Weeds Environmental Education Course Design and Learning Effectiveness Analysis Based on the BOPPPS Teaching Module
Author: Chia Chen Ho (Friendly SEED Company), Yu-Chuan Yang (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University)
Vol.&No.：Vol. 70, No. 4
Date：December 2025
Pages：259-293
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202512_70(4).0009
Abstract：
Introduction
Since ancient times, human survival and technological progress have depended on plants. Before the advent of agriculture, humans gathered wild plants for sustenance. With the rise of farming, plants that threatened crops were considered harmful, leading to the concept of “weeds.”
Weeds are plants that grow where unwanted, often threatening agriculture, disrupting landscapes, or being deemed harmful (Blatchley, 1912; Huang, 2013). While they cause economic losses, weeds also play important ecological roles. However, people often overlook the significance of plants.
Wandersee and Schussler (1999) coined the term “plant blindness,” referring to the tendency to overlook the importance of plants. This study introduces “weed blindness,” the disregard for the ecological roles of weeds. Human attitudes toward nature significantly influence how weeds are perceived and managed, making education a crucial component in changing these views.
This study aims to raise public awareness of weeds’ ecological value and challenge negative perceptions. Using the BOPPPS teaching model, it develops a weed environmental education curriculum and assesses its impact on participants’ knowledge, awareness, and ethical values.
Literature Review
1. Definition and Evaluation of Weeds
Weeds are commonly defined as “plants unwelcome in their growing location” (Blatchley, 1912), and in agriculture, any non-crop plant is considered a weed (Tull & Cobbet, 1892). Weeds threaten agriculture, degrade landscapes, and may harm humans (Huang, 2010). The classification of weeds is subjective and shaped by individual biases (King, 1951). Negative perceptions often arise from misunderstandings and fear, leading to unjust treatment. This study aims to assess weeds objectively and reshape public attitudes by examining both positive and negative perspectives.
Weeds impact agriculture by competing with crops for resources and harboring pests (Long & Percival, 1910). However, with the rise of organic farming, its benefits, such as enhancing soil health and supporting biodiversity, are gaining recognition. As Emerson (1878) said, “A weed is simply a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered.
2. The Relationship Between Weeds and Humans – “Plant Blindness”
Humans and weeds are integral to the environment, and human attitudes toward nature significantly contribute to the challenges weeds face. “Plant blindness” refers to overlooking plants’ importance, defined by Wandersee and Schussler (1999) as:
1. Failing to notice plants.
2. Lacking awareness of their significance.
3. Inability to appreciate their uniqueness.
4. Viewing plants as inferior to animals.
Causes include cognitive limitations, imbalanced education, and disconnection from nature. The solution is education– emphasizing human-plant interactions can reduce plant blindness. This study develops a “weed environmental education curriculum” to encourage recognition and appreciation of weeds while reducing plant blindness.
3. Environmental Education
The 1977 UNESCO Tbilisi Declaration defines environmental education as interdisciplinary, value-driven, and action-oriented, aiming to improve well-being and address environmental issues (UNESCO, 1977). Taiwan’s Environmental Education Act emphasizes cultivating ethical relationships with the environment and promoting sustainable actions (Ministry of Justice, R.O.C., 2010).
Unlike conventional education, environmental education fosters awareness, responsibility, and problem-solving (Lin & Li, 2023; Ou & Liu, 2022). It should be experiential and context-based, engaging students with real-life issues (Zhou, 1993). Curricula must evolve to address emerging environmental challenges and local contexts (Chang, 2017). Instead of one-way teaching, it should encourage critical thinking and emotional engagement (Wang, 2024).
Effective curriculum design must align with objectives, audience needs, and local contexts. Research indicates that unclear goals lead to inconsistent outcomes (Carleton-Hug & Hug, 2010). A study of the New Jersey School of Conservation found its courses met affective and behavioral goals but not cognitive objectives (Smith-Sebasto & Semrau, 2004).
This study applies the BOPPPS teaching model, a student-centered, goal-driven framework, to ensure clear objectives in the “Weed Environmental Education Curriculum.”
4. Curriculum Design: BOPPPS Effective Teaching Model
The BOPPPS effective teaching model (Bridge-in, Objective, Pre-assessment, Participatory Learning, Post-assessment, Summary) is a student-centered instructional framework with six phases: introduction, learning objectives, pre-assessment, participatory learning, post-assessment, and conclusion. Each lesson consists of small, logically structured instructional units (Li, 2011).
Li (2011) highlighted three key aspects of effective teaching: (1) “Effectiveness”– alignment between teaching outcomes and learning objectives, (2) “Efficiency”– proportionality of instructional efforts and outcomes, and (3) “Benefit”– alignment with societal or educational goals. The BOPPPS model organizes teaching into coherent units, forming a complete curriculum (Zhang, 2014; Sibley & Canuto, 2010).
The BOPPPS model is widely used globally across various sectors, including educational institutions, hospitals, government, non-profit organizations, and private training organizations (Li, 2020; Yu & Fang, 2020). Research indicates that it enhances teaching effectiveness by providing a clear structure, improving teacher-student interaction, and increasing course satisfaction. It also fosters students’ learning interest, motivation, autonomy, and problem-solving skills, without increasing their learning burden (Hu et al., 2022; Lin, 2023; Liu et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2019).
Research Methods
This study aims to design an environmental education curriculum on weeds to change citizens’ perceptions (knowledge) and attitudes (awareness and ethical values) toward them, strengthening the relationship between people and the environment.
The research applies the BOPPPS teaching model to create the curriculum, with a questionnaire developed to assess “knowledge,” “awareness,” and “ethical values” regarding weeds. The questionnaire was validated through expert reviews, pilot testing, and reliability analysis.
The curriculum was implemented with students from a general education course at a national university in Taiwan. The pre- and post-tests were conducted to evaluate effectiveness. Based on the findings, recommendations were made for future curriculum improvements.
Research Analysis Results
1. Impact of Background Variables on Weed-Related Cognition and Affective Dimensions
Descriptive analysis showed no significant differences in post-test scores for environmental conceptual knowledge, awareness, and ethical values based on gender, living environment, or proximity to green spaces. However, significant differences were found for college affiliation, academic year, and experience with environmental and plant-related activities.
(1) College Affiliation: Science and engineering students showed higher engagement in environmental awareness related to weeds.
(2) Academic Year: Freshmen were the most engaged in the curriculum.
(3) Environmental Education Experience: Participation in environmental activities fostered stronger emotional connections and enhanced ethical values.
(4) Plant-Related Activity Experience: Experience with plant-related activities improved environmental conceptual knowledge about weeds.
2. Impact of the Weed Environmental Education Curriculum
After completing the curriculum, participants showed significant improvements in environmental conceptual knowledge, awareness, and ethical values.
Effect Size Analysis:
(1) Environmental awareness showed a large effect.
(2) Conceptual knowledge and ethical values showed moderate effects.
(3) These results suggest that the curriculum effectively enhances both cognitive and affective dimensions regarding weeds.
3. Correlation Analysis of the Questionnaire Dimensions
Pearson correlation analysis revealed the following:
(1) Environmental conceptual knowledge and awareness were positively correlated.
(2) No significant correlation was found between conceptual knowledge and ethical values.
(3) Environmental awareness was positively correlated with both conceptual knowledge and ethical values.
(4) These findings indicate that environmental awareness plays a key role in enhancing both conceptual knowledge and ethical values in weed education.
Discussion and Recommendations
1. Impact of Background Variables
(1) Gender, Living Environment, Proximity to Green Spaces: No significant impact on any dimension.
(2) College Affiliation: Science and engineering students showed higher environmental awareness.
(3) Academic Year: First-year students had higher environmental conceptual knowledge.
(4) Experience in Environmental or Plant-Themed Activities: Increased participation improved conceptual knowledge and ethical values.
2. Differences Before and After the Curriculum
Participants demonstrated significant improvements in environmental knowledge, awareness, and ethical values, confirming the effectiveness of the curriculum.
3. Relationships Between Dimensions
(1) Environmental awareness positively correlated with both conceptual knowledge and ethical values.
(2) No correlation was found between conceptual knowledge and ethical values.
(3) Enhancing awareness is key to improving both knowledge and values.
4. Practical Recommendations
An advanced course should be developed with in-depth discussions and independent projects, such as analyzing campus weed management policies to promote sustainability.
5. Future Research
Expand the study to different age groups and regions to explore the curriculum’s broader impact.
6. Contributions
This is Taiwan’s first study on weed-focused environmental education. Weeds, being easily accessible, help reduce plant blindness and serve as an effective entry point for environmental learning, promoting awareness of sustainability.
