Integration of STEM and gardening for urban elementary youth

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content Running
head:
STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

Integration
of
STEM
and
Gardening
for
Urban
Elementary
Youth

Dr.
Traci
Demuth

A
Dissertation
Presented
to
the

FACULTY
OF
THE
USC
ROSSIER
SCHOOL
OF
EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY
OF
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA

In
Partial
Fulfillment
of
the

Requirements
for
the
Degree

DOCTOR
OF
EDUCATION

December
2015


Copyright
Traci
Demuth
2015
STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

ii

Acknowledgements

I
would
like
to
acknowledge
two
of
my
mentors
who
have
helped
to
shape
my

passion
and
interest
in
teaching
young
children
in
nature:
Dr.
Mellisa
Clawson
and
Dr.
Judy

Lindamood.
I
have
found
myself
repeatedly
inspired
and
driven
by
the
knowledge,

experiences,
and
guidance
they
provided
to
me
throughout
my
development
as
a
teacher

and
faculty
member
in
the
early
childhood
education
field.

I
would
like
to
acknowledge
my
study
group:
David
Morales,
Toutoule
Ntoya,
Emily

Chung,
and
Thoe
Fowles,
for
their
shared
learning,
laughter,
support,
and
friendship
in
our

Ed.D.
program
together
at
USC.

I
would
like
to
acknowledge
my
dissertation
chairs,
Dr.
Frederick
Freking,
Dr.

Anthony
Maddox,
and
Dr.
Lawrence
Picus,
for
their
patience,
constructive
criticism,

positive
reinforcement,
and
encouragement
throughout
this
dissertation
process
and
for

believing
in
me.
Also,
Dr.
Hocevar
for
his
guidance
with
quantitative
analysis.

I
would
like
to
acknowledge
Samantha
Yu,
my
intern
at
EnrichLA,
for
her

enthusiasm
in
assisting
the
STEM
lessons,
as
well
as
involvement
in
helping
to
organize
the

collected
data.
I
appreciate
Samantha’s
and
also
Shana
Baiz’s
support
with
edits
and

formatting.
Additionally,
I’d
like
to
thank
Tim
Mok
and
Angela
Oh
for
their
assistance
with

the
STEM
lessons
and
data
collection.

Finally,
I
would
like
to
acknowledge
my
brother,
James
Demuth,
for
his
love
and

support
as
a
best
friend,
roommate,
and
teacher.
His
words
have
offered
reflection
and

motivation
to
keep
on
truckin’
–
I
am
blessed
to
call
him
my
brother.
And
my
mama,
for

being
there
and
for
being
her
–
she
is
an
inspiration
and
example
of
strength.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

iii

Table
of
Contents

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

List
of
Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………....
vi

Abstract………………………………………………………….……………………………………………
viii

Chapter
One:
Overview
of
the
Study………………………………………………………………
1

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………....
1

Background
of
the
Problem………………………………………………………………...
1

Statement
of
the
Problem…………………………………………………………………...
4

Purpose
of
the
Study…………………………………………………………………………..
6

Research
Questions………………………………………………………………….
6

Importance
of
the
Study……………………………………………………………………...
7

Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………….......
8

Assumptions……………………………………………………………………………………....
9

Definition
of
Key
Terms………………………………………………………………………
9

Chapter
Two:
Literature
Review…………………………………………………………………....
13

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………....
13

Natural
Science
Education………………………………………………………………….
13

Studies
in
Natural
Science………………………………………………………..
13

Environmental
Attitudes………………………………………………………….
14

Parent
and
Teacher
Roles
in
the
Natural
Sciences……………………..
15

Benefits
from
Experiences
in
Nature………………………………………...
16

Further
Research
in
Natural
Sciences……………………………………….
17

Challenges
in
Natural
Sciences…………………………………………………
18

STEM
Education………………………………………………………………………………...
18

Integration
of
STEM………………………………………………………………...
20

Constructivism……………………………………………………………..
20

Stakeholders
in
STEM
Education…………………………………...
21

Programs
that
Support
STEM…………………………………………………..
22

Studies
in
STEM
Education……………………………………………
24

Contracting…………………………………………………………………..
26

Further
Research
in
STEM……………………………………………………….
28

Challenges
with
STEM……………………………………………………………..
30

Economics
in
STEM
Education……………………………………………………………
31

Economic
Benefits
of
Education……………………………………………….
31

Public-‐Private
Partnerships……………………………………………………..
33

Benefits
of
PPP……………………………………………………………..
34

Risks
of
PPP………………………………………………………………….
34

Framework
for
PPP……………………………………………………….
35

Social
capital
in
PPP……………………………………………………...
36

Human
capital
in
PPP…………………………………………………….
37

Further
Research
in
Economics
of
STEM
Education…………………...
38

Challenges
in
Economics
of
STEM
Education………………….................
39

Transformative
Experience…………………………………………………………………
40

Framework
for
Transformative
Experience…………………...................
41

Teaching
for
Transformative
Experience…………………........................
43

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

iv

Examples
of
teaching
for
transformative
experience……….
44

Challenges
with
Transformative
Experience………………….................
45

Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………
45

Chapter
Three:
Methodology….……………………………………………………………………...
47

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….
47

Framework………………………………………………………………………………………...
47

Research
Design…………………………………………………………………………………
48

Sample
and
Population…………………………………………………………….
48

Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………
50

Validity
and
Reliability……………………………………………………………..
52

Data
Collection………………………………………………………………………...
54

Data
Analysis…………………………………………………………………………...
55

Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………
58

Chapter
Four:
Results……………………………………………………………………………………
59

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….
59

Participants………………………………………………………………………………………..
61

Principals
and
Administrators………………………………………………….
62

Teachers………………………………………………………………………………….
63

Students…………………………………………………………………………………..
64

Organization
of
Data
Analysis..…………………………………………………………….
69

Research
Question
One..……………………………………………………………
69

Research
Question
Two..…………………………………………………………..
80

Research
Question
Three..………………………………………………………..
123

Summary………………………………..………………………………………………………….
126

Chapter
Five:
Discussions……………………………………………………………………………..
128

Summary
of
the
Study………….....………………………………………………………….
128

Findings
and
Interpretations………………………………………………………………
129

Question
One..………………………………………………………………………….
129

Question
Two..…………………………………………………………………………
134

Question
Three..……………………………………………………………………….
140

Implications
for
Practice………...……………………………………………………………
141

Recommendations
for
Research…………………………………………………………..
143

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………….
146

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
148

Appendix
A:
Principal
and
Administrator
Interview
Protocols..……………………….
156

Appendix
B:
Teacher
Interview
Questions………………………………………………………
162

Appendix
C:
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
Student
Assessment……………………………
165

Appendix
D:
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
Checklist……………………………………………
166

Appendix
E:
Student
Interview
Questions……………………………………………………….
167

Appendix
F:
TEM
Survey
Tool…………………………………………………………………………
171

Appendix
G:
Student
Assent
Form…………………………………………………………………...
174

Appendix
H:
Parental
Permission……………………….……………………………………………
176

Appendix
I:
STEM-‐Garden
Lesson
Plans……………………….…………………………………..
181

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

v

List
of
Tables

Table
3.1:
Methods
for
Research
Question.…………………………………………...
52

Table
4.1:
Distribution
of
Interviewees
by
Question………………………………
61

Table
4.2:
Analysis
of
Student
Interviews………..…………………………………….
100

Table
4.3:
Kindergarten
Interview
Pre
and
Post
Totals
by
Question.………
101

Table
4.4:
Analysis
of
Student
Draw
a
Scientist
Assessment.……….…………
102

Table
4.5:
Distribution
of
Science
Type
with
Percentages
for

All
Students
from
Pre-‐data……………………………………………………..….
103

Table
4.6:
Distribution
of
Science
Type
with
Percentages
for

All
Students
from
Post-‐data……………………………………………………….
104

Table
4.7:
Draw-‐a-‐Scientist
Checklist
from
Student
Drawings………………..
105

Table
4.8:
Analysis
of
Student
Draw
an
Engineer
Assessment………………..
112

Table
4.9:
Distribution
of
Engineer
Type
with
Percentages
for

All
Students
from
Pre-‐data…………………………………………………………
113

Table
4.10:
Distribution
of
Engineer
Type
with
Percentages
for

All
Students
from
Post-‐data…………………………………………………….…
114

Table
4.11:
Draw
an
Engineer
Checklist
from
Student
Drawings…………….
115

Table
4.12:
Analysis
of
Student
Checklist……………..………………………………..
122

Table
4.13:
Analysis
of
TEM
Tool…………………………………………………………..
124

Table
4.14:
Kindergarten
TEM
Tool
Pre
and
Post
Totals
by
Question.……..
126

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

vi

List
of
Figures

Figure
A:
Green
Elementary
Students
by
Grade
and
Gender…………………...
65

Figure
B:
Winston
Elementary
Students
by
Grade
and
Gender………………..
65

Figure
C:
Green
&
Winston
Elementary
Distribution
of

Students
by
Grade………………………………………………………………………
66

Figure
D:
Distribution
of
Science
Type
for
All
Students
from
Pre-‐data……..
103

Figure
E:
Distribution
of
Science
Type
for
All
Students
from
Post-‐data…….
104

Figure
F1:
Kindergartener
Pre-‐Draw
a
Scientist………………………….…………..
106

Figure
F2:
Kindergartener
Post-‐Draw
a
Scientist………………………….…………
106

Figure
G1:
Second
Grader
Pre-‐Draw
a
Scientist………………………….……………
107

Figure
G2:
Second
Grader
Post-‐Draw
a
Scientist………………………….…………..
107

Figure
H1:
Third
Grader
ELL
Pre-‐Draw
a
Scientist..………………………………….
108

Figure
H2:
Third
Grader
ELL
Post-‐Draw
a
Scientist..………………………………...
108

Figure
I1:
Third-‐Fifth
Grader
Special
Day
Pre-‐Draw
a
Scientist.….…………….
109

Figure
I2:
Third-‐Fifth
Grader
Special
Day
Post-‐Draw
a
Scientist.……………....
109

Figure
J1:
Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Pre-‐Draw
a
Scientist……………………….
110

Figure
J2:
Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Post-‐Draw
a
Scientist……………………...
110

Figure
K1:
Sixth
Grader
Pre-‐Draw
a
Scientist……………………………………………
111

Figure
K2:
Sixth
Grader
Post-‐Draw
a
Scientist…………………………………………..
111

Figure
L:
Distribution
of
Engineer
Type
for

All
Students
from
Pre-‐data…………………………………………………………….
113

Figure
M:
Distribution
of
Engineer
Type
for

All
Students
from
Post-‐data……………………………………………………………
114

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

vii

Figure
N1:
Kindergartener
Pre-‐Draw
an
Engineer……………………………………
116

Figure
N2:
Kindergartener
Post-‐Draw
an
Engineer…………………………………..
116

Figure
O1:
Second
Grader
Pre-‐Draw
an
Engineer……………………………………..
117

Figure
O2:
Second
Grader
Post-‐Draw
an
Engineer……………………………………
117

Figure
P1:
Third
Grader
ELL
Pre-‐Draw
an
Engineer…………………………………
118

Figure
P2:
Third
Grader
ELL
Post-‐Draw
an
Engineer………………………………..
118

Figure
Q1:
Third-‐Fifth
Grader
Special
Day
Pre-‐Draw
an
Engineer……………..
119

Figure
Q2:
Third-‐Fifth
Grader
Special
Day
Post-‐Draw
an
Engineer……………
119

Figure
R1:
Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Pre-‐Draw
an
Engineer……………………
120

Figure
R2:
Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Post-‐Draw
an
Engineer…………………..
120

Figure
S1:
Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Pre-‐Draw
an
Engineer…………………….
121

Figure
S2:
Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Post-‐Draw
an
Engineer……………………
121

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

viii

ABSTRACT

This
mixed-‐methods
study
researches
the
effects
of
the
implementation
of
a
STEM-‐
garden
curriculum
as
part
of
collaboration
between
a
non-‐profit
organization
and
two

public
schools.
This
study
seeks
to
understand
the
processes
and
funding
generated

through
this
partnership
between
a
private
and
public
organization,
as
well
as
to
evaluate

how
students
and
classroom
teachers
are
influenced
by
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum.

In

order
to
capture
these
dynamics,
interviews,
assessments,
and
a
Transformative

Experience
Measurement
(TEM)
tool
were
used
to
collect
data
to
provide
information
for

the
research
questions.
This
study
involves
two
public
LAUSD
schools
and
one
private
non-‐
profit
organization
called
EnrichLA.

The
researcher
developed
a
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
to
align
with
the
foundational

structure
of
lesson
plans
already
constructed
by
EnrichLA’s
curriculum
developers.
These

lesson
plans
were
expanded
upon
to
develop
a
six-‐week
STEM-‐garden
curriculum

implemented
with
public
elementary
school
students
in
grades
Pre-‐K
through
sixth.

Findings
suggest
that
teachers
and
students
experienced
significant
shifts
in
their

understanding
of
engineering,
as
well
as
science
when
measured
both
quantitatively
and

qualitatively.
This
study
discovered
that
students
have
similar
stereotypical
notions
of

science
and
engineering
that
shifted
to
less
stereotypical
after
participating
in
the
STEM-‐
garden
lessons.
Implications
and
recommendations
are
discussed.

Keywords:
STEM,
public
private
partnership,
constructivist,
transformative

experience

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

1

CHAPTER
ONE:
OVERVIEW
OF
THE
STUDY

Introduction

The
natural
world
is
engraved
in
the
human
genotype.
Professor
Edward
Wilson

(1984)
vouches
that
“we
are
human
in
good
part
because
of
the
particular
way
we
affiliate

with
other
organisms.
They
are
the
matrix
in
which
the
human
mind
originated
and
is

permanently
rooted,
and
they
offer
the
challenge
and
freedom
innately
sought”
(p.
139).

For
thousands
of
years
nature
was
part
of
the
human
psyche.
Gardner
(Durie,
1997)

describes
some
of
the
modern
tribulations,
“While
the
ability
doubtless
evolved
to
deal

with
natural
kinds
of
elements,
I
believe
that
it
has
been
hijacked
to
deal
with
the
world
of

man-‐made
objects”.
Technology
is
prevalent
and
influential
on
the
human
mind.
In
urban

communities
many
children
have
no
backyard;
their
experiences
outdoors
are
limited
and

more
often
they
spend
time
indoors
with
electronics.
Wells
(2000)
states
that,
“The
nearby

natural
environment
plays
a
far
more
significant
role
in
the
well-‐being
of
children
residing

in
poor
urban
environments
than
has
previously
been
recognized”
(p.
54).
This
study
takes

a
close
look
at
how
educators
link
Science,
Technology,
Engineering,
and
Math
(STEM)
and

natural
sciences
to
bring
children
a
balanced
experience
between
the
physical
and
virtual

worlds.

Background
of
the
Problem

According
to
the
US
Census,
more
than
one-‐quarter
of
the
population
of
the
United

States
lives
in
cities
where
there
are
few
natural
spaces
(Blair,
2009;
d’Alessio,
2012).

Research
has
recently
portrayed
that
a
tendency
is
rising
in
which
obstacles
are
more

universal
and
therefore
less
children
encounter
nature
directly
(Bruyere,
Wesson,
&
Teel,

2012).
A
couple
obstacles
include
a
lack
of
green
space
and
a
fear
of
nature,
and
more
will

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

2

be
discussed
in
chapter
one
and
two.
These
obstacles
correlate
to
the
fact
that
80%-‐83%
of

the
US
population
lives
in
metropolitan
areas
where
there
is
limited
access
to
green
space

(Blair,
2009;
d’Alessio,
2012).
A
benefit
of
nature
is
that
the
outdoor
environment
naturally

inspires
children
to
be
active,
and
there
is
rising
evidence
that
physical
activity
supports

learning,
memory,
concentration,
mood,
and
creativity
which
all
influence
students’

academic
performance
(Satterlmair
&
Ratey,
2009).
During
the
first
ten
years
of

development,
the
mind
changes
rapidly
and
makes
strong
connections
to
the
surrounding

environment.
In
alignment
with
Darwin’s
study
of
evolution,
d’Alessio
(2012)
discusses

cognitive
scientists’
emphases
that
evolutionary
development
helps
humans
adapt
to
the

environment
and
form
“place-‐identity”-‐
a
sort
of
filter
that
all
environments
are

interpreted
through.
This
means
that
the
“place-‐identity”
for
urban
children
is
usually
of

constructed,
human-‐made
environments,
while
children
who
live
in
rural
areas
or
have

regular
access
to
green
space
identify
with
natural
spaces.
D’Alessio
(2012)
suggests
that

children
need
regular
exposure
to
green
spaces
starting
at
a
young
age
to
connect
with

nature.
When
children
feel
connected
to
nature
they
are
apt
to
spend
more
time
outdoors,

which
supports
behavioral
and
cognitive
development
for
improved
school
performance.

The
growing
population
of
urban
students
is
isolated
from
nature
and
mostly
lives

within
the
built
environment
(d’Alessio,
2012).
This
urban
environment
affects
the
way

students
think
about
the
earth.
They
are
more
at
ease
and
accustomed
to
the
built

environment
than
the
natural
world,
which
may
cause
them
to
choose
more
indoor

activities,
particularly
those
related
to
technology.
“Two
factors
account
for
the
growth
in

urban
thinkers
in
our
classrooms:
a
physical
urban
migration
of
the
population
and
an

artificial
‘urbanism’
due
to
the
digital
media
revolution”
(d’Alessio,
2012,
p.
106).
According

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

3

to
Breyere,
et
al.
(2012),
students
disconnect
and
lack
interest
in
natural
sciences
when

they
lack
access
to
nature
due
to
urbanization
and
loss
of
natural
habitats.
Early
exposure

to
nature
benefits
students
by
shaping
their
environmental
attitudes
and
fostering
a

connection
to
the
natural
world.

Additionally,
attitudes
towards
the
environment
are

developed
through
early
experiences
with
nature
and
positive
attitudes
have
been

correlated
with
interest
in
environmental
awareness
(Bruyere
et
al.,
2012).
Without
a

positive
attitude
towards
protecting
natural
resources,
today’s
youth
may
not
become

future
leaders
in
science
to
solve
both
current
and
future
environmental
issues
(Bradley,

Waliczek,
&
Zajicek,
1999).

With
barriers
to
nature
becoming
a
commonality
in
urban

areas,
researchers
suggest
that
educators
share
in
the
responsibility
for
bringing
nature
to

urban
students
through
science
education,
outdoor
recess,
and
other
experiences
with
the

natural
environment.

Creating
time
and
finding
funding
to
research
the
natural
sciences
in
the
classroom

can
be
challenging.
It
is
common
knowledge
that
the
federal
and
state
governments
fund

public
education,
and
these
funds
are
connected
to
the
resources
accessible
to
schools
for

impacting
student
achievement.
Overall,
The
Great
Recession
of
2008
influenced
per
pupil

spending.
The
stimulus
package
of
2008-‐
2009
grew
federal
education
expenditures
to

9.6%
(Odden
&
Picus,
2014),
and
though
schools
spend
more
today
than
in
2008,
they
do

not
have
as
much
money
as
they
might
have
if
there
had
not
been
a
recession.
Therefore,

schools
have
to
do
more
to
increase
student
achievement
with
less
money
(Silber
&

Condra,
2013).
Over
the
last
decade,
No
Child
Left
Behind
(NCLB)
and
Race
to
the
Top

(RTTT)
have
forced
states
and
districts
to
meet
financial
expectations
and
accountability

required
by
these
reforms
(Odden
&
Picus,
2014).
The
federal
budget
for
the
RTTT

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

4

competition
was
set
at
$4.3
billion
(Breiner,
Johnson,
Harkness,
&
Kockler,
2012).
In
an

increasingly
global
and
technological
economy,
the
United
States
must
hold
ground
in

competition
with
other
countries
in
preparing
students
for
success
in
math
and
science

(Wang,
Moore,
Roehrig,
&
Park,
2011).

If
there
was
a
connection
between
STEM
and

natural
sciences,
such
as
gardening,
then
both
the
challenges
of
student
achievement
and

time
spent
in
nature
might
be
resolved.

Statement
of
the
Problem

American
youth
are
behind
youth
in
other
developed
countries
in
their
science
and

math
abilities
according
to
studies
from
2007-‐2011
by
the
organizations
Programme
for

International
Student
Assessment
(PISA)
and
Trends
in
International
Math
and
Science

Study
(TIMSS)
(Dejarnette,
2012).
The
United
States
is
losing
its
competitive
edge
because

it
is
failing
to
keep
up
with
other
countries
(Wang
et
al.,
2011).
There
is
a
renewed
push
for

STEM
since
the
United
States
has
fallen
behind
internationally
(Bryant,
Davis,
&
Hardin,

2013).

Specifically,
in
the
2007
TIMSS
study,
eighth
graders
ranked
ninth
in
math
and

eleventh
in
science,
while
forth
graders
ranked
eleventh
in
math
and
eighth
in
science

(Bryan
et
al.,
2013).
Moreover,
that
same
year
PISA
ranked
the
US
as
19
th

overall.
The
NCLB

Act
has
resulted
in
attention
on
addressing
English
Language
Arts
(ELA)
and
math

curricula
as
well
as
the
shortage
of
qualified
science
and
math
teachers
(Sanders,
2009).

Competitive
federal
grants,
such
as
Race
to
the
Top,
are
helping
schools
by
spending
money

on
programs
and
technology
to
improve
student
learning
(Silber
&
Condra,
2013).
When

considering
educational
funding,
it
is
important
to
understand
that
it
serves
as
both
a

private
and
public
good
(McMahon,
2010).
Many
private
programs
partner
with
public

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

5

schools
to
increase
student
achievement,
and
these
types
of
partnerships
are
becoming

more
prevalent.

The
State
of
California
is
aware
that
experiences
and
learning
related
to
nature

result
in
reducing
unsatisfactory
standardized
test
scores
for
language
arts,
math,
science,

and
social
studies
(Blair,
2009).
The
California
State
Department
of
Education
has
provided

curricula
and
evaluative
research
to
support
outdoor
learning
(Blair,
2009).
Researchers

have
found
increased
enthusiasm
for
learning,
improvement
in
standardized
test
scores,

and
higher
GPAs
in
92%
of
the
schools
who
integrated
the
outdoor
environment
into
their

curriculum
(Blair,
2009).
Studies
among
school-‐aged
children
display
a
positive
correlation

between
physical
activities
and
cognitive
performance:
perceptual
skills,
intelligence

quotient,
achievement,
verbal
tests,
mathematics
tests,
developmental
level/academic

readiness,
and
other
learning
skills
(Satterlmair
&
Ratey,
2009).
Since
urbanization
reduces

time
in
outdoor
spaces
where
higher-‐level
physical
activity
occurs,
it
influences
children’s

experiences
in
nature
and
children’s
academic
performance
with
up
to
a
24
percent

variance
in
academic
achievement
(Satterlmair
&
Ratey,
2009).
Specifically,
research
by

Taylor
et
al.
(2002)
found
that
girls’
performance
in
concentration,
impulse
inhibition,
and

delay
of
gratification
were
systematically
related
to
near-‐home
views
of
nature
(Taylor
et

al.,
2002).
Impulse
control
is
important
because
students
are
able
to
make
more
careful

choices
and
actions
and
delay
gratification,
which
allows
for
long-‐term
goals
where

rewards
are
not
immediate
(Taylor,
et
al.,
2002).
This
highlights
another
problem
of

practice:
inner
city
neighborhoods
may
contribute
to
lower
levels
of
self-‐discipline
and

higher
rates
of
negative
outcomes
due
to
a
lack
of
green
space
and
active
play
(Taylor
et
al.,

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

6

2002).
The
problem
is
finding
programs
and
curricula
that
address
the
needs
of
STEM

education
and
exposure
to
the
green
spaces,
which
is
the
focus
of
this
research.

Purpose
of
the
Study

The
objectives
of
this
study
are
to
evaluate
the
funding
of
a
private,
non-‐profit,

natural
science
education
program,
and
evaluate
the
effects
of
a
STEM-‐garden
curriculum

implemented
with
urban
elementary
school
children.
This
is
a
qualitative
study,
with
a

mixed-‐methods
component
as
student
qualitative
data
will
be
coded
quantitatively;
this

study
will
collect
various
data
to
support
the
findings
through
the
use
of
interviews,

surveys,
pre
and
post
student
assessments,
and
ongoing
observations.
Three
questions
will

be
asked
because
a
research
question
frames
what
a
researcher
desires
to
understand

(Maxwell,
2013).
The
following
research
questions
will
be
used
to
guide
the
study.

Research
Questions

1.
How
does
a
non-‐profit
organization
partner
with
a
large
urban
school
district
to
fund
a

garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum?

2.
How
does
the
integration
of
a
garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum
change
students’
and

teachers’
perceptions
of
STEM?

3.
Will
elementary
students
that
participate
in
a
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
report
a

Transformative
Experience?

The
operational
funding
sources
at
EnrichLA,
a
non-‐profit
organization
that
builds

and
maintains
gardens
and
teaches
gardening
curriculum
in
low-‐income
Los
Angeles

Unified
School
District
(LAUSD)
schools,
will
be
examined
to
determine
how
financial

needs
are
met.
Currently,
EnrichLA
operates
with
a
curriculum
focused
on
gardening
and

natural
sciences.
This
study
will
investigate
the
implementation
of
a
STEM
curriculum
in

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

7

direct
connection
to
the
natural
science
curriculum
implemented
through
EnrichLA.
The

transfer
of
this
STEM
learning
into
the
students’
understandings
and
connections
to
science

will
be
evaluated
using
a
formal
survey
called
Teaching
for
Transformative
Experience

Science
(TTES).
This
tool
measures
how
students
transfer
STEM-‐garden
content
knowledge

from
a
school
experience
to
an
out-‐of-‐school
experience
emerging
from
their
own

motivation
to
understand
STEM-‐garden
ideas
in
a
new
way.

Importance
of
the
Study

As
previously
mentioned,
there
is
a
national
lack
of
funding
for
natural
sciences,
and

the
value
and
accessibility
of
green
space
is
minimal
in
many
urban
schools.
This
lack
of

access
has
shown
to
negatively
affect
students’
academic
performance
and
hinder
their

learning
capacities.
Programs
like
EnrichLA,
that
offer
urban
students
a
natural
science

education
and
additional
green
space
on
campus,
struggle
to
cover
operational
costs
and
in

turn
reach
fewer
schools
and
students.
There
is,
however,
Federal
funding
available
for

STEM
education.
Commonly,
natural
sciences,
such
as
gardening,
are
not
linked
with
STEM

curricula,
and
educators
and
students
do
not
see
a
direct
connection
between
gardening

and
STEM
learning.
This
study
offers
a
pilot
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
through
the
private-‐
public
partnership
between
EnrichLA
and
Los
Angeles
Unified
School
District
(LAUSD).
As

Richard
Louv
(2005)
implicates
in
his
research,
there
is
little
funding
set
aside
for
the
value

of
nature
in
education,
but
by
bridging
this
research
area
with
STEM,
funding
opportunities

can
be
increased.
STEM
is
a
component
of
education
supported
by
the
federal
government

(“STEM
Education,”
2013)
whereby
$3.1
billion
is
invested
in
programs
on
STEM
-‐
an

increase
of
6.7
percent
over
2012
funding
levels.
This
opens
the
doors
for
funding
for

natural
science
programs
and
green
space
on
school
campuses
through
STEM
grants.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

8

In
order
for
students
to
deepen
and
solidify
their
understanding
of
STEM-‐garden

curriculum
through
their
experience
in
green
space
on
school
campuses,
they
must

undergo
a
transformative
experience.
The
ability
for
students
to
bring
their
knowledge

from
a
school
environment
into
the
real
world
is
an
integral
part
of
learning.
The
TTES
tool

will
measure
the
students’
ability
to
transfer
STEM-‐garden
knowledge
from
inside
the

school
environment
to
outside
the
school
environment
where
they
will
apply
these
ideas
in

a
personal
and
meaningful
way
-‐
also
known
as
a
transformative
experience.
Students
will

better
understand
their
food
sources
and
how
to
design,
build,
and
maintain
gardens
while

learning
these
disciplines
in
a
green,
outdoor
space.
Environmental
and
natural
science

experiences
have
the
potential
to
impact
students
life-‐long
by
improving
their
academic

performance,
creating
an
awareness
of
healthier
food
choices,
developing
a
clearer

cognitive
frame
of
mind,
and
reducing
stress.

Limitations

The
findings
of
this
study
will
examine
students’
learning
within
one
school
district,

Los
Angeles
Unified
School
District
(LAUSD)
in
California
with
one
outside
vendor,

EnrichLA.
Moreover,
funding
for
one
non-‐profit
organization,
EnrichLA
will
be
inspected.

The
small
sample
size
will
create
results
that
are
not
intended
for
generalization
to
other

schools
and
programs,
but
rather
to
serve
as
an
example
and
display
possibilities
within

public-‐private
partnerships
for
STEM
and
natural
science
education.
Maxwell
(2013)

described
case
studies
not
for
generalization,
but
for
adequate
description,
interpretation,

and
explanation
of
a
case.

Another
limitation
is
that
the
researcher
is
also
the
practitioner
implementing
the

pilot
STEM-‐garden
curriculum.
The
purpose
of
action
research
it
to
incite
social
change

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

9

(Bogdan
&
Biklen,
2007)
and
action
is
used
as
a
tool
for
this
study.
Action
research
may

improve
practice,
increase
understanding
of
practice,
and
positively
influence
the
situation

in
which
the
practice
takes
place
(Carr
&
Iemmis,
1986).
The
researcher’s
position
as
an

action
researcher
and
simultaneously
the
practitioner
proposes
limitations
such
as:
(1)

How
objective
can
the
researcher/practitioner
be?
(2)
Does
the
fact
that
the

researcher/practitioner
is
getting
paid
to
teach
influence
the
study’s
results?
and
(3)
Are

there
inevitable
biases
in
gathering
data
and
analyzing
it?
These
limitations
will
be

considered
for
the
structure
of
this
study.

Assumptions

One
of
the
assumptions
of
this
case
study
is
that
students
are
consistent
with
their

answers
to
the
TTES
survey
tool
and
that
we
are
able
to
access
the
same
students
before

and
after.
Another
assumption
is
that
students
have
enough
of
an
understanding
of
STEM

education
during
the
pre-‐survey
to
answer
the
questions
competently.
Additionally,
it
is

assumed
that
students
who
speak
English
as
a
Second
Language
will
understand
the

questions
being
asked
with
proper
scaffolding
to
insure
accurate
assessment
of
young

learners.
Finally,
EnrichLA
and
this
researcher
are
hopeful
for
improved
student

understanding
of
STEM,
as
well
as
the
transfer
of
science
knowledge
from
the
classroom
to

the
real
world.

Definition
of
Key
Terms


BYOD
–
Bring
Your
Own
Device
is
a
program
at
schools
(or
anywhere)
where
students

bring
their
own
technological
devices
from
home
to
use
at
school
(NMC
Horizon
Report,

2013).

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

10


CCSS
–
Common
Core
State
Standards
are
a
set
of
high-‐quality
academic
standards
in

mathematics
and
English
language
arts/literacy
(ELA)
that
outline
what
a
student
should

know
and
be
able
to
do
at
the
end
of
each
grade
so
that
by
high
school
graduation
they
are

prepared
with
the
skills
and
knowledge
needed
to
succeed
in
college,
career,
and
life
no

matter
where
they
live
(http://www.corestandards.org/about-‐the-‐standards/).


NCLB
-‐
The
No
Child
Left
Behind
(NCLB)
Act
of
2001
is
the
largest
federal
program
for

promoting
equity
and
excellence
in
education
and
it
reauthorizes
the
Elementary
and

Secondary
Educational
Act
of
1965.


NGSS
–
Next
Generation
Science
Standards
were
developed
through
a
collaborative,
state-‐
led
process
to
create
new
K–12
science
standards
that
are
rich
in
content
and
practice
and

arranged
in
a
coherent
manner
across
disciplines
and
grades
to
provide
all
students
an

internationally
benchmarked
science
education

(http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-‐generation-‐science-‐standards).


NMC
–
New
Media
Consortium
is
an
international
community
of
experts
in
educational

technology
—
from
the
practitioners
who
work
with
new
technologies
on
campuses
every

day;
to
the
visionaries
who
are
shaping
the
future
of
learning
at
think
tanks,
labs,
and

research
centers;
to
its
staff
and
board
of
directors;
to
the
advisory
boards
and
others

helping
the
NMC
conduct
cutting
edge
research
(http://www.nmc.org)


NRC
–
National
Research
Council
aims
to
improve
government
decision
making
and

public
policy,
increase
public
understanding,
and
promote
the
acquisition
and

dissemination
of
knowledge
in
matters
involving
science,
engineering,
technology,
and

health
through
six
major
divisions:
(1)
Behavioral
and
Social
Sciences
and
Education;
(2)

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

11

Earth
and
Life
Studies;
(3)
Engineering
and
Physical
Sciences;
(4)
Policy
and
Global
Affairs;

(5)
Transportation
Research
Board;
and
(6)
Gulf
Research
Program


NSF
–
National
Science
Foundation
is
a
federal
agency
that
offers
instructional
materials

and
technology
products
developed
with
grant
funding.


PPP
–
Public-‐Private
Partnerships
are
joint
agreements
with
risk-‐sharing
to
acquire
new

markets
and
technologies,
bring
products
and
services
to
the
market,
and
collaborate
skills

(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006).


RTTT
–
Race
To
the
Top
is
an
incentive
program
from
the
United
States
Department
of

Education
asking
states
to
reform
around
four
areas:
(1)
adopting
standards
and

assessments
that
prepare
students
for
college
and
the
workplace
in
a
global
economy;
(2)

build
data
systems
that
measure
student
growth,
and
inform
teachers
and
Principals
about

how
to
improve
instruction;
(3)
recruit,
develop,
reward,
and
retain
effective
teachers
and

Principals;
and
(4)
turn
around
lowest
achieving
schools

(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html).


STEM
–
Science,
Technology,
Engineering,
and
Math,
as
described
by
Sanders
(2009):

STEM
includes
teaching
and
learning
between/among
any
two
or
more
STEM
subject

areas,
and/or
between
a
STEM
subject
and
one
or
more
other
school
subjects:

-‐
authentic
inquiry
is
embedded
in
the
design
challenge

-‐
problem-‐based
learning
that
purposefully
situates
scientific
inquiry
and
the

application
of
mathematics
in
the
context
of
technological
design/problem
solving

-‐
design
and
scientific
inquiry
are
routinely
employed
concurrently
in
the

engineering
of
solutions
to
real-‐world
problems

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

12


TCE
-‐
Transaction
Cost
Economics
assumes
that
parties
can
look
ahead
and
predict

problems
to
factor
into
the
design
of
the
partnership
and
contract
(Williamson,
1999).


TE
–
Transformative
Experience
allows
one
to
rearrange
and
reconstruct
aspects
of
the

world
in
a
new,
meaningfully
more
significant
way.
This
means
students
take
school

learning
and
apply
it
to
the
real
world
with
motivation
to
create
their
own
meaning
of
the

context
(Pugh,
2002;
Pugh,
2011).


USDE
–
United
States
Department
of
Education
was
created
in
1979
to
administer
federal

education
and
related
programs
in
the
United
States.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

13

CHAPTER
TWO:
LITERATURE
REVIEW

Introduction

This
chapter
investigates
the
variables
connected
to
public-‐private
partnerships
in

K-‐12
learning
through
Science,
Technology,
Engineering,
and
Mathematics
(STEM)
in
the

natural
sciences.
The
literature
review
examines
the
value
of
children’s
experiences
in

nature
in
K-‐12
education,
particularly
elementary
education.
Included
in
chapter
two
is
the

economics
of
the
importance
of
the
natural
sciences
for
school
performance,
as
well
as
the

definition
of
STEM
education
in
modern
education.
Other
relative
components
are
also

argued,
such
as
those
related
to
costs
and
funding
in
a
private-‐public
partnership
(PPP).

Finally,
how
students
transfer
their
learning
and
ideas
from
school
and
apply
in
the
real

world,
known
as
a
Transformative
Experience,
is
defined
and
discussed.

Natural
Science
Education

A
global
perspective
on
environmental
topics
has
increased
noticeably
to
support
a

healthy
earth
and
the
lives
of
all
people
(Bruyere
et
al.,
2012).
Mayer
and
Frantz
(2005)

agree
when
they
write,
“The
topic
of
environmental
sustainability
may
very
well
become

the
major
social
issue
of
the
present
century”
(p
503).
To
address
these
concerns,

researchers
have
examined
students’
experiences
in
nature,
environmental
science

curricula,
and
alternative
hands-‐on
opportunities
that
have
been
proven
to
support

children’s
interests
and
achievements
in
the
natural
sciences.

Studies
in
Natural
Science

In
a
summary
of
K-‐6
qualitative
studies,
Blair
(2009)
summarizes
that
gardening

positively
affects
attitude,
socialization,
motivation
for
learning,
better
self-‐concepts,

teambuilding
skills,
parent
participation,
and
a
sense
of
community.
What's
more
is
that
the

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

14

qualitative
and
survey
research
Blair
(2009)
facilitated
supported
these
same
conclusions,

including
improved
test
scores.
Studies
done
by
Taylor
et
al.
(2002)
suggest
that

schoolyards
would
be
more
beneficial
to
students
with
additional
green
space,
such
as

trees
and
grass,
as
well
as
a
view
of
outdoor
space
from
inside
the
classroom.
From
these

perspectives
it
seems
that
many
barriers
are
in
place
for
urban
students
to
encounter

experiential
learning
in
nature.
Researchers,
such
as
Mayer
and
Frantz
(2005),
look

towards
the
relationship
with
nature
and
how
to
measure
this
connectedness,
as
opposed

to
“specific,
localized
approaches”
and
used
four
studies
to
support
the
“connectedness
to

nature
scale”
(CNS).
The
CNS
showed
consistency
and
validity
as
a
tool
and
found
that
a

feeling
of
connectedness
to
nature
bridges
with
a
concern
for
nature
and
eco-‐friendly

attitudes.

Other
researchers
have
used
surveys
and
found
similar
results
as
Mayer
and
Frantz.

Cheng
and
Monroe
(2012)
surveyed
372
fourth
grade
students
from
Brevard
County
in

Florida
and
found
that
young
learners’
connection
to
nature
was
the
strongest
independent

variable
(22%)
that
influenced
their
interest
in
nature-‐based
activities.
However,
attitude

and
interest
are
not
the
only
areas
positively
influenced
by
nature.
Tanner’s
research

(2010)
on
environmentally
responsible
behaviors
(ERB)
argues
that
ERB
is
more
complex

and
that
cognitive
factors,
in
addition
to
affective
and
circumstantial
dynamics,
influence

behavior.
This
differs
from
CNS
by
opening
doors
to
other
possible
benefits
of

environmental
awareness.

Environmental
Attitudes

In
order
for
children
to
develop
sensitive
attitudes
towards
the
environment,
they

need
regular
involvement
in
nature
(Bradley
et
al.,
1999).
Due
to
modern
trends
in

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

15

urbanized
living,
many
children
are
lacking
contact
with
green
and
natural
spaces.
The

success
of
developing
these
attitudes
is
argued
among
researchers
over
whether
media,

experiences,
or
specific
programs
foster
positive
attitudes
towards
environmental

awareness
(Eagles
&
Demare,
1999).

Some
researchers
question
whether
attitude
is

affected
significantly
through
experiences
with
nature,
and
discuss
particular
ways
young

children
need
to
experience
nature
in
order
to
have
a
lasting
effect
(Bradley
et
al.,
1999;

Eagles
&
Demare,
1999).
Many
researchers
agree
that
urbanization
has
an
influence
on

children’s
experiences
in
nature
(Mayer
&
Frantz,
2004;
d’Alessio,
2012;
Bruyere
et
al.,

2012;
Blair,
2009).

While
some
theorists
argue
that
exposure
to
a
natural
environment
supports
a

positive
attitude
towards
nature
(Armstrong
&
Impara,
1991),
others
contend
that

experiences
in
nature
do
not
affect
attitude.
Eagles
and
Demare
(1999)
reviewed
a
variety

of
studies
that
showed
experiences
in
nature
shifted
knowledge,
self-‐concept,
and
interest,

but
found
inconsistencies
for
a
change
in
attitude.
To
explore
the
effect
of
environmental

education
on
attitude,
Armstrong
and
Impara
(1991)
conducted
a
study
with
a
program

called
NatureScope,
and
found
that
overall
students
showed
positive
attitudes
after
the

program.
Common
sense
seems
to
indicate
that
earth
science
programs
are
enough
to

change
attitude
to
foster
environmental
stewardship,
though
the
implications
of
natural

exposure
may
vary
depending
on
students’
age,
as
well
as
parent
and
teacher
roles.

Parent
and
Teacher
Roles
in
the
Natural
Sciences

The
primary
role
models
and
decision-‐makers
for
young
children
are
their
parental

figures.
To
account
for
parents’
values
and
supportive
role
in
natural
science
education,

Bruyere,
Wesson,
and
Teel
(2012)
implemented
a
New
York
City
after-‐school

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

16

environmental
education
program
that
included
parent
and
teacher
surveys.
They
learned

that
parents’
encouragement
and
introduction
to
nature
with
their
children
directly

affected
the
young
mind’s
connection
with
the
natural
world
(Bruyere,
et
al.,
2012).

Moreover,
parents’
opposition
to
the
outside
environment
can
negatively
affect
children’s

experiences
in
nature.
As
reported
by
Marcum-‐Dietrich,
Marquez,
Gill,
&
Medved
(2011),

outdoor
play
is
avoided
because
parents
fear
the
dangers
of
being
outside
in
an
unsafe,

urban
environment,
and
are
uncomfortable
with
aspects
of
nature,
such
as
getting
lost
in

the
woods.
This
shifts
the
demand
onto
teachers
to
provide
environmental
education
as

well
as
hands-‐on
experiences
with
nature.
Teachers
expressed
a
lack
of
time,
knowledge,

experience,
and
interest
in
using
gardening
for
instruction
in
a
survey
highlighted
by
Blaire

(2009).

Likewise,
similar
findings
from
Bruyere
et
al.
(2012)
surveyed
perceived
teacher

barriers
as
a
lack
of
time
and
natural
space
for
instructing
earth
sciences.
Even
when

teachers
have
planning
time,
resources,
and
spaces
for
teaching
science,
many
teachers

share
that
they
lack
training
in
earth
sciences
and
confidence
in
the
subject
area
(Marcum-‐
Dietrich,
et
al.,
2011).

Benefits
from
Experiences
in
Nature

Experiences
in
nature
promote
higher
knowledge
inventory
(Bradley,
et
al.,
1999),

improve
investigative
and
action
skills
(Tanner,
2010),
and
indicate
higher
performance
on

standardized
tests
(Bruyere
et
al.,
2012).
Behaviors
needed
for
successful
classroom

learning,
such
as
focus
and
attention
span,
are
also
positively
affected
by
nature.
Findings

from
Taylor
et
al.
(2002)
emphasize
how
a
view
of
green
space
positively
affects
self-‐
discipline
and
control.
Specifically
this
research
found
that
girls’
performance
in

concentration,
impulse
inhibition,
and
delay
of
gratification
were
systematically
related
to

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

17

near-‐home
views
of
nature
(Taylor,
Kuo,
&
Sullivan,
2002,
p.
58).
Furthermore,
children

who
have
been
diagnosed
with
Attention
Deficit
Disorder
(ADD)
show
fewer
symptoms

after
spending
free
time
in
a
natural
setting
(Mozaffar
&
Miramoradi,
2012).
Studies
have

found
evidence
that
there
is
a
connection
between
nature
and
directed
attention
in

students
(Taylor
et.
el.,
2001).
This
supports
an
emerging
theory
that
active
play
aids

healthy
cognitive
development
by
stimulating
the
front
lobe
maturation,
therefore
reducing

Attention
Deficit
Hyperactive
Disorder
(ADHD)
(Satterlmair
&
Ratey,
2009).

Further
Research
in
Natural
Sciences

There
are
a
variety
of
limitations
from
the
studies
discussed
and
barriers

implicated.
The
causal
relationships
between
various
factors
in
children’s
exposure
to

outdoor
space,
including
access,
urbanization,
and
teacher
and
parent
influence
need
to
be

further
substantiated
through
additional
quantitative
research
(Taylor
et
al.,
2002).

Additionally,
levels
of
activity
that
are
beneficial
need
to
be
defined,
as
studies
with
shorter

periods
and
lower
levels
of
activity
provide
little
benefit
(Satterlmair
&
Ratey,
2009).
More

research
is
needed
to
better
assess
programs
that
actively
engage
students
and
academic

performance.
Urban
thinkers
sometimes
feel
overwhelmed
and
uncomfortable
in
the

natural
environment,
often
fearing
the
outdoor
space
(d’Alessio,
2012);
therefore,
studies

may
be
implemented
to
research
ways
to
overcome
this
fear.
Finally,
additional
research

on
the
relationship
between
self-‐regulation
and
learning
in
connection
with
the
outdoor

environment
is
necessary
to
support
natural
science
education
and
children’s
exposure
to

green
space.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

18

Challenges
in
Natural
Sciences

Other
barriers
such
as
funding
inhibit
children’s
exposure
to
green
space,
as
well
as

teacher
knowledge
and
awareness
of
the
value
of
active
play
and
natural
environments

(Bruyere
et
al.,
2012).
Furthermore,
time
constraints
and
pressure
to
meet
academic

standards
cause
schools
to
focus
on
other
areas
of
education
(Bruyere
et
al.,
2012).

Bridging
natural
sciences
with
a
hot
topic,
such
as
STEM
education,
will
allow
for
more

funding
opportunities
as
well
as
attention
to
“green
space
for
learning”
in
the
research
and

education
field.

STEM
Education

The
United
States
Department
of
Education
defines
STEM
education
programs
as

those
primarily
intended
to
provide
support
for,
or
to
strengthen
science,
technology,

engineering,
or
math
education
at
the
elementary
and
secondary
through
postgraduate

levels,
including
adult
education
(Brown,
2012).
The
Next
Generation
Science
Standards

(NGSS)
and
the
Common
Core
State
Standards
(CCSS)
have
developed
dimensions
that

integrate
Science,
Technology,
Engineering,
and
Math
(STEM)
disciplines
(Honey,
Pearson,

&
Schweingruber,
2014).
Honey
et
al
(2014)
states:

Over
the
past
decade,
the
STEM
acronym
has
developed
wide
currency
in
US

education
and
policy
circles.
Leaders
in
business,
government,
and
academia
assert

that
education
in
the
STEM
subjects
is
vital
no
only
to
sustaining
the
innovation

capacity
of
the
United
States
but
also
as
a
foundation
for
successful
employment,

including
but
not
limited
to
work
in
the
STEM
fields.

There
has
been
a
need
to
strengthen
Mathematics
and
Science
in
education
since
the
1980s

(Breiner
et
al.,
2012).

The
acronym
was
originally
SMET
(Science,
Mathematics,

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

19

Engineering,
and
Technology)
in
the
1990s,
and
the
National
Science
Foundation
(NSF),

primarily
due
to
preference
in
how
it
sounded,
changed
the
acronym
to
STEM
(Breiner
et

al.,
2012).
STEM
includes
teaching
and
learning
between
two
or
more
STEM
subject
areas,

but
must
always
include
Engineering
or
Technology
in
the
combination
(Sanders,
2009).

Other
definitive
components
of
STEM
include
authentic
inquiry,
design
challenge,
problem-‐
solving,
and
scientific
inquiry
(Sanders,
2009).
According
to
Sanders
(2009),
students
in

integrated
instruction
outperform
students
in
traditional
classes
on
standardized
tests,

specifically
in
children
with
below-‐average
achievement
levels.
This
is
particularly

important
considering
the
achievement
gap
in
mathematics
and
science
between

mainstream
(white,
middle-‐to-‐high
income,
and
native
English
speakers)
and
non-‐
mainstream
students
(students
of
color,
low-‐income,
and
ELLs)
(Beatty,
2011).
In
a
small

study
summarized
by
Beatty
(2011),
a
school
abandoned
tracking
and
put
all
9
th

grade

students
in
the
same
class,
offering
modifications
and
peer
teaching;
the
results
showed

that
the
gaps
disappeared
by
senior
year.

There
is
a
recent
shift
to
the
T
and
E
of
STEM,
since
technology
and
engineering

design
are
critical
components
in
global
competitiveness
(Sanders,
2009).
According
to

Beatty
(2011)
50-‐85%
of
growth
in
US
gross
domestic
products
over
the
last
50
years
was

accounted
for
by
advancements
in
science,
technology,
and
engineering.
The
US
ranks
6
th

among
developed
countries
in
innovation-‐based
competitiveness,
11
th

for
high
school

graduates,
15
th

in
science
literacy
amongst
top
students,
and
28
th

in
math
literacy
amongst

top
students
(Beatty,
2011).
The
importance
for
US
students
to
gain
momentum
in
fields

related
to
STEM
pertains
to
the
fact
that
the
Georgetown
Center
on
Education
and
the

Workforce
estimates
that
by
2018
24%
of
STEM
related
jobs
will
require
a
graduate

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

20

degree,
44%
will
require
a
bachelor’s
degree,
and
20%
will
require
an
associates
degree
or

certificate
(Beatty,
2011).

Moreover,
the
largest
growing
group
in
the
US
is
low-‐income

Hispanics
(Beatty,
2011).
Integrated
STEM
learning
in
K-‐12
education
shows
better
success

for
students,
especially
non-‐mainstream,
as
well
as
preparation
for
careers
in
STEM.

Integration
of
STEM

Technology
is
a
major
component
of
children’s
real
world
experiences.
Technology

integrates
with
math
and
science
as
it
facilitates
collaboration
and
allows
students
to
apply

their
knowledge
to
a
practical
task
(Pang
&
Good,
2000).
Technology
acts
as
a
resource
and

tool,
not
as
a
supplement
to
science,
math,
or
engineering.

There
are
similarities
between

math
and
science
that
allow
for
easy
integration,
as
they
share
similar
scientific
processes

(such
as
inquiry
and
problem
solving)
and
fundamentally
require
quantitative
reasoning

(Pang
&
Good,
2000).
Students
integrate
math
and
science
when
approaching
a
problem

with
multiple
solutions
(Davison,
Miller,
&
Metheny,
1995).
Engineering
education
is

overtly
connected
to
science
and
math
concepts,
and
engineering
standards
have
been

created
in
Massachusetts
and
Texas
in
recent
years
(Chandler,
Fontenot,
&
Tate,
2011;

Honey
et
al.,
2014).
The
key
to
the
modern
STEM
movement
is
integration
of
all
four

disciplines,
meaning
that
layers
of
STEM
are
explored
over
a
period
of
time,
sometimes
in

different
classes
and
throughout
curriculum,
in
either
an
in-‐school,
afterschool,
or
out-‐of-‐
school
environment
(Honey
et
al.,
2014).

Constructivism.
Constructivism
has
majorly
influenced
the
development
of

curriculum,
instruction,
and
research
in
the
integration
of
math
and
science
(Pang
&
Good,

2000).
Integrative
STEM
education
is
grounded
in
constructivism
and
cognitive
science

through
the
following
notions:
(1)
learning
is
more
a
constructive
process,
it
is
less

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

21

receptive;
(2)
motivation
and
beliefs
are
imperative
to
cognition;
(3)
social
interaction
is

fundamental
to
cognitive
development;
and
(4)
knowledge,
strategies,
and
expertise
are

contextual
(Sanders,
2009).
Children
are
born
investigators
and
natural
scientists;
they

have
distinguished
reasoning
strategies
at
a
higher
aptitude
than
assumed
over
the
years

by
the
general
public
and
even
educators
(National
Research
Council,
2012).
Children

incorporate
their
observations
and
experiences
within
the
physical
environment
and
their

everyday
activities
to
develop
ideas
about
the
world
(National
Research
Council,
2012).

Through
the
constructivist
theory
children
go
through
a
learning
cycle
of
exploration,

conceptual
invention,
and
expansion
of
the
idea
where
they
understand
STEM
through
the

scientific
process
and
inquiry-‐based
learning
(Davison,
et
al.,
1995).
Teachers
can
integrate

the
disciplines
by
conducting
real
world
research
with
students
by
addressing
a
problem
or

question
through
data
collection
to
analyze
results

(Davison
et
al.,
1995).
Project-‐based

learning
incorporates
many
of
the
constructivist
components
of
learning,
and
research

shows
that
when
students
investigate
their
world
and
pursue
relevant
topics
to
their

everyday
lives
they
are
more
engaged
and
achieve
higher
scores
than
students
in

traditional
classrooms
(Phalke,
Biller,
Lysecky,
Harris,
2009).

Stakeholders
in
STEM
Education.
Overall,
STEM
stakeholders
are
comprised
of:

(1)
government
officials
who
allocate
funds
for
STEM,
(2)
teachers
in
K-‐12
system
who

teach
STEM,
(3)
parents,
(4)
businesses
that
need
to
invest
in
future
employment
pipeline,

and
(5)
students
(Breiner
et
al.,
2012).
Stakeholders
need
to
partner
with
major
campaigns

and
organizations
to
streamline
the
understanding
of
STEM
and
develop
partnerships
that

support
STEM
education.
Technology
is
critical
to
global
competitiveness
(Sanders,
2009).

The
STEM
field
continues
to
grow
to
meet
demands
of
a
high-‐tech
global
economy

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

22

(Dejarnette,
2012),
and
students
need
to
be
prepared
for
the
21
st

century,
as
one-‐third
of

jobs
are
STEM
related
(Breiner
et
al.,
2012).
STEM
education
builds
the
skills
and
tools

needed
to
succeed
in
a
science
and
technology
driven
world
(Duran,
Hoft,
Lawson,

Medjahed,
&
Orady,
2014),
and
interest
in
STEM
careers
is
encouraged
by
exposing

students
to
STEM
experiences
(Bryant,
et
al.,
2013).
Mastery
of
STEM
is
correlated
to

college
success
and
retention,
economic
growth
and
development,
national
security
and

innovation,
and
competiveness
in
a
global
market
(Breiner
et
al.,
2012).
However,
since

there
is
a
shortage
of
science
and
math
teachers,
NCLB
has
resulted
in
attention
on

addressing
the
shortage
of
qualified
science
and
math
teachers
(Sanders,
2009).
Teachers

have
the
capacity
for
developing
math
and
science
skills
by
looking
at
separate
subject

objectives
and
creating
learning
activities
that
require
students
to
see
how
the
subjects
are

related
(Davison
et
al.,
1995).

This
approach
to
lesson
design
can
also
be
utilized
with

STEM
curricula,
yet
requires
some
level
of
content
knowledge
in
each
discipline.
When

teachers
act
as
researchers
with
students
to
learn
content
and
model
the
scientific
process,

this
barrier
can
be
worked
through;
additionally,
supportive
professional
development
and

continuing
education
builds
content
knowledge.

Programs
that
Support
STEM

The
Obama
administration
and
national
foundations,
such
as
the
National
Science

Foundation
(NSF)
are
pushing
for
STEM
awareness
by
emphasizing
projects
and
programs

that
encourage
youth
to
connect
with
STEM
(Dejarnette,
2012).
One
of
these
programs
is

called
Educate
to
Innovate,
with
the
goal
to
improve
performance
and
skills
in
STEM
of

American
youth
and
improve
STEM
education
(Dejarnette,
2012;
Tyler-‐Wood,
Ellison,
Lim,

&
Periathiruvadi,
2012).
The
Educate
to
Innovate
campaign
of
2009
is
a
partnership
of

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

23

government
and
industry
to
improve
STEM
education
and
make
it
more
accessible
to

underrepresented
groups
(Ludlow,
2013).
One
significant
contributor
of
funding
for
STEM

is
the
NSF,
which
not
only
provides
grants
for
various
programs,
but
also
offers

instructional
materials
and
technology
products
to
schools
(Ludlow,
2013).
One
example
of

how
NSF
contributes
is
that
they
sponsor
competitions
to
give
recognition
to
students
with

diverse
backgrounds
(i.e.
girls,
students
with
disabilities,
underrepresented
populations)

(Bryant,
et
al.,
2013).
Other
programs
that
have
been
initiated
to
support
the
development

of
STEM
education
include:

• Project
2061,
part
of
Champions
of
Change:
Science,
Technology,

Engineering,
and
Math
(Ludlow,
2013).

• Public
Broadcasting
System
(PBS)
that
offers
STEM
media,
experiments,
and

widgets
(Ludlow,
2013).

• National
Science
Teachers
Association
and
National
Council
of
Teachers
of

Mathematics
encourage
the
inclusion
of
students
with
disabilities
(Bryant,
et

al.,
2013).

• The
Partnership
for
21
st

Century
Skills
promotes
STEM
to
prepare
children

for
competition
in
a
global
economy
through
Four
Cs:
(1)
critical
thinking

and
problem
solving,
(2)
communication,
(3)
collaboration,
and
(4)
creativity

(Dejarnette,
2012).

These
are
just
a
few
of
the
major
campaigns
and
organizations
that
have
emerged
to

support
STEM
significantly
in
the
last
decade.

One
popular
way
that
schools
have
brought
STEM
education
to
their
schools
is

through
public-‐private
partnerships
(PPP).

Partnerships
with
outside
organizations
and

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

24

community-‐based
associations,
such
as
museums,
that
offer
before
and
afterschool

programs,
professional
development,
and
curriculum
support,
build
stronger
STEM

learning
environments
(Beatty,
2011).
Schools
can
bring
STEM
education
to
their
students

through
contracting
a
private
organization.
For
example:

• Children’s
Engineering
Educators,
LLC
is
a
private
business
that
provides

staff
development,
instructional
tools,
and
lessons
for
elementary
teachers
to

incorporate
STEM
concepts
and
engineering
design
into
classrooms

• Engineering
for
Kids
is
another
private
company
that
teaches
engineering

and
STEM
to
elementary
and
middle
school
children
through
classes,
camps,

and
parties.

Studies
in
STEM
Education.
Research
by
Duran,
et
al.
(2014)
brought
STEM
and

Information
Technology
(IT)
to
underrepresented
students
at
a
high
school
in
Michigan

with
an
18-‐month
cycle
of
afterschool,
Saturday,
and
summer
programs
to
boost

engagement,
interest,
and
achievement
in
IT/STEM
learning.
Findings
from
this
mixed-‐
methods
study
indicated
that
IT/STEM
experiences
significantly
impacted
urban
high

school
students’
technology
skills,
awareness
of
technology,
and
their
understanding
of

how
technology
relates
to
real-‐world
careers
(Duran
et
al.,
2014).
The
limitations
of
the

study
were
that
participants
were
volunteers
and
could
have
already
had
an
interest
in

IT/STEM,
therefore
the
conclusions
are
not
generalizable
(Duran
et
al.,
2014).

Another
study
done
by
Tyler-‐Wood
et
al.
(2012)
integrated
science
and
technology

with
32
girls
in
grades
four
and
five
to
demonstrate
student
growth
in
their
science

knowledge
and
compared
their
scores
to
a
comparison
group
not
participating
in
the

program.
The
program
called
BUGS
–
Bringing
Up
Girls
in
Science,
was
implemented
in
a

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

25

mid-‐sized
urban
community
in
North
Texas
through
an
ongoing
afterschool
and
mentor

program.
Through
this
program,
high
school
members
of
the
Texas
Academy
for

Mathematics
and
Science
worked
with
BUGS
girls
for
120
minutes
per
week.
In
addition
to

afterschool
and
mentoring,
the
BUGS
students
were
given
two
weeks
of
environmental

summer
camp.
Furthermore,
girls
in
the
experimental
and
comparison
groups
took
a

standardized
pre
and
post
science
assessment
from
the
Iowa
Test
Basic
Skills
(ITBS)
test.

Findings
from
this
quasi-‐experimental
study
showed
that
the
BUGS
group
performed

significantly
better
on
the
science
section
of
the
ITBS,
and
the
BUGS
group
made
significant

gains
between
the
pre
and
post-‐tests.
Limitations
of
this
study
include
the
small
sample,
so

it
was
not
able
to
be
generalized,
and
that
due
to
the
many
components
of
the
study
it
was

difficult
to
determine
which
were
most
effective.

Research
indicates
that
informal
learning
environments
support
STEM
and
higher

orders
of
thinking,
creativity,
design,
and
innovation
(Nugent,
Barker,
Grandgenett,

Adamchuk,
2010).
Nugent
et
al.
(2010)
conducted
a
quasi-‐experimental
study
with
two

groups
to
assess
the
impact
of
robotics
and
geospatial
technologies
instruction
on
147

middle
school
students’
STEM
learning
and
attitudes.
This
was
implemented
in
Nebraska
as

a
week-‐long
summer
camp,
a
3-‐hour
STEM
group,
and
a
control
group
using
six
locations
in

both
rural
and
urban
settings
(Nugent
et
al.,
2010).

Robotics
and
geospatial
learning
were

chosen
because
these
technologies
allow
for
self-‐directed
learning
and
help
teach

environmental
science
and
geography
concepts
(Nugent
et
al.,
2010).
Using
robotics
kits

over
the
course
of
the
week-‐long
summer
camps
and
in
the
3-‐hour
study,
the
students
also

used
handheld
GPS
devices
and
ArcMap
software.
The
instruments
for
evaluation
included

a
STEM
assessment
and
a
Likert
Scale
questionnaire
including
self-‐efficacy,
STEM
value,

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

26

and
learning
questions
(Nugent
et
al.,
2010).
The
research
done
by
Nugent
et
al.
(2010)

found
that
there
were
significant
increases
and
changes
in
STEM
learning
and
attitudes
in

the
summer
camp,
but
not
in
the
control
or
3-‐hour
groups.
This
study
indicates
that

ongoing,
informal
STEM
learning
environments
impact
students
learning
and
attitudes

about
STEM.

Contracting.
With
research
indicating
the
benefits
of
STEM
programs
and
the

government
providing
funding
through
a
variety
of
organizations
and
institutions,
how

might
a
school
go
about
contracting
a
STEM
program?
Schools
are
motivated
by
funding

from
the
federal
government
and
organizations
such
as
NSF
to
bring
STEM
programs
to

their
schools.
It
seems
that
there
is
little
risk
financially
for
implementing
a
STEM
program

with
proper
government
funding,
and
research
indicates
the
benefits
of
STEM
programs.

Furthermore,
schools
may
partner
with
local
colleges
and
universities
to
develop
STEM

programs.
For
example,
underperforming
schools
in
Texas
partnered
with
Texas
Tech

University
over
the
last
10
years
to
develop
seven
STEM
centers
and
52
STEM
academies

statewide,
and
now
80%
of
students
at
the
participating
schools
are
college
bound

(Chandler
et
al.,
2011).
Part
of
these
programs
included
teacher
professional
development

in
engineering,
which
then
translated
into
developing
new
courses
for
students.
In
total,

the
Texas
High
School
Project
spent
over
$180
million
in
public-‐private
STEM
initiatives
to

increase
graduation
and
college
enrollment
(Chandler
et
al.,
2011).
However,
not
all

schools
have
funding
for
STEM
(Phalke
et
al.,
2009).

For
making
a
contracting
choice
the
school
must
determine
their
capacity.
With
the

number
of
federally
funded
and
privately
funded
STEM
programs,
there
should
be
enough

market
competition
in
larger
cities.
However,
rural
schools
may
have
fewer
options,
or

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

27

even
none
at
all.
If
there
is
competition,
schools
can
reach
out
to
multiple
vendors
and

begin
comparing
costs,
possibly
inviting
some
level
of
bidding.
Next,
the
school
must
set
an

agenda,
which
would
most
likely
be
determined
by
stakeholders,
such
as
administration,

the
Math
and
Science
Department
Head(s)
and
Faculty,
parents,
and
community
partners.

Once
the
STEM
program
has
been
chosen
the
contracting
process
begins.

In
consideration
of
the
contracting
process,
when
a
school
chooses
to
outsource

STEM
the
hybrid
method
has
proven
the
most
popular
and
successful
in
the
studies

examined
above.
A
hybrid
model
is
a
compromise
mode
where
both
parties
work
together,

as
opposed
to
a
hierarchical
or
market
based
contracting
relationship
(Williamson,
2008).

The
hybrid
model
is
a
wonderful
model
of
communication
and
collaboration
for
the
school

community
(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006).
Together
a
school
and
STEM
program
can
deliver

a
better
quality
of
STEM
education
and
work
together
to
solve
problems
that
arise.
It
might

serve
the
partnership
to
examine
Kanter’s
framework
(1994)
with
the
seven
“I”
words:

Importance,
Interdependence,
Investment,
Information,
Integration,
Institutionalization,

and
Integrity.
This
places
them
on
the
same
page
for
entering
any
contract.
Schools
are

responsible
for
understanding
how
to
set
up
a
STEM
program
to
best
evaluate
prospective

STEM
vendors.
Bryant
et
al.
(2013)
gives
a
step-‐by-‐step
process
for
setting
up
a
STEM

program:

*
Find
funding,
cover
costs,
ask
for
donations

*
Determine
focus:
STEM
exposure,
STEM
fields?

*
Determine
format:
day
camp,
overnight
camp,
afterschool
program,
how
many

students
will
be
hosted?

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

28

*
Carefully
select
activities
that
engage
students,
have
real-‐world
application,
and

are
universally
designed

*
Overplan:
engage
and
minimize
downtime,
plan
for
transitions

*
Collaborate:
reach
out
to
community

*
Connect
with
Population:
know
who
you
are
targeting

*
Consider
family
issues
to
accommodate
(siblings,
transportation,
etc.)

*
Consider
community
resources
and
location

*
Motivate
students

*
Gather
data
for
funding
and
research

*
Organize:
student
information,
parent
consents,
pre-‐assessments
&
post-‐
assessments,
activities,
supports,
accommodations,
&
food

If
a
school
is
able
to
communicate
and
collaborate
with
a
STEM
program
through
the

suggested
areas
above,
as
well
as
move
through
a
fair
and
open
bidding
process,
the

contract
can
be
formed.
Implementation
of
the
contract
will
need
to
be
closely
monitored

by
the
school
with
appointed
individuals
and
specific
agendas
for
monitoring.
The
program

and
school
work
together
to
support
the
STEM
learning
and
uphold
each
end
of
the

agreement.
The
program
should
be
monitored
and
there
should
be
a
reporting
system
in

place.
Once
the
contract
has
been
completed,
an
ending
evaluation
is
performed
and

continuation
of
the
partnership
is
discussed.

Further
Research
in
STEM

The
New
Media
Consortium
(NMC)
Horizon
Report
(2013)
projects
the
future
of

STEM
education
in
the
United
States
for
the
next
five
years,
as
well
as
areas
for
research.
In

1-‐2
years
from
the
time
this
report
was
released
in
2013,
the
NMC
predicts
that
there
will

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

29

be
mobile
learning
with
each
student
having
a
device
(Bring
Your
Own
Device
–
BYOD
–

included
in
this
prediction),
as
well
as
data
storage
and
collaborative
work
in
the
Cloud

(NMC
Horizon
Report,
2013).
Anticipated
for
2-‐3
years
is
that
data
will
be
used
to

customize
curriculum
using
analytics
software
and
that
there
will
be
open
content
for

schools
to
share
(NMC
Horizon
Report,
2013).
Finally,
in
their
4-‐5
year
forecast
the
NMC

expects
schools
to
have
affordable
3D
printers,
a
“Thingiverse”
to
source
files
for
printing,

and
mobile
apps
for
creating
3D
images.
Furthermore,
the
NMC
Horizon
Report
(2013)

predicts
that
there
will
be
virtual
and
remote
labs
that
offer
access
to
scientific

experiments
without
the
full
cost,
which
can
be
conducted
multiple
times
precisely
and

with
24-‐hour
access.
These
virtual
labs
will
save
money
as
they
won’t
accumulate
costs
for

materials
or
maintenance.
In
this
researcher’s
observations
as
a
researcher
to
South

Korean
high
performing
schools,
some
of
these
components
have
been
observed
in
action.

For
example,
at
Chadwick
International
School
in
Songdo,
South
Korea,
students
in

Kindergarten
and
First
Grade
used
3D
printers,
designed
and
built
robots,
and
created

electronic
and
solar
powered
inventions.
The
NMC
Horizon
Report
is
coming
to
fruition
in

other
competitive
countries,
but
what
about
the
United
States?

Other
futuristic
plans
and
calculations
for
the
future
of
STEM
education
are
that

online
or
hybrid
models
will
dominate
the
school
structure
with
students
and
teachers

collaborating
and
connecting
over
the
Internet
(NMC
Horizon
Report,
2013).

This
model

would
blend
formal
and
informal
learning
with
learning
content
at
home
and
use
class
time

for
discussions,
collaboration,
problem-‐solving,
and
experimentation
(NMC
Horizon

Report,
2013).
A
well-‐rounded
education
comes
from
bringing
more
real-‐life
experiences

to
students,
as
well
as
more
informal
learning
opportunities
(NMC
Horizon
Report,
2013).

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

30

In
order
for
any
of
this
to
make
sense,
technology
will
help
assessments
to
change
and

reflect
contemporary
education
practices
and
learning
(NMC
Horizon
Report,
2013).

Challenges
with
STEM

When
critiquing
the
use
of
TCE
with
STEM
programs
there
are
some
challenges
that

have
been
identified
by
the
literature.
There
is
a
communication
gap
between
policy

makers,
universities,
K-‐12
schools,
and
the
general
public
in
terms
of
understanding
STEM

(Breiner
et
al.,
2012).
Research
by
Breiner
et
al.
(2012)
interviewed
222
full
time
faculty

from
the
University
of
Cincinnati
to
conclude
that
there
is
no
operational
definition
or

conception
of
STEM.
Increased
growth
of
science
and
technology
professional
workers
has

grown
steady
in
the
past
decade
but
is
still
behind
European
and
Asian
global
competitors

(Dejarnette,
2012).
Moreover,
the
profession
of
engineering
is
poorly
understood
by
the

public
and
may
discourage
women
and
minorities
from
pursuing
the
field
(Chandler
et
al.,

2011).
In
addition,
many
engineers
are
retiring
without
enough
engineers
to
replace
them;

only
6%
of
undergraduates
are
majoring
in
engineering
(Phalke
et
al.,
2009).
These

challenges
require
a
collective
understanding
of
STEM
and
an
awareness
of
the
need
for

STEM
careers
within
the
United
States
general
public.

In
order
to
integrate
all
components
of
STEM,
teachers
must
understand
each

subject
area.
However,
most
teachers
don’t
have
engineering
training,
which
means

extensive
PD
training
is
needed
(Lederman
&
Lederman,
2013).
This
is
true
with

technology
as
well,
where
it
is
seen
as
a
tool
for
science
and
not
its
own
field
of
study

(Lederman
&
Lederman,
2013).
It
is
difficult
to
expect
a
new
or
even
experienced
teacher

to
have
the
pedagogical
content
knowledge
in
all
four
subject
matters
to
effectively
teach

STEM
(Sanders,
2009).
Teachers
need
better
pay
and
preparation
in
STEM
to
improve
K-‐12

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

31

curriculum,
and
currently,
engineering
is
not
part
of
teacher
preparedness
programs

(Chandler,
Fontenot,
&
Tate,
2011).
To
improve
STEM,
pre-‐service
teachers
need
to
be

educated
in
scientific
inquiry,
problem-‐based
learning,
engineering
design,
and

technological
activities.
Also,
veteran
teachers
need
staff
development
so
that
all
teachers

develop
self-‐efficacy
in
STEM
instructional
methods
(Dejarnette,
2012).
However,
NCLB

legislation
has
provided
alternative
routes
to
licensure
and
new
ways
to
attain
“highly

qualified”
status,
which
attracts
more
individuals
to
the
teaching
field
(Sanders,
2009).

Economics
in
STEM
Education

Economics
and
education
overlap
in
a
variety
of
ways,
from
how
schools
are

financed
and
decisions
are
made
to
the
human
advantages
influenced
by
the
economics
in

education.
School
finance
is
a
broad
and
evolving
field
encompassing
three
resource-‐
related
functions:
(1)
raising
revenue,
(2)
allocating
resources,
and
(3)
using
resources

(Rice,
Monk,
&
Zhang,
2010).
No
Child
Left
Behind
(NCLB)
and
Race
to
the
Top
have
forced

states
and
districts
to
meet
financial
expectations
and
accountability
standards
required
by

these
reforms
(Odden
&
Picus,
2014).

Economic
Benefits
of
Education

Education
is
a
public
and
private
good
with
direct
civil
contributions
to
society

through
law,
democracy,
human
rights,
and
political
stability
(Brewer,
Hentschke,
&
Eid,

2010).
From
a
financial
perspective
it
seems
as
though
education
competes
with
other

social
priorities,
such
as
health,
transportation,
defense,
criminal
justice,
and
private

consumption
(Levitt
&
Dubner,
2005).
However,
education
positively
impacts
all
of
these

areas
by
reducing
poverty,
crime,
dependence
on
welfare,
and
imprisonment
(Brewer,

Hentschke,
&
Eid,
2010).
Other
relative
external
benefits
of
education
include

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

32

environmental
sustainability,
innovation,
research,
democratization,
better
governance
and

trade,
social
improvements,
and
productivity
(Brewer,
Hentschke,
&
Eid,
2010).

Moreover,

an
educated
population
increases
market
benefits
through
increased
earnings
(Brewer,

Hentschke,
&
Eid,
2010).

In
fact,
measuring
direct
and
indirect
benefits
of
education
are
to

be
valued
at
$54,259
(Brewer,
Hentschke,
&
Eid,
2010).
With
education
increasing
market

values
and
aiding
society
overall,
it’s
interesting
that
we
spend
less
on
students
now
than

before
The
Great
Recession
(Silber
&
Condra,
2013).

Furthermore,
there
are
private
benefits
for
individuals
with
an
education
(Brewer,

Hentschke,
&
Eid,
2010).
In
addition
to
a
boosted
income,
educated
people
have
better

health,
longer
lives,
increased
happiness
and
well-‐being,
deeper
cognitive
development,

and
are
more
capable
of
educating
their
children
(Brewer,
Hentschke,
&
Eid,
2010).

One

universal
concern
regarding
longevity
is
that
as
people
live
longer
this
leads
to
an
increase

in
social
security
costs
(Brewer,
Hentschke,
&
Eid,
2010),
however,
if
an
educated

individual
adds
a
value
over
$50,000
to
the
government
through
direct
and
indirect

benefits,
this
helps
to
reduce
the
burden
of
these
additional
costs.
Benefits
to
individuals

are
part
of
the
human
capital
theory,
which
is
the
effect
of
investment
in
educating
people

on
economics
(Levitt
&
Dubner,
2005).
The
problem
is
that
these
benefits
take
a
long
time

to
show;
for
example,
the
advantages
of
preschool
are
not
clear
until
adulthood
(Levitt
&

Dubner,
2005).
Through
research,
economists
can
improve
school
effectiveness
and
school

choice
offered
to
parents,
therefore
potentially
increasing
the
market
and
private
benefits

of
education
(Levitt
&
Dubner,
2005).

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

33

Public-Private
Partnerships

Education
is
labeled
by
public
funding
and
conditions,
and
is
centered
on
the

relationships
and
economics
of
PPPs
(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006).
Therefore,
most
schools

are
operated
as
hierarchies,
with
some
partnering
with
market-‐based
companies,
and

others
using
a
hybrid
model
operated
by
compromise
(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006;

Williamson,
2008).
The
hierarchical
model
works
in
schools
because
the
majority
of

schools
are
public
institutions
funded
and
controlled
by
taxes,
subsidies,
and
regulations

(Williamson,
1999).
Education
partnerships
are
often
between
for-‐profit
and
non-‐profit

divisions
to
address
the
needs
of
the
non-‐profit
or
public
divisions
(Davies
&
Hentschke,

2006).
The
partnerships
and
structures
of
education
have
been
shifting
in
the
last
two

decades
with
a
significant
number
of
charter
schools
opening,
especially
in
larger
cities,
in

addition
to
the
development
of
supplemental
programs
(Miller,
2010).
These
alternative

schools
and
additional
programs
provide
an
avenue
for
American
educators
to
work
to

close
the
achievement
gap
and
increase
student
achievement.

Partnerships
are
joint
agreements
with
risk
sharing
to
acquire
new
markets
and

technologies,
bring
products
and
services
to
the
market,
and
collaborate
skills

(Davies
&

Hentschke,
2006).
Afterall,
partnerships
are
contracts
between
human
actors
based
on

cognition
and
self-‐interested
behavior
(Wiliamson,
2008).
Human
cognition
means

partners
are
able
to
anticipate
and
adapt
to
problems,
but
also
have
limitations
with

rationality
and
making
mistakes
(Williamson,
2008).
In
self-‐interest,
most
people
follow

through
with
commitment
and
some
take
measures
beyond
expectations,
while
others
may

renegotiate
when
stakes
increase
(Williamson,
2008).

There
are
different
types
of

relationships
between
partners.
Market
and
hierarchical
contracting
methods
offer
less

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

34

collaboration
than
partnerships
between
the
contractor
and
the
contracted
(Davies
&

Hentschke,
2006).
Public-‐private
partnerships
(PPPs)
require
a
more
multifaceted

relationship,
called
a
hybrid
model,
because
there
are
components
of
structure
and

autonomy
coming
together
within
the
partnership

(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006).

Benefits
of
PPP.
According
to
research
by
Davies
and
Hentschke
(2006),
there
are

many
benefits
to
partnering:

• 73%
better
quality
of
services

• 58%
solves
more
problems

• 58%
financial
benefit

• 34%
professional
values
shares

• 27%
uncertainty
reduction

• 21%
legal
mandate

• 12%
political
advantage

In
fact,
the
advantages
of
PPPs
are
significant
enough
that
the
government
sometimes

mandates
them
to
problem
solve
(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006).

Risks
of
PPP.
Within
partnerships
there
are
many
dynamics
that
affect
decision-‐
making
and
contracting.
Whether
public
or
private,
there
are
considerations
each
sector

must
face,
but
they
do
so
with
different
models.
Economics
are
there
to
measure
the
value

of
the
goods,
services,
and
agents
of
the
contract
(North,
1999).
The
benefits
of
contracting

often
include
saving
money,
increasing
efficiency,
improving
quality,
enhancing

responsiveness,
and
generating
more
customer
satisfaction
and
trust
(Yang,
Hsieh,
&
Li,

2009).
However,
there
are
costs
associated
with
contracting,
known
as
Transaction
Cost

Economics
(TCE).
These
costs
accrue
in
several
ways:
(1)
through
the
investigation
of
the

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

35

agents
prior
to
contractual
agreement,
(2)
through
the
enforcement
of
the
exchange
of
the

contracted
goods
and
services,
and
(3)
from
the
physical
costs
of
the
goods
and
services

(North,
1999).
The
more
competition
in
place
amongst
suppliers,
the
less
expensive
it
is
to

enforce
the
exchange
of
goods
or
services
(North,
1999).
Some
risks
in
contracting
involve

a
lack
of
improvement
in
organizational
performance
and
possible
hampering
of
integrity,

competence,
and
accountability
(Yang,
et
al.,
2009).
To
prevent
problems,
a
clear
process

with
guidelines
organizes
both
buyers
and
suppliers,
while
court
systems
offer
support
and

further
enforcement
of
rules
and
the
contract
if
needed
(North,
1999).

Framework
for
PPP.
Davies
and
Hentschke
(2006)
researched
frameworks
that

outline
a
strong
PPP.
They
found
that
partnerships
require
trust
and
confidence,
as
well
as

a
rational
approach
to
developing
the
relationship
(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006).
Davies
and

Hentschke
(2006)
shared
frameworks
by
Berliner
(1997),
Waide
(1999),
and
Kanter

(1994).
While
each
framework
had
a
different
way
of
organizing
information,
Kanter’s

framework
was
all
encompassing.
The
Kanter
framework
as
outlined
by
Davies
and

Hentschke
(2006,
p
212-‐213)
is
organized
into
seven
“I”
words:

1. Importance.
The
relationship
fits
major
strategic
objectives
of
the
partners,

so
they
want
to
make
it
work.
Partners
have
long-‐term
goals
in
which
the

relationship
plays
a
key
role.

2. Interdependence.
The
partners
need
each
other.
They
have
complementary

assets
and
skills.

3. Investment.
They
invest
in
each
other.
They
show
tangible
signs
of
long-‐
term
commitment
by
devoting
financial
and
other
resources
to
the

relationship.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

36

4. Information.
Communication
is
reasonably
open.
Partners
share

information
required
to
make
the
relationship
work,
including
their

objectives
and
goals,
technical
data
and
knowledge
of
conflicts,
trouble

spots
or
changing
situations.

5. Integration.
The
partners
develop
linkages
and
shared
ways
of
operating

so
they
can
work
together
smoothly.
They
build
broad
connections

between
many
people
at
many
organizational
levels.

6. Institutionalization.
The
relationship
is
given
formal
status,
with
clear

responsibilities
and
decision
processes.
It
extends
beyond
the
particular

people
who
formed
it,
and
it
cannot
be
broken
on
a
whim.

7. Integrity.
The
partners
behave
toward
each
other
in
honorable
ways
that

justify
and
enhance
mutual
trust.

The
components
of
the
Kanter
(1994)
framework
for
PPP
contain
aspects
of
social

capital
theory
and
Transaction
Cost
Economics
(TCE).
An
effective
approach
for

educational
partnerships
and
contractual
agreements
are
inferred
from
these
economic

theories
and
transaction
cost
analysis.

Social
capital
in
PPP.
People’s
decisions
are
affected
by
the
relationships
they
form

within
the
environments
in
which
they
exist.
The
outcomes,
advantages,
and
disadvantages

that
are
derived
from
relationships
and
networks
are
known
as
social
capital
theory
(Miller,

2010).
Ultimately
these
outcomes,
advantages,
and
disadvantages
permeate
power
and

privilege,
which
may
be
applied
at
individual
or
collective
levels
(Miller,
2010).
Social

capital
provides
particular
social,
professional,
psychological,
and/or
educational
benefits.

This
especially
depends
on
the
varying
positions
of
the
persons
within
the
group
and
the

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

37

organizations
they
are
attached
to
(Miller,
2010).
Social
capital
is
a
player
in
developing

partnerships.
The
advantages,
disadvantages,
and
outcomes
from
these
relationships

establish
buyer
or
supplier
social
capital
(Miller,
2010).
A
partnership
is
a
commitment

between
two
parties
(supplier
and
buyer)
where
the
future
benefits
require
each
party
to

oblige
to
their
agreements
(North,
1999).
There
are
public
and
private
partnerships,
and

most
public
partnerships
are
through
the
government
where
social
capital
has
less
of
an

impact
(Williamson,
1999).
In
a
private
partnership
reputation
matters
as
there
is
more
to

gain,
but
also
more
to
lose
(Williamson,
1999).
A
good
reputation
with
a
history
of
positive

contacts
is
a
valuable
asset
(North,
1999).

Another
factor
that
impacts
social
capital
of
a

buyer
or
supplier
is
that
private
sectors
are
part
of
the
market
and
can
structure
their
own

relationships,
while
public
agencies
offer
lower
incentives
and
have
more
regulations

(Williamson,
1999).
Williamson
(1999)
suggests
determining
the
efficiency
of
a
public

agent
and
comparing
it
to
the
same
good
or
service
of
a
private
agent.
This
insinuates
that

social
capital
is
more
important
for
private
partnerships
than
public
ones.

Human
capital
in
PPP.
Once
a
school
community
makes
the
choice
to
put
a
STEM

program
into
practice,
the
next
area
to
consider
is
who
will
teach
STEM?
As
indicated
in

previous
sections,
some
schools
use
their
own
teachers
and
staff,
while
others
contract

outside
organizations
and
develop
partnerships.
The
reputation
of
individual
teachers,
as

well
as
the
school
itself,
will
determine
the
types
of
partnerships
they
create
with
the

outside
community.
Some
schools,
teachers,
and
even
students
have
more
social
capital

than
others.
This
is
especially
true
in
private
schools.
The
BUGS
program
mentioned
above

used
social
capital
when
partnering
elementary
female
students
with
successful
high

school
female
students
in
science
and
math.
This
relationship
built
the
students’
social

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

38

capital
as
they
interacted
with
people
at
a
higher
level.
When
choosing
a
program,
schools

might
either
create
their
own
opportunities
to
build
social
capital,
as
with
high
school
or

college
student
mentors,
or
they
might
choose
to
bring
in
experts
from
the
field
or
within
a

STEM
program
that
offers
opportunities
to
interact
with
specialists.
Regardless
of
whether

the
program
is
in
house
or
contracted,
bringing
STEM
learning
from
specialists
or
those

from
a
more
advanced
level
builds
students’
human
capital.

Further
Research
in
Economics
of
STEM
Education

Economics
in
education
sheds
light
onto
the
decision
making
process
and
can
help

protect
schools
from
entering
into
a
contract
that
might
otherwise
fail.
As
education
moves

to
a
more
privatized
industry,
there
are
more
opportunities
available
for
contracting
with

outside
vendors.
As
the
federal
government
funds
programs
specific
to
STEM
to
increase

the
United
States
global
perspective
of
our
students’
science
and
math
skills,
other
changes

are
simultaneously
taking
place
with
the
absence
of
NCLB,
implementation
of
the
Common

Core
Standards,
and
privatization
of
schools.
These
recent
changes
don’t
allow
room
for

many
long-‐term
studies
to
have
been
completed.

Generally
speaking,
there
needs
to
be
more
research
on
the
economics
of
education,

and
there
is
little-‐to-‐no
research
on
the
contracting
of
STEM
programs
in
schools.

Additionally,
more
research
is
needed
in
STEM
education
with
descriptive
classroom

applications
for
practicing
teachers
and
rigorous
qualitative
and
quantitative
research

projects,
as
well
as
large
studies
analyzing
student
performance
and
engagement
in
K-‐12

classrooms
using
STEM
instructional
methods
(Brown,
2012).
As
we
enter
a
global

economy
we
must
make
our
education
global
to
maintain
our
students’
integrity
and
value

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

39

as
global
citizens.
Without
knowledge
and
understanding
of
STEM,
our
students
will
not
be

prepared
to
enter
the
global
economy.

Challenges
in
Economics
of
STEM
Education

In
recent
years,
spending
in
the
United
States
has
slowed,
yet
we
spend
more
now

on
STEM
programs
than
ever
before.
These
programs
not
only
bring
public
benefits,
but

also
private
benefits
to
individual
students.
Since
most
schools
are
operated
as
hierarchies

and
traditionally
operated
within
its
own
institution,
there
have
been
shifts
that
required

schools
to
collaborate
more
with
their
community
and
partner
with
other
programs.
As

private
program
popularity
has
increased,
a
more
competitive
market
has
developed
for

these
types
of
programs.
The
goals
of
afterschool
programs
and
the
effects
of
these

programs
on
students
build
social
and
human
capital.
There
is
some
social
capital

inequality
as
groups
are
often
homogeneous
(same
race,
SES,
ranking,
and
no
attachment

to
meaningful
role,
affiliations,
or
organizations)
(Miller,
2010).
Partnering
with
outside

organizations
and
workers
might
create
heterogeneous
interactions,
but
must
consider
the

safety
of
the
students,
the
credibility
and
education
of
the
contractors
who
teach
students,

and
the
value
of
contracting
an
outside
afterschool
program
as
opposed
to
a
school

operating
their
own.

It
might
be
a
challenge
for
some
schools
to
embrace
a
hybrid
model
since
schools

have
been
traditionally
run
all
the
way
down
to
the
classroom
in
a
hierarchical
manner.

21
st

Century
Learning
Skills
are
demanding
collaboration
and
communication,
which
are

also
key
factors
to
the
hybrid
model.
It
would
be
to
a
school’s
benefit
to
break
out
of

traditional
models
and
allow
room
for
flexibility
with
a
shared
sense
of
responsibility
in

implementing
a
STEM
program.

This
might
mean
schools
develop
STEM
teaching
teams

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

40

where
teachers
integrate
subjects
in
project-‐based
learning
experiences,
bridging
lessons

and
specialists’
classes.
Schools
might
invite
students
to
help
in
the
development
of

curriculum
and
then
look
for
ways
to
tie
in
the
Common
Core
State
Standards
(CCSS)
and

Next
Generation
Science
Standards
(NGSS)
after
considering
students’
ideas.
Furthermore,

schools
may
develop
partnerships
to
incorporate
beforeschool
and
afterschool
STEM

programs.
Since
STEM
is
a
newer
field,
there
might
not
be
much
reputation
to
determine

the
value
of
one
program
over
another.
The
best
solution
to
this
problem
might
be
to
ask

for
recommendations
and
references.
A
little
more
homework
might
have
to
be
done
when

partnering
with
a
newer
STEM
program
to
ensure
it
has
a
quality
program
and
reliable

reputation.

Transformative
Experience

A
Transformative
Experience
is
one
kind
of
enriched
experience
that
occurs
during

engagement
with
a
concept
(Pugh,
2002).
“In
an
experience,
a
person
comes
to
see
some

aspect
of
the
world
in
a
new
way…to
find
meaning
in
this
aspect
of
the
world,
and
to
value

this
new
way
of
seeing”
(p
1102,
Pugh,
2002).
During
a
Transformative
Experience
(TE),
an

idea
allows
a
person
to
rearrange
and
reconstruct
aspects
of
the
world
in
a
new
and
more

meaningful
way
(Pugh,
2002).
In
education,
TE
is
a
concept
that
reaches
beyond
what
is

learned
in
the
classroom
(Pugh,
Linnenbrink-‐Garcia,
Koskey,
Stewart,
&
Manzey,
2010).

This
means
that
when
a
child
actively
applies
academic
concepts
outside
of
school
to

perceive
and
experience
the
universe
in
a
new
significant
way,
that
this
child
has
had
a
TE

(Pugh,
2011).

Kevin
Pugh
(2002)
developed
the
Transformative
Experience
theory
from
his

explorations
of
Dewey’s
studies.
Pugh
(2002;
2011)
discusses
the
history
of
Dewey’s

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

41

research
on
the
consequences
that
concepts
have
on
the
experiences
of
individuals.
Dewey

studied
the
aesthetic
experiences
later
in
his
career,
and
did
not
connect
it
to
his
other

writings
on
formation
of
concepts
and
education,
perhaps
because
he
passed
away
before

having
the
opportunity
to
do
so
(Pugh,
2002).
Jackson
stated
in
response
to
investigations

of
Dewey’s
aesthetic
research
(as
cited
in
Pugh,
2002,
p.
1101)
how
the
arts
shift

perspectives
and
create
meaning:

The
arts
do
more
than
provide
us
with
fleeting
moments
of
elation
and
delight.
They

expand
our
horizons.
They
contribute
meaning
and
value
to
future
experiences.

They
modify
our
ways
of
perceiving
the
world,
thus
leaving
us,
and
the
world
itself,

irrevocably
changed.

Dewey
valued
the
worth
of
something
by
its
influence
on
everyday
experiences
and
was

worried
that
formal
education
was
detached
from
these
experiences
(Pugh,
2011).
Dewey

stressed
that
students’
background
experiences
are
a
foundation
for
future
learning
and

permeate
future
learning
with
their
own
meaning
and
that
this
relationship
is
reciprocal

(Pugh,
2011).

Framework
for
Transformative
Experience

A
transformative
experience
changes
how
a
person
interacts
with
and
behaves
in

the
world
(Pugh,
2011).

Actively
using
a
concept
is
a
transformative
experience,
yet
there

is
a
process
to
this
active
use,
which
includes
a
shift
in
perception
and
an
expansion
of

value
(Pugh,
2011).
There
are
three
characteristics
of
a
TE
that
reflect
the
behavioral,

cognitive,
and
affective
dimensions
of
a
learner.
These
characteristics
define
a
TE
and
are

necessary
in
order
for
one
to
occur.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

42

The
first
component
of
a
TE
is
active
use
of
a
concept
(Pugh
2002).
This
is
the

motivated
use
of
a
concept
in
everyday
experiences,
even
when
the
application
of
an
idea
is

not
required
or
demanded
by
the
situation
(Pugh,
2011).
When
a
student
talks
to
other

people
about
class
concepts
when
out-‐of-‐class
and
thinks
about
examples
out-‐of-‐class,
they

are
actively
using
the
concept
(Pugh,
2002).
The
student
is
motivated
to
choose
to
apply

learning
in
a
transfer
situation
either
intentionally
or
spontaneously,
making
it
a
free-‐
choice
transfer
(Pugh,
2011).
For
example,
transferring
knowledge
about
light
refraction

learned
in
the
classroom
to
answer
a
question
on
a
test
is
not
a
transformative
experience

because
the
content
is
demanded
by
that
situation,
or
the
test.
Though
if
a
student
saw
a

rainbow
on
a
sunny
day
when
the
sprinkler
was
running
and
experimented
with
light
and

water
to
create
more
rainbows,
that
would
be
a
transformative
experience.
A
motivated

use
of
school
context
is
when
students
have
transformative
experiences
and
act
on
ideas
in

the
real
world
in
a
behavioral
dimension
(Pugh,
2011).

The
second
characteristic
of
a
TE
is
an
expansion
of
perception
(Pugh,
2002).
This
is

seeing
everyday
objects,
events,
or
issues
through
the
lens
of
the
content
(Pugh,
2011).
An

expansion
of
perception
is
a
change
in
the
way
students
see
or
think
about
a
topic
because

of
concepts
they
learned
in
school
(Pugh
2002).
Schemas
and
conceptions
are
psychological

constructs
that
manipulate
how
we
perceive
information
and
make
meaning
of
the
world

(Pugh,
2011).
For
example,
when
a
student
learns
about
the
plant
cycle
and
is
asked
to

complete
a
scientific
experiment
at
school,
this
is
not
part
of
a
TE.
However,
if
a
student
is

shopping
with
a
parent
and
sees
the
garden
department
at
a
store,
and
then
thinks
about

the
plants
differently
because
they
learned
about
the
plant
cycle,
then
this
is
a
TE.
The

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

43

expansion
of
perception
occurs
when
a
person
uses
a
notion
to
see
part
of
the
world
in
a

new
way
from
a
cognitive
dimension
(Pugh,
2011).

The
third
element
of
a
TE
is
an
expansion
of
value
(Pugh,
2002).
This
is
valuing

ideas
and
knowledge
for
the
way
it
enriches
every
experience
(Pugh,
2011).
An
expansion

of
value
increases
interest
in
a
topic
because
of
the
concepts
learned
(Pugh,
2002).

Experiential
value
is
when
a
student
values
the
content
because
of
an
experience
it

provides
and
the
new
meaning
it
offers
in
the
world
(Pugh,
2011).
This
experiential
value

integrates
internal
value,
such
as
fulfillment,
enjoyment,
or
interest,
with
utility
value,
such

as
seeing
a
purpose
for
the
task
to
reach
a
goal
(Pugh,
2011).
For
example,
a
student

valuing
journalism
class
because
they
enjoy
writing
is
not
an
expansion
of
value.
However

if
a
student
does
not
enjoy
writing,
but
after
learning
about
journalism
not
only
likes

writing,
but
also
sees
it
as
a
tool
to
help
them
with
college
applications
and
essays,
then
it
is

a
TE.
Intrinsic
value
is
connected
to
daily
application
of
content
and
usefulness
of
the

content
in
everyday
experiences
so
that
the
student
values
both
the
content
and
its

usefulness
(Pugh,
2011).

Students
often
undergo
transformative
experiences
without
realizing
they
have

made
connections
between
school
and
the
real
world
(Heddy
&
Sinatra,
2013).
Heddy
and

Sinatra
(2013)
suggest
that
during
lessons,
teachers
can
scaffold
the
three
dimensions
of

TE
so
that
students
can
begin
to
identify
their
own.
This
means
that
the
teacher
models

through
a
discussion
of
his
or
her
own
thought
process
to
help
students
understand
a
TE.

Teaching
for
Transformative
Experience

The
teacher’s
job
is
to
sometimes
take
mundane
concepts
and
turn
them
into

meaningful
ideas
that
inspire
action,
transform
perception,
and
increase
importance
(Pugh,

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

44

2002).
A
transformative
education
reestablishes
concepts
by
turning
them
into
ideas

(Pugh,
2002).
When
viewing
a
concept
for
a
student
as
a
potential
TE,
the
teacher
must

consider
how
the
concept
might
be
reanimated
and
made
interesting
in
a
new
way.
The

teacher
might
ask:
(1)
What
can
this
concept
do
for
the
student?
(2)
What
thoughts
does

the
concept
inspire?
(3)
What
objects
does
the
concept
highlight?
(4)
What
problems
does

this
concept
clarify?
and
(5)
What
experiences
might
the
concept
generate?
(Pugh,
2002).

By
asking
these
questions,
the
teacher
generates
ideas
for
lessons.
From
a
constructivist

and
sociocultural
approach,
the
teacher
might
use
students
as
apprentices
to
build

participation
for
a
learning
goal
and
include
the
larger
community
(Pugh,
2002).
The

teacher
would
model
and
scaffold
the
value
of
the
idea
through
his
or
her
own
behavior

and
communication
about
feelings
derived
from
the
use
of
the
idea
(Pugh,
2002).

Examples
of
teaching
for
transformative
experiences.
In
2002,
Pugh
and
his

colleagues
conducted
a
small-‐scale
study
on
the
effectiveness
of
teaching
elements
of
TE,

which
was
predominantly
comprised
of
tenth
grade
students
at
a
Midwest,
suburban
high

school.
The
experimental
group
had
17
students
and
the
comparison
group
had
22

students,
and
the
teacher
presented
content
in
a
way
that
awakened
students’
interest
in

animal
adaptation
(Pugh,
2002).
The
teacher
modeled
TE
thinking
and
scaffolded
activities

in
a
way
that
helped
students
to
see
adaptation
outside
of
school.
Sometimes
it
was
as

simple
as
saying,
“This
is
so
cool,”
to
model
excitement
and
interest
(Pugh,
2002).

Students

completed
writing
assignments,
a
pre
and
post
Likert
scale,
as
well
as
a
survey
to
assess
the

degrees
and
qualities
of
their
transformative
experiences.
Pugh
(2002)
discovered
that
the

results
were
significant
in
the
writing
samples
and
post
Likert
scale,
but
not
in
the
pre

Likert
scale
or
survey.
These
results
suggest
that
modeling
and
scaffolding
a
TE
are

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

45

effective
strategies
for
fostering
a
TE
in
students.
This
was
a
small
study
that
needs
to
be

replicated
on
a
larger
scale,
and
therefore
is
not
generalizable.

Challenges
with
Transformative
Experiences

The
most
important
shift
to
help
students
experience
a
TE
is
to
view
school
learning

through
a
real-‐world
lens.
For
example,
students
must
see
mathematics
and
science
not

simply
as
disciplines
to
study,
but
as
a
way
to
make
sense
of
the
world,
developing
the

depth
of
math
and
science
rather
than
just
the
breadth
(Davison,
et
al.,
1995).

“Mathematics,
when
integrated
with
science,
provides
the
opportunity
for
students
to

apply
the
discipline
to
real
situations
that
are
relevant
to
the
student’s
world
and
presented

from
the
student’s
own
perspective”
(Davison,
et
al.,
1995).
From
this
standpoint,
the

student
would
then
be
shown
the
usefulness
and
value
of
the
content.
Nonetheless,
a
TE

cannot
be
forced;
it
must
be
an
authentic
experience.
A
TE
is
a
holistic
approach
that

focuses
on
how
life
becomes
richer
because
of
school
learning.
It
may
bring
together

different
research
areas,
and
simplify
cognitive
load
on
teachers
with
the
frameworks
of

action,
cognition,
and
value
jointly
(Pugh,
2011).

Summary

This
literature
review
analyzed
and
synthesized
the
primary
factors
that
influence

STEM
and
natural
science
education
in
a
public-‐private
partnership.
Although
there
is
no

research
on
the
implementation
of
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
through
a
public-‐private

partnership,
the
four
main
topics
discussed
in
this
literature
review
give
background,

support,
and
understanding
in
order
to
conduct
such
research.
Through
the
investigation
of

the
value
of
natural
sciences,
the
integration
of
STEM
education,
the
economic
aspects
of

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

46

public-‐private
partnerships,
and
the
transformative
experience
of
learning
and
real
world

application,
a
solid
framework
has
been
devised
for
this
dissertation.

This
pilot
study
will
contribute
to
research
in
STEM
and
the
natural
sciences
by

presenting
best
practices
through
the
constructivist
approach
to
learning
and

transformative
experiences
in
informal
K-‐6
classroom
settings.
The
researcher
will
be

teaching
natural
sciences
in
gardening
through
a
non-‐profit
organization
at
two
public
Los

Angeles
Unified
School
District
schools
for
which
the
researcher
will
be
developing
a
STEM-‐
garden
curriculum.
Interviews,
pre
and
post
assessments,
and
surveys
will
be
used
to

gather
information
before,
during,
and
after
the
study.
This
study
seeks
to
understand

student
learning
and
transformative
experiences
through
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,
as
well

as
relevant
economic
factors
in
developing
the
public-‐private
partnership
between
a

private
non-‐profit
organization
and
public
school.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

47

CHAPTER
THREE:
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
understand
public
school
partnerships
with
private

organizations
to
facilitate
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
and
a
transformative
experience
with

K-‐6
elementary
school
students.
This
qualitative
case
study
involves
two
school
sites

within
the
same
school
district
and
a
private
non-‐profit
organization.
Specifically,
this
case

study
is
an
investigation
of
the
relationship
between
two
public
school
sites,
with
Winston

Elementary
and
Green
Elementary
schools
(pseudonyms),
and
the
non-‐profit
organization

EnrichLA,
in
the
partnership
to
implement
STEM-‐garden
curriculum.

Framework

There
are
three
primary
ways
of
gathering
information
in
addition
to
the
literature

review
to
inform
this
research:
administration
interviews,
pre
and
post
informal

assessments,
and
surveys,
which
are
all
components
of
triangulation.
Triangulation

involves
using
various
methods
to
check
each
other,
determining
if
methods
with
different

strengths
and
limitations
all
support
a
single
conclusion
(Maxwell,
2013).
The
conceptual

framework
is
grounded
by
the
context
and
guides
the
study
and
instrument
design,
while

fieldwork,
such
as
surveys
and
interviews,
gather
data
for
analysis
(Bogdan
&
Biklen,
2007;

Merriam,
2009).
This
approach
to
research
is
the
qualitative
method,
with
a
quantitative

method
for
coding
data.
Using
multiple
methods
and
not
just
qualitative
methods
is
also

another
form
of
triangulation
(Maxwell,
2013).
Maxwell
writes
that
multiple
methods
and

sources
give
conclusions
far
more
credibility.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

48

Research
Design

In
qualitative
research,
“designs
are
flexible
rather
than
fixed,
and
inductive
rather

than
following
a
strict
sequence
or
derived
from
an
initial
decision”
(Maxwell,
2013,
p.
2).

In
order
to
learn
about
the
influence
of
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
and
the
partnerships
that

make
it
possible,
a
flexible
approach
to
gathering
data
is
required.
Interviews
help
to

understand
the
relationship
between
the
public
and
private
sector,
and
assessments
and

surveys
uncover
how
to
interpret
children’s
learning
from
STEM-‐garden
integration,
as

well
as
observe
teachers
and
students
in
the
field
(Merriam,
2009).
The
desire
as
a

researcher
is
to
understand
the
public-‐private
partnership
and
the
students’
learning

experiences
from
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,
and
this
research
aligns
best
with
the

qualitative
method.
Nevertheless,
using
surveys
with
yes
and
no
questions
as
well
as

coding
interviews
and
assessments
in
a
quantitative
manner,
in
addition
to
open-‐ended

interviews
and
assessment
interpretations,
gives
information
about
different
aspects
of
the

phenomena
that
are
complimentary
and
expansive
(Maxwell,
2013).
This
method
solves

qualitative
problems,
“such
as
discovering
what
occurs,
the
implications
of
what
occurs,

and
the
relationships
linking
occurrences”
(Merriam,
2009,
p.
77).

Sample
and
Population

The
site
selection
was
purposeful
(Merriam,
2009).
In
preparation
for
the

dissertation,
this
researcher
began
building
relationships
for
this
study
(Maxwell,
2013)
in

the
fall
of
2013
and
spring
of
2014.
The
researcher
sought
out
schools
and
organizations

connected
to
gardening.
After
volunteering
and
engaging
in
service
learning
with
EnrichLA

and
LAUSD
schools,
the
researcher
approached
EnrichLA
about
teaching
in
LAUSD
gardens

for
the
2014-‐2015
school
year.
For
this
qualitative
study,
with
a
mixed
methods
influence,

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

49

the
researcher
will
be
conducting
research
in
schools
where
the
researcher
has
already

established
a
relationship
with
EnrichLA,
which
is
open
to
integrating
STEM-‐garden

curriculum.
“What
you
need
are
relationships
that
allow
you
to
ethically
gain
information

that
can
answer
your
research
questions”
(Maxwell,
2013,
p.
90).

This
qualitative
research,
with
a
mixed
methods
analysis,
is
a
case
study
that
will

focus
on
two
specific
schools
and
one
specific
non-‐profit
organization.
The
schools
chosen

for
this
study
are
both
part
of
the
LAUSD:
Winston
Elementary
School
near
downtown
Los

Angeles,
and
Green
Elementary
School
in
Hollywood.
Both
of
these
schools
are
from
an

urban
sector
and
have
non-‐mainstream
students
with
the
majority
of
the
population
in

each
school
being
ELL
and/or
Hispanic.
Non-‐mainstream
students
are
described
by
Beatty

(2011)
as
students
of
color,
low-‐income,
and/or
ELLs.
Beatty
(2011)
states
that
non-‐
mainstream
students
need
to
learn
with
understanding
and
develop
identity
as
a
science

that
is
attached
to
their
culture
and
language.
Winston
Elementary
serves
students
from

Kindergarten
through
grade
five,
and
Green
Elementary
serves
students
from
Kindergarten

through
grade
six.
Both
schools
have
populations
of
around
300
students.
Students
from

various
grade
levels
will
spend
45
minutes
to
an
hour
in
the
garden
each
week
for
six

weeks
studying
STEM-‐garden
curriculum.

The
private
non-‐profit
organization
partnering
with
these
schools,
EnrichLA,
has

been
operating
for
three
fiscal
years.
The
Founder
of
EnrichLA
is
also
a
politician
in
his

home
district
in
Los
Feliz,
and
visits
school
sites
regularly
to
participates
hands-‐on
in
the

construction
and
maintenance
of
the
school
gardens.
Currently,
EnrichLA
partners
with
35

LAUSD
schools
to
sustain
the
school
gardens
and
bring
gardening
curriculum
to
students.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

50

Instrumentation

Multiple
forms
of
data
will
be
collected
in
order
to
validate
this
study
through

triangulation.
Interview
questions
are
asked
to
gain
the
understanding
desired
from
the

research
question
(Maxwell,
2013).
Interviews
allow
for
a
glimpse
into
another
person’s

perspectives,
experiences,
feelings,
and
thoughts.
(Merriam,
2009).
The
researcher

designed
questions
that
would
elicit
these
from
Principals,
administrators,
and
classroom

teachers.
The
questions
needed
to
have
some
flexibility
while
still
guiding
the
interview

(Merriam,
2009).
Moreover,
typically
qualitative
studies
typically
have
more
flexibility
in

their
questions
to
allow
for
the
emergence
of
insight
(Maxwell,
2013).
The
flexibility
of

qualitative
studies
allows
for
the
authenticity
of
perspectives
and
feelings
from
interviews,

for
example,
observations
of
behavior
and
interactions.
For
these
reasons,
the
researcher

chose
a
balance
between
structure
and
flexibility
in
the
interview
composition.

Furthermore,
Maxwell
(2013)
emphasizes
that
the
interviewer
have
an
awareness
of

purposes
and
assumptions
to
avoid
negative
consequences
for
the
research.
The

researcher
also
considered
the
“how”
to
focus
on
the
process
as
opposed
to
“what”

questions
that
are
more
close-‐ended
(Maxwell,
2009).

The
researcher
will
interview
key
participants
in
the
decision
making
process
for

partnering
to
discuss
economic
factors
related
to
establishing
the
partnerships,
particularly

involving
funding.
These
participants
include
the
Principals
of
each
school,
as
well
as

EnrichLA’s
Founder
and
the
Development
Officer.
Interview
questions
were
also
designed

for
teachers
to
assess
how
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
influences
teachers’
instruction

strategies
and
understanding
of
STEM
curriculum.
The
researcher
will
assess
students

learning
in
relation
to
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
through
the
use
of
a
“Draw
a
Scientist”
and

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

51

“Draw
an
Engineer”
pre
and
post
assessment
with
an
accompanying
checklist,
as
well
as
an

interview
about
science
and
engineering.
The
last
component
of
triangulation
is
using
a

Transformative
Experience
Measure
(TEM)
to
measure
students
learning
and
ability
to

transfer
school
concepts
to
the
real
world.

The
researcher
developed
the
interview
questions
for
the
administrators
from

Winston
Elementary,
Green
Elementary,
and
EnrichLA
(Appendix
A).
The
topics
of

economics
in
education
discussed
in
chapter
two
framed
the
questions
for
the
Principals

and
administrators.
The
teacher
interview
questions
were
designed
by
the
researcher
and

influenced
by
USC
peers’
Hot
Wheels
STEM
research,
and
an
article
by
Bismack,
Arias,

Davis,
Palincsar
(2014)
discussing
the
connection
between
curriculum
materials
and

teachers
(Appendix
B).
The
“Draw
a
Scientist”
assessment
was
developed
in
1981
by

Chambers
and
was
patterned
after
the
“Draw-‐a-‐Man”
test,
where
elementary
students

draw
a
scientist
on
a
blank
piece
of
paper
to
be
assessed
at
a
later
time
(Finson,
2002)

(Appendix
C).
The
pictures
will
be
analyzed
with
a
checklist
where
each
item
is
either

“present”
or
“not
present”;
the
more
items
that
are
checked
as
“present”
indicate
the

student
has
a
higher
understanding
of
science
and/or
engineering
(Appendix
D).
This

checklist
was
derived
and
adapted
from
Finson,
Beaver,
and
Cramond
(1995)
and
Thomas,

Pedersen,
and
Finson
(2001).
The
students
will
be
surveyed
in
writing
or
orally
(depending

on
the
student’s
writing
ability)
about
their
understanding
of
science
and
engineering

(Appendix
E).
This
survey
will
consist
of
questions
derived
from
Zhai,
Jocz,
Tan,
(2013)
to

ask
children
about
their
perceptions
of
science
and
engineering
at
school
and
in
the
real-‐
world.
The
final
assessment
tool,
the
Transformative
Experience
Measure
(TEM)
(Pugh,

2010)
will
be
adapted
to
reflect
STEM
(Appendix
F).
Other
researchers,
such
as
Heddy
&

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

52

Sinatra
(2013)
have
adapted
Pugh’s
(2010)
instrument
to
reflect
science
concepts.
The
tool

has
three
sections
to
assess
the
three
characteristics
of
a
Transformative
Experience:
(1)

motivated
use,
(2)
expansion
of
perception;
and
(3)
experiential
value.
The
STEM-‐garden

lesson
plans
(Appendix
I)
will
include
instructions
for
teacher
modeling
a
Transformative

Experience.

Table
3.1

Methods
for
Research
Questions

Q1 Q2 Q3
Principal
&
Administrator
Interview,

Appendix
A

x

Teacher
Interview

Appendix
B

x

Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer.
Appendix
C

x

Checklist,

Appendix
D

x

Student
Interview,

Appendix
E

x

TEM,

Appendix
F

x

Garden-‐STEM
Curriculum

Appendix
I

x
x

Validity
and
Reliability

The
reliability
and
validity
of
the
TEM
tool
and
“Draw
a
scientist”/”Draw
an

engineer”
assessment
methods
have
been
examined
in
various
studies
and
proven
to
be

both
reliable
and
valid.
Maxwell
(2013)
states
the
authenticity
of
qualitative
research
“All

we
require
is
the
possibility
of
testing
these
accounts
against
the
world,
giving
the

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

53

phenomena
that
we
are
trying
to
understand
the
chance
to
prove
us
wrong”
(p.
123).
In

qualitative
data
there
are
no
numbers
to
measure
against;
instead
we
must
look
to
how
our

research
relates
to
the
outside
world.
These
aspects
leave
space
for
ideas
and
insights
to

emerge,
and
can
be
analyzed
with
a
quantitative
coding
for
a
mixed
methods
approach

(Maxwell,
2013).

A
validity
threat
might
be
that
there
are
other
interpretations
and

explanations
for
the
data,
that
the
researcher
might
be
wrong
(Maxwell,
2013).
There
are

several
ways
that
the
researcher
will
account
for
validity
in
this
case
study.
Foremost,
the

researcher
is
aware
of
personal
biases
and
reactivity
(Maxwell,
2013).
Additionally,
this

study
gathers
data
over
a
period
of
twelve
weeks,
which
will
improve
validity.

Furthermore,
through
the
use
of
interviews,
assessments,
surveys,
notes,
and
a

literature
review,
this
study
will
be
triangulated,
which
serves
validity,
but
does
not

guarantee
it
(Maxwell,
2013).
A
study
that
is
more
valid
has
a
higher
chance
of
being
more

reliable
(Merriam,
2009).
“Regardless
of
the
type
of
research,
validity
and
reliability
are

concerns
that
can
be
approached
through
careful
attention
to
a
study’s
conceptualization

and
the
way
in
which
the
data
are
collected,
analyzed,
and
interpreted”
(Merriam,
2009,
p.

211).
In
terms
of
reliability
when
studying
human
context
it
is
difficult
to
be
certain
that

the
same
findings
would
occur
again
because
humans
are
different
from
each
other

(Merriam,
2009).
A
group
of
students
at
a
different
school
might
have
alternative

experiences
with
gardening
and
STEM
curriculum.
Also,
the
school
culture
might
influence

findings,
and
culture
varies
amongst
schools.
For
example,
inappropriate
student
behavior

at
one
school
might
be
accepted
in
another,
and
teachers
may
have
more
flexibility
in
their

lesson
planning
from
one
school
to
the
next.
“Replication
of
a
qualitative
study
will
not

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

54

yield
the
same
results,
but
this
does
not
discredit
the
results
of
the
particular
study;
there

can
be
numerous
interpretations
of
the
same
data”
(Merriam,
2009,
p.
221).

Data
Collection

Qualitative
research
uses
different
methods
to
collect
data
that
check
one
another;

this
is
called
triangulation
(Maxwell,
2013).
When
data
is
coded
using
quantitative

methods,
this
creates
a
mixed
methods
approach
(Maxwell,
2013).
For
the
purpose
of
this

pilot
study,
interviews,
assessments,
surveys,
notes,
and
a
literature
review
will
be
used
to

gather
information
and
reduce
the
potential
biases
that
may
have
occured
if
only
one

method
of
data
collection
was
used
(Maxwell,
2013).
These
methods
are
part
of
fieldwork.

“To
achieve
quality
fieldwork
is
the
goal
in
established
relations”
(Bogdan
&
Biklen,
2007,

p.
82).
This
study
will
use
fieldwork
to
gather
information
and
answer
the
research

questions
(Bogdan
&
Biklen,
2007).

Data
collection
will
begin
in
October
prior
to
the
implementation
of
the
six-‐week

STEM-‐garden
curriculum.
Interviews
with
administrators,
Principals,
and
teachers
will
be

done
in
person
during
the
fall
2014
semester.
These
interviews
will
give
insight
into
the

partnership
and
funding
for
the
garden
program
at
each
school
from
both
sides
of
the

public-‐private
partnership,
as
well
as
teachers’
understandings
of
STEM
curriculum.
In

order
to
properly
prepare
for
the
implementation
of
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,
some

questions
will
also
be
asked
to
better
understand
the
population
and
culture
of
each
school.

Eleven
questions
will
be
framed
and
recorded
to
ensure
playback
for
data
analysis.

Students
will
be
administered
the
“Draw
a
Scientist”
and
“Draw
an
Engineer”
activities
in

October,
before
the
implementation
of
the
six-‐week
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,
and
again
in

December
after
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
have
ended.
The
accompanying
checklist
will
be

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

55

used
for
analysis.
Additionally,
the
survey
questions
will
be
asked
pre
and
post

administration
of
the
six-‐week
STEM-‐garden
curriculum.
Finally,
the
TEM
tool
will
be

administered
in
the
same
time
frame
as
the
“Draw
a
Scientist”
and
“Draw
an
Engineer”

assessment.

Together,
these
assessments
and
checklists
will
uncover
student
learning.

Moreover,
in
order
to
comply
with
the
University
of
Southern
California
(USC)

Institutional
Review
Board
(IRB)
and
to
receive
approval
from
the
elementary
school

administrators,
student
participants
will
be
given
a
consent
form
(Appendix
G)
and
the
IRB

guidelines.
Upon
receiving
the
consent
forms,
any
student
without
the
form
will
not
be

included
in
the
research
study.
During
interviews,
participants
will
be
asked
for
their

consent
and
this
response
will
be
recorded.
The
interviewees
will
be
informed
about
the

ways
in
which
their
answers
will
be
used,
and
that
their
answers
are
confidential
and

secure.
Documents
from
the
“Draw
a
Scientist”
and
“Draw
an
Engineer”
activity
will
also
be

kept
confidential
and
secure,
with
their
only
use
being
for
this
specific
USC
study.
Student

survey
responses
will
also
be
kept
confidential
and
for
the
use
of
this
case
study.
Finally,

the
researcher
will
maintain
notes
throughout
the
research
process
pertaining
to

interviews,
activities,
surveys,
and
lesson
plans.

Data
Analysis

“Analysis
is
a
process
of
examining
something
in
order
to
find
out
what
it
is
and
how

it
works”
(Corbin
&
Strauss,
2008,
p.
46).
Analyzing
the
data
will
be
a
process
of
reflection,

interpretation,
and
sorting
through
various
ideas
and
conclusions.
The
researcher
will
need

to
re-‐listen
to
interviews
and
mull
over
information
to
find
connections.
After
each
of
the

interviews
the
researcher
will
take
time
to
reflect
and
add
to
notes.
This
will
help
the

researcher
to
be
immersed
in
the
data
analysis
during
the
data
collection
process
(Corbin
&

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

56

Strauss,
2008;
Maxwell,
2013).
“After
being
immersed
in
the
data
the
researcher
believes

that
the
findings
reflect
the
‘essence’
of
what
participants
are
trying
to
convey,
or
represent

one
logical
interpretation
of
data,
as
seen
through
the
eyes
of
this
particular
analyst”

(Corbin
&
Strauss,
2008,
p.
47).

Data
analysis
guidelines
will
be
used
to
review
the
data
and
generate
findings
for

the
following
questions:

1.
How
does
a
non-‐profit
organization
partner
with
a
large
urban
school
district
to
fund
a

garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum?

2.
How
does
the
integration
of
a
garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum
change
students’
and

teachers’
perceptions
of
STEM?

3.
Will
elementary
students
that
participate
in
a
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
report
a

Transformative
Experience?

The
activities,
surveys,
and
assessments
will
be
analyzed
to
find
significant

difference
between
the
pre
and
post
implementation
of
these
instruments.
Moreover,
the

checklist
will
help
in
analyzing
the
“Draw
a
Scientist”
and
“Draw
an
Engineer”
assessment.

To
inform
the
research
questions
and
analyze
the
collected
data
from
interviews,
the

researcher
will
utilize
Creswell’s
(2009)
suggested
six
steps
for
data
analysis
and

interpretation:

1.
Researcher
will
organize
all
collected
data
into
different
groups
and
prepare
it
for

analysis.

2.
An
overall
sense
of
general
patterns
or
themes
will
be
attained
through
a
reading
of

all
the
data.
Taking
note
of
these
emerging
open
codes.

3.
Analysis
will
begin
through
the
use
of
an
open
coding
system
that
allows
for
sorting

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

57

of
data
into
sections
that
share
common
language
or
labels.

4.
Researcher
will
develop
a
clear
coding
system
from
the
data
analysis
and
use
the

codes
to
generate
themes
that
emerged
from
the
findings.

5.
The
researcher
will
utilize
the
themes
and
create
a
narrative
that
paints
a
picture
of

the
phenomenon
from
the
participants’
perspective
and
the
data
collected.

6.
Finally,
the
researcher
will
work
to
interpret
the
data
analyzed
and
capture
the

essence
or
meaning
of
the
phenomenon.
The
researcher
will
also
address
any

questions
that
needed
further
attention.

Furthermore,
once
the
student
interviews,
drawings,
and
checklists
have
been

gathered,
the
researcher
will
code
the
student
answers
from
the
interviews,
drawings
from

Draw
a
Scientist/Draw
an
Engineer,
and
the
accompanying
checklists
into
ones
(1)
and

zeros
(0).
The
ones
and
zeros
will
indicate
whether
or
not
the
students
understood
the

concepts
of
scientists
and
engineers.
A
one
means
a
student’s
answer
demonstrated
either

visually
or
verbally
what
a
scientist
or
engineer
might
look
like,
what
materials
and
duties

they
might
perform,
what
content
knowledge
they
would
know,
and
other
symbols
that

show
demonstrate
and
understanding
of
the
topic,
while
a
zero
indicates
a
student’s
lack
of

demonstration
of
this
understanding
in
science
and
engineering.
Additionally,
the
TEM
tool

will
be
coded
similarly,
with
students
answering
“yes”
coded
as
a
one
and
students

answering
“no”
coded
as
a
zero.
The
data
from
pre
and
post
assessments
will
be
compared

using
a
paired
t-‐test.
This
test
is
used
to
determine
whether
the
STEM-‐garden
unit

influences
students’
understanding
and
application
of
STEM.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

58

Summary

This
study
seeks
to
understand
how
a
public-‐private
partnership
is
formed
and

funded
to
implement
natural
science
and
STEM
curriculum
in
an
outdoor
school
garden

setting.

The
research
questions
are
designed
to
explore
the
factors
related
to
the
PPP
and

student
learning
outcomes
from
this
PPP.
This
chapter
focused
on
describing
the

methodological
approach
for
this
qualitative
case
study.
It
considered
in
detail
the

framework
and
research
design,
which
included
sample
population,
reliability
and
validity

of
instrumentation,
and
data
collection
and
analysis.
This
structure
aligns
with
the

literature
review
on
PPP
in
relation
to
natural
sciences
and
STEM
integration
from
chapter

two.
This
study
further
contributes
to
literature
for
effective
PPP
and
informal

implementation
of
STEM
and
natural
science
curriculum.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

59

CHAPTER
FOUR:
RESULTS

Introduction

The
goal
of
this
chapter
is
to
present
and
analyze
the
data
collected
to
answer
the

research
questions
first
indicated
in
chapter
one
and
then
discussed
in
terms
of

methodology
in
chapter
three.
Again,
these
research
questions
are
as
follows:

1.
How
does
a
non-‐profit
organization
partner
with
a
large
urban
school
district
to
fund
a

garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum?

2.
How
does
the
integration
of
a
garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum
change
students’
and

teachers’
perceptions
of
STEM?

3.
Will
elementary
students
that
participate
in
a
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
report
a

Transformative
Experience?

The
information
in
this
chapter
presents
data
collected
as
part
of
this
qualitative

study
on
the
funding
of
a
private,
non-‐profit,
natural
science
education
program

implemented
in
public
schools,
and
the
effects
on
students
and
teachers
of
a
STEM-‐garden

curriculum
implemented
in
urban
elementary
schools.
In
an
attempt
to
answer
the

research
questions,
data
was
collected
through
interviews,
drawings,
pre
and
post
student

assessments,
and
ongoing
observations.
This
qualitative
study
collected
various
data

through
qualitative
instruments,
and
during
the
coding
process
it
was
discovered
that
a

good
portion
of
the
data
could
be
presented
in
a
quantitative
manner.
This
process
of

coding
and
interpreting
the
data
quantitatively
developed
this
research
into
a
mixed-‐
methods
study.
Creswell
(2003)
discusses
that
mixed
methods
might
result
in
mixing
data

at
the
data
analysis
and
interpretation
stage,
which
involves
transforming
qualitative
codes

into
quantitative
numbers
and
cross-‐examining
the
data.
A
systematic
application
of

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

60

methodology
for
analyzing
and
interpreting
the
data
was
driven
by
Creswell’s
(2009)
six

steps,
as
discussed
at
the
end
of
chapter
three.

In
this
chapter,
there
are
three
main
sections:
(1)
Participants,
(2)
Organization
of

Data
Analysis,
and
(3)
Summary.
The
Participants
section
is
arranged
by
participant

distribution,
and
is
discussed
according
to
the
questions
that
they
answer.
Principals
and

administrators
participated
in
answering
question
one,
and
they
are
discussed
in
terms
of

demographics
and
professional
experience
in
the
first
sub-‐section.
To
answer
question
two,

the
subsequent
participant
sub-‐section
explains
the
demographics
and
professional

experience
of
the
teachers
who
were
interviewed.

The
third
and
final
participant
sub-‐
section
discusses
the
students
involved
in
the
study
and
serves
to
answer
part
of
question

two
and
all
of
question
three.
The
Organization
of
Data
Analysis
is
separated
into
three

sections,
one
for
each
question,
where
themes
and
data
corresponding
to
each
question
are

indicated
as
sub-‐sections.
The
final
section
of
chapter
four
is
the
Summary,
where
the

chapter
is
overviewed
and
connected
to
chapter
five.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

61

Participants

The
participants
in
this
study
were
selected
from
multiple
stakeholder
groups
to

allow
for
an
understanding
of
varied
perspectives,
experiences,
feelings,
and
thoughts

(Merriam,
2009).
These
stakeholders
included
Principals
at
two
public
schools,

administrators
from
EnrichLA,
and
students
and
teachers
involved
in
the
STEM-‐garden

lessons.
When
stakeholders
partner
they
can
better
support
STEM
education
(Breiner
et
al.,

2012).
The
Principals
and
administrators
were
interviewed
to
answer
question
one,
the

teachers
and
students
were
interviewed
to
answer
question
two,
and
the
students
were

surveyed
to
answer
questions
two
and
three.
The
diversity
of
the
respondents
adds
to
the

value
of
the
study
by
providing
a
variety
of
perspectives.
The
demographics
and

descriptions
of
the
stakeholders
will
be
presented
next,
ordered
by
research
question.

Table
4.1

Distribution
of
Interviewees
by
Question

Interviewee
Question
1
Question
2
Question
3

Green
Principal
X

Winston
Principal
X

Green
K
Teacher

X

Green
2
nd

Teacher

X

Winston
3
rd

ELL
Teacher

X

Winston
4
th
-‐5
th

Gifted
Teacher

X

Green
6
th

Teacher

X

Green
and
Winston
Students

X
X

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

62

Principals
and
Administrators

The
Principals
at
Green
Elementary
and
Winston
Elementary
were
both
interviewed

to
understand
the
schools’
perspective
on
how
the
partnership
with
EnrichLA
was

developed
and
funded,
which
answers
research
question
one.
The
Principal
at
Green

Elementary,
a
middle-‐aged
American
Male,
was
fairly
new,
with
one
year
and
two
months

of
experience
at
the
school
when
the
interview
took
place
in
early
October
2014.
During
the

interview
he
seemed
focused;
he
was
not
on
his
computer
nor
was
the
meeting
interrupted.

Winston
Elementary’s
Principal,
a
middle-‐aged
African
American
female,
had
13
of
years

experience,
with
eight
of
those
years
at
Winston
Elementary
School
when
the
interview

took
place
in
mid-‐October
2014.
During
the
interview
she
seemed
distracted,
requesting
to

shorten
the
length
of
the
meeting
from
15
minutes
to
10,
typing
on
her
computer,

answering
her
secretary’s
questions,
and
generally
seeming
unfocused.

The
Founder/Executive
Director
and
the
Development
Director
of
EnrichLA
were

both
interviewed
to
understand
the
organization’s
perspective
on
how
the
partnership

developed
with
Green
and
Winston
Elementary
schools,
and
how
the
program
was
funded.

EnrichLA’s
Founder,
a
middle-‐aged
Irish
man
who
has
lived
in
the
United
States
for
two

decades,
had
served
as
the
Administrative/Executive
Director
of
EnrichLA
for
a
little
over

three
years
when
the
interview
took
place
in
early
September
2014.
During
his
interview

he
was
taking
notes
and
reading
a
draft
of
a
speech
he
had
written,
but
was
able
to
answer

questions
without
appearing
to
lose
focus
and
gave
detailed,
relevant
answers.
His

previous
administrative
roles
included
his
work
in
the
city
council
and
other
non-‐profits,

totaling
seven
years
of
administrative
experience.
The
Development
Director
of
EnrichLA,
a

white,
American
female
in
her
twenties
had
held
the
position
for
about
three
and
a
half

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

63

years
when
the
interview
took
place
in
early
October.
She
also
had
another
year
and
a
half

of
administrative
experience
working
in
other
organizations
prior
to
joining
EnrichLA.
She

was
focused
on
answering
the
questions
without
distraction.

Teachers

Five
teachers
were
interviewed
before
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
were
implemented,

and
then
asked
the
same
questions
via
email
after
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
was

complete.
The
Kindergarten
teacher
at
Green
Elementary
school
is
a
white,
American

female
in
her
thirties,
who
had
13
years
of
teaching
experience
in
Pre-‐Kindergarten,

Kindergarten,
and
first
grade
levels
when
this
interview
was
conducted
in
mid-‐September

2014.
She
was
focused
on
answering
the
interview
questions
without
distraction.
Green

Elementary’s
second
grade
teacher,
a
middle-‐aged
African
American
female
had
22
years
of

teaching
experience,
all
in
second
grade
classrooms,
when
her
interview
took
place
late

September
2014.
She
was
sorting
math
manipulatives
during
the
interview,
but
still
gave

detailed
answers.
The
English
Language
Learner
(ELL)
third
grade
teacher
at
Winston

Elementary
is
a
Hispanic,
middle-‐aged
male
who
had
15
years
of
teaching
experience
in

second,
third,
fourth,
and
fifth
grade
classrooms
at
the
time
of
this
interview
in
early

October
2014.
He
was
eating
his
lunch
during
the
interview.
The
third
through
fifth
grade

special
education
teacher
at
Winston
Elementary
was
not
interviewed
because
three

different
teachers
were
transitioned
into
and
out
of
this
class
over
the
course
of
the
fall

2014
semester.
Therefore,
an
effective
pre
and
post
interview
was
not
possible.
The
gifted

fourth
and
fifth
grade
teacher
at
Winston
Elementary
school
is
a
middle-‐aged
white

American
male
who
had
27
years
of
teaching
experience
in
fourth
and
fifth
grade

classrooms
when
the
interview
took
place
in
late
September
2014.

He
asked
not
to
be

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

64

recorded,
and
he
was
focused
on
answering
the
questions
during
the
interview.
The
sixth

grade
teacher
at
Green
Elementary
is
a
white,
American
female
in
her
early
twenties
who

was
embarking
on
her
first
year
of
teaching
when
the
interview
took
place
in
late

September
2014.
She
was
focused
on
answering
the
interview
questions
without

distraction.
The
diverse
group
of
teachers
from
this
study
represents
a
wide
range
of

teaching
experience
in
varied
elementary
grade
levels.

Students

There
were
a
total
of
79
student
participants
with
complete
pre
and
post
data.

Eighty
students
were
initially
surveyed,
but
after
discovering
incomplete
post
data
for
one

student,
this
student
was
removed
from
the
study.
There
were
38
male
and
41
female

students
in
the
study.
The
participants
ranged
from
Kindergarteners
through
sixth
graders

with
the
following
composition:
eight
Kindergarteners,
15
second
graders,
11
ELL
third

graders,
eight
special
needs
third
through
fifth
graders,
23
gifted
fourth
through
fifth

graders,
and
14
sixth
graders.
Kindergarten,
second,
and
sixth
grade
participated
from

Green
Elementary
school,
and
ELL
third
grade,
special
needs
third
through
fifth
grade,
and

gifted
fourth
through
fifth
grade
participated
from
Winston
Elementary
school.
These

students
are
represented
in
the
graphs
below,
organized
by
gender
and
grade
level
at
each

school.
The
third
graph
illustrates
distribution
by
grade
level.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

65

6

3

8

2

12

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Pre-‐K/K
2nd
6th

Number
of
students

Grade
Level

n
=
37

F

M

5

6

10

6

2

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

3rd
3rd
-‐
5th
4th
-‐
5th

Number
of
students

Grade
Level

n
=
43

F

M

Figure
A

Green
Elementary
Students
by
Grade
and
Gender

Figure
B

Winston
Elementary
Students
by
Grade
and
Gender

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

66

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pre-‐K/K
2nd
3rd
3rd
-‐
5th
4th
-‐
5th
6th

Number
of
students

Grade
Level

n
=
79

Figure
C

Green
and
Winston
Elementary
Distribution
of
Students
by
Grade

According
to
the
Principal
at
Green
Elementary,
the
student
population
consists
of

60%
white
students,
although
the
majority
are
from
Eastern
European
nationalities
and

use
English
as
their
second
language;
about
40-‐50%
consists
of
Russian,
Ukrainian,

Armenian,
Georgian,
and
other
Eastern
European
nationalities.
The
Green
Elementary

Principal
also
indicated
that
25%
of
students
are
Hispanic,
8%
African-‐American,
and
7%

Asian.
Classrooms
at
Green
Elementary
are
inclusive
with
a
total
of
25
students
with

special
needs
school-‐wide;
except
for
seven
students
enrolled
in
a
special
day
class,
all

other
special
needs
students
participate
in
the
general
education
setting.
The
Principal

specified
that
those
enrolled
in
the
special
day
class
are
mainstreamed
and
participate
in

appropriate
regular,
grade-‐level
classrooms
for
writing,
math,
specialists,
recess,
and
lunch.

Thus,
special
education
students
from
Green
Elementary
participated
in
the
study
during

their
mainstream
classroom
sessions,
but
were
not
specifically
identified.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

67

As
stated
by
the
Principal
at
Winston
Elementary
school,
the
student
population
is

87%
Latino,
and
the
remaining
students
are
African-‐American.
While
the
Principal

explained
that
there
are
special
needs
classrooms,
no
specific
numbers
were
provided
for

this
population.
However,
one
of
the
classes
that
participated
in
the
STEM-‐garden

curriculum
was
a
mixed-‐aged
special
day
class
for
students
in
third,
fourth,
and
fifth
grade.

Almost
all
elementary
grade
levels,
including
mainstream,
special
day,
and
gifted

classrooms
participated
and
are
represented
in
this
study.
First
grade
is
the
only
level
not

represented.
Pallant
(2010)
recommends
that,
due
to
the
unreliability
of
constant

participation
by
people
over
time,
more
participants
than
are
needed
for
the
study
should

be
selected.
He
also
advises
to
ensure
there
are
enough
participants
in
the
study
group

because
it
is
hard
to
detect
statistically
significant
differences
with
small
numbers.
In
order

to
achieve
more
reliable
and
valid
data,
a
group
of
150
students
were
asked
to
participate

in
this
study,
but
only
79
students
returned
parental
permission
forms.
The
classes
were

randomly
selected
from
each
school,
with
some
effort
made
towards
varying
grade
levels.

The
ELL,
gifted
class,
and
special
day
class
at
Winston
Elementary
were
selected
at
random

as
the
researcher
walked
down
the
hallway
and
approached
classroom
teachers
to
ask
if

they
would
be
interested
in
participating
in
garden
classes
and
the
STEM
pilot
program
for

the
entire
fall
semester.
At
Green
Elementary,
the
researcher
requested
a
Kindergarten

class,
a
middle
level
class,
and
the
sixth
grade
class.
The
program
coordinator
at
Green

Elementary
randomly
selected
the
classrooms
to
participate
from
those
grade
levels.

Data
was
gathered
from
the
student
participants
on
two
separate
occasions
during

the
fall
of
2014.
The
entire
fall
semester
was
dedicated
to
having
these
six
classrooms

spend
an
hour
in
the
garden
each
week.
During
the
first
seven
weeks
in
the
garden
from

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

68

the
last
week
of
August
through
the
first
week
of
October,
students
learned
about
basic

garden
care
with
EnrichLA’s
original
garden
curriculum.
This
offered
the
opportunity
for

the
STEM-‐garden
teacher
to
develop
a
teacher-‐student
relationship
with
each
class.
On

October
9
th

and
October
13
th
,
preliminary
data
was
gathered
from
the
students
both

individually
and
in
small
groups,
first
at
Winston
Elementary
and
then
at
Green

Elementary.
Students
were
interviewed
independently
and
physically
apart
from
their

peers
to
avoid
the
influence
of
groupthink
on
their
answers.
Merriam
(2009)
explains
that

in
an
open
focus
group,
participants
tend
not
to
agree
with
one
another’s
responses
for
the

sake
of
agreement,
but
instead
hold
onto
their
own
opinion.
In
contrast,
young
children
will

often
respond
similarly
to
their
peers
without
fully
understanding
the
concepts,
which
can

be
referred
to
as
groupthink.
Students
were
not
engaged
in
other
activities
during
the

interviews
and
assessments,
and
thus
were
able
to
focus
on
drawing
and
answering

questions.
After
the
implementation
of
the
six-‐week
STEM-‐garden
unit,
students
were

administered
the
same
assessments,
interview
questions,
and
TEM
survey
during
the
first

week
of
December.
After
the
winter
break,
teachers
were
given
the
same
interview

questions,
and
were
allowed
to
respond
at
their
own
pace
so
as
to
not
add
onto
their
end-‐
of-‐year
workload,
which
included
report
cards
and
parent
conferences.
When
completed,

teachers
emailed
their
post-‐interview
responses
to
the
researcher.
In
February
2015,
all

the
assessments
and
interviews,
from
both
students
and
teachers,
were
coded
and

analyzed.
In
addition,
Principal
and
administrator
interviews
were
coded
into
themes
in

preparation
for
chapters
four
and
five.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

69

Organization
of
Data
Analysis

In
this
chapter,
the
data
will
be
presented
by
research
question
and
analyzed
to

answer
the
three
questions.
The
first
two
questions
were
qualitative
in
nature,
asking
1)

how
the
relationship
developed
between
two
public
schools
and
a
non-‐profit,
science

education
program,
and
2)
how
the
STEM-‐garden
Unit
shifted
students’
and
teachers’

perceptions
of
STEM.
Interviews
(Appendix
A
and
Appendix
B)
and
open-‐ended

assessments
(Appendix
C
and
Appendix
D)
were
used
to
answer
these
first
two
questions.

Parts
of
the
second
and
third
questions
were
discovered
to
have
a
quantitative
aspect,
as

they
asked
“Yes”
or
“No”
questions
to
discover
if
the
students
experienced
a

Transformative
Experience
(TE).
The
TE
was
measured
through
the
use
of
a

Transformative
Experience
Measurement
(TEM)
tool
or
survey
(Appendix
F).
Generally

speaking,
however,
the
organization
of
this
study
was
flexible,
which
reflects
an
inherent

qualitative
nature
(Maxwell,
2013).

This
chapter
will
present
related
themes
that
answer

each
of
the
research
questions
and
are
supported
by
specific
findings.
Table
and
figures

recapitulate
the
data
and
themes.
Data
was
coded
in
order
to
uncover
these
themes
and
to

answer
the
research
questions.

Research
Question
One

Research
question
#1:
How
does
a
non-‐profit
organization
partner
with
a
large

urban
school
district
to
fund
a
garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum?

This
first
research
question
looks
to
understand
how
the
Public-‐Private
Partnership

(PPP)
developed
between
two
public
school
sites
and
a
non-‐profit,
science
education

program.
The
school
sites
were
pseudo-‐named
Green
Elementary
School
and
Winston

Elementary
School.
The
non-‐profit,
science
education
organization
was
interviewed
under

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

70

its
actual
name,
EnrichLA.
The
relationship
between
the
schools
and
EnrichLA
were

studied
through
interviews
with
coded
responses
to
uncover
themes
that
described
how

the
partnership
was
formed
and
funded.

Instruments
and
data
collection
methods.
The
interview
questions
designed
for

Principals
and
administrators
were
framed
using
various
sources,
including
the
economics

section
of
the
literature
review,
general
information
about
student
demographics,
Principal

experience,
and
school
culture.

The
Principal
and
administrator
interview
questions
can
be

viewed
in
Appendix
A.
Principal
interviews
lasted
16
minutes
with
the
Principal
at
Green

Elementary
and
17
minutes
with
the
Principal
at
Winston
Elementary
School.
The

administrator
interviews
lasted
27
minutes
with
the
Executive
Director
of
EnrichLA,
and

16
minutes
with
the
Development
Director
of
EnrichLA.
Answers
from
both
Principals
and

administrators
were
coded
according
to
interpretations
from
a
combination
of
their

responses
and
the
types
of
questions
asked.

To
understand
the
background
of
the
interviewees
and
to
begin
with
easier
open-‐
ended
questions,
a
semi-‐structured
interview
was
conducted
with
Principals
and

administrators
(Merrium,
2009).
In
this
way,
the
researcher
was
able
to
use
questions
as
a

guide,
but
shift
the
wording
and
respond
to
the
interviewees
in
the
moment
(Merrium,

2009).
The
researcher
began
by
asking
them
to
describe
their
title
and
the
length
of
time

they
served
in
their
respective
administrative
roles.
A
benefit
of
interviews
is
that

participants
can
provide
historical
information,
such
as
previous
experiences
and
roles
in

their
field
(Creswell,
2003).
Principals
were
then
asked
to
describe
the
student
population

for
questions
two
and
three.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

71

Social
capital.
EnrichLA’s
Founder
and
Development
Director
were
asked
to

describe
how
EnrichLA
was
developed
and
why
it
was
created.
The
Founder
shared
his

personal
experience
with
the
development
of
EnrichLA.
This
experience
includes
having

built
a
garden
at
his
daughter’s
school
and
noticing
that
the
garden
also
built
community.

As
he
saw
parents
and
other
community
members
invest
more
interest
and
time
at
the

school
–
interest
which
initially
stemmed
from
the
garden
-‐
he
decided
to
partner
with
a

friend
to
form
a
non-‐profit
that
would
bring
the
same
concept
to
other
public
schools.
The

name
EnrichLA
has
persisted
since
the
organizations
inception.

EnrichLA’s
Development
Director
did
not
have
as
strong
of
a
personal
connection
to

the
beginnings
of
the
organization.
However,
her
connection
to
EnrichLA
grew
through
her

role
in
managing
social
media,
sharing
photos,
and
sending
out
press
releases
for
the
non-‐
profit.
She
also
connected
personally
to
the
fulfillment
and
importance
of
helping
public

school
children
in
the
city
by
building
school
gardens,
bringing
them
healthy
foods,

providing
a
safe
outdoor
place
to
learn,
and
helping
them
feel
connected
to
the
garden.

The
Development
Director
and
Founder
both
commented
on
the
organization’s

connection
to
the
community
and
other
positive
components
of
EnrichLA’s
influence.

EnrichLA
was
founded
and
developed
on
social
capital,
which
rose
from
decisions
they

made
and
relationships
formed
through
the
school
garden
environments
they
built
(Miller,

2010).
They
also
used
social
media
and
the
press
to
network
and
spread
the
mission
of

EnrichLA
throughout
Los
Angeles.

Culture.
EnrichLA’s
Founder
and
Development
Director
both
described
the
culture

of
EnrichLA
to
be
benevolent.
The
small
non-‐profit
encourages
team
members
to
share

ideas
and
work
together,
often
donating
their
unpaid
time
for
the
betterment
of
public

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

72

schools
and
their
communities.
EnrichLA’s
Founder
stated,
“We
encourage
people
who

want
to
join
our
organization
either
as
a
compensated
Garden
Ranger
or
a
volunteer,
and

encourage
them
to
innovate
and
encourage
them
to
do
something
new.
It
is
not
a
top
down

thing.”
EnrichLA’s
Development
Director
shared
similar
comments,
“I
guess
it
has
always

felt
like
a
family
and
obviously
there’s
a
lot
of
team
members
who
volunteer
or
who
put
in

additional
time
as
volunteers
on
top
of
whatever
their
stipend
may
be.”
The
culture
at

EnrichLA
is
one
that
embraces
change
and
is
open
to
ideas.
With
a
small
group
of

individuals
leading
the
young
organization,
there
is
a
more
flexible
structure
and
room
for

improvement.
EnrichLA’s
Founder
described
the
structure
of
the
non-‐profit
when
he
said,

“It’s
very
loosely
controlled
and
that’s
why
we
proliferated
so
much.”

Identifying
the
school-‐wide
culture
of
Green
Elementary
and
Winston
Elementary

was
not
quite
as
clear
as
the
identification
of
the
culture
at
EnrichLA.
This
could
be

attributed
to
the
fact
that
the
public
elementary
schools
are
part
of
a
very
large
urban

school
district
where
regulations
are
less
flexible.
Winston
Elementary
school’s
Principal

was
not
able
to
define
the
school
culture.
She
hesitated
to
answer
the
question,
and
when

specific
examples
were
provided
by
the
interviewer,
she
replied
with,
“I’m
stumped.
I’m

sure
we
have
a
school
culture,
but
it
wouldn’t
be
a
phrase
I
could
just
say
‘We
believe
in

this,
or
this
influences
our
culture.’”
She
went
on
to
describe
the
school’s
100-‐year
history

grounded
in
educating
children
and
its
long-‐standing
relationship
with
the
University
of

Southern
California
(USC).
When
the
interviewer
asked
if
USC
influenced
the
school
culture,

the
Principal
replied,
“No,
USC
doesn’t
influence
us.”
During
informal
observations
walking

around
Winston’s
campus,
the
interviewer
noticed
USC
Trojan
paintings
on
the
wall,

banners
that
declare
Winston’s
connection
to
USC,
and
at
times
even
USC
students

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

73

engaging
in
lessons
and
activities
with
the
Winston
students.
To
an
outsider,
it
seemed
as

though
USC
influenced
the
school
culture,
however,
the
Principal
did
not
see
it
this
way.

This
could
mean
that
the
Principal
does
not
understand
what
school
culture
means,thatr

she
is
not
connected
to
the
school
culture,
or
that
there
is
some
other
barrier
preventing

her
from
being
able
to
define
her
school’s
culture.

At
Green
Elementary
School,
the
Principal
clearly
defined
his
school’s
culture
as

having
a
strong
emphasis
on
parent
collaboration.
He
stated,
“We
create
lots
of

opportunities
for
parents
to
be
involved
and
activities
where
they
can
be
here
with
their

children
and
experience
what
we’ve
got
going
on.”
Green
Elementary
School’s
Principal
did

not
touch
upon
other
aspects
of
the
culture
outside
of
parent
involvement,
such
as
teacher

collaboration
and
student
influence
within
the
school
culture.
Each
of
these
four
leaders

seemed
to
interpret
the
meaning
of
culture
in
their
own
ways,
which
were
reflected
in
the

answers
they
gave.
Nonetheless,
two
categories
of
culture
seemed
to
emerge:
one
of
change

and
collaboration
at
Green
Elementary
and
EnrichLA,
and
one
of
idleness
and
lack
of

definition
at
Winston
Elementary.

Partnership.
The
Public-‐Private
Partnership
(PPP)
is
a
multi-‐faceted
relationship
as

structural
components
of
public
schools
come
together
with
the
autonomy
of
private

organizations
(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006).
The
Winston
Elementary
Principal
spoke
of

some
of
the
structural
components
of
the
public
school
system
and
the
challenges
within.

EnrichLA
acts
as
a
liaison
between
the
Principal
and
the
district
in
order
to
successfully

build
school
gardens.
EnrichLA’s
Founder
explained,
“We
have
built
over
60
school

gardens.
We
deliver
programming
to
almost
half
and
we
have
a
waiting
list
of
over
30

schools.
Our
method
of
operation
is
get-‐it-‐done,
action-‐oriented,
and
do
it
inexpensively.”

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

74

Before
EnrichLA’s
participation,
Winston
Elementary’s
Principal
explained,
there
were

issues
with
obtaining
permission
for
things
like
irrigation
at
the
school.
She
referred
to

roadblocks
that
the
school
encountered
when
it
attempted
to
create
a
small
garden
in
the

past.
EnrichLA
supports
schools
by
communicating
with
the
district
to
get
approval
for

building,
install
irrigation
systems,
and
ultimately
create
a
working
school
garden.
This
is

one
example
of
how
the
structure
of
the
public
schools
is
intervened
and
supported
by
the

autonomy
of
a
private
organization.

Hybrid
model.
The
four
leaders
interviewed
similarly
described
the
partnership

between
EnrichLA
and
public
schools
as
an
equal
or
shared
partnership
(Williamson,

2008),
with
EnrichLA
sometimes
taking
the
lead
with
decision-‐making
and
curriculum.
As

described
by
the
organization’s
Founder,
this
is
because
EnrichLA
is
a
relatively
new
non-‐
profit
delivering
a
new
product.
Still,
they
are
open
to
and
implement
ideas
from
each

school
to
maintain
successful
gardens.

Winston’s
Principal
also
described
EnrichLA
as
taking
more
of
a
leading
role,
“I

think
EnrichLA
is
probably,
I
wouldn’t
say
controlling
in
a
negative
way,
but
takes
the
lead,”

she
stated
during
her
interview.
Additionally,
EnrichLA’s
Development
Director
described
a

similar
dynamic
across
the
board
in
consideration
of
the
partnerships
that
EnrichLA
has

with
most
of
the
public
schools
in
its
network.
She
described
the
partnerships
as
balanced.

EnrichLA
has
a
curriculum
to
deliver,
but
also
integrates
ideas
from
teachers
and
Principals

to
work
collaboratively.

Similarly,
Green
Elementary’s
Principal
felt
the
partnership
was
mostly
equal,
“It’s

an
easy
partnership.
I
definitely
don’t
think
EnrichLA
is
in
charge,
and
I
don’t
feel
like,
well

maybe
it’s
the
way
I’m
operating,
but
I
don’t
feel
like
I’m
in
charge.
I
think
it’s
more
of
an

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

75

equal
partnership,”
he
explained.
These
perspectives
of
the
partnerships
displays
open

communication
of
information
where
objectives
and
goals
are
shared
and
challenges
and

changes
are
discussed
explicitly.

This
versatile
relationship
in
the
PPP
requires
components
of
autonomy
and

structure
to
come
together
in
order
for
the
partnership
to
function
(Davies
&
Hentschke,

2006).
EnrichLA’s
Founder
described
how
the
non-‐profit
worked
around
the
public
school

system
by
having
a
loosely
structured
partnership
that
allowed
for
give
and
take.
A
hybrid

model
is
one
in
which
parties
work
together
based
on
a
foundation
of
shared
values

surrounding
a
common
goal,
which
requires
interdependence
of
public
and
private
entities

to
achieve
(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006).
In
this
case,
interdependence
between
public

schools
and
a
private
non-‐profit
organization
is
required
to
bring
unique,
quality
programs

to
urban
students.
EnrichLA
requires
the
participation
and
aid
of
public
elementary
schools

to
create
collaborative
and
effective
teaching
gardens.
In
return,
as
EnrichLA’s
Founder

described,
the
private
non-‐profit
listens
to
stakeholders
and
leverages
its
resources
to

provide
schools
with
what
they
need.
Green
Elementary’s
Principal
summarized,
“I
feel
like

I
could
ask
for
anything
I
wanted,
and
if
EnrichLA
was
able
to
do
it,
they
would.”

Funding.
The
Transaction
Cost
Economics
associated
with
this
PPP
is
mostly

connected
to
the
physical
cost
of
the
goods
and
services
(North,
1999).
There
was
no
cost

to
either
party
to
investigate
or
enforce
the
exchange
of
services,
except
in
time
invested
in

developing
the
partnership.
In
order
for
this
partnership
to
function,
it
needed
to
be
funded

and
schools
needed
to
make
an
investment
in
EnrichLA
by
allocating
or
raising
funds
for

the
garden
program.
EnrichLA’s
Founder
explained
that
the
gardens
usually
receive

funding,
in
large
part
due
to
the
fact
that
the
program
is
very
inexpensive
relative
to
other

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

76

programs
the
schools
might
purchase.
EnrichLA
uses
fundraising
to
cover
costs
so
that
the

actual
cost
to
the
school
is
low.
At
times,
the
organization
will
ask
schools
to
fundraise
and

collect
donations.
EnrichLA
also
receives
corporate
donations
and
applies
for
grants
to

subsidize
schools
that
can’t
afford
the
gardens.

EnrichLA’s
Development
Director
describes
outside
funding
specifically.

“There
are
a
variety
of
funders,”
she
explains,
“We
do
get
money
from
individual

schools.
We
obviously
get
donations
from
individual
donors,
just
supporters.
We
get

grants
from
businesses…and
larger
grants
that
come
from
foundations.”
The

Principals
at
Green
and
Winston
Elementary
described
varying
ways
that
help
to

fund
the
EnrichLA
program
from
the
school’s
end.
Green’s
Principal
relies
on

parents,
stating,
“It’s
funded
entirely
through
parent
donations,
through
the
parent

body.”
Winston’s
Principal
relies
on
discretionary
funding;
she
explains,
“We
are

close
to
USC.
They
use
our
playground
to
park
and
we
get
money
for
the
playground.

So
it’s
going
to
come
out
of
that.”
EnrichLA’s
Development
Director
also
supports

these
sources
of
school
funding,
stating,
“Some
funding
that
comes
from
the
schools,

whether
it
be
their
PTA
or
discretionary
funds
that
the
Principal
has
access
to,
as

well
as
we
will
do
grant
writing
on
our
side
and
fundraising
to
support
them.”
The

methods
in
which
EnrichLA
and
the
public
schools
fund
the
STEM-‐garden
program

reflect
values
of
shared
responsibility
and
integration
(Davies
&
Jentschke,
2006),

which
is
another
component
that
supports
a
smooth,
hybrid
partnership.

Contracts.
Partnerships
require
trust
and
confidence
that
reflect
integrity
as
well
as

a
level
of
institutionalization
that
gives
the
relationship
a
formal
status
(Davies
&
Jentschke,

2006).
In
this
PPP,
a
memorandum
of
understanding,
or
MOU,
establishes
formality.
The

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

77

document
lays
out
expectations
for
both
parties,
such
as
safety
and
behavior
expectations,

as
well
as
school
district
rules
and
regulations.

While
EnrichLA’s
Founder
and
Development
Director
both
answer
that
the
MOU

serves
as
the
formal
agreement
with
Green
and
Winston
Elementary,
the
Principals
of
the

two
schools
seem
less
clear.
Green
Elementary
school’s
Principal
stated
that
there
was
an

oral
agreement
and
that
a
contract
was
sent
to
and
approved
by
the
Friends
of
Gardner
and

approved
by
them.
Green’s
principal
was
asked
to
expound
on
the
Friends
of
Gardner

group,
which
is
a
non-‐profit,
501(c)3
organization
started
by
parents
to
supplement
the

school’s
instructional
program.
The
Friends
of
Gardner
help
to
fund
programs
the
Principal

approves.
It
seems
that
although
Green
Elementary’s
Principal
did
not
sign
the
contract,
he

is
aware
of
the
agreement
and
approved
it.

Winston
Elementary
school’s
Principal
had
no
awareness
of
an
agreement
when

asked
if
the
school
entered
into
a
formal
contract
with
EnrichLA.
She
stated,
“I
don’t
think

so.

I
don’t
think
I
signed
any
papers.”
This
might
mean
that
when
other
administrators,
like

Vice
Principals,
Program
Coordinators,
and
parent
groups
get
involved,
there
is
not
always

communication
with
the
Principal;
it
may
also
point
to
inconsistency
with
EnrichLA’s
MOU

processing.
Further
investigation
would
be
needed
to
determine
why
Winston’s
Principal

was
not
aware
of
an
MOU.

Benefits.
There
are
personal
preferences
and
agendas
of
the
leaders
in
both
the

public
and
private
sectors
that
influence
the
success
of
the
partnership.
EnrichLA’s

Founder
shares,
“The
hope
is
that
the
policy
makers
and
large
foundations
and
other

funders
will
recognize
the
value
of
what
we’re
doing,
and
will
rush
to
fund
an
even
more

robust
program
than
what
we
have
today.
That’s
the
hope.”
EnrichLA’s
Founder
sees
many

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

78

benefits
of
the
garden
program,
including
simply
exposing
healthy
food
and
green,

beautiful
space
to
students
and
the
community,
and
engaging
the
community
in
caring
for

the
garden.
When
the
community
is
involved
in
garden
work,
their
involvement
often

trickles
into
other
areas
of
the
school.
EnrichLA’s
Founder
shared,
“By
them
[community

members]
being
in
the
school
and
doing
something,
they
get
to
know
other
aspects
of
the

school.
This
can
only
be
a
good
thing:
building
actual
community.”
EnrichLA’s
Development

Director
agreed
that
the
partnership
between
EnrichLA
and
public
schools
is
a
benefit
to

the
community.
She
stated
that
Green
and
Winston
Elementaryschools
benefit
in
the
same

way
that
the
other
schools
do
by
having
a
safe,
happy,
and
beautiful
place
to
learn.
When

considering
the
benefits
of
its
program,
EnrichLA’s
administrators
consider
the
mutual

benefits
to
the
community,
schools,
and
EnrichLA
itself.

The
elementary
school
Principals
and
EnrichLA’s
administrators
were
in
agreement

over
EnrichLA’s
ability
to
educate
in
the
garden,
something
that
would
not
take
place

without
the
non-‐profit’s
participation.
When
asked
how
the
partnership
benefits
students

and
teachers,
Winston
Elementary
school’s
Principal
described
that
the
partnership
brings

awareness
and
interest
to
her
students.
Green
Elementary
school’s
Principal
strongly

supports
EnrichLA’s
partnership,
which
was
evidenced
when
he
stated
that
before
the
non-‐
profit’s
participation,
teachers
would
not
take
students
into
the
garden
and
it
was
left

largely
ignored.
In
addition
to
their
busy
schedules,
teachers
simply
would
not
be
able
to

adequately
plan
lessons
and
make
it
as
meaningful
of
an
experience
as
EnrichLA
has
been

able
to
accomplish.
The
flexibility
and
innovation
of
a
private
organization
helps
to
make

things,
like
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
happen
in
public
schools
that
face
bureaucratic
and

structural
challenges.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

79

EnrichLA’s
Founder
also
explained
that
the
STEM-‐garden
program
is
a
benefit
to
the

organization’s
curriculum.
He
aligns
with
the
Principal
at
Green
Elementary
as
they

mutually
recognize
that
the
more
the
curriculum
is
intertwined
between
EnrichLA
and
the

schools,
the
more
perfect
the
union
and
the
better
the
product
that
is
delivered
to
the

school
is.
EnrichLA’s
Founder
uses
the
STEM-‐garden
program
as
an
example
of
one
of
these

intertwined
curriculums.

Risks.
One
may
choose
to
interpret
risks
as
potential
problems
or
as
opportunities

for
improvement.
EnrichLA’s
Founder
strongly
feels
that
there
are
no
risks
with
the
non-‐
profit’s
gardening
programs.
Instead,
he
turns
the
risk
of
trying
new
gardening
programs
in

schools
into
a
positive
component
of
collaboration
and
movement
in
public
schools.

EnrichLA’s
Development
Director
also
does
not
foresee
risks
associated
with
the

partnership,
but
rather
expects
constructive
criticism.
She
explains
that,
at
times,
EnrichLA

and
a
school
may
end
its
partnership
for
various
reasons.

From
a
school’s
perspective,
Winston
Elementary
school’s
Principal

responded
with
not
having
experienced
risks,
but
did
not
address
the
potential
for

risks
associated
with
the
partnership.
Instead,
she
described
risks
between
the

school’s
partnership
with
the
city
school
district,
referencing
her
school’s
inability

to
build
a
garden
in
the
past.
In
contrary,
the
Principal
at
Green
Elementary
school

did
share
the
potential
for
risks
with
any
partnership,
particularly
with
a
program

which
sends
an
outside
teacher
to
work
with
students,
including
possible

incompetence
and
even
abuse.
He
says
risks
are
lessened
with
EnrichLA
because
the

non-‐profit
requires
a
schoolteacher
be
present
in
the
garden
with
the
class
at
all

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

80

times.
He
also
mentioned
that
is
was
possible
for
Garden
Rangers
to
be
overly

ambitious
or
possibly
not
show
up
some
days.

Interpretation
of
evidence.
The
themes
that
emerged
from
the
Principal
and

administrator
interviews
lead
to
evidence
that
answers
question
one
about
how
a
non-‐
profit
organization
partners
with
a
large
urban
school
to
fund
a
garden-‐based
STEM

curriculum.
The
themes
included
social
capital
as
an
influence
of
the
partnership,
different

ways
the
program
was
funded
at
each
school,
and
how
EnrichLA
gains
funding
as
an

organization
to
provide
garden
programs
to
schools.
The
relationship
between
the
school

and
EnrichLA
was
described
mostly
as
a
hybrid
model,
as
both
parties
contribute
while

maintaining
some
control
within
the
partnership,
and
both
public
and
private
parties

benefit
from
the
union.

Research
Question
Two

Research
question
#2:
How
does
the
integration
of
a
garden-‐based
STEM

curriculum
change
students’
and
teachers’
perceptions
of
STEM?

This
second
research
question
measures
students’
and
teachers’
understandings
of

STEM,
specifically
science
and
engineering,
to
determine
if
perceptions
shifted
after
the

implementation
of
a
six-‐week
STEM-‐garden
unit.
The
lessons
took
place
at
the
same
school

sites:
Green
Elementary
and
Winston
Elementary
schools.
The
question
was
investigated

through
the
use
of
pre
and
post
interviews
and
assessments.
Interviews
were
administered

to
both
teachers
and
students,
while
assessments
were
given
only
to
the
students.

Instruments
and
data
collection
methods.
Interview
questions
designed
for
the

teachers
were
framed
using
research
by
Bismack,
Arias,
Davis,
Palincsar
(2014)
and
from

the
literature
review,
which
indicated
that
teachers
lack
time,
experience,
knowledge,
and

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

81

interest
in
science
and
engineering
(Blaire,
2009;
Bruyere
et
al.,
2012;
Lederman
&

Lederman,
2013;
Marcum-‐Dietrich,
et
al.,
2011).
General
information
about
teaching

experience
was
also
used
to
frame
interview
questions.
The
shifts
in
teachers’
perceptions

of
STEM
were
measured
by
comparing
interviews
(Appendix
B)
before
and
after
the

implementation
of
the
STEM-‐garden
unit.
The
length
of
time
for
each
pre-‐interview
ranged

from
16
minutes
to
26
minutes,
depending
on
the
teacher.
Four
out
of
the
five
teachers

agreed
to
be
recorded.
The
post-‐interviews
were
collected
via
email,
giving
teachers

flexibility
in
time
and
convenience
for
responding.
The
interviews
were
analyzed
through

open
coding
to
find
themes
amongst
the
teachers’
answers.

Students’
perceptions
were
measured
by
the
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
assessment

(Appendix
C)
modeled
after
the
design
by
Chamers
(1981).
The
drawings
were
analyzed

using
a
checklist
(Appendix
D)
derived
from
research
by
Finson,
Beaver,
and
Cramond

(1995)
and
Thomas,
Pedersen,
and
Finson
(2001).
Additionally,
pre
and
post
student

interviews
(Appendix
E)
were
used
to
further
measure
students’
perceptions
of
STEM.
The

interview
questions
for
students
were
derived
from
a
study
by
Zhai,
Jocz,
Tan,
(2013)
on

students’
perceptions
of
science
and
engineering.
Kindergarten
students
were
given
a

shortened
list
of
interview
questions
(Appendix
E)
to
maintain
a
developmentally

appropriate
assessment.
All
students
were
given
the
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
assessment

individually;
the
average
student
took
about
10-‐20
minutes
to
complete
the
drawings.

Students
were
interviewed
independently,
and
this
took
approximately
5-‐10
minutes.

Students’
total
amount
of
time
completing
the
drawing
assessment
and
interview
ranged

from
15-‐30
minutes.
It
was
determined
to
orally
interview
all
students
so
that
limitations

in
writing
and
reading
would
not
inhibit
student
responses.
The
results
from
the
interviews

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

82

were
crosschecked
with
the
results
from
the
drawing
assessment
and
checklist
to

determine
the
shift
in
students’
perceptions.
Data
from
the
student
assessments
and

interviews
were
coded
quantitatively
and
measured
using
paired
sample
t-‐tests.

All

findings
will
be
discussed
from
a
qualitative
perspective,
with
quantitative
data
to
provide

support
to
the
qualitative
findings.

Prior
to
this
research
design,
EnrichLA
did
not
have
a
STEM-‐garden
unit
in
their

curriculum.
At
EnrichLA,
Garden
Rangers
(educators)
teach
lessons
to
public
school

students
in
outdoor
gardens
using
a
basic,
six-‐lesson
unit
on
the
foundations
of
gardening.

Garden
Rangers
are
strongly
encouraged
by
EnrichLA’s
Founder
and
Development
Director

to
create
new
lessons
and
utilize
their
creative
teaching
skills
to
build
EnrichLA’s

curriculum.
The
non-‐profit
hired
the
researcher
as
a
Garden
Ranger
for
the
2014-‐2015

school
year.
The
researcher
used
the
opportunity
to
design
STEM-‐garden
lessons
to

implement
as
a
pilot
program
for
EnrichLA
and
for
this
study.

Supported
by
the
literature
review
and
the
influences
of
STEM
curriculum

development,
the
researcher
took
a
constructivist
approach
to
the
lesson
plan
formatting

(Davison,
et
al.,
1995;
Pang
&
Good,
2000;
Phalke,
Biller,
Lysecky,
Harris,
2009;
Sanders

2009).
The
constructivist
approach
is
based
on
the
idea
that
children
construct
knowledge

through
their
own
explorations,
socialization,
and
project-‐based
lessons.
It
utilizes
and

encourages
the
intrinsic
motivation
and
inherent
desires
that
children
have
to
investigate

nature
and
engage
with
the
environment
to
develop
ideas
about
the
world
(National

Research
Council,
2012).
This
process
is
a
cycle
of
exploration,
invention,
and
expansion
of

ideas
(Davison,
et
al.,
1995)
that
deepens
and
solidifies
children’s
learning
in
comparison
to

traditional
classroom
methods
(Phalke,
Biller,
Lysecky,
Harris,
2009).

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

83

A
lesson
plan
template
regarded
as
the
5E
model
(Appendix
I),
incorporates
these

components
of
constructivism
in
lesson
plan
design.
The
need
for
STEM
education
revolves

around
the
notion
that
in
the
21
st

century,
students
need
to
understand
these
subject
areas

in
order
to
compete
for
jobs
in
STEM-‐related
fields
(Breiner
et
al.,
2012).
Building
from
a

basic
understanding
of
STEM,
six
garden
lessons
were
created
to
include
connections
to

design
in
nature,
garden
design,
and
problem
solving
for
garden
design.
One
approach
to

creating
STEM
lessons
is
to
look
at
separate
subject
objectives
for
Science,
Technology,

Engineering,
and
Math,
and
then
integrate
the
subjects
by
developing
activities
to
help

students
see
how
these
objectives
and
subjects
are
related
(Davison
et
al.,
1995).

Organically,
students
integrate
math
and
science
when
approaching
a
problem
with

multiple
solutions
(Davison,
Miller,
&
Metheny,
1995).
Since
engineering
requires
an

understanding
of
design
for
problem
solving,
the
garden
design
is
innately
connected
to

science
and
math
concepts.
Additionally,
the
six
STEM-‐garden
lessons
were
tied
to
the
Next

Generation
Science
Standards,
and
Common
Core
English
Language
Arts
&
Literacy
and

Mathematics
Standards
for
K-‐6.
These
lessons
were
designed
and
implemented
as
the
pilot

study
for
this
research.

Throughout
the
implementation
of
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
pictures
were
taken

and
informal
observations
were
made.
These
observations
were
recorded
as
notes
once
a

week
after
each
STEM-‐garden
lesson.
The
photographs
and
notes
allowed
the
researcher
to

discover
implications
of
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
and
make
connections
between
the

lessons
and
student
learning.
This
process
gives
a
snapshot
of
important
components
of
the

lessons
(Merriam,
2009).
The
observations
of
behavior
and
interactions
made
during
the

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

84

implementation
of
the
lessons
and
from
the
photographs
created
an
authentic
researcher

perspective
for
insights
to
emerge
(Maxwell,
2013).

A
similar
semi-‐structured
interview
design
(Appendix
B)
was
used
for
the
teachers

as
was
used
with
the
administrators
and
Principals
in
order
to
understand
the
teachers’

backgrounds
and
experiences
with
components
of
STEM
and
gardening
(Merrium,
2009).

The
researcher
began
by
asking
the
teachers
to
describe
his
or
her
title
and
the
number
of

years
spent
in
his
or
her
teaching
position,
which
allowed
the
researcher
to
gather
some

professional
and
historical
information,
as
well
as
begin
with
easy
questions
to
warm
up

the
interviewee
(Creswell,
2003).
The
teachers
were
then
asked
questions
about

confidence,
knowledge,
and
experiences
in
teaching
STEM
and
gardening.
They
were
also

asked
to
anticipate
the
experiences
that
might
be
derived
from
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons.

There
was
no
historical
information
gathered
from
the
students
for
the
pre
and
post

assessments.
Prior
to
the
assessments
and
implementation
of
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons

(Appendix
I),
parents
signed
a
permission
form
(Appendix
H),
after
which
students
signed

an
assent
form
(Appendix
G).
Students
were
identified
by
their
grade
level
and
first
and
last

name.
They
were
made
anonymous
in
the
coded
data,
but
were
coded
in
a
way
that
allowed

pre-‐data
and
post-‐data
to
be
compared.

Teacher
interviews.
The
researcher
compared
the
teacher
pre-‐interviews
and
post

-‐interviews
to
uncover
any
themes.
Pre-‐interviews
and
post-‐interviews
were
compared

individually
and
then
comprehensively
Independently,
each
teacher’s
response
was

checked
to
see
if
a
shift
in
confidence,
challenges,
and
teacher
and
student
influences

occurred.
Collectively,
the
teacher
group
was
analyzed
to
reveal
any
dominant
trends
in
the

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

85

responses
between
pre-‐interviews
and
post-‐interviews.
These
comparisons
in
perception

led
to
qualitative
results,
which
will
be
presented
in
the
sections
below
according
to
theme.

Shift
of
perceptions
in
science.
During
the
interviews,
teachers
were
asked
to
share

their
level
of
confidence
in
teaching
science
and
science
content,
as
well
as
their

experiences
teaching
in
the
garden.
Teachers
elaborated
to
different
degrees,
some
giving

specific
classroom
examples
to
describe
their
experiences,
and
others
simply
answering

the
questions.
There
were
some
commonalities,
as
well
as
differences
between
teacher

responses
in
connection
to
science.
Teachers
shared
their
perceptions
about
science

teaching
and
content,
as
well
as
about
science
specifically
related
to
gardening,
from
before

and
after
the
implementation
of
the
STEM-‐garden
six-‐week
unit.
These
shifts
will
be

discussed
in
the
following
themes
developed
from
the
interview
responses.

Confidence
perceptions.
Four
of
the
five
teachers
expressed
a
shift
in
confidence
in

teaching
and
understanding
science
content
from
before
to
after
the
STEM-‐garden

curriculum.
The
Kindergarten
teacher
expressed
that
her
science
confidence
was

“developing
to
effective”
before
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
and
afterwards
she
expressed

herself
as
“fairly
confident.”
The
second
grade
teacher
explicitly
indicated
that
she
felt

nervous
about
science
and
that
it
was
not
her
strength
before
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,

and
that
afterwards
her
confidence
raised
because
she
saw
demonstration
of
science
and

can
recreate
it.
The
fourth
and
fifth
grade
teacher
simply
stated
that
his
confidence
shifted

from
“somewhat
confident”
before
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
to
“confident”
upon

completion
of
the
unit.
The
sixth
grade
teacher
described
her
shift
from
“fairly

comfortable”
to
improved
confidence
and
remarked,
“I
think
my
confidence
in
teaching

science
has
improved
since
having
gardening.

I
am
able
to
make
more
real
life
connections

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

86

to
my
content
and
my
students
and
I
have
a
shared
experience
that
we
can
reflect
back
on.”

The
third
grade
teacher
described
no
shift
in
his
confidence,
as
he
felt
confident
before
and

after
the
STEM-‐garden
unit.

Content
perceptions.
When
teachers
were
asked
if
they
previously
taught
gardening

and
if
so,
challenges
they
experienced
when
teaching
gardening,
only
one
teacher
(sixth

grade)
had
experience
working
with
children
in
a
garden
setting.
The
others
had
responses

that
varied
from
science
based
classroom
activities,
such
as
seed
sprouting
or
a
plant
unit,

to
no
gardening
experience
whatsoever.

The
kindergarten
teacher
had
never
taught
gardening
prior
to
the
STEM-‐garden

lessons.
In
her
pre-‐interview
she
commented
on
the
link
between
garden
and
STEM
as
just

the
science
component,
and
that
she
didn’t
know
where
the
other
three
subject
areas
came

in.
After
the
STEM-‐garden
unit
she
expressed
that
her
students
loved
the
hands-‐on
lessons

and
they
were
planting
seeds
together
that
week.

The
second
grade
teacher
described
her
gardening
experiences
as
teaching
a
plant

unit
and
attempting
to
build
things
for
the
classroom,
but
“never
at
great
success.”
She

described
observing
and
recording
growth,
making
comparisons
represented
through

graphs,
but
that
a
sad
reality
was
that
often
times
things
didn’t
grow.
She
also
mentioned
a

link
with
literature,
such
as
Jack
and
the
Beanstalk
in
connection
with
gardening
and
seeds.

After
the
STEM-‐garden
unit
she
expressed
that
her
experiences
in
teaching
gardening

herself
were
the
same
as
prior
to
the
lesson,
and
that
she
had
not
expanded
or
added

additional
gardening
lessons
to
her
curriculum
content.

The
third
grade
teacher
shared
that
he
had
very
little
garden
teaching
experiences,

and
that
he
reluctantly
did
it,
but
did
not
feel
confident.
He
said,
“Whether
it’s
growing

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

87

plants
like
beans
and
watching
the
process,
I
don’t
think
I
have
gone
too
deeply.
Sometimes

the
experiment
fails.
There
are
lessons
to
be
learned.”
After
the
garden
unit
he
expressed

another
challenge
with
gardening
content
in
the
classroom,
“Where
I’m
headed
with
the

basic
plant
growth
and
the
desired
outcome,
children
don’t
necessarily
have
hands-‐on

tasks
except
in
their
observation
of
what
transpired
with
the
plants.”
Besides
the
STEM-‐
garden
lessons,
he
did
not
expand
beyond
the
type
of
garden
content
he
described
in
his

pre-‐interview.

The
fourth
and
fifth
grade
teacher
described
a
seed
germination
activity
with

putting
seeds
with
a
moist
paper
towel
in
a
glass
to
observe
the
stem
growth.
He
explained

further,
“I
really
haven’t
taught
much
gardening.
There
is
no
gardening
4
th

and
5
th

grade

curriculum
(required
from
the
district).”
After
the
STEM-‐garden
unit
he
shared
that
he

hadn’t
gone
beyond
what
he
stated
in
the
pre-‐interview,
except
participating
in
the
STEM-‐
garden
lessons,
and
that
“finding
time
is
still
an
issue.”

The
sixth
grade
teacher
expressed
her
involvement
during
her
student
teaching

with
two
grade
levels
that
gardened,
however,
she
was
not
fully
responsible
for
the
garden

curriculum
and
teaching.
During
her
student
teaching,
she
saw
students
who
were
not

engaged
in
the
classroom
become
engaged
outside
in
the
garden,
yet
the
open
environment

created
challenges
for
giving
instructions
and
engaging
some
students
who
were
distracted

by
the
open
space.
Prior
to
the
lessons
the
sixth
grade
teacher
saw
ways
that
math
and

social
studies
could
be
connected
to
gardening,
but
did
not
indicate
connections
to

engineering
or
technology.
After
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
the
sixth
grade
teacher
made

connections
to
engineering
ideas,
but
noted
that
sometimes
it
was
hard
making
sure
all
30-‐
STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

88

something
of
her
students
were
engaged,
and
that
there
is
a
balance
between
teaching

gardening
theory
and
the
act
of
gardening.

Shift
of
perceptions
in
engineering.
Similar
questions
about
engineering
were
part

of
the
teacher
interviews.
Teachers
were
asked
to
share
their
level
of
confidence
in

teaching
engineering
and
engineering
content,
as
well
as
their
experiences
and
imagined

possibilities
for
linking
gardening
to
STEM.
Teachers
mostly
went
into
detail
about
their

ideas
and
what
they
might
do
with
enough
classroom
teaching
time.
There
were

similarities
and
differences
between
teacher
responses
in
connection
to
engineering.

Teachers
shared
shifts
in
their
perceptions
in
engineering
and
STEM
teaching
and
content

in
connection
to
gardening
from
before
and
after
the
implementation
of
the
STEM-‐garden

six-‐week
unit.
These
shifts
will
be
discussed
in
the
following
themes
developed
from
the

interview
responses.

Confidence
perceptions.
All
five
teachers
expressed
a
shift
in
confidence
in

understanding
engineering
content
and
teaching
engineering
from
before
to
after
the

STEM-‐garden
curriculum.
The
Kindergarten
teacher
didn’t
know
what
her
level
of

confidence
was
because
she
was
unsure
exactly
what
engineering
was.
She
commented
in

her
pre-‐interview
that
she
did
provide
blocks
for
center
time,
and
when
the
STEM-‐garden

unit
was
complete
she
expressed
“slightly
more
knowledge
of
it
after
seeing
the
lesson

involving
blueprints
in
the
garden.”
The
second
grade
teacher
blatantly
responded,
“I
have

no
concept
whatsoever.
I
have
never
taught
engineering
unless
you
consider
geometric

shapes
into
buildings.”
Following
the
STEM-‐garden
her
confidence
raised
significantly.
She

was
able
to
recognize
where
she
had
been
previously
teaching
engineering,
but
she
hadn’t

been
able
to
recognize
it.
The
second
grade
teacher
described:

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

89

This
is
a
great
question
for
me,
because
as
you
recall,
I
didn't
even
know

what
engineering
content
was.
So
in
that
sense,
my
confidence
is
already

higher!
It
was
such
a
wonderful
surprise
to
learn
the
meaning
of
engineering,

and
to
discover
that
it
is
actually
a
passion
of
mine
in
that
I'm
fascinated
by

the
way
things
work
and
the
idea
of
problem
solving,
as
well
as
the
idea
of

inventing..
The
only
obstacle
at
this
point
is
that
the
school
day
is
simply
too

short.
Seriously.
There
isn't
enough
time
in
the
day,
with
shortened
Tuesdays

for
staff
development
and
shortened
Mondays
and
Thursdays
for
grade
level

planning,
to
cover
a
balanced
literacy
program
and
a
math
program

alongside
anything
else.
It's
a
huge
source
of
frustration.

The
third
grade
teacher
did
not
feel
as
confident
in
teaching
engineering
as
he
did

science.
He
expressed,
“I’m
not
sure
how
we
teach
engineering
content
to
third
grade

students.
I’m
not
as
familiar
and
didn’t
study
it
in
college.
I
think
throughout
my
education,

science
and
math
have
always
been
present,
but
not
engineering.”
Once
the
STEM-‐garden

lessons
were
completed,
he
shared,
“I’m
fairly
confident
in
engineering
content
although
in

order
for
me
to
teach
any
engineering
lessons
I
find
I
need
extra
preparation
time.
I
have
to

do
added
research
and
plan
every
detail
of
my
lesson,
unlike
other
subjects.”

The
fourth
and
fifth
grade
teacher
simply
stated
that
he
too
was
not
as
confidence
in

teaching
engineering
as
he
was
in
science,
and
that
he
would
need
some
sort
of
curriculum

as
a
guideline.
He
articulated,
“For
example,
how
to
make
a
sturdy
bridge.
I
don’t
have
a

knowledge
of
physics
to
feel
comfortable
teaching
without
some
sort
of
background

knowledge.”
After
the
lessons
he
said
he
was
“still
a
little
iffy,
although
the
garden
lessons

incorporating
STEM
were
good,
and
the
students
enjoyed
them.”
This
statement
seems
to

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

90

indicate
a
slight
shift
in
confidence.
The
sixth
grade
teacher
described
her
confidence
in

engineering
content
and
teaching
prior
to
the
STEM-‐garden
lesson
as
less
confident
than

science.
She
explained,
“It’s
not
something
I’ve
been
required
to
teach,
but
I
do
think
it’s

imbedded,
but
not
explicitly
taught.
It’s
a
big
push
this
year
as
to
previous
years,
how

things
work
and
how
we
can
make
improvements.”
After
the
unit,
she
shared
that
her

confidence
grew,
and
that
both
she
and
her
students
were
able
to
make
more
connections.

Content
perceptions.
When
asked
if
they
had
experienced
or
could
imagine
ways
in

which
STEM
was
connected
to
gardening,
some
teachers
seemed
to
understand
this

connection
while
others
were
unsure.
All
of
the
teachers
articulated
shifts
in
their

understanding
of
how
STEM
was
connected
to
gardening
from
before
to
after
the
STEM-‐
garden
unit,
and
most
described
an
increase
in
understanding.

During
the
pre-‐interview,
the
kindergarten
teacher
indicated
that
STEM
was

connected
to
gardening
because
it’s
science,
but
that
she
didn’t
know
where
the
other
three

content
areas
came
in.
Later,
she
described
in
detail
how
gardening
is
connected
to
STEM

as
she
recalled
various
components
of
the
STEM-‐garden
unit.
She
recalled
specific

examples
from
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
and
described
what
parts
were
linked
to

engineering.
She
went
on
to
describe
the
other
subjects
of
STEM
and
how
they
are

integrated.

The
second
grade
teacher
expressed
her
love
of
problem
solving
with
students
and

stated
that
prior
to
the
STEM
lessons
she
used
Foss
kits
(premade
science
teaching

materials
and
activities)
for
problem
solving.
She
indicated
a
connection
between
math
and

science
as
a
component
of
these
kits.
She
imagined
her
students
using
technology,

specifically
Powerpoints,
to
make
presentations
and
use
time-‐lapse
recordings.
She
listed

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

91

questions
to
pose
to
students
to
engage
areas
of
engineering,
such
as,
“What
are
some

issues
you
see
in
the
garden?
What
are
ways
we
could
improve
the
environment
around

the
school?
What
could
we
do
to
protect
the
bees?
Could
we
construct
a
greenhouse
for

indoor
gardening?”
She
also
mentioned
the
use
of
tools
for
cooking
with
food
from
the

garden.

After
the
STEM-‐garden
unit,
she
was
able
to
articulate
the
lessons
she
saw

implemented,
as
well
as
integrate
her
own
ideas,
such
as
film
activities
and
designed

garden
spaces.

