Assessng an Intergeneratonal Horticulture Therapy Program for Elderly Adults and Preschool Children

ASSESSING AN INTERGENERATIONAL HORTICULTURE THERAPY PROGRAM
FOR ELDERLY ADULTS AND PRESCHOOL CHILDREN
by
Mary Lorraine Predny
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
HORTICULTURE
____________________________
Dr. P. Diane Relf
Committee Chair
____________________________ ____________________________
Dr. J. Roger Harris Dr. Andrew J. Stremmel
KEY WORDS: Volunteers, Staff, Video, Activities, Day care

ASSESSING AN INTERGENERATIONAL HORTICULTURE THERAPY PROGRAM
FOR ELDERLY ADULTS AND PRESCHOOL CHILDREN
by
Mary Lorraine Predny
Dr. Diane Relf, Chair
Horticulture Department
ABSTRACT
The goal of this research project was to determine if introducing intergenerational interactions would
supplement or detract from the use of horticulture as a therapeutic tool when working with elderly
adults and preschool children. The program was set up to compare independent group activities with
intergenerational activities. A group of elderly adults in the University Adult Day Service and a group
of preschool children in the University Child Development Laboratory School took part in both
separate age group and intergenerational activities. There were three sessions each week: one for the
children’s group, a second one for the elderly adults’ group, and a third one that combined both
groups. The same activity was done during all three sessions each week, with modifications to make
the activity appropriate for each age group and to make it more interactive for the intergenerational
group. These activities took place in the campus building where the day care centers are located. Four
volunteers assisted with the activities. Two worked with the children’s group both during separate
and intergenerational activities, and two volunteers similarly assisted with the elderly adult group.
Video cameras were used to record each session. These videos were viewed and evaluated after the
10-week horticulture therapy program was completed to score attendance and participation during
separate age group activities, and attendance, participation, and interaction between the two groups
during intergenerational activities. This data was used to determine if introducing intergenerational
interactions affected the individual’s attendance or participation, and to determine if the interactions
between the two groups showed any change over time.

Several variables were shown to affect the outcome of research. The first variable discussed is the
effect of the staff, volunteers, or administration on the participants and the activities. Staff and
volunteers can greatly affect intergenerational interactions by: 1) failing to encourage participation
from participants of all ages, 2) lacking experience or having discomfort in working with special
populations, 3) failure to establish adequate communication with the researcher or with each other,
or 4) demonstrating a negative attitude towards the project. The second variable in research is the
limitation introduced by data analysis using video. While video recording is useful in evaluating data,
it can cause problems due to a limited viewing area, limited viewing angles, blocked screens, or
unfamiliarity with recording equipment.
Videos were used to assess participation and interaction. Participation scores include three categories:
“no participation” for present but inactive participation, and “working with direct assistance” or
“independent participation” for active participation. Participation was affected by the horticulture
activities’ set up, difficulty level, and availability of assistance from volunteers. Children’s
participation during separate group activities was affected mainly by the difficulty level and set up of
activities. Elderly adult’s participation during separate age group activities was affected mainly by
each individual’s abilities and availability of assistance. Children’s intergenerational participation
scores show an increase in the category of “working with direct assistance”, while elderly adults’
intergenerational scores show an increase in the categories of “no participation” and “independent
participation”. In part, the change in intergenerational participation was due to a decrease in the
assistance available from volunteers for each individual.
Lastly, the percentage of total interaction time between the generations during activities increased
over time. However, the introduction of intergenerational interactions detracted from the use of
horticulture as a therapeutic tool for elderly adults and preschool children. It is recommended that
intergenerational programming may not be useful to fulfill specific horticulture therapy goals for these
groups. At the same time, the intergenerational activities involving horticulture plant-based activities
were more successful at increasing interactions than the craft-type activities. Therefore horticulture
iii

may be a useful activity for intergenerational programs with a goal of increased interaction and
relationship development.
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this research project and thesis could not have been possible without the assistance
and support of many individuals. Thanks to my advisor Dr. Diane Relf for her enthusiasm, guidance,
and constructive criticism which helped turn a good idea into a rewarding project. Her innovative
ideas, resourcefulness, and practical solutions made it easier to face the many challenges that arose
throughout the course of this project. I also thank my committee members Drs. Roger Harris and
Andrew Stremmel for their advice and support throughout this study.
I am grateful to the Virginia Tech Adult Day Service and the Child Development Lab School for
the use of their facilities, their patient and advising staff, and most of all for allowing me the pleasure
of working with their clients, many of whom made this research project an incredibly enjoyable and
rewarding experience.
I owe many thanks to the four horticulture therapy volunteers who offered their time and energy, the
Virginia Tech Greenhouses, Floral Design Lab, and Dave Angle for donating horticultural supplies,
the staff in the Office of Consumer Horticulture who read and revised this manuscript, and Alan
McDaniels for his statistical consultations. Without their assistance this project would not have been
successful.
Lastly, I extend my infinite love and appreciation to my family and friends who offered me the
encouragement, advice, and support that gave me the strength and courage to follow my dreams, and
the love and happiness to enjoy life along the way.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Perspectives on Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Horticulture Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Intergenerational Programming Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Implementing a Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Gardening for Elderly Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Gardening for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Additional References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
III. Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy Research Variables
Introduced by Staff, Volunteers, and Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Working with Staff and Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
IV. Intergenerational Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
V. Horticulture Therapy Activities for Preschool Children,
Elderly Adults, and Intergenerational Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Activity Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Testing of Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Elderly Adult Activity References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Preschool Children Activity References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Intergenerational Activity References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
vi

vii
VI. Appendices
Appendix A: Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Children . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Appendix B: Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults . . . . . . 58
Appendix C: Intergenerational Activity Participation Chart - Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Appendix D: Intergenerational Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults . . . . . . . . . 65
Appendix E: Total Participation - Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Appendix F: Total Participation - Elderly Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Appendix G: Total Separate Age Group Activity Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Appendix H: Total Intergenerational Activity Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Appendix I: Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Appendix J: Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Elderly Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Appendix K: Total Individual and Activity Intergenerational Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

INTRODUCTION
The chapters in this thesis were written as separate articles to be submitted to different journals for
publication. Because of this, there is some repetition among the chapters which is necessary to clarify
the information within them. Even though each article results from the same research study, they
address different issues and do not repeat results and conclusions.
The first two articles, “Perspectives on Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy” and
“Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy Research Variables Introduced by Staff, Volunteers, and
Video” will be submitted to the Journal of the American Horticulture Therapy Association.
The third article, “Intergenerational Interactions” will be submitted to HortTechnology.
The last article, “Horticulture Activities for Preschool Children, Elderly Adults, and Intergenerational
Groups” will be submitted to Activities, Adaptation, and Aging.
1

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERGENERATIONAL HORTICULTURE THERAPY
Horticultural Therapy
Historically, horticulture has proven to be an effective means of therapy for many different
populations. Horticultural Therapy (HT) generally refers to the use of horticultural activities that are
adapted to meet specific goals of an individual with special needs in treatment (Relf, 1997). Many
individuals benefit from these activities, including elderly adults, disabled children, mentally and
physically disabled adults, or other individuals who could benefit from participating in horticultural
activities, but who require special adaptations or modifications to do so (Relf and Dorn, 1995).
Horticulture therapy programs are usually led by a professional who is trained to “tailor the use of
plants to fit the therapy and rehabilitation needs of those individuals with whom they are working”
(AHTA publication). Although the specific needs of any particular population and even the needs of
several individuals within a certain population may vary, the main goals of a HT program remain the
same. As Relf states, “the specific goals toward which a HT program is directed may differ distinctly
from one institution to another and from one population to another. However, the ultimate goal of
these programs is the improved physical and mental health of the individual” (Relf [Hefley], 1973).
Horticulture has become a valuable therapeutic tool because the activities can easily be adjusted and
adapted to meet the needs of any specific population without altering the main objectives of the
program.
Intergenerational Horticultural Therapy
Recently, intergenerational HT programs have been used in order to add to a horticulture program
the opportunity for diverse social interactions for special groups that could benefit from such
experiences (Abbott et al., 1997; Epstein and Greenberger, 1990; Kerrigan and Stevenson, 1997).
Intergenerational HT programs have not been widely used or studied, so the impacts of such
programs are unknown. Non-horticultural intergenerational programs have been studied in various
2

situations over the past several years, but the results of these studies are mostly inconclusive or
contradictory (Dellman-Jenkins et al., 1991; Seefeldt, 1989). It is important, therefore, to study these
interactions to determine if they could become an asset to HT programming.
Intergenerational Programming Research
Generations United, a group formed in the mid 1980s to promote intergenerational activities, defines
intergenerational programming as “the purposeful bringing together of different generations in
ongoing planned activities designed to achieve the development of new relationships as well as
specified program goals” (in Ventura-Merkel et al., 1989). The idea of intergenerational exchanges
emerged in the 1960s with programs such as ‘Adopt a Grandparent’ and other similar programs that
connected young, school-aged children to elderly adults (Newman, 1989). These programs were
mainly started in response to decreased contact between the generations. Despite the increasing
population of elderly persons in our society, young people have infrequent or ineffectual connections
with them due to a “breakdown of the extended family network [and] increased ageism and age
segregation” (Cohon, 1989). Sally Newman, founder of the University of Pittsburgh’s Generations
Together program developed to research intergenerational programs, states that “for our elderly,
there has been (an observed) decline in self-esteem and self-worth, and an increase in feelings of
loneliness. For our children and youth, there has been an observed loss of the traditional elder/child
nurturing, a loss of cultural and historical connections, and an increase in their fear of aging. Age
segregation, furthermore, seems to have resulted in an increase in myths and stereotypes between the
young and the old” (Newman, 1989). The goal of intergenerational programs has been to alleviate
the isolation and negative attitudes that result from a lack of contact between these groups. These
programs also serve to expose individuals to the diversity of human life in order to promote
understanding and acceptance of the differences that exist between the generations. “When we learn,
work and play only with our age-peers, we begin to accept a homogenous view of the world as our
version of reality. This leads not only to a shallow, one-dimensional view of how things are, but
inevitably begins to limit the possibilities of how they can become” (Tice, 1985).
3

Intergenerational contact is seen as equally important for all generations, even though the benefits for
each group varies. Although these programs can refer to interactions between any generations, most
studies have focused on exchanges between elderly adults and young children. These groups are
assumed to receive the greatest benefit from intergenerational experiences due to their limited contact
with each other in everyday life and their similar status as ‘dependent’ in society.
Today’s elderly adult population experiences fewer social contacts and increased isolation due to the
negative perceptions of younger populations (Cohon, 1989). Developing positive relationships with
the younger generation are reported to increase feelings of self-esteem and life satisfaction, while
decreasing isolation and loneliness for elderly adults in our society (Seefeldt, 1989). A study by
Pastorello et al. “noted that institutionalized elderly reported not only less loneliness and depression
but feelings of youthfulness following volitional interaction with preschool children” (in Kocarnik and
Ponzetti, 1991).
For children, changes in family structure and a loss of connection with their grandparents may cause
a lack of continuity (Chamberlain et al., 1994) and misunderstandings or misconceptions about elderly
adults and the aging process (Seefeldt, 1989). Exchanges with the older generation are said to
“influence moral and personal development of the maturing child” (Cohon, 1989) and help the
younger generation shape their value systems “by seeing their linkages to the past” (Chamberlain et
al., 1994). Not only do relationships with elderly adults help to shape morals and values and prevent
negative stereotypes about aging, but a study by Kerschner and Harris also indicated that the
“children often thrive on the individualized attention the seniors can provide” (in Kocarnik and
Ponzetti, 1991).
Not all studies on intergenerational experiences have shown these positive effects. Seefeldt (1987)
cites several studies of programs that had inconclusive or negative effects on the participants. In a
later study, a group of preschoolers that visited infirm elderly adults actually showed an increase in
their negative attitudes toward their own aging (Seefeldt, 1989). Seefeldt (1987) hypothesizes that
“differing research methodologies, samples, and types of programs and contacts may account for
4

these inconsistent findings.” Previous studies indicate possible reasons for these negative results and
solutions that may prevent undesirable experiences. These include making the contact beneficial for
both groups rather than having one group serve the other (Tice, 1985), designing projects that “have
a definite purpose or end product” (Aday et al., 1991), establishing programs that are long-term so
the individuals have a chance to establish relationships with one another (Seefeldt, 1989), and
ensuring that positive attitudes develop as a result of discovered similarities between the groups
(Chapman and Neal, 1990). Seefeldt (1987) proposed recommendations for ensuring successful
programs that reinforce these points and include “protecting the prestige of elders as well as children;
limiting frustration for both adults and children by arranging for contact that is intimate, not casual;
planning for interaction that has integrity and is functional for both groups; and ensuring that contact
between old and young is rewarding and pleasant for both groups.”
Implementing a Program
According to these guidelines, HT has excellent potential as a focus for intergenerational interaction
because it provides benefits for all persons involved, a definite end product to share and discuss, a
long-term project with intrinsic rewards, and a common interest in order to establish a connection
between the groups. The horticultural activities could also be adapted to meet the needs of both
groups involved. However, it is not as certain that intergenerational interactions would complement
a HT program. For example, the specific goals of gardening with elderly adults and gardening with
children have some conflicting objectives that may make the combination of the two groups
inappropriate.
Gardening for Elderly Adults
According to past studies, gardening is one of the preferred leisure activities for elderly adults
(Burgess, 1990; Hill and Relf, 1983; Relf, 1989). Horticulture can offer many opportunities for
exercise and socialization for elderly persons who are learning to deal with limitations such as sensory
loss, physical decline, and loss of status in society (Carstens, 1985). Many tools and activities can be
5

adapted to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities such as arthritis, cerebral palsy, Alzheimer’s
disease, and dementia (Bubel, 1990; Kerrigan and Stevenson, 1997; Whittier, 1991). Some research
even shows that gardening can alleviate specific psychological problems (Langer and Rodin, 1976;
Rodin and Langer, 1977). According to Haas et al. (1998), “health conditions affect an older person’s
ability to perform a range of common activities needed for personal self-maintenance and independent
community residence.... Rehabilitation and supervised care that includes HT can help reduce personal
losses and restore an older person’s level of functioning.” Some possible benefits include improved
quality of life, control and independence, a greater sense of personal responsibility and autonomy,
social interaction, mental stimulation, sensory stimulation, decreased boredom, creative expression,
stimulation of long- and short-term memory, and physical exercise on various levels (Burgess, 1990;
Carstens, 1985; Haas et al., 1998; Hill and Relf, 1983; Langer and Rodin, 1976; Rodin and Langer,
1977; Rothert and Daubert, 1981). Studies indicate that elderly adults prefer gardens that contain
popular plants from their youth, produce that they can enjoy, and a place that is clean and well-kept
where they can relax in peace and quiet (Mooney, 1994).
Gardening for Children
Children’s gardening as a means of environmental education has gained popularity in recent years and
is now supported by many schools, botanic gardens and arboreta, cooperative extension, and other
agencies or groups (Relf and Dorn, 1995). Many studies show that environmental attitudes are
formed at a young age, so it is important to encourage positive views of nature early in a child’s
development (Eberbach, 1990; Wilson, 1995, 1996). Using hands-on gardening while teaching
principles of environmental conservation and basic science can be very effective because children
learn mainly through physical contact and manipulation of the world around them (Eberbach, 1988,
1990; Moore, 1996; Palmer, 1994; Straw, 1990; Wilson, 1995). Horticulture can also be used to
teach math, art, history, language skills, social studies, and literature (DeMarco, 1997). Adapting
horticultural activities to meet the needs and stages of development can “appeal to a child’s interest,
encourage experimentation in the physical world, and foster perspective taking and cooperation in
the social world” (DeVries and Zan, 1995). The outdoors can also offer a “greater sense of freedom”
6

and “more unrestricting play activities” to support the importance of play in a child’s development
and learning (Henniger, 1994). According to Wilson, “once children learn to respect and love the
world of nature, they will be ready and eager to learn more about the scientific aspects of the world
around them” (1995). Some additional goals of gardening with children of any age include developing
patience, perseverance, reverence, responsibility, cooperation, physical health, good work habits,
motivation for learning, confidence, empathy, a sense of wonder and excitement, and respect and
appreciation for nature (Bunn, 1986; Green, 1994; Waters, 1993; Wilson, 1995). Children’s gardens
should be designed to offer freedom to move and play, plants that are interesting and exotic, and
“leftover, wild places that they have the freedom to manipulate. They tend to be wild, messy places”
(Hart, 1993).
Comparison
The needs of elderly adults and children that are addressed by HT have many similarities including
increased autonomy, a sense of wonder and excitement, physical and mental stimulation, social
interactions, sensory stimulation, and creative expression. However, the conflicting energy levels of
the two groups, and the opposing needs for quiet and cleanliness for elderly adults and freedom to
explore and play for children, may result in frustrations and negative attitudes between the two
groups.
Literature Cited
Abbott, G., V. Cochran, and A.A. Clair. 1997. Innovations in intergenerational programs for persons
who are elderly: The role of horticultural therapy in a multidisciplinary approach, p. 27-38.
In: Wells (ed.). Horticultural Therapy and the Older Adult. Hawthorne Press, NY.
Aday, R.H. 1991. Youth’s attitudes toward the elderly: The impact of intergenerational partners. J.
7
Applied Gerontology 10(3):372-384.
American Horticultural Therapy Association, A Career in Horticultural Therapy, unpublished.
Bubel, N. 1990. A therapy garden. Country Journal (September/October):74-76.
Bunn, D.E. 1986. Group cohesiveness is enhanced as children engage in plant stimulated discovery
activities. J. Therapeutic Hort. 1:37-43.
Burgess, C.W. 1990. Horticulture and its application to the institutionalized elderly. Activities,
Adaptation and Aging 14(3):51-61.

Carstens, D.Y. 1985. Site Planning and Design for the Elderly: Issues, Guidelines, and Alternatives.
8
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., NY.
Chamberlain, V.M., E. Fetterman, and M. Maher. 1994. Innovation in elder and child care: An
intergenerational experience. Educ. Gerontology 20:193-204.
Chapman, N.J. and M.B. Neal. 1990. The effects of intergenerational experiences on adolescents and
older adults. The Gerontologist 30(6):825-832.
Cohon, D. 1989. Intergenerational program research to refine theory and practice. J. Children in
Contemp. Society 20:217-230.
Dellman-Jenkins, M., D. Lambert, and D. Fruit. 1991. Fostering preschoolers’ prosocial behaviors
toward the elderly: The effect of an intergenerational program. Educ. Gerontology 17:21-32.
DeVries, R. and B. Zan. 1995. Creating a constructivist classroom atmosphere. Young Children
50(9):4-13.
DeMarco, L.W. 1997. The Factors Affecting Elementary School Teachers’ Integration of School
Gardening into the Curriculum, unpublished thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Eberbach, C. 1988. Garden Design for Children, unpublished thesis. U. Of Delaware.
Eberbach, C. 1990. Children’s gardens: The meaning of place, p. 80-83. In: P.D. Relf (ed.). The Role
of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium.
Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Epstein, S.G. and D.S. Greenberger. 1990. Nurturing plants, children, and older individuals:
Intergenerational horticultural therapy. J. Therapeutic Hort. 5:16-19.
Green, K. 1994. Encouraging nurturing behavior of two to seven year olds by introducing plants and
flowers, p. 395-408. In: J. Flagler, and R. Poincelot (eds.). People-Plant Relations: Setting
Research Priorities, A National Symposium. Hayworth Press, NY.
Haas, K., S.P. Simson, and N.C. Stevenson. 1998. Older persons and horticultural therapy practice,
p. 231-255. In: S.P. Simson and M.C. Straus (eds.). Horticulture as Therapy: Principles and
Practice. Haworth Press, NY.
Hart, R. 1993. Kids need wild places, gentle guidance. Amer. Horticulturalist 72(11):3.
Henniger. 1994. Planning for outdoor play. Young Children 49(4):10-15.
Hill, C.O. and P.D. Relf. 1983. Gardening as an outdoor activity in geriatric institutions. Activities,
Kerrigan, J. and N.C. Stevenson. 1997. Behavioral study of youth and elders in an intergenerational
horticultural therapy program, p. 141-154. In: Wells (ed.). Horticultural Therapy and the
Older Adult Population. Hawthorne Press, NY.
Kocarnik, R.A. and J.J. Ponzetti. 1991. The advantages and challenges of intergenerational programs
in long-term care facilities. J. Gerontological Social Work 16(½):97-107.
Langer, E.J. and J. Rodin. 1976. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the
aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. J. Personality and Social Psych. 34(2):191-
198.
Mooney, P.F. 1994. Assessing the benefits of a therapeutic horticulture program for seniors in
immediate care, p. 173-194. In: M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice (eds.). The Healing
Dimensions of People-Plant Relations. Center for Design Research, Davis, CA.
Moore, R.C. 1996. Compact nature: The role of playing and learning gardens on children’s lives. J.

9
Therapeutic Hort. 8:72-82.
Newman, S. 1989. A history of intergenerational programs J. of Children in Contemp. Society 20:1-
15.
Palmer, J.A. 1994. Acquisition of environmental subject knowledge in preschool children: An
international study. Children’s Environments 11(3):204-211.
Relf (Hefley), P.D. 1973. Horticulture- a therapeutic tool. J. Rehab. 39(1):27-29.
Relf, P.D. 1978. Horticulture as a recreational activity. Am. Health Care Assn. J. 4(5):68-70.
Relf, P.D. 1989. Gardening in Raised Beds and Containers for the Elderly and Physically
Handicapped. Virginia Cooperative Extension publication.
Relf, P.D. 1997. Defining Horticultural Therapy, unpublished.
Relf, P.D. and S. Dorn. 1995. Horticulture: Meeting the needs of special populations.
HortTechnology 5(2):94-103.
Rodin, J. and E.J. Langer. 1977. Long-term effects of a control-relevant intervention with the
institutionalized aged. J. Personality and Social Psych. 35(12):897-902.
Rothert, E.R. and J.R. Daubert. 1981. Horticultural Therapy for Nursing Homes, Senior Centers,
Retirement Living. Chicago Horticultural Society, Chicago, IL.
Scheid, D.T. 1976. An Approach to Teaching Children About the Aesthetics of Plants and Gardens,
unpublished thesis. U. Of Delaware
Seefeldt, C. 1987. Intergenerational programs. Childhood Educ. (October):14-18.
Seefeldt, C. 1989. Intergenerational programs: impact on attitudes. J. of Children in Contemp.
Society 20:185-194.
Straw, H. 1990. The nursery garden. Early Child Development and Care 57:109-120.
Tice, C.H. 1985. Perspectives on intergenerational initiatives: Past, present, and future. Children
Today 14(5):6-11.
Ventura-Merkel, C., D.S. Liederman, and J. Ossofsky. 1989. Exemplary intergenerational programs.
J. of Children in Contemp. Society 20:173-180.
Waters, M. 1993. Down in the dirt with kids: Tips on raising a crop of young gardeners. Horticulture
71(3):18-22.
Whittier, D. 1991. Horticultural activities for physical disabilities of the elderly. NCTRH Newsletter
6(1):3-5.
Wilson, R.A. 1995. Nature and young children: A natural connection. Young Children
(September):4-8.
Wilson, R.A. 1996. Environmental education programs for preschool children. J. Env. Educ.
27(4):28-33.
Additional References
Angelis, J. 1992. The genesis of an intergenerational program. Educ. Gerontology 18:317-327.
Bocian, K. and S. Newman. 1989. Evaluation of intergenerational programs: Why and how. J.
Children in Contemp. Society 20:147-163.
Browne, C.A. 1994. The role of nature for the promotion of well-being of the elderly, p. 75-79. In:

M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice (eds.). The Healing Dimensions of People Plant
Relations. Center for Design Research, Davis, CA.
Brummel, S.W. 1989. Developing an intergenerational program. J. Children in Contemp. Society
10
20:119-133.
Eberbach, C. 1987. Gardens from a child’s view- an interpretation of children’s art-work. J.
Therapeutic Hort. 2:9-16.
Ellis, W.S. 1992. The gift of gardening. National Geographic 181(5):52-81.
Ezell, D.O., E.V. Jones, and A.P. Olson. 1981. Outdoor Gardening for the Handicapped. Clemson
University Cooperative Extension Service publication.
Galvin, E.S. 1994. The joy of seasons: With the children, discover the joys of nature. Young Children
(May):4-8.
Gardening Science Manual, New York Board of Education publication.
Haas, K. 1996. The therapeutic quality of plants. J. Therapeutic Hort. 8:61-67.
Hamby, A. 1996. Intergenerational Activities: An Observational Study of the Experiences of Children
and Adults, unpublished thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Henkin, N.Z. and S. W. Sweeney. 1989. Linking systems: A systems approach to intergenerational
programming. J. Children in Contemp. Society 20:165-172.
Hochstein, R. 1994. Partners in growing. Parents (July):134-138.
Hoover, R.C. 1994. Healing gardens and Alzheimer’s disease, p. 283-299. In: M. Francis, P. Lindsey,
and J.S. Rice (eds.). The Healing Dimensions of People-Plant Relations. Center for Design
Research, Davis, CA.
Houseman, D. 1986. Developing links between horticultural therapy and aging. J. Therapeutic Hort.
1:9-14.
Howell, D.C. 1997. Statistical Methods for Psychology. Duxbury Press, NY.
Jaus, H.H. 1994. The development and retention of environmental attitudes in elementary school
children. J. Env. Educ. 15(3):33-36.
Kaplan, M.J. 1994. Use of sensory stimulation with Alzheimer’s patients in a garden setting, p. 291-
306. In: J. Flagler, and R. Poincelot (eds.). People-Plant Relations: Setting Research
Priorities, A National Symposium. Hayworth Press, NY.
Kuehne, V.S. 1992. Older adults in intergenerational programs: What are their experiences really like.
Activities, Adaptation and Aging 16(4):49-67.
Labreque, C. and L. Tremblay. 1996. The evolutive prosthetic garden: A new concept for elderly
living in nursing facilities. J. Therapeutic Hort. 8:56-60.
Matsuo, E. 1990. What we may learn through horticultural activity, p. 146-148. In: P.D. Relf (ed.).
The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National
Symposium. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Meyer, H.G. 1973. Children grow in gardens. Flower and Garden (March):50-51.
Moore, B. 1989. Growing with Gardening. Univ. of NC Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Moore, R.C. 1993. Plants for Play. MIG Communications, Berkley, CA.
Moore, S.H. 1981. Horticultural therapy and the aging client. In: NCTRH publication, The
Comprehensive View of Horticulture and the Aging 1(2):55-59.
National Gardening Association. 1987. Successful Senior Citizen Gardens. NGA publication.
Neer, K. 1990. A children’s garden. The Herbalist 56:69-76.

Newman, S. and C. Ward. 1993. An observational study of intergenerational activities and behavior
change in dementing elders at an adult day care center. Intl. J. Aging and Human
Development 36:321-333.
Nordvig, O.K. 1975. Horticultural therapy in public education. California Hort. Journal 36(1):36-37.
Rae, W.A. and D.A. Stieber. 1976. Plant play therapy: Growth through growth. J. Pediatric Psych.
11
1(4):18-20.
Relf, P.D. 1990. Dynamics of horticultural therapy. Rehab. Lit. 42(5-6):147-150.
Stremmel, A.J., S.S. Travis, P. Kelley-Harrison, and A.D. Hensley. 1994. The perceived benefits and
problems associated with intergenerational exchanges in day care settings. The Gerontologist
34(4):513-519.
Travis, S.S., A.J. Stremmel, and P.A. Duprey. 1993. Child and adult day care professions converging
in the 1990s: Implications for training and research. Educ. Gerontology 19:283-293.
Van Zandt, K. and J.R. Crace. 1981. The role of horticultural therapy in a retirement community. In:
NCTRH publication, The Comprehensive View of Horticulture and the Aging 1(2):49-54.
Whiren, A.P. 1995. Planning a garden from a child’s perspective. Children’s Environments
12(2):250-255.

INTERGENERATIONAL HORTICULTURE THERAPY RESEARCH VARIABLES
INTRODUCED BY STAFF, VOLUNTEERS, AND VIDEO
Working with Staff and Volunteers
Earlier this year a research project was conducted on a horticultural therapy program involving both
elderly adults and preschool children at day care centers in adjoining facilities. This project focused
on the interactions between the two groups and the success of horticulture in allowing for meaningful
intergenerational activities. The design of this project allowed preschool children and elderly adults
to be observed both during separate age group activities and similar intergenerational activities. Each
week during the 10-week study included one day for the children’s activity, one day for the elderly
adults’ activity, and a third day for the intergenerational activity. The horticulture activities aimed to
meet the needs of both the children and the elderly adults, and to allow for social interaction during
intergenerational sessions. Although participation fluctuated due to attendance and interest, there
were an average of 11 children and 7 adults who regularly chose to participate in the horticultural
activities. Two horticulture student volunteers assisted with the children’s group both during the
separate and intergenerational activities, and two additional volunteers similarly assisted with the
elderly adult group.
During intergenerational activities, older adults and children separated into four small groups each
led by one volunteer. This design was meant to facilitate supervision of the activities and to encourage
casual interaction among the participants. Although it was not the intention of this project to study
the influence of the volunteers on research, this set up allowed for observations that showed the
success of the intergenerational activities was directly related to the volunteers’ attitudes and
experience. The staff members at both the Adult Day Service and the Child Development Laboratory
School also had a noticeable influence on the project although their involvement in the research was
indirect. At the conclusion of the study several observations were made about factors that influence
the success of intergenerational HT research projects. Many of these factors related to the staff and
volunteers’ influence on the participants and activities. Many other HT research programs are also
12

affected by administrators, other staff members, and volunteers that play a role in the implementation
and success of activities. In research these interactions can alter the data collected. It is important
therefore to recognize possible problem areas before implementing HT research so that personnel
factors can be minimized.
I will begin by citing several examples of these variables and the effects I observed during my study.
From my discussions with other researchers I believe that these examples are fairly common, even
though they have not been widely addressed in HT research. I would then like to suggest possible
strategies that can be supported by observations made throughout this program which could prevent
or minimize the variables introduced by other staff or volunteers. In this study the main areas of
concern involving other staff and volunteers are: 1) their attitudes toward the intergenerational HT
program, and 2) the interactions between the personnel and the participants. I would like to
emphasize that although the variables introduced by the numbers and diversity of personnel involved
in HT research can affect the success of the project, these variables may be limited in order to reduce
possible negative effects.
Before this project began I met with both the directors of the Adult Day Service and the Child
Development Lab to discuss the interest and possibility of conducting HT research between these two
groups. The general attitudes were very positive for both the horticulture program and the
intergenerational activities. Both centers are located in the same campus building, separated only by
a small room designed to allow for intergenerational activities and research. As both centers are part
of the university they were designed to facilitate research and observation, with observation rooms
and video equipment for recording activities.
One main area of concern is the interaction between the personnel and the participants. Both the staff
members at the Adult Day Service and the Child Development Lab were knowledgeable and
experienced in working with their own groups and meeting their specific needs during activities.
However, during intergenerational activities most of these staff members did not interact with the
other group members present. A lack of experience or possible discomfort in working with a new
13

group led to a lack of interactions between the staff and the other group present. This not only
excluded the new group and decreased the social interactions, but the close assistance from the staff
also reduced the independent involvement and self motivation of the participants during the HT
activities. Without the encouragement from the staff the older adults and children would not interact
during activities. For this study, these staff members were asked not to assist so the trained
horticulture volunteers could conduct their intergenerational groups without distractions or
disruptions. If time and money allow, a better solution would be offering training for working with
both groups, or education in both gerontology and child development to alleviate these negative
effects on intergenerational interaction (Kocarnik and Ponzetti, 1991; Seefeldt, 1987; Stremmel et
al., 1994; Travis et al., 1993). This could also decrease the negative effects caused by a lack of
experience. The four horticulture student volunteers who assisted in this project had varying degrees
of experience with either elderly adults or preschool children. As each intergenerational activity was
broken down into small groups supervised by each volunteer, it was possible to observe the effects
of their experience or lack of it. The two volunteers who had more experience were more comfortable
working with their groups and encouraging participation and interaction. The small groups they
supervised were more active, and therefore the volunteers concluded that the intergenerational
program was a success and beneficial for both groups involved. The two volunteers who lacked
experience working with either elderly adults or children were less likely to encourage participation
and interaction from either age participants, and therefore concluded that the intergenerational
program was not successful, or even interesting.
For intergenerational activities to be successful they must be thoroughly planned and organized. Good
leadership and encouragement are essential in promoting interactions. Simply placing the two groups
in a room together and passively observing for interactions will produce poor results. According to
Kocarnik and Ponzetti (1991), a mediator is needed to help “make sense of the encounter..., initiate
conversations, respond to questions, facilitate the formation of relationships..., and discuss any
questions or concerns [the participants] might have.” The role of this mediator is crucial for success,
as “each friendship requires nurturing and guidance if it is to benefit both the young and the old”
(Kocarnik and Ponzetti, 1991).
14

At the same time, this mediator (the volunteer or staff member) must remain focused on the larger
goals of interaction and relationship development. In a study by Kerrigan and Stevenson (1997),
intergenerational interaction was decreased when the mediator intervened to make corrections during
the steps of the activity. The mediator must always keep in mind that achieving the larger goals is
more important than the specific process or the end product (Kerrigan and Stevenson, 1997).
Many of these factors that play a role in the overall perception of the research program could be
prevented or at least minimized to have less of an effect on the outcome of the study. Because the
staff and volunteers involved in the program are not always credited with the success and because
human resources can be difficult to find these variables that could potentially be controlled are often
overlooked. As a result of the large number of staff and volunteers involved in this study additional
procedures were identified that could improve communication and facilitate research implementation
and success.
The first step before implementing any research program is to establish good communication with the
administrators and staff at the facility where the research will take place. Some important concerns
that need to be discussed are the facility’s interest and support for HT research, their knowledge of
research and methodology, flexibility and adaptability in integrating into a research project, their
philosophies and goals for their clients, their awareness of the constraints and requirements for
conducting horticulture activities, the available space and resources, scheduling, and any rules or
regulations that could affect how the research is designed or implemented. The nature of supplies and
tools used in HT must be clearly explained to staff and administrators (Relf, 1978).
Having the support of the facility is essential for successful research (Angelis, 1992; Brummel, 1989).
Without their full support it would be impossible to receive approval from the clients and/or their
families to conduct the research. As many of the staff members work closely with the participants,
their attitude can greatly influence the participants’ desire to take part in the HT activities. At some
facilities this could also influence the resources and funds that could be made available for activities.
The administration and staff should have a clear understanding of research and methodologies,
15

including the ability to be flexible and adaptable when integrating with a research program. The
facility’s attitude toward the program will determine if the HT will be continued after the research
has been completed. For the well-being of the participants who enjoy the horticulture program and
for the growth of the field of HT it should always be a goal to find long-term support and interest in
continuing the program.
It is necessary to discuss the facility’s philosophies and their goals for the clients before designing the
research project. The best way to gain support is to design the program to reinforce the center’s
objectives for the clients. This way the program will be viewed as an additional ally instead of a
threat. No program will survive if it is perceived as detrimental, counterproductive, or unnecessary
for the clients’ health or happiness. Because horticulture is so adaptable, many activities could easily
be designed to meet the needs of both the facility and its participants. Also, the researcher must
carefully and sensitively adjust procedure so to be least disruptive to ongoing curriculum and
programming at the facilities.
The next step is to agree on the space and resources to be used and the time schedule of the project.
At a center where there are many different programs and activities it is important to understand
territorial areas. Whether a designated area will be allotted, or whether an area will be shared, discuss
the requirements and intentions for the area to be used to prevent misunderstandings or frustrations
with other staff. Scheduling both the frequency and duration of the project and receiving approval
from all staff will also decrease possible conflicts (Hill and Relf, 1983). Anyone who feels that they
are losing space, resources, or time to a new program will understandably become agitated.
Disagreements about or competitions for resources could negatively influence the success of the
research and limit the support and growth of the program. Rather than feeling that these resources
are being taken away the staff members must feel that they are allowing them to be used and shared
by others. This will allow them to feel more secure with their position instead of threatened and
powerless.
Lastly, be sure to discuss the rules and regulations of the facility that are designed to protect the
16

participants’ safety and well-being. Breaking any of these rules, even if the purpose for them is not
understood, will increase the perceived threat of the research on the participants. This could decrease
support both for this research and for any future research projects.
Other than the administration and staff, the volunteers can also affect the success of research.
Volunteer management is best achieved by good training, communication, and respect. Regardless
of a volunteer’s past experience, it will be necessary to offer orientation and training before the
project begins. Screening volunteers and evaluating their personalities will allow for a match of their
strengths and interests to the necessary tasks. Allowing volunteers to use their strengths and explore
their interests will decrease frustration, promote initiative and responsibility, and enhance their
enjoyment of the volunteer experience. Discuss the objectives and goals with all volunteers so that
the importance and purpose of the research are understood. Provide information and resources for
working with the specific population, and if possible, allow time for the volunteers to get to know
the participants. This will increase both their self-confidence and their competence. Discuss both the
facility’s rules and your own guidelines for working with participants to ensure safety and success.
Establish a clear list of responsibilities and expectations of the volunteers. Ensure that all volunteers
understand the guidelines, responsibilities, and expectations before the project begins to prevent
misunderstandings and confusion. Having volunteers that enjoy their work and are competent with
the tasks to which they are assigned will reduce frustration both with the volunteer and with the
researcher.
Establish comfortable communication with volunteers by emphasizing that their ideas and concerns
for the project are important and appreciated. In order for any volunteer to enjoy his/her experience
they must feel valuable. Allowing them to express their opinions will not only reinforce their
importance to the research, but may also offer new insights and ideas to improve activities. Having
volunteers keep a journal of the activities will encourage them to evaluate both the program and their
own performance. Reading these journals will allow for a better understanding of the successes and
failures that occur. Supporting volunteers with repeated reinforcement and evaluation of their
progress will allow the volunteers to appreciate their strengths while discovering ways to work
17

18
around their weaknesses.
Respect is an important factor in determining the volunteers’ enjoyment and success. In order for any
volunteer to be successful he/she must be enthusiastic for the program and enjoy being a part of the
research. Expressing appreciation for their time and energy and acknowledging their efforts are
essential for promoting good relations. Lastly, despite the personal satisfaction and enjoyment HT
can offer through volunteering, demands on time, energy, and emotions can lead to burn out. Some
volunteers may also discover that they simply do not enjoy horticulture or the clients with whom they
are working. If this occurs it is best to allow them to leave the program without feelings of guilt or
resentment. Convincing unhappy volunteers to continue working with the program will be self
defeating, as their lack of energy and enthusiasm will decrease the success of the activity and their
participants’ enjoyment. Replacing these volunteers introduces more variables in HT research and
according to Flagler (1992) it can also upset participants and administrators and decrease continuity
and stability. However, it may ultimately lead to more successful activities due to the correlation
between the volunteer’s satisfaction and their performance as a mediator. “Without a competent staff,
a program will fall apart or stagnate in a monotonous, uninteresting routine” (Brummel, 1989).
Many of the variables introduced by personnel who are involved in HT research can be controlled
with careful planning. Most important, simply acknowledging these factors and their effects can
change how data is collected and interpreted. Working with people is like working with the weather;
as horticultural researchers must deal with environmental factors beyond their control in the field,
horticultural therapy researchers must deal with the variables introduced by human nature. When
working with people, as in working with the weather, one must always be prepared. By understanding
the necessity for good communication many variables introduced by personnel can be prevented or
minimized to allow for more successful HT research.
Video
The bias introduced by personal attitude and beliefs requires an unbiased method of collecting and

interpreting data. This may be achieved through the use of video recording. Using video offers both
advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered before implementing research, as these
obstacles may change how the program is designed. Some factors to be considered are the availability
of video equipment, knowing how to use the equipment correctly, and the limitations of using this
equipment. Video has many advantages in data collection and evaluation because it allows an
unbiased observer to assess the data, it allows more time for assessment, it allows stopping and
rewinding to clarify actions, and it can be retained for future analysis or teaching purposes. Some
disadvantages are that it can be expensive, it can be difficult to use correctly, it has time and viewing
screen limitations, it may not adjust to changes in the activities, and it may not offer adequate clarity
for assessing data.
The facility where this research took place had a video system with cameras installed in several
rooms. A small observation room containing the operation console, viewing screen, and audio control
was separate from the rooms where the cameras were located. Because this video system was rarely
used, some of the cameras were blocked by props or furniture and the observation room was utilized
as a storage closet and copy room. This caused several problems as large boxes and a copy machine
left little space to access the video controls and almost no space for adjusting controls or observation.
The videos were set up each day before the HT session. Because the observation room was separate
from the activity rooms and because the research director was responsible for both the videos and the
activities, no adjustments could be made to the video’s volume or viewing area after the activities
began.
This system was quite useful although not without imperfections. The quality of the videos was
excellent, while the sound was variable. Despite the excellent quality of the videos, there were some
problems that affected the visibility of the activity and the participants. The cameras did not cover the
entire room where the activities took place, so if any participants moved out of the viewing field their
activity was not recorded. The cameras could not be adjusted to record these participants without
having additional personnel at the controls, which was not available. Another significant problem was
created by staff or volunteers standing in front the cameras, not realizing they were blocking all or
19

part of the room from view. Lastly, the angle of the cameras view was a problem in several
circumstances where a participant was not facing the camera, and his/her activity and facial expression
was not observable.
The sound quality of the video tapes adds several more considerations. Because the volume in the
room could be adjusted it could be raised so that quiet activities and quiet participants could still be
heard on tape. At the same time, loud activities in other rooms could also be picked up. When several
participants are talking at once it becomes difficult to discern one particular voice on tape. Lastly,
because the volume controls in the activity room were separate from the volume control in the
observation room, it was easy to forget to turn on the volume for the video resulting in a silent tape.
As the video cameras in this system were only located in two rooms at the facility, a video camera
on a tripod was used for outdoor activities. This set up could be used for almost any HT research
situation. Compared to the indoor video system, the camera on a tripod was easier to operate and
offered similar results. The disadvantages associated with limited viewing area and blocked screens
also apply, but because the camera is located in the same room as the activities adjustments easily can
be made.
Before starting a research project where video will be used, a pretest of the equipment will be useful
in indicating possible limitations that may change how the research is designed or implemented. It will
also be important to train volunteers and staff members who assist with the research to ensure that
the activities remain within the camera’s view and that blocked screens are minimized.
Scoring video data can be done in many ways. This research project used participation and interaction
scores based on charts by Kerrigan and Stevenson (1997) and another by Kuehne (1992). Several
other charts are available for other observable behaviors. These charts allow an observer to record
both the amount and duration of behaviors, which can be very useful in quantifying qualitative data.
These advantages and disadvantages should be considered before choosing video for data collection.
20

Knowing the possible problem areas and how to avoid or minimize the effects can change how the
research project is designed or implemented. Knowing how this data will be viewed and by whom is
also important to ensure that the necessary information is included in the video, and that other
necessary data that is not seen on tape can be accounted for. Combining video along with journaling
will offer more complete data assessment, and it may also decrease the severity of problems caused
by blocked or limited viewing areas, silent or confusing audio quality, or a missed day of recording.
Literature Cited
Angelis, J. 1992. The genesis of an intergenerational program. Educ. Gerontology 18:317-327.
Brummel, S.W. 1989. Developing an intergenerational program. J. Children in Contemp. Society
21
20:119-133.
Flagler, J.S. 1992. Horticulture therapy: Potentials for master gardeners, p. In: P.D. Relf (ed.). The
Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium.
Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Hill, C.O. and P.D. Relf. 1983. Gardening as an outdoor activity in geriatric institutions. Activities,
Kocarnik, R.A. and J.J. Ponzetti. 1991. The advantages and challenges of intergenerational programs
in long-term care facilities. J. Gerontological Social Work 16(½):97-107.
Kuehne, V.S. 1992. Older adults in intergenerational programs: What are their experiences really like.
Activities, Adaptation and Aging 16(4):49-67.
Relf, P.D. 1978. Horticulture as a recreational activity. Am. Health Care Assn. J. 4(5):68-70.
Stremmel, A.J., S.S. Travis, P. Kelley-Harrison, and A.D. Hensley. 1994. The perceived benefits and
problems associated with intergenerational exchanges in day care settings. The Gerontologist
34(4):513-519.
Travis, S.S., A.J. Stremmel, and P.A. Duprey. 1993. Child and adult day care professions converging
in the 1990s: Implications for training and research. Educ. Gerontology 19:283-293.

INTERGENERATIONAL INTERACTIONS
Introduction
The goal of this research project was to determine if introducing intergenerational interactions would
supplement or detract from HT goals when working with elderly adults or preschool children. These
goals included increased autonomy, physical stimulation, mental stimulation, and sensory stimulation.
Recently, intergenerational HT programs have been used in order to add to a horticulture program
the opportunity for diverse social interactions for special groups that could benefit from such
experiences (Abbott et al., 1997; Epstein and Greenberger, 1990; Kerrigan and Stevenson, 1997).
Intergenerational HT programs have not been widely used or studied, so the impacts of such
programs are unknown. Intergenerational programs have been studied in various situations over the
past several years, but the results of these studies are mostly inconclusive or contradictory (Dellman-
Jenkins et al., 1991; Seefeldt, 1989). It is important, therefore, to study these interactions to
determine if they could become an asset to HT programming, and conversely to see if horticulture
is an appropriate activity for intergenerational programming with this population.
Previous research indicates several guidelines that can lead to more successful intergenerational
programming. These include making the contact beneficial for both groups rather than having one
group serve the other (Tice, 1985), designing projects that “have a definite purpose or end product”
(Aday et al., 1991), establishing programs that are long-term so the individuals have a chance to
establish relationships with one another (Seefeldt, 1989), and ensuring that positive attitudes develop
as a result of discovered similarities between the groups (Chapman and Neal, 1990). Seefeldt (1987)
proposed recommendations for ensuring successful programs that reinforce these points and include
“protecting the prestige of elders as well as children; limiting frustration for both adults and children
by arranging for contact that is intimate, not casual; planning for interaction that has integrity and is
functional for both groups; and ensuring that contact between old and young is rewarding and
pleasant for both groups.”
22

According to these guidelines, HT has excellent potential as a focus for intergenerational interaction
because it provides benefits for all persons involved, a definite end product to share and discuss, a
long-term project with intrinsic rewards, and a common interest in order to establish a connection
between the groups. The horticultural activities could also be adapted to meet the needs of both
groups involved. However, it is not as certain that intergenerational interactions would complement
a HT program. For example, the specific goals of gardening with elderly adults and gardening with
children have some different objectives that may make the combination of the two groups
inappropriate.
The needs of elderly adults and children that are addressed by HT have many similarities including
increased autonomy, a sense of wonder and excitement, physical and mental stimulation, social
interactions, sensory stimulation, and creative expression. However, the conflicting energy levels of
the two groups, and the opposing needs for quiet and cleanliness for elderly adults and freedom to
explore and play for children, may result in frustrations and negative attitudes between the two groups
when focused around a plant/soil based program.
Materials and Methods
This research program involved 17 elderly adult clients in the University Adult Day Service and 16
preschool children between the ages of 3 and 5 in the Child Development Laboratory School. The
number of participants in the program varied daily due to the health of the clients, the turnover rate
at the Adult Day Service, and the agreement that the clients should be allowed to exercise autonomy
and decide independently if they wish to participate in each activity. Both the Adult Day Service and
the Child Development Lab School are located at Virginia Tech in the same campus building
separated only by a small room designed to allow for intergenerational interaction. The facilities are
equipped with observational equipment to allow for research. The intergenerational room and the
Adult Day Service have video cameras controlled by a central recording system located in a small
observational room inside the Adult Day Service. The separate children’s and elderly adults’ activities
took place in the intergenerational room, and the intergenerational activities took place in the Adult
23

Day Service room which was larger. A video camera on a tripod was used to record activities that
took place in the enclosed outdoor patio.
The program was set up to compare separate age group activities with intergenerational activities.
There were three sessions each week: one for the elderly group, a second one for the children’s
group, and a third one that combined both groups. The same activity was completed during all three
sessions in one week, with small modifications to make the activity appropriate for each group.
Four volunteers assisted with the HT activities. These volunteers were part of a university HT class
that required volunteer service. They had varying levels of experience with horticulture and working
with children or elderly adults. Two volunteers assisted the children during separate age group
activities, and two volunteers similarly assisted with the elderly adult activities. The same four
volunteers also assisted with the intergenerational activities.
Ten activities (Chapter V) were chosen based on their adaptability and interest for both the children
and the elderly adults. Several sources (Gardening Science Manual; Moore, 1989; Moore, 1993;
Rothert and Daubert, 1981) were consulted to find activities that would appeal to both children and
elderly adults, and also be appropriate during intergenerational activities. The activities were then
designed to meet the needs of both groups, making small modifications to the set up or procedures
when necessary. The activities designed for children and elderly adults to complete separately focused
on individual projects, while the intergenerational activity was to be completed as a small group effort
to increase social interaction. The horticulture supplies used in the activities were either collected,
bought, or donated by the researchers, volunteers, or the university greenhouses and floral design lab.
Activities were chosen that required few or inexpensive materials.
The data for each session was collected on video tape over a 10-week period. These video tapes were
viewed by the researcher after the study was completed to collect data for analysis. Quantitative data
was collected on the attendance and participation of each individual during both separate age group
and intergenerational activities. Data also were collected on the interactions between elderly adults
24

and preschool children during the intergenerational activities. At the completion of the 10-week
project, the video tapes for all sessions were viewed to collect data. The children’s and elderly adults’
separate activities were scored according to attendance and participation. Participation was broken
down into 3 levels- ‘O’ being present but inactive, ‘I’ being active with direct volunteer assistance,
and ‘II’ being independent participation. These scores varied with the difficulty level of the activity,
activity set up, and the individual’s ability. Participation scores were tallied in total times, so the same
individual may have received “O”, “I”, or “II” for the same activity with varying amounts of time
spent in each category of participation.
Attendance percentages were calculated for the elderly adults based on the number of the total
participants who attended the activity that day. The percentages were not available for the children
because records of the total participants at the facility that day were not available. Average
participation time was calculated by dividing the total time of the activity by the number of
participants. Type of participation percentages were calculated by tallying the total participation times
for each type of participation, then dividing these numbers by the total time of the activity.
The video tapes were also used to collect data on interactions between the two groups during
intergenerational activities. Interaction scores had four categories: ‘I’ being non-verbal interaction,
‘II’ being one-directional verbal interaction (one participant addressed another without getting a
response), ‘III’ being two-directional interaction (conversation), and ‘IV’ being two-directional
interaction with physical assistance during the activity.
All data were organized into charts to compare separate and intergenerational activities, and to
determine overall trends that developed during the 10-week period. Inferential statistical analysis was
not feasible because of the small sample size, the short period of time of the study, and the large
number of human variables did not allow for a controlled data base. This research can not provide
definitive answers of the success of intergenerational activities. Rather, it serves to identify variables
that affect success, trends that might indicate potential success of intergenerational programs, and
directions for future research.
25

Results and Discussion
Children’s Separate Activities
During children’s separate activities (Table 1), few ‘O’ scores were observed as inactive children
usually left the room where the horticulture activity took place. ‘I’ or ‘II’ scores were dependent on
the activity and how it was set up. Activities that were difficult or unfamiliar resulted in high ‘I’
ratings as they required the most assistance. Activities that involved familiar tasks such as cutting,
glueing, drawing, or putting soil in pots required little volunteer assistance and resulted in high ‘II’
scores.
Table 1. Attendance, average time, and percentage of time in three levels of participation for children during separate
activities.
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Name Design Seeds I Cuttings Seeds II Terrarium Frames Scare- Corsage Planting
tags crow
26
#
present
13 9 15 11 10 14 8 8 11 7
average
time in
minutes
10m. 14.3m. 10.3m. 8.7m. 7.9m. 7.1m. 14.4m. 14.3m. 6m. 14.1m.
type of
partici-pation
in %
0- 1% 0- 0% 0- 0% 0- 0% 0- 0% 0- 0% 0- 0% 0- 0% 0- 0% 0- 0%
I-73.7 I-26.7 I-75.3 I-100 I-100 I-100 I-8.3 I-28.5 I-100 I-0
II-25.3 II-73.3 II-24.7 II-0 II-0 II-0 II-91.8 II-71.5 II-0 II-100
The average participation time for children’s separate activities depended on the set up of the activity.
Simple activities that required less direct assistance and allowed the children to work independently
(# 2, 7, 8, 10) also encouraged them to work longer. Activities that involved use of fine motor skills
(#1, 3) also required longer time for completion and moderate direct assistance. The assistance
required depended on the children’s abilities and development of fine motor skills. More difficult
activities, specifically the ordered step activities (# 4, 5, 6, 9) had low average participation times.
These highly structured activities where volunteers worked one-on-one with the children resulted in
a shorter period of time needed for participants to complete the activity.
The number of participants in children’s separate age group activities decreased after the first six

weeks of the study. During these first six weeks, the Child Development Lab School started the day
with a group time where all the participants sat down and talked about the activities taking place that
day. During this group time, the children showed a lot of enthusiasm for the horticulture activities and
the participation was never lower than 70%. However, during the last four weeks of the study, the
group time was no longer conducted each day. Without an introduction to the horticulture activities,
it became more difficult to encourage children to take part in the horticulture activities which were
set up in the room next door. During these last four weeks, the children’s participation was never
lower than 50% of the children present that day.
Elderly Adult Separate Activities
The elderly adult activities (Table 2) had ‘O’ scores because many participants either could not leave
the table without assistance or because they could not work on their own while the volunteer was
assisting another participant. ‘I’ and ‘II’ scores were primarily related to the individuals’ physical
abilities. The few participants with greater physical skills could work alone after a brief demonstration
of the activity, and scored primarily ‘II’s. Individuals who were not able to work without direct
assistance due to physical limitations scored mostly ‘I’s.
Table 2. Attendance, average time, and percentage of time in three levels of participation for elderly adults during separate
activities.
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Name Design Seeds I Cuttings Seeds II Terrarium Frames Scare- Corsage Planting
tags crow
27
#
present
9/12 5/10 9/10 7/11 7/10 8/11 6/13 5/11 5/8 3/8
75% 50% 90% 64% 70% 73% 46% 45% 62.5% 37.5%
average
time in
minutes
25.1m. 26.2m. 19.6m. 31.4m. 18.3m. 15.9m. 24m. 21.6m. 22.2m. 13.7m.
type of
partici-pation
in %
0-50.4 0-37.4 0-61.6 0-28.9 0-39.3 0-30.2 0-39.3 0-24 0-49.2 0-38.3
I-36.3 I-57.6 I-36.3 I-49.3 I-54.7 I-69.8 I-51.9 I-58.4 I-50.8 I-61.7
II-13.1 II-5 II-2.1 II-21.9 II-6 II-0 II-8.8 II-17.6 II-0 II-0
The elderly adults’ participation was less dependent on how the activity was set up and more
dependent on each individuals’ physical abilities. Because of this, the activities did not show as much

variation in the scores as the children’s activities. The average participation time varied with the
amount of materials available for the activity. During activities with unlimited materials available for
each participant (# 1, 2, 4, 7, 8) many older adults participated longer. Activities where available
materials were limited (#3, 5, 6, 10) showed a decreased average time as participants were limited
to the number of products they could complete. The only exception was activity #9. Materials were
limited for this activity, but the high difficulty level increased the time spent completing the activity.
Intergenerational Activities
Participation scores also were used to assess individuals during the intergenerational activities. These
data allowed for a comparison of the total participation between separate and intergenerational group
activities to indicate the success of certain activities either in separate or combined groups.
Intergenerational participation scores showed several changes in participation due to the joining of
the two groups. These changes in scores appear to have been influenced primarily by a reduction in
individual assistance available from the volunteers during the activity.
No data were collected on week 5 because the video equipment was not properly started during that
intergenerational activity. To compensate for this missing intergenerational data the week 5 separate
age group activity was not included in comparison data.
Children’s intergenerational scores (Table 3) show an initial increase in ‘O’s. This is probably due to
the volunteers’ inexperience at encouraging participation from all participants. These “O” scores
disappeared after the volunteers gained more experience working with their groups. Children’s scores
also show an increase in ‘I’s and decrease in ‘II’s compared to separate group activities (Table 1)
with only two exceptions (#8, 9). This is most likely due to the increased structure of the
intergenerational activities. In order to encourage interactions between the two groups, activities were
designed to promote team work and cooperation between the generations. Independent activity
usually decreased interactions, so participants were encouraged to work together rather than on their
own and activities were redesigned as group participation efforts. The two exceptions (#8, 9) showed
an increase in independent activity because of the simplicity of the activities. These activities were less
28

structured and allowed the participants to work independently but in a group setting.
Table 3. Attendance, average time, and percentage of time in three levels of participation for children during
intergenerational activities.
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Board Sand Seeds I Hanging Labels Terrarium Frames Concrete Arrange- Planting
Garden Basket ments
29
#
present
14 12 9 7 ND 7 8 10 5 9
average
time in
minutes
16.8 9.1m. 15.2 10.1m. ND 9.9m. 12.1m. 18.3m. 13.6m. 15.3m.
m. m.
type of
partici-pation
in %
0-5% 0-11.6 0-0.6 0-0 ND 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0
I-95 I-45.1 I-99.4 I-100 I-100 I-100 I-0 I-31.6 I-100
II-0 II-43.3 II-0 II-0 II-0 II-0 II-100 II-68.4 II-0
At the same time the children’s average participation time increased for all but two intergenerational
activities. Because the children were seated at tables and less direct assistance was available, the
children required more time completing the activities in intergenerational groups. On the days when
intergenerational activities took place, the activity started before the scheduled group time on that
day. These activities also took place in the Adult Day Service room, which was two rooms away from
the Child Development Lab room. It was more difficult to encourage the children to participate in
activities on these days. Although it is possible that fewer children chose to participate in these
activities because they did not enjoy the intergenerational group, the high number of variables make
it difficult to identify the exact reason. Total children’s participation comparing separate age group
and intergenerational activities are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Total children’s participation comparing cumulative time spent in different levels of participation during separate
and intergenerational activities.
0 I II Total Participation Average
minutes minutes minutes minutes Occurrences minutes
Separate 1m. 536m. 465m. 1002m. 96 10.4 m.
Intergenerational 26m. 807m. 273m. 1106m. 81 13.7m.

Elderly Adults
The elderly adults’ participation scores (Table 5) show an increase in ‘O’ scores in 8 of the 10
activities compared to separate activities (Table 2), while the other 2 stay the same. This was due to
two separate observed factors. First, in some situations, ‘O’ scores increase because less direct
assistance was available from the volunteers, and without the needed assistance, certain of the elderly
adults could not participate in the activity. This was often observed with elderly adults who had
limited physical abilities, and for elderly adults with Alzheimer’s disease. The second reason for the
increase in ‘O’ scores was observed in elderly adults with higher physical capabilities. Many of these
participants did not join in when children were present because they did not wish to get in the way
or prevent the children from participating. Many of these elderly adults who did not need direct
assistance to participate simply sat back and watched the children complete in the activity.
Table 5. Attendance, average time, and percentage of time in three levels of participation for elderly adults during
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Board Sand Seeds I Hanging Labels Terrarium Frames Concrete Arrange- Planting
Garden Basket ments
30
#
present
7/11 7/10 8/8 8/9 ND 8/13 10/11 3/12 7/12 7/11
64% 70% 100% 89% 62% 91% 25% 58% 64%
average
time in
minutes
24.6m. 16.1m. 17.1m. 10.8m. ND 13.1m. 15.1m. 16.7m. 17.3m. 28.4m.
type of
partici-pation
in %
0-70.7 0-75.3 0-48 0-70.5 ND 0-37.1 0-61 0-50.3 0-46.7 0-43.6
I-16.4 I-10.4 I-39.5 I-17 I-50.4 I-19 I-0 I-21.3 I-16.9
II-12.9 II-14.3 II-12.5 II-12.5 II-12.5 II-20 II-49.7 II-32 II-39.6
Another observed problem that affected both the elderly adults with and without physical limitations
was excessive direct assistance for the children from the staff or volunteers. During the first several
activities, many staff or volunteers worked closely with the active children to keep them involved in
the activity, and the adults who needed assistance or encouragement to participate were ignored or
given limited access to the activity. Because the children were more vocal with their assistance
requests and more willing to leave when they were unsatisfied, the staff and volunteers focused their
attention on these children and let the elderly adults remain silent and inactive. With careful coaching

and experience in working with both populations and in meeting their needs more efficiently, the
problems of excessive direct assistance for the children decreased, increasing the assistance and
attention available for the elderly adults. Throughout the course of the study, the ‘O’ scores
decreased which may be attributed to the assistance of the volunteers who encouraged the elderly
adults to work with the children rather than watch, and with the decrease in excessive direct
assistance for the children. Three of the four early activities (#1, 2, 4) had over 70% ‘O’s, while of
the last five activities three (#6, 9, 10) showed no more than 47% ‘O’, with two slightly higher scores
(#7, 8) which were a result of the activity set up. During activity #7, the participants worked
independently rather than in groups and encouraged interaction and participation was low. During
activity #8, most elderly adults were unable to reach the wheelbarrow that the children crowded
around and therefore watched, instead of participated, in the activity.
Along with the increase in ‘O’ scores, the elderly adults also show an increase in ‘II’s. This is due to
the limited amount of direct assistance available during the activity. Thus it was observed that without
direct assistance the ‘I’ scores decrease. The ‘O’ and ‘II’ scores increase because in response to the
decrease in direct assistance the elderly adults would either not participate or work on their own.
Total elderly adults’ participation comparing separate age group and intergenerational activities is
summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Total elderly adults’ participation comparing cumulative time spent in different levels of participation during
separate and intergenerational activities.
0 I II Total Participation Average
minutes minutes minutes minutes Occurrences minutes
Separate 490m. 677m. 117m. 1284m. 57 22.5m.
Intergenerational 588m. 253m. 293m. 1134m. 65 17.4m.
Intergenerational Interactions
During the course of this 10-week study the total percentage of interaction time between the
generations during activities increased over time (Table 7) with two exceptions (#7, 8). Several
factors appear to have contributed to this increase. The two groups became more familiar with each
31

other and more comfortable interacting, and the volunteers became more comfortable working with
both groups and encouraging participation and interaction from everyone at their table. Most of the
intergenerational interaction occurred between the 4 and 5 year old children and the elderly adults
with the highest cognitive and physical abilities. This may be because the 3 year old children and the
elderly adults with Alzheimer’s disease or other limited cognitive and physical abilities needed a large
amount of direct assistance to complete the activities, and therefore worked with the volunteers more
than with the other participants.
Table 7. Intergenerational interaction for elderly adults and preschool children during intergenerational activities.
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Board Sand Seeds Cuttings Seeds Terrar- Frames Concrete Arrang- Planting
garden I II iums ing
32
I - non-verbal
12m. 0m. 0m. 2m. ND 33m. 12m. 0m. 24m. 26m.
II - one-direction
verbal
8m. 15m. 14m. 8m. ND 7m. 2m. 6m. 22m. 16m.
III - two-direction
verbal
4m. 6m. 28m. 4m. ND 0m. 6m. 0m. 2m. 8m.
IV - two-direction
verbal +
physical
assistance
0m. 0m. 0m. 8m. ND 0m. 0m. 0m. 2m. 62m.
Total 24m. 21m. 42m. 22m. ND 40m. 20m. 6m. 50m. 112m.
Total time
407.4 221m. 264m 157m. ND 174m. 247.8m. 233m. 189m. 337m.
for all
m.
partici-pants
Percent of
interaction
time
6% 10% 15% 14% ND 23% 8% 3% 26% 33%
Several factors that appeared to reduce the amount of interaction in all activities were excessive staff
or volunteer direct assistance for individuals rather than team or group encouragement, a lack of
experience or discomfort in working with either elderly adults or children, or inappropriate activity
set up and material distribution. The low interaction scores of activity #7 and 8 were probably due
to the nature of the activities. During activity #7, participants worked individually at the same table.

Without a shared product to encourage cooperation very little interaction took place. During activity
#8, the participants stood around a wheelbarrow to mix concrete and functioned as independent
workers rather than a team. In addition, many of the elderly adults could not reach the wheelbarrow
and chose not to participate in the activity.
Of all these activities, the horticulture plant-based activities (# 3, 4, 6, 9, 10) show greater percentage
of interaction time than the craft-type activities (#1, 2, 7, 8). This indicates that horticulture may be
more useful than craft-type activities for intergenerational programs with a goal of increased
interaction and relationship development.
Conclusions
The HT goals of working with young children or elderly adults have several similarities, but also
several differences. The decrease in children’s attendance and elderly adults’ participation during
intergenerational activities compared to separate activities indicates that introducing intergenerational
interactions may detract from the ability to accomplish HT goals. This is especially seen with the
elderly adult group. Participants with physical limitations or Alzheimer’s disease who require a high
amount of direct assistance could not participate as well during intergenerational activities.
The horticultural plant-based intergenerational activities showed more success than horticultural
crafts at encouraging social interactions between the two groups as reflected by this study. The craft-type
activities involved simple skills such as cutting, glueing, or writing, These types of tasks
encourage individual activity more than group activity. The horticulture plant-based activities
involved less individualized tasks and more group effort and team work for completion. For
intergenerational programs that aim to increase social interaction and relationship development
between generations, horticulture with live plants may help attain these goals more effectively than
craft-type activities.
Because most interaction was observed between the older children and the elderly adults with more
33

physical and cognitive abilities, this research may indicate that two groups in this study may not be
the best combination for intergenerational programs in this type of program. The younger children
and elderly adults with limited physical and cognitive abilities who had higher demands for attention
from the staff and volunteers were not as strongly or positively influenced by the intergenerational
interactions. The age and activity level of the participants influenced their type of interaction during
The decision to implement intergenerational HT programming will depend upon the age,
developmental or ability level, and goals for the individuals involved. Individuals with high demands
for physical assistance during activities may not benefit from intergenerational activities that demand
high levels attention and support from volunteers or staff.
The high level of variables and compounding factors that are introduced when working with young
children, elderly adults, staff, and volunteers limits the ability to reach clear conclusions and simply
provides direction for conducting programs and future research. Because of the limited resources
available for this study, the results of this data are not conclusive evidence of the desirable or
undesirable outcome of the addition of intergenerational experiences to the HT program. Rather, the
results of this study serve to make recommendations for program implementation and further
research. More conclusive results could be obtained if a source of participants could be identified that
would provide a larger and more random sample population, the use of a separate control group for
comparison, and a longer duration of study.
Intergenerational research involves many variables that affect the outcome of the study. Allowing
more time to train volunteers and gain experience in working with both elderly adults and children
will increase the success of activities. Use of professionals with training, experience, and a long-term
position would provide the greatest reduction in variance due to personnel. Using preliminary tests
to gain experience when using video to collect data will decrease the effects of video limitations.
Video can also allow for data analysis by an unbiased observer who is ignorant of the research
hypothesis.
34

Guidelines
Based on this research several guidelines were found to be useful in encouraging successful
intergenerational interactions during HT activities.
Activities: 1. Appeal to both age groups’ interest
2. Are developmentally and functionally appropriate for the groups involved
3. Group activities are preferred to individual activities done in groups
4. Have a definite start and end
5. Have a definite shared goal
Set up: 1. Small groups allow for easy, more intimate contact
2. Have all participants seated at table, interspersed by age
3. Introduce participants or have them introduce themselves
4. Have a definite task for each person; emphasize importance of all participation
5. Encourage 1-on-1 interaction between participants
6. Prevent distractions from noise, discomfort, etc.
35
Staff/Volunteers:
1. Have a suitable ratio of staff/volunteers to participants
(Recommended maximum of 4 participants for 1 volunteer)
2. Be familiar with needs of both groups, with appropriate expectations according to
the developmental or functional level of the individuals
3. Avoid over-direction or excessive involvement with participants
4. Direct activity with positive attitude
5. Encourage interactions among participants
6. Keep a journal for activity- and self-evaluation
7. Establish good communication for feedback, input, etc.
Interactions: 1. Do not force interactions or participation

2. Best when either elderly adult or child can assist each other or work together in
groups equally
3. Best for individuals that do not require constant direct assistance from
staff/volunteer
Recommendations for Future Research
Research is in its initial stages both for HT and for intergenerational programming. This research
project identified several areas that need to be addressed in future studies.
36
Activities
& How the set up affects the ability to reach the activity goals
& How plant-based activities compare to craft-type activities for different populations
Volunteers
& What training will produce the best results from volunteers
& What time and input expectations are appropriate from volunteers
& How volunteer turnover could affect the research
& What the suitable ratio of staff/volunteers to participants is for groups with different abilities,
needs, and limitations
Data Collection
& What the effectiveness is of different data collection techniques such as journaling, video tape,
or unbiased and uninvolved observers
& How the data collection methods can alter the results or conclusions
Intergenerational Groups
& What the effects are of intergenerational HT interactions involving different combinations of
ages and abilities of children and elderly adults

& How alterations to the activity, tools, or environment may increase participation and
interaction from elderly adults with severe physical limitations or Alzheimer’s disease
Literature Cited
Abbott, G., V. Cochran, and A.A. Clair. 1997. Innovations in intergenerational programs for persons
who are elderly: The role of horticultural therapy in a multidisciplinary approach, p. 27-38.
In: Wells (ed.). Horticultural Therapy and the Older Adult. Hawthorne Press, NY.
Aday, R.H. 1991. Youth’s attitudes toward the elderly: The impact of intergenerational partners. J.
37
Applied Gerontology 10(3):372-384.
Chapman, N.J. and M.B. Neal. 1990. The effects of intergenerational experiences on adolescents and
older adults. The Gerontologist 30(6):825-832.
Dellman-Jenkins, M., D. Lambert, and D. Fruit. 1991. Fostering preschoolers’ prosocial behaviors
toward the elderly: The effect of an intergenerational program. Educ. Gerontology 17:21-32.
Epstein, S.G. and D.S. Greenberger. 1990. Nurturing plants, children, and older individuals:
Intergenerational horticultural therapy. J. Therapeutic Hort. 5:16-19.
Gardening Science Manual, New York Board of Education publication.
Moore, B. 1989. Growing with Gardening. Univ. of NC Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Moore, R.C. 1993. Plants for Play. MIG Communications, Berkley, CA.
Rothert, E.R. and J.R. Daubert. 1981. Horticultural Therapy for Nursing Homes, Senior Centers,
Retirement Living. Chicago Horticultural Society, Chicago, IL.
Seefeldt, C. 1989. Intergenerational programs: Impact on attitudes. J. of Children in Contemp.
Society 20:185-194.
Tice, C.H. 1985. Perspectives on intergenerational initiatives: Past, present, and future. Children
Today 14(5):6-11.

HORTICULTURE THERAPY ACTIVITIES FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN,
ELDERLY ADULTS, AND INTERGENERATIONAL GROUPS
Introduction
These activities were designed as part of an intergenerational research project. They consist of 10
different HT activities that can be adapted for preschool children, elderly adults, and intergenerational
groups. The design of the research allowed preschool children and elderly adults to be observed both
during separate age group activities and during similar intergenerational activities. Each week during
the 10-week study involved one day for the children’s activity, a second day for the elderly adults’
activity, and a third day for the intergenerational activity. The same horticulture activity was used for
each group’s session during one week, with slight modifications to make the activity appropriate for
each group. As a result of this study (Chapter IV), 10 activities have been tested for use by children,
elderly adults, and intergenerational groups.
The children’s group testing these activities consisted of 16 children between the ages of 3 and 5. The
children had similar skill levels with some small variation in tasks such as spelling or using fine motor
skills (cutting with scissors, planting seeds, etc.). The children were part of an afternoon day care
program at the University Child Development Lab School which met for three hours three days a
week. The elderly adult group consisted of 12 regular attending participants age 65 or older. The
elderly adults had various levels of speech, cognitive, and physical abilities. The elderly adults were
part of the University Adult Day Service day care which met for 9 hours every weekday. These same
two groups of children and adults attended the intergenerational activities. Participation in the
horticulture activities was optional for all the participants. The actual number of children and elderly
adults that participated in each activity varied due to absences or preference for other activities at the
centers.
38

Activity Goals
The goals of HT for children and elderly adults have several similarities including increased
autonomy, physical and mental stimulation, social interaction, sensory stimulation, creative
expression, and a sense of wonder and excitement. However, conflicting energy levels of the two
groups and the opposing needs for quiet and cleanliness for elderly adults and freedom to explore and
play for children could potentially result in frustrations and negative attitudes between the two groups
during intergenerational activities. The goals of intergenerational programs include increased social
contact and interaction, and relationship development between different generations.
The specific goals for all activities were participation, self-motivation, and fun. Additional goals
included education and skill enhancement for the children’s group, exercise and skill enhancement for
the elderly adult group, and social interaction for the intergenerational group.
Testing of Activities
The Child Development Lab School and the Adult Day Service are located in the same campus
building separated only by a small room designed to allow for intergenerational activities. An outdoor
enclosed patio was used for activities during warm, sunny weather. The intergenerational room and
the Adult Day Service were equipped with video cameras to record activities. A camera on a tripod
was used to record outdoor activities for data collection and analysis.
Four volunteers assisted with the HT activities. These volunteers were part of a university HT class
that required volunteer service. They had varying levels of experience with horticulture and working
with children or elderly adults. Two volunteers assisted with the children’s activities both during
separate and intergenerational activities, and two volunteers similarly assisted with the elderly adult
activities.
The activities were chosen to be appropriate and interesting for both groups involved. These activities
were arranged in a progressive order, starting with getting to know each other (Making Nametags),
39

Assessng an Intergeneratonal Horticulture Therapy Program for Elderly Adults and Preschool Children

Assessng an Intergeneratonal Horticulture Therapy Program for Elderly Adults and Preschool Children

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Assessng an Intergeneratonal Horticulture Therapy Program for Elderly Adults and Preschool Children

Ähnlich wie Assessng an Intergeneratonal Horticulture Therapy Program for Elderly Adults and Preschool Children (20)

Mehr von School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

Mehr von School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Assessng an Intergeneratonal Horticulture Therapy Program for Elderly Adults and Preschool Children