Plant awareness disparity among students of different educational levels in Spain

Plant


INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity loss is one of the main environmental problems facing biologists and the planet Earth itself nowadays (Cardinale et al., 2012).The current reduction in the number of species leads to a deregulation in ecosystem dynamics, with harmful consequences for its structure and components, including human beings (Cardinale et al., 2012).Biodiversity conservation is a task for society as a whole, as emphasized by the Convention of Biological Diversity (United Nations Organization, 1992).Thus, the Convention establishes the need to promote educational programs aimed at awareness-raising, identification, and sustainable exploitation of biodiversity, as well as at including in educational curricula necessary measures to preserve it.

Research Article
Science education for young people, specifically in environmental education (EE), is one of the current challenges for society and education systems (Hudson, 2001).EE is defined as a 'continuous process in which individuals and communities become aware of their environments and acquire knowledge and skills that allow them to act, both individually and collectively, in order to solve present and future environmental problems (Monroe & Krasny, 2016;UNESCO, 1978); moreover, at least three of the sustainable development goals (13, 14, and 15) focus on biodiversity, as well as on quality education (goal 4).Therefore, EE is supposed to make students aware of the need to preserve the environment.EE-related contents are well represented in all educational stages of the Spanish education system, regulated from 2013 to 2020 by the Organic Law 8/2020, of 29 December (Ministry of Education, 2013).The curricula at all levels reflect an adequate and proportional representation of contents related to both botany and zoology (Ministry of Education of the Community of Castilla and León, 2015a, 2015b, 2016).Nevertheless, the integration of EE in the classroom has been complicated despite the fact that environmental contents are present in the curricula (Suárez-López & Eugenio-Gozalbo, 2021;Sureda-Negre et al., 2014).In general, specific long-term extracurricular programs have tried to ensure that students acquire the necessary skills in EE, which can also be conceived as competences in environmental health (Fernández et al., 2016;Sánchez-Llorens et al., 2019).This task becomes even more important in a context of climate change and biological crisis.
As an essential part of the EE, botany has permeated the daily life of many societies, such as the British (Sanders, 2007).However, interest in botany has now diminished, especially among young people (Bebbington, 2005;Kubiatko et al., 2021).This fact has generated, and continues to do so, concern among botany researchers and teachers, as it not only implies a loss of technical and scientific knowledge of new generations, but also the ignorance of both the native flora and its traditional uses (Hooykaas et al., 2019;Signorini et al., 2009).This is even more worrying considering that plants constitute around 80% of the total biomass of the planet and play a fundamental role in such important aspects as ecological security, food, climatic and environmental sustainability, medicine, nutrient cycles, and the water cycle (Jose et al., 2019).Furthermore, research has shown that teaching with and about plants represents a pedagogical handicap even for biology teachers (Wandersee, 1986).Related to the above, more than two decades ago a unique phenomenon occurring in society was detected and defined as 'plant blindness' (Wandersee & Schussler, 1999).This term could be transcribed as 'blindness' towards plants and was defined by the authors as the 'inability to see or notice the plants in the environment, to recognize their importance in the biosphere and for humans, to appreciate their differential and unique physical and biological characteristics, in addition to the perception that plants occupy a lower status than animals and human beings' (Wandersee & Schussler, 1999).In this sense, it has been shown that many students have a limited view of what plants are (Bianchi, 2000;Jose et al., 2019).There are many studies on how students perceive or identify plants (Pedrera et al., 2021;Sanders, 2007), especially in relation to animals.Despite the supposedly equal representation of botany and zoology contents in curricula (Amprazis et al., 2021;Schussler & Olzak, 2008), research to date confirms the inequality between the degree of students' knowledge on plants versus animals (even when they have to visually recognize specific organisms), biased towards the latter.There has also been a loss of interest in fieldwork, which is considered endangered (Barker et al., 2002), even though it has been proven to be of paramount importance for learning and being interested in biodiversity (Scott et al., 2012).This is a concerning fact, especially as students' interest in plants and botanical learning can be enhanced through an appropriate addressing of the differences between animals and plants and direct activities with plants that appeal to children (Kubiatko et al., 2021;Wandersee, 1986).The concept of 'plant blindness' has recently been renamed (Parsley, 2020) as 'plant awareness disparity' (PAD), trying to avoid ableist language, since 'blindness' towards plants implies equating a visual disability to a deficient perception of plants, which can obviously be through other senses other than sight (McDonough MacKenzie et al., 2019).This concept suggests that although plants may go unnoticed, this would be a partial fact, so education can change this by increasing 'species literacy' (Hooykaas et al., 2019), defined as the knowledge, interest, and attitude about some species.Interest in nature has been shown to be an important variable for species identification skills (Palmberg et al., 2019), which could be used as a measure of how (dis)connected people and nature are (Hooykaas et al., 2019).Thus, the main objective of this study was to evaluate the species literacy of students at different educational levels in the autonomous Community of Castile and Leon (Spain), through their ability to name endangered species and to identify several species native to the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands; specifically, it intended to answer the following questions: 1. Are students able to mention both threatened animal and plant species?If so, is there any meaningful difference between their answers?
2. Is there an improvement in students' degree of species knowledge about animals and plants across different educational levels?
3. Despite the plant-related content and learning outcomes set out in the curricula, is PAD a reality among students at different educational levels?

Study Design
A knowledge assessment test was designed, similar to previous research (Hooykaas et al., 2019;Kaasinen, 2019;Skarstein & Skarstein, 2020;Wolff & Skarstein, 2020).The test consisted of two blocks with two sets of questions in each, for which the students had to write the answers down.In block 1, to objectively determine the ability to name endangered animals and plants, students were asked to list all the endangered animals (animals 1) and plants (plants 1) they knew, according to the definition they were previously explained based on IUCN (2012); positive results were considered with respect to the IUCN (2012) lists.In block 2, students were shown a high-quality slideshow with 15 photographs of animals (animals 2) and 15 of plants (plants 2), all of them previously randomized and were asked to write down as specific names as they could (for example, 'lynx' would be considered as correct as 'iberian lynx', as well as answering 'fern' instead of 'bracken').To standardize the test, two conservation biologists supervised the species shown, so that animals and plants with a similar level of difficulty were selected.Prior to the study, a pilot test was carried out with a small sample (n=40) at the same selected levels (10 participants of each level), in order to validate the questionnaire.Results showed significant differences.All selected species were characterized by being important and emblematic of the students' closest environments (Mediterranean and temperate Iberian forests) in the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands; species subject to conservation measures, flagship species, and charismatic species were included.All species followed the criteria specified in education curricula (Table 1).
The test was the same for all participants, regardless of their educational level, since they were all students from the same region and therefore had the same common content and learning outcomes (Table 1).This design allowed us to assess whether or not there has been an improvement in the ability to recognize or recall animals and plants among educational levels.This assumption has been made in other similar studies (Pedrera et al., 2021).

Participants
The study was conducted in two secondary schools of Salamanca and Valladolid, as well as in the Faculty of Early Childhood and Primary Education (PE) of the University of Salamanca (autonomous Community of Castile and Leon, Spain).To ensure that all students had received the same contents, they all belonged to the same region, since in Spain each autonomous community develops its own curriculum based on the minimum contents stated by the National Education Law.
The sample (n=259; Table 2) consisted of students from four different educational levels.To assess the PE level, students in the first year of secondary education (SE) were surveyed (n=55).Regarding SE, the test was applied to students in the last year (4th year of compulsory SE) belonging to the science pathway (n=65).The baccalaureate level (upper SE) was assessed through students in the 2nd (and last) year (n=85), belonging to the science pathway (49 students) and to the social sciences & humanities pathway (36 students).It was assumed that students in the latter pathway did not have the science-related learning outcomes of their peers in the science pathway (Table 1).This allowed to assess if there were any differences between itineraries within the baccalaureate level.For the university level, students in the 2nd year of the bachelor's degree in early childhood education and in the 2nd year of the bachelor's degree in PE were assessed (n=54).Participants at this level are taught some science subjects; however, these are didactic subjects, whose objective is to give them tools to teach science, not to acquire new knowledge.It is then assumed that they have a background, learned in previous educational stages (i.e., SE and baccalaureate) even though most of them come from the humanities and social sciences pathways.The educational levels were chosen to evaluate the progress of students from PE to university.Data collection was agreed with the teachers and head teachers at the different secondary schools participating in the study.Parents and legal guardians were informed of the anonymous nature of the survey, its objectives, its content, and gave their approval, being aware that they could refuse their children's participation at any time.University students were also duly informed and gave their consent for their answers to be included in the study.

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using the SPSS v.26 software (IBM Corp., 2019).First, the following descriptive values were obtained for both blocks: mean number of species named or identified, standard error, standard deviation, minimum and maximum.Values were calculated considering the data as a set and by educational levels.Regarding block 2, values were expressed as a percentage of correctly identified images to facilitate the interpretation of the results.The normality of the data was checked using the one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, applied to both blocks and to the different levels.Due to the non-normality of the data, the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples was applied to detect significant differences (p-value<0.05) between pairs of questions (animals vs. plants).In our case, the null hypothesis indicated a low probability that the distribution of the results of the questions related to animals and plants were different.Analyses were applied for the whole sample group, for the different educational levels separately (PE, SE, baccalaureate, and university), and also for the different groups, where necessary (science and social sciences & humanities pathways), within levels.
In addition, Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated to determine whether, despite possible differences, there was correlation between results.Specifically, the analysis performed compared the results for animals and plants within each block (animals 1/plants 1 and animals 2/plants 2) and the relationship between the results for animals of both blocks and plants of both blocks (animals 1/animals 2 and plants 1/plants 2).This was done for the full dataset and for the different educational levels.Finally, given the nonnormality of the data, the Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples was carried out to assess possible differences between educational levels within each set of questions within each block, as well as for the two baccalaureate pathways.

Ethics Statement
This study did not require formal ethics approval.The data was completely anonymous, with no personal information collected (apart from age, sex, and a record of informed consent), and was not considered to be sensitive or confidential in nature.It was used for a purpose which falls within the remit of the original consent provided by subjects.The issues being researched were unlikely to upset or disturb participants.Vulnerable or dependent groups were not included.There was no risk of possible disclosures or reporting obligations.

RESULTS
Regarding block 1, the mean number of animals that the full set of students were able to cite was 3.53 (±2.05), while the mean number of plants cited was 0.33 (±0.62;Table 3).
The maximum number of endangered animals and plants cited was 12 and three, respectively, both in SE.By levels, the maximum number of correct assignments for threatened animals was, respectively, 10 (PE), 12 (SE), seven (baccalaureate), and 11 (university) (Table 3, block 1).For plants, the maximum numbers were two (PE), three (SE), two (baccalaureate), and two (university).At all levels, the minimum number was zero plants or animals assigned, except for PE, where all students assigned at least one animal.
The Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples showed significant differences between the responses given for animals and plants in both blocks (Figure 1).This result was also obtained with respect to the analysis carried out at the different educational levels.As for the correlation analysis, the results showed significant values (p-value<0.05) for the full set in all the tests performed (animals 1/animals 2 and plants 1/plants 2, and animals/plants within both block 1 and block 2, Table 4).Despite this, Spearman's coefficient values showed weak correlations (Table 4).Note that analyses were performed over the full dataset and over the educational levels (PE, SE, baccalaureate, and university).Sciences and social & humanities itineraries were also compared separately.Considering the different educational levels, only the correlation between plants and animals of block 2 (animals 2/plants 2) was significant at all levels, obtaining weak correlation values (Table 4); however, within baccalaureate, considering the two pathways separately, the correlation was not significant for any of them.Only the correlation between animals and plants in block 1 (animals 1/plants 1) was not significant for any level.Looking at the baccalaureate pathways separately, results were only significant for the social sciences and humanities baccalaureate pathway (animals 1/animals 2) with a moderate correlation (0.464) and the science pathway (plants 1/plants 2) with a weak correlation (0.347).
The correlation in university was only non-significant for animals 1/plants 1, with weak values except for animals 1/animals 2 (0.463).PE and SE values were not significant except for animals 2/plants 2 (weak values, mentioned above).
The Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples showed significant differences (p-value<0.05) for all sets of questions within the blocks (Table 5).Within the sets, significant differences were found between some pairs of educational levels: within animals 1, PE-SE, and SE-baccalaureate; within plants 1, differences were found between university and the rest of educational levels (PE and SE, and baccalaureate); within animals 2, differences were found between PE and the rest of educational levels; finally, within plants 2, differences were found between all pairs of educational levels except PE-university and SE-baccalaureate.Within the last set of questions (plants 2), significant differences were also found between the science and the social sciences & humanities itineraries (Table 5).

Species Literacy, Species Identification Skills, & Plant Awareness Disparity
In terms of recall of endangered animal and plant species (Table 3), the number of endangered plant species which students mentioned versus the number of endangered animal species was very low, being biased to the latter (Table 3 & Figure 1).Students named significantly fewer endangered plants than animals but were also unable to recognize as many plants as animals when photographs were shown (Table 3 & Figure 1).Those results are consistent with others that have been observed under similar conditions, with plants being significantly less mentioned (Patrick & Tunnicliffe, 2011) or identified (Díez et al., 2018;Pedrera et al., 2021;Skarstein & Skarstein, 2020).It has been found that students tend to name animal species either because they are close to them in the environment or because they are 'lovable' (Nates et al., 2010); as for plants, they tend to name significant species (flag or charismatic species) rather than rare or endangered ones (Kaasinen, 2019).
Given the correlation results at all education levels (Table 4), the more animals, the more plants students were able to mention.Taking the two baccalaureate pathways separately (sciences and social sciences & humanities), the correlation was not significant for test animals 2/plants 2, suggesting that, unlike plant recognition (plants 2, Table 4), correlation between plant and animal literacy would not depend on pathways, but on educational levels.The results could be related not just to students overseeing plants, but to the fact that, for example in PE, pupils might not even consider plants as living beings (Jiménez-Tejada et al., 2013;Martínez-Losada et al., 2014), thus transferring this handicap to SE.Their characteristics (lack of movement, absence of a face, uniform colors, etc.) could lead students to overlook them (Schussler & Olzak, 2008).Apart from the fact that students do not have problems recognizing animals from an early age, it is striking that they recognize only a few animals considered important from the point of view of conservation.This is concerning since students tend to recognize more easily exotic (Ballouard et al., 2011) or 'loveable' animals (Lindemann-Matthies, 2005) over native ones, and without any doubt over 'lifeless plants' (Lindemann-Matthies, 2005).It is worth mentioning that as it happens with plants, some authors have also detected this phenomenon associated with some animal groups, mainly invertebrates (Snaddon et al., 2008;Titley et al., 2017;Yli-Panula & Matikainen, 2014), which implies that it is not only the plant blindness effect but a greater affinity for certain animal species, mainly mammals.This is essential as it has been shown that the more people are interested on biodiversity, the more they know about it, especially about plants (Kubiatko et al., 2021;Otto & Pensini, 2017).
It has been observed that the percentage of recognition increases proportionally with age (Yli-Panula & Matikainen, 2014), with both Primary and Secondary teachers being able to identify most of the species shown (Kaasinen, 2019); despite this, and similar to other studies (Buck et al., 2019), our results show that, with respect to age, there were no increases in species recognition for either plants or animals (Table 3).Nevertheless, significant differences were found between certain educational levels for the answers given to each set of questions.As for plant identification (plants 2, Table 5), species recognition showed significant differences from one educational level to the next, except in the case of SE-baccalaureate.It is remarkable that belonging to either the science or the social sciences & humanities pathway matters for the recall of plant species, as significant differences were found between the two itineraries (plants 2, Table 5).
PAD could be, somehow, a consequence of the long exposure, in today's society, to media and the entertaining industry.Most of the wildlife species present in video games, cartoons, films, or even fables are animals, most of them either exotic or flagship species (Ballouard et al., 2011).It has been shown that media can influence children and teenagers and may have a positive impact on students' perception of both plants and animals, and therefore on species literacy (Holbert et al., 2003).In any case, children are quite capable of recalling and recognizing a large amount of information in a similar way they would do with biodiversity, since they identify and remember more Pokémon 'species' than local fauna and flora (Balmford et al., 2002).It is therefore the responsibility of content creators to try to make biodiversity as a whole more visible, while focusing on local biodiversity and paying special attention to plants (Almeida et al., 2020).A first step might be what has been found to help animal conservation: an appropriate anthropomorphizing of plants (Tam, 2013).This would be a good starting point to contribute to creating a strong footprint in the collective consciousness of students to counteract PAD.Otherwise, the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals could be at risk, since biodiversity knowledge, including plants as an intrinsic part of it is the first step to protect it (Amprazis & Papadopoulou, 2018, 2020).

Curricula and Educational Disparity Between Levels
In the autonomous region where our research was carried out (Castile and Leon, Spain), natural sciences in early childhood and PE have an important weight in the curriculum, with thematic blocks dedicated to them.In early childhood education, the teaching of natural sciences is conceived from a dynamic point of view, in which pupils must 'know some animals and plants, their characteristics, habitat, and life cycle, and value the benefits they bring to health, human well-being and environment' (Ministry of Education of the Community of Castilla and León, 2008).In PE, the block dedicated to living beings has an important weight in the curriculum of each of the courses, establishing the need for students to be able to recognize and classify the main taxonomic groups of organisms, especially animals and plants, as well as identifying and explaining the causes of their extinction (Ministry of Education of the Community of Castilla and León, 2016).However, some authors have criticized the lack of dynamic procedures, resulting in a low or null curiosity among children for plants (Urones et al., 2013).It is during SE and baccalaureate when contents related to environment and biodiversity decrease (Table 2).Even though the subject of biology and geology is taught in five out of the six years of SE and baccalaureate together, only in three of them specific content referring to biodiversity, ecology and taxonomy are studied (Table 2).In addition, the fundamental principles of botany and zoology are taught during the 1st year (Table 2).This might be the reason underlying the apparent absence of differences between the two baccalaureate itineraries (science and social sciences & humanities), except for plant identification (Table 5), which is surprising given the absence of significant correlation levels for plant literacy and recognition for both itineraries (Table 4).These differences between itineraries could be a result of the plant-related content studied during the 1st year of baccalaureate (Table 2), in which students might have an improvement in their species literacy, also with regard to plants.
Environmental Education (EE) was first introduced into Spanish curricula in the Law of General Ordination of the Educational System (LOGSE), in 1990 (Ministry of Education, 1990).Since then, its integration in the classroom has been complicated, and the Spanish Education Law for the Improvement of Educational Quality (Ministry of Education, 2013) does not include the concept of 'EE'.In contrast, the legislation of the autonomous community of Castile and Leon does, but only for the SE curriculum (Ministry of Education of the Community of Castilla and León, 2015a).Thus, the environment has been considered as a human resource within the current Law, which also confuses 'sustainability' and 'sustainable development' and applies them by equating both to nature preservation (Suárez-López & Eugenio-Gozalbo, 2021).This way, it addresses the need for incoming curricula to include the Sustainable Developments Goals and innovative methods and tools that enable incoming generations to receive a comprehensive EE degree of knowledge (Amahmid et al., 2019;Suárez-López & Eugenio-Gozalbo, 2021).
In this sense, the Spanish Government has recently developed the new SE curriculum (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training, 2022) within the framework of the current Education Act (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training, 2020), which will be implemented in the academic year 2022/2023.It stablishes, for example, the need to identify, observe and classify species in the immediate environment, the importance of caring for ecosystems, biodiversity and environmentally sustainable habits, and the relationship between environmental, human, and other living beings' health as in the concept of 'one health' (Mackenzie & Jeggo, 2019).The act also seeks the reinforcement of scientific literacy to, among other actions, respect other living beings or care for the environment; moreover, it emphasizes the need for a more active, dynamic, and experimental approach to natural sciences to achieve an adequate scientific, environmental, and species literacy, also in relation to plants.However, a deeper and future analysis of it will be necessary, as well as further studies to assess the results of its implementation.

