Abstract
Do experiences with nature—from wilderness backpacking, to plants in a preschool, to a wetland lesson on frogs, promote learning? Until recently, claims outstripped evidence on this question. But the field has matured, not only substantiating previously unwarranted claims but also deepening our understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between nature and learning. Hundreds of studies now bear on this question, and converging evidence strongly suggests that experiences of nature boost academic learning, personal development, and environmental stewardship. This brief integrative review summarizes recent advances and the current state of our understanding. The research on personal development and environmental stewardship is compelling although not quantitative. Report after report—from independent observers as well as participants themselves—indicate shifts in perseverance, problem solving, critical thinking, leadership, teamwork, and resilience after time in nature. Similarly, over fifty studies point to nature playing a key role in the development of pro-environmental behavior, particularly by fostering an emotional connection to nature. In academic contexts, nature-based instruction outperforms traditional instruction. The evidence here is particularly strong, including experimental evidence; evidence across a wide range of samples and instructional approaches; outcomes such as standardized test scores and graduation rates; and evidence for specific explanatory mechanisms and ‘active ingredients’. Nature may promote learning by improving learners’ attention, levels of stress, self-discipline, interest and enjoyment in learning, and physical activity and fitness. Nature also appears to provide a calmer, quieter, safer context for learning; a warmer, more cooperative context for learning; and a combination of “loose parts” and autonomy that fosters developmentally beneficial forms of play. It is time to take nature seriously as a resource for learning—particularly for students not effectively reached by traditional instruction.
This chapter is a revised reprint of a previously published article: Kuo, M., Barnes, M. & Jordan, C. (2019). Do Experiences With Nature Promote Learning? Converging Evidence of a Cause-and-Effect Relationship. Frontiers in Psychology. 10:305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305. (Copyright © 2019 Kuo, Barnes and Jordan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers in Psychology is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.).
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Literature review
- Effectiveness of nature-based learning
- Academic achievement
- Personal development
- Environmental stewardship
1 Introduction
The intuition that “nature is good for children” is widely held, and yet historically, the evidence for this intuition has been uncompelling, with a distressing number of weak studies and inflated claims. Now, however, an impressive body of work has accrued and converging lines of evidence paint a convincing picture.
This integrative mini-review summarizes what we know about the role of nature in learning and development. It draws on a wide array of peer-reviewed scientific evidence, ranging from research in the inner city, to the study of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, to neurocognitive and physiological explorations. Our overarching question was, “do experiences in nature promote learning and child development?”
Throughout our review, we took care to distinguish between evidence for cause-and-effect relationships and evidence for associations; causal language (e.g., “affects,” “boosts,” “is reduced by”) is used only where justified by experimental evidence. Where converging, but not experimental, evidence points to a likely cause-and-effect relationship, our language is qualified accordingly (e.g., “seems to increase”). Table 1 summarizes recent advances in this area and explains how those advances contribute to our confidence in a cause-and-effect relationship between nature and learning and development.
What emerged from this critical review was a coherent narrative (Fig. 1): experiences with nature do promote children’s academic learning and seem to promote children’s development as persons and as environmental stewards—and at least eight distinct pathways plausibly contribute to these outcomes. Below, we discuss the evidence for each of the eight pathways and then the evidence tying nature to learning, personal development, and the development of stewardship.
Figure 1 summarizes the state of the scientific literature on nature and learning. The items and pathways here emerged from our review as opposed to guiding our review; thus each item listed has been empirically associated with one or more other items in this Figure. Relationships for which there is cause-and-effect evidence are indicated with an asterisk; for example, “more able to concentrate” is asterisked because experimental research has demonstrated that exposure to nature boosts concentration. Similarly, “increased retention of subject matter content” is asterisked because experimental research has demonstrated that exposure to nature in the course of learning boosts retention of that material. The green box lists forms of nature exposure which have been tied with learning, whether directly (nature -> learning) or indirectly, via one or more of the mechanisms listed (nature -> mechanism -> learning). In this review, “nature” includes experiences of nature not only in wilderness but also within largely human-made contexts (e.g., a classroom view of a garden). This review encompassed experiences of nature regardless of context—whether during play, relaxation, or educational activities, and in informal, non-formal and formal settings. The blue boxes show probable mechanisms—intermediary variables which have been empirically tied to both nature and learning. For example, concentration is rejuvenated by exposure to nature and plays an important role in learning. Natural settings may affect learning both by directly fostering a learner’s capacity to learn and by providing a more supportive context for learning. The purple box lists learning outcomes that have been tied to contact with nature. In this review, “learning” encompasses changes in knowledge, skills, behaviors, attitudes, and values. A database of articles found in the three phases of the review process (ending in 2018) is available at: https://goo.gl/FZ1CA9.
2 Nature May Boost Learning via Direct Effects on Learners
Five of the eight plausible pathways between nature and learning that we identified are centered in the learner. Learning is likely to improve when a learner is more attentive (Mantzicopoulos, 1995; Rowe & Rowe, 1992); less stressed (Grannis, 1992; Leppink et al., 2016); more self-disciplined (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Mischel et al., 1988); more engaged and interested (Taylor et al., 2014 for review); and more physically active and fit (for reviews, see Álvarez-Bueno et al., 2017; Santana et al., 2017). Evidence suggests that contact with nature contributes to each of these states or conditions in learners.
Nature has rejuvenating effects on attention. The rejuvenating effect of nature on mentally fatigued adults (e.g., Hartig et al., 1991; Kuo, 2001) and children has been demonstrated in a large body of studies, including field experiments (Faber Taylor & Kuo, 2009) and large-scale longitudinal studies (Dadvand et al., 2015). Students randomly assigned to classrooms with views of greenery perform better on concentration tests than those with views of only human-made structures (Li & Sullivan, 2016). Nature’s rejuvenating effects on attention have been found in students going on field trips (van den Berg & van den Berg, 2011), Swedish preschoolers (Mårtensson et al., 2009), children in Chicago public housing (Faber Taylor et al., 2002), and 5–18-year-olds with ADHD (e.g., Kuo & Faber Taylor, 2004), using measures of attention ranging from parent and teacher ratings (O’Haire et al., 2013) to neurocognitive tests (Schutte et al., 2015).
Nature relieves stress. The stress-reducing effects of nature have been documented in adults in a large body of controlled experiments (see Kuo, 2015 Supplemental Material for review) and the available evidence points to a similar effect in children. Nature has been related to lower levels of both self-reported and physiological measures of stress in children (Bell & Dyment, 2008; Chawla, 2015; Wiens et al., 2016). Recently, an experimental study showed that a window view of vegetation from a high school classroom yields systematic decreases in heart rate and self-reported stress, whereas unvegetated views do not (Li & Sullivan, 2016). Further, students learning in a forest setting one day a week showed healthier diurnal rhythms in cortisol in that setting than a comparison group that learned indoors—cortisol rose and then dropped over the course of the school day when lessons were held in the forest but not in the classroom—and these effects could not be attributed to the physical activity associated with learning outdoors (Dettweiler et al., 2017).
Contact with nature boosts self-discipline. In adults, the benefits of viewing scenes of nature on self-discipline have been demonstrated experimentally, using tests of impulse control (Berry et al., 2014; Chow & Lau, 2015). In children, nature contact has been tied to greater self-discipline from inner city Chicago (Faber Taylor et al., 2002) to residential Barcelona (Amoly et al., 2014); in experimental (Sahoo & Senapati, 2014), longitudinal (Ulset et al., 2017), and large-scale cross-sectional studies (Amoly et al., 2014). These benefits have been shown for neurotypical children, as well as for children with ADHD (Sahoo & Senapati, 2014) and learning difficulties (Ho et al., 2017). The types of self-discipline assessed include delay of gratification (Faber Taylor et al., 2002) and parent ratings of hyperactivity (Flouri et al., 2014). The types of “nature” include not just “greenness” but also animals, for example, contact with horses in animal-assisted learning (Ho et al., 2017). Note that impulse control effects are not always statistically significant (e.g., Amoly et al., 2014; Schutte et al., 2015). Nonetheless, in general, impulse control is better during or after children’s contact with nature.
Student motivation, enjoyment, and engagement are better in natural settings, perhaps because of nature’s reliably positive effects on mood (e.g., Takayama et al., 2014). In previous reviews (Becker et al., 2017; Blair, 2009) and recent studies (e.g., Alon & Tal, 2015; Lekies et al., 2015; Skinner & Chi, 2014), students and teachers report strikingly high levels of student engagement and motivation, not only for student-selected activities in nature but also for school-mandated ones. Importantly, learning in and around nature is associated with intrinsic motivation (Fägerstam & Blom, 2012; Hobbs, 2015), which, unlike extrinsic motivation, is crucial for student engagement and longevity of interest in learning. The positive effects of learning in nature seem to ripple outward to learners’ engagement in subsequent, indoor lessons (Kuo et al., 2018a, see Ming, Browning & Penner: Refueling Students in Flight: Lessons in Nature May Boost Subsequent Classroom Engagement in this volume); ratings of course curriculum, materials, and resources (Benfield et al., 2015); interest in school in general (Becker et al., 2017; Blair, 2009); and lower levels of chronic absenteeism (MacNaughton et al., 2017). Encouragingly, learning in nature may improve motivation most in those students who are least motivated in traditional classrooms (Dettweiler et al., 2015).
