Introduction

Under the policies of educational reform, the professional development of teachers faces different institutional conditions and role expectations (Radovan, 2011). Teachers must learn continuously, embrace new knowledge, and improve teaching skills to enhance professional knowledge and competence (Glomo-Narzoles, 2013). The spirit of education lies in aesthetics, and beauty itself is generated through experiences of goodness and truth, where schools are the primary place for such experiences (Dewey, 2015). Therefore, the school environment is critical to the development of teachers and students as well as to the planning and education of aesthetics (Fan and Tan, 2019). Additionally, professional development is ongoing and imaginative and can be attained through aesthetics. In turn, aesthetic learning and experience are essential to the learning of teachers. As such, teachers should gain insight into the qualities, feelings, emotions, and specific responses to aesthetic experiences during their professional development (Albers et al., 2019). Thus, teachers may acquire aesthetic feelings and experience from the school environment and further integrate their sense of aesthetics into their curriculum and instruction. This process may also drive the professional development of teachers (Attwood, 2020; Jurik et al., 2014; Wiebe et al., 2007). On these grounds, the present study investigates the impacts of Chinese teachers’ perceptions of the environmental aesthetics of schools and their aesthetic experience on their professional development as well as the mediating effects of teachers’ aesthetic experience.

Environmental aesthetics and aesthetic experience

According to Berleant (1997), environmental aesthetics refers to humans becoming part of the environment at large by appreciating and participating in it, which implies sensory qualities and the direct mastery of experience. Sensory qualities are aesthetic experiences by themselves. Thompson (2000) applies environmental psychology to environmental aesthetics for creating beautiful, comfortable, and enhanced personal living environments. Particularly, environmental aesthetics aims to improve the relationship between people and the natural environment to render the built environment more humane (Gifford, 2014). In terms of a psychological journey, one’s perception of the environment, spatial cognition, and social space and the interaction between one’s personality and the environment generate actions toward the environment (Giuliani and Scopelliti, 2009), also a source of inspiration for aesthetic appreciation and the creative spirit (Williams and Harvey, 2001). Furthermore, the appreciation of beauty begins with perception, and the judgement of the values of natural beauty is based on the immediate experience of the environment. Perception encompasses the senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and movement combined with thought, imagination, and belief; these elements individually or in conjunction with other qualities enable the operation of the perception of aesthetic qualities (Berleant, 2010; Brady, 2003).

The aesthetic experience of nature also begins with and emerges through sensory perception (Berleant, 2010; Saito, 1998), and the various senses that form the aesthetic value of the natural world form the basis of aesthetic experience and judgement (Fisher, 1998; Prior, 2017). Furthermore, the exploration of personal aesthetic experiences and the appreciation of nature and the transformative environment, including imagination, emotion, and multisensory responses, is of significance to individual perceptions and innovation (Brady and Prior, 2020). Dewey (2005) states that aesthetic experience emerges through active engagement between the self and the environment, including practical and intellectual pursuits, through ordinary activities, ranging from engaging the natural environment to making a connection with everyday experiences, further creating aesthetic experience (Dewey, 2005). Thus, aesthetic experience is obtained from the aesthetics of the natural environment through sensory perception.

Environmental aesthetics and the professional development of teachers

Burton et al. (1999) propose that even non-art education teachers in schools with good aesthetic education environments frequently consider extending the study of art to other aspects, such as creative thinking, and different perspectives on ideas, problems, and imagination. Kaelin (1989) also highlights that aesthetic skills and attitudes are fundamental competencies for education-related activities and teaching processes. Furthermore, the formation of aesthetic sense in the teaching process exerts a significant impact on teaching and learning, and neglecting aesthetic education constitutes a serious obstacle to the realisation of the fundamental objectives of higher education systems (MehrMohammadi and Abedi, 2001). As such, applying these skills in the teaching process will provide sustainable and active learning opportunities to share experiences and enjoy learning. As a result, this method of teaching and learning activities will become interesting and exciting activities (Eslamian et al., 2017). Moreover, teachers are key players in demonstrating environmental accomplishments, and their expertise and competence in environmental education can influence the effectiveness of environmental education (Jurik et al., 2014). Moreover, Yuan et al. (2017) presented professional knowledge and competence, professional development, teacher beliefs, and teaching effectiveness as major indicators of professional development employing environmental aesthetics, also enhancing the aesthetic perception and professional knowledge of teachers (Jurik et al., 2014; Yang, 2021).

Environmental aesthetics, aesthetic experience, and professional development of teachers

Rolston (2002) discusses environmental aesthetics using an ecosystems approach. On this basis, the current study intends to discover how beauty is a mysterious product of generative nature and an objective and affirmative nature of beauty, which is also an aesthetic experience. Aesthetic properties lie in the eye of the beholder, exist in a potential state, and only become clear through the observation of the beholder. When beauty is valued, experiences are added to natural attributes and require an experiencer with aesthetic capacities for the consummation of beauty and its fructification. Aesthetics, as a process, exists and is developed through imagination (Jalongo and Stamp, 1997). Greene (2001) believes that imagination is central to the aesthetic experience, that it is also a part of aesthetic education, and that its quality is central to education and academic learning. Wiebe et al. (2007) also note that supporting the integration of aesthetics with extension produces imaginative, flexible, and concrete teaching practices that can contribute to the professional development of teachers.

Furthermore, education on environmental aesthetics is important to environmental education, where teachers play a critical role. Thus, the training of teachers should include aesthetic subjects (Frawley, 2013) to enhance their aesthetic qualities. In this manner, they can truly guide students in appreciating environmental aesthetics (Yang, 2021). Gelineau (2012) argues that teachers who are non-artists or other art professionals can continue to provide an artistic atmosphere that stimulates the learning process. Moreover, if an art-integrated course succeeds, teachers would gain confidence in the process of art creation, which can further enable them to produce a continuously aesthetic curriculum (Barry, 1996). Shockley et al. (2008) also point out that during the teaching process, the underlying teaching content directly influences learners, a concept postulated by all aesthetic perspectives (Yang, 2021). If teachers are aware of their aesthetic sense and can unlock and channel it in response to the classroom environment, they can facilitate aesthetic innovation and curriculum development.

Aesthetics is essential to the professional development and practice of teachers; thus, it should be included in professional development programs for teachers. Aesthetics is part of the curriculum, and the environment is also a part of aesthetics (Oreck, 2004). Teachers using aesthetic skills during the teaching process can continue to develop effective teaching and acquire the knowledge and skills required to better use aesthetic skills in the teaching process (Eslamian et al., 2017). Therefore, universities are responsible for promoting teaching and learning based on aesthetic standards and must understand the aesthetic dimensions of teaching and learning in higher education, as well as effective ways to implement them (Gadsden, 2008). Furthermore, aesthetics is a form of literacy that can enhance the professionalism of teachers; as such, they should gain experience from the environmental aesthetics of the schools and should place the field of aesthetic education in context and the environment (Attwood, 2020). In this manner, they become enabled them to design appropriate aesthetic curricula and learning environments for the common core curriculum (Joseph, 2011). Additionally, in aesthetics-based curricula, teacher practice can facilitate curriculum development and professional development (Frawley, 2013). Thus, teachers can acquire aesthetic experience from the environmental aesthetics of schools, thereby improving their professional development. On these grounds, teachers’ aesthetic experience may have a mediating effect on the relationship between the environmental aesthetics of schools and the professional development of teachers.

In summary, the environmental aesthetics of the school exerts an important impact on the aesthetic experience and professional development of teachers. However, research on the environmental aesthetics of schools and the professional development of teachers in China is lacking, and even less quantitative research is being conducted. Therefore, the current study uses Rolston’s (2002) ecosystem theory on environmental aesthetics as its theoretical basis to investigate the impact of environmental aesthetics on the aesthetic experience and professional development of teachers in Chinese schools and whether teachers can obtain aesthetic experience through environmental aesthetics in schools to fortify their professional development.

Research methodology

Research subjects

The subjects were 1800 university teachers from 30 universities in China. A total of 60 teachers were selected from each university, distributed in South, East, Central, North, Northeast, and Southwest China, where five universities were selected from each area, all rated as “universities with beautiful campuses.” The study recovered 1716 questionnaires out of which 1479 remained after screening for questionnaires with invalid or missing data. In terms of sample distribution, 734 and 745 of the teachers are male and female, respectively; in terms of job title, 642 of them are lecturers, which accounts for the largest number, whereas 105 are assistant professors, which represents the smallest group. In terms of the level of education, the largest and smallest proportions are composed of teachers with a master’s degree (n = 919) and a bachelor’s degree (n = 76), respectively.

Research instrument

This study used the Aesthetic Experience Scale for Students developed by Chang (2017), the Perceived Environmental Aesthetic Qualities Scale introduced by Subiza-Pérez et al. (2019), and the Teaching and Learning International Survey adopted by OECD (2018). However, given that these scales were not developed specifically for Chinese teachers, they were further modified to suit their context. Eight experts and scholars in the field of aesthetics and education evaluated and developed a preliminary scale, and a pilot analysis was conducted to examine the reliability of the scale.

Revision and evaluation of scales

The study first revised the scales of environmental aesthetic perception, aesthetic experience, and professional development (Chang, 2017; Subiza-Pérez et al., 2019), and then, the experts and scholars evaluated the structure and items of the scales. Eight experts and scholars in aesthetics- and education-related fields evaluated the scales. The principles for revising the scales were as follows. (1) The original structure of the items of the scales should be retained as much as possible. (2) If at least three experts and scholars believed that a question requires revision, the suggested adjustments should be made. (3) If an expert scholar suggested new questions, then adjustments should be made, given that the suggestion was similar to those of the other experts. (4) If more than four expert scholars considered a question inappropriate, then the item should be omitted.

The Perceived Schools’ Environmental Aesthetic Scale uses the Perceived Environmental Aesthetic Qualities Scale developed by Subiza-Pérez et al. (2019), which contains five perceived aesthetic qualities, namely, Harmony (eight questions), Mystery (five questions), Multisensority & Nature (four questions), Visual Spaciousness & Visual Diversity (three questions), and Sublimity (three questions). After evaluation, all five dimensions and 23 questions were retained. The Aesthetic Experience Scale for Teachers was adopted from the Aesthetic Experience Scale (Chang, 2017), which consists of Pleasure in Aesthetics (six questions), Attitudes Toward Aesthetics (five questions), Understanding of Aesthetics (five questions), and Complete Experience (five questions). All 21 questions of the four dimensions were retained after evaluation by the experts and scholars. In terms of professional development, the three pillars in the Teaching and Learning International Survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018), namely, Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Teaching Practice, Teaching Beliefs, and Professional Attitude, were used, and all 33 questions in the three pillars were retained after evaluation.

Scale reliability test

In terms of the Perceived Schools’ Environmental Aesthetic (PSEA) scale, the study first conducted exploratory factor analysis, followed by reliability analysis, and finally validated factor analysis. The results of the exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that item A18 achieved a factor loading of 0.465, which did not reach an acceptable value of 0.5. Moreover, the commonality of A14 was 0.342, which was less than the recommended value of 0.4. Thus, these two items were omitted. A second-factor analysis was then conducted with a KMO value of 0.959, which indicates that the scale can be divided into two dimensions with a cumulative explanatory variance of 65.038%. One dimension was named Aesthetics and Harmony and contained seven questions, whereas the other dimension was named Nature and Diversity and was composed of 13 questions for 20 questions (see Appendix 1). Cronbach’s α was used to determine the reliability of the questions (perceived schools’ environmental aesthetics: α = 0.967; Aesthetics and Harmony: α = 0.925; Nature and Diversity: α = 0.958), produced good reliability for all questions (Cuieford, 1965).

The results of the validity factor analysis demonstrated that RMSEA was 0.075, which is greater than the 0.05 standard; however, the p-value was less than 0.00, which indicated that the theoretical model and observations remain acceptable. GFI reached 0.879, which is close to the 0.90 standard, whereas SRMR was 0.039, which is less than the 0.05 standard; CFI and IFI values were 0.938 and 0.938, respectively, which surpassed 0.90; PNFI and PGFI values were 0.816 and 0.707, respectively, which are higher than 0.50. Concerning the internal structure, the component reliability (CR) of potential variables was 0.908 for Aesthetics and Harmony, and 0.954 for Nature and Diversity, which both exceed 0.70 (Hair et al., 2009). The average variance extracted (AVE) values for Aesthetics and Harmony and Nature and Diversity are 0.586 and 0.613, respectively, which meet the standard of 0.50 or higher (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), indicating a good scale fit.

The results of the exploratory factor analysis of the Aesthetic Experience Scale for Teachers were as follows. With a KMO of 0.958 and a cumulative explanatory variance of 78.249%, the scale was divided into four dimensions, which is consistent with the dimensions and questions of the preliminary scale. The results of the reliability analysis illustrated that the overall aesthetic experience of teachers reached a Cronbach’s α value of 0.969 (pleasure in aesthetics: 0.949; attitude toward aesthetics: 0.909; complete experience: 0.915). The following values were obtained for the validated factor analysis: RMSEA = 0.058, GFI = 0.912, SRMR = 0.038, CFI = 0.951, IFI = 0.952, PNFI = 0.819, PGFI = 0.829. The CR values were as follows: pleasure in aesthetics: 0.895; attitude toward aesthetics: 0.859; attitude toward aesthetics: 0.879; complete experience: 0.864. Meanwhile, the AVE values were obtained as follows: pleasure in aesthetics: 0.587; attitude toward aesthetics: 0.548; attitude toward aesthetics: 0.593; complete experience: 0.561. This indicates that the scale has a good fit.

The results of the exploratory factor analysis of the Teaching and Learning International Survey were as follows. Question 20 was omitted due to its factor loading of 0.478, which did not reach the acceptable value of 0.5. The KMO of the second-factor analysis was 0.959, and its cumulative explanatory variance was 65.038%. The dimensions include attitudes toward teaching practice (12 questions), teaching beliefs (9 questions), and professional attitude (11 questions) for a total of 32 questions (see Appendix 2). The results of reliability analysis indicated the following overall Cronbach’s α values: teachers’ professional development: 0.971; attitudes toward teaching practice: 0.944; teaching beliefs: 0.919; professional attitude: 0.96. The results of the validated factor analysis were RMSEA = 0.059, GFI = 0.852, SRMR = 0.0407, CFI = 0.921, IFI = 0.921, PNFI = 0.819, and PGFI = 0.744. The CR values for teaching practice, teaching beliefs, and professional attitude were 0.929, 0.899, and 0.936, respectively. Lastly, the AVE values obtained were 0.522, 0.498, and 0.571 for teaching practice, teaching beliefs, and professional attitude, respectively, which indicated a good scale fit.

Results

This study adopted the single-factor approach to examine the common method variability problem. An unrotated principal component factor analysis with KMO = 0.987 was conducted for all questions, and a total of six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted. The explained variance of the first factor was 32.218%, which is lower than the reference value of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and indicated the absence of a serious common method variability problem.

Correlation analysis

The correlation coefficients of the variables ranged from 0.660 to 0.821, which were significant and suggested that a positive correlation existed among the variables. The means for the Perceived Schools’ Environmental Aesthetic Qualities scale, professional development of teachers, and teachers’ aesthetic experience are 4.106, 4.135, and 4.187, respectively. The correlation coefficients for each of these dimensions ranged from 0.453 to 0.796, which reached positive and significant are reached.

Model path analysis

The study conducted an overall model pathway of the perceived schools’ environmental aesthetics, aesthetic experience, and professional development of teachers. The results pointed to the model pathways of attitudes toward teaching practice, teaching beliefs, and professional attitude as dimensions of professional development.

Environmental aesthetic perception regarding schools, aesthetic experience, and professional development of teachers

This study obtained the following results from the suitability test. According to Hair et al. (2009), the suitability of the model should be evaluated concerning three aspects, namely, absolute, incremental, and compact suitability. The results of the suitability test between the environmental aesthetic perception of schools, aesthetic experience, and professional development of teachers are as follows.

Absolute suitability: χ2/df = 6.551, which did not reach χ2/df < 5, RMSEA = 0.058 (acceptable value is less than 0.08), GFI = 0.975, AGFI = 0.952 (reached the standard of 0.9), and SRMR = 0.022 (reached the standard of less than 0.05; Ullman, 2001).

Incremental suitability: 0.988 for CFI, 0.986 for IFI, and 0.979 for NNFI, which reached the 0.90 standard.

Compact suitability: 0.657, 0.520, and 0.659 for PNFI, PGFI, and PCFI, respectively, which exceed the standard of 0.50 (Ullman, 2001) and indicate good suitability (Table 1).

Table 1 Suitability indicators of the models.
Full size table

For path analysis, Table 2 indicates that the environmental aesthetic perception of the teachers about schools exerted a positive effect on aesthetic experience and professional development with path coefficients of 0.745 (p = 0.000) and 0.453 (p = 0.000), respectively. Additionally, aesthetic experience exerted a positive effect on professional development with a path coefficient of 0.576 (p = 0.000). In terms of the mediation model, the study employed the bootstrapping method proposed by Shrout and Bolger (2002) to improve the validity of the test estimates of the mediation effect. This step was a resampling procedure for obtaining the mean and 95% confidence intervals of the mediation effect. If the 95% confidence interval of the mediation effect did not contain 0, then the mediation effect was significant at p < 0.05. For the analysis of the mediation effect (Table 2 and Fig. 1), the indirect effect of the aesthetic experience of teachers on environmental aesthetic perception and professional development was 0.429 (0.745*0.576), and the confidence interval [0.352, 0.503] did not contain 0, which confirmed the mediation effect of aesthetic experience. Additionally, the direct effect of aesthetic experience in professional development was 0.576, whereas the overall effect was 0.882, which indicated that the aesthetic experience of teachers partially mediates the relationship between environmental aesthetic perception and professional development.

Table 2 Bootstrap (professional development).
Full size table
Fig. 1: The path analysis of the overall model related to schools’ environmental aesthetics perception, aesthetic experience, and professional development of teachers.
figure 1

SEM path analysis (professional development) ***p < 0.001. EAP Environmental aesthetic perception, AE Aesthetic experience, PD Professional development.

Full size image

Schools’ environmental aesthetics perception, aesthetic experience, and attitudes toward teaching practice

The results of the model suitability test are as follows: χ2/df = 3.350, RMSEA = 0.040, GFI = 0.964, AGFI = 0.954, SRMR = 0.0272, CFI = 0.975, IFI = 0.975, NNFI = 0.959, PNFI = 0.832, PGFI = 0.744, and PCFI = 0.841. This indicates good suitability (Table 1).

In terms of direct effects, the environmental aesthetic perception of teachers exerted a positive effect on aesthetic experience and teaching practice, with path coefficients of 0.745 (p = 0.000) and 0.464 (p = 0.000), respectively. Additionally, teachers’ aesthetic experience exerted a positive effect on attitudes toward teaching practice (0.498, p = 0.000). In terms of the analysis of mediating effect, the indirect effect of aesthetic experience on environmental aesthetic perception and attitudes toward teaching practice was 0.371 (0.745*0.464), and the confidence interval [0.294, 0.457] did not contain 0, which indicated that aesthetic experience has a mediating effect. Moreover, the direct effect of aesthetic experience on attitudes toward teaching practice was 0.498 with an overall effect of 0.836, which indicated that aesthetic experience partially mediates the relationship between environmental aesthetic perception and attitudes toward teaching practice (Table 3 and Fig. 2).

Table 3 Bootstrap (Attitudes toward teaching practice).
Full size table
Fig. 2: The path analysis of the overall model related to schools’ environmental aesthetics perception, aesthetic experience, and attitudes toward teaching practice of teachers.
figure 2

SEM path analysis (teaching practice) ***p < 0.001. EAP environmental aesthetic perception, AE aesthetic experience, TP attitudes toward teaching practice.

Full size image

Schools’ environmental aesthetics perception, aesthetic experience, and teaching beliefs

The results of the model suitability test are as follows: χ2/df = 2.675, RMSEA = 0.034, GFI = 0.979, AGFI = 0.970, SRMR = 0.0213, CFI = 0.986, IFI = 0.986, NNFI = 0.973, PNFI = 0.810, PGFI = 0.709, and PCFI = 0.817, which indicated good suitability (Table 1).

In terms of path analysis, the environmental aesthetics perception of the teachers about schools exerted a positive effect on aesthetic experience and teaching beliefs, with path coefficients of 0.747 (p = 0.000) and 0.513 (p = 0.000), respectively. The study also observed a positive effect of aesthetic experience on teaching beliefs (0.492, p = 0.000). Concerning the mediation effect analysis, the indirect effect of aesthetic experience on environmental aesthetic perceptions and teaching beliefs is 0.368 (0.747*0.492), and the confidence interval [0.297, 0.443] did not contain 0, which indicated that aesthetic experience exerted a mediation effect. Furthermore, the direct effect of environmental aesthetic perception on teaching beliefs was 0.513 with an overall effect of 0.881, which indicated that aesthetic experience partially mediated the relationship between environmental aesthetic perception and teaching beliefs (Table 4 and Fig. 3).

Table 4 Bootstrap (teaching beliefs).
Full size table
Fig. 3: The path analysis of the overall model related to schools’ environmental aesthetics perception, aesthetic experience, and teaching beliefs of teachers.
figure 3

SEM path analysis (teaching beliefs) ***p < 0.001. EAP environmental aesthetic perception, AE aesthetic experience, TB teaching beliefs.

