Linking Farm and School: a Theoretical Review

Recibido: 2022-02-01 | Revisado: 2022-09-08 | Aceptado: 2023-04-18 | Publicado: 2023-07-17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.01 | Páginas: 1-17 https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/IE/index ! Revista de Investigación e Innovación Educativa nº 106, 2023| e-ISSN 2443-9991 ! Linking Farm and School: a Theoretical Review Conectar la granja y la escuela: una revisión teórica Dra. Claudia Fredella is fixed-term researcher at the Department of Human Sciences for Education “R. Massa” at the University of Milan Bicocca (Italy) · claudia.fr[email protected]· https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5384-9030 Dra. Ambra Cardani is adjunct lecturer at the Department of Human Sciences for Education “R. Massa” at the University of Milan Bicocca (Italy) · [email protected] Dra. Luisa Zecca is full profesor at the Department of Human Sciences for Education “R. Massa” at the University of Milan Bicocca (Italy) · [email protected] · https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6216-9766 Cómo citar este artículo Fredella, C., Cardani, A., & Zecca, L. (2023). Linking Farm and School: a Theoretical Review. Investigación en la Escuela, 106, 1-17. doi: https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.01 Resumen. Esta revisión teórica surge de la necesidad de investigar el supuesto de que las granjas son entornos de aprendizaje cuyo valor se ve reforzado cuando las actividades de enseñanza-aprendizaje son diseñadas conjuntamente por los profesores y los agricultores. El propósito de la revisión es apoyar teóricamente la justificación del proyecto DEMETER, cuyo objetivo es desarrollar una metodología de enseñanza interdisciplinaria e identificar estrategias y herramientas para evaluar los resultados del aprendizaje en las granjas (en términos de competencias disciplinarias y transversales). Revisamos las investigaciones existentes que probaron instrumentos y recogieron evidencias en relación con los focos del proyecto: asociaciones granja-escuela, resultados del aprendizaje al aire libre y estrategias de enseñanza para contextos de aprendizaje al aire libre. Los estudios revisados se seleccionaron en función de la fiabilidad de sus contenidos y del rigor con el que los autores formularon las preguntas de investigación y analizaron los datos empíricos. En general, a pesar de la popularidad de muchas formas de aprendizaje al aire libre, los estudiosos convergen en la necesidad de un mayor exámen de la eficacia y la fiabilidad de las metodologías de enseñanza implementadas. Abstract. This literature review stems from the need to investigate the assumption that farms are learning environments whose value is further enhanced when teaching-learning activities are co-designed by teachers and farmers. The literature was intended to theoretically support the rationale for the DEMETER project, which aims to develop an interdisciplinary teaching methodology and identify strategies and tools to assess farm-based learning outcomes (in terms of both disciplinary and cross-curricular competencies). We reviewed existing research that tested tools and gathered evidence regarding the project's focuses: farm-school partnerships, outdoor learning outcomes, and teaching strategies for outdoor learning contexts. The reviewed studies were selected based on the reliability of their contents and the rigor with which the authors formulated the research questions and analysed the empirical data. Overall, despite the popularity of many forms of outdoor learning, scholars converge on the need for greater scrutiny of the effectiveness and reliability of the teaching methodologies deployed. Palabras clave · Keywords Aprendizaje al aire libre, escuela primaria, formación del profesorado, granja, metodologías de enseñanza, resultados del aprendizaje. Farm, learning outcomes, outdoor learning, primary school, teacher education, teaching methodologies. ! ! !!Investigación,en,la,Escuela,!nº!106,!2023 | 2 https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.017·"e-ISSN"2443-9991"·"Páginas"1-17, 1. Background: the pedagogical role of the farm Understanding the educative possibilities afforded by the farm as a learning environment is rooted in the field of outdoor education and opens up various connections with education for sustainable development, for nutrition, good health, and wellbeing. As noted in the goals outlined in the Global Sustainable Development Report 2019 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2019), education for sustainable development (henceforth ESD) and outdoor education can be enhanced by strengthening the co-operation among schools, local area partners, and civil society in order to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” as stated in Sustainable Development Goal number 4 (ibidem). Such school-farm co-operation can be based on several guiding principles like locality, continuity and active participation (Risku-Norja and Korpela, 2010). As educational agencies embedded in natural and anthropized settings (Torquati and Ernst, 2013), schools play an active part in their broader environment; hence, when a working alliance is formed among the actors in a local area, especially via ad hoc networks such as Environment and School Initiatives and the Global Environmental Education Partnership, teachers’ professional development can be enhanced, fostering innovative teaching practices in the field of ESD (Smith, 2018, p. 282). Numerous studies show that outdoor education settings and the opportunity to interact with the environment can facilitate more complex learning in children: such approaches create a continuum with the external environment, of which young learners may have little prior experience, especially in heavily urbanised contexts (Scott et al., 2012; Fägerstam and Blom, 2013; Selmer et al., 2014). Many examples of such studies are presented in the volume Research in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability: International Perspectives and Provocations which, according to the editors, focused on research that engaged with “children working authentically to explore sustainability topics/issues of interest to them, while working alongside teachers, families and communities” (Davis and Elliott, 2014, p. 173). The authenticity of these situations can be seen via children’s involvement “in solving problems, seeking solutions and taking actions that ‘make a difference,’ mostly within their local context, but occasionally on a bigger stage” (p. 173). Educational experiences in outdoor settings and engagement with outdoor environments have been shown to have a positive impact on psychological and physical wellbeing where the focus is on the person (Grey et al. 2015; Roberts et al., 2019), and to yield enhanced learning outcomes in students in both highly structured and loosely structured settings (Dhanapal et al., 2013; O’Brien and Murray, 2007). However, as observed by Skamp and Bergmann (2001), teachers may, in these circumstances, forgo learning experiences that include or are based on the natural environment, suggesting that the opportunity to design educational offerings with other local actors is missed. To address this issue, several European programs, such as Erasmus+ (the EU's programme to support education, training, youth, and sport), Horizon 2020 (EU Research and Innovation programme), LIFE (the EU’s funding instrument for the environment and climate action) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), support research in the field of environmental education, to help identify successful educational strategies and build guidelines for teacher training. In this paper we specifically focus on the DEMETER - DEveloping interdisciplinary Methodologies in Education Through Enhanced Relationships between schools and farms - Erasmus Plus Project. The DEMETER project (Sept. 2018- Aug. 2021) was co-funded by the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union (Strategic Partnerships Key Action2), under Grant number 2018-1-SE01-KA201-039146. The lead partner is the Municipality of Vänersborg (SE). Other partners are The Soil Association (UK), Hushållningssällskapet Väst (SE), Washingborough Academy (UK) Colégio do Sardão (PT), Municipality of Bertinoro (IT), IC Da Vinci School (IT), University of Milano Bicocca (IT), Emilia Romagna Network (IT). The project aims to develop an interdisciplinary teaching methodology for implementation with primary school students based on a close collaboration between farms and schools and driven by the assumption that the value of farms as learning contexts is underpinned by involving farmers in co-designing the educational activities with teachers. The DEMETER project consists of two main parts. The first part is the current literature review, conducted between September 2018 and March 2019 by Milano Bicocca University research unit, in collaboration with two teacher-researchers: Doris Valente and Chiara Gianotti. The literature review investigates how previous research has addressed the relationship between primary schools and farms from different perspectives, i.e., educational partnerships, teaching strategies adopted and learning outcomes promoted. The second part of the project engages teachers and farmers in a collaborative research (Desgagné, 1997), starting from the documentation and analysis of particular teaching practices (Vinatier and Altet, 2008) to “make visible” the learning outcomes they promoted (Giudici et al., 2001) and identify which elements of school-farm partnership were central to support effective co-design of the teaching strategies adopted in the different countries. !!Investigación,en,la,Escuela,!nº!106,!2023 | 3 https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.017·"e-ISSN"2443-9991"·"Páginas"1-17, The teaching-learning methodologies targeted for implementation in DEMETER project are pedagogically grounded in the Reggio Emilia approach (Ceppi and Zini, 2011; Gandini, 1998), which assumes the environment as a “third educator” with the power to convey and catalyse the educational messages underlying school planning, expecting learning to be enhanced by student observation and inquiry. 