Prevalence and Predictors of Out-Of-Field Teaching in The First Five Years
Prevalence and Predictors of Out-Of-Field Teaching in The First Five Years
Prevalence and Predictors of Out-Of-Field Teaching in The First Five Years
net/publication/317235977
CITATIONS READS
28 1,641
3 authors:
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:
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.
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
Ryan S. Nixon
University of Georgia
Author Note
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.
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 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
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,
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
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
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
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
through this stage, as more challenging assignments may return him or her to the induction stage
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
Literature Review
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
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
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,
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
1999; Jerald, 2002; Rushton et al., 2014; Seastrom, Gruber, Henke, McGrath, & Cohen, 2004).
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.
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
reported (i.e., gender, age, certification pathway, and school location; Banilower et al., 2015;
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
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
computers.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Q2. Changes in Extent of OOF Teaching Over the First Five Years
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.
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.
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,
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
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-
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
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
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
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
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 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,
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"
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. (Eds.). (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content
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-
Carlsen, W. S. (1992). Closing down the conversation: Discouraging student talk on unfamiliar
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
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
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
Council for Basic Education (CBE). (1986). The widespread abuse of out-of-field teaching. The
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does
Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of
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 practices for teachers, teacher quality and school leaders. International Journal
du Plessis, A. E., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2015). Understanding the lived experiences of
Engel, M., Jacob, B. A., & Curran, F. C. (2014). New evidence on teacher labor supply.
Author.
European Commission (EC). (2013). Supporting teacher competence development: For better
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
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
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
Hacker, R. G., & Rowe, M. J. (1985). A study of teaching and learning processes in integrated
051X(87)90012-6
Henry, G. T., Fortner, C. K., & Bastian, K. C. (2012). The effects of experience and attrition for
doi: 10.1126/science.1215343
doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9333-4
Ingersoll, R. M. (1998). The problem of out-of-field teaching. The Phi Delta Kappan(10), 773-
Ingersoll, R. M. (2008). Core problems: Out-of-field teaching persists in key academic courses
Ingersoll, R. M., & Curran, B. K. (2004). Out-of-field teaching: The great obstacle to meeting
Association.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Gruber, K. J. (1996). Out-of-field teaching and educational equality. (NCES
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
Jerald, C. D. (2002). All talk, no action: Putting an end to out-of-field teaching. Washington, DC:
Kademian, S. M., & Davis, E. A. (2016, April). Supporting beginning teacher planning of
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
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
Kola, A. J., & Sunday, O. S. (2015). A review of teacher self-efficacy, pedagogical content
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-
Lock, R., Salt, D., & Soares, A. (2011). Acquisition of science subject knowledge and pedagogy
Luft, J. A. (2007). Minding the gap: Needed research on beginning/newly qualified science
10.1002/tea.20190
Luft, J. A. (2009). Beginning secondary science teachers in different induction programmes: The
doi: 10.1080/09500690802369367
Luft, J. A., Dubois, S. L., Nixon, R. S., & Campbell, B. K. (2015). Supporting newly hired
Luft, J. A., Firestone, J. B., Wong, S. S., Ortega, I., Adams, K., & Bang, E. (2011). Beginning
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers
National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards (NCTEPS). (1965). The
assignment and misassignment of American teachers: The complete report of the Special
Association.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF). (1996). What matters most:
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 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
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
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
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). The quality of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Teachers matter:
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,
Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). Out-of-field assignments: Case studies of two beginning
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
Rushton, G. T., Ray, H. E., Criswell, B. A., Polizzi, S. J., Bearss, C. J., Levelsmier, N., . . .
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.
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
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).
10.1080/00131881.2013.874160
Soares, A., Lock, R., & Foster, J. (2008). Induction: The experiences of newly qualified science
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,
The Royal Society. (2007). The UK’s science and mathematics teaching workforce: A 'state of
U.S. Department of Education (US DOE). (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.
www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
U.S. Department of Education (US DOE). (2004). Fact sheet: New No Child Left Behind
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
U.S. Department of Education (US DOE). (2015). Every student succeeds act. Washington, DC:
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
18(4), 334-352.
Willett, M., Segal, D., & Walford, W. (2014). National teaching workforce dataset data analysis
Zhou, Y. (2014). The relationship between school organizational characteristics and reliance on
Table 1
% 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
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
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
Table 6
Table 7
Urban baseline
Rural -0.5717 0.3012 0.06
Suburban -1.2131 0.2499 <0.001*
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
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.