LESSONS FROM THE GARDEN: GARDEN BASED NUTRITION EDUCATION AT TWO
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
By
Caroline Lucille Martin

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Human Nutrition
2011

ABSTRACT
LESSONS FROM THE GARDEN: GARDEN-BASED NUTRITION EDUCATION AT TWO
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
By
Caroline Lucille Martin

American children consume inadequate amounts of fruits and vegetables. Establishing
adequate fruit and vegetable intake during childhood is an important step in establishing lifelong
intake. Garden-based nutrition education (GBNE) has been shown to positively impact childrens’
knowledge about, preference for and intake of fruits and vegetables. This study explored student
and staff experiences with GBNE at two elementary schools. Data were obtained by conducting
interviews and participant observation, and by collecting student work. Perceived outcomes,
facilitators and barriers associated with GBNE emerged as themes. Outcomes, included: (1)
enhanced nutrition knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, (2) improved understanding of food
systems, (3) enhanced school learning experience, (4) character development, (5) enhanced life
experience, (6) intergenerational relationships and community engagement, and (7) feelings of
enjoyment, wonder and therapeutic effects. Facilitators included: (1) funding and community
support, (2) presence of a garden champion and garden allies, (3) communication and school
support, and (4) positive student feedback. Barriers included: (1) limitations in garden design, (2)
seasonal limitations, (3) vandalism, (4) funding restrictions, (5) time constraints, (6) large
classes, behavior problems and perceived lack of control, and (7) limited communication.
Outcomes were used to develop a conceptual model describing the route through which GBNE
increases students’ fruit and vegetable intake. Facilitators and barriers were used to identify
recommendations

for

the

practical

implementation

of

GBNE

programs.

Copyright by
CAROLINE LUCILLE MARTIN
2011

This work is dedicated to the children, educators and volunteers – that they may always find a
place in the garden.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The children and adults of Janesville and Gilsonville Elementary Schools graciously and
wholeheartedly welcomed me, and for that I am deeply thankful. The nutrition educators and
volunteers at the schools were especially important to this project and I offer my most sincere
gratitude for their kindness, energy and dedication.
I am also grateful to my major advisor, Dr. Katherine Alaimo, for her initial openness to
taking me into her lab group and for her constant encouragement to pursue my interests – in both
my current research and future career plans. My master’s guidance committee, Dr. Katherine
Alaimo, Dr. Marsha Carolan, Dr. Laurie Thorp and Dr. Lorraine Weatherspoon also provided
valuable advice, assistance and encouragement throughout the research process. I am lucky to
have had these talented and kind women as mentors and advisors. The Michigan State University
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition and Dr. Katherine Alaimo provided financial
support that allowed me to conduct this research. I would also like to thank the Michigan
Nutrition Network, Becky Henne, Anne Scott and Diane Golzynski for their support.
I am grateful to the Community Nutrition faculty and graduate students within the
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition. They taught me how to channel my curiosity,
ask questions, conduct research, and share my findings. I must also thank current and former
Alaimo lab students and staff, including Kellie Mayfield, Dr. Jennifer Lucarelli, Richard Miles,
Tiffany Chritz, Caitlin Fisher, Liz Weber, Ellen Mang, Deb Bailey and Deanne Kelleher, who
provided assistance and support throughout my time at Michigan State.
This acknowledgement would not be complete without expressing deepest thanks to my
friends and family. Nicky, Kellie, Josh and Hilary, you never fail to bring a smile to my face. To

v

mom, dad, Beth and Kristin - thank you for believing in me and for your love and support every
step of the way. And finally, I must acknowledge two of my favorite Michiganders, Lucille Jane
and Robert Gilson, for their inspiration as I wrote this manuscript.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview and Gap in Knowledge ............................................................................ 1
1.2 Rationale and Study Aims ....................................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Study Aims ................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Organization of Thesis ............................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Fruit and Vegetable Intake ........................................................................................ 6
2.1.1 Chronic Disease ......................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Related Health Outcomes in Children ....................................................... 7
2.1.3 Determinants of Intake and Behavior Change ........................................... 9
2.1.4 Recommendations and Trends ................................................................. 12
2.2 School-Based Interventions .................................................................................... 14
2.3 School Gardens ....................................................................................................... 14
2.3.1 Introduction to Garden-Based Learning ................................................. 15
2.3.1.1 Garden-Based Learning and Experiential Education ................ 15
2.3.1.2 Garden-Based Learning and the Importance of Place .............. 16
2.3.2 Green Spaces, Gardens and Interpersonal Relationships ......................... 18
2.3.3 Gardens in Schools .................................................................................. 18
2.3.3.1 History of School Gardens ........................................................ 18
2.3.3.2 School Gardens Today .............................................................. 21
2.3.4 Garden-Based Nutrition Education - Nutrition Outcomes Overview ...... 26
2.3.4.1 Nutrition Outcomes – Knowledge and Attitudes ...................... 27
2.3.4.2 Nutrition Outcomes – Behavior ................................................ 30
2.3.5 Qualitative Exploration of School Gardens ............................................. 32
CHAPTER 3
LESSONS FROM THE GARDEN: PERCEIVED OUTCOMES OF SCHOOL GARDENBASED NUTRITION EDUCATION ...................................................................................... 37
3.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 38
3.2 Methods................................................................................................................... 40
3.2.1 Study Design ............................................................................................ 40
3.2.2 Sample and Data Collection..................................................................... 41
3.2.3 Interviews ................................................................................................. 42
3.2.4 Participant Observation............................................................................ 43
vii

3.2.5 Student Work ........................................................................................... 45
3.2.6 Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 45
3.2.7 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................ 48
3.3 Results – Perceived Outcomes of School Garden-Based Nutrition Education....... 51
3.3.1 Enhanced School Learning Experience ................................................... 54
3.3.2 Enhanced Nutrition Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors – Vegetables
and Some Fruits ................................................................................................ 58
3.3.3 Improved Understanding of Food System ............................................... 62
3.3.4 Character Development ........................................................................... 64
3.3.5 Life Experiences ...................................................................................... 67
3.3.6 Intergenerational Relationships and Community Engagement................ 69
3.3.7 Enjoyment, Wonder and Therapeutic Effects .......................................... 72
3.3.8 Data Driven Model for the Effects of GBNE on Students ..................... 73
3.3.9 Conceptual Model for the Effects of GBNE on Students’ Fruit and
Vegetable Intake .............................................................................................. 74
3.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 80
3.5 Validity Criteria ...................................................................................................... 83
3.6 Limitations and Strengths ....................................................................................... 84
3.7 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 84
3.8 Human Subjects Approval Statement ..................................................................... 84
CHAPTER 4
PERCEIVED FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS TO SCHOOL GARDEN-BASED
NUTRITION EDUCATION .................................................................................................... 85
4.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 86
4.2 Methods................................................................................................................... 87
4.2.1 Study Design ............................................................................................ 87
4.2.2 Sample and Data Collection..................................................................... 88
4.2.3 Interviews ................................................................................................. 88
4.2.4 Participant Observation............................................................................ 89
4.2.5 Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 91
4.2.6 Validity Criteria ....................................................................................... 92
4.3 Results – Facilitators and Barriers to School Garden-Based Nutrition
Education ...................................................................................................................... 94
4.3.1 Facilitators to School Garden-Based Nutrition Education....................... 97
4.3.1.1 Facilitator: Funding and Community Support .......................... 97
4.3.1.2 Facilitator: Presence of Garden Champions and Garden
Allies ..................................................................................................... 98
4.3.1.3 Facilitator: Communication and School Support ...................... 99
4.3.1.4 Facilitator: Positive Student Feedback.................................... 102
4.3.2 Barriers to School Garden-Based Nutrition Education .......................... 103
4.3.2.1 Barrier: Limitations in Garden Design ................................... 103
4.3.2.2 Barrier: Seasonal Limitations ................................................. 104
4.3.2.3 Barrier: Vandalism - Gilsonville............................................. 104
4.3.2.4 Barrier: Funding Restrictions .................................................. 105
4.3.2.5 Barrier: Time Constraints ....................................................... 107
viii

4.3.2.6 Barrier: Large Classes, Behavior Problems and Perceived Lack
of Control ............................................................................................ 109
4.3.2.7 Barrier: Limited Communication - Gilsonville....................... 110
4.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 111
4.5 Recommendations for Practice ............................................................................. 113
4.6 Limitations and Strengths .................................................................................... 113
4.7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 114
4.8 Human Subjects Approval Statement ................................................................... 114
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 115
5.1 Summary ............................................................................................................... 115
5.2 Study Aims 1 and 2 .............................................................................................. 115
5.3 Study Aim 3 .......................................................................................................... 118
5.4 Study Aim 4 .......................................................................................................... 116
5.5 Study Aim 5 .......................................................................................................... 127
5.6 Perceived Outcomes Associated with Garden-Based Nutrition Education .......... 118
5.7 Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to Garden-Based Nutrition Education .......... 120
5.8 Limitations and Strengths ..................................................................................... 121
5.9 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 124
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 125
Appendix A Initial Recruitment Letter ....................................................................... 126
Appendix B Letters of Support – Janesville Elementary School ................................ 128
Appendix C Letters of Support (cont.) – Gilsonville Elementary School .................. 130
Appendix D Interview Guides .................................................................................... 132
Appendix E Consent Forms ........................................................................................ 151
Appendix F Assent Forms .......................................................................................... 158
Appendix G Codebook for Qualitative Analysis ........................................................ 160
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 171

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 My Garden™ Lesson Titles, Subjects Covered and Grade Level ............................. 31
Table 2 My Garden™ Nutrition Resource and Lesson Review ............................................. 32
Table 3 Descriptive Information: District, School, and Garden Program ....................... 54, 102
Table 4 Questions from School Administrator Interview Guide ..................................... 55, 100
Table 5 Perceived Positive Outcomes Associated with School Garden-Based Nutrition
Education ................................................................................................................................. 59
Table 6 Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to School Garden-Based Nutrition Education ... 103

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Children at the De Witt Clinton School Farm, circa 1902 (New York City
Department of Parks and Recreation, 2011) ............................................................................ 26
Figure 2 Poster promoting the United States School Garden Army, circa 1919
(Barney, M. W. E. (ca. 1919?) ................................................................................................ 27
Figure 3 Children and their teacher in a school victory garden in New York, NY. circa
1944 (Meyer, ca. 1944) ............................................................................................................ 28
Figure 4 Determinants of childrens’ fruit and vegetable intake from SCT, SEM and KAB .... 56
Figure 5 Data driven model for the student outcomes of garden-based nutrition education ... 85
Figure 6 Conceptual model for the effect of garden-based learning on nutrition education
and on fruit and vegetable intake among students ................................................................... 86

xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview and Gap in Knowledge
Eating patterns learned and established during childhood impart lasting effects on
lifelong dietary habits. (Nicklas, Baranowski, Cullen, & Berenson, 2001; Westenhoefer, 2002;
Fisher & Birch, 2001; Mikkila, Rasanen, Raitakari, Pietinen, & Viikari, 2005; Singer, Moore,
Garrahie & Ellison, 1995). Consuming adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables as part of a
healthy diet provides important nutrients and phytochemicals that reduce the risk of disease
(Duncan, Bacon, & Weinsier, 1983; Kris-Etherton, Lefevre, Beecher, Gross, Keen & Etherton,
2004; Hu & Willett, 2002; Epstein, Gordy, Raynor, Beddome, Kilanowski & Paluch, 2001;
Steinmetz & Potter, 1991). Likewise, adequate fruit and vegetable intake is associated with lower
incidence of overweight, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers (Bazzano, 2006;
Lin & Morrison, 2002; He, Hu, Colditz, Monson, Willet & Liu, 2004; Van Duyn & Pivonka,
2000; Bazzano et al., 2002). In 1999-2000, fewer than 20% of children 4-13 years of age,
consumed five or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day (Guenther, Dodd, Reedy &
Krebs-Smith, 2006). Similarly, the CDC reported that in 2009 only about 22% of high school
students nationwide consumed five or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day. (United
States Department of Health and Human Services, 2010c)
National health and research organizations including the United States Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) (2010a), the National Cancer Institute (NCI) (2010d), and
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2011a) recognize the importance of fruit
and vegetable intake in maintaining a healthy diet and in turn promoting lifelong health (DHHS,
2010a; DHHS, 2010d; USDA, 2011a). Therefore, developing effective techniques to promote

1

fruit and vegetable consumption among youth is an important step in the effort to reduce
childhood obesity and chronic disease, and to promote health.
In light of the widespread inadequacy of fruit and vegetable intake among youth, schools
have been identified as important and effective sites for health and nutrition interventions. Most
American children attend school (United States Census Bureau, 2003). Schools serve as
platforms through which health and nutrition interventions reach large and diverse groups of
youth (French & Stables, 2003; Briggs & Safai, 2003; Story, Kaphingst & French, 2006; DHHS,
2001; MDE, 2001; Ritchie, Crawford, Hoelscher & Sothern, 2006). School nutrition programs
aim to protect children from the effects of food insecurity and hunger, and to provide nutrition
education as part of a national effort to improve nutrition status and prevent overweight, obesity
and chronic disease among the population (Stang, Taft Bayerl & Flatt, 2006).
Garden-based nutrition interventions, especially within schools, have gained popularity in
recent years (Robinson-Obrien, Story & Heim, 2009). A growing body of literature suggests that
school gardens are useful teaching tools for nutrition educators and that school gardens may
positively impact students’ knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors with regard to fruits and
especially vegetables (Hermann, Parker, Brown, Siewe, Denney & Walker, 2006; McAleese &
Rankin, 2007; Morris, Briggs & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2000; Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr 2002). In
addition to nutrition education, school gardens offer an opportunity for enhancement of academic
instruction. Integration of garden-based activities into classroom lessons allows educators to
promote hands-on nutrition education while also meeting mandated teaching requirements
(Graham, Beall, Lussier, McLaughlin & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr,
2005).

Nutrition education intervention programs that provide hands-on, multidisciplinary

2

activities are recommended over traditional didactic programs and are thought to be more
effective at promoting behavior change (Lytle & Achterberg, 1995).
Although numerous quantitative studies have assessed nutrition outcomes associated with
school garden-based nutrition education (GBNE), few qualitative studies have explored the
school gardening experience with a focus on nutrition. This study provides a unique perspective,
presenting nutrition-related and non nutrition-related outcomes and characteristics associated
with GBNE. Findings from this study suggest that further investigation of nutrition-related
outcomes associated with GBNE may benefit from examination of factors beyond the traditional
realm of nutrition.

1.2 Rationale and Study Aims
The purpose of this study was to understand how school GBNE programs were
experienced by staff and students at two elementary schools in the Midwest. The two school
garden programs included in the study, both partially funded through the USDA Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed), shared a common goal: to increase fruit
and vegetable consumption among children. Additional key goals of SNAP-Ed funded nutrition
education programs include promoting consumption of whole grains and low fat or fat free dairy
products every day, balancing energy intake with energy expenditure, and engaging in daily
physical activity as part of a healthy lifestyle (USDA, 2010).
The focus of this research grew from key points presented by SNAP-Ed funded school
garden-based nutrition educators at a regional round-table discussion of the facilitators and
barriers to GBNE (Scott, 2011). This discussion led to the researcher’s interest in exploring
student and staff experiences with and perceptions of school GBNE. The focus of this study was

3

not to evaluate the behavioral outcomes of GBNE, rather it was to understand participant
experiences with school GBNE programs in the Midwest. This study utilized a grounded-theory
approach and therefore data were collected with a goal of theory development (Corbin & Strauss,
1990).

1.2.1 Study Aims
The following study aims provided a guide for the exploration of student and school staff
experiences with school GBNE.

Study Aim 1: To understand administrator, staff, and student experiences of school-based
gardens in two elementary schools in the Midwest.

Study Aim 2: To understand the roles that these school gardens serve in two elementary
schools in the Midwest.

Study Aim 3: To understand the dynamic relationships between school personnel and how
the garden fits into these relationships.

Study Aim 4: To understand how the student experience of the school gardens compare to
why and how teachers and other staff use the garden.

Study Aim 5: To provide useful information regarding challenges and potential resources that
should be considered when developing a school garden program.

As the process of data collection and analysis progressed, a broad-reaching understanding
of the gardens evolved. The information provided in this thesis, relating to nutrition and beyond,
4

may inform the planning and implementation process, as well as research efforts, for future
school GBNE programs.

1.3 Organization of Thesis
The following chapters include a review of the literature, two manuscripts presenting
findings from the study and a final summary chapter. In the literature review (Chapter Two)
information regarding fruit and vegetable intake as it relates to chronic disease and health
outcomes among children, determinants of fruit and vegetable intake among children, and fruit
and vegetable recommendations and trends will be presented. A brief review of school-based
nutrition intervention programs, especially those that focus on improving fruit and vegetable
intake among children, and a review of garden-based learning will follow. A description of
pertinent quantitative and qualitative studies exploring school gardens will also be provided in
Chapter Two. The first manuscript (Chapter Three) examines perceived outcomes associated
with school GBNE. The second manuscript (Chapter Four) explores facilitators and barriers to
school GBNE. A brief introduction, description of methods and data analysis, presentation of
results, discussion and conclusions will be provided in Chapters Three and Four. In Chapter
Five, findings presented in the previous two chapters will be summarized. Chapter Five will also
include a summary, strengths and limitations and overall conclusions.

5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Fruit and Vegetable Intake
2.1.1 Chronic Disease
Poor diet and physical inactivity contribute to almost 20% of annual deaths in the United
States, second only to tobacco use (Mokdad, Marks, Stroup & Gerberding, 2004). The top three
leading causes of death - heart disease, cancer, and stroke - and the sixth leading cause of death,
diabetes mellitus, have been linked to physical inactivity and poor diet, including inadequate
fruit and vegetable intake (Heron, 2010; Bazzano et al., 2002; Joshipura et al., 2001; He,
Nowson & MacGregor, 2006; Joshipura et al., 1999; Steinmetz & Potter, 1996; Van Duyn &
Pivonka, 2000). Incorporating adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables into the diet not only
displaces energy dense food choices with nutrient dense options; it also provides important
nutrients and phytochemicals that reduce the risk of certain diseases (Duncan, Bacon &
Weinsier, 1983; Kris-Etherton et al., 2004; Hu & Willett, 2002; Epstein et al., 2001; Steinmetz &
Potter, 1991).
Fruit and vegetable intake is protective against cardiovascular disease morbidity and
mortality (Bazzano et al., 2002). In addition, fruits and vegetables provide important nutrients,
including antioxidant vitamins, minerals such as magnesium and potassium, and fiber - which
are believed to play important roles in the dietary prevention of certain cancers and diabetes
mellitus (Joshipura et al., 2001; USDA, 2011a).

Bazanno et al. (2002) analyzed data from

NHEFS, a prospective cohort follow-up study to NHANES-I, and found fruit and vegetable
consumption inversely associated with cardiovascular disease and overall mortality (Bazzano et
al., 2002). Similarly, Joshipura et al. (2001) showed an inverse association between fruit and

6

vegetable consumption and heart disease among men and women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health
Study and the Health Professionals’ Follow Up Study. The most significant dietary contributors
to the protective effect of fruits and vegetables against the development of heart disease were
green leafy vegetables and vitamin-C rich fruits and vegetables (Joshipura et al., 2001). Boeing
et al. (2006) found an inverse relationship between both fruit and vegetable consumption and the
incidence of cancer in the upper aero-digestive tract, and Voorips et al. (2000) showed an inverse
relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and the incidence of lung cancer (Boeing et al.,
2006; Voorips et al., 2000). In a study by Sargeant et al. (2001), fruit and green leafy vegetable
intake was inversely associated with glycosylated hemoglobin levels among adults. This
association was found after adjustment for dietary fiber and saturated fat and plasma vitamin-C
levels (Sargeant et al., 2001).

2.1.2 Related Health Outcomes in Children
Poor diet, and in particular, inadequate fruit and vegetable intake has been associated
with impaired health, growth, and development during childhood (Nicklas & Johnson, 2004;
DHHS, 1996). Chronic diseases once considered diseases of adulthood are increasingly prevalent
among youth. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, atherosclerotic lesions, and
hypertension, conditions linked with poor diet, including inadequate fruit and vegetable intake,
continue to rise among adolescents (Pinhas-Hamiel, Dolan, Daniels, Standiford, Khoury &
Zeitler, 1996; Soraf & Daniels, 2002; Berenson, Srinivasan & Nicklas, 1998; DHHS, 1996).
Eating patterns adopted during childhood track into adulthood (Nicklas et al., 2001;
Westenhoefer, 2002; Fischer & Birch, 2001; Mikkila et al., 2005; Singer et al., 1995).

7

Therefore, it is important to achieve adequate fruit and vegetable intake patterns during
childhood in order to establish lifelong intake of these beneficial foods.
In addition to its physiological effects, diet influences psychosocial factors, such as
behavior, mood, and academic performance of children. Florence et al. (2008) examined diet
quality indices of over 5,000 fifth-grade students. Diet quality scores, and indices of fruit and
vegetable intake in particular, were positively associated with standardized literacy assessment
scores. Additionally, dietary variety and adequacy were significantly associated with academic
performance (Florence, Asbridge & Veugelers, 2008). Kleinman et al. (1998) examined data
from the Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project. The data included parental
responses to survey questions that indicated both the level of food insufficiency and hunger and
the emotional and behavioral symptoms of their child. Children who experienced hunger were
significantly more likely to be classified with psychosocial dysfunction, based on a validated
Pediatric Symptom Checklist, than children who were not identified as experiencing hunger
(Kleinman et al., 1998). In another study, Kleinman et al. (2002) examined students’ nutrient
intake and academic performance scores before and after participating in a universal school
breakfast program (USBP). Students who improved their nutrient intake the most through the
USBP showed a significant decrease in reported hunger and absences, and an improvement in
mathematics scores (Kleinman et al., 2002). These findings support the concept that sufficient
food intake among children, and especially adequate intake of healthy foods such as fruits and
vegetables, leads to improvements in multiple aspects of child health and development.

8

2.1.3 Determinants of Intake and Models of Behavior Change
The determinants of fruit and vegetable intake among children vary. Environmental
factors such as access and availability play a role as well as personal factors such as preference
and knowledge (Blanchette & Brug, 2005; Brug, Tak, te Velde, Bere & de Bourdeaudhuij,
2008).
Fruits and vegetables are important constituents of a healthy diet; however, many
children live in households without reliable and safe access to such foods. In 2009, 17.2 million
children lived in food insecure households in the United States. Of the 17.2 million children
living in food insecure households, 5.4 million children lived in households with very low food
security. In terms of children actually experiencing the effects of household food insecurity, in
2009, 9 million children lived in households in which children directly experienced food
insecurity. Of these 9 million children experiencing food insecurity, 988,000 children lived in
households in which children directly experienced very low food security (USDA ERS, 2011).
The term “Very Low Food Security” recently replaced the term, “Food Insecurity with Hunger”.
Very low food secure children experience disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake as a
result of not having enough food in the household (USDA ERS, 2011; FRAC 2009). Household
food insecurity has been linked with a decreased intake of fruits and vegetables and associated
nutrients such as vitamin C and potassium (Kendall, Olson & Frongillo, 1996; Kaiser et al.,
2003).
In addition to environmental factors, such as home access to fruits and vegetables,
personal and behavioral factors such as individual preference, attitude, behavior, skill, and
knowledge influence fruit and vegetable intake (Blanchette & Brug, 2005; Brug et al., 2008;
Resnicow et al., 1997; Cullen, Baranowski, Owens, Marsh, Rittenberry & de Moor, 2003).

9

It is recommended for nutrition educators and researchers to design nutrition intervention
programs based on established theoretical models (Contento, 1995a; Contento, 1995b; Contento,
2007). Numerous nutrition interventions, including many GBNE programs, are based on the
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). As described by Contento (2007), the SCT is useful within a
nutritional context. The SCT, posits that three main factors, which are reciprocal in nature, work
together to influence nutrition-related behavior, including fruit and vegetable intake. Personal
factors, such as outcome expectations and self-efficacy; behavioral factors, such as nutrition
knowledge and skills; and environmental factors, including external surroundings that cannot be
changed or those that can be modified, directly affect each other in a balance known as
reciprocal determinism. Together, these factors also influence nutrition behavior (Lytle &
Achterberg, 1995; Contento, 2007).
In a study examining the determinants of fruit and vegetable intake of over 1,000 thirdgrade students, Resnicow et al. (1997) found associations between fruit and vegetable intake and
several SCT constructs. Preference and positive outcome expectations were significantly
associated with fruit and vegetable intake (Resnicow et al., 1997). Cullen et al. (2003) showed a
significant positive association between fruit and vegetable intake and home accessibility and
availability among fourth through sixth graders. They also showed a significant positive
association between fruit and vegetable intake and preference (Cullen et al., 2003).
Garden-based nutrition interventions, especially those with a goal of increased fruit and
vegetable intake, often depend on the SCT as a theoretical framework for intervention planning,
implementation and evaluation, proposing that such interventions lead to improved personal,
behavioral, and environmental factors with regard to fruit and vegetable intake (Morris
Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002; Heim, Stang & Ireland, 2009; Ratcliffe, Merrigan, Rogers & Goldberg,

10

2009; Morgan, Warren, Lubans, Saunders, Quick & Collins, 2010). Models that include a wide
range of behavioral determinants, including individual, environmental, and societal factors, must
be considered when working to understand and improve child and adolescent nutrition behaviors
(Story, Neumark-Sztainer & French, 2002).
The Knowledge-Attitude-Behavior (KAB) model has also been used as a framework for
garden-based nutrition interventions. According to this model, increased nutrition knowledge
leads to attitude change, which, in turn, may lead to nutrition-related behavior change. Several
recent studies exploring the outcomes of GBNE have applied constructs from the KAB model,
although they do not name the model as their theoretical foundation (Somerset & Markwell,
2009; Parmer, Salisbury-Glennon, Shannon Struempler, 2009). As noted by Contento (2007),
various types of knowledge, including “how to” and “why to” knowledge, may be measured
using the KAB approach. Understanding the recommendations for intake of a particular food
group, being able to decipher the meaning of a food label, or knowing where food comes from, is
known as instrumental knowledge, or “how to” knowledge. Instrumental knowledge leads to
outcome benefits only for individuals who are already interested in and motivated to change their
behavior. Understanding why fruits and vegetables promote health, what benefit calcium imparts
to children and teens, or why sweets should be eaten in moderation is known as “why to”
knowledge (Contento, 2007). Contento posits that “why to” knowledge, as opposed to “how to”
knowledge, leads to changes in attitudes and behaviors because “why to” knowledge provides a
direct link to consequences of a certain behavior. In other words, “why to” knowledge is linked
to outcome expectations, which play a role in the SCT and other health behavior theories
(Contento, 2007).

11

2.1.4 Recommendations and Trends
A practitioner searching for precise intake recommendations on which to base a nutrition
education program may be surprised at the milieu of overlapping guidelines and
recommendations available to the public. With regard to fruit and vegetable intake, however, one
piece of advice remains constant: more is better. According to the USDA MyPyramid for Kids
(2011), children between the ages of 4 and 18 years should consume between 1½ to 3 cups of
vegetables and between 1 to 2 cups of fruit per day. The USDA emphasizes increased vegetable
variety, recommending consumption of vegetables from all five subgroups—dark green, orange,
dry beans and peas, starchy and other—on a weekly basis (USDA, 2011b). Fruits and vegetables
constitute about 1/3 of the area of the MyPyramid for Kids, indicating that these foods should
represent a substantial portion of a child’s diet.
The USDA and DHHS recently released a revised set of national dietary
recommendations- the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: 2010. The recommendations provided
in the revised guidelines do not emphasize specific amounts or portions of fruits and vegetables.
Rather, the new guidelines simply state that fruit and vegetable intake should be increased
(USDA, 2010a). The DHHS (2010) also addresses fruit and vegetable intake in Healthy People
2020, a set of national objectives designed to improve the health of all Americans. In this
document, Nutrition and Weight Status (NWS) Objectives 2.2 and 15 focus on fruit and
vegetable intake. NWS Objective 2.2 falls under the Healthier Food Access category and gives a
target of “18.6 percent of school districts requiring schools to make fruits and vegetables
available whenever other foods are offered or served.” NWS Objective 15 falls under the Food
and Nutrient Consumption category and gives a target intake of “0.3 cup equivalents of dark
green vegetables, orange vegetables or legumes per 1000 calories for individuals 2 years or

12

older” (DHHS, 2010b). For the prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases such as diabetes,
heart disease and hypertension, the NCI (2010) recommends an intake of 2 to 5 servings of fruits
and 2 to 8 servings of vegetables (especially dark green and orange vegetables, and legumes) per
day (DHHS, 2010d).
Although agencies from national to local levels continue to promote increased fruit and
vegetable intake, national data show that American children consume less than the recommended
amounts of these foods (Guenther et al., 2006). According to the 1999-2000 NHANES, fewer
than 20% of children aged 4-13 years of age consumed 5 or more servings of fruits and
vegetables per day. On average, males aged 9-13 years ate 1.2 servings of fruit and 2.4 servings
of vegetables (total of 3.6 servings) per day. Females aged 9-13 years ate 1.3 servings of fruit
and 2.5 servings of vegetables (total of 3.8 servings) per day (Guenther et al., 2006). Despite the
protective effects of dark green and orange vegetables and legumes against cancer and other
chronic diseases, intake of these foods was lacking among children as well. On average, males
aged 9-13 years ate 0.1 servings of dark green vegetables and 0.1 servings of orange vegetables
per day. The recommended servings per day of dark green and orange vegetables among
individuals in this group is 0.9 and 0.6 servings respectively. On average, females aged 9-13
years ate 0.1 servings of dark green vegetables and 0.1 servings of orange vegetables per day.
The recommended servings per day of dark green and orange vegetables among individuals this
group is 0.6 and 0.4 servings respectively (Guenther et al., 2006).
Given the low level of fruit and vegetable intake among American children, it is not
surprising that childrens’ intake of nutrients associated with these foods also falls below
recommended levels. According to the 1999-2000 NHANES, childrens’ intake of numerous

13

nutrients, including vitamins A and C, and folate did not meet recommendations (Ervin, Wright,
Wang & Kennedy-Stephenson, 2004).

2.2 School-Based Interventions
Schools are ideal settings for interventions that promote positive lifestyle choices,
including healthy eating and physical activity, among youth (French & Stables, 2003; Briggs &
Safai, 2003; Story et al., 2006; Sallis et al., 2003; Lytle et al., 1996; Baranowski et al., 2000a).
However, numerous practical challenges exist with regard to implementation and evaluation of
school-based nutrition and health intervention programs (Baranowski et al., 2000b; Basch,
Sliepcevich, Gold, Duncan & Kolbe, 1985). Successful school-based intervention programs
foster acceptance and engagement among key participants and stakeholders, including teachers
and administrators. Consistent delivery of intervention components, as well as appropriate
monitoring, evaluation and improvement methods are important factors for the success of
school-based intervention programs (Basch et al., 1985; DHHS, 2001).

2.3 School Gardens
Due to the importance of fruit and vegetable intake, especially during childhood and
adolescence, school garden programs have become a means through which nutrition educators
promote fruit and vegetable consumption among youth (Robinson-Obrien et al., 2009). In the
following section, the theoretical foundations of garden-based learning, a brief history of school
gardens and nutrition outcomes and experiences associated with school gardens will be
discussed.

14

2.3.1 Introduction to Garden-Based Learning

2.3.1.1 Garden-Based Learning and Experiential Education
Gardens provide an opportunity for students to engage in direct, hands-on experiences, a
defining characteristic of experiential education. According to the Association for Experiential
Education (2011), experiential education leads to increased knowledge and skill development
through a process by which students engage in direct experiences (AEE, 2011). John Dewey, an
early proponent of experiential education, believed that learning must always be accompanied by
hands-on experience and that every learning experience serves as context for future learning
experiences (Dewey, 1916; Dewey, 1938).
According to Kolb’s (1984) theory of experiential learning, observations and reflections
made during experience-based learning lead first to an abstract understanding of the experience
at hand, followed by an application of newly understood concepts in novel situations (Kolb,
1984). Therefore, connecting students with hands-on learning experiences, garden-based
education may have the ability to foster a process through which abstract ideas become tangible
and are applied beyond the original learning setting. Kolb also explained that learning is a
reciprocal process through which the learner is influenced by the environment and the
environment is in turn influenced by the learner (Kolb, 1984). This concept, also known as
reciprocal determinism, is a key component within several models of behavior change, including
the Social Cognitive Theory and the Social Ecological Perspective (Contento, 2007; Story et al.,
2002).
Carver (1996) explains that experiential education involves integrating students’
experiences into curriculum and that experience includes a combination of senses, emotions,

15

physical condition and cognition (Carver, 1996). By establishing an environment through which
students may engage in experience-based education, educators enhance the physical and social
context for learning. Contextualized learning leads to several student-level outcomes: (1)
personal agency, (2) a sense of belonging, and (3) competence (Carver, 1996). Personal agency,
as described by Carver, is similar to the Social Cognitive Theory’s concept of self-efficacy,
described in a nutritional context by Contento (Contento, 1995). Competence is similar to the
concept of behavioral factors included in the Social Cognitive Theory. Such behavioral factors
include knowledge and behavioral skill (Contento, 1995). In light of these similarities,
experiential education influences student behavior through processes that span theoretical
boundaries.
Experiential education has been shown to impart a host of positive outcomes with regard
to standards-based academic performance. In a study exploring the outcomes of environmental
education, a type of experiential education, Liberman and Hoody (1998) demonstrated that
students who engaged in hands-on learning exhibited improved performance in reading, writing,
mathematics, science and social studies. Students also exhibited a sense of pride and ownership
in their work, which led to personal empowerment and investment in their communities
(Liberman & Hoody, 1998).

2.3.1.2 Garden-Based Learning and the Importance of Place
Garden-based learning, a form of environment-based experiential education, nurtures a
developing sense of place among students (Thorp, 2006). By developing an understanding of and
appreciation for place, or one’s natural environment, a learner also develops a context through
which to interpret and apply abstract concepts introduced in the traditional classroom setting

16

(Orr, 1992). The exploration of one’s environment is a multi-disciplinary experience. Nature
does not subdivide itself by discipline; therefore, an exploration of one’s natural environment
leads to an educational experience that transcends curricular boundaries (Orr, 1992; Sobel, 2004;
Thorp, 2006). In light of the place-based nature of garden-based education, it is not surprising
that gardens offer opportunities for academic instruction across the curriculum (Graham et al.,
2005a; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b; Thorp, 2006).
In her account of a Midwestern school’s experience with a garden, Thorp (2006)
explained that children at the school lacked a connection to place:
Largely, these children were dis-placed people, through no fault of their own, never able
to truly inhabit a place. They did not have access to nature, nor were they given the
freedom and time to ‘soak in a place’ as Paul Shepard (1977) says is so necessary for
healthy human development. (Thorp, 2006, p. 38)
Thorp went on to explain that the school garden provided an opportunity for experiential learning
to children who lacked experiences in the natural world.
For the children of Jonesville School, the garden provided a complex, living
environment, ripe for experiential learning. The teachers often stressed the importance of
the garden as a space for children to expand their life experiences, a place to interact with
nature increasingly absent in their lives. (Thorp, 2006, p. 49)
The efficacy of gardens as a means to deliver nutrition education, and in turn, effect
behavior change, may stem from the experiential and place-based nature of learning that occurs
in the garden.

17

2.3.2 Green Spaces, Gardens and Interpersonal Relationships
Green spaces, including garden environments, can have a powerful effect on
interpersonal relationships. The presence of trees and vegetation has been shown to increase
direct interactions between youth and adults because high levels of vegetation increase the
likelihood of a space being jointly occupied by children and adults (Coley, Sullivan & Kuo,
1997). Children who play in spaces with high levels of vegetation are twice as likely to have
access to adult attention than children of similar demographics who play in barren spaces
(Taylor, Wiley, Kuo & Sullivan, 1998). In a study conducted among community gardeners in
Flint, Michigan, gardens had a positive effect on intergenerational relationships and peer
relationships between youth (Ober Allen, Alaimo, Elam & Perry, 2008). A compelling outcome
noted in the Flint study was the community garden’s ability to shift adult perceptions about
spending time with youth. The garden served as a liaison, facilitating interaction between
neighborhood youth and adults who previously may not have been interested in such interactions
(Ober Allen et al., 2008).

2.3.3 Gardens in Schools

2.3.3.1 History of School Gardens
Support for gardens in schools is not a new concept. Scholars and practitioners across
disciplines support the use of gardens in education. Erasmus Schwab, a late nineteenth century
Austrian philosopher and educator, believed that school gardens fostered practical and
intellectual curiosity in learners:

18

A judicious and well planned school garden will surely solve an essential part of the
problem of the people’s education, and help to educate an intelligent and circumspect
working power, which, accustomed to ask the what the how and the why upon every
subject, will cultivate a correct judgment upon those things and relations in life with
which they have to do. (Schwab, 1879, p. 25)

In the early 1900’s, shortly after the widespread establishment of school gardens in
Europe, school gardens in the United States gained increasing popularity. Fannie G Parsons, an
early supporter of school gardens worked to establish the De Witt Clinton School Farm, in west
Manhattan, New York. She explained that the garden filled a gap in experience for urban
children: "City children are enclosed amid bricks, stone, concrete, trolleys, trucks, and
automobiles; and are therefore 'alienated' from their human birthright of trees, fields, and
flowers" (New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, 2011; Parsons in: Carter, 2010).

Figure 1. Children at the De Witt Clinton School Farm, circa 1902 (New York City Department
of Parks and Recreation, 2011)

19

The similarities between observations made by Schwab and Parsons, early supporters of
school gardens, and contemporary supporters of experiential, place-based learning, including
Kolb, Carver, Orr, Sobel and Thorp, give rise to the notion that school gardens and environmentbased education carry with them a sort of timelessness, with benefits that reach across cultures
and span generations.
In 1914, the United States government created the Office of School and Home
Gardening, part of the United States Bureau of Education. The wartime experience led to further
national support for school gardens. The United States School Garden Army was established
during WWI with a goal of increasing food production and conservation and “to help in the
World War and world peace” (Hayden-Smith, 2006; Carter 2010).

Figure 2: Poster promoting the United States School Garden Army, circa 1919? (Barney, M. W.
E.)

20

Figure 3: Children and their teacher in a school victory garden in New York, NY. circa 1944
(Meyer, ca. 1944)

Today, the popularity of school gardens continues to grow (Robinson-Obrien et al.,
2009). According to Constance Carter (2010), the head of the science reference section at the
Library of Congress, between the years 2000 and 2010 the number of requests by educators for
materials on school gardening increased eightfold (Carter, 2010).

2.3.3.2 School Gardens Today
A resurgence of school gardening in the United States began during the environmental
movement of the 1970’s and led to a state-by-state approach to support for gardening in schools.
California, one of the first to promote school gardens at the statewide level, provided start-up
funds in the late 1990’s to help interested schools establish gardens (Ozer, 2007; Blair, 2009).
Since then, educators in California and other states have integrated gardening into core curricular
subject areas as well as nutrition education, school food production and extracurricular activities

21

(Graham et al., 2005a; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b; Ozer, 2007; Blair, 2009; National
Gardening Association, 2011).
In a study conducted among school principals from California, Graham et al. (2005a)
found that gardens were used predominantly in K-8 schools. Within these schools, gardens were
used most frequently for academic instruction and extracurricular activities. According to the
study participants, science, environmental studies and nutrition were the subjects most
commonly taught through the use of school gardens (Graham et al., 2005a). The principals
reported that schools lacked resources linking garden-based learning to mandated curriculum and
that schools lacked GBNE curricula. For schools without gardens, lack of funding and lack of
time for garden-based education were the most significant barriers to having a school garden
(Graham et al., 2005a).
Graham and Zidenberg-Cherr (2005b) conducted an additional survey among fourthgrade teachers in California to assess use of school gardens and to understand teachers’ attitudes
about school gardening. According to the teachers, the most common reason for having a school
garden was academic instruction. Science, nutrition, environmental studies, language arts,
mathematics and agricultural studies were the most frequently taught subjects (Graham &
Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b). Teachers also believed that school gardens enhanced learning of social
skills. Teachers’ perceived barriers to having or using school gardens were lack of time, lack of
interest or experience, and lack of resources linking garden-based learning with mandated
curriculum. Teachers also indicated that access to garden-based nutrition curricula would
facilitate their use of gardens in academic instruction (Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b).
In Michigan, many school and community garden-based educators and researchers also
perceived a deficit in resources linking nutrition and core curricular subjects to garden-based

22

learning (Scott, 2011). The evident need for concrete links between curricular subject instruction,
nutrition education and garden-based learning led to a systematic review and compilation of
existing garden-based curricula (Scott, 2011). This compilation, now known as MyGarden™,
links individual garden-based lessons with core curricular subject areas by grade level.
MyGarden™ also provides a description of key characteristics of lessons in existing gardenbased curricula, including lesson objectives, intended grade level and group size, seasonality,
indoor vs. outdoor and whether the lesson promotes USDA SNAP-Ed key behavioral outcomes.
The key behavioral outcomes associated with USDA SNAP-Ed funding include: adequate intake
of fruits and vegetables, whole grains and low fat or fat free dairy products every day; balancing
energy intake with energy expenditure; and engaging in daily physical activity as part of a
healthy lifestyle (USDA, 2010). Development of a resource linking existing garden-based
curricula and the Michigan Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCE’s) is also underway.
Tables 1 and 2 provide examples of information included in the MyGarden™ review. Several of
the curricula included in the MyGarden™ review, including the example provided in Table 2, are
currently in use by the one of the school garden programs included in this case-study.
Educators seeking innovative strategies for teaching mandated curricular subjects in ways
that enhance deep meaningful learning may be attracted to the potential academic, social and
personal benefits that accompany garden-based learning in schools. School gardens have been
linked with improved academic achievement scores in science and increased student interest in
learning across curricular subjects (Canaris, 1995; Klemmer, Waliczek & Zajicek, 2005; Dirks &
Orivs, 2005).

23

Table 1. My Garden™ Lesson Titles, Subjects Covered and Grade Level (Adapted from Scott, 2011)
Grade Level

Lesson Title

Subject

Kindergarten

The Healthy Alpha-Garden

English and Language Arts

1

Carrot Fun

English and Language Arts

2

Follow the Drinking Gourd

English and Language Arts

Kindergarten

Shape Garden

Math

1

Graphing Garden

Math

2

Cool Beans!

Math

Kindergarten

Square Foot Garden

Science

1

Healthy Beans

Science

2

Wonder Garden of Health

Science

Kindergarten

The Giving Garden

Social Studies

1

Garden Map

Social Studies

2

GWC, Master Gardener

Social Studies

24

Table 2. My Garden™ Nutrition Resource and Lesson Review (Adapted from Scott, 2011)
Resource Title

Nutrition to Grow On

Lesson Title

Nutrients We Need

Page

27

Lesson Objective (as stated)

Emphasize the similarities between humans and plants
in their need for nutrients, learn about classes of
nutrients, learn how to identify good food sources of
nutrient, how plants provide us nutrients, and
vermicomposting.

Target Age/Grade Level
Group Size

4 -6 grades
10-20 or 20-40

Prep Time

1 hr +

Required Background/Information
Provided?

Yes

Specialty Materials Required

Worm bin or similar substitute

Region Climate Bias

None

Season

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter

Indoor or Outdoor

Indoor

Assessment Tools Included

Yes - Quiz

Suggestions or Adaptations for
English Language Learners

No

Suggestions or Adaptations for Special
Education

No

Worksheets Provided

Yes

Garden Based/Food Based/Physical
Activity Based

Garden Based, Food Based

Lesson Promotes these USDA
SNAP Ed Concepts

Eat Fruits and Vegetables, whole grains, and non-fat or
low-fat milk or milk products every day

Behavior Change/Skill
Development/Increased Knowledge

Skill Development, Increased Knowledge

th th

25

2.3.4 Garden-Based Nutrition Education - Nutrition Outcomes Overview
The peer-reviewed body of literature exploring the nutrition-related outcomes of GBNE
is growing. Findings indicate that in-school and extracurricular GBNE improves students’
nutrition knowledge, skills, attitudes and behavior, as well as the school environment, with
regard to vegetables and fruit. The Social Cognitive Theory and the Knowledge-AttitudeBehavior models are commonly used to guide implementation and evaluation of GBNE
programs (Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002; Heim et al., 2009; Ratcliffe et al., 2009; Morgan et
al., 2010; Contento, 2007; Somerset & Markwell, 2009; Parmer et al., 2009).
Despite promising results, intervention studies involving school gardens have
encountered challenges in implementation and evaluation. Challenges include inconsistent
nutrition lesson content and dose, teacher and staff participation, and adherence to intervention
activities (McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Somerset & Markwell, 2008). These challenges are not
uncommon to health and nutrition intervention studies conducted in schools (Baranowski et al.,
2000b; Basch et al., 1985). Since teacher and other school staff participation are variables that
may influence the content, dose and long-term sustainability of a school GBNE program,
researchers and practitioners must work to understand the expectations and attitudes of these
participants during each step of the school garden planning and implementation process.
Limited duration of study implementation also poses a challenge to school garden-based
intervention studies (McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Somerset & Markwell, 2008; Parmer et. al,
2009; Ratcliffe et al., 2011; Morgan et al., 2010). Studies that focus on extended exposure to
school GBNE may provide more meaningful results.

26

2.3.4.1 Nutrition Outcomes – Knowledge and Attitudes
A growing body of literature suggests that GBNE leads to increased preference for and
knowledge of fruits and vegetables among children. Lineberger & Zajicek (2000) implemented a
garden-based nutrition curriculum with third- and fifth-grade students at five elementary schools
in Texas. Teachers at the five intervention schools were responsible for implementing the
curriculum, consisting of 10 units with 34 total activities. Fruit and vegetable preference were
measured using a validated fruit and vegetable preference questionnaire. After participating in
the intervention, students’ vegetable preference scores significantly increased compared to pretest scores (p<0.05) and students were more likely to choose a fruit or vegetable snack (p<0.05)
(Lineberger & Zajicek, 2000). Fruit preference did not change after the intervention; however
students’ fruit preference was high at pretest, possibly explaining the lack of improvement. The
lack of a control school was a limitation of the study. The presence of a true control (no
intervention) and a control for gardening (nutrition education with no garden) would have
strengthened the results. However, as an early contribution to the literature on nutrition outcomes
of school gardens, the study provided a useful guide for further research (Heim et al., 2009;
Parmer et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010).
In a second study, conducted by Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr (2002), students from a
control school, students from a school where classroom-based nutrition lessons were delivered
(NL), and student from a school where garden-based nutrition lessons were delivered (NL+G)
were compared. The lessons taught at the NL and NL+G schools were identical, with the
presence of a school garden as the only experimental difference between the two intervention
schools. Lessons were delivered by a study investigator and nutrition knowledge and vegetable
preference were measured pre- and post-intervention using a nutrition knowledge questionnaire

27

and a vegetable preference survey (Morris& Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002). After intervention, posttest preference scores for carrots and broccoli (common vegetables) at the NL and NL+G schools
were significantly higher than post-test preference scores for those vegetables at the control
school (p<0.05). Post-test preference scores were not significantly different between the NL and
NL+G schools for carrots and broccoli, indicating that participation in garden-based lessons did
not lead to an additional increase in preference for carrots and broccoli, beyond the effects of the
indoor lessons. The results differed, however, for student preference for less common vegetables;
post-test preference scores for zucchini and snow peas at the NL+G school were significantly
higher than post-test preference scores at both the NL and control schools (Morris & ZidenbergCherr, 2002). These results suggest that participation in GBNE may lead to increased vegetable
preference for vegetables that are less commonly encountered by children. A strength of this
study was the presence of an overall control school and a school that received nutrition lessons
with no gardening.
In a study conducted by Somerset & Markwell (2008), a historical control study design
measured outcomes of integrating a school garden into regularly scheduled classroom lessons.
After one year of weekly gardening activities, students were better able to identify 21 out of 30
fruits and vegetables (p-values ranged for the 21 individual fruits and vegetables between p<0.05
to p<0.001). Based on responses to an “attitudes questionnaire”, it was determined that
th th

participation in garden-based learning significantly increased 4 -6
th th

preference for vegetables. In addition, 5 -7

grade students taste

grade students showed a significant shift in

subjective norm regarding peer consumption of fruits and vegetables (Somerset & Markwell,
2008).

28

Several additional studies link school GBNE with improvements in nutrition knowledge
and preference for fruits and vegetables among children. In a study comparing students who
received garden-based nutrition lessons (NL+G), classroom-based nutrition lesson (NL), and no
nutrition lessons, Parmer et al. (2009) showed that fruit and vegetable identification increased for
students in both intervention groups (Parmer et al., 2009).
In a quasi-experimental, 10-week, garden-based nutrition intervention study, Morgan et
al. (2010) compared students from a control school to students from an intervention school.
Students at the intervention school were subdivided into two groups: garden-based nutrition
education (NL+G) and classroom-based nutrition education (NL). Students from the NL+G
group were better able to identify vegetables after the intervention than students from the NL and
control groups (p<0.001). A similar treatment effect was found for willingness to try several
vegetables: peppers (p=0.04), broccoli (p=0.01), tomato (p<0.001), and pea (p<0.001); in
addition to students’ preference to eat broccoli and peas as a snack (p<0.001) (Morgan et al.,
2010).
In a final study, conducted by Ratcliffe et al. (2011), students from two schools with
gardens were compared with students from a control school. The intervention consisted of four
months (13 hours total) of garden-based lessons integrated into regularly scheduled science
lessons. After the four month intervention period, students from the intervention schools were
significantly more likely to properly identify vegetables than students from the control school
(p=0.002) (Ratcliffe et al., 2011). In addition to an increase in knowledge (vegetable
identification), participation in garden-based learning was associated with a significant increase
in preference for vegetables, in general (p=0.029) and for the specific kinds of vegetables grown
in the garden (p=0.017). These studies provide compelling evidence identifying school gardens

29

as a means to improve students’ nutrition-related knowledge and attitudes, especially with regard
to fruit and vegetable identification and preference for vegetables.

2.3.4.2 Nutrition Outcomes – Behavior
Current use of gardens in schools can be attributed, in part, to their ability to promote
healthy eating among students. Until recently, much of the evidence supporting this benefit has
been anecdotal, with a paucity of peer-reviewed literature to accompany claims of behavior
change (Robinson-Obrien et al., 2009). Within the past decade, however, numerous studies have
examined behavioral outcomes of school gardening. These studies suggest that school gardenbased nutrition interventions improve students’ fruit and vegetable intake (Herman et al., 2006;
McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Heim et al., 2009; Parmer et al., 2009; Ratcliffe et al., 2011).
Students’ self-described vegetable intake was assessed by Hermann et al. (2006) in a
study that utilized a pre-test - post-test, nonrandomized design. Before and after the
implementation of an after-school GBNE program, students were asked to respond to the
following statement: “I eat vegetables every day,” with “yes”, “sometimes,” and “no” as
response options. After participating in the intervention, the number of students who reported
eating vegetables every day significantly increased (p<0.02) (Hermann et al., 2006).
McAleese & Rankin (2007) compared students from a control school, students from a
school receiving nutrition lessons only (NL), and students from a school receiving nutrition
lessons with hands-on garden experience (NL+G). Food intake was measured pre- and postintervention via repeated 24-hr recall workbooks. The workbooks were administered by
classroom teachers who had received standardized training for administering the recalls
(McAleese & Rankin, 2007). The recalls were analyzed for daily servings of fruits and

30

vegetables and daily intake of vitamins A, C, and fiber. Students who participated in hands-on
gardening (NL+G) significantly increased their intake of fruits (p<0.001), vegetables (p<0.001),
vitamins A (p=0.004), C (p=0.016), and fiber (p=0.001) compared with students who received
classroom-based nutrition lessons and students from the control group.
In a study conducted by Parmer et al. (2009), nutrition outcomes of a 28-week gardenbased nutrition intervention were measured among students within one school. Three groups of
second-graders were assigned, by class, to a control group, nutrition lessons only group (NL),
and a nutrition lessons with gardening group (NL+G). Six classes, two classes in each group,
participated. Both intervention groups received the same lessons from existing nutrition
curricula. Therefore, the only experimental difference between the two intervention groups was
the integration of hands-on garden activities (Parmer et al., 2009). Fruit and vegetable intake was
measured via lunchroom observation. This method involved the investigator recording what type
of lunch each student selected (school lunch, grab-and-go, or home lunch), what vegetable items
were selected, and whether students’ consumed the majority of the vegetables in their lunches.
Students who participated in hands-on gardening increased their selection of vegetables from the
school lunch (p<0.01) between pre-test and post-test compared with students who received only
nutrition lessons and control students (Parmer et al., 2009). This study is unique in that it is the
only study, to date, using lunchroom observation to measure vegetable intake as an outcome of
school gardening.
In a pre-test – post-test design, nonrandomized study conducted by Heim et al. (2009),
th

th

4 through 6 grade students engaged in GBNE at an extra-curricular summer camp. Following
the twelve week intervention, students reported an increase in the number of vegetables ever

31

eaten (p<0.001) and in the number of fruits ever eaten (p<0.02). Students home asking behavior
for fruits and vegetables also increased (p<0.002) post intervention (Heim et al., 2009).
Ratcliffe et al. (2011) also examined fruit and vegetable intake as an outcome of school
gardening. At two garden-based intervention schools and one control school, a taste test
questionnaire and validated Garden Vegetables Frequency Questionnaire (GVFQ) were used to
assess variety of vegetable consumption (Ratcliffe et al., 2011). According to the GVFQ,
students who participated in the garden significantly increased the variety of vegetables
consumed more than once a month, both for vegetables grown in the garden (p=0.005) and
vegetables not grown in the garden (p=0.001), compared with the control group. Additionally,
according to the taste test questionnaire, students who participated in the garden significantly
increased the variety of vegetables eaten at school compared with students who did not
participate in the garden (p=0.01) (Ratcliffe et al., 2011).
These findings indicate that school gardens impart positive outcomes on eating behaviors
of children.

2.3.5 Qualitative Exploration of School Gardens
Qualitative studies provide a nuanced understanding of the school garden experience.
While fruit and vegetable intake or nutrition knowledge may be measured using quantitative
questionnaires and surveys, the day to day joys and frustrations associated with school gardening
are more difficult to assess using quantitative methods. A multiple-choice survey cannot record
the expression that flashes across a child’s face after she tastes her first radish, still cool from the
dirt, and realizes that she wants more. Quantitative instruments overlook the calm that settles
over a classroom of rowdy first-graders as they sit in the October sun and harvest basil seeds

32

from brittle pods. These valuable data must be considered in order to fully understand the
experience and impact of school gardens.
Several qualitative studies provide insight on the benefits and challenges associated with
school gardening. Alexander et al. (1995) described the benefits of an elementary school garden
in Texas. Benefits included moral development, academic learning, parent/child/community
interaction, pleasant experiences and the influence of the Master Gardener. Teachers, the school
administrator and parents supported the school garden because of its ability to motivate students
to attend school and to learn. The garden also enriched students’ school experience by bringing
caring non-related adults into the school (Alexander, North & Hendren, 1995). Lack of time was
mentioned as a barrier to school gardening. This barrier appears throughout the literature
(Graham et al., 2005a; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b).
Canaris (1995) described the outcomes of an elementary school garden in Vermont. Her
report is unique in that Canaris was a teacher from the school. Canaris provided a rich
description of the development and evolution of her school’s garden (Canaris, 1995). The garden
program was established in response to a parent’s concern about unhealthy snacks offered at the
school. The concerned parent, also a local farmer, was motivated to help the school establish a
garden, not only to promote healthy eating among students, but also to instill in the children a
sense of respect for and understanding of agriculture (Canaris, 1995). The garden was integrated
into academic instruction; however the main focus of the school garden was the experience of
growing, processing, and eating healthy food. In the fall of the garden’s first growing season,
students and parents canned 85 pints of dilly beans; and an in-class crock style pickling project
became a tradition for the students. After participating in processing food from the garden,
students decided to write to local businesses, requesting donations of healthy foods to

33

complement their garden produce. Lessons from the garden expanded well beyond a place to
grow and eat fruits and vegetables. Here, the garden served as a contextual learning experience
through which the students developed writing and communication skills (Canaris, 1995).
Scientific inquiry was also a component of the garden experience. Exercises in hypothesis
development and testing accompanied these hands-on learning opportunities. Children, teachers,
parents and community members shared a sense of pride and ownership in the school’s garden
(Canaris, 1995).
Thorp (2001) studied an elementary school’s experience with a garden in the Midwest.
The goal of her research, a participatory ethnography, was to understand the impact of an
agricultural education-based school garden on students’ relationship with food and nature. An
additional goal of the study was to explore the impact that the garden had on teachers’ ability to
engage students in the learning process. Thorp employed a naturalistic approach to recursive data
collection and analysis (Thorp, 2001).
Recognized by students as “The Garden Lady,” Thorp described a state of grace and
gratefulness and a communal sense of pride and identity born from the garden. The garden also
fed the creative energy of students and teachers. Thorp described teachers’ assertion that true
structured learning was difficult to plan and achieve and that often, the most meaningful learning
opportunities presented themselves spontaneously, described as “planning in the doorway”
(Thorp, 2001, p. 354). Thorp found that teachers valued the garden because it allowed them to
make cross-curricular connections. She described a disconnect between the garden and rigid
academic boundaries, “I have come to believe that the garden is a portal through the confines of
disciplinarity. Corn seeds, ladybugs, children and pumpkins know nothing of these artificial
confines” (Thorp, 2001, p. 355).

34

Perhaps the most pertinent observation to the data that will follow in this thesis was
Thorp’s description of students’ lack of experiences and the role that the school’s garden played
as a portal to life experiences, especially experiences with nature (Thorp 2001). Teachers saw the
garden as a place where children could interact with nature, an experience otherwise lacking in
the children’s’ lives. Additionally, the garden was a means through which the students interacted
with a caring adult, an adult with whom the students did not associate the rigid structure of
schooling (Thorp, 2001).
The studies conducted by qualitative researchers are important because they allow for
emergent theme development, providing results that cannot be explored using pre-determined
survey questions. The recursive process involved in naturalistic inquiry allows the researcher to
adapt questions based on the emergence of new ideas from the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
In a review of the qualitative school garden literature, Blair (2009) describes seven
themes that were common to the majority of studies: (1) students were excited about and enjoyed
gardening; (2) students had pride in the garden and parents became involved with the garden; (3)
the gardens promoted community-building and outreach, teamwork, student bonding, and adult
interaction; (4) the gardens promoted cross-curricular learning, especially in environmental
stewardship, mathematics and science; (5) students learned about nutrition and food systems
through cooking and eating food and through providing food to others in the community; (6)
school gardens allowed students to experience nature in an unstructured way; and (7) dedicated
garden champions were required for the gardens to succeed (Blair, 2009). Several quantitative
studies, mentioned in previous sections of this chapter, reported outcomes that mirrored
outcomes of the qualitative studies described by Blair. Such outcomes included curricular
integration and academic achievement, food preference and intake and barriers and facilitators to

35

having or using school gardens (Graham et al., 2005a; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr., 2005b;
Dirks & Orvis, 2005; Lineberger & Zajicek, 2000; Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002; Hermann et
al., 2006; McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Somerset & Markwell, 2008; Heim et al., 2009; Parmer et
al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010; Ratcliffe et al., 2011). The qualitative and quantitative bodies of
literature exploring school gardens complement each other and provide compelling support for
the use of gardens in schools.

36

CHAPTER 3
Lessons from the Garden: Perceived Outcomes of School Garden-Based Nutrition
Education at Two Elementary Schools
ABSTRACT
Background: School gardens have been shown to improve nutrition-related outcomes and
academic performance, promote development of interpersonal skills, and facilitate peer and
intergenerational relationship building. Until now, a comprehensive model describing the
numerous outcomes of GBNE and how these outcomes work together to influence fruit and
vegetable intake among students has not been proposed. This study explored perceived outcomes
associated with GBNE at two elementary schools in the Midwest and proposed a model for the
effect of GBNE on students’ fruit and vegetable intake.
Methods: A case-study approach was employed to explore outcomes associated with gardens at
two elementary schools in the Midwest. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults
at the two schools. Participant observation among adults and children was conducted and field
notes were recorded. Student work was also collected. Interview transcripts, field notes and
student work were coded and analyzed using a grounded-theory approach, and emerging themes
were identified. This paper discusses findings identified within the theme – outcomes associated
with school GBNE. A conceptual model explaining the impact of GBNE on students’ fruit and
vegetable intake was developed after numerous individual outcomes associated with GBNE were
identified.
Results: Seven perceived positive outcomes were associated with GBNE: (1) enhanced nutrition
knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, (2) improved understanding of food systems, (3) enhanced
school learning experience, (4) character development, (5) enhanced life experience, (6)
intergenerational relationships and community engagement, and (7) feelings of enjoyment,

37

wonder and therapeutic effects among students and staff. The seven outcomes were incorporated
into a conceptual model that explains GBNE’s unique ability to improve students’ fruit and
vegetable intake.
Conclusion: Children and adults experienced positive outcomes associated with school GBNE.
These outcomes did not occur in isolation of one another. An understanding of the relationship
between the multiple positive outcomes of school gardening may provide insight into the mode
through which gardens foster improvements in nutrition-related outcomes among students.
Keywords: school garden; elementary school; nutrition education

3.1 Background
Poor diet, and in particular, inadequate fruit and vegetable intake can lead to impaired
health, growth and development during childhood (Nicklas & Johnson, 2004; DHHS, 1996).
Health conditions linked with poor diet and inadequate fruit and vegetable intake, such as
atherosclerotic lesions and hypertension, are increasingly prevalent among youth (Soraf &
Daniels, 2002; Berenson et al., 1998). Data from the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey indicate that fewer than 20% of children aged 4-13 years of age, consumed
5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day (Guenther et al., 2006).
Several theoretical models describe factors that impact fruit and vegetable intake among
children. The Social Ecological Model and the Social Cognitive Theory, in addition to the
Knowledge-Attitude-Behavior Model address personal, social, and environmental factors that
impact eating behavior (Story et al., 2002; Contento, 2007). Studies exploring constructs
included in these models have shown that preference, peer interaction, modeling, exposure,
availability and access, outcome expectations, self-efficacy and knowledge of recommendations

38

play a role in determining fruit and vegetable intake among children (Birch & Fisher, 1998;
Kristjansdottir, Thorsdottir, De Bourdeaudhuij, Due, Wind, & Klepp, 2006; Reynolds, Hinton,
Shewchuk & Hickey, 1999; Brug et al., 2008; Resnicow et al., 1997; Domel , Baranowski,
Davis, Leonard, Riley & Baranowski, 1993; Domel, Thompson, Davis, Baranowski, Leonard &
Baranowski, 1996; Cullen et al., 2003).
The impacts of GBNE have been studied and described within the context of several of
these theoretical constructs, including the garden’s effect on preference for and knowledge of
fruits and vegetables. School gardening has been shown to improve students’ knowledge, skills,
attitudes and behaviors regarding fruit and vegetable consumption (Hermann et al., 2006;
McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Morris et al., 2000; Morris & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2002). GBNE also
allows educators to promote hands-on nutrition education while meeting mandated curricular
teaching requirements (Graham et al., 2005a; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b; Canaris,
1995). The effects of school gardening reach beyond the realms of nutrition education and
academics – gardens have been found to enrich both student and staff intra- and interpersonal
experiences in schools (Blair, 2009; Thorp, 2001; Alexander et al., 1995).
Although nutrition, academic and interpersonal outcomes associated with school
gardening have been described as they relate to Social Cognitive Theory, Social Ecological
Model, or Knowledge-Attitude-Behavior Model constructs individually, a model depicting how
these outcomes work in unison to increase fruit and vegetable intake among students has not
been proposed.
This article describes numerous interconnected outcomes associated with school GBNE
at two elementary schools in the Midwest. Semi-structured interviews, participant observation
and collection of student work were analyzed in order to answer the following questions:

39

1. How do administrators, staff, and students experience school gardens?
2. What roles do gardens play in schools?
The most common outcome associated with school gardening in this study, hands-on
experiential learning, introduced a novel perspective on how garden-based learning improves
fruit and vegetable intake among students. Based on this finding, a grounded-theory conceptual
model explaining the garden’s ability to promote behavior change among students was created.
In order to create the grounded-theory conceptual model, first, an integrated theoretical model
explaining established determinants of fruit and vegetable intake among children was developed
(Figure 4). Next, a data driven model depicting the outcomes associated with GBNE was created
(Figure 5). And finally a grounded-theory conceptual model was developed based on the
theoretical model and the data driven model (Figure 6). The conceptual model proposes specific,
testable, pathways through which GBNE improves students’ fruit and vegetable intake.

3.2 Methods
3.2.1 Study Design
A case-study approach based in grounded-theory was used (Yin, 2003; Stake, 1995;
Corbin & Strauss, 1990). In his text on case-study research design and methods, Yin (2003)
explains that case studies are useful for “investigating a contemporary phenomena within its reallife context especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly
evident” (Yin, 2003, p. 13). Two schools, or multiple cases, were included in the study in order
to obtain robust data (Herriott & Firestone 1983). The schools in this case-study were not
intended to represent an entire population, and therefore, traditional “sampling” methods were
not utilized (Stake, 1995). For case studies, the term replication logic is used rather than

40

sampling. For cases in which similar results are predicted, a literal replication logic is utilized.
Literal replication includes 2 to 3 cases which are similar in nature (Yin, 2003).
Two elementary schools, Janesville Elementary and Gilsonville Elementary, were
selected based on convenience and to meet the criteria for maximum variation purposive
sampling, or replication (Creswell, 2007). Criteria for inclusion were: (1) presence of an
established garden program, (2) USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education
(SNAP-Ed) grant funding, and (3) proximity to the research institution. Purposive variation at
the school level included: (1) percent of students eligible for SNAP benefits, (2) geographic and
community characteristics and (3) ethnic composition of the schools. Within the two schools,
participants were selected based on willingness to participate in semi-structured interviews,
classroom observation and spontaneous dialogue with the researcher.

3.2.2 Sample and Data Collection
The school principals at Janesville and Gilsonville were contacted and were provided a
description of the study. Both agreed to have their school participate and letters of support were
obtained. USDA SNAP-Ed grant-funded nutrition educators at both schools were identified as
primary contacts (USDA, 2010). The nutrition educator at Janesville was a full-time school
employee and the nutrition educator at Gilsonville was an employee of an outside communitybased organization that facilitated the school’s garden program. Primary contacts assisted in the
recruitment of participants. Word of mouth and printed invitations were used for recruitment.
Table 3 provides a description of the schools and individual participants involved with the study.
Data collection included: (1) conducting adult interviews, (2) conducting participant observation
with students and adults, and (3) collecting student work. Interviews and participant observations

41

were conducted by one researcher. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim,
proofread and coded by the researcher. The interview process lasted seven months and the
participant observation process lasted three months.

3.2.3 Interviews
Interview guides were developed based on a review of literature and findings from a
round-table discussion of school and community garden-based nutrition educators (RobinsonO’Brien et al., 2009; Graham et al., 2005a; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b; Blair, 2009;
Thorp, 2001; Alexander et al., 1995; Canaris, 1995; Scott, 2011). Specific guides were
developed for teachers who were engaged in the garden, teachers who were not engaged in the
garden, administrators, food service staff and custodial staff. The guides were reviewed by
experts in school and community nutrition and in teacher/researcher collaborative relationships,
as well as two classroom teachers not affiliated with either of the schools, but who worked with
schools of similar demographics in the region.
The interview guides consisted of open-ended questions designed to draw out rich
descriptions of participants’ perceptions of and experiences with school GBNE. Four question
categories were covered in each interview guide: (1) overall knowledge of and experience with
the garden, (2) knowledge of and experience with garden funding, (3) knowledge of and
experience with school policies that impact the garden, and (4) perception of school-wide
acceptance of and support for the garden. Within each question category, one or two open-ended
questions were asked, followed, if necessary, by probing questions designed to draw out specific
details of the school garden experience. Table 4 provides an excerpt from the interview guide

42

used with the school principals. Interviews were conducted face-to-face and were audio
recorded.
Interview participants received a $15 gift card as compensation for their participation.
Written, informed consent was obtained from all interview participants. Interviews were
conducted in English and most lasted between 30 and 45 minutes, with the longest interviews
lasting almost 90 minutes.

3.2.4 Participant Observation
Participant observation was conducted at both schools by the researcher. At Janesville,
students participated in a weekly Nutrition special (NS), similar in structure to other specials
such as art class or music class. The NS was taught by a full-time nutrition teacher and included
indoor nutrition lessons, indoor cooking activities and outdoor gardening activities. NS time at
Janesville was considered release time for classroom teachers. Therefore, classroom teachers
were not included in participant observation at Janesville. Students from every classroom at
Janesville participated in the one-hour NS class once per week. The researcher selected three
fifth-grade classes, one first-grade class and one kindergarten class with which to conduct
participant observation. These classes were selected based on convenience (school scheduling)
and based on the wide range of student ages. A total of 50 hours of participant observation were
conducted at Janesville.
At Gilsonville, a community organization ran the school garden. Once a month, a
nutrition educator from the community organization and several volunteers led a one-hour long
GBNE and cooking session in each classroom. At Gilsonville, garden-based nutrition time was
not considered release time for classroom teachers. Therefore, classroom teachers at Gilsonville

43

were included in participant observations. Concepts from the garden were integrated into each of
the lessons; however during the three months of participant observation, early September
through early December, students at Gilsonville did not spend time in the garden during the
classroom-based lessons. Students at Gilsonville reportedly spent much more classroom time in
the garden during the spring and early summer months, although the researcher did not witness
this garden time, as participant observation was only conducted during the fall. Students did,
however, engage directly with the garden through an after-school garden club that was offered
throughout the school year. A dedicated volunteer led the after-school garden club once a week
for 90 minutes. Between 5 and 10 students attended the garden club on a regular basis. These
students had the opportunity to participate in physical activity, arts and crafts, cooking and
hands-on gardening activities. A total of 85 hours of participant observation were conducted at
Gilsonville.
Preceding participant observation at both schools, the researcher was introduced to the
students by a trusted teacher. The purpose of the project was read out loud to kindergarten
through second-grade students and a document describing the project, in addition to a verbal
description was provided to third through fifth-grade students. Verbal assent was obtained from
kindergarten through second-grade students and written assent was obtained from third through
fifth-grade students. Identifying information was not collected and the students did not engage in
any researcher-implemented gardening activities. Parental consent was obtained for Janesville
students. At Gilsonville, the researcher encountered difficulty in obtaining returned parental
consent forms. Previous organizations working with this school had experienced similar
challenges to obtaining returned signature forms. For this reason, the Michigan State University
Institutional Review Board provided a waiver of parental consent under the conditions that

44

personal identifiers were not obtained from any student and that the researcher obtained student
assent. Nutrition educators and classroom teachers who engaged in participant observation
sessions provided written informed consent. The researcher spent over 50 hours at each site.
Participant observation included engaging in classroom and garden activities with students,
assisting teachers with lessons and recording field notes after observation sessions.
In addition to interviews and participant observation, the researcher engaged in informal
conversations with school staff outside of the classroom. Informal conversations led to trust
building between the researchers and the study participants.

3.2.5 Student Work
Student work, in the form of written activities not planned or implemented by the
researcher, was collected at both schools after several garden-based nutrition lessons. Three
writing assignments, totaling 90 individual examples, were collected and analyzed by the
researcher. Two of these assignments were completed at Gilsonville by first-grade ELL students.
These were simple writing activities that included students creating sentences from words that
they had used during the garden-based lesson. The writing activity collected at Janesville was
completed by fifth-grade students. These students had the opportunity to write about their
“dream gardens” or to describe how they had used their five senses in the garden. Student assent
and parent consent were obtained before collection of student work.

3.2.6 Data Analysis
Data were analyzed holistically, in that data from both schools were pooled as one unit of
analysis (Yin, 2003). Following interview transcription and proofreading, a codebook was

45

developed. An iterative process of codebook development and data analysis, based in groundedtheory, began with open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Five transcripts from both schools
were preliminarily coded in a process through which open codes were developed. ATLAS.ti
5.7.1 qualitative analysis software was used for coding (ATLAS.ti, 2011). Open codes were then
condensed and categorized into concise groups, which constituted the final codes. These codes
were assigned specific definitions and parameters. The five transcripts were re-coded, along with
the remaining seventeen transcripts, field notes from participant observation, and student work,
using the completed codebook. As coding progressed, several of the code definitions were
adjusted to better reflect emerging themes. Open coding and adjustment of the codebook
followed a naturalistic process as described by Lincoln and Guba (1985) (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). Descriptive characteristics (Table 3) for both schools were obtained from school
principals and US Census data (United States Census Bureau, 2011). Teachers, administrators,
school staff and students identified numerous factors associated with the school garden
experience. Two overarching themes emerged: (1) outcomes associated with school gardens, and
(2) facilitators and barriers to school gardening. This paper discusses features identified within
the first theme – outcomes associated with school gardens. Facilitators and barriers to school
gardening are discussed in Chapter Four (Martin, 2011).

46

Table 3. Descriptive Information: District, School, and Garden Program
Gilsonville Elementary

Janesville Elementary

School District
Population

122,593

5,651

School District
Race/Ethnicity

66.7% White
24.0% Black or African American
0.8% American Indian or Alaska Native
3.9% Asian
13.0% Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

98.4% White
0.5% Black or African American
0.6% American Indian or Alaska Native
0.09% Asian
1.5% Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

Number of Students

354

514

% Students SNAP
Eligible

97.2%

64.5%

% Students ELL

60.2%

0%

% Students Special
Education

4.5%

6.8%

Physical Layout

Outdoor Garden and hoophouse

Outdoor garden, farm program with
livestock on pasture, and greenhouse

Frequency of
Garden Activities

Monthly in homeroom (all students),
Weekly after school (5-10 students)

Weekly in nutrition classroom

Adult SemiStructured Interview
Participants

4 Classroom Teachers, 1 Literacy
Special Teacher, 2 Nutrition Educators,
2 Food Service Staff, 2 Custodial Staff,
1 Principal

4 Classroom Teachers, 1 Literacy
Special Teacher, 2 Nutrition Educators,
1 Food Service Staff, 1 Librarian, 1
Principal

Adult Observation
Participants

15

1

Student Observation
Participants

260

114

Number of
Expamples of
Student Work
Collected

21

69

District *

School **

Garden Program

* Data from US Census American Fact Finder (United States Census Bureau, 2011)
** Data provided by the school principal

47

Table 4. Questions from School Administrator Interview Guide

Question
Category

Overall knowledge of and experience with the garden

Broad Question

I’d like to talk with you about your school’s garden. Can you tell me about the
garden?

Probe Questions

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.
9.

What do you think about you school’s garden?
How long has your school had a garden?
How was the decision made to start the garden
How is the garden used at your school
Do you think that using the garden is effective in teaching curricular subjects
such as math or language arts? Why or why not?
Is the garden used for nutrition education? Do you think that the garden is an
effective tool for teaching nutrition? Why or why not?
Do you think that using the garden as a teaching tool has advantages over
other methods of student engagement? Describe the advantage(s) you have
experienced. Is this (advantage) a reason that you support the garden?
Does using the garden have limitations compared to other methods of student
engagement? What have you experienced as limitations of using the garden?
Overall, do you support the garden at your school? If so, why? If not, why not?
How do you communicate your support or lack of support?

3.2.7 Theoretical Framework
Students’ improved fruit and vegetable intake has previously been recognized as an
outcome associated with GBNE and was also an outcome found in this study (Herman et al.,
2006; McAleese & Rankin, 2007; Heim et al., 2009; Parmer et al., 2009; Ratcliffe et al., 2011).
Following identification of seven outcomes associated with GBNE at Janesville and Gilsonville,
a grounded-theory conceptual framework explaining the route through which GBNE improves
fruit and vegetable intake was developed.
In order to understand how garden-based learning improves fruit and vegetable
consumption, first, a review of the theoretical determinants of fruit and vegetable intake among
children was conducted. Researchers have utilized several theoretical frameworks, including the
48

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), the Social Ecological Model (SEM) and the KnowledgeAttitude-Behavior (KAB) model to explain students’ eating behaviors (Story et al., 2002;
Contento, 2007). With regard to fruits and vegetables, several constructs from these three models
have been explicitly associated with intake among children (Story et al., 2002; Contento, 2007;
Birch & Fisher, 1998; Kristjansdottir et al., 2006; Reynolds et al., 1999; Brug et al., 2008;
Resnicow et al., 1997; Domel et al., 1993; Domel et al., 1996; Cullen et al., 2003). Figure 4
depicts intrapersonal, interpersonal and physical environmental factors that have been identified
as determinants of children’s fruit and vegetable intake.

Interpersonal Factors
• Modeling
• Peer Influence

Physical
Environmental Factors
• Access and
availability

Children’s’ Fruit
and Vegetable
Intake

Intrapersonal Factors
• Preference
• Knowledge
• Outcome Expectations
• Self Efficacy

Figure 4: Determinants of children’s’ fruit and vegetable intake from SCT, SEM and KAB.

In addition to promoting increased intake of fruits and vegetables, the gardens at
Janesville and Gilsonville were found to provide an opportunity for hands-on, experiential
education. Following emergence of the hands-on nature of garden-based learning as a theme, a

49

fourth theoretical framework, based on theories of experiential learning, was recognized as
relevant to the relationship between GBNE and students’ fruit and vegetable intake. Factors
associated with experiential learning have not previously been used to explain the effect of
GBNE on nutrition outcomes. Theoretical implications of the hands-on learning experience
associated with GBNE may be a missing link in the current understanding of how gardens
improve students’ fruit and vegetable intake.
Experiential education leads to increased knowledge and skill development through a
process by which students engage in direct experiences, and enhances learning because learners
contextualize the materials at hand (AEE, 2011; Kolb, 1985). By providing an environment
through which students engage in experiential education, educators enhance the physical and
social context for learning (Carver, 1996). In her essay describing the theoretical framework for
experiential education, Carver (1996) explained that this type of education develops personal
agency, a sense of belonging and competence (Carver, 1996). Personal agency, as described by
Carver, is similar to the Social Cognitive Theory’s concept of self-efficacy, described in a
nutritional context by Contento (Contento, 2007). Competence is similar to the Social Cognitive
Theory’s concept of behavioral factors, including knowledge (Contento, 2007).
Following data collection and analysis, two models were developed. The first model
(Figure 5), which is purely data driven, depicts outcomes associated with GBNE at the two
schools. The second model, based on data and theory, provides a hypothesis for the routes
through which GBNE leads to increased fruit and vegetable intake among students.

50

3.3 Results - Perceived Outcomes of School Garden-Based Nutrition Education
The garden programs at both schools focused primarily on nutrition education and
received a majority of their funding through USDA SNAP-Ed grants (USDA, 2010). Differences
between district-level, school-level and garden-level characteristics existed between the schools
(See Table 3).
Seven positive outcomes, describing the roles that the gardens played at Janesville and
Gilsonville and describing student and staff experiences associated with school GBNE, were
identified. These outcomes were: (1) enhanced school learning experience, (2) enhanced
nutrition knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, (3) improved understanding of food systems, (4)
character development, (5) enhanced life experience, (6) intergenerational relationships and
community engagement, and (7) feelings of enjoyment, wonder and therapeutic effects among
students and staff. Outcomes were communicated in two distinct ways: potential positive
outcomes and witnessed positive outcomes. Table 5 provides a detailed description of these
outcomes. An example of a potential outcome would be a participant indicating that the garden
could impact nutrition knowledge, whereas an example of a witnessed outcome would be a
participant indicating that they had actually seen an improvement in nutrition knowledge.

51

Table 5. Perceived Positive Outcomes Associated with School Garden-Based Nutrition Education
Positive Outcomes

Specific Outcomes (# of Interview Participants to Describe Each Outcome, # of Field Notes to
Describe Each Outcome, # of Examples of Student Work to Describe Each Outcome)

Enhanced School
Learning Experience *

1. Described Potential for Curricular Integration (11)
+
a. Science (7)
+
b. Language Arts (7)
+

c. Mathematics (4)
+
d. Social Studies (4)
2. Described Actual Curricular Integration (14, 4, 90)
++
a. Science (7, 1)
++
b. Language Arts (5, 3, 90)
++

c. Mathematics (4, 1)
++
d. Social Studies (3, 1)
3. Hands-on Learning Environment (16, 12, 13)

++

4. Spontaneous and Cross-curricular Learning (4, 2)
Enhanced Nutrition
Knowledge, Attitudes and
Behaviors *

++

1. Nutrition Knowledge (7, 2, 2)
+ ++
a. What is healthy food (3)
++

b. Vegetables promote health (1, 1, 2)
+ ++
c. Vegetable and some fruit identification (3)
2. Nutrition Attitudes (14, 9, 8)
+ ++
d. Willingness to try new foods, including vegetables (12, 6, 7)
i. Willing to try vegetables grown by students (4, 3)

+ ++

+ ++

e. Increased preference for vegetables (8, 6, 1)
3. Nutrition Behaviors (14, 13, 8)
++
f. Eat new foods, especially vegetables, during garden-based lessons (7, 12, 8)
+ ++

g. Select more vegetables from school lunch (4)
++
h. Data collection, by nutrition educators, showed improved fruit and vegetable intake (1)
i.

+ ++

Select healthy food, especially vegetables, outside of school setting (6, 5)
+ ++
i. Improved home asking behavior for healthy foods, especially vegetables (4, 1)

4. Behavior change likely to last into adulthood (1)
*Student outcome

**Student and adult outcome

+

+

Includes potential outcome

52

++

Includes witnessed outcome

Table 5 (cont’d). Perceived Positive Outcomes Associated with School Garden-Based Nutrition Education
Positive Outcomes

Specific Outcomes (# of Interview Participants to Describe Each Outcome, # of Field Notes to
Describe Each Outcome, # of Examples of Student Work to Describe Each Outcome)

Improved Understanding
of Food Systems *

1. Improved Understanding of Food System (14, 3, 8)
++
a. Example of organic food production (3)
b. Learn where food comes from (10, 2)
+ ++
c. Learn how to grow food (7, 2, 8)

+ ++

d. Appreciation for labor and financial cost of food production (5)
e. Introduce farming as a career (3)
Facilitate Character
Development *

1. Responsibility, Respect and Patience (4)

+ ++

+
+ ++
+ ++

2. Pride, Accomplishment and Ownership (5, 2)
+ ++
3. Developed sense of community and enjoyment in sharing food with others (3)
+

4. Long-term goal setting (1)
++
5. Outlet for self expression (1)
Provide Life Experiences *

1. Enriching life experiences, specifically experiences with nature and natural processes (10, 1)

Fostered Intergenerational
Relationships and
Community Engagement *

1. Meaningful relationships between children and non-familial, non-teacher adult (1, 1, 21)

Nurtured Feelings of
Enjoyment, Wonder and
Therapeutic Effects among
Students and Staff **

1. Therapeutic experience (6, 1)

*Student outcome

2. Engaged community volunteers (4, 4)

++

++

2. Feelings of Enjoyment and Wonder (16, 7, 8)

**Student and adult outcome

+

++

++

Includes potential outcome

53

++

Includes witnessed outcome

+ ++

3.3.1 Enhanced School Learning Experience
Over half of the interview participants discussed potential and witnessed enhancement of
the students’ school learning experience associated with GBNE. These participants believed
that the gardens enhanced learning in several ways: (1) gardens held potential for and were
actually incorporated into core curricular instruction, (2) gardens provided a hands-on
learning environment, and (3) gardens fostered spontaneous and cross-curricular learning.
These findings were confirmed upon analysis of student work and field notes.

Potential and Actual Integration of Garden-Based Learning into Core Curricular
Instruction
The primary purpose of the gardens at both schools was nutrition education. However,
due to the presence of the gardens, classroom teachers and nutrition educators incorporated
garden-based lessons into curricular teaching.

Interview participants at both schools

described potential integration of garden-based lessons into four main curricular subjects:
Language Arts, Science, Mathematics and Social Studies. For example, a classroom teacher
from Gilsonville explained that the garden could be used as a tool for science teaching:
Teaching them about growing - like what plants need to grow, how they grow, the parts
of a plant. So it would be a really good curricular activity - to do that and then to watch.
It would be a great science activity …. there’s so many different things you can do with
growing plants.
Half of the interview participants described actual integration of garden-based learning
into academic instruction. For example, a classroom teacher at Janesville explained that the

54

nutrition educator worked with teachers to integrate garden-based nutrition lessons with current
curricular topics:
Researcher: Do you think if there were time, would the garden be able to be used for
curricular subject teaching?
Teacher: Oh sure. Yes, yes. Yeah, definitely. And [the nutrition educator] does a good job
of that too. She knows we’re studying a certain thing that she can help with in our
curriculum … when we studied Native Americans, she said ‘Would you like me to do
something with corn and nutrition?’
At Gilsonville, teachers placed special emphasis on the gardens ability to enhance
literacy learning. With over 50% of Gilsonville’s students learning English as a second language,
teachers at the school used the garden to teach vocabulary and to improve writing skills. For
example, a participant at Gilsonville explained:
We teach them how to run safely, you know. Teach them how to not walk ‘on’ the bed,
but to walk ‘around’ the bed. See how much vocabulary that is . . . Remember, these are
not English speakers. So to just explain ‘on’ and ‘around’, that’s new vocabulary words
to them.
Field notes and student work described and exemplified the integration of garden-based
lessons into curricular teaching. For example, students at both schools engaged in writing
exercise based on gardening activities. In the following example of student work, garden-based
experiences are connected with science concepts (identifying and describing the senses) via a
language arts writing activity:
In the garden I use my 5 senses by listening to the leaves swaying in the wind. I can see
the tomato worm crawling on the tomato plants of course I pick it of and throw it. I smell

55

the basil everywhere I go. Good thing I like the smell of it. I touch the sage it feels rough.
But I bring the sage to my mouth and I brush my teeth with it. But most of all I love
tasting everything in the garden. I like tasting tomatoes, cucumber, strawberries, lettuce,
spinach, and berries. Now you know how I use my senses.

Hands-on Learning Experience
The gardens at Janesville and Gilsonville were environments for hands on learning, both
for nutrition concepts and for core curricular concepts. Overall, sixteen of the twenty-two
interview participants linked the gardens with hands-on learning. In fact, hands-on learning was
the most frequently reported outcome. Field notes and student work also offered testimony to the
hands-on nature of garden-based learning.
The hands-on learning experience provided by the gardens was described as a unique
benefit compared to traditional classroom-based learning. A participant at Gilsonville explained
that the hands-on nature of garden-based learning enhanced students’ desire to learn:
Once you give them the opportunity to dig, or to cover seeds, or water something, they’re
all about it because they want to learn. They want to be able to get these new experiences
in as quickly and as much as possible . . . . Because they do have this natural wonder
about the world around them. And what happens when you go to school is you get kind of
shoved in little boxes and get really rigid about what you should do, shouldn’t do. And it
really kind of dries out the kids’ imaginations and it dries out their ability to want to
learn. And so bringing that garden back into it helps them to . . . . get that wonder back.
The principal at Janesville explained that hands-on learning was a desirable method of
student engagement, especially for students who learned best through a kinesthetic or tactile

56

approach: “Anytime that you can use hands on, a hands on approach, it helps that tactile
learner.”
Referring to the hands-on nature of garden-based learning, an educator at Janesville
explained that the garden engaged students for whom traditional classroom-based learning may
have been a challenge:
It is hands on. It’s something different. They’re learning in a different environment.
They’re experiencing it . . . . You remember by doing. And so I think it has that definite
advantage . . . . Kids who maybe aren’t proficient readers, aren’t as proficient writers,
maybe not be as good at paper pencil kind of tasks, can fully participate and have the
entire experience . . . . A lot of kids who aren’t proficient in the classroom kind of things
compensate by being strong in those other areas.

Spontaneous and Cross-curricular Learning Experience
The gardens also provided rich opportunities for spontaneous learning and crosscurricular engagement. When comparing classroom-based learning to garden-based learning, a
participant at Janesville explained this concept:
The garden is a place, also, that is good for spontaneous learning. Like, we went out to
do X, but while we were there, we noticed things and we learned about Y. So, it’s a place
where that can happen …. It inspires wonder and curiosity in kids, as opposed to doing
something in the classroom .… It’s also a really good place for cross-curricular learning.
So you could go out into the garden and do an activity and you’ve learned math and
science and social studies and you write about it …. So you’ve really learned, you’ve
gone across the curriculum. So I think it has advantages in that way as well.

57

In an example of the garden’s ability to facilitate spontaneous and cross-curricular
learning, a classroom teacher at Gilsonville described a situation in which she made an “on the
fly” decision to incorporate the garden into a science lesson. She explained:
It was a last minute impromptu decision. We were working on, in science, we were
working on senses. And so I thought that was a really good way to talk about visual sense
and what did you observe with your eyes …. And then we came back and wrote a little bit
about what we had seen, and things like that.” What began as a science lesson, ended up
reaching across the curriculum.

3.3.2 Enhanced Nutrition Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors - Vegetables and Some Fruits
Descriptions of potential and actual nutrition outcomes emerged from the data.
Participants believed that GBNE improved students’ nutrition knowledge, attitudes and
behaviors regarding new foods, especially for vegetables and some fruits. Field notes from
participant observation and student work also suggested that GBNE improved fruit and
especially vegetable knowledge, attitudes and behaviors.

Nutrition Knowledge
Interview participants described potential improvements or stated that they had actually
witnessed improvements in students’ nutrition knowledge as a result of GBNE. Three
subcategories of possible or witnessed improvements in nutrition knowledge were identified: (1)
GBNE led to an understanding of what constitutes a healthy food, (2) GBNE taught students that
vegetables promote health, and (3) GBNE led to students’ increased ability to know the names of
and identify vegetables and some fruits.

58

GBNE was described by interview participants as a means through which children could
possibly and had actually learned to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy foods. For
example, a participant at Gilsonville explained this concept: “They [are] learning to eat healthy
from that [the garden]. ‘Cause it’s available each time they come here … when they have the
program [after-school garden club] … Also they learn what is good, what is not, for them to eat.”
One participant identified the school garden as a means through which children learned
about the health benefits of vegetables. In response to a question regarding whether or not GBNE
was effective at teaching students nutritional concepts, the participant stated:
Oh definitely! I think it really does. Because the kids realize that what grows in the
garden is good for their bodies …. that fruits and vegetables are important for the body.
One field note and several examples of student work also showed that GBNE was associated
with students learning that vegetables promoted health. In an example from the student work, a
student from Janesville explained their reasoning behind selecting wheat, berries, carrots and
apples to plant in their “dream garden”: “I would put all of those healthy foods in my garden
because I need three healthy foods each day. I would have a big round garden with colorful
rocks around it. With healthy foods I will have enough energy every day to take care of my
garden.”
Participants also explained that GBNE could possibly and had actually improved
students’ ability to know the names of and identify vegetables and some fruits. For example, an
educator at Janesville described students’ improvement in identifying vegetables:
And so I get a kick out of it, because I have books, you know, the beginning letters, and it
has ‘peas’ and ‘potato’ in the ‘P’ [section]. And I had kids miss every time the ‘peas’ and
most of them missed the ‘potato’. And now these last two years since we’ve had the

59

[GBNE], they don’t skip a beat. “Peas, potato, beans’ . . . I mean, they know what
they’re called, when they didn’t know before. I noticed a big difference.
Descriptions of potential or witnessed improvements in nutrition knowledge were less
common than descriptions of potential or witnessed improvements in nutrition attitudes or
nutrition behaviors. When asked to describe outcomes of garden-based learning, participants
often jumped directly into describing visible changes in attitudes and behaviors rather than
describing more subtle changes in nutrition knowledge.

Nutrition Attitudes
The most commonly-described nutrition outcomes associated with GBNE were: (1)
students’ increased willingness to try new foods, including vegetables and unfamiliar fruits, and
(2) students’ increased preference for vegetables. These two outcomes were also revealed upon
analysis of field notes and student work.
Over half of the interview participants described either potential or witnessed
improvement in students’ willingness to try new foods, including vegetables and unfamiliar
fruits, as a result of garden-based learning. For example, an educator from Janesville described
improvements in students’ willingness to try vegetables, and specifically vegetables that the
students had grown.
Kids are more willing to try food, basically, when they’ve grown it, you know? I mean,
we have kids who eat radishes who probably would never eat a radish that’s all cut up
and put in front of them. But they’ll try it in the garden or they’ll try peas in the garden
or they’ll try broccoli.

60

In an example of student work, a student from Janesville explained: “I like tasting new
things, like when we are in the garden I love tasting [stuff] like tomato, broccoli, carrots and
other [stuff] too.”
Half of the interview participants described either potential or witnessed improvements in
students’ preference for vegetables as a result of GBNE. For example, an educator from
Gilsonville described a shift in students’ preference for spinach from the garden:
We were going to make spinach dip. The kids’ first attitude is like ‘Eww, spinach! I don’t
want that!’ But then we had to go out to the hoophouse to harvest the spinach. And so
just the transition from me telling them spinach, ‘Gross, yucky’, to walking to the
hoophouse, they started running. And they were screaming ‘Spinach!’ with their arms in
the air, ‘Spinach!’, all the way to the hoophouse . . . And then as soon as we brought it
back in and we washed it off . . . they made a spinach dip. They couldn’t have enough of
it. They were asking for seconds and thirds.

Nutrition Behaviors
Interview participants described either potential or witnessed improvements in nutrition
behavior associated with GBNE.
Seven participants indicated that students ate new foods, especially vegetables, during
garden-based nutrition lessons. In a field note, the researcher described witnessing a student eat a
fresh vegetable in the garden: “He came up to me with a beautiful pepper plant with a huge
green bell pepper hanging from its’ branches. Before I could even say “Wow!’, he took a bite out
of the side of the pepper …. He ate it like an apple.”

61

Four participants described potential or witnessed improvements in students’ selection of
vegetables from the school lunch as a result of GBNE. One participant, a nutrition educator at
Gilsonville, explained that extensive data had been collected by the community organization that
ran the garden. According to the nutrition educator, the data showed that GBNE led to increased
fruit and vegetable intake among students. Six participants described potential or witnessed (via
parental report) improvements in students’ selecting healthy foods, especially vegetables, outside
of the school setting. Most of the participants who described improved eating habits away from
school emphasized either potential or witnessed (via parental report) improvements in students’
home asking behavior for healthy foods, especially vegetables. And finally, one participant
indicated that GBNE would likely impact students’ eating behaviors from childhood into
adulthood.

