Essentially this is a critique of lectures and traditional teaching models which unfortunately uses Khan Academy as a pretext for discussing how lectures don't work very well.
The tiny feedback loop that Khan Academy quizzes provide just renders the whole point moot. And that's just one additional aspect of Khan Academy.
It's unfortunate because it's not as if the author doesn't understand that Khan Academy is much more than just videos -- it's stated at the start of his video. But all that is literally swept aside at the start of the video as it focuses on the same old stuff that we've known for all too long -- teaching via lecture doesn't work very well.
Anyone can put a video up on YouTube, but what makes Khan Academy fundamentally different is not just the quality of the lectures, but the structure of Khan Academy and supporting materials that go along with those lectures.
The irony is that the author seems to be reinforcing their own idea of video education by ignoring how Khan Academy doesn't fit within their preconceived concepts.
1. Having quizzes post-video is still different than having a different teaching style. In terms of learning outcomes, the two styles could potentially be equal, however in terms of student motivation/engagement/interest, they are different.
2. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily here, but I thought the quizzes are only for some math at the moment, and nothing else? This would mean that at the moment his argument applies to everything except some math concepts?
I should have said that I found the technique interesting and insightful. Learning doesn't happen without engagement -- that's the key point. I just thought it was a bit disingenuous to ignore what Khan Academy is beyond video lectures & "worry" about it being bad for students.
Re: Point 2. Yes, I just looked over the Khan Academy knowledge map and it does look like I was wrong; however, I'd still posit that there is more to Khan Academy than just videos (I've talked about the "Coach" elsewhere in this thread). But I can see the point the author is trying to make and I'm not asserting that the method is wrong, but that he's glossing over everything outside the video content of Khan Academy.
That said, I think the idea is a really good way to give students a better way to engage with the subject. It adds another way for a student to engage, which can never be a bad thing.
Yeah I agree that he did gloss over some of the other Khan features.
About the method the video talks about -- I bought some audio-only lessons for learning French once by Micheal Thomas that (for me anyway) confirms this method. On the audio, the teacher had 2 students present, and the lessons consisted of Michael teaching these two students. The teacher would often ask questions and test their knowledge, and the students often would make mistakes. Naturally he would always correct them. I found it incredibly engaging and effective for myself.
Comments
Essentially this is a critique of lectures and traditional teaching models which unfortunately uses Khan Academy as a pretext for discussing how lectures don't work very well.
The tiny feedback loop that Khan Academy quizzes provide just renders the whole point moot. And that's just one additional aspect of Khan Academy.
It's unfortunate because it's not as if the author doesn't understand that Khan Academy is much more than just videos -- it's stated at the start of his video. But all that is literally swept aside at the start of the video as it focuses on the same old stuff that we've known for all too long -- teaching via lecture doesn't work very well.
Anyone can put a video up on YouTube, but what makes Khan Academy fundamentally different is not just the quality of the lectures, but the structure of Khan Academy and supporting materials that go along with those lectures.
The irony is that the author seems to be reinforcing their own idea of video education by ignoring how Khan Academy doesn't fit within their preconceived concepts.
2 points:
1. Having quizzes post-video is still different than having a different teaching style. In terms of learning outcomes, the two styles could potentially be equal, however in terms of student motivation/engagement/interest, they are different.
2. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily here, but I thought the quizzes are only for some math at the moment, and nothing else? This would mean that at the moment his argument applies to everything except some math concepts?
I should have said that I found the technique interesting and insightful. Learning doesn't happen without engagement -- that's the key point. I just thought it was a bit disingenuous to ignore what Khan Academy is beyond video lectures & "worry" about it being bad for students.
Re: Point 2. Yes, I just looked over the Khan Academy knowledge map and it does look like I was wrong; however, I'd still posit that there is more to Khan Academy than just videos (I've talked about the "Coach" elsewhere in this thread). But I can see the point the author is trying to make and I'm not asserting that the method is wrong, but that he's glossing over everything outside the video content of Khan Academy.
That said, I think the idea is a really good way to give students a better way to engage with the subject. It adds another way for a student to engage, which can never be a bad thing.
Yeah I agree that he did gloss over some of the other Khan features.
About the method the video talks about -- I bought some audio-only lessons for learning French once by Micheal Thomas that (for me anyway) confirms this method. On the audio, the teacher had 2 students present, and the lessons consisted of Michael teaching these two students. The teacher would often ask questions and test their knowledge, and the students often would make mistakes. Naturally he would always correct them. I found it incredibly engaging and effective for myself.