Veranstaltungsprogramm

Theoretical background research question

Out-of-field (OOF) teaching – when teachers are assigned to subjects outside their formal area of training – has become widespread internationally ​(Price et al., 2019)​. While often used to address shortages of subject-qualified teachers, OOF teachers are assumed to have limited subject-specific and pedagogical content knowledge due to fewer opportunities in initial teacher education ​(Baumert & Kunter, 2013)​, which may affect instructional practices and student outcomes. Previous research indicates that OOF teachers report lower instructional quality and self-efficacy, feel less connected to the subject, and struggle to link content to students’ learning needs ​(Du Plessis, 2015)​.

However, evidence regarding the effects of OOF teaching on student achievement remains unclear, partly due to methodological and conceptual heterogeneity across studies (Porsch & Whannell, 2019), and empirical evidence on its effects in Austria – where OOF teaching is common practice in lower secondary education – is scarce. Therefore, we investigated direct and indirect effects of OOF teaching on mathematics achievement and students' interest in Austrian lower secondary mathematics, considering instructional quality as a mediator.

Hence, the study asks: What influence does out-of-field teaching in mathematics have on instructional quality, student performance and students’ interest in mathematics in Austria?

Method

The analysis uses data from the Austrian sample of TIMSS 2023. Multilevel structural equation modeling is applied to account for the nested data structure. Instructional quality is modeled as a classroom-level construct based on student reports of instructional clarity, cognitive activation, and classroom management. Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation is used to handle missing data. Analyses are conducted separately for academic lower secondary schools (AHS) and non-academic lower secondary schools (MS).

Conclusion

Results show no substantial direct effects of OOF teaching on mathematics achievement in either school type. Instructional quality exhibits only weak and uncertain associations with achievement, even though there is an indication of an positive influence of OOF teaching on instructional quality in AHS and a negative influence of OOF teaching in MS. In both school types, achievement is more strongly related to students’ socioeconomic background than to OOF teaching or instructional quality. For students’ interest, instructional quality plays a more prominent role, particularly in MS, while OOF teaching shows no meaningful total effects. Overall, the findings suggest that OOF teaching does not substantially disadvantage student achievement but may affects interest in school-type-specific ways.

Theoretical background. With the increasing prevalence of out-of-field teaching in Austria, research has begun to focus on its effects on teachers and students. In mathematics education, some international studies have documented negative consequences for student achievement and teachers’ professional knowledge (e.g., Richter et al., 2019). One factor potentially contributing to these effects is the presence of misconceptions – beliefs that deviate from current scientific consensus (Pieschl & Glumann, 2022). While misconceptions have been widely studied in psychology and general learning research (Menz et al., 2021), empirical work in mathematics education remains limited, particularly regarding out-of-field teachers. Investigating such misconceptions is therefore essential to identify specific professional learning needs and informing the design of targeted teacher education and professional development programs.

Aims and objectives. Against this backdrop, the present study explores the nature and role of misconceptions among out-of-field mathematics teachers. It aims to identify existing misconceptions, examine how they influence teachers’ subject understanding and instructional practice, and explore factors contributing to their persistence. The following research questions were addressed:

RQ1: Which mathematical misconceptions are held by (out-of-field) teachers?

RQ2: How do these misconceptions influence teachers in their practice?

RQ3: What challenges do misconceptions pose for out-of-field teachers?

RQ4: How can (out-of-field) teachers overcome challenges arising from misconceptions?

Methodology. Semi-structured, problem-oriented expert interviews were conducted with N = 12 mathematics teacher educators from Austria and Germany. This sample was chosen due to participants’ subject-didactic expertise and their ability to adopt a meta-perspective on mathematics teaching. Participants were recruited through initial purposive sampling and subsequent snowball techniques. Interviews were conducted online, transcribed using WhisperX, and analyzed via qualitative content analysis following Kuckartz and Rädiker, supported by MAXQDA.

Results. Findings highlight several challenges faced by out-of-field mathematics teachers. Interviewees reported a strong focus on obtaining correct solutions rather than understanding underlying mathematical processes, often resulting in superficial instruction. Additionally, limited diagnostic competence may hinder teachers’ ability to recognize and address both student and personal misconceptions. Reflective practices and structured support systems were identified as key strategies for mitigating these issues and for strengthening teachers’ long-term pedagogical development.

Discussion. Overall, the findings suggest that misconceptions may substantially affect instructional quality and may contribute to persistent gaps in conceptual understanding among students. Addressing these issues requires targeted professional development, including training in diagnostic competencies, reflective practice, and collaboration with in-field teachers, while remaining sensitive to the workload pressures faced by out-of-field teachers.

Theoretical Background and Objectives

Out-of-field teaching (ooft) is a persistent feature of contemporary school systems, exacerbated by teacher shortages and increasing student care responsibilities. While ooft can heighten professional demands, it can also catalyse professional growth and job satisfaction. This study employs a Grounded Theory approach to examine how teachers navigate ooft, based on narrative interviews with 16 out-of-field teachers. Motivation emerged as central category shaping both the perception and practice of ooft: teachers frame ooft either as a burden or as an opportunity for development, which, in turn, influences their instructional strategies, perceived teaching competence, and job satisfaction. The study examines how motivational dynamics shape professional growth and competence development in ooft and identifies motivational profiles explaining variation in strategies and outcomes.

The theoretical foundation draws on Self-Determination-Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), highlighting autonomy, competence, and relatedness as drivers of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The FIT-Choice framework (Watt & Richardson, 2007) further captures core aspects of teachers’ career choice motivation, including intrinsic values, social influences, and perceived ability. Combining these perspectives provides a nuanced account of how motivation underpins professional learning and adaptive practice in ooft.

Method

The qualitative analysis yielded four motivational profiles, ranging from experiences of strain and defensive coping to active engagement and job enrichment through ooft. Building on these findings, a mixed-methods extension will examine the external validity and prevalence of these profiles using quantitative survey data, with a focus on lower-secondary teachers (ISCED 2) in the Austrian OECD TALIS 2018 subsample. A person-centred analytical strategy will test whether the qualitatively derived profiles can be identified in larger samples of certified and out-of-field teachers. Indicators will align with FIT-Choice and Self-Determination Theory constructs, alongside subject assignment (certified vs. out-of-field). We tentatively expect profile differences in job satisfaction, (self-reported) instructional quality, wellbeing, and turnover intentions.

Discussion

Together, the qualitative typology and its quantitative examination offer an integrated account of motivation in ooft and its implications for teacher learning and practice. The findings provide a basis for targeted professional development: supporting teachers who experience ooft as burdensome, while empowering those who perceive it as an avenue for growth. These measures can enhance teacher satisfaction over time and in consequence strengthen instructional quality and student outocmes. Given ongoing structural challenges in education, this work contributes to academic discourse and informs policy and school-level strategies to sustain a stable, well-supported teaching workforce, including targeted support for teachers navigating ooft.