Next Article in Journal
Challenges Faced by International Students in Understanding British Accents and Their Mitigation Strategies—A Mixed Methods Study
Previous Article in Journal
An Evaluation of the Experimental Science Teaching Program for Primary Education from the Teachers’ Perspective: An Educational Design Research Journey
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/educsci14070783
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Principal Attitudes towards Out-of-Field Teaching Assignments and Professional Learning Needs

by
Raphaela Porsch
1,* and
Linda Hobbs
2
1
Department of Education, University of Magdeburg, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany
2
School of Education, Deakin University, Warn Ponds 3220, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(7), 783; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070783
Submission received: 16 April 2024 / Revised: 4 July 2024 / Accepted: 16 July 2024 / Published: 18 July 2024
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Research has shown that school leader practices can influence teachers’ lived experiences of teaching out-of-field. Less is understood about principals’ attitudes towards out-of-field teaching and their perceptions of the teachers’ professional development support needs. This qualitative multiple case study investigates principal attitudes and school practices relating to out-of-field teaching in Australia and Germany. The findings show that principals’ attitudes differed in relation to the importance of teachers’ subject background knowledge, what they regarded as quality teaching, and, consequently, the professional development needs of teachers. Four perspectives (teaching as pedagogical, passion, capability, and specialized) on principal’s attitudes and related professional development supports were identified to illustrate that there are multiple ways to regard out-of-field teaching from a school management perspective. Principal attitudes towards quality teaching were exposed through what they tolerate in terms of out-of-field teaching and the supports they deem suitable and necessary. We argue that principals need to be active in considering a comprehensive tailored approach when supporting teachers’ learning to teach a subject out-of-field.

1. Introduction

School leaders’ decisions about what is necessary and attainable for their school are driven by instructional priorities and pragmatic constraints. Where the supply of teachers is inadequate, school principals need to make difficult decisions about allocating teachers to subjects out-of-field [1,2], that is, teaching subjects they are not qualified to teach. In many countries [3], out-of-field teaching assignments help to alleviate difficulties in attracting certain types of teachers (e.g., science, mathematics, language, and technology teachers) to certain types of schools (hard to staff schools) or geographical regions (rural and remote). Often these decisions are made with limited guidance or support structures [4] and may be simply a consequence of the complexities of class scheduling [5]. This paper draws on data from principals to identify attitudes towards teaching that are relevant when making decisions about out-of-field teacher assignments, professional development, and support.
The practice and success of out-of-field teaching depends critically on teachers’ adaptability [6,7,8]. Teacher learning and professional development plays a critical role in sustaining quality teaching [9]. Teachers are essentially crossing boundaries [10] from a field where they are comfortable with their practice, knowledge, and expertise, to a field that is foreign due to unfamiliar content and/or pedagogical practices [8]. Research points to the critical role of the school culture and leadership practices in sustaining and defining teaching quality at the school level [11,12]. Some research has shown that decisions to assign teachers to out-of-field classes are based on an ill-informed understanding of the effects of out-of-field teaching on teachers’ well-being and their students [12]. Little investigation, however, has examined factors influencing staffing decisions under these conditions [13] and under what circumstances out-of-field teaching might be deemed tolerable (or not) [14]. While attention has been given to the types of supports that out-of-field teachers need to maintain quality teaching [8,12,15], little research aligns specific supports, actions, and practices with principal attitudes.
Principals play an important role in establishing the professional culture of the school, including the culture of support, innovation, and collaboration that might contribute to teacher learning and development. Principals create and organize teacher professional learning activities [16], providing opportunities for informal learning [17], but they can also struggle to understand the subject specific learning needs of their teachers [18]. Bredson [19], while acknowledging the administrative burden that principals often face, state that “highly effective principals work to move teachers toward greater levels of independent and professional autonomy” (p. 398) rather than act as gatekeepers of teacher learning, advocating that a “constellation of formal and informal opportunities for teachers to learn and to improve their professional craft is crucial to school improvement and student success” (p. 398). Research shows that in some contexts, principals can have limited awareness of the structure of effective professional development, and even lack an appreciation of the importance of teacher PD to school renewal [20].
A critical question is how principal attitudes about out-of-field teaching influence their approach to supporting teachers as they cross the boundary into a new subject. What formal and informal teacher learning opportunities [19] do they deem necessary and put in place for out-of-field teachers? We are characterizing out-of-field teaching as a boundary crossing [10], thereby foregrounding the learning possibilities that can arise as a teacher moves from an in-field familiar subject to a less familiar out-of-field subject [8]. According to this theory, discontinuities arise, such as disruptions in actions and interactions associated with their knowledge, confidence, or practices, as a result of changing roles or contexts. Where discontinuities are noticed or identified by a teacher, there are possibilities for identity expansion and a re-conceptualization of practice [10]. To attain some degree of continuity, research shows that out-of-field teachers must be supported at their point of need [8,12,21]. Thus, we are interested in how principal attitudes towards out-of-field teaching disclose their awareness and understandings about the types of supports that are needed by teachers in this situation.
In this research we examine out-of-field teaching as a phenomenon in Germany and Australia from the perspective of those responsible for making decisions about teachers’ work, acknowledging that often these decisions are difficult and can run counter to what is preferred by the teacher, the principal, or the school. Understanding these perspectives would provide a basis for educating school leadership of the effects of attitudes on decision-making practices relating to teaching out-of-field.
The research addresses the following research questions:
(1)
What attitudes do principals in Australia and Germany hold towards teacher suitability for out-of-field teaching?
(2)
Which professional learning support structures do principals in Australia and Germany consider relevant for out-of-field teachers?
(3)
How are teacher support structures related to these attitudes?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Leadership Practices and the Out-of-Field Phenomenon

The success of a school is determined by the quality of its principal [22]. Much is known about productive school leadership practices, particularly the concept of distributed leadership [6] or schools as learning organizations [23]. However, what constitutes quality leadership is highly dependent on local conditions [22], particularly around staffing and the pressure on principals to sustain quality teaching and learning even when schools are unable to attract the teachers they need due to a lack of school autonomy or funding [24]. The legitimacy of assigning a teacher to teach subjects out-of-field has been shown to be determined on the one hand by teacher qualifications and registration (certification) practices, and on the other, as a practical solution to the teacher shortage. Hobbs [7] differentiated between two discourses that give legitimacy to decisions relating to the suitability of a teacher to teach a particular subject. One relates to learning as qualification where legitimacy for teaching a subject is predicated on a history of the teacher studying the subject through formal qualifications. Similarly, Sharplin [15] formulated categories to describe the fit between teachers’ experiences, background and their allocated role, which Van Overschelde [25] would describe as different degrees of misalignment. The second discourse is learning as experience where a teacher’s on-the-job experiences or inherent demonstrable or assumed teacher qualities become the measure of suitability and legitimize a decision to assign a teacher out-of-field. The tension between these two discourses of qualification versus experience, according to Hobbs [7], underpins a tolerance for out-of-field teaching worldwide. With regard to principals, we assume that this tolerance differs due to different attitudes about what constitutes a good teacher and quality teaching [26] and different leadership styles [27], but is justified out of a pragmatic need to maintain the full curriculum offerings when qualified teachers are not available. We propose that principals’ decisions about workload and the support they consider to be suitable, available, and possible for out-of-field teachers are related to their attitudes about what constitutes quality teaching.
In Australia, teacher assignment is at the discretion of the school principal and in Germany the school departments in each federal state. Even if teachers are hired for specific subjects, in both countries there is little accountability in ensuring that teachers are specialized in the subjects they teach. Of critical importance is understanding how school leaders, when making decisions about teacher assignment and teacher support, situate disciplinary knowledge in relation to teachers’ practice, the inherent contradictions between teaching as generic and transferable knowledge and skills versus the disciplinary nature of subject teaching and learning, and the tensions between the ideal and practicalities in the face of teacher shortages. While out-of-field teaching may be considered a local pragmatic solution to the immediate problem of teacher shortage [14], does this automatically mean that school leaders are accepting this practice? The attitudes of school leaders to assigning teachers out-of-field, how this relates to their view of teaching quality, and the way they create a culture of support, are of critical importance to how teachers experience teaching out-of-field.

2.2. Principal Attitudes and Support Structures

As a construct, ‘attitudes’ is multidimensional and relates to an individual’s evaluation of an object or issue. Attitudes are understood to be “a relatively enduring organisation of beliefs, feelings, and behavioral tendencies towards socially significant objects, groups, events or symbols” [28]. Attitudes are highly relevant for actions, but they also refer to the requirements, such as individual capability [29]. In the school context, principal attitudes can influence the activities and practices of a school [30]. Internationally, researchers have conducted research on principals’ attitudes or beliefs in several contexts, such as inclusive teaching [31,32], or how school leaders use data for school-development and the relationship between principals’ personal views and their actions [33].
In relation to out-of-field teaching, Du Plessis [12] found that principals’ “attitudes of seclusion or detachment” (p. 65) in relation to out-of-field teaching arise because of a lack of knowledge of the phenomenon. Hobbs and Törner [14] proposed two positions on how teachers and school administration might view the phenomenon: (1) an opportunity position highlighting the potential learning opportunities afforded by teaching out-of-field, leading to gains in knowledge and competencies and identity expansion when adequate support is provided; and (2) a deficit position highlighting the burden that out-of-field teaching can create as a result of a lack of subject-specific knowledge, beliefs, and practice, ultimately negatively impacting on student learning [34] and contributing to teacher attrition [15]. Du Plessis [35] revealed that some school leaders view teaching out-of-field in general as a situation to be avoided and as a challenge for schools and teachers alike. Other research shows that other factors influence principals’ decisions about teachers’ ‘fit’, such as teachers’ dispositions and pedagogical skills that suit specific student cohorts [36]. But are there some situations where out-of-field teaching may be regarded as acceptable, and is there a common understanding about the professional learning supports and attitudes that might reduce the risks associated with out-of-field teaching? While a range of perspectives are evident across these different studies, there is a need to identify how principals’ attitudes toward out-of-field teaching influence the types of support deemed necessary for out-of-field teachers.
Du Plessis’ [35] research has shown that it is not having to teach out-of-field necessarily that is the problem, but the unsupportive responses by school leaders. Hobbs [8] identified that support structures, as well as the effects of context and teachers’ personal resources, are critical factors in teachers forming identities as they cross boundaries between their in-field and out-of-field teaching roles. Support mechanisms needed for ‘crossing the boundary’ between in- and out-of-field teaching spaces can be ‘provided’ to the teacher (support materials, processes, and people), ‘sought’ by the teacher (professional development, collegial sharing and discourse, external support), and ‘constructed’ by the teacher (as personal experiences; from personal research). Donista et al. [37] differentiated between support from management, mentors, and colleagues for newly qualified teachers, finding that teachers are likely to get more support for their in-field subject than a subject being taught out-of-field during teacher induction, leading to lower teacher satisfaction and less retention of teachers. Opportunities for professional development are particularly important for teachers teaching out-of-field [38]. These may include attending courses and workshops on subject matter and methods and other education-related topics, observation visits to other schools, mentoring, peer observation, or coaching [39]. There are consistent calls for greater support for out-of-field teachers, including greater principal support for, teacher commitment to, and government provision of funding for teachers to undertake upskilling programs [2]. Central to decision making for out-of-field teachers and their principals is reducing the risks associated with poor subject-related knowledge for teaching and improving teacher confidence by prioritizing support structures relevant to their needs [38,40].

3. Methodology

3.1. Our Study

Our study uses a cross-national comparative lens to shift the focus from the incidence and experiences of out-of-field teachers per country to considering culturally specific factors that potentially influence principals’ behaviors, perceptions, and responses associated with this issue. Across Germany and Australia there are different requirements for training in the disciplines before or during initial teacher education, different pathways into teaching, and different types of schooling [41]. In the context of these differences, this study is interested in the more colloquial perspective of principals in both countries in relation to out-of-field teaching, and their notions of what makes a teacher suitable for an out-of-field teaching assignment (e.g., capability, enthusiasm, experience). Conceptualization of teaching out-of-field as boundary crossing [8,10] provides a window into principals’ perspectives on what discontinuities teachers are likely to face and therefore what discontinuities they are prepared to expect their teachers to experience. The learning potential of the boundary aligns with the ‘opportunity position’ [14], thus turning our gaze to the boundary objects as the principals’ approach to support mechanisms they believe teachers need to re-establish continuity as they move from a field of familiar social practices (in-field) into a field with unfamiliar knowledge, practices, identities, and people (out-of-field).

