Preschool Educators’ Opinions and Practices on School Gardening

School Gardening Aims for a Sustainable World

The sustainability of our cities is possible with urban communities’ support and active participation. As citizens who have the right to have a say in urban development in the future, today's children will gain an awareness of the environment through their natural experiences in childhood. They will evaluate their decisions within the framework of environment and sustainability (Fischer et al., 2019). A sustainable city can be supported by urban gardens for adult urban citizens and school gardening for children in schools (Jahrl et al., 2021). Contemporary work in school gardening, which was initially used as an educational gateway to studying nature, has started to include different purposes such as environmental management, food sustainability, and healthy nutrition over time (Desmond et al., 2004). In addition, theoretical discussions of school gardening are formed around school gardens as a living laboratory (Smith & Motsenbocker, 2005) and are based on experiential education, environmental education, and agricultural education (Desmond et al., 2004). It is also associated with critical pedagogy (Jagger et al., 2016), inquiry-based learning, and place and community-based learning (Blair, 2009).

For a sustainable world, contact with nature should be included in schools’ curricula, especially in urban areas, because some children in these regions may experience natural life limited to school and home gardens. Duhn et al. (2017) describe children living in urban areas as the most disadvantaged group. Therefore, it is essential to develop various applications for these children. For instance, the “Gardens for Life” program supports the learning of gardening activities in conjunction with other subject areas of the curriculum, such as strengthening the bonds between school and community. This program was carried out with primary and secondary school children and covered the topics of global food-related problems and the sustainability of natural resources (Bowker & Tearle, 2007). Aguilar et al. (2008) found that as a result of their school gardening experiences, fifth-grade children exhibited positive attitudes toward nature and the environment. This study also showed that children who have gardening experience score higher on environmental attitude scales from an early age. Camasso and Jagannathan (2018) revealed that a natural science-based teaching and student engagement program named Nurture thru Nature, implemented in a New Jersey elementary school, increased children's knowledge of nature besides performance in science and mathematics. Fisher-Maltese’s (2016) research showed that a garden-based science curriculum on insects improves elementary school children's potential to become environmental stewards by developing a more empathetic approach to nature. Similarly, Malberg-Dyg and Wistoft (2018) discovered that school gardening enables children to empathize with other living things and understand the ecology of food systems by providing children with complex ecosystem experiences. However, Fisher-Maltese et al. (2018) found that low exposure to garden-based learning was insufficient to significantly impact how a school garden program could improve children's environmental literacy skills and contribute to urban sustainability efforts. This study emphasizes the importance of educational policies that remove obstacles to school gardening to contribute to urban sustainability.

School Gardening has Developmental and Academic Benefits

Recent literature lists a range of school gardening practices; however, most of them are aimed not at preschool children but primary and secondary school children (e.g., Bowker & Tearle, 2007; Cutter-Mackenzie, 2009; Graham et al., 2004; Hermann et al., 2006; O’Brien & Shoemaker, 2006; Ruiz-Gallardo et al., 2013). While these different programs often varied in activities and curriculum, they all focused on school gardening in terms of its contribution to children's development, wellbeing, and academic achievement. There are concerns regarding families’ food choices residing in urban communities, especially regarding reduced healthy food consumption. As obesity increases, movement decreases and becomes increasingly common due to unhealthy eating habits. Obesity can negatively affect an individual's ability to perform daily activities, including many forms of physical activity, and reduce their quality of life (Hodge & Vigo-Valentín, 2021). Well-being benefits of school gardening include an increase in vegetable consumption by children (Hermann et al., 2006), maintenance of general health (Malberg-Dyg & Wistoft, 2018), and more opportunities to exercise, all of which assist in the prevention of childhood obesity (Ozer, 2007). In this regard, O’Brien and Shoemaker (2006) informed us of a fourth-grade after-school gardening club named “Junior Master Gardener,” which raised awareness of healthy nutrition. Another gardening education was developed for preschool children, with an early introductory program that aims to transform children's negative feelings about consuming vegetables and increase their participation in physical activities (Hermann et al., 2006). Likewise, the “Farm to School” program follows the philosophy of garden-based education and has been carried out with primary school children. Activities such as creating salad bars, field trips to farms, and waste management plants were carried out within the program's scope (Graham et al., 2004). In this regard, urban schools must address health, nutrition, and physical activity issues to benefit students and their communities. This starts as fundamental as awareness of the types of food they serve, the amount of physical activity they provide, healthy eating habits, and critical thinking about how they develop the importance of increased physical activity for all students (Hodge & Vigo-Valentín, 2021).

Educational benefits of school gardening include enriching the existing curriculum by providing opportunities for children to connect gardening practices with those of mathematics, science, art, and language skills (Blair, 2009; Passy, 2014; Williams & Dixon, 2013). School gardening enables children to develop math skills such as measuring, encountering, sequencing (Passy, 2014), scientific process skills such as observing, comparing, predicting, and understanding the life cycle (Hachey & Butler, 2009), art skills such as learning songs containing vegetables and using products grown while painting (Inwood & Sharpe, 2018; Ruiz-Gallardo et al., 2013). A recent study by Sommerfeld et al. (2021) found a significant effect of a garden treatment program on 2–6 years-old children's fine motor skills, which are essential for academic achievement in their future learning.

Furthermore, school gardening provides meaningful learning opportunities (Acharya, 2019) that have also been shown to be an effective learning method for disadvantaged children, reduces behavioral problems (Ruiz-Gallardo et al., 2013), and indirectly supports social development (Hoffman et al., 2007; Williams & Dixon, 2013). The social benefits of school gardening include the encouragement for teachers, principals, children, parents, and the local community to directly contribute to schooling activities and become more involved in the educational process (Passy, 2014). In addition, Ozer (2007) argued that school gardening contributes to peer relationships among children, as it often includes tasks such as planting, weeding, or building that require students to work in groups.

Moreover, Fisher-Maltese et al. (2018) emphasize that school gardening is a way to involve members of ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged children in environmental participation. The literature informs the applicability of garden-based education to disadvantaged and at-risk children. For instance, Ruiz-Gallardo et al. (2013) found that a two-year garden-based education program in Spain decreased behavioral problems and increased academic success among at-risk children with low academic achievement. Another program, namely “Multicultural School Gardens,” a culture-oriented environmental education, focused on creating a sustainable garden reflecting and celebrating different cultural heritages inclusive of the whole community (Cutter-Mackenzie, 2009). Based on a literature review, providing children with opportunities for gardening experiences in the early years shows a consistent pattern of beneficial outcomes.

Educators are Critical in Effective Gardening Practices

In the studies conducted with teachers and administrators, it was seen that the participants agreed that gardening is very beneficial for children (e.g., Andic et al., 2020; Fisher-Maltese et al., 2018; Loftus et al., 2017; Tinker, 2012). However, despite evidence-based beliefs about the effects of school gardening on children's learning and development, teachers often report that they rarely use the school garden (Fisher-Maltese, 2016). Similarly, the Fisher-Maltese et al. (2018) study showed that teachers do not integrate their gardening experience into the broader curriculum.

However, there are also obstacles that educators face in school gardening practices. Huys et al. (2017) summarized these barriers as difficulties in starting gardening, especially during holidays, problems in integration into the school curriculum, and financial problems. Teachers emphasized that they try to overcome these problems by sharing the responsibility of families and the community and by getting support from non-profit organizations. In parallel, Hazzard et al. (2011) argued that implementing and maintaining a garden without involving stakeholders and obtaining funds and materials can lead to failure and discouragement. Similarly, Christensen and Wistoft (2019) emphasized that teachers must collaborate with colleagues, gardeners, and volunteer workers to incorporate school gardening into the curriculum effectively.

In parallel with the research above, a study showed that educators made three critical points about school gardening programs. The first is that all stakeholders should be supported for a successful program, the second is that positive effects on children should be investigated for the continuity of the program, and the results should be shared with all stakeholders. The last one is the training of teachers on gardening and its integration into the school curriculum (de Alba, 2019). It is important for teachers to be aware of different curriculum approaches, think about what will be most meaningful in their teaching practice, and plan accordingly (Christensen & Wistoft, 2019). According to Acharya et al. (2020), teachers can use it effectively in the curriculum by truly understanding the value of learning through gardening. To be enthusiastic about devoting time and energy to school gardening, teachers must identify and trust that gardening is an important teaching technique to enhance students’ learning. In addition, effective school gardening depends on combining the teacher's pedagogical knowledge with knowledge of how the garden is used as an outdoor teaching environment (Hazzard et al., 2011). In contrast, Blair (2009) concluded that teachers’ comfort levels considerably changed with school gardening, and the traditional educational approach prevented the effective implementation of school gardening.

