Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:08 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
01 SES 02 C
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Understanding Out-of-Field Science Teachers’ Perceptions of Agency while Scaffolding for Digital Literacy: Positioning Theory as a Theoretical Framework The University of Melbourne, Australia Presenting Author:This presentation seeks to contribute to methodological discussions about practitioner research by exemplifying how positioning theory (Harré & van Langenhove, 1999), cover, sacred and secret stories (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996) and pronoun grammar analysis (Mühlhäusler & Harré, 1990) can assist education researchers to understand the interplay between policy and teachers’ lived experience. Drawing on qualitative data from interviews with three science teachers and applying constructivist grounded theory coding procedures (Charmaz, 2014), the analytical tools are unpacked to demonstrate how they offer insight into the moment-to-moment changes in teachers’ personal agency to meet professional expectations. The study from which these data are drawn was conducted over two years with 10 teachers and 28 students in Melbourne, Australia. The question explored was: To what extent do secondary science teachers’ perceptions of their agency to teach digital literacy change as they are supported to teach an out-of-field science discipline? Teaching out-of-field refers to instances where teachers, either by choice or assignment, are teaching subjects and/or year levels for which they do not have the pre-requisite experience and/or tuition in pedagogical practices (Hobbs & Törner, 2019). It is a widespread challenge across education systems affecting curriculum enactment and student outcomes (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2023; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2024; 2025; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2024; Van Overschelde & Piatt, 2020). Contextual information about the Australian context follows with the aim of inviting an international audience to reflect on how these methodological approaches may be applied to jurisdictions where teachers are required to meet similar professional expectations. In Australia, general science teachers are tasked with teaching students aged between 12 and 16 to develop science understanding and inquiry skills across biology, chemistry, Earth and space science and physics. However, despite a lack of data (Hobbs et al., 2022) and compounded by policy attempts to alleviate teacher shortages, Permission to Teach (Victorian Institute of Teaching [VIT], 2025) is comparable to European strategies (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2023), the accepted reality is that science teachers are unlikely to have professional experience or education across all, and in some cases any, science disciplines. In addition, teachers are also expected to scaffold cross-curricular competencies like digital literacy1. The rapid development and potential applications of some of these technologies, such as generative artificial intelligence, can mean that meeting these expectations in out-of-field disciplines feels like treading water. As such, teachers may aim to frequently use digital technologies rather than employ them for technology-enabled learning (Brantley-Dias & Ertmer, 2013; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). This could mean the difference between using Google Earth to visit interesting places versus supporting students’ digital literacy by harnessing the program to collect and store data and information about volcanos to analyze and craft emergency management plans. By exemplifying the analysis of teachers’ reflections, the presentation demonstrates how an agency continuum emerged and was applied to track changes in teachers’ perceptions of their rights and duties while being offered targeted professional learning to teach digital literacies in an out-of-field discipline. The presentation concludes with an autoethnographic (Ellis et al., 2011) narrative in which the agency continuum was applied to the researcher’s capacity to teach digital literacies while preparing a professional learning program for educators in India. By explaining the theoretical framework and methodological contributions, and proposing how findings may inform different education contexts, participants are challenged to reflect on their approaches to practitioner research. 1 Digital literacy and includes the knowledge and skills required for creating, managing, communicating and investigating data, information and ideas, and solving problems Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority. (n.d.). F-10 Curriculum Digital Literacy. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/curriculum-information/understand-this-general-capability/digital-literacy Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Positioning theory (Harré & van Langenhove, 1999) offers theoretical resources to provide a nuanced grasp of the extent to which physical, social and knowledge structures enable teacher agency (Martin, 2020). Guided by two principles, positioning theorists challenge the static concept of role to understand the meaning ascribed to an individual’s actions: 1. What people say and do hinges on judgement; and 2. Identity is a product of interpersonal interactions (Harré, 2015) In this presentation, positioning theory is presented as an overarching methodological approach. The approach is explained through the use of the positioning triad including the terms discursive practices – what people say and do, positions – arising from discursive practices, these are the power imbalances connected to perceptions of agency, and storylines – emerging as individuals are positioned and re-positioned through their own and others’ discursive practices. Discursive practices were collected through audio-recorded, semi-structured interviews with teachers prior to, during, and after receiving targeted support for teaching digital literacy in an out-of-field discipline of science. Understanding their sense of agency using the positioning triad was accomplished first through line-by-line coding (Charmaz, 2014) of discursive practices. Then pronoun grammar analysis (Mühlhäusler & Harré, 1990), a fine-grained examination of teachers’ use of pronouns, phrases, qualifying words and paraverbals, was used to raise initial codes to focused codes. To understand how teachers positioned themselves and others, focused codes were then raised to categories through the use of cover, sacred and secret stories (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996). This served as a framework specific to understanding the stories of education. Cover stories are promoted by school administrators to the wider community, sacred stories are the theory-driven view of best pedagogical practice and secret stories are about classroom practice, indicating possible tension between the cover and/or sacred stories. Data analysis procedures are exemplified alongside teacher quotations to demonstrate how a continuum of teachers’ perceived agency to teach digital literacy is grounded in their reflections from: • Novice: Assumes a duty to utilize technologies for science content understanding, may be unaware of the digital literacies students are expected to develop; • Transitional: Identifies digital literacies students are expected to develop and assumes the duty to teach them, but feels conflicted translating this into practice • Advanced: Seeks out and learns how to use/adapt digital technology to classroom practice emphasizing inquiry Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Grounded in teachers’ discursive practices, the agency continuum enabled an understanding of teachers’ personal agency to teach digital literacies along a continuum from novice to transitional to expert in an out-of-field science discipline. When offered support at their point of need, all teachers developed a stronger sense of agency to scaffold for digital literacies in an evolving technological environment. Tracking changes in teachers’ perceptions in this way has informed recommendations for professional learning within the school context and broader policy environment. These include advocating for differentiated approaches to professional learning and better support for out-of-field teachers (e.g., participation in accredited micro-credential certificates with financial and timetabling support from government initiatives and school leadership). Drawing on similar methodological approaches, agency continua could be crafted, validated and/or applied in other educational contexts. In Europe, for instance, where 23 education systems have policies aiming to address shortages in specialist teachers (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2023), an agency continuum could be applied to longitudinal studies evaluating the effects of in-service programs for qualification in an additional specialisation. Continua could also be applied to primary educators teaching numeracy in an integrated curriculum while navigating an environment where they are increasingly held accountable students’ achievement on standardized tests. Positioning theory was introduced as a methodological approach alongside tools to aid the fine-grained analysis of discursive practices. Using Clandinin and Connelly’s (1996) work to unpack emergent storylines in school settings is a unique contribution to this approach, resulting in a better understanding of the nuances of teachers’ personal agency to teach digital literacies. Employing similar methodological approaches and substituting cover, sacred and secret stories with more appropriate industry storylines, could enable researchers to developed continua for other professions and assist employers to determine specific supports required to rapidly upskill employees where workplace expectations are constantly in flux. References Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority. (n.d.). F-10 Curriculum Digital Literacy. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/curriculum-information/understand-this-general-capability/digital-literacy Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the construct ‘just right?’. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103-128. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers' professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories, stories of teachers, school stories, stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An Overview. Forum : Qualitative Social Research, 12(1). https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/autoethnography-overview/docview/870465772/se-2?accountid=12372 https://unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41/?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3Asocscijournals&atitle=Autoethnography%3A+An+Overview&title=Forum+%3A+Qualitative+Social+Research&issn=&date=2011-01-01&volume=12&issue=1&spage=&au=Ellis%2C+Carolyn%3BAdams%2C+Tony+E%3BBochner%2C+Arthur+P&isbn=&jtitle=Forum+%3A+Qualitative+Social+Research&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/ Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175-182. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2023). Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe - 2023: The teaching profession (Eurydice report, Issue. Publications Office of the European Union. Harré, R. (2015, July). The history of positioning theory. Positioning Theory Symposium, Bruges. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Blackwell. Hobbs, L., Du Plessis, A., Oates, G., Caldis, S., McKnight, L., Vale, C., O’Connor, M., Rochette, E., Watt, H., & Weldon, P. (2022). Australian national summit on teaching out-of-field: Synthesis and recommendations for policy, practice and research. Deakin University and Griffith University. Hobbs, L., & Törner, G. (2019). Teaching out-of-field as a phenomenon and research problem. In L. Hobbs & G. Törner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of “teaching out-of-field” (pp. 3-20). Springer. Martin, J. (2020). Researching Teacher Agency in Elementary School Science using Positioning Theory and Grammar of Agency. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(1), 94-113. Mühlhäusler, P., & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Basil Blackwell. OECD. (2024). Education Policy Outlook 2024: Reshaping Teaching into a Thriving Profession from ABCs to AI. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2025). Results from TALIS 2024: The State of Teaching. OECD Publishing. UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/25: Leadership in education - Lead for learning. UNESCO. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4066661?ln=en&v=pdf Van Overschelde, J. P., & Piatt, A. N. (2020). US Every Student Succeeds Act: Negative impacts on teaching out-of-field. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 2(1), 1-22. Victorian Institute of Teaching [VIT]. (2025). Permission to Teach. https://www.vit.vic.edu.au/register/categories/ptt 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Out-of-field Teaching in Science: An ecological systems perspective on specialisation and responsibility 1: Deakin University, Australia; 2: Monash University; 3: The University of Queensland; 4: Macquarie University Presenting Author:Out-of-field teaching is recognised as a growing feature of education systems across the world. It is complex and multifaceted, and in many systems, it is still seen as an aberration rather than an inevitable outcome of policy settings and the application of practical expediency in schools faced with limited resources. Too often the ultimate responsibility in ensuring a teacher can meet the demands of their out-of-field allocation falls upon the teacher themselves. There are times when this might appear reasonable, particularly if the teacher has elected to teach out-of-field (Kenny et al. 2020). However, for others, teaching out-of-field is an expectation placed upon them that they may feel unable to refuse. Out-of-field teachers can feel out of their depth due to lacking knowledge of content and teaching approaches, limited familiarisation with teaching resources and equipment (Fraser et al., 2019), and difficulties in anticipating students’ challenges (Hobbs, 2020; Singh et al., 2021). Lacking connection to disciplinary ways of knowing, doing and being and appreciating how these translate into school curriculum and teaching and learning can also be challenging for an out-of-field teacher (Hobbs et al., 2026). Teachers’ connection to the subject in terms of personal interest and professional identity and prior learning and teaching experiences impact how they approach learning to teach a new subject, their attitude towards teaching the subject long-term, and their professional development choices (Hobbs 2020). The responsibility for ensuring teachers ‘fit’ (Blackmore et al., 2024) with their allocated classes, that they can access support within and outside of the school workplace, and that they feel adequately prepared with the challenge of learning to teach a new subject cannot belong solely to the out-of-field teacher. Rather, school leaders, in-field teachers, providers of professional education (PE) (including professional learning and development), initial teacher educators and governments all bear some responsibility in ensuring out-of-field teachers can meet the demands of the subjects they are required to teach. Building on research already conducted exploring the ecosystem of PE available for teachers within an Australian context (Hobbs et al., 2025a, 2025b), this paper explores the specific context of the subject ‘Science’ from the perspective of providers of science PE (i.e., initial teacher education, professional learning, mentoring, graduate certification) and subject associations. We investigate the question What factors influence uptake of PE by teachers teaching science out-of-field? This question explores the multi-disciplinary nature of the sciences and their relationship to teaching Science as a key learning area within the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2026) at the levels of secondary schooling (Year 7 to 12, ages 12-18). The science context raises questions regarding adopting a binary approach to in-field versus out-of-field teaching and whether it may be more useful to consider out-of-field teaching as a “continuum of near and far characterizations” (Luft et al., 2020, p. 721). Our exploration spans within the general field of science when considering how near and far some science sub-disciplines are to each other, and outside of science when non-science trained teachers are expected to teach science subjects. Such vagaries become relevant in educational contexts where science (ACARA, 2022) is taught as a single subject (or specialisation) but composed of topics covering several science disciplines (e.g., Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth and space sciences) but usually taught by a single teacher, considered ‘in-field’, who will have a background in a single science discipline (e.g., environmental science). In this study, we explore the realities experienced by specialist and non-specialist science teachers and those supporting them. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study forms part of a broader study examining the ecosystem of current PE in the Australian context. We approach this from an ecological perspective using Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) Ecological Systems Theory (EST). Central to this framing is understanding the levels and positionality of responsibility across the ecosystem to meet the needs of out-of-field science teachers. Our study began with a review of international literature, Australian policy and subject association documents, and PE programs specifically for out-of-field teachers and policy documents , which informed an analytical framework for shifting the culture of out-of-field professional education for teachers. An interview study followed, the design of which was informed by the six categories of the Analytical Framework: education system, public discourse, subject specialisation, implications and effects, entry and staying in the teaching professional, and professional education. These categories informed a schedule of questions for semi-structured interviews, tailored to the three stakeholder groups – policy, PE providers, and schools. The interviews (n=43) were to obtain exploratory data to confirm, disconfirm, extend, and deepen our understanding of the current PE ecosystem and factors that influence teacher uptake. This presentation explores the responses from 6 of the interviews: three representatives from universities and three from state or national science teacher associations. All interviewees had experience in delivering professional learning for out-of-field teachers, had been teachers of science, and/or teach in initial teacher education. Each interview was 30-40 minutes long, transcribed then analysed initially according to the six categories of the analytical framework. Using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis, three researchers familiarised themselves with the six interview transcripts, agreed on three broad themes (responsibility within the system, professional education, and subject specialisation) that captured ideas that were particularly relevant to the culture of PE and its uptake for teachers teaching science out-of-field. Each researcher then independently analysed the six interviews using these themes, highlighting the range of ideas occurring, specifically commonalities, differences, and where tensions and contradictions were evident between the interviews. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary analysis highlighted the need for distributed responsibility in supporting out-of-field teachers, as “there is no one size fits all” (participant1) approach. Several participants argued that the system bears responsibility for adequately funding in-school support structures (such as mentors) who support teachers “at the point of time that they need it” (participant 2). Schools, in turn, were viewed as responsible for actively supporting teachers assigned to teach out-of-field. Views on PE revealed differences in how participants valued external subject expertise and the degree of trust they placed in PE models for out-of-field teachers. Some participants prioritised school centred support while others argued that externally provided PE opportunities offered access to specialised subject knowledge. Attitudes toward science specialisation further shaped these perspectives. While defining out‑of‑field teaching as technical misalignment between teachers’ qualifications and teaching allocations was considered useful for system‑level advocacy, it was regarded less helpful “language when talking about teachers” of science (participant 2). These different viewpoints highlight the complex of being a science teacher, where formal qualifications, teacher identity, and feelings of out‑of‑field‑ness do not always align. A binary in‑/out‑of‑field framing obscures the reality that even science‑trained teachers may feel out‑of‑field and remain continual learners: “you’re never going to be in a situation where everybody has learnt everything. … People need to learn on the job” (participant 3). Although science teachers are trained to think scientifically, their discipline‑specific knowledge and practices must be translated for classroom application, meaning in‑field teachers may experience out‑of‑field‑ness when teaching unfamiliar science content. Across these perspectives, the phenomenon is shaped by curriculum structures and beliefs about both the nature of teaching the subject and forms of support required to sustain disciplinary integrity. Further analysis will outline features of an ideal PE ecosystem that supports science re-specialisation through various pathways. References Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2022). Australian Curriculum: Science (Version 9.0). https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ Blackmore, J., Hobbs, L. & Rowlands, J., (2024). Aspiring teachers, financial incentives and principal’s recruiting for hard-to-staff schools. Journal of Education Policy, 39(2), 233-252. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 3). Elsevier. Fraser, S., Beswick, K., & Crowley, S. (2019). Making tacit knowledge visible: Uncovering the knowledge of science and mathematics teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102907. Hobbs, L. (2020). Learning to teach science out-of-field: A spatial-temporal experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(7), 725-745. Hobbs, L., Carpendale, J., McKnight, L., Caldis, S., Vale, C., Delaney, S., & Campbell, C. (2026). A framework of subject-specific expertise for out-of-field teachers: Translated for science and English. Teaching and Teacher Education, 169, 105262. Hobbs, L., Ross, E., Cirkony, C., McCandless, T., Caldis, S., Dutton, J., Goos, M., Oates, G., Shelley, K., Delaney, S., & Speldewinde, C. (2025a). Australia’s professional education ecosystem for out-of-field teachers: Seeking diverse pathways for teacher learning. Professional Development in Education (submitted December 2025) Hobbs., L. Speldewinde, C., Ross, E., Caldis, S., Goos, M., Delaney, S., Cirkony, C., Dutton, J. & Oates, G. (2025b). An Analytical Framework for Shifting the Culture of Out-of-field Professional Education for Teachers. Presentation to the ECER 2025, University of Belgrade, Serbia, 8 – 12 September 2025. Kenny, J., Hobbs L. & Whannell, R. (2020) Designing professional development for teachers teaching out-of-field, Professional Development in Education, 46(3), 500-515. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2019.1613257 Luft, J. Hanuscin, D., Hobbs, L. & Törner, G. (2020). Out-of-field teaching in science: An overlooked problem. Editorial. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(7), 719-724. Singh, H., Luft, J.A., & Napier, J.B. (2021). The development of ePCK of newly hired in-field and out-of-field teachers during their first three years of teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 611 - 626. 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Teachers' Voices on Effective Supports for Out-of-Field Teaching University of Oxford & University of Prince Edward Island, Canada Presenting Author:Introduction
Out-of-field teaching occurs when a teacher is assigned to teach a subject that does not align with their specialised disciplinary background (Hobbs & Törner, 2019). This practice persists across education systems and has been identified as a significant professional and policy challenge. Ingersoll (2019) argues that even highly qualified educators can effectively become unqualified when teaching outside their expertise, as they may lack sufficient content knowledge, pedagogical tools, and curriculum familiarity.
Research has linked out-of-field teaching to a range of negative outcomes for both teachers and students. Students taught by out-of-field teachers have been found to achieve lower academic results (Sheppard et al., 2020), while teachers experience reduced wellbeing, professional satisfaction, and retention in the workforce (Du Plessis et al., 2014).
The phenomenon is shaped by both structural and contextual factors. Teacher shortages in specific subjects can elevate out-of-field rates (Hobbs & Törner, 2019), yet cross-national analyses show that shortages alone do not fully explain the prevalence of this issue (Zhou, 2014). Hiring practices, budgets, and scheduling pressures often lead administrators to assign teachers outside their trained specialisations (Du Plessis et al., 2017). Consequently, most teachers who find themselves teaching out-of-field do so involuntarily and with limited agency over their teaching assignments. In some contexts, professional development programmes are being developed and used to specifically support those teaching out-of-field (Kenny et al., 2020).
Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), which views human functioning as shaped by reciprocal interactions between individuals, their behaviour, and their environment. Central to this framework is the construct of self-efficacy, defined, in the case of teacher self-efficacy, as a teacher's belief in their capability to plan and carry out teaching tasks effectively in a specific context (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Teacher self-efficacy influences persistence, resilience, and willingness to adopt new strategies, and higher self-efficacy is consistently associated with improved classroom practice and reduced burnout (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Within this framework, out-of-field teaching can be viewed as an environmental constraint that challenges teachers' efficacy beliefs.
Research Question
This presentation examines the following research question: what do teachers feel are the most effective supports for teaching out-of-field? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This conference presentation reports qualitative findings from the interview phase of a mixed-methods study examining secondary teachers’ experiences teaching out-of-field (OOF) in Grades 9–12 sciences and mathematics across the four provinces of western Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba). Participants for the interview phase were drawn from respondents to the broader questionnaire phase who indicated willingness to be contacted for a follow-up interview. Seventeen teachers were purposively sampled from this pool to ensure that all interview participants were actively teaching at least one OOF assignment at the time of the study and to achieve an appropriate spread across relevant demographic and professional characteristics (province, gender, career stage, and subject area). While the larger questionnaire included teachers teaching fully in-field as well as those teaching OOF, the interview sample focused specifically on teachers with current OOF responsibilities in order to capture rich accounts of how teachers navigate OOF teaching and what supports they perceive as most effective. The interviews were designed using a phenomenological orientation, foregrounding teachers’ lived experiences and meaning-making in relation to teaching OOF. The semi-structured interviews were conducted via online video calls and lasted approximately one hour each. Regarding support for OOF teaching, the interview protocol included direct questions about (a) resources and supports teachers accessed to prepare for and teach OOF classes (e.g., people, websites, books, professional learning), (b) access to subject-specific professional development and the extent to which it was supported or funded by schools/divisions (including travel and frequency), (c) opportunities for collaboration and collegial consultation (including whether teachers were themselves consulted by others), (d) perceived transfer of skills, analogies, and pedagogical approaches from in-field teaching to OOF subjects, and (e) supports teachers may not have had but ideally wished were available. The interviews were analyzed using an iterative, inductive thematic approach to identify patterns in what teachers described as effective supports for OOF teaching and the conditions that enabled or constrained access to those supports. Analysis moved from initial familiarization and coding of support-related segments to grouping codes into possible themes, followed by refinement of themes through comparison across participants and attention to variation by context and career stage. Findings reported in the presentation emphasize themes that are explicitly grounded in participants’ accounts of what supported their OOF planning, confidence, and instructional practice. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Across 17 phenomenological interviews with secondary science and mathematics teachers teaching OOF, findings reveal a clear progression from least to most effective forms of support. Teachers consistently described the least effective approach as isolated, self-directed coping. This included web searching, trial-and-error lesson construction, and attempting to independently backfill subject knowledge. While online resources were commonly used, teachers reported that working in isolation often increased workload and uncertainty, particularly around what content mattered most, how to sequence it, how to align assessments with learning, and whether materials matched the curriculum. In contrast, the most effective supports were collaborative, concrete, curriculum-aligned, and sustained over time. First, mentorship and collegial support emerged as foundational. Teachers emphasized that access to a knowledgeable colleague who could answer questions, share usable materials, and provide reassurance was transformative. Also effective, though rare, were school- or division-level structures that intentionally supported this collaboration, such as official time or access to mentor colleagues. One teacher explained, “If she wasn’t there, there’s no way I would have been able to teach life science… a mentor teacher is the best thing to have.” Second, teachers highlighted the importance of shared, curriculum-aligned resources that reduce the burden of building an OOF course from scratch. Valued materials included worked solutions, example questions, unit sequences, and feasible labs and activities. The absence of lab resources was especially challenging given teachers’ discomfort with unfamiliar experimental practices. Third, teachers valued in-service professional development when it was planned, sustained, and directly tied to their OOF assignment, though such opportunities were uncommon. Finally, teachers pointed to pre-service preparation that acknowledges OOF teaching as likely and equips teachers with transferable planning routines and cross-disciplinary strategies. Overall, findings suggest OOF teaching is most sustainably supported when systems move from individual coping to collective, planned support infrastructures. References Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. Du Plessis, A. E., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2017). The meaning of out-of-field teaching for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2014.962618 Du Plessis, A. E., Gillies, R. M., & Carroll, A. (2014). Out-of-field teaching and professional development: A transnational investigation across Australia and South Africa. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.03.002 Hobbs, L., & Törner, G. (2019). Teaching out-of-field as a phenomenon and research problem. In L. Hobbs & G. Törner (Eds.), Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-field” (pp. 3–20). Springer Nature Singapore. Ingersoll, R. M. (2019). Measuring out-of-field teaching. In L. Hobbs & G. Törner (Eds.), Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-field” (pp. 21–52). Springer Nature Singapore. Kenny, J., Hobbs, L., & Whannell, R. (2020). Designing professional development for teachers teaching out-of-field. Professional Development in Education, 46(3), 500–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1613257 Sheppard, K., Padwa, L., Kelly, A. M., & Krakehl, R. (2020). Out-of-Field Teaching in Chemistry and Physics: An Empirical Census Study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 00(00), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1702268 Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 Zhou, Y. (2014). The Relationship Between School Organizational Characteristics and Reliance on Out-of-Field Teachers in Mathematics and Science: Cross-National Evidence from TALIS 2008. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0123-8 | ||