Content area
Out-of-field teaching is a phenomenon faced by many countries worldwide, including Thailand. Because out-of-field teaching can alleviate the shortage of teachers qualified in certain subjects, such as mathematics and science, research has focused on facilitating in-service teachers to teach out of their fields to ensure students excel in these subjects. However, little effort has been made to prepare pre-service teachers to deal with this phenomenon. This mixed-methods research examines the influence of an out-of-field teaching course on pre-service teachers’ professional identities. Participants comprised 23 pre-service physics teachers (nine male and 14 female) who designed biology lessons and conducted teaching rehearsals. A Likert-type scale measuring the three components of professional identity (motivation, self-image, and self-efficacy) was completed before and after the course’s instructional activities. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with all individual participants. The statistical analysis of quantitative data indicated that the participants’ professional identities had significantly developed. The content analysis of qualitative data revealed that participants changed their perceptions of biology, broadened their views of science teaching, and increased their self-efficacy for biology teaching. These results suggest that, with appropriate support, an out-of-field teaching course can strengthen pre-service teachers’ professional identities.
Introduction
The success of future generations depends on the quality of education, which, in turn, relies on the quality of teachers (Khine & Liu, 2022). Research has identified key characteristics (e.g., knowledge, skills, and beliefs) that teachers must possess to deliver effective instruction (Stronge et al., 2011). Shulman (1986), for example, has proposed that teachers must have pedagogical content knowledge—a specialized type of knowledge for teaching a particular topic—along with other types of knowledge related to content, pedagogy, and students (Shulman, 1987). This concept has influenced teacher education programs to prepare pre-service teachers to gain qualifications in specific subjects (Berry et al., 2016). While such qualifications help ensure the quality of teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2000), they may not fully align with the realities of teachers’ work. In many parts of the world, teachers are sometimes required to teach subjects outside their area of specialization (Price et al., 2019). This global phenomenon is called out-of-field teaching (Hobbs & Torner, 2019a).
Out-of-field teaching occurs when “teachers [are] assigned to teach subjects for which they have inadequate training and qualifications” (Ingersoll, 2019, p. 22). Due to the shortage of qualified teachers, which might result from an imbalance or delay in preparing, recruiting, and allocating teachers in certain circumstances, out-of-field teaching seems inevitable (Vale & Drake, 2019). While the effect of out-of-field teaching on students’ learning achievements remains inconclusive (Porsch & Whannell, 2019), it can affect teachers and, thus, their classroom practices (Du Plessis, 2020). For example, teachers are more likely to encounter tensions (Quinn & Hobbs, 2025) and adapt transmissive beliefs (Lane & Ni Riordain, 2020) when teaching outside their fields than in their specializations. Out-of-field teaching can also influence teachers’ professional identities (Hobbs, 2013). As such, initial teacher education should sufficiently prepare pre-service teachers to develop professional identities and capabilities to teach outside their fields (Campbell et al., 2019).
Professional identity has been central in research on both teacher education (Beijaard et al., 2004) and science teacher education (Rushton & Reiss, 2021). While there is no consensus on the definition of a teacher’s professional identity (Feser & Haak, 2023), it can simply refer to “an understanding of what it means to be a teacher, [not only] in one’s own eye but also in the eyes of others” (Sachs, 2005, p. 8). Professional identity has served as a powerful lens for studying science teachers’ learning and development (Avraamidou, 2014a). For example, it can help explain why individuals become science teachers (Smetana & Kushki, 2021), why they teach science lessons in particular ways (Pedretti et al., 2008), and why they experience tensions while adopting certain identities in given situations (Enyedy et al., 2006). Because science is central to science teachers’ personal identities (Helms, 1998), which make their professional identities disciplinarily specific (Feser & Haak, 2023), the tensions in their professional identities can become obvious when teaching out of field.
However, out-of-field teaching can also serve as an opportunity for science teachers to reconstruct and expand their professional identities (Hobbs, 2013), which can be beneficial, for example, when they implement integrated approaches to science education (Crisan & Hobbs, 2019). In this regard, science teachers need to develop their professional identities not only within their specialization in science but also in relation to other areas of science (Cirkel et al., 2024). Despite its global prevalence, out-of-field teaching is still unrecognized in initial teacher education, which is normally conducted in a siloed fashion (Hobbs & Torner, 2019b). Little is known about whether and to what extent pre-service teachers develop their professional identities when they are prepared to teach out of field. The present study aims to gain insight into the potential of an out-of-field teaching course for shaping pre-service teachers’ professional identities, which is useful for not only addressing the shortage of qualified teachers but also fostering interdisciplinary science education.
Literature review
Out-of-field teaching
As a complex phenomenon (Singh et al., 2021), out-of-field teaching can be defined in various ways based on, for example, teachers’ scores on examinations, completion of coursework, certifications, and majors (Ingersoll, 2019) with regard to the field or subject under consideration. As such, out-of-field teachers may be considered in-field teachers in another context (Price et al., 2019). Moreover, teachers can “self-nominate if they are out-of-field in a subject” based on their identities associated with the subject (Porsch & Whannell, 2019, p. 188). A definition of out-of-field teaching may go beyond subjects to include “year levels” (Du Plessis, 2020, p. 1465) or “school types” (Hobbs & Porsch, 2021, p. 601). In this regard, Ingersoll (2019, p. 48) recommended that “all of [the definitions of out-of-field teaching] are correct – their differences result from the fact that they simply look at the same phenomenon in different ways.” Hence, researchers need “to choose carefully” (ibid., p. 48) an appropriate definition of teaching out of field and know its strengths and weaknesses.
Despite the existence of various definitions of out-of-field teaching, Nixon et al. (2017) instead use science teachers’ majors as an operational definition to determine whether they are out of field because majors are “commonly accepted, broad, and widely available indicators of teacher preparation” (p. 1199). This operational definition is particularly relevant in Thailand, where this study was conducted. In Thailand, teacher education is structured by major (e.g., general science, physics, chemistry, and biology), a system that Khine and Liu (2022, p. 2) refer to as “subject-specific teacher education.” While pre-service teachers majoring in general science are supposed to teach science in primary and lower secondary education, pre-service teachers majoring in physics, chemistry, and biology are supposed to teach these subjects in higher secondary education (Faikhamta et al., 2018). Under this operational definition as used in Napier et al.’s (2020) study, teachers with a major in biology can be considered out-of-field teachers when they teach physical science at primary or lower secondary grades.
Research has shown that out-of-field teaching has negative effects on science teachers. Sanders et al. (1993) observed that experienced teachers, despite pedagogical knowledge, encounter more difficulties in planning and implementing lessons when teaching out-of-field as opposed to in-field. Specifically, due to the lack of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, the teachers took more time preparing lessons and struggled to determine key concepts. They also had more difficulties responding to students’ ideas and productively proceeding with lessons. They consequently acted like novice teachers by relying on conversationally safe activities and teacher-centered strategies. Moreover, they reflected more on their teaching practice than on students’ learning. The negative effects of out-of-field teaching can also be observed among novice teachers who have just begun their professional learning (Singh et al., 2021). Indeed, teaching out of field poses additional challenges and compounds the situation of novice teachers (Napier et al., 2020).
Sanders et al. (1993) suggest that out-of-field teaching, if unavoidable, should be assigned to experienced teachers who possess pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge for general science, because such knowledge can serve as a foundation for experienced teachers to deal with out-of-field teaching. However, out-of-field teaching in reality is more likely to be assigned to novice teachers than experienced teachers (Nixon et al., 2017). Having qualified to teach a specific subject, novice teachers may not expect to teach outside their field (Du Plessis et al., 2015). Pilen et al. (2013) observed that conflicts between expectation and reality can create tensions in novice teachers’ professional identities. To prevent such conflicts and accompanying tensions, initial teacher education should focus more on preparing pre-service teachers for out-of-field teaching (Campbell et al., 2019), which may occur as soon as they begin practicing their profession. Hobbs and Porsch (2021) highlight the importance of preparing pre-service teachers to teach outside their field:
Teacher education needs to raise the future teachers’ awareness of the situation, develop their capacity to deal with the situation by providing a variety of learning opportunities for acquiring knowledge and skills required to teach in out-of-field areas they are likely to teach, and enhance their identity as professionals and pedagogues who are supposed to teach and to educate students rather than being ‘mere instructors’ teaching content limited to one specific field (p. 602, italic and quote in original).
Studies have demonstrated that, with support, both novice and experienced teachers can view out-of-field teaching as an opportunity for their professional learning and growth. For example, Donitsa-Schmidt et al. (2021) found that a program that aims to develop content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge can reinforce experienced teachers’ motivation, self-confidence, and self-efficacy to teach science out-of-field. These findings align with Mizzi (2021), who reported that a learning community, in addition to a workshop, can enable experienced teachers to adopt positive views of teaching chemistry out-of-field and experience a shift in their professional identities. Regarding the latter point, Hobbs (2013) asserted that out-of-field teaching can potentially reconstruct and expand experienced teachers’ professional identities. However, for novice teachers, such professional learning and growth can fluctuate over time (Singh et al., 2021). Whether out-of-field teaching fosters professional identity is also unclear for pre-service teachers.
Professional identity
A teacher’s professional identity resists a single definition (Beijaard et al., 2004). For example, while Avraamidou (2014b, p. 224) defines this concept as “the ways in which [the] teacher represents herself through her views, orientations, attitudes,… knowledge, and beliefs”, Sfard and Prusak (2005, p. 16) refer to it as “collections of stories about [teachers] that are reifying, endorsable, and significant.” A teacher’s professional identity can also be understood as “a socially constructed self-image as a teacher of [a discipline]” (Polizzi et al., 2021, p. 3). To capture its multifaceted nature, Enyedy et al. (2006, p. 71) describe professional identity as lying at “the intersection between one’s personal history and individual psychology on the one hand and one’s cultural history and community of practice on the other hand.” Irrespective of these various definitions, pre-service teachers’ professional identities should be fostered in initial teacher education (Thomas & Beauchamp, 2007) to help them enter and continue in the teaching profession successfully (Horvath et al., 2018).
Despite the lack of consensus in definition, Beijaard et al. (2004) have highlighted four common characteristics of teachers’ professional identities. First, a teacher’s professional identity is continuously constructed and reconstructed over time as they interpret and reinterpret experiences to ascribe meanings to the self (Glass, 2019). Second, a teacher’s professional identity implies the relationship between individuals and their contexts. As such, teachers in similar circumstances—for example, in terms of place (Badia, 2023) or time (Lopes & Pereira, 2012)—may share professional identities that remain individually distinct. Third, a teacher’s professional identity consists of sub-identities, which may relate to their natural traits, institutional positions, characteristics recognized within discourse, or experiences gained through affinities (Gee, 2000). Fourth, a teacher’s professional identity involves agency, in that the teacher must actively construct a designated identity, which may at times contrast with the traditional perceptions of teachers (Chen & Mensah, 2018).
As teachers’ professional identities are constructed through experiences (Beijaard et al., 2004), research has identified certain experiences that foster pre-service teachers’ professional identities during initial teacher education. According to Sutherland et al. (2010), teacher education programs are typically organized around two different contexts: university-based coursework or school-based practicum. Studies have shown that pre-service teachers are more likely to develop their professional identities through practice-based experiences at school than through theory-based experiences at university (Lamote & Engles, 2010). Nonetheless, particular experiences during coursework have been noted as productive for pre-service teachers’ professional identities. These include, for example, encouraging them to consider their possible selves as teachers (Hamman et al., 2013) and stimulating situations for them to manage conflicts as teachers (Magen-Nagar & Steinberger, 2022). In this regard, Sutherland et al. (2010) emphasize that reflection on such experiences is crucial.
As part of coursework in teacher education programs, Lampert et al. (2013) observed that teaching-method courses, where pre-service teachers learn to design lessons and conduct teaching rehearsals with classmates, can enable their professional identities. Nguyen and Loughland (2018) add that working in pairs to design and enact lessons, even when conducted in school-based practicum, can serve as support for pre-service teachers in strengthening their professional identities. Tsybulsky and Muhnik-Rozanov (2019, p. 52) note that, through collaborative experience in designing and implementing ambitious pedagogies (e.g., project-based learning), pre-service teachers develop their professional identities when “encountering difficulties, coping with and overcoming difficulties, and experiencing a sense of accomplishment and success.” These results align with Sutherland and Markauskaite’s assertion (2012) that authentic experiences that correspond to the real practices of teachers are crucial for pre-service teachers to develop their professional identities. In this regard, out-of-field teaching can serve as an authentic experience for pre-service teachers.
Moreover, research suggests that teachers’ professional identities are specific to their subject specializations (Thompson, 2023) because they have engaged in communities of practice related to those subjects (Polizzi et al., 2021). As Feser and Haak (2023, p. 308) noted, “the identity of teachers teaching science… significantly differs from the identity of teachers teaching other subjects.” The subject specificity of teachers’ professional identities results from intertwining their subject and teaching identities (Galanti & Holincheck, 2022). It is evident in both pre- and in-service teachers that science identity is central to science teachers’ professional identities (Chung-Parsons & Bailey, 2019; Helms, 1998), even though teaching identity can be more pronounced than science identity in educational settings (Giles et al., 2023; Holincheck & Galanti, 2023). As such, those with a major in science may need to reconstruct and expand their professional identities when teaching out of field (Hobbs, 2013) or delivering integrated science education (Cirkel et al., 2024).
Thailand’s situation
Similar to other countries (Price et al., 2019), Thailand has experienced out-of-field teaching, which Siribanpitak (2018, p. 461) describes as “a paradox,” because a shortage of qualified teachers exists alongside an oversupply of pre-service teachers graduating from teacher education programs. OECD/UNESCO (2016, p. 28) attribute this paradox to “rigid teacher deployment procedures that fail to take into account schools’ actual needs.” Pholphirul et al. (2023) elaborate on this explanation by noting that most teachers prefer to work in urban areas rather than rural ones. As a result, novice teachers are often assigned to underprivileged schools in rural areas to replace experienced teachers who have moved to more privileged schools in urban areas. Over time, thus, the underprivileged schools in rural areas are more likely to experience a shortage of qualified teachers than are the privileged schools in urban areas. However, accurately reporting the extent of teacher shortages in certain areas remains difficult due to a lack of up-to-date data (OECD/UNESCO, 2016).
Based on Siribanpitak’s (2018) estimation, the percentages of teachers who teach outside their specifications vary by subject, school type, and educational level. Specifically, regardless of school type or educational level, the percentages of out-of-field teachers in mathematics, social studies, Thai language, English language, and science, respectively, are 26, 26, 24, 20, and 15. Focusing on science, public schools (15) are more likely to have a higher percentage of out-of-field teachers than private schools (10). In both public and private schools, the percentages of teachers who teach science out of field are higher in lower secondary grades than in higher secondary grades (20 versus seven for public schools; 11 versus eight for private schools). However, it is critical to note that Siribanpitak (2018) considered science-related majors as a whole (i.e., not differentiating into sub-disciplines—physics, chemistry, and biology). As such, the percentages of out-of-field teachers in science would be greater if sub-majors in science more specifically were considered.
With regard to initial teacher education, Thailand has restructured its system multiple times (Thongthew, 2014). For example, it changed from four-year to five-year programs in 1999 and returned to four-year programs in 2019. According to Rupavijetra and Rupavijetra (2022, p. 626), this structural change “portrays the top-down policy and hierarchical system of administration.” Nonetheless, teachers’ professional identities have not gained much attention in policies or practices. In this regard, by interviewing pre-service teachers majoring in English language who studied in each year of a five-year program of teacher education, Prabjandee (2020) noted that pre-service teachers in the first to fourth years “did not see themselves as a teacher” (p. 79). These results led this researcher to conclude that the development of pre-service teachers’ professional identities was fragmented because the role of teacher education in promoting pre-service teachers’ professional identities “is relatively passive” (ibid, p. 84). As such, greater emphasis on this aspect is required.
However, Prabjandee (2020, p. 79) also observed that pre-service teachers who engaged in school-based practicum in the 5th year exhibited a stronger sense of professional identity than those in earlier years who had not yet gained such experience. This finding aligns with prior research highlighting the role of practical experience at school in fostering pre-service teachers’ professional identities (Lamote & Engles, 2010; Nguyen & Loughland, 2018) and reinforces the importance of authentic experience (Sutherland & Markauskaite, 2012). Given that out-of-field teaching is a common practice among Thai teachers (Siribanpitak, 2018), pre-service teacher can perceive it as an authentic task that is meaningful to learn. When supported by peers and instructors, as demonstrated by Tsybulsky and Muhnik-Rozanov (2019), out-of-field teaching may be strategically used to strengthen pre-service teachers’ professional identities in a university-based course. Further investigation into this potential of out-of-field teaching in a Thai context is thus warranted.
Research questions
With the recognition that pre-service teachers are likely to learn through teaching out of field, a course preparing pre-service teachers majoring in physics to teach science out of field has been initiated. The course is based on collaboration among three science teacher educators within a faculty of education. Each has a background in physics, chemistry, or biology. In addition, the course is expected to enhance pre-service teachers’ capabilities to connect various science topics (Pimthong & Williams, 2020) and reinforce integrated approaches to science education (Promboon et al., 2018) as mandated in the latest version of science learning standards in the Basic Education Core Curriculum (Bureau of Academic Affairs and Educational Standards, 2017). Based on the potential of out-of-field teaching noted in the literature (e.g., Hobbs, 2013; Mizzi, 2021), the present study seeks to ascertain whether and how experience in this course could strengthen pre-service teachers’ professional identities. The following research questions are therefore formulated:
To what extent and how do pre-service teachers develop their professional identities after engaging in an out-of-field teaching course?
What types of experience do pre-service teachers attribute to the development of their professional identities in the out-of-field teaching course?
Research methods
To examine the influence of an out-of-field teaching course on pre-service teachers’ professional identities, this study employed mixed-methods research, “the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches… for the broader purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson et al., 2007, p. 123). Mixed-methods research can contribute to literature in this domain, given that most studies are qualitative (about 85.4%), with a minority being quantitative (6.3%) or mixed-methods (8.3%), according to Zhai et al. (2024). Specifically, this study employed an “explanatory sequential mixed methods design” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 304) in which “the researcher collects quantitative data in the first phase, analyses the results, and then uses the results to plan… the second, qualitative phase [aiming] to have the qualitative data help explain in more detail the initial quantitative results.” The following sections present the contextual and methodological details of this study.
Context
Because a teacher’s professional identity involves the relationship between person and context (Beijaard et al., 2004), a description of the context in which this study occurred is essential (Avraamidou, 2014a). This study was undertaken in the faculty of education at a northern university in Thailand. This faculty recruits students who have completed secondary education to pursue a bachelor’s degree in education with a specific major (without a minor). While several majors are related to educational levels, such as early childhood education, primary education, and vocational education, many majors are related to subjects based on the Basic Education Core Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2008), such as Thai language, English language, art, social studies, and mathematics. With regard to science, the faculty has three majors: physics, chemistry, and biology. While pre-service teachers with these majors intend to teach their respective subjects in higher secondary education, they can also apply to teach general science teachers in primary and lower secondary levels.
This research was conducted in a four-year program of physics teacher education. Each year has two semesters, with an optional summer semester. Pre-service teachers must complete at least 143 credits. The courses can be categorized into three groups: general courses (30 credits), specialized courses (107 credits), and elective courses (six credits). The general courses involve, for example, language, technology, and citizenship for everyday uses. The specialized courses can be divided into two groups: educational courses (39 credits) and subject-related courses (68 credits). As framed and legally mandated by the Teachers’ Council of Thailand, the educational courses comprise curriculum development, learning management, educational psychology, educational evaluation, educational technology, and educational research (Rupavijetra & Rupavijetra, 2022). There are also three courses for short-term practicum in schools (six credits), each followed by a seminar between the two semesters. The second semester of the final year is a full-time practicum (six credits).
Subject-related courses are taught by either the faculty of education or faculty of science. The faculty of science handles the courses (29 credits) on content knowledge and scientific process skills, such as classical mechanics, waves, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, modern physics, and physics laboratories as a requirement. Pre-service teachers must also select other courses (15 credits) of their interest, such as electronics, nuclear physics, quantum physics, astronomy, and earth science. The faculty of education is responsible for the courses on pedagogical content knowledge. Specifically, four courses (12 credits) cover students’ prior knowledge of classical mechanics, waves, thermodynamics, electricity, and magnetism in secondary education. One course (three credits) introduces basic principles and instructional methods for science education. Another course (three credits) focuses on designing instruction, writing lesson plans, and rehearsing physics teaching. Two optional courses (six credits) relate to teaching science, with one investigated in this study.
Course
Science Instruction in Secondary Education (three credits) is an optional course of the physics teachers education program, which has attracted less attention from pre-service teachers than other courses (e.g., one focusing on developing low-cost equipment for teaching physics). However, during graduation ceremonies, some alumni provided feedback supporting the conclusion of OECD/UNESCO (2016) and Siribanpitak (2018) that they, as in-service teachers, must often teach general science in addition to physics. They felt unprepared in such situations and suggested that current and prospective cohorts of pre-service teachers should learn to teach topics related to chemistry and biology. In response, two science educators with backgrounds in biology and chemistry were invited to oversee this course. The course was scheduled in the second semester of the third year, between the course on basic principles and instructional methods for science education and the physics-teaching-methods course, which are taught in the first semester of the third and fourth years, respectively.
The course was divided into two parts for teaching biology and chemistry, which were taught separately by two instructors. The first author of this paper was responsible for the first (biology) part, which was central to this study. The instructor who taught the second (chemistry) part did not participate in the study. The first part, which lasted eight weeks (see Table 1), consisted of two 3-hour periods on Monday and Thursday evenings from late November 2022 to early January 2023 (48 h in total). This part was designed to provide pre-service teachers with experience in lesson planning and teaching rehearsals, given the importance of authentic experience in shaping their professional identities (Sutherland & Markauskaite, 2012). The expectation was that, by encountering and overcoming the challenges in teaching out of field (Tsybulsky & Muhnik-Rozanov, 2019), pre-service teachers would strengthen their professional identities (Lamote & Engles, 2010). They worked in pairs, because peer collaboration can serve as support for them (Nguyen & Loughland, 2018).
Table 1. Overview of course activities
Week | Activity |
|---|---|
1 | Introducing the course and revisiting the basics of science learning, along with future-oriented thinking related to out-of-field teaching |
2 | Analyzing biological content in the basic education core curriculum and exploring possible connections between biology, physics, and other fields of science |
3 | Reviewing scientific literacy and the 5Es inquiry model as an instructional approach to science education |
4 | Demonstrating inquiry-based instruction on a biological topic while encouraging integration with other topics of science |
5 | Preparing instructional resources (e.g., various types of models) for teaching biology |
6–8 | Rehearsing biology teaching in pairs followed by reflection |
Before engaging in lesson design and teaching rehearsals, it was considered useful to review and introduce theoretical perspectives to pre-service teachers to ensure meaningful reflection on this experience. As such, the first week focused on the constructivist nature of science learning. In this week, using future-oriented thinking (Hamman et al., 2013), pre-service teachers were also encouraged to envision themselves as out-of-field teachers (Siribanpitak, 2018). Conflicts or tension associated with out-of-field teaching were then discussed in terms of how to manage them (Magen-Nagar & Steinberger, 2022). The second week subsequently focused on analyzing biological content in the Basic Education Core Curriculum (Bureau of Academic Affairs and Educational Standards, 2017). Through this curricular analysis, pre-service teachers explored conceptual connections between biology and other fields of science, particularly physics. The third week centered on scientific literacy and 5E inquiry as a key instructional model (Bybee, 2019).
Since pre-service teachers needed two weeks to design and prepare their lessons before teaching rehearsals, one week was dedicated to demonstrating inquiry-based instruction. This approach aimed to help them experience biology learning through inquiry from a student’s perspective. The demonstration focused on the topic of human fertilization (Ladachart et al., 2022), where they explored the question of how sperm find an egg in the female reproduction system using scientific evidence. In the next week, the instructor introduced the instructional resources of biology teaching—primarily physical, pictural, and three-dimensional models, including simulations (Ladachart & Ladachart, 2018). During these two weeks, outside of class time, each pair of pre-service teachers designed their biological lessons using the 5Es instructional model. The instructor provided feedback to help them refine their lessons and enhance key aspects of inquiry-based instruction (e.g., asking questions, seeking empirical evidence, formulating evidence-based explanations, and reasoning).
The remaining three weeks were devoted to teaching rehearsals. According to Lampert et al. (2013, p. 227), a teaching rehearsal “can involve [pre-service teachers] in publicly and deliberately practicing how to teach rigorous content to particular students using particular instructional activities,” which differs from micro-teaching, wherein pre-service teachers “practice an instructional segment, typically between 5 and 15 min in length, without interjection or intervention by peers or a [teacher educator]” (ibid, p. 239). In this study, each pair of pre-service teachers took turns enacting their biological lessons with classmates who assumed the role of students because the course was conducted in the university. Once a teaching rehearsal by a pair of pre-service teachers was completed, it was followed by collective reflection. Grounded in mastery experience, vicarious experience, and verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1977, the teaching rehearsals aimed to enhance pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching and to strengthen their professional identities (Lamote & Engles, 2010).
Participants
A third-year cohort of 24 pre-service teachers (10 male and 14 female) registered for the out-of-field teaching course in the 2022 academic year. All of them volunteered to participate in this study with an incentive of 200 THB each. In their third year, the participants completed several courses, which included general courses (e.g., language, information technology, and citizenship), specialized courses in education (e.g., curriculum management, educational psychology, educational evaluation, and educational technology), and specialized courses in subjects (e.g., classical mechanics, waves, electromagnetics, and thermodynamics). The participants also passed two courses for short-term practicum in schools. In the previous semester, they finished the course focusing on fundamental principles and instructional methods in science education. However, they had not yet completed the courses focusing on educational research and the physics teaching-methods course. Despite their lack of experience in the latter course, they had practiced the micro-teaching of physics during their courses focusing on students’ prior understandings of physics concepts.
Instruments
Hanna et al.’s (2020) questionnaire was used to quantitatively measure pre-service teachers’ professional identities. The questionnaire, based on a comprehensive review of existing instruments in the relevant literature (Hanna et al., 2019), originally measured four components of pre-service teachers’ professional identities: motivation, task perception, self-image, and self-efficacy. According to Kelchterman’s (2009) notion, on which this questionnaire is based, motivation refers to “the motives or drives that make [an individual] choose to become a teacher, to stay in teaching, or to give it up for another career” (p. 262), task perception represents “the teacher’s idea of what constitutes his/her professional program,… tasks, and duties in order to do a good job” (p. 262), and self-image reflects “the way teachers typify themselves as teachers” (p. 261). Instead of self-esteem, which is “the teacher’s appreciation of his/her actual job performance” (p. 262), another component in the questionnaire is self-efficacy, which, according to Hanna et al. (2019, p. 21), means “teachers’ belief in their capability to organize and perform their daily teaching activities effectively.”
However, one component in the questionnaire—task perception—was excluded from this study because it was shown to be “the weakest link” to pre-service teachers’ professional identities, compared to the other components (Hanna, 2020, p. 121). Moreover, while this component covers a broad range of teachers’ tasks, such as teaching students critical thinking, social skills, and cultural differences, it does not include out-of-field teaching. In adapting this questionnaire, which was originally designed to measure the professional identities of pre-service teachers preparing for elementary education, the term “elementary” was removed during the translation. Given prior research suggesting that no significant differences exist between pre-service teachers’ professional identities as general teachers and science teachers (Pulsawad et al., 2025), the questionnaire, once adapted, aimed to measure pre-service teachers’ professional identities only as general teachers. The differences between their professional identities as physics and biology teachers were not measured.
The questionnaire was designed using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) consisting of 21 items, with seven items for each of the three components: motivation, self-image, and self-efficacy. These items were translated from English to Thai. Examples of these items are as follows: for motivation, one item asks the extent to which “I want to become a teacher because I like teaching”; for self-image, one item asks the extent to which “I see myself as a teacher”; and for self-efficacy, one item asks the extent to which “I can implement alternative strategies in my classroom.” To ensure accuracy, the meanings of the items in the two languages were repeatedly checked by three educators before being piloted by 17 pre-service teachers majoring in biology who studied at the faculty in the same year as the participants. This process yielded acceptable reliability as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha. Specifically, the values for motivation, self-image, and self-efficacy, respectively, were 0.78, 0.80, and 0.76, with an overall value of 0.87.
Semi-structured interviews were designed to conduct with individual participants after analyzing quantitative data. Given the positive impact of out-of-field teaching on participants’ professional identities (described below), the interviews aimed to ascertain which experiences in the course influenced their professional identities in terms of motivation, self-image, and self-efficacy. Table 2 outlines the key questions used to initiate and guide the interviews. It is important to note that although out-of-field teaching was central to the course, it was not explicitly mentioned during the interviews unless the participants referred to it themselves. In such cases, the participants were asked to elaborate and provide examples of how out-of-field teaching facilitated their professional identities. Specifically, they were asked about the difference between physics and biology and how this affected them when designing and enacting lessons. The participants were also asked to reflect on their experiences with out-of-field teaching, particularly compared to their in-field teaching experience.
Table 2. Questions used during the interview
Number | Question |
|---|---|
1 | After the first half of this course, how did you feel about being a teacher? |
2 | What experiences motivated you more to become a teacher? |
3 | What experiences helped you imagine yourself as a teacher more clearly? |
4 | What experiences made you believe more in your ability as a teacher? |
Data collection
Participants were introduced to the study in the first week of the course. The study’s rationale and objectives were described, and their consent for participation was sought. The participants were also informed about the ethical approval of conducting the study and, after giving their consent, were asked to complete the questionnaire in a paper-based format. They were informed that their responses would be kept confidential and would not affect their course scores. This process lasted about 30 min. When all activities in the first part of the course were finished, the participants were asked to complete the questionnaire once again. However, an online format was used as homework to prevent the participants from hastily finishing or not returning the questionnaire due to lack of time in the final week. Even so, one male participant did not complete the post-measurement and was thus excluded from the study. Because there was no mid-term examination for this course, appointments were made to interview all 23 participants during this time based on their availability.
Data analysis and validation
The quantitative data was analyzed using JASP (Goss-Sampson, 2020) before analyzing the qualitative data. The quantitative analysis began with rechecking the questionnaire’s reliability using actual data. This process yielded Cronbach’s alphas of 0.86, 0.87, and 0.85 in pre-measurement for motivation, self-image, and self-efficacy, respectively. Likewise, values of 0.85, 094, and 0.89 were obtained for motivation, self-image, and self-efficacy in post-measurement. Hence, the reliability of the overall questionnaire was 0.93 and 0.96 for the pre- and post-measurements, respectively. The means and standard deviations were subsequently calculated for each component in both measurements. Using Shapiro-Wilk tests, the normal distribution in both datasets was examined and confirmed (p >.05). As such, paired-samples t-tests were used to compare whether the means of each component in post-measurement were significantly greater than the respective means in pre-measurement. If a significant difference was detected, Cohen’s d was computed for a value of effect size.
After obtaining the quantitative results, the qualitative data was analyzed using analytic induction. Erickson (2012, p. 1460) describes this as a “recursive process of reviewing evidence with an assertion in mind, revising the assertion in light of the evidence, and then reviewing the evidence again.” As this study employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), the qualitative analysis aimed to explain the quantitative findings and was thus guided by them. To prepare the qualitative data, two trained assistants transcribed all interview responses verbatim. Because the first author collected the data and taught the course, the second author initially analyzed the transcriptions, as he did not know the participants and was therefore less likely to introduce bias toward the participants. Moreover, with a background in physics, he had spent a decade teaching pre-service teachers majoring in biology. This experience made him sensitive to how the participants majoring in physics might perceive teaching biology outside their field.
In analyzing the qualitative data, the second author repeatedly read the transcripts to develop a general understanding of the participants’ perspectives and to construct themes that explained how the course fostered their professional identities. During this process, particular attention was paid to transcripts related to teaching out of field and professional identity. Because pre-service teachers tend to develop their professional identities when they encounter, cope with, and overcome challenges related to teaching (Tsybulsky & Muhnik-Rozanov, 2019), the second author focused on challenges related to biology teaching when coding the data. It became evident that most participants initially had negative perceptions of biology. However, the course helped them change these perceptions, recognize how teaching biology could be useful in their professional lives, and increase their self-efficacy in teaching the subject. As the analysis progressed, three themes emerged (see below). The two authors then discussed these themes until consensus was reached.
Regarding experiences in the course that fostered the participants’ professional identities, the second author used Bandura’s (1977) sources of self-efficacy (e.g., mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal) as an initial framework, given that self-efficacy in teaching, as part of professional identity (Hanna et al., 2019), was prominently expressed in the interviews. In this study, “mastery experience” refers to the experience of designing and enacting biological lessons with classmates, while “vicarious experience” refers to the experience of observing classmates teaching biology. However, rather than explicitly mentioning verbal persuasion and emotional arousal during the interviews, the participants attributed the overall atmosphere of the course as a source of self-efficacy in teaching and professional identity. As a result, these two sources from the initial framework were not directly coded but instead merged under the broader code of “psychological environment.” The two authors again discussed these findings to achieve consensus.
Multiple strategies were employed to enhance the trustworthiness of the qualitative results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). First, since qualitative data was collected alongside quantitative data, this study incorporated data source triangulation as part of mixed-methods research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Second, interviews were conducted not at the beginning but after the first half of the course. The first author thus had ample opportunities to build rapport with participants. This strategy contributed to prolonged engagement, as participants observed throughout the course that they were free to express their feelings and perspectives. Third, the qualitative data was analyzed by the second author, who was not involved in the course. This strategy helped mitigate potential bias toward the participants. Finally, during the qualitative analysis, the second author maintained an audit trail documenting how the data was processed, transformed, and used to generate tentative results. This strategy fostered reflexivity and conducted peer debriefing with the first author.
Research results
This mixed-methods study examined whether and how a course on teaching biology out of field influenced the professional identities of 23 pre-service teachers majoring in physics. Quantitative data was gathered using a Likert-type questionnaire measuring three components (i.e., motivation, self-image, and self-efficacy) and analyzed using statistical methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant to obtain qualitative data, which was analyzed using analytic induction to identify themes that explained the quantitative tendencies. Given the study’s design, quantitative findings were presented before qualitative results. Three themes illustrate how the participants developed their professional identities in the course. Specifically, they (1) changed their perceptions of biology, (2) broadened their views on science teaching, and (3) increased their self-efficacy for biology teaching. In addition to these themes, experiences facilitating these changes were reported. Each participant is designated as “M” (male) or “F” (female), followed by a number.
Quantitative findings
The descriptive results show that participants improved their professional identities (see Fig. 1). Specifically, they were more motivated to become teachers, with the mean of their scores changing from 3.24 (SD = 0.77) to 3.57 (SD = 0.79) in pre- and post-measurements, respectively. The participants also imagined themselves as teachers more clearly, as evidenced by the change in their averaged scores from 3.44 (SD = 0.87) to 3.73 (SD = 1.00) before and after engaging in the course. Likewise, they tended to be more self-efficacious about being teachers when the mean of their scores increased from 3.70 (SD = 0.60) to 3.86 (SD = 0.67) in the pre- and post-measurements, respectively. However, inferential statistics indicated that only changes in motivation (t (22) = 3.725, p <.001) and self-image (t (22) = 2.547, p =.009) were significant, with the values of effect size being 0.777 (large) and 0.531 (medium), respectively. Although the change in self-efficacy was insignificant (t (22) = 1.467, p =.078), the course, overall, fostered participants’ professional identities.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
Changes in professional identities
Qualitative results
In alignment with the quantitative findings, the qualitative analysis suggested that the course contributed to the development of participants’ professional identities. However, their perceptions on this development varied, depending on how they viewed what it means to be a teacher. Generally, the participants credited feedback from classmates—who acted as their students during teaching rehearsals—as a key factor in shaping their professional identities. For example, although M04 stated that his motivation to become a teacher “slightly increase[d]” because he has “want[ed] to be a teacher for a long time”, he acknowledged that seeing students enjoy his teaching provided encouragement: “We [he and his partner] have seen students enjoy our teaching. We have more encouragement and then want to teach.” Similarly, F17 linked her development to the success of designing and implementing a lesson, while F12 specifically emphasized the value of being oneself and using one’s own ideas in that lesson. See Excerpts 1 and 2 in supplementary materials for their perspectives.
Notably, although the participants might not have explicitly specified the topics of the lessons they designed and implemented in the course, they focused on biological content. Without this specification, it was likely that the experience in designing and implementing lessons, whether in or out of field, could increase the participants’ professional identities. Not overtly mentioning biology as the subject of teaching rehearsals was understandable, however, as the questions during the interviews did not ask participants about this issue. Despite this, a few participants referred to teaching biology out of field as a key contributor to their professional identities. They reported that this teaching provided an opportunity to enhance their professional identities. For example, as the following excerpt illustrates, F01 stated that the experience of out-of-field teaching helped prepare her readiness to become teachers and that teaching unfamiliar content facilitated their professional growth. See Excerpts 3 and 4 in supplementary materials for more examples.
As I got to teach biology, which almost opposite to or do not match my major… I counted that it was a challenging experience… I think that teaching content at which I am not very good helps develop my teacherness in several ways. Firstly, as we have to study content at which we are not very good at all, we can certainly learn new things. Developing one’s new knowledge of that content helps create motivation for our continuous development. [It] makes us feel more excited and inspired to teach. Moreover, teaching unfamiliar content forces us to practice ways to design [activities] in classrooms, methods to communicate with students, [and] invent new approaches to teaching. If these are successful – we can teach content that is not our major… I feel more confident in that content. Even though I am a physics teacher, I can teach biology. I can make my student effectively learn. The experience in your course is really helpful. It also makes me better see the roles of teachers, not just as a physics teacher but a science teacher as well. (F01)
Changing perceptions of biology
The first theme of the qualitative results is that participants changed their perceptions of biology. Many admitted that, prior to this course, they did not like biology because of past experiences learning this subject via rote memorization. For example, F10 described her attitude: “I feel that biology is a subject that, to be honest, is boring because it is quite a lot of memorization, even though it is really close to us.” Likewise, F17 mentioned: “Before studying [this course], directly saying, I don’t like biology much because I think it’s only about memorizing. There’s a lot of content that I don’t know [but have to] memorize. There were seldom experiments at school.” While biology interested some participants, the prospect of memorization deterred them from choosing it as a major, as F16 recalled: “I hesitated to choose biology or physics. Because I can only remember things shortly and then forget, it’s better to choose physics.” As a result of this perception, many participants, such as M05, tended to believe that teaching biology involved presenting students with content to memorize.
I personally feel that I hate biology. In secondary education, biology and chemistry is something like a very nightmare. It only has memorization… It makes me feel if I can teach. Because I rather hate [biology], I initially thought that children won’t think anything much about biology. Just teach. Read for them to listen. This was the idea in my head at first. Just like the way the teachers at my school did. (M05)
After being introduced to strategies and resources for teaching biology, as well as learning biology through demonstrations of inquiry-based instruction in the course, several participants revealed that their perceptions of biology and how to teach it had changed. For example, after engaging in a hands-on activity of creating edible cell models to learn about cell structure, M18 shared that the course “opened the world” for him: “Since I had learned biology, I had never done anything like this.… It’s exposure to experience that there is this way of teaching [by which] the teacher used foods to attract children’s interest.” Moreover, as the participants were encouraged to design and enact lessons in ways that were meaningful and relevant to students, some realized that learning biology can transcend memorization. Additionally, by experiencing such meaningful and relevant lessons, others gained deeper appreciation for the importance of learning biology in their own lives. The following excerpts, as expressed by F16 and M19, are examples that illustrate these shifts in perception.
Previously, throughout my secondary education, I had always memorized if [the subject] is biology. I didn’t use understanding. Once I studied this course, when writing a lesson plan, you said that we must understand first. When we figured it out, I felt that, well, biology is fun. It’s not only memorization. If we understand its principles… we can continue [learning]. (F16)
I got inspired to look after myself because biology is very important to life… As I got to learn biology and how to teach it, it makes me want to learn more about biology, not leaving it since Grade 12 that I focused only on physics. (M19)
Broadening views on science teaching
The second theme is that participants broadened their views on science teaching. Before the course, they were aware that “biology is different from physics” (M22) and thus requires “different styles” (F01) of teaching. Specifically, the participants tended to believe that physics can be taught with emphasis on lecture, calculation, and laboratory. F03 made this point explicit as she said: “Initially, we teach like lecture having some calculation and laboratory. Just like that and end.” During the course, they learned several methods to teach biology with emphasis on hands-on activities, group discussion, and multi-modal media. M08 reflected on what he learned about teaching biology: “It must visualize [by] making models. Then, let students do hands-on activities. We see these clearly.” In learning such approaches to teaching biology, F03 acknowledged that she can enhance “teaching skills and additional processes [in terms of] how to make all content a new form of learning when designing activities [in ways that] knowledge can emerge from doing the activities together.”
Based on their learning of approaches to teaching biology, several participants envisioned the potential of “applying them for teaching physics as well” (F03), as they gained “new perspectives to be included with our original ideas (and) lesson plans of physics that we tried to do” (M21). For example, F10 recalled being emphasized to teach biology through activities, which later inspired her to extend this idea to physics: “If [biology is] taught through activities, children may be more okay. I think it’s true not only biology but also our subject. If we can make physics and mathematics in forms of activities, children may understand.” Likewise, M04 stated that “physics [teaching] has theories, equations, calculations, and then problem-solving. But, when learning [to teach] biology, you focused on increasingly using media. I came to think that, if we add media into physics [teaching], how would it be?” Moreover, by learning to teach biology in addition to physics, this participant also thought of integrating multiple subjects, which can support his professional growth.
Before this [course], biology is a subject that I don’t like. But, once we get to teach, we feel that we can do it. Then, I want to connect biology and physics together. I feel that if we can connect them in a simplest form [e.g., explaining air pressure in a respirational system], we will self-develop. The developmental process in future, I feel, will be good. (M04)
Increasing self-efficacy to teach biology
The third theme is the increase in participants’ self-efficacy to teach biology. Because biology was not their major, some admitted that they had not studied the subject since the 12th grade. As a result, they felt pressured or unable to teach biology at the beginning of the course. However, as they studied in the course, the participants expressed greater confidence in their ability to teach the subject. The reasons for this increased confidence, which varied among individuals, included learning instructional techniques, gaining a better understanding of biological content, and acquiring more teaching experience. Regarding instructional techniques, F20 stated: “Before studying with you, we certainly felt [that we are] unable to teach biology. Because we study physics, we know that we cannot teach [biology] well. But, after you explained [and] taught many techniques, the feeling is like more confidence.” Similarly, as shown in the excerpt below, F16 highlighted her improvement in biological knowledge and teaching experience. See also Excerpt 5 in supplementary materials.
Before studying, [I felt] pressured, very pressured, feeling unable to do it. It’s a subject that we haven’t meet for almost three years. We stopped [studying biology] since the twelfth grade. We have never touched it at all. It became pressure that how well we can do it because we feel inaccurate in content [knowledge]. When teaching [biology], as we had a chance to choose a topic, we then chose a topic that we think we can do well. As we keep studying, [we] feel [that it is] understandable [and be] more confident. We think that, if we try to understand it well, I can do it. (F16)
Despite their increased confidence in teaching biology, the participants were aware that they were not fully ready to teach the subject. The participants were still concerned with the limitations of their biological knowledge. They thus required more effort and time to prepare effective lessons. F02 raised this point explicitly: “To be honest… I don’t feel that I know [biology] deeply… I don’t know how much I must prepare [a lesson], so it’s ready for actually teaching children.” In expressing this concern, she continued, highlighting that “being able to teach and being confident to teach are not the same.” In a similar vein, while feeling “more confident” to teach biology, M04 mentioned that he was “not good at biology”; thus, teaching biology was still “difficult” for him. It was the experience in the course that just made him “like” and begin “to catch the steps” of teaching biology. Nonetheless, F07 agreed that the increased confidence in teaching biology enhances their confidence to teach physics and other subjects. See Excerpt 6 in supplementary materials for another example.
I feel more confident not only in biology but also even physics that I currently study. Previously, we hadn’t tried to do or think. We then felt if we can do. But, once we tried to write [a lesson plan] and make it, we felt that it’s possible. So, we are more confident. (F07)
Experiences attributed to positive changes
Particular experiences fueled participants’ self-efficacy for teaching biology. The most frequently mentioned factor was mastery experience in teaching biology. For example, M04 initially expressed his concern while preparing a lesson but later described the experience as enjoyable after implementing it with classmates: “It seemed that they are also not good [at biology]. They wanted to listen to and get new knowledge from us. [They] wanted to get new teaching methods… We were happy while teaching, and I am more confident.” Similarly, M06 stated: “Once, we tried with our friends, we saw that they were interested in [and] had a better understanding of what we taught. [The experience] that we taught may be what increased our confidence.” In addition to mastery experience, vicarious experience was also mentioned. While playing the role of students, participants observed their friends’ achievements in teaching biology. This observation helped them believe in their own potential to overcome the challenges of teaching biology, as F03 explicitly described:
What made me more confident, I think, is friends. Because we personally thought that we cannot do [biology teaching] all along. Once, I saw friends [and] their teaching methods. Moreover, [I] got to work in group. These made us more understand that, if we don’t open minds to learn it, we will finally fear it all along. (F03)
The psychological atmosphere of the course was acknowledged by some participants as supportive for the development of their self-efficacy to teach biology. They were more relaxed and less concerned about making mistakes in teaching biology compared to physics, as M04 noted: “I felt that I can make more mistakes [when teaching biology] than when teaching physics. It’s more relaxing.” In this regard, F07 added that such a relaxing atmosphere occurred because of the course’s instructor: “Once we designed an activity… you did not blame that this doesn’t work, but… give advice or tell what should be improved… You did not block [ideas]. [We] felt confident to make it.” Likewise, F20 stated: “I felt that you are open for [new ideas and] let students think creatively to design [an activity]. There was no limited boundary, but [the content of that activity] must be correct.” Similarly, F11 mentioned: “You respect children’s ideas. Whatever children think, you did not interrupt that it must be like this or this. You listen and just suggest what to be added.”
Discussion
While out-of-field teaching is a common phenomenon (Price et al., 2019), it is often overlooked in many countries (Luft et al., 2020). This phenomenon is also present in Thailand, where the oversupply of teachers coincides with out-of-field teaching (Siribanpitak, 2018), due to rigid teacher deployment procedures (OECD/UNESCO, 2016) and teachers’ preference for working in cities (Pholphirul et al., 2023). As a result, pre-service teachers are likely to encounter out-of-field teaching in the future, particularly when assigned to rural schools as novice teachers. In response to this challenge, a course aimed at preparing pre-service teachers for this seemingly inevitable situation was initiated in a teacher education program. Using a mixed-methods approach, this study examined the influence of the course on pre-service teachers’ professional identities across three dimensions: motivation to be a teacher, self-image as a teacher, and self-efficacy in teaching. Pre-service physics teachers (N = 23) who learned to teach biology in the course participated in the study.
Based on data collected from a Likert-type scale developed by Hanna et al. (2020), the quantitative findings of this study reveal that the participants significantly improved their motivation to become teachers and their self-image as teachers after the eight weeks of the course. Given that motivation and self-image constitute a teacher’s professional identity (Hanna et al., 2019), these results extend prior research on in-service teachers (Mizzi, 2021), demonstrating that experience in teaching out of field can be conductive to the development of pre-service teachers’ professional identities, although it occurred as part of a university-based course rather than in actual classrooms. However, the participants did not show significant improvement in their self-efficacy in teaching. This finding appears to contradict the qualitative results of this study. Yet, consistent with prior research on in-service teachers, the participants verbally reported feeling more confident about out-of-field teaching (Donitsa-Schmidt et al., 2021), while still being concerned about their lack of knowledge (Sanders et al., 1993).
Overall, the quantitative findings of this study contradict the results of Prabjandee’s (2020) research, which focused on pre-service teachers majoring in English as a foreign language in a Thai context. In that study, pre-service teachers across different years in a teacher education program rarely differed in their professional identities, which implies that the coursework was ineffective in fostering this development. In contrast, the participants in this study exhibited a stronger sense of professional identity within a single course. This contradiction suggests that the quality of the experiences in a teacher education program may be more important than its duration. Given that teacher education programs in Thailand have emphasized theory over practice (Faikhamta et al., 2018), pre-service teachers may perceive theoretical coursework as lacking authenticity. The focus on out-of-field teaching in this study’s course may contribute to the participants’ sense of authenticity, which is beneficial for the development of their professional identities (Sutherland & Markauskaite, 2012).
This study demonstrates that learning to teach out of field, once integrated into a teacher education program, can afford a unique opportunity to strengthen pre-service teachers’ professional identities. In addition to its authenticity perceived by pre-service teachers, out-of-field teaching presents challenges that they must navigate and overcome. For example, they must develop content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge for teaching out of field (Donitsa-Schmidt et al., 2021). Moreover, they may need to shift their perceptions of the out-of-field subject (Mizzi, 2021). In their study on pre-service teachers learning to implement project-based learning, Tsybulsky and Muhnik-Rozanov (2019) found that pre-service teachers developed their professional identities after they faced, coped with, and overcame the difficulties in enacting project-based lessons. This idea is supported in this study in that encountering, managing, and overcoming challenges related to teaching out of field helped pre-service teachers develop their professional identities.
This study highlights the importance of support in helping pre-service teachers overcome challenges related to teaching out of field and subsequently developing their professional identities. Since pre-service teachers often choose their major based on interest in a particular subject, they may less be interested in subjects outside their field (Havia et al., 2023). This issue is particularly relevant in Thailand, where teacher education programs now offer only majors, unlike in the past, when they also included minors (Siribanpitak, 2018). Initially, pre-service teachers may have negative perceptions of an out-of-field subject and feel concerned about teaching it. Early support should help them envision out-of-field teaching as part of their professional lives, improve their perceptions of an out-of-field subject they are likely to teach, and provide learning experiences that illustrate how knowledge in the out-of-field subject is developed (e.g., through inquiry). Pre-service teachers may also need support in understanding how the out-of-field subject can enhance their in-field learning.
In line with Lampert et al.’s (2013) study, the most influential factors that empowered pre-service teachers’ professional identities appear to be mastery and vicarious experiences in teaching out of field. According to Bandura’s (1982, p. 126) theory of self-efficacy, the mastery experience is “enactive attainments” in performing specific tasks, while the vicarious experience refers to “seeing similar others perform successfully.” In this study, pre-service teachers had mastery experience teaching out of field and vicarious experience observing classmates’ achievements in teaching out of field. Both types of experiences helped increase their self-efficacy to teach out of field. With the increase in self-efficacy to teach out of field, it is likely their professional identities will develop (Mizzi, 2021). These experiences occurred in a psychological environment where pre-service teachers were supported in using creative ideas in their lessons. Moreover, they worked in pairs as additional support (Nguyen & Loughland, 2018) to teach out-of-field content.
Hobbs (2013) asserts that out-of-field teaching requires in-service teachers to reconstruct and expand their professional identities. The reconstruction and expansion of in-service teachers’ professional identities are also likely to manifest when they design and implement integrated approaches to science education (Cirkel et al., 2024), which often require them to teach out of field (Crisan & Hobbs, 2019). Such a change in pre-service teachers’ professional identities for out-of-field teaching is evident in this study. Some participants began considering integrating or connecting out-of-field subjects into their in-field subject. Through their experience in teaching biology out of field, they broadened their views on science teaching, which were not limited to only physics. Given a variation in scientific practices and ways of knowing, such as experimental physics and historical biology (Gray, 2014), the broadened views on science teaching and the shift in professional identities benefit both out-of-field science teaching in siloed disciplines and interdisciplinary science education.
Research on in-service teachers suggests that out-of-field teaching, especially without support, can inhibit professional growth (Du Plessis, 2020) because it requires additional time studying and preparing to teach unfamiliar subjects (Sanders et al., 1993). Moreover, out-of-field teaching can complicate challenges, such as working with students, colleagues, principles, and parents (Steyn & Du Plessis, 2007), particularly for those who are newly hired and have just begun the process of familiarizing themselves with the teaching profession (Napier et al., 2020). However, this study illustrates that pre-service teachers perceive out-of-field teaching as an opportunity for professional growth. They are eager to learn to teach out of field, as this learning is viewed as enhancing their ability to teach in-field and create integrated lessons. With no experience teaching out of field in real situations, pre-service teachers may be more optimistic about out-of-field teaching when compared to in-service teachers who have actual experience teaching out of field, as the literature indicates.
In this study, the quantitative findings indicate that participants did not significantly improve their self-efficacy to teach out of field. However, the qualitative results show an increase in this aspect. This inconsistency between quantitative and qualitative results may stem from several factors in combination. First, the participants expressed in the interviews that they were still concerned about having insufficient knowledge for teaching biology out of field. While this concern was not measured by the Likert-type questionnaire, it might have obscured the participants’ quantitative gains in their self-efficacy in teaching. Second, compared to the other two dimensions, self-efficacy in teaching had the highest scores prior to the course. The lack of significant improvement could partly be due to a ceiling effect (Garin, 2014). Finally, given the p value for this dimension (0.078) being close to the significance threshold (0.05), the small sample size may also have limited the statistical power needed to detect significant development (Wilson & Morgan, 2007).
Implications
Teacher education programs can serve as “the ideal starting point” for developing pre-service teachers’ professional identities (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009, p. 186). This study demonstrates that incorporating an out-of-field course into such programs can support this development. The course should center on teaching rehearsals, in which pre-service teachers create, implement, and reflect on their own lessons, as well as observe those of others (Lampert et al., 2013). In addition to raising pre-service teachers’ awareness of out-of-field teaching (Hobbs & Porsch, 2021), a supportive environment is essential to help them overcome initial concerns about teaching out of field. Like in-service teachers (Sanders et al., 1993; Singh et al., 2021), pre-service teachers need to acquire the knowledge necessary for out-of-field teaching, which can increase their self-efficacy, confidence, enjoyment, and motivation to teach out of field (Donitsa-Schmidt et al., 2021; Hobbs & Quinn, 2021). These gains can, in turn, reinforce their professional identities (Hobbs, 2013; Mizzi, 2021).
Although this study highlights the benefits of an out-of-field teaching course on pre-service teachers’ professional identities, it does not suggest that out-of-field teaching is unproblematic. Teachers should be assigned to teach within their area of specialization to the extent possible. However, when out-of-field teaching is inevitable (Siribanpitak, 2018)—particularly in contexts such as rural or underprivileged schools in Thailand with mixed-grade classes (Pholphirul et al., 2023)—a coordinated effort among stakeholders (e.g., teacher educators, school principals, and teachers likely to teach out-of-field) is necessary to organize professional development that addresses the issue. Teacher education institutes should also collaborate with organizations responsible for teacher deployment and development to create long-term solutions. The characteristics of the course in this study may inform the design of professional development programs for out-of-field teachers, particularly novice teachers, who might benefit from this experience as an opportunity for professional growth.
Limitations
Several limitations of this study must be acknowledged before its results are applied in other settings. First, although teachers’ professional identities can be examined from various perspectives (Zhai et al., 2024), this study focused on only one aspect of pre-service teachers’ professional identities. As such, other dimensions, such as historical and sociocultural factors, were not fully explored. Second, this study measured pre-service teachers’ professional identities in a general sense and does not differentiate their professional identities as physics, biology, or science teachers. Third, despite the disciplinary specificity of teachers’ professional identities (Thompson, 2023), this study did not directly measure pre-service teachers’ disciplinary identities with in- and out-of-field subjects. Fourth, this study employed a Likert-type scale (Hanna et al., 2020) whose psychometric properties may differ from those of other instruments (e.g., Cheung, 2008). In light of these limitations, this study responds to the call from Zhai et al. (2024) for increased use of mixed-methods research.
In addition to the methodological limitations, the contextual uniqueness of this study cannot be ignored. The pre-service teachers who participated in this study were from a faculty of education in a Thai university. They cannot represent other pre-service teachers, even in the same faculty, university, or country. For example, given the “hard–soft spectrum within science subjects” (Chen et al., 2020, p. 77), physics is placed on the “hard” end, while biology is placed on the “soft” end. Pre-service physics teachers may feel more ease teaching biology than vice versa. Moreover, other learning experiences or the increased maturity of pre-service teachers during the study may affect their professional identities. Additionally, the pedagogical conditions of the course (e.g., timeframe and duration) may influence this study’s results. Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable insights into how a course that prepares pre-service teachers to teach out of field can be designed and integrated into a teacher education program to develop their professional identities.
Conclusions
This mixed-methods research demonstrates that a university-based course on teaching biology out of field can strengthen pre-service physics teachers’ professional identities, as reflected in their motivation, self-image, and self-efficacy for teaching. The study also highlights the role of mastery and vicarious experiences within supportive environments in facilitating this development. These experiences help pre-service physics teachers develop positive perceptions of biology, broaden their views of science teaching, and increase their self-efficacy for teaching. Experiences in teaching out of field not only support pre-service teachers in teaching their own discipline but also encourage interdisciplinary instruction. As such, this research recommends that teacher education programs incorporate such courses to better prepare pre-service teachers for out-of-field teaching and integrated science education. By fostering a strong sense of professional identity, such courses may help mitigate stress and challenges associated with teaching outside one’s area of specialization.
Author contributions
LL is responsible for funding acquisition, data collection, data analysis, and writing the manuscript. LL is responsible for conceptualization, methodological design, data analysis, and reviewing the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethical approval
This research was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles approved by Chiang Mai University Research Ethics Committee (Code Number: COA No. 034/66).
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Avraamidou, L. Studying science teacher identity: Current insights and future research directions. Studies in Science Education; 2014; 50,
Avraamidou, L. Tracing a beginning elementary teacher’s development of identity for science teaching. Journal of Teacher Education; 2014; 65,
Badia, A. Three teacher identities in two school education systems: Catalonia and Peru. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education; 2023; 53,
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review; 1977; 84,
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist; 1982; 37,
Beauchamp, C; Thomas, L. Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issue in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education; 2009; 39,
Beijaard, D; Meijer, PC; Verloop, N. Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2004; 20,
Berry, A., Depaepe, F., & van Driel, J. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 347–386). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0366-0_9
Bureau of Academic Affairs and Educational Standards. (2017). Indicators and core learning content in science according to the basic education core curriculum B.E. 2551 (revised version B.E. 2560). Press of the Agricultural Co-operative Federation of Thailand.
Bybee, RW. Guest editorial: Using the BSCS 5E instructional model to introduce STEM disciplines. Science and Children; 2019; 56,
Campbell, C., Porsch, R., & Hobbs, L. (2019). Initial teacher education: Roles and possibilities for preparing capable teachers. In L. Hobbs & G. Torner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of teaching out-of-field: international perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist (pp. 243–267). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_10
Chen, JL; Mensah, FM. Teaching contexts that influence elementary preservice teachers’ teaching and science teacher identity development. Journal of Science Teacher Education; 2018; 29,
Chen, C; Sonnert, G; Sadler, PM. The effect of first high school science teacher’s gender and gender matching on students’ science identity in college. Science Education; 2020; 104,
Cheung, HY. Measuring the professional identity of Hong Kong in-service teachers. Journal of In-Service Education; 2008; 34,
Chung-Parsons, R; Bailey, JM. The hierarchical (not fluid) nature of preservice secondary science teachers’ perceptions of their science teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2019; 78, pp. 39-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.007]
Cirkel, J., Halverscheid, S., & Schneider, S. (2024). March 14–15). Embracing multidisciplinarity: exploring challenges and identities of teachers in the subject integrated sciences [Paper presentation]. New Perspectives in Science Education 13th Edition - International Conference, Florence, Italy. https://conference.pixel-online.net/files/npse/ed0013/FP/3595-TPD6348-FP-NPSE13.pdf
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (fifth edition). Sage.
Crisan, C., & Hobbs, L. (2019). Subject-specific demand of teaching: Implications for out-of-field teachers. In L. Hobbs & G. Torner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of teaching out-of-field: International perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist (pp. 151–178). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_6
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analyss Archives, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000. Article number 1.
Donitsa-Schmidt, S; ZuZovsky, R; Topaz, B. Becoming an in-field teacher in israel: Motivations and knowledge of out-of-field science teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education; 2021; 44,
Du Plessis, AE. The lived experience of out-of-field STEM teachers: A quandary for strategizing quality teaching in STEM?. Research in Science Education; 2020; 50,
Du Plessis, A; Carroll, A; Gillies, RM. Understanding the lived experiences of novice out-of-field teachers in relation to school leadership practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education; 2015; 43,
Enyedy, N; Goldberg, J; Welsh, KM. Complex dilemmas of identity and practice. Science Education; 2006; 90,
Erickson, F. (2012). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1451–1469). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7
Faikhamta, C; Ketsing, J; Tanak, A; Chamrat, S. Science teacher education in thailand: A challenging journey. Asia-Pacific Science Education; 2018; 4, Articlenumber3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41029-018-0021-8]
Feser, MS; Haak, I. Key features of teacher identity: A systematics meta-review study with special focus on teachers of science or science-related subjects. Studies in Science Education; 2023; 59,
Galanti, T. M., & Holincheck, N. (2022). Beyond content and curriculum in elementary classrooms: Conceptualizing the cultivation of integrated STEM teacher identity. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, Article number 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00358-8
Garin, O. (2014). Ceiling effect. In. A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 631–633). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_296
Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25(1), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X025001099
Giles, I; Cook, N; Hazari, Z; Fernandez, M; Kramer, L. Examining the effects of STEM identity and teaching identity on science and mathematics teaching identity and persistence in a teaching program. Journal of College Science Teaching; 2023; 52,
Glass, R. Science teacher identities in the making. Cultural Studies of Science Education; 2019; 19,
Goss-Sampson, M. A. (2020). Statistical analysis in JASP: A guide for students.
Gray, R. The distinction between experimental and historical sciences as a framework for improving classroom inquiry. Science Education; 2014; 98,
Hamman, D; Coward, F; Johnson, L; Lambert, M; Zhou, L; Indiatsi, J. Teacher possible selves: How thinking about the future contributes to the formation of professional identity. Self and Identity; 2013; 12,
Hanna, F. (2020). Teacher identity and professional identity tensions among primary student teachers: A focus on theory, measurement, and longitudinal associations. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam]. https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=435cb645-dbca-4ced-a677-06fc0e288df1
Hanna, F; Oostdam, R; Severiens, SE; Zijlstra, BJH. Domains of teacher identity: A review of quantitative measurement instruments. Educational Research Review; 2019; 27, pp. 15-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.01.003]
Hanna, F; Oostdam, R; Severiens, SE; Zijlstra, BJH. Assessing the professional identity of primary student teachers: Design and validation of the teacher identity measurement scale. Studies in Educational Evaluation; 2020; 64, 100822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100822]
Havia, J; Lutovac, S; Komulainen, T; Kaasila, R. Preservice subject teachers’ lack of interest in their minor subject: Is it a problem?. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education; 2023; 21,
Helms, JV. Science—and me: Subject matter and identity in secondary school science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching; 1998; 35,
Hobbs, L. Teaching ‘out-of-field’ as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education; 2013; 11,
Hobbs, L; Porsch, R. Teaching out-of-field: Challenges for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education; 2021; 44,
Hobbs, L; Quinn, F. Out-of-field teachers as learners: Influences on teacher perceived capacity and enjoyment over time. European Journal of Teacher Education; 2021; 44,
Hobbs, L., & Torner, G. (2019a). Teaching out-of-field as a phenomenon and research problem. In L. Hobbs & G. Torner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of teaching out-of-field: International perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist (pp. 3–20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_1
Hobbs, L., & Torner, G. (2019b). The out-of-field phenomenon: Synthesis and taking action. In L. Hobbs & G. Torner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of teaching out-of-field: International perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist (pp. 309–322). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_12
Holincheck, NM; Galanti, TM. Applying a model of integrated STEM teacher identity to understand change in elementary teachers’ STEM self-efficacy and career awareness. School Science and Mathematics; 2023; 123,
Horvath, M; Goodell, JE; Kosteas, VD. Decisions to enter and continue in the teaching profession: Evidence from a sample of U.S. Secondary STEM teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2018; 71, pp. 57-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.007]
https://jasp-stats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Statistical-Analysis-in-JASP-A-Students-Guide-v14-Nov2020.pdf
Ingersoll, R. M. (2019). Measuring out-of-field. In L. Hobbs & G. Torner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of teaching out-of-field: International perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist (pp. 21–51). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_2
Johnson, RB; Onwuegbuzie, AJ; Turner, LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research; 2007; 1,
Kelchtermans, G. Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice; 2009; 15,
Khine, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2022). Teacher education at the crossroads: Challenges and prospects in changing times. In M. S. Khine & Y. Liu (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: innovations and practices in Asia (pp. 1–8). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9785-2_1
Ladachart, L; Ladachart, L. Pre-service biology teachers’ perspectives on and Understandings of scientific models. Kasetsart Journal of Social Science; 2018; 39,
Ladachart, L; Phothong, W; Phornprasert, W; Suaklay, N; Ladachart, L. Influence of an inquiry-based professional development on science teachers’ orientations to teaching science. Journal of Turkish Science Education; 2022; 19,
Lamote, C; Engles, N. The development of student teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Teacher Education; 2010; 33,
Lampert, M; Franke, ML; Kazemi, E; Ghousseini, H; Turrou, AC; Beasley, H; Cunard, A; Crowe, K. Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education; 2013; 64,
Lane, C; Ni Riordain, M. Out-of-field mathematics teachers’ beliefs And practices: An examination of change And tensions using zone theory. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education; 2020; 18,
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lopes, A; Pereira, F. Everyday life and everyday learning: The ways in which pre-service teacher education curriculum can encourage personal dimensions of teacher identity. European Journal of Teacher Education; 2012; 35,
Luft, JA; Hanuscin, D; Hobbs, L; Toner, G. Out-of-field teaching in science: An overlooked problem. Journal of Science Teacher Education; 2020; 31,
Magen-Nagar, N; Steinberger, P. Developing teachers’ professional identity through conflict simulations. Teaching Education; 2022; 33,
Ministry of Education (2008). The Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). http://academic.obec.go.th/images/document/1525235513_d_1.pdf
Mizzi, D. Supporting science teachers teaching outside specialism: Teachers’ views of a professional development programme. European Journal of Teacher Education; 2021; 44,
Napier, JB; Luft, JA; Singh, H. In the classrooms of newly hired secondary science teachers: The consequences of teaching in-field or out-of-field. Journal of Science Teacher Education; 2020; 31,
Nguyen, HTM; Loughland, T. Pre-service teachers’ construction of professional identity through peer collaboration during professional experience: A case study in Australia. Teaching Education; 2018; 29,
Nixon, RS; Luft, JA; Ross, RJ. Prevalence and predictors of out-of-field teaching in the first five years. Journal of Research in Science Teaching; 2017; 54,
OECD/UNESCO. (2016). Education in thailand: An OECD-UNESCO perspective, reviews of National policies for education. OECD Publishing.
Pedretti, EG; Bencze, L; Hewitt, J; Romkey, L; Jivraj, A. Promoting issues-based STSE perspectives in science teacher education: Problems of identity and ideology. Science and Education; 2008; 17,
Pholphirul, P; Rukumnuaykit, P; Teimtad, S. Teacher shortages and educational outcomes in developing countries: Empirical evidence from PISA-Thailand. Cogent Education; 2023; 10,
Pilen, M; Beijaard, D; den Brok, P. Tensions in beginning teachers’ professional identity development, accompanying feelings and coping strategies. European Journal of Teacher Education; 2013; 36,
Pimthong, P; Williams, PJ. Preservice teachers’ Understanding of STEM education. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences; 2020; 41,
Polizzi, SJ; Zhu, Y; Reid, JW; Ofem, B; Salisbury, S; Beeth, M; Roehrig, G; Mohr-Schroeder, M; Sheppard, K; Rushton, GT. Science and mathematics teacher communities of practice: Social influences on discipline-based identity and self-efficacy beliefs. International Journal of STEM Education; 2021; 8, Articlenumber30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00275-2]
Porsch, R., & Whannell, R. (2019). Out-of-field teaching affecting students and learning: What it known and unknown. In L. Hobbs & G. Torner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of teaching out-of-field: International perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist (pp. 179–191). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_7
Prabjandee, D. Narratives of learning to become english teachers in thailand: Developing identity through a teacher education program. Teacher Development; 2020; 24,
Price, A., Vale, C., Porsch, R., Rahayu, E., Faulkner, F., Ni Riordain, M., Crisam, C., & Luft, J. A. (2019). Teaching out-of-field internationally. In L. Hobbs & G. Torner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of teaching out-of-field: International perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist (pp. 53–83). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_3
Promboon, S., Finley, F. N., & Kaweekijmanee, K. (2018). The evolution and current status of STEM education in thailand: Policy directions and recommendations. In G. W. Fry (Ed.), Education in thailand: An old elephant in search of a new mahout (pp. 423–459). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7857-6_17
Pulsawad, W; Tong-on, A; Ladachart, L; Ladachart, L. Examining disciplinary specificity of preservice mathematics and science teachers’ professional identities. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education; 2025; 23,
Quinn, F; Hobbs, L. I’m on my own and i’m not trained: A cultural-historical activity theory analysis of teaching mathematics out-of-field in a small school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education; 2025; 23,
Rupavijetra, P., & Rupavijetra, P. (2022). Changes in teacher education requirements in Thailand in the twenty-first century. In M. S. Khine & Y. Liu (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Innovations and practices in Asia (pp. 607–632). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9785-2_30
Rushton, EAC; Reiss, MJ. Middle and high school science teacher identity considered through the lens of the social identity approach: A systematic review of the literature. Studies in Science Education; 2021; 57,
Sachs, J. (2005). Teacher education and the development of professional identity: Learning to be a teacher. In M. Kompf & P. Denicolo (Eds.). Connecting policy and practice: Challenges for teaching and learning in schools and universities (pp. 5–21). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203012529
Sanders, LR; Borko, H; Lockard, JD. Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching; 1993; 30,
Shulman, LS. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher; 1986; 15,
Shulman, LS. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review; 1987; 57,
Singh, H; Luft, JA; Napier, JB. 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; 2021; 44,
Siribanpitak, P. (2018). Redesigning teacher education. In G. W. Fry (Ed.), Education in Thailand: An old elephant in search of a new mahout (pp. 461–476). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7857-6_18
Smetana, LKT; Kushki, A. Exploring career change transitions through a dialogic conceptualization of science teacher identity. Journal of Science Teacher Education; 2021; 32,
Steyn, GM; Du Plessis, ME. The implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for effective teaching, quality education, and school management. Africa Education Review; 2007; 4,
Stronge, J; Ward, H; Grant, LW. What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education; 2011; 62,
Sutherland, L; Markauskaite, L. Examining the role of authenticity in supporting the development of professional identity: An example from teacher education. Higher Education; 2012; 64,
Sutherland, L; Howard, S; Markauskaite, L. Professional identity creation: Examining the development of beginning preservice teachers’ Understanding of their work as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2010; 26,
Thomas, L; Beauchamp, C. Learning to live well as teachers in a changing world: Insights into developing a professional identity in teacher education. Journal of Educational Thought; 2007; 41,
Thompson, I. (2023). Subject disciplines and the construction of teachers’ identities. In I. Menter (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of teacher education research (pp. 851–866). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16193-3_78
Thongthew, S. Changes in teacher education in Thailand 1978–2014. Journal of Education for Teaching; 2014; 40,
Tsybulsky, D; Muhnik-Rozanov, Y. The development of student-teachers’ professional identity while team-teaching science classes using a project-based learning approach: A multi-level analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2019; 79, pp. 48-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.006]
Vale, C., & Drake, P. (2019). Attending to out-of-field teaching: Implications of and for education policy. In L. Hobbs & G. Torner (Eds.), Examining the phenomenon of teaching out-of-field: International perspectives on teaching as a non-specialist (pp. 195–215). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_8
Van Wilson, CR; Morgan, BL. Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology; 2007; 3,
Zhai, Y; Tripp, J; Liu, X. Science teacher identity research: A scoping literature review. International Journal of STEM Education; 2024; 11, Articlenumber20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00481-8]
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.