"Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces" is a scholarly article that discusses the significance of the design of a college campus having the ability to somewhat "make or break" the ability to have a holistic learning experience. The article suggests that the interactions between students and the natural "green space" provided on college campuses help to set a positive perception of their experience of higher education, and for them to be able to avoid attentional fatigue and encourage efficiency in the learning environment due to the effects of natural stimuli on campus. The writers argue that when done correctly, the physique of a higher educational institution should do more good than harm by subconsciously setting students attune to the environment around them.

Note: this is an academic journal, and it's fairly recent. Who are the authors? What is their ethos? What makes them qualified to speak on this topic?

What are those needs? In what ways are they "diverse" and "evolving"? This sentence assumes "holistic learning spaces" are "good." Here's a source that outlines a debate about "holistic education"

This concept is not as important as it should be in American society. Many schools, from elementary to college, do not put as much emphasis on holistic learning, but rather focus on memorizing information through standardized testing. Learning can and should occur anywhere, not just in a typical classroom setting. In fact, a lot of useful information for life comes outside of the classroom. It reminds me of a quote by Mark Twain “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education”. People should always be in a state of learning, figuring out new things and expanding their minds in multiple ways, not just in narrow subjects that come in school.

Is this referring to one fifth of a student's time in school is spent in the classroom, or one fifth of a student's complete life is spent in school? I would think the first would be true, but it is not hard to imagine that so much of our time is spent in school.

In some ways, while I believe addressing the need for green space as a break in attention is important, is it perhaps ignoring the real issue? In so much of American culture, there is the standards upheld of working long hours, taking smaller and smaller breaks, skipping vacations, and just the overall sense that less is more when it comes to work. I think this belief not only applies to the job industry, but schooling as well. Instead of trying to help students engage less and maintain the normal course load, would it be better for there to be more time for rest?

"...lures of the outside world" sounds very ambiguous. I'm not sure if this sentence is trying to refer to the world and it's distractions, or some other meaning. It almost makes "the world" sound like a dangerous place, like a student should not venture there. However, college is the place where students are supposed to be preparing for the world, and instead of being afraid of it, school should make a student more confident and comfortable when approaching the world. For example, I think the GSU campus does a great job of putting students in the middle of the larger world while also giving them help on how to navigate. Other campuses that are more secluded, such as UGA, do not really offer as much real world experience that one could get from being in a more urban environment. In that case, being on a campus that is separated and apart from the rest of the world could actually be a negative aspect.

Perhaps it is just me, but this phrase seems rather wordy. I feel as though the meaning behind this part of the sentence is lost or at least the point can be easily misconstrued. It is trying to say that more research should be done on this topic that is already supported by evidence. So is the research reliable, or not? Is it supported, or not? If there is not enough evidence to make a claim, why is this article being written as though this premise about green space is fact?

I think this is the first time the authors use a different point of view in their writing, referring to themselves as "we". It breaks up the flow of the article a bit as suddenly the authors are referencing themselves after writing the whole article objectively until this point. However, they do this to justify their reasoning and address any complaints that might arise from their argument, so perhaps the change in perspective is justified.

While assertions like this are cited with sources, I think this article would be much more effective if it described in more detail how it came to these conclusions about learning and the environment. Was there a study done, or did they take a survey, or perform an experiment? At this point we know the information was taken from somewhere, but are these sources reliable or recent?

In "So you like the University of Chicago’s rejection of ‘safe spaces’ for students? Consider this."https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/08/30/so-you-like-the-university-of-chicagos-rejection-of-safe-spaces-for-students-consider-this/, the article speaks of The University of Chicago's statement about denying those who wish to be alerted to controversial topics on campus. instead of getting rid of speakers who might have racial views or putting out "trigger warnings" for certain classes and their subject matter, the University boldly supported equal thought and expression on campus. The feeling behind this choice was the belief that college students nowadays are coddled way to much, and need to hear dissenting opinions to their own thoughts. I found a correlation between this article and "Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces" in the way that both articles speak about a "safe place" for students. While in the first article, the "safe place" refers to a figurative area where students can be by themselves with their beliefs, the "safe place" in the second one describes an area that is closer to nature.

What are quads and greens? A quad is a rectangular courtyard surrounded by buildings on all sides. It's full name is actually a quadrangle, and many college campuses are known for to include impressive quads, including Harvard, Cornell, and Yale. Many colleges that host quads are also known for their sustainability initiatives on campus. http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-iconic-college-campus-quads-2014-1

Yet, as I mentioned, there is not enough emphasis put on rest, not enough time given for a student to recover. I talked more about this in my previous annotation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/caranewlon/2014/07/31/the-college-amenities-arms-race/#cbbda7d1f3cc In "The College Amenities Arms Race" by Cara Newlon, the article discusses the crazy expenditures that colleges have been construction which are purely for student entertainment. These constructions, ranging from movie theaters to lazy rivers, have caused increasing tuition from students which could lead to backlash from lower income students that don't value these facilities as a need and students that don't perceive the facilities to have any personal use. Having the most innovative and entertaining amenities has evolved into an unintentional competition between universities. Most notably, in 2006, colleges spent upwards of fifteen billion dollars on construction projects. Newlon also suggests that adding desirable amenities can be beneficial towards "less-selective" schools because it'll grow their number of applicants and in turn, drive down their acceptance rates. Ultimately, these college expenditures are a prioritized business and are treated as such for college planning. Whether they're necessary or not continues to be on the forefront of debate. In relation to "Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces" by Scholl and Gulwadi, this article makes me question if natural environment settings are even necessary for student populations. These green-spaces may just be another unneeded "entertainment facility" that drives up expensives for college. Personally, I do not want to pay an excessive amount for a development that isn't imperative to my studies. Perhaps, if it is evident that students' performances benefit from the facility and it exceeds the cost of the construction, then natural landscapes could be useful to student life. Now, I feel very conflicted about the development of greenery in college campuses. On one hand, I strongly believe I will utilize it and benefit from its involuntary attention. On the contrary, I am honestly not willing and able to pay for its construction.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/gfhf45fim/texas-tech-university/#1729882d1b07 This is a photograph of a massive water park/leisure pool located at Texas Tech University. This appears more as a vacation resort than a college campus. If Georgia State tried to implement a structure similar to this in their campus, then I would totally be against the action because its not needed for everyday student life. I don't value a pool like I value convention learning space.

In regards to Georgia State, I definitely do not value the entirety of campus as "learning space." I feel as though a limited amount of designated areas have that purpose. Places like the honors college lab, the commons community rooms, the library all exemplify learning spaces, though the landscape of the campus does not. I wish I felt comfortable to productively study anywhere on campus, but that is not the current situation. If in the future, Georgia State values this notion of integrated natural environments, then I will accept the entire campus as an open space for student learning. Hopefully, someone, maybe an individual like me or a grassroots movement, can make this project happen.

Basically, this serves as my sole interaction with nature at Georgia State which means I engage in incidental attention during these transactions. I didn't know this classification previously. I do wish Georgia State incorporated more intentional natural landscapes. Personally, I feel as though I would really benefit from such developments. I do recognize with the limited space that Georgia State owns however, it could be rather difficult to construct. Regardless, urban areas need more nature, which is noted immensely with GSU. I understand adding nature to cities may act counter-intuitive of the word urban, but nonetheless it would make the city more pleasing and a better environment for students.

To further their argument, Scholl and Gulwadi display a "student-nature interactions in campus" chart which explores the different nature typologies and examines the use of attentive interactions (i.e incidental, indirect, involuntary, etc.) that are employed in each setting. This use of evidence is an incredible way to illustrate the various degrees of attention used in different settings. The format of the chart is extremely helpful to differentiate the environments that have engaging interactions which stimulate the students' learning. For visual learners, this is especially helpful. Additionally, they explain the definition of the typologies, which narrows the confusion of the varying settings. Though they have a lack of scientific research, this chart is quite informative and compelling to their argument.

Scholl and Gulwadi acknowledge their lack of research, which is quite redeeming for the authors. Now I feel sympathetic for judging their analysis so cruelly. I suppose if they rewrite this proposal in 5-10 years, then their persuasion would exceed its current status due to this relatively new research domain. I would love to read studies that further this idea if any research on this topic accumulates in the future.

Involuntary attention leads to benefits such as performance, gratification, and potentially regulation of emotions solely due to their "inherently intriguing" and "replenishing" nature? I feel as though their claims on the advantages of involuntary attention is lacking due to their inability to draw from scientific analysis and psychological studies. It's a shame because I am truly in support of college campuses instituting natural environments into their landscape.

Nature, in its actual form, is quite ambiguous. With that notion, if colleges were to implement "natural environments," this could differ from one university to the next depending on their individual interpretation of nature. One might perceive nature as the planting of multiple trees, while one might view it as incorporating a natural element within a landscape, like a park in an urban area. It'll be interesting to see if these different interpretations cause conflict if the implementation of natural environments ever becomes mandated for public universities.