3.3.3 Improved Understanding of Food System
Interview participants, field notes and examples of student work described either
potential or witnessed improvements in students’ understanding of the food system as a result of
GBNE.
Several interview participants indicated that the school garden provided an example of
organic food production to students. A staff member from Gilsonville, explained: “They actually
get to see the process, how there’s no chemicals really used. And so they’re getting pure stuff.”
GBNE was also described as a means through which students learned about the origins of
food. For example, a classroom teacher explained that the garden at Gilsonville helped students
learn that food originated, not from the grocery store, but that food had to be grown or raised:

62

I think it just makes them aware of where food comes from. Kids don’t really leave their
homes very much in this area. They might go to [the grocery store] or something like that,
but they don’t go to farms . . . they don’t really get out very much . . . When you ask a
kindergartener, ‘Where does milk come from?’ they’ll say [the grocery store] . . . But for
them to see, ‘That’s where the lettuce came from, that’s where the tomatoes came from’.
That’s a direct connection for them.
Similarly, GBNE helped students understand how food was grown. This outcome was
described by interview participants, in field notes and exemplified in student work. For example,
a classroom teacher from Janesville explained: “It [the garden] also helps at the elementary level,
for the kids who don’t live on farms to see how things work, how plants grow. I think it helps
them understand the foods they eat.” In an example of student work, a student from Janesville
demonstrated their understanding of basic gardening techniques:
I would make the garden where this little bit of sun that cover the whole garden. I would
do that because some plants cannot grow without sun. I would plant the seed where there
is not a lot of weeds so the weeds will not take over the garden. I would plant the seeds in
rows because if I don’t plant in rows I won’t really know where I put the different seeds.
Participants also believed that GBNE instilled in students an appreciation for financial
cost and labor requirements associated with food production, especially in the midst of economic
uncertainty and hardship. For example, a classroom teacher at Janesville explained:
I just think it’s important for them to see where their food comes from and have a better
understanding that their parents pay money for it, so they don’t waste it . . . . You know,
they don’t have it, and they, I’m broken hearted when I see them throw food away
because I know their parents struggle to pay for things.

63

A classroom teacher from Gilsonville expressed a similar sentiment: “I think that it’s important
for students to, first of all, appreciate land, our earth, and the fact that farmers, they spend a lot
of time growing food.”
And finally, several participants from Janesville, a school situated in the heart of a rural
farming community, explained that the school’s garden might introduce farming, as a career, to
students. For example, an educator at Janesville explained: “They [the students] can see that it
[growing food] can be a livelihood. And you know, you can work at it, it can be a hobby or it can
be a livelihood.”

3.3.4 Character Development
GBNE was described in interviews and field notes as having positive effects on factors
associated with character development among students. These effects on character development
were described as potential and as actually witnessed. Interview participants and field notes
indicated that GBNE: (1) possibly or actually taught lessons in responsibility, respect and
patience, (2) possibly or actually gave students a sense of pride, accomplishment and ownership,
(3) possibly or actually promoted a sense of community and enjoyment in sharing food with
others, (4) could provide students with experience in long-term goal setting and (5) offered
students an outlet for self expression.
Interview participants explained that GBNE could potentially and had actually fostered
the development of responsibility, respect and patience among students. An educator at
Janesville explained that the patience required to tend a garden could be used as an analogy to
describe the patience required for students to “tend” their own academic growth:

64

If you’re going to learn how to read, you’ve got to take time to read. You have to work at
it. It takes time, it takes care . . . . You can’t just expect to read . . . . And with the garden,
it takes time. And it takes a lot of work. And it just doesn’t happen. We’re kind of like a
‘Now’ society, you know, you go buy it now, you got it, but you know, it’s kind of a life
lesson.
In another example, an educator at Gilsonville described the gardens’ ability to nurture a sense of
patience among students. She explained that the garden at Gilsonville provided curricular
learning opportunities but that life lessons were also included: “And it takes time, so the kids
learn how to wait patiently. And you have to give water and you have to set them [the plants]
near the sun - the windows - so they get sunshine …. So that science, that’s part of everyday life
too.”
Several interview participants explained that gardens could possibly and had actually
fostered feelings of pride, accomplishment and ownership among students. For example, a
classroom teacher from Janesville explained:
It kind of gives them the sense of ownership, I mean, it’s stuff that they’ve been involved
with for years, that’s like a part of them. That’s what they’re doing and they know how to
do it. It gives them confidence in different things …. It gives them something to do that’s
theirs. That’s what I think. And that’s important for a kid.
In a field note, the researcher described a conversation with a student in which the student
indicated that she had kept track of radishes that she had planted earlier in the season. This
student exemplified a sense of pride or ownership for her work in the garden:

65

One of the girls was telling me that she thinks the radishes we’ll be trying are the
radishes they planted earlier. I asked if she knows which bed they planted and she told
me she’s gone and checked on the plants a few times since they planted them.
Interview participants at Gilsonville described that the garden fostered a sense of
community and enjoyment in sharing food with others. For example, an educator described an
experience through which the garden facilitated students’ sharing fresh produce with community
elders at a local high-rise apartment building. Although the students had also earned a small
amount of cash for their time and effort selling garden produce at a nearby farm stand, the
nutrition educator explained that students were most excited about the experience of sharing food
with community members.
Additionally, one participant, a classroom teacher from Gilsonville explained that the
school garden had the potential to help students develop skills in goal setting. This teacher had
been working with her students to develop an understanding of the concept of time, for example,
distinguishing between “today” and “tomorrow.” She explained that the garden at Gilsonville
could help expand students understanding of the time span associated with long-term goal
setting.
I think that it [gardening] can provide them a long-term goal. In kindergarten we do a lot
of little short pieces, little short goals. But I think that that could provide them an
example of a long-term goal. Where, you know, first it gets planted, and you know, going
through all those steps. Um, because we don’t, in kindergarten, we don’t really have a lot
of long-term goals that you could actually see something happening. And, while it might
be continued from kindergarten to first-grade for example, if they plant stuff in the
spring, and then they are able to see it when they come back in the fall, that would show

66

them, very distinctly, the culmination of a goal. And that’s a big thing that we work
toward in kindergarten. You know, we have one-step directions, two-step directions,
three-step directions. But we’re also working on steps for our goals.
Finally, one participant, a staff member at Janesville, explained that the school garden
provided an outlet for self expression. She explained:
I think it’s an opportunity for kids to have a sense of worth and accomplishment …. It’s
hard to describe, but I really think there’s definitely benefits to it, you know in expressing
themselves through the language arts when they’re writing, um, and it’s just one more
experience.”
In the above example, the lines separating the various categories of benefits associated
with school GBNE began to blur. The multiple benefits that participants described were often
interconnected. For example, in the previous example from Janesville, the participant explained
that students could express themselves through writing about their garden experience. In this
case, curricular integration and self expression, both perceived benefits associated with the
school garden, were interconnected.

3.3.5 Life Experience
The concept of students’ life experience emerged during conversations about GBNE.
Interview participants at both schools explained that many of the students led lives devoid of
experiences. Teachers at Gilsonville expressed concern that children rarely left the urban jungle
of concrete and traffic. Teachers at Janesville admitted that even though the landscape appeared
pastoral, many of the children did not have the opportunity to explore the natural world around

67

them. Participants indicated that the gardens were beneficial simply because they broadened the
life experiences, and especially experiences with nature, of these children.
A classroom teacher from Gilsonville explained that experiences made possible through
the garden program were beneficial to students, particularly to the students at a low-income,
urban school.
I think it’s really good here because we’re an urban school. And we’ve taken field trips
…. where they’ve seen the big gardens and, and I think it’s really good ‘cause a lot of
kids, they never get out of this neighborhood, most of them, and it’s sad. But I really, I
think that’s why it’s helped the school the most, is because we are such an urban, poor
school. But to have something like this is just great. I love it. And I know there’s some
teachers that don’t even sign up for it [the garden program]. And I just think that’s sad.
‘Cause I think all the kids should be experiencing it.
She later went on to share: “It’s all about experience. These kids need the experience. ‘Cause
they don’t get it any other way.”
A second participant from Gilsonville explained that the school garden provided a unique
experience, especially for students who had recently immigrated with their families to the United
States. She explained that many of these students lived in apartment buildings and did not have
access to the natural world.
I personally like this garden club because it offers the kids the chance to go outside to the
hoophouse, to the garden, where they can actually see what an asparagus plant looks
like. What broccoli looks like, what corn looks like. With a lot of the Asian and African
kids, their roots were in agriculture. And I like to give them the opportunity to dig with
their hands, feel the dirt, ‘cause right now they’re all living in apartments, all concrete.

68

Students’ reported lack of experience at urban Gilsonville was mirrored at rural
Janesville. A staff member at Janesville explained that the children at the school lacked life
experiences. She indicated that the GBNE program provided extra experiences to the students:
“It’s just one more experience. And we have kids that have often so few experiences. Any
additional experiences we can give them helps in their education.” In another example, a
classroom teacher from Janesville compared the school garden experience to a field trip. She
explained: “It’s like a field trip every time they go out there. It’s like a huge high excitement
thing. And they never go out there without learning something. There’s just a wealth of
knowledge.” The researcher expressed similar sentiments in a field note recorded after a
participant observation session in late November at Janesville. On that particular day, the
students learned about the meat and beans food group. As part of the lesson, the nutrition
educator took the students out to the pasture (maintained by the district’s high school
Agriscience program) to observe, firsthand, a flock of turkeys being raised for sale during the
upcoming holiday season. After participating in the pasture walk, the researcher marveled at the
unique experience made available to the students through the schools GBNE program:
They [the students] go on field trips every week - out to the garden, to the greenhouse, to
the pasture. They enjoy it - it is a time to relax and enjoy learning. To these kids, this is
normal. But compared to so many other schools, this is an incredibly unique program.

3.3.6 Intergenerational Relationships and Community Engagement
At Gilsonville, the GBNE program was a means through which children experienced
positive interactions with a caring, non-familial, non-teacher adult and a channel through which
community members engaged with the school as a whole.

69

Intergenerational Relationships
A classroom teacher at Gilsonville described the nature of an intergenerational, nonfamilial relationship that a dedicated volunteer had formed with the children in her first-grade
English Language Learner (ELL) class.
Researcher: Can you also tell me a little bit about what [the volunteer] does when she
comes into your classroom?
Teacher: Okay … she’ll always give a snack, and you know, but she’s doing more
cultural activities with my kids. And, like today, Christmas activities. And, she’s kind of
adopted us. You know, and she does fun activities with us. And we’ll also go out to the
hoophouse and take a tour and, she does all kinds of things. She sometimes sings,
because she was a preschool teacher. I love it. ‘Oats, peas, beans and barley grow!’ You
know what I mean, it’s cute, now hearing my kids singing it ….
Researcher: Oh really, they sing it? When she’sTeacher: When she’s not here. Or they’ll try to sing it if they don’t know the words … But
yeah, so everything, it’s amazing how much influence just the littlest things have on these
kids.
In a field note recorded by the researcher, the personal nature of the volunteer’s relationship with
the first-grade class became apparent.
As I was leaving, [the volunteer] told me about the class time with [the first-grade class]
.... She was doing another world map activity with the kids. They all had their pictures
put up around the map and lines drawn to their countries. They then went around and
described their countries and the food they eat. [The volunteer] started choking up as she

70

was telling me about it. She said that it was very touching and that she’d have to tell me
about it another time.
The students in this first-grade class at Gilsonville felt comfortable enough to share personal
stories with the volunteer. The volunteer treated the children, not with the authority of a school
teacher, but with the gentleness and nurturing of a family friend or mentor. The children, in
return, showered the volunteer with praise, hugs and hand-drawn pictures. The volunteer’s
primary responsibility at Gilsonville was her role as one of the facilitators of the after-school
garden club. In addition, however, to her duties with the GBNE program, she engaged in
intergenerational relationship building with students.

Community Engagement
The garden program at Gilsonville also promoted community engagement with the
school. Interview participants and field notes described the garden as a means through which to
facilitate community engagement with the school.
The GBNE program at Gilsonville was financially supported and physically implemented
by a community non-profit organization. Because grant funding for the program at Gilsonville
did not allow nutrition educators to spend time actually maintaining the school’s garden (garden
labor was not considered an allowable nutrition education activity by the grantor), the
community organization recruited volunteers to maintain the physical garden at the school.
Additionally, the salaries of the two full-time garden-based nutrition educators hired by the
community organization were generated through a “match” system. The grant that funded the
program provided a financial “match” for the time that volunteers spent participating in
allowable nutrition education activities. Therefore, volunteers were the life source of the garden

71

program at Gilsonville. Community volunteers worked at the school, assisting the nutrition
educators in garden-based nutrition lessons, in order to generate match to support the salaries of
the two full-time garden-based nutrition educators. Volunteers also worked separately from the
match system to physically maintain the garden at Gilsonville. The grant coordinator at
Gilsonville explained that the GBNE program enjoyed the support of over thirty community
volunteers at any given time. In addition to caring for children, it is possible that what attracted
these adult volunteers to work at the school was the presence of the garden. These volunteers
could have worked at Gilsonville as after-school tutors or as volunteer classroom assistants;
however, they chose to engage with the school through the garden.

3.3.7 Enjoyment, Wonder and Therapeutic Effects
Students and staff shared enjoyable experiences, including a sense of wonder and even
therapeutic relaxation in the gardens at Janesville and Gilsonville. Interview participants and one
field note described therapeutic effects of the gardens. In addition, over half of the interview
participants, field notes and examples of student work provided descriptions of the gardens as a
place that fostered enjoyment and a sense of wonder among staff and students.
In an example of the garden’s therapeutic effects, a staff member at Gilsonville described
the garden as a kind of “sanctuary”:
“I know that I’ve used it as a place to relax. I take my breaks out there. And when there’s
tomatoes, I eat a lot of tomatoes. So it’s like a little sanctuary also. And if it’s a sanctuary
for me as an adult, I can imagine that it’s also a sanctuary for the kids.”
Interview participants also explained that the gardens at Janesville and Gilsonville
facilitated a therapeutic change of scenery for students. A staff member at Janesville explained:

72

It’s [the garden] is healing, it’s comforting. I think it teaches them [students] to unwind,
to relax. ‘Cause I mean it does that for me. To get into gardening. I think it would do the
same for children …. I mean, not just papers, papers, papers. But getting into the dirt,
getting into the green.
Interview participants also described a “wonder factor” and the researcher witnessed a
joyful fascination among students in the garden. Students responded with sheer elation, one
afternoon at Janesville, when a frog hopped out of the lettuce box into the garden path. Similarly,
at Gilsonville, when students discovered a praying mantis in the strawberry patch, shrieks of
excitement filled the air. An educator from Gilsonville also described the “wonder factor”:
In April they start their seeds, in May they transplant. Sometimes they’re planting
directly in the ground in June, their last week of school. And then when they come back, if
they don’t go to summer camp, then they just see that sunflower seed, you know is now
eight feet tall and so there’s that whole miracle. I think for kids, it’s more fantasy. It’s
just like ‘Wow, that’s amazing! That little seed is now eight feet tall!’
Additionally, a student’s sense of imaginative wonder was recorded in a field note at Janesville:
“As [the] class was leaving the greenhouse today, I heard one of the girls say ‘I wish I could live
here - it’s so warm - it’s like a jungle in here!’”

3.3.8 Data Driven Model for the Effects of GBNE on Students
As described in the previous sections, GBNE provided numerous benefits to the students
at Janesville and Gilsonville. Results from this study were used to construct a conceptual model,
driven by both data and theory, proposing the routes through which GBNE improves students’
fruit and vegetable intake. Development of the conceptual model was a two-step process. First, a

73

purely data driven model depicting the outcomes of GBNE was created (Figure 5). Next, a
conceptual model was created by integrating data collected in this study with previously existing
theory (Figure 6). In the data driven model (Figure 5), GBNE encircles classroom-based
nutrition education to indicate that GBNE was used in combination with a traditional didactic
nutrition curriculum. As a result of the garden-based learning component, students gained
experiences, specifically contextualized, hands-on learning experiences and life experiences. The
experiential or hands-on learning component of GBNE was the most commonly described
outcome among interview participants at Janesville and Gilsonville. Participants explained that
hands-on, experiential learning was among the most effective teaching methods and that the
garden was a place where this type of teaching and learning predominated. Stemming from the
contextualization of nutrition concepts that occurred as a result of GBNE, students experienced
several outcomes. These were: 1) Enhanced nutrition knowledge, attitudes (fruit and vegetable
preference and willingness to try), and behaviors (fruit and vegetable intake); increased
understanding of the food system, character development, development of relationships based on
the experience with food, and enjoyment and wonder in the garden.

3.3.9 Conceptual Model for the Effects of GBNE on Students’ Fruit and Vegetable Intake
Development of a conceptual model explaining the effects of GBNE on students’ fruit
and vegetable intake consisted of integrating the data driven model with concepts from theories
of Experiential Education, the Social Cognitive Theory, the Social Ecological Model and the
Knowledge Attitude Behavior model. These theoretical concepts were described in the methods
section of this paper. This conceptual model proposes a hypothesis for the route through which
GBNE leads to improved fruit and vegetable intake among students (Figure 6).

74

In the conceptual model, as in the previous data driven model, GBNE encircles
classroom-based nutrition education due to the combination of traditional didactic nutrition
curriculum with the garden-based learning experience. According to the study participants, the
overarching outcome of GBNE was hands-on, experiential learning, which led to nutrition
related outcomes among students. Additionally, theories of experiential education indicate that
hands-on, experiential learning leads to contextualization of new information, increased personal
agency, competence, and sense of belonging. For this reason, an arrow composed of dashes of
variable sizes, indicating support from both data and theory, connects the “Contextualized
Hands-on Learning and Life Experiences” box with the remainder of the outcomes. Both data
and theoretical concepts support the idea that hands-on learning leads to enhanced learning
outcomes.
A set of six outcomes originates from hands-on contextualized learning. These outcomes
are intermediated outcomes, which ultimately lead to the endpoint, increased fruit and vegetable
intake among students. The first listed outcome, “Contextualized Nutrition Knowledge” was
linked with improved nutrition attitudes (preference for fruits and vegetables and willingness to
try) and also directly with increased fruit and vegetable intake. The arrows making this
connection are composed of equal length dashes, indicating that this connection was based on
theoretical concepts. The connection was made based on concepts of the KAB and SEM models
and the SCT. According to the KAB model, improved nutrition knowledge leads to improved
attitudes regarding healthy foods, which in turn leads to behavior change (Contento, 2007). The
SEM and the SCT posit that improved knowledge also leads to behavior change (Contento,
2007; Story et al., 2002).

75

The next listed outcome, “Character Development”, and in particular goal setting,
ownership, and sharing food with community, was linked with improved nutrition attitudes and
also directly with increased fruit and vegetable intake. This link was made based on several
theoretical concepts. According to the Social Cognitive Theory, goal setting skills are required in
order to achieve behavior change. For this reason, character development was linked directly
with increased fruit and vegetable intake. Additionally, a sense of ownership and appreciation of
sharing food with community contributed to the link between Character Development and
improved attitudes toward fruits and vegetables. This link was made based on the multiple
determinants of food preference among children, described by Birch and Fisher. These
determinants include: experience with food during early childhood, exposure to foods, and peer
and adult influences (Birch & Fisher, 1997). By experiencing a sense of ownership for the
garden and the fruits and vegetables grown in the garden, and by associating these foods with the
positive feelings that come with sharing garden produce with others, the students may have
developed enhanced preference for and willingness to try fruits and vegetables.
The next two listed outcomes, “Enjoyment and Wonder” and “Relationships Based on
Experience with Food”, were linked with improved preference for fruits and vegetables and also
increased fruit and vegetable intake. The link with improved preference was made based on
Birch and Fisher’s description of the determinants of food preference among children. The link
with increased intake was made based on the Social Ecological Model. According to the SEM,
individual factors such as food preference, which can be influenced by experiences with food
during childhood, and also the social environmental context of food, have the ability to influence
intake (Story et al., 2002). In this case, students’ positive experiences in the garden and their

76

association of the garden and garden produce with positive peer and adult relationships may lead
to increased fruit and vegetable intake.
The fifth listed outcome, “Increased Availability and Exposure to F&V in the Garden and
during GBNE” was derived from a sub-outcome of “Enhanced Nutrition Behaviors” listed in
Table 5: students ate new foods, especially vegetables, during garden-based lessons. The reason
for this increase in intake is likely due to the simple fact that these foods were available to the
students during GBNE. Had the lesson been composed of a traditional lecture-style activity,
vegetables and fruits may not have been available to the students. This outcome was linked with
improved attitudes toward fruit and vegetable intake based on the concept that experiences with
and exposure to foods during early childhood influences preference (Birch & Fisher, 1997).
Additionally, this outcome was linked directly with increased intake based on reports by
participants, student work, and observations indicating that students ate fruits and vegetables
when they were offered and available during GBNE.
The last outcome, “Understanding of the Food System”, was not linked via data or theory
to increased intake of fruits and vegetables. The lack of significance may be due to the fact that
at a young age, food related decisions may not depend on social and ethical issues involved with
a thorough understanding of the food system.

77

Garden-Based
Learning
Classroom-Based
Nutrition Education

Contextualized Hands-on
Learning and Life Experiences

Contextualized
Nutrition
Knowledge

1

Increased
Preference
for F&V:
Nutrition
Attitudes

1

Increased
Willingness
to Try F&V:
Nutrition
Attitudes

1

Increased
F&V
Availability,
Exposure
and Intake:
Nutrition
Behaviors

Understand
Food
System

1

1

Character
1

Development
- Goal Setting
- Ownership
- Sharing food
with
Community

Figure 5: Data driven model for the student outcomes of garden-based nutrition education

78

Relationships
Based on
Experience
with Food

2

Enjoyment
and
Wonder

1

Garden-Based
Learning
Classroom-Based
Nutrition Education

Contextualized Hands-on Learning
and Life Experiences

Contextualized
Nutrition
Knowledge

1†

Character Development
1†

Enjoyment and
Wonder

1†

- Goal Setting
- Ownership
- Sharing food with
Community

Relationships
Based on
Experience
with Food

2†

Increased Availability
and Exposure to F&V
in the Garden and
during GBNE

3†‡

Understanding
of Food
System

1†

Increased Willingness

Increased Preference
for F&V

1 †

1†

to Try F&V

1†

Increased F&V
Intake

1†

Key
† - Data driven
‡ - Theory Driven

Figure 6: Conceptual model for the effect of garden-based
learning on nutrition education and on fruit and vegetable
intake among students
79

Data Driven
Theory Driven
Data and Theory Driven

1 – Intrapersonal Factor (Personal, Behavioral)
2 – Interpersonal Factor
3 – Physical Environmental Factor (Environmental)

3.4 Discussion
Numerous positive outcomes were associated with GBNE at Janesville and Gilsonville
(Table 5). Because this study was based in a grounded-theory approach, data were collected with
the intent of theory development (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Research questions were broad in
order to allow themes to emerge naturally within the data.
Most of the outcomes associated with GBNE at Janesville and Gilsonville have
previously been described in the literature. A comprehensive analysis, however, providing an
integrated model of GBNE’s numerous outcomes and how they relate to students’ fruit and
vegetable intake has not previously been addressed.
The outcome most commonly described by interview participants in this study was the
hands-on, experiential nature of GBNE, an outcome included under “Enhanced School Learning
Experience”. Two components of “Enhanced School Learning Experience”, academic and crosscurricular integration have previously been identified as outcomes of GBNE, however a specific
description of the hands-on nature of garden-based learning has not been documented as an
explicit outcome of GBNE (Graham et al., 2005a; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b).
Improved nutrition knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, especially with regard to fruits
and vegetables, are also established outcomes of GBNE (Lineberger & Zajicek, 2000; Heim et
al., 2009; Ratcliffe et al., 2011; Parmer et al., 2009; Somerset & Markwell, 2008; Morgan et al.,
2010). School gardens have been shown to provide students with enriching life experiences and
also to nurture feelings of joy and wonder among students and staff (Thorp, 2001; Alexander et
al., 1995). Gardens have also been described as therapeutic environments that reduce stress and
that facilitate character development, for example learning social skills (Aldridge & Sempik,
2002; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b; Ober Allen et al., 2008). And finally, gardens and

80

green spaces facilitate meaningful interactions between peers and between youth and adults
(Taylor et al., 1998; Ober Allen et al., 2008).
In this proposed contextual model, character development, relationships based on an
experience with food, enjoyment and wonder, contextualized nutrition knowledge, and
availability and exposure to fruits and vegetables in during GBNE lessons lead indirectly (via
improved preference for and willingness to try) and directly to improved fruit and vegetable
intake. A key identifies each outcome as an intrapersonal, interpersonal, or physical
environmental factor. The intermediate outcomes and their links with improved preference for
and increased intake of fruits and vegetables comprise a hypothesis for the routes through which
GBNE leads to increased fruit and vegetable intake among students.
Determinants of food preference among children are complex, including: genetics,
experience with food during infancy and early childhood, exposure, availability and accessibility
to food, and peer and adult influences and modeling (Birch & Fisher, 1997). In light of these
factors, several outcomes of GBNE found in this study were linked with students’ preference for
and willingness to try fruits and vegetables. These outcomes are: relationships based on an
experience with food, sharing food with community, ownership enjoyment and wonder in the
garden, and availability and exposure to fruits and during garden-based nutrition lessons.
Additionally, increased availability and accessibility to fruits and vegetable has been associated
directly with increased intake, as shown in the conceptual model (Story et al., 2002).
The ability to set goals is an important component determinant of an individual’s ability
to achieve behavior change (Contento, 2007). Positive outcome expectations and high selfefficacy lead to an individual’s ability to set goals, a necessary step in achieving behavior change
(Contento, 2007). Additionally, several studies have linked self-efficacy with fruit and vegetable

81

intake among children (Brug et al., 2008; Kristjansdottir et al., 2006). Improved self-efficacy
resulting from the hands-on learning experience (Carver, 1996) in the garden may lead to
students’ improved ability to set goals, which may ultimately result in improved fruit and
vegetable intake. Also, engaging in gardening, which itself is a long-term process, may enhance
students’ understanding of outcomes resulting from long-term goals. For this reason, the
outcome “Character Development” was linked directly with increased fruit and vegetable intake.
A final outcome, improved nutrition knowledge has also been described as a contributor
to nutrition-related behavior change (Story et al., 2002; Contento, 2007). The SCT, SEM, and
even the KAB models posit that improved nutrition knowledge either directly or indirectly leads
to changes in eating behavior (Story et al., 2002; Contento, 2007). For this reason, improved
nutrition knowledge was linked to increased preference for, willingness to try, and intake of
fruits and vegetables. In her description of the impact of increased knowledge on nutritionrelated behaviors, Contento (2007) explained that the majority of nutrition education programs
lead to increased instrumental, or “how to” knowledge. Garden-based learning may facilitate
increased instrumental knowledge and may also increase knowledge associated with personal
outcome expectations, also known as “why to” knowledge. Understanding the types of
knowledge that GBNE imparts may be useful for researchers seeking to understand how
improved nutrition knowledge as a result of GBNE affects students’ fruit and vegetable intake.
It is clear that gardening enhances the traditional classroom-based nutrition education
experience. This study identifies multiple outcomes associated with GBNE and is the first to
synthesize these outcomes into a model explaining the effect of GBNE on students’ fruit and
vegetable intake. Also, this is the first study to address the theoretical foundations of experiential
learning as relevant to the nutrition-related outcomes of GBNE. The hypothesis regarding the

82

routes through which GBNE leads to increased fruit and vegetable intake among students, which
is presented in the form of the final conceptual model, provides an important theoretical
framework for the future study of the dietary outcomes of GBNE.

3.5 Validity Criteria
Several validity criteria were used to measure the quality of this research. First, method
triangulation was achieved by employing multiple modes of data collection among a diverse
group of participants within each school (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data from: (1) interviews, (2)
retrospective field notes taken after participant observation sessions, and (3) collection and
analysis of student work, provided complimentary accounts of the GBNE experiences at the two
schools. Reciprocity, as defined by Lincoln (1995), was achieved by building relationships based
on trust and mutual respect between the researcher and participants at both schools (Lincoln,
1995). Catalytic validity, or “the degree to which the research process reorients, focuses, and
energizes participants toward knowing reality in order to transform it”, was also achieved
(Lather, 1986, p. 272). During the process of interviews and observation, numerous participants,
especially those who were not engaged in the garden, asked the researcher, questions about their
gardens. These participants expressed excitement in learning about the gardens and indicated that
they planned to seek further information. One of the goals of this study was to provide useful
information for the successful implementation of school gardens. By engaging participants in
discussion about their perceptions of and experiences with the gardens, this research project
served as a catalyst for participants themselves to explore their gardens.

83

3.6 Limitations and Strengths
This study has several limitations. The self-selecting process of interview participant
recruitment may have led to respondent bias. Also, participant observation was conducted
between September and December. By conducting participant observation over the course of
entire growing season, data may have more closely represented the gardening experience at
Janesville and Gilsonville.
This study also has several strengths, including achievement of method triangulation,
catalytic validity and reciprocity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lincoln, 1995; Lather, 1986). The
study findings were based on multiple modes of data collection, including 22 semi-structured
interviews, 135 hours of participant observation and collection of student work.

3.7 Conclusions
GBNE at two Midwestern elementary schools was associated with numerous positive
outcomes. These outcomes did not occur in isolation of one another; rather, the outcomes were
interconnected. Examining the relationships between the numerous outcomes associated with
GBNE can lead to better understanding of how the hands-on gardening experience leads to
improved fruit and vegetable intake among students and to improved methods of nutrition
education delivery.

3.8 Human Subjects Approval Statement
This study was approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board.

84

CHAPTER 4
Lessons from the Garden: Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to School Garden-Based
Nutrition Education at Two Elementary Schools

ABSTRACT

Background: Garden-based nutrition education, especially within schools, has gained popularity
in recent years. Research suggests that school GBNE positively impacts students’ knowledge
about, preference for and intake of fruits and especially vegetables.

This study explored

perceived facilitators and barriers to GBNE at two elementary schools in the Midwest.
Methods: A case-study approach consisting of semi-structured interviews and indoor-classroom
and outdoor-garden participant observation was utilized. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews
were conducted with classroom teachers, nutrition educators, food service staff, administrators
and other staff at the two schools. Participant observation was conducted with classroom
teachers, nutrition educators and students, and field notes were recorded. Interviews and field
notes were coded and analyzed through a naturalistic process based in grounded-theory. This
paper discusses features identified within the emergent theme – facilitators and barriers to school
GBNE
Results: Four categories of facilitators and seven categories of barriers to school GBNE emerged
from the data. Facilitators included: (1) funding and community support, (2) presence of a garden
champion and garden allies, (3) communication and school support, and (4) positive student
feedback. Barriers included: (1) limitations in garden design, (2) seasonal limitations, (3)
vandalism, (4) funding restrictions, (5) time constraints, (6) large classes, behavior problems and
perceived lack of control, and (7) limited communication. Several of these facilitators and

85

barriers were experiences shared by participants at both schools whereas others were experiences
unique to an individual school.
Conclusion: Numerous perceived facilitators and barriers to school GBNE were identified at
two Midwestern elementary schools. These findings highlight potential issues for interested
schools and school garden supporters to consider while planning and implementing GBNE
programs.

4.1 Background
Fruits and vegetables play a protective role against the development of heart disease and
certain cancers (Bazzano et al., 2002; Joshipura et al., 2001). Establishing adequate fruit and
vegetable intake during childhood is an important step in promoting lifelong intake (Nicklas et
al., 2001; Westenhoefer, 2002; Fisher & Birch, 2001; Mikkila et al., 2005; Singer et al., 1995).
Currently, American children consume inadequate amounts of fruits and vegetables (Guenther et
al., 2006). Methods for encouraging increased consumption of fruits and vegetables among youth
are needed.
A growing body of literature suggests that in-school and extracurricular garden-based
learning leads to improved knowledge of, preference for and intake of fruit and especially
vegetables among youth (Lineberger & Zajicek, 2000; Parmer et al., 2009; Morris & ZidenbergCherr, 2002; Heim et al., 2009; Ratcliffe et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2010; Somerset & Markwell,
2009). Despite the positive outcomes that school gardens foster among youth, researchers and
practitioners face challenges to school garden implementation.
In two quantitative studies that examined administrator and teacher experiences with
school gardens in California, participants reported practical challenges related to having and

86

using gardens. Reported barriers to school gardening included lack of time, lack of teacher
interest, lack of experience with gardening, lack of curricular material linking gardening with
academic standards, lack of teacher knowledge of gardening and lack of teacher training in
gardening. Additionally, administrators from schools without gardens perceived barriers to
having school gardens including lack of funding, lack of time and lack of gardening supplies
(Graham et al., 2005a; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b). Alexander et al. also found that lack
of time was a barrier to school gardening (Alexander et al., 1995).
The purpose of this article is to qualitatively explore facilitators and barriers associated
with established GBNE programs at two elementary schools in the Midwest. Results may be
used to guide the development and implementation of future GBNE intervention programs.

4.2 Methods
4.2.1 Study Design
This study employed a case-study approach, based in grounded-theory, with two
elementary schools in the upper Midwest (Yin, 2003; Stake, 1995; Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Two
schools were included in order to obtain robust data (Herriott & Firestone, 1983). Convenience
and criteria for maximum variation purposive sampling were factors involved in selection of the
two schools, Janesville Elementary and Gilsonville Elementary (Creswell, 2007). Inclusion
criteria were: (1) presence of an established school garden, and (2) USDA SNAP-Ed grant
funding, and (3) proximity to the research institution. Purposive variation between the two
schools included: (1) percent of students eligible for SNAP benefits, (2) geographic and
community characteristics, and (3) ethnic composition of the schools.

87

4.2.2 Sample and Data Collection
The principals at both schools agreed to have their schools participate in the study and
letters of support were obtained. At both Janesville and Gilsonville, the researcher worked with a
SNAP-Ed grant funded nutrition educator as the primary contact (USDA, 2010). Primary
contacts at both schools facilitated communication between the researcher and other school staff
and they also helped recruit interview and observation participants. Within each school,
participants were included based on willingness to engage in semi-structured interviews,
participant observation and spontaneous dialogue with the researcher. Participants were recruited
by word of mouth and invitation letters.

4.2.3 Interviews
Based on a review of the literature and on issues brought up by school and community
garden-based nutrition educators at a regional round-table discussion, semi-structured interview
guides were developed for teachers who were engaged in the garden, teachers who were not
engaged in the garden, administrators, food service staff and custodial staff (Robinson-O’Brien
et al., 2009; Graham et al., 2005a; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b; Blair, 2009; Thorp, 2001;
Alexander et al., 1995; Canaris, 1995; Scott, 2011). Experts in school and community nutrition
intervention and evaluation and in teacher/researcher collaborative relationships reviewed the
interview guides for face and content validity. Two classroom teachers, not affiliated with
Janesville or Gilsonville, but who worked in schools with similar demographics in the region
also reviewed the guides. The interview guides were modified according to suggestions provided
by the reviewers. Each interview guide contained four question categories, consisting of several
broad reaching open-ended questions. The four question categories covered the following topics:

88

(1) overall knowledge of and experience with the garden, (2) knowledge of and experience with
garden funding, (3) knowledge of and experience with school policies that impacted the garden,
and (4) perception of school-wide acceptance of and support for the garden. Within each
question category, several broad-reaching, open-ended questions were asked, followed, if
necessary, by probing questions intended to elicit elaboration among interview participants.
Table 4 provides an example of a question category, a broad open-ended question and probing
questions that were asked during an administrator interview.
Adult interview participants included classroom teachers, nutrition educators, food
service staff, custodial staff, school principals and one librarian. A total of twenty-two adults
were interviewed. Following the interviews, participants received a $15 gift card. Interview
participants ranged from individuals who were knowledgeable about and engaged with the
gardens to those who knew very little about the gardens. Most interviews lasted between thirty
and forty five minutes, however three of the twenty-two interviews lasted over one hour.
Interviews were conducted in English, face-to-face, by one researcher and were audio recorded.
Written, informed consent was obtained prior to all interviews.

4.2.4 Participant Observation
Participant observation sessions were conducted in both inside-classroom and outdoorgarden settings. The researcher engaged in classroom activities with students; assisted teachers
with non-instruction related tasks, such as passing out materials to students; and recorded field
notes after the observation sessions.
At Gilsonville, one nutrition educator, affiliated with a community-based organization,
conducted once-monthly “push-in” style garden-based nutrition lessons in each classroom.

89

Garden-based nutrition lessons were not considered release time for classroom teachers.
Therefore, at Gilsonville, students, the nutrition educator and classroom teachers were included
in the participant observation sessions. At Janesville, one nutrition educator, who was employed
by the district, led a weekly Nutrition special (NS) through which students left their home
classrooms to participate in nutrition lessons in a separate nutrition classroom and in the garden.
The nutrition special at Janesville was considered release time for classroom teachers. Therefore,
at Janesville, classroom teachers were not included in participant observation sessions.
Classrooms for participant observation were selected based on convenience. School
scheduling and teacher willingness to participate were key considerations. At Janesville, five
classes - three fifth-grade classes, one second-grade class and one kindergarten class - were
involved with participant observation. At Gilsonville, twelve classes, including at least one class
from kindergarten through fifth-grade, were involved in participant observation.
A description of the study was read out loud to kindergarten through second-grade
students. Third through fifth-grade students received a document describing the project in
addition to a verbal description. Verbal consent for engaging in participant observation was
obtained from kindergarten through second-grade students and written consent was obtained for
third through fifth-grade students. Parental consent was obtained for students at Janesville.
However, the researcher experienced difficulty in obtaining returned consent forms at
Gilsonville, an experience shared by an organization that had previously worked with the school.
Therefore the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board granted a waiver of parental
consent based on the low risk nature of the study design and under the conditions that no
identifying information would be collected from students and that all participating students

90

would provide either written or verbal assent. Written informed consent was also obtained from
nutrition educators and classroom teachers who engaged in participant observation.
The researcher paid careful attention to her perceived role among students. In an attempt
to separate herself from the associations that students made with the traditional school structure,
the researcher did not engage in formal garden-based instruction or student discipline. This
observation technique was based on Thorp’s (2001) description of the willingness of children to
share their garden experiences with a trusted adult with whom they did not associate the
traditional confines and parameters of school (Thorp, 2001). In total, participant observation took
place for 50 hours at Janesville and 85 hours at Gilsonville, during the months of September
through December.

4.2.5 Data Analysis
Data were analyzed holistically, in that both schools were pooled as one unit of analysis
for preliminary theme formation (Yin, 2003). A codebook was developed through a naturalistic
process based in grounded-theory as described by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Corbin and
Strauss (1990) (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Initially, five transcripts were
read and open coded for emergent themes using ATLAS.ti 5.7.1 qualitative analysis software
(ATLAS.ti, 2011). Final codes were developed by condensing and categorizing open codes into
concise groups. Definitions, rules and in some cases, examples, were provided for final codes in
order to guide the remaining coding process. Following development of the final codes, the five
open coded transcripts were re-coded along with the remainder of the transcripts. In total,
twenty-two interview transcripts and twenty-two field notes were coded. Final coding was not a
static process – several code definitions were adjusted to better reflect emerging themes.

91

4.2.6 Validity Criteria
Validity criteria for this study included establishing method triangulation, reciprocity, and
catalytic validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lincoln, 1995; Lather, 1986). Multiple methods of
data collection, including (1) semi-structured interviews, and (2) participant observation were
conducted in order to establish method triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Reciprocity was
established by developing relationships based on trust and mutuality with participants (Lincoln,
1995). Catalytic validity, or “the degree to which the research process reorients, focuses, and
energizes participants toward knowing reality in order to transform it” was also achieved (Lather,
1986, p. 272). During the course of the study, participants asked the researcher numerous
questions about their own gardens. They expressed interest in learning more about this unique
resource available at their schools. Because one of the aims of the study was to provide useful
information for the successful implementation of school gardens, the fact that the study inspired
participants to learn more about their gardens was considered a strength.

92

Table 4. Questions from School Administrator Interview Guide

Question
Category

Overall knowledge of and experience with the garden

Broad Question

I’d like to talk with you about your school’s garden. Can you tell me about the
garden?

Probe Questions

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.

What do you think about you school’s garden?
How long has your school had a garden?
How was the decision made to start the garden
How is the garden used at your school
Do you think that using the garden is effective in teaching curricular subjects
such as math or language arts? Why or why not?
Is the garden used for nutrition education? Do you think that the garden is an
effective tool for teaching nutrition? Why or why not?
Do you think that using the garden as a teaching tool has advantages over
other methods of student engagement? Describe the advantage(s) you have
experienced. Is this (advantage) a reason that you support the garden?
Does using the garden have limitations compared to other methods of student
engagement? What have you experienced as limitations of using the garden?
Overall, do you support the garden at your school? If so, why? If not, why not?
How do you communicate your support or lack of support?

93

4.3 Results –Facilitators and Barriers to School Garden-Based Nutrition Education
The GBNE programs at Janesville and Gilsonville relied heavily on USDA SNAP-Ed
grant funding. These federal grants supported nutrition educators’ salaries at both schools. At
Janesville, one full-time nutrition educator, hired by the school district, planned and led weekly
garden-based nutrition lessons for all elementary students. A second nutrition educator, who
worked primarily with high school students and occasionally with elementary students served as
the USDA SNAP-Ed grant administrator for the Janesville school district. At Gilsonville, one
nutrition educator, employed by a community non-profit organization, planned and led monthly
garden-based nutrition lessons in every classroom. A second nutrition educator, who planned
nutrition lessons and led Gilsonville’s summer garden camp, served as Gilsonville’s USDA
SNAP-Ed grant administrator. Table 3 provides a description of key characteristics of the GBNE
programs at Janesville and Gilsonville.
Two overarching themes associated with school GBNE emerged: (1) perceived and
experienced outcomes, and (2) facilitators and barriers to school GBNE. This paper discusses
features identified with the second theme, perceived facilitators and barriers GBNE (Table 6).
Following the emergence of facilitators and barriers to GBNE as an overarching theme,
four categories of facilitators and seven categories of barriers to GBNE were identified.
Facilitators included: (1) funding and community support, (2) presence of a garden champion
and garden allies, (3) communication and school support, and (4) positive student feedback.
Barriers included: (1) limitations in garden design, (2) seasonal limitations, (3) vandalism, (4)
funding restrictions, (5) time constraints, (6) large classes, behavior problems and perceived lack
of control, and (7) limited communication.

94

Table 3. Descriptive Information: District, School, and Garden Program

Gilsonville Elementary

Janesville Elementary

School District
Population

122,593

5,651

School District
Race/Ethnicity

66.7% White
24.0% Black or African American
0.8% American Indian or Alaska Native
3.9% Asian
13.0% Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

98.4% White
0.5% Black or African American
0.6% American Indian or Alaska Native
0.09% Asian
1.5% Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

Number of Students

354

514

% Students SNAP
Eligible

97.2%

64.5%

% Students ELL

60.2%

0%

% Students Special
Education

4.5%

6.8%

Physical Layout

Outdoor Garden and hoophouse

Outdoor garden, farm program with
livestock on pasture, and greenhouse

Nutrition/Garden
Educator(s)

Employed by community organization,
two full-time nutrition educators, over 30
volunteers

Employed by the district, 2 full-time
nutrition educators

Frequency of
Garden Activities

Monthly in homeroom (all students),
Weekly after school (5-10 students)

Weekly in nutrition classroom

Adult SemiStructured Interview
Participants

4 Classroom Teachers, 1 Literacy
Special Teacher, 2 Nutrition Educators,
2 Food Service Staff, 2 Custodial Staff,
1 Principal

4 Classroom Teachers, 1 Literacy
Special Teacher, 2 Nutrition Educators,
1 Food Service Staff, 1 Librarian, 1
Principal

Adult Observation
Participants

15

1

Student Observation
Participants

260

114

District *

School **

Garden Program

* Data from US Census American Fact Finder (United States Census Bureau, 2011)
** Data provided by the school principal

95

Table 6. Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to School Garden-Based Nutrition Education
Overall Facilitators

Specific Facilitators (# of Interview Participants to Describe Facilitator or Barrier, # of Field Notes
to Describe Facilitator)

Funding and Community
Support

1. Financial, in-kind and volunteer support (6)
2. Grant Administrator (4)

Garden Champion and
Garden Allies

1. Dedicated individuals who invest extra effort in garden (9)

Communication and School
Support

1. Adequate communication and associated support between garden/food service programs * (9)
2. Communication of administrative support (18)

Positive Student Feedback

3. Positive reaction to student excitement and interest in GBNE (6)

Overall Barriers

Specific Barriers (# of Participants to Describe Barrier, # of Field Notes to Describe Barrier)

Limitations in Garden
Design

1. Space (3)
2. Distance between garden and school building * (4)

Seasonal Barriers

1. School year and growing season do not coincide (4)

Vandalism **

1. Vandalism to garden structure

Funding Restrictions

1. Restrictions set by grantors (3, 1)
2. Few grant opportunities for established school gardens (1)

Time Constraints

1. More time needed in garden ** (6, 3)
2. Teachers’ lack of time (11, 1)
•
Teachers’ lack of time due to mandated teaching requirements (6)

Large Classes, Behavior
Problems, Lack of Control

1. Large classes (4, 1)
2. Perceived and experienced problems with student behavior (6, 1)
3. Perceived lack of control in outdoor-garden setting (2)

Limited Communication **

1. Limited communication and lack of support between garden and food service programs ** (3)

** (4)

* Described only at Janesville

** Described only at Gilsonville

96

4.3.1 Facilitators to School Garden-Based Nutrition Education

4.3.1.1 Facilitator: Funding and Community Support
Two factors associated with funding were identified as facilitators to GBNE. These
factors were: (1) financial, in-kind and volunteer support, and (2) the presence of a dedicated
funding administrator.
Multiple sources of support (financial and in-kind) allowed the schools to meet specific
requirements set by major grantors while also accommodating the diverse, and occasionally
unexpected, demands of the gardens. For example, the purchase of cooking supplies used to
prepare produce from the garden for tasting was allowable through USDA SNAP-Ed funds;
however the purchase of seedlings and gardening supplies such as tools was restricted. At
Janesville, additional grants and collaboration with the local high school’s Agriscience program
were resources through which garden materials such as seeds, compost and tools were obtained.
At Gilsonville, the non-profit organization that ran the garden received donations from a local
community gardening organization and from individual community members. Community
support consisted of monetary donations; in-kind donations such as plants, compost and mulch;
and volunteer time.
At both schools, having one of the nutrition educators serve as the grant and funding
administrator enabled the other teachers and administrators the freedom from grant reporting
requirements. Additional factors associated with funding were described as barriers to GBNE at
both schools. These factors will be introduced in the “Barriers” section of this paper.

97

4.3.1.2 Facilitator: Presence of Garden Champions and Garden Allies
Interview participants at both schools identified the presence of garden champions as a
facilitator to GBNE. This term, used by one of the educators at Janesville, refers to dedicated
individuals who invest extra effort and time, often unpaid, to ensure garden success. According
to this definition, garden champions included school employees, employees of a communitybased organization and community volunteers. Garden champions spent time maintaining,
promoting the use of and recruiting additional helpers for the school gardens.
Garden champions from both schools described making an extra effort, including
working extra hours, in order to maintain and promote the gardens. For example, a classroom
teacher at Janesville, described a garden champion investing extra effort:
[The garden champion] is GREAT about — I mean, she goes way above and beyond and
she’ll just do — she’s done a ton. I couldn’t even tell you half the things she’s done. I
don’t even know about them. She just does them. So she’s done a lot of projects with
teachers because I don’t have the time in my schedule and so she’ll just do them.
In another interview, a teacher at Janesville explained that having the garden champions
constantly promoting GBNE was a factor that facilitated teachers’ participation.
If you have somebody from the [GBNE] program coming to you and saying ‘Hey, this is
something that you can do, please come do it’, then I’m totally in. But a lot of the
teachers won’t think on their own to say, ‘Oh, maybe this would be a good idea’ …. So
unless you physically have somebody to tell you — that’s how I am sometimes. And when
[the garden champion] comes in and says ‘Hey, how about we do this’… ‘Okay, why
not?’ But to take extra time out and to plan on your own and all these little things, we just
don’t do. And that’s just honest. That’s how teachers are.

98

This teacher went on to explain: “I mean, they [the garden champions] work their butts off to try
and figure stuff out for us …. To have a person in your face telling you what’s available, it’s
important for me. Otherwise I don’t take advantage of it.”
In addition to the presence of garden champions, the researcher noted the presence of
individuals identified as garden allies. Garden allies did not have time to actively maintain or
promote use of the gardens; however they provided encouragement and support to the garden
champions. By welcoming and enthusiastically engaging in garden activities, garden allies fed
the garden champions’ sense of excitement for and motivation to promote GBNE at the schools.
Three interview participants, including garden champions from both schools, identified teachers,
administrators and other school staff who were especially supportive of GBNE.

4.3.1.3 Facilitator: Communication and School Support
Communication emerged as a facilitator to GBNE, both between the garden-based
nutrition program and (1) the food service program at Janesville, and (2) school principals at
both Janesville and Gilsonville.

Food Service Communication and Support - Janesville
At Janesville, interview participants described numerous occasions in which the food
service and garden programs had worked together. Nutrition educators indicated that the school’s
food service staff were extremely supportive of the garden program, and likewise, the food
service staff member indicated that the nutrition educators who ran the school garden were
respectful and friendly. Participants described communication and respect as keys to the positive

99

relationship. For example, one nutrition educator mentioned that she paid special attention to
maintaining a positive relationship with the food service program.
Our kitchen staff has been great … ‘cause they’ve got the big sinks for washing dishes
and they just - ‘Whatever, come on in’ …. I have to work around my schedule sometimes.
And around when they’re super busy, I try to stay out of their way …. So it’s just a matter
of trying to be respectful of each other’s space. And I’m always thanking them and
making sure they get tastes of whatever we’re doing … And they just are really really
great.
A food service staff member provided a similar description.
The staff that worked it [the garden] were very friendly … They were helpful, you know.
They’d always come in and ask first … if they had to use the oven for the day, they’d
come in and make sure it was okay … They were great as far as being, as far as trying to
accommodate with us to make sure that it wasn’t going to be, you know, they weren’t
going to be in our way.
In an example of the two programs working together, a food service staff member
described an occasion when produce from the garden was used to supplement the school lunch.
There was one time during the summer that I was, I didn’t have something I needed. So
they were scrambling to try to find anything I could use. I needed some green pepper,
tomato … So they went to both their gardens that they had and tried to find everything
that they could to help me out. And so, they were very, very helpful.
Additional examples of the synergy between the food service and garden programs were (1)
addition of organic waste from food service to garden compost, and (2) incorporation of spinach

100

from the garden into the salad bar. A working relationship based on clear communication and
respect played a role in facilitating this successful partnership at Janesville.

Administrative Communication and Support – Janesville and Gilsonville
Over half of the interview participants perceived strong administrative support for GBNE
at both schools; however these participants were unable to provide specific examples of how
administrators communicated their support. Similarly, the school principals confirmed that they
valued and strongly supported the GBNE programs; however they indicated that they
communicated their support in an informal manner. For example, the principal at one of the
schools described a relaxed approach to communicating her support for GBNE.
Researcher: Do you support the garden?
Principal: Yes, definitely.
Researcher: …. How do you communicate that support or make that known that you think
that the garden is a good thing at the school?
Principal: I don’t know how. I don’t know if I really communicate it that well. Except just
in talking to the people that are in charge, the nutrition teachers and the coordinator ….
We’re pretty easygoing. I’m not rigid. So that’s probably the biggest positive with them.
I’m just not rigid about most things, if you can teach something.
The principal at another school described a similar informal approach to support: “Principal: I
think there’s, not rules so much that inhibit the garden or rules that support it, but, the support is
there in [the school] having its doors open to the garden.”

101

4.3.1.4 Facilitator: Positive Student Feedback
The previous three facilitators to GBNE – funding, garden champions and allies, and
communication and school support - were factors dependent upon staff at the schools. Numerous
benefits to students have been associated with GBNE at Janesville and Gilsonville (Martin,
2011); however, students at these schools also played an important role in actively facilitating
GBNE at their schools. Positive student feedback was a facilitator to GBNE at both schools.
Interview participants, field notes, and examples of student work provided descriptions of
students’ interest and enjoyment in GBNE. Additionally, several interview participants, all of
whom were identified as either garden champions or allies, explained that they responded
positively to students’ excitement for and interest in GBNE. Positive student feedback emerged
as a factor that influenced teachers’ decisions to use the gardens at both schools. For example,
when describing recruitment for participation in GBNE, a nutrition educator (NE) at Gilsonville
explained that student feedback was her most valuable tool.
Researcher: What’s your way of trying to get the word out [about the garden] at
Gilsonville?
NE: A lot of it just kind of has to do with my connection with the kids, actually. Because
the kids enjoy our program so much, they are the first testimonial that we have. And the
best and the brightest testimonial.
In another example, a classroom teacher at Gilsonville indicated that student excitement and
interest were factors involved in her interest in the garden.
Researcher: Why are you interested in the garden?

102

Teacher: I just, the excitement from the kids is just great. And then when you go out and
see them in the garden …. It’s nature, you know, where they can see how food is grown,
and healthy food. And they just have a great interest and excitement for it.
Positive student feedback also provided encouragement and motivation to garden
champions. For example, one of the garden champions at Janesville described taking pleasure in
the fact that students were willing to try new foods: “I love it because kids are eating food that I
never thought they would touch.” A nutrition educator and garden champion from Gilsonville
described that students excitement for the garden made the challenges involved with GBNE
“worth it.”
I still believe that it’s worth it. Even though there’s … so much labor involved in getting
the soil and getting the plants and getting the woodchips and watering, and arranging,
all that is worth it to see all those kids running out to the hoophouse screaming
‘Spinach!’

4.3.2 Barriers to School Garden-Based Nutrition Education

4.3.2.1 Barrier: Limitations in Garden Design
The two most commonly described limitations in garden design were: (1) lack of
adequate space, and (2) distance between the school and the garden.
Interview participants from both schools indicated that inadequate space in the garden
structures was a barrier to effective GBNE. For example, at Janesville, an educator expressed her
desire for each class to have their own dedicated garden bed within the greenhouse. With
classroom specific garden beds, she explained, students could track and monitor plants that they

103

had planted, as opposed to students tending a more “corporate”, or shared, garden space. At
Gilsonville, two teachers described difficulty in keeping students from trampling through the
ground-level garden beds in the hoophouse. Installing raised beds or widening pathways are
adjustments in garden design that could alleviate these perceived barriers.
Additionally, four participants, all from Janesville, explained that the distance between
the garden and the school building, approximately 800 feet, was a factor that kept teachers from
engaging in GBNE.

For example, a classroom teacher at Janesville explained: “One barrier

that I see is that it’s too far from my classroom. If I could get there quicker, I would get there
more.”

4.3.2.2 Barrier: Seasonal Limitations
Seasonal limitations were described by interview participants from both schools, even
with the presence of a greenhouse at Janesville and a hoophouse at Gilsonville. These
participants noted that the relatively short growing season experienced in the upper Midwest was
not ideal for school gardening, mainly because the growing season and the school year did not
coincide.

4.3.2.3 Barrier: Vandalism - Gilsonville
Four interview participants at Gilsonville, including both nutrition educators, a custodian
and the school principal, described vandalism as a barrier to GBNE. They explained that several
neighborhood youth, on multiple occasions, had torn the plastic walls of the hoophouse using
sticks and also by physically climbing up the sides of the structure. Vandalism may have been an
issue at Gilsonville, in part, due to the location of the garden. The school was situated in the

104

heart of a high-traffic urban neighborhood. The garden sat in plain view of passers-by, which,
was seen by participants, not only as a barrier, but also as a positive attribute of the garden. The
garden had a “Community Tomatoes” section, which was planted specifically for and enjoyed by
community members. In addition to its positive neighborhood contribution, however, the open
and easily accessible setting of the garden may have also increased its vulnerability to potential
vandalism.
Despite the challenges associated with vandalism, participants at Gilsonville exhibited
hopefulness and resilience. For example, one participant explained:
We’re always heartbroken when it [the garden] gets vandalized, but the kids in the school
and the neighborhood actually also know who hurts the garden. So they’re paying
attention to it. It’s really nice.
In another example, a participant at Gilsonville expressed her thoughts regarding garden
vandalism:
[You can work] so hard to bring this program to them and then they’re turning around
and destroying it … But that’s just one or two bad kids out of the 250 kids at the school.
…. You can’t let that one or two destroy the all. That’s what’s wrong with this whole
world right now. You know, you just can’t go there. So I’ve been really trying not to let it
get to me. Even though it’s really, really frustrating to have stuff you work so hard on
destroyed just so simple and easily.

4.3.2.4 Barrier: Funding Restrictions
The nutrition educators from both Janesville and Gilsonville perceived barriers to GBNE
associated with funding restrictions. These participants explained that guidelines regarding

105

allowable and unallowable expenditures accompanied the SNAP-Ed federal grants that funded
the GBNE programs. The nutrition educators expressed concerns regarding allowable and
unallowable expenditures. For example, one participant explained her dissatisfaction with the
SNAP-Ed grant’s restriction on direct garden-related expenditures:
I understand that the money is coming from the USDA and it’s supposed to be helping
people increase their nutrition, but I just have a different view of that. I see it as … the
more kids are comfortable around food and exposed to food in a general way, then they
might be more willing to eat it and to try it …. I just think that being a little more broad
and a little more holistic, because I think it’s a very pigeon-holed view of how you teach
people about nutrition.
Another nutrition educator expressed a similar sentiment.
They [the grantor] understand that gardens support behavior change, but they’re not
willing to support gardens as a way to support behavior change. So, so I’m in a pickle.
How much time and labor and energy goes into the gardens, and recruiting the
volunteers to do that? Because I’m not supposed to do that labor unless I clock out and
I’m volunteering. And so that’s the whole aspect of it that makes it a downfall.
Other limitations associated with funding included a relative scarcity of grants available
to established school gardens. One participant, the grant administrator at Gilsonville, explained
that grants for start-up gardens were offered much more frequently than grants designed to
support established gardens. The issue of funding emerged as a double edged sword at Janesville
and Gilsonville. Without generous support from grant funders, the programs would not exist;
however, nutrition educators perceived restrictions imposed by the funding agencies as barriers
to GBNE.

106

4.3.2.5 Barrier: Time Constraints
Time constraints also emerged as a barrier to GBNE. At Gilsonville interview
participants and several field notes from participant observation described the need for students
to spend more time in the garden. At both schools, interview participants and field notes cited
that the main barrier to teachers participating in GBNE was lack of time, with over half of these
interview participants referring to lack of time specifically due to mandated teaching
requirements.
The non-profit organization that supported Gilsonville’s garden also supported gardens at
three other local elementary schools. Several years earlier, when the community organization
began their GBNE program, Gilsonville was the only school involved. At that time, the
organization provided weekly garden-based nutrition lessons to the students in addition to a
weekly after-school garden club. Since that time, the community organization expanded to
support three additional school gardens. Due to the expansion, the frequency of GBNE at
Gilsonville was reduced to once monthly instead of once weekly. Participants’ dissatisfaction
with the reduction of students’ garden time emerged from the data. For example, a classroom
teacher at Gilsonville shared her regret regarding reduction of students’ time spent in the garden.
She indicated that the reduced frequency of garden-based lessons made the learning experience
less continuous. With an entire month passing between lessons, she explained, it was difficult for
students to make connections to previous lessons.
Teacher: Well they [the nutrition educators] were here a lot more, yeah. Now, once a
month. That seems like, isn’t really enough, but.
Researcher: How do you think that’s changed the experience for the students?

107

Teacher: They don’t get as much of it [GBNE] and can’t be - it’s more like, ‘Well here’s
a lesson on this. And here’s a lesson.’ You can’t really say, ‘Well last time we learned
about, you know, because they’re so far apart. And the kids will forget. But, it’s changed
in that way. And I wish they would do it [GBNE] more. But I know with all the funding
not being there it’s kind of hard. They would need to do it out of the goodness of their
hearts.
The nutrition educators at Gilsonville were aware of teachers’ feelings regarding reduced
garden time. One of the nutrition educators at Gilsonville described teachers’ response to the
reduced frequency of garden-based lessons:
In the beginning we were at Gilsonville every week and now we’re there once a month.
So the teachers there are quite upset that they don’t get to see us the other three weeks.
And we’re not able to teach as much. So our way around that is we tell the teachers
about the curriculum and we leave a copy of the curriculum and we encourage them to
use it. But I’m not sure quite how often that’s happening.
Students at Gilsonville also expressed the desire to spend more time engaging in GBNE.
In a field note recorded during the once monthly garden week at Gilsonville, the researcher
described an informal conversation with a group of students:
On Friday as I was walking between classes at the school, a few students in the hallway
stopped to talk to me. These were fourth-grade boys. They asked me when we were
coming back to do more cooking. I told them that the next time would be January. They
both seemed surprised. One of the boys said, ‘January! That’s so far away! Why can’t
you come back sooner?’ I told him that we have to go to other schools too. The other
boy told me, ‘I wish you would come here every week.’

108

In contrast to participants at Gilsonville, participants at Janesville did not express
dissatisfaction with the amount of time that students spent engaging in GBNE. This contentment
at Janesville was likely due to the fact that students engaged in GBNE on a weekly basis.
Participants at both schools cited teachers’ lack of time, especially due to mandated
teaching requirements, as a major barrier to GBNE. It was rare for teachers at Janesville or
Gilsonville to engage in GBNE with their students independently of the nutrition educators. For
example, a fifth-grade teacher at Janesville indicated that the demands associated with mandated
curriculum kept her from engaging in GBNE with students:
As far as myself using it [the garden], when it’s not nutrition special time, probably not
likely to happen because of all the mandated curriculum …. It’s very hard to fit
everything in the way it is, and so much of school funding relies on our teaching the kids
what they’re going to be required to know. The testing – it’s hard to squeeze other things
in.

4.3.2.6 Barrier: Large Classes, Behavior Problems and Perceived Lack of Control
Participants from both schools described large classes, perceived and experienced
problems with student behavior, and perceived lack of control as barriers to GBNE. Four
participants described large class sizes, with numbers exceeding 25 students, as a barrier. Six
participants described potential and experienced behavioral problems as a factor that led to
teachers’ lack of participation in GBNE. On a related note, two participants cited teachers’
perceived lack of control associated with the outdoor-garden setting as a potential barrier to
GBNE.

