Teaching Out-of-Field Internationally



This chapter presents vignettes from six countries regarding the phenomenon of Teaching Across Specialisations (TAS) or as it is often known teaching out-of-field. The vignettes provide an overview of the education system and policies and practices relating to teacher education, certification, recruitment and assignment to subjects or year levels. They also provide insights into how teaching out-of-field is conceptualised, if or how it is officially reported, its extent and importantly, any local, state or national responses to teaching out-of-field. The six countries included are Australia, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom, the USA and Indonesia. These countries have been selected because they have the most available published research relating to teaching out-of-field. The vignettes have been written by researchers and academics from each country who is working in the field. The vignettes highlight the need for a nuanced understanding of the phenomenon as it occurs in different contexts including both commonalities and differences. The chapter concludes with an overview of the occurrence of teaching out-of-field from an international perspective and provides a synthesis of the key insights gleaned from the vignettes. These insights are further elaborated in subsequent chapters to facilitate a deeper understanding of the phenomenon.


International perspectives Teacher assignment Vignettes Teaching out-of-field Teaching across specialisations 



  1. Hyland, A. (2012). A Review of the Structure of Initial Teacher Education Provision in Ireland: Background Paper for the International Review Team, University College Cork, May 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Coolahan, J. (2015). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers: Country background report for Ireland. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  3. Cosgrove, J., Shiel, G., Oldham, E., & Sofroniou, N. (2004). A survey of mathematics teachers in Ireland. The Irish Journal of Education, 35, 20–44.Google Scholar
  4. Ní Ríordáin, M., & Hannigan, A. (2009). Out-of-field teaching in post-primary mathematics education: An analysis of the Irish context. Research report: National Centre for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching and Learning. ISBN 1-905952-23-6Google Scholar
  5. Royal Irish Academy Committee of Mathematical Sciences & Chemical & Physical Sciences. (2008). Response to the proposal to offer bonus points for maths. Dublin: RIA.Google Scholar
  6. Teaching Council. (2011). Initial Teacher Education: Criteria and Guidelines for Programme Providers. Retrieved from


  1. Crisan, C., & Rodd, M. (2011). Teachers of mathematics to mathematics teachers: A TDA mathematics development programme for teachers. In Smith, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, vol. 31(3) (pp. 29–34).Google Scholar
  2. Crisan, C., & Rodd, M. (2014). Talking the talk…but walking the walk? How do non-specialist mathematics teachers come to see themselves as mathematics teachers? In Proceedings and Agenda for Research and Action from the 1st Teaching Across Specialisations (TAS) Collective Symposium, August 2014.Google Scholar
  3. Department for Education (2013). Teachers’ Standards. Retrieved February 19, 2017 from
  4. Hillman, J. (2014). Mathematics after 16: The state of play, challenges and ways ahead. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Teacher Development Agency. (2009). Mathematics development programme for teachers. Retrieved February 19, 2017 from,
  6. Ross, N. (2015). School Workforce in England: November 2014. Retrieved June 24, 2016 from


  1. Achieve. (2012). Next generation of science standards. Washington, DC: Achieve.Google Scholar
  2. Ingersoll, R. M. (1998). The problem of out-of-field teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 773–776.Google Scholar
  3. Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American Secondary Schools. Educational Research, 28(2), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Luft, J. A., Weeks, C. B., Hill, K., & Raven, S. (2013). Science teacher knowledge: The impact of in and out-of-field instruction. San Francisco, CA: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  5. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010). The all-purpose science teacher: An analysis of loopholes in state requirements for high school science teachers. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.Google Scholar
  6. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).Google Scholar


  1. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia: Standards and procedures. Carlton South: Education Services Australia.Google Scholar
  2. Handal, B., Watson, K., Petocz, P., & Maher, M. (2013). Retaining mathematics and science teachers in rural and remote schools. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 23(3), 13–27.Google Scholar
  3. Kenny, J., & Hobbs, L. (2015). Researching with in-service teachers teaching “out-of-field”. Paper presented Paper presented to the Contemporary Approaches to Research in Mathematics, Science, Health and Environmental Education, Deakin University Melbourne 25–26 November 2015. Online proceedings paper available
  4. Mayer, D., Doecke, B., Ho, P., Kline, J., Kostogriz, A., Moss, J., North, J., Walker-Gibbs, B., & Hodder, P. (2014). Longitudinal teacher education and workforce study (Final Report, November, 2013). Canberra: Department of Education, Commonwealth of Australia.
  5. Vale, C., Hobbs, L., & Speldewinde, C. (submitted). The problem of out-of-field teaching: A critical lens on policy in Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Weldon, P. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in secondary schools. Policy Insights, Issue 6. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar


  1. Jalal, F., Samani, M., Chang, M. C., Stevenson, R., Ragatz, A. B., & Negara, S. D. (2009). Teacher certification in Indonesia: A strategy for teacher quality improvement. Jakarta: Ministry of National Education Indonesia/The World Bank.Google Scholar
  2. Nuh, M. (2013). Menyiapkan Guru Masa Depan. Jakarta: Ministry of Education and Culture.Google Scholar
  3. Shah, M., Bennett, A., & Southgate, E. (2015). Widening higher education participation: A global perspective. Chandos Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. The World Bank. (2015). Teacher certification and beyond: An empirical evaluation of the teacher certification program and education quality improvements in Indonesia. Retrieved from
  5. Tobias, J., Wales, J., & Syamsulhakim, E., Suharti (2014) Towards better education quality: Indonesia’s promising path. Development Progress Case Study Report. London: ODI.Google Scholar
  6. UNESCO. (2015). Teachers in Asia pacific: Status and rights. Retrieved from
  7. Zakaria, Y. (2014). Analisis Kelayakan dan Kesesuaian antara Latar Belakang Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar dengan Mata Pelajaran yang Diampu. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 20(4), 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


  1. Bosse, M. (2016). Mathematik fachfremd unterrichten. Zur Professionaliät fachbezogner Lehrer-Identität. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Cortina, K. S., & Thames, M. H. (2013). Teacher education in Germany. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers (pp. 49–62). NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hoffmann, L., & Richter, D. (2016). Aspekte der Aus- und Fortbildung von Deutsch- und Englischlehrkräften im Ländervergleich. In P. Stanat, K. Böhme, S. Schipolowski, & N. Haag (Eds.), IQB-Bildungstrend: Sprachliche Kompetenzen am Ende der 9. Jahrgangsstufe im zweiten Ländervergleich (pp. 481–501). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  4. Klusmann, U., & Richter, D. (2014). Beanspruchungserleben von Lehrkräften und Schülerleistung: Eine Analyse des IQB-Ländervergleichs in der Primarstufe. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60, 202–224.Google Scholar
  5. Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (MSW) (2016). Das Schulwesen in Nordrhein-Westfalen aus quantitativer Sicht 2015/16. Statistische Übersicht 391. Düsseldorf: MSW.Google Scholar
  6. Porsch, R. (2017). Spezialisten oder Generalisten? Eine Betrachtung der Fachausbildung von Grundschullehrerinnen und -lehrern in Deutschland. In M. Radhoff & S. Wieckert (Eds.), Die Grundschule im Wandel der Zeit (in press). Dr. Kovač: Hamburg.Google Scholar
  7. Richter, D., Kuhl, P., Reimers, H., & Pant, H. A. (2012). Aspekte der Aus- und Fortbildung von Lehrkräften in der Primarstufe. In P. Stanat, H. A. Pant, K. Böhme, & D. Richter (Eds.), Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern am Ende der vierten Jahrgangsstufe in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik. Ergebnisse des IQB-Ländervergleichs 2011 (pp. 237–250). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  8. Richter, D., Kuhl, P., Haag, N., & Pant, H. A. (2013). Aspekte der Aus- und Fortbildung von Mathematik- und Naturwissenschaftslehrkräften im Ländervergleich. In H. A. Pant, P. Stanat, U. Schroeders, A. Roppelt, T. Siegle, & C. Pöhlmann (Eds.), IQB-Ländervergleich 2012. Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen am Ende der Sekundarstufe I (pp. 367–390). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  9. Törner, G., & Törner, A. (2012). Underqualified Math Teachers or Out-of-field teaching in Mathematics – A Neglectable Field of Action? In W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferro, & K. Maaß (Eds.), Mathematikunterricht im Kontext von Realität, Kultur und Lehrerprofessionalität (pp. 196–206). Wiesbaden: Springer Spektrum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Murdoch UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Monash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  3. 3.Münster UniversityMünsterGermany
  4. 4.Bina Nusantara UniversityJakartaIndonesia
  5. 5.Dublin Institute of TechnologyDublinIreland
  6. 6.University College CorkCorkIreland
  7. 7.UCL Institute of EducationLondonEngland
  8. 8.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations