STEM in the summer:

http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/Science/NYCSummerSTEM

https://www.nyu.edu/employees/life-wellness/family-care/child-care/summer-camp/math-science-technology-summer-programs.html

This engagement in true science should not only be limited to the school day; there are many after school programs for NYC students that can enrich their experience with science and promote an interest in science.

Bridge Golf Foundation: https://bridgegolffoundation.org/

I work as a STEM teacher at this afterschool program in which young men of color engage in learning golf, STEM based in the game of golf, and character education. In the STEM class we focus on activity and inquiry-based learning in which the young men develop their own knowledge of the content that will help them in their game of golf.

 

Girls Who Code: http://girlswhocode.com/

 

http://www.nyas.org/landing/afterschool.aspx

 

Phet simulations: http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/category/physics

Virtual Fieldwork: http://virtualfieldwork.org/A_VFE_Database.html

These types of virtual resources are useful in providing simulations of real world situations. Without the resources or time to visit a fieldwork site, simulations allow students to engage in real world science right in the classroom.

 

The GLOBE program: http://www.globe.gov/about/overview

There are also useful books that can assist teachers in developing inquiry-based lessons, such as Physics by Inquiry by Lillian C. McDermott and Peter S. Shaffer. This book is an example of a lesson planning resource teachers can use to create simple, yet effective inquiry-based lessons that use a completely student-centered approach. They include no direct instruction unless it is to concisely describe and define what the students have themselves already discovered. The lessons use only basic resources that students should have contact with in a physics classroom. A Guide to Introductory Physics by Arnold Arons is also useful in helping physics teachers consider how to help their students move toward scientific literacy.

 

Urban Advantage (for NYC teachers): http://www.urbanadvantagenyc.org/

Urban Advantage is one resource that supports NYC middle school students in engaging in true science, especially by fostering eighth grade long-term science projects, creating partnerships between our schools and science cultural institutions, and providing many other supports to our schools. Urban Advantage provides innovative professional development for teachers, which “emphasizes authentic hands-on experiences in science, the nature of scientific work, specific science topics, and how to support the essential features of inquiry in the form of long-term investigations” (Urban Advantage). This type of professional development expands our teachers’ understanding of how to implement inquiry; it is also designed as a continuous process and decreases in intensity as teachers become more experienced. Urban Advantage even supplies its partner schools with science equipment for the experiments and investigations. The program also supplies vouchers for field trips and family visits to the various museums and science institutions in NYC. This is vital as it gives our students the opportunity and reminder to take advantage of the various institutions that can provide us with beneficial learning experiences.

 

 

 

 

Ahram, Roey, Adeyemi Stembridge, Edward Fergus, and Pedro Nogeura. “Framing            Urban School Challenges: The Problems to Examine When Implementing Response to Intervention.” RTI Action Network. Web. 11 Oct. 2015.

Arons, A. B. “Cultivating the Capacity for Formal Reasoning: Objectives and Procedures in an Introductory Physical Science Course.” Am. J. Phys. American Journal of   Physics 44.9 (1976): 834-38. Print.

Barnhouse, Dorothy. “How Testing Is Hurting Teaching.” WNYC. 23 Apr. 2012. Web. 11            Oct. 2015.

Barrow, Lloyd H. “A Brief History Of Inquiry: From Dewey To Standards.” Journal of   Science Teacher Education (2006): 265-78. Print.

Fullan, Michael, and Alan Boyle. “Tackling the Challenges of Urban Education.” Big-city   School Reforms: Lessons from New York, Toronto, and London. Teachers          College, Columbia U, 2014. Print.

Gay, Geneva. “Preparing For Culturally Responsive Teaching.” Journal of Teacher           Education 53.2 (2002): 106-16.

“Girls Who Code” Girls Who Code. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.

Harnik, Paul G., and Robert M. Ross. “Models of Inquiry-based Science Outreach to        Urban Schools.” Journal of Geoscience Education 52.5 (2004): 420-28.

Hemphill, Clara, Nicole Mader, and Bruce Corey. “What’s Wrong with Math and Science in NYC High Schools.” Center for New York City Affairs (2015): 1-10. Web.

 

Hofstein, Avi, and Vincent N. Lunetta. “The Laboratory In Science Education:       Foundations For The Twenty-first Century.” Science Education (2003): 28-54. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.

Kamenetz, Anya. “What Schools Could Use Instead Of Standardized Tests.” NPR. 6 Jan.             2015. Web. 11 Oct. 2015.

Kuczynski-Brown, Alex. “New York Class Size: Nearly Half Of Public Schools Have       Overcrowded Classrooms, UFT Says.” The Huffington Post.             TheHuffingtonPost.com. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.

Maulucci, María S. Rivera, Bryan A. Brown, Salina T. Grey, and Shayna Sullivan.             “Urban Middle School Students’ Reflections on Authentic Science Inquiry.”         Journal of Research in Science Teaching 51.9 (2014): 119-149.

Markham, Thom. “Inquiry Learning Vs. Standardized Content: Can They Coexist?”          KQED News. 20 May 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2015.

Martin-Hansen, Lisa. “Defining Inquiry.” NSTA News. 1 Feb. 2002. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.

“Defining Inquiry” (NSTA WebNews Digest).

McDermott, Lillian C., and Peter S. Shaffer. Physics by Inquiry: An Introduction to            Physics and the Physical Sciences. New York: J. Wiley, 1996. Print.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework          for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education,    Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The       National Academies Press.

 

Osisioma, Irene U., and Chidiebere R. Onyia. “Inquiry –Oriented Science in Urban            Secondary Schools: Voices of New and Experience Science Teachers on     Perception of Preparedness.” International Education Studies IES 1.2 (2008): 92-   103. Print.

Samtani, Hiten. “With Test Week Here, Parents Consider the Option of Opting Out.”       WNYC. Web.

Steinberg, Richard N. An Inquiry into Science Education, Where the Rubber Meets the         Road. Rotterdam: Sense, 2011. Print.

Tal, Tali, Joseph S. Krajcik, and Phyllis C. Blumenfeld. “Urban Schools’ Teachers             Enacting Project-based Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43.7             (2005): 722-45. Print.

“Textbooks: Advantages and Disadvantages.” Teacher Vision. Web. 11 Oct. 2015.

Trendell Nation, Molly, Allan Feldman, and Ping Wang. “A Rising Tide.” The Science       Teacher 82.6 (2015): 34-30. Print.

“Urban Advantage Home Page.” Urban Advantage. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.

Walls, L. (2012). Third grade African American students’ views of the nature of science.   Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1–37.

Weinstein, M., E. R. Whitesell, and A. E. Schwartz. “Museums, Zoos, and Gardens: How            Formal-Informal Partnerships Can Impact Urban Students’ Performance in        Science.” Evaluation Review (2014): 514-45.

Wysession, Michael. “Schools Should Teach Science Like Sports.” Scientific American      Global RSS. 14 July 2015. Web. 11 Oct. 2015.

 

Zernike, Kate. “Obama Administration Calls for Limits on Testing in Schools.” The New   York Times. The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2015. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Thesis presentation

I propose it is crucial that NYC teachers and educators are aware of the barriers and classroom dynamics holding back inquiry-based science education. High-stakes testing has cultivated a classroom culture with a focus on content coverage and a lack of depth in understanding. Teachers’ sometimes low expectations of their students as well as their misconceptions about inquiry-based instruction are leading to a lack of freedom for students and more teacher-centered classrooms. Students are disconnected from science and often feel it is not relevant to their lives. Once educators are aware of these hindrances, we can begin to apply the various strategies I highlighted that will help improve the dynamic in our classrooms. Lastly, educators and parents should be aware of the resources available to strengthen our students’ experiences in science, especially NYC science institutions and after school programs. Let’s work together to prepare our future scientists for innovative, skillful work.

Another study performed with urban middle school students analyzed the effects authentic science inquiry projects had on the students’ connection to science. The various projects allowed students to have a personal connection with their projects and experience a true scientific community by sharing and presenting their findings. One student described in the study, Leonardi, underperformed in science originally but later became devoted to his science project (Mallucci, Rivera, Brown, Grey, & Sullivan). He developed his own knowledge of yeast along with his partner through an experiment in which they added different nutrients and examined how the yeast reacted. Leonardi’s experience with this science inquiry project is summed up in this quote:

It made me feel smart. ‘Cause. . .I made my own question up, and I never did that before. I felt like a genius when I made my own question. And then I did my own      project. I did it by myself, just me and my partner. We were making our own         thing. That made me feel like a genius, like a scientist. (Mallucci 1135)

Overall, the students who engaged in these science investigations showed a shift in their connection with science and most of the students demonstrated a passion for science after the study was completed.

The authors of this study also explored the theory behind the authentic science inquiry that they implemented to get these positive results. Firstly, we must analyze how the sociocultural theory applies to science education; people learn first in a social context and then can develop knowledge independently. Therefore, the student-student and student-teacher collaboration are an important part of these authentic science inquiry projects. In addition, we should encourage the students’ investigations to come naturally from problems they recognize; this supports students in exploring science that is relevant to their own lives and their communities. Lastly, authentic science inquiry draws upon students’ “funds of knowledge,” including the cultural and cognitive resources of the child’s family and the child’s lived experiences” (Mallucci 1124). This not only allows the student to build upon their prior knowledge, but also allows the student to connect with science content on a more personal level. Applying these ideas to the students’ engagement with science investigations allowed these educators to get the positive results that we aim to see with all of our students.

