Diagnosing the current state of out-of-field teaching in high school science and mathematics

Autoři: Lisa Shah aff001;  Cooper Jannuzzo aff002;  Taufiq Hassan aff002;  Bogdan Gadidov aff002;  Herman E. Ray aff002;  Gregory T. Rushton aff004
Působiště autorů: Department of Chemistry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, United States of America aff001;  Department of Statistics and Analytical Science, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia, United States of America aff002;  Analytics and Data Science Institute, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia, United States of America aff003;  Tennessee STEM Education Center, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, United States of America aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223186


The U.S. government has acknowledged the critical role that teachers play in the production of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) professionals who will drive our nation’s economy. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was passed to improve the quality of education nationwide, in part, by decreasing the number of out-of-field (OOF) teachers. However, the impact of NCLB and related efforts on the current state of OOF teaching in high school science and mathematics has yet to be examined. Our analysis of data from the National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) indicates that from 2003–2016, the proportion of OOF teachers in chemistry and physics has increased, and there has been an increase in the number of students assigned to OOF teachers across subjects. We discuss the societal impact of our results and the critical role that policymakers, school administrators, and academic institutions, particularly university faculty, can play in its solution.

Klíčová slova:

Careers – Education – Mathematical physics – Mathematics – Science education – Schools – Surveys – Teachers


1. Langdon D, McKittrick G, Beede D, Khan B, Doms M. STEM: good jobs now and for the future. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration; 2011. 10 p. ESA Issue Brief: 03–11. Available from https://www.purdue.edu/hhs/hdfs/fii/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/s_iafis04c01.pdf

2. Shulman L. Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harv Educ Rev. 1987 Feb;57(1):1–23. Available from: http://hepgjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

3. Shulman L. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res. 1986 Feb;15(2):4–14. Available from: http://www.fisica.uniud.it/URDF/masterDidSciUD/materiali/pdf/Shulman_1986.pdf

4. Ingersoll RM. The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educ Res. 1999;28(2):26–37. Available from: https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=gse_pubs

5. Rushton GT, Ray HE, Criswell BA, Polizzi SJ, Bearss CJ, Levelsmier N, et al. Stemming the diffusion of responsibility: a longitudinal case study of America's chemistry teachers. Educ Res. 2014;43(8):390–403. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X14556341

6. Seastrom MM, Gruber KJ, Henke R, McGrath DJ, Cohen BA. Qualifications of the public school teacher workforce: prevalence of out-of-field teaching 1987–88 to 1999–2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics; 2002 May [revised 2004]. 92 p. Report No.: 603. Available from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518665.pdf

7. Monk DH. Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Econ Educ Rev. 1994 Jun;13(2):125–145. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0272775794900035

8. Hacker RG, Rowe MJ. A study of teaching and learning processes in integrated science classrooms. Eur J Sci Educ. 1985;7(2):173–180. Available from:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0140528850070208?journalCode=tsed19

9. Shah L, Hao J, Rodriguez CA, Fallin R, Linenberger-Cortes K, Ray HE, et al. Who are our prospective physics teachers? An analysis of Praxis physics subject assessment examinees and performance. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2018 May;14:1–14. Available from: https://journals.aps.org/prper/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010126

10. Shah L, Hao J, Schneider J, Fallin R, Linenberger-Cortes K, Ray HE, et al. Repairing leaks in the chemistry teacher pipeline: a longitudinal analysis of Praxis chemistry subject assessment examinees and scores. J Chem Educ. 2018 May;95(5):700–708. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00837

11. Darling-Hammond L. Teacher quality and student achievement. Educ Policy Anal Arch. 2000 Jan;8(1):1–44. Available from: https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515

12. Darling-Hammond L, Youngs P. Defining "highly qualified teachers": what does "scientifically-based research" actually tell us? Educ Res. 2002 Dec;31(9):13–25. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3594491?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents

13. Rushton GT, Rosengrant D, Dewar A, Shah L, Ray HE, Sheppard K, et al. Towards a high quality high school workforce: a longitudinal, demographic analysis of U.S. public school physics teachers. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2017 Oct;13: 1–11. Available from: https://journals.aps.org/prper/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020122

14. Rushton GT, Dewar A, Ray HE, Criswell BA, Shah L. Setting a standard for chemistry education in the next generation: a retrosynthetic analysis. ACS Cent Sci. 2016 Oct;2(11):825–833. Available from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acscentsci.6b00216 27924311

15. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ED).

16. Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program [Internet]. American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2018. Available from: http://www.nsfnoyce.org/

17. Marshall J. Replicating the UTeach model for 10 years: where we are and what we have learned. in: Joint Spring 2016 Meeting of the Texas Sections of APS, AAPT, and Zone 13 of the SPS; 2016; Beaumont, Texas. American Physical Society. Available from: http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2016.TSS.C1.2

18. Wolter M, Grosnick D, Watson J, Ober D, Smith W. PhysTEC—an induction/mentoring model for pre- and in-service physics and science teachers. In: Ohio Section Spring; 2004; Cincinnati, Ohio. American Physical Society. Available from: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..OSS.B8007W

19. Schwab JJ. Structure of the disciplines: meaning and significances. 1972. A review of In Readings in the Philosophy of Education. Rich JM, editor. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 1966.

20. Bernal A, Daza EE. On the epistemological and ontological status of chemical relations. HYLE. 2010;16(2):80–103. Available from: http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/16-2/bernal.pdf

21. Shah L., Hao J., Schneider J., Fallin R., Linenberger Cortes K., Ray H. E., et al. Repairing Leaks in the Chemistry Teacher Pipeline: A Longitudinal Analysis of Praxis Chemistry Subject Assessment Examinees and Scores. J. Chem. Educ., 2018 Mar;95(5):700–708.

22. Shah L., Hao J., Rodriguez C. A., Fallin R., Linenberger-Cortes K., Ray H. E., et al. Analysis of Praxis physics subject assessment examinees and performance: Who are our prospective physics teachers?. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. R., 2018 May;14(1):010126.

23. Tourkin SC, Warner T, Parmer R, Cole C, Jackson B, Zukerberg A, et al. Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2007. 219 p. NCES Report No.: 2007–337. Available from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007337.pdf

24. Broughman S, Swaim N, Parmer R, Zotti A, Dial S. Private school universe survey (PSS): public-use data file for school year 2011–12. 2014 [2019].

25. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

26. Plisch M. A path to recruiting more STEM teachers. Science 2015 Apr;348(6233):405–405.

27. Boyd D., Lankford H., Loeb S, Wyckoff J. Explaining the short careers of high-achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. Am. Econ. Rev. 2005 May;95(2): 166–171.

28. Kersaint G., Lewis J., Potter R., Meisels G. Why teachers leave: Factors that influence retention and resignation. Teaching and Teacher Education 2007 Aug; 23(6):775–794.

29. Gamoran A. Will latest U.S. law lead to successful schools in STEM? Science. 2016 Sep;353(6305):1209–1211. Available from: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6305/1209.long doi: 10.1126/science.aah4037 27634513

30. Every Student Succeeds Act 2015 (CONG).

31. Wilson SM. Professional development for science teachers. Science. 2013 Apr;340(6130):310–313. Available from: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6130/310 doi: 10.1126/science.1230725 23599481

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 9

Nejčtenější v tomto čísle

Tomuto tématu se dále věnují…


Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova

Ulcerative colitis_muž_břicho_střeva
Ulcerózní kolitida
nový kurz

Blokátory angiotenzinových receptorů (sartany)
Autoři: MUDr. Jiří Krupička, Ph.D.

Antiseptika a prevence ve stomatologii
Autoři: MUDr. Ladislav Korábek, CSc., MBA

Citikolin v neuroprotekci a neuroregeneraci: od výzkumu do klinické praxe nejen očních lékařů
Autoři: MUDr. Petr Výborný, CSc., FEBO

Zánětlivá bolest zad a axiální spondylartritida – Diagnostika a referenční strategie
Autoři: MUDr. Monika Gregová, Ph.D., MUDr. Kristýna Bubová

Všechny kurzy
Kurzy Doporučená témata