Introduction

Out-of-field teaching occurs when a teacher is assigned to teach a subject that does not align with their specialised disciplinary background (Hobbs & Törner, 2019). This practice persists across education systems and has been identified as a significant professional and policy challenge. Ingersoll (2019) argues that even highly qualified educators can effectively become unqualified when teaching outside their expertise, as they may lack sufficient content knowledge, pedagogical tools, and curriculum familiarity.

Research has linked out-of-field teaching to a range of negative outcomes for both teachers and students. Students taught by out-of-field teachers have been found to achieve lower academic results (Sheppard et al., 2020), while teachers experience reduced wellbeing, professional satisfaction, and retention in the workforce (Du Plessis et al., 2014). 

The phenomenon is shaped by both structural and contextual factors. Teacher shortages in specific subjects can elevate out-of-field rates (Hobbs & Törner, 2019), yet cross-national analyses show that shortages alone do not fully explain the prevalence of this issue (Zhou, 2014). Hiring practices, budgets, and scheduling pressures often lead administrators to assign teachers outside their trained specialisations (Du Plessis et al., 2017). Consequently, most teachers who find themselves teaching out-of-field do so involuntarily and with limited agency over their teaching assignments. In some contexts, professional development programmes are being developed and used to specifically support those teaching out-of-field (Kenny et al., 2020). 

Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), which views human functioning as shaped by reciprocal interactions between individuals, their behaviour, and their environment. Central to this framework is the construct of self-efficacy, defined, in the case of teacher self-efficacy, as a teacher's belief in their capability to plan and carry out teaching tasks effectively in a specific context (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Teacher self-efficacy influences persistence, resilience, and willingness to adopt new strategies, and higher self-efficacy is consistently associated with improved classroom practice and reduced burnout (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Within this framework, out-of-field teaching can be viewed as an environmental constraint that challenges teachers' efficacy beliefs. 

Research Question

This presentation examines the following research question: what do teachers feel are the most effective supports for teaching out-of-field?

This conference presentation reports qualitative findings from the interview phase of a mixed-methods study examining secondary teachers’ experiences teaching out-of-field (OOF) in Grades 9–12 sciences and mathematics across the four provinces of western Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba). Participants for the interview phase were drawn from respondents to the broader questionnaire phase who indicated willingness to be contacted for a follow-up interview. Seventeen teachers were purposively sampled from this pool to ensure that all interview participants were actively teaching at least one OOF assignment at the time of the study and to achieve an appropriate spread across relevant demographic and professional characteristics (province, gender, career stage, and subject area). While the larger questionnaire included teachers teaching fully in-field as well as those teaching OOF, the interview sample focused specifically on teachers with current OOF responsibilities in order to capture rich accounts of how teachers navigate OOF teaching and what supports they perceive as most effective. The interviews were designed using a phenomenological orientation, foregrounding teachers’ lived experiences and meaning-making in relation to teaching OOF. The semi-structured interviews were conducted via online video calls and lasted approximately one hour each. Regarding support for OOF teaching, the interview protocol included direct questions about (a) resources and supports teachers accessed to prepare for and teach OOF classes (e.g., people, websites, books, professional learning), (b) access to subject-specific professional development and the extent to which it was supported or funded by schools/divisions (including travel and frequency), (c) opportunities for collaboration and collegial consultation (including whether teachers were themselves consulted by others), (d) perceived transfer of skills, analogies, and pedagogical approaches from in-field teaching to OOF subjects, and (e) supports teachers may not have had but ideally wished were available. The interviews were analyzed using an iterative, inductive thematic approach to identify patterns in what teachers described as effective supports for OOF teaching and the conditions that enabled or constrained access to those supports. Analysis moved from initial familiarization and coding of support-related segments to grouping codes into possible themes, followed by refinement of themes through comparison across participants and attention to variation by context and career stage. Findings reported in the presentation emphasize themes that are explicitly grounded in participants’ accounts of what supported their OOF planning, confidence, and instructional practice.

Across 17 phenomenological interviews with secondary science and mathematics teachers teaching OOF, findings reveal a clear progression from least to most effective forms of support. Teachers consistently described the least effective approach as isolated, self-directed coping. This included web searching, trial-and-error lesson construction, and attempting to independently backfill subject knowledge. While online resources were commonly used, teachers reported that working in isolation often increased workload and uncertainty, particularly around what content mattered most, how to sequence it, how to align assessments with learning, and whether materials matched the curriculum. In contrast, the most effective supports were collaborative, concrete, curriculum-aligned, and sustained over time. First, mentorship and collegial support emerged as foundational. Teachers emphasized that access to a knowledgeable colleague who could answer questions, share usable materials, and provide reassurance was transformative. Also effective, though rare, were school- or division-level structures that intentionally supported this collaboration, such as official time or access to mentor colleagues. One teacher explained, “If she wasn’t there, there’s no way I would have been able to teach life science… a mentor teacher is the best thing to have.” Second, teachers highlighted the importance of shared, curriculum-aligned resources that reduce the burden of building an OOF course from scratch. Valued materials included worked solutions, example questions, unit sequences, and feasible labs and activities. The absence of lab resources was especially challenging given teachers’ discomfort with unfamiliar experimental practices. Third, teachers valued in-service professional development when it was planned, sustained, and directly tied to their OOF assignment, though such opportunities were uncommon. Finally, teachers pointed to pre-service preparation that acknowledges OOF teaching as likely and equips teachers with transferable planning routines and cross-disciplinary strategies. Overall, findings suggest OOF teaching is most sustainably supported when systems move from individual coping to collective, planned support infrastructures.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. Du Plessis, A. E., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2017). The meaning of out-of-field teaching for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2014.962618 Du Plessis, A. E., Gillies, R. M., & Carroll, A. (2014). Out-of-field teaching and professional development: A transnational investigation across Australia and South Africa. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.03.002 Hobbs, L., & Törner, G. (2019). Teaching out-of-field as a phenomenon and research problem. In L. Hobbs & G. Törner (Eds.), Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-field” (pp. 3–20). Springer Nature Singapore. Ingersoll, R. M. (2019). Measuring out-of-field teaching. In L. Hobbs & G. Törner (Eds.), Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-field” (pp. 21–52). Springer Nature Singapore. Kenny, J., Hobbs, L., & Whannell, R. (2020). Designing professional development for teachers teaching out-of-field. Professional Development in Education, 46(3), 500–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1613257 Sheppard, K., Padwa, L., Kelly, A. M., & Krakehl, R. (2020). Out-of-Field Teaching in Chemistry and Physics: An Empirical Census Study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 00(00), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1702268 Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 Zhou, Y. (2014). The Relationship Between School Organizational Characteristics and Reliance on Out-of-Field Teachers in Mathematics and Science: Cross-National Evidence from TALIS 2008. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0123-8