Similarly, the Atlanta Beltline project which was proposed by Ryan Gravel was created by a grass-roots movement. Both the preservation of nature in some college campuses during the 1970's and the Beltline exhibit the immense influence that grass-roots movements can attain.

A similar trend happened to the city of Atlanta during the 90's and the early 2000's. Atlanta widened its roads and created more parking lots designated for the increasing amounts of vehicles. These constructions ultimately resulted in less areas of natural open space, which drove out pedestrians. College planning has a mirrored reality to this. Colleges accommodated for the large student body that owned vehicles, which in turn lessened the space for nature. Unfortunately, the expansion of nature was the opportunity cost in this situation.

Picture of Vermont Congressman Justin Morrill, the main sponsor of the Morrill Act of 1862.

Source: https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Morrill.html

This is the main focus of this entire article. See my above annotations on what holistic learning is. It is very important to understand the concept of holistic learning for this article and the authors do a good job of defining it and making the readers understand what they are talking about.

The article I chose as my supplemental text was the one from Inside Higher Ed about the excessive funds being spent on student recreation (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/15/are-lazy-rivers-and-climbing-walls-driving-cost-college ). Kellie Woodhouse, the author, describes an ongoing controversy while mainly focusing on what is happening at Louisiana State University (LSU). At LSU, the student government decided to increase student fees by $200 to build a giant lazy river in the shape of the letters LSU. This upgrade to their student center (along with a new rock wall and fitness center) will cost the university $85 million. This is small compared to what Ohio State spent to upgrade their student recreation center, which was near $140 million. The controversy arising is whether the universities should be spending all this money on student recreation centers or spending this money on other things, such as research centers.

The Inside Higher Ed piece relates to this article because both deal with student recreation. However, this article discusses student recreation through the environment and the outdoors while the supplemental discusses student recreation through "fun" recreation, like fitness centers, rock walls, lazy rivers, and hot tubs. I believe that both of these things are important to have at a college campus--green space and fun student recreation centers. From what I learned from this article, green space can really help promote holistic learning and mind "relaxation." On the other hand, student recreation centers can create a fun environment and help students relieve stress and relax. In my opinion, universities need to spend money on both of these features to college campuses but need to balance the budget better. Universities can not spend millions on lazy rivers while not putting in near as much to green space. If universities balance their budget more and spend equal amounts on both green space and student recreation centers, the university will hopefully get great feedback and students will be happy and relaxed and become more successful.

I find this comical because the authors claim that college founders frown upon city atmospheres due to their "distraction." Personally, the primary reason for me deciding to further my education at Georgia State was due to the urban environment. This was ideal for me and my educational preferences. This fallacy doesn't apply to everyone individuals' education wants and needs. To hear that colleges view the lifestyles of cities as "distractions" is completely absurd. These so-called "distractions" are actually opportunities for cultural, politically, social, economic, and personal growth. If anything, traditional college campuses can present the same distractions. The institutions still have a social scene which can detract the students from their studies. This can happen anywhere- rural or urban. Since most colleges are in rural "college towns," it parallels the negativity surrounding urban campuses.

This notion blatantly contrasts to Georgia State University. As a campus we are evidently built in an urban location and embody the city of Atlanta, which provides a completely different dynamic than traditional rural college campuses. Can the urban aspect of Georgia State result in the integration of natural space? Does our location disallow such green-space because of its confinement? Or do we have to find unconventional manners to construct natural environments (i.e a rooftop greenery)?

These are the fundamental pieces of evidence that Scholl and Gulwadi will examine to support their case that natural environments help student learning. They only present two different concepts, which is quite limited. In order to successfully prove their proposal, I suppose they will have to go intensely in-depth to convey each idea.

So instead of utilizing studies, the authors will incorporate the examination of college landscapes and use it to develop their argument. This mechanism is valid, but I still feel as though the inclusion of some scientific research would be immensely effective. Scholl and Gulwadi have to make sure that their reasoning strengthens their argument exponentially.

So does this completely demolish any sort of argument that they have? Scholl and Gulwadi are basically stating that currently no pertinent studies correlate cognitive functioning with natural open spaces currently. This is a primary claim of their proposition to include natural environments into college campuses, yet they have no evidence to prove that advantageous effects exist... So now, it leads me to believe that their argument is predominately based on logic and reasoning instead of scientific studies.

