You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Sustainability
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

23 December 2025

Bridging Nature, Well-Being, and Sustainability Through Experiential Learning in Higher Education

,
,
,
and
1
Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA
2
School of Education, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability2026, 18(1), 154;https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010154
This article belongs to the Special Issue Adapting Education for a Changing Environment and Sustainable Development
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Experiential education that connects students with nature and well-being offers a powerful approach to advance sustainability education. Beyond individual benefits, cultivating meaningful human–nature relationships is foundational to fostering environmental stewardship—an increasingly urgent global priority. Universities can play a critical role in preparing students for both professional success and civic, social, and environmental responsibility. This exploratory study examined which components of an experiential learning course most strongly influenced students’ understanding of nature as an asset for their well-being. The course, delivered at a satellite mountain campus of a U.S. university, incorporated Kolb’s stages of experiential learning through forest bathing, reflective journaling, and group outdoor activities. Semi-structured interviews with participants revealed that the coupling of course content with direct experiences in nature, learning alongside peers, and limited technology use were among the most impactful elements. These findings demonstrate that experiential learning environments that intentionally align theory with experience—and situate students in immersive, socially rich, and technology-limited settings—can deepen personal well-being and sustainability understanding. Higher education should embrace nature-based experiential learning to prepare environmentally responsible, critically reflective, and socially connected graduates capable of contributing to a more sustainable future.

1. Introduction

As the social and ecological challenges of the 21st century intensify, education remains a critical pathway toward a more sustainable future [1,2]. At its core, sustainability education is about equipping “individuals with the understanding, capabilities, and ethical foundations” to ensure the well-being of people and the planet ([3], p. 4977 and [4]). It asks a deceptively simple yet profound question: How do we prepare students to shape the future? The field encompasses an array of interconnected topics from climate science and biodiversity loss to food and energy systems, technology, waste reduction, tourism and recreation, and environmental justice [5,6]. Connecting these topics contributes to a singularly important goal: empowering people to act in ways that mitigate ongoing environmental crises and ensure well-being for people and the planet [7].
For sustainability education to achieve its objective to leverage learning for individual and collective action, it must challenge and transform the relationship between society and the environment, a relationship that both perpetuates and fixates on environmental problems [8,9]. More specifically, scholars have underscored the importance of interrogating Western narratives that tell a story of disconnection between people and nature [10]. At best, these narratives focus on human contributions to a degraded environment and the resulting negative consequences for both ecological and human well-being. At worst, the stories highlight a relationship between Western society and nature that is framed around persistent disconnection, separation of natural and human systems, and apathy. While separating people and ‘nature’ is a flawed dichotomy that often fails to recognize the role of people within natural systems [11], referencing humans and non-human nature conceptually grounds much of the research investigating the relationships between people and the natural environment (e.g., [12,13,14]). To connect to the broader literature, in this paper, we refer to nature as non-human forms of nature.
The field of nature and well-being offers a contrasting narrative that can reframe and rebuild human-nature relationships by highlighting the restorative dimensions of nature. In short, when students understand and use nature as an asset for well-being, it provides a rationale to care about it. A wide body of literature demonstrates the benefits of spending time in nature for people [15,16,17,18]. Further, previous research suggests that, as exposure to nature increases, an individual’s connection to nature is also strengthened, leading to increases in positive environmental attitudes and behaviors [19,20,21]. Positive attitudes and behaviors are imperative for individual and collective action to help achieve sustainability outcomes.
Despite the restoration role of nature in people’s lives, and the potential for such benefits to transform human-nature relationships, research has generally overlooked these interconnections and focused instead on the mechanistic pathways through which contact with nature leads to health and well-being [13,22,23]. Minimal research has investigated how people learn about or draw meaning from these benefits to their relationship to nature or how such benefits support positive environmental attitudes and behaviors. Addressing this gap would help to leverage student learning about nature and health as a strategy for advancing sustainability education. This study addresses this gap by examining students’ learning experiences in a university course focused on the health and well-being benefits of spending time in nature.

Experiential Learning and Sustainability in Higher Education

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are positioned to be conduits for sustainability education, with global calls for HEIs to integrate sustainability content into curriculum, ensuring that all students graduate with the tools and knowledge to contribute to a more sustainable society [4,24]. Despite these calls, critics have also identified the limitations of HEIs in contributing to such goals based on the traditional teaching strategies misaligned with behavior change goals [25]. Experiential learning is a pedagogical approach with the potential to overcome these limitations.
Rooted in Dewey’s 1938 philosophy of education [26] and further developed by Kolb’s experiential learning theory [27], experiential education connects the learner directly with course content and involves active learning via experiences [28]. For greatest efficacy, researchers have suggested experiential education needs to transcend just ‘doing’ and provide additional structure that frames and contextualizes experiences, such as content learning rooted in specific learning objectives and instructor support [29]. Additionally, applying research about cognitive processes, such as an emphasis on relationship-building among learners, also enhances experiential education [30]. Researchers have further suggested that a more nuanced understanding of the learner is crucial, including how structure supports the learning process.
While experiential education is a philosophical orientation that guides the development of learning experiences, experiential learning is the specific technique utilized to meet learning goals [31]. Kolb’s experiential learning theory cycles learners through four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation [32]. Concrete experience includes a new experience or a new interpretation of a prior experience. Reflective observation involves personal reflection on what the experience means. Abstract conceptualization refers to the formation of new ideas or an adjustment in thinking based on experience and reflection. Active experimentation then becomes the application of these new ideas in future opportunities.
Kolb’s experiential learning theory has been studied in contexts such as education, management, information science, psychology, medicine, and more. Previous literature demonstrates experiential learning as effective for enhancing student learning outcomes. For example, a 2019 meta-analysis of experiential learning included studies with both an intervention and control group and showed that experiential learning had significantly better learning outcomes than traditional pedagogy (i.e., lecture-based approaches) when learning outcomes were focused on cognitive development or understanding a social issue [33]. Additionally, students have shown a preference for experiential education in different contexts, such as a social science theory course [34], economics courses [35], and in the teaching of board games [36]. The efficacy of, and student preference for, experiential education is well-documented across a variety of disciplines and contexts.
While experiential education’s goals are typically to strengthen critical thinking and to deepen student learning, it has also been used as a tool to promote behavior change [37,38], as well as self-awareness, attitudes, and knowledge [39,40,41]. Studies also suggest experiential education has the capacity to build leadership skills and lead to broad competencies in sustainability practices [42,43].
Substantial research demonstrates the potential of education to shift people’s relationships with nature [8,44], an essential building block of a sustainable society [45,46]. Additional studies underscore the importance of experiential education as a strategy for learning, particularly within higher education contexts [47]. However, few studies link experiential education, human-nature relationships, and well-being benefits of spending time in nature, all of which can contribute to effective sustainability education. This study seeks to address this gap by examining the experiences of post-secondary students participating in an academic, experiential-learning course focused on the connections between human well-being and time spent in nature. Specifically, our guiding research question is: Which components of an experiential learning course influence participants’ perceptions and learning about spending time in nature as a well-being strategy?

