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.

iii

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

iv

may be a useful activity for intergenerational programs with a goal of increased interaction and

relationship development.

v

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.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Perspectives on Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Horticulture Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Intergenerational Programming Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Implementing a Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Gardening for Elderly Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Gardening for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Additional References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

III. Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy Research Variables Introduced by Staff, Volunteers, and Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Working with Staff and Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

IV. Intergenerational Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

V. Horticulture Therapy Activities for Preschool Children, Elderly Adults, and Intergenerational Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Activity Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Testing of Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Elderly Adult Activity References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Preschool Children Activity References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Intergenerational Activity References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

vii

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

1

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.

2

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

3

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).

4

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

5

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

6

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”

7

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 CitedAbbott, 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.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.

8

Carstens, D.Y. 1985. Site Planning and Design for the Elderly: Issues, Guidelines, and Alternatives.Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., NY.

Chamberlain, V.M., E. Fetterman, and M. Maher. 1994. Innovation in elder and child care: Anintergenerational experience. Educ. Gerontology 20:193-204.

Chapman, N.J. and M.B. Neal. 1990. The effects of intergenerational experiences on adolescents andolder adults. The Gerontologist 30(6):825-832.

Cohon, D. 1989. Intergenerational program research to refine theory and practice. J. Children inContemp. Society 20:217-230.

Dellman-Jenkins, M., D. Lambert, and D. Fruit. 1991. Fostering preschoolers’ prosocial behaviorstoward 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 Children50(9):4-13.

DeMarco, L.W. 1997. The Factors Affecting Elementary School Teachers’ Integration of SchoolGardening into the Curriculum, unpublished thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity.

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 andflowers, p. 395-408. In: J. Flagler, and R. Poincelot (eds.). People-Plant Relations: SettingResearch 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 andPractice. 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,

Adaptation and Aging 3(1):47-54.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 theOlder Adult Population. Hawthorne Press, NY.

Kocarnik, R.A. and J.J. Ponzetti. 1991. The advantages and challenges of intergenerational programsin 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 theaged: 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 inimmediate care, p. 173-194. In: M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice (eds.). The HealingDimensions 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 DelawareSeefeldt, 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 ReferencesAngelis, 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:

10

M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice (eds.). The Healing Dimensions of People PlantRelations. Center for Design Research, Davis, CA.

Brummel, S.W. 1989. Developing an intergenerational program. J. Children in Contemp. Society20:119-133.

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 DesignResearch, 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 ResearchPriorities, 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 elderlyliving 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 NationalSymposium. 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.

11

Newman, S. and C. Ward. 1993. An observational study of intergenerational activities and behaviorchange in dementing elders at an adult day care center. Intl. J. Aging and HumanDevelopment 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.

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 Gerontologist34(4):513-519.

Travis, S.S., A.J. Stremmel, and P.A. Duprey. 1993. Child and adult day care professions convergingin 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 Environments12(2):250-255.

12

INTERGENERATIONAL HORTICULTURE THERAPY RESEARCH VARIABLESINTRODUCED 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

13

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

14

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).

15

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,

16

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

17

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

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

19

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

20

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.

21

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 CitedAngelis, 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

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,Adaptation and Aging 3(1):47-54.

Kerrigan, J. and N.C. Stevenson. 1997. Behavioral study of youth and elders in an intergenerationalhorticultural therapy program, p. 141-154. In: Wells (ed.). Horticultural Therapy and theOlder Adult Population. Hawthorne Press, NY.

Kocarnik, R.A. and J.J. Ponzetti. 1991. The advantages and challenges of intergenerational programsin 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.Seefeldt, C. 1987. Intergenerational programs. Childhood Educ. (October):14-18.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 Gerontologist34(4):513-519.

Travis, S.S., A.J. Stremmel, and P.A. Duprey. 1993. Child and adult day care professions convergingin the 1990s: Implications for training and research. Educ. Gerontology 19:283-293.

22

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.”

23

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

24

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

25

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.

26

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 separateactivities.

Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Name Design Seeds I Cuttings Seeds II Terrarium Frames Scare- Corsage Plantingtags crow

#present

13 9 15 11 10 14 8 8 11 7

averagetime inminutes

10m. 14.3m. 10.3m. 8.7m. 7.9m. 7.1m. 14.4m. 14.3m. 6m. 14.1m.

type ofpartici-pationin %

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-0II-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

27

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 separateactivities.

Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Name Design Seeds I Cuttings Seeds II Terrarium Frames Scare- Corsage Plantingtags crow

#present

9/12 5/10 9/10 7/11 7/10 8/11 6/13 5/11 5/8 3/875% 50% 90% 64% 70% 73% 46% 45% 62.5% 37.5%

average

time inminutes

25.1m. 26.2m. 19.6m. 31.4m. 18.3m. 15.9m. 24m. 21.6m. 22.2m. 13.7m.

type ofpartici-pationin %

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 0-38.3I-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-61.7II-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

28

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

29

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 duringintergenerational activities.

Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Board Sand Seeds I Hanging Labels Terrarium Frames Concrete Arrange- Planting

Garden Basket ments

#present

14 12 9 7 ND 7 8 10 5 9

average

time inminutes

16.8 9.1m. 15.2 10.1m. ND 9.9m. 12.1m. 18.3m. 13.6m. 15.3m.m. m.

type ofpartici-

pation in %

0-5% 0-11.6 0-0.6 0-0 ND 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0I-95 I-45.1 I-99.4 I-100 I-100 I-100 I-0 I-31.6 I-100II-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 separateand intergenerational activities.

0 I II Total Participation Averageminutes minutes minutes minutes Occurrences minutes

Separate 1m. 536m. 465m. 1002m. 96 10.4 m.

Intergenerational 26m. 807m. 273m. 1106m. 81 13.7m.

30

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 duringintergenerational activities.

Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Board Sand Seeds I Hanging Labels Terrarium Frames Concrete Arrange- Planting

Garden Basket ments

#present

7/11 7/10 8/8 8/9 ND 8/13 10/11 3/12 7/12 7/1164% 70% 100% 89% 62% 91% 25% 58% 64%

averagetime inminutes

24.6m. 16.1m. 17.1m. 10.8m. ND 13.1m. 15.1m. 16.7m. 17.3m. 28.4m.

type ofpartici-pationin %

0-70.7 0-75.3 0-48 0-70.5 ND 0-37.1 0-61 0-50.3 0-46.7 0-43.6I-16.4 I-10.4 I-39.5 I-17 I-50.4 I-19 I-0 I-21.3 I-16.9II-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

31

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 duringseparate and intergenerational activities.

0 I II Total Participation Averageminutes 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

32

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 10Board Sand Seeds Cuttings Seeds Terrar- Frames Concrete Arrang- Planting

garden I II iums ing

I - non-verbal

12m. 0m. 0m. 2m. ND 33m. 12m. 0m. 24m. 26m.

II - one-directionverbal

8m. 15m. 14m. 8m. ND 7m. 2m. 6m. 22m. 16m.

III - two-directionverbal

4m. 6m. 28m. 4m. ND 0m. 6m. 0m. 2m. 8m.

IV - two-directionverbal +physicalassistance

0m. 0m. 0m. 8m. ND 0m. 0m. 0m. 2m. 62m.

Total 24m. 21m. 42m. 22m. ND 40m. 20m. 6m. 50m. 112m.

Total timefor allpartici-pants

407.4 221m. 264m 157m. ND 174m. 247.8m. 233m. 189m. 337m.m.

Percent ofinteractiontime

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.

33

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

34

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

intergenerational activities.

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.

35

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.

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

36

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.

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

37

& 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 CitedAbbott, 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.Applied Gerontology 10(3):372-384.

Chapman, N.J. and M.B. Neal. 1990. The effects of intergenerational experiences on adolescents andolder adults. The Gerontologist 30(6):825-832.

Dellman-Jenkins, M., D. Lambert, and D. Fruit. 1991. Fostering preschoolers’ prosocial behaviorstoward 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. 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 theOlder Adult Population. Hawthorne Press, NY.

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. 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.Tice, C.H. 1985. Perspectives on intergenerational initiatives: Past, present, and future. Children

Today 14(5):6-11.

38

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.

39

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),

40

setting a group goal (Designing the Garden), and learning the plant life cycle from seed germination

to planting flowers. 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 children’s activities were designed to allow for freedom to explore and learn and to ensure

completion of the activity. Most activities were set up in numbered steps where a child moved from

one step to the next around the table to complete the activity. These activities required a large amount

of assistance due to the high difficulty level and the participants’ unfamiliarity with the horticulture

activities. For these activities the children had to take turns, waiting for a volunteer to finish working

with another child before they could start the activity. In order to decrease the children’s frustration

while waiting to begin, a few of these ordered step activities were designed so that volunteers would

be stationed at difficult steps to supervise each child at that step in the activity. This reduced the

waiting time and allowed volunteers to work with several children at once. Several of the easier

children’s activities were not as highly structured. For these activities, materials were spread out on

the table and the participants worked at their own pace. These activities required less direct assistance

and allowed a larger number of children to participate at one time.

The elderly adult activities were designed to allow for flexibility so the activities could be adapted to

the different ability levels of the participants. The elderly adults were seated at a table with all

materials within reach. The amount of assistance required was directly related to the needs and

abilities of the participants. After the elderly adults were seated at the tables, each volunteer would

sit between participants and assist them as needed during the activity. The participants were seated

so that each volunteer would only work either with one individual who needed direct assistance, or

with several individuals that needed less direct assistance.

The intergenerational activities were designed to allow for small group interaction. Four small tables

were used with the elderly adults and children divided equally among the tables. The participants were

seated so that the children and elderly adults would not congregate in separate groups at the tables.

