Internationally, secondary teaching is largely specialized, meaning that teachers teach within discipline-based subjects. However, sometimes teachers can be required to teach subjects for which they have limited background. This practice occurs internationally and has prompted retraining programmes in countries, such as Germany. This paper explores the boundary negotiations involved for teachers as they move from an in-field subject to an out-of-field subject. Despite the obvious discontinuity relating to new content knowledge, there are many factors that disrupt the rhythm of a teacher when teaching out-of-field (Hobbs, 2012). The current paper focuses on the need to define the nature of the field in order to identify where learning can take place during a boundary crossing. The research questions are: where is discontinuity experienced, where is each teacher’s point of need, where are the possibilities for learning, what is the influence on teachers’ professional identity, and what is needed to maximise learning at the boundary?

This research uses a theoretical lens informed by the boundary crossing literature (e.g., Star 1989; Akkerman and Bakker 2011). Akkerman and Bakker define boundaries as ‘sociocultural differences leading to discontinuities in action and interaction’ (p. 152), rather than any move between different practices. Boundaries simultaneously are marked by a sameness and continuity in some ways.

Whether in-field or out-of-field teaching, sameness and continuity reside in the fact that both fields involve such things as pedagogy, curriculum and meeting learning outcomes. However, teachers can experience discontinuity when experiences result in shifts in degrees of confidence and competence in their ability to effect positive learning outcomes for their students.  The boundary crossings lens provides a platform for re-conceptualising these experiences as opportunities for professional learning occurring within schools as communities of practice, where teachers are supported and enabled to adapt to new fields and expand their professional identity. In order to illustrate the learning that can take place as teachers negotiate boundaries between subjects, I draw on Akkerman and Bakker’s (2011) analysis of the boundary crossing literature, where they discern four dialogical learning mechanisms of boundaries, and which I refer to in the following way: Identification of the discontinuities experienced by teachers, Coordination of boundary objects that assist in negotiating boundaries, Reflection on practice and identity, and Transformation of identity and practices. I use these mechanisms as a framework for exploring the learning potential for out-of-field teachers.

Akkerman, Sanne F., and Bakker, Arthur 2011. “Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects” Review of Educational Research 81: 132-169. Hitchcock, Graham, and Hughes, David 1989. Research and the teacher. London: Routledge. Hobbs, Linda 2012. “Teaching 'out-of-field' as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity”. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Online first Star, Susan. L. 1989. The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem-solving. In Distributed artificial intelligence Vol. II, ed. Les Gasser and Michael N. Huhns, 37-54. London: Pitman. Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.