See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325890252

The Lived Experience of Out-of-field STEM Teachers: a Quandary for

Strategising Quality Teaching in STEM?

Article  in  Research in Science Education · August 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s11165-018-9740-9

CITATIONS READS

25 2,649

1 author:

Anna Elizabeth Du Plessis

University of New England (Australia)
66 PUBLICATIONS   575 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Beginning Teacher Workforce Planning project View project

Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anna Elizabeth Du Plessis on 13 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Res Sci Educ
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9740-9

The Lived Experience of Out-of-field STEM Teachers:

a Quandary for Strategising Quality Teaching in STEM?

Anna E. Du Plessis 1

# Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract Strategising quality teaching in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics

(STEM) domains turns focus to teachers’ capacity to teach these subjects (UWIRE Text 2017)
when they are not suitably qualified in them. Against the backdrop of research that claims that
75% of the fastest growing occupations will require STEM skills, this investigation provides
new information about lived experiences of, and those surrounding, out-of-field teaching
practices in STEM subject areas, and the implications these experiences have for teaching
and learning environments (Office of the Chief Scientist 2014). The out-of-field teaching
phenomenon is defined in this paper as occurring when teachers teach subjects or year levels
outside their fields of qualification or expertise. The qualitative investigation applies a
Gadamerian theoretical philosophy to develop in-depth understanding through the shared
perceptions of educational directors, principals, and the lived experiences of teachers and
parents from two countries. Leadership perceptions and the complexities involved in out-of-
field teaching practices in science and related subject areas are investigated through the lens of
multiple interviews, observations, and document analyses. Concluding remarks offer recom-
mendations for educational leaders, reflections on improvement strategies and educational
policies. Proposals for further research of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon’s impact on
STEM subject areas are offered.

Keywords Out-of-field teaching phenomenon . Quality science teaching . STEM education .

Policy development . Leadership perceptions and decisions . Student achievements

Introduction

Teaching and learning never stops; it does not happen in an isolated Bsilo^, because knowledge
construction is fundamentally integrated and is a process without borders. Van Manen (1990)

* Anna E. Du Plessis
anna.duplessis@acu.edu.au

1
Learning Sciences Institute Australia, GPO Box 2587, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
 Res Sci Educ

has asserted that Bthings of our experience and that which grounds the things of our
experience^ (p. 32) underpin the teaching that takes place in classrooms. The lived
experiences of out-of-field teachers underpin the teaching that takes place in their class-
rooms, and these experiences of teachers as the Bknowledgeable other^—whether or not
they have the integrated content knowledge to be this knowledgeable other—influence the
outcomes of the teaching and learning environment. This paper, therefore, discusses the
impact out-of-field teaching practices have on quality teaching and learning in science
classrooms, and suggests that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon poses challenges for
future development and improvement strategies in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) that are often overlooked. I further argue that awareness of the impact
out-of-field teaching practices have on all of these domains is vital for decision-making
linked to improvement strategies.
The Australian government has discussed the development of legislation to either adjust
curricula or give consideration to the of mandating of science and mathematics as compulsory
subjects for Year 11 and Year 12 students (Cook 2015). The focus on expectations for
competent STEM teachers is closely connected to the realisation that 75% of the fastest-
growing job market areas in the twenty-first century will require these skills (Cook 2015;
Office of the Chief Scientist 2014). Kelley and Knowles (2016) have emphasised that the
purpose of STEM education is to prepare nations for future environmental and social impacts,
global security, and economic stability, and nations’ economic competitiveness and global
employability are understandably high priorities for their educations systems. STEM educa-
tion, therefore, can be seen to play a vital role in preparing students to be actively engaged
citizens of society into the future (Fisher and Frey 2014; Wiseman et al. 2016). Yet, research
has shown that education is experiencing considerable challenges in developing students’
competencies to confront issues such as energy efficiency and climate change (Bybee 2010a).
Nyman’s (2017) claim that student interest in these fields is rapidly declining highlights a trend
that has elicited global concern (Bhathal 2015; Sanders 2009), not only about the decline of
student interest and teacher shortages in STEM subjects, but about the quality of STEM
teaching. These deeply rooted concerns about quality STEM education are echoed in the
literature. Wienk (2016) has claimed that students choosing Year 12 advanced mathematics
decreased 32% from 1995 to 2015. Bybee (2010a) has suggested that the lack of attention to
technology and engineering (problem-solving and innovation) in schools, despite the
increased attention given to science and mathematics, forms part of this growing concern
about students’ twenty-first century skills. Nations interested in future innovation should
not overlook the issue of restricted attention to technology and engineering but need to
instead seek opportunities to strategise students’ skill development to address such twenty-
first century skills (Bybee 2010a, b). These concerns affect developed countries as well as
developing countries (as empirical evidence from Australia and South Africa from this
investigation shows).
Current Australian statistics (Weldon 2016) and the global results of the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA; Jackson and Kiersz 2016) have attracted the attention
of educational and federal leaders engaged in efforts to improve the quality of STEM
education in response to twenty-first century demands. Central to achieving the expected
outcomes in STEM are competent teachers with pedagogical expertise, sound subject-content
knowledge, and a passion for the subjects they teach (Benekos 2016; Day 2004; Hobbs 2012;
Panizzon et al. 2010). Subject interrelatedness and integration of content and knowledge across
domains of STEM education are described by Kelley and Knowles (2016) as complex,
Res Sci Educ

but these authors underline content integration as an approach to teaching that enhances
students’ learning. Further, Mastascusa et al. (2011) defined effective instruction for STEM
disciplines as teaching practices underpinned by teachers’ clear goals. Clear goals enable
students to get to Ba point where they can use the course material later in different contexts^ (p.
72). It is clear that teachers’ capacity to offer quality teaching in STEM (or any other) subjects
affects students’ learning experiences in these subjects (Du Plessis 2014).
Research by Wyatt-Smith et al. (2017) has shown that teacher’s dispositions greatly affect
students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and their perception of specific
subject areas. An international research project conducted by Lyons et al. (2012), Interest and
Recruitment in Science (IRIS), further noted that students believe feedback from teachers Bto
be the most important influence^ (p. 19) in encouraging and building students’ interest and
knowledge in specific subject content. Moreover, 58% of the students consider good teachers
to be influential in their decision to select STEM courses, and 73% of students consider their
Year 11 and Year 12 experiences in these courses to be influential in their selection of
university courses. Strategies to enhance the quality of teaching vary; for example,
Goldhaber and Walch (2014) found that the USA has adopted policies to encourage people
with higher academic credentials to join the teaching profession. However, Darling-Hammond
(2000), Johnson (2014), and Tucker (2012) have stressed that major one-off efforts to improve
the quality of teaching in areas of concern are often unsustainable and that continuing
improvement is at risk as soon as the funding for specific projects ends. Le Grange (2007)
further noted that in complex remote, rural, and diverse societies, such as Australian Indige-
nous communities and multicultural South African schools—where the integration of Western
and indigenous knowledge systems requires respect for and awareness of different cultures—
suitably qualified, confident and knowledgeable teachers greatly affect the success of teaching
STEM-related subjects.
The growing evidence that having suitably qualified teachers teaching STEM subject areas
impacts student engagement in these subjects draws attention to the out-of-field teaching
phenomenon. Research by Weldon (2016) revealed that 38% of mathematics teachers in the
Australian context are identified as teaching out of field. Weldon (2015) further noted that 20%
of mathematics and physics teachers in Australia are teaching out of field. This research further
claims there are enough qualified teachers in science and maths available in Australia for the
necessary positions to be adequately filled. I argue, however, that although these teachers
might be available (Weldon 2016), this reality on its own does not recognise that sometimes
schools find it difficult to attract suitably qualified teachers, especially in science and related
STEM domains. Recognition of the specific needs inherent in school contexts is necessary to
understand the out-of-field teaching phenomenon, central to which is the misunderstanding of
repurposing teachers as unsuitably qualified resources into STEM classrooms as standard
acceptable practice. This continues to occur, regardless of any education quality factors that
may arise when teachers do not have the specific pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and
content knowledge (CK) they need to offer the expected deep learning opportunities for
students (Du Plessis 2017a). A context-consciousness at school level demonstrates that out-
of-field teaching in science and other STEM domains is a major concern for school leaders and
stakeholders in spite of suggestions that these teachers are available. As I will I further suggest,
in agreement with Darling-Hammond (2010), such contextual factors also impact teachers’
effectiveness.
International statistics indicate that in the USA, between 17 and 22% of core classes at the
secondary level are taught by teachers without a subject-related degree or certification (Almy
 Res Sci Educ

and Theokas 2010), while in the UK, an increasing number of teachers are required to teach
subjects they have not been trained to teach (Shepherd 2013). Ireland has expressed major
concern regarding the fields of science and mathematics (Cosgrove et al. 2004; Ni Rỉodáin and
Hannigan 2009; Ni Rỉodáin 2014), and these researchers note that the out-of-field teaching
phenomenon poses challenges for future development and improvement strategies in STEM,
which are often overlooked. In South Africa, only 23% of teachers in the senior phase (Grades/
Years 7–12) possess senior-phase qualifications to teach at this level (Departments of Basic
Education and Higher Education and Training Secretariat 2011).
This paper focuses on quality STEM education through a phenomenological lens with the
purpose of developing a deeper understanding of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon’s
impact on the specific subject fields under scrutiny from the points of view of those directly
involved, including teachers, parents, and students, as stakeholders in a specific context (Gash
2015). A phenomenological lens offers a new view of experiences that are often overlooked,
and such a lens sanctions new insight into concepts that were constructed without a con-
sciousness of the ways the mind frames experience. The empirical evidence offered draws
from a larger qualitative investigation, which focused on the out-of-field teaching phenomenon
and what it means for the life-worlds of teachers and their teaching capacity in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics and related subjects. The intention of the paper is
deeply embedded in Darling-Hammond’s (2004) notion, developed through a critical review
of 65 studies of science teachers’ dispositions and teaching beliefs. It is further supported by
research by Druva and Anderson (1983), which details the link between students’ science
achievement and their teachers’ qualification backgrounds being in both education and
science. Darling-Hammond emphasised the importance of teachers’ expertise in PCK, some-
thing which is also captured by the findings of this paper. For example, findings suggest the
impact the out-of-field teaching phenomenon has on how students experience knowledge
construction and how confident they feel about internalising new information through the level
of teaching they receive. The findings presented in this paper offer deeper insight into the
myriad difficulties experienced by unsuitably qualified teachers when they teach STEM
subjects, with attention to specific areas where theory and practice need to support the
construction of new knowledge through, for example, practical experiments (laboratory work).
Findings also detail implications these teaching experiences have for students in internalising
and scaffolding new knowledge, discuss the broader effects to both teachers’ and students’
vocational identities, and include understandings regarding the flow-on effects that occur in the
communities in which these teachers teach.
In accordance with Aubusson et al. (2016), I hope to urge educational leaders to rethink
their perception of what qualified means. A critical analysis of teacher placement, especially in
an environment where employing suitably qualified teachers in specific science-related areas
has become a concern, should also be part of STEM assessment strategies. Panizzon et al.
(2015) have called on governments and industry partners to access appropriate data that
provide clarity and to look beyond the Bsmoke and mirrors^ of assumed qualifications (p.
74). The multilayered complexities that develop because of out-of-field teaching in STEM, and
the search for effective improvement strategies in this area, make a move away from
unsustainable quick fix strategies and temporary solutions essential. Arguments for awareness
of the implications of out-of-field teaching practices for STEM not only involve school and
classroom contexts, but indicate the role of employers, professional development coordinators,
program designers, and teacher education providers to take note of out-of-field challenges in
the workplace and to restructure their science education improvement strategies.
Res Sci Educ

