Research Article

Implementing NGSS practices in primary science classrooms: Lessons from an Arab context for advancing global science education

Mohamed A. Shahat 1 * , Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi 1, Nasser Mansour 2, Khalsa Al Bahri 3
More Detail
1 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, OMAN2 College of Education, Qatar University, Doha, QATAR3 Ministry of Education, Muscat, OMAN* Corresponding Author
European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(3), July 2026, 449-470, https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18786
Published: 20 June 2026
OPEN ACCESS   60 Views   22 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The effective implementation of the next generation science standards (NGSS) practices is widely recognized as central to promoting scientific literacy and early development of critical thinking skills in primary education. Grounded in constructivist learning theory and inquiry-based science education, this study addressed the limited empirical understanding of how teachers in non-NGSS contexts interpret and report their engagement with science and engineering practices (SEPs). The study employed a qualitative research design, using semi-structured interviews to examine teachers’ self-reported perceptions of the frequency, nature, and challenges associated with implementing the eight NGSS-aligned SEPs. The sample comprised 12 primary science teachers teaching grade 4-grade 6 in Omani schools. Data were analyzed thematically to identify patterns in teachers’ reported practices and perceived constraints. The findings indicated that practices such as planning and carrying out investigations and analyzing and interpreting data were reported as more frequently enacted, reflecting alignment with inquiry-based instructional approaches. In contrast, practices including asking questions, developing and using models, and engaging in argument from evidence were reported less consistently. Teachers identified limited resources, time constraints, and variability in students’ abilities as key challenges influencing their engagement with NGSS practices. Overall, the study provides insight into teachers’ professional reasoning and perceived enactment of NGSS-aligned practices within a centralized and examination-driven educational context. The findings underscore the need for targeted professional development, structured instructional frameworks such as claim-evidence-reasoning, and improved resource support to strengthen the implementation of epistemically demanding NGSS practices in primary science classrooms.
Keywords: next generation science standards, primary science education, inquiry-based learning, scientific literacy, teacher professional development

CITATION (APA)

Shahat, M. A., Al-Balushi, S. M., Mansour, N., & Al Bahri, K. (2026). Implementing NGSS practices in primary science classrooms: Lessons from an Arab context for advancing global science education. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(3), 449-470. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18786

REFERENCES

  1. Abou-Assali, M. (2014). The link between teacher professional development and student achievement: A critical view. International Journal of Bilingual & Multilingual Teachers of English, 2(1), 39–49. https://journal.uob.edu.bh/server/api/core/bitstreams/f695c3aa-ba7d-44da-9a42-1c3f2a33aa74/content
  2. Al-Hinai, M., Shahat, M. A., Omara, E., Emam, M. M., Ismail, S. S., Alhabsi, N., Alhosni, K., Al-Amri, M., Al-Yahmedi, A., Fawzy, Y. M., & Al-Balushi, S. M. (2026). Exploring a STEM-integrated instructional approach and its preliminary contextual assessments of problem-solving and motivation in Oman. European Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17783
  3. Appiah-Odame, E. K., & Frempong, G. (2025). The silent crisis of teacher burnout: Systemic challenges and coping mechanisms. Educational Point, 2(2), Article e136. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/17638
  4. Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 493-535). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Research-on-Science-Education/Abell-Lederman/p/book/9780805847147
  5. Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
  6. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802-1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
  7. Bybee, R. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9381-4
  8. Chen, Y.-C., & Terada, T. (2021). Development and validation of an observation-based protocol to measure the eight scientific practices of the next generation science standards in K-12 science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(10), 1489-1526. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21716
  9. Cherbow, K., McKinley, M. T., McNeill, K. L., & Lowenhaupt, R. (2020). An analysis of science instruction for the science practices: Examining coherence across system levels and components in current systems of science education in K-8 schools. Science Education, 104(3), 446-478. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21573
  10. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
  11. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
  12. Choi, A., Seung, E., & Kim, D. (2021). Science teachers’ views of argument in scientific inquiry and argument-based science instruction. Research in Science Education, 51(Suppl. 1), 251-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9861-9
  13. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
  14. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://collegepublishing.sagepub.com/products/qualitative-inquiry-and-research-design-4-246896
  15. Eccles, J. S. (2016). Engagement: Where to next? Learning and Instruction, 43, 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.003
  16. Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-7198-9
  17. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  18. Guo, J.-P., Yang, L.-Y., Zhang, J., & Gan, Y.-J. (2022). Academic self-concept, perceptions of the learning environment, engagement, and learning outcomes of university students: Relationships and causal ordering. Higher Education, 83, 809-828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00705-8
  19. Gutierez, S. B. (2024). ‘Are they walking their talk?’: Alignment of teachers’ professed beliefs and enacted practices for teaching through dialogic argumentation. Journal of Biological Education, 58(5), 1329-1350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2023.2200800
  20. Haverly, C., Lyle, A., Spillane, J. P., Davis, E. A., & Peurach, D. J. (2022). Leading instructional improvement in elementary science: State science coordinators’ sensemaking about the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(9), 1575-1606. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21767
  21. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K. S. Taber, & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education: An international course companion (pp. 69-80). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_5
  22. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434
  23. Katsh-Singer, R., McNeill, K. L., & Loper, S. (2016). Scientific argumentation for all? Comparing teacher beliefs about argumentation in high-, mid-, and low-socioeconomic status schools. Science Education, 100(3), 410-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21214
  24. Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945-980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
  25. Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry: Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1985, 416 pp. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9(4), 438–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
  26. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Rogat, T. K., & Koskey, K. L. K. (2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.09.001
  27. McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., & Pelletier, P. (2015). Assessing science practices: Moving your class along a continuum. Science Scope, 39(4), 21-28. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/ss15_039_04_21
  28. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000135289
  29. Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053-1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21459
  30. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & von Davier, M. (Eds.). (2021). TIMSS 2023 assessment frameworks. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2023/frameworks/
  31. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/
  32. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
  33. Nollmeyer, G. E., & Bangert, A. W. (2017). Measuring elementary teachers’ understanding of the NGSS framework: An instrument for planning and assessing professional development. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 21(8), 20-45. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/17887
  34. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
  35. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
  36. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
  37. Park, S., Kite, V., Suh, J. K., Jung, J., & Rachmatullah, A. (2022). Investigation of the relationships among science teachers’ epistemic orientations, epistemic understanding, and implementation of next generation science standards science practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(4), 561-584. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21737
  38. Sandoval, W. A., Kawasaki, J., Cournoyer, N., & Rodriguez, L. (2016). Secondary teachers’ emergent understanding of teaching science practices. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 737-743). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.isls.org/handle/1/187
  39. Schafer, R., & Phillippi, J. C. (2025). Updating and advancing member-checking methods: Use of video and asynchronous technology to optimize participant engagement. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251315395
  40. Shahat, M. A., & Al-Maamari, S. (2025). Cultural contexts and global challenges: Integrating science and social sciences in Omani teacher education. In J. Kreps Frisch, D. M. Alston, A. Feldman, R. Hagevik, & M. Schpakow (Eds.), Wicked problems in PreK-12 science education (pp. 147-156). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003508793-17
  41. Shahat, M. A., Al-Balushi, S. M., Alawi, K. A., Bahri, K. A., & Seikkula-Leino, J. (2026). Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets and future skills: Innovative educational units for enhancing creative problem-solving in tenth-grade students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 60, Article 102084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102084
  42. Shahat, M. A., Ohle, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). Evaluation of a teaching unit based on a problem-solving model for seventh-grade students. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 23, 205-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-017-0068-1
  43. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
  44. Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing ‘science practice’ in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033-1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21191
  45. Suh, J. K., Hwang, J., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2022). Epistemic orientation toward teaching science for knowledge generation: Conceptualization and validation of the construct. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(9), 1651-1691. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21769
  46. Sukor, R., Ayub, A. F. M., Ab Rashid, N. K. M., & Abdul Halim, F. (2021). Relationship between students’ engagement with academic performance among non-food science students enrolled in food science course. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(4), 638-648. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.95
  47. Sun, J., Anderson, R. C., Lin, T.-J., Morris, J. A., Miller, B. W., Ma, S., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. T., & Scott, T. (2022). Children’s engagement during collaborative learning and direct instruction through the lens of participant structure. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69, Article 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102061
  48. Wheeler, L. B., Navy, S. L., Maeng, J. L., & Whitworth, B. A. (2019). Development and validation of the classroom observation protocol for engineering design (COPED). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(9), 1285-1305. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21557
  49. Windschitl, M., Lohwasser, K., Tasker, T., Shim, S., & Long, C. (2021). Learning to teach science during the clinical experience: Agency, opportunity, and struggle. Science Education, 105(5), 961-988. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21667
  50. Yang, Y., Liu, X., & Gardella, J. A. (2020). Effects of a professional development program on science teacher knowledge and practice, and student understanding of interdisciplinary science concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1028-1057. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21620
  51. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2