John Skinner Hestenes Response

                  I found it interesting that many aspects of the 2013 NGSS standards were reflected in Hestenes research from over 20 years prior. It appears that the NGSS practices have been under consideration for quite some time, yet, like most institutional and pedagogical change, the process of implementing these practices in a modern classroom setting has been relatively slow. In this paper, Hestenes uses historical examples of theory, model building, and thought games (here, with a special focus on physics) to demonstrate important scientific modeling principles that can be incorporated in a classroom setting. Ideally, Hestenes recommends a shift towards “model-centered instruction”—for him, model construction and revision are fundamental to the teaching of structural and conceptual rules that occur in the physical world.

                  The current NGSS suggested practices reveal a heavy overlap with Hestenes’ concept of student-centered learning. One reason why Hestenes is such a strong proponent of model-centered instruction is because, “It encourages reflective thinking, leading students to insights into their own thinking processes. In short, it promotes intellectual independence” (Hestenes, 1992). With respect to the NGSS K-12 science classroom practices, this model-construction and reflective thinking is mirrored in their focus on, “Developing and using models…[and] constructing explanations” (NGSS, 2013). Hestenes further describes the role of deploying “experimental games” in the classroom, in which students are required to test and justify the models they create. This practice aligns perfectly with NGSS’ requirement that students be able to engage in evidence-based arguments. By observing models in action, and, as Hestenes suggests, undergoing multiple rounds of model deployment, data collection, and revision, students can authentically engage in the epistemic culture of science.

                  However, what I think Hestenes’ framework lacks is an outlet for mathematical and computational thinking. Of course, this article was written in the early 1990’s, and we have made incredible advances in technology since that time; however, given Hestenes focus on physical science, it seemed like a missed opportunity to not incorporate mathematical equations as possible models for physical phenomena. Students could possibly create their own mathematical models for a given phenomenon, test that phenomenon through a physical experiment, and then revise their mathematical model as needed. This is just an initial thought, and I’m not sure how practical a process like that would be in a high school classroom, but it is one potential way to address NGSS’ inclusion of mathematical and computational thinking.

Overall, Hestenes’ support for model-centered instruction reminded me of the utility of social constructivism, a theory of social-oriented learning that I learned about in Educational Psychology.  Lev Vygotsky’s social constructivism insists that knowledge is constructed internally, yet students are dependent on external social and academic resources for that construction. I believe that this type of learning empowers the student to create their own schema for knowledge, yet encourages collaboration and external research as the vehicles for individual knowledge construction. Through the type of model-centered instruction that Hestenes proposes, teachers can address some key NGSS practices while engaging students in effective social learning.