Evaluating the Development of Pre-Service Primary School Teachers’ Competences in the Context of a Student-Centred Science Visits Course

Abstract

The student-centred approach emphasises active learning, where students take responsibility for their own learning process, in which they are actively involved and integrate new information into their existing knowledge framework. Combining this approach with outdoor learning provides an even more effective teaching strategy. When combining these approaches, the individual needs and interests of the students must be taken into account. The research was conducted as part of The Science Visits Course among 30 prospective primary school teachers in their final years of study. The focus of the study was on the students’ self-assessment of their competences in science education and on the implementation of a student-centred teaching process, including outdoor teaching. Data were collected using online questionnaires and a structured evaluation form to assess students’ plans for a science visit. The research findings suggest that students find this type of work engaging and that it encourages their self-engagement, taking responsibility and working together in a group through sharing ideas and opinions. On the other hand, the student competences important for outdoor education have come to the fore to some extent, but there are still areas that can be improved, especially in the area of science content knowledge.

1. Introduction

Outdoor education is undoubtedly a form of education that offers students opportunities for holistic development, both socio-emotional, conceptual and, finally, biological. The benefits of outdoor education have been presented in many papers [1,2,3,4] and fall into a wide variety of areas [1,2,5,6,7,8].

Studies indicate that outdoor education can enhance students’ motivation and enthusiasm for learning. This approach fosters a more relaxed educational environment, allowing students to learn at their own pace and according to their individual learning styles. As a result, outdoor education is often viewed as a more effective teaching method compared to traditional classroom settings [3]. The results of the Collado et al. [9] study show that children’s environmental attitudes improved more in the nature-based environmental education group than in those who received the programme through traditional teaching.

There are no limits to the range of subjects that can be taught outdoors. Outdoor learning also offers a great deal of creativity for teachers, allowing for approaches that are not possible in the classroom and are often challenging. Most importantly, outdoor learning develops a relationship with nature and a connection to nature [10]. Nature and the care of nature are crucial for our future. Research shows that the total amount of time spent in nature, regardless of the quality of environmental conditions, leads to an increase in the values attributed to nature, which is associated with pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours [11]. Attitudes and a broader societal view of environmental issues are formed at the level of the individual, which, over time, builds and shapes the attitudes of society as a whole. The future climate outlook is not promising unless we, as a human race, change our behaviour and establish a proper connection to nature. Children today spend less time in natural environments than ever before, even though much research shows that children benefit from contact with nature [12]. It is, therefore, important that outdoor education is a regular feature in schools [8] and that teachers are properly trained to be competent in outdoor education [13].

Pre-service training for primary school teachers needs to focus on their professional development in specific areas, as well as on attitudes and values. A teacher who teaches science needs to be connected to nature. Outdoor education offers students the opportunity to develop attitudes and values in different spatial contexts and to see the relevance of these to life in the 21st century. Outdoor education for future teachers, therefore, plays an extremely important role in the development of their personality and a life based on appropriate values. In this respect, students and their wishes and needs should also be the focus of the lessons. In recent decades, there has been a shift from teacher-centred to student-centred approaches in education. Students have been recognised as active participants and planners of their learning process. In order to improve learning outcomes, recent research emphasises the importance of integrating student-centred and teacher-centred approaches. This integration allows teachers to provide a degree of structured guidance while encouraging students’ active participation, autonomy and critical thinking [14,15,16,17].

Student-centred learning is an educational approach that places the active involvement of students at the forefront of the learning process. In this approach, students play a key role in shaping the content, activities, materials, and pace of their learning. The focus is shifted from the teacher to the student, thereby encouraging learners to take responsibility for their own education and engage in a more personalised and meaningful learning experience. The objective of this approach is to encourage the development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and independent learning skills by providing education that is aligned with the individual needs and interests of students. Weimer [18] puts forth the argument that college and university classrooms are predominantly instructor-centred, which presents a significant obstacle to students becoming successful, independent learners [18]. A considerable number of instructors are aware of this issue and attempt to adopt more student-centred methods, although the extent of their awareness of the problem varies [19]. Weimer [18] identifies five key areas in which practice should be modified: the balance of power, the function of content, the role of the teacher, the responsibility of learning, and the purpose and processes of evaluation [20]. In order to facilitate a more student-centred approach, Weimer [18] suggests that professors begin to share power with students by, for example, offering a list of assignments from which students can select a specified number to complete [18].

To optimise the learning process, it is crucial for educators to gain insight into the experiences and expectations of their students regarding science education. Those who will become future teachers are already part of the so-called Generation Z, which has spent significantly less time in nature than previous generations. As digital technologies are an inescapable aspect of modern life, they can also be harnessed in the context of outdoor learning. While digital technology has the potential to undermine the fundamental objective of outdoor learning, it also presents opportunities to enhance the learning experience. Hills and Thomas [21] present a conceptual framework based on a systematic review of the literature that facilitators can use to engage in critical reflection on their use (or non-use) of digital technology in outdoor experiential learning. Ameli [22] reports a significant correlation between engagement with the natural environment and a transformation in individuals’ worldviews, thereby underscoring the methodological importance of incorporating nature into educational practices. These results further indicate that, despite the increasing prevalence of digital technology, direct interaction with nature is essential for a paradigm shift in education. The challenge issued by UNESCO to higher education institutions to provide educational leadership in sustainable development provides an impetus to develop innovative, interdisciplinary curricula and pedagogical approaches [23]. Developing sustainable-literate citizens is a task for higher education, especially the education of future teachers. Outdoor education is one of the approaches that makes this possible. As part of the studies of prospective primary school teachers at the University of Ljubljana, they learn about science content and approaches and how to make this content accessible to pupils. While they are aware of the theoretical aspects of outdoor education, the question is whether they transfer this knowledge into their practice.

In the first year of their Primary Education Programme at the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education students participate in outdoor classes as part of fieldwork exercises. Fieldwork is a universally accepted method in experiential learning. The research indicates that the key benefits of outdoor fieldwork include engagement, outreach, and professional competences. Conversely, the research also identified areas of weakness, namely in the areas of equity, logistics, and standards. Opportunities for improvement include pedagogical practices, diversity, and collaboration. Potential threats to outdoor fieldwork include costs, funding, outdated practices, and governance [24]. In the final year of the studies in the Primary Education Programme at the University of Ljubljana, students may choose to enrol in the elective course called Science Visits. During the 2022/23 academic year, the course was among the available options of elective courses. The course allows for a high degree of interdisciplinarity and the use of innovative teaching approaches. Typically, the instructor assumes responsibility for most of the learning activities within the classroom setting, including the selection and organisation of content, the interpretation and application of concepts, and the assessment of student learning outcomes. Meanwhile, the students’ primary focus is on note-taking. However, the focus of the Science Visits Course was on a student-centred approach. In this subject, the role of teachers was designed to be that of a “guide on the side”, as Weimer [20] suggests. Student participation in decision-making and the design process is a crucial aspect of their social and intellectual development. It enhances their design capabilities while also contributing significantly to their overall development [25]. The course has multiple objectives and competences. In addition to traditional lectures, part of the teaching takes place in various locations and outdoor settings where they experience the field trips from the teachers’ perspective. Field trips allow students to explore different learning environments such as science museums, zoos, nature centres and parks, forests and other landscape sights, and educational trails, enriching their learning beyond the traditional curriculum [26]. These experiences help students develop their scientific literacy. By breaking the routine of the school day, field trips provide enrichment in a variety of areas, increasing students’ motivation to learn and contributing to their individual development [27,28].

When organising excursions and science visit days, teachers must possess a range of skills and abilities to ensure the success and educational value of these activities [28,29]. Firstly, teachers must possess excellent planning and organisational abilities. Secondly, the ability to integrate the activities with the curriculum is of the utmost importance. This ensures that the experiences are relevant [30]. It is also necessary for teachers to demonstrate proficiency in risk management, as they must be able to identify potential risks and protect students from them during off-site activities. Effective communication skills are essential for clearly expressing expectations, instructions, and information to students, parents, and others. The ability to lead and supervise students effectively is essential for maintaining discipline and ensuring active engagement in learning activities. Additionally, interpersonal skills are important for the establishment of appropriate and mutually respectful relationships with students. Moreover, teachers must demonstrate the ability to adapt to unforeseen circumstances and resolve issues. Having subject matter expertise is vital as it enables teachers to guide students through experiential learning and respond to queries. Finally, the ability to evaluate the efficacy of excursions and science days, gather feedback, and reflect on outcomes is essential for the improvement of future activities [29,30].

The primary objective of the course is for students to successfully attain the previously listed range of learning outcomes. It is expected that students will be able to demonstrate the ability to cooperate, communicate, develop and integrate general, professional, and special didactic knowledge. Additionally, they should be able to develop an awareness of and sensitivity to the natural and social environment, national culture, heritage, identity, multiculturalism, and non-discrimination. Additionally, they should be able to develop an awareness of and sensitivity to the natural and social environment, national culture, heritage, identity, multiculturalism and non-discrimination. The findings of the study conducted by De Beer [31] indicate that the educational excursion enables pre-service teachers to gain a more nuanced understanding of the teaching profession, enhanced sensitivity to diversity, social justice and inclusivity, an understanding of the value of reflection, and a sense of belonging as a student in the higher education sector. Furthermore, the findings highlight the potential of excursions to improve self-directed learning, which is a crucial element in supporting ongoing professional development [31].

Incorporating a student-centred approach into the organisation of excursions and science days further enhances the educational experience by actively involving students in the planning process. By allowing students to participate in selecting destinations, designing activities, and evaluating the relevance of the excursions to their learning objectives, teachers can foster a sense of ownership and engagement [32]. Students who take ownership of their learning go beyond merely following teacher directions. They are more likely to tackle complex assignments, solve problems with persistence, and produce original, high-quality work. While content knowledge is essential, it is not sufficient on its own. Encouraging students to actively participate in their learning promotes goal setting, self-assessment, and self-determination. As students become more engaged, they better understand learning goals, learn to collect and document evidence of their progress and evaluate their additional learning needs [32]. This effort not only develops students’ critical thinking and decision-making skills but also ensures that the activities are tailored to their interests and learning needs, making the overall experience more meaningful and impactful.

It is important that all students are active and involved in shaping the course and its content. Students differ in social status, region of origin, beliefs, and religion. All of this must be considered when planning for a student-centred approach. In the organisation of excursions, the financial part is the one that affects the students with deprivileged social-economical status the most. In the literature, the financial part of the field trips is listed as one of the major shortcomings [28]. In practice, it is often the case that most field trips are carried out by external contractors and guides, while teachers are merely passive observers, ensuring student discipline [27]. In order for teachers to take an active role in the implementation and organisation of field trips, it is important for them to gain experience in organising and evaluating excursions and field trips during their studies. The study by Lee et al. [33] provides further evidence from a large sample of programmes indicating that pre-visit preparation and post-visit follow-up can lead to notable improvements in student outcomes in the context of environmental education field trips.

Considering the above, our study was designed to identify the perceptions of pre-service primary school teachers before and after the introduction of the student-centred approach and outdoor learning, as well as to evaluate their ideas for science visits. Four research questions were set:

RQ1: What expectations exist and what is the student self-evaluation of the implementation of a student-centred Science Visits Course?

RQ2: How do pre-service primary school teachers self-assess their competences in communication, scientific knowledge, and adaptive teaching skills in diverse educational environments?

RQ3: What competences have students self-assessed in relation to outdoor learning?

RQ4: Which competences for carrying out science visits are reflected in the students’ science visit plans?

2. Materials and Methods

The present study used the descriptive method of pedagogical research and techniques of qualitative and quantitative research approaches that were intertwined [34,35].

2.1. Sample

The sample was a convenience sample [36] of pre-service primary school teachers participating in the Science Visits Course. The group comprised 30 participants of the Primary Teacher Education study programme at the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, in the academic year 2022/2023. Among them, 30 prepared their compulsory assignments, while 29 (some parts 28) completed a questionnaire at the beginning of the course and 25 at the end. The students were divided into 10 groups (each group consisted of 3 students) to plan the science visit. All data was collected in the Slovene language. Participants were informed about the objectives of the study and invited to participate voluntarily. Anonymity and secure storage of data were assured.

2.2. Procedure

The Science Visits Course took place during the summer semester. It comprises 60 contact hours and 60 h of homework and is worth 4 ECTS credits according to the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System. In the first lesson, the students were informed about the purpose of the study and provided with general data on the topic. At the beginning and the end of the semester, they completed a questionnaire.

The Science Visits Course curriculum focuses on primary schools’ science days, cross-curricular planning and integration, the creation of worksheets and other classroom materials for active fieldwork, and the evaluation of these materials. It also includes information about science facilities in Slovenia, activities of the Centre for School and Extracurricular Activities, and visits to museums and other facilities that contribute to achieving the goals of science education in primary school.

The Science Visits Course was more student-centred and took student characteristics into account. Instructors created an electronic questionnaire to collect data on students’ interests; their strengths in planning, conducting, and evaluating science visits; their knowledge of science topics; and their preferences for science visits according to the curricula of the Environmental Sciences and Science and Technology. At the beginning of the study, students also assessed the level of development of the competences prescribed in the Science Visits curriculum.

Based on the survey results, four science visits were carefully prepared and discussed in detail in the lectures and tutorials, which corresponded to the current curriculum for science visits and were organised by the course providers. Course providers visited the selected sites prior to teaching to prepare comprehensive material. Students submitted work assignments and reflections for each visit, which were continuously assessed.

In the course’s online classroom, lecture content was customised and quizzes on science topics were prepared to provide students with up-to-date information on their knowledge of basic science content at each visit. After the science visits and the topics covered, the level of development of the skills prescribed in the Science Visits Course curriculum was reassessed.

Based on the experience and knowledge gained, students independently planned science visits in small groups of three organised according to their characteristics. This included preparing the students in the classroom, preparing teaching materials, organising transport, arranging guides and pre-visits, enquiring about entrance fees and evaluating the nature visit. The groups had the opportunity to consult with the course providers about their planned science visits. The plans were presented to the class and critically evaluated by the other participants. The finalised plans and accompanying materials were then completed, and four plans were selected for implementation, i.e., realisation with colleagues in the course. The individual students and organisers were selected on the basis of previously defined criteria.

The process of working with the students and the process of data collection is summarised step by step below.

Step 1: Conduct an online questionnaire with students.

Step 2: Presentation of the assignments and tasks of the Science Visits Course and criteria for evaluation to the students.

Step 3: Students work independently in groups—student-centred approach application—for the preparation of science visit plans.

Step 4: Presentation of science visit plans to colleagues and university teachers.

Step 5: Review and evaluation of written plans by university teachers.

Step 6: Feedback and announcement of the 4 best plans.

Step 7: Organisation of the science visit by the students and ongoing communication with the students on relevant issues.

Step 8: Implementation of the selected science visits and simulation of the activities by the students + evaluation of the implementation and management of the science visit by the university teachers + joint evaluation of the implementation.

Step 9: Conducting an online questionnaire with the students at the end of the course.

2.3. Instruments

To investigate the impact of the Science Visit Course on the introduction of a student-centred approach to outdoor learning in prospective primary school teachers, two similar questionnaires, including Likert-type items, were completed via the 1ka online environment. One questionnaire was used before the intervention course and the other after its completion.

The first questionnaire (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95) consisted of 36 Likert-type items in which students were asked to express their agreement or disagreement on a five-point scale, where 1 coded as ‘strongly disagree’, 2 as ‘disagree’, 3 as ‘neutral’, 4 as ‘agree’, and 5 as ‘strongly agree’. This questionnaire was structured around three temporal dimensions (expectations, characteristics, competences related to outdoor lessons), which allowed for a comprehensive assessment of students’ initial perceptions. The second questionnaire (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90) consisted of 17 Likert-type items.

The science visits planned by the students were evaluated by three independent experts in the field of science education. The students presented their planned visits and prepared detailed written reports. The evaluation was based on a structured evaluation form containing 9 categories mainly related to the phases of the planning of the science visits. Reviewing the science visit plans also included the identification and assessment of students’ competences and demonstrated skills, which were linked to the questionnaire completed by the students prior to the course. In this way, triangulation provided a balanced view of the students’ strengths and areas for improvement, ensuring greater credibility and reliability of the results.

2.4. Data Analysis

All data were recorded in the online survey tool 1ka (https://www.1ka.si/, accessed on 11 June 2024) and statistically processed in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Basic descriptive statistics (mean values, M, and standard deviation, SD) of the numerical variables were determined [37].

Student products (10 products of 3) with comprehensively planned science visits to be conducted with primary school pupils, including outdoor learning, were qualitatively analysed by 3 independent science educators. When there were discrepancies, compromises were sought in scoring.

3. Results

Results are organised according to the research questions.

3.1. Results Relating to RQ1

RQ1 refers to the extent to which students’ expectations of the implementation of the student-centred course match the implementation itself.

Table 1. Students’ expectations (before the course) and evaluation of the implementation of the student-centred course (after). Responses were collected for 17 Likert-type items. Students were asked to express their agreement or disagreement on a five-point scale, where 1 coded as ‘strongly disagree’, 2 as ‘disagree’, 3 as ‘neutral’, 4 as ‘agree’, and 5 as ‘strongly agree’.

Item, Content of the Statement		1	2	3	4	5	N	M	SD
1. Presentation of the objectives, content of the curriculum and availability	Before	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	3 (10%)	5 (17%)	20 (69%)	29 (100%)	4.5	0.9
	After	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (12%)	6 (24%)	16 (64%)	25 (100%)	4.5	0.7
2. Introduction of the teaching and assessment methods	Before	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	2 (7%)	8 (28%)	18 (62%)	29 (100%)	4.4	0.9
	After	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (16%)	6 (24%)	15 (60%)	25 (100%)	4.4	0.8
3. Involvement in the design of the tasks	Before	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	9 (31%)	13 (45%)	6 (21%)	29 (100%)	3.8	0.9
	After	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (24%)	19 (76%)	25 (100%)	4.8	0.4
4. Taking into account students’ needs	Before	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	9 (31%)	19 (66%)	29 (100%)	4.6	0.8
	After	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	2 (8%)	10 (40%)	12 (48%)	25 (100%)	4.3	0.8
5. Recognition and considering the differences between the students	Before	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (21%)	22 (76%)	29 (100%)	4.7	0.8
	After	0 (0%)	3 (12%)	7 (28%)	11 (44%)	4 (16%)	25 (100%)	3.6	0.9
6. Choosing own sites for visits in agreement with my fellow students in the group	Before	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	3 (10%)	8 (28%)	17 (59%)	29 (100%)	4.4	0.9
	After	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	6 (24%)	18 (72%)	25 (100%)	4.7	0.6
7. Encouragement by course providers to understand and apply the course’s content in new situations.	Before	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	15 (52%)	13 (45%)	29 (100%)	4.3	0.8
	After	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	11 (44%)	13 (52%)	25 (100%)	4.5	0.6
8. Encouragement by the course providers to actively discuss the content, to express my opinions and knowledge, and to ask questions on topics that are of particular interest to me.	Before	1 (3%)	1 (3%)	2 (7%)	14 (48%)	11 (38%)	29 (100%)	4.1	1.0
	After	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	9 (36%)	14 (56%)	25 (100%)	4.5	0.7
9. Work with colleagues in a group or pair in the course	Before	1 (3%)	1 (3%)	2 (7%)	5 (17%)	20 (69%)	29 (100%)	4.4	1.0
	After	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (16%)	21 (84%)	25 (100%)	4.8	0.4
10. Encouragement to work independently by course providers	Before	1 (3%)	3 (10%)	5 (17%)	11 (38%)	9 (31%)	29 (100%)	3.8	1.1
	After	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	0 (0%)	10 (40%)	14 (56%)	25 (100%)	4.5	0.7
11. Course providers giving ongoing feedback on the portfolio	Before	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (28%)	20 (69%)	29 (100%)	4.6	0.8
	After	1 (4%)	1 (4%)	6 (24%)	9 (36%)	8 (32%)	25 (100%)	3.9	1.1
12. Assessment in the course linked to learning objectives and outcomes	Before	1 (3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	12 (41%)	16 (55%)	29 (100%)	4.4	0.8
	After	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	3 (12%)	10 (40%)	11 (44%)	25 (100%)	4.2	0.8
13. Being interested in the content of the course	Before	0 (0%)	1 (3%)	2 (7%)	14 (48%)	12 (41%)	29 (100%)	4.3	0.8
	After	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	12 (48%)	11 (44%)	25 (100%)	4.4	0.6
14. Delving into topics related to the subject content	Before	0 (0%)	1 (3%)	8 (28%)	11 (38%)	9 (31%)	29 (100%)	4.0	0.9
	After	3 (12%)	6 (24%)	7 (28%)	7 (28%)	2 (8%)	25 (100%)	3.0	1.2
15. Looking forward to learning/teaching this subject	Before	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (17%)	12 (41%)	12 (41%)	29 (100%)	4.2	0.7
	After	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	1 (4%)	13 (52%)	10 (40%)	25 (100%)	4.3	0.7
16. Looking forward to visiting different sites in the course	Before	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	10 (34%)	19 (66%)	29 (100%)	4.7	0.5
	After	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	12 (48%)	12 (48%)	25 (100%)	4.4	0.6
17. Working on the topics covered in the course in my spare time	Before	1 (3%)	8 (28%)	10 (34%)	4 (14%)	6 (21%)	29 (100%)	3.2	1.2
	After	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	9 (36%)	9 (36%)	5 (20%)	25 (100%)	3.7	0.9

