Uses of Active Plant-Based Learning (APBL) in K-12 ...



Uses of Active Plant-Based Learning (APBL) in K-12 Educational Settings

A White Paper Prepared for the Partnership for Plant-Based Learning

by

Scott P. Lewis, Ph.D.[1]

Table of Contents

Pages

Introduction 2-3

Section 1 Rationales for Using Plants in Learning 4-7

Section 2 Research Findings from the Education Literature 8-19

Section 3 Best Education Practices That Reflect Taking 20-28

an Active Approach and That Support National Standards

Section 4 Exploration of Exemplary Plant-based 29-46

Programs Situated at Schools or Institutions from a

Survey Conducted for this Paper

Section 5 Conclusion and Recommendations 47-49

References 50-56

Appendix 57

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to provide a scholarly review of the relevant research literature on active plant-based learning (APBL). It establishes a foundation for educational leaders’ understanding and support of the important role that APBL can play in educational settings.

In support of this goal, the paper reviews research on plant-based learning, including studies that have examined the impacts of gardening on students, and connects it to the larger body of research on active learning. In reviewing this research, we discuss the potential of APBL for addressing important educational goals. We begin with a definition of active, plant-based learning, followed by a brief history of plant-based education in the United States, and then a detailed outline of this paper.

Plant-based education in the United States goes back more than 100 years. The nature-study movement, which was an attempt to reform elementary education in this country from about 1890 to1930, promoted outdoor work and first-hand observations of common plants and animals as a way to improve teaching methods and students’ connections to the earth (Doris, 2002; Shair, 1999). In the late 1800s, the Massachusetts Horticultural Society provided educators with training for teaching gardening in schools (Subramaniam, 2002). The first school garden in this country was developed in 1891 in Roxbury, Massachusetts, at the George Putnam School by Henry Lincoln Clapp, who had studied school gardens in Europe. By 1918, “youth gardening” was well established, and there was at least one school garden in every state (M.R. Sealy as cited in Subramaniam, 2002). School gardening was considered a patriotic duty of students during the two world wars, but Sealy notes that gardening later waned in importance as schools focused on other areas, such as technology. A revival of school gardening in the U.S. occurred in the 1960s and 1970s as a result of reform efforts connected to the “War on Poverty.” During this time, a growing concern about the environment also motivated many educators to focus on developing school gardens. In recent years, a resurgence in school gardening has been attributed to national and regional conferences, beginning in 1989 with a symposium sponsored by the Brooklyn Botanic Garden and continuing in 1993 with the Youth Gardening Symposia conducted by the American Horticultural Society (Heffernan, 1997). These conferences have focused on ways that children’s gardens could support educational goals as well as beautify school grounds.

Today, plant-based learning is found in a diverse array of programs in the schools, such as gardening and horticulture programs, formal biology and botany courses, environmental education, nutrition education, science fairs, and school ground restoration projects. Many exciting school-based programs have been started in recent years with the development of excellent new curricula such as GrowLab, Life Lab, Junior Master Gardener, Project Learning Tree, Fast Plants, and Project Wild. Plant-based learning also takes place outside the school setting when children visit parks and botanical gardens, participate in extramural club projects such as removing invasive plant species, and study nature at summer camps. Examples of programs linked to plant-based learning in K-12 education are listed in the appendix. Rather than evaluating or recommending particular program content, the focus here is on determining why studying and working with plants is desirable, why an active approach to learning with plants is preferable to a traditional approach, and what practices are noteworthy in the review and planning of plant-based education.

In order to address the wide range of possible plant-based education programs that could be offered in grades K-12, this paper takes a broad look at research in plant-based education as well as active learning. Section 1 begins by offering three rationales for the importance of plant-based learning in K-12 education. Section 2 addresses research connected to this learning. Because there is currently only a modest amount of research specifically assessing children’s learning when they are engaged in active plant-based activities, this section is divided into two parts to provide a larger theoretical base for thinking about plant-based learning. The first part, 2A, is a summary of the findings in the educational literature on plant-based learning. In part 2B, a research-based argument is developed for the importance of active learning in general. This second part draws from research in the fields of education and psychology. It includes a discussion of the types of “alternative conceptions” that children may have about plants. It also includes a discussion of how active learning can be facilitated through a social constructivist approach. This is further developed in Section 3, which describes a general model developed for science education that has been modified to specifically address active plant-based learning. Section 4 of the paper includes a review of exemplary plant-based programs in the U.S. and the active learning practices they support. In Section 5, the final section of the paper, recommendations are given for ways to implement active plant-based programs and to overcome potential barriers to such programs.

Section 1. Rationales for Using Plants in Learning

A. Recognition of the Importance of Plants

One important reason for using plants in learning is that the majority of people are “generally poorly acquainted with plants, looking down on them or simply ignoring them” (p. 17, Hallé, 2002). Wandersee and Schussler (2001) describe this tendency to overlook plants as “plant blindness.” Apparently, much of the time most people can’t see the forest or the trees!

Our poor awareness of plants seems to be inversely related to their importance. Plants are absolutely vital to our existence. They are primary producers, converting the sun’s energy and atmospheric gases into living matter through photosynthesis; almost all consumers, including humans, depend on them directly or indirectly for food. Plants also supply us with a host of products, including medicines, fuel, fiber, building materials, paper, beverages, and perfumes. We are literally surrounded by plants and their byproducts. They provide us with great beauty in natural settings and in human-fashioned landscapes around our homes and places of work. They are the great lungs for the planet, providing oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. They help filter pollutants from our air and water. Plants help provide cooling through transpiration, and recycle large quantities of water that are then released to the atmosphere through this process. They hold soil in place, and counteract the effects of atmospheric changes such as increased amounts of carbon dioxide, slowing the impacts of global warming. They provide shelter and habitats for animals.

Over the centuries, plants have played a crucial role in the growth of civilization. They have served as the objects of search for hunter-gatherers, the basis of the development of agriculture, the spur for global exploration, and the object of experimentation in scientific quests to learn about the building blocks of life (Paye, 2000). Thus, learning about plants contributes not only to our appreciation of the complex web of life on this planet but also to our understanding of who we are as humans. (For a more detailed discussion of ways that plants benefit people, see .)

Although plants are critical to our existence, they seem to fade into the background as inanimate objects – mere scenery and staging – for most adults and children.

B. Cross-Disciplinary Learning Is Enhanced by Study of Plants

Another important reason for using plants in children’s learning has to do with the strength and diversity of the connections between the study of plants and the core standards of many academic disciplines.

There are a significant number of important content standards that are associated directly or indirectly with plants.

The Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993) lists a number of standards by grade linked to the study of plants under a section titled “The living environment.” In grade 2, for example, students should know that “plants and animals both need to take in water, and animals need to take in food. In addition, plants need light” (p. 119).

The National Science Education Standards (1996) link the study of plants to a variety of scientific domains. In the life sciences, for example, students in grades K-4 are expected to learn about the characteristics of living organisms: “Each plant or animal has different structures that serve different functions in growth, survival, and reproduction” (p. 129). In grades 9-12, students are asked to study plants through evolution: “The millions of different species of plants, animals, and microorganisms that live on earth today are related by descent from common ancestors” (p. 185).

Under the physical science standards of “motions and forces” in grades 5-8, students should “comprehend that the sun is a major source of energy for changes on the earth's surface. The sun loses energy by emitting light. A tiny fraction of that light reaches the earth, transferring energy from the sun to the earth. The sun's energy arrives as light with a range of wavelengths, consisting of visible light, infrared, and ultraviolet radiation” (p. 155). Plants, of course, are adapted to utilize some of this energy during photosynthesis. Under the standard “Science and technology in local, national, and global challenges,” students in grades 9-12 are expected to know that “Humans have a major effect on other species. For example, the influence of humans on other organisms occurs through land use – which decreases space available to other species – and pollution – which changes the chemical composition of air, soil, and water” (p. 199).

These are just a few of the many science standards that are directly or indirectly linked to the study of plants. Readers are encouraged to review the Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Science Education Standards for a complete list.

The study of many other school subjects is also enhanced by using plants in the curriculum. In mathematics, for example, the standards set by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) provide that students in pre-kindergarten through grade 2 should count with understanding and recognize "how many" in sets of objects. Teachers could address this standard by asking students to count how many there are of each of two kinds of plants in a collection. As another example, the standards specify that students in grades 6-8 should select and apply techniques and tools to accurately measure length, area, volume, and angle, to appropriate levels of precision (2000). Teachers can meet these standards by having students plan and create a school garden. Plant-based learning also leads to many other uses of mathematics. For example, when students are engaged in selling produce that they raised in gardens, they employ calculation algorithms to total a bill or to make change. Thus, many of the mathematics standards and many different kinds of mathematics are readily addressed through the use of plants.

Organized by themes, the Social Studies Standards (National Council for the Social Studies, 1994) also offer many opportunities for using plants to teach various subjects. For example, in describing the first theme, “culture,” the standards declare that “social studies programs should include experiences that provide for the study of culture and cultural diversity.” Another theme states that “social studies programs should include experiences that provide for the study of people, places, and environments.” These requirements can be met, for example, by studying the way that food plants have been used and distributed in and by different cultures. The introduction of the potato to Europe from the Americas had far-reaching consequences for the development of an important nutritional source and the subsequent famine and mass emigration from Ireland when the crop was devastated by a fungus.

The arts curriculum also provides fertile ground for the study of plants. For example, the arts standard for understanding and applying media, techniques, and processes requires that students in grades 5-8 “select media, techniques, and processes; analyze what makes them effective or not effective in communicating ideas; and reflect upon the effectiveness of their choices” (National Standards for Arts Education, 1994). Teachers can address this standard by having students create drawings or models of plants and plant development using different media.

These are but a few of the many academic standards that are addressed in teaching about plants. The strength and diversity of the connections between plants and the various academic disciplines are being recognized by educators in many locales. For example, a recent publication by the California Department of Education (2002) outlined specific state education standards for grades 2-6 in science, history/social science, mathematics, and English/language arts that could be linked to use of school gardens.

Not only can plants be used in learning about many different disciplines but, more importantly, they can be used as an integrating context for study. For example, teachers at one school who were part of the survey for this study and who created an outdoor classroom for their school reported using their habitat for study of environmental education concepts, for a class on inventions, as a practice area for measurement skills, and for a lesson in social studies on imagining what life was like for Native Americans living in such a setting.

Using plants as an integrating context results in more coherent teaching, and provides opportunities for children to develop more in-depth understanding of interrelated subjects.

C. Support from Studies of the Impact of Nature on People and the Movement to Restore School Grounds

A third reason for using plant-based education comes from studies of human dependence on and interaction with nature. Although this work usually does not single out the impacts of plants from the totality of nature (which includes other biotic and abiotic elements of the environment), it has implications about the consequences of using plants in educational settings that are important, particularly as they relate to efforts to use plants in school ground restoration.

Humans have a deep historical connection with nature. Some have suggested that this connection has gradually evolved (Rivkin, 1997). Wilson (1984) says that this may include “an innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes” (p. 1).

This connection with nature may even have given rise to a special intelligence over the course of human evolution. Howard Gardner, who developed the theory of multiple intelligences, recently added an eighth intelligence, which he calls the “naturalist intelligence” (Gardner, 1999). People who exhibit this intelligence can readily recognize and categorize flora and fauna as well as other important differences in the natural world.

Kellert (2002) also underscores the importance of humans’ links to nature, and posits that “direct experience of nature plays a significant, vital, and perhaps irreplaceable role in affective, cognitive, and evaluative development” (p. 139). Citing the presentations of speakers at an international symposium on children, plants, and gardens, Heffernan (1994) discussed how natural places may contribute to children’s awareness of time and place and their sense of becoming individuals distinct from their parents. Francis (1995) described gardens as sites where children develop ideas and attitudes toward the natural and built environments.

For many years, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan – researchers at the University of Michigan – have studied the psychological perspective of human interactions with nature. These studies have investigated perceptions of nature, preferences for types of surroundings (e.g., urban scenes vs. nature scenes), the experience of nature, and restorative benefits of interacting with nature. They found that interactions with nature help restore mental effectiveness in such areas as recovery of directed attention and reduction of “mental clutter,” and also encourage reflection on important goals (1989).

The recuperative powers of contact with nature have also been cited in efforts to restore school grounds. The school ground naturalization movement, which began in the United Kingdom, was a response to the perception that the empty areas of mown lawns and asphalt on school grounds conveyed messages that were contrary to intended school outcomes (Evergreen, 2000). The movement is also concerned with the loss of children’s interactions with natural environments as a result of a variety of factors, including urbanization, pollution, television, video games, automobiles, and crime (Francis, 1995; Heffernan, 1994; Nabhan and Trimble, 1994; Rivkin, 1997). As a consequence, efforts have been made in the U.K. to transform school grounds using trees, shrubs, and wildflowers. This has inspired similar efforts in Canada, Sweden, and now in the United States. One general benefit attributed to school ground naturalization is an improvement in children’s language skills as they engage in more creative play in more diversified spaces (A. Taylor et al in Evergreen, 2000). In addition, students working to rebuild school grounds as more natural settings often experience a sense of pride in accomplishing a collective goal and in nurturing living things (Evergreen, 2000).

In summary, the critical roles of plants in our lives, the suitability of plants for furthering the goals of a variety of educational disciplines and for creating a context for integrating these disciplines, and the special benefits of a human connection with the totality of nature, including plants, all provide key rationales for advocating the study of plants. Recognizing the substantial value of using plants for learning, some educators have been incorporating plants into formal and informal education for many years. The next section of this paper reviews research on these uses.

Section 2. Research Findings from the Education Literature

The use of plants in the curriculum has been found to contribute to a wide range of cognitive development and affective growth in children. This portion of the paper describes these findings in two parts. The first deals directly with how plants are seen as a focal point for learning, and the second takes a look at the role of active learning in educating children.

A. Benefits of Learning with Plants

The use of plants in children’s learning has been touted since as long ago as the 1600s, when Comenius advocated that gardens be attached to schools so that students might enjoy the sight of plants (Marturano, 1999). Since that time, a number of educators have weighed in on the benefits of using plants in schools. Many of these benefits have been discussed anecdotally and will be described in the next subsection; recent work using a variety of quantitative and qualitative research tools offers more substantive evidence, and will be described in a subsection to follow.

Anecdotal Discussion of Benefits of Using Plant-Based Learning

In an article outlining the origins of garden-based instruction, Marturano (1999) provides a historical review of why such learning was thought to be important for children. She writes that Rousseau, for example, believed that gardens provide opportunities to train the senses, setting the stage for reasoning. Friedrich Froebel, the creator of the kinder-garten (literally, a garden of children), saw the garden as a place to build character and responsibility (Marturano, 1999). Maria Montessori believed that gardening also taught children moral education and encouraged the contemplation of nature (Waliczek, 1997). Gardening was also thought to encourage a focus on work (Clapp, 1901). John Dewey thought that gardens allowed children to develop their thinking skills. He believed, for example, that having students work in such settings could lead to their understanding the role of farming and horticulture, as they studied growth, soil chemistry, and the impacts of factors such as light, air, pests, and pollinators (Marturano, 1999). In a commentary, Marturano herself extols the virtues of children’s participation in gardening as providing

sustained opportunity for physical, emotional, social and cognitive development. Activity in the out-of-doors brings joy and vigor to life. The fragrances, textures, colors, tastes and sounds delight the senses. The gardening experience encourages questioning, describing, predicting, sequencing, inferring and other thinking skills. Planning a garden and arranging the garden plot are visible expressions of a mind at work. Gardening provides an opportunity for children and adults to work together to set goals, solve problems, tend their garden and enjoy the fruits of their labors. The learning that takes place in a garden is as significant for today’s urban and suburban youngsters as it is and was for their agrarian predecessors (p. 63).

The benefits of using plants delineated by various authors also refer to the acquisition of important skills, attitudes, concepts, and health benefits (both physical and psychological).

For example, as students worked to create a butterfly garden, they were said to have developed responsibility and nurturing skills as well as science process skills. They also were thought to have learned to evaluate problems, set goals, and make decisions in real-life contexts (Smith, 1995). Gardening may provide a way for students to improve their physical development, observation skills, and sense development (Starbuck et al., 2002); a way for teachers to create an atmosphere of cooperation and equality (Nelson, 1988); and a way for children to learn empathy, compassion, self-discipline, and a deep appreciation for the authentic (Waters, 1999).

Reviewing a South Carolina program that was designed to support/promote environmental stewardship through caring for areas with plants, Vander Mey and McDonald (2001) suggest that important kinds of learning can take place in such a program, including job skills, teamwork, and a variety of academic skills in areas such as writing, sculpting, math, and nutrition.

Gardens are used as part of a therapeutic treatment for psychological issues, and as a way to help youth with disabilities (Moore, 1989; Morgan, 1989). The use of a school basement greenhouse and related/connected classroom lessons in a New York City public school was described as improving children’s attitudes about coming to school and their respect for living things (Stetson, 1991). Use of gardening activities reportedly enabled teachers to integrate a variety of subjects, such as mathematics, literature, science, and cultural geography, in an authentic, real-world way (Gwynn, 1988; Marturano, 1995; Warrick et al, 1993). This approach motivates students to learn important concepts more easily than when these subjects are artificially segregated. Gardening activities are seen as a way of helping young children observe the natural processes of growing plants (Clemens, 1996). As previously mentioned, connecting people to nature through activities such as gardening is said to have positive restorative effects (Evergreen, 2000). This connection with nature may also lead to an improved environmental ethic (Pivnick, 2001), and may help children build sustainable development values (Moore, 1995). School gardens are also seen as a way to help children develop respect for different cultures and to help foster understanding in increasingly diverse schools (Heffernan, 1997). In a UNESCO report, Desmond et al. (2003) looked at uses of gardening as an educational tool internationally, and discussed how gardening is viewed not only as a means of teaching ecological literacy, sustainable development, nutrition, diet, health, food production for trade, and vocational competencies, but also as a way to add “a sense of excitement, adventure, emotional impact and aesthetic appreciation for learning” (p. 218).

In 1995, the state of California launched a public school initiative called “A Garden in Every School” to develop lively plant-based environments for interdisciplinary learning. Because the project description embodies many of the hoped-for benefits of gardening and working with plants that have been mentioned in this subsection of the paper, it is quoted here at length:

By encouraging and supporting a garden in every school, we create opportunities for our children to discover fresh food, make healthier food choices, and become better nourished.

Gardens offer dynamic, beautiful settings in which to integrate every discipline, including science, math, reading, environmental studies, nutrition, and health. Such interdisciplinary approaches cultivate the talents and skills of all students while enriching the students' capacities of observation and thinking.

Young people can experience deeper understandings of natural systems and become better stewards of the earth by designing, cultivating, and harvesting school gardens with their own hands.

School garden projects nurture community spirit, common purpose, and cultural appreciation by building bridges among students, school staff, families, local businesses, and organizations. (California Department of Education. Garden enhanced nutrition education: A garden in every school.)

Research Evidence of Benefits of Using Plant-Based Learning

Although the benefits of working with plants have been lauded for many years by a number of educators, it is important to look at what systematically conducted research says about such learning. Although there is good reason to believe that the observations of experienced educators are as valid as the results of systematic research (Lohr and Relf, 2000), the use of a methodical approach can help to uncover some important details about the impacts of this learning that less formal observation and analysis may fail to reveal.

This subsection draws on research from several areas with close connections to plant-based education, including environmental education. A survey of the literature reveals that the majority of such research has been connected to gardening. Findings of a general nature are reported, along with findings from studies on specific plant-based programs.

Findings of general research on plant-based learning.

Gardening activity has been reported to be psychologically beneficial (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Surveys among adults who were involved in gardening showed that they believed gardening promotes relaxation, and valued gardening as a healthy activity, involving exercise and fresh air (Dunnett and Qasim, 2000). In a survey conducted on the World Wide Web, Waliczek et al. (2001) reported that adults who gardened with children found that the children’s self-esteem increased and stress levels decreased. Lohr and Relf (2000) cite a number of physiological studies showing that responses to plants include stress reduction, mental restoration from fatigue, and calming responses. They discuss the recent growth of the use of plants and gardening as a therapeutic tool, including the development of Horticultural Therapy.

While developing a comprehensive report on the environment as an integrating context (EIC) in education, Lieberman and Hoody (1998) employed a survey and case study methodology to identify critical components of this approach. They looked at some 40 schools in the U.S. that utilized the EIC approach, and found that teachers thought the active use of schoolyards leads to more effective learning for students, more engagement, more interest in science, and more pride in accomplishment. In the case study, these perceptions were reinforced by findings that students enrolled in such environmental programs showed better performances on a variety of quantitative measures of achievement.

As previously discussed, school ground restoration projects have produced a number of general benefits as well as some specific outcomes that are directly linked to plants. These include increased botanical knowledge and improved environmental attitudes (M.R. Harvey, 1988, cited in Evergreen, 2000), as well as a calming effect on students, which has reduced the number of “knock and bump” playground accidents (Coffey, 2001).

A survey among teachers who had received a youth gardening grant from the National Gardening Association (DeMarco, 1997) revealed that almost all of them had used the school garden in an interdisciplinary manner, i.e., for a variety of academic and social goals, including social development therapy, recreation, environmental awareness, community relations, the arts, and exploring diversity.

Trexler (1999) conducted an interview study of a group of elementary students and pre-service elementary teachers about their “agri-food system literacy,” and found that higher scores correlated with having higher socioeconomic status, having gardening experience, and living outside urban areas. In another study, surveys of K-12 students and teachers who were involved in learning through gardening and farming revealed that such direct experiences motivated students across academic levels and abilities, and encouraged healthy lifestyles through physical exercise and the consumption of nutritious foods (Duesing, 1997).

Findings of studies of particular plant-based programs.

The effectiveness of a number of particular plant-based programs – many of which had gardening components – has been investigated through the use of a variety of methodologies, including qualitative, long-term studies. Two studies were conducted to evaluate Project GREEN (Garden Resources for Environmental Education Now), which was designed to help teachers integrate environmental education into the classroom through gardening. The first study showed that elementary students involved in the program gained positive attitudes toward the environment and that the more outdoor-related experiences the students had, the more positive their attitudes became (Skelly and Zajicek, 1998). The authors found, however, that gardening alone did not significantly improve test scores; students also needed a formal educational structure.

In the second study, which involved both elementary and middle school students, no significant differences in attitude toward school or interpersonal relationships were found between experimental groups that participated in the program and control groups (Waliczek et al., 2001). The authors reasoned that these findings might have been related to the administration of the post-test at the end of the academic year when students may have felt more negative about school. The authors did report some significant interaction effects, with older students reporting more positive interpersonal relationships and with students from schools that allowed more individual participation in the garden reporting more positive attitudes toward school.

Klemmer (2002) examined the impact of the Junior Master Gardener (JMG) program on third, fourth, and fifth graders in the school district of Temple, Texas. She found that boys from all grades and girls from the fifth grade who had gardening experiences as part of their science activities showed significantly higher scores on measures of science achievement than students who did not garden and who were taught science using traditional methods.

In an article written about the JMG program, Welsh et al. (1999) reported that a three-year study of the program in San Antonio indicated that gardening seemed to promote independent thinking and personal responsibility, as well as gains in academic, personal, and social areas. The authors also noted long-term improvements in children’s self-esteem.

Sheffield (1992) conducted a study in South Carolina to examine the impacts of an interdisciplinary garden-based curriculum on the academic achievement and affect of elementary school children classified as underachieving. The students took part in a 5-week summer school program, working together to plant a heritage garden and to study plants through a variety of disciplines. The researcher found significant improvement in reading and writing skills as well as self-esteem.

Plant-based programs can involve some novel ways of linking plants to learning. In an 8-week unit, fifth graders in the Piedmont Carolinas were told they were to be in charge of an imaginary agricultural resource center. The students were taught some basic ethnographic techniques to interview community members about growing foodstuffs, then collected life histories and artifacts and read a variety of documents, including newspapers and recipe books (Heath, 1983). Heath found both increased attendance and dramatic improvements in students’ science unit scores.

Fisher (1996) evaluated a method of teaching Michigan seventh graders about the structure and function of plants using concept maps, journals, and dissections. She found significant improvement in students’ understanding by using this method. An evaluation of a school gardening program that taught horticulture and environmental education in several schools in Pittsburgh (Brunotts, 1998) showed that the program had positive effects on students’ academic and social/emotional development.

Plant-based learning programs often have an impact on areas outside science. For example, one researcher found that a garden-based nutrition curriculum developed for elementary school students produced a significant improvement not only in children’s nutrition knowledge but also in their food preferences (Morris, 2000). In a qualitative study of an inner-city youth gardening program in the Midwest, Rahm (2002) found that the learning community that was created while students gardened gave rise to a variety of learning opportunities and provided a chance for students to make connections between science, community, and work. Another qualitative study, which examined the effects of an innovative program that was conducted in a school-owned residence where third grade students could complete activities in a garden and a kitchen, found that students in the program increased their self-esteem (Ogarzaly, 1996).

In a study of a program involving high school students planning and creating a garden in an urban setting, Fusco (2001) found that a “relevant culture” of science learning was developed, situated within the larger community. This science culture was based on students’ concerns, interests, and experiences in and out of the classroom, and on the process of researching and enacting ideas.

In a description of the Life Lab science program – an elementary garden-based program featuring a hands-on, applied science approach – it was reported that students demonstrated significant gains in science achievement test scores and that students’ attitudes toward science improved (The Catalogue of the National Diffusion Network, 21st Edition,1995). In 1989, Arenson used a case study approach to review the impacts of the Life Lab program at a California elementary school, and similarly reported that students involved in the program (as well as teachers) were encouraged to become interested in science. Arenson also found that working with living things enabled students to develop a sense of caring and ownership, and that the curriculum promoted an integrated approach to learning.

Plant-based programs can also affect students in unexpected ways. An ethnographic study of a garden at an elementary school in the Midwest set out to explore children’s relationship to land and food (Thorp, 2001). The researcher found that the garden was a powerful force in reshaping the school’s culture, providing an important set of experiences for students who had not had enough of these experiences, and serving as an important place for creativity and self-expression.

A residential outdoor education program in Canada was studied to determine whether it contributed to a change in children’s attitudes regarding the topics of conservation of plants, energy, and wildlife. The author found that changes in attitudes toward plant and energy conservation were reflected in students’ behavior, and theorized that several aspects of the program (including the pre-camp preparations, field study sessions, and attitudes of the teachers and counselors) probably contributed to these changes (Tufuor, 1982).

Using interviews and observations, Alexander et al. (1995) conducted a qualitative study of the effects of children’s participation in classroom gardening. They found that children not only experienced an enhanced daily academic curriculum but also gained pleasure from watching the fruits of their labor grow, increased interactions with parents and other adults, and received lessons in moral development as they confronted the impacts of vandalism and neglect on their efforts.

Finally, a study of “the Reggio Approach”– an arts-based, early childhood education curriculum formulated in Italy – showed that young children could develop strong relationships to nature through long-term experiential projects. For example, one project involving seeds and plants encouraged children to explore and express their ideas through the use of language, drawings, and clay sculpture (Cadwell, 1996).

In summary, the research reviewed here establishes that plant-based education can have a positive impact in a number of areas important in children’s lives, including self-esteem, attitudes toward school and the environment, social development, physical and psychological health, creative thinking and problem solving, and effective learning of science and a variety of other academic subjects.

B. Rationale for Taking an Active Approach to Learning

Active learning occurs when educational tasks are both “hands on” and “minds on.” Many plant-based programs involve active learning which has both of these. However, because the relatively few studies that have been conducted on Plant-based learning have employed a number of different approaches and methods, it is difficult to generalize from the results. In thinking about how plant-based education may benefit children, therefore, it is helpful to consider the extensive research literature about the process of active learning in general.

In order to put this discussion in context, we contrast two educational approaches to teaching and learning, the “transmissionist” and the “constructivist.” A number of American educators have been dissatisfied with a teaching approach that views the transmission of knowledge as the chief goal of schooling. John Dewey, for example, talked about the importance of making positive experiences an essential part of education, rather than using the memorization approach advocated by many of his contemporaries (Dewey, 1963). Although many American educators have advocated more student-centered approaches, even recent educational history has been dominated by teaching approaches reflecting a transmissionist philosophy (Blumenfeld et al., 1997). For example, there was considerable attention in recent decades in the United States – guided by learning philosophies linked to behaviorist psychology – on “programmed instruction,” a model of education focusing exclusively on the most efficient ways for information to be learned.

Even during this time, however, curricula were being developed that emphasized hands-on approaches to learning. For example, several hands-on science curricula (e.g., Elementary Science Study, Science--A Process Approach, and Science Curriculum Improvement Study) introduced in the 1960s and 1970s found a wide audience. Subsequent research using measures of performance, attitude, process skills, and basic skills such as reading and arithmetic showed that students using these hands-on approaches outperformed comparison groups (Bredderman, 1982; Shymansky et al., 1982).

Recent research in learning has led to a number of important findings that support the active approach, and that considerably broaden our initial understanding of the benefits of hands-on learning. These findings are drawn from extensive research in child development, expert-novice learning, and the role of context in learning (Cole, 1998; Gardner, 1985; National Research Council, 2001). This research has critical implications for understanding how children learn about plants in school and non-school settings.

The contemporary view of learning is that each person constructs new knowledge and understanding in a unique way, based on that person’s previous knowledge and experience (National Research Council, 2001; Krajcik et al., 2003). In this “constructivist” view, learners interpret new information in terms of their prior knowledge. Thus, children come to the classroom not as blank slates but with understandings shaped by their experiences related to the concepts that they are expected to learn. This knowledge can come from a variety of sources, including having active experiences, learning about the topics from adults or other peers in or out of school, visiting a museum, or watching television. Such prior knowledge will influence the acquisition of new knowledge in ways that the teacher may not expect; it may even interfere with this acquisition. For example, Krajcik et al. (2003) discuss the problems a teacher may encounter when trying to teach students why trees drop their leaves:

Some students might think the leaves drop because they are dead. Some might think the tree runs out of food. Others might think that the color of the leaves causes them to fall. Some might think trees sleep in the winter. Still others might think that the cold winter winds blow the leaves off. These prior beliefs will affect the teaching and learning going on in the classroom. Because prior knowledge and experiences influence the learning of new knowledge, it is important to reflect frequently on prior experiences (p. 53).

Thus, a critical feature of effective teaching is that it elicits from students their pre-existing understandings of the subject matter to be taught, and provides opportunities to build on or challenge the initial understanding (National Research Council, 2001).

As part of the focus on the impact of prior knowledge on students’ construction of understanding, there has been considerable research in the last 20 years on students’ conceptions about a number of science domains (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985; Wandersee et al., 1994). Although these prior conceptions are often labeled “misconceptions,” Wandersee et al. (1994) have suggested they be labeled “alternative conceptions,” a characterization that recognizes the stability and logic of the student’s understanding. This body of research has provided opportunities to look at the knowledge that students bring to the table that appears to be resistant to the introduction of new conceptions in the classroom. Of special interest to readers of this paper is research focusing on alternative conceptions about plants. Several examples will be given here.

Alternative Conceptions Related to Plants

Young children tend to categorize alive and not alive according to superficial physical characteristics and to the presence or absence of motion (Carey, 1985; Driver et al., 1994). Older students and students more knowledgeable of biology retain aspects of this categorization scheme, but seem to broaden their criteria for life to include more carefully differentiated ideas of function (e.g., autonomous movement is distinguished from simple movement) and ideas about additional functions (e.g., growth, metabolism, and reproduction). If older children (seventh or eighth grade) are asked if an apple seed is alive, many will say that it has the “potential” to grow but that it is not alive. This example shows how students do not develop rich ideas about basic biological phenomena.

Osborne and Freyberg (1985) found that students at all educational levels displayed alternative conceptions, including: soil is the plants’ food; plants get their food from the roots and store it in the leaves; and chlorophyll is the plants’ blood. Many students, even biology majors, are surprised to hear that the mass of a tree comes primarily from carbon dioxide found in the air and water taken from the environment. This is a basic feature of photosynthesis that is found in textbooks from elementary school through high school and college, yet many students believe that plants depend on food that comes from the soil (Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, 1987).

An interview study involving ninth graders showed that they had many misconceptions about photosynthesis and respiration (Capa et al., 2001). Research involving children ages 8 through 17 showed that many children had misconceptions related to transpiration, believing that plants absorb water through their leaves, and that water taken up by the plant does not leave the plant (Barker, 2002). In a study investigating college students’ difficulties learning about gas exchange in plants, Beeber (1998) found that students had many such misconceptions. Even college students who have agricultural experience do not always understand the connection between aspects of plant biology, such as photosynthesis and respiration, and plants’ growing requirements (Akey, 2000). Additional examples of alternative conceptions related to the study of plants are discussed by Berthelsen (1999).

In summary, there are a number of important areas linked to the study of plants in which many students hold incomplete or alternative conceptions. While researchers’ initial thinking was that students are particularly resistant to having their conceptions changed, research in this area (Wandersee et al., 1994) indicates that the quality of the instruction may be instrumental in changing alternative conceptions. Thus, particular approaches to teaching and learning may be important in helping children develop accurate understandings, as will be discussed below.

Integrated, Meaningful Knowledge

Children’s alternative conceptions may be so powerful that they are resistant to new ideas. Because most students memorize terms in a superficial way that does not connect well to their experience and understanding, this newly acquired knowledge remains inert and disconnected from students’ deep-seated prior knowledge (D.Perkins, 1993, as cited in Good and Brophy, 2003). This is precisely where the importance of active construction of knowledge comes into play. In the active process, connections are developed between new information and existing ideas, resulting in meaningful understanding (Good and Brophy, 2003, Krajcik et al., 2003). Thus, not only should students be involved in “hands-on” work with materials, but they should be engaged in “minds-on” work, i.e., making sense of what they are doing in light of their existing understandings. It is crucial for students to be involved in the conscious process of sense making so that their thinking, which is often dominated by alternative conceptions, is brought more in line with accepted understandings.

In order for this to occur, teachers must monitor how students make sense of their activity, encourage students to self-assess, and provide students with opportunities for reflection on what worked and what needed improvement (National Research Council, 2001).

Krajcik et al. (2003) argue that for learning to become meaningful, students must utilize three types of knowledge: content, procedural, and metacognitive. These are described next.

Content knowledge refers to the most critical concepts found in a domain of study, and might also include the major theories. Examples in the study of plants might include knowledge of the parts of the plant (root, stem, leaves, and flower) and how they function, the role of plants in the ecosystem, and the chemical transformations taking place during photosynthesis.

Procedural knowledge helps students develop inquiries and find answers to questions. It includes the procedures used to construct experiments and to find background information and determine the value of this information. For example, procedural knowledge would enable a student to set up an experiment to test the role of light in growing beans, graph the growth of plants, use a microscope to study flower parts, and evaluate factors contributing to the failure of certain plants to grow.

Metacognitive knowledge includes knowledge about how thinking works, as well as awareness of one’s own thinking processes. Examples include knowing different strategies for learning, such as knowing how to use search terms to find information on the World Wide Web; understanding that cognitive tasks are different (e.g., that data analysis might include transforming the data into a different representation); and having insight into one’s own strengths and weaknesses in learning. Metacognitive knowledge also includes monitoring one’s own progress on a report and understanding when to seek help.

Integrating these three types of knowledge is a major challenge for the learner and for the teacher. Fortunately, a perspective on learning underscoring the importance of the social context provides an opportunity for a discussion of methods that can facilitate such integration and promote active learning. This approach has great relevance for plant-based learning.

Social Constructivism and Learning[2]

A great deal of the early work in children’s construction of knowledge was stimulated by Jean Piaget, whose work was concerned mostly with the logical constructions that children could achieve by certain developmental stages, and only minimally with the impact of social settings on this development.

Most current views of constructivist thinking put a premium on the way in which constructions of these various types of knowledge (and its subsequent development) are mediated by social environments. This emphasis has its roots in research by Lev Vygotsky and Alexander Leontiev, and was later elaborated in work by researchers such as Rogoff (1990), Lave and Wenger (1991), Saxe (1991), and Cole (1998). In this view, adults and more capable peers – in a process utilizing scaffolding – assist learners in reaching and exhibiting understandings that they could not achieve on their own. Central to this approach is the notion that the higher mental functions begin in the social arena between people, and are then internalized by the child (Vygotsky, 1978). The notion of scaffolding, and the kinds and amounts of assistance offered by others, are also central to an analysis of how children can reach higher levels of understanding. Thus, these interactions become the focal point for promoting learning.

The importance of the community in promoting various kinds of learning comes to the forefront when this perspective is taken. We see such a research focus on a “community of learners” embodied in the work of Brown and Campione (1990), who investigated the development of science studies in the classroom. Stimulated by research on group work in reading that uses reciprocal teaching, Brown and her colleagues began thinking about the study of science in the classroom as a social arena where learners with a variety of complementary strengths could explore, conduct research, and communicate their understandings with each other. In such contexts, learners play a major role in supporting one another’s efforts to develop understanding.

Other researchers have also focused on learning in groups, both in and out of school. In traditional communities of practice, for example, we see that novices are often accorded different types of roles because of their limited experience. This “legitimate peripheral participation,” as characterized by Lave and Wenger (1991), allows beginners to contribute to the ongoing activity while learning skills that will later allow them to become full participants. Each community has its own practices that have evolved over time and are part of efforts to satisfy particular goals. The community provides opportunities for novices to take part in these activities.

In support of the “community of learners” notion, Rogoff (1994) argues that this approach leads to a focus on the way that children learn and develop while participating in activities, rather than on traditional measures such as how much content knowledge can be transmitted. In her view, it is just as important to recognize how understanding is transformed as a result of this participation.

The community also provides important norms and goals that motivate the child to learn and that guide activity. Thus we may find classrooms creating community norms whereby students ask each other to explain the process by which they solved a problem, where students compliment each other on achievements, where groups work together in ways that show respect for different strengths and weaknesses, and where children’s curiosity is rewarded by their peers rather than belittled. While studying plants, teachers may have very different goals in mind, for example, using plants to prepare for a standardized test versus using plants in a project to restore school grounds. Differences in class norms and goals can lead to very different types of classroom activities and types of learning, even though teachers are aiming to cover the same content.

Authentic Learning

The focus on using a social constructivist perspective when viewing children’s learning also underscores the importance of authentic learning. The educational literature discusses two types of authentic learning that can be linked to APBL. In one type of authentic learning, students are engaged in out-of-school activities that involve the same practices used by actual practitioners in the relevant community, e.g., the practices that gardeners use when they make gardens, or that botanists use when identifying plants (J.S. Brown, 1989). In another type of authentic learning, children in school are involved in activities that practitioners may not be engaged in, but that may prepare them for problem solving in settings outside the school (Putnam and Borko, 2000). Thus, students who prepare a multimedia presentation on the plants that they are growing in their school garden are practicing research and communication skills that may be useful later. In both cases, authentic learning provides contexts that result in more meaningful learning.

Summary

In summary, research has provided a variety of evidence of the impact of prior knowledge on subsequent learning and the importance of an active approach in linking new knowledge to old. For example, studies of students’ biological understandings have revealed a number of alternative conceptions that children might have about plants. Such knowledge can lead students to interpret teachings in ways very different from how they were intended or even to ignore such information. In response, educators have been working on a variety of means to address prior knowledge within learning settings and to guide students to understandings more aligned with accepted bodies of knowledge. Some of these approaches are based upon a social constructivist approach that recognizes the importance that peers and teachers have in mediating learning.

Teaching practice guided by a social constructivist approach looks much different from that guided by a traditional approach. The traditional classroom is essentially a top-down, teacher-centered approach. The social constructivist-oriented classroom, on the other hand, is student-centered. In considering plant parts, for example, the teacher could decide that such content could be learned in conjunction with designing a garden in a space adjacent to a classroom trailer. In this classroom, students might conduct research in groups on a variety of conditions (e.g., temperature, soil, sunlight) and share the information they find with others after reading, discussing, and debating in order to recommend particular plants to grow. More experienced gardeners might visit the class to share their plant knowledge with the children and to show them techniques of planting and composting. Students might find that some plants are being attacked by certain kinds of pests, so they might ask county extension agents about the best ways to prevent this. After harvesting the fruits and vegetables, students could have a school feast in which they invite parents to assist in preparing the food, so that they learn a variety of cultural approaches to enjoying food. Students could even make a short presentation to the parents about the work they did to grow the plants.

The differences in activities fostered by these differences in orientation (teacher-centered versus student-centered) are striking. The next section will provide a detailed description of critical teaching practices using a social constructivist perspective that may lead to the deeper understanding and conceptual change that is often lacking in the traditional approach.

Section 3. Best Education Practices That Reflect Taking an Active Approach and That Support National Standards

As outlined in Section 2B above, the social constructivist approach provides a number of different features that we can use when employing an active approach in plant-based education across a wide range of programs in and out of the classroom. These have great promise for engaging children in exciting, meaningful learning. Some of these features are already found in a number of programs. These will be elaborated on in this section with specific plant-based learning examples.

A Model of Active Plant-Based Teaching and Learning Based on a Social Constructivist Approach

Given the findings that have been discussed so far (i.e., the impact of prior knowledge and its role in mediation of new learning, research on children’s alternative conceptions, and authentic learning), the groundwork has been laid for a discussion of best practices in active plant-based education that can be supported by a social constructivist approach to plant-based education.

Krajcik et al. (2003) have developed a social constructivist model of classroom practice utilizing the active approach to teaching and learning (see especially pp. 54-70). Most, if not all, of the features of this model can also be found in a variety of sources that advocate reform efforts to teaching and learning (e.g., National Science Education Standards, 1996; How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, 2001; Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 1993; Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America’s Schools, 1993).

While the Krajcik et al. model was developed with the classroom in mind, most of the features are relevant for both school and non-school settings where students are engaged in learning about plants. The Krajcik model has been modified somewhat for this paper to reflect the inclusions of non-school settings as well as to incorporate some additional understandings of the ways that all settings provide unique opportunities for students to learn about plants. The next part of this paper will serve as an introduction to best practices that are based on the components of active learning outlined in Krajcik et al. This list of best practices also provided the foundation for part of the survey of exemplary plant-based education programs that will be discussed in Section 4. In instances where features are more apt to apply only to science education, the letters SP (SP) are shown to alert the reader that a particular strategy may not be relevant to a non-science program. This new model also combines some features from the original model that might be better understood as one feature than as two.

This model has five areas of practice derived from the general reform goals and social constructivist theory that are critical for learning:

1. Active engagement with phenomena

2. Use and application of knowledge

3. Multiple representations

4. Use of learning communities

5. Authentic tasks

Each of these areas will be described in the next section along with particular strategies that support them.

1. Active Engagement with Phenomena

The idea that it is important for students to actively engage with phenomena is very important for the constructivist approach. It encompasses three strategies:

A. Asking and refining questions related to phenomena.

B. Predicting and explaining phenomena.

C. Having mindful interaction with concrete materials.

These are detailed below.

A. Asking and refining questions related to phenomena.

B. Predicting and explaining phenomena.

Krajcik et al. (2003) provide a relevant plant-based example that illustrates how a teacher can stimulate student questions in a lower elementary classroom. The teacher begins by asking the students for ideas on how to test whether a seed is alive. They might respond by asking – could it be planted? Could it be opened to see if something is growing inside, or could we ask someone who works in a botanical garden? Students are then asked to work in groups and refine questions by debating the merits of the suggestions, such as the possibility that cutting something open to find out if it is alive might kill it. This might lead them to decide to plant the seed and then develop additional questions on the best way to do that. It also might lead to some predictions about what might happen. Through this process, students grapple with important concepts such as what “alive” means. This process can easily be initiated in non-school sites. For example, groups of young children could carry on such conversations in a botanical garden. However, constraints in such settings, such as length of time needed to actually grow the seeds, might necessitate having the children grow the seeds at home and then returning to discuss the results and how they matched their predictions.

C. Having mindful interaction with concrete materials.

It is often thought that the use of hands-on materials is sufficient to engage students. Research has shown decided advantages for students taught with hands-on methods versus traditional read-and-recite approaches (Mechling and Oliver, 1983) and as previously discussed in this paper in reviewing the research on the positive benefits of using hands-on science curricula. The use of concrete materials that students can manipulate provides them with important information and experience that isn’t available through other methods. However, giving students plants to examine without engaging them thoughtfully in what they are doing may be as detrimental to children’s learning as simply asking them to parrot information. It is critical that thought be given to how students can mindfully interact with such materials and information. Such involvement with concrete materials can range from mostly direct, active experiences (planning and planting a garden) to demonstrations (watching how to transplant a seedling), field trips, videos, and lectures. Even activities that are not hands-on and that appear highly abstract have potential for student development through application of problem-solving skills and metacognitive efforts. For example, despite the assumption that lecturing doesn’t fit the constructivist approach, how students engage with the ideas presented in a lecture (e.g., creating questions about what they are hearing, linking it to prior knowledge, using such information to make predictions) can be as fruitful for development of understanding as more concrete approaches if the children are involved in making sense of what they are doing. Thus the call is not only for hands-on activities, through which students can handle the materials and gain experience and knowledge of the materials that are the object of teaching, but also for minds-on activities, through which students have opportunities to engage in high-order thinking.

2. Use and Application of Knowledge

Six strategies are given for encouraging students to use and apply knowledge:

A. Teachers must consider students’ prior knowledge.

B. Activities must encourage students to identify and use multiple resources.

C. Activities must involve students in planning and carrying out investigations.

D. Learned concepts and skills must be applied to new situations.

E. Students should be allowed time for reflection.

F. Teachers must help students take action to improve their world.

Each of these will be discussed with respect to plant-based education.

Teachers must consider students’ prior knowledge.

As we have seen, consideration of the impact of prior knowledge has been an important focal point for research in education. Although alternative conceptions have often been viewed as an impediment to learning about experts’ current concepts, the understanding that students have these conceptions can provide an important basis for teaching. Thus teachers can arrange lessons that help students resolve conflicts between their prior understandings and the new concepts.

A. Activities must encourage students to identify and use multiple resources.

In developing projects around plants, it is important for students to use a variety of information sources, such as books, CDs, the Internet, videos, pictures, and journals. For example, a video might include a time-lapse sequence of the growth of a seedling toward a light source, which would support understanding of the impact of the light tropism in directing this growth. A variety of such sources would help students integrate understandings more thoroughly.

Activities must involve students in planning and carrying out investigations. (SP)

Investigations are found in many subject areas, but are a particularly important method in science. In investigations, students engage in a cycle of developing questions, making observations, recording data, linking outcomes to the question in some sort of analysis, and then developing new questions. Students investigating how plants grow with different types of fertilizers might first read articles in a book or magazine, or on an Internet site, and then propose different fertilizers to facilitate growth of a plant. They could even predict which they think will grow faster and why. They could then devise experimental conditions to test their predictions. Students could keep records of the results and make reports about their findings and interpretations. If conditions were confounded, there might even be a debate about what occurred. A new round of experiments might be proposed to help resolve the question. Thus, students typically are engaged in a number of important scientific process skills (e.g., asking questions, recording and representing data, communicating, drawing conclusions) while undertaking such investigations.

B. Learned concepts and skills must be applied to new situations.

An important finding in the research on learning has been how difficult it may be for students to apply learning to new situations, particularly if they have no practice doing so. Such application is critical in developing richer understandings and making connections from old knowledge to new knowledge. For example, students may learn the parts of plants in the classroom, but ignore trees and flowers on the school grounds during recess. Teachers who understand the need to connect this new learning may make it a point to ask students to point out the plant parts when they are walking across school grounds or ask what plants they are consuming when they are eating lunch.

C. Students should be allowed time for reflection.

When students are engaged in learning, it is important that they be given time to reflect on aspects of their learning. Such time can take several forms. It can be seen in increasing wait-time for students to give answers during question and answer periods (Rowe, 1996). It can also be seen in going into depth and spending more time on a topic. For example, it takes time to develop a plant for a garden, organize the planting, maintain and care for the plants as they grow, harvest the fruits or vegetables, and then reflect on what happened. Student learning is strengthened through increased time spent on one topic so that the problems inherent in the “inch deep, mile wide” approach are avoided.

D. Teachers must help students take action to improve their world.

A number of topics connected to plants (invasive species, loss of native habitats and endangered plant species, genetically engineered crops) are of great social interest and are topics that help students learn critical thinking skills and develop their own opinions based on their own research of the facts available to them. These issues often capture the imagination of students in middle and high school who can explore them with the teacher’s help as a way of taking action to improve their world. Younger children may want to focus on local issues such as caring for individual plants in the classroom or transforming a neglected corner of the school grounds into a butterfly garden. Since plants are so much a part of our lives, there are abundant opportunities for students to improve their worlds using plant-based activities and projects.

3. Multiple Representations

As children make connections among ideas presented in different formats, they integrate those understandings more strongly. Gardner (1983) discusses the importance of encouraging ways of representing knowledge for different modalities in his theory of multiple intelligences. The strength of these connections is then enhanced and is liable to be more easily transferred to different settings. Several strategies are given by Krajcik et al. (2003) in this area, two of which are relevant for plant-based learning:

A. Teachers should use varied evaluation techniques.

B. Students should create products or artifacts to represent understanding, and revise these products or artifacts.

These are discussed below.

A. Teachers should use varied evaluation techniques.

There are many ways to work with plants and thus many different types of understandings that students might generate. Therefore, the use of a variety of evaluations may help teachers gain better insight into what it is that a student is learning. In addition, varying evaluations may be helpful in getting at understandings in a wider range of children who may have strengths and weaknesses in particular areas. For example, students who have limited English proficiency may be better able to demonstrate their grasp of plant reproduction by making models or drawings. This is consistent with an approach that focuses on encouraging students to play to their strengths.

In addition, learning may be better demonstrated in a number of areas through nontraditional (non-pencil and paper) assessment methods. For example, students may show knowledge of the problem of invasive plants by developing a multimedia presentation showing problem areas near the school or reporting the results from a study of the numbers of native plants versus invasive plants in a nearby abandoned lot.

B. Students should create products or artifacts to represent understanding, and revise these products or artifacts.

By developing tangible representations of student understanding (artifacts) such as models or videos, students are also creating objects that can be the source of discussions. That is, students can then explain these representations to others, which enables critique on the accuracy and meaning of the representation. Such feedback can enable students to further refine the artifact. For example, in preparation for a science fair, a student shows a poster of the life cycle of a particular plant. During the presentation, classmates point out that the poster is missing a crucial element because it does not show the role of a pollinator in the reproductive cycle. The student then successfully revises the poster to take this important element into account.

4. Use of Learning Communities

The social constructivist approach situates learning within a community which provides the context for what is learned. In such a community, language is a critical tool for developing understanding. Four strategies are given for this area, three of which are generally relevant for plant-based learning, while the fourth is more closely linked with science education which may include some types of plant-based learning:

A. Students use language as a tool to express knowledge.

B. Students express, debate, and come to a resolution regarding ideas, evidence, concepts, and theories. (SP)

C. Learning is situated in a social context.

D. Students learn from knowledgeable others.

These are detailed below.

A. Students use language as a tool to express knowledge.

In the Vygotskian perspective, language is an important path to concept acquisition in which children learn words’ meanings through speaking with more knowledgeable peers or adults and then integrate them into their own speech. Language can be used in a variety of ways to reinforce learning. For example, in learning about seasonal tree adaptations, students can discuss ideas, give explanations in reports, and make notes of observations in journals. This is an important avenue for connecting the study of plants to literacy.

B. Students express, debate, and come to a resolution regarding ideas, evidence, concepts, and theories. (SP)

Here, again, is a strategy that is more likely to be found in science education than in other subject domains. An important aspect of the way that science works is that scientists debate ideas. Students may be encouraged to mirror this process in the classroom. For example, students observing the loss of leaves on a plant may debate the causes of the plant injury – response to lack of water, disease, or even herbivory. One child may offer particular evidence to support one of these causes and thus win over her classmates.

C. Learning is situated in a social context.

When learning about plant topics, such as plants’ need for sunlight to produce food, students have a variety of opportunities to gain understanding. These might include sharing with classmates the results of their experiments growing plants in the light and the dark, using the Internet to exchange information with others who see adaptations of plants across different latitudes and climates, and taking field trips with classmates to observe plants growing under different lighting conditions. Each of these opens up opportunities for exchanges of ideas that would be more difficult for a student to acquire on his or her own.

D. Students learn from knowledgeable others.

A key element in the social constructivist model is research on the ability of children to learn from adults or more knowledgeable peers. Vygotsky called the difference between what children can learn on their own and what they can learn with the assistance of these others the “zone of proximal development.” In this zone, the assistance of others is manifested in scaffolding actions such as making the task simpler or modeling an action. Research has focused on such learning in a variety of contexts (see Saxe et al., 1984, for an example of scaffolding in early number development).

Scaffolding has different forms (modeling, coaching, sequencing materials in smaller chunks for success, reducing complexity, marking critical features, and using visual tools). As the use of the term scaffolding implies, this initial support is constructed to support the learner and is gradually withdrawn so that the learner eventually takes responsibility for his or her own learning. As previously discussed, this also implies that children may play different roles depending on their level of knowledge. In order for scaffolding to work, Krajcik et al. (pp. 67-68) suggest that it must meet several conditions (examples are provided for each condition):

a. Support must be relevant to the student and the task that the student is trying to complete. As an example, when comparing the size of leaves of different plants, a teacher may suggest using a chart to organize the comparisons.

b. Support must be within the range of the student’s understanding levels. If the help is geared at too high or low a level, it may frustrate the student. For example, if an elementary school student is told that photosynthesis involves a chain of chemical events, including splitting carbon from a carbon dioxide molecule, this may not make sense to the child. Conversely, building a lecture around plants’ need for water and sunshine would not be appropriate for high school students.

c. Timing is critical – if the help is given too long after it is needed, students may no longer be receptive. For example, if children are involved in creating a garden, but are not exposed to learning about and testing soil pH until after plants have been planted, it may prove to be less interesting and far less consequential for the children’s understanding than if they had learned about it earlier.

d. Students must have the opportunity to apply the newly acquired learning. If students hear a suggestion that chrysanthemums help keep pests away from their garden, they might try planting some near the garden to see if it helps reduce leaf and fruit loss.

e. Scaffolds should be withdrawn over time to allow students to use the learning themselves without intervention. For example, if a teacher helps students construct a bar graph to help them measure bean growth, she might expect in a follow-up project that if students work in groups to study the growth of a different plant, they could create bar graphs on their own with some minimum suggestions.

Scaffolding is an essential part of the classroom and should include the teacher, other children, and others. In the case of studying plants, these others might include gardeners, scientists, and horticulturists. By understanding the ways that scaffolding can help support the learning, the teacher might assist the scientist in preparing suitable scaffolds so that learning is adjusted to the appropriate student level.

5. Authentic Tasks

The social constructivist approach also underscores the importance of authentic problems. Such problems are linked to meanings beyond the classroom. Three strategies are given for this area, with the first involving the development of a “driving question” that is an important feature of the newly developed project-based approach to science education advocated by Krajcik et al. (2003):

A. Driving questions focus and sustain activities. (SP)

B. The topic or question is relevant to the student.

C. Learning is connected to students’ lives outside school.

These are illustrated below.

A. Driving questions focus and sustain activities. (SP)

The use of driving questions has been advocated by proponents of a project-based science approach as a way to develop meaningful understandings of important scientific concepts. A “driving question” meets certain criteria (i.e., it must be feasible, worthwhile, contextualized, meaningful, sustainable, and ethical – see Krajcik et al., 2003, for more). It helps organize the learning for students in the classroom. For example, the question, “What are the best ways to grow vegetables in a garden at our school?” could lead to activities linking investigations of soil pH, photosynthesis, and pollination, and could also involve students in planning the placement of vegetables to best facilitate their growth. Such a project might lead to months of activities and could draw on a wide range of resources in the school and community. Although the notion of a driving question was formulated with the classroom in mind, it could easily be developed in non-school settings to help organize activity.

B. The topic or question is relevant to the student.

The linking of topics to students’ lives is important for student motivation. If students don’t understand why a topic is being studied, not only could it lead to behavior problems, but students may not care enough to do the critical work of relating it to previous understandings. Many topics linked to the study of plants have connections to students’ lives, but the teacher/leader may need to help clarify those links. For example, many students do not recognize the importance of plants in our lives other than as food. Some discussion about the ways that plants form the basis of many medicines, building materials, and clothing may encourage students to develop interests in studying these different aspects of plants’ use.

Teachers using social constructivist approaches to teaching and learning support students’ efforts to make sense of material. In contrast, traditional approaches to teaching and learning involve teachers’ transmitting information and students’ receiving it (Krajcik et al., 2003). An excellent plant-based learning example using a social constructivist approach is provided in a vignette in the text Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (2000) when a fifth grade classroom investigates the reasons that some trees on the school playground lose their leaves while others appear healthy. The class begins with a question about an intriguing mystery and makes several proposals based on students’ current knowledge about what might be happening. They then undertake some group investigations of the explanations, disconfirming some possibilities and lending more support to others. Students report their findings and eventually make a suggestion to the school custodian to alter the watering practices at the school.

C. Learning is connected to students’ lives outside school.

The importance of making connections to students’ lives outside school is readily seen when they ask why they need to know something. Fortunately, plant-based education provides excellent opportunities for students to make such associations. Whether students garden at a community garden, sell flowers at a local farmer’s market, or prepare meals from home-grown vegetables, use of plants can provide numerous means of making such links.

Summary

In summary, a social constructivist model has been developed for active plant-based education that presents some of the different ways that children might benefit from this approach. Because plant-based education can assume a number of different forms for children in and out of the classroom, a broad model like this is most helpful in conceptualizing different learning strategies that can be utilized. As discussed, the use of plants connects well to these components. In several ways, the use of active plant-based learning approaches provides unique opportunities to utilize the model across a diverse number of settings and learners. For example, plants are found in all areas of the country and thus are readily accessible to learners. When weather prevents outside use, they can be grown indoors. Plant materials can be relatively inexpensive. A variety of plant “experts” abound – from botanists to farmers to herb garden enthusiasts, there are usually many experienced adults in a community who have worked with plants and are willing to become part of a community of learners. The use of plants can provide a focal point for an integrated curriculum that has an astonishing array of links – arts, social studies, mathematics, science, reading, writing, and history readily come to mind. Working with plants can also provide children with exercise and lead to consideration of nutrition. One of the most important advantages of plant-based learning is the opportunity to engage in authentic practices. Gardening, for example, is a practice carried on by a significant percentage of the American public. If done through a school or institution, it can involve groups of children in cooperative work that not only emulates the practice as it occurs outside school, but creates opportunities to engage students in a community of learners who are conducting research and sharing their learning with others.

Although it is likely that exemplary plant-based learning programs in the U.S. contain at least some of these components, one of the goals of the Partnership for Plant-Based Learning in commissioning this white paper was to identify such programs and to explore commonalities and differences among them. To enable this, a survey was developed that closely followed the model above to identify which components were reflected in each setting. The next section of the paper discusses the nature of the survey and its results.

Section 4. Exploration of Exemplary Plant-based Programs Situated at Schools or Institutions from a Survey Conducted for this Paper

In order to explore whether exemplary plant-based education programs in the U.S. contain best practice features as outlined in this paper, a survey was developed to gather information from such programs.

Nominations for participants were generated from several sources. One group included the winners of this year’s National Gardening Association “Youth Garden Grants” and the Scott’s Company ”Give Back to Grow” award. A second group was generated from names provided by individuals who were known directly by leaders in the Partnership. A third group of nominations was generated by additional plant educators. Solicitations for nominations were distributed over a wide geographical selection. Each survey was mailed with a cover letter explaining its purpose and offering a nominal reward (a one-year membership in the National Gardening Association) for participation. Of the 87 surveys that were distributed, a total of 43 surveys were returned, representing a return rate of 49%. Two were excluded from the analysis because the programs were less than two years old. Thus, a total of 41 surveys were used in this analysis. As is the case for any data-gathering process, certain limitations may affect the interpretation of the results. They are discussed briefly here so that the reader may take them into consideration when reading the discussion and conclusions.

First, selection of exemplary programs in this sample is probably limited somewhat by knowledge of participants in the selection process. Thus, in the context of all plant-based education programs in the U.S. that could have been nominated as exemplary, there may be an overrepresentation of school gardening programs and an underrepresentation of approaches such as biology programs or vocational programs that may include a focus on plants only part of the time.

Second, this survey relied upon self-reported data. Under these circumstances, it is to be expected that individuals might exaggerate the effectiveness of their programs and minimize negative aspects. This might be especially problematic in Section C of the survey, which utilizes a Likert scale. In this case, survey participants might perceive that answering toward the “often” end of the scale would show their program in a better light. In order to provide more confidence in the accuracy of these ratings, additional evidence was examined in other sections of the surveys that supported such answers.

The survey contains three sections –

A. Demographic information about the program – general information such as the numbers of children served, their ages, and their backgrounds.

B. Characteristics of the nature of the program – specific information about the program, including its goals, instructional modes, and benefits.

C. Comparison of the program to the sociocultural model of best teaching practices – results from a scale designed to measure the extent of social constructivist teaching, based on the work by Krajcik et al. (2003) that followed the categories outlined in the previous section of this paper.

Each item that is underlined below provides an analysis that corresponds to a question in the survey. These have been grouped together in an order somewhat different from the survey itself to facilitate the analysis, except in section C, where each question is listed in the order it was given.

The survey was a combination of forced-choice items and open-ended questions. In the case of the forced-choice items, quantitative analyses were readily done. These are reported in percentages, means, ranges, and medians. In the case of open-ended items, answers were initially examined to identify possible common answers. When such commonalities were evident, coding categories were developed to assist in comparing numbers of such responses. These comparisons are reported in terms of percentages of respondents in each category. When such commonalities were not evident, examples of responses are given to provide an idea of the range of responses.

General considerations in the analysis: Reporting is done with descriptive statistics such as averages and percentages. In most cases, fractions were rounded to the nearest whole number or to the tenth place to facilitate reading. Means are accompanied by standard deviations in parentheses (s.d.) to give the reader a sense of the variation in the responses. In cases where averages were desired but outliers existed that would have heavily weighted the calculation of a mean, medians were used. A number of results are reported in tables so that they are easier to conceptualize. On several items, some participants did not provide information; thus there may be fewer than 41 responses to a particular item. In a few instances, some survey items contained typographical errors or were interpreted in unexpected ways by the participants. In these cases, cautionary notes are included with the analysis.

In the next section of the report, analysis for survey items will be presented. After the analysis, a short summary of each section of the survey based on these analyses will be given.

Findings

Section A – Demographic information about the programs surveyed

Geographic region

|Area |Percent of total |

|Northeast – PA, NY, NJ, ME, VT, NH, MA, CT,|22% (9/41) |

|RI | |

|Midwest – IL, IN, OH, KY, MI, WI, MN |20% (8/41) |

|Plains – ND, SD, IA, NE, MO, KS, OK | 2% (1/41) |

|Northwest – WA, ID, - MT, WY, OR, | 5% (2/41) |

|Mid-Atlantic – NC, SC, VA, WV, MD, DC, DE |12% (5/41) |

|Southeast – FL, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN |20% (8/41) |

|Southwest – CA, AZ, NV, NM, TX, UT, CO |20% (8/41) |

|Alaska/Hawaii |0% |

The largest percentages of returns were from the Northeast, Midwest, Mid Atlantic, Southeast, and Southwest. Few surveys were gathered from the Plains or Northwest, and none from Alaska or Hawaii.

Types of areas

Participants were asked to categorize the type of area the program served as urban, suburban, rural, or other. They reported:

|Type of area |Percentage of participants |

|Urban |27% (11/41) |

|Suburban |29% (12/41) |

|Rural |32% (13/41) |

|Combination Urban/Suburban | 2% (1/41) |

|Combination Suburban/Rural | 5% (2/41) |

|Combination Suburban/Other | 2% (1/41) |

|Combination Rural/Other | 2% (1/41) |

The numbers seem to be fairly evenly divided across urban, suburban, and rural areas.

Socioeconomic status (SES)

Participants characterized the SES of the children in their programs in the following percentages:

|Class |Percentage of participants|

|Working only |45% (18/40) |

|Middle only |15% (6/40) |

|Upper only | 3% (1/40) |

|Working/Middle combination |25% (10/40) |

|Middle/Upper combination | 8% (3/40) |

|Working/Middle/Upper combination | 5% (2/40) |

We see that the participants reported that the programs predominantly serve students from working-class and/or middle-class families.

Length of time program has been in place

Only programs that had been operating for at least 2 years were included in this survey. The mean length of time for all programs was 6.8 years (s.d. 4.0), and the programs ranged in length from 2 to 20 years.

Level of children served by program

Participants were asked to identify the grade levels of the children they worked with. They reported a variety of grade levels:

|Level of children served |Percentage of participants |

|K | 5% (2/38) |

|K, Elem | 8% (3/38) |

|K, Elem, MS |11% (4/38) |

|K, Elem, MS, HS | 8% (3/38) |

|Elem | 47% (18/38) |

|Elem/MS | 3% (1/38) |

|MS |11% (4/38) |

|MS/HS | 3% (1/38) |

|HS | 5% (2/38) |

The largest number of surveys was submitted by elementary schools – 47%. Middle school returns represented some 11% of the returns, and high schools 5%. Other combinations are evident. It is probably fair to say that the K-6 age group is represented more, with smaller numbers represented at the other grade levels.

Participants’ titles

Participants were asked to identify their titles at their institutions.

Some 54% of the respondents (21/39) are teachers. Of these 21, 4 are special education teachers. In addition, 8% (3/39) of the total number are administrators, 10% (4/39) are institutional staff, 8% (3/39) are consultants, and 13% (5/39) are garden coordinators/project directors. There were also three respondents who identified their titles as educator, elementary science specialist, and librarian.

Schools versus other settings

The majority of surveys, 81% (33/41), were submitted by schools, but other institutions were well represented at 20% (8/41) of the total.

Average number of children involved weekly

Because there was so much variation in these numbers as reported by participants, the median number was used here, which was 80. Answers ranged from 10 to 950.

Average number of classes weekly

The number of classes held weekly in each program also varied substantially, so the median was used here, which was four. Answers ranged from 1 to 38.

Average number of students in a typical program activity

The number of children participating in a particular activity varied significantly, once again. The median number was 23, and the range was 8 to 800.

Number of teachers/adults

The number of teachers/adults involved in each program was reported by participants at a median of four. Again, this involved significant variation, and a range of 1 to 120.

Section B – Characteristics of the programs

Nature and goals of program

In discussing the nature and goals of their programs, participants gave a variety of responses. The general responses to the nature of the program, which were not coded because of their variability, included hands-on inquiry where students have practical encounters, restoration of woods, dietary improvement, conceptual development in science and health, learning ecological concepts while gardening, meetings of the garden club, and a garden of hope planted after Sept. 11, 2001.

Participants gave more specific responses when asked for goals, and these were coded and compared. The most common responses (given by three or more respondents) and percentage of participants reporting them were:

|Goals |Percentage of participants|

|Inquiry and problem solving |41% (16/39) |

|Understanding specific science concepts |23% (9/39) |

|Stewardship |18% (7/39) |

|Life skills |10% (4/39) |

|Encouraging high-level thinking |10% (4/39) |

|Understanding of native habitats |10% (4/39) |

|Health concepts |10% (4/39) |

|Environmental awareness | 8% (3/39) |

|Lifelong love for gardening | 8% (3/39) |

|Creating wildlife space | 8% (3/39) |

Other responses included enjoying nature, appreciation for native habitats, reflection, creating multicultural science projects, job training skills, source of beauty, and promoting engagement.

What curricula were used in the program

Participants were asked to indicate which curricula they used in their programs by circling choices in a list: Botany for all ages, Ecology for all ages, GrowLab, Junior Master Gardener, Life Lab, Project Wild, and Other (with a line for adding the names of others). Their responses were as follows:

|Curriculum |Percentage using |

|Botany for all ages |28% (10/36) |

|Ecology for all ages |31% (11/36) |

|GrowLab |33% (12/36) |

|Junior Master Gardener |25% (9/36) |

|Life Lab |19% (7/36) |

|Project Wild |44% (16/36) |

|Other |58% (21/36) |

Participants who answered this question (N=36) indicated that they used a mean of 2.4 such curricula (s.d. 1.5). Several participants indicated that they used other types of curricula in their program: 14% (5/36) indicated that they used self-developed materials, 8% (3/36) used Project Learning Tree materials, and 6% (2/36) used 4-H gardening materials. Others mentioned by a single participant included Earth Partnership, Access Nature, Eco-Inquiry, FOSS, GEMS, AIMS, Cultural Uses of Plants, Prentice/Hall text, Project Seasons, Monarch Watch, Healthy Food for Healthy Soil, and New York Ag in the Classroom.

Which academic subjects were taught through the program

Participants were asked to identify from a list which academic subjects were taught through the program. Data is shown below:

|Subject |Percent using in program |

|Art |22% (9/41) |

|Civics Education |29% (12/41) |

|Environmental Education |88% (36/41) |

|History |61% (25/41) |

|Language Arts |68% (28/41) |

|Mathematics |66% (27/41) |

|Reading |56% (23/41) |

|Science Social Studies* |68%*(28/41) |

|Other |29% (12/41) |

Participants indicated that they taught a mean of 5.4 (s.d. 2.1) academic subjects using their program. This shows a very high use of the program for teaching across the disciplines. Most common among these were Environmental Education (88%), Language Arts (68%) Mathematics (66%), History (61)%, Reading (56%), and Science Social Studies (68%)* (Please note that a typographical error showed Science and Social Studies combined, probably resulting in a lower number than expected choosing Science and higher choosing Social Studies).

In addition, several participants indicated teaching other academic subjects. These included health (7%; 3/41) and technology (5%; 2/41). Additional topics identified by a single participant included agriculture, character traits, speech, physical therapy, and life skills.

Which non-academic subjects were taught through plant-based education

Participants were asked to indicate whether they used drama, physical education, or another non-academic subject (to be listed) in their program. Summaries of their responses indicated a mean of .9 (s.d. .9 ) non-academic subjects were taught through the program.

In the most frequent choices, some 22% (9/41) indicated they used drama and 32% (13/41) used PE. In addition, several participants reported using other non-academic subjects: music (20%; 8/41) and business (10%; 4/41). Other non-academic subjects taught by single participants through the program included social skills, videography, crafts, and traditional tribal values.

Connections to educational standards

A large percentage of the participants, 90% (37/41), indicated that their program was connected to state or national standards. Further analysis of their answers as to which standards were addressed showed that 59% (22/37) mentioned specific state standards, while only 11% (3/27) mentioned specific national standards.

How the program came about

In answering this open-ended question, participants indicated a variety of ways their programs were initiated. Although these were rather varied, a few indicated that being awarded a grant or having a personal interest in gardening helped provide the impetus for starting the program. Other responses included taking a class or workshop, as a partnership between a school and neighbor who wanted to start a garden, as a result of a state-mandated environmental education program, initiated as a safe place for youth who had been ordered to do community service, a constructive way to help students post-Sept. 11, and using the program to help integrate curriculum.

Program designed through participatory process

Some 74% (29/39) of the participants indicated that the program was designed through a participatory process. Interestingly, while many of the elaborations to this question indicated that programs were designed with the help of committees, teachers, and parents, others interpreted this question to include students’ being part of the process.

Partnerships with community organizations

About 93% (38/41) of the participants indicated that their program fostered partnerships with community organizations. These partnerships included such organizations as: the Scouts; 4H; churches; botanic gardens; native plant associations; senior citizens’ groups and nursing homes; businesses such as farmers’ markets, gardening centers, and orchid supply houses; and government agencies such as forestry divisions, departments of natural resources, and city hall. Further analysis of the descriptions of these partnerships indicated that the participants had a mean of 3.2 (s.d. 2.1) such partnerships. This is a fairly high variance, indicating that a number of programs had more or less than this mean.

Integration of the program into the educational planning process

Some 83% (33/40) of the participants indicated that their program had been integrated into the educational planning process. They supported this response with statements like “all activities are integrated,” “it reinforces math, language arts, and history,” and “many different types of lessons (are held in) the garden.” Thus it appears that most participants interpreted this question as asking whether they utilized the program to teach interdisciplinary lessons.

Mechanisms are in place to ensure the sustainability of the program.

About 78% (31/40) of the participants indicated that there were devices in place to ensure that the program continued. They had ensured continuance by developing ongoing grants, establishing a core of volunteers, starting a parent committee, creating a gardening club, providing funding for a coordinator, having money from sales go back into the program, and encouraging additional teachers and community members to become involved after school.

Approximate annual cost

Participants were asked to estimate the annual cost of their program so that an average cost could be generated from the information they provided. In a few cases participants gave a cost range, which was converted to a mean for purposes of calculation. The median annual cost for the programs at these schools was about $1,109. The range was quite wide, from $0 to $150,000 (in the case of a program that had recently established many new gardens).

Funding sources

Participants were asked whether their funding came from a regular budget, external sources, or a combination of the two. Most funding sources included:

|Funding |Percentage |

|Regular budget | 5% (2/37) |

|External source |32% (12/37) |

|Combination reg & ext |59% (22/37) |

|Enrollment fees | 3%(1/37) |

Participants were asked to elaborate on the nature of this funding. The most frequent responses were categorized in the following manner:

|Source |Percentage |

|Grants |41% (17/41) |

|PTA |20% (8/41) |

|Fundraising (e.g., plant sales) |17% (7/41) |

|Regular budget |12% (5/41) |

|Community donations |10% (4/41) |

In addition, individual participants reported they received funding from the State, taxes, gaming funds, and donations of materials.

Instructional modes

Participants were asked to estimate the percentage of each type of instructional mode they used in their programs. Responses are represented as means.

|Mode |Mean percentage of use |

|Lecture |11% (s.d. 11) |

|Independent learning |14% (s.d. 12) |

|Student-led investigation |17% (s.d. 13) |

|Adult-led investigation |23% (s.d. 16) |

|Collaborative project work |30% (s.d. 19) |

|Other | 4% (s.d. 16) |

The data is noteworthy in several ways. First, participants utilize more than one type of instruction when using plant-based education. Second, collaborative projects seem to be the most favored mode. Finally, it should be noted that there is a high variance among the answers, indicating that programs vary quite widely in use of each of these modes of instruction.

Program adaptations to fit the nature of the children

In answering the open-ended question about what adaptations they made to fit the nature of the children, participants gave a variety of answers that were coded. The most frequently mentioned are presented in the following table:

|Adaptation |Percentage of participants|

|Hands-on nature of activities |15% (6/40) |

|Physical accessibility |15% (6/40) |

|Modalities addressed | 8% (3/40) |

|Simplification | 5% (2/40) |

|ESL/Language | 5% (2/40) |

|Individualization | 5% (2/40) |

Additional adaptations included adaptations to students’ strengths and abilities, use of smaller groups, use of student and adult helpers, flexible materials, preparing materials for students classified as MR, students’ investigation allowing different levels, finding the right examples, and simplification of gardening techniques.

How safety issues are addressed

Participants were asked to describe ways they address safety in their programs. The most frequently discussed methods were:

|Safety preparation |Percentage of participants |

|Tool safety lessons or talk |51% (19/37) |

|Adult monitoring |35% (13/37) |

|Wearing safety equipment |11% (4/37) |

|Using safety tools |11% (4/37) |

Participants also mentioned additional methods, such as organic gardening techniques, small groups, rule boards, modeling of proper use, high expectations, and prayer.

Characterization of type of assessments used in program

Participants were asked to indicate which types of assessments they used (pencil and paper; oral exams; presentations; observations; student reports; and other) to evaluate the program. Percentages of each type of assessment are given below:

|Type of assessment |Percentage of participants |

| |using |

|Pencil and paper (multiple choice, fill in the|36% (14/39) |

|blank, essay) | |

|Oral exams |23% (9/39) |

|Presentations |64% (25/39) |

|Observations |85% (33/39) |

|Student reports |56% (22/39) |

|Other |39% (15/39) |

Participants averaged a mean of 3.0 (s.d. 1.5) types of assessment used per program. In addition to the types of assessments listed, participants reported using other types, including: drawings, journal writing, working on a newspaper, class discussions, videotapes, science projects, and entries in state fairs.

Other evidence for program effectiveness

Participants were asked to discuss additional evidence for program effectiveness. They provided a wide variety of responses, including: surveys, children’s return visits, pride is evident, they tell us, discipline records show decrease (in incidents), the garden looks beautiful, children freely visit during lunch, exam scores, raving reports from teachers, parents’ increased attendance, other schools are adding prairies, there are riots in the labs if we don’t go out, children are starting their own gardens, awards won, testimonials, school board recognition, SAT correlation, and students are enthusiastic and like to help raise money.

Characterization of teacher/adult work

In this item, participants were asked to consider whether their work on the program was done as an individual, as part of a collaborative team, or mixed individual/collaborative. Participants reported the following:

|Individual and/or group program work |Percentage |

|Individual teacher/leader (only) |23% (9/39) |

|Collaborative team with others (only) | 5% (2/39) |

|Both individual and collaborative |72% (28/39) |

Adult roles in program

As a follow-up question to participants who answered that they worked with others on the program, participants were asked to identify from a list how many and what adult roles were represented in their programs.

Because of the high variability in responses, median numbers are used to characterize the answers here. (It should also be noted that only about half of participants responded to this question.)

|Roles |Median number |

|Teachers |3 |

|Parents |2 |

|Gardeners |2 |

|Others (e.g., docents, interns) |1 |

Administrative support

Participants were asked to describe the type of administrative/institutional support they had for the program. Many participants said their administration was supportive. More specific responses included the following types of support: encouragement, openness to new ideas, moral support, praise, visits by the principal to ask what is going on, making the program a priority, allowing me to explore curriculum, approval for fundraising, rescheduling if needed, providing funding, providing personnel, use of facilities, donation of land, grant writing, and site maintenance.

Greatest obstacle for program implementation

Participants were asked to describe the greatest obstacle in implementing their program. Answers were then coded for comparison. The most frequent answers given by three or more participants were:

|Type of obstacle |Percentage of participants |

|Time | 33% (13/40) |

|Inclement weather | 23% (9/40) |

|Insufficient funding | 20% (8/40) |

|Vandalism | 13% (5/40) |

|Lack of help | 10% (4/40) |

Other types of obstacles participants listed included pests, soil problems, sustaining the program, too many students, convincing administration about its value, and getting other teachers to understand the importance of the resource.

Benefits and other comments

Participants were also asked to describe the greatest benefit of their plant-based learning program and any other comments about the program they wanted to make, including how it reflected the personality and character of the school or institution. In response, many participants provided lengthy comments conveying the remarkable power of the programs in affecting children and communities. A number of these will be included to give the readers a sense of the participants’ enthusiasm about their programs.

Victoria S.: We are bringing communities together for a common good. We are helping students realize each other’s abilities and aptitudes…We are teaching gardening as a hobby, a healthy benefit, a therapy and a vocation option.

Jim M.: A Hopi man watched as my teacher candidates and Thomas Elementary students worked together. He just watched – He said you teach children to massage Mother Earth. He was right.

Lawrence S.: Integrating special and regular ed. students in the garden. Empowering special students to act as leaders in the garden. Connecting urban youth to the natural world.

In a copy of a letter of support for a grant that Mary C. applied for, the supporter describes the teaching that she and a colleague do with their program: They find it very gratifying to touch the heart and mind of a student who has been labeled “incorrigible.” When a troubled child, at the tender age of 7, nestles a sunflower seedling in his hand, tenderly places it in the soil, and gently pats the soil around the plant, they know that the child’s heart has been touched.

Chuck L.: Our greatest benefit has been the sense of pride the community has in the habitat area we created. The students who have been in my class continue to have a strong interest in caring for living things in their environment.

Lois F.: The Garden Science Class has brought our school community together in a way that has never occurred before. It serves as a commonality for all and proof of this (is) evident at the annual culminating event, when over 500 people attend the Garden Supper cooked and prepared by the garden class with produce from the school garden.

Vicky P.: It has given our school an outdoor living laboratory which has more plant/animal diversity than a lawn or blacktop. This leads to more hands-on ecologically based learning, including investigations and research.

Cary C.: Every year, Youth Garden Project serves over 4,000 youth and community members, over half the population of the county. [It has] kept kids off the street and provided educational opportunities.

Louise H.: Since 2000, we have seen black asphalt on the entire west side of the school transformed into green space filled with perennial plants attracting many species of butterflies and other insects. In our berry garden we have observed increased species of birds coming to eat and drink in our small pond. Students and parents use the space as a place to observe and reflect, and neighbors use the garden extensively on weekends.