109

4.3.2.7 Barrier: Limited Communication- Gilsonville
A lack of effective communication between the garden and food service programs
emerged as a barrier to GBNE at Gilsonville. As described by two nutrition educators and two
food service staff members, the relationship between the two programs was not constructive. The
nature of this relationship resulted, in part, from a mutual lack of communication about and
understanding of each other’s goals and needs.
Both food service staff members interviewed at Gilsonville expressed interest in the
garden; however they knew very little about the purpose and structure of the garden program.
For example, a food service staff member wondered out loud during her interview whether the
garden belonged to the school or to a local community center (not affiliated with the non-profit
organization that supported the garden). Due to a perceived lack of garden produce entering the
school, this food service staff member believed that the garden may have been owned by the
local community center rather than by the school.
I didn’t know if the garden was part of here [the school] or part of the community center
out there …. ‘Cause they [the garden program] never donate nothing to here. But they
probably gather it and take it up to the community center …. And then distribute it there
… That always surprises me because it’s so close to here …. And they use stuff from here.
They use the kitchen; they use the stuff like that. So it would seem like they would want to
donate some of the stuff to here.
Although it became clear to the researcher over the course of the study that the garden program
was not designed to provide a steady supply of produce to the food service operation, the food
service staff were not aware of this limitation. One of the nutrition educators at Gilsonville
described the production capacity of the garden program:

110

At the scale that we’re currently at, we could supplement some of the items on their [food
service] salad bar at certain parts of the year. But we haven’t really pursued that because
it makes much more sense for a farm-to-school program to come in so that they can
actually bring in enough to supply the whole school with what they need …. But that’s a
lot farther from what our focus is - is mainly just nutrition education, not providing the
salad bar or doing a farm-to-school. So, I would love for something like that to happen. I
think at our current capacity, with our current funding source, I can’t foresee a way to do
that other than just supplementing one item when we have it.
Had the food service staff at Gilsonville understood the purpose of the garden program (nutrition
education), and understood its limited capacity for food production, frustration regarding not
receiving produce from the garden may have been less of an issue. The food service staff spoke
favorably about the idea of working with the garden program in a situation through which both
parties would benefit.
Lack of communication also led to tension regarding the garden program’s use of food
service equipment, such as the oven or the dumpster. Time constraints imposed on the nutrition
educators led to their inability to engage in relationship building and consistent communication
with the food service staff. More consistent communication, including relationship building and
timely requests for kitchen use, may help alleviate problems between the two programs.

4.4 Discussion
Numerous perceived facilitators and barriers to GBNE were identified at Janesville and
Gilsonville. Several of these factors, such as the presence of garden champions (facilitator) or
funding restrictions (barrier), were experiences shared at both schools. Additional facilitators and

111

barriers, for example, the distance between the school building and the garden (barrier at
Janesville) and problems with vandalism (barrier at Gilsonville), were unique experiences
described at individual schools. The variation in perceived and experienced facilitators and
barriers to GBNE supports the notion that no single prescription can be made with regard to
GBNE design or implementation. These reported facilitators and barriers may, however, provide
useful insight for planning and implementation of successful GBNE programs.
Barriers to GBNE highlighted in this study, including lack of funding and lack of teacher
time, were also reported in two studies conducted among California teachers and principals
(Graham et al., 2005a; Graham & Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b). Alexander et al. found that time
constraints were a barrier to elementary school GBNE (Alexander et al., 1995). Limitations in
garden design, vandalism and limited communication have not been previously discussed in the
peer-reviewed school garden literature.
Several of the facilitators to GBNE described by participants at Janesville and Gilsonville
mirror considerations described as “best practices” by Desmond, Grieshop and Subramanium
(2002). In their report on the historical roots, best practices and outcomes of garden-based
learning, Desmond et al. (2002) describe organizational considerations, such as engagement with
classroom teachers and school administrators, as factors that facilitate the development of
successful garden-based education programs. They also highlight the importance of considering
garden design in the planning of educational gardens. Issues such as garden size, raised beds
versus ground-level beds, indoor versus outdoor gardens and the specific plants that will be
cultivated were mentioned as important operational considerations (Desmond, Grieshop &
Subramanium, 2002). Additional facilitators to GBNE, including the presence of a dedicated
garden coordinator and relationship building with the school principal and with “key teachers”

112

have been reported in the literature (Somerset & Markwell, 2008). The dedicated garden
coordinator and “key teachers” described by Somerset & Markwell (2008) may be analogous to
the garden champions and garden allies identified at Janesville and Gilsonville.

4.5 Recommendations for Practice
Several recommendations for practice can be gleaned from the experiences of
participants at Janesville and Gilsonville. These include: (1) Identifying diverse sources of
funding and potential funding administrators; (2) Engaging multiple shareholders within the
school, including classroom teachers, food service staff, administrators and volunteers; (3)
Developing means by which to support and encourage garden champions and allies; (4)
Supporting classroom teachers’ integration of garden-based activities into curricular teaching by
providing resources through which mandated teaching requirements may be met while also
engaging students in the garden; and (5) Considering issues such as space, shared versus
classroom specific beds, raised versus ground-level beds, season extension and garden security
when exploring potential garden location and design. For fledgling GBNE programs, addressing
each of these recommendations will be no minor task. Programs may benefit by determining
their unique assets and limitations and determining which of these recommendations are feasible
to address.

4.6 Limitations and Strengths
This study has several limitations, including potential bias introduced by the selfselecting method of interview participant recruitment and the duration of participant observation,
conducted between the months of September and December. A full year of participant

113

observation may have yielded richer data that more truly represented the GBNE experiences at
the schools.
Strengths of this study include achievement of several forms of qualitative validity:
method triangulation, catalytic validity and reciprocity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lather, 1986;
Lincoln, 1995). Additional strengths of this study were that over 135 hours of participant
observation and 22 face-to-face interviews were conducted.

4.7 Conclusions
This study identified numerous factors as facilitators and barriers to GBNE. These factors
are not an exhaustive list; rather, these insights highlight experiences associated with two unique
school garden-based nutrition programs. Facilitators and barriers described by the participants at
Janesville and Gilsonville, along with insights provided by other school garden programs, state
extension programs and gardening associations may prove useful to educators and school garden
supporters interested in planning and implementing successful GBNE programs.

4.8 Human Subjects Approval Statement
This study was approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board.

114

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Summary
This research explored the school GBNE experience at two Midwestern elementary
schools. Three methods of data collection - interviews, participant observation, and collection of
student work were employed in order to address the following study aims.

5.2 Study Aims 1 and 2
Study Aim 1: To understand administrator, staff, and student experiences of school-based
gardens in two elementary schools in the Midwest.

Study Aim 2: To understand the roles that these school gardens serve in two elementary schools
in the Midwest.

Chapters 3 and 4 addressed Study Aims 1 and 2. Students and adults described positive
experiences with and perceptions of the gardens. Between the two schools, the gardens were
used for food and nutrition education, academic instruction, student character development,
enhancement of students’ life experiences, peer and intergenerational relationship building,
community engagement, and student and staff enjoyment.

5.3 Study Aim 3
Study Aim 3: To understand the dynamic relationships between school personnel and how the
garden fits into these relationships.

115

Study Aim 3 was addressed through interview participants’ descriptions of
communication and school support. It became clear that staff relationships had the potential to
either enhance or inhibit the GBNE programs. Staff relationships based on clear communication
and respect, such as those between the food service staff and nutrition educators at Janesville,
were thought to contribute to the success of the garden. Conversely, staff relationships that
lacked clear communication and mutual understanding were described as barriers to GBNE.
Staff relationships within school settings are complex and the factors leading to issues such as
adequate communication and school-wide support of garden programs warrant further study.

5.4 Study Aim 4
Study Aim 4: To understand how the student experience of the school gardens compare to why
and how teachers and other staff use the garden.

The student experience of school gardens, referenced in Study Aim 4, was described in
Chapter 3. This chapter provided descriptions of both perceived and witnessed student outcomes
associated with GBNE. Perceived outcomes were described by adults as factors that led to their
support for and use of the gardens. In several situations, adults’ perceptions of the benefits of
GBNE and students’ actual experiences with GBNE coincided. Adults at the schools not only
perceived that gardens could teach nutrition and academics, offer life experiences, and facilitate
character development, but they also described actually witnessing these outcomes among
students. Field notes resulting from participant observation sessions and examples of student
work confirmed that students experienced the benefits reported by interview participants,
especially nutrition-related and academic benefits. These findings suggest that students’

116

experiences with the school gardens mirrored the factors behind staff support for and
engagement with GBNE.

5.5 Study Aim 5
Study Aim 5: To provide useful information regarding challenges and potential resources that
should be considered when developing a school garden program.

In Chapter 4, recommendations were provided based on the facilitators and barriers to
GBNE revealed at Janesville and Gilsonville. These recommendations included: (1) Identify
diverse sources of funding and potential funding administrators; (2) Engage multiple
shareholders within the school, including classroom teachers, food service staff, administrators
and volunteers; (3) Develop means by which to support and encourage garden champions and
allies; (4) Support classroom teachers integration’ of garden-based nutrition into curricular
teaching by providing resources through which mandated teaching requirements may be met
while also engaging students in the garden; and (5) Consider issues such as space, shared versus
classroom specific beds, raised versus ground-level beds, season extension and garden security
when exploring potential garden location and design.

Because of the grounded-theory nature of this study, results reached beyond the
boundaries of the original study aims (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The results were summarized in
two chapters to be submitted to research journals.

117

5.6 Perceived Outcomes Associated with Garden-Based Nutrition Education
In Chapter 3 seven overarching categories of perceived positive outcomes were
presented, including: (1) enhanced school learning experience, (2) enhanced nutrition
knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, (3) improved understanding of food systems, (4) character
development, (5) enhanced life experience, (6) intergenerational relationships and community
engagement, and (7) feelings of enjoyment, wonder and therapeutic effects among students and
staff.
Numerous outcomes, including components from all seven groups of outcomes
recognized in this study, have previously been identified as outcomes associated with gardenbased learning or experiences in gardens and green spaces (Graham et al. 2005a; Graham &
Zidenberg-Cherr, 2005b; Lineberger & Zajicek, 2000; Heim et al., 2009; Ratcliffe et al., 2011;
Parmer et al., 2009; Somerset & Markwell, 2008; Morgan et al., 2010; Thorp, 2011; Alexander
et al., 1995; Aldredge & Sempik, 2002; Taylor et al., 1998; Ober Allen et al., 2008).
The hands-on nature of garden-based learning was recognized as an important contributor
to the influence of GBNE on student outcomes, including increased fruit and vegetable intake.
Theories of experiential learning propose that hands-on, experience-based learning, allows
learners to contextualize newly acquired knowledge and that experiential education leads to
improved personal agency and competence (Kolb, 1984; Carver, 1996). In light of these factors,
a grounded-theory conceptual model was developed explaining the effect of garden-based
learning on nutrition education and on students’ fruit and vegetable intake. In this model, gardenbased learning provided a hands-on educational opportunity through which numerous
intermediated outcomes associated with GBNE ultimately led to increased fruit and vegetable
intake among children. Multiple research studies, including this one, indicate that GBNE leads to

118

increased fruit and vegetable intake (Lineberger & Zajicek, 2000; Heim et al., 2009; Ratcliffe et
al., 2011; Parmer et al., 2009; Somerset & Markwell, 2008; Morgan et al., 2010). In Chapter 3, a
data driven model and a conceptual model based on data and theory were provided. The
conceptual model provides a hypothesis for the route through which GBNE leads to increased
intake of fruits and vegetables among students.
This is the first comprehensive model hypothesizing how GBNE improves fruit and
vegetable intake and is also the first description to include hands-on learning as a determinant of
increased fruit and vegetable intake. Nutrition researchers often use established theories
commonly associated with health behavior, such as the Social Cognitive Theory, to explain
GBNE’s effectiveness at increasing students’ fruit and vegetable intake. Although GBNE is a
form of educational instruction, the phenomenon has not been examined through the context of
educational theories. Hands-on learning was integrated into the conceptual framework after
examination of theories of experiential education revealed that hands-on experience-based
learning leads to enhanced knowledge, self-efficacy, and skill (Carver, 1996; Kolb, 1984).
Knowledge, self-efficacy and skill are factors that have been identified as determinants of fruit
and vegetable intake among children (Brug et al., 2008; Kristjansdottir et al., 2006).
Garden-based learning provides a rich opportunity for enhancing the traditional
classroom-based nutrition education experience. As was the case at Gilsonville and Janesville,
students spent time learning about nutrition concepts in both the indoor-classroom and outdoorgarden environments. The hands-on nature of GBNE may be a key factor that contributes to the
effectiveness of GBNE at improving students’ nutrition behavior. Research examining the
outcomes of GBNE may benefit from measuring the extent to which learning is actually handson or experiential. Measuring related constructs from the conceptual model, such as relationship

119

building, enjoyment, and change in fruit and vegetable availability at school, may also further
elucidate the mode through which GBNE improves students’ fruit and vegetable intake.

5.7 Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to Garden-Based Nutrition Education
Chapter 4 described four categories of facilitators, and seven categories of barriers
associated with GBNE at Janesville at Gilsonville. Facilitators included: (1) funding and
community support, (2) presence of a garden champion and garden allies, (3) communication
and school support, and (4) positive student feedback. Barriers included: (1) limitations in garden
design, (2) seasonal limitations, (3) vandalism, (4) funding restrictions, (5) time constraints, (6)
large classes, behavior problems and perceived lack of control, and (7) limited communication.
In addition to development of a grounded-theory conceptual model, this study also
provided practical recommendations for the implementation of GBNE programs. These
recommendations were based on the perceived facilitators and barriers to GBNE revealed at
Janesville and Gilsonville. These recommendations included: (1) identifying diverse sources of
funding and potential funding administrators; (2) engaging multiple shareholders within the
school, including classroom teachers, food service staff, administrators and volunteers; (3)
developing means by which to support and encourage garden champions and allies; (4)
supporting classroom teachers integration’ of garden-based nutrition into curricular teaching by
providing resources through which mandated teaching requirements may be met while also
engaging students in the garden; and (5) considering issues such as space, shared versus
classroom specific beds, raised versus ground-level beds, season extension and garden security
when exploring potential garden location and design. Desmond et al. offer similar
recommendations in their report on gardens in education (Desmond et al., 2002). Facilitators and

120

barriers to GBNE have not been the focus of peer-reviewed reports on GBNE. Based on the
findings that GBNE serves as an effective tool for improving fruit and vegetable intake among
students, recommendations for the effective implementation of GBNE programming are
warranted. The recommendations provided in this study were determined based on issues faced
by established GBNE programs and many of the facilitators and barriers were common to both
urban and rural programs.
When planning and implementing GBNE programs, researchers and practitioners may
benefit from examining previously described facilitators and barriers to GBNE and determining
which factors are relevant to their unique programs. For example, an urban school may
potentially experience problems with vandalism (as described at Gilsonville). The
recommendations included in Chapter 4 provide a guide for planning and implementation of
future GBNE programs.

5.8 Limitations and Strengths
This study had several limitations, including potential bias among self-selected interview
participants. The extent to which these participants were biased is unclear, however, it should be
noted that interview participants ranged from school staff who were very engaged with the
garden programs to one participant who did not even know that the school had a garden. A
second limitation has to do with the timing of the study. Due to time constraints, the researcher
conducted participant observation for only three months, early September through early
December. The gardens were located in the upper Midwest, and therefore observations were
made toward the end of the growing season. Participants indicated that the school gardens were

121

used more often during the spring and summer months. Therefore, additional participant
observation sessions, especially early in the growing season, may have enriched the data.
This study also had several strengths, or validity criteria, against which quality may be
assessed. Validity criteria achieved by this study were: (1) method triangulation, (2) reciprocity,
and (3) catalytic validity.
Multiple modes of data collection were used in order to achieve method triangulation and
data collection continued at both schools until saturation was achieved (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) explain the benefit of method triangulation: “It is as though a
fisherman were to use multiple nets, each of which has a complement of holes, but placed
together so that the holes in one net were covered by intact portions of other nets” (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985, p. 306). Themes were determined following analysis of field notes and interview
transcripts. Student work provided additional support for several of the themes. Method
triangulation does not require that all data sources mutually confirm all findings. Through
method triangulation, data that may not have been captured by one mode of data collection may
effectively be captured by a different mode (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
Reciprocity was an additional criterion for validity achieved by this study. Through a
process of clear communication and respect, relationships were built between the researcher and
participants. These relationships led to the establishment of reciprocity, or a sense of trust,
caring, and mutuality between the researcher and study participants (Lincoln, 1995). In addition
to formal data collection activities, the researcher socialized with teachers during breaks (i.e.
during lunch hour) and spent time outside of the formal data collection setting building
relationships with staff at the schools. By establishing relationships with adult participants based
on mutual respect and trust, these participants freely shared opinions and ideas during interview

122

and observations sessions. The researcher also paid careful attention to her relationship with and
perceived role among students. In an attempt to separate herself from the associations that
students made with the traditional school structure, the researcher did not engage in formal
garden-based instruction or student discipline. This technique was based on Thorp’s (2001)
description of the willingness of children to share their garden experiences with a trusted adult
with whom they did not associate the traditional confines and parameters of school (Thorp,
2001)
Catalytic validity, or “the degree to which the research process reorients, focuses, and
energizes participants toward knowing reality in order to transform it” was an additional strength
of the study (Lather, 1986, p. 272). During the process of interviews and observation, numerous
participants, especially those who were not previously engaged in the garden, asked the
researcher, questions about their own gardens. These participants expressed excitement in
learning about the gardens and indicated that they planned to seek further information. One of
the goals of this study was to provide useful information for the successful implementation of
school gardens. By engaging participants in discussion about their perceptions of and
experiences with the gardens, this project provided a catalyst for participants themselves to
explore the gardens at the two schools.
Additional strengths of this study were that over 135 hours of participant observation and
22 face-to-face interviews were conducted. Both schools were also extremely cooperative with
and supportive of the study procedures.

123

5.9 Conclusions
Results from this study support the notion that no single prescription exists to ensure
successful school GBNE programming. The idea of “success” in fact, may itself be misguided.
Because the outcomes of school garden programs are so varied and the experiences at any school
depend on that school’s unique characteristics, the definition of success likely varies from school
to school. Existing literature indicates that school GBNE is a promising approach to improving
nutrition-related outcomes among students. Additional personal, social and academic benefits
have also been described. This study provided rich descriptions of numerous outcomes and
experiences associated with school GBNE. The study is unique in that it offered a model through
which school GBNE improves students’ fruit and vegetable intake, and recommendations for the
practical implementation of GBNE programs in schools.

124

APPENDICES

125

APPENDIX A: Initial Recruitment Letter
Dear School Administrator (will be replaced with actual name),
Hello, my name is Caroline Martin. I am a graduate student in Community Nutrition at
Michigan State University. I would like to tell you about an opportunity for your school to
participate in a research study on school gardens. The purpose of the study is to gain an
understanding of how and why schools utilize gardens.
There are two components to the study. You may have already participated in the first
component, an online survey of Michigan schools that was conducted in January of 2010. Your
school has been recognized by garden-based educators throughout the mid-Michigan area as
having a strong and unique garden program. Because of this recognition, we would like to
include your school in the second component of the project - a case study to better understand
the school garden experience.
The case study includes 1) staff interviews, 2) school garden observation, 3) student interviews,
and 4) review of documents such as lesson plans and garden harvest records.
1. Teacher and School Staff Interviews
The staff interviews will be conducted by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) trained
researcher from MSU with key staff members. The purpose of the interviews will be to
talk with school staff about their experiences and perceptions of the school garden. Each
face-to-face interview will last about one hour, and will be scheduled individually at the
convenience of the voluntary participant for a date between May and October, 2010. The
interviews will likely be one-time interviews, with the possibility of a brief follow-up
interview or phone call to be scheduled for further clarification if necessary. Consent will
be obtained from all participants before the interviews. We would like to interview the
following staff members:
•
•
•
•
•
•

One school administrator
One school food service director and one food service staff person
Three or more classroom or subject teachers that have actively used the garden in
curricular or extracurricular education
Two or more classroom or subject area teachers that do not use the garden in
curricular or extracurricular education
One or more school custodial or grounds keeping staff person
One or more additional garden-based nutrition educator (if applicable)

2. School Garden Observations
The school garden observation component will be conducted during the fall of 2010. An
IRB trained researcher from MSU will observe several garden-based sessions. The gardenbased observation may occur in the actual garden or in a classroom session where the
teaching is garden-based. The observer will not be involved with the students or teacher
during the observation and will not record any identifiable private information from the
students. Since no identifiable private information will be collected from the students and
126

since the observer will not come into contact with the students, only teacher consent will be
obtained before the observation takes place. The observations will occur before the student
interviews take place in order to ensure that the students don’t recognize the observer and
that the observer doesn’t recognize the students.
3. Student Interviews
The student interviews will be conducted by an IRB trained researcher from MSU during
the fall of 2010, after the students have had an opportunity to be involved with the garden.
Interviews will be conducted individually with 10 students who are involved with the
school garden. We may ask a teacher or staff person to sit in on the first several minutes of
the interview to help the student become comfortable with the interview situation. The
students will be selected by their teacher for participation. The interviews will last no more
than half an hour and will be conducted on an individual basis. The interviews will be
conducted with fourth and fifth graders and the purpose of the interviews is to talk with the
students about their school garden experiences. Student assent and parent consent will be
obtained before students are interviewed.
4. Review of School Garden Documents
For the document review, an IRB trained researcher from MSU will review documents
such as lesson plans and garden harvest records for content.
If you are willing to have your school participate, I will provide you with a letter of support that
will need to be signed and returned to me. To each staff person who participates in the
interviews, we would like to offer a $15.00 gift card to Target, Meijer, or a teacher supply store.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Caroline Martin by phone: (517) 3558478 x 167; email: mart115@msu.edu; or via post mail: Department of Food Science & Human
Nutrition, 338 Trout FSHN Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Thank you so much for your time. We look forward to working with you!
Sincerely,
Caroline L. Martin
MS Candidate, Community Nutrition
Dept. of Food Science and Human Nutrition
Michigan State University
338 Trout FSHN Building
East Lansing, MI 48824

Katherine Alaimo, PhD
Associate Professor
Dept. of Food Science and Human Nutrition
215 G.M. Trout FSHN Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1224

mart1152@msu.edu

alaimo@msu.edu

517.355.8474 x 167 (office)
517.353.8963 (fax)

517-355-8474 x 138 (office)
517.353.8963 (fax)

127

APPENDIX B: Letters of Support - Janesville Elementary School
Springport Elementary School…
300 W. Main Street

P.O. Box 100

XXXXXX
Principal

Springport, MI 49284-0100

XXXXXXX
Secretary

5/20/10
Katherine Alaimo, PhD
Department of Food Science & Human Nutrition
215 G.M. Trout FSHN Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Dear Dr. Alaimo and the MSU Institutional Review Board:

Springport Elementary School agrees to participate in the activities and evaluation of:
School Garden Nutrition Education (SGNE) Project
Principal Investigator: Dr. Katherine Alaimo, Associate Professor, Department of Food Science
and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University
MSU IRB #: i033471, r031068
We understand that this project is being undertaken to learn about and improve garden-based
nutrition education in schools, and are pleased to partnering with you on this project.
Our school agrees to participate in the following activities:
1. Teacher and School Staff Interviews
The staff interviews will be conducted by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) trained
researcher from MSU with key staff members, including teachers, food service staff, grounds
and custodial staff, and administrators. The purpose of the interviews will be to talk with the
staff about their experiences and perceptions of the school garden. Each face-to-face
interview will last about one hour, and will be scheduled individually at the convenience of
the voluntary participant for a date between May and September, 2010. The interviews will
likely be on-time interviews, with the possibility of a brief follow-up interview or phone call
to be scheduled for further clarification if necessary. Consent will be obtained from all
participants before the interviews. We would like to interview staff members who hold each
of the following roles:

128

•
•
•
•
•

One school administrator
One school food service director and one food service staff person
Three or more classroom or subject teachers that have actively used the garden in
curricular or extracurricular education
One or more school custodial or grounds keeping staff person
One or more additional garden-based nutrition educator (if applicable)

2. School Garden Observations
The school garden observation component will be conducted during the fall of 2010. An IRB
trained researcher from MSU will observe several garden-based sessions. The garden-based
observation may occur in the actual garden or in a classroom session where the teaching is
garden-based. The observer will not be involved with the students or teacher during the
observation and will not record any identifiable private information from the students. Since no
identifiable private information will be collected from the students and since the observer will
not come into contact with the students, only teacher consent will be obtained before the
observation takes place. The observations will occur before the student interviews take place in
order to ensure that the students don’t recognize the observer and that the observer doesn’t
recognize the students.
3. Student Interviews
The student interviews will be conducted by an IRB trained researcher from MSU during the fall
of 2010, after the students have had an opportunity to be involved with the garden. Interviews
will be conducted individually with 10 students who are involved with the school garden. We
may ask a teacher or staff person to sit in on the first several minutes of the interview to help the
student become comfortable with the interview situation. The students will be selected by their
teacher for participation. The interviews will last no more than half an hour and will be
conducted on an individual basis. The interviews will be conducted with fourth and fifth graders
and the purpose of the interviews is to talk with the students about their school garden
experiences. Student assent and parent consent will be obtained before students are interviewed.
4. Review of School Garden Documents
For the document review, an IRB trained researcher from MSU will review documents such as
lesson plans and garden harvest records for content.
We are pleased to participate in this study.
Sincerely
SIGNATURE

129

APPENDIX C: Letters of Support (cont.) - Gilsonville Elementary School

August 2, 2010
Katherine Alaimo, PhD
Department of Food Science & Human Nutrition
215 G.M. Trout FSHN Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Dear Dr. Alaimo and the MSU Institutional Review Board:

Springport Elementary School agrees to participate in the activities and evaluation of:
School Garden Nutrition Education (SGNE) Project
Principal Investigator: Dr. Katherine Alaimo, Associate Professor, Department of Food Science
and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University
MSU IRB #: i033471, r031068
We understand that this project is being undertaken to learn about and improve garden-based
nutrition education in schools, and are pleased to partnering with you on this project.
Our school agrees to participate in the following activities:
5. Teacher and School Staff Interviews
The staff interviews will be conducted by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) trained
researcher from MSU with key staff members, including teachers, food service staff, grounds
and custodial staff, and administrators. The purpose of the interviews will be to talk with the
staff about their experiences and perceptions of the school garden. Each face-to-face
interview will last about one hour, and will be scheduled individually at the convenience of
the voluntary participant for a date between May and September, 2010. The interviews will
likely be on-time interviews, with the possibility of a brief follow-up interview or phone call
to be scheduled for further clarification if necessary. Consent will be obtained from all
participants before the interviews. We would like to interview staff members who hold each
of the following roles:

130

•
•
•
•
•

One school administrator
One school food service director and one food service staff person
Three or more classroom or subject teachers that have actively used the garden in
curricular or extracurricular education
One or more school custodial or grounds keeping staff person
One or more additional garden-based nutrition educator (if applicable)

6. School Garden Observations
The school garden observation component will be conducted during the fall of 2010. An IRB
trained researcher from MSU will observe several garden-based sessions. The garden-based
observation may occur in the actual garden or in a classroom session where the teaching is
garden-based. The observer will not be involved with the students or teacher during the
observation and will not record any identifiable private information from the students. Since no
identifiable private information will be collected from the students and since the observer will
not come into contact with the students, only teacher consent will be obtained before the
observation takes place. The observations will occur before the student interviews take place in
order to ensure that the students don’t recognize the observer and that the observer doesn’t
recognize the students.
7. Student Interviews
The student interviews will be conducted by an IRB trained researcher from MSU during the fall
of 2010, after the students have had an opportunity to be involved with the garden. Interviews
will be conducted individually with 10 students who are involved with the school garden. We
may ask a teacher or staff person to sit in on the first several minutes of the interview to help the
student become comfortable with the interview situation. The students will be selected by their
teacher for participation. The interviews will last no more than half an hour and will be
conducted on an individual basis. The interviews will be conducted with fourth and fifth graders
and the purpose of the interviews is to talk with the students about their school garden
experiences. Student assent and parent consent will be obtained before students are interviewed.
8. Review of School Garden Documents
For the document review, an IRB trained researcher from MSU will review documents such as
lesson plans and garden harvest records for content.
We are pleased to participate in this study.
Sincerely
SIGNATURE

131

APPENDIX D: Interview Guides – Administrator
(Text in italics are the questions that will be asked of the interviewees. Text in bold will be the
direct questions – text not in bold will be probe questions. Text not in italics are headings.)
1. What are administrator experiences and perceptions of the school garden?
A) I’d like to talk with you about your school’s garden. Can you tell me about the garden?
Topics to cover:
 What do you think about your school’s garden? What is your general impression
or opinion of the garden?
 How long has your school had a garden?
i. If first year: Why did your school establish the garden?
ii. Multiple years: Why did your school establish the garden? Why has your
school decided to continue to maintain the garden?
 How was the decision made to start the garden?
 How is the garden used at your school?
i. Is it used for academic instruction? If so, what subjects are taught?
ii. Is it used for professional development?
iii. Is it used for community building?
iv. Is it used for food production?
 Do you think that using the garden is effective in teaching curricular subjects
such as math or language arts? Why or why not?
 Is the garden used for Nutrition Education? Do you think that the garden is an
effective tool for teaching Nutrition? Why or why not?
 Do you think that using the garden as a teaching tool has advantages over other
methods of student engagement? Describe the advantage(s) you have
experienced. Is this (advantage) a reason that you support the garden?
 Does using the garden have limitations compared to other methods of student
engagement? What have you experienced as limitations of using the garden?
 Overall do you support the garden at your school? If so, why? If not, why not?
How do you communicate your support or lack of support?
B) I’d like to learn a little more about your experience of and involvement with the garden.
Are you involved with the garden? If so, how?

132

Have you interacted with students in the garden? Please describe your experience.
Topics to cover:
 Please describe your role at the school and with the school garden.
 Have you seen students respond to the garden being used as a teaching tool? If
so, please describe a scenario that illustrates a positive, negative, or neutral
student response.
 Has the garden had any noticeable impacts on the students or on the school as a
whole? Please provide an example.
 Has the garden ever caused any problems or conflict at your school?
2. Funding and grants. Guidelines and standards to be met.
C) So, now I’d like to talk about funding and support for the garden. Can you tell me about
how the garden is financially supported?
If the garden is funded externally, for example, by a grant, are there requirements that
must be met for this funding? If so, what are these goals and how do you measure and
report them?
Topics to cover:
 How is the garden at your school financially supported?
 Do you have any grants or other funding sources that provide guidelines or
objectives that need to be followed or achieved through the garden
programming?
i. If yes, what is/are the grant(s) that you receive and what are their
requirements?
 Are you able to achieve the objectives / standards required for funding purposes?
 How do you measure your compliance with or progress toward the standards or
objectives set forth by your grantor(s)?
 Do you feel that you have adequate resources to measure these outcomes? Why
or why not?
 Do you feel that these standards impact the quality of garden-based nutrition
education delivered through the garden - either positively or negatively? How?

133

3. Policy.
D. Now that we’ve covered funding, I’d like to talk with you about policies at your school that
affect the school garden. Can you describe any policies or rules that your school has that
affect the garden?
Topics to cover:
 Does your school have a local wellness policy? If so, can you tell me about the
purpose of the policy?
 Are there any rules at your school regarding foods or beverages that are
considered unhealthy? Can you give an example?
 Are there any rules at your school regarding nutrition education? If so, can you
give an example?
 Does your school try to promote physical activity among students? If so, how?
 How are decisions about health and wellness made at your school?
 Do any of these rules impact the use of the school garden? If so, how?
 Is nutrition education at your school affected by school policy? How?
 In your opinion, do you think that policies should be established (both school
wide or even nationally) to promote garden based nutrition education? If so,
please describe what kinds of policies you think should be established.
 Do you think that the local wellness policy is effective? Why or why not?
 Are there ways in which the policy can be improved? If so, how?
4. School Support
E. So now I have a few questions about staff involvement with the garden at your school.
How would you say that the school, as a while, embraces the garden?
Also, what do you think staff at the school think about the garden?
I’m also interested in how parents and the community receive the garden. Are parents and
community members involved with or interested in the garden, if so, how?
Topics to cover:
 How many teachers at your school use the garden?
134

 How difficult or easy is it for teachers to get involved with the garden?
 What kind of support is there for a teacher who wants to use the garden but may
lack confidence in their gardening abilities?
 Are there any barriers that teachers may experience in using the garden?
 How do you think teachers who are not involved with the garden view the
garden?
 Are parents or community members involved with the garden? If so, in what way
are they involved? If not, what are the barriers to their involvement?
 Do you think that the garden has an impact on the work of school staff other than
teachers? How do you think that those personnel view the garden?
 Do you think that the garden is a program that will be able to continue year after
year? Why or why not?

135

APPENDIX D: Interview Guides (cont.) - Food Service Staff
(Text in italics are the questions that will be asked of the interviewees. Text in bold will be the
direct questions – text not in bold will be probe questions. Text not in italics are headings.)
2. What are staff experiences and perceptions of the school garden?
A. I’d like to learn a little bit about the garden at your school. Specifically, I’m interested in
your experiences with the garden. Can you tell me if and how you are involved with the
garden and how the garden fits into your responsibilities at the school?
Also, what do you think about your school’s garden? What is your general impression or
opinion?
Topics to cover:
 Please describe your role at the school and your involvement with the school
garden?
 How much interaction do you have with students on a daily basis?
 How much interaction do you have with other staff members on a daily basis?
 What can you tell me about the garden here at your school (as you know it)?
 How is the garden used at the school? What is it’s purpose?
 How long has your school had a garden?
i. If first year: Why did your school establish the garden?
ii. Multiple years: Why did your school establish the garden? Why has your
school decided to continue to maintain the garden?
B. I’d like to talk a little bit more about the garden. Can you tell me what you think about
the garden with regards to how the students respond? How do the students respond to
the garden? Can you elaborate on this?
Topics to cover:
 How much interest do you think the students have in the school garden? Why do
you say this?
 Do you think that having a school garden provides any benefits to students? To the
school as a whole? If so, what benefits, and why?

136

C. I’m wondering what the relationship is like between the garden program and food
service. Can you please describe to me any interaction between the garden and food
service. What do you think of this relationship?
Topics to cover:
 Is produce from the garden ever used by food service? If so, how often does this
occur? Please describe how this food is used?
 Do you think that students would like to eat produce from the garden? Why or why
not?
 Have you received any support or encouragement to incorporate the garden into
food service? If so, please describe. If not, what type of support would be helpful?
 Have you been discouraged from incorporating the garden into food service? If so,
please describe.
 How willing are you to incorporate foods from the garden into food service?
 What would/did motivate you to incorporate food from the garden into the food
service program?
 What would you envision as an ideal relationship between the school garden and
foods service?
 What obstacles prevent that ideal relationship from becoming a reality?
 Do teachers ever serve food from the garden to their students in class? What do
you think about that?
 Has the garden had any noticeable impacts on the students or on the school as a
whole?
 Has the garden ever caused any problems or conflict at your school?
 Overall do you support the garden at your school? If so, why? If not, why not?
2.

Policy.

D. Now that we’ve covered the basics, I’d like to talk with you about policies at your
school that affect the school garden. Can you describe any policies or rules that your
school has that affect the garden?
Topics to cover:

137

 Does your school have a local wellness policy? If so, can you tell me about the
purpose of the policy?
 Are there any rules at your school regarding foods or beverages that are
considered unhealthy? Can you give an example?
 Does your school try to promote physical activity among students? If so, how?
 How are decisions about health and wellness made at your school?
 How do these rules impact food service?
 Do any of these rules impact the use of the school garden in any way? If so, how?
E. Do you think that wellness policy is effective? Why or why not? Are there ways in
which the policy can be improved? If so, how?
3. School Support
F. So now I have a few questions about staff involvement with the garden at your school.
How would you say that the school, as a whole, embraces the garden?
Also, how do you think staff at the school perceive the garden?
And finally, do you feel that the garden affects your work? If so, please describe.
Topics to cover:
 How do you think that the school, as a whole, embraces the garden?
 Do you think that the garden has an impact on your work?
 How do you think that other food service personnel view the garden? Why do you
say this?
 How do you think that the school administrators view the garden? Why makes
you believe this?
 Do you think that the garden is a program that will be easy to continue year after
year? Why or why not?

138

APPENDIX D: Interview Guides (cont.) - Custodial or Grounds Staff
(Text in italics are the questions that will be asked of the interviewees. Text in bold will be the
direct questions – text not in bold will be probe questions. Text not in italics are headings.)
3. What are staff experiences and perceptions of the school garden?
D. I’d like to learn a little bit about the garden at your school. Specifically, I’m interested in
your experiences with the garden. Can you tell me if and how you are involved with the
garden and how the garden fits into your responsibilities at the school?
Also, what do you think about your school’s garden? What is your general impression or
opinion?
Topics to cover:
 Please describe your role at the school and your involvement with the school
garden?
 How much interaction do you have with students on a daily basis?
 How much interaction do you have with other staff members on a daily basis?
 What can you tell me about the garden here at your school (as you know it)?
 How long has your school had a garden?
i. If first year: Why did your school establish the garden?
ii. Multiple years: Why did your school establish the garden? Why has your
school decided to continue to maintain the garden?

E. I’d like to talk a little bit more about the garden. Can you tell me what you think about
the garden with regards to how the students respond? How do the students respond to
the garden? Can you elaborate on this?
Topics to cover:
 How much interest do you think the students have in the school garden? Why do
you say this?

139

 Do you think that having a school garden provides any benefits to students? To the
school as a whole? If so, what benefits, and why?
 How is the garden used at your school? Is it used for academic instruction? Is it
used to teach Nutrition? Are there other purposes or uses for the garden?

 Has the garden ever caused any problems or conflict at your school?

4. Policy.
a. Now that we’ve covered the basics, I’d like to talk with you about policies at your
school that affect the school garden. Can you describe any policies or rules that
your school has that affect the garden?
Topics to cover:
 Does your school have a local wellness policy? If so, can you tell me about the
purpose of the policy?
 Are there any rules at your school regarding foods or beverages that are
considered unhealthy? Can you give an example?
 Does your school try to promote physical activity among students? If so, how?
 How are decisions about health and wellness made at your school?
 How do these rules impact you?
 Do any of these rules impact the use of the school garden in any way? If so, how?

b. Do you think that wellness policy is effective? Why or why not? Are there ways in
which the policy can be improved? If so, how?

5. School Support

140

G. So now I have a few questions about staff involvement with the garden at your school.
How would you say that the school, as a whole, embraces the garden?
Also, how do you think staff at the school perceive the garden?
And finally, do you feel that the garden affects your work? If so, please describe.
Topics to cover:
 How do you think that the school, as a whole, embraces the garden?
 Do you think that the garden has an impact on your work?
 How do you think that other school staff view the garden? Why do you say this?
 How do you think that the school administrators view the garden? Why makes
you believe this?
 Do you think that the garden is a program that will be easy to continue year after
year? Why or why not?

141

APPENDIX D: Interview Guides (cont.) - Teachers – Engaged with Garden
(Text in italics are the questions that will be asked of the interviewees. Text in bold will be the
direct questions – text not in bold will be probe questions. Text not in italics are headings.)
1. Garden in the classroom
D) I’d like to talk with you about your school’s garden. Can you tell me about the garden?
Also can you tell me how you are involved with the garden?
Topics to cover:
 Please describe your role at the school and your involvement with the school
garden?
 What do you think about your school’s garden? What is your general impression or
your general opinion?
 Do you use the garden as a teaching tool? If so, what subject(s) do you teach using
the garden? Why did you decide to teach that/those subjects using the garden?
 How long have you used this garden as a teaching tool?
i. If first year: Why did you decide to start using a garden with your students?
ii. Multiple years: Why did you decide to start using a garden with your
students? Why did you decide to continue to incorporate the garden into
your classroom?
 How many hours a week and how often do you use the garden?
i.

Do you use the integrated garden-based learning into your lessons
equally throughout the year, or seasonally?

ii.

Can you describe how you used the garden differently depending on
the seasons?

iii.

During the fall, how many hours per week, on average, do you use
the garden as a teaching tool? What about the winter and spring?
What about summer?

iv.

How do you determine how frequently you use the garden for
academic instruction?

E) I’d like to know a little bit more about how you use the garden and how you incorporate
the garden into your classroom lessons and activities. Can you describe how you typically
use the garden and how you design your garden-based lessons?

142

Topics to cover:
 How do you design your lesson plans that incorporate the garden?
 When you plan lessons that incorporate the garden, do you start with what’s going
on in the garden and try to match that to a teaching objective, or do you start with
a teaching objective and try to find something in the garden that ties in?
 Have you received any support or encouragement to incorporate the garden into
your teaching? If so, please describe. If not, what type of support would you like
to receive?
 Have you been discouraged from incorporating the garden into your teaching? If
so, please describe.
 Can you give me an example of a lesson that incorporates the garden?
 Has the garden ever caused any problems or conflict at your school? If so, please
describe.
F) So now that we’ve talked about how you work with the garden, I’d like to talk about the
students. Can you describe how the students experience the garden – for example, are they
engaged, interested, do they respond positively or negatively?
Topics to cover:
 Have you seen students respond to the garden as a teaching tool? If so, can you
describe their response.
i. Would you describe their response as positive, neutral, or negative?
a. Are the students engaged, interested?
b. Do the students talk about the garden in classroom
discussions?
c. Do students have an aversion to getting dirty or going outside?
If so, how do they express this?
ii. Describe a scenario that illustrates a student’s response to the garden.
G) Now I have a few very general questions for you:
What do you envision as the ideal school garden program for your school?
What obstacles, if any, prevent that ideal program from becoming a reality at your school?
2. Garden-based Nutrition Education

143

H) Now I’d like us to shift gears a little bit. I’m interested in learning about Nutrition
Education specifically within your classroom. Is the garden used as a teaching tool for
nutrition education or physical activity? Can you describe the process?
Topics to cover:
 Do you teach Nutrition using the garden?
 Do you ever cook with or eat fruits or veggies from the garden with the students?
Describe a scenario in which you cooked with or ate fruits or vegetables from the
garden with students.
 Do you use the garden to promote physical activity? Can you give an example?
 Do you ever use the garden to discuss foods or food groups? Can you give an
example of how you use the garden to discuss foods or food groups?
 Do you use the garden to discuss the benefits of fruits and vegetables? Can you give
an example?
 Do you use the garden to discuss the benefits of whole grains? Can you give an
example?
 Do you use the garden to discuss the benefits of low fat dairy? Can you give an
example?
 Do you use the garden to discuss the nutritional value of foods? Can you give an
example?
 Do you use the garden to initiate discussions about health? Can you give an
example?
I) I have a few more questions about how and why you use the garden to teach nutrition.
Basically I’d like to know why you have decided to use the garden to teach nutrition.
How do you structure your nutrition lessons- are they free standing or part of a curricular
lesson (such as a science lesson)? What kind of planning resources are available to you?
Also, can you describe any advantages and or limitations to using the garden as a tool
teach nutrition.
Topics to cover:
 Why do you use the garden to teach nutrition?

144

 Do you think that using the garden as a teaching tool for nutrition education has
advantages over other methods of nutrition education?
i. Describe the advantage(s) you have experienced.
ii. Is this (advantage) a reason that you use the garden?
 Does using the garden for nutrition education have limitations compared to other
methods of nutrition education?
i. What have you experienced as limitations of using the garden as a teaching
tool?
 Do you integrate nutrition education into your curricular lessons or do you teach
nutrition separately? Why do you choose to integrate/teach separately?
i. If nutrition is integrated into curricular lessons, how is it integrated?
 Do you think that using a garden as a teaching tool for curricular subjects such as
science or social studies has advantages over other methods?
i. If so describe the advantage(s) you have experienced.
ii. Is this (advantage) a reason that you use the garden?
 Does using the garden as a teaching tool for curricular subjects have limitations
compared to other methods?
i. What have you experienced as limitations of using the garden as a teaching
tool?
 What resources do you use for garden-based nutrition education lesson plan
development?
i. How did you find these resources?
 Do you feel that you have access to the resources that you need or do you feel that
you need additional resources when planning nutrition ed. lessons that use the
garden?
i. (If answered “needs additional resources”) So, you feel that you need
additional resources; why do you feel this way? What type of resource would
be helpful to you?
3. Funding and grants. Guidelines and standards to be met.
G) So, now I’d like to talk about funding and support for the garden. Can you tell me about
how the garden is financially supported?
If the garden is funded externally, for example, by a grant, are there requirements that
must be met for this funding? If so, what are these goals and how do you measure and
report them?
Topics to cover:

145

 How is the garden at your school financially supported?
 Do you have any grants or other funding sources that provide guidelines or
objectives that need to be followed or achieved through the garden
programming?
i. If yes, what is/are the grant(s) that you receive and what are their
requirements?
 Are you able to achieve the objectives / standards required for funding purposes?
 How do you measure your compliance with or progress toward the standards or
objectives set forth by your grantor(s)?
 Do you feel that you have adequate resources to measure these outcomes? Why
or why not?
 Do you feel that these standards impact the quality of garden-based nutrition
education delivered through the garden - either positively or negatively? How?
4. Policy
H) I’d like to talk with you about policies at your school that affect the school garden. Can
you describe any policies or rules that your school has that affect the garden?
Topics to cover:
 Does your school have a local wellness policy? If so, can you tell me about the
purpose of the policy?
 Are there any rules at your school regarding foods or beverages that are
considered unhealthy? Can you give an example?
 Are there rules at your school regarding nut. ed.? Can you give an example?
 Does your school try to promote physical activity among students? If so, how?
 How are decisions about health and wellness made at your school?
 Do any of these rules impact the use of the school garden? If so, how?
 Is nutrition education at your school affected by school policy? How?
 In your opinion, do you think that policies should be established (school wide or
even nationally) to promote garden based nutrition education? If so, please
describe what kinds of policies you think should be established. If not, why not?

146

 Do you think that the local wellness policy is effective? Why or why not?
 Are there ways in which the policy can be improved? If so, how?
5. School Support
I) So now I have a few questions about staff involvement with the garden at your school.
How would you say that the school, as a while, embraces the garden?
Also, what do you think staff at the school think about the garden? (i.e. teachers who don’t
use the garden, food service, administration).
I’m also interested in how parents and the community receive the garden. Are parents and
community members involved with or interested in the garden, if so, how?
Topics to cover:
 How many teachers at your school use the garden?
 How difficult or easy is it for teachers to get involved with the garden?
 What kind of support is there for a teacher who wants to use the garden but may
lack confidence in their gardening abilities?
 Are there any barriers that teachers may experience in using the garden?
 How do you think teachers not involved with the garden view the garden?
 What do the administrators at your school think about the garden? Do they
support the program? If so, please provide an example. If not, please describe.
 Are parents or community members involved with the garden? If so, in what way
are they involved? If not, what are the barriers to their involvement?
 Do you think that the garden has an impact on the work of school staff other than
teachers? How do you think that those personnel view the garden?
 Do you think that the garden is a program that will be able to continue year after
year? Why or why not?

147

APPENDIX D: Interview Guides (cont.) - Teachers – Not Engaged with Garden
Interview Guide - Teachers (don’t use garden)
(Text in italics are the questions that will be asked of the interviewees. Text in bold will be the
direct questions – text not in bold will be probe questions. Text not in italics are headings.)
4. What are staff experiences and perceptions of the school garden?
F. I’d like to learn a little bit about the garden at your school. Specifically, I’m interested in
your experiences with and thoughts about the garden. Can you tell me what you know
about your school’s garden?
Also, what do you think about your school’s garden? What is your general impression or
opinion?
Topics to cover:
 Please describe your role at the school and your involvement with the school
garden?
 How long have you been teaching at this school and what do you teach?
 What can you tell me about the garden here at your school (as you know it)?
 Why do you think your school has a garden? What is it’s purpose?
 Do you have any interest in using the school garden in any way? If so, how would
you like to use the garden and why? If not, why?
 Does the school garden affect you or your students?
G. I’d like to talk a little bit more about the garden. Can you tell me what you think about
the garden with regards to how the students respond? How do the students respond to
the garden? Can you elaborate on this?
Topics to cover:
 How much interest do you think the students have in the school garden?
Why do you say this?
 Do you think that having a school garden provides any benefits to students
who use it? To the school as a whole? If so, what benefits, and why?
 How is the garden used at your school? Is it used for academic instruction?
Is it used to teach Nutrition? Are there other purposes or uses for the
garden?
148

 Do you think that a garden can be used to teach curricular subjects such as
math, science, or language arts? Please explain why you think this way?
 Do you think that a garden can be used to teach nutrition? Why or why not?
 Do you think that using a garden to teach nutrition or even curricular
subjects has any advantages or limitations when compared to other teaching
methods?
 Has the garden ever caused any problems or conflict at your school?
2. Policy
C. I’d like to talk with you about policies at your school that affect the school garden.
Can you describe any policies or rules that your school has that deal with health and
wellness?
Topics to cover:
 Does your school have a local wellness policy? If so, can you tell me about
the purpose of the policy?
 Are there any rules at your school regarding foods or beverages that are
considered unhealthy? Can you give an example?
 Are there rules at your school regarding nut. ed.? Can you give an example?
 Does your school try to promote physical activity among students? If so,
how?
 How are decisions about health and wellness made at your school?
 Do any of these rules impact the use of the school garden? If so, how?
 Is nutrition education at your school affected by school policy? How?
 In your opinion, do you think that policies should be established (school wide
or even nationally) to promote garden based nutrition education? If so,
please describe what kinds of policies you think should be established. If not,
why not?
 Do you think that the local wellness policy is effective? Why or why not?
 Are there ways in which the policy can be improved? If so, how?

149

3. School Support
C. So now I have a few questions about staff involvement with the garden at your school.
How would you say that the school, as a while, embraces the garden?
Also, what do you think staff at the school think about the garden? (i.e. teachers who
don’t use the garden, teachers who use the garden, food service, administration).
Topics to cover:
 How many teachers at your school use the garden?
 How difficult or easy is it for teachers to get involved with the garden?
 Why don’t you use the garden?
 Why do you think that some of the teachers use the garden Why do you say this?
 What kind of support is there for a teacher who wants to use the garden but may
lack confidence in their gardening abilities?
 Are there any barriers that teachers may experience in using the garden?
 What do the administrators at your school think about the garden? Do they
support the program? If so, please provide an example. If not, please describe.
 Are parents or community members involved with the garden? If so, in what way
are they involved? If not, what are the barriers to their involvement?
 Do you think that the garden has an impact on the work of school staff other than
teachers? How do you think that those personnel view the garden?

150

APPENDIX E: Consent Forms
SCHOOL GARDEN NUTRITION EDUCATION
MY GARDEN PROJECT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM
We would like to invite you to participate in a research study that aims to understand how and
why schools utilize food gardens.
Participating in the MyGarden research study will involve a 1 hour face-to-face interview that
will take place at your school.
You should know that:

 We are asking for your involvement in this research study for a one hour face-to-face
interview. A researcher from Michigan State University will come to your school and meet
with you to ask you questions.
 The interview will be digitally voice recorded unless you request otherwise.
 If necessary, the interviewer may contact you by phone one additional time in case they have
any follow-up questions.
 Benefit to you includes the opportunity to assist in the understanding of barriers and
facilitators to school gardening. In addition, you will receive a $15.00 girt card to Meijer,
Target, or a teacher supply store.
 Your participation is confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. A code number
will be used to identify your interview. Your name and your code number will be kept on a
confidential list in locked facilities at the Michigan State University. This list will be
destroyed after all information is collected in the study. No one outside the MSU research
team and the MSU Institutional Review Board will know that you participated in the study or
how you answered the questions.
 Your contact information will not be given to anyone outside of the research team or be used
for any purpose other than contacting you about aspects of this study.
 The information you provide may be used to develop a report, publications, and presentations
at meetings or conferences.
 There are no known risks to you associated with being involved in this study.
This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board
(BIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 7/28/10 – valid through 7/27/11 This version
supersedes all previous versions. IRB #09-582.
151

 Your participation is voluntary. You may refuse to participate in certain procedures, answer
certain questions, or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty.
 If you have any concerns or questions about this research study, such as scientific issues,
how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact Dr. Katherine Alaimo,
Associate Professor, MSU at (517) 355-8474 x138. If you have questions or concerns about
your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input,
or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you
wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180,
Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East
Lansing, MI 48824.
Knowing all this, I agree to participate in the School Garden Nutrition Education - MyGarden
study.
___________________________
Printed Name
___________________________
Participant Signature

_______________
Date

_______________________________________________________________
Mailing Address
__________________________
City

_______
State

_________
Zip

_____________________
Phone #

_____________________
Email address

Yes, I agree to have my interviews for this study audio recorded.

No, I do not agree to have my interviews for this study audio recorded.

________________________________________________________________
Signature

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board
(BIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 7/28/10 – valid through 7/27/11 This version
supersedes all previous versions. IRB #09-582.
152

APPENDIX E: Consent Forms (cont.)
SCHOOL GARDEN NUTRITION EDUCATION
MY GARDEN PROJECT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
OBSERVATION CONSENT FORM
We would like to invite you to participate in a research study that aims to understand how and
why schools utilize food gardens.
Participating in the MyGarden research study will involve allowing a researcher from MSU to
participate with and observe your classrooms’ garden-based activities. Researcher participation
can include the researcher assisting in the logistics and delivery of garden-based lessons.
You should know that:

 We are asking for your involvement in this research study by allowing a researcher from
Michigan State University to come to your class to participate with and observe garden-based
activities.
 The researcher will take field notes on the garden-based experience once the class has ended.
 A benefit to you includes the opportunity to assist in the understanding of barriers and
facilitators to school gardening.
 Your participation is confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. A code number
will be used to identify you in the researcher’s field notes. Your name and your code number
will be kept on a confidential list in locked facilities at the Michigan State University. This
list will be destroyed after all information is collected in the study. No one outside the MSU
research team and the MSU Institutional Review Board will know that you participated in the
study or how you answered the questions.
 Your contact information will not be given to anyone outside of the research team or be used
for any purpose other than contacting you about aspects of this study.
 The information you provide may be used to develop a report, publications, and presentations
at meetings or conferences.
 There are no known risks to you associated with being involved in this study.
 Your participation is voluntary. You may refuse to participate in certain procedures, answer
certain questions, or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty.
This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board
(BIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 8/31/10 – valid through 7/27/11. This version
supersedes all previous versions. IRB # 09-582.
153

If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part
of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher Dr. Katherine Alaimo, Associate
Professor, MSU, at (517) 355-8474 x138, 302C G.M. Trout FSHN Bldg, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1224 alaimo@msu.edu.
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
I agree to participate in the School Garden Nutrition Education - MyGarden study.

___________________________
Printed Name

___________________________
Participant Signature

_______________
Date

_______________________________________________________________
Mailing Address

__________________________
City

_______
State

_________
Zip

_____________________
Phone #

_____________________
Email address

Thank you!

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board
(BIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 8/31/10 – valid through 7/27/11. This version
supersedes all previous versions. IRB # 09-582.
154

APPENDIX E: Consent Forms (cont.)
SCHOOL GARDEN NUTRITION EDUCATION
MY GARDEN PROJECT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
PARENT/CAREGIVER CONSENT FORM
Dear Parent/Caregiver,
Your student’s school is taking part in the School Garden Nutrition Education - MyGarden
Project with Michigan State University. This project will help us to better understand how
school gardens are used and experienced at Michigan schools.
As part of this research project, your child will be invited to discuss his or her experience with
the garden at their school. A researcher from Michigan State University will participate in the
garden activities and may interact with your child, asking questions about their experience with
the garden.
Participation of your child in this study involves:
 Classroom and garden observations: A trained MSU researcher will observe your child’s
class or after school group during the months of September, October and November. The
researcher will participate in garden-based activities and will assist your child’s teacher in
leading garden-based lessons. While participating in the garden-based lessons, the researcher
will also make observations of the class. Observations will not interrupt classroom activities.
At any time, you or your child can tell the teacher that he or she does not wish to be observed
and the researcher will not record any observations of your child. If you allow your child to
be observed, the researcher will record observations in the form of field notes, which will be
written after the class session.
 Collection of work/activities: The same MSU researcher will collect work that your child has
completed as part of the school garden program. This work may include drawings or journal
entries. The work that will be collected is only work that is related to their participation and
experience with the school garden.
You should know:
 We do not expect any risk to your child, but there is a chance your child might feel
uncomfortable discussing their experience with the garden.
 Your child’s participation is voluntary. Your child may refuse to participate in certain
procedures, answer certain questions, or discontinue their participation at any time without
penalty. This will not affect treatment they receive and will not affect their grades or
evaluation.
This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board
(BIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 8/31/10 – valid through 7/27/11. This version
supersedes all previous versions. IRB # 09-582.

155

 Your child will not directly benefit from participating in this project; however, your child
might find the learning and discussions interesting and fun.
 Participation in this research project will not take your child away from any instructional
time and participation will not affect your child’s grades.
 Notes will be taken by the researcher after interacting with students.
 Your child will be asked to provide either verbal assent or written assent for participation in
the project in addition to your written consent.
 The information your child and other children at the school share may be used to write a
project report, materials to assist schools, and other types of publications and presentations
designed to improve school health only, and will not include your child’s name.
 Information collected about your child is strictly confidential to the maximum extent
allowable by law. Your child’s name will be removed and replaced by a code number. The
list of names and code numbers will be kept in a locked office and will be destroyed at the
end of the study.
 Project results will be shared with researchers at Michigan State University, the MSU
Institutional Review Board, and your child’s school. Identifying information will not be
included in the results.
Contact information:
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part
of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher Dr. Katherine Alaimo, Associate
Professor, MSU, at (517) 355-8474 x138, 302C G.M. Trout FSHN Bldg, Michigan State
University,
East Lansing, MI 48824-1224 alaimo@msu.edu.
If you have questions or concerns about your child’s rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board
(BIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 8/31/10 – valid through 7/27/11. This version
supersedes all previous versions. IRB # 09-582.
156

If your child would like to take part in this study and you agree:

• Please complete and sign the form below.
• Send the Parent/Caregiver Consent Form with your child back to school. It
can be included in the packet of beginning of the school year signature forms.
• Keep the duplicate copy of this consent form for your records.
Please Check ONE box below:
 I AGREE to allow my child to participate in the MyGarden project
 I DO NOT want my child to participate in the MyGarden project

____________________________
Child’s name

____________________________
Parent/Guardian Signature

___________________________
Printed Parent/Guardian Name

_______
Date

Thank you!

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board
(BIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 8/31/10 – valid through 7/27/11. This version
supersedes all previous versions. IRB # 09-582.
157

APPENDIX F: Assent Forms
SCHOOL GARDEN NUTRITION EDUCATION
MY GARDEN PROJECT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
STUDENT ASSENT FORM
Dear Student,
We are working on a project at your school to learn about the school garden. We are interested
to learn about the garden at your school and your experiences with the garden. We hope that the
information that we learn can be used to create more and better school gardens in Michigan.
I hope that you will participate in this project. By participating, I mean that you will allow a
person who is working on the project to do two things:
1. Watch how you learn about and work in the garden.
2. Collect work you have completed as part of your activities in the garden during school or
after school.
Your parent has already agreed that you can participate.
Your participation in this project is voluntary. Participation will not take you away from any
class time. You will not receive any extra credit if you choose to participate in this study, and
you will not lose credit if you choose not to participate in the study. If, at any time, you choose
not to have your work included in the project, we will not use your work. You can quit being in
this project at any time and you can refuse to interact with the researcher at any time. This
project will not affect your grades.
There are no known risks involved in doing this project. Your privacy will be protected so that
no one who sees your work will know your real name.
If you agree to participate in this research project, please sign below.

_______________________________________
Your Name
____________________________
Your Signature

________________
Date

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board
(BIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 8/31/10 – valid through 7/27/11. This version
supersedes all previous versions. IRB # 09-582.
158

APPENDIX F: Assent Forms (contd.)
SCHOOL GARDEN NUTRITION EDUCATION
MY GARDEN PROJECT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
STUDENT ASSENT SCRIPT
I am working on a project at your school to learn about the school garden. I hope the
information that I learn can be used to create more and better school gardens in Michigan.
I hope that you will participate in this project. By participating, you will allow a person who is
working on the project to do two things:

3. Watch how you learn about and work in the garden.
4. Collect work you have done as part of your activities in the garden during school or after
school.

Your parent has already agreed that you can participate. You can quit being in this project at any
time and you can refuse to interact with the researcher at any time. This project will not affect
your grades.

Would you like to be a part of the MyGarden research project?

YES
NO

This consent form was approved by the Biomedical and Health Institutional Review Board
(BIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 8/31/10 – valid through 7/27/11. This version
supersedes all previous versions. IRB # 09-582.
159

APPENDIX G: Codebook for Qualitative Analysis
Code Name

Code Definition

Asks Question

Participant asks a question
about the garden program
Curricular benchmarks are
mentioned
Challenges regarding
integrating the garden into
curricular education are
mentioned
Mention in general terms that
integrating the garden into
curricular education is possible
Garden-based activities used for
Language Arts or Literacy
education
Garden-based activities used for
Math education
Garden-based activities used for
Science education
Garden-based activities used for
Social Studies or History
education

Curricular: Benchmarks
Curricular: Challenges

Curricular: Integration
Possible
Curricular: Language
Arts/Literacy
Curricular: Math
Curricular: Science
Curricular: Social
Studies/History

Rules

Specific example or simply
stating that it can be done
Specific example or simply
stating that it can be done
Specific example or simply
stating that it can be done
Specific example or simply
stating that it can be done

160

Examples

Code Name

Code Definition

Curricular: Willing to
Incorporate

Mention of willingness by
teacher or educator to
incorporate garden activities
into curricular education
Mention of community
involvement or response to the
garden program.

Experience: Community

Experience: Cultural

Experience: Education
System

Participant states or implies that
the garden is worth the effort.

Experience: Home
Environment

Mention of students home
experience, home life, home
environment. Including
speculation.
Mention of parental or family
involvement or response
(feedback) to the garden
program

Experience:
Parents/Family

Examples

Also includes mention of
community involvement
that is not happening but
that they hope will happen.

Mention of cultural
considerations with respect to
the garden program or food and
nutrition at the school
Participant view on educational
system

Experience: Garden is
Worth it

Rules

This is a very broad code.

Also includes mention of
parental involvement that is
not happening but that they
hope will happen.
161

"The way we teach
children does not work
for all learning styles."
"Getting to see a kid eat
a pepper ripe off the
vine makes all of the
paperwork worth it"

Code Name

Code Definition

Experience: Poverty

Mention of poverty and its
effects on students or
community
Overall code for the "feeling" or
"climate" at the school.
Descriptions of ideas or actions
that help to improve school
wellness
Description of interpersonal
relationships or the lack of
interpersonal relationships
between staff. Also a
description or mention of
communication between staff at
the school.
Any interesting mention of food
service not included in other
Food Service codes.
Complaints about any aspect of
food service
Praise about any aspect of food
service

Experience: School
Culture
Experience: School
Wellness Facilitators
Experience: Staff
Relationship

Food Service

Food Service:
Complaints
Food Service: Praise

Rules

Not just nutrition or garden
related
Between all staff, including
teachers, admin, and other
staff.

Including school meals,
and interaction with staff
Including school meals,
and interaction with staff

162

Examples

Code Name

Code Definition

Funding

Any mention of garden program
funding or nutrition education
funding.
Any mention of evaluation
requirements for program
funding.
Any mention of program
requirements or restrictions
based on funding
Description of activities that
take place as a result of the
garden program

Funding: Evaluation

Funding: Requirements

Garden: Activities

Garden: Challenges

This does not only include
activities in the physical
garden. This can be off
campus field trips, cooking
lessons in the classroom, or
community events.
Challenges regarding food
service, seasonality, or
curricular integration do
not belong in this code.
Includes ideas on how to
overcome challenges.

Any mention of challenges
experienced by the garden
program.

