Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Children's perspectives on relationships with non-parental adults : insights from a structured intergenerational… Groendal, Reky Suarima Martha 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2012_fall_groendal_reky.pdf [ 2.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0058474.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0058474-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0058474-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0058474-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0058474-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0058474-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0058474-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0058474-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0058474.ris

Full Text

 CHILDREN’S PERSPECTIVES ON RELATIONSHIPS WITH NON-PARENTAL ADULTS: INSIGHTS FROM A STRUCTURED INTERGENERATIONAL PROGRAM by Reky Suarima Martha Groendal B. Soc. Sc., Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Japan, 2007   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Human Development, Learning, and Culture)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) August 2012   ©Reky Suarima Martha Groendal, 2012 ii  Abstract A considerable number of studies have documented the importance of the relationships between adolescents and non-parental adults as contributors to development. However, few studies have investigated these relationships in middle childhood. Even fewer studies have explored how the qualities of such relationships contribute to positive outcomes. Considering the gaps in this field of study, the present study explored the qualities of relationships between children in middle childhood and non-parental adults that developed in a structured, intergenerational, environmental education program, completed as a part of children’s environmental science curriculum. Specifically, this study investigated (a) whether children who were involved in this program had more positive attitudes, behaviors, and learning compared to students who were not in the program and (b) how children characterized the qualities of the relationships that developed, and (c) whether those relationships between children and non- parental adult volunteers in the program contributed to the outcomes (N = 211). Results showed that children in the program had more positive attitudes and learning toward environmental issues than children in the comparison group. Qualities of relationship examined also showed positive relations with children’s perceptions of affiliation with the non-parental adults and bonding toward the program, as well as student reported positive outcomes (attitudes, behaviors, and learning regarding environmental issues). Implications and limitations of the study are discussed, as well as directions for future research.     iii  Preface Ethical approval for this research was granted by the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB), Certificate Number: H02-80400. Related Ethics Certificate Number: B02-0400. The data used in the present study was collected by the author of this study and also by the project manager of the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program. The writing of the present study was completed by the author.   iv  Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface  .......................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Content ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ ix Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 Literature Review ..........................................................................................................................5 Overview of Middle Childhood ...............................................................................................5 Relationships with Non-Parental Adults ..................................................................................6 The extent of relationships with non-parental adults ...........................................................7 Characteristics of non-parental adults ..................................................................................9 The Role of Non-Parental Adults as Mentors in Development and Learning .......................14 Mentoring and social-emotional well being ......................................................................15 Mentoring and learning outcomes .....................................................................................16 Mentoring and connectedness (affiliation and bonding) ...................................................18 Summary of Literature Review ..............................................................................................20 Intergenerational Programs ....................................................................................................22 ILLP curriculum.................................................................................................................26 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................28 Research Questions ................................................................................................................29 Method ..........................................................................................................................................32 v  Design .....................................................................................................................................32 Participants .............................................................................................................................32 Procedures ..............................................................................................................................34 Ethics review ......................................................................................................................34 Procedure ...........................................................................................................................34 Measures .................................................................................................................................35 ILLP knowledge survey .....................................................................................................35 Relationship survey ............................................................................................................39 Results ...........................................................................................................................................45 Impact of ILLP  ...................................................................................................................... 46 Relationships with Non-Parental Adults  ............................................................................... 49 Qualities of Relationships and Children’s Affiliation and Bonding  ..................................... 52 Relationship between Affiliation and Bonding and Children’s Attitudes, Behaviors, and Environmental Learning  ........................................................................................................ 54 Qualities of the Relationships and Children’s Attitudes, Behaviors, and Learning ............... 54 Discussion......................................................................................................................................57 Strengths and Limitations .......................................................................................................64 Future Directions ....................................................................................................................67 Implications for Practice ........................................................................................................69 References .....................................................................................................................................72 Appendix A ...................................................................................................................................82 Appendix B  ..................................................................................................................................87 Appendix C ...................................................................................................................................91 vi  Appendix D ...................................................................................................................................95                         vii  List of Tables Table 1.   Intergenerational Landed Learning Program Curriculum 2011-2012  ..........................27 Table 2.   Demographic of the Students in the Pre-test, Post-test, and Relationship Surveys      (N = 211). .....................................................................................................................33 Table 3.   Final Sample Description...............................................................................................34 Table 4.   Environmental Care Items Principal Components Analysis Using Varimax Rotation      (N = 167) ......................................................................................................................38 Table 5.   Results of ANOVAs for Attitudes, Behaviors, and Learning by Group (N = 129) ......48 Table 6.   Means and Standard Deviations for Student Ratings on the Quality of Relationships     with Farm Friends (FF) (N = 96)  ..................................................................................50 Table 7.   Number of Students in the Rating of the Quality of Relationships with Farm Friends     (N = 96)  ........................................................................................................................51 Table 8.   Correlation for Affiliation and Bonding with Qualities of Relationships (N = 96) ......52 Table 9.   Summary of Regression Analysis Predicting Reports of Affiliation and     Bonding from Seven Qualities of Relationship (N = 96) ..............................................53 Table 10.   Correlation for Affiliation and Bonding with Attitudes, Behaviors, and Learning      (N = 88)  .......................................................................................................................54 Table 11. Correlation among Relationship Qualities and Outcome Variables (N = 88) ...............55 Table 12. Summary of Regression Analysis Predicting Attitudes, Behaviors, and Learning from          Relationship Qualities (N = 88)  ...................................................................................56     viii  List of Figures Figure 1. Changes in attitudes over time across ILLP and comparison groups  ............................48 Figure 2. Changes in learning over time across ILLP and comparison groups  ............................49                     ix  Acknowledgements  I would like to extend my gratitude to my committee members Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl for always supporting me and for the good discussions, and Dr. Jolie Mayer-Smith for the guidance and for providing me the opportunity to complete this research. Thank you to the staff of the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program for making this research possible. A special thank you to my supervisor, Dr. Shelley Hymel for her commitment and dedication in teaching me, listening to my passions, always having my back, inspiring me to work hard, and making me love statistics. I also would like to thank my friends in the department and research groups for the nerd supports, late-night study times, for the eye-opening feedbacks, and endless support. Gratitude to my parents for encouraging me to chase my dreams, even if it takes me across the ocean, and to my devoted husband, Thomas, for the incredible support and always believing in me. Finally, I would like to thank everybody in the hoshiZora Foundation for always inspiring me.   1    Introduction Ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) has long argued that human development is influenced, not only by family and peers, but also by a range of others, including non-parental and non-familial adults in the community. Relationships with non-parental adults can provide guidance and direction for children (Vygotsky, 1978) in a way that cannot be provided by parents. Some have suggested that relationships with non-familial adults are typically less affectively charged and are more likely to emphasize shared activities and other instrumental functions (Blyth, Hill, & Thiel, 1982; Darling, Hamilton, & Hames, 2000). Moreover, compared to parents, non-parental adults can provide a source of information that may be more credible to youth because of the emotional distance that exists between self and other, which may be beneficial for children’s development and learning (Darling et al., 2000). In 2006, as part of a student-based volunteer group in an international university in Japan, I formed a program that delivered scholarships to 14 orphan children in Indonesia and connected these children with young non-parental adults who would function as their foster siblings (similar to big brothers/big sisters roles). A scholarship of just $10 per month was enough to send those children to school and kept them from wandering through the hectic streets of Yogyakarta Province in Indonesia. However, the scholarship was not enough to motivate those children to stay in school and pursue their dreams. Rather, it seemed that it was the communications by airmail between the children and their non-parental adults that became the engine generating motivation and strong will in those children. Five years later, 540 children have been supported by and are in communication with over 250 young non-parental adults from different regions in the world (The hoshiZora Foundation, 2012). As one of the co-founders and 2    one of the first foster siblings in the hoshiZora Foundation, I witnessed how important the existence of significant non-parental adults was for those children. Arif, one of the children in the program, first received a letter from his non-parental adult in Japan in 2006. He was not very motivated to pursue his studies because he had to help his parents work due to their financial difficulties. His first letter from his non-parental adult was a constant reminder to him that he not only has someone who looks after him financially, but has someone who cares about his dreams and his well-being. Hundreds of letters were posted between Indonesia and Japan, but Arif always kept his first letter in his pocket to remind him of his significant non-parental adult. This year, Arif graduated from his elementary school with the highest math score. The changes in Arif’s attitudes and beliefs about learning were noticeable since he joined the program, and the relationship that developed with his big sister has been a promotive factor in his success. He is now a motivated student; he believes he has the potential to reach his dreams despite the challenges in his life. I was intrigued by cases such as this and eager to understand what these adults did that contributed positively to the lives of children like Arif. It is this curiosity that motivated me to learn about the relationships between children and non-parental adults and to conduct research to understand mechanisms that may underlie the impact of such relationships. A growing body of research (to be reviewed below) has begun to establish the importance of understanding relationships between children and non-parental adults such as teachers, adults from community-based and after school programs, or non-related adults who have interactions with children (Beam, Chen, & Greenberger, 2002; Blyth et al., 1982; Brown, 2003; Chen, Greenberger, Farruggia, Bush, & Dong, 2003; Galbo & Demetrulias, 1996; Haddad, Chen, & Greenberger, 2010; Hendry et al., 1992; Rishel, Sales, & Koeske, 2005; Scales & Gibbons, 1996; 3    Scales, Benson, & Mannes, 2006; Scales, Benson, & Roehlkepartain, 2010). Most of these studies have considered relationships with adolescents; few have focused on younger children’s interactions with non-parental adults (Rishel et al., 2005). Adolescence is considered a crucial period of development (e.g., Brown, 2003; Scales et al. 2010). Nevertheless, it is also important to pay attention to and learn about the relationships between children of all ages with non- parental adults (Rishel et al., 2005). This study investigated the relationships between non-parental adults and children in middle childhood, a period when children are starting to immerse themselves in activities beyond the home and classroom settings, providing ample opportunities for interactions with adults outside of the family. The examination of children’s interactions with non-parental adults in a structured, intergenerational program allowed for understanding of the nature and characteristics of the relationships as well as the relationship qualities that enhance children’s attitudes, behavior, and learning. This thesis is organized into three sections. The first section is a review of the literature regarding (1) the importance of middle childhood, (2) relationships with non-parental adults and (3) the role of non-parental adults as mentors in development and learning. This section closes with a description of a unique, intergenerational program that fosters relationships between children and non-parental adults in order to learn about environmental issues and gardening. It is within this intergenerational program that the present study took place. The second section of this thesis describes the design and hypotheses of the study. Following this, the description of methods, measures, analyses, and results are described. The last section provides a discussion of the present findings and their implications. 4    In this study, the term middle childhood refers to children between the ages of 6 and 12 (Collins, 1984; Zembar & Blume, 2009). The term non-parental adults can be defined as adults other than parents who take part in a child’s life, spend time and do things together with a child, give advice, help make important decisions, make a positive impact, and/or are a source of influence for a child (Blyth et al., 1982). There are many different literatures that provide knowledge on the relationships between children and non-parental adults, including studies on resiliency (e.g., Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Masten, 2001; Schonert-Reichl & LeRose, 2008), teacher and student relationships (e.g., Barile, Donohue, Anthony, Baker, Weaver, & Henrich, 2012; Brooks & Goldstein, 2008; Maldonado-Carreno & Votruba-Drzal, 2011), and intergenerational relationships between seniors and children (e.g., Ayala, Hewson, Bray, Jones, & Hartley, 2007; Poole & Gooding, 1993). It is important to note that this study only focuses on studies of significant non-parental adults (such as Brown, 2003; Galbo & Demetrulias, 1996; Hendry et al., 1992; Rishel, Sales, & Koeske, 2005; Scales & Gibbons, 1996; Scales, Benson, & Mannes, 2006), with a few highlights from research on mentoring relationships (such as Deutsch, & Spencer, 2009; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005; Karcher, Davis, & Powell, 2002; McPartland & Nettles, 1991).        5    Literature Review Overview of Middle Childhood Although research on children’s relationships with non-parental adults has primarily focused on adolescence, the present study explored such relationships in middle childhood. Middle childhood is delineated as the developmental period occurring between the ages of 6 and 12, after early childhood but before puberty (Collins, 1984; Zembar & Blume, 2009). This period of development is characterized by changes, not only in physical appearance, but also in cognitive, moral, and social development. Cognitively, the area of the brain that governs logic is more developed in middle childhood compared to early childhood (Bee, Boyd, & Johnson, 2006; Zembar & Blume, 2009). Furthermore, in this period of development, children’s selective attention also develops, allowing children to focus on important elements in a problem or situation. From the perspective of moral development, throughout middle childhood, children become more capable of distinguishing right and wrong (Berger, 2011). They also continue to build their interpersonal understanding and use their judgment (moral and social reasoning) in their social interactions (Zembar & Blume, 2009). Socially, middle childhood is the time when children become more independent from their parents (Bee et al., 2006). Although the family remains important, children spend less time with their family members than in early childhood and are more engaged in activities outside the home and classroom settings (Collins, 1984; Eccles, 1999; Morris & Kalil, 2006). In middle childhood, children spend more time with their peers and establish more stable and long-term relationships (Bee et al., 2006). Through their participation in activities such as after school programs, children can practice their problem solving skills (Collins, 1984) and then attempt to solve real world problems independently (Eccles, 1999; Morris & Kalil, 2006). Such activities 6    are not only beneficial for children’s cognitive development (Collins, 1984; Morris & Kalil, 2006) but also for their social development because these activities provide opportunities for children to explore relationships within the wider social context. Hence, during middle childhood, activity leaders and other non-parental adults can contribute to supervision of the children and can play a significant role in children’s development beyond parents and other family members (Eccles, 1999; Morris & Kalil, 2006). Relationships with Non-Parental Adults The desire to form interpersonal and social attachments or the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation that affects human behavior (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Furthermore, the need to have frequent and pleasant interactions with other people in temporally stable settings motivates humans to establish relationships and to bond with others. Baumeister and Leary argued that fundamentally people need a few close relationships, but also it is important to form additional bonds beyond those relationships to satisfy the need to belong. There are different kinds of relationships that human beings develop throughout their lifetimes, each fulfilling different human needs. Hence, maintaining a variety of relationships allows individuals to fulfill different needs (Weiss, 1974).  In 1974, Weiss proposed six distinct categories of relational or social provisions that interpersonal relationships can serve. The first one is attachment, which is gained from a sense of security and place. Without attachment, individuals may feel restless and lonely. The second is social integration gained through shared concern or through a network bound by shared concern or interest. The third provision is opportunities for nurturance that fulfill one’s sense of being needed and provides for a meaningful life. The fourth is reassurance of worth that attests to an individual’s competence in society. The fifth is a sense of reliable alliance that strengthens bonds 7    between individuals. The sixth is obtaining guidance and support, especially during hard times. Of interest in this research is the degree to which the relationships children have with non- parental adults satisfy these relational provisions. The extent of relationships with non-parental adults. There are only a handful of studies that have investigated the role of non-parental adults in adolescents’ lives, much less in children’s lives. Nevertheless, these studies provide evidence of the pervasiveness of non- parental adults in the lives of children and adolescents. Indeed, Blyth et al. (1982) surveyed 2800 adolescents (grade 7 to 10 students) to find out who the significant others are in the lives of these adolescents (“someone with whom there is a perceived attachment and/or a social influence relationship” p.429). They found that 60% of boys and 75% of girls identified at least one non- related adult in their lives. Approximately half of the identified significant others were either nuclear (29.9% for boys, 24.5 for girls) or extended (19.5% for boys, 20.6% for girls) family members. The other half were unrelated others (50.6% for boys, 54.9% for girls), and of these, roughly 40% were peers, and 10% were non-related adults who these adolescents met either in school or home settings. In a study of 192 students in grade 12, Brown (2003) reported that 63% of adolescents identified at least one important non-parental adult in their lives. Of these, 55% of the significant non-parental adults were non-kin. Similar to the findings reported by Blyth et al. (1982), 61.2% of the non-kin were peers and 11.7% were non-parental adults. Brown’s study also identified who the non-parental adults are: 30.5% of the adults were role-specific (such as teachers and coaches), and 69.5% were non role-specific (such as friends and uncles or aunts). Hendry, Roberts, Glendinning, and Coleman (1992) surveyed 360 students (ages 11 to 12 and 15 to 16). In the category of middle childhood (180 students ages 11 to 12), 34% of the children selected 8    non-familial adults as significant individuals in their lives. The non-familial significant adults in their lives were group leaders (12% for girls, 12% for boys), teachers (10% for girls, 22% for boys), and other adults (5% for girls, 6% for boys). Finally, Stiles, de Silva, and Gibbons (1991) conducted a study of 299 adolescents (grade 8 and 9 students) and found that 67.2% of the adolescents indicated that they discussed important things with non-parental adult relatives and 31.4% with non-related adults such as teachers, coaches, and neighbours. While these studies have demonstrated that non-parental adults are important in adolescents’ lives, there remains the need to explore the roles these individuals play for children in middle childhood and the impact they have. Parents are also aware of the significant role that adults outside the home play in their children’s lives. Rishel et al. (2005) surveyed 75 mothers about the non-parental adults in their children’s lives (ages 4 to 18). The mothers reported that their children had most frequent contact with school teachers and daycare providers, followed by contact with athletic coaches, friends’ parents, adult neighbors, adult friends, club or music leaders, and youth pastors or religious leaders, with the contact frequency ranging from several times a month to several times a week.   Finally, in a retrospective study, Galbo and Demetrulias (1996) surveyed 285 university students, asking them to list one or more significant adults in their lives when they were in grades K to 12. Parents were listed as significant adults by over half of the students surveyed (56.3%), 20.1% identified grandparents, 10.4% listed aunts and uncles, 8.6% identified siblings, and 4.8% indicated other relatives. In the category of non-related adults, teachers and coaches were listed as significant adults by over half of the students (59.8%), 7% identified parents’ friends, 4.6% identified friends’ parents, and 6.5% listed adults from religious affiliations, with 9    22.1% identifying other adults from various settings. Although retrospective, this study provides some information about who are the significant non-related adults during middle childhood. Clearly, many children and youth reported interacting with non-parental adults and many listed them as significant others in their lives. Of interest in the present study is exploring the qualities of these relationships. The next section considers research exploring the characteristics that made these adults significant. Characteristics of non-parental adults. Both qualitative and quantitative studies have explored the characteristics of non-parental adults that contribute to children’s and adolescents’ lives. In a qualitative study by Galbo (1983) involving semi-structured interviews with 31 high school juniors (ages 16 or 17), adolescents identified three major characteristics in describing the significant adults in their lives. The first is modeling and admiration as these adults were seen to be intelligent and worthy of respect, and as living interesting lives. Second, these adults were described as having developed reciprocal friendships with the adolescents, treating adolescents as equals, sharing experiences and problems, and being open-minded. Third, these adults displayed positive interpersonal qualities such as trustworthiness, friendliness, niceness, a good sense of humor, and an interest in and willingness to listen to adolescents. Thus, adults were significant to them, not only because of the effort they made to build relationships, but also because of their personality. Taking a different tack, Hendry et al. (1992) suggested that the critical characteristics of non-parental adults are more central to the support they can provide for adolescents. In a survey study of 360 participants (ages 11 to 12 and 15 to 16), children and adolescents reported that non-familial adults were essential in their lives because (1) they have confidence in them and take them seriously (“believer”, 64% for girls and 52% for boys), (2) they help the adolescent to 10    understand things and introduce new experiences (“enabler”, 54% for girls and 51% for boys), (3) they teach them things and provide information (“teacher”, 50% for girls and 49% for boys), (4) they protect and support them and cheer them up (“supporter”, 54% for girls and 37% for boys), (5) they are someone that the adolescent admires (“role model”, 42% for girls and 23% for boys), and (6) they push the adolescent to think through things and to do well (“challenger”,18% for girls and 17% for boys). In this study, group leaders stood out, with 69% of participants identifying them as an enabler, 92% as a believer, 83% as a teacher, and 50% as a role model. School teachers were characterized as a challenger by 41% of participants, as a supporter by only 14%, and as a role model by only 17% of respondents. Thus, each non-parental, adult role appears to engender distinct characteristics and roles, contributing uniquely to the lives of children and adolescents. Non-parental adults can also provide practical assistance when adolescents are facing problems in school or when they have financial issues. In a mixed method study, Beam, Chen, and Greenberger (2002) surveyed 243 grade 11 students and interviewed 61 of them, in addition to interviewing 58 adults who had been identified as a “very important person” (VIP) of the interviewed adolescents. More than 80% of adolescents described their VIPs as adults who showed them respect, provided emotional support, served as someone to talk to, and supported the activities in which these adolescents were engaged. Moreover, at least 50% of adolescents described their VIPs as adults who helped them with things related to school, personal issues, and financial issues. To explore the unique roles and qualities that characterize both the adult and peer relationships experienced by children and youth, Furman and Buhrmester (1985, 1992; Buhrmester & Furman, 1987) developed the Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI). 11    Expanding on the relational provisions initially described by Weiss (1974, described earlier), they identified ten qualities of interpersonal relationships: (1) reliable alliance, (2) enhancement of worth, (3) instrumental aid, (4) companionship, (5) affection, (6) intimacy, (7) relative power, (8) conflict, (9) satisfaction, and (10) importance of relationship. Furman and Buhrmester asked 196 children and adolescents (aged 11-13) to describe the qualities of their relationships with parents, grandparents, siblings, friends, and teachers as non-familial adults. The results of this study indicated that the qualities of reliable alliance, affection, and importance were mostly provided in relationships with kin (mothers, fathers, grandparents, and siblings), followed by friends, and teachers. Enhancement of worth and satisfaction were mainly provided by mothers, fathers, grandparents, followed by friends, siblings, and lastly teachers. Friends offered companionship and intimacy, followed by parents, siblings, grandparents, and teachers. Instrumental aid was provided mostly by fathers and mothers, followed by teachers, friends, siblings, and grandparents. While relative power was mostly offered by siblings, friends, and grandparents, followed by mothers, fathers, and teachers; conflict occurred mostly with siblings followed by teachers, mothers, fathers, friends, and grandparents. Mothers and fathers seemed to be the primary source of many of the relationship qualities and teachers as non-parental adults appeared to be the secondary source. This study elucidated that different relationships serve different purposes in adolescents’ lives. Munsch and Blyth (1993) also explored the type of support provided by parents, peers and non-parental adults in a study of 359 adolescents in grades 7 and 8. Nine categories of support were identified: (1) instrumental support (provision of aid or assistance), (2) emotional regulation (help controlling or regulating emotional distress), (3) active problem solving (help identifying a problem and generating potential solutions), (4) esteem enhancement (preservation 12    or restoration of positive self-evaluation), (5) social interaction (providing social activities to relieve stress), (6) cognitive reappraisal (providing positive perspectives on a problem), (7) emotional support (being available as a caring person), (8) distraction (positive social interactions), and lastly, (9) substance use (representing maladaptive behavior). Like Furman and Buhrmester (1985), Munsch and Blyth compared how parents, peers, and non-parental adults provided support for adolescents when they were coping with stress. It was found that instrumental support, esteem enhancement (positive self-evaluation), and cognitive appraisal support were mainly provided by non-parental adults, followed by peers, mothers, and then fathers. Emotion regulation and (positive) distraction were offered by peers, mothers, non- parental adults, and least by fathers. While peers provided emotional support followed by non- parental adults, mothers, and fathers; peers also seemed to be the largest contributor in substance use. Lastly, support in term of active problem solving was offered mainly by mothers and non- parental adults, followed by peers and fathers. The results reported by Munsch and Blyth (1993) differ somewhat from those reported by Furman and Buhrmester (1985). Specifically, results from Munsch and Blyth’s study indicated that non-parental adults were the prominent providers of support for adolescents, whereas Furman and Buhrmester’s study showed that teachers, as non-parental adults, were secondary providers of adolescents’ social provisions. Instrumental aid and esteem enhancement/ enhancement of worth are two forms of support that were primarily provided by non-parental adults in Munsch and Blyth’s study; whereas Furman and Buhrmester found that those forms of support were offered primarily by parents. The differences across the two studies may in part be attributable to the different types of provisions considered and how they were described to participants, or to the different categories of non-parental adults considered, with the Furman and 13    Buhrmester study only considering teachers. Although further research is needed to clarify these inconsistencies, both studies demonstrate that different companions have their own roles and importance in adolescents’ lives; thus, the role of non-parental adults is worthy of deeper examination. The present study investigated the characteristics of non-parental adults and the relationship qualities they provided to children with whom they worked. The characteristics of relationships identified in the studies reviewed in this section can be fulfilled through many different relationships, not only non-related adults but parents, peers, and extended family members. For some adolescents, however, such qualities may only be provided by significant non-parental adults. Several authors have suggested that non-parental adults can offer more support for adolescents than parents and peers since relationships with non-parental adults are typically less affectively charged and are more likely to emphasize shared activities (e.g., Blyth et al., 1982; Darling et al., 2000; Munsch & Blyth, 1993). Most of these studies suggested that significant non-parental adults often show respect, provide support, are available to listen, provide positive self-evaluation, and believe in the children and adolescents. Although these studies only examined the perspectives of children and adolescents, their perspectives are critical in understanding how non-parental adults can build strong relationships with these children and adolescents and help to fulfill their needs. At the same time, the few existing studies of relationships with non-parental adults have been largely descriptive in nature, documenting the extent to which children and youth report such relationships and the characteristics or qualities of those relationships. One focus of this study was to further explore children’s perspectives in middle childhood on the quality of their relationships with non-parental adults. A second focus 14    was on how the qualities of those relationships affect children. In order to gain some insights into the potential impact of such a relationship, relevant research on mentoring is considered below. The Role of Non-Parental Adults as Mentors in Development and Learning Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) posited that children’s cognitive development (e.g., information processing, conceptual resource building, language ability, and perceptual skills) is determined by their problem solving ability under adult guidance (Vadeboncoeur, 1997; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985). Relationships between children and non-parental adults that operate within the ZPD can build children’s confidence and engage them in lifelong learning through the enjoyable process of discovering new and different information from others (Mahn & John-Steiner, 2002). Such interactions also enhance adolescents’ thriving in life (Scales et al., 2006), influence self-esteem and reduce problem behavior (Chen et al., 2003; Greenberger, Chen, & Beam, 1998; Haddad et al., 2010). Research on mentoring relationships aimed at maximizing student learning offers some insights into the processes involved.  A mentor can be defined as someone with more knowledge and experience who offers guidance to facilitate the growth and development of the mentee (DuBois & Karcher, 2005). Such support and guidance can be provided by naturally occurring mentoring or by planned or specific mentoring programs (Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001) such as Big Brothers, Big Sisters, and can be provided in both structured and unstructured contexts. Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, and Behrendt (2005) noted that, in naturally occurring mentoring relationships, extended family members, teachers or neighbors can certainly serve as mentors. Given that mentoring programs can be beneficial or can impede adolescents (emotionally, behaviorally, and developmentally), it becomes important to understand that it is not only the presence of a mentor that is significant for 15    adolescents’ lives but more the characteristics and qualities of the mentoring relationship (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005). Of equal importance is investigating how such relationships contribute to the developing child or adolescent.  