3.2. Design

This paper draws on analyses conducted as part of a qualitative interview study involving researchers from Germany and Australia. Qualitative research is used to orient the inquiry to understanding and the meaning of social phenomena (Merriam 2009). An assumption of this type of research is that “reality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds” [42]. A qualitative case study has several advantages in examining complex social phenomena in situated contexts such as the phenomenon of out-of-field teaching considered in this work. In comparison to quantitative studies, a qualitative case study considers, in depth, several cases that each represent a distinctive phenomenon within a real-life context. The overarching goal is to understand each case in-depth and reconstruct its meaning followed by a criteria-led comparison. Thus, such a methodological approach fits well with the purpose of the present study with its exploratory nature. The study used a multiple case study methodology to examine differences between principal responses (as individual cases) within and across countries (Australia and Germany). By definition, a ‘case’ explores a bounded system (Creswell 2013) and offers a viable means of addressing the “particular phenomenon and the context in which this phenomenon is occurring” [43]. Further, Bryman [44] asserts that “a case study is not a sample of one drawn from a known population” and that “the people who are interviewed in qualitative research are not meant to be representative of a population” (p. 399). Consequently, this paper focuses on the school-related data examining the school leaders’ views and actions from schools in two countries. Therefore, for this analysis, the phenomenon refers to school administrative practices relating to teaching out-of-field, and the cases are the school principals.
Qualitative research using interview studies is suitable when the phenomenon is not yet well-defined, and there are no existing categories for undertaking broadscale investigation into the phenomenon [45]. Nation-based investigations in each country were conducted separately but simultaneously, with each using an agreed set of interview questions. This paper draws on data pertaining to the school system through the specific lens of school principals to generate useful categories that might be applied in a larger study.

3.3. Participants and Case Study Selection

Interviews were conducted with secondary school principals from both countries. Using comparatively similar interview questions in both countries, the principals were questioned about their attitudes towards teaching out-of-field and how these teachers’ professional development needs are supported. In Australia, a total of seven principals were interviewed in three Australian states as part of a three-year project that also interviewed out-of-field teachers, mentor teachers, and other discipline leading teachers, with principal interviews occurring in year one and three of the project. In Germany, principals were interviewed in two German states, with a total of five interviews from five secondary schools.
For the current paper, a preliminary analysis showed that there were commonalities in school structures across some of the schools in each country, so four German schools (Cases 1–4) and four Australian Schools (Cases 5–8) were selected for the comparative analysis represented in this paper. Further, the cases were selected to represent the same degree of variety of regions (rural/regional), multiple states, and variety in responses in each country. This number of cases is in line with Stake’s [46] suggestion that four to ten cases is most beneficial for a multiple case study.
Table 1 outlines the schools involved in this analysis. The four Australian schools are from rural or regional towns, governments schools, and from across two states (Victoria and New South Wales). Three schools are considered small and one medium. In Australia, students attend secondary school from year 7 at a ‘government’, ‘independent’, or ‘catholic’ school. Principals in all school systems have autonomy over who they hire, where teachers are allocated to subject teaching, and they also control teachers’ access to professional development. In the state of New South Wales, formal and external teacher professional development courses are accredited, whereas in Victoria they are not. All teachers, however, need to show evidence of professional development against national teacher standards to maintain their registration or accredidation.
The four German schools are from two states and are all public schools. Two schools are considered rural and two are metropolitan in medium-sized cities. Three different school types are part of the German sample covering a range of school types where out-of-field teaching is frequent [3]. After the 4th grade, students in these federal states attend the Gymnasium, Gesamtschule, Realschule, or another type of secondary school depending on their academic ability and the wishes of their families.
No indication of how often teachers are assigned out-of-field was provided because schools in both countries are not held accountable for this through annual reporting. All schools, however, were selected for this analysis as they regularly needed to assign teachers to teach out-of-field, as indicated in interviews. The reasons stated in all schools for needing to assign teachers to teach out-of-field included not having enough of certain specialist teachers.

3.4. Data Analysis

In both countries, the analysis used a content analysis approach [47] to analyze the interview transcripts by categories. These categories allow a structured analysis of data and comparisons between different texts. The following steps for analysis were applied drawing on Schreier [47] in phase 1: After reading the interviews, passages referring to attitudes towards out-of-field teaching and support structures were extracted for analysis. The coding units from the German sample were translated into English by the first author. Both authors assigned independent coding units to topics or deductively derived four categories relating to: Positioning of subject-matter knowledge, Positioning of subjects, Consequences, and How the teacher as learner is positioned. Using a consensual approach, a final coding scheme was developed by including definitions, examples, and coding rules for all categories. The codings from each country were then jointly evaluated.
In a second phase, the data relevant to each category were analyzed by both authors again to find ‘patterns’ or ‘types’ based on the approach suggested by Kelle and Kluge [48]. Four distinct attitudes towards out-of-field teaching incorporating the ideas relating to positioning of subject-matter knowledge and subjects, and consequences were clarified. These categories were then linked to the support structures reported by the school leaders. A process of collaboration between the two authors enabled regional variability of meaning (such as different system factors) to be considered during interpretation and comparison. This was critical for understanding the effects of the cultural setting.
The following sections identify and compare the key features across cases and across countries illustrated by quotes from the interviews to explore school leaders’ attitudes towards out-of-field teaching and the range of support mechanisms identified. The relationships between attitudes and support structures are then explored according to four perspectives.

4. Results

4.1. School Leader Attitudes towards Teaching Out-of-Field

Four distinct attitudes towards out-of-field teaching could be identified, and these were bound up in their views of quality teaching as pedagogical, passion, capability, and specialized. These views were not mutually exclusive, as some principals held composite views.