Implementing and maintaining a garden while lacking a standards-based gardening curriculum can reduce the functionality of the school garden (Hazzard et al., 2011). In this context Turkish National Preschool Education Program (MoNE) encourages the provision of outdoor and nature experiences, including school gardening for children, and advocates hands-on, discovery-based learning. The program also gives specific examples for gardening activities such as growing plants and observing living creatures (The Ministry of National Education, 2013). Ongoing maintenance is necessary to facilitate teaching and learning so that schoolyards provide a place where students enjoy learning and teachers enjoy teaching. The school garden's aesthetic appeal effectively motivates teachers about gardening (Christensen & Wistoft, 2019). Although not focusing on the quality of school garden design, there is evidence that the physical structures for gardening are already available in some preschools in Turkey and that gardening areas were often included in the school grounds. For instance, Cevher-Kalburan (2014) found gardening areas on some school grounds, and planting activities were implemented. Tepebağ and Aktaş-Arnas (2017) also found that preschool teachers who had a gardening area on the school ground offered gardening activities to children more frequently.

Participants

Participants were determined by the maximum diversity sampling method. This method focuses on interviewing individuals who hold a wide range of differences in both positionality and perspective to generate a representational understanding of a specific issue (Creswell, 2013/2020). In this study, the participants were principals and teachers working in two different urban preschools, traditional and nature-based. Similarly, differences were marked between a teacher and a principal from two preschools that employ a nature-based curriculum versus a teacher and a principal from two preschools that use a traditional curriculum.

A total of four educators from four preschools participated as representatives of large urban schools located in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. The city where the study was conducted is one of the five most densely populated cities in Turkey, with a population of approximately 2,500,000, and can be defined as an urban intensive region (Milner, 2012; Turkish Statistical Institute, 2020). The study was carried out in preschools in the city center. These schools provide education to children from different ethnic origins due to the structure of the cosmopolitan city. Two of the participants continue to work in two different public preschools, and the others work in two different private preschools. The participants were named NbT (teacher at the nature-based preschool), NbP (principal at the nature-based preschool), TT (teacher at the traditional preschool), and TP (principal at the traditional preschool).

All of the participants were women between 28 to 39 years of age, graduates of an undergraduate preschool teacher program, and experienced working with children aged three-six years-old in classrooms that ranged between 10–15 children. One participant had attended a course on school gardening, while the other participants had no prior formal training in school gardening. Projects such as Zero Waste Project, TEMA Kids, Learning about Forests, and Eco-schools were being implemented in the schools of three participants, but not in the other schools. Finally, three of the participants were actively gardening in their personal lives, and all participants had past gardening experiences.

Data Collection Process

Ethics committee approval was obtained for the research proposal from the university to which the authors were affiliated. Information letters and consent forms were distributed to the participants, and their participation approval was obtained. Detailed information about the research and the measures taken to protect personal privacy is included in the forms. The study was conducted only with volunteer participants. Participants were informed in writing that they could withdraw from the study at any time, and in this case, their data would not be included in the study.

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. The researchers prepared two separate interview forms containing 23 questions, one for teachers and one for principals. The interview forms were reviewed by three field experts and one preschool teacher. Additionally, a pilot interview was conducted with two preschool educators who did not participate in the formal study.

The primary author conducted interviews via online video chat applications. This method was chosen due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the video call enabled the inclusion and reinforcement of body language in communication. The interviews were recorded with the participants’ permission and lasted an average of 50 min. Additional interviews were conducted with two participants in order to clarify points that were not sufficiently understood from the initial interview.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using the deductive content analysis technique based on the research questions. After defining, coding, and categorizing the data in the content analysis process, a list of themes was created according to the codes’ typical characteristics (Patton, 2015). In this research, coding was done in two stages, the first and the second cycle coding. While analyzing the interviews, structural coding and simultaneous coding, the first cycle coding method, were performed based on the existing research questions. Then the data was reviewed, and the second cycle of coding was started. In the second cycle of coding, a focused coding method was used. Focused coding aims to create themes in the focus of findings that are important for research (Saldana, 2021). Following this process, the findings were gathered under five themes. After determining the themes, the data were analyzed again to identify specific phrases in the transcripts that provided information about the participants’ opinions and experiences.

The data were coded independently by both researchers. After the data analysis process was completed and to ensure reliability in the coding, the researchers reconciled the datasets analyzed. After reaching a consensus, the findings were reported (Merriam, 2014).

Validity and Reliability

Validity and reliability measures were taken by considering the criteria specified by Yıldırım and Şimşek (2018), including credibility, transferability, consistency, and confirmability. Sufficient time was allocated during the interviews for credibility, while an intensely focused data collection method was used in tandem with an expert review method at various stages of the research. For transferability, purposive sampling was used, while a detailed description method allowed for the analysis of direct quotations. Finally, an outside expert was asked to review the study and conduct a confirmation review for confirmability.

Definitions of School Gardening

In constructing their definitions of school gardening, the participants highlighted specific dimensions. For example, NbT defined school gardening as an activity area, “When I think of school gardening, kitchen gardens and greenhouses come to mind. There are really suitable areas for children to plant…”. Other participants defined school gardening as a set of effects on children, such as happiness and calmness. For example, TT stated, “When I think of school gardening, I actually think of happy children first…”. The TP expressed:

“…It seems like a calmer, more peaceful generation to me. Since I grew up with the land, I am not a very quick-tempered character. I think it's really because I grew up dealing with the land…”

NbP, on the other hand, broadened how she defined the concept:

“Gardening is not just about planting vegetables and so on. Gardening is about designing a garden as well as landscaping, and I think gardening is also about designing a playground in a garden.”

As can be seen above, happiness, garden, soil, and the areas where these activities take place were described as essential characteristics in the definition of school gardening. Below, we address one of the most common themes within the definitional understanding of school gardening; the idea of gardening activities as a set of discrete practices in preschool education.

School Gardening Activities

All but one of the participants stated that they routinely include school gardening activities in their programs. One participant (TT) stated that there are no regularly implemented activities and that they have included only two activities on this subject. TT outlined the extent of these activities “First, we planted saplings in a small area. And the second one… We have two orange trees in the garden of the preschool. We gathered them and made marmalade…”

Relating to the areas for school gardening activities, the participants mostly performed the activities outdoors and in greenhouses. As NbT said, “…We have two areas: One is a greenhouse, and the other is hobby gardens where children have their own gardens. Our greenhouse is closed, our hobby gardens are open,” while NbP said, “… We have hobby gardens… We ensure that every vegetable is planted seasonally there… plant different trees with the children, and pick fruits from the trees. We also have a greenhouse where we spend time together. We try to use it as much as possible.” NbT emphasized that the activities frequently started with stories and follow-up group conversations, then they moved to the cultivation areas and carried out sowing-planting activities. NbP stated that in-class activities such as rooting vegetables in water were also included in the lesson plan on different occasions. Similarly, the TP explained that they planned in-class activities in addition to the activities in the garden as follows:

“Conversations about observations and work done outside take place inside. Children discuss the activities outside with their teachers and peers. They draw and interpret their observations…”.

Three participants defined further differences in the ways gardening areas are used, who said that the areas for gardening activities were not divided into sections according to classes or subjects. For example, NbP mentioned that “…We plant altogether. For example, if one class plants potatoes, another class harvests those potatoes.” Conversely, NbT stated that each child could participate in gardening at the school in a separate area called a hobby garden.

Concerning the gardening materials that children used during the activities, NbT stated that there were picks, shovels, waterers, pitchers, and gloves; TP mentioned buckets, magnifying glasses, observation boxes, cushions, and wooden boards for painting. Emphasizing that teachers included a limited number of gardening activities in the school and that there is no routine activity, TT offered the following explanation:

“…Since the activities we implement in the school are minimal, the materials we allocate for them are therefore not considered important. We only used tools such as shovels, picks, and gloves for planting saplings once.”

Participants emphasized that they included gardening activities within the scope of different curricular activities such as art, mathematics, and science. For instance, NbP explained how gardening is applied to math activities: “… For example, we measure the height of the plant. We mark it on the chart. …We create graphics…” Similarly, TP pointed to gardening to explore the imagination and develop the visual arts: “…Children plant flowers. They then represent their predictions of what these flowers would look like when grown through drawings.”

The participants also described collaborating with parents and the community as a preschool garden activity. While NbT and TP stated that there is a full-time gardener in their preschools, they also emphasized that they received support from parents who were agricultural engineers or engaged in greenhouse cultivation. NbP said, “Our municipality has agricultural engineers. Since we are the preschool of the municipality, we cooperate with them. They come and help about how it should be planted, when it should be harvested etc…”.

When participants were asked to give specific examples of activity types, they described sowing-planting, harvesting, and composting as everyday activities. For example, TP mentioned growing plants such as arugula, cress, lettuce, green onions, and fruits such as strawberries and apricots, depending on the season. TP also said that they had trees such as orange, kumquat, tangerine, apricot, and olive for children to pick and taste and make jam, compote, et cetera. Likewise, NbT provided the following example of how garden activities align with real-world needs: “Our cook says “I need cucumbers” or “I need tomatoes.” So, we harvest them for her by embedding them into our daily routines…”

Effects of School Gardening on Children

The participants’ responses focused on specific skills related to all developmental areas regarding the effects of school gardening activities on children. For instance, TT said, “…It supports almost all areas; cognitive, language, and motor development especially. This includes the development of self-care skills, as the children are taught the need to always wash their hands after touching the ground.” An example provided by NbT emphasized language and cognitive development: “…child learns the names of foods (s)he does not know… and observes them. (S)he knows what zucchini is but maybe does not know pumpkin. In this way, (s)he learns the differences and similarities. …”. Further, the effects on skills such as responsibility, cooperation, sharing and observation (n = 3) and creativity (n = 1).

In addition, TT also talked about positive effects on children's interest in learning and curiosity about new ecosystems:“…I see that the children are interested in how under the ground is. They are curious about how the planted things grow and what kind of products they will see”. NbT argued that school gardening activities provide children with an exploratory learning experience through sharing an anecdote about a child's exciting discovery that a tomato changes color over time.

While the participants discussed the benefits of school gardening, they also mentioned children's development of a love of nature and ecological sustainability knowledge. An example provided by TP: “…No one cares about a garden without a love of nature and responsibility”. NbP also stated that children's learning about the sustainability of natural resources: “Currently, we are trying to highlight the use of compost. For example, we examine how it affects the growth of plants. We also do not use pesticides so the child can see that plants can be infested and how we should eliminate these insects. We give all the rotten cabbage to our cows, donkeys, lambs, or worms with the children.” Likewise, NbP discussed the fruits and vegetables that children witnessed the ripening process in terms of learning about the food chain: “Actually, gardening supports children's understanding of the living things and where the food they eat comes from.”

Problems with School Gardening

In preparation for discussing problems with implementing or developing a school garden curriculum, the participants were asked how they felt about school gardening as a general educational goal. Three participants (NbT, NbP, and TT) stated that they generally felt inadequate and needed improvement. For example, NbT made the following statement:

“There is so much to learn in the garden. You come across an insect you have never seen, one that you never knew existed. The child asks, “what is the name of this insect?” and you cannot say it. At this point, you go to research the insect species with the children, and it is actually more enjoyable. But other than that, relating to gardening, it would be great if I could get professional help from an agricultural engineer, a landscape architect, and many related fields…”

TP stated that (s)he felt adequate but needed time, saying, “I feel competent, but I wish there were opportunities… we have more opportunities, but sometimes I can't get to the garden because I first have to finish all of the school paperwork.”

The participants also mentioned problems with the suitability of available gardening grounds. For instance, NbT said, “Sometimes the areas we will plant may not be suitable. Soil can be very hard. It can hurt the fingers and make planting difficult. Sometimes insect infestation and pesticide-free farming can be a problem.”

