c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 189
Experiences of Slovenian In-Service Primary School 
Teachers and Students of Grades 4 and 5 with Outdoor 
Lessons in the Subject Science and Technology 
Maruša Novljan
1
 and Jerneja Pavlin*
2
• The present paper presents the results of a survey on outdoor lessons con -
ducted by teachers of the subject Science and T echnology in the 4
th
 and 5
th
 
grades of primary school in the school’s vicinity. It examines differences 
between teachers themselves and between teachers and students, as well 
as the ideas and limitations of outdoor lessons. The study included 70 in-
service primary school teachers of the 4
th
 and 5
th
 grades and 154 students 
of the 4
th
 grade and 151 students of the 5
th
 grade of primary school. The 
data were obtained with two questionnaires: an e-questionnaire for teach -
ers and a paper-pencil questionnaire for students. The results show that 13 
per cent of teaching time in the subject Science and Technology consists 
of outdoor lessons. Statistically significant differences were found between 
teachers with different amounts of teaching experience, while differences 
in the quantity of outdoor lessons did not arise among teachers of differ -
ent school strata and among teachers who had an early experience with 
outdoor lessons in the vicinity of school themselves as students compared 
to teachers who had no such experience. The teachers had several specific 
and general ideas for outdoor activities for the thematic sets of the Science 
and Technology curriculum and reported similar difficulties in planning 
outdoor lessons to those reported in other countries. The results of the 
research show that the teachers report the use of outdoor lessons in the 
vicinity of school more often than recalled by the students. The students 
reported that such activities typically take place about twice a year, mostly 
in playgrounds, meadows, and forests. The results provide an insight into 
the state of the teachers’ initiatives for outdoor lessons in the subject Sci -
ence and Technology and indirectly offer opportunities to reflect and act 
on outdoor lessons from different perspectives.
 Keywords: outdoor lesson, primary school, the subject Science and 
Technology, teachers’ experiences, students’ experiences 
1 Nove Jarše Elementary School, Slovenia.
2 *Corresponding Author. Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia; 
 jerneja.pavlin@pef.uni-lj.si.
doi: 10.26529/cepsj.919

190 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
Izkušnje slovenskih učiteljev in učencev 4. in 5. razreda 
osnovne šole s poukom na prostem pri predmetu 
naravoslovje in tehnika
Maruša Novljan in Jerneja Pavlin
• Ta prispevek predstavlja izsledke raziskave o pouku na prostem pri 
predmetu naravoslovje in tehnika v 4. in 5. razredu osnovne šole v oko -
lici šole. Preučuje razlike med učitelji ter med učitelji in učenci pa tudi 
ideje in omejitve pouka na prostem. V raziskavo je bilo vključenih 70 
učiteljev 4. in 5. razreda ter 154 učencev 4. razreda in 151 učencev 5. ra -
zreda osnovne šole. Podatki so bili pridobljeni z dvema vprašalnikoma: 
e-vprašalnikom za učitelje in z vprašalnikom tipa papir – svinčnik za 
učence. Učitelji navajajo, da 13 odstotkov časa pri predmetu naravoslovje 
in tehnika predstavlja pouk na prostem. Statistično pomembne razlike 
so bile ugotovljene med učitelji z različno količino izkušenj s poučeva -
njem, medtem ko se razlike v količini pouka na prostem niso odrazile 
med učitelji glede na stratum šole in učitelji, ki so imeli kot učenci zgo -
dnje izkušnje s poukom na prostem v bližini šole, v primerjavi z učitelji, 
ki niso imeli takšnih izkušenj. Učitelji so imeli več specifičnih in splo -
šnih idej za dejavnosti na prostem za tematske sklope iz učnega načrta 
za predmet naravoslovje in tehnika in so poročali o podobnih težavah 
pri načrtovanju pouka na prostem, kot so zaznane v tujih virih. Rezul -
tati raziskave kažejo, da učitelji pogosteje poročajo o uporabi pouka na 
prostem v bližini šole, kot so ga učenci zaznavajo. Učenci so poročali, da 
se takšne dejavnosti običajno odvijajo približno dvakrat letno, večino -
ma na igriščih, travnikih in v gozdovih. Rezultati omogočajo vpogled v 
stanje pouka na prostem pri predmetu naravoslovje in tehnika ter po -
sredno ponujajo priložnosti za razmislek in ukrepanje glede pouka na 
prostem z različnih vidikov.
 Ključne besede: pouk na prostem, osnovna šola, predmet naravoslovje 
in tehnika, izkušnje učiteljev, izkušnje učencev

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 191
Introduction
Today’s children spend too much time sitting (playing computer games, 
using social networks, online learning, watching TV , etc.) (Bank & Greve, 2013; 
Štemberger, 2012). School should ensure that students are as active as possible 
in their classes. Ceciliani and Bortolotti (2013) report that students are mainly 
active outdoors, engaging in activities, such as walking, socialising, and similar. 
They move in the manner that the natural environment enables them to move, 
even if no toys are available. If students do not have the tools to move in a 
certain way, e.g., by walking, they engage with natural objects (pebbles, sand, 
small sticks, etc.). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that outdoor learning 
positively influences children’s wellbeing (health, immune system), creativity 
and teamwork (DfES, 2006). It is therefore important that students acquire new 
knowledge and skills not only in the classroom but also outdoors.
The term ‘learning outdoors’ indicates that learning takes place outside of 
buildings. Such a definition of outdoor learning is endorsed by many authors, who 
provide a more precise definition of the term. Outdoor learning is teaching and 
learning with an emphasis on multisensory experiences (Gilbertson et al., 2006), 
and it is a concept involving educational activities in a different environment. The 
English Outdoor Council (n. d.) describes outdoor learning as a physical activity 
related to the natural environment. Outdoor learning does not include activities 
such as visiting museums and art galleries or physical education (Rickinson et al., 
2004). However, Tuuling et al. (2018) report that outdoor learning is most often 
perceived by teachers as a free activity or play outdoors rather than as learning. 
The authors emphasise that outdoor learning can also be a kind of journey involv -
ing trying out, smelling and touching objects in the ‘home’ environment.
Gilbertson et al . (2006) emphasise that the place of outdoor learning 
is the outside world away from the classroom. Classes are taught outdoors or 
in an environment that is physically different from the classroom (Peacock & 
Pratt, 2009). Local spaces such as farms, beehives, hunting lodges, botanical 
gardens, parks or the schoolyard support teachers by making it easier to or -
ganise learning outdoors in locations that are readily accessible (MacQuarrie, 
2016). Teachers can organise outdoor learning for only a few minutes (motiva -
tion for class), for one school lesson (learning new content), for several school 
lessons, for one day (outdoor classroom day) or for several days (camp), but the 
duration of outdoor learning also affects the teacher’s organisation: the longer 
the outdoor learning lasts, the more difficult it is to plan. Research carried out 
in Scotland (Nicol et al., 2007) reports that students study outdoors for ap -
proximately 19 minutes every week. Waite (2011) found that the majority (80%) 

192 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
of students (6–11 years) perceive that they are physically active outdoors every 
week or at intervals of several weeks. In organising outdoor learning, teachers 
can also consider cross-curricular integration of the mother tongue, mathemat -
ics, the physical environment, and similar., as Tuuling et al. (2018) found in 
their research. Šebjanič and Skribe Dimec (2019) point out that outdoor learn -
ing makes children curious and does not bore them. 
Furthermore, students should be equipped with skills that can be trans -
ferred to later life. The effective organisation of outdoor learning is possible if 
the teacher likes to be outdoors, is creative and interacts with different people 
(foresters, beekeepers, farmers, etc.). However, Skribe Dimec and Kokalj (2018) 
suggest involving students in planning activities for outdoor programmes, 
making them more motivated, creative, and focused.
Outdoor lessons have both positive and negative sides. The positive sides 
of learning outdoors are reflected in various aspects of the child’s development. 
Physical activity outdoors improves children’s manual skills, coordination, bal -
ance, and physical activity. Students become more relaxed when learning or 
playing spontaneously, which leads to better attention, more motivation and 
faster perception (promotion of a higher level of knowledge), thus improving 
student success and performance (Fiskum & Jacobsen, 2012). Some research -
ers (Gill, 2014; Mygind, 2009; Rickinson et al., 2004; Sjöblom & Svens, 2019; 
Waite, 2010) report that students are more relaxed when playing, resulting in 
group trust, connection, and participation. Children are dynamic while learn -
ing outdoors, constantly changing the environment they explore to satisfy their 
curiosity (Tovey, 2008). Malone (2008) also argues that outdoor learning has 
a positive impact on children’s learning and supports healthy children’s devel -
opment. Also, outdoor learning is expected to influence cognitive (learning), 
physical (physical experience), social (social interaction), emotional (emotion -
al wellbeing) and personal (the child’s response) development. 
Outdoor lessons use individual teaching methods and offer opportu -
nities for rich interdisciplinary connections/learning in the open air in a real 
environment (Beames et al., 2012; Potočnik & Devetak, 2019; Štemberger, 2012). 
It is also possible to include ICT, including as apps such as the Woody Species 
Identification Digital Dichotomous Key (Laganis et al., 2017). Outdoor learning 
plays a key role in educating young people about our planet and thus in provid -
ing environmental education. The English Outdoor Council (n. d.) notes that 
such learning makes it easier for students to understand the importance of na -
ture conservation better. Outdoor learning develops the students’ understand -
ing of the importance of sustainable development (Beames et al., 2012; English 
Outdoor Council, n. d.; Torkar, 2013; Torkar et al., 2020). 

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 193
However, Skribe Dimec and Kokalj (2018) emphasise that Slovenian 
teachers, parents, and students are not sufficiently aware of the positive aspects 
and opportunities of outdoor learning. The negative aspects of outdoor learn -
ing are primarily economic concerns (professionalism of teachers, literature), 
limited time, and the number of teachers required to ensure the safety and 
health of children (Jeronen & Jeronen, 2012), especially with regard to weather 
and the overcrowding of curricula (Rickinson et al., 2004; MacQuarrie, 2016). 
Numerous authors have proposed strategies to avoid the negative aspects. For 
example, Barker et al. (2002) suggest that outdoor learning could be conducted 
at shorter intervals and last for a longer period. Tuuling et al. (2018) found that 
outdoor learning was not effective when there was noise, traffic, or other chil -
dren in the playground. They pointed out the following negative factors regard -
ing outdoor teaching: lack of time, lack of outdoor lesson space, lack of equip -
ment for outdoor work, lack of knowledge and experience of teachers, and lack 
of safety (ticks, stray dogs, etc.). The outdoor groups of students in many Finn -
ish schools are often large; therefore, some students do not feel comfortable 
due to differences in learning and phobias (Jeronen & Jeronen, 2012). It has 
been pointed out that teachers prefer traditional teaching and do not consider 
research showing students’ reactions to outdoor learning. However, Walan and 
Chang Rundgren (2014) noted that curricular changes could lead to teachers 
becoming aware of science knowledge and the need for further education.
As mentioned above, outdoor lessons have both positive and negative 
aspects, but there are many projects (e.g., the day out) that help the teacher 
organise outdoor lessons more quickly and easily. Outdoor Classroom Day is 
when many teachers in different countries use a tree instead of classical boards, 
grass instead of chairs, and so on. The project aims to spend at least one hour 
outdoors with students (Outdoor Classroom Day, 2020). Fägerstam (2013) re -
ports on a project in which teachers were questioned at the beginning of the 
project and after one year. It was found that the project teachers had more ideas 
for outdoor lesson activities and that they found learning with all of the senses 
more effective because the students were enthusiastic about the unusual space 
during outdoor learning. Policymakers designing curricula must also consider 
the initiatives of teachers and students in order to provide them with a more 
focused, playful and natural environment (Gill, 2014). The European Social 
Fund allows EU Member States to receive funding for such initiatives, so many 
updates and adaptions in outdoor education are expected (Skribe Dimec & 
Kokalj, 2018).

194 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
The Slovenian school system and the integration of 
outdoor learning 
This study on outdoor lessons refers to the Slovenian school system. Stu -
dents enter compulsory schooling at the age of six years. Primary school has 
nine grades, of which five correspond to the primary level (grades 1–5) and 
four to the lower secondary level (grades 6–9 in other countries). The Council 
of Experts for General Education in Slovenia approves the national curricula 
and determines the subjects and the curricula of the subjects, but the choice of 
teaching methods and textbooks is left to the teachers (MIZŠ, 2018; Taštanoska, 
2017). Students start to learn about the world of science, technology, and society 
through the subject Environmental Studies (Kolar et al., 2011). In the 4
th
 and 5
th
 
grades (students aged 9 and 10), they deepen their knowledge in the subject Sci -
ence and Technology and the subject Society (Vodopivec et al., 2011). 
Outdoor lessons are integrated into the national curriculum for primary 
and secondary schools in Slovenia. On the organisational level, they are main -
ly implemented through activity days (15 days) and outdoor school (Skribe 
Dimec, 2019; Dnevi dejavnosti, 1998). Three activity days with science activities 
are prescribed for grades 4 and 5, each with five school hours. Most schools 
conduct science activities outside the school area, but activities do not have to 
take place outside: an activity day can also take place in a museum, gallery, or 
similar. Outdoor school is also part of the compulsory curriculum. It lasts three 
or more days in a row and takes place away from the school area. The school 
must organise outdoor school at least twice in the nine years of primary school 
(Gros et al., 2001). In Slovenia, outdoor school usually takes place in CŠOD 
(Centre for School and Outdoor Education) centres, where it is executed by 
external contractors (Šebjanič & Skribe Dimec, 2019). 
As mentioned above, the subject Science and Technology is taught in 
grades 4 and 5, with a total of 105 school hours per school year (Vodopivec et al., 
2011). The general objective of the Science and T echnology curriculum emphasis -
es the need for students to gain experience in the field of soft scientific and techni -
cal research appropriate for school students. This indicates that, according to the 
abilities and age of students, outdoor learning is an essential part of the subject.
In the subject Science and Technology, students must have the oppor -
tunity to learn experientially. Teachers can provide time in various natural and 
artificial environments, where students can make observations using simple 
aids. At the same time, they learn about natural processes and phenomena, ask -
ing themselves questions and finding answers through experiments. Students 
experience some natural (not dependent on human intervention) and artificial 

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 195
(dependent on human intervention) systems by directly observing how they 
work and how they are composed (Vodopivec et al., 2011).
The Science and T echnology curriculum also includes operational learn -
ing objectives (compulsory and optional) and content under five thematic sets: 
Matter, Forces and Motion, Phenomena, Humans, and Living Beings. (Table 1). 
The large number of operational objectives is not reflected in a large number 
of content areas. However, the operational learning objectives do not indicate 
whether the objective can be achieved through outdoor learning. This dem -
onstrates how important it is for the teacher to read the curriculum and know 
the content of general didactics and special didactics. A well-qualified teacher 
can find an opportunity to plan outdoor lessons and determine their location 
(Pečar et al., 2020). 
Table 1
Number of operational learning objectives and listed content areas for each 
specific thematic set of the Science and Technology curriculum 
Thematic set Matter
Forces and 
Motion Phenomena Humans
Living 
Beings
Number of 
operational 
objectives
57 
(48*+9**)
34 (29*+5**)
52 
(39*+13**)
32 
(27*+5**)
40 
(28*+12**)
Number of 
content areas
12 
(12*)
16 (13*+3**)
12 
(9*+3**)
15 
(15*) (13*)
Note. *Compulsory learning objectives; **Optional learning objectives. Adapted from Vodopivec et al., 
2011.
Research problem and research questions
In Slovenia, the study of various aspects of outdoor learning is increas -
ing, especially at the primary level. For example, a search using the COBISS 
library cataloguing system on 10 September 2020 for the keywords in Slovenian 
‘outdoor education’ ( pouk na prostem ) and ‘primary level’ ( razredni pouk ) re -
turned 159 graduation theses, 23 master’s theses and one doctoral thesis. When 
the search was narrowed with the addition of the keyword ‘science’ ( nara -
voslovje ), four graduation theses and three master’s theses were returned. The 
data search was done by checking documents and not only the keywords listed 
in the documents.
The ‘science’ graduation and master’s theses describe various aspects 
of outdoor learning, with a description and evaluation of activities outdoors, 

196 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
learning pathways, CŠOD centre activities, working in combined classes with 
an emphasis on elementary science, and making use of natural resources in 
the surroundings of the specific primary school. The authors note that the im -
mediate surroundings of the school play an important role in non-obligatory 
outdoor lessons. To the best of our knowledge, there is no Slovenian study 
about the quantity of non-obligatory outdoor lessons in the subject Science 
and T echnology, nor about the perception of outdoor lessons from the perspec -
tive of teachers and students. Therefore, we wanted to investigate the extent of 
outdoor Science and Technology classes in the vicinity of school in the 4
th
 and 
5
th
 grades of primary school, focusing on classes that are not compulsory, are 
not part of outdoor activity days or school outdoors, and are not part of formal 
out-of-school programmes, which are often led by staff from outdoor centres 
and can take place in CŠOD centres. In addition, we wanted to investigate the 
differences between teachers in terms of the location of the school, the teachers’ 
work experience, and their own early experience of outdoor lessons (when they 
were primary school students) compared to their current teaching. The study 
also focuses on identifying the status of the organisation of outdoor lessons in 
the vicinity of school and the identification of outdoor lessons in the school 
environment by students and their views on such lessons.
As described in The Slovenian School System and the Integration of Out -
door Learning , the Science and Technology curriculum does not determine the 
number of hours spent outdoors (Vodopivec et al., 2011). Therefore, our study 
aimed to investigate the status of non-compulsory outdoor lessons in the vicin -
ity of the school (which are not part of science day activities or outdoor school) 
and to compare the results with the location of the school where the teachers 
teach, as well as the teachers’ level of teaching experience and their early expe -
riences with outdoor lessons (during their own schooling). Other aims were 
to examine the teachers’ ideas and identify barriers with content prescribed in 
the curriculum and evaluate the students’ experiences of outdoor lessons in the 
school environment.
With regard to the research aims, the following research questions (RQs) 
were addressed:
RQ1:  How frequently do teachers teach specific thematic sets from the Science 
and Technology curriculum as outdoor lessons, and how much time is 
devoted to such teaching in total?  
RQ2:  Are there statistically significant differences between teachers in the time 
devoted to outdoor lessons in the vicinity of the school in Science and 
Technology regarding: a) the location of the school, b) the teachers’ work 
experience, and c) the teachers’ own experience in their early years? 

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 197
RQ3:  Are there differences between the specific and general ideas of teachers 
regarding conducting outdoor lessons in the vicinity of the school and 
the thematic sets written in the Science and Technology curriculum? 
RQ4:  With which thematic sets from the Science and Technology curriculum 
do teachers have more difficulties in preparing outdoor lessons in the 
vicinity of school?
RQ5:  How often and where do students perceive outdoor lessons in the vicin -
ity of the school in the subject of Science and Technology?
RQ6:  Which topics are of interest to students with regard to conducting out -
door lessons in the vicinity of the school in the subject Science and 
Technology?  
Method
The study used a descriptive pedagogical research method and a quan -
titative research approach.
Sample
An email with a link to an online anonymous questionnaire was sent 
to the headmasters of all Slovenian primary schools (451) with an email ad -
dress publicly available on their websites and forwarded to teachers. A total of 
70 in-service primary school teachers working with 4
th
 and 5
th
 grade students 
responded positively and participated in the study. In addition, 21 randomly 
selected primary schools were requested to gather data about 4
th
 and 5
th
 grade 
students’ experiences with outdoor lessons. Of these, six schools gained the ap -
proval of school management and parents, resulting in 26 classrooms respond -
ing positively to the request. A total of 305 students from all statistical regions 
of Slovenia completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire: 154 fourth-grade stu -
dents and 151 fifth-grade students. The teachers were not pre-selected. 
Data collection
The data were collected using an electronic questionnaire in Slovenian 
for teachers and a paper-and-pencil questionnaire for students. Both question -
naires were designed for the purpose of the study. The existing literature was 
first reviewed. Based on the set of research questions, pilot versions of the in -
struments were prepared and reviewed by two independent science educators. 
The questions were then modified, pilot-tested (the teacher questionnaire on 
five fellow teachers and the student questionnaire on five students) and adapted. 
The instrument used descriptive categories and appropriate Likert scales. Both 

198 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
questionnaires included a definition of the term outdoor lessons as lessons that 
take place outside the classroom, outdoors, in the natural environment; they 
take place in the vicinity of the school, and do not include lessons during nature 
and technology days, visits to the zoo, botanical garden, museums, or similar.
The teacher questionnaire contained 19 questions, divided into three 
parts. The first part of the questionnaire contained four closed-ended questions 
about the respondent (gender, class taught, years of teaching experience, and 
location of the school). The second part included four closed-ended questions, 
one open-ended question and one semi-open question, all asking about out -
door lessons. In the third part, four closed-ended questions, two open-ended 
questions and three semi-open questions asked about the content of outdoor 
lessons in the vicinity of the school, as required by the Science and Technology 
curriculum.
The student questionnaire was divided into three parts. Three closed-
ended questions asked about gender, class, and the location of the school. Two 
semi-open questions and one open-ended question inquired about outdoor les -
sons in the school environment, and three open-ended questions were about 
the students’ specific experience of outdoor lessons in the school environment.
Data analysis
The anonymity of the data was guaranteed for research purposes when 
processing the data. The data was collected in Microsoft Office Excel and sta -
tistically processed in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Basic 
statistics were used to describe the distribution of the individual variables. De -
scriptive statistics were used to describe the data: M arithmetic mean, SD stan -
dard deviation, N  number of teachers/students, and f (%) (relative) frequency 
of occurrence of each answer . The associations between the individual variables 
were calculated using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test and the Kullback 
2Î-test to explain the relationship between the quantity of outdoor lessons in 
the vicinity of the school and the school location or the level of work experi -
ence or early years’ experience with outdoor lessons (Pallant, 2011). Because the 
Mann-Whitney test works by examining differences in the ranked positions of 
scores in different groups, the values of mean ranks ( MR) are added. The statis -
tical hypotheses were tested with an alpha error rate of 5%. To describe whether 
the effects have a relevant magnitude, the effect size measure eta squared  was 
used to describe the strength of a phenomenon. Benchmarks to define small 
(.01), medium (.06) and large (.14) effects were provided by Cohen (1988).
The answers to the open-ended questions were analysed qualitatively 
and quantitatively. Two researchers (i.e., the authors of the present paper) 

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 199
independently read the answers several times, identifying the thoughts with 
the most important meanings and assigning codes. The coding played a crucial 
role in analysing the data, as it enabled their organisation and interpretation 
through the similarities and differences of the answers. The codes were grouped 
into categories based on the study’s research questions and objectives (Vogrinc, 
2008). Cross-checking showed a high degree of agreement between the codes 
assigned by the two researchers: 98% of the codes were the same, and the au -
thors discussed the remaining cases and reached a compromise.
Results and discussion 
The results and discussion are presented according to the research 
questions.
RQ1: How frequently do teachers teach specific thematic sets from the 
Science and Technology curriculum as outdoor lessons, and how much 
time is devoted to such teaching in total?  
When asked what proportion of Science and Technology hours are 
taught as outdoor lessons in the vicinity of the school, 39.1% of the 69 (one 
respondent did not reply to this question) 4
th
- and 5
th
-grade teachers answered 
that they spend 10 out of 105 hours in the subject Science and Technology do -
ing outdoor lessons in the school environment (Table 2). Some 66.5% of the 
teachers answered that they teach 10% or less of the subject as outdoor lessons, 
while 33.1% answered that they teach more than 10% as outdoor lessons. If we 
compare these responses with the hours required by the Science and Technol -
ogy curriculum (105 hours), we find that teachers spend 10.5 hours doing out -
door lessons. While less than a third (27.4%) of the 4
th
- and 5
th
-grade teachers 
responded that they offer fewer than 10 hours of outdoor lessons in the school 
environment, 33.1% responded that they offer more than 10 hours of outdoor 
lessons (Table 2).

200 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
Table 2
Teachers’ responses to the question about the extent of outdoor school-based 
lessons within the subject Science and Technology
The quantity of outdoor lessons in the vicinity of school 
as a percentage of total time for the subject
f f %
Hours of curriculum 
(out of 105)
2 1 1.4 2.1
3 2 2.9 3.2
5 15 21.7 5.3
8 1 1.4 8.4
10 27 39.1 10.5
15 1 1.4 15.8
20 11 15.9 21.0
25 1 1.4 26.3
30 9 13.0 31.5
40 1 1.4 42.0
Total 69 100.0
The mean of teachers’ responses regarding the extent of outdoor lessons 
in the subject Science and Technology is 13.49% ( SD = 9.03%), which means 
that on average, teachers spend 14 of the 105 total hours required by the Sci -
ence and Technology curriculum outside. The range was from 4.46% to 22.52%, 
which means the respondents spent between 5 and 24 hours outdoors in the 
vicinity of the school.
The teachers’ answers refer to the entire school year, which has 35 weeks. 
If 14 school hours (with a duration of 45 minutes) per school year are spent 
learning outdoors in the vicinity of the school, this means that outdoor Science 
and Technology lessons are typically held once or twice a month (18 minutes 
per week). Research by Waite (2011) shows that students have outdoor physical 
activities at least once per week, but it should be noted that the research does 
not specify whether this relates exclusively to the subject Science and Technol -
ogy or whether it involves another subject (e.g., sport). Nicol et al. (2007) report 
that students in a study on Scottish primary schools spent a total of 19 minutes 
per week outdoors in a variety of subjects, which means that the percentage in 
Slovenia for just one subject is higher. However, the percentage sometimes does 
not reveal the complete picture, as there are always some teachers who teach 
outdoors very little, while a few do so very often, as shown in Table 2.
Moreover, from Table 3, it is evident that teachers rarely teach content 
from the thematic set Living Beings outdoors, while content from the other 
four thematic sets is sometimes taught as outdoor lessons.

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 201
Table 3
Frequency of outdoor lessons for a particular thematic set from the Science and 
Technology curriculum on a 5-point Likert scale (1 is never and 5 is always)
Thematic Set Matter Forces and Motion Phenomena Humans Living Beings
M 2.69 2.94 2.96 2.35 2.97
SD .75 1.08 .96 .94 1.03
RQ2: Are there statistically significant differences between teachers 
in the time devoted to outdoor lessons in the vicinity of the school in 
Science and Technology regarding: a) the location of the school, b) the 
teachers’ work experience, and c) the teachers’ own experience in their 
early years? 
The data collected showed that teachers in rural schools devoted more 
time to outdoor lessons in the vicinity of the school than teachers in urban 
schools did (Table 4). However, there are no statistically significant differences 
(U = 446.500, p = .077) between rural and urban schools in the quantity of 
outdoor lessons taught in the subject Science and Technology. Vidmar (2016) 
argues that the location of the school in Slovenia does not influence the need 
for a school garden, which could confirm that the location does not play a role 
in the quantity of outdoor activities, as shown in our study.
Table 4
The average percentage of time that the subject Science and Technology is taught 
outdoors in the vicinity of the school according to the location of the school
School Location N M [%] SD [%] MR
Rural school 28 15.54 10.12 40.57
Urban school 42 11.81 8.16 32.12
From the results presented in Table 5, we can conclude that the majority 
of teachers (81.8%) with up to five years of teaching experience teach 0–10% 
of the total subject hours as outdoor learning in the vicinity of the school. In 
contrast, 45.8% of more experienced teachers, who have taught for more than 
15 years, report that the proportion of outdoor lessons is greater than 10%. The 
results of Kullback’s 2Î-test revealed statistically significant differences with a 
high effect size (2Î = 13.550, g = 6, p = .035, =.194) between the years of teaching 
experience of the 4
th
- and 5
th
-grade teachers in terms of the extent of outdoor 

202 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
lessons in the subject Science and Technology: teachers with more teaching 
experience conduct outdoor lessons more often. The results are consistent with 
a study by Harlen and Holroyd (1997), who argue that work experience plays 
an important role in teachers’ self-esteem. The more work experience teachers 
have, the greater their self-confidence (Walan & Chang Rundgren, 2014). 
Table 5
The quantity of outdoor lessons expressed as a percentage of time in the Science 
and technology curriculum according to years of teaching experience
Quantity of outdoor lessons in the vicinity of the 
school
0–10% 11–20% 21–30% Over 40 % Total 
Years of teaching 
experience
0–5 years
f 9 1 1 0 11
f % 81.8 9.1 9.1 .0 100.0
5–15 years
f 11 0 0 0 11
f % 100.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0
Over 15 years
f 26 11 10 1 48
f % 54.2 22.9 20.8 2.1 100.0
Total
f 46 12 11 1 70
f % 65.7 17.1 15.7 1.4 100.0
Table 6 shows that about half of the teachers surveyed experienced out -
door lessons in their early years, meaning that they remember having outdoor 
lessons themselves as primary school students. Rogoff’s theory, which was 
confirmed in 1990, states that early experiences should influence further belief 
(Blatt & Patrick, 2014). Hawley and Gunner (2000) argue that knowledge, at -
titudes, and social skills in later life depend on early childhood experiences. 
Klofutar et al. (2020) report that direct outdoor experiences lead to a greater 
increase and persistence of acquired skills. Tomažič and Vidic (2013) also re -
port that early experiences are of great importance in shaping lifelong attitudes. 
Vidmar (2016) notes that nearly half of classroom teachers (45.8%) had experi -
ence gardening before primary education. According to Vidmar (2016), teach -
ers with early experience are more in favour of school gardens than teachers 
without early gardening experience. A study by Shume and Blatt (2019) also 
shows the importance of participants’ youthful experiences in the outdoors for 
their positive intentions with regard to taking students outside. In our case, 
however, the Mann-Whitney U-test did not show statistically significant dif -
ferences ( U = 552.500, p = .878) between teachers with early experiences of 

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 203
outdoor lessons and those without such experiences with regard to the quantity 
of outdoor lessons. 
Table 6
The average percentage of time that the subject Science and Technology is taught 
outdoors in the vicinity of school according to the teacher’s early experience with 
outdoor lessons
Teacher’s early experience N M [%] SD [%] MR
Yes 33 13.97 10.73 32.17
No 31 12.48 7.18 32.85
RQ3: Are there differences between the specific and general ideas 
of teachers regarding conducting outdoor lessons in the vicinity of 
school and the thematic sets written in the Science and Technology 
curriculum? 
The teachers’ responses to ideas for specific content from the thematic 
sets in the Science and Technology curriculum were divided into two catego -
ries. One category was specific ideas, (i.e., teachers wrote down an activity that 
they could or could not carry out with students outdoors in the school’s vicin -
ity). The second category was general ideas (i.e., ideas that teachers wrote down 
that could be implemented outdoors in the vicinity of school for specific con -
tent). This included all of the answers given by teachers. For example, a sugges -
tion written by one teacher as a general idea was the movement of a car, while 
another teacher proposed the specific idea of measuring the distance travelled 
by a car on different surfaces (grass, asphalt, macadam, etc.). 
Ideas for outdoor activities (Table 7) that teachers could carry out in the 
vicinity of the school were provided by the teachers with regard to all of the 
thematic sets of the Science and T echnology curriculum. The teachers provided 
the most ideas for outdoor lessons, both specific and general, in the thematic 
set Forces and Motion (54 ideas). They wrote the most specific ideas (29 ideas) 
in the thematic set Phenomena and the most general ideas in the thematic set 
Living Beings (32 ideas). Comparing the results from Tables 3 and 7, we find 
the lowest number of ideas written in the thematic set Humans, which is re -
flected in the rare implementation of outdoor lessons for this thematic set. For 
the other four thematic sets, the number of all of the ideas listed and the fre -
quency of outdoor lessons are more similar. However, counting the curriculum 
items presented in Table 1 shows that a smaller number of operational learning 

204 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
objectives are listed in the thematic set Humans, which is reflected in the lowest 
number of ideas for outdoor lessons. 
Table 7
Teachers’ ideas for each specific thematic set of outdoor lessons in the subject 
Science and Technology
Matter
Forces and 
Motion Phenomena Humans
Living 
Beings
f f % f f % f f % f v % f f %
Specific ideas 28 52.8 27 50.0 29 59.2 15 38.5 18 36.0
General ideas 25 47.2 27 50.0 20 40.8 24 61.5 32 64.0
Total 53 100.0 54 100.0 49 100.0 39 100.0 50 100.0
When researching outdoor lesson activities, we often find biology-relat -
ed activities; for example, Blatt and Patrick (2014) describe an outdoor lesson 
activity that focuses on how photosynthesis can be taught to students through 
experience rather than through diagrams. When we look at the Internet, we 
find that many websites (Bocks, 2018; Education.com, 2012; Hamid, 2018; Out -
door Classroom Day, 2020; Teach Junkie, 2017) offer the outdoor lesson activi -
ties described above, but most of these activities are biology-related. Outdoor 
lesson activities include driving a small car faster (Teach Junkie, 2017), making 
bird food and finding micro-animals (Outdoor Classroom Day, 2020; Educa -
tion.com, 2012; Hamid, 2018).
The reason that one may find several biology-related ideas for outdoors 
lessons on the Internet in English, even though the authors’ country has a 
similar curriculum for the subject science, might lie in the fact that primary 
school teachers have an affinity for biology content. This can also be identified 
in the more common difficulties that pre-service and in-service primary school 
teachers face in their knowledge and understanding of chemistry and physics 
content (Juriševič et al., 2008; Lelliott & Rollnick, 2010; National Curriculum in 
England, 2013; Pavlin & Čepič, 2015). The other reason for the number of biolo -
gy ideas for outdoor lessons on the Internet may be that in some countries, sci -
ence education in the lower grades used to focus on biological sciences, while 
physics and chemistry were only included in the primary school curriculum to 
a limited extent (Kinnunen et al., 2016). 

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 205
RQ4: With which thematic sets from the Science and Technology 
curriculum do teachers have more difficulties in preparing outdoor 
lessons in the vicinity of school?
The Slovenian in-service primary school teachers surveyed either re -
ported difficulties with certain content or stated that they had no difficulties 
with outdoor lessons. Their responses were then coded into individual cod -
ing units (guidance, safety, time limit, space, weather conditions, curriculum 
overload, material limitations, organisation, etc., as well as no problems). The 
results presented in Table 8 show that teachers reported the most difficulties 
with the thematic set Substances (64 teachers) from the Science and Technol -
ogy curriculum. Only four teachers reported that they had no problems with 
the content of the thematic set Humans, while 30 teachers reported that they 
had difficulties with outdoor lessons in the vicinity of the school. The teachers’ 
problems with outdoor lessons were very general, which corresponds to obser -
vations found in the literature (Barker et al., 2002; Rickinson et al., 2004; Tuul -
ing et al., 2018; Waite, 2010). For example, Rickinson et al. (2004) and Barker et 
al. (2002) list accompaniment and limited time as limitations, while Tuuling et 
al. (2018) also list safety, material limitations, and space.
Table 8
Teachers’ difficulties according to the thematic sets of the Science and Technology 
curriculum in the field of outdoor lessons in the vicinity of the school
Thematic Set Substances 
Force and 
Motion Phenomena Humans
Living 
Beings Total 
Teacher’s difficulty f f % f f % f f % f f % f f % f f %
Guidance 12 18.5 8 16.3 6 12.8 6 20.1 9 21.4 41 100.0
Safety 6 9.3 8 16.3 5 10.6 5 16.7 7 16.7 31 100.0
Time limit 7 10.7 6 12.2 10 21.3 3 10.0 5 11.9 31 100.0
Space 11 16.9 5 10.2 4 8.5 4 13.3 6 14.3 30 100.0
Weather conditions 2 3.1 2 4.1 6 12.8 1 3.3 1 2.4 12 100.0
Curriculum overload 2 3.1 0 0.0 1 2.2 0 .0 0 .0 3 100.0
Material  limitations 12 18.5 10 20.4 6 12.8 0 .0 4 9.5 32 100.0
Organisation 5 7.7 2 4.1 5 10.6 4 13.3 4 9.5 20 100.0
Other 7 10.7 5 10.2 2 4.2 3 10.0 4 9.5 21 100.0
No problems 1 1.5 3 6.2 2 4.2 4 13.3 2 4.8 12 100.0
Total 65 100.0 49 100.0 47 100.0 30 100.0 42 100.0 233 100.0

206 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
RQ5: How often and where do students perceive outdoor lessons in the 
vicinity of the school in the subject of Science and Technology?
The participating students recall having rarely experienced outdoor les -
sons in science and technology in the vicinity of their school, with 57.7% of 
the 305 students selecting the response once or twice per school year (Table 
9). Some of the students (11.1%) reported that they had either never studied 
outdoors, or had studied outdoors three times a week or three times every four 
months. We believe that students do not perceive outdoor activities as a lesson 
if the activities are playful, instead perceiving such activities as play, as reported 
by Tuuling et al. (2018). It should be mentioned once again that the students 
who completed the questionnaire were not necessarily those of the participat -
ing teachers, or even the participating schools. Nonetheless, the results still 
provide some insight into outdoor lessons, as the students were taught by 26 
different teachers. There may, however, be a discrepancy between the teach -
ers’ answers (once or twice a month) and students’ answers in Table 9, as the 
students perceived outdoor lessons in the vicinity of the school to a lesser ex -
tent than the adults did. The reason for the poor perception of outdoor lessons 
might be that students are often not aware that they are learning, even if the 
lessons take place in the schoolyard with various activities (Ginnis, 2002; Ross 
et al., 2007). 
Table 9
The quantity of outdoor lessons in the subject Science and Technology in the 
vicinity of school, as reported by students
The quantity of outdoor lessons in the vicinity of school f%
Once or twice per school year 57.7
Once per month 22.6
Twice per month 6.6
Every week, once 1.0
Every week, twice 1.0
Other 11.1
Total 100.0
We were interested in the location of Science and Technology classes 
that students remembered as they experienced outdoor lessons. The stu -
dents’ open-ended answers were coded into the following coding units: for -
est, field, meadow, river, schoolyard, school garden, school environment, park, 

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 207
institution, nature school, elsewhere, nowhere, and meaningless answer. The 
students most commonly mentioned the schoolyard (56.5%). Slightly more 
than a third of the students (37.8%) replied that they had lessons in a forest 
near the school grounds, and slightly less than a quarter (23.7%) wrote that the 
outdoor lessons took place on the school meadow or another nearby meadow 
(Table 10). Some 7.6% of the students wrote outdoor institutions (e.g., museum, 
zoo, botanic garden) at which they had studied, but that are not within 500 m 
of the school. 
When we compare the research results with the literature, we find that 
a hard surface, e.g., the schoolyard, often serves as an environment for outdoor 
lessons (Nicol et al., 2007). Blatt and Patrick (2014) report on the lifestyle of 
children in urban and rural areas. They claim that children mostly use asphalt 
surfaces for outdoor physical activities, whereas children in rural areas tend to 
use natural areas (e.g., garden, meadow, forest, etc). In our study, the students 
from urban schools most often listed the schoolyard and forests as the location 
of outdoor lessons, while students in rural schools listed meadows, forest, rivers 
and fields (Table 10). 
Although it is indicated that the students remembered different experi -
ences of outdoor lessons outside the vicinity of the school, teachers probably 
took advantage of various locations within 500 m of the school for outdoor 
lesson activities. The students might have reported the forest so often because 
the curriculum lists content that could be presented in it: moss, ferns and seed 
plants; flowering and non-flowering plants; tree and shrub species in the im -
mediate environment; invertebrates; or vertebrates (Verovnik et al., 2011).
Table 10
Locations of outdoor lessons around the school given by 262 students (88 from 
rural schools and 174 from urban schools) out of a total sample of 305 students. 
Some students provided more than one location of outdoor lessons.
Location of outdoor lessons Attending
Students giving the 
answer
f f %
Forest
Rural school 44 50.0
Urban school 55 31.6
Total 99 37.8
Field 
Rural school 16 18.2
Urban school 0 .0
Total 16 6.1

208 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
Location of outdoor lessons Attending
Students giving the 
answer
f f %
Meadow 
Rural school 49 55.7
Urban school 13 7.5
Total 62 23.7
River 
Rural school 22 25.0
Urban school 18 10.3
Total 40 15.3
Schoolyard
Rural school 57 64.8
Urban school 107 61.5
Total 148 56.5
School garden
Rural school 8 9.1
Urban school 0 .0
Total 8 3.1
School surroundings
Rural school 17 19.3
Urban school 15 8.6
Total 32 12.2
Park
Rural school 2 2.3
Urban school 0 .0
Total 2 .8
RQ6: Which topics are of interest to students with regard to conducting 
outdoor lessons in the vicinity of the school in the subject Science and 
Technology?  
The present study also focused on students’ interest in learning outdoors 
in the vicinity of their schools. They expressed their ideas on the topics (con -
tent) they wanted to learn. Their answers were coded and divided into catego -
ries similar to the curriculum content, in order to examine whether it would 
be possible to implement the students’ topics of interest in the existing cur -
riculum (Table 11). The most common responses were that the students wanted 
to learn about animals (43.5%), plants (25.7%) and other topics (22.6%). Under 
the heading Other , we mainly listed general answers (e.g., about nature, about 
other things, how to build a house, etc). However, some students also expressed 
interest in outdoor lessons about water, soil, weather, air, space and the stars, 
electricity, matter, fire, pollution and gravity. In the vast majority of cases, stu -
dents’ answers corresponded with the content of the curriculum (Vodopivec 
et al., 2011). Based on the students’ short answers, it is not possible to deduce 

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 209
the extent to which they would like to continue with the given content, but in 
most cases it would be possible to incorporate the content into the existing cur -
riculum and implement it outdoors. One exception is content on astronomy, 
especially on space and the stars, which always sparks the curiosity and interest 
of students of different ages (Susman & Pavlin, 2020). The students’ responses 
do, however, show their interest in outdoor lessons. Šebjanič and Skribe Dimec 
(2019) found that when teachers give outdoor lessons that are not boring for 
students and that engage their interest, they equip students with life skills. 
Table 11
Content that the students would like to learn in the subject Science and 
Technology during outdoor lessons, provided by 230 students out of 305
Content Students giving the answer
Animals
f 100
f % 43.5
Plants
f 59
f % 25.7
Other
f 52
f % 22.6
Water
f 17
f % 7.4
Soil 
f 5
f % 2.2
Weather
f 9
f % 3.9
Air
f 8
f % 3.5
Space and stars
f 8
f % 3.5
Electricity
f 6
f % 2.6
Matter 
f 5
f % 2.2
Fire 
f 4
f % 1.7
Pollution 
f 4
f % 1.4
Gravity 
f 3
f % 1.3

210 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
Conclusion 
This paper presents a Slovenian study on outdoor lessons in the vicinity 
of schools. It is based on a sample of 4
th
- and 5
th
-grade primary school teach -
ers and students and focuses on lessons outside the prescribed framework of 
activity days and outdoor school. More specifically, the aim was to investigate 
the extent to which outdoor lessons in the vicinity of school are carried out by 
teachers within the subject Science and Technology, and whether this differs 
according to years of teaching experience, school location and early experi -
ences of teachers. The content taught and how outdoor lessons are perceived 
by students was also investigated. The participating teachers reported that 
they teach an average of 18 minutes per week outdoors in the vicinity of their 
schools. It is clear that the location of the school and early experience have 
no statistically significant influence on the duration of outdoor lessons in the 
vicinity of the school, while statistically significant differences in the extent of 
outdoor learning near the school are found among teachers with different lev -
els of experience. Slovenian teachers have ideas for outdoor lessons close to 
the school but also report difficulties in implementing such lessons. However, 
most of their ideas for outdoor activities fall within the thematic set Forces 
and Motion, while fewer ideas exist in terms of Humans. Students recalled that 
they had experienced outdoor lessons once or twice per school year and mostly 
remembered schoolyards, forests, and meadows as locations of their school-
related outdoor lesson. They had ideas for the content of the outdoor lessons 
that could largely be implemented directly in Science and Technology lessons 
within the existing curriculum. 
Due to the sampling procedure, generalisation of the research results 
regarding teachers is only possible to a limited extent. Although the question -
naire accompanied by a request to participate was sent to 451 of 455 Slovenian 
primary schools, only 70 teachers answered the questions of the e-question -
naire. Another limitation is that the students who responded were taught by 
26 teachers not necessarily included in the research and from only six different 
primary schools. The location in which they could experience outdoor lessons 
may therefore be similar. The choice of instrument also partially limits the con -
clusions, partly because the questions were mostly closed-ended and that the 
open-ended questions were sometimes poorly answered.
The presented results of the study can be used by teachers to raise aware -
ness of their own outdoor Science and Technology lessons, and to plan outdoor 
lessons, some of which could be designed together with students, thus strength -
ening their personal responsibility for the importance of their progress. The 

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 211
results indirectly indicate guidelines for the preparation of materials, training 
and the encouragement of teachers to teach outdoors near their schools, taking 
into account all subjects in the educational process.
The responses to the research questions gave rise to many ideas for fur -
ther research. It would be interesting to design specific teaching materials based 
on content for which teachers listed fewer ideas for outdoor lessons, and to 
include and evaluate the students’ ideas. The comparison of activities and the 
organisation of outdoor lessons in urban or rural environments, research on 
the level of motivation, achievements and the attitudes of students towards out -
door lessons in the vicinity of the school, the extent of outdoor lessons through 
the stages of education in Slovenia, and similar are all topics that would be 
relevant for future qualitative and quantitative research and would provide spe -
cific guidance for improving outdoor lessons.
References
Bank, J., & Greve, J. (2013). Children’s health-related life-styles: How parental child care affects them . 
University Press of Southern Denmark.
Barker, S., Slingsby, D. R., & Tilling, S. (2002). Teaching biology outside the classroom: Is it heading for 
extinction? A report on outdoor biology teaching in the 14–19 curriculum . Field Studies Council.
Beames, S., Higgins, P ., & Nicol, R. (2012). Learning outside the classroom: Theory and guidelines for 
practice. Routledge.
Blatt, E., & Patrick, P . (2014). An exploration of pre-service teachers’ experiences in outdoor ‘places’ 
and intentions for teaching in the outdoors. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (13), 
2243–2264.  
Bocks, S. (2018). 31 Days of Outdoor STEM activities for kids . https://littlebinsforlittlehands.com/
outdoor-stem-activities-science-kids/
Ceciliani, A., & Bortolotti, A. (2013). Outdoor motor play: Analysis, speculations, research paths. 
Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3 (3), 65–86. 
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates.
DfES [Department for Education and Skills]. (2006). Learning outside the classroom: Manifesto . 
https://www.lotc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/G1.-LOtC-Manifesto.pdf 
Dnevi dejavnosti . (1998). Days of activities. https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MIZS/Dokumenti/
Osnovna-sola/Ucni-nacrti/Drugi-konceptualni-dokumenti/Dnevi_dejavnosti.pdf 
Education.com. (2012). Nature activities & nature experiments . https://www.education.com/activity/
nature-activities/
English Outdoor Council. (n. d.). High Quality Outdoor Education. https://www.
englishoutdoorcouncil.org/HQOE.pdf

212 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
Fiskum, T. A., & Jacobsen, K. (2012). Individual differences and possible effects from outdoor 
education: Long time and short time benefits. World Journal of Education, 2 (4), 20–23.
Gilbertson, K., Bates, T., McLaughlin, T., & Ewert, A. (2006 ). Outdoor education: Methods and 
strategies . Human kinetics. 
Gill, T. (2014). The benefits of children’s engagement with nature: A systematic literature review. 
Children, Youth and Environments, 24 (2), 10–34. 
Ginnis, P . (2002). The teacher’s toolkit: Raise classroom achievement with strategies for every learner. 
Crown House Publishing.
Gros, J., Marinčič, M., Komljanc, N., Brcar, P ., Rusjan, N., Rudman, I., & Ajtnik, M. (2001). Šola v 
naravi za devetletno osnovno šolo. Koncept [The Concept of Outdoor School]. https://www.gov.si/
assets/ministrstva/MIZS/Dokumenti/Osnovna-sola/Ucni-nacrti/Drugi-konceptualni-dokumenti/
Sola_v_naravi.pdf
Hamid, K. (2018). Fun outdoor science lesson ideas for KS1 . https://www.pentagonplay.co.uk/news-
and-info/outdoor-science-lessons
Harlen, W ., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact on 
confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19 (1), 93–105.  
Hawley, T., & Gunner, M. (2000). Starting smart: How early experiences affect brain development . 
Ounce of Prevention Fund.
Jeronen, E., & Jeronen, J. (2012). Outdoor education in Finland. Current topic. Socioekonomické a 
humanitnì studie. Studies of Socio-Economic and Humanities, 2 (2), 152–160. 
Juriševič, M., Devetak, I., Razdevšek Pučko, C., & Glažar, S. A. (2008). Intrinsic motivation of pre‐
service primary school teachers for learning chemistry in relation to their academic achievement. 
International Journal of Science Education, 30 (2), 285–285.
Kinnunen, P ., Lampiselkä, J., Meisalo., V ., & Malmi, L. (2016). Research on teaching and learning in 
physics and chemistry in NorDiNa papers. Nordina: Nordic studies in science education , 12(1), 3–20.
Klofutar, Š., Jerman, J., & Torkar, G. (2020). Direct versus vicarious experiences for developing 
children’s skills of observation in early science education. International Journal of Early Years 
Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1814214
Kolar, M., Krnel, D., & Velkavrh, A. (2011). Spoznavanje okolja. Učni načrt [Environmental studies. 
National curriculum]. Ministrstvo RS za šolstvo in šport, Zavod RS za šolstvo.
Laganis, J., Prosen, K., & Torkar, G. (2017). Classroom versus outdoor biology education using a 
woody species identification digital dichotomous key . Natural Sciences Education , 46(1), 1–9.
Lelliott, A., & Rollnick, M. (2010). Big ideas: A review of astronomy education research 1974–2008. 
International Journal of Science Education, 32(13), 1771–1799.
MacQuarrie, S. (2016). Everyday teaching and outdoor learning: Developing an integrated approach 
to support school-based provision. Education 3-13, 46 (3), 345–361.
Malone, K. (2008). Every experience matters: An evidence based research report on the role of learning 
outside the classroom for children’s whole development from birth to eighteen years . Farming & 
Countryside Education. 

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 213
MIZŠ [Ministry of Education, Science and Sport]. (2018). Education system in Slovenia. http://www.
mizs.gov.si/en/areas_of_work/directorate_of_higher_education/enic_naric_centre/education_
system_in_slovenia/
Mygind, E. (2009). A comparison of children’s’ statements about social relations and teaching in the 
classroom and in the outdoor environment. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 
9(2), 151–169.
National Curriculum in England. (2013). GOV .UK. Science programmes of study. https://www.gov.
uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study
Nicol, R., Higgins, P ., Ross, H., & Mannion, G. (2007). Outdoor education in Scotland: A summary of 
recent research . Scottish Natural Heritage.
Outdoor Classroom Day. (2020). Lessons ideas. https://outdoorclassroomday.com/resources/lesson-
ideas/
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS, 4th Edition . 
Allen & Unwin.
Pavlin, J., & Čepič, M. (2015). The education of pre-service primary school teachers for teaching the 
physics part of science in Slovenia. In F. Claudio & M. Sperandeo-Mineo (Eds.), Teaching/learning 
physics: Integrating research into practice. GIREP - MPTL 2014 International Conference (pp. 137–144). 
http://www1.unipa.it/girep2014/proceedings/Chapter%202.pdf 
Peacock, A., & Pratt, N. (2009). How young people respond to learning spaces outside school: A 
sociocultural perspective. Learning Environments Research, 14 (1), 11–24.
Pečar, M., Anđić, D., Hergan, I., Skribe Dimec, D., & Pavlin, J. (2020). How to encourage children’s 
connectedness to nature by outdoor learning of children in Croatian and Slovenian schools? In L. 
Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), EDULEARN20 (pp. 714–723). https://
iated.org/edulearn/publications 
Potočnik, R., & Devetak, I. (2018). The differences between pre-service chemistry, fine art, and 
primary education teachers regarding interest and knowledge about fine art materials. Center for 
Educational Policy Studies Journal, 8 (4), 109–130.
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Y oung Choi, M., Sanders, D. et al. (2004). A review 
of research on outdoor learning . Field Studies Council.
Ross, H., Nicol, R., & Higgins, P . (2007). Outdoor study of nature: Teachers’ motivations and 
contexts. Scottish Educational Review , 39(2), 160–172.
Shume, T. J., & Blatt, E. (2019). A sociocultural investigation of pre-service teachers’ outdoor 
experiences and perceived obstacles to outdoor learning. Environmental Education Research , 25(9), 
1–21.
Sjöblom, P ., & Svens, M. (2019). Learning in the Finnish outdoor classroom: Students’ views. Journal 
of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 19 (4) 301–314. 
Skribe Dimec, D. (2019). Outdoor education in the Slovenian school system supports cultural 
and environmental education. In Zandvliet, D. B. (Ed.). Culture and environment: Weaving new 
connections (pp. 209–229). Brill Sense.

214 experiences of slovenian in-service primary school teachers and students of ...
Skribe Dimec, D., & Kokalj, I. (2018). The development and role of outdoor education and CŠOD in 
the Slovenian school system. In P . Becker, B. Humberstone, C. Loynes, & J. Schirp (Eds.), The changing 
world of outdoor learning in Europe (1st ed; pp. 207 –220). Routledge, Routledge research in education. 
Susman, K., & Pavlin, J. (2020). Improvements in teachers’ knowledge and understanding of basic 
astronomy concepts through didactic games. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(6), 1020–1033.
Šebjanič, E., & Skribe Dimec, D. (2019). Primeri dobre prakse pouka na prostem v Sloveniji in tujini 
[Examples of good practice of outdoor education in Slovenia and abroad]. Sodobna pedagogika, 70 (2), 
70–85.
Štemberger, V . (2012). Šolsko okolje kot učno okolje ali pouk zunaj [The school environment as a 
learning environment or outdoor lesson]. Razredni pouk , 14(1/2), 84−90.
Taštanoska, T. (2017). The education system in the Republic of Slovenia 2016 . The Ministry of 
Education, Science and Sport. https://eng.cmepius.si/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Education-
System-in-the-Republic-of-Slovenia-2016-17.pdf 
Teach Junkie. (2017). 19 Fun ideas & resources for force and motion . http://www.teachjunkie.com/
sciences/19-fun-ideas-resources-force-and-motion/
Tomažič, I., & Vidic, T. (2013). Z igro v čarobni svet narave. Priročnik za naravoslovje v prvem triletju [To 
the magical world of nature through play. Handbook for science in the first triad]. Mladinska knjiga.
Torkar, G. (2013). Live what you teach & teach what you live: Student views on the acceptability of 
teachers’ value-related statements about sustainability and climate change. Center for Educational 
Policy Studies Journal , 3(1), 45–58.
Torkar, G., Debevec, V ., Johnson, B., & Manoli, C. (2020). Assessing children’s environmental 
worldviews and concerns. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal . https://www.cepsj.si/index.
php/cepsj/article/view/793/401, https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.793
Tovey, H. (2008). Playing outdoors. Spaces and places, risk and challenge . Open University Press.
Tuuling, L., Õun, T., & Ugaste, A. (2018). Teachers’ opinions on utilising outdoor learning in the 
preschools of Estonia. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 19 (4), 358–370.
Vidmar, E. (2016). Vpliv izkušenj učiteljev razrednega pouka na njihovo mnenje o vključevanju šolskega 
vrta v pouk [The influence of in-service primary school teachers’ experiences on their opinion on the 
integration of the school garden into lessons] (Master’s thesis). Pedagoška fakulteta.
Vodopivec, I., Papotnik, A., Gostinčar Blagotinšek, A., Skribe Dimec, D., & Balon, A. (2011) . 
Naravoslovje in tehnika. Učni načrt [Science and technology. National curriculum]. Ministrstvo RS za 
šolstvo in šport, Zavod RS za šolstvo.
Vogrinc, J. (2008). Kvalitativno raziskovanje na pedagoškem področju [Qualitative research in the field 
of education]. Pedagoška fakulteta.
Waite S. (Ed.). (2011). Children learning outside the classroom: From birth to eleven . Sage.
Waite, S. (2010). Losing our way? The downward path for outdoor learning for children aged 2-11 
years. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 10 (2), 111–126.
W alan, S., & Chang Rundgren, S-N. (2014). Investigating preschool and primary school teachers’ self-efficacy 
and needs in teaching science: A pilot study. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4 (1), 51–67.

c e p s Journal | V ol.12 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2022 215
Biographical note
Maruša Novljan is the second teacher of the first grade in Nove 
Jarše Elementary School. Aware that outdoor lessons have a positive effect on 
students and their holistic development, she has prepared a master’s thesis in 
this field. Even as a class teacher, she strives to conduct outdoor lessons in the 
school’s surroundings as often as possible.
Jerneja P avlin, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Physics Education at 
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Slovenia. Her research focuses on 
the investigation of different approaches to physics and science teaching (e.g. 
outdoor teaching and learning, using 3D sub-microscopic representations, di -
dactic games, learning by inquiry, peer instruction etc.), aspects of scientific lit -
eracy and the introduction of contemporary science into physics teaching. She 
is involved in several research projects in the field of science and physics educa -
tion (e.g. NA-MA POTI, AR Physics made for students, Movement-dance sto -
ries in connection with science and social sciences in kindergarten and school, 
Connectedness with nature, the organization of early school-aged students’ free 
time and digital technologies).