Val H.: The greatest benefit has been that the garden has become a gathering place for the community, an oasis of tranquility in a rapidly developing suburban area, and a destination for school groups, who come to learn about nature.

Lesley C.: The school is located [in an area] which divides a low-income area and a neighborhood undergoing urban renewal. Many children attending Orca are facing difficult challenges, socially, economically, academically, etc. The garden is sometimes used to integrate students unable to adjust to classroom environments. These children will often embrace subjects such as science, art, and biology, in the garden. Students who may otherwise feel they have no control over their environment are empowered by the garden experience.

Comments about the nature of the program

Kathy R.: The patriotic and historical theme has bonded us over and over as a school and as a community. We applaud what has been, what is, and what is to come, as people are in awe of children working so hard as a team to bring meaning to their lives and to those of others.

Debby E. (Pseudonym requested): I truly feel service-based learning will become the norm in the classroom. Plant-based learning fits the concept. Community pride, environmental stewardship, nutrition, outdoor activities, respect for nature as well as the plant science are all taught and nurtured with plant-based learning.

Mary G.: By restoring school land to its native ecosystems, we are working to instill a sense of stewardship with the hope that students will become partners with nature. Students have learned they can make a difference because they have been involved in various stages of the evolution of the Nature Center. Students have learned to love and respect the land because they have helped create and maintain the Nature Center area, not just use it.

Phyllis D.: In a period of time with terrorists and war (we’re 100 miles or less from D.C. and sniper attacks), we appreciate the positive, calming nature of gardening activities.

Chuck L.: This project has been a spirit of rebirth for our area as “gardens” have more than tripled in people’s front yards. We share the produce we grow with our neighbors. Students who participate in plant-based education programs know how to care for the Earth.

Lois F.: To see 200 children plant, weed, and harvest together under the direction of willing volunteer leaders gives one a thrill of joy. Seeing these same students go on a field trip to the Food Bank and enthusiastically donate produce to people less fortunate than they is a rewarding experience.

Georgia I.: Our staff and students created our own community pledge, which we say together at the beginning of every school day, after we say the national pledge. It concludes with these words: “By acting in this way I am a capable, connected, and contributing citizen of the world.”

Tim M.: When the community took over this school from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the garden was an intense point of pride that was seen as extraordinary, very traditional, and very local. As we have been successful, (although) the garden has become less special, it is still seen as a point of pride and a great example for this reservation and others.

Vicky P.: It represents respect and responsibility that we, as a “TRIBES” school, strive to focus on. Mostly, it reflects our appreciation for the natural world and learning more about it.

Louise H.: Students learn to work together on projects involving environmental issues, and are able to use the space for reflection and exploration during recess or when they find themselves in conflict.

Erin W.: Many students in Framingham are recent immigrants to the U.S. Learning about their local natural surroundings helps them feel more at home.

Mary Anne A.: Our program evolved slowly and the efforts of the students have played a big part. It is a garden created by children, for children – and that has helped them take ownership of it.

Patti M.: Since Williams is a “Technology School,” our “Big Backyard” has provided a good and necessary balance required for a child’s healthy educational growth. Technology alone would create a school of children unaware of their impact on the natural world.

Section C – Characteristics of program compared to sociocultural model

This section of the survey was composed of a list of strategies directly derived from the sociocultural model of teaching representing best teaching practices. Thus, participants’ assessments of whether they use these strategies represent the most direct evidence of whether they are using features of the model. It should be noted, however, that this self-reported data may be subject to exaggeration or lack of objectivity. Each question was followed by a Likert scale of 1 (often) to 5 (seldom). Participants were asked to indicate whether a characteristic occurred often, seldom, or in between.

Each strategy statement is listed with a mean and standard deviation derived from the participants’ Likert scale ratings. Data also includes the total number of participants answering the question.

1. Students ask and refine questions related to phenomena including within group research project(s).

Mean 2.2 (s.d. .9) N=40

2. Students predict and explain phenomena including within group research project(s).

Mean 2.1 (s.d. 1.1) N=41

3. Students mindfully interact with concrete materials.

Mean 1.4 (s.d. .7) N=41

4. Instructor(s) and students use prior knowledge.

Mean 1.4 (s.d. .7) N=41

5. Students identify and use multiple resources.

Mean 2.0 (s.d. 1.0) N=40

6. Students plan and carry out investigations.

Mean 2.2 (s.d. 1.0) N=41

7. Students apply concepts and skills to new situations.

Mean 1.8 (s.d. .8) N=41

8. Students are given time for reflection.

Mean 1.9 (s.d. .9) N=41

9. Students take action to improve their own world.

Mean 1.8 (s.d. .9) N=39

10. Students use varied evaluation techniques.

Mean 2.6 (s.d. 1.1) N=38

Although this item was intended to address the nature of the variety of evaluations that students may have been using, some of the participants felt that it was confusing as written.

11. Students create products or artifacts to represent understanding.

Mean 1.8 (s.d. .8) N=41

12. Students revise products and artifacts.

Mean 2.3 (s.d. 1.1) N=38

13. Students use language as a tool to express knowledge.

Mean 1.5 (s.d. .9) N=41

14. Students express, debate, and come to a resolution regarding ideas, concepts, and theories.

Mean 2.4 (s.d. 1.0) N=41

15. Students debate the viability of evidence.

Mean 2.7 (s.d. 1.3) N=40

16. Learning is situated in a social context.

Mean 1.5 (s.d. 1.3) N=40

17. Knowledgeable others help students learn new ideas and skills that they couldn’t learn on their own.

Mean 1.7 (s.d. .8) N=40

18. Driving questions focus and sustain activities.

Mean 2.0 (s.d. .8) N=40

19. The topics and/or questions are relevant to the student.

Mean 1.5 (s.d. .7) N=41

20. Learning is connected to students’ lives outside school.

Mean 1.5 (s.d. .7) N=40

21. Science concepts and principles emerge as needed to answer driving questions.

Mean 1.8 (s.d. 1.0) N=40

Section Summaries

Section A

The participants completing this survey represent a wide range of geographical locations and urban/suburban/rural areas in the U.S. Most programs serve predominantly working and/or middle-class students in grades K-6. Most of the surveys were submitted by educators who work at schools, but other institutions were well represented. A majority of the respondents were teachers, but there were also several administrators, consultants, institutional staff, and garden coordinators/project directors completing surveys. The mean length of time these programs have existed is about 7 years. The median number of children served weekly per program is about 80, with a median of 4 classes attended by a median of 4 adults. Medians are reported for these indicators because of the large variation among programs.

Section B

Participants gave a variety of descriptions of the nature and goals of their programs. The most common goals included inquiry and solving problems, understanding specific science concepts, stewardship, life skills, encouraging high-level thinking, understanding of native habitats, health concepts, environmental awareness, lifelong love for gardening, and creating wildlife space. Several other goals that were mentioned were tailored to participants’ particular sites.

These programs were initiated in a variety of ways. A majority indicated that the program was designed through a participatory process, and almost all programs reported that they fostered partnerships with multiple community organizations.

A large percentage of the programs had mechanisms in place (e.g., grant development, committees, volunteer core) to ensure the program’s sustainability.

The median expense of the programs was around $1,100, but there was quite a bit of variation. These expenses were frequently funded through a combination of regular budget and external sources such as grants, the PTA, community donations, and fundraising efforts such as plant sales.

Participants reported using several curricula, including materials they themselves developed. They also reported a high integration of subjects (e.g., history, language arts, mathematics) associated with their programs. A large number of participants indicated that their program addressed their specific state standards. Participants used a variety of modes of instruction, and there was a high variance among programs as to how much of each kind was used.

Types of assessment used in the programs were varied. As one might expect, pencil and paper types were reportedly used far less than presentations, observations, and student reports. Participants also found evidence for program effectiveness in a variety of other ways, including student enthusiasm and awards won, and by noting other schools adding similar programs.

Participants reported several ways of adapting their programs to the characteristics of the students. Most frequent responses included using hands-on strategies, making the program physically accessible, addressing different modalities, simplifying it, making language adaptations, and individualizing it. Respondents utilize safety precautions such as lessons on safety, monitoring children’s work, safety equipment, and safety tools.

Other adults worked with the participants on these programs. This number varied considerably, and was reported at a median of 8, including other teachers, parents, gardeners, and interns. Administrators were generally seen as supportive, and provided a variety of types of support, including encouragement, funding, and use of facilities.

The greatest obstacles for these exemplary programs were time, inclement weather, insufficient funding, vandalism, and lack of help.

Quotations from participants about their perceptions of the greatest benefits of their programs and how their programs reflect the institution’s personality and character provide powerful testimonials to the important impacts that such plant-based programs have in children’s lives.

Section C

Notably, the overall results in this section indicate that survey participants felt that their programs utilized many of the strategies of the social constructivist model discussed in Section 4 of this paper. Thus we see that many of these items have a mean score of 2, i.e., 1 point away from the “often” end of the spectrum. They also have fairly low standard deviations, indicating that most participants’ answers clustered around these means. While it is true that survey participants often exaggerate claims, the descriptions that were provided of the nature of the program and its goals support the conclusion that the programs surveyed here do, in fact, exhibit many of the best practices that educational researchers are touting.

Closer analysis of strategies rated as occurring most and least often did show some differences. Items rated closest to “often,” with a mean of 1.5 or less, include:

3. Students mindfully interact with concrete materials.

4. Instructor(s) and students use prior knowledge.

13. Students use language as a tool to express knowledge.

16. Learning is situated in a social context.

19. The topics and/or questions are relevant to the student.

20. Learning is connected to students’ lives outside school.

This ranking is supported by other statements that participants made in the survey about the hands-on nature of the program and the connections that students made using plants outside the classroom.

Conversely, items rated closer to the middle between “often” and “seldom,” with a mean of 2.5 or more, include:

10. Students use varied evaluation techniques.

15. Students debate the viability of evidence.

A possible ambiguity in the wording in number 10 was discussed earlier. The response to item number 15 is interesting in that debate is an important feature of classroom science advocated by social constructivist science educators. As participants in this survey may not necessarily be using plant-based education for science activities, they may have fewer opportunities for and less interest in using debates in their programs.

Section 5. Conclusion and Recommendations

This paper has summarized

• Rationales for using plant-based education in grades K-12;

• Research related to plant-based learning, including a summary of the findings in the educational literature on plant-based learning and additional research that discusses potential benefits to be gained from working with plants and other materials in an active manner;

• A model of best practices for active plant-based learning that incorporates a social constructivist framework;

• Results of a survey that sampled exemplary plant-based programs comparing a variety of their features to each other and to the socio-cultural model.

The survey’s findings suggest that many of these programs utilize strategies that are recommended in the research on best educational practices. On the basis of the results from the survey and the research described in the first part of the paper, several recommendations are now given:

1. Additional research

Although the survey provides some initial feedback about the nature of exemplary plant-based education programs, it would be helpful to gather additional data on such programs for several reasons, which are outlined below. Such research could be conducted by members of the Partnership and/or by educational researchers who recognize the important role that plant-based education can play in children’s learning.

a. Observation of settings to confirm ratings. It was suggested that high self-ratings on the social constructivist scale were supported by details in several of the answers that participants provided; however, observations by a neutral party in the provider’s settings would be useful in confirming the frequent use of such strategies.

b. Interviews with educators to obtain more details on how the programs were started and sustained. Although participants did report on ways that the programs were begun, these were often only brief descriptions. PPBL members should obtain more details about the genesis of these programs, especially given the range of program types that are possible. Such findings would be very useful in supporting new programs. Telling novice plant-based educators about mature, exemplary programs that showcase a wonderful garden and an active plant-based curriculum, with very involved students, may be counterproductive. While some may be inspired, others may view this final product as unreachable without some detailed descriptions of the program’s initial stages, and the developmental path taken to create it.

c. Overcoming obstacles. Although participants reported having to deal with obstacles such as lack of time, funding, and volunteers, they still managed to operate outstanding programs. How they managed to do so is not clear from this survey, and could be explored in more in-depth interviews or case study reports.

d. Best ways to support exemplary programs. There are some suggestions in participants’ answers about ways they have been supported (funding, praise, etc.). It would be revealing to talk in more depth with leaders of such programs about additional ways they think these programs could be sustained. Some programs already have mechanisms in place to do so (e.g., committees, recruitment of volunteers, built-in funding). However, some may only be in place as long as the educator who started them remains in that position. For example, one of the teachers in this survey has an exciting gardening program at her school, but is on the verge of retiring. She reports that the program will cease after this year, with her departure.

2. Recognition of the importance of local conditions. Although many commonalities were found among the programs surveyed (e.g., use of many academic subjects), it should also be noted that local conditions played an important role in these programs. The impact of local conditions can be seen in the nature and goals of the programs and the use of partners unique to an area (e.g., businesses, clubs, agricultural agents), as well as the special populations (e.g., youthful offenders, gifted children, ethnic groups) being served by such programs. It is vital that Partnership members who want to assist such groups keep in mind the importance of these specific adaptations.

3. Recognition that educators are concerned about meeting state standards and ways to use class time effectively. Educators are under increasing pressure to have their students perform well on State-mandated tests. Participants in the exemplary programs described here recognize the importance of linking their work to such standards, and many indicate that they utilize their programs in an interdisciplinary way. (This fact probably helps them establish more credibility with administrators.) Given the concerns that new teachers might feel about the need to devote time to preparing students for standardized tests, it may be helpful to discuss with them the ways that plant-based education programs can help teachers meet their state standards, and also provide meaningful learning experiences for their students through interdisciplinary work.

4. Recognition that many of the best programs are heavily dependent on external funding sources. Many of the exemplary programs indicated that external funding through grants is necessary for their operation. Thus, it is important for PPBL members to continue grant-funding efforts and to encourage others to do so, providing guidance for teachers to learn grant-writing skills and linking them to funding sources.

5. Networking of programs/Mentoring

One way to encourage new participants in plant-based education would be to connect them to more experienced educators who could share their methods. This could be facilitated with the creation of an Internet e-mail list forum or Web site where people could ask questions and receive advice. This would also be a good avenue for providing information about grants and professional development opportunities.

6. Program development for “solitary” educators.

Although most survey participants indicated that they work with other adults (e.g., other teachers), some participants were the sole adult working on their program. Given that the sample of exemplary programs used in this study may be more likely to contain teams or collaborative groups who have interacted with members of the Partnership, the number of good plant-based education programs run by single educators is probably underrepresented. It is important to develop ways to support these “solitary” educators who are using plant-based education but are unable to find colleagues to work with at their own institutions.

References

Akey, A.K. (2000). Influence of student-designed experiments with fast plants on their understanding of plants and of scientific inquiry (Brassica rapa). Dissertation Abstracts International A 61/08, p. 3037, Feb. 2001.

Alexander, J., North, M.W., & Hendren, D.K. (1995). Master gardener classroom garden project: An evaluation of the benefits to children. Children's Environments, (12)2, 256-263.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Arenson, M. (1989). Case studies in science education and the Life Lab Science program. University of California, Santa Cruz.

Barker, M. (2002). Putting thought in accordance with things: The demise of animal-based analogies for plant functions. Science & Education, 11, 293-304.

Beeber, C. (1998). An analysis of students’ difficulties in learning science as revealed through their understanding of gas exchange in plants. Dissertation Abstracts International A 59/05, p. 1513, Nov. 1998.

Berthelsen, B. (1999). Students’ naïve conceptions in life science. MSTA Journal, 44(1), 13-19.  .

Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Patrick, H., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Chapter 4: Teaching for understanding. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. II, pp. 819-878). Boston: Kluwer.

Bredderman, T. (1982). Activity science — the evidence shows it matters. Science and Children, September, 39-41.

Brown, A.L. &. Campione., J.C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills (pp. 108-126).

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Brunotts, C.M. (1998). School gardening: A multifaceted learning tool. An evaluation of the Pittsburgh Civic Garden Center’s “Neighbors and Schools Gardening Together” (Pennsylvania). Masters Abstracts International 37/03, p. 822, Jun. 1999.

Cadwell, L.B. (1996). Making places, telling stories: An approach to early education inspired by the preschools of Reggio Emilia, Italy. Dissertation Abstracts International A 57/01, p. 94, Jul. 1996.

California Department of Education. (2002). Garden-enhanced nutrition education: A garden in every school. Retrieved December 27, 2003, from

California Department of Education (2002). A child’s garden of standards. Sacramento, CA.

Capa, Y., Yildirim, A., & Ozden, M.Y. (2001). An analysis of students’ misconceptions concerning photosynthesis and respiration in plants. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED459075).

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

The Catalogue of the National Diffusion Network, 21st Edition (1995) Educational programs that work, found on March 23, 2004 at:

Clapp, H.L. (1901). School gardens. Education, 21, 611-617.

Clemens, J. (1996). Gardening with children. Young children, 51(4), 22-27.

Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education (1987). Approaches to teaching plant nutrition. Children’s Learning in Science Project. 1-100. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED287709).

Coffey, A. (2001). Transforming school grounds. In Grant, T. & Littlejohn, G. (Eds)., Greening school grounds: Creating habitats for learning (pp. 2-4). Toronto, Canada: Green Teacher.

Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

DeMarco, L.W. (1997). The factors affecting elementary school teachers’ integration of

school gardening into the curriculum. Dissertation Abstracts International B 60/09,

p. 4330, Mar. 2000.

DeMarco, L., Relf, D., & McDaniel, A. (1999). Integrating gardening into the elementary school curriculum. HortTechnology, 9(2), 276-281.

Desmond, D., Grieshop, J., & Subramaniam, A. (2003). Revisiting garden-based learning in schools. In D. Alchoarena & L. Gaperini (Eds.), Planning education for rural development: Toward new policy responses (pp. 208-238). Rome, Italy: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. Retrieved February 5, 2004, from

Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Doris, E.E. (2002). The practice of nature-study: What reformers imagined and what teachers did. Dissertation Abstracts International A 63/06, p. 2165, Dec. 2002.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing

scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Duesing, S. (1997). Interdisciplinary learning using farming and gardening is sound pedagogy (environmental education). Masters Abstracts International 35/06, p. 1757, Dec. 1997.

Dunnett, N. & Qasim, M. (2000). Perceived benefits to human well-being of urban gardens. HortTechnology, 10(1), 40-45.

Evergreen (2000). Nature nurtures: Investigating the potential of school grounds. Toronto, ON. ISBN 0-9681078-5-0.

Fisher, J.L. (1996). Teaching the structure and function of plants to seventh grade students. Masters Abstracts International 35/01, p. 47, Feb. 1997.

Francis, M. (1995). Childhood’s garden: Memory and meaning of gardens. Children’s Environments, (12)2, 183-191.

Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 860-877.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligences reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (ninth edition). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gwynn, M.L. (1988). A growing phenomenon. Science and Children, (25)7, 25-26.

Hallé, Francis (2002). In praise of plants. Portland, OR: Timber Press, Inc.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heffernan, M (1994). The children’s garden project at River Farm. Children's Environments, 11(3), 221-231.

Heffernan, M. (1997). Horticulture rediscovered: The flowering of American schoolyards. Paper presented at the Learning through Landscapes: Grounds for Celebration Conference, Manchester, United Kingdom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED446965).

Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kellert, S.R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. In P.H. Kahn Jr. & S.R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 117-152). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Klemmer, C.D. (2002). Growing minds: The effect of school gardening programs on the science achievement of elementary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Krajcik, J., Czerniak,C., & Berger, C. (2003). Teaching children science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project- based approach (second edition). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Lave, J. &. Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lieberman, G.E. & Hoody, L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. San Diego: State Education and Environment Roundtable.

Lohr, V.I. & Relf, P.D. (2000). An overview of the current state of human issues in horticulture in the United States. HortTechnology, (10)1, 27-33.

Marturano, A. (1995). Horticulture and human culture. Science and Children, (32)5, 26-29, 50.

Marturano, A. (1999). The educational roots of garden-based instruction and contemporary gateways to gardening with children. Kindergarten Education: Theory, Research and Practice, 4(1), 55-70.

Mechling, K.R. & Oliver, D.L. (1983). Activities, not textbooks: What research says about science programs. Principal, 62(4), 41-43.

Moore, B. (1989). Growing with gardening: A twelve-month guide for therapy, recreation, and education. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.

Moore, R.C. (1995). Children gardening: First steps towards a sustainable future. Children’s Environments, (12)2, 222-232.

Morgan, B. (1989). Growing together: Activities to use in your horticulture and horticulture therapy programs for children. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh Civic Garden Center.

Morris, J.L. (2000). The development, implementation, and evaluation of a garden-enhanced nutrition education program for elementary school children. Dissertation Abstracts International B 61/07, p. 3516, Jan. 2001

Nabhan, G.P. & Trimble, S. (1994). The geography of childhood: Why children need wild places. Boston: Beacon Press.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards of school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Also available at: )

National Council for the Social Studies (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Retrieved March 4, 2004, from .

National Research Council (2001). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

The National Standards for Arts Education (1994). Retrieved March 3, 2004, from .

Nelson, C.J. (1988). Harvesting a curriculum. Science and Children, (25)7, 22-24.

Ogorzaly, M.C. (1996). A qualitative study of an innovative program to support children’s learning of botanical conceptions. Dissertation Abstracts International

A 57/06, p. 2423, Dec. 1996.

Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland, N.Z.: Heinemann.

Paye, G.D. (2000). Cultural uses of plants: A guide to learning about ethnobotany. Bronx, NY: The New York Botanical Garden Press.

Pivnick, J. (2001). Sowing a school garden: Reaping an environmental ethic. In Grant, T. & Littlejohn, G. (Eds.), Greening school grounds: Creating habitats for learning (pp. 12-14). Toronto, Canada: Green Teacher.

Putnam, R.T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Rahm, J. (2002). Emergent learning opportunities in an inner-city youth gardening program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 164-184.

Rivkin, M. (1997). The schoolyard habitat movement: What it is and why children need it. Early Childhood Education Journal, (25)1, 61-66. Retrieved February 19, 2004, from .

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209-229.

Rowe, M.B. (1996). Science, silence, and sanctions. Science and Children, (34)1, 35-37.

Saxe, G. B. (1991). Culture and cognitive development. Hillsdale, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Saxe, G.B., Gearhart, M., & Guberman, S.R. (1984). The social organization of early number development. In B. Rogoff & J.V. Wertsch (Eds.), Children’s learning in the zone of proximal development. New directions in child development (Volume 23, pp. 19-30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shair, G. (1999). A history of children’s gardens. The Public Garden 14(3), 9-11.

Sheffield, B. (1992). The affective and cognitive effects of an interdisciplinary garden-based curriculum on underachieving elementary students (affective effects). Dissertation Abstracts International A 53/04, p. 1043, Oct. 1992.

Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., & Alport, J.M. (1982). How effective were the hands-on science programs of yesterday? Science and Children, November/December, 14-15.

Skelly, S.M. & Zajicek, J.M. (1998). The effect of an interdisciplinary garden program on the environmental attitudes of elementary school students. HortTechnology 8(4), 579-583.

Smith, J.G. (1995). Beauty and the butterflies. Science and children, 32(4), 29-32.

Starbuck, S., Olthof, M., & Midden, K. (2002). Hollyhocks and honeybees: Garden projects for young children. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Stetson, E. (1991). The big green schoolhouse. Educational Leadership, December 1990/January 1991, 34-35.

Subramaniam, M.A. (2002). Garden-based learning in basic education: A historical review. Center for Youth Development, University of California. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from: (Focus)2609.pdf.

Thorp, L.G. (2001). The pull of the earth: An ethnographic study of an elementary school garden. Dissertation Abstracts International A 62/07, p. 2317, Jan. 2002.

Trexler, C.J. (1999). Elementary student and prospective teachers’ agri-food system literacy: Understandings of agricultural and science education’s goals for learning. Dissertation Abstracts International DAI-A 60/10, p. 3590, Apr. 2000.

Tufuor, J.K. (1982). Changes in students’ attitudes towards conservation resulting from outdoor education: A case study. Dissertation Abstracts International A 45/05, p. 1296, Nov. 1984.

Vander Mey, B.J. & McDonald, S.J. (2001). Landscapes for learning: Growing children, youth, schools, and communities. Clemson, SC: Clemson University. (ED452407).

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waliczek, T.M. (1997). The effect of school gardens on self-esteem, interpersonal relationships, attitude toward school, and environmental attitude in populations of children. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation.

Waliczek, T.M., Bradley, J.C., & Zajicek, J.M. (2001). The effect of school gardens on children’s interpersonal relationships and attitudes toward school. HortTechnology, 11(3), 466-468.

Waliczek, T.M., Bradley, J.C., Lineberger, R.D., & Zajicek, J.M. (2001). Using a web-based survey to research the benefits of children gardening. HortTechnology, 10(1), 71-76.

Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J., & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In Gabel, D. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp.131-176). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Wandersee, J.H. & Schussler, E.E. (2001). Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Science Bulletin, 47(1), 2-9.

Warrick, K.C., et al. (1993). Authentic learning at its best. Instructor, 103(2), 58, 62-65, 102-4.

Waters, A. (1999). A world of possibilities. In The edible schoolyard, (pp. 11-18). Berkeley, CA: The Center for Ecoliteracy.

Welsh, D.F., Whittlesey, L.A., Seagraves, R.L., Hall, G.W., & Harlow, M.M. (1999). Junior Master Gardeners program addresses youth needs. Journal of Extension, 37(3). 2 July 1999 Retrieved March 24, 2004, from joe/1999june/iw1.html

Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Appendix

Possible K-12 Programs Linked to Plant-based Education

Level Programs for students linked to plant-based learning in schools or local institutions

Elementary and Middle School Science lessons growing plants (e.g., growing beans in light and darkness)

Integrated coursework (e.g., arts, literature, and science)

Science investigations of plants in areas such as

school grounds

Health/nutrition lessons that include plants

Gardening (including Junior Master Gardener program)

Butterfly gardening

School ground restoration

Science fair projects involving plants

Nature programs connected to parks or

institutions

Park programs (county, state, federal)

Museums [as elsewhere]Botanic gardens

Summer camp nature study

Scouting programs

High School Coursework in biology, botany, environmental

science and AP biology

School ground restoration

Group project-based approaches that include

plants

Vocational Ed/ Horticultural/Agricultural

programs

Science Magnet School programs

Service learning (e.g., invasive plant removal, native plantings)

Business models in school (selling, marketing

produce)

Science fair projects involving plants

Programs in which students work with scientists

on plant research

Extramural clubs such as ecology clubs and

Future Farmers of America

Outdoor education programs

Scouting programs

-----------------------

[1] The author would like to thank Amy Gifford, Billie Goldstein, and Cindy Klemmer, for their review of earlier drafts of this document

[2] Readers who are familiar with Social Constructivism and Vygotsky may wish to omit this section and resume reading at Section 3.

-----------------------

Active Plant-Based Learning refers to activities, programming, and curricula that use plants as a foundation for integrating learning in and across disciplines through active, real-world experiences that also have personal meaning for children and youth.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download