2. Structuring the Literature Review The purpose of the literature review was to provide a theoretical basis to the rationale for the DEMETER project by identifying effective teaching and learning methodologies for developing key competencies in primary school children through farm-based education as a specific approach to outdoor education. In a systematic approach to the literature (Qais, 2018), we follow a three-phase process for the identification, selection (elimination or inclusion), and analysis of studies (Williams and Dixon, 2013, p. 214). Phase 1: Previous literature reviews We drew first on previous literature reviews within the broader fields of food, health, sustainability, and environmental education that guided us in constructing a sharper definition of the topic and organising our own review around main categories more strictly related to the farm as a learning environment. These previous reviews revealed a great versatility of outdoor and environmental education and the need for diverse approaches in research design (Ardoin et al., 2018). They also highlighted the need for emphasising research validity and reliability (Williams and Dixon, 2013) in order to improve practices and evaluation methods, thereby better assisting programs to meet their goals (Joshi et al., 2008). Several researchers focused on the learning outcomes promoted in the various approaches to outdoor education, highlighting two types: academic outcomes and outcomes related to transversal and transferable skills, which are skills “not specifically related to a particular job, task, academic discipline or area of knowledge that can be used in a wide variety of situations and work settings” (UNESCO International Bureau of Education, 2013, p. 58). Most of this research showed a positive impact on both academic and transversal and transferable skill outcomes (Williams and Dixon, 2013). This focus on learning outcomes also revealed a need for improved means for measuring and understanding the effects, i.e., how direct interaction with nature may impact wellbeing (Roberts et al., 2019), outcomes related to diet and food consumption (Berezowitz et al., 2015; Robinson-O’Brien et al., 2009; Savoie-Roskos et al., 2017), or physical activity (Gray et al., 2015). Another important research consideration has revolved around teaching strategies and teacher education. These topics were barely addressed in the studies related to environmental and outdoor education (Jeronen et al., 2017), also due to the lack of teachers’ confidence with outdoor and natural settings, an issue that may be reduced by promoting teacher training in this field (Blair, 2009; Dillon et al., 2003). Phase 2: Database-driven approach In the second phase, we follow a database-driven approach by entering combinations of keywords (Table 1) into three online search engines and databases - Google Scholar, SpringerLink and Elsevier – to “alleviate the effects of differing coverage between individual databases” (Hiebl, 2021, p. 6). The choice of keywords relied on three main themes – school-farm partnership, learning outcomes, teaching strategies teacher education - identified through previous literature review and the analysis of relevant weaknesses (Williams and Dixon, 2013). The selection of keywords across the literature was based on the need to identify positive connections between children’s learning strategies and unstructured learning environments, i.e., farms. Moreover, the identification process considered the positive statistical links between the keywords and their effective correspondence to the contents of titles and abstracts. These two linkages were considered for selection purposes (Lu et al., 2020; Tripathi et al. 2018). In line with Jesson and Lacey (2006) and Qais (2018), the first keywords selection process was deliberately generic to collect most existing studies across several fields. Subsequently, the references obtained through the search engines used were further shortlisted. !!Investigación,en,la,Escuela,!nº!106,!2023 | 4 https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.017·"e-ISSN"2443-9991"·"Páginas"1-17, Table 1 Outcomes of scoping Keywords combinations Google Scholar Springer Link* Elsevier “Farm + School” 8300 481 270 “Farm + Learning Outcomes” 4 204 520 “Farm + Teaching” 346 237 18 “Farm + school + children” 96 390 3 Discipline: Education; subdiscipline: Learning and Instruction As previously noted by Dillon et al. (2003), the topic of farm-school continuity as a learning tool for children is related to several research areas and elements that can be used as indicators to identify more accurate selection parameters. The analysis carried out on the selected references showed interconnections with different disciplinary areas (nutrition education; agricultural education; environmental education; outdoor education; geographical/science/technology education; food education; health education; experiential education; development education; museum education), learning environments (classrooms, school grounds, school farms, city farms, botanical gardens, museums, field centres, farms, summer camps) and teaching strategies (hands-on activities, experiments, guided visits, inquiries). Phase 3: Preliminary analysis and fine-tuning Following in the footsteps of Dillon et al. (2003, p. 8), as reported in Figure 1, the third phase of the study involved using limited parameters to identify more suitable references for the research. Using these parameters allowed excluding all publications dealing with agricultural schools and institutes, preschool, higher education and universities; the papers related to children’s education in rural contexts and poorly or non-urbanised areas were also excluded. The reference material was also selected based on the language used and the year of publication. Priority was given to English, being the primary language used in the Demeter project. In terms of year of publication, the research focused on the most recent studies issued after 2000. As far as the educational setting is concerned, the research only included educational studies focusing on the following topics: the outdoor space intended as an educational setting able to improve the children’s competencies and knowledge; teaching educational and planning strategies promoting hands-on experiences and, more specifically, one or more features related to the settings and methodologies described and which may be used within the farm setting. !!Investigación,en,la,Escuela,!nº!106,!2023 | 5 https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.017·"e-ISSN"2443-9991"·"Páginas"1-17, Figure 1 Tree summarising inclusion/exclusion criteria During this phase, we selected 118 papers and 3 theses based on title and abstract (Avalos, 2011). Thanks to the Mendeley library - a web tool that allows creating shared archives accessible to the entire research team -, we streamlined the document selection process and divided the selected works into the three main themes mentioned above, even with multiple overlapping areas (Figure 2): school-farm partnerships (18 papers), learning outcomes (55 papers), teaching strategies and teacher education (48 papers). Table 2 Papers and Theses selected to read in full addressing the three themes Papers and Theses selected to read in full SCHOOL-FARM PARTNERSHIP LEARNING OUTCOMES TEACHING STRATEGIES Anderson et al., 2006 x Ballantyne and Packer, 2009 x x x Bontrager Yoder, et al., 2014 x Botkins and Roeb, 2018 x !!Investigación,en,la,Escuela,!nº!106,!2023 | 6 https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.017·"e-ISSN"2443-9991"·"Páginas"1-17, Bowker, 2010 x Dhanapal and Lim, 2013 x Fägerstam, 2014 x x Fägerstam and Blom, 2013 x Hazard et al., 2018 x Kangas et al., 2016 x x Klemmer et al., 2005a x x Klemmer et al., 2005b x x Knobloch et al., 2007 x Krog and Jolly, 2011 x Kropp et al., 2018 x Mayer-Smith et al. 2009 x x x Murray and O’Brien, 2005 x Norðdahl and Jóhannesson 2016 x O’Brien and Murray, 2007 x Peterat and Mayersmith, 2008 x x Pigg et al., 2006 x Risku-Norja and Korpela, 2010 x x x Scott et al., 2012 x Scott et al., 2015 x Selmer et al., 2014 x x Smeds et al., 2015a x Smeds et al., 2015b x x Tal and Morag, 2009 x Torquati and Ernst, 2013 x Trexler et al., 2000 x Theses Marcombe, 2013 x x McIver Mattu, 2016 x x x Smeds, 2017 x x x A first analysis of the selected articles identified other significant works which were subsequently included in our review following a “snowballing” process (Hiebl, 2021, p.6). A cross-subjective discussion within the research group - aimed at “developing a refined common understanding about the specific review focus and inclusion/exclusion criteria” (p.20) - resulted in the selection of 31 papers and three theses. We focused on empirical studies, choosing them based on the reliability and validity of their contents and the rigor applied by the authors in defining and reporting research questions, instruments, phases, and data analysis. These features were identified following the criteria underlined by Williams and Dixon: “(a) is the study empirically based, are there pertinent research questions, (c) is the methodology described, (d) is research evidence provided, (e) are links made between garden and school/curriculum/subjects, and (f) are outcomes measured?” (2013, p.216). !!Investigación,en,la,Escuela,!nº!106,!2023 | 7 https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.017·"e-ISSN"2443-9991"·"Páginas"1-17, Figure 2 Categorisation of selected studies and overlapping areas Figure 3 Breakdown of the reviewed papers by country where the research was conducted Figure 4 Breakdown of the reviewed papers by year of publication Following the selection, the researchers analysed the studies divided into three categories. The following section reports their overall findings and research design (Williams and Dixon, 2013, p.218) by underlining the strengths and weaknesses that may be used to define other research paths on the topics addressed. !!Investigación,en,la,Escuela,!nº!106,!2023 | 8 https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.017·"e-ISSN"2443-9991"·"Páginas"1-17, 3. Building a Farm-School Partnership Substantial research on this theme has been conducted within the framework of the Norwegian movement The Farm as a Pedagogical Resource, founded in 2002 (Jolly and Krogh, 2010; Krogh and Jolly, 2011). In their work, Jolly and her research group describe the core principles informing the design of courses that initially saw farms and schools working together to implement the pioneering “Living School” project jointly. Specifically, these literature sources suggest the importance of: offering joint training to teachers and farmers, ensuring that any program of educational activities is co-designed by farmers and teachers, developing a shared vision, and mediating between farmers’ and teachers’ needs. During the follow-up interviews with the teachers involved in the project, they defined it as “a turning point, both personally for themselves and for the students” and “a ‘renewal’ as a teacher” (Krogh and Jolly, 2011, p.318). Also, in addition to the fact that they feel “happy” while performing outdoor activities, the questionnaire administered to students shows that they learned to “eat healthy food” and became aware “of being part of a community which did something useful.” (p.319). Offering joint training to teachers and farmers To put these principles into practice, Jolly and colleagues developed a one-year course, during which the researcher asked participating farmers and teachers to work in pairs to design a specific project, implement the initial stages of it, and evaluate their experience from an experiential learning perspective (Jolly and Krogh, 2010). The need to establish a two-way dialogue, as part of the project, between outdoor learning setting (farmer) and school setting(teacher) forced many teachers out of their comfort zone and fostered mutual learning by farmers (and researchers), helping them to acquire a more in-depth understanding of the broader situation involving the two settings which the students experience (Hazard et al., 2018). The importance of professional development programs designed to support the capacity of teachers to facilitate learning in natural environments is underlined in an Australian farm-school program (Ballantyne and Packer, 2009). The researchers interviewed both teachers and children to assess their representations, learning outcomes, and self-assessments. Teachers reported their growing awareness of how experiencebased learning entails cooperation and inclusion and many suggested that this way of learning should be adopted as best practice. The Australian farm-school program also highlighted the key role of having access to dedicated centres, such as Queensland’s Outdoor and Environmental Education Centres (Queensland Government Department of Education, 2018), in building the partnerships by providing institutional support. The significance of institutional support is similarly emphasised via the “Farm-to-School” program in the USA (National Farm to School Network, 2021), which has focused more narrowly on food education, aligned with federal and state legislation such as No Child Left Behind. This project analysis has revealed positive outcomes in enhancing children’s agri-food knowledge, nutritional awareness and behaviours (Joshi et al., 2008). The effective school-farm collaboration implemented by the Farm-to-School program also generated several benefits such as supplying local products to school canteens, hosting community events across the farms (Botkins and Roe, 2018), and creating a regular market for local producers (Allen and Guthman, 2006; Selmer et al., 2014). Ensuring that any program of educational activities is co-designed by farmers and teachers A second characteristic of the program, shaping effective partnerships, is farm-school co-design of the activities. This element presumes a mutual recognition of skills and knowledge, encouraging “close contact” between farmers and teachers so that the activities on the farm can become a feature of the regular curriculum (Jolly et al., 2004, p. 3). One complexity experienced with such close relationships between farmers and teachers was the challenge presented when a teacher left the school (for whatever reason), which often resulted in the partnership collapsing (Jolly and Krogh, 2010). If there are also logistic difficulties to consider, as co-design takes a long time, however, Risku-Norja and Korpela (2010) research highlighted that teachers reported that it was worth it for the opportunity to offer children experiences in continuity with the curriculum in a new authentic learning environment, and farmers for the development of an effective way of dealing with the public resulting from cooperation with the schools. Farmers’ and teachers’ mutual representations and relationship Another critical issue implicated in the farm-school co-design is the pedagogical role of the farmer that also has to deal with the – often stereotypical – children’s and teacher’s representations of farmers and farm !!Investigación,en,la,Escuela,!nº!106,!2023 | 9 https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.017·"e-ISSN"2443-9991"·"Páginas"1-17, life. One child involved in the Canadian study “Intergenerational Environmental Education on the Farm” states that “she changed her beliefs about farmers through contact with her farm friend” (Mayer-Smith et al., 2009, p.111). Similarly, recurrent prejudices had been also noticed in several educational programs conducted in Italian farms (Nigris et al., 2014), such as the idea that all farmers are male, wear straw hats and do not avail of modern technologies. Revealing prejudices always unfolds new spaces for open-minded exploration, and this is even more the case in inspiring and inclusive learning settings such as natural environments (Mayer-Smith and Peterat, 2019; Smeds et al. 2015a). The Norwegian studies also showed that the greater effectiveness of projects is guaranteed by continuity in the relationship; the results of the three cases analysed show that a project in which contact with farmers is direct and well-integrated into the curriculum is more effective for students. More specifically, children’s answers to the questionnaires show a better attitude towards the topics addressed in the farm visit if the relationship with the farm was concrete and the interaction with the farmer was not casual but prepared beforehand at school (Jolly and Krogh, 2010). Encouraging regular farm visits to provide children with the opportunity to enjoy and participate in everyday farm tasks directly could also “breaks down social barriers to age segregation and provides opportunities for children and adults to meet and talk about real life issues and life experiences” (Mayer- Smith et al., 2009, p.119). The research also underlined how, in the intergenerational exchange observed between elderly volunteers called “farm friends” and elementary school students, the natural outdoor setting of farm itself acted as a teacher for the participants (Peterat and Mayer-Smith, 2006). Figure 5 Summary table of the main issues involved in building the school-farm partnership 4. Learning Outcomes Learning outcomes can be divided into two types: more purely academic outcomes, in terms of subjectspecific learning, and broader outcomes, such as transversal skills, attitudes, and behaviours. Two previous literature reviews have addressed this theme, among others, offering a valuable initial guide to the key issues surrounding the impact on student learning outcomes of outdoor and non-formal learning settings such as farms. The latest of these two reviews - conducted by Williams and Dixon (2013) at Portland State University - examined the Impact of Garden-Based Learning on Academic Outcomes in Schools: Synthesis of Research Between 1990 and 2010. The work pointed out key gaps in the existing research, considering that the studies conducted so far have rarely succeeded in identifying what aspects of a particular program had helped to yield positive impacts. The authors concluded that a “parallel focus on rigorous research to understand the academic learning outcomes in a systematic manner” (p.226) had not accompanied the investment in outdoor education. Nevertheless, they also pointed out “a preponderance of positive academic outcomes especially in Science, Math, and Language arts, giving credence to gardens serving as instructional and curricular means INSTITUTIONAL UMBRELLA TRAINING CO-DESIGN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SPILLOVER OBSTACLES Queensland’s Outdoor and Environmental Education Centres (Ballantyne & Packer, 2009) "The Farm as a Pedagogical Resource" course led by Norwegian University of Life Sciences. One year course for teachers and farmers (Krogh et al., 2011) Activities carried out both at school and on the farm (Ballantyne & Packer, 2009; Krogh & Jolly, 2011; Mayer-Smith et al., 2009; Risku-Norja & Korpela, 2010; Selmer et al. 2014; Smeds et al. 2015) Local products in school meals, farms hosting community events (Botkins & Roe, 2008) Stereotypical representations of farm life (Mayer-Smith et al. 2009, Nigris et al., 2014, Risku-Norja & Korpela, 2010) National pioneer project “Living School” (Krogh & Jolly, 2011) A training day at the farm recommended (Harris, 2009) Interaction with the farmer prepared beforehand at school (Jolly & Krogh, 2010) Steady market for local producers (Allen & Guthman, 2006) Farmers refers difficulty in finding schools cooperation (Harris, 2009) National FTS Network (Botkins & Roe, 200) Need of design professional development programmes (Ballantyne & Packer, 2009 ) Two-way dialogue (Hazard et al., 2018) Opportunity for farmers to develop public relationship (Risku- Norja & Korpela, 2010) Move out from teaching comfort zone (Hazard et al., 2018) Pedagogical enforcement of the farmer's role (Risku-Norja & Korpela, 2010) Link with the curriculum (Jolly, 2004; Risku-Norja & Korpela, 2010; Selmer et al. 2014) Parents involvement (Selmer et al. 2014) Co-design takes a long time (Risku-Norja & Korpela, 2010) Fostered mutual learning (Hazard et al., 2018) Specific codesigned and evaluated project required (Krogh & Jolly, 2011) Intergenerational dialogue (Mayer- Smith et al. 2009) Fund & seasonality (Botkins & Roe, 2008) !!Investigación,en,la,Escuela,!nº!106,!2023 | 16 https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.017·"e-ISSN"2443-9991"·"Páginas"1-17, Krogh, E., & Jolly, L. (2011). Making Sense of Place: School-Farm Cooperation in Norway. Children, Youth and Environments, 21(1), 310–321. Kropp, J. D., Abarca-Orozco, S. J., Israel, G. D., Diehl, D. C., Galindo-Gonzalez, S., Headrick, L. B., & Shelnutt, K. P. (2018). A Plate Waste Evaluation of the Farm to School Program. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 50(4), 332–339. Learning and Teaching Scotland. (2010). Scottish Curriculum for Excellence through Outdoor Learning https://education.gov.scot/Documents/cfe-through-outdoor-learning.pdf Lu, W., Liu, Z., Huang, Y., Bu, Y., Li, X., & Cheng, Q. (2020). How do authors select keywords? A preliminary study of author keyword selection behavior. Journal of Informetrics, 14(4), 1–17. Marcombe, W. (2013). Get on my land, MSc Thesis, Bristol University. Mayer-Smith, J., Bartosh, O., & Peterat, L. (2009). Cultivating and Reflecting on Intergenerational Environmental Education on the Farm. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 14(1), 107-121. Mayer-Smith, J., & Peterat, L. (2019). Sowing seeds of stewardship through intergenerational gardening. In Winograd, K. (Ed.), Education in Times of Environmental Crises. Teaching Children to Be Agents of Change (pp. 61-72), Routledge. McIver Mattu, L. M. (2016). Farm Visits: Interdisciplinary outdoor learning for Primary School Pupils and Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence. PhD Thesis. University of Glasgow. Mygind, E. (2007). A comparison between children’s physical activity levels at school and learning in an outdoor environment. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 7(2), 161–176. National Farm to School Network (2021). https://www.farmtoschool.org Nigris, E., Balconi, B., Catalani, P., Valente, D., Zanon, M., & Zecca, L. (2014). La scuola in campo. Quando la fattoria incontra la scuola. Possibili percorsi per la scuola Primaria. Regione Lombardia. Nigris, E., & Balconi, B. (2015). “Cibo, cultura identità”: un modello formativo innovativo di educazione alimentare. [Food, culture identity: an innovative training model of nutrition education]. Pedagogia più Didattica, 1(2). Norðdahl, K., & Jóhannesson, I. Á. (2016). ‘Let’s go outside’: Icelandic teachers’ views of using the outdoors. Education 3-13, 44(4), 391–406. Nuutinen, A. M. (2018). The Encounters Project in Espoo/Finland. In C. Affolter and A. Varga (Eds.), Environment and School Initiatives: Lessons from the ENSI Network-Past, Present and Future, (pp. 108–114). Environment and School Initiatives-ENSI. O’Brien, L., & Murray, R. (2007). Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies in Britain. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6, 249–265. Peterat, L., & Mayersmith, J. (2006). Farm Friends. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(1), 107–116. Pigg, A. E., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2006). Effects of a gardening program on the academic progress of third, fourth, and fifth grade math and science students. HortTechnology, 16(2), 262–264. Qais, F. (2018). PhD Thesis Writing Process: A Systematic Approach - How to Write Your Literature Review. Creative Education, 9, 2912–2919. Queensland Government Department of Education. (2018). https://education.qld.gov.au/schoolseducators/other-education/OEEC Risku-Norja, H., & Korpela, E. (2010). School goes to the farm: conceptualisation of rural-based sustainability education. In European Science Education Research Association Conference (pp. 175–184). Istanbul, Turkey. Roberts, A., Hinds, J., & Camic, P. M. (2019). Nature activities and wellbeing in children and young people: a systematic literature review. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 1–21. Robinson-O’Brien, R., Story, M., & Heim, S. (2009). Impact of garden-based youth nutrition intervention programs: a review. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(2), 273–280. Savoie-Roskos, M. R., Wengreen, H., & Durward, C. (2017). Increasing Fruit and Vegetable Intake among Children and Youth through Gardening-Based Interventions: A Systematic Review. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 117(2), 240–250. Scott, G., Churchill, H., Grassam, M., & Scott, L. (2012). Can the integration of field and classroom-based learning enhance writing? The life on our shore case study. Education 3-13, 40(5), 547–560. Scott, G. W., Boyd, M., Scott, L., & Colquhoun, D. (2015). Barriers to biological fieldwork: What really prevents teaching out of doors? Journal of Biological Education, 49(2), 165–178. Selmer, S. J., Rye, J. A., Malone, E., Fernandez, D., & Trebino, K. (2014). What Should We Grow in Our School Garden to Sell at the Farmers’ Market? Initiating Statistical Literacy through Science and Mathematics Integration. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 51(1), 17–32. Skamp, K., & Bergmann, I. (2001). Facilitating learnscape development, maintenance, and use: Teachers’ perceptions and self-reported practices. Environmental Education Research, 7, 333– 358. !!Investigación,en,la,Escuela,!nº!106,!2023 | 17 https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2023.i106.017·"e-ISSN"2443-9991"·"Páginas"1-17, Smeds, P. (2017). Farm Education–sustainability, food and education. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oulu Graduate School. Smeds, P. Jeronen, E., & Kurppa, S. (2015a). Farm Education and The Effect of a Farm Visit on Children’s Conception of Agriculture. European Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 1-13. Smeds, P., Jeronen, E., & Kurppa, S. (2015b). Farm education and the value of learning in an authentic learning environment. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(3), 381-404. Smith, S. (2018). Life After ENSI: New Directions, Different Models and More Flexible Support Structures. In C. Affolter and A. Varga (Eds.). Environment and School Initiatives: Lessons from the ENSI Network-Past, Present and Future, (pp. 279–288). Environment and School Initiatives – ENSI. Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2009). Reflective practice as a means for preparing to teach outdoors in an ecological garden. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 245–262. Torquati, J., & Ernst, J. A. (2013). Beyond the Walls: Conceptualizing Natural Environments as “Third Educators.” Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 34(2), 191–208. Trexler, C. J., Johnson, T., & Heinze, K. (2000). Elementary and middle school teacher ideas about the agrifood system and their evaluation of agri-system stakeholders’ suggestions for education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(1), 30–38. Tripathi, M., Kumar, S., Sonker, S. K., & Babbar, P. (2018). Occurrence of author keywords and keywords plus in social sciences and humanities research: A preliminary study. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 12(2), 215–232. UNESCO International Bureau of Education. (2013). Glossary of curriculum terminology. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/IBE_GlossaryCurriculumTermino logy2013_eng.pdf United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2019). Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf Vare, P., Arro, G., De Hamer, A., Del Gobbo, G., De Vries, G., Farioli, F., Kadji-Beltran, C., Kangur, M., Mayer, M., Millican, R., Nijdam, C., Réti, M., & Zachariou, A. (2019). Devising a competence-based training program for educators of sustainable development: Lessons learned. Sustainability, 11(7), 1890, 1-21. Vinatier, I., & Altet, M. (Eds.). (2008). Analyser et comprendre la pratique enseignante. Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Williams, D. R., & Dixon, P. S. (2013). Impact of Garden-Based Learning on Academic Outcomes in Schools. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 211–235. Zhai, J. (2012). Engaging children in learning ecological science: Two botanic garden educators’ pedagogical practices. In Tan, K. C. D. and Kim, M. (Eds.), Issues and Challenges in Science Education Research: Moving Forward (pp. 301–315). Springer.