Session Information
99 ERC SES 04 G, Mathematics Education Research
Paper Session
Contribution
The shortage of mathematics teachers has raised several concerns in education systems around the world. One pressing issue involves addressing the vacancies in classrooms, often leading to the emergence of the out-of-field (OOF) teaching phenomenon. This phenomenon entails teaching a subject without a background in the subject or preparation for teaching it. Part of the literature have focused on the impact of teacher qualifications on students’ academic performance. There are studies that reveal disadvantages for students taught by OOF teachers (Porsch & Whannell, 2019). In subjects with cumulative content, such as mathematics, the complexity of which escalates across grade levels, the significance of teachers' qualifications becomes notably pronounced (Hobbs & Törner, 2019). Other strand of literature focus on the consequences for teachers. Challenges in competence and the additional workload associated with OOF teaching are often connected to job dissatisfaction and emotional challenges, including stress, anxiety, and burnout (Buenacosa & Petalla, 2022).
Consequently, different policies have emerged to address the issue of OOF mathematics teaching. Focusing on the English former Teacher Subject Specialism Training (TSST) programme and the Australian (NSW) Mathematics Retraining program, this study was guided by the question: how is the phenomenon of OOF mathematics teaching constructed in these two policies? Remembering that policies are designed by people makes us reflect on the assumptions that were made about the phenomenon, and which were left out
In 2023, the media has echoed the phenomenon, highlighting that 12% mathematics lessons are taught by someone without a mathematics degree in England, while in Australia 33% of secondary maths teachers were OOF (Carey & Caroll., 2023; Weale, 2023). England and Australia share historical ties, but they also exhibit distinctive educational systems shaped by unique cultural, policy, and contextual factors. This paper shedding light on the nuanced ways each case problematizes and therefore acts upon the same phenomenon. This paper has two objectives. On the one hand, to identify, through the analysis of two international cases, the assumptions regarding the phenomenon of OOF teaching. On the other hand, to compare the representations given to the phenomenon in England and NSW.
Traditionally in policy analysis, there has been a conventional belief that policy documents are rational and objective reactions to pre-established and fixed social problems (Bacchi, 2009; Ball, 1993). Therefore, analysts often inquire “what is this policy doing to fix the identified problem?” (Bacchi, 2009). Bacchi argues that these texts, by outlining necessary changes, incorporate implicit representations of the issue or problem they intend to address. Moreover, she contends that such policy documents may inadvertently contribute to defining and spreading the very issues they seek to solve.
Method
The WPR methodology is based on three fundamental assumptions. First, it recognises policy-as-discourse, encompassing assumptions, presumptions, values, and subjectivities. Second, it examines problematizations by analysing how the problem is represented, focusing on the importance of studying the articulation of 'problems'. Third, the WPR underscores the necessity of scrutinizing these problematizations, emphasizing the evaluation of their underlying assumptions and their consequences (Bacchi 2009, xxi). In a way, one of the advantages of the WPR approach is its simplicity. Bacchi offers a structure that allows for an orderly and transparent analysis. Six questions were posed to address the policy. •Question 1: What are the problems represented in policies that directly address the OOF teaching? •Question 2: What deep-seated presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’? •Question 3: How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about? •Question 4: What remains unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be conceptualized differently? •Question 5: What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’? •Question 6: How and where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated, and defended? How has it been and how can it be disrupted and replaced? These questions guide analysts and require breaking away from traditional (solution-focused) approaches, unravelling the root of the policy and the birth of the particular problem to be addressed. The WPR appeals to look at the policy not only in the official text (not publicly accessible in most cases), but also in the discourses, constructions that can stem from it. Thus, for this paper, policy can be defined as official public documents that articulate structured statements and directives, representing efforts to address the OOF phenomenon. Therefore, the official public documents used for this study are: • Teacher subject specialism training (TSST): programme details • Teacher subject specialism training (TSST): course directory • Blog. Teaching: Taking on a new challenge - making the move from PE to maths • Mathematics Retraining Program- General Information • Mathematics Retraining Programme – frequently asked questions • Mathematics Retraining Programme - Participant Information Session • Mathematics Retraining/Mentoring Programme Drop-in Session • Mathematics Retraining programme and Mentoring Programmes
Expected Outcomes
The primary problem representation identified is the lack of subject-specific expertise among teachers which these policies aim to address through professional development and retraining programs. This methodology underscores a belief in enhancing teacher qualifications as a strategy for improving quality teaching and addresses the immediate need for subject-specific skills in secondary schools. There is an implicit suggestion that the primary solution to OOF teaching lies in individual teacher improvement, rather than systemic changes or broader support mechanisms. The effects of these problem representations are multifaceted. On the one hand, they lead to initiatives that directly enhance teacher competencies and may improve classroom teaching quality. On the other hand, they may inadvertently place additional pressures on teachers, requiring them to undertake further training, often without addressing the broader structural challenges that lead to OOF teaching. In examining the literature on OOF teaching, it becomes apparent that the policies in both England and NSW frame OOF teaching as a detriment to educational quality. Consequently, these policies propose training as a solution, operating under the assumption that enhancing teachers' qualifications will positively impact student learning outcomes. However, this approach to problematisation often neglects the wellbeing of the teachers themselves. While the primary aim of these programs is to retrain teachers for mathematics teaching, it's important for policies addressing OOF teaching to consider those educators who continue to teach OOF but do not participate in these programs. Providing support for teachers who remain in OOF positions, yet are not beneficiaries of these retraining programs, is crucial. Such support can mitigate issues like teacher burnout, stress, and anxiety, potentially averting long-term consequences like teacher attrition. This focus on teacher welfare within OOF teaching policies is essential for a comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges in this area.
References
Bacchi, C., 2009. Analysing policy: what’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson. Bacchi, C., 2012. Why study problematisations? Making politics visible. Open journal of political science, 2 (1), 1–8. doi:10.4236/ojps.2012.21001 Ball, S.J., 1993. What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 13 (2), 10–17. doi:10.1080/0159630930130203. Buenacosa, M.S.A. & Petalla, M. B. (2022). Embracing the Unknown: Adaptability and Resiliency of Out-of-Field Secondary Teachers Teaching English in Public Schools. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 37(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2022/v37i2796 Carey, A. & Caroll, L. (2023, June 14). ‘Number of specialist maths teachers just doesn’t add up’. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/education/number-of-specialist-maths-teachers-just-doesn-t-add-up-20230614-p5dgjm.html Hobbs, L. & Törner, G. (2019). Teaching Out-of-Field as a Phenomenon and Research Problem. In L. Hobbes & G. Törner (eds.), Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-field” (3-20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_1 Porsch, R., and R. Whannell. 2019. “Out-of-Field Teaching Affecting Students and Learning: What Is Known and Unknown.” In Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-Field”: International Perspectives on Teaching as a Non-Specialist, edited by L. Hobbs and G. Törner, 179–191. Singapore: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_7. Weale, S. (2023, April 17). ‘Shortage of teachers will be a big maths problem for Rishi Sunak. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/apr/17/shortage-of-teachers-will-be-a-big-maths-problem-for-rishi-sunak
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.