2. Methods

2.1. Experiential Course on Nature and Well-Being

The lower division (i.e., 200-level) nature and well-being course occurred at a satellite campus of a large public university in the U.S. Mountain West. The course was offered through a conservation social science department. The satellite campus is located in a remote mountain valley and used primarily for student learning and ecological research. Some of the surrounding areas were in early stages of forest succession after a recent wildfire, and other areas consisted of montane habitat of various coniferous trees and aspens. The campus had no cell phone reception and limited Wi-Fi access.
The undergraduate course represented a unique form of nontraditional classroom teaching and learning. Most of the course was taught in person with students at the satellite campus for 9 consecutive days, with short virtual components before and after the in-person segment. The course was organized into five modules, beginning with the concept of well-being, which was introduced virtually and then further explored in person. The next four (in-person) modules focused on the benefits of spending time in nature, barriers to nature and solutions, using well-being to build environmental stewardship, and creating equitable access to nature-based interventions (Table 1).
Table 1. The content focus and major experiential components of the five course modules.
The modules included structured class time for activities targeting each of the four stages of Kolb’s experiential learning theory (see Table 1) [32]. For example, participants learned and practiced forest bathing as part of the concrete learning stage. Then, students participated in the reflective observation stage through individual journal entries. Finally, instructors encouraged abstract conceptualization via class discussion and further processing.
The course was designed to avoid the limitations of experiential learning mentioned previously [29,30]. For instance, each module had clear objectives and focused on experiences as well as content learning. Research about cognitive processes and learning best practices was also incorporated. For example, the in-person portion of the course included opportunities for relationship-building through small group assignments and whole group activities.
Participants engaged with course topics through lectures, group discussions, and experiential learning, including nature-based meditations and group hikes. Participants were assigned journal reflections, daily readings, and two major assignments: a program design project and an op-ed writing assignment. A key component of the course was time dedicated to meditation in nature, specifically forest bathing. Forest bathing is defined as a simple activity of immersing oneself in a forested or nature-rich area [48,49], and it can also be used as a formal modality for therapy. The intent of the forest bathing activities in this course was not as therapy but as a reflective, multi-sensory nature experience for students [for more reviews of forest bathing, see Li [50] and Siah et al. [51]].
Throughout the duration of the nine days at the satellite campus, participants were allocated 10–30 min daily to spend alone in nature and were encouraged to focus their attention on what they could smell, see, hear, and feel. Other components of the course included group activities such as low-ropes, high-ropes, two shorter hikes (~45 min each), and a longer hike (~6 h). Each day, participants had unstructured options to spend time outdoors, such as swimming in a creek, participating in informal outdoor sports, and exploring nearby trails.

2.2. Participants

Information about the course was shared widely across colleges within the university and resulted in the enrollment of nine students. Prior to the beginning of the course, a recruitment email was sent to the students that explained the study, clarified that involvement in the study had no influence on grades, and invited them to participate. Students enrolled in the study by completing an online survey, which screened them according to the inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria required students to be enrolled in the summer course and also registered at least as a half-time on-campus student during the ensuing Fall semester. The purpose of the half-time requirement was to recruit participants who would still be engaged in their studies during data collection, and to study students with comparable academic responsibilities.
Eight students initially consented to participate, and all met the inclusion criteria. One dropped out of the course, resulting in seven participants. Participants represented five different academic programs from varying disciplinary backgrounds. Six of the participants were undergraduate students (sophomores to seniors), and one was a graduate student. Ages ranged from 19 to 28. Six participants identified their racial or ethnic group as White, and one identified as Hispanic. Six participants identified as women, and one identified as a man.

2.3. Data Collection

All study members participated in semi-structured interviews 10 weeks after the course. The primary and secondary researchers conducted the interviews, which were in-person and on campus. Students were given the option to do the interview indoors or outdoors, and every student chose outdoors. The outdoor setting consisted of a tree lawn on campus with large rocks to sit on. The two researchers asked several questions about components of the course that participants considered to be impactful (Table 2). For instance, participants were asked, “When you reflect on the course, which of the experiences during the course influenced your learning about nature and well-being the most?” The interviews lasted 30 to 45 min. Nature-logs and survey data were also collected, but were not used to address this study’s research question.
Table 2. The four interview questions on the impact of course components on students in the nature and well-being course.

