The importance of out-of-school places of learning for education in Germany has been clearly highlighted since the first PISA results in 2001 (Deinet & Derecik, 2016). Numerous advantages are recognised for visiting an out-of-school place of learning. For example, it is an opportunity to awaken new motivation in students, to give them new ideas (Karpa et al., 2015) and to positively influence attitudes towards (unpopular) school subjects (Richter & Komorek, 2022); the unusual experiences can be helpful in this regard (Kleß, 2015). However, visiting an out-of-school place of learning also involves additional work compared to the established teaching settings in the classroom, as well as problems in evaluating students by the classical criteria (Sauerborn & Brühne, 2020). Further opportunities and challenges of out-of-school learning were summarised by Kindermann and Riegel (2015) and Kuske-Janßen et al. (2020)). Out-of-school places of learning are becoming increasingly popular because of the numerous advantages and opportunities they offer (Jäkel, 2021) and are increasingly gaining in importance (Deinet & Derecik, 2016).

The increasing combination of school and out-of-school places of learning represents a characteristic change of the modern school in Germany (Budde & Hummrich, 2016). According to Deinet and Derecik (2016), a comprehensive education can only take place in cooperation between the school and out-of-school partners. This is especially required for the teaching of science in primary schools (Blaseio, 2016). When visiting an out-of-school place of learning, subject competence as well as methodological competence, social competence and personal competence can be addressed (Sauerborn & Brühne, 2020). The attraction for the students is to leave the classroom and to step out of the usual school environment and everyday lessons (Karpa et al., 2015).

This could also be the case for teachers, but this still needs to be analysed. In general, studies on out-of-school places of learning deal almost exclusively with students and not with teachers (Kindermann & Riegel, 2015). Even fewer studies deal with future teachers. This study will change this situation. In addition to the attitudes and opinions of future primary school science teachers towards out-of-school learning places, their general definition of these places will also be identified. Out-of-school learning locations and out-of-school learning are not defined in a standardised way. Sauerborn and Brühne (2020) point out these definitional difficulties several times.

Since there are very few or no studies to this date that look at the opinions and attitudes of future teachers of science in primary school, a study was developed with the following research questions: 1) How do future teachers of science at primary school define out-of-school places of learning? 2) What opportunities and potential do the future teachers believe a visit to the out-of-school place of learning offers? 3) What barriers and disadvantages do the future teachers see in the visiting? 4) Which are the criteria that are most important to them when choosing a visit to an out-of-school place of learning in science education? The interviews are carried out using an interview guideline. This guideline contains questions on various aspects of the out-of-school learning place or a corresponding visit. The guideline interview method was chosen because although it gives a general structure to the interview, there is still room for flexibility in the process. Thus, the questions can be adapted or changed. A standardisation is reached by structuring the topics in terms of content (Döring & Bortz, 2016). For the available material, the content-structuring qualitative analysis of data according to Kuckartz and Rädiker (2022) is used. The qualitative content analysis is an interpretative form of evaluation that is linked to the human understanding and interpretation skills (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022). All process steps are run through and complemented by iteration and feedback steps. The formation of categories happens mostly in an inductive way. The categories are thus defined on the basis of the material. Only some categories for the opportunities and disadvantages of visiting an out-of-school place of learning can be extracted from the literature. A detailed code manual is prepared for the fixation. To check the quality of the analysis, the intercoder reliability is then calculated. The second coder processed about 20 % of the text material on the basis of the codebook. According to (Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 558), at least 10-20% of the data material should be processed by two coders. Cohen's Kappa is determined as the reliability coefficient. The entire analysis was carried out using the MAXQDA 2022 software. The statements are straightened out in language for better readability. To illustrate the results, the anchor examples are translated into English. This procedure does not falsify the material.

At the moment, interviews are being taken with the future teachers of science for the primary school. By the time of the conference, the study will be completed and the around 20 interviews will have been analysed in order to be able to present specific results. In this way, it should be possible to record the status quo of the opinions and attitudes of future teachers in science education. According to Kuske-Janßen et al. (2020), it is to be anticipated that there could be a need for optimisation in the area of out-of-school learning places and out-of-school learning, which concerns the theoretical and practical examination. As a consequence of the interviews and the results, relevant contents and events could be increasingly integrated into the teaching of future teachers. In addition, it might make sense to introduce future teachers to specific out-of-school places of learning. The qualification of prospective teachers at university must diversify its range of seminars in a way that out-of-school learning places become attractive enough that they demonstrate broad academic potential to a heterogenous group of students in primary school. Evaluating and analyzing interviews of teacher education students on the topic of out-of-school learning we do not only aim to develop attractive classes which highlight the potential of out-of-school learning in primary school, but also intend to provide didactic solutions to circumvent the inhibitions of teaching outside the classroom. In addition, studies with actual science teachers in primary schools are also planned afterwards in order to be able to offer corresponding offers for this status group as well.

References Blaseio, B. (2016). Außerschulische Lernorte im Sachunterricht: Vielperspektivisches Sachlernen vor Ort. In J. Erhorn & J. Schwier (Eds.), Pädagogik. Pädagogik außerschulischer Lernorte: Eine interdisziplinäre Annäherung (pp. 261–282). transcript Verlag. Budde, J., & Hummrich, M. (2016). Die Bedeutung außerschulischer Lernorte im Kontext der Schule – eine erziehungswissenschaftliche Perspektive. In J. Erhorn & J. Schwier (Eds.), Pädagogik. Pädagogik außerschulischer Lernorte: Eine interdisziplinäre Annäherung (pp. 29–52). transcript Verlag. Deinet, U., & Derecik, A. (2016). Die Bedeutung außerschulischer Lernorte für Kinder und Jugendliche: Eine raumtheoretische und aneignungsorientierte Betrachtungsweise. In J. Erhorn & J. Schwier (Eds.), Pädagogik. Pädagogik außerschulischer Lernorte: Eine interdisziplinäre Annäherung (pp. 15–28). transcript Verlag. Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (5th ed.). Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5 Jäkel, L. (2021). Lernort Museum. In L. Jäkel (Ed.), Faszination der Vielfalt des Lebendigen - Didaktik des Draußen-Lernens (pp. 263–275). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62383-1_14 Karpa, D., Lübbeke, G., & Adam, B. (2015). Außerschulische Lernorte: Theoretische Grundlagen und praktische Beispiele. In D. Karpa, G. Lübbeke, & B. Adam (Eds.), Reihe: Band 31. Außerschulische Lernorte: Theorie, Praxis und Erforschung außerschulischer Lerngelegenheiten (11-27). Prolog Verlag. Kindermann, K., & Riegel, U. (2015). Wie Religionslehrpersonen außerschulisches Lernen erleben. In D. Karpa, G. Lübbeke, & B. Adam (Eds.), Reihe: Band 31. Außerschulische Lernorte: Theorie, Praxis und Erforschung außerschulischer Lerngelegenheiten (pp. 333–352). Prolog Verlag. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvss3xrv.28 Kleß, E. (2015). Wenn Studierende von Schülerinnen und Schülern lernen und umgekehrt. In D. Karpa, G. Lübbeke, & B. Adam (Eds.), Reihe: Band 31. Außerschulische Lernorte: Theorie, Praxis und Erforschung außerschulischer Lerngelegenheiten (pp. 264–272). Prolog Verlag. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvss3xrv.24 Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung : Grundlagentexte Methoden (5. Auflage). Grundlagentexte Methoden. Beltz Juventa. https://permalink.obvsg.at/AC16378905 Kuske-Janßen, W., Niethammer, M., Pospiech, G., Wieser, D., Wils, J.‑T., & Wilsdorf, R. (2020). Außerschulische Lernorte – theoretische Grundlagen und Forschungsstand. In G. Pospiech, M. Niethammer, D. Wieser, & F.-M. Kuhlemann (Eds.), Begegnungen mit der Wirklichkeit (E-Book): Chancen für fächerübergreifendes Lernen an außerschulischen Lernorten (1st ed., pp. 21–49). hep verlag. Richter, C., & Komorek, M. (2022). Mädchenförderung in der Physik. PhyDid B - Didaktik der Physik - Beiträge zur DPG-Frühjahrstagung. https://ojs.dpg-physik.de/index.php/phydid-b/article/view/1317 Sauerborn, P., & Brühne, T. (2020). Didaktik des außerschulischen Lernens (7. unveränderte Auflage). Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=6914424