Who I am: Chris Lehmann
What I do: Principal of the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, PA (Opening 9/06).
What I did: Technology Coordinator / English Teacher / Girls Basketball Coach / Ultimate Coach at the Beacon School, a fantastic progressive public high school in Manhattan.
Email: chris [at] practicaltheory [dot] org.
What I do: Principal of the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, PA (Opening 9/06).
What I did: Technology Coordinator / English Teacher / Girls Basketball Coach / Ultimate Coach at the Beacon School, a fantastic progressive public high school in Manhattan.
Email: chris [at] practicaltheory [dot] org.
Subscribe to Practical Theory
Creative Commons
Blog Administration
Syndicate This Blog
Powered by
Sunday, January 23. 2011
Perspective - The Autodidact and Khan Academy
I've been trying to figure out why I've been really kind of grumpy about Khan Academy lately. I mean, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I recommended it to math teachers, and it certainly would help to enable the kind of math class I wrote about when I talked about Inversions a while back. And I don't know that I'm being completely fair to Khan Academy. I think I get angry whenever I see people talking about how Khan Academy is going to revolutionize education all by itself.
Khan Academy is a visual textbook. It is the pre-packed lecture. And it's the first which is always useful in the internet game. (But I am sure one of the larger textbook companies are busy creating a much more slickly packaged version of much the same thing.) And there are probably some students who can learn math strictly from Khan Academy videos... maybe more than could just learn math from a textbook because of the new modality.
What concerns me when I listen to folks like Bill Gates wax rhapsodic about Khan Academy is that it seems to me to be one more moment when people who should know better are, essentially, saying, "See! We don't need teachers anymore!" As if every student could learn from a pre-packaged delivery model of content.
It doesn't work that way.
Khan Academy is great if you need a refresher... or if you need another look at an idea. But watching a video about a concept isn't the way you necessarily learn it... even when you have a somewhat drill-and-kill quiz system behind it. Khan Academy will work well for the kids whose teachers still spend 80% of the time lecturing at the front of the room. But it won't do that much anywhere where teachers have learned how to present ideas concisely and then spend their class time working with kids.
Let us remember that, whether it is face to face or online, many kids make meaning and sense of their world when they interact with adults who help them. The Khan Academy lectures are a pretty good content delivery methodology. It's not as engaging as Conrad Wolfram's TED Talk as a learning moment, for example, but they are solidly presented. And it's only the first major attempt at this kind of comprehensive online lecture repository. (There will be more.)
But it's what happens after a student watches them that is the question. Who will help them move from exposure to the ideas to understanding? Who will help them figure out how to apply the math of the lectures to the world around them in meaningful ways?
There's nothing wrong with Khan Academy - it's a good modern / multi-media textbook. And I'm sure it's been an incredible secondary resource for thousands of kids. And I have no doubt that we could wisely use tools like Khan Academy so that teachers and students had more time to try to really work together because the lecture has been outsourced.
It is my hope that tools like Khan Academy will help empower more and more students to understand that the tools are out there to teach themselves, but all of us have the moments where we need others to help us learn. If it accomplishes that, then Khan Academy will have done an incredible service in transforming education.
But let's never forget that -- even in the best case scenario -- once kids have learned the mechanics of the math that Khan explains, then they have to figure out how, when and why to use the math they learn. And I feel like Khan Academy does little to move us closer to that. For that, most kids will still - and always - need people (adults, fellow students, whomever) who will spend the time to help them make sense of their world.
The other day, I was talking to a young teacher, and I said, "Be very circumspect any time you think you're a really great teacher because a small group of kids are telling you how wonderful you are. There will almost certainly always be a handful of kids who love what you do. I worry that the students who are leaving the glowing YouTube comments aren't yet a representative sample, nor as they using it as students would once it was brought in as an official "program" in schools. I worry that many students would be done a great disservice if Khan Academy - or any "content delivery" protocol would create a scenario where we didn't think we needed teachers anymore.
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I agree. I wrote about , after watching Chris Anderson's great TED talk on accelerating innovation, and compared how Chris talked about youtube changed Dance to Kahn's work, and find there's really no comparison. I think it would be far more engaging for students everywhere to start to challenge one another to put their work out there and offer one another feedback in an effort to improve.
Well said - I think the key difference between Khan and regular schools is in Khan's own words: "The Khan Academy is all about using video to explain the world."
Schools and teachers don't exist to explain things; they exist to educate, which encompasses a far wider range of responsibilities (including explaining, of course).
If all you need is a clear explanation, you probably don't really need a school, but the vast majority of students will continue to need a real school with a real teacher (bricks and mortar or not).
Schools and teachers don't exist to explain things; they exist to educate, which encompasses a far wider range of responsibilities (including explaining, of course).
If all you need is a clear explanation, you probably don't really need a school, but the vast majority of students will continue to need a real school with a real teacher (bricks and mortar or not).
Chris,
You left out the best part. Bill Gates is investing capital and PR into Khan Academy because he views this as another way of deskilling teachers and devaluing public education so it may be completely defunded.
The end game has shifted from busting unions and paying teachers less to replacing teachers with YouTube videos created by volunteers.
