I've noticed with most critiques of KA that they set up a straw man of what KA is trying to accomplish, and then they attack that, almost always without giving a better alternative.
The fact is KA is a great tool for learning many subjects, and will only continue to improve. The biggest take aways should be:
- spaced repetition of subject matter is extremely useful for long term memorization
- bite sized, repeatable lessons allow students to digest more and "rewind" over parts of lectures they may have missed
- "gameification" and small rewards are useful for getting students to keep pursuing a subject
- students shouldn't move on to more advanced subjects until they've mastered a particular foundational skill
No teaching tool or method is going to be perfect, but I think KA gives parents, educators and most importantly students a really useful tool for self-paced learning that traditional methods can't easily offer.
One thing that can't be said enough — which we internalize deeply at KA but is often confused outside our office — is that KA intends to be a resource for education, not a complete solution.
It's a resource for students who wouldn't otherwise have access to this content and for those having trouble with whatever education they're currently getting. And it's a resource for teachers who want a tool to help make sure students cover core skills at their own pace — so they can spend their class time getting students to work together, using those skills in all sorts of creative ways, and generally adding the highest value teachers can add.
I mostly find Dan's advice (and the article's comments) constructive. But taking a step back, it makes me proud that an educational resource covering this amount of content is free, open to this sort of critique, and constantly improving itself. See the comment from Justin Helps, one of our content creators, on Dan's post.
Just curious, why would KA not want to be a complete solution for education?
I can understand the political incentives not to openly state such an ambitious goal - the educational establishment is massively powerful, and doesn't want an upstart replacing them. But is there a reason why, in principle, KA wouldn't want to be a complete solution to all of education?
KhanAcademy is a powerful force for good in education, especially in instances where a parent wants to help his or her child with homework, but does not possess the educational foundation necessary to do so.
Additionally, when I was a middle school teacher, my students would always have questions about topics we wouldn't have time to get to in class. KhanAcademy and TED were invaluable resources to point them towards to encourage their curiosity.
Which "huge vested interests" are you referring to specifically? I can understand that if the Khan academy were to really take off, it'd shake quite a lot of educational institutions. Everything from universities, state-funded schools, teachers unions, the works. And I don't think a lot of them would like that, as I it would appear to the individuals running/manning them that their jobs are on the line.
The reason I say state-funded schools wouldn't like this is because they work on a false premise. Supposedly that education is not free/cheap enough, and that government funding is required to make it work for the masses. You take away that, and public/state schools become glorified daycare so that the parents can stay productive instead of having to babysit their offspring.
One addition: I've just setup a recurring donation to the Khan academy. One small step at proving that society can function without state-coercion.
Kahn Academy's stated mission is to "providing a free world-class education for anyone anywhere." They claim to have content aligned to every standard of the Common Core. This is exactly how Meyer represents their position. I don't see how that is a straw man.
It sounds like your argument is that KA doesn't actually claim these things and that it is not reasonable to evaluate it on those grounds. I don't think that finding that Kahn Academy doesn't do what it claims in these regards qualifies as attacking it, unless critique = attack. Further, finding KA lacking in the types of questions it asks students doesn't require offering a better alternative in order for the critique to be valid.
The rest of your comment is probably not that controversial, but these aspects of KA are not what Meyer was evaluating. Special pleading doesn't give Kahn Academy credit for the claims they make. I'm sure they will continue to improve--as the 800lb gorilla in the room, they have plenty of attention from people who can offer suggestions. The Common Core requires students to think more deeply about the mathematics than most of the state standards that came before it, and the types of questions that KA asks its students are too superficial.
The fact is KA is a great tool for learning many subjects, and will only continue to improve. The biggest take aways should be:
- spaced repetition of subject matter is extremely useful for long term memorization - bite sized, repeatable lessons allow students to digest more and "rewind" over parts of lectures they may have missed - "gameification" and small rewards are useful for getