I denna studie intervjuades fem gymnasielärare i naturvetenskapliga ämnen kring att undervisa och lära utanför klassrummet. Frågeställningarna i detta arbete är; Varför skall man undervisa och lära utanför klassrummet? Vad finns det för hinder eller nackdelar med att undervisa utanför klassrummet? Alla lärare var positiva till att använda sig av undervisning utanför klassrummet men de framförde alla att de inte tyckte att de gjorde det tillräckligt mycket.Fördelar som dessa lärare kunde se med att välja att ha undervisning på en annan plats än klassrummet var att det gav en bättre verklighetsanknytning, var lättare att arbetaämnesövergripande, gav en god variation i undervisningen, platsen har positiv betydelseför minnet, det kunde öka motivationen och intresset hos eleverna att lära, och slutligen att det förbättrar sociala interaktioner mellan såväl elever som mellan elever och lärare.De hinder eller nackdelar lärarna kunde se med att använda sig av undervisning på enannan plats än i klassrummet hade hos de flesta sin grund i tidsmässiga ochschemamässiga problem men de var även en tveksamhet kring den pedagogiskavinningen, karaktären på de naturvetenskapliga ämnena och deras kursplaner, att eleverna var ovana och att lärarna inte kände sig trygga och bekväma i att ha undervisning utanför klassrummet. Skolans geografiska läge, väder, transport, riskbedömningar, saknat lärarsamarbete och saknad av lämpliga läromiljöer utanför klassrummet uttrycktes också vara hinder för att ha undervisning utanför klassrummet. / In this study five high school science teachers were interviewed aroundteaching and learning outside the classroom. The questions included in this work are: Why teach and learn outside the classroom? What are the obstacles or disadvantages with teaching outside the classroom? All teachers were positive about the use of teaching outside the classroom, but they all felt that they did not do it enough.Advantages these teachers could see with teaching outside the classroom were that it gave a better sense of reality, it was easier to work interdisciplinary, gave a good variety on the teaching, the place has positive significance for memory, it could increase motivation and interest among students to learn, and finally to it improves the social interaction between both students and between students and teachers.The obstacles or disadvantages teachers could see with the use of teaching outside their classroom was most rooted in time andschedule problems but they were also doubts about the pedagogical proceeds, the nature of science subjects and their syllabi, the students was inexperienced and that the teachers did not feel safe and comfortable in having classes outside classroom. The school's geographical location, weather, transportation, risk assessments, missingteacher collaboration and loss of appropriate learning places outside the classroom was also expressed be obstacles to be teaching outside the classroom.

The purpose of this qualitative study is to analyse the meaning of field work on the learning process of chemistry in high school from the perspective of students and teachers. The advantages and disadvantages that this activity supposes when it is used as a didactic tool in the teaching of chemistry were also analysed. The results showed that both students and teachers perceive field work as a very significant activity for learning chemistry, especially due to the contribution of natural environments in the establishment of "real" or "authentic" learning scenarios which benefit a greater development and integration of concepts theory and practice. It was also shown in this study that during the analysed fieldwork activities, and according to what students and teachers expressed, it was possible to effectively combine the "doing" and the “learning”, which reflects the applicability of Dewey's pragmatic theory on the learning process during fieldwork, or expressed in another way, the pragmatic character of this pedagogical activity. The participants, however, highlighted a few factors such as the high cost of the activity, the weather dependency, or the impossibility to carry out more complex investigations, as negative aspects which in some way contribute to understand why this type of activity is not carried out more frequently.