These tutorials teach kids to do school. They are largely passive and in the great scheme of things as inconsequential as a filmstrip that is unless Gates, Jeb Bush, Tom VanderArk, Michael Horn and the other high-tech utopians make Khan's puppet show a replacement for good teachers.
Oh yeah, and don't forget what Papert used to say, "Every time you teach a child something, you deprive them of the opportunity to learn it."
Gary
PS: There are lots of better produced, more interesting, richer learning opportunities available on television than Khan Academy. This includes:
Anything on HGTV, Pawn Stars, Hardcore Pawn, So You Think You Can Dance, Storage Wars, Next Food Network Star, Iron Chef, Worst Cook in America, Gordon Ramsay's various shows, Top Gear, Masterclass, American Pickers, The Neistat Brothers, Project Runway, The Simpsons, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, Being Bobby Brown or Bridalplasty, etc...
You left out the best part. Bill Gates is investing capital and PR into Khan Academy because he views this as another way of deskilling teachers and devaluing public education so it may be completely defunded.
The end game has shifted from busting unions and paying teachers less to replacing teachers with YouTube videos created by volunteers.
These tutorials teach kids to do school. They are largely passive and in the great scheme of things as inconsequential as a filmstrip that is unless Gates, Jeb Bush, Tom VanderArk, Michael Horn and the other high-tech utopians make Khan's puppet show a replacement for good teachers.
Oh yeah, and don't forget what Papert used to say, "Every time you teach a child something, you deprive them of the opportunity to learn it."
Gary
PS: There are lots of better produced, more interesting, richer learning opportunities available on television than Khan Academy. This includes:
Anything on HGTV, Pawn Stars, Hardcore Pawn, So You Think You Can Dance, Storage Wars, Next Food Network Star, Iron Chef, Worst Cook in America, Gordon Ramsay's various shows, Top Gear, Masterclass, American Pickers, The Neistat Brothers, Project Runway, The Simpsons, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, Being Bobby Brown or Bridalplasty, etc...
I was always able to learn math by listening to the teacher. My biggest mistake when I became a math teacher was assuming that my students could do so as well. I was totally wrong. Khan Academy would have taught me well, but does not (and cannot) supply the experiences most people need to understand math.
As good as it. and other video tutorial systems, may be, they are just another example of "doing things better" as opposed to "doing better things."
As good as it. and other video tutorial systems, may be, they are just another example of "doing things better" as opposed to "doing better things."
Khan Academy, as with many other online teaching sites, is great for reinforcing the traditional concept of school, one in which information is transmitted from the teacher to the student. Unfortunately, that's the model I regularly see being practiced as I walk around our schools, especially middle and high schools. Still mostly teachers doing lecture/demos to an audience of kids in passive receptor mode. So why not eliminate the middle man and just connect students directly to the information?
However, in my experience the best learning occurs when a student asks a question that's not in the prepared material. Or, better yet, challenges a piece of that information. It's those "off topic" discussions in which students begin to think for themselves and develop an understanding of how to learn. We don't have enough of those moments in most schools now (they interrupt the test prep!) and we'll have even fewer if the vision of education fostered by the Gates of the world becomes the norm.
However, in my experience the best learning occurs when a student asks a question that's not in the prepared material. Or, better yet, challenges a piece of that information. It's those "off topic" discussions in which students begin to think for themselves and develop an understanding of how to learn. We don't have enough of those moments in most schools now (they interrupt the test prep!) and we'll have even fewer if the vision of education fostered by the Gates of the world becomes the norm.
Tim's got it down pat. The reality in most high schools is teacher-focused, lecture-based direct instruction. This format of content delivery literally begs itself to be outsourced to the best candidate possible and shared around the world. The exact same scenario exists in colleges and universities.
The choice is to either stick to the lecture format and throw them up online, or to adapt and change the way learning happens in the classroom. Gates advocates the first model, and Chris, you advocate the second. The fact of the matter is that schools need to fundamentally shift their role in learning and education to remain relevant in the information age.
The choice is to either stick to the lecture format and throw them up online, or to adapt and change the way learning happens in the classroom. Gates advocates the first model, and Chris, you advocate the second. The fact of the matter is that schools need to fundamentally shift their role in learning and education to remain relevant in the information age.
Gee... if school were simply about listening to explanations and completing practice problems, you're right - why would we need teachers?
But then there is the child who doesn't care about math, the child who doesn't learn that way, the child who sees no purpose for what is being explained, the child whose home environment is anything but conducive to any kind of learning, the child who has insufficient access, the child who is distracted, the child who can't remain on task, the child who just doesn't care, the child who...
We know better. Much better. Education is so much more than listening to things being explained. That's why teaching is a highly skilled profession, a calling, an investment in kids, a critical function of society,...
No program delivery model can replace all that teachers do.
Let's use use them for what they are good for - and you describe that very well.
But then there is the child who doesn't care about math, the child who doesn't learn that way, the child who sees no purpose for what is being explained, the child whose home environment is anything but conducive to any kind of learning, the child who has insufficient access, the child who is distracted, the child who can't remain on task, the child who just doesn't care, the child who...
We know better. Much better. Education is so much more than listening to things being explained. That's why teaching is a highly skilled profession, a calling, an investment in kids, a critical function of society,...
No program delivery model can replace all that teachers do.
Let's use use them for what they are good for - and you describe that very well.
You have to take a global perspective on this. Worldwide, we have literally hundreds of millions of young people who aren't receiving anything close to the education they need. In the United States, education beyond 12th grade is prohibitively expensive and continuing to rise. In the developing world, access to elementary education can be difficult to find.
All of this means that a great deal of human potential is going to be squandered over the next few decades, and the solutions for reclaiming that potential seem to be politically infeasible.
Even if technology like this only saves a few, extremely ambitious students who can't access traditional education, that's a really big deal.
But these technologies can also be integrated into existing education systems. By automating the lecturing and testing portions of the education framework, teachers would be freed up to provide more individual instruction. How much of that sort of instruction actually happens now? From the education I remember, the teachers spent about 75% of the classroom time at the front of the class, delivering prepared lectures. There just isn't much time left.
Ideally, an automated system would also provide teachers and students detailed guidance on exactly which concepts a student is deficient in. A teacher could provide much more effective instruction by focusing on those deficiencies.
Another fear which is more difficult to address: automation does kill jobs. It always has, since the dawn of time. The capitalist justification is that it frees labor (in this case, teachers) to do more valuable things. In reality, though, we're at 10% unemployment right now. Labor is already too cheap. In a Marxist system, the transition of any activity to a less labor-intensive model would make society wealthier. Under capitalism, only those who were paying for the labor win, and the losers are kicked to the curb to fend for themselves.
So might I humbly suggest that your beef isn't with automated approaches to education, but with the capitalist system of economic distribution?
Look. These tools are only going to get better. They're going to become more flexible, more responsive to students' signals that demonstrate competence or cluelessness, and more engaging. That's a good thing. What we as a society choose to do with these tools is a separate issue, whether that decision is to integrate them into a humane, quality teacher-led experience, or to fire all the teachers, give the kids iPads, and release them into the wild.
I know which one I'm rooting for.
All of this means that a great deal of human potential is going to be squandered over the next few decades, and the solutions for reclaiming that potential seem to be politically infeasible.
Even if technology like this only saves a few, extremely ambitious students who can't access traditional education, that's a really big deal.
But these technologies can also be integrated into existing education systems. By automating the lecturing and testing portions of the education framework, teachers would be freed up to provide more individual instruction. How much of that sort of instruction actually happens now? From the education I remember, the teachers spent about 75% of the classroom time at the front of the class, delivering prepared lectures. There just isn't much time left.
Ideally, an automated system would also provide teachers and students detailed guidance on exactly which concepts a student is deficient in. A teacher could provide much more effective instruction by focusing on those deficiencies.
Another fear which is more difficult to address: automation does kill jobs. It always has, since the dawn of time. The capitalist justification is that it frees labor (in this case, teachers) to do more valuable things. In reality, though, we're at 10% unemployment right now. Labor is already too cheap. In a Marxist system, the transition of any activity to a less labor-intensive model would make society wealthier. Under capitalism, only those who were paying for the labor win, and the losers are kicked to the curb to fend for themselves.
So might I humbly suggest that your beef isn't with automated approaches to education, but with the capitalist system of economic distribution?
Look. These tools are only going to get better. They're going to become more flexible, more responsive to students' signals that demonstrate competence or cluelessness, and more engaging. That's a good thing. What we as a society choose to do with these tools is a separate issue, whether that decision is to integrate them into a humane, quality teacher-led experience, or to fire all the teachers, give the kids iPads, and release them into the wild.
I know which one I'm rooting for.
I'm leading development for the Khan Academy. Thanks for the thoughtful post. A couple key points worth addressing:
1) The goal of the Khan Academy is not to replace teachers, parents, and educators of all kinds. That would be foolish, as you correctly explain. There are too many great teachers in the world, and they are entirely necessary for a real education. More: http://bjk5.com/post/1606008480/this-just-in-some-fear-technology
2) The goal of the Khan Academy is to provide those teachers with tons of incredible content, real-time top-notch data and analytics about student performance (that's currently unavailable elsewhere), and the freedom to spend their limited time on what really matters by mentoring students exactly where they need mentorship. Khan Academy makes teachers more powerful, it does not replace them. We know this and aim for it. More: http://bjk5.com/post/2783333652/students-need-better-self-assessment-tools-khan
3) Khan Academy has already been brought in as an "official" program in our pilot school district...as a way to empower existing teachers, not replace them. More: http://bjk5.com/post/2680963220/teachers-have-to-be-fearless
If you'd like to hear more from the teachers themselves about their reactions to using KA in the classroom, feel free to keep up with their blog: http://lasdandkhanacademy.edublogs.org/2011/01/21/student-teacher-empowerment/
This fear of replacing teachers is a common one. However, it's a misunderstanding of KA. Our true goal is to empower the best teachers out there while making less-fortunate students "bad teacher proof" by giving great educational content away for free.
