Beauty, memories and symbolic meaning: Swedish student teachers´ views of their favourite plant and animal

References

• Andersson, B., and A. Wallin. 2000. “Students’ Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect, Social Consequences of Reducing CO2 Emissions and Why Ozone Layer Depletion Is a Problem.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37 (10): 1096–1111. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1096::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnon, S., and N. Reichel. 2009. “Closed and Open-ended Question Tools in a Telephone Survey about ‘the Good Teacher’: An Example of a Mixed Method Study.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3 (2): 172–196. doi:10.1177/1558689808331036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baird, J. H., R. Lazarowitz, and V. Allman. 1984. “Science Choices and Preferences of Middle and Secondary School Students in Utah.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21 (1): 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balas, B., and J. L. Momsen. 2014. “Attention “blinks” Differently for Plants and Animals.” CBE – Life Sciences Education 13 (3): 437–443. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-05-0080.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balding, M., and K. J. H. Williams. 2016. “Plant Blindness and the Implications for Plant Conservation.” Conservation Biology 30 (6): 1192–1199. doi:10.1111/cobi.12738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2011. Research Methods in Education. 7th ed. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Darley, W. M. 1990. “The Essence of ‘Plantness’.” The American Biology Teacher 52 (6): 354–357. doi:10.2307/4449132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fančovičová, J., and P. Prokop. 2011. “Plants Have a Chance: Outdoor Educational Programmes Alter Students’ Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Plants.” Environmental Education Research 17 (4): 537–551. doi:10.1080/13504622.2010.545874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hershey, D. 2002. “Plant Blindness: ‘We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us’.” Plant Science Bulletin 48: 78–84.
   Google Scholar
• Kinchin, I. M. 1999. “Investigating Secondary-School Girls’ Preferences for Animals or Plants: a Simple ‘Head-to-head’ Comparison Using Two Unfamiliarorganisms.” Journal of Biological Education 33 (2): 95–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, A. J. 2008. “‘bats, Snakes and Spiders, Oh My!’ How Aesthetic and Negativistic Attitudes, and Other Concepts Predict Support for Species Protection.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 94–103. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosnick, S.E., J.C. Baker, and K. R. Moore. 2018. “The Pet Plant Project: Treating Plant Blindness by Making Plants Personal.” The American Biology Teacher 80 (5): 339–345. doi:10.1525/abt.2018.80.5.339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindemann-Matthies, P. 2005. “‘loveable’ Mammals and ‘lifeless’ Plants: How Children’s Interest in Common Local Organisms Can Be Enhanced through Observation of Nature.” International Journal of Science Education 27 (6): 655–677. doi:10.1080/09500690500038116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyberg, E., and D. Sanders. 2014. “Drawing Attention to the ‘Green Side of Life’.” Journal of Biological Education 48 (3): 142–153. doi:10.1080/00219266.2013.849282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pany, P. 2014. “Students’ Interest in Useful Plants: a Potential Key to Counteract Plant Blindness.” Plant Science Bulletin 60 (1): 18-27. doi: 10.3732/psb.1300006.
   Google Scholar
• Reja, U., K. Lozar Manfreda, V. Hlebec, and V. Vehovar. 2003. “Open-ended Vs. Closed-ended Questions in Web Questionnaires.” In Developments in Applied Statistics, edited by A. Ferligoj and A. Mrvar, 159–177. Ljubljana, Slovenia: FDV.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, D. L. 2004. “Botanic gardens: “Walled, stranded arks” or environments for learning?” Unpublished doctoral thesis, Sussex University, U.K.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, D. L. 2007. “Making Public the Private Life of Plants: The Contribution of Informal Learning Environments.” International Journal of Science Education 29 (10): 1209–1228. doi:10.1080/09500690600951549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schussler, E. E., and L. A. Olzak. 2008. “It’s Not Easy Being Green: Student Recall of Plant and Animal Images.” Journal of Biological Education 42 (3): 112–118. doi:10.1080/00219266.2008.9656123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strgar, J. 2007. “Increasing the Interest of Students in Plants.” Journal of Biological Education 42 (1): 19–23. doi:10.1080/00219266.2007.9656102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swedish National Agency for Education. 2011. “Curriculum for the Compulsory School System, the Pre-school Class and the Recreation Centre (revised 2018).” Accessed 28 April 2019. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/styrdokument/2018/curriculum-for-the-compulsory-school-preschool-class-and-school-age-educare-revised-2018?id=3984
   Google Scholar
• Tamir, P., and A. Zohar. 1991. “Anthropomorphism and Teleology in Reasoning about Biological Phenomena.” Science Education 75 (1): 57–67. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wandersee, J. H. 1986. “Plants or Animals – Which Do Junior High School Students Prefer to Study?” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23 (5): 415–426. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wandersee, J. H., and E. E. Schussler. 1999. “Preventing Plant Blindness.” The American Biology Teacher 61 (2): 84–86. doi:10.2307/4450624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wandersee, J. H., and E. E. Schussler. 2001. “Toward a Theory of Plant Blindness.” Plant Science Bulletin 47 (1): 2–9.
   Google Scholar