View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Developing Outdoor Campus Space for Teaching and Learning: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Developing Outdoor Campus Space for Teaching and Learning: A Scoping Review of the Literature
Language: English
Authors: Tracey Birdwell (ORCID 0000-0001-7397-2407), Merve Basdogan (ORCID 0000-0002-6989-9590), Tripp Harris (ORCID 0000-0002-7343-2598)
Source: Learning Environments Research. 2024 27(3):477-493.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Higher Education, Outdoor Education, COVID-19, Pandemics, Educational Facilities Design, Educational Facilities Planning, School Space, Space Utilization, School Safety, Health Conditions, Health, Technology Integration
DOI: 10.1007/s10984-024-09504-1
ISSN: 1387-1579
1573-1855
Abstract: Educators have used outdoor space to support learning throughout history. Over the past several years, the COVID-19 pandemic has compelled institutions of higher education to make innovations toward planning and constructing outdoor learning spaces on campus as a necessary measure for promoting student health and safety. This scoping literature review explores the landscape of research on use of campus space developed for outdoor learning in higher education around the world. In this review, we synthesize relevant research based on descriptive characteristics, research interests, supporting theories and frameworks, technology use, and learning outcomes. Our search uncovered a range of developed (i.e., constructed) outdoor space design guidelines, outdoor learning activities, and theoretical frameworks that expand our understanding of outdoor spatial use on college and university campuses. This scoping review offers qualitative and descriptive quantitative findings and offers practical implications for higher education stakeholders as they explore possibilities for developing outdoor space on their campuses for teaching and learning.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1452371
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG77SzNY0SUcDcyov_6Au55AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKZ4LQvEYbSwRKDzrgIBEICBm9Ut05oaIkcJ_jm9y5ONwOyRxRNo8KaOiavobLsTnMY_KbN6Jm2oe8kmxGFWjTH4eOrnGXEN0O4ON-orlf4rno4KGCKQE7t7FjSkBiY8KGJuBVKXkZpCL6thFOEVVjC3sxV3izD4QimVEh92QAmCKtTo_6bYFQqHEwpiKpns7xCfg_6L-EfZ_2qO6hGpNo5Gfsu4saoKzNL43CZY
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181496137;oje01dec.24;2024Dec10.04:56;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181496137-1">Developing outdoor campus space for teaching and learning: a scoping review of the literature </title> <p>Educators have used outdoor space to support learning throughout history. Over the past several years, the COVID-19 pandemic has compelled institutions of higher education to make innovations toward planning and constructing outdoor learning spaces on campus as a necessary measure for promoting student health and safety. This scoping literature review explores the landscape of research on use of campus space developed for outdoor learning in higher education around the world. In this review, we synthesize relevant research based on descriptive characteristics, research interests, supporting theories and frameworks, technology use, and learning outcomes. Our search uncovered a range of developed (i.e., constructed) outdoor space design guidelines, outdoor learning activities, and theoretical frameworks that expand our understanding of outdoor spatial use on college and university campuses. This scoping review offers qualitative and descriptive quantitative findings and offers practical implications for higher education stakeholders as they explore possibilities for developing outdoor space on their campuses for teaching and learning.</p> <p>Keywords: Higher education; Outdoor classroom; Outdoor learning; Outdoor learning spaces; Outdoor teaching; Scoping literature review; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>Scholars have long recognized the value of taking learning experiences outdoors (Hattie et al., 1997; Mann et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref1">26</reflink>]). At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, outdoor learning spaces became a popular option in higher education (Skladany, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>]) for supporting both formal and informing learning. Colleges and universities have since begun to construct more outdoor learning spaces for formal instruction and informal learning activities. As more campuses are expanding their use of their outdoor spaces, researchers and practitioners must understand how theories used to explore interactions between space, its features, and its users, as well as methods to evaluate learning spaces serve this emerging trend. This literature review explores how scholars have studied outdoor spaces in higher education. Our search uncovered a range of physical outdoor design guidelines, outdoor learning activities, and theories that help us understand patterns of spatial use on campuses and how higher education institutions are leveraging outdoor space on and adjacent to their campuses in support of student learning.</p> <p>The growing number of new outdoor learning spaces intended for teaching and learning purposes in higher education have brought classroom-related design issues to the outdoors. This development inspired this review. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, many universities worldwide had begun to design and build study spaces and classrooms outdoors. For example, Tulane University built its first outdoor classroom, "equipped with a chalkboard and bench-style seating" to offer a "welcoming space for the Tulane community to take in a lesson among nature" (Jasmin, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>], p. 1). In another example, students at Wollongong University in Australia were given access to numerous new outdoor study spaces after parts of the campus were renovated in 2019. Based on student recommendations, the outdoor study spaces were designed to "utilize natural light; provide connectivity; be comfortable and functional; be suitable for use by both individuals and groups of different sizes for private study, to socialize, or to work on collaborative projects; and to involve visual and interactive learning" (Latifi, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>], p. 10).</p> <p>The central research question for this literature review is: <emph>What does the published research literature tell us about the scholarship surrounding planning, construction, and use of outdoor space for student learning in higher education around the world?</emph> This review aims to highlight a nexus of three emerging trends in the global higher education enterprise—the campus environmental sustainability movement, increased focus on the effects of physical space for teaching and learning in higher education, and the recent surge of outdoor learning innovation spurred by the need to provide safe learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p> <p>This review extends Leijon et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref5">23</reflink>]) systematic review of research on formal learning spaces in higher education to surface the landscape of research on outdoor learning spaces on campuses of higher education institutions. Using a scoping approach to surface relevant scholarship, the findings of this review will contribute to a foundation for studying the prevalence, use, and benefits of outdoor learning spaces on college and university campuses.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-2">The promise of outdoor classrooms in higher education</hd> <p>The role of space in learning is under-researched in higher education (Ellis & Goodyear, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref6">10</reflink>]). As Leijon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]) highlight in their recent review, the scholarship on theories, methods, and strategies to design, use, and evaluate formal learning spaces are both scarce and fragmented. Research on outdoor learning spaces is a similarly emerging field, especially in the context of higher education. Our search identified only six literature reviews on outdoor classrooms, and all of them focused on outdoor learning among children and adolescents. For example, Meighan and Rubenstein ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref8">27</reflink>]) synthesized the existing literature on children's cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development in outdoor classrooms and found positive associations between outdoor learning and attitudes toward school, self-esteem, and achievement. Similarly, Gull et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>]) carried out a review on the concept of "loose parts" which refers to open-ended, interactive, and natural materials used in outdoor classrooms in early childhood education. Their findings suggested that clear conceptual definitions in outdoor classrooms would be helpful to practitioners for better educational outcomes. Fang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref10">11</reflink>]) carried out a meta-analysis to determine the effects of outdoor learning on the self-efficacy of adolescents, finding evidence of enhanced self-efficacy after engaging in outdoor learning activities. Reviews by van Kraalingen ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]) and Stymne ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref12">35</reflink>]) examined the use of mobile technology in outdoor learning. Both authors, though, noted that most participants in the studies they reviewed were young children.</p> <p>Finally, the physical design of outdoor classrooms in higher education has also seldom been researched. For instance, Hawxwell et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]) examined the Learning Outside the Classroom (LOtC) paradigm in four journals focusing on adventure and outdoor learning. 78% of the articles studied <emph>'soft'</emph> learning such as social skills, resilience, teamwork, and character building, but there was little reference to physical design of those spaces.</p> <p>While the scholarship on outdoor learning offers perspectives on child and adolescent development, wellbeing, self-efficacy, and technology use, we could not capture a comprehensive discussion on how outdoor learning is studied and understood for use by university students; neither could we uncover any cohesive discussion on outdoor classroom design guidelines, theories, or methods for evaluation.</p> <p>In this scoping review, we aim to: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>) map current trends in research on outdoor learning and space design in higher education, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>) categorize and synthesize reported theories, models, concepts, and frameworks utilized by the scholars interested in outdoor learning and space design, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>) discuss the reported outcomes related to learning and space design.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-3">Method</hd> <p>We aimed to identify and synthesize the existing body of literature on outdoor classroom design in higher education using a structured, reproducible search approach. Our scoping review used the following search terms: "Outdoor Learning Environments," "Outdoor Learning in Higher Education," "Outdoor Learning AND Campus," "Outdoor Learning AND University," and "Outdoor Learning AND College." We used several databases in the search for relevant scholarly articles including (a) Google Scholar, (b) ERIC, (c) Web of Science, (d) Scopus, (e) JSTOR, (f) EBSCOHost, and (g) OneSearch@IU. Our search used multiple databases to ensure that our review captured as broad a range of relevant scholarship as possible and did not inadvertently exclude references relevant to our review's focus. Moreover, we selected these databases because of both their broad scopes (e.g., Google <emph>Scholar</emph>) and likelihood of surfacing publications relevant to our review (e.g., ERIC's general focus on educational research).</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-4">Inclusion and exclusion criteria</hd> <p>We developed specific exclusion and inclusion criteria to guide our search. Studies were selected for inclusion if they (a) examined design and/or development of campus-based outdoor learning spaces in the context of higher education, (b) were published in an academic journal between 2015 and 2022, and (c) were accessible in English.</p> <p>Using the search terms listed above in Google <emph>Scholar</emph> returned 16,900 references. This search yielded many articles relevant to outdoor learning in elementary and secondary settings, which is beyond the scope of our research interest. Next, using Google <emph>Scholar</emph>'s advanced search feature, we added the keywords "Campus" and "University" to the search. Additionally, we added the words "Outdoor Classroom" into the <emph>with the exact phrase</emph> parameter. This narrowed the number of references in Google <emph>Scholar'</emph>s database to 3389. We applied the search strategy used for Google <emph>Scholar</emph> to our searches of the other databases, yielding the following number of articles in each database: EBSCOHost (<emph>N</emph> = 7), JSTOR (<emph>N</emph> = 2,949), Scopus (<emph>N</emph> = 197), OneSearch@IU (<emph>N</emph> = 941), Web of Science (<emph>N</emph> = 135), and ERIC (<emph>N</emph> = 415). Out of all results among the databases, many were still irrelevant to higher education. Thus, we modified the search parameters in each database and excluded the keywords "school," "elementary," and "children" from the results. This new search yielded 147 studies across all databases.</p> <p>After organizing the references yielded from all databases into a shared spreadsheet, two members of the research team reviewed the titles and abstracts of the articles. Across all databases, 25 articles met our search criteria based on the inclusion and exclusion of select search terms (as outlined above) and direct relevance to use of outdoor space on or near campus for structured learning activities as determined by careful review by two members of the research team. Of these, 8 studies were excluded because they were non-retrievable, published as dissertations, book chapters, or non-academic magazines, or were ultimately irrelevant to outdoor learning space use or design based on careful review from members of the research team. Ultimately, we were left with 17 articles to review.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-5">Data extraction and analysis</hd> <p>We extracted the following data from the selected studies and entered them into a shared spreadsheet: authors, year, research purpose, theoretical framework, learning and design outcomes, and technology use. Each paper was analyzed in terms of the features detailed in Table 1. We then used descriptive statistics to uncover trends related to timing of research on outdoor learning space in higher education (by year of publication), location (by country where the research took place), and general methodological approach of studies included in our review. Furthermore, we employed a thematic analysis drawing from Clarke and Braun's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref17">7</reflink>]) approach to surface and organize trends in the literature across four main themes: research interests, supporting theories and frameworks, technology use, and learning outcomes. Organizing publications based on their orientations toward these themes helped us better understand the state of research on outdoor learning space in higher education from a global view—and more specifically, how scholars and practitioners are using various methods, theory, and technology to explore use of outdoor space to support teaching and learning.</p> <p>Table 1 Aspects, coding approach, and emerging themes used for analysis of the studies included in the review</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Aspect</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coding</p></th><th align="left"><p>Themes</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Authors</p></td><td align="left"><p>APA style references</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>Publication year</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Research design</p></td><td align="left"><p>Data-driven codes</p></td><td align="left"><p>(a) Qualitative</p><p>(b) Quantitative</p><p>(c) Mixed method</p><p>(d) Design-based research</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Research purpose</p></td><td align="left"><p>Data-driven codes, identification, and categorization of the research focus</p></td><td align="left"><p>(a) Use of outdoor campus spaces</p><p>(b) Design of outdoor classrooms</p><p>(c) Outdoor learning activities</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Theoretical framework</p></td><td align="left"><p>Data-driven codes, identification and categorization of the theories, model, concepts, and frameworks that guide the research</p></td><td align="left"><p>(a) User experience and behavioral patterns</p><p>(b) User perception</p><p>(c) Outdoor space design</p><p>(d) Outdoor learning</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Learning and design outcomes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Data-driven codes, identification and categorization of the study findings in terms of outdoor learning and design insights</p></td><td align="left"><p>(a) Uses of outdoor campus space</p><p>(b) Effective outdoor design insights</p><p>(c) Meaningful outdoor learning activities</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Technology use</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes/No</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181496137-6">Findings</hd> <p>Our descriptive analytic approach was useful for identifying themes related to the gradual increase in scholarship relevant to outdoor learning spaces in higher education. Representations of frequency helped surface these themes, specifically regarding <emph>when</emph> this research has been conducted, <emph>where</emph> it has taken place geographically, and <emph>how</emph> researchers have approached relevant questions methodologically. The analysis of the <emph>N</emph> = 17 studies included in this scoping review show increasing scholarly interest in outdoor space in higher education since 2015: Most articles included in this review were published in 2021 (<emph>N</emph> = 7), followed by 2020 (<emph>N</emph> = 4), and 2022 (<emph>N</emph> = 3) as presented in Fig. 1.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Frequency chart showing number of included studies published in each year from 2015 to 2022</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-7">Years of the included studies by their frequency</hd> <p>The included studies were also coded by their geographical context. Figure 2 shows the countries where the studies were carried out. Among 17 studies, <emph>N</emph> = 3 took place in Malaysia, followed by Turkey (<emph>N</emph> = 2), Iran (<emph>N</emph> = 2), China (<emph>N</emph> = 1), Hong Honk (<emph>N</emph> = 1), USA (<emph>N</emph> = 1), Egypt (<emph>N</emph> = 1), Canada (<emph>N</emph> = 1), Brazil (<emph>N</emph> = 1), Spain (<emph>N</emph> = 1), Saudi Arabia (<emph>N</emph> = 1), South Africa (<emph>N</emph> = 1), Scotland (<emph>N</emph> = 1), and Norway (<emph>N</emph> = 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 World map showing the countries of origin for the included studies</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-8">Countries of included studies</hd> <p>Finally, the analysis of the studies in terms of research paradigm showed that most (41.2%) followed quantitative designs, followed by qualitative designs (29.4%), mixed-method designs (17.6%), and design-based research approaches (i.e., 11.8%).</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-9">Frequency of the research methods used in the analyzed studies</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181496137-10">General themes</hd> <p>In this section, we present results of the thematic analysis (Clarke & Braun, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]) for studies' (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>) research interests, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>) supporting theories and frameworks, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>) technology use, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>) learning outcomes (Fig. 3).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Frequency chart showing how many studies followed various methodological approaches</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-11">Research interests</hd> <p>The analysis of the articles in terms of research interest showed three main themes: (a) use of outdoor campus spaces that refers to student preferences for outdoor spaces and their behavioral patterns within such spaces, (b) the design of outdoor learning spaces, and (c) structured outdoor learning activities taking place on or adjacent to campus grounds (Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Themes for the research interest analysis</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Research interest themes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Studies</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Use of the outdoor campus spaces</p></td><td align="left"><p>Uyaroglu (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2021</xref>)</p><p>Lesan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2020</xref>)</p><p>Tourinho et al (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2021</xref>)</p><p>Addas et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2021</xref>)</p><p>Ibes and Forestell (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2020</xref>)</p><p>Xue et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43">2021</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Design of outdoor learning spaces</p></td><td align="left"><p>El-Darwish (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2022</xref>)</p><p>Wonowidjoyo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2022</xref>)</p><p>Fortes et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2021</xref>)</p><p>Öztürk (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">2020</xref>)</p><p>Hami &Abdi (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2021</xref>)</p><p>Cheang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2017</xref>)</p><p>Akhir et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2022</xref>)</p><p>Kadir et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2020</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Outdoor learning activities</p></td><td align="left"><p>Waldron et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2016</xref>)</p><p>Button et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">2022</xref>)</p><p>Firth et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2016</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>First<emph>, use of outdoor learning spaces</emph> was studied in terms of various aspects including the degree of campus inclusiveness and accessibility (Uyaroglu, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref23">39</reflink>]), student behaviors and moods in campus green spaces (Ibes & Forestell, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref24">19</reflink>]; Lesan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]), student reactions to campus features (Tourinho et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref26">36</reflink>]), and the impact of campus environment on student behaviors (Xue et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref27">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, <emph>design of outdoor campus space</emph> was found to be the most common theme. For example, El-Darwish ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>]) examined the impact of physical qualities such as seating, shading, natural light, paths, and flooring on students' perceptions of comfort and safety. Similarly, Wonowidjoyo ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref29">42</reflink>]) proposed four types of outdoor spaces (physical, communicative, collaborative, and media space), highlighting their benefits for art education. In a design-based study, Fortes et.al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>]) developed an open-air classroom-pavilion and discussed how this prototype classroom contributes to student wellbeing and campus sustainability. Öztürk ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref31">28</reflink>]) discussed campus furniture design in terms of energy conservation, material, durability, sustainability, and contribution to campus identity. Other studies examined students' preferences for campus landscape scenes (Hami & Abdi, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>]), students' preferred settings for wellness and positive emotions (Akhir et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]; Kadir et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref34">21</reflink>]), and development of a campus eco-garden to support learning (Cheang et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, the <emph>outdoor learning activities</emph> theme was found to be the least common research interest among studies included in this review. In one study, Waldron et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]) developed an outdoor geoscience garden to simulate geology learning activities. Firth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref37">12</reflink>]) used a local beach near campus as a learning space to support students' skills development in a product design course.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-12">Supporting theories and frameworks</hd> <p>The included studies were examined in terms of the theories and frameworks they used as grounds for supporting research in outdoor learning and space design in higher education. The results suggested a variety of theories and models utilized to understand behaviors and experiences in space, as well as physical and social aspects of space. These findings are grouped under four themes: (a) user experience and behavioral patterns, (b) user perceptions, (c) outdoor space design, and (d) outdoor learning.</p> <p>The theories applied for studying <emph>user experience and behavioral patterns</emph> concerned the ways people circulate, move, and adopt on campus. For example, Hillier and Hanson's <bold>Space Syntax Theory</bold> ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]) was used by El-Darwish ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>]) to evaluate how social gathering spots are used by university students. Similarly, Lynch's <bold>Normative Theory</bold> ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref40">25</reflink>]) that proposes five performance dimensions for an outdoor space including vitality, sense, access, fit, and control was applied to explore the social and physical features of an accessible campus in Uyaroglu ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]). Lesan ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref42">24</reflink>]) used Barker's <bold>Theory of Behavior Settings</bold> ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>]), Gibson's <bold>Theory of Environmental Affordances</bold> ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref44">14</reflink>]), and Canter's <bold>Theory of Place</bold> ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]) to understand various uses of outdoor campus space. Tourinho et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>]) employed a <bold>Post-occupancy Evaluation (POE)</bold> approach to track users and map their behaviors on campus. Finally, Xue et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref47">43</reflink>]) used <bold>Outdoor Thermal Environment</bold> parameters such as the air temperature, thermal radiation, wind speed, and humidity to understand how students' behaviors in outdoor spaces changed when thermal parameters change.</p> <p>The next theme, <emph>user perception,</emph> included studies about students' wellbeing on campus. Ibes and Forestell ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref48">19</reflink>]) studied the effects of spending time in campus greenspace on student wellbeing. Using the <bold>Mood Disturbance</bold> tool (Shacham, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref49">33</reflink>]), they analyzed students' wellbeing in terms of six affective states including tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue, and confusion. Akhir et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>]) used <bold>PERMA Model</bold> (i.e., <emph>positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning,</emph> and <emph>accomplishment</emph>; Seligman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref51">32</reflink>]) to explore the relationships between university students' preferences for plant life and mood on campus.</p> <p>The <emph>outdoor space design principles</emph> theme refers to theories and frameworks regarding physical design guidelines for outdoor campus environments. For example, Addas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>]) applied <bold>POS development framework</bold> (i.e., <emph>public open space</emph>) adopted from United Nations Development ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref53">38</reflink>]). According to this framework, five critical elements should be considered for designing public open spaces on campus: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>) Driving forces, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>) Impact, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>) Pressure, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>) State, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref58">5</reflink>) Responses. Similarly, Fortes et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref59">13</reflink>]) utilized a sustainable outdoor campus model called <bold>Smart Tree</bold> with four dimensions, including architecture, furniture design, greening, and information communication technologies. Next, Öztürk ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref60">28</reflink>]) applied the <bold>Design Principles of Outdoor Urban Spaces</bold> framework by the Project for Public Spaces ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref61">29</reflink>]) Group to examine outdoor space quality. This framework included four components for a sustainable and engaging outdoor campus design, including usage and activities, comfort and identity, access and connection, and socialization. Kadir et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref62">21</reflink>]) studied <bold>Typographic Landscape</bold> as an aesthetic feature of the outdoor campus to support the campus identity and sense of unity among students and faculty.</p> <p>Finally, the <emph>outdoor learning</emph> theme included theories and frameworks for outdoor instruction. Firth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref63">12</reflink>]) applied Schon's <bold>Reflection in Action Theory </bold>([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref64">31</reflink>]) in an outdoor jewelry design workshop to understand how the environment stimulates students' sustainable product design processes. Wonowidjoyo ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref65">42</reflink>]) proposed an <bold>Outdoor Learning Framework</bold> that included four aspects for art education, including physical, communicative, collaborative, and media space to support students' affective and psychomotor engagement. Cheang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>]) discussed a <bold>Garden Based Learning</bold> approach to support cognitive and affective learning in disciplines related to environmentalism.</p> <p>Three additional studies (e.g., Button et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref67">4</reflink>]; Hami & Abdi, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref68">16</reflink>]; Waldron et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref69">41</reflink>]) did not indicate an explicit use of theory or framework in their literature review or discussion (Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3 Themes for the theories/frameworks/concepts analysis</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Themes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Theories/Frameworks/Concepts</p></th><th align="left"><p>Studies</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>User experience and behavioral patterns</p></td><td align="left"><p>Lynch's normative theory (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">1981</xref>)</p><p>Space syntax theory by hillier and hanson (1984)</p><p>Barker's theory of behavior settings (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr3">1968</xref>)</p><p>Gibson's theory of environmental affordances (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2015</xref>)</p><p>Canter's theory of place (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">1977</xref>)</p><p>Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) approach</p><p>Outdoor thermal environment</p></td><td align="left"><p>Uyaroglu (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2021</xref>)</p><p>El-Darwish (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2022</xref>)</p><p>Lesan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2020</xref>)</p><p>Tourinho et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2021</xref>)</p><p>Xue et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43">2021</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>User perception</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mood disturbance Shacham, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2010</xref>)</p><p>PERMA model Seligman, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2011</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ibes and Forestell (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2020</xref>)</p><p>Akhir et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2022</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Outdoor space design principles</p></td><td align="left"><p>A framework for the development of public open Spaces (POS)</p><p>Smart Tree</p><p>Design principles of outdoor urban spaces (PPS, 2000)</p><p>Typography and landscape</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Addas et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2021</xref>)</p><p>Fortes et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2021</xref>)</p><p>Öztürk (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">2020</xref>)</p><p>Kadir et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2020</xref>)</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Outdoor learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Schon's theory of "reflection in action" (1983)</p><p>Outdoor learning framework</p><p>Garden based learning (GNL)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Firth et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2016</xref>)</p><p>Wonowidjoyo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2022</xref>)</p><p>Cheang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2017</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>N/A</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hami &Abdi (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2021</xref>)</p><p>Waldron et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2016</xref>)</p><p>Button et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">2022</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0181496137-13">Learning design and outcomes</hd> <p>The studies included in this review offered a range of insights into the effective design of outdoor learning spaces, as well as the learning outcomes that such spaces can support. These insights generally align with the research interests uncovered by our thematic analysis: different uses of outdoor campus space, design insights for creating outdoor learning spaces, and ideas for meaningful outdoor learning activities that make intentional use of outdoor space on or near campus.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-14">Use of outdoor campus spaces</hd> <p>Several publications offered insights into various uses of outdoor campus spaces—both natural and constructed—for teaching and learning. Some explored the experiences of those using outdoor space on campus. Uyaroglu ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref70">39</reflink>]), for example, studied the experiences of students with disabilities as they used outdoor learning spaces. They observed and interviewed 14 students with disabilities as part of a 'co-evaluation' of outdoor spaces and uncovered a range of factors that affect accessibility of those spaces. Lesan ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref71">24</reflink>]) interviewed students on their use of outdoor space, focusing on ways students use certain types of spaces. They found that while green spaces and paths between buildings saw the most frequent use (presumably for non-academic uses such as walking from class to class), students tended to prefer quieter, more remote spaces for concentrating on schoolwork.</p> <p>Tourinho et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref72">36</reflink>]) employed several <emph>post-occupancy evaluation methods</emph> (including tracking students' usage patterns and surveying them on their use of space) to study the impacts of spatial features on students' use of outdoor space. They identified three aspects of spaces that attract students—capacity for socialization, accessibility from campus buildings, and degree of infrastructure. Of these aspects, they found <emph>infrastructure</emph> (i.e., availability of comfortable furniture, cleanliness, and safety) to be the most important for drawing students to the spaces. Similarly to Tourinho et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref73">36</reflink>]), Xue et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref74">43</reflink>]) also studied students' usage and behavioral patterns in outdoor spaces. Specifically interested in how thermal environment affects use of outdoor spaces, they found that overall usage depended on the air temperature outdoors—though thermal environment did not influence the <emph>specific</emph> activities in which students participated.</p> <p>Beyond those analyzing patterns of outdoor space usage, our review surfaced two publications that focused on users' perceptions of and/or experiences in outdoor spaces. Ibes and Forestell ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref75">19</reflink>]) used quantitative methods to analyze the impacts of spending time in campus greenspace on mood levels among students. They found that—compared to a group of students who spent time inside—students who spent twenty minutes outdoors in a campus greenspace experienced a reduction in levels of mood disturbance. Addas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>]) employed an 'importance–performance analysis' to surface users' perceptions of the significance (i.e., the perceived importance) of various types of outdoor campus spaces. Their analysis suggested that out of various types of 'public open spaces' on campus, gardens were perceived as most important, followed closely by walkways and plazas. They also discovered that open spaces on campus were most often used for exercise, followed by studying and social activity.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-15">Design of outdoor campus spaces</hd> <p>Our review uncovered eight studies offering insights into the design of outdoor learning spaces. Cheang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref77">6</reflink>]), for example, described a qualitative study of various stakeholders' perspectives on a campus eco-garden design as part of an <emph>education for sustainability</emph> initiative. To inform future design plans, they interviewed designers, instructors, and students, finding that all three stakeholder groups aligned in their expectations that the eco-garden would boost <emph>cognitive learning</emph> of sustainability concepts, while moderately promoting affective (i.e., attitudinal) learning in relation to environmentalism. Similarly, Hami and Abdi ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref78">16</reflink>]) surveyed students on their preferences for different campus landscape patterns and found that most preferred natural and water-based features and seating areas positioned near grass rather than hardscape. Akhir et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>]) also surveyed students on their preferences for different landscape features, finding that certain features promoted engagement and positive emotional experiences. Specifically, their results suggested that students prefer landscapes lined with natural plant life of moderate density, arranged coherently around outdoor campus spaces. El-Darwish ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref80">9</reflink>]) also leveraged survey data to inform designs of outdoor space. Interested in relationships between outdoor space and student wellbeing, they drew on students' reports of their use of space for social gathering and their perceptions of sensory and landscape (i.e., physical) features of such spaces. Their correlational analysis suggested landscape factors such as available seating, shading, natural light, proximity to pathways, and flooring were significantly related to sensory factors such as perceptions of comfort, safety, and relaxation.</p> <p>To facilitate the design of a 'typographic' outdoor seating area, Kadir et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref81">21</reflink>]) conducted a case study in which they designed a virtual reality game that allowed students to experience the proposed outdoor space firsthand. The space was <emph>typographic</emph> in that the seating arrangement was integrated into a series of large letters ('FSSR,' representing a department at the university). After participating in the game, students completed a questionnaire where they were asked to rate their approval for the proposed space, as well as their beliefs on whether such an outdoor seating space would benefit the campus environment. Their results suggested that students generally approved of the proposed design, and many indicated strong beliefs that such outdoor spaces would benefit the campus.</p> <p>Fortes et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref82">13</reflink>]), through their experience of designing and implementing a 'Smart Tree' space on campus, offered more explicit design principles for integrating sustainability goals into outdoor campus spaces. They advocated for <emph>reformulating, reducing, reusing, remanufacturing, recycling, revaluing,</emph> and <emph>redesigning</emph> as principles for designing open-air learning spaces. Their design also included technologies for collecting environmental data (e.g., soil temperature and humidity measures) to contribute to sustainability efforts.</p> <p>Wonowidjoyo ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref83">42</reflink>]) outlined four art learning projects designed to take place outdoors. These projects take place in various outdoor spaces around campus with the goal of promoting critical thinking among art students. Evaluating students' artwork and written reflections, the author concludes that outdoor learning activities can help develop students' problem-solving skills through artistic practices. Moreover, they argue that the outdoor contexts of these learning activities encouraged identity development among students.</p> <p>Öztürk ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref84">28</reflink>]) offered perhaps the most comprehensive principles for designing outdoor space of any study in this review, including principles for designing outdoor furniture. The author drew on the Project for Public Spaces (PPS, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref85">29</reflink>]) to design several gathering spaces equipped with outdoor furniture on their campus. They highlighted several design considerations derived from the PPS: <emph>usage and activities</emph> (i.e., the types of activities the furniture intends to support), <emph>comfort and identity</emph> (i.e., attractiveness of the furniture), <emph>access and connection</emph> (i.e., proximity and degree of physical accessibility), and <emph>socialization</emph> (i.e., appropriateness for supporting social interaction). Öztürk also drew on Tuğlu Karslı ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref86">37</reflink>]) to offer five principles indicating the sustainability of outdoor furniture: <emph>energy conservation, material conservation, durability and ease of maintenance,</emph> capacity for <emph>reproduction and recycling,</emph> and <emph>contribution to urban identity</emph>. The author concluded with a discussion of a post-occupancy evaluation of the outdoor spaces on their campus, where students reported that sitting, studying, socializing, and resting were the most frequent uses of the outdoor spaces and furniture therein. The design insights surfaced in this review, while useful in the authors' specific institutional contexts, create a foundation for more widespread efforts to design effective outdoor campus spaces in a range of institutional settings.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-16">Outdoor learning activities</hd> <p>Three articles included in this review focused on relationships between outdoor activity and specific learning outcomes. Two of these concerned the ways outdoor space design could promote sustainability and/or environmentalism. Taking on a sustainability focus, Firth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref87">12</reflink>]) explored learning outcomes of a material processes workshop that took place in a beach setting adjacent to their campus. Workshop participants used the environment and available natural resources (e.g., wood and sand) to craft disposable packaging materials. The authors concluded that the experience helped students participate in sustainable manufacturing practices firsthand, which helped them develop stronger ecological awareness. Also applying an environmental focus, Waldron et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref88">41</reflink>]) discussed students' use and perceptions of a 'Geoscience Garden' at their university designed to simulate the geological features of the region. Students in a geology course collected data in outdoor space and reported high levels of satisfaction and perceived learning.</p> <p>Button et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref89">4</reflink>]) reported on several case studies in which instructors at different institutions transitioned their courses to online and outdoor learning environments throughout the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Focusing on service learning and environmental stewardship, the case studies suggested that moving to outdoor instruction facilitated greater communication and stronger relationships between students, and stronger appreciation for outdoor campus spaces as meaningful learning environments.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-17">Discussion and implications</hd> <p>In this literature review, we examined the landscape of research on outdoor learning space in higher education between 2015 and 2022. In this section, we discuss the quantitative findings and explore in detail the qualitative themes identified in these findings.</p> <p>The 17 articles included in this review showed that scholarship on outdoor learning and classroom design in higher education is limited. The collected articles were carried out in 13 different countries, and in diverse fields including engineering, technology, public health, art and design, architecture, environmental studies, and education. This suggests that outdoor learning and design in higher education draws knowledge from multiple fields. This multidisciplinary scope also surfaces distinctions between learning <emph>space</emph> and learning <emph>place</emph> (Ellis & Goodyear, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref90">10</reflink>]). According to Ellis and Goodyear ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref91">10</reflink>], p. 157) "the relation between 'space' and 'place' is that the former is merely a more abstract or extensive version of the latter." We observed that outdoor learning was dominantly perceived as a physical "place" in all fields except education. This might be attributable to educational researchers' emphasis on the pedagogical affordances of outdoor learning.</p> <p>Additionally, we examined scholars' orientations to the nature of knowledge within their research by analyzing their research methods. In 17 papers, <emph>quantitative research</emph> was a dominant paradigm. This is a salient result in the understanding of the scholars' positivist worldview built on testing various theories and analyzing certain causal relationships between variables. This was followed by <emph>qualitative research</emph> to examine students' experiences on campus. Considering the complex nature of the outdoor learning field that includes the cultural, social, environmental, and psychological context of the campus environment, more qualitative studies are needed to better understand how students and faculty experience these spaces.</p> <p>It was surprising that we could identify only two studies concerning technology use and outdoor learning. The only technology use included sensors to collect environmental data in Fortes et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref92">13</reflink>]) and campus Wi-Fi in Button et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref93">4</reflink>]). As indicated in Stymne's ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref94">35</reflink>]) review, augmented reality, navigation technologies, and mobile technology were found to be common technologies used for outdoor learning environments in the primary and elementary school levels. In the current study, the interplay between technology and experience in outdoor spaces is missing in the higher education context. Kraalingen ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref95">40</reflink>]) argued that the pitfalls of technology such as complexity, failing equipment, cost, the distracting nature of digital technologies, and mismatches between learning objectives prevented educators from using technology in outdoor settings. Similarly, in this review, the lack of technology use might stem from the same concerns, particularly the multifaceted characters of outdoor learning and teaching. Future research should further explore faculty's considerations for implementing technology for outdoor teaching and learning.</p> <p>Next, exploration into the research interests theme suggested that researchers have shown moderate interest in design features of outdoor classrooms. For example, the physical qualities of the outdoor classroom in terms of student comfort, safety, wellbeing, campus sustainability, and furniture design were common points of focus. Hawxwell et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref96">17</reflink>]) review of four journals focusing on the learning outside paradigm indicated that most articles studied students' soft learning skills development in outdoor environments such as social skills, resilience, teamwork, and character building. It is important to note that university students' soft learning skills were not discussed in the literature. The linkage between what physical design characteristics of an outdoor classroom influence university students' collaboration, critical thinking and active listening, and adaptability would be a significant research topic for those interested learning space design. We also found that "the use of outdoor campus spaces" in relation to campus inclusiveness and accessibility, student reactions to green spaces, campus infrastructure and thermal environment, and "outdoor learning activities" such as learning by practice and simulation of the field learning experiences were other commonly studied research topics. Across all themes, the absence of faculty voices was striking. As the implementers of instruction in outdoor classrooms, faculty's readiness, concerns, intentions, comfort, and safety are equally as important as students' perspectives and experiences in outdoor learning environments. Our findings also showed that the field of outdoor learning needs more research to better understand how outdoor classrooms can be shaped effectively to support synchronous hybrid or blended learning modalities which need effective audio and video support during instruction (Raes et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref97">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Studies within this review used a wide variety of theories, frameworks, and concepts built upon diverse philosophical perspectives. While three papers did not have a theoretical grounding, fourteen used theories in terms of human activities and perception, design principles, and pedagogy. As argued by Ellis and Goodyear ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref98">10</reflink>]), the fragmentation of the theories in the field could lead to slow progress. Therefore, we need clear conceptual and theoretical definitions of outdoor learning for synergy to develop among researchers and educators (Gull et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref99">15</reflink>]). In their collaborative book, <emph>What Is Philosophy?,</emph> Deleuze and Guattari ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref100">8</reflink>]) argue that concepts serve as bridges between the empirical world and thought. To understand the complexities of outdoor teaching and learning, we need to explore outdoor learning from different philosophical perspectives that ask questions about humans, space, technology, and methods. For example, the Outdoor Learning Framework proposed by Wonowidjoyo ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref101">42</reflink>]) offers an example of space-related questions. In that framework, the role of physical space, communicative space, collaborative space, and media space are discussed in relation to students' affective and psychomotor engagement. Future research could consider the development of the field in relation to the "how" and "why" questions of teaching and learning outdoors.</p> <p>Finally, the findings of these studies suggested that students and instructors alike appreciate having opportunities to use outdoor spaces on their campuses. Students are inclined to use outdoor learning spaces as centers for social gathering, as well as for individual studying (e.g., Lesan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref102">24</reflink>]). They prefer natural landscapes equipped with accessible seating arrangements (e.g., Akhir et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref103">2</reflink>]; Öztürk, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref104">28</reflink>]), especially in settings that provide adequate shade from sunlight (e.g., El-Darwish, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref105">9</reflink>]). This review also surfaced findings relevant to how instructors use outdoor campus space to support a range of disciplinary goals, especially related to sustainability (e.g., Cheang et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref106">6</reflink>]; Firth et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref107">12</reflink>]; Wonowidjoyo, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref108">42</reflink>]). Altogether, these findings offer a breadth of insight into the design, implementation, and use of outdoor spaces on the campuses of higher education institutions.</p> <p>This review has several implications for future research involving outdoor learning spaces in higher education. First, the layers of complexity in outdoor teaching and learning require collaboration between a university's different divisions; for example, an architecture office to plan outdoor spaces and help with selection of materials, a technology service unit to consider Wi-Fi access, power outlets, and use of mobile technology, a public health unit to ensure student health, accessibility, and safety in the outdoor setting, educators for leading effective learning activities, and student and faculty perspectives to highlight their lived experiences in the spaces. Researchers should also consider developing theories to understand outdoor learning for adult learners as well as ethical guidelines to conducting research on outdoor learning spaces.</p> <p>Our review has several limitations. First, the use of specific keywords and databases restricted our inclusion criteria to certain papers. Though we chose key terms in this way to help organize our search, this practice inherently limited the scope of our review. Secondly, the inaccessible papers and research published in languages other than English also limited our search—it is likely that the range of scholarship relevant to use of outdoor space for learning in higher education contexts extends far beyond articles published in English-based venues. Finally, the authors of this study have expertise in instructional technology design, learning space design, and the learning sciences. Our previous research experience with formal learning environments likely influenced—and continues to influence—our interpretations of the themes in this scoping review.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>The overall aim of this scoping literature review has been to identify the landscape of research on outdoor learning spaces in higher education and explore how institutions are leveraging outdoor space for learning. The 17 articles reviewed here indicate that the field is in its infancy. While scholars studied outdoor classrooms in higher education from a variety of countries, these researchers' disciplinary fields, research purposes, and diverse theoretical groundings suggest a lack of coherence among the relevant scholarship. Though these articles' various engagements with outdoor learning space lack shared directionality, we believe they represent the early stages of a promising development in higher education research and practice. As institutions grow to appreciate the potential of outdoor space on and around their campuses for supporting learning, and as new technologies emerge to support outdoor instruction, we contend that the body of research representing this field will grow exponentially over time.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-19">Funding</hd> <p>No funding was received to support this study or the preparation of this manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-20">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181496137-21">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>There is no financial or non-financial interest or benefit that might arise from the direct or indirect applications of this research. None of the authors have a conflict of interest to report.</p> <hd id="AN0181496137-22">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0181496137-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Addas A, Maghrabi A, Goldblatt R. Public open spaces evaluation using importance-performance analysis (IPA) in Saudi Universities: The case of King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. Sustainability. 2021; 13; 2: 915. 10.3390/su13020915</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref15" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Akhir NM, Sakip SRM, Abbas MY, Othman N, Halim DK. Visual landscape quality relationship towards students' well-being. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal. 2022; 7; 19: 201-208. 10.21834/ebpj.v7i19.3258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref16" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barker RG. Ecological psychology. 1968; Stanford University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Button CE, Ghezzi SE, Godfrey P, Huminski SE, Minor J, Silka L. Transforming barriers into opportunities: teaching environment and sustainability service-learning courses during the 2020 covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2022; 26; 1: 179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref45" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Canter D. The psychology of place. 1977; Architectural Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref35" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cheang CC, So WMW, Zhan Y, Tsoi KH. Education for sustainability using a campus eco-garden as a learning environment. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2017. 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2015-0174</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref17" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Clarke, V, & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref100" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Deleuze, G, & Guattari, F. (1994). What is Philosophy?, (G. Burchell & H. Tomlinson, Trans.) London: Verso.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref28" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> El-Darwish II. Enhancing outdoor campus design by utilizing space syntax theory for social interaction locations. Ain Shams Engineering Journal. 2022; 13; 1: 101524. 10.1016/j.asej.2021.06.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis RA, Goodyear P. Models of learning space: Integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education. 2016; 4; 2: 149-191. 10.1002/rev3.3056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fang BB, Lu FJ, Gill DL, Liu SH, Chyi T, Chen B. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of outdoor education programs on adolescents' self-efficacy. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2021; 128; 5: 1932. 10.1177/00315125211022709</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Firth R, Stoltenberg E, Jennings T. Using an outdoor learning space to teach sustainability and material processes in HE product design. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 2016; 35; 3: 327-336. 10.1111/jade.12109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fortes S, Hidalgo-Triana N, Sánchez-la-Chica JM, García-Ceballos ML, Cantizani-Estepa J, Pérez-Latorre AV, García-Marín A. Smart tree: An architectural, greening and ICT multidisciplinary approach to smart campus environments. Sensors. 2021; 21; 21: 7202. 10.3390/s21217202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. 2015; Psychology Press Classic Editions</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gull C, Bogunovich J, Goldstein SL, Rosengarten T. Definitions of loose parts in early childhood outdoor classrooms: a scoping review. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education. 2019; 6; 3: 37-52</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hami A, Abdi B. Students' landscaping preferences for open spaces for their campus environment. Indoor and Built Environment. 2021; 30; 1: 87-98. 10.1177/1420326X19887207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawxwell L, O'Shaughnessy M, Russell C, Shortt D. 'Do you need a kayak to learn outside?': A literature review into learning outside the classroom. Education 3–13. 2019; 47; 3: 322-332. 10.1080/03004279.2018.1444074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillier B, Hanson J. The social logic of space. 1989; Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibes DC, Forestell CA. The role of campus greenspace and meditation on college students' mood disturbance. Journal of American College Health. 2020. 10.1080/07448481.2020.1726926</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jasmin, A. (2018, August 29). Unplugged: Tulane introduces new outdoor classroom. https://news.tulane.edu/news/unplugged-tulane-introduces-new-outdoor-classroom</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kadir NA, Rahman NA, Ibrahim NH. Integrating the typographic landscape in creating interactive spaces for a holistic learning environment. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal. 2020; 5; 13: 237-243. 10.21834/e-bpj.v5i13.2107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latifi, A. (2019, June 11). Outdoor learning pods a hit with UOW students. https://<ulink href="http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/6210073/outdoor-learning-pods-a-hit-with-uow-students/">www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/6210073/outdoor-learning-pods-a-hit-with-uow-students/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leijon M, Nordmo I, Tieva Å, Troelsen R. Formal learning spaces in higher education–a systematic review. Teaching in Higher Education. 2022. 10.1080/13562517.2022.2066469</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesan M. Fundamentals of university campus design based on behavioral studies case study: Noshirvani University of technology. Bagh-e Nazar. 2020; 17; 84: 45-56</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lynch K. A theory of good city form. 1981; MIT Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mann, J, Gray, T, Truong, S, Sahlberg, P, Bentsen, P, Passy, R,. & Cowper, R. (2021). A systematic review protocol to identify the key benefits and efficacy of nature-based learning in outdoor educational settings. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meighan HL, Rubenstein ED. Outdoor learning into schools: A synthesis of literature. Career and Technical Education Research. 2018; 43; 2: 161-177. 10.5328/cter43.2.161</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Öztürk H. Design of unique urban furniture in outdoor campus areas. Online Journal of Art and Design. 2020; 8; 4: 68-83</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Project for Public Spaces (PPS) (2000). What makes a great place. Project for Public Places, <ulink href="http://www.pps.org">http://www.pps.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raes A, Detienne L, Windey I, Depaepe F. A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research. 2020; 23; 3: 269-290. 10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schon DA. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. 1983; Basic Books</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seligman M. Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. 2011; Free Press: 2011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shacham S. A shortened version of the profile of mood states. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2010. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4703_14</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skladany M. (2021, September 10). Making the most of teaching outdoors during the pandemic (opinion). Inside Higher Ed.https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/09/10/making-most-teaching-outdoors-during-pandemic-opinion">www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/09/10/making-most-teaching-outdoors-during-pandemic-opinion</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stymne J. Outdoor learning with mobile technology: A systematic review. IADIS International Journal on WWW/Internet. 2020; 18; 1: 76-106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tourinho ACC, Barbosa SA, Göçer Ö, Alberto KC. Post-occupancy evaluation of outdoor spaces on the campus of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Brazil. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research. 2021; 15; 3: 617-633. 10.1108/ARCH-09-2020-0204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tuğlu Karslı, U. (2008). Mobilya Tasarımında Ekolojik Yaklaşımlar. Tasarım, 181, 118–120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations Development Programme (2015).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uyaroglu D. A performance evaluation tool for inclusiveness in university campus outdoor spaces. Megaron. 2021. 10.14744/MEGARON.2021.35336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Kraalingen I. A systematized review of the use of mobile technology in outdoor learning. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 2021. 10.1080/14729679.2021.1984963</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waldron JW, Locock AJ, Pujadas-Botey A. Building an outdoor classroom for field geology: The geoscience garden. Journal of Geoscience Education. 2016; 64; 3: 215-230. 10.5408/15-133.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wonowidjoyo M. Rethinking art education through integrating outdoor learning practices as sites of memory. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 2022. 10.1080/14729679.2022.2054838</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xue J, Liu W, Liu K. Influence of thermal environment on attendance and adaptive behaviors in outdoor spaces: A study in a cold-climate university campus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18; 11: 6139. 10.3390/ijerph18116139</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tracey Birdwell; Merve Basdogan and Tripp Harris</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref97"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1452371
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Developing Outdoor Campus Space for Teaching and Learning: A Scoping Review of the Literature
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tracey+Birdwell%22">Tracey Birdwell</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7397-2407">0000-0001-7397-2407</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Merve+Basdogan%22">Merve Basdogan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6989-9590">0000-0002-6989-9590</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tripp+Harris%22">Tripp Harris</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7343-2598">0000-0002-7343-2598</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Environments+Research%22"><i>Learning Environments Research</i></searchLink>. 2024 27(3):477-493.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outdoor+Education%22">Outdoor Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Facilities+Design%22">Educational Facilities Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Facilities+Planning%22">Educational Facilities Planning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Space%22">School Space</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Space+Utilization%22">Space Utilization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Safety%22">School Safety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+Conditions%22">Health Conditions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health%22">Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Integration%22">Technology Integration</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10984-024-09504-1
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1387-1579<br />1573-1855
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Educators have used outdoor space to support learning throughout history. Over the past several years, the COVID-19 pandemic has compelled institutions of higher education to make innovations toward planning and constructing outdoor learning spaces on campus as a necessary measure for promoting student health and safety. This scoping literature review explores the landscape of research on use of campus space developed for outdoor learning in higher education around the world. In this review, we synthesize relevant research based on descriptive characteristics, research interests, supporting theories and frameworks, technology use, and learning outcomes. Our search uncovered a range of developed (i.e., constructed) outdoor space design guidelines, outdoor learning activities, and theoretical frameworks that expand our understanding of outdoor spatial use on college and university campuses. This scoping review offers qualitative and descriptive quantitative findings and offers practical implications for higher education stakeholders as they explore possibilities for developing outdoor space on their campuses for teaching and learning.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1452371
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1452371
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10984-024-09504-1
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 477
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outdoor Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Facilities Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Facilities Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Space
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Space Utilization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Safety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health Conditions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Integration
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Developing Outdoor Campus Space for Teaching and Learning: A Scoping Review of the Literature
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tracey Birdwell
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Merve Basdogan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tripp Harris
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1387-1579
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1855
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Environments Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1