Out-of-field teaching is recognised as a growing feature of education systems across the world. It is complex and multifaceted, and in many systems, it is still seen as an aberration rather than an inevitable outcome of policy settings and the application of practical expediency in schools faced with limited resources. Too often the ultimate responsibility in ensuring a teacher can meet the demands of their out-of-field allocation falls upon the teacher themselves. There are times when this might appear reasonable, particularly if the teacher has elected to teach out-of-field (Kenny et al. 2020). However, for others, teaching out-of-field is an expectation placed upon them that they may feel unable to refuse. Out-of-field teachers can feel out of their depth due to lacking knowledge of content and teaching approaches, limited familiarisation with teaching resources and equipment (Fraser et al., 2019), and difficulties in anticipating students’ challenges (Hobbs, 2020; Singh et al., 2021). Lacking connection to disciplinary ways of knowing, doing and being and appreciating how these translate into school curriculum and teaching and learning can also be challenging for an out-of-field teacher (Hobbs et al., 2026). Teachers’ connection to the subject in terms of personal interest and professional identity and prior learning and teaching experiences impact how they approach learning to teach a new subject, their attitude towards teaching the subject long-term, and their professional development choices (Hobbs 2020). The responsibility for ensuring teachers ‘fit’ (Blackmore et al., 2024) with their allocated classes, that they can access support within and outside of the school workplace, and that they feel adequately prepared with the challenge of learning to teach a new subject cannot belong solely to the out-of-field teacher. Rather, school leaders, in-field teachers, providers of professional education (PE) (including professional learning and development), initial teacher educators and governments all bear some responsibility in ensuring out-of-field teachers can meet the demands of the subjects they are required to teach. 

Building on research already conducted exploring the ecosystem of PE available for teachers within an Australian context (Hobbs et al., 2025a, 2025b), this paper explores the specific context of the subject ‘Science’ from the perspective of providers of science PE (i.e., initial teacher education, professional learning, mentoring, graduate certification) and subject associations. We investigate the question What factors influence uptake of PE by teachers teaching science out-of-field? This question explores the multi-disciplinary nature of the sciences and their relationship to teaching Science as a key learning area within the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2026) at the levels of secondary schooling (Year 7 to 12, ages 12-18). 

The science context raises questions regarding adopting a binary approach to in-field versus out-of-field teaching and whether it may be more useful to consider out-of-field teaching as a “continuum of near and far characterizations” (Luft et al., 2020, p. 721). Our exploration spans within the general field of science when considering how near and far some science sub-disciplines are to each other, and outside of science when non-science trained teachers are expected to teach science subjects. Such vagaries become relevant in educational contexts where science (ACARA, 2022) is taught as a single subject (or specialisation) but composed of topics covering several science disciplines (e.g., Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth and space sciences) but usually taught by a single teacher, considered ‘in-field’, who will have a background in a single science discipline (e.g., environmental science). In this study, we explore the realities experienced by specialist and non-specialist science teachers and those supporting them. 

This study forms part of a broader study examining the ecosystem of current PE in the Australian context. We approach this from an ecological perspective using Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) Ecological Systems Theory (EST). Central to this framing is understanding the levels and positionality of responsibility across the ecosystem to meet the needs of out-of-field science teachers. Our study began with a review of international literature, Australian policy and subject association documents, and PE programs specifically for out-of-field teachers and policy documents , which informed an analytical framework for shifting the culture of out-of-field professional education for teachers. An interview study followed, the design of which was informed by the six categories of the Analytical Framework: education system, public discourse, subject specialisation, implications and effects, entry and staying in the teaching professional, and professional education. These categories informed a schedule of questions for semi-structured interviews, tailored to the three stakeholder groups – policy, PE providers, and schools. The interviews (n=43) were to obtain exploratory data to confirm, disconfirm, extend, and deepen our understanding of the current PE ecosystem and factors that influence teacher uptake. This presentation explores the responses from 6 of the interviews: three representatives from universities and three from state or national science teacher associations. All interviewees had experience in delivering professional learning for out-of-field teachers, had been teachers of science, and/or teach in initial teacher education. Each interview was 30-40 minutes long, transcribed then analysed initially according to the six categories of the analytical framework. Using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis, three researchers familiarised themselves with the six interview transcripts, agreed on three broad themes (responsibility within the system, professional education, and subject specialisation) that captured ideas that were particularly relevant to the culture of PE and its uptake for teachers teaching science out-of-field. Each researcher then independently analysed the six interviews using these themes, highlighting the range of ideas occurring, specifically commonalities, differences, and where tensions and contradictions were evident between the interviews.

Preliminary analysis highlighted the need for distributed responsibility in supporting out-of-field teachers, as “there is no one size fits all” (participant1) approach. Several participants argued that the system bears responsibility for adequately funding in-school support structures (such as mentors) who support teachers “at the point of time that they need it” (participant 2). Schools, in turn, were viewed as responsible for actively supporting teachers assigned to teach out-of-field. Views on PE revealed differences in how participants valued external subject expertise and the degree of trust they placed in PE models for out-of-field teachers. Some participants prioritised school centred support while others argued that externally provided PE opportunities offered access to specialised subject knowledge. Attitudes toward science specialisation further shaped these perspectives. While defining out‑of‑field teaching as technical misalignment between teachers’ qualifications and teaching allocations was considered useful for system‑level advocacy, it was regarded less helpful “language when talking about teachers” of science (participant 2). These different viewpoints highlight the complex of being a science teacher, where formal qualifications, teacher identity, and feelings of out‑of‑field‑ness do not always align. A binary in‑/out‑of‑field framing obscures the reality that even science‑trained teachers may feel out‑of‑field and remain continual learners: “you’re never going to be in a situation where everybody has learnt everything. … People need to learn on the job” (participant 3). Although science teachers are trained to think scientifically, their discipline‑specific knowledge and practices must be translated for classroom application, meaning in‑field teachers may experience out‑of‑field‑ness when teaching unfamiliar science content. Across these perspectives, the phenomenon is shaped by curriculum structures and beliefs about both the nature of teaching the subject and forms of support required to sustain disciplinary integrity. Further analysis will outline features of an ideal PE ecosystem that supports science re-specialisation through various pathways.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2022). Australian Curriculum: Science (Version 9.0). https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ Blackmore, J., Hobbs, L. & Rowlands, J., (2024). Aspiring teachers, financial incentives and principal’s recruiting for hard-to-staff schools. Journal of Education Policy, 39(2), 233-252. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 3). Elsevier. Fraser, S., Beswick, K., & Crowley, S. (2019). Making tacit knowledge visible: Uncovering the knowledge of science and mathematics teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102907. Hobbs, L. (2020). Learning to teach science out-of-field: A spatial-temporal experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(7), 725-745. Hobbs, L., Carpendale, J., McKnight, L., Caldis, S., Vale, C., Delaney, S., & Campbell, C. (2026). A framework of subject-specific expertise for out-of-field teachers: Translated for science and English. Teaching and Teacher Education, 169, 105262. Hobbs, L., Ross, E., Cirkony, C., McCandless, T., Caldis, S., Dutton, J., Goos, M., Oates, G., Shelley, K., Delaney, S., & Speldewinde, C. (2025a). Australia’s professional education ecosystem for out-of-field teachers: Seeking diverse pathways for teacher learning. Professional Development in Education (submitted December 2025) Hobbs., L. Speldewinde, C., Ross, E., Caldis, S., Goos, M., Delaney, S., Cirkony, C., Dutton, J. & Oates, G. (2025b). An Analytical Framework for Shifting the Culture of Out-of-field Professional Education for Teachers. Presentation to the ECER 2025, University of Belgrade, Serbia, 8 – 12 September 2025. Kenny, J., Hobbs L. & Whannell, R. (2020) Designing professional development for teachers teaching out-of-field, Professional Development in Education, 46(3), 500-515. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2019.1613257 Luft, J. Hanuscin, D., Hobbs, L. & Törner, G. (2020). Out-of-field teaching in science: An overlooked problem. Editorial. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(7), 719-724. Singh, H., Luft, J.A., & Napier, J.B. (2021). The development of ePCK of newly hired in-field and out-of-field teachers during their first three years of teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 611 - 626.