SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
published: 16 May 2022
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.877058
Getting Out of the Classroom and
Into Nature: A Systematic Review of
Nature-Specific Outdoor Learning on
School Children’s Learning and
Development
Jeff Mann 1*, Tonia Gray 1 , Son Truong 1,2 , Eric Brymer 3 , Rowena Passy 4 , Susanna Ho 5 ,
Pasi Sahlberg 6 , Kumara Ward 7 , Peter Bentsen 8,9 , Christina Curry 1 and Rachel Cowper 10
1
School of Education, Western Sydney University, Kingswood, NSW, Australia, 2 School of Health and Human Performance,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 3 Discipline of Psychology, Southern Cross University, Bilinga, QLD, Australia,
4
Plymouth Institute of Education, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom, 5 SR Nathan School of Human
Development, Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore, Singapore, 6 Faculty of Education, Southern Cross
University, Lismore, NSW, Australia, 7 School of Education and Social Work, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom,
8
Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark,
9
Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital, Frederiksberg, Denmark, 10 Thrive Outdoors,
Inspiring Scotland, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Edited by:
Judie Arulappan,
Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
Reviewed by:
Jim McKenna,
Leeds Beckett University,
United Kingdom
Pip Lynch,
Norwegian School of Sport
Sciences, Norway
*Correspondence:
Jeff Mann
j3ffmann1@gmail.com
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Children and Health,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Public Health
Received: 16 February 2022
Accepted: 19 April 2022
Published: 16 May 2022
Citation:
Mann J, Gray T, Truong S, Brymer E,
Passy R, Ho S, Sahlberg P, Ward K,
Bentsen P, Curry C and Cowper R
(2022) Getting Out of the Classroom
and Into Nature: A Systematic Review
of Nature-Specific Outdoor Learning
on School Children’s Learning and
Development.
Front. Public Health 10:877058.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.877058
Background: The value of natural environments for developing children’s self-identity
and social skills has been known for some time, and more recently the potential
of nature-specific (i.e., excluding built environments) outdoor learning for achieving
academic outcomes has been explored. Connecting children with natural spaces
has been shown to benefit their physical and mental health; however, the utility of
nature-specific outdoor environments as a setting for curricular and non-curricular
learning has yet to be clearly established. Our aim was to undertake a narrative synthesis
of international evidence of nature-specific outdoor learning and its benefits for personal
and social development, wellbeing and academic progress.
Methods: This systematic review searched publications between 2000 and 2020
in nine academic databases for evidence of socio-emotional and academic benefits
of nature-specific outdoor learning in school-aged educational settings, using concise
search criteria registered with PROSPERO. The total search results of 17,886 records
were initially screened by title, and then two reviewers made blind reviews of the title and
abstract of 1,019 records.
Results: 147 original research studies meeting the criteria were identified. Learning
settings ranged across outdoor adventure education, school gardens, field trips, and
traditional school subjects taught in natural environments. Study characteristics were
summarized, and risk-of-bias tools assessed quality of research as generally moderate,
although with a wide range. The reported benefits of learning in natural outdoor settings
include: increased student engagement and ownership of their learning, some evidence
of academic improvement, development of social and collaborative skills, and improved
self-concept factors.
Conclusions: Nature-specific outdoor learning has measurable socio-emotional,
academic and wellbeing benefits, and should be incorporated into every child’s school
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
1
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
experience with reference to their local context. Teacher pre-service and in-service
education needs to include a focus on how natural settings can be used effectively for
learning. Further research is needed to clarify the conditions under which specific forms of
outdoor learning are most efficacious for various target outcomes. It is recommended that
future studies measuring outdoor learning adopt established methodologies to improve
the quality of research in this field.
Systematic
Review
Registration:
display_record.php?RecordID=153171.
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
Keywords: academic improvement, education, learning outside the classroom, nature-specific, outdoor learning,
pro-environmental behavior, socio-emotional, wellbeing
INTRODUCTION
and informal curricula, spanning a range of school student
age groups.
An international “renaissance of interest” (1) has emerged
in learning outside the classroom in recent years, as the
shortcomings of a test-dominated model of education have
become apparent. Sahlberg (2) for instance, commented that
this narrowly focused test-oriented model of education reduces
the range of learning activity for students, and has the effect
that “when educational performance is determined by students’
test scores in reading, mathematics, and science, it reduces
focus on whole-child development due to decreasing time for
arts, music, drama, and sports” (p. 138). At the same time,
there is an increasing body of research that demonstrates how
students can benefit from learning outside, not only in terms
of the curriculum, but also with respect to social, personal, and
physical development (3, 4). UNICEF’s report on the factors that
shape child well-being in affluent countries lists “good mental
well-being” as a “key aspect of quality of life”, and notes that
“ore time playing outside is linked to much higher levels of
happiness” (5). There is strong resonance with a frequently
held principle in many Western, and especially Scandinavian,
countries, that nature must play an integral role in childhood
education (6–9).
This paper presents an examination of the literature on
nature-specific learning outside the classroom (NSLOtC) and
the types of benefits and/or impacts such opportunities have
on children. Our scoping paper (10) used the term “outdoor
learning”, however we have chosen the more precise term
of NSLOtC. Following Atencio et al. (11), NSLOtC includes
practical and experiential learning activities conducted outside
in school grounds and other locations such as parks, forests,
residential camps/centers or on expeditions. Activities can be
curricular or non-curricular, focus on different areas of cognitive,
social, emotional and moral development, and be related to
indoor learning. This type of learning may take place during
curricular time or outside school hours. It is narrower in scope
than generalized learning outside the classroom (LOtC), which
includes off-campus learning in natural or built environments
and/or visits to sites such as museums, galleries and/or historical
monuments (12). Whilst there have been systematic reviews of
research on exposure to natural environments without regard
to learning, and on LOtC irrespective of whether the setting
is natural or built, this paper draws together research on
various forms of learning in natural environments, across formal
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
Benefits of Being in Nature
A mounting body of research clearly indicates that spending
time in natural settings which have not been “hardened” or
“improved” is good for human and planetary wellbeing (8, 13–
15). However, people in industrialized and urban settings are
spending less time outdoors (16). In particular, children are
moving indoors at a vital time in their growth and development
when the evidence-base suggests they would benefit from time
outdoors (7, 17). This reduction of interaction with nature is
reflected in the experiences of young people, and is becoming
increasingly apparent in educational settings worldwide (8, 18).
Ensuring children have adequate access to nature is of critical
importance for their health and wellbeing (13, 15, 19). However,
while there has been an international recognition that schools
are vital for enhancing wellbeing in young people (20) and
for developing pro-environment attitudes and behaviors (21),
most schooling is guided by the concept of indoor learning and
four-walled classrooms.
Nature, Wellbeing and Young People
As noted above, student wellbeing has become an important
aspect of education, and often refers to overall development and
quality of life. While there is no one commonly agreed definition
of wellbeing, descriptions often focus on psychological notions
such as positive mental health, a sense of purpose and belonging,
high life satisfaction and the ability to manage stress and life
challenges (22). General agreement, however, exists about the
minimum conditions of wellbeing, which include the presence
of positive emotions, life satisfaction, fulfillment and positive
functioning (23). There have been two main perspectives on
wellbeing namely, hedonistic and eudemonic wellbeing. The
former relates to finding pleasure and avoiding pain, whilst the
latter refers to meaning and purpose. Though still in the early
development of hedonistic psychology, these were considered
to be distinct entities, and recent literature on wellbeing
has promoted a more holistic approach incorporating both
approaches (22). Studies examining wellbeing in young people
have also included social (e.g., relationships), environmental (e.g.,
integration with nature) and physical dimensions of wellbeing, as
well as the importance of play, learning, a sense of belonging and
life satisfaction to the perception of wellbeing (24, 25). Wellbeing
2
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
The Emergence of Nature-Specific
Learning Outside the Classroom
is a complex, multi-dimensional construct, which cannot be
measured by using a single indicator in any given context (26).
Research that measures student wellbeing needs to be based on
the multi-dimensional nature of wellbeing, such as the right of
children to happiness, and the importance of their ability to
enhance their wellbeing in the present and in the future (27).
The multifaceted nature of wellbeing means that various
domains can differently affect students’ life satisfaction and
wellbeing, with each domain operating as a condition for and a
consequence of the other domains (28). It can therefore be argued
that the physical environment in which these domains operate
has a considerable impact. Research shows that access to open
and natural spaces supports improved physical health, with time
outside in nature also having beneficial effects on cognitive and
mental health (29).
Several systematic reviews have assessed wellbeing outcomes
from interactions in natural environments for various
populations. For example, Gill (30) reviewed 71 studies
involving primary aged children’s experience of nature, and
found benefits to mental health, emotional regulation and
environmental knowledge and attitudes. Holland et al. (31)
concluded that “wildland” recreation resulted in psychological,
social, and educational benefits, across 235 studies with mostly
adult participants. Tillman et al. (32) similarly explored the
effect of nature on mental health specifically in participants
aged 0–18 years old. An experience of nature positively
influenced mental health across the 35 studies, however only
15 of these involved active engagement with nature rather than
passive exposure.
Three systematic reviews shared the focus of this review
on educational experiences in natural settings. Becker et al.
(3) reviewed 13 studies with regular weekly or fortnightly
classes in the outdoors, and found emerging evidence for
social, academic, physical and psychological change. Mygind
et al. (19) examined immersive nature learning experiences,
most of which were secondary school aged participants
in expedition and residential adventure programs. They
identified 84 studies, and further analyzed 36 quantitative
studies, finding immediate benefits to a range of mental,
physical and social health outcomes. Finally, Miller et al. (33)
investigated nature-based learning in primary aged children,
and observed positive evidence for social and educational
development, and emerging evidence for engagement, mental
health and wellbeing. Collectively, these reviews support
the value of nature immersion for people of all ages, and
various educational benefits of nature-specific learning for
students from particular age groups and outdoor learning
settings. This review aims to build on these previous efforts
in order to clarify the socio-emotional and academic benefits
of NSLOtC for all school aged children across a range of
outdoor contexts.
In summary, engaging with nature is important for the health
and wellbeing of young people, and providing opportunities that
best leverage this relationship is likely to have the greatest impact.
NSLOtC could be a vital medium for developing wellbeing and
understanding how best to facilitate these experiences is essential
to ensure effective learning design.
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
Most government policymakers, curriculum designers and
school leaders recognize the importance of psycho-social and
wellbeing factors for students’ development as well as academic
outcomes (34). An emerging interest in NSLOtC has led many
schools and individual teachers to consider how learning in
nature can realize these potential benefits. Indeed, across the
world, NSLOtC is becoming increasingly common. For example:
the “udeskole” Scandinavian philosophy of curriculum learning
in local outdoor settings (35), the outdoor adventure education
movement pioneered by Outward Bound (36), active learning
in Scotland (37), and experiential learning in school gardens
(38). However, despite this growing interest, there is a dearth
of guidance as to which NSLOtC approaches are appropriate
in various contexts, and what specific outcomes they might
achieve and for whom (33). This limits the potential leveraging of
NSLOtC settings to improve learning and health and wellbeing
outcomes for children and young people, potentially leading to
inefficient and ill–targeted investment decisions.
This review provides clarification of the benefits of NSLOtC
experiences of school children across all ages, incorporating a
range of curricular and non-curricular learning contexts. The
aim is to provide a resource for decision-makers in government,
university pre-service teacher education, school districts and
other interested groups by outlining: possible interventions;
the potential development, wellbeing and academic learning
outcomes of NSLOtC; and, the target beneficiaries.
METHODS
The search procedure was registered with the International
Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)
Number CRD42020153171. Figure 1 describes the screening
process. Nine databases (ERIC, ProQuest, PSYCInfo, PubMed,
Sage, Scopus, Taylor and Francis, Web of Science, Wiley) were
accessed by the international review team, yielding 17,886 hits
with a keyword in the each of the three categories (education
outside the classroom, learning, and wellbeing) and published
between 2000 and 2020, outlined in our protocol paper (10).
Duplicates were removed in Endnote, and 13,148 unique records
were copied to an online screening tool, Rayyan (https://www.
rayyan.ai/).
A detailed description of inclusion and exclusion criteria is
covered in Mann et al. (10). The criteria for inclusion in this
systematic review were:
School-aged participants (Kindergarten to Year 12).
Learning substantively based in a natural outdoor setting.
Regular sessions, or a multi-day residential program.
A measurable learning outcome (academic, wellbeing or socioemotional).
• Original research published in English.
•
•
•
•
The principal reviewer screened records by title to remove studies
that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria, yielding a total
of 1,019 records. Two reviewers then read the title and abstract
3
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
A preliminary survey of the measured outcomes was
conducted before identifying outcome categories. The three
broad areas of learning defined in the literature search
(socio-emotional, academic and wellbeing) provided a lens for
determining these categories.
RESULTS
This systematic review of NSLOtC research began with a broad
reach and included a large number of primary studies, compared
with similar systematic reviews [e.g., 3, 19, 33]. A total of 147
studies were included in the final review.
Study Characteristics
The dataset included research conducted across 20 countries,
with most studies conducted in the United States of America (54).
Multiple studies were also conducted in the United Kingdom
(27), Australia (15), Canada (8), Denmark (6), New Zealand (6),
Spain (4), South Africa (4), Sweden (3), Germany (2), Singapore
(2) and Turkey (2). Frequency of research generally increased
over time, with the most studies published in 2018 (see Figure 2).
The number of participants in each study varied greatly,
from qualitative (M = 47, SD = 88) to quantitative (M =
208, SD = 200) and mixed method (M = 191, SD = 234)
research designs. Figure 3 provides a graphical representation
of participant numbers, grouped by tens then hundreds. The
majority of studies (60%) were conducted with secondary (Year
7–12) school aged participants, while 36% involved primary
(Year 3–6) and 4% were carried out with infants’ (Kindergarten—
Year 2) school aged children (see Table 1). Almost all studies
(127) had mixed gender participants, with only 11 female-only
studies, 5 studies in male-only settings, and 8 studies where
participant gender was not specified.
Categories for outdoor learning contexts were formed after
an initial survey of the dataset, and Table 1 shows that the most
common contexts were adventure education (25%), residential
camps (22%), curricular lessons conducted in the outdoors
(20%) and school gardens (16%). Regular field trips (7%),
adventure therapy (3%) and school grounds (2%) were less
common contexts for research. Adventure education studies were
conducted almost exclusively with secondary students, which
may be reflective of practice in this field. In contrast, curricular
lessons in the outdoors and school garden learning were studied
predominantly with primary students. Research into residential
camps was well represented across both age groups, however
more studies were conducted with secondary students.
Learning outcome categories were similarly developed after
a preliminary inspection of the data, informed by the three
literature search areas (academic, socio-emotional, wellbeing).
The most common reported outcomes were so called “soft skills”,
relating to a student’s developing understanding of their selfconcept and intrapersonal skills (e.g., self-confidence, resilience)
and their social and interpersonal skills (e.g., communication,
teamwork). Wellbeing (e.g., mood, positive self-concept, sense
of calmness) was a pre-determined area of interest, and was
combined with mental health (e.g., emotional health functioning,
self-determination factors) as these outcomes were intertwined.
FIGURE 1 | Screening process.
and made blind inclusion decisions, with any conflicts resolved
collaboratively between them. This further reduced the list to
243 records. Lastly, the full text of each article was read and
screened by one member of the review team, with conflicts
resolved by the principal reviewer, resulting in a final total of 147
included records.
Reviewers recorded the study characteristics of each included
article and used established checklist tools to rate the qualitative
and/or quantitative research quality in the study. Quantitative
studies were assessed using the CCEERC tool (39), which
rates factors including: participant selection and sample size,
operationalisation of concepts, appropriateness of statistical
techniques and ethical standards. Qualitative studies were
similarly assessed with the JBI Checklist (40), which incorporates:
congruity between the research methodology with methods,
analysis and interpretation of results, representation of the
participants’ voices, influence of the researcher, and ethics
standards. These checklist tools require a rating of +1, 0 or −1
for each of 11 and 10 questions, respectively, and were adjusted
to produce a score between −10 and +10. The full list of rating
items and checklist references are included in Mann et al. (10).
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
4
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
FIGURE 2 | Published studies by year.
FIGURE 3 | Participant number by research design type (grouped by tens then hundreds).
academic outcomes, however a significant proportion of studies
focused specifically in this area which justified its own outcome
category. A recent report published by the Child and Nature
Network (41) examined the growing body of evidence that shows
how interactions with nature influence positive environmental
behaviors. For example, stewardship and positive conservation
behavior can be promoted by spending time in nature, having
role models in care for nature, and positive experiences in
nature. In order to support children and young people in
As well as summative academic progress (e.g., reading level,
mathematics development), a number of studies focused on
formative academic learning skills (e.g., planning, critical
thinking) and engagement with learning (e.g., motivation to be
at school, classroom engagement), and a few studies measured
school attendance after participation in NSLOtC.
Environmental knowledge and attitudes (e.g., knowledge
about and interest in animals, environmental stewardship)
were not anticipated to be a discrete category from general
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
5
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
TABLE 1 | Outdoor learning contexts by participant age.
Infants
Primary
Secondary
4
4
2
35
37
11
Adventure therapy (i.e., using adventure as a context for treatment)
Adventure education (e.g., canoeing expedition)
Regular field trips (e.g., environmental projects)
1
Total
6
4
Curricular lessons in local outdoors (e.g., writing poetry in the forest)
23
6
29
Residential camp (e.g., science camp)
15
23
38
School grounds (e.g., playground)
1
1
1
3
School gardens (located in the school, or in the local community)
2
16
8
26
Other
1
2
5
8
Total
5
65
86
156
Studies which had multiple ages were counted for each category.
becoming agents of change, Chawla (42) proposed place-based
learning experiences and opportunities for agency and authentic
participation in civic decision-making and actions related to the
local environment. This is echoed by others who argue the need
to go beyond cognitively-oriented engagement with the natural
world to include the affective domain and opportunities for
genuine agency (41, 43, 44). Prince (45) argued that outdoor
learning facilitates pro-environmental behavior in children
through role modeling, the provision of mentors and modeling
actual practice in context. Echoing this, Brymer and Davids (46)
highlighted the need to ensure that outdoor experiences designed
to enhance pro-environmental behaviors were directly related
to the everyday context of the learner. This implies we need to
reconsider the role of nature experiences in education and to
recognize that successful implementation requires experiential
approaches which engage all domains of learning in context.
Personal and social development outcomes were measured
most frequently (see Table 2), including: intrapersonal (24%) and
interpersonal (19%) development, along with the related factors
of mental health and wellbeing (14%). Environmental knowledge
and attitudes were assessed in 17% of studies. Learning factors
were less studied, including engagement with learning (11%),
academic progress (9%), general learning skills (4%) and school
attendance (2%). When interrogated by age, Table 2 shows that
personal/social development and wellbeing has been studied
more with secondary aged participants, whereas environmental
knowledge and attitudes have been researched more with primary
aged children. Academic learning outcomes have been similarly
studied across age groups.
Learning outcomes were also explored across NSLOtC
contexts (Table 3). Adventure therapy predictably focused
exclusively on intrapersonal and interpersonal development
outcomes, and adventure education was similar (although
included some measurement of wellbeing and learning
engagement). Curricular programs such as field trips, curricular
outdoor lessons and school gardens had a mixed focus on
both personal development and academic learning outcomes.
Residential camps focused more on personal development
outcomes, but also included some academic learning outcomes.
This likely corresponds with the focus of some camps being
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
TABLE 2 | Number of studies by outcome type and age.
Infants
Primary
Secondary
Self-concept and intrapersonal skills
2
8
40
Social and interpersonal skills
1
11
30
Mental/ emotional health and wellbeing
3
9
15
Environmental knowledge/attitude
1
22
13
10
12
8
8
Engagement with learning (motivation)
Academic Progress
1
General Learning Skills
School attendance rate
Other
3
1
2
2
4
2
Studies which had multiple outcomes and ages were counted for each category.
curricular (e.g., science camp) and others non-curricular (e.g.,
summer camp). Unsurprisingly, environmental knowledge and
attitude were common outcomes in field trips, residential camps
and school gardens, where they were the predictable focus
of learning.
Research Quality
Quantitative and qualitative research designs made up 40
and 37% respectively of the total studies, with fewer studies
(23%) employing a mixed method design. Forty-four percent of
quantitative studies, 35% of mixed methods studies and 2% of
qualitative studies utilized a comparison group. Average research
quality was rated at a medium level (5.28), with only 50% of
quantitative studies and 25% of qualitative studies given a high
(7 or above) rating (see Table 4).
When research quality is assessed by outdoor learning context,
it can be seen in Table 5 that regular field trips had the lowest
quality of research (especially in qualitative studies), along with
quantitative research in school gardens. The strongest research
quality was in outdoor curricular lessons.
Research Outcomes
Research variables were apportioned to broad learning categories
as described in Table 2. Almost all studies reported some positive
6
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
Residential camp
School grounds
School gardens
Other
Curricular lessons in local outdoors
Regular field trips
Adventure therapy
Adventure education
TABLE 3 | Number of studies by outdoor learning context and measured outcome.
Self-concept and intrapersonal skills
4
25
6
5
1
3
3
Social and interpersonal skills
2
12
1
8
11
Mental/ emotional health and wellbeing
6
2
6
5
Environmental knowledge/attitude
3
7
3
10
7
3
Engagement with learning (motivation)
4
2
6
2
5
2
3
7
3
3
3
Academic Progress
General Learning Skills
School attendance rate
1
Other
1
1
3
1
4
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
Studies which had multiple outcomes were counted for each category.
TABLE 4 | Research quality by study design.
TABLE 5 | Average research quality by study design and outdoor learning context.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Mixed
methods
Number of studies
54
59
34
Comparison group
1
26
12
5.39
5.18
Qualitative
Adventure therapy
Average research quality (−10
to +10)
Quantitative
5.3
Outdoor adventure education
5.6
5.4
Regular field trips
1.9
3.8
Curricular lessons in local outdoors
6.9
5.7
Residential camp
5.7
5.8
Standard deviation of research
quality
3.57
2.84
School grounds
4.0
5.5
Research quality of 5 or greater
65%
61%
School gardens
5.7
3.5
Research quality of 7 or greater
25%
50%
Other
5.2
5.1
Mixed methods research quality was assessed separately for quantitative and
qualitative components.
Mixed methods research quality was assessed separately for quantitative and
qualitative components.
these higher quality quantitative studies, listed by outdoor
learning context:
change in the variables they measured; however, in some cases
there were mediating factors or other complexities to these
results. It is beyond the scope of this narrative synthesis to
provide a statistical analysis of outcome effect sizes or to report on
the findings of every measured variable. More specific outcomes
in each outdoor learning context are outlined in Table 6.
Further analysis was undertaken of studies with a higher
quality rating (five or above), and 52 quantitative studies
met this criterion of research quality. Twenty six studies
incorporated a comparison or control group, although
some compared two types of NSLOtC [e.g., (47)] or
different participant groups [e.g., (48)] rather than using
indoor classroom learning as the comparison group. The
following statistically significant results were noted amongst
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
• Two of the three adventure therapy studies had a mix
of positive and negative results, with the third showing
significantly increased resilience after the program. These
ambivalent outcomes perhaps reflect the challenging
population of at-risk youth with complex needs.
• Eighteen adventure education studies all showed significant
changes in self-concept and coping factors, specifically
including: resilience (7), self-efficacy/self-esteem (4), life
effectiveness skills (3) and pro-social behaviors (3). A number
of researchers found that the quality of group experience
was a moderating factor for these outcomes, and one study
(49) interestingly observed that participants with a lower
7
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
Mathematics, Languages or Science performance at some time
points but not others.
TABLE 6 | Common research outcomes by outdoor learning context.
Adventure therapy
Self-concept, coping skills (e.g., resilience,
conflict management).
Adventure
education
Social and teamwork skills, self-concept,
self-esteem, resilience.
Regular field trips
Knowledge about the environment and
respect/appreciation for ecosystems.
Curricular lessons
in local outdoors
Academic improvement (mixed results),
motivation/engagement, wellbeing/mental
health, social skills, self-concept.
Residential camp
Connection to nature (mixed results), wellbeing,
self-concept and social skills.
School grounds
No common findings.
School gardens
Knowledge of and care for gardens,
engagement in learning, social skills and less
disruptive behavior.
•
•
•
•
Fifty-three qualitative studies were rated with a research quality
of five or higher. Outcome themes of these studies are
summarized by outdoor learning context:
• Of the ten adventure education studies, five found
improvement in interpersonal skills, and other studies
noted benefits to personal factors such as: resilience (2),
wellbeing (2), self-concept (2). One study with disengaged
high school students (53) found that regular adventure
education sessions improved overall school attendance,
punctuality and engagement.
• Three studies of regular field trips all focused on deeper
environmental awareness, and one study also observed that the
open-ended learning context of field trips facilitated students’
development of agency, self-regulation and resilience (54).
• In the thirteen studies of curricular lessons in the local
outdoors, common outcome themes included: social and
teamwork skills (7), wellbeing (5), environmental awareness
(4), self-confidence (3) and learning-readiness skills such as
concentration and engagement (3). Whilst most studies did
not focus on academic achievement, one study of foreign
language classes held in the outdoors found that students’
fluency improved as well as their confidence and motivation
to develop their spoken language skills (55).
• Environmental knowledge and attitudes were the focus of
six of the thirteen residential camp studies. Fulfillment of
basic psychological needs, as viewed through the lens of Self
Determination Theory (56), was regarded as a mediating
factor for motivation and wellbeing outcomes in three studies.
A deeper understanding of STEM and increased interest
in science inquiry was the focus of one residential camp
study (57).
• Across the twelve studies of school garden programs,
major themes included: self-confidence/self-esteem (6),
interpersonal skills (4), wellbeing (3), responsibility (3),
independence (3), engagement (3), and environmental
attitudes (3). A notable study of high school students with
disruptive behaviors (58) found that a gardening program
improved school attendance, responsibility for their work,
skills development and number of subject pass grades. Two
researchers contended that the student-centered pedagogical
approach was a mediating factor in the positive outcomes
they observed.
national cultural identification gained less from the adventure
education program.
Three studies of field trips all observed significant
improvement in environmental knowledge and attitudes,
however none compared these gains with a similar group
learning in the classroom.
Three of the nine studies of curricular lessons in the local
outdoors focused on student wellbeing, with two of these
noting significant improvement but only one including a
control group. Another three studies found curricular lessons
in the local outdoors significantly improved motivation
and engagement, two of which compared with a control
group. Academic progress was recorded in three studies,
however the one which included a classroom control group
found the same gains. This suggests whilst curricular lessons
in the local outdoors may not inhibit or accelerate academic
performance, they can particularly impact students’ wellbeing
and engagement.
Twelve residential camp studies measured intrapersonal and
interpersonal skills, as well as environmental attitudes. Five
of these studies found gains in self-concept factors across
the program, however only one out of three showed a
significant difference compared to a control group. Significant
improvement in social skills was noted in six studies of
residential camps, three of which included comparison with
a control group. Two of four studies measured significant
improvement in environmental attitudes, with one of these
including a control group. One study (50) found no
improvement in environmental attitudes but did show a
significant increase in environmentally responsible behaviors.
Another study observed that inclement weather during
the residential camp actually decreased students’ sense of
connection to nature (51).
Two of the three studies of school garden programs
found significant improvement in nutritional attitudes and
consumption compared to a control group. The third study
(52) was a four year primary school gardening program, which
found significant gains (compared to a control group) in
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
DISCUSSION
This study set out to examine the literature in NSLOtC with the
particular purpose of examining the quality of research and the
potential for designing school-based learning and development
in nature contexts. Depending on the design of the program,
NSLOtC can enhance students’ health and wellbeing, curriculum
and environmental knowledge. An analysis of the literature
reveals considerable diversity in terms of types of nature-specific
learning offered to school children, but NSLOtC in all its forms
8
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
the only environment where effective academic learning occurs,
not to mention the socio-emotional learning opportunities
provided by natural outdoor settings. While this needs to be
researched more thoroughly, the implications are that classroom
teachers might benefit from initial teacher education curricula
and professional development that enables them to deliver
learning in nature-specific environments. Many of the NSLOtC
studies described a student-centered style of learning, and a
different student relationship with adult learning facilitators
compared to a regular classroom teacher. These learning-mode
factors could mediate the effectiveness of NSLOtC, and research
comparing outdoor and indoor learning using similar teaching
and learning approaches would help to tease out causal factors.
Future research could include studies examining the impact
of different environments, as well the relationship between
environment and teaching and learning design. One size does not
fit all, so in the first instance research design will need to reflect
this contextual approach.
The current body of research has established that various
manifestations of NSLOtC can effectively produce holistic
learning, wellbeing and development outcomes; however,
comparison across outdoor learning contexts has been rarely
studied. Miller et al. (33) noted that it is currently unclear which
elements of nature-based learning positively impact engagement
and social outcomes. The next challenge for NSLOtC research
is to explore the mechanisms of this demonstrated effectiveness,
in order to uncover foundational elements which are common
across outdoor learning settings, and other factors which are
context-specific. In calling for a unification in NSLOtC research,
however, we caution against a “drag and drop” approach to
NSLOtC practice, where an effective model in one context is
replicated in another setting without regard to local educational,
environmental and cultural factors (59).
In order to achieve a high level of rigor, future NSLOtC
research should incorporate the following elements:
affords opportunities for enhanced health and wellbeing, social
engagement and curriculum specific outcomes.
Research within each outdoor context has generally been
conducted in isolation from others, reducing the global
understanding of NSLOtC across various learning contexts. The
most commonly studied outdoor learning context was adventure
education, which was largely conducted with secondary age
students and measured personal and social development
outcomes. The lack of long-term follow-up also makes it hard
to determine if the outcomes measured impacted on learning
across curriculum and years. The other common area of NSLOtC
research was in the context of school gardens and curricular
lessons, and these focused on primary aged students and explored
learning and development factors. Wellbeing benefits were
measured less often, however were represented across all outdoor
learning contexts. These results might be associated with ease of
measurement and the convenience of captive participant groups,
rather than the value of the experience per se. At the same time, it
is worth noting that delivery of each outdoor learning experience
requires different skillsets.
The quality of NSLOtC research varied greatly, as has
been noted in previous similar reviews (3, 19, 33). This
could reflect the importance of the learning environment in
facilitating the measured responses, especially considering the
impact of activities in natural environments on data collection.
Research examining regular field trips was of particularly
poor quality, most likely reflecting the potential confounding
variables of this type of experience. Most NSLOtC studies had
at least moderate quality, and curricular lessons in the local
outdoors had the highest rigor across quantitative and qualitative
research designs.
Interpreting the value of NSLOtC beyond the participant
group being studied is constrained by participant cohorts and
cultural perspectives. As a significant number of studies were
conducted in North America and the United Kingdom, the
cultural impact of NSLOtC design and relevance of outcomes
measured is unclear. Research across different cultures, and
that specifically considers diversity and inclusion within student
groups, will enrich our understanding of how best to design
NSLOtC. While there is a small research base documenting
wellbeing and mental health benefits of outdoor learning, these
outcomes need to be studied more thoroughly across age
groups and learning contexts. Outdoor curricular lessons and
learning in school gardens have clear benefits for primary
school aged students, and these also need to be studied in
secondary settings. Conversely, the personal and social gains
secondary students experience from adventure education should
be further researched for primary students. Pro-environmental
knowledge and attitude have mainly been studied in the contexts
of residential camps, field trips and school gardens; however,
they also need to be studied in adventure and curricular outdoor
learning contexts to explore whether improvements can be
achieved in those settings also.
There are a number of studies showing neutral or positive
impacts for NSLOtC on academic outcomes for both primary and
secondary students, compared with control groups. This finding
is intriguing as it suggests that the indoor classroom may not be
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
• Thorough description of the NSLOtC intervention including:
participant background, contextual factors, frequency and
duration of sessions, pedagogical approach, students’
experience of the intervention, and justification for
chosen measures.
• A comparison or control group learning the same material in
an indoor classroom setting or an alternate outdoor setting,
to ascertain whether the chosen type of NSLOtC has any
additional benefit to the learning variables of interest.
• A mixed methods and/or longitudinal design, including
quantitative measures of objective change and/or in-depth
qualitative approaches.
• Conclusions which go beyond simply whether NSLOtC is
effective, and rather present a more sophisticated picture of
how it works most effectively for whom and in what settings.
This review builds on evidence from previous systematic
reviews which assessed research in natural environments (30–
32). In general, those reviews reflect the findings in the
current systematic review, where nature-based experiences
enhance mental health, emotional regulation and environmental
9
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
knowledge and attitudes. Systematic reviews that focused on
educational experiences in natural settings (3, 19) similarly found
social and academic benefits. While previous reviews did not
focus on school-aged children alone or educational learning
specifically, the current review adds to and consolidates this
evidence base by reviewing natural outdoor learning experiences
across all school aged children, and incorporating curricular and
non-curricular learning contexts.
Although the large scale of this review suggests findings are
indicative of widespread benefits, the current systematic review
had some limitations. Gray literature was not accessed due to
the extensive size of the 16,000 items in the initial dataset,
and although articles were double screened for inclusion, their
research quality was only rated by a single reviewer for each
paper. Further, some databases (e.g., SPORTDiscus), which may
have yielded further NSLOtC research, were not accessed. One
criterion of inclusion was that articles were written in English,
which would have excluded a small number of studies published
in other languages and skewed the reported international spread
of research and culturally specific interpretations. Even within
English speaking countries, there are a wide variety of cultural
and pedagogical contexts within which NSLOtC occurs, and
therefore the general findings of this review should not be
applied to individual contexts without due regard to local
factors. The most significant limitation of the current review
was that a statistical analysis of outcome effects was not
possible due to the variety of study designs and broad range of
measured outcomes.
There is sufficient research evidence to show the importance
of NSLOtC experiences for school students. The following
recommendations are made by the international team which
conducted this systematic review:
professional development courses should be designed and
delivered for in-service teachers.
4. Future research in NSLOtC needs to be carefully designed
following rigorous methodologies to evaluate and differentiate
between nature-specific and classroom settings, various
outcomes, and what elements contribute to these outcomes.
5. Future researchers might also focus on designing effective
NSLOtC research studies, which lead to rigorous findings.
6. Environments which are local to, and within, school
grounds need to provide opportunities for everyday
NSLOtC experiences.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review built upon the work of previous
research reviews by incorporating wellbeing, socio-emotional
development and academic learning outcomes for school aged
children in various nature-based outdoor learning contexts. The
147 included studies indicated significant support for the benefits
of NSLOtC, particularly in personal and social development
for secondary aged students in adventure education programs,
and in social and academic learning outcomes for primary
aged students in school garden and curricular outdoor learning
settings. The review identified that most NSLOtC research has
been conducted in North America and the United Kingdom,
and that research in each outdoor learning context tended to be
clustered with specific outcome types and student age groups.
The quality of research was moderate on average, although there
was a wide range. Recommendations from this systematic review
include: the provision of NSLOtC in national and state curricula,
subject-specific training in NSLOtC for pre-service and inservice teachers, and rigorous design of future NSLOtC research.
1. Educational policy-makers need to recognize that NSLOtC
is no longer a fringe “nice-to-have” approach to teaching
and learning. Instead, NSLOtC is an effective pedagogical
approach for holistic growth, which means that resources
should be made available for implementation in curricula and
learning design [(60), in press].
2. All university pre-service teacher programs should include
skill development activities for the design and implementation
of NSLOtC in the upcoming teacher’s subject area.
3. Design and implementation of NSLOtC is an important
part of current practicing teachers’ skill development, and
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author/s.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual
contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
REFERENCES
learning, social and health dimensions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2017)
14:485. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14050485
4. Yogman M, Garner A, Hutchinson J, Hirsh-Pasek K, Michnick Golinkoff
R. The power of play: a pediatric role in enhancing development in
young children. Pediatrics. (2018) 142:e20182058. doi: 10.1542/peds.201
8-2058
5. United Nations Childrens Fund Office of Research - Innocenti. Worlds of
Influence: Understanding What Shapes Child Well-being in Rich Countries.
(2020). Available at: http://202.1.196.72/jspui/bitstream/123456789/8646/1/
Worlds-of-Influence-understanding-what-shapes-child-well-being-in-richcountries-2020..pdf (accessed April 30, 2022).
1. Gilchrist M, Passy R, Waite S, Cook R. Exploring Schools’ Use of
Natural Spaces. In Risk, Protection, Provision and Policy. (2016). p. 103–24.
Berlin: Springer.
2. Sahlberg P. The global educational reform movement and its impact on
schooling. In K. Mundy, A. Green„ and A. Verger, editors. The Handbook
of Global Education Policy, Vol. 12 (2016). p. 128–44. Hoboken: WileyBlackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118468005.ch7
3. Becker C, Lauterbach G, Spengler S, Dettweiler U, Mess F. Effects of regular
classes in outdoor education settings: a systematic review on students’
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
10
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
26. Borgonovi F, Pál J. A framework for the analysis of student well-being in the
PISA 2015 study: being 15 in 2015. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 140.
Paris: OECD Publishing (2016). Available online at: https://doi-org.ezproxy.
uws.edu.au/10.1787/5jlpszwghvvb-en
27. Ben-Arieh A, Kaufman NH, Andrews AB, George RM, Lee BJ, Aber
LJ. Measuring and Monitoring Children’s Well-Being (Vol. 7) (2013).
Berlin: Springer.
28. Gillett-Swan JK, Sargeant J. Wellbeing as a process of accrual: beyond
subjectivity and beyond the moment. Soc Indic Res. (2015) 121:135–
48. doi: 10.1007/s11205-014-0634-6
29. Fyfe-Johnson AL, Hazlehurst MF, Perrins SP, Bratman GN, Thomas R, Garrett
KA, et al. Nature and children’s health: a systematic review. Pediatrics. (2021)
148:e2020049155. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-049155
30. Gill T. The benefits of children’s engagement with nature: a
systematic literature review. Child Youth And nviron. (2014)
24:10–34. doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.2.0010
31. Holland WH, Powell RB, Thomsen JM, Monz CA. A systematic review of the
psychological, social, and educational outcomes associated with participation
in wildland recreational activities. J Outdoor Recreat Educ Leader. (2018)
10:197–225. doi: 10.18666/JOREL-2018-V10-I3-8382
32. Tillmann S, Tobin D, Avison W, Gilliland J. Mental health benefits of
interactions with nature in children and teenagers: a systematic review. J
Epidemio Commun Health. (2018) 72:958–66. doi: 10.1136/jech-2018-210436
33. Miller NC, Kumar S, Pearce KL, Baldock KL. The outcomes
of nature-based learning for primary school aged children: a
systematic review of quantitative research. Environ Educ Res. (2021)
27:1115–40. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2021.1921117
34. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Rethinking
Education—Towards a Global Common Good. (2015). Paris: UNESCO
Publishing. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002325/
232555e.pdf (accessed June 13, 2018).
35. Bølling M, Otte CR, Elsborg P, Nielsen G, Bentsen P. The association between
education outside the classroom and students’ school motivation: results
from a one-school-year quasi-experiment. Int J Educ Res. (2018) 89:22–
35. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2018.03.004
36. Hattie J, Marsh HW, Neill JT, Richards GE. Adventure Education and
Outward Bound: Out-of-Class Experiences That Make a Lasting Difference.
Rev Educ Res. (1997) 67:43–87. doi: 10.3102/00346543067001043
37. Sahlberg P, Doyle W. Let the Children Play: How More Play Will Save Our
Schools And Help Children Thrive. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2019).
38. Wallace HD. Transdisciplinary learning in a kitchen garden: connecting to
nature and constructing a path to ecoliteracy? Int Res Geogr Environ Educ.
(2019) 28:309–23. doi: 10.1080/10382046.2019.1646013
39. Child Care and Early Education Research Connections. Quantitative Research
Assessment Tool. (2019). Available at: https://www.researchconnections.org/
sites/default/files/2021-04/quantitativeresearch.pdf (accessed February 03,
2022).
40. Briggs J. Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. (2017). Australia:
The Joanna Briggs Institute. Available at: https://joannabriggs.org/research/
critical-appraisal-tools.html (accessed on November 1, 2020).
41. Charles C, Keenleyside K, Chappl R, Kilburn B, Salah van der Leest P, Allen D,
et al. Home to Us All: How Connecting With Nature Helps Us Care for Ourselves
and the Earth. Minneapolis: Children and Nature Network (2018).
42. Chawla L. Growing up green: Becoming an agent of care for the natural world.
J Dev Process. (2009) 4:6–23.
43. Rousell D, Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles A, A. systematic review of climate
change education: giving children and young people a “voice” and a
“hand” in redressing climate change. Children’s Geogr. (2020) 18:191–
208. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2019.1614532
44. Zylstra MJ, Knight AT, Esler KJ, Le Grange LLL. Connectedness as a core
conservation concern: an interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for
practice. Springer Sci Rev. (2014) 2:119–43. doi: 10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3
45. Prince HE. Outdoor experiences and sustainability. J Adv Educ
Outdoor Learn. (2017) 17:161–71. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2016.12
44645
46. Brymer E, Davids K. Experiential learning as a constraint-led process: an
ecological dynamics perspective. J Adv Educ Outdoor Learn. (2014) 14:103–
17. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2013.789353
6. Bentsen P, Ho S, Gray T, Waite S. A global view of learning outside the
classroom. In Children Learning Outside the Classroom from Birth to Eleven.
(2017). p. 53–66. UK: Sage.
7. Dowdell K, Gray T, Malone K. Nature and its influence on children’s outdoor
play. J Outdoor Environ Educ. (2011) 15:24–35. doi: 10.1007/BF03400925
8. Gray T. Outdoor learning: not new, just newly important. Curriculum
Perspect. (2018) 38:145–9. doi: 10.1007/s41297-018-0054-x
9. Waite S, Passy R, Gilchrist M, Hunt A, Blackwell I. Natural Connections
Demonstration Project. 2012-2016: Final Report. (2016). Natural England
Commissioned Reports. Available at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.
uk/publication/6636651036540928 (accessed April 30, 2022).
10. Mann, J, Gray, T, Truong, S, Sahlberg, P, Bentsen P, Passy R. et
al. 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. (2021)
18. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18031199
11. Atencio M, Tan YSM, Ho S, Ching CT. The place and approach of outdoor
learning within a holistic curricular agenda: development of Singaporean
outdoor education practice. J Adv Educ Outdoor Learn. (2015) 15:181–
92. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2014.949807
12. Davis K. Exploring Student-Teacher Relationships Outside: An Ethnographic
Case Study of Two Alternative Education Centres. British Educational Research
Conference, Northumbria University (2018).
13. Brymer E, Freeman E, Richardson M. Editorial: One Health: The Wellbeing Impacts of Human-Nature Relationships. Front Psychol. (2019)
10:1611. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01611
14. Gray T, Thomson C. Transforming Environmental Awareness of Students
Through the Arts and Place-Based Pedagogies. LEARNing Landscapes. (2016)
9:239–60. doi: 10.36510/learnland.v9i2.774
15. Kahn PH, Kellert SR. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural,
and Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Available at:
http://ezproxy.uws.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=trueanddb=nlebkandAN=70947andsite=ehost-liveandscope=
site doi: 10.7551/mitpress/1807.001.0001 (accessed April 30, 2022).
16. Larson LR, Szczytko R, Bowers EP, Stephens LE, Stevenson KT,
Floyd MF. Outdoor time, screen time, and connection to nature:
troubling trends among rural youth? Environ Behav. (2019)
51:966–91. doi: 10.1177/0013916518806686
17. Eun-Young L, Bains A, Hunter S, Ament A, Brazo-Sayavera J, Carson V,
et al. Systematic review of the correlates of outdoor play and time among
children aged 3-12 years. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. (2021) 18:1–
46. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01097-9
18. Selhub EM, Logan AC. Your Brain on Nature: The Science of Nature’s Influence
on Your Health, Happiness and Vitality. (2012). Canada: John Wiley and Sons.
19. Mygind L, Kjeldsted E, Hartmeyer R, Mygind E, Bølling M, Bentsen
P. Mental, physical and social health benefits of immersive natureexperience for children and adolescents: A systematic review
and quality assessment of the evidence. Health Place. (2019)
58:102136. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.05.014
20. Thorburn M. Wellbeing, Education and Contemporary Schooling. (2017). UK:
Routledge. Available at: http://ezproxy.uws.edu.au/login?url=https://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=trueanddb=nlebkandAN=1565047andsite=
ehost-liveandscope=site (accesssed April 30, 2022).
21. Wals AEJ, Benavot A. Can we meet the sustainability challenges? The
role of education and lifelong learning. Eur J Educ. (2017) 52:404–
13. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12250
22. Houge Mackenzie S, Brymer E. Conceptualizing adventurous nature
sport: A positive psychology perspective. Ann Leisure Res. (2020) 23:79–
91. doi: 10.1080/11745398.2018.1483733
23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health-Related Quality of
Life. (2021). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm (retrieved
October 1, 2021).
24. Bretzel F, Vannucchi F, Romano D, Malorgio F, Benvenuti S, Pezzarossa B.
Wildflowers: From conserving biodiversity to urban greening—A review.
Urban Forest Urban Green. (2016) 20:428–36. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.008
25. Fattore T, Mason J, Watson E. When children are asked about their wellbeing: towards a framework for guiding policy. Child Indic Res. (2009)
2:57–77. doi: 10.1007/s12187-008-9025-3
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
11
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058
Mann et al.
Nature-Based Learning Systematic Review
57. Ghadiri Khanaposhtani M, Liu CJ, Gottesman BL, Shepardson D,
Pijanowski B. Evidence that an informal environmental summer camp
can contribute to the construction of the conceptual understanding
and situational interest of STEM in middle-school youth. Int
J Sci Educ Part B. (2018) 8:227–49. doi: 10.1080/21548455.20
18.1451665
58. Ruiz-Gallardo J-R, Verde A, Valdés A. Garden-based learning:
an experience with “at risk” secondary education students.
J Environ Educ. (2013) 44:252–70. doi: 10.1080/00958964.20
13.786669
59. Lloyd A, Truong S, Gray T. Place-based outdoor learning: more than
a drag and drop approach. J Outdoor Environ Educ. (2018) 21:45–
60. doi: 10.1007/s42322-017-0002-5
60. Mann J, Gray T, Truong S. Rediscovering the Potential of
Outdoor Learning for Developing 21st Century Capabilities. In:
Jucker R, editor. High Quality Outdoor Learning. (2022). Berlin:
Springer Nature.
47. O’Brien K, Lomas T. Developing a growth mindset through outdoor personal
development: can an intervention underpinned by psychology increase the
impact of an outdoor learning course for young people? J Adv Educ Outdoor
Learn. (2017) 17:133–47. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2016.1232199
48. De Dominicis S, Bonaiuto M, Carrus G, Passafaro P, Perucchini
P, Bonnes M. Evaluating the role of protected natural areas for
environmental education in Italy. Appl Environ Educ Commun. (2017)
16:171–85. doi: 10.1080/1533015X.2017.1322014
49. Purdie N, Neill JT, Richards GE. Australian identity and the
effect of an outdoor education program. Aust J Psychol. (2002)
54:32–9. doi: 10.1080/00049530210001706493
50. Smith-Sebasto NJ, Semrau HJ. Evaluation of the Environmental Education
Program at the New Jersey School of Conservation. J Environ Educ. (2004)
36:3–18. doi: 10.3200/JOEE.36.1.3-18
51. Talebpour LM, Busk PL, Heimlich JE, Ardoin NM. Children’s connection
to nature as fostered through residential environmental education programs:
key variables explored through surveys and field journals. Environ Educ Res.
(2020) 26:95–114. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2019.1707778
52. Camasso MJ, Jagannathan R. Nurture thru Nature: Creating
natural science identities in populations of disadvantaged children
through community education partnership. J Environ Educ. (2018)
49:30–42. doi: 10.1080/00958964.2017.1357524
53. Price A. Improving School Attendance: Can Participation in Outdoor
Learning Influence Attendance for Young People with Social, Emotional
and Behavioural Difficulties? J Adv Educ Outdoor Learn. (2015) 15:110-122.
doi: 10.1080/14729679.2013.850732
54. McCree M, Cutting R, Sherwin D. The Hare and the Tortoise go
to Forest School: taking the scenic route to academic attainment via
emotional wellbeing outdoors. Early Child Dev Care. (2018) 188:980–
96. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2018.1446430
55. Myhre TS, Fiskum TA. Norwegian teenagers’ experiences of developing
second language fluency in an outdoor context. J Adv Educ Outdoor Learn.
(2020) 1–16. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2020.1769695
56. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. (2000) 55:68–
78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2022 Mann, Gray, Truong, Brymer, Passy, Ho, Sahlberg, Ward, Bentsen,
Curry and Cowper. 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 this journal
is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
12
May 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 877058