Another similar study that educators can learn from was done with geoscience education in urban schools. Geoscience faces an additional challenge in urban school districts because it is often assumed that natural sciences are not pertinent in our environment. There is also a very significant under-representation of minority groups as geoscientists. As students in an urban environment will feel that this science is even less relevant to their lives than their other science classes, it is especially important to engage students directly in the “geoscience phenomena” that we can explore all around NYC (Harnik & Ross 421). Harnik and Ross add two more obstacles they recognized in developing outreach programs at urban schools. One difficulty they noticed was limited financial resources as “school districts that serve areas with high-poverty consistently spend less per-pupil than those located in low-poverty areas” (421). Additionally, many students in NY schools have limited English proficiency and this poses an obstacle in their science education.

Harnik and Ross describe two outreach programs they developed with support through grants that successfully engaged urban school students in authentic science. The first program, Collections Connections, taught “urban elementary school students about natural history through the process of creating, interpreting, and exhibiting a collection of natural history objects gathered from around their neighborhood” (Harnik 422). This allows students to connect their science activities with their lives because the objects they are analyzing come from where they live. Collections Connections gave students the chance to practice scientific communication skills because they made their own classroom museum and discussed their findings with other students. The students were especially connected with the objects they found themselves; they accomplished the work of true scientists by going into the field and sharing these discoveries with their fellow scientists. The other outreach program, Devonian Seas, gave fourth through ninth graders the chance to explore authentic marine fossils through samples brought to their classrooms as well as through field trips. Similarly, this program also gave the students the chance to feel like real scientists and connect with their investigations.

Harnik and Ross implemented four practices that allowed these outreach programs to be successful in connecting students to science content. Firstly, the programs’ access to authentic materials is vital because it engages students of “different learning styles, including those with limited English proficiency” (Harnik 426). Instead of giving students a textbook to read about geoscience phenomena, they get to use their own observations and hands-on investigations to develop their knowledge. Students will also feel important because they are being entrusted with these authentic materials. Harnik and Ross also suggest that educators use local examples of the phenomena because students can apply their previous knowledge to what they are investigating and will feel a personal connection with the content. Within these scientific investigations, it is also helpful to include interdisciplinary approaches and any other interests the students might have. In these programs, students were encouraged to relate the science they were exploring to the history of where they live. We also need to “empower students to take an active role in their learning” and this is most effectively done by having students engage in research by developing hypotheses and testing them based on their own collection of data (426). This active research will allow our students to develop scientific reasoning skills as well as curiosity about our natural world.

In his book, Steinberg also reflects on the importance of relating students’ race, culture, and community to their education. Teachers must understand that the way a student learns and performs is connected to their real lives. Steinberg highlights that these concepts are too complex to grasp in one year of teaching and it takes experience to make connections between the student’s lives and science. As he reflects on his teaching, he realizes that many of his assignments do not relate to his student’s lives. However, he cites some effective assignments that related the science content he wanted his students to learn with their everyday lives in NYC. One assignment has the students record data about the motion of the subway on the way home and perform some calculations, such as the “average velocity of the train” or the “maximum speed of the train” (90-91). Another project that allows students to explore their interests is simply asking students to research and write about any “science related item in the news” (100). Steinberg also suggests that we can use the many science institutions in NYC to our advantage by giving a museum visit assignment to the New York Hall of Science, the Museum of Natural History, or the Liberty Science Center and giving the students the freedom to explore any exhibit they find interesting. This assignment makes students aware of some of the resources we have available to us.

Steinberg also stresses the importance of encouraging students to apply their prior knowledge to science problems. This is especially important in Regents science classrooms where the reference table begins to dictate a students’ thinking over their own intuition and reasoning. When giving out two versions of a worksheet, one along with the reference table and another that directed the students to pretend they never took physics, the students given the latter worksheet scored better. This demonstrates that we need to take advantage of students’ prior knowledge and how they think about science. One way we can accomplish this is by connecting the science content to the real world. Doing this will also give students the answer to the question that is often asked in classrooms, “Why are we learning this?” For example, when Steinberg was teaching about conservation of momentum he made a connection to his students’ knowledge of car collisions. He also asked more estimation type questions, such as “Estimate how fast each vehicle was traveling at the time of impact” (106). This encourages students to actually think about the situation at hand and reason out what happened as opposed to simply plugging in mass and velocity values into a formula from the reference table. As mentioned earlier, students will also gain confidence when they can apply their prior knowledge in the classroom and will feel comfortable working with a familiar situation.

We can also engage students in true science by performing investigations about topics that will personally connect with their lives. The article “A Rising Tide” from The Science Teacher gives an example of a simple, yet very important lab built around the NGSS standards that can help students learn about how global warming and thermal expansion of the ocean affects their lives (Trendell Nation, Feldman, Wang). The lab has students calculate the “rate of volume change associated with temperature rise” and “predict the rise of sea level due to thermal expansion per °C” (38). The classes that performed this lab described in the article were from Tampa Bay, Florida, which is especially vulnerable to these changes in the ocean. Therefore, this lab is especially important because it fostered discussion about the consequences of this sea-level rise in the bodies of water near them as well as what they can personally do about climate change. Labs like this one can be adapted to give students the opportunity to investigate how climate change is affecting their place of residence and what the consequences will be. They also are essential in showing students that science is relevant to their lives and that they can be someone who contributes to our scientific community.

In NGSS’ A Framework for K-12 Science Education, there are suggestions for connecting science to students’ lives in applying these inquiry-based standards. The framework discusses how our students should be progressing from the elementary level through middle school and high school; the NGSS’ performance expectations are set up in a way that foster this development across grade levels. Connecting what students do from grade to grade will help us build on what the students have done already and help them progress more steadily to scientific literacy. This simply encourages students to make connections to what they learned in previous science classes and make their progressions very clear.
However, in each grade level alone educators also most foster connections between the science content and the students’ lives outside of school. We must promote equity and inclusive science education for all. For this to happen, educators must recognize that culture does not need to be excluded from science learning; in fact, “community practices and knowledge” are invaluable to a student’s approach to science (National Research Council 285). The diverse backgrounds of our students must be celebrated to benefit the scientific discourse of our classrooms. Nurturing this discussion gives students the opportunity to understand the content more thoroughly; if you can clearly explain your reasoning aloud, you comprehend the material. Students are enhancing their ability to speak about science. Scientific discussion amongst the class also enables the teacher to assess how well the students have grasped the content. We must embrace the uniqueness of discourse in each of our classes because this discussion is essential for students to learn science.

In order to take advantage of the diversity of our students, we must also be aware of who our students are and be knowledgeable about their various cultures; this includes “understanding the cultural characteristics and contributions of different ethnic groups” as well as the “cultural values, traditions, communication, learning styles, contributions, and relational patterns” (Gay 107). Of course, most teachers respect the differences amongst their students, but in her article Preparing for Culturally Responsive Teaching, Geneva Gay asserts that this is not sufficient. She illuminates the necessity for using “multicultural instructional strategies [and] adding multicultural content to the curriculum” (107). This cannot be accomplished if teachers are not knowledgeable about the cultural backgrounds of their students. These strategies must be supplemented with a culturally “caring” learning community. This includes teachers holding high expectations of their students as discussed earlier in this paper as well integrating all skills that we want our students to develop into learning altogether. These culturally responsive strategies are crucial for our NYC teachers to be educated about, so that our students can benefit from the great diversity in our classrooms.

Not only do teachers need to hold high expectations of their students in order to implement inquiry-based instruction, they must also believe that inquiry-based instruction will be effective in their classroom and have the skills to execute it. In one study discussed by Irene Osisioma and Onyia Chidiebere of California State University, it was found that science teachers had a wide range of perceptions toward inquiry learning. While some of the teachers believed that the inquiry process positively benefits their students’ scientific thinking and process skills, some expressed that it was unnecessary because the curriculum was very “rigorous” or that their students could not handle this type of instruction (Osisioma & Chidiebere 95). This original study reiterates my earlier discussion, but led Osisioma to look further into why some teachers did not find inquiry-based instruction useful for their classroom.

Teachers’ willingness to execute inquiry-based instruction also has to do with how informed they are on the strategy. Osisioma along with California State University later conducted their own study based in various southern California urban secondary schools about teachers’ attitudes toward inquiry-based learning as well as their attitude toward their preparedness to teach using this technique. Although the study was done in California, it is relevant to this discussion because it was completed in urban school districts. The study concluded that seventy-eight percent believed they “were either proficient or accomplished in their level of understanding of what science inquiry means” and sixty-two percent believed they were proficient in using science inquiry in their classrooms (Osisioma 97). However, once these teachers were questioned about the key elements of inquiry only thirty-nine percent “correctly identified some elements of inquiry” (98). These percentages make it clear that although some teachers believe they have a clear understanding of inquiry-based instruction, they actually are not proficient in the teaching practice. This lack of comprehension undoubtedly creates a barrier for engaging all of our students in true scientific inquiry.

More specifically, science educators often assume that laboratory activities are inquiry-based because they are hands-on, but as many of us have experienced, often labs simply involve students following a set of procedures that they do not understand leading to a result they can barely articulate. These “cook-book” labs should not be misinterpreted as inquiry-based instruction. This current dynamic in some of our schools’ laboratories can be refined if our teachers recognize it as troublesome and understand how to move away from direct instruction labs to more open inquiry labs. Educators Hofstein and Lunetta suggest that the laboratory is the ideal environment for students to collaborate with their peers and teachers, especially since it is often a less formal atmosphere. Promoting this collaboration in lab classes can help students “come to understand the nature of an expert scientific community” (Hofstein & Lunetta pg 36). Utilizing laboratory periods in this way gives students a sense of how scientists work and gives them the chance to feel like true scientists.

Hofstein and Lunetta also propose some strategies for improving our school laboratories. Students often do not perceive the goals of lab activities as their teachers intended; therefore, it is important that teachers clarify to their students their goals in having them complete these lab activities. In addition, it is difficult to differentiate labs for the diverse needs of students. In order to accomplish this, teachers must be aware of their students’ strengths and weaknesses; technology can assist teachers in keeping track of the abilities and progress of their students. This article suggests that Progress Portfolio “is one example of software used by students that can provide teachers with relatively easy electronic access to student performance data to be included in assessing a student’s development and progress” (Hofstein 43). These suggestions are fundamental in advancing our school laboratories, but how can our teachers implement them if they are not being educated about them? How can we improve upon our teachers’ knowledge of inquiry-based instruction?

Osisioma along with Hofstein and Lunetta suggest that we must use the time our teachers spend in professional development to address these issues. Osisioma’s study found that although many teachers were not familiar with inquiry-based teaching strategies, sixty-two percent answered that they did attend professional development focused specifically on this topic (99). This illustrates that even if we do have professional development focused on inquiry education, it is currently not successful in educating our teachers. Osisioma suggests that administrators and educators must work toward making professional development more effective and worthwhile; we should also give teachers the “opportunity for reflection and feedback” (99). This will give teachers the chance to apply what they have learned from professional development in the classroom and consider if they are proficient in those skills. Hofstein and Lunetta propose that professional development should begin to more directly bridge the gap between the “science education research community and the community of teachers” (40). Keeping this communication strong will keep teachers updated on the most recent advancements, strategies, and technologies in science education. Hofstein and Lunetta add that professional development should always be a “continuous process across the professional lifetime of a teacher” (45). This is vital to improving professional development for teachers because it allows them to build new knowledge and progress forward as opposed to reviewing skills that they have already mastered.

In my experience, the most effective way that I developed my understanding of inquiry-based instruction was taking a college-level course in which we actively engaged in this type of learning. Professor Steinberg led a class in which we developed our knowledge of basic astronomy through our own observations and building of models. After experiencing how thoroughly I understood the content after taking this class, I was convinced that every student should have the opportunity to learn science this way. Therefore, I propose if teachers could participate in this sort of learning in their college career or professional development, they would believe in the process of inquiry and understand the basics of implementing it.

In order for educators to aim for inquiry-driven instruction they must believe that their students will be able to handle the freedom of a student-directed classroom. From my research and observations in NYC classrooms, it appears that some of the time teachers do not hold high enough expectations of their students. For example, dense classrooms often lead to classroom management challenges that make a student-directed classroom seem unappealing or even impossible. As of 2012, “nearly half of NYC’s public schools have classrooms that are more crowded than the teachers’ union contract allows” (Kuczynski). I will analyze how the trends in these classrooms affect the outlook of teachers and how these perspectives may alter the opportunities given to their students.

Firstly, we must discuss general trends present in urban school systems. Michael Fullan and Alan Boyle highlight the growing importance of socioeconomic status on a student’s academic performance. With the increasing levels of income inequality in cities, it is important to note that “students from less-advantaged households or families will have lower levels of achievement and poorer outcomes” (Fullan & Boyle 3). In addition, there are noticeable trends between a student’s “first language, ethnicity, and migration status” and their success in school (4). I must clarify that student outcomes vary greatly between students of the same socioeconomic, linguistic, ethnic, and migrant backgrounds; a student’s background is not an outright indicator of that student’s achievements. Furthermore, these “socioedemographics are not themselves the challenges of urban school systems,” but they have resulted in structures of the school system that have led to the trends we are analyzing (Ahram, Stembridge, Fergus, & Nogeura).

With teachers aware of these trends, they might be predisposed to creating stricter classrooms with not very challenging instruction. Teachers seem to be prematurely preparing for the lower achieving classrooms they have been conditioned to expect. It has been shown that some educators “perceive the cultural practices of the home environment as causing low-income and racial/ethnic minority children to be unable to learn or in conflict with school practices” (Ahram). Educators that have these flawed perceptions of the race and class of their students will set the bar very low for their students as they will not expect them to be able to succeed in a challenging, student-directed classroom. This makes it harder for these students to succeed and the cycle continues on.

Steinberg discusses his observations of these kinds of negative teacher attitudes in his NYC high school. One teacher who was having behavioral problems in his classroom expressed to Steinberg that he believed something is “organically wrong” with his students and that the only reason he does not shoot them is “because [he] would go to prison” (87). The hostile environment in this classroom does not encourage students to take risks that are necessary for learning, such as participating and asking questions. Additionally, due to his belief that there is something inherently wrong with his students, this teacher does not even attempt to provide his students with the opportunity to learn science. Even an effective teacher that Steinberg often visited for teaching advice told Steinberg to simply put problems on a test that were almost exactly the same as problems he had done for them in class (87). This reciting of information is the most basic form of learning and is the lowest goal that can possibly be set for a science classroom. However, the current dynamic in NYC classrooms is leaving some teachers frustrated and believing that this is the highest form of thinking their students will achieve.

Teachers faulty perceptions are not only leading to these troubling dynamics in the classroom as a whole, but also on the level of individual students. Some educators may perceive different learning styles as “intellectual deficiencies” according to the RTI Action Network (Ahram). For example, minority students’ cultural differences may be misunderstood as “learning or emotional” disabilities; differences caused by a lower socioeconomic background may cause similar misunderstandings (Ahram). These faulty perceptions are also causing these educators to lack confidence in their students’ abilities, while, in reality, this diversity can be and should be used to the teacher’s advantage (which I will discuss more later).

Along with teachers’ faulty perceptions of their students, these types of unstimulating, teacher-centered classrooms are sometimes due to logistical reasons. It might be necessary to increase time and attention focused on “behavioral management [and] counseling” (Fullan 6). While teachers may want to work on creating more challenging instruction for their students, their attention may be diverted to other, more urgent goals. In our many overcrowded classrooms in NYC schools, classroom management has to be a major focus for our teachers. From my observations in NYC middle and high schools, even the teachers I considered to be very effective and respected often had to shift their focus from creating an inquiry-based classroom to dealing with other problems, such as misbehavior or lateness.

Classroom management plagues even the most learned teacher; Steinberg dedicates an entire chapter to his classroom management troubles. Even as a devoted teacher, who is well-versed in inquiry-based teaching, he begins to lose steam and notices that the students do learn through his inquiry activities, but “behave better when [he] is writing lots of stuff on the board for them to copy down” (40). This observation is troubling and adds to our understanding of why inquiry-based classrooms are not the norm in NYC schools. As a previous student in NYC public schools, I was conditioned from an early age to quietly copy information from the board or a textbook and independently or sometimes in a group answer questions about that information. By the time I reached high school, I did not have sufficient practice in a student-directed classroom. When finally given this freedom in the classroom, it is exciting, overwhelming, and even confusing. Therefore, I propose that if inquiry-based classrooms become the norm, students will also learn to behave in that kind of learning environment. Freedom for students in our classroom does not have to result in misbehavior, and every student should get the chance to learn how to perform in an environment in which they can engage in true scientific thinking and discovery.

Our students are not only held back by low expectations of teachers, but are also hindered by low standards from the school system as a whole. About half of NYC’s high schools do not offer any science Advanced Placement course and about twenty-one percent of our high school students do not even have the option of taking a chemistry or physics course (Hemphill, Mader, & Corey). This lack of demanding courses and science courses in general are taking away the opportunity for many of our students to succeed in science. If students are not given the chance to take these classes in high school, they will not only be unprepared for college level courses, but they will also most likely not have developed an interest in science that would lead them to want to study science further. The same can be said for math courses available; 232 out of 396 high schools do not offer any Advanced Placement math courses (Hemphill). This is significant because these low standards also leave our students unprepared in terms of math that they will need to use in their science college courses. Therefore, we need to set higher standards for our students on the classroom level and the school level in order for them to properly explore what science has to offer them.

One strategy for teachers to set higher standards and give more freedom to their students is through Project-Based Science (PBS). The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS) developed a curriculum of projects that embraces the intentions of inquiry based instruction.

The design principles include a context that engages students in extended    authentic investigations through a driving question, collaborative work that allows      students to communicate their ideas, learning technologies to find and         communicate solutions, and the creation of artifacts that demonstrate student   understanding and serve as the basis for discussion, feedback and revision”             (Tal, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld 724)

These fundamentals of the PBS curriculum allow students to develop all the skills necessary to be future scientists, such as working in teams, inquiring about scientific phenomena, meticulously collecting data, and being able to articulate their findings.

A qualitative study published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching discusses how PBS and inquiry-based instruction was successfully utilized in an urban middle school in Detroit (Tal). The study’s findings focused on the experiences of two teachers, Ms. Anderson and Ms. McGee, as representative cases of effective strategies and challenges while utilizing PBS. For example, Ms. Anderson had her students investigate the phases of matter and chemical change through an air quality project in which the students explored air pollution around their school. They made observations, collected data, and even “used modeling software to create air quality models that could be tested and evaluated” (Tal 731). Overall, Ms. Anderson had her students perform genuine science by encouraging collaboration between students, developing a supportive and positive classroom environment, and using the technology available in her classroom to her advantage. Ms. McGee used PBS to teach her students about force and motion by having them design helmets for an egg crash test dummy; the students were able to collect data about the motion of the egg and the cart it was in. Similar to Ms. Anderson, Ms. McGee was also successful because of the respectful and collaborative classroom atmosphere she created with her students. This allowed her to give the necessary freedom to her students to perform their investigations and develop their own knowledge of the content. These cases demonstrate how urban school teachers can implement inquiry learning through project-based science. Clearly, the teacher must have confidence in his or her students in order to create adequately challenging instruction and encourage his or her students to achieve more by raising their goals. These classroom dynamics are vital to promoting student-centered learning.

Based on my observations in NYC science classrooms, my discussions with educators, and reading of literature, there often seems to be a dynamic in which the teacher and the textbook are viewed as the ultimate dispensers of knowledge. Professor Steinberg alludes to this dynamic various times throughout his book. He describes his observations of one teacher who is regarded as highly effective in his school, Mr. Lowrey. Mr. Lowrey’s asked his students to find the definition of inertia on the internet, copy other definitions from a powerpoint, complete a fill in the blank worksheet with these definitions, and finally calculate the weight of an object using the relation that weight is equal to mass multiplied by the constant value “g”. This lesson has students taking information from the internet and their teacher’s powerpoint as fact, memorizing it, and answering questions that test no deeper understanding of the concepts. It gives students no chance to make these discoveries on their own or to connect them to what they see in the real world. Why is Mr. Lowrey’s lesson considered effective if his students performed almost no scientific reasoning, observations, or discussion?

There is a norm that has been created in many of our schools: students are searching for the “right” answer and teachers are there to give it to them. Steinberg also discusses his students’ frustration with him challenging this dynamic, which he refers to as the “institutional suppression of thinking,” by attempting to have his students perform independent thinking and learning (60). Instead of giving students a step-by-step cookbook lab about buoyancy, he decided to give his students more freedom and less direct instruction. However, he was met with frustration and dissatisfaction from his students instead of excitement and curiosity. One defeated student said, “How am I supposed to do it if you don’t tell me? Hey Phil (across the room), go build a rocket but I’m not going to tell you how” (61). I have had many similar encounters during my fieldwork in NYC classrooms. As students perform independent or group-work solving problems, many would call me over to ask, “Is this right?” Many would become exasperated when I began to question them about how they got to their answer instead of just replying yes or no. Students want immediate satisfaction of getting the right answer, having a teacher know that they got the right answer, and seem to not even really care if they do not understand how they got to that answer. This dynamic has developed as a result of many years of schooling in which students expect their teachers to directly dispense information to them. A transition toward more student-driven classrooms must begin at the very start of a student’s education. If we give students more freedom earlier in their education, high school science teachers will not be met with the same frustrations during inquiry-based lessons.

In addition, we must also begin altering the role of the textbook in the classroom. There is a trend of using the textbook to dispense information directly to students because it is an easy way to cover as much content as possible. I have observed lessons in which the students are directed to read certain pages and answer the questions at the end of the chapter, which are normally simple recall questions and are rarely questions that give students the chance to practice critical thinking. We must assist students in transitioning from their dependency on the teacher and textbook for the right answer and toward enjoying the process of scientific discovery and independent thinking.

Of course, textbooks are very useful tools for the science classroom; they present teachers with a logical and “balanced” way of organizing content (Teacher Vision). Viewing the textbook more as a supplemental resource than the major source with every fact they need to memorize will benefit our classrooms. One way to accomplish this is to vary the sources the students use to read about and analyze content; students can work with research articles, books, and encyclopedias as well as multimedia resources, such as websites, simulations, and videos.

It is especially important to differentiate sources for the various needs of students in NYC classrooms. Telling every student in an urban classroom to pick up the same textbook, read, and answer the questions is not going to be effective or even possible for some students. For example, many students are ELLs and will need different reading material than a non-ELL student. Another useful strategy for teachers is to use textbook questions to develop their own questions that require higher-order thinking. The textbook can also be used as a tool for students to review concepts at home instead of a way to introduce new material. This gives more class time for students to be performing more active learning. The widespread transition toward inquiry-driven classrooms in NYC begins with teachers who are aware of these dynamics and are attempting to move away from them in their individual classrooms.

Even if NYC teachers strive to create such a classroom environment, there are certain classroom dynamics that create barriers to implementing inquiry. Firstly, the pressure of high-stakes testing has led to an emphasis on passing by covering large amounts of content and neglecting a depth of understanding. In my survey, student responses about science standardized testing greatly varied. These students have been required to take the fourth and eighth grade science state tests as well as various science regents at the end of each year, normally beginning in high school. Some students expressed that they think high-stakes testing is necessary to uniformly assess students, but many responded that they felt too much pressure from standardized tests and felt that it negatively affected their learning. For example, one student responded that “science standardized testing prevents students from learning material thoroughly and instead encourages test taking skills and memorization.” Some of the students noted that they believe testing is unfair because it does not always reflect what the student has learned. In addition, many of the students in these regents physics classes emphasized their goals of receiving above specific grades, especially on the regents exam. Out of sixty-five students I surveyed about their goals in taking regents physics, forty-five responded with goals strictly about grades. Having this value placed on grades creates a pressured environment where students seek to learn as much content as possible and figure out how it will culminate on “the test.”

Parents have also recognized the stress high stakes tests have created for their children; many have recently decided to protest testing because of the perceived negative effects on their children’s educations. One parent noted that when her son reached the third grade he began exhibiting signs of anxiety regarding school, specifically about his reading level, most likely because students face standardized tests for the first time in third grade (Samtani). Many NYC parents have also decided to have their students opt out of the tests and will have their child demonstrate their learning and ability through a portfolio of work. Not only are parents troubled by the stress put on their children, they are also unsettled by the shift in learning they have observed. One concerned parent summarized, “Learning in our schools has become a matter of meeting static, arbitrary and superficial ‘standards’ rather than engaging in the dynamic, endlessly creative process of discovery that children come into the world eager to embark on” (Samtani).

Even teachers struggle to find a balance between the innovative classroom instruction they envision and the static, content-based, and rote instruction geared toward passing standardized tests. In An Inquiry into Science Education: Where the Rubber Meets the Road, Richard Steinberg, my physics and secondary education professor at the City College of New York, describes his sabbatical year teaching physics in a NYC public high school. His account underscores the challenges teachers face in implementing inquiry-based instruction. Steinberg bemoans the students’ indifference to the meaning behind the physics concepts. Instead they turn to the reference table, a six-page collection of formulas and constants (refer to Figure 1), to plug in the correct values, without a firm command of the actual science. Steinberg attempts to get his students to inquire about how scientists calculate the speed of light, for example, but they are uninterested because the exact value is right there on the reference table. By the time they’ve reached high school, many students have lost their curiosity about scientific discovery and instead rely on merely finding the right answers to pass the exams.

Figure 1: A portion of the first page of the Regents Physics reference table.

Teachers are especially focused on how they will be evaluated based on these standardized test scores. One NYC staff developer, Dorothy Barnhouse, speculates that evaluating teachers based on their students scores on standardized tests is “producing worse teachers.” Her observations around the city have shown that teachers are now emphasizing the right answer over inquiry because it will help their students pass the test. Extra pressure is placed on teachers because their rankings based on these tests “have been published and used by administrators to threaten dismissal or deny tenure” (Barnhouse). Therefore, it is understandable that teachers must prioritize having their students pass tests over providing the classroom instruction that would facilitate a deep understanding of the material. How will our students value true learning if our teachers do not have the freedom to engage them in the learning and discovery process?

Along with the pressures of these assessments, students and educators seem to agree that tests often do not accurately evaluate a student’s understanding of the material. In a Framework for K-12 Science Education written to outline and explain the NGSS, there is a discussion about this problem, especially that tests can be “culturally biased.” With many English Language Learners (ELLs), NYC schools must recognize that it is often difficult for these students to express their learning in English on standardized tests. Moreover, “girls and students from particular demographic groups” often do not perform to their highest potential due to the idea of “stereotype threat,” in which they feel they are at risk of confirming a negative stereotype (National Research Council 289). Steinberg adds that there is an epistemological bias; questions under development that require complex scientific reasoning might not be used for future tests because many students will answer incorrectly. Therefore, tests are simplified so that students can memorize the information to pass, but students who have developed true critical thinking skills will not be rewarded.

It is important that educators are aware of these complications with high-stakes testing, so that we can further the discussion about possible solutions. Firstly, teachers must constantly be considering how to balance inquiry-based instruction, while also covering standardized content. One educator, Thom Markham, gives suggestions about how we can integrate more student-directed learning into the curriculum. He proposes that we focus on shifting to team learning as opposed to individual learning (Markham). This type of learning is ideal for inquiry-based classrooms because it allows students to brainstorm with their peers and give feedback to each other; these activities can facilitate scientific discourse amongst students and prompt students to verbalize their reasoning more often. Working in teams will help students prepare for working in the real world and also more closely mirrors the work of scientists. Therefore, this strategy allows us to blend the standardized content into a student-driven classroom. Markham suggests that we give students the opportunity to develop their inquiry skills through “exercises in creativity and brainstorming, regular use of protocols to practice sharing and giving feedback on divergent ideas.” These types of activities are fundamental in having students progress toward becoming authentic scientific learners and discoverers. Overall, science teachers currently have the complex task of balancing the development of these pertinent skills and having students absorb as much of the standardized content as possible.

However, there is also a discussion about the possibilities of lessening testing in schools altogether. In October of 2015, the Obama administration proposed to Congress that we limit assessment so that students can spend no more than two percent of their time in the classroom taking tests (Zernik). With this potential regulation, it is essential that educators begin discussing alternative options to testing. One possibility is that tests can be administered to a different representative population each year in order to keep track of the country’s educational status without having every student take every test. There is also software that can act as “integrated” or “stealth” assessments because they keep track of students’ answers to all of their work (Kamenetz). This would give a more comprehensive understanding of our students’ progress instead of standardized testing that puts pressure on students to perform to the best of their ability on one given day. Educators are also discussing the benefits of portfolio-based assessments, government inspections of schools, and game-based assessments (Kamenetz). These alternatives are especially useful in science classrooms because they would give more information about student process skills and higher-order thinking skills than any single test could. They also give a clear account of what skills teachers are enriching in their classrooms. Discussions of these alternatives are vital in the push toward putting caps on assessments in place. Educators can firmly support the push toward limiting high stakes testing if they understand these revolutionary assessment techniques. In addition, educators must also be aware of the other barriers to implementing inquiry-based instruction.