Mentoring and social-emotional well-being. Schonert-Reichl and Buote (2006) asked grade 4-6 students (N = 238) to identify any adults at school who were “important in their life”. Students who identified no one scored significantly lower than those who identified, one, two or more significant adults on self-report indices of social adjustment (perspective taking, empathy, social responsibility, and prosocial goals) and school adjustment (school belonging, academic self efficacy, personal task goals, and general school concept). In a follow-up study, one year later (N = 158), students who continued to identify no “important” adults reported significantly lower prosocial goals and task goals compared to students who could identify an "important adult at school" in both years. Students who could identify at least one "important adult" in year one but “lost” that important adult in year two reported lower empathy relative to those who "gained" an important adult in the second year (i.e., identified no one in year one but someone in year two). Moreover, students who “lost” important adults in the second year indicated lower social responsibility, school self-concept, and academic self-efficacy compared to students who could identify adults in both the first and the second year. The results of this study are particularly relevant to the present study since it is one of the few studies to date to explore the correlates of relationships with non-parental adults among children in middle childhood. DuBois and Silverthorn (2005) investigated the characteristics of mentoring relationships as they related to adolescents’ education and work, problem behavior, psychological well-being, and physical health. Based on interviews with 2,053 adolescents (grade 7 to 12), their results revealed that adolescents who reported mentoring relationships with professional adults (teachers, 16    ministers, doctors, or therapists) were more likely to attend college than adolescents who reported mentoring with adults in informal roles (coaches, employers, co-workers, neighbors, and friend’s parents). Furthermore, adolescents’ ratings of relationship closeness (greater closeness) were associated with reduced likelihood of using drugs and with higher positive physical and psychological well-being (higher self-esteem, higher life satisfaction, less depressive symptoms, and less suicidal ideation). Taken together, these studies provide information about how having positive relationships with mentors through mentoring programs or having significant adults in school settings can contribute to children and adolescents’ well-being. Of interest in the present study is understanding how such relationships contribute to learning outcomes. Mentoring and learning outcomes. There is a growing body of research investigating how mentoring contributes to students’ academic achievements. McPartland and Nettles (1991) conducted one of the leading investigations on the effectiveness of a one-on-one mentoring program called RAISE, a well-funded program that provided support to students at risk (mostly fifth graders with low test scores and high absence rates). RAISE’s adult volunteers are expected to commit to give their time and energy, not only to assist students with academic problems but also to build rapport and serve as a role model for these students. In this program, there were seven groups of students from seven elementary schools and each group consisted of approximately 60 students. Each group had a sponsor organization (such as churches, universities, large businesses, and fraternities) which then assisted with group activities or organized one-on-one mentoring with volunteers. Students and their mentors were required to communicate at least weekly and meet together bi-weekly. To evaluate program effectiveness after two years of implementation, McPartland and Nettles compared students in the RAISE 17    program with students not in the program but attending the same middle school. Results indicated that a 3% reduction of absences among students in the program relative to the comparison group (McPartland & Nettles, 1991; Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001). Furthermore, students in the RAISE program had better English grades on their report card compared to students not participating in the program. Thompson and Kelly-Vance (2001) studied whether participation of in a structured mentoring program (Big Brothers/Big Sisters) contributed to the improvement of academic achievement (measured by individually administered standardized achievement instruments) among high risk students. Twelve students (aged 9 to 15) who were in the treatment group met with mentors three to four times a month for two to four hours, over a period of at least one year; 13 students (aged 7 to 15) in the control group had no mentors. Results indicated that students in the treatment group improved performance in math and reading achievement more than students in the control group, especially boys. Thus, it appears that mentoring programs can contribute, not only to children’s social and emotional well-being, but also to their cognitive development (Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, 2000) as reflected in their school achievement. Extending this research, the present study examined the role of relationships with non-parental adults in enhancing children’s learning in science, specifically environmental learning. To summarize, studies on mentoring support arguments that it is not only the presence of a mentor that is important, but also the characteristics and qualities of the mentoring relationship that impact developmental and learning outcomes (Darling et al., 2000; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005; Karcher, 2008). In particular, a structured mentoring program has the advantage of providing a regularity of contact that can influence children positively (Karcher, 2008). The present study explored how the quality of the relationship that develops between adults and 18    children in a structured, intergenerational program impacts children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning about environmental issues. Mentoring and connectedness (affiliation and bonding). “At  the  most  basic level, a necessary condition for an effective mentoring relationship is that the two people involved feel connected—that there is mutual trust and a sense that one is understood, liked, and respected” (Rhodes, & DuBois, 2006, p. 3). Regularity of contact with adult mentors provided by a structured mentoring program seems to be an important consideration in creating a sense of connectedness for students. In a study of school-based mentoring of elementary, middle, and high school students, Karcher (2008) compared students who received only standard service (such as enhancement activities, supportive guidance, and/or tutoring) (N = 264) with students who received the standard service plus a 7-month mentorship program involving one-hour weekly meetings (N = 252). The two groups were compared in terms of a variety of outcomes including reading and math grades, self-esteem, social skills, social support, hope, mattering (tendency to see self as significant to others), and connectedness (connectedness to school, teachers, peers, culturally different peers). At the elementary level, boys in the mentoring program showed a higher connectedness to school and to culturally different peers, higher social skills (empathy and cooperation), and more hopefulness than students who did not have mentors. Elementary level males also benefited from the mentoring program more than males in middle or high school. Mentored girls in the elementary level did not show significant changes in connectedness, however, mentored girls in high schools demonstrated significant improvement in self-esteem and peer connectedness relative to girls not in the mentoring program. Karcher, Davis, and Powell (2002) looked at the relationship between mentoring and connectedness. In this study, 26 grade-five students from school district where high school drop- 19    out risk is the highest in the city, were assigned to treatment and comparison groups. These students were paired with 18 high school students and four eighth-grade students from a recognized private school and these mentors committed to work with their mentees for at least a year. Pre- and post-test surveys were used to explore the connectedness to school, friends, adults, future, and teachers, and a standardized achievement test was used to assess math and spelling skills. Results revealed, that after one year in the program, the treatment group showed a significant increase in their connectedness with parents and a trend of increased connectedness with school and with the future. Results of regression analyses showed that gains in spelling achievement were predicted by the mentoring program, mediated by connectedness to parents. Karcher et al. suggested that the mentoring program was important in promoting parents’ involvement and ultimately contributed to better school outcomes.  Connectedness, attitude, and behavior in children. Relevant to the study of mentoring and connectedness, Murray and Greenberg (2000) investigated how relationships with teachers and bonding with school (connectedness) were associated with students’ behavior and motivation. The study involved 289 elementary school children (mean of age of 11.5) who were part of a larger study. Among the many teacher and student measures considered in this study, Murray and Greenberg developed measures to understand further children’s perception of their teachers (affiliation with teachers and dissatisfaction with teachers) and also children’s bonding with school (school bonding and school dangerousness). Other measures were used to explore students’ well-beings and behavior:  student social competence, depressive symptoms in children, delinquency, general personality characteristics of children, a teacher survey on youth behavioral and emotional adjustment, and a teacher survey on in-school problem behavior and competencies 20    in children. Correlational analyses revealed that students who had good affiliations with teachers and stronger bonding to school displayed more positive social and emotional adjustment.  Murray and Greenberg (2000) then divided the children into four groups: (1) a dysfunctional group of children who reported high dissatisfaction with teachers and a high perception of school dangerousness, (2) a functional group of children with average scores on affiliation and bonding, (3) a positively involved group of children who reported high affiliation and bonding, and (4) a school anxious group of children who indicated an extremely high perception of school dangerousness. Further analyses showed that children in dysfunctional, functional, and school anxious groups had lower social competencies compared to positively involved groups. The dysfunctional group also had significantly higher delinquency compared to the other three groups. Symptom disorders were higher for children in the dysfunctional school and school anxious groups. Teacher ratings indicated similar results where the positively involved group was viewed as better at frustration tolerance and task-orientation compared to dysfunctional group. Moreover, teachers rated children in the dysfunctional group as demonstrating more externalizing behavior than the positively involved and functional groups. Thus, both school bonding and positive affiliations with adults were critical components to student outcomes. Extending this research, the present study explored how bonding to a structured intergenerational program and affiliations with non-parental adults in that program contributed to children’s learning, attitudes and behaviors with respect to environmental issues. Summary of Literature Review As demonstrated in the proceeding review, research suggests that relationships between children/adolescents and non-parental adults are a reality for a substantial portion of our youth and serve potentially important roles in their lives (Blyth et al., 1982; Brown; 2003; Galbo & 21    Demetrulias, 1996; Hendry et al., 1992; Rishel et al., 2005; Scales & Gibbons, 1996; Schonert- Reichl & Buote, 2006). Moreover, research exploring the characteristics of relationships with non-parental adults has shown that such relationships differ from those with other adults (e.g., kin relations) in the relational provisions they serve (Beam et al., 2002; Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985, 1992; Hendry et al., 1992; Munch & Blyth, 1993). Research further suggests that mentoring relationships with non-parental adults are beneficial for children and adolescents because they can improve children’s learning, behavior, well-being, and development, as well as create connectedness that leads also to positive outcomes (Chen et al., 2003; Darling et al., 2000; DuBois & Silverthron, 2005; Greenberger et al., 1998; Haddad et al., 2010; Karcher, 2008; Karcher, Davis, & Powell, 2002; Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1992; Schonert-Reichl & Buote, 2006). Deutsch and Spencer (2009) underscored the fact that, in the study of mentoring programs, there is a lack of understanding what actually makes a mentoring program effective. Is it the relationship that develops between the mentor and the mentee or is it the program itself that creates and maintains the healthy relationships? Deutsch and Spencer further highlighted the need to gain a fuller understanding of the quality of mentoring by examining the nature, characteristics, and quality of the mentoring relationships that develop (such as duration, frequency and consistency of contact, and connection built in the relationship), and by considering the individual experiences of both mentor and mentee, and also the program in which the mentoring relationship takes place (program features and mentor training). In order to expand upon the existing research, the present study utilized reliable measures to investigate, not only the qualities of the relationships that develop with non-parental adults, but also their impact 22    on attitudes, behaviors, and learning in an established intergenerational program. Accordingly, research on the intergenerational program is reviewed in the next section. Intergenerational Programs  In response to problems of aging that began to emerge in societies in the 1960s, an increasing number of community programs have attempted to bridge the gap between generations, and promote healthy interactions between children and seniors (Ayala et al., 2007). Pain (2005) defined intergenerational programs as any that involve interactions between generational groups. He argues that intergenerational relationships and interactions play a significant part in shaping social identity by influencing the quality of life for multiple generations. Studies of intergenerational interactions in community settings are predominantly focused on the interactions between seniors and children (BC Care Provider Association, 2009; Poole & Gooding, 1993). These interactions typically involve joint experience, sharing of knowledge, and skill-building activities that are aimed at breaking down stereotypes between generations (BC Care Provider Association, 2009), with benefits to all generations. Opportunities for such engagement between generations is possible through shared site programming, learning exchanges, social networking, dialogues, capacity building projects, and also intergenerational mentoring initiatives (The National Senior Council, 2010). Poole and Gooding (1993) suggested that such relationships between children, youth and seniors can serve to enhance the development of social skills and moral reasoning, and can provide children and youth with guidance when they face problems or difficult decision making. The purpose of the present research is to explore the quality of relationships with non- parental adults and how these relationships impact learning. To this end, the study was conducted as part of an ongoing evaluation of the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program (ILLP) at the 23    University of British Columbia. The ILLP was started in 2002 in response to the global environmental crisis and the urgency of nurturing youth who can be responsible and care about the environment (Mayer-Smith, Lee, Bartosh, Peterat, Sinkinson, & Tsepa, 2004). The concept of the program is to bring the environmental outdoor experience (experiential learning) into the school curriculum based on arguments that students may be able to learn more effectively outside the traditional classroom setting (Bartosh, Mayer-Smith, & Peterat, 2006). The original plan was to bring students from higher socioeconomic status (SES) neighbourhoods to work with elderly, retired farmers to learn about farming (Mayer-Smith et al., 2004; Peterat & Mayer-Smith, 2006). High SES students were chosen because they were considered to be less likely to have had exposure to farming and learning science through farming, and more likely to enjoy future opportunities to make a difference (Mayer-Smith et al., 2004). The program started with a grade seven classroom, the classroom teacher, and seven elderly farmers. Six years later, the ILLP enrolled over 400 grade 4 to 7 students, with over 150 adult volunteers (elderly and young adults), called Farm Friends (Mayer-Smith, Bartosh, & Peterat, 2009). The ILLP involves 11 to 12 sessions throughout the school year, starting in the fall, and 6 meetings for teachers to discuss and prepare the program implementation (Mayer- Smith et al., 2009). There are three to five children and one to two Farm Friends working in each group (Mayer-Smith, Bartosh, & Peterat, 2007). In each session, Farm Friends gather at 8:30 in the morning to prepare the learning of the day and children arrive an hour later to start gardening (Mayer-Smith et al., 2009). Each group then spends three hours in collaborative activities, learning how to prepare soils for planting, choose seeds, plan the garden layout, plant the seeds, take care of the plants while they grow, weed, harvest, and also prepare the food harvested (Mayer-Smith et al., 2007; 2009). At the end of every session, the Farm Friends gather to do a 24    debriefing to share learning experiences and discuss their interactions with children. In this learning process, children are able to develop a more personal connection and experience with the environment, have better ecological consciousness, and understand the dynamic of a living system (Mayer-Smith et al., 2004). One of the biggest challenges in the beginning of the program was to build a connection between the farm, classroom science, and environmental education (Bartosh, Mayer-Smith, Peterat, & Sinkinson, 2004). Teachers had difficulties integrating the farming concept with the mandated science curriculum; students did not always recognize the farming experience as science learning. In addition, teachers and elderly farmers differed in their understanding of the concepts of farming and science (Bartosh, Mayer-Smith, Sinkinson, & Peterat, 2005). However, after 6 to 7 months in the program, teachers came to understand the possibilities of teaching science through farming. The more experience teachers had in the farm setting, the easier it was to plan science lessons, and teachers and elderly farmers started to draw more connections between science learning and farming (Bartosh et al., 2006). The ILLP also seeks to demonstrate that caring about the environment can be developed through caring relationships (Peterat & Mayer-Smith, 2006). As ILLP members soon realized, the strength of the program lies, not only in integrating science and farming through experiential learning, but also through the intergenerational interactions between children, young adults, and the elderly (Mayer-Smith et al., 2009). The ILLP provides opportunities for children to interact with (work with and learn from) non-parental adults outside school and home settings (Mayer- Smith et al., 2007), with the hope of promoting positive child development and improving children’s communication and social skills (Mayer-Smith et al., 2009). Children not only learn about farming but also learn about themselves, and about working with other people (Bartosh et 25    al., 2004; Peterat & Mayer-Smith, 2006). With structured and unstructured time during the activities, it is expected that there is mutual learning between children and Farm Friends (Peterat & Mayer-Smith, 2006). The adults who volunteer in the ILLP have many roles—to help, listen, and care about the children, and to share wisdom, directions, and guidance in farming (Mayer- Smith et al., 2004). Farm Friends also have the opportunity to make a difference in children’s lives (Peterat & Mayer-Smith, 2006). Bartosh et al. (2004) conducted a qualitative study to explore the impact of children’s participation in the ILLP. Researchers observed children’s activities and interactions with Farm Friends, documented each session using videos, photographs, and field notes, and conducted interviews with the participating children and teachers in the beginning, middle, and end of the program. Farm Friends were also interviewed in the beginning of the project and participated in focus groups at the end of the program. Also, children documented their experiences in their personal journals throughout the program. Results, analyzed qualitatively, showed that children were learning about science through their farming experiences. They gained understanding of environmental issues and built a sense of responsibility regarding the environment. These children also gained new social skills through teamwork and intergenerational activities in the program. Stronger relationships and more communication between children and Farm Friends were reported over time. Moreover, these children also developed a connection to the land and the plants that they nurtured. The authors concluded that children’s experiences in the ILLP were powerful and memorable as they engaged all of the children’s emotions and senses (Bartosh et al., 2004). Other qualitative data gathered throughout the first four years of the program also indicated that the children in the program developed a more personal relationship with the 26    environment and an understanding of themselves as part of the environment (Mayer-Smith et al., 2007).  ILLP curriculum. Based on nearly a decade of experience with the ILLP, Mayer-Smith and Peterat (2010) developed the current curriculum for the ILLP that corresponds to the prescribed learning objectives for teaching science within the local public schools. This curriculum is being used in the classrooms that attend the ILLP, and is aligned with the province Science curriculum and learning outcome for K to grade 7 (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2005).  The ILLP curriculum consists of a sequence of 11 to 12 sessions on food growing (see Mayer-Smith & Peterat, 2010 for details). The program begins with introductory activities to sharpen children’s observation skills, and with stories about humans’ connection to the land. It is followed by lessons about seeds, nutrient cycles, composting, and the components for making good soil for growing. The curriculum (see Table 1) also includes lessons about food growing in the fall, winter, and spring, and lessons on how to select and plant seeds, arrange crops for maximum yield, and grow and harvest plants and prepare nutritious food from the harvest, with well-developed student activity handouts and recipes for children to try with their families at home. Given the educational focus of the ILLP, and its reliance on relationships established between non-parental adults and children in middle childhood, the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program was considered an ideal context in which to conduct the present study exploring both the qualities of non-parental relationships and their impact on learning.       27    Table 1 Intergenerational Landed Learning Program Curriculum 2011-2012 Visit Learning Content 1   Identify food crops, describe the unique qualities of plants as living things, learn about and build connections with adult volunteers, orient to the Landed Learning space, demonstrate safe behaviour on the farm, harvest fall crops, prepare, share, and clean up a harvest salad.  2  Identify cycles in the natural world, explain why we save seeds, collect seeds from mature plants and prepare them/dry them to be saved, identify plants that will and will not be over-wintered, demonstrate proper and safe tool use, explain why and how we compost.  3  Identify the major components of healthy soil, demonstrate care for the soil, explain how and why to put a bed to rest for the winter, explain the role of green manure/cover cropping and mulching in the garden, identify helpful and unwanted small animals in the garden, demonstrate proper and safe use of garden tools.  4  Choosing seeds to plant, learn about native and non-native plants  5  Learn the difference between direct seeding and transplanting,  start a seedling, describe and the conditions needed for a seed to germinate in a pot, demonstrate proper garden seeding technique, correctly space seeds according to their planting instructions, describe germination within the lifecycle of a plant, propagate plants from seed and tuber.  6  Distinguish between organic and conventional growing practices, define weeds, describe why farmers choose to use or not use herbicides and pesticides, explain about herbicides, demonstrate organic weed control methods, identify and remove unwanted plants, explain the purpose of a trellis and build a trellis to support pea plants.  7  List the plants organs and describe their role, list the inputs and outputs of photosynthesis and explain the relationship between photosynthesis and plant growth, use observation to determine and diagnose garden health, research and make plans to remedy common plant ailments, weed thin plants to provide plants room to grow and access nutrients, transplant seedlings. 8   Explain the role of water in plant growth, explain the ideal conditions for watering, demonstrate correct and even watering of plants, describe how water can be conserved and protected in the garden and at home.  9  Observe and identify parts of flowers, describe the importance of flowers in plant reproduction, explain the process of pollination and its role in plant reproduction, list pollinators and describe the role of pollinators in pollination, explain the importance of bees in food production, observe bees at work and identify their pollen baskets.  10  Relate healthy soil to healthy plants and human bodies, explain that different parts of plants provide different types of nutrients, identify the many types of seeds we eat and describe ways we process seeds to eat, compare and contrast the nutritional value of whole foods versus processed foods, compare and contrast commercial processing versus traditional processing of foods.  11  Harvest celebration.    28    Statement of Problem Researchers have just started to understand the importance of children’s relationships with non-parental adults. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research that documents the importance of non-parental adult relationships with children in middle childhood (Rishel et al., 2005), despite the recognition that this period of development is a time when children start to gain their independence and become more engaged in wider social contexts (Bee et al., 2006; Collins, 1984; Eccles, 1999). Research has verified that non-parental adults can be teachers, neighbors, group leaders, or friends’ parents (Blyth et al., 1982; Brown; 2003; Galbo & Demetrulias, 1996; Hendry et al., 1992; Rishel et al., 2005; Scales & Gibbons, 1996). These non- parental adults can enable and support children and youth, serve as role models, provide instrumental aid, engender trust and respect, and also provide companionship (Beam et al., 2002; Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985, 1992; Hendry et al., 1992; Munch & Blyth, 1993; Murray & Greenberg, 2000). Studies have demonstrated that relationships with mentors (potentially non-parental adults) can predict higher psychological well-being, reduce risky behavior, and create connectedness to learning contexts (DuBois & Silverthron, 2005; Karcher, 2008). However, these studies have not explored the specific characteristics/ qualities of the relationships that develop, nor the impact of those relationships on children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning. The purpose of this study was to extend the literature in three important ways: (a) to provide a deeper understanding of children’s relationships with non-parental adults during middle childhood, (b) to investigate the qualities of children’s relationships with non-parental adults in a structured experiential intergenerational program, and (c) to explore whether and how children’s relationships with non-parental adults impact the children’s attitudes, behaviors, and 29    learning. Specifically, this research investigated the qualities of the relationships developed between elementary school students and non-parental adults through the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program (the ILLP), and how these impact children’s bonding with the program and affiliation with non-parental adults as well as the attitudes, behaviors, and learning about environmental issues that are acquired through the program. Research Questions The study was designed to address five questions: 1. What is the impact of the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program on children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning regarding environmental issues? Studies found that children in a structured mentoring program reported improvement in their academic achievements (Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001) and more positive psychological well-being (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005). Similarly, it was hypothesized that children in the present study, who interacted with non-parental adults in the ILLP and had direct experience in environmental learning would show more positive attitudes, behaviors, and learning about environmental issues at the end of the school year than the comparison group who were not in the ILLP. 2. What are the qualities of the relationships that develop between children and non-parental adults in the ILLP? Furman and Buhrmester (1985, 1992) identified several qualities of relationships between children and adults: (1) reliable alliance, (2) enhancement of worth (admiration), (3) instrumental aid, (4) companionship, (5) affection, (6) intimacy, (7) relative power, (8) conflict, (9) satisfaction, (10) importance of relationship, (11) nurturance, and (12) punishment. A subset of these qualities that were believed by the program staff and 30    developers to be most appropriate for the present context were investigated in the present study (see Methods section). Of interest is how children perceive their relationships with non-parental adults or, in the case of the ILLP, their Farm Friends. To this end, students were asked to complete surveys regarding their relationships with Farm Friends at the end of the program. Of interest were the relationship qualities that children perceived as developing within the ILLP program. Given the exploratory nature of this investigation, specific hypotheses regarding the nature of these relationships were not made. 3.  What is the relationship between the qualities of relationships and children’s affiliation and bonding in the structured intergenerational program? Previous research by Murray and Greenberg (2000) suggested that affiliations with non- parental adults such as teachers and bonding with learning environments such as school settings are important elements of children’s relationships with adults. No study to date has analyzed how the quality of the relationship with a non-parental adult affects the child’s affiliation with non-parental adults and bonding to the program. It was hypothesized that the more positive the qualities of the relationships between children and non-parental adults in the ILLP, the more positive children’s reports of affiliation with the non-parental adults and the stronger children’s bonding toward the program. 4.  What is the relationship between affiliation with non-parental adults and bonding to the program and children’s attitudes, behaviors, and environmental learning in the program? Murray and Greenberg (2000) noted that affiliations with non-parental adults such as teachers and bonding with learning environments such as school settings influence students’ behavior and their involvement in those settings. Based on this argument, the present study hypothesized that children who report more positive bonding and affiliation with the ILLP 31    would also demonstrate positive changes in attitudes, behaviors, and learning towards the issues taught in the program than those who report less positive bonding and affiliations. 5.   Which qualities of the relationships that develop between children and their non-parental adults contribute to children’s attitudes, behaviors, and environmental learning in the program? DuBois and Silverthorn (2005) argued that the characteristics of mentoring relationships affect education and work, problem behavior, physical and psychological well-being in adolescents. Learning from that study, it was hypothesized that the various qualities of the relationships that form between children and their Farm Friends in the ILLP (companionship, instrumental aid, intimacy, nurturance, admiration, support, and satisfaction) would predict children’s attitudes, behaviors, and environmental learning in the program.             32    Method Design  Data for this study were collected as a part of an ongoing evaluation of the ILLP. A quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test design was used to assess changes in student reports of their attitudes, behaviors and learning through surveys. The present study compared students from four elementary schools (approx. 52 to 55 students per school) who participated in the ILLP over the 2011-2012 school year, and matched comparison groups of same-grade peers from the same school who were not participating in the program but followed the same provincial science curriculum. Using a post-test only design to assess the qualities of relationships between students and their Farm Friends, students who participated in the ILLP program (but not comparison students) also completed a survey on the quality of their relationships at the end of their program. Participants  A total of 211 elementary school students (113 girls, 98 boys) from grades 3-7 participated in the present study, with 107 students participating in the ILLP program and 104 students serving as the comparison group. As can be seen in Table 2, the number of students that participated in the ILLP group is comparable to the comparison group.        33    Table 2 Demographic of the Students in the Pre-Test, Post-Test, and Relationship Surveys (N = 211)   Number % Group  ILLP Group 107 50.7  Comparison Group 104 49.3 Gender  Female 113 53.6  Male 98 46.4 Age  8 years old 7 3.3  9 years old 44 20.9  10 years old 59 28  11 years old 57 27  12 years old 35 16.6  13 years old 9 4.3 Language at home  English 126 59.7  Chinese (Mandarin) 11 5.2  Cantonese 12 5.7  Punjabi 5 2.4  French 4 1.9  Spanish 7 3.3  Japanese 3 1.4  Farsi 1 0.5  Other 39 18.5  Not all of the 211 participants completed all parts of the study. Indeed, over the course of the school year, some students moved to a different school and others moved into the school and joined the ILLP program mid-year1. As well, some students were absent on the day of the data collection at pre-test, whereas others were absent during completion of surveys at post-test. In addition, data from one comparison group (n = 21) were lost.  The final sample included data from 129 students who completed both pre and post-test surveys tapping student attitudes, behaviors, and learning, and 96 of the 107 students who took part in the ILLP program who  1  Information gained from student self-reports (with input from the teacher, if needed) indicated that there were 33 students that missed one session, six students that missed two sessions, seven students that missed three sessions, two students that missed four sessions, one student that missed six sessions, and one student that missed seven of 11 sessions of the program. 34    completed the relationship survey at post-test (see Table 3). Table 3 Final Sample Description   Pre and Post-Test Post-Test of Relationship ILLP Group Girls 33 52 Boys 31 44  Comparison Group Girls 33 Boys 32  Total N  129 96  Procedures  Ethics review. Prior to the conceptualization of this study, the ILLP developer had received approval from the UBC Behavioral Research Ethics Board for an evaluation of the Intergenerational Landed Learning Project which involved an evaluation of student attitudes, behaviors, and learning, as assessed through the pre and post-test knowledge survey (described below). Active parent consent and student assent were obtained for all participants (See Appendix A for a copy of the consent letters). Ethics approval for the addition of a second survey on the relationship qualities between children and non-parental adults was submitted as an amendment to the original ethics application in April 2012 and approved in June 2012 (certificate number: B02-0400, see Appendix B).  Procedure. In the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, the ILLP manager obtained written consent from parents of students in both the ILLP and comparison classes for completion of pre- and post-test surveys evaluating changes in attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge/learning as a function of participation in the ILLP. The pre-test survey (Appendix C) was distributed by the ILLP manager to eight classroom teachers (four classes from the ILLP group and four classes from the comparison group) who administered the survey to students in September 2011. 35    Teachers also administered the post-test survey (Appendix D) that was completed by students in the middle of June 2012 after the last session of the program. At approximately the same time in the school year, those students who participated in the ILLP (but not comparison students), were also asked to complete a survey describing their feelings about the ILLP and their relationships with their assigned non-parental adults or Farm Friends. The relationship survey was administered by the author of this study in each participating classroom after the students’ last day of the ILLP. Measures  There were two measures used in this study. The first measure was the pre- and post-test survey developed by the ILLP co-founders that assesses students’ attitudes, behaviors, and learning in the project. The second survey, assessing the quality of the relationships that developed between students and their assigned Farm Friends was adapted from previous research by the author for the purposes of this study (as described below).  ILLP knowledge survey. The ILLP survey was developed in 2008 by the ILLP co- founders to reflect the goals and content of the program, and was used in an initial evaluation of the ILLP in 2010-2011. This same survey was used again in the present study and was completed by both ILLP and comparison students at both pre- test and post-test. The survey includes six sections, each tapping a different aspect of children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning with regard to environmental issues. A complete version of the pre and post-test surveys as administered to students is provided in Appendix C and D. A brief description of the six sections follows.  Initial questions were designed to provide demographic information about participants, including the child’s first and last name, teacher’s name, school name, sex (boy or girl), age, 36    language spoken at home, and whether they participated in the ILLP this year. A second set of eight questions asked about student’s food, cooking, and eating habits. The first four questions in this set required categorical, yes/no answers (if yes, name them), including “I enjoy tasting food.”, “I know what healthy food is,”, “I choose to eat healthy foods.” and “I introduce new foods to my family.” A fifth question asked students, “How many fruits and vegetables do you eat every day?” Responses were given on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 = none, 2 = 1 fruit or vegetable a day, 3 = 2-4 fruits/vegetables to 4 = more than 5 fruits/vegetables. A sixth question asked students, “How often do you prepare food or cook food when you are at home?” Responses were provided on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 = never, 2 = once in a while, 3 = once a week to 4 = every day. Finally, children were also asked to “Please name or describe foods that you think are junk food.” and “How often do you eat junk food?” with 4-point responses ranging from 1 = never, 2 = once in a while, 3 = once a week to 4 = every day.  A third section of the survey consisted of six questions about students’ experiences with gardening and growing and their effort to talk with family and/or friends about gardening. For the first four questions, “My family has a garden at home.”, “I help with my family garden.”, “I talk to my parents about gardening.”, and “I talk to my friends about gardening”, students’ responses were dichotomous - yes/no. A fifth question asked students to rate how much they know about gardening, with response options ranging from 1 = nothing to 2 = something to 3 = a lot. Lastly, students were asked to identify who they feel taught them about gardening (i.e., “If you know how to garden, who taught you?”), with response options including 1 = my parents, 2 = my grandparents, and 3 = other people.  The fourth section of the survey included eight items that asked students to evaluate their own behavior and attitude regarding environmental care, with response options ranging from 1 37    = never to 2 = sometimes to 3 = often. The eight items include:  “I pick up garbage when I see it lying around”, “I recycle bottles, plastics, and paper”, “I compost at home”, “I try not to waste food”, “I try not to waste water”, “I am concerned about how to take care of the environment”, “I talk with my family or friends about the environment”, and “I am interested in learning how to care for the environment”.  Students’ behavior and comfort in social actions was assessed using nine items in the fifth section of the survey, with a dichotomous (yes/no) response format. The questions included, “I like working in a small group”, “I like talking with older people”, “I like working with older people”, “I like spending time with people of all ages”, “ I am comfortable talking in front of a large group”, “I am good at sharing my thoughts and ideas”, “I often teach my friends or family about things I learn”, “I would describe myself as an active participant in my classroom”, and “I would describe myself as an active participant in my school or community”. The final section of the survey asked children to draw pictures to show their understanding of where food comes from, and also gave students the opportunity to ask questions of the ILLP staff.  Only two sections of the survey were identified as relevant to the present evaluation. Three other sections, (i.e., food, cooking, and eating habits, social actions, and drawing sections) were not analyzed in this present study in order to keep the focus of the analyses on direct impact of the program on attitudes, behaviors, and learning specific to environmental issues. The two omitted sections on eating habits and social actions did not directly explore students’ perspectives on their environmental learning experiences, and the drawing section required qualitative analyses that due to time limitation was impossible to perform. Two subscales were used to assess student attitudes, behaviors and learning (knowledge) using non-dichotomous response formats: (a) environmental care section and (b) the gardening 38    and growing section. The items included in the environmental care section were designed specifically to assess student attitudes and behaviors. All eight items utilized the same response options, ranging from 1 = never to 2 = sometimes to 3 = often. One item from the gardening and growing subscale was used to assess student perceptions of knowledge acquired about gardening and growing (i.e., “I know…about gardening” with responses ranging from 1 = nothing to 2 = something to 3 = a lot).  In the interest of data reduction, student pre-test responses (N = 167) to the eight items tapping environmental care were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis using varimax rotation; Field, 2009). Results indicated two factors (attitudes and behaviors), as shown in Table 4 below. Table 4 Environmental Care Items Principal Components Analysis Using Varimax Rotation (N =167) Factor Label/Items Factor 1 2 Factor One (Attitudes) I am interested in learning/ like or want to learn about how to care for the environment .84 I talk with my family or friends about the environment .81 I am concerned about how to take care of the environment .74 Factor Two (Behaviors) I try not to waste food  .77 I try not to waste water  .77 I recycle bottles, plastics and paper  .66 I pick up garbage when I see it lying around  .52 I compost at home  .48  Based on results of the factor analysis, two composite indices of attitudes and behaviors, respectively, were then computed. The average of student responses to three questions (i.e., I am interested in learning/like or want to learn about how to care for the environment, I talk with my family or friends about the environment, and I am concerned about how to take care of the 39    environment) were calculated into a composite index of attitudes. Student responses to five questions (i.e., I try not to waste food, I try not to waste water, I recycle bottles, plastics and paper, I pick up garbage when I see it lying around, and I compost at home) were averaged to compute a composite measure of conservation behaviors. The internal consistency for these two composite scores was adequate, with moderate Cronbach alpha coefficients ( = .74 for attitudes, .62 for behaviors).  To summarize, there were three measures (two composites and one single item) selected from the ILLP survey to evaluate the impact of the program on children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning. For the two composite measures (attitudes and behaviors), responses ranged from 1 to 3, with higher scores reflecting more positive attitudes and behaviors toward environmental issues. In addition, for the single item on gardening knowledge, with responses also ranging from 1 to 3, higher scores reflected greater perceived learning experiences about gardening.  Relationship survey. In addition to the demographic information (name, teacher, school, grade, birthday, age, sex and names of Farm Friends), the content of the Relationship Survey (total of 46 items) was designed to best capture children’s perspectives on (a) their affiliation with Farm Friends, (b) their bonding with the program, and (c) the qualities of their relationships with their Farm Friends. Each is described in greater detail below.  Student reports of their feelings of affiliation with Farm Friends and bonding with the program were assessed using subscales adapted from the Important People in My Life (PIML, Murray & Greenberg, 2000). The PIML survey was developed for use with children in middle to late childhood to explore their relationships with parents, teachers, peers, school, and neighbors (Mandelson et al., 2010; Murray & Greenberg, 2000; Ridenour, Greenberg, & Cook, 2006). Previous research has verified the factor structure of the scale and the strong internal consistency 40    of both subscales (Mandelson et al., 2010; Murray & Greenberg, 2000; Ridenour, Greenberg, & Cook, 2006), with Cronbach’s alpha of .80 for the bonding subscale and .89 for the affiliation subscale. Affiliation with Farm Friends. For the present study, student reports of their affiliation with Farm Friends was assessed using a composite of eight items that were adapted from the Affiliation with Teacher subscale of the PIML measure (Murray & Greenberg, 2000). Specifically, items were modified to reflect relationships with Farm Friends rather than teachers. The items included in this sub-scale were “I like my Farm Friends this year,” “My Farm Friends respect my feelings,” “My farm Friends understand me,” “I trust my Farm Friends,” “My Farm Friends pay attention to me,” “I get along well with my Farm Friends,” “My Farm Friends are proud of the things I do,” and “I can count on my Farm Friends when I have a problem at the UBC Farm.” The 4-point response format was also modified, from 1 = Almost never or never true, 2 = sometimes true, 3 = often true, to 4 = almost always or always true to 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, to 4 = Strongly Agree. Internal reliability for this subscale in the present sample was high (α = .89). For each participant, a composite index of affiliation with Farm Friends was computed, based on the average of the eight items included in the scale, with higher scores reflecting greater or stronger affiliation with Farm Friends. Bonding with the ILLP. Student reports of bonding with the ILLP was assessed using eight items adapted from the School Bonding subscale of PIML (Murray & Greenberg, 2000). There were some modifications to the items so that they better reflected the setting of the ILLP, which is the UBC Farm instead of a school. The items included in this subscale were “I look forward to going to UBC Farm,” “I feel safe at UBC Farm,” “UBC Farm is a nice place to be,” “I enjoy taking part in discussions and activities at UBC Farm,” “I know how to do things at 41    UBC Farm,” “Doing well in the program at UBC Farm is important for me,” “Students in the Landed Learning program at UBC Farm have a good chance to be successful in gardening,” and “I like the Landed Learning group I worked with at UBC Farm this year.” The response format was also adapted from the original 4-point scale where 1 = Almost never or never true, 2 = sometimes true, 3 = often true, to 4 = almost always or always true. For this study, the 4-point response scale ranged from 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree to 4 = Strongly Agree. Internal reliability for the bonding subscale in the present sample was high (α = .78). For each participant, a composite index of bonding with the ILLP was computed, based on the average of the eight items included in the scale, with higher scores reflecting greater or stronger bonding with the program.   Qualities of relationships. Student perceptions of the quality of their relationships with their Farm Friends were assessed using selected sub-scales adapted from the Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI) (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985, 1992). The NRI is a self-report survey that asks respondents to describe the features or qualities of their relationships with parents, siblings, boyfriends or girlfriends, close friends, teachers, and other adults and has been used with second grade through college students (Furman, 1996). Previous studies using this measure have demonstrated strong internal reliability of the resulting subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .80 to .81 across subscales (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985, 1992; Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1991).   In consultation with ILLP program developers, only seven of the original 12 sub-scales of the NRI (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985, 1992) were considered appropriate for the present evaluation: companionship, instrumental aid, intimacy, nurturance, admiration, support, and satisfaction. The wording of these sub-scales was modified to best fit with the terms used in the 42    ILLP such as Farm Friends. Children in the ILLP were assigned to have at least two Farm Friends in the group in which they work. In order to complete the survey, children were asked to think about the Farm Friend they feel the closest to or the Farm Friend who elicits strong emotional reactions and to complete the relationship survey with that individual in mind. Each of the seven resulting subscales is described below. For six of the seven subscales, response options were modified from the original format (1 = Little or None, 2 = Somewhat, 3 = Very much, 4 = Extremely much, and 5 = The most) to one for the present study (1 = Never, 2 = Seldom, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always).  Companionship. The companionship subscale of the NRI, as adapted for the present study, included three items: “When you have free time at UBC Farm, how much of that free time do you spend with your Farm Friends?” “When you are at UBC Farm, how much do you play and have fun with your Farm Friends?” and “When you are at UBC Farm, how much do you go to see places and do enjoyable things with your Farm Friends?” Internal reliability for the companionship subscale in the present study was high, α = .84. For each participant, a composite index of companionship was computed as the average of the three relevant items, with higher scores indicative of greater or more positive companionship.  Instrumental Aid. The instrumental aid subscale of the NRI assesses the degree to which their relationship supports learning and problem solving. Items for this subscale, as adapted for the present study, included, “How often do your Farm Friends teach you how to do things that you don’t know?” “How often do your Farm Friends help you figure out or fix things?” and “How often do your Farm Friends help you when you need to get something done?” Internal reliability for this subscale in the present study was moderately high, α = .70. For each 43    participant, a composite index of instrumental aid was computed as the average of the three relevant items, with higher scores indicative of greater instrumental aid. Intimacy. The intimacy subscale of NRI assesses the degree of intimacy developed between children and non-parental adults in the ILLP. Items in this subscale included, “How much do you talk about things that are not related to UBC Farm with your Farm Friends?” “How much do you share your secret and private feelings with your Farm Friends?” and “How much do you talk to your Farm Friends about things that you don’t want others to know?” Internal reliability for this subscale in the present study was high, α = .81 after omitting the first question. For each participant, a composite index of intimacy that consisted of average responses to two items (sharing secret and trusting Farm Friends discretions) was computed with higher scores reflecting greater intimacy. Nurturance. The nurturance subscale of the NRI included three items: “How much do your Farm Friends help you with things you can’t do by yourself?” “How much do your Farm Friends protect and look out for you?” and “How much do your Farm Friends take care of you?” Internal reliability for this subscale in the present study was moderate, α = .68 after omitting the first question in this subscale. For each participant, a composite index of nurturance that consisted of average responses to two items (protection and care) was computed, with higher scores indicated greater nurturance from Farm Friends. Admiration. The admiration subscale of the NRI assesses the degree to which students feel that their Farm Friends respect and admire them. Items for this subscale, as adapted for the present study, included, “How much do your Farm Friends treat you like you are admired and respected?” “How much do your Farm Friends treat you like you are good at many things?” and “How much do your Farm Friends like or approve of the things you do?” Internal reliability for 44    this subscale in the present study was high, α = .79. For each participant, a composite index of admiration was computed as the average of the three relevant items, with higher scores indicative of greater perceived admiration from Farm Friends. Support. The support subscale of the NRI assesses the degree to which Farm Friends supported children during their learning in the program. Items for this subscale, as adapted for the present study, included  “How much do you turn to your Farm Friends for support with your problems?” “How much do you depend on your Farm Friends for help, advice, or sympathy?” and “When you are feeling down or upset, how often do you depend on your Farm Friends to cheer you up?” Internal reliability for this subscale in the present study was moderately high, α =.75. For each participant, a composite index of support was computed as the average of the three relevant items, with higher scores reflecting greater support children perceived from their Farm Friends.  Satisfaction. The satisfaction subscale of the NRI assesses the degree of children’s perceived satisfaction of the relationships they developed with their Farm Friends. Items for this subscale, as adapted for the present study, included, “How happy are you with your relationship with your Farm Friends?” “How happy are you with the way things are between you and your Farm Friends?” (response scale ranged from 1 = Extremely happy, 2 = Very happy, 3 = Happy, 4 = A little happy, to 5 = Not happy), and “How good is your relationship with your Farm Friends?” Response alternatives ranged from 1 = Extremely good, 2 = Very good, 3 = Good, 4 = A little good, to 5 = Not good. Internal reliability for this subscale in the present study was very high, α = .92. For each participant, a composite index of satisfaction was computed as the average of the three relevant items, with higher scores indicative of greater satisfaction.  45    Results  Analyses for this study were conducted using version 19.0 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). To determine statistical significance, an alpha level of .05 was used (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008). Both single item variables and composite measures (based on results of factor analyses and with demonstrated internal reliability) were considered (Pallant, 2007). Effect sizes (where appropriate) were determined based on the partial eta square effect size statistic and interpreted using the Cohen’s eta squared effect size index (Cohen, 1988; Pallant, 2007) – small effect size = .01; medium effect size = .06; and large effect size = .14. Prior to conducting the analyses (repeated measures analyses of variance and regression analyses), data were carefully examined in terms of assumptions (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Field, 2009; Pallant, 2007). For the repeated measures analyses, the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality yielded significant results (p < .05) for all of the variables tested. Examination of Normal Q-Q plot showed that there was some deviation in normality, although not severe (Field, 2009). Efforts to normalize the data using transformations (square root transformation for moderately positive skewness) (Field, 2009; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006) were unsuccessful. Given that most analytical techniques in SPSS are robust with regard to normality assumptions with sufficiently large samples (>30), this violation was not considered a major concern (see Pallant, 2007). Results of Levene’s tests of homogeneity of variance verified that this assumption was met (p > .05). Given that there were only two levels of independent variables considered in the analyses, the sphericity assumption required for repeated measures analyses of variance was met by default (SPSS only provides output of Mauchly’s test for sphericity for three or more levels) (Field, 2009; Hinton, Brownlow, & McMurray, 2004). 46     Examination of assumptions was also performed for the regression analyses. The regression standardized residual histogram showed that all of the distributions were normal therefore this assumption was met. The assumption of independence was tested with Durbin- Watson. The result showed this assumption was met and there were no serial correlations among the residuals. Multicollinearity was also checked using the Variance Inflation Factor and Tolerance Index and none of the variables had any multicollinearity problems (Tolerance Index > .20 and VIF < 4). Homoscedasticity was also tested using scatterplots of standardized residuals versus predicted residuals (Field, 2009) and this assumption was met for all variables. Impact of ILLP Of initial interest was whether participation in the ILLP program involving non-parental adults influenced children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning. To address this question, a series 2 (group: ILLP vs. comparison classes) by 2 (sex: boy vs. girl) by 2 (time: pre vs. post) repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, one for each of the outcome measures considered. Univariate analysis of variance was chosen over multivariate analyses because of the interest in exploring the group differences for each of the dependent variables (Huberty & Morris, 1989). Group and sex of subject served as the between subjects factors, and time served as the within subjects factor (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008). Three dependent variables were considered: (1) a 3-item composite measure of students’ attitudes toward environmental issues, (2) a 5-item composite measure of environmentally conscious behavior, and (3) a single-item measure of students’ perceptions of their knowledge/learning abut gardening. Results of these analyses are described in the paragraphs below and summarized in Table 5 that follows. Results of the first repeated measures ANOVA, examining changes in student reports of their attitudes regarding environmental issues indicated no significant main effects, although 47    there was a significant interaction of group by time, F(1, 127) = 4.23, p < 0.05, (partial eta square) ɳp2  =  0.03 (small effect size; Pallant, 2007). As shown in Figure 1, students in the ILLP group reported more positive attitudes from pre-test (M = 2.18, SD = .49) to post-test (M = 2.25, SD = .46), whereas students in the comparison group reported more negative attitudes from pre-test (M = 2.11, SD = .55) to post-test (M = 2.00, SD = .54). Results of the repeated measures ANOVA conducted to examine student reports of behaviors failed to demonstrate any significant main effects or interactions (see Table 5). Thus, girls and boys in the ILLP program did not differ from girls and boys in the comparison groups in terms of their reports of conservation efforts and these reported behaviors did not change over the course of the school year. The final repeated measures analysis of variance conducted to evaluate knowledge about gardening (learning) indicated no significant main effects of group, time or sex (see Table 5). However, there was a significant interaction observed between group and time, F(1, 127) = 13.62, p < 0.05, (partial eta square) ɳp2 = 0.10 (moderate effect size; Pallant, 2007). The students in the ILLP group reported greater knowledge about gardening from pre-test (M = 2.24, SD =. 50) to post-test (M = 2.52, SD = .50), whereas students in the comparison reported less knowledge from the pre-test (M = 2.16, SD = .55) to the post-test (M = 2.03, SD = .57), as illustrated in Figure 2.       48    Table 5 Results of ANOVAs for Attitudes, Behaviors, and Learning by Group (N = 129) Dependent Variables Group (ILLP Group and Comparison Group) SS df MS F Sig. ɳp2 1. Attitude Time .02 1 .02 .16  .69 .00 Time*Group .52 1 .52 4.23 .04  .03 Time*Gender .12 1 .12 .98 .33 .01 Time*Group*Gender .01 1 .01 .04 .84 .00 2. Behavior Time .18 1 .18 2.78 .10 .02 Time*Group .00 1 .00 .00 .96 .00 Time*Gender .02 1 .02 .28 .60 .00 Time*Group*Gender .07 1 .07 .99 .32 .01 3. Learning Time .33 1 .33 1.76 .19 .01 Time*Group 2.56 1 2.56 13.62 .00 .10 Time*Gender .01 1 .01 .04 .85 .00 Time*Group*Gender .14 1 .14 .73 .40 .01   Figure 1. Changes in attitudes over time across ILLP and comparison groups 49     Figure 2. Changes in learning over time across ILLP and comparison groups  Relationships with Non-Parental Adults  First, descriptive analyses were used to explore the qualities of the relationships that developed between children who participated in the ILLP and their adult Farm Friends, as reported on the adapted version of the Network of Relationships Inventory. Overall, the majority of the children in this program reported positive relationship qualities with their Farm Friends. Specifically, as can be seen in Table 6, children’s positive perceptions of their relationships with Farm Friends were expressed in terms of positive satisfaction ratings and in reports that the Farm Friends showed admiration for children, and provided instrumental aid, companionship, nurturance, and support. Positive relationships were operationalized as student ratings of 4 (often) and 5 (always). Perhaps not surprisingly, children’s ratings of intimacy with their Farm 50    Friends were far lower as previous studies showed similar results in term of children’s relationships with non-parental adults (see Table 6). Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations for Student Ratings on the Quality of Relationships with Farm Friends (FF) (N = 96) Relationship Qualities M SD 1. Companionship (Free time spent with FF, play and have fun with FF, go to see places and do enjoyable things with FF) 3.36 1.03 2. Instrumental Aid (FF teach you how to do things that you don’t know, help you figure out or fix things, help you when you need to get something done) 4.02 .74 3. Intimacy (Share secrets/private feelings with FF, talk to FF about things that you don’t want others to know) 1.75 .97 4. Nurturance (FF protect/look out for you, FF take care of you) 3.75 .99 5. Admiration (FF treat you like you are admired and respected, treat you like you are good at many things, like or approve of the things you do) 4.03 .81 6. Support (Turn to your FF for support with your problems, depend on your FF for help, advice, or sympathy, when feeling down or upset, how often do you depend on your FF to cheer you up) 3.21 1.01 7. Satisfaction (Happiness with relationship with FF, happiness with the way things are between you and FF, how good was the relationship with FF) 4.05 .94 Range of responses: 1 = Never, 2 = Seldom, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always    Out of 96 children, there were 43 children (45%) who stated that they were extremely satisfied with the relationship they had with the Farm Friends in their group. Only 5 children (5%) rated their relationships as not satisfactory or only a little satisfactory. A large number of 51    children (n = 76, 79%) reported that their Farm Friends admired them “often” or “always.” Also, the majority of the children reported that their Farm Friends provided instrumental aid to them “always” (n = 27, 28%) or “often” (n = 53, 51%). Nearly half of the students reported that their Farm Friends provided nurturance “often” (n = 46, 48%), although 10% of the children reported that their Farm Friends “never” or “seldom” provided nurturance (n = 10). Student ratings of their Farm Friends’ companionship was also mixed; whereas 23% (n = 22) indicated that their Farm Friend “never” or “seldom” served as a companion, 39% (n = 37) indicated that they “often” did. Similarly mixed were student reports of how often their Farm Friends provided them with support, with 38% (n = 36) reporting that their Farm Friends “sometimes” provided support and another 22% (n = 21) indicating that they “never” or “seldom” provided support. Finally, nearly half of the children (n = 46, 48%) reported that they “never” feel intimate with their Farm Friends; only 3 of the students (3%) indicated that they “always” felt intimate with Farm Friends (see Table 7). Table 7 Number of Students in the Rating of the Quality of Relationships with Farm Friends (N = 96) Qualities   1 = Never  2 = Seldom 3 = Sometimes   4 = Often  5 = Always Companionship   6 (6.2%) 16 (16.6%) 26 (27.1%) 37 (38.6%) 11 (11.5%) Instrumental Aid   0 (0%)   5 (5.2%) 15 (15.6%) 53 (51%) 27 (28.1%) Intimacy 46 (47.9%) 31 (32.3%) 12 (12.5%)   4 (4.1%)   3 (3.1%) Nurturance   2 (2.1%)   8 (8.3%) 10 (10.4%) 46 (47.9 %) 30 (31.3%) Admiration   1 (1%)   5 (5.2%) 14 (14.5%) 50 (52.1%) 26 (27.1%) Support   9 (9.4%) 12 (12.5%) 36 (37.5%) 26 (27.1%) 11 (13.5%) Satisfaction   1 (1%)   4 (4.1%) 22 (22.9%) 26 (27.1%) 43 (44.8%)    In addition to this, a correlation analysis was performed to explore the relationships between dosage (number of absences from the sessions in the program) and the qualities of the relationship. There was no significant correlations were observed between the dosage and the qualities of the relationships developed with Farm Friends. 52    Qualities of Relationships and Children’s Affiliation and Bonding  Correlational analyses (Pearson) were conducted to explore the associations between student perceptions of the qualities of relationship and their reported affiliation to Farm Friends and bonding to the program. Results are reported in Table 8. As expected, the correlations observed among the seven relationship qualities indices were all significant and ranged from modest to strong in magnitude. Also as expected, although this is not a causal interpretation, the more positive their relationships with their farm Friends, the stronger children’s reported affiliation with Farm Friends and also the stronger their bonding to the program. Table 8 Correlation for Affiliation and Bonding with Qualities of Relationships (N = 96) Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Affiliation -- .73** .64** .68** .26** .63** .57** .65** .66** 2. Bonding  -- .53** .60** .30** .53** .45** .55** .60** 3. Companionship   -- .71** .56** .71** .59** .69** .66** 4. Instrumental Aid    -- .38** .67** .69** .67** .62** 5. Intimacy     -- .36** .30** .50** .32** 6. Nurturance      -- .72** .65** .59** 7. Admiration       -- .62** .53** 8. Support        -- .66** 9. Satisfaction         -- ** p < 0.01 (one-tailed).    Two regression analyses were performed to evaluate the qualities of the relationships with Farm Friends that significantly predicted student feelings of affiliation and bonding. All seven relationship qualities indices were entered in a single step as the focal predictors with no particular order (Cohen et al., 2003; Field, 2009). Student reports of affiliation and bonding served as the dependent variables. Results, as summarized in Table 9, indicated that approximately 57% of the variance in student feelings of affiliation with Farm Friends could be accounted for by student perceptions of the quality of their relationships, F change (7, 88) = 19.17, 53    p < .05. As indicated in Table 9, two of the seven qualities emerged as significant predictors – instrumental aid and satisfaction. Thus, children who viewed their Farm Friends as providing more instrumental aid and who were more satisfied with the Farm Friends also reported greater affiliation. Results of the second regression, predicting student reports of bonding with the ILLP from the seven relationship qualities, indicated that approximately 41% of the variance in children’s bonding with the program were accounted for by children’s perceptions of the qualities of the relationship developed with their Farm Friends, F change (7, 88) = 10.43, p < .05. As shown in Table 9, instrumental aid and satisfaction again emerged as the significant predictors. Children who viewed their Farm Friends as providing more instrumental aid and who were more satisfied with the Farm Friends also reported greater bonding with the program. Table 9 Summary of Regression Analysis Predicting Reports of Affiliation and Bonding from Seven Qualities of Relationship (N = 96)  Relationship Qualities Affiliation Bonding    B SEB     β t    B SEB β      t Step 1 Companionship .06 .06 .13 1.06    -.01 .05 -.37    -.26 Instrumental Aid .17 .07 .26  2.33 *  .19 .07 .31  2.34 *  Intimacy -.07 .04 -.15 -1.76 .01 .04 .01      .14 Nurturance .07 .05 .15 1.26 .08 .05 .15    1.11 Admiration -.01 .06 -.01 -.08 -.04 .06 -.08     -.62 Support .10 .05 .22 1.98 .04 .05 .11      .85 Satisfaction .12 .05 .23  2.33 *  .12 .05 .30    2.60 *           R 2  .60 .45       Adj R 2  .57 .41 * p < .05     54    Relationship between Affiliation and Bonding and Children’s Attitudes, Behaviors, and Environmental Learning  Further correlational analyses were conducted to examine whether feelings of affiliation and bonding were associated with program outcomes (more positive attitudes, behaviors, and learning). The sample used in this analysis was data from 88 participants who completed both the post-test of ILLP and the relationship survey. Results of these analyses, as shown in Table 10, showed that (1) affiliation was positively correlated with positive attitudes and learning, but not behaviors, and that (2) bonding was positively correlated with positive attitudes, behaviors, and learning. Thus, the more positive children’s affiliation with Farm friends, the better their attitudes and learning with regard to environmental issues, but not necessarily their behaviors. Furthermore, the stronger children’s bonding with the program, the more positive children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning about environment. Table 10 Correlation for Affiliation and Bonding with Attitudes, Behaviors, and Learning (N = 88)           Variables  1   2   3   4   5 1. Affiliation  -- .75** .46** .13 .42** 2. Bonding    -- .47** .21* .46** 3. Attitudes     -- .31** .37** 4. Behaviors      -- .23* 5. Learning         -- ** p < 0.01 (one-tailed).  * p < 0.05 (one-tailed).  Qualities of the Relationships and Children’s Attitudes, Behaviors, and Learning A final series of correlational analyses was performed to understand the links between the seven qualities of relationships (companionships, instrumental aids, intimacy, nurturance, admiration, support, and satisfaction) and student attitudes, behaviors, and learning. Results of these analyses, as shown in Table 11, indicated differential links between qualities of 55    relationship and children’s reported attitudes, behaviors, and learning. Children’s reported attitudes toward environmental issues were significantly correlated with all seven relationship qualities. Thus, the more positively children viewed their relationships with their Farm Friends, the more positive their attitudes toward the environment. Student reports of conservation behaviors correlated significantly with perceptions of greater companionship, instrumental aid, intimacy, and support. That is, children who perceived their Farm Friends as providing more instrumental aid, support, companionship and intimacy were more likely to report positive conservation behaviors. Lastly, reported level of knowledge/learning was significantly correlated with reported companionship, instrumental aid, support, and satisfaction with Farm Friend relationships. In other words, the children who reported more learning about gardening were those who also described that they had more satisfying relationships with Farm Friends and their Farm Friends provided them with companion, instrumental aid, and support. Table 11 Correlation among Relationship Qualities and Outcome Variables (N = 88)        Variables  1   2     3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10 1. Attitude  -- .31** .37** .41** .45** .22* .35** .35** .36** .44** 2. Behaviour     -- .23* .19* .26** .19* .07 .14 .19* .14 3. Learning     -- .28** .26** .14 .05 .10 .19* .40** 4. Companionship       -- .72** .56** .72** .61** .70** .67** 5. Instrumental Aid        -- .40** .68** .69** .68** .64** 6. Intimacy         -- .36** .31** .49** .33** 7. Nurturance          -- .73** .67** .59** 8. Admiration           -- .64** .55** 9. Support            -- .68** 10. Satisfaction             -- ** p < 0.01 (one-tailed).  * p < 0.05 (one-tailed).   Finally, a series of three multiple regression analyses were performed predicting each of the three outcome variables (attitudes, behaviors, and learning) from the seven qualities of 56    relationship, which were entered simultaneously in the same step as the focal predictors with no particular order (Cohen et al., 2003; Field, 2009). Results of these analyses (see Table 12) indicated that approximately 18% of the variance in children’s attitudes were accounted for by their overall perceptions of the quality of their relationships, F change (7, 80) = 3.77, p < .05, although none of the individual predictors emerged as significant. Furthermore, only an insignificant amount (approximately 3%) of the variance in children’s reports of behaviors regarding environmental issues could be accounted for by their perceptions of the quality of their relationships with their Farm Friends, F change (7, 80) = 1.35, p > .05, and again, none of the relationship quality variables emerged as significant predictors. Finally, approximately 19% of the variance in children’s reports of their knowledge or learning about gardening was accounted for by the quality of their relationships with Farm Friends, F change (7, 77) = 3.72, p < .0), with reported nurturance and satisfaction emerging as significant predictors. Table 12 Summary of Regression Analysis Predicting Attitudes, Behaviors and Learning from Relationship Qualities (N = 88)   Attitudes Behaviors Learning Variables      B   SEB     β    t    B    SEB    β   t      B   SEB     β t Step 1 Companionship .04 .08 .10 .52 .02 .06 .06 .32 .12 .10 .22 1.19 Instrumental Aid .16 .11 .26 1.57 .13 .07 .31 1.75 .13 .12 .19 1.13 Intimacy .01 .06 .01 .08 .03 .04 .09 .68 -.00 .07 -.00  -0.17 Nurturance -.01 .08 -.02 -.10 -.09 .05 -.28 -1.54 -.20 .09 -.38 -2.24* Admiration .02 .09 .03 .16 .02 .06 .04 .24 -.05 .10 -.08 -.52 Support -.03 .08 -.06 -.37 .02 .05 .08 .42 -.05 .09 -1.02 -.61 Satisfaction .13 .07 .25 1.71 -.01 .05 -.04 -.25 .27 .09 .47   3.11*         R2 .25 .11 .25      Adj R2 .18 .03 .19 * p < 0.05      57    Discussion  The main purpose of this present study was to examine children’s perspectives of their relationships with non-parental adults and how those relationships contribute to their attitudes, behaviors, and learning. Existing research has already documented the importance of non- parental adult relationships in children’s and adolescents’ lives (Blyth et al., 1982; Brown, 2003; Scales & Gibbons, 1996). Insights from the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program were important to further understand the role of these non-parental adults play in children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning in middle childhood. The findings of this study underscore the important roles of non-parental adults for children and also further explained how the qualities of the relationships that develop between them contributed, not only to their feelings of affiliation and bonding, but also to the outcomes of the program, including their attitudes, behaviors (Murray & Greenberg, 2000), and also learning (Karcher, 2008; McPartland & Nettles, 1992; Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001).  The first research question addressed was whether participation in the program involving non-parental adults impacted children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning. Consistent with hypotheses, results of a pre-post analysis comparing children who did and did not participate in the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program (ILLP) clearly demonstrated that participation in the ILLP was associated with better attitudes and learning toward environmental issues. Over the school year, children in the ILLP group showed significant increases in their attitudes toward environmental issues, while children in the comparison group showed declines in environmental attitudes over the same period. Specifically, examining the items that comprised this composite the children who visited the UBC Farm for sessions over the year expressed more concern about how to take care of the environment, talked more with family and friends about the environment, 58    and were interested in learning more about how to take care the environment. Even though the effect size was small and only explained 3% of the total variance (Pallant, 2007), this finding resonates clearly with the purpose of this program (ILLP). As Mayer-Smith et al. (2004) stated since the beginning of the program, their goals were to educate young people to be more responsible and care about the environment. The fact that this program did affect the attitudes of children who joined the program confirmed that the ILLP achieved one of its goals.  Results of the present study also demonstrated that the ILLP impacted children’s perceptions of their learning. Over the course of a school year, children in the ILLP perceived themselves to be gaining knowledge about gardening through their direct learning experience, while children in the comparison group reported decreases in learning, despite the fact that they followed the same science curriculum. The effect size was moderate and explained 10% of the total variance (Pallant, 2007), these children believed that they learned significantly more about gardening than their school-mates in the comparison group. Based on the ILLP learning curriculum, gardening with the ILLP helped children to not only learn “how” to grow plants, but in the process of learning to do gardening, these children also learned about science. They learned lessons that would also have been taught in science class such as living organism, soils, photosynthesis, and pollination (Mayer-Smith & Peterat, 2010). It is understood that attitudes and behavior are related and influence each other (Fazio & Zanna, 1978). Amongst many definitions of attitude, Olson and Zanna (1993) summarized that attitude can be characterized as interconnections between evaluations and beliefs, or a structured knowledge; an attitude can be predicted through behavior. Fazio and Zanna (1981) argued that when past behavior becomes the basis of the formation of attitude, the attitude-behavior relationship should become consistent. It is also important to know whether that attitude is 59    formed through first-hand experience or from second-hand (secondary) information because the direct experience has a better chance to impact subsequent behavior (Fazio & Zanna, 1981). Fazio and Zanna (1978) conducted a survey of 141 university students to examine the relationships between behavior, attitude, and qualities of interaction such as direct experience. They found that direct experience was positively correlated with attitude and also independently predicted behavior. Most of the studies on the topic of attitude and behavior have been conducted with adults. The present study was aimed at learning more about attitudes and behaviors in younger children with respect to environmental issues. Results of this study confirmed that direct experience through the ILLP did influence attitudes and learning, but not behaviors. It is beyond the purpose of this study to explore whether the attitudes toward environment these children had might predict their later behaviors toward environmental issues. However, it is possible that the demonstrated impact of this program on attitudes and learning may, in future, lead to change children’s behaviors regarding environmental issues.  The documented improvements in attitudes and learning achieved through participation in the ILLP program which features relationships between children and non-parental adults has lead to the next research question, exploring the qualities of the relationships that developed in the program. The quality of the relationships was assessed using student reports on a measure that was adapted from the Network of Relationship Inventory (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; 1992). Previous studies by Furman and Buhrmester (1985) and Munsch and Blyth (1993) had already explored the qualities of various relationships, comparing the roles of non-parental adults with those of other adults in children’s lives, such as parents. Results of the present study confirmed findings of Munsch and Blyth that relationships with non- parental contributed primarily to children’s lives through their provision of instrumental aid and 60    admiration (enhancement of worth) to children. Provision of instrumental aid was one of the primary qualities that predicted children’s affiliation with their Farm Friends and bonding with the ILLP, and remained one of the strongest correlates of student outcomes (attitudes, behaviors, and learning). The present results are also consistent with previous findings by Furman and Buhrmester regarding intimacy, showing that this particular relationship quality was typically not provided by non-parental adults. Similarly, results of the present study also found that most children did not report intimacy as a major part of their relationships with Farm Friends. This is quite understandable, given the limited nature of the contact between children and the non- parental adults in the ILLP (11 2-3 hour sessions over the course of a school year). Nevertheless, the present results confirm children’s ability to differentiate systematically the roles and provisions afforded them by different relationships. They also point to the kinds of interactions and roles that ILLP adult volunteers (Farm Friends) should emphasize in their interactions with children in the program. Along this vein, the present study provided evidence that non-parental adults in this specific setting developed positive relationships with children as expressed by their satisfaction ratings (they felt that the relationship was good and they were happy about it). It is also important to note that children voiced that the qualities on which these relationships were built included admiration, followed by instrumental aid, nurturance, companionship, and support, with intimacy as the quality least commonly reported by children. Indeed, almost 80% of the children reported that they often or always felt admired, respected, and approved of by their Farm Friends. This seemed to be one of the most important qualities of relationships that these non-parental adults provided. As well, 80% of the children in the ILLP reported that they often or always felt that Farm Friends taught them how to do new things and provided help. Almost 50% of children 61    reported that they did not feel intimate with their Farm Friends (i.e., did not share secrets and private feelings). These findings are consistent with previous research by Blyth et al. (1982) and Darling et al. (2000) showing that relationships with non-parental adults were different from relationships with parents or peers because they are less affectively charged , with greater emphasis on shared activities. In addition, correlational analysis did not reveal any relationship between dosage (number of absences in the program) and the qualities of relationship developed in the program. Perhaps the frequency of the meeting with non-parental adults in the program (Farm Friends) did not matter as much when each meeting contained positive interactions. Lastly, this study contributed to our understanding of the perspectives of children in middle childhood, which has been largely ignored in previous research.  Of further interest in the present study was understanding how those qualities of relationship affect children’s bonding to the program and their affiliation with Farm Friends. As expected, affiliation and bonding were positively related to all seven of the relationship qualities considered. The structured nature of the program provided the opportunity for children to meet regularly with the non-parental adults, with the positive relationships developed in the program leading to connectedness (Karcher et al., 2002; Karcher, 2008). Previous studies have shown that children in mentoring programs were more connected with their schools and teachers (Karcher, 2008). The present findings support the previous studies, reiterating that the more positive children’s reports on qualities of the relationships developed with non-parental adults in the program, the stronger children’s bonding to the program and their affiliation with their Farm Friends.  Subsequent analyses explored which relationship qualities contributed most to student feelings of affiliation and bonding. Instrumental aid and satisfaction with the relationship were as 62    the most significant contributors to the formation of affiliation and bonding to the program. Although previous research had already shown that non-parental adults served different relational roles (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Munsch and Blyth, 1993), and that positive mentoring relationships contribute to children’s feelings of connectedness to schools and teachers (Karcher et al., 2002; Karcher, 2008), the present study helped to further understand the qualities of relationships that might be important for building connectedness (affiliation and bonding), with relationship satisfaction and provision of instrumental aid emerging clearly as the primary predictors of affiliation and bonding.  Children’s perceptions of affiliation and bonding, in turn, proved to be significant predictors of children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning. The more positive children’s affiliations with their Farm Friends, the more positive children’s attitudes and learning were. This means that when children felt stronger connection with the non-parental adults in the program, they showed more interest in learning more about the environment, talked more with their friends and families about the environment, were concerned more about how to take care of the environment, and they also saw themselves as gaining more information about gardening.  The results also indicated that the more children bonded to the program, the more positive their environmental attitudes, behaviors, and learning. In other words, when these children felt that they bonded with the program, they were more interested in learning more about the environment, talked more with their friends and families about the environment, were concerned more about how to take care of the environment, their behaviors toward the environment were more positive (they tried not to waste water, food, they recycled, picked up garbage and compost), and they also felt that they learned and gained more information about gardening. These findings supported Murray and Greenberg’s (2000) study which asserted that, 63    compared to children who felt little affiliation with teachers and were less bonded with schools, showed more negative and externalizing behaviors.  Peterat and Mayer-Smith (2006) noted that the ILLP was designed to show that caring relationships can be a way to motivate children to care more about the environment. It was also mentioned by Peterat and Mayer-Smith that the strength of the program was not only the direct experiences that changed children’s attitudes and behaviors, but also the intergenerational element of it. As it was envisioned by the founders of the program, the findings of this study demonstrated that the positive relationships built during the program created bonding and affiliation that lead to children’s more positive attitudes, behaviors, and learning.  Separate analyses were also performed to explore whether the qualities of relationship affected the outcomes variables (attitudes, behaviors, and learning) directly. Correlation analysis revealed that attitudes were positively related to all of the qualities of the relationships. Children who reported more positive qualities of their relationship also reported more positive their attitudes about environmental issues. Furthermore, behaviors with regards to environmental issues (such as conservation) were related to companionship, instrumental aid, intimacy, and support. The more children perceived that their Farm Friends provided instrumental aid and support as well as provided companionship and intimacy, the more their conservation behaviors improved (such as saving more water and food). Positive relationships were also found between learning (measured by how much children know about gardening) and companionship, instrumental aid, and satisfaction. This elucidated that children in the ILLP program were learning more when the Farm Friends better demonstrated their roles as companion, provider of instrumental aid, and also created positive and satisfying relationships. 64     Despite the positive relationships found between the qualities of the relationships and attitudes, behaviors, and learning, the present results offer little insight regarding which qualities of the relationships with Farm Friends contributed directly to the outcomes. While there were no significant findings on which qualities predicted attitudes and behaviors, only nurturance and satisfaction contributed to learning. Given the observed links between qualities of relationship and affiliation/bonding, and in turn the significant relationships observed between affiliation/bonding and outcomes (attitudes, behaviors and learning), it may be that the impact of specific relationship qualities on learning outcomes is mediated by the level of affiliation and bonding that they foster. Thus, it remains an important question for future research to explore whether affiliation and bonding mediate the links between qualities of the relationships and learning. The sample size of the present study was too small for such an analysis. However, it is worth considering that it is not only one or two relationships that matter to create more positive attitudes, behaviors, and learning but rather several good qualities of relationship which together contribute to creating positive outcomes. Strengths and Limitations  There are some limitations that need to be addressed regarding the present study, but there are also some strengths that need to be highlighted. First of all, the present study extended the literature on the roles of non-parental adults in a structured setting, and focused on children in middle childhood. Furthermore, this study is one of the few that attempts to analyze, not only the qualities of the relationships built between children and non-parental adults, but also the connectedness (affiliation and bonding) created during the program, and how the qualities of relationships, affiliation to the non-parental adults, and bonding to the program influenced the outcomes (attitudes, behaviors, and learning). 65     From the beginning of the program until its recent 10 th  year anniversary celebration (June, 2012), the ILLP developers have stayed true to their goals of educating children to be responsible for and care about the environment (Mayer-Smith et al., 2004). Qualitative research (Bartosh et al., 2004; Mayer-Smith et al., 2007) has documented the success of the program from the perspective of the participating children, their parents, and the adult volunteers who served as Farm Friends. Results of these qualitative evaluations showed that children in the program were not only learning science, but they also gained an understanding of environmental issues, built a sense of responsibility regarding the environment, gained new social skills through teamwork, and built a more personal relationship with the environment (Bartosh et al., 2004; Mayer-Smith et al., 2007). The present quasi-experimental study, however, is the first to provide quantitative evidence of the impact of the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program on children’s attitudes, behaviors, and environmental learning, as well as the qualities of relationship developed between children and the non-parental adults called Farm Friends. The present results affirm findings from previous qualitative research (Bartosh et al., 2004; Mayer-Smith et al., 2007) that the ILLP has a significant impact on children’s attitudes and learning regarding environmental issues. The present findings also provide clear evidence that the efforts made to develop caring relationships in order to nurture children to care about the environment have been a success (Peterat & Mayer- Smith, 2006).  One of the limitations of the present study was the relatively small sample size, a fact which may have contributed to the small effect size documented regarding the impact of the ILLP on attitudes (only explaining 3 % of the total variance). Nevertheless, the findings of the 66    present study do confirm and extend previous qualitative research on ILLP regarding the influence of the program on children’s attitudes, behaviors, and learning.  A second limitation is that this study relied solely on student self-reports. As a mono- method investigation, it is possible that results may have been enhanced due to shared method variance. Future research would benefit from consideration of more objective assessments of children’s learning, and/or use of adult informants to verify the accuracy of the answers provided by children. Deutsch and Spencer (2009) suggested that in evaluating programs that involve mentorship, it is important to analyze the whole package. It is important to fully understand the nature and quality of the relationships (duration, dosage, and relationships built between mentors and mentees). It is also essential to hear the voice of the mentors as well as mentees regarding their personal experiences in the program, review the program’s features, and also examine the mentor training (Deutsch & Spencer, 2009). What was lacking from the present study was the perspective of the non-parental adults (Farm Friends) and also an examination of the training of these adults. This present study only considered the perspectives of participating children. Although consideration of the child’s perspective is highly valuable, the adult perspective on the relationships that developed in the ILLP would also be worthy of consideration in future research. Another potential limitation of this study was the survey used to measure the outcome variables. The internal reliability of the attitudes and behaviors was moderate and the learning outcome was only measured with a single item tapping children’s own assessment of the knowledge gained about gardening. Future research would benefit from more extensive and in- depth evaluation of children’s learning outcomes. Future research would also benefit from consideration of more psychometrically strong outcome measures. Indeed, the three-point 67    response scale used for many of the outcome measures provided a less robust and a more limited range of possible scores that could decrease statistical power (Pallant, 2007). The present examination of the qualities of the relationships that developed between participating children and their non-parental adult volunteers was based only on data from a single time point. Accordingly, causal claims about how the qualities of relationships impacted children’s attitudes, behaviors and learning could not be made.  Finally, this present study was also offers limited generalizability. The insights from the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program provide valuable information about whether such a program is effective for teaching children about the environment and whether the intergenerational relationships affect attitudes, behaviors, and learning. That being said, this program was quite specific to environmental education programs, and the mentorship elements of the program were not defined as clearly as in most structured mentoring programs. Thus, it is important to be cautious when interpreting the findings of the study and when generalizing it to a larger population or to different programs. Future Directions  Although the short-term longitudinal nature of the present study was well-suited to evaluating the impact of the ILLP, a more extensive, longitudinal study with children who joined the program for more than one year would be a possible way to measure whether changes in attitudes will then predict future behaviors regarding environmental issues. Future research would also benefit from the development of a more extensive survey that included psychometrically strong outcome measures (to measure attitudes, behaviors, and learning). The learning measure used in the present study was a single item. An expanded assessment of children’s environmental learning would be a welcomed addition in future research. 68     Another possibility for future study is to include surveys for the adults in the program, tapping the perspectives of non-parental adults about their relationships with children. The findings would provide information about whether adults and children perceived similar qualities for their relationships or not. A survey of adult volunteers would also be useful in gathering information about their personal experiences in the program (Deutsch & Spencer, 2009). Furthermore, adults’ perspectives about the program implementation, as well as their reviews of the training they receive to be Farm Friends, would be a recommended addition to future program evaluation research.  Future research would also benefit from a more expanded set of questions that can be raised regarding the role of non-parental adults in children’s lives through the insights gained in the ILLP. First, it may be of interest to see whether the role of the non-parental adults in the program is important beyond the UBC Farm setting, to determine to what extent children who participated in the program list the non-parental adults they worked with as significant adults in their lives. To answer this question, it will be important to administer the relationships survey to the ILLP and comparison group and ask them to list significant non-parental adults in their lives in the pre-test survey. The same questions need to be asked in the post-test survey. It will be intriguing to learn whether the children in the ILLP group then list the non-parental adults in the ILLP (Farm Friends) as significant adults in their lives. Second, to see if the ILLP benefits children beyond environmental issues, future research should evaluate whether children of lower Socio-Economic Status (SES) or children at-risk (for example, children with troubled families) might benefit (academically, socially, and emotionally) more from the program. If they do, is this benefit gained from the relationships with non-parental adults in the program? What are the benefits gained from this program from the perspectives of 69    these children? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to collect the demographic information about SES and also information from teachers about children at risk. Implications for Practice  Although the present results document the effects of the ILLP on children’s attitudes and learning regarding environmental issues, the effect sizes were small and moderate, respectively, and the failure to demonstrate effects on behaviors with regard to environmental issues was disappointing. Nevertheless, results of this present study represent a promising step in a program of evaluation of the ILLP, with expectations that more extensive and in depth outcome measures and larger samples will yield even stronger evidence of the impact of the program. In the meantime, however, it is important to recognize that the behaviors tapped in the current survey reflect behaviors that are not always directly trained in the ILLP. In particular, the measure used to examine environmentally conscious behaviors asked about students’ efforts not to waste food or water, and to pick up garbage, compost, and recycle. Not only are these specific behaviors not a primary focus of the ILLP, they are also very general and in some cases reflect activities that may not be in the child’s control (e.g., composting). This suggests several possibilities. First, it is important to modify the questions to be more relevant for children of middle childhood. For example, the item “I try not to waste water” could be modified to more specific behaviors like, “I turn off the faucet when I am not using it or while I am brushing my teeth”. Second, given that results of the present evaluation indicate that the ILLP program was effective in influencing children’s attitudes, the program may benefit from providing more explicit lessons about conservation and more specific and understandable take-home messages for children that can be reflected in their behaviors. For example, to teach children how to set up a mini compost station at home and explain to them what alternative things they can do if their surroundings do not 70    provide a compost station. It is worth exploring what kind of small steps children can take to build positive behaviors related to environmental issues.  Furthermore, the ILLP has already implemented training, briefing, and debriefing for the non-parental adult volunteers. What could be improved through these meetings is sharing more information and discussions regarding children’s development (especially in middle childhood), attitudes, behaviors, and learning throughout the school year. Not all of the non-parental adults in this program have experience working with children. Moreover, these non-parental adults may not understand just how significant of an impact their relationships have on these children. Therefore, more discussion of the impact of their relationships on children’s outcomes is as important as discussing the progress of achieving the learning goals.  As a general implication for other programs learning from this study, the findings of this study demonstrated that the implementation of the Intergenerational Landed Learning Program (ILLP) does influence children’s attitudes and learning. Furthermore, results of this study underscore the utility and importance of opportunities to develop positive relationships with non- parental adults. Accordingly, the ILLP program may benefit from more direct emphasis and training of the non-parental adults that participate in the project. The present findings can be a guide to not only the ILLP but also other programs in the community that involve children’s interactions with non-parental adults. The interactions carried by the non-parental adults (no matter who, adult volunteers, mentors, program managers, or adult partners in certain programs) do matter for children. Even though the programs are not about building connections such as one-on-one mentoring programs, the positive interactions and relationships built during the program can impact children’s learning. 71     It is important for non-parental adults who work with children to be aware of the importance of establishing and maintaining positive interactions with the children. For example, being a good companion for children, providing instrumental aid and helping children to figure things out are critical features of the relationship that could be emphasized. Although building rapport so that children can share their stories is important as is providing nurturance and admiration, results of the present study also confirm that intimacy is not one of the roles that is salient in the ILLP, perhaps understandably. Often time, in after-school programs, environmental learning programs, or other programs that are focused on certain goals (math or science learning, dancing, or sport programs), people are exclusively focused on the learning outcomes. The findings of this study assert that the non-parental adults working with children in such programs need to be reminded that positive interactions and building positive relationships are as important as reaching the learning goals. Children’s voices which stated that the positive qualities of relationships contribute to their affiliation with the adults in the program and bonding to the program, and finally lead to positive outcomes, need to be heard. This might be common sense for educators but might be less common knowledge for non-parental adults who are or are interested in working with children. Training and briefings for the non-parental adult volunteers might be necessary, not only to equip the adults with knowledge how to reach the learning goals, but also specifically to reiterate that qualities of relationships built between children and adults are important.     72    References Ayala, J. S., Hewson, J. A., Bray, D., Jones, G., & Hartley, D. (2007). Intergenerational programs: Perspectives of service providers in one Canadian city. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 5, 1-22. Barile, J. P., Donohue, D. K., Anthony, E. R., Baker, A. M., Weaver, S. R., & Henrich, C. C. (2012). Teacher-student relationship climate and school outcomes: Implications for educational policy initiatives. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 256-267. Bartosh, O., Mayer-Smith, J., Peterat, L., & Sinkinson, S. (2004). Farm-based environmental studies as a component of middle school curriculum: Benefits and challenges of integration. Paper presented at the Developmental Education for a Sustainable Future conference, Vancouver. Bartosh, O., Mayer-Smith, J., Sinkinson, S., & Peterat, L. (2005). Integrating science and environmental education on the urban farm: A teacher story. Paper presented at the NARST 2005 Annual Meeting, Texas. Bartosh, O., Mayer-Smith, J., & Peterat, L. (2006). Informal science learning on the farm: Teachers’ and students’ experiences in a long-term environmental education project. Paper presented at the NARST 2006 Annual Meeting, San Francisco. Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. BC Care Provider Association. (2009). Creating caring communities: A guide to establishing intergenerational programs for schools, care facilities and community groups. British Columbia, Canada: BC Care Provider Association. 73    Beam, M. R., Chen, & C., & Greenberger, E. (2002). The nature of adolescents’ relationships  with their “very important” nonparental adults. American Journal of Community  Psychology, 30, 305-325. Bee, H., Boyd, D. & Johnson, P. (2006). Lifespan development. Toronto, ON: Pearson Education Canada Inc. Berger, K. S. (2011). The developing person throughout the life span. New York, NY: Worth Publisher. Blyth, D. A., Hill, J. P., & Thiel, K. S. (1982). Early adolescent’s significant others: Grade and gender differences in perceived relationship with familial and nonfamilial adults and young people. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 425-450. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2005). Science K to 7. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/course.php?lang=en&subject=Sciences&course=Science_ K_to_7&year=2005 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brooks, R., & Goldstein, S. (2008). The mindset of teachers capable of fostering resilience in students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23, 114-126. Brown, H. M. (2003). Characteristics of adolescents’ relationships with significant adults (master’s thesis). Retrieved from Circle UBC. Buhrmester, D. & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy. Child Development, 58, 1101-1113. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 74    Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & L. S. Aiken. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Chen, C., Greenberger, E., Farruggia, S., Bush, K., & Dong, Q. (2003). Beyond parents and peers: The role of important non-parental adults (VIPS) in adolescent development in China and the United States. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 1-17. doi: 10.1002/pits.10068. Collins, W. A. (1984). Conclusion: The status of basic research on middle childhood. In A. W. Collins (Ed.), Development during middle childhood (pp. 398-421). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Darling, N., Hamilton, S. F., & Hames, K. (2000). Relationships outside the family: Unrelated adults. Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Adolescents, 1-23. Deutsch, N. L., & Spencer, R. (2009). Capturing the magic: Assessing quality of youth mentoring relationships. New Direction for Youth Development, 121, 47-70. DuBois, D. L. & Karcher, M. (2005). Youth mentoring: Theory, research, practice. In D. L. DuBois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 1-11). Thousand Oaks, C.A.:  Sage publications, Inc. DuBois, D. L. & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Characteristics of natural mentoring relationships and Adolescent adjustment: Evidence from a national study. The Journal of Primary prevention, 26, 69-92. Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9(2), 30- 44. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-  behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398–408. 75    Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude–behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 161–202). New York, NY: Academic Press. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (3rd edition). London: Sage. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016-1024. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103-115. Furman, W. (1996). The measurement of children and adolescent’s perceptions of friendship: Conceptual and methodological issue. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence (pp. 41-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galbo, J. J. (1983). Adolescents’ perceptions of significant adults. Adolescence, 18, 417-427. Galbo, J. J. (1986). Adolescents’ perceptions of significant adults: Implication for the family, the school, and youth serving agencies. Children and Youth Services Review, 8, 37-51. Galbo, J. J., & Demetrulias, D. M. (1996). Recollections of nonparental significant adults during childhood and adolescence. Youth Society, 27, 1-19. doi: 10.1177/0044118X96027004001 Haddad, E., Chen, C., & Greenberger, E. (2010). The role of important non-parental adults (VIPs) in the lives of older adolescents: A comparison of three ethnic groups. Journal Youth Adolescence, 40, 310-319. Hendry, L. B., Roberts, W., Glendinning, A., & Coleman, J. C. (1992). Adolescents’ perceptions 76    of significant individuals in their lives. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 225-270. Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. East Sussex, UK: Routledge Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302-308. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2008). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences.  (7 th  ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Beam, M.R. (1998). The role of “Very Important” nonparental adults in adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 321–343. Karcher, M. J., Davis, C., & Powell, B. (2002). Developmental mentoring in the schools: Testing connectedness as a mediating variable in the promotion of academic achievement. The School Community Journal, 12, 36–52. Karcher, M. J. (2008). The study of mentoring in the learning environment (SMILE): A randomized study of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring. Prevention Science, 9, 99-113. Lempers, J. D., & Clark-Lempers, D. S. (1991). Young, middle, and late adolescents’ comparison of the functional importance of five significant relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 53-96. Mahn, H. & John-Steiner, V. (2002). The gift of confidence: A Vygotskian view of emotions. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 46-58). New York, NY: Blackwell. Maldonado-Carreno, C., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2011). Teacher-child relationships and the 77    development of academic and behavioral skills during elementary school: A within and between child analysis. Child Development, 82, 601-616. Mandelson, T., Greenberg, M. T., Dariotis, J. K., Gould, L. F., Rhoades, B. L., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Feasibility and preliminary outcomes of a school-based mindfulness intervention for urban youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 985-994. doi: 10.1007/s10802-010-9418-x Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and  unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205-220. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist 56, 227–38. Mayer-Smith, J., Lee A., Bartosh, O., Peterat, L., Sinkinson, S., & Tsepa, M. (2004). Teaming science and environmental stewardship on the farm through an intergenerational experience. Paper presented at the NARST 2004 Annual Meeting, Vancouver. Mayer-Smith, J., Bartosh, O., & Peterat, L. (2007). Teaming children and elders to grow food  and environmental consciousness. Applied Environmental Education & Communication,  6, 7-85. Mayer-Smith, J., Bartosh, O., & Peterat, L. (2009). Cultivating and reflecting on intergenerational environmental education on the farm. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 107-121. Mayer-Smith, J., & Peterat, L. (Eds.). (2010). Get growing! Activities for food and garden learning. A teacher resource for elementary and middle grades. Vernon: Really Vernon Press. 78    McPartland, J. M., & Nettles, S. M. (1991). Using community adults as advocates or mentors for at-risk middle school students: A two-year evaluation of Project RAISE. American Journal of Education, 99, 568-586. Morris, P., and Kalil, A. (2006). Out-of-school time use during middle childhood in a low-income sample: Do combinations of activities affect achievement and behavior? In A. C. Huston and M. N. Ripke (Eds.), Developmental contexts in middle childhood: Bridges to adolescence and adulthood (pp. 237-259). New York: Cambridge University Press. Munsch, J., & Blyth, D. A. (1993). An analysis of the functional nature of adolescents’ supportive relationships. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 132-153. Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Children’s relationship with teachers and bonds with school: An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 423-445. Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117-154. Pain, R. (2005). Intergenerational relations and practice. International Centre for Regional Regeneration and Development Studies (ICRRDS), 1-46. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Peterat, L., & Mayer-Smith, J. (2006). Farm friends: Exploring intergenerational environmental learning. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4, 107-116. Poole, G., G., & Gooding, B., A. (1993). Developing and implementing a community intergenerational program. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 10(2), 77-85. Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2000). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents’ academic adjustment. Child 79    Development, 71, 1662-1671. Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating  the  youth  mentoring movement. Social Policy Report, 10, 1-20. Riednour, T. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Cook, E. T. (2006). Structure and validity of people in my life: A self-report measure of attachment in late childhood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 1037-1053. Rishel, C., Sales, E., & Koeske, G., F. (2005). Relationship with non-parental adults and child behaviour. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 22, 1-17. doi: 10.1007/s10560- 005-2546-4. Scales, P., & Gibbons, J., L. (1996). Extended family members and unrelated adults in the lives of young adolescents: A research Agenda. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 16, 1-26. doi: 10.1177/0272431696016004001 Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., & Mannes, M. (2006). The contribution to adolescent well-being made by nonfamily adults: An examination of developmental assets as contexts and processes. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 401-413. Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2010). Adolescent thriving: The role of sparks, relationships, and empowerment. Journal Youth and Adolesence, 40, 263-277. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-9578-6 Schonert-Reichl, K. & Buote, D. (May 2006). Is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? A short-term longitudinal study of early adolescents’ natural mentoring relationships with school-related adults. Poster session presented at the Annual Meeting for the Society for Prevention Research, Texas. Schonert-Reichl, K. & LeRose, M. (2008). Considering resilience in children and youth: 80    Fostering positive adaptation and competence in schools, families, and communities. Ottawa: The National Dialogue on Resilience in Youth. Stiles, D. A., de Silva, S., & Gibbons, J. (1991, May). Young adolescents describe the encouraging adult who would listen to them. Poster session presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Illinois. Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (2006). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. The hoshiZora Foundation. (2012). Foster siblings program. Retrieved from http://hoshi-zora.org/?page_id=54&lang=en The National Senior Council. (2010). Intergenerational relations. Presentation presented at the National Seniors Council Roundtable on Intergenerational Relations, Victoria. Thompson, L., & Kelly-Vance, L. (2001). The impact of mentoring on academic achievement of at-risk youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 227-242. Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (1997). Child development and the purpose of education: A historical  context for constructivism in teachers education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist  teacher education: Building a world of new understanding (pp.15-37). Washington, DC:  Falmer Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others (pp. 17-26). Englewood  Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-Hall. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action (pp. 46- 92, 119-147). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zembar, M. J. & Blume, L. B. (2009). Middle childhood development: A contextual approach. 81    Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Zimmerman, M. A., Bingenheimer, J. B., & Behrendt, D.E. (2005). Natural mentoring relationships. In D. L. DuBois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp.  143-157). Thousand Oaks, C.A.:  Sage publications, Inc.                                      82    Appendix A Student/Parents Consents  83     84     85     86     87    Appendix B  Landed Learning Start-of-Year Student Survey 2011-2012   For Student To Fill in  Your First and Last Name  (Please Print)_________________________  Your Teacher’s Name  (Please Print)      _________________________  Your School Name (Please Print)  ___________________________                                   88    Landed Learning Start-of-Year Student Survey 2011-12  DIRECTIONS: There are 4 pages in this survey.  Please answer all the questions. Part A: WHO AM I?  1. Are you a boy______  a girl  ______  2.  How old are you? __________  3. What language or languages do you speak at home?  ________________________  4. I participated in the Landed Learning Project this year. (Check either Yes or No) Yes ______  No _______ Part B: FOOD, COOKING AND EATING Please check the box under either "yes" or "no".  yes no 1. I enjoy tasting new foods. 2. If you checked “yes” to question 1, please name some new foods you tasted this year. If you said “no” go to question 3.    3. I know what healthy food is. 4. If you checked “yes” to question 3 above, please name or describe some healthy foods. If you said “no” go to question 4.    5. I usually choose to eat healthy foods. 6. I have introduced new foods to my family in the past year. 7. If you checked “yes” to question 6 above, please name or describe one or more new foods you introduced to your family in the past year. If you said “no” go to question 8.     8.  How many fruits and vegetables do you eat every day? (Circle One Answer) a. None c. 2-4 fruits/ vegetables b. 1 fruit or vegetable a day d. More than 5 fruits/ vegetables  9.  How often do you prepare food or cook food when you are at home (Circle One Answer) a. Never  c. Once a week b. Once in a while  d. Every day  11. Please name or describe foods that you think are “junk foods”.  ___________________________________________________________________  10. How often do you eat “junk food”? (Circle One Answer) a. Never  c. Once a week  89    Part C: GARDENING AND GROWING  Please check the box under either "yes" or "no".  yes no 1. My family has a garden at home. 2. I help with my family garden. 3. I talk to my parents or relatives about gardening. 4. I talk to my friends about gardening.  Circle One Answer that describes you the best. 5. I know a.  nothing b.  something c.  a lot about gardening  6.  If you know how to garden who taught you? (Circle One Answer) a. My parents b. My grandparents or other relatives c. Other people (not related to me)  Part D: ENVIRONMENTAL CARE  Please check the box under either “never” or “sometimes” or “often”  Never Sometimes Often 1. I pick up garbage when I see it lying around. 2. I recycle bottles, plastics and paper. 3. I compost at home. 4. I try not to waste food. 5. I try not to waste water. 6. I am concerned about how to take care of the environment. 7. I talk with my family or friends about the environment. 8. I am interested in learning how to care for the environment.  Part E: SOCIAL ACTIONS  Please check the box under either "yes" or "no".  yes no 1. I like working in a small group. 2. I like talking with older people. 3. I like working with older people. 4. I like spending time with people of all ages. 5. I am comfortable talking in front of a large group. 6. I am good at sharing my thoughts and ideas. 7. I share the things I learn with my friends or family. 8. I would describe myself as an active participant in my classroom. 9. I would describe myself as an active participant in my school or community.  90    Part F: WHERE DOES FOOD COME FROM? 1. In the box below please draw pictures that show where food comes from.                               Please describe or explain what your picture above is showing       Part G: My questions! (Something I want to know is...) 1. I want to know about this. My question is:    Thank you!   91    Appendix C  Landed Learning End-of-Year Student Survey 2011-2012   For Student To Fill in  Your First and Last Name  (Please Print)_________________________  Your Teacher’s Name  (Please Print)      _________________________  Your School Name (Please Print)  ___________________________          92    Landed Learning End-of-Year Student Survey 2011-12  DIRECTIONS: There are 4 pages in this survey.  Please answer all the questions. Part A: WHO AM I?  1. Are you a boy______  a girl  ______  2.  How old are you? __________  3. What language or languages do you speak at home?  ______________________________  4. I participated in the Landed Learning Project this year. (Check either Yes or No) Yes ______  No _______ Part B: FOOD, COOKING AND EATING Please check the box under either "yes" or "no".  yes no 1. I enjoy tasting new foods. 2. If you checked “yes” to question 1, please name some new foods you tasted this year. If you said “no” go to question 3.    3. I know what healthy food is. 4. If you checked “yes” to question 3 above, please name or describe some healthy foods. If you said “no” go to question 4.    5. I usually choose to eat healthy foods. 6. I have introduced new foods to my family in the past year. 7. If you checked “yes” to question 6 above, please name or describe one or more new foods you introduced to your family in the past year. If you said “no” go to question 8.     8.  How many fruits and vegetables do you eat every day? (Circle One Answer) a. None c. 2-4 fruits/ vegetables b. 1 fruit or vegetable a day d. More than 5 fruits/ vegetables  9.  How often do you prepare food or cook food when you are at home (Circle One Answer) a. Never  c. Once a week b. Once in a while  d. Every day  10. How often do you eat “junk food”? (Circle One Answer) a. Never  c. Once a week b. Once in a while  d. Every day  11. Please name or describe foods that you think are “junk foods”.  ___________________________________________________________________ 93    Part C: GARDENING AND GROWING  Please check the box under either "yes" or "no".  yes no 1. My family has a garden at home. 2. I help with my family garden. 3. I talk to my parents or relatives about gardening. 4. I talk to my friends about gardening.  Circle One Answer that describes you the best. 5. I know a.  nothing b.  something c.  a lot about gardening  6.  If you know how to garden who taught you? (Circle One Answer) a. My parents b. My grandparents or other relatives c. Other people (not related to me)  Part D: ENVIRONMENTAL CARE  Please check the box under either “never” or “sometimes” or “often”  Never Sometimes Often 1. I pick up garbage when I see it lying around. 2. I recycle bottles, plastics and paper. 3. I compost at home. 4. I try not to waste food. 5. I try not to waste water. 6. I am concerned about how to take care of the environment. 7. I talk with my family or friends about the environment. 8. I am interested in learning how to care for the environment.  Part E: SOCIAL ACTIONS  Please check the box under either "yes" or "no".  yes no 1. I like working in a small group. 2. I like talking with older people. 3. I like working with older people. 4. I like spending time with people of all ages. 5. I am comfortable talking in front of a large group. 6. I am good at sharing my thoughts and ideas. 7. I share the things I learn with my friends or family. 8. I would describe myself as an active participant in my classroom. 9. I would describe myself as an active participant in my school or community.  94    Part F: WHERE DOES FOOD COME FROM? 1. In the box below please draw pictures that show where food comes from.                               Please describe or explain what your picture above is showing       Part G: My questions! (Something I want to know is...) 1. I want to know about this. My question is:    Thank you!   95    Appendix D  96     97      98      99       100     

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0058474/manifest

Comment

Related Items