Hestenes: Modeling Games 

While Hestenes' article may not technically be new, I find that it has a refreshing view on modeling as an aspect of Science Education that has not formally been introduced until the new NGSS was published. If one is to only take one aspect away from this article it should be the notion of modeling as the "great game of science." Science beyond the scope of science taught in a classroom, both old and new discoveries all depend on models to become valid and useful. This notion is not one that is explicitly shared outside of the scientific community, at least not in my experience. How could introducing the topic of science as an concrete yet ever-evolving body of knowledge change the way science education is taught? If we take the idea of science and modeling as a game and use that same framework in science education the NGSS standards can be easily incorporated. 

There are several key examples of how Hestenes' principles of modeling fit the NGSS standards, beyond the obvious connection to Practice 2. Developing and using models. One practice I saw a lot of reference to was 3. Planning and Carrying Out Investigations. One idea Hestenes presents is that "conceptual invention and empirical discovery go hand-in-hand," which can lead to the importance of experiments and investigations to understand or discover scientific principles. While, experiments are not models, if students are able to construct models from their own data there is a better chance that the conceptual importance of an experiment will truly hit home. This not only incorporates modeling into curriculum but also necessitates that experiments be made to challenge students with more thought-provoking questions. On contingency to this use of models to demonstrate Practice 3 was the idea that in some cases Nature does the experiment thus data collection and interpretation is the main task required of students. 

In addition to the connection to Practice 3, I believe Hestenes allusion to the use of computers/technology allow for the incorporation of Practices 4,6, and 8. Computer programs like NetLogo and Star Logo Nova both allow for complec systems to be modeled in a way that students could not physically create or observe given the time, money, and logistical constraints. Some models are able to produce graphs of data over time or space and thus students could be able to analyze and interpret that data based on their model, practice 4. I can see this being incorporated into deployment games because the model can account for new data and see if that data also fits the model. This can showcase Practice 6: Constructing explanations, if a teacher frames the game in this way. If the data cannot be included students can create a plausible explanation as to why via the model they made, or conversely why certain data is allowed to be included. One of the best ways to implement analyzing data and constructing explanations is to allow students to have an integral part of the process. 

Hestenes focused intensely on physics and how discoveries in physics were rooted in models before his applications to science education; yet, it is the applications of models in science education which I believe can be the most important. The NGSS Practices 7 and 8, engaging in argumentation from evidence and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information, respectively offer the best connection between science education and the world of science. Through models students can be shown how to take the data the create and answer the question- so what? Knowing the big picture applications of the foundational science learned in schools can help students move beyond the rote memorization of facts, theories, and laws and to the more analytical side of science.