Interactive Online Tools for TeachingPlant Identification

Kristin R. Campbell1,4,6, Sandra B. Wilson2,5,

P. Christopher Wilson3,5, and Zhenli He3,5

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS. ornamentals, agricultural education, distance education,active learning, web-technology

SUMMARY. Interactive review exercises were developed as an online learningcomponent of an existing native plant landscaping course. The instruments weredesigned with specific goals for students to 1) test their plant identificationknowledge, 2) practice leaf terminology with specific plant examples, and3) associate landscape performance with native ecosystem characteristics. The plantidentification tool was developed within a spreadsheet application using formulasconsisting of logic statements. This tool tests the students’ ability to identify plantsand spell scientific and common names associated with high-resolution plantimages. The leaf terminology tool was developed using a multimedia platform. Ituses a drag-and-drop interface where students are asked to associate a specific leafterm (i.e., margin, apex, base, texture, arrangement) with a scanned image that bestmatches the taxonomic term. The ecosystem tool, also developed using a multimediaplatform, uses digital images captured for each of Florida’s major ecosystems inconjunction with sets of plant combinations and site characteristics. Students selectthe appropriate choices and submit their answers online, after which they receiveimmediate feedback. Students reported an improvement in plant recognition afterthey had access to these identification tools. These interactive learning tools not onlybenefit students enrolled in this specific course but can be adapted to a variety ofonline courses nationwide.

Aneed for off-campus learning

was realized as far back as the1950s, when increased student

enrollment was beginning to limit on-campus space (Curtis, 1957). Today,most campus universities are movingtoward distance education as a methodfor teaching more students with fewerresources (Guri-Rosenbilt, 1999). Theresults of a recent national surveyfound over 4.6 million students wereenrolled in at least one online courseduring the Fall 2008 term, a 17%increase over the previous year (Allenand Seaman, 2010). This by far ex-ceeds the 1.2% overall growth rate of

higher education, showing the trendtoward distance education (Allen andSeaman, 2010), in part because of theflexibility offered to students and theelimination of a campus commute(Jeannette and Meyer, 2002). Nearlyone-quarter of faculty responding toa recent nationwide survey are report-edly teaching online; over one-thirdhave taught an online course in the past,and the majority of those respondingcite the needs of students as the mainreason for teaching online (Seaman,2009).

Within the College of Agricul-ture and Life Sciences (CALS) at the

University of Florida (UF), a criticalemphasis has been placed towardonline course transformation in a va-riety of disciplines including agri-business, agronomy, environmentalhorticulture, agricultural communi-cations, entomology, and soil andwater science (Rieger et al., 2011).The mission of serving place-boundstudents throughout the state has signif-icantly increased enrollment while uni-fying lecture content and minimizingduplication of faculty resources (Wilsonand Thetford, 2003). Indicators ofquality instruction (with engaged andinteractive learning components) par-allel with greater student satisfaction(Fredericksen et al., 2000). A recentsurvey showed that one-half of pro-spective CALS students located at Re-search and Education Centers (RECs)prefer some sort of hybrid deliveryformat, with a mixture of online andface-to-face courses (M. Rieger, un-published data).

Although numerous studies haveshown distance education to be com-parable (Anderson and Walker, 2003;Henss et al., 2006; Jeannette andMeyer, 2002; Miller and Pilcher,2001; Spooner et al., 1999) or evensuperior to traditional classroom teach-ing (Means et al., 2010), keepingstudents engaged, motivated, andchallenged while teaching online stillremains a challenge (Aragon, 2003;Beaudoin, 1990).

Teaching online courses requiresthe use of a variety of instruc-tional strategies to enhance interac-tive learning, ensure critical thinking,and provide immediate feedback(Schroeder-Moreno, 2010; Wilson andDanielson, 2003). Many of these areclose-sourced materials, not availableto other faculty, and only availableto students through the respectivee-learning site (which is no longeravailable after the course ends). Thisproject developed a series of innova-tive plant identification tools foropen-sourced, asynchronous applica-tions. These materials can be used bystudents and faculty worldwide topractice plant identification online.

Interactive identification quizIn an effort to incorporate asyn-

chronous student-centered learningexercises into a native landscapingcourse (ORH3815/5815C), an inter-active plant identification quiz was de-veloped using Excel 2007 spreadsheet

TeachingMethods

504 • August 2011 21(4)

software (Microsoft, Redmond, WA).This quiz allows students to test theirability to identify and spell the scientificand common names of plants taughtlive in class and to receive immediateresponses (correct or incorrect). Sixquizzes were developed, one for eachcourse module. On a designated‘‘quiz’’ tab, high-resolution digitalimages were inserted into the spread-sheet to use as the basis for scientificname and common name identifica-tion (Fig. 1). Users then type theiranswers into the highlighted cells,which are referenced to the ‘‘answer’’tab that displays the correct plantname. A single point is awarded fora correct answer for each scientific andcommon name, and the score is cal-culated as a percentage of correctanswers vs. total answers. By usinga logical IF statement, computercoders can modify the program forany given set of plants. If two com-mon names exist for a plant, a secondlogical statement can be added so thateither is accepted. Conditional for-matting was used as a visual represen-tation for the user to easily see if thegiven answer is correct or incorrect. Ifthe student correctly identifies andcorrectly spells the common or scien-tific name, the respective cell willhighlight in a green color. If theanswer supplied is incorrect, the re-spective cell will highlight in a redcolor. One of the strengths of thesequizzes is that, having been built, theycan either be used as is or adapted tonew content by anyone who possessesa copy of this spreadsheet software, withno further programming needed. Asmost computers today are equipped

Fig. 1. Screen capture of an interactive plant identification review quiz (Wilson,2010). Each week users log on to test their knowledge of plant identification bytyping out the correct scientific and common names associated with each image.Each spreadsheet has been coded to automatically score the answers and provide animmediate grade.

Fig. 2. Screen capture of a leaf properties interactive learning tool (Wilson, 2010).Users log on, select the preferred tab (apex, arrangement, base, margin, shape,texture), and drag a specified term to the corresponding leaf image.

This project was funded by the UF CALS Mini–GrantProgram for instructional improvements of distanceeducation.

Authors gratefully acknowledge Aaron Sotala, IFASInformation and Communication Services, forgraphic design and development.

1Indian River Research and Education Center, In-stitute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Universityof Florida, 2199 South Rock Road, Fort Pierce, FL34945

2Department of Environmental Horticulture, IndianRiver Research and Education Center, Institute ofFood and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,2199 South Rock Road, Fort Pierce, FL 34945

3Department of Soil and Water Science, Indian RiverResearch and Education Center, Institute of Foodand Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 2199South Rock Road, Fort Pierce, FL 34945

4Graduate Research Assistant

5Associate Professor

6Corresponding author. E-mail address: gijiweez@ufl.edu.

• August 2011 21(4) 505

Fig. 3. Screen capture illustrating an ecosystem interactive learning tool (Wilson, 2010). Users log on, select the preferred tab(coastal strand, flatwoods, freshwater marsh, hardwood hammock, sand scrub, sandhills, swamp), click on each sitecharacteristic that is typical of that ecosystem, and then select the appropriate plant group.

506 • August 2011 21(4)

TEACHING METHODS

with spreadsheet software, effectivelyanyone can use the tool to make theirown quizzes, thus providing learningimpacts that extend far beyond thescope of this single course.

Interactive leafterminology quiz

A self-testing tool was built us-ing Adobe Flash CS5 multimediaplatform and ActionScript 2 object-orientated language (Adobe Systems,San Jose, CA) as a drag-and-dropquiz to match leaf types with associ-ated terms. These programs werechosen primarily because of their re-liability and flexibility for deliveringcontent and for their interactive ca-pabilities for web applications. Nativespecies were selected whose leaveshad specific qualities for plant identi-fication (shape, apex, base, margin,arrangement, and texture). All leaveswere freshly collected from the UFIndian River REC Teaching Garden(Wilson and Danielson, 2003) andscanned using a color scanner (ScanJetADF; Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto,CA) to produce high quality imagesfor the interactive instrument (Fig. 2).The quiz was created by modifyingcomputer codes previously developedfor an interactive flash-based jigsawpuzzle and slot machine (UF, Instituteof Food and Agricultural Sciences,Information and Communication Ser-vices, unpublished data). Existing jig-saw puzzle code was rewritten to allowthe leaf terms to be dragged into thegrid layout that contained up to nineleaf images. Existing slot machinecode was rewritten so a randomizationfunction could be used to reshuffle theleaf order in the grid. This providesusers the option of taking the quizmultiple times. Enlarged versions ofleaves were added when it was nec-essary to show greater detail. Thiswas a careful compromise in keepingthe project’s overall file size manage-able. Finally, a feedback message wasadded to let the user know whenthey have successfully completed thequiz.

Interactive ecosystemassociation quiz

In an effort to associate nativeplant selection and landscape perfor-mance with natural ecosystems, anonline learning tool was developed asa review option. This instrument was

designed using the same multimediaplatform and object-orientated lan-guage as the previous quiz, but thistime to view a series of ecosystemtypes, in which users are asked tocorrectly identify the site characteris-tics and plant groups that best reflecta given ecosystem. Typical ecosystemsthroughout the state were visited andhigh-resolution images of each werecaptured with a camera (D500; Nikon,Melville, NY). Lists of representativesoil properties (drainage, organic mat-ter, moisture, salinity), environmentalconditions (wind, sun, shade), andplant species (indigenous grasses, vines,shrubs, trees) were compiled for each ofthe seven major ecosystems of Florida(sand scrub, sandhills, flatwoods, marsh,swamp, coastal strand, and hammock)(Schaefer and Tanner, 1997). The webinterface consists of a series of tabslabeled by ecosystem (Fig. 3). Whenusers select a particular ecosystem tab,an image of that respective ecosystemappears. Users then have the choice toselect a sub-tab labeled ‘‘conditions’’or ‘‘groups.’’ When the ‘‘conditions’’tab is selected, users are asked to con-trol which of the listed characteristics orrequirements are common to the veg-etation found in that ecosystem. Aftersubmitting their choices, users are thenasked to select the group of plants likelyto be found in that particular ecosys-tem. These tools have the ability ofbeing expanded even further with othermultimedia and interactive capabilities,should there be a need.