Keywords：BOPPPS, environmental ethical values, environmental concept knowledge, environmental awareness, weed environmental education
《Full Text》
References：王玉婷（2024）。從國小教師觀點談環境教育的教學實踐與省思─以環境倫理學立場為範疇。教育研究與實踐學刊，71（1），145-162。https://doi.org/10.6701/JEPR.202406_71(1).0007
【Wang, Y.-T. (2024). A teaching practice and reflection of environmental education from a primary school teacher– Based on the perspective of environmental ethics sustainable development into management curriculum. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 71(1), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.6701/JEPR. 202406_71(1).0007】
王俊鑪（2022）。綠色紀念日活動對民眾環境覺知與敏感度影響之研究（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立大學。
【Wang, J.-L. (2022). A study on the impact of green anniversary activities on people’s environmental awareness and sensitivity [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Taipei.】
王柔翔（2009）。融入環境特色之科學數位遊戲學習對學校認同與環境覺知的影響～以「校園植物」為例（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學。
【Wang, J.-H. (2009). Effects of school-environment E-learning games on students’ school identity and environmental awareness [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taipei University of Education.】
王順美（2000，11月）。永續校園論壇—可持續的綠色學校。環境教育研討會，高雄市。
【Wang, S.-M. (2000, November). Sustainable campus forum– Sustainable green schools [Paper presentation]. Environmental Education Seminar, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.】
朱衍臻、楊志維、黃文達（2018）。綠籬及保育邊行在農田佈局中扮演的角色。中華民國雜草學會會刊，39（2），175-210。https://doi.org/10.6274/WSSROC.201812_39(2).0005
【Chu, Y.-C., Yang, Z.-W., & Huang, W.-D. (2018). The role of hedgerow and conservation headland in the farmland layout. Weed Science Bulletin, 39(2), 175-210. https://doi.org/10.6274/WSSROC.201812_39(2).0005】
» More
一、中文文獻
王玉婷（2024）。從國小教師觀點談環境教育的教學實踐與省思─以環境倫理學立場為範疇。教育研究與實踐學刊，71（1），145-162。https://doi.org/10.6701/JEPR.202406_71(1).0007
【Wang, Y.-T. (2024). A teaching practice and reflection of environmental education from a primary school teacher– Based on the perspective of environmental ethics sustainable development into management curriculum. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 71(1), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.6701/JEPR. 202406_71(1).0007】
王俊鑪（2022）。綠色紀念日活動對民眾環境覺知與敏感度影響之研究（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立大學。
【Wang, J.-L. (2022). A study on the impact of green anniversary activities on people’s environmental awareness and sensitivity [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Taipei.】
王柔翔（2009）。融入環境特色之科學數位遊戲學習對學校認同與環境覺知的影響～以「校園植物」為例（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺北教育大學。
【Wang, J.-H. (2009). Effects of school-environment E-learning games on students’ school identity and environmental awareness [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taipei University of Education.】
王順美（2000，11月）。永續校園論壇—可持續的綠色學校。環境教育研討會，高雄市。
【Wang, S.-M. (2000, November). Sustainable campus forum– Sustainable green schools [Paper presentation]. Environmental Education Seminar, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.】
朱衍臻、楊志維、黃文達（2018）。綠籬及保育邊行在農田佈局中扮演的角色。中華民國雜草學會會刊，39（2），175-210。https://doi.org/10.6274/WSSROC.201812_39(2).0005
【Chu, Y.-C., Yang, Z.-W., & Huang, W.-D. (2018). The role of hedgerow and conservation headland in the farmland layout. Weed Science Bulletin, 39(2), 175-210. https://doi.org/10.6274/WSSROC.201812_39(2).0005】
何淑君、李佩蓉（2024）。探討融入遊戲化設計之學習歷程如何影響不同學習動機學生的學習參與度。教育科學研究期刊，69（3），139-172。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES. 202409_69(3).0005
【Ho, S.-C., & Lee, P.-J. (2024). Exploring the impact of gamified learning portfolio on student engagement with different learning motivations. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 69(3), 139-172. https://doi.org/ 10.6209/JORIES.202409_69(3).0005】
