INTERACTIVE VERSUS NON-INTERACTIVE PLATFORMS FOR 
TEACHING PLANT MORPHOLOGY
Brian Wayne Brown
A Thesis 
Submitted to 
the Graduate Faculty of
Auburn University
in Partial Fulfillment of the 
Requirements for the 
Degree of 
Master of Science
Auburn, Alabama
December 16, 2005
INTERACTIVE VERSUS NON-INTERACTIVE PLATFORMS FOR TEACHING
PLANT MORPHOLOGY
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this
thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee.  This
thesis does not include proprietary or classified information.
Brian Wayne Brown
Certificate of Approval:
_______________________
Jeff L. Sibley                                       
Alumni Associate Professor
Horticulture
_______________________
Ken M. Tilt
Professor
Horticulture
________________________
J. David Williams, Chair
Professor
Horticulture
________________________
Stephen L. McFarland
Acting Dean
Graduate School
iii
INTERACTIVE VERSUS NON-INTERACTIVE PLATFORMS FOR 
TEACHING PLANT MORPHOLOGY
Brian Wayne Brown
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its     
discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions at their expense.  The
author reserves all publication rights.
___________________________
Signature of Author                       
                      
December 16, 2005                      
iv
VITA
Brian Wayne Brown, son of Rayford and Brenda Brown, was born
September 5, 1979 in Birmingham, Alabama.  He graduated from Oakman High
School in 1997.  He attended Bevill State Community College for two years
where he earned an Associate of Science degree in Industrial Electronics.  He
then entered Auburn University in August 1999, and earned a Bachelor of
Science degree in Horticulture in December, 2002, after which he entered
Graduate School at Auburn University in January 2003.  
v
THESIS ABSTRACT
INTERACTIVE VERSUS NON-INTERACTIVE PLATFORMS FOR 
TEACHING PLANT MORPHOLOGY
Brian Wayne Brown
Master of Science, December 16, 2005
(B.S., Auburn University, 2002)
71 Typed Pages
Directed By J. David Williams
A study was conducted in the Spring semester at Auburn University
involving 46 undergraduate and graduate volunteers.  Two learning modules with
different formats were developed for the study.  Both modules were created to
be graphically similar, using the same colors, design, and photographs.  One of
the modules included interactive content created with Macromedia Flash; the
other learning module was created using Macromedia Dreamweaver and was
non-interactive or static format.  Students were randomly assigned to access
either the interactive or non-interactive format.  A pretest was administered
through Auburn University?s WebCT servers to determine previous knowledge
about the subject.  The student was then given time to study the learning
module, and after studying the module, the student was to log onto WebCT
vi
again and complete the posttest and demographics survey.  Student mean
pretest scores and mean posttest scores showed no significant differences
between the interactive and non-interactive learning modules, however, students?
posttest scores on both the interactive and non-interactive modules improved
significantly.  Students expressed in the comments portion of the evaluation
section of the demographic study that the module was beneficial to their learning
of the material, making learning plant morphology via computer aided instruction
a viable alternative to traditional methods of teaching.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank first of all my mom and dad.  Words cannot express
how much I love and appreciate you both!  I would also like to thank Dr. Dave
Williams for directing my study and providing guidance in my undergraduate and
graduate years, and for being a Christian example that you show everywhere
you go.  To my committee members, Dr. Jeff Sibley and Dr. Ken Tilt - thanks for
all the input you provided in my graduate studies.  To my friends Tracy Tidwell,
Robert Martin, Joshua Fuller, Mark Foshee, Betsy Hays, and Ashley Pickers,
Shawn and Katie Sandlin, and Trent Jackson - I thank you for making my college
days at Auburn memorable.  To Dr. Wheeler and Marie Foshee, thank you both
for encouraging me so much throughout the years.  Lastly, and most importantly,
I would like to thank Jesus Christ for saving my soul, and for being my comfort in
times of need.  Without Him I would be nothing!
viii
Style manual or journal used: NACTA Journal
Computer software used: Macromedia Studio MX 2004 (Macromedia Flash MX
Professional 2004, Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 2004, Macromedia Fireworks
MX 2004), WordPerfect 11, Adobe Photoshop 7.0.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................
I. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................
LITERATURE CITED - CHAPTER 1.......................................................
II. INTERACTIVE VERSUS NON-INTERACTIVE PLATFORMS 
FOR TEACHING PLANT MORPHOLOGY..............................................
LITERATURE CITED - CHAPTER 2.......................................................
III. FIGURES......................................................................................................
IV. APPENDICES............................................................................................... 
 APPENDIX A - FLASH TUTORIAL..........................................................
APPENDIX B - HTML TUTORIAL...........................................................
APPENDIX C - DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY.............................................
APPENDIX D -PRETEST........................................................................
APPENDIX E - POSTTEST.....................................................................
APPENDIX F - STUDENT COMMENTS - FLASH...................................
APPENDIX G - STUDENT COMMENTS - HTML....................................
APPENDIX H - LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS       
                         RESEARCH....................................................................
x
1
6
9
22
25
32
33
38
43
46
51
56
58
61
x
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - PRETEST AND POSTTEST COMPARISON.................................
FIGURE 2 - FLASH VERSION RESULTS BY GENDER...................................