Garden: Extra Effort

Rules

Any mention of teachers,
administrators, or other staff
putting in extra effort
specifically with regards to the
garden, or willingness to put in
effort
163

Examples

Code Name

Code Definition

Garden:
Food/Eating/Cooking

Any mention of food, eating, or
cooking related to or resulting
from the garden program.
Descriptions of plans for the
future of the garden program.
Also thoughts on the feasibility
and sustainability of the
program as it is.
Expresses a need for more time
being spent by the students in
the garden.
Description of the reason for
having the garden at the school.

Garden: Future

Garden: More Time

Garden Program: Goals

Garden Program:
Needs/Wishes

Program goals and initial
motivation should be
included.
Hopes can include
programming elements
such as more teachers
being involved. Physical
needs would include tools,
seeds, space, etc.

Any mention of hopes for the
garden or of physical needs.

Garden: Seasonal
Barriers

Rules

Any mention of challenges
experienced by the garden
program as a result of season.

164

Examples

Code Name

Code Definition

Rules

Garden: Stories

Participant provides a specific
story related to the garden
program.
Any indication that the staff
member values the garden
Novel ideas or suggestions by
teachers or other staff or
students to improve the garden
program
Comparison made between
garden-based and classroombased learning.
This code describes the repeated
idea mentioned by teachers and
other staff that if students grow
the food, they are more likely to
eat it.
Any mention of the idea of
hands-on or experiential
learning.
Description of nutrition
education activities used
specifically in the garden
Description of nutrition all other
nutrition education activities

This can be a story about
students, teachers, staff, or
community members.

Garden: Teacher/Staff
Values Garden
Garden Program: New
Ideas

Garden versus
Classroom learning
Grow it, Eat it

Hands On

Nutrition Education:
Garden
Nutrition Education:
Other

165

Examples

Code Name

Code Definition

Rules

Outcomes: Behavior

Description of actual behavior
change witnessed in students

Outcomes: Brings People
In

Mention or description of the
garden program enriching the
school by bringing in peopleconnecting the students with
people who show them that they
are valued
Description of possible or
actually witnessed character
development as a result of
gardening.
Description of the garden
teaching the students about
where food comes from or
about environmental issues
Description of actual knowledge
change witnessed in students

This should be a
description of an actual
experience of behavior
change - not a description
of possible outcomes. This
refers specifically to
Nutrition outcomes
This is a very broad code.

Outcomes: Character
Development

Outcomes: Food/Earth
Knowledge

Outcomes: Knowledge

This should be a
description of an actual
experience of knowledge
change - not a description
of possible outcomes.

166

Examples

This refers specifically
to Nutrition outcomes

Code Name

Code Definition

Rules

Examples

Outcomes: School-wide
Impact

Description of the school-wide
effects of the garden program
specifically

These effects can be
directly or indirectly
related to the garden.

"Emily helped get rid of
vending machines"
"The mayor came to see
the garden and the
school was in the
newspaper"
"The third-graders have
started their own flower
garden. It makes the
school look so nice"

Outcomes: Student NonAcademic

Description of non-academic
and non-nutrition related
outcomes of the garden program
Description of student response
or interest in the garden
Description of student response
or interest in other nutrition
activities
Description of student
benefits/outcomes, specifically
potential change in behavior.
Description of student
benefits/outcomes, specifically
potential change in attitude.
Description of student
benefits/outcomes, specifically
potential change in knowledge

Or possible outcomes Merge with "Outcomes
Possible - Other"

Outcomes: Student
Response Garden
Outcomes: Student
Response Nutrition
Outcomes Possible:
Behavior
Outcomes Possible:
Attitude
Outcomes Possible:
Knowledge

Such as cooking, or indoor
nutrition lessons
This refers specifically to
Nutrition outcomes
This refers specifically to
Nutrition outcomes
This refers specifically to
Nutrition outcomes

167

Code Name

Code Definition

Policy
Policy: Aware

Any mention of school policy
Participant seems to be aware of
policy
Participant does not seem to be
aware of policy
Any mention or description of
spontaneous learning that
happens as a result of the
garden program

Policy: Unaware
Spontaneous Learning

Student Experience

Examples

Even if they don't think
they are aware
Even if they think that they
are aware
This includes learning that
happens in the physical
garden or leaning that
happens elsewhere as a
result of the garden
program

This code describes the repeated
idea by teachers that the
students lack "experiences" and
that the garden is an enriching
experience in the lives of the
students.

Student Food Preference

Rules

Any mention of student food
preferences

Perceived by teachers or a
more evidence based
description

168

"Most of the students
live in apartment
complexes, surrounded
by concrete. They
actually rarely leave the
city. The garden
provides them with an
experience that they
would never otherwise
have."
"The student love
spinach - the just devour
it!"
"They eat
foods that kids don't
usually like, like
broccoli"

Code Name

Code Definition

Subjective Norm:
Teachers

Description by teachers of how
they think others at the school
view the garden
Any mention of administrative
support, or lack of
administrative support.
Any mention of other types of
support, or lack of other types
of support

Support: Administrative

Support: Other

Take Home

Teacher Experience:
Concern for Diet/Hunger

Teacher Experience:
Difficult to Use Garden
Teacher Experience:
Easy to Use Garden

Rules

Support from other
teachers, community,
parents. This does not
include funding support.

Any mention of the students
taking home food or other
artifacts, including recipes, from
the garden or the garden
program.
Any mention of a teacher or
staff person being concerned
about what children are eating
at home or at school. Also
mention of concern about
hunger and proper nutrition.
Mention or description of the
garden being difficult to use.
Mention or description of the
garden being easy to use.

Can also include concerns
about diet related disease
and obesity.

169

Examples

Code Name

Code Definition

Teacher Experience:
Interest

Mention of teachers being
interested in participating in
garden program
Description of teachers not
being engaged or participating,
or having a knowledge of the
garden.
Any mention of the burden that
teachers face.
Descriptions of factors that help
get teachers interested and help
facilitate teachers actually using
the garden in the classroom.

Teacher Experience: Not
Engaged in Garden

Teacher Experience:
Overtaxed
Teacher Experience:
What Helps Teachers

Teacher Experience:
Why Teachers DO
Participate
Teacher Experience:
Why Don't Participate

Rules

Can also include more
general descriptions of
factors that help teachers to
integrate enriching
activities (other than the
garden) into their
classroom.

A description of why teachers
participate in the garden
program.
A description of why teachers
do not participate in the garden
program. Barriers to
participation

170

Examples

REFERENCES

171

REFERENCES

Aldridge, J. & Sempik, J. (2002). Social and therapeutic horticulture: evidence and messages
from research. Centre for Child and Family Research Evidence Issue, 6, 1-4. Retrieved
from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/ccfr/Publications/Evidence6.pdf
Alexander, J., North, M. & Hendren, D. (1995). Master gardener classroom garden project: An
evaluation of the benefits to children. Childrens Environments, 12(2), 124-133.
Association for Experimental Education. (2011). What is experiential Education? Retrieved
from http://www.aee.org/about/whatIsEE
ATLAS.ti. GmbH Version 5.7.1. [Computer software] (2011) Berlin, Scientific Software
Development
Basch, C.E., Sliepcevich E.M., Gold R.S., Duncan, D. & Kolbe L. (1985). Avoiding Type III
errors in health education program evaluations: A case study. Health Education
Quarterly, 12, 315-331. doi:10.1177/109019818501200311
Baranowski, T., Davis, M., Resnicow, K., Baranowski, J., Doyle, C., Lin, L., . . . Wang, D. T.
(2000a). Gimme 5 fruit, juice, and vegetables for fun and health: Outcome evaluation.
Health Education Behavior, 27(1), 96-111. doi:10.1177/109019810002700109
Baranowski, T., Davis, M., Resnicow, K., Baranowski, J., Doyle, C., Lin, L., . . . Wang, D. T.
(2000b). Gimme 5 fruit, juice, and vegetables for fun and health: Process evaluation.
Health Educ Behav 27(1): 96-111. doi:10.1177/109019810002700109
Barney, M. W. E. (ca. 1919?). Follow the pied piper. Join the United States School Garden
Army. [Photograph of poster]. Prints & Photographs Online Catalog, Library of
Congress. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/wwipos/item/95506493/
Barton, A. C., Koch, P. D., Contento, I. R. & Hagiwara, S. (2005). From global sustainability to
inclusive education: Understanding urban children’s ideas about the food system.
International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1163-1186.
doi:10.1080/09500690500069467
Bazzano, L. A. (2006). The high cost of not consuming fruits and vegetables. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 106(9), 1364-1368. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2006.06.021
Bazzano, L. A., He, J., Ogden, L. G., Moria, C. M., Vupputuri, S., Myers, L. & Whelton, P. K.
(2002). Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of cardiovascular disease in US adults: the
first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 76, 93–99.

172

Berenson, G. S., Srinivasan, S. R., & Nicklas, T. A. (1998). Atherosclerosis: A nutritional
disease of childhood. American Journal of Cardiology, 82(10 suppl2), 22T-29T.
Birch, L. L. & Fisher, J. O. (1998). Development of eating behaviors among children and
adolescents. Pediatrics, 101, 539-549.
Biro, F. M. & Wien, M. (2010). Childhood obesity and adult morbidities. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 91(suppl),1499S-1505S. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2010.28701B
Blair, D. (2009) The child in the garden: An evaluative review of the benefits of school
gardening. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 15-38.
doi:10.3200/JOEE.40.2.15-38
Blanchette, L. & Brug, J. (2005). Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among 6-12
year old children and effective interventions to increase consumption. Journal of Human
Nutrition and Dietetics, 18, 431-443.
Boeing, H., Dietrich, T., Hoffman, K., Pischon, T., Ferrari, P., Lahmann, P. H., . . . Riboli, E.
(2006). Intake of fruits and vegetables and risk of cancer of the upper aero-digestive tract:
the prospective EPIC-study. Cancer Causes & Control, 17, 957-969.
doi:10.1007/s10552-006-0036-4
Bowker, R. & Tearle, O. (2007). Gardening as a learning environment: A study of children’s
perceptions and understanding of school gardens as part of an international project.
Learning Environments Research, 10:83-100. doi:10.1007/s10984-007-9025-0
Briggs, M. & Safai, S. Position of the American Dietetic Association, Society for Nutrition
Education, and American School Food Service Association: Nutrition services: An
essential component of comprehensive school health programs. (2003) Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 35(2), 57-67. doi:10.1053/jada.2003.50100
Brug, J., Tak, N. I., te Velde, S. J., Bere, E. & de Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2008). Taste preferences,
liking and other factors related to fruit and vegetable intakes among schoolchildren:
results from observational studies. British Journal of Nutrition, 99(suppl. 1), S7-S14.
doi:10.1017/S0007114508892458
Calle, E. E., Rodriguez, C., Walker-Thurmond, K. & Thun, M. J. (2003). Overweight, obesity,
and mortality from cancer in a prospectively studied cohort of U.S. adults. New England
Journal of Medicine, 348, 1625-38.
Canaris, I. (1995). Growing foods for growing minds: Integrating gardening and nutrition
education into the total curriculum. Children’s Environments, 12(2), 134-142.
Carter, C. (2010). Transcript of School Gardens with Constance Carter. Library of Congress.
Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/journey/schoolgardens-transcript.html

173

Carver, R. (1996). Theory for practice: A framework for thinking about experiential education.
Journal of Experiential Education, 19(1), 8-13.
Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C. & Kuo, R. E. (1997). Where does community grow? : The social
context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29, 468494. doi:10.1177/001391659702900402
Contento, I. (1995a). Nutrition education for school-aged children. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 27(6), 298-311.
Contento, I. (1995b). Theoretical frameworks or models for nutrition education. Journal of
Nutrition Education, 27(6), 287-290.
Contento, I. (2007). Nutrition education: Linking research, theory, and practice. Sudbury, MA:
Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Corbin, J., Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative
criteria. Qual Sociol, 13(1), 3-21.
Creswell, J.W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. London: Sage.
Cullen, K. W., Baranowski, T., Owens, E., Marsh, T., Rittenberry, L. & de Moor, C. (2003).
Availability, accessibility, and preferences for fruit, 100% fruit juice, and vegetables
influence children’s dietary behavior. Health Education Behavior, 30, 615-626.
doi:10.1177/1090198103257254
Desmond, D., Grieshop, J. & Subramanium, A. (2004). Revisiting garden based learning in
basic education. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/sd/erp/revisiting.pdf
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York: The Macmillan Company. Retrieved from
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccernew2?id=DewDemo.sgm&images=images/mode
ng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books. 1938.
Dirks, A. E. & Orvis, K. (2005). An evaluation of the junior master gardener program in third
grade classrooms. Hort Technology, 15, 443-447.
Domel, S. B., Baranowski, T., Davis, H., Leonard, S.B., Riley, P. & Baranowski, J. (1993).
th
th
Measuring fruit and vegetable preferences among 4 - and 5 -grade students. Preventive
Medicine, 22, 866-879.

174

Domel, S. B., Thompson, W.O., Davis, H.C., Baranowski, T., Leonard, S.B. & Baranowski, J.
(1996). Psychosocial predictors of fruit and vegetable consumption among elementary
school children. Health Education Research, 11(3), 299-308.
Duncan, K.H., Bacon J. A. & Weinsier, R. L. (1983). The effects of high and low energy density
diets on satiety, energy intake, and eating time of obese and nonobese subjects. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 37, 763-767.
Epstein, L. H., Gordy, C. C., Raynor, H. A., Beddome, M., Kilanowski, C. K. & Paluch R.
(2001). Increasing fruit and vegetable intake and decreasing fat and sugar intake in
families at risk of childhood obesity. Obesity, 9(3), 171-178. doi:10.1038/oby.2001.18
Ervin, R., Wright, J., Wang, C. & Kennedy-Stephenson, J. (2004). Dietary intake of selected
vitamins for the United States population: 1999-2000. Advance Data, 339:1-4.
Fisher, J. & Birch, L. (2001). Early experience with food and eating: Implications for the
development of eating disorders. In J. Thompson, & L. Smolak, (Eds). Body image,
eating disorders, and obesity in youth: Assessment, prevention, and treatment (pp. 2339). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Florence, M. D., Asbridge, M. & Veugelers, P. J. (2008). Diet quality and academic
performance. Journal of School Health, 78(4), 209-215. doi:10.1111/j.17461561.2008.00288.x
Food Research and Action Center. (2009) Hunger in the U.S. Retrieved from
http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html
Freedman, D. S., Dietz, W. H., Srinivasan, S. R. & Berenson, G. S. (1999). The relation of
overweight to cardiovascular risk factors among children and adolescents: The Bogalusa
Heart Study. Pediatrics, 103(6), 1175-1182. doi:10.1542/peds.103.6.1175
French, S. A. & Stables G. (2003). Environmental interventions to promote vegetable and fruit
consumption among youth in school settings. Preventive Medicine, 37(6), 593-610.
doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.09.007
Graham, H., Beall, D. L., Lussier, M., McLaughlin, P. & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2005a). Use of
school gardens in academic instruction. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior,
37(3), 147-151. doi:10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60269-8
Graham, H. & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2005b). California teachers perceive school gardens as an
effective nutritional tool to promote healthful eating habits. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 105(11), 1797-1800. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2005.08.034
Guenther, P. M., Dodd, K.W., Reedy, J. & Krebs-Smith, S. M. (2006). Most Americans eat
much less than recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 106(9), 1371-1379. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2006.06.002
175

Hannon, T. S., Rao, G, and Arslanian, S. A. (2005). Childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes
mellitus. Pediatrics, 2005, 116(2), 473-480. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2536
Hayden-Smith, R. (2006). Soldiers of the soil: A historical review of the United States School
Garden Army. Monograph, University of California. Retrieved from
http://groups.ucanr.org/victorygrower/files/47755.pdf
He, F.J., Nowson, C.A. & MacGregor, G.A. (2006) Fruit and vegetable consumption and stroke:
Meta analysis of cohort studies. Lancet, 367, 320-326.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68069-0
He, K., Hu, F. B., Colditz, G. A., Monson J. E., Willet W. W., & Liu S. (2004). Changes in
intake of fruits and vegetables in relation to risk of obesity and weight gain among
middle-aged women. International Journal of Obesity, 28, 1569–1574.
doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802795
Heim, S., Stang, J. & Ireland, M. (2009). A garden pilot project enhances fruit and vegetable
consumption among children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(7),
1220-1226. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.04.009
Hermann, J. R., Parker, S. P., Brown, B. J., Siewe, Y. J., Denney, B. A. & Walker, S. J. (2006).
After-school gardening improves children's reported vegetable intake and physical
activity. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 38(3), 201-202.
doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2006.02.002
Heron, M. Deaths: Leading causes for 2006. (2010) National Vital Statistics Reports, 58(14).
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_14.pdf
Herriott, R. E. & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing
description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12(2), 14-19.
Hu, F. B. & Willett, W. C. (2002). Optimal diets for prevention of coronary heart disease.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(20), 2569-2578.
doi:10.1001/jama.288.20.2569
Joshipura K.J., Ascherio, A., Manson, J. E., Stampfer, M. J., Rimm, E. B., Speizer, F. E., . . .
Willett, W. C. (1999). Fruit and vegetable intake in relation to risk of ischemic stroke.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1233-1239.
doi:10.1001/jama.282.13.1233
Joshipura, K. J., Hu, F. B., Manson, J.E., Stampfer, M.J., Rimm, E.B., Speizer, F.E., . . . Willett,
W. (2001). The effect of fruit and vegetable intake on risk for coronary heart disease.
Annals of Internal Medicine, 134, 1106-1114.

176

Kaiser, L. L., Melgan-Quinonez, H., Townsend, M. S., Nicholson, Y., Lavender Fuji, M., . . .
Lamp, C. L. (2003). Food insecurity and food supplies in Latino households with young
children. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 35(3), 148-153.
Kids Gardening. (2010). Evaluation Summary – NGA Grant Winners. Retrieved from
http://www.kidsgardening.com/grants/2010-evaluation-summary.asp
Kendall, A., Olson, C. & Frongillo, E. A. (1996). Relationship of hunger and food insecurity to
food availability and consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96(10),
1019-1024. doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(96)00271-4
Kleinman, R.E., Hall, S., Green, H., Korzec-Ramirez, D., Patton, K., Pagano, M. E. & Murphy,
J. M. (2002). Diet, breakfast, and academic performance in children. Annals of Nutrition
and Metabolism, 46(suppl 1), 24-30. doi:10.1159/000066399
Kleinman, R. E., Murphy, J. M., Little, M., Pagano M, Wehler, C. A., Regal, K. & Jellinek, M.
S. (1998). Hunger in children in the United States: Potential behavioral and emotional
correlates. Pediatrics, 101, e3. doi:10.1542/peds.101.1.e3
Klemmer, C.D., Waliczek, T. M. & Zajicek, J. M. (2005). Growing minds: The effect of a school
gardening program on the science achievement of elementary students. Hort Technology,
15(3), 448-452).
Kolb, D. A. (1985) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kris-Etherton, P. M., Lefevre, M., Beecher, G. R., Gross, M.D., Keen, C.L. & Etherton, T. D.
(2004). Bioactive compounds in nutrition and health-research methodologies for
establishing biological function: the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects of
flavonoids on atherosclerosis. Annual Reviews of Nutrition, 24, 511–38.
doi:10.1146/annurev.nutr.23.011702.073237
Kristjansdottir, A. G., Thorsdottir, I., De Bourdeaudhuji, I., Due, P., Wind, M. & Kleppp, K.
(2006). Determinants of fruit and vegetable intake among 11 year-old schoolchildren in a
country of traditionally low fruit and vegetable consumption. International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3(41). doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-3-41
Larson, N. I., Story, M. T. & Nelson, M. C. (2009). Neighborhood environments- Disparities in
access to healthy foods in the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(1),7481e10. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.025
Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-277.
Lautenschlager, L. & Smith, C. (2007) Understanding gardening and dietary habits among youth
garden program participants using the Theory of Planned Behavior. Appetite, 49, 122–
130. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.01.002
177

Lieberman, G. A. & Hoody, L. L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment
as an integrating context for learning. San Diego: State Education and Environment
Roundtable. Retrieved from: http://www.seer.org/extras/execsum.pdf
Lin, B & Morrison, R. (2002). Higher fruit consumption linked with lower body mass index.
Food Review, 25, 28-37. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/dec2002/frvol25i3d.pdf
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289.
Lineberger, S. E. & Zajicek, J. M. (2000). School gardens: Can a hands-on teaching tool affect
students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding fruit and vegetables? Hort Technology, 10(3),
593-597.
Lytle, L. & Achterberg, C. (1995). Changing the diet of America’s children: What works and
why? Journal of Nutrition Education, 27(5), 250-260.
Lytle, L. A., Stone, E. J., Nichaman, M. Z., Perry, C. L., Montgomery, D. H., Nicklas, T. A., . . .
Galati, T. P. (1996). Changes in nutrient intakes of elementary school children following
a school-based intervention: Results from the CATCH Study. Preventive Medicine,
25(4), 465-477. doi:10.1006/pmed.1996.0078
Martin, C. L. (2011). Lessons from the garden: Garden-based nutrition education at two
elementary schools (Unpublished master’s thesis). Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.
McAleese, J. D. & Rankin, L. L. (2007). Garden-based nutrition education affects fruit and
vegetable consumption in sixth-grade adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 107(4), 662-665. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.01.015
Meyer, E. (ca. 1944). New York, New York. Children’s school victory gardens on First Avenue
between Thirty-fifth and Thirty-sixth Streets. [Photograph of children and teacher in
garden]. Prints & Photographs Online Catalog, Library of Congress. Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/owi2001039484/PP/
Michigan Department of Education. (2001). The role of Michigan schools in promoting healthy
weight. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/healthyweight_13649_7.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2009). Youth Risk and Behavior Survey: Weight and
nutrition fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/2009-WN_333608_7.pdf

178

Mikkila, V., Rasanen, L., Raitakari, O. T., Pietinen, P. & Viikari, J. (2005). Consistent dietary
patterns identified from childhood to adulthood: The Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns
Study. British Journal of Nutrition, 93, 923-931. doi:10.1079/BJN20051418
Mokdad, A. H., Marks, J.S., Stroup, D. F. & Gerberding, J. L (2004). Actual causes of death in
the united states, 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(10), 12381245. doi:10.1001/jama.291.10.1238
Morgan, P. J., Warren, J. M., Lubans, D. R., Saunders, K. L., Quick, G. I. & Collins, C. E.
(2010). The impact of nutrition education with and without a school garden on
knowledge, vegetable intake and preferences and quality of school life among primaryschool students. Public Health Nutrition, 13(11), 1931-1940.
doi:10.1017/S1368980010000959
Morland, K. & Filomena, S. (2007). Disparities in the availability of fruits and vegetables
between racially segregated urban neighbourhoods. Public Health Nutrition, 10(12),
1481–1489. doi:10.1017/S1368980007000079
Morris, J. L., Briggs, M. & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2000). School-based gardens can teach kids
healthier eating habits. California Agriculture, 54(5), 40-46. doi:10.3733/ca.v054n05p40
Morris, J. L. & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2002). Garden-enhanced nutrition curriculum improves
fourth-grade school children's knowledge of nutrition and preferences for some
vegetables. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102(1), 91-93.
doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90027-1
National Gardening Association. (2011). Garden in Every School® Search. Retrieved from
http://kidsgardening.com/School/searchform.asp
New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. (2011). Farm Gardens. Retrieved from
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/parks_history/gardens/farm.html
Nicklas, T. A., Baranowski, T., Cullen, K. W. & Berenson, G. (2001). Eating patterns, dietary
quality and obesity. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 20(6), 599-608.
Nicklas, T. & Johnson, R. (2004). Position of the American Dietetic Association: dietary
guidance for healthy children ages 2-11 years. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 104(4), 660-677. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2004.01.030
Ober Allen, J., Alaimo, K., Elam, D. & Perry, E. (2008). Growing vegetables and values:
Benefits of neighborhood-based community gardens for youth developments and
nutrition. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 3(4), 418-439.
doi:10.1080/19320240802529169

179

Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Curtin, L. R., McDowell, M. A., Tabak, C. J. & Flegal, K. M.
(2006). Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999-2004. Journal of
the American Medical Association, 295(13), 1549-1555. doi:10.1001/jama.295.13.1549
Orr D. (1994). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ozer, E. (2007). The effects of school gardens on students and schools: Conceptualization and
considerations for maximizing healthy development. Health Education and Behavior,
34(6), 846-863. doi: 10.1177/1090198106289002
Parmer S. M., Salisbury-Glennon, J., Shannon, D. & Struempler, B. (2009). School gardens- an
experiential learning approach for a nutrition education program to increase fruit and
vegetable knowledge preference and consumption among second grade students. Journal
of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 41(3), 212- 217. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2008.06.002
Pinhas-Hamiel, O., Dolan, L. M., Daniels, S. R., Standiford, D., Khoury, P. R. & Zeitler, P.
(1996). Increased incidence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus among
adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, 128(5), 208-215. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(96)801247
Ratcliffe, M. M., Merrigan, K. A., Rogers, B. L. & Goldberg, J. P. (2011). The effects of school
garden experiences on middle school-aged students' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors
associated with vegetable consumption. Health Promotion Practice, 12(1), 36-43.
doi:10.1177/1524839909349182
Resnicow, K., Davis-Hearn, M., Smith, M., Baranowski, T., Lin, L.S., Baranowski, J., . . .
Wang, D.T. (1997). Social-cognitive predictors of fruit and vegetable intake in children.
Health Psychology, 16(3), 372-276. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.16.3.272
Reynolds, K. D., Hinton, A. W., Shewchuk, R. M. & Hickey, C. A. (1999). Social cognitive
model of fruit and vegetable consumption in elementary school children. Journal of
Nutrition Education, 21, 23-30.
Ritchie L. D., Crawford, P. B., Hoelscher, D. M. & Sothern, M. S. (2006). Position of the
American Dietetic Association: Individual-, family-, school-, and community-based
interventions for pediatric overweight. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106,
925-945. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2006.03.001
Robinson, C. W. & Zajicek, J. M. (2005). Growing minds: The effects of a one-year school
garden program on six constructs of life skills of elementary school children. Hort
Technology, 15(3), 453-457.

180

Robinson-O’Brien, R., Story, M., & Heim. S. (2009). Impact of garden-based youth nutrition
intervention programs: A review. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(2),
273-280. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2008.10.051
Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Conway, T. L., Elder, J. P., Prochaska, J. J., Brown, M., . . .
Alcaraz, J. E. (2003). Environmental interventions for eating and physical activity: A
randomized controlled trial in middle schools. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
24(3), 209-217. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00646-3
Sargeant, L. A., Khaw, K. T., Bingham, S., Day, N. E., Luben, R. N., Oakes, S., . . . Wareham,
N. J. (2001). Fruit and vegetable intake and population glycosylated haemoglobin levels:
the EPIC-Norfolk Study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 55, 342-348.
Schwab, E. (1879). The school garden. Being a practical contribution to the subject of education.
Retrieved from http://beta.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/78917#page/5/mode/1up
Scott, A. (2011). MyGarden™:Process Report 2007-2010. Unpublished report, CS Mott Group
for Sustainable Food Systems at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Singer, M. R., Moore, L. L., Garrahie, E. J. & Ellison, R. C. (1995). The tracking of nutrient
intake in young children: The Framingham Children’s Study. American Journal of Public
Health, 85(12), 1673-1677.
Sobel, D. (2005) Place-Based Education: Connecting Classrooms & Community. Great
Barrington: The Orion Society.
Somerset, S. & Markwell, K. (2008). Impact of a school-based food garden on attitudes and
identification skills regarding vegetables and fruit: a 12-month intervention trial. Public
Health Nutrition, 12(2), 214-221. doi:10.1017/S1368980008003327
Soraf, J. & Daniels, S. (2002). Obesity hypertension in children: A problem of epidemic
proportions. Hypertension, 40, 441-447. doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000032940.33466.12
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stang, J., Taft Bayerl, C. & Flatt M. M. (2006) Position of the American Dietetic Association:
Child and adolescent food and nutrition programs. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 106(9),1467-1475. doi 10.1016/j.jada.2006.07.027
Steinberger, J., Moran, A., Hong, C., Jacobs, D., & Sinaiko, A. (2001). Adiposity in childhood
predicts obesity and insulin resistance in young adulthood. Pediatrics, 138(4), 469-473.
doi:10.1067/mpd.2001.112658
Steinmetz, K. A. & Potter, J. D. (1991). Vegetables, fruit, and cancer. II. Mechanisms. Cancer
Causes & Control, 2, 427-442. doi:10.1007/BF00054304

181

Steinmetz, K.A. & Potter, J. D. (1996). Vegetables, fruit, and cancer prevention: A review.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96, 1027-1039.
doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(96)00273-8
Story, M., Kaphingst, K. M., & French, S. (2006). The role of schools in obesity prevention. The
Future of Children, 16(1), 109-142.
Story, M., Neumark-Sztainer, D. & French, S. (2002). Individual and environmental influences
on adolescent eating behaviors. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102(3
suppl), S40-51.
Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner cityGreen Spaces and places to grow. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 3-27.
doi:10.1177/0013916598301001
Thorp, L. (2001, December). Agricultural education in an elementary school: An ethnographic
th
study of a school garden. Paper presented at the meeting of the 28 Annual National
Agricultural Education Research Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Thorp, L. (2006). The pull of the earth: Participatory ethnography in the school garden. New
York: Alta Mira Press.
United States Census Bureau. (2003) School Enrollment: 2000. Census 2000 Brief. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-26.pdf
United States Census Bureau. (2011). American Fact Finder. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
United States Department of Agriculture. (2011) Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010.
Retrieved from http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietaryguidelines.htm
United States Department of Agriculture. (2011). MyPyramid Food Groups. Retrieved from
http://www.mypyramid.gov/pyramid/index.html
United States Department of Agriculture. (2010). SNAP-Ed plan guidance, FY 2012. Retrieved
from http://www.nal.usda.gov/fsn/Guidance/FY2012SNAP-EdGuidance.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2011). Food security in
the United States: Key statistics and graphics. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/stats_graphs.htm#food_secure
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Healthy People 2020.
Retrieved from http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/default.aspx

182

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Nutrition and Weight Status
Objectives. Retrieved from
http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicid=29
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). The Surgeon General's call to
action to prevent and decrease overweight and obesity, setting 2: Schools. Retrieved
from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/CalltoAction.pdf
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. (1996). Guidelines for school health programs to promote lifelong healthy
eating. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45, 1-41. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00042446.htm
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. (2010). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries:
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5905.pdf
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. (2011). Overweight and obesity: Defining childhood overweight and obesity.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/defining.html
United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National
Cancer Institute. (2010). Cancer trends progress report – 2009/2010 update: Fruit and
vegetable consumption. Retrieved from
http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=71&coid=707#t
arget
Van Duyn, M. S. & Pivonka, E. (2000) Overview of the health benefits of fruit and vegetable
consumption for the dietetics professional: selected literature. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 100(12), 1511-1521. doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(00)004 20-X
Voorrips, L. E., Goldbohm, R. A., Verhoeven, T. H, van Poppel G. A.F.C., Sturmans, F.,
Hermus R. J. J., van den Brandt, P. A. (2000). Vegetable and fruit consumption and lung
cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort Study on diet and cancer. Cancer Causes &
Control, 11, 101-115.
Westenhoefer, J. (2002) Establishing dietary habits during childhood for long-term weight
control. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 46(suppl1), 18-23. doi:10.1159/000066396
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
Zenk, S. N., Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., James, S. A., Bao, S. & Wilson, M. L. (2005).
Neighborhood racial composition, neighborhood poverty, and the spatial accessibility of
supermarkets in metropolitan Detroit. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 660667. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.042150
183