李承恩、官淑蕙（2020）。BOPPPS教學模組與應用。載於國立宜蘭大學（主編），BOPPPS有效教學模組（頁21-52）。國立宜蘭大學。
【Lee, C.-E., & Kuan, S.-H. (2020). BOPPPS teaching modules and applications. In National Ilan University (Ed.), BOPPPS teaching modules (pp. 21-52). National Ilan University.】
李紋霞（2011）。有效教學結構：BOPPPS模組。國立臺灣大學教務處教學發展中心x數位學習中心。http://ctld.ntu.edu.tw/epaper/?posttype=epaper&p=1605&readertype=t-%E6%95%99% E5%B8%AB
【Lee, W.-S. (2011). Effective teaching structure: BOPPPS module. Center for Teaching and Learning Development & Digital Learning Center. http://ctld.ntu.edu.tw/_epaper/?post_type=epaper&p=1605&reader_type=t-%E6% 95%99%E5%B8%AB】
李紋霞（2020）。ISW國際認證係列課程台灣引入與發展。載於國立宜蘭大學（主編），BOPPPS有效教學模組（頁1-20）。國立宜蘭大學。
【Lee, W.-S. (2020). The introduction and development of ISW international certification series courses in Taiwan. In National Ilan University (Ed.), BOPPPS teaching modules (pp. 1-20). National Ilan University.】
李慧美（2012）。雲林縣國小教師對雲林縣環境議題的環境覺知與環境行為之研究（未出版碩士論文）。環球科技大學。
【Lee, H.-M. (2012). A study of elementary school teachers’ environmental awareness and environmental behavior toward environmental issues in Yunlin County [Unpublished master’s thesis]. TransWorld University.】
林季怡、李育諭（2023）。校園農場之食農教育：學習永續農業與土地親近感。教育科學研究期刊，68（4），129-156。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202312_68(4).0005
【Lin, C.-I., & Lee, Y.-Y. (2023). Campus farming and agrifood education: Learning sustainable agriculture and kinship with the land. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 68(4), 129-156. https://doi.org/10.6209/ JORIES.202312_68(4).0005】
法務部（2010）。環境教育法。全國法規資料庫。https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/ LawSingle.aspx?pcode=o0120001&flno=3
【Ministry of Justice. (2010). The Environmental Education Act. The R.O.C Laws & Regulations Database, Ministry OF Justice. https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawSingle.aspx?pcode=o0120001&flno=3】
周儒（1993）。環境教育的規劃與設計。環境教育季刊，16，17-25。
【Chu, J. (1993). Planning and design of environmental education. Environmental Education Quarterly, 16, 17-25.】
林偉頎（2023）。運用BOPPPS模式結合休閒生活於表演藝術課程的教學與省思—以港區藝術中心為例（未出版碩士論文）。亞洲大學。
【Lin, W.-C. (2023). Combining leisure life and BOPPPS model in the teaching and reflection of per-forming arts: Students’ trip to Taichung city seaport art center [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Asia University.】
張子超（2017）。議題教育的意義與課程融入—以環境教育為例。教育脈動，11，23-30。
【Chang, T.-C. (2017). The significance of issue-based education and its integration into the curriculum: Taking environmental education as an example. Pulse of Education, 11, 23-30.】
張仁壽（2014）。談新課綱與教學現場因應—BOPPPS教學模組。物理教育學刊，15（1），46-47。https://doi.org/10.6212/CPE.2014.1501.07
【Chang, J.-S. (2014). On responding to the new curriculum guidelines in teaching practice– the BOPPPS instructional model. Chinese Physics Education, 15(1), 46-47. https://doi.org/10.6212/CPE.2014.1501.07】
張翠園、盧希鵬、羅天一（2019）。有效教學結構BOPPPS應用於服裝設計教學之研究。課程與教學，22（4），97-121。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.201910_22(4).0004
【Chang, T.-Y., Lu, H.-P., & Luor, T.-Y. (2019). Application of effective teaching model BOPPPS to fashion design instruction. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 22(4), 97-121. https://doi.org/10.6384/ CIQ.201910_22(4).0004】
教育部（2010）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要重大議題（環境教育）。教育部國民及學前教育署。https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/files/97_sid17/2環境教育課綱1000815.pdf
【Ministry of Education. (2010). Grade 1-9 curriculum guidelines major issues (Environmental Education). K-12 Education Administration. https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/files/97_sid17/2環境教育課綱1000815.pdf】
黃文益、張繼中、廖勁穎（2012）。果園草生栽培對土壤理化及生物性質等的影響。臺東區農業專訊，82，12-15。https://doi.org/10.29555/ZHWHGX.201212.0005
【Huang, W.-Y., Chang, C.-C., & Liao, C.-Y. (2012). Effects of orchard grass cultivation on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Taitung District Agricultural Newsletter, 82, 12-15. https://doi.org/10.29555/ ZHWHGX.201212.0005】
黃文達（2010）。有機栽培之雜草管理。載於蔣永正、謝清祥（主編），農地雜草管理與除草劑安全使用研習會專刊（頁55-62）。行政院農業委員會農業藥物試驗所。
【Huang, W.-D. (2010). Weed management in organic cultivation. In Y.-J. Chiang & C.-H. Hsieh (Eds.), Special issue of the workshop on weed management and safe use of herbicides in farmland (pp. 55-62). Agricultural Chemicals Research Institute.】
黃文達（2013）。科普活動：小兵立大功—認識雜草的生態功能（NSC 101-2515-S-002-009-）。國立臺灣大學農藝學系暨研究所。https://www.grb.gov.tw/search/planDetail?id=2583459
【Huang, W.-D. (2013). Popular science activity: Small soldiers perform great contributions - Understanding the ecological functions of weeds (NSC 101-2515-S-002-009-). Department of Agronomy, National Taiwan University. https://www.grb.gov.tw/search/planDetail?id=2583459】
黃慧貞（2006）。應用STS理念教學將環境教育議題融入國小自然與生活科技之相關研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學。
【Huang, H.-C. (2006). The effect of environment education integrated elementary science and technology by STS teaching [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taichung University of Education.】
楊冠政（1998）。環境教育。明文書局。
【Yang, K.-J. (1998). Environmental education. Ming-Wen.】
翟俊卿、王西敏（2021）。植物科學教育的典型問題探討：以“植物盲”為例。科普研究，16（2），51-58。https://doi.org/10.19293/j.cnki.1673-8357.2021.02.006
【Zhai, J.-Q., & Wang, X.-M. (2021). Discussion on typical problems in plant science education: Taking “plant blindness” as an example. Studies on Science Popularization, 16(2), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.19293/j.cnki. 1673-8357.2021.02.006】
歐書寰、劉奇璋（2022）。淺談環境教育與學習理論。林業研究專訊，29（1），61-64。
【Ou, S.-H., & Liu, C.-C. (2022). A brief discussion on environmental education and learning theory. Forestry Research Newsletter, 29(1), 61-64.】
蔡靜惠（2018）。臺美生態學校方案之學生環境覺知與環境行為之研究—以新北市某國小中高年級學生為例（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立大學。
【Tsai, C.-H. (2018). A study on the environmental awareness and environmental behavior of grade 3-6 students of the US-Taiwan Eco-Campus Partnership Program at an elementary school in New Taipei City [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Taipei.】
蔣慕琰（2005）。臺灣農地雜草與生物多樣性維護。載於侯福分（主編），臺灣植物資源之多樣性發展研討會專刊（頁150-168）。農業部花蓮區農業改良場。
【Chiang, M.-Y. (2005). Weeds and biodiversity maintenance in Taiwan’s farmlands. In F.-F. Hou (Ed.), Taiwan plant resources diversity development symposium special issue (pp. 150-168). Hualien District Agricultural Research and Extension Station.】
蔣慕琰、呂理燊（1982）。臺灣稻田雜草及其危害。中華民國雜草學會會刊，3（1），18-46。https://doi.org/10.6274/WSSROC-1982-003(1)-018
【Chiang, M.-Y., & Leu, L.-S. (1982). Weeds and weed damage of paddy field in Taiwan. Weed Science Bulletin, 3(1), 18-46. https://doi.org/10.6274/WSSROC-1982-003(1)-018】
鄧裕馨（2007）。STS理念融入國中社會學習領域公民科教學之研究—以環境教育議題為例（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
【Deng, Y.-X. (2007). A study on incorporating STS concepts into the teaching of civics in the social studies field of junior high schools: Taking environmental education as an example [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taiwan Normal University.】
簡資玲（2014）。一般民眾環境素養指標建立之探究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學。
【Jian, Z.-L. (2014). Exploration of the environmental literacy indicators of general public [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taichung University of Education.】
二、外文文獻
Allen, W. (2003). Plant blindness. BioScience, 53(10), 926-926. https://doi.org/10.1641/ 0006-3568(2003)053[0926:Pb]2.0.Co;2
Bebbington, A. (2005). The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655963
Blatchley, W. S. (1912). The Indiana weed book. The Nature.
Carleton-Hug, A., & Hug, J. W. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for evaluating environmental education programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(2), 159-164. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.07.005
Chen, L., Tang, X.-J., Chen, X.-K., Ke, N., & Liu, Q. (2022). Effect of the BOPPPS model combined with case-based learning versus lecture-based learning on ophthalmology education for five-year paediatric undergraduates in Southwest China. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 437. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03514-4.
Davis, R. G., Wiese, A. F., & Pafford, J. L. (1965). Root moisture extraction profiles of various weeds. Weeds, 13, 98-100.
Donald, C. M. (1963). Competition among crop and pasture plants. Advances in Agronomy, 15, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60397-1
Emerson, R. W. (1878). Fortune of the republic: Lecture delivered at the Old South Church. Osgood.
Hu, K., Ma, R.-J., Ma, C., Zheng, Q.-K., & Sun, Z.-G. (2022). Comparison of the BOPPPS model and traditional instructional approaches in thoracic surgery education. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 447. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03526-0
Jose, S. B., Wu, C. H., & Kamoun, S. (2019). Overcoming plant blindness in science, education, and society. Plants, People, Planet, 1(3), 169-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.51
King, F. C. (1951). The weed problem-a new approach. Faber and Faber.
Liu, X.-Y., Lu, C., Zhu, H., Wang, X., Jia, S., Zhang, Y., Wen, H., & Wang, Y.-F. (2022). Assessment of the effectiveness of BOPPPS-based hybrid teaching model in physiology education. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 217. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03269-y
Long, H. C., & Percival, J. (1910). Common weeds of the farm & garden. Smith Elder.
Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books.
Ma, X., Ma, X., Li, L., Luo, X., Zhang, H., & Liu, Y. (2021). Effect of blended learning with BOPPPS model on Chinese student outcomes and perceptions in an introduction course of health services management. Advances in Physiology Education, 45(2), 409-417. https:// doi.org/10.1152/advan.00180.2020
Malicki, L., & Berbeciowa, C. (1986). Content of basic macroelements in common parasitical weeds. Acta Agrobotanica, 39, 123-128. https://doi.org/10.5586/aa.1986.011
Schussler, E. E., & Olzak, L. A. (2008). It’s not easy being green: Student recall of plant and animal images. Journal of Biological Education, 42(3), 112-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266. 2008.9656123
Schussler, E. E., Link-Pérez, M. A., Weber, K. M., & Dollo, V. H. (2010). Exploring plant and animal content in elementary science textbooks. Journal of Biological Education, 44(3), 123-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2010.9656208
Sibley, J., & Canuto, L. (2010). Guide to teaching for new faculty at UBC. The University of British Columbia.
Smith-Sebasto, N. J., & Semrau, H. J. (2004). Evaluation of the environmental education program at the New Jersey School of Conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.36.1.3-18
Stapp, W. B., Bennett, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., Nowak, P., Swan, J., Wall, R., & Havlick, S. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1), 30-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139254.1969.10801479
The Instructional Skills Workshop Network Executive Team. (2020). The Instructional Skills Workshop (ISW) network description. The Instructional Skills Workshop (ISW).
Tull, J., & Cobbett, W. (1829). The Horse-hoeing husbandry: Or, An essay on the principles of vegetation and tillage. A. Millar.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1977). Intergovernmental conference on environmental education. The Global Development Research Center. https:// www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/Tbilisi-Declaration.pdf
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61(2), 82-86. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450624
Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Plants or animals: Which do elementary and middle students prefer to study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 415-426. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230504
Woodland, D. W. (2007). Are botanists becoming the dinosaurs of biology in the 21st century? South African Journal of Botany, 73(3), 343-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2007.03.005
Wortzel, R. (1979). Multivariate analysis. California Management Review, 41, 125-143.
Zhai, J., & Dillon, J. (2014). Communicating science to students: Investigating professional botanic garden educators’ talk during guided school visits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(4), 407-429. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21143
Zimdahl, R. L. (2007). Fundamentals of weed science (3rd ed.). Elsevier.
Yu, Z., & Fang, Y. (2020). ISW training of BOPPPS teaching model for college teachers in Canada and its application in China. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology, 2(6), 9-13. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2020.020602