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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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 ...............................................................................................................................
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
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
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?