2.4. Data Analysis

The primary researcher transcribed the audio files of each interview via Otter.ai software version 3.7 [52]. Then researchers followed Braun and Clark’s [53] six-step protocol for thematic analysis, with the primary researcher reading through the transcripts twice and generating initial codes. Themes were then established and shared with secondary researchers. The researchers worked collaboratively to label the themes and to create a thematic map. This process included recoding data into broad themes of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, followed by triangulation for an added level of validity. The data was then coded into subthemes by the primary researcher. All steps were checked by two additional secondary researchers. All study procedures were conducted in accordance with a human subjects research protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board of Colorado State University.

3. Results

Our analysis resulted in three main themes: (1) pairing of course content with experiential activities (with two subthemes), (2) shared learning (with two subthemes), and (3) lack of access to technology (Table 3). These themes directly address the course components that influenced participants’ perceptions and learning and also connect to the components of experiential learning theory [32].
Table 3. Three main themes and subthemes about impactful components of a nature and well-being course on participants’ perceptions and learning of nature as a well-being strategy.

3.1. Key Finding 1: Pairing of Course Content with Experiential Learning

As a strategy that supported their learning, several participants referenced the impact of learning content and then experiencing it in multiple ways in natural settings shortly thereafter. One participant commented, “It was very immersive… I felt like we were learning about things that we were simultaneously experiencing in the moment. And that was super cool.” Sometimes participants directly linked these learning experiences to an increased awareness of the course topics. “That was just so powerful to … not only be learning but be so aware of what you’re learning,” indicating reflective observation from the experiential learning model. Participants also reflected on how this coupling of content with experiences led to greater retention of content. For example, one participant described how the instructor(s) were “teaching us in different methods and in different locations. That increased our …comprehension, because like seeing something in action was super cool… to help the course concepts stick.”

3.1.1. Subtheme: Application of Scientific Evidence

Scientific evidence, including readings from peer-reviewed articles and book chapters (e.g., The Nature Fix, [54]), frequently emerged as impactful learning experiences. The use of scientific evidence supports the abstract conceptualization component in the experiential learning model, as students built an empirical understanding of how nature supports well-being. At times, the breadth of scientific evidence was referenced specifically as an important learning component. For example, one participant described how “There’s like, multiple studies in multiple different places, multiple countries, from multiple people of different backgrounds and different lives. And they all came to this conclusion…being in nature does help you.”
Scientific evidence was also described as helpful in linking the content with participants’ experiences. The application of scientific evidence was also linked with building beliefs about nature as a well-being strategy. A participant remarked:
When we learned in the classroom, I thought that that was really beneficial for me because it connected the dots of what I was experiencing… with what, you know, the science does, which was kind of cool.
Another participant explained:
“I feel like when we were reading The Nature Fix that really helped like tie the whole course together, like both the actual experience part and the learning part”.
In sum, the opportunity to learn and then apply scientific evidence was an important component of student learning, as well as for linking content to experiential learning processes.

3.1.2. Subtheme: Practicing Forest Bathing

As an example of pairing of course content with experiential learning, several participants referenced forest bathing as an especially impactful course component. Specifically, they highlighted how it helped them be more intentional with the way they interacted with nature. The concrete experience and active experimentation of forest bathing provided students with an immediate understanding of the course content focused on the value of engaging mindfully with the natural world. One participant mentioned:
The forest bathing activities that we did that forced us to be really intentional in nature. That first forest bathing activity when I was in my favorite forest biome with the pines and the aspens. I realized… these are all the things that you love about this forest, and I was able just to sit and watch them and they made me really happy.
A few participants commented about behavior change by continuing to use forest bathing after the course. For example, one participant described:
Learning about forest bathing, and the explanations of why nature is calming to people or benefits mental health, I think… looking for fractal images and nature, like I still do every day now. I’m walking, and I’m like, oh, those leaves, they’re a fractal image… yeah, forest bathing was a big one.
Overall, the experiential learning activities, including the application of scientific evidence and practice of forest bathing, emerged as influential in participants’ perceptions and learning about spending time in nature as a well-being strategy.

3.2. Key Finding 2: Shared Learning

Several participants identified shared learning with classmates as an influential course component. One participant mentioned that “Having … a set group of people that you’re… learning and going through the levels of every aspect of the course with was super cool.”
Another participant described how learning was enhanced through the social aspect of learning with their classmates:
There’s something that happens when people are in a group like that, experiencing things together for a period of time. I don’t know what it is. But there’s something that that adds to the learning and makes it a completely different sort of level of learning.
One participant seemed surprised at how quickly relationships were built. They said:
That group just really bonded and in such a short period of time, almost like an abnormal amount of time for people to get that close. I just, it felt like… all the social barriers are like knocked down. And you can just… be yourself and not really care.
Relationships, which developed quickly, were important in helping students actively learn (e.g., active experimentation) and process (i.e., reflective observation) their experiences.

3.2.1. Subtheme: Diverse Perspectives and Backgrounds of Classmates

Several participants described how the different perspectives and backgrounds of their classmates were impactful. For instance, one participant described how important it was “getting everybody’s different opinions,” which contributes to students’ abstract conceptualization of content. A participant described:
Because everyone in that class was so different from each other. So that was pretty cool. And just like, even, …. Listening to what they thought about a concept that I’d also just learned about, and like them thinking something kind of different was pretty cool.
Sometimes participants had diverse assessments when it came to experiential components of the course, and participants described how debriefing these experiences was helpful in their reflection and learning (i.e., abstract conceptualization, reflective observation). For example, one participant described:
Some of the forest bathing moments, we’ve talked about… how, … different settings like appealed to us, more or less and learning about that and just how different people have different (experiences) like relates to your basic childhood… (a peer in the course) was way more comfortable in the scenario where we were by the lake, and I was kind of like me, …. just not able to focus in that scenario. And so I think like different perspectives, different people’s backgrounds, ties it all together really well.

3.2.2. Subtheme: Experiencing Risk and Challenge Together

Activities that presented mental and physical challenges or risk, especially the concrete experiences of a high ropes course and a long hike, were referenced by several participants. These experiences strengthened relationships within the group and supported personal growth. One participant described:
Tying in the social component of nature with… the high ropes course, for example. I feel like that was a good example that showed like, not all of us wanted to do it. But we all did it together. And we were outside. And I feel like we all had a positive experience from that.
These challenges were also described as influencing participants’ personal growth through reflective observations on the experience. For example, a participant mentioned:
The ropes course was a big one that was … huge for me, because… I think just the beauty of doing things that you an hour before didn’t think you could do is… a really cool… self-awareness moment… it’s literally a mental block like you are your own … wall in that scenario. And the people were also supportive. I think just like, in the right environment, it’s like you are seriously capable of so much more than you think you are.
The hike was also referenced as important for group bonding and personal growth by several participants. One participant described how much the hike helped the group grow, even before the hike happened:
The hike at the end of the week … that was a fun build up. I feel like that also bonded the whole group too because it was like, ‘we’re gonna kill that hike, we’re gonna do that hike’, talking about it all week, and then finally doing it and achieving that together. Like building up so much momentum to something and then doing that accomplishment as a group was so cool.
Another participant linked the experience of the long hike with a new motivation to try other new activities, an example of active experimentation. This participant described:
The big hike that we did that Saturday… Some of us were… a little skeptical about going on a big hike. But we all did it. And we all did it together. And it was a good time. So yeah, that was another thing that I’ve definitely thought about, too, from this course is like, challenging yourself when you’re outside. Like, just the feeling you get when you accomplish something outside that you didn’t think that you could do but you ended up doing.…. Yeah, I’m just trying new things. Like I remember I started painting again, when we were up there. And that was really nice to do that. And I was like, journaling a lot more like I usually try and journal pretty regularly. But it was, for whatever reason, very easy to do it…, every day when we were up there. So I don’t know if that’s directly correlated to one another, but yeah.
In sum, learning alongside other classmates was an impactful course component for helping participants process learning and experiences, especially considering the diverse perspectives of classmates and the mental and physical challenges that strengthened relationships between participants. The social aspects of the course, particularly learning with peers from different backgrounds and having social support while navigating risk and challenge, benefited participants’ learning about nature as a well-being strategy.

3.3. Key Finding 3: Lack of Access to Technology

In contrast to findings that highlighted intentional and present components of the course, the lack of technology and internet access was a component that helped several participants more effectively focus on learning, especially for the reflective observation phase of experiential learning, and enabled participants to sit more attentively with their own thoughts. One participant, while describing the changes in how they interact with nature, said:
… being forced to be disconnected was super helpful… if we would have had signal, it would have been so much of a worse experience I feel like… People would have just been on their phones like all the time. And I probably would have been too, yeah. But it was so nice to be forced to be disconnected from our phones.
One participant described how phones can be a “safety net,” and they saw the time away from their phone as beneficial to learning:
Yeah, because I feel like a lot of people especially around my age are really reliant on phones and spend like, a lot, like, a couple hours a day on a phone. So… in a place where it takes away what I view as people’s safety net, which is like the phone and kind of escaping through the phone, it does a great job of taking away the safety net while not making it uncomfortable.
Another participant shared how they connected with nature through forest bathing without distractions from technology. After describing the first forest bathing experience, they described how their learning “really started because we didn’t have internet connection.” The lack of both cellular service and strong internet was described as an influential course component for participants’ learning.

4. Discussion

In the results, we presented the three overarching themes describing key participants’ perceptions and learning in an experiential learning course: pairing of course content with experiential learning, shared learning, and lack of access to technology. This study highlights the components of an experiential learning course on nature and well-being that participants perceived as most influential to their learning about spending time in nature as a well-being strategy. The results identify several course components that merit emphasis when designing experiential courses with sustainability implications, especially those that use the connection between people and nature to drive attitudes and behaviors. These components include the temporal pairing of experiential learning opportunities with course content, specifically the application of scientific evidence and forest bathing. Additionally, the shared learning that occurred by learning alongside classmates was influential for participants, especially by promoting space for diverse perspectives and through collective risk and challenge. Finally, participants articulated that a break from technology and internet access can help with learning and developing relationships more quickly and deeply while learning about nature as a tool for well-being.

4.1. Nested Learning in Nature-Based Settings

While many of the themes in our findings emerge in other literature as important components of experiential learning [30,55,56], a course focused on the well-being benefits of nature immersion presents a novel opportunity for experiential and sustainability education scholarship. One of the strongest themes articulated by students was the direct and temporal link between course content and experiential learning. Course design, which was modeled after Kolb’s stages of experiential learning [32], was likely essential in fostering this connection. Learning experiences were intentionally designed to connect with course concepts while leaving space for reflection and processing. For example, participants learned about characteristics of nature that promote cognitive functioning, searched for these characteristics in their learning environments, and then had time to process the theory through class discussions and individual journal reflections. Students later articulated the power of being aware of these cognitive benefits as they completed their journal reflections and other academic work, reinforcing the value of experiential learning’s cyclical qualities both within and beyond the course itself.
The setting of the satellite campus likely played a significant role in fostering this nested learning. At this campus, participants could step outside the classroom and be immersed in nature throughout their day. Students participated in activities designed to help them experience and test course concepts, but outside of class, they seemed to have concrete experiences through living, socializing, reflecting, and studying in a nature-rich environment. Reflective observations derived from students’ exploration of the benefits they experienced through both academic and non-academic activities. These findings support previous research highlighting the importance of alignment between course content delivery and Kolb’s stages of experiential learning [57]. They also emphasize the value of facilitating experiential learning within settings that enable students to integrate observation, testing, and reflection on their relationship with nature into their everyday lives.
One of the most impactful characteristics of the course would seem to be student immersion in nature, especially considering they spent nine consecutive days in this setting. However, when asked to reflect on the most influential course components that led to learning and behavior change, students identified common best practices of effective experiential learning (linking content with experiences, facilitating novel learning experiences, encouraging co-learning, engaging in risk, etc.) that relate directly back to Kolb’s theory of experiential learning [32] and recent additions [55]. This study’s results encourage critical questioning about how we conceptualize nature as a tool for sustainability education. For decades, society has relied on outdoor experiences for personal growth and development (i.e., leadership training, youth development, etc.). In parallel, science is increasingly suggesting what many cultures have known for centuries–we can rely on nature as a place to support our well-being [58]. The perspectives of the students in this study underscore that we cannot simply rely on nature as a backdrop for positive learning outcomes, nor can we rely on time spent in nature to encourage long-term behavior change to enhance sustainability outcomes. We need to combine nature-based learning settings with pedagogical best practices to leverage the potential of nature and well-being experiential learning as a vehicle for sustainability education in higher education institutions.

4.2. Grounding Sustainability in Social Learning

The shared learning theme supports well-established scholarship underscoring the importance of social learning [26]. Participants described creating strong bonds with their classmates relatively quickly, and these relationships positively impacted their learning. This aligns with previous research suggesting programs promoting social interaction and support—alongside individual well-being competencies—may be especially effective [59]. This effect may have been aided by the small class size and intentional course design. Group activities, such as high ropes challenges and group hikes, appeared to strengthen relationships among students. Other elements, such as project work and small-group assignments, were also designed to encourage peer collaboration. These strong relationships were referenced as being important for helping participants process course content and experiences, corresponding to Kolb’s abstract conceptualization stage [32]. Social learning may be particularly important for experiential learning, especially during the phase of abstract conceptualization.
Changes in individual attitudes and behaviors are key outcomes identified in much of the sustainability education literature [3,7]. More specifically, these challenges require changes in individual behavior in tandem with others, moving our systems toward the tipping point of sustainable transformation [60,61]. In response, the way we teach about sustainability needs to be inherently social. Our results provide real-world strategies for embedding social learning in sustainability education and highlight the salience of such learning in the context of nature, health, and well-being education. Exploring when and how this social component affects sustainable behavior within experiential learning contexts could also be a fruitful area for further research.

4.3. Navigating a Complex Narrative of Technology in Nature

The relationship between nature and technology is frequently framed as a dichotomy, with technology often viewed as eroding “authentic” time spent in nature [62,63]. Participants’ consistent identification of limited technology as key to their learning aligns with this narrative. In both academic and popular science literature, time spent in nature is often framed as an ‘antidote’ to the cognitive and physiological impacts of our tech-heavy and distracted society [54,64,65,66]. The inclusion of such literature as course readings alongside learning activities (e.g., forest bathing) that explicitly limited technology use may have contributed to the salience of this theme among students. These findings add to a complex and timely dialogue about the role of technology in education [67,68] and in sustainability education more specifically [69,70].
Previous literature suggests integrating technology into learning environments can have significant benefits—particularly for accessibility among students with learning disabilities and for connecting learners to topics and people they might not otherwise encounter [71]. Regarding sustainability education, technology can help people feel more comfortable in natural environments [72,73] and equip them with tools to support systems thinking and collaborative learning [74,75]. Alongside these benefits, however, concerns about equitable access to technology, academic integrity, social isolation, and reduced peer learning raise important questions about the use of technology in educational settings [76]. Consequently, both experiential learning and sustainability education scholars encourage educators to think critically about the appropriate role of technology [77,78]. Our study’s results underscore this need and make the case for limiting technology use in courses focused on nature exposure and well-being. It would be an overreach to suggest the complete elimination of technology from such educational experiences. Rather, we suggest that teaching about nature and well-being in technology-limited settings offers students an opportunity to critically examine their own technology use—helping them become more conscious consumers who can leverage potential benefits while mitigating risks.
Students who participated in this study were acutely aware of the deep integration and influence of technology in their everyday lives. In the context of sustainability, experiential learning about the well-being benefits of nature can serve as a catalyst for deeper critical thinking about technology use and its sustainability implications. Such experiences may encourage students to extend this reflection toward reevaluating technology consumerism (e.g., purchasing the latest smartphone, generating electronic waste) or considering the environmental impacts of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (e.g., high energy consumption, water usage). Such connections are an important topic for future research.

4.4. Limitations

While this study provides insight into experiential learning course design and students’ experiences with nature and well-being-focused sustainability education, there are some limitations. This course took place at a particular location, with a small group of participants with distinct backgrounds and a unique group dynamic. Consequently, the generalizability of our findings to other contexts is limited. Further, the setting of the course, a satellite campus in a forested mountain location, is a resource to which few other instructors may have access. The components of forest bathing and limited internet access are aspects that many instructors may not be able to easily incorporate into their course design. Such a course and the corresponding student learning experience are dependent on university resources and faculty teaching style and skill. While the infrastructure or course context may not allow for replication, instructors at other institutions may be able to incorporate course components that students described as impactful in other creative ways, such as field trips or outdoor learning activities. Finally, this explorative study focused on student learning and the course components that students associate with learning. To further connect this work to meaningful sustainability education outcomes, future research should focus on combining subjective and objective measures of learning with sustainable behavior change outcomes.

5. Conclusions

Experiential education can lead to stronger learning outcomes than traditional pedagogy [33] and is receiving increasing attention both within and beyond higher education contexts [33,79,80,81]. At the same time, colleges and universities have placed greater emphasis on sustainability education, which must address and disrupt the often negative or disconnected relationship between people and nature. Education focused on the well-being benefits of nature exposure presents an opportunity for such transformation, and experiential learning offers a powerful pedagogical approach for achieving it. This study serves as an exploratory investigation into this opportunity, specifically examining which components of an experiential education course on nature and well-being students perceived as most impactful to their learning.
This study’s results highlight components that sustainability education in HEIs—particularly those focused on nature and well-being—could emphasize in order to enhance learning outcomes. Specifically, students identified the temporal alignment between course content and applied learning experiences, the social setting of learning, and limited technology use as particularly influential. Learning experiences often occurred alongside student peers with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, and through both mental and physical challenges.
Future research should examine how the course setting (i.e., type of nature exposure) influences student learning; whether the social component affects behavior; how social learning relates to the various stages of experiential learning; and whether perceived learning outcomes align with more objective measures of learning and behavior change. Our results also underscore the complex role of technology in sustainability education and suggest that nature and well-being education can serve as a platform for fostering students’ critical thinking about technology use. As evidence documenting the well-being benefits of time spent in nature continues to grow, higher education should explore ways to integrate this knowledge as a meaningful component of sustainability education. The results of this study provide nuance and guidance for how experiential education can contribute to this goal.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.W., S.E.W. and B.L.B.; methodology, M.W., S.E.W., B.L.B. and J.Z.; formal analysis, M.W., S.E.W. and B.L.B.; investigation, M.W. and K.T.; resources S.E.W. and B.L.B.; data curation, M.W., S.E.W., B.L.B., K.T. and J.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, M.W.; writing—review and editing, M.W., S.E.W., B.L.B., K.T. and J.Z.; supervision, S.E.W., B.L.B. and J.Z.; project administration, M.W. and S.E.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Colorado State University (protocol code 3494, 21 June 2022).

Data Availability Statement

Due to ethical restrictions, interview transcripts are not publicly available. The study was conducted in conjunction with an academic course. In the informed consent process, students were promised that interview data would be shared only through excerpts (e.g., quotes) or summaries.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the students who participated in this study. Your enthusiasm for the class and dedication to your own health and well-being were constant motivators of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. S.W. was the instructor of the course at the center of the investigation. To avoid influencing participants, S.W. did not assist with interviews or know who consented to participate until after the course’s conclusion.

References

  1. Leal Filho, W.; da Silva Neiva, S.; de Vasconcelos, C.R.P.; Fritzen Gomes, B.M.; Sharifi, A.; Kozlova, V.; Mifsud, M.; Pace, P.; Platje, J.; Dinis, M.A.P. Exploring the Imperative of Education and Learning for Sustainable Development: Research Gaps and Pathways. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2025, 26, 1729–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Žalėnienė, I.; Pereira, P. Higher Education for Sustainability: A Global Perspective. Geogr. Sustain. 2021, 2, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Maniatis, P. Quality Education in the Field of Sustainability Using a Statistical Analysis. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 32, 4977–4991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development: What You Need to Know. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/sustainable-development/education/need-know (accessed on 12 November 2025).
  5. Veiga Ávila, L.; Rossato Facco, A.L.; dos Santos Bento, M.H.; Arigony, M.M.; Obregon, S.L.; Trevisan, M. Sustainability and Education for Sustainability: An Analysis of Publications from the Last Decade. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2018, 27, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhan, Z.; Fong, P.S.W.; Mei, H.; Chang, X.; Liang, T.; Ma, Z. Sustainability Education in Massive Open Online Courses: A Content Analysis Approach. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2274–2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Meyer, B.E. The Tripartite Structure of Sustainability: A New Educational Approach to Bridge the Gap to Wise and Sustainable Action. Front. Educ. 2023, 8, 1224303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Giusti, M.; Mäkelä, V.; Skagerlid, A.G.; Nagatsu, M. Shifting Relationships with Nature through Schools: Exploring the Social and Spatial Context for Transformative Sustainability Education. Ecol. Soc. 2025, 30, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Singer-Brodowski, M. The Potential of Transformative Learning for Sustainability Transitions: Moving beyond Formal Learning Environments. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 27, 20621–20639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Beery, T.; Stahl Olafsson, A.; Gentin, S.; Maurer, M.; Stålhammar, S.; Albert, C.; Bieling, C.; Buijs, A.; Fagerholm, N.; Garcia-Martin, M.; et al. Disconnection from Nature: Expanding Our Understanding of Human–Nature Relations. People Nat. 2023, 5, 470–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Caillon, S.; Cullman, G.; Verschuuren, B.; Sterling, E.J. Moving beyond the Human–Nature Dichotomy through Biocultural Approaches: Including Ecological Well-Being in Resilience Indicators. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Partelow, S. A Review of the Social-Ecological Systems Framework: Applications, Methods, Modifications, and Challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. LoTemplio, S.; McDonnell, A.S.; Nadkarni, N.; Walker, S.; Gallegos-Riofrío, C.A.; Scott, E.E.; Bettmann, J.E.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Dahl, J.; Tomasso, L.P. Healthy by Nature: Policy Practices Aimed at Maximizing the Human Behavioral Health Benefits of Nature Contact. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 2023, 10, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Berkes, F.; Folke, C. Linking Social and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustainability. In Linking Social and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustainability: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience; Cambridge University Press: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1998; Volume 1, pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  15. Arbuthnott, K.D. Nature Exposure and Social Health: Prosocial Behavior, Social Cohesion, and Effect Pathways. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 90, 102109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; de Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and Mental Health: An Ecosystem Service Perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Jimenez, M.P.; DeVille, N.V.; Elliott, E.G.; Schiff, J.E.; Wilt, G.E.; Hart, J.E.; James, P. Associations between Nature Exposure and Health: A Review of the Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stevenson, M.P.; Schilhab, T.; Bentsen, P. Attention Restoration Theory II: A Systematic Review to Clarify Attention Processes Affected by Exposure to Natural Environments. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part B 2018, 21, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Barragan-Jason, G.; de Mazancourt, C.; Parmesan, C.; Singer, M.C.; Loreau, M. Human–Nature Connectedness as a Pathway to Sustainability: A Global Meta-Analysis. Conserv. Lett. 2022, 15, e12852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Guazzini, A.; Valdrighi, G.; Fiorenza, M.; Duradoni, M. The Relationship Between Connectedness to Nature and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mackay, C.M.L.; Schmitt, M.T. Do People Who Feel Connected to Nature Do More to Protect It? A Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 65, 101323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. McDonnell, A.S.; Strayer, D.L. Immersion in Nature Enhances Neural Indices of Executive Attention. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Marselle, M.R.; Hartig, T.; Cox, D.T.C.; de Bell, S.; Knapp, S.; Lindley, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Böhning-Gaese, K.; Braubach, M.; Cook, P.A.; et al. Pathways Linking Biodiversity to Human Health: A Conceptual Framework. Environ. Int. 2021, 150, 106420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Strategic Plan & Goals. Available online: https://www.aashe.org/about-us/strategic-plan-goals/ (accessed on 15 November 2025).
  25. Seatter, C.S.; Ceulemans, K. Teaching Sustainability in Higher Education: Pedagogical Styles That Make a Difference. Can. J. High. Educ. 2017, 47, 47–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dewey, J. Experience and Education: Kappa Delta Pi; International Honor Society in Education: Indianapolis, Indiana, 1938. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  28. Keeton, M.T.; Tate, P.J. Learning by Experience—What, Why, How; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  29. Meyer, J.; Seaman, J. Beyond Experiential Learning Cycles. In Outdoor Environmental Education in Higher Education: International Perspectives; Thomas, G., Dyment, J., Prince, H., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 75–87. ISBN 978-3-030-75980-3. [Google Scholar]
  30. Roberts, J.W. Beyond Learning by Doing: The Brain Compatible Approach. J. Exp. Educ. 2002, 25, 281–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Roberts, J.W. Beyond Learning by Doing: Theoretical Currents in Experiential Education; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-0-203-84808-1. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; FT Press: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-0-13-389250-5. [Google Scholar]
  33. Burch, G.F.; Giambatista, R.; Batchelor, J.H.; Burch, J.J.; Hoover, J.D.; Heller, N.A. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Experiential Learning and Learning Outcomes. Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 2019, 17, 239–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Blunsdon, B.; Reed, K.; McNeil, N.; McEachern, S. Experiential Learning in Social Science Theory: An Investigation of the Relationship between Student Enjoyment and Learning. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2003, 22, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hawtrey, K. Using Experiential Learning Techniques. J. Econ. Educ. 2007, 38, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sato, A.; de Haan, J. Applying an Experiential Learning Model to the Teaching of Gateway Strategy Board Games. Int. J. Instr. 2016, 9, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Abel, M.; Cole, S.; Zia, B. Changing Gambling Behavior through Experiential Learning. World Bank Econ. Rev. 2021, 35, 745–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fernandes, D.; Lynch, J.G.; Netemeyer, R.G. Financial Literacy, Financial Education, and Downstream Financial Behaviors. Manag. Sci. 2014, 60, 1861–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rhodes, H.M.; Martin, A.J. Behavior Change After Adventure Education Courses: Do Work Colleagues Notice? J. Exp. Educ. 2014, 37, 265–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Siegner, A.B. Experiential Climate Change Education: Challenges of Conducting Mixed-Methods, Interdisciplinary Research in San Juan Islands, WA and Oakland, CA. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 45, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Taylor, G.W.; Stumpos, M.L.; Kerschbaum, W.; Inglehart, M.R. Educating Dental Students About Diet–Related Behavior Change: Does Experiential Learning Work? J. Dent. Educ. 2014, 78, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chineme, A.; Herremans, I.; Wills, S. Building Leadership Competencies for the SDGs through Community/University Experiential Learning. J. Sustain. Res. 2019, 1, e190018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Savage, E.; Tapics, T.; Evarts, J.; Wilson, J.; Tirone, S. Experiential Learning for Sustainability Leadership in Higher Education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015, 16, 692–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kleespies, M.W.; Dierkes, P.W. Connection to Nature of University Students in the Environmental Field—An Empirical Study in 41 Countries. Biol. Conserv. 2023, 283, 110093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ives, C.D.; Abson, D.J.; von Wehrden, H.; Dorninger, C.; Klaniecki, K.; Fischer, J. Reconnecting with Nature for Sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1389–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zelenski, J.M.; Dopko, R.L.; Capaldi, C.A. Cooperation Is in Our Nature: Nature Exposure May Promote Cooperative and Environmentally Sustainable Behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 42, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kolb, A.Y.; Kolb, D.A. Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. AMLE 2005, 4, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Oh, B.; Lee, K.J.; Zaslawski, C.; Yeung, A.; Rosenthal, D.; Larkey, L.; Back, M. Health and Well-Being Benefits of Spending Time in Forests: Systematic Review. Environ. Health. Prev. Med. 2017, 22, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Park, B.-J.; Tsunetsugu, Y.; Kasetani, T.; Hirano, H.; Kagawa, T.; Sato, M.; Miyazaki, Y. Physiological Effects of Shinrin-Yoku (Taking in the Atmosphere of the Forest)—Using Salivary Cortisol and Cerebral Activity as Indicators. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 2007, 26, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, Q. Effects of Forest Environment (Shinrin-Yoku/Forest Bathing) on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention—The Establishment of “Forest Medicine”. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2022, 27, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Siah, C.J.R.; Goh, Y.S.; Lee, J.; Poon, S.N.; Ow Yong, J.Q.Y.; Tam, W.-S.W. The Effects of Forest Bathing on Psychological Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Ment. Health Nursing 2023, 32, 1038–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liang, S.; Fu, Y. Otter. Ai [Computer Software]. Otter. Ai. 2016. Available online: https://otter.ai/ (accessed on 1 September 2024).
  53. Braun, V.; Clarke, V.; Hayfield, N.; Terry, G. Thematic Analysis. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 843–860. [Google Scholar]
  54. Williams, F. The Nature Fix: Why Nature Makes Us Happier, Healthier, and More Creative; W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-0-393-24272-0. [Google Scholar]
  55. Morris, T.H. Experiential Learning—A Systematic Review and Revision of Kolb’s Model. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 28, 1064–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Budhai, S.S.; Skipwith, K. Best Practices in Engaging Online Learners Through Active and Experiential Learning Strategies, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-1-003-14040-5. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wijnen-Meijer, M.; Brandhuber, T.; Schneider, A.; Berberat, P.O. Implementing Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle by Linking Real Experience, Case-Based Discussion and Simulation. J. Med. Educ. Curric. Dev. 2022, 9, 23821205221091511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barragan-Jason, G.; Loreau, M.; de Mazancourt, C.; Singer, M.C.; Parmesan, C. Psychological and Physical Connections with Nature Improve Both Human Well-Being and Nature Conservation: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses. Biol. Conserv. 2023, 277, 109842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kobau, R.; Seligman, M.E.P.; Peterson, C.; Diener, E.; Zack, M.M.; Chapman, D.; Thompson, W. Mental Health Promotion in Public Health: Perspectives and Strategies from Positive Psychology. Am. J. Public Health 2011, 101, e1–e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bowen, F.E.; Bansal, P.; Slawinski, N. Scale Matters: The Scale of Environmental Issues in Corporate Collective Actions. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 1411–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rao, N.; Power, S.A. “Communities Change When Individuals Change”: The Sustainability of System-Challenging Collective Action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 51, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ingold, T. Society, Nature and the Concept of Technology. In The Perception of the Environment; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  63. Truong, M.-X.A.; Clayton, S. Technologically Transformed Experiences of Nature: A Challenge for Environmental Conservation? Biol. Conserv. 2020, 244, 108532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Greenwood, A.; Gatersleben, B. Let’s Go Outside! Environmental Restoration amongst Adolescents and the Impact of Friends and Phones. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 48, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Louv, R. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder; Algonquin Books: New York, NY, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-1-56512-605-3. [Google Scholar]
  66. Vella-Brodrick, D.; Joshanloo, M.; Slemp, G.R. Longitudinal Relationships Between Social Connection, Agency, and Emotional Well-Being: A 13-Year Study. J. Posit. Psychol. 2023, 18, 883–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dandachi, I.E. AI-Powered Personalized Learning: Toward Sustainable Education. In Navigating the Intersection of Business, Sustainability and Technology; El-Chaarani, H., El Dandachi, I., El Nemar, S., EL Abiad, Z., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; pp. 109–118. ISBN 978-981-99-8572-2. [Google Scholar]
  68. Selwyn, N. Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2021; ISBN 978-1-350-14556-6. [Google Scholar]
  69. Burbules, N.C.; Fan, G.; Repp, P. Five Trends of Education and Technology in a Sustainable Future. Geogr. Sustain. 2020, 1, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Earle, A.G.; Leyva-de la Hiz, D.I. The Wicked Problem of Teaching about Wicked Problems: Design Thinking and Emerging Technologies in Sustainability Education. Manag. Learn. 2021, 52, 581–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Navas-Bonilla, C.d.R.; Guerra-Arango, J.A.; Oviedo-Guado, D.A.; Murillo-Noriega, D.E. Inclusive Education through Technology: A Systematic Review of Types, Tools and Characteristics. Front. Educ. 2025, 10, 1527851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Arts, I.; Fischer, A.; Duckett, D.; van der Wal, R. Information Technology and the Optimisation of Experience—The Role of Mobile Devices and Social Media in Human-Nature Interactions. Geoforum 2021, 122, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kilty, T.J. Choosing Whether to Use Mobile Technology Outdoors. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nguyen, H.; Santagata, R. Impact of Computer Modeling on Learning and Teaching Systems Thinking. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2021, 58, 661–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yilmaz, R. Using Zoom as a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Tool: Modeling of Relations between Technology Acceptance, Knowledge-Sharing Behaviours, Community of Inquiry, and Social Interaction Space. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2024, 32, 6024–6042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Berges-Puyo, J.G. The Use of Technology in Education: 10 Concerns That Should Not Be Overlooked. Int. J. Res.-Granthaalayah 2024, 12, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Daniela, L.; Visvizi, A.; Gutiérrez-Braojos, C.; Lytras, M.D. Sustainable Higher Education and Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL). Sustainability 2018, 10, 3883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hills, D.; Thomas, G. Digital Technology and Outdoor Experiential Learning. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2020, 20, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Buzzelli, M.; Asafo-Adjei, E. Experiential Learning and the University’s Host Community: Rapid Growth, Contested Mission and Policy Challenge. High Educ. 2023, 85, 521–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Gavillet, R. Experiential Learning and Its Impact on College Students. Tex. Educ. Rev. 2018, 7, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Remington, T.F.; Chou, P.; Topa, B. Experiential Learning through STEM: Recent Initiatives in the United States. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2023, 27, 327–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Download PDF
Immersive HCI for Intangible Cultural Heritage in Tourism Contexts: A Narrative Review of Design and Evaluation
Previous
The Evolution of Suburban Small-Town Communities Based on Multiple Niche Models: A Case Study of Pingshan County in China
Next