I can agree with this claim from various personal experiences. Nowadays, with my increasing dependence on modern technology and social medias, I become consumed by this technology and primarily focus my attention on my phone, laptop, television, etc., as opposed solely focusing on my schoolwork. Though I am still able to complete my school assignments while engaging in my technologies, the multitasking could result in less attentive work, which could ultimately affect the its quality in a negative manner.

I would imagine the same could be concluded about working adults who have jobs that exhaust the mind. After a nine to five job filled with direct attention that requires the mind to be fully intact, a business man or engineer or etc. could have immense attentional fatigue, not just the college demographic. I know companies like Google provide green-spaces for their employees as an outlet for mental, physically, and spiritual relief. Therefore, the authors' article could also apply to an older demographic and their demanding occupations.

The authors utilize the word "catalyst" which makes it appear that open spaces such as natural environments have this intense power to stimulate students' learning. Is this so? The authors should include studies that parallel this concept. If so, does nature improve a student's ability to produce schoolwork at a low or high degree? Is the degree even noticeable?

Therefore, according to Radloff's calculations, students have ample amount of time outside the classroom. Because of this freedom to engage in a learning environment apart from classes, students can seek environments such as green-spaces to complete school assignments. Basically, the authors use Radloff's data to stress that classroom environment is not the primary environment in which students go about learning which may go against the majority's assumption. Instead, alternative places are used more heavily for learning communities. However, It would be interesting to examine Radloff's study where he forms his conclusion that "one fifth of a student's time is spent in the classroom." I would think that this varies from student to student depending on the amount of credit hours that one is enrolled in and their dedication towards the pursuit of education.

Here lies the thesis of Scholl and Gulwadi; the authors are in support of providing natural environment accommodations in university landscapes in order to benefit students learning. Is there a large demographic of people that oppose of this proposition? If so, what is their reasoning?

I do not understand why Scholl and Gulwadi provided factual statistics to prove their claim that the University system in America is evolving throughout the twenty-first century, yet they failed to provide satisfactory research on their primary claim about categories of attention and their cognitive effects. Since their main idea in this article references that nature presents involuntary attention which alleviates the strain of direct attention, why did n't they involve statistics to prove their statements on the psychological benefits of natural enviroments?

In "Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces" by Scholl and Gulwadi, the article discusses the implementations of natural environments in college campuses. Entire university campuses need to provide holistic learning spaces for their students. A well-designed landscape, will allow for prosperous learning, personal growth, productivity, and mental relaxation. Furthermore, Scholl and Gulwadi discusses different types of attention including direct and involuntary. These categories affect student's effectiveness when studying. The incorporation of involuntary attention provided by nature helps alleviate the stress that course work puts on direct attention. Therefore, a advantageous relationship exists between schoolwork and green-space. Ultimately, nature presents cognitive benefits that allow students with striving resources for learning and community interaction. This dynamic should be instituted in university campuses throughout.

Having colleges being excluded can be a good and bad thing. Good thing because obviously students can pay attention more and focus only on school. It can be a bad thing because it narrows it down to a certain few who can afford to go that college because it forces you to pay for housing and food rather than having the option to commute and living in the comfort of your own house.

This is very true not only for Americans but for foreigners as well. They expect all college campuses to look like Harvard or Princeton, but these are just stereotypes. For example Georgia State University is not your average college campus. Its in the heart of Downtown with buildings and classes scattered all over.

The college experience I feel like is different for everyone mainly because we all have different backgrounds, goals, financial situations, work ethic, and time management skills. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. College experience for some people is partying and having a great time; for others is working hard to get an education and get a great job with great pay.

Three main takeaways from the article:

1. Students have better focus and attention when they study and learn in nature and the outdoors.
2. Colleges are spending millions on upgrading student centers, but not enough on updating the nature parts of the campus.
3. College campuses should have a lot of green space to help its students achieve the most they possibly can.

I think when modifying their campus, universities should also get the opinions of the students, along with all the faculty, administration, and facility workers. It is important to get everyone's opinions, not just the people who would be paying for it or the people who would be in charge of the project. A holistic learning environment is one that involves everyone. Therefore the creation of a holistic learning environment should involve everyone.

This is the first time a plea like this is addressed in the article. However, I agree with this. If more research is done on human-nature interaction and its effect on learning, it will be very helpful to students and teachers.

By studying campuses around the United States and the world now and by studying how students learn in different environments, universities can adjust how their campuses look and feel. This may cost a lot of money, but student success will be worth it.

This argument has been supported by results other authors have recorded. When students are out in nature, they tend to learn better and therefore more class should be outside or more "nature" should be available to students.

This is an overhead view of Cornell University. As evidenced by the photograph, most of the space in the university is green space. This leads to holistic learning and a large natural environment.

Link to photograph (picture is located on page nine): https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=9780521341394

To reword, older campuses separated disciplinary fields while newer campuses are bringing them together. This shows how the concept of holistic learning is becoming even more popular and prevalent on college campuses.

This category seems like the one Georgia State would fit into.

Could this be a problem with Georgia State? Should Georgia State be worried about this and, if so, what should they do to fix it? I think they should either add more parks (or green space) or take more class trips to nature centers (like Stone Mountain or the Botanical Gardens). Or, even, have class held outside sometimes.

The article is making an interesting point saying that our mind can replenish itself when we are studying, or rather "interacting," with nature. This supports the article's claim that college campuses should have more green space on campus.

This article is really focusing on two main points: holistic learning and attention. All of the author's points are being brought back to these two main overarching categories.

The argument is that the more nature a college has on its campus the more successful the students will be. This should be supported by student records/test results/grades from very urban universities (like Georgia State or New York University) to rural universities (like the University of Colorado or Dartmouth).

The Attention Restoration Theory is a theory developed by Rachel and Stephen Kaplan in their book "The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Approach." The theory states that people can concentrate better after spending time in nature or looking at nature scenes. Their book is available here, for free:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=9780521341394

This is something that I discovered while doing the Built Environment Description. As I sat in Krog Street Market, the closer to closing time it got, the louder the music they were playing got. It reached a point where the music was loud and annoying so people were leaving. In Krog Street Market, they influenced the environment and sound landscape in order to get the patrons to do what they wanted (which was to leave). This proves that this statement is true.

Now, there are a lot of public announcements about environmental awareness. Colleges (even Georgia State) pride themselves in being environmentally friendly and helping the environment by conserving energy. While most "typical" college campuses have large green spaces, Georgia State is different as we do not, so we have to help the environment in other ways (like walking instead of driving, turning lights off in unoccupied rooms, not littering, etc.).

After reading this phrase it immediately made me think of Georgia Tech. There, there is a road that circles the campus where cars can drive and all parking lots are on the outside. However, when you walk on to the campus, there is nothing but green space, trees, and sidewalks for walking. There are no cars on campus, only the the "ring road" outside of it.

For the first time, students are getting out of the classroom and into actual experiences and hands-on learning (another aspect of holistic learning). This proves that the Morrill Act of 1862 was not only important when it comes to land use, but also student's education as well.

The Morrill Act of 1862 "provided each state with 30,000 acres of Federal land for each member in their Congressional delegation. The land was then sold by the states and the proceeds used to fund public colleges that focused on agriculture and the mechanical arts." From this land, sixty-nine universities were founded including Cornell, MIT, and the University of Wisconsin.

Source: https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Morrill.html

This is what many typical college campuses are like. You walk onto the campus and are surrounded but nothing but the college. Once again, this all goes back to holistic learning--the immersion of the student in university life. On a separate note, this is nothing like what Georgia State is like. Georgia state is not secluded from city distraction and is very open to the larger community. However, I still feel like I am on a campus in Georgia State because the part of downtown Atlanta that the college is located in has really become Georgia State's "section" of the city.

This statement is supporting the theory of holistic learning. Clearly, in this article, the authors are arguing that holistic learning is important for a student's learning and colleges must make adjust their campus to make it more easy for holistic learning to occur.

This annotation is not about the text, but rather the sources being used. I believe that it is important and helpful that the authors decided to use so many sources because they make this article very credible. However, essentially every sentence is being cited, and this is making the writing very hard to read (because there are so many citations). Also, the fact that the authors are citing after about every sentence makes me think that they did not contribute a lot to the paper, but rather wrote an article consisting of just quotes from others' works.

I was confused on what the term "holistic learning" meant so I did some research on it. Holistic learning is philosophy where a person does more than just sit in a classroom and learn. They are suppose to find purpose and meaning in their life and the community and basically surround themselves with knowledge and learning.

Here is a link to a chart showing that college enrollment has increased over time. This supports the author's points and proves that universities now have to adjust to the increasing number of students on campus.

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/]

This is a point that we have encountered throughout all of our classes. As times change, society and organizations are forced to change with it. As the times change, technology gets better, and the needs/wants of students evolve, public and private universities are forced to adjust to these changes and shifts or risk being left behind.