Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the members of my research committee: Dr. Robert Feller

for making this project happen by accepting me as one of your last graduate students.

Thank you for being the mentor you are in keeping me focused.

To Dr. Gwendolyn Geidel for your encouragement and inspiration that guided me

to fulfill this project to the end.

And Dr. Stephen Thompson for your support, advice, and wisdom beyond the

scope of science education.

To all, thank you for all your time and keeping my spirits high.

! ii

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

Acknowledgments ii ...............................................................................................................

List of Tables v .......................................................................................................................

Abstract vi ...............................................................................................................................

CHAPTERS

CHAPTER 1. Introduction 1 .................................................................................................

CHAPTER 2. Background 5 .................................................................................................

2.1. Schoolyard Habitats Environmental Education Connection 5 .......................................

2.2. Expanded History of Schoolyard Habitats 16 ................................................................

2.3. Implementing a Schoolyard Habitat 19 ..........................................................................

2.4. Effectiveness of Schoolyard Habitats 21 ........................................................................

2.5. Barriers to the Effectiveness of Schoolyard Habitats 25 ................................................

CHAPTER 3. Problem Statement 30 ....................................................................................

CHAPTER 4. 33 .....................................................................................................................

4.1 Methods and Materials 33 ...............................................................................................

4.2. Assumptions Made by the Author Prior to the Survey Mail Out 35 ...............................

CHAPTER 5. Data Analysis 37 .............................................................................................

CHAPTER 6. Results 38 .......................................................................................................

CHAPTER 7. 45 .....................................................................................................................

7.1 Discussion 45 ...................................................................................................................

7.2. Additional or Unanswered Questions the Survey Raises 50 ..........................................

! iii

CHAPTER 8. 52 .....................................................................................................................

8.1 Conclusion 52 ..................................................................................................................

8.2. Recommendations for Future Work 58 ...........................................................................

REFERENCES 59 ..................................................................................................................

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. Acronym List 70 ...........................................................................................

APPENDIX B. Survey 72 .....................................................................................................

APPENDIX C. Schools That Received the Survey 75 ..........................................................

APPENDIX D. PDF Files of All Returned Surveys 79 .........................................................

APPENDIX E. PDF Tables 8-29: Summary Data for Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9,

Q12, Q13 80 ...........................................................................................................................

! iv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. United States Postal Service Sorting Regions Responding To Schoolyard .....

Habitat Surveys 38 ...........................................................................................

TABLE 2. Regional ‘Active’ and ‘Non Active’ Garden Utilization 39 ..... .............................

TABLE 3. Statewide Causes of Garden ‘Failure’ 40 ..... .........................................................

TABLE 4. Overall Statewide Challenges Determining Success 41 ..... ..................................

TABLE 5. Total State Responses on What Gardens Do for Students 41 ..... ..........................

TABLE 6. Statewide Totals for What Contributes to Students Detachment from Nature .....

42

TABLE 7. State Trends and Patterns 43 ..... ............................................................................

TABLES 8 – 29 DISC ...........................................................................................................

! v

Abstract

The use of schoolyard habitats as an informal, hands-on activity that offers in-

class curricula moved outdoors with focus on environmental education has gained

popularity over the last half century. Overall, however, participation in the certification of

new schoolyard habitats through the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) within the state

of South Carolina has steadily declined in the last decade. Although annual attempts are

made by the South Carolina Wildlife Federation (SCWF) to gather information pertaining

to the status of previously certified schoolyard habitats, there is limited information

detailing what becomes of the gardens once certified and established. A mail out of 156

surveys was sent to schools across South Carolina that were listed as having certified

schoolyard habitats with the SCWF in late 2006. The survey queried the survival rate of

previously certified gardens, what factors cause gardens to fail, what challenges

educators face in utilizing these educational tools, what educators feel these gardens do

for students and whether the gardens may help to combat student detachment from

nature. Results from respondents indicate that logistical and administrative factors are

being overcome, certified schoolyard habitats are curriculum driven, reconnect students

with nature and science, and teach the importance of environmental stewardship.

! vi

Chapter 1. Introduction

Schoolyard habitats, often referred to as outdoor classrooms or garden-based

learning sites, are potentially powerful on-site educational tools that fall within the realm

of environmental education and are capable of supporting core standards in K-12

curricula. However, their potential is often overlooked because educators view them as

add-on supplemental activities (Archie, 2001; Cronin-Jones, 2000; EETAP). Curriculum

integration can be demonstrated through such entities as Project Wet (SCDNR), Project

Wild (SCDNR), Project Learning Tree (SCFC), and Agriculture in the Classroom

(USDA). Evidence of how important and popular schoolyard habitats as educational

tools have become in recent years is a listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of

over forty resources devoted to the subject (USFWS, 2001). Their listing contains

resources for logistical factors such as the development, design, funding, planning,

construction, maintenance and restoration of schoolyard habitats along with the most

important resource for educators – activities supporting curriculum standards. The

importance and purpose of creating schoolyard habitats must be viewed in conjunction

with their use and integration into K-12 curricula along with the challenges involved with

logistical factors. Yet, despite their popularity, little research is available pertaining to the

outcomes from utilization of National Wildlife Federation certified schoolyard habitats.

The origin of schoolyard habitats as nationally recognized certified habitats began

in 1995 with the creation of the National Wildlife Federation Schoolyard Habitat Program

(NWF). However, the concept of schoolyard habitats and gardens as educational tools

can be traced as far back as the 17th and 18th century philosophies of Comenius,

! i

Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel (Subramaniam, 2002). Incorporating gardens into the

school system became a law in 1869 in Prussia with similar measures being mandated

soon after by Germany, Sweden, Belgium, France, Russia, and England (Subramaniam,

2002). The first official school garden in the United States was created at George Putnam

School of Roxbury, Massachusetts in 1890 (Subramaniam, 2002). John Dewey’s

teaching on the utilization of agriculture in education in 1915 propelled the first wave of

school gardens in the United States (Desmond, Grieshop, Subramaniam, 2001). Dewey’s

premise was based on his support of experiential education outside the school for student

learning (Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). Creation and utilization of school gardens

periodically surged and declined throughout WWI and during the Depression. Reaching

a peak around the end of WWII, school gardens ultimately began to disappear with the

emphasis on technology during the 1950s (Subramaniam, 2002). The education reform

of the late 60s and early 70s along with the rise of the environmental movement spurred a

second wave of school gardens as educational tools between 1964 and 1975 (Desmond et

al, 2001).

The progression of schoolyard habitats integration into K-12 curriculum,

according to many researchers, can be traced back to the late 1960s and early 70s with

the introduction of the term ‘environmental education’, a product of the environmental

movement of this era (EETAP). This movement led to some of the first hands-on activity

supplements being developed to enhance state and national curriculum standards. Two

successful examples are Agriculture in the Classroom and Project Wild, both of which are

still in existence today (USDA; Project Wild, 2002). Adoption of these outdoor activity

! ii

classrooms into any curriculum, however, is marred by such constraints as the lack of a

comprehensive means of showing educators how they can develop programs that

simultaneously meet the needs of both the core curriculum and environmental education

(Archie, M., Simmons B., Hemlich, J., & Daudi, S., 1999). Another issue is a lack of

inclusion of environmental education in state-level educational priorities and teacher

preparedness or pre-service training (Archie, 2001).

In 1995 the National Wildlife Federation created the Schoolyard Habitats Program

as a framework for incorporating environment-based education into K-12 curriculum

through the use of constructed onsite schoolyard gardens (NWF). The NWF Schoolyard

Habitat Program has been extremely successful since its inception, certifying over 2700

schoolyard habitats nationwide (Paul, NWF). Within the first years of the program’s

existence, South Carolina ranked as high as number two nationally with the number of

certified habitats (SCWF). Although the program was not officially created until 1995,

data have been kept on the number of schoolyard habitats constructed through the NWF

since 1987. National trends showed a steady increase leading to a huge surge in 1997.

Despite a small increase in certified habitats in 2002/03, the overall national trend in the

last decade has been a drastic decline in new certifications. Similar patterns were shown

for the state of South Carolina (Green, SCWF).

A limited amount of research is available that focuses on the barriers that

educators face in producing successful schoolyard habitats. The research that has been

conducted has been geographically localized and certified habitats were not surveyed.

The results however have been similar on what contributes to the challenges faced by

! iii

educators utilizing schoolyard habitats within a specific geographic region. A huge pitfall

educators face is the limited knowledge in terms of general garden- based learning and

science along with integrating that information into the curriculum (DeMarco, 1997).

Logistical factors leading to failure such as an unavailable garden program coordinator,

lack of available space and equipment, having no water source, and no funding have been

deemed less important in determining success compared with successful curriculum

integration of garden based learning (DeMarco, 1997). O’Callaghan’s (2005) research

indicated maintenance, teacher interest, funding, vandalism, and the initial startup as

constraints. No research is available on the cause of schoolyard habitat failure in South

Carolina

Schoolyard habitats certified through the NWF are not monitored. Monitoring of

certified schoolyard habitats in South Carolina is attempted by the SCWF, but due to a

lack of manpower and an extremely limited amount of responses from the schools

themselves, lack of monitoring has lead to little available information pertaining to the

rate of success of these certified gardens, why they may or may not fail, how they are

being used, and other logistical factors. A survey was conducted by the author in late

2006 directed specifically to educators utilizing certified schoolyard habitats in South

Carolina with the goal of answering these questions along with whether success or failure

is related to the integration (or not) of schoolyard habitats into the curriculum. The last

purpose of the survey was to determine future avenues that could be utilized by the

SCWF and the NWF to increase certification and help educators avoid possible pitfalls.

! iv

Recipients of the survey included K-12 educators within public, private, urban and rural

schools, all of which had certified schoolyard habitats according to SCWF records.

! v

Chapter 2. Background

2.1. Schoolyard Habitats Environmental Education Connection

Schoolyard habitats have been referred to in several different ways as: outdoor

classrooms, garden-based learning sites (GBL), landscapes for learning or educational

landscapes. Regardless of name, utilization of schoolyard habitats falls under the realm

of environmental education (EE). Based on the varying definitions of what EE

encompasses, schoolyard habitats can further be placed under the umbrella of EE

characteristics of either informal, experiential, or place-based learning.

Environmental education has been defined and redefined many times over the last

thirty years. The term EE rose out of the environmental movement of the late 1960s

being defined first by Dr. William Stapp of the University of Michigan in 1969 and

originally appearing in Dr. Clay Schoenfeld’s “Journal of Environmental

Education” (McCrea, 2006). Dr. Stapp’s definition stated: “environmental education is

aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical

environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, and

motivated to work toward their solution”. McCrea (2006) notes that because EE was still

emerging at this time, the definition was not seen as definitive.

One of the most widely accepted definitions of environmental education currently

supported by the United States Environmental Agency was adopted by the United

Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Conference (UNESCO) held

in Yugoslavia in 1975 (EPA). The Belgrade Charter, as it was known, outlined EE as a

learning process that increases people’s knowledge and awareness about the environment

! 6

and associated challenges, develops the necessary skills and expertise to address the

challenges, and fosters attitudes, motivations, and commitments to make informed

decisions and take responsible action (EPA; Thomson & Hoffman, 2003). Following the

Belgrade Charter was the world’s first Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental

Education held in Tbilisi, Georgia in 1977 (EPA). One of the major outcomes from this

conference was the formation of the objectives of EE. Thomson and Hoffman (2003)

noted that most environmental educators have since universally adopted these objectives

that include: Awareness, Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, and Participation. Lee and

Williams (2001) expanded the definitions of education about the environment. These

included cognitive understanding involving the development of skills necessary to obtain

this understanding, the use of real-life situations as a basis for inquiry learning, and

assisting the preservation and improvement of the environment by creating attitudes,

concern, and a predisposition that enhances the quality of life. Their work also included

three principle aims of EE: providing a basic understanding of the major ecological

systems of the planet, developing feelings for the Earth and its life, and encouraging

changes in behavior so that people live more in harmony with the natural world.

The connection of schoolyard habitats to EE is simply an instructional strategy

that utilizes a garden as a teaching tool (Desmond et al., 2002). This strategy includes

understanding the importance of plants in the lives of humans, using active learning with

plants for many educational goals and integration of subjects, and providing connections

to nature, all known to have positive effects on improving the lives of children and

communities (Lewis, 2004).

! 7

Within the umbrella of EE, schoolyard habitats are characteristic of informal

education. EE, now known as “free choice EE”, involves all educational processes

conducted outside of school (Wojcik, 2004). Activities involving EE are conducted at

institutions such as zoos, museums, botanical gardens, aquariums, planetariums, and

environmental education centers. These institutions are recognized as being very

effective in helping people learn about science because the informal context allows

individuals to find something of personal value that they wish to learn about that then

provides them with an entry into more information on that topic (PCAST, 1998).

However, with the constant constraints placed on educators’ budgets, off-site places such

as these are becoming increasingly difficult to utilize. Because schoolyard habitats also

offer an out- of- school on-site activity, this qualifies them as informal forms of

education.

Whereas EE can occur either indoors or outside the classroom, a schoolyard

habitat is connected to experiential place-based outdoor education because it provides

meaningful contextual experiences in both natural and constructed environments that

complement and expand classroom instruction (Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). Hence the

learner is able to construct knowledge, skill, and value from direct experiences

(Subramaniam, 2002).

Some of the strongest evidence supporting the use of outdoor EE programs comes

from studies linking academic achievement to hands-on activities within outdoor

classrooms supported by traditional classroom curriculum (Lieberman, G, A., Hood, L.,

& Lieberman, G., M., 2000; Bartosh, 2003; Clavijo, 2002). However, limited research is

! 8

available that addresses the utilization of NWF-certified schoolyard habitats. Work by

Klemmer et al (2005) and Smith (2003) showed that students who participated in generic

hands-on gardening programs typically had higher science scores compared with those

who did not participate. Information available that specifically addresses schoolyard

habitats is even more limited. Danforth (2005) evaluated NWF schoolyard habitats in the

Houston, TX, area and found an overall increase in academic achievement in several

subject areas, especially in math.

The time devoted to teaching EE in the classroom has been reported as inadequate

(Lorson, Heimlich & Wagner, 1993). One reason for this is the view that many people,

including educators, think of EE as “nature studies” and as an add-on to the traditional

education system (Archie et al., 1999; Monroe, Randall, & Crisp, 2001; NAAEE, 2001).

Hampering the integration of EE into the curriculum is the lack of a comprehensive

means of showing educators how they can develop programs that simultaneously meet

the needs of both the core curriculum standards and EE (Archie et al., 1999). Another

issue is a lack of inclusion of EE in state-level educational priorities such as academic

achievement and in teacher preparedness or pre-service training (Archie, 2001; Powers,

2004).

A huge constraint on educators promoting EE results from the No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 which has the United States in the process of reforming its

K-12 educational system (Cronin- Jones, Klosterman, & Mesa, 2006). As a result, states

have developed their own subject area standards and assessments in order to measure

yearly those subjects mandated under NCLB (mathematics, reading, science), leaving

! 9

those subjects not specifically addressed, including EE, in a state of decline (Cronin-

Jones et al., 2006). This standardization has affected EE in that educators must now

prove two points in order to receive funding and support: that the program is aligned

with state subject area standards and that it will result in measurable increases in

standards-based content knowledge (Cronin- Jones et al., 2006).

The progress of integrating EE into state K-12 curricula in the last half century is

listed below:

• The Conservation Education Movement is born out of the Dust Bowl era of the

1930s. Recognizing the connections between farming, environmental quality,

wildlife habitat, clean water, and forest preservation, a small group of educators,

including John Dewey, push for more agriculture in education. (Haskin, 1999;

McCrea, 2006; USDA)

• 1935 - National Education Association assumes a leadership role for conservation

education in schools. (McCrea, 2006)

• 1953 - The Conservation Education Association is formed to support those

educators working in the field of conservation education. (McCrea, 2006)

• 1965 – Elementary and Secondary Education Act is funded leading to a growth in

outdoor-related programs. (Knapp, 2007)

• 1968 – Biosphere Conference in Paris organized by the United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization sets goals of EE definitions and

establishing curriculum materials. (Conservation Science Institute)

! 10

• 1969 – Dr. William Stapp’s definition of ‘Environmental Education’ is offered.

(McCrea, 2006)

• 1970 – National Environmental Education Act is passed creating an Office of

Environmental Education and a National Advisory Council for environmental

education. (McCrea, 2006)

• 1971 – National Association for Environmental Education (later becomes the

North American Association for Environmental Education) is formed. (Knapp,

2007)

• 1972 – Stockholm Conference on the Environment recommends EE as a critical

means to address the world’s environmental crisis (McCrea, 2006) and the United

Nations Conference on the Human Environment recommends that every nation

promote and develop environmental education programs (EETAP, 2004).

• 1975 – 1977 – Belgrade Charter and Tbilisi Declaration outline EE goals and

objectives. (Haskin, 1999)

• 1989 – American Society for Testing and Materials assumes the leadership role in

establishing consensus standards for EE (Disinger & Roth, 1992)

• 1990 – National Environmental Education Act calls attention to how the natural

environment could be included in curricula at every educational level. (Disinger

& Roth, 1992; Wagner, 2000)

! 11

• 1992 – United Nations Conference of Environment and Development Earth

Summit recognizes EE as a forerunner of global importance. (Conservation

Science Institute)

• 1996 – National Environmental Education Advisory Council report highlights the

interdisciplinary nature of outdoor learning in EE. (Wagner, 2000)

• 1998/99 – North American Association for Environmental Education publishes

‘Excellence in Environmental Education – Guidelines for Learning’ and the State

Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER) releases its report on using the

environment to educate (McCrea, 2006). A survey by EETAP, ‘Status of

Environmental Education Programs in the 50 States’, reports 15 states required an

environmental education component in their K-12 curricula (Archie, 2001).

• 2000 – NAAEE publishes ‘Environmental Studies in the K-12 Classroom: A

Teacher’s View’. (McCrea, 2006)

• 2005 – The EPA releases ‘Setting the Standard, Measuring Results, Celebrating

Successes – A Report to Congress on the Status of Environmental Education in

the United States’. (McCrea, 2006)

The potential to significantly improve K-12 education in the United States with

EE integration got a huge push with the State Education and Environment Roundtable

(SEER) report. SEER coined the term EIC which stands for Using the Environment as an

Integrating Context for Learning (Lieberman, & Hoody, 2002). As another name for

environment-based education, EIC is a broad-based strategy for improving teaching and

! 12

learning by providing a creative outlet for meeting national and state standards in several

disciplines (Haines, 2006; NAAEE, 2001). EE is now supported by a large number of

resources than can comprehensively support both core curriculum standards and EE

(Archie, et al., 1999). Essentially, the success of a teaching landscape, as Takahashi’s

(1999) research indicates, depends on supporting rather than adding to the heavy

demands placed on teachers to cover mandated material. A good example of supporting

material is NAAEE’s ‘Excellence in Environmental Education – Guidelines for Learning

(K-12). This publication correlated EE standards with national standards for arts,

sciences, civics and government, economics, language arts, geography, history,

mathematics, science and social studies (NAAEE, 2001). The National Wildlife

Federation has a K-8 publication of activities aligned with national standards for science,

math, English, geography and social studies. This publication can easily be located on

the National Wildlife Federation website and is entitled ‘National Wildlife Federation

Schoolyard Habitats Program and National Standards of Learning: They Grow

Together’. Several other examples of national EE programs that are also present in South

Carolina that correlate standards with activities are reviewed below:

• ‘Ag in the Classroom’ - Established in 1981 by the United States Department of

Agriculture. It was created by experienced agriculture, conservation, and forestry

organizations in response to the need for classroom aids, materials, films and

literature that grew out of the environmental movement of the late 1960s. AITC

offers South Carolina educators free materials including hands-on, grade level

(K-8) specific lesson plans for addressing curriculum objectives in line with the

! 13

state standards connecting agriculture, EE, conservation, and forestry with all

subjects. (United States Department of Agriculture; South Carolina Farm Bureau)

• ‘Project Learning Tree’ - Born out of the Western Regional Environmental

Education Council (WREEC), a collaboration of 13 western states to develop

environmental education programs, Project Learning Tree was first introduced to

South Carolina in 1981. Under the direction of the South Carolina Forestry

Commission, PLT is a program designed to instruct educators through a free

workshop in the importance of forests and energy conservation. Upon completion

of the workshops, teachers are given a 406 page PreK-8 activity guide with over

96 hands-on activities. Activities are currently aligned with South Carolina

Department of Education 2005 curriculum standards in science, social studies,

math and language arts. (South Carolina Forestry Commission Project Learning

Tree)

• ‘Project Wild’ – Under the direction of South Carolina Department of Natural

Resources (SCDNR), this program was the second program developed by

WREEC. It is a K-12 workshop that provides curriculum and activity guides on

wildlife and habitat. It is one of the most widely-used conservation and EE

programs in South Carolina. Project Wild is aligned with the 2005 South Carolina

state science standards and is broken up into three sections: ecological

knowledge, social and political knowledge, and sustaining fish and wildlife

resources. Also under the direction of SCDNR is ‘Project Wet’, the third program

! 14

created by WREEC in 1991. It is the aquatic version of ‘Project Wild’ (Project

Wild, 2002; South Carolina Department of Natural Resources)

• ‘Action for a Cleaner Tomorrow’ – Introduced in 1993 and managed by South

Carolina Department of Health And Environmental Control (DHEC), serves as a

starting place for introducing EE in the classroom. It is an activity-based program

designed for grades K-12 and has been aligned with the state’s current science,

math, language arts, and social studies standards. Workshops are free for teachers

and lessons on recycling, composting, waste reduction, and conservation are

introduced. (SCDHEC)

Project Learning Tree, Project Wild and Project Wet have all been listed in a

follow-up 2004/05 to the Status of Environmental Education Programs in the United

States study from 1998 as being “In Place” as curriculum programs with EE aligned with

state standards (NAAEE). However a state comprehensive EE plan is not “In

Place” (NAAEE).

The belief that subjects and aligned standards can be explored on school grounds

has crystallized into the schoolyard habitat movement. Many states and school districts

in the United States have recognized the validity of developing and adopting curriculum

for teaching in a schoolyard setting (Miller, M., Daudi, S., Heimlich, J., 1998). The

National Wildlife Federation’s Schoolyard Habitats Program is connected to EE in the

approach that the program “provides administrators and educators a framework for

incorporating environment-based education into their school curriculum or youth service

programs. The Schoolyard Habitats Program gives formal and informal educators the

! 15

resources they need to create and utilize an outdoor learning site on school/facility

grounds and provides interdisciplinary curricula based on the ‘National Wildlife

Federation Schoolyard Habitats Program and National Standards of Learning: They

Grow Together’ publication (NWF). Schoolyard habitat sites provide students with a

place to experience hands-on learning and connect to the natural world while providing

local wildlife essential habitat. Students see and experience first-hand the difference that

stewardship makes toward improving the environment (NWF). The NWF views EE as

‘more than nature and science’ and ‘can be used as an integrating context across the

subject areas and is a means of relating subjects already being taught in a real-world

context’. This integrated studies approach attempts to balance the learning process by

combining all subjects and exploring them through a central theme (NWF). Schoolyard

habitats are that theme.

! 16

2.2. Expanded History of Schoolyard Habitats

Today’s schoolyard habitat movement can arguably be traced back to several

different time periods. Early 17th and 18th century philosophers, the nature study

movement of the early 1900s, the Dust Bowl era and Conservation movement of the

1930s and 1940s, the environmental movement of the 1960s and the outcomes of the

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Conference in 1975

have all contributed (McCrea, 2006). Subramaniam’s (2002) work on garden-based

learning traces the schoolyard habitat movement origins back to philosophies behind

experiential education, ecological literacy and environmental awareness, and agricultural

literacy by teaching children through personal discovery in natural settings. His work

recognizes several early philosophers such as Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi and

Froebel as the early influences incorporating the natural outdoors as an integral part of

children’s educational curriculum. Desmond et al. (2002); McCrea (2006); &

Subramaniam’s, (2002) summarization of the early philosophies of garden- based

learning is reviewed below:

• Comenius, the 17th century philosopher, believed that education should be

universal, optimistic, practical and innovative and should focus not only on

• school and family life but also on general social life. He stated “a school garden

• should connected with every school, where children can have the opportunity for

leisurely gazing upon trees, flowers and herbs, and are taught to appreciate them”.

! 17

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized the importance of nature in education in that

“nature was the child’s greatest teacher” and “knowledge of the natural world

serves as a foundation for later learning”.

• Rousseau’s teachings were adopted by Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi who started a

school for orphans using gardening, farming, and home skills as practical

education.

• Froebel emphasized “doing” within nature and became one of the most effective

early proponents of school gardens.

• Louis Agassiz encouraged his students to “study nature, not books”, thereby

learning directly from experience.

Subramaniam’s (2002) research places Prussia in 1811 as developing the first

compulsory school system that included gardening and by 1869 school gardens became a

law in that country. ‘School Gardens’, timeline of the history of youth gardens by the

Horticulture Department at Virginia Tech, shows similar measures being mandated by

Germany, Sweden, Belgium, France, Russia, and England not long after Prussia and by

1891 the first official school garden in the United States was in use at George Putnam

School of Roxbury, Massachusetts.

John Dewey’s teachings on the utilization of agriculture in education in 1915

propelled the first wave of school gardens in the United States (Desmond et al., 2002). In

his “School and Society”, Dewey supported experiential education outside the school for

the utilization of agriculture in education. By 1918 every state in America and every

! 18

province in Canada had at least one school garden mostly to help contribute to food

production for the war effort (Desmond et al., 2002). The creation and utilization of

school gardens periodically surged and declined throughout the end of WWI and during

the Great Depression. Reaching a peak around the end of WWII with growth related to

Victory Gardens, school gardens ultimately began to disappear with the increased

emphasis on technology during the 1950s, thus marking the end of the first wave of

school gardens (Subramaniam, 2002).

A second wave of school gardens occurred between 1964 and 1975 as a product

of educational reform and the rise of the environmental movement (Desmond et al.,

2002). It was at this point that the National Wildlife Federation in 1973 created the

Backyard Wildlife Habitat program (NWF). The purpose of this program was to educate

the public on the important benefits of creating natural landscapes not just in the

backyard but also within the community. As of 2007 there were approximately 81,000

certified backyard wildlife habitats throughout the United States (Paul, NWF).

Based on the success of the Backyard Wildlife Habitat program, the NWF in 1995

created the Schoolyard Habitats Program to focus specifically on assisting schools,

teachers, students, and community members in the use of school grounds as learning sites

for wildlife conservation and cross-curricular learning (NWF). Currently there are over

2700 schools and educational settings such as environmental education centers certified

within the program with Georgia, Florida, and California leading the way (Paul, NWF).

Over forty organizations are now devoted to providing resources for schoolyard habitats

! 19

according to a 2001 listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entitled ‘Schoolyard

Habitat Stewardship Through Action’.

! 20

2.3. Implementing a Schoolyard Habitat

Wendy Myers, garden coordinator of the schoolyard habitat for Pontiac

Elementary School, Pontiac, South Carolina, stated in an interview in late 2006, “teachers

love to start these types of projects (schoolyard habitats); they just don’t know how to

continue them in terms of upkeep and utilization”. Creating schoolyard habitats has been

simplified in recent years with the vast amount of information readily available on the

subject. Such examples include the National Wildlife Federation that offers a ‘getting

started’ guide devoted to their certified “Schoolyard Habitats Program” (NWF). Upon

completion, the NWF offers an application to officially certify the habitat into their

national database. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), aside from

their approximately 40 resources devoted to the area, has available a roughly 133-page

guide appropriately titled “Schoolyard Habitat Project Guide” (USFWS). The Arizona

Game and Fish Department offers a 145-page resource called “Schoolyard Habitat

Design” (Arizona Game and Fish Department). These guides outline the implementation

of schoolyard habitats in very simplistic terms. Topics covered range from the initial

startup phase of brainstorming to the themes and design, planning, construction,

maintenance and restoration of schoolyard habitats. Other topics that are often covered in

‘getting started’ guides are such aspects as seeking permission, identifying goals, fund

raising and learning about the local habitat (Bundschu-Mooney, 2003; Lohide & Kyle,

2004; NWF). Involving students is deemed the most important aspect of starting a

schoolyard habitat (Lohide & Kyle, 2004). Funding, which always seems to hamper out-

of-classroom activities according to Myers is available through many organizations and

! 21

agencies (Wendy Myers, Personal Contact, 2007). Haines (2006) suggests checking

locally first at such places as nurseries, landscaping companies and regional native plant

organizations. These sources will often offer expertise and/or discounts in lieu of

monetary donations. Other sources of funding in Haines’ (2006) work include asking

parents and PTA/PTO groups for donations along with suggesting students bring in their

own equipment to keep costs down. Within the bigger picture are corporations such as

Lowes and Target that will provide small grants in order to maintain a ‘green’ image

(Haines, 2006). Rainwater Environmental Alliance for Learning (REAL) lists

approximately 29 grant resources that include conservation and environmental

organizations such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency. State chapters

of the NWF including South Carolina Wildlife Federation will also provide funding

(SCWF).

! 22

2.4. Effectiveness of Schoolyard Habitats

With the utilization of these resources, teachers should be able to successfully

construct an outdoor classroom that allows educators to see first hand the many potential

benefits that schoolyard habitats create for students, regardless of grade level. White

(2004) states the window of opportunity for the formation of bonding with and positive

attitudes towards the natural environment develops sometime during early and middle

childhood and requires regular interaction with nearby nature – one of the goals of

environmental education. Secondly, schoolyard habitats play an important role in the

basic educational development of school aged children and much research has been

devoted to this area. Basic education is the development of cognitive academic skills

through a core curriculum that includes language arts, science, math, social studies, and

art in addition to the development of personal, moral, and social skills (Desmond et al.,

2002).

Some of the most widely known and researched benefits of schoolyard habitats

are cognitive skills such as creativity, problem-solving, focus, self-discipline, physical

competence, social skills, confidence, and emotional and intellectual development

(Burdett & Whitaker, 2005; Chawla, 2006; Kellert, 2005; Malone & Tranter, 2003;

Rickinson & Sanders, 2005). Environmental knowledge, gains in environmental

behavior and connection to the natural environment, all important goals of EE, have also

been shown to be benefits of GBL (American Institutes for Research, 2005; Bell &

Dyment, 2001; Dyment, 2004, 2005). Thirdly, because of the huge increase in the use of

drugs to treat attention deficit disorder (ADD), a large volume of research has connected

! 23

the use of nature and gardens as a beneficial alternative in reducing impacts of the

disorder (Kuo & Taylor, 2004; Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001; White, 2004).

However, as state educational systems continue moving towards integration of

environmental education into the curriculum, it is increases in student academic

achievement that is critical and much research has been devoted to the connection that

GBL introduces. The American Institutes for Research (2005) reported a 27% increase in

mastery of science concepts amongst 6th graders in a study that involved the use of the

outdoors to educate. A joint study produced by the Education Development Center, Inc.

and the Boston Schoolyard Funders Collaborative (2000) showed that 69% of educators

surveyed observed improved standardized achievement test scores and improved

performance of curriculum standards when using the environment for integrated learning

of all subjects. This survey targeted over 200 educators in four countries with schoolyard

programs. Within the United States, 31 states were represented. The Toronto District

School Board’s use of green school grounds resulted in consistent positive influences on

student learning among 45 different greening projects (Dyment, 2005). An extremely

popular and oft cited study was completed in 1998 by SEER, the State Education and

Environmental Roundtable (Lieberman & Hoody, 2002). SEER’s research was a

nationwide survey of forty schools that used the environment as an integrating context

(EIC). Results showed that 92% of academic achievement comparisons, using both

comprehensive and subject specific standardized assessments, indicate that EIC students

outperform traditional students in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies.

Science specific results of the SEER study, indicated by responding educators, showed

! 24

improved student knowledge and skills (99%), improved attitudes (98%) and improved

student knowledge and skills (99%), improved attitudes (98%) and improved retention of

knowledge and skills (97%).

These four studies; American Institutes for Research, Education Development

Center Inc/Boston Schoolyard Funders Collaborative, Toronto District School Board and

SEER, however, dealt mainly with using the environment to assist in educating and not

with schoolyard habitats as the sole outdoor experience. Unfortunately, few studies are

available relating directly to the use of GBL programs and their potential for showing

improved academic achievement. Three interesting studies specifically surveyed the use

of schoolyard habitats:

• Danforth (2005) compared 4th grade students’ work after participating in a

schoolyard habitat program in Houston, Texas, for one year to their academic

work in 3rd grade. Comparisons were also made to those students using

traditional curricula. The results showed significant increases in math scores but a

slight decrease in reading scores. This was because the activities of the

schoolyard habitat program were deemed more directly connected to math than

reading.

• Klemmer, Waliczek, & Zajicek (2005) assessed the science achievement of 3rd,

4th, and 5th graders using a GBL program. They concluded that hands-on garden

education contributed to higher science scores compared with students who did

not participate.

! 25

• Smith (2003) compared three elementary schools in East Baton Rouge, Louisiana,

using hands-on gardening within their curriculum. Achievement tests were given

before and after initiating the program. Conducted as an informal education

program, students participated once a week for two hours during the fall semester

of 2002. Results showed that a GBL program integrated into the curriculum for

as little as once a week helped to improve science achievement scores. However,

the study was unspecific as to how much of an improvement was achieved.

! 26

2.5. Barriers to the Effectiveness of Schoolyard Habitats

National trends of newly created schoolyard habitats showed a steady increase in

certifications leading to a surge in 1997 (Paul, Personal Communication, 2007; Sturges,

Personal Communication, 2007). Despite a small increase in certified habitats in

2002/03, the overall trend in the last decade has been a drastic decline in new

certifications.

The surge in schoolyard habitat certifications in 1997 may be linked to the South

Carolina Butterfly Project. The project, with the support of the South Carolina

Commission on Higher Education and sponsors, was an initiative aimed at combining

butterfly gardens and activities with science education (Culin, 2002). Forty-three schools

out of a proposed 52 joined in 1997 and an additional 47 joined in 1998 (Culin, 2002).

Educators attended a two- day seminar that covered topics such as project activities,

maintenance, and grant writing. County extension agents and master gardeners were also

present to discuss gardening techniques and garden-based instruction. Lastly, participants

were given a variety of butterfly garden- related plant material provided by sponsors

(Culin, 2002).

Two possible explanations were given for the slight increase in certifications in

2002/03 (Green, SCWF; Paul, NWF; Sturges, NWF). The first is the recent ‘hot’

discussion of global warming. The attention that this topic has received in the last couple

of years has been used as a catalyst by the NWF and educators in propelling the creation

of more schoolyard habitats by demonstrating the connections between nature and man.

! 27

The second possible explanation given is the topic of ‘nature deficit disorder’.

‘Nature Deficit Disorder’ is a term coined by Richard Louv in his bestseller “Last Child

in the Woods”. It is not a clinically described mental disorder but merely a term

describing the plight of today’s youth. Louv’s definition is “the human costs of alienation

from nature, among them: diminished uses of the senses, attention difficulties, and

higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses. The disorder can be detected in

individuals, families, and communities. Nature deficit can even change human behavior

in cities, which could ultimately affect their design, since longstanding studies show a

relationship between the absence, or inaccessibility, of parks and open space with high

crime rates, depression, and other urban maladies” (Louv, 2005, p34).

Sara Green, Director of Education for the South Carolina Wildlife Federation,

states South Carolina also saw similar trends in the number of certifications of schoolyard

habitats compared nationally. Global warming media attention was discussed as a

possible explanation for the slight increase in 2002/03 but does not explain the decrease

afterward, for the subject is still very popular. As far as the issue of ‘nature deficit

disorder’, Green, along with her co-workers at the NWF, agrees with Louv but feels

South Carolina has not given it enough attention.

However, two initiatives more directly related to gardening offer more realistic

explanations for the certification surge in 02/03. The first was a project entitled “Garden

Mosaics”. Created by Marianne Krasny, this project merges gardening with education in

urban areas (National Science Foundation). Garden Mosaics was intended to be a

meeting place for students and teachers to engage in scientific discovery in subjects such

! 28

as land use, nutrition, food systems and agriculture (NSF). A second possible explanation

stems from the Hilton Pond Center for Piedmont Natural History. Located in York, South

Carolina, Hilton Pond oversees Operation Ruby Throat: The Hummingbird Project

which was a cross-disciplinary international project in which students, teachers, and

others collaborate to study behavior and distribution of Ruby-throated hummingbirds at

the center (Hilton Pond Center). In 2001/02 Operation Ruby Throat was expanded to

involve all teachers and students in the Carolinas and by 2003 all 38 states within the

specie’s breeding range (HPC). The center provides all forms of information, including

plant lists, on the creation of hummingbird related gardens for school sites (Hilton Pond

Center).

Roxanne Paul, NWF Operations Coordinator of Habitat Education Programs,

however, states that on the national level ‘nature deficit disorder’ is beginning to be

recognized and could quite possibly be used in the near future as fuel to create more

schoolyard habitats. In the meantime, the NWF has created ‘Green Hour’. ‘Green Hour’

is a program designed to combat the effects of school-aged children’s disconnection with

nature (NWF). Richard Louv’s term is used to promote a one hour time slot to be given

to school children for unstructured play and interaction with the natural world. This

initiative if successful, may determine whether combating ‘nature deficit disorder, can be

used as an educational strategy within the schoolyard habitats program.

Teachers must take the first step in moving outdoors to utilize the environment for

education. Rop’s (2004) research has identified barriers that are present even before

teachers attempt to create schoolyard habitats. Personal and professional barriers were

! 29

identified as limitations in what science teachers know about garden-based learning,

along with a tendency for traditional in-classroom teaching and management concerns

such as time management and supervision that prevent teaching in outside settings. A

second set of roadblocks were viewed as institutional, systematic and administrative

pressures. These were identified as lack of time, pressures related to high- stakes testing,

and teacher and administrator attrition and turnover that results in a loss of institutional

memory.

Identifying and utilizing ‘hot’ topics in EE are not the only constraints that

educators face in creating successful schoolyard habitats or utilizing existing sites. A

limited amount of research is available that focuses on other barriers that constrain

successful continuation of schoolyard habitats. These constraints can be categorized

either within paradigms of logistical factors or within failed integration of schoolyard

habitats within the curriculum.

In terms of logistical factors, the research available within the United States has

typically been geographically localized within one school district or region and certified

NWF schoolyard habitats were not surveyed. The results, however, have been similar as

to what contributes to schoolyard habitat decline post- construction. DeMarco (1997)

found that the most important logistical factors included the presence of a garden

program coordinator, available space and equipment, a water source, and adequate

funding. O’Callaghan (2005) listed maintenance of the garden, teacher interest, funding,

vandalism (or fear of), and the initial startup costs (funding) as the main problems with

creating or continuing a successful schoolyard habitat. The NWF regional office in

! 30

Atlanta, Georgia, showed similar findings through a survey by the Georgia Wildlife

Federation that listed the top reasons why GBL sites fail: maintenance/upkeep issues,

teachers being unsure or unable to incorporate lessons into the garden, funding,

vandalism and school expansion or relocation (Sturges, GWF). DeMarco (1997) and

O’Callaghan (2005) both found the majority of educators surveyed would be interested in

guidance and training on how to use the garden for teaching.

As stated with the effectiveness of schoolyard habitats, integration into the

curriculum is a roadblock that is critical in determining the success and utilization of

schoolyard habitats based on the pressures of academic achievement. A huge pitfall that

educators encounter is the limited knowledge that teachers have in terms of GBL and

science along with integrating that information into the curriculum (DeMarco, 1997; Rop,

2004; O’Callaghan, 2005; Skamp & Bergmann, 2000). DeMarco (1997) suggests that

integration of GBL into the curriculum is more important to educators than the logistical

factors that are viewed as barriers to success.

! 31

Chapter 3. Problem Statement

Schoolyard habitats certified through the National Wildlife Federation are not

monitored mainly due to a lack of manpower (Green, SCWF; Paul, NWF; Sturges,

NWF). Sara Green, Director of Education with the SCWF, states that her attempts to

contact (via phone calls and personal visits) the garden initiator or coordinator of certified

schoolyard habitats in South Carolina are made once a year but responses are few. It is

believed that feedback is low because that contact person is no longer available, they are

too busy, the garden has fallen on the wayside, and/or that person is embarrassed or

apprehensive about inquiries into their projects, especially if they have been funded by

outside sources. Therefore, what becomes of the garden once they are created and

certified into a nationally recognized program? In other words, what is the success rate

of NWF- certified schoolyard habitats in South Carolina?

Secondly, the NWF and SCWF encourage the use of schoolyard habitats because

of the connections they make back to the classroom curriculum, especially within the

subject area of science. However, the NWF and SCWF both emphasize that other

subjects are definitely able to be connected. If the survival rate of schoolyard habitats for

instructional purposes is analyzed, does the ability to connect them back to the classroom

present a challenge or are other factors predominant in determining success in terms of

use for academic instruction? Therefore, what other barriers or challenges cause these

well-designed outdoor classrooms to succeed or fail despite an abundant amount of

resources available to ensure success? In other words, is failure attributed to logistical

! 32

factors or due to a lack of means or knowledge on how to integrate them into the

curriculum?

Lastly, the NWF and SCWF both have been experiencing a decline in the number

of new schoolyard habitat certifications in the last decade. A new approach is needed to

demonstrate the need for and benefits of programs such as these to educators. A possible

new avenue may be created through the immense attention that Richard Louv’s term

‘nature deficit disorder’ has created. This possible new avenue is being tested in a new

NWF program called the ‘Green Hour’ (NWF). However, information is needed from

educators to assist in determining whether the issue of student detachment from nature

can be angled into the schoolyard habitat platform. More information is needed on

whether educators believe in this phenomenon, feel schoolyard habitat gardens reconnect

students with nature and science, and the reasons that contribute to this nature deficit

problem.

Other missing information in regards to prior research that could be beneficial to

the NWF and SCWF in determining future avenues is:

• What was the most popular grade level the gardens were created for?

• How many students and teachers/staff utilize the garden?

• Why was the garden originally created?

• Are future gardens planned and, if so, what type of garden is planned?

• What state curriculum standards are addressed?

• What do the gardens do for students?

! 33

• Are educators interested enough in learning more about schoolyard habitats to

attend a program?

There were thus three main goals of this survey: 1) determine the success rate for

instruction of certified schoolyard habitats in South Carolina; 2) determine whether

connecting the schoolyard habitat to the classroom was a challenge that affected success;

3) and determine future avenues that could be utilized by SCWF and the NWF to increase

certification and help educators avoid possible pitfalls such as logistical factors related

directly to this nationally certified program specifically within the area of ‘nature deficit

disorder’.

! 34

Chapter 4.

4.1. Methods and Materials

A survey (Appendix B) was conducted in late 2006 by the author directed

specifically to schools with certified NWF schoolyard habitats in South Carolina.

Recipients of the survey included 132 K-12 educators within public, private, urban and

rural schools, all of which had certified South Carolina schoolyard habitats according to

SCWF records. Included were 70 elementary schools (53%), 19 middle/intermediate

schools (14%), 9 high schools (7%) and 34 other types of institutional/organizations

(26%). A self- addressed envelope with stamp was provided to all recipients. A follow-

up reminder notice was mailed out approximately one month later to increase responses

to avoid the typical 10-15% return rate of such surveys. Again a self-addressed envelope

with stamp was provided. Both mailings included all 132 schools (Appendix C). An

online link was also made available for ease of responding versus physically answering

and mailing the survey back; however, only one respondent utilized this method. Overall

58 of 132 surveys were returned, with a response rate of 44%. Three surveys were

returned as undeliverable.

This schoolyard habitat project surveyed only certified NWF schoolyard habitats

and was conducted over an entire state consisting of three regions/districts within rural

and urban areas. For discussion purposes, some returned surveys were grouped together

due to a low response rate in certain areas. The Low Country region consisted of the

Charleston, Florence, and Savannah area’s returned surveys. The Midlands Region

included Augusta, Charlotte, and Columbia area surveys and the Upstate Region was

! 35

simply those surveys returned from the Upstate area. The purpose of surveying the entire

state was to expand beyond one localized area.

This study surveyed the survivability rate of only certified South Carolina NWF

schoolyard habitats that had been constructed prior to 2006. For the purpose of this

study, the term ‘educators’ is used loosely and refers to administrators, teachers,

principal/s, and/or garden volunteers or coordinators that may have utilized the garden

and are herein referred to as ‘respondents’. The terms ‘fail’ or ‘failure’ and ‘unsuccessful’

simply refers to the schoolyard habitat not being used for instruction. Trends and patterns

were determined by comparisons of the largest total percentage of responses per region

and compared to all other regions.

! 36

4.2. Assumptions Made by the Author Prior to the Survey Mail Out

The author’s assumptions and biases were based on prior experience in

horticulture and education, information provided by the NWF and SCWF and other

research, personal conversations from individuals with schoolyard habitat experience, the

known lack of EE within the South Carolina K-12 education system, information

gathered from Richard Louv’s book ‘Last Child in the Woods’ pertaining to school-aged

children’s detachment from nature issue, and current efforts to ‘green’ school grounds.

• Difficulties faced by the SCWF in gathering follow-up information about certified

habitats were due to a lack of manpower and an overall lack of responses from

educators.

• Most certified gardens had fallen on the wayside.

• Departure or the turnover of the garden originator/coordinator would lead to its

failure.

• Failure to provide an individual during holidays to maintain the garden would

lead to its failure.

• Connecting the outdoor classrooms to traditional classroom curriculum would be

a huge challenge facing educators.

• Creation of a schoolyard habitat was originally intended for use as an outdoor

classroom.

• Educators would not want to create another garden, regardless of success, due to

funding.

! 37

• Science standards would be utilized most, followed by math and art.

• Reconnecting students with nature and science and incorporating other subjects

would comprise the majority of responses pertaining to what gardens do for

students. Support for serving as therapy for behavioral issues such as ADD would

also emerge.

• Respondents would overwhelmingly agree that students today have a greater

detachment from nature than their generation.

• Technology such as Nintendo would have the highest ranking for which factors

contribute to detachment from nature.

• Due to the current popular ‘greening’ efforts on school grounds, most respondents

would be interested in attending a seminar on schoolyard habitats.

! 38

Chapter 5. Data Analysis

To facilitate data entry, storage, and retrieval, all survey data were entered into the

online website designed by Monique Jacobs of Riverbanks Zoo and Garden through

Magnet Mail. Where applicable, results marked in ‘other’ were also recorded. Several

questions resulted in respondents answering multiple choices: questions 4, 9, and 12.

After Table #1, the tables included in this section are those that pertain directly to the aim

of this thesis: survivability rate for instruction of certified NWF schoolyard habitats, data

related to whether connecting the garden to in-class curriculum caused failure or was a

challenge, and information related to the issue of student detachment from nature as a

possible new avenue for the NWF and SCWF to increase participation in the Schoolyard

Habitats Program. These are questions #s 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Results for questions

3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 13 are located in the appendices E, G, H, I, J, and M. A breakdown of

school regions/districts that returned the most surveys is not known because mail was

routed from several United States Postal Service sorting site locations: Augusta,

Charleston, Charlotte, Columbia, Florence, Upstate or Savannah. However, the Upstate

location did have the most surveys submitted. The United States Postal Service could not

accurately provide information pertaining to which sorting sites received mail from

which counties or school district/regions.

! 39

Chapter 6. Results

The following table represents the breakdown by region of returned surveys:

Table 1: United States Postal Service Sorting Regions Responding to Schoolyard Habitat Surveys

A breakdown of what schools answered is not known due to respondents not

replying with a return address. All recipients answered questions 1, 10, and 13. Question

8 resulted in the fewest amount of responses. There were a few slight variances with

computer results and hard copy analysis, mainly with question number 9 – “What do

these gardens do for students?” The following tables are representations of all responses:

Region Number % of Total Surveys

Augusta 2 3

Charleston 2 3

Charlotte 5 9

Columbia 17 29

Florence 5 9

Savannah 5 9

Upstate 22 38

Total 58 100

! 40

(1) Is the garden still active for instructional purposes?

For the purpose of this survey at the time of mailing, ‘active’ simply refers to the

plants in the garden being alive, some sort of outlying theme or outdoor classroom is

readily identified and it is being used in terms of instructor/class visitation. Results from

this survey indicate that 74% of certified schoolyard habitats are ‘active’ for instruction

based on all 58 respondents answering the question. How often the garden was utilized

was not measured.

Table 2: Regional ‘Active’ and ‘Non active’ Garden Utilization Responses by Region Stating Whether Garden Still Being Used For Instruction

Region Number of Responses

Percentage of Region

Percentage of Total Surveys (58)

‘Yes’

Augusta 2 100 3

Charleston 0 0 0

Charlotte 4 80 7

Columbia 11 65 19

Florence Savannah Upstate Total

4

3

19

43

80

60

86

7

5

33

74

‘No’

Augusta 0 0 0

Charleston 2 100 3

Charlotte 1 20 2

Columbia 6 35 10

! 41

(2) If no, why was the garden unsuccessful?

For the purpose of this survey at the time of mailing, ‘unsuccessful’ and ‘failure’

simply refers to the plants not having survived the elements or the garden is not being

used for instructional purpose because of logistical and administrative factors.

Garden failure linked to respondents of returned surveys was attributed solely to

logistical and administrative factors. The number one factor causing gardens of these

respondents to fail was because the original garden initiator left. An even distribution of

interest, construction, time, and space followed. The lowest response received attributed

to garden failure was funding.

Table 3: Statewide Causes of Garden ‘Failure’ Total reasons for failure from the 15 respondents who answered the garden was unsuccessful listed on table below.

Florence Savannah Upstate Total

1

2

3

15

20

40

14

2

3

5

26

Total 58 100

Cause of Failure Number of Respondents

Time 2 or 13%

Funding 1 or 7%

Interest 2 or 13%

Construction 2 or 13%

Initiator left 4 or 27%

! 42

(4)What are some of the challenges that determined whether the garden is/was

successful as an educational tool?

Table 4: Overall Statewide Challenges Determining Success

(9)What do these gardens do for students?

Number of Respondents: 57 of 58 or 98%.

Table 5: Total State Responses on What Gardens Do For Students.

No Space Unknown

Total

2 or 13% 2 or 13%

15

Challenge Responses Percentage

Nobody Holiday/Vacation Staff To Maintain 23 46

Lack of Teacher Support Lack of Interest

23

22

46

44

Garden Initiator Has Left 22 44

No Knowledge With Maintenance 21 42

No Curriculum Coinciding With Standards 13 26

Lack of Parental Support 12 24

Other 9 18

Space 6 12

Total/50 Respondents 151

What Gardens Do For Students

Number of Responses

! 43

(10)Do you believe students today have a greater detachment from nature than your

generation?

Number of Respondents: 58 of 58 or 100%.

55 of 58 or 95% states ‘yes’ and 3 of 58 or 5% stated ‘no’.

• A ‘no’ answer was reported from Savannah – garden was active for instruction.

• 2 ‘no’ answers were reported from the Upstate – gardens were active for

instruction.

(11)If no, please explain.

Number of respondents: 2 of 58 (those that answered ‘no’) or 3%. One respondent that

answered ‘no’ did not provide an answer.

Both respondents stated their school was located in a rural area (Upstate) with large

wooded areas surrounding the school.

(12)What reason(s) do you think contributes to this detachment from nature issue?

Number of respondents: 55 of 58 or 95%.

Reconnect Students w/ nature and science 51

Teach importance of environmental stewardship 51

Teach social skills – communication, competition etc 40

Allow better focus w/ hands-on learning 41

Develop senses 36

Develop leadership and decision making skills 31

Serves as therapy for issues such as ADD, stress etc 22

! 44

Table 6: Statewide Totals For What Contributes to Students Detachment From Nature.

For the purpose of discussion, Table 7 is provided in order to view all top

responses to each question. Some categories have multiple answers signifying the

responses were statistically the same for that particular region. Unknown categories were

not able to be determined based on missing information from respondents.

Table 7: State Trends and Patterns Comparison of State, Low Country, Midlands, and Upstate Trends of Schoolyard Habitats. An (A) is identified as responses for those with a garden that is active for instructional purposes. A (B) is identified as responses for those with a garden that not active for instructional purposes.

Reason Number of Responses

Percentage of

Respondents

Technology keeping kids indoors 51 93

Parents don’t spend time outdoor 42 76

Overly structured family life Lack of time

Materialism has made it uncool Urbanization/No access to nature

Apprehensive parents keep children indoors No outdoor/EE curriculum

Fear of nature

31 27 25 24 24 16 14

56 49 46 44 44 29 25

Fear of what media presents such as pedophiles and animal

attacks

12 22

Poorly designed outdoor areas (playgrounds)

11 20

Total 277

Category State Low Country Midlands Upstate

! 45

Active for Instructio

n

74% 58% 71% 86%

Cause of Failure

Garden Initiator Left

Lack of time Construction Unknown

Most Grade Level

Utilization

K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5

Challenges Top 3 Responses: Lack

of teacher support, no staff

to maintain during vacation/holiday and lack

of interest/garden initiator

left

(A)No staff to maintain during

vacation/holidays

(B)Garden initiator left

(A)No staff to maintain during

vacation/holidays

(B)Lack of interest, garden

initiator left

(A)Lack of teacher support

(B)Garden initiator left, no staff to maintain during vacation/

holidays and lack of teacher

support

Why Garden

Was Created

Educational tool/outdoor

classroom

Educational tool/outdoor

classroom

Educational tool/outdoor

classroom

Educational tool/outdoor

classroom

Type of Future

Planned Garden

Water garden/wetland habitat

Add to existing garden

Another outdoor classroom

Raised beds/vegetable garden

Reason Preventing a Future Garden

Funding Construction Lack of space Funding, maintenance, lack of space,

time

Most Addressed Standards

Science Science Science Science

! 46

What Gardens Do For

Students

Top 3 Responses: Reconnect

students with science/nature,

incorporates other subjects,

teaches environmental stewardship

(A)Reconnects students with

science/nature, incorporates

other subjects, teaches

environmental stewardship (B)Same as active plus

teaches social skills

(A)Teaches environmental stewardship

(B)Teach social skills

(A)Reconnects students with

science/nature, Allows other subjects to be incorporated,

Teaches environmental stewardship (B)Same as

active

Believe Students

Have Detachment From Nature

95% 100% 96% 91%

Reasons For

Detachment

Top 3 Responses:

Technology like Nintendo,

Parents aren’t outdoors, overly structured family

life

(A)Technology like Nintendo

(B) Lack of time and Technology like Nintendo

(A)Parents aren’t outdoors and

technology like Nintendo

(B)Technology like Nintendo

(A)Technology like Nintendo

(B)Lack of time, parents aren’t outdoors, and

overly structured family life

Interest in Program

83% 75% 86% 86%

! 47

Chapter 7.

7.1 Discussion

Problems exist with prior research of schoolyard habitats because it is limited by

two factors. First, schoolyard habitats, including those certified by the NWF, are not

officially monitored. Therefore, what becomes of the gardens after their initial year of

implementation is unknown. Second, prior research also only looked at single

geographically localized areas (Danforth’s study focused on Houston, Smith’s study

focused on East Baton Rouge, Louisiana). Therefore the data are limited and cannot be

extrapolated from just one area to other regions.

In order for schoolyard habitat programs to be analyzed for comparative purposes,

the gardens should be viewed over the course of several years. Past research only looked

at gardens for the initial first year, as noted by the terms ‘implementing a schoolyard

habitat’, or ‘integration of a schoolyard habitat into the curriculum’. However, it is not

known what became of the previous researched gardens after the initial first year. This is

the primary difference between this and previous studies.

Based on the survey results, 74% appears to be an outstanding success rate,

however, one specific point needs to be addressed. A conservative approach should be

taken in order to view 74% correctly. Therefore, the issue that arises is what became of

the gardens from educators that did not respond from the other 74 schools. This survey

had a return rate of 58 gardens or 44%, therefore, 56% of the gardens are still

unaccounted for. By taking the conservative approach, we can assume that those

remaining 74 gardens have fallen to the wayside and are no longer being utilized for

! 48

instructional purposes. With that aspect in mind, the strength of 74% no longer appears

as valid.

One of the main premises of the NWF push to instill schoolyard habitats into

curricula is because of the connections to nature, science and other subjects they can

incorporate. However, prior studies did not survey whether this was an academic

challenge to educators. Although this study did not measure academic achievement, the

issue of connecting the garden back to the traditional classroom curricula was looked at

in terms of whether this would cause the garden to possibly fail or was a challenge for

educators even before measurement of academic achievement could take place. The

terms ‘fail’ or ‘failure’ and ‘unsuccessful’ for the purpose of this study simply refers to

the schoolyard habitat not being used for instruction.

With a 74% success rate in terms of ‘active’ utilization of the garden for

instructional purposes from respondents, these educators may have experienced some

academic achievement with their gardens, thus continuing its ‘active’ use for instruction.

Academic achievement could be described as increased interest and learning or improved

test scores, both of which have been outlined by the NWF. However, in order to even

reach the point that marks academic achievement, a connection back to the in-class

curriculum needs to be identified and evaluated.

In relation to Question 2, no respondent stated the garden was unsuccessful in

terms of not being ‘active’ for instructional purposes due to the inability in connecting the

garden back to the classroom. This question received only 15 responses out of 58 or 26%

of respondents. In order not to persuade mindsets, the format for Question 2 needs to be

! 49

reiterated. This was an open ended response question without provided choices.

Regardless, the responses indicate the inability to reconnect to in-class curriculum was

not a factor in the gardens becoming unsuccessful.

Question 4 directly asked what some of the challenges that determined whether

the garden was successful were. A total of 50 respondents answered the question

multiple times for a total of 151 responses. Again the purpose, as in Question2, was to

analyze whether reconnecting the garden back to classroom instruction was an issue.

Based on the results, 13 of 50 or 26% respondents stated this was an issue. Again, it

must be noted that 74 schools did not respond. This issue in turn makes 26% or 1 in

roughly every 4 schools a rather high number. In regards to the challenges that received a

higher response such as lack of interest and the garden initiator left, both at 22 of 50

responses or 44%, the numerical representation of 26% now appears lower though the

conservative approach must still be taken. A review of prior research shows that the

results of ‘lack of interest’ and ‘garden initiator left’ support other findings but ‘space’, 6

of 50 or 12%, and ‘lack of parental support’, 12 of 50 or 24% do not have a precedent.

Due to the decade-long trend of decreasing numbers of new certified NWF

schoolyard habitats in both South Carolina and the nation (Green, SCWF; Paul, NWF;

Sturges, NWF) the current issue of student detachment from nature was studied to help

the NWF and SCWF determine new avenues for increasing participation in their

schoolyard habitats program and new venture ‘Green Hour’.

A first step in determining whether Louv’s ‘nature deficit’ label can be utilized by

the NWF to increase participation in the schoolyard habitats program is to identify what

! 50

educators believe gardens do for students including whether they reconnect students with

nature and science. Results from Question 9 analyzed this information. Overall, 51

respondents believe schoolyard habitats reconnect students with nature and science, while

another 51 felt that gardens teach the importance of environmental stewardship. Both

categories, along with whether the garden can incorporate other subjects with increased

learning (47 responses) are premises outlining the importance of schoolyard habitat

programs by the NWF.

In order for the NWF to use Louv’s hypothesis as a new avenue to increase

participation in the schoolyard habitat program, information is needed in support of the

hypothesis. Question 10 provides this information and Question 12 further outlines what

may be contributing to this detachment from nature issue.

All 58 respondents answered Question 10 with 95% stating they believe students

today have a greater detachment from nature. The dominant factor keeping students

away from nature based on respondents was technology such as Nintendo which

accounted for 51 respondents of 55 who answered, or 93%. A strong majority, 42 of 55

or 76%, stated the issue of parents not spending time outdoors with their children. With

responses of 95% answering they believe students have a greater detachment from nature

with technology and a lack of parental support outside contributing to the cause,

Questions 10 and 12 lend support to Louv’s hypothesis. However, respondents from

across the state did not support his suggestions that a fear of nature, fear of the media,

and poorly designed outdoor areas contribute to detachment. That reconnecting the

garden back to in-class curriculum was a challenge keeping students away from nature

! 51

was noted by only 16 of 51 respondents or 29%. An important question that this

information raises concerns the ages of those that answered Questions 10 and 12, a factor

that might highly affect the validity of the responses. Age is questioned due to the degree

of which the field of education is cross-generational which may contribute to a

respondent agreeing or disagreeing whether a detachment from nature issue exists.

Despite this last point, the statistic of 95% cannot be ignored and strongly supports

Louv’s argument as an avenue for the NWF to approach to possibly increase participation

in the schoolyard habitats program.

! 52

7.2. Additional or Unanswered Questions the Survey Raises

• What else does ‘active’ mean?

• How often is the garden utilized?

• Who responded to the survey? Was it a principal, volunteer, teacher, or somebody

else?

• Why is K-5 the most popular grade level for utilizing garden-based learning?

• What caused a lack of interest; is this just one person’s personal opinion or a

school-wide, shared opinion?

• Where does a ‘lack of time’ fall within challenges that determine garden success?

• By whom and when is maintenance of the garden done?

• Are educators aware of resources that connect the gardens to other subjects

besides science?

• What resources and to what extent are educators using Project Learning Tree,

Project Wet, Project Wild, and Ag in the Classroom?

• What other forms of technology are keeping kids indoors today?

• What fear of nature and of the media do students and parents have?

• Why are parents not outdoors?

• What are parents doing with their children that creates an overly structured family

life?

! 53

• What makes an outdoor area poorly designed?

• Where do the respondents that answered urbanization/no access to nature reside

versus those that did not respond?

• What types of things are students doing for those that answered materialism have

made it uncool?

• Why did those whose garden was unsuccessful and did not plan a future garden

respond that they were interested in attending a schoolyard habitat program?

! 54

Chapter 8.

8.1 Conclusion

A mail survey of 132 educators in the state of South Carolina with NWF certified

schoolyard habitats resulted in a response rate of 44%. Beneficial information for the

NWF, SCWF and educators across the state has now been received pertaining to the

status of these gardens within three realms: the survival rate of the gardens for

instruction; whether connecting the gardens back to the classroom is a challenge; and

whether student detachment from nature is a problem and whether schoolyard habitats

could help combat this problem if it exists.

To view these results conservatively, the 74 unreturned surveys are considered to

have unsuccessful gardens in terms of being ‘active’ for instruction. Based on the results

from respondents to this survey, the following conclusions can be made:

• The majority of schoolyard habitats across South Carolina are active and are

being used for instructional purposes. A success rate of 74% was found which is

remarkable in terms of logistical factors that must be overcome in order to create

a successful garden. The validity of this information was determined by visiting

approximately 5% of the gardens – Pontiac ES, Heathwood Hall Episcopal School

and Camden High School. Respondents at these gardens stated the gardens were

used multiple times a year. Although these schools represent only a small portion

of surveyed schools, the results of the visitations were similar. The gardens were

well maintained (including water issues), plans were in-place for further

expansion, connections to classroom curricula were being made, and logistical

! 55

factors such as time, space, and interest were not hampering the mission.

Funding, however, appeared to have some degree of control on the rate and speed

of expansion and/or improvements.

• Logistical factors are being overcome by respondents in South Carolina.

Respondents stated only 26% of certified gardens in the state failed due to

logistical factors of time, funding, space/construction, interest/support, and/or the

original garden initiator left. No respondent stated the garden was unsuccessful

due to a failure in integrating it into the curriculum.

• Logistical factors and the ability to connect the garden to standards are, however,

challenges that must be overcome in order to create successful schoolyard

habitats. Respondents across the state cited a fairly even distribution of logistical

factors specifically within interest, garden originator leaving, maintenance

knowledge, and teacher support. Parental support and lack of space were not

found to be huge challenges. However, in an effort to determine whether the

ability to connect gardens back to the classroom was a challenge, the survey

illustrated that only 26% of respondents were challenged by not having projects/

curricula available to connect to standards. Therefore respondents were more

likely to encounter logistical factors as a challenge in creating a successful

garden.

• The majority of respondents created their garden for use in K-5th grades. A wide

range of teachers and students utilized the gardens. This implies that schoolyard

! 56

habitats are more suited for K-5 curricula. Respondents from middle and high

school were too few to conclusively state any pattern exists. Grade level usage is

beneficial not only for educators developing environmental education and outdoor

curricula, but also for determining which skills and standards are capable of being

developed and taught.

• The majority of respondents stated their garden was created as an educational

tool/outdoor classroom. This further supports the issue of whether teachers are

able to integrate them into the curriculum – 74% of surveyed gardens are

successfully surviving for instructional purposes with 64% of those gardens

originally being constructed for the purpose of an educational tool/outdoor

classroom. Furthermore, of those that responded their garden was originally

created for other purposes (36%), they are still being utilized for instructional

purposes based on their response of ‘being active for instruction’. Therefore,

100% of those that answered why the garden was originally created are using

them for instructional purposes.

• Respondents were split on whether a future garden will be created. If another

garden is to be created, the majority responded that it would have some type of

instructional theme (native, wetland, habitat, SC theme, butterfly, etc).

• Aside from deer grazing/disturbance, funding was the main factor preventing

creation of additional gardens.

! 57

• Science was overwhelmingly the most common subject to be taught using the

schoolyard habitat. Although South Carolina curriculum standards connect

gardens back to the classroom most closely through science, 47% of those that

answered the question stated math and art can be taught most often. These results

indicate that almost half of respondents either utilized resources connecting

schoolyard habitats to standards or in creating activities that connect to the

classroom, therefore, suggesting that schoolyard habitats are utilized in a

multidisciplinary manner.

• Only 25% of respondents indicated schoolyard habitats were therapeutic for

issues such as ADD. This finding argues against Richard Louv’s premise that

schoolyard habitats can help to combat ADD. Furthermore, respondents were

split on what skills schoolyard habitats developed.

• Schoolyard habitats reconnect students with nature and science as well as teach

the importance of environmental stewardship. These results lend support to

Richard Louv’s suggestions on combating ‘nature deficit disorder’. Another

aspect to the results is the support this gives to NWF’s newest creation ‘The

Green Hour’. Lastly these results can be used by the NWF and SCWF to help

expand schoolyard habitat creation and certification by supporting the logic

outlined by the NWF on why these gardens should be constructed and utilized.

The NWF and SCWF can use this information to possibly create new resource

lists to assist in increasing certification participation for schoolyard habitats as

outdoor classrooms.

! 58

• The belief that students today have a greater detachment from nature than their

generation was shared by 95% of respondents in South Carolina. Whether or not

respondents have read “Last Child in the Woods”, the results indicate generic

support for Louv’s hypothesis of ‘nature deficit disorder’. Secondly, 95% of the

same respondents believe distracting technology such as Nintendo is contributing

heavily to this detachment. Results of the survey also supported Louv’s other

reasons for this detachment such as parents aren’t outdoors (78%), and an overly

structured lifestyle (60%). Respondents were split on his suggestion that students

have a lack of time to be outdoors (53%), have apprehensive parents who keep

children indoors (45%), have no access to nature or urbanization issues (45%) and

materialism has made it uncool (49%). Respondents for the most part disagreed

with Louv that students have a fear of nature (27%), students and parents have a

fear of what the media presents (22%), and outdoor areas such as playground are

poorly designed (24%). In support of schoolyard habitats and EE, only 36% of

South Carolina respondents indicated that a detachment of nature contributes to

not having an outdoor/EE curriculum. Such survey results will also likely benefit

NWF’s The Green Hour and continue to provide SCWF reasons to continue

pushing for the creation of schoolyard habitats.

• Respondents in South Carolina are interested in learning more about schoolyard

habitats including their purpose, alternative garden ideas and projects aligned with

standards.

! 59

In summary, several important pieces of information were gained from this

survey. First, 74% of NWF certified schoolyard habitats in South Carolina are surviving

and are being used for instructional purposes. These gardens are clearly curriculum

driven and logistical factors are being overcome to that end.

Secondly, connecting the garden to classroom curriculum is probably not a huge

challenge for educators because:

• 64% of respondents created these projects for the purpose of an educational tool/

outdoor classroom

• Only 26% stated connecting the garden to curricula was a challenge and not a

single educator responded that failure was caused by an inability to connect the

garden to curricula and standards.

• 93% stated the gardens reconnect students with nature and science.

• 93% stated the gardens teach the importance of environmental stewardship.

Lastly, the results suggest that student detachment from nature is a problem in

South Carolina. Educators support Richard Louv’s hypothesis of ‘nature deficit disorder’

in that 95% believe students have a greater detachment from nature by being constantly

‘plugged in’ to such things as Nintendo and other forms of distracting technology.

The significance of these results rests with the NWF and SCWF who have

experienced a decline in schoolyard habitat certifications within the last decade. These

survey results, which strongly support many of Louv’s arguments, may be advantageous

for marketing their programs. The greatest argument based on this survey is that

! 60

schoolyard habitats, if used for instructional purposes, are curriculum driven, are not

difficult to connect to curriculum and standards, reconnect students with science and

nature, and lastly create environmental stewards, a goal of EE. By using schoolyard

habitats to educate, we can support development of green thumbs to green minds.

! 61

8.2. Recommendations for Future Work

This project has definite possibilities for further exploration. Aside from hoping

to answer the questions that were raised from the survey results (Chapter 6), there are

also several alternative routes the author recommends for future work.

• Revise the survey and ask respondents to identify themselves.

• More personal communication is needed.

• Determine which curriculum standards are being addressed and by what grade

level.

• Devise a study to compare student learning in specific standards/indicators in

schools with and schools without gardens.

• Lastly, visit a group of off-school-grounds environmental education centers that

have schoolyard habitat gardens such as: The Sandhills Research Station,

Columbia, SC; Joe R Adair Outdoor Education Center, Laurens County, SC;

Roper Mountain Science Center, Greenville County, SC; South Carolina

Academic Learning Environment, Duncan, SC; and Hilton Pond Center for

Piedmont Natural History, York, SC. Determine which schools have visited the

centers and conduct research on whether those schools take back what they have

learned at the centers and incorporated it into their curriculums.

! 62

References

Agriculture in the Classroom. Retrieved June 21, 2007, http://www.agclassroom.org/

American Institutes for Research, (2005, January 27), Effects of Outdoor Education

Programs for Children in California. Retrieved April 17, 2007,

http://www.air.org/news/documents/Outdoorschoolreport.pdf

Archie, M. (2001, August). Moving into the Educational Mainstream. Infobrief,

Volume 26. Retrieved June 21, 2001,

http://www.ascd.org/ed_topics/ib_issue26.html

Archie, M., Simmons, B., Heimlich, J., E., & Daudi, S., S. (1999, July). Environmental

Education in a Standards-Based Curriculum. Environmental Education &

Training Partnership Resource Library, Volume 51. Retrieved April 23, 2007,

http://www.ag.ohiostate.edu/~eetap/pdf/info51.pdf

Arizona Game and Fish Department. Schoolyard Habitat Design. Retrieved April 24,

2007, http://www.azgfd.gov/i_e/ee/resources/books/schoolyard_habitat.pdf

Bartosh, O., (2003). Environmental Education: Improving Student Achievement.

Masters Thesis. Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA.

Bell, A., C., & Dyment, J., (2006). Grounds for Action: Promoting Physical Activity

Through School Ground Greening in Canada. Toronto, Canada, Evergreen.

Retrieved April 17, 2007, http://www.evergreen.ca/en/lg/pdf/PHACreport.pdf

! 63

Bundschu-Mooney, E. (2003). School Garden Investigation: Environmental Awareness

and Education. San Rafael, CA: Dominican University of California. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 480981).

Burdette, H., L., Whitaker, R., C., (2005). Resurrecting Free Play in Young Children:

Looking Beyond Fitness and Fatness to Attention, Affiliation and Affect. Archives of

Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Volume 159 (1), p46-50.

Chawla, L., (2006). Learning to Love the Natural World Enough to Protect It.

Norwegian Centre for Child Research at the Norwegian University of Science and

Technology. Barn, Volume 2, p57-58.

Clavijo, K., G., (2002). The Impact of Environmental Education on Sixth-Grade

Students’ Science Achievement. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Louisville,

KY.

Conservation Science Institute (CSI). Retrieved June 21, 2007,

http://www.conservationinstitute.org/

Cronin-Jones, L., Klosterman, M., Mesa, J., (2006, October). Are Outdoor Schoolyard

Learning Activities Really Effective?: A Standards-Based Evaluation. Presented P a p e r

at Annual Meeting of North American Association For Environmental E d u c a t i o n

2006. University of Florida.

Cronin-Jones, L. (2000, April). The Effectiveness of Schoolyards as Sites for

Elementary Science Instruction. School Science and Mathematics, Volume 100.

Retrieved April 23, 2007, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3667/

is_200004/ai_n8893246/pg_3

! 64

Culin, J. (2002, Spring). Butterflies Are Great Teachers: The South Carolina Butterfly

Project. American Entomologist, Volume 48 (1), p14-18.

Danforth, P. (2005). An Evaluation of National Wildlife Federation’s Schoolyard

Habitat Program in the Houston Independent School District. Masters Thesis. Te x a s

State University.

DeMarco, L. (1997, April 21). The Factors Affecting Elementary School Teachers’

Integration of School Gardening Into the Curriculum. Doctoral Dissertaion. :

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Desmond, D., Grieshop, J., & Subramaniam, A. (2002, October 14). Revisiting Garden

Based Learning in Basic Education: Philosophical Roots, Historical Foundations,

Best Practices and Products, Impacts, Outcomes, and Future Directions. Davis, C A :

University of California. Retrieved April 27, 2007,

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001362/136271e.pdf

Dillon, J., Morris, M., O’Donnell, L., Reid, A., Scott, W., & Rickinson, M. (2006,

January/February). Education Education: Beyond the Classroom. Primary

Science Review, Volume 91, p4-6.

Disinger, J., & Roth, C., (1992, November). Environmental Literacy. Columbus, OH.

(Education Resources Information Center Document Reproduction Service No.

ED351201).

Dyment, J., E. (2004). “At That Age, You Just Accept What You Have..You Never

Question Things”: Student Participation in School Ground Greening. Children, Yo u t h

and Environment, Volume 14(1), Retrieved April 17, 2007,

! 65

http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/14_1/articles/article5.htm

Dyment, J., E. (2005). Gaining Ground: The Power and Potential of School Ground

Greening in the Toronto District School Board. Toronto, Canada. Evergreen

Retrieved April 23, 2007, http://www.evergreen.ca/en/lg/gaining_ground.pdf

Education Development Center, Inc. & the Boston Schoolyard Funders Collaborative,

(2000, November). Schoolyard Learning: The Impact of School Grounds.

Retrieved April 23, 2007, http://www.edc.org/GLG/schoolyard.pdf

Environmental Education & Training Partnership (EETAP). (2004, May). How

Environment Education is used in Schools. EETAP Resource Library, Volume 1 2 0 ,

Retrieved April 23, 2007, http://eelink.net/eetap/info120.pdf

Environmental Education & Training Partnership (EETAP). (2005). Results of the Third

Survey on the Status of Environmental Education Programs in the 50 States.

Retrieved April 24, 2007,

http://www.naaee.org/about-naaee/affiliates/the-neeap-states-survey

Georgia Wildlife Federation. Retrieved July 2007, http://www.gwf.org

Green, S. (2007). South Carolina Wildlife Federation. Personal Communication.

Haines, S., (2006). Outdoor Classrooms: Planning Makes Perfect. Science and

Children, Summer 2006, p44-48.

Haskin, J., (1999, February 19). Environmental Education in the United States:

Teaching in the Present, Preparing Students for the Future. Retrieved April 24, 2 0 0 7 ,

http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/environmental/haskin.htm

! 66

Heimlich, J., E., & Barringer-Smith, L., (Date N/A). Preservice Environmental

Education: What Do We Know? A Report to World Wildlife Fund, U.S. Office o f

Environmental Education. Retrieved April 24, 2007,

http://eelink.net/eetap/tidesrpt.pdf

Hilton Pond Center. Hummingbird: Hilton Pond description and mission, Operation

Ruby Throat, “The Hummingbird Project”. Retrieved November 20, 2007,

http://www.rubythroat.org/HiltonPondMain.html

Kellert, S., R., (2005). Nature and Childhood Development. In Building For Life:

Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection. Washington, D.C., I s land

Press.

Kellert, S., R., (1998). A National Study of Outdoor Wilderness Experience. New

Haven: Yale University. (Education Resources Information Center Document

Reproduction Service No. ED444784).

Knapp, C., E., (2007). Outdoor and Environmental Education – Defining Terms,

Objectives and Purposes, Instructional Methods, History and Status in the United S t a t e s

and Abroad. Retrieved June 21, 2007,

http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2305/Outdoor-Environmental-

Education.html

Klemmer, C., D., Waliczek, T., M., Zajicek, J., M., (2005). Growing Minds: The Effect

of a School Gardening Program on the Science Achievement of Elementary

Students. Hortech, Volume 15(3), p448-452.

! 67

Kuo, F., E., & Taylor, A., F., (2004). A Potential Natural Treatment for Attention

Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Evidence From a National Study. American Journal

of Public Health, Volume 94 (9), p1580-1586.

Lee, J., C., K., & William, M., (2001). Researching Environmental Education in the

School Curriculum: An Introduction for Students and Teacher Researchers.

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, Volume 10 ( 3 ) ,

p218-244.

Lewis, (2004). Partnership for Plant Based Learning. Summary Report. Burlington VT,

Cope & Associates. Retrieved June 20, 2007,

http://www.ppbe.org/reports/Report2004.pdf

Lieberman, G., A., & Hoody, L., L., (2002). Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the

Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning. Poway, CA, Science Wizards.

Lieberman, G., A., Hoody, L., L., & Lieberman, G, M., (2000). California Student

Assessment Project: The Effects of Environment-Based Education on Student

Achievement. Retrieved April 27, 2007, www.seer.org/pages/csap.pdf

Lohide, S., & Kyle, K., (2004). Basics for Creating a Schoolyard Wildlife Habitat.

Southwest Center for Education and the Natural Environment. Retrieved January 21,

2007,

http://scene.asu.edu/habitat/design_manual/design_manual.pdf

Lorson, M., V., Heimlich, J., E., & Wagner, S., (1993). Integrating Science,

Mathematics, and Environmental Education: Resources and Guidelines. Retrieved June

21, 2007, http://www.stemworks.org/Bulletins/SEB93-2.html

! 68

Louv, R., (2006). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit

Disorder. Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, First Paperback

Edition, p 34-35, 216, 315.

Malone, K., Tranter, P., (2003). Children’s Environmental Learning and the Use,

Design and Management of Schoolgrounds. Retrieved April 23, 2007,

http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/13_2/Malone_Tranter/ChildrensEnvLear

ning.htm

Marsden, W., E., (1997). Environmental Education: Historical Roots, Comparative

Perspectives, and Current Issues in Britain and the United States. Journal of

Curriculum and Supervision, Volume 13 (1), p6-29.

Martin, S., C., (2003, September 22). The Influence of Outdoor Schoolyard

Experiences on Students Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, Behaviors, and

Comfort Levels. Journal of Elementary Science Education, Volume 15, p51-63.

McCrea, E., J., (2005). Perspectives – Foundations of EE. Retrieved July 4, 2007 from:

http://eelink.net/pages/Perspectives-+Foundations+of+EE

McCrea, E., J., (2006). The Roots of Environmental Education: How the Past Supports

the Future. Environmental Education & Training Partnership Resource Library.

Retrieved April 24, 2007,

http://eelink.net/pages/Perspectives-+Foundations+of+EE

Miller, M., A., Daudi, S., S., Heimlich, J., E., (1998, January). Exploring Environmental

Education in the Schoolyard Habitat. Environmental Education & Training

Partnership Resource Library, Volume 23, p1-2.

! 69

Monroe, M., C., Randall, J., Crisp, V., (2001). Improving Student Achievement with

Environmental Education. University of Florida. Retrieved April 22, 2007,

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FR114

Myers, W., (2007). Garden Coordinator/Educator Pontiac Elementary School, Pontiac,

South Carolina. Personal Communication.

National Science Foundation. Science, Education and Community: Organically Grown.

Retrieved November 20, 2007,

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104544

National Wildlife Federation. Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program. Retrieved August 8,

2006, http://www.nwf.org/backyard/

National Wildlife Federation. Green Hour Program. Retrieved August 8, 2006,

http://www.nwf.org/playandobserve/

National Wildlife Federation. Schoolyard Habitats Program. Retrieved August 8, 2006,

http://www.nwf.org/schoolyard/

North American Association for Environmental Education, (2001, October). Using

Environment-Based Education to Advance Learning Skills and Character Development.

Washington D.C. National Environmental Education & Training F o u n d a t i o n .

Retrieved May 9, 2007,

http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/EnviroEdReport.pdf

O’Callaghan, A., M., (2005). Creating a School Gardens Program in the Challenging

Environment of Las Vegas, Nevada. Hortechnology, Volume 15 (3), p1-5.

Paul, R., (2007). National Wildlife Federation. Personal Communication.

! 70

Powers, A., L., (2004). Teacher Preparation for Environmental Education: Faculty

Perspectives on the Infusion of Environmental Education Into Preservice M e t h o d s

Courses. The Journal of Environmental Education, Volume 35 (3), p3- 11.

Presidents Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, (1998). Retrieved April

17, 2007, http://www.ostp.gov/environment/html/teamingsec5.html

Rainwater Environmental Alliance for Learning. Retrieved August 23, 2006,

http://www.real-people.org/

Rickinson, M., & Sanders, D., (2005). Secondary School Students’ Participation in

School Grounds Improvement: Emerging Findings From a Study in E n g l a n d .

Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, Spring, p256-272.

Rop, C., (2004). City Schools and Natural Areas: A Case Study of Teachers Using

Natural Areas on School Grounds For Elementary Science Education. Toledo, Ohio:

University of Toledo. Retrieved May 23, 2007,

http://uac.utoledo.edu/Publications/school-landlabs-04.pdf

Skamp K., & Bergmann I., (2000). Teachers’ Perceptions of the Value and Impact of

Learnscapes: Implications for Practice. Retrieved July 15, 2007, h t t p : / /

www.mesa.edu.au/aaee_conf/Skamp-Bergmann.PDF

Smith, L., L., (2003). The Integration of a Formal Garden Curriculum Into Louisiana

Public Elementary Schools. Masters Thesis. Stephen F. Austin State University.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Action For a Cleaner

Tomorrow. Retrieved July 15, 2007, http://www.dhec.sc.gov/eqc/lwm/

recycle/html/action.html

! 71

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Project Wet. Retrieved July 15, 2007,

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/lwc/projwet/scwet.html

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Project Wild. Retrieved July 15,

2007, http://www.dnred.com/pwild.htm

South Carolina Farm Bureau. Ag in the Classroom. Retrieved July 2, 2007, h t tp: / /

www.scfb.org/ag_in_the_classroom.asp

South Carolina Forestry Commission. Project Learning Tree. Retrieved July 15, 2007,

http://www.state.sc.us/forest/refplt.htm

South Carolina Wildlife Federation. Schoolyard Habitats Program. Retrieved November

12, 2006, http://www.scwf.org/

Sturges, S., (2007). National Wildlife Federation. Personal Communication.

Subramaniam, A., (2002). Garden-Based Learning in Basic Education: A Historical

Review. Monograph, Summer, p1-11.

Takahashi, N., (1999). Educational Landscapes: Developing School Grounds as

Learning Sites. Thomas Jefferson Center for Educational Design. University of

Virginia (Education Resources Information Center Document Reproduction Service

No 428530).

Taylor, A., F., Kuo., F., E., Sullivan, W., C., (2001). Coping With ADD: The Surprising

Connection to Green Play Settings. Environment and Behavior, Volume 33 (1),

p54-77.

Thomson, G., & Hoffman, J., (2003). Measuring the Success of Environmental

Education Programs. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Retrieved May 1, 2007,

! 72

http://www.green-street.ca/providers/documents/Measuring_the_Success.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Education: Background

and History. Retrieved April 24, 2007,

http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/eedefined.html

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Schoolyard Habitat Project Guide. Retrieved

April 23, 2007, http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/guide.htm

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Schoolyard Habitat Stewardship Through

Action. Retrieved April 23, 2007,

http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/schoolyd.htm

Virginia Tech Horticulture Department. School Gardens. Retrieved January 20, 2007,

http://www.hort.vt.edu/HORT6004/network/schoolgardens.html

Wagner, C., (2000). Planning School Grounds for Outdoor Learning. Washington D.C.

National Clearing House for Educational Facilities. Retrieved April 21, 2007,

http://ncef.org/pubs/outdoor.pdf

White, R., (2004). Young Children’s Relationship with Nature: Its Importance to

Children’s Development & the Earth’s Future. Retrieved April 17, 2007, h t t p : / /

www.cnaturenet.org/02_rsrch_studies/PDFs/White_YoungChildren.pdf

Wild Ones, Seeds for Education. Retrieved August 23, 2006,

http://www.for-wild.org/seededuc.html

Wojcik, A., M., (2004). Informal Environmental Education in Poland. Retrieved April

17, 2007,

http://www.multilingual-matters.net/irgee/013/0291/irgee0130291.pdf

! 73

Woodhouse, J., L., & Knapp, C., E., (2000). Place-Based Curriculum and Instruction:

Outdoor and Environmental Education Approaches. Charleston WV. (Education

Resources Information Center Document Reproduction Service No. ED448012).

! 74

Appendix A:

Acronym List

ADD – Attention Deficit Disorder

AITC – Ag (Agriculture) in the Classroom

CSI – Conservation Science Institute

EE – Environmental Education

EETAP – Environmental Education and Training Partnership

EIC – Environment as an Integrating Context

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

ERIC – Education Resources Information Library

GBL – Garden Based Learning

GWF – Georgia Wildlife Federation

HPC – Hilton Pond Center

NAAEE – North American Association for Environmental Education

NCBL – No Child Left Behind

NSF – National Science Foundation

NWF – National Wildlife Federation

PTA – Parent Teacher Association

PTO – Parent Teacher Organization

PLT – Project Learning Tree

REAL – Rainwater Alliance for Learning

SCDHEC – South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

! 75

SCDNR – South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

SCFB – South Carolina Farm Bureau

SCFC – South Carolina Forestry Commission

SCWF – South Carolina Wildlife Federation

SEER – State Education and Environment Roundtable

SHP – Schoolyard Habitat Program

UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

Conference

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WREEC – Western Regional Environmental Education Council

! 76

Appendix B:

Survey

! 77

Landscapes for Learning/Schoolyard Habitat Survey

! 78

1. Is the garden still active for instructional purposes? ! Yes ! No

2. If no, why was the garden unsuccessful?

! 3. What grade levels was your garden developed for? And how many student and

teachers/staff use it?

4. What are some of the challenges that determined whether the garden is/was successful as an educational tool? (Please check all that apply.) ! Lack of interest ! Person who started the garden no longer at the site ! Lack of knowledge in the upkeep/maintenance of the garden ! Nobody available to maintain the garden during the holidays ! Lack of teacher support ! Lack of parental support ! No project/curriculum standards available to coincide with the completed garden - in essence not sure how to use the garden post construction ! Space ! Other !

5. Why was the garden created at your school?

6. Are future gardens planned? ! Yes ! No

7. If yes, please describe the future gardens. If no, what would prevent you from constructing another garden?

8. What state standards do you address by using the gardens?

! 79

Appendix C:

All 132 Schools That Received the Survey

A.C. Moore Elementary School Columbia

Ambler Elementary School Pickens

Anderson Mill Elementary Moore

Ashley Hall Lower School Charleston

Barnwell Elementary School Barnwell

Bell Street Middle School Clinton

Berkeley Intermediate School Moncks Corner

Boiling Springs High School Boiling Springs

Brennen Elementary School Columbia

Brunson Elementary School Brunson

Bryson Middle School Simpsonville

Buford Elementary School Lancaster

C.C. Blaney Elementary School Hollywood

Campbello Gramling School Campobello

Central Elementary Central

Chapin High School Chapin

Childrens House School Mauldin

Clemson Elementary School Clemson

Code Elementary Seneca

Crescent High School Iva

Crowders Creek Elementary Clover

Dacusville Middle School Dacusville

Daisy Elementary School Loris

Davis Elementary School Cayce

Dent Middle School Columbia

Dillon County Technology Center Dillon

! 80

Drayton Hall Middle School Charleston

Easterling Primary School Marion

Eastside Elementary School Clinton

Edwin P. Todd Elementary School Spartanburg

F. E. DuBose Career Center Manning

Fair Oak Elementary Westminster

Florence Darlington Technical Florence

Forestbrook Elementary School Myrtle Beach

Fork Shoals School Pelzer

Fulmer Middle School Cayce/West Columbia

Gable Middle School Roebuck

Gray Court Owings School Gray Court

Greenbrier Elementary School Greenville

Hammond Hill Elementary School North Augusta

Hatcher Garden and Woodland Preserve Spartanburg

Heathwood Hall Episcopal School Columbia

Hilton Head Middle School Hilton Head Island

Holly Hill Academy Holly Hill

Holly Springs Elementary Pickens

Hughes Academy of Science and Techn Greenville

Hunt Meadows Elementary Easley

Independence Elementary Rock Hill

Irmo Chapin Recreation Commission Columbia

James M. Brown Elementary School Walhalla

Jefferson Elementary School York

Joanna Woodson Elementary School Joanna

Joe R. Adair Outdoor Education Center Laurens

John P. Thomas ELementary School Columbia

! 81

Johnakin Middle School Marion

Keowee Elementary School Seneca

Kinard Elementary Clover

Knightsville Elementary School Summerville

L.E. Gable Middle School Roebuck

Lady's Island Middle School Beaufort

Lake Forest Elementary Greenville

Lake Murray Elementary School Chapin

Lakewood Elementary School Myrtle Beach

Landrum High School Landrum

Laurens Elementary School Laurens

Lone Oak Elementary School Spartanburg

Lonnie B. Nelson Elementary School Columbia

Loris High School Loris

Mack Elementary School Gaston

Manning Primary School Manning

Marion Intermediate School Marion

Marshall Elementary School Orangeburg

Marshall Primary School Belton

Martha Dendy Sixth Grade Center Clinton

Mary H. Wright Elementary Spartanburg

Mathews Elementary Greenwood

McDonald Green Elementary Lancaster

Meadowfield Elementary School Columbia

Mellichamp Elementary School Orangeburg

Mid Carolina High School Prosperity

Montessori Academy Spartanburg

Montessori Comm. School of Charleston Charleston

! 82

Montessori West School Spartanburg

North Augusta Middle School North Augusta

North Myrtle Beach Elementary School Litle River

North Springs Elementary School Columbia

Oakview Elementary School Simpsonville

Okatie Elementary School Okatie

Orangeburg Preparatory School Orangeburg

Palmetto Middle School Williamston

Paris Elementary School Greenville

Pickens Elementary School Pickens

Pontiac Elementary Elgin

Prairie Elementary Shcool Prairie Village

Project Challenge Anderson

Reidville Elementary Reidville

Richard Carrol Elementary School Midway

Riverside Middle School Pendleton

Robert E. Lee Academy Bishopville

Rollings School of the Arts Summerville

Roper Mountain Science Center Greenville

Sandhills Academy Columbia

Sara Collins Elementary School Mauldin

Satchel Ford Elementary School Columbia

Shell Point Elementary School Beaufort

Sheridan Elementary Orangeburg

South Elementary School Dillon

Southside Early Childhood Center Hartsville S.

St. John Neumann School Columbia

Sterling Community Center Greenville

! 83

Sue Cleveland Elementary Piedmont

Sullivan Middle School Rock Hill

Summerville Elementary School Summerville

Taylors Elementary Taylors

Tigerville Elementary School Travelers Rest

Timmerman School Columbia

Varennes Elementary Anderson

Varennes Elementary Anderson

W. G. Sanders Middle School Columbia

Wagener-Salley High Wagener

Welcome Elementary School Greenville

West Ashley High School Charleston

West End Elementary School Easley

West Oak High School Westminster

Westminster Elementary School Westminster

Westminster-Catawba Christian School Rock Hill

Windsor Elementary Columbia

Windsor Hill Elementary School N. Charleston

Wooded Wildlife Garden Clemson

York Place Episcopal Church Home York

Z. L. Madden Elementary School Spartanburg

! 84

Appendix D:

PDF Files of All Returned Surveys

The attached disc contains scans of all returned responses from the mailed survey.

In order to view discs, user must have at least Windows 98 or Mac OS9. The scans are

formatted as a PDF file, therefore, user must have a current version of Adobe Acrobat

Reader available at www.adobe.com.

! 85

APPENDIX E.

PDF Tables 8-29: Summary Data for Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q12, Q13

TABLE 8. Regional Breakdown of Reasons Causing Schoolyard Habitats to Fail .....

TABLE 9. Region, Garden Grade Level, Teacher and Student Usage .....

TABLE 10. Regional Breakdown of Challenges for ‘Active’ Gardens ...

TABLE 11. Regional Breakdown of Challenges for ‘Non Active’ Gardens ....

TABLE 12. State Total Responses of Why Schoolyard Habitat Was Created ...

TABLE 13. Reason for Garden Creation of ‘Active’ Gardens ...

TABLE 14. Reason for Garden Creation of ‘Non Active’ Gardens ...

TABLE 15. Future Garden Plans of Respondents with ‘Active’ Gardens ...

TABLE 16. Future Garden Plans of Respondents with ‘Non Active’ Gardens ...

TABLE 17. Total Descriptions of Future Gardens and Reason Preventing Future ...

Construction

TABLE 18. Type of Future Garden for Respondents with ‘Active’ Gardens ...

TABLE 19. Reason For No Future Garden from Respondents with ‘Active’ Gardens ...

TABLE 20. Type of Future Garden for Respondents with ‘Non Active’ Gardens ...

TABLE 21. Reason For No Future Garden from Respondents with ‘Non Active’ ...

Gardens

TABLE 22. Number of Respondents Statewide Incorporating Each Subject ...

TABLE 23. Utilized Standards from Respondents with ‘Active’ Gardens ...

TABLE 24. Utilized Standards from Respondents with ‘Non Active’ Gardens ...

! 86

TABLE 25. Regional Breakdown of ‘What Gardens Do for Students’ for Active ...

Gardens

TABLE 26. Regional Breakdown of ‘What Gardens Do for Students’ for Non Active ...

Gardens

TABLE 27. Causes of Student Detachment from Nature of Respondents with ‘Active’ ...

Gardens

TABLE 28. Causes of Student Detachment from Nature of Respondents with ‘Non ...

Active’ Gardens

TABLE 29. Breakdown by Region to Attend a Schoolyard Habitat Program ...

! 87