Conceptualising the Out-of-field Teaching Phenomenon and Underlying

Terminology from This Investigation

It is important at this point to recognise that available statistics regarding out-of-field teaching
are affected by the way in which the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is defined in the
individual research projects; I therefore acknowledge this but still emphasise that it particularly
suggests that the pursuit of quantitative data regarding out-of-field teaching requires a more in-
depth examination of how this teaching phenomenon is defined, in particular in relation to
STEM requirements. The argument in this paper, which highlights that out-of-field teaching
not only greatly impacts improvement efforts in STEM subject areas but has a significant
impact on out-of-field teachers and their students, is embedded in a report for the Australian
Council for Educational Research (ACER). In this report, Weldon (2015) defined in-field
teaching as a subject the teacher has studied at a second-year tertiary level, or in which the
methodology of the subject has also been studied: Teachers Bare assumed to be notionally
qualified if they have studied a subject for at least one semester at second year tertiary^ or have
Btrained at the tertiary level in teaching methodology in the subject concerned^ (p. 8). Weldon
further argues that although primary school teachers in Australia are often seen as generalists,
music, art, and physical education teachers in primary schools are often asked by their
principals to teach subjects for which they feel they have restricted content knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge. Research highlights that these teachers’ perceptions of self-
efficacy, instruction quality, and professional identity all influence how they perceive
themselves as teaching out of field, especially in subjects such as maths and science at the
Year 6 level. Bybee (2010b) has noted that challenges should be presented according to a
student’s Bage, grade and developmental stage^ (my emphasis, p. 33), and that the instruc-
tional approach to STEM begins with the active engagement of students.
Literature suggests that the active engagement and interest of students in STEM education
both enhances and impacts integrated learning and prepares students to be educated future
citizens (Fisher and Frey 2014; Wiseman et al. 2016); in short, gaps in learning in STEM
domains can impact students well beyond the classroom context. Yet, Törner (2014) has noted
that there are gaps in research understandings about out-of-field teaching practices in mathe-
matics, where, for example, a graduate might enter a master’s program in education with a
bachelor of science specialising in biology, but when employed, this teacher may be assigned
to teach physics, chemistry, or earth and environmental science; similarly, generalist primary
school Year 7 teachers might be asked to move to the high school where they are then
requested to teach STEM subjects for which they are not suitably qualified. When students
define an effective teacher as one who knows the subject well and is approachable and
invested in in-depth communication with the students (Zerihun et al. 2012), and research
(Du Plessis 2014) has shown that these characteristics are affected by out-of-field teaching
practices, focus turns to school leaders’ awareness and understanding of the impact this
teaching phenomenon has on students, teachers, subjects, and how school contexts support
effective learning. Groundwater-Smith et al. (2011) have further observed that, contextually,
already demanding teaching situations can escalate into more serious issues due to gaps in
teachers’ knowledge; an example could be the effect on student and teacher trust relations,
student behaviour, and students’ confidence in a teacher who seems uncertain about subject
content. Out-of-field teachers have limited knowledge and understanding of the related
concepts as they struggle to get up to speed, yet it is clear that both appropriate PCK and
pedagogical practice are necessary to guide students in constructing new knowledge. Context-
 Res Sci Educ

consciousness supports the conceptualisation of the implications of the out-of-field teach-

ing phenomenon (see Fig. 1). This paper emphasises that out-of-field teaching practices are
deeply entrenched in outcomes, achievements, and quality teaching and learning environ-
ments (see Fig. 1) because out-of-field teachers have a lack of qualifications or expertise in
specific fields.
A tendency remains among education departments to downplay the occurrence and
implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and unsuitably qualified teachers
(Hofmeyr and Draper 2015; Ingersoll 2002). And yet, empirical research (Du Plessis 2014)
has demonstrated that without formal qualifications that are dependent on professional
learning support, teachers’ capacity to develop expertise in subjects will occur over a period
of three to five years. Appreciating the complexities, however, I agree with Reising’s
(1995) caution against the premise that knowledge is the totality of quality education, and
urge that such caution is vital when considering students’ opportunities to learn, commu-
nicate, experience interest, express passion, practise teamwork, and be exposed to problem-
solving activities. Positioning quality teaching for student learning in STEM against the
background of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon underlines the importance of ac-
knowledging teachers’ lived experiences while in these teaching positions. Bruner (1966)
highlighted the need for teachers to have a deep understanding of the manner in which
students internalise specific subject matter. Quality education is embedded in teachers’
passion for their subjects, their metacognitive ability to read and engage their students in
the construction of new knowledge, and a capacity to adjust their teaching practice to
accommodate students’ learning needs (Darling-Hammond 2000; Goldhaber and Walch
2014; Lewis 1996).

Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Pedagogical

Knowledge, and Other Aspects of Teacher Professional Knowledge

This paper conceptualises deep or sound knowledge as being a broad knowledge of content
and pedagogical practices in a specific field, curriculum in that field, student needs, and
knowledge of communities and their cultures (Shulman 1986, 1987). Acknowledging different
forms of PCK for specific subjects demonstrates an awareness of the influence of, and
differences in, teachers’ beliefs, understandings, and subject knowledge in the classroom
context (Marks 1990). For example, Corrigan and Smith (2015) defined science as the attempt
to develop explanations for what is observed and stated that science is Bentrenched in human
experience and built upon individual perceptions and understandings^ (my emphasis, p. 102).

Fig. 1 Conceptualisation of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon

Res Sci Educ

Accordingly, then, authentic science education is supported by both the concepts teachers
present regarding the purpose of science, and how science can be best represented through
their teaching (Corrigan 2006).
In this sense, the quality of teaching that occurs in the classroom is interwoven with the
lived experiences of the educator and the components of the educator’s professional knowl-
edge base with respect to teaching, which Shulman (1986) discussed in terms of CK,
pedagogical knowledge (PK), and PCK. Geelan et al. (2015) described the interwovenness
of pedagogies in the classroom in relation to the Bstories the teachers present in this context
and encompass in their actual classroom practice^, noting that these pedagogies reflect
teachers’ Bbeliefs and values about teaching^ (p. 19). Classroom pedagogies, then, can be
defined in terms of the manner in which teachers present the content (theories and concepts)
and how they apply teaching principles to facilitate students’ ability to learn (Corrigan 2006);
in Corrigan’s words: science education involves teachers Bre-examining the context they use,
the learning and use of knowledge, [and] getting their students doing science^ (Corrigan 2006,
p. 54).

The Link Between Out-of-field STEM Teachers’ Lived Experiences

and Their Teaching Characteristics

Research by Lyons and Quinn (2010) noted that it is worth exploring students’ Bperceptions of
teacher characteristics^ (p. 31) as an influential aspect of quality science teaching. The link
between teachers’ teaching practices in STEM and students’ interest in the subject also needs
acknowledgement (Potvin and Hasni 2014; Sgard 2006). As a pertinent example, research
suggests junior secondary students’ perceptions are that science is boring, irrelevant, and
difficult (Goodrum et al. 2001; Lyons 2006; Raison and Etheridge 2006). Being assigned to
teach a STEM subject without suitable qualifications, expertise, or an interest in the field all
influence teachers’ lived experiences and their capacity to adjust pedagogies and teaching
characteristics. Bruning et al. (2004) have stated that learning is constructive and that motiva-
tion, stimulation, beliefs, and social interaction are fundamental to cognitive development.
They also stated that knowledge, concepts, and expertise are contextual. Any quality improve-
ment strategies in STEM education must include an acknowledgement that teachers’ emotions,
life-worlds, and dispositions cannot be separated from their teaching characteristics. To be
successful, teachers must internalise a deep knowledge of the subject matter and fully endorse
the curriculum (Shulman 1986).
I further argue that unsuitably qualified teachers in STEM subject areas find it difficult to
critically reflect on the purpose, context, and knowledge base of science and related fields and
thus find it difficult to implement the essential pedagogical skills necessary to effectively teach
the specific content. Vygotsky and Cole’s (1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD)
learning theory indicates that the teacher, as a knowledgeable educator, possesses the capacity
to know the stage at which each student is with respect to their learning in order to scaffold the
construction of new knowledge. The scaffolding of new knowledge construction in science
and mathematics is steered by prior knowledge as a sound foundation for more complex
concepts. The necessity to scaffold new knowledge clarifies the need for special teaching of
science and mathematics not only at the high school level but also at the primary school level
(Bhathal 2015). It is a gross misunderstanding to assume STEM teaching is only a concern in
high schools. The Office of the Australian Government Chief Scientist’s (2014)
 Res Sci Educ

recommendation is for quality STEM teaching at all year levels to be with subject-qualified
STEM teachers.
The question needs to be answered whether teachers are qualified to teach out of field in the
specific subjects to which they are assigned, even when they are being assigned to teach only
at a junior level. The argument presented in this paper is that acknowledging this is simply an
effort to move beyond the obvious. The impact of specific CK, PCK, and PK (Shulman 1986,
1987) on the quality of teaching when teaching out of field is accentuated best by Darling-
Hammond (2004), who cautions that a Black of access to a qualified teacher constitutes a major
threat to equal educational opportunity^ (pp. 1937–1938). However, building teachers’ capac-
ity, which includes sound subject content and PCK in STEM subject areas, also requires
connectedness among leaders and teachers, targeted professional development programs,
continuous feedback, and a clear understanding of the expectations and needs of those teachers
who are less suitably qualified (Hobbs et al. 2016).

The Aims of This Paper

The qualitative investigation from which findings are drawn for this paper aimed to explore
the impact of the lived experiences of various parties intimately connected and related to
out-of-field teaching in STEM, with the ultimate goal of identifying the implications these
phenomenological data might have for STEM improvement strategies. I suggest that any
in-depth understanding of the multidimensional impact of the out-of-field teaching phe-
nomenon (see Fig. 1) on the various aspects of the STEM teaching and learning space, such
as PCK, teaching characteristics, or teacher coping, will suggest the necessity of targeted
professional support, learning, and development opportunities for out-of-field teachers
teaching in the subject areas for which they are not suitably qualified. Targeted support,
in this paper, is defined as a collaborative approach to assess teachers’ needs and assign
appropriate resources/support as the follow-up of thorough negotiation among all stake-
holders; the issues revealed in the study are closely connected to the absence of targeted
support. Research shows that awareness and understanding of the implications of the out-
of-field teaching phenomenon for quality teaching informs education leaders’ decision-
making. This, similarly, supports the argument that awareness and understanding of the
impact the out-of-field teaching phenomenon has on STEM education can influence the
development of policies connected to empirical evidence.
The out-of-field teaching phenomenon’s impact on success in classrooms, especially in
mathematics and science subjects, emphasises the importance of acknowledging the realities
within classroom contexts (Ingersoll et al. 2014). Du Plessis (2014), too, has accentuated that
the intense lived experiences of teachers influence what occurs inside classrooms, and
Bourdieu and Passeron (1994) have made it clear that not only the knowledge transfer but
also the specific milieu in which the knowledge is transferred affects the success of learning.
This investigation provides evidence of the intensity of out-of-field teachers’ lived experi-
ences as they try to maintain effective and quality teaching, in spite of being assigned to teach
out-of-field. The research questions build on concerns identified by Sullivan (2008), regarding
an absence of teachers’ PK and subject-specific teaching strategies:

1. How does teaching out-of-field in STEM subject areas influence the lived experiences of
out-of-field teachers?
Res Sci Educ

2. How does the out-of-field teaching phenomenon influence quality teaching in STEM
subject areas?
3. How does the wider school community understand the out-of-field teaching phenome-
non’s impact on quality teaching and learning in STEM subject areas?

Methodology and Theoretical Framework

The empirical examination of a teaching phenomenon that is deeply ingrained in STEM

subject areas has implications for future workforce planning that are applicable across cultures.
This phenomenological research offers the benefit of a clearer understanding of teachers lived
experiences when they are assigned in STEM subject without the necessary qualifications and
what it means for their capacity to adjust their teaching practices and their classrooms. The
qualitative paradigm brings attention to various perspectives regarding participants’ empirical
claims (Smith et al. 2009).

