Reading Summary 3

The article “Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces” by Kathleen G. Scholl and Gowri Betrabet, explains how natural spaces promotes attention learning resources for students. According to Scholl and Gulwadi , technology impacts students learning potential and open fields , green trees with nature’s flowers and insects provides a better learning and attention space for students . Many may think technology benefits students learning and attention abilities because of the discoveries and cures that’s been revealed from technology; However , it has became a major concern for its students and feel as though natural spaces inhibits one’s attention span. Natural spaces creates a learning environment for students and promote better studying skills. In addition , Universities are responsible for providing natural spaces to enhance learning for students. Today , Most university’s give more energy into the latest technology , modern classrooms , and the physical design of the buildings rather than the natural spaces such as , open fields and spacious trees. Most campuses are ignoring the learning benefits of natural spaces and just use them to provide more technological and modern spaces.Today’s university must be resilient spaces in which the learning environment encompasses more than technology upgrades , classroom additions , and its academic buildings – in fact , the entire campus , including its open space ,must be perceived as a holistic learning experience (Gumprecht,2003 ;Gutierrez 2013 ;Kenny , Dumont,& Kenny , 2005 ). University’s should focus on providing more spacious environments because students like my self , find it difficult to focus on school work when there is technology present. Technology is a beneficial source when accumulating research However , it can be a major distraction in student learning environments. Increased technology use within today’s multitasking society is likely to hijack a student’s attentional resource placing her/him at risk of underachieving academic learning goals and undermining success at a university ( Fried,2008; Tennessen,& Cimprich,  1995; Wentworth & Middleton , 2014. In addition , technology decreases students productivity and it can undermine students success by limiting their attention spans and creativity. Knowing the technology distractions , University’s are still blind to students need for natural spaces. Eventhough ,technology has played a role in everyday life , Universities shouldn’t feel obligated to stay “up to date ” with technological advances because it misrepresent the purpose of a college campus. The word campus , (derived from a latin word  for “field”- “an expanse surrounded…by woods,higher ground , etc.,Harper, n.d.) was associated with college grounds to describe Princeton University in the 1770’s (Eckert,2012;Turner, 1984) and now refers to the overall physical quality of higher education institutions (Bowman, 2011). Early American college priority’s  was not to keep pace with technological advances. Their objective was to provide natural spaces and let students roam free with their knowledge creativity and learning efficiency. Early institutions like Cornell University , has still maintained to provide natural spaces for their students. Sixty-six percent of Cornell’s campus consist of natural spaces which correlates with their 87% graduation rate. In Conclusion student’s educational success heavily depends on their environment. Can you imagine trying to compose a 5 page essay in a busy City , closed in 4 walls , with technology hovering around you? One can admit that their focus and their work is better when they are in open space. Natural spaces promote attention efficiency and University’s should focus on promoting students learning environments with natural spaces.



work cited

Scholl,Kathleen, & Gowri Betrabet Gulwadu. “Recognizing campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces.” Journal of Learning Spaces [Online], 4.1 (2015): n. pag. Web.19 Feb.2016