A Historical Perspective on Problems in Botany Teaching David R. Hershey B OZNIAK (1994) and Uno (1994) have recently en Age of Botany Teaching" dozens of botany text- called attention to some of the many problems books were published by the leading botanical scien- facing botany teaching,but their analyses lacked tists of the day including Asa Gray, Francis Darwin, a historicalperspective. This article discusses how the CharlesBessey, JohnCoulter and LibertyHyde Bailey. many problems in botany teaching are interrelated, The last three were Presidents of the American Asso- and most have existed since at least the early 1900s.In ciation for the Advancement of Science. There was this article, botany is defined as the whole field of even a complaint that there were too many botany Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/58/6/340/47662/4450174.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 plant biology encompassing any discipline with a textbooks (Beal 1907). Botany teaching articles ap- majorfocus on the plant kingdom, including horticul- peared in leading researchjournals like Scienceand the ture, agronomy, forestry, plant pathology, weed sci- BotanicalGazette, there were manuals on high school ence, plant physiology, plant morphology, plant ge- botany teaching (Ganong 1910,Lloyd 1907),there was netics, plant ecology, plant taxonomy, etc. Botany a botany science projectbook for students (Osterhout teaching at both the precollege and introductorycol- 1905), and numerous botany education articles ap- lege levels will be considered. peared in School Scienceand Mathematicsand other educationjournals. Botany was also a majorpart of the Botany Neglect in Biology Teaching nature study and school gardening movements (Big- elow 1911). There was a standard college entrance The neglect of botany in biology teaching appearsto examinationin botany, and a standard unit course in be a longstanding problem (Nichols 1919; Whitney botany (Ganong 1910). High school botany teachers 1930; Kurtz 1958; Taylor 1965; Walch 1975) that has were expected to have two years of college botany gotten worse over time. The National ResearchCoun- including general morphology of higher and lower cil (1992) has identified this declining spiral in plant plants, elementary plant physiology and ecology, biology training and research. There has been much zoology, physiography, and general bacteriology recent evidence of botany neglect (Flannery 1991; (Ganong 1910). Honey 1987;Moehlmann 1993;Stern 1991;Uno 1994). In 1910, the first year that national statistics were A very striking example of botany neglect was a 26 x kept, 16.8%of American high school students took a 73 cm color poster promoting Science and Technology botany course (Brownell 1926). However, high school Week by the National Science Foundation (1993) that botany enrollments steadily dropped to 9.1%in 1915, the featured six animals and one flower. The text on to 3.8%in 1922, and to 1.6%in 1928 (Monahan1930). that invite back of the poster recommended teachers Botany courses were replaced by biology courses, see" students "to ask questions about the animals they which rose from 6.9%enrollment in 1915 to 13.6%in but the was not mentioned. A field trip to a plant 1928 (Monahan 1930). What caused the sudden de- "localscience museum, aquariumor zoo" was recom- cline in high school botany? mended but not to an arboretum or botanic garden. Reasons for the decline include most of the prob- The neglect of plants in biology teaching is mentioned lems discussed in this article. Failure to resolve dis- so often that it seems to be accepted as the statusquo, agreements about course content and teaching meth- but has botany always been neglected in biology ods seemed to prevent needed reforms. Boney (1991) teaching? detailed the heated debate over elementary college Biology teachers might be surprised to learn that in botany teaching in Britain from 1917 to 1919. There the early 1900s, botany was offered as a one-year or to be a lack of half-year course in the majority of American high also seemed qualified botany teachers, for school students and schools (Coulter& Caldwell 1911).During this "Gold- irrelevance of botany high parents (Suydam 1902), competition from a range of new science courses (Downing 1924), and a return to David R. Hershey is Adjunct Professorin the Biology/Horticul- the teaching of a single course in biology instead of ture Department of Prince George's Community College, in and The latter Largo, MD 20772-2199. separate courses botany zoology. seems to have representeda return of the "zoological 340 THEAMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 58, NO. 6, SEPTEMBER1996 submergence"from which botany teaching had briefly Uninterestingor Irrelevant emerged (Coulter & Caldwell 