NbP emphasized that they needed a larger area and added that the number of children made the process complicated:

“…there are 20 children, per two teachers. Gardening is something that requires a bit of individuality. Having a smaller, limited number of children and seeing the child better helps the teacher to be more involved and interactive, but with a crowded classroom, it becomes a bit difficult to coordinate…”

By contrast, TT stated that the teachers’ and principals’ lack of sufficient knowledge on school gardening made the process more challenging to manage. TP reinforced the presence of problems by pointing to the lack of financial resources in support of the school garden project:

“…The only problem is that we do not have a gardener this year; Responsibility for maintenance is required. Because we have a big garden. … Although all teachers are involved, financial problems clearly need to be resolved…”

Expectations for School Gardening

Within the scope of the research, the participants were asked what they needed for an ideal school gardening practice. The participants primarily emphasized the need for the field to be dedicated as a space for a school garden. While the teacher participants (NbT and TT) discussed the importance of having conscious teachers interested in gardening, TT also stated that parents must be informed about the process to support the activities at home. Participating principals (NbP and TP) stated that they needed materials, teachers, and a budget.

The participants also stated that they wanted to create an unstructured area in their garden, eliminate deficiencies such as a fountain, and plan relevant visitors and field trips. The TP described his desire to further develop the school garden as a resource that could be shared with other schools in the district:

“… There are many schools around us in this city that do not have a garden. I wish they could come and spend time here too. Schools that do not have a garden with a joint project can come and use our garden once a week and organize activities.”

School Gardening Provides a Variety of Benefits to Children

The participating educators mentioned positive emotional effects such as calmness and peace, defining school gardening. A study conducted in a large city in Europe revealed that insufficient access to green spaces was associated with behavioral problems in 10-year-old children (Markevych et al., 2014). Regarding this, the implementation of garden-based education positively affects children's behavioral problems (Ruiz-Gallardo et al., 2013) and reduces aggressive behaviors (Dyment & Bell, 2008). School gardening can be applied as a long-term precaution for these children. Then, the findings from this study provide further support for the value of garden-based education.

In their descriptions of school gardening, the participants mainly indicated vegetable and fruit sowing, planting, and harvesting practices and that these practices were often done in conjunction with learning in areas such as mathematics, science, and art. The participants also thought that gardening activities had effects on the cognitive, motor, language, and social skills of children. Blair (2009) found that garden-based education can be easily associated with science, art, and the environment, and the practices of gardening generally support the development of childhood knowledge domains in these other learning areas. Likewise, Passy (2014) found that the practices of school gardening are naturally adaptable to reinforce mathematical skills such as collecting, defining, measuring, and making graphs. Mcgaughy (2013) also found that the school garden is ideally suited for cross-disciplinary learning, as it is uniquely adaptable in bringing particular concepts of science, mathematics, and language into an integrated whole.

Regarding the effects of school gardening on children, the participants emphasized language and physical development contributions. In addition, the effects on skills such as responsibility, cooperation, sharing, and observation were also mentioned. These findings are compatible with the relevant literature (Blair, 2009; Ozer, 2007; Passy, 2014; Williams & Dixon, 2013). Graham and Zidenberg Cherr (2005) found that teachers believed gardening has positive effects on language and physical development and social skills through group activities that involve teamwork and sharing.

An additional finding indicated that although the participants did not plan gardening activities based on children's interests, in particular, they believed that the school garden has a positive effect on developing children's learning interests, as it provides activities in which they directly participate, such as observing the growth of plants and harvesting them. Gardner-Burt (2016) stated that gardening is interesting for children as it enables interactive and hands-on learning, while a study conducted by TEMA (2013) in Turkey showed that children were happy to have vegetables and fruits in their school gardens. Christensen and Wistoft (2019) stated that if teachers do not realize how the garden can contribute to students’ learning outcomes in their subject, they are unlikely to choose to participate. In this respect, understanding the positive effects of participating educators on children can motivate them to implement school gardening practices.

It is known that the activities arising from the interests of children in preschool education have positive effects on learning (Hedges et al., 2011; Raab et al., 2013; Skinner & Chi, 2012). Therefore, children's intrinsic motivation and participation were also considered active components of garden-based education. However, this study indicated that only teachers and school principals, not the children, are directly involved in the planning process of the activities. This finding challenges the importance of following children's interests as emphasized by the MoNE. In the directives presented by MoNE, teachers are expected to offer experiences that will appeal to children's interests and curiosity. Köyceğiz and Özbey (2019) found that preschool teachers often made curriculum plans in line with their interests and wishes, again not explicitly focused on child-centered learning. In a tangentially related study, researchers found that teachers also developed curriculum plans around games they selected to arouse curiosity about a given subject and motivation to learn (Vardi & Demiriz, 2019). Whereas, according to Howard and Milner (2021), any discussion of critical skills for teaching in urban schools should pay particular attention to how content is presented or made accessible to students. From the view of this literature, there is a need for further research on factors that impact the understanding and professional competence of the educators regarding the practices of child-centered teaching and democratic classroom practices as possible obstacles to the planning of gardening activities.

School Gardening in Urban Areas is an Effective Method for Sustainable Education

Cities limit children's commitment and empathy to nature (Duhn et al., 2017). This study also showed that the participants observed positive effects on their students’ love of nature, learning about the sustainability of natural resources, and knowledge of ecosystems. This finding is similar to studies revealing the positive effect of school gardening on attitudes and behaviors toward nature (Aguilar et al., 2008; Bowker & Tearle, 2007; Camasso & Jagannathan, 2018; Fisher-Maltese, 2016; Malberg-Dyg & Wistoft, 2018). It is known that gardening activities are often planned to develop a positive environmental attitude and ecological awareness (Graham et al., 2004; Ozer, 2007). According to Acar and Torquati (2015), when children learn to care for plants and soil, they develop positive attitudes towards nature. Skinner and Chi (2012) stated that garden-based education includes activities such as recycling and composting to increase ecological and environmental awareness. The result that participant educators considered the positive impact on children's approaches to nature is vital in their approach to school gardening, which is a crucial component of urban ecological sustainability. However, future research is needed to examine in-depth teachers’ beliefs about the relationship between school gardening and ecological sustainability.

School Gardening Requires Collaboration with Stakeholders and the Community

Dawson et al. (2013) determined that successful school gardening involves a relationship between faculty, students, and parental involvement with a curriculum that includes discussions of environmental and sustainability issues. In the current study, educators explained how collaborating with parents and the community amplified the overall positive effects of school gardening on the educational experiences of preschool children. This interaction and cooperation are also an important step in overcoming the problems in urban schools. The participants noted that they benefited from the parents’ strengths, such as gardening-related occupation or experience, and received regular help from community members such as a gardener or municipal workers. Similarly, Greer et al. (2019) found principals’ interest in fostering community involvement promising. Educators should seek existing and promising models of transformative family and community development that are flexible, elastic, productive, and responsive to community needs and dialogue. Such models will be mutually beneficial for schools and the home (Boutte & Johnson, 2021). As Langhout et al. (2002) mentioned, gardening can create new relationships between teachers and community members. In this social context, community members and parents can understand the importance of preschool education in terms of environmental sustainability and experience the pleasure of contributing to education. At the same time, educators can learn about gardening from them. Likewise, Boutte and Johnson (2021) emphasized that building collaborative communities creates opportunities for teachers to share their knowledge with teachers in urban schools. Therefore, gardening can be seen as an opportunity for cooperation and collaboration that increases the quality of education by strengthening developmental goals and increasing the value given to preschool education in society.

Educators Need Support for School Gardening

According to the results, the need for training was expressed by the preschool educators, who remarked that they felt insufficiently prepared to fully implement the school gardening curriculum. One of the important problems in urban education is related to the qualifications of teachers, their education, and their ability to respond to the needs of children in urban schools (Milner & Lomotey, 2021). The importance of training teachers on school gardening was highlighted in the literature (e.g., Blair, 2009; de Alba, 2019; Graham & Zidenberg Cherr, 2005; Mcgaughy, 2013). According to Blair (2009), teachers and principals are the primary variables of school gardening success. The main problems are teachers’ lack of personal attention and limited abilities, knowledge, and time. Howard and Milner (2021) stated that “helping teachers develop knowledge is an essential aspect of preparing them to teach in urban classrooms” (p. 202). Given this evidence, it is crucial to acquire the competencies related to school gardening primarily during the preservice education process. There are very few courses in Preschool Teaching Programs developed by the Turkish Council of Higher Education (e.g., Environmental Education in Early Childhood, Outdoor Learning Environments, and Sustainable Development and Education) specifically designed to instruct preservice educators on the best practices for delivering a garden school curriculum. Problematically, in teacher training programs, these are only elective courses. Thus, there are no compulsory courses within the teacher education curriculum directly related to gardening practices teaching about nature and environmental issues. In addition, school gardening, by its very nature, requires cooperation with the community. In this case, educators need to recognize the structure and characteristics of the community and practice effective cooperation methods. In contrast, Richmond et al. (2022) reported that in teacher education programs, candidates often have little significant experience within and with community members, particularly in urban contexts. This situation can be seen as a factor that causes teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about school gardening to decrease.

Regarding the results on school gardening activities, most activities were held outdoors or in the greenhouse. Prior studies focused on outdoor gardens found no division according to children's ages or curriculum subjects in the activity areas, and different materials were used for the activities (Blair, 2009; Cutter-Mackenzie, 2009; Murakami et al., 2018). In other studies, educators indicated the importance of having and maintaining the necessary equipment for gardening (Graham & Zidenberg Cherr, 2005; Mcgaughy, 2013). The participants of this study also indicated a need for proper gardening tools and gave responses consistent with the results of the previous research.

The results also showed that participants identified issues with the availability of space, time, and financial support to succeed in implementing a school garden curriculum. the inability of schools to receive sufficient financial support is an essential obstacle to urban education (Milner & Lomotey, 2021). Concerning the issue of space, some researchers argue that more extensive gardens are better, while others emphasize that small-scale gardening, such as raised areas, can provide the same experiences (Desmond et al., 2004). Azuma et al. (2001) investigated the reasons for discontinuing the gardening program of schools that previously had spaces for gardening and identified multiple issues, such as difficulties in gardening, especially during the holidays, lack of time for teachers to devote to other duties, and an inability to finance the garden adequately. In parallel, in Greer et al.’s (2019) study, both teachers and principals discussed the lack of resources as a significant challenge in implementing school garden programming and expressed the need for more staff, time, and money to implement school garden programs. Mcgaughy’s (2013) research showed that adequate training, preparation time, and funding are critical factors that must be addressed to ensure school gardens’ ongoing success. A study in Turkey by Burçak (2018) revealed that the most consistent problem encountered in increasing the quality of outdoor spaces is the lack of financial means. Turkey is the last among OECD countries in annual expenditures per student, and the lowest share among education levels is reserved for preschool education (Akın-Mart & Kartal, 2021; Cinel, 2021). Although it is not a solution to this problem in education policy, putting community support to work can be an important step in the development of school gardening.

The study participants also mentioned crowded classrooms as obstacles to practical gardening implementations. When the statistics in Turkey are examined, it is seen that the average class size in preschool education institutions is 19, and there is only one teacher in each class (The Ministry of National Education, 2020). Classrooms are crowded, especially in densely populated urban areas. The high-class size in Turkish preschools was identified as a significant issue by teachers (Cevher-Kalburan, 2014; Yalçın & Yalçın, 2018). Although it was pointed out that the small class size supports school gardening positively (Mcgaughy, 2013), it can be said that teachers need additional staff support in order to put creative solutions to work with large groups of children. The suggestion of Hazzard et al. (2011) regarding establishing a committee or collaborator affiliated with the school garden, consisting of school administrators, teachers, parents/community volunteers, and garden coordinator, can be considered a helpful element in reducing the difficulties brought by the class size.

According to the findings, the positive expectations of the participants about school gardening run in parallel fashion to the problems they experience. While some educators expected to cooperate with experts, one of the participants also wanted to develop a cooperative relationship with other schools within the district. The participants also indicated that they had expectations for eliminating material, budgetary, and space problems. The need for conscious educators on school gardening was also expressed. McMillen et al. (2019) stated that teachers felt that stronger community ties would assist in providing both a working budget and the necessary gardening materials. Mcgaughy’s (2013) findings support this belief, where school gardening coordinators received financial support and discounts for gardening from the community and local churches, landscape architects, gardeners, DIY stores, banks, and various companies. These studies indicate that community-based plans are often supportive of school gardening activities. For example, it was observed that teachers, families, and other community members celebrated the harvest (Murakami et al., 2018). The accumulating research supports the idea that school gardening requires the continuous participation of all stakeholders. It seems that providing broad community collaboration is important not only for the development of school gardening but also for the community, especially in urban areas, to discover its power and influence in increasing accessible natural spaces.