On Thursday evening I saw someone struggling with a Sudoku puzzle, so I asked them if they would like to know a good strategy for solving their Sudoku. I volunteered the information that Graham shared during his presentation, the person was thankful, and in a small way, I felt like a bit of a Sudoku hero. Trying to solve the Sudoku last class when I had never encountered one before was honestly frustrating. I had heard about them, but I was not sure what the point was. Based on what I knew, I thought I had to get lines to add up to nine. If I progressed through the Sudoku with that rule in my head, I would have wasted a lot of time, or else created a new game. Once I knew some strategy, the game was accessible and more fulfilling.

I can understand how constructivist learning can be frustrating for learners, as they struggle to access prior knowledge that would be appropriate for solving the task at hand. This process seems similar to the first few years of teaching, where novice teachers spend incredible amounts of time creating "novel" lessons and units, only to find out that they have replicated what others have done for years. Why recreate the wheel when you don't have to? Why do we get students to spend time trying to develop and derive theories and responses that we already know? Why don't we preserve their efforts by giving them what we know and challenging them to find out something we don't know?

While reading the article on constructivist learning, I reflected upon my own use of inquiry and experiential activities in my classroom. My initial reaction to the article was that its claims were ludicrous! How could one question the strategies that are heralded by professors, administrators, and some curriculums? What I realized from reading the article was that the inquiry and experiential activities I have done in my classroom are much more guided than the minimal guided activities referenced in the article. Much of the reason for me adding structure to the inquiry and experiential activities I did with my students was because of the struggles they faced without the structure. From my own experience, I feel that minimal guidance does not work very well in a late early years to early high school setting. The article suggests that minimal guidance is not an effective strategy for students who have not yet developed enough schema to effectively problem-solve the situations around them. I feel that a child's psychological developmental level is also an important factor in the use of minimal guidance.

Most K-2 teachers slot time into their day for "exploration centres," where students have time to interact with different objects and substances to find out how they work, problem-solve, or be creative. It is fascinating to watch a student design a boat for the water table to safely transport their favourite action hero to the other side. The explanations provided for their decision making can range from practical to absurd, but they are usually based on an authentic problem-solving situation.

As kids get older they become more inhibited and their risking taking skills diminish. They are less likely to enjoy minimally guided activities as there is too much risk involved. Adolescents want to do activities that are "safe," where they are more likely to predict the outcome, so they are not embarrassed in front of their peers. The desire to be correct and avoid failure takes over from any sort creative exploration. When structure is involved and adolescents can see the path to success, they will be more likely to try something exploratory.

Is there research on the psychological development of children and minimally guided instruction?

I feel like there is value in students learning processes as well as content, but Graham's examples showed how it can be challenging to learning content and processes at the same time as we tax our working memory. There are many responses to Kirschner's article on J-stor and it would be interesting to explore defences and support for his argument.