An Exploration of School Gardening and Its Relationship to ...
An Exploration of School Gardening and Its Relationship to Holistic Education
A Major Paper
Submitted to
The Rural Extension Studies Program in
The School of Environmental Design and Rural Development
of
The University of Guelph
by
Valerie Green
April, 2004
In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
© Valerie Green, 2004
Abstract
An Exploration of School Gardening and Its Relationship to
Holistic Education
Valerie Green Advisor:
University of Guelph, 2004 Glen Filson
My major paper includes an integration of diverse disciplines, past personal experiences, and an exploration of school gardening as a potential vehicle for holistic education. It explores the commonalties between the disciplines of urban agriculture, ethnobotany, human issues in horticulture, landscape architecture, environmental education and holistic education. It investigates the school gardening movement, particularly in North America, as well as holistic education theorists and themes. Specifically this paper is an exploration of school gardening in Ontario, with an emphasis on vegetable gardens, and their relationship to holistic curriculum. Holistic curriculum seeks to establish relationships between mind and body, disciplines, persons and the natural world. In effect this research seeks to answer the question: Can the design, development and integration of school gardening in school curriculum provide a means in which to achieve holistic education. My major paper is an account of the process taken in search of the answer to this question. The answer I found: In the process of the realization of the human-Nature connection a potential exists for school gardening to enhance the connections within community, subjects and Self, thereby achieving components of holistic education theory and practice. Multiple qualitative methods including published and unpublished documents, dialogue and interviews were utilized in data collection.
Acknowledgements
A special thanks to friends and family with whom I have shared in the last two years much laughter and a few tears, insightful and well, not so insightful conversations, support, strength and love. My most sincere thanks to my advisor Glen Filson and my committee member Alice Hovorka whose continuing enthusiasm and guidance have made the completion of this paper possible. To the professors who have challenged and encouraged me I am grateful. And finally, a very special thank you to all my students from whom I have learnt so much.
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract
Acknowledgements I
Table of Contents II
List of Tables IV
List of Figures V
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Definition of Terms 2
A Personal Perspective 3
Research Question 4
Objective 4
Research Design 4
Case Study 5
Data Collection of the Case Study 5
Data Analysis 6
Theoretical Framework 6
Limitations of the Study 7
Significance of the Study 7
Chapter 2: Holistic Education 8
Introduction 8
Theorists Past and Present 8
Three Holistic Educators and their Schools 9
Additional Theorists/Educators 11
Education Models and Holistic Education Theory and Practice 13
Instruction & Curriculum Approaches 14
Six Relationships of Holistic Education 17
Connections with Self, Subject, Community and Nature 19
Integrated Curriculum 23
Chapter Summary 26
Chapter 3: Human-Nature Connection 27
Introduction 27
Human Issues in Horticulture 27
Ethnobotany 31
Environmental Education Theory, Practice and the Nature Connection 33
Chapter Summary 38
Chapter 4: A Historical Perspective of School Gardening
Introduction 40
The History of School Gardening 40
School Gardening in Present-day 42
Findings: School Gardening in Ontario 50
Chapter Summary 53
Chapter 5: Discussion and Final Reflections 54
Discussion 54
Final Reflections 56
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations 59
Conclusion 59
Recommendations 60
References 62
Appendices 69
Appendix A 69
Appendix B 71
Appendix C 74
Appendix D 76
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Curriculum and Instruction Models 15
2 Approaches to Environmental Education 16
3 Connections in Holistic Education Curriculum 17
List of Figures
Table Page
1 A Holistic Stance 14
2 Connections within Education 18
3-7 Sketches 57-58
Chapter 1: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
As individuals and communities search for meaning and identity in a society driven by consumerism and rushed transactions, they look to education for answers. Unfortunately, traditional education is not meeting the current needs of all students, the community or the environment. What is needed is an alternative form of education with goals of individual growth and empowerment for social change. This should be an educational system that is capable of addressing the ever-increasing loss of biological and cultural diversity and the fragmented view of life and knowledge that is so common in Western culture. In Western society, many humans view themselves as being separate from Nature. This separation is understandable given that today’s youth are growing up in an industrialized society with limited connections to the natural world. The public’s general lack of awareness of agricultural practices and production is an example of this separation.
Holistic education offers an alternative to traditional education. School gardening may be able to provide a means through which to practice a holistic education. Through integration of real life experiences and academic learning, school gardening provides a place for students to explore connections with Self, community and Nature and gain appreciation for agriculture. Yet few studies or published works have explored school gardening as it relates to education theories, and in particular to a holistic curriculum, nor have they provided a critique of school gardening or an analysis of its position within the context of education in the 21st century. Results from this study will provide needed data to a growing area concerning the design and integration of school gardening within the curriculum and to the field of holistic education.
Definition of Terms
Holistic education is an education in which spiritual, social, emotional, moral, and physical growth are valued in addition to cognitive development. Thus, in holistic education, intelligence and abilities are not measured solely by cognitive development, that is, by test scores. Holistic education acknowledges the existence of multiple learning paths and individual students’ experiences. It also acknowledges the social, environmental, and historical context in which learning and teaching occurs. At the heart of holistic education is the creation of connections, including students’ connections to Self, community, and the natural world. It is believed by those espousing holistic education that identity, worth and a purpose in life is gained through the development of these connections. Through an emphasis on hands-on learning, the arts, learning as a process and reflection, holistic education seeks to instil a reverence for life, a love of learning and a sense of wonder in the learner. The goal of holistic education is one of personal growth while empowering students to make positive social changes and to develop environmental responsibility (Miller, 2004).
“Perennial philosophy” is the basis for holism. It views all things as part of an individual unity or whole (Miller, 1993). The rise in interest of holism and holistic curricula in Western society is in part due to new ideas arising from emerging disciplines such as sub-atomic physics, deep ecology and eco-feminism. Furthermore the fascination of many within Western culture with the philosophies and worldviews of Eastern religions and indigenous societies has increased the awareness and participation in the holistic way of thinking (Pike and Selby, 1988).
A school garden is a garden consisting of edible plants including herbs, fruits and vegetables. It may also contain livestock and non-edible plants. It is located on school property and is used by educators as a means to enrich school curriculum and to provide opportunity for a diversity of teaching and learning approaches.
A Personal Perspective
This paper was researched and written with two goals in mind. The first goal was to familiarize myself with the school gardening phenomenon and the holistic education movement throughout North America to become a better advocate for both. The second goal was to assist in bridging the gap that often exists between education researchers, theorists and practicing teachers.
My interest in school gardening initially began eight years ago with my participation in several school gardening and environmental education projects in Canada and internationally. This experience encouraged me to become a high school teacher in Canada. I became interested in trying to incorporate components of the different subjects (Agriculture, Biology, Spanish and ESL) that I taught, in order to encourage students to see the connections between their various subjects and their daily life experiences. I also focused on providing as many opportunities as possible for hands-on learning. Seeing the benefits of integrating curriculum sparked my interest in exploring holistic education. I have a particular interest in the potential role that school gardening can play in an integrated curriculum. I have witnessed first hand the accomplishments achieved through school gardening projects and felt the pride and joy by those who participated. Witnessing the increase in creativity, self-esteem and respect for others in students through their interactions with each other, plants, and their natural environment, lead me to believe that school gardens can be an integral component of holistic education.
Research Question
To what extent does school gardening, as an educational tool, provide a means towards achieving holistic education?
Objective
The broad objective of this research is to examine the role of school gardening as an educational tool and its relationship to curriculum development.
The specific objectives of this research are as follows:
• To explore the themes and guiding principles of holistic education theory and practice;
• To examine the literature pertaining to human-Nature connections with particular emphasis on people-plant relations;
• To explore and describe the phenomenon of school gardening as a teaching strategy.
Research Design
This exploratory and descriptive study examines the role of school gardening as an educational tool and its relationship to a holistic curriculum. It provides a comprehensive review of existing literature on holistic education theory and practice, human-Nature connections and the history of school gardening. The aim of the literature review is the discovery and bridging together of various disciplines to create a more thorough picture of the school gardening phenomenon. To meet the goals and objectives of my research study, several avenues of research were employed. As it is an exploratory study based on observations, an inductive approach was taken using grounded theory (Palys, 1997). Through the collection and analysis of data a theory was formed. The primary source of data consisted of personal communications, books, academic journals, theses, and Internet sites.
Case Study
My research included a case study consisting of interviews with six employees/volunteers from three schools and two “school greening” organizations all actively involved in school gardening projects in Ontario. The case study was conducted primarily as a supplement to the literature review, which was the main body of this research. Definitions were created for both school garden and holistic curriculum.
Data Collection of the Case Study
Five schools were purposively selected in consultation with Toronto District School Board/Evergreen Associate, Heidi Campbell. Ultimately, participants from three of these schools were willing to take part in the case study and discuss their experiences as active participants of school garden projects. In addition to interviews from the Toronto District School Board, I was able to make contact with a “school greening” organization in Ottawa. All together the interviews included the head science teacher of a secondary school, two elementary school principals, and three employees/volunteers from two “school greening” organizations. Open-ended questions were prepared in advance of the interviews (Questionnaire, Appendix B). Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person, via email and/or phone. Site visits included tours of two school gardening projects and attendance at the workshop, “Designing for Shade and Energy Conservation” put on by the School Ground Greening Initiative- a joint partnership of Toyota Evergreen and the Toronto District School Board. All interviews and site visits took place during January and February 2004. Although these interviews were only a supplement to the main body of my research, I found them to be extremely beneficial in understanding the practice and role of school gardening in Ontario.
Data Analysis
Indicative of a qualitative study, data in the form of literature and interviews was collected, brought together and categorized. Followed by further literature search and reflection, new categories and theories were constructed. This process was continued until the literature on this subject was exhausted. At this point themes, connections and theories were integrated and finalized.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of my major paper was based on a constructivist approach. It is an approach that acknowledges a learner’s prior experiences, promotes challenging situations and impromptu tangents and supports learning that is imaginative and creative (Kahn, 1999). Constructivism views learning as a process of transformation versus a replacement or mere stacking of one’s former knowledge. In his book The Human Relationship with Nature, Kahn (1999) states from the perspective of a constructivist that research and education are quite similar and provides the following quote from Dewey [(1916)1966] “all thinking is research and all research is native, original with him who carries it on, even if everybody else in the world already is sure of what he is still looking for.” (p. 148).
Limitations of the Study
The research would have benefited from a more in-depth case study but being as it was exploratory, it provided preliminary findings from which to base future research studies. Timing was also a factor in the case study as visits occurred during the winter months when school gardens were covered by snow. Although I tried to conduct this research with an open mind, personal bias may have played a role in the selection of literature, which were used to support the theory that school gardens are an integral component of holistic education.
Significance of the Study
School gardening as a component of holistic education can provide the opportunity for individuals and communities to form connections with Self, subject, community and the natural environment thereby finding meaning and purpose in a fragmented society. It is hoped that this study will contribute to the dynamic and exciting fields of urban agriculture, ethnobotany, holistic education, environmental education and landscape architecture. It is intended to link theory and practice and assist those wishing to gain insight into the school gardening movement and holistic education in North America. It is also hoped that the research findings will benefit educators in Ontario through the provision of recommendations that will assist in the incorporation of school gardening within the curriculum. As the need for an education holistic in nature grows, this study provides the foundation for further research studies.
Chapter 2: Holistic Education
Introduction
Chapter two presents a literature review of the guiding principles and themes of holistic education. Section one examines the ideas of holistic education theorists past and present. Section two presents several models illustrating educational approaches within holistic education. Specifically, models representing the approaches to instruction and curriculum, the relationships of holistic education, the connections within education and the three forms of integrated curriculum. The philosophies of holistic education most reflect my own ideologies and approaches to education. It is for this reason that the theory and practice of holistic education is examined and in subsequent chapters juxtaposed with the pedagogical tool of school gardening.
Theorists Past and Present
The theory and practice of holistic education is not a recent phenomenon. Socrates, Plato, Rousseau, Froebel, Pestalozzi and Dewey are considered early scholars in the field of holistic education. It is a dynamic field that continually evolves and is enriched by models, strategies, and perspectives developed by educators and philosophers who are holistic in orientation (Steiner, 1986; Miller, 1993; Orr, 1994; Miller; 1996). The following section highlights holistic education theorists of the last two centuries. Their ideas and beliefs vary as do the topics they express which include: eco-literacy, sense of place, historical and social context of education, dialogue, spirituality and education, multiple intelligences and integrated curriculum, to name a few (Gardner, 1983; Drake et al., 1992; Orr, 1992; Miller, 1993; Wilber, 1995; Abram, 1996; Miller, 1996; Bowers, 1998; Bell, 2000). In the subsequent section, theorists whose approaches and concepts provide support and framework for this paper are explored in greater depth.
Three Holistic Educators and their Schools
Montessori (1916-1965), founder of the Montessori School in Italy and advocate of sensory-based pedagogy, was one of the first educators to acknowledge the significance of school gardens in providing hands-on experience (Andrews, 2001). Steiner (1861-1925) an Austrian philosopher, holistic scholar and creator of Waldorf education used “the arts” to unite teaching and learning (Childs, 1991). Malaguzzi, (1920-1994) an early childhood education specialist and founder of the Reggio Emilia school, celebrated the hundreds of ways in which children learn and grow (Luera and Hong, 2003). All three educators and their schools are often cited in literature as examples of holistic education theory and practice.
For Steiner, a student’s intellectual achievements are but a component of the aims of education. In fact, the Waldorf curriculum mandates the use of artistic teaching and learning approaches in early grades prior to the introduction of intellectual approaches in the later years. Steiner disagreed with the widespread belief that human beings are mere machines devoid of spirit and soul. He saw education as the development of the “whole” child. Illustrated in the Waldorf School curriculum is Steiner’s interest in the integration of spiritual thinking and experience with that of the scientific method (Childs, 1991). In addition, Waldorf education places strong emphasis on the relationship between the teacher and student. Steiner, himself, even recommended that teachers visit their students at home in an aim to better the student-teacher relationship. In addition, Steiner criticized the reliance by educators and the educational system on textbooks and other teaching resources as he felt they weakened relationships that the learner had with Self, subject, teacher, community and natural environment (Childs, 1991). This is also an opinion common among educators of diverse disciplines including other holistic educators (Courtenay-Hall, 1998; Bowers, 1998). Steiner also stressed the utmost importance for teachers to create and recreate curriculum in the spirit of the philosophy of the school. He believed it was beliefs and practices that unified a school, not the principal or headmaster. The only compulsory subject in the Waldorf School curriculum is eurythmy- ‘soul gymnastics’. Much like Froebel, Steiner believed exercising and strengthening the connection between body and mind was essential to education. As summarized by Childs (1991), “Steiner claimed that for true personal freedom and social liberty to come about, there must be a progressive emancipation from every externally imposed constraint on behaviour, with each individual discovering the realities of truth and freedom from within” (p. 206). This is a view held by many holistic theorists and educators.
The Reggio Emilia approach is named after the Italian town where Malaguzzi worked to create an educational community, consisting of teachers, parents, community members and students, which continues to this day. As highlighted by Luera and Hong (2003) “the Reggio Emilia approach emphasizes the social construction of knowledge, the utilization of the environment as a teacher, and the representation of ideas in multiple symbolic modes” (p. 9). It is an approach interested in the intellectual, moral, social and emotional growth and development of the learner (Edwards et al., 1998). Malaguzzi’s poem, No Way. The Hundred Is There, is an excellent representation of his beliefs of the multiple intelligences, talents and abilities of students and the manners in which they learn and develop (Poem, Appendix A). Malaguzzi’s approach to education acknowledges the importance of the teacher-student relationship, the value of dialogue and the context in which learning and teaching takes place. Teachers at the Reggio Emilia School are encouraged to view students in a holistic manner- to see them in relation to their family, classmates, their community and the environment, as a whole. In addition, the Reggio Emilia philosophy emphasizes the need for continual revision of its educational theories and practices to reflect the dynamic and cultural context in which education occurs. The significance of the physical environment to education is represented in the Reggio Emilia philosophy (Edwards et al., 1998). The environment is used as a pedagogical tool to provide a place for exploration, problem solving, discoveries, imagination and motivation. Other holistic education theorists including Froebel, Rousseau, Dewey, Orr, Moore and Hart would agree with the importance of linking the environment with education and the benefits that it can provide (Rousseau, 1979; Alexander, 1987; Orr 1992; Miller, 1993; Moore, 1995; Hart, 1997). In addition, the Reggio Emilia approach challenges the prevalent dichotomies of ‘play versus study’, ‘achieving versus harmony’, ‘science versus art’, ‘individual versus community’, and ‘child versus adult’, a stance common among holistic theorists and educators (Edwards et al., 1998). Finally, Malaguzzi viewed teaching and learning as a process, a belief shared by many in holistic and environmental education (Orr, 1994; Pivnick, 1997; Bowers, 1998; Bell, 2000).
Additional Theorists/Educators
David Orr, as a philosopher, an author of several books including Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect and chair of an Environmental Studies program at Oberlin College, is often cited in holistic education literature. In his book Ecological Literacy, Orr highlights the importance of educating students to be able to make connections inherent in themselves and the world around them. He also proposes six essentials to creating an ecological education.
First, all education is environmental education. Second, environmental issues are complex and cannot be understood through a single discipline or department. Third, for inhabitants, education occurs in part as a dialogue with a place and has the characteristics of good conversation. Fourth, the way education occurs is as important as its content. Fifth, experience in the natural world is both an essential part of understanding the environment, and conducive to good thinking. Sixth, education relevant to the challenge of building a sustainable society will enhance the learner’s competence with natural systems (pp. 90-92).
In describing his new approach to education, he imagines what Nature as a teacher would provide, “…one might imagine the earth would teach us: silence, humility, holiness, connectedness, courtesy, beauty, celebration, giving, restoration, obligation and wildness” (Orr, 1994, p. 52). In addition, he states, “an ecological education means changing the substance and process of education contained in curriculum, how educational institutions work, the architecture within which education occurs and most important the purposes of learning“ (Orr, 1994, p. 33). In doing so, he echoes the thoughts and ideas of many within the field of holistic education, and provides a guide for much discussion in subsequent chapters.
Holistic education theorists and progressive schools argue that multiple intelligences exist and that cognitive development is but one form of intelligence. Linguistic, logical/mathematical, intrapersonal, interpersonal, musical, kinaesthetic and visual/spatial are the seven intelligences as presented by Gardner (1983). Although Miller, a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), admires the seven intelligences theory he does not agree with the belief that all learning occurs in the brain. He makes the claim, “…some learning cannot be connected to a physiological place in the body but is characterized instead by paradox, spontaneity and mystery” (1996, p. 104). He sees the soul-based approach to learning as presented by Moore (1992) as being a complement to Gardner’s multiple intelligences framework. For that reason Miller argues for a curriculum that includes intuition and thus a means in which to “bring soul, life and vitality back into the classroom” (1996, p. 105).
On publishing the 2nd Edition to Holistic Curriculum in 1996, Miller wrote that “Holistic Curriculum is about connections and this book has its own set of connections” (p. ix). He also described his view on holistic education as being in a state of continual evolution. A divide exists within holistic education between those that view personal development as the ultimate goal and those that view social transformation as the ultimate goal. Miller (1996) argues for both personal growth and social change as the goals of holistic education. Personal growth and social change are also considered to be at the heart of the transformative approach, an approach that is described shortly. Similarly Prakash and Waks (1985) reason that, “…self actualization without social responsibilities is an illusion” (p. 85). In addition Orr (1994) argues, that with knowledge comes responsibility and thus the two are inseparable. Miller’s models, specifically those pertaining to his three approaches to holistic education, and the connections to Self, subject, community and the natural world, provide a framework for discussion and analysis in this paper. Combined with theories and practices from various disciplines, these models provide the basis from which the relationship of school gardening as a pedagogical tool and holistic curriculum is explored.
Education Models and Holistic Education Theory and Practice
Intelligence is framed and developed by all kinds of interactions with the world, including human communication, both linguistic and nonlinguistic; thus, language plays a strong - but not the only- role in the refinement of thinking (Snyder, 1995, p. 178).
Educational scholars have developed a variety of frameworks to illustrate and explain educational approaches that apply to both formal and non-formal education. The following section presents several models in relation to holistic education.
Instruction & Curriculum Approaches
MilIer (1996) developed a model representing three educational approaches or positions. The three positions- transmission, transaction, transformation- are described as being interrelated and cumulative as illustrated in the following diagram.
Figure 1: A Holistic Stance
(Miller, 1996, p.8)
While Miller emphasizes the transformation position as the best approach to achieving Holistic Education, he acknowledges that each position has relevance depending upon the educational context in which they are used.
In the transmission position knowledge is viewed as content, the educator as a powerful holder of knowledge and the learner as a passive participant (Miller, 1996). Freire (2002) has labeled this approach as “Banking”. In contrast, in the transaction position knowledge is viewed as a process and the emphasis is on the individual learner and the interaction between the learner, the educator and the environment. While student-educator dialogue is emphasized, the nature of this interaction is intellectually based “since analysis is stressed more than synthesis and thinking more than feeling” (Miller, 1996, p. 7). Cognitive growth and the acquisition of problem solving skills are key objectives of the transaction position with the scientific method providing the framework for learning and the learner is viewed as the problem solver. Dewey’s (1859-1952) pragmatic approach to education is often citied as representative of the transaction position. In addition the transaction approach is an approach in which humans are typically viewed apart from Nature. The transaction position is the most commonly used approach in environmental education and perhaps in education, in general (Russell, 2001).
In the transformation position a holistic approach to thinking is assumed. The development of an individual’s aesthetics, moral, physical, and spiritual Self is seen as important as the development of cognitive abilities. The focus of the transformation position is on the development of the whole individual. Students, teachers and curriculum are connected. Teaching techniques include cooperative learning, whole language and creative problem solving (Miller, 1996). As represented by the outer most ring in Figure 1, the transformation position is the most inclusive of the three approaches to education. Miller’s model of three approaches to education is presented by Russell (2001) (Table 1) together with several models reflecting similar themes of education instruction and curriculum.
Table 1: Curriculum and Instruction Models
|Miller (1993a) |Transmission |Transaction |Transformation |
|Eisner (1979) |Technology |Cognition |Social Reconstruction |
| | |Personal Relevance | |
| | |Social Adaptation | |
|Prakash & Waks (1985) |Technical |Rational |Personal |
| | | |Social Responsibility |
|Greig, Pike & Selby (1989) |Fragmentalism |Pragmatism |Holism |
|Bowers & Flinders (1990) |Technocratic |Academic Rationalist |Critical Pedagogical |
|Berlak & Berlak (1983) |Knowledge as Content |Knowledge as Process |Personal and Public Knowledge |
Russell, 2001, p. 52
The three worldviews - fragmentalism, pragmatism, holism, - as identified by Greig, Pike and Selby (1989) correspond well with the positions described by Miller. In her analysis of environmental education theory and practice Russell (2001) identifies the usefulness of Miller’s model. She uses the three positions - transmission, transaction and transformation - to observe the differing beliefs held by educators towards Nature and environmental education. In doing so, she not only highlights the differences but also the interrelatedness of the three approaches (Table 2).
Table 2: Approaches to Environmental Education
|Curriculum Position |Transmission |Transaction |Transformation |
|(from Miller,1993a) | | | |
|Approach to Nature |Nature as resource |Nature as resource |Nature as more than a resource, |
| | | |nature as home |
| |Nature as series of building |Nature as complicated system but | |
| |blocks |manageable through rational |All life interconnected and |
| | |planning and the use of science |interdependent |
| |Humankind separate from and |and technology | |
| |superior to nature, ie. | |Biological and cultural diversity |
| |anthropocentric |Humankind separate from and |valued |
| | |superior to nature | |
| |Technical solutions to | |Relationships both among humans |
| |environmental problems | |and between humans and other life |
| | | |important |
|Approach to Environmental |Banking |Student-centred |Student-centred |
|Education | | | |
| |Behavioural modification and |Problem-solving |Personal growth and social change |
| |technofix solutions | | |
| | |Skill development |Development of “whole” person |
| |Science dominant | | |
| | |Action-oriented |Commitment to social and |
| | | |environmental justice |
| | |Other disciplines valued but | |
| | |science dominant |Collaborative, participatory |
| | | | |
| | | |Interdisciplinary |
Russell, 2001, p. 53
Six Relationships of Holistic Education
If my course has no direct application to or utility within other courses being taught in this school as well as the world outside these walls, and I can find no way to help my students make those linkages and relate them to their own lives, then I can only conclude that the course should not be offered at all (Wigginton, 1986 p. 201).
Miller (1996) defines holistic education and in doing so outlines six relationships (Table 3). These relationships include “the relationship between linear thinking and intuition, the relationship between mind and body, the relationships between various domains of knowledge, the relationships between the individual and community, the relationship with earth and the relationship between self and Self” (p. 86).
Table 3: Connections in Holistic Education Curriculum
|Analytical-Intuitive Thinking |Community Connections |
|• Metaphor |• Cooperative Learning |
|• Guided Imagery/Visualization |• Invitational Education |
|• Critical Thinking |• School Community Connections |
| |• Global Education |
|Body-Mind Connection |Earth Connections |
|• Movement |• Indigenous People’s Literature |
|• Dance |• Environmental Education/ |
|• Drama/Improvisation |Deep Ecology |
|• Mindfulness | |
|Subject Connections |Self Connections |
|• Theme-Based Learning |• Literature, Story and Myth |
|• Integration Through the Arts |• Journal Writing |
|• Story Model |• Story/The Universe Story |
(Miller, 1996, p. 87)
I have combined the relationships between linear thinking and intuition, mind and body, and Self into one; therefore representing Self in its entirety as mind, body and spirit. It is through the development of relationships with Self, school subjects, community, and the natural world that students gain purpose and meaning. And it is the acknowledgement of these relationships and gaining of skill by which to transform these relationships that defines holistic education curriculum. The following is a diagrammatic representation of how I envision each of these relationships as outlined by Miller (1996) in relation to one another.
Figure 2: Connections within Education
This diagrammatic representation illustrates the core of holistic education philosophy as it relates to the development of connections a learner creates with Self, subject, community and Nature. The rings, each representative of a multitude of connections, are interrelated, cumulative and of equal importance. At the centre is located the connections the learner has with Self. These include the connections between mind, body and spirit. The second ring represents the connections between the learner and their school subjects including learner-subject and subject-subject connections. The third ring represents connections between learner and community. These include the learner-classroom, learner-school and learner-city connections. The fourth and final ring represents connections between the learner and Nature.
As mentioned previously in the definition of holistic education, connections are the central focus of holistic education theory and practice, and it is through connections within Self, subjects, community and Nature that a learner gains personal meaning and identity. This idea is very much in contradiction to Western popular belief, which views self-worth and purpose as being primarily associated with the mind (Greig, Pike and Selby, 1989). In subsequent chapters the potential of school gardening to provide opportunity to either uncover or create each of these four connections is discussed.
Connections with Self, Subject, Community and Nature
The following section identifies the meaning and significance of each of the connections in relation to holistic education theory and practice appropriate to each.
Self
As we journey outward to learn of the world, we also engage in a journey into self (Selby, 1999. p.132).
Holistic education curriculum provides opportunity for intellectual, social, emotional, moral, intuitive and creative potential of the students to be cultivated and guided. It provides skills training in combination with growth of character and spirit of each child. Exploring connections between mind, body and spirit is very much at the heart of holistic education philosophy. In his book Holistic Curriculum, Miller (1996) examines separately analytic-intuitive thinking, body-mind connection and Self connections (Table 3). I have chosen for this paper to combine them under the concept Self as demonstrated by Figure 2. However, the emphasis of balancing cognitive and intuition-direct knowing in educational approaches; incorporating various forms of movement and dance to link the entities of body and mind; and enhancing spirituality through an exploration of world religions and educational theorists and their philosophies, meditation, and imagery.
Subject
The goal of education is not mastery of subject matter but master of one’s person. Subject matter is simply the tool (Orr, 1994, p. 13).
Throughout education literature, and more specifically holistic education literature, the importance of a learner’s connection to subject matter is emphasized. It is often referred to as the authenticity or relevance of subject matter to the learner. The manner in which a subject is presented impacts what is learned and how a subject is learned is often more valuable than the subject itself. Holistic educators argue for multiple approaches to teaching and learning and discourage learner passivity, memorization, and overuse and dependency on textbooks, as they tend to diminish subject-Self and teacher-learner connections. They also encourage teachers and student to make the connections between classroom instruction and personal life experiences.
In her book, Teacher, Ashton-Warner (1963) describes her teaching experience with Maori children in New Zealand. Her educational approach, founded in the connections with Self and Nature, is visible in her teaching practices. For example, she taught numeracy lessons in Nature incorporating the natural environment in her teachings. She also emphasised the importance of students as the central focus of education rather than the subjects, adding to the relevancy of connections with subject matter. In addition, Wigginton’s (1986) quote, as presented under the heading “Six Relationships of Holistic Education” highlights yet another educator’s view of the importance of learner-subject and subject-subject connections in providing relevance and authenticity to education.
In a conversation between Abram and Jardine (2000), Abram, a cultural ecologist and environmental philosopher, discusses the importance of subject-Self connections in regards to his own personal experiences at school. “I would love to have been assigned in high school math class: “what sort of mathematics might an octopus devise (or a consortium of octopi) devise? Or: Consider the web-weaving spider” (p. 170). “The chance to ponder such questions in the classroom would link mathematics to the bodily imagination as well as to the analytical intellect- would likely help students recognize early on, that mathematics is an imaginative endeavour as well as a ready-made set of abstract tools” (p.170). In school curriculum, knowledge and experience have been parceled into various school subjects for the convenience of study. Often, what a student learns remains contained within these arbitrary divisions as little linkage is made between subjects. Holistic education theory and practice encourages the integration of subjects. Approaches to integrating subjects are discussed shortly under the heading, “Integrated Curriculum”.
Community
They are their subject matter, and for them, the inescapable linkages between that subject matter, their communities, their student and the globe come so automatically that for them to teach otherwise - to teach a course in isolation from the world outside the school facility - would be literally impossible (Wigginton, 1986, p. 200).
A holistic educator views the culture of classroom, and of school to be in continual interaction with the culture of society. Thus, in identifying the connections within community there are really three types. First, is the student-classroom connection. This connection includes those relationships with peers, teachers and the physical space. The significance of environment to learning is repeatedly discussed by scholars, educators, and philosophers of landscape architecture, environmental education, and holistic education (Sebba and Churchman, 1986; Orr, 1994; Edwards et al., 1998; Kahn, 1999). By linking “place and pedagogy” students are better able to link experience and learning; to observe while integrating concepts and ideas from a diversity of disciplines; and to gain a sense of place through a feeling of rootedness derived from an understanding of the surroundings in which they live and grow.
The student-classroom connection is important, not only because it enhances student self-esteem and in return student learning, but also because in the creation of a sense of community, student needs are more likely met, reducing the issues of unwanted behaviour and issues pertaining to classroom control (Wigginton, 1986). Once again it promotes a sense of belonging. In holistic education the teacher is viewed as a co-learner (Greig, Pike and Selby, 1989). Teachers learn with their students from the multitude of experiences, perspectives, personalities, abilities and insights each student brings to and develops within the class. Student-community is the second connection.
The Reggio Amelia approach illustrates the creation of an educational community consisting of students, community members, teachers and parents dynamic in nature and ever-changing in relation to a social and political context. Wigginton (1986) emphasized the importance of connections with community and the success of the school’s newsletter. The physical environment is also a part of the community. Wigginton (1986) provided an example of integrating culture and environment in a wandering discussion on the wonders of plant and bee communication, honeycomb architecture, and human inspiration for poems written about flowers.
Nature
Connections with the natural world are acknowledged in the stories and myths of indigenous peoples, the writings of environmental philosophers and in the academic literature from the fields of environmental education, deep ecology and eco-feminism. However, in Western culture the interaction of youth with the natural world is often limited. Children are spending less time outdoors exploring and more time indoors in front of televisions and computers (Hart, 1994). Iltis (1973) describes the loss in people-plant connections among industrialized societies. In a discussion between Abram and Jardine (2000), Abram in discussing his school experience states, “schooling did indeed hurt me, wounded me bad. The schools I went to didn’t leave any room between their four walls for such folks as myself…they didn’t recognize any value in the sort of delicious somatic empathy I inadvertently felt in relationship to creatures and grasses and rock faces, and in general, every sensorial thing I met and pondered…” (p. 174). Holistic education aims to unite everything to an ultimate reference point, the universe and in so doing provides an education that is more inclusive. It links knowledge of Self, others, and surroundings into a holistic understanding of the magnificent world in which we live.
Integrated Curriculum
Three Variations
As previously mentioned, integrated curriculum is an approach to teaching whereby courses are taught in a manner emphasizing relationships among disciplines. Holistic education theory and practice encourages the use of integrated curriculum. However, within integrated curriculum variations exist. Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary are three variants of integrated curriculum, which differ in relation to the kinds of connections created between the various disciplines.
In a multidisciplinary approach, subjects (ie. geography, language and science) remain separate but are linked by a common theme or issue, such as food. Each subject then studies the theme independently. In an interdisciplinary integrated curriculum the separation existing between the subjects is lessened. School subjects are still identifiable but are brought together for study of a particular theme or topic. Common essential learning requirements such as literacy, science and research skills form the basis for connections between the various subjects (Drake et al., 1992). Often, the interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning involves the integration of two or three subjects in problem solving. A discipline or field of research can also be classified as interdisciplinary such as ethnobotany or environmental studies.
A transdisciplinary integrated curriculum involves the integration of nearly all subjects around broad themes or activities. In a transdisciplinary approach, division between subjects is non-existent, and content and theme are one and the same. In addition to connecting subjects, a holistic curriculum approach also aims to create connections within Self. van Dusseldorp (1992) describes the transdisciplinary approach as, “An overarching paradigm encompassing a number of disciplines “ (p. 40). The Waldorf School is an example of the use of “the arts” including storytelling, painting, music and eurythmy to unite curriculum as well as mind, body and spirit (Childs, 1991). Miller (1996) describes the role of a holistic educator as a source of relatedness and wholeness, in comparison to other approaches to education where educators are viewed more as facilitators or trainers or “knowers” of all knowledge. In essence, knowledge is transdisciplinary when learnt in a generic sense. The transdisciplinary approach offers an alternative to educators struggling to keep up with the ever-increasing supply of new knowledge.
Examples
Drake et al. (1992) developed an integrated curriculum using the story model as the central organizer. Their aim was to develop an integrated curriculum based on holistic education theory and practice. Developing Integrated Curriculum Using the Story Model, is more of a personal account of the process that the authors took while developing the integrated curriculum than “step by step instructions” to be followed. An important objective of integrated curriculum and learning is the ability to make connections with Self, subject, community and the natural world, a skill and process that Drake et al. (1992) acknowledged both teacher and student must participate in. As presented in holistic education theory it is through participation that authenticity is enhanced and the relationship between student and teacher strengthened. However, Drake et al. (1992) do acknowledge the factors of time and practice that are required by both teacher and student. Drake et al. (1992) also describe the process of moving from a multidisciplinary curriculum to an interdisciplinary curriculum and eventually to a transdisciplinary curriculum as highly valuable and highlight the shift in perspective, which needs to occur at each stage. In addition, they acknowledged the difficulty they faced in identifying curriculum objectives and evaluation methods that were representative of holistic learning theories and their personal teaching practices. However, a list of potential evaluation techniques was provided which include: observation journal by teacher, student portfolio, peer/self evaluation, teacher-student interviews, graphic representation (concept maps, summary diagrams, and flip chart presentations), and independent study projects, which the student chooses.
Clipsham and Charbonneau (1994) provided an additional example of educators coming together to create integrated curriculum. In this case, an integrated thematic unit was developed using food as the topic. Food was chosen for its relevance to youth and because it was considered by educators to offer the greatest opportunities for integrating traditional subjects. Poltkin (1994) also agrees that the topic of food and food production provides an excellent opportunity for connections to be made between urban and rural, local and global and even within a community. A process oriented democratic student driven approach was incorporated rather than the traditional teacher driven content oriented approach often used. An awareness – analysis – action model was developed and represented the learning process of the students. The goal was one of “processed mindedness” (Pike and Selby, 1988). Evaluation methods utilized included summative evaluation techniques targeted at specific subjects, formative evaluation techniques focused on evaluating the process and peer evaluation methods. In general the evaluation of skill development was more the focus than the actual content learned. Additional examples of integrated curriculum in relation to topics from the disciplines of environmental education and ethnobotany are presented in Chapter three.
Chapter Summary
In summary, in Chapter two holistic education, is presented as a dynamic field continually being enriched by new theories, models and approaches. Early holistic scholars and theorists include Socrates, Rousseau, Froebel, Pestalozzi and Steiner, Montessori, Malaguzzi and Dewey. Also identified were several themes and concepts of holistic education including eco-literacy, integrated curriculum, dialogue, sense of place, experiential learning and multiple intelligences. In addition, particular emphasis is placed on several theorists including Steiner, the founder of the Waldorf School; Malaguzzi the founder of the Reggio Emilia School; Orr, the philosopher who coined the term ecological literacy and believes all education should be environmental education; and lastly Miller, the author of Holistic Curriculum and the creator of two educational models.
It was Miller’s models that formed the basis of my own model, the “Connections within Education”. My model provides a means by which educators can examine the connections of Self, subject, community and Nature within education. It also helps to visualize the categories and acknowledge the interconnectedness of these categories.
Additionally, this chapter presented the process necessary to achieve integrated curriculum and highlighted the significance of it for educators and students.
Chapter 3: Human-Nature Connection
Introduction
In Chapter one a definition of holistic education was provided. As previously identified, it is the formation of relationships within Self, school subjects, community and the natural environment that is at the core of holistic education. In essence it is through these connections that a learner gains identity and purpose. The belief in multiple forms of intelligence and the emphasis on the learning process, sense of place and experiential and authentic learning were also identified in Chapter two as integral components of holistic education theory and practice. The human-Nature connection, particularly as it relates to people-plant relations, is the focus of Chapter three. Three disciplines: human issues in horticulture, ethnobotany and environmental education, are identified to help illustrate the human-Nature connection and its relationship to holistic education. Each discipline offers a different perspective of the human-Nature connection and a variety of methods to achieve an education holistic in nature. It is through the human-Nature connection that I argue other connections and components of holistic education can be achieved, with the integration of school gardening within the curriculum. This notion is further supported and discussed in subsequent chapters.
Human Issues in Horticulture
It’s time we were placing plants where they belong, as the centerpieces of civilization that make our culture, industry, medicine and agriculture possible” (Poltkin, 1994, p.12).
A relatively new and promising area of research within the discipline of horticultural sciences is “human issues in horticulture”, also at times referred to as ”human horticulture relationships”, “people-plant interactions” and “sociohorticulture”. This emerging field combines horticulture expertise with human well-being. Research studies within human issues in horticulture are often designed to investigate the nutritional, therapeutic, physical, and social benefits derived from horticulture and Nature (Bradley and Skelly, 1997). The disconnection felt in Western society between people and Nature combined with economic pressures to place monetary value on all items is considered to be the reason the field of humans issues in horticulture was created (Lohr and Relf, 2000). Whether or not researchers agree with E.O. Wilson’s coined concept of ”biophilia”, referring to an innate love of Nature, most agree that a significant connection exists and has existed historically between people and plants, be it innate or cultural. Within human issues in horticulture the three areas of study are: horticulture therapy, community gardening and children’s gardening, including school gardens (Bradley and Skelly, 1997).
The psychological and physiological connections between people and plants are shown in the work of horticultural and environmental psychologists such as Chawla (1994), Kaplan (1983), Kaplan and Kaplan (1978), Kahn (1999) and Ulrich (1983). The landscape preference theories, developed by Kaplan and Kaplan, for the purpose of “valuing” State parks, are now used in studies examining people’s preference to vegetation in hospitals, federal prisons, retirement homes and childcare centres (Lohr and Relf, 2000). Other studies have been conducted to examine the role played by horticulture in relation to indoor air quality and shade for schoolyards and school buildings (Campbell, H., Evergreen Foundation, personal communication February 4, 2004; Lohr and Relf, 2000). Additionally, research has documented benefits of horticultural programs designed for “youth at risk”. Research has also shown that plants play a role in boosting self-esteem, reducing stress and enhancing interpersonal relationships (Lohr and Relf, 2000). In addition, research on children’s interactions with plants and the natural world have found correlations between interactions with the environment and the development of respect for interrelationships among all living things and increased environmental stewardship (Hart, 1997).
Enthusiasm for children’s gardens is increasing at botanical gardens, community gardens and public schools, as these gardens are seen as a means to enrich the educational experience (Bradley and Skelly, 1997). The design of children’s gardens at botanical gardens and universities across North America is on the rise, as investigations on the impact of gardening on child development grows. The National Gardening Association, the American Community Gardening Association and the American Horticultural Society, along with numerous botanical gardens, are readily promoting the integration of gardening into the school curriculum (Bradley and Skelly, 1997). Leading North American universities, including Texas A&M, Virginia Tech, Cornell and York University are conducting research on school gardening.
In the last ten years scholarly research on school gardening has increased. The focus of these studies has consisted of: the impact of school gardening on student nutrition, academics and environmental attitudes, social and psychological benefits for children and the essential requirements for a successful school garden, including teacher needs (Skelly and Bradley, 2000; Lohr and Relf, 2000; Waliczek et al., 2000 and 2001). Documented research is still limited as it is a new field and further research on personal growth, social skill development and environmental awareness is needed. The most commonly documented benefits of children’s gardens thus far include: opportunities for hands-on experiences, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary curriculum, imaginative learning and play; development of self-esteem and pride; increased awareness about healthy eating, food production, and environmental issues; and increased socialization among children and adults.
Research conducted within the field of human issues in horticulture appears to be driven by profitable gains for the horticultural industry. It is true that there are specific studies conducted by and for marketing initiatives as pointed out by the following quote.
Studies that focus on the human side of horticultural enterprises will be essential in the future as horticulture competes against an ever increasing multitude of options for the consumers of goods and services (Lohr and Relf, 2000, p. 31).
In addition Lohr and Relf (2000) state,
Businesses in the United States have begun to promote these newly documented impacts of plants on people. Data are being used to promote the green industries both by individual companies in the United States and by industry trade groups (p. 31).
The horticulture industry is also mentioned in relation to the “significance” or “current impact” of the research findings of studies conducted on school gardening. For example, Waliczek et al. (2000) highlight the benefits of their study for industry, “Knowing that parents are a large consumer group and that they are interested in teaching children about gardening at home allows the industry to direct efforts towards selling products to this market.” (p. 76). Teachers are also mentioned by this study as a profitable group to target by this study.
I agree that a partnership between industry and school can further school gardening projects, allowing students to learn about healthy lifestyles and the origins of food and gain hands-on learning experience, benefits highlighted by human issues in horticulture researchers. However, I am hesitant about the influence of industry on school gardening projects. There are additional benefits that school gardening can provide, that relate more to the philosophies of holistic education and a view of living in a more-than-human-world. “Pre-designed” and “pre-packaged” school gardening materials and resources might hamper holistic education goals, and restrict the gains of school gardening. It is argued by some in the field of environmental education that the focus on the production of profit-oriented programs and activities and the publication of glossy resources and videos has taken away from the real goals and objectives of environmental education. Gains derived from the process of learning, the collaborative effort of students and teachers and the development or reawakening of connections with Nature – the goals of holistic education – might be missed with such partnerships.
In her article, Exploring Horticulture in Human Culture: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Youth Education (1994) Eames-Sheavly examines the role of horticulture in human culture. She acknowledges that plants are often ignored in the curriculum, despite being valuable, and having significantly impacted and influenced historical events and culture. In addition, she argues that in linking human culture and horticulture through the exploration of food production, a potential “framework for integrating diverse subject matter with a multi-cultural focus” (p.77) can be developed. The proposal is an integrated curriculum or specific course that emphasizes the value of plants across cultures and provides an opportunity to examine differing worldviews. This is significant as elementary and secondary school curricula are often criticized for excessive emphasis on Western cultural perspectives and failing to provide an integrative framework.
Ethnobotany
In every case the scientific quest served as a metaphor, a lens through which to interpret a culture and acquire personal experience of the other…the means to rediscover and celebrate the enchantment of being human (Davis, 2001, p. 8).
An exploration of academic literature on people-plant connections would not be complete without a look at the discipline of ethnobotany. Ethnobotany, coined in 1895 by the American botanist Dr. Harshberger, is a study of connections between human culture and plants (Davis, 1995). Its origins can be traced back to the writings and illustrations of early explorers, botanists, adventurers, missionaries and naturalists, describing indigenous peoples’ uses of plants (Davis, 1995). Its approach to knowledge is interdisciplinary, drawing upon the disciplines of botany, economics, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, folklore, ecology and history, to name a few. As a result, ethnobotanists are often broadly trained in a discipline such as botany, with interests and expertises in another such as linguistics, an anomaly among researchers of highly specialized disciplines (Anderson, 1995). In the words of Anderson (1995), ethnobotany, as an academic course, has the ability to unite disciplines by illustrating the interrelationships that exist, to challenge students to think about the “whole picture”, to encourage them to pose questions not considered by narrowly specialized disciplines, and to provide knowledge “responsive to human needs”.
Ethnobotany may have originated as a means to identify and extract resources for Western society: “Ethnobotany was a strategy that sought to satisfy an economic imperative by yielding new natural products of commercial potential” (Davis, 1995, p.41). “From the start, then, ethnobotany has been intimately linked to botanical exploration, and its history has run parallel to the evolution of both systematic and economic botany” (Davis, 1995, p. 41). However, it also provides opportunity for active dialogue on differing worldviews and cosmological perspectives in regards to belief systems and lifestyles. In the words of Davis (1995), “On the contrary, it reveals traditional healers for what they are – active scientific experimenters whose work reflects social needs and whose laboratory happens to be the rainforest” (p. 41).
Balick and Cox (1996) state several reasons why ethnobotanists prefer to study pre-capitalist societies versus capitalist societies. Consumers in capitalist societies are often ignorant to the origins of manufactured goods and processing practices. However such knowledge compartmentalization, common in industrialized societies, is rare among pre-capitalist societies (Balick and Cox, 1996). Connections with plants, be it spiritual or material, are still revelled and celebrated, and knowledge pertaining to plant sources and preparations continues to exist. In addition, individuals in pre-capitalistic societies often take a more holistic perspective, in which they see themselves interconnected to Nature, the universe and the spiritual realms.
Schmidt (1995) acknowledges the potential of ethnobotany as a communicative science. Ethnobotany could be a bridge between science and the public and in so doing “engenders respect, sensitivity and opens thought to importance of plants and the value and validity of other cultures in today’s telescoping and fast changing world“ (Schmidt, 1995, p.191). In addition, ethnobotany exposes the loss in human culture diversity and world perspectives due to their vulnerability to the economic and social pressures of Western culture.
Environmental Education Theory, Practice and the Nature Connection
To see a wren in a bush, call it “wren”, and go on walking is to have (self-importantly) seen nothing. To see a bird and stop, watch, feel, forget yourself for the moment, be in the bushy shadows, maybe then feel “wren”- that is to have joined in a larger moment with the world (Snyder, 1995, p. 179).
In the late 1960’s environmental education incorporated several themes and principles from the areas of “nature study”, “conservation education”, “outdoor education” and “progressive education”. From “nature study” the importance of “first hand observations” was acquired. The emphasis on process versus teaching objectives or content and the use of the schoolyard and community habitat for instruction were obtained from “outdoor education”. The emphasis on education awareness of environmental problems and the need for resource management originated from the concepts of “conservation education”. “Learning by doing”, the holistic approach and a focus on integrated and interdisciplinary curriculum were the contributions of the progressive education movement of the 1930’s (Disinger, 1993).
In the 1970’s the focus on the interrelationships between humans and their environments was added to the practice of environmental education. Depending on the emphasis individual educators place on the previously mentioned themes and principles, the environmental education approach varies. For example, there are those who use a science-based environmental education curriculum, with emphasis on science and technology, problem solving and economic rationalization (Disinger, 1993). While others seek to challenge mainstream scientific ideologies, placing emphasis on spiritual and aesthetic understanding, encouraging discussion and debate on educational theories and strategies and viewing environmental education as a life long journey of adventure and discovery (Bowers, 1998; Courtenay-Hall, 1998; Hart et al., 1999).
‘Friluftsliv’ as a concept, a philosophy and even a form of environmental or outdoor education in Scandinavia and, in particular Norway and Sweden, refers to a feeling shared by outdoors people all over the world, i.e. a love of Nature and a view of living in more-than-human-world. This is also expressed as “…a comprehensive view of nature and the universe in which humans are perceived as but an element inextricably linked to the whole” (Davis, 1995, p. 49). Comparing Friluftsliv and environmental education provides an avenue in which to observe the varying ideologies, as previously mentioned, within the field of environmental education. Many environmental educators share a similar philosophy with Friluftsliv, in regards to emphasis placed on personal growth, connections and ecological responsibility. Additionally, the belief that love and respect for Nature requires first-hand and sensory rich experiences outside the classroom, where an emotional identity between learner and environment can be established, as opposed to in-class instruction and textbook learning, is also shared (Courtenay-Hall, 1998). Furthermore, they share the philosophy that emphasizes the importance of questioning human activities and their influence on environmental degradation, and they call for a shift in lifestyle perspectives from those of a Western society driven by consumerism and technology, to a lifestyle attuned to the ecological ways of the earth (Bowers, 1998; Hallen, 2000).
Gelter (2000) describes Friluftsliv as pedagogy with no curriculum, an approach promoted by some within environmental education (Pivnick, 1997; Bowers, 1998; Hart et al., 1999). The prescriptive nature of educational resources and curriculum guidelines, even within the discipline of environmental education, often limits teachers from examining their own educational beliefs, principles and practices. Linking education philosophies and practice is not always easy, but as stressed by Steiner, the founder of the Waldorf School, and many environmental educators, it is essential. The content learned in itself is not as important as the approach taken. Within Friluftsliv, a commercialization of activities has occurred. This commodification of knowledge is a thorn of contention among environmental educators who disagree with the reliance on industry for the development of curriculum materials. Rather, they prefer that educational resources be constructed through the interactions of teachers, students, and the environment using a variety of themes or activities.
Running-Grass (1996) proposes a new discipline called multicultural environmental education. It is a discipline that combines critical pedagogy, environmental justice and multicultural education with environmental education. Its themes, both integrative and dynamic, include ecology, culture and community (Running-Grass, 1996). As a discipline, it incorporates a multitude of cultural perspectives and acknowledges the social and political context within which education occurs. Its goal, similar to that of holistic education and environmental education, is the development of individuals who take responsibility for their actions.
Ecological literacy, a term Orr (1994) coined, refers to an education where people begin to see the connections all around them, including from within themselves, their community and the universe. In his words, it is “an education that is dedicated to search for patterns, unity and connections between people of all ages, races, nationalities and generations and between people and the environment” (p. 95) and is “driven by the sense of wonder, the sheer delight of being alive in a beautiful, mysterious, bountiful world” (p. 86). In his writings, Orr (1994) stresses the importance of the learning process, the need for integration of experience, learning, and disciplines and the significance of the environment in which learning occurs. Orr believes the place of learning should reflect the philosophies and practices being taught. He agrees that this is rarely achievable as classrooms, school buildings, and schoolyards often do not illustrate environmental stewardship, community nor connectedness even when these are the topics and themes being discussed by students and teachers.
Orr (1994) proposes, as one of his six principles to an ecological education, that all education should be environmental education. However, the infusion of environmental education in elementary and secondary school curriculum is a rarity. When included, it is often integrated by subject and not integrated by themes and issues (Disinger, 1993; Simmons, 1996). An alternative to the integration of environmental education throughout the curriculum is the provision of isolated environmental education programs usually in secondary schools. One or two teachers often teach the environmental education program or elective as this is often called. The program is generally arranged as an intensive program in which students can earn several credits from a range of courses including co-op education, physical education and geography. Russell and Burton (2000) conducted a study of a grade 12 environmental education elective at a secondary school in Ontario. Students registered in the course were asked to describe the three items they felt they most gained from the course. In reply, they expressed their excitement at learning by doing, the development of interpersonal skills and personal growth. Their responses are similar to holistic education objectives and are also what many environmental educators would deem favourable. Russell and Burton (2000) also identified four interrelated characteristics of environmental education programs. These include: 1) experiential learning – an engagement in real-life environmental and social projects bringing authenticity and purpose to learning, 2) a holistic approach to learning where kinaesthetic, affective and sensory learning and even moral and spiritual exploration are emphasised as much as cognitive development, 3) an interdisciplinary exploration of concepts and themes and 4) attention to relationships among humans, and between humans and Nature, and within the natural environment.
The connection between human beings and the natural world is a common theme within the prose of Nature writers (Carson, 1962; Berry, 1977; Berry, 1988; Pollan, 1991; Snyder, 1995; Abram, 1996; Kingsolver, 2000; Davis, 2001). However, since the 17th century, originating with the works of philosophers and scientists of the Western Scientific Revolution, this connection which had been described across cultures for thousands of generations appears to have been lost within Western society beliefs. The human world and Nature are very much considered separate entities in Western culture due to the prevalent beliefs in reductionism, materialism, rationalism and utilitarianism (Greig, Pike and Selby, 1989). Human beings isolated from Self, from others and from the natural world in which they live is how Miller (1996) describes an urban setting in Western society.
Fragmentation is a term used frequently by Nature writers and environmental education scholars when portraying the mentality, way of life and education system found in modern society. Within our schools fragmentation is readily observed, as competitiveness and individualism are highly valued, the separation of mind and body and reason and emotion are learnt and the compartmentalization of knowledge into unrelated school subjects is taught. Nature writers, philosophers and educators alike are attributing the current social, ecological and cultural dilemmas to fragmented ways of thinking.
Interestingly, a debate exists within the field of environmental education on whether the human-Nature connection has really been lost in Western society, and therefore whether the focus of environmental education should be on creating, or merely unveiling, the connection between student and Nature. Pivnick (1997) would argue the latter, “that human nature connectedness is not lost or dead but rather vaguely distant, obscured, misted over” (p. 59) and that educators need to direct a student’s “attention to the wisdom which already exists within each of them by pointing to the small incidents which are bursting with signs of connection”(p. 62). Environmental educators, Pivnick states, ”… are required to muddle through the mess of ambiguous, uncertain, ever-changing life with their [our] students” (p. 62) thereby re-emphasizing the fact that environmental education, and education in general, should be authentic in the experience of the student and educator. As Pivnick (1997) claims, living ecologically is not so black and white; there is no easy solution to achieving environmental sustainability. Simply by instilling a sense of connection between student and the earth will not solve environmental issues and degradation, contrary to what many think. Instead, Pivnick (1997) recommends students and educators need to experience and travel the journey for themselves: an educational journey with no specified destination. Time, opportunity, and encouragement for students to discover, to explore, to experience and to reflect upon their learning journey is what environmental education and education, in general, needs to provide.
Chapter Summary
In summary, three diverse disciplines are presented in Chapter three to illustrate varying perspectives of the human-Nature connection and its relationship with holistic education theory and practice. Both human issues in horticulture and ethnobotany are academic disciplines that study the connection between people and plants. While research studies in human issues in horticulture tend to examine industrialized societies, ethnobotanical studies tend to explore pre-industrialized societies. However, both acknowledge the value of plants to human well-being be it spiritual, therapeutic, medicinal, material or nutrition, to name a few. In addition, both disciplines provide opportunities to explore connections beyond those of people-plant or human-Nature. Studies in both human issues in horticulture and ethnobotany provide insight into connections with Self and community in addition to Nature. In addition, ethnobotany as an interdisciplinary discipline, provides a framework for integrating curriculum with a multicultural focus. The human-Nature connection is also identified in the writings of Nature writers and philosophers and in the approaches to environmental education. Holistic education theory and practice is reflected in the philosophies and approaches of some environmental educators. Specifically, in regards to the emphasis on experiential learning, authenticity, sense of place and the connections with Self, subject, community and Nature.
Chapter 4: A Historical Perspective of School Gardening
Introduction
This chapter presents a historical review of the literature pertaining to the school gardening phenomenon. Section one focuses on the history of school gardening. Section two describes current research studies on school gardening and highlights a diverse array of school gardening projects occurring across North America. Section three presents a case study on school gardening in Ontario. The aim of Chapter four is to examine school gardening as a pedagogical tool and its relationship to holistic education theory and practice presented earlier in Chapter two. In particular, the potential of school gardening to provide an opportunity for the realization of connections within Self, subjects, community, and the natural world. In addition, the ability of school gardening to promote holistic education concepts of experiential learning, authenticity, multiple intelligences, and sense of place in contemporary education.
The History of School Gardening
The incorporation of school gardening within educational curriculum is not a novel idea. School gardens have been around for centuries and have served a multitude of purposes from their very beginning. They have been a place for children to play, to gain vocational and interpersonal skills, to produce and prepare food, to participate in hands-on learning activities and to explore connections within Nature. Education theory and practice is heavily influenced by social, political and economic factors at a given time and place (Youngman, 2000). The role of a school garden is not exempt from these influences and often mirrors the prevailing ideas and educational philosophies.
Comenius, a 16th century educator who believed schools should be a place for exploration, adventure and imagination, is considered to be one of the first advocates in Western society for a school garden in every school (HORT 6400, 2004). By the late 19th century many European countries including Austria, Hungary, Germany, France, and Great Britain had adopted the mandate requiring all urban schools to include a school garden (HORT 6400, 2004). This was at the time of the Industrial Revolution when more and more people were flocking to the ever growing and congested urban areas. The appeal of school gardens was in part to counter the ill effects city life had on children due to the lack of fresh country air. Enthusiasm for school gardening rose as European educators including Montessori and Froebel, strong believers in experiential learning, promoted the use of school gardens.
In North America, the first school garden was established in the late 1800’s (Green, 1999). School gardens were seen within the education system as a tool to improve teaching methods, to increase interest among students in learning, to promote interactive sciences and interdisciplinary learning, to provide vocational training and to develop social interpersonal skills (Jarvis, 1916; Ontario Department of Education, 1909). In response to the “back to nature movement” of the 1930’s, school gardens in North America were created to enhance spiritual connections with Nature and inspire a love for country life. Much as it had been during the British Industrial Revolution, school gardening during the Industrial Revolution in America was used to encourage outdoor activity to fight illness, such as tuberculosis, among urban dwellers. During both World War I and World War II, the production of food, the training of youth to become future labourers and the rousing of patriotism were the goals of school gardening (Green, 1999).
With the emerging environmental movement in the 1960s, school gardens were once again seen as a means to promote environmental awareness and to counteract the mainstream attitudes and ways of life of an ever-increasingly industrialized society. Another boom in school gardening has occurred since the 1990s, with a significant rise in the number of school gardens designed throughout North America (Bell, 2001a). In 1995 the California Department of Education launched the “Garden in Every School" initiative and since then many other States have followed suit to integrate gardens and food systems curriculum in schools (California Department of Education, 2002).
School Gardening in Present-day
By deepening your students’ understanding of and connection to food, you will do them a cultural, historical, scientific, physical and ethical service (Federico, 2001 p. 10).
Interest by teachers, staff and parents in North America continues to grow as scholarly journals in the disciplines of education, horticulture and landscape architecture document and describe school gardening practices. While the majority of research studies examine the positive attributes associated with school gardening, a number of recent studies have also highlighted barriers and challenges faced by educators wishing to include school gardening within the curriculum. In addition, research studies have investigated the importance of children’s participation in the design aspect, and the actual needs of the educators using school gardens, and have also identified success stories of school gardening integration. The interest in school gardening has not only resulted in the production of scholarly publications, but also books and internet sites directed at educators and parents with “steps to” designing successful school gardens (Appendix C). At present, the main interest in school gardening is its role as a teaching tool within the education system in relation to education about nutrition, food preparation and the environment (Bradley and Skelly, 1997). It is also viewed by some as a means to apply constructivist learning theory and to create garden-based interdisciplinary educational units (DeMarco, 1997).
In regards to school gardening experiences within Canada, literature is limited and tends to be descriptive and narrative in nature (Pennington, 1994; Bell 2001a; Bell 2001b; Houghton, 2003; Pevec, 2003). The book, A Breath of Fresh Air: Celebrating Nature and School Gardens published in 2003 beautifully presents an array of school gardening projects taking place in Toronto (Houghton, 2003). In addition, Grounds for Learning: Stories and Insights from Six Canadian School Ground Naturalization Initiatives published by the Evergreen Foundation highlights a group of diverse and innovative gardening projects across Canada (Bell, 2001a).
The following provides a summary of research studies investigating benefits gained by students active in school gardening programs. Researchers Eames-Sheavly (1994), Pevec (2003) and Midden and Chamber (2000) reported that school gardens provide students an opportunity to learn horticultural techniques, as well as the origins of food, medicine and cultural traditions. Studies conducted by Nagata and Raid (1998), as well as, Lineberger and Zajicek (2000) concluded that vegetable gardens in schools aided nutrition curriculum and are an effective educational tool in enhancing nutrition knowledge and nutritional attitudes of elementary students. Additional studies by Morris et al. (2000 and 2001) emphasized the role school gardens play in developing healthy lifestyles, diet and nutrition and food preparation.
Research by Waliczek (1997) found students self-esteem, confidence and pride increased with school gardening. Increased respect, knowledge and appreciation for Nature amongst students are further benefits associated with school gardening (Midden and Chambers, 2000; Skelly and Zajicek, 1998). Studies conducted by Skelly and Bradley, (2000) and Wagner and Fones (1999) examined the benefits of hands-on experience in school gardens and found instruction of traditional subjects including math, language arts and science were enhanced, and a diversity of skills gained including student responsibility and co-operation. Additional studies found school gardens to be effectively incorporated into multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary curriculum (Luera and Hong, 2003; Marturano, 1995; Skelly and Zajicek, 1998). As Moore (1995) states,
As a vehicle for interdisciplinary environmental education, gardens are unsurpassed. This is because they are constantly changing, highly attractive, interactive, motivational setting-a fertile source of language and scientific investigation (p. 230).
The ability of school gardening to provide opportunities for kinesthetic and active learning is documented by Federico (2001). She also described a variety of school gardening programs originating from the project “Kids Growing Food” presently run by New York Agriculture in The Classroom at Cornell University. One example of this is, an “after-school reading program” based on a school garden in which the students learn to read with the use of “gardening” books and activities in the garden. Also referenced is an inner city elementary school that makes use of a garden in an abandoned lot to teach world cultures, history and literacy.
A number of studies identified the barriers and challenges faced by those wishing to integrate school gardening within the curriculum. DeMarco (1997) highlights several factors under the categories of logistical, conceptual, educational and attitudinal that impact the successful use of school gardening. Results from surveys indicated, “The most essential factors were a person, or persons, who take on the responsibility for the gardening program, the availability of a site to grow plants, and adequate funding for gardening materials.” While interview results indicated, “Student ownership of the gardens and the integration of school gardening into the curriculum…” were most important. Additional influential factors identified included a “lack of preparation time for school gardening activities” and “lack of instructional time for learning using school gardening” (pp137-138).
In 2001 a number of ‘Growing Schools Initiative’ consultation seminars attended by the education community were conducted throughout England to identify those factors that might hinder the success of school gardening projects. Factors identified as most troublesome included: issues of health and safety, in particular foot and mouth disease outbreaks; shortages of skilled teaching staff to deliver activities and to make the most of all learning opportunities; bureaucracy of present school curriculum; obsession with good grades; and success often reliant on one person’s enthusiasm/dedication. Additional limiting factors included: lack of funding and other resources, demands of maintaining farm or allotment, current pressures in teaching and lack of experience/confidence in farming and growing, and a National curriculum too restrictive (Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, 2003). Interestingly these limitations are very similar to those highlighted in 1916 by Jarvis in Gardening in Elementary City Schools.
The needs of teachers using school gardening as a pedagogical tool was investigated by several studies. In a National Gardening Association survey of nearly one million elementary teachers in North America, over 50% stated their interest in introducing gardening in schools to enrich the curriculum. In addition 78% of teachers stated that they already garden at home (Gywnn, 1988). In a study conducted in the state of Virginia by Dobbs et al. (1998), 88% of elementary school teachers expressed an interest in introducing horticulture or school gardening, as a teaching strategy to satisfy Virginia’s curriculum requirements. Teachers in this study stated that teacher resources, lesson plans, audiovisual materials, volunteer support and workshops to integrate school gardening within the curriculum were the greatest need and essential to increasing school garden use among teachers. As a result of this study a course called “Integrating Horticulture into the Elementary School Curriculum” was created at Virginia Tech University. In addition, teacher workshops and fact sheets highlighting ways a garden can be used to meet curriculum guidelines were also developed (Dobbs et al., 1998).
A comprehensive review of Gardens in Every School Survey published in 2000 by the University of Massachusetts, questionnaires of participants of Growing Minds Through School Gardens Conference in 2001, and mini-grant applications to Massachusetts Agriculture in the Classroom from 1995 to 2001 also identified the needs of teachers interested in school gardening. These needs included hands-on and easy to use activities, garden related ideas and activities, activities that show connections, opportunity and means to network with other teachers, sources of grant funding, classroom community building and life skills, workshops and professional development. (Massachusetts Agriculture in the Classroom, 2003). In response to the University of Massachusetts review, a report was compiled on potential initiatives to assist teachers, and presented to the Board of Directors of Massachusetts Agriculture in the Classroom to aid in future planning of school gardening programs. Curriculum frameworks, a listserv for school gardeners, a guide for school-community-business partnerships, school gardening grants, a school garden institute, yearly/bi-yearly conferences on school gardening, and school garden award recognition were among the ideas proposed.
The focus of teacher resources regarding school gardening is often to assist the teacher in becoming more knowledgeable of gardening activities and to provide detailed information, steps and guidelines for them to follow. This could be very beneficial in one sense, but it can also take away from the development of personal connections and the learning process of both the student and teacher. A number of studies acknowledged teachers’ apprehension in not being able to answer all questions asked by students as a barrier to integrating school gardening activities (Midden and Chambers, 2000). However as Midden and Chamber found (2000), “In cases where a teacher did not know the answer, researching the topic with the child became a shared activity” (p. 390). Strict guidelines and book-centred activities prevent constructive learning by teachers and students and reduce authentic personal experiences and involvement. Educational resources can in fact put more onus on teachers. When in fact, it should be the student, in collaboration with other students and the teacher, who needs to do the work, and in the process learn from it (Courtenay-Hall, 1998; Wigginton, 1986).
Ethnobotany is an investigation into people’s relationships to plants. As an academic discipline, it explores cultural uses and views of plants and is interdisciplinary in nature. Plants are a basic need of humans. Research studies linking ethnobotany with school gardening are limited. However, documented throughout the literature are a few examples of gardens, activities or programs that have integrated them. Pevec (2003) Ethnobotanical Gardens: Celebrating the Link Between Human Culture and the Natural World is a great example of a school gardening program that connects a community in an exploration of its history, culture and ecology. Also Thibault (1994) discussed the use of a school garden as a means to explore culture and geography with students. This is achieved through student involvement in planning the garden including choosing the seeds and researching festivals and celebrations. She also discussed the ability of multiethnic gardens to “bridge communities” within urban settings regardless of language barriers through incorporation of parents and community members in gardening activities. The gardens provided opportunity for insight and reflection on local and world cultures and the environment observed through the perspective of food. “Schoolyard gardening offers students a hands-on opportunity to expand their awareness and deepen their understanding of how the peoples of the world go about meeting these basic needs” (Thibault, 1994 p. 15).
The garden as described by Gwynn (1988) provided “an opportunity to teach children about different cultures” (p. 23) and to reflect upon the multiethnic make-up of the school and community. The Three Sisters Garden is an example of a garden theme that has been incorporated into educational curriculum. The three sisters garden, based on a Native American legend, involves the planting of three crops, typically corn, beans and squash together in a circular formation (Sustainability Education Center, 2001). Garden designs such as these provide opportunity for dialogue on culture and tradition, as well as an exploration of horticulture techniques and symbiotic relationships in Nature. In addition, an ethnobotanical garden allows students to observe and reflect upon the significance of living within the limits of a local environment.
Learning to live in tune with Nature is a concept expressed by countless Nature writers and environmental education scholars in response to an ever-increasing reliance on technology and sophisticated transportation systems which is causing disconnection between habitants and habitats, and a loss of local knowledge about plants and their uses. As in the words of Pevec (2003) “Planting a vegetable garden, caring for it, and harvesting its fruits offers students opportunities to participate in natural cycles and in harvest festivals, ceremonies as ancient as human agriculture on Earth” (p. 26). Ethnobotanical gardens offer students an opportunity to reflect on what they eat, what they wear, why they celebrate certain festivals, where they live and how the things they use were made. It also provides an opportunity for students to gain insight into different world perspectives and human interrelationships with the natural world.
The design of school gardens from a landscape architecture perspective is the focus of several research studies. A common remark repeated in literature on school garden design is the need for student involvement in all stages of the development of the garden (Hart, 1994). Students’ ideas and interests are often not taken to heart by educators and architects who assume they know best. In all fairness, the links between education objectives and design concepts are not easily visible (Sebba and Churchman, 1986). However, a garden designed to embrace students’ desires is a garden most likely to meet their needs (Lucas 1995; Whiren, 1995). Interestingly, Lucas (1995) points out in “Learning Through Landscapes“ that there is a difference in students’ response to specific school garden design questions depending upon the manner in which the questions are posed. Furthermore, he recommends that students be asked the question, “what would you like to do in a school garden?” rather than “what do you want in the garden?” because a response to the latter question is more likely to be based on consumerism desires.
Heffernan (1994) states that the garden design should allow children to “directly experience more of the sights, smells, sounds, textures, tastes, cycles and mysteries of nature.” (p. 225), a view held by many who create gardens for children. Located on the Michigan State University campus is a half-acre plus 4-H Children’s Garden comprised of 60 theme gardens including the “sense-ational” herb garden, the cloth and color garden, enchanted garden, the perfume garden, the pharmacy garden, and the pizza garden, to name a few (Taylor, 1994). When asked, “children requested no “NO” signs in the garden” (Taylor, 1994, p. 24) and thus gardens were created with signs saying, ”please gently touch”.
Sebba and Churchman (1986) published a paper called Schoolyard Design As An Expression of Educational Principles. In it they state,
In existing schools, the yard should complement the building, to allow the implementation of educational principles difficult to achieve in the built context- free social organization, experience in movement, play and contact with nature in an open environment (Sebba and Churchman, 1986, p. 75).
Unfortunately, schoolyards typically remain empty and neglected, as they are not often considered part of the school environment, regardless of the principles and philosophies of the school curriculum. In a way, this illustrates how in a fragmented society, the philosophy of the school curriculum does not even extend to the school grounds.
Findings: School Gardening in Ontario
During the Winter of 2004, several interviews - in person, by telephone or by email - were conducted with school principals, teachers, volunteers and staff of “school greening” organizations. All interviewees were actively involved in school gardening initiatives in Ontario. This included two elementary school principals and one secondary school teacher in suburban Toronto and Ottawa and downtown Toronto as well as one volunteer and two staff members of two “school greening” organizations in Toronto and Ottawa. School size varied from 300 students to close to 1000 students.
A questionnaire (Appendix B) was provided prior to the interview as a guide for the semi-structured interviews, but questions on additional related topics were generated during the interviews. According to grounded theory methodology, the responses from all interviews were analyzed to identify common themes. The following is a summary of the data collected during these interviews.
It was noted that all participants interviewed were very enthusiastic about school gardening. Both of the principals and the teacher interviewed were instrumental in the development of the garden project at their schools. With the exception of one, none of the interviewees had a formal education in horticulture or landscape architecture. The vegetable gardens were in general part of much larger “school greening” projects. One school included a permaculture garden. Permaculture, “permanent agriculture” a term coined by Bill Mollison is,
"the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystem, which have the diversity, stability and resilience of a natural ecosystem" (Permaculture, March 22, 2004).
Additional greening activities included wildflower and butterfly gardens, a peace garden, a winter garden, composting areas, a circular outdoor teaching classroom, a mini pond aerated by solar panels, groves of trees and even a chicken coop. The vegetable gardens were relatively small in size and were located in close proximity to the school building, and in one case, situated in a central courtyard. Questions were targeted towards the use of school vegetable gardens, however answers often reflected the more encompassing project visions. While some projects had been in existence for 10 or more years, two in particular had begun in 1999 as “Millennium projects” with an environmental theme. However, all gardens, and projects reflected a dynamic and ever-evolving nature.
School garden activities included silent reading, observation, exploration, meditation, art and science curriculum, environmental education and the history and origins of food. In one school, the school garden was integrated with the grade two and three curriculum on food and nutrition. Student involvement was encouraged in all stages of the design, development and maintenance of the gardens. However, the use of the school vegetable garden was sporadic with the greatest activity occurring during the planting season. Multicultural education was not a theme of any of the vegetable gardens discussed.
An increase in student awareness of nutrition and food production, an appreciation for plant life, an increase in student self-worth and recognition of their achievements, a sense of responsibility to the Earth, community support and pride and cleaner air were all noted as benefits of school gardening. Participants of the interviews also mentioned several studies on the impact of schoolyard design and “greening” in relation to noise reduction, shade, wildlife habitat and student behaviour. In reference to the latter, a direct correlation between school grounds with grass versus black asphalt and reduction in number of suspensions and fights was mentioned.
Additional benefits reflecting themes of holistic education included improvements in student behaviour, an enhancement in student curiosity, spontaneity, and observational skills (encouraged at one school with PA announcements) and the ability of the gardens to meet a diversity of student needs and personalities. School gardens, were seen to provide relevance to learning and to provide an environment conducive to learning and in some cases as a teaching tool by which to integrate curriculum. In addition, the school gardens provided opportunity for increased interaction between students and their teachers and the Principal. Enhanced community spirit and aesthetics of the natural environment were also mentioned as benefits of the school garden. Connections among community members arose from the involvement of parents, volunteers, students, Principal and teachers in garden maintenance, an encouragement of older students who had graduated to return to visit the gardens, and in one school in particular, the delivery of letters to residents who lived near the school written by students about the gardening project.
Concerns or limitations acknowledged included the lack of integration of the school garden in all subjects. In some cases, a trip to garden was seen as a separate activity, and more of an excursion or break, from the learning occurring in the classroom. In addition, issues pertaining to Canada’s short growing season, the lack of storage facilities, the lack of funding opportunities, a shortage of time to meet mandated curriculum guidelines, overworked teachers and staff and concerns of liability were commented on.
Recommendations provided by the interviewees included: ensuring the garden has the support of the Board, the Principal and the teachers; ensuring the involvement of students in all stages of garden design; and establishing a gardening group or committee that will stick with the project. An additional recommendation included the hiring of a part-time gardener/instructor to look after the garden, to boost creativity and imaginative ideas, and to assist teachers and students to make connections between subjects, cross-disciplinary themes and personal experiences.
Chapter Summary
In Chapter four, a historical perspective is presented of the interest in school gardening during the last four centuries. A summary of research studies on school gardening is provided. Highlighted are the benefits gained by students active in school gardening projects including increased self-esteem, confidence, nutrition and agriculture awareness, and an appreciation for Nature. In addition, barriers and challenges such as lack of funding and time constraints and the needs of educators including activities that show connections and opportunities to network are presented. Interestingly, many of the strengths and weaknesses of school gardening and the needs of the educators identified in the early 1900’s are the same of those acknowledged today. What is new is the interest, of a few, in the use of ethnobotanical gardens at schools. By integrating the academic discipline of ethnobotany with the practical use of a school garden, it provides an opportunity for teachers and students to investigate the material, medicinal, nutritional and spiritual use of plants and to explore a diversity of world cultures and perspectives. Also identified are several studies on the importance of student involvement in garden design conducted by researchers in the field of landscape architecture. Findings from the case study conducted in Ontario during the Winter of 2004 supported the literature that school gardens provide opportunities for holistic learning. However, as mentioned by several participants, there was a lack in integration of school gardening within curriculum as a whole.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Final Reflections
Discussion
School gardening is certainly not a new concept. Educators have promoted it for centuries and its strengths and weaknesses are well documented. School gardening provides an opportunity for students to learn about local food production, and enhance their nutrition. It provides an opportunity for them to gain an appreciation for Nature, its diversity and for the ecological and cultural diversity within their communities. School gardening also provides opportunities for active learning and enhanced instruction of traditional subjects including science and language arts through hands-on learning. In addition, through participation in school gardening projects, students’ self-esteem and achievements are enhanced and student behaviour improved. School gardens provide a place for youth and adults to grow as individuals and as a community and to conduct themselves accordingly while respecting one another and the natural world that they share. However, school gardening projects are also hampered by a lack of funding for gardening resources, issues of health, safety and liability, garden maintenance demands, a lack of teacher preparation time for school gardening activities and restrictive curriculum guidelines.
In describing the mentality, way of life and education system found in Western culture, fragmentation is a term used frequently by Nature writers and environmental education scholars. In modern society the human world is often viewed as separate from Nature. Fragmentation is readily observed within our schools, as knowledge is divided arbitrarily into subjects, which are taught with little acknowledgement of each other. In addition, much emphasis is placed on intellectual learning and reasoning with little attention paid to intuition, experiences and connections between mind, body and spirit. As students search for meaning and purpose, their needs are often not met in traditional schools. An alternative education that is holistic in nature, that seeks to develop the ‘whole’ child through a balanced and interrelated curriculum and celebrates diversity in its teaching and learning approaches is required. I believe school gardening can play a vital role in providing an education that meets the needs of students.
School gardening, typically viewed in terms of its strengths and weaknesses could alternatively be viewed in relation to the opportunities it provides in the realization of connections within education. School gardening is a process - a process of defining connections. In the design and integration of a school garden, a transformation occurs not just in the aesthetics of the school grounds, but also within the relationships of the participating individuals. School gardening provides an opportunity to focus on connections within Self, subjects, community and Nature. It is a place of discovery, exploration and imagination where the diversity of intelligences, abilities and personalities of each and every student can be acknowledged. It is a place where connection between mind, body and spirit can be made. In addition, it provides an opportunity for students and teachers to reflect upon the interrelatedness of disciplines and a means by which to integrate school subjects through themes such as food and food production. School gardening provides an opportunity for the incorporation of hands-on learning and authenticity in classroom instruction. It also provides opportunity for the enhancement of connections within the educational community including connections between ‘students’, ‘students and teachers’ and ‘students and society’. Connections enhanced through dialogue and the sharing of ideas, experiences, worldviews, and emotions. School gardens also provide the opportunity to create or uncover the human-Nature connection through an enriched understanding of the importance of plants in meeting our daily desire including spiritual, material, nutritional and medicinal needs. School gardening can provide an opportunity for all of this and more, if viewed in terms of connections.
Final Reflections
My major paper is an account of the journey taken to integrate past experiences, educational philosophies, and diverse disciplines in search of an answer. Due to the constructivist approach that formed the theoretical framework of this paper, the journey entailed a process whereby prior knowledge was transformed. I started my Masters with the idea of identifying the factors that determined the success or failure of a school garden in part driven by a desire to understand my own experiences with school gardening projects. As I embarked on an exploration of the literature on school gardening, I also began to examine and reflect upon my own philosophies of education, as both a student and a high school teacher, spurred by dialogue with colleagues and professors. I came to realize that my own beliefs and ideas and my approaches to education whether it was as a student or educator were similar to those of holistic education.
The concepts of holistic education including hands-on learning, authenticity, connections, dialogue, integrated curriculum, multiple intelligences and the learning process were all themes that I identified within my own practices and beliefs. Thus, I began to see school gardening in a new light. Maybe the success or failure of a school gardening project was not as important as the actual process taken by those involved in its design and integration. The concept of connections became my focus and I began to wonder about the role school gardening plays in either creating or unveiling such connections. And thus my question for my major paper became: Can the design, development and integration of school gardening in school curriculum provide a means in which to achieve holistic education? The answer I found in short was yes, and my major paper is a testimony to it.
My interest in world cultures, my love of plants and my advocacy for agriculture and environmental awareness lead me to an investigation of people-plant connections. And more specifically, to the academic disciplines of ethnobotany, human issues in horticulture, landscape architecture and environmental education. I wanted to bridge together these diverse disciplines to create a more thorough picture of the school gardening phenomenon. However, much like Drake et al. (1992), I too struggled with the process of integration. But through analysis and aided by dialogue with friends and colleagues, connections emerged. I moved from a multidisciplinary focus (Figure 3 and 4), where the disciplines remained separate but linked by a common theme to an interdisciplinary focus (Figure 5 and 6). In the process I sketched numerous diagrams as I explored the various modes of connection.
Figure 3: Sketch 1 Figure 4: Sketch 2
Figure 5: Sketch 3 Figure 6: Sketch 4
Eventually, I arrived at a transdisciplinary focus and my model of the “Connections within Education” (Figure 7). In a transdisciplinary integrated curriculum the disciplines do not exist on their own but become unified through a theme or activity where content and objectives become one and the same. In my case, the theme of connections, the activity of school gardening, and the philosophies and perspectives of the various disciplines became one. School gardening, in my belief, provides the opportunity for the realization of connections within Self, subjects, community and the natural world while achieving additional components of holistic education theory and practice.
Figure 7: Connections within Education
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion
My major paper explored theorists, themes and concepts of holistic education and the school gardening movement in North America. In particular, it examined school gardening as an educational tool and its relationship to holistic education theory and practice. In the process three distinct disciplines were examined each with their own perspective on people-plant connections and more broadly the human-Nature connection. The potential for school gardens to achieve the themes and concepts of holistic education and provide opportunity for the realization of connections within Self, subjects, community and Nature was supported by the literature and case study findings.
Food and food production were identified in the literature as topics, relevant to youth that provided a framework from which to integrate school subjects. Specifically, ethnobotanical gardens illustrated a means by which to integrate school subjects through an exploration of plant use in different cultures. Additionally, ethnobotanical gardens provided an opportunity for students and teachers to examine differing worldviews and gain a better understanding of the significance of plants to humans. However, it appears that the integration of subjects through school gardening projects is less than it could be.
In conclusion, school gardening in theory and practice can provide an opportunity for individuals and communities to form connections within Self, subjects, community and Nature and find meaning and purpose in a fragmented society.
Recommendations
The following are recommendations that arose from my research. The recommendations are divided into two sections with the first section pertaining to future research and the second section pertaining to school garden use.
For Further Research
As an exploratory study, my major paper provides a foundation for further research. A much broader and in depth study that investigates school gardening projects over several seasons allowing for observations of gardening activities throughout the school year is needed. In addition a study that interviews multiple individuals at each school including teachers, the Principal and students is recommended. A study that targets students and explores the benefits that they feel that they have most gained through their involvement in school gardening projects would also be beneficial. Results from such a study could be compared to the findings in the study of Russell and Burton (2000) on student perceived benefits from their participation in a grade 12 environment education program, as highlighted in Chapter three. A study that explores teachers’ use of school gardens in regards to curriculum integration and examines their perception of a school garden in relation to their daily teaching activities would be beneficial. Specific questions could also investigate the use of themes such as food, food production and multiculturalism with respect to school gardening and the role the themes play in integrating curriculum. In addition a study that compares school gardening projects at holistic education schools, such as the Waldorf or Montessori schools, with school gardening projects at traditional schools, would provide needed knowledge on whether school garden use reflects individual school philosophies.
For School Gardening Initiatives
( It is recommended that the school garden be promoted as a vehicle by which to integrate curriculum through such themes as food and food production.
( It is recommended that a school gardening project not be regarded in terms of its success or failure, but in terms of the learning process experienced by those involved.
( It is recommended that students are involved in all stages of garden development.
( It is recommended that the emphasis of school gardening use be placed on the realization of connections within Self, subjects, community, and Nature.
( It is recommended that the school gardening project be seen as dynamic and evolving, as changes occur within the education community consisting of parents, students, teachers, the Principal, and community members.
( It is recommended that the school garden be symbolic of the philosophy of the school.
( It is recommended that a gardening assistant be hired to assist students and teachers in realizing connections within Self, subjects, community and Nature, to enhance creativity and imagination and to help in maintenance of the school garden.
( It is recommended that the school garden be looked upon as a place of discovery, exploration, spontaneity, sharing, dialogue, play and where different worldviews, perspectives, abilities and intelligences are celebrated.
References
Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous. New York: Random House, Inc.
Abram, D. and D., Jardine. (2000). All knowledge is carnal knowledge: A correspondence. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 5:167-177.
Alexander, T. (1987). John Dewey’s theory of art, experience and nature: The horizons of feeling. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Anderson, E.F. (1995). Ethnobotany and the liberal arts. In R.E. Schultes and S. von Reis (Eds.) Ethnobotany: Evolution of a Discipline. (pp. 183-186) Portland: Dioscorides Press.
Andrews, D. (2001). Growing Sites: The use of gardening and farming in youth development projects. Major paper. Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario.
Ashton-Warner, S. (1963). Teacher. Simon & Schuster Inc: New York, NY. 191pp.
Balick, M. and P. Cox. (1996). Plants, people, and culture: The science of ethnobotany. New York, NY: Scientific American Library.
Bell, A. (2001a). Grounds for learning: Stories and insights from six Canadian school ground naturalization initiatives. Toronto: Evergreen Foundation.
Bell, A. (2001b). Engaging Spaces: On school-based habitat restoration. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education. 6: 209-224.
Bell, A. (2000). Storied experiences of school-based habitat restoration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario.
Berry, T. (1988). The dream of the earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Berry, W. (1977). The unsettling of America. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books
Bowers, C.A. (1998). A Cultural approach to environmental education: Putting Michael Sanera’s ideology into perspective. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education. 3: 57-66.
Bradley, J.C. and S. Skelly. (1997). Children and gardening- Implications for the future. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Florida State Horticultural Society. 110: 405-406.
California Department of Education. (2002). Retrieved on September 25, 2002 from,
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Chawla, L. (1994). Gardening as an initiation into environmental action. American Horticulturist. 73 (7):6-7.
Childs, G. (1991). Steiner education in theory and practice. Edinburgh, Great Britain: Floris Books.
Clipsham, D. and L. Charbonneau. (1994). Growing and integrated unit-organically. Green Teacher. 38:13-17.
Courtenay-Hall, P. (1998). Textbooks, teachers and full-colour vision: Some thoughts on evaluating environmental education “performance”. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education. 3:27-40.
Davis, W. (2001). Light at the edge of the world: A journey through the realm of vanishing cultures. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.
Davis, W. (1995). Ethnobotany: An old practice, a new discipline. In R.E. Schultes and S. von Reis (Eds.) Ethnobotany: Evolution of a Discipline. (pp. 40-51) Portland: Dioscorides Press.
DeMarco, L.W. (1997). The factors affecting elementary school teachers’ integration of school gardening into the curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Disinger, J.(1993) Environment in the K-12 curriculum: An overview. In R. Wilke (Ed). Environmental education teacher resource handbook. (pp. 24-43). Milwood, NY: Kraus International Publications.
Dobbs, K., Relf, D. and A. McDaniel. (1998). Survey on the needs of elementary education teachers to enhance the use of horticulture or gardening in the classroom. HortTechnology 8(3):370-373.
Drake, S., Bebbington, J., Laksman, S., Mackie, P., Maynes, N. and L. Wayne. (1992). Developing an integrated curriculum using the story model. OISE Press: Toronto, ON. 80pp.
Eames-Sheavly, M. (1994). Exploring horticulture in human culture: an interdisciplinary approach to youth education. HortTechnology 4(1):77-80.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., and G. Forman. (Eds.). (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach-advanced reflections. London, England: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens. Retrieved November 22,2003 from, .
Federico, C. (2001). Teaching about food systems. Green Teacher. 65: 6-11.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. NewYork, NY: Basic Books.
Gelter, H. (2000). Friluftsliv: The Scandinavian philosophy of outdoor life. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 5:77-92.
Green, K. (1999). A history of children’s gardens. The Journal of the American Association of Botanical Gardens and Aboreta 14(3): 9-11.
Greig, S., Pike, G. and D, Selby. (1989). Greenprints for changing schools. London: England: The WorldWide Fund For Nature and Kogan Page Ltd.
Gwynn, M. (1988). A growing phenomenon. Science and Children. 25(7): 25-27.
Hallen, P. (2000). Ecofeminism goes bush. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 5:150-166.
Hart, P., Jickling, B. and R. Kool. (1999). Starting points: Questions of quality in environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 4:104-124.
Hart, R. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan Publications.
Hart, R. (1994). Fostering earth stewardship. American Horticulturist. 73 (7):5-6.
Heffernan, M. (1994). The children’s garden project at river farm. Children’s Environments. 11(3): 221-231.
HORT 6400. Integrating horticulture into the elementary school curriculum: Meeting the SOLs through interdisciplinary experiences. Retrieved on February 13, 2004, from .
Houghton, E. (2003). A breath of fresh air: Celebrating nature and school gardens. Toronto: Sumach Press.
Iltis, H.H. (1973). Down the technological fix. Landscape Architecture. 63: 361-363.
Jarvis, C.D. (1916). Gardening in elementary city schools. Bulletin No. 40. United States Office of Education. Washington: Government Printing Office.
Kahn, P. (1999). The human relationship with nature: Development and culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kaplan, R. (1983) The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman and J. Wohlwill. (Eds). Behavior and the natural environment. (pp. 127-159) New York: Plenum Press.
Kaplan R, and S. Kaplan. (1978). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kingsolver, B. (2000). Prodigal summer. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Lineberger, R.D. and J. M. Zajicek. (2000). School gardens: can a hands-on teaching tool affect students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding fruit and vegetables? HortTechnology 10(3): 593-597.
Lohr V.I. and P.D. Relf. (2000). An overview of the current state of human issues in horticulture in the United States. HortTechnology. 10(1): 27-33.
Lucas, B. (1995). Learning through landscapes: An organization’s attempt to move school grounds to the top of the educational agenda. Children’s Environments. 12(2): 233-244.
Luera, G. R. and S.B. Hong. (2003). A collaborative long-term garden project: Integrating early childhood education, environmental education and landscape architecture. Canadian Children. 28 (1): 9-14.
Marturano, A. (1995). Horticulture and human culture: Connect natural sciences and cultural geography through gardening. Science and Children. 32(5): 26-30).
Massachusetts Agriculture in the Classroom. (2003) Retrieved on November 22, 2003, from .
Midden, K.S. and J. Chambers. (2000). An evaluation of a children’s garden in developing a greater sensitivity of the environment in preschool children. HortTechnology 10(2): 385-390.
Miller, J. (1996). The holistic curriculum. Toronto: OISE Press.
Miller, R. (2004). Retrieved on January 7, 2004, from .
Miller, R. (Ed.) (1993). The renewal of meaning in education. Vermont: Holistic Education Press.
Moore, R. C. (1995). Children gardening: First steps towards a sustainable future. Children’s Environments. 12(2): 222-232.
Moore, T. (1992). Care of the soul: A guide for cultivating depth and sacredness in everyday life. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Morris, J., Briggs, M. and S. Zidenberg-Cherr. (2000). School-based gardens can teach kids healthier eating habits. California Agriculture. 54(5): 40-46.
Morris, J., Neustadter, A. and S. Zidenberg-Cherr. (2001). First-grade gardeners more likely to taste vegetables. California Agriculture. 55(1): 43-46.
Nagata, R.T, and R.N. Raid. (1998). Project SOAR. School gardens nourishing bodies, expanding minds. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Florida State Horticultural Society 110: 403-405.
Ontario Department of Education. (1909). Elementary agriculture and horticulture and school gardens in villages and rural schools. Toronto: L.K. Cameron.
Orr, D. (1994). Earth in mind: On education, environment and the human prospect. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. New York: State University of New York Press.
Palys, T. (1997). Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. 2nd Edition. Toronto, ON: Harcourt Brace.
Pennington, G. (1994) Lord Roberts school playground. Green Teacher. 38:26-28.
Permaculture Definition. (2003) Retrieved on March 22, 2004, from
Pevec, I. (2003). Ethnobotanical gardens: Celebrating the link between human culture and the natural world. Green Teacher. 70:25-27.
Pike, G. and D. Selby. (1988). Global teacher global learner. London, England: Hodder & Stoughton.
Pivnick, J. (1997). A piece of forgotten song: Recalling environmental connections. Holistic Education Review. 10(4): 58-63.
Pollan, M. (1991). Second nature: A gardener’s education. New York: Dell Publishing Group, Inc.
Poltkin, M. (1994). Science education through ethnobotany or tales of a shaman’s apprentice. American Horticulturist. 73 (7): 12-13.
Prakash, M.S. and L. Waks (1985). Four conceptions of excellence. Teachers College Record. 87:79-101.
Rousseau, J. (1979). Emile: or on education. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Running-Grass. (1996). The four streams of multicultural environmental education. Race, Poverty and the Environment. 6(2/3): 1-2.
Russell, C. (2001). Why study whalewatching?. OISE papers in STSE education. Toronto: Imperial Oil Centre for Studies In Science, Math and Technology. 2:49-74.
Russell, C. and J. Burton. (2000). A report on an Ontario secondary school integrated environmental studies program. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 5:287-304.
Schmidt, J. G. (1995). A unique visual method of sharing ethnobotany with general audiences. In R.E. Schultes and S. von Reis (Eds.) Ethnobotany: Evolution of a Discipline. (Pp. 187-194) Portland: Dioscorides Press.
Sebba, R.D. and A. Churchman. (1986). Schoolyard design as an expression of educational principles. Children’s Environments Quarterly. 3(3): 70-76.
Selby, D. (1999). Global education: Towards a quantum model of environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 4:125-141.
Simmons, D. (1996). Teaching in natural areas: what urban teachers feel is most appropriate. Environmental Education Research. 2(2): 149-156.
Skelly, S.M. and J.C. Bradley. (2000). The importance of school gardens as perceived by Florida elementary school teachers. HortTechnology 10(1) 229-231.
Skelly, S.M. and J.M. Zajicek. (1998). The effect of an interdisciplinary garden program on the environmental attitudes of elementary school students. HortTechnology 8(4): 579-583.
Snyder, G. (1995). A place in space: ethics, aesthetics, and watersheds. Washington D.C.: Counterpoint.
Steiner, R. (1986). Soul economy and Waldorf education. London: Rudolf Steiner Press.
Sustainability Education Center. (2001). A three sister’s garden. Green Teacher. 65: 18-19.
Taylor. J. (1994). In a child’s garden…Imagination grow. American Horticulturist. 73 (7): 24-26.
Thibault. N. (1994). Multicultural gardening: Gardening can lead to investigating how the peoples of the world grow, prepare and celebrate food. Green Teacher. 38: 14-15.
Ulrich, R. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman and J. Wohlwill. (Eds) Behavior and the Natural Environment. (pp. 85-120 New York: Plenum Press.
van Dusseldorp, D. (1992). Integrated rural development and interdisciplinary research: A link often missing. In J.I., Bakker (Ed) Integrated Rural Development Review. (pp. 35-58) Guelph, Canada: University of Guelph.
Wagner L.K. and S.W. Fones. (1999). Enhancing science education experiences through garden explorations: An inquiry-based learning opportunity at the South Carolina Botanical Garden. HortTechnology 9(4): 566-569.
Waliczek, T.M. (1997). The effect of school gardens on self-esteem, interpersonal relationships, attitude toward school and environmental attitude on populations of children. Doctoral dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Waliczek, T.M., Bradley, J.C. and J.M. Zajicek. (2001). The effect of school gardens on children’s interpersonal relationships and attitudes toward school. HortTechnology 11(3): 466-468.
Waliczek, T.M., Bradley, J.C., Zajicek, J.M., and R.D. Lineberger. (2000). Using a web-based survey to research the benefits of children gardening. HortTechnology 10(1): 71-76.
Whiren, A. (1995). Planning a garden from a child’s perspective. Children’s Environments. 12 (2): 250-255.
White Oak School. (2002). No way. The hundred is there. Retrieved on February 24, 2004, from
Wigginton, E. (1986). Sometimes a shining moment: The Foxfire experience. Anchor Press. Garden City, NY. 438pp.
Wilber, K (1995). Sex, ecology and spirituality: The evolution of spirit. Boston: Shambala.
Youngman, F. (2000). The political economy of adult education and development. London: Zed Books, Ltd.
Appendix A
No Way. The Hundred Is There.
The child
is made of one hundred.
The child has
a hundred languages
a hundred hands
a hundred thoughts
a hundred ways of thinking
of playing, of speaking
A hundred always a hundred
ways of listening
of marvelling of loving
a hundred joys
for singing and understanding
a hundred worlds
to discover
a hundred worlds
to invent
a hundred worlds
to dream.
The child has
a hundred languages
(and a hundred hundred hundred more)
but they steal ninety-nine.
The school and the culture
separate the head from the body.
They tell the child:
to think without hands
to do without head
to listen and not to speak
to understand without joy
to love and to marvel
only at Easter and Christmas.
They tell the child:
to discover the world already there
and of the hundred
they steal ninety-nine.
They tell the child:
that work and play
reality and fantasy
science and imagination
sky and earth
reason and dream
are things
that do not belong together.
And thus they tell the child
that the hundred is not there.
The child says:
No way. The hundred is there.
Loris Malaguzzi,
translated by Lella Gandini
(White Oak School, 2002)
Appendix B
Valerie’s School Gardening Questions
My name is Valerie Green. I am a graduate student in Rural Extension Studies at the University of Guelph. For my major paper, I am exploring the phenomenon of school gardening in southern Ontario. Prior to beginning my Masters in the Fall of 2003, I was a high school teacher of Spanish, ESL, Agriculture and Biology. I have also participated in a number of school gardening and environmental education projects in Canada and Internationally.
My research objective for my Masters is to examine the role of school gardening as an educational tool, and its relationship to holistic curriculum.
If you agree to participate in the research study your identity will remain confidential. You may refuse to answer specific questions and at anytime you may withdraw your consent to participate in the research study. Your participation is however greatly appreciated.
Valerie Green
M Sc. Candidate
University of Guelph
Information on Participant
-Gender
-University Degrees?
-Specialization while at University?
-Subject and Grades Taught
-Size and Location (Urban/Rural) of the School
Specific Questions
1. Describe the school garden at your school.
2. How and why did you become involved in the school garden (e.g. was it assigned to you or did you volunteer and/or originate it)?
3. What role does the school garden play in relation to your daily lesson plans and teaching practices?
4. In your school garden lesson plans do you incorporate themes such as the origins of food and other historical and cultural uses of plants by humans? Discuss.
5. In your opinion have student attitudes and/or behaviour changed as a result of their participation in the school gardening project?
6. What aspects of your teaching practices would you say reflect holistic education, if any?
7. In your opinion has your involvement with the school garden altered your teaching practices? For example, your interaction with the students, preparation of lesson plans…
8. Do you see the integration of school gardens as challenging conventional teaching practices or are they consistent with mainstream practices?
9. What do you see as the role of the school garden in the future?
10. Do you have any other comments about these issues, the relationship between people and plants, school gardens and holistic education or anything else you would like to discuss?
11. Would you like to receive a summary report of this Major Paper when it is completed?
Thanks for your time and effort!
Appendix C
School Gardening Resources
Agriculture in the Classroom State Contacts
American Community Gardening Association
British Columbia Agriculture in the Classroom
Canadian Biodiversity Institute
Cities Feeding People, International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
City Farmer: Urban Agriculture Notes
Cornell Educational Resource Program at the University of Cornell
Diane Relf, Department of Horticulture, Virginia Tech.
Edible Schoolyard Garden, California
European Federation of City Farm
Evergreen Foundation, Canada
Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens
FoodShare, Toronto, Ontario
Gator Gardening for Kids
Greening Canada’s School Grounds
Green Teacher
Horticultural Therapy
Junior Master Gardeners
LifeCycles
Los Angeles Unified School District Nutrition Network
National Gardening Association
Natural Learning Initiative, NC State University
National Wildlife Federation
School Gardens: Articles/Planning/Lessons
Appendix D
Related Literature
Aboud, S. and H. Kock. (1994). Life zone approach to school yard naturalization: The Carolinian life zone. Guelph: The Arboretum.
American Horticulturist. (1994) Children, plants, and gardens: Educational opportunities. Proceedings from the American Horticultural Society National Symposium, Chevy Chase, Maryland. 73 (7):1-47.
Association of Waldorf Schools of North America. Retrieved on November 19, 2003, from
Babbie, E. (2000). The practice of social research. 9th Edition. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., and J.M. Tarule. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: BasicBooks.
Blandford. M. (2002) The Brooklyn botanical garden’s children’s gardening program: A case study. Masters thesis. Department of Plant Sciences. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Bowers, C.A. and D.J. Flinders. (1990). Responsive teaching: An ecological approach to classroom, patterns of language, culture and thought. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Brandt, D. (1996). Tracing the trail of Tomasita the tomato: Popular education around globalisation. Alternatives Journal. 24-29.
Buchanan, C. (1997). Brother crow, sister corn: Traditional American Indian gardening. Ten Speed Press. Berkeley, CA. 124pp.
Centre for Ecoliteracy. (1999). The edible schoolyard. Berkeley, CA: Learning in the Real World.
Chambers, M. (1995). The awareness level of elementary teachers concerning the Ontario agriculture in the classroom program. Masters thesis. Department of Rural Extension Studies. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.
Courtenay-Hall, P and S. Lott. (1999). Issues of inclusion in developing environmental education policy: Reflections on B.C. experiences. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 4:83-103.
Denzin, N. and Y. Lincoln. (Eds). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Inc.
Dyment, J. E. (2001). Review of the books: Creating habitats for learning and nature nurtures: Investigating the potential of school grounds. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education. 6(1): 251-254.
Finger, M. and J.M. Asun. (2001). Adult education at the crossroads: Learning our way out. London: Zed Books, Ltd.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York, NY: Basic Books
Grant, T. and G. Littlejohn. (Eds). (2001). Greening school grounds: Creating habitats for learning. Toronto: Green Teacher.
Green, K. (1994). Encouraging nurturing behavior of two to seven year olds by introducing plants and flowers. Journal of Home and Consumer Horticulture. 1(4): 395-407.
Hart, P. (1990). Environmental education in Canada: Contemporary issues and future possibilities. Australian Journal of Environmental Education. 6: 45-66.
Ippolito-Shepherd, J. (2003). Health promoting schools initiative in the Americas. UN Chronicle. 2: 16-18.
Klein, R. M. (1979). The green world: An introduction to plants and people. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Koc, M.M., Rod; Mougeot, L. and J. Welsh. (Eds.) (1999). For hunger-proof cities: Sustainable urban food systems. Ottawa: IDRC.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research pedagogy within the postmodern. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lewis, C. (1996). Green nature: Human nature. Urbana: University of Illinois.
Merizow, J. (1991) Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
Moore, R.C. (1996). Outdoor settings for playing and learning: Designing school grounds to meet the needs of the whole child and whole curriculum. North American Montessori Teacher’s Association. 21(3): 97-120.
Moore, R.C., and H.H. Wong. (1997). Natural learning: The life history of an environmental schoolyard. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications.
Ontario Ministry of Education. Retrieved on November 20, 2003, from
Ornstein, A. C. and F. Hunkins. (1993). Curriculum foundations, principles, and theories. 2nd Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bason.
O’Sullivan, E. (1999). Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 21st century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Parsons, H.G. (1910). Children’s gardens: for pleasure, health and education. New York, NY: Sturgis & Walton Company.
Pivnick, J. (1994). Sowing a school garden: Reaping an environmental ethic. Green Teacher. 38:7-8.
Pollan, M. (2001). Botany of desire: A plant’s-eye view of the world. NY, New York: Random House.
Quon, S. (1999). Planning for urban agriculture: A review of tools and strategies for urban planners. Cities Feeding Peoples Series. Report 28. Ottawa: IDRC.
Sanera, M. (1998). Environmental education: promise and performance. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education. 3:9-26.
Smith. J. (1995). Beauty and the butterflies: In creating a butterfly garden, students beautify their community. Science and Children. 32(4): 29-31.
Smith. P. (1964). Philosophy of education. New York: Harper & Row.
Thorp, L. (2001). The pull of the earth: An ethnographic study of an elementary school garden. Doctoral dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Titman, W. (1994). Special places, special people: The hidden curriculum of schoolgrounds. Surrey, UK: World Wildlife Fund, UK.
Walker, J. (1999). The youth gardening program: growing hope for children. The Journal of the American Association of Botanical Gardens and Aboreta 14(3): 18-20.
Warren, K. (Ed.) (1997). Ecofeminism. women, culture, nature. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. 454pp.
Wilber, K. (1983). A sociable God. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wilson, E.O. (1983). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: design and method. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage
Publications, Inc.
-----------------------
Transformation
Transaction
Transmission
Nature
Community
Subject
Self
School Gardening
Landscape Architecture
Relationship Connections
Holistic Education
People - Plant Connections
Education
Landscape Architecture
School Gardening
Holistic Education
People - Plant Connections
Connection
Subject
Community
Nature
Self
School Gardening
Community
Subject
Nature
Self
Nature
Community
Subject
Self
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- holistic education introduction and overview
- adlerian and cognitive behavioral therapy
- teaching unitary transformative and caring healing
- theories of learning nottingham teaching college
- a survey study of holistic learning in an english news course
- an exploration of school gardening and its relationship to
- materials in second and foreign language learning and
- criteria to support the holistic assessment of teaching
- foundations competencies and curricular guidelines
Related searches
- time and its importance
- language and its importance
- information system and its components
- management and its importance
- biodiversity and its conservation
- biodiversity and its conservation pdf
- technology and its negative effects
- education and its importance
- define management and its functions
- recovering intoxication and its aftermath
- heart and its parts function
- management and its importance articles