The Curricula Developed in Light of the NGSS according to Teachers’ Estimates in Oman

International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR) ISSN (P): 2249–6947; ISSN (E): 2249–8052 Vol. 10, Issue 2, Apr 2020, 29–42 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

THE CURRICULA DEVELOPED IN LIGHT OF THE NGSS ACCORDING TO TEACHERS’ ESTIMATES IN OMAN Dr. MOHAMMAD MAHMOUD ALGASEEM1 & AIEMAN AHMAD AL-OMARI2 1

Assistant Professor, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Sultan Qaboos University, College of Education, Oman

2

Professor, Department of Foundations and Educational Administration, Sultan Qaboos University, College of Education, Oman

ABSTRACT This study is aimed to determine the reality of implementing the curricula developed in light of the standards of science education for the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) according to teachers’ estimates in Oman, surveyed a convenience sample of 371 Omani teachers; 312 females, and 59 males. The results revealed that the level of response of the reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards were in moderate level in 15 items, and were in low levels in 4 items. There is a significant difference in 9 items and total of items according to teachers' gender in favor of

to teachers' academic specialization, there is a significant difference in 5 items in favor of science academic specialization teachers. Regarding Teaching experience, there is a significant difference in item 3 in favor to 21 and over years, and 11 to 20 years of teaching experiences, item 4 in favor to 11 to 20 years of teaching experiences, item 5 in favor to 11 to 20 years of teaching experiences, and item 14 in favor to 21 and over years of teaching experiences.

The researchers recommended that it is necessary to adopt the training program based on the NGSS in the training of teachers and educational supervisors.

Original Article

male teachers. There is no significant difference, according to teachers' academic qualification in all items. According

KEYWORDS: Curriculum, NGSS, Omani Schools & Teachers

Received: Feb 14, 2020; Accepted: Mar 04, 2020; Published: Apr 01, 2020; Paper Id.: IJESRAPR20204

INTRODUCTION Science standards have a long history in the United States and currently form the backbone of efforts to improve primary and secondary education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) (Lontok, Zhang & Dougherty, 2015). The shift from science inquiry to science practices as recommended in the US reports. K-12 Science Education Framework : Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas and the Next Generation Science Standards has implications for classroom/school education and evaluation (Duschl & Bybee, 2014). The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were developed as an update to the 1996 National Science Education Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996) and as a way to harmonize widely varying existing state science standards.

The National Research Council, NCR (2012) developed the Framework for K-12 Science Education Framework to identify scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting scientific concepts, and core ideas within specific disciplines (disciplinary core ideas or DCIs) that all students should master by the end of their secondary education. Achieve, Inc., a non-profit organization, worked in collaboration with 26 lead states to develop the standards statements themselves in an iterative process, integrating all three dimensions of the Framework into

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

30

Dr. Mohammad Mahmoud Algaseem & Aieman Ahmad Al-Omari

performance expectations for students (NGSS Lead States, 2013). A representative of ASHG served as a “critical stakeholder� during the development of the standards by providing comments on early drafts that were not available for public comment.

For more information on the NGSS development process (Achieve, Inc., 2013). In its final form, each performance expectation is supported in the NGSS document with references to the practice(s), crosscutting concept(s), and disciplinary core idea(s) integrated into that expectation. To date, twelve leading states have adopted the NGSS, including California, which has the largest number of public-school students in the U.S. In addition, Nevada and the District of Columbia, both are not involved in the development of the NGSS, have also adopted these standars (Lontok, et al, 2015).

Scientific and engineering practices are a new beginning in the teaching of science, where it focuses on students whp possess both knowledge and skill, and include both survey and the habits of the mind and skill together, where the work of the scientist studying science integrates with the work of the engineer who solves problems, in the sense of linking theory by applying when teaching science, which is what we seek in science teaching (NGSS, 2013).

Perhaps, the most famous attempt to anticipate future science approaches is the document issued by the National Research Council of America (NRC, 2012), known as Next Generation Science Standards NGSS, through which stakeholders have sought to overcome the shortcomings of previous standards. So that, it is in line with the demands of the times, and to prepare science learners for a different and changing tomorrow.

This paper was based on the research results that NSES standards alone are no longer sufficient to bring the children of this generation into the new millennium, and the results of the research showed that the NSES standards and the resulting projects were not applied on the ground as planned, while NGSS sponsors believes that it will give a new dimension to the teaching of science, and gain it with greater value as a result of the integration of three dimensions: 1.

Theoretical scientific knowledge (content) that focuses on key or pivotal ideas disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI) in the disciplines of science (specialized ideas in physics, biology, earth and space sciences, science, engineering and technology applications). 2. Scientific and Engineering Practices Group (SEP). 3. Cross Cutting Concept (CCC) (NRC, 2012).

Through this new vision of science curriculum design, it is hoped that students will feel the true value of learning science, even if science is not part of the core of their academic discipline, trends, or scientific inclinations. While previous designs have focused on content, new designs for science curricula are no longer only about cognitive content, which is usually focused on understanding the natural world. The main goal of the future curriculum is to be about what is known as Performance Expectations (PEs), which is expected to be able for learners to be able to do in light of the experience provided by the curriculum, so the process of teaching science is no longer just the transfer of cognitive content to Students' minds and their minds becoming more interested in a deeper understanding of the meaning of science, and possessing the skill that prepares the learner for life, so these designs are based on a set of foundations to meet a number of requirements such as those adopted by NGSS, including these standards on which modern design standards are based (EQuLP, 2014).

LITERATURE REVIEW McFadden (2019) study, describes via an exploratory case study design the endeavors of a single middle school science teacher as he translated the reform messages of the NGSS into actual classroom practice. The results revealed how many drivers influenced subsequent teachers' beliefs as a personal form of video-based reflective coaching was facilitated via a video annotation tool. By qualitatively portraying the complex re lationship between a single teacher's beliefs and his classroom practice the study's findings signal the need for studies that explore nuanced ways of supporting a transitioning

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Curricula Developed in Light of the NGSS according to Teachers’ Estimates in Oman

31

teacher's self-efficacy.

Gale, Koval, Ryan, Usselman and Wind (2019) report results from the implementation of Science Learning Integrating Design, Engineering, and Robotics (SLIDER), a problem-based learning 8th grade physical science curriculum that integrates engineering and physical science core ideas. As a culminating engineering design challenge, the SLIDER curriculum asks students to apply their understanding of energy, motion, and forces to design an automatic braking system for a robotic truck. Findings indicate variations in the degree to which students participating in the SLIDER curriculum engaged across the three NGSS engineering DCIs, with students generally demonstrating competency with regard to identifying and delimiting the engineering problem (ETS1.A) and, to varying degrees, developing solutions (ETS1.B) but experiencing more challenges engaging in the optimization of design solutions (ETS1.C). Findings also illustrate the degree to which students were able to apply their knowledge of relevant physical science core ideas (e.g., friction, force) as they developed and communicated their solutions.

Booi and Khuzwayo (2019) study examined the difficulties in developing a curriculum for pre-service science teachers. Researchers used qualitative means to elicit data from the curriculum documents and in-depth interviews with science teacher educators at the institutions that participated in the study in South Africa. The analysis of data focused on identifying views and perspectives that informed selection and organization of curriculum content and pedagogical approaches. The findings that emerged from the data analysis point to both convergence and divergence among science teacher educators in terms of (i) interpretations of the policy on the minimum requirements for teacher qualifications, (ii) conceptualizing hybridization of academic content knowledge from different disciplines in the fields of science, and (iii) conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge for integrated approaches to teaching and learning of knowledge. A lack of uniformity in the conceptualized academic content and the conceptual framework to develop pedagogical content knowledge for the interdisciplinary school subject, Natural Sciences, pointed to the challenges facing departments of sciences education to produce competent teachers.

Drew and Thomas (2018) study examined the extent to which science teachers report implementing science literacy practices from the Common Core Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects and the NGSS with their students, a survey detailing these practices was emailed to all secondary science teachers (N = 2519) in one northeastern state and 14% of them (n = 343) responded. Most middle and high school students struggle with reading and writing in science.

Malkawi and Rababah (2018) study investigated the degree that Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) criteria from the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were included in self-reported teaching practices of twelfth-grade science teachers in Jordan. Results revealed that Jordanian science teachers incorporate (SEPs) in their classroom teaching with moderate level, SEPs applied most frequently included 'using the diagram, table or graphic through instructions to clarify the subject of a new science,' and to 'discuss with the students how to interpret the quantitative data from the experiment or investigation'. The practice with the lowest frequency was 'teach a lesson on interpreting statistics or quantitative data,' which was moderately applied. No statistically significant differences were found among these Jordanian science teachers' self-estimations of (SEP) application into their own teaching according to the study's demographic variables (specialization, educational qualification, teaching experience), while a statistically significant difference was found based on gender, with female teachers using SEPs at a higher rate than male teachers.

Alebous, Alrawashdeh and Alkhawaldeh (2018) study aims at examining the effect of a training program based on NGSS for developing science and engineering practices and self- efficacy among science teachers in Jordan. The study www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

32

Dr. Mohammad Mahmoud Algaseem & Aieman Ahmad Al-Omari

employs a one group pre-test post-test design, and the sample is composed of (20) science teachers. The study develops a training program based on NGSS, and two tools. The first tool consists of (35) items that measure science and engineering practices, whereas the second tool consists of (40) items to measure teachers’ self-efficacy. The results of the study show that there are statistically significance differences at the level (α=0.05) in favor of the post-test attributed to the training program based on next generation science standards.

Osborne (2014) paper provides a rationale for the changes advocated by the Framework for K-12 Science Education and the NGSS. It provides an argument for why the model embedded in the NGSS is seen as an improvement.

The Case made here is that the underlying model that the new Framework presents of science better represents contemporary understanding of nature of science as a social and cultural practice. Second, it argues that the adopting a framework of practices will enable better communication of meaning amongst professional science educators. This, in turn, will enable practice in the classroom to improve. Finally, the implications for teacher education are explored.

The National Research Council’s Framework for K-12 Science Education and the NGSS (NGSS Lead States in Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, 2013) move teaching away from covering many isolated facts to a focus on a smaller number of disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) and crosscutting concepts that can be used to explain phenomena and solve problems by engaging in science and engineering practices. The NGSS present standards as knowledge-in use by expressing them as performance expectations (PEs) that integrate all three dimensions from the Framework for K-12 Science Education. This integration of core ideas, practices, and crosscutting concepts is referred to as three-dimensional learning (NRC in Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington, 2014). PEs state what students can be assessed on at the end of grade level for K-5 and at the end of grade band for 6–8 and 9–12. PEs do not specify how instruction should be developed nor do they serve as objectives for individual lessons. To support students in developing proficiency in the PEs, the elements of the DCIs will need to be blended with various practices and crosscutting concepts. In this paper, we examine how to design instruction to support students in meeting a cluster or ‘‘bundle’’ of PEs and how to blend the three dimensions to develop lesson level PEs that can be used for guiding instruction. We provide a ten-step process and an example of that process that teachers and curriculum designers can use to design lessons that meet the intent of the NGSS (Krajcik, Codere, Dahsah, Bayer & Mun, 2014).

In the context of its endeavor to develop science education, the Ministry of Education in Oman started the academic year 2017/2018 to introduce the Cambridge Series of Science Books; then it worked to harmonize these curricula and adapt them to suit the Omani environment, the implementation process of these curricula is carried out in stages, and grades 1-8 have been completed to date. So far, it is assumed that the results of adopting this series will be reflected on the reality of science education in the classroom, and to verify the extent of response to the desired development endeavors. In teaching science (Ministry of Education, 2019).

Cambridge curriculum helps students develop the skills they need for life, and to achieve at school, university and work. Our work is informed by research and underpinned by over 150 years of practical experience working with schools and governments worldwide. We are the only exam board that is wholly owned by a world-leading university, the University of Cambridge. Our work is informed by research and underpinned by over 150 years of practical experience working with schools and governments worldwide. We are the only exam board that is wholly owned by a world-leading university, the University of Cambridge. Our global community of nearly a million students in over 10 000 Cambridge schools in 160 Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Curricula Developed in Light of the NGSS according to Teachers’ Estimates in Oman

33

countries benefits from qualifications internationally recognized by universities and employers worldwide. We are a not-forprofit organization, so we devote our resources to unlocking learners’ potential, and contributing to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest level (Cambridge Assessment International Education CAIE, 2019).

This study, to our knowledge, is the first one that focuses on the reality of implementing the curricula developed in light of the NGSS according to teachers ’estimates in the Sultanate of Oman. Considering the lack of previous empirical research, this research was an attempt to make preliminary constructive suggestions implementing the curricula developed in light of the NGSS and to provide some recommendations and techniques for dealing with the standards of science education for the next generation NGSS in Omani education.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS This study addressed the following specific questions: Question 1: What is the level of response of the reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards according to teachers ’estimates in the Sultanate of Oman?

Question 2: Do the estimates of the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ according to teachers' gender, academic qualification, specialization and experience?

METHODS Research Design This study was a quantitative conducting through utilizing "The reality of implementing the curricula developed in light of the standards of science education for the next generation NGSS" according to teachers ’estimates in Sultanate of Oman.

Population and Sample of Study The population of study consisted teachers in public schools in Muscat governorate in Oman: 7647 teachers. The sample included a total of 371 teachers randomly selected. The sample, therefore, included 312 females (84%), and 59 males (16%). Regarding to academic qualification, 298 (80%) were Bachelor degree teachers, and 73 (20%) graduate teachers.

With regard to teaching experience, there were 138 teachers with 1 to 10 years, 199 teachers with 11 to 20 years, and 34 teachers with 21 years and over. With regard to specialization, 164 teachers with science, and 207 with 2nd field specialization. Teachers were told that participation was voluntary, and were assured that their responses anonymous.

Research Instrument The instrumentation used for this study was developed by the researchers “The reality of implementing the curricula developed in light of the standards of science education for the next generation NGSS" (Achieve Inc, 2014). The instrument included 19 items that assess the reality of implementing the curricula developed in light of the standards of science education for the next generation NGSS according to teachers ’estimates in Sultanate of Oman.

Instrument Validity For the purpose of examining the validity of the instruments in this study (face validity evidence) it was presented to six experts in research and evaluation and educational measurement. They were asked to check whether the statements in the instrument are clear and linked appropriately with the problem of study. Based on the experts' comments, some revisions regarding to the language were done to the instrument. www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

34

Dr. Mohammad Mahmoud Algaseem & Aieman Ahmad Al-Omari

Instrument Reliability Regarding the reliability of the instrument in this study, an internal consistency procedure (to estimate the consistency across the items) was used. A pilot study of 30 participants had been conducted. Those participants did not participate in the final study. The instructions were clear and all of the items of instrument functioning in appropriate manner. The values of alpha (the internal consistency coefficient) for the instrument “The reality of implementing the curricula developed in light of the standards of science education for the next generation NGSS" was with Cronbach alpha: 0.82. The previous values can be considered reasonably satisfactory to achieve the objectives of the current study.

Procedure, Data Collection and Analysis The researchers administered a survey to the teachers at the placement site. Each survey took about 15 minutes for the teachers to complete. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23 was used to analyze the data collected from the surveys. Descriptive statistics providing means and standard deviations were calculated for the first question. Ttest was employed to answer the second question. In order to understand the results of this study, it was important to set specific cut points to interpret the participants total scores related to their perception of their medical leadership competences. Regarding the cut points, it should be noted that the researchers used the response scale of each item that ranged from 1 to 5 to determine these cut points according to the following manner: 1-2.33 = low, from 2.34 to 3.67 = moderate, and 3.68-5.00 = high levels.

RESULTS Question 1: What is the level of response of the reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards according to teachers’ estimates in the Sultanate of Oman?

Means and standard deviations were used to answer this question. Table 1 presents means and standard deviations of each item ranked according to its highest mean value. Higher mean values refer to item 11 " Focus on the principles of building learning, the scientific culture project, and in proportion to the nature of science." (M=2.98, SD=.832), whereas lower mean values refer to item 15 " It leaves open room for teachers to add what they want to create and create in line with the learning environment and individual differences between students." (M=2.01, SD=1.109). As shown in the table 1, the mean of the items in moderate levels, except the items 15, 16, 17, and 18 were in low levels.

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations of the Level of Response of the Reality of Teaching Curricula developed for NGSS Standards, according to Teachers ’Estimates in the Sultanate of Oman Items # Mean SD Level 1 2.82 .867 moderate 2 2.70 .913 moderate 3 2.89 .827 moderate 4 2.91 .873 moderate 5 2.70 .808 moderate 6 2.73 .937 moderate 7 2.70 .970 moderate 8 2.55 .831 moderate 9 2.41 .939 moderate 10 2.82 .924 moderate 11 2.98 .832 moderate 12 2.38 .963 moderate 13 2.63 .884 moderate Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Curricula Developed in Light of the NGSS according to Teachers’ Estimates in Oman

14 15 16 17 18 19 Total

2.53 2.01 2.31 2.09 2.12 2.55 2.60

.998 1.109 .960 .978 1.005 1.008 .639

35

moderate Low Low Low Low moderate moderate

Question 2: Do the estimates of the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ according to teachers' gender, academic qualification, specialization and experience?

T-test, Means and standard deviations were used to answer this question according to teachers' gender, academic qualification, specialization and experience.

Gender T-test, Means and standard deviations were used to answer this question according to teachers' gender. Table 2 show that there is a significant difference in the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ according to teachers' gender, in items 2“The content of the science presented and the process of teaching, it revolves around phenomena that are close to the reality of the student and the environment that surrounds him.”, 3 “Focus on concepts common to science: patterns, cause and effect, measurement, ratio and quantity, system modelling, energy and material, composition and function, stability and change.”, 4 “Focus on major concepts and key ideas in science learning.

(Matter and its interactions, forces and movement, energy, waves and its applications, ecosystem, genetics, land location, system and human activities on it).”, 5 “Deep emphasis on scientific practices, applications and engineering, and linking them together through common or unified concepts.”, 9 “Students are integrated into attitudes with a moral dimension that are linked to the main ideas presented by the content, and emphasize that the value and ethical system of others is not compromised.”, 10 “The teaching process is supported by activities, experiments, representations, analogies, models, images and multimedia to help learners engage in scientific and engineering practices during the study of the phenomenon.”, 11 “Focus on the principles of building learning, the scientific culture project, and in proportion to the nature of science.”, 12 “The level of the classroom is taken into account in ensuring educational experiences offered to students.”,14 “Guidance and suggestions are provided to assist teachers in implementing the curriculum.”, and total, in favor of male teachers.

Table 2: t-test, Means and Standard Deviations of the Level of Response of the Reality of Teaching Curricula developed for NGSS Standards according to Teachers ’Estimates in the Sultanate of Oman regarding to their Gender Items Gender N Mean SD t df Sig. male 59 3.05 .729 2.

3.893 97.421 .000 female 312 2.63 .930 male 59 3.12 .697 3.

2.689 93.256 .008 female 312 2.84 .844 male 59 3.10 .662 4.

2.263 103.761 .026 female 312 2.88 .904 male 59 2.90 .759 5.