shows that the students’ ratings of Likert-type items on the 5-point scale are high, as most of them agreed or strongly agreed with all statements provided.

To avoid two entries in Table 1, only the content of items is written. The statement was written in the questionnaire itself.

The following text presents an illustrative example of the complete statement from the pre- and post-intervention questionnaire, accompanied by the corresponding content from Table 1.

Before the intervention: I would like to participate in the design of the tasks to be completed in the course. => (item 3: involvement in the design of the tasks).

After the intervention: I participated in the design of the assignments to be worked on in the course. => (item 3: involvement in the design of the tasks).

It can also be seen that the greatest difference (1 level or more) between pre- and post-implementation is in the level of agreement with statements about items 3, 5, and 14. Students rated their desire to help design the course tasks lower before implementation (item 3) than after implementation. For the statements about recognising and considering differences between students in the course (item 5) and about exploring topics related to the course content in more depth item 14, the desires were higher than the perceived implementation in class or in individual work.

3.2. Results Relating to RQ2

The students’ self-assessment of their competences relevant to teaching is the content of RQ2.

Table 2. Primary school teachers’ self-assessment of key teaching competences. Students were asked to express their agreement or disagreement on a five-point scale, where 1 coded as ‘strongly disagree’, 2 as ‘disagree’, 3 as ‘neutral’, 4 as ‘agree’, and 5 as ‘strongly agree’.

Item		1	2	3	4	5	N	M	SD
1.	I like working with other people and in a group.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (7%)	7 (25%)	19 (68%)	28 (100%)	4.6	0.6
2.	I can communicate easily.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	10 (36%)	17 (61%)	28 (100%)	4.6	0.6
3.	I have a good general knowledge of science.	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	9 (32%)	14 (50%)	3 (11%)	28 (100%)	3.6	0.8
4.	I can communicate with experts in other fields.	0 (0%)	3 (11%)	5 (18%)	15 (54%)	5 (18%)	28 (100%)	3.8	0.9
5.	I can adapt my teaching strategies to the individual, social, linguistic and cultural diversity of my pupils.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (11%)	17 (61%)	8 (29%)	28 (100%)	4.2	0.6
6.	I can apply my professional knowledge to achieve the curriculum objectives in the first two levels of primary school education.	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	3 (11%)	19 (68%)	5 (18%)	28 (100%)	4.0	0.7
7.	I can apply my didactic knowledge to achieve the objectives of the curriculum for teaching in the first two educational levels of primary school.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (11%)	16 (57%)	9 (32%)	28 (100%)	4.2	0.6

shows the characteristics of the pre-service primary school teachers before the course. For the most part, they agree with all statements, although there are small differences between them, which is also shown by the SD values. The highest mean level of agreement is for items 1 and 2, which relate to working with people and groups and communication skills. The lowest mean level of agreement was expressed in relation to good general knowledge (item 3), which could also be reflected in the results of the exams in the science subjects, which are average and not outstanding when looking at the final grades.

3.3. Results Relating to RQ3

RQ3 refers to the extent to which pre-service teachers self-assess the extent to which they implement the various objectives during outdoor lessons and evaluate their competence in planning and delivering outdoor lessons. This was assessed to some extent objectively by the course providers through the students’ material assessments and is presented in the results of RQ4.

Table 3. Students’ views on level of achievement of goals and competences related to outdoor learning. Students were asked to express their agreement or disagreement on a five-point scale, where 1 coded as ‘strongly disagree’, 2 as ‘disagree’, 3 as ‘neutral’, 4 as ‘agree’, and 5 as ‘strongly agree’.

