A Pilot Study of a Youth Gardening Retrospective Survey Tool: Evaluating Outcomes of School-Based, Garden-Enhanced Nutrition Education Programs

Abstract

Farm-to-school initiatives, including school gardens, are an increasingly popular strategy to increase student access to healthy produce and nutrition education opportunities. While studies show school garden programs and garden-enhanced nutrition education can positively impact student consumption of fruits and vegetables, there is a gap in evaluation tools that can be used by practitioners across varied school sites, grades, and communities, to assess outcomes of their garden programs. This effort piloted the Student Garden Retrospective Survey (SGR) for grades 4+ in four classrooms in two counties in California. The instrument included items to measure program exposure, garden skill experiences, changes in students’ behaviors, preferences, and attitudes, as well as their perceptions of the program. Student and teacher feedback on the evaluation tool was gathered to determine if students understood the questions being asked, were able to complete the survey, and whether the evaluation questions were pertinent to their school gardening experiences. The results demonstrate that the SGR is suitable for evaluating school garden and garden-enhanced nutrition education programming. In the future, the evaluation tool can be used by practitioners to iteratively improve garden-based education to enhance students’ nutrition and health outcomes.

1. Introduction

1.1. Farm-to-School

In recent years, farm-to-school and school garden initiatives have grown throughout the United States, with expanded fiscal support for these efforts. This increased investment seeks to support improvements in the health and wellbeing of school-aged children through the integration of experiential learning and increased access to healthier, locally grown foods [1]. In the 2022/2023 academic school year, 45.6 million students participated in farm-to-school activities throughout the United States (including Washington, D.C. and U.S. territories) [2]. The support for farm-to-school initiatives has also been linked to concerns regarding school-age children’s insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables [3]. In the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines, the U.S. Department of Agriculture [4] reported that children and adolescents, aged 5–18 years old, ate less than the daily recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables. Providing varied opportunities for school-aged children to experience fresh fruits and vegetables at school can build a foundation for healthier choices and behaviors, particularly as children age and experience different physical, mental, and emotional changes [4,5]. By integrating farm-to-school efforts, schools can support student health through intentional procurement of locally grown foods for school meal programs and “hands-on food education opportunities that engage students and connect the classroom with the cafeteria, such as activities in school gardens, on farms, in culinary classes, in settings that celebrate traditional foodways and cultivate food sovereignty, and through other experiential learning pathways” [1]. Schools that invest in such farm-to-school efforts can become meaningful environments for introducing and reinforcing healthy behaviors through nutrition education, including school gardening programs where students have access to fresh produce and opportunities for hands-on learning about how these foods are grown [6]. In these ways, interactive, garden-based nutrition education programs in schools have the potential to positively impact and influence children’s food preferences and dietary behaviors into adulthood.

1.2. Behavioral Change Theories

There are two theories that predominate in garden-based nutrition education programming: Social Cognitive Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior. Social Cognitive Theory explores the structures of society and how those societal structures influence the self and the driving forces of behaviors [7]. Shiji and Beela [8] (p. 31) state, “Social cognitive theory supports the idea that enhancing horticultural skills could enhance individuals’ ability to adopt fruit and vegetable intake behavior.” Using Social Cognitive Theory in the context of garden-enhanced nutrition education aims to influence healthier choices for school-aged children by building their foundational knowledge, confidence, and skills in gardening, cooking, nutrition, and ultimately investigating how social and environmental improvements influence fruit and vegetable intake. This theory positions environmental factors as interconnected with individuals and their behaviors [9]. The Theory of Planned Behavior considers variables of intention and behavior [10], often intertwined with perception of control and peer influence through social norms [11]. Youth’s food choices have been shown to follow the Theory of Planned Behaviors, as their attitudes and social influences shape their intentions and food behaviors [12]. An individual’s perceived control is based on whether that individual has opportunities, resources, and a strong intent to change their behavior. If all these variables are present, then the individual is more likely to perform the desired behaviors [11]. When utilized within garden-based nutrition education programming, both theories can help researchers understand students’ attitudes, skills, food preferences, and dietary behavioral change (i.e. fruit and vegetable consumption); how social and environmental factors of programming can influence positive behavior change; as well as approaches to evaluating students’ intermediate and long-term program outcomes.