2.155 85.185 .034 female 312 2.66 .813 male 59 2.63 .889 9.

2.004 84.651 .048 female 312 2.37 .944 male 59 3.07 .828 10.

2.407 88.397 .018 female 312 2.78 .935 male 59 3.19 .706 11.

2.322 92.699 .022 female 312 2.95 .849 www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

36

Dr. Mohammad Mahmoud Algaseem & Aieman Ahmad Al-Omari

12.

14.

Total

male female male female male female

59 312 59 312 59 312

2.75 2.31 2.81 2.48 2.77 2.57

.801 .977 1.042 .982 .528 .653

3.685

93.865

.000

2.292

78.709

.025

2.619

94.886

.010

Academic Qualification T-test, Means and standard deviations were used to answer this question according to teachers' academic qualification. The results reveals that there is no significant difference in the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ according to teachers' academic qualification in all items.

Academic Specialization T-test, Means and standard deviations were used to answer this question according to teachers' academic specialization.

Table 3 show that there is a significant difference in the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ according to teachers' academic specialization, in items number 2. “The content of the science presented and the process of teaching it revolves around phenomena that are close to the reality of the student and the environment that surrounds him.”, 3 “Focus on concepts common to science: patterns, cause and effect, measurement, ratio and quantity, system modelling, energy and material, composition and function, stability and change.”, 4 “Focus on major concepts and key ideas in science learning. (Matter and its interactions, forces and movement, energy, waves and its applications, ecosystem, genetics, land location, system and human activities on it).” ,10 “The teaching process is supported by activities, experiments, representations, analogies, models, images and multimedia to help learners engage in scientific and engineering practices during the study of the phenomenon.”, and 11 “Focus on the principles of building learning, the scientific culture project, and in proportion to the nature of science.”, In favor of science academic specialization teachers.

Table 3: t-test, Means and Standard Deviations of the Level of Response of the Reality of Teaching Curricula developed for NGSS Standards According to Teachers ’Estimates in the Sultanate of Oman regarding to their Academic Specialization Items Specialization N Mean SD t df Sig. science 164 2.85 .808 3.067 368.129 .002 2.

2ed field 207 2.57 .972 science 164 3.07 .760 3.854 363.722 .000 3.

2ed field 207 2.74 .852 science 164 3.10 .685 3.875 364.119 .000 4.

2ed field 207 2.76 .974 science 164 2.96 .913 2.595 350.978 .010 10.

2ed field 207 2.71 .920 science 164 3.12 .771 2.782 363.870 .006 11.

2ed field 207 2.88 .865

Teaching Experience To answer this question, descriptive statistics includes means and standard deviation were used. Table 4 includes the mean and standard deviation for in the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ according to teachers' teaching experience.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Curricula Developed in Light of the NGSS according to Teachers’ Estimates in Oman

37

Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations of the Level of response of the Reality of Teaching Curricula developed for NGSS Standards according to Teachers ’Estimates in the Sultanate of Oman regarding to their Teaching Experience Items # 1 to 10 years 11 to 20 years 21 and over years Total M 2.78 2.83 2.94 2.82 1 (SD) (.852) (.871) (.919) (.867) M 2.58 2.74 2.91 2.70 2 (SD) .988 .854 .900 .913 M 2.69 2.98 3.15 2.89 3 (SD) .870 .791 .702 .827 M 2.70 3.05 2.97 2.91 4 (SD) .962 .812 .674 .873 M 2.55 2.77 2.88 2.70 5 (SD) .811 .794 .808 .808 M 2.75 2.69 2.88 2.73 6 (SD) .929 .944 .946 .937 M 2.67 2.70 2.82 2.70 7 (SD) .999 .963 .904 .970 M 2.51 2.58 2.56 2.55 8 (SD) .830 .836 .824 .831 M 2.41 2.37 2.68 2.41 9 (SD) .868 .970 1.007 .939 M 2.80 2.82 2.94 2.82 10 (SD) .968 .923 .736 .924 M 2.89 3.02 3.15 2.98 11 (SD) .860 .829 .702 .832 M 2.28 2.40 2.68 2.38 12 (SD) 1.053 .909 .843 .963 M 2.57 2.65 2.71 2.63 13 (SD) .912 .832 1.060 .884 M 2.49 2.49 2.97 2.53 14 (SD) .914 1.034 1.029 .998 M 1.91 2.07 2.15 2.01 15 (SD) 1.107 1.092 1.209 1.109 M 2.32 2.29 2.35 2.31 16 (SD) .981 .946 .981 .960 M 2.07 2.05 2.47 2.09 17 (SD) .968 .968 1.022 .978 2.07 2.13 2.32 2.12 M 18 (SD) .983 1.00 1.121 1.005 M 2.59 2.50 2.71 2.55 19 (SD) .957 1.049 0970 1.008 M 2.53 2.62 2.79 2.60 Total (SD) .640 .629 .666 .639

To achieve the significant differences in in the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ according to teachers' teaching experience. One-Way ANOVA, were used to answer this question according to teachers' experience as appears in Table 5. Teachers with 1 to 10 years of experience in teaching were=138, 11 to 20 =199, and 21 and over=34.

Table 6 show that there is a significant difference in the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ according to teachers' teaching experience in items 3, 4, 5 and 14. To achieve the significant differences in the level of response of the reality of teaching science

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

38

Dr. Mohammad Mahmoud Algaseem & Aieman Ahmad Al-Omari

curricula developed to the standards of NGSS, perceived by teachers according to their teaching experience, post hoc test (Scheffe) were used, the results of Scheffe test is presented in table 6.

Table 5: One-Way ANOVA for the Level of Response of the Reality of Teaching Curricula developed for NGSS Standards according to Teachers ’Estimates in the Sultanate of Oman regarding to their Teaching Experience Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 9.460 2 4.730 7.140 .001 3.

Within Groups 243.786 368 .662 Total 253.245 370 Between Groups 9.682 2 4.841 6.541 .002 4.

Within Groups 272.382 368 .740 Total 282.065 370 Between Groups 5.291 2 2.646 4.117 .017 5.

Within Groups 236.498 368 .643 Total 241.790 370 Between Groups 7.233 2 3.617 3.685 .026 14.

Within Groups 361.160 368 .981 Total 368.394 370 Item 3 “Focus on concepts common to science: patterns, cause and effect, measurement, ratio and quantity, system modelling, energy and material, composition and function, stability and change.”, as shown in Table 6, that significant differences in the level of response of the reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards according to teachers ’estimates in the Sultanate of Oman regarding to their teaching experience in favor to 21 and over, and 11 to 20 compared to teachers with 1 to 10 teaching experiences.

Item 4 “Focus on major concepts and key ideas in science learning. (Matter and its interactions, forces and movement, energy, waves and its applications, ecosystem, genetics, land location, system and human activities on it).”, showed that significant differences in the level of response of the reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards according to teachers ’estimates in the Sultanate of Oman regarding to their teaching experience in favor to 11 to 20 compared to teachers with 1 to 10 teaching experiences.

Item 5 “Deep emphasis on scientific practices, applications and engineering, and linking them together through common or unified concepts.”, showed that significant differences in the level of response of the reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards according to teachers ’estimates in the Sultanate of Oman regarding to their teaching experience in favor to 11 to 20 compared to teachers with 1 to 10 teaching experiences.

Item 14 “Guidance and suggestions are provided to assist teachers in implementing the curriculum.”, showed that significant differences in the level of response of the reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards according to teachers ’estimates in the Sultanate of Oman regarding to their teaching experience in favor to 21 and over compared to 1 to 10, and 11 to 20 teaching experiences.

Table 6: Scheffe post hoc analysis for the level of response of the reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards according to teachers ’estimates in the Sultanate of Oman regarding to their teaching experience.

Item Level Mean 1 to 10 11 to 20 21 and more 3.

1 to 10 2.69 -.291* -.459* 11 to 20 2.98 .291* -.167 21 and over 3.15 .459* .167 4.

1 to 10 2.70 -.342* -.268

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Curricula Developed in Light of the NGSS according to Teachers’ Estimates in Oman

5.

14.

11 to 20 21 and over 1 to 10 11 to 20 21 and over 1 to 10 11 to 20 21 and over

3.05 2.97 2.55 2.77 2.88 2.49 2.49 2.97

.342* .268 .223* .332 .002 .485*

39

-.075 -.223* .108 -.002 .483*

.075 -.332 -.108 -.485* -.483* -

Note. *sig. at level .05

CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to better understand the level of response of the reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards according to teachers ’estimates in the Sultanate of Oman. However, a literature searches on the NGSS standards yielded only few articles.

The results of this study reveals that the level of response of the reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards by teachers were in moderate level in all items except the items number 15, 16, 17, and 18 were in low levels. The highest mean was for items 11 " Focus on the principles of building learning, the scientific culture project, and in proportion to the nature of science." (M=2.98, SD=.832), whereas lower mean values refer to item 15 " It leaves open room for teachers to add what they want to create and create in line with the learning environment and individual differences between students."

(M=2.01, SD=1.109). This result may have aligned with Drew and Thomas (2018), therefore it needs to impact students’ ability to use fundamental literacy skills toward knowledge-building in science, achieving a derived sense of science literacy.

According to teachers' gender, results of study revealed that there is a significant difference in the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ according to teachers' gender in favor of male teachers, in items 2 “The content of the science presented and the process of teaching it revolves around phenomena that are close to the reality of the student and the environment that surrounds him.”, 3 “Focus on concepts common to science: patterns, cause and effect, measurement, ratio and quantity, system modelling, energy and material, composition and function, stability and change.”, 4 “Focus on major concepts and key ideas in science learning. (Matter and its interactions, forces and movement, energy, waves and its applications, ecosystem, genetics, land location, system and human activities on it).”, 5 “Deep emphasis on scientific practices, applications and engineering, and linking them together through common or unified concepts.”, 9 “Students are integrated into attitudes with a moral dimension that are linked to the main ideas presented by the content, and emphasize that the value and ethical system of others is not compromised.”, 10 “The teaching process is supported by activities, experiments, representations, analogies, models, images and multimedia to help learners engage in scientific and engineering practices during the study of the phenomenon.”, 11 “Focus on the principles of building learning, the scientific culture project, and in proportion to the nature of science.”, 12 “The level of the classroom is taken into account in ensuring educational experiences offered to students.”,14 “Guidance and suggestions are provided to assist teachers in implementing the curriculum.”, and total.

The results reveals that there is no significant difference in the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ according to teachers' academic qualification in all items.

According to teachers' academic specialization, results of study revealed that there is a significant difference in the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

40

Dr. Mohammad Mahmoud Algaseem & Aieman Ahmad Al-Omari

Oman differ, in items number 2 “The content of the science presented and the process of teaching it revolves around phenomena that are close to the reality of the student and the environment that surrounds him.”, 3 “Focus on concepts common to science: patterns, cause and effect, measurement, ratio and quantity, system modelling, energy and material, composition and function, stability and change.”, 4 “Focus on major concepts and key ideas in science learning. (Matter and its interactions, forces and movement, energy, waves and its applications, ecosystem, genetics, land location, system and human activities on it).” ,10 “The teaching process is supported by activities, experiments, representations, analogies, models, images and multimedia to help learners engage in scientific and engineering practices during the study of the phenomenon.”, and 11 “Focus on the principles of building learning, the scientific culture project, and in proportion to the nature of science.”, In favor of science academic specialization teachers.

Regarding teaching experience, there is a significant difference in the level of response of the reality of teaching science curricula developed to the standards of NGSS in the Sultanate of Oman differ in items 3, 4, 5 and 14. The results of Scheffe test presented that: Item 3 “Focus on concepts common to science: patterns, cause and effect, measurement, ratio and quantity, system modelling, energy and material, composition and function, stability and change.”, reveals that the significant differences were in favor to 21 and over years, and 11 to 20 years compared to teachers with 1 to 10 years of teaching experiences. Item 4 “Focus on major concepts and key ideas in science learning. (Matter and its interactions, forces and movement, energy, waves and its applications, ecosystem, genetics, land location, system and human activities on it).”, showed that the significant differences were in favor to 11 to 20 years compared to teachers with 1 to 10 years of teaching experiences. Item 5 “Deep emphasis on scientific practices, applications and engineering, and linking them together through common or unified concepts.”, showed that the significant differences were in favor to 11 to 20 years compared to teachers with 1 to 10 years of teaching experiences. And Item 14 “Guidance and suggestions are provided to assist teachers in implementing the curriculum.”, showed that significant differences were in favor to 21 and over years compared to 1 to 10 years, and 11 to 20 years of teaching experiences.

Given the results of this study, we believe as researchers in this field that the NGSS represent a slight improvement in science curriculum content coverage at nationally in Sultanate of Oman. Overall, regarding to the study results, the researchers recommended that it is necessary to adoption the training program based on the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in the training of teachers and educational supervisors. Preparation of a training program based on the (NGSS) to develop scientific and engineering practices for the first basic stage of the importance of raising students from the early years to these practices and developing their self-competence.

REFERENCES 1.

Achieve Inc (2013). Development Overview. Available at http://www.nextgenscience.org/developmentoverview. Accessed 23 November 2018.

2.

Achieve

Inc

(2014).

State

Science

Education

Standards

Comparison

Tool

(Version

1).

Available

https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Standards%20Comparison%20Tool%20July%201%202014.pdf

at

Accessed

10 Jan. 2020.

3.

Alebous, T.M., Alrawashdeh, S., & Alkhawaldeh, M. (2018). The effect of training program for science teachers based on Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in the developing of science and engineering practices and self-efficacy among them in Jordan. Dirasat: Educational Sciences, 46(2): 187-203.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16

The Curricula Developed in Light of the NGSS according to Teachers’ Estimates in Oman 4.

41

“An Analysis of School-Based Curriculum Development: The Taiwanese School of Melbourne”, International Journal of Business and General Management (IJBGM), Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 17-24

5.

“A Critical Study of the Biology Curriculum at Senior Secondary Stage With Respect to Life Skills Education and the HIV/AIDS Education”, IASET: International Journal of Library & Educational Science (IASET: IJLES), Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp. 110

6.

Booi, K., and Khuzwayo, M.E. (2019). Difficulties in developing a curriculum for pre-service science teachers. South African Journal of Education, 39(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n3a1517

7.

Cambridge Assessment International Education (2019). An international education from Cambridge. Available athttps://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/417448-overview-brochure.pdf Accessed 10 Jan. 2020.

8.

Drew, S.V., & Thomas, J. (2018). Secondary Science Teachers’ Implementation of CCSS and NGSS Literacy Practices: A Survey Study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31(2): 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9784-7

9.

Duschl, R.A., & Bybee, R.W. (2014). Planning and Carrying Out Investigations: An Entry to Learning and to Teacher Professional Development around NGSS Science and Engineering Practices. International Journal of STEM Education, 1:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-014-0012-6

10. EQuIP (2014). EQuIP Rubric for Lessons & Units. Available at www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/EQuIP Accessed 10 Jan. 2020.

11. Gale, J., Koval, J., Ryan, M., Usselman, M. & Wind, S. (2019). Implementing NGSS Engineering Disciplinary Core Ideas in Middle School Science Classrooms: Results from the Field. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(1):11.

Available at https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=jpeer Accessed 10 Jan. 2020.

12. Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning Instruction to Meet the Intent of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2): 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-0149383-2 13. Lontok, K.S., Zhang, H., & Dougherty, M.J. (2015). Assessing the Genetics Content in the Next Generation Science Standards.

PLoS ONE, 10(7): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132742 14. Malkawi, A.R., & Rababah, E.Q. (2018). Jordanian twelfth-grade science teachers’ self-reported usage of science and engineering practices in the next generation science standards. International Journal of Science Education, 40(9): 961-976.

15. McFadden, J. (2019). Transitions in the Perpetual Beta of the NGSS: One Science Teacher’s Beliefs and Attempts for Instructional Change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(3):229-258.

16. Minster of Education (MOE) (2019). Science Bulletin Guideline. Available at https://home.moe.gov.om/file/ggg/nth/9.pdf accessed 10 Jan. 2020.

17. “Mastery Learning of Chemistry Competencies through the Spiral Progression Approach in Curriculum”, International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR), Vol. 9, Issue 5, pp. 9–28 18. National Research Council [NRC] 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4962 Accessed 10 Jan. 2020.

19. National Research Council [NRC] (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core

ideas.

Washington,

DC:

National

Academies

Press.

Available

at

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13165&page=1 Accessed 10 Jan. 2020.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

42

Dr. Mohammad Mahmoud Algaseem & Aieman Ahmad Al-Omari 20. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available: http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards 21. 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 22. “Participating in Extra-Curricular Activities and Fostering Greater Learner Autonomy Among Highly Proficient Secondary Students in Hong Kong”, International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR), Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp. 33-40

“Appendix A,” The reality of teaching curricula developed for NGSS standards according to teachers ’estimates in the Sultanate of Oman

1 2 3 4

5 6

7

8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19

Items Pay attention to what a learner can do (performance expectations) rather than focus on content.

The content of the science presented and the process of teaching it revolves around phenomena that are close to the reality of the student and the environment that surrounds him.

Focus on concepts common to science: patterns, cause and effect, measurement, ratio and quantity, system modelling, energy and material, composition and function, stability and change.

Focus on major concepts and key ideas in science learning. (Matter and its interactions, forces and movement, energy, waves and its applications, ecosystem, genetics, land location, system and human activities on it).

Deep emphasis on scientific practices, applications and engineering, and linking them together through common or unified concepts.

Students have the opportunity to activate the true meaning of scientific and engineering practices by conducting realistic and targeted surveys, linking them to common concepts, in a way that advances the phenomenon in a context that is meaningful to the student, which deepens its understanding.

The content is presented in a sequential and sequential manner, in which the experience provided is based on the above and prepares for the experience that will follow, to help the learner achieve the expected performances.

Shared concepts are employed to connect the scientific content provided with other sciences such as mathematics, language, culture and history in attractive and innovative ways.

Students are integrated into attitudes with a moral dimension that are linked to the main ideas presented by the content, and emphasize that the value and ethical system of others is not compromised.

The teaching process is supported by activities, experiments, representations, analogies, models, images and multimedia to help learners engage in scientific and engineering practices during the study of the phenomenon.

Focus on the principles of building learning, the scientific culture project, and in proportion to the nature of science.

The level of the classroom is taken into account in ensuring educational experiences offered to students.

Students have the opportunity to indulge in situations that enable them to adopt their own opinions, justify them, interpret them and explain them to their colleagues and teachers.

Guidance and suggestions are provided to assist teachers in implementing the curriculum.

It leaves open room for teachers to add what they want to create and create in line with the learning environment and individual differences between students.

The use of various evaluation methods adapted to the nature of the different dimensions of the developed approaches, in specialized knowledge, scientific and engineering practices, and common concepts.

The content provided is linked to future professions related to the theme of the lesson.

Emphasis on the design to take into account the principle of justice in the learning of science, including gender differences, different ethnicities and people with special needs.

Using a variety of means (audio, visual and readable), that help learners understand.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.7094

NAAS Rating: 4.16