Similarly,
the
third
grade
teacher
described
in
good
detail
ideas
for
incorporating

math
by
creating
charts
and
graphs,
as
well
as
developing
surveys
that
incorporate

addition
and
multiplication.
In
terms
of
technology,
he
described
various
pieces
of

equipment
that
could
be
used
in
the
garden,
such
as
irrigation,
solar
panels,
and
computers

or
iPads
for
taking
pictures.
However,
prior
to
the
STEM-‐garden
unit,
he
was
unable
to
see

how
engineering
was
connected
to
gardening.
After
the
STEM-‐garden
lesson,
he
saw
how

the
garden
lessons
were
connected
to
STEM,
which
also
triggered
his
reflection
on
linking

STEM
with
gardening.

Furthermore,
the
fourth
and
fifth
grade
teacher
drew
examples
of
math
and
science

prior
to
the
lessons,
describing
fractions
in
designing
garden
plots,
and
using
articles
to

learn
about
insects.
Later,
he
explicitly
commented
on
the
connection
he
saw
in
the
STEM

garden
lessons
during
the
post
interview
saying,
“[The]
lessons
incorporated
many
links
to

STEM
such
as
designing
items
for
the
garden
and
creating
blueprints.”

Finally,
the
sixth
grade
teacher
mentioned
specific
problem
solving
areas
in
the

garden
such
as
fixing
the
irrigation
when
it
was
broken,
and
why
water
is
important
for
the

garden.
She
connected
math
to
water
use
and
the
drought,
and
refelcted
that
engineering

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

92

concepts
could
be
used
when
choosing
drought
tolerant,
California
native
plants
that
won’t

require
additional
resources
(like
water)
to
grow.
After
the
implementation
of
the
STEM-‐
garden
lessons,
she
described
these
shifts
in
her
thinking
to
connect
gardening
to

irrigation,
cultures
and
civilizations
historically
using
irrigation,
as
well
as
biotic
and

abiotic
factors
and
ecosystems.

Technology
challenges
and
benefits.
When
considering
the
challenges
and
benefits

of
using
technology
in
the
classroom,
the
teachers
shared
similar
opinions
and
frustrations.

The
challenges
amongst
all
of
the
teachers
included
a
lack
of
technological
resources,

technical
glitches,
problems
with
repairs,
and
the
time
incurred
figuring
out
how
to
work

through
these
problems.
The
second
grade,
fourth
and
fifth
grade,
and
sixth
grade
teachers

all
expressed
a
lack
of
their
own
knowledge
as
a
challenge.
All
of
the
teachers
mentioned

the
ELMO
or
document
camera
as
a
benefit
to
teaching
and
making
things
easier
for
the

students
to
see
and
follow
along
during
the
lesson.
The
kindergarten
and
third
grade

teacher
also
mentioned
using
technology
for
researching
with
students,
and
the
fourth
and

fifth
grade
teacher
mentioned
using
it
for
his
own
research
to
present
information
to

students.

STEM
and
garden
challenges
and
improvements.

During
the
pre-‐interview,
the

teachers
were
asked
if
they
anticipated
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
working
for
their

students
and
any
improvements
they
would
make
for
their
students.
The
teachers
were

asked
the
same
questions
again
after
the
lessons
were
completed.
Overall,
teachers
were

positive
in
anticipating
the
curriculum
engaging
their
students.
After
the
implementation
of

the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
some
of
the
examples
were
more
specific
in
how
it
was

beneficial.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

93

The
kindergarten
teacher
believed
the
lessons
sounded
promising
and
mentioned

that
her
students
worked
best
with
short
bits
of
information,
and
that
they
needed
to
be

physically
active.
After
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
she
said
the
lessons
were
valuable,

engaging,
and
hands-‐on,
and
that
her
students
learned
better
by
doing.
The
second
grade

teacher
anticipated
the
value
of
bringing
her
students
into
nature
and
developing
respect

for
the
natural
world,
and
expressed
a
desire
for
her
students
to
have
more
time
in
the

garden.
Afterward,
she
expressed
that
it
was
an
“amazing
program,
one
I
wish
we
could

have
continued
throughout
the
year.
That
would
be
the
only
change
I
would
make,
because

then
we
could
get
into
those
areas
of
design,
build,
and
landscape.”

The
third
grade
teacher,
having
predominantly
English
Language
Learners,

expressed
an
anticipation
of
challenges
for
his
ELL
class
and
a
concern
that
information

would
go
beyond
them
if
not
explained
in
their
native
language.
He
suggested
presenting

vocabulary
and
visual
aids
at
the
start
of
the
lessons,
as
well
as
giving
them
time
for

discussions
and
idea
sharing.
After
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
he
shared
that
he
felt
the

STEM
curriculum
worked
extremely
well.

He
enjoyed
the
fact
that
it
allowed
students
the

opportunity
to
work
under
different
conditions
and
approach
problems
through
a

constructivist
understanding.

He
felt
that
students
were
able
to
understand
the
connection

between
gardening
and
STEM
careers
and
were
also
inspired
to
further
their
own

knowledge.

He
especially
liked
that
his
students
were
able
to
meet
professionals
in
their

respective
STEM
careers
and
looked
at
actual
documents
(such
as
architectural
plans)
used

in
the
real
world.

The
fourth
and
fifth
grade
teacher
expressed
a
positive
anticipation
during
the
pre-‐
interview
for
his
students’
response
to
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons.
He
explained,
“Why

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

94

shouldn’t
it?
They
will
probably
learn
and
retain
more
of
what
will
be
shown
to
them
and

go
through
with
hands-‐on
process
than
what
they
will
remember
me
showing
them
about

how
to
expand
decimals.”
Following
the
STEM
unit,
he
elaborated
by
expressing
that
his

students
enjoyed
the
lessons
greatly
and
have
an
appreciation
for
where
their
food
comes

from.
The
sixth
grade
teacher
believed
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
would
work
for
her

students
because
she
saw
them
come
alive
in
the
garden
when
they
are
typically

disengaged
in
the
classroom.
The
STEM-‐garden
lessons
would
help
the
students
see
how

different
subject
areas
are
intertwined.
She
offered
several
suggestions
for
engineering

activities
that
her
students
might
enjoy,
such
as
structuring
planting
beds,
the
position
of

the
sun,
and
how
the
earth
and
environment
interact
with
humans
every
day.
During
her

post
interview,
she
expressed
that
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
worked
very
well
for
her

students.
They
were
able
to
visit
some
of
the
engineering
concepts
that
could
be
visually

seen
in
the
garden
as
well
as
some
of
the
planning,
such
as
blueprints
and
irrigation

placement.
She
expressed
her
constructive
criticism
with
suggestions,
“One
thing
I
would

change
would
be
to
get
them
more
involved
in
the
garden
and
the
entire
process.

I
would

like
to
see
it
linked
to
health
and
sustainability
issues
that
are
impacting
the
world
greatly.

“

Teaching
influence.
The
STEM-‐garden
lessons
influenced
the
teachers
in
their

methods
inside
the
classroom,
and
inspired
them
to
attempt
to
teach
STEM
in
the
future.

The
kindergarten
teacher
shared
her
excitement
in
learning
something
new
during
her
pre-‐
interview,
and
afterward
she
mentioned
that
she
will
re-‐use
many
of
the
lesson
ideas
with

future
classes.
The
second
grade
teacher
anticipated
that
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
would

help
her
understand
how
to
organize
the
subject
areas
around
gardening,
and
following
the

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

95

unit
she
felt
inspired
and
motivated
to
find
time
in
her
schedule
for
the
engaging
lessons

and
using
the
problem
solving
aspect
to
look
at
situations
and
see
how
they
can
improve

them.
The
third
grade
teacher
anticipated
the
value
of
STEM-‐garden
lessons
and

recognized
the
importance
of
teaching
curriculum
in
a
different
and
more
tangible

environment.
He
felt
the
lessons
would
make
him
more
aware
of
STEM
and
how
it
is

integrated,
which
in
turn
would
influence
his
teaching.
After
the
lessons
he
felt
he
could
do

more
to
incorporate
and
focus
on
STEM
in
his
classroom,
and
believed
the
district
was
not

focused
on
STEM
to
prepare
for
these
important
careers.
The
fourth
and
fifth
grade
teacher

felt
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
would
influence
his
use
of
the
standards,
and
that
he
would

be
looking
to
incorporate
related
standards
to
the
garden.
When
the
unit
was
complete,
he

said
he
began
thinking
about
where
the
science
curriculum
could
be
enhanced,
and
that
he

would
like
access
to
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
for
future
reference.
Lastly,
the
sixth
grade

teacher
anticipated
that
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
might
foster
multiple
pathways
for

content
areas
that
lead
to
the
same
place,
and
then
imbed
those
STEM
content
areas
into

her
planning,
making
connections
to
real-‐life.
Once
the
lessons
were
complete,
she
stated

that
she
felt
more
aware
of
how
to
teach
STEM-‐garden
concepts,
that
she
is
an
advocate
for

teaching
though
connection,
and
felt
more
confident
in
teaching
them
effectively.

Student
influence.
The
final
question
of
the
interview
asked
teachers
how
they

anticipated
their
students
would
be
influence
by
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,
and
upon

completion
of
the
unit,
they
were
asked
to
share
how
it
actually
did
influence
their

students.

The
kindergarten
teacher
was
hopeful
that
the
lesson
would
enhance
her
students’

understanding
and
learning.
After
the
lessons
she
expressed
that
her
students
enjoyed

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

96

their
time
in
the
garden
and
some
were
able
to
make
connections
and
understand
the

lesson
objectives.
She
mentioned
that
whenever
a
lesson
goes
across
the
curriculum
and

covers
more
than
one
topic,
a
greater
understanding
can
be
reached.
She
especially
liked

having
hands-‐on
experiences
with
the
STEM
lessons
to
improve
her
students’
chances
of

the
lessons
sinking
in.

The
second
grade
teacher
was
hesitant
if
her
students
would
understand

engineering,
but
felt
that
the
lessons
would
enhance
their
science
content
knowledge
and

help
make
real-‐world
connections.
When
the
unit
finished,
she
saw
her
students
influenced

by
the
fresh
air,
digging
in
the
dirt,
pulling
up
weeds,
and
eating
the
fruits
of
the
earth.
She

described
them
as
filled
with
joy
and
enthusiasm
for
the
garden.
She
described
the
work

they
did
looking
at
the
4
STEM
fields
(exploring
the
contents
of
the
four
bags)
and
how
it

opened
their
eyes
to
new
things
to
be
interested
in
and
generated
a
lot
of
excitement
to

build
upon;
another
affect
not
to
be
underestimated
in
her
opinion.

The
third
grade
teacher
felt
that
perhaps
his
students
would
be
inspired
by
the

STEM
lessons
because
as
a
child
he
was
influenced
by
powerful
moments.
He
was
hopeful

that
his
students
would
be
inspired
into
the
STEM
field
after
the
unit
was
completed.
Upon

completion
of
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
he
felt
this
came
to
fruition,
that
many
of
his

students
became
interested
in
STEM
careers,
and
that
the
direct
teaching
of
STEM
taught

his
students
how
to
look
at
the
world
in
a
new
perspective
and
be
introduced
to
careers

that
they
may
have
not
previously
thought
about.

The
fourth
and
fifth
grade
teacher
hoped
his
students
would
learn
how
not
to
be
a

troglodyte
and
to
appreciate
what
it
takes
to
maintain
a
food
supply
and
where
food
comes

from,
as
well
as
the
challenges
of
sustainability.
When
the
lessons
were
completed,
his

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

97

students
appreciated
where
their
food
came
from,
and
were
willing
to
try
new
foods
from

the
garden.

The
sixth
grade
teacher
hoped
her
students
would
see
real
world
connections
and

be
able
to
highlight
them.
Also,
she
felt
they
might
become
more
compassionate
people
as

they
learn
how
to
take
care
of
the
environment.
She
also
saw
ways
to
tie
in
math
and
help

them
understand
math
concepts
while
specifically
doing
something
in
the
garden.
In
the

end,
she
saw
that
her
students
were
able
to
make
more
connections
and
engaged
in

discussions
based
on
their
shared
experiences
in
the
garden.

Interpretation
of
evidence
from
teacher
interviews.

The
themes
that
emerged

from
the
teacher
interviews
lead
to
evidence
that
answers
part
of
question
two
about
how

the
integration
of
a
garden-‐based
STEM
program
change
teacher
perceptions
of
STEM.

Shifts
in
confidence
was
a
theme
in
both
science
and
engineering
as
four
out
of
five

teachers
felt
more
confident
in
science
after
the
lessons,
and
five
out
of
five
teachers
felt

more
confident
in
engineering.

All
of
the
teachers
reported
that
their
content
knowledge

expanded
in
engineering
after
the
STEM-‐garden
unit,
while
two
of
the
five
expressed
an

expansion
of
their
science
content
and
the
other
three
felt
it
stayed
the
same.
The
teachers

reported
various
benefits
of
the
STEM-‐garden
program
in
that
it
sparked
new
lesson
ideas

that
would
incorporate
all
areas
of
STEM.
For
some
teachers,
it
helped
them
to
recognize

areas
where
they
were
already
teaching
STEM
and
had
not
realized
it
previously.
All
of
the

teachers
observed
their
students
influence
from
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
in
various
ways

such
as
connections
across
subject
matter,
appreciation
for
food
source,
becoming

interested
in
STEM
careers,
improving
their
thinking,
and
drawing
from
shared

experiences
in
the
garden
for
further
learning.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

98

Student
assessments.
The
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
Checklist
(Appendix
D)
was

used
to
analyze
the
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
Student
Assessment
(Appendix
C).
The

science
checklist
showed
if
students
had
a
stereotypical
view
of
a
scientist
as
developed
by

Finson,
Beaver,
and
Cramond
(1995)
and
validated
by
Thomas,
Pedersen,
and
Finson

(2001).
This
stereotype
is
that
of
a
middle-‐aged
male
with
glasses,
lab
coat,
or
facial
hair,

working
indoors
with
scientific
equipment
and
technology.
The
engineer
checklist

organized
children’s
representation
of
an
engineer
into
certain
categories
of
engineering
as

developed
and
implemented
by
Knight
and
Cunningham
(2004).
The
categories
included
in

the
checklist
represent
areas
of
engineering
such
as
civil,
mechanical,
aerospace,

architectural,
automotive,
chemical,
construction,
computer,
electrical,
and
more.
Student

drawings
were
compared
from
pre
and
post
assessment
to
determine
the
students’

perceptions
of
scientists
and
engineers
shifted.
The
researcher
determined
whether
or
not

each
child
represented
an
understanding,
and
conversed
with
a
colleague
when
questions

arose.
The
researcher
then
assigned
the
student
a
0
or
1
for
both
pre
and
post
assessments,

with
0
meaning
the
student
had
no
understanding
and
1
meaning
that
the
student
did

understand
what
a
science
or
engineer
was.
This
type
of
quantitative
coding
provided
the

opportunity
to
run
a
paired
t-‐test
to
show
significance
or
insignificance
for
the
study.

Furthermore,
the
checklist
served
as
a
tool
for
additional
qualitative
analysis
and
the

sample
drawings
representing
students’
shifts
in
perceptions
will
be
presented
in
the

sections
below.

The
Student
Interview
Questions
(Appendix
E)
originated
from
a
study
on
student

perceptions
of
science
and
engineering
by
Zhai,
Jocz,
Tan,
(2013).
These
questions
began

open-‐ended
asking
students
“What
is
a
scientist?”
and
“What
is
an
engineer?”
Student

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

99

interview
questions
shifted
into
more
specific
questions
about
science
and
engineering
to

better
understand
children’s
perceptions,
such
as
who
can
become
a
qualified
scientist
or

engineer,
real-‐life
experiences
with
scientists
and
engineers,
what
they
liked
about
each

subject,
and
what
makes
someone
a
good
science
teacher
or
student.
The
researcher

approached
the
interview
in
a
similar
way,
indicating
whether
a
student
answered
with
an

accurate
description
or
not,
using
a
1
or
0
with
the
same
coding
as
the
checklist.
This
type

of
coding
allowed
the
students’
results
to
be
quantified
and
show
significance
or

insignificance
in
the
study.
Since
the
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
Student
Assessment
and

Student
Interview
Questions
were
gathered
and
analyzed
qualitatively,
then
coded

quantitatively,
this
created
a
mixed-‐methods
study.

Once
the
qualitative
data
was
coded
into
ones
and
zeros
and
entered
into
excel

spreadsheets,
the
data
was
prepared
for
analysis.
Repeated
measures,
also
known
as
a

paired-‐sample
t-‐test,
are
used
when
the
researcher
has
one
group
of
people
and
collects

data
from
them
on
two
different
occasions
or
under
two
different
conditions
(Pallant,

2010).
A
paired
t-‐test
can
be
used
to
compare
the
same
group
of
people
using
a
pre-‐test

and
post-‐test,
such
as
with
this
STEM
and
gardening
urban
youth
research.
The
paired
t-‐
test
shows
whether
or
not
the
student
sample
had
significant
results
in
their
understanding

of
science
and
engineering
or
experienced
a
Transformative
Experience.

To
examine
the
student
component
of
question
two,
paired-‐sample
t-‐tests
were

calculated
to
assess
how
the
integration
of
a
garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum
changed

students’
perceptions
of
STEM.
The
resulting
analyses
are
revealed
in
this
section.

The
analysis
of
the
Student
Interview
Questions
is
presented
below.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

100

Table
4.2

Analysis
of
Student
Interviews

Interview
(2nd
-‐
6th):

Paired
Samples
Statistics
&
Test

Mean
N

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

t
df

Sig.

(2-‐
tailed)

Sci.
Questions
-‐
Pre
Interview
4.577
71
1.4727
0.1748
Pair

1

Sci.
Questions
-‐
Post
Interview
4.465
71
1.4125
0.1676

0.655
70
0.515

Eng.
Questions
-‐
Pre
Interview
3.57
71
2.1352
0.2534
Pair

2

Eng.
Questions
-‐
Post
Interview
4.669
71
1.838
0.2181

-‐4.833
70
0

Total
Interview
-‐
Pre
Interview
8.148
71
2.8665
0.3402
Pair

3

Total
Interview
-‐
Post
Interview
9.134
71
2.6213
0.3111

-‐3.082
70
0.003

The
dependent
variable
for
the
study
of
students’
perceptions
of
STEM
is
the

answers
from
the
interview
questions
that
were
posed
to
gauge
students’
understanding
of

a
scientist
and
engineer.
The
main
effect
is
the
time
change,
from
October
to
December,
and

n=71
and
df=70.
The
total
interview
including
both
science
and
engineering
questions
had

a
pre-‐test
mean
of
8.148
and
a
standard
deviation
of
2.8665,
and
then
it
had
a
post-‐test

mean
of
9.134
with
a
standard
deviation
of
2.6213.
This
is
a
significant
result
at
the
0.003

level
with
a
t
statistic
of
-‐3.082.
Within
the
study,
science
questions
had
a
mean
of
4.577

and
standard
deviation
of
1.4727
pre-‐test
and
a
mean
of
4.465
and
standard
deviation
of

1.4125
post-‐test.
This
is
not
significant
at
the
0.515
level
with
a
t
statistic
of
0.655.
The

engineer
questions
had
a
mean
of
3.57
and
standard
deviation
of
2.1352
pre-‐test
and
a

mean
of
4.669
and
standard
deviation
of
4.669
post-‐test.
This
is
significant
at
the
0
with
a
t

statistic
of
-‐4.833.

The
analysis
of
the
Kindergarten
Student
Interview
Questions
was
not
included
in

the
paired
sample
t-‐test
above
because
they
had
an
interview
with
fewer
questions.
As
to

not
exclude
them
entirely
from
the
study,
the
Kindergarten
students
will
be
analyzed
both

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

101

quantitatively
and
qualitatively.
In
the
table
below
you
will
see
the
totals
for
pre
and
post

questions
for
the
Kindergarten
interview.

Table
4.3

Kindergarten
Interview
Pre
and
Post
Totals
by
Question

Grade

Question

Pre-‐
Assessment

Post-‐
Assessment

1.a
5
6

1.b
4
6

2.a
0
0

2.b
0
0

3.a
2
2

3.b
2
4

4.a
5
6

4.b
4
5

5.a
2
4

K

5.b
0
2

Note:
a=science
questions;
b=engineering
questions

Table
4.3
indicates
that
there
was
an
increase
in
four
amongst
students
in

understanding
what
a
scientist
was
from
before
and
after
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum.
In

addition,
the
table
also
shows
that
there
was
an
increase
in
seven
amongst
students
in

understanding
what
an
engineer
was
before
from
before
and
after
the
STEM-‐garden

curriculum.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

102

The
analysis
of
the
Draw
a
Scientist
Student
Assessment
is
presented
below.

Table
4.4

Analysis
of
Student
Draw
a
Scientist
Assessment

Paired
Samples
Statistics
(K-‐6th)

Mean
N

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

t
df

Sig.

(2-‐
tailed)

Draw
a
Scientist
-‐
Pre

Assessment

0.91
79
0.286
0.032

Pair
1

Draw
a
Scientist
-‐
Post

Assessment

0.90
79
0.304
0.034

0.331
78
0.741

The
dependent
variable
for
the
study
of
students’
perceptions
of
STEM
is
the

drawings
from
the
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
assessment
that
were
posed
to
gauge

students’
understanding
of
a
scientist
and
engineer.
The
main
effect
is
the
time
change,

from
October
to
December,
and
n=79
and
df=78.
Within
the
study,
Draw
a
Scientist
had
a

mean
of
0.91
and
standard
deviation
of
0.286
pre-‐test
and
a
mean
of
0.90
and
standard

deviation
of
0.304
post-‐test.
This
is
not
significant
at
the
0.741
level
with
a
t
statistic
of

0.331.

Although
Table
4.4
indicates
no
significant
differences
between
students’
pre
and

post
Draw
a
Scientist
Assessments,
when
looking
at
the
data
from
a
qualitative
perspective,

influences
of
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
are
evident.
For
example,
the
pie
graphs
below

show
the
change
in
the
type
of
scientist
students
drew
and
understood
when
comparing

pre
and
post
assessments.
The
pie
charts
and
tables
with
corresponding
data
are
shown
on

the
following
pages.
STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

103

Figure
D

Distribution
of
Science
Type
for
All
Students
from
Pre-data

Note:
n=79

Table
4.5

Distribution
of
Science
Type
with
Percentages
for
All
Students
from
Pre-data

55

2

1

1

5

5

2

8

K-6th

(Pre-data)

Chemistry

Biology

Physical

Earth
Science

Natural

General

Archeology

NA

Science
Type (pre)
# of
Students
% Total
Students
Surveyed
Chemistry 55 69.6%
Biology 2 2.5%
Physical 1 1.3%
Earth 1 1.3%
Natural 5 6.3%
General 5 6.3%
Archeology 2 2.5%
NA 8 10.0%
STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

104

Figure
E

Distribution
of
Science
Type
for
All
Students
from
Post-data

Note:
n=79

Table
4.6

Distribution
of
Science
Type
with
Percentages
for
All
Students
from
Post-data

41

4

13

1

1

1

1

10

7

K-6th

(Post-data)

Chemistry

Biology

Natural

Physical

Earth

Space

Archeology

General

NA

Science
Type (post)
# of
Students
% Total
Students
Surveyed
Chemistry 41 51.8%
Biology 4 5.1%
Natural 13 16.4%
Physical 1 1.3%
Earth 1 1.3%
Space 1 1.3%
Archeology 1 1.3%
General 10 12.6%
NA 7 8.9%
STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

105

Additionally,
students’
stereotypical
perceptions
of
the
scientists
changed,
which

can
be
seen
in
the
table
below.

Table
4.7

Draw-a-Scientist
Checklist
from
Student
Drawings

Table
4.7
shows
differences
in
the
ways
children
represent
scientists.
For
example,

this
table
shows
that
more
students
saw
scientists
as
males
prior
to
the
STEM-‐garden

research,
and
there
was
an
increase
of
females
as
scientists
after
the
curriculum
was

implemented.

To
further
effectively
qualify
the
drawings,
students
drawing
assessments
were

carefully
analyzed
for
changes
in
understanding
of
STEM.
Indications
of
changes
in

understanding
that
were
connected
to
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
were
noted.
On
the

following
pages
are
a
few
sets
of
photographs
with
pre
drawings
and
post
drawings
that

make
note
of
changes
that
cannot
be
measured
quantitatively.
These
drawings
are

examples
of
students’
understanding
of
scientists.

Draw-‐a-‐Scientist
Checklist

Category/Item

Pre-‐
Assessment

Post-‐
Assessment

1.
Lab
Coat
42
31

2.
Eyeglasses
43
30

3.
Facial
Growth
of
Hair
4
3

4.
Symbols
of
Research
61
55

5.
Symbols
of
Knowledge
33
23

6.
Technology
11
9

7.
Male
Gender
53
43

8.
Middle-‐Aged
or
Elderly
6
5

9.
Scientist
Working

Indoors
71
61

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

106

Figure
F1

Kindergartener
Pre-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Kindergartener
(k.h)
draws
a
classroom
and
quotes
pre-assessment,
“These
are

teachers.
This
is
a
desk.”

Figure
F2

Kindergartener
Post-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Kindergartener
(k.h)
draws
natural
sciences
and
quotes
post-assessment,
“It’s
me!
A

bottle
on
our
desk
with
compost,
dirt,
water,
and
paper
in
it.”

The
kindergartener
drawings
above
show
a
student’s
lack
of
understanding
of
a

scientist
in
the
pre-‐assessment.
The
student
seemed
to
understand
the
idea
of
a
classroom

environment,
but
materials
and
words
related
specifically
to
science
were
not
indicated.
In

the
post-‐assessment,
the
student
draws
directly
from
one
of
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,

showing
a
picture
of
a
compost
tumbler
and
recalled
the
layers
inside.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

107

Figure
G1

Second
Grader
Pre-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Second
grader
(2.o)
draws
chemistry
pre-assessment.

Figure
G2

Second
Grader
Post-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Second
grader
(2.o)
draws
natural
sciences
and
quotes
post-assessment,
“Scientist

discovering
minerals
in
dirt.”

The
second
grade
student
shows
a
picture
of
a
male
with
glasses
in
a
lab
coat
with

beakers,
chemicals,
and
lightening.
This
pre-‐assessment
drawing
displays
the
students

understanding
of
science
as
chemistry.
Following
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,
the
student

draws
a
scientist
studying
soil
in
an
outdoor
environment
with
trees
and
grass,
and
a

magnifying
glass
-‐
one
of
the
tools
used
in
the
first
STEM-‐garden
lesson.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

108

Figure
H1

Third
Grader
ELL
Pre-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Third
grader
ELL
(3.c)
draws
chemistry
pre-assessment.

Figure
H2

Third
Grader
ELL
Post-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Third
grader
ELL
(3.c)
draws
natural
sciences
with
plants
and
fruit
post-assessment.

The
third
grade
student
draws
a
female
wearing
goggles
in
a
setting
with
beakers

labeled
as
“posions
(potions)”
and
“chairs”
which
indicate
an
association
of
chemistry
as

science.
In
the
second
drawing,
the
student
shows
a
male
standing
outside
with
a
tree
and

flowers
in
a
natural
environment,
displaying
a
shift
in
the
space
and
gender
of
which

science
occurs.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

109

Figure
I1

Third-Fifth
Grader
Special
Day
Pre-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Third-Fifth
grader
special
day
(3-5.d)
draws
chemistry
and
quotes
pre-assessment,
“Ok,

I
am
a
scientist.”

Figure
I2

Third-Fifth
Grader
Special
Day
Post-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Third-Fifth
grader
special
day
(3-5.d)
draws
natural
sciences
and
quotes
post-
assessment,
“This
picture
is
about
worms
in
a
box
so
they
can
eat.”

The
third-‐fifth
grade
student
shows
a
female
in
a
space
with
beakers
filled
with
a

dark
substance
resting
on
a
table.
After
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
the
student
drew
a
worm

bin
representing
an
experience
from
the
sixth
lesson.
This
demonstrates
a
direct
influence

from
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
in
the
students
understanding
of
science.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

110

Figure
J1

Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Pre-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Fourth/fifth
grader
gifted
(4-5.b)
draws
chemistry
pre-assessment.

Figure
J2

Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Post-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Fourth/fifth
grader
gifted
(4-5.b)
draws
chemistry,
and
includes
flowers,
plants,
and

Fiboncaci’s
sequence
post-assessment.

The
fourth/fifth
grade
student
represented
a
lab
in
the
first
drawing
showing
a
man

with
a
lab
coat
in
a
room
with
beakers,
vents,
liquids,
tables,
and
windows.
The
student’s

drawing
after
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
shows
a
similar
indoor
environment
with
and

man,
however,
the
beakers
have
flowers
inside,
clouds
in
the
windows,
and
there
is
a
board

with
a
drawing
of
Fibonacci’s
sequence
from
the
second
STEM-‐garden
lesson.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

111

Figure
K1

Sixth
Grader
Pre-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Sixth
grader
(6.k)
draws
chemistry
pre-assessment.

Figure
K2

Sixth
Grader
Post-Draw
a
Scientist

Note:
Sixth
grader
(6.k)
draws
a
lab
with
worms
and
dead
animals
quotes
post-assessment,

“Worms.
Dead
animal
skin
(artificial).”

The
sixth
grader
drew
a
female
with
goggles
and
beakers
and
a
computer
in
an

indoor
environment
for
the
pre-‐assessment.
In
the
post-‐assessment
the
student
drew
a

female
without
goggles
in
an
indoor
space
with
some
beakers
and
a
computer,
but
added
a

worm
bin
and
another
container
labeled
with
fake
animal
skin.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

112

Table
4.8

Analysis
of
Student
Draw
an
Engineer
Assessment

Paired
Samples
Statistics
(K-‐6th)

Mean
N

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

t
df

Sig.

(2-‐
tailed)

Draw
an
Engineer
-‐
Pre

Assessment

0.77
79
0.422
0.047

Pair
2

Draw
an
Engineer
-‐
Post

Assessment

0.87
79
0.335
0.038

-‐2.189
78
0.032

The
dependent
variable
for
the
study
of
students’
perceptions
of
STEM
is
the

drawings
from
the
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
assessment
that
were
posed
to
gauge

students’
understanding
of
a
scientist
and
engineer.
The
main
effect
is
the
time
change,

from
October
to
December,
and
n=79
and
df=78.
The
Draw
an
Engineer
had
a
mean
of
0.77

and
standard
deviation
of
0.422
pre-‐test
and
a
mean
of
0.87
and
standard
deviation
of

4.669
post-‐test.
This
is
significant
at
the
0.032
level
with
a
t
statistic
of
-‐2.189.

Additionally,
Figure
4.19
indicates
a
significant
difference
between
students’
pre

and
post
Draw
an
Engineer
Assessments,
when
looking
at
the
data
from
a
qualitative

perspective,
and
further
influences
of
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
are
evident.
Students

went
from
not
knowing
what
an
engineer
was
to
having
an
idea
after
the
STEM
lessons,
and

some
students
who
categorized
an
engineer
with
trains
or
cars
displayed
shifts
to

components
connected
to
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons.
For
example,
the
pie
graphs
below

show
the
change
in
the
type
of
engineer
students
drew
and
understood
when
comparing

pre
and
post
assessments.
The
pie
charts
and
tables
with
corresponding
data
are
shown
on

the
following
pages.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

113

Figure
L

Distribution
of
Engineer
Type
for
All
Students
from
Pre-data

Note:
n=79

Table
4.9

Distribution
of
Engineer
Type
with
Percentages
for
All
Students
from
Pre-data

13

5

32

2

5

2

2

2

16

K-6th

(Pre-data)

Civil

Architectural

Mechanical

Fire

Train

Robotics

Aerospace

Chemical

NA

Engineer
Type (pre)
# of
Students
% Total
Students
Surveyed
Civil 13 16.5%
Architectural 5 6.3%
Mechanical 32 40.6%
Fire 2 2.5%
Train 5 6.3%
Robotics 2 2.5%
Aerospace 2 2.5%
Chemical 2 2.5%
NA 16 20.3%
STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

114

Figure
M

Distribution
of
Engineer
Type
for
All
Students
from
Post-data

Note:
n=79

Table
4.10

Distribution
of
Engineer
Type
with
Percentages
for
All
Students
from
Post-data

15

8

29

2

4

3

2

1
3

1

11

K-6th

(Post-data)

Civil

Architectural

Mechanical

Electrical

Robotics

Train

Aerospace

Environmental

Garden

Fire

NA

Engineer
Type (post)
# of
Students
% Total
Students
Surveyed
Civil 15 19%
Architectural 8 10.0%
Mechanical 29 36.8%
Electrical 2 2.5%
Robotics 4 5.1%
Train 3 3.8%
Aerospace 2 2.5%
Environmental 1 1.3%
Garden 3 3.8%
Fire 1 1.3%
NA 11 13.9%
STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

115

Additionally,
students’
categorical
perceptions
of
the
scientists
changed,
which
can

be
seen
in
the
table
below.

Table
4.11

Draw
an
Engineer
Checklist
from
Student
Drawings

To
effectively
qualify
the
drawings,
students
drawing
assessments
were
carefully

analyzed
for
changes
in
understanding
of
STEM.
Indications
of
changes
in
understanding

that
were
connected
to
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
were
noted.
In
the
following
section
of

chapter
four,
examples
of
students’
drawings
that
represent
their
understanding
of

engineers
will
be
shown
and
analyzed.
This
includes
pre
drawings
and
post
drawings
that

make
note
of
changes
that
cannot
be
measured
quantitatively.
There
are
no
Sixth
graders’

drawings
in
this
section
because
all
of
their
pre
and
post
drawings
maintained
similar

understandings
of
engineers
(no
notable
change
occurred).

Draw-‐an-‐Engineer
Checklist

Category/Item

Pre-‐
Assessment

Post-‐
Assessment

1.
Tools
36
35

2.
Hard
Hats
18
10

3.
Desk
15
8

4.
Computers
2
2

5.
Cars/Trains
37
29

6.
Airplanes/Rockets
1
1

7.
Robots
2
3

8.
Machines
11
9

9.
Building/House
17
19

10.
Bridges/Roads
5
1

11.
Test
tubes/Beakers
1
0

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

116

Figure
N1

Kindergartener
Pre-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Kindergartener
(k.e)
draws
people,
roads,
and
a
car,
and
quotes
pre-assessment,
“This

guy
made
a
potion.
This
guy
walked
into
the
road
and
got
killed
by
a
car.”

Figure
N2

Kindergartener
Post-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Kindergartener
(k.e)
draws
a
person,
door,
and
remote,
and
quotes
post-assessment,
“He

is
fixing
the
batteries
so
he
can
open
the
door
because
that
is
the
button
to
open
the
door.”

This
kindergartener
drew
two
figures:
one
holding
a
potion
and
another
who
was

hit
by
a
car
during
the
pre-‐assessment.
This
does
not
show
an
understanding
of

engineering,
but
more
of
a
confusion
with
science.
After
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
the

kindergartener
drew
electronic
components
and
said
the
person
drawn
was
“fixing”
it.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

117

Figure
O1

Second
Grader
Pre-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Second
grader
(2.c)
draws
a
person
labeled
“enganir”
pre-assessment.

Figure
O2

Second
Grader
Post-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Second
grader
(2.c)
draws
a
person,
house,
and
brick
and
quotes
post-assessment,
“I

need
a
door.”

This
second
grade
student
drew
a
female
standing
alone
and
labeled
her
“enganir”

for
the
pre-‐assessment,
showing
that
the
student
did
not
have
an
understanding
of

engineering.

After
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
the
second
grader
drew
a
person
with
a
hat

saying,
“I
need
a
door,”
and
labeled
an
item
“brick”
and
drew
a
house.
This
represents
an

understanding
of
engineering.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

118

Figure
P1

Third
Grader
ELL
Pre-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Third
grader
ELL
(3.f)
draws
a
person
and
fruit,
and
quotes
pre-assessment,
“Apples.

Banana.
The
girl
is
happy
to
see

fruit.”

Figure
P2

Third
Grader
ELL
Post-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Third
grader
ELL
(3.f)
draws
people
and
a
TV,
and
quotes
post-assessment,
“Man
who

fixes
wire.
That’s
a
TV.
An
engineer
fixing
the
TV.”

Prior
to
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
this
third
grade
student
drew
a
female
and
fruit

and
labeled
her
work,
“The
girl
is
happy
to
see
fruit.”
This
doesn’t
represent
an

understanding
of
engineering.
After
the
STEM-‐garden
lesson
this
student
drew
a
man
fixing

wire,
a
TV,
and
an
engineer
fixing
a
TV.
This
student’s
work
reflects
a
change
in
perceptions

of
engineering.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

119

Figure
Q1

Third-Fifth
Grader
Special
Day
Pre-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Third-Fifth
grader
special
day
(3-5.b)
draws
a
car
and
three
people,
and
quotes
pre-
assessment,
“Engineer.”

