Opportunities to learn science outside the classroom form an important contribution to science education (Rennie, 2014). Arenas outside the school provide authentic contexts for teaching, which complement teaching in the classroom and in the science laboratory (Braund & Reiss, 2006). Various terms, such as field trips, outdoor education, education outside the classroom and udeskole/uteskole (Denmark/Norway) are used to address utilising nature and local environments as an educational approach. In this article, I use the term "out-of-school education", and by this I mean using physical settings outside the classroom in a learning context. Examples of such settings include museums, science centres, universities, local companies, farms and fisheries, school grounds and natural landscapes as forest and riparian habitats. This definition is in line with Frøyland and Remmen (2019), and includes arenas that are designed for educational purposes and those that are not. There are several arguments for making use of nature and local environments in school science education. Braund and Reiss (2006) highlight how out-of-school settings can improve science learning through:

1. Improved development and integration of concepts.

2. Extended and authentic practical work.

3. Access to rare material and to 'big' science.

4. Attitudes to school science: stimulating further learning.

5. Social outcomes: collaborative work and responsibility for learning. (p. 1376)

In addition, the health benefits of being physically active in nature are often highlighted when using out-of-school settings (Morag & Tal, 2012).

Making use of nature in teaching science has been central to Norwegian curriculum since 1939 (Normalplan for byfolkeskolen, 1939), and is also prevalent in today's National Curriculum (Kunnskapsløftet 2020 (LK20)) (Ministry of Education and Research, 2019). In Norway, textbooks are designed in line with the official curriculum's (see Cuban, 1995) aims. Still, teachers have freedom of choice in terms of which materials or other teaching resources to use and are not obligated to use a science textbook. Hence, textbooks are not a part of the official curriculum, but are an interpretation of the official curriculum by the textbook author(s). The fact that the textbooks are designed in line with current curricula, in addition to being adapted to teaching in school and offering progression in a subject that is adapted to a secondary-level course, makes textbooks valuable for teachers (McDonald, 2016). Although teachers combine their textbook use with other teaching and learning resources, the textbook is often a first choice in planning and plays an essential role as a structuring element in teaching lessons (McDonald, 2016; Trygstad et al., 2013). Recent studies also show that textbooks are central as an idea bank for science teachers, especially for finding practical and inquiry activities for teaching (Isaksen et al., 2022).

Moving science teaching out of the classroom can be one type of practical activity. Despite the many positive aspects of using out-of-school settings in education (e.g. Braund & Reiss, 2006; Morag & Tal, 2012), it appears that using out-of-school settings is often de-prioritised; teachers experience a number of obstacles when using out-of-school settings, such as it being more time consuming than classroom teaching, more economic constraints and poor curriculum fit (Anderson et al., 2006).

This study's purpose is to contribute knowledge about the relationship between science teachers' use of and orientation towards textbooks, and the utilisation of local actors and the local environment in teaching. I ask the following research questions:

• To what extent are out-of-school settings utilised in secondary school science teaching?
• In what ways can using science textbooks be an obstacle or a driving force for utilising out-of-school settings?

This paper reports a mixed method study among secondary school science teachers in Norway. An 'explanatory (sequential) design' is used (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 72), where a teacher survey formed the basis for subsequent interviews with respondents. A pilot study has been carried out. To gain an overview of trends regarding teachers' use of textbooks and out-of-school teaching in science, a digital survey was conducted in 2018 and 2020 among science teachers at secondary schools in two counties, one in south Norway and one in north Norway (N = 108 or 47% response rate). It was designed with science textbooks and practical activities as a starting point. Constructs have been developed to determine the teachers' affiliation with their textbook (Textbook orientation, six items) (Isaksen & Thorvaldsen, 2022), their use of nature (two items) and local actors (five items), as well as the extent to which the teachers perceived that their textbook stimulated using given arenas in teaching (Textbook nature, two items and Textbook local actors, four items, respectively). Response options were given on 5- and 6-point Likert scales. The reliability of the constructs were tested using the reliability coefficient Cronbach's alpha (CA). The recommended CA should be between 0.7 and 0.9 (Streiner, 2003). The strength of covariation between variables is measured using Pearson's correlation coefficient r (Cohen & Holliday, 1982). Survey data has been analysed with the help of SPSS Statistics 26 for Windows. In autumn 2020, six survey respondents were selected by quota sampling (Gobo, 2004), based on their score on the construct textbook orientation, to participate in digital interviews via Zoom or Teams. Each interview lasted approximately 1.5 hours. Two central themes discussed were out-of-school activities in science teaching and the teachers' use of and views on their textbook. The teachers were shown three examples of out-of-school activities from two different textbooks. Interview data has been coded and analysed by the author using NVivo, where a reflexive thematic analysis has been carried out (Braun & Clarke, 2019). The analysis aims for an open approach where the analysis process started with transcribing the data material and conducting inductive coding. Data material was read through several times where codes were further developed, and finally developed into some central themes that represent key aspects in the interview material.

Quantitative findings show that teachers make little use of out-of-school settings in science teaching. The local environment is used, on average, 2-3 times per six months (mean = 2.73, SD = 0.82), while local actors are not used annually (mean = 1.32, SD = 0.39). Less use of the latter may be because schools in northern Norway (often rural schools) have limited access to science centres, museums, etc. There are no significant correlations between science teachers' orientation towards their textbook and whether they utilise settings outside school. This implies that teachers' orientation towards their textbook is not a central factor to their using out-of-school settings. Explanations of limited teaching out of school must therefore be other than the use of textbooks. Preliminary analysis of interview data supports this, as time constraints and financing costs for transport are highlighted as key obstacles to making use of out-of-school settings. These have been obstacles in other countries as well (Anderson et al., 2006). The teachers reported that their textbook, to a small extent, encourages using local actors in teaching (Textbook local actors, mean = 1.70, SD = 1.00, scale 1–6), and to a somewhat greater extent, to use the local environment in teaching (Textbook nature, mean = 2.82, SD = 1.18, scale 1–6). In the interviews, this is explained by that textbooks have few suggestions for activities outside of school and should have a greater focus on out-of-school education if it is to have a stimulating impact on teaching. Science textbooks are a central resource for teachers, especially for inspiring practical activities (Isaksen et al., 2022). They can be a tool with the potential to inspire science teachers to use out-of-school settings. It is therefore important that textbooks contain a selection of suggestions for activities outside of school.

Anderson, D., Kisiel, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2006). Understanding Teachers' Perspectives on Field Trips: Discovering Common Ground in Three Countries. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49(3), 365-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2006.tb00229.x Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a More Authentic Science Curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International journal of science education, 28(12), 1373-1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498419 Cohen, L., & Holliday, M. (1982). Statistics for Social Scientists. Harper & Row. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE. Cuban, L. (1995). The hidden variable: How organizations influence teacher responses to secondary science curriculum reform. Theory into practice, 34(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543651 Frøyland, M., & Remmen, K. B. (2019). Utvidet klasserom i naturfag. Universitetsforlaget. Gobo, G. (2004). Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice. SAGE Publications, Limited. Isaksen, M., & Thorvaldsen, S. (2022). Hva stimulerer utforskende undervisning i naturfag? Et studium av rollen for læreboken i noen norske ungdomsskoler. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 18(3), 337 - 352. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.9350 Isaksen, M., Ødegaard, M., & Utsi, T. A. (2022). The science textbook - an aid or obstacle for inquiry-based science teaching? [Manuscrips submitted for publication]. Department of Education, UiT The Arctic University of Norway McDonald, C. V. (2016). Evaluating Junior Secondary Science Textbook Usage in Australian Schools. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 481-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9468-8 Ministry of Education and Research. (2019). Læreplan i naturfag [Natural science subject curriculum] (NAT01 04). Laid down as regulations. National Curriculum for Knowledge Promotion in Primary and Secondary Education and Training (LK20). https://www.udir.no/lk20/nat01-04?lang=nob Morag, O., & Tal, T. (2012). Assessing Learning in the Outdoors with the Field Trip in Natural Environments (FiNE) Framework. International journal of science education, 34(5), 745-777. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.599046 Normalplan for byfolkeskolen. (1939). https://www.nb.no/nbsok/nb/a772fcd5e1bbbfb3dcb3b7e43d6ccc60?lang=no#113 Rennie, L. J. (2014). Learning Science Outside of School. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 120-144). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267-15 Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency. J Pers Assess, 80(1), 99-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18 Trygstad, P. J., Smith, S. P., Banilower, E. R., & Nelson, M. M. (2013). The Status of Elementary Science Education: Are We Ready for the Next Generation Science Standards? Horizon Research, Inc. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED548249.pdf