Educational Implications: Proposals to Counteract Plant Awareness Disparity
As we have already discussed, PAD still remains present in the Spanish Education System, also among those studying the degrees of teacher in early childhood and in PE.Although identification values seem to improve at university level (Table 3) and there is a weak positive correlation between animal and plant recognition (Table 4), values are still low.The lack of strategies focused on comprehensive and sound botany teaching in schools, high schools, and universities is one of the main causes of PAD (Kaasinen, 2019;Parsley, 2020).It is a reality that plants are under-represented in textbooks, and if they are, they are exotic rather than native (Celis-Diez et al., 2016): moreover, transversal information is usually presented with animal-based examples (Brownlee et al., 2021).The specific content and how it is taught at school determines the 'degree' of PAD (Batke et al., 2020).
In the case of students of the bachelor's degree in early childhood and PE, this is even more important, as they will be in charge of children's future learning.Thus, the objectives set out in the curriculum will only be achieved if the teachers of the future are adequately trained.Here we propose three main ways to counteract PAD: 1. Incorporate into the curriculum at all educational levels specific content aimed at raising awareness of local flora and increasing students' species literacy and knowledge, as discussed above (Suárez-López & Eugenio-Gozalbo, 2021).
3. Finally, future educators, both early childhood, PE, and biology teachers, should receive a comprehensive training in the field of botany and in the effective implementation of activities aimed at transferring plant knowledge to students and therefore reduce their PAD degree in order to avoid a 'zoo-chauvinistic' point of view (Darley, 1990).Outdoor experiences for future teachers improve their ability to identify local flora (Borsos et al., 2021;Magntorn & Helldén, 2005), make them aware of their need to learn about local species, and make them feel more confident to transfer their knowledge to students (Wolff & Skarstein, 2020).However, the study plans for the training of PE teachers should include, like those for SE and Baccalaureate, more competences related to EE, since in Spain there are no minimum guaranteed standards in the training of future teachers (Sureda-Negre et al., 2014).

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY, & FUTURE RESEARCH
Plant blindness is still present among students at all educational levels, from PE to university.It has been observed that knowledge about plants and animals (mainly about vertebrates) is biased towards the latter.New pedagogical methods, techniques and tools should be employed to motivate students.Plant blindness might also represent a threat for achieving the sustainable development goals.Future research is needed to further evaluate whether those measures, programs, and activities can improve the plant literacy of students and teachers to counteract PAD.Special interest should also be focused in evaluating the implementation of the new Spanish curricula, to assess whether it improves the level of the next generation of students with respect to PAD and EE.

Table 2 .
Sample characteristics (age, sample size, and sex ratio are specified)

Table 1 .
Curricula's specific con, 2015bnd learning outcomes according to Ministry of Education of the Community ofCastilla and León (2015a, 2015b, 2016)for each educational level

Table 3 .
Descriptive values of the dataset Block-1 refers to the level of knowledge of animals and plants in danger of extinction; Block-2 refers to the percentage of recognition of the animals and plants shown; SE: Standard error; SD: Standard deviation; PE: Primary education; & SED: Secondary education

Table 4 .
Values of Spearman's correlation analysis comparing results for animals in both blocks, plants in both blocks, and plants and animals within the blocks

Table 5 .
Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples (the test was made for animals and plants within each block[1 & 2]for all the answers and by pairs of educational level)