Item		1	2	3	4	5	N	M	SD
1.	The level of achievement of goals in lessons outside the classroom: Cognitive learning objectives (data, facts, regularity).	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (25%)	12 (43%)	9 (32%)	28 (100%)	4.1	0.8
2.	The level of achievement of goals in lessons outside the classroom: Psychomotor learning objectives (perception, sorting, ordering, measuring, exploring, etc.).	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	4 (14%)	10 (36%)	13 (46%)	28 (100%)	4.3	0.8
3.	The level of achievement of goals in lessons outside the classroom: Educational learning objectives (cooperation, communication, relationship with the environment, etc.).	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	2 (7%)	6 (21%)	19 (68%)	28 (100%)	4.5	0.8
4.	I am able to clearly define the objectives before the science visit.	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	0 (0%)	7 (25%)	20 (71%)	28 (100%)	4.6	0.7
5.	I am good at organising meals for pupils during a science visit.	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	3 (11%)	12 (43%)	12 (43%)	28 (100%)	4.3	0.8
6.	I am good at organizing transport for pupils to the chosen site.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (29%)	11 (39%)	9 (32%)	28 (100%)	4.0	0.8
7.	I am able to lead pupils on a science visit.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (29%)	8 (29%)	12 (43%)	28 (100%)	4.1	0.8
8.	I am able to make cross-curricular links.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (18%)	11 (39%)	12 (43%)	28 (100%)	4.3	0.8
9.	I am able to adapt teaching and learning approaches to the needs and characteristics of the pupils.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (7%)	13 (46%)	13 (46%)	28 (100%)	4.4	0.6
10.	I am able to create and critically evaluate worksheets and other learning materials for science visits and fieldwork.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (11%)	17 (61%)	8 (29%)	28 (100%)	4.2	0.6
11.	I am able to critically evaluate a variety of teaching materials offered by different science institutions in printed or online form.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (29%)	13 (46%)	7 (25%)	28 (100%)	4.0	0.7
12.	I am able to critically evaluate the pedagogical work and didactic implementation of the guide in different institutions.	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (14%)	17 (61%)	7 (25%)	28 (100%)	4.1	0.6

shows that students rated their level of achievement of goals and competences related to outdoor learning highly, as most of them agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. About the achievement of objectives in lessons outside the classroom, they most strongly agreed with statement 3 that outdoor learning enables the achievement of educational learning objectives (cooperation, communication, relationship with the environment, etc.). They most strongly agree with statement 4 that it is important that the objectives are clearly defined before the science visit. The lowest level of agreement, but still student agreement, was found for the competences of organising transportation well (item 6) and being able to critically evaluate a variety of educational materials offered by different science institutions in print or online (item 11).

3.4. Results Relating to RQ4

The evaluation of science visits is the interest of RQ4. To some extent, the self-assessment of the development of competences in planning and implementing outdoor lessons is reflected in the students’ products was examined by analysing their planned science visits. Students were given the following written instructions:

• Create a detailed plan for the science visit for pupils in grades 4 or 5. Think about the teacher’s preparation, the pupils’ preparation, the visit itself, and the classroom work after the visit. Define the science visit in terms of location, duration, topic, etc. As it will be presented in class.
• Specify in your planning how you will consider and ensure the didactic principles when planning the science visit (principle of activity, clarity and relevance).
• Describe and present the science concepts to be discussed with the pupils before the visit.
• List and briefly describe the activities you would do before, during and after the science visit. For each activity, include the learning objectives from the science and technology curriculum.
• Create a brief instrument to assess pupils’ learning experiences outside of the classroom and test the knowledge you want them to acquire.
• Review the school legislation and the possibilities that the legislation offers for organising this type of activity. List the main restrictions and possibilities.

The students’ plans for science visits were evaluated on nine criteria (Visit plan, Fitting into the curriculum, Elaborated activities, Financial structure, Instrument for determining pupils’ impressions/knowledge, Coverage of the whole, Appropriateness of the selection in relation to the objectives, Originality, and Science basics). The students had a lot of experience in lesson planning, which they gained in many subjects during their studies. In addition, during their studies, they experienced different forms of fieldwork in science, social studies, sports education, etc. As illustrated in

Table 4. Evaluation of the proposed science visits; maximum score is 45 points.

Location of a Science Visit	Visit Plan/5	Fitting into the Curriculum/5	Elaborated Activities/5	Financial Structure/5	Instrument for Determining Pupils’ Impressions/ Knowledge/5	Coverage of the Whole/5	Appropriateness of the Selection in Relation to the Objectives/5	Originality/5	Science Basics/5	Sum
Museum (Postojna)	4	3.5	3	4.5	2.5	4	4	4	3	32.5
Lagoon (Ormož)	4	4	4	3.5	4	4	4	4	4	35.5
Cave (Grosuplje)	3.5	4	4	4.5	1	3	4	4	3	31
Lake (Velenje)	4	5	4	3	5	3	3	3	4	34
Forest (Ljubljana)	3.5	4	3.5	5	2.5	3	4	3	4	32.5
Herbal centre (Škocjan)	5	4.5	5	4	5	4	5	5	4	41.5
House of illusions (Ljubljana)	4	4	3	5	4	4	4	3	4	35
Sewage treatment plant (Ajdovščina)	4	5	3	3	4	4	4	3	4	34
Clay pits (Straža)	5	5	5	3	2.5	4	4	4	4	36.5
Botanical garden (Ljubljana)	3	4	4	4.5	3.5	4	4	4	3	34

, the students demonstrated a noteworthy level of proficiency, with scores ranging between 31 and 41.5 out of a total of 45 points.

The lowest score was awarded for the visit to the cave, while the highest was given for the visit that included the herbal centre. The evaluators provided descriptive comments about the visit plans with the intention of encouraging students to engage in further reflection. The following paragraphs present a selection of the comments provided to students.

3.5. Comment to the Cave Visit Plan

“You have made appropriate cross-curricular links between science, technology and society. You have addressed all the points required in the instructions. It would be useful to reflect on the use of the term research, e.g., what does it mean to research sediment deposition? To discover, to learn? In the text itself you write that we can see the concepts. We learn concepts, we see phenomena. Limestone is important for the formation of stalactites. Does limestone dissolve well or poorly in water? Why are the droplets always wet? How are they formed? How long does this process take? You have also cited sources and literature. It might be useful to think about whether the content can be placed in the context of the properties of matter. When you click on the link to the quiz, the message “Quiz is not yet open” appears. You have also stated the cost appropriately and put it in the context of the legislation for schools in nature. The tools for student experience and knowledge outside the classroom are missing. The link to the instruments does not work (the only link that does work is the first question “What experiences have been had with.”..—it was not possible to see further...). It is not clear how many students, how many teachers. Is a meal provided or do they have to bring their own?”

3.6. Comment on the Herbal Centre Plan

“You have divided the content of the tasks appropriately. You have prepared the worksheet well and it is appealing. You have described in detail how you would follow the didactic principles. Pay attention to the spelling. Perhaps you could have added your own notes on the theoretical principles. It makes sense that you have indicated the objectives of the subjects Science and Technology and Society. In the evaluation questionnaire itself, the numbering of the statements is a suggestion. You could use slightly different wording when formulating the statements. In the tool for checking the knowledge acquired by the students include also higher cognitive level questions. It is not clearly stated what is meant by a 2-h science visit (with or without transport, even though you added a map which shows us in some extent). Whether admission to the herbal centre is free is not clearly written. It is not clear how many students will participate in the visit and how many supervisors you have planned”.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The present research was based on the students’ self-assessment of their competences, which were then evaluated by analysing their written science visit plans. Four research questions were formulated for the purpose of this study. The objective was to gain insight into students’ perspectives on this type of work and their expectations (RQ1). Furthermore, the study investigated which core teaching competences the students believe they have already acquired and to what extent they perceive these competences to be well developed (RQ2). In addition, insight was gained into the students’ self-assessment of their competences for outdoor learning (RQ3). Since the course required students to create their own plans for science visits, an assessment of how their competences were reflected in their written plans and in the execution of these visits was made (RQ4).

The Science Visits Course provided students with the opportunity to engage in the independent design and implementation of subject content in practice. An understanding of student-centred learning is a valuable asset for prospective teachers, as it is closely aligned with pedagogical approaches and the level of student engagement in the learning process. This is also the approach that future teachers desire, as they are frequently subjected to lectures and carefully structured activities where they have minimal influence over the content [18]. The Science Visits Course provided an opportunity to address several challenges commonly encountered in the teaching of university-level courses, which often involve large groups of students. It is essential to provide students with opportunities to work and receive descriptive feedback on a regular basis. The recommendations for giving feedback suggested by [38] were taken into account in the implementation framework for the Science Visits Course. These recommendations state that effective feedback to students should be based on predefined criteria to clarify expectations and improve understanding. Feedback should be provided in a timely manner so that students have the opportunity to make necessary adjustments prior to final submission. It should include corrective advice that guides students to make specific improvements rather than just highlighting strengths and weaknesses. Limiting the scope of the feedback ensures that students can realistically address the key areas for improvement without feeling overwhelmed [38]. The latter represents a significant challenge for the practitioner when working with large groups. The provision of written and in-depth feedback to a group of 30 students, as in the presented course and study, represents a significant time commitment. Nevertheless, in the Science Visits Course, the students were required to work independently in groups to cocreate the course content and solve the ongoing tasks. The course providers provided continuous feedback to the students, but the survey results indicate that the students would have preferred a greater frequency of this feedback (Table 1, items 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12). This is consistent with reports based on articles in the literature review, where surveys of higher education students indicate that students are generally dissatisfied with feedback [39]. Students had high general expectations for the Science Visits Course, which were met according to the results. The students expressed a desire to enhance their science content knowledge and to participate in educational activities conducted in diverse settings, including outdoor and non-traditional learning environments for higher education. During the implementation of the field activities, it was observed that only highly motivated students refined their presentations and activities, added a lot of information and improved their implementation plan in the time after receiving the feedback. This might indicate that the student-centred approach facilitates lifelong learning and professional development of prospective primary school teachers following the course (Table 2).

The competences associated with the integration of didactic knowledge with the curriculum, the application of didactic knowledge, the integration of curriculum and didactic knowledge, working in a group, and communication are perceived as highly valuable by the students from the study (Table 2). The lowest level of self-assessment is that of science content knowledge (Table 2, item 3). The results show that pre-service primary school teachers attending the Science Visits Course identify what has been reported by other researchers, namely that many teachers do not feel competent enough and doubt their science literacy [40]. At the same time, this is very important as content knowledge influences what and how teachers teach. This is linked to a greater desire of students for progression and ongoing feedback. In the area of content knowledge, several studies have been carried out which demonstrate that both pre-service and in-service teachers have difficulties with certain science content. For example, this includes knowledge of heat and temperature [41], the phases of the moon [42], electricity [43], etc. Thus, the results of this research indicate the guidelines that should be followed in developing the content and objectives of the Science Visits Course in relation to science content knowledge. However, this may indicate that changes in the science subjects of the study programme for future primary school teachers need to be carefully considered.

Table 3 provides a summary of the students’ self-assessment of the competences related to the organisation of science visits and fieldwork. These include competences such as transport, meal organisation, student management, cross-curricular integration, adapting to students’ needs, teaching strategies, and the preparation of outdoor materials. The students rated themselves as having developed all the competences but indicated a lack of confidence in their ability to critically evaluate the materials from various sources. Critical evaluation of material from different sources is closely related to science content knowledge, as it is the basis for critical thinking and evaluation. Students’ responses are, therefore, consistent with each other in that they have a low self-assessment of content knowledge as well as critical evaluation of materials. However, there is a discrepancy between the self-assessment of competence and the demonstration of competence in the materials students prepared during the course. In the implementation and management of the science visits, the students demonstrated a potential weakness in leading and adapting to the group and dealing with current situations, which was not reflected in their questionnaire responses. Similar findings were reported in physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence [44]. Additionally, discrepancies may emerge due to the disparate perspectives and evaluative criteria that educators and learners bring to the educational process [45].

Table 4 demonstrates that none of the students achieved a score of 5 in the description and presentation of science topics that could be covered during the selected visit and would naturally relate to the selected site. It appears that the finding is consistent with the students’ self-assessment of their science interest and their perception of limited content knowledge in the field of science. It is shown that this might be linked to the originality of the ideas and activities they have designed to work with the pupils. As the pre-service primary school teachers from the Science Visits Course lacked a depth of knowledge, the content they designed was also limited in scope and creativity. They often designed and prepared activities that they already knew or had experienced during their schooling or studies, which is in line with reports from study presented in the reference [17]. It was observed that many students did not prepare activities to evaluate and refresh the learning content after the visit with the students and to evaluate the whole visit.

From the written science visit plans, it is evident that there is room for students’ improvement in competences regarding organisation and leading science visits. This leads to the conclusion that particular attention should be paid to promoting the importance of continuous professional development and lifelong learning, as also suggested in the references [46,47]. At the same time, the results suggest that there is a need to focus on work and changes in the teaching of basic concepts of science, which extend up to the primary school level. Curriculum changes are ongoing in Slovenia and we hope that they will show effects on the acquisition of basic science knowledge over the years.

As illustrated in the presented study, student-centred learning can be integrated into outdoor education and provides an effective teaching/learning strategy. The consideration of students’ expectations is reflected in their active participation and satisfaction with the science visit course. On the other hand, student competences important to outdoor education have come to the forefront to some extent, but as identified in the group of pre-service primary school students, there are still areas that need improvement, especially in the area of content knowledge and critical thinking and evaluation of diverse materials from various sources. The latter is a very important finding of this research, and changes in the scope of teaching content and in the choice of forms and methods of working with students on science content knowledge should be taken into account when adapting the course and science subjects for future primary school teachers, taking into account the evaluation of the implementation of the subjects so far.

The combination of student-centred learning and outdoor learning shows as an effective tool for the group of pre-service primary school teachers of the Science Visits Course, enabling them to learn actively in nature. The students participating in this type of work indicated that they found it engaging and held high expectations for its potential. Furthermore, they noted that it afforded them a sense of autonomy. The research findings indicate that the students perceive this type of work as appealing and that it encourages their self-engagement, taking responsibility, and cooperation in a group by exchanging ideas and opinions. Regarding the development of content knowledge, it seems that more attention needs to be paid, and a combination of approaches needs to be considered, e.g., combining teacher-centred and student-centred approaches to have a greater impact on the level of knowledge demonstrated by students. The student-centred approach can only be successful in building science content knowledge if the students’ prior knowledge is sufficiently high.

In further research, it would be worthwhile to examine the students’ prior knowledge and measure their progress in knowledge through the student-centred approach in order to assess it appropriately. On the basis of this analysis, we can only talk about opinions and self-assessments of their competences. However, they raise important questions. However, further complex research could include data collection with interviews, experiences and engagement in science teaching at three levels (knowledge, exploration, attitude) in multiple subjects and a longitudinal study, insights into their teaching, a holistic assessment of a group of students from conception to an evaluation of implementation.

The limitations of the study presented in this paper should also be mentioned. They lie in the number of students involved in the study (pre-service primary school teachers), in the technique of data collection, in the descriptors for each level (and its expansion) of agreement with the statements on Likert-type items, which would be useful in the questionnaires to detect differences between students, since high levels of agreement and inability to detect differences between students were observed, and in the assessment of science content knowledge, which should also be included in more detail.