4.1.1. Pedagogical

Some principals expressed the view that teachers can teach out-of-field, regardless of their specializations, as long as they have a strong foundation in teaching and they put the effort into preparing for lessons: “We do not teach a subject but we do teach children” (Case 1). Teaching quality from this perspective relates to teaching as generic skills and knowledge and includes teachers’ ability to use cross disciplinary skills, such as handling an English text (Case 1) and the ability for teachers to build relationships with their students (Case 6, 8). This relationship, however, was sometimes contextualized by being steeped in teachers knowing how to share their love of the subject:
Content knowledge is just one element of being a teacher… I think there can be danger in looking for someone who’s won a Nobel peace prize for Physics and thinking they are going to be a great Physics teacher… It’s how you can share the love of that subject with the kids and understand that the kids don’t love it as much as you and know it doesn’t come as easy to them either. It’s a relationship game.
(Case 6)
Two principals were aware that this pedagogical relationship and student learning is potentially challenged if the teacher is struggling with teaching out-of-field. Case 4 expressed a need for the students to “learn content from someone who is not feeling stressed out but who enjoys teaching the content” (Case 4), and Case 6 highlighted the potential difficulties an out-of-field teacher might experience in catering for the full spectrum of student learning needs or knowing where the students are heading in their learning.

4.1.2. Passion

In this category, teaching quality is underpinned by teachers’ passion for the subject, for teaching, for students engaging with the subject, and understanding the school: “teaching is just so much more than the subject qualifications, it’s the student’s wellbeing, it’s the relationship with the students, both with the social and cultural and the relationship with the school community” (Case 8). There is recognition that out-of-field teachers can learn to teach a subject effectively when they are motivated by their passions. Several principals expressed the criterion that teachers need to be interested in or have a passion—or a “soft spot” (Case 2)—for the subject they are asked to teach out-of-field (Case 2 and 7). Teacher assignment also needs to be a “democratic” process: “there’s no point putting a teacher on a class that doesn’t want to teach that class” (Case 8). Case 7 went as far as to say, “if you’ve got a passion for something, that’s also just as well as being qualified”. Case 7 was the only principal who saw no difficulties associated with out-of-field teaching (Case 7), as long as it was not Mathematics and English. In relation to his decision to assign a digital technology/science teacher to teach textiles, Case 7 expressed the benefits for students in being taught by a teacher with passions for sewing her own clothes and “cross-fertilizing STEM to another field of textiles”.

4.1.3. Capability

In this category, teaching quality refers to the importance of teacher commitment to knowledge of content and teaching approaches, but that this can be acquired on the job and with experience over time, not necessarily during initial teacher education: “qualifications are only one gauge of the teacher’s effectiveness” (Case 8). All Australian cases mentioned teachers’ capability as determining a teacher’s suitability to teach a subject out-of-field (Cases 5, 6, 7, 8). Capability could refer to the teacher’s commitment to learning (Case 6, 8), their general teaching ability (Case 5, 8), and their capability of teaching a subject as determined by their knowledge of and background in the subject (Case 6) or other knowledge they bring from their personal life (Case 8). Case 5, for example, stated “If the teacher is a good teacher, they can teach most things if it’s within their capable knowledge range” (Case 5).
Principals from both countries recognized similar consequences, largely negative, relating to not having the requisite teacher knowledge and teaching skills (Case 6) and teachers not finding the additional time or “self-commitment” required to learn, “because to get familiar with a subject you need all the holidays you have plus all weekends” (Case 1). Also highlighted were the additional strain, well-being, and anxiety for both the out-of-field teacher who needs to stay one step ahead of the students (Case 3, 6) and for their colleagues who need to “compensate for these teachers” (Case 3). Case 8 highlighted negative effects of not achieving high student outcomes on teachers’ perception of “how well they’re doing in the job”. Also mentioned was a broader consequence of poor student outcomes leading to families transferring schools: “I can’t afford kids to fail here because they will speak with their feet” (Case 8) (that is, leave the school).

4.1.4. Specialized

In this category, quality teaching is steeped in strong subject matter knowledge and arises from a history of engaging with the discipline and subject didactics and pedagogy: “The subject teacher is, at least in my eyes, always a priority because he was trained much more extensively” (Case 3). An extension of this was a preference for in-field teachers in certain subjects or year levels over others. To be avoided were senior level classes (Case 1, 4) and subjects with safety risks such as Physical Education (Case 1, 3, 4), Technology (Case 1), and Chemistry (Case 2, 4). The ‘main’ subjects, including Mathematics and English, were also to be avoided (Case 3, 4, 5, 7). Case 3, for example indicated that “I make sure that in the main subjects… no colleague teaches out-of-field. That is very important to us, as subject knowledge really has priority”. In contrast, several principals were more likely to tolerate out-of-field teaching in the ‘non-core’ subjects such as History (Case 6), Geography and Politics (Case 4), and German (Case 3) if they have an interest in it. This suggests a cultural acceptance according to a tolerance threshold that prioritizes subject specialist expertise for higher year levels, main subjects, and subjects with higher levels of safety risks or a perceived high difficulty, and makes allowances for expertise based on personal interest, skills, and knowledge relevant to non-core subjects.

4.2. Support Structures

All principals were aware of formal and informal structures available for out-of-field teachers within and outside of their schools. A range of support structures were raised across the cases: (1) collegial structures; (2) mentoring and coaching; (3) teacher reflection on practice; and (4) external support. The support structures mentioned indicate what came to mind for the principals when asked about the support needs of out-of-field teachers rather than whether these supports are or are not provided.

4.2.1. Collegial Structures

General support for out-of-field teachers from colleagues was mentioned by all Australian cases and Case 2 in the German sample. Mentioned were mentoring being tailored to the subject, sharing of resources with out-of-field teachers, such as planned units of work or lesson plans, and team structures to support collegiality.
The existence of in-school support structures was confirmed by all principals, with the collegiate team structured around subjects being the most common, particularly through the sharing of resources: “there are quite a lot of teams working together within each subject and everyone is ready to welcome the colleague and look after [her/him], and exchange [resources]” (Case 2). Case 7 mentioned coaching specifically for out-of-field Mathematics teachers, and general informal support by colleagues who would “step in” to assist a struggling teacher if needed. Similarly, Case 5 stated that “I would expect any other teacher to stop and come in if it started getting nasty”. Case 5 referred to a new teacher to the school where the principal “put everybody on high alert to just keep an eye on her”.
Case 6 was the only principal who referred to the benefits of multi-disciplinary teams:
There’s always going to be a Maths/Science person in the teaching team so if they’re teaching out-of-field in those two areas, they’ve got a buddy…Team teaching gives first- and second-year teachers the opportunity to work with an expert.
(Case 6)

4.2.2. Mentoring and Coaching

All Australian schools and one German school (Case 4) referred to providing out-of-field teachers with subject related mentors, where possible. Case 4 referred to “always” providing an out-of-field teacher with someone who can support them, though these people are not specifically named as mentors, nor do they receive any time allowance for this additional work. In comparison, Case 5 spoke especially of the “Professional Development Framework” that requires “mandatory observation” from a trusted peer rather than their supervisor; they also referred to a less formal “buddy system” including primary teachers partnering with secondary teachers. Case 6 referred to subject specific mentors: “Mentors try to be someone they’re working with…within their domain…and will have the same issues”. Similarly, Case 7 referred to the importance of “professional learning and supporting one another and working together…one to one mentoring…working in collegiate groups”. Case 7 also referred to teachers in their school not working “at top allocation” to provide teachers with more time to reflect, work together, and seek support, including, for example, giving teachers one less class to allow time to work with a numeracy coach. The support structures are established through policy at the school level as important processes for supporting teacher needs.

4.2.3. Reflection on Practice

Reflection on practice was mentioned by most principals. Such reflection was supported by peer observations (Cases 3, 4, 7) and organized structures to promote reflection. Organized structures included ‘Quality Teaching Rounds’ [49] in one Australian school, where teachers use reflection circles to reflect with other teachers on videos of their teaching practice, but these can tend to focus on general rather than subject-specific teaching needs (Case 5). Case 6 also referred to using Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to “identify what their problem of practice is and then regularly look at their performance”.

4.2.4. External Support

Formal professional development and additional certification was approached differently across schools and were mentioned across both countries. Formal certificate courses were mentioned by seven principals. Case 7 provided one day off to gain additional certification in an out-of-field subject. Case 4 mentioned that teachers will do a certificate course for a subject they are not yet teaching. In Australia, professional development (PD) was either restricted to school goals (Case 5) or unrestricted and at the request of the teacher (Case 6), within reason:
Our professional development is more aligned to our visions and our strategic directions rather than their qualification…my first question will be, does it relate to our school plan?
(Case 5)
Anything that comes across the PD desk gets passed on and they’re really good at this place. If you want to go out on PD and so long as it’s reasonable, you’re not out every single week, you get to go.
(Case 6)
Other informal external supports were only mentioned by Australian principals, the purpose of which was “to sustain collegiality and professionalism but to sustain your sanity, too” (Case 5). Cases 5, 7 and 8 referred to external networks from subject associations and working with people from other schools to provide collegiality and subject specific support. This is important as these schools are small rural schools with small teaching staff (Case 8). Case 7 explained the mutual support occurring with teachers from a nearby rural school: “We support people in D** School and they support some of us” (Case 7).

4.3. Typology of Principals’ Perspectives on Out-of-Field Teaching, Quality Teaching and Supports

In response to this analysis, the four perspectives on what constitutes quality teaching have been aligned with the support structures that were mentioned by school leaders. The assumptions underpinning the four perspectives are explained below in order to respond to research question 3.

4.3.1. Teaching as Pedagogical

The first perspective relates to the generic nature of teaching, where teachers are seen primarily as pedagogues with an emphasis on being an educator more so than being a teacher of the subject. An assumption underpinning this view on teaching quality is that teachers can apply their general teaching skills to whatever they teach, and that this is basically sufficient to enable an out-of-field teacher to be successful: ‘a good teacher can teach anything’. According to this view, support structures that address these general teaching skills can tend to be emphasized over subject-specific support for out-of-field teachers. This view has its roots in research that has seen subject matter disciplines as secondary to “generic principles of instruction that could transcend disciplinary boundaries” [50] (p. 135). This perspective, however, disregards the subject-specific demands [7] that out-of-field teaching can place on teachers as they make decisions about what needs to be taught, the methods used, and the value that the subjects might have for students.

4.3.2. Teaching as Passion

The second perspective emphasizes a teacher being passionate about the subject and in their approach to teaching generally. An assumption of this view of teaching quality is that teachers should have an interest in the subject. For out-of-field teachers this may mean capitalizing on or pursing personal interests [8] relevant to the out-of-field subject; therefore, principals need to be attuned to teachers’ personal interests and seek input from them in staffing decisions. In keeping with this view is the need for self-reflection, self-initiative, and time; further study or professional development may be desired for teachers to integrate their passions into their out-of-field teaching. Teacher passion has been highlighted in research as being potentially compromised when teachers teach in out-of-field positions due to the strong relationship between teacher knowledge (about the subject), identity (in relation to the subject), and passion (for the subject and teaching it) [7]. Passion and emotional commitment [51] remain a critical ingredient to teacher confidence and enjoyment [52] and inspirational teaching [53].

4.3.3. Teaching as Capability

The third perspective emphasizes the need for teachers to be capable as well as have the skill of learning new content and teaching approaches. The assumption underpinning this perspective is that a capable teacher can produce quality teaching regardless of the subject and that further knowledge can be acquired ‘on the job’. The supports needed for teachers focus on enhancing and extending these skills or capabilities through formal or informal professional learning opportunities and collegial support, either from within the school or through networking with teachers from other schools or subject associations. A challenge for principals is affording out-of-field teachers’ agency to develop their practice over time [54] and trusting that teachers can teach the content [40] and learn through experience [7], while not assuming that a ‘good teacher can teach anything’ and that teaching out-of-field is unproblematic for the teacher.

4.3.4. Teaching as Specialized

The last perspective is that quality teaching needs specialists with a solid education in the subject. The assumption underpinning this perspective is that qualification and specializations prepare teachers with the necessary disciplinary expertise and the knowledge and skills for teaching. According to this perspective, support from subject specialists is essential. School leaders might encourage teachers to undertake formal certification or attend PD courses to gain additional qualifications and build their subject-specific teaching expertise. A tension for principals relates to the relative value placed on qualification and teaching experience—at what point do qualifications no longer matter for an experienced out-of-field teacher? This is the most rigid perspective and poses greatest difficulty for principals when they face a limited supply of appropriately specialized teachers. Echoing other research, this preference for specialized teachers tends to be accorded to certain subjects or year levels where quality teaching is considered essential, such as higher year levels [55], prioritizing certain subjects such as Mathematics [56], or in relation to high-risk subjects such as Chemistry or Physical Education [11]. This perspective also permeates most attempts to quantify incidences of out-of-field teaching [37,55] because identifying teacher qualifications is the most objective way to differentiate out-of-field from in-field teachers.

5. Discussion

The current study reported principal responses to out-of-field teaching and highlighted differences in their perceptions of the role of subject matter knowledge in determining quality teaching and teacher learning. The analysis provided insights into how these attitudes inform decisions about teacher suitability for teaching subjects out-of-field and teachers’ support needs. While in-school and external support structures were deemed necessary by most principals, suitability to teach related to teacher characteristics; in particular, teachers’ initiative and drive was seen by some principals to be an important mediating factor to the suitability of a teacher to teach out-of-field. Also important was that the positioning of content knowledge in relation to other teacher characteristics influence the type of support required and principal observations of teachers’ willingness to participate in professional learning. Most leaders expressed the opinion that the teacher has the capacity to learn and needs to take some responsibility for their learning but should also be supported to do so, which is in keeping with previous research on teachers learning to teach out-of-field [7,37,50].
A repertoire of whole school support structures was mentioned more often by Australian principals than German principals. Principals were aware of some support structures in their schools and external to their school, but the Australian principals were more aware of external networks that teachers used. In comparison, the German principals were either not aware of the use of such supports or they did not think they were relevant to this question of supporting out-of-field teachers. Interestingly, research shows that subject-related support structures, co-constructed lesson planning, and team teaching is less common in Germany [57], a finding which is reflected in this study.
When conceptualized as boundary-crossing between in-field and out-of-field teaching practices, learning to teach out-of-field occurs when there is careful negotiation of the boundary between the familiar (in-field) and unfamiliar (out-of-field) practices of the two (or more) teaching spaces. A contribution of this study is a typology of perspectives exhibited by these eight principals aligning their attitudes towards quality teaching with the support needed by out-of-field teachers (see Figure 1).
This analysis has not focused on how the context of the school has influenced principals’ decisions, though evidence shows that the smaller schools included in the sample, which were also rural and included some of the lowest socio-economic groups, had a small teaching staff and relied on teaching out-of-field to maintain the range of offerings that would attract families to a school, important where there is competition between schools. Sustaining teaching quality in these contexts requires a democratic approach to assigning teachers out-of-field, recognition of its risks, and supportive structures that extend beyond the school. In comparison, schools with larger teaching staff, resourcing, limited competition with other schools, and no problem attracting teachers are in the privileged position of having less need for out-of-field teaching and therefore can base staffing and teaching assignment decisions on specialization. This suggestion is in keeping with Shah [24], who found schools in Australia that are small and in remote locations, as well as schools with less funding, are more likely to assign teachers out-of-field. Ziegler and Richter [58] also showed, for the German context, that there is a higher probability of teachers teaching out-of-field in classes with students from a from a lower socio-economic background.
Given that attitudes can influence behavior and decision-making, this research helps to understand why principals’ responses to out-of-field teaching can vary across schools. All principals, however, recognized the need for support for teachers who are teaching in out-of-field teaching contexts. Based on our analysis, when making decisions about staffing and supports, the educative potential of the ‘boundary’ may be magnified by, for example, helping a teacher identify and apply their general pedagogical strengths in the out-of-field teaching context; matching teachers’ passions with an out-of-field subject and helping them integrate these passions into their out-of-field teaching; repeating out-of-field teaching assignments and targeted professional development opportunities to build capability through experience and reflection on practice; and prioritizing subject-specific support and specialization over generic professional learning.

6. Conclusions

Out-of-field teaching remains a perennial problem in Germany [59] and Australia [55,60]. The Productivity Commission [61] proposed that providing school leaders with the tools to “deploy teachers across schools and classes could help better match teachers with their area of expertise” (p. 222). Based on the findings of this small-scale study, we do cautiously ask principals to be aware that their attitude towards quality teaching is exposed through what they tolerate in terms of out-of-field teaching and the supports they deem suitable and necessary for out-of-field teachers. We are aware, however, that the context of the school may impact on what principals will and need to tolerate in terms of out-of-field teaching. Given that teacher shortages in both countries are likely to persist into the future [61], principals need to be attentive to the specific needs of out-of-field teachers—democratic and thoughtful assignment of teachers, teacher collaboration and specific support structures will be critical to reducing the negative consequences of out-of-field teaching [2]. Supportive structures that focus on generic and whole school professional learning are useful for all (beginner) teachers, but out-of-field teachers need additional support for teaching a new subject [21]. In line with previous research [37], this research suggests that principals can recognize that the needs of out-of-field teachers vary, and that a comprehensive tailored approach to support is needed for different teachers who are placed into out-of-field teaching roles. According to Guramatunhu-Mudiwa and Scherz [62], quality leaders exhibit communal qualities of “caring, collaboration, cooperation, empowerment, inspiring others and relationship-building” (p. 308), all qualities that a principal would need to develop what Du Plessis [12] referred to as context-consciousness, where principals consider the teacher’s context during administrative decisions about assigning teachers out-of-field.
Based on this sample, we cannot claim with any certainty that these views are typical or consistent with other principals in each country. The findings reported from this case study and qualitative research are not intended to be generalized to or representative of the population, but to provide some categories that have been aligned to the literature that can inform future research and analysis. There is a need for broad-scale analyses of inter- and intra-country differences in principals’ approaches to dealing with out-of-field teaching to better target principal support for noticing and attending to this issue. The current study has provided some useful categories for developing scales exploring the relative importance of disciplinary background versus learning on the job, subject matter versus pedagogical expertise, and other measures of ‘fit’ that might be more related to student welfare and social needs rather than disciplinary background [36].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.P. and L.H.; methodology, R.P. and L.H.; formal analysis, R.P. and L.H.; investigation, R.P. and L.H.; data curation, R.P. and L.H.; writing—original draft preparation, R.P. and L.H.; writing—review and editing, R.P. and L.H.; visualization, R.P. and L.H.; funding acquisition, L.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Australian study was funded by the Australian Research Council under Grant DP150102089.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study conducted with approval of the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee, and adheres with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (project ID HAE-15-062; date of approval 26 May 2015).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The Australian study was funded by the Australian Research Council under Grant DP150102089. Acknowledged are other researchers on the Australian project: Frances Quinn, Coral Campbell, Russell Tytler, Robert Whannell, Terry Lyons, Colleen Vale and Christopher Speldewinde.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ingersoll, R.M. The problem of out-of-field teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 1998, 79, 773–776. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hobbs, L.; Du Plessis, A.; Oates, G.; Caldis, S.; McKnight, L.; Vale, C.; O’Connor, M.; Rochette, E.; Watt, H.; Weldon, R.; et al. Australian National Summit on Teaching Out-of-Field: Synthesis and Recommendations for Policy, Practice and Research. 2022. Available online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57f5c6e0414fb53f7ae208fc/t/62b91e6f96a09659f90a3b79/1656299310264/TOOF-National-Summit-Report.doc (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  3. Price, A.; Vale, C.; Porsch, R.; Luft, J.A. Teaching Out-of-Field Internationally. In Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-Field”: International Perspectives on Teaching as a Non-Specialist; Hobbs, L., Törner, G., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 59–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Spillane, J.P.; Lee, L.C. Novice School principals’ sense of ultimate responsibility: Problems of practice in transitioning to the principals’ office. Educ. Admin. Quart. 2014, 50, 431–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hobbs, L.; Porsch, R. (Eds.) Out-of-Field Teaching across Teaching Disciplines and Contexts; Springer: Singapore, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vale, C. Supporting out-of-field teachers of secondary mathematics. Aust. Math. Teach. 2010, 66, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hobbs, L. Learning to teach science out-of-field: A spatial-temporal experience. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2020, 31, 725–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hobbs, L. Teaching ‘out-of-field’ as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2013, 11, 271–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Phillips, P. Professional development as a critical component of continuing teacher quality. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2008, 33, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Akkerman, S.F.; Bakker, A. Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev. Educ. Res. 2011, 81, 132–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Du Plessis, A.E.; Carroll, A.; Gillies, R.M. Understanding the lived experiences of novice out-of-field teachers in relation to school leadership practices. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2015, 43, 4–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Du Plessis, A.E. Out-of-Field Teaching: What Leaders Should Know; Sense: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  13. Engel, M.; Finch, M.A. Staffing the classroom: How urban principals find teachers and make hiring decisions. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 2015, 14, 12–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hobbs, L.; Törner, G. Teaching out-of-field as a phenomenon and research problem. In Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-Field”: International Perspectives on Teaching as a Non-Specialist; Hobbs, L., Törner, G., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sharplin, E.D. Reconceptualising out-of-field teaching: Experiences of rural teachers in Western Australia. Educ. Res. 2014, 56, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Karacabey, M.F. School principal support in teacher professional development. Int. J. Educ. Leadersh. Manag. 2021, 9, 54–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. López-Crespo, S.; Gairín Sallán, J. School principals’ actions to promote informal learning among teaching staff. Teach. Develop. 2023, 27, 297–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stein, M.K.; Nelson, B.S. Leadership Content Knowledge. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2003, 25, 423–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bredeson, P.V. The school principal’s role in teacher professional development. J. Serv. Educ. 2000, 26, 385–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nabhani, M.; O’Day, N.M.; Bahous, R. Principals’ views on teachers’ professional development. Prof. Develop. Educ. 2014, 40, 228–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Carpendale, J.; Hume, A. Investigating practising science teachers’ pPCK and ePCK development as a result of collaborative CoRe design. In Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science; Hume, A., Cooper, R., Borowski, A., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 223–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. Australian Professional Standard for Principals and the Leadership Profiles; AITSL: Melbourne, Australia, 2014; Available online: https://www.aitsl.edu.au (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  23. Hayes, D.; Christie, P.; Mills, M.; Lingard, B. Productive leaders and productive leadership: Schools as learning organisations. J. Educ. Admin. 2004, 42, 520–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shah, C.; Richardson, P.W.; Watt, H.M.G.; Rice, S. ‘Out-of-field’ teaching in mathematics: Australian evidence from PISA 2015. In Out-of-Field Teaching across Teaching Disciplines and Contexts; Hobbs, L., Porsch, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 71–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Van Overschelde, J.P. Value-lost: The hidden cost of teacher misassignment. In Out-of-Field Teaching across Teaching Disciplines and Contexts; Hobbs, L., Porsch, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Berliner, D.C. The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. J. Teach. Educ. 2005, 56, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Leithwood, K.A.; Aitken, R.; Jantzi, D. Making Schools Smarter. Leading with Evidence; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hogg, M.A.; Vaughan, G.M. Social Psychology; Prentice Hall: Sydney, Australia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  29. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wu, H. The Effect of Principal Leadership on Student Achievement: A Multivariate Meta-Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bailey, J.; Du Plessis, A.E. Understanding principals’ attitudes towards inclusive schooling. J. Educ. Admin. 1997, 35, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jahnukainen, M. Inclusion, integration, or what? A comparative study of the school principals’ perceptions of inclusive and special education in Finland and in Alberta, Canada. Dis. Soc. 2015, 30, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vanhoof, J.; Vanlommel, K.; Thijs, S.; Vanderlocht, H. Data use by Flemish school principals: Impact of attitude, self-efficacy and external expectations. Educ. Stud. 2014, 40, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Porsch, R.; Whannell, R. 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; Hobbs, L., Törner, G., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Du Plessis, A.E. Understanding the Out-of-Field Teaching Experience. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia, 2013. Available online: http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372/s4245616_phd_submission.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  36. Blackmore, J.; Hobbs, L.; Rowlands, J. Aspiring teachers, financial incentives, and principals’ recruitment practices in hard-to-staff schools. J. Educ. Policy 2023, 39, 233–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Donista-Schmidt, S.; Zuzovsky, R.; Arvis Elyashiv, R. First-year out-of-field teachers: Support mechanisms, satisfaction and retention. In Out-of-Field Teaching across Teaching Disciplines and Contexts; Hobbs, L., Porsch, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Faulkner, F.; Kenny, J.; Campbell, C.; Crisan, C. Teacher learning and continuous professional development. In Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-Field”: International Perspectives on Teaching as a Non-Specialist; Hobbs, L., Törner, G., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 269–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. OECD. Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS; OECD: Paris, France, 2009; Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/creating-effective-teaching-and-learning-environments_9789264068780-en (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  40. Du Plessis, A.E.; Hobbs, L.; Luft, J.A.; Vale, C. The out-of-field teacher in context: The impact of the school context and environment: International perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist. In Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-Field”: International Perspectives on Teaching as a Non-Specialist; Hobbs, L., Törner, G., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 217–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Campbell, C.; Porsch, R.; Hobbs, L. Initial teacher education: Roles and possibilities for preparing capable teachers. In Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-Field”: International Perspectives on Teaching as a Non-Specialist; Hobbs, L., Törner, G., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 243–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Merriam, S.B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, 2nd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Fransisco, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  43. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods, 5th ed.; Oxford University Press: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  45. Fylan, F. Semi-structured interviewing. In A Handbook of Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology; Miles, J., Gilbert, P., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 65–79. [Google Scholar]
  46. Stake, R.E. Multiple Case Study Analysis; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  47. Schreier, M. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice; Sage: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kelle, U.; Kluge, S. Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der Qualitativen Sozialforschung; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  49. Gore, J.M.; Bowe, J.M. Interrupting attrition? Re-shaping the transition from preservice to inservice teaching through Quality Teaching Rounds. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2015, 73, 77–88. [Google Scholar]
  50. Shulman, L.S.; Sherrin, M.G. Fostering communities of teachers as learners: Disciplinary perspectives. J. Curric. Stud. 2004, 62, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Crosswell, L.; Elliott, B. Committed teachers, passionate teachers: The dimension of passion associated with teacher commitment and engagement. In AARE Conference 2004; Jeffrey, R., Ed.; Australian Association for Research in Education: Melbourne, Australia, 2004; pp. 1–12. Available online: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/968/ (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  52. Hobbs, L.; Quinn, F. Out-of-field teachers as learners: Influences on teacher perceived capacity and enjoyment over time. Europ. J. Teach. Educ. 2021, 44, 627–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Day, C. A Passion for Teaching; Routledge: Harvard, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  54. Heikonen, L.; Pertarinen, J.; Pyhältö, K.; Toom, A.; Soini, T. Early career teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom: Associations with turnover intentions and perceived inadequacy in teacher-student interaction. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2017, 45, 250–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Weldon, P.R. Out-of-Field Teaching in Australian Secondary Schools; Australian Council for Educational Research: Melbourne, Australia, 2016; Available online: https://research.acer.edu.au/policyinsights/6/ (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  56. Prince, G.; O’Connor, M. Crunching the Numbers on Out-of-Field Teaching; Australian Mathematical Science Institute: Parkville, Australia, 2018; Available online: https://amsi.org.au/media/AMSI-Occasional-Paper-Out-of-Field-Maths-Teaching.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  57. Richter, D.; Pant, H.A. Lehrerkooperation in Deutschland, Eine Studie zu Kooperativen Arbeitsbeziehungen bei Lehrkräften der Sekundarstufe I. Bertelsmann Stiftung, Deutsche Telekom Stiftung, Robert Bosch Stiftung, Stiftung Mercator. 2016. Available online: https://www.bosch-stiftung.de/de/publikation/lehrerkooperation-deutschland (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  58. Ziegler, C.; Richter, D. Der Einfluss fachfremden Unterrichts auf die Schülerleistung: Können Unterschiede in der Klassenzusammensetzung zur Erklärung beitragen? Unterrichtswissenschaft 2017, 45, 136–155. [Google Scholar]
  59. Porsch, R. Fachfremd unterrichten in Deutschland. Definition—Verbreitung—Auswirkungen. Die Dtsch. Sch. 2016, 108, 9–32. [Google Scholar]
  60. Harris, K.L.; Jensz, F. The Preparation of Mathematics Teachers in Australia. Meeting the Demand for Suitably Qualified Mathematics Teachers in Secondary Schools; Australian Council of Deans of Science: Parkville, Australia, 2024; Available online: https://apo.org.au/node/3423 (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  61. Productivity Commission. Review of the National School Reform Agreement; Study Report; Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2022. Available online: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/school-agreement/report (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  62. Guramatunhu-Mudiwa, P.; Scherz, S.D. Developing psychic income in school administration: The unique role school administrators can play. Educ. Manag. Admin. Lead. 2013, 41, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 14 00783 g001
Figure 1. Principal perspectives on quality teaching aligned with support needs.
Figure 1. Principal perspectives on quality teaching aligned with support needs.
Education 14 00783 g001
Table 1. Case schools and interviewees.
Table 1. Case schools and interviewees.
CaseCountry/StateKey FeaturesInterviewees
1Germany/North-Rhine-WestphaliaRegional, large school for years 5 to 13, “Gesamtschule”Principal
2Germany/North-Rhine-WestphaliaMetropolitan, medium school for years 5 to 10,
“Realschule”		Principal
3Germany/North-Rhine-WestphaliaRegional, medium school for years 5 to 10,
“Realschule”		Deputy principal
4Germany/Lower SaxonyMetropolitan (located on the outskirts), medium school for years 5 to 10, “Oberschule”Principal
5Australia/New South WalesRural, small school for years 7–12Principal
6Australia/VictoriaRegional, medium school for years Prep-12, year 7 and 8 structured as team teaching in core subjects (Maths, English, Science, Humanities)Deputy Principal
7Australia/VictoriaRural, small school for years Prep-12, offers core units plus student electives, units taught as two-year levels, e.g., years 7 and 8 classes due to small sizePrincipal
8Australia/New South WalesRural, small school for years Prep-12, small number of teachers, distance education used for senior classesPrincipal
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Porsch, R.; Hobbs, L. Principal Attitudes towards Out-of-Field Teaching Assignments and Professional Learning Needs. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 783. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070783

AMA Style

Porsch R, Hobbs L. Principal Attitudes towards Out-of-Field Teaching Assignments and Professional Learning Needs. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(7):783. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070783

Chicago/Turabian Style

Porsch, Raphaela, and Linda Hobbs. 2024. "Principal Attitudes towards Out-of-Field Teaching Assignments and Professional Learning Needs" Education Sciences 14, no. 7: 783. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070783

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop