Introduction
In today’s society, plants are increasingly recognized as emotional and psychological companions for individuals seeking health and well-being, evolving beyond their traditional role as mere survival resources (Lee, 2024). Notably, social shifts—such as the rise in single-person households and an aging population—have given rise to the newly-coined word “pet plants,” showing that plants are becoming a medium for emotional balance and improved quality of life, rather than just serving as ecological resources (Kim, 2019; Lee, 2024). Moreover, advances in smart and urban farming technologies, coupled with a growing societal awareness of eco-friendly lifestyles, are making it easier for people to connect with plants (Yang and Lee, 2023).
Interactions with plants play an important role in promoting psychological stability and reducing stress. However, young generations, including college students, often miss out on these experiences due to limited opportunities to interact with plants as they focus on schoolwork, job, and other commitments (Chen, 2023; Choi et al., 2010). Nevertheless, with the growing recognition of plants as “pets/companions”—evident in trends such as pet-plant culture and planterior, a term coined by South Korea’s interior designers to refer to the use of plants in interior design—plants are increasingly seen as tools for the emotional and psychological well-being among college students (Kang, 2004; Kim, 2019; Lee, 2021). In light of these shifts, plant image analysis is gaining attention as a useful method for assessing how plants evoke aesthetic and psychological responses through human senses such as sight, smell, and touch. In particular, since humans perceive their environment primarily through visual information, which accounts for over 70% of total perceptual input (Whang et al., 1997), image analysis that evaluates the visual characteristics of plants is essential for understanding psychological responses and preferences. However, the application of plant image analysis has largely been confined to evaluating marketability, indoor landscaping, or psychotherapy research, with limited use in educational settings or textbooks. However, the application of plant image analysis has largely been confined to evaluating marketability, indoor landscaping, or psychotherapy research, with limited use in educational settings or textbooks (Jang et al., 2011; Jeong and Park, 2021; Ryu, 2015).
Elementary school plant education provides a valuable opportunity for students to explore nature and ecosystems while developing values that support their conservation. Teachers’ understanding and use of plants play a key role in this process. Currently, the elementary school curriculum focuses on the understanding of nature and the conservation of ecosystems as presented in textbooks. Plants are introduced from ecological, evolutionary, and environmental perspectives, including their ecological and scientific characteristics, as well as plant materials (Yun and Jeon, 2020); plant education content analysis (Kim, 2007); and methods for surveying different plant species (Chun, 2014). This approach is effective in helping students understand the biological importance of plants. However, with the rise of urban agriculture, horticultural therapy, and other fields, there is an increasing emphasis on experiential approach of the aesthetic and emotional value of plants (Jeong and Park, 2021). Despite this, there are few instances of systematically incorporating research or image analysis findings on visual elements of plants into elementary education to reflect this shift. This suggests that the aesthetic and emotional effects that plants can offer students are not being fully utilized in an educational context. Therefore, as Shin (2023) reported that elementary school teachers’ ability to identify plants and their level of knowledge are closely related to the level of teaching and learning in related subjects, analyzing plant image preferences among prospective elementary school teachers holds important educational value and practical implications in itself. Against this backdrop, this study surveyed and analyzed the image preference perceptions of prospective teachers, focusing on elementary school textbook plants and foliage plants, which have gained attention in modern trends. The purpose was to enhance opportunities for continuous plant education, suggest educational directions that bridge textbook plants with real-life plant experiences, and expand the scope of school plant education.
Research Methods
Research process
This study was conducted in the following steps: defining the research objectives, designing the questionnaire and items, classifying plants based on textbook analysis, surveying plant image preferences, processing the survey data, and interpreting the results (Fig. 1).
Analysis of plant classification in elementary school textbooks: Target plants and classification criteria
The analysis of plant classification in elementary school textbooks was conducted on 178 books covering subjects such as music, art, social studies, science, and practical arts. These books included both national textbooks for grades 1–6 and authorized textbooks for grades 3–6 from 2015. The classification was based on the system established by the Ministry of Education. The authorized textbooks were analyzed by referencing those published by Cheonjae, Doosan Dong-A, Mirae N and Kyohaksa with a focus on the units published by Geumseong Publishing. Plants included in the textbooks were specifically presented through texts, illustrations, or photos related to the content, while those with shapes that were difficult to recognize were excluded. The classification of plants was based on the Agricultural Terminology Dictionary (Rural Development Administration) and Introduction to Horticulture (Korea National Open University Press), which categorized them into “floriculture crops (flowering plants),” “vegetables,” and “ fruit trees” (Kwon, 2021). According to the classification criteria, plants in the textbooks were categorized into 37 species (9.6%) of fruit trees, 101 species (26.2%) of vegetables, and 248 species (64.2%) of floriculture crops, out of a total of 386 plant species in the national and authorized elementary school textbooks. Among these, this study targeted floriculture crops, which accounted for the largest proportion, and classified them into 81 species (32.7%) of woody plants and 167 species (67.3%) of herbaceous plants based on the plant property classification system. The analysis focused mainly on the 167 species of herbaceous plants, which represented the majority. The classification criteria also included the plant property classification system, such as annual, biennial, and perennial herbaceous plants, as well as the floriculture crop classification system based on cultivation characteristics, such as foliage plants, succulents/cacti, bulbs, and aquatic plants. Since some plants appeared repeatedly in national and authorized textbooks, these duplicates were combined into a single category, as shown in Table 1. This final classification was used to assess plant image preference.
Although they are not often mentioned in textbooks, pet plants, which have become an important trend in today’s life due to recent environmental, psychological, social, and economic factors, or foliage plants, which are commonly used for planterior, were analyzed not only based on textbook plants but also on varieties/cultivars mainly used for decoration and enhancing the functionality of indoor spaces, taking into account the conditions and styles of these spaces according to plant characteristics (Jang et al., 2011; Ryu, 2015). The representativeness of visual images was classified by size (large and small), shape, and color, and the preferred images of specific foliage plants were analyzed, as shown in Fig. 2 (Jeong, 2024). Additionally, succulents were analyzed, focusing on recently popular varieties/cultivars beyond those found in textbooks (Lee, 2024).
Survey subjects and period
The subjects/participants of this study were 105 prospective elementary school teachers, all undergraduate students at a university of education in S City. They volunteered to take part in the survey after being informed of its purpose and content. The survey was administered from September 30 to October 14, 2024, with five face-to-face sessions held over the course of two weeks. Of the 105 responses collected, 102 were included in the analysis, with three responses excluded due to missing data or insincerity.
Research tools
Plant cultivation characteristics
Data were collected corresponding to demographic variables, including gender, age, grade level, plant preferences, experience with growing plants, plants participants would like to grow, plants they would like to grow in school gardens, and plants for Instagram (SNS).
Plant image preference survey
The plants used in the plant image preference survey were categorized into 10 domains. The classification was based on wild and horticultural species from the annual, biennial, and perennial herbaceous plants found in elementary school textbooks, with succulents, bulbs, and aquatic plants selected from the perennial category. Moreover, the five basic species of foliage plants were selected based on the textbooks, with five plants selected for each domain, considering factors such as size (large or small), color (shade), and various shapes/forms, as illustrated in Fig. 2. A total of 50 plant images from all domains were collected through Google and Naver searches and used in this survey (Fig. 3). In the plant image preference survey, participants were asked to view the images and rate their preferences for them. The scale used was the semantic differential method (SDM). First proposed by Osgood et al. (1957) in the United States, the SDM is a psychological measurement scale that has recently been used to assess a person’s impressions or emotions of visual, auditory, and environmental elements of natural stimuli (Jeong and Park, 2021; Yang and Lee, 2023). This method uses pairs of contrasting adjectives to measure participants’ subjective emotions associated with plants. This study presented 7 pairs of opposing adjectives, drawn from the perception of tactile and visual stimuli as well as psychophysiological responses (Osgood et al., 1957): “uncomfortable-comfortable,” “artificial-natural,” “simple-fancy,” “ugly-beautiful,” “‘commonplace-unique,” “unimpressive-impressive,” and “boring-interesting.” Each rating point is represented on a 13-point scale (−6 to +6), with “0” as the midpoint. A more negative score (−) indicates greater discomfort, artificiality, simplicity, ugliness, commonness, unimpressiveness, and boredom, while a more positive score (+) indicates greater comfort, naturalness, splendor, beauty, uniqueness, impressiveness, and interest. The reliability of the test tool was high, as indicated by the Cronbach’s α values: .789 for “five basic species of foliage plants,” .791 for “foliage plant colors,” .820 and .813 for “large and small foliage plant leaves,” .816 for “different shapes/forms of foliage plants,” .829 and .824 for “wild and horticultural species,” .865 and .839 for “succulents and bulbs,” and .847 for “aquatic plants.”
Data analysis
In this study, data collected through a survey were analyzed using the SPSS Statistics 26.0 software (IBM, USA). The analysis included frequency analysis and descriptive statistics. After confirming normality with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to assess plant image preferences for paired data and to determine significant differences. Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation, with statistical significance set at p < .05. In addition, a t-test was used to determine the significance of differences in plant image preferences by gender, while the reliability of the psychological measurement index was estimated using Cronbach’s α.
Results and Discussion
Experience with plants and their cultivation, and plant preferences
The survey respondents consisted of 36 male students (35.3%) and 66 female students (64.7%). The age range was as follows: 20–21 years old (40 respondents, 39.2%), 22–24 years old (50 respondents, 49.0%), and 25–29 years old (12 respondents, 11.8%). In terms of academic standing, 41 were sophomores (40.2%), 45 were juniors (44.1%), and 16 were seniors (15.7%). Among the prospective elementary teachers, most had experience with plants in their daily lives (38.2%), followed by experience growing plants at home (32.4%; Fig. 4A). Furthermore, the most common reason for growing plants was for decorative purposes (indoor/outdoor) at 40.2%, followed by mental comfort (22.5%) and pet plants (16.7%; Fig. 4B). For personal plant cultivation, succulents were the most preferred herbaceous plants at 29.4%, followed by foliage plants at 28.4% (Fig. 4E). This preference for succulents and foliage plants among future teachers indicates that introducing these plants would be very necessary for plant education in schools. The most preferred plants for school gardens were short trees (36.3%), followed by flowering herbaceous plants (33.3%; Fig. 4D). Meanwhile, among the plants that the prospective teachers most preferred to showcase on their Instagram (social media), those with fancy shapes were the top choice (34.3%), followed by plants that are adaptable to the environment and can thrive for an extended period (30.4%; Fig. 4C). Notably, “the preference for visually striking plants” reflects the future teachers’ interest in aesthetically appealing plants. This is consistent with the findings of a study by Kwack (2022) on college students’ experiences, knowledge, and preferences regarding gardening activities: the main factors influencing college students’ plant purchases are the “beauty and design of the plants.” This is expected to provide valuable insights for future plant education or for similar generations.
Plant image preference survey: Herbaceous plant species in elementary school textbooks
The image preferences of participants were analyzed on the basis of images of herbaceous plants that appear frequently among plant species in national and authorized elementary school textbooks. The results are as follows.
Fig. 5 shows that image preferences for wild herbaceous species in textbooks were highest for the impression of “natural” (M = 3.39) and lowest for “commonplace” (M = 1.39). In contrast, image preferences for horticultural species were very high for the impressions of “beautiful” and “fancy” (M = 3.89, M = 3.54), but lowest for “unique” (M = 2.36). Based on this, an analysis of image preferences for wild and horticultural species revealed that horticultural species received higher ratings for the adjectives “fancy” and “beautiful” than wild species for the following five adjective pairs, with these differences being statistically significant: simple-fancy (2.18 ± 3.22; 3.54 ± 2.07, Z = −4.390, p < .001), ugly-beautiful (2.84 ± 2.39; 3.89 ± 2.02, Z = −4.624, p < .001), commonplace-unique (1.39 ± 3.53; 2.14 ± 2.93, Z = −2.273, p < .023), unimpressive-impressive (2.40 ± 2.92; 2.91 ± 2.77, Z = −2.503, p<.012), and boring-interesting (2.43 ± 2.69; 3.00 ± 2.57, Z = −2.629, p < .009). In contrast, wild species were perceived as “uncomfortable” but very “natural,” although this difference was not statistically significant.
As shown in Fig. 6, succulents received high ratings for being “interesting” (M = 2.24) and “impressive” (M = 2.11), but the lowest for being “natural” (M = 1.61). An analysis of image preferences for wild species and succulents revealed statistically significant differences in three adjective pairs: “uncomfortable-comfortable” (2.49 ± 2.64; 1.73 ± 2.78, Z = −2.006, p < .045), “artificial-natural” (3.39 ± 2.62; 1.61 ± 2.90, Z = −5.319, p < .001), and “ugly-beautiful” (2.84 ± 2.39; 1.71 ± 2.79, Z = −3.130, p < . 002). These results indicate that prospective teachers recognize the aesthetic value of and are interested in horticultural species, but they tend to have lower impressions of the naturalness of wild plants and less familiarity with them. Therefore, there seems to be a need to develop diverse ecological education and content, as urbanization has led to limited access to plants, fewer opportunities to experience them, and reduced ecological awareness (Kwon, 2021; La, 2021).
In Fig. 7, an analysis comparing the image preferences of wild species and bulbous plants revealed statistical differences in six out of seven adjective pairs, with the exception of “artificial-natural”: “uncomfortable-comfortable” (2.49 ± 2.64; 3.56 ± 2.28, Z = −3.812, p < .001), “simple-fancy” (2.18 ± 3.22; 3.93 ± 2.04, Z = −5.620, p < .001), “ugly-beautiful” (2.84 ± 2.39; 4.34 ± 2.02, Z = −5.884, p < .001), “commonplace-unique” (1.39 ± 3.53; 2.47 ± 2.93, Z = −2.918 p < .001), “unimpressive-impressive” (2.40 ± 2.92; 3.32 ± 2.42, Z = −3.320, p < . 001), and “boring-interesting” (2.43 ± 2.69; 3.50 ± 2.28, Z = −3.896, p < .001). Bulbous plants, including lilies (Lilium longiflorum), tulips (Tulipa gesneriana), and Lilium amabile, were perceived as large-flowered, fancy, and beautiful. As popular flowers, they were generally regarded as more comfortable and interesting compared to wild species.
In Fig. 8, aquatic species among the textbook herbaceous plants received high image preference scores for the impression of “beautiful” (M = 4.01), with “comfortable” (M = 3.66) and “natural” (M = 3.49) also scoring highly. In contrast, the impression of “unique” was low (M = 2.26). An analysis of image preferences for wild and aquatic species revealed statistical significance in six out of seven adjective pairs: “uncomfortable-comfortable” (2.49 ± 2.64; 3.66 ± 2.27, Z = −3.755, p < . 001), “ simple-fancy” (2.18 ± 3.22; 3.35 ± 2.60, Z = −3.661, p < . 001), “ugly-beautiful” (2.84 ± 2.39; 4.01 ± 2.04, Z = −4.479, p < .001), “commonplace-unique” (1.39 ± 3.53; 2.26 ± 2.76, Z = −2.365, p < .018), “unimpressive-impressive” (2.40 ± 2.92; 3.28 ± 2.48, Z = −3.095, p<.002), and “boring-interesting” (2.43 ± 2.69; 3.21 ± 2.41, Z = −3.111, p < .002). Aquatic species were more likely than wild species to be perceived as comfortable, beautiful, and interesting. Kim (2021) reported that the characteristics of aquatic plants, including Typha orientalis, Nelumbo nucifera, and Nymphaea tetragona, that root on or in water convey a sense of refreshment, comfort, and serene beauty. Thus, the result of Fig. 8 suggests that the image of “water” inherent in aquatic plants evokes psychological comfort and is viewed as both beautiful and interesting.
As shown in Fig. 9, an analysis of image preferences for horticultural species and succulents featured in elementary school textbooks suggested statistical significance in six out of seven adjective pairs: “uncomfortable-comfortable” (2.70 ± 2.40; 1.73 ± 2.78, Z = −2.929, p < . 003), “artificial-natural” (2.61 ± 2.94; 1.61 ± 2.90, Z = −3.443, p < .001), “simple-fancy” (3.54 ± 2.07; 1.90 ± 2.70, Z = −5.083, p < .001), “ugly-beautiful” (3.89 ± 2.02; 1.71 ± 2.79, Z = −6.820, p < .001), “unimpressive-impressive” (2.91 ± 2.77; 2.11 ± 2.96, Z = −2.710, p < . 007), and “boring-interesting” (3.00 ± 2.57; 2.24 ± 2.92, Z = −2.494, p < .013). Thus, horticultural species were rated higher than succulents for adjectives including natural, comfortable, fancy, beautiful, and unique.
Fig. 10 presents an analysis of image preferences for horticultural species and bulbous, showing statistical differences in only three of the seven adjective pairs: “uncomfortable-comfortable (2.70 ± 2.40; 3.56 ± 2.28, Z = −3.349, p < .001),” “artificial-natural (2.61 ± 2.94; 3.58 ± 2.88, Z = −3.365, p < .001),” and “ugly-beautiful (3.89 ± 2.02; 4.34 ± 2.02, Z = −2.884, p < .004).” These results suggest that pre-service teachers perceive horticultural species and bulbous plants as “beautiful” and “impressive” largely because these plants are often associated with flowers, which commonly represent these qualities (Kwack, 2022).
As shown in Fig. 11, an analysis of image preferences for horticultural and aquatic species revealed that aquatic plants were perceived as more natural and comfortable than horticultural plants in two adjective pair items, with the difference being statistically significant: “uncomfortable-comfortable” (2.70 ± 2.40; 3.66 ± 2.27, Z = −3.193, p < .001) and “artificial-natural” (2.61 ± 2.94; 3.49 ± 2.78, Z = −2.210, p < .027). This suggests the characteristics of the impressions held by prospective teachers, particularly for plants such as Nelumbo nucifera and Eichhornia crassipes. They also perceived aquatic plants as more comfortable and natural compared to wild species.
Plant image preference survey: Foliage plants
Foliage plants, widely known for planterior (a trend of incorporating plants into interior design, essentially meaning “plant-interior”), are highly utilized in daily life and are currently experiencing a growing consumption trend. To understand the preferences of prospective elementary school teachers for these foliage plants and effectively reflect them in education, we surveyed plant image preferences based on various characteristics of foliage plants (Jeong, 2024). Figs. 12 and 13 present the survey results for the five basic species of foliage plants and their sizes (large and small leaves) included in the textbooks.
In Fig. 12, the results of an image preference survey of foliage plants featured in elementary school textbooks show that the impression of foliage plants as “comfortable” (M = 2.25) was moderately high. However, most of the adjective items had relatively low ratings, with the impressions of “interesting” (M = 1.10) and “fancy” (M = 1.30) being the lowest. Large-leaved foliage plants were perceived as very “artificial” (M = 2.18) and “uncomfortable” (M = 1.67). An analysis of image preferences for five basic species of foliage plants in the textbooks and those with large leaves revealed statistically significant differences in two adjective pairs: “simple-fancy” (1.30 ± 3.02; 1.91 ± 2.64, Z = −2.075, p < .038) and “boring-interesting” (1.10 ± 2.75; 1.95 ± 2.97, Z = −2.801, p < .005). Overall, large-leaved foliage plants were perceived as fancier, more impressive, and more unique than regular foliage plants, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.
In Fig. 13, small-leaved foliage plants were rated significantly higher for the adjectives “comfortable” (M = 3.18) and “beautiful” (M = 2.84) compared to large-leaved ones, while they received a lower rating for “fancy” (M = 1.17). An analysis of image preferences for five basic species of foliage plants in elementary school textbooks and small-leaved varieties showed statistical significance in four adjective pairs: “uncomfortable-comfortable” (2.25 ± 2.53; 3.18 ± 2.07, Z = −2.719, p < .007), “artificial-natural” (1.66 ± 3.43; 2.77 ± 2.69, Z = −2.307, p < . 021), “ugly-beautiful” (1.45 ± 2.77; 2.84 ± 2.31, Z = −4.123, p < .001), and “boring-interesting” (1.10 ± 2.75; 2.24 ± 2.80, Z = −3.254, p < .001). This result may be attributed to the fact that prospective teachers are not yet familiar with the diverse range of foliage plants commonly used today, as compared to the plants they encounter in textbooks (Shin, 2023). Species such as Epipremnum aureum, Spathiphyllum wallisii, Hoya carnosa, Hedera helix, and Dieffenbachia amoena ‘Marianne’—which are included in elementary school textbooks—are relatively old and may be perceived as “simple and commonplace.” Therefore, it seems necessary to introduce a broader variety of foliage plant species (Ryu, 2015).
As shown in Fig. 14, different shapes/forms of foliage plants received very high ratings for the adjective “unique” (M = 3.06) and high ratings for “impressive” (M = 2.95). In contrast, they were rated very low for the adjective “natural” (M = 0.86). An analysis of image preferences for five basic species of foliage plants and those with different leaf shapes found statistically significant differences for all items, except for the “ugly-beautiful” adjective pair item, among the seven items evaluated: “uncomfortable-comfortable” (2.25 ± 2.53; 1.23 ± 2.58, Z = −3.647, p < .001), “artificial-natural” (1.66 ± 3.43; 0.86 ± 3.13, Z = −2.559, p < . 01), “ simple-fancy” (1.30 ± 3.02; 2.22 ± 2.31, Z = −2.391, p < .017), “commonplace-unique” (1.42 ± 3.00; 3.06 ± 2.25, Z = −4.157, p < .001), “unimpressive-impressive” (1.41 ± 2.88; 2.95 ± 2.43, Z = −4.179, p < . 001), and “boring-interesting” (1.10 ± 2.75; 2.66 ± 2.27, Z = −5.046, p < .001). This suggests that foliage plants with unique shapes, as opposed to the common plants typically seen in textbooks, are perceived as more beautiful, impressive, and interesting. Thus, there seems to be a future need for new plant education or content, including planterior, that reflects these interests of prospective teachers (Jeong, 2024).
Fig. 15 presents the results of a survey on preferences for foliage plants in various colors (white, purple, black, red, and yellow). The adjective “unique” received a notably high rating (M=3.86), followed by “impressive” (M= 3.43), which also scored well. In contrast, it is noteworthy that adjectives such as “comfortable” (M = −0.75) and “natural” (M = −1.33) were evaluated quite low. An analysis of image preferences for five basic species of foliage plants and their different colors revealed statistically significant differences in five out of seven adjective pair items, excluding “simple-fancy” and “ugly-beautiful.” These differences were observed in the following pairs: “uncomfortable-comfortable” (2.25 ± 2.53; −0.75 ± 2.63, Z = −7.445, p < .001), “artificial-natural” (1.66 ± 3.43; −1.33 ± 3.18, Z = −6.016, p < .001), “commonplace-unique” (1.42 ± 3.00; 3.86 ± 2.36, Z = −5.955, p < .001), “unimpressive-impressive” (1.41 ± 2.88; 3.43 ± 2.61, Z = −5.336, p < .001), and “boring-interesting” (1.10 ± 2.75; 2.82 ± 2.60, Z = −5.010, p < . 001). The results suggest that as the color diversity increased, so did the mean score for the adjective “uncomfortable,” indicating that these plants were perceived as more artificial and uniquely impressive.
According to the above analyses of plant image preferences based on the size, shape, and color of foliage plants, the following did not evoke feelings of being fancy, beautiful, or interesting, nor did they convey a sense of comfort and naturalness, to prospective teachers: Foliage plants with shapes and sizes resembling elephant ears, such as Philodendron melanochrysum ‘Black Gold’ (previously presented in relation to size); and new cultivars of large-leaved anthuriums, such as Anthurium veitchii ‘Super Narrow’, which are currently popular among planterior enthusiasts (Jeong, 2024). Moreover, small-leaved and popular cultivars/varieties of foliage plants, such as Peperomia prostrata and Pilea peperomioides, were found to evoke a comfortable and natural feeling. However, they did not leave a particularly fancy or unique impression. In terms of shape, foliage plants with distinctive leaf forms, such as Alocasia zebrina with triangular leaves, Hoya kerri with heart-shaped leaves, and Pilea peperomioides with round leaves, as presented in the survey, were considered as unique and impressive, although their natural appeal was somewhat lower. This suggests a need for education to better understand these plants. In terms of color, among the recently popular foliage plants with unique colors suggested in the survey, Caladium ‘White Christmas’, with its white leaves and dark green mid-veins, and Alocasia baginda ‘Dragon Scale’, with dark green veins resembling dragon scales, were noted for their unique and interesting appearance. However, both plants were perceived as less fancy or beautiful.
As shown in Fig. 16, an analysis of image preferences for five basic species of foliage plants in elementary school textbooks and wild species shows statistical significance in five adjective pairs: “artificial-natural” (1.66 ± 3.43; 3.39 ± 2.62, Z = −4.473, p < .001), “simple-fancy” (1.30 ± 3.02; 2.18 ± 3.22, Z = −2.337, p < .019), “ugly-beautiful” (1.45 ± 2.77; 2.84 ± 2.39, Z = −3.949, p < . 001), “unimpressive-impressive” (1.41 ± 3.00; 2.40 ± 2.92, Z = −2.488, p < .013), and “boring-interesting” (1.10 ± 2.75; 2.43 ± 2.69, Z = −3.879, p < . 001). Overall, wild species were generally perceived as more comfortable, natural, and beautiful compared to foliage plants.
In Fig. 17, an analysis of image preferences for five basic species of foliage plants from textbooks and horticultural species also revealed statistical significance in five adjective pair items: “artificial-natural” (1.66 ± 3.43; 2.61 ± 2.94, Z = −2.807, p < .005), “simple-fancy” (1.30 ± 3.02; 3.54 ± 2.07, Z = −5.724, p < .001), “ugly-beautiful” (1.45 ± 2.77; 3.89 ± 2.02, Z = −6.506, p < .001), “unimpressive impressive” (1.41 ± 2.88; 2.91 ± 2.77, Z = −4.153, p < .001), and “boring-interesting” (1.10 ± 2.75; 3.00 ± 2.57, Z = −5.693, p < . 001).
This suggests that pre-service teachers had diverse impressions of uniquely shaped or colored foliage plants, whereas they viewed the foliage plants in textbooks as more commonplace. Horticultural species were perceived as more beautiful and unique than wild species, while wild species were seen as more natural and simple. Overall, both horticultural and wild species were considered more beautiful than the foliage plants featured in textbooks. These findings are consistent with Kwack (2022) and appear to reflect a more positive image of horticultural species, which are often represented by flowers, compared to foliage plants, where the leaves are the primary focus of appreciation. Meanwhile, new cultivars of foliage plants have recently gained considerable popularity and are widely used for planterior in daily life. However, the ornamental plants featured in textbooks (e.g., Epipremnum aureum, Spathiphyllum wallisii, Hoya carnosa, and Hedera helix) mainly consist of leaves with relatively simple shapes, representing older varieties/cultivars that fail to attract students’ interest.
Gender differences in plant image preferences
An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine gender differences in plant image preferences among survey participants. The analysis revealed that females rated wild plant species significantly higher than males on six out of seven adjective pair items, based on mean scores. The significant differences were observed for the following adjective pair items: “uncomfortable-comfortable” (p < .017), “simple-fancy” (p < . 001), “ugly-beautiful” (p < .001), “commonplace-unique” (p < . 007), “unimpressive-impressive” (p < .002), and “boring-interesting” (p < .001). Notably, on the “boring-interesting” item, males scored .944, while females scored 3.24, demonstrating a significant difference in how the two genders perceived such images. For horticultural species, gender differences in image preferences were observed for three items: “simple-fancy” (p < .001), “unimpressive-impressive” (p < .017), and “boring-interesting” (p < . 008). On the “simple-fancy” item, males had a mean score of 2.58, while females had a mean score of 4.07. Similarly, females had a significantly higher mean score on the “unimpressive-impressive” item. For bulbous plants, gender differences were found in four items: “simple-fancy” (p < .001), “ugly-beautiful” (p < .006), “unimpressive-impressive” (p < .039), and “boring-interesting” (p < . 042). Gender differences were also observed for aquatic species on four items: “artificial-natural” (p < .039), “simple-fancy” (p < . 001), “ugly-beautiful” (p < . 05), and “boring-interesting” (p < .017). On the “simple-fancy” item, males had a mean score of 3.02, while females had an even higher mean score of 4.42. Regarding the five basic species of foliage plants, their various colors, or large leaf size, no gender differences were observed for any of the seven items. However, gender differences were found for three items related to the different shapes of foliage plants: “commonplace-unique” (p < .014), “unimpressive-impressive” (p < .023), and “boring-interesting” (p < . 016). For small-leaved foliage plants, there was also a gender difference in the item “uncomfortable-comfortable” (p < .008), with the mean score of 2.44 for males and 3.59 for females, indicating that females had a higher score than males (Table 2). Therefore, women perceived the plants as more comfortable and associated them with a more fancy and interesting image than men, with the mean scores for these items showing statistically significant differences. A similar study, which surveyed 20 adult males and females about their image preferences for artificial and natural plants, reported gender differences in image preferences for the two types of plants (Jeong and Park, 2021). These differences do more than simply confirm gender-based preferences for plant images; they are essential for a more nuanced understanding of how each gender responds to plant images. In other words, these findings provide valuable insights into the visual and aesthetic responses of prospective teachers. Furthermore, they offer clues for designing classes that reflect the diversity of learners, and practically help develop personalized teaching strategies in teacher education curricula. To this regard, teaching and learning strategies based on gender differences have been studied in various fields such as elementary mathematics and gifted education, with the goal of increasing learning effectiveness (Gu and Gu, 2018; Nam, 2016).
As such, the results of a plant image preference analysis conducted with prospective teachers in this study provide valuable insights for basic research. This is especially important given the current lack of empirical approaches to explore the aesthetic and emotional value of plants, beyond the traditional focus on scientific and objective information such as ecological functions, morphological characteristics, and growth conditions typically found in elementary school textbooks (Chun, 2014). Furthermore, by shifting the focus from plants as mere learning tools to providing opportunities for emotional engagement and fostering aesthetic approaches, it is expected to broaden the scope of plant education in schools. It will also provide baseline data to better align plant-related content with the preferences of prospective elementary school teachers in the curriculum or textbooks.
Conclusion
In this study, we surveyed, compared, and analyzed the image impression and preferences of herbaceous plants featured in elementary school textbooks, as well as various foliage plants commonly used in modern life, targeting prospective elementary school teachers. The goal was to expand opportunities for plant education, promote its use, and broaden its scope. The research method employed was a questionnaire survey, which included questions on gender, age, college grade, plant preferences, experience growing plants, preferred plants to grow, plants they would like to grow in school gardens, and plants for social media (Instagram). To analyze plant image preferences, we categorized the plants featured in the 2015 national and authorized textbooks into fruit trees, vegetables, and flowering plants based on the textbook classification system. Among the flowering plants with the highest representation, herbaceous plants were further categorized into horticultural species, wild species, foliage plants, succulents and cacti, bulbous plants, and aquatic plants. For the foliage plants, five basic species were selected from the textbooks, and five additional plants were selected for each category, considering factors such as size (large and small), color, and shape. A survey of plant image preferences was conducted using the Semantic Differential Method (SDM) as the measurement index, which used seven pairs of opposing adjectives to assess 50 plants in ten categories. The results were then analyzed comparatively.
First, analyses of plant image impression and preferences showed that prospective teachers perceived plants as indoor and outdoor decorations, sources of mental comfort, and as pets/companions. In terms of plant preferences, they preferred succulents and foliage plants. For school gardens, they preferred short trees, while the plants they wanted to showcase on Instagram were those with fancy shapes to attract attention. Based on this, it appears that the high preference of prospective teachers for succulents and foliage plants, as well as their inclination toward fancy plants, should be incorporated into plant education in schools.
An analysis of plant image preferences revealed that wild species received the highest ratings for the adjective “natural” and the lowest for “commonplace.” In contrast, horticultural species scored very high on “beautiful” and “fancy,” but were rated lowest on “unique.” When comparing wild and horticultural species, the latter were perceived as more fancy and beautiful than the former. Succulents were primarily perceived as “interesting” and “impressive,” while they scored the lowest on the “natural” impression. It was found that prospective elementary school teachers perceived horticultural plants as having aesthetic value or evoking an interesting impression, whereas wild plants were associated with a natural image. A comparative analysis of image preferences for wild species and bulbous plants found that prospective teachers perceived bulbous plants as having a more beautiful overall image than wild species, mainly due to their large and fancy flowers such as lilies (Lilium longiflorum), tulips (Tulipa gesneriana), and Lilium amabile. The same trend was observed for horticultural species, reflecting the positive preference for flowers among preservice elementary teachers. Aquatic plants received the highest ratings for the item “beautiful,” along with high ratings for “comfortable” and “natural.” A comparative analysis of wild species and aquatic plants showed that pre-service teachers perceived aquatic plants as more comfortable, beautiful, and interesting than wild species. A comparative analysis of horticultural species and succulents revealed that horticultural species were perceived as more natural, comfortable, fancy, beautiful, and unique than succulents. In contrast, a comparison between horticultural species and aquatic plants showed that aquatic plants, such as Nelumbo nucifera and Eichhornia crassipes, were regarded as more natural and comfortable than horticultural species. Therefore, for textbook herbaceous plants, it appears important to include systematic plant education on both wild species with ecological significance and succulents, which are often introduced as pet plants.
An image preference analysis of various foliage plants, recently known as “plants for planterior” but rarely introduced in textbooks, found that the foliage plants included in textbooks received high ratings for the “comfortable” image. Foliage plants with large leaves were perceived as “artificial” and “uncomfortable,” while those with small leaves were perceived as “comfortable” and “beautiful.” Foliage plants with different shapes were perceived as “unique” and “impressive,” but received low ratings for the item “natural.” Foliage plants with different colors (e.g., white, purple, black, red, and yellow) were also highly rated for “unique” and “impressive,” but had very low ratings for both the items “comfortable” and “natural”. Even in a comparative analysis with textbook foliage plants, the more diverse the colors, the higher the mean scores for the item “uncomfortable,” along with a stronger impression of being artificial and unique. These findings are consistent with the results of a study that reported green as the most preferred color in psychological perception, based on visual preferences for 16 species of air-purifying foliage plants (Lee, 2020). Meanwhile, considering the results of the image preference analysis, which suggest that foliage plants of different sizes (e.g., Phiodendron mealnochrysum and Anturium veitchii ‘Super Narrow’), shapes (e.g., Alocasia zebrina and Hoya kerri), and colors (e.g., Caladium ‘White christmas, Alocasia baginda ‘Dragon scale’) are perceived as impressive, interesting, and unique, along with the importance of planterior education, it seems necessary to promote active plant education on foliage plants in the future. As such, prospective elementary teachers had different impressions of foliage plants with unique shapes or colors, but they considered textbook foliage plants to be ordinary. While they viewed horticultural plants as more beautiful and unique than wild plants, wild plants left a strong impression on them as being natural and simple. While prospective teachers considered horticultural and wild plants more beautiful than the foliage plants in textbooks, the plants introduced in textbooks (Epipremnum aureum, Spathiphyllum wallisii, Hoya carnosa, Hedera helix, Dieffenbachia amoena ‘Marianne’ and others) are relatively simple in shape and form, consisting of older species. In today’s reality, where a variety of foliage plants are widely used (e.g., in planterior), these textbook plants fail to attract students’ attention. This situation should be taken into consideration.
Finally, an analysis was conducted to compare plant image preferences between male and female prospective elementary school teachers. The results showed differences between the two groups in their preferences for wild species, horticultural species, bulbous plants, aquatic plants, and foliage plants with different shapes or small leaves. Females’ mean scores were higher than males’, suggesting that females perceive plants as more comfortable and view them as fancier and more interesting, with the difference being statistically significant. These findings were consistent with the results of an impression evaluation of plant images between men and women for artificial and natural plants (Park et al., 2024). Therefore, this study presents the results of an analysis of the plant image impression and preferences of prospective elementary school teachers, with the goal of enhancing opportunities for plant education, increasing its utilization, and broadening its scope.
It is expected that these findings from an analysis of the plant image preferences of prospective elementary school teachers can be meaningfully applied in the following ways. By integrating a variety of plant attributes favored by prospective teachers, alongside the existing ecological education of plants, opportunities for plant education can be effectively expanded. This will empower future teachers to utilize plants more positively in school plant education, thereby broadening its scope and enhancing the practical application of plant education. As a direction for future research, in addition to comparative studies with various groups, follow-up studies should explore preferences for a broader range of sensory aspects (e.g., smell, touch, and the observation of growth processes) through plant exhibitions or hands-on experience activities, rather than solely presenting plant images as visual data. Furthermore, in order to broaden the scope of plant education, it is important to establish organic connections between plant education content and actual school field training environments, and to develop an integrated plant education program that combines planterior (plant-interior) education, pet plant management, and ecological conservation education.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
