Learning Gardens:

Sustainability Laboratories Growing High Performance Brains

The state of citizens critical thinking for sustainability is being tested by rapidly rising challenges

of climate, food, energy, education, waste and governance. Population and globalization drive

closer coupling of these Sociological, Ecological and Technological Systems (SETS), which

continues to increase emergent complexity and uncertainty, destabilization, and potential for

catastrophic failure, added to which are system imbalances of human dominance achieved by

using technology and culture to transcend genetic and biological constraints to cognition and

evolution. Despite the rich potential within learning gardens for human development,

sustainability knowledge, and academic mastery, all through direct experience constitutive for

developing brain architecture and metacognition processing for critical thinking, garden-based

education has failed to evolve its curriculum and real-time assessment in order to strengthen

these outcomes and become a viable component of mainstream learning infrastructure1.

This paper discusses a not-for-profit in Rochester, NY, Rochester Roots (ROOTS), situated

within three public schools in poor urban neighborhoods, that is transforming garden-based

pedagogy into sustainability education delivered within school- and community-based living

Sustainability Laboratories using entrepreneurial, internship and STEM specific Project-Based

Learning (PBL) activities focused for brain development. Building upon the naturally engaging

complexity of living systems and Self-Determination Theory (SDT) for intrinsic

motivation2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 students learn sustainability as domain-specific knowledge12, with

inherent crosscutting principles, concepts, vocabulary, and whole-systems disposition. For

example; patterns, paradigm, feedback loops, consequences, values, uncertainty, evolving etc.

are applicable, consistent and can elicit systemic insights and inform decision-making in any

academic discipline. Bringing these discrete disciplines into an experientially framed inquiry

process can then be mutually reinforcing and increase rigor for both and across all domains.

These become embodied as students solve wicked problem sustainability challenges

(CHALLENGE) of living systems using strategies for knowledge-creation, resiliency-building and

adaptive-innovation that also result in metaphors for their own and their communitys managed-

resiliency and adaptive-management13.

Student inquiries are initiated using a five step Sustainability Framework (FRAMEWORK) that

guides self- and group-directed reflective learning through Transformative Action Research

(TAR) 14,15 investigating complex systems, uncertainty and decision-making. They are

scaffolded by direct instruction, their increasing symbiotic academic mastery of Common Core

State Standards (CCSS), and a collaborative learning16 team (TEAM) comprised of ROOTS

teachers, classroom teachers, students, and invited university students and faculty and industry

professionals. The Sustainability Curriculum (CURRICULUM) is co-created and co-evolved in

ROOTS teacher practicums by TEAMs and is adapted real-time within the sustainability

laboratories by the TEAM, including refinement of a days learning objectives by the academic

classroom teacher using a ROOTS ADAPTCard, wherein they specify any current or

challenging academic principles, concepts, and/or vocabulary being studied that experiencing

would be most helpful to student cognition / retention. As Polyani said, knowing the physics

proving that balancing a bike while riding is possible is not the same as knowing how to ride a

bike17.

The living-systems format of ROOTS sustainability laboratories offers an almost limitless

capacity to support academic classroom teachers. Studies indicate a systemic structure of

positive impacts of gardens on many different levels for students, ranging from self-concept to

motivation and life skills to environmental attitudes, with multiple pathways by which garden

programs may potentially strengthen the healthy development of students.18 Gardens are

environments in miniature and in sympathy with nature that ground children in the experiences

of growth and decay, predator-prey relations, pollination, carbon cycles, soil morphology, and

microbial life: the simple and the complex simultaneously and are intensely local.19 Their

meaning is a complex ecology of idea, place and action,20 ideal as living laboratories for hands-

on constructivist learning, in which students can see what they are learning and in turn, apply

that knowledge21 to real world situations22 and as a foundation for an instructional strategy for

integrated learning, in and across disciplines, through active, engaging, real-world

experiences.23 Recognition of this pedagogical flexibility was confirmed by the observation of a

Montessori teacher [Lisa] during a ROOTS practicum, we can teach anything in common core

using this context and another participant, from a traditional school, [Holly] comment, this is a

better context for teaching students the most difficult area, abstract concepts, such as: contrast /

compare, temporal concepts, etc.]

The ROOTS program systemic impact on student life-long outcomes is greatest when combined

with its afterschool program where students in grades three thru six create a product, service or

business to improve sustainability. Students are excited by conceiving and building their own

business and start this process with the FRAMEWORKs Model-Based Inquiry (MBI)

approach24, a paradigm that can engage learners more deeply with content and embodies five

epistemic characteristics of scientific knowledge: that ideas represented in the form of models

are testable, revisable, explanatory, conjectural, and generative.25 Causality is a basic theme in

students analysis and when they develop their influence models, generally as cross-grade level

student teams, they focus on depicting the existing SETS context that their business must be

sustainable within, the key components of their businesss operation and success, and how it

will improve wellbeing. This is then temporally extended as a pathway toward well-becoming

shown in their system dynamics model of impacts in the future, say years 1, 5, 10, and 15,

which we observe then causes them to reflect back on potential missing components of their

starting hypothesis, assumptions or requirements.

One scaffolding method used to familiarize students with dynamics modeling is NetLogos

interactive predator-prey model26 that shows a simulation of wolf, sheep and grass with

accompanying graphs for analyzing the dynamics of the systemic interactions; needless-to-say,

the students actively engage as game players and quickly grasp the essential components and

analytics, which they are then asked to replicate for their own systems using a Vensim systems

dynamics model27 supported by a senior engineering student, [Navid] in Arizona State

Universitys School of Engineering for the Built Environment.

Because modeling is simple to grasp and students base the initial causal relationships on their

life experience it becomes a simple mechanism to help transcend socioeconomic barriers to

learning opportunities, with the advantage of being a bottom-up window for understanding

whats needed to improve the wellbeing for them, their families and neighborhoods, i.e., urban

environments. After mentioning to a NYS Department of Education administrator, Chike, that

while in a 65% poverty school, ROOTS has yet to observe a student that cannot be a deep

thinker when asked to express their knowledge and experience through an influence model

relating their life experience to their business model, he suggested that this is huge because it

transcends the traditional socioeconomic barriers that we are constantly trying to overcome in

education

This approach to sustainability curriculum supports students navigation of multiple

epistemologies28, which fundamentally alters the typical pedagogical approach that assumes

science and science learning are acultural. From this perspective, Paynes model for teaching

children in poverty29,30 is helpful, not for its presumption of the need for a deficit-model approach

for teaching children in poverty, but rather as a checklist of metacognitive process metrics that

all life-long learners, regardless of background and developmental stage, can continuously

address to improve cognition to remain resilient and adaptable to the rising sustainability

challenges; hence, ROOTS has mapped these within its FRAMEWORK processes.

Student models also depict the metacognitive processes of critical thinking that they are using,

and by which teachers are mutually aided in developing a Theory of the Mind of the student.

These models become a basis for TEAM support of deeper personalized instruction thru direct

and indirect methods and preferably Socratic process, where through reflection students reach

new understandings about themselves and the world around them. Constructive critique of

student entrepreneurial projects can be offered by introducing an additional causal node,

including feedback influence, in the students model. ROOTS experience is that the students

response is to then quickly add their own insights connecting to the new node; a process of

indwelling were students and TEAMs learn together, thus turning the classroom into a

community of inquiry, with reflective thought as the guiding principle 31.

Visualization of the students metacognitive processes can also aid quality of teacher/learner

interaction by assisting teachers in developing a more comprehensive and accurate theory of a

learners brain through expertise in achieving five awareness states identified by Rodriguez (of

self, learner, interaction, teaching practice, and context), who redefines teaching as an

evolutionary cognitive skill that develops in all people over time32,33,34. ROOTS considers this

teacher capability to be critical in achieving its goal of empowering students through

sustainability education with the capability for knowledge-creation. This goes beyond the

Piagetian view that learners construct their own knowledge, which is true of all learning but as

the kind of productive work knowledge creating companies do to merit that label and turns

classrooms into becoming knowledge-creating organizations in their own right...with the

central goal of advancing the creation of community knowledge 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. This is

described by Bereiter and Scardamalia as problem solving with a difference that meets certain

criteria: it has to have value to people other than yourself, its value must endure for some time

beyond the moment, it must have application beyond the current situation that gave rise to it,

and it must display some modicum of creativity42.

ROOTS has emerging evidence that its students can rise to this level. For example, Trinity, a

sixth grade Montessori Student is developing The Perfect Stew game where players use cards

with potential components (carrots, peas, etc.) to make soups. Her stated objective is to raise

the cognitive level of her fellow students through game play and when asked about system

boundary conditions she responded, sell it to seven countries, especially China, and when

asked why, she said it is only fair, because they share their new products with us that we

should share ours with them. As part of ROOTS preparation for replicating the content and

delivery of its program to consistently achieve these type of outcomes it is developing tools,

such as; a student mobile plant monitoring and growth simulation game apps business for class

and community plant specific growing technologies knowledge, the CURRICULUM Card to

scaffold teacher practicums, and the EXPERIENCE Card that ROOTS provides TEAMS to

scaffold and discipline the ROOTS learning processes connecting sustainability education,

teacher practice, metacognition, critical thinking, scientific method, and action research within

the FRAMEWORK (See Exhibit 1).

EXPERIENCE Card

1 Metacognition refers to the ability to reflect upon, understand, and control ones learning2 Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary educational psychology, 19(4), 460-4753 Critical Thinking: The ability to Identify, Analyze, Construct, and Evaluate Evidence and Arguments in a Deliberate and Rigorous Way

Analogous toScientific Method

ExperimentDesign

TEAM Learning Processes for Metacognitive Development

TransformativeAction Research

Analogous toScientific Method

ExperimentInterpretation

Inference Recognition of Assumptions Deduction Interpretation Evaluation of Arguments

Metacognition Processes1,2

CRITICAL THINKING3

Cognitive Outcomes

DeclarativeKnowledge

Procedural Knowledge

ConditionalKnowledge

Planning MonitoringDebugging

StrategyEvaluationof Learning

InformationManagement

SI Sustainability FRAMEWORK

STEP 1RevealSystem

Influencesto develop

Influence &Dynamics Models

STEP 2Discern

Patterns &Paradigms

to applyAwareness &

Expertise

STEP 3Choose

DecisionPerspective (s)to determinePhilosophy &Boundaries

STEP 4Develop &

CharacterizeScenarios

to recognizeValues &

Uncertainty

STEP 5Weigh

Consequences& Tradeoffs

to makeBetterDecisions

MakeObservation

AskQuestion

IdentifyVariables

CreateHypothesis

Design Experiment

Exhibit 1

The power of ROOTS methodologys outcomes was demonstrated when The Engineers for a

Sustainable World asked [Subash], a ROOTS third grade Montessori student immersed within

this experience, to present their April 2015 National Conference Challenge. In front of

approximately 225 undergraduate thru PhD engineering students in attendance he asked the

competing teams to support him by developing proposals to improve the wellbeing and well-

becoming outcomes of the nine student entrepreneurial businesses being developed by him and

his peers at Montessori and to please use influence and system dynamics models for context

and formal mathematical function statements for clarity. The chairman, Alex, himself a PhD,

noted that many of the attending engineers system sustainability thinking was not at this level,

but go ahead because that is where the society hoped to lead them (See video on YouTube).

This is consistent with the comments of Clark, an RIT Engineering faculty member to some of

the twenty RIT senior engineers that work with ROOTS entrepreneurs, who, after watching the

3rd 6th grade students present their entrepreneur project posters to parents, which format they

used to try simulating PhD conference posters (artistically refined by the ROOTS teacher),

asked Don, a ROOTS invited expert on sustainability, can you come speak to our senior

design engineering class, because these kids are thinking at a higher level than many of our

engineers [ref ROOTs video link of posters].

ROOTS curriculum develops students metacognitive awareness for critical thinking for

sustainability within SETS, which is enhanced with STEM processes skills and aesthetics skills

for imagining hypothesis / scenarios, recognizing elegant solutions, and critical thinking

transferability across domains43. With accompanying development of academic achievement,

social relationship building, and decision-making for wellbeing, (ROOTS program outcomes

identified through RCSD funded modeling of approximately 200 students, teachers and parents)

this simultaneously develops high performance brains, defined as enabling students to be

resilient within a sustainability milieu. These metacognitive skills44,45,46 are foundational to

college and adaptable career readiness, where adaptive capacity for multiple careers supported

by lifelong learning across discontinuous formal, informal and non-formal learning

infrastructure47,48 and opportunities is required, and are transferable through students,

entrepreneurism and outreach to families and then cities, to build resilience capacity for the

unprecedented sustainability threats emerging with the Anthropocene.

ROOTS program focus is primarily on communities and schools within urban environments

where opportunities for systemic societal impact are greatest and community colleges and

technological and medical universities partnerships are available for ROOTS unique approach

to developing real-world STEM infused critical thinking. Studies also show that per capita

innovation rates increase with population density49 and that cities are concentrations of self-

experimenting societies with an opportunity to impact their processes for evolving cultural

cognition for sustainability through AR.

Traditional education, including scientific method, teach processes for perceiving, analyzing and

communicating about phenomenon and with each grade the nuances become more prescribed

and disciplined and reinforced by systemic testing rewards. While this relatively linear approach

to learning and its sophisticated capability for symbol enabled conceptual thinking has resulted

in what many consider to be major advances in quality of life for mankind, when relied upon too

heavily it prejudices against learner and citizens agency and knowledge-creation and hence the

evolution of cultural cognition away from being grounded in diverse direct experience and whole

systems perspective.

Neuroscience informs us that an evolutionary adaptive trait of the brain is that its neural

architecture remains plastic throughout our lifetime, albeit declining with age, and that this is

significantly shaped by both genetics and epigenetics in response to the environment, i.e.,

neurons that fire together, wire together; thus, both sides of the nature versus nurture

argument can claim support. We are also learning that concepts and experiences are located

separately within the brain and that the anterior location of a concept is loosely connected to

clusters of neurons associated with direct experiences; hence, concepts, while not being directly

embodied, are neurologically grounded by embodied experiences that are context specific50

[mahon]. This direct experience component is consistent with the epic stage in The Evolution of

Cultural Cognition Theory that suggests out-of-context these are not easily accessed [Donald].

For example, if I had a bad experience with a lion I do not remember it until triggered by seeing

another lion; however, if I have bad experiences with several different animal species a concept

grounded in these experiences might arise that animals can be dangerous and I can apply this

concept by being cautious with any new encounter independent of specific previous experience.

This is consistent with recent neural research that indicates that it is concepts, and not

experiences, that are responsible for consistent behavior across contexts.

We posit that an Achilles heel of traditional educational programs is that while recognizing the

power of teaching abstract concepts it focuses structurally on teaching concepts that are

domain specific in nature and grounded in too narrow a set of direct experiences to develop

cross disciplinary effectiveness. This results in a neurological incongruence that confounds the

attempts of traditional education systems to teach the application of siloed disciplines across

context and domains. However, the ROOTS program offers educators an opportunity to

transcend this apparent dichotomy by balancing with an experiential component, while

predominantly maintaining their traditional approach.

It is too early to determine the long-term impact of the ROOTS program. However, anecdotally,

two students who were on a pathway of potentially not even graduating from high school have

been successful. One completed a master degree at Cornell University and is presently serving

in the Peace Corps in Tanzania working HIV patients to improve nutrition thru urban agriculture;

the other operates a catering and plants business. Based on the observations and comments of

ROOTS teachers and invited experts, college professors and their students, Montessori

principal and teachers, and parents associated with the ROOTS program it has the potential for

having a profound impact on PreK-PhD educational pedagogy and trajectory of students and

their expectation of their teachers to be system thinkers assisting them with entrepreneurial

business development and systemic change toward wellbeing and well-becoming thinking.

However, a major unknown is the future of the program in a public school system that is in a

constant state of flux and with physical infrastructure shifts that truncate long-term investments

in learning gardens and other sustainability laboratory investments at a moments notice. To

improve its learning outcomes it has relocated its headquarters into an entrepreneurial startup

and lite manufacturing facility where students can interact with adult entrepreneurs driving real

businesses. It also has commitments that when funding permits educators from Harvard School

of Education, MITs cognitive neuroscience lab, and Arizona State Universitys Sustainability

Engineering School will help develop assessments for ROOTS teacher practicum development

of teacher capabilities, student cognitive development outcomes, and sustainability education

outcomes.

1 Williams, D. R., & Dixon, P. S. (2013). Impact of Garden-Based Learning on Academic Outcomes in Schools Synthesis of Research Between 1990 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 0034654313475824. 2 Darner, R. (2009). Self-determination theory as a guide to fostering environmental motivation. The journal of environmental education, 40(2), 39-49. 3 Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. 1999. A Meta-Anaytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125, No. 6, 627-668. 4 Deci EL. 2009. Large-scale school reform as viewed from the self-determination theory perspective. Theory and Research in Education Vol.7(2) 244-253. 5 Duckworth AL, Carlson, 2013. Self-Regulation and School Success. Chapter 10 in Self-Regulation and Autonomy: Social and Developmental Dimensions of Human Conduct. Sokol BW, Grouzet FME, Ulrich M. 2013. Cambridge University Press, 6 Kinner EA, Chi U, and Learning Gardens Assessment Group. 2012. Intrinsic Motivation and Engagement as Active Ingredients in garden-based education: Examining models and measures derived from self-determination theory. Journal of Environmental Education. Vol. 43, Issue 1. 7 Ryan RM, Deci EL, 2001. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54-67. 8 Schosler H, de Boer J, Boersema JJ. 2014. Fostering more sustainable food choices: Can Self-Determination Theory help? Food Quality and Preference. 35: 59-69. 9 Stone DN, Deci EL, Ryan RM. 2008. Beyond Talk: Creating Autonomous Motivation through Self-Determination Theory. 10 Vallersand RJ, Fortier MS, Guay F. 1997. Self-Determination and Persistence in a Real-Life Setting: Toward a Motivational Model of High School Dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 72, No. 5, 1161-1176. 11 Wehmeyer ML. 1999. A functional Model of Self-Determination: Describing Development and Implementing Instruction. Focus On Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. Volume 14, Number 1, Spring, 53-62. 12 Tricot A, Sweller J. (2014) Domain-Specific Knowledge and Why Teaching Generic Skills Does Not Work, Educ Psychol Rev 26:265-283 13 Sweet, D. S., Seager, T. P., Tylock, S., Bullock, J., Linkov, I., Colombo, D. J., & Unrath, U. (2014). Sustainability Awareness and Expertise: Structuring the Cognitive Processes for Solving Wicked Problems and Achieving an Adaptive-State (pp. 79-129). Springer Netherlands. 14 Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2013). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Sage. 15 Wicks PG, Reason P. (2009). Initiating action research: Challenges and paradoxes of opening communicative space, Action Research, Volume 7(3): 243262. 16 collaborative learning ref 17 Polanyi M. (1958) Personal Knowing: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Routledge London p51-52 18 Ozer, E. J. (2007). The effects of school gardens on students and schools: Conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy development. Health Education & Behavior, 34(6), 846-863, p 859. 19 Blair, D. (2009). The child in the garden: An evaluative review of the benefits of school gardening. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 15-38. P17. 20 Francis, M. (1995). Childhood's garden: Memory and meaning of gardens. Children's Environments, 183-191. 21 Waliczek, T. M., Logan, P., & Zajicek, J. M. (2003). Exploring the impact of outdoor environmental activities on children using a qualitative text data analysis system. HortTechnology, 13(4), 684-688. 22 Klemmer, C. D., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2005). Growing minds: The effect of a school gardening program on the science achievement of elementary students. HortTechnology, 15(3), 448-452. P 452 23 Williams, D. R., & Dixon, P. S. (2013). Impact of Garden-Based Learning on Academic Outcomes in Schools Synthesis of Research Between 1990 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 0034654313475824.

24 Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Modelbased inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967. C - 231 25 Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Modelbased inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967. C - 231 26 Link to Netlogo 27 Insert Vensim link 28 Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008-1026. 29 Payne, R. K. (2005). A framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, TX: aha! Process. C-1410 30 Gorski, P. (2006). The classist underpinnings of Ruby Payne's framework. The Teachers College Record. C-61 31 Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create knowledge?. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de lapprentissage et de la technologie, 36(1). P 11, C-24 32 Rodriguez v., Fitzpatrick M. (2014). The Teaching Brain: An Evolutionary Trait at the Heart of Education. The New Press, New York. 33 Rodriguez, V. (2013). The human nervous system: A framework for teaching and the teaching brain. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(1), 2-12. C 10 34 Rodriguez, V. (2013). The potential of systems thinking in teacher reform as theorized for the teaching brain framework. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(2), 77-85. C 2 35 Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court. C - 1786 36 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the learning sciences, 1(1), 37-68. C-890 37 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. na. c - 1466 38 Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627. C-65 39 Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies.International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5-20. C- 148 40 Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press. C - 30006 41 Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge management research & practice, 1(1), 2-10. C- 825 42 Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create knowledge?. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de lapprentissage et de la technologie, 36(1). C-24 43 Aesthetics ref. 44 Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and learning, 1(1), 3-14. C-505 45 Van der Stel, M., Veenman, M. V., Deelen, K., & Haenen, J. (2010). The increasing role of metacognitive skills in math: a cross-sectional study from a developmental perspective. ZDM, 42(2), 219-229. C-11 46 Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 87-95. C-81 47 Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology,16(2), 171-190. 48 Hung, D., Lee, S. S., & Lim, K. Y. (2012). Authenticity in learning for the twenty-first century: bridging the formal and the informal. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1071-1091. 49 Insert population density reference 50 Mahon ref