FIGURE 3 - HTML VERSION RESULTS BY GENDER.....................................
FIGURE 4 - TUTORIAL EVALUATION - HELPFULNESS.................................
FIGURE 5 - TUTORIAL EVALUATION - EASE OF USE...................................
FIGURE 6 - TUTORIAL EVALUATION - ORGANIZATION................................
26
27
28
29
30
31 
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Computers are considered vital to one?s everyday life.  People use
computers for many tasks, from communication via e-mail and browsing the
internet for information to paying bills.  In the past, a person may have spent
hours in a library looking for information, but today information is rapidly
accessed by computer.  Computers have revolutionized the way people work,
play, and learn.  Computers have not only changed the way we live, work, and
play, but also the way we approach learning  The use of computers in education
is growing at an astounding rate.  Teachers are now able to effectively
communicate visually using video projectors, keep in touch with students via e-
mail, and post classroom assignments or conduct entire classes with the help of
the internet.  With these advancements in technology, educational institutions
are relying more on the use of the internet to conduct classes via distance
education. 
Computers in the classroom can be found in almost every classroom and
teachers are utilizing these technologies to share slides of notes, pictures, and
videos.  Computers have made it much easier for a teacher to prepare for a
lesson, communicate with students, and keep track of grades.  Many higher
education institutions routinely offer classes via distance education.  Distance
2
education is: ?the acquisition of knowledge and skills through mediated
information and instruction, encompassing all technologies and other forms of
learning at a distance? (United States Distance Learning Association, 2005).
Modern day distance education includes many different forms of media such
as: satellite uplinks for video conferencing, e-mail, streaming video, and via the
internet.  Universities and colleges utilize the internet to offer courses to students
who would otherwise have no other means to attend a class on a college
campus.  Teaching can now be conducted over the internet, without the teacher
and student ever seeing each other face to face.  Place-bound students,
students with disabilities, and people that are constrained by their jobs have a
significant opportunity to attend college via distance education.  Computers used
in distance education help students learn at their own pace, creating a way for
students with learning disabilities a way to learn in a non-stressed environment. 
Ludlow (1994) stated the benefits of distance education to the learner include:
? Accessible training to students in rural areas
? Students may complete their course of study without suffering loss of
salary
? Students are exposed to the expertise of the most qualified faculty.
Many studies support that distance education is as effective as face to
face instruction.  In 1996, Thomas Russell compiled a list of comprehensive
research reports, summaries, and papers that stated that there were no
significant differences between distance education and face to face instruction
(Russell, 1999).  Najjar found that learning was higher when information was
3
presented via computer-based multimedia systems than with traditional
classroom lectures (Najjar, 1996).  With the internet being a staple in the modern
college campus, more colleges are adopting this method of teaching classes.  
Postsecondary institutions offer distance education to improve their ability
to reach new audiences as well as to increase enrollments and students? access
to learning.  A study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics
stated that 89% of four year public institutions offered distance education
courses. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).  Twelve percent of all
institutions indicated that they planned to start offering distance education
courses in the next three years.  Of the institutions that offered distance
education courses or that planned to offer distance education courses, 88%
indicated plans to start using or increase the number of internet courses using
asynchronous computer-based instruction as a primary mode of instructional
delivery for distance education courses (National Center for Education Statistics,
2003).  The use of the internet has grown so much in the past two decades that
it is now the medium through which most distance education courses are offered
because of its ease of use and availability to anyone with access to a computer. 
A study in 2002 by the Pew Institute and American Life Project found that 86
percent of college students have gone online, compared with 59 percent of the
general population (Jones, 2002), with more growth every year.
Internet and Horticulture
According to the US Department of Education, distance education
courses in agriculture comprise only 7% of all distance education courses
4
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).  However, a survey of colleges
of agriculture conducted in 1994 by Bekkum and Miller, indicated that the
direction of agriculture education is heading towards being more computer-
oriented.  They concluded that computers will be more integrated into courses
throughout curricula (Bekkum and Miller, 1994).  The use of distance education
is growing every year, and many agriculture-related sciences are slowly
becoming more accustomed to the use of the internet and computers within their
curriculums.  Current university data shows that students are increasingly
becoming proficient in utilizing computers as educational tools (Donaldson,
1999).  Horticulture students are now using the internet as a resource to search
for plant pictures and descriptions.  There appears to be great potential for using
the internet for an online course within horticulture.  Pictures, videos, and text
can all be combined within one website, providing students with an interesting
and convenient way to study plants. Rieger in 2002 conducted a study at the
University of Georgia to determine the difference in teaching methods.  He
compared classroom instruction with online education in a horticulture class and
concluded that equal or better performance of the distance education students
suggests that survey courses can be offered via distance education without
compromising learning outcomes (Rieger, 2002).  In another study, distance
education courses in agriculture compare favorably to agriculture courses offered
on campus (Miller and Pilcher, 2001).  
Learning horticulture involves using all of the senses.  Computers as used
in distance education presently can only make use of the senses of sight and
5
hearing.  Barrett (2003) found no significant differences in posttest scores of
particpants when comparing audio accompanied versus non-audio accompanied
plant identification and plant morphology tutorials.  She stated that further
exploration of different learning styles and how they relate to multimedia may
give more insight on the best delivery method of plant identification and plant
morphology distance education courses.  Rhodus and Hoskins (1996) stated that
a strong visual component can assist in memorization of specific plant
morphological features.  Building upon these studies, the purpose of this study is
to determine if learning plant morphology can be improved by incorporating a
greater degree of visual interactivity into a computer based learning module.