1911). Botany Teaching Nichols (1919) credited noted British zoologist Thomas Henry Huxley with the introduction,in about The cause of botany neglect has often been attrib- 1870, of the general biology course that replaced uted to botany being uninteresting (Flannery 1987; separatebotany and zoology courses. The influence of Uno 1994). The view of Flannery (1987) is that ". I Huxley's student, H. Newall Martin,led to the estab- am not alone in my prejudice; to many, botany is lishment of general biology in many American high synonymous with what is dry, complicated, and un- schools and colleges. However, such courses were interesting in biology." However, this is a misconcep- generally considered a failure, and most institutions tion. Plants are less complicated than animals, and returned to separate botany and zoology courses. botany as a subject is not dry or uninteresting, but Even Huxley's university returnedto separatecourses botany teaching is often uninspiring. This may be due after his retirement. Nichols (1919) found the major to the teacher's lack of interest in botany, the teacher's reason for the failureof the generalbiology course was botanical illiteracy, or the teaching methods. Uninter- that it could not help but become one-sided because esting botany teaching is an old problem, e.g. Pool most teachers were trained as either botanists or (1919) complained about the overuse of "botanical noted that most such courses were cadavers," i.e. preserved plants. Relying only on pre- zoologists. He also Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/58/6/340/47662/4450174.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 taught by the more numerous zoologists whose "fa- served plants misses one of the great strengths of miliarity with plants is little more than skin-deep" so botany in biology teaching: Many fascinating plants biology was generally "botanytaught by a zoologist." are easily grown and experimented with in the class- Given the early failure of general biology courses, the room without offending animal rights advocates. current plant neglect in biology teaching is not sur- Students are fascinated by movement so they often prising. have a greater interest in mobile animals than in The remainder of this article will consider other comparatively immobile plants. Botany teachers problems related to teaching botany, try to determine should take advantage of this fascination with move- if they are causes or just symptoms of botany neglect, ment by having students investigate plant move- and offer some potential solutions. ments, such as phototropism and gravitropism, and by growing and experimenting with plants famous for their conspicuous movements, e.g. sensitive plant (Mimosapudica), Venus flytrap (Dionaeamuscipula), Botanical Illiteracy telegraph plant (Desmodium motorium), prayer plant As a result of plant neglect, the general public, most (Maranta leuconeura),resurrection plant (Selaginella precollege teachers, and many college-level biology lepidophylla),and life plant (Biophytumsensitivum). teachers are generally illiterate about botany (Firn The science teaching literature is filled with success 1990;Storey 1989;Wood-Robinson 1991). Such botan- stories of teachers who have excited their students ical illiteracy encourages teachers to minimize class about botany. For example, at the college level: a time spent on botany and ensures that much of the service course in Indoor Plants with an annual enroll- botanical knowledge that is transferredto students is ment of 450 despite a $25 lab fee (Lyons 1992), a radio inaccurate.Again this is not a new problem (Ganong talk show in an introductory botany course (Melar- 1906). Blame for lack of botany training has to be agno 1975), a spectacular light and music show shared by colleges of education who require far too (Jensen 1970), and a nonmajors general science elective few content courses, by biology courses that contain emphasizing horticulture (Bouthyette 1991). At the little botany, and by college botany teachers who precollege level, successful approaches have included seldom offer botany courses that provide precollege apple day (Cruttenden 1914), hydroponics in a simu- teacherswith the knowledge and hands-on experience lated space module (Silberstein & Brooke 1994), a to teach precollege students. botanical learning center (Hollingshead & McDowell Botanical illiteracy is widespread so even presti- 1992), terrariums (Clark 1978), Wisconsin Fast Plants gious publicationsoften have glaring botanicalerrors. (Williams 1989), and blindfold botanists (Walch 1975). For example, Sciencestated that Ginkgoproduces ber- A common characteristic of such successful ap- ries, which contain nuts (Amato 1993). Ginkgois a proaches is that the teachers went beyond the textbook gymnosperm,