1) The goal of the Khan Academy is not to replace teachers, parents, and educators of all kinds. That would be foolish, as you correctly explain. There are too many great teachers in the world, and they are entirely necessary for a real education. More: http://bjk5.com/post/1606008480/this-just-in-some-fear-technology
2) The goal of the Khan Academy is to provide those teachers with tons of incredible content, real-time top-notch data and analytics about student performance (that's currently unavailable elsewhere), and the freedom to spend their limited time on what really matters by mentoring students exactly where they need mentorship. Khan Academy makes teachers more powerful, it does not replace them. We know this and aim for it. More: http://bjk5.com/post/2783333652/students-need-better-self-assessment-tools-khan
3) Khan Academy has already been brought in as an "official" program in our pilot school district...as a way to empower existing teachers, not replace them. More: http://bjk5.com/post/2680963220/teachers-have-to-be-fearless
If you'd like to hear more from the teachers themselves about their reactions to using KA in the classroom, feel free to keep up with their blog: http://lasdandkhanacademy.edublogs.org/2011/01/21/student-teacher-empowerment/
This fear of replacing teachers is a common one. However, it's a misunderstanding of KA. Our true goal is to empower the best teachers out there while making less-fortunate students "bad teacher proof" by giving great educational content away for free.
@Ben, I don't think anyone is taking issue with the original premise of Saul Khan's instructional screencast production. Media like that provides support for those who may benefit from such content delivery. I think the issue becomes problematic when ideas like this become repackaged and touted as some sort of innovative educational reform initiative. I would agree that this type of thing can provide students who have missed important concepts in the classroom with the opportunity to catch up on their own, but the notion that "giving away content for free" is in some way a solution to ineffective classroom experiences is flawed at best. As Bill Gates himself said, for those who are highly motivated to learn on their own (read: have great family support and are often middle to upper class), this type of thing can help them do so. However, there are many children who don't fit in this category. These are the children who don't stand to benefit when education heads in this direction on a larger scale.
One major problem with the Khan Academy is that the videos (at least in chemistry and physics, the fields I know best) are not of high quality in terms of the content. There are just too many mistakes. Look at the list of problems reported to the Khan Academy. Many are not just computer glitches, but mistakes that confuse or lead students to wrong ideas.
The videos don't appear to be reviewed by someone with a strong background in chemistry and physics.
The videos don't appear to be reviewed by someone with a strong background in chemistry and physics.
The sequel to "Waiting for Superman" is called "Waiting for Khan."
I actually heard Salman Khan address just this concern: the idea that what he's doing is some sort of replacement for teachers. And he argued that quite to the contrary: that his videos could really "flip the classroom" so that he could take care of delivering of the content of a math lesson via a video while the teachers could provide more personalized instruction and remediation.
I am interested to see what happens with the influx of funding -- and attention-- Khan Academy has received. I do agree that he has become a symbol for other people's agendas, but I'm not sure it's fair to conflate those with his.
I am interested to see what happens with the influx of funding -- and attention-- Khan Academy has received. I do agree that he has become a symbol for other people's agendas, but I'm not sure it's fair to conflate those with his.
I am not conflating anything. Khan has become Bill Gates' flavor-of-the-month and will likely be used as part of Gates' attack on public education.
Also, the developer promising state-of-the-art tracking systems lacks a sense of history. The drill-and-practice, data-analysis, just-in-time teaching fantasy has lived under a number of names since WW II and has failed everytime.
Also, the developer promising state-of-the-art tracking systems lacks a sense of history. The drill-and-practice, data-analysis, just-in-time teaching fantasy has lived under a number of names since WW II and has failed everytime.
So, your point is, if it can't be done with vacuum tubes, it can't be done?
Yes, it's been tried before. But it's never been tried when backed by petabytes of collected data. By this reasoning, the search for a cure for cancer is equally hopeless; if it were possible, wouldn't we have it by now?
Yes, it's been tried before. But it's never been tried when backed by petabytes of collected data. By this reasoning, the search for a cure for cancer is equally hopeless; if it were possible, wouldn't we have it by now?
I think the point is to remove the teachers who simply read one chapter ahead of the students. I think these short videos are a great way to consume technical instruction. When your mind inevitably wonders off, you can simply pause the video and restart when ready. I wouldn't want teachers to pull down the projector and flip this video on, but in a scenario where each student has there own monitor I think these lectures can be more effective than a live lecturer.
(I tried to reply to your comment directly but it seems replies to your entry have been disabled)
@Ben, I don't think anyone is taking issue with the original premise of Saul Khan's instructional screencast production. Media like that provides support for those who may benefit from such content delivery. I think the issue becomes problematic when ideas like this become repackaged and touted as some sort of innovative educational reform initiative. I would agree that this type of thing can provide students who have missed important concepts in the classroom with the opportunity to catch up on their own, but the notion that "giving away content for free" is in some way a solution to ineffective classroom experiences is flawed at best. As Bill Gates himself said, for those who are highly motivated to learn on their own (read: have great family support and are often middle to upper class), this type of thing can help them do so. However, there are many children who don't fit in this category. These are the children who don't stand to benefit when education heads in this direction on a larger scale.
