See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317235977

Prevalence and predictors of out-of-field teaching in the first five years

Article  in  Journal of Research in Science Teaching · November 2017

DOI: 10.1002/tea.21402

CITATIONS READS
28 1,641

3 authors:

Ryan S. Nixon Julie Luft

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus University of Georgia
35 PUBLICATIONS   198 CITATIONS    149 PUBLICATIONS   3,473 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Richard J. Ross
University of Georgia
2 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Concept models View project

Science Coordinators Advancing a Framework for Outstanding Leadership Development (SCAFFOLD) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ryan S. Nixon on 09 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 1

This is a pre-publication draft of:

Nixon, R. S., Luft, J. A., & Ross, R. J. (in press). Prevalence and predictors of out-of-field
teaching in the first five years. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi:
10.1002/tea.21402
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 2

Prevalence and Predictors of Out-of-Field Teaching in the First Five Years

Ryan S. Nixon

Brigham Young University

Julie A. Luft and Richard J. Ross

University of Georgia

Author Note

Ryan S. Nixon, Department of Teacher Education, Brigham Young University; Julie A.

Luft, Department of Science and Mathematics Education, University of Georgia; Richard J.

Ross, Department of Statistics, University of Georgia.

The authors of this study would like to recognize Krista Adams, EunJin Bang, Holly

Crawford, Jonah Firestone, Anne Kern, Jennifer Neakrase, Ira Ortega, Gillian Roehrig, Charles

Weeks, and Sissy Wong for their help with various parts of this study. We also appreciate the

assistance of Sharon Black. This study was made possible by National Science Foundation

Grants 1247096 and 0918697. The findings, conclusions, and opinions herein are the views of

the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of personnel affiliated with the National

Science Foundation.

Corresponding author: Ryan S. Nixon, Department of Teacher Education, Brigham

Young University, 206M MCKB, Provo, UT, 84602. Email: rynixon@byu.edu

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 3

Abstract

Many new science teachers are assigned to teach subjects in which they have not been prepared,

a practice referred to as out-of-field (OOF) teaching. Teaching OOF has been shown to

negatively influence instruction and constrain teachers’ development. In this study we explored

the extent to which new secondary science teachers were assigned OOF across their first five

years. Analysis of this longitudinal data set indicated that these assignments were common.

While new science teachers were assigned to teach a variety of subjects over their first five years

of teaching, they were not assigned more or fewer OOF courses over time. Furthermore, results

indicated that teachers in certain situations are more likely than others to be assigned to teach

OOF. Even with federal legislation in the United States seeking to eliminate OOF teaching, a

large portion of new secondary science teachers are assigned to teach science disciplines for

which they are inadequately prepared. Based on the findings of this study, it is worth exploring

policy avenues that eliminate OOF teaching. Policymakers, administrators, and teacher educators

should seek to provide supports, such as science-specific induction programs designed for new

teachers who are assigned OOF, and science teacher educators should prepare prospective

teachers to teach multiple science disciplines.

Keywords: out-of-field teaching, new science teachers, science teacher education

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 4

Prevalence and Predictors of Out-of-Field Teaching in the First Five Years

Teachers in their first five years are a population that warrants study (Luft, 2007), as they

make up a large portion of the teaching force in many nations worldwide (Ingersoll, Merrill, &

Stuckey, 2014; Jensen, Sandoval-Hernádez, Knoll, & Gonzalez, 2012; Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2005; Willett, Segal, & Walford, 2014).

These new teachers are going through a period of major growth and development accompanied

by many challenges as they transition from preparation programs to full responsibility for a

classroom and student learning (Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006; Henry, Fortner, & Bastian,

2012; Jensen et al., 2012; Luft, Dubois, Nixon, & Campbell, 2015; Veenman, 1984). Studying

new teachers can provide insights into ways of supporting them during these early years and

improving education for prospective teachers.

Past research has indicated that new science teachers are assigned to teach subjects for

which they have not been prepared, commonly referred to as out-of-field (OOF) teaching, more

frequently than experienced science teachers (Ingersoll, 1999; Lock, Salt, & Soares, 2011).

Adding the challenges of teaching OOF (Childs & McNicholl, 2007; du Plessis, Carroll, &

Gillies, 2015; Sanders, Borko, & Lockard, 1993) to those typically experienced by new teachers

can disrupt teachers’ development and may lead them to exit the profession (Donaldson &

Johnson, 2010; European Commission [EC], 2010; Hobbs, 2013; Keigher, 2010; Patterson,

Roehrig, & Luft, 2003; Sharplin, 2014). There are also concerns about the quality of science

instruction by teachers who are both new to teaching and unprepared in the subject area (EC,

2013; Sharplin, 2014).

Despite concerns related to new teachers’ OOF assignments, we do not yet have a basic

understanding of how new teachers’ assignments change across the years, having relied wholly
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 5

on cross-sectional data. In this manuscript the term assignment refers to the subject area(s) a

teacher is responsible for teaching during a given school year. In this study, we use longitudinal

data to investigate the prevalence of OOF assignments during the first five years of teaching.

Whereas past studies have simply compared the prevalence of OOF teaching among groups of

teachers (e.g., Ingersoll, 1999, 2008), longitudinal data allow for insights into how teaching

assignments change over time and in the context of other factors. In this study we seek to answer

the following questions:

1. What is the prevalence of OOF assignments among this sample of new science teachers?

2. How does the extent of OOF assignments change over the first five years of teaching?

3. What factors (e.g., percentage of English language learners, school level, school location,

certification status, and induction program) predict the extent of OOF assignments among

new science teachers?

Theoretical Framing

This study was guided by Fessler and Christensen’s (1992) description of the teacher

career cycle (Rolls & Plauborg, 2009). This model includes eight stages: pre-service, induction,

competency building, enthusiastic and growing, career frustration, career stability, career wind-

down, and career exit. The outcomes of these stages and of teachers’ progress through them are

influenced by various factors related to the organization in which teachers work and to their own

personal lives.

The induction stage, which generally spans the first several years of a teacher’s career, is

a time of uncertainty and vulnerability. Teachers tend to focus on “survival” as they figure out

the basics of the job and seek acceptance from peers. Changes in teaching assignment can

lengthen the induction stage and may return experienced teachers to this stage.
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 6

The competency building stage is a period of improvement and innovation. Teachers in

this stage have established basic skills and now seek to develop and extend their abilities. This

may involve seeking new instructional strategies and materials or engaging in professional

development opportunities. However, teaching assignments can influence a teacher’s progression

through this stage, as more challenging assignments may return him or her to the induction stage

or increase the time required to build teaching competency.

Teachers pass through these stages as introductory steps leading into the profession.

Challenges during these stages prevent some teachers from reaching later stages of the career

cycle. If they do not develop teaching competency, they may become stagnant for the remainder

of their career. They may also experience challenges that cause them to quickly transition to the

career wind-down and career exit stages, more rapidly leaving the profession.

This framework offers two considerations crucial for this paper. First, as new teachers are

in the early stages of developing their instruction, they are particularly vulnerable and in need of

support. Second, OOF assignments may exacerbate the challenges new teachers face by

interfering with meeting their needs while in these early stages of the career cycle. OOF

assignments have been identified as one factor among many that contribute to teacher attrition

(Patterson et al., 2003). This study uses the framework of the teacher career cycle to situate the

problem of OOF teaching among new teachers.

Literature Review

OOF Teaching in Science

OOF teaching occurs when a teacher is assigned to teach a subject for which he or she

has not been prepared (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010; du Plessis, 2015; Ingersoll, 1999). This

could include being assigned to teach elementary when one has been prepared to teach in
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 7

secondary school or to teach social studies when prepared to teach mathematics. The concept of

OOF teaching is related to what is called specialization in some regions of the world (e.g., The

Royal Society, 2007).

Science teachers are OOF when they are assigned to teach a science discipline for which

they have not been prepared: for example, a teacher who is prepared to teach biology but is

assigned to teach chemistry. Science is comprised of multiple disciplines that differ not only by

topical emphases (e.g., chemistry focusing on matter; biology focusing on living things), but also

by their discipline-specific ways of constructing and structuring knowledge (Schwab, 1964). For

example, physics often emphasizes finding quantitative relationships of generic variables, while

chemistry is often concerned with interactions of types of substances (Bernal & Daza, 2010).

Disciplinary differences require variations in understanding and instruction (Kloser, 2012). Thus

preparation to teach one science discipline is unlikely to produce adequate knowledge of subject

matter or pedagogical content knowledge to teach a different science discipline.

In this study OOF teaching is operationally defined as being assigned to teach a science

discipline for which one does not hold a major or minor. In the United States (US), where these

data were collected, a major is the primary academic focus of a university student’s studies.

While all students are required to complete a set of general education courses regardless of their

academic focus, their major determines the bulk of the courses they complete beyond this

general set. A minor is a secondary academic focus that students may add to their major. For

many students a minor is not necessary to receive a university degree, while a major is required.

Both a major and a minor indicate a substantial amount of coursework in a specific subject area,

though requirements differ among majors, minors, and institutions.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 8

While holding a major or minor in a science discipline is not direct evidence of adequate

subject matter knowledge for effective science instruction (Ingersoll, 1999; Jerald, 2002), there

are three reasons to use this operational definition. First, much of the extant literature uses

teachers’ major/minor to indicate whether a teacher’s assignment is in field or OOF (Ingersoll,

1999; Jerald, 2002; Rushton et al., 2014; Seastrom, Gruber, Henke, McGrath, & Cohen, 2004).

Second, a major/minor indicates extensive coursework in a subject area, suggesting that an

individual has gained significant competence in that discipline. Finally, coursework in a subject

area, as required to earn a major/minor, has been associated with student learning (Monk, 1994)

and effective instruction (Hacker & Rowe, 1985). Rather than determining OOF status based on

a direct measure of teachers’ subject matter knowledge, we used the subject area of their

major/minor, a commonly accepted, broad, and widely available indicator of teacher preparation.

Effects of OOF Teaching

Scholars and policymakers are concerned that OOF teaching negatively impacts

instruction (Carlsen, 1991, 1992, 1997; du Plessis et al., 2015; Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman,

1989; Lee, 1995; Sanders et al., 1993). For instance, one seminal study observed experienced

teachers’ instruction of both an in-field topic and an OOF topic (Sanders et al., 1993). The

teachers’ in-field teaching included fine-tuned lessons, multiple ways of presenting the concepts,

and effective responses to student questions. When teaching OOF, the same teachers struggled to

respond to student questions and were more rigid in their interactions with students (e.g., seeking

exact definitions to tell students, spending more time explaining content). While these teachers

struggled with limited subject matter knowledge, they were able to rely on well-developed

pedagogical knowledge to support their instruction when teaching OOF. Another study

compared the planning and instruction of secondary science teachers in two subjects (physics
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 9

and chemistry), one in which they were knowledgeable and one in which they were less

knowledgeable (Hashweh, 1987). Results indicated that teachers’ instruction was significantly

different when teaching the subject in which they were knowledgeable than when teaching a

subject in which they were less knowledgeable. When teachers were knowledgeable about a

subject, they were able to determine how the content should be presented, rather than simply

following the textbook or other provided activities. Additionally, teachers used primarily

synthesis level questions in subjects in which they were knowledgeable, but resorted to recall

level questions in subjects in which they had less knowledge and experience. In addition to lower

quality instruction, researchers have observed decreased student achievement in students taught

by OOF teachers (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Monk, 1994).

OOF teaching has negative effects on teachers themselves as well as on their students’

learning (Childs & McNicholl, 2007; Sharplin, 2014; Steyn & du Plessis, 2007). In research by

Childs and McNicholl (2007), for example, teachers expressed many challenges they

experienced with an OOF assignment, including difficulties in dealing with student motivation

and concerns over selecting appropriate instructional strategies. In another study Steyn and du

Plessis (2007) found that OOF teachers in South Africa felt inadequate and stressed while

working with students. They also found that OOF teachers had constrained relationships with

parents and colleagues. These negative effects may lead to increased attrition among new

teachers who are assigned OOF (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010; Fessler & Christensen, 1992;

Keigher, 2010; Lock et al., 2011; Patterson et al., 2003; Sharplin, 2014)

Prevalence of OOF Teaching

Research from across the world has indicated that many teachers, especially science

teachers, are assigned OOF (du Plessis, 2015; Hobbs, 2013; Ingersoll, 1999; Kola & Sunday,
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 10

2015; Robinson, 1985). Analyzing data on mathematics and science teachers from 15 countries,

Zhou (2014) found that the prevalence of teachers assigned OOF ranged from 1.97% in Hungary

to 15.7% in Brazil. In the US Ingersoll (1999) found that OOF teachers made up 20.3% of all

science teachers, 33.1% of life science teachers, and 56.5% of physical science teachers. Other

studies have found similarly high percentages of OOF teaching in US science classrooms

(Ingersoll & Gruber, 1996; Rushton et al., 2014).

Studies have shown higher rates of OOF teaching among new science teachers. Ingersoll

(1999) found that 23.2% of science teachers with less than five years of experience were

assigned OOF, in contrast to 14.5% of those who had been teaching science for more than 25

years. Banilower and colleagues (2015) found that 56% of new physics teachers and 67% of new

earth science teachers were OOF. While these studies showed that new teachers are assigned

OOF more than experienced teachers, the point at which teachers begin to transition to teaching

more in field has not been identified. As OOF assignments have been cited as a reason for

leaving the profession (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010; Keigher, 2010; Patterson et al., 2003;

Sharplin, 2014; Soares, Lock, & Foster, 2008) and almost half of new teachers leave within the

first five years (Ingersoll et al., 2014; National Academies of Sciences, 2015), this shift towards

more in-field teaching may begin during the first five years.

Long-term awareness of this problem in the US has led to many calls to eliminate OOF

teaching (Brodbelt, 1990; Council for Basic Education [CBE], 1986; Ingersoll & Gruber, 1996;

NCTEPS, 1965; Robinson, 1985), influencing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation

requiring that all US teachers be “highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-2006 school yeari

(Ingersoll, Hoxby, & Scrupski, 2004; Jerald, 2002; U.S. Department of Education [US DOE],

2002). Under NCLB, teachers were originally required to demonstrate competency in their
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 11

subject area by completing adequate college coursework in the subject area and passing a subject

test. Although this legislation formally prohibited OOF teaching, in many states the requirements

to be “highly qualified” were broad enough to allow teachers to be assigned in disciplines for

which they had inadequate preparation but still be considered “highly qualified” (National

Council on Teacher Quality, 2010). This problem was exacerbated by the official loosening of

requirements for highly qualified status as the deadline approached (US DOE, 2004). While

reports have indicated that the number of teachers who are highly qualified has increased under

NCLB (US DOE, 2011), we are aware of no study that examines the prevalence of OOF teaching

during NCLB implementation. Research conducted with NCLB-era data is necessary to

understand the current status of OOF teaching in the US.

The high prevalence of OOF teaching has been attributed to the shortage of qualified

teachers (Brodbelt, 1990; Ingersoll, 1999): teachers are assigned OOF because sufficient teachers

are not available to fill needed positions. However, several researchers have argued that teacher

shortages contribute to OOF assignments but are not the sole or main causes. OOF teaching

occurs in disciplines with surpluses, such as English (Ingersoll, 1999; Ingersoll et al., 2004;

Robinson, 1985), and in schools that had reported no hiring difficulties the previous year

(Ingersoll, 1999; Ingersoll et al., 2004). These authors argue that OOF teaching is not due to a

limited number of prepared teachers, but to their misassignment.

Teachers are assigned OOF more frequently in some types of schools than others.

Researchers have found that schools with higher percentages of students living in poverty are

more likely to have teachers who are assigned OOF than schools with fewer students living in

poverty (Ingersoll, 1999, 2008; Ingersoll et al., 2004; National Commission on Teaching &
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 12

America's Future [NCTAF], 1996). These findings raise questions about the distribution of OOF

teachers at schools with high percentages of other traditionally underserved populations.

Despite the increasing population of English language learners (ELL) in the US (Kena,

2016; Samson & Collins, 2012), we are not aware of research exploring the prevalence of OOF

teaching with this population. Some research has documented teachers who are not specifically

prepared to teach ELLs (e.g., Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2008), but this does not

relate to their disciplinary preparation. It is important that ELL students are not taught by a

disproportionate number of OOF teachers (EC, 2015; OECD, 2004).

Schools in certain locations and at certain levels are also more likely to have OOF

teachers. Past research has found that schools located in rural (Ingersoll, 1998; Ingersoll &

Curran, 2004; Robinson, 1985) or urban (Ingersoll et al., 2004) areas are more likely to have

teachers assigned OOF than suburban schools, a situation which has been attributed to teacher

shortages (Ingersoll & Curran, 2004; Robinson, 1985). OOF teaching in rural schools is likely

also due to efforts to provide all of the course offerings available at larger schools but with fewer

teachers (Ingersoll & Curran, 2004). Additionally, middle schools (grades 6-9) tend to have a

larger portion of teachers assigned OOF than high schools (grades 10-12; Banilower et al., 2015;

Ingersoll, 2008; Robinson, 1985). Ingersoll (2008) reported that 42% of US middle school

teachers were OOF, compared to 17% of high school teachers. Furthermore, 45% of new middle

school science teachers were OOF in life science, while only 17% of new high school science

teachers had OOF assignments in life science (Banilower et al., 2015). While these studies

indicated differences in assignments for teachers at schools in differing locations and levels,

these studies only provide information about short specific periods of time. Longitudinal data are
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 13

needed to track teachers across school years, as they stay in the same school or move to a

different one, to indicate how school location and level predict teaching assignment.

Finally, past research has not examined the potential influence of teacher certification on

OOF assignment. Teachers who do not hold teaching certificates have generally been educated in

the subject area they are hired to teach but have not participated in a teacher preparation

program. Research highlighting these teachers can provide insights into the influence of teacher

preparation programs on teacher assignment.

Methods

Participants

Data for this study are part of a larger project that investigated the effects of four different

induction programs on the practices, beliefs, and knowledge of new science teachers across their

first five years (Luft, 2009; Luft et al., 2011). All teachers selected for the larger study were

included in this study. They had been purposefully recruited based on participation in one of the

four investigated induction programs. Teachers who agreed to participate in the study were

provided a $400 stipend for each year of participation. Teachers were interested in participating

because the study was novel and important for the field of science education. Moreover, teachers

received a summary of their data at the end of the study, allowing them to track their progress.

The 137 teachers who participated (see Table 1, Table 2, and Figure 1) taught in

secondary schools located in five states in the Midwestern and Southwestern US. At the

beginning of the study all participants were newly hired and preparing to begin their first year of

teaching. Researchers followed the teachers across their first five years of teaching, including

those who changed locations (e.g., schools, districts, states) during the study period. Compared

to national reports of teacher demographics, this sample of new secondary science teachers
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 14

appears to be reasonably representative of the national population in characteristics commonly

reported (i.e., gender, age, certification pathway, and school location; Banilower et al., 2015;

Coopersmith, 2009; Gray & Taie, 2015).

[Insert Table 1 about here]

[Insert Table 2 about here]

[Insert Figure 1 about here]

As is common with longitudinal data collection, some participants did not provide data

for all five years for a variety of reasons (e.g., no longer wishing to participate, not being

available for contact). Other teachers ended participation in the study because they left the

profession during their first five years. Table 3 shows the response rate for each year, with only

74 teachers providing sufficient data and remaining in the profession in year five. Data collection

began in the 2005-2006 school year and concluded in the 2009-2010 school year, during which

time NCLB legislation was in full effect.

[Insert Table 3 about here]

The processes of data collection, analysis, and storage used in this study were reviewed

and approved by the relevant institutional review boards and local educational authorities. All

participants provided consent to use their data for research purposes. Additionally, standardized

procedures were implemented to protect participants’ confidentiality, such as password protected

computers.

Data Sources and Variables

Data for this study were collected by conducting a series of interviews and by consulting

official school, university, and state documents. Teachers were first interviewed during the

summer prior to their first year of classroom teaching, then at the end of each subsequent school
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 15

year, with the last interview after their fifth year of teaching. The study was paused at the end of

the third year due to the end of a grant cycle; thus limited data were collected during the fourth

year, with more complete data being gathered in the fifth year when funding resumed. Data were

also collected from documents found on official school and district websites.

Data used for this study came from three questions that were included in the demographic

interviews for the larger project. One question asked teachers to provide their major (and minor,

if applicable). The second question asked them to describe their route to receiving a teaching

certificate (e.g., master’s degree). These two questions were asked only at the beginning of the

study. The third question, asked every year of the study, required participating teachers to list the

courses they were assigned to teach that year and the school where they worked. The interviews

from which these questions were drawn have been described elsewhere (see Luft, 2009; Luft et

al., 2011). While these data are largely self-report, often considered a limitation, we have no

reason to expect that teachers would inaccurately report this information, intentionally or

unintentionally, as these questions are simple and involve no disclosure of sensitive information.

Official school, district, or university documents were also used as data sources. These

documents included, for example, university listings of courses comprising a major/minor,

district websites with the percentage of students who qualified for English as a second language

services, or school websites giving the school address. If not readily available online, this

information was requested from the school, district, or university.

Data from these interviews were transformed into quantitative form and entered into a

spreadsheet. All of the variables used in the analysis and the process for transforming them from

qualitative to quantitative are described below. Generally one researcher initially determined a

value for each variable, which was reviewed by a second researcher. When the two disagreed on
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 16

a value, they engaged in further consultation and involved a third researcher if necessary to agree

on the final value.

Out-of-field teaching score (OOF SCORE). The OOF SCORE was the extent to which

a teacher was assigned OOF courses during each year, determined by comparing the teachers’

major/minor and the subject area(s) of the courses they were assigned to teach each year. For

example, a teacher with a major in chemistry would be considered in field when teaching a

chemistry course and out of field when teaching an earth science course. When the subject area

did not neatly fit into one of the categories (e.g., environmental science), researchers had to

determine whether this was an in-field or an OOF assignment based on whether the individual’s

university coursework aligned with the course being taught.

Each assignment was given an OOF SCORE, ranging from 1 to 5: 1 = all in field, 2 =

mostly in field, 3 = half and half (half in field and half OOF), 4 = mostly OOF, and 5 = all OOF.

These designations were based on the portion of in-field or OOF courses a teacher taught. Thus a

teacher assigned to teach three in-field and three OOF courses would have a score of 3 (half and

half). Similarly, a teacher with two in-field and two OOF courses would have an OOF SCORE of

3. This system allowed for comparisons across schools, which can differ in the total number of

courses teachers are expected to teach. Additionally, this scoring system adds to past work by

allowing a spectrum of OOF designations, in contrast to an either-or decision between in field or

OOF (Seastrom et al., 2004; Sharplin, 2014). As teachers are often assigned to a combination of

in-field and OOF courses, this scoring system provides a more accurate designation of their

assignments.

These levels are not necessarily evenly spaced because the change between OOF

SCORES is not necessarily of equal magnitude. For example, a teacher who transitions from
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 17

teaching all in field to mostly in field likely experiences a larger shift in strain than a teacher who

transitions from mostly in field to half and half. This leads us to utilize a model which allows for

unevenly spaced changes between OOF levels.

While the majority of courses teachers were assigned to teach OOF were science

disciplines, some teachers were periodically assigned to teach non-science courses. For example,

one teacher was assigned to teach a drumming course during his fifth year, and another was

assigned to teach algebra her first year. New teachers in the US are generally expected to teach

the same number of hours as experienced teachers.

We must emphasize that our operationalization of OOF teaching is based on the subjects

that teachers were prepared to teach as indicated by the subject area of their major/minor. We

acknowledge, with past researchers who have used this indicator (Ingersoll, 1999; Jerald, 2002),

that teachers may have a major/minor in a subject area and still not have the necessary subject

matter knowledge to teach it. Conversely, a teacher may have sufficient knowledge to teach in a

subject area without having a major/minor in it (Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 2002). Furthermore, we

recognize that this indicator does not necessarily reflect the quality of instruction or student

learning. Therefore, we avoid making claims about teachers’ subject matter knowledge,

instruction, or student learning, but instead focus on their assignments across their first five

years.

Year (YR). The number of years the teacher had been teaching was an ordinal variable

(e.g., YR1 for the first year). As described previously, data for the fourth year were limited and

thus did not meet the assumptions required for the statistical analysis. Fourth year data were

therefore omitted from the analysis.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 18

Percentage of English Language Learners (ELL). The percentage of the total student

population at the school at which the teacher was employed who were receiving English as a

second language services, as indicated in official school records or online reports. This is the

only continuous variable in the analysis.

School level (LEV). The grade level of the school at which the teacher taught was a

categorical variable with three levels: (a) middle school, (b) high school, or (c) other (e.g., a 6-12

school). Middle schools are secondary schools spanning grades six through nine. High schools

are secondary schools with at least grades 10 through 12. Some teachers were employed at

schools that did not match these traditional classifications.

School location (LOC). The categorical variable of geographic location of the school at

which the teacher taught was classified on three levels: (a) rural, (b) suburban, or (c) urban.

Rural schools are located in smaller communities with a limited number of schools, suburban

schools are on the outskirts of large cities, and urban schools are located within large cities. The

US DOE (2006) was referred to in assigning these categories.

Certification (CERT). The teacher’s certification was a variable originally reported as

the teacher’s pathway into teaching: an undergraduate degree, a post-baccalaureate certification

program (in which individuals with a bachelor’s degree complete additional coursework to

become certified), a master’s degree, or teaching without a teaching certificate. Treating each of

these levels independently did not match the assumptions for the model; thus a dichotomous

variable was used so the assumptions would be met. This dichotomous variable consisted of (a)

teachers who held a teaching certificate and (b) teachers who did not.

Induction program (IND). The induction program in which the teacher was enrolled

was a four-level categorical variable: (a) science specific programs, (b) electronic mentoring
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 19

programs, (c) general induction programs provided by school districts, and (d) internship

programs providing coursework while teaching (see Luft et al., 2011). As the larger study was

designed to investigate the effect of induction programs, it was necessary to include this variable.

Analysis

A simple frequency count of each OOF SCORE level was used to answer the first

question posed in this study. Two approaches were used to understand the changes in the extent

of OOF assignments, the second research question. First, we explored how teaching assignments

changed from one year to the next, classifying transitions by comparing the OOF SCORE of

each year with the OOF SCORE of the subsequent year. We refer to these as transitions because

teachers’ OOF SCORE often, but not always, changed from one year to another. For example,

one teacher was assigned all in field in YR1 and all in field in YR2. Another teacher was

assigned mostly in field in YR2 and changed to mostly OOF for YR3. These are both examples

of transitions. Since determining the transition required two OOF SCORES (for both YR X and

YR Y) and there were missing data, only 180 transitions were available. The second approach

for examining change in assignments involved an ordinal logistic regression model used to

determine how YR predicted OOF SCORE. Ordinal logistic regression is ideal when seeking to

understand how various factors predict an ordinal outcome variable. Furthermore, ordinal

logistic regression is sensitive to the longitudinal aspect of this data set and allows for missing

data.

Analysis for question three also utilized an ordinal logistic regression model to

understand how ELL, LEV, LOC, CERT, and IND predicted OOF SCORE. While 137 teachers

participated in this study, data from each year constituted a separate data point. For this reason,
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 20

there was a maximum n of 548 (137 participants over four years), though it was never this large

due to missing data.

Prior to running the models, we verified that each variable met the assumption of

proportional odds, which states that the relationship between any pair of ordered groups (1 vs. 2-

5, 2 vs. 3-5, or even 5 vs. 1-4) is the same. This assumption allowed us to use one set of

coefficients for our model instead of many in the case where proportional odds were not met.

Following confirmation of the assumptions, the models were constructed to answer each research

question. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was used to determine the best model, as it is

a measure designed to balance the predictive power of a model with the number of predictors

included in it (Cavanaugh, 2007). Models with lower AIC values attain a better balance.

Findings

The purpose of this study was to better understand the phenomenon of OOF assignments

for science teachers across their first five years of teaching. The findings related to each research

question are presented in this section.

Q1. Prevalence of OOF Teaching Among This Sample of New Science Teachers

These data show that new science teachers were assigned OOF at various levels during

their first five years (see Table 4). Of the five levels of teaching assignment, the most common

was all in field, accounting for 35.7% of assignments across the first five years. The second most

common level of teaching assignment was all OOF, encompassing 21.7% of assignments. The

remaining 42.6% of assignments were some mixture of in field and OOF, with more assignments

being mostly OOF (20.4%) than mostly in field (15.5%). The least common teaching assignment

level was half and half (6.7%).

[Insert Table 4 about here]

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 21

Q2. Changes in Extent of OOF Teaching Over the First Five Years

Prior to examining predictors of changes in the extent of OOF teaching, we sought to

determine the number of changes in assignments for this sample over the first five years. Table 5

shows the number of each type of transition observed (e.g., the number of times participants

moved from mostly in field in one year to all in field the next year). These findings indicate that

70% of the transitions involved changes in the extent to which teachers were assigned OOF.

While the most common transition (n = 38, 21%) was from all in field in one year to all in field

the next year (no change), the next most common transitions were between all in field and mostly

OOF (n = 34, 19%) and between all in field and all OOF (n = 27, 15%). Thus these new

secondary science teachers experienced extensive changes in assignment during their first five

years.

[Insert Table 5 about here]

Regression analysis in which OOF SCORE was regressed on YR indicated new science

teachers’ assignment was not predicted by how long they had been teaching (see Table 6 and

Figure 2). No level of YR was a significant predictor. Thus the extent to which new science

teachers were assigned OOF did not significantly change over their first five years of teaching.

[Insert Table 6 and Figure 2 about here]

Q3. Factors Predicting the Extent of OOF Assignments Among New Science Teachers

To explore factors that predict the extent of OOF teaching, an ordinal logistic regression

model in which OOF SCORE was regressed on ELL, LEV, LOC, and CERT was found to be the

best model (AIC = 1060.608, see Table 7). In this model a proxy scale was aligned with the OOF

SCORE and used to predict the OOF SCORE based on other variables. Figure 3 illustrates the

alignment of these scales by defining the cut points on the proxy scale at which one OOF
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 22

SCORE moves to another. For example, OOF SCORE = 2 spans from -1.51 to -0.78 on the

proxy scale. The coefficients in Table 6 indicate movement along the proxy scale based on the

value of the corresponding variable. Note that this model excludes the variables of YR and IND,

as they were not significant predictors of OOF SCORE.

[Insert Table 7 and Figure 3 about here]

This model indicates that teachers at schools with a higher percentage of ELL students

were likely to be OOF to a greater extent. For example, a new teacher who was assigned to teach

half and half (OOF SCORE = 3) at a school with 5% ELL would likely be assigned to teach

mostly OOF (OOF SCORE = 4) at a school with 29% ELL students. Since the distances between

the cut points are not equal, this difference in the percentage of ELL students would not

necessarily predict shifts with other levels (e.g., from 2 to 3).

Level and location of the school where teachers taught were also found to be significant

predictors of teaching assignment. Teachers hired in middle schools were more likely to be

assigned OOF than teachers working in high schools. Thus a teacher who was assigned to teach

mostly in field (OOF SCORE = 2) at a high school would likely be assigned to teach half and

half at a middle school (OOF SCORE = 3). Second, a teacher is likely to be assigned more OOF

in an urban or rural school than in a suburban school. For instance, a new teacher who was

assigned to teach half and half (OOF SCORE = 3) at an urban or rural school would likely be

assigned to teach all in field (OOF SCORE = 1) in a suburban school if all other factors were

held constant.

Finally, this model indicates that new science teachers who are not certified teach more

in-field courses than those who are certified. In a situation where a certified teacher was assigned
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 23

to teach all OOF (OOF SCORE = 5), a teacher without a certificate would likely teach all in-

field (OOF SCORE = 1).

Discussion

These findings show the high prevalence of OOF teaching among new secondary science

teachers across their first five years, with 64.3% of assignments including at least one OOF

course. This percentage of OOF teaching exceeds levels observed for science teachers in many

nations (e.g., Zhou, 2014), including the US (Banilower et al., 2015; Ingersoll, 1999). This may

be because all participants in this study were new teachers, who have been shown in past studies

to be assigned OOF more than experienced teachers (Ingersoll, 1999). Furthermore, this study

used a more stringent scoring system than is often used in this type of research (Seastrom et al.,

2004). Rather than designating an assignment as either in field or OOF, the scoring system in this

study accounted for the proportion of courses taught OOF. This scoring system provides a more

accurate estimation of OOF teaching.

The high prevalence of OOF teaching reported in this study compounds an already

challenging and vulnerable phase for new teachers, as articulated by Fessler and Christensen

(1992) and others (Davis et al., 2006; Luft et al., 2015). When assigned OOF, these new teachers

face additional difficulties with building confidence and developing relationships with students

and peers, the major conflicts that typically occur during the induction stage (Fessler &

Christensen, 1992). These additional demands may prevent OOF teachers from moving into the

competency building stage, bring them back to the induction stage, or taint their progress as they

move into future stages. Being assigned OOF in their early years may influence their

development as teachers in unexpected ways—some possibly positive, others potentially

undesirable.
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 24

While the finding that many teachers are teaching OOF is not new, a unique contribution

of this study comes from the fact that these data were collected while NCLB was in effect. This

is the only study we know about that has explored OOF assignments during the NCLB era. The

results suggest that while a high portion of teachers may have become “highly qualified” (US

DOE, 2011), many new teachers were still being assigned OOF. The NCLB policy appears to

have been ineffective in eliminating OOF teaching assignments with this sample of new

secondary science teachers.

These findings also indicate that new science teachers’ assignments changed often over

their first five years of teaching, information previously inaccessible due to the use of cross-

sectional data. This suggests an additional challenge facing new teachers—preparing for new

courses each year. Preparing for multiple courses has been noted as a challenge for teachers,

requiring extensive time commitments (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995; Ringstaff &

Sandholtz, 2002). Some of these changes in assignments are due to changing schools, while

others are mandated by administrators at the school at which a teacher is already employed.

Further research is needed into why teaching assignments change so often and how the repeated

changes impact a new teacher.

Despite frequent changes in teaching assignments, teachers were not assigned more or

fewer OOF courses over the first five years. This indicates that the shift to teaching more in field

does not occur in the first five years. Research extending past the first five years of teaching is

needed to identify when the shift to more in-field teaching occurs in order to better understand

the phenomenon of OOF teaching.

The fact that teachers were not assigned more in field across the first five years calls into

question the link claimed between new teacher attrition and OOF assignments. If teachers were
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 25

more likely to leave the profession due to OOF assignments, one would expect more OOF

assignments in the first year than the fifth year. Although past studies have indicated that

teachers are more likely to leave a position when assigned OOF (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010;

Keigher, 2010; Lock et al., 2011; Patterson et al., 2003; Sharplin, 2014), these findings challenge

that conclusion. It may be that factors beyond subject area preparation are more influential in

determining whether a teacher accepts a specific position. For example, past researchers have

found that factors such as school location, student population, and school context strongly

influence teachers’ decisions to accept and remain in a position (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, &

Wyckoff, 2005; Engel, Jacob, & Curran, 2014; Watters & Diezmann, 2015).

This study also adds to the literature by indicating that science teachers in certain

situations are more likely than others to be assigned to teach OOF: those in schools with higher

percentages of ELLs and those in urban or rural schools. In addition to providing a comparison

of OOF assignments in different types of schools, as has been done in past research (e.g.,

Ingersoll, 1998; Ingersoll & Curran, 2004; Ingersoll et al., 2004), this analysis demonstrates that

these types of schools are associated with OOF teaching for teachers across their first five years.

Thus a new science teacher is more likely to be assigned OOF at schools with these

characteristics. The high incidence of OOF assignments in these types of schools may be

associated with these schools’ continual struggle to maintain a qualified staff. However, past

research has strongly argued that OOF teaching is not solely the result of teaching shortages

(Ingersoll, 1999; Ingersoll et al., 2004). Instead it may be related to lower expectations for

students (Boser, Wilhelm, & Hanna, 2014). With lower expectations for student performance,

administrators may not view OOF teaching as a problem.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 26

This study also documented the higher prevalence of OOF teaching in schools with

higher percentages of ELLs. It is important that ELLs are not taught by a disproportionate

number of OOF teachers. While there are specific skills needed for teaching ELLs (Samson &

Collins, 2012), "highly qualified and well-trained teachers may become highly unqualified if,

once on the job, they are assigned to teach subjects for which they have little background"

(Ingersoll et al., 2004, p. 46).

Teachers working in schools where faculty are required to teach multiple subjects are

also more likely to be assigned OOF, including middle schools, where teachers may be

responsible for a span of science disciplines, and rural schools, where the limited number of

teachers requires that they teach multiple science disciplines (Ingersoll et al., 2004; Robinson,

1985). These situations raise questions about whether such teachers can know the science content

and pedagogy sufficiently to be effective in teaching multiple subjects. Further research is

needed in this area.

Finally, teachers who are certified are more likely to be assigned OOF than those without

certification. Those who have been prepared as teachers may be perceived as being better able to

teach a wider variety of subjects. However, problems occur when a teacher does not have a broad

science background and the administrator assumes that being certified in one science discipline

is adequate for teaching other science disciplines. This assumption may be justified in that

teachers who are OOF draw on their knowledge of pedagogy when their knowledge of the

subject matter is inadequate (Sanders et al., 1993). However, this rationalization overlooks the

importance of subject matter knowledge and the differences among science disciplines.

Limitations
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 27

We acknowledge that OOF teaching assignments, as operationalized in this study, may

not always be deleterious. Teachers may have the required subject matter knowledge and

pedagogical content knowledge without having a major/minor in the subject area. The use of

proxies, such as major/minor or number of courses in a subject area, has been found to be

problematic (National Research Council [NRC], 2013). Nonetheless, teachers’ major/minor is

generally considered an adequate indicator of subject area preparation.

In certain instances an OOF teacher may be an asset to student learning (Nixon & Luft,

2015; Olitsky, 2006; Ringstaff & Sandholtz, 2002). There also may be benefits in allowing a

teacher to expand his or her expertise to other disciplines. Additionally, a teacher may accept an

OOF position in order to work in a desirable location or with a preferred population (Boyd et al.,

2005). Thus a teacher may accept an OOF position in ways that are personally fulfilling, which

may ultimately have a positive impact on students.

Implications

The results of this study lead to several implications for policymakers, administrators,

and teacher educators. First, even with NCLB legislation, a large portion of new secondary

science teachers in this study have been assigned to teach science disciplines for which they had

not completed a major or minor. With the revision of NCLB known as the Every Student

Succeeds Act, federal requirements to be “highly qualified” are replaced by state certification

and licensing requirements (US DOE, 2015). How states respond to the increased flexibility and

the subsequent effect on OOF teaching assignments has yet to be seen (Sawchuk, 2016). While

this study does not examine causes of the high prevalence of OOF teaching in spite of NCLB

legislation, OOF teaching likely persists because existing policies allow teachers to be regarded

as highly qualified in all science disciplines although they are not prepared in the specific
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 28

disciplines they are being assigned to teach. Whether these current definitions and requirements

are meeting the purpose of the policies needs evaluation. It is time to explore other policy

avenues that may eliminate OOF teaching.

Policymakers, administrators, and teacher educators should seek to provide supports for

new teachers who have been assigned OOF (du Plessis et al., 2015; Sharplin, 2014). Past

researchers have found that science-specific induction support is important in helping new

teachers develop their capacity as teachers (Luft, 2009; Luft et al., 2011). While general science

induction support has been observed in previous research to be beneficial, induction supports that

are specific to an OOF science discipline may be particularly important for those who are

assigned to teach OOF. Support should be targeted at assisting teachers in developing their

subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in the OOF subject area. At the

simplest level, existing induction supports could be modified to recognize the needs of

participants who will be teaching OOF to some extent. Other induction programs specific for

OOF teachers may also be beneficial, though the design of such programs has not yet been

explored. For example, it is unknown whether it is more effective to associate OOF teachers in

one discipline with teachers who have in-field assignments in that same discipline or to keep all

OOF teachers together regardless of discipline.

Teacher educators may help reduce the prevalence of OOF teaching in the early years by

helping prospective teachers understand the importance of teaching the discipline in which they

are prepared and cautioning them about the additional challenges faced by those who are OOF.

Teacher educators could also prepare teachers for teaching multiple science disciplines rather

than focusing exclusively on one specific discipline. Such a response is practical because new

teachers are so likely to be OOF and because those who have completed teacher certification
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 29

programs are more likely to be assigned OOF than those who have not. Efforts to prepare

teachers for OOF assignments have not been explored.

Rather than broadening the content preparation for prospective teachers, resulting in

broad but shallow subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, ways to better

prepare teachers for science teaching, whether assigned to in-field or OOF courses, should be

considered. For example, a richer knowledge of the crosscutting concepts found in the Next

Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2012) could be useful when teaching OOF (Nixon & Luft,

2015), assisting teachers in making connections to broader science ideas even when teaching in-

field courses. Similarly, a strong base of science pedagogical knowledge has been shown to

support teaching across disciplines (Sanders et al., 1993). Greater science pedagogical

knowledge and increased skills may support new teachers as they work to learn the content for

their OOF assignment. Furthermore, providing teachers with tools to learn science content on

their own may be among the most important aspects of preparing them to teach OOF (Kademian

& Davis, 2016). Tools could be provided that will help teachers to work through their own

understanding of the science (e.g., CoRes, concept sketches, concept maps). Resources assisting

teaching in developing their subject matter knowledge could also be furnished (e.g., Nordine,

2016; Robertson, 2002). Such tools could be used to strengthen their subject matter knowledge,

whether in an in-field or OOF subject area. Similarly, helping teachers see themselves as learners

of science, with important dispositions such as curiosity, intellectual rigor, and confidence, could

be beneficial for teachers’ development whatever their teaching assignment.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 30

References

Banilower, E. R., Trygstad, P. J., & Smith, P. S. (2015). The first five years: What the 2012

National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education reveals about novice science

teachers and their teaching. In J. A. Luft & S. L. Dubois (Eds.), Newly hired teachers of

science: A better beginning (pp. 3-29). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Bernal, A., & Daza, E. E. (2010). On the epistemological and ontological status of chemical

relations. HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 16(2), 80-103.

Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. (Eds.). (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content

knowledge in science education. London, England: Routledge.

Boser, U., Wilhelm, M., & Hanna, R. (2014). The power of the Pygmalion Effect: Teachers'

expectations strongly predict college completion. Washington, DC: Center for American

Progress.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). Explaining the short careers of high-

achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. The American Economic

Review, 95(2), 166-171.

Brodbelt, S. (1990). Out-of-field teaching. The Clearing House, 63(6), 282-285.

Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Effects of new biology teachers' subject-matter knowledge on curricular

planning. Science Education, 75(6), 631-647.

Carlsen, W. S. (1992). Closing down the conversation: Discouraging student talk on unfamiliar

science content. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(2), 15-21.

Carlsen, W. S. (1997). Never ask a question if you don't know the answer: The tension in

teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal

of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 14-23.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 31

Cavanaugh, J. (2007). Akaike information criterion. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

measurement and statistics (pp. 16-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Childs, A., & McNicholl, J. (2007). Science teachers teaching outside of subject specialism:

Challenges, strategies adopted and implications for initial teacher education. Teacher

Development, 11(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1080/13664530701194538

Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2008). Assignment monitoring of certificated employees

in California by county offices of education 2003-2007, a report to the legislature.

Sacramento, CA: Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

Coopersmith, J. (2009). Characteristics of public, private, and Bureau of Indian education

elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2007-08

Schools and Staffing Survey. (NCES 2009-324). Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Council for Basic Education (CBE). (1986). The widespread abuse of out-of-field teaching. The

Education Digest, 51, 37-39.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does

“scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.

Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of

Educational Research, 76(4), 607-651.

Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. M. (2010). The price of misassignment: The role of teaching

assignments in Teach For America teachers' exit from low-income schools and the

teaching profession. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 299-323.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 32

du Plessis, A. E. (2015). Effective education: Conceptualising the meaning of out-of-field

teaching practices for teachers, teacher quality and school leaders. International Journal

of Educational Research, 72, 89-102.

du Plessis, A. E., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2015). Understanding the lived experiences of

novice out-of-field teachers in relation to school leadership practices. Asia-Pacific

Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4-21.

Engel, M., Jacob, B. A., & Curran, F. C. (2014). New evidence on teacher labor supply.

American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 36-72. doi: 10.3102/0002831213503031

European Commission (EC). (2010). Developing coherent and system-wide induction

programmes for beginning teachers: A handbook for policymakers. Brussels, Belgium:

Author.

European Commission (EC). (2013). Supporting teacher competence development: For better

learning outcomes. Brussels, Belgium: Author.

European Commission (EC). (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Brussels,

Belgium: Author.

Fessler, R., & Christensen, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). The teacher career cycle: Understanding and

guiding the professional development of teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1995). Biology teachers' perceptions of subject matter

structure and its relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 32(3), 301-325. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320309

Gray, L., & Taie, S. (2015). Public School Teacher Attrition and Mobility in the First Five

Years: Results From the First Through Fifth Waves of the 2007–08 Beginning Teacher
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 33

Longitudinal Study. (NCES 2015-337). Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter

knowledge for teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning

teacher (pp. 22-36). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Hacker, R. G., & Rowe, M. J. (1985). A study of teaching and learning processes in integrated

science classrooms. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 173-180.

Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and

physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109-120. doi: 10.1016/0742-

051X(87)90012-6

Henry, G. T., Fortner, C. K., & Bastian, K. C. (2012). The effects of experience and attrition for

novice high-school science and mathematics teachers. Science, 335(6072), 1118-1121.

doi: 10.1126/science.1215343

Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching out-of-field as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher

identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271-297.

doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9333-4

Ingersoll, R. M. (1998). The problem of out-of-field teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan(10), 773-

776. doi: 10.2307/20439339

Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools.

Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37. doi: 10.3102/0013189x028002026

Ingersoll, R. M. (2008). Core problems: Out-of-field teaching persists in key academic courses

and high poverty schools. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 34

Ingersoll, R. M., & Curran, B. K. (2004). Out-of-field teaching: The great obstacle to meeting

the “highly qualified” teacher challenge. Washington, DC: National Governor's

Association.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Gruber, K. J. (1996). Out-of-field teaching and educational equality. (NCES

96-040). Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Education.

Ingersoll, R. M., Hoxby, C. M., & Scrupski, A. F. (2004). Why some schools have more

underqualified teachers than others. Brookings Papers on Education Policy (7), 45-88.

Ingersoll, R. M., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: The transformation of the

teaching force: Research report published by the Consortium for Policy Research in

Education (CPRE).

Jensen, B., Sandoval-Hernádez, A., Knoll, S., & Gonzalez, E. J. (2012). The experience of new

teachers: Results from TALIS 2008: OECD Publishing.

Jerald, C. D. (2002). All talk, no action: Putting an end to out-of-field teaching. Washington, DC:

The Education Trust.

Kademian, S. M., & Davis, E. A. (2016, April). Supporting beginning teacher planning of

investigation-based science discussions. Paper presented at the NARST Annual

International Conference, Baltimore, MD.

Keigher, A. (2010). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2008–09 teacher follow-up

survey. (NCES 2010-353). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics

Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Kena, G., Hussar, W., McFarland, J., de Brey, C., Musu-Gillette, L., Wang, X., Zhang, J.,

Rathbun, A., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., Dunlop
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 35

Velez, E. (2016). The condition of education 2016. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics.

Kloser, M. (2012). A place for the nature of biology in biology education. Electronic Journal of

Science Education, 16(1), 1-18.

Kola, A. J., & Sunday, O. S. (2015). A review of teacher self-efficacy, pedagogical content

knowledge (PCK) and out-of-field teaching: Focussing on Nigerian teachers.

International Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 80-85.

Lee, O. (1995). Subject matter knowledge, classroom management, and instructional practices in

middle school science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 423-

440. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320409

Lock, R., Salt, D., & Soares, A. (2011). Acquisition of science subject knowledge and pedagogy

in initial teacher training. Birmingham, England: Wellcome Trust.

Luft, J. A. (2007). Minding the gap: Needed research on beginning/newly qualified science

teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 532-537. doi:

10.1002/tea.20190

Luft, J. A. (2009). Beginning secondary science teachers in different induction programmes: The

first year of teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2355-2384.

doi: 10.1080/09500690802369367

Luft, J. A., Dubois, S. L., Nixon, R. S., & Campbell, B. K. (2015). Supporting newly hired

teachers of science: Attaining teacher professional standards. Studies in Science

Education, 51(1), 1-48. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2014.980559

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 36

Luft, J. A., Firestone, J. B., Wong, S. S., Ortega, I., Adams, K., & Bang, E. (2011). Beginning

secondary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed methods study. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1199-1224. doi: 10.1002/tea.20444

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers

and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2015). Science

teachers learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Washington,

DC: The National Academies Press.

National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards (NCTEPS). (1965). The

assignment and misassignment of American teachers: The complete report of the Special

Committee on the Assignment of Teachers of the National Commission on Teacher

Education and Professional Standards. Washington, DC: National Education

Association.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF). (1996). What matters most:

Teaching for America's future. New York, NY: Author.

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010). The all-purpose science teacher: An analysis of

loopholes in state requirements for high school science teachers. Washington, DC:

National Council on Teacher Quality.

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,

crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM

education: A nation advancing? Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 37

Nixon, R. S., & Luft, J. A. (2015). Teaching chemistry with a biology degree: Crosscutting

concepts as boundary objects. In J. A. Luft & S. L. Dubois (Eds.), Newly hired teachers

of science: A better beginning (pp. 75-85). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense

Publishers.

Nordine, J. (Ed.). (2016). Teaching energy across the sciences K-12. Arlington, VA: NSTA

Press.

Olitsky, S. (2006). Facilitating identity formation, group membership, and learning in science

classrooms: What can be learned from out-of-field teaching in an urban school? Science

Education, 91(2), 201-221. doi: 10.1002/sce.20182

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). The quality of the

teaching workforce OECD Observer. Paris, France: Author.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Teachers matter:

Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris, France: Author.

Patterson, N. C., Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2003). Running the treadmill: Explorations of

beginning high school science teacher turnover in Arizona. The High School Journal,

86(4), 14-22. doi: 10.2307/40364320

Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). Out-of-field assignments: Case studies of two beginning

teachers. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 812-841.

Robertson, W. C. (2002). Energy. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Robinson, V. (1985). Making do in the classroom: A report on the misassignment of teachers.

Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers, Council for Basic Education.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 38

Rolls, S., & Plauborg, H. (2009). Teachers’ career trajectories: An examination of research. In

M. Bayer, U. Brinkkjær, H. Plauborg & S. Rolls (Eds.), Teachers' career trajectories and

work lives (pp. 9-28). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Rushton, G. T., Ray, H. E., Criswell, B. A., Polizzi, S. J., Bearss, C. J., Levelsmier, N., . . .

Kirchhoff, M. (2014). Stemming the diffusion of responsibility: A longitudinal case study

of America's chemistry teachers. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 390-403. doi:

10.3102/0013189x14556341

Samson, J. F., & Collins, B. A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English

language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness.

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D. (1993). Secondary science teachers' knowledge base

when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 723-736. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660300710

Sawchuk, S. (2016). ESSA loosens reins on teacher evaluations, qualifications. Education Week,

35(15), 14-15.

Schwab, J. J. (1964). Structure of the disciplines: Meanings and significances. In G. W. Ford &

L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 6-30). Chicago, IL:

Rand McNally.

Seastrom, M. M., Gruber, K. J., Henke, R., McGrath, D. J., & Cohen, B. A. (2004).

Qualifications of the public school teacher workforce: Prevalence of out-of-field teaching

1987-88 to 1999-2000 (Revised): National Center for Education Statistics.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 39

Sharplin, E. D. (2014). Reconceptualising out-of-field teaching: Experiences of rural teachers in

Western Australia. Educational Research, 56(1), 97-110. doi:

10.1080/00131881.2013.874160

Soares, A., Lock, R., & Foster, J. (2008). Induction: The experiences of newly qualified science

teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(3), 191-206.

Steyn, G. M., & du Plessis, A. E. (2007). The implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for

effective teaching, quality education and school management. Africa Education Review,

4(2), 144-158. doi: 10.1080/18146620701652754

The Royal Society. (2007). The UK’s science and mathematics teaching workforce: A 'state of

the nation' report. London, England: Author.

U.S. Department of Education (US DOE). (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.

107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. Washington, DC: Author Retrieved from

www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

U.S. Department of Education (US DOE). (2004). Fact sheet: New No Child Left Behind

flexibility: Highly qualified teachers. Washington, DC: Author Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html.

U.S. Department of Education (US DOE). (2006). Rural education in America: Definitions, from

nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/

U.S. Department of Education (US DOE). (2011). A summary of highly qualified teacher data

for school year 2009-10. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education (US DOE). (2015). Every student succeeds act. Washington, DC:

Author Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-

bill/1177/text.
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 40

Veal, W. R., & Kubasko, D. S., Jr. (2003). Biology and geology teachers' domain-specific

pedagogical content knowledge of evolution. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,

18(4), 334-352.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational

Research, 54(2), 143-178. doi: 10.3102/00346543054002143

Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2015). Challenges confronting career-changing beginning

teachers: A qualitative study of professional scientists becoming science teachers.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 163-192. doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9413-0

Willett, M., Segal, D., & Walford, W. (2014). National teaching workforce dataset data analysis

report 2014. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia Department of Education.

Zhou, Y. (2014). The relationship between school organizational characteristics and reliance on

out-of-field teachers in mathematics and science: Cross-national evidence from TALIS

2008. Asia Pacific Journal of Education Researcher, 23(3), 482-497.

OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 41

Table 1

Demographics of Participants (n = 137)

% of Participants
Gender
Female 62.2
Male 37.8

Age
22-25 21.2
26-30 14.6
31-40 8.0
41-59 4.4
Not reported 51.8

Certification pathway
Undergraduate 17.6
Post-baccalaureate 22.9
Master’s 48.1
Other 7.6
No certificate 3.8

Degree subject
Earth science 9.2
Life sciences 49.2
Physical sciences 18.5
Other science 6.9
Engineering 2.3
Non-science 13.8

Induction program
E-mentoring 25.0
General 25.8
Internship 24.2
Science specific 25.0
Note: Some non-science degree subjects include business information systems, educational
leadership, and sociology.
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 42

Table 2

School Characteristics

% of Assignments
School level
Middle school 25.2
High school 66.3
Other level 8.5

School location
Rural 14.3
Suburban 24.1
Urban 61.6
Note: These data are reported for each teacher’s yearly assignment. This means that an
individual school’s data are reported multiple times when a teacher was assigned to teach at the
same school for multiple years.
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 43

Table 3

Response Rate for Each Year

Participants % of Total
YR1 128 93
YR2 108 79
YR3 91 66
YR5 74 54
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 44

Table 4

Prevalence of Teaching Assignments Across Five Years

Assignments Percent of
OOF SCORE
(n = 401) Total
All in field 143 35.7
Mostly in field 62 15.5
Half and half 27 6.7
Mostly OOF 82 20.4
All OOF 87 21.7
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 45

Table 5

Transitions from Year X to Year Y as Percentage of Total Transitions (n = 180)

Year Y Teaching Assignment

Year X teaching All in Mostly in Half and Mostly All OOF
assignment field field half OOF
All in field 21 5 3 9 7
Mostly in field 4 2 0 4 2
Half and half 3 2 0 1 1
Mostly OOF 10 2 1 3 4
All OOF 8 3 0 2 3
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 46

Table 6

Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis for OOF SCORE on YR

Coefficient St. err. p-value

YR2 (YR1) -0.2962 0.2367 0.21
YR3 (YR1) -0.1274 0.2440 0.60
YR5 (YR1) -0.1633 0.2625 0.53
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 47

Table 7

Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis for OOF SCORE on Other Factors

Coefficient St. err. p-value

Percent ELL 0.0137 0.0076 0.035*

Middle school baseline

High school -0.7212 0.2344 0.002*
Other level -0.0407 0.4029 0.705

Urban baseline
Rural -0.5717 0.3012 0.06
Suburban -1.2131 0.2499 <0.001*

Teaching certificate baseline

No certificate -2.5173 0.6826 <0.001*
*Significantly different from baseline (p < 0.05)
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 48

a.

b.
Figure 1. (a) Percentage of ELL students and (b) number of students at schools where
participants were employed. These data are reported for each teacher’s yearly assignment. This
means that an individual school’s data are reported multiple times when a teacher was assigned
to teach at the same school for multiple years.
OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 49

45%

40%

35%

30%
Percentage of Teachers

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
All in field Mostly in field Half and half Mostly OOF All OOF
Teaching Assignment

YR1 YR2 YR3 YR5

Figure 2. Percentage of teachers with each teaching assignment across years.

 OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS 50

Figure 3. Cut points for ordinal logistic regression model of OOF SCORE on other factors. The
standard error for all coefficients is between 0.23 and 0.25.

i In this study three different designations of teacher qualifications must be distinguished. The
first designation is whether a teacher is in field or OOF. For this study, as in many recent
publications, OOF teaching is considered to be teaching a subject for which one has not earned a
major/minor. We are specific to the science disciplines (Ingersoll, 1999), as subject matter
knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge are discipline specific (Berry, Friedrichsen, &
Loughran, 2015 2015; Veal & Kubasko, 2003). The second designation is whether a teacher is
highly qualified, a US federal government classification that comes from No Child Left Behind
legislation. In order to be highly qualified, new teachers must have at least a bachelor’s degree,
pass a subject area test, and complete a significant amount of coursework in the discipline they
teach (US DOE, 2002). This was originally specific to the science discipline, but the law was
loosened over time to allow teachers to become highly qualified in all science disciplines without
having demonstrated adequate knowledge in each science discipline (NCTQ, 2010; US DOE,
2004). The third designation is whether a teacher has earned a teaching certification, also called
teacher licensure in some states. One becomes a certified teacher by meeting the state’s
requirements, which often include stipulations about completing college or university
coursework and passing a state certification test. Certification typically requires a teacher
preparation coursework component, although which courses and when those courses are
completed can differ (i.e., before or after hire as a teacher). The discipline specificity of a
teaching certificate varies from state to state.
There is significant overlap among these three designations. The relevant difference for
this study is in what these designations indicate about a new teacher’s preparation. Teacher
certification indicates that a teacher has completed some type of teacher preparation program.
Specific requirements vary so significantly from state to state that it is unclear what else is
indicated by this designation. Highly qualified status indicates that teachers have some level of
competence with the subject area they teach. However, this designation is unclear since it is not
specific to the various science disciplines. OOF teaching, a term commonly used in the research
literature, indicates that the participant has not successfully completed a major/minor in a subject
area, constituting significant coursework in that specific science discipline.
We have thus chosen to focus primarily on the OOF teaching designation. However, in
this manuscript we discuss the prevalence of OOF teaching in a time when all teachers are
required to be, and the vast majority have been reported to be (US DOE, 2011), highly qualified.
We also discuss how teacher certification is associated with the incidence of OOF teaching.

View publication stats