41

All materials were spread out on the tables within reach of all the participants. The assistance needed

for these activities was high due to the different needs and abilities of the participants. One volunteer

was stationed at each table to direct the activity, assist the participants, and encourage interaction.

The researcher moved around the room assisting and directing volunteers as needed.

Activities

Activity Set 1

Separate Activity- Making Name Tags

Over-all Goal- To establish a group identity and to learn names

Potential Benefits- Physical- practice fine motor skills, learn or recall names, Intellectual- increase

autonomy, color stimulation

Planning/Organization- little; collect materials

Materials- colored cards, magazines with colored horticulture pictures, glue, scissors, marker pens,

plastic name tags

Set-up/Preparation- Children- materials spread out on table (except scissors, which the volunteers

held to assist the children), children stood at tables to work.

Elderly Adults- materials spread out on table, adults sat at tables to work.

Process- Participants picked a colored card and a picture from a magazine to glue onto it. They then

wrote their names on the cards, inserted them into the plastic name tag holder and pinned it on.

Direction/Assistance- Children- Younger children needed more assistance with scissors, writing

their names, and glueing. Because the participants worked as individuals more assistance was needed

to keep them all active.

Elderly Adults- Need for assistance varied with ability. Several participants worked alone after a

brief explanation, several participants needed assistance with more dexterous tasks such as cutting,

and some participants needed direct assistance with all steps.

Intergenerational Activity - Making ‘Garden Club’ Poster Board

Over-all Goal- Establish group identity, make board to hang name tags

Potential Benefits- Physical- practice fine motor skills, Social- increase intergenerational interaction,

42

Intellectual- discuss plant needs, Psychological- increase sense of contribution to the project

Planning/Organization- moderate; collect materials, prepare materials

Materials- poster board cut into 1/4ths and decorated with grass, sun, clouds, and ‘Garden Club’

heading; pre-cut flower pictures, stems, leaves, rain drops; glue, Polaroid camera and film

Set-up/Preparation- 4 tables with chairs for small groups, 1 part of poster board at each table,

other materials spread out on table. The poster board was cut before the activity and one section was

put at each table so that all participants could reach part of the poster. The sun, grass, and clouds

were glued onto the poster board before the activity began to save time.

Process- Each participant chose a flower picture, stem, and leaves. After their picture was taken with

the Polaroid camera, they cut out their face and glued it to the center of the flower. Each flower with

a stem and leaves was glued onto the grass on the poster board. Each participant wrote their name

on the stem. After the flowers were on the board, the participants glued on the rain drops and talked

about what flowers need to grow.

Direction/Assistance- One volunteer stood at each table to direct the activity, assist participants, and

encourage interaction.

Activity Set 2

Separate Activity- Designing the Garden

Over-all Goal- To have participants involved in choosing plants and designing the garden

Potential Benefits- Intellectual- identify and select desired plant materials, Psychological- increase

autonomy, increase a sense of accomplishment, encourage a sense of ownership and contribution to

the project

Planning/Organization- little; collect materials

Materials- paper, markers, magazines for ideas

Set-up/Preparation- Materials were spread out on tables.

Process- Children- Children sat at tables and drew pictures of what they wanted the garden to look

like. When they finished they explained their pictures to the volunteers.

Elderly Adults- The older adults sat at tables and looked through magazines, making lists of plants

43

they liked.

Direction/Assistance- Children- Assistance was only needed to take notes on the childrens’

explanations of their pictures.

Elderly Adults- Assistance was needed to listen to the reminiscing and stories about the participant’s

past gardens, and to keep a list of ideas and plant names.

Intergenerational Activity - ‘Designing’ Miniature Sand Garden

Over-all Goal- Physical expression of design ideas, collaboration between generations

Potential Benefits- Intellectual- visualization and physical representation of ideas, Social- increase

intergenerational interaction, Psychological- increase enjoyment and creativity

Planning/Organization- moderate; collect materials, have dried materials

Materials- 4 trays with wet sand, various dried materials and evergreens to represent plants

Set-up/Preparation- 4 tables with chairs for small group interaction, 1 tray of sand at each, other

materials spread out on tables.

Process- Participants talked about how they wanted the garden to look, then picked materials to

represent the plants they chose and arranged them in the sand to make a 3-D garden.

Direction/Assistance- 4 tables; 1 volunteer at each table to direct activity, assist participants, and

encourage interaction.

Activity Set 3

Separate Activity- Planting Indoor Garden Seeds

Over-all Goal- Introduction to the plant life cycle; start seeds of plants participants chose earlier

Potential Benefits- Intellectual- learn start of plant life cycle, Physical- practice fine motor skills

Planning/Organization- moderate; collect seeds and materials, evaluate participants’ garden design

suggestions to choose most appropriate plants, find appropriate space for seeds to germinate.

Materials- seed packs of plants that can grow indoors in pots, soil, pots, watering can, plant markers

and pencils.

Set-up/Preparation- Children- One table with seed packages, plastic labels, and pencils; bucket of

soil on plastic sheet on ground with space for planting seeds on plastic.

44

Elderly Adults- Materials spread out within reach on tables.

Process- Each participant picked the package of seeds they wanted to plant, filled a pot with dirt,

planted the seeds, watered the seeds in, and labeled the plant.

Direction/Assistance- Children- Minimal- one volunteer at table to assist in seed choice and

labeling, one volunteer at the soil bucket to assist in filling pots, and one volunteer to help planting

seeds.

Elderly Adults- Volunteers sat between participants at the tables to assist in each step of the activity.

Intergenerational Activity - Planting Indoor Garden Seeds

Over-all Goal- same as above

Potential Benefits- Intellectual- learn start of plant life cycle, Physical- practice fine motor skills,

Social- increase intergenerational interaction

Planning/Organization- same as above

Materials- same as above

Set-up/Preparation- 4 tables, materials spread out on tables.

Process- Two different processes were used, two tables for each: A) participants picked seeds, filled

pots, watered, and labeled seeds independently. B) each participant did one step in the activity (like

an assembly line)- 1. Fill pot with soil, 2. Plant seed, 3. Water seed in, 4. Sprinkle dirt on top and label

seed.

Direction/Assistance- 4 tables; 1 volunteer at each table to direct activity, assist participants, and

encourage interaction.

Activity Set 4

Separate Activity- Taking and Planting Cuttings

Over-all Goal- Active and independent involvement in activity.

Potential Benefits- Physical- practice hand-eye coordination, Intellectual- practice simple

propagation technique

Planning/Organization- moderate; collect materials, choose plants for cuttings, find appropriate

45

space for cuttings to root.

Materials- plants for cuttings, pots, soil, watering can, scissors/pruners, popsicle sticks, plastic bags,

rubber bands.

Set-up/Preparation- Children- 1 table with labeled steps, children moved from step to step.

Elderly Adults- materials spread out on tables, participants sat at tables to work.

Process- Children- 1) pick pot, 2) fill with dirt, 3) water soil, 4) choose a plant and take cutting, 5)

plant cutting in soil, 6) put popsicle sticks in sides of pot to support plastic bag, put plastic bag on

top and seal with rubber band.

Elderly Adults- Same steps as children, but not labeled

Direction/Assistance- Children- Volunteers worked with one child at a time; direct assistance was

needed with this difficult activity.

Elderly Adults- Volunteers sat between participants at the tables to assist in each step of the activity.

Intergenerational Activity - Making Hanging Basket

Over-all Goal- Active involvement in activity, team work.

Potential Benefits- Social- increase intergenerational interaction, Physical- practice hand-eye

coordination, Intellectual- practice simple propagation technique

Planning/Organization- same as above

Materials- plants for cuttings, soil, watering can, scissors/pruners, popsicle sticks, hanging baskets.

Set-up/Preparation- 4 tables, 1 hanging basket in the center of each table, trays with soil, cups with

pre-made cuttings, watering cans.

Process- all participants filled the hanging basket with soil, planted a cutting, and watered it in.

Direction/Assistance- 4 tables; 1 volunteer at each table to direct activity, assist participants, and

encourage interaction.

Activity Set 5

Separate Activity- Planting Cool Weather Crop Seeds Indoors

Over-all Goal- Independent completion of activity by following steps

46

Potential Benefits- Physical- practice fine motor skills, Intellectual- practice simple propagation

technique

Planning/Organization- moderate; cool weather crop seeds were chosen, other materials were

collected.

Materials- Cool weather crop seeds, pots, soil, watering can, plastic labels, pencils

Set-up/Preparation- Children- 1 table with labeled steps, children moved from step to step.

Elderly Adults- materials spread out on tables, participants sat at tables to work.

Process- Children- 1) pick pot, 2) fill with dirt, 3) water soil, 4) choose a seed pack and plant seeds,

5) label

Elderly Adults- Same steps as children, but not labeled

Direction/Assistance- Children- One volunteer worked with two children at a time; direct assistance

was used to ensure proper completion of the activity.

Elderly Adults- Volunteers sat between participants at the tables to assist in each step of the activity.

Intergenerational Activity - Making Outdoor Garden Labels

Over-all Goal- Interaction between generations

Potential Benefits- Social- increase intergenerational interaction, Intellectual- match written plant

names and pictures, Psychological- enjoy matching game, test skills

Planning/Organization- moderate; materials collected, prepared

Materials- cards with plant names, matching pictures, clear plastic wrap, plastic labels, glue

Set-up/Preparation- 4 tables for small group interaction; several cards placed in front of each

participant, matching pictures mixed up in center of table. Plastic wrap and glue placed on table after

matching game completed.