@Ben, I don't think anyone is taking issue with the original premise of Saul Khan's instructional screencast production. Media like that provides support for those who may benefit from such content delivery. I think the issue becomes problematic when ideas like this become repackaged and touted as some sort of innovative educational reform initiative. I would agree that this type of thing can provide students who have missed important concepts in the classroom with the opportunity to catch up on their own, but the notion that "giving away content for free" is in some way a solution to ineffective classroom experiences is flawed at best. As Bill Gates himself said, for those who are highly motivated to learn on their own (read: have great family support and are often middle to upper class), this type of thing can help them do so. However, there are many children who don't fit in this category. These are the children who don't stand to benefit when education heads in this direction on a larger scale.
Fascinating comments from everyone...
Ben, thanks for weighing in. And yes, I do think that the Khan Academy content can be used thoughtfully and well, and I've advocated for that plenty of times both at the school and outside of it.
However, it's your last comment that causes concern. Any time you talk about "teacher-proofing" things, you're going to start down a very slippery slope that will make even the most tech-forward teacher a bit worried.
And even the tag line on the website is a little disconcerting:
"The Khan Academy is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) with the mission of providing a world-class education to anyone, anywhere."
That doesn't sound like support / enhance. That sounds like "supplant." And while I believe you when you say that is not your goal, you may want to check out what Bill Gates and Sal Khan himself are saying. According to CNN, Sal Khan has said that his goal is to create the "first free, world-class virtual school where anyone can learn anything." (http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/23/technology/sal_khan_academy.fortune/index.htm)
Sounds a bit too much like replacing teachers with video to me. And I'd argue that the New York Public Library has done it for a long time before he did too, for what it's worth.
Ben, thanks for weighing in. And yes, I do think that the Khan Academy content can be used thoughtfully and well, and I've advocated for that plenty of times both at the school and outside of it.
However, it's your last comment that causes concern. Any time you talk about "teacher-proofing" things, you're going to start down a very slippery slope that will make even the most tech-forward teacher a bit worried.
And even the tag line on the website is a little disconcerting:
"The Khan Academy is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) with the mission of providing a world-class education to anyone, anywhere."
That doesn't sound like support / enhance. That sounds like "supplant." And while I believe you when you say that is not your goal, you may want to check out what Bill Gates and Sal Khan himself are saying. According to CNN, Sal Khan has said that his goal is to create the "first free, world-class virtual school where anyone can learn anything." (http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/23/technology/sal_khan_academy.fortune/index.htm)
Sounds a bit too much like replacing teachers with video to me. And I'd argue that the New York Public Library has done it for a long time before he did too, for what it's worth.
Understood. The message is a difficult balance. The truth is that we hear every day from people all over the world who literally do not have access to any education at the moment or who are 70 years old and, for one reason or another, missed their chance at education. They're loving the learning experience that they have on KA, so for them, it is really "free education, for anyone."
I understand, and agree, that when interpreted in the "what about schools?" sense this is often understood to suggest a replacement for teachers. All I can say is at the moment is that's not what we're actually about (nor what we're focusing on with our pilot school district), and we're continually working on getting the right message across.
I understand, and agree, that when interpreted in the "what about schools?" sense this is often understood to suggest a replacement for teachers. All I can say is at the moment is that's not what we're actually about (nor what we're focusing on with our pilot school district), and we're continually working on getting the right message across.
The notion that this type of canned instruction is new, revolutionary, or a way to "reform" anything is flawed, as others have pointed out.
If you simply Google "online math videos" you get millions of hits, some from websites a decade old. Even before that, there were VHS tapes (now DVDs) for sale with compilations of math instructional videos, and before that, filmstrips of math instructors talking in front of a chalkboard. When I was a kid, there was a TV show every afternoon with a teacher who answered (mostly math) questions with a short chalk talk.
Touting Khan Academy as new and revolutionary ignores the fact that all of this has been available for decades, and has never made a real impact on the learning of more than a handful of people - and people who were pre-disposed to learn in that specific way.
You might ask why there aren't billions of dollars and mountains of hype about resources like The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/. It's been online since 1992, created by people who not only know math, but understand how children learn math, and how teachers learn to teach math better. Perhaps it's because it actually respects the process of learning? Perhaps it's because learning math actually takes time and needs depth on things that don't fall neatly into standards and benchmarks?
If you simply Google "online math videos" you get millions of hits, some from websites a decade old. Even before that, there were VHS tapes (now DVDs) for sale with compilations of math instructional videos, and before that, filmstrips of math instructors talking in front of a chalkboard. When I was a kid, there was a TV show every afternoon with a teacher who answered (mostly math) questions with a short chalk talk.
Touting Khan Academy as new and revolutionary ignores the fact that all of this has been available for decades, and has never made a real impact on the learning of more than a handful of people - and people who were pre-disposed to learn in that specific way.
You might ask why there aren't billions of dollars and mountains of hype about resources like The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/. It's been online since 1992, created by people who not only know math, but understand how children learn math, and how teachers learn to teach math better. Perhaps it's because it actually respects the process of learning? Perhaps it's because learning math actually takes time and needs depth on things that don't fall neatly into standards and benchmarks?
Great point. Math Forum rocks. And perhaps Gates didn't like it because it wasn't entrepreneurial enough?
There is so much energy being spent on claiming that ideas are revolutionary, shiny and new so that they can be more easily sold to the public, without understanding that we cut ourselves off from decades and decades of learning when we do that.
So much information. So little wisdom.
There is so much energy being spent on claiming that ideas are revolutionary, shiny and new so that they can be more easily sold to the public, without understanding that we cut ourselves off from decades and decades of learning when we do that.
So much information. So little wisdom.
amen.
I am a student at Dickinson College, a recent graduate of a high school in Maine, and I have been following your blog because I am very interested in your ideas about the education revolution. However, this particular post struck me personally.
My senior year in high school I took an AP Biology class with a phenomenal teacher who introduced me not only to a widespread view of biology but also to a new view of education. He presented my class with the lectures of Sir Ken Robinson and many other lectures, videos and texts that highlighted many of the ideas that you highlight in your blog posts. However, it was during this year that I was introduced to Khan.
I understand how you, as a teacher, could be upset by Khan. I mean if I was a teacher I would be personally offended by what people are saying. Teachers are necessary, I will agree with you there. What I don't agree with is your generalization of Khan as just a "textbook" or a “secondary source.” I don't learn well from textbooks. I hate them. I would rather have a teacher explain something to me. There isn't time for that though. I need a source that can teach me the basic subject material so that my teacher can teach me what to do with it. That is what a teacher is for. So I agree with you that Khan serves well as a source. But he isn't a text book. He is a voice that becomes familiar and is friendly that tries to explain the things to you that you don't understand, that your teacher isn't necessarily teaching you. I would agree that Khan was a text book if I hadn't had the experience of Khan being my teacher. Just last semester I took a Chemistry course taught by a teacher who might as well of been my dog. He was a nice person, but he had little to no Chemistry teaching skills. Khan can be a teacher, albeit not as good a teacher as those many who care about their students and put in the time to teach them how to apply their knowledge; but when a child lacks a teacher with the skills to teach them what they want to learn then khan is a good substitute. And the sad truth is that there are many more ineffective teachers out there than we want to acknowledge, who teach kids who want to learn. To take it even further, there are children who lack teachers at all.
There is also the added bonus that I am able to learn about subject matter that I am not necessarily taking a course about.
I agree, teachers are necessary. We will always need mentors, need faces to associate with learning. But they aren’t always there, and when you want to learn, you need a teacher or a friendly voice to discuss how things work, Khan is extremely helpful. And to be truthful, I think even teachers could use him to help them teach. Khan teaches the basics, you teach the connections. To me that seems efficient.
My senior year in high school I took an AP Biology class with a phenomenal teacher who introduced me not only to a widespread view of biology but also to a new view of education. He presented my class with the lectures of Sir Ken Robinson and many other lectures, videos and texts that highlighted many of the ideas that you highlight in your blog posts. However, it was during this year that I was introduced to Khan.
I understand how you, as a teacher, could be upset by Khan. I mean if I was a teacher I would be personally offended by what people are saying. Teachers are necessary, I will agree with you there. What I don't agree with is your generalization of Khan as just a "textbook" or a “secondary source.” I don't learn well from textbooks. I hate them. I would rather have a teacher explain something to me. There isn't time for that though. I need a source that can teach me the basic subject material so that my teacher can teach me what to do with it. That is what a teacher is for. So I agree with you that Khan serves well as a source. But he isn't a text book. He is a voice that becomes familiar and is friendly that tries to explain the things to you that you don't understand, that your teacher isn't necessarily teaching you. I would agree that Khan was a text book if I hadn't had the experience of Khan being my teacher. Just last semester I took a Chemistry course taught by a teacher who might as well of been my dog. He was a nice person, but he had little to no Chemistry teaching skills. Khan can be a teacher, albeit not as good a teacher as those many who care about their students and put in the time to teach them how to apply their knowledge; but when a child lacks a teacher with the skills to teach them what they want to learn then khan is a good substitute. And the sad truth is that there are many more ineffective teachers out there than we want to acknowledge, who teach kids who want to learn. To take it even further, there are children who lack teachers at all.
There is also the added bonus that I am able to learn about subject matter that I am not necessarily taking a course about.
I agree, teachers are necessary. We will always need mentors, need faces to associate with learning. But they aren’t always there, and when you want to learn, you need a teacher or a friendly voice to discuss how things work, Khan is extremely helpful. And to be truthful, I think even teachers could use him to help them teach. Khan teaches the basics, you teach the connections. To me that seems efficient.
I spent most of my life learning (work with design and technology) and significant part of it in schools (in two countries). By now, at the ago of 42 I understand that I always disliked schools, but liked learning. The reason is that majority of the teachers are either not good or down horrible at their jobs. Some of it is because at the elementary and high school level they are not paid well and their work is not considered prestigious therefore attracting more 'loosers' then 'winners'. At the university level most of the professors are interested in their research and undergraduates essentially get in their way taking their time from the 'great ideas'...
So... it appears to me that Mr.Khan's Academy is such a enormous success because he is a passionate, friendly teacher, who also happens to be an excellent communicator. The fact that he puts his lectures online as free videos is a bonus. Students are attracted to his presentations because you can hear the excitement, passion and his support towards student's success in every moment of his lecture. You can feel that he is on 'your' side trying to help you learn.
We don't need MORE teachers. We need GOOD teachers like Mr.Khan. And a good teacher on YouTube is going to have more positive influence on his students than bad teacher in live classroom lecture.
Through my whole school and academic life I remember maybe 5, maybe 10 good teachers only! Many more really bad, nasty and scary (when you're 10 a bad teacher can be really SCARY!). And most of them were just indifferent and boring and cared not about students whatsoever.
Mr.Khan is exceptional and that's the key to teaching. The whole discussion of live/recorded, interactive or not, high resolution, low resolution is secondary to his abilities as a teacher.
So... it appears to me that Mr.Khan's Academy is such a enormous success because he is a passionate, friendly teacher, who also happens to be an excellent communicator. The fact that he puts his lectures online as free videos is a bonus. Students are attracted to his presentations because you can hear the excitement, passion and his support towards student's success in every moment of his lecture. You can feel that he is on 'your' side trying to help you learn.
We don't need MORE teachers. We need GOOD teachers like Mr.Khan. And a good teacher on YouTube is going to have more positive influence on his students than bad teacher in live classroom lecture.
Through my whole school and academic life I remember maybe 5, maybe 10 good teachers only! Many more really bad, nasty and scary (when you're 10 a bad teacher can be really SCARY!). And most of them were just indifferent and boring and cared not about students whatsoever.
Mr.Khan is exceptional and that's the key to teaching. The whole discussion of live/recorded, interactive or not, high resolution, low resolution is secondary to his abilities as a teacher.
Tomek,
A couple of things.
1) I'm sure Sal Khan is a better lecturer than many lecturers out there.
2) Where people do not have access to teachers, Khan Academy is an unqualified good.
3) School is not the only place people learn - never, ever has been, never, ever should be.
But... when we start talking about Sal Khan as a teacher, you have to understand what I am pushing back against. When it comes to school, I think we can imagine better schools than we have... I think we can see teachers as lecturers, facilitators, mentors... and while Sal Khan is a great lecturer in his videos, he can't answer the questions kids have. He can't interact with students. He can't learn with students.
That is not -- cannot be -- secondary to how we consider the Khan Academy lectures. They are an incredible resource - let's be clear on that. But we have to remember that kids need adults who know how to help them make sense of their world. Where the videos help teachers do that, wonderful. But let's not consider them a replacement for the teacher who works with the kids day in and day out.
A couple of things.
1) I'm sure Sal Khan is a better lecturer than many lecturers out there.
2) Where people do not have access to teachers, Khan Academy is an unqualified good.
3) School is not the only place people learn - never, ever has been, never, ever should be.
But... when we start talking about Sal Khan as a teacher, you have to understand what I am pushing back against. When it comes to school, I think we can imagine better schools than we have... I think we can see teachers as lecturers, facilitators, mentors... and while Sal Khan is a great lecturer in his videos, he can't answer the questions kids have. He can't interact with students. He can't learn with students.
That is not -- cannot be -- secondary to how we consider the Khan Academy lectures. They are an incredible resource - let's be clear on that. But we have to remember that kids need adults who know how to help them make sense of their world. Where the videos help teachers do that, wonderful. But let's not consider them a replacement for the teacher who works with the kids day in and day out.
Chris, I do understand and agree with your point. I am not suggesting that teachers are redundant since we have Khan Academy. I just wanted to bring attention to the somewhat taboo subject in education: most of the teachers are not very good at what they do!
I would be curious to find out how many of Mr.Khan's students are using his videos because they want to succeed, but their current teachers in the school they attend is not helping? I suspect (although have no data to support this claim) that this is a large majority of his audience. I know from my own experience that my love of books and later Internet grew out of frustration with teachers. I was interested in things I was studying and wanted to learn, but could not wait for the end of the class to go and read a good book on the topic. This is how I developed strong autodidactic skills. It was really because my teachers sucked!
In particular I really support your observation that good recorded lectures could free the teachers to have more energy and time for interactive teaching, questions, answers, discussions. I know from my experience as TA at the university that giving even 1 hour lecture requires a lot of energy. Videos can save this energy to be spent on helping students with more individual attention.
In summary Khan Academy is a wonderful addition to the arsenal of tools available for learning, but it is only one of components of the complex equation of eduation. And teachers are a very core part of that system and I wish there was more of them. The good ones that is...
Interesting points. Interesting discussion.
I would be curious to find out how many of Mr.Khan's students are using his videos because they want to succeed, but their current teachers in the school they attend is not helping? I suspect (although have no data to support this claim) that this is a large majority of his audience. I know from my own experience that my love of books and later Internet grew out of frustration with teachers. I was interested in things I was studying and wanted to learn, but could not wait for the end of the class to go and read a good book on the topic. This is how I developed strong autodidactic skills. It was really because my teachers sucked!
In particular I really support your observation that good recorded lectures could free the teachers to have more energy and time for interactive teaching, questions, answers, discussions. I know from my experience as TA at the university that giving even 1 hour lecture requires a lot of energy. Videos can save this energy to be spent on helping students with more individual attention.
In summary Khan Academy is a wonderful addition to the arsenal of tools available for learning, but it is only one of components of the complex equation of eduation. And teachers are a very core part of that system and I wish there was more of them. The good ones that is...
Interesting points. Interesting discussion.
When you say that "most of the teachers are not very good at what they do," I think you need to define the parameters of what you think teachers "do."
In other words, what is their role? Is it simply to explain how to solve a quadratic equation or is the job more multifaceted and complex?
In other words, what is their role? Is it simply to explain how to solve a quadratic equation or is the job more multifaceted and complex?
Hey Gary!
I am too humble to provide a good and complete definition of the profession as it is very complex indeed. But, here are a few things I believe teachers should do, but often don't:
They should be good communicators and presenters. The fact that somebody has a PhD or two in something does not automatically mean they can give a good lecture or explanations. This problem is very visible among engineering professors. They might do brilliant research, but cannot communicate anything clearly in the classroom...
They should care. There is a surprising number of teachers that I had that consistently exhibited attitude of the type: I don't really care if you came to my class and I care less if you fail...
They should be passionate and knowledgeable about the subject matter that they teach so that they can inspire... There are too many teachers that teach something because that was the only job they could get, but that is not their area of the expertise or interest...
They should listen to the opinions and evaluations of the students so they can improve. From my experience the student evaluations carried out at the end of the university classes have absolutely no effect on their careers, salaries and course choices. What students say is basically just ignored...
These are some of the elements of being the teacher that I would consider important. Interestingly when I re-read the above paragraphs Mr.Khan would score really well on all points!
I am too humble to provide a good and complete definition of the profession as it is very complex indeed. But, here are a few things I believe teachers should do, but often don't:
They should be good communicators and presenters. The fact that somebody has a PhD or two in something does not automatically mean they can give a good lecture or explanations. This problem is very visible among engineering professors. They might do brilliant research, but cannot communicate anything clearly in the classroom...
They should care. There is a surprising number of teachers that I had that consistently exhibited attitude of the type: I don't really care if you came to my class and I care less if you fail...
They should be passionate and knowledgeable about the subject matter that they teach so that they can inspire... There are too many teachers that teach something because that was the only job they could get, but that is not their area of the expertise or interest...
They should listen to the opinions and evaluations of the students so they can improve. From my experience the student evaluations carried out at the end of the university classes have absolutely no effect on their careers, salaries and course choices. What students say is basically just ignored...
These are some of the elements of being the teacher that I would consider important. Interestingly when I re-read the above paragraphs Mr.Khan would score really well on all points!
I agree. Tools like Khan, are still just tools that reach some students and not others. There most certainly needs to remain a social aspect to learning. Class time should be spent working on investigations and rich tasks collaboratively with classmates and the teacher. The teacher can then provide a bank of starting resources on the topics to consolidate the big ideas. These resources should be varied to reach as many types of learners as possible. Video, text, audio, theoretical, practical, connecting to topics of interest. Might include a Khan video, YouTube video, reading, podcast and maybe my own lesson because I couldn't find one about skateboarding and linear functions (and I have a class full of passionate skateboarders). A competent teacher could also facilitate discussion and sharing of resources among students. Students ideally recognize when they require something different than that posted by teacher and can develop skills to search and share. Khan can be an awesome tool - but just that, one tool. It wont revolutionize the classroom. It certainly might speak loudly and reach some students, revolutionizing their understanding if thats what hits home for them... But revolutionize the classroom? I sure as hell hope not. Bill Nye? Is that you?
Isn't part of the problem the mandatory nature of education (I. Ilich)? I teach young men who just don't want to be there. They should have a chance to get on with their lives instead of feeling like prisoners in the school.
Add Comment
The Book!
What School Leaders Need to Know About Digital Technologies and Social Media - Edited by Chris Lehmann and Scot McLeod
Calendar
|
May '13 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
The Quote File
"For me, I believe that a song has to be useful"
Quicksearch
Twit This
Categories
Comments
Mon, 25.03.2013 14:05
Jon Goldman was both my
English Teacher in 9th
grade and Advisory Mentor
for my four years at
[...]
Karen Greenberg about Saving Lives v. Changing Lives
Tue, 14.08.2012 11:13
Perhaps a more apt term
would be "altering
trajectories". Think
physics - two objects in
motion [...]
Amethyst about Saving Lives v. Changing Lives
Mon, 13.08.2012 22:51
I really appreciate this
blog entry. Our roles as
teachers require, at our
best, a deep [...]
Mark Ahlness about The Long Haul
Mon, 13.08.2012 22:33
Chris, thanks. Pete is my
hero, and has been for a
while, but now that I'm
retired, after 31 years
[...]
Gary Stager about Saving Lives v. Changing Lives
Mon, 13.08.2012 22:15
Chris,
No need to worry about
semantic arguments.
Others all around us are
debasing our [...]