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 on cross‐sectional data. In this manuscript, the termrefers 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 5 years of teaching. Whereas past studies have simply compared the prevalence of OOF teaching among groups of teachers (e.g., Ingersoll,), 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:

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 ).

Teachers in their first 5 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 ).

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.

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 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.

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

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 and 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.

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.

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 year 1 (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 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, ), 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.

Studies have shown higher rates of OOF teaching among new science teachers. Ingersoll ( 1999 ) found that 23.2% of science teachers with less than 5 years of experience were assigned OOF, in contrast to 14.5% of those who had been teaching science for more than 25 years. Banilower, Trygstad, and Smith ( 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 5 years (Ingersoll et al., 2014 ; National Academies of Sciences, 2015 ), this shift toward more in‐field teaching may begin during the first 5 years.

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, 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 ).

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 ).

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 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 ).

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.

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, there was a maximum n of 548 (137 participants over 4 years), though it was never this large due to missing data.

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 1 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 1 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 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.

The induction program in which the teacher was enrolled was a four‐level categorical variable: (i) science specific programs; (ii) electronic mentoring programs; (iii) general induction programs provided by school districts; and (iv) 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.

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

The categorical variable of geographic location of the school at which the teacher taught was classified on three levels: (i) rural; (ii) suburban; or (iii) 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.

The grade level of the school at which the teacher taught was a categorical variable with three levels: (i) middle school; (ii) high school; or (iii) other (e.g., a 6–12 school). Middle schools are secondary schools spanning grades 6 through 9. 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.

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.

The number of years the teacher had been teaching was an ordinal variable (e.g., YR1 for the 1st year). As described previously, data for the 4th year were limited and thus did not meet the assumptions required for the statistical analysis. Fourth year data were therefore omitted from the analysis.

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 5 years.

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 5th year, and another was assigned to teach algebra her 1st year. New teachers in the US are generally expected to teach the same number of hours as experienced teachers.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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 1st year of classroom teaching, then at the end of each subsequent school year, with the last interview after their 5th year of teaching. The study was paused at the end of the 3rd year due to the end of a grant cycle; thus limited data were collected during the 4th year, with more complete data being gathered in the 5th year when funding resumed. Data were also collected from documents found on official school and district websites.

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.

As is common with longitudinal data collection, some participants did not provide data for all 5 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 5 years. Table 3 shows the response rate for each year, with only 74 teachers providing sufficient data and remaining in the profession in year 5. 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.

(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.

The 137 teachers who participated (see Tables 1 and 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 1st year of teaching. Researchers followed the teachers across their first 5 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 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 ).

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 5 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 1 of the 4 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.

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 to teach all OOF (OOF SCORE = 5), a teacher without a certificate would likely teach all in‐field (OOF SCORE = 1).

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.

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).

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 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.

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 5 years of teaching.

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 5 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 1 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 5 years.

These data show that new science teachers were assigned OOF at various levels during their first 5 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 5 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%).

The purpose of this study was to better understand the phenomenon of OOF assignments for science teachers across their first 5 years of teaching. The findings related to each research question are presented in this section.

Discussion

These findings show the high prevalence of OOF teaching among new secondary science teachers across their first 5 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.

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, ), 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 5 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 5 years. This indicates that the shift to teaching more in field does not occur in the first 5 years. Research extending past the first 5 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 5 years calls into question the link claimed between new teacher attrition and OOF assignments. If teachers were more likely to leave the profession due to OOF assignments, one would expect more OOF assignments in the 1st year than the 5th 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 5 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.

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 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.