natural surroundings at parents’ home [33], insufficient species knowledge of teachers [67,68], and a general lack of organismic biology taught at German schools [69] may have prevented participants from acquiring species knowledge before entering university. It is thus a pleasing result that in the little time left for organismic biology, both the lecture on plant diversity and the ‘Find the Plant’ game were considered beneficial for training and acquiring knowledge of plant species (see Q3).
Games are sometimes viewed as something of little profit and an irrelevant waste of time [70]. Nevertheless, participants considered games a suitable means of learning and were looking forward to play a game. Playing the game actually increased their interest in plants and perceived competence in identifying plants (see Q2), with the expressed enjoyment participants had while playing likely increasing their intrinsic motivation to learn and enabling them to retain new subject knowledge [48,49]. Participants’ increased feeling of competence gives hope that they will actually use their acquired plant identification skills later on in their professional or private lives, as in [71], in order to reduce plant blindness in the following generation.
In line with previous research [47] and according to the participants, both the design of the playing cards, with their compact information, and the professional exchange with peers while playing contributed to the learning success. Almost 60% of participants emphasized the beneficial exchange of knowledge with others in a relaxed atmosphere, the opportunity to ask questions and give answers among like-minded people, having the time to repeat what they have learned, and learning through play (see Q3). This ease of learning gradually resulted in competence gains and rewarded players for their efforts, which motivates people to carry on with an activity [42,48]. The request of some participants for a list of technical terms to accompany the game may come as a surprise, as all of them were already on a Master’s program, but shows how ‘taxonomically lost’ [25] some of the students are when faced with species identification.
Playing the game not only increased the perceived but also the actual plant species knowledge for about three species (see Q4). After playing the tree game, almost all tree species that were shown on campus were correctly identified by their scientific name, rarely confused with other species, and recognized by morphological traits, indicating that students could make the transfer from picture cards and PowerPoint presentations to real plants in the outdoors. The fact that participants were able to recognize trees based on a number of species-typical morphological characteristics is a clear sign that they had gained plant species literacy [59]. The number of correctly identified tree species in the identification tests was significantly related to the attendance of the session on deciduous trees the week before (see Q4), which illustrates the positive effect of the lecture on knowledge growth, and also confirms participants’ belief that the lecture and game complement each other well. Participants who had played the ‘Find the Plant’ game scored higher in the first identification test than the non-players, even though the game had not included any tree species up to that point (see Q4). This could be due to the fact that the game led to the realization that species names and not just genus-level names should be given; after all, inaccurate naming in the first identification test was the main reason why an answer was scored as incorrect. The higher performance of the ‘Find the plant’ players in the second identification test on campus, however, is more an indicator that the game trains observation skills and the memorization of features.

Limitations

The varying number of participants due to the voluntary nature of participation in the different parts of the study limits the generality of the results. Another shortcoming of the present study is the lack of a control group. Participants who had played the ‘Find the Plant’ game were rather convinced of the beneficial effects of the game on plant species knowledge, and attributed their perceived increase in plant identification skills to the game. However, without a control group it cannot be ruled out that the lecture alone would have produced a similar result; as in [44]. The 54 students who did not take the posttest and presumably did not play the game could have expanded their knowledge of plant species in the same way as the game players. The species identification test nevertheless showed the positive effect of the game on plant species knowledge, but only in the short term.
As only persons who had played the game took part in the posttest, there is no information about why the game was not played by a number of students. Personal conversations revealed that some students did not have the time, or that they would use the game only during their exam preparation. The necessity to print out the playing cards may also have prevented participation, especially among students less interested in plants. Some students may also have felt that they already knew plants well. One indication of this would be that the later non-players felt more competent in identifying plants in the pretest. It should also be taken into account that students learn in different ways [37], and that not all like to play games [70]. Because of their individual learning styles, some students may have preferred to learn on their own rather than with others [72]. Nevertheless, about a third of all lecture participants did play the game, which is remarkable in that it was a completely voluntary, intrinsically motivated activity that had to be carried out in the students’ free time.

5. Conclusions

Ignoring plants directly hinders the achievement of many of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals [6,7]. Raising people’s awareness and knowledge of plants through meaningful learning approaches is thus seen as an important step towards sustainability [4,7,19], and more specifically towards the fulfillment of SDG 4.7, i.e., education for sustainable development and global citizenship. The present study addressed the question of whether a non-digital educational game designed to complement a lecture on plant diversity can help to promote students’ plant species literacy. In the view of the participants, the game was a useful addition to the lecture. Moreover, the ‘Find the Plant’ game encouraged interest in plants and, as the species identification test showed, fostered observation skills and the memorization of species-specific morphological features and species names, all important elements of species literacy. The results show that student-activating approaches, of which the present game is one example, can help to reduce plant blindness, and, by promoting knowledge of plant species, may contribute to a better understanding of biodiversity and the need to protect it, as envisioned in the United Nations’ SDGs.
Most students who evaluated the ‘Find the Plant’ game felt that the clear and condensed information on the playing cards was sufficient to support learning and retention. Nevertheless, it can be recommended to additionally provide a list of technical terms to complement the game. This would have the additional advantage of allowing students to practice the terminology of dichotomous identification keys. Students may argue that they can just look information up on the internet and use artificial intelligence techniques if they want to identify plants. Nevertheless, to fulfil the requirements of SDG 4 and, in the present case, to be plant species-literate, students must be able to use biological terminology, define terms correctly and explain biological concepts in their own words [73].
The present approach provided students with an increased sense of competence, which included both the ability to fulfill a task and willingness to engage in this task in real-life situations. Game players therefore belong to a group of people who are likely to become privately or professionally involved in plants and the conservation around plant diversity, to teach plant species knowledge, or to draw the public’s attention to plants in some other way. As future multipliers, e.g., as teachers or environmental educators, they could make a small but nevertheless important contribution to raising awareness and knowledge of plants in the next generations, and thus contribute to the achievement of the SDGs. It could also be hypothesized that students who had played the ‘Find the Plant’ game might invoke game strategies in their own classroom and community instruction. A cross-national study has shown that people’s motivation to engage in certain plant awareness activities in their professional lives as educators, such as playing environmental games on school grounds, is related to similar experiences during their higher education [63].
The ‘Find the Plant’ game enabled students to construct knowledge based on what they already know and understand in a relaxed and learning-stimulating atmosphere with like-minded peers. The game-induced constructivist learning approach, paired with social learning and self-motivation to learn, is very well suited to education for sustainable development and, as this study shows, leads to significant learning gains. Non-digital games are rarely used in the field of organismic biology in higher education. However, the present results suggest that it is worth offering this type of game in organismal biology courses, either as an integral part or, if not enough time is available, as a supplementary learning tool.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.L.-M., E.H. and M.R.; methodology, P.L.-M. and E.H.; data collection, E.H.; formal analysis, P.L.-M. and E.H.; writing, P.L.-M., E.H. and M.R.; supervision, P.L.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethic Committee of Karlsruhe University of Education.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mace, G.M.; Barrett, M.; Burgess, N.D.; Cornell, S.E.; Freeman, R.; Grooten, M.; Purvis, A. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 448–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shin, Y.; Midgley, G.F.; Archer, E.R.M.; Arneth, A.; Barnes, D.K.A.; Chan, L.; Hashimoto, S.; Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Insarov, G.; Leadley, P.; et al. Actions to halt biodiversity loss generally benefit the climate. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2022, 28, 2846–2874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rounsevell, M.D.; Harfoot, M.; Harrison, P.A.; Newbold, T.; Gregory, R.D.; Mace, G.M. A biodiversity target based on species extinctions. Science 2020, 368, 1193–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stroud, S.; Fennell, M.; Mitchley, J.; Lydon, S.; Peacock, J.; Bacon, K.L. The botanical education extinction and the fall of plant awareness. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e9019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bar-On, Y.M.; Phillips, R.; Milo, R. The biomass distribution on Earth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 6506–6511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Burke, R.; Sherwood, O.L.; Clune, S.; Carroll, R.; McCabe, P.F.; Kane, A.; Kacprzyk, J. Botanical boom: A new opportunity to promote the public appreciation of botany. Plants People Planet 2022, 4, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Amprazis, A.; Papadopoulou, P. Plant blindness: A faddish research interest or a substantive impediment to achieve sustainable development goals? Environ. Educ. Res. 2020, 26, 1065–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Krauss, J.E. Unpacking SDG 15, its targets and indicators: Tracing ideas of conservation. Globalizations 2022, 19, 1179–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hooykaas, M.J.; Schilthuizen, M.; Aten, C.; Hemelaar, E.M.; Albers, C.J.; Smeets, I. Identification skills in biodiversity professionals and laypeople: A gap in species literacy. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 238, e108202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sanders, D.; Eriksen, B.; Gunnarsson, C.M.; Emanuelsson, J. Seeing the green cucumber: Reflections on variation theory and teaching plant identification. Plants People Planet 2022, 4, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Balas, B.; Momsen, J.L. Attention “blinks” differently for plants and animals. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 437–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Schussler, E.E.; Olzak, L.A. It᾿s not easy being green: Student recall of plant and animal images. J. Biol. Educ. 2008, 42, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wandersee, J.H.; Schussler, E.E. Preventing plant blindness. Am. Biol. Teach. 1999, 61, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Parsley, K.M. Plant awareness disparity: A case for renaming plant blindness. Plants People Planet 2020, 2, 598–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Balding, M.; Williams, K.J.H. Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 1192–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Jose, S.B.; Wu, C.H.; Kamoun, S. Overcoming plant blindness in science, education, and society. Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Gagliano, M. Seeing green: The re-discovery of plants and nature’s wisdom. Societies 2013, 3, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Raven, P.H. Saving plants, saving ourselves. Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Thomas, H.; Ougham, H.; Sanders, D. Plant blindness and sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2022, 23, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tsai, J.C.; Liu, S.Y.; Chang, C.Y.; Chen, S.Y. Using a board game to teach about sustainable development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. UNESCO. Unpacking Sustainable Development Goal 4; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017; Available online: https://docs.campaignforeducation.org/post2015/SDG4.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2024).
  22. Bobo-Pinilla, J.; Marcos-Walias, J.; Delgado Iglesias, J.; Reinoso Tapia, R. Overcoming plant blindness: Are the future teachers ready? J. Biol. Educ. 2023, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Buck, T.; Bruchmann, I.; Zumstein, P.; Drees, C. Just a small bunch of flowers: The botanical knowledge of students and the positive effects of courses in plant identification at German universities. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Remmele, M.; Yli-Panula, E. Professional competence of student teachers to implement species identification in schools—A case study from Germany. CEPS J. 2017, 7, 29–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bilton, D.T. What’s in a name? What have taxonomy and systematics ever done for us? J. Biol. Educ. 2014, 48, 116–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Drea, S. The end of the botany degree in the UK. Biosci. Educ. 2011, 17, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Frobel, K.; Schlumprecht, H. Erosion der Artenkenner. Ergebnisse einer Befragung und notwendige Reaktionen [Erosion of species experts. Results of a survey and necessary actions]. NuL 2016, 48, 105–113. Available online: https://www.bund-naturschutz.de/fileadmin/Bilder_und_Dokumente/Themen/Tiere_und_Pflanzen/Artenschutz/Erosion-der-Artenkenner.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2024).
  28. Kaasinen, A. Plant species recognition skills in Finnish students and teachers. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, e85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Palmberg, I.; Berg, I.; Jeronen, E.; Kärkkäinen, S.; Norrgård-Sillanpää, P.; Persson, C.; Yli-Panula, E. Nordic-Baltic student teachers᾿ identification of an interest in plant and animal species: The importance of species identification and biodiversity for sustainable development. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2015, 26, 549–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Skarstein, T.H.; Skarstein, F. Curious children and knowledgeable adults–early childhood student-teachers’ species identification skills and their views on the importance of species knowledge. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2020, 42, 310–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Remmele, M.; Lindemann-Matthies, P. Like father, like son? On the relationship between parents᾿ and children᾿s familiarity with species and sources of knowledge about plants and animals. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Tech. Ed. 2018, 14, e1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Soga, M.; Yamanoi, T.; Tsuchiya, K.; Koyanagi, T.F.; Kanai, T. What are the drivers of and barriers to children’s direct experiences of nature? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cox, D.T.; Hudson, H.L.; Shanahan, D.F.; Fuller, R.A.; Gaston, K.J. The rarity of direct experiences of nature in an urban population. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 160, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schmidt, H.G.; Wagener, S.L.; Smeets, G.A.; Keemink, L.M.; van der Molen, H.T. On the use and misuse of lectures in higher education. Health Prof. Educ. 2015, 1, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Holbrey, C.E. Kahoot! Using a game-based approach to blended learning to support effective learning environments and student engagement in traditional lecture theatres. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2020, 29, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sharp, J.G.; Hemmings, B.; Kay, R.; Murphy, B.; Elliott, S. Academic boredom among students in higher education: A mixed-methods exploration of characteristics, contributors and consequences. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2017, 41, 657–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Constantinou, C.S. A reflexive goal framework for achieving student-centered learning in European higher education: From class learning to community engagement. Societies 2020, 10, e75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gover, A.; Loukkola, T.; Peterbauer, H. Student-Centred Learning: Approaches to Quality Assurance; EUA (European University Association): Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; Available online: https://www.eua.eu/downloads/publications/student-centred%20learning_approaches%20to%20quality%20assurance%20report.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2024).
