Pre-service teachers (PSTs) undertake studies in preparation for teaching certain subjects. The reality is that once they join the workforce, many early career teachers are expected to teach subjects they are not qualified to teach, that is, teach out-of-field (OOF) (Ingersoll, 1999). In Australia, alarmingly, the Staff in Australia’s Schools survey (cited in Auditor General, 2012) demonstrated that unfilled science and mathematics positions were mostly filled by OOF teachers: 42% from current staff, and 23% from recruited teachers who were not qualified to teach the subject. Science and mathematics teaching are particularly susceptible to high incidences of OOF teaching because of the short supply of science- and mathematics-qualified teachers, particularly in rural and regional areas (Ingvarsen, 2004; Lyons, Cooksey, Panizzon, Parnell, & Pegg, 2006). More broadly, in the Australian context, allocating teachers to teach in subjects they are not trained to teach is at the discretion of the school principal, resulting in a general acceptance of assigning teachers OOF as a strategy for getting teachers in front of classrooms. While this practice may be unavoidable, the question remains: should early career teachers receive these assignments?

Early career teachers, due to their inexperience in teaching situations, often have had minimal opportunity to develop strategies, knowledge, skills or attitudes that will enable them to cope with many of the realities and complexities of teaching. This makes them less likely than more experienced teachers to be able to cope with the rigours of teaching OOF. In fact, reports show alarming attrition rates of early career teachers, for example 15% of teachers within the first four years in the Australian state of Queensland (Queensland College of Teachers, 2013), and around 40-50% in many countries in the first five years (Gallant & Riley, 2014). Gallant and Riley (2014) highlight, while the teachers in their study had a desire to make a difference, for some teachers, poor leadership practices, heavy workloads and expectations of their expertise, and unsupportive school cultures resulted in teachers losing faith in themselves and exiting the profession. Teaching OOF exacerbates the challenge of coming to terms with this new situation, for example due to professional isolation where they are the sole teacher of that subject (Buchanan et al., 2013), or because they are ill-equipped with the knowledge and skills of the discipline or the teaching methods (Harris & Jensz, 2006). Research is needed that examines explicitly the longitudinal effects and experiences of teaching out-of-field for the early career teacher.

The objective of this study is to produce important insights into the interaction between discipline-based and general knowledge, skills and attitudes in determining teacher preparedness and identity. The study began by examining the curriculum of secondary teacher education programs in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia, and exploring perceptions of teacher educators and PSTs in their final year. A subsequent longitudinal study follows a small sample of early career teachers, recruited in their final year of their initial teacher education program in 2013, to examine how their teaching allotment to infield or OOF subjects change over time, and how this and other experiences in their school impact on their practice, identity and wellbeing. The focus is on individuals who have teaching positions in remote, rural and regional areas as statistical data indicates that these states are the hotspots for unmet demand for teachers in non-metropolitan areas (Lyons et al., 2006). The project employs a case study methodology (Stake, 2005; Khan and Van Wynsberghe, 2008) informed by a sociocultural lens using the boundary-crossing literature (Akkerman & Bakker, 2006). This paper responds to the research question: How do early career teachers respond to teaching OOF?

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research. 8(2), 132-169. Auditor General (Victoria) (2012). Science and mathematics participation rates and initiatives. Auditor Report No. 139, Session 2010-12. Melbourne: State of Victoria. Buchanan, J., Prescott, A., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Burke, P. (2013). Teacher retention and attrition: Views of early career teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 112-129. Gallant, A., & Riley, P. (2014). Early career teacher attrition: new thoughts on an intractable problem. Teacher Development, 18(4), 562-580. Harris, K-L., Jensz, F. (2006). The preparation of mathematics teachers in Australia: Meeting the demand for suitably qualified mathematics teacher in secondary schools. Report prepared for the Australian Council of Deans, Melbourne. Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of out-of-field teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 773-776. Ingvarson, Beavis & Kleinhenz (2004) Teacher education courses in Victoria: Perceptions Of Their Effectiveness And Factors Affecting Their Impact. Melbourne: ACER. Khan, S., Van Wynsberghe, R. 2008. Cultivating the Under-Mined: Cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization, Qualitative social research 9(1):Art34. http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/. Lyons, T., Cooksey, R., Panizzon, D., Parnell, A., & Pegg, J. (2006). Science, ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia the SiMERR national survey: A research report prepared for the Department of Education, Science and Training, National Centre of Science, ICT and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional Australia, University of New England. Queensland College of Teachers (2013). Attrition of recent Queensland graduate teachers. Brisbane: QCT. http://www.qct.edu.au/Publications/Retention_Research_Report_RP01.pdf Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications