Systematic review demonstrates that outdoor adventure education enhances motivation and emotional responses in various populations, indicating its educational value.
This study aims to examine the impact of outdoor adventure education on affective learning. Although previous research has indicated that outdoor adventure education exerts positive effects on affective learning, most existing studies have been limited to individual empirical investigations. Systematic integration remains scarce, and few studies have explicitly compared how different research designs and participant backgrounds influence outcomes. To address this gap, this study conducted a systematic review of relevant literature published in international journals between 2013 and 2024, employing the PRISMA framework to ensure rigorous screening and quality control. A total of 25 intervention-based studies met the inclusion criteria. Three major findings emerged: (1) affective learning can be effectively facilitated through outdoor adventure education programs; (2) adventure education positively influences participants’ motivation, emotional responses, self-concept, and resilience; and (3) intervention-based research designs provide more consistent empirical evidence. Outdoor adventure education demonstrates multiple educational values in promoting affective learning, including fostering learning motivation, enhancing emotional regulation, strengthening self-efficacy, improving teamwork, and cultivating psychological resilience. This systematic review offers a theoretical framework and empirical evidence for educators, curriculum designers, and policymakers, supporting the development of affective-oriented learning programs. Future research should further explore variations across participant backgrounds and intervention approaches to deepen understanding of adventure education’s effects on diverse learning populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: