Content uploaded by Claire Barrett
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Claire Barrett on Apr 27, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCHARTICLE
School Gardens Enhance Academic
Performance and Dietary Outcomes
in Children
CLAIRE K. BEREZOWITZ,EdM
aANDREA B. BONTRAGER YODER,MM,PhD
bDALE A. SCHOELLER,PhD
c
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Schools face increasing demands to provide education on healthy living and improve core academic
performance. Although these appear to be competing concerns, they may interact beneficially. This article focuses on school
garden programs and their effects on students’ academic and dietary outcomes.
METHODS: Database searches in CABI, Web of Science, Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Education Full Text, Education
Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsychINFO were conducted through May 2013 for peer-reviewed literature related to
school-day garden interventions with measures of dietary and/or academic outcomes.
RESULTS: Among 12 identified garden studies with dietary measures, all showed increases/improvements in predictors of fruit
and vegetable (FV) consumption. Seven of these also included self-reported FV intake with 5 showing an increase and 2 showing
no change. Four additional interventions that included a garden component measured academic outcomes; of these, 2 showed
improvements in science achievement and 1 measured and showed improvements in math scores.
CONCLUSIONS: This small set of studies offers evidence that garden-based learning does not negatively impact academic
performance or FV consumption and may favorably impact both. Additional studies with more robust experimental designs and
outcome measures are necessary to understand the effects of experiential garden-based learning on children’s academic and
dietary outcomes.
Keywords: nutrition and diet; curriculum; child and adolescent health; school health.
Citation: Berezowitz CK, Bontrager Yoder AB, Schoeller DA. School gardens enhance academic performance and dietary
outcomes in children. J Sch Health. 2015; 85: 508-518.
Received on January 22, 2014
Accepted on January 14, 2015
Among the issues facing public education are 2
competing trends. First, there is increasing
emphasis in schools and districts across the country
on academic performance as a measure of student
outcomes, largely to align with federal and state
legislation such as No Child Left Behind and Race to
the Top.1Second, there is increasing emphasis on
public health interventions in schools to improve
children’s health, including those to combat the
problems of low fitness and excess obesity. Both have
gained momentum, the former as a result of national
aResearch Assistant, (cberezowitz@wisc.edu), Department of Nutritional Sciences and Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Linden Drive,
Madi son, WI 53706.
bResearch Assistant, (abontrageryoder@gmail.com), Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706.
cProfessor Emeritus, (dschoell@wisc.edu), Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706.
Address correspondence to: Clai re K. Berezowitz, Research Assi stant, (cberezowi tz@wisc.edu), Department of Nut ritional Sciences and Depar tmentofEducationalPsychology,
Univer sity of Wi sconsin-Madison, 1415 Linden Dri ve, Madison, WI 53706.
This publication was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Community Transformation Grant (CTG) Program, which is made available throughthe
Prevention and Publi c Health Fund of the Affordable Care Act (Board of Regents of the Universi ty of Wisconsin System: Grant Number 3597; PI : Sarah Van Orman, MD, MMM). The
findings and conclusions i n this article ar e those of the authors and do not necessaril y represent the views of the Univers ity of Wisconsin-Madison, theUSDepartmentofHealth
and Human Services or the Centers f or Disease Control and Prevention.
performance initiatives and the latter as a result of data
showing a decline in US children’s nutritional status,
with nearly one third now classified as overweight
or obese.2Despite possible linkages between obesity
and academic performance, proponents of both often
appear to be in opposition: both compete for limited
time and funding. Thus, this article aims to summarize
existing knowledge of possible synergies between
dietary and academic outcomes resulting from school-
based interventions aimed at improving student
health.
508 •Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association
Obesity is a public concern because obese children
are more likely to be obese throughout their adult
years, and are more likely than healthy-weight
children to begin experiencing weight-related health
complications at an earlier age.3Beyond the health
risks, however, are negative associations of obesity
with academic performance, suggesting that programs
to address obesity may also address some issues related
to academic performance. Cross-sectional data show
that obese children have lower grades and standardized
test scores, as well as more behavioral problems
than their healthy-weight peers.4-7In one study,
overweight seventh to ninth graders had a mean GPA
that was 0.2 lower than healthy-body mass index
(BMI) children and were twice as likely to have grades
of less than 2.0 on a 4.0 scale.8Because obesity is
linked to academic outcomes, it should be important
to balance school-based programs that maximize both
health and academic outcomes.
There is strong rationale for these associations
between health and academic performance. Health
may impact several pro-academic behaviors, such as
school attendance and time spent on homework.9In
addition, obesity can negatively impact social interac-
tions, and this, in turn, has been associated with lower
academic performance.10 Previous reviews have exam-
ined school-based nutrition interventions, but have
focused on school breakfast, noting mostly positive
effects on outcomes supporting academic success.9,11
Furthermore, reviews demonstrate that school nutri-
tion programs effectively reduce hunger.12-14 There-
fore, studies relating to school meal implementation
are not included in this article.
The history of nutrition-related public health pro-
grams in US schools is strongly tied to school meal
programs. An estimated 52 million children aged
5-17 years spend significant time at school.15,16 The
National School Lunch Program (NSLP), first legis-
lated in 1946, aimed to reduce nutritional deficien-
cies and ‘‘to encourage the domestic consumption of
nutrition agricultural commodities and other food.’’3
Later, the School Breakfast Program (SBP) was autho-
rized in 1975 with the goal of providing ‘‘adequate
nutrition,’’ targeting those with high risk for a nutri-
tional deficiency, such as children from low-income
families.3,17 Today, an average of 31 million chil-
dren participate in the NSLP and about 10 million
in the SBP each day.3NSLP participants consume
an average of 35% of their daily energy at school;
children participating in both meal programs may
consume as much as half.18 More recent school
nutrition efforts include the national farm-to-school
movement to bring more local fruits and vegetables
(FV) into school cafeterias and classrooms. Thus, it
would seem that school nutrition programs have con-
siderable opportunity to positively influence student
health.
In recent years, schools have begun exploring new
opportunities to educate students on healthy dietary
habits in addition to providing school meals. Health
education has been part of school curricula for decades,
and although a set of national standards published by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
exists,19 we are not able to locate documentation of
their use in schools. One such educational opportunity
arises from the provision of school gardens, which
has spread across the United States, supported by
nonprofit organizations, grassroots organizing, and
even federal funding.20,21 Gardens have a history
that began decades ago as a means of science
instruction.21,22 Today, gardens are also promoted as
a means for children to increase exposure to FV, and
thereby improve attitudes and preferences related to
FV consumption. Loosely rooted in social cognitive
theory, the premise is that exposure, attitudes, and
preferences mediate FV consumption; moreover, the
CDC promotes increased FV consumption as a strategy
for reducing obesity prevalence.23,24
A few reviews published to date have focused on
the unique effects of school-based interventions aimed
at improving diet quality, with or without garden
education, on student academic outcomes. Fewer still
have focused exclusively on longitudinal, school-based
interventions. This is understandable given the signif-
icant burden of time to undertake such interventions
and evaluations. While the long-standing school pro-
grams are based on nutrition principles related to
health, it continues to be challenging for schools to rec-
oncile increasing academic accountability with public
health programming. Concurrent with the increased
emphasis on standardized test performance, programs
involving school meals, nutrition education (NE), and
school gardens have arisen to creatively address health
concerns. If evidence exists that academic performance
can be maintained or improved while implementing
health-focused programs, they can be justified.
This article aims to collate findings with respect
to school garden interventions that include measures
of academic performance and/or FV consumption. To
dissect these issues, this article is organized around 2
guiding questions: (1) Do interventions with school
gardens change dietary outcomes or their predictors?
(2) Do interventions with school gardens impact
academic outcomes?
METHODS
Database searches for peer-reviewed publica-
tions were conducted in CABI, Web of Science,
Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Education Full Text,
ERIC, and PsychINFO as of May 2013. Keywords
included various combinations of schools, academic
performance/achievement, school performance,
standardized test scores, cognitive function, nutrition
Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association •509
education/intervention/programs, schools, farm-
to-school, school gardens, and nutrition/dietary
intervention, yielding 3731 records. Titles and
abstracts were scanned for relevance to our stated
aims with 155 identified as potentially relevant.
Finally, studies were assessed for quality and content,
and reference lists were checked for additional sources.
To be included, studies needed to be school garden
interventions conducted during the school day, lasting
at least 1 month, in the K-12 grade range, and
include measures of academic performance and/or
diet. Studies were excluded that were not school-
based, were from non-Western cultures, were shorter
than 1 month, or were not in English. The final set of
papers, totaling 15 individual studies represented by
16 papers, lacked similar designs and measures, and
thus, formal meta-analysis was not feasible.
RESULTS
Twelve studies measuring school gardens’ effects on
predictors of and/or actual FV intake met inclusion
criteria (Table 1). Interventions comprised specifi-
cally designed garden curricula,25,26 comparisons of
NE lessons with and without gardening, or garden-
based learning integrated into regular science classes.
Interventions involved at least 9 lessons, with some
lasting up to 4 months. One intervention compared
outcomes for nongardening students with those in
their first or second year of exposure to the program.27
Half of the studies included fourth and/or fifth graders;
4studiesfocusedonyoungergrades,and3included
more advanced grades. Cohort size ranged from 97
to almost 2000 students; most were in the 100-300
range. Cohort ethnicity ratios were included for half
of the studies and varied greatly: 2 were ‘‘predomi-
nantly White,’’ whereas the remaining 4 were 29-93%
non-White, with 84% of 1 study’s participants self-
identifying as Hispanic. No studies specified whether
participating schools were public or private, and only
1study
28 specified whether participants were from
urban or rural settings, although another29 can be eas-
ily identified as urban. Geographic location also varied.
Dietary outcome measures were either predictors of
and/or reported FV intake. Studies assessing predic-
tors of intake included measures of nutrition/dietary
knowledge,29-33 willingness to taste FV,28,29,33,34 atti-
tudes toward FV,31,33,35 and preference for or choosing
FV for meals or snacks.27,28,29,31-33,36 All indicated
statistically significant improvements in FV intake pre-
dictors. Seven studies measured self-reported FV con-
sumption, but with nuanced interpretation due to the
different tools. FV consumption results were mixed:
2studiesshowednochange,
33,35 whereas 3 showed
an increase28,36,37 in FV consumption. The remain-
ing studies focused only on vegetable consumption: 1
showed an increase in vegetable varieties consumed
>1 time per month,
29 and the other showed garden-
ers more likely than nongardeners, including NE-only
students, to choose and consume vegetables in the
school lunchroom.32
Four studies, described in 5 papers, investigated
academic outcomes in schools with garden-based
interventions (Table 2). Two studies included third to
fifth graders,38,39 2 included first to sixth graders,40,41
and the other included only fifth graders.42 Cohort
sizes were 3769, 1197 (a subset of the larger cohort),
647, 196, and 119 students. Each employed an expe-
riential school gardening curriculum as part of the
intervention, which supplemented traditional class-
room lessons. Intervention durations ranged from
a14-weekgardeningcurriculumfor2hours,once
per week, to those implemented across 2 academic
years. Three studies utilized level 1 of the same youth
gardening curriculum developed by the Texas Agri-
cultural Extension Service, designed to educate third
to fifth graders about environmental science, health,
horticulture, and nutrition.43-45 Academic outcomes
were measured by science, math, and in one case
reading achievement test scores. Science achieve-
ment was assessed using a science achievement test
based on the Junior Master Gardener curriculum;38,42
math achievement was measured using the Texas
statewide standardized test39 or the Florida Compre-
hensive Achievement Test (FCAT).41,46 The FCAT also
assessed reading achievement.41,46 Two studies38,42
found significantly higher science achievement scores
among gardeners compared with nongardeners, and
the third39 found no difference. When stratified by
grade, fourth-grade gardeners showed increased sci-
ence scores, but fifth-grade nongardeners had higher
science scores, resulting in no overall difference.39 The
fourth study showed significant improvements in math
test scores.47
DISCUSSION
This article is unique in that it examined school-
based garden interventions that have the potential to
influence both academic and health-related student
outcome measures. Sixteen school garden interven-
tion studies measured academic outcomes and/or FV
consumption in children. Results indicated that these
school-based garden interventions improved or main-
tained both FV consumption or mediators thereof and
academic performance. Specifically, garden programs
improved FV intake in 71% of studies measuring that
outcome, and improved or showed no difference in
academic performance in all 5 studies comparing gar-
dening to nongardening students. Moreover, academic
test scores improved or showed no change, regardless
of the academic area assessed. However, this is a small
collection of studies, and as such these findings should
be considered preliminary.
510 •Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association
Table 1. Interventions Involving School Gardens With Dietary Outcome Measures
Study Participants Design, Intervention
Outcomes: Fruit and
Vegetable Intake
Predictors
Outcomes: Measured
Fruit and Vegetable
Intake
Morr is a nd
Zidenberg-
Cherr30
Sample size: N =3schoolsin1
district; 3 classrooms per
school; number of students
not reported
Age/grade: fourth grade
Demographics: school s
matched on st udent
demographic profil es
8.4% Afri can American
3% Asian American
17.2% Hispanic
66.5% White
25% FRPL
Design: quasi -experimental;
nonrandom group assignment
Intervention A: NE+G; 9 nutriti on
lessons, eachincluding gardening
component
Intervention B: NE
Control: no NE or garden
Measures: pr e/post nutr it ion
knowledge questionnaire, vegetable
preference survey
-Nutrition knowledge scores
significantly higher at the
treatment schools than at the
control school
-Results retained at 6-month
follow-up
Not measured
Morr is et al34 Sample size: N =2schools(1
intervention, 1 control); 3
classrooms per school
Age/grade: first grade
Demographics: school s
matched for et hni city and
geographic location
ethnicity: not reported
%FRPL: not repor ted
Design: pilot study to assess feasibili ty
of garden-based education and
evaluation
Intervention: NE +G; growing
vegetables outdoors
Control: no garden
Measures: pre/ post one-on- one student
interviews to assess knowledge of,
attitudes toward food
-Increased willingness to taste
vegetables grown in the gardens
Not measured
Nolan et al31 Sample size: N=4schools;141
students in 9 classrooms
Age/grade: second to fifth
grades
Demographics:
47% male
84.4% Hispanic
3.5% Afri can American
9.2% White
9.2% Other
%FRPL: not repor ted
42.4% of
households <poverty line
per US Census Bureau data
Design: quasi-experimental (no
control), to evaluate program impact
of healt h education through
gardening on children’ s knowledge
about nutrition and att itudes toward
fruit and vegetables.
Intervention: Junior Master Gardener
nutrit ion curriculum+school
gardens
Measures: pr e/post (1) nutrition
knowledge: 13-question multiple
choice questionnaire; ( 2) preference
for fruits and vegetables: modified FV
preference questionnaire, modified;
fourth, fifth graders; (3) snack choices
-Nutrition knowledge increased,
pre- to post-test; impacted also
by grade
-FV preference increased from pre-
to post-test
-Snack choices improved from
pre- to post-test
Cotunga et al27 Sample size: N =3schoolsin1
district; 359 students
Age/grade:
-Control: school A, fourth/fifth
grades
-Intervention: school B, fourth
grade; first ti me in program;
school C, all students, second
time in program
Demographics:
-School A (control): 73% White
-School B: 41%White
-School C: 37% White
∼All school s: 34-38% FR PL
Design: quasi -experimental,
nonrandom group assignment;
cross-sectional, and
longitudinal-by-design: analysis of
new, first, second time exposures to
compare school lunch vegetable
selection with/without gardening
and garden produce
Intervention: garden education:
classroom lessons, school vegetable
garden visits to plant, tend, harvest;
in-gardentaste opportunities for
vegetable tended and harvested;
school B: first programexposure,
school C: second program exposure
Control (school A): no garden
Measures: t ime-of -purchase lunch
observations, 3 separate days: 1 day
offered t hree fourth cup romaine
salad from school garden, 2 days
normal-vendor salads; test of
proporti ons: choosing a sal ad
-Percent of students choosing a
salad with garden-grown
romaine:
-Control: no change
-School B: 11% increase, day
1to3
-School C: 39% increase, day
1to3
Not measured
Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association •511
Table 1. Continued
Study Participants Design, Intervention
Outcomes: Fruit and
Vegetable Intake
Predictors
Outcomes: Measured
Fruit and Vegetable
Intake
Lineberger and
Zajicek35
Sample size: N =5elementary
schools; 111 students
Age/grade: third/fifth grades
Demographics:
ethnicity: not reported
%FRPL: not repor ted
Design: quasi -experimental:
volunteer participation of
classrooms by teachers
Intervention: Nutrition in the
Garden activity guide; 10
units combining horti culture
and nutrition; detailed
background information f or
teachers. 34 total activities in
10 units, each ∼20 minutes
Control: none
Measures: pre/post att it udes to
FV, FV questionnaire; FV
behaviors, 24-hour recall
journals
-Attitudes toward vegetable
improved post-program; also
towardFV snacks. Especially
among females and younger
students
-No change in attitudes toward
fruit
-FV consumption did not
improve as a result of
gardening
-Very low FV intake at pre-test,
mainta ined at post-test :
estimated 2.0 servings/day
Meinen et al 28 Sample si ze: N =28 si tes; 1796
unmatched pre/post surveys
from N=801 students, 995
parents
Age/grade: parent surveys of
second or younger graders;
student respondents for third to
seventh graders
Demographics:
‘‘mostly White’’
21% urban, 45% ‘ ‘urban clust er,’’
34% rural (per NHANES
designation)
21% to >70% FRPL:
7sites, 51+%
8sites, 41-50%
13 sites, 21-40%
Design: quasi -experimental,
prospective evaluation:
volunteer intervention
classrooms, with
volunteer-identified
comparison site/classroom
Intervention: Got dirt?
Gardening curriculum;
average 4 months
Control : no garden curriculum
Measures: pr e/post s urveys:
predictors of and
consumption of FV (students,
or parents for second-grade
students/younger); teachers
reported type of garden
established, number of
students participating, and
start/end dates of garden
project
Increasedat post relative topre:
-trying newfruit
-choosing fruit instead of
chips/candy
-choosing vegetables insteadof
chips/candy
-trying new vegetables grown
in the garden
IncreasedFV consumption as
meas ured by pare nt ( not
student) report
Morgan et a l33 Sample size: N=2schools;127
students
Age/grade: fifth to sixth grades
Demographics:
54% boys
Ethnicity: not reported
%FRPL: not repor ted
Design: quasi -experimental:
nonrandom group
assignment
Intervention: 10-weeks; group
A, NE +G; gr oup B, NE only
Control: no NE, no garden
Measures: pr e/post F V
knowledge; vegetable
preferences (willingness to
taste and taste ratings); FV
consumption (24 hour recal l)
-NE +GandNE-onlystudents,
relative to controls, showed
higher overall willingness to
taste vegetables, overall
vegetable taste ratings
-NE +Ggroupbetterableto
identify vegetables; more
willing to taste caps icum,
broccoli , tomato and pea;
higher preference to eat
broccoli and pea as a snack
-No change in fruit or vegetable
intake
Parmer et al32 Sample si ze: N =6classrooms;115
students total: 76 intervention
(39 NE +G, 37 NE-only), 39
control
Age/gra de: sec ond grade; NE +G
7.3 years, NE 7. 3 years, Contr ol
7.4 years
Demographics:
70% male
Ethnicity: not reported
%FRPL: not repor ted
Design: quasi -experimental,
nonrandom group
assignment
Intervention A, NE+G: 1 hour
NE every other
week +1hourgardening
alternati ng weeks
Intervention B, NE-only: 1hour
NE every other week
Control: no NE or gardeni ng
Measures: pr e/post F V
knowledge, preference,
consumption
-NE +G, NE-only students
showed greater
improvements in knowledge,
taste ratings than control
participants
NE +Ggroupmorelikelyto
choose and consume
vegetables in lunchroom
than nutrition education-
only or control groups at
post-test
512 •Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association
Table 1. Continued
Study Participants Design, Intervention
Outcomes: Fruit and
Vegetable Intake
Predictors
Outcomes: Measured
Fruit and Vegetable
Intake
Ratcliffe et al29 Sample size: N=3schools(2
interventions, 1 control); N=236
students total: 170 intervention;
150 control
Age/grade: sixth grade, 11-13 years
Demographics:
22% African American
29% Asian American
9% Fili pino American
30% Hispanic
3% Pacific I slander
7% White non-Hispani c/Other
22% Englis h-Language Learner
35% overweight, per BMI
64% FRPL
Design: quasi -experimental
Intervention: garden-based
learning sessions integrated
into regular scienceclass,
∼1hour/weekacross
4months, total13hours.
Each session was
∼20 minutes i nstruction
(classroom or garden) +
40 minutes hands -on
in-gardenexperiences.
Garden activiti es were
chosen to maximize
students’ exposure to
vegetables and peer and
adult modeling through
cyclical garden activiti es
(planting, tending,
harvesting, preparing,
consuming)
Control: same health and
science learning objectives,
but no garden program
Measures: pr e/post v egetable
knowledge, attitudes, and
behavior through 2
self-administered surveys:
Garden Vegetabl es
Frequency Questionnaire
(GVFQ); Taste Test
Self-administ ered surveys:
-Increased ability to identify
vegetables
-Increased preference for
vegetables
-Increased willingness to taste
vegetables
-For all, gardeners >controls
Taste test:
-Increased varieties of
vegetables tasted,
gardeners >controls
-No difference in willingness to
taste vegetables between
gardeners, controls
GVFQ:
-Gardeners reported more
vegetables varieties consumed
>1×/month, both for
vegetables grown and not
grown in school garden
Wang et al 36 Sample si ze: N =327 students
Age/grade: four th to fifth grades,
followed into middle school
Demographics:
27% White
21% African American
14% Hispanic
8% Asian American
31% mixed/other /unknown
39% low-income; 24% of
fathers/male guardians had high
school or less education
Design: 3-year prospective
study
Intervention: modifications to
school food and dining;
garden and cooki ng classes;
lesson integration
Control: none
Measures: knowledge/attitudes
(questionnaire); dietary
behavior (3-day f ood diary);
household information
(parent questionnaire)
Students most exposed to the
intervention showeda
significantly greater increase
in preference for fruit and
green leafy vegetabl es,
compared with students
least exposed
-Most intervention exposure,
increasedFV intake ∼0.5 cups
-Least intervention exposure,
decreased FV intake ∼0. 3 cups
McAl eese and Ranki n37 Sample size: N =3schools(2
interventions, 1 control); 99
students
Age/grade: sixth grade, mean
11.1 years
Demographics:
Ethnicity ‘ ‘similar’’ across schools
%FRPL ‘ ‘simi lar’’ across schools
Design: nonequivalent control
group: 1 control +1
experimental schools
randomly assigned; second
experimental school
assigned based on garden
availability
Intervention: 12-week NE
program; 1 with, 1 without
garden activiti es
Control: no NE or garden
Meas ures : pre /post 3 ×24-hour
recall workbooks
Not mea sured -NE +GparticipantsincreasedFV
servings more than students in
the two other groups
-Significant increases in vitamin A,
vitamin C, and fiber intake.
NE +G, nutrition education +garden; NE, nutrition education; %FRPL, percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches; FV, fruit(s) and vegetable(s); BMI, body
mass index.
Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association •513
Table 2. Interventions Involving School Gardens With Measures of Academic Outcomes
Study Participants Intervention/Design Outcomes: Academic
Klemmer et al38 Sample size: N =7schools;N=647
students: 453 intervention in 27
classes, 194 control in 13 classes
Age/grade: thi rd to fifth grades
Demographics:
47% male
Ethnicity: not reported
%FRPL:notreported
Design: post -test only, quasi-experimental
Intervention: garden activities integrated into
science curriculum, alongside traditional
classroom lessons
Control: tr aditional classr oom teaching
Measure: science achievement test
-Intervention students scored
significantly higher science
achievement test scores than control
students
-Effect of grade: intervention most
effective for third- and fifth-grade
boys, fifth-grade girls
Pigg et al39 Sample size: N =1school;N=196
students: 94 interventions, 102
controls
Age/grade: thi rd to fifth grades
Demographics:
Ethnicity: not reported
%FRPL:notreported
Desi gn: quas i-exper imental , nonr andom group
assignment; convenience sample
Intervention: youth gardening curriculum
taught by classroom teachers +traditional
classroom math, s cience
Control: traditional classroom math, science; no
gardening
Measures: pre/post Texa s Ass ess ment of
Knowledge and Skills math achievement test
-Gardening students: no improvement
in math scores; no significant
difference in sci ence sores from
nongardening
-Fourth-grade gardening students
higher science scores than
nongardening
-Fifth-grade controls, higher math,
science scores
Smith and Motsenbocker42 Sample size: N =3schools(1
intervention, 1 control classroom per
school); N =119 students: 62
interventions, 57 controls
Age/grade: fifth grade
Demographics:
Ethnicity: majority African American
%FRPL:notreported
Desi gn: quas i-exper imental , nonr andom group
assignment
Intervention: 14-week gardeningcurriculum
(Junior Master Gardener; 2 hours, 1×/week)
Control : no gardening cur riculum
Measure: pre/post 4 0-question science
achievement test
-Intervention students’ scores higher at
post-test, versus no difference in
control students
Hollar et al40 Sample size: N =5schools(4
interventions, 1control); N=1197
students (this is a subset of total
cohort: those qualifying for FRPL; 974
intervention, 199controls )
Age/gra de: 7. 8 years
Demographics:
68% Hispanic
9% Black
15% White
8% Other
100% FRPL
Design: 2 school years, quasi-experi mental,
nonrandom
Intervention:
Nutrition: modifications to school meal and
extended-day snack menus: more high-fiber
items, fewer high-glycemic items, lower total,
saturated, and trans fats
Healt h curriculum: nutrit ion and healthy
lifestyle management programfor
elementary-aged chil dren and adults, using
materi als fr om USDA T eam Nut rition and The
OrganWise Guys; FV gardens
Physical activi ty: increased school -day
physical activity opportunity:
10-15 minutes/day desk-side physical ac tivity
program, matched with core academic areas;
structured physical activity during recess, for
example, a walking club
Control: comparison school ‘‘ as usual’’
Measures: Florida Compr ehensi ve Achievement
Test (FCAT) readi ng, math scores
-Significant improvement in FCAT math
scores, +22.3 intervention versus
−3.0 control (p =.001)
-Trend for improvement in FCAT
readingscores, +5.7 i ntervention
versus −1.2 control (p =.08)
Hollar et al41 Sample size: N =5schools(4
interventions, 1control); 3769
students (full cohort of study by
Hollar et al40 above)
Age/gra de: 8 year s
Demographics:
50% Hispanic
33% White
8% Black
8% Other
31% FRPL
Design: described above
Intervention: described above
Control : described above
Measures: thir d grade FCAT reading, mat h
scores
-Statistically significant improvements
in academic test scores, especially
among low-income Hispanic and
White chil dren, ob served in
intervention versus control
participants
FCAT, Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test; %FRPL, percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches; USDA, United States Department of Agriculture; FV,
fruit(s) and vegetable(s).
514 •Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association
Figure 1. An Illustration of Perceived Connections Between Health and Academic Success and Their Mediators
Improved
academics
Improved diet
Improved
health
Attendance
Engaged
learning
Alertness/
Concentration Time on task Nutrition
knowledge
Attitudes toward
healthy eating
Preference
for FV
Increased
class time
Increased
FV consumption
Healthy
school meals
Previous reviews focused on garden interventions
linked to academic outcomes but were not limited
to peer-reviewed literature as is this article.43,48,49
Herein, 4 gardening interventions indicated that such
programs support academic performance, with the
most evidence demonstrated for science test scores;
math and language arts scores improved to lesser
degrees. Gardening program impacts with respect to
children’s FV intake also demonstrated positive effects.
Moreover, teachers were generally found to report that
gardens were a valuable teaching tool. Garden program
studies also indicated an indirect, positive effect
on children’s social development. Overall, however,
garden program studies lacked scientific rigor, and the
inclusion criteria for this article yielded only a small
set of studies. It is promising that the various studies
were not discordant, but the small number of studies
tempers the strength of this article.
A schematic to illustrate possible connections
between academic and dietary inputs and outcomes
is presented in Figure 1. Mechanisms for school
nutrition interventions’ effects on academic perfor-
mance continue to be unclear. Healthier school meals
may offer a long-term effect of improved nutrient
intake and nutritional status, with positive effects on
cognition; however, socioeconomic indicators also pre-
dict academic performance in addition to nutritional
status.11,13 We suggest, as have others, that academic
outcomes may improve due to increased attendance
and, consequently, increased instructional time.44,45 It
is possible that measures of pro-academic behaviors
may better indicate students’ potential for academic
success: time on task, classroom behavior, creativity,
and attitudes toward learning.9
Mechanisms to explain why gardening interven-
tions specifically improve academic outcomes in
students are similarly speculative. School garden
programs broadly aim to improve children’s dietary
choices through improved knowledge of and attitudes
toward FV; this is generally conceptualized using
social cognitive theory.23 However, this does not
relate directly to academic outcomes. It is clear
from protein-energy malnutrition-related literature
that improving students’ nutritional status improves
academic outcomes,12,45,50 but this effect is less
apparent in students who are provided with adequate
protein and energy.9School gardens may improve
students’ attitudes toward school itself—a byproduct
of experiential education, rather than a primary
objective of the program itself, because enhanced
school engagement leads to improved academic
outcomes. Gardens also may help students develop
observational skills, and simultaneously provide an
opportunity for students to integrate interdisciplinary
content in the context of a living laboratory. Indeed,
experiential learning opportunities like school gardens
have been shown to increase student engagement.
Christenson et al51 define experiential learning as
activities that enhance student learning through active
participation. This type of learning has been shown to
motivate students to dedicate time and energy to their
learning, leading to more engaged students.51
Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association •515
While the degree of change in each of these stud-
ies is not large, it may help close the achievement
gap between low- and adequate-income families.40,41
Much like substantial dietary change is difficult to
achieve, substantial academic achievement improve-
ment is probably difficult to achieve without sus-
tained changes to the learning environment. Although
extensive attention has been given to improving
academic performance by preventing protein-energy
malnutrition,9,11-14 excess nutrition and the resul-
tant obesity also influence academic performance.
As described above, the documented connections
between obesity and academic performance indicate
that healthier children are also better learners.4-8
Nutrition education, meal offerings, and school gar-
dens are also aimed at obesity prevention through
improved diet quality as a result of increased knowl-
edge, improved food options in the school setting, and
improved choices throughout an individual’s lifetime.
This article has limitations. Interventions were
methodologically diverse. These garden interventions,
like in earlier reviews, commonly identified incom-
plete methodological descriptions, use of a conve-
nience sample, often a lack of a control group, and
small cohorts.49 These shortcomings limit between-
study comparisons and definitive conclusions. As men-
tioned above, a major limitation is the small number
of studies that met inclusion criteria. Indeed, previ-
ous reviews of both academic and nutritional/dietary
outcomes cautioned against overly zealous affirma-
tions of such interventions because the literature is
scarce, albeit growing, particularly with regard to gar-
den programs. Further work is needed using strong
experimental designs with control groups, longitudinal
analyses, and nonconvenience-sample cohorts.
Furthermore, few nutrition and garden interven-
tions have measured academic performance. Among
those that have, outcomes are difficult to compare
due to diverse measurement tools. The recent national
creation of the Common Core Standards may bet-
ter facilitate academic outcomes assessment along-
side health-oriented school programs. Legislators and
school administrators are accustomed to utilizing stan-
dardized test scores and school grades for outcome
comparisons, and the new standards may permit
improved across-site academic outcome comparabil-
ity. In addition, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of
2010 legislated extensive changes in the NSLP and SBP
nutrition aims,52 and identified important evaluative
outcome include children’s improved health concur-
rent with the ongoing aims of improved academic
performance.
No studies addressed instructional quality due to
their limited scope, but it could be considered in this
newer context. Aspects of academic performance such
as time on task and classroom behavior, although
vital to the school and learning environment, require
much more time on the part of the investigator
and/or teacher to quantify and qualify. These are
important aspects to measure in future studies. Finally,
cohort age ranges are limited, with most focusing on
elementary students, suggesting a need for studies
involving middle and high school students.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH
Areviewof16longitudinalschoolgardeninter-
vention studies show potential for school-based inter-
ventions to improve student academic performance,
attendance, as well as mediators of FV intake, although
the effects are small and most studies are quasi-
experimental in nature. Schools may want to consider
school gardens as a hands-on instructional tool to
enhance science learning and to potentially improve
long-term FV consumption. However, few studies
met inclusion criteria, limiting the strength of these
findings. More research is needed with a focus on
comprehensive school garden interventions, including
those involving school meal modifications, NE, and
expanded opportunities for integrating school gardens
into curricular instruction. Balancing scientific rigor
with minimal disruption in the school day is a chal-
lenge, but one worth undertaking in order to ensure
that educational systems/settings promote intellectual
and physical health and development for all children.
REFERENCES
1. Sibley B, LeMasurier GC. Children’s health and academic
performance: elevating physical education’s role in schools.
Int J Phys Educ.2008;45(2):64-82.
2. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Lamb MM, Flegal KM.
Prevalence of high body mass index in US children and
adolescents, 2007-2008. JAMA.2010;303(3):242-249.
3. Institute of Medicine. School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy
Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.
4. Datar A, Sturm R. Childhood overweight and elementary school
outcomes. Int J Obes.2006;30(9):1449-1460.
5. Judge S, Jahns L. Association of overweight with academic
performance and social and behavioral problems: an update
from the early childhood longitudinal study. J Sch Health.
2007;77(10):672-678.
6. Shephard RJ. Curricular physical activity and academic
performance. Pediatr Exerc Sci.1997;9(2):113-126.
7. Dwyer T, Sallis JF, Blizzard L, Lazarus R, Dean K. Relation
of academic performance to physical activity and fitness in
children. Pediatr Exerc Sci.2001;13(3):225-237.
8. Mo-suwan L, Lebel L, Puetpaiboon A, Junjana C. School
performance and weight status of children and young
adolescents in a transitional society in Thailand. Int J Obes
Relat Metab Disord.1999;23(3):272-277.
9. Hoyland A, Dye L, Lawton CL. A systematic review of the
effect of breakfast on the cognitive performance of children and
adolescents. Nutr Res Rev.2009;22(2):220-243.
10. Vaillancourt T, Brittain HL, McDougall P, Duku E. Longitudinal
links between childhood peer victimization, internalizing and
externalizing problems, and academic functioning: develop-
mental cascades. JAbnormChildPsychol.2013;41(8):1203-1215.
516 •Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association
11. Rampersaud GC, Pereira MA, Girard BL, Adams J, Metzl JD.
Breakfast habits, nutritional status, body weight, and academic
performance in children and adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc.
2005;105(5):742-743.
12. Taras H. Nutrition and student performance at school. JSch
Health.2005;75(6):199-213.
13. Jyoti DF, Frongillo EA, Jones SJ. Food insecurity affects school
children’s academic performance, weight gain, and social skills.
JNutr.2005;135(12):2831-2839.
14. Murray NG, Low BJ, Hollis C, Cross AW, Davis SM. Coordinated
school health programs and academic achievement: a systematic
review of the literature. JSchHealth.2007;77(9):589-600.
15. National Center for Education Statistics - Digest of Education
Statistics. Percentage of population 3 to 34 years old enrolled in
school, by age group: selected years, 1940 through 2008. Avail-
able at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_
007.asp. Accessed September 2, 2014.
16. National Center for Education Statistics - Digest of Education
Statistics. Estimates of resident population, by age group:
1970 through 2009. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/d09/tables/dt09_015.asp. Accessed September 2, 2014.
17. United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutri-
tion Service. School Breakfast Program: Program History.
Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/program-history.
Accessed July 26, 2013.
18. Briefel RR, Wilson A, Gleason PM. Consumption of low-
nutrient, energy-dense foods and beverages at school, home,
and other locations among school lunch participants and
nonparticipants. J Am Diet Assoc.2009;109(suppl2):S79-S90.
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health
Education Standards. 2013. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/
healthyyouth/sher/standards/. Accessed May 22, 2014.
20. Ozer EJ. The effects of school gardens on students and schools:
conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy
development. Health Educ Behav.2007;34(6):846-863.
21. National Farm to School Network. The Benefits of Farm to
School. Available at: http://www.farmtoschool.org/Resources/
BenefitsFactSheet.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2014.
22. Kohlstedt SG. ‘‘A better crop of boys and girls’’: the
school gardening movement, 1890-1920. Hist Educ Q.2008;
48(1):58-93.
23. Roche E, Conner D, Kolodinsky J, Buckwalter E, Berlin
L, Powers A. Social cognitive theory as a framework
for considering farm to school programming. Child Obes.
2012;8(4):357-363.
24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommended
community strategies and measurements to prevent obe-
sity in the United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.
2009;58(RR07):1-26.
25. Wisconsin Department of Health Services- Division of Public
Health- NPAOP, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruc-
tion, University of Wisconsin Extension. Got Dirt? Garden
Toolkit for Implementing Youth Gardens. 2013. Available at:
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/physical-activity/FoodSystem/
Gardening/GotDirt/index.htm. Accessed September 2, 2014.
26. Seagraves RL, Whittlesey L, Klemmer C, et al. Junior Master
Gardener: Level 1 Teacher/Leader Guide. Bryan, TX: Texas A&M
AgriLife Extension; 2005.
27. Cotugna N, Manning CK, DiDomenico J. Impact of the
use of produce grown in an elementary school garden on
consumption of vegetables at school lunch. JHungerEnviron
Nutr.2012;7(1):11-19.
28. Meinen A, Friese B, Wright W, Carrel A. Youth gardens increase
healthy behaviors in young children. JHungerEnvironNutr.
2012;7(2-3):192-204.
29. Ratcliffe MM, Merrigan KA, Rogers BL, Goldberg JP. The effects
of school garden experiences on middle school-aged students’
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with vegetable
consumption. Health Promot Pract.2011;12(1):36-43.
30. Morris JL, Zidenberg-Cherr S. Garden-enhanced nutrition
curriculum improves fourth-grade school children’s knowledge
of nutrition and preferences for some vegetables. J Am Diet Assoc.
2002;102(1):91-93.
31. Nolan GA, McFarland AL, Zajicek JM, Waliczek TM. The
effects of nutrition education and gardening on attitudes,
preferences, and knowledge of minority second to fifth graders
in the Rio Grande Valley toward fruit. HortTechnology.2012;
22(3):299-304.
32. Parmer SM, Salisbury-Glennon J, Shannon D, Struempler
B. School gardens: an experiential learning approach for a
nutrition education program to increase fruit and vegetable
knowledge, preference, and consumption among second-grade
students. JNutrEducBehav.2009;41(3):212-217.
33. Morgan PJ, Warren JM, Lubans DR, Saunders KL, Quick GI,
Collins CE. The impact of nutrition education with and without
a school garden on knowledge, vegetable intake and preferences
and quality of school life among primary-school students. Public
Health Nutr.2010;13(11):1-10.
34. Morris JL, Neustadter A, Zidenberg-Cherr S. First-grade garden-
ers more likely to taste vegetables. Calif Agric. 2001;55(1):43-46.
35. Lineberger SE, Zajicek JM. School gardens: can a hands-on
teaching tool affect students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding
fruit and vegetables? HortTechnology.2000;10(3):593-597.
36. Wang MC, Rauzon S, Studer N, et al. Exposure to a compre-
hensive school intervention increases vegetable consumption.
JAdolescHeal.2010;47(1):74-82.
37. McAleese JD, Rankin LL. Garden-based nutrition education
affects fruit and vegetable consumption in sixth-grade adoles-
cents. J Am Diet Assoc.2007;107(4):662-665.
38. Klemmer CD, Waliczek TM, Zajicek JM. Growing minds: the
effect of a school gardening program on the science achievement
of elementary students. HortTechnology.2005;15(3):448-452.
39. Pigg AE, Waliczek TM, Zajicek JM. Effects of a gardening pro-
gram on the academic progress of third, fourth, and fifth grade
math and science students. HortTechnology. 2006;16(2):262-264.
40. Hollar D, Messiah SE, Lopez-Mitnik G, Hollar TL, Almon
M, Agatston AS. Effect of a two-year obesity prevention
intervention on percentile changes in body mass index
and academic performance in low-income elementary school
children. Am J Public Health.2010;100(4):646-653.
41. Hollar D, Lombardo M, Lopez-Mitnik G, et al. Effective multi-
level, multi-sector, school-based obesity prevention program-
ming improves weight, blood pressure, and academic per-
formance, especially among low-income, minority children.
JHealthCarePoorUnderserved. 2010;21(suppl 2):93-108.
42. Smith LL, Motsenbocker CE. Impact of hands-on science
through school gardening in Louisiana public elementary
schools. HortTechnology.2005;15(3):439-443.
43. Robinson-O’Brien R, Story M, Heim S. Impact of garden-based
youth nutrition intervention programs: a review. JAmDiet
Assoc.2009;109(2):273-280.
44. Meyers AF, Sampson AE, Weitzman M, Rogers BL, Kayne H.
School Breakfast Program and school performance. Am J Dis
Child.1989;143(10):1234-1239.
45. Murphy JM, Pagano ME, Nachmani J, Sperling P, Kane
S, Kleinman RE. The relationship of school breakfast to
psychosocial and academic functioning: cross-sectional and
longitudinal observations in an inner-city school sample. Arch
Pediatr Adolesc Med.1998;152(9):899-907.
46. Hollar D, Messiah SE, Lopez-Mitnik G, Hollar TL, Almon
M, Agatston AS. Healthier options for public schoolchildren
program improves weight and blood pressure in 6- to 13-year-
olds. J Am Diet Assoc.2010;110(2):261-267.
47. Sibley BA, Ward RM, Yazvac TS, Zullig K, Potteiger JA.
Making the grade with diet and exercise. AASA J Scholar Pract.
2008;5(2):38-45.
Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association •517
48. Blair D. The child in the garden: an evaluative review of
the benefits of school gardening. JEnvironEduc. 2009;40(2):
15-38.
49. Williams DR, Dixon PS. Impact of garden-based learning on
academic outcomes in schools: synthesis of research between
1990 and 2010. Rev Educ Res.2013;83(2):211-235.
50. Florence MD, Asbridge M, Veugelers PJ. Diet quality and
academic performance. JSchHealth.2008;78(4):209-215.
51. Christenson S, Reschly A, Wylie C. Handbook of Research on
Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer; 2012:816.
52. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Pub L No. 111-296, 124
Stat. 3183. US Congress; 2010:1-84.
518 •Journal of School Health •August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8 •©2015, American School Health Association