Full size image

Environmental aesthetics perception of schools, aesthetic experience, and professional attitude

The results of the model suitability test are as follows: χ2/df = 2.413, RMSEA = 0.031, GFI = 0.977, AGFI = 0.970, SRMR = 0.020, CFI = 0.986, IFI = 0.986, NNFI = 0.973, PNFI = 0.833, PGFI = 0.841, and PCFI = 0.741, which pointed to good suitability (Table 2).

In terms of path analysis, the environmental aesthetics perception of teachers exerted a positive effect on aesthetic experience and professional attitude with path coefficients of 0.747 (p = 0.000) and 0.323 (p = 0.000), respectively. Moreover, aesthetic experience exerted a positive effect on professional attitude with a path coefficient of 0.646 (p = 0.000). The mediation effect analysis illustrates that the indirect effect of aesthetic experience on environmental aesthetic perception and professional attitude is 0.483 (0.747*,0.646) with a confidence interval of [0.367.581], which indicated that aesthetic experience exerted a mediation effect. Moreover, the direct effect of environmental aesthetic perception on professional attitude was 0.323 with an overall effect of 0.805, which indicated that aesthetic experience partially mediated the relationship between environmental aesthetic perception and professional attitude (Table 5 and Fig. 4).

Table 5 Bootstrap (professional attitude).
Full size table
Fig. 4: The path analysis of the overall model related to schools’ environmental aesthetics perception, aesthetic experience, and professional attitude of teachers.
figure 4

SEM path analysis (Professional Attitude) ***p < 0.001. EAP environmental aesthetic perception, AE aesthetic experience, PA professional attitude.

Full size image

Discussion

The results denote that the environmental aesthetics perception of teachers exerted a positive effect on aesthetic experience, which is consistent with the results of studies by Berleant (1997) and Brady and Prior (2020). Environmental aesthetics is how people admire and participate in the overall environment that provides the aesthetic experience (Berleant, 1997). Such an experience is generated by the interactions between individuals and the environment, which is derived from the everyday activities of people in the environment (Dewey, 2005). The idea of environmental aesthetics is natural, objective, and affirmative in aesthetics, which similarly applies to aesthetic experience (Rolston, 1988). Furthermore, the significance of aesthetic experience for the environment includes imaginative, emotional, and multisensory responses (Brady and Prior, 2020). Therefore, teachers can gain aesthetic experience from their perceptions of the environmental aesthetics of schools.

The perceptions of teachers about the environmental aesthetics of schools exert a positive impact on professional development as well as on attitudes toward teaching practice, teaching beliefs, and professional attitude (Attwood, 2020; Jurik et al., 2014; Yang, 2021). Yuan et al. (2017) proposed that an attitude toward, and value of, environmental knowledge and concern enhances the professional knowledge and competence of teachers as well as their teaching beliefs and the effectiveness of professional development. Additionally, Attwood (2020) pointed out that aesthetic education is placed in the environment and context, where environmental aesthetics provides an important meaning for education. As teachers play an essential role, they should enhance their aesthetic qualities, whereas environmental aesthetics can enhance the aesthetic and professional qualities of teachers (Yang, 2021). Consequently, the perceptions of teachers about the environmental aesthetics of schools are vital in promoting their professional development.

The aesthetic experience of teachers exerts positive effects on professional development, attitudes toward teaching practice, teaching beliefs, and professional attitude. This observation is aligned with those of Attwood (2020), Frawley (2013), and Wiebe et al. Beauty requires aesthetically competent experiencers (Cohen, 2012; Rolston, 1988); the support and expansion of aesthetic integration engender imaginative, flexible, and concrete teaching practices that enhance the professional development of teachers (Wiebe et al., 2007). Teachers can translate their aesthetic perceptions and experience into reality, apply them to the profession, undertake new methods to improve the practice, and reflect on experiences in the past or those to be experienced in the future to gain inspiration. Therefore, aesthetic experience can enhance professionalism, such that teachers should receive training in aesthetic education before and during teaching practice to gain aesthetic experience and enhance professional development (Attwood, 2020; Frawley, 2013; Oreck, 2004).

The aesthetic experience of teachers mediates the relationship between perceptions of the environmental aesthetics of schools and professional development, attitudes toward teaching practice, teaching beliefs, and professional attitude. In terms of the ecosystem, the natural environment presents objective and affirmative aesthetic qualities, which, similar to an aesthetic experience, are generated by “integrity, stability, and beauty” (Rolston, 1988, 2002). Additionally, environmental aesthetics is a source of inspiration for creativity (Williams and Harvey, 2001). Berleant (1997) states that environmental aesthetics is an experience of being part of the overall environment through appreciation and participation and that an aesthetic experience in nature is generated by sensory perception (Berleant, 2010; Saito, 1998). Additionally, aesthetic experience can serve as a mediator for teaching and learning because teachers can create meanings from symbols, surpass the restrictions of rules and norms to which they are accustomed, and open new horizons (Hong, 2012). Moreover, teachers can apply their thoughts on aesthetic experience in the curriculum, which will facilitate the realisation of educational goals and enable the transformation and development of teaching skills (Perkins, 1994). Therefore, aesthetic experience obtained from the perception of teachers about the environmental aesthetics of schools not only helps teachers grow in their attitudes toward teaching practice but also assists them in developing their beliefs and professional attitude toward teaching.

Conclusion

The perception of Chinese university teachers about environmental aesthetics helps augment the aesthetic experience and professional development. It also exerts positive effects on attitudes toward teaching practice, teaching beliefs, and professional attitude. Therefore, a better perception of the environmental aesthetics of schools among Chinese university teachers can fortify aesthetic experience and professional development. Second, aesthetic experience can enhance professional development; additionally, aesthetic experience exerts positive effects on attitudes toward teaching practice, teaching beliefs, and professional attitude, which indicates that the acquisition of aesthetic experience among Chinese teachers can benefit their professional development, such as in terms of teaching practice, teaching beliefs, and professional attitude. Finally, aesthetic experience exerts a mediating effect on the relationship between the environmental aesthetics of schools and the professional development of teachers. In turn, the aesthetic experience of teachers plays a mediating role in the relationship between the environmental aesthetics of schools and attitudes toward teaching practice, teaching beliefs, and professional attitude. In other words, the perception of Chinese university teachers about the environmental aesthetics of schools can strengthen their professional development through aesthetic experience. The conclusion demonstrates the importance of the environmental aesthetics of schools. Consequently, schools must focus on their environmental aesthetics to enhance the aesthetic experience gleaned by teachers and their professional development as well.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made based on the results and discussions. First, schools should construct a campus with beautiful, harmonious, and naturally diverse environmental aesthetics, which can include diverse natural landscapes and environments that are surprising, enjoyable, revitalising, harmonious, and appropriate for the local (surrounding) environment (Attwood, 2020; Yang, 2021; Yuan et al., 2017). Second, schools should emphasise the aesthetic experience of teachers, which can be transformed into teaching skills in the curriculum (Perkins, 1994), and consolidate the professionalism of teachers (Attwood, 2020). Moreover, aesthetic experience includes understanding and analysing aspects of beauty, accepting and appreciating multiple cultures and diverse ideas, and sharing beautiful experiences with others, all of which can be applied to attitudes toward teaching practice to strengthen teaching beliefs and professional attitude and promote professional development. The study also reveals the importance of aesthetics to professional development (Oreck, 2004; Wiebe et al., 2007). Additionally, with the current emphasis on the aesthetic education of students, teachers should receive training in aesthetics education to employ it in their teaching (Attwood, 2020; Frawley, 2013).

This study presents the following suggestions for future research. First, when exploring the environmental aesthetics of schools, future research can evaluate the environmental aesthetics of schools to determine whether the surveyed school is environmentally aesthetic and to avoid the subjective perceptions of respondents, which may point to misleading results. Second, environmental aesthetics and aesthetic experience are related to sustainable development. Hence, discussions on sustainability can also be included in future research to explore the relationship between environmental aesthetics, aesthetic experience, and sustainable development. Subsequent studies could also compare the effects of the environmental aesthetics of schools on the professional development of teachers to elucidate whether schools with better environmental aesthetics better enhance professional development for teachers. However, the questionnaire survey conducted in this study only investigated how teachers perceived their professional development, without arriving at an understanding of whether positive effects on teaching practice were truly achieved. Given this limitation, future research may want to explore whether applying the sense of aesthetics to actual teaching practices, curricula, or other areas of professional development by teachers could be of substantive help.