School Gardens Enhance Academic Performance and Dietary Outcomes in Children

This research article discusses the effects of school garden programs on students’ academic and dietary outcomes. The article highlights that school gardens do not negatively impact academic performance or fruit and vegetable consumption and may favorably impact both. The article also suggests that additional studies with more robust experimental designs and outcome measures are necessary to understand the effects of experiential garden-based learning on children’s academic and dietary outcomes.

RE S E A R C HAR T I C L E
School Gardens Enhance Academic
Performance and Dietary Outcomes
in Children
CLAIREK. BEREZOWITZ, EdMa ANDREAB. BONTRAGERYODER, MM, PhDb DALEA. SCHOELLER, PhDc
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:Schools face increasing demands to provide education on healthy living and improve core academic
performance. Although these appear to be competing concerns, they may interact beneficially. This article focuses on
garden programs and their effects on students’ academic and dietary outcomes.
METHODS:Database searches in CABI, Web of Science, Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Education Full Text, Education
Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsychINFO were conducted through May 2013 for peer-reviewed literature r
school-day garden interventions with measures of dietary and/or academic outcomes.
RESULTS:Among 12 identified garden studies with dietary measures, all showed increases/improvements in predictor
and vegetable (FV) consumption. Seven of these also included self-reported FV intake with 5 showing an increase and
no change. Four additional interventions that included a garden component measured academic outcomes; of these,
improvements in science achievement and 1 measured and showed improvements in math scores.
CONCLUSIONS:This small set of studies offers evidence that garden-based learning does not negatively impact acade
performance or FV consumption and may favorably impact both. Additional studies with more robust experimental de
outcome measures are necessary to understand the effects of experiential garden-based learning on children’s acade
dietary outcomes.
Keywords:nutrition and diet; curriculum; child and adolescent health; school health.
Citation:Berezowitz CK, Bontrager Yoder AB, Schoeller DA. School gardens enhance academic performance and dietary
outcomes in children. J Sch Health. 2015; 85: 508-518.
Received on January 22, 2014
Accepted on January 14, 2015
Among the issuesfacing public education are 2
competing trends. First, there is increasing
emphasis in schools and districts across the country
on academic performance asa measure of student
outcomes,largely to align with federal and state
legislation such asNo Child LeftBehind and Race to
the Top.1 Second, there is increasing emphasison
public health interventionsin schools to improve
children’s health, including those to combat the
problems of low fitness and excess obesity. Both have
gained momentum, the former as a result of national
aResearch Assistant, ([e-mail]), Department of Nutritional Sciences and Department of Educational Psychology, University of W
Madison, WI 53706.
bResearch Assistant, ([e-mail]), Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Linden Drive
cProfessor Emeritus, ([e-mail]), Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Linden Drive, Madison,
Address correspondence to: Claire K. Berezowitz, Research Assistant, ([e-mail]), Department of Nutritional Sciences and Depa
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706.
This publication was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Community Transformation Grant (CTG) Program, which
Prevention and Public Health Fund of the Affordable Care Act (Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System: Grant Number 3597;
findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Wisconsin-Mad
and Human Services or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
performance initiatives and the latter as a result of data
showing a decline in US children’s nutritional status,
with nearly one third now classified as overweight
or obese.2 Despite possible linkages between obesity
and academic performance, proponents of both often
appear to be in opposition:both compete for limited
time and funding. Thus, this article aims to summarize
existing knowledge of possiblesynergiesbetween
dietary and academic outcomes resulting from school-
based interventions aimed at improving student
health.
508 • Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association

Obesity is a public concern because obese children
are more likely to be obese throughouttheir adult
years, and are more likely than healthy-weight
children to begin experiencing weight-related health
complications atan earlier age.3 Beyond the health
risks, however, are negative associationsof obesity
with academic performance, suggesting that programs
to address obesity may also address some issues related
to academic performance.Cross-sectionaldata show
that obese children have lower grades and standardized
test scores,as well as more behavioralproblems
than their healthy-weightpeers.4-7 In one study,
overweight seventh to ninth graders had a mean GPA
that was 0.2 lower than healthy-body massindex
(BMI) children and were twice as likely to have grades
of less than 2.0 on a 4.0 scale.8 Because obesity is
linked to academic outcomes,it should be important
to balance school-based programs that maximize both
health and academic outcomes.
There is strong rationale for these associations
between health and academic performance.Health
may impact severalpro-academic behaviors,such as
school attendance and time spent on homework.9 In
addition, obesity can negatively impact social interac-
tions, and this, in turn, has been associated with lower
academic performance.10 Previous reviews have exam-
ined school-based nutrition interventions,but have
focused on schoolbreakfast,noting mostly positive
effects on outcomes supporting academic success.9,11
Furthermore,reviews demonstrate that schoolnutri-
tion programs effectively reduce hunger.12-14 There-
fore, studies relating to schoolmeal implementation
are not included in this article.
The history of nutrition-related public health pro-
grams in US schools is strongly tied to schoolmeal
programs.An estimated 52 million children aged
5-17 years spend significanttime at school.15,16 The
National School Lunch Program (NSLP), first legis-
lated in 1946,aimed to reduce nutritionaldeficien-
cies and ‘‘to encourage the domestic consumption of
nutrition agriculturalcommodities and other food.’’3
Later, the School Breakfast Program (SBP) was autho-
rized in 1975 with the goalof providing ‘‘adequate
nutrition,’’ targeting those with high risk for a nutri-
tional deficiency,such as children from low-income
families.3,17 Today, an average of 31 million chil-
dren participate in the NSLP and about 10 million
in the SBP each day.3 NSLP participantsconsume
an average of35% of their daily energy atschool;
children participating in both mealprogramsmay
consume as much as half.18 More recent school
nutrition efforts include the nationalfarm-to-school
movementto bring more localfruits and vegetables
(FV) into school cafeterias and classrooms.Thus, it
would seem that school nutrition programs have con-
siderable opportunity to positively influence student
health.
In recent years, schools have begun exploring new
opportunities to educate students on healthy dietary
habits in addition to providing schoolmeals.Health
education has been part of school curricula for decades,
and although a set of national standards published by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
exists,19 we are not able to locate documentation of
their use in schools. One such educational opportunity
arisesfrom the provision of school gardens,which
has spread acrossthe United States,supported by
nonprofit organizations,grassrootsorganizing,and
even federal funding.20,21 Gardens have a history
that began decadesago as a means of science
instruction.21,22 Today,gardens are also promoted as
a means for children to increase exposure to FV, and
thereby improve attitudes and preferences related to
FV consumption.Loosely rooted in socialcognitive
theory, the premise is thatexposure,attitudes,and
preferences mediate FV consumption;moreover,the
CDC promotes increased FV consumption as a strategy
for reducing obesity prevalence.23,24
A few reviews published to date have focused on
the unique effects of school-based interventions aimed
at improving diet quality, with or without garden
education, on student academic outcomes. Fewer still
have focused exclusively on longitudinal, school-based
interventions. This is understandable given the signif-
icant burden of time to undertake such interventions
and evaluations. While the long-standing school pro-
grams are based on nutrition principlesrelated to
health, it continues to be challenging for schools to rec-
oncile increasing academic accountability with public
health programming.Concurrent with the increased
emphasis on standardized test performance, programs
involving school meals, nutrition education (NE), and
school gardens have arisen to creatively address health
concerns. If evidence exists that academic performance
can be maintained or improved while implementing
health-focused programs, they can be justified.
This article aimsto collate findingswith respect
to school garden interventions that include measures
of academic performance and/or FV consumption. To
dissect these issues, this article is organized around 2
guiding questions:(1) Do interventions with school
gardens change dietary outcomes or their predictors?
(2) Do interventions with school gardensimpact
academic outcomes?
METHODS
Database searches for peer-reviewed publica-
tions were conducted in CABI, Web of Science,
Web of Knowledge,PubMed, Education Full Text,
ERIC, and PsychINFO as of May 2013. Keywords
included various combinations ofschools,academic
performance/achievement,school performance,
standardized test scores,cognitive function,nutrition
Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association• 509

education/intervention/programs,schools, farm-
to-school, school gardens, and nutrition/dietary
intervention, yielding 3731 records. Titles and
abstractswere scanned forrelevance to our stated
aims with 155 identified as potentially relevant.
Finally, studies were assessed for quality and content,
and reference lists were checked for additional sources.
To be included, studies needed to be school garden
interventions conducted during the school day, lasting
at least 1 month, in the K-12 grade range, and
include measuresof academicperformance and/or
diet. Studieswere excluded thatwere not school-
based, were from non-Western cultures, were shorter
than 1 month, or were not in English. The final set of
papers,totaling 15 individualstudies represented by
16 papers,lacked similar designs and measures,and
thus, formal meta-analysis was not feasible.
RESULTS
Twelve studies measuring school gardens’ effects on
predictors ofand/or actualFV intake met inclusion
criteria (Table 1). Interventionscomprised specifi-
cally designed garden curricula,25,26 comparisons of
NE lessons with and withoutgardening,or garden-
based learning integrated into regular science classes.
Interventions involved at least 9 lessons,with some
lasting up to 4 months.One intervention compared
outcomesfor nongardening studentswith those in
their first or second year of exposure to the program.27
Half of the studies included fourth and/or fifth graders;
4 studies focused on younger grades,and 3 included
more advanced grades.Cohort size ranged from 97
to almost2000 students;most were in the 100-300
range.Cohort ethnicity ratios were included for half
of the studies and varied greatly:2 were ‘‘predomi-
nantly White,’’ whereas the remaining 4 were 29-93%
non-White, with 84% of 1 study’s participants self-
identifying as Hispanic.No studies specified whether
participating schools were public or private, and only
1 study28 specified whetherparticipantswere from
urban or rural settings, although another29 can be eas-
ily identified as urban. Geographic location also varied.
Dietary outcome measures were either predictors of
and/or reported FV intake.Studies assessing predic-
tors of intake included measures of nutrition/dietary
knowledge,29-33 willingness to taste FV,28,29,33,34atti-
tudes toward FV,31,33,35and preference for or choosing
FV for meals or snacks.27,28,29,31-33,36 All indicated
statistically significant improvements in FV intake pre-
dictors. Seven studies measured self-reported FV con-
sumption, but with nuanced interpretation due to the
differenttools. FV consumption results were mixed:
2 studies showed no change,33,35 whereas 3 showed
an increase28,36,37 in FV consumption. The remain-
ing studies focused only on vegetable consumption: 1
showed an increase in vegetable varieties consumed
>1 time per month,29 and the other showed garden-
ers more likely than nongardeners, including NE-only
students,to choose and consume vegetables in the
school lunchroom.32
Four studies,described in 5 papers,investigated
academicoutcomesin schools with garden-based
interventions (Table 2). Two studies included third tofifth graders,38,39 2 included first to sixth graders,40,41
and the other included only fifth graders.42 Cohort
sizes were 3769, 1197 (a subset of the larger cohort),
647, 196, and 119 students. Each employed an expe-
riential school gardening curriculum aspart of the
intervention,which supplemented traditionalclass-
room lessons. Intervention durationsranged from
a 14-week gardening curriculum for2 hours,once
per week, to those implemented across 2 academic
years. Three studies utilized level 1 of the same youth
gardening curriculum developed by the Texas Agri-
culturalExtension Service,designed to educate third
to fifth graders about environmentalscience,health,
horticulture,and nutrition.43-45 Academic outcomes
were measured by science,math, and in one case
reading achievementtest scores.Science achieve-
ment was assessed using a science achievementtest
based on the Junior Master Gardener curriculum;38,42
math achievementwas measured using the Texas
statewide standardized test39 or the Florida Compre-
hensive Achievement Test (FCAT).41,46The FCAT also
assessed reading achievement.41,46 Two studies38,42
found significantly higher science achievement scores
among gardeners compared with nongardeners,and
the third39 found no difference.When stratified by
grade,fourth-grade gardeners showed increased sci-
ence scores, but fifth-grade nongardeners had higher
science scores, resulting in no overall difference.39 The
fourth study showed significant improvements in math
test scores.47
DISCUSSION
This article is unique in thatit examined school-
based garden interventions that have the potential to
influence both academic and health-related student
outcome measures.Sixteen schoolgarden interven-
tion studies measured academic outcomes and/or FV
consumption in children. Results indicated that these
school-based garden interventions improved or main-
tained both FV consumption or mediators thereof and
academic performance.Specifically,garden programs
improved FV intake in 71% of studies measuring that
outcome,and improved or showed no difference in
academic performance in all 5 studies comparing gar-
dening to nongardening students. Moreover, academic
test scores improved or showed no change, regardless
of the academic area assessed. However, this is a small
collection of studies, and as such these findings should
be considered preliminary.
510 • Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association

Table 1.Interventions Involving School Gardens With Dietary Outcome Measures
Study Participants Design, Intervention
Outcomes: Fruit and
Vegetable Intake
Predictors
Outcomes: Measured
Fruit and Vegetable
Intake
Morris and
Zidenberg-
Cherr30
Sample size: N= 3 schools in 1
district; 3 classrooms per
school; number of students
not reported
Age/grade: fourth grade
Demographics: schools
matched on student
demographic profiles
8.4% African American
3% Asian American
17.2% Hispanic
66.5% White
25% FRPL
Design: quasi-experimental;
nonrandom group assignment
Intervention A: NE + G; 9 nutrition
lessons, each including gardening
component
Intervention B: NE
Control: no NE or garden
Measures: pre/post nutrition
knowledge questionnaire, vegetable
preference survey
-Nutrition knowledge scores
significantly higher at the
treatment schools than at the
control school
-Results retained at 6-month
follow-up
Not measured
Morris et al34 Sample size: N= 2 schools (1
intervention, 1 control); 3
classrooms per school
Age/grade: first grade
Demographics: schools
matched for ethnicity and
geographic location
ethnicity: not reported
%FRPL: not reported
Design: pilot study to assess feasibility
of garden-based education and
evaluation
Intervention: NE + G; growing
vegetables outdoors
Control: no garden
Measures: pre/post one-on-one student
interviews to assess knowledge of,
attitudes toward food
-Increased willingness to taste
vegetables grown in the gardens
Not measured
Nolan et al31 Sample size: N= 4 schools; 141
students in 9 classrooms
Age/grade: second to fifth
grades
Demographics:
47% male
84.4% Hispanic
3.5% African American
9.2% White
9.2% Other
%FRPL: not reported
42.4% of
households < poverty line
per US Census Bureau data
Design: quasi-experimental (no
control), to evaluate program impact
of health education through
gardening on children’s knowledge
about nutrition and attitudes toward
fruit and vegetables.
Intervention: Junior Master Gardener
nutrition curriculum+ school
gardens
Measures: pre/post (1) nutrition
knowledge: 13-question multiple
choice questionnaire; (2) preference
for fruits and vegetables: modified FV
preference questionnaire, modified;
fourth, fifth graders; (3) snack choices
-Nutrition knowledge increased,
pre- to post-test; impacted also
by grade
-FV preference increased from pre-
to post-test
-Snack choices improved from
pre- to post-test
Cotunga et al27 Sample size: N= 3 schools in 1
district; 359 students
Age/grade:
-Control: school A, fourth/fifth
grades
-Intervention: school B, fourth
grade; first time in program;
school C, all students, second
time in program
Demographics:
-School A (control): 73% White
-School B: 41% White
-School C: 37% White
∼All schools: 34-38% FRPL
Design: quasi-experimental,
nonrandom group assignment;
cross-sectional, and
longitudinal-by-design: analysis of
new, first, second time exposures to
compare school lunch vegetable
selection with/without gardening
and garden produce
Intervention: garden education:
classroom lessons, school vegetable
garden visits to plant, tend, harvest;
in-garden taste opportunities for
vegetable tended and harvested;
school B: first program exposure,
school C: second program exposure
Control (school A): no garden
Measures: time-of-purchase lunch
observations, 3 separate days: 1 day
offered three fourth cup romaine
salad from school garden, 2 days
normal-vendor salads; test of
proportions: choosing a salad
-Percent of students choosing a
salad with garden-grown
romaine:
-Control: no change
-School B: 11% increase, day
1 to 3
-School C: 39% increase, day
1 to 3
Not measured
Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association• 511

Table 1.Continued
Study Participants Design, Intervention
Outcomes: Fruit and
Vegetable Intake
Predictors
Outcomes: Measured
Fruit and Vegetable
Intake
Lineberger and
Zajicek35
Sample size: N= 5 elementary
schools; 111 students
Age/grade: third/fifth grades
Demographics:
ethnicity: not reported
%FRPL: not reported
Design: quasi-experimental:
volunteer participation of
classrooms by teachers
Intervention: Nutrition in the
Garden activity guide; 10
units combining horticulture
and nutrition; detailed
background information for
teachers. 34 total activities in
10 units, each ∼20 minutes
Control: none
Measures: pre/post attitudes to
FV, FV questionnaire; FV
behaviors, 24-hour recall
journals
-Attitudes toward vegetable
improved post-program; also
toward FV snacks. Especially
among females and younger
students
-No change in attitudes toward
fruit
-FV consumption did not
improve as a result of
gardening
-Very low FV intake at pre-test,
maintained at post-test:
estimated 2.0 servings/day
Meinen et al28 Sample size: N= 28 sites; 1796
unmatched pre/post surveys
from N= 801 students, 995
parents
Age/grade: parent surveys of
second or younger graders;
student respondents for third to
seventh graders
Demographics:
‘‘mostly White’’
21% urban, 45% ‘‘urban cluster,’’
34% rural (per NHANES
designation)
21% to >70% FRPL:
7 sites, 51 + %
8 sites, 41-50%
13 sites, 21-40%
Design: quasi-experimental,
prospective evaluation:
volunteer intervention
classrooms, with
volunteer-identified
comparison site/classroom
Intervention: Got dirt?
Gardening curriculum;
average 4months
Control: no garden curriculum
Measures: pre/post surveys:
predictors of and
consumption of FV (students,
or parents for second-grade
students/younger); teachers
reported type of garden
established, number of
students participating, and
start/end dates of garden
project
Increased at post relative to pre:
-trying new fruit
-choosing fruit instead of
chips/candy
-choosing vegetables instead of
chips/candy
-trying new vegetables grown
in the garden
Increased FV consumption as
measured by parent (not
student) report
Morgan et al33 Sample size: N= 2 schools; 127
students
Age/grade: fifth to sixth grades
Demographics:
54% boys
Ethnicity: not reported
%FRPL: not reported
Design: quasi-experimental:
nonrandom group
assignment
Intervention: 10-weeks; group
A, NE + G; group B, NE only
Control: no NE, no garden
Measures: pre/post FV
knowledge; vegetable
preferences (willingness to
taste and taste ratings); FV
consumption (24 hour recall)
-NE + G and NE-only students,
relative to controls, showed
higher overall willingness to
taste vegetables, overall
vegetable taste ratings
-NE + G group better able to
identify vegetables; more
willing to taste capsicum,
broccoli, tomato and pea;
higher preference to eat
broccoli and pea as a snack
-No change in fruit or vegetable
intake
Parmer et al32 Sample size: N= 6 classrooms; 115
students total: 76 intervention
(39 NE + G, 37 NE-only), 39
control
Age/grade: second grade; NE + G
7.3 years, NE 7.3 years, Control
7.4 years
Demographics:
70% male
Ethnicity: not reported
%FRPL: not reported
Design: quasi-experimental,
nonrandom group
assignment
Intervention A, NE + G: 1 hour
NE every other
week + 1hour gardening
alternating weeks
Intervention B, NE-only: 1 hour
NE every other week
Control: no NE or gardening
Measures: pre/post FV
knowledge, preference,
consumption
-NE + G, NE-only students
showed greater
improvements in knowledge,
taste ratings than control
participants
NE + G group more likely to
choose and consume
vegetables in lunchroom
than nutrition education-
only or control groups at
post-test
512 • Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association

Table 1.Continued
Study Participants Design, Intervention
Outcomes: Fruit and
Vegetable Intake
Predictors
Outcomes: Measured
Fruit and Vegetable
Intake
Ratcliffe et al29 Sample size: N= 3 schools (2
interventions, 1 control); N= 236
students total: 170 intervention;
150 control
Age/grade: sixth grade, 11-13 years
Demographics:
22% African American
29% Asian American
9% Filipino American
30% Hispanic
3% Pacific Islander
7% White non-Hispanic/Other
22% English-Language Learner
35% overweight, per BMI
64% FRPL
Design: quasi-experimental
Intervention: garden-based
learning sessions integrated
into regular science class,
∼1hour/week across
4 months, total 13 hours.
Each session was
∼20 minutes instruction
(classroom or garden) +
40minutes hands-on
in-garden experiences.
Garden activities were
chosen to maximize
students’ exposure to
vegetables and peer and
adult modeling through
cyclical garden activities
(planting, tending,
harvesting, preparing,
consuming)
Control: same health and
science learning objectives,
but no garden program
Measures: pre/post vegetable
knowledge, attitudes, and
behavior through 2
self-administered surveys:
Garden Vegetables
Frequency Questionnaire
(GVFQ); Taste Test
Self-administered surveys:
-Increased ability to identify
vegetables
-Increased preference for
vegetables
-Increased willingness to taste
vegetables
-For all, gardeners > controls
Taste test:
-Increased varieties of
vegetables tasted,
gardeners > controls
-No difference in willingness to
taste vegetables between
gardeners, controls
GVFQ:
-Gardeners reported more
vegetables varieties consumed
>1×/month, both for
vegetables grown and not
grown in school garden
Wang et al36 Sample size: N= 327 students
Age/grade: fourth to fifth grades,
followed into middle school
Demographics:
27% White
21% African American
14% Hispanic
8% Asian American
31% mixed/other/unknown
39% low-income; 24% of
fathers/male guardians had high
school or less education
Design: 3-year prospective
study
Intervention: modifications to
school food and dining;
garden and cooking classes;
lesson integration
Control: none
Measures: knowledge/attitudes
(questionnaire); dietary
behavior (3-day food diary);
household information
(parent questionnaire)
Students most exposed to the
intervention showed a
significantly greater increase
in preference for fruit and
green leafy vegetables,
compared with students
least exposed
-Most intervention exposure,
increased FV intake ∼0.5 cups
-Least intervention exposure,
decreased FV intake ∼0.3 cups
McAleese and Rankin37 Sample size: N= 3 schools (2
interventions, 1 control); 99
students
Age/grade: sixth grade, mean
11.1 years
Demographics:
Ethnicity ‘‘similar’’ across schools
%FRPL ‘‘similar’’ across schools
Design: nonequivalent control
group: 1 control + 1
experimental schools
randomly assigned; second
experimental school
assigned based on garden
availability
Intervention: 12-week NE
program; 1 with, 1 without
garden activities
Control: no NE or garden
Measures: pre/post 3 × 24-hour
recall workbooks
Not measured -NE + G participants increased FV
servings more than students in
the two other groups
-Significant increases in vitamin A,
vitamin C, and fiber intake.
NE+ G,nutrition education+ garden;NE,nutrition education;%FRPL, percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches;FV,fruit(s) and vegetable(s);BMI,body
mass index.
Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association• 513

Table 2.Interventions Involving School Gardens With Measures of Academic Outcomes
Study Participants Intervention/Design Outcomes: Academic
Klemmer et al38 Sample size: N= 7 schools; N= 647
students: 453 intervention in 27
classes, 194 control in 13 classes
Age/grade: third to fifth grades
Demographics:
47% male
Ethnicity: not reported
% FRPL: not reported
Design: post-test only, quasi-experimental
Intervention: garden activities integrated into
science curriculum, alongside traditional
classroom lessons
Control: traditional classroom teaching
Measure: science achievement test
-Intervention students scored
significantly higher science
achievement test scores than control
students
-Effect of grade: intervention most
effective for third- and fifth-grade
boys, fifth-grade girls
Pigg et al39 Sample size: N= 1 school; N= 196
students: 94 interventions, 102
controls
Age/grade: third to fifth grades
Demographics:
Ethnicity: not reported
% FRPL: not reported
Design: quasi-experimental, nonrandom group
assignment; convenience sample
Intervention: youth gardening curriculum
taught by classroom teachers + traditional
classroom math, science
Control: traditional classroom math, science; no
gardening
Measures: pre/post Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills math achievement test
-Gardening students: no improvement
in math scores; no significant
difference in science sores from
nongardening
-Fourth-grade gardening students
higher science scores than
nongardening
-Fifth-grade controls, higher math,
science scores
Smith and Motsenbocker42 Sample size: N= 3 schools (1
intervention, 1 control classroom per
school); N= 119 students: 62
interventions, 57 controls
Age/grade: fifth grade
Demographics:
Ethnicity: majority African American
% FRPL: not reported
Design: quasi-experimental, nonrandom group
assignment
Intervention: 14-week gardening curriculum
(Junior Master Gardener; 2 hours, 1×/week)
Control: no gardening curriculum
Measure: pre/post 40-question science
achievement test
-Intervention students’ scores higher at
post-test, versus no difference in
control students
Hollar et al40 Sample size: N= 5 schools (4
interventions, 1 control); N= 1197
students (this is a subset of total
cohort: those qualifying for FRPL; 974
intervention, 199 controls )
Age/grade: 7.8 years
Demographics:
68% Hispanic
9% Black
15% White
8% Other
100% FRPL
Design: 2 school years, quasi-experimental,
nonrandom
Intervention:
Nutrition: modifications to school meal and
extended-day snack menus: more high-fiber
items, fewer high-glycemic items, lower total,
saturated, and trans fats
Health curriculum: nutrition and healthy
lifestyle management program for
elementary-aged children and adults, using
materials from USDA Team Nutrition and The
OrganWise Guys; FV gardens
Physical activity: increased school-day
physical activity opportunity:
10-15 minutes/day desk-side physical activity
program, matched with core academic areas;
structured physical activity during recess, for
example, a walking club
Control: comparison school ‘‘as usual’’
Measures: Florida Comprehensive Achievement
Test (FCAT) reading, math scores
-Significant improvement in FCAT math
scores, +22.3 intervention versus
−3.0 control (p= .001)
-Trend for improvement in FCAT
reading scores, +5.7 intervention
versus −1.2 control (p= .08)
Hollar et al41 Sample size: N= 5 schools (4
interventions, 1 control); 3769
students (full cohort of study by
Hollar et al40above)
Age/grade: 8 years
Demographics:
50% Hispanic
33% White
8% Black
8% Other
31% FRPL
Design: described above
Intervention: described above
Control: described above
Measures: third grade FCAT reading, math
scores
-Statistically significant improvements
in academic test scores, especially
among low-income Hispanic and
White children, observed in
intervention versus control
participants
FCAT,Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test;%FRPL,percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches;USDA,United States Department of Agriculture;FV,
fruit(s) and vegetable(s).
514 • Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association

Figure 1.An Illustration of Perceived Connections Between Health and Academic Success and Their Mediators
Improved
academics
Improved diet
Improved
health
Attendance
Engaged
learning
Alertness/
Concentration Time on task Nutrition
knowledge
Attitudes toward
healthy eating
Preference
for FV
Increased
class time
Increased
FV consumption
Healthy
school meals
Previous reviews focused on garden interventions
linked to academic outcomesbut were not limited
to peer-reviewed literature asis this article.43,48,49
Herein, 4 gardening interventions indicated that such
programssupport academicperformance,with the
most evidence demonstrated for science testscores;
math and language artsscoresimproved to lesser
degrees.Gardening program impacts with respect to
children’s FV intake also demonstrated positive effects.
Moreover, teachers were generally found to report that
gardens were a valuable teaching tool. Garden program
studies also indicated an indirect, positive effect
on children’s socialdevelopment.Overall, however,
garden program studies lacked scientific rigor, and the
inclusion criteria for this article yielded only a small
set of studies.It is promising that the various studies
were not discordant, but the small number of studies
tempers the strength of this article.
A schematic to illustrate possible connections
between academic and dietary inputs and outcomes
is presented in Figure 1. Mechanismsfor school
nutrition interventions’effectson academic perfor-
mance continue to be unclear. Healthier school meals
may offer a long-term effectof improved nutrient
intake and nutritionalstatus,with positive effects on
cognition; however, socioeconomic indicators also pre-
dict academic performance in addition to nutritional
status.11,13 We suggest, as have others, that academic
outcomes may improve due to increased attendance
and, consequently, increased instructional time.44,45It
is possible thatmeasures ofpro-academic behaviors
may better indicate students’potentialfor academic
success:time on task,classroom behavior,creativity,
and attitudes toward learning.9
Mechanismsto explain why gardening interven-
tions specificallyimprove academicoutcomes in
students are similarly speculative.School garden
programs broadly aim to improve children’s dietary
choices through improved knowledge of and attitudes
toward FV; this is generally conceptualized using
social cognitive theory.23 However, this does not
relate directly to academicoutcomes.It is clear
from protein-energy malnutrition-related literature
that improving students’nutritionalstatus improves
academicoutcomes,12,45,50 but this effect is less
apparent in students who are provided with adequate
protein and energy.9 School gardensmay improve
students’attitudes toward schoolitself—a byproduct
of experientialeducation, rather than a primary
objective of the program itself, because enhanced
school engagementleads to improved academic
outcomes.Gardens also may help students develop
observationalskills, and simultaneously provide an
opportunity for students to integrate interdisciplinary
content in the context of a living laboratory.Indeed,
experiential learning opportunities like school gardens
have been shown to increase studentengagement.
Christenson et al51 define experientiallearning as
activities that enhance student learning through active
participation. This type of learning has been shown to
motivate students to dedicate time and energy to their
learning, leading to more engaged students.51
Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association• 515

While the degree of change in each of these stud-
ies is not large,it may help close the achievement
gap between low- and adequate-income families.40,41
Much like substantialdietary change isdifficult to
achieve,substantialacademic achievement improve-
ment is probably difficultto achieve without sus-
tained changes to the learning environment. Although
extensiveattention has been given to improving
academic performance by preventing protein-energy
malnutrition,9,11-14 excessnutrition and the resul-
tant obesity also influence academicperformance.
As described above,the documented connections
between obesity and academic performance indicate
that healthier children are also better learners.4-8
Nutrition education,meal offerings,and schoolgar-
dens are also aimed atobesity prevention through
improved diet quality as a result of increased knowl-
edge, improved food options in the school setting, and
improved choices throughout an individual’s lifetime.
This article has limitations. Interventionswere
methodologically diverse. These garden interventions,
like in earlier reviews,commonly identified incom-
plete methodologicaldescriptions,use of a conve-
nience sample,often a lack ofa control group,and
small cohorts.49 These shortcomings limitbetween-
study comparisons and definitive conclusions. As men-
tioned above, a major limitation is the small number
of studies thatmet inclusion criteria.Indeed,previ-
ous reviews of both academic and nutritional/dietary
outcomescautioned againstoverly zealousaffirma-
tions of such interventions because the literature is
scarce, albeit growing, particularly with regard to gar-
den programs.Further work is needed using strong
experimental designs with control groups, longitudinal
analyses, and nonconvenience-sample cohorts.
Furthermore,few nutrition and garden interven-
tions have measured academic performance.Among
those thathave, outcomesare difficult to compare
due to diverse measurement tools. The recent national
creation of the Common Core Standardsmay bet-
ter facilitate academicoutcomesassessmentalong-
side health-oriented school programs. Legislators and
school administrators are accustomed to utilizing stan-
dardized testscores and schoolgrades for outcome
comparisons,and the new standards may permit
improved across-site academic outcome comparabil-
ity. In addition, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of
2010 legislated extensive changes in the NSLP and SBP
nutrition aims,52 and identified important evaluative
outcome include children’s improved health concur-
rent with the ongoing aims of improved academic
performance.
No studies addressed instructionalquality due to
their limited scope, but it could be considered in this
newer context. Aspects of academic performance such
as time on task and classroom behavior,although
vital to the school and learning environment, require
much more time on the part of the investigator
and/or teacherto quantify and qualify. These are
important aspects to measure in future studies. Finally,
cohort age ranges are limited, with most focusing on
elementary students,suggesting a need forstudies
involving middle and high school students.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH
A review of 16 longitudinalschool garden inter-
vention studies show potential for school-based inter-
ventions to improve studentacademic performance,
attendance, as well as mediators of FV intake, although
the effects are small and most studies are quasi-
experimental in nature. Schools may want to consider
school gardensas a hands-on instructionaltool to
enhance science learning and to potentially improve
long-term FV consumption. However, few studies
met inclusion criteria,limiting the strength ofthesefindings.More research isneeded with a focuson
comprehensive school garden interventions, including
those involving schoolmeal modifications,NE, and
expanded opportunities for integrating school gardens
into curricular instruction.Balancing scientific rigor
with minimaldisruption in the schoolday is a chal-
lenge, but one worth undertaking in order to ensure
that educational systems/settings promote intellectual
and physical health and development for all children.
REFERENCES
1. Sibley B, LeMasurier GC. Children’s health and academic
performance:elevating physicaleducation’srole in schools.
Int J Phys Educ. 2008;45(2):64-82.
2. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, Lamb MM, Flegal KM.
Prevalenceof high body mass index in US children and
adolescents, 2007-2008. JAMA. 2010;303(3):242-249.
3. Institute of Medicine.SchoolMeals:Building Blocksfor Healthy
Children. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010.
4. Datar A, Sturm R. Childhood overweight and elementary school
outcomes. Int J Obes. 2006;30(9):1449-1460.
5. Judge S, Jahns L. Association ofoverweightwith academic
performance and socialand behavioralproblems:an update
from the early childhood longitudinal study. J Sch Health.
2007;77(10):672-678.
6. Shephard RJ. Curricular physical activity and academic
performance. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1997;9(2):113-126.
7. Dwyer T, Sallis JF, Blizzard L, Lazarus R, Dean K. Relation
of academic performance to physicalactivity and fitnessin
children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2001;13(3):225-237.
8. Mo-suwan L, Lebel L, Puetpaiboon A, Junjana C. School
performance and weight status of children and young
adolescentsin a transitional society in Thailand. Int J Obes
Relat Metab Disord. 1999;23(3):272-277.
9. Hoyland A, Dye L, Lawton CL. A systematic review ofthe
effect of breakfast on the cognitive performance of children and
adolescents. Nutr Res Rev. 2009;22(2):220-243.
10. Vaillancourt T, Brittain HL, McDougall P, Duku E. Longitudinal
links between childhood peer victimization,internalizing and
externalizing problems,and academic functioning:develop-
mental cascades. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2013;41(8):1203-1215.
516 • Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association

11. Rampersaud GC,Pereira MA, Girard BL, Adams J, Metzl JD.
Breakfast habits, nutritional status, body weight, and academic
performance in children and adolescents.J Am Diet Assoc.
2005;105(5):742-743.
12. Taras H. Nutrition and studentperformance atschool.J Sch
Health. 2005;75(6):199-213.
13. Jyoti DF, Frongillo EA, Jones SJ. Food insecurity affects school
children’s academic performance, weight gain, and social skills.
J Nutr. 2005;135(12):2831-2839.
14. Murray NG, Low BJ, Hollis C, Cross AW, Davis SM. Coordinated
school health programs and academic achievement: a systematic
review of the literature. J Sch Health. 2007;77(9):589-600.
15. NationalCenter for Education Statistics - Digest of Education
Statistics. Percentage of population 3 to 34 years old enrolled in
school, by age group: selected years, 1940 through 2008. Avail-
able at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_
007.asp. Accessed September 2, 2014.
16. NationalCenter for Education Statistics - Digest of Education
Statistics.Estimatesof resident population, by age group:
1970 through 2009. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/d09/tables/dt09_015.asp. Accessed September 2, 2014.
17. United StatesDepartmentof Agriculture, Food and Nutri-
tion Service. School Breakfast Program: Program History.
Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/program-history.
Accessed July 26, 2013.
18. Briefel RR, Wilson A, Gleason PM. Consumption of low-
nutrient,energy-dense foods and beverages at school,home,
and other locations among school lunch participants and
nonparticipants. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(suppl 2):S79-S90.
19. Centers for Disease Controland Prevention.NationalHealth
Education Standards. 2013. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/
healthyyouth/sher/standards/. Accessed May 22, 2014.
20. Ozer EJ. The effects of school gardens on students and schools:
conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy
development. Health Educ Behav. 2007;34(6):846-863.
21. National Farm to School Network. The Benefits of Farm to
School.Available at:http://www.farmtoschool.org/Resources/
BenefitsFactSheet.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2014.
22. Kohlstedt SG. ‘‘A better crop of boys and girls’’: the
school gardening movement,1890-1920.Hist EducQ. 2008;
48(1):58-93.
23. Roche E, Conner D, Kolodinsky J, Buckwalter E, Berlin
L, Powers A. Social cognitive theory as a framework
for considering farm to school programming.Child Obes.
2012;8(4):357-363.
24. Centersfor Disease Controland Prevention.Recommended
community strategiesand measurementsto prevent obe-
sity in the United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.
2009;58(RR07):1-26.
25. Wisconsin Departmentof Health Services- Division ofPublic
Health- NPAOP, Wisconsin Departmentof Public Instruc-
tion, University of Wisconsin Extension.Got Dirt? Garden
Toolkit for Implementing Youth Gardens.2013.Available at:
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/physical-activity/FoodSystem/
Gardening/GotDirt/index.htm. Accessed September 2, 2014.
26. Seagraves RL,Whittlesey L, Klemmer C, et al. Junior Master
Gardener:Level1 Teacher/Leader Guide.Bryan, TX: Texas A&M
AgriLife Extension; 2005.
27. Cotugna N, Manning CK, DiDomenico J. Impact of the
use of produce grown in an elementary schoolgarden on
consumption ofvegetables atschoollunch. J Hunger Environ
Nutr. 2012;7(1):11-19.
28. Meinen A, Friese B, Wright W, Carrel A. Youth gardens increase
healthy behaviors in young children.J Hunger Environ Nutr.
2012;7(2-3):192-204.
29. Ratcliffe MM, Merrigan KA, Rogers BL, Goldberg JP. The effects
of school garden experiences on middle school-aged students’
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with vegetable
consumption. Health Promot Pract. 2011;12(1):36-43.
30. Morris JL, Zidenberg-CherrS. Garden-enhanced nutrition
curriculum improves fourth-grade school children’s knowledge
of nutrition and preferences for some vegetables. J Am Diet Assoc.
2002;102(1):91-93.
31. Nolan GA, McFarland AL, Zajicek JM, Waliczek TM. The
effectsof nutrition education and gardeningon attitudes,
preferences, and knowledge of minority second to fifth graders
in the Rio Grande Valley toward fruit.HortTechnology.2012;
22(3):299-304.
32. Parmer SM, Salisbury-Glennon J, Shannon D, Struempler
B. School gardens:an experientiallearning approach fora
nutrition education program to increase fruitand vegetable
knowledge, preference, and consumption among second-grade
students. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2009;41(3):212-217.
33. Morgan PJ, Warren JM, Lubans DR,Saunders KL,Quick GI,
Collins CE. The impact of nutrition education with and without
a school garden on knowledge, vegetable intake and preferences
and quality of school life among primary-school students. Public
Health Nutr. 2010;13(11):1-10.
34. Morris JL, Neustadter A, Zidenberg-Cherr S. First-grade garden-
ers more likely to taste vegetables. Calif Agric. 2001;55(1):43-46.
35. Lineberger SE,Zajicek JM. School gardens:can a hands-on
teaching tool affect students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding
fruit and vegetables? HortTechnology. 2000;10(3):593-597.
36. Wang MC, Rauzon S,Studer N,et al.Exposure to a compre-
hensive schoolintervention increases vegetable consumption.
J Adolesc Heal. 2010;47(1):74-82.
37. McAleese JD, Rankin LL. Garden-based nutrition education
affects fruit and vegetable consumption in sixth-grade adoles-
cents. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007;107(4):662-665.
38. Klemmer CD,Waliczek TM, Zajicek JM. Growing minds:the
effect of a school gardening program on the science achievement
of elementary students. HortTechnology. 2005;15(3):448-452.
39. Pigg AE, Waliczek TM, Zajicek JM. Effects of a gardening pro-
gram on the academic progress of third, fourth, and fifth grade
math and science students. HortTechnology. 2006;16(2):262-264.
40. Hollar D, Messiah SE, Lopez-Mitnik G, Hollar TL, Almon
M, Agatston AS. Effect of a two-year obesity prevention
intervention on percentile changes in body mass index
and academic performance in low-income elementary school
children. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(4):646-653.
41. Hollar D, Lombardo M, Lopez-Mitnik G, et al. Effective multi-
level, multi-sector,school-based obesity prevention program-
ming improves weight, blood pressure,and academicper-
formance,especially among low-income,minority children.
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010;21(suppl 2):93-108.
42. Smith LL, MotsenbockerCE. Impact of hands-on science
through school gardeningin Louisiana public elementary
schools. HortTechnology. 2005;15(3):439-443.
43. Robinson-O’Brien R, Story M, Heim S. Impact of garden-based
youth nutrition intervention programs:a review. J Am Diet
Assoc. 2009;109(2):273-280.
44. Meyers AF,Sampson AE,Weitzman M,Rogers BL,Kayne H.
School BreakfastProgram and schoolperformance.Am J Dis
Child. 1989;143(10):1234-1239.
45. Murphy JM, Pagano ME, Nachmani J, Sperling P, Kane
S, Kleinman RE. The relationship of school breakfastto
psychosocialand academicfunctioning: cross-sectionaland
longitudinal observations in an inner-city school sample. Arch
Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152(9):899-907.
46. Hollar D, Messiah SE, Lopez-Mitnik G, Hollar TL, Almon
M, Agatston AS.Healthier options for public schoolchildren
program improves weight and blood pressure in 6- to 13-year-
olds. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(2):261-267.
47. Sibley BA, Ward RM, Yazvac TS, Zullig K, PotteigerJA.
Making the grade with diet and exercise. AASA J Scholar Pract.
2008;5(2):38-45.
Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association• 517

48. Blair D. The child in the garden: an evaluative review of
the benefits ofschoolgardening.J Environ Educ.2009;40(2):
15-38.
49. Williams DR, Dixon PS. Impactof garden-based learning on
academic outcomes in schools:synthesis of research between
1990 and 2010. Rev Educ Res. 2013;83(2):211-235.
50. Florence MD, Asbridge M, VeugelersPJ. Diet quality and
academic performance. J Sch Health. 2008;78(4):209-215.
51. Christenson S,Reschly A, Wylie C. Handbook ofResearch on
Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer; 2012:816.
52. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Pub L No. 111-296, 124
Stat. 3183. US Congress; 2010:1-84.
518 • Journal of School Health• August 2015, Vol. 85, No. 8• ©2015, American School Health Association