Theoretical Framework

Gadamer’s (1975, 1976) philosophy of hermeneutics was employed to search for answers
to what must be understood, and to study the insights and lived experiences of the
participants beyond what seemed obvious. That Bteacher quality is an important determi-
nant of student achievement^ (Dee and Cohodes 2008, p. 7) emphasises the interrelation-
ship between and impact of teachers’ and students’ lived experiences on the teaching and
learning cultures and climates within the school and classroom contexts. Vygotsky and
Cole’s (1978) social constructivist theory supports the investigation into the impact out-of-
field teaching practices have on strategies to build capacity and interest among students for
STEM subjects. This theory further explains expectations for improved achievement and
results in STEM subjects and emphasise why an in-depth understanding of the out-of-field
teaching phenomenon is necessary as strategy to manage concerns in STEM education.
This theory further supports that expectations for improved achievement and results in
STEM subjects require an in-depth understanding of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon,
and that acquiring this is necessary in order to manage concerns in STEM education. Van
Manen’s (1990) theoretical position is that lived experiences unveil the life-worlds of
individuals and bring to light a deeper understanding of context and emotion, while
Gadamer’s (1975, 1976) argument, that understanding develops through interaction, agen-
cy, and discourse, supports giving close attention to what was Breally^ being said in
interviews and classrooms, by attending to specifically to the language participants used
to reflect their life-worlds.
The empirical data reported in this study was gathered through extended periods of time
spent in schools by the author to build rapport with participants; in one of the schools, one day
a week was spent at the school for more than a year. Van Manen (1990) described close
observations as an attempt to immerse oneself in the life-worlds of participants while main-
taining a hermeneutic alertness (p. 69). Through the fusion of these concepts and ideas,
including those insights from educational directors, principals, specialists, out-of-field
teachers, parents, and the interpreter, the interview data (text) offer an understanding of
Bbeing^ (Gadamer 1975, my emphasis, p. 432). The theoretical philosophy frames the
argument and the results to clarify reflective questions—including BWhat is there to
 Res Sci Educ

understand?^—based on Gadamer’s (1976) claim that self-understanding develops during the

event of Bbeing^, which in this case is being out of field. The theoretical framework confronted
and investigated the fundamental concerns and issues surrounding the lived experiences of
unsuitably qualified teachers, as per van Manen’s idea that a more comprehensive understand-
ing of embodied knowledge unifies the experience and the person. The theoretical framework
also ensured the exploration of teachers’ feelings of belongingness (Gadamer 1975) in relation
to specific STEM subject areas (or the year level in which they were teaching), to unveil the
meaning of this for the quality of STEM education.

Data Collection and Analysis

Since global concerns about STEM education underline the importance of clarifying and
understanding issues around the improvement of STEM fields in developed and developing
countries, this investigation purposefully included both primary and secondary schools in two
different national settings, namely, Australia, which is ranked second on the human develop-
ment index, and South Africa, which is ranked 118th (United Nations Development Programme
2014). The rationale behind using two such developmentally different countries was to
demonstrate that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon influences the quality of education
across both developed and developing countries, and is part of the broader education context
(Smith 2005, p. 9). Moss et al. (2009) have noted that the value of transnational research
depends upon the generalisability and validity of the content. The present study aimed not to
draw comparisons but to develop awareness and a deeper understanding of the out-of-field
teaching phenomenon in the context of different environments in order to confront its associated
misconceptions and misunderstandings.
The study from which this paper draws data received clearance from UQ Institutional
Research Ethics Committee (Clearance number: 11-029). The privacy and the protection of
confidentiality of participants were central ethical considerations in the research project, and it
was made clear that participation was voluntary.
The investigation involved 48 participants (33 Australians, coded BAus^, and 15 South
Africans, coded BSA^) from diverse educational environments: educational directors from
different transnational education departments, principals, specialists, out-of-field teachers,
and parents. The purposive sample selection provided an opportunity to examine the out-
of-field teaching phenomenon through the lenses of the different participants and from
various perspectives. The seven schools represented different sectors in both the develop-
ing and the developed countries: independent/private schools (three Australians) and public
schools (two Australians and two South Africans); suburban schools (three Australians and
one South African) and remote or rural school environments (two Australians and one
South African); multicultural and primary teachers (elementary, middle school, and early
childhood); and high schools and high school teachers from low (one Australian and one
South African) and high (four Australians and one South African) socioeconomic environ-
ments. Table 1 provides a summary of the participants and settings involved in the
investigation.
The study provided the opportunity to examine the out-of-field teaching phenomenon in
three education department offices—namely, central (or national) education management
offices, state offices, and district offices, allowing the connections between policies and
leadership decisions and the real-life experiences of teachers to become visible, with the
intention of enhancing the authenticity, credibility, and applicability of the information
Table 1 Sample and participants included in interviews and observations
Academic institution
Description of institutions
Location and socio-cultural context
Site A: public school/regional com-
munity
Combined secondary/primary
school
South Africa
Site B: public/multicultural sec-
ondary School: instruction
language—dual medium
Multicultural context
Low socioeconomic area
South Africa
Site C: public/suburban primary
school
High socioeconomic area
Australia/state 1
Site D: independent combined
secondary/primary school:
metropolitan
High socioeconomic area
Australia/state 2
Interviews verbatim transcriptions Observations
Participant information
Res Sci Educ
A1 = HoD, senior primary A7: classroom observation
A2 = experienced teacher teaching out-of-field (preprimary qualified, A3: classroom observation
teaching Year 6 and 7 maths and science) A4: classroom observation
A3 = beginning teacher teaching out-of-field (economics qualified,
teaching Year 11 maths, Year 10 phys ed, and Year 12 career guidance)
A4 = experienced teacher teaching out-of-field (biology qualified, teaching
Year 10–12 language)
Two parents (A5, A6)
A7 = an out-of-field teacher (design technology qualified, teaching accounting)
B1 = principal 7 classroom observations—3 in beginning teachers’ classrooms,
Two parents (B2, B3) teaching outside their qualifications (B6 × 2, B7), and 4 in
B4 = HoD, specialist science, specialist teacher classrooms (B4 × 2, B5, B1)
B5 = deputy principal
B6 = beginning teacher teaching out-of-field (biology qualified, teaching
Year 10 maths, language and phys ed)
B7 = beginning teacher teaching out-of-field (home economics qualified,
teaching Year 8 and 9 maths and economics)
C1 = beginning teacher teaching out-of-field (kindergarten qualified, C1: classroom observation
teaching Year 6 and 7 science and art)
C2 = specialist teacher
Parents (C4, C5)
C6 = principal, primary school
C7 = experienced teacher teaching out-of-field (music qualified, teach
Year 6 and 7 maths and science)
D1 = beginning teacher teaching out-of-field (phys ed. qualified, teaching D6: classroom observation
Year 6 and 7 science and maths)
D2 = specialist teacher, special education
Two parents (D3, D5—both qualified teachers)
D4 = principal
D6 = beginning teacher teaching out-of-field (senior primary qualified,
teaching preprimary)
Table 1 (continued)

Academic institution Interviews verbatim transcriptions Observations

Description of institutions Participant information
Location and socio-cultural context

D7 = beginning teacher teaching out-of-field (senior primary qualified

teaching technology Year 4–7)
Site E: independent secondary E1 = principal (informal discussion)
school: remote E2 = specialist teacher, senior secondary maths
Australia/state 2 E3 = dean of staff
Two parents (E4, E6)
E5 = beginning teacher teaching out-of-field (science qualified, teaching
maths and phys ed)
Site F: independent primary school: F1 = specialist teacher
remote Two parents (F2, F5)
Australia/state 2 F3 = principal
F4 = experienced teacher teaching out-of-field (secondary school language
qualified, teaching Year 6 and 7 general classwork and responsible for
maths and science)
Site G: public secondary school: Two parents (G1, G6)
suburban G2 = principal
Low socioeconomic area G3 = specialist teacher (VET coordinator)
Australia/state 2 G4 = beginning teacher teaching out-of-field (art qualified, teaching Year
11 and 12 literature)
G5 = beginning teacher teaching out-of-field (biology qualified, teaching
Year 11 and 12 earth science and maths)
Site H: central office: independent Education director 1
schools, Australia
Site I: regional office: public Education director 2
schools, South Africa
Site J: central office: public schools, Education director 3
Australia
Site K: central office: public Education assistant director 4
schools, Australia
Res Sci Educ
Res Sci Educ

provided. Data were gathered through informal close conversations (van Manen 1990): for
example, with staff members in the hallways or staff rooms; with parents at the school gate; via
48 recorded and transcribed semistructured interviews conducted with school leaders, out-of-
field teachers, specialist teachers and parents; via voluntary classroom observations from out-
of-field teachers and specialist teachers, taken according to an observation protocol (see
Table 2); and through document analysis of meetings (staff meetings, support and professional
development meetings, and school improvement strategy meetings). The interview guidelines
were divided into groups of questions that enquired about the Bthings that ground^ the
participants’ lived experiences (van Manen 1990, p. 32): for example, school leadership,
classroom pedagogies, behaviour management, PCK, and out-of-field teachers’ Bat homeness^
in the STEM subject areas.
Data analysis was via bracketing and coding of key phrases and words. The thematic
analysis involved an interpretive analysis, with colour coding of themes to find interrelations
between the participants’ experiences and the out-of-field teaching phenomenon (Smith et al.
2009). A hermeneutic phenomenological philosophy does not usually incorporate bracketing
and coding as part of the data analysis process (Giorgi and Giorgi 2003); however, to ensure
effective management of the magnitude of data and equally respect all the responses, I applied
the empirical phenomenological philosophy of Giorgi (2009), which is rooted in the work of
Husserl, and which allows for the analysis process to include examining and re-examining
responses to develop insights into participants’ accounts as the study’s focus (Crist and Tanner
2003; Annells 2006).
The interpretation of the lived meaning of out-of-field teaching practices according to
themes lead to findings of rich clusters of meaning from the data that expose the essential
nature of the lived experience (Van Manen 1990). An initial recognition and analysis of
strong recurring themes were recorded in the field diary during interviews, and later,
exploration of this analysis and exploration of themes were repeated and extended by
attending to verbatim transcriptions of the interviews multiple times. The analysis of the
participants’ discourse was informed by identifying keywords and phrases and was framed
by Gadamer’s (1976) idea of Bthe interpreter genuinely open[ing] himself to the text by
listening to it and allowing it to assert its viewpoint^ (p. xx). Analysis and interpretation of
the extensive amount of data were supported by the notion of bracketing (Giorgi and Giorgi
2003) to keep the awareness of the close link between the past and the present clear,
through which I ensured that former knowledge did not impact a continuing experience of
searching for deeper understanding. The colour coding analysis was Bdriven by a commit-
ment of turning to an abiding concern^ (Van Manen 1990, p. 31) regarding each partici-
pant’s truth.
To open up the complex meaning of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon for the lived
experiences of out-of-field STEM teachers, I kept in mind Gadamer’s (1976) idea of the
Bwhole of being that is mirrored and disclosed in language^ (p. xxxii), since Gadamer
underscored that Bwhat is disclosed in language poses ever new questions to its inter-
preters and gives new answers to those who are challenged by it^ (p. xxxiii). Basing
myself on this manner of enquiry and analysis supported critical reflection, and, as Van
Manen (1990) urged, Bbring[s] into nearness that which tends to be obscure^ (p. 32).
Close observation of data brought me closer to the life-worlds (Van Manen 1990) of out-
of-field teachers and specialist teachers in the STEM field, while document analysis
linked the expectations of school leaders to realities in out-of-field STEM teachers’
classrooms.
 Res Sci Educ

Results

In response to the research questions, the data unveiled four core themes that inform a deeper
understanding of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon’s impact on quality STEM education:

1. Out-of-field teachers’ experiences of out-of-field teaching in STEM subject areas:

(a) Recognition of restricted CK

(b) Urgency to address gap in CK
(c) Resultant lack of confidence of out-of-field teachers and the flow-on effects to other
stakeholders

2. The effects of out-of-field teaching on effective quality teaching and education in STEM
subject areas:

(a) Time to improve CK

(b) Absence of communication about CK concerns (and with other stakeholders)
(c) Lack of subject depth, including an example of a specific context

3. Beyond the classroom: understandings from the wider context

(a) Concerns that the effects of out-of-field teaching in STEM subject areas can extend
beyond the classroom into student futures, including the specific example of rural
and remote schools
(b) The attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions of leadership

4. The possibility of positive outcomes

Out-of-field Teachers’ Experiences of Out-of-field Teaching in STEM Subject Areas

It became clear from the results that the predominant experience of teaching out-of-field was a
keen awareness by the teachers (and other stakeholders) of their lack of relevant CK, and an
urgent need to correct the situation. It further appeared that both of these were stressful for their
confidence and equilibrium.

Recognition of Lack of CK, the Need to Catch Up, and Teacher Confidence

This theme was best described by the bewilderment and frustration of an out-of-field teacher
(D7–Aus) who shared, BI don’t know what I don’t know!^ Another out-of-field teacher (A3–
SA) at a secondary school described their deficit and disconnection from relevant CK this way:
BI can’t convey information I know nothing about. I asked a colleague to do certain themes. It
is part of her field, but for me, it is just a piece of work we need to read through.^ While keenly
aware of the difficulty of managing a subject without the necessary CK, it seemed that the
attitudes of teachers in out-of-field positions had an impact on the manner in which they
managed this CK deficit. One out-of-field teacher (G5–Aus) of an environmental science
subject, who was teaching outside her field stated,
Res Sci Educ

With earth and environmental science, it’s very hard because it’s a Year 12 ATAR
[Australian Tertiary Admission Rank] subject, and the first half of the course is all about
rocks. I’ve had no experience in rocks before; I didn’t study it. So I’ve had to learn all
this new content as well as figure out some good ways to teach it so that they’ll
remember it.
The urgency inherent in the situation was clarified through the perspective of another
out-of-field teacher (A2–SA): BI had to adjust quickly; it is still not okay—I do my best, I
read a lot about the subject. I don’t want to teach them incorrect concepts^. Document
analysis of this teacher’s (G5–Aus) planning and reporting documents showed textbook-
and worksheet-based planning as well as extensive amounts of work planned for the time
available, and her concern about her lack of relevant CK was reinforced by an experi-
enced colleague (G3), Bshe struggles to plan and apply the curriculum content to fit lesson
time^.
At another school, a specialist teacher (C2–Aus) discussed her experience with an out-of-
field teachers’ CK: BI was surprised: we were talking about how we were going to teach
something. I witnessed things—I sometimes thought [laughed] are we really reading the same
curriculum document? It was very different^. And another specialist teacher (G3–Aus) further
explained the impact of an out-of-field teacher’s insufficient knowledge of teaching and
learning:

The young lass who broke down, she teaches the same maths subject as I do. She was
teaching from the course outline lesson by lesson. I said, BYou don’t have to stick to that.
If you can think of something that’s interesting that you’ve been involved with, put that
in. Chuck that other bit out. Put something else in.^
However, as an out-of-field teacher (D1–Aus) explained, BI need to change this subject
[adjustments to the curriculum to fit specific needs], but you just do what you know, and
what you know is insufficient, and you go without any knowledge or prior experience^. A
music qualified primary school teacher (C7–Aus) with several years of teaching experi-
ence in music, but who was at that time assigned to teaching science and mathematics to
Year 7 students, gave this acute summary of the need to Bcatch up^ with PCK as well as
CK:

I have been teaching for 15 years—the challenge is to teach something that’s not familiar
to you, understanding the curriculum. Year 7 maths, science, you can’t just walk in. The
other issue is not knowing how much you go into it—how much the kids already know.
An experienced teacher (A7–SA) teaching in an out-of-field position observed that the lack
of CK was affecting their equilibrium, BIt makes you anxious, the possibility that you are
teaching incorrect information^. A parent (A5–SA) at this school noticed the effects of this
confidence difficulty in a previous out-of-field teacher’s classroom, BDuring the Year 12 record
[mock] exams, parents became aware that the teacher left a whole chapter out; it was not
covered at all—it was just too difficult^.
It became clear from the results that because out-of-field teachers found it difficult to
be in control of the subject matter, this had implications not just for their confidence as
quality teachers but created issues that also flowed to the interpersonal trust relationships
they had with the parent and student communities. Intense concern was expressed by a
parent (F2–Aus), who stated of out-of-field teachers, BThey just do the basics^.
 Res Sci Educ

Effective Teaching in Science and STEM Subject Areas

The consequences of an absence of subject expertise, which is often taken for granted in
suitably qualified teachers’ teaching practices because of their specialist knowledge, become
more apparent through issues that develop in the out-of-field teachers’ classroom contexts. In
particular, out-of-field teachers struggled to maintain quality teaching while they were getting
Bup to speed^ on CK, had difficult communication with students during that time, and
appeared to continually struggle (with other stakeholders) with the lack of depth they were
ultimately able to present in the subject matter.

Time to BCatch Up^

As is already clear from earlier statements (I had to adjust quickly; you can’t just walk in), it
became increasingly clear that the length of time required for teachers in out-of-field positions
to become familiar with those subjects was one of the issues for effective teaching in out-of-
field classrooms. As an out-of-field teacher (E5–Aus) explained, it took time to adjust: BAt
least a term … [accentuated, soft voice, neck flushing red]. I have settled into it—when I told
myself it wasn’t hard—but I do still find it hard^. She further explained, BI look at the other
classes and go, ‘Wow, that is a wicked activity!’ I wish I knew—I just wish I had the
knowledge of those things to start with…^.
A parent (A6–SA), too, observed that the teachers’ lack of familiarity with the subject
matter affected time management and, ultimately, learning outcomes: BShe can’t distin-
guish between the important and less important information, what are the major outcomes
or what they are supposed to be. She just doesn’t know^. A parent (A6–SA) stated, BMy
child said, ‘This lady struggles to complete the exercises’^, and another parent (A5–SA)
supported the statement: BThey are not competent; they struggle to cover the work in the
time available…^.

Communication Lag

The data identified significant issues with communication: It appeared that out-of-field
teachers’ uncertainty was not only slowing them down but was hindering their ability to
discuss the material with students in the learning space as well as connect it up to other areas.
Two out-of-field teachers shared the following insights: BHaving little knowledge about the
subject—makes it difficult to integrate it with other subjects^ (B6–SA); BIn the beginning, I
just taught the lesson, told them to write the questions down and to answer them, and I checked
the answers. Now, I have started to discuss the work more^ (A2–SA). An out-of-field teacher
(G5–Aus) in mathematics and earth science for Year 11 and Year 12 (qualified as a biology
teacher) offered a sharp observation of their inability to deliver expected quality outcomes:
Not knowing the content and not being able to answer the kids’ questions if they throw
you a curve ball. I’m having a real problem with connecting concepts because I’m
learning the concepts separately. A Bgood^ teacher would connect it all, tell the kids how
this relates to that, but I can’t see it myself, so I can’t tell the kids. That’s another source
of my frustration.
A principal (C6–Aus), too, noted that the quality impacts of the out-of-field teaching
phenomenon reached beyond quality education and into student attitudes: BIt has a negative
Res Sci Educ

impact because of the lack of confidence the students have with their teacher, the lack of
engagement they have, the quality or the shape of the lessons^. Classroom observations in out-
of-field teachers’ classrooms (A4–SA, B7–SA, C1–Aus) also showed how quickly students
could get aggravated when their teachers provided them with an incorrect answer to questions,
displayed uncertainty about subject content, or employed pedagogies that complicated learn-
ing. In addition, classroom observations of the same student cohort in a specialist science
teachers’ classroom and in an out-of-field teachers’ classroom revealed significant differences
in both student behaviour and dispositions. The students in the specialist teachers’ classroom
knew exactly what was expected of them, and they were eager to ask questions and enter into
discussions with the teacher. In the out-of-field teachers’ classroom, students did not engage in
content discussions but demonstrated more aggravated behaviour and a disconnection from the
teachers.

BDepth Is Vital^

The data analysis exposed a considerable quality education concern in relation to out-of-field
teaching practices regarding the misinterpretation of STEM curricula. A parent (D3–Aus)
noted, BIt comes down to the implementation of it. A person who’s been trained in that area
will interpret it differently, and depth is vital^.
Another parent (A5–SA) further clarified the challenges students experience because out-
of-field teachers lack the capacity to guide their students to deep learning experiences: BThey
don’t teach. They do not explain the work thoroughly. You can’t point a finger; their files and
their administration are perfect—[however, the depth of their students’ knowledge is falling
short]^.
Lack of CK forces teachers to rely on textbook information that often lacks an in-depth
exploration of fundamental concepts and the interconnections between them, especially in
the teaching of science and related STEM subjects. A principal (School C–Aus) identified
clearly how a teacher’s lack of CK could impact student learning: BThere are holes in their
learning, misinformation and the lack of clarity, which will be a foundation for further
learning. If they don’t have that proper foundation, they will have some significant issues
along the way^. Teachers without in-depth knowledge of specific concepts, definitions, and
content can offer students only superficial learning opportunities, and the implications of
the inadequate execution of curriculum suggest the possibility of emergent problems with
scaffolding, new knowledge construction, and new information internalisation for
students.
An educational director (Site I) in South Africa, too, observed that unsuitably
qualified teachers rely on textbook knowledge and merely transfer content without
depth:

Effective teaching requires a broad content knowledge of the subject. Not just
what is in the lesson plan but the background knowledge. These teachers have a
very narrow field as far as understanding how this subject links to the real world
and how it links to other subjects. They see these subjects in silos [isolated parts]
and BWe’re at this particular lesson this day.^ This teacher is unable to bring the
real world into the classroom, to inspire and make the children enthusiastic. It
becomes a case of BOpen your textbook on this page, and we’re doing this work
today.^
 Res Sci Educ

In another case, a comparison made this lack of depth even more obvious, as a principal (G2–
Aus) shared,

My current maths teachers know their maths deeply; they love their learning area; they
bring ideas, quirks, resources and passion that our students haven’t had for many years.
A previous situation—the teacher had no confidence, no passion for the area, and the
teaching strategies reflected it. There was no connection made to the real world; there
was no ability to construct that relationship. It was very much BOpen to page 25 and do
exercises 1 to 100.^ It was repetitive, it was boring, it was negative, and it showed in
both the results and in the students’ responses to the subject. It was something they had
to endure.
These results indicate that deep knowledge is clearly recognised by many parties, as is
the substantial difference the impartation of it makes in the learning context. Further,
classroom observations of out-of-field teachers (C1–Aus, A3–SA, A7–SA) showed that
beginning teachers in out-of-field positions find it difficult to manage group work skills.
An out-of-field teacher (D7–Aus) shared her experience of out-of-field teaching in this
situation: BWorking one-on-one or tweaking a task or a project just for them specifically,
that I am okay with—but as a group—it is probably not my ideal situation [voice
trembling … long silence]^. In a specific example, at School G (Aus), the teacher’s
PCK was seen to greatly influence laboratory work in a science classroom. A parent (G1–
Aus) who was a qualified scientist and volunteer lab assistant at her children’s school
explained how an out-of-field teacher struggled to effectively manage group work in the
science laboratory:

She [the teacher] had never done anything like that before. When you are suddenly
working with lab equipment—you have Bunsen burners and chemicals—using that
equipment is a bit nerve-wracking. She was not comfortable, so she did as little lab
work as she could. No fault of hers—she is not [accentuated] a science teacher. She
couldn’t cope; if there was a kid that was really keen and interested, she was not able
to answer queries that went outside what she read up on the night before—that type of
thing….
The parent (G1–Aus) further explained, BI ran the lab sessions for her…normally, a
technician would get everything ready and the teacher would run the experiments, but with
this teacher, I actually ran the lab sessions because she was way [accentuated] out of her
depth^. A parent with a similar problem at another school commented that it was not the
teacher’s fault, but that Bshe was not comfortable so she did as little lab work as possible^
(G1–Aus).

Beyond the Classroom: Understandings from the Wider Context

While it is clear from the results presented so far that implications of the out-of-field
teaching phenomenon for teachers’ lack of CK and PCK impact their capacity to provide
significant aspects of quality teaching in the classroom context, results also indicated that
the classroom was not necessarily where these effects ended and that within a specific
subject area, the impact could be felt in the future of students beyond the school context.
Stakeholders’ lack of confidence in teachers can also have far-reaching consequences in
Res Sci Educ

rural/remote communities where teachers are seen as community leaders. The attitudes of
leadership, both in these communities and in general, situate the out-of-field problem in a
haze of leadership misconception and subsequently a lack of targeted support.

Student Futures

Student and parent lived experience in relation to this teaching phenomenon appeared to mean
changes to the way these stakeholders perceived and understood the value of STEM subjects,
affecting choices about vocations in STEM areas. A parent (B2–SA) shared, BTo see them
[students] losing their love for a subject is so tragic because of the way that they have been
taught—to see your child lose interest is the saddest thing^, and another parent echoed the
sense of loss: BMy fear—came true—was that my child had a huge gap in his learning. He
never grew academically…^ (D5–Aus). At another school (G1–Aus), a further parent ap-
peared similarly dismayed as she explained that an out-of-field teacher in science had
influenced her Year 11 son’s aspirations to apply for an engineering course at a top Australian
university. She said, BShe is a ‘good’ teacher, but she was not science qualified. She was the
kind of teacher who would actually study it. She could then deliver that lesson, but she could
never take it any further. She only told the kids what she had taught herself in a very short
space of time…^.
Another parent (A5–SA) stated that she had felt compelled to take matters of future
learning into her own hands, BI just said there is no way—you are not going to enrol in that
subject [a science subject]; you can achieve the same results with the other subject. You
don’t need to go to school having a bad experience every day^. This parent further
explained, BPieces of work got left out, and it catches up with the children when they are
at uni; we saw it with my eldest…he is still struggling because of what happened in his
maths classroom^. At this school, an out-of-field teacher (A3–SA), who was aware of
concerns about the execution of the curriculum, noted this in particular: B…neglecting to
cover work in a previous year because the teacher lacked the knowledge or incorrectly
conveyed it [means that] fundamental building blocks are lacking and the child needs to do
extra work or will encounter repetitive problems in the specific area^. Parents’ responses
(B3–SA), too, indicated that they realised they needed to take extra measures to ensure that
their children obtained the necessary results to have opportunities for a desirable tertiary
education: BI had to get extra help, private lessons for my child to ensure her uni entrance in
the field she prefers^. Such measures come with financial implications for parents because
of the cost of additional tutoring for students so that they can gain the appropriate Year 12
results to apply for specific tertiary STEM courses.
Moreover, where out-of-field teachers are placed in positions of considerable responsibility,
it was evident that an absence of CK could have an impact on the entire school community. At
School E (Aus), an out-of-field information technology (IT) teacher’s lack of CK rippled
throughout the entire school when it caused the entire school to fall behind and become
stagnant in IT proficiency, making keeping pace with developments and advances in technol-
ogy an issue. As the dean of staff (E3–Aus) explained,

they will tend to not be given responsibility or autonomy over a subject if they’re out of
their area. A lot of teachers don’t invest in IT as much as they probably should because,
in their defence, the IT is not as good as it should be, and again, that’s becoming a
staffing issue….
 Res Sci Educ

The empirical data here demonstrates the value of interrelatedness and integration of
STEM domains for school contexts. Moreover, concern about student futures for students
graduating from remote schools was summarised by an educational director at Site H in
Australia who explained that small rural schools in remote areas attempt to cater to the
needs of families who cannot afford or do not want to send their children to boarding
schools by allowing students to remain on at the school despite teacher’s lack of expertise
for their needs: BTo keep themselves [the schools] viable, they are taking on some Year 11s
and 12s. It’s a real challenge; you’ve got essentially a Year 8, 9 and 10 expertise teacher
trying to teach not just out of field but out of their scope, out of their confidence [in senior
secondary classes]^. The educational director further noted that due to the cost of profes-
sional development, the school’s leadership was hesitant to send out-of-field teachers to
professional development seminars, especially when they could not be certain whether the
teachers would be teaching the same subjects the following year. As the dean of staff (E3–
Aus) at a remote high school explained: BIf you know it’s just for this year [shrugged], it
just wouldn’t be economical^. Parents at the same school, however, held a different view.
One parent (E6–Aus), for example, stated, BYou want to get your money’s worth, and then
you feel discouraged if you find that your children are getting substandard education^. This
parent admitted that the out-of-field teaching situation at their school had influenced their
children’s choices regarding tertiary education.
A principal (G2–Aus) acknowledged the impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon
beyond the school context, sharing that the quality of teaching in the classroom is linked to
considerations outside the boundaries of schools: BEmployers are frustrated because the
vocational students coming through Training and Further Education (TAFE) are leaving school
with maths way below what they need for the trades^. Awareness of the nature of concerns
from employers in the private sector about the depth of school leavers’ knowledge in STEM
fields underlines the urgency to take note of concerns in the field when addressing quality
teaching.

Leadership Perceptions, Attitudes, and Misconceptions

Misconceptions among leaders, particularly the perception that Bany good teacher can teach
anything^ (B1–SA) unveil concerning implications for STEM education. As comments from
school leaders at Sites E and H indicate (if you know it’s just for this year; it wouldn’t be
economical), professional development opportunities are not always available to out-of-field
teachers because these positions are often viewed as temporary, and may be so taken for
granted that they become invisible. An educational director at Site J in Australia demonstrated
this Binvisibility^:
We need to make a distinction here. In secondary schools, out-of-area teaching only
occurs in Years 8 to 10. In Year 11 and 12, we have specialist teachers teaching specialist
subjects. In Years 8 to 10, many teachers are willing to do the necessary work to build
their skills. We tend not to put people into areas where they’ve had absolutely no
experience. We don’t put people to teach science, for example, who’ve never had
anything to do with it. It’s not that serious of an issue for us….
The reality, however, was that a young out-of-field teacher (G5–Aus) was at that time
teaching mathematics and science, out-of-field at Year 12 level in this educational
director’s department, BSo it’s a really steep learning curve because they [leaders]
Res Sci Educ

sort-of just chucked me in the deep end and said that basically at the end their [students’]
results have got to reflect your teaching. So I’m like ‘Oh okay, great. This is just what I
need first year out’^. A specialist teacher (F1–Aus) emphasised the impact that short-
comings in leadership communication had on understanding: BIt is very bland that they
have this notion that a teacher can teach anything^. School budget constraints (E6–Aus,
E3–Aus, B1–SA, A1–SA) evidently impacted the support and professional development
out-of-field teachers were receiving: BWe wouldn’t tend to send them on PDs [profes-
sional development courses], so we’d invest all this money in them and then they might
just leave^ (E3).
Analyses of segments and key phrases of interviews show that leaders’ decisions are
influenced by the depth of their understanding of the impact of out-of-field teaching practices
on the STEM teaching and learning environment. In some primary schools and lower
secondary levels, it seemed that leadership assigned out-of-field teachers to teach science
and mathematics courses because of the perception that less damage is caused when out-of-
field teaching occurs in lower-level classes. However, a dean of staff (E3–Aus) admitted that
Blower classes are the hard yards^, and explained that class sizes are typically larger at lower
levels and that specialist PK is necessary at these levels to both actively engage students and
keep them fully engaged. Also at Site J (an education district office–Aus), an educational
director’s comments suggested that CK and PCK concerns surrounding out-of-field teaching
practices could be set aside because certain teaching skills were more desirable than others in
remote areas:
The remotes are a very difficult context because certain states have very isolated
schools. In many respects, high levels of content knowledge are actually not the
prime prerequisite for teaching in those schools. It’s about understanding and work-
ing with Aboriginal kids; it’s about the capacity to adapt to living in a remote
community; it’s about empathy and the ability to relate to students and switch them
on to education.
Misconceptions are indications of a disconnect between expectations and the reality in
classroom and school context. A principal (D4–Aus) at School D described a situation
where the leadership team realised during the term that an out-of-field teacher was not
coping and said that leadership Bsat down with her^, adding, BWe had to step in and ask,
‘How can we help you?’^. A principal at Site G (G2–Aus) confidently shared the school’s
strategy, BWe recruit graduate teachers, and then we grow and develop them, and an out-of-
field beginning teacher at the same school (G5–Aus) admitted that although she found it
difficult to teach mathematics outside her field of qualification, she was going to choose to
teach the subject again the following year because she had her leaders’ support. However,
she further shared that subject-related extracurricular leadership activities filled her time:
BIt’s bad; I am never in the staff room because I’m always running around doing things—
I’ve got a science club, I’ve got maths tutoring after school and tutoring kids during my dot
time [non-contact time]^. She also shared that she had organised additional support from a
colleague in another school in her private time and at her own expense because of her
workload at school, and perceived herself as isolated: BI walk through the staff room, and
they’re all sitting and having a good time. I just feel really bad^. Although this out-of-field
teacher (G5-Aus) was supported by the school leaders’ feelings of restricted success, being
overloaded shows that unrealistic leadership expectations and aspirations put significant
pressure on out-of-field teachers to fulfil these expectations (School G and C7). At another
 Res Sci Educ

school, an out-of-field teacher (C7–Aus) who was qualified in music but was teaching
science explained that BThey acknowledge the out-of-field thing when they first put you in
that field…after that, you get forgotten about…they just don’t understand at all what it is
like to be in that classroom…to be doing that job^.

Focussing on the Possibilities of Positive Outcomes

Results demonstrated that some teachers had an interest in or passion for their out-of-field
subject, and these were able to view that subject as an opportunity to acquire new CK, and
so actually perceive teaching out-of-field subjects as an opportunity that might benefit their
future teaching pathways. As an out-of-field teacher (A2–SA) noted, BIt broadens my field.
I am not solely and intensively focused on one area; I have a wider field now...^. A principal
from School D explained the commitment and energy that some out-of-field teachers bring
to the challenge of building their capacity to effectively manage an unfamiliar subject:
BOne of our science teachers taught physics, but physics wasn’t her field. She sat for hours
making sure she worked out every problem and every scenario; she knew what to teach the
next day—she’s been teaching physics for five years now, and she is brilliant^. Another
principal at School G shared, BYou can have an out-of-field teacher who makes it their
business to learn what they need to know. I have a science teacher—we trained her in an
area of science that she has a passion for^. He added that with support from the leadership
team, Bshe’s worked really hard and has now achieved the highest results we’ve had for our
Year 12s in that area because she has that natural connection with students, and she has a
love for learning^.
A teacher who at that time was in his fifth year of teaching and who had begun his teaching
career in out-of-field positions shared that he had had to learn to work with colleagues and to
collaborate in meetings so that he could learn from those who possessed more CK than he did.
The teacher (D1–Aus) further shared positive opportunities in relation to the challenges of
managing an out-of-field position and being compelled to work closely with specialists and
expert teachers:
I think it is actually worth doing…one, in terms of the challenge and opportunity to see
how another teacher teaches...and also what their challenges are…and what they have to
experience…so it allows the other teacher [out-of-field teacher] to get some growth out
of it, and anything that allows you to get some growth....
This teacher (D1–Aus), however, added a caveat about the potential of out-of-field teaching
practices to greatly impact the achievements and outcomes of students and teachers: B...but I
would probably… [hesitant to continue] discourage a teacher from doing it [teaching out of
field] full-time if they are not competent in it…^.
Research by Du Plessis (2017a) has shown that teachers in out-of-field positions achieve
positive outcomes in school environments where targeted, ongoing, full support, and active
engagement are offered by school leaders, along with focused professional learning opportu-
nities. In this sense, educational leaders’ in-depth understanding of the meaning of out-of-field
teaching for STEM education can have a positive impact on issues associated with out-of-field
teaching practices. For example, an educational director at Site H (Aus) shared:

We’ve got teachers out of field—now they form a partnership and try to shadow the
experienced teachers and pick their brains. I must say, that example is relatively
Res Sci Educ

isolated because we have a very good principal who is very innovative and made it
happen.

Other teachers also explained that the challenge of being successful was aligned with the
expectations of the entire school. One teacher (G4–Aus) said, BI learnt, and I gained knowl-
edge, and I gained experience and became a lifelong learner^. A young male (D1–Aus) teacher
smiled and said, BI think for myself now. It is just the enjoyment of seeing things that I can
challenge…I can challenge myself. I can be a little bit better, and if I wasn’t good at
something…I wanted to get better at it so that I get my job satisfaction^.

Discussion

The empirical evidence in this paper reveals truths about teachers’ dispositions towards STEM
subjects that are consistent with Geelan et al.’s (2010) notion that teachers’ recollection of real-
life experiences reveals rich and valuable information that is Brich and powerful in offering
deep insights into classrooms and the reality of teaching^ (p. 649). Findings highlight teachers’
experiences and challenges when teaching science and related subjects without having a sound
CK and subject-specific PCK base and without being suitably qualified to teach in STEM
areas. Understanding the specific difficulties that emerge due to out-of-field teaching impacts
decisions about school improvement policies for targeted support and improvement strategies,
especially when remembering that quality teaching is emphasised as being Bteaching that
deliberately seeks to enhance students’ outcomes^ and Baddress barriers to learning^
(Churchill et al. 2011, p. 34).

Lived Experiences: Teacher Confidence and Education Quality

That teacher confidence has an impact on the classroom is perhaps summarised best by
Hare (2002), that Bwe teach who we are^ (p. 143): that the essence of teaching is
inseparable from the teacher. The interview and observation data in this study underline
the significance of teacher’s confidence as being a part of their professional identity and
ability to provide quality teaching in their classrooms in specific subjects. Beijaard et al.
(2004) and Hobbs (2013) noted that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon impacts
teachers’ professional identities as competent and confident teachers; Corrigan (2006),
further, has emphasised the impact teacher confidence has on what teachers want to achieve
when teaching science, and yet findings from this investigation demonstrate the feelings of
uncertainty out-of-field teachers experience when teaching STEM-related subjects: A
common distress among out-of-field teachers was the complexities that impact their ability
to Bconvey information^, they Bknow nothing about^ (A2–SA, A7–SA, D6–Aus, D7–Aus,
E5–Aus, G5–Aus). As one out-of-field teacher put it, BIt makes you anxious, the possibility
that you are teaching incorrect information^ (A7–SA).
Out-of-field teachers admit that they Bdon’t know what they don’t know^, (D7–Aus) and
express concern with their PCK, over how to connect concepts in an effective way that will
enhance student achievement in these subjects. Findings show that out-of-field teachers find it
difficult to bring the real world of science into the classroom and are thus unable to inspire and
promote enthusiasm for science, maths, and related fields. This underscores the unrealistic
expectation that teachers in out-of-field teaching positions within specific STEM subject areas
 Res Sci Educ

possess Bsufficient science, mathematics and technology content expertise and the requisite
pedagogical content knowledge to teach effectively all three bodies of knowledge^ (my
emphasis, Sanders 2009, p. 21). It would appear that uncertainty regarding subject content
results in not just in lowered classroom/education quality standards but in uncertain teachers
and uncertain teaching. The findings in this investigation indicate that out-of-field teachers
have Ba very narrow field as far as understanding^ the fundamental concepts of these subjects
Band knowing how to link these concepts to other subjects^, (Director, Site I–Aus) a situation
that confirms the understanding of the existing literature, that this situation can restrict
students’ deep learning opportunities.
The interview and observation data reveal the influence of these lived experiences of
distress on teacher’s professional identities and their classrooms: A lack of confident applica-
tion of CK and PCK flows to student learning. Out-of-field teachers admit experiencing
difficulties developing and constructing high-quality science lessons supported by quality
laboratory-based practical learning opportunities for students. Results indicate that teachers
in out-of-field positions, especially beginning teachers, find group work especially difficult (Ba
group… is probably not my ideal situation^) and are reluctant to incorporate the learning
activities that underpin in-depth discussions of content and the interrelationships between
concepts, and to integrate and connect concepts, such as during lab work. Subject confidence
and trust relationship concerns are mirrored in statements such as out-of-field teachers Boften
confused the students^ (B1–SA, A1–SA, B3–SA), the teacher Btried, but she couldn’t cope^
(C6–Aus), the teacher Bjust imitates what she learned by heart^ (G3–Aus), or the teacher Bwas
way out of her depth^ (G1–Aus). These comments are concerning when it is clear from the
literature that improving education in science and related STEM subjects means that students
must have opportunities, such as laboratory investigations and other group activities, to
develop the essential skills required in the twenty-first century (Bybee 2010a), and that real-
world challenges and issues are an integral part of STEM courses (Breiner et al. 2012; Rennie
et al. 2012). Deep understanding, or the combined knowledge of students’ cognitive, social,
physical, and emotional development, is needed to create a productive learning experience for
students (Darling-Hammond 2000, 2004).

Effective Teaching: Building a Strong Teacher Capacity in STEM

Geelan et al. (2015) have underscored that qualitative research becomes worthwhile when
lived experiences are not Bonly taken out of^ but also Becho back^ into the lives of teachers
and students in the classroom and Bchange them^ (my emphasis, p. 18). In building a stronger
STEM-directed education focus, attention to the capacity of teachers to teach these subjects is
the obvious first step. Subject-specific professional development is seen as a strategy (Du
Plessis 2017b) for counteracting the impact of out-of-field teaching on STEM subjects. Such a
strategy would recognise the role of teacher capacity in STEM education and show commit-
ment to a STEM competitive and resilient Australia.
Curricula come to life in teachers’ hands when teachers successfully connect curricula to
their students’ specific context—that is, the enacted curriculum. Acknowledging STEM
education as a specialised field, Bybee (2010a) and Johnson (2013) have prompted that
improving education in science and related fields involves the development of high-quality
integrated instruction, and effective incorporation of resources and materials. Conversely, the
considerable metacognitive and social challenges of out-of-field teachers at the centre of this
study highlight their struggles to develop and maintain such high-quality integrated instruction.
Res Sci Educ

Findings of this study accentuate the out-of-field teaching phenomenon’s impact on enacted
curriculum implementation of transformations in curriculum, that is, Ba person who’s been
trained in that area will interpret it differently, and depth is vital^ as opposed to B[i]t is as if
they read a different curriculum^. When it would appear that out-of-field teachers are
struggling to deliver even Bthe basics^, requiring them to guide their students’ deep learning
in STEM domains without the necessary enacted curricula depth suggests a mismatch of
practice and expectation.
From findings, it seems that teachers’ confidence, intrinsically linked as it is to their ability
to deliver CK, influences the classroom climate and student engagement, and these, in turn,
have implications for the wider school context (parent attitudes and student STEM choices).
Making leaders, therefore, more conscious of these teachers’ experiences and what they mean
for teachers’ capacity to maintain quality teaching in STEM subjects is vital so that appropriate
support can be offered. Findings show that leadership support for their staff was somewhere on
the spectrum of conceptual invisibility, acknowledgement that moved towards forgetfulness,
Bstepping in^ when it was clear that the teacher Bwasn’t coping^, and Binnovative^ (with the
caveat that this example was Bisolated^). Berry et al. (2010) have noted that teachers’ lack of
influence in decision-making in their working environments impacts their decisions to leave a
school or the teaching profession, and further stress that inclusive decision-making and
negotiation open opportunities for teachers to add Bunique knowledge^ (p. 9) that will support
partnerships and develop learning communities (Roffey 2012). Guskey (2002), too, has
observed that professional development should be closely connected to teachers’ experiences,
practices, and beliefs in relation to teaching and learning. Leadership encouragement of
openness about out-of-field challenges and negotiation about teachers’ needs, then, would
support out-of-field teachers’ collaboration in targeted professional development decisions and
initiatives while also ensuring targeted transformation to improve teaching practices. Accord-
ingly, formal and informal discussions among out-of-field teachers and school leaders that give
teachers better control over subject-content knowledge are of utmost importance. Opportuni-
ties to negotiate needs and a culture of open and honest communication regarding the
knowledge base of these teachers can stimulate an environment of collaboration, teamwork,
and shared responsibility.
Since lack of targeted professional support when it is most needed affects not only
classroom contexts but all the improvement efforts for developing quality education in STEM
subject areas, of concern are leaders’ decisions not to provide professional development to out-
of-field teachers due to Bthe school budget^ (B1–SA, A1–SA, E3–Aus), because the out-of-
field position is viewed as Ba temporary situation^ or because professional development is
perceived as Bnot worthwhile^ (E3–Aus, B1–SA). Findings suggest that in rural and remote
schools, particularly, funding constraints dictate possibilities for student learning such that a
school which only occasionally takes senior students (Years 11 and 12), for example, will not
have funding for a teacher for those students, who will subsequently be taught by a teacher
with a junior high school qualification (who will then be teaching out-of-field). Leadership at
Site E stated that a teaching requirement that was not ongoing could not open up funding even
for professional development for the out-of-field teacher, but parents at the school were not
satisfied that they were Bgetting their money’s worth^ and were concerned that their kids were
getting Ba substandard education^ (E6–Aus).
Findings indicate that innovative leaders encourage collaborative planning and school-
community partnerships among school leaders, colleagues with expertise, and out-of-field
teachers. The evidence also shows that partnerships built around expert CK have great value
 Res Sci Educ

for improving achievement, and also foster the active engagement of school community
members. Further, active engagement from parents and the wider school community can
provide teachers with specific valuable information with which to improve their understanding
of students’ learning needs and so further inform the implementation of strategies that facilitate
effective education in STEM (Foster et al. 2010).
Data from the present study demonstrate that leaders’ engagement, decisions at the school
level about teacher placements, and having an in-depth understanding of the implications out-
of-field teaching practices have for STEM subjects within and beyond school boundaries could
make a substantial difference to the support that gets provided to out-of-field teachers. In turn,
out-of-field teachers’ reciprocal acknowledgement of the influence appropriate support has on
their teaching capacity (BI think it is worth doing^) links to Foster et al.’s (2010) notion that
partnerships produce support and policy changes within institutional cultures. These authors
further encourage commitments from professional organisations to increase the number of
teachers in specific disciplines and to support teacher preparation and development. Vu et al.
(2014) have emphasised that teachers’ need time-effective processes for training, as well as
revealing the need for authentic, self-directed, on-demand, available professional development
options supported by technology. These authors further underline teachers’ willingness to
make use of a variety of online, face-to-face, or blended professional development opportu-
nities, for example, online professional development opportunities that focus on collaboration
and discussions of ideas with specialist colleagues are time-effective and would considerably
ease the tension and pressure experienced by out-of-field teachers in STEM education.

The Wider School Community: Engaging Student Futures

The interference of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon in passionate teaching, as unveiled

through the data, points to the highly complex and multilayered interconnectedness of CK, PK,
and PCK structures in science and other STEM subjects, and is in keeping with the knowledge
theories of Shulman (1986, 1987) and Cochran et al. (1993), that the subject matter knowledge
teachers possess influences whether their teaching practices are successful. Students need to be
given strategies, guidance, and tools to internalise content, and to link the content to the real
world. These strategies are fundamental to deep learning experiences (Corrigan 2006). Further,
the perceived Brelevance^ of subject areas for students (e.g. Bmaths is boring^) and their
interest in a subject are greatly influenced by a teacher’s love and passion for the subject,
expertise, CK, PCK, and ability to connect teaching and learning in the classroom to the world
beyond the boundaries of the school. Claims by Osborne et al. (2003) regarding students’
declining interest in and attitudes towards the sciences and how these subjects are taught are
particularly relevant in relation to teacher and parent statements of student subject disengage-
ment because of out-of-field teaching failures. The data obtained from the interviews of parents
show the influence out-of-field teachers have on students’ capacity to succeed in STEM
subjects beyond the school environment—for example, in their studies of these subjects at
tertiary level, B…it catches up with the children when they are at uni; we saw it with my
eldest…^ (A5–SA), Bmy child had a huge gap in his learning^ (C4–Aus), and Bto see your
child lose interest is the saddest thing^ (F5–Aus). As Corrigan (2006) has emphasised,
attitudes, context, purposeful teaching, and purposeful learning combine, constructing the
sense of science through applied and practical knowledge, suggesting that it is teachers that
clarify the relevance of STEM subject areas for students, and greatly affect students’ percep-
tions of these fields.
Res Sci Educ

Since it appears that the placement of teachers in complex teaching situations, such as
STEM out-of-field teaching, has implications not only for their professional identities, suit-
ability in specific subjects, and teaching quality, but also for students’ perceptions of subjects
(Beijaard et al. 2004; Du Plessis 2014; Hobbs 2013), this turns attention once again to
improving teachers’ expertise, capacity for enthusiastic teaching, PCK in cognitive activation,
and capacity to adjust pedagogies in order to better affect students’ interest in subjects and their
achievement in it (Keller et al. 2017).

The Wider School Community: Management of the Out-of-field Teaching

Phenomenon

Of considerable concern in STEM education is that school leaders appear to take teacher
capacity to teach well out of their field for granted. As one out-of-field teacher put it: BThey
acknowledge the out-of-field thing when they first put you in that field…after that, you get
forgotten about…they just don’t understand at all what it is like to be in that classroom…to be
doing that job^. Consistent with Geelan et al. (2015), findings reveal that Bthe lived tales of
teachers and students in classrooms [are] cradled within the lived tales of administrators and
governments and the whole community^ (p. 18), a situation in which misunderstandings and
misconceptions of the level of complexity in out-of-field teachers’ science and math class-
rooms can give leadership power over decisions that leave responsibility with teachers.
Leadership awareness and acknowledgement of the lived experiences of teachers, leaders,
students, and their parents in relation to out-of-field teaching in STEM subjects is a way to
confront misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding out-of-field teaching practices and
to recognise and confront the out-of-field teaching phenomenon as a real entity.
Since school leaders manage the utilisation of teachers in their schools, they are accountable
for identifying the needs of teachers who are working in their teaching situations and,
accordingly, developing structured and detailed needs analyses with respect to subject fields
of concern, such as STEM fields (Loughran 1994). From findings, it is conceivable that a
thorough identification of these needs should involve a collaborative approach among leaders,
specialist teachers, out-of-field teachers, and parents about out-of-field teaching. When it is
clear that the multiple complexities of teaching are shifted by out-of-field teachers’ lack of CK,
attending to the specific requirements of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon may be simply
what Sanders (2009) and Ireson et al. (1999) have emphasised, gaining awareness of a specific
subject field’s prospects, suitable pedagogies, and the relevance of the field to the school
curriculum to improve the instructional process. Elsewhere, Du Plessis (2017a) has suggested
that a thorough needs analysis should involve a specific school leadership style and model,
along with targeted support. The CANNAS leadership model (Du Plessis 2017a) was devel-
oped with a specific focus on the needs of out-of-field teachers as evidenced in the empirical
research (Du Plessis 2014). Teachers teaching in demanding subject fields without having the
appropriate qualifications need their leaders to demonstrate an awareness of related specific
issues and concerns, conduct in-depth needs analyses, and negotiate and take continuous
action to provide and adjust targeted support in response to these needs analyses.

Targeted Teacher Support Impacts Positive Outcomes

Findings showed that some out-of-field teachers had high interest in their out-of-field subjects
and saw the out-of-field teaching phenomenon as an opportunity; where this occurred, it
 Res Sci Educ

appeared that their intrinsic motivation became a driver for the success of the situation. The
principal from Site D (Aus) stated that a particular out-of-field teacher had worked very hard
and was now Bbrilliant^, while comments from the principal at Site G (Aus) suggest that even
though the school had provided support, the teacher’s hard work was still a great portion of the
reason for the teacher’s success, which had then flowed on to success for the school. It is
positive that the teachers were seizing their challenging situations as professional development
opportunities; however, the subtext of each comment is still the work the teachers have to put
in: despite commenting on his sense of achievement, one teacher still stated that he could not
recommend out-of-field teaching as a full-time work pathway for an inexperienced teacher.
While teachers, in general, may work long hours (Clandinin et al. 2015), out-of-field teachers
need to add to this time-load to maintain their teaching effectiveness and gain relevant CK; I
suggest that this extra workload can provide positive outcomes for teacher confidence when it
is teamed up with collaborative support and understanding from leaders.
Findings from Site H director 1 and the principal of School G (Aus) reveal that the manner
in which the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is managed in the specific context of the school
or classroom can have positive implications for professional learning, career development,
collaboration, and school improvement plans. It seemed that supported out-of-field teachers
could start to focus on their own abilities and achievements, providing an opportunity to
redirect feelings of constant self-criticism. In the words of one out-of-field teacher (D1–Aus),
Bit is just the enjoyment of seeing things that I can challenge…I can challenge myself. I can be
a little bit better^.
This statement is notably referring to improvement, and that teachers’ confidence dilemmas
are frequently couched in a desire to deliver quality (BI do my best…I don’t want to teach them
incorrect concepts^) is remarkably clear from the data. Vu et al. (2014) have already
underlined teachers’ willingness to upskill themselves and develop their capacity and exper-
tise, and as the interview data shows, teachers want to be well prepared for their lessons (G5–
Aus, D3–Aus, A3–Aus, B6–Aus), to know more about subject-specific PCK, and that they
already do seek options to effectively retrain themselves in order to do their best when teaching
out-of-field subjects. Findings also show that out-of-field teachers are often desperate to learn
from specialist colleagues, but that the allocation of extra time for one-on-one professional
learning opportunities proves to be an issue, with teachers often have to use their private time
for professional learning sessions, drawing attention to their workload and well-being (Du
Plessis 2018).

Conclusion and Implications

Prompting, then, is the Bso what?^ question, to emphasise the need for targeted action, which
implies the best suited action to be taken to manage the issues investigated in this paper. This
study shows that out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences matter to quality STEM education, as
it appears that they must teach concepts and provide effective learning supervision for specific
science contexts such as laboratory work without having the necessary subject content
qualifications. Their lived experiences of struggling to gain the necessary CK in the already
demanding and complex working environment of teaching also impact quality STEM educa-
tion beyond the boundaries of the school, as their reduced enthusiasm and the inadequate depth
of their conceptual understanding flow down to the educational strength and choices of
students moving to tertiary level. The concerns and distresses regarding effective teaching
Res Sci Educ

and quality education in science and related STEM subjects, and efforts to develop strategies to
address these concerns, need to acknowledge the impact of out-of-field teaching practices on
teachers, students, and subject quality. Leadership decisions and understandings of these
impacts will determine whether either taken-for-granted attitudes or active engagement are
provided to these teachers; this, too, will affect how they are seen by the wider school
community.
Leaders with a context-consciousness about the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and
what it means for teachers are able to demonstrate management of the out-of-field teaching
phenomenon that gives rise to positive outcomes. If the developing deficit in the fields of
mathematics and science is to be turned around, however, challenges for the future are
entrenched in fully engaging leadership at all levels to ensure the appropriate acknowledge-
ment and effective management of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon in STEM education.
The urgency to get it right across primary and high schools is emphasised by Wienk’s (2016)
finding that students in Australia who obtained low numeracy achievements in Year 3 struggle
to catch up with fellow students, and that the situation worsens by the time they reach Year 9.
Teachers are expected to instil and awake a passion for STEM subjects, in spite of the
supposed shortages or poor placement of qualified teachers, and the resultant ongoing out-
of-field teaching practices in these fields. Stimulating a passion and interest in a subject area
involves confident and enthusiastic teachers, which, logically, turns focus to effective capacity
building of out-of-field teachers. Darling-Hammond (2000) suggested that the quality of an
education system is verified by the quality of its teachers, thus highlighting the urgency for
educational leaders to focus on the implications of out-of-field teaching for STEM subjects
when considering drastic policy measures such as compulsory science and math education in
Years 11 and 12. Aubusson et al. (2016) emphasise student interest and engagement and
underline that students are more engaged in science learning environments in which there are
high-level science enquiry activities present.
The current investigation implies that educational and school leaders need to reflect on (a)
school improvement policies regarding professional development and support in STEM, (b)
additional support for laboratory and practical work for out-of-field STEM teachers, and (c)
additional support for particular students whose achievements might be affected by a STEM
out-of-field teacher. Developing stability and quality within the STEM teaching workforce
requires the effective management of well-designed and well-targeted professional support and
learning and development opportunities for teachers in out-of-field teaching positions.
Targeted professional learning and development opportunities will support Bgrowing^ these
teachers’ professional identities, self-understanding, task perception, job motivation, and self-
esteem (Kelchtermans 2009). This process entails collaborative efforts to disseminate and
upscale innovations in relation to STEM education investments, and, as Johnson (2014) has
noted, Baddressing issues outside^ (p. 257) the classroom context: leadership decisions and
effective practices must develop, stabilise, and support the development of a strong and stable
STEM teaching workforce for the next century and beyond.

Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge teachers, school leaders, and parents who eagerly shared their
views, perceptions, and experiences.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Appendix

Table 2 Observation protocol

Phases of observation Incidents per Presence Approach Communication Pedagogies, Information Incidental Classroom Behaviour Nonverbal
minute and interaction strategies, and learning management management communication
teaching opportunities strategies strategies
characteristics

Phase 1 (record all) Minute 1

Minute 2
Minute 3
Minute 4
Minute 5
Minute 6
Minute 7
Minute 8
Minute 9
Minute 10
Phase 2 (repetitive Minute 11
occurrences not Minute 12
recorded, only new) Minute 13
Minute 14
Minute 15
Minute 16
Minute 17
Minute 18
Minute 19
Minute 20
Phase 3 (focus on Minute 21
issues and Minute 22
concerns) Minute 23
Minute 24
Res Sci Educ
Table 2 (continued)

Phases of observation Incidents per Presence Approach Communication Pedagogies, Information Incidental Classroom Behaviour Nonverbal
minute and interaction strategies, and learning management management communication
Res Sci Educ

teaching opportunities strategies strategies

characteristics

Minute 25
Minute 26
Minute 27
Minute 28
Minute 29
Minute 30

Attitude: P = positive, N = negative, E = empathy, A = apathy

Key: 4 = All the time, 3 = Most of the time, 2 = Some of the time, 1 = Never, 0 = Does not apply
 Res Sci Educ

References

Almy, S., & Theokas, C. (2010). Not prepared for class: high-poverty schools continue to have fewer in-field
teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Annells, M. (2006). Triangulation of qualitative approaches: hermeneutical phenomenology and grounded
theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(1), 55–61.
Aubusson, P., Panizzon, D., & Corrigan, D. (2016). Science education futures: Bgreat potential. Could do better.
Needs to try harder^. Research in Science Education, 46(2), 203–221.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128.
Benekos, P. J. (2016). How to be a good teacher: passion, person, and pedagogy. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 27(2), 225–237.
Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., & Wieder, A. (2010). Teacher leadership: leading the way to effective teaching and
learning. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509719.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2017.
Bhathal, R. (2015). Compulsory science and maths is great but there’s more to be done. The Conversation.
http://theconversation.com/compulsory-science-and-maths-is-great-but-theres-more-to-be-done-42542.
Accessed 23 Sept 2017.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1994). Introduction: language and relationship to language in the teaching
situation. In P. Bourdieu, J. C. Passeron, & M. S. Martin (Eds.), Academic discourse: linguistic misunder-
standing and professorial power (pp. 1–34). Cambridge: Policy Press.
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about
conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Columbus:
Pearson.
Bybee, R. W. (2010a). Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1),
30–35.
Bybee, R. W. (2010b). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996.
Churchill, R., Ferguson, P., Godinho, S., Johnson, N., Keddie, A., Letts, W., … Vick, M. (2011). Teaching:
making a difference. Queensland: Wiley.
Clandinin, D. J., Long, J., Schaefer, L., Downey, C. A., Steeves, P., Pinnegar, E., et al. (2015). Early career
teacher attrition: intentions of teachers beginning. Teaching Education, 26(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10476210.2014.996746.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: an integrative model for
teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263–272.
Cook, H. (2015). Christopher Pyne pushes for maths or science to be compulsory for year 11 and 12 students.
The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/christopher-pyne-
pushes-for-maths-or-science-to-be-compulsory-for-year-11-and-12-students-20150525-gh9kjv.html.
Accessed 13 Sept 2017.
Corrigan, D. (2006). No wonder kids are confused: the relevance of science education to science. Paper presented
in the Australian Council for Educational Research Conference, Canberra, Australia.
Corrigan, D., & Smith, K. (2015). The role of values in teaching and learning science. In J. M. Deppeler, T.
Loreman, R. Smith, & L. Florian (Eds.), International perspectives on inclusive education (pp. 99–117).
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Cosgrove, J., Shiel, G., Oldham, E., & Sofroniou, N. (2004). A survey of mathematics teachers in Ireland. The
Irish Journal of Education/Iris Eireannach an Oideachais, 35, 20–44.
Crist, J. D., & Tanner, C. A. (2003). Interpretation/analysis methods in hermeneutic interpretive phenomenology.
Nursing Research, 52(3), 202–205.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8,
1–44.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: access to qualified teachers in California’s public
schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1936–1966.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: how America’s commitment to equity will determine
our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
Day, C. (2004). A passion for teaching. London: Routledge.
Dee, T. S., & Cohodes, S. R. (2008). Out-of-field teachers and student achievement: evidence from matched-
pairs comparisons. Public Finance Review, 36(1), 7–32.
Departments of Basic Education and Higher Education and Training Secretariat. (2011). Integrated strategic
planning framework for teacher education and development in South Africa, 2011–2025 (Technical Report).
Pretoria: The Departments of Basic Education and Higher Education and Training.
Res Sci Educ

Druva, C. A., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher behavior and by student
outcome: a meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 467–479.
Du Plessis, A. E. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Australia: University of Queensland.
Du Plessis, A. E. (2017a). Out-of-field teaching practices: what educational leaders need to know. Boston: Sense
Publishers.
Du Plessis, A. (2017b). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: how to manage teaching out-of-
field. Singapore: Springer Manuscript submitted for publication.
Du Plessis, A. (2018). Being a teacher…and the being of teachers: conceptualising the impact of the out-of-field
phenomenon on teacher wellbeing. Manuscript in preparation.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). STEM for citizenship. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 86–87.
Foster, K. M., Bergin, K. B., McKenna, A. F., Millard, D. L., Perez, L. C., Prival, J. T., Rainey, D. Y., Sevian, H.
M., VanderPutten, E. A., & Hamos, J. E. (2010). Partnerships for STEM education. Science, 329(5994),
906–907.
Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gadamer, H. G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gash, H. (2015). A spatial-phenomenological lens to examine psychological and philosophical issues in thinking.
Cybernetics and Systems, 46(6–7), 525–527.
Geelan, D., Mensah, F. M., Rahm, J., & Maulucci, M. R. (2010). Roles, caring and learning to teach science.
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(3), 649–663.
Geelan, D., Christie, P., Mills, M., Keddie, A., Renshaw, P., & Monk, S. (2015). Lessons from Alison: a narrative
study of differentiation in classroom teaching. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 10(1), 13–
23.
Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: a modified Husserlian approach.
Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Giorgi, A., & Giorgi, B. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In P. Camic, J.
Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: expanding perspective in methodology
and design (pp. 243–273). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Goldhaber, D., & Walch, J. (2014). Gains in teacher quality. Education Next, 14(1), 38–45.
Goodrum, D., Rennie, L. J., & Hackling, M. W. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of
science in Australian schools: a research report. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs.
Groundwater-Smith, S., Ewing, R. A., & Cornu, R. J. L. (2011). Teaching: challenges and dilemmas. South
Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership,
59(6), 45–51.
Hare, S. (2002). We teach who we are: the intersection of teacher formation and educator dispositions. In M. E.
Diez & J. D. Raths (Eds.), Dispositions in teacher education (pp. 139–149). Charlotte: IAP/Information Age
Pub.
Hobbs, L. (2012). Examining the aesthetic dimensions of teaching: relationships between teacher knowledge,
identity and passion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 718–727.
Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching ‘out-of-field’ as a boundary-crossing event: factors shaping teacher identity.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297.
Hobbs, L., Clark, J. C., & Plant, B. (2016). Successful students—STEM program: teacher learning through a
multifaceted vision for STEM education. In Proceedings of the 3rd TAS collective symposium: Researching
teaching out-of-field in math, science and beyond (pp. 133–168). Singapore: Springer.
Hofmeyr, J., & Draper, K. (2015). Teacher supply and demand 2013–2025. South Africa (Technical Report).
Johannesburg: Centre for Development and Enterprise.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). Out of field teaching, educational inequality, and the organisation of schools: an exploratory
analysis. CPRE Research Reports. http://www.cal.literacy.org/sites/default/files/researchreport/796_outoffield-
ri-01-2002.pdf; http://www.cal.literacy.org/. Accessed 4 Aug 2017.
Ingersoll, R. M., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2014). What are the effects of teacher education and preparation on
beginning teacher attrition? (Research Report No. RR–82). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Pennsylvania.
Ireson, J., Mortimore, P., & Hallam, S. (1999). The common strands of pedagogy and their implications. In P.
Mortimore (Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp. 212–232). London: Paul
Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Jackson, A., & Kiersz, A. (2016). The latest ranking of top countries in maths, reading and science is out and the
US didn’t crack the top 10. Business Insider Australia. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pisa-worldwide-
ranking-of-math-science-reading-skills-2016-12?r=US&IR=T. Accessed 12 Oct 2017.
 Res Sci Educ

Johnson, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing integrated STEM education. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8),
367–368.
Johnson, C. C. (2014). Sustaining STEM education reform. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 257.
Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Career stories as gateway to understanding teacher development. In M. Bayer, U.
Brinkkj r, H. Plauborg, & S. Rolls (Eds.), Teachers’ career trajectories and work lives, professional learning
and development in schools and higher education (pp. 29–47). New York: Springer.
Keller, M. M., Neumann, K., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
54(5), 586–614.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International
Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11.
Le Grange, L. (2007). Integrating western and indigenous knowledge systems: the basis for effective science
education in South Africa? International Review of Education, 53(5–6), 577–591.
Lewis, A. (1996). Teacher quality. The Education Digest, 62(3), 69–70.
Loughran, J. (1994). Bridging the gap: an analysis of the needs of second-year science teachers. Science
Education, 78(4), 365–386.
Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: students’ experiences of school science in their own
words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.
Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science: understanding the declines in senior high school science
enrolments. Armidale: University of New England, SiMERR National Research Centre.
Lyons, T., Quinn, F., Rizk, N., Anderson, N., Hubber, P., Kenny, J., … Wilson, S. A. (2012). Starting out in
STEM: a study of young men and women in first year science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Armidale: University of New England, SiMERR National Research Centre.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: from a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal
of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3–11.
Mastascusa, E. J., Snyder, W. J., Hoyt, B. S., & Weimer, M. (2011). Effective instruction for STEM disciplines:
from learning theory to college teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moss, P. A., Phillips, D. C., Erickson, F. D., Floden, R. E., Lather, P. A., & Schneider, B. L. (2009). Learning
from our differences: a dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research. Educational
Researcher, 38(7), 501–517.
Ni Rỉodáin, M. (2014). Out-of-field mathematics teaching and the need for professional development: the Irish
context. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research ECER 2014. In Proceedings
of the 1st TAS collective symposium (pp. 19). Porto, Portugal.
Ni Rỉodáin, M., & Hannigan, A. (2009). Out-of-field teaching in post-primary mathematics education: an
analysis of the Irish context: a research report. Limerick: National Centre for Excellence in Mathematics and
Science Teaching and Learning.
Nyman, R. (2017). Interest and engagement: perspectives on mathematics in the classroom (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Gothenburg, Sweden. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/51917. Accessed 30 May 2018.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its
implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Panizzon, D., Westwell, M., & Elliott, K. (2010). Exploring the profile of teachers of secondary science: what are
the emerging issues for future workforce planning? Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science
Teachers Association, 56(4), 18–40.
Panizzon, D., Corrigan, D., Forgasz, H., & Hopkins, S. (2015). Impending STEM shortages in Australia: beware
the ‘smoke and mirrors’. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 167, 70–74.
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Analysis of the decline in interest towards school science and technology from
grades 5 through 11. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 784–802.
Raison, M., & Etheridge, M. (2006). Macquarie University: science, engineering and technology study. Sydney:
Macquarie University Press.
Reising, R. W. (1995). Quality education. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and
Ideas, 68(4), 197–198.
Rennie, L. J., Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2012). Integrating science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics: issues, reflections, and ways forward. New York: Routledge.
Roffey, S. (2012). Pupil wellbeing—teacher wellbeing: two sides of the same coin? Educational & Child
Psychology, 29(4), 8–17.
Sanders, M. E. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
Sgard, F. (2006). Organisation for economic co-operation and development global science forum: evolution of
student interest in science and technology studies, policy report. Paris: OECD Global Science Forum Secretariat.
Res Sci Educ

Shepherd, J. (2013). More schools hiring unqualified teachers Bto save money.^ The Guardian. http://www.
guardian.co.uk/education/2013/mar/31/schools-hiring-unqualified-teachers-money. Accessed 12 Nov 2017.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–
14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,
57(1), 1–23.
Smith, M. P. (2005). Power in place/places of power: contextualizing transnational research. City & Society,
17(1), 5–34.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and
research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Sullivan, P. (2008). Knowledge for teaching mathematics: an introduction. In P. Sullivan & T. L. Wood (Eds.),
Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development (pp. 1–9). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Törner, G. (2014). Underqualified mathematics teachers or out-of-field teaching in mathematics in Germany—a
blank spot in the research of mathematics education. Paper presented at the European Conference on
Educational Research ECER 2014. In 1st TAS collective symposium (pp. 89–102). Porto, Portugal.
Tucker, M. (2012). Teacher quality: what’s wrong with US strategy? Educational Leadership, 69(4), 42–46.
United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Human development report 2014: sustaining human progress:
reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-
2014. Accessed 30 May 2018.
UWIRE Text. (2017). MfA president ponders STEM education crisis, solutions. Academic OneFile (pp. 1).
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A490233035/AONE?u=acuni&sid=AONE&xid=3d0f601e. Accessed
19 Jan 2018.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Vu, P., Cao, V., Vu, L., & Cepero, J. (2014). Factors driving learner success in online professional development.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 120–139.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Weldon, P. R. (2015). The teacher workforce in Australia: supply, demand and data issues. Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Weldon, P. R. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Wienk, M. (2016). Discipline profile of the mathematical sciences. Victoria: AMSI: Australian Mathematical
Sciences Institute.
Wiseman, A. W., Abdelfattah, F. A., & Almassaad, A. (2016). The intersection of citizenship status, STEM
education, and expected labor market participation in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. Digest of Middle
East Studies, 25(2), 362–392.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Du Plessis, A., Wang, J., Hand, K., Alexander, C., & Colbert, P. (2017). Why choose teaching?
A matter of choice: evidence from the field. A report prepared for the Queensland College of Teachers.
Brisbane: Learning Sciences Institute Australia.
Zerihun, Z., Beishuizen, J., & Van Os, W. (2012). Student learning experience as indicator of teaching quality.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(2), 99–111.

View publication stats