Process- Each participant picked one of their labeled cards and all participants at the table helped to

find the appropriate matching picture. When the matching game was completed, the participants glued

the pictures to the card, glued the card to a plastic label, and covered it with pre-cut clear plastic

wrap.

Direction/Assistance- 1 volunteer at each table to direct game/activity, assist participants, and

encourage interaction.

47

Activity Set 6

Separate Activity- Making Personal Terrariums

Over-all Goal- Maintain active participation to activity completion, follow steps

Potential Benefits- Physical- practice hand-eye coordination, Intellectual- discover unique contained

plant system

Planning/Organization- moderate; collect materials, choose appropriate plants, prepare cuttings.

Materials- cuttings of terrarium plants, pebbles, charcoal, soil, plastic cups and tape.

Set-up/Preparation- Children- 1 table with labeled steps, children moved from step to step.

Elderly Adults- materials spread out on tables, participants sat at tables to work.

Process- Children- 1 table with labeled steps: 1) get bottom cup, 2) fill with pebbles up to 1", 3) fill

with dirt, 4) pick cutting and plant, 5) pick top cup and tape to bottom cup, 6) write name on tape,

7) take terrarium home.

Elderly Adults- Same steps as children, but not labeled.

Direction/Assistance- Children- Volunteer worked with one child at a time; direct assistance was

needed with this difficult activity.

Elderly Adults- Volunteers sat between participants at the tables to assist in each step of the activity.

Intergenerational Activity - Making Group Terrariums

Over-all Goal- same as above

Potential Benefits- Social- increase intergenerational interaction, Physical- practice hand-eye

coordination, Intellectual- discover unique contained plant system

Planning/Organization- same as above

Materials- cuttings of terrarium plants, pebbles, charcoal, soil, large plastic terrariums.

Set-up/Preparation- 4 tables; 1 plastic terrarium container at each table, other materials spread out

on table.

Process- Each participant took part in each step of the activity: 1) fill container with pebbles,

charcoal, soil, 2) plant cuttings, 3) water in cuttings, 4) decorate with rocks and sticks, 5) seal lid on

terrarium.

48

Direction/Assistance- 1 volunteer at each table to direct activity, assist participants, and encourage

interaction.

Activity Set 7

Separate Activity- Dried Flower Picture Frames

Over-all Goal- Self-motivation in activity

Potential Benefits- Physical- practice hand-eye coordination, fine motor skills, Psychological-

appreciate aesthetic picture decoration, make a gift for others

Planning/Organization- moderate; prepare and collect dried materials and frames, have participants

bring in a photo to put in the frame.

Materials- pre-cut cardboard frames and stands, glue, dried flowers, tape for stands, pictures

Set-up/Preparation- Materials spread out within reach on tables

Process- Participants chose a frame, glued on dried flowers. Pictures were inserted and stands were

taped onto the frames after they dried.

Direction/Assistance- Volunteers sat between participants at the tables to assist in each step of the

activity.

Intergenerational Activity - Dried Flower Picture Frames

Over-all Goal- same as above

Potential Benefits- Physical- practice hand-eye coordination, fine motor skills, Psychological-

appreciate aesthetic picture decoration, make a gift for others, Social- increase intergenerational

interaction

Planning/Organization- same as above

Materials- same as above

Set-up/Preparation- same as above

Process- same as above

Direction/Assistance- 1 volunteer at each table to direct activity, assist participants, and encourage

interaction.

49

Activity Set 8

Separate Activity- Making Scarecrow as a Group

Over-all Goal- fun!

Potential Benefits- Social- increase interaction, Psychological- use of imagination, Physical- practice

hand-eye coordination

Planning/Organization- moderate; collect materials, prepare wooden frame

Materials- wooden cross frame, old clothes, plastic bags for stuffing

Set-up/Preparation- Wooden cross laid on floor for children, on table for adults; clothes and plastic

bags spread out around frame.

Process- Each participant assisted in selecting clothes, putting them on the frame, and stuffing the

scarecrow with plastic bags.

Direction/Assistance- Volunteers sat between participants at the tables to assist in each step of the

activity.

Intergenerational Activity - Making Concrete and Installing Scarecrows

Over-all Goal- Interaction, fun

Potential Benefits- Social- increase interaction, Psychological- use of imagination, Physical- practice

large motor skills

Planning/Organization- moderate; collect materials, arrange plastic on floor for easy clean-up

Materials- rocks, cement, water in cups, wheelbarrow for mixing concrete, hand shovels, plastic to

cover ground, bottom of frames of scarecrows in pots

Set-up/Preparation- Spread plastic on ground to catch mess, wheelbarrow containing cement in

center, rocks and water in containers around wheelbarrow, scarecrows in pots on the side.

Process- Each participant got a shovel to mix in rocks, water, and cement, then to put cement into

a pot holding the scarecrow frame.

Direction/Assistance- Volunteers stood around wheelbarrow to assist participants with the activity;

one strong volunteer mixed the cement as the ingredients were added.

50

Activity Set 9

Separate Activity- Making Corsages

Over-all Goal- Focused attention on task, skill development.

Potential Benefits- Physical- practice fine motor skills, Psychological- enjoy fragrance and aesthetics

of flowers

Planning/Organization- moderate; collect materials

Materials- fresh flowers, name tags, pens, scissors, and floral tape.

Set-up/Preparation- Children- 1 table with labeled steps, children moved from step to step.

Elderly Adults- materials spread out on tables, participants sat at tables to work.

Process- Children- 1 table with labeled steps: 1) pick name tag and write name, 2) pick cut flowers,

3) tape flowers together, 4) tape flowers to name tag, 5) wear corsage

Elderly Adults- Same steps as children, but not labeled.

Direction/Assistance- Children- One volunteer assisted with writing on name tags, one volunteer

assisted with picking flowers, and a third volunteer assisted taping the flowers to the name tag.

Elderly Adults- Volunteers sat between participants at the tables to assist in each step of the activity.

Intergenerational Activity - Flower Arranging

Over-all Goal- same as above

Potential Benefits- Physical- practice fine motor skills, Psychological- enjoy fragrance and aesthetics

of flowers, Social- increase intergenerational interaction

Planning/Organization- same as above

Materials- fresh flowers, cups with sand and water.

Set-up/Preparation- 2 tables; containers at each table, other materials spread out on table.

Process- Each participant picked flowers and arranged them into cups.

Direction/Assistance- 2 volunteers at each table to direct activity, assist participants, and encourage

interaction.

51

Activity Set 10

Separate Activity- Planting Flowers

Over-all Goal- Finish Garden

Potential Benefits- Psychological- enjoy planting outdoors, Physical- practice hand-eye coordination

Planning/Organization- moderate; collect materials, find appropriate flowers to plant, space to plant

them.

Materials- Flowers, soil, pots, hand shovels, watering cans, scarecrow in large planter.

Set-up/Preparation- Materials spread out on tables.

Process- Each participant helped to fill the scarecrow planter with soil, then picked a flower to plant

in the soil, watered it, and labeled it with their name.

Direction/Assistance- Volunteers stood near participants to direct and assist with activity.

Intergenerational Activity - Planting Flowers

Over-all Goal- same as above

Potential Benefits- Social- increase intergenerational interaction, Psychological- enjoy planting

outdoors, Physical- practice hand-eye coordination

Planning/Organization- same as above

Materials- Flowers, soil, hand shovels, watering cans, large pots.

Set-up/Preparation- same as above

Process- Each participant helped to fill pots with dirt, plant flowers, water them in, and find a good

spot for the pot outside.

Direction/Assistance- Volunteers stood near participants to direct and assist with activity, and

encourage interaction.

Conclusions

While these activities produced variable results with either the children’s group, the elderly adult

group, or the intergenerational group, they were all successful HT activities. Many variables other

than the horticulture activity itself affect the success of the activity. The activity design and set up,

52

difficulty level, and available assistance also greatly affect the participation in activities (Chapter IV).

The first step to increasing effectiveness is having HT goals that are well defined and appropriate for

the participants. After defining the goals, the next step is to choose appropriate activities that appeal

to the interests of the group. Learning more about the participants and their abilities will help

determine which activities are appropriate. Asking about preferred activities will reinforce the

participants’ importance and the value of their involvement in the HT. Activities that are moderately

challenging will engage participants where activities that are too difficult will lead to frustration for

both the horticulture therapist and the clients.

Participation should never be forced but always encouraged. Introducing the activity with the end

product in hand can be effective in getting attention and encouraging participation. Having a

comfortable space free from distractions will make participation more enjoyable. Having all materials

within reach and using adaptive tools when necessary will decrease frustration and encourage

independent participation during activities. During HT activities, direct assistance should only be used

when it is needed during difficult or unfamiliar tasks. Unnecessary direct assistance will decrease both

self-motivation and independent involvement in the activities.

Lastly, when participants finish the activity, thanking them for their involvement and expressing

interest in seeing them next time will reinforce both their personal importance and an appreciation of

their participation in activities.

Elderly Adult Activity ReferencesBrowne, 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 PlantRelations. Center for Design Research, Davis, CA.

Bubel, N. 1990. A therapy garden. Country Journal (September/October):74-76.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.

Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., NY.

53

Haas, K. 1996. The therapeutic quality of plants. J. Therapeutic Hort. 8:61-67.Hill, C.O. and P.D. Relf. 1983. Gardening as an outdoor activity in geriatric institutions. Activities,

Adaptation and Aging 3(1):47-54.Houseman, D. 1986. Developing links between horticultural therapy and aging. J. Therapeutic Hort.

1:9-14.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 ResearchPriorities, A National Symposium. Hayworth Press, NY.

Langer, E.J. and J. Rodin. 1976. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for theaged: 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 inimmediate care, p. 173-194. In: M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice (eds.). The HealingDimensions of People-Plant Relations. Center for Design Research, Davis, CA.

Relf, P.D. 1989. Gardening in Raised Beds and Containers for the Elderly and PhysicallyHandicapped. Virginia Cooperative Extension publication.

Rodin, J. and E.J. Langer. 1977. Long-term effects of a control-relevant intervention with theinstitutionalized 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.

Whittier, D. 1991. Horticultural activities for physical disabilities of the elderly. NCTRH Newsletter6(1):3-5.

Preschool Children Activity ReferencesBunn, D.E. 1986. Group cohesiveness is enhanced as children engage in plant stimulated discovery

activities. J. Therapeutic Hort. 1:37-43.DeVries, R. and B. Zan. 1995. Creating a constructivist classroom atmosphere. Young Children

50(9):4-13.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.

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.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: SettingResearch Priorities, A National Symposium. Hayworth 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.Moore, R.C. 1996. Compact nature: The role of playing and learning gardens on children’s lives. J.

Therapeutic Hort. 8:72-82.

54

Palmer, J.A. 1994. Acquisition of environmental subject knowledge in preschool children: Aninternational study. Children’s Environments 11(3):204-211.

Relf, P.D. and S. Dorn. 1995. Horticulture: Meeting the needs of special populations.HortTechnology 5(2):94-103.

Straw, H. 1990. The nursery garden. Early Child Development and Care 57:109-120.Waters, M. 1993. Down in the dirt with kids: Tips on raising a crop of young gardeners. Horticulture

71(3):18-22.Whiren, A.P. 1995. Planning a garden from a child’s perspective. Children’s Environments

12(2):250-255.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.

Intergenerational Activity ReferencesAday, R.H. 1991. Youth’s attitudes toward the elderly: The impact of intergenerational partners. J.

Applied Gerontology 10(3):372-384.Brummel, S.W. 1989. Developing an intergenerational program. J. Children in Contemp. Society

20:119-133.Chapman, N.J. and M.B. Neal. 1990. The effects of intergenerational experiences on adolescents and

older adults. The Gerontologist 30(6):825-832.Epstein, S.G. and D.S. Greenberger. 1990. Nurturing plants, children, and older individuals:

Intergenerational horticultural therapy. J. Therapeutic Hort. 5:16-19.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 theOlder Adult Population. Hawthorne Press, NY.

Kocarnik, R.A. and J.J. Ponzetti. 1991. The advantages and challenges of intergenerational programsin long-term care facilities. J. Gerontological Social Work 16(½):97-107.

Seefeldt, C. 1989. Intergenerational programs: Impact on attitudes. J. of Children in Contemp.Society 20:185-194.

55

APPENDIX A

Date: Feb. 9 Feb. 16 Feb. 23 Mar. 2 Activity: Nametags Design Seeds 1 Cuttings

week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4Participant:

1 A X X XII- 16m. I- 5m.II- 5m. I- 9m.II- 100% I- 50% II- 50% I- 100%

2 X X X ?I- 6m. I- 1m. II- 4m. I- 7m.

I- 100% I- 20% II- 80% I- 100%3 X X X X

I- 4m. II- 7m. I- 6m. II- 14m. I- 5m. II- 4m. I- 9m. I- 36% II- 64% I- 30% II- 70% I- 56% II- 44% I- 100%

*KEY* 4 X A X XI- 8m. I- 5m. II- 5m. I- 6m.

Attendance I- 100% I- 50% II- 50% I- 100%A= absent 5 X X X XX= present I- 2m. II- 8m. II- 15m. I- 6m. II- 6m. I- 9m.?= unknown I- 20% II- 80% II- 100% I- 50% II- 50% I- 100%

6 X X X XI- 10m. II- 3m. I- 10m. II- 8m. I- 12m. I- 10m.

Participation I- 77% II- 23% I- 56% II- 44% I- 100% I- 100%0= present 7 X A X Xbut inactive 0- 1m. I- 7m. I- 7m. II- 2m. I- 8m.

0- 12.5% I- 87.5% I- 78% II- 22% I- 100%I= active with 8 X X X Xdirect I- 22m. I- 10m. I- 8m.assistance I- 100% I- 100% I- 100%

9 A X X XII = active I- 9m. I- 8m.independently I- 100% I- 100%

10 X X X ?I- 8m. I- 5m. II- 12m. I- 8m. II- 5m.

m.= minutes I- 100% I- 29% II- 71% I- 62% II- 38%11 X X X ?

I- 4m. II- 1m. I- 4m. II- 5m.I- 80% II- 20% I- 44% II- 56%

12 A X ? X

13 X X X XI- 13m. I- 5m. II- 9m. I- 12m. I- 10m. I- 100% I- 36% II- 64% I- 100% I- 100%

14 X X X XI- 1m. II- 12m. I- 2m. II- 14m. I- 5m. II- 4m. I- 9m.I- 8% II- 92% I- 12.5% II- 87.5% I- 56% II- 44% I- 100%

15 X X X XI- 3m. I- 11m.I- 100% I- 100%

16 X X X XI- 5m. II- 5m. I- 4m. II- 3m. I- 10m. II- 2m. I- 10m.I- 50% II- 50% I- 57% II- 43% I- 83% II- 17% I- 100%

56

Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Children

Mar. 16 Mar. 23 Mar. 30 Apr. 6 Apr. 13 Apr. 20Seeds 2 Terrariums Frames Scarecrow Corsages Plantingweek 5 week 6 week 7 week 8 week 9 week 10

1 X X X X X ?I- 9m. I- 9m. II- 33m. I- 8m.II- 21m. I- 6m.

I- 100% I- 100% II- 100% I- 28% II- 72% I- 100%2 X X ? X X X

I- 10m. I- 8m. I- 3m. II- 3m. I- 5m. II- 16m.I- 100% I- 100% I- 50% II- 50% I- 100% II- 100%

3 X X ? X X XI- 6m. I- 6m. I- 3m. II- 26m. I- 8m. II- 15m.

I- 100% I- 100% I- 10% II- 90% I- 100% II- 100%4 X X X X X X

I- 6m. II- 25m. I- 8m. II- 13m.I- 100% II- 100% I- 100% II- 100%

5 X X X X X XI- 11m. I- 6m. I- 4m. II- 21m. II- 4m. I- 7m. II- 16m.I- 100% I- 100% I- 16% II- 84% II- 100% I- 100% II- 100%

6 X X X X X XI- 6m. I-7m. I- 3m. II- 6m. I- 5m. II- 18m.

I- 100% I- 100% I- 33% II- 67% I- 100% II- 100%7 X X X X ? X

I- 6m. I- 6m. II- 5m. I- 5m. II- 14m. II- 4m.I- 100% I- 100% II- 100% I- 26% II- 74% II- 100%

8 X X X X X XI- 11m. I- 6m. I- 2m. I- 7m.I- 100% I- 100% I- 100% I- 100%

9 X X X X X XI- 6m. II- 4m. I- 6m.

I- 100% II- 100% I- 100%10 X X ? ? ? ?

I- 6m.I- 100%

11 X X ? ? ? ?I- 7m.

I- 100%12 X X X ? ? ?

13 X X X ? X ?I- 7m. I- 11m. I- 1m. II- 5m. I- 4m.

I- 100% I- 100% I- 17% II- 83% I- 100%14 X X X X X X

I- 8m. II- 5m. I- 3m.II- 18m. I- 5m. II- 17m.I- 100% II- 100% I- 14% II- 86% I- 100% II- 100%

15 X X X X X XI- 9m.

I- 100%16 X X X X X X

I- 7m. I- 5m. II- 7m. I- 5m.I- 100% I- 100% II- 100% I- 100%

57

Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Children

58

APPENDIX B

Date: Feb. 10 Feb. 17 Feb. 24Activity: Name tags Design Seeds 1

week 1 week 2 week 3Participant :

1 X X X0- 9m. I- 4m. II- 4m. 0- 12m. II- 4m. 0- 11m. I- 4m.

0-53% I-23.5% II-23.5% 0- 75% I- 25% 0- 73% II- 27%2 X A A

0- 3m.I- 3m.II- 20m.0-11.5% I-11.5% II-77%

3 X X X0- 27m. 0- 25m.0- 100% 0- 100%

*KEY* 4 X X X0- 5m. I- 33m. I- 28m. 0- 6m. I- 11m. II- 3m.

Attendance 0- 13% I- 87% I- 100% 0-30% I-55% II-15%A= absent 5 X X XX= present 0- 12m. I- 11m. 0- 4m. I- 25m. I- 24m.

0- 52% I- 48% 0- 14% I- 86% I- 100%6 X X X

Participation 0- 13m. 0- 21m. I- 7m. 0- 17m. I- 9m.0= present 0- 100% 0- 75% I- 25% 0- 65% I- 35%but inactive 7 A X X

0- 7m. I- 23m. 0- 3m. I- 22m. II- 1m.I= active with 0- 23% I- 77% 0-11% I-85% II-4%direct 8 X X Xassistance 0- 11m. I- 13m. II- 5m. 0- 19m. I- 3m.

0-38% I-45% II-17% 0- 86% I- 14%II = active 9 X X Xindependently 0- 11m. I- 4m. 0- 8m. I- 1m.

0- 73% I- 27% 0- 89% I- 11%10 X A A

m.= minutes

11 A A A

12 A A A

13 A A A

14 X A A0- 5m. I- 33m.0- 13% I- 87%

15 X X X0- 9m.

0- 100%16 X X X

17 A A A

59

Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults

Mar. 3 Mar. 17 Mar. 24 Mar. 31Cuttings Seeds 2 Terrariums Framesweek 4 week 5 week 6 week 7

1 X X X X0- 10m. I- 24m. 0- 3m. I- 14m. 0- 1m. I- 11m. 0- 2m. I- 21m.0- 29% I- 71% 0- 18% I- 82% 0- 8% I- 92% 0- 9% I- 91%

2 X A A X0- 8m. I- 1m. II- 10m.0-42% I-5% II-53%

3 X X X X0- 33m. I- 1m. 0- 18m. I- 2m. 0- 12m. I- 2m.0- 97% I- 3% 0- 90% I- 10% 0- 86% I- 14%

4 X X X XI- 28m. 0- 2m. I- 17m. II- 2m. I- 16m.I- 100% 0-10% I-80% II-10% I- 100%

5 A A X X0- 1m. I- 21m. 0- 7m. I- 22m.0- 5% I- 95% 0- 24% I- 76%

6 X X A X0- 19m. I- 3m. 0- 22m. I- 1m.0- 86% I- 14% 0- 96% I- 4%

7 X X A A0- 7m. I- 6m. II- 22m. 0- 10m. I- 5m. II- 7m.0-20% I-17% II-63% 0-45% I-23% II-32%

8 X X X X0- 18m. I- 14m. 0- 5m. I- 14m. 0- 8m. I- 4m.0- 56% I- 44% 0- 26% I- 74% 0- 67% I- 33%

9 A X X X

10 X X X XI- 28m. I- 7m. 0- 4m. I- 10m. 0- 9m. I- 15m.I- 100% I- 100% 0- 29% I- 71% 0- 37.5% I- 62.5%

11 X A A AI- 3m. II- 26m.I- 10% II- 90%

12 A A X X0- 3m. I- 12m. 0- 7m. I- 19m.0- 20% I- 80% 0- 27% I- 73%

13 A A X A0- 6m. I- 16m.0- 27% I- 73%

14 A A A A

15 X X X X

16 X X X X

17 A A A A

60

Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults

Apr. 7 Apr. 14 Apr. 21Scarecrow Corsages Planting

week 8 week 9 week 10

1 X X X0- 1m. I- 11m. 0- 3m. I- 17m.0- 8% I- 92% 0- 15% I- 85%

2 X X A0- 15m. I- 10m.0- 60% I- 40%

3 X X X0- 24m. I- 2m.0- 92% I- 8%

4 X X X0- 8m. I- 14m. I- 16m.0- 36% I- 64% I- 100%

5 A A A

6 X A X0- 2m. I- 8m.

0- 20% I- 80%7 A A A

8 X X X0- 23m.0- 100%

9 A X X0- 5m.

0- 100%10 X A A

I- 25m.I- 100%

11 X A AI- 14m. II- 11m.I- 56% II- 44%

12 X X AI- 14m. II- 11m. 0- 13m. I- 13m.I- 56% II- 44% 0- 50% I- 50%

13 A A A

14 A A A

15 X X X

16 X A X

17 A A A

61

Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults

62

APPENDIX C

Date: Feb. 11 Feb. 18 Feb. 25 Mar. 4Activity: Board Sand Garden Seeds 1 Cuttings

week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4Participant:

1 X X ? XI- 8m. 0- 1m. I- 2m. II- 5m. I- 11m.

I- 100% 0-12.5% I-25% II-62.5% I- 100%2 X X X ?

I- 11m. I- 10m. II- 9m. I- 25m.I- 100% I- 53% II- 47% I- 100%

3 X X X XI- 22m. 0- 1m. II- 7m. I- 11m. I- 11m.I- 100% 0- 12.5% II- 87.5% I- 100% I- 100%

*KEY* 4 X X ? XI- 11m. 0- 1m. I- 2m. II- 5m. I- 7m.

Attendance I- 100% 0-12.5% I-25% II-62.5% I- 100%A= absent 5 X X X XX= present I- 8m. II- 4m. I- 21m.?= unknown I- 100% II- 100% I- 100%

6 X X X X0- 3m. I- 23m. I- 6m. I- 4m.

Participation 0- 12% I- 88% I- 100% I- 100%0= present 7 X X X Xbut inactive 0- 2m. I- 17m. I- 8m. I- 8m. I- 11m.

0- 11% I- 89% I- 100% I- 100% I- 100%I= active with 8 X X X Xdirect I- 23m. I- 20m.assistance I- 100% I- 100%

9 ? X X XII = activeindependently

10 X X ? ?I- 22m. 0- 2m. I- 3m.

m.= minutes I- 100% 0- 40% I- 60%11 X X X ?

0- 1m. I- 11m.0- 8% I- 92%

12 ? X ? X0- 2m. II- 8m.

0- 20% II- 80%13 X X X X

0- 3m. I- 24m. 0- 2m. I- 7m. 0- 1m. I- 19m. I- 6m.0- 11% I- 89% 0- 22% I- 78% 0- 5% I- 95% I- 100%

14 X X X XI- 8m. 0- 2m. II- 8m. I- 12m. I- 15m.

I- 100% 0- 20% II- 80% I- 100% I- 100%15 X X X X

0- 5m. I- 13m.0- 28% I- 72%

16 X X X XI- 20m. I- 13m. I- 16m. I- 10m.I- 100% I- 100% I- 100% I- 100%

63

Intergenerational Activity Participation Chart - Children

Mar. 18 Mar. 25 Apr. 1 Apr. 8 Apr. 15 Apr. 22Labels Terrariums Frames Concrete Flower arrgmt. Plantingweek 5 week 6 week 7 week 8 week 9 week 10

*NO DATA*1 X X X X X X

I- 10m. I- 14m. II- 23m. I- 20m.I- 100% I- 100% II- 100% I- 100%

2 ? X ? ? ? ?I- 8m.

I- 100%3 ? X ? X ? X

I- 10m. II- 23m. I- 13m.I- 100% II- 100% I- 100%

4 X X X X X XI- 9m. I- 7m. II- 19m. II- 18m.

I- 100% I- 100% II- 100% II- 100%5 X X X X X X

I- 20m. II- 23m. I- 5m. II- 8m. I- 33m.I- 100% II- 100% I- 38% II- 62% I- 100%

6 X X X X X XI- 1m.

I- 100%7 X X X X ? X

I- 9m. I- 11m. II- 9m. I- 18m.I- 100% I- 100% II- 100% I- 100%

8 X X X X X XI- 12m. II- 21m. I- 18m.I- 100% II- 100% I- 100%

9 X X X X X XII- 9m. I- 2m.

II- 100% I- 100%10 ? ? ? ? ? ?

11 ? ? ? X ? ?

12 X X X X ? ?

13 X X X X ? XI- 9m. II- 18m. I- 14m.

I- 100% II- 100% I- 100%14 X X X X X X

I- 13m. I- 12m. II- 17m. II- 14m. I- 12m.I- 100% I- 100% II- 100% II- 100% I- 100%

15 X X X X X X

16 X X X X X XI- 10m. I- 12m. II- 21m. I- 1m. II- 4m. I- 25m.I- 100% I- 100% II- 100% I- 20% II- 80% I- 100%

64

Intergenerational Activity Participation Chart - Children

65

APPENDIX D

Date: Feb. 11 Feb. 18 Feb. 25 Mar. 4Activity: Board Sand Garden Seeds 1 Cuttings

week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4Participant:

1 X X X X0- 10m. I- 2m. 0- 3m. 0- 6m. I- 1m.0- 83% I- 17% 0- 100% 0- 86% I- 14%

2 X A A X0- 18m. I- 5m. 0- 4m. I- 8m.0- 78% I- 22% 0- 33% I- 67%

3 X X X X0- 24m. I- 1m. 0- 14m. I- 1m. 0- 25m. 0- 12m.0- 96% I- 4% 0- 93% I- 7% 0- 100% 0- 100%

*KEY* 4 X X X X0- 19m. I- 1m. 0- 9m. I- 6m. 0- 11m. I- 2m.

Attendance 0- 95% I- 5% 0- 60% I- 40% 0- 85% I- 15%A= absent 5 X X A XX= present 0- 19m. 0- 9m. I- 7m. 0- 9m. I- 6m.

0- 100% 0- 56% I- 44% 0- 60% I- 40%6 X X X X

Participation 0- 12m. I- 15m. 0- 15m. 0- 15m. 0- 11m.0= present 0- 44% I- 56% 0- 100% 0- 100% 0- 100%but inactive 7 A A A A

8 A A A AI= active with 9 X X A Adirect 0- 17m. I- 3m.assistance 0- 85% I- 15%

10 X X X AII = active 0- 23m. I- 5m. 0- 1m. I- 15m.independently 0- 82% I- 18% 0- 6% I- 94%

11 X X X X0- 3m. II- 27m. II- 15m. II- 22m. II- 11m.

m.= minutes 0- 10% II- 90% II- 100% II- 100% II- 100%12 A A A A

13 A A A A

14 A A A A15 X X X X

0- 20m. 0- 1m. I- 19m. 0- 5m.0- 100% 0- 5% I- 95% 0- 100%

16 X X X X0- 3m. I- 18m.0- 14% I- 86%

17 A A A A

66

Intergenerational Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults

Mar. 18 Mar. 25 Apr. 1 Apr. 8 Apr. 15 Apr. 22Labels Terrariums Frames Concrete Flower arrgmt. Plantingweek 5 week 6 week 7 week 8 week 9 week 10

*NO DATA*1 X X X X X X

0- 2m. I- 2m. 0- 3m. 0- 7m. I- 6m.0- 50% I- 50% 0- 100% 0- 54% I- 46%

2 X X X X X X0- 7m. I- 13m.0- 35% I- 65%

3 X X X X X X0- 12m. 0- 12m. I- 1m. 0- 20m. 0- 20m.0- 100% 0- 92% I- 8% 0- 100% 0- 100%

4 X X X X X XI- 15m. 0- 8m. I- 5m. 0- 24m. I- 7m.I- 100% 0- 62% I- 38% 0- 77% I- 23%

5 A X A A A A0- 9m. I- 3m.

0- 75% I- 25%6 X X X X X A

0- 14m.0- 100%

7 A A A A A A8 A A A A A A9 X X A X X X

10 A X A A X X0- 2m. I- 10m. 0- 6m. I- 14m.0- 17% I- 83% 0- 30% I- 70%

11 X X X X X XII- 12m. II- 17m. 0- 9m. II- 12m. II- 19m. II- 33m.II- 100% II- 100% 0- 43% II- 57% II- 100% II- 100%

12 A X X X X XI- 15m. 0- 15m. I- 4m. 0- 2m. II- 24m. I- 15m. II- 8m. 0- 5m. II- 25m.I- 100% 0- 79% I- 21% 0- 8% II- 92% I- 65% II- 35% 0- 17% II- 83%

13 A X X X X A0- 2m. I- 13m. 0- 19m. 0- 8m. I- 5m.0- 13% I- 87% 0- 100% 0- 62% I- 38%

14 A A A A A A15 X X X X X X

0- 12m. I- 1m.0- 92% I- 8%

16 X X X X A X0- 11m. I- 1m. 0- 13m. 0- 24m. I- 8m.0- 92% I- 8% 0- 100% 0- 75% I- 25%

17 A A X X X XII- 20m. 0- 2m. II- 17m. 0- 2m. II- 31m. II- 100% 0- 11% II- 89% 0- 6% II- 94%

67

Intergenerational Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults

68

APPENDIX E

Separate Group Activities Intergenerational Activities

P- 1 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 1 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 37 75 112 total: 1 65 28 94

a= 7 avg: 0 5.3 10.7 16 a= 7 avg: 0.14 9.3 4 13.4% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 378 332 total: 12.5 525 162.5avg: 0 54 47.4 avg: 1.8 7.5 23.2

P- 2 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 2 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 30 23 53 total: 0 54 9 63

a= 7 avg: 0 4.3 3.3 7.6 a= 4 avg: 0 13.5 2.25 15.75% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 470 230 total: 0 353 47avg: 0 67.1 32.9 avg: 0 88.25 11.75

P- 3 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 3 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 41 66 107 total: 1 67 30 98

a= 8 avg: 0 5.1 8.25 13.35 a= 7 avg: 0.14 9.6 4.3 14% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 432 368 total: 12.5 500 187.5avg: 0 54 46 avg: 1.8 71.4 26.8

P- 4 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 4 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 33 43 76 total: 1 36 42 79

a= 7 avg: 0 4.7 6.1 10.9 a= 7 avg: 0.14 5.1 6 11.3% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 450 250 total: 12.5 425 262.5avg: 0 64.3 35.7 avg: 1.8 60.7 37.5

P- 5 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 5 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 34 70 104 total: 0 87 35 122

a= 9 avg: 0 3.8 7.8 11.6 a= 7 avg: 0 12.4 5 17.4% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 386 514 total: 0 438 262avg: 0 42.9 57.1 avg: 0 62.6 37.4

P- 6 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 6 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 57 35 92 total: 3 34 0 37

a= 8 avg: 0 7.1 4.4 11.5 a= 4 avg: 0.75 8.5 0 9.25% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 566 234 total: 11 388 0avg: 0 70.8 29.2 avg: 2.75 97 0

69

Total Participation - Children

Separate Group Activities Intergenerational Activities

P- 7 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 7 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 1 33 25 59 total: 2 82 9 93

a= 7 avg: 0.1 4.7 3.6 8.4 a= 8 avg: 0.25 10.25 1.1 11.6% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 12.5 391.5 296 total: 11 689 100avg: 1.8 55.9 42.3 avg: 1.4 86.1 12.5

P- 8 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 8 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 55 0 55 total: 0 73 21 94

a= 6 avg: 0 9.2 0 9.2 a= 5 avg: 0 14.6 4.2 18.8% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 600 0 total: 0 400 100avg: 0 100 0 avg: 0 80 20

P- 9 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 9 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 23 4 27 total: 0 2 9 11

a= 4 avg: 0 5.8 1 6.8 a= 2 avg: 0 1 4.5 5.5% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 300 100 total: 0 100 100avg: 0 75 25 avg: 0 50 50

P- 10 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 10 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 27 17 44 total: 2 25 0 27

a= 4 avg: 0 6.8 4.3 11 a= 2 avg: 1 12.5 0 13.5% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 291 109 total: 40 160 0avg: 0 72.8 27.3 avg: 20 80 0

P- 11 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 11 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 15 6 21 total: 1 11 0 12

a= 3 avg: 0 5 2 7 a= 1 avg: 1 11 0 12% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 224 76 total: 8 92 0avg: 0 74.7 25.3 avg: 8 92 0

P- 12 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 12 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 0 0 0 total: 2 0 8 10

a= 0 avg: 0 0 0 0 a= 1 avg: 2 0 8 10% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 0 0 total: 20 0 80avg: 0 0 0 avg: 20 0 80

70

Total Participation - Children

Separate Group Activities Intergenerational Activities

P- 13 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 13 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 56 14 70 total: 6 79 18 103

a= 7 avg: 0 8 2 10 a= 7 avg: 0.86 11.3 2.6 14.7% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 553 147 total: 38 526 100avg: 0 79 21 avg: 5.4 80.3 14.3

P- 14 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 14 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 33 70 103 total: 2 72 39 113

a= 9 avg: 0 3.7 7.8 11.4 a= 9 avg: 0.22 8 4.3 12.5% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 390.5 509.5 total: 20 600 280avg: 0 43.4 56.6 avg: 2.2 66.7 31.1

P- 15 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 15 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 23 0 23 total: 5 13 0 18

a= 3 avg: 0 7.7 0 7.7 a= 1 avg: 5 13 0 18% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 300 0 total: 28 72 0avg: 0 100 0 avg: 28 72 0

P- 16 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 16 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 39 17 56 total: 0 107 25 132

a= 7 avg: 0 5.6 2.4 8 a= 9 avg: 0 11.9 2.8 14.7% -0 % - I % - II % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 490 210 total: 0 720 180avg: 0 70 30 avg: 0 80 20

*KEY* Note:P= participant all totals exclude week 5 data m= minutes due to missing week 5 a= activities intergenerational data

avg= average

Participation0= present but inactiveI= active with

direct assistanceII= active independently

71

Total Participation - Children

72

APPENDIX F

Separate Group Activities Intergenerational Activities

P- 1 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 1 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 49 92 8 149 total: 31 11 0 42

a= 8/9 avg: 6.1 11.5 1 18.6 a= 6/9 avg: 5.2 1.8 0 789% % -0 % - I % - II 67% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 270 481.5 48.5 total: 473 127 0avg: 33.8 60.2 6.1 avg: 78.8 21.2 0

P- 2 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 2 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 26 14 30 70 total: 29 26 0 55

a= 3/5 avg: 8.7 4.7 10 23.4 a= 3/7 avg: 9.7 8.7 0 18.360% % -0 % - I % - II 43% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 113.5 56.5 130 total: 146 154 0avg: 37.8 18.8 43.3 avg: 48.7 51.3 0

P- 3 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 3 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 121 5 0 126 total: 139 3 0 142

a= 5/9 avg: 24.2 1 0 25.2 a= 8/9 avg: 17.4 0.4 0 17.856% % -0 % - I % - II 89% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 475 25 0 total: 781 19 0avg: 95 5 0 avg: 97.6 2.4 0

P- 4 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 4 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 19 146 3 168 total: 71 36 0 107

a= 7/9 avg: 2.7 20.1 0.4 23.3 a= 6/9 avg: 11.8 6 0 17.878% % -0 % - I % - II 69% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 79 606 15 total: 379 221 0avg: 11.3 86.6 2.1 avg: 63.1 36.8 0

P- 5 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 5 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 24 103 0 127 total: 46 16 0 62

a= 5/5 avg: 4.8 20.6 0 25.4 a= 4/4 avg: 11.5 4 0 15.5100% % -0 % - I % - II 100% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 95 405 0 total: 291 109 0avg: 19 81 0 avg: 72.8 27.2 0

P- 6 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 6 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 75 25 0 100 total: 67 15 0 82

a= 5/7 avg: 15 5 0 20 a= 5/8 avg: 13.4 3 0 16.471% % -0 % - I % - II 63% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 356 144 0 total: 444 56 0avg: 71.2 28.8 0 avg: 88.8 11.2 0

73

Total Participation - Elderly Adults

Separate Group Activities Intergenerational Activities

P- 7 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 7 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 17 51 23 91 total:

a= 3/3 avg: 5.7 17 7.7 30.3 a= 0/0 avg:100% % -0 % - I % - II A % -0 % - I % - II

total: 54 179 67 total:avg: 18 59.7 22.3 avg:

P- 8 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 8 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 79 34 5 118 total:

a= 5/9 avg: 15.8 6.8 1 23.6 a= 0/0 avg:59% % -0 % - I % - II A % -0 % - I % - II

total: 347 136 17 total:avg: 69.4 27.2 3.4 avg:

P- 9 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 9 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 24 5 0 29 total: 17 3 0 20

a= 3/7 avg: 8 1.7 0 9.7 a= 1/6 avg: 17 3 0 2043% % -0 % - I % - II 17% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 262 38 0 total: 85 15 0avg: 87.3 12.7 0 avg: 85 15 0

P- 10 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 10 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 13 78 0 91 total: 32 44 0 76

a= 4/5 avg: 3.3 19.5 0 22.8 a= 4/6 avg: 8 11 0 1980% % -0 % - I % - II 67% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 66.5 333.5 0 total: 135 265 0avg: 16.6 83.4 0 avg: 33.25 66.25 0

P- 11 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 11 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 0 17 37 54 total: 12 0 168 180

a= 2/2 avg: 0 85 18.5 27 a= 9/9 avg: 1.3 0 18.7 20100% % -0 % - I % - II 100% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 0 66 134 total: 53 0 847avg: 0 33 67 avg: 5.9 0 94.1

P- 12 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 12 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 23 58 11 92 total: 22 34 57 113

a= 4/4 avg: 5.75 14.5 2.75 23 a= 5/5 avg: 4.4 6.8 11.4 22.6100% % -0 % - I % - II 100% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 97 259 44 total: 104 186 210avg: 24.25 64.75 11 avg: 20.8 37.2 42

74

Total Participation - Elderly Adults

Separate Group Activities Intergenerational Activities

P- 13 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 13 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 6 16 0 22 total: 29 18 0 47

a= 1/1 avg: 6 16 0 22 a= 3/4 avg: 9.7 6 0 15.6100% % -0 % - I % - II 75% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 27 73 0 total: 175 125 0avg: 27 73 0 avg: 58.3 41.7 0

P- 14 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 14 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 5 33 0 38 total:

a= 1/1 avg: 5 33 0 38 a= 0/0 avg:100% % -0 % - I % - II A % -0 % - I % - II

total: 13 87 0 total:avg: 13 87 0 avg:

P- 15 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 15 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: 9 0 0 9 total: 38 20 0 58

a= 1/9 avg: 9 0 0 9 a= 4/9 avg: 9.5 5 0 14.511% % -0 % - I % - II 44% % -0 % - I % - II

total: 100 0 0 total: 297 103 0avg: 100 0 0 avg: 74.25 25.75 0

P- 16 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 16 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: total: 51 27 0 78

a= 0/8 avg: a= 4/8 avg: 12.75 6.75 0 19.50% % -0 % - I % - II 50% % -0 % - I % - II

total: total: 281 119 0avg: avg: 70.25 29.75 0

P- 17 m - 0 m - I m - II Total: P- 17 m - 0 m - I m - II Total:total: total: 4 0 68 72

a= 0/0 avg: a= 3/4 avg: 1.3 0 22.7 24A % -0 % - I % - II 75% % -0 % - I % - II

total: total: 17 0 283avg: avg: 5.7 0 94.3

*KEY* Participation Note:P= participant 0= present but inactive all totals exclude week 5 data m= minutes I= active with due to missing week 5 a= activities direct assistance intergenerational data

avg= average II= active independentlyA= absent

75

Total Participation - Elderly Adults

76

APPENDIX G

Children's Group Elderly Adult Group

Activity: Activity:9-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 10-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 1 93 36 130 total: 96 101 29 226P- 13 avg: 0.1 7.2 2.8 10 P- 9/12 avg: 10.7 11.2 3.2 25.1

% -0 % - I % - II 75% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 12.5 95.5 329 total: 453.5 329 117.5avg: 1 73.7 25.3 avg: 50.4 36.6 13.1

Activity: Activity:16-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 17-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 33 95 128 total: 44 83 4 131P- 9 avg: 0 3.7 10.6 14.3 P- 5/10 avg: 8.8 16.6 0.8 26.2

% -0 % - I % - II 50% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 240.5 659.5 total: 187 288 25avg: 0 26.7 73.3 avg: 37.4 57.6 5

Activity: Activity:23-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 24-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 116 38 154 total: 98 74 4 176P- 15 avg: 0 7.7 2.5 10.3 P- 9/10 avg: 10.9 8.2 0.4 19.6

% -0 % - I % - II 90% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 1129 371 total: 554 327 19avg: 0 75.3 24.7 avg: 61.6 36.3 2.1

Activity: Activity:2-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 3-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 96 0 96 total: 68 104 48 220P- 11 avg: 0 8.7 0 8.7 P- 7/11 avg: 9.7 14.9 6.9 31.4

% -0 % - I % - II 64% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 1100 0 total: 202 345 153avg: 0 100 0 avg: 28.9 49.3 21.9

Activity: Activity:16-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 17-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 79 0 79 total: 57 62 9 128P- 10 avg: 0 7.9 0 7.9 P- 7/10 avg: 8.1 8.9 1.3 18.3

% -0 % - I % - II 70% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 1000 0 total: 275 383 42avg: 0 100 0 avg: 39.3 54.7 6

Activity: Activity:23-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 24-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 100 0 100 total: 35 92 0 127P- 14 avg: 0 7.1 0 7.1 P- 8/11 avg: 4.4 11.5 0 15.9

% -0 % - I % - II 73% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 1400 0 total: 242 558 0avg: 0 100 0 avg: 30.2 69.8 0

77

Total Separate Age Group Activity Participation

Children's Group Elderly Adult Group

Activity: Activity:30-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 31-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 8 107 115 total: 55 79 10 144P- 8 avg: 0 1 13.4 14.4 P- 6/13 avg: 9.2 13.2 1.7 24

% -0 % - I % - II 46% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 66 734 total: 235.5 311.5 53avg: 0 8.3 91.8 avg: 39.25 51.9 8.8

Activity: Activity:6-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 7-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 24 90 114 total: 25 61 22 108P- 8 avg: 0 3 11.3 14.3 P- 5/11 avg: 5 12.2 4.4 21.6

% -0 % - I % - II 45% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 228 572 total: 120 292 88avg: 0 28.5 71.5 avg: 24 58.4 17.6

Activity: Activity:13-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 14-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 66 0 66 total: 61 50 0 111P- 11 avg: 0 6 0 6 P- 5/8 avg: 12.2 10 0 22.2

% -0 % - I % - II 62.5% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 1100 0 total: 246 254 0avg: 0 100 0 avg: 49.2 50.8 0

Activity: Activity:20-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 21-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 0 99 99 total: 8 33 0 41P- 7 avg: 0 0 14.1 14.1 P- 3/8 avg: 2.7 11 0 13.7

% -0 % - I % - II 37.5% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 0 700 total: 115 185 0avg: 0 0 100 avg: 38.3 61.7 0

*KEY*m= minutesP= participants

avg= average

Participation0= present but inactiveI= active with

direct assistanceII= active independently

78

Total Separate Age Group Activity Participation

79

APPENDIX H

Children's Group Elderly Adult Group

Activity: Activity:11-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 11-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 14 221 0 235 total: 116 29 27 172P- 14 avg: 1 15.8 0 16.8 P- 7/11 avg: 16.6 4.1 3.9 24.6

% -0 % - I % - II 64% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 70 1330 0 total: 495 115 90avg: 5 95 0 avg: 70.7 16.4 12.9

Activity: Activity:18-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 18-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 11 51 46 108 total: 87 11 15 113P- 12 avg: 1 4.25 3.8 9.05 P- 7/10 avg: 12.4 1.6 2.1 16.1

% -0 % - I % - II 70% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 139.5 541 519.5 total: 527 73 100avg: 11.6 45.1 43.3 avg: 75.3 10.4 14.3

Activity: Activity:25-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 25-Feb m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 1 136 0 137 total: 57 58 22 137P- 9 avg: 0.1 15.1 0 15.2 P- 8/8 avg: 7.1 7.25 2.75 17.1

% -0 % - I % - II 100% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 5 895 0 total: 385 315 100avg: 0.6 99.4 0 avg: 48.1 39.4 12.5

Activity: Activity:4-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 4-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 71 0 71 total: 58 17 11 86P- 7 avg: 0 10.1 0 10.1 P- 8/9 avg: 7.25 2.1 1.4 10.75

% -0 % - I % - II 89% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 700 0 total: 564 136 100avg: 0 100 0 avg: 70.5 17 12.5

Activity: Activity:17-Mar NO DATA 17-Mar NO DATA

Activity: Activity:25-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 25-Mar m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 69 0 69 total: 36 57 12 105P- 7 avg: 0 9.9 0 9.9 P- 8/13 avg: 4.5 7.1 1.5 13.1

% -0 % - I % - II 62% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 700 0 total: 297 403 100avg: 0 100 0 avg: 37.1 50.4 12.5

80

Total Intergenerational Activity Participation

Children's Group Elderly Adult Group

Activity: Activity:1-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 1-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 97 0 97 total: 88 26 37 151P- 8 avg: 0 12.1 0 12.1 P- 10/11 avg: 8.8 2.6 3.7 15.1

% -0 % - I % - II 91% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 800 0 total: 610 190 200avg: 0 100 0 avg: 61 19 20

Activity: Activity:8-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 8-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 0 183 183 total: 14 0 36 50P- 10 avg: 0 0 18.3 18.3 P- 3/12 avg: 4.7 0 12 16.7

% -0 % - I % - II 25% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 0 1000 total: 151 0 149avg: 0 0 100 avg: 50.3 0 49.7

Activity: Activity:15-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 15-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 24 44 68 total: 51 26 44 121P- 5 avg: 0 4.8 8.8 13.6 P- 7/12 avg: 7.3 3.7 6.3 17.3

% -0 % - I % - II 58% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 158 342 total: 327 149 224avg: 0 31.6 68.4 avg: 46.7 21.3 32

Activity: Activity:22-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total: 22-Apr m - 0 m - I m - II Total:

total: 0 138 0 138 total: 81 29 89 199P- 9 avg: 0 15.3 0 15.3 P- 7/11 avg: 11.6 4.1 12.7 28.4

% -0 % - I % - II 64% % -0 % - I % - IItotal: 0 900 0 total: 305 118 277avg: 0 100 0 avg: 43.6 16.9 39.6

*KEY* Participationm= minutes 0= present but inactiveP= participants I= active with

avg= average direct assistanceII= active independently

81

Total Intergenerational Activity Participation

82

APPENDIX I

Date: Feb. 11 Feb. 18 Feb. 25 Mar. 4 Mar. 18Activity: Board Sand Garden Seeds 1 Cuttings Labels

week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5*NO DATA*

Participant:1 X X ? X

0 0 0

*KEY* 2 X X X ?0

Attendance II- 1m. 9% II- 2m. 8%A= absent III- 3m. 12%X= present?= unknown 3 X X X X

0 0 0Interaction0= none III- 3m. 38%

I= non-verbal 4 X X ? XI- 2m. 18% 0

II = one- II- 2m. 29%directionalverbal IV- 1m. 14%

5 X X X XIII= two- 0directional II- 1m. 13% II- 2m. 29%verbal

IV- 1m. 14%IV = two- 6 X X X Xdirectional I- 1m. 4% 0 0verbalwith physicalassistance

7 X X X X0 0 0

m.= minutes II- 5m. 63%%- % of total time interacting

8 X X X XI- 1m. 4%

II- 1m. 5%

9 ? X X X

83

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Children

Mar. 25 Apr. 1 Apr. 8 Apr. 15 Apr. 22Terrariums Frames Concrete Arrgmt. Planting

week 6 week 7 week 8 week 9 week 10

Participant:1 X X X X X

I- 1m. 10% 0 I- 5m. 25%II- 2m. 20%

III- 2m. 8%IV- 1m. 5%

2 X ? ? ? ?I- 3m. 38%

3 X ? X ? XI- 2m. 22% 0II- 1m. 11%

IV- 10m. 77%4 X X X X X

I- 2m. 22% I- 1m. 14% I- 7m. 39%II- 1m. 11% II- 1m. 5%

5 X X X X X0 0 I- 2m. 15%

II- 4m. 31% II- 3m. 9%III- 1m. 5% III- 1m. 8% III- 2m. 6%

IV- 10m. 30%6 X X X X X

0

7 X X X ? XI- 1m. 11% I- 1m. 9% 0 I- 1m. 6%

II- 5m. 28%

IV- 4m. 22%8 X X X X X

I- 2m. 17% 0 I- 2m. 10%II- 7m. 39%

IV- 1m. 6%9 X X X X X

0 I- 1m. 50%

84

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Children

week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5Participant:

10 X X ? ?*KEY* 0

II- 1m. 5%Attendance III- 2m. 9%A= absentX= present 11 X X X ??= unknown 0

Interaction0= none

12 ? X ? XI= non-verbal

II- 1m. 10%II = one-directionalverbal 13 X X X X

0 0 I- 1m. 17%III = two- II- 1m. 5% II- 2m. 33%directionalverbal IV- 1m. 17%

14 X X X XIV = two- 0directional II- 1m. 13% II- 4m. 40%verbal III- 1m. 10% III- 2m. 13%with physical IV- 2m. 13%assistance 15 X X X X

0

m.= minutes%- % of total time interacting 16 X X X X

I- 2m. 10% 0 0II- 1m. 10%

85

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Children

week 6 week 7 week 8 week 9 week 10Participant:

10 ? ? ? ? ?

11 ? ? X ? ?

12 X X X ? ?

13 X X X ? X0 IV- 10m. 71%

II- 1m. 11%

14 X X X X XI- 6m. 46% I- 1m. 7% 0II- 1m. 8% II- 1m. 6%

III- 2m. 17%

15 X X X X X

16 X X X X XI- 2m. 20% I- 2m. 17% 0 I- 6m. 24%

II- 1m. 5%

86

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Children

87

APPENDIX J

Date: Feb. 11 Feb. 18 Feb. 25 Mar. 4 Mar. 18Activity: Board Sand Garden Seeds 1 Cuttings Labels

week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5*NO DATA*

Participant:1 X X X X

0 0 0

*KEY* 2 X A A X0

Attendance II- 1m. 4%A= absentX= present

3 X X X X0 0

Interaction II- 1m. 4% II- 1m. 8%0= none

I= non-verbal 4 X X X X0 0 0

II = one-directionalverbal

5 X X A XIII = two- 0 0directionalverbal III- 2m. 13%

IV- 2m. 13%IV = two- 6 X X X Xdirectional I- 2m. 7% 0 0 0verbal II- 1m. 4%with physicalassistance

7 A A A A

m.= minutes%- % of totaltime interacting

8 A A A A

9 X X A A0

88

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Elderly Adults

Mar. 25 Apr. 1 Apr. 8 Apr. 15 Apr. 22Terrariums Frames Concrete Arrgmt. Planting

week 6 week 7 week 8 week 9 week 10

Participant:1 X X X X X

0 0 0 0 0

2 X X X X X0

3 X X X X X0 I- 2m. 15% 0 0

4 X X X X XI- 4m. 27% I- 2m. 15% I- 2m. 7%II- 1m. 7%

5 X A A A A0

6 X X X X A0

7 A A A A A

8 A A A A A

9 X A X X X

89

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Elderly Adults

week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5Participant:

10 X X X AI- 4m. 14% 0

*KEY*

Attendance 11 X X X XA= absent I- 1m. 9%X= present II- 1m. 3% II- 5m. 33% II- 7m. 32% II- 2m. 18%

III- 2m. 6% III- 2m. 13% III- 15m. 68%IV- 2m. 18%

Interaction 12 A A A A0= none

I= non-verbal

II = one- 13 A A A Adirectionalverbal

III = two-directional 14 A A A Averbal

IV = two-directional verbal 15 X X X Xwith physical 0 0assistance II- 1m. 5%

m.= minutes 16 X X X X%- % of total 0time interacting

17 A A A A

90

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Elderly Adults

week 6 week 7 week 8 week 9 week 10Participant:

10 X A A X XI- 5m. 42% 0 0

11 X X X X XI- 2m. 17% I- 2m. 11%II- 2m. 17% II- 1m. 6% II- 3m. 14% II- 7m. 37% II- 3m. 9%

III- 2m. 12% III- 2m. 6%IV- 1m. 5% IV- 21m. 64%

12 X X X X XI- 2m. 13% I- 1m. 8% 0 I- 2m. 9% I- 1m. 3%

II- 4m. 17% II- 5m. 17%III- 1m. 8% III- 1m. 4%

IV- 6m. 20%13 X X X X A

I- 3m. 20% 0 I- 1m. 8%

14 A A A A A

15 X X X X X0

16 X X X A X0 0 I- 4m. 6%

17 A X X X XI- 1m. 5% I- 7m. 37% I- 6m. 19%

III- 2m. 6%

91

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Elderly Adults

92

APPENDIX K

Children's Group Elderly Adult Group

Participant: I II III IV Total: Participant: I II III IV Total:1 6 2 2 1 11 1 0 0 0 0 02 3 3 3 0 9 2 0 1 0 0 13 2 0 3 10 15 3 2 2 0 0 44 12 4 0 1 17 4 8 1 0 0 95 2 10 14 10 36 5 0 0 2 2 46 1 0 0 0 1 6 2 1 0 0 37 3 10 0 4 17 7 A A A A A8 5 8 0 1 14 8 A A A A A9 1 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0

10 0 1 2 0 3 10 9 0 0 0 911 0 0 0 0 0 11 5 31 23 24 8312 0 1 0 0 1 12 6 9 2 6 2313 1 4 0 11 16 13 4 0 0 0 414 7 7 5 2 21 14 A A A A A15 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 116 12 2 0 0 14 16 4 0 0 0 4

Total: 55 52 29 40 176 17 14 0 2 0 16(in minutes) Total: 54 46 29 32 161

(in minutes)

Children's Group Elderly Adult Group

Activity: I II III IV Total: Activity: I II III IV Total:1 6 4 2 0 12 /235.2 5% 1 6 4 2 0 12 /172.2 7%2 0 10 4 0 14 /108 13% 2 0 5 2 0 7 /113 6%3 0 6 13 0 19 /137 14% 3 0 8 15 0 23 /137 17%4 1 5 2 4 12 /71 17% 4 1 3 2 4 10 /86 12%5 ND 5 ND6 17 4 0 0 21 /69 30% 6 16 3 0 0 19 /105 18%7 6 1 3 0 10 /96.8 10% 7 6 1 3 0 10 /151 7%8 0 3 0 0 3 /183 2% 8 0 3 0 0 3 /50 6%9 12 11 1 1 25 /68 37% 9 12 11 1 1 25 /121 21%

10 13 8 4 35 60 /138 43% 10 13 8 4 27 52 /199 26%Total: 55 52 29 40 176 /1106 16% Total: 54 46 29 32 161 /1134 14%

(in minutes) (in minutes)total interaction/ total interaction/total time total time

*KEY* Participation:A= absent I= non-verbal III= two-directional verbal

II = one- IV = two-directional verbaldirectional verbal with physical assistance

93

Total Individual and Activity Intergenerational Interaction