In summary, three new instru-ments have been developed to facilitateonline learning. Although originallydesigned for a native landscapingcourse, these applications can be easilymodified for numerous other horticul-ture courses. These tools are open-sourced and available worldwide, inwhich content can be modified ac-cordingly. The Interactive Identifica-tion Quizzes are especially versatile,with the flexibility of being used byanyone who adapts the formulas forany series of plants with the providedcoding. For educational purposes,original plant images and all theonline applications may be used ordownloaded from the course website(Wilson, 2010).

Literature citedAllen, I.E. and J. Seaman. 2010. Learningon demand: Online education in the

United States, 2009. Babson Survey Re-search Group, Babson Park, MA.

Anderson, N.O. and J.D. Walker. 2003.Effectiveness of web-based versus liveplant identification. HortTechnology 13:199–205.

Aragon, S.R. 2003. Facilitating learningin online environments. Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco.

Beaudoin, M. 1990. The instructor’schanging role in distance education. Am.J. Distance Educ. 4:21–29.

Curtis, D.K. (ed.). 1957. Achieving qual-ity in off-campus professional laboratoryexperiences. Iowa State Teachers College,Cedar Falls, IA.

Fredericksen, E., A. Pickett, P. Shea, W.Pelz, and K. Swan. 2000. Student satis-faction and perceived learning with onlinecourses: Principles and examples from theSUNY Learning Network. J. Asynchro-nous Learning Networks 4(2):1–41. 26May 2011. <http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v4n2/student-satisfaction-and-perceived-learning-line-courses-principles-and-examples-suny-lear>.

Guri-Rosenbilt, S. 1999. Distance andcampus universities: Tensions and inter-actions: A comprehensive study of fivecountries. Elsevier Science, New York.

Henss, S.R., J.M. Zajicek, and R.D.Lineberger. 2006. A comparison of stu-dent grades, floral design laboratory skillscores, and course satisfaction of tradi-tional and online sections of a universityfloral design course. HortTechnology 16:626–632.

Jeannette, K.L. and M.H. Meyer. 2002.Online learning equals traditional class-room training for Master Gardeners.HortTechnology 12:148–156.

Means, B., Y. Toyama, R. Murphy, M.Bakia, and K. Jones. 2010. Evaluation ofevidence-based practices in online learn-ing: A meta-analysis and review of onlinelearning studies. U.S. Dept. Educ., Wash-ington, DC.

Miller, G. and C.L. Pilcher. 2001. Levelsof cognition reached in agricultural dis-tance education courses in comparison toon-campus courses and to faculty percep-tions concerning an appropriate level.J. Agr. Educ. 42:21–28.

Rieger, M., R.E. Turner, and R.K. Barrick.2011. Student evaluation scores forcourses delivered by interactive videocon-ferencing. North Amer. Colleges TeachersAgr. J. In press.

Schaefer, J. and G. Tanner. 1997. Land-scaping for Florida’s wildlife: Re-creatingnative ecosystems in your yard. UniversityPress of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

• August 2011 21(4) 507

Schroeder-Moreno, M.S. 2010. Enhancingactive and interactive learning online- Les-sons learned from an online introductoryagroecology course. North Amer. CollegesTeachers Agr. J. 54:21–30.

Seaman, J. 2009. Online learning as a stra-tegic asset, Vol. II: The paradox of facultyvoices: Views and experiences with onlinelearning. Assn. Public and Land-grantUniv., Washington, DC.

Spooner, F., L. Jordan, B. Algozzine, andM. Spooner. 1999. Student ratings of in-struction in distance learning and on-campusclasses. J. Educ. Res. 92:132–140.

Wilson, S.B. 2010. Florida native land-scaping review materials. 3 Mar. 2011.<http://irrecenvhort.ifas.ufl.edu/FNL/review.html>.

Wilson, S.B. and H.E. Danielson. 2003.A new instrument for interactive virtualplant identification and use. HortTech-nology 13:1–2.

Wilson, S.B. and M. Thetford. 2003. Anew strategy for teaching plant propaga-tion by distance education. HortTechnol-ogy 13:577–578.

508 • August 2011 21(4)

TEACHING METHODS