Figure
Q2

Third-Fifth
Grader
Special
Day
Post-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Third-Fifth
grader
special
day
(3-5.b)
draws
a
car
with
detailed
parts
and
two
people,

and
quotes
post-assessment,

“Person
who
called
to
get
car

fixed.
Pedals.
He
fixes
engine.

Engineer.”

This
third-‐fifth
grade
student
seemed
to
have
some
idea
of
engineering
before
the

STEM
lesson
when
a
car
and
people
were
drawn,
but
not
a
lot
of
detail
and
no
indication
of

outdoor
or
indoor
environment.
After
the
study,
this
student
drew
a
car
and
included
the

engine
and
pedals.
Also,
the
student
quoted
that
a
person
called
to
get
the
car
fixed
and
the

other
person
was
the
engineer
fixing
the
car
in
an
outdoor
space
with
trees
and
grass.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

120

Figure
R1

Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Pre-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Fourth/fifth
grader
gifted
(4-5.k)
draws
robots
and
a
person,
and
quotes
pre-
assessment,
“Spybug.
Subereen.
Robot
shark.”

Figure
R2

Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Post-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Fourth/fifth
grader
gifted
(4-5.k)
draws
a
person,
materials,
and
a
garden,
and
quotes

post-assessment,
“Paint.
Hammer.
Garden.”

This
fourth/fifth
grade
gifted
student
drew
a
person
with
robots,
demonstrating
an

understanding
of
engineering
before
the
research
study
began.
However,
after
the

implementation
of
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
the
student’s
drawing
reflected
an

understanding
of
how
gardening
is
connected
to
engineering
with
someone
building
a
sign

and
labeling
it
“Garden.”

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

121

Figure
S1

Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Pre-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Fourth/fifth
grader
gifted
(4-5.o)
draws
a
train
and
person
pre-assessment.

Figure
S2

Fourth/Fifth
Grader
Gifted
Post-Draw
an
Engineer

Note:
Fourth/fifth
grader
gifted
(4-5.o)
draws
a
person
putting
together
a
worm
bin
post-
assessment.

This
fourth/fifth
grade
gifted
student
drew
a
train
for
engineering
for
the
pre-‐
assessment.
This
shows
a
general
understanding
that
a
train
engineer
drives
trains.
After

the
STEM-‐garden
lessons,
the
student
drew
a
male
drilling
a
container
for
a
worm
bin,

which
was
a
direct
reflection
of
STEM
lesson
#6
and
shows
an
understanding
of

engineering
connected
to
gardening
and
compost
worm
bins.
STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

122

The
analysis
of
the
students’
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
Checklist
is
presented
below.

Table
4.12

Analysis
of
Student
Checklist

Paired
Samples
Statistics
(K-‐6th
Mean
N

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

t
df

Sig.

(2-‐
tailed)

'Draw
a
Scientist'
Checklist
-‐
Pre

Assessment
4.05
79
1.839
0.207
Pair

1
'Draw
a
Scientist'
Checklist
-‐
Post

Assessment
3.23
79
1.804
0.203

5.675
78
.000

'Draw
an
Engineer'
Checklist
-‐
Pre

Assessment
1.82
79
1.269
0.143
Pair

2
'Draw
an
Engineer'
Checklist
-‐
Post

Assessment
1.47
79
0.945
0.106

2.518
78
0.014

The
dependent
variable
for
the
study
of
students’
perceptions
of
STEM
is
the

drawings
from
the
Draw
a
Scientist/Engineer
Checklist
that
were
posed
to
gauge
students’

understanding
of
a
scientist
and
engineer.
The
main
effect
is
the
time
change,
from
October

to
December,
and
n=79
and
df=78.
Within
the
study,
Draw
a
Scientist
Checklist
had
a
mean

of
4.05
and
standard
deviation
of
1.839
pre-‐test,
and
a
mean
of
3.23
and
standard
deviation

of
1.804
post-‐test.
This
is
significant
at
the
0.000
level
with
a
t
statistic
of
5.675.
The
Draw

an
Engineer
Checklist
had
a
mean
of
1.82
and
standard
deviation
of
1.269
pre-‐test
and
a

mean
of
1.47
and
standard
deviation
of
0.945
post-‐test.
This
is
significant
at
the
0.014
level

with
a
t
statistic
of
2.518.

Interpretation
of
evidence
from
student
interviews
and
assessments.

The
themes
that
emerged
from
the
student
interviews
and
drawing
assessments

lead
to
evidence
that
answers
part
of
question
two
about
how
the
integration
of
a

garden-‐based
STEM
program
changes
student
perceptions
of
STEM.
The
major

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

123

theme
was
a
significant
shift
in
students’
understanding
of
engineering.
Although

quantitatively
there
was
not
a
significant
shift
in
students’
understanding
of
science,

there
were
changes
to
their
perceptions.
Some
students’
perceptions
shifted
to

include
components
of
earth
and
biological
sciences
and
the
perceptions
of
science

as
chemistry
decreased
overall.
Furthermore,
in
the
engineering
drawings,
students’

reflected
a
shift
in
perceptions
to
increase
civil
and
architectural
engineering

perceptions,
decrease
mechanical,
and
add
a
new
category
of
garden
engineering
in

post
drawings.
The
mixed-‐methods
analysis
of
students’
interviews,
drawings,
and

checklists
provided
a
thorough
analysis
of
students’
perceptions
of
STEM.

Research
Question
Three

Research
question
#3:
Will
elementary
students
that
participate
in
a
STEM-‐garden

curriculum
report
a
Transformative
Experience?

This
third
research
question
measures
students’
transformative
experience
with

STEM
to
determine
how
students
related
the
material
to
their
everyday
thinking
and
home

lives
in
comparison
from
before
and
after
the
implementation
of
a
six-‐week
STEM-‐garden

unit.
The
question
was
investigated
through
the
use
of
a
pre
and
post
TEM
assessment
tool.

Instruments
and
data
collection
methods.
The
Transformative
Experience

Measure
(TEM)
tool
(Pugh,
2010)
was
adapted
to
reflect
STEM
(Appendix
F).
The

adaptation
of
this
instrument
was
previously
adapted
by
Heddy
&
Sinatra
(2013)
for

science.
The
length
of
time
it
took
to
implement
the
TEM
tool
was
3-‐5
minutes
per
student.

The
TEM
tool
was
shortened
for
Kindergarten
students.
Also,
STEM
was
repeated
in
its
full

name:
Science,
Technology,
Engineering,
and
Math
for
students
in
Kindergarten,
second,

third
(ELL),
and
third-‐fifth
(Special
Day)
classes.
The
acronym
STEM,
was
defined
at
the

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

124

beginning
of
the
TEM
tool
for
fourth-‐fifth
(Gifted)
and
sixth
grade
students;
the
words
of

STEM
were
repeated
when
needed
according
to
each
student’s
need.
Students
listened
to
a

statement
about
STEM
and
answered
“yes”
or
“no”.
The
researcher
coded
yes=1
and
no=0.

This
quantified
the
TEM
tool
data
to
show
whether
or
not
there
was
a
significant
shift
in

students’
transformative
experiences
in
the
study.
The
data
was
entered
into
an
excel

spreadsheet
and
analyzed
with
a
paired-‐sample
t-‐test.
The
paired-‐sample
t-‐test
shows

whether
or
not
the
students
significantly
experienced
a
Transformative
Experience
from

before
and
after
the
implementation
of
the
garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum.
The
resulted

analysis
is
inserted
below.

Table
4.13

Analysis
of
TEM
Tool

Survey
(2nd
-‐
6th):

Paired
Samples
Statistics
&
Test

Mean
N

Std.

Deviation

Std.
Error

Mean

t
df

Sig.

(2-‐
tailed)

Motivated
Use
Items
-‐
Pre

Assessment
8.13
71
2.613
0.31

Pair
1

Motivated
Use
Items
-‐
Post

Assessment
7.94
71
2.39
0.284

0.788
70
0.434

Expansion
of
Perception

Items
-‐
Pre
Assessment
4.92
71
1.705
0.202

Pair
2

Expansion
of
Perception

Items
-‐
Post
Assessment
4.79
71
1.423
0.169

0.756
70
0.452

Experiential
Value
Items
-‐

Pre
Assessment
8.11
71
2.06
0.244

Pair
3

Experiential
Value
Items
-‐

Post
Assessment
8.04
71
1.84
0.218

0.38
70
0.705

Total
Survey
-‐
Pre

Assessment
21.15
71
5.681
0.674

Pair
4

Total
Survey
-‐
Post

Assessment
20.77
71
4.992
0.592

0.885
70
0.379

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

125

The
dependent
variable
for
the
study
of
students’
perceptions
of
STEM
is
the

answers
from
the
TEM
tool
that
were
posed
to
gauge
students’
Transformative
Experience.

The
main
effect
is
the
time
change,
from
October
to
December,
and
n=71
and
df=70.
The

TEM
tool
was
broken
into
three
sections.
The
total
TEM
tool
had
a
pre-‐test
mean
of
21.15

and
a
standard
deviation
of
5.681,
and
then
it
had
a
post-‐test
mean
of
20.77
with
a

standard
deviation
of
4.992.
This
is
not
a
significant
result
at
the
0.379
level
with
a
t

statistic
of
0.885.
Within
the
TEM
tool,
Motivated
Use
questions
had
a
mean
of
8.13
and

standard
deviation
of
2.613
pre-‐test
and
a
mean
of
7.94
and
standard
deviation
of
2.39

post-‐test.
This
is
not
significant
at
the
0.434
level
with
a
t
statistic
of
0.788.
The
Expansion

of
Perception
questions
had
a
mean
of
4.92
and
standard
deviation
of
1.705
pre-‐test
and
a

mean
of
4.79
and
standard
deviation
of
1.423
post-‐test.
This
is
significant
at
the
0.452
with

a
t
statistic
of
0.756.
The
Experiential
Value
questions
had
a
mean
of
8.11
and
standard

deviation
of
2.06
pre-‐test
and
a
mean
of
8.04
and
standard
deviation
of
1.84
post-‐test.
This

is
not
significant
at
the
0.705
level
with
a
t
statistic
of
0.38.

The
analysis
of
the
Kindergarten
TEM
tool
was
not
included
in
the
paired
sample
t-‐
test
above
because
they
had
a
survey
with
fewer
questions
to
make
it
more

developmentally
appropriate.
As
to
not
exclude
them
entirely
from
the
study,
the

Kindergarten
students’
data
will
be
displayed
with
pre
and
post
TEM
tool
results.
In
the

table
below
you
will
see
the
totals
for
pre
and
post
TEM
tool
sections
for
the
Kindergarten

survey.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

126

Table
4.14

Kindergarten
TEM
Tool
Pre
and
Post
Totals
by
Question

Survey
Results
(K)

Students
who

answered

"Yes"

Pre-‐Assessment
23

Motivated
Use
Items

Post-‐Assessment
20

Pre-‐Assessment
16

Expansion
of
Perception

Post-‐Assessment
15

Pre-‐Assessment
29

Experiential
Value
Items

Post-‐Assessment
28

Pre-‐Assessment
68

Total
Survey

Post-‐Assessment
63

Interpretation
of
evidence.
The
themes
that
emerged
from
the
TEM
tool
lead
to
no

evidence
for
question
three
about
if
students
report
a
transformative
experience
after

participating
in
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum.
The
results
were
not
significant
for
the
TEM

tool.
The
only
theme
that
emerged
was
that
students
reported
less
of
a
Transformative

Experience
after
the
curriculum
was
implemented.
Possible
reasons
for
this
negative
shift

will
be
discussed
in
chapter
five.

Summary

This
chapter
evaluated
the
themes
and
findings
from
three
central
research

questions
that
were
created
to
research
the
problem
of
a
lack
of
STEM
education
in
public

schools.
The
chapter
began
with
a
description
of
the
participants
and
which
question
their

participation
served
for
the
purpose
of
this
study.
The
two
Principals
and
two

administrators,
as
well
as
the
five
teachers,
were
demographically
described,
as
well
as
the

grade
level
and
gender
of
the
79
student
participants.
The
responses
to
interview
questions

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

127

from
administrators,
Principals,
and
teachers
were
examined
qualitatively
using

descriptive
analysis
to
designate
themes
amongst
the
adult
participant
responses.
The

student
data
was
analyzed
both
quantitatively
and
qualitatively
using
numerical
data
and

descriptive
analysis,
as
well
as
artifacts,
to
analyze
themes.

The
Principal
and
administrator
interview
responses
suggested
that
there
were

themes
in
the
private-‐public
partnership
between
a
non-‐profit
organization
and
two
large

public
elementary
schools.
Additionally,
the
teacher
interview
responses
indicated
growth

in
content
knowledge
in
science
and
engineering,
as
well
as
shifts
in
teacher
perceptions
of

STEM.
The
data
from
the
student
interviews,
drawings,
and
checklists
indicated
some

statistical
significance
in
student
perceptions
of
STEM,
while
other
areas
remained
static.

The
themes
link
the
research
questions
and
combined
with
the
data,
disclose
essential

findings
from
this
research.

The
insights
gained
by
this
research
will
contribute
to
the
lack
of
mixed-‐methods

data
in
existence
regarding
the
collaboration
of
STEM
programs
with
public
schools.
This

will
assist
educational
leaders
in
creating
relationships
to
supplement
their
curriculum

within
their
school
budgets.
This
research
will
also
assist
teachers
in
understanding
the

potential
positive
effects
of
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
on
their
students,
as
well
as
student

academic
perceptions
and
understandings
of
STEM.
Chapter
five
will
provide
an

interpretation
of
the
conclusions
and
data
and
compare
the
findings
with
prior
research.

The
findings
will
be
presented
in
a
manner
that
expands
the
knowledge
base
within
the

accompanying
literature
review.
In
addition,
implications
for
the
findings
and
suggestions

for
policy,
practice,
and
further
research
will
be
discussed,
and
are
all
founded
on
the

themes,
data,
and
findings
of
this
chapter.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

128

CHAPTER
FIVE:
DISCUSSION

The
purpose
of
this
chapter
is
to
synthesize
the
research
findings
by
comparing

them
with
previous
research
findings.
Chapter
five
begins
with
a
brief
summary
of
the

completed
study,
which
investigated
a
public-‐private
partnership
to
implement
STEM-‐
garden
curriculum
and
the
perceptions
of
teachers
and
students.
Conclusions
from
the
data

presented
in
chapter
four
will
be
related
to
the
literature
review
in
chapter
two.
After
the

summary,
this
chapter
will
be
organized
by
research
question
and
theme,
followed
by
a

discussion
of
how
the
findings
verify,
expand,
or
refute
other
findings
from
the
field.
The

chapter
concludes
with
implications
for
practice
and
recommendations
for
research,

followed
by
a
conclusion.

Summary
of
the
Study

This
research
was
conducted
primarily
to
discover
the
STEM
perceptions
of

educators
and
students
as
they
experienced
a
six-‐week
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
unit.

Included
in
the
study
was
an
investigation
of
the
partnership
between
EnrichLA
and
two

urban
public
schools,
providing
the
opportunity
for
the
curriculum
to
be
taught.
The

Obama
administration
and
national
foundations,
such
as
the
National
Science
Foundation

(NSF),
are
pushing
for
STEM
awareness
by
emphasizing
projects
and
programs
that

encourage
youth
to
connect
with
the
subject
matter
(Dejarnette,
2012).
A
component
of
the

students’
perceptions
was
Transformative
Experience,
which
was
measured
by
an

adaptation
of
the
TEM
tool
(Pugh,
2002).
Three
research
questions
were
used
to
direct
the

study:

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

129

1.
How
does
a
non-‐profit
organization
partner
with
a
large
urban
school
district
to
fund
a

garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum?

2.
How
does
the
integration
of
a
garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum
change
students’
and

teachers’
perceptions
of
STEM?

3.
Will
elementary
students
that
participate
in
a
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
report
a

Transformative
Experience?

The
methodology
of
this
research
includes
four
data
collection
instruments:
(1)

interviews,
(2)
drawings,
(3)
checklists,
and
(4)
the
TEM
tool.
The
findings
from
this

research
were
analyzed
qualitatively
and
quantitatively,
which
resulted
in
a
mixed-‐
methods
study.
Insight
gained
from
this
study
may
provide
a
model
for
stakeholders,
such

as
administrators,
Principals,
and
teachers,
interested
in
bringing
STEM
education
to

students.
Additionally,
findings
from
this
study
indicate
qualities
of
public-‐private

partnership
that
may
assist
school
districts
in
ascertaining
STEM
programs
that
are

appropriate
for
reaching
their
educational
goals.

Findings
and
Interpretations

The
findings
and
interpretations
of
this
study
will
be
presented
in
order
by
question

and
themes
discovered
therein.
Findings
will
be
compared
to
the
literature
review
in

chapter
two.

Question
One

The
evidence
from
Principal
and
administrator
interviews
answers
the
question
of

how
a
large
public
urban
school
partners
with
a
private
non-‐profit
organization
to
fund
a

STEM-‐garden
curriculum.
The
underlying
themes
that
emerged
were
culture
and
social

capitalism,
which
were
born
from
the
overarching
theme
of
a
hybrid
public-‐private

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

130

partnership.
Components
of
the
constructivist
philosophy
in
relation
to
STEM,
as
well
as

funding
and
contracting,
were
all
generated
and
supported
from
this
equal,
open,
and

collaborative
partnership
between
EnrichLA
and
two
urban
public
schools.

Hybrid
Public-Private
Partnerships.
The
hybrid
model
is
one
of
collaboration
for

the
public-‐private
partnerships
(PPP)
in
the
school
community
(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006)

where
both
parties
work
together
without
hierarchy
(Williamson,
2008).
Kanter’s

framework
(1994)
for
PPP
models
will
be
used
to
evaluate
the
partnership
between

EnrichLA
and
Green
and
Winston
Elementary
Schools
in
the
following
seven
categories:

Importance,
Interdependence,
Investment,
Information,
Integration,
Institutionalization,

and
Integrity.
The
Importance
of
the
partnership
is
to
improve
STEM
education
and
make
it

more
accessible
to
underrepresented
groups
as
indicated
by
The
Education
to
Innovate

campaign
of
2009
(Ludlow,
2013).
The
Interdependence
of
this
partnership
was
described

by
administrators
and
Principals
as
mostly
equal,
or
as
a
hybrid
partnership.
The

Investment
came
from
a
variety
of
sources
from
both
the
school
community
and
EnrichLA

efforts.
EnrichLA
funded
part
of
the
program
and
reduced
costs
to
Winston
and
Green

Elementary
through
grants
and
donations
given
to
the
non-‐profit.
Public
school
funding
for

the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
in
this
study
came
from
parent
fundraising
at
Green

Elementary
and
discretionary
accounts
from
parking
rentals
at
Winston
Elementary.

The

Information
about
EnrichLA’s
mission
and
programs
are
marketed
through
website

development,
social
media,
and
banners
at
partner
schools.
It
was
through
these
methods

that
parents
and
educators
from
Winston
and
Green
Elementary,
and
the
neighboring

communities,
learned
of
EnrichLA
and
approached
Principals
to
build
a
school
garden.
The

Integration
within
the
partnership
introduced
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
to
each
school.
The

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

131

public-‐private
partnership
between
the
schools
and
EnrichLA
benefited
the
community

and
influenced
students
and
teachers
as
described
by
Principals
and
administrators
during

their
interviews.
The
Institutionalization
of
this
partnership
was
solidified
through
an

informal
contract
called
a
Memorandum
of
Understanding
(MOU).
This
MOU
reflects
the

important
binding
components
of
STEM
curriculum
between
the
schools
and
EnrichLA.

The
MOU
ties
the
organizations
together
for
one
school
year
and
provides
one
Garden

Ranger
for
four
hours
each
week
at
a
cost
of
approximately
$6,500.
This
MOU
also
includes

the
costs
of
materials
for
teaching
and
two
garden-‐work-‐days
per
year.
The
Integrity
in
this

partnership
was
established
with
trust
and
confidence
(Davies
&
Hentschke,
2006),
as
well

as
a
rational
approach
to
developing
the
relationship
and
implementing
the
curriculum.

These
characteristics
as
identified
by
Kanter
(1994)
contribute
to
categorizing
a
hybrid

public-‐private
partnership
between
EnrichLA
and
Green
and
Winston
Elementary
Schools.

It
is
to
the
benefit
of
the
schools
to
engage
in
PPP
to
build
stronger
STEM
learning

environments
and
learning
opportunities
for
students
(Beatty,
2011).
Moreover,
it
is
to
the

benefit
of
EnrichLA
to
offer
STEM
lessons
as
part
of
their
program
curriculum
to
meet
the

needs
of
urban
public
schools
and
become
more
desirable
to
them.

To
further
understand
the
process,
Bryant
et
al.
(2013)
give
a
step-‐by-‐step
process

for
creating
a
STEM
program
(see
chapter
two
of
this
research
p.
27-‐28).
These
steps

include
finding
funding
and
determining
the
focus
and
format
of
the
program.
Funds
were

gathered
by
both
sides
of
the
partnership
from
a
variety
of
resources
including
grants,

donations,
and
discretionary
funds.
Subsidies
from
EnrichLA,
schools’
discretionary
funds,

assistance
from
the
PTA,
and
flexibility
with
covering
costs
from
school
to
school
made

funding
the
program
possible.
The
focus
of
the
program
was
to
use
STEM
to
bring
a

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

132

curriculum
to
students
and
teachers
that
was
not
previously
available.
The
format,

predetermined
by
EnrichLA,
was
to
teach
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
once
a
week
for
six

weeks.
Bryant
et
al.
(2013)
also
suggest
carefully
selecting
activities
and
planning
with

community
resources
and
location
in
mind.
The
activities
were
designed
according
to
the

Next
Generation
Science
Standards
(NGSS)
and
Common
Core
Standards
(CCS).
Additional

resources
were
offered
to
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
by
Green
Elementary
School
–

another
indication
of
the
depth
of
the
hybrid
partnerships.
Their
Principal
generously

offered
materials
from
Green’s
Foss
kits
with
the
understanding
that
they
would
also
be

used
for
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
at
Winston
Elementary.
The
lessons
were
developed

with
the
constructivist
approach,
as
STEM
education
is
grounded
in
constructivism
and

cognitive
science
(Sanders,
2009).
Constructivism
is
the
process
by
which
children
learn

through
internal
motivation
and
an
innate
desire
to
explore
and
engage
with
the

environment
to
develop
ideas
about
the
world
(National
Research
Council,
2012).
This

process
brings
depth
to
and
further
solidifies
students’
learning
in
comparison
to

traditional
classroom
methods
(Phalke,
Biller,
Lysecky,
Harris,
2009).
The
5E
lesson
plan

model
(Appendix
I)
was
used
to
implement
a
constructivist
approach
to
the
STEM-‐garden

lessons.
This
format
motivates
students
and
connects
with
the
student
populations
as

indicated
by
Bryant
et
al.
(2013).
Finally,
Bryant
et
al.
(2013)
suggest
gathering
data
from
a

new
STEM
program
for
research
and
further
funding,
which
was
the
basis
of
this
study.
The

steps
indicated
by
Bryant
et
al.
(2013)
were
followed
in
developing,
implementing,
and

researching
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum.

Social
Capital.
Kanter’s
framework
(1994)
described
above
contains
aspects
of

social
capital
theory
(Miller,
2010).
Social
capital
is
a
player
in
developing
public-‐private

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

133

partnerships,
and
social
capital
theory
(Miller,
2010)
was
relevant
in
the

relationship/partnership
between
EnrichLA
and
Green
and
Winston
Elementary.
The

advantages,
disadvantages,
and
outcomes
from
these
relationships
establish
a
buyer’s
or

supplier’s
social
capital
(Miller,
2010).
The
way
in
which
the
partnership
developed

between
EnrichLA
and
Winston
and
Green
Elementary
Schools
was
through
the
social

capital
of
EnrichLA.
Reputation
is
important
(Williamson,
1999)
and
is
built
from
a
history

of
positive
contacts
(North,
1999).
Parents
at
Green
Elementary
learned
of
the
benefits
of

EnrichLA’s
program
from
parents
at
other
schools
and
approached
the
Principal
to
build
a

garden
and
collaborate
with
the
non-‐profit.
In
a
public-‐private
partnership,
reputation

matters
as
there
is
more
to
gain,
but
also
more
to
lose
(Williamson,
1999).
At
Winston

Elementary
school,
community
members
found
EnrichLA
on
the
internet,
read
about
its

mission,
and
then
encouraged
Winston
to
partner
with
the
organization
and
build
a
school

garden.
As
described
by
the
Founder
of
EnrichLA,
the
way
in
which
the
organization

structures
its
relationships
greatly
impacted
its
social
capital
(Williamson,
1999).
Once
the

gardens
were
built
and
partnership
was
formed,
it
was
from
the
interest
in
expanding

curriculum
and
EnrichLA’s
social
capital
that
Principals
agreed
to
participate
in
the
STEM

research
and
pilot
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum.

Culture.
EnrichLA’s
administrators
and
Green
Elementary
School’s
Principal

identified
the
community
and
parent
groups
as
part
of
the
culture
of
the
programmatic
and

school
culture
vital
to
interest,
financial
backing,
garden
maintenance,
and
programming.

Blair
(2009)
states
that
gardening
positively
affects
socialization,
parent
participation,
and

sense
of
community.
Furthermore,
parents’
support
of
experiences
in
nature
with
their

children
directly
affects
the
young
mind’s
connection
with
the
natural
world
(Bruyere,
et

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

134

al.,
2012).
However,
Winston
Elementary
School’s
Principal
was
not
able
to
identify
the

culture
of
the
school,
which
has
less
parent
involvement
and
support
for
the
garden
in

comparison
to
the
dynamics
of
the
average
school
as
discussed
by
EnrichLA’s
Founder
and

Development
Director.
The
benefits
of
the
garden,
as
recognized
by
the
school
Principals

and
administrators
from
EnrichLA,
contribute
to
this
sense
of
community.
Furthermore,

the
administrators
and
Principals
foresaw
few
potential
risks,
with
Green
Elementary

School’s
Principal
discussing
risks
associated
with
any
partnership,
but
nothing
specific
to

EnrichLA.
These
themes
portray
the
dynamics
of
the
public-‐private
partnership
and
how

culture
influences
the
relationship.

Limitations.
Limitations
to
these
findings
include
small
sample
sizes
for
the

interviews,
which
are
not
easily
generalizable.
This
qualitative
portion
of
the
study
focuses

on
the
perceptions
from
two
public
school
Principals
and
two
private
non-‐profit

organization
administrators.
The
perspectives
and
opinions
of
these
two
Principals
do
not

necessarily
represent
those
of
all
public
school
Principals.
Furthermore,
while
the
two

Principals
interviewed
found
value
in
EnrichLA’s
programming
and
made
funding
and

resources
available
for
its
advancement,
not
all
Principals
might
find
similar
value
in
such
a

program
and
thus
would
be
inclined
to
distribute
funding
elsewhere.
Additionally,
not

every
city
has
access
to
an
organization
with
a
program
and
reputation
on
par
with

EnrichLA’s,
which
is
actually
quite
unique,
thus
limiting
the
possibility
of
similar
programs

being
implemented
and
assessed
in
other
schools.

Question
Two

The
evidence
from
teacher
and
student
interviews
and
student
assessments

answers
question
two
about
how
the
integration
of
a
garden-‐based
STEM
program
changes

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

135

teacher
and
student
perceptions
of
STEM.
The
themes
for
question
two
will
be
presented

below
in
detail.
The
mixed-‐methods
analysis
for
this
question
allowed
for
quantitative
and

qualitative
information
to
develop
into
themes.
The
major
theme
that
emerged
was
a
shift

in
perceptions
of
engineering
in
both
teachers
and
students.
Shifts
in
perceptions
of
science

emerged
as
well,
but
not
as
significantly.
Underlying
themes
include
confidence
and

content
knowledge,
student
and
teacher
influences,
and
benefits
and
challenges
of
STEM.

The
data
from
question
two
gives
evidence
to
shifts
in
teacher
and
student
perceptions
of

STEM-‐garden
curriculum.

Perceptions
in
engineering.
The
most
significant
evidence
and
theme
from
the

data
collected
for
question
two
was
a
shift
in
perceptions
of
engineering
for
both
teachers

and
students.
Increasing
a
teacher’s
or
student’s
understanding
of
engineering
also

increases
their
understanding
of
science.
Engineering
education
is
directly
tied
to
science

concepts,
and
states
such
as
Massachusetts
and
Texas
have
created
engineering
standards

in
recent
years
(Chandler,
Fontenot,
&
Tate,
2011;
Honey
et
al.,
2014).
The
teacher

interviews
were
analyzed
qualitatively,
while
the
student
interviews
and
drawings
were

analyzed
both
quantitatively
and
qualitatively.

Before
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
was
implemented,
three
of
the
five
teachers

interviewed
indicated
that
they
didn’t
have
an
understanding
of
engineering.
One
teacher

stated
that,
while
he
understood
the
topic,
he
would
need
a
curriculum
guide
to
teach
it.

Another
stated
that
they
understood
engineering
only
in
general
sense.
The
results
of
these

interviews
can
be
connected
to
literature
which
shows
that
the
profession
of
engineering
is

poorly
understood
by
the
public
(Chandler
et
al.,
2011).
Additionally,
most
teachers
don’t

have
engineering
training
(Lederman
&
Lederman,
2013);
in
this
study
all
of
the
teachers

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

136

referred
to
a
lack
of
training
or
knowledge
of
engineering
curriculum
in
their
interviews.

Since
most
of
the
teachers
didn’t
fully
understand
engineering
before
the
implementation

of
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,
it
allowed
space
for
perceptions
to
shift.
After
the
STEM-‐
garden
unit,
teachers
were
able
to
describe
lessons
they
observed
as
well
as
new
ideas
for

how
to
connect
engineering
to
gardening.
Furthermore,
this
study
shows
that
the

curriculum
not
only
increased
teacher
content
knowledge
in
engineering,
but
also

increased
their
confidence
in
teaching
the
subject.
All
teachers
reported
an
increase
in

engineering
confidence
after
the
STEM-‐garden
unit.

There
was
a
similar
trend
amongst
students’
perceptions
of
engineering.
The
means

of
the
interview
and
drawing
data
increased
significantly,
demonstrating
that
students’

understanding
of
engineering
increased.
Generally
speaking,
this
means
that
during

interviews,
more
students
answered
positively
regarding
understanding
of
engineering

after
participating
in
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,
demonstrating
that
the
curriculum
was

effective
in
influencing
their
understanding
of
STEM.
Examples
of
this
influence
are

revealed
when
analyzing
the
students’
drawings.
Prior
to
STEM-‐garden
curriculum

implementation,
some
students
showed
a
lack
of
understanding
by
drawing
pictures
that

were
not
related
to
engineering
and,
at
times,
answering
engineering-‐related
questions

with
“I
don’t
know,”
during
the
interview.
It
is
clearly
evidenced
in
the
drawings
that
after

STEM-‐garden
curriculum
implementation,
students
made
connections
to
the
idea
that

engineers
fix
things,
design
things,
and
work
with
tools
and
technology.
Some
even

connected
their
understanding
of
engineering
to
gardens,
plants,
animals,
and
other

elements
of
natural
science.
Knight
and
Cunningham
(2004)
used
the
same
interview

questions
and
drawing
assessment
tools
in
their
research
on
students’
ideas
about

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

137

engineering.
Similar
to
their
study,
this
research
found
that
the
majority
of
students
think

engineers
use
tools
to
fix
car
engines.
While
after
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons
knowledge
of

mechanical
engineering
still
outweighed
the
other
categories,
there
was
an
increase
in

understanding
of
architectural
engineering,
civil
engineering,
robotic
engineering,
and

categories
that
did
not
exist
in
the
pre-‐assessment,
such
as
garden
and
environmental

engineering.
The
results
from
this
study
indicate
that
students
preconceived
ideas
about

engineers
can
shift
to
include
new
understanding
about
engineering
when
exposed
to

STEM-‐garden
curriculum.
Students
with
no
understanding
of
engineering
can
gain
this

knowledge
after
the
STEM-‐garden
unit.

Perceptions
in
science.
The
shifts
in
perceptions
of
science
were
not
quantitatively

significant.
However,
when
analyzed
qualitatively,
influences
of
the
STEM-‐garden

curriculum
are
evident.
STEM
education
builds
the
skills
and
tools
needed
to
succeed
in
a

science
and
technology
driven
world
(Duran,
Hoft,
Lawson,
Medjahed,
&
Orady,
2014).

Breyere,
et
al.
(2012)
states
that
due
to
urbanization
and
a
lack
of
access
to
nature,
many

students
disconnect
and
lack
interest
in
natural
sciences.
Additionally,
Bruyere
et
al.

(2012)
found
that
lack
of
time
and
natural
space
create
barriers
for
teachers
who
teach,
or

would
like
to
teach,
natural
science.
Despite
the
presence
of
a
garden
at
Green
and
Winston

Elementary,
outside
of
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum
class
implemented
by
EnrichLA

Garden
Rangers,
teachers
rarely
brought
their
students
into
the
gardens,
which
are
closed

to
students
unless
a
teacher
is
present.
This
information
was
drawn
directly
from

Principals
and
teachers
from
the
two
schools
during
their
interviews.
According
to
Blaire

(2009),
teachers
express
a
lack
of
time,
knowledge,
experience,
and
interest
in
using
the

garden
for
instruction.
Similarly,
during
the
interviews
from
this
study,
teachers
indicated
a

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

138

lack
of
time
and
resources
to
teach
in
the
garden.
The
teacher
interviews
revealed
more

insight
into
teacher
perceptions
of
science
and
barriers
to
integrating
gardening
into

curriculum.

Prior
to
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,
all
of
the
teachers
expressed
an

understanding
of
gardening
at
some
level,
although
most
of
the
gardening
activities
were

classroom-‐based
and
indoors.
Teachers
mostly
described
seedling
activities
or
using

curriculum
from
Foss
kits
at
times,
but
beyond
that,
only
one
teacher
had
experience

teaching
in
the
garden
as
an
assistant.
Marcum-‐Dietrich,
et
al.
(2011)
found
that
even
when

teachers
have
planning
time,
resources,
and
spaces
for
teaching
science,
many
teachers
feel

they
lack
training
in
earth
sciences
and
confidence
in
the
subject
area.
This
study
indicated

that
exposure
to
the
six-‐week
STEM-‐garden
unit,
where
teachers
saw
STEM-‐garden

curriculum
in
action
with
teaching
strategies
modeled,
helped
teachers
to
imagine
new

possibilities
for
teaching
gardening
with
their
students.
In
one
instance,
the
Kindergarten

teacher
added
science
lessons
to
her
curriculum
after
witnessing
the
STEM-‐garden
unit.

The
STEM-‐garden
unit
did
not
make
the
teachers
feel
as
though
their
overall
content

knowledge
of
science
increased,
yet
four
out
of
five
still
expressed
an
increase
in

confidence
in
being
able
to
teach
gardening.
Additionally,
the
sixth
grade
teacher
found

connections
between
gardening
and
engineering
in
a
more
profound
way
after
the
STEM-‐
garden
lessons.
Overall,
the
findings
from
this
study
indicate
that
the
STEM-‐garden

curriculum
increased
teachers’
understanding
of
how
to
teach
gardening
and
increased
the

confidence
levels
of
a
majority
of
the
teachers.

The
shift
in
the
students’
perceptions
of
STEM
was
not
evidenced
by
the
paired-‐
sample
t-‐test,
as
no
significance
was
indicated,
however
the
qualitative
analysis
of
the

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

139

student
interviews
and
drawings
denoted
a
change.
Beatty
(2011)
states
that
non-‐
mainstream
students
need
to
develop
an
identity
to
science
and
engineering
that
is

reflected
in
their
culture
and
language.
Finson
(2002)
researched
the
last
50
years
of

Drawing-‐a-‐Scientist
studies
and
found
that
stereotypical
perceptions
of
scientists
exist

across
the
decades.
This
includes
the
stereotype
of
a
male
scientist
doing
chemistry.
Finson

(2002)
and
Finson,
Beaver,
and
Cramond
(1995)
suggested
that
in
order
to
shift

perceptions
of
science,
students
need
more
than
a
one-‐time
exposure
to
a
non-‐
stereotypical
science
teacher
and
experience,
which
is
what
the
STEM-‐garden
lessons

offered
over
the
course
of
the
2014
fall
semester.
In
this
study,
there
was
a
19%
decrease

in
the
drawing
of
males
after
the
implementation
of
STEM-‐garden
curriculum,
compared
to

drawings
made
prior
to
participation
in
the
unit.
Moreover,
there
was
a
decrease
in
the

number
of
students
who
drew
pictures
related
to
chemistry,
from
55
students
in
the
pre-‐
assessment
to
41
students
in
the
post-‐assessment.
There
was
also
an
increase
of
eight

students
who
drew
pictures
related
to
natural
sciences
and
additional
areas
of
science,

such
as
space
and
archeology.

The
results
from
this
study
indicate
that
students’
preconceived
ideas
about

scientists
shifted
in
terms
of
gender
and
the
chemistry
stereotype
after
being
exposed
to

STEM-‐garden
curriculum.

Limitations.
These
findings
contain
several
limitations
to
the
study.
Firstly
due
to

the
small
number
of
teachers
who
were
interviewed,
the
study
is
not
easily
generalizable
to

all
teachers.
However,
the
opinions,
perspectives,
and
experiences
of
these
teachers
can

serve
as
insight
to
other
educators.
Secondly,
the
inherent
nature
of
students’
perceptions,

as
shown
by
Finson,
Beaver,
and
Cramond
(1995)
limits
how
their
drawings
were

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

140

interpreted.
Students
may
have
multiple
perceptions
of
scientists
and
simply
draw

different
things
at
different
times
that
may
not
be
due
to
any
particular
treatment.
Finally,

Losh,
Wilke,
and
Pop
(2008)
indicate
the
importance
of
color
in
determining
things
like

race
of
the
people
in
students’
drawings.
However,
since
students
only
used
pencils
for

their
drawings
in
this
study,
race
of
the
scientist
and
engineers
could
not
be
determined.

Question
three:

The
Transformative
Experience
Measurement
(TEM)
tool
was
adapted
from
Pugh

(2002)
in
a
survey
used
with
high
school
students.
The
findings
from
the
TEM
tool
attempt

to
answer
question
three,
which
asked
if
students
would
report
a
transformative

experience
due
the
STEM-‐garden
curriculum.
The
results
from
students
was
not

statistically
significant.
In
fact,
students
reported
a
lower
Transformative
Experience
(TE)

on
the
post-‐assessment.
There
are
several
possibilities
for
this
negative
shift
in
TE,
which

will
be
discussed
in
the
following
paragraphs.

Lack
of
understanding
of
STEM.
During
the
implementation
of
the
TEM
tool,

students
were
read
each
statement
out
loud
and
instructed
to
answer
“yes”
or
“no”
if
it
was

true
for
them.
At
the
beginning
of
the
survey,
students
in
grades
four,
five,
and
six
were

given
the
meaning
of
the
acronym
STEM
(Science,
Technology,
Engineering,
and
Math),
and

were
then
asked
the
questions
using
the
acronym
STEM.
Students
in
grades
Kindergarten,

second,
third,
and
third-‐fifth
special
day,
were
instead
read
the
full
meaning,
“Science,

Technology,
Engineering,
and
Math,”
for
every
question.
This
was
to
remove
the

requirement
to
memorize
the
meaning
of
STEM
and
simplify
the
students’
processing
so

they
could
focus
on
the
question.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

141

Regardless
of
the
way
that
STEM
was
read
or
defined,
students
across
all
grades

reported
less
of
a
Transformative
Experience
after
the
curriculum.
A
possible
reason
for

this
negative
shift
is
that
students
simply
did
not
understand
the
entire
meaning
of
the

acronym,
“STEM,”
so
they
answered,
“Yes.”
This
is
a
common
phenomenon
amongst

students.
Once
the
students
had
experiences
with
STEM
and
understood
what
the
different

subject
areas
meant,
they
were
better
able
to
determine
their
interaction
with
the
subjects

and
report
more
accurately.
In
some
instances,
students
almost
entirely
answered,
“Yes,”

before
the
study,
which
left
little
room
for
growth
during
the
implementation
of
the

curriculum.
Did
the
students
actually
understand
what
they
were
answering?
This
research

does
not
have
any
further
insight
into
this
question.

Limitations:
One
major
limitation
of
the
TEM
tool
is
the
assumption
that
students

would
be
consistent
with
their
answers
to
the
survey.
As
discovered
in
this
research,

students
were
not
consistent.
Another
assumption
is
that
students
had
enough
of
an

understanding
of
STEM
education
during
the
pre-‐survey
to
answer
the
questions

competently.
This
assumption
also
led
to
negative
results
for
this
part
of
the
research.

Implications
for
Practice

The
implications
for
practice
from
this
research
provides
insight
for
various

stakeholders
in
education,
primarily
administrators
and
teachers,
and
explains
how
this

insight
benefits
students
and
meets
students’
needs.
Breiner
et
al.
(2012)
discusses
that

students
need
to
be
prepared
for
the
21
st

century,
as
33%
of
jobs
in
2015
are
connected
to

STEM.
In
addition,
the
importance
of
incorporating
green
outdoor
space
to
improve

student
test
scores,
behavior,
and
attention,
while
also
making
a
connection
to
nature
and

developing
sensitive
attitudes
towards
the
environment,
was
synthesized
in
the
literature

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

142

review
by
researchers
such
as
Armstrong
and
Impara
(1991),
Blair
(2009),
Bradley
et
al.

(1999;
2012),
Cheng
and
Monroe
(2012),
d’Alessio
(2012),
Eagles
and
Demare
(1999),

Mayer
and
Frantz
(2005),
Mozaffar
and
Miramoradi
(2012),
Tanner
(2010),
and
Taylor
et

al.
(2002).
This
study
provides
implications
for
practice
that
guide
administrators
through

approaches
that
meet
the
student
need
for
STEM
education
and
experiences
in
green

outdoor
space.

Firstly,
this
research
serves
as
an
example
for
other
schools
to
perceive
the
PPP
as
a

model
to
follow
in
their
own
community.
As
indicated
in
the
literature
review
section
of

this
research
paper,
there
is
little
to
no
research
on
the
contracting
of
STEM
programs
in

schools.
This
study
illustrates
the
process
of
making
community
connections
and
finding

resources
for
funding
for
natural
science
and
STEM
programs.
This
research
also

demonstrates
to
public
schools
how
to
enter
into
partnerships
with
private
programs
that

allow
for
more
flexibility
in
curriculum.
It
suggests
that
private
organizations
use
social

capital
to
gain
new
partnerships
with
public
schools,
and
that
the
school
culture
supports

the
partnership.
Secondly,
public-‐private
partnerships
give
schools
the
chance
to
fill
the

gaps
in
their
structured
school-‐wide
curriculum
which
often
excludes
STEM.
Private

organizations
can
bring
in
experts
with
content
knowledge
and
confidence
to
teach
STEM.

Partnering
with
a
private
organization
also
influences
the
knowledge
of
their
teaching
staff

and
can
increase
interest,
awareness,
and
skill
amongst
school
staff
in
subjects
outside

their
typical
school
day.
Thirdly,
this
study
implies
that,
since
the
STEM
curriculum
was

connected
with
a
school
garden,
the
increase
of
student
learning
could
have
been
positively

affected
by
the
outdoor
green
space.
This
is
implied
because
previous
research
has
shown

that
behaviors
needed
for
successful
classroom
learning,
such
as
focus
and
attention
span,

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

143

are
positively
affected
by
nature.
Findings
from
Taylor
et
al.
(2002)
emphasize
how

children’s
self-‐control
and
self-‐discipline
are
positively
affected
by
a
view
of
green
space.

This
research
further
implies
that
students
who
depict
non-‐stereotypical
drawings

of
scientists
and
engineers
may
have
higher
self-‐esteem.
Finson
(2002)
studied
the
Draw-‐a-‐
Scientist
tool
and
found
that
students
who
depict
non-‐stereotypical
drawings
of
scientists

have
more
positive
self-‐efficacy.
This
may
be
because
they
see
the
value
of
their
own

culture
and/or
race,
and
ultimately
see
themselves
as
a
scientist
or
engineer,
or
with
the

potential
to
become
one.

Finally,
this
research
implies
that
teachers
need
more
training
in
STEM
education
to

prepare
students
for
career
opportunities
in
engineering
and
technology
that
are
rapidly

increasing
with
the
21
st

century.
Research
by
Phalke
(2009)
shows
that
many
engineers
are

retiring
without
enough
trained
individuals
to
replace
them.
If
teachers
understand

engineering
and
are
able
to
create
lessons
that
are
challenging
and
intriguing
to
students,

then
an
interest
in
pursuing
engineering
as
a
career
will
be
facilitated,
as
clearly
expressed

in
this
study
by
the
third
grade
teacher
and
his
students’
experiences.

Recommendations
for
Research

Recommendations
for
research
include
suggestions
for
improving
this
study
if
it

was
to
be
repeated,
as
well
as
suggestions
for
research
that
emerged
from
findings.
It
is

important
to
remember
that
creating
time
and
finding
funding
for
research
in
the
natural

sciences
can
be
challenging
because
schools
have
to
do
more
with
less
money
to
increase

student
achievement
(Silber
&
Condra,
2013).
However,
as
administrators
and
Principals

tap
into
the
various
STEM
resources
and
connect
STEM
to
nature,
funding
for
natural

sciences
becomes
available.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

144

Recommendations
for
improving
this
particular
study
include
increasing
the

number
of
Principals
and
teachers
interviewed.
This
would
allow
for
the
opportunity
to
see

if
the
same
themes
emerge
in
the
dynamics
of
how
the
public-‐private
partnership
is

created
and
sustained,
and
how
the
curriculum
impacts
teachers.
Greater
generalizations

could
be
made
with
more
participants
in
the
interview
process,
and
other
potential

avenues
for
funding
and
creating
partnerships
could
be
identified.

A
very
specific
recommendation
regarding
collecting
student
data
is
including

crayons
or
markers
in
the
data
gathering
process.
When
students
are
offered
crayons
or

markers
to
draw
with,
they
can
add
color,
which
would
allow
race
to
be
determined
from

their
drawings.
This
would
help
to
look
deeper
and
gain
a
better
understanding
of
how

students
see
themselves
and
their
culture
in
the
role
of
a
scientist
or
engineer.

Furthermore,
to
expand
the
lessons,
teachers
could
bring
in
literature
and
pictures
that

depict
various
races
and
genders
in
the
role
of
a
scientist
and
engineer,
as
well
as
help

students
find
STEM-‐related
organizations
in
their
neighborhood
with
which
they
could

connect
to
bring
in
more
experts
of
varied
race
and
gender.
Teachers
could
facilitate

student
research
and
greater
understanding
of
STEM
in
their
community
by
encouraging

written
and/or
oral
communication
(e.g.
letters,
interviews,
surveys,
etc.)
between
their

students
and
these
organizations.

Another
recommendation
for
this
study
is
to
use
more
accurate
tools
when

quantifying
student
data.
The
paired
sample
t-‐test
is
a
measurement
tool
that
works
best

with
groups
closer
to
100,
although
numbers
over
30
will
produce
accurate
results

(Pallant,
2010).
Suggestions
for
further
research
include
using
the
McNemar’s
test,
which
is

ideal
for
researchers
who
have
repeated
measure
designs
pre-‐test
and
post-‐test
with
two

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

145

variables
(before
and
after
an
intervention)
and
with
only
two
response
options
(1/0;

yes/no;
present/absent)
(Pallant,
2010).
Additionally,
the
TEM
tool
would
need

modifications
to
measure
Transformative
Experiences
more
accurately.
Heddy
and
Sinatra

(2013)
used
the
TEM
tool
with
undergraduate
students,
while
Pugh
(2011)
outlined
a

study
done
with
fifth
graders,
followed
by
high
schoolers
in
2002.
It
may
be
beneficial
to

explore
a
more
developmentally
appropriate
tool
for
young
urban
youth
that
considers

students’
language
barriers
and
processing
skills.
For
example,
a
qualitative
analysis
of

Transformative
Experience
could
be
completed
by
observing
children
before,
during,
and

after
the
intervention,
using
a
checklist
to
note
any
changes
in
a
Transformative

Experience,
rather
than
using
a
survey
or
quantitative
measurement
tool.

Recommendations
for
research
beyond
this
study
include
completing
a
comparative

study.
In
this
case,
two
randomly
selected
groups
of
students
could
engage
in
STEM-‐garden

lessons,
but
with
one
group
studying
indoors
and
the
other
outdoors.
This
could
provide

insight
into
the
influence
of
the
green
environment
for
teaching
STEM
and
to
what
extent
it

influences
the
shift
in
students’
STEM
perceptions.

Finally,
it
is
difficult
to
expect
a
new
or
even
experienced
teacher
to
have
the

pedagogical
content
knowledge
in
all
four
subject
matters
to
effectively
teach
STEM

(Sanders,
2009).
Teachers
need
better
preparation
and
training
in
the
STEM
fields
to

improve
K-‐12
curriculum.
Currently,
engineering
is
not
part
of
teacher
preparedness

programs
at
the
undergraduate
level
(Chandler,
Fontenot,
&
Tate,
2011).
To
improve
STEM,

pre-‐service
teachers
need
to
be
educated
in
scientific
inquiry,
problem-‐based
learning,

engineering
design,
and
technological
activities.
Also,
veteran
teachers
need
staff

development
so
that
all
teachers
develop
self-‐efficacy
in
STEM
instructional
methods

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

146

(Dejarnette,
2012).
A
study
that
focuses
more
on
a
teacher
intervention,
as
opposed
to
a

student
intervention,
could
show
the
growth
and
shift
in
teachers’
understanding
and

competence
in
STEM
required
to
teach
STEM
lessons
independently.

Conclusion

This
study
attempted
to
understand
two
problems:
(1)
the
lack
of
access
to
green

space
and
natural
science
in
urban
school
settings,
and
(2)
the
extent
to
which
students
are

prepared
for
the
demands
of
today’s
society
with
STEM
education
experiences.
In
order
to

support
a
healthy
planet
and
the
lives
of
all
people,
a
global
perspective
on
environmental

topics
needs
more
attention
(Bruyere
et
al.,
2012).
As
the
world
shifts
and
technology

develops
at
rapid
rates,
the
STEM
field
will
continue
to
grow
to
meet
the
demands
of
a

high-‐tech
global
economy
(Dejarnette,
2012).
Although
limited
in
administrator,
Principal,

and
teacher
sample
size,
many
of
the
findings
in
this
study
appear
to
shed
light
on
the

relationship
between
public-‐private
partnerships
and
the
influence
of
observing
STEM-‐
garden
lessons.
These
findings
create
an
opportunity
for
future
researchers
to
broaden
the

scope
of
studies
of
other
partnerships
and
study
how
private
supplemental
programs
are

connected,
funded,
and
made
sustainable
in
public
schools.

This
study
fulfilled
part
of
the
need
for
more
research,
as
suggested
by
Brown

(2012),
in
STEM
education
with
descriptive
classroom
applications
for
practicing
teachers

and
rigorous
qualitative
and
quantitative
research
projects,
as
well
as
the
need
for
studies

analyzing
student
performance
and
engagement
in
K-‐12
classrooms
using
STEM

instructional
methods
(Brown,
2012).
The
student
sample
size
was
large
enough
to
make

generalizations
for
future
research
in
shifting
students’
perceptions
of
STEM
to
better

prepare
them
for
the
demands
of
the
21
st

century.
This
research
also
shed
light
into

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

147

students’
stereotypical
and
cultural
understandings
of
scientists
and
engineers.
Further

research
in
understanding
how
influential
the
green
space
is
on
students’
understanding
of

STEM
could
provide
evidence
to
support
more
exposure
to
nature
at
school.
As
Albert

Einstein
stated,
“Look
deep
into
nature,
and
then
you
will
understand
everything
better.”

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

148

References

Armstrong,
J.
B.
&
Impara,
J.
C.
(1991).
The
impact
of
an
environmental
education
program

on
knowledge
and
attitude.
Journal
of
Environmental
Education,
22(4),
36-‐40.

Beatty,
A.
(2011).
Successful
STEM
education:
A
workshop
summary.
Washington,
DC:

National
Academies
Press.

Bismack,
A.
S.,
Arias,
A.
M.,
Davis,
E.
A.,
Palincsar,
A.
S.
(2014).
Connecting
curriculum

matierals
and
teachers:
Elementary
science
teachers’
enactment
of
a
reform-‐based

curricular
unit.
Journal
of
Science
Teacher
Education,
25,
489-‐512.

Blaire,
D.
(2009).
The
child
in
the
garden:
An
evaluative
review
of
the
benefits
of
school

gardening.
The
Journal
of
Environmental
Education,
40(2),
15-‐38.

Bogdan,
R.
C.
&
Biklen,
S.
K.
(2007).
Chapter
3:
Fieldwork
&
Chapter
4:
Qualitative
Data.

Qualitative
research
for
education:
An
introduction
to
theories
and
methods
(5
th

ed.,

pp.
82-‐157).
Boston:
Allyn
and
Bacon.

Bradley,
J.
C.,
Waliczek,
T.
M.,
&
Zajicek,
J.
M.
(1999).
Relationship
between
environmental

knowledge
and
environmental
attitude
of
high
school
students.
The
Journal
of

Environmental
Education,
30(3),
17-‐21.

Breiner,
J.
M.,
Johnson,
C.
C.,
Harkness,
S.
S.,
&
Kochler,
C.
M.
(2012).
What
is
STEM?
A

discussion
about
conceptions
of
STEM
in
education
and
partnerships.
School
Science

and
Mathematics,
112(1),
3-‐11.

Brewer,
D.J.,
Hentschke,
G.C.,
and
Eide,
E.R.
(2010).
Theoretical
concepts
in
the
economics

of
education.
In
D.
Brewer
&
P.
McEwan
(Eds.),
Economics
of
education
(3-‐8).
San

Diego,
CA:
Academic
Press

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

149

Brown,
J.
(2012).
The
current
status
of
STEM
education
research.
The
Journal
of
STEM

Education,
13(5),
7-‐11.

Bruyere,
B.
L.,
Wesson,
M.,
&
Teel,
T.
(2012).
Incorporating
environmental
education
into

an
urban
after-‐school
program
in
New
York
city.
International
Journal
of

Environmental
Science
&
Science
Education,
7(2),
327-‐341.

Bryant,
K.
E.,
Davis,
B.,
&
Hardin,
S.
E.
(2013).
Making
STEM
fun:
How
to
organize
a
STEM

camp.
Teaching
Exceptional
Children,
Mar/Apr,
60-‐67.

Carr,
W.
&
Kemmis,
S.
(1986).
Becoming
critical:
Education,
knowledge
and
action
research.

Lewes:
Falmer.

Chandler,
J.,
Fontenot,
A.
D.,
Tate,
D.
(2011).
Problems
associated
with
a
lack
of
cohesive

policy
in
K-‐12
pre-‐college
engineering.
Journal
of
Pre-College
Engineering
Education

Research,
1(1),
40-‐48.

Creswell,
J.
W.
(2003).
Research
design:
Qualitative,
quantitative,
and
mixed
methods

approaches,
(2
nd

ed.).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage
Publications.

D’Alessio,
M.
A.
(2012).
Schoolyard
geology
as
a
bridge
between
urban
thinkers
and
the

natural
world.
Journal
of
Geoscience
Education,
60,
106-‐113.

Davison,
D.
M.,
Miller,
K.
W.,
&
Metheny,
D.
L.
(1995).
What
does
integration
of
science
and

mathematics
really
mean?
School
Science
and
Mathematics,
95(5),
226-‐230.

Davies,
B.
&
Hentschke,
G.
(2006).
Public-‐private
partnerships
in
education:
Insights
from

the
field.
School
Leadership
and
Management,
26(3),
205-‐226.

Dejarnette,
N.
K.
(2012).
America’s
children:
Providing
early
exposure
to
STEM
(Science,

technology,
engineering
and
math)
initiatives.

Education
133(1),
77-‐84.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

150

Duran,
M.,
Hoft,
M.,
Lawson,
D.
B.,
Mediahed,
B.,
Orady,
E.
A.,
(2014).
Urban
high
school

students/
IT/STEM
learning:
Findings
from
a
collaborative
inquiry
and
design-‐
based
afterschool
program.
Journal
of
Science
Education
and
Technology,
23,
116-‐
137.

Durie,
R.
(1997).
Interview
with
Howard
Garnder
[Word
Document].
Retrieved
from

http://www.edutopia.org/multiple-‐intelligences-‐howard-‐gardner-‐video

Eagles,
P.
F.
J.
&
Demare,
R.
(1999).
Factors
influencing
children’s
environmental
attitudes.

The
Journal
of
Environmental
Education,
30(4),
33-‐37.

Fink,
A.
(2009).
How
to
conduct
surveys:
A
step-by-step
guide,
(4
th

ed.).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:

Sage
Publications.

Finson,
K.
D.
(2002).
Drawing
a
scientist:
What
we
do
and
do
not
know
after
fifty
years
of

drawings.
School
Science
and
Mathematics,
102(7),
335-‐345.

Finson,
K.
D.,
Beaver,
J.
B.,
&
Cramond,
B.
L.
(1995).
Development
and
field
test
of
a
checklist

for
the
draw-‐a-‐scientist
test.
School
Science
and
Mathematics,
95(4),
195-‐205,

Heddy,
B.C.
&
Sinatra
,
G.
M.
(2013).
Transforming
misconceptions:
Using
transformative

experience
to
promote
positive
affect
and
conceptual
change
in
students
learning

about
biological
evolution.
Science
Education,
97(5),
723-‐744.

Honey,
M.,
Pearson,
G.,
&
Schweingruber,
H.
(2014).
STEM
integration
in
K-‐12
education;

Status,
prospects,
and
an
agenda
for
research.
National
Academy
of
Engineering
and

National
Research
Council.
Washington
DC:
The
National
Academies
Press.

Knight,
M.
&
Cunningham,
C.
(2004).
Draw
an
engineer
test
(DAET):
Development
of
a
tool

to
investigate
students’
ideas
about
engineers
and
engineering.
American
Society
of

Engineering
Education
Annual
Conference
&
Exposition.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

151

Lederman,
N.
G.
&
Lederman,
J.
S.
(2013).
Is
it
STEM
or
“S
&
M”
that
we
truly
love?
Journal

of
Science
Teacher
Education,
24,
1237-‐1240.

Levitt,
S.
D.
&
Dubner,
S.
J.
(2005).
Freakonomics:
A
rogue
economist
explores
the
hidden
side

of
everything.
New
York:
Harper
Collins.

Losh,
S.
C.,
Wilke,
R.,
&
Pop,
M.
(2008).
Some
methodological
issuses
with
“draw
a
scientist

tests”
among
young
children.
International
Journal
of
Science
Education,
30(6),
773-‐
792.

Louv,
Richard.
(2005).
Last
child
in
the
woods:
Saving
our
children
from
nature-deficit

disorder.
Chapel
Hill,
NC:
Algonquin
Books
of
Chapel
Hill.

Ludlow,
B.
(2013).
Growing
STEM
as
a
pathway
to
the
future.
Teaching
Exceptional

Children
45(4),
4.

Marcum-‐Dietrich,
N.,
Marquez,
L.,
Gill,
S.
E.,
&
Medved,
C.
(2011).
No
teacher
left
inside:

Preparing
a
new
generation
of
teachers.
Journal
of
Geoscience
Education,
59(1),
1-‐4.

Maxwell,
J.
(2013).

Qualitative
research
design:

An
interactive
approach
(3
rd

Ed.).

Los

Angeles:
Sage
Publications.

Mayer,
F.
S.
&
Frantz,
C.
M.
(2005).
The
connectedness
to
nature
scale:
A
measure
of

individuals’
feeling
in
community
with
nature.
Journal
of
Environmental
Psychology,

24,
503-‐515.

McMahon,
W.W.
(2010).
The
external
benefits
of
education.
In
D.
Brewer
&
P.
McEwan

(Eds.),
Economics
of
education
(68-‐80).
San
Diego,
CA:
Academic
Press.

Merriam,
S.
B.
(2009).
Qualitative
research:
A
guide
to
design
and
implementation.
San

Francisco:
Jossey-‐Bass.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

152

Miller,
P.
M.
(2010).
Community-‐based
education
and
social
capital
in
an
urban
afterschool

program.
Education
and
Urban
Society,
44(1),
35-‐60.

Mozafar,
F.
&
Mirmoradi,
S.
S.
(2012).
Effective
use
of
nature
in
educational
space
design.

Organization,
Technology
and
Management
in
Construction
–
An
International

Journal,
4(1),
381-‐392.

National
Research
Council.
(2012).
A
framework
for
K-12
science
education.
Washington,

DC:
The
National
Academies
Press.

NMC
Horizon
Report:
2013
K-‐12
Edition.
(2013).

North,
D.
C.
(1999)
Transaction
cost
theory
of
politics,
Journal
of
Theoretical
Politics,
2(4),

355-‐357.

Nugent,
G.,
Barker,
B.,
Grandgenett,
N.,
&
Adamchuk,
V.
I.
(2010).
Impact
of
robotics
and

geospatial
technology
intervention
on
youth
STEM
learning
and
attitudes.
Journal
of

Research
Technology
in
Education,
42(4),
391-‐408.

Odden,
A.
R.
&
Picus,
L.
O.
(2014).

School
Finance:
A
policy
perspective
(5
th

Ed.).
New
York:

McGraw-‐Hill.

Pallant,
J.
(2010).
SPSS
survival
manual
(4
th

Ed.).
New
York:
McGraw-‐Hill.

Pang,
J.
&
Good,
R.
(2000).
A
review
of
the
integration
of
science
and
mathematics:

implications
for
the
further
research.
School
Science
and
Mathematics,
100(2),
73-‐82.

Phalke,
A.,
Biller,
M.,
Lysecky,
S.,
&
Harris,
C.
(2009).

Non-‐expert
construction
of

customized
embedded
systems
to
enhance
STEM
curricula.
Special
Interest
Group
on

Embedded
Systems,
6(1).

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

153

Pugh,
K.
J.
(2002).
Teaching
for
transformative
experiences
in
science:
An
investigation
of

the
effectiveness
of
two
instructional
elements.
Teachers
College
Record,
104(6),

1101-‐1137.

Pugh,
K.
J.
(2010).
Motivation,
learning,
and
transformative
experience:
A
study
of
deep

engagement
in
science.
Wiley
Periodicals,
Inc.
Science
Education,
94,
1-‐28.

Pugh,
K.
J.
(2011).
Transformative
experience:
An
integrative
construct
in
the
spirit
of

Deweyan
pragmatism.

Educational
Psychologist,
46(2),
107-‐121.

Pugh,
K.
J.,
Linnenbrink-‐Garcia,
E.
A.,
Koskey,
K.
L.
K.,
Stewart,
V.
C.,
&
Manzey,
C.
(2010).

Teaching
for
transformative
experiences
and
conceptual
change:
A
case
study
and

evaluation
of
high
school
biology
teacher’s
experience.
Cognition
and
Instruction,
28,

273-‐316.

Rice,
J.K.,
Monk,
D.H.,
and
Zhang,
J.
(2010).
School
finance:
An
overview.

In
D.
Brewer
&
P.

McEwan
(Eds.),
Economics
of
education
(214-‐220).
San
Diego,
CA:
Academic
Press.

Sanders,
M.
(2009).
Integrative
STEM
education:
Primer,
The
Technology
Teacher,
20-‐26.

Sattelmair,
J.
&
Ratey,
J.
J.
(2009).
Physically
active
play
and
cognition:
An
academic
matter?

American
Journal
of
Play,
365-‐374.

Silber,
J.
&
Condra,
P.
(2013).
Education
and
training.
New
York,
NY:
BMO
Capital
Markets.

STEM
education
funding
in
the
2014
budget.
(2013).
Society
of
Women
Engineers.
Retrieved

March
15,
2014,
from
http://alltogether.swe.org/blog/stem-‐education-‐funding-‐in-‐
the-‐2014-‐budget.html

Tanner,
D.
(2010).
Fifth
graders’
knowledge,
attitudes,
and
behavior
toward
habitat
loss

and
landscape
defragmentation.
Human
Dimensions
of
Wildlife:
An
International

Journal,
15(6),
418-‐432.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

154

Taylor,
A.
F.,
Kuo,
F.
E.,
&
Sullivan,
W.
C.
(2002).
Views
of
nature
and
self-‐discipline:

evidence
from
inner
city
children.
Journal
of
Environmental
Psychology,
22,
49-‐63.

Thomas,
J.
A.,
Pedersen,
J.
E.,
Finson,
K.
(2001).
Validating
the
draw-‐a-‐science-‐teacher-‐test

checklist
(DASTT-‐C):
Exploring
mental
models
and
teacher
beliefs.
Journal
of
Science

Teacher
Education,
12(3),
295-‐310.

Tyler-‐Wood,
T.,
Ellison,
A.,
Lim,
O.,
&
Periathiruvadi,
S.
(2012).
Bringing
up
girls
in
science

(BUGS):
The
effectiveness
of
an
afterschool
environmental
science
program
for

increasing
female
students’
interest
in
science
careers.
Journal
of
Science
Education

and
Technology,
21,
46-‐55.

doi:10.1007/s10956-‐001-‐9279-‐2

Wang,
H.H.,
Moore,
T.J.,
Roehrig,
G.
H.,
&
Park,
M.
S.
(2011).
STEM
integration:
Teacher

perceptions
and
practice.
Jounral
of
Pre-College
Engineering
Research
1(2),
1-‐13.

doi:10.5703/1288284314636

Wells,
N.
(2000).
At
Home
With
Nature:
Effects
of
“Greenness”
on
Children’s
Cognitive

Functioning.
Environment
and
Behavior,
32(6),
775-‐795.

Williamson,
O.
E.
(1999).
Public
and
private
bureaucracies:
A
transaction
cost
economics

perspective.
Journal
of
Law,
Economics,
&
Organization,
15I(1),
306-‐342.

Williamson,
O.
E.
(2008).
Outsourcing:
transaction
cost
economics
and
supply
chain

management.
Journal
of
Supply
Chain
Management,
44(2),
5-‐16.

Wilson,
E.
(1984).
Biophilia.
Cambridge,
MA.
Harvard
University
Press.

Yang,
K.
Hsieh,
J.
Y.
Li,
T.
S.
(2009).
Contracting
capacity
and
perceived
contracting

performance:
Nonlinear
effects
and
the
role
of
time.
Public
Administration
Review,

69(4),
681-‐696.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

155

Zhai,
J.,
Jocz,
J.
A.,
Tan,
A.
L.
(2013).
‘Am
I
like
a
scientist?’:
Primary
children’s
images
of

doing
science
in
school.
International
Journal
of
Science
Education,
36(4),
553-‐576.

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

156

Appendix
A

Principal
Interview
Protocol

Interviewer:
Traci
Demuth
(8707
Falmouth
Ave,
Playa
del
Rey,
CA
90293)

Interviewee:
___________________________________________
Date:
______________

School:
_________________________________________________
Start
Time:
__________

Current
Job
Title:
______________________________________
End
Time:
___________

I
am
interested
in
finding
out
more
about
your
school
demographics
and
culture,
as
well
as

understanding
how
your
school
entered
into
partnership
with
EnrichLA.
I
am
using
this

information
to
inform
my
research
in
understanding
public-‐private
school
partnerships

between
public
schools
and
private
organizations.
Your
answers
will
help
with
the
first

question
in
my
dissertation:

How
does
a
non-‐profit
organization
partner
with
a
large
urban
school
district
to

fund
a
garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum?

This
recording
will
be
kept
confidential
and
only
used
for
purposes
related
to
this
study.

This
interview
will
take
about
20-‐30
minutes.

Do
I
have
your
consent
to
record
this
interview?
Do
you
have
any
questions
before
we

start?

Yes/No

Yes/No

1. How
many
years
you
have
been
a
principal
at
this
school?
How
many
years
total

experience
do
you
have
being
a
principal?

2. What
are
the
ethnic
and
special
needs
demographics
at
your
school?

3. How
would
you
describe
your
school
culture?

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

157

4. How
did
your
school
enter
into
partnership
with
EnrichLA?

5. How
would
you
describe
this
partnership?
For
example,
is
your
school
or
EnrichLA

controlling
the
partnership,
or
is
it
an
equal
collaboration?

6. Why
did
you
choose
to
partner
with
EnrichLA?

7. Do
you
foresee
any
risks
with
this
partnership,
or
have
you
already
experienced
a

risk?

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

158

8. Did
you
enter
into
a
formal
contract
with
EnrichLA?
If
so,
who
developed
the

contract?

9. How
is
the
EnrichLA
program
funded?

10. Do
you
plan
on
continuing
the
partnership
with
EnrichLA
in
the
future?
If
so,
how

will
that
be
funded?

11. How
does
this
partnership
benefit
your
students
and
teachers?

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

159

Administrator
Interview
Protocol

Interviewer:
Traci
Demuth
(8707
Falmouth
Ave,
Playa
del
Rey,
CA
90293)

Interviewee:
___________________________________________
Date:
______________

Organization:
__________________________________________
Start
Time:
__________

Current
Job
Title:
______________________________________
End
Time:
___________

I
am
interested
in
finding
out
more
about
your
organization’s
culture,
as
well
as

understanding
how
your
organization
enters
into
partnership
with
LAUSD
public
schools,

specifically
Winston
and
Green
elementary
schools.
I
am
using
this
information
to
inform

my
research
in
understanding
public-‐private
school
partnerships
between
public
schools

and
private
organizations.
Your
answers
will
help
with
the
first
question
in
my

dissertation:

How
does
a
non-‐profit
organization
partner
with
a
large
urban
school
district
to

fund
a
garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum?

This
recording
will
be
kept
confidential
and
only
used
for
purposes
related
to
this
study.

This
interview
will
take
about
20-‐30
minutes.

Do
I
have
your
consent
to
record
this
interview?
Do
you
have
any
questions
before
we

start?

Yes/No

Yes/No

1. How
many
years
you
have
been
in
administration
at
EnrichLA?
How
many
years

total
experience
do
you
have
in
administration?

2. EnrichLA
is
a
fairly
young
program.
How
did
you
develop
EnrichLA?
Why
did
you

develop
EnrichLA?

3. How
would
you
describe
EnrichLA’s
culture?

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

160

4. How
did
your
organization
enter
into
partnership
with
Winston
and
Green

elementary
schools?

5. Does
the
process
of
entering
into
partnership
with
these
two
LAUSD
schools
reflect

the
typical
process?
How
so,
or
how
not
so?

6. How
would
you
describe
this
partnership?
For
example,
is
EnrichLA
or
the
school

controlling
the
partnership,
or
is
it
an
equal
collaboration?

7. Do
you
foresee
any
risks
with
these
partnerships
at
Winston
or
Green
elementary

schools,
or
have
you
already
experienced
a
risk?

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

161

8. Did
you
enter
into
a
formal
contract
with
Winston
and
Green
elementary
schools?
If

so,
who
developed
the
contract?

9. How
is
the
EnrichLA
program
funded?

10. Do
you
plan
on
continuing
the
partnership
with
Winston
and
Green
Elementary

schools
in
the
future?
If
so,
how
will
that
be
funded?

11. How
does
this
partnership
benefit
the
community?

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

162

Appendix
B

Teacher
Interview
Protocol

Interviewer:
Traci
Demuth
(8707
Falmouth
Ave,
Playa
del
Rey,
CA
90293)

Interviewee:
___________________________________________
Date:
______________

Organization:
__________________________________________
Start
Time:
__________

Current
Job
Title:
______________________________________
End
Time:
___________

I
am
interested
in
finding
out
more
about
your
understanding
of
STEM
curriculum
and

teaching.
I
am
using
this
information
to
inform
my
research
in
how
the
garden-‐STEM

curriculum
may
or
may
not
inform
your
teaching
practices.
Your
answers
will
help
with
the

first
question
in
my
dissertation:

How
does
the
integration
of
a
garden-‐based
STEM
curriculum
change
students’
and

teachers’
perceptions
of
STEM?

This
recording
will
be
kept
confidential
and
only
used
for
purposes
related
to
this
study.

This
interview
will
take
about
20-‐30
minutes.

Do
I
have
your
consent
to
record
this
interview?
Do
you
have
any
questions
before
we

start?

Yes/No

Yes/No

1.
How
many
years
you
have
been
teaching?
What
grade
levels
have
you
taught?
Which

subjects?

2.
What
is
your
level
of
confidence
in
science
content
and
teaching
science?

3.
What
is
your
level
of
confidence
in
engineering
content
and
teaching
engineering?

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

163

4.
What
kind
of
experiences
do
you
have
teaching
children
gardening?
What
challenges

have
you
faced
when
gardening
with
children?

5.
STEM
is
the
link
between
science,
technology,
engineering,
and
math?
STEM
always

includes:

a) math
and/or
science

AND

b) engineering
and/or
technology.

In
what
ways,
if
any,
has
gardening
been
linked
to
STEM
education?
If
not,
what
are

some
ways
you
might
imagine
these
possibilities?

6.
Do
you
currently
integrate
STEM
(Science,
Technology,
Engineering,
and
Mathematics)

into
your
regular
classroom
curriculum?

7.
Have
you
faced
challenges
using
technology
with
children?
If
so,
what
were
they?

STEM-‐GARDEN
INTEGRATION

164

8.
Does
technology
make
some
components
of
teaching
easier?
If
so,
what
are
they?