  39. Lozano, R.; Merrill, M.Y.; Sammalisto, K.; Ceulemans, K.; Lozano, F.J. Connecting competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher education: A literature review and framework proposal. Sustainability 2017, 9, e1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Leu, E.; Price-Rom, A. Quality of Education and Teacher Learning: A Review of the Literature; U.S. Agency for International Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. Available online: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadh491.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2024).
  41. Abt, C. Serious Games; The Viking Press: New York, NY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  42. Buckley, P.; Doyle, E. Gamification and student motivation. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2016, 24, 1162–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Çeker, E.; Özdaml, F. What “Gamification” is and what it’s not. Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 2017, 6, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Georgiou, M.; Pandi, M. Motivating students in the biology classroom via games. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 2023, 10, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Muenz, T.S.; Schaal, S.; Groß, J.; Paul, J. How a digital educational game can promote learning about sustainability. Sci. Educ. Int. 2023, 34, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gutierrez, A.F. Development and effectiveness of an educational card game as supplementary material in understanding selected topics in biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2017, 13, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Selvi, M.; Çosan, A.Ö. The effect of using educational games in teaching kingdoms of living things. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2018, 6, 2019–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mahmud, S.N.D.; Husnin, H.; Tuan Soh, T.M. Teaching presence in online gamified education for sustainability learning. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Stagg, B.C.; Donkin, M. Teaching botanical identification to adults: Experiences of the UK participatory science project ‘Open Air Laboratories’. J. Biol. Educ. 2013, 47, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fonseca, I.; Caviedes, M.; Chantré, J.; Bernate, J. Gamification and game-based learning as cooperative learning tools: A systematic review. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2023, 18, 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vázquez-Vílchez, M.; Garrido-Rosales, D.; Pérez-Fernández, B.; Fernández-Oliveras, A. Using a cooperative educational game to promote pro-environmental engagement in future teachers. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, e691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rieckman, M. Learning to transform the world: Key competences in ESD. In Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development; Leicht, A., Heiss, J., Byun, W.J., Eds.; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2018; pp. 39–59. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kalogiannakis, M.; Papadakis, S.; Zourmpakis, A.I. Gamification in science education. A systematic review of the literature. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, e22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Spiegel, C.N.; Alves, G.G.; Cardona, T.D.S.; Melim, L.M.; Luz, M.R.; Araújo-Jorge, T.C.; Henriques-Pons, A. Discovering the cell: An educational game about cell and molecular biology. J. Biol. Educ. 2008, 43, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Su, T.; Cheng, M.T.; Lin, S.H. Investigating the effectiveness of an educational card game for learning how human immunology is regulated. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 504–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bochennek, K.; Wittekindt, B.; Zimmermann, S.Y.; Klingebiel, T. More than mere games: A review of card and board games for medical education. Med. Teach. 2007, 29, 941–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Tran, L.K.; Lipp, M.J. Making competency-based predoctoral orthodontics fun: Introducing Dealodontics. J. Dent. Educ. 2023, 87, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Batke, S.; Dallimore, T.; Bostock, J. Understanding plant blindness—students’ inherent interest of plants in higher education. J. Plant Sci. 2020, 8, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wäldchen, J.; Wittich, H.C.; Rzanny, M.; Fritz, A.; Mäder, P. Towards more effective identification keys: A study of people identifying plant species characters. People Nat. 2022, 4, 1603–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bandura, A.; Schunk, D.H. Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1981, 41, 586–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Losier, G.F.; Vallerand, R.J. The temporal relationship between perceived competence and self-determined motivation. J. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 134, 793–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Pintrich, P.R.; Schunk, D.H. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research and Applications, 2nd ed.; Merrill Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Constantinou, C.; Lehnert, H.J.; Nagel, U.; Raper, G.; Kadji-Beltran, C. Confidence and perceived competence of preservice teachers to implement biodiversity education in primary schools—Four comparative case studies from Europe. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33, 2247–2273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Körei, A.; Szilágyi, S.; Török, Z. Integrating didactic games in higher education: Benefits and challenges. Teach. Math. Comput. Sci. 2021, 19, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chao, K.J.; Huang, H.W.; Fang, W.C.; Chen, N.S. Embodied play to learn: Exploring Kinect-facilitated memory performance. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2013, 44, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Oswald, T.K.; Rumbold, A.R.; Kedzior, S.G.; Moore, V.M. Psychological impacts of “screen time” and “green time” for children and adolescents: A systematic scoping review. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bebbington, A. The ability of A-level students to name plants. J. Biol. Educ. 2005, 39, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jaun-Holderegger, B.; Lehnert, H.J.; Lindemann-Matthies, P. Knowledge and perception of common local wild plant and animal species by children and their teachers–a case study from Switzerland. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2022, 44, 1318–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Remmele, M. Vermittlung von Artenkenntnis in der Schule—Eine Analyse der Bildungspläne in Deutschland [Teaching species knowledge at school—An analysis of educational plans in Germany]. Nat. Und Landsch. 2021, 96, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Whitton, N.; Langan, M. Fun and games in higher education: An analysis of UK student perspectives. Teach. High. Educ. 2018, 24, 1000–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Moseley, C.; Reinke, K.; Bookout, V. The effect of teaching outdoor environmental education on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. J. Environ. Educ. 2002, 34, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kolb, D.A.; Boyatzis, R.E.; Mainemelis, C. Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles; Sternberg, R.J., Zhang, L.-F., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2000; pp. 227–247. Available online: https://secondarycontent.pbworks.com/f/experiential-learning-theory.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2024).
  73. Uno, G.E. Botanical literacy: What and how should students learn about plants? Am. J. Bot. 2009, 96, 1753–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 04702 g001
Figure 1. Study design. Colors denote groups of students who participated in the different activities. Here, 38 students (in orange) only filled in the first questionnaire, 8 students (in olive) filled in the first questionnaire and participated in the tree identification activities, a further 8 students (in purple) participated in only the tree identification test, 18 students (in red) participated in all activities, and 6 students (in blue) filled in both questionnaires and played the ‘Find the Plant’ game.
Figure 1. Study design. Colors denote groups of students who participated in the different activities. Here, 38 students (in orange) only filled in the first questionnaire, 8 students (in olive) filled in the first questionnaire and participated in the tree identification activities, a further 8 students (in purple) participated in only the tree identification test, 18 students (in red) participated in all activities, and 6 students (in blue) filled in both questionnaires and played the ‘Find the Plant’ game.
Sustainability 16 04702 g001
Sustainability 16 04702 g002
Figure 2. Example of two playing cards and explanation of the symbols.
Figure 2. Example of two playing cards and explanation of the symbols.
Sustainability 16 04702 g002
Sustainability 16 04702 g003
Figure 3. Setup of the game.
Figure 3. Setup of the game.
Sustainability 16 04702 g003
Sustainability 16 04702 g004
Figure 4. Examples of playing cards used in the species identification test.
Figure 4. Examples of playing cards used in the species identification test.
Sustainability 16 04702 g004
Sustainability 16 04702 g005
Figure 5. Students’ (n = 34) knowledge of tree species before and after playing the game.
Figure 5. Students’ (n = 34) knowledge of tree species before and after playing the game.
Sustainability 16 04702 g005
Sustainability 16 04702 g006
Figure 6. Graphical summary of the main results. Arrows indicate causal effects.
Figure 6. Graphical summary of the main results. Arrows indicate causal effects.
Sustainability 16 04702 g006
Table 1. Participants’ opinions before playing the ‘Find the Plant’ game (n = 70). All questions had to be answered on 5-step scales with 1 as the lowest and 5 as the highest rating score.
Table 1. Participants’ opinions before playing the ‘Find the Plant’ game (n = 70). All questions had to be answered on 5-step scales with 1 as the lowest and 5 as the highest rating score.
ObjectiveItemMean ± 1 SEVerbal Interpretation
Q1My interest in plants is …3.6 ± 0.13Rather large
Q1I am interested to increase my knowledge of plants4.5 ± 0.07Agree
Q1When identifying plants
I feel …		2.5 ± 0.11Rather incompetent
Table 2. Participants’ opinions after playing the ‘Find the Plant’ game (n = 24). All questions had to be answered on 5-step scales with 1 as the lowest and 5 as the highest rating score.
Table 2. Participants’ opinions after playing the ‘Find the Plant’ game (n = 24). All questions had to be answered on 5-step scales with 1 as the lowest and 5 as the highest rating score.
ObjectiveItemMean ± 1 SEVerbal Interpretation
Q2Through the game, my interest in plants is …3.8 ± 0.15Larger
Q2In identifying plants, I feel after playing the game …4.0 ± 0.13More competent
Q3The game is suitable for practicing plant characteristics4.3 ± 0.10Agree
Q3The game is suitable to gain species knowledge4.3 ± 0.12Agree
Q3The game is a good addition to the lecture4.6 ± 0.10Strongly agree
Q3The game ‘Find the Plant’ is …4.3 ± 0.14Fun
Table 3. Advantages of the ‘Find the Plant’ game in the view of the 24 participants who had played the game. The answers to the open questions were sorted into broad categories. Multiple answers were allowed. In brackets: age and gender (f = female, m = male).
Table 3. Advantages of the ‘Find the Plant’ game in the view of the 24 participants who had played the game. The answers to the open questions were sorted into broad categories. Multiple answers were allowed. In brackets: age and gender (f = female, m = male).
CategoryFrequencyExamples
Clear representations and easily recognizable features support learning12Great illustrations, easy to recognize features, often with several pictures of a plant or just detailed pictures (23, f). Attention is paid to small details and specific features; cards are very well structured (23, f). A pictorial representation in combination with a species name helps me a lot with learning (23, f)
Compact information; symbols support memorization10Compact information on the cards, which is also good for comparisons (26, f). The symbols make it easy to memorize the plants (23, f). The additional information that a plant is, e.g., protected is very helpful (25, f).
Communication, repetition and open design result in learning success8Communicative game, you talk about the plants, which helps with learning (22, f). Repeatedly pronouncing the characteristics of plants [during the game] and memorizing the exact species names is very effective for learning; you are free to ask questions and repeat names (25, f). That the plants are repeated often; without getting bored names and features are easily memorized (22, f). There is real learning success (37, m). The open design, where you can come up with your own questions and decide how many cards you want to play with, promotes knowledge of plants (24, f).
Playful learning6It is a fun way to get to know plants (23, f). Playful learning is a good way to memorize features of plants (23, f). It is fun to play even without plenty of prior knowledge (23, f).
Practical format; small cards to take along5The cards are small and handy, so you can take them with you wherever you go (23, f). Practical format, good to take along (25, f).
Great idea7Thanks, the game is a great idea (23, f).
Table 4. Disadvantages of the ‘Find the Plant’ game in the view of the 24 participants who had played the game. The answers to the open questions were sorted into broad categories. Multiple answers were allowed. In brackets: age and gender (f = female, m = male).
Table 4. Disadvantages of the ‘Find the Plant’ game in the view of the 24 participants who had played the game. The answers to the open questions were sorted into broad categories. Multiple answers were allowed. In brackets: age and gender (f = female, m = male).
CategoryFrequencyExamples
Missing technical terms6Features are difficult to ask about and to remember if you do not know the technical terms (22, f). A list of technical terms for typical plant characteristics would be good (23, f). Sometimes it was difficult to ask for features during the game (29, f).
Rules3It would be nice to play the game with more than two players (23, f). The addition of a fun fact would be nice (26, f). It would be valuable if also the plant families could be practiced (25, f).
Cost and time factor2Printing out the cards after the lecture costs money and time (29, f).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Heber, E.; Remmele, M. Find the Plant—An Educational Game Fosters Plant Species Literacy. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114702

AMA Style

Lindemann-Matthies P, Heber E, Remmele M. Find the Plant—An Educational Game Fosters Plant Species Literacy. Sustainability. 2024; 16(11):4702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114702

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lindemann-Matthies, Petra, Eve Heber, and Martin Remmele. 2024. "Find the Plant—An Educational Game Fosters Plant Species Literacy" Sustainability 16, no. 11: 4702. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114702

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop