
































Microsoft Word - 281-Final.docx


   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 1, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Jade Frederickson, PhD Student/Research Assistant, University of Georgia, 129A Four Towers, 405 College Station Road, 

Athens, GA 30602, jade.frederickson@uga.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9165-7830 
2. Dr. Jason Peake, Professor, University of Georgia, 130 Four Towers, 405 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602, 

jpeake@uga.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1431-5447 
62 

 

Examining Level of School Garden Integration among Georgia 
Elementary Agricultural Education Teachers 

J. Frederickson1, J. Peake2 
 

 
Article History 
Received: November 17, 2022 
Accepted: January 30, 2023 
Published: February 9, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
quantitative; focus groups; 
experiential learning; environmental 
education; gardening   

Abstract 
This study used the GREEN (Garden Resources, Education, and 
Environment Nexus) tool to examine the level of school garden 
integration in elementary agricultural teachers’ classrooms. The tool 
describes the 19 necessary components (e,g., organizational support, 
garden space) for gardens to become integrated within the school. This 
study utilized mixed methods with a concurrent triangulation design 
based on quantitative data obtained from an online questionnaire and 
qualitative data collected from focus groups. The findings were used to 
validate the findings produced by the other method. The population 
consisted of elementary agriculture teachers in Georgia. Though a 
definitive model does not yet exist for elementary agriculture education, 
it was clear that teachers rely on hands-on, experiential teaching 
activities such as garden maintenance tasks and taste tests. Teachers 
struggle most with volunteer and parent involvement and social events 
in the garden, largely because of the lasting impacts of the COVID-19 
pandemic. Future research should consider how the results of the GREEN 
tool can shape professional development topics and help teachers set 
goals to improve their garden’s level of integration. Research should also 
examine how COVID-19 impacted school garden programs. 



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  63 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Agricultural education endeavors to teach children about “the plants, animals, and natural 
resource systems” (Talbert et al., 2014, p. 264). Until recently, students in secondary education 
and up were often the recipients of such instruction (National Association of Agricultural 
Educators, 2022), but Georgia is one state that piloted programming at the elementary level 
(Georgia Senate Bill 330, 2018). Georgia House Bill 1303 later passed, changing the pilot to an 
ongoing program.  
 
Teaching agricultural education at the elementary level is not a new idea despite this recent 
legislation. Previous research suggests the lack of agricultural literacy among today’s youth as 
well as agriculture’s permeation into many areas of life (e.g., food and clothing production) as 
reasons why it would behoove schools to introduce children to this subject at younger ages 
(Hess & Trexler, 2011; Koy & Tarpley, 2020). Other research (Knobloch et al., 2007; Mabie & 
Baker, 1996; National Research Council, 1988) further documents the importance of teaching 
younger children about agricultural education, especially as it relates to experiential learning.  
School gardens are one avenue for experiential learning (DeMarco et al., 1999) where teaching 
in gardens pairs with subjects of agriculture, math, English, and science, among others (Ozer, 
2007). Thorp (2005) also explored the impact gardening can have on children, postulating that 
gardens are places where wonder and creativity flourish. Though beneficial for learning, 
gardens often suffer from lack of funding, student use, care and attention, integration within 
the school community, and longevity of the program (Burt et al., 2017a, 2017b). There is also 
little research on how such an encompassing tool could supplement learning in the elementary 
agricultural classroom. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The Agricultural Education Model 
Agricultural education today aims to teach students about agriculture’s relation to animal and 
poultry sciences, food and nutrition, the environment, horticulture, biotechnology, and 
mechanical skills (Croom, 2008; National Association of Agricultural Educators, 2022). Several 
programmatic developments came together over time to assist in the development of the 
three-component model for agricultural education, a model used to disseminate information 
regarding the aforementioned content areas. Specifically, the three components are classroom 
or laboratory instruction; experiential learning, often through a Supervised Agricultural 
Experience (SAE); and leadership education, usually through Future Farmers of America (FFA).  
 
Elementary Agricultural Education  
Georgia Senate Bill 330 and House Bill 1303 may have provided the space for elementary 
agricultural education, but no three-component model exists for these age ranges. Additionally, 
because the program is newer, few state standards exist. Peake et al. (2020) thus conducted a 
study to establish appropriate agricultural standards based on the needs of elementary 
students in Georgia. The study involved 16 stakeholders—middle and high school agriculture 
teachers, elementary school teachers, elementary and middle school principals, state and 



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  64 
 

national agricultural program representatives, Georgia state staff, and commodity group 
representatives—who decided on 52 relevant topics. Bailey (2021) later conducted a needs 
assessment to further assess the appropriateness of these standards. The results of this study 
indicated teachers needed guidance on how to introduce experiential learning opportunities in 
the elementary setting. 
 
Experiential Learning 
Experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) is an important theory that has permeated into the practice 
and teaching of agricultural education (Baker et al., 2012). Basic tenets of this theory propose 
that agricultural education should be a mechanism by which educators help students move 
beyond simply retaining knowledge to creating new meaning in other areas of their life. 
Educators are encouraged to provide children with relevant, relatable, concrete, and hands-on 
opportunities. A natural and easy-to-incorporate example of this is school gardens, a long-
standing experiential learning and agricultural education practice (Williams, 2019). 
 
Evaluating Integration of School Gardens 
School gardens offer hands-on learning across many subjects, expose children to healthy 
behaviors, and allow for connections with the community. For students to receive a wide range 
of benefits, gardens must be well-integrated within the school community (Burt et al., 2017a). 
The GREEN (Garden Resources, Education, and Environment Nexus) Tool describes the 
necessary components for gardens to become integrated within the school. The conception 
itself is a circle, with four domains lining the outside of the circle: Resources and Support, 
Physical Garden, Student Experience, and School Community. Each domain has a variable 
number of components, which are oriented in an N-S, E-W fashion. The components are 
arranged from the outside of the circle moving in to suggest that moving inward can lead to a 
more integrated garden. Resources and Support is the suggested entryway. 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to examine the level of school garden integration in elementary 
agricultural education teachers’ classrooms. The following objectives were set after reviewing 
the literature but prior to collecting data: 
1. Describe elementary agriculture school garden characteristics. 
2. Describe elementary agriculture teachers’ level of school garden integration. 
3. Utilize GREEN Tool results to determine topic areas for future professional development for 

Georgia elementary agriculture educators. 
 

Methods 
 
This study was mixed methods in nature and used a concurrent triangulation design (QUANT + 
qual) based on quantitative data obtained from an online questionnaire distributed via 
Qualtrics and qualitative data collected from follow-up focus groups that were used to validate 
both sets of data (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019). This study operated as part of a larger initiative to 



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  65 
 

learn more about Georgia elementary agriculture teachers. As elementary agricultural 
educators do not receive Extended Day Extended Year pay, compensation of $300 was offered 
to subjects to increase participation. This study was conducted as part of a larger NIFA/USDA 
grant focusing on professional development for elementary agriculture education teachers.  
 
The questionnaire was distributed online via Qualtrics to all identified elementary agriculture 
education teachers in Georgia (N = 35). Because this program first operated as a pilot program, 
this contact information was readily available from the Georgia Department of Education. 
Those who completed the initial questionnaire were asked to participate in a focus group. The 
questionnaire was initially open for completion during the first three weeks of June 2022 with a 
focus group planned to be held at the end of the month. Because teachers’ schedules vary and 
participation was limited, the researchers extended the data collection period through mid-
August. A second focus group occurred in the middle of August. Throughout the duration of the 
data collection period, 15 total teachers (n = 15) completed the questionnaire in its entirety for 
a response rate of 42.9%, and 11 teachers (n = 11) attended the focus groups.  
 
The online questionnaire was modeled after the GREEN tool scorecard, which has four domains 
comprised of 19 total components deemed essential to having a well-integrated school garden. 
Each component was written as a question. For example, budget and funding is one component 
of the resources and support domain. This statement read, “I have enough funds to support my 
school garden.” The teacher was asked to read the statement presented for each component 
and then rate on a scale of one to seven, one being the lowest and seven being the highest, 
how well each component described their school garden. Researchers worked with Dr. Kate 
Burt to develop this questionnaire (K. Burt, personal communications, May 12, 2022). To situate 
this tool for elementary agriculture education teachers, the researchers included a 
demographics question that asked teachers to explain the number of years and their 
experiences working in a garden. Another addition was to include a question about whether the 
teacher believed they were the best individual at their school to answer this survey. Finally, 
each component also asked teachers to rate their confidence of how true they believed their 
answer to be about the evaluative component of the garden. For example, when considering 
the budget and funding component again, once the teacher responded, they were asked, “How 
confident are you in your ability to answer this question about your school’s garden? (1 is not 
confident at all, 7 is very confident).”  
 
The reliability of the tool for elementary agricultural education teachers in Georgia could not be 
established due to the small sample (n = 15 for quantitative and n = 11 for qualitative). The 
various backgrounds and experiences in gardening, teaching, and agriculture education allowed 
the research team to establish the population as experts among those in elementary agriculture 
education. A review by the sample population allowed the researchers to establish face, 
criterion, and content validity of the questionnaire. 
 
Limitations 
Significance could not be determined due to the small sample size. Only descriptive measures 
(means and standard deviations) via SPSS Version 27 were used in reporting measures. Another 



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  66 
 

limitation of the study was that because the questions were worded based on the scorecard, 
some questions were purposely left double-barreled. Focus groups were conducted to mitigate 
these concerns and clarify the quantitative nature of the questionnaire.  
 

Findings 
 
Participant Demographics 
Eighteen individuals completed the online questionnaire, 16 indicated they had school gardens, 
and of the 16, 15 participants completed the questionnaire in its entirety. Table 1 describes 
relevant participant demographic characteristics. All 15 teachers taught a combination of 
kindergarten through fifth grade; two teachers also taught middle school (sixth through eighth) 
grades. 
 
Table 1 
 
Participant Demographic Characteristics (n = 15) 
Characteristic f % 
Gender   
Female 11 73% 
Male 4 27% 
Age   
30 to 40 6 40% 
41 to 50 5 33% 
51 and over 4 27% 
Certification   
Agriculture education 9 60% 
Elementary education 6 40% 
Total years of teaching experience   
0 to 5 1 7% 
6 to 10  5 33% 
11 to 15  1 7% 
16 to 20 4 27% 
More than 20  4 27% 
Years teaching agriculture     
0 to 5 11 73% 
6 to 10 
More than 10 

2 
2 

13% 
13% 

Years of experience farming or gardening   
0 to 5 
6 to 10 
11 to 15 
16 to 20 
More than 20 

 
2 
2 
3 
1 
7 

 
13% 
13% 
20% 
7% 

47% 



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  67 
 

Describing their School Garden Characteristics 
Every teacher indicated they had some type of school garden that their students used in some 
capacity. Table 2 describes the types of gardens and the student garden interactions. Several 
teachers described using more than one type of gardening setting or interaction activity. 
 
Table 2 
 
Teacher’s Garden Characteristics (n = 15) 
Component of the Garden f % 
Type of Set-Up   
Raised or galvanized garden bed(s) 15 100% 
Pollinator garden 6 40% 
Alternative system (e.g., hydroponic, aeroponic, etc.) 5 33% 
Greenhouse 4 27% 
Fruit production (e.g., fruit trees, berry bushes) 4 27% 
Container garden 3 20% 
School cafeteria garden 2 13% 
Open field plot 2 13% 
Hoop house or high tunnel 2 13% 
Chicken coops 2 13% 
Themed garden (e.g., salsa, pizza, etc.) 1 7% 
Sensory garden 1 7% 
Ways Students Interact   
General care and maintenance (e.g., seeding, planting, weeding, etc.) 15 100% 
Related classwork (e.g., plant life cycles, observation journals, etc.) 10 67% 
Taste tests or related cooking activities  3 20% 
Garden bed construction  2 13% 
Outdoor classroom space 2 13% 
Hydroponic maintenance and care 1 7% 
Nutrition education lessons 1 7% 

 
Fifteen teachers indicated they had some type of raised bed. The second and third most 
common types of gardens were pollinator gardens and alternative systems, respectively. 
Additionally, every teacher indicated their students participated in the general maintenance 
and care of the garden. Most teachers (n = 10, 67%) indicated they connect the garden to 
learning in the classroom. 
 
Evaluating Level of Garden Integration  
Four domains comprise the GREEN Tool: resources and support, physical garden, student 
experience, and school community. Each domain with the resulting scores from the 
questionnaire will be discussed independently, where each section presents a table displaying 
highest and lowest GREEN tool scores as well as related confidence scores. The confidence 
scores indicate whether the teacher believed the GREEN Tool score they assigned each 
component is accurate for their garden (e.g., confidence of 7 indicates they believed they 



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  68 
 

accurately described that component’s effect on their garden). Eighteen of the nineteen mean 
confidence scores were above six, so teachers were confident that they could answer the 
questions related to their school garden. The highest and lowest scores were also provided as 
context for the range of teachers’ responses. 
 
Domain 1 – Resources and Support 
The five components of domain one are budget and funding, network and partner 
organizations, administrative support, professional development, and organizational structure. 
The GREEN Tool and related confidence score are listed in Table 3. Administrative support (M = 
5.2) refers to support from key leaders within the school community, whereas organizational 
structure (M = 3.3) refers to the individuals that determine how to operate the garden 
program. The focus group conversations revealed several key points. First, many teachers 
indicated that their local Farm Bureau and garden-related supply stores were huge sources of 
support (component: network and partner organizations). Several, however, expressed they 
wished they had more chances to connect with their fellow elementary agriculture education 
teachers. Additionally, many teachers indicated their administration was supportive of their 
garden program, yet they still lacked any sort of regular funding and professional development 
opportunities to support and sustain their program. Thus, again, teachers rely on their external 
partnerships to support their programs.  
 
Table 3 
 
Summary and Comparison of GREEN Tool and Confidence Scores for Domain 1 (n = 15) 

Component 
GREEN Tool Scores Confidence Scores 
Lowest Highest M SD M SD 

Administrative Support 3 7 5.2 1.4 6.3 0.6 
Network and Partner Orgs. 3 7 4.8 1.8 5.9 1.3 
Budget and Funding 1 7 4.4 2.2 6.3 0.6 
Professional Development 1 7 4.4 2.1 6.2 0.6 
Organizational Structure 1 7 3.3 2.1 6.1 0.6 

Note. For GREEN Tool scores, on a scale of one to seven, one being the lowest and seven being 
the highest, score indicates how well each component described their school garden. For 
confidence, one is not confident at all, and seven is very confident.  
 
Domain 2 – Physical Garden 
The five components of domain two are planning and establishing the physical space, garden 
care and upkeep, space for the physical garden, crop vitality and diversity, and evaluation and 
feedback. The GREEN Tool and related confidence score are listed in Table 4. Both planning and 
establishing the physical space and space for the physical garden had the highest mean scores 
(M = 5.7) each. The evaluation and feedback component had the lowest mean score (M = 4.3). 
Regarding the two highest mean scores, these components refer to the deliberate action taken 
to plan the garden based on the school’s needs and the actual space devoted to the garden, 
respectively. Evaluation and feedback refer to the communication or information one receives 
about the effectiveness or efficacy of the garden. The focus group conversations revealed some 



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  69 
 

conflicting points, especially in relation to the planning and establishing the physical space 
component. Several teachers indicated the garden’s location was not ideal, particularly because 
they were not involved in the planning process. For example, two teachers mentioned their 
garden is on the opposite side of the school grounds from their classroom, making it hard to 
walk over there during the allotted class time. Several others also mentioned water hookups 
were not close to the garden, and at least one indicated the garden was too close to the 
playground areas. Despite these contradictions, almost all teachers said they were proud of the 
garden and enjoyed its space, despite some of the difficulties they expressed related to its 
layout. Regarding evaluation and feedback, teachers often rely on the expressed emotions of 
the students. This falls more clearly under domain 3, which will be discussed next.  
 
Table 4 
 
Summary and Comparison of GREEN Tool and Confidence Scores for Domain 2 (n = 15) 

Component 
GREEN Tool Scores Confidence Scores 
Lowest Highest M SD M SD 

Planning and establishing the 
physical space 1 7 5.7 1.6 6.4 0.4 

Space for the physical garden 1 7 5.7 1.9 6.3 0.6 
Crop vitality and diversity 2 7 5.1 1.6 6.3 0.6 
Garden care and upkeep 3 7 4.9 1.8 6.2 0.6 
Evaluation and feedback 1 7 4.3 1.7 6.3 0.7 

 
Domain 3 – Student Experience 
The six components of domain three are connection with the curriculum, learning 
opportunities, time spent in the garden, activities, engagement, and tasting. The GREEN Tool 
scores and related confidence scores are listed in Table 5. The connection with the curriculum 
component had the highest mean score (M = 6.3) whereas the tasting component had the 
lowest mean (M = 4.5). The high mean for connections with the curriculum indicates that 
teachers do not struggle with matching teaching in the garden to state-mandated learning 
objectives. The high mean for this domain is unsurprising given the data presented in Table 2, 
which indicates that 10 teachers utilize the garden to support learning in other subjects. The 
focus group conversations also corroborated this; most of the agriculture teachers confirmed 
they do not struggle relating the state standards to learning in the garden. One participant 
indicated that although they must work harder to lesson plan, they do not struggle to connect 
the curriculum with learning in the garden.  
 
Tasting as a component had the lowest mean score in this domain, which was not anticipated 
given that Table 2 shows three teachers indicated this was a way the students interacted with 
the garden. Additionally, during the focus groups, several teachers indicated the students loved 
tasting what they grew. A consideration for this low score could be that teachers only 
considered tasting activities that they led to be the criteria for this component (i.e., they may 
not count whether the students taste the vegetables in the cafeteria rather than in their 
classroom).  



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  70 
 

Table 5 
 
Summary and Comparison of GREEN Tool and Confidence Scores for Domain 3 (n = 15) 
Component GREEN Tool Scores Confidence Scores 

Lowest Highest M SD M SD 
Connection with curriculum 6 7 6.3 0.5 6.3 0.6 
Engagement 5 7 6.2 0.6 6.4 0.4 
Learning opportunities 5 7 5.9 0.9 6.3 0.6 
Activities 5 7 5.9 0.7 6.4 0.4 
Time spent in the garden 4 7 5.7 1.2 6.3 0.6 
Tasting 3 7 4.5 1.3 6.4 0.4 

 
Domain 4 – School Community  
The three components of domain four are volunteer and parent involvement, social events, and 
food environment. The GREEN Tool and related confidence score are in Table 6. All components 
in domain four ranked low relative to the components of the other domains. The conversations 
during the focus groups were also the shortest when discussing this domain. At least one 
teacher in each focus group mentioned the COVID-19 pandemic played a significant impact on 
their school’s ability to bring in volunteers or host social events. For example, the teacher 
specifically mentioned that their school will not allow volunteers; thus, this domain’s 
components may not be as relevant to their garden’s success. 
 
Table 6 
 
Summary and Comparison of GREEN Tool and Confidence Scores for Domain 4 (n = 15) 
Component GREEN Tool Scores Confidence Scores 

Lowest Highest M SD M SD 
Food environment 1 7 4.3 1.6 6.0 0.4 
Social events 1 7 3.4 2.4 6.4 0.4 
Volunteer involvement 1 7 2.9 2.2 6.3 0.6 

 
Table 7 provides a summary of the GREEN Tool component and confidence scores, ranked 
highest to lowest. Each line also indicates which domain covers that component. 
 
  



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  71 
 

Table 7 
 
Highest to Lowest Ranked Mean GREEN Tool Scores for all Components (n = 15) 

Component Domain 
Mean GREEN 

Tool Score 
Mean Confidence 

Score 
Connection with curriculum 3 6.3 6.3 
Engagement 3 6.2 6.4 
Activities 3 5.9 6.4 
Learning opportunities 3 5.9 6.3 
Time spent in the garden 3 5.7 6.3 
Space for the physical garden 2 5.7 6.3 
Planning and establishing the physical space 2 5.7 6.4 
Administrative Support  1 5.2 6.3 
Crop vitality and diversity 2 5.1 6.3 
Garden care and upkeep 2 4.9 6.2 
Network and partner organizations 1 4.8 5.9 
Tasting 3 4.5 6.4 
Budget and funding 1 4.4 6.3 
Professional development 1 4.4 6.2 
Evaluation and feedback 2 4.3 6.3 
Food environment 4 4.3 6.0 
Social events 4 3.4 6.4 
Organizational Structure 1 3.3 6.1 
Volunteer and parent involvement 4 2.9 6.3 

Note. Domain 1 is Resources and Support, Domain 2 is Physical Garden, Domain 3 is Student 
Experience, and Domain 4 is School Community. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Objective 1: Describe Elementary Agriculture School Garden Characteristics 
All teachers indicated they had some type of garden in their elementary agricultural education 
program, where raised beds were the most common followed by pollinator gardens and 
alternative systems. All teachers indicated their students participated in the general 
maintenance and care of the garden. 
 
Objective 2: School Garden Integration Levels 
The GREEN Tool proposes that a well-integrated school garden will have all 19 components. 
From the findings, the qualitative data did seem to support the quantitative findings in that 
teachers generally noted they do not struggle engaging students in the garden, either via 
physical activities or classroom learning. Corroborating data can be seen in Tables 2 and 5. 
Though a definitive model does not yet exist for this age sector of agriculture education, these 
findings suggest elementary agricultural education teachers use the garden as a way to 
implement experiential learning. Future research should examine if and how experiential 



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  72 
 

learning is age-appropriate in the elementary agricultural classroom. Specific questions should 
focus on what ways a school garden contributes to this teaching, and whether an integrated 
garden (i.e., sustainable and a part of the school’s culture) changes the efficacy of experiential 
learning. Future research should also examine the efficacy of the components in domain 4, 
which all ranked in the lowest five of the 19 components (Table 7). Specific attention should be 
given to questioning whether the absence of these three components affects the longevity of a 
school garden program and if these three components are relevant to the elementary 
agriculture classroom. Attention should also be given to if and how these three components 
contribute to the experiential learning approach. For example, a question could be: If parents 
come in to volunteer and give a talk about how gardening plays a role in their life, does this 
increase the potentiality of gardens as experiential learning? 
 
Objective 3: Future Professional Development Opportunities  
Table 7 provides an ordered list of school garden components where elementary agriculture 
teachers scored highest and lowest. These data suggest that volunteer and parent involvement, 
organizational structure, social events, food environment, and evaluation and feedback are the 
five areas where professional development could most benefit elementary agriculture 
education teachers. However, it is noteworthy that professional development ranked 14 of the 
19 components considered necessary for having a well-integrated school garden. Considering 
the relatively low-rank order of this component, an emergent question is: how is professional 
development best delivered to elementary agriculture teachers? These teachers lack extended 
day and extended year funding for non-school-day professional development which inhibits 
their ability to be trained in other areas identified in Table 7. Addressing these roadblocks in 
professional development would be beneficial because it would allow others looking to 
implement school gardens to know where potential weaknesses may occur. 
 
At least two teachers indicated the ongoing pandemic affected their ability to bring external 
individuals into the school. Thus, a final avenue for research could be exploring how such an 
emergency determines short and long-term courses of action for school garden programs. 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
This study was conducted as part of a larger NIFA/USDA grant titled Professional development 
for agricultural literacy in elementary agriculture teachers (PDAL EAT), which focuses on 
professional development for elementary agriculture education teachers. Project No. 
RNIFA0001309501.  
 
J. Frederickson - formal analysis, investigation, writing - original draft, writing - review & 
editing, visualization; J. Peake - conceptualization, methodology, validation, investigation, 
resources, writing - review & editing, supervision, funding acquisition. 
 

 
 



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  73 
 

References 
 
Bailey, H. (2021). A needs assessment of Georgia elementary agriculture education [Master’s 

thesis, University of Georgia]. UGA Theses and Dissertations. 
https://esploro.libs.uga.edu/esploro/outputs/9949374967702959 

 
Baker, M. A., Robinson, J. S., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Aligning Kolb’s experiential learning theory 

with a comprehensive agricultural education model. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
53(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04001  

 
Burt, K. G., Koch, P., & Contento, I. (2017a). Development of the GREEN (garden resources, 

education, and environment nexus) tool: An evidence-based model for school garden 
integration. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 117(10), 1517–1527. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2017.02.008  

 
Burt, K. G., Koch, P., & Contento, I. (2017b). Implementing and sustaining school gardens by 

integrating the curriculum. Health Behavior and Policy Review, 4(5), 427–435. 
https://doi.org/10.14485/HBPR.4.5.2  

 
Croom, B. (2008). The development of the integrated three-component model of agricultural 

education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 110–120. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.01110    

 
DeMarco, L. W., Relf, D., & McDaniel, A. (1999). Integrating gardening into the elementary 

school curriculum. HortTechnology, 9(2), 276–281. 
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.9.2.276  

 
Georgia Senate Bill 330. (2018). https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/52045 
 
Hess, A. J., & Trexler, C. J. (2011). A qualitative study of agricultural literacy in urban youth: 

What do elementary students understand about the agri-food system? Journal of 
Agricultural Education, 52(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2011.04001  

 
Knobloch, N. A., Ball, A. L., & Allen, C. (2007). The benefits of teaching and learning about 

agriculture in elementary and junior high schools. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
48(3), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.03025  

 
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. 

Prentice Hall, Inc. 
 
Koy, K., & Tarpley, R. (2020). Evaluation of elementary agricultural education curriculum for 

integration. NACTA Journal, 65, 334–339. 
https://www.nactateachers.org/attachments/article/3146/2021-0434%20FINAL.pdf 



Frederickson & Peake  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.281  74 
 

 
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2019). Practical research planning and design (12th ed.). Pearson. 
 
Mabie, R., & Baker, M. (1996). A comparison of experiential instructional strategies upon the 

science process skills of urban elementary students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
37(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.1996.02001  

 
National Association of Agricultural Educators. (2022). What is agricultural education? 

https://www.naae.org/whatisaged/  
 
National Research Council. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for education. 

National Academy Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338795 
 
Ozer, E. J. (2007). The effects of school gardens on students and schools: Conceptualization and 

considerations for maximizing healthy development. Health Education & Behavior, 
34(6), 846–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106289002 

 
Peake, J. B., Rubenstein, E. D., & Byrd, B. (2020). Content topic development for elementary 

agricultural education curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 61(3), 101–111. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.03101 

 
Talbert, B. A., Vaughn, R., Croom, B., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Foundations of agricultural education. 

Pearson. 
 
Thorp, L. (2005). A season for seeds: Notes from a schoolyard garden. Culture and Agriculture, 

27(2), 122-130. https://doi.org/10.1525/cag.2005.27.2.122 
 
Williams, P. A. N. (2019). Georgia agricultural education instructors and school gardens: Current 

practices, perceived benefits, barriers and resources [Doctoral dissertation, University of 
Georgia]. UGA Theses and Dissertations. 
https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/williams_patricia_a_201905_edd.pdf  

 
 
 
© 2023 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


