In 2015, Coca-Cola ran a television ad in the Middle East reminding that labelling people builds prejudices and often divides rather than unites us. You can watch that ad here.
There are two labels in mathematics education that particularly rankle me: labelling learners as ‘low/high’ and labelling teachers as ‘out-of-field’. Both labels are heavy with insinuation. The first label often implies that ‘low’ children are not capable students. The second label often implies that ‘out-of-field’ teachers are not competent teachers.
Out-of-field teaching
Out-of-field teaching is commonly understood to occur when a teacher is assigned to teach one or more subjects for which they are not qualified or adequately trained. The phenomenon is reported in many diverse countries: Germany, Indonesia, the USA, South Korea, and others — including Australia, where it is a concern in every state and territory. Data from 2013 indicated that 17% of mathematics classes in Years 7-10 were being taught by an out-of-field teacher but that the problem was inequitably distributed, with the figure being 26% of classes in remote locations compared to 14% in metropolitan locations (Weldon, 2016). Figures like these are often reported in the media to imply that out-of-field teaching is to blame for poor outcomes in standardised assessment such as NAPLAN, PISA, and TIMSS.
But labelling teachers as out-of-field is complex. The common definition centres on criteria used to qualify and/or register teachers, and is a static definition that predominantly describes a teacher at the start of their career, ignoring the evolving nature of knowledge (both pedagogical and content), experience and attitudes. For example, a teacher might not have been trained in maths initially, but has done some self-study, attended professional development, and been mentored by a more experienced colleague, to the point where they are comfortable and competent in teaching the content. Labelling that teacher as out-of-field may be unwarranted, particularly when it implies that they are an ineffective mathematics teacher. More anecdotally, I can think of several highly experienced and respected teachers of mathematics who would be considered out-of-field solely based on their qualification.
Clearly, a broader perspective of the out-of-field phenomenon is needed.
A broader definition of out-of-field teaching
Linda Hobbs and colleagues devised a multifaceted definition of out-of-field teaching, as described in the diagram below from Hobbs et al (2022). I will give brief descriptions but see their paper for more details.
Hobbs et al. (2022, p. 30) multifaceted definition of teaching out-of-field.
Out-of-field by qualification can be a mismatch in the discipline qualification and current teaching (what Hobbs et al term ‘technical misalignment’) but it can also be a mismatch between school level qualification and current teaching (‘phase misalignment’). Or it can be both. Out-of-field by qualification is the commonly used definition but discipline mismatch is actually hard to pin to down. For example, Weldon defines an out-of-field teacher as ‘as a secondary teacher teaching a subject for which they have not studied above first year at university, and for which they have not studied teaching methodology’ whereas Hobbs et al talk about at least a minor (four courses) in the discipline.
Out-of-field by specialism is a misalignment between a teacher’s qualification and the sub-discipline they are teaching. For example, teaching Year 10 chemistry with a specialist area of biology. This definition makes more sense in a composite subject area like science, art or HASS, but is less relevant in a subject like mathematics.
Out-of-field by workload describes the proportion of load that is out-of-field at any one time or across a period of time, the stability of workload allocation, and the type of load.
Out-of-field by capability recognises that teachers can develop expertise and confidence as they gain experience teaching a subject. Capability is considered by Hobbs et al to be “a function of a teacher’s expertise and confidence to teach well, gained through experience teaching the subject and engagement with professional learning; identity-related factors including sense of self in relation to the subject, and their commitment and role expansion to teaching the subject currently and long-term.” The authors note that a teacher may ‘feel’ in-field or out-of-field depending on their perceived and/or actual capability. [I note that the term ‘capability’ is often synonymous with ‘competence’ and so I am somewhat uncomfortable with this terminology.]
You might notice how the definitions of out-of-field teaching in the last two points expand beyond qualification to be framed around the context of teaching. For example, being out-of-field by workload recognises that it is the assignment of work to the teacher, not the teacher themselves, that is mismatched. Out-of-field by capability talks about a teacher’s identity within a new context.
Combining definitions is also a powerful way to make sense of certain phenomena. For example, consider out-of-field by workload in relation to whether or not a teacher is out-of-field by qualification. For those with not much teaching in mathematics, it may be they are ‘just filling in’ or alternatively ‘dipping their toe’ into a new area. For those with a lot of teaching in mathematics, it may be they are completely overwhelmed or, alternatively, have gained the knowledge and confidence to teach in an area they were not initially qualified. Whether or not it is the first or the second alternative depends largely on whether or not that teacher feels out-of-field by capability.
Teacher identity matters in out-of-field teaching, as I discussed this week at MERGA45 (the annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia). I reported a preliminary analysis of work conducted with Lisa O’Keeffe, and with research assistance from Anne Morrison. Our aim was to better understand the diversity of those teaching Years 7-10 mathematics in Department for Education (DfE) schools in South Australia, and particularly those who are deemed to be teaching out-of-field. We conducted an anonymous survey of teachers, and used adapted versions of out-of-field teaching from Hobbs et al. The paper is available in the draft proceedings (see page 81 or search for my last name) where you can read our findings relating to out-of-field by qualification and out-of-field by workload. I’ll focus in this post on aspects of teacher identity.
Teacher identity
In our survey, we asked two questions about identity:
Do you consider yourself a mathematics teacher? Of the 165 teachers who have taught secondary mathematics and responded, 78.8% (n=130) self-identify as teachers of mathematics, and 21.2% (n=35) do not.
Do you consider yourself an out-of-field mathematics teacher? Of the 165 teachers who have taught secondary mathematics and responded, 32.8% (n=54) self-identify as out-of-field, and 67.2% (n=111) do not. (For convenience, we refer to the last group as self-identifying as in-field, even though we didn’t explicitly frame the question in this way.)
We can use these two questions to assign each respondent to one of four ‘identity’ groups. The table below summarises the number and percentage of respondents in each of these four groups.
When we overlay whether teachers are in- or out-of-field by qualification, it gets particularly interesting.
Looking firstly at respondents who are in-field by qualification, unsurprisingly we see that 96.6% see themselves as both in-field and as teachers of mathematics.
When we look at respondents who are out-of-field by qualification, we see that 50% see themselves as in-field and 50% see themselves as out-of-field. In the first group (those who see themselves as in-field), 81% (42 of 52) see themselves as teachers of mathematics. In the second group (those who see themselves as out-of-field), the split is more even. Clearly identity as a teacher of mathematics matters.
The effect of teacher identity
We asked teachers to indicate their personal interest in mathematics, their enjoyment teaching mathematics, their confidence in their mathematical content knowledge (CK) and in their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and their personal commitment to developing both their CK and PCK further. Responses were on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0 being low and 5 being high.
The table below shows the mean self-reported responses of teachers, split into the four different cohorts. We tested the differences between means for each statement and for each grouping (in-field versus out-of-field by qualification; self-identifies as in-field versus does not; self-identifies as a teacher of mathematics versus does not). All were statistically significant with p<.001.
Respondents who do not self-identify as teachers of mathematics reported the lowest mean self-reported responses in all six categories in the table above. And this was also the case for every question we asked about confidence:
teaching all strands of the AC:M by year level (reporting a single mean for all strands by year level)
teaching each strand of the AC:M by year level (reporting a mean for each individual strand and year level)
integrating the mathematical proficiencies (reporting a mean for each proficiency)
integrating the mathematical processes (reporting a mean for each process)
All were statistically significant (p<0.06, and most <0.01) when comparing the difference between means with the group that self-identifies as teachers of mathematics.
Clearly, identity as a teacher of mathematics matters. We need to do more work to unpack precisely what this means, and how it relates to the work of teaching mathematics.
A new narrative
Our preliminary analysis supports the notion that out-of-field teaching should be considered through multiple lenses to provide a more nuanced view, especially when it comes to future planning and support for teachers of mathematics. This may include targeting professional learning at needs of particular cohorts of teachers, based on identity rather than on qualification. This is not a new perspective; a decade ago Hobbs (2012, p. 27) wrote that how ‘a teacher sees themselves in an out-of-field role will influence their interest and ability to engage with professional learning and professional development designed to up-skill teachers’.
I am advocating for a new narrative around out-of-field teaching. One that shifts the focus from fixing the teacher to supporting them in the new context in which they find themselves. Of course, there are still very important questions to be asked about teacher competence and effectiveness. But those questions should be asked about all teachers. A qualification in mathematics does not guarantee that someone is an effective teacher of mathematics. Professional learning and support is relevant to all teachers; it might just need to look, sound, and feel different depending on the individual teacher.
The current practice around labelling teachers as out-of-field based on their qualification is prejudiced. It does not acknowledge the entirety of professional expertise these teachers bring into the new context in which they find themselves. Let’s leave labels for cans of soft drink and focus more on supporting all teachers at their current point of need.
References
Hobbs, L. (2012). Teaching out-of-field: Factors shaping identities of secondary science and mathematics. Teaching Science, 58(1), 21–29.
Hobbs, L., Campbell, C., Delaney, S., Speldewinde, C., & Lai, J. (2022). Defining teaching out-of-field: An imperative for research, policy and practice. In L. Hobbs & R. Porsch (Eds.), Out-of-field teaching across teaching disciplines and contexts (pp. 23-48). Springer.
Weldon, P. R. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools (Policy Insights, Issue #6). Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research.
