Teacher Disposition as a Mediator of Professional Development Outcomes: A Closer Examination of Out-of-Field Physics Teachers

Abstract

Science remains a foundational component of STEM education; however, its impact is constrained by a persistent shortage of qualified science teachers in U.S. high schools, particularly in the discipline of physics. This shortage has led to the widespread placement of teachers without subject-specific degrees or formal teaching credentials in physics classrooms. To mitigate this long-standing challenge, there is a critical need for sustained professional learning opportunities that enhance the content knowledge and pedagogical skills of out-of-field physics teachers. This case study examines the impact of teacher disposition on learning outcomes among participants in a three-year, targeted, and intensive physics professional development (PD) program. Using a qualitative data collection process, this study found that teachers who demonstrated a positive disposition toward the PD program exhibited notable gains in physics content knowledge, adopted student-centered instructional approaches, and reported increased self-efficacy in teaching physics compared to their less positively disposed counterparts. The findings underscore the need to consider and address teacher disposition as a mediating factor in the effectiveness of professional development for educators. The implications highlight the critical role of teacher disposition in shaping their learning outcomes, emphasizing the need to engage educators’ beliefs, motivations, and attitudes within supportive, reflective learning environments. By embedding dispositional awareness into PD frameworks, program designers can enhance and foster more meaningful and sustained teacher benefits.

1. Introduction

The education landscape is dynamic and shaped by ongoing global, demographic, and contextual changes, which, when combined with persistent teacher shortages, significantly impact learning outcomes, especially in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. STEM education is widely recognized as a foundational driver of national economic growth, innovation, and global competitiveness. As such, maintaining a strategic advantage in the 21st century requires a deliberate and systemic investment in high-quality STEM educators. The increasing complexity of scientific knowledge and the rapid integration of emerging technologies into curricula underscore the need for responsive and pedagogically effective teaching practices. However, the ongoing shortage of qualified STEM educators poses a significant challenge, threatening to undermine efforts to advance scientific literacy and limit the field’s broader contributions to societal progress and innovation.

Building upon prior research that investigated the effects of a National Science Foundation-funded, needs-based professional development program for physics teachers (Ogodo, 2019), this study examines the influence of teacher disposition on learning outcomes during the training. Gaining insight into how teachers’ dispositions toward professional development shape their engagement and learning can inform the design of more inclusive and effective training models—ones that support meaningful outcomes for all participants, regardless of their initial attitudes or beliefs.

2. Review of Related Literature

2.1. Teacher Shortages in America

Teacher shortages have emerged as a global crisis, with UNESCO (2024) projecting a demand for 44 million new teachers worldwide by 2030. In the United States, districts continue to face challenges of recruiting and retaining qualified educators, often resorting to assigning teachers without proper credentials to facilitate their classrooms, which compromises instructional quality and learning outcomes (Peetz, 2022; Saunders & Skinner, 2025). Earlier studies projected that, by 2025, over 400,000 U.S. teaching positions would be either vacant or filled by out-of-field teachers—those assigned to teach subjects for which they have no degree or certification, representing nearly 44% of public schools (Gould, 2019; Tan et al., 2024). Research consistently shows that out-of-field teachers often lack the content expertise, pedagogical strategies, and self-efficacy to meet students’ learning needs (Nixon et al., 2017; Ogodo, 2019; D. Sunal et al., 2017; C. S. Sunal et al., 2019).

A major driver for the shortage stems largely from teacher attrition, with approximately 270,000 educators leaving annually due to retirement or career changes—a trend accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Lopez, 2021; Torpey, 2018). Meanwhile, enrollments in teacher preparation programs have stagnated or continue to decline (Flannery, 2016; García & Weiss, 2019). Additional factors such as heavy workloads, inadequate pay, limited professional autonomy, restrictive policies, low societal respect, safety concerns, etc., foster burnout, further discouraging new and veteran teachers from remaining in the profession (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Ogodo, 2024). Among the STEM content most impacted is science content, particularly physics education.

2.2. Teacher Shortages in Physics Education

Physics education faces severe shortages, as only one-third (33%) of high school physics teachers hold degrees or certifications in the subject, perpetuating the prevalence of out-of-field teaching (Banilower et al., 2018; Ogodo, 2019; C. S. Sunal et al., 2019). Meltzer & Otero (2012) linked the shortage to inadequate support for future physics educators in teacher preparation programs, which is a situation worsened by increasing high school student enrollment in physics courses nationwide (Goldring et al., 2013; White & Tesfaye, 2014). The limited supply of qualified teachers raises concerns about instructional quality and students’ conceptual understanding, which, in turn, affects students’ interests in pursuing physics at higher levels (Otero & Meltzer, 2016; Rushton et al., 2017). To address this gap, districts and universities are expanding professional development and alternative certification pathways to strengthen physics content knowledge and pedagogy among out-of-field teachers to improve student learning outcomes (Sheppard et al., 2020; Sutcher et al., 2016).

2.3. Physics Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge

The low percentage of physics teachers presents a significant challenge in science education, where 67% are teaching the subject outside their certified field (Banilower et al., 2018; Ogodo, 2019; C. S. Sunal et al., 2019). This trend raises concerns about the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) level of these teachers. PCK is the specialized professional knowledge that integrates subject matter expertise with pedagogical strategies, enabling teachers to present content in ways that are comprehensible, relevant, and meaningful to learners. Shulman (1987) coined the term pedagogical content knowledge as a necessary knowledge base that enables the transformation of disciplinary knowledge into instructional representation using “analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations…” (p. 9). Without a strong foundation in the subject matter, teachers may struggle to implement these practices effectively, which can limit student understanding, engagement, and learning outcomes.

Turocy (2016) elaborated that content (subject-matter) experts possess in-depth disciplinary knowledge, understand how students learn, recognize individual learning differences, and apply various instructional strategies to meet diverse needs. Research supports the notion that teachers with limited PCK often lack this flexibility of planning and delivering adaptive, student-centered instruction. However, those with strong content knowledge and pedagogical skills can pivot more effectively, scaffold learning experiences, and foster conceptual understanding through interactive, student-centered approaches (Ogodo, 2019; Shulman, 1986; C. S. Sunal et al., 2019; Turocy, 2016). Insufficient content expertise, therefore, not only affects instructional quality but may also contribute to broader systemic issues, including declining student participation in physics and underrepresentation in STEM fields. Moreover, Chang et al. (2018) warned of the adverse effects of underqualified teachers in physics classrooms because they can discourage student interest in physics and deter future enrollment.

2.4. Content Expertise and Teacher Self-Efficacy

Content expertise plays a crucial role in shaping how teachers perceive their instructional capabilities and the translation of knowledge for learners. Such self-perceptions, often conceptualized as self-efficacy beliefs, significantly influence teachers’ instructional decisions, level of engagement, and persistence in the face of challenges. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as a metacognitive process in which individuals assess their “capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). Similarly, Zee and Koomen (2016) noted that self-efficacy beliefs affect how individuals interpret their thoughts, actions, and emotions in specific teaching contexts.

For out-of-field physics teachers, content expertise—or the lack thereof—directly impacts their confidence and perceived ability to support student learning. As Catalona et al. (2019) observed, teacher self-efficacy is closely tied to subject-matter knowledge, which, in turn, influences their instructional quality. Studies indicate that teachers with content expertise are more likely to design and implement pedagogical strategies, such as exploratory, inquiry-based learning experiences that foster conceptual understanding (Hashweh, 2013; Kleickmann et al., 2013; Ogodo, 2019; C. S. Sunal et al., 2019), while those with limited expertise often experience diminished self-efficacy and are more inclined to rely on didactic, textbook-driven, and teacher-centered instruction (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Bandura, 1997; Morris et al., 2017; Keller et al., 2017; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2019). Such instructional practices may inhibit students’ conceptual engagement and reduce opportunities for active learning, leading to apathy.

2.5. The Need for Out-of-Field Teacher Professional Development

Professional development is a critical vehicle for educational reform, offering a structured pathway for teachers—particularly those lacking formal credentials or specialized training—to acquire the necessary content knowledge and pedagogical skills to support student learning effectively. The National Research Council (National Research Council, 2011) emphasized the importance of a longitudinal continuum of professional learning, beginning in teacher preparation and extending throughout the teaching career. Similarly, the National Science Foundation (NSF) supports various initiatives and projects aimed at addressing the science teacher shortages through grant funding to sustain PD tailored to the needs of in-service teachers and other efforts.

The prevalence of out-of-field physics teachers calls for alternative and effective PD designed to enhance their subject-matter expertise and instructional competence. Additional training or induction is necessary for improving instructional quality and fostering student achievement in STEM disciplines. Many early career and out-of-field teachers need professional support that is needs-based, contextually relevant, and purposefully designed to enhance their teacher content mastery. Evans (2014) surmised that a well-designed and implemented PD has the potential to positively impact teachers’ beliefs about teaching science. Ogodo (2019) argued that PD for out-of-field teachers must align with their instructional realities by providing relevant teaching strategies that lead to tangible improvements in their instruction.

2.6. Disposition and Professional Development Outcomes

Disposition refers to deeply held belief systems, attitudes, and internal states of mind used as a paradigm for interpreting and interacting with a phenomenon. It is shaped by prior educational and cultural experiences and ongoing social interactions (Bandura, 1997; Choi et al., 2016). One’s disposition has a significant influence on their level of engagement, persistence, and openness to new ideas, and when ingrained, these dispositions may hinder the learning process (Choi et al., 2016; Christie et al., 2015; Fives & Buehl, 2016). Many dispositional characteristics operate at a subconscious level, manifesting as habitual thought patterns or behaviors.

In the context of educational PDs, disposition plays a crucial role in determining whether participants engage meaningfully and utilize the information. While the primary objective of PD is to enhance participants’ knowledge, not all emerge with the expected learning outcomes. Opfer and Pedder (2011) noted that some teachers leave PD experiences without noticeable changes or measurable outcomes to their professional knowledge or practice. Therefore, it is essential to recognize and address this mitigating factor to minimize its impact on PD outcomes. PD programs that purposefully consider and engage with participants’ underlying beliefs and motivations may likely foster authentic learning and sustained improvements.

As the demand for physics teachers continues to exceed supply, it becomes increasingly urgent to explore sustainable solutions that build both content expertise and instructional confidence—key factors in achieving effective teaching and improved student outcomes. The challenges identified in this review of literature underscore the pressing need for out-of-field physics teachers’ professional development.

3. Theoretical Framework

Constructivist Theory and Disposition to Learning

Constructivist learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978) offers an epistemological framework for examining the role of disposition in shaping learning outcomes. From a constructivist perspective, learning is an active, socially mediated process in which individuals construct knowledge through prior experiences and sociocultural interactions within a given context (Piaget, 1936; Vygotsky, 1978). Through sociocultural and contextual processes, learners develop dispositions that influence how they engage with new knowledge, interpret experiences, and approach learning tasks. Bandura (1997) defined disposition as encompassing “personal factors such as self-beliefs, aspirations, and outcome expectations that regulate behavior” (p. 14). Likewise, Vygotsky (1978) explained that disposition is a human characteristic that shapes one’s receptivity to new ideas and perspectives and their willingness, or not, to engage cognitively in demanding activities.

Disposition is an internal characteristic influencing whether one approaches new learning experiences with engagement or resistance; therefore, it is fundamental to learning because it drives learners’ curiosity to explore, be open to new ideas, and make sense of a phenomenon. Bandura (1997) noted that disposition comes with agency and capacity—the “power to influence their own actions to produce certain results” and “to exercise control over one’s thought processes, motivation, affect, and action operates through mechanisms of personal agency” (p. 2). This means that, within a learning context, such as teacher professional training, disposition manifests through teachers’ agentic decisions—whether to engage with training as presented, reflect, or incorporate the new instructional strategies on their practice.

If this “habit of mind”, which operates unconsciously, is ingrained or rigid, it leads to resistance to change and may impede the learning process (Christie et al., 2015). Disposition acts as both a filter and a catalyst for learning—shaping how knowledge is received and interpreted and whether new information is utilized. Therefore, people with positive dispositions are more likely to demonstrate motivation, sustained engagement, and a greater likelihood of professional growth. In contrast, those with negative or fixed dispositions may disengage, thus limiting their learning potential.

Research Questions

• How do out-of-field teachers’ dispositions toward physics-focused professional development influence their learning outcomes?
• How did the physics teachers’ self-efficacy influence their disposition toward the professional development?

4. Research Methods

This qualitative case study explored teachers’ dispositions toward the physics-focused PD and examined how it influenced their learning outcomes. A case study design was selected due to its interpretive and exploratory nature that enables an in-depth investigation of a phenomenon within a bounded system (Stake, 2005). According to Merriam (1998), a case study is an “intensive, holistic description and analysis of a bounded phenomenon…” (p. 27). Case study researchers define or bound the case (phenomenon investigated) to provide concise, descriptive, and interpretive findings. Research indicates that interpretive findings are based on the researchers’ intuition and vicarious experiences with the participants (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 2005; Yin, 2014). The approach provided a data collection and analysis approach for a bounded context of an intensive PD purposefully designed for out-of-field physics teachers. The five teachers selected served as the unit of analysis used to examine the relationship between disposition and physics knowledge growth.

4.1. Study Setting and Participants

This study is a continuation of a prior investigation examining out-of-field physics teachers’ PCK development while participating in a three-year National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded PD program (Ogodo, 2019). The program was implemented in a southeastern U.S. state and served about 69 out-of-field physics teachers. For this phase of the study, the data collected were critically examined with five teachers—two males and three females—based on the following criteria to ensure relevance to the study’s focus on disposition and learning outcomes:

(a)

Did not hold degrees or a certification in physics or physics education.

(b)

Had at least three years of teaching experience in other science disciplines (e.g., chemistry, biology, physical/general science, or environmental science).

(c)

Had taught high school physics for a minimum of three years and no more than seven years at the initial data collection.

(d)

Were participants in the three-year PD program and part of the initial study.

Teachers with fewer than three years of experience and over seven years of physics teaching were excluded, as prior findings indicated that early-career teachers tended to exhibit higher motivation and receptivity toward professional development opportunities (Ogodo, 2017) While seven teachers met these criteria, only five agreed to participate in the study (demographic information for the participating teachers is provided in

Table 1. Participant teacher characteristics with pseudonymized names.

Teacher	Certification/Degree	Subject and Years of Teaching Experience
		Science/Math	Physics
Alice	General Science/Master’s	15	7
Gladys	General Science/Bachelors	4	3
Franklin	General Science/Master’s	9	3
Steve	Mathematics/Master’s	3	3
Rita	General Science/Master’s	11	7

).

4.2. Data Collection Protocol

Data sources included a 25-item four-point Likert-type scale classroom observational tool, the Reformed Teaching and Observation Protocol (RTOP) instrument (Piburn et al., 2000; Sawada & Piburn, 2000) that measures the degree of student-centered instruction (reformed-based) in science teaching with a reliability of 0.954; a modified science teaching self-efficacy and beliefs survey (STEBI-A) developed by Riggs and Enochs (1990) with reliabilities of α = 0.92 and α = 0.77 for both subscales; and the content representation (CoRes) and pedagogical and professional experience repertoires (PaP-eRs) semi-structured interview protocol (Bertram & Loughran, 2002). The STEBI-A was adapted with the word “science” replaced with “physics” to make it more specific to the group and is now referred to as (PTEBI-A). These instruments were used to collect data before, during, and after training.

Initial data was collected as the baseline for comparative analysis over three years. The author and two certified classroom observers were part of the data collection team for the larger NSF project. Data was collected from the teachers’ classrooms on two consecutive visits per semester for the three years. Two observers visited specific classrooms for inter-rater validity and data reporting reliability. Lastly, student focus group interviews provided valuable insights into the day-to-day teaching that occurs outside of the classroom observation days. Students’ interviews were unstructured, with the goal of validating the teachers’ self-reports and triangulating the data. For example, they were asked to describe a typical day in their physics classrooms, the types of activities used to present specific lessons, and what they enjoy about the physics class, with follow-up questions based on their comments.

4.3. Data Analysis

The qualitative data analysis employed an interpretive, thematic approach, aiming to construct meaning, identify recurring patterns, and generate themes grounded in the teachers’ experiences. The thematic approach reduced the data interpretively into themes and provided the narratives for responding to the research questions. The inductive open coding segmented the raw data for interpretation and initial descriptive code development, followed by axial coding, which connected the codes and grouped them into broader conceptual categories, enabling the emergence of overarching themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Miles et al., 2014). The iterative analytic approach was useful in explaining the teachers’ perspectives and engagement.

The data was also analyzed with a self-developed PKK rubric (Ogodo, 2017) based on Shulman’s (1986, 1987) and Loughran et al.’s (2006) PCK development process and validated within the larger NSF projects. The rubric was used to assess the teachers’ PCK levels across four categories: 1–Novice, 2–Emergent, 3–Proficient, and 4–Advanced (See

Table A1. PCK-Essentials rubric (Ogodo, 2017).

Content Knowledge (CK)	Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)	Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
(1) Has content knowledge to promote students’ conceptual understanding/help students learn the physics content. *1	(1) Transforms content knowledge to effective teaching and learning. *5	(1) Blends the content knowledge and the pedagogical strategies on how to teach the content.
(2) Uses questions that enable the learner make sense of the concepts. *8	(2) Knowledge and understanding of students’ thinking and learning processes.	(2) Displays confidence in understanding of the content as a content specialist that distinguishes them from the pedagogue (novice).
(3) Makes connection with other ideas, real life experiences, and provides the learner with meaningful experience that leads them to know the concept. *10	(3) Knowledge of effective classroom assessment.	(3) Uses effective assessment to guide the teaching for students’ learning of specific goals and ideas.
(4) Displays a repertoire of effective teaching strategies based on the conceptual understanding of the subject.	(4) Integrate and use activities that address the needs or demands within a given classroom context.	(4) Enhances teaching by producing meaningful learning and expected outcome. *19
(5) Chooses innovative materials forteaching the concept.	(5) Knowledge of internal or external factors that influence classroom instruction.	(5) Provides overall effectiveness and flexibility for both the teacher and learner.
(Abell, 2008; Anderson & Freebody, 2012; Ball et al., 2008; Baumert et al., 2010; Findell, 2007; Shulman, 1986, 1987).	(Findell, 2007; Voss et al., 2011; Shulman, 1986, 1987).	(Abell, 2008; Loughran et al., 2006, 2012; Shulman, 1986, 1987; D. Sunal et al., 2014).

, Appendix A). This recursive, multi-process analysis was necessary for developing well-substantiated thematic narratives and data saturation (Hennink et al., 2017). The findings captured the teachers’ learning outcomes and evolving instructional change, providing the narrative for responding to the research questions.

5. Results

The findings addressed the two research questions for this inquiry: How do the dispositions of out-of-field teachers toward physics-focused professional development influence their learning outcomes? And how did the physics teachers’ self-efficacy influence their disposition toward the professional development?

5.1. Teacher Disposition Toward the Physics-Focused Professional Development

Pre-Training. Before the PD, the teachers interview data revealed that four out of the five selection teachers demonstrated a proactive approach and an openness to professional development. These teachers acknowledged their limited knowledge of physics content and expressed a strong desire to improve their instructional competence. For example, Alice remarked, “I am looking forward to the training because physics is not my strong suit,” while Rita explained, “I chose to participate [intent and action] because I struggled with the [physics] material, especially challenging topics, such as electricity and magnetism.” Steve’s stance toward the PD was different. He expressed reluctance, noting that his participation was not by personal choice but a requirement. He commented, “I am doing well with lecturing; it [teacher-centered approach] worked for my predecessor for 20 years. He passed on all his material to me, so why change it if it works?” This attitude and lack of personal investment influenced his engagement and implementation of the PD content over the three years. Vygotsky (1978) explained that this dispositional resistance or lack of receptivity to new ideas can disrupt cognitive engagement.

Post-Training. Following the PD, the four teachers exhibited observable growth, which they attributed to the PD’s modeling of effective, student-centered instructional strategies and its practical, adaptable resources. Franklin noted, “My background was not solid, but through the modeling during the training, I have learned more than I did in college.” Rita similarly stated, “The program has helped me to draw better connections between different areas of physics.” Gladys summarized her experience by noting the following:

The training exposed me to more activities I could use with my students. It helped me recognize what I was doing wrong and begin making changes—replacing more lecture with interactive activities.

Studies support the finding that disposition dictates engagement and openness to new ideas (Choi et al., 2016; Christie et al., 2015; Fives & Buehl, 2016). Student focus group data confirmed the shifts in their teacher’s instructional practice. They described their classes as more engaging and interactive, referencing more hands-on experiences. One student noted, “It’s a lot more hands-on—you can actually see what you’re doing and understand it better,” while another countered, stating, “I wish my teacher would lecture a little more, or a softer landing” by way of introductory lecture.

Despite the positive outcomes reported by others, Steve’s instructional practice stayed largely unchanged as he continued with his lecture-based instruction, problem-solving packets, and teacher-directed laboratory activities. When asked why he resisted using the training strategies, Steve explained, “Lecture-based teaching is working, and the practices modeled during the training require too much work.” His unwillingness to engage with the PD content limited his growth and prevented the adoption of more student-centered strategies. Students’ feedback reinforced this finding, noting the lack of inquiry-based or student-led learning experiences in his classroom. This finding aligns with Opfer and Pedder (2011), who reported that some teachers leave PD experiences without change or measurable outcomes.

5.2. Teaching Self-Efficacy and Disposition

Pre-Training. The findings from teacher interviews, the self-efficacy survey, and classroom observations revealed a notable misalignment between teachers’ self-reported confidence in teaching physics and their actual instructional practices. While survey data showed high self-efficacy ratings, classroom observations and interview data revealed that the teachers employed traditional teaching methods, including lectures, note-taking, problem-solving exercises, and cookbook-style laboratory activities because they were learning the material simultaneously as they taught it. Franklin acknowledged this challenge, stating, “I often learn the material before I teach it. I study the content thoroughly and solve problems independently before introducing a concept to the class.” Similarly, Gladys admitted, “Well, I know that I have to study and prepare just like they [students] do before I can teach it to them… so reviewing my content knowledge has been one of the big things [challenges]…” They were more confident with a teacher-centered approach because of their limited content knowledge, which did not allow them to use exploratory or inquiry-based learning. This finding aligned with previous studies that teachers with content expertise can pivot more readily, scaffolding learners’ experiences through interactive, student-centered approaches (Ogodo, 2019; Shulman, 1986; C. S. Sunal et al., 2019; Turocy, 2016).

Other data supported the minimal self-efficacy of the teachers before the training. For instance, Alice shared in her initial interview, “The first time I taught physics, I was very open with my students that the only class I ever failed at school was physics, so this is not my strong suit.” This statement was corroborated by her students: “Sometimes she’ll give us some reading and lots of notes. It sometimes confused me,” and “She uses writing notes, PowerPoints with note packets, problem-solving, and homework…” Based on the student responses, the use of lecture and note-taking did not enhance their learning. Studies have demonstrated that teachers with diminished self-efficacy are more inclined to rely on teacher-centered instruction (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Keller et al., 2017; Morris et al., 2017; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2019).

Post-Training. All but Steve progressively transitioned from traditional lecture-based instruction, reporting greater confidence and preparedness to adopt more interactive teaching. For instance, Gladys emphasized, “Yes, the training has tremendously changed the way I teach—like every day… I will never go back [to lecturing].” They actively implemented various strategies modeled at the PD to foster conceptual understanding through increased student engagement. Franklin reflected,

“I guess when I started out, I was more of a lecturer, but now, I try to show them, and we work a ton of problems together…Previously, we used labs to prove or validate the concept, but now we are discovering instead of proving… students work independently, stay on task, and problem-solve before formal instruction.” Similarly, Alice stated, “I feel more confident about my instruction now than in my earlier years,”.

The instructional transformations and enhanced self-efficacy had positive impacts on the student learning experiences, based on their responses:

It’s a lot of hands-on. “You can actually see what you’re doing, and you can understand it better,” and “I like it more than my past science classes, which were kind of basic and more bookwork; now it is 90% hands-on, and that’s my favorite way of learning.

Steve’s instructions remained largely unchanged as he continued to rely on lectures and note-taking. As Nitsche et al. (2013) found, teachers who are motivated to enhance their practice by engaging in ongoing training experience more effective learning outcomes. The progression of the teachers, as observed before they participate in year 1, used as the baseline, and in subsequent years, is shown in

Table 2. The teacher’s overall ratings from the three data-generating instruments.

Teacher	Year of Study	Interviews (PTEBI)	Class Observation (RTOP)	Teacher PCK (Rubric)
Alice	1	44	11.5	1
	2	38	51.5	2
	3	50	61.5	3
Gladys	1	45	20.0	1
	2	44	82.5	3
	3	40	94	4
Franklin	1	51	49.0	1
	2	38	43.0	2
	3	43	84.5	3
Steve	1	49	53.0	1
	2	49	36.5	1
	3	52	25.5	1
Rita	1	49	23.5	1
	2	43	92.0	3
	3	38	93.0	3

(see Table 2 for an overview of the teachers PCK and the shift in self-efficacy levels).

6. Discussion

A teacher’s instructional practice is fundamentally shaped by their mastery of subject matter and pedagogical skills. In instances where these competencies are underdeveloped, targeted professional development (PD) can serve as a mechanism for growth. However, teachers’ participation in such training does not guarantee the expected learning outcomes, which can be mediated by their disposition. Educational theories posit that individuals possess the agency to influence the outcomes by their actions (Bandura, 1997, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978). One’s disposition is closely tied to their aspirations, leading to their openness and willingness to engage in a process. The out-of-field status of teachers in this study presented some challenges in their ability to teach physics effectively. However, their disposition to the targeted physics PD yielded specific learning outcomes. This discussion addresses two central findings from this study: (a) the impact of the PD on teachers’ self-efficacy and instructional practices and (b) the extent to which teacher disposition influenced professional learning outcomes.

6.1. Impact of the PD on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Instructional Practices

The findings showed instructional shifts in four participants, as they moved from teacher-centered to more student-centered practices. However, one teacher did not show observable instructional change throughout the training. His resistance to modify his instructional practice stemmed from a fixed mindset (disposition) and entrenched beliefs that the training was unnecessary, unlike his co-participants who demonstrated a desire to grow. Christie et al. (2015) noted that, when a habit of mind or cognitive dispositions become ingrained in a person, they inhibit learning and change. The purposeful PD design supported the teachers’ physics PCK development and enhanced their self-efficacy level (Desimone, 2011; Desimone & Garet, 2015). As Bandura (1997) posited, self-efficacy increases when individuals attain an improved psychological state. In this case, the enhanced physics content mastery contributed to the teachers’ elevated instructional competence.

6.2. Teacher Disposition and Professional Learning Outcomes

Before the training, the teachers believed that hands-on, student-centered instruction is the most effective approach in science education; however, they defaulted to lecture-based methods to manage their lack of content knowledge and instructional insecurities. After the training, four teachers who exhibited enthusiasm and positive disposition toward the PD acquired new knowledge—evidenced by increased levels of PCK and enhanced physics teaching self-efficacy following the training (see Table 2). Steve’s limited learning outcomes were closely tied to his attitude/disposition toward the PD. The lack of knowledge-gain contributed to his adherence to didactic instruction. His mindset curtailed his willingness to explore alternative teaching methods and personal knowledge growth. Also, his lack of engagement with the active, inquiry-based, and student-centered approaches—emphasized throughout the PD—deprived his students of opportunities to co-construct knowledge and develop deep conceptual understanding (Ogodo, 2017, 2019; C. S. Sunal et al., 2019). Steve’s case illustrates how teacher disposition can serve as a critical mediating factor in the effectiveness of professional learning initiatives.

7. Implications for Practice

The findings of this study underscore the importance of addressing teacher disposition as a key component in the design and implementation of effective professional development (PD) programs. To maximize the impact of PD on instructional practice, program developers and facilitators should integrate strategies that actively engage participants’ beliefs, motivations, and attitudes toward learning. This includes creating supportive learning environments, fostering a culture of reflective practice, and incorporating elements that promote intrinsic motivation and sustained engagement. Given that not all participants benefited equally from the same PD experience, intentional efforts to account for individual differences in disposition can enhance the relevance and efficacy of training, particularly for out-of-field teachers. By embedding dispositional awareness into PD frameworks, educational leaders can better support authentic teacher learning, instructional improvement, and, ultimately, positive student outcomes.

8. Limitations

In general, qualitative case studies do not require a large number of participants as quantitative studies. Nevertheless, while this study employed in-depth processes to generate robust data that provided valuable insights into the research questions, the findings may have been constrained by the small sample size. Therefore, as with most studies of this scope, the results offer guidance for further inquiry rather than a broad generalization.

9. Conclusions

Teacher disposition plays a critical role in shaping their professional learning outcomes. In this study, four of the five participants demonstrated proactive and receptive attitudes toward improving their physics content knowledge and instructional skills, resulting in meaningful and observable growth. Although these participants initially self-rated high on the self-efficacy scale, after realizing how much they did not know, they were motivated to gain more knowledge, leading to notable shifts in their practice. In contrast, the one participant with less favorable disposition and unchanged self-efficacy exhibited limited engagement and minimal classroom practice, thereby reducing his professional development benefits.

The placement of teachers in instructional roles without adequate certification further underscores the need for induction and professional development programs that strengthen both content knowledge and pedagogy. Yet, such programs are only effective when participants actively engage in the process. Since teacher professional development is designed to foster transformative learning that enhances instructional practice and student outcomes, it is essential to recognize how dispositions may mediate or impede the achievement of these goals.

While this paper focused on the role of disposition in professional development outcomes, many scholars have centered on elements of effective professional development. It would be recommended that future work consider other mitigating elements in professional development designs, as this will strengthen their effectiveness in meeting the needs of participants and sustaining the knowledge.