Time outdoors is tied to higher levels of physical activity and fitness. While the evidence tying green space to physical activity is extremely mixed (see Lachowycz & Jones, 2011 for review), children’s time outdoors is consistently tied to both higher levels of physical activity and physical fitness: the more time children spend outdoors, the greater their physical activity, the lesser their sedentary behavior, and the better their cardiorespiratory fitness (Gray et al., 2015). Importantly, cardiorespiratory fitness is the component of physical fitness most clearly tied to academic performance (Santana et al., 2017). Further, there is some indication greener school grounds can counter children’s trend toward decreasing physical activity as they approach adolescence: in one study, girls with access to more green space and woodlands, and boys with access to ball fields, were more likely to remain physically active as they got older (Pagels et al., 2014). This pattern is echoed in later life: in older adults, physical activity declines with age—but among those living in greener neighborhoods the decline is smaller (Dalton et al., 2016).
3 Nature May Boost Learning by Providing a More Supportive Context for Learning
In addition to its effects on learners, natural settings and features may work to provide a more supportive context for learning in at least three ways. Greener environments may foster learning because they are calmer and quieter, because they foster warmer relationships, and because the combination of “loose parts” and relative autonomy elicits particularly beneficial forms of play.
Vegetated settings tend to provide calmer, quieter, safer contexts for learning. Both formal and informal learning are associated with a greater sense of calmness or peace when conducted in greener settings (Chawla et al., 2014; Maynard et al., 2013; Nedovic & Morrissey, 2013). Problematic and disruptive behaviors such as talking out of turn or pushing among children are less frequent in natural settings than in the classroom (Bassette & Taber-Doughty, 2013; Chawla et al., 2014; Nedovic & Morrissey, 2013; O’Haire et al., 2013). Further, in greener learning environments, students who previously experienced social difficulties in traditional classrooms are better able to remove themselves from conflicts and demonstrate better self-control (Maynard et al., 2013; Ruiz-Gallardo et al., 2013; Swank et al., 2017). The social environment of the classroom has long been recognized as important for learning (Rutter, 2000). Calmer environments have been tied to greater student engagement and academic success (McCormick et al, 2015; Wessler, 2003).
Natural settings seem to foster warmer, more cooperative relations. Images of nature have prosocial effects in adults (e.g., Weinstein et al., 2009), and greener settings are tied to the development of meaningful and trusting friendships between peers (Chawla et al., 2014; Warber et al., 2015; White, 2012). Maynard and colleagues (2013) theorize that natural settings provide a less restrictive context for learning than the traditional classroom, giving children more freedom to engage with one another and form ties. Indeed, learning in greener settings has been consistently tied to the bridging of both socio-cultural differences and interpersonal barriers (e.g. personality conflicts) that can interfere with group functioning in the classroom (Cooley et al., 2014; Warber et al., 2015; White, 2012). Finally, learning in nature facilitates cooperation and comfort between students and teachers, perhaps by providing a more level playing-field wherein the teacher is seen as a partner in learning (Scott & Colquhoun, 2013). More cooperative learning environments promote student engagement and academic performance (McCormick et al., 2015; Patrick et al., 2007).
Natural settings may afford “loose parts,” autonomy, and distinctly beneficial forms of play. In his “theory of loose parts,” Nicholson (1972) posited that the “stuff” of nature—sticks, stones, bugs, dirt, water—could promote child development by encouraging creative, self-directed play. Indeed, teachers’ and principals’ observations suggest children’s play becomes strikingly more creative, physically active, and more social, in the presence of loose parts (e.g., Bundy et al., 2008, 2009). Interestingly, it appears that nature, loose parts, and autonomy can each independently contribute to outcomes (see Bundy et al., 2009; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Studente et al., 2016, respectively), raising the possibility of synergy among these factors. Although the effects of loose parts play on child development have yet to be quantitatively demonstrated (Gibson et al., 2017), the potential contributions of more creative, more social, more physically active play to cognitive, social and physical development seem clear.
4 Outcomes for Learning and Development
In school settings, incorporating nature in instruction improves academic achievement over traditional instruction. In a randomized controlled trial of school garden-based instruction involving over 3,000 students, students receiving garden-based instruction gained more knowledge than waitlist control peers taking traditional classes; moreover, the more garden-based instruction students received, the larger the gains (Wells et al., 2015). Further, among the over 200 other tests of nature-based instruction’s academic outcomes, the vast majority of findings are positive (for reviews, see Becker et al., 2017; Williams & Dixon, 2013)—and here, too, the most impressive findings come from studies employing the largest doses of nature-based instruction (e.g., Ernst & Stanek, 2006). Findings have been consistently positive across diverse student populations, academic subjects, instructors and instructional approaches, educational settings, and research designs.
Interestingly, both the pedagogy and setting of nature-based instruction may contribute to its effects. Hands-on, student-centered, activity- and discussion-based instruction are often, although not necessarily, used in nature-based instruction—and each of these pedagogical approaches has been found to outperform traditional instruction even when conducted indoors (Freeman et al., 2014; Granger et al., 2012; Kontra et al., 2015). And simply conducting traditional instruction in a more natural setting may boost outcomes. In multiple studies, the greener a school’s surroundings, the better its standardized test performance—even after accounting for poverty and other factors (e.g., Sivarajah et al., 2018) and classrooms with green views yield similar findings (Benfield et al., 2015, although c.f. Doxey et al., 2009). The frequency of positive findings on nature-based instruction likely reflects the combination of a better pedagogy and a better educational setting.
Inside and outside the context of formal instruction, experiences of nature seem to contribute to additional outcomes. First, not only do experiences of nature enhance academic learning, but they seem to foster personal development—the acquisition of intrapersonal and interpersonal assets such as perseverance, critical thinking, leadership, and communication skills. While quantitative research on these outcomes is rare, the qualitative work is voluminous, striking, and near-unanimous (for reviews, see Becker et al., 2017; Cason & Gillis, 1994; Williams & Dixon, 2013). Teachers, parents, and students consistently report that wilderness and other nature experiences boost self-confidence, critical thinking, and problem-solving (e.g., Kochanowski & Carr, 2014; Troung et al., 2016) as well as leadership and communication skills such as making important decisions, listening to others, and voicing opinions in a group (e.g., Cooley et al., 2014; Jostad et al., 2012). Students emerge more resilient, with a greater capacity to meet challenges and thrive in adverse situations (Beightol et al., 2012; Cooley et al., 2014; Harun & Salamuddin, 2014; Richmond et al., 2017; Warber et al., 2015). Interestingly, greener everyday settings may also boost positive coping (Kuo, 2001) and buffer children from the impacts of stressful life events (Wells & Evans, 2003).
And second, spending time in nature appears to grow environmental stewards. Adults who care strongly for nature commonly attribute their caring to time, and particularly play, in nature as children—and a diverse body of studies backs them up (for review, see Chawla & Derr, 2012). Interestingly, the key ingredient in childhood nature experiences that leads to adult stewardship behavior does not seem to be conservation knowledge. Although knowledge of how and why to conserve, which could presumably be taught in a classroom setting, has typically been assumed to drive stewardship behavior, it is relatively unimportant in predicting conservation behavior (Otto & Pensini, 2017). By contrast, an emotional connection to nature, which may be more difficult to acquire in a classroom, is a powerful predictor of children’s conservation behavior, explaining 69% of the variance (Otto & Pensini, 2017). Indeed, pro-environmental attitudes may foster the acquisition of environmental knowledge (Fremery & Bogner, 2014) rather than vice versa. As spending time in nature fosters an emotional connection to nature, and, in turn, conservation attitudes and behavior, direct contact with nature may be the most effective way to grow environmental stewards (Lekies et al., 2015).
5 Conclusions and Implications
Do experiences with nature really promote learning? A scientist sampling some of the studies in this area might well be dismayed initially—as we were—at the frequency of weak research designs and overly optimistic claims. But a thorough review reveals an evidence base stronger, deeper, and broader than this first impression might suggest: weak research designs are supplemented with strong ones; striking findings are replicated in multiple contexts; the research on nature and learning now includes evidence of mechanisms; and findings from entirely outside the study of nature and learning point to the same conclusions.
Robust phenomena are often robust because they are multiply determined. The eight likely pathways between exposure to nature and learning identified here may account for the consistency of the nature-learning connection. Certainly it seems likely that increasing a student’s ability to concentrate, interest in the material, and self-discipline simultaneously would enhance their learning more than any of these effects alone. Moreover, in a group setting, effects on individual learners improve the learning context; when Danika fidgets less, her seatmates Jamal and JiaYing experience fewer disruptions and concentrate better; when Danika, Jamal, and JiaYing are less disruptive, the whole class learns better. These synergies—within and between students—may help explain how relatively small differences in schoolyard green cover predict significant differences in end-of-year academic achievement performance (e.g. Kuo et al., 2018b; Matsuoka, 2010).
An important question arose in the course of our review: is nature-based instruction effective for students for whom traditional instruction is ineffective? Although this review was not structured to systematically assess this question, the benefits of nature-based learning for disadvantaged students was a striking leitmotif in our reading. Not only can nature-based learning work better for disadvantaged students (McCree et al., 2018; Sivarajah et al., 2018), but it appears to boost interest in uninterested students (Dettweiler et al., 2015; Truong et al., 2016), improve some grades in low-achieving students (Camasso & Jagannathan, 2018), and reduce disruptive episodes and dropouts among ‘at risk’ students (Ruiz-Gallardo et al., 2013). Nature-based learning may sometimes even erase race- and income-related gaps (e.g., Taylor et al., 1998). Further, anecdotes abound in which students who ordinarily struggle in the classroom emerge as leaders in natural settings. If nature is ‘equigenic’—equality-producing—then documenting this capacity is pressing, particularly in the U.S., where sixth graders in the richest school districts are four grade levels ahead of their counterparts in the poorest districts (Reardon et al., 2017).
Fully assessing and making use of the benefits of nature-based instruction can serve all children. The available evidence suggests that experiences of nature help children acquire some of the skills, attitudes, and behaviors most needed in the twenty-first century. “Noncognitive factors” such as perseverance, self-efficacy, resilience, social skills, leadership, and communication skills—so important in life beyond school (National Research Council, 2012)—are increasingly recognized by the business community and policy makers as essential in a rapidly changing world. And for generations growing up as the impacts of climate change accelerate, environmental stewardship may be as important as any academic content knowledge.
We conclude it is time to take nature seriously as a resource for learning and development. It is time to bring nature and nature-based pedagogy into formal education—to expand existing, isolated efforts into increasingly mainstream practices. Action research should assess the benefits of school gardens, green schoolyards and green walls in classrooms. Principals and school boards should support, not discourage, teachers’ efforts to hold classes outdoors, take regular field trips, and partner with nearby nature centers, farms, and forest preserves. Teachers who have pioneered nature-based instruction should serve as models, helping others address its challenges and take full advantage of its benefits.
Recommended Further Reading
-
1.
Evans, G. W., Otto, S., & Kaiser, F. G. (2018). Childhood Origins of Young Adult Environmental Behavior. Psychological Science, 29(5), 679–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741894
-
2.
Dettweiler, U., Becker, C., Auestad, B. H., Simon, P., & Kirsch, P. (2017). Stress in school. Some empirical hints on the circadian cortisol rhythm of children in outdoor and indoor classes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14, 475. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050475
-
3.
Kuo, M. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Supplemental Material. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093
References
Alon, N. L., & Tal, T. (2015). Student self-reported learning outcomes of field trips: The pedagogical impact. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1279–1298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1034797
Álvarez-Bueno, C., Pesce, C., Cavero-Redondo, I., Sánchez-López, M., Garrido-Miguel, M., & Martínez-Vizcaíno, V. (2017). Academic achievement and physical activity: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, e20171498. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-1498
Amoly, E., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., López-Vicente, M., Basagaña, X., Julvez, J., et al. (2014). Green and blue spaces and behavioral development in Barcelona schoolchildren: The BREATHE project. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(12), 1351–1358. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408215
Bassette, L. A., & Taber-Doughy, T. (2013). The effects of a dog reading visitation program on academic engagement behavior in three elementary students with emotional and behavioral difficulties: A single case design. Child & Youth Care Forum, 42(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-013-9197-y
Becker, C., Lauterbach, G., Spengler, S., Dettweiler, U., & Mess, F. (2017). Effects of regular classes in outdoor education settings: A systematic review on students’ learning, social and health dimensions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14, 485. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050485
Beightol, J., Jevertson, J., Gray, S., Carter, S., & Gass, M. A. (2012). Adventure education and resilience enhancement: A mixed methods study. Journal of Experiential Education, 35(2), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591203500203
Bell, A. C., & Dyment, J. E. (2008). Grounds for health: The intersection of school grounds and health-promoting schools. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701843426
Benfield, J. A., Rainbolt, G. N., Bell, P. A., & Donovan, G. H. (2015). Classrooms with nature views: Evidence of different student perceptions and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 47(2), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513499583
Berry, M. S., Sweeney, M. M., Morath, J., Odum, A. L., & Jordan, K. E. (2014). The nature of impulsivity: Visual exposure to natural environments decreases impulsive decision-making in a delay discounting task. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e97915. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097915
Blair, D. (2009). The child in the garden: An evaluative review of the benefits of school gardening. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.2.15-38
Bundy, A. C., Luckett, T., Naughton, G. A., Tranter, P. J., Wyver, S. R., Ragen, J., et al. (2008). Playful interaction: Occupational therapy for all children on the school playground. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(5), 522–527. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.62.5.522
Bundy, A. C., Luckett, T., Tranter, P. J., Naughten, G. A., Wyver, S. R., Ragen, J., et al. (2009). The risk is that there is ‘no risk’: A simple innovative intervention to increase children’s activity levels. International Journal of Early Years Education, 17(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760802699878
Camassao, M. J., & Jagannathan, R. (2018). Nature thru nature: Creating natural science identities in populations of disadvantaged children through community education partnership. Journal of Environmental Education, 49(1), 30–42.
Casey, R., Oppert, J.-M., Weber, C., Charreire, H., Salze, P., Badariotti, D., et al. (2014). Determinants of childhood obesity: What can we learn from built environment studies? Food Quality and Preference, 31, 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.06.003
Cason, D., & Gillis, H. L. (1994). A meta-analysis of outdoor adventure programming with adolescents. Journal of Experiential Education, 17(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382599401700109
Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for children. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215595441
Chawla, L., & Derr, V. (2012). The development of conservation behaviors in childhood and youth. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 527–555). Oxford University Press.
Chawla, L., Keena, K., Pevec, I., & Stanley, E. (2014). Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for resilience in childhood and adolescence. Health & Place, 28, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.03.001
Chow, J. T., & Lau, S. (2015). Nature gives us strength: Exposure to nature counteracts ego-depletion. Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.972310
Cooley, S. J., Holland, M. J. G., Cumming, J., Novakovic, E. G., & Burns, V. E. (2014). Introducing the use of a semi-structured video diary room to investigate students’ learning experiences during an outdoor adventure education groupwork skills course. Higher Education, 67, 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9645-5
Dadvand, P., Niewenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X., Alvarez-Pedrero, M., et al. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(26), 7937–7942. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503402112
Dalton, A. M., Wareham, N., Griffin, S., & Jones, A. P. (2016). Neighbourhood greenspace is associated with a slower decline in physical activity in older adults: A prospective cohort study. SSM Population Health, 2, 683–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.09.006
Dettweiler, U., Becker, C., Auestad, B.H., Simon, P., & Kirsch, P. (2017). Stress in school. Some empirical hints on the circadian cortisol rhythm of children in outdoor and indoor classes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14, 475. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050475
Dettweiler, U., Ünlü, A., Lauterbach, G., Becker, C. & Gschrey, B. (2015). Investigating the motivational behavior of pupils during outdoor science teaching within self-determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(125). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00125
Doxey, J., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2009). The impact of interior plants in university classrooms on student course performance and on student perceptions of the course and instructor. Horticultural Science, 44(2), 384–391.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(2), 939–944. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/images/PsychologicalScienceDec2005.pdf.
Ernst, J., & Stanek, D. (2006). The Prairie science class: A model for re-visioning environmental education within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 255–265. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20.
Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F., & Sullivan, W. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0241
Faber Taylor, A., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(5), 402–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054708323000
Fägerstam, E., & Blom, J. (2012). Learning biology and mathematics outdoors: Effects and attitudes in a Swedish high school context. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 13, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2011.647432
Flouri, E., Midouhas, E., & Joshi, H. (2014). The role of urban neighbourhood green space in children’s emotional and behavioural resilience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.007
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Fremery, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2014). Cognitive learning in authentic environments in relation to green attitude preferences. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 44, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.11.002
Gibson, J. L., Cornell, M., & Gill, T. (2017). A systematic review of research into the impact of loose parts play on children’s cognitive, social and emotional development. School Mental Health, 9(4), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9220-9
Granger, E. M., Bevis, T. H., Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., & Tate, R. L. (2012). The efficacy of student-centered instruction in supporting science learning. Science, 338, 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1223709
Grannis, J. C. (1992). Students’ stress, distress, and achievement in an urban intermediate school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 12(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431692012001001
Gray, C., Gibbons, R., Larouche, R., Sandseter, E. B., Bienenstock, A., Brussoni, M., et al. (2015). What is the relationship between outdoor time and physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and physical fitness in children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research in Public Health, 12(6), 6455–6474. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606455
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environmental experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591231001
Harun, M. T., & Salamuddin, N. (2014). Promoting social skills through outdoor education and assessing its effects. Asian Social Science, 10(5), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n5p71
Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295–300. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/, https://doi.org/10.1177/003591576505800503.
Ho, N. F., Zhou, J., Fung, D. S. S., Kua, P. H. J., & Huang, Y. X. (2017). Equine-assisted learning in youths at-risk for school or social failure. Cogent Education, 4(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1334430
Hobbs, L. K. (2015). Play-based science learning activities: Engaging adults and children with informal science learning for preschoolers. Science Communication, 37(3), 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015574017
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It’s not autonomy support or structure, but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
Jostad, J., Paisley, K., & Gookin, J. (2012). Wilderness-based semester learning: Understanding the NOLS experience. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 4, 16–26.
Kochanowski, L., & Carr, V. (2014). Nature playscapes as contexts for fostering self-determination. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(2), 146–167.
Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances learning. Psychological Science, 26(6), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569355
Kuo, F. E. (2001). Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment & Behavior, 33, 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121972846
Kuo, F. E., & Faber Taylor, A. (2004). A potential natural treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 94(9), 1580–1586.
Kuo, M. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway Supplemental material. Supplemental Material. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093
Kuo, M., Browning, M. H. E. M., & Penner, M. L. (2018a). Do lessons in nature boost subsequent classroom engagement? Refueling students in flight. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(2253). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02253
Kuo, M., Browning, M. H. E. M., Sachdeva, S., Westphal, L., & Lee, K. (2018b). Might school performance grow on trees? Examining the link between ‘greenness’ and academic achievement in urban, high-poverty schools. Frontiers in Psychology, This Issue, 1669. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2s018.016
Lachowitz, K., & Jones, A. P. (2011). Greenspace and obesity: A systematic review of the evidence. Obesity Reviews, 12(5), e183–e189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00827.x
Lekies, K. S., Lost, G., & Rode, J. (2015). Urban youth’s experiences of nature: Implications for outdoor adventure education. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.03.002
Leppink, E. W., Odlaug, B. L., Lust, K., Christenson, G., & Grant, J. E. (2016). The young and the stressed: Stress, impulse control, and health in college students. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 204(12), 931–938. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000586
Li, D., & Sullivan, W. C. (2016). Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.015
MacNaughton, P., Eitland, E., Kloog, I., Schwartz, J., & Allen, J. (2017). Impact of particulate matter exposure and surrounding ‘greenness’ on chronic absenteeism in Massachusetts public schools. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14020207.
Mantzicopoulos, P. Y., & Morrison, D. (1995). A comparison of boys and girls with attention problems: Kindergarten through second grade. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64(4), 522–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079560
Mårtensson, F., Boldemann, C., Soderstrom, M., Blennow, M., Englund, J.-E., & Grahn, P. (2009). Outdoor environmental assessment of attention promoting settings for preschool children. Health & Place, 15(4), 1149–1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.07.002
Matsuoka, R. H. (2010). Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.011
Maynard, T., Waters, J., & Clement, C. (2013). Child-initiated learning, the outdoor environment and the ‘underachieving’ child. Early Years, 33(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2013.771152
McCormick, M. P., Cappella, E., O’Conner, E. E., & McClowry, S. G. (2015). Social-emotional learning and academic achievement: Using causal methods to explore classroom-level mechanisms. AERA Open, 1(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415603959
McCree, M., Cutting, R., & Sherwin, D. (2018). The hare and the tortoise go to forest school: Taking the scenic route to academic attainment via emotional wellbeing outdoors. Early Child Development and Care, 188(7), 980–996. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1446430
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.687
National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13398.
Nedovic, S., & Morrissey, A. (2013). Calm, active and focused: Children’s responses to an organic outdoor learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 16(2), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-9127-9
Nicholson, S. (1972). The theory of loose parts, an important principle for design methodology. Studies in Design Education Craft & Technology, 4(2). http://jil.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/SDEC/article/view/1204.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
O’Haire, M. E., Mckenzie, S. J., McCune, S., & Slaughter, V. (2013). Effects of animal-assisted activities with guinea pigs in the primary school classroom. Anthrozoos, 26(3), 455–458. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713X13697429463835
Otto, S., & Pensini, P. (2017). Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 47, 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009
Pagels, P., Raustorp, A., Ponce De Leon, A., Mårtensson, F., Kylin, M., & Boldemann, C. (2014). A repeated measurement study investigating the impact of school outdoor environment upon physical activity across ages and seasons in Swedish second, fifth and eighth graders. BioMed Central Public Health, 14, 803. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-803
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83
Reardon, S. F., Kalogrides, D., & Shores, K. (2017). The Geography of Racial/Ethnic Test Score Gaps (CEPA Working Paper No. 16–10). Retrieved from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis: http://cepa.stanford.edu/wp16-10.
Richmond, D., Sibthorp, J., Gookin, J., Annorella, S., & Ferri, S. (2017). Complementing classroom learning through outdoor adventure education: Out-of-school-time experiences that make a difference. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2017.1324313
Ridgers, N. D., Knowles, Z. R., & Sayers, J. (2012). Encouraging play in the natural environment: A Child-focused case study of forest school. Children’s Geographies, 10(1), 49–65.
Rowe, K. J., & Rowe, K. S. (1992). The relationship between inattentiveness in the classroom and reading achievement: Part B: An explanatory study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199203000-00026
Ruiz-Gallardo, J., Verde, A., & Valdes, A. (2013). Garden-based learning: An experience with ‘at risk’ secondary education students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(4), 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2013.786669
Rutter, M. (2000). School effects on pupil progress: Research findings and policy implications. In P. K. Smith & A. D. Pellegrini (Eds.), Psychology of education: Major themes (Vol. 1, pp. 3–150). London: Falmer Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129857.
Sahoo, S. K., & Senapati, A. (2014). Effect of sensory diet through outdoor play on functional behaviour in children with ADHD. Indian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46(2), 49–54.
Santana, C. C. A., Azevedo, L. B., Cattuzzo, M. T., Hill, J. O., Andrade, L. P., & Prado, W. L. (2017). Physical fitness and academic performance in youth: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(6), 579–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12773
Schutte, A. R., Torquati, J. C., & Beattie, H. L. (2015). Impact of urban nature on executive functioning in early and middle childhood. Environment and Behavior, 49(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515603095
Scott, G., & Colquhoun, D. (2013). Changing spaces, changing relationships: The positive impact of learning out of doors. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 17(1), 47–53.
Sivarajah, S., Smith, S. M., & Thomas, S. C. (2018). Tree cover and species composition effects on academic performance of primary school students. PLoS ONE, 13(2), e0193254. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193254
Skinner, E. A., & Chi, U. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and engagement as ‘active ingredients’ in garden-based education: Examining models and measures derived from self-determination theory. The Journal of Environmental Education, 43(1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2011.596856
Studente, S., Seppala, N., & Sadowska, N. (2016). Facilitating creative thinking in the classroom: Investigating the effects of plants and the colour green on visual and verbal creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.09.001
Swank, J. M., Cheung, C., Prikhidko, A., & Su, Y.-W. (2017). Nature-based child-centered play therapy and behavioral concerns: A single-case design. International Journal of Play Therapy, 26(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/pla0000031
Takayama, N., Korpela, K., Lee, J., Morikawa, T., Tsunetsugu, Y., Park, B. J., et al. (2014). Emotional, restorative, and vitalizing effects of forest and urban environments at four sites in Japan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11, 7207–7230. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110707207
Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city: Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916598301001
Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., et al. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.08.002
Truong, S., Gray, T., & Ward, K. (2016). ‘Sowing and growing’ life skills through garden-based learning to re-engage disengaged youth. Learning Landscapes, 10(1), 361–385.
Ulset, V., Vitaro, F., Brendgren, M., Bekkus, M., & Borge, A. I. H. (2017). Time spent outdoors during preschool: Links with children’s cognitive and behavioral development. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 52, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.05.007
van den Berg, A. E., & van den Berg, C. G. (2011). A comparison of children with ADHD in a natural and built setting. Child Care Health and Development, 37(3), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01172.x
Warber, S. L., DeHurdy, A. A., Bialko, M. F., Marselle, M. R., & Irvine, K. N. (2015). Addressing ‘nature-deficit disorder’: A mixed methods pilot study of young adults attending a wilderness camp. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/651827
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1315–1329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209341649
Wells, N. M., & Evans, G. W. (2003). Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior, 25, 311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503035003001
Wells, N. M., Myers, B. M., Todd, L. E., Barale, K., Gaolach, B., Ferenz, G., et al. (2015). The effects of school gardens on children’s science knowledge: A randomized controlled trial of low-income elementary schools. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2858–2878. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1112048
Wessler, S. L. (2003). Rebuilding classroom relationships—It’s hard to learn when you’re scared. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 40–43.
White, R. (2012). A sociocultural investigation of the efficacy of outdoor education to improve learning engagement. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 17(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.652422
Wiens, V., Kyngäs, H., & Pölkki, T. (2016). The meaning of seasonal changes, nature, and animals for adolescent girls’ wellbeing in northern Finland. A qualitative descriptive study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies of Health and Well-being, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v11.30160.
Williams, D. R., & Dixon, P. S. (2013). Impact of garden-based learning on academic outcomes in schools: Synthesis of research between 1990 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313475824
Funding and Acknowledgments
This literature review was conducted under the auspices of the Science of Nature-Based Learning Collaborative Research Network (NBLR Network) supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF 1,540,919. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
We thank the members of the NBLR Network for their diverse contributions of expertise, skills, resources and passion for connecting children to nature: Marc Berman, Judy Braus, Greg Cajete, Cheryl Charles, Louise Chawla, Scott Chazdon, Angie Chen, Avery Cleary, Nilda Cosco, Andrea Faber Taylor, Megan Gunnar, Erin Hashimoto-Martell, Peter Kahn, Ming Kuo, Sarah Milligan Toffler, Robin Moore, Scott Sampson, David Sobel, David Strayer, Jason Watson, Sheila Williams Ridge, Dilafruz Williams, and Tamra Willis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All three authors co-wrote and edited the manuscript. MK provided leadership for decisions of content, framing, and style and led the creation of Fig. 1 and Table 1. MB created the SoNBL literature database on which this review is based. CJ serves as the principal investigator of the Science of Nature-Based Learning Collaborative Research Network project; in addition to initiating this project and substantially shaping the Figure and Table, she solicited feedback from Network members.
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kuo, M., Barnes, M., Jordan, C. (2022). Do Experiences with Nature Promote Learning? Converging Evidence of a Cause-And-Effect Relationship. In: Jucker, R., von Au, J. (eds) High-Quality Outdoor Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04108-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04108-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-04107-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-04108-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)