of 100

Assessing An Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy Program For Elderly Adults And Preschool Children

Published on October 2018 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 4 | Comments: 0
190 views

Comments

Content

ASSESSING AN INTERGENERATIONAL HORTICULTURE THERAPY PROGRAM FOR ELDERLY ADULTS AND PRESCHOOL CHILDREN

by Mary Lorraine Predny

Thesis submitted to the Faculty of  Virginia Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Stat e University in partial fulfill fulfillment ment of the requirements 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 intergeneration intergenerational al activi activities. ties. A group of elderl elderly y adults adults in the University Adult Day Service S ervice and a grou g roup p 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 activ activity ity appropriate appropriate for each age group and to make it more interactive interact ive for the intergenerational group. These activities activities took place in the campus campus buildi building ng where the day care center ce nterss are ar e locat lo cated. ed. 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 Video cameras cameras were were used used to record each session. These videos were wer e viewed and evaluated after the 10-week horticulture therapy program was completed to score attendance and participation during separate separate age age group activ activiti ities, es, and attendance, participation, and interaction interact ion between the t he two groups during during intergenerational activities. This data was used to determine if introducing introducing intergenerational interactions affected the individual’s attendance or participation, and to determine if the interactions between the two groups showed any change over time.

Several variables were shown to affect the outcome of research. The first variable discussed is the effect of the staff, volunteers, or administration on the participants and the activities. Staff and volunteers can greatly affect intergenerational interactions by: 1) failing to encourage participation from participants of all ages, 2) lacking experience or having discomfort in working with special population populations, s, 3) failure failure to t o establi est ablish sh adequate communication communication with the researcher or o r with each other, ot her, 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 participati participation on and interaction. interaction. Participation Participation scores include three t hree categor cate gories: ies: “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 intergenerational scores show an increase in in the categories categor ies of “no participation” and “independent “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 more successful successful at increasing interact interactions ions than the craft-type activi act ivities. ties. Therefore T herefore horticul hort iculture ture

iii iii

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

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion completion of this this research project project and thesis could could not have been possible po ssible without witho ut the assistance assistanc e 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, encouragement, advice, advice, and support support that gave me the strength and and courage to follow my dreams, drea ms, and the love and happiness to enjoy life along the way.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

vi

VI. Appendices Appe Appen ndix dix A: A: Sep Separ arat atee Age Age Grou Group p Act Actiivity Parti Partici cipa pati tion on Char Chartt - Ch Children dren . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Appe Append ndiix B: Sep Separa arate te Age Age Group Group Acti Activi vity ty Parti Partici cipa pati tion on Cha Chart rt - Elde Elderl rly y Adu Adult ltss . . . . . . 58 Appen ppendi dix x C: C: In Interg tergen ener erat atiional onal Acti ctivity Part Partiicipa cipati tion on Char Chartt - Ch Children dren . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Appe Append ndiix D: Inte Interge rgene nerati ration onal al Acti Activi vity ty Parti Partici cipa pati tion on Chart Chart - Elde Elderl rly y Adul Adults ts . . . . . . . . . 65 Appendix E: Total Participation - Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Appendix F: Total Participation - Elderly Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Appendix G: Tota otal Separate Age Group oup Activ tivity Partic ticipation tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Appendix H: Tota otal Inter tergeneration tionaal Activ tivity Partic ticipation tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Appendix I: In Intergenerational Inter teraction Chart - Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Appendix dix J: Inte Interg rgeenerati ration onaal Inte Intera racction tion Chart - Eld Elderly rly Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Appe Appen ndix dix K: Total Total Indi Indivi vidu dual al and and Act Actiivity Inter Interge gen nerati eration onal al Inte Intera racti ction on . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

vii vii

INTRODUCTION

The chapters in this thesis were written as separate articles to be submitted to different journals for publication. Because of this, there is some repetition among the chapters which is necessary to clarify the information within them. Even though each article results from the same research study, they address different issues and do not repeat results and conclusions.

The first two articles, “Perspectives on Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy” and “Intergenerational Horticulture Therapy Research Variables Introduced by Staff, Volunteers, and Video” will be submitted to the Journal of the American Horticulture Therapy Association.

The third article, “Intergenerational Interactions” will be submitted to HortTechnology.

The last article, “Horticulture Activities for Preschool Children, Elderly Adults, and Intergenerational Groups” will be submitted to Activities, Adaptation, and Aging.

1

PERSPECTIVES ON INTERGENERATIONAL HORTICULTURE THERAPY

Horticultural Therapy Historically, horticulture has proven to be an effective means of therapy for many different populations. Horticultural Therapy (HT) generally refers to the use of horticultural activities that are adapted to meet specific goals of an individual with special needs in treatment (Relf, 1997). Many individuals benefit from these activities, including elderly adults, disabled children, mentally and physically disabled adults, or other individuals who could benefit from participating in horticultural activities, but who require special adaptations or modifications to do so (Relf and Dorn, 1995). Horticulture therapy programs are usually led by a professional who is trained to “tailor the use of  plants to fit the therapy and rehabilitation needs of those individuals with whom they are working” (AHTA publication). Although the specific needs of any particular population and even the needs of  several individuals within a certain population may vary, the main goals of a HT program remain the same. As Relf states, “the specific goals toward which a HT program is directed may differ distinctly from one institution to another and from one population to another. However, the ultimate goal of  these programs is the improved physical and mental health of the individual” (Relf [Hefley], 1973). Horticulture has become a valuable therapeutic tool because the activities can easily be adjusted and adapted to meet the needs of any specific population without altering the main objectives of the program.

Intergenerational Horticultural Therapy Recently, intergenerational HT programs have been used in order to add to a horticulture program the opportunity for diverse social interactions for special groups that could benefit from such experiences (Abbott et al., 1997; Epstein and Greenberger, 1990; Kerrigan and Stevenson, 1997). Intergenerational HT programs have not been widely used or studied, so the impacts of such programs are unknown. Non-horticultural intergenerational programs have been studied in various 2

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

3

Intergenerational contact is seen as equally important for all generations, even though the benefits for each group varies. Although these programs can refer to interactions between any generations, most studies have focused on exchanges between elderly adults and young children. These groups are assumed assumed to receive receive the greatest benefit benefit from intergene intergenerational rational experiences due to their limited limited contact cont act 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 t o increase feelings feelings of self-esteem and life life satisfaction, 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 children,, changes changes in in fami family ly structure and a loss of o f connection connect ion with their t heir grandparent gra ndparentss 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 inconclusive or negative effects effects on the participants. In a later later study, a group of preschoolers that visited visited infirm elderly elderly adults actually showed an increase in their negative attitudes toward their own aging (Seefeldt, 1989). Seefeldt (1987) hypothesizes that “differing research methodologies, samples, and types of programs and contacts may account for

4

these inconsistent findings.” Previous studies indicate possible reasons for these negative results and solutions that may prevent undesirable experiences. These include making the contact beneficial for both groups rather than having one group serve the other (Tice, 1985), designing projects that “have a definite purpose or end product” (Aday et al., 1991), establishing programs that are long-term so the individuals have a chance to establish relationships with one another (Seefeldt, 1989), and ensuring that positive attitudes develop as a result of discovered similarities between the groups (Chapman and Neal, 1990). Seefeldt (1987) proposed recommendations for ensuring successful programs that reinforce these points and include “protecting the prestige of elders as well as children; limiting frustration for both adults and children by arranging for contact that is intimate, not casual; planning for interaction that has integrity and is functional for both groups; and ensuring that contact between old and young is rewarding and pleasant for both groups.”

Implementing a Program According to these guidelines, HT has excellent potential as a focus for intergenerational interaction because it provides benefits for all persons involved, a definite end product to share and discuss, a long-term project with intrinsic rewards, and a common interest in order to establish a connection between the groups. The horticultural activities could also be adapted to meet the needs of both groups involved. However, it is not as certain that intergenerational interactions would complement a HT program. For example, example, the t he specific specific goals of o f gardening with elderly adults adults and gardening with children have some conflicting objectives that may make the combination of the two groups inappropriate.

Gardening for Elderly Adults According to past studies, gardening is one of the preferred leisure activities for elderly adults (Burgess, 1990; Hill and Relf, 1983; Relf, 1989). Horticulture can offer many opportunities for exercise and socialization for elderly persons who are learning to deal with limitations such as sensory loss, physical decline, and loss of status in society (Carstens, 1985). Many tools and activities can be 5

adapted to meet the needs of indivi individuals duals with with disabilities disabilities such as arthritis, art hritis, cerebral cerebr al palsy, pa lsy, Alzheimer’s disease, and dementia (Bubel, 1990; Kerrigan and Stevenson, 1997; Whittier, 1991). Some research even shows that gardening can alleviate alleviate specific specific psychological problems 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 communi community ty residence.... residence.... Rehabil Rehabilitation itation and and supervised supervised care that includes HT H T can help reduce reduc e perso p ersonal nal losses and restore an older person’s per son’s level of functioning.” Some possible po ssible benefits benefits include improved quality of life, control and independence, a greater sense of personal responsibility and autonomy, social interaction, mental stimulation, sensory stimulation, decreased boredom, creative expression, stimulation of long- and short-term memory, and physical exercise on various levels (Burgess, 1990; Carstens, 1985; Haas et al., 1998; Hill and Relf, 1983; Langer and Rodin, 1976; Rodin and Langer, 1977; Rothert and Daubert, 1981). Studies indicate that elderly adults prefer gardens that contain popular plants from their youth, produce that they can enjoy, and a place that is clean and well-kept where they can relax in peace and quiet (Mooney, 1994).

Gardening for Children Children’s gardening as a means of environmental education has gained popularity in recent years and is now supported by many schools, botanic gardens and arboreta, cooperative extension, and other agencies or groups (Relf and Dorn, 1995). Many studies show that environmental attitudes are formed at a young age, so it is important to encourage positive views of nature early in a child’s development (Eberbach, 1990; Wilson, 1995, 1996). Using hands-on gardening while teaching principles of environmental conservation and basic science can be very effective because children learn mainly through physical contact and manipulation of the world around them (Eberbach, 1988, 1990; Moore, 1996; Palmer, 1994; Straw, 1990; Wilson, 1995). Horticulture can also be used to teach math, art, history, language skills, social studies, and literature (DeMarco, 1997). Adapting horticultural activities to meet the needs and stages of development can “appeal to a child’s interest, encourage experimentation in the physical world, and foster perspective taking and cooperation in the social world” (DeVries and Zan, 1995). The outdoors can also offer a “greater sense of freedom”

6

and “more unrestricting play activities” to support the importance of play in a child’s development and learning (Henniger, 1994). According to Wilson, “once children learn to respect and love the world world of nature, nature, they they will will be ready and eager to learn more about the scientific scientific aspects of the world around them” (1995). Some additional goals of gardening with children of any age include developing patience, perseverance, reverence, responsibility, cooperation, physical health, good work habits, motivation for learning, confidence, empathy, a sense of wonder and excitement, and respect and appreciation for nature (Bunn, 1986; Green, 1994; Waters, 1993; Wilson, 1995). Children’s gardens should be designed to offer freedom to move and play, plants that are interesting and exotic, and “leftover, wild places that they have the freedom to manipulate. They tend to be wild, messy places” (Hart, 1993).

Comparison The needs of elderly adults and children that are addressed by HT have many similarities including increased autonomy, a sense of wonder and excitement, physical and mental stimulation, social interactions, sensory stimulation, and creative expression. However, the conflicting energy levels of  the two groups, and the opposing needs for quiet and cleanliness for elderly adults and freedom to explore and play for children, may result in frustrations and negative attitudes between the two groups.

Literature Cited Abbott, G., V. Cochran, and A.A. Clair. 1997. Innovations in intergenerational programs for persons who are elderly: The role of horticultural therapy in a multidisciplinary approach, p. 27-38. In: Wells (ed.). Horticultural Therapy and the Older Adult. Hawthorne Press, NY. Aday, R.H. 1991. Youth’s attitudes toward the elderly: The impact of intergenerational partners. J. Applied Gerontology 10(3):372-384. American American Horticul Hort icultural tural Therapy Association, A Career in Horticultural Therapy, unpublished. 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. 7

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: An intergenerational experience. Educ. Gerontology 20:193-204. Chapman, N.J. and M.B. Neal. 1990. The effects of intergenerational experiences on adolescents and older adults. The Gerontologist 30(6):825-832. Cohon, D. 1989. Intergenerational program research to refine theory and practice. J. Children in Contemp. Society 20:217-230. Dellman-Jenkins, M., D. Lambert, and D. Fruit. 1991. Fostering preschoolers’ prosocial behaviors toward the elderly: The effect of an intergenerational program. Educ. Gerontology 17:21-32. DeVries, R. and B. Zan. 1995. Creating a constructivist classroom atmosphere. Young Children 50(9):4-13. DeMarco, L.W. 1997. The Factors Affecting Elementary School Teachers’ Integration of School Gardening Gardening into the Curricul Curr iculum, um, unpublished unpublished thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Polytechnic Institute and State Stat e University. Eberbach, C. 1988. Garden Gar den Design for Children, Children, unpublished unpublished thesis. U. Of Delaware. Eberbach, C. 1990. Children’s gardens: The meaning of place, p. 80-83. In: P.D. Relf (ed.). The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Epstein, S.G. and D.S. Greenberger. 1990. Nurturing plants, children, and older individuals: Intergenerational horticultural therapy. J. Therapeutic Hort. 5:16-19. Green, K. 1994. Encouraging nurturing behavior of two to seven year olds by introducing plants and flowers, p. 395-408. In: J. Flagler, and R. Poincelot (eds.). People-Plant Relations: Setting Research Priorities, A National Symposium. Hayworth Press, NY. Haas, Haas, K., S.P. Sims Simson, on, and and N.C. Stevenson. 1998. Older persons and horticultural therapy t herapy practice, p. 231-255. 231-255. In: In: S.P. Simson Simson and M.C. Straus (eds.). Horticulture Hort iculture as Therapy: Princi Pr inciples ples and Practice. Practice. Haworth Press, NY. Hart, R. 1993. Kids need wild places, gentle guidance. Amer. Horticulturalist 72(11):3. Henniger. 1994. Planning for outdoor play. Young Children 49(4):10-15. Hill, Hill, C.O. C.O. and P.D. Relf. Relf. 1983. Gardening as an out door activity in geriatric geriatric institutions. Activities, 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 the Older Adult Population. Hawthorne Press, NY. Kocarnik, R.A. and J.J. Ponzetti. 1991. The advantages and challenges of intergenerational programs in long-term care facilities. J. Gerontological Social Work 16(½):97-107. Langer, E.J. and J. Rodin. 1976. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. J. Personality and Social Psych. 34(2):191198. Mooney, P.F. 1994. Assessing the benefits of a therapeutic horticulture program for seniors in immediate care, p. 173-194. In: M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice (eds.). The Healing Dimensions Dimensions of People-Plant Relations. Center for Design Research, Davis, CA. Moore, R.C. 1996. Compact nature: The role of playing and learning gardens on children’s lives. J.

8

Therapeutic Hort. 8:72-82. Newman, S. 1989. A history of intergenerational programs J. of Children in Contemp. Society 20:115. Palmer, J.A. 1994. Acquisition of environmental subject knowledge in preschool children: An international study. Children’s Environments Environments 11(3):204-211. 11(3):20 4-211. 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 E xtension publication. publication. Relf, Relf, P.D. P. D. 1997. Defining Defining Horticultural Therapy, unpublished. 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 unpublished thesis. U. Of Delaware Seefeldt, C. 1987. Intergenerational programs. Childhood Educ. (October):14-18. Seefeldt, C. 1989. Intergenerational programs: impact on attitudes. J. of Children in Contemp. Society 20:185-194. Straw, H. 1990. The nursery garden. Early Child Development and Care 57:109-120. Tice, C.H. 1985. Perspectives on intergenerational initiatives: Past, present, and future. Children Today 14(5):6-11. Ventura-Merkel, C., D.S. Liederman, and J. Ossofsky. 1989. Exemplary intergenerational programs. J. of Children in Contemp. Society 20:173-180. Waters, M. 1993. Down in the dirt with kids: Tips on raising a crop of young gardeners. Horticulture 71(3):18-22. Whittier, D. 1991. Horticultural activities for physical disabilities of the elderly. NCTRH Newsletter 6(1):3-5. Wilson, R.A. 1995. Nature and young children: A natural connection. Young Children (September):4-8. Wilson, R.A. 1996. Environmental education programs for preschool children. J. Env. Educ. 27(4):28-33.

Additional References Angelis, J. 1992. The genesis of an intergenerational program. Educ. Gerontology 18:317-327. Bocian, K. and S. Newman. 1989. Evaluation of intergenerational programs: Why and how. J. Children Children in Contemp. Society So ciety 20:147-163. Browne, C.A. 1994. The role of nature for the promotion of well-being of the elderly, p. 75-79. In: 9

M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice (eds.). The Healing Dimensions of People Plant Relations. Center for Design Research, Davis, CA. Brummel, S.W. 1989. Developing an intergenerational program. J. Children in Contemp. Society 20:119-133. Eberbach, C. 1987. Gardens from a child’s view- an interpretation of children’s art-work. J. Therapeutic Hort. 2:9-16. Ellis, W.S. 1992. The gift of gardening. National Geographic 181(5):52-81. Ezell, D.O., E.V. Jones, and A.P. Olson. 1981. Outdoor Gardening for the Handicapped. Clemson University University Cooperative Coo perative Extension Ext ension 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, Hamby, A. 1996. Intergenerational Activi Activities: ties: An Observation Observational al Study of the Experiences Experience s of o f Children and Adults, unpublished unpublished thesis. t hesis. Virginia Virginia Poly Po lytechnic technic Institute and State Stat e University. Henki Henkin, n, N.Z. and S. W. Sweeney. 1989. Linking systems: systems: A systems approach to t o intergenerational programming. programming. J. Children Children in Contemp. Society So ciety 20:165-172. Hochstein, R. 1994. Partners in growing. Parents (July):134-138. Hoover, R.C. 1994. Healing Healing gardens gardens and Alzhei Alzheimer’ mer’ss disease, disease, p. 283-299. 283-2 99. In: M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice (eds.). The Healing Dimensions of People-Plant Relations. Center for Design Research, Davis, CA. Houseman, D. 1986. Developing links between horticultural therapy and aging. J. Therapeutic Hort. 1:9-14. Howell, D.C. 1997. Statistical Methods for Psychology. Duxbury Press, NY. Jaus, H.H. 1994. The development and retention of environmental attitudes in elementary school children. J. Env. Educ. 15(3):33-36. Kaplan, M.J. 1994. Use of sensory stimulation with Alzheimer’s patients in a garden setting, p. 291306. In: J. Flagler, and R. Poincelot (eds.). People-Plant Relations: Setting Research Priorities, A National Symposium. Hayworth Press, NY. Kuehne, Kuehne, V.S. 1992. Older adults in iintergenerati ntergenerational onal programs: programs: What are their experiences really like. Activities, Adaptation and Aging 16(4):49-67. Labreque, C. and L. Tremblay. 1996. The evolutive prosthetic garden: A new concept for elderly livin living g in nursing facilities facilities.. J. Therapeutic Hort. Ho rt. 8:56-60. Matsuo, E. 1990. What we may learn through horticultural activity, p. 146-148. In: P.D. Relf (ed.). The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium. Symposium. Timber Timber Press, Portland, Port land, 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 Senior Citizen Gardens. NGA publication. publication. Neer, K. 1990. A children’s garden. The Herbalist 56:69-76.

10

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

11

INTERGENERATIONAL HORTICULTURE THERAPY RESEARCH VARIABLES INTRODUCED BY STAFF, VOLUNTEERS, AND VIDEO

Working with Staff and Volunteers Earlier this year a research project was conducted on a horticultural therapy program involving both elderly adults and preschool children at day care centers in adjoining facilities. This project focused on the interactions between the two groups and the success of horticulture in allowing for meaningful intergenerational activities. The design of this project allowed preschool children and elderly adults to be observed both during separate age group activities and similar intergenerational activities. Each week during the 10-week study included one day for the children’s activity, one day for the elderly adults’ activity, and a third day for the intergenerational activity. The horticulture activities aimed to meet meet the needs needs of both the children and the elderly adults, and to allow allow for social interaction during dur ing 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 indi indirect. rect. At the conclusi conclusion on of o f the study several observations were made about factors that influence influence the success of intergenerational HT research projects. Many of these factors related to the staff and volunteers’ influence on the participants and activities. Many other HT research programs are also

12

affected by administrators, other staff members, and volunteers that play a role in the implementation and success of activities. In research these interactions can alter the data collected. It is important therefore to recognize possible problem areas before implementing HT research so that personnel factors can be minimized.

I will begin by citing several examples of these variables and the effects I observed during my study. From my discussions with other researchers I believe that these examples are fairly common, even though they have not been widely addressed in HT research. I would then like to suggest possible strategies that can be supported by observations made throughout this program which could prevent or minimize the variables introduced by other staff or volunteers. In this study the main areas of  concern involving other staff and volunteers are: 1) their attitudes toward the intergenerational HT program, and 2) the interactions between the personnel and the participants. I would like to emphasize that although the variables introduced by the numbers and diversity of personnel involved in HT research can affect the success of the project, these variables may be limited in order to reduce possible negative effects.

Before this project began I met with both the directors of the Adult Day Service and the Child Developmen Developmentt Lab to discuss discuss the interest interest and possibili possibility ty of conducting conducting HT research resear ch between bet ween 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 reco rding activities.

One main area of concern is the interaction between the personnel and the participants. Both the staff  members at the Adult Day Service and the Child Development Lab were knowledgeable and experienced in working with their own groups and meeting their specific needs during activities. However, during intergenerational activities most of these staff members did not interact with the other group members present. A lack of experience or possible discomfort in working with a new

13

group led to a lack of interactions between the staff and the other group present. This not only excluded the new group and decreased the social interactions, but the close assistance from the staff  also reduced the independent involvement and self motivation of the participants during the HT activities. Without the encouragement from the staff the older adults and children would not interact during activities. For this study, these staff members were asked not to assist so the trained horticulture volunteers could conduct their intergenerational groups without distractions or disruptions. If time and money allow, a better solution would be offering training for working with both groups, or education in both gerontology and child development to alleviate these negative effects on intergenerational interaction (Kocarnik and Ponzetti, 1991; Seefeldt, 1987; Stremmel et al., 1994; Travis et al., 1993). This could also decrease the negative effects caused by a lack of  experience. The four horticulture student volunteers who assisted in this project had varying degrees of experience with either elderly adults or preschool children. As each intergenerational activity was broken down into small groups supervised by each volunteer, it was possible to observe the effects of their experien experience ce or lack of it. The two volunteers volunteers who had more experience experience were w ere more comfortable comfort able 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 observing for interactions interact ions will produce poor poo r results. According to Kocarni Kocarnik k and Ponze Ponzetti tti (1991), a mediator is needed to help “make “make sense of the encounter..., encount er..., initiate initiate conversations, respond to questions, facilitate the formation of relationships..., and discuss any questions or concerns [the participants] might have.” The role of this mediator is crucial for success, as “each friendship requires nurturing and guidance if it is to benefit both the young and the old” (Kocarnik and Ponzetti, 1991).

14

At the same time, this mediator (the volunteer or staff member) must remain focused on the larger goals of interaction and relationship development. In a study by Kerrigan and Stevenson (1997), intergenerational interaction was decreased when the mediator intervened to make corrections during the steps of the activity. The mediator must always keep in mind that achieving the larger goals is more important than the specific process or the end product (Kerrigan and Stevenson, 1997).

Many of these factors that play a role in the overall perception of the research program could be prevented or at least minimized to have less of an effect on the outcome of the study. Because the staff and volunteers involved in the program are not always credited with the success and because human resources can be difficult to find these variables that could potentially be controlled are often overlooked. As a result of the large number of staff and volunteers involved in this study additional procedures were identified that could improve communication and facilitate research implementation and success.

The first first step before implem implementin enting g any research research program is is to establish esta blish good goo d communication c ommunication 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 Having the support of o f the facili facility ty is essential essential for for successful research researc h (Angelis, ( Angelis, 1992; Brummel, 1989). 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 their attitude attitude can greatly influence influence the participants’ desire to t o take t ake part in the HT activities. At some so me facilities this could also influence the resources and funds that could be made available for activities. The administration and staff should have a clear understanding of research and methodologies,

15

including the ability to be flexible and adaptable when integrating with a research program. The facility’s attitude toward the program will determine if the HT will be continued after the research has been completed. For the well-being of the participants who enjoy the horticulture program and for the growth of the field of HT it should always be a goal to find long-term support and interest in continuing the program.

It is necessary to discuss the facility’s philosophies and their goals for the clients before designing the research project. The best way to gain support is to design the program to reinforce the center’s objectives for the clients. This way the program will be viewed as an additional ally instead of a threat. No program will survive if it is perceived as detrimental, counterproductive, or unnecessary for the clients’ health or happiness. Because horticulture is so adaptable, many activities could easily be designed to meet the needs of both the facility and its participants. Also, the researcher must carefully and sensitively adjust procedure so to be least disruptive to ongoing curriculum and programming at the facilities.

The next step is to agree on the space and resources to be used and the time schedule of the project. At a center where there are many different programs and activities it is important to understand territorial areas. Whether a designated area will be allotted, or whether an area will be shared, discuss the requi requirem rements ents and and intentions for the area to t o be used to t o prevent pr event misunderstandings misunderstandings or frustrations with other staff. Scheduling both the frequency and duration of the project and receiving approval from all staff will also decrease possible conflicts (Hill and Relf, 1983). Anyone who feels that they are losing space, resources, or time to a new program will understandably become agitated. Disagreements about or competitions for resources could negatively influence the success of the research and limit the support and growth of the program. Rather than feeling that these resources are being taken away the staff members must feel that they are allowing them to be used and shared by others. This will allow them to feel more secure with their position instead of threatened and powerless.

Lastly, be sure to discuss the rules and regulations of the facility that are designed to protect the

16

participants’ safety and well-being. well-being. Breaking any of these t hese rules, even if the purpose for them t hem 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 proje project ct are imp important ortant and appreciated. In order or der for any volunteer to enjoy his/her his/her experience they must feel valuable. Allowing them to express their opinions will not only reinforce their importance importance to the research, resear ch, but may also also offer o ffer new insights insights and ideas to t o improve activi act ivities. ties. Having volunteers keep a journal of the activities will encourage them to evaluate both the program and their own performance. Reading these journals will allow for a better understanding of the successes and failures that occur. Supporting volunteers with repeated reinforcement and evaluation of their progress will allow the volunteers to appreciate their strengths while discovering ways to work 

17

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 offe offerr through volunteering, demands on time, energy, and emotions can lead to burn out. out . Some S ome 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 with people, as in working with the weather, one must always always be prepared. prepar ed. By underst unde rstanding anding the necessity for good communication many variables introduced by personnel can be prevented or minim minimized ized to allow allow for more successful HT research. resear ch.

Video The bias introduced by personal attitude and beliefs requires an unbiased method of collecting and

18

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 obstacles may change change how the program is designed. designed. Some factors factors to be considered co nsidered are the availability 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 small observation observation room containi containing ng the operation console, console, viewing screen, scr een, and audio a udio control cont rol 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 having additional additional personnel personnel at the controls, which was not available. Another Anot her significant significant problem pro blem was created by staff or volunteers standing in front the cameras, not realizing they were blocking all or

19

part of the room from view. Lastly, the angle of the cameras view was a problem in several circumstances where a participant was not facing the camera, and his/her activity and facial expression was not observable.

The sound quality of the video tapes adds several more considerations. Because the volume in the room could be adjusted it could be raised so that quiet activities and quiet participants could still be heard on tape. At the same time, loud activities in other rooms could also be picked up. When several participants are talking at once it becomes difficult to discern one particular voice on tape. Lastly, because the volume controls in the activity room were separate from the volume control in the observation room, it was easy to forget to turn on the volume for the video resulting in a silent tape.

As the video cameras in this system were only located in two rooms at the facility, a video camera on a tripod was used for outdoor activities. This set up could be used for almost any HT research situation. Compared to the indoor video system, the camera on a tripod was easier to operate and offered similar results. The disadvantages associated with limited viewing area and blocked screens also apply, apply, but because because the camera is is located in the same same room as the t he activities ac tivities adjustments adjustment s easily e asily 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 video data can be done in in many many ways. ways. This research research project used participat par ticipation ion and interaction interac tion scores based on charts by Kerrigan and Stevenson (1997) and another by Kuehne (1992). Several other charts are available for other observable behaviors. These charts allow an observer to record both the amount and duration of behaviors, which can be very useful in quantifying qualitative data.

These advantages and disadvantages should be considered before choosing video for data collection.

20

Knowing the possible problem areas and how to avoid or minimize the effects can change how the research project is designed or implemented. Knowing how this data will be viewed and by whom is also important to ensure that the necessary information is included in the video, and that other necessary data that is not seen on tape can be accounted for. Combining video along with journaling will offer more complete data assessment, and it may also decrease the severity of problems caused by blocked or limited viewing areas, silent or confusing audio quality, or a missed day of recording.

Literature Cited Angelis, J. 1992. The genesis of an intergenerational program. Educ. Gerontology 18:317-327. Brummel, S.W. 1989. Developing an intergenerational program. J. Children in Contemp. Society 20:119-133. Flagler, J.S. 1992. Horticulture therapy: Potentials for master gardeners, p. In: P.D. Relf (ed.). The Role of Horticulture Horticulture in Human Well Well-Bein -Being g and Social Development: Development : A Nationa N ationall Symposium. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Hill, Hill, C.O. C.O. and P.D. Relf. Relf. 1983. Gardening as an out door activity in geriatric geriatric institutions. Activities, 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 the Older Adult Population. Hawthorne Press, NY. Kocarnik, R.A. and J.J. Ponzetti. 1991. The advantages and challenges of intergenerational programs in long-term care facilities. J. Gerontological Social Work 16(½):97-107. Kuehne, Kuehne, V.S. 1992. Older adults in iintergenerati ntergenerational onal programs: 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 Gerontologist 34(4):513-519. Travis, S.S., A.J. Stremmel, and P.A. Duprey. 1993. Child and adult day care professions converging in the 1990s: Implications for training and research. Educ. Gerontology 19:283-293.

21

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 (DellmanJenkins et al., 1991; Seefeldt, Seefeldt, 1989). It is import important, ant, 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 appropr iate activity for intergenerational programm pro gramming ing 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 serve the the other (Tice, (Tice, 1985), 1985), designing designing projects pro jects that “have a definite definite purpose or end product” pro duct” (Aday et al., 1991), establishing programs that are long-term so the individuals have a chance to establish relationships with one another (Seefeldt, 1989), and ensuring that positive attitudes develop as a result of discovered similarities between the groups (Chapman and Neal, 1990). Seefeldt (1987) proposed recommendations for ensuring successful programs that reinforce these points and include “protecting the prestige of elders as well as children; limiting frustration for both adults and children by arranging for contact that is intimate, not casual; planning for interaction that has integrity and is functional for both groups; and ensuring that contact between old and young is rewarding and pleasant for both groups.”

22

According to these guidelines, HT has excellent potential as a focus for intergenerational interaction because it provides benefits for all persons involved, a definite end product to share and discuss, a long-term project with intrinsic rewards, and a common interest in order to establish a connection between the groups. The horticultural activities could also be adapted to meet the needs of both groups involved. However, it is not as certain that intergenerational interactions would complement a HT program. For example, example, the t he specific specific goals of o f gardening with elderly adults 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 explore and play for for children, children, may result result in frustrations frustrations and negative negative attitudes between betwe en the t he two t wo groups gro ups 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 number of participants participants in the program pro gram varied daily daily due to t o the t he health of the t he clients, clients, the turnover t urnover rate rat e 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 observational room insi inside de the Adult Day Service. Service. The separate children’s children’s and elderly adults’ ad ults’ activities act ivities took place place in the intergenerational intergenerational room, roo m, and the t he intergenerational activities took too k place in the Adult

23

Day Service room which was larger. A video camera on a tripod was used to record activities that took place in the enclosed outdoor patio.

The program was set up to compare separate age group activities with intergenerational activities. There were three sessions each week: one for the elderly group, a second one for the children’s group, and a third one that combined both groups. The same activity was completed during all three sessions in one week, with small modifications to make the activity appropriate for each group.

Four volu voluntee nteers rs assisted assisted with the HT activi act ivities. ties. These volunteers were part of a university 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 Rothert and Daube Daubert, rt, 1981) were consulted to find find activities that would appeal to t o both bo th 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 Activities were chosen that required few or inexpensiv inexpensivee materials.

The data for each session was collected on video tape over a 10-week period. These video tapes were viewed by the researcher after the study was completed to collect data for analysis. Quantitative data was collected on the attendance and participation of each individual during both separate age group and intergenerational activities. Data also were collected on the interactions between elderly adults

24

and preschool children during the intergenerational activities. At the completion of the 10-week  project, the video tapes for all sessions were viewed to collect data. The children’s and elderly adults’ separate activities were scored according to attendance and participation. Participation was broken down into into 3 levels- ‘O’ being present but inactive, inactive, ‘I’ being being active act ive 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. participants. Type of participati participation on percentages were calcula calculated ted by tallying tallying the t he tot t otal al participat par ticipation ion times t imes 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 physical assistance during tthe he activity.

All data were organized into charts to compare separate and intergenerational activities, and to determine overall trends that developed during the 10-week period. Inferential statistical analysis was not feasible because of the small sample size, the short period of time of the study, and the large number of human variables did not allow for a controlled data base. This research can not provide definitive answers of the success of intergenerational activities. Rather, it serves to identify variables that affect success, trends that might indicate potential success of intergenerational programs, and directions for future research.

25

Results and Discussion Children’s Separate Activities

During children’s separate activities (Table 1), few ‘O’ scores were observed as inactive children usuall usually y lef leftt the room where where the horticul hort iculture ture activity took place. ‘I’ or o r ‘II’ scores were dependent on the activity and how it was set up. Activities that were difficult or unfamiliar resulted in high ‘I’ ratings as they required the most assistance. Activities that involved familiar tasks such as cutting, glueing, drawing, or putting soil in pots required little volunteer assistance and resulted in high ‘II’ scores.

Table 1. Attendance, average time, and percentage of time in three levels of participation for children during separate activities. Activity

1 Name tags

2 Design

3 Seeds I

4 Cuttings

5 Seeds II

6 Terrarium

7 Frames

8 Scarecr o w

9 Corsage

10 Planting

# present

13

9

15

11

10

14

8

8

11

7

average time in minutes

1 0m.

14 .3m.

1 0.3m.

8.7m.

7.9m.

7.1m.

14.4m.

14.3m.

6m.

14.1m.

type of  participation in %

0 - 1% I-73.7 II-25.3

0- 0% I-26.7 II-73.3

0- 0% I-75.3 II-24.7

0 - 0% I-100 II-0

0- 0% I-10 0 II-0

0- 0% I-100 II-0

0- 0% I-8.3 II-91.8

0- 0% I-28.5 II-71.5

0- 0% I-100 II-0

0- 0% I-0 II-100

The average average participation participation time time for children’s children’s separate separate activities activities depended on the set up of the t he activity. ac tivity. 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

26

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 During this group time, time, the children children showed a lot of enthusiasm enthusiasm for for the horticulture hort iculture 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 abili abilities. ties. The few participants participants with greater phy physica sicall skill skillss could work wo rk alone after a brief br ief demonstrat demonst ration ion of the activity, and scored primarily ‘II’s. Individuals who were not able to work without direct assistance due t o physical physical limitations limitations scored scor ed mostly ‘I’s.

Table 2. Attendance, average time, and percentage of time in three levels of participation for elderly adults during separate activities. Activity

1 Name tags

2 Design

3 Seeds I

4 Cuttings

5 Seeds II

6 Terrarium

7 Frames

8 Scarecr o w

9 Corsage

10 Planting

# present

9 /12 7 5%

5/1 0 50%

9/10 90%

7/11 64%

7/10 70%

8/11 73%

6/13 46%

5/11 45%

5/8 62.5%

3/8 3 7 .5 %

average

2 5.1 m.

26 .2m.

1 9.6m.

31.4m.

18.3m.

15.9m.

24m.

21.6m.

22.2m.

13.7m.

0 -5 0.4 I-36.3 II-13.1

0-37 .4 I-57.6 II-5

0 -61.6 I-36.3 II-2.1

0 -2 8.9 I-49.3 II-21.9

0 - 3 9 .3 I-54.7 II-6

0 - 3 0 .2 I-69.8 II-0

0 - 3 9 .3 I-51.9 II-8 .8

0 -24 I-58.4 II-17.6

0-49.2 I-50.8 II-0

0-38.3 I-61.7 II-0

time in minutes type of  participation in %

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 27

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 num number of products they could co uld complete. The only o nly exception exception was activity #9. Materials Mater ials 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 disappeared after after the t he volunteers volunteers gained gained more more experience experience working working with their groups. gro ups. Children’s scor s cores es also show an increase in ‘I’s and decrease in ‘II’s compared to separate group activities (Table 1) with only two exceptions (#8, 9). This is most likely due to the increased structure of the intergenerational activities. In order to encourage interactions between the two groups, activities were designed to promote team work and cooperation between the generations. Independent activity usually decreased interactions, so participants were encouraged to work together rather than on their own and activities were redesigned as group participation efforts. The two exceptions (#8, 9) showed an increase in independent activity because of the simplicity of the activities. These activities were less

28

structured and allowed the participants to work independently but in a group setting.

Table 3. Attendance, average time, and percentage of time in three levels of participation for children during intergenerational activities. Activity

1 Board

2 Sand Garden

3 Seeds I

4 Hanging Basket

5 Labels

6 Terrarium

7 Frames

8 Concrete

9 Arrangements

10 Planting

# present

14

12

9

7

ND

7

8

10

5

9

average

1 6.8 m.

9.1m.

1 5 .2 m.

10.1m.

ND

9 .9m.

12 .1m.

18.3m.

13.6m.

15.3m.

0-5% I-95 II-0

0-11.6 I-45 .1 II-4 3.3

0 - 0 .6 I-99.4 II-0

0-0 I-100 II-0

ND

0-0 I-100 II-0

0-0 I-100 II-0

0-0 I-0 II-100

0-0 I-31.6 II-6 8.4

0-0 I-100 II-0

time in minutes type of  participation in %

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 These activities activities also also took to ok place in the the Adult Adult Day Service Service room, which was two rooms roo ms away awa y 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 diff difficul icultt to identify identify the exact reason. Total children’s participation comparing separate age group and intergenerational activities are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Total children’s participation comparing cumulative time spent in different levels of participation during separate and intergenerational activities. 0 minutes

I minutes

II minutes

Total minutes

Participation Occurrences

Average minutes

Separate

1 m.

5 36m.

46 5m.

1002m.

96

10.4 m.

Intergenerational

2 6m.

80 7m.

273 m.

1106m.

81

13.7m.

29

 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 increase in in ‘O’ scores was observed observed in in elderly elderly adults with higher physical capabilities. Many of these t hese 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 simply sat back and watched the t he children complete complete in the t he activity.

Table 5. Attendance, average time, and percentage of time in three levels of participation for elderly adults during intergenerational activities. Activity

1 Board

2 Sand Garden

3 Seeds I

4 Hanging Basket

5 Labels

6 Terrarium

7 Frames

8 Concrete

9 Arrangements

10 Planting

# present

7 /11 6 4%

7/1 0 70%

8/8 100%

8 /9 89%

ND

8/1 3 62%

10/11 91%

3/12 25%

7/12 5 8%

7/11 64%

average time in minutes

2 4.6 m.

16 .1m.

1 7.1m.

10.8m.

ND

13.1m.

15 .1m.

16.7m.

17.3m.

28.4m.

type of  participation in %

0 -7 0.7 I-16.4 II-12.9

0-75 .3 I-10.4 II-14.3

0 -48 I-39.5 II-12.5

0 -70.5 I-17 II-12.5

ND

0 - 3 7 .1 I-50.4 II-12.5

0-61 I-19 II-20

0-50.3 I-0 II-49.7

0 - 4 6 .7 I-21.3 II-3 2

0-43.6 I-1 6.9 II-39.6

Another observed problem that affected both the elderly adults with and without physical limitations was exces excessi sive ve direct direct assistance for the t he children children from the t he staff or volunteers. During Dur ing 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 30

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 limited amount amount of o f direct assistance assistance availab available le during during the activity. activity. Thus it was observed obser ved that without withou t direct direct assi assistan stance ce the the ‘I’ scores sco res decrease. The ‘O’ and ‘II’ ‘I I’ scores scor es increase because in response to t o the t he decrease in direct assistance the elderly adults would either not participate or work on their own. Total elderly adults’ participation comparing separate age group and intergenerational activities is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Total elderly adults’ participation comparing cumulative time spent in different levels of participation during separate and intergenerational activities. activities. 0 minutes

I minutes

II minutes

Total minutes

Participation Occurrences

Avera ge minutes

Separate

49 0m.

677 m.

117m.

1284m.

57

22.5m.

Intergenerational

58 8m.

253 m.

293m.

1134m.

65

17.4m.

 Intergenerational Interactions

During the course of this 10-week study the total percentage of interaction time between the generat gene rations ions during activities increased over time (Table 7) with two exceptions (#7, 8). Several Several factors appear to have contributed to this increase. The two groups became more familiar with each 31

other and more comfortable interacting, and the volunteers became more comfortable working with both groups groups and and encouragi encouraging ng participation and interaction interact ion from everyone at their table. Most Mo st 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. 7 . Intergenerational interaction for elderly adults and pr eschool children during intergenerational activities. Activity

1 Board

2 Sand garden

3 Seeds I

4 Cuttings

5 Seeds II

6 Terrariums

7 Frames

8 Concrete

9 Arrang ing

10 Planting

I - nonverbal

12m.

0 m.

0m.

2m.

ND

33m.

12m.

0m.

24m.

2 6m.

II - onedirection verbal

8m.

1 5 m.

14m.

8m.

ND

7m.

2m.

6m.

22m.

16m.

III - twodirection verbal

4m.

6 m.

28m.

4m.

ND

0m.

6m.

0m.

2m.

8m.

IV - twodirection verbal + physical assistance

0m.

0 m.

0m.

8m.

ND

0m.

0m.

0m.

2m.

62m.

Total

24m.

2 1 m.

42m.

22m.

ND

40m.

20m.

6m.

50m.

1 12m.

Total time for all participants

407.4 m.

2 2 1 m.

264m

157m.

ND

174m.

247.8m.

233m.

189m.

33 7m.

Percent of  interaction time

6%

10%

1 5%

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  experi experience ence or discomfort discomfort in working with either elderly adults or children, children, or o r 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. 32

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 intera interacti ction on time time than the t he craft-type craft-t ype activities activities (#1, 2, 7, 8). This indicates indicates that horticulture may be more useful than craft-type activities for intergenerational programs with a goal of increased interaction and relationship 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 crafttype 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, horticul hort iculture ture with live plants plants may help attain these t hese goals more effectively effectively than craft-type activi act ivities. ties.

Because most interaction was observed between the older children and the elderly adults with more

33

physical physical and cognitive abilities, abilities, this research may indicate 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 act ivities. ivities.

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 hig high h level level of variables and compounding factors that are introduced intro duced when working wo rking with young children, elderly adults, staff, and volunteers limits the ability to reach clear conclusions and simply provides direction for conducting programs and future research. Because of the limited resources available for this study, the results of this data are not conclusive evidence of the desirable or undesirable outcome of the addition of intergenerational experiences to the HT program. Rather, the results of this study serve to make recommendations for program implementation and further research. More conclusive results could be obtained if a source of participants could be identified that would provide a larger and more random sample population, the use of a separate control group for comparison, and a longer duration of study.

Intergenerational research involves many variables that affect the outcome of the study. Allowing more time to train volunteers and gain experience in working with both elderly adults and children will increase the success of activities. Use of professionals with training, experience, and a long-term position would provide the greatest reduction in variance due to personnel. Using preliminary tests to gain experience when using video to collect data will decrease the effects of video limitations. Video can also allow for data analysis by an unbiased observer who is ignorant of the research hypothesis.

34

Guidelines Based on this research several guidelines were found to be useful in encouraging successful intergenerational interactions during HT activities. activities.

Activities: Activities:

1. Appeal to both age groups’ interest 2. Are developmentally developmentally and and functionally functionally appropriate for the t he groups involved 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 Small groups allow allow for easy, more intimate 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 (Recommended maximum 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 o ver-direction or excessive excessive involvement involvement with participants 4. Direct activity with positive attitude 5. Encourage interactions among participants 6. Keep a journal for act ivityivity- and self-evaluation 7. Establish good communication for feedback, input, etc.

Interactions: Interact ions:

1. Do not force interactions or participation

35

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 unbiased and uninvolved 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

36

How alterations to the activity, tools, or environment may increase participation and interaction from elderly adults with severe physical limitations or Alzheimer’s disease

Literature Cited Abbott, G., V. Cochran, and A.A. Clair. 1997. Innovations in intergenerational programs for persons who are elderly: The role of horticultural therapy in a multidisciplinary approach, p. 27-38. In: Wells (ed.). Horticultural Therapy and the Older Adult. Hawthorne Press, NY. Aday, R.H. 1991. Youth’s attitudes toward the elderly: The impact of intergenerational partners. J. Applied Gerontology 10(3):372-384. Chapman, N.J. and M.B. Neal. 1990. The effects of intergenerational experiences on adolescents and older adults. The Gerontologist 30(6):825-832. Dellman-Jenkins, M., D. Lambert, and D. Fruit. 1991. Fostering preschoolers’ prosocial behaviors toward the elderly: The effect of an intergenerational program. Educ. Gerontology 17:21-32. Epstein, S.G. and D.S. Greenberger. 1990. Nurturing plants, children, and older individuals: Intergenerational horticultural therapy. J. Therapeutic Hort. 5:16-19. Gardening Science Manual, New York Board of Education publication. Kerrigan, J. and N.C. Stevenson. 1997. Behavioral study of youth and elders in an intergenerational horticultural therapy program, p. 141-154. In: Wells (ed.). Horticultural Therapy and the Older Adult Population. Hawthorne Press, NY. 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.

37

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 differen differentt HT activitie activitiess that can be adapted for preschool chil children, dren, elderly adults, adu lts, and intergener int ergeneratio ational nal 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 children’s ’s group testing these activi activities ties consisted consisted of 16 children children between betw een the t he ages a ges of 3 and a nd 5. 5 . The children had similar skill levels with some small variation in tasks such as spelling or using fine motor skills (cutting with scissors, planting seeds, etc.). The children were part of an afternoon day care program at the University Child Development Lab School which met for three hours three days a week. The elderly adult group consisted of 12 regular attending participants age 65 or older. The elderly adults had various levels of speech, cognitive, and physical abilities. The elderly adults were part of the University Adult Day Service day care which met for 9 hours every weekday. These same two groups of children and adults attended the intergenerational activities. Participation in the horticulture activities was optional for all the participants. The actual number of children and elderly adults that participated in each activity varied due to absences or preference for other activities at the centers.

38

Activity Goals The goals of HT for children and elderly adults have several similarities including increased autonomy, physical and mental stimulation, social interaction, sensory stimulation, creative expression, and a sense of wonder and excitement. However, conflicting energy levels of the two groups and the opposing needs needs for quiet quiet and cleanli cleanliness ness for for elderly adults adult s and freedom freedo m 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 buildi building ng separated only only by a small small room designed designed to allow for intergeneratio intergener ational nal activities. act ivities. An outd o utdoo oorr enclosed patio was used for activities during warm, sunny weather. The intergenerational room and the Adul Adultt Day Serv Servic icee were equipped with video cameras to record activities. A camera on a tripod tr ipod was used to record outdoor activities for data collection and analysis.

Four volu voluntee nteers rs assisted assisted with the HT activi act ivities. ties. These volunteers were part of a university 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 activitie activitiess were chosen to be appropriate and interesting interesting for for both grou g roups ps involved. These activities were arran arranged ged in in a progressi progressive ve order, starting start ing with getting to t o know each other ot her (Making Nametags),

39

setting a group goal (Designing the Garden), and learning the plant life cycle from seed germination to plantin planting g flowers. flowers. The hort iculture iculture supplies 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 another chil child d before before they could start the activi act ivity. ty. In order or der to t o decrease the t he 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 child children ren’s ’s activ activiti ities es were not as highly structured. For these activi act ivities, ties, materials were spread out o ut 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 each volunteer would only o nly work either with one individual individual who needed direct assistance, or with several individuals 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.

40

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- PhysicalPhysical- practice pract ice fine fine motor moto r skills, learn or recall names, names, Intellectual- increase autonomy, color stimulation Planning/Organization- little; collect materials Materials- colored colored cards, cards, magaz magazin ines es with colored horticulture pictures, glue, scissors, marker pens, plastic name tags Set-up/Preparation- Children Children-- materi material alss spread spread out o ut on table t able (except scissors, which the volunteers held to assist the children), children stood at tables to work. Elderly Adults- materials spread out on table, 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 brief explan explanation, ation, several participan part icipants ts needed assistance with more dexterous dexter ous tasks t asks 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, 41

Intellectual- discuss plant needs, Psychological- increase sense of contribution to the project Planning/Organization- moderate; collect materials, prepare prepar e 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 Designing the Garden G arden Over-all Goal- To have participants involved involved in choosing plants and designing the garden Potential Benefits- Intellectual- identify identify and select desired plant materials, materials, PsychologicalPsychological- 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 finishe finished d they t hey explained explained their pictures to t o the t he volunteers. Elderly Adults- The older older adults sat at tables and looked through magazines, making making lists of plants 42

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’ ‘Designing’ Miniature Miniature Sand Garden Over-all Goal- Physical expression of design ideas, ideas , collaboration between generations Potential Benefits- Intellectual- visualization visualization and physical representation of ideas, Social- increase intergenerational interaction, PsychologicalPsychological- increase enjoyment enjoyment and creativi creat ivity ty Planning/Organization- moderate; coll co llect ect materials, have dried materials 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, labels, and pencils; pencils; bucket of  o f  soil on plastic sheet on ground with space for planting seeds on plastic. 43

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 and label labeled ed seeds seeds independently. independent ly. B) each participant part icipant did one step in the activity act ivity (like (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 Cutt ings 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 44

space for for cuttings to root. ro ot. 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 plants for for cuttings, cuttings, soil, watering water ing 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 compl co mpletion etion of o f activity by following following steps 45

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, Intell Int ellectualectual- match written writt en 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. 46

Activity Set 6 Separate Activity- Making Personal Terrarium Terrar iumss Over-all Goal- Maintain active participation to activity completion, completion, follow steps st eps 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. 47

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, Psychologicalappreciate 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- Partici Participan pants ts chose chose a frame, glued on dried flowers. Pictures were wer e 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, Psychologicalappreciate 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. 48

Activity Set 8 Separate Activity- Making Scarecrow as a Group Over-all Goal- fun! Potential Benefits- SocialSocial- increase increase interaction, interaction, Psychologi Psychologicalcal- use of imagination, imaginatio n, Physical- pract pr actice ice 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- SocialSocial- increase increase interaction, interaction, Psychologi Psychologicalcal- use of imagination, imaginatio n, Physical- pract pr actice ice large motor skills skills Planning/Organization- moderate; collect materials, arrange plastic on floor for easy clean-up Materials- rocks, rocks, cement, cement, water in cups, wheelbarrow for mixin mixing g concrete, concret e, 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- Voluntee Volunteers rs stood around around wheelb w heelbarrow arrow to assist partici part icipants pants with the activi act ivity; ty; one strong volunteer mixed the cement as the ingredients were added.

49

Activity Set 9 Separate Activity- Making Corsages Over-all Goal- Focused attention on task, skill development. Potential Benefits- Physic Physicalal- practice practice fine fine motor motor skills, skills, Psychologica Psychologicall- enjoy fragrance fragra nce and a nd aesthet ae sthetics ics of flowers Planning/Organization- moderate; collect co llect 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 Direction/Assistance/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 Arrangin Arr anging g Over-all Goal- same as above Potential Benefits- Physic Physicalal- practice practice fine fine motor motor skills, skills, Psychologica Psychologicall- enjoy fragrance fragra nce and a nd aesthet ae sthetics ics 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.

50

Activity Set 10 Separate Activity- Planting 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 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. 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, 51

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 comfortable space free free from distractions distractions will will make make participat pa rticipation ion more mor e enjoyable. enjo yable. Having H aving all materials mat erials within reach and using adaptive tools when necessary will decrease frustration and encourage independe independent nt participation participation during during activities. activities. During During HT activitie activities, s, direct dire ct assistance assista nce 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 part icipation in activities. activities.

Elderly Adult Activity References Browne, C.A. 1994. The role of nature for the promotion of well-being of the elderly, p. 75-79. In: M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice (eds.). The Healing Dimensions of People Plant Relations. Center for Design Research, Davis, CA. 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. 52

Haas, K. 1996. The therapeutic quality of plants. J. Therapeutic Hort. 8:61-67. Hill, Hill, C.O. C.O. and P.D. Relf. Relf. 1983. Gardening as an out door activity in geriatric geriatric institutions. Activities, 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. 291306. In: J. Flagler, and R. Poincelot (eds.). People-Plant Relations: Setting Research Priorities, A National Symposium. Hayworth Press, NY. Langer, E.J. and J. Rodin. 1976. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. J. Personality and Social Psych. 34(2):191198. Mooney, P.F. 1994. Assessing the benefits of a therapeutic horticulture program for seniors in immediate care, p. 173-194. In: M. Francis, P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice (eds.). The Healing Dimensions Dimensions of People-Plant Relations. Center for Design Research, Davis, CA. Relf, P.D. 1989. Gardening in Raised Beds and Containers for the Elderly and Physically Handicapped. Virginia Cooperative Extension E xtension publication. publication. 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. Whittier, D. 1991. Horticultural activities for physical disabilities of the elderly. NCTRH Newsletter 6(1):3-5.

Preschool Children Activity References Bunn, 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: Setting Research 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.

53

Palmer, J.A. 1994. Acquisition of environmental subject knowledge in preschool children: An international study. Children’s Environments Environments 11(3):204-211. 11(3):20 4-211. 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 References Aday, 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 the Older Adult Population. Hawthorne Press, NY. Kocarnik, R.A. and J.J. Ponzetti. 1991. The advantages and challenges of intergenerational programs in long-term care facilities. J. Gerontological Social Work 16(½):97-107. Seefeldt, C. 1989. Intergenerational programs: Impact on attitudes. J. of Children in Contemp. Society 20:185-194.

54

APPENDIX A

55

Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Children Date: Activity: Participant: 1

2

3

*KEY* Attendance A= absent X= present ?= unknown

4

5

6 Participation 0= present but inactive I= active with direct assistance

7

8

9

Feb. 9 Nametags week 1

Feb. 16 Design week 2

Feb. 23 Seeds 1 week 3

Mar. 2 Cuttings week 4

A

X II- 16m. II- 100% X I- 1m. II- 4m. I- 20% II- 80% X I- 6m. II- 14m. I- 30% II- 70% A

X I- 5m.II- 5m. I- 50% II- 50% X I- 7m. I- 100% X I- 5m. II- 4m. I- 56% II- 44% X I- 5m. II- 5m. I- 50% II- 50% X I- 6m. II- 6m. I- 50% II- 50% X I- 12m. I- 100% X I- 7m. II- 2m. I- 78% II- 22% X I- 10m. I- 100% X I- 9m. I- 100% X I- 8m. II- 5m. I- 62% II- 38% X I- 4m. II- 5m. I- 44% II- 56% ?

X I- 9m. I- 100% ?

X I- 6m. I- 100% X I- 4m. II- 7m. I- 36% II- 64% X I- 8m. I- 100% X I- 2m. II- 8m. I- 20% II- 80% X I- 10m. II- 3m. I- 77% II- 23% X 0- 1m. I- 7m. 0- 12.5% I- 87.5% X I- 22m. I- 100% A

X II- 15m. II- 100% X I- 10m. II- 8m. I- 56% II- 44% A

X

X

II= active independently 10 m.= minutes 11

12

13

14

15

16

X I- 8m. I- 100% X I- 4m. II- 1m. I- 80% II- 20% A

X I- 13m. I- 100% X I- 1m. II- 12m. I- 8% II- 92% X I- 3m. I- 100% X I- 5m. II- 5m. I- 50% II- 50%

X I- 5m. II- 12m. I- 29% II- 71% X

X

X X I- 5m. II- 9m. I- 12m. I- 36% II- 64% I- 100% X X I- 2m. II- 14m. I- 5m. II- 4m. I- 12.5% II- 87.5% I- 56% II- 44% X X I- 11m. I- 100% X X I- 4m. II- 3m. I- 10m. II- 2m. I- 57% II- 43% I- 83% II- 17%

56

X I- 9m. I- 100% X I- 6m. I- 100% X I- 9m. I- 100% X I- 10m. I- 100% X I- 8m. I- 100% X I- 8m. I- 100% X I- 8m. I- 100% ?

?

X

X I- 10m. I- 100% X I- 9m. I- 100% X

X I- 10m. I- 100%

Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Children

1

2

3

4

5

Mar. 16 Seeds 2 week 5

Mar. 23 Te rrar iums week 6

Ma r. 30 Frames week 7

Apr. 6 Scare crow we ek 8

Apr. 13 Corsa ges we ek 9

Apr. 20 Planting week 10

X I- 9m. I- 100% X I- 10m . I- 100% X I- 6m. I- 100% X

X I - 9 m. I- 100% X I - 8 m. I- 100% X I - 6 m. I- 100% X I- 6m. I- 100% X I - 6 m. I- 100% X I-7m. I- 100% X I - 6 m. I- 100% X I- 6m. I- 1 00% X

X II- 33m. II- 100% ?

X I- 8m.II- 21m. I- 28% II- 72% X I- 3m. II- 3m. I- 50% II- 50% X I- 3m. II- 26m. I- 10% II- 90% X

X I - 6 m. I- 100% X I - 5 m. I- 100% X I - 8 m. I- 100% X I- 8 m. I- 100% X I - 7 m. I- 100% X I - 5 m. I- 100% ?

?

10

X I- 11m . I- 100% X I- 6m. I- 100% X I- 6m. I- 100% X I - 1 1m . I- 100% X I- 6m. I- 100% X

11

X

12

X

13

14

X I- 7m. I- 100% X

15

X

16

X I- 7m. I- 100%

6

7

8

9

X I- 6m. I- 100% X I- 7m. I- 100% X

X I- 11m. I- 100% X I- 8m. I- 100% X I- 9m. I- 100% X I - 5 m. I- 100%

?

X II- 25m. II- 100% X I- 4m. II- 21m. I- 16% II- 84% X I- 3m. II- 6m . I- 33% II- 67% X II- 5m. II- 100% X

X II- 4m. II- 100% X

X II- 16m. II- 100% X II- 15m. II- 100% X II- 13m. II- 100% X II- 16m. II- 100% X II- 18m. II- 100% X II- 4m. II- 100% X

?

X I- 5m. II- 14m. I- 26% II- 74% X I - 2 m. I- 100% X II- 4m. II- 100% ?

?

?

?

?

X

?

?

?

X I- 1m. II- 5m. I- 17% II- 83% X II- 5m. II- 100% X

?

X I - 4 m. I- 100% X I - 5 m. I- 100% X

?

X

X II- 7m. II- 100%

57

X I- 3m.II- 18m. I- 14% II- 86% X

X

X I - 7 m. I- 100% X I - 6 m. I- 100% ?

X I - 5 m. I- 100%

X

?

X II- 17m. II- 100% X

X

APPENDIX B

58

Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults Date: Activity: Participant : 1

2

3

*KEY*

4

Attendance A= absent X= present

5

6 Participation 0= present but inactive I= active with dir ect assistan ce II= active indepen dently

7

8

F eb . 1 0 Name tag s week 1

Feb. 1 7 Design we ek 2

F eb . 2 4 Seeds 1 we ek 3

X 0- 9m. I- 4m. II- 4m. 0-53% I-23. 5% II-2 3.5% X 0- 3m.I- 3m.II- 20m. 0-11.5% I-11.5% II-77% X 0- 27m . 0- 100% X 0- 5m. I- 33m. 0- 13% I- 87% X 0- 12m. I- 11m. 0- 52% I- 48% X 0- 13m . 0- 100% A

X 0- 12m. II- 4m. 0- 75% I- 25% A

X 0- 11m. I- 4m. 0- 7 3% II- 27% A

X

A

X 0- 25m . 0- 100% X 0- 6m. I- 11m. II- 3m. 0 -30% I-55% II-15% X I - 2 4 m. I- 100% X 0- 17m. I- 9m. 0- 65% I- 35% X 0- 3m. II- 22m. II- 1m. 0-1 1% I-85% II-4% X 0- 19m. I- 3m . 0- 86% I- 14% X 0- 8m. I- 1m. 0- 89% I- 11% A

X I - 2 8 m. I- 1 00% X 0- 4m. I- 25m. 0- 14% I- 86% X 0- 21m. I- 7m. 0- 75% I- 25% X 0- 7m. II- 23m. 0- 23% I- 77% X

10

X 0- 11m. I- 13m. II- 5m. 0-38% I-45% II-17% X 0- 11m. I- 4m. 0- 73% I- 27% X

11

A

A

A

12

A

A

A

13

A

A

A

14

A

A

15

X 0- 5m. I- 33m. 0- 13% I- 87% X

X

16

X

X

X 0- 9m. 0- 100% X

17

A

A

A

9

X

m.= minutes

59

Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults Ma r . 3 Cuttings week 4

Ma r . 1 7 Seeds 2 week 5

Ma r . 2 4 Ter rari ums week 6

Ma r . 3 1 Frame s we ek 7

X 0- 10m. I- 24m. 0- 29% I- 71% X

X 0- 3m. I- 14m. 0- 18% I- 82% A

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

5

X 0- 33m. I- 1m. 0- 97% I- 3% X I- 28m. I- 100% A

X 0 - 1 8m . I - 2m . 0- 90% I- 10% X 0- 2m. I- 17m. II- 2m. 0-10% I-80% II-10% A

6

X

7

X 0- 7m. 7m. II- 6m. 6m. IIII- 22m 22m.. 0-20 0-20% % II-17% 17% II-63 I-63% % X 0- 18m. I- 14m. 0- 56% I- 44% A

X 0 - 1 9 m . I - 3m . 0- 86% I- 14% X 0- 10m. 10m. I- 5m. 5m. IIII- 7m. 7m. 0-45 0-45% % II-23% 23% II-32 I-32% % X 0- 5m. I- 14m. 0- 26% I- 74% X

X 0- 12m. I- 2m . 0- 86% I- 14% X I - 1 6 m. I- 100% X 0- 1m. I- 21m . 0- 5% I- 95% A

X 0- 2m. I- 21m. 0- 9% I- 91% X 0- 8m. I- 1m. II- 10m. 0-42% I-5% II-53% X

1

2

3

4

8

9

10

A

X

X 0- 7m. I- 22m. 0- 24% I- 76% X 0- 22m. I- 1m . 0- 96% I- 4% A

X 0- 8m. I- 4 m. 0- 67% I- 33% X

X

X

X I - 7 m. I- 100% A

X 0- 4m. I- 10m. 0- 29% I- 71% A

X 0- 9m. I- 15m. 0 - 3 7. 5 % I - 6 2 .5 % A

12

X I - 2 8 m. I- 100% X I- 3m. II- 26m. I- 10% II- 90% A

A

13

A

A

X 0- 7m. I- 19m. 0- 27% I- 73% A

14

A

A

X 0- 3m. I- 12m . 0- 20% I- 80% X 0- 6m. I- 16m. 0- 27% I- 73% A

15

X

X

X

X

16

X

X

X

X

17

A

A

A

A

11

60

A

Separate Age Group Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults Apr. 7 Scarec row week 8

Apr. 14 Corsages week 9

Apr. 21 Planting week 10

1

X

2

X

X 0- 3m. I- 17m. 0- 15% I- 85% A

3

X

4

X

5

A

X 0- 1m. I- 11m. 0- 8% I- 92% X 0- 15m. I- 10m. 0- 60% I- 40% X 0- 24m. I- 2m. 0- 92% I- 8% X 0- 8m. I- 14m. 0- 36% I- 64% A

6

X 0- 2m. I- 8m. 0- 20% I- 80% A

A

X

A

A

X 0- 23m. 0- 100% A

X

X

X

A

A

A

X 0- 13m . I- 13m. 0- 50% I- 50% A

A

13

X I- 25m. I- 100% X I- 14m. II- 11m. I- 56% II- 44% X I- 14m. II II- 11 11m. I- 56% II- 44% A

X 0- 5m. 0- 100% A

14

A

A

A

15

X

X

X

16

X

A

X

17

A

A

A

7

8

9

10

11

12

61

X

X I- 16m. I- 100% A

A

APPENDIX C

62

Intergenerational Activity Participation Chart - Children Date: Activity: Participant: 1

2

3

*KEY* Attendance A= absent X= present ?= unknown

4

5

6 Participation 0= present but inactive I= active with direct assistance

7

8

9

Feb. 11 Board week 1

Feb. 18 Sand Garden week 2

Feb. 25 Seeds 1 week 3

Mar. 4 Cuttings week 4

X I- 8m. I- 100% X I- 11m. I- 100% X I- 22m. I- 100% X I- 11m. I- 100% X I- 8m. I- 100% X 0- 3m. I- 23m. 0- 12% I- 88% X 0- 2m. I- 17m. 0- 11% I- 89% X I- 23m. I- 100% ?

X 0- 1m. I- 2m. II- 5m. 0-12.5% I-25% II-62.5% X I- 10m. II- 9m. I- 53% II- 47% X 0- 1m. II- 7m. 0- 12.5% II- 87.5% X 0- 1m. I- 2m. II- 5m. 0-12.5% I-25% II-62.5% X II- 4m. II- 100% X I- 6m. I- 100% X I- 8m. I- 100% X

?

X I- 11m. I- 100% ?

X I- 22m. I- 100% X 0- 1m. I- 11m. 0- 8% I- 92% ?

X 0- 2m. I- 3m. 0- 40% I- 60% X

X

X I- 25m. I- 100% X I- 11m. I- 100% ?

X I- 21m. I- 100% X I- 4m. I- 100% X I- 8m. I- 100% X I- 20m. I- 100% X

X I- 11m. I- 100% X I- 7m. I- 100% X

X

X I- 11m. I- 100% X

X

II= active independently 10 m.= minutes 11

12

13

14

15

16

X 0- 3m. I- 24m. 0- 11% I- 89% X I- 8m. I- 100% X 0- 5m. I- 13m. 0- 28% I- 72% X I- 20m. I- 100%

?

?

X

?

X 0- 2m. II- 8m. 0- 20% II- 80% X 0- 2m. I- 7m. 0- 22% I- 78% X 0- 2m. II- 8m. 0- 20% II- 80% X

?

X

X 0- 1m. I- 19m. 0- 5% I- 95% X I- 12m. I- 100% X

X I- 6m. I- 100% X I- 15m. I- 100% X

X I- 13m. I- 100%

X I- 16m. I- 100%

X I- 10m. I- 100%

63

Intergenerational Activity Participation Chart - Children

1

Mar. 18 Labels week 5 *NO DATA* X

Mar. 25 Terrariums week 6

Apr. 1 Frames week 7

Apr. 8 Concrete week 8

Apr. 15 Flower ar arrgmt. week 9

Apr. 22 Planting week 10

2

?

3

?

4

X

5

X

X I- 10m. I- 100% X I- 8m. I- 100% X I- 10m. I- 100% X I- 9m. I- 100% X

X I- 14m. I- 100% ?

X II- 23m. II- 100% ?

X

X I- 20m. I- 100% ?

?

X II- 23m. II- 100% X II- 19m. II- 100% X II- 23m. II- 100% X

?

6

X

X

7

X

8

X

X I- 9m. I- 100% X

9

X

X

X I- 11m. I- 100% X I- 12m. I- 100% X

10

?

?

11

?

12

X I- 7m. I- 100% X I- 20m. I- 100% X

?

X II- 18m. II- 100% X I- 5m. II- 8m. I- 38% II- 62% X

X I- 33m. I- 100% X I- 1m. I- 100% X I- 18m. I- 100% X

X I- 18m. I- 100% X

?

X II- 9m. II- 100% X II- 21m. II- 100% X II- 9m. II- 100% ?

?

X I- 2m. I- 100% ?

?

?

X

?

?

X

X

X

X

?

?

13

X

X

X

15

X

X I- 13m. I- 100% X

X II- 18m. II- 100% X II- 17m. II- 100% X

?

14

X I- 9m. I- 100% X I- 12m. I- 100% X

X II- 14m. II- 100% X

X I- 14m. I- 100% X I- 12m. I- 100% X

16

X

X I- 10m. I- 100%

X I- 12m. I- 100%

X II- 21m. II- 100%

X I- 1m. II- 4m. I- 20% II- 80%

X I- 25m. I- 100%

64

?

X I- 13m. I- 100% X

APPENDIX D

65

Intergenerational Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults Date: Activity: Participant: 1

2

3

*KEY*

4

Attendance A= absent X= present

5

I= active with direct assistance

Feb. 18 Sand Garden week 2

Feb. 25 Seeds 1 week 3

Mar. 4 Cuttings week 4

X

X 0- 10m. I- 2m. 0- 83% I- 17% A

X 0- 3m. 0- 100% A

X 0- 14m. I- 1m. 0- 93% I- 7% X 0- 19m. I- 1m. 0- 95% I- 5% X 0- 9m. I- 7m. 0- 56% I- 44% X 0- 15m. 0- 100% A A X

X 0- 25m. 0- 100% X 0- 9m. I- 6m. 0- 60% I- 40% A

X 0- 6m. I- 1m. 0- 86% I- 14% X 0- 4m. I- 8m. 0- 33% I- 67% X 0- 12m. 0- 100% X 0- 11m. I- 2m. 0- 85% I- 15% X 0- 9m. I- 6m. 0- 60% I- 40% X 0- 11m. 0- 100% A A A

X

X II- 15m. II- 100% A

X 0- 1m. I- 15m. 0- 6% I- 94% X II- 22m. II- 100% A

X II- 11m. II- 100% A

X 0- 18m. I- 5m. 0- 78% I- 22% X 0- 24m. I- 1m. 0- 96% I- 4% X

12

X 0- 19m. 0- 100% X 0- 12m. I- 15m. 0- 44% I- 56% A A X 0- 17m. I- 3m. 0- 85% I- 15% X 0- 23m. I- 5m. 0- 82% I- 18% X 0- 3m. II- 27m. 0- 10% II- 90% A

13

A

A

A

A

14 15

A X

16

X

A X 0- 20m. 0- 100% X

A X 0- 5m. 0- 100% X

17

A

A

A X 0- 1m. I- 19m. 0- 5% I- 95% X 0- 3m. I- 18m. 0- 14% I- 86% A

6 Participation 0= present but inactive

Feb. 11 Board week 1

7 8 9

10 II= active independently 11 m.= minutes

66

X 0- 15m. 0- 100% A A A

A

A

Intergenerational Activity Participation Chart - Elderly Adults Mar. 25 Te rrariums we ek 6

Apr. 1 Frames week 7

Apr. 8 Conc rete we ek 8

Apr. 15 Flower arrgmt. week 9

Apr. 22 Planting we ek 10

1

Mar. 18 Labels week 5 *NO DATA* X

X

X

X

X 0 - 3 m. 0- 100% X

X 0- 7m. I- 6m. 0- 54% I- 46% X

X

2

3

X

X

4

X

X

X 0- 2 0m. 0- 100% X

5

A

A

A

X 0- 20m. 0- 100% X 0- 24m. I- 7m. 0- 77% I- 23% A

6

X

X 0- 1 2m. 0- 100% X I - 1 5m . I- 100% X 0- 9m. I- 3m. 0- 75% I- 25% X

X 0- 2m. I- 2m. 0- 50% I- 50% X 0- 7m. I- 13m. 0- 35% I- 65% X 0- 12m. I- 1m. 0- 92% I- 8% X 0- 8m. I- 5m. 0- 6 2% I- 38% A

X

X

7 8 9

A A X

A A X

A A A

A A X

X 0- 14m. 0- 100% A A X

10

A

11

X

12

A

13

A

14 15

A X

16

X

17

A

X

A

A A X

X A A X X 0- 2m. I- 10m. 0- 6m. I- 14m. 0- 17% I- 83% 0- 30% I- 70% X X X X X II- 12m. II- 17m. 0- 9m. II- 12m. II- 19 m. II- 33m. II- 100% II- 100% 0- 43% II- 57% II- 100% II- 100% X X X X X I- 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% X X X X A 0- 2m. I- 13m. 0- 19m. 0- 8m. I- 5m . 0- 13% I- 87% 0- 100% 0- 62% I- 38% A A A A A X X X X X 0- 12m. I- 1m. 0- 92% I- 8% X X X A X 0- 11m. I- 1m. 0- 13m. 0- 24m. I- 8m. 0- 92% I- 8% 0- 100% 0- 75% I- 25% A X X X X II- 20m. 0- 2m. II- 17m. 0- 2m. II- 31m . II- 100% 0- 11% II- 89% 0- 6% II- 94%

67

APPENDIX E

68

Total Participation - Children Separate Group Activities P- 1 a= 7

tot al: avg: tota l: avg:

P- 2 a= 7

tota l: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 3 a= 8

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 4 a= 7

tota l: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 5 a= 9

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 6 a= 8

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

Intergenerational Activities

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 37 5 .3 %-I 378 54

m - II 75 10. 7 % - II 3 32 47. 4

T ot al: 112 16

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 30 4 .3 %-I 470 6 7.1

m - II 23 3 .3 % - II 2 30 32. 9

T ot al: 53 7 .6

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 41 5 .1 %-I 432 54

m - II 66 8 .2 5 % - II 3 68 46

T ot al: 107 13. 35

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 33 4 .7 %-I 450 6 4.3

m - II 43 6 .1 % - II 2 50 35. 7

T ot al: 76 1 0. 9

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 34 3 .8 %-I 386 4 2.9

m - II 70 7 .8 % - II 5 14 57. 1

T ot al: 104 1 1. 6

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 57 7 .1 %-I 566 7 0.8

m - II 35 4 .4 % - II 2 34 29. 2

T ot al: 92 1 1. 5

P- 1 a= 7

tota l: avg: total: avg:

P- 2 a= 4

total: avg: total: avg:

P- 3 a= 7

tota l: avg: total: avg:

P- 4 a= 7

tot al: avg: total: avg:

P- 5 a= 7

tota l: avg: total: avg:

P- 6 a= 4

total: avg: total: avg:

69

m-0 1 0 .1 4 % -0 12. 5 1.8

m-I 65 9 .3 %-I 525 7 .5

m - II 28 4 % - II 162.5 23. 2

T ota l: 94 13. 4

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 54 13. 5 %-I 3 53 8 8. 2 5

m - II 9 2 .2 5 % - II 47 1 1. 7 5

T ota l: 63 15. 75

m-0 1 0 .1 4 % -0 12. 5 1.8

m-I 67 9 .6 %-I 5 00 7 1. 4

m - II 30 4 .3 % - II 187.5 2 6. 8

T ota l: 98 14

m-0 1 0 .1 4 % -0 12. 5 1.8

m-I 36 5 .1 %-I 4 25 60. 7

m - II 42 6 % - II 262.5 3 7. 5

T ota l: 79 11.3

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 87 12. 4 %-I 4 38 62. 6

m - II 35 5 % - II 262 3 7. 4

T ota l: 122 17.4

m-0 3 0 .7 5 % -0 11 2 .7 5

m-I 34 8 .5 %-I 3 88 97

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

T ota l: 37 9.25

Total Participation - Children Separate Group Activities P- 7 a= 7

tota l: avg: tota l: avg:

P- 8 a= 6

tota l: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 9 a= 4

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 10 a= 4

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 11 a= 3

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 12 a= 0

tot al: av avg: tot al: avg:

Intergenerational Activities

m-0 1 0.1 % -0 12. 5 1.8

m-I 33 4 .7 %-I 391 .5 5 5.9

m - II 25 3 .6 % - II 296 42. 3

T ot al: 59 8.4

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 55 9 .2 %-I 600 100

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

T ot al: 55 9 .2

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 23 5 .8 %-I 300 75

m - II 4 1 % - II 1 00 25

T ot al: 27 6 .8

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 27 6 .8 %-I 291 7 2.8

m - II 17 4 .3 % - II 1 09 27. 3

T ot al: 44 11

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 15 5 %-I 224 7 4.7

m - II 6 2 % - II 76 25. 3

T ot al: 21 7

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 0 0 %-I 0 0

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

T ot al: 0 0

P- 7 a= 8

total: avg: total: avg:

P- 8 a= 5

tot al: avg: total: avg:

P- 9 a= 2

total: avg: total: avg:

P- 10 a= 2

total: avg: total: avg:

P- 11 a= 1

total: av a vg: total: avg:

P- 12 a= 1

tota l: avg: total: avg:

70

m-0 2 0 .2 5 % -0 11 1.4

m - I m - II 82 9 1 0. 2 5 1 .1 % - I % - II 689 100 86. 1 1 2. 5

T ota l: 93 11.6

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 73 14. 6 %-I 4 00 80

m - II 21 4 .2 % - II 1 00 20

T ota l: 94 18. 8

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 2 1 %-I 1 00 50

m - II 9 4 .5 % - II 100 50

T ota l: 11 5 .5

m-0 2 1 % -0 40 20

m-I 25 12. 5 %-I 1 60 80

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

T ota l: 27 13. 5

m-0 1 1 % -0 8 8

m-I 11 11 %-I 92 92

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

T ota l: 12 12

m-0 2 2 % -0 20 20 20

m-I 0 0 %-I 0 0

m - II 8 8 % - II 80 80

T ota l: 10 10

Total Participation - Children Separate Group Activities P- 13 a= 7

tota l: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 14 a= 9

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 15 a= 3

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 16 a= 7

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P= m= a= avg=

Intergenerational Activities

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 56 8 %-I 553 79

m - II 14 2 % - II 1 47 21

Tota l: 70 10

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 33 3 .7 %-I 390. 5 4 3.4

m - II 70 7 .8 % - II 509 .5 56. 6

Tota l: 103 1 1. 4

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 23 7 .7 %-I 300 100

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tota l: 23 7 .7

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 39 5 .6 %-I 490 70

m - II 17 2 .4 % - II 2 10 30

Tota l: 56 8

*KEY* participant minutes activities average

P- 13 a= 7

tot al: avg: total: avg:

P- 14 a= 9

tota l: avg: total: avg:

P- 15 a= 1

total: avg: total: avg:

P- 16 a= 9

total: avg: total: avg:

m-0 6 0 .8 6 % -0 38 5.4

m-I 79 11. 3 %-I 5 26 8 0. 3

m - II 18 2 .6 % - II 1 00 1 4. 3

Tota l: 103 14. 7

m-0 2 0 .2 2 % -0 20 2.2

m-I 72 8 %-I 600 66. 7

m - II 39 4 .3 % - II 2 80 3 1. 1

Tota l: 113 12.5

m-0 5 5 % -0 28 28

m-I 13 13 %-I 72 72

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tota l: 18 18

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 1 07 11. 9 %-I 7 20 80

m - II 25 2 .8 % - II 180 20

Tota l: 132 14. 7

Note : all totals exclude week 5 data due to missing week 5 intergenerational intergenerational data

Participation 0= present but inactive I= active with direct assistance II= active independently

71

APPENDIX F

72

Total Participation - Elderly Adults Separate Group Activities P- 1 a = 8/9 89%

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 2 a = 3/5 60%

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 3 a = 5/9 56%

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 4 a = 7/9 78%

tota l: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 5 a = 5/5 100%

tota l: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 6 a = 5/7 71%

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

Intergenerational Activities

m-0 49 6.1 % -0 270 33. 8

m-I 92 11. 5 %-I 481.5 6 0. 2

m - II 8 1 % - II 4 8.5 6 .1

Tot al: 1 49 18. 6

m-0 26 8.7 % -0 1 13.5 37. 8

m-I 14 4.7 %-I 56. 5 1 8. 8

m - II 30 10 % - II 130 43.3

Tot al: 70 23. 4

m-0 121 24. 2 % -0 475 95

m-I 5 1 %-I 25 5

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 126 25. 2

m-0 19 2.7 % -0 79 11. 3

m-I 146 20. 1 %-I 606 8 6. 6

m - II 3 0 .4 % - II 15 2 .1

Tot al: 1 68 23. 3

m-0 24 4.8 % -0 95 19

m-I 103 20. 6 %-I 405 81

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 1 27 25. 4

m-0 75 15 % -0 356 71. 2

m-I 25 5 %-I 144 2 8. 8

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 1 00 20

P- 1 total: a= 6/9 avg: 67% tota l: avg:

P- 2 tota l: a= 3/7 avg: 43% tota l: avg:

P- 3 tota l: a= 8/9 avg: 89% tot al: avg:

P- 4 a= 6/9 69%

tota l: avg: total: avg:

P- 5 a= 4/4 100%

tota l: avg: total: avg:

P- 6 a= 5/8 63%

total: avg: tota l: avg:

73

m-0 31 5 .2 % -0 473 78. 8

m-I 11 1 .8 %-I 1 27 21. 2

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 42 7

m-0 29 9 .7 % -0 1 46 48. 7

m-I 26 8 .7 %-I 154 51. 3

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 55 1 8. 3

m-0 1 39 1 7.4 % -0 7 81 97. 6

m-I 3 0 .4 %-I 19 2 .4

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 142 1 7. 8

m-0 71 1 1.8 % -0 379 63. 1

m-I 36 6 %-I 221 36. 8

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 107 1 7. 8

m-0 46 1 1.5 % -0 291 72. 8

m-I 16 4 %-I 109 27. 2

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 62 1 5. 5

m-0 67 1 3.4 % -0 444 88. 8

m-I 15 3 %-I 56 11. 2

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 82 1 6. 4

Total Participation - Elderly Adults Separate Group Activities P- 7 a = 3/3 100%

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 8 a = 5/9 59%

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 9 a = 3/7 43%

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 10 a = 4/5 80%

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 11 a = 2/2 100%

tot al: avg: tot al: avg:

P- 12 a = 4/4 100%

tota l: avg: tot al: avg:

Intergenerational Activities

m-0 17 5.7 % -0 54 18

m-I 51 17 %-I 179 5 9. 7

m - II 23 7 .7 % - II 67 22.3

Tot al: 91 3 0. 3

m-0 79 15. 8 % -0 347 69. 4

m-I 34 6.8 %-I 136 2 7. 2

m - II 5 1 % - II 17 3 .4

Tot al: 118 23. 6

m-0 24 8 % -0 2 62 87. 3

m-I 5 1.7 %-I 38 1 2. 7

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 29 9 .7

m-0 13 3.3 % -0 66. 5 16. 6

m-I 78 19. 5 %-I 3 33. 5 8 3. 4

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 91 22. 8

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 17 85 %-I 66 33

m - II 37 1 8.5 % - II 134 67

Tot al: 54 27

m-0 23 5 .7 5 % -0 97 2 4.25

m-I 58 1 4. 5 %-I 259 6 4.7 5

m - II 11 2.7 5 % - II 44 11

Tot al: 92 23

P- 7 tota l: a = 0/0 avg: A tot al: avg:

P- 8 tot al: a= 0/0 avg: A tot al: avg:

P- 9 total: a= 1/6 avg: 17% total: avg:

P- 10 a= 4/6 67%

total: avg: tota l: avg:

P- 11 a= 9/9 100%

total: avg: tota l: avg:

P- 12 a = 5/5 100%

tota l: avg: total: avg:

74

m-0

m-I

m - II

Tot al:

% -0

%-I

% - II

m-0

m-I

m - II

% -0

%-I

% - II

m-0 17 17 % -0 85 85

m-I 3 3 %-I 15 15

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 20 20

m-0 32 8 % -0 1 35 33. 25

m-I 44 11 %-I 265 66. 25

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Tot al: 76 19

m-0 12 1 .3 % -0 53 5 .9

m-I 0 0 %-I 0 0

m - II 1 68 18. 7 % - II 8 47 94. 1

Tot al: 180 20

m-0 22 4 .4 % -0 104 20. 8

m-I 34 6 .8 %-I 186 37. 2

m - II 57 11. 4 % - II 210 42

Tot al: 113 2 2. 6

Tot al:

Total Participation - Elderly Adults Separate Group Activities P- 13 a = 1/1 100%

total: avg: total: avg:

P- 14 a = 1/1 100%

total: avg: total: avg:

P- 15 a = 1/9 11%

total: avg: total: avg:

P- 16 a = 0/8 0%

Intergenerational Activities

m-0 6 6 % -0 27 27

m-I 16 16 %-I 73 73

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Total: 22 22

m-0 5 5 % -0 13 13

m-I 33 33 %-I 87 87

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Total: 38 38

m-0 9 9 % -0 100 100

m-I 0 0 %-I 0 0

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Total: 9 9

m-0

m-I

m - II

Total:

%-I

% - II

m-0

m-I

m - II

a = 0/0 A

total: av avg: % -0

%-I

total: avg:

*KEY * P= participant m= minutes a= a ctivities avg= average A= absent

% - II

tota l: avg:

P- 14 a = 0/0 A

m-0 29 9 .7 % -0 175 5 8. 3

m-I 18 6 %-I 125 4 1. 7

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Total: 47 15. 6

m-0

m-I

m - II

Total:

% -0

%-I

% - II

m-0 38 9 .5 % -0 297 74.2 5

m-I 20 5 %-I 103 25. 75

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Total: 58 1 4. 5

m-0 51 12.7 5 % -0 2 81 70 7 0.25

m-I 27 6 .7 5 %-I 119 29 2 9. 75

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Total: 78 19. 5

m-0 4 1 .3 % -0 17 5 .7

m-I 0 0 %-I 0 0

m - II 68 2 2.7 % - II 283 94.3

Total: 72 24

total: avg: total: avg:

P- 15 tot al: a = 4/9 avg : 44% total: avg:

P- 16 tot al: a = 4/8 avg: 50% tot al: avg:

total: avg:

P- 17

a = 3/4 75%

total: avg:

total: avg: % -0

P- 13

Total:

P- 17 tot al: a = 3/4 av avg: 75% tot al: avg:

Par tici pation 0= present but inactive I= active with d ir ect assist ance II= active independently

75

Note: all totals exclude week 5 data due to missing week 5 intergenerational data

APPENDIX G

76

Total Separate Age Group Activity Participation Children's Group Activity: 9-Feb P- 13

total: avg: total: avg :

Activity: 16-Feb P- 9

total: avg: total: avg :

Activity: 23-Feb P- 15

total: avg: total: avg :

Activity: 2-Mar P- 11

total: avg: total: avg :

Activity: 16-Mar P- 10

total: avg: total: avg :

Activity: 23-Mar P- 14

total: avg: total: avg :

Elderly Adult Group

m-0 1 0 .1 % -0 12. 5 1

m-I 93 7 .2 %-I 9 5. 5 73.7

m - II 36 2 .8 % - II 329 2 5. 3

Tot al: 1 30 10

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 33 3 .7 %-I 240.5 26.7

m - II 95 1 0. 6 % - II 6 59.5 7 3. 3

Total: 1 28 14. 3

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 116 7 .7 %-I 1129 75.3

m-I 96 8 .7 %-I 1100 100

m-I 79 7 .9 %-I 1000 100

m-I 100 7 .1 %-I 1400 100

m - II 38 2 .5 % - II 371 2 4. 7

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Activity: 10-Feb

m-0 96 1 0. 7 % -0 4 53.5 5 0. 4

m-I 101 1 1. 2 %-I 329 3 6. 6

m - II 29 3 .2 % - II 117.5 13. 1

Total: 226 2 5. 1

m-0 44 8 .8 % -0 187 3 7. 4

m-I 83 1 6. 6 %-I 2 88 5 7.6

m - II 4 0 .8 % - II 25 5

Total: 131 2 6. 2

m-I 74 8 .2 %-I 327 3 6.3

m - II 4 0 .4 % - II 19 2 .1

Total: 176 1 9. 6

total: avg :

m-0 98 1 0. 9 % -0 554 6 1. 6

tot al: P- 7/11 avg: 64% total: avg:

m-0 68 9 .7 % -0 202 2 8. 9

m-I 104 1 4. 9 %-I 345 4 9.3

m - II 48 6 .9 % - II 153 21. 9

Total: 220 3 1. 4

m-0 57 8 .1 % -0 275 3 9. 3

m-I 62 8 .9 %-I 383 5 4.7

m - II 9 1 .3 % - II 42 6

Total: 1 28 1 8. 3

m-0 35 4 .4 % -0 242 3 0. 2

m-I 92 1 1. 5 %-I 558 6 9.8

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Total: 127 1 5. 9

P- 9/12 75%

total: avg: total: avg :

Activity: 17-Feb P- 5/10 50%

total: avg: tota l: avg :

Activity: 24-Feb

Total: 1 54 10. 3

P- 9/10 90%

tota l: avg :

Activity: 3-Mar

Total: 96 8 .7

Activity: 17-Ma r

Total: 79 7 .9

tot al: P- 7/10 avg: 70% total: avg: Activity: 24-Ma r

Total: 100 7 .1

total: P- 8/11 avg: 73% total: avg:

77

Total Separate Age Group Activity Participation Children's Group Activity: 30-Mar P- 8

total: avg: total: avg :

Activity: 6-Apr P- 8

total: avg: total: avg :

Activity: 13-Apr P- 11

total: avg: total: avg:

Activity: 20-Apr P- 7

total: avg: total: avg:

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 8 1 %-I 66 8 .3

Elderly Adult Group

m - II 107 1 3. 4 % - II 734 9 1. 8

Activity: 31-Mar

Total: 115 14. 4

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 24 3 %-I 228 2 8.5

m - II 90 1 1. 3 % - II 572 7 1. 5

Total: 114 14. 3

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 66 6 %-I 1100 100

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Total: 66 6

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 0 0 %-I 0 0

m - II 99 1 4. 1 % - II 700 100

Total: 99 14.1

total: P- 6/13 avg : 46% tota l: avg : Activity: 7-Apr tota l: P- 5/11 avg: 45% total: avg : Activity: 14-Apr P- 5/8 62. 5%

tot al: avg : total: avg :

Activity: 21-Apr P- 3/8 37. 5%

total: avg : total: avg:

*KEY* m= minutes P= participants avg= average

Participation 0= present but inactive I= active with direct assistance II= active independently

78

m-0 55 9 .2 % -0 235 .5 39. 25

m-I 79 1 3.2 %-I 311.5 5 1.9

m - II 10 1 .7 % - II 53 8.8

Total: 144 24

m-0 25 5 % -0 120 24

m-I 61 1 2. 2 %-I 292 5 8. 4

m - II 22 4 .4 % - II 88 17. 6

Total: 108 2 1. 6

m-0 61 1 2. 2 % -0 246 4 9. 2

m-I 50 10 %-I 254 5 0.8

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Total: 1 11 2 2. 2

m-0 8 2 .7 % -0 115 3 8.3

m-I 33 11 %-I 185 6 1.7

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Total: 41 1 3.7

APPENDIX H

79

Total Intergenerational Activity Participation Children's Group Activity: 11-Feb P- 14

total: avg: total: avg:

Activity: 18-Feb P- 12

total: avg: total: avg:

Activity: 25-Feb P- 9

total: avg: total: avg:

Activity: 4-Mar P- 7

total: avg: total: avg:

Activity: 17-Ma r

m-0 11 1 % -0 139 .5 11. 6

m-I 221 15. 8 %-I 133 0 95

m-I 51 4 .2 5 %-I 541 45. 1

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

m - II 46 3 .8 % - II 5 19. 5 4 3.3

Activity: 11-Feb

T ota l: 235 1 6. 8

P- 7/1 1 64%

Activity: 18-Feb

T ota l: 108 9 .0 5

P- 7/1 0 70%

total: avg: total: avg:

tota l: avg: tota l: avg:

m-0 1 0 .1 % -0 5 0 .6

m-I 136 15. 1 %-I 895 99. 4

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

T ota l: 1 37 1 5. 2

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 71 10. 1 %-I 700 100

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

T ot al: 71 1 0. 1

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

tota l: avg: tota l: avg:

Activity: 25-Feb P- 8/8 100%

total: avg: total: avg:

Activity: 4-Mar P- 8/9 89%

total: avg: total: avg:

Activity: 17-Ma r

NO DATA

Activity: 25-Ma r P- 7

m-0 14 1 % -0 70 5

Elderly Adult Group

m-I 69 9.9 %-I 700 100

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

P- 8/1 3 62%

total: avg: total: avg:

80

m-I 29 4 .1 %-I 115 1 6. 4

m - II 27 3 .9 % - II 90 1 2. 9

T ota l: 172 24. 6

m-0 87 12. 4 % -0 527 75. 3

m-I 11 1 .6 %-I 73 1 0. 4

m - II 15 2 .1 % - II 100 1 4. 3

T ota l: 113 16. 1

m-0 57 7 .1 % -0 385 48. 1

m-I 58 7 .2 5 %-I 315 3 9. 4

m - II 22 2 .7 5 % - II 100 1 2. 5

T ota l: 137 17. 1

m-0 58 7.2 5 % -0 564 70. 5

m-I 17 2 .1 %-I 136 17

m - II 11 1 .4 % - II 100 1 2. 5

T ota l: 86 1 0. 7 5

m-I 57 7 .1 %-I 403 5 0. 4

m - II 12 1 .5 % - II 100 1 2. 5

Tota l: 1 05 13. 1

NO DATA

Activity: 25-Mar

T ot al: 69 9 .9

m-0 116 16. 6 % -0 495 70. 7

m-0 36 4 .5 % -0 297 37. 1

Total Intergenerational Activity Participation Children's Group Activity: 1-Apr P- 8

tot al: avg: tot al: avg :

Activity: 8-Apr P- 10

tot al: avg : tot al: avg :

Activity: 15-Apr P- 5

total: avg : tot al: avg :

Activity: 22-Apr P- 9

tot al: avg : total: avg :

Elderly Adult Group

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 97 1 2.1 %-I 800 1 00

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

T ota l: 97 12. 1

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-I 0 0 %-I 0 0

m - II 183 1 8. 3 % - II 100 0 100

T ota l: 183 18. 3

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

m-0 0 0 % -0 0 0

*KEY* m= minutes P= participants avg= aver age

m-I 24 4 .8 %-I 158 31. 6

m-I 138 15.3 %-I 900 1 00

m - II 44 8 .8 % - II 342 6 8. 4

m - II 0 0 % - II 0 0

Activity: 1-Apr tot al: P- 10/11 avg: 91% total: avg :

Activity: 8-Apr P- 3/12 25%

total: avg: total: avg:

Activity: 15-Apr

T ota l: 68 13. 6

P- 7/12 58%

tota l: avg: total: avg :

Activity: 22-Apr

T ota l: 138 15. 3

P- 7/11 64%

tota l: avg: total: avg :

Participation 0= present but inactive I= active with dir ect assistan ce II= active independently

81

m-0 88 8 .8 % -0 610 61

m-I 26 2 .6 %-I 1 90 19

m - II 37 3 .7 % - II 200 20

T ota l: 151 1 5.1

m-0 14 4 .7 % -0 151 50.3

m-I 0 0 %-I 0 0

m - II 36 12 % - II 149 49. 7

Tota l: 50 16.7

m-0 51 7 .3 % -0 327 4 6.7

m-I 26 3 .7 %-I 149 2 1. 3

m - II 44 6 .3 % - II 224 32

T otal: 121 17. 3

m-0 81 1 1. 6 % -0 305 4 3.6

m-I 29 4 .1 %-I 1 18 1 6. 9

m - II 89 12. 7 % - II 277 39. 6

T otal: 199 28.4

APPENDIX I

82

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Children Date: Activity:

Participant: 1

*KEY* Attendance A= absent X= present ?= unknown

2

Feb. 11 B oa rd we ek 1

F eb . 1 8 Sand G arden we ek 2

F eb . 2 5 S ee d s 1 week 3

Ma r . 4 Cuttings we ek 4

X 0

X 0

?

X 0

X

X 0

X

?

II- 1m. 9%

3

X 0

Interaction 0= none I= non-verbal

II- 2m. 8% III- 3m. 12% X

X 0

X 0

?

X

III- 3m. 38% 4

X I- 2m. 18%

X 0

II= onedirectional ver bal

II- 2m. 29%

5 III= twodir ectiona l verbal IV= twodir ection al verbal with physical assistance

X

X 0

II- 1m. 13%

II- 2m. 29%

6

X I- 1m. 4%

X 0

7

X 0

X

m.= minutes %- % of total time interacting

X

IV- 1m . 14% X

IV- 1m. 14% X 0

X

X 0

X 0

X

X

II- 5m. 63%

8

X I- 1m. 4%

X

II- 1m. 5%

9

?

X

83

X

X

Ma r . 1 8 Labels we ek 5 *NO DATA*

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Children

Participant: 1

Mar. 25 Te rrariums we ek 6

Apr. 1 Frames week 7

Apr. 8 Concr ete we ek 8

Apr. 15 Arrgmt. we ek 9

Apr. 22 Planting we ek 10

X I- 1m. 10% II- 2m. 20%

X 0

X

X

X I- 5m. 25%

2

X I- 3m. 38%

?

?

?

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

3

X I- 2m. 22% II- 1m. 11%

?

X 0

?

X

4

X X I- 2m. 22% I- 1m. 14% II- 1m. 11%

X

X I- 7m. 39%

5

X 0

II- 1m. 5%

X

X 0

III- 1m. 5%

X I- 2m. 15% II- 4m. 3 1% 1% III- 1m. 8%

6

X

X

X

X

7

X I- 1m. 11%

X I- 1m. 9%

X 0

?

8

9

X

X

IV- 10m. 77% X

X I- 2m. 17%

X 0

X

X 0

84

X I- 2m. 1 0% II- 7m. 39% IV- 1m. 6% X

X II- 3m. 9 % III- 2m. 6% IV- 10m. 30% X 0

X I- 1m. 6% II- 5m. 28% IV- 4m. 22% X

X I- 1m. 50%

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Children

Participant: 10

we ek 1

we ek 2

week 3

we ek 4

X

X 0

?

?

*KEY* Attendance A= absent X= present ?= unknown

II- 1m. 5% III- 2m. 9% 11

X 0

X

X

?

12

?

X

?

X

X

X I- 1m. 17% IIII- 2m. 2m. 33%

Interaction 0= none I= non-verbal II- 1m. 10% II= onedirectional ver bal

13

X 0

X 0

III= twodirectional ver bal

IIII- 1m. 1m. 5%

14

X

X

X 0

IV= twodirec directio tional nal ver bal with p h ysical assistan ce

15

X 0

X

X

m.= minutes %- % of total time in ter actin g

16

X I- 2m. 10%

X 0

X 0

II- 1m. 13% II- 4m. 40% 40% III- 1m. 10%

IV- 1m . 17% X

III- 2m. 13% IV- 2m. 1 3% X

X II- 1m. 10%

85

we ek 5

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Children

we ek 6

week 7

we ek 8

we ek 9

week 10

?

?

?

?

?

11

?

?

X

?

?

12

X

X

X

?

?

13

X

X

X 0

?

X IV- 10m. 71%

X

X I- 1m. 7%

X 0

Participant: 10

II- 1m. 11%

14

X I- 6 m. 46% II- 1m. 8%

X

II- 1m. 6% III- 2m. 17%

15

X

X

X

X

X

16

X I- 2 m. 20%

X I- 2m. 17%

X

X 0

X I- 6m. 24%

II- 1m. 5%

86

APPENDIX J

87

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Elderly Adults Date: Ac tivity:

*KEY*

F eb . 1 1 Boa rd we ek 1

F eb . 1 8 Sand G ar den week 2

Feb. 2 5 See ds 1 week 3

Ma r . 4 Cuttings we ek 4

Participant: 1

X

X 0

X 0

X 0

2

X

A

A

X 0

X 0

X 0

X

Attendance A= absent X= present

II- 1m. 4%

3 Interaction 0= none I= non-verbal

X II- 1m. 4%

II- 1m. 8%

4

X

X 0

X 0

X 0

5

X 0

X 0

A

X

II= onedirectional verbal III= twodirectional verbal IV= twodir ectional verbal with physical assistance

6

X I- 2m. 7% II- 1m. 4%

X 0

X 0

III- 2m. 13% IV- 2m. 13% X 0

7

A

A

A

A

8

A

A

A

A

9

X 0

X

A

A

m.= minutes %- % of total time interacting

88

Ma r . 1 8 Labels we ek 5 *NO DATA*

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Elderly Adults Ma r . 2 5 Ter rari ums we ek 6

Apr. 1 Frames week 7

Apr. 8 Concre te we ek 8

Apr. 1 5 Arrgmt. week 9

Apr. 22 Planting week 10

X 0

X 0

X 0

X 0

X 0

2

X

X 0

X

X

X

3

X 0

X I- 2m. 15%

X

X 0

X 0

4

X I- 4m. 27% II- 1m. 7%

X I- 2m. 15%

X

X

X I- 2m. 7%

5

X 0

A

A

A

A

6

X

X

X

X 0

A

7

A

A

A

A

A

8

A

A

A

A

A

9

X

A

X

X

X

Participant: 1

89

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Elderly Adults

Participant: 10

week 1

we ek 2

we ek 3

week 4

X I- 4m. 14%

X

X 0

A

X

X

X

II- 1m. 3% 3% III- 2m. 6 %

II- 5m. 33 33% III- 2m. 1 3% 3%

II- 7m. 32 32% III- 15m. 68%

X I- 1m. 9% II- 2m. 18 18%

*KEY* Attendance A= absent X= present

11

12

A

A

A

IV- 2m. 18% A

13

A

A

A

A

III= twodir ection al verbal

14

A

A

A

A

IV= twodirectional ver bal with p h ysical assistan ce

15

X

X 0

X

X 0

Interaction 0= none I= non-verbal II= onedirectional verbal

m.= minutes %- % of tot al time interacting

II- 1 m. 5%

16

X

X

X 0

X

17

A

A

A

A

90

week 5

Intergenerational Interaction Chart - Elderly Adults

Participant: 10

11

12

week 6

we ek 7

we ek 8

we ek 9

we ek 10

X I- 5m. 42%

A

A

X 0

X 0

X I- 2m. 17% II- 2m. 17 17 %

X

X

X

II- 1m. 6% 6% III- 2m. 12%

II- 3m. 14 14%

X I- 2m. 11% II- 7m. 37 37%

X I- 1m. 8%

X 0

X I- 2m. 13%

III- 1m. 8%

II- 3m. 9% 9% III- 2m. 6% IVIV- 1m. 1m. 5% IVIV- 21m. 21m. 64% X X I- 2m. 9% I- 1m. 3% IIII- 4m. 4m. 17% IIII- 5m. 5m. 17% III- 1m. 4% IV- 6m. 20% X A I- 1m. 8%

13

X I- 3m. 20%

X 0

X

14

A

A

A

A

A

15

X

X 0

X

X

X

16

X 0

X 0

X

A

X I- 4m. 6%

17

A

X I- 1m. 5%

X

X I- 7m. 37%

X I- 6m. 19% III- 2m. 6%

91

APPENDIX K

92

Total Individual and Activity Intergenerational Interaction

Children's Group Participant: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total: (in minutes)

I 6 3 2 12 2 1 3 5 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 12 55

II 2 3 0 4 10 0 10 8 0 1 0 1 4 7 0 2 52

III 2 3 3 0 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 29

IV 1 0 10 1 10 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 11 2 0 0 40

Elderly Adult Group Total: 11 9 15 17 36 1 17 14 1 3 0 1 16 21 0 14 1 76

Par tic ipant: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total: (in minutes)

Children's Group Ac tivity: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total: (in min utes)

I 6 0 0 1

II 4 10 6 5

III 2 4 13 2

17 6 0 12 13 55

4 1 3 11 8 52

0 3 0 1 4 29

IV 0 0 0 4

II 0 1 2 1 0 1 A A 0 0 31 9 0 A 1 0 0 46

III 0 0 0 0 2 0 A A 0 0 23 2 0 A 0 0 2 29

IV 0 0 0 0 2 0 A A 0 0 24 6 0 A 0 0 0 32

Total: 0 1 4 9 4 3 A A 0 9 83 23 4 A 1 4 16 161

Elderly Adult Group Total: 12 /235 .2 14 /108 19 /137 12 /71 ND 21 /69 10 /96. 8 3 /183 25 /68 60 /138 176 /1106

Ac tivity:

1 2 3 4 5 6 0 30% 7 0 10% 8 0 2% 9 1 37% 10 35 43% Total: 40 1 6% (in min utes) tot al intera ct ion/ total ti me

*KEY* A= absent

I 0 0 2 8 0 2 A A 0 9 5 6 4 A 0 4 14 54

5% 13% 14% 17%

Partic ipation: I= non-verbal II= oned ir ec ectional ver ba bal

93

I 6 0 0 1

II 4 5 8 3

III 2 2 15 2

IV 0 0 0 4

16 6 0 12 13 54

3 1 3 11 8 46

0 3 0 1 4 29

0 0 0 1 27 32

Total: 12 /172. 2 7 /1 13 23 /13 7 10 /86 ND 19 /10 5 10 /15 1 3 /50 25 /121 52 /19 9 1 61 /1134

7% 6% 1 7% 1 2% 1 8% 7% 6% 21% 2 6% 14%

tota l i nteractio n/   tot al time

III= two-directional verbal IV= two-directional verbal with ph ys ysi cal assistan ce ce

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close