I am not getting on board with this approach. The question here is, are we talking about real learning or about another approach to indoctrinating students into a belief system. Why does that child aspire to go to college? Because he loves learning and has a sense of his own innate talents and abilities to serve the rest of the world? Or simply he hopesto get a better "job" serving someone else's vision? The current global economy is proving that is merely a belief for many college-educated people are still seeking work with living wages that corresponds to their previous work or better and the newly-graduated are finding there are not many entry-level jobs to go around. Many have tried and only a few have succeeded in creating "education" that is truly based on the individual's natural way of learning and aptitude. My instinct tells me the Khan Academy is not one of them. It's tutoring to supplement the current classroom. Will Khan's approach really draw students in considering the fact that students often resist "homework" outside the classroom. And humans nevertheless are here to interact with each other "face to face" -- they can't avoid that. In that regard can Khan's system tutor them in human interaction? True learning is about having curiosity and questioning everything, especially the belief systems of others that do not ring true according to our own experience and inner knowing. Does the Khan Academy do that?
We are talking about real learning - step by step. What is a "natural learning"? This replacement for "one size fits all" lecturing is sorely needed. If you have not been in a classroom where the uninvolved are text messaging and/or simply out of it, you obviously can't see the value of individual-paced learning.
It's unfortunate that this person is apparently ignorant of all the work that has taken place in the field of behavioral psychology. The applications of the principles to education has been in place for more than five decades at preschool, primary, high school and college levels. I can assure you, the only difference between an approach like Khan's and the more traditional methods is that the process is more effective and more efficient, students excel in achievement as measured by traditional tests, and more students acheive mastery of th material as compared to the more traditional forms
I have heard on many occasions that those college educated in the job market during the recession have been far better off compared to non-college educated. (This week I heard the unemployment is at non-recession levels.)
While new graduates are in fact having a hard time, as is typical of recessions. The use of strategic internships can make a huge difference.
I believe it was the arts and humanities that were supposed to teach us critical thinking, not k-12 math.
During my school days I was pretty bad in mathematics because the Math teacher failed to adapt his teaching to my learning level which was quite slow when it came to math. Surprisingly, I was quite good in other subjects but I really hated math and still do. For some reasons my mind would completely go black when it came to math and if possible I would try to run away from the math class. I wish the Khan Academy approach was available back then.
Coincidentally, I am running a Khan Tennis Academy in Islamabad (makhan67@hotmail.com) and use similar innovative approaches so that my tennis students are helped the way they learn rather the way I teach. I adapt my tennis teaching to their ability to learn. Very interesting concepts offered by the Khan Academy and Khan Tennis Academy and we both are from Pakistan.
Kudos to the teachers who have already posted some obvious flaws in this "revolutionary" type of teaching. Lest anyone forget, we've had piles of so-called "educational" programming since movies first became available. They used to show them to us in elementary school back in the 1960s. In middle school (1968) I was in an auditorium class that was taught almost exclusively with films. I can't remember a single thing from that class. There's also been "educational" TV in the form of Sesame Street and other similar shows for 40 years. Animal Planet. The History Channel. Discovery. Now ask yourself, are students smarter, better informed, and better prepared than they were 40-50 years ago? Does anyone really believe, with all the various screens that kids have their faces glued to these days, that adding another one to their day is going to "revolutionize" their learning? And by the way, we've had vast centers of free learning for over 100 years all across the US called "libraries," which seem to be carrying fewer and fewer books and more and more movies, audio books, games, etc. The fact is learning doesn't occur just because someone comes up with a novel way to package it; it takes someone who wants to learn because they see some value in it, whether for a job, self improvement, or simple curiosity about a topic. It takes initiative, work, and discipline. For excellent learning to take place takes passion on the part of the student. Screens encourage passivity; it's already been documented in laboratory studies. Small classes with good teachers teaching what they're knowledgeable about - that's the ideal learning environment.
You've completely misunderstood everything here. Firstly, this is not a passive form of learning -- there are exercises that students _interact_ with on the KhanAcademy website, and the students also _interact_ with each other in the form of the comments section on the videos. Therefore your point about "screens encouraging passivity" is completely irrelevant because a computer is by definition active, since you _must_ interact with it in order to use it.
Secondly, you seem to imply a false dichotomy with regards to books: either you have books and you learn, or you have videos and games and you don't learn anything. This is completely false, you do not necessarily need books to learn every topic. Books are a useful tool from a pedagogical standpoint because they provide a convenient form of reference, and they are portable and allow for very good accuracy on the part of the author. But this does not mean that videos and games are bad!
The only point that I agree with is that in order for someone to learn something they must be interested in it, but I think that any subject can be made interesting (yes, any subject) if it is approached from the right point of view. Of course some people will always be interested more in certain areas than others, but that reflects their personality, and not their learning ability.
Khan's videos are a good tool and can be used as an adjunct to classroom instruction. In the US we keep looking for panaceas. Not all students will be able to utilize an on-line academy because they ned someone to understand their learning style or needs. Khan's lessons are great for some students who can learn in this way but remember all humans do not learn in the same way. I am a teacher, I have taught for an on-line academy and it worked for about 20% of students. Many students need teachers to keep them focused, tailor lessons, check in that they are doing work. Not all students will understand his lesson, some will. There is no one magic bullet for education. Also remember the students who do not do well in this country are overwhelming poor and ethnic minority students. The majority of schools are doing a good job for the majority of students, but not all.
Classroom instruction in this country is a one-size-fits-all approach. Look at the 60-minutes coverage of this subject and factor that into your future opinion on this subject. The Khan Academy can help the "overwhelming poor and ethnic minority students" achieve and move forward.
Kahn should get praise for the amount of time and energy he's devoted to creating all of the video content. However, I have viewed some number of his math videos and found a range of errors. What I believe is just as bad as finding errors in his presentation is his use of misleading math statements that, in my opinion, have been the cause of student issues for decades. For example, Kahn almost always says "minus" when he should be saying "negative." Minus is like a verb; it's action; it's a synonym for "subtract." Sometimes when you subtract one number from another, the result is NEGATIVE...not minus! UGH! Kahn, there are other examples like this. Great job, but it could be even better!!!
Actually, you're wrong here, sorry. Minus is a preposition, but not a verb, but you're on the right track that it CAN be a synonym for subtract. HOWEVER, it is also an adjective. It is a synonym for negative.
I think those using the videos know exactly what Kahn means by minus, regardless of semantics. Teachers and schools better get on board, because I see as the future of education in America...otherwise, the 3rd world will use this training and surpass us all.
Actually, krweaver01, it's neither verb nor action, and certainly no synonym for "subtract." ("Deduct" is.) Yours is a very common error. Like plus, and like "divided by," minus is a preposition. It means without, less, or "diminished by" and its use in teaching math is not always satisfying to grammar buffs. Far from misleading, if Khan says "that gives you minus four," he still helps millions learn complex mathematical concepts.
Wow, watching a video you can rewind and rewatch really makes class time effective-- Imagine that! HEY, I wonder if I would get a similar effect if my Ethics students READ THE BOOK the night before? Ya think? Would our discussions of Kantian ethics be ever so much more exciting? Would they learn more, and faster? BTW we are all being measured in terms of quantifiable learning units now (in colleges they are called SLO's, or "Student Learning Outcomes"). The drive towards quantification is a part of the process of reducing knowledge to measurable digital units and education to a commodity.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
While new graduates are in fact having a hard time, as is typical of recessions. The use of strategic internships can make a huge difference.
I believe it was the arts and humanities that were supposed to teach us critical thinking, not k-12 math.
Coincidentally, I am running a Khan Tennis Academy in Islamabad (makhan67@hotmail.com) and use similar innovative approaches so that my tennis students are helped the way they learn rather the way I teach. I adapt my tennis teaching to their ability to learn. Very interesting concepts offered by the Khan Academy and Khan Tennis Academy and we both are from Pakistan.
Secondly, you seem to imply a false dichotomy with regards to books: either you have books and you learn, or you have videos and games and you don't learn anything. This is completely false, you do not necessarily need books to learn every topic. Books are a useful tool from a pedagogical standpoint because they provide a convenient form of reference, and they are portable and allow for very good accuracy on the part of the author. But this does not mean that videos and games are bad!
The only point that I agree with is that in order for someone to learn something they must be interested in it, but I think that any subject can be made interesting (yes, any subject) if it is approached from the right point of view. Of course some people will always be interested more in certain areas than others, but that reflects their personality, and not their learning ability.
Look at the 60-minutes coverage of this subject and factor that into your future opinion on this subject. The Khan Academy can help the "overwhelming poor and ethnic minority students" achieve and move forward.
Check your dictionary.
BTW we are all being measured in terms of quantifiable learning units now (in colleges they are called SLO's, or "Student Learning Outcomes"). The drive towards quantification is a part of the process of reducing knowledge to measurable digital units and education to a commodity.