6
LITERATURE CITED
Barrett, P. 2003. Plant Identification: A Computer Assisted Instruction Approach.
Master?s Thesis, Dept. of Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
36849. 
Bekkum, V.A. and Miller, W.W. 1994. Computer proficiency for undergraduate
students in agriculture. NACTA Journal 38:43-46.
Donaldson, J. L. 1999. Computer access, usage, and literacy of undergraduates
in the agricultural sciences. HortTechnology. 43(3): 20-29.
Ludlow, B.L. 1994. A comparison of traditional and distance education models.
Proceedings of the Annual National Conference of the American Council on
Rural Special Education, Austin, TX, 23-26 March. (ED 369 599)
Miller, G. and Pilcher, C.L. 2001. Levels of Cognition Reached in Agricultural
Distance Education Courses in Comparison to On-Campus Courses and to the
Faculty Perceptions Concerning an Appropriate Level. Journal of Agriculture
Education 42(1):20-27.
Najjar, L. J. 1996. Multimedia Information and Learning. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(2), 129-150.
7
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. 2000.
Distance Education at Postsecondary Institutions.
(http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/2000013/). (June 12, 2005).
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. 2003.
Distance Education at Postsecondary Institutions.
(http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/2003017/). (June 12, 2005).
Rieger, M. 2002. Distance Education Versus Classroom Instruction in
Horticulture - An Introduction to Fruit Crops - Case Study. HortTechnology
12(3):513-515.
Rhodus, T., Hoskins, J. 1996. The internet: changing the way horticulturist
communicate. HortTechnology 6(4):308-314.
Russell, T. 1999. The No Significant Difference Phenomenon.
(http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/). (June 12, 2005). 
Schwartz, J. 2003. Professors Vie With Web for Class?s Attention. New York
Times, January 2, 2003.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/technology/02WIRE.html). (September 11,
2003). 
8
United States Distance Learning Association. 2005. USDLA - Home.
(http://www.usdla.org). (June 13, 2005).
9
CHAPTER II
INTERACTIVE VERSUS NON-INTERACTIVE PLATFORMS FOR TEACHING
PLANT MORPHOLOGY
Index Words: distance education, plant morphology, interactive, multimedia.
Summary
A study was conducted in the Spring semester 2005 at Auburn University
involving 45 undergraduate and one graduate volunteers from many various
majors.  Two learning modules with different formats were developed for the
study.  Both modules were created to be graphically similar, using the same
colors, design, and photographs.  However, one of the modules included
interactive content created with Macromedia Flash; the other learning module
was created using Macromedia Dreamweaver and was non-interactive or static
format.  Students were randomly assigned to access either the interactive or
non-interactive format.  A pretest was administered through Auburn University?s
WebCT servers to determine participant?s previous knowledge about the subject. 
The student was then given time to study the learning module, and after studying
the module, the student was instructed to log onto WebCT again and complete
the posttest and demographics survey.  Student mean pretest scores and mean
posttest scores showed no significant differences between the interactive and
non-interactive learning modules, however, students? posttest scores on both the
10
interactive and non-interactive modules improved significantly.  Students
expressed in the comments portion of the evaluation section of the demographic
study that the module was beneficial to their learning of the material, making
learning plant morphology via computer aided instruction a viable alternative to
traditional methods of teaching.
Introduction 
Computers play a valuable role in today?s world.  They have become a
staple in today?s modern home.  People use computers for all types of
entertainment, informational, and instructional purposes.  
Education has also been changed by the invention of computers and the
internet.  Teachers have the ability to share class notes with students, create
slides of notes for lectures, and keep track of students? records.  Students also
benefit from the use of these technologies.  Now students are able to download
lecture notes from a class, gather information for reports via the internet, and be
able to communicate effectively with teachers and classmates.  
In making use of these technologies, many postsecondary institutions are
now offering some form of distance education.  A study conducted by the
National Center for Education Statistics stated that 89% of all public four year
postsecondary institutions offered distance education courses.  (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2003). 
Distance education can be beneficial in many ways.  Ludlow (1994) found
that distance education offered students:
? Accessible training to students in rural areas
11
? Students may complete their courses of study without suffering a loss of
salary
? Students are exposed to the expertise of the most qualified faculty
Colleges are using technology to create new ways to offer students who would
otherwise not have the chance an opportunity to learn.  A study by Najjar in 1996
stated that learning was higher when information was presented via computer-
based multimedia systems than traditional classroom lectures (Najjar, 1996).
In a 1999 study by the United States Department of Education, it was
noted that distance education courses in agriculture comprise only 7% of all
distance education courses (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).  In a
study by Bekkum and Miller, surveys of colleges of agriculture concluded that 
they are becoming more computer oriented.  They also stated that computers
are becoming more integrated throughout curricula and are being used as a
teaching and learning tool for instructors and students to use in analyzing and
solving problems. (Bekkum & Miller, 1994).  Within the field of horticulture,
students are now using the internet as a resource for finding information such as
plant pictures, plant descriptions, and various other horticulture related
information.  Online courses are a natural development, since students are
becoming more proficient in utilizing computers as educational tools (Donaldson,
1999).  
In 2002 a University of Georgia study was conducted to determine
differences in teaching methods using a classroom oriented horticulture class
versus an online course.   The results concluded that students performed equal
12
to or better in the online distance education course compared to classroom
instruction (Rieger, 2002).  
Plant morphology is the study of the structure, and form of a plant, and is
a key component of a horticulture curriculum.  At Auburn University, plant
morphology is taught in all plant identification, plant propagation, and plant
growth and development courses.  Traditionally, the plant morphology sections
of these courses are introduced in a classroom setting, with the teachers using
paper handouts with line drawings of plant parts, leaf shapes, and other plant
features.  Material covered within the plant morphology lectures may include
subjects such as plant forms, leaf characteristics (arrangement, leaf types,
shapes, and margins), bud shapes, floral structures, branching forms, plant cell
characteristics, root characteristics, and fruit shapes.  Students in several
classes are presented with the similar materials at the beginning of every
semester.  Teachers often cover plant morphology at the beginning of the
courses, since most material covered throughout the remainder of these courses
will relate to and build upon the foundation laid through the concepts learned in
the plant morphology lectures.  However, these lectures can consume valuable
instructional and laboratory time.  
Teaching methods in the past have relied on traditional ways of teaching
plant morphology.  Handouts are the most common medium and usually include
black and white line drawings, along with descriptions of the material.  As
technology use in the classroom has increased, the use of computers has
changed the way teachers present their materials.  Multimedia projectors are
13
rapidly becoming an essential part of every collegiate classroom, and teachers
make use of them by using presentation software, such as Microsoft PowerPoint. 
By utilizing these technologies, a teacher can creatively present color
photographs, along with lecture text to students.
Learning horticulture requires a student to use all of the senses, but only
two senses can be involved in electronic instruction, i.e., sight and hearing.  In a
study at Auburn University, Barrett (2003) compared different modalities of
delivery within horticulture.  She compared audio versus non-audio presentations
for teaching plant morphology and plant identification.  She concluded that there
were no significant differences between participant?s mean pretest scores and
mean posttest scores between audio accompanied and non-audio learning
modules.
This study was undertaken to investigate the other sense that can be
involved in an online course, sight.  Rhodus & Hoskins (1996) stated that a
strong visual component can assist in memorization of specific plant
morphological features.  Multimedia material may be either interactive or non-
interactive  (Anderson, 2005). Interactivity can be defined as a program that
responds to user activity (Interactivity, 2005).  This study used one component of
multimedia - interactivity.  The goal of this study was to determine if learning
plant morphology online may be improved by incorporating interactivity into a
computer based learning module in comparison with a non-interactive version via
the internet.  
14
Materials & Methods
In this study, two tutorials were developed using Macromedia Flash and
Macromedia Dreamweaver.  Macromedia Flash was used for the development of
an interactive tutorial.  Its selection was based on the fact that over 98% of
computers worldwide can be reached using this platform (NPD Online survey,
conducted March 2005).  Macromedia Dreamweaver is a general HTML editor
program, and can easily create non-interactive web pages in the HTML
programming language.  Both tutorials included sections labeled: Flower Parts,
Leaf Shapes and Arrangement, and Inflorescences.  They also utilized the same
colors, pictures, fonts, and basic arrangement within the web browser.  
The opening page of tutorial built using the Flash platform (Appendix A),
the user was first presented with an a menu with three different options.  It
included a section for flower parts, leaf shape and arrangement, and
inflorescences.  The menu options were created as buttons for the user to click
on to choose.  As the user moved the cursor over the buttons, the section would
animate and would increase slightly in size, indicating that the user could click
that button.
The Flower Parts section included a picture of a basic flower on the left
side of the window, showing the  internal structures of the flower.  As the user
rolled the cursor over the flower, different structures would appear to highlight,
indicating to the user that they could select the structure.  When the user
selected the floral part, a dialog box on the right within the window displayed a
description of that specific floral structure.  
15
For the Leaf Shape and Arrangement section line drawings were initially
displayed, arranged around the window.  As the user rolled the cursor over
these, the line drawings would increase slightly in size, indicating the user was
able to select that leaf shape or arrangement.  When the user selected a line
drawing, a larger version of the drawing and a photograph of an example of the
leaf shape or arrangement would appear in the center of the window.  
In the Inflorescences section, the user was presented with a scrollable
menu at the bottom of the browser window.  The scrollable menu included line
drawings of different plant inflorescences.  The menu was scrolled using arrow
buttons to the left and right of the menu.  When the user clicked the line
drawings, a window would appear in the center of the browser window showing a
larger version of the line drawing, a photographic example of the inflorescence,
and a written description.
The tutorial built using Macromedia Dreamweaver (HTML) (Appendix B)
was created to be the same graphically as the tutorial built using Flash except
drawings and text were static images rather than animated.  All three sections
(Flower Parts, Leaf Shape & Arrangement, and Inflorescences) were included in
the tutorial.  The opening menu was designed to be the same as the Flash
version also as the user was presented with the three section choices.
The Flower Parts section included the same basic flower picture as the
Flash version.  The flower parts were cropped and labeled using Macromedia
Fireworks.  Below the labeled flower part was a written description of the part.  A
picture of the complete flower was shown at the top of the website.  
16
The Leaf Shape & Arrangement section utilized the same pictures, line
drawings, and descriptions as the tutorial built using Flash.  A line drawing, a
picture of an example plant, and a written description were all included in the
section.  
In the Inflorescences section, line drawings, pictures, and written
descriptions were also the same as used in the Flash version of the tutorial.  The
boxes containing all three components were arranged side by side on the
webpage. 
Sample Size and Demographics
Undergraduate students were recruited from various majors and
classification through two horticultural service courses, Organic Gardening and
Vegetable Production, that attract students from throughout campus.  The
common assumption is the students in these classes have an interest in plants,
but since a large percentage of them being non-horticulture majors they were
assumed to have little horticultural knowledge.  A total of 426 students were
recruited from four different class sections.  Of these students, 46 students
chose to participate in the study.  There were a total of 23 (50%) females and 23
(50%) males.  A total of 24 students completed the Flash version of the learning
module; 14 (58.3%) were female, and 10 (41.7%) were male.  In the HTML
version, a total of 22 students completed the test, of which 9 (40.9%) were
female, and 13 (59.1%) were male.
17
Data Collection and Analysis
Students were randomly assigned to either the interactive group (Group 1,
Flash), or the non-interactive group (Group 2, HTML).  Participants were given a
letter (Appendix H) giving information and significance of the study and how they
should proceed to participate.  Students were added to a list using the
university?s WebCT server.  WebCT is a campus-wide e-learning course
management system (WebCT, 2005).  Auburn University?s WebCT server was
used because of its security, reliability, and ease of use for the participant and
developer of the course.  The participant would log onto WebCT, and the
WebCT course would be listed on the student?s courses.  Then the participants
would choose the Plant Morphology course and take the pretest (Appendix D). 
The pretest was used to determine the level of previous knowledge the student
had about the material.  The pretest included 10 questions about general plant
morphology subjects.  The participants would then select a link to the online
learning module and were asked to study the module.  Students were then
instructed to sign back onto WebCT, and complete the posttest (Appendix E)
and demographic survey (Appendix C) after they had completed the learning
module.  As with the pretest, the posttest consisted of 10 general plant
morphology questions.  The posttest questions were different from the pretest,
but the same subject matter was presented.  Questions from both the pretest
and posttest consisted of the same pictures and descriptions that were included
in the learning module.  The participants were encouraged to provide personal
comments about the tutorial and quizzes in the demographic section.  The
18
demographic portion of the study used the Likert scale, which measures attitudes
and subjective reasoning based on a level, in this case, 1 to 5 with 1 being
extremely poor, 2 - below average, 3 - average, 4 - above average, and 5 being
excellent (Diamond Bullet Design, 2005).  Pretest and posttest scores were
analyzed using the SAS (The SAS Institute, 2005) statistical program using the
general linear model (GLM) procedure and Duncan?s multiple range test.  The
results were analyzed at the 0.05 significance level.   
Results and Discussion
The mean pretest scores for the group that used the interactive Flash
version (Group 1) was 40.4 out of a possible 100 points.  The non-interactive
HTML version (Group 2) had a mean pretest score of 35.9.  A comparison of the
mean scores at the 0.05 level showed no differences between the two versions
(Figure 1).  Group 1 had a minimum pretest score of 10, and a maximum of 90. 
Group 2 had a minimum pretest score of 0, and a maximum of 100.
Mean posttest score of the Flash version (Group 1) was 63.8.  The HTML
version (Group 2) had a mean posttest score of 73.6 (Figure 1).  Posttest scores
of both groups did not differ significantly at the 0.05 level.  Group 1 (Flash) had a
minimum posttest score of 30, and Group 2 (HTML) had a minimum posttest
score of 20.
In a comparison of gender by version (Figure 2), the Flash version (Group
1) males had a mean pretest score of 36.0 and females had a mean pretest
score of 43.6.  Male and female pretest scores showed no difference at the 0.05
level.  In the posttest for the Flash version, males had a mean score of 64.0, and
19
females had a mean of 63.6.  Likewise, the posttest scores for the male versus
females did not differ.
For the HTML version (Group 2), pretest (Figure 3), males had a mean
score of 32.3, and females had a mean of 41.1.  The comparison showed no
differences between males and females for the pretest at the 0.05 level.  In the
posttest for the HTML version, males had mean score of 68.5, and while females
had a mean of 81.1, there were no differences between males and females at
the 0.05 level.
In a comparison of the pretest and posttest by version (Figure 1),
participants that were selected for the Flash version had a mean pretest score of
40.4, and a mean posttest score of 63.8.  There was a difference shown in the
comparison of the pretest and posttest at the 0.05 level.  There also was a
difference in the participants pretest versus posttest scores in the HTML version
with a mean pretest score of 37.7, and a mean posttest score of 73.1.  Clearly
learning took place, and this data supports the idea that learning plant
morphology, regardless of the method of delivery, can be effectively conducted
online.
For the Flash version, participants? responses indicate that the tutorial was
above average in helpfulness at 44.4%.  40.7% rated it excellent and 44.4%
rated it as above average.  Only 7.4% rated it average and 3.7% rated it below
average.  None of the participants rated the tutorial as being extremely poor in
helpfulness (Figure 4).  Based on these responses, participants indicate the
tutorial was excellent in the ease of use.  Participants rated the ease of use of
20
the tutorial as excellent also, with 59.3% of them indicating this (Figure 5). 
22.2% of participants rated the tutorial as above average, and 11.1% rated it as
average.  Only 3.7% rated the tutorial as extremely poor or below average (0%). 
In the category of organization (Figure 6), participants rated that tutorial as
excellent at 59.3%.  18.5% of the participants rated it as average and 14.8%
rated it as above average.  Only a small percentage indicated that organization
of the tutorial was below average of extremely poor (0% and 3.7%, respectively). 
For the HTML version, participants rated helpfulness as above average at
42.9%.  28.6% rated helpfulness as excellent while 23.8% rated it as average. 
4.8% indicated that the tutorial was extremely poor in the category of
helpfulness, and none rated it at below average (Figure 4).  For ease of use in
the HTML version (Figure 5), participants rated the tutorial as excellent (42.7%). 
28.6% rated the tutorial?s ease of use at above average, and 19.1% indicating it
was average.  9.5% indicated ease of use for the HTML version was extremely
poor, and none of the participants rated it as below.  In the category of
organization for the HTML version, participants rated the tutorial as excellent at
71.4% (Figure 6).  9.5% of the students indicated it was above average, and
9.5% said it was average.  9.5% of the students rated it as below average in
organization, with none indicating that it was extremely poor. 
Implications for Horticulture
With use of a tutorial similar to this one, an instructor for classes involving
plant morphology, such as plant identification or plant propagation, could save
valuable instruction time by allowing the students to use the online tutorial for
21
reviewing.  Instead of spending many classroom hours on the subject of plant
morphology creating an opportunity for the instructor to cover more of the core
material of the class.  Other benefits may include the possibility of offering
complete horticulture classes online.  Distance education is gaining in popularity,
and horticulture can benefit from this trend.  More classes being offered online to
students generates more revenue for the instructional unit and allows students to
have more, and easier opportunities for learning.  Students? comments in the
demographic survey were very positive.  Several students indicated on both
tutorials were beneficial and they enjoyed participating in the study (Appendix F,
G).  Results of this study reveal there are no differences between an interactive
and non-interactive online tutorial.  The Flash program development requires
considerable learning and build time, as compared to the traditional text and
picture HTML website.  Since the Flash version showed no benefit over the
HTML, there appears to be no advantage to interactivity versus a non-interactive
static tutorial. Therefore the simpler HTML version can be used with confidence
that it can be employed for effective learning.  Both versions of the learning
module showed an increase in posttest scores, proving that online instruction
increased knowledge gained, and therefore is viable for use as tool for an
instructor teaching plant morphology.  Future studies on this subject might focus
on integrating audio into the interactivity, making use of both auditory and visual
stimulation.
22
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, S. 2005. Definitions. Last accessed June 12, 2005. 
http://www.usu.edu/sanderso/multinet/definiti.html
Barrett, P. 2003. Plant Identification: A Computer Assisted Instruction Approach. 
Unpublished master?s thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.   
Bekkum, V.A. and Miller, W.W.. 1994. Computer proficiency for undergraduate
students in agriculture. NACTA Journal. 38:43-46.
Diamond Bullet Design. 2005. Usability first: Usability glossary: Likert scale. Last
accessed June 13, 2005.
http://www.usabilityfirst.com/glossary/main.cgi?function=display_term&term_id=9
68 
Donaldson, J. L. 1999. Computer access, usage, and literacy of undergraduates
in the agricultural sciences. HortTechnology. 43 (3): 20-29.
?Interactivity?. 2005. The American Heritage Dictionary. 
http://dictionary.reference.com/
23
Ludlow, B.L. 1994. A comparison of traditional and distance education models.
Proceedings of the Annual National Conference of the American Council on
Rural Special Education, Austin, TX. (ED 369 599)
Macromedia Corporation. 2005. Macromedia Studio MX 2004 Professional. San
Francisco, CA
Najjar, L. J. 1996. Multimedia Information and Learning. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(2), 129-150.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. 2000.
Distance Education at Postsecondary Institutions. Last accessed June 12, 2005
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/2000013/
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. 2003.
Distance Education at Postsecondary Institutions. Last accessed June 12, 2005.
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/2003017/
NDP Online Survey. 2005, March. Macromedia Flash Player Statistics. Last
accessed June 12, 2005.
http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer
24
Rhodus, T., Hoskins, J. 1996. The internet: changing the way horticulturists
communicate. HortTechnology. 6 (4): 308-314.
Rieger, M. 2002. Distance Education Versus Classroom Instruction in
Horticulture - An Introduction to Fruit Crops - Case Study. HortTechnology
12(3):513-515.
SAS Institute Inc. 2001. The SAS? System Release 8e. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
WebCT. 2005. WebCT.com. Last accessed June 13, 2005. 
http://www.webct.com/entrypage
25
FIGURES
26
FIGURE 1
FLASH VERSUS HTML 
COMPARISON OF PRETEST AND POSTTEST SCORES
27
FIGURE 2
FLASH VERSION - RESULTS BY GENDER
28
FIGURE 3
HTML VERSION - RESULTS BY GENDER
29
FIGURE 4
TUTORIAL EVALUATION 
HELPFULNESS
30
FIGURE 5 
TUTORIAL EVALUATION
EASE OF USE
31
FIGURE 6
TUTORIAL EVALUATION
ORGANIZATION
32
APPENDICES
33
APPENDIX A
TUTORIAL - FLASH VERSION
34
FLASH VERSION - OPENING MENU
35
FLASH VERSION - FLOWER PARTS
36
FLASH VERSION - LEAF SHAPES AND ARRANGEMENT
37
FLASH VERSION - INFLORESCENCES
38
APPENDIX B 
TUTORIAL - HTML VERSION
39
HTML VERSION - OPENING MENU
40
HTML VERSION - FLOWER PARTS
41
HTML VERSION - LEAF SHAPES AND ARRANGEMENT
42
HTML VERSION - INFLORESCENCES
43
APPENDIX C
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
44
Demographic Info. 
Number of questions: 7
Finish     Help
Question 1
On a scale of 1-5, (5 being the best, 1 the worst) how would you rate the
helpfulness of this tutorial? (put an X in the appropriate # box)
Save answer
Question 2
Choose your age group
a. 18-25
b. 26-30
c. 31-40
d. 41-50
e. 51-60
f. 61-70
g. 71+
Save answer
Question 3
On a scale of 1-5, (5 being the best, 1 the worst) how would you rate the ease of
use of this tutorial? (put an X in the appropriate # box)
Save answer
Question 4
Choose your gender
a. Male
b. Female
Save answer
Question 5
On a scale of 1-5, (5 being the best, 1 the worst) how would you rate the
organization and layout of this tutorial? (put an X in the appropriate # box)
Save answer
Question 6
Choose your class
a.  Undergraduate
b. Master Gardener
Save answer
45
Question 7
Please add any additional comments you may have.
Save answer
Finish   Help
46
APPENDIX D
PRETEST
47
Pretest 
Name: AUBURN STUDENT
Start time: June 13, 2005 2:49pm
Number of questions: 10
Finish   Help
Question 1 (10 points)
The leaf arrangement seen here is called:
a. Opposite
b. Alternate 
c. Whorled
d. Complex 
e Undulate
Save Answer
Question 2 (10 points)
What type of inflorescence is this?
a. Spike 
b. Umbel
c. Corymb
d. Head
e. Panicle
Save Answer
Question 3 (10 points)
The portion of the pedicel upon which the flowers are borne are called:
a. Filament
b. Stigma
c. Receptacle
d. Anthers
e. Style
Save Answer
48
Question 4 (10 points)
What is the name of this flower part?
a. Anther
b. Filament
c. Stigma
d. Style
e. Ovule
Save Answer
Question 5 (10 points)
This type of leaf arrangement is known as:
a. Opposite
b. Alternate
c. Whorled
d. Simple
e. Compound
Save Answer
Question 6 (10 points)
The swollen basal portion of the pistil containing ovules.
a. Stigma
b. Receptacle
c. Ovary
d. Sepal
e. Ovule
Save Answer
49
Question 7 (10 points)
The inflorescence seen here is known as:
a. Cyme
b. Raceme
c. Panicle
d. Head 
e. Spadix
Save Answer
Question 8 (10 points)
What type of leaf shape is this?
a. Palmate
b. Cordate
c. Lanceolate
d. Obovate
e. Ovate
Save Answer
50
Question 9 (10 points)
What is this type of leaf shape?
a. Palmate
b. Deltoid
c. Cordate
d. Elliptical
e. Oblong
Save Answer
Questio 10 (10 points)
What is this inflorescence called?
a. Umbel
b. Spadix
c. Cyme
d. Corymb
e. Head
Save Answer
Finish    Help
51
APPENDIX E
POSTTEST
52
Posttest
Name: AUBURN STUDENT
Start time: June 13, 2005 2:49pm
Number of questions: 10
Question 1 (10 points)
What is the name of this flower part?
a. Anther
b. Filament
c. Stigma
d. Style
e. Ovule
Save Answer
Question 2 (10 points)
What type of inflorescence is this?
a. Spike 
b. Raceme 
c. Corymb 
d. Head 
e. Panicle
Save Answer
53
Question 3 (10 points)
The inflorescence seen here is known as: 
a. Cyme
b. Ramceme
c. Panicle
d. Head
e. Spadix
Save Answer
Question 4 (10 points)
What is this inflorescence called?
a. Umbel
b. Spadix
c. Cyme
d. Corymb
e. Spike
Save Answer
Question 5 (10 points)
This type of leaf arrangement is known as:
a. Opposite
b. Alternate
c. Whorled
d. Simple
e. Compound
Save Answer
54
Question 6 (10 points)
The leaf arrangement seen here is: 
a. Opposite
b. Alternate
c. Whorled
d. Simple
e. Compound
Save Answer
Question 7 (10 points)
What type of leaf shape is this?
a. Palmate
b. Cordate
c. Lanceolate
d. Obovate
e. Ovate
Save Answer
Question 8 (10 points)
What is this type of leaf shape?
a. Palmate 
b. Deltoid
c. Cordate
d. Elliptical
e. Oblong
Save Answer
55
Question 9 (10 points)
Located inside the ovary; an immature seed.
a. Stigma
b. Receptacle
c. Petal
d. Sepal
e. Ovule
Save Answer
Question 10 (10 points)
The apical portion of the pistil that receives the pollen is called:
a. Filament
b. Stigma
c. Sepals
d. Anthers
e. Style
Save Answer
Finish   Help
56
APPENDIX F
STUDENT COMMENTS - FLASH VERSION
57
good
Good job.
Great Tutorial.
This tutorial was very informative and helpful.
The test was very easy to take after looking over the tutorial a couple of times.
The layout of everything was also easy to use and follow, because nothing was
over-complicated. The web design also was a plus, with detailed and color
pictures provided for the terms. 
I enjoyed doing this and I did learn from the quik and easy layout of the tutorial.
There were a few typos on the tutorial that you might want to correct.  Also, on
your scale of 1-5 is 5 you might want to state whether 1 or 5 is the highest rating.
The tutorial was great!  I know a lot more about plants than I did before!
The tutorial seemed to flow well.  It wasn't difficult choosing the topics or knowing
what to click on.  The images were very clear and the descriptions were easy to
understand.
There should be sound along with flash player.  If I could have heard the words
being pronounced that would have helped me a lot more.  Also, in the quiz is one
good or bad?  I assumed that one was bad.
pictures were very nice and helpful
This was very informative and I wish I could have had something like this when I
was taking my biology classes!  It was done very well.
It might help if you write in more descriptive comments.
Very well organized.
I think that this tutorial was fairly easy to understand.
My additional comments...very nice design and layout...so easy to understand
and operate that a child could do it.  Very nicely organized...simple and
functional!
very good
58
APPENDIX G
STUDENT COMMENTS - HTML VERSION
59
I enjoyed learning and taking the quiz on line.
I hope you were talking about a 1 to 5 scale where 1 was least and 5 was the
most
I think the tutorial would have been more helpful had I studied it more, and
actually had some kind of education concerning plants and their structures.
Yeah, I don't know where you got all this information, because I didn't read any
summary before taking these quizes and for this reason guessed on almost
everything except the structures of the flower.  However, leaf, petal
arrangements, influorecence, etc. I had no idea about.
the tutorial was complete with visual aids and helpful, UNDERSTANDABLE
information
The tutorial was very informative by combining very good pictures that were
described in simple terms.
 
Good Layout by dividing the three sections
good job
I am a horticulture major and the quizes were somewhat eazy.
It has been several years since I have reviewed plant material such as this.  I
found this tutorial to be user friendly, informative,  and helpful.  
I thought that the quiz was easy to follow, nicely layed out and contained some
very helpful information.  Good Job!
I had a hard time distinguishing clear cut differences between some of the leaf
shapes, but every other part was fine.
60
APPENDIX H
LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH
61
Auburn University
Auburn University, AL 36849-5408
College of Agriculture
Department of Horticulture
101 Funchess Hall
Information Letter for Research 
Entitled: ?Interactive vs. Non-interactive Platforms for Teaching Plant Morphology?
You are invited to participate in a research project that involves learning about plants.  This
project is being conducted by Brian Wayne Brown, graduate student in Horticulture, under the direction of
Dr. Dave Williams, professor in the Department of Horticulture.  In this study, we hope to determine the
effectiveness of different computer-based delivery methods for learning basic plant morphology.  You were
selected as a participant because of your interest in horticulture.  You must be 19 years old or older to
participate in this study.   
If you decide to participate, you will need to login to WebCT located under the ?Students?
section of the main Auburn University Page.  A pretest will first  be given to determine previous knowledge
about the subject.  A tutorial (located @ www.auburn.edu/~brownbw/thesis/ will then be given, in which
you will have a period of five (5) days to study the subject matter presented.  A posttest (also located on
WebCT) will then need to be taken to determine the effectiveness of the tutorial.  Demographic information
will also be collected at that time.  This is an out-of-classroom activity.  The tests should only take ~10-15
minutes of your time.  The tutorial is only for your benefit and it is up to you how much time you spend
reviewing it. 
The information gained from this project can help in the design of distance education classes in
horticulture in the future.  
Any information you provide in connection with this study will remain confidential. 
Information collected through your participation may be published in a professional journal and/or
presented at a professional meeting or conference, and only aggregate results will be presented. You may
withdraw from your participation at any time, without penalty, however, after you have provided
confidential information you will be unable to withdraw your data after participation.
Your decision whether or not to participate will not jeopardize your grade or affect your future
relations with Auburn University or the Department of Horticulture in any way.  If you have any questions,
please feel free to ask them now.  If you have any questions, please call or e-mail Dr. Williams or Brian
Brown and they  will be glad to answer them.  You will be provided a copy of this form to keep.
Brian Wayne Brown    Dr. Dave Williams 
(334) 844-3040                                        (334) 844-3032
brownbw@auburn.edu                                       jdwillia@acesag.auburn.edu
For more information regarding your rights as a research participant you may contact the Office of Human
Subjects Research by phone or e-mail.  The people to contact there are Executive Director E.N. ?Chip?
Burson (334) 844-5966 (bursoen@auburn.edu) or IRB Chair Dr. Peter Grandjean at (334) 844-1462
(grandpw@auburn.edu) .
HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, YOU MUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU
WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE.
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Participant's signature                           Investigator's signature
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Print Name Print Name