Out-of-field teaching, defined as assigning teachers to subjects outside their area of specialization, remains a persistent concern in Philippine basic education due to teacher shortages and staffing imbalances. While existing studies have extensively documented the challenges associated with this practice, there is limited integrative understanding of how teachers cope across different contexts. This study aimed to synthesize the coping practices of out-of-field teachers and to identify patterns of adaptation and resilience evident in qualitative research. Using a qualitative meta-synthesis approach guided by the PRISMA 2020 framework, sixteen (16) qualitative studies published between 2015 and 2025 were systematically reviewed and analyzed. Data were interpreted using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis to generate higher-order themes from the included studies. Findings revealed seven major coping themes: (1) interaction with learners, (2) professional development, (3) instructional planning and preparation, (4) resourcefulness and innovation, (5) emotional resilience and mindset, (6) instructional knowledge and skills enhancement, and (7) collaboration and support systems. Among these, instructional knowledge enhancement and emotional resilience emerged as the most dominant coping practices. The results indicate that coping is not a singular or isolated response but a dynamic and multidimensional process that integrates cognitive, emotional, and social strategies. The study concludes that out-of-field teachers demonstrate strong adaptability and resilience in navigating instructional challenges. However, reliance on individual coping underscores the need for structured institutional support. These findings provide a basis for developing targeted professional development programs, strengthening mentoring systems, improving resource provision, and informing policy interventions to better support out-of-field teachers in diverse educational settings.
Andrew Leo Castrodes (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: