<p>Basically, the revelation that I had was — <strong><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">I like right answers</span></strong>. &nbsp;I really like tidy right answers. &nbsp;I usually don’t ask learners questions that I don’t have a “right” answer or answers for. Even when the task is “authentic” and “embedded in context” I want there to be a right answer. &nbsp;And this <strong><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">is </span></strong><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);"><strong>wrong</strong></span>.</p> <p>Because what Dan Myer is teaching his students is how to approach problems that don’t have right answers, which is the way that most of the problems in the real world work. &nbsp;His students are learning to be okay with that, and how to ask good questions, and how approach those problems.</p>

Thus Kirschner, Sweller and Clark's paper is an important reminder for us to not carry Problem Based Learning (PBL) to its extreme. That is, while it has its strengths, learners often need a more direct approach in order to build a solid foundations before being presented with PBL.

With the title blaring, “<em>Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work”</em> rather than, <em>“Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work for Novice Learners,” </em>the authors almost seem to ignore that PBL is a necessity in order to promote deeper levels of understanding.

The paper relies heavily on Cognitive Load Theory, yet we have to realize that it is still a theory rather than a law.

Thus, both the authors and the constructivism movement are guilty of jumping on theories before they are fully understood.