1.3. Evaluation of Garden-Based Nutrition Education

School gardens are being intentionally used to influence school-aged children’s food choices and preferences [13,14,15,16]. School gardens have been described as a source of hands-on, experiential learning that includes activities like the growth, harvest, and preparation of known and unfamiliar foods [17]. Students exposed to more experiential learning opportunities (i.e., in-class lessons, cafeteria/farm-to-school, farm visits, taste-testing, and afterschool gardening and kitchen experience) tend to score higher on fruit and vegetable intake, preferences, and self-efficacy for eating fruits and vegetables [18,19]. The inclusion of school-garden products in the cafeteria, as denoted with signage, has been a successful tactic to promote vegetable consumption with students who worked in the garden [13]. Prior research on school gardens has examined development of programs and the curriculum, implementation considerations and outcomes, as well as meta-analyses of prior efforts.

Researchers have also examined outcomes of garden-based education for students. Prior studies found that garden-based learning can support improvements in students’ short-term outcomes, such as students’ fruit and vegetable knowledge, preferences, and attitudes [15,20,21,22], as well as students’ dietary behaviors (i.e., consumption of fruits and/or vegetables) [21,22,23,24,25,26]. The addition of garden-based lessons to nutrition education programs led to an improvement in school-aged children’s willingness to try or consume new fruits and vegetables [17,27]. In one study that examined differences in students’ preferences for fruits compared with vegetables, researchers found that garden-based programming had less impact on students’ fruit preferences [28], theorizing that children’s preferences for fruit may have been higher to start with. Another study found that who leads garden interventions is also a key element in behavioral change, as garden interventions led by outside or independent organizations in schools did not produce a consistent increase in children’s knowledge and attitudes towards fruits and vegetables as compared to teacher-led interventions [29]. The familiarity and trust of adult figures within schools and families may be important role models for impacting students’ behavioral choices.

While school garden programs and garden-enhanced nutrition education have shown to have an impact on the consumption and preferences of fruits and vegetables in school-aged children, there is a gap in evaluation tools that can be used by practitioners across varied school sites, grades, and communities. Additionally, there has been limited consistency in the evaluation tools available to practitioners to understand behavioral changes associated with their garden-enhanced nutrition education programs. Many studies use pre/post surveys [16,25], fruit and vegetable knowledge questionnaires [14,15,19,21,29,30], concept mapping [31], self-reporting recall food diaries or workbooks [21,32,33], body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference [34], as well as focus groups and meetings with stakeholders [35]. To address the need for a simple, practitioner-focused garden evaluation tool that can be implemented in a variety of settings, including the garden, as a stand alone survey or alongside nutrition education evaluation tools, this effort seeks to pilot an instrument for assessing the outcomes of garden-based nutrition education programs among 4th and 5th grade students with varied programmatic exposure in two different geographic areas of California.

2. Methods

2.1. Development of the Student Garden Retrospective Survey Grade 4+ (SGR)

The Student Garden Retrospective Survey (SGR) (see Supplementary Materials) was developed by a team of practitioners, evaluators, and researchers for students in the 4th grade and above over the course of two years, beginning in 2024, to address the gap in published literature related to validated surveys measuring hands-on gardening activities in conjunction with individual-level garden outcomes among youth. The instrument includes items to measure program exposure, garden skill experiences, changes in students’ behaviors, preferences, and attitudes, as well as their perceptions of the program. Similar to prior research that utilizes a developmental evaluation approach to nutrition education [36], the SGR was designed to help practitioners iteratively evaluate their implementation strategies and programmatic effectiveness. The SGR was designed to understand program and delivery elements that support positive behavior change outcomes related to hands-on gardening and garden-enhanced nutrition education for students in grades 4 and above.

2.1.1. Survey Design

A retrospective instrument was selected for this tool to assess changes in student behaviors, as well as attitudes, preferences, and knowledge, as a result of participating in garden-enhanced nutrition education programming. Although there are mixed reviews on the usage of pre/post versus retrospective surveys, research shows that students felt more comfortable, were more honest, and had the relevant knowledge and experience needed at the program’s end when completing a retrospective survey compared to pre/post surveys [37]. Findings have shown that with traditional pre-tests there are complications with response-shift bias and students’ scores are more inaccurate than in a retrospective survey due to students overestimating their abilities [38]. Children’s cognitive skills for estimation, averaging, and understanding frequency are continually developing during this time and often the use of short recall is more likely to be successful than traditional frequency questionnaires with longer recall periods (past week, past month, etc.) [39]. To help practitioners better understand the pathways between the garden-based programming they delivered and the intermediate student outcomes that may lead to changes in dietary consumption, a simple and versatile retrospective tool was developed that could be completed with a little available time and used in a variety of settings including school classrooms and gardens.

2.1.2. Likert Scale

Likert scale questions were developed to assess student behavioral, attitudinal and preference changes after completion of the garden programming. When developing this evaluation tool, it was important to consider the target age group. Chambers and Johnston [40] found that younger children (aged 5 to 7) had more extreme scores than older children when using Likert-type rating scales. Although it is noted that of the ‘older children,’ those aged 7 to 9 had more extreme scores than the oldest group aged 10 to 12. The SGR was developed for use with school-aged children no younger than 4th grade due to literacy skills, self-efficacy, and motivation biases with younger students. Similar garden studies [26,30] have used Likert scales for vegetable and fruit taste preference amongst these age groups. The SGR includes a 3-item Likert scale, where 1 = less, 2 = about the same, and 3 = more. The 3-item scale was used to measure students’ preferences related to “vegetables,” “vegetables grown in the garden,” “trying new vegetables,” “eating vegetables at home,” as well as self-efficacy questions related to “asking for favorite vegetables,” and “growing vegetables at home.” These items examined students’ reported dietary behavioral changes after completion of the garden program. In developing the survey, consideration was given to the possibilities of using a 5-item or 3-item scale. Ultimately, the decision was made to select the 3-item scale to increase clarity and simplicity and reduce respondent burden for younger-grade students [41].

2.1.3. Survey Items

In building the SGR, the key output measures were: degree of program exposure, engagement in hands-on garden-skill-building activities (e.g., seeding, watering, identification of garden pests, etc.). Key outcome measures included transference of skills to the home environment, as well as change in behaviors, attitudes, and/or preferences for vegetables at home and in school (see

Table 1. SGR Questions and their associated outputs/outcomes.

Pilot Survey Questions	Response Format	Output/Outcomes
What hands-on garden activities did you take part in this year to grow food?	Closed-ended, multiple choice: Checkbox list of garden activities	Skill development Engagement
How often did you take part in hands-on garden activities this year to grow food?	Categorical 0 times 1–3 times 4 or more times	Program exposure
Individual Level: After taking part in this garden program___.	Amount Scale (1) =Less (2) =About the Same (3) =More
“I like vegetables”		Preference/Acceptability
“I eat vegetables grown in a garden”		Behavior Exposure
“I try new vegetables”		Behavior Preference/Acceptability
“I eat vegetables served in a cafeteria”		Behavior
“I eat vegetables at home”		Behavior
Family Level: After taking part in this garden program, _____.	Amount Scale (1) =Less (2) =About the Same (3) =More
“I ask my family to buy my favorite vegetable”		Behavior
“I ask my family to prepare my favorite vegetable”		Behavior
“I want to grow fruits or vegetables at home”		Attitudes/Aspiration
“I help grow fruits or vegetables at home”		Behavior Learning Transference
“I make half my plate fruits and vegetables”		Behavior
What did you like most about the garden program?	Open-ended	Satisfaction
What was the most important thing that you learned from the garden program?	Open-ended	Salience (or “stickiness”)
How would you improve the garden program?	Open-ended	Recommendations

). The SGR includes items to measure change at the individual and family levels. The SGR includes 5 individual-level change items to assess students’ personal outcomes after participating in programming. As prior researchers [14] described how children influence food behaviors at home by asking parents to buy certain food items or cook certain meals, the SGR also included 5 family-level change items to assess whether student participation in garden-based nutrition education supports family-level dietary behavior changes. Open-ended questions were developed to ask about student experiences, important things they learned, and what improvements could be made to the garden program. The SGR includes items designed to help clarify the pathways between what hands-on garden activities were delivered and the potential intermediate outcomes that may lead to increased vegetable consumption.

2.2. Pilot Testing Protocol

This study was reviewed by the University of California, Davis Institutional Review Board (Protocol #2381682-1) and received a “Not Human Subjects Research” determination. This is in accordance with federal regulations, because students and teachers were not reporting on their own personally held attitudes, beliefs or behaviors, but instead contributing feedback to the development of an evaluation tool. In this pilot, the SGR was tested over 4 pilot groups with students who had participated in CalFresh Healthy Living, UC (SNAP-Ed) garden-based nutrition education programming. To obtain feedback on the SGR, researchers followed pilot testing protocols with accompanying feedback response forms (see Supplementary Materials). Prior to participation, youth participants were informed that their responses to the survey instrument would not be analyzed and that the purpose of the research was to collect their thoughts and experiences regarding the evaluation tool itself. Students completed the SGR while a researcher read through the survey questions, pausing after students responded to each question to solicit student feedback. Researchers utilized the SGR Class Response Form to capture student feedback, as well as researcher observations during all pilot groups. The SGR Teacher Response form was distributed to classroom teachers, who were invited to review the SGR and share their feedback while students participated in the researcher-led pilot groups.

Following the pilot groups, researchers and practitioners met to review collected data and summarize feedback from students, classroom teachers, and researcher observations. This feedback was utilized to refine the SGR. Researchers also conducted a descriptive review of students’ completed SGRs to identify any unexpected patterns in student responses or questions left blank that might suggest challenges responding to specific survey questions or response scales. Finally, researchers reviewed the student responses to open-ended questions to identify and code recurring themes the questions solicited from participating students.

Participants and Data Collection

The pilot was conducted with students (n = 75) and classroom teachers (n = 4) in two different counties in California where educators had long-standing relationships with schools and teachers implementing garden-based nutriton education programming over the last several years (see

Table 2. Description of data collection for pilot groups.

Data Collection	Pilot Group 1	Pilot Group 2	Pilot Group 3	Pilot Group 4
Date	18 November 2025	12 December 2025	12 December 2025	22 January 2026
Researcher	Researcher 1	Researcher 2	Researcher 2	Researcher 2
County	Calaveras	Santa Barbara	Santa Barbara	Santa Barbara
Grade Level	5th	4th	5th	5th

). The first was Calaveras County in the High Sierras with a school community that had 59% socioeconomically disadvantaged students with 5.5% of the student population identified as English-language learners [42]. The second was Santa Barbara County on the Central Coast within a school community that had 77.5% socioeconomically disadvantaged students with 27.3% of the student population identified as English-language learners [42]. Two researchers completed the data collection with students and teachers across the pilot groups between November 2025 and January 2026.

Calaveras County. Pilot Group 1. A convenience sample of students (n = 5) that received 5–6 hands-on garden lessons [43,44] over the course of a school year as 4th graders were selected by their teacher and agreed to complete the SGR and give feedback during the pilot. The survey was conducted six months after garden lessons concluded (see Table 2). This implementation timeline was due to piloting opportunities and feasibility rather than the underlying goal to conduct a retrospective survey six months after the end of the garden programming.

Santa Barbara County. Pilot Groups 2–4. A convenience sample of 4th grade students (n = 19) and 5th grade students (n = 51) received 2 garden lessons [43]. Three classrooms with their teachers were selected to complete the SGR and give feedback during the pilot. In this case, the teachers invited their entire class to participate in the pilot and the students expressed excitement to get the opportunity to provide feedback on the garden evaluation tool. The survey was conducted with each classroom between one week or one month after completing two hands-on garden-based lessons (as seen in

Table 3. Pilot group overview.

Pilot Group	Administrations	Participants	Pilot Data Collected
1	Small student group 5–6 garden lessons 6 months post lessons	Fifth grade, co-ed students (n = 5)	Student feedback Students completed SGRs Classroom teacher feedback Researcher observation
2	Entire classroom 2 garden lessons 1 week post lessons	Fourth grade, co-ed students (n = 19)	Student feedback Students completed SGRs Researcher observation
3	Entire classroom 2 garden lessons 1 week post lessons	Fifth grade, co-ed students (n = 27)	Student feedback Students completed SGRs Researcher observation
4	Entire classroom 2 garden lessons 1 month post lessons	Fifth grade, co-ed students, dual immersion (English/Spanish), (n = 24)	Student feedback Students completed SGRs Classroom teacher feedback Researcher observation

).

3. Results

3.1. Student Pilot Groups

Researchers completed the SGR response form after each pilot group to compile student responses (see

Table 4. Summary of student feedback from pilot groups.

Pilot Group Questions	Pilot Group 1	Pilot Group 2	Pilot Group 3	Pilot Group 4
Provide any feedback received for Question 1.	“Question was easy to understand and fill out”	“Fine”	“Good”	“Good”
Provide any feedback for Question 2.	“Question was easy to understand and fill out”	“Fine”	“Good”	“Good”
Provide any feedback received for Question 3.	“Some students would prefer ‘about the same’ to be 50/50 or use star shapes instead of bubbles” “One student marked ‘less’ for question, ‘I ask my family to buy my favorite vegetable’ because they now grow the vegetable at home”	“Fine”	“Good”	“Good” Q: I eat vegetables grown in a garden—“Where? Home? School?”
Provide any feedback received for Question 4.	“Pretty good”	“Fine”	“Good”	“Good”
Provide any feedback received for Question 5.	“One student said ‘it was hard to remember’ when taking the survey after a prolonged time”	“Fine”	“Good”	“Good”
Provide any feedback received for Question 6.	“No feedback”	“Fine”	“Good”	“Good”
Which question(s) did students identify as clear or easy?	“All questions were indicated as clear”	“They seemed fine with all of them”	“They seemed fine with all of them”	“Almost All”
Which question (s) did students identify as confusing?	“Doing the survey so long after the garden program ended”	“None that I was told”	“None that were brought to my attention.”	“Just the one about what garden they eat from”
What did students like or not like about the survey?	“Shorten question 3 and more fillable responses”	“They liked the pictures”	“They said they liked the pictures and remembered MyPlate”	“Pictures were good”
Was there anything students indicated that they enjoyed or learned from their experiences in the garden that is missing from the survey?	“Nothing missing”	“They always want to go to the garden”	“They liked being the very first ever to take the survey”	“Not really”

) during each of the four pilot groups. Pilot group length ranged from 15 to 25 min. Researchers noted that the directions were easily understood by students across all pilot groups. In Pilot Group 1, students discussed the shape of the response bubble and expressed interest in a star response shape. One student in this pilot group suggested replacing the “about the same” response option language to “50/50.” In Pilot Group 4, multiple students had questions about the meaning of Question 3, statement b. When the researcher read the statement “I eat vegetables grown in the garden,” the students wanted to know what garden the question was referencing (e.g., school garden, home garden or community garden). In Pilot Groups 2–4, students indicated that they like the pictures used throughout the survey.

3.2. Classroom Teacher Feedback and Administration Notes

Two of the four classroom teachers in the pilot opted to complete and return the SGR Teacher Response Form. Both classroom teachers indicated that the SGR instructions were clear and appropriate for students in grades 4 and above. The classroom teacher from Pilot Group 1 noted: “The questions were simple and easy to understand.” The classroom teacher from Pilot Group 4 liked that the survey had pictures and that the questions and number of questions were not overwhelming for the students. This classroom teacher noted that students had questions about Question 3, statement B: “I eat vegetables grown in a garden.” The teacher reflected: “The phrasing of this question made the students wonder if it could be any garden or a specific garden” (e.g., a home garden, a school garden or a community garden). Additionally, this classroom teacher noted that the SGR should be available in Spanish. Survey administrtion ranged from 15 to 25 min across the pilot groups (as seen in

Table 5. Summary of administration notes, teacher feedback, and facilitator observations for pilot groups.

Pilot Questions	Pilot Group 1	Pilot Group 2	Pilot Group 3	Pilot Group 4
How long did the class take to complete the survey?	“25 min together as a class”	“20 min”	“20 min”	“About 15 min”
Were the directions clear for students? Did any students have difficulty understanding the instructions or response options? Please describe.	“Options made sense, some indicated they would prefer a scale”	“It was clear and there were no problems or questions”	“They were clear. However, the teacher did help some students by writing answer samples on the board.” The researcher clarified that the teacher wrote a sample sentence structure for students (e.g., “What I liked…”).	“They had questions about question 3, second one, wanted to know specifics of garden location” In this dual immersion classroom, the teacher verbally translated the questions into Spanish for students who were English-language learners.
Please provide any other feedback from your experience administering the survey that can help us improve the tool.	“Students were quick to respond even when some shared their confusion. Confusion is more related to students not remembering everything as clearly due to time.”	“As 4th graders, they seemed to have a pretty easy time understanding and answering the questions”	“The teacher helped and it went really smoothly. No issues noted.	“Survey was quick and easy to administer, students were excited to get to ‘help’ by filling it out.” Some students who are English-language learners responded to open-ended questions in Spanish.

).

3.3. Descriptive Review

Across all pilot groups, 80% of students (n = 60) completed the entire survey, answering all questions in accordance with the direction. An additional 17% of students (n = 13) completed all but one survey question. Two students left more than one question unanswered. Researchers found no unexpected patterns in the blank responses or students responses to the response scales.

3.4. Thematic Analysis of Open-Ended Questions

Student responses to the SGR’s three open-ended questions were thematically analyzed to examine what kind of information the items elicited (see

Table 6. Thematic overview of student responses to Question 4: What did you like most about the garden program?

Themes	No. of Students	Description of Theme
The Experience, Comprehensively	5	The theme includes student appreciation for the entire program, the garden as a whole, and sense of fun/excitement.
Helping Others	6	This theme includes helping in the garden, helping the instructor/teacher, and supporting other students’ learning.
Gardening Lessons and Knowledge	18	This theme includes lessons on a variety of topics, including identifying pests/bugs, learning about hydroponics, and identifying plants.
Food-Tasting	30	This theme includeseating produce from the garden and trying new produce.
Hands-on Activities	39	This theme includes a variety of activities, such as pulling weeds, planting, picking up weeds, cooking, composting, and harvesting.

,

Table 7. Thematic overview of student responses to Question 5: What was the most important thing that you learned from the garden program?

Themes	No. of Students	Description of Theme
Food Safety	3	This theme includes knowledge of safety food-handling practices, as well as practices that reduce risk of food-borne illness in the garden setting.
Following General Instructions	5	This theme includes learning to follow safety instructions, as well as general instructions from the garden educator.
Nutrition Knowledge	13	This theme includes knowledge of the nutritional value of produce grown in the garden, as well as general nutrition education lessons.
Gardening Skills	18	This theme includes skills related to tool-handling, pulling weeds, watering.
Gardening Knowledge	34	This theme includes topics such as seasonal planting, weed identification, plant identification, pest management.

and

Table 8. Thematic overview of student responses to Question 6: How would you improve the garden program?

Themes	No. of Students	Description of Theme
Increase school support for the garden program.	6	This theme includes students recommendation to hire additional staff to support the garden program, invest in improved pest management strategies, purchase additional garden equipment, as well as to integrate garden produce into cafeteria meals.
Spending more time in the garden.	7	This theme includes student desire to spend more time working in the garden or helping the instructor more.
Planting recommendations (flowers, colors, seeds)	12	This theme included students recommendations to plant specific produce items, to increase the number of fruits planted, as well as to plant additional trees and flowers.
Expanding garden programming access	12	This theme included students recommendations to engage more students in programming, as well as to reach additional classrooms.
“I like the garden the way it is.”	20	This theme included students’ appreciation for the way the garden is and indications they wouldn’t change anything.

).

4. Discussion

Overall, the results of the pilot demonstrated that the SGR is an accessible evaluation tool for students, with high rates of completion and satisfaction from students and classroom teachers. The open-ended questions solicited a range of meaningful responses from students to inform practitioners on student satisfaction, salience, and recommendations for future programming. Based on these results, one change was made to the SGR to improve usability and student comprehension. Specifically, Question 3, statement B, was revised from the original language “I eat vegetables grown in a garden” to “I eat garden-grown vegetables.” A second change was made to the SGR, which resulted from the release of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025–2030 [45]. As these dietary guidelines no longer utilize MyPlate [46], the icon imagery included in Question 3, statement J was modified. The original icons were replaced with a photograph depicting a meal with half the plate filled with fruits and vegetables.

Existing youth garden and farm-to-school surveys measure garden skills alone [47], are curriculum specific—such as the Learn, Grow, Eat & GO! program evaluation measuring vegetable preferences and garden activities students did with their family in the past year [48]—or assess fruit and vegetable knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, liking/preferences, and collect open-ended responses about the garden experience [49,50,51,52], but not in relationship to garden exposure. The SGR fills a gap in the published literature by creating a simple, practitioner-oriented tool that examines the specific hands-on gardening activities that students participate in while also measuring the program dose (number of sessions) and garden-related student outcomes. Given that student attendance varies day to day, this survey ensures that the outcomes reported by students can be linked to the specific hands-on garden activities that each child participated in.

Some researchers note that the integration of garden-based nutrition education has the potential to prevent a range of contemporary public health concerns, from increasing physical activity [53] to attenuating weight gain (reduced waist circumference) in school-aged children with obesity [24,34,54], reducing food insecurity [55], and enhancing socio-emotional health [56,57,58]. As this body of research has grown, scholars have also conducted meta-analyses of garden-based nutrition interventions and have identified limitations across the studies that impact repeatability for practitioners and researchers, as well as generalizability of findings [16,59,60]. The SGR can be used across garden initiatives by pracitioners and researchers to better document the hands-on garden-based activities that students participate in and help identify the specific garden activities or mix of activities and garden exposure dose most commonly related to changes in students‘ intermediate garden-related attitudes, preferences and behaviors when implemented as a stand-alone garden evaluation tool. In addition, the SGR can be paired with a validated fruit and vegetable intake survey [61] to measure potential longer-term outcomes like changes in fruit and vegetable consumption and explore the pathways between intermediate and long-term garden program outcomes when more comprehensive interventions with higher garden exposure doses are implemented and adequate staffing make it feasible.

This pilot has several limitations. It did not compare SGR responses with individual student garden exposure and behaviors. Instead, the survey underwent several rounds of expert review for content validity during the tool development to systematically evaluate whether the tool’s items accurately represent and fully cover the intended garden outcome constructs. Although biases are inherent with self-reporting and may reduce validity, research shows using retrospective survey methods may help attenuate response bias [62]. This study was conducted with a small convenience sample of 4th and 5th grade students from four classrooms at under-resourced schools in two counties and the group size varied across pilot groups which could limit the generalizability. A small pilot group size can limit the variety of ideas shared whereas large groups can lack depth in the discussions and be challenging to manage. In this study, student feedback from the four pilot groups was consistent across grades, regions and group sizes ranging from 5 to 27 students. The two larger groups (Groups 3 and 4, n = 24+) had teacher support with reading the survey aloud—a valuable lesson learned for future administration. The single SGR revision came from student questions collected in one of the larger pilot groups (Group 4, n = 24) suggesting students had adequate opportunities to share their feedback regardless of pilot group size. The SGR used a 3-item Likert scale to measure garden outcomes for the purpose of increasing clarity and simplicity for students in younger grades [41]. As a result, the 3-item scale is likely less sensitive at picking up changes than a 5-item Likert scale. Lastly, students expressed difficulty remembering program specifics related to their garden experiences (i.e., lesson names, plants they had grown, etc.) when surveyed several months after completing the garden activities. To address any recall challenges, it is recommended to administer the SGR at the end of the last activity or as close to the end of planned hands-on garden-based activities as possible to ensure accurate recall.

Future directions for the SGR should begin with additional reliability and validity testing. Following this, the survey versatility can continue to be explored with additional grade levels, geographic areas, socio-cultural contexts, and settings such as in school gardens. The research team also identified additional materials that would support practitioner implementation of the SGR. To ensure student comprehension, particularly in settings with English-language learners, the SGR should be made available to students in their preferred language to eliminate on-the-spot translations by practitioners which may alter question meaning and result in inconsistent responses from students.

5. Conclusions

The Student Garden Retrospective Survey (SGR) for students in grades 4 and above was developed to support practitioners in evaluating their garden-based nutrition education programming. Results indicate that the SGR presents promising feasability findings for implementation in school-based garden programs and solicits meaningful feedback on student garden exposure, dose, and outcomes. Practitioners can utilize the SGR alone or paired with nutrition education and dietary behavior surveys to iteratively improve their garden-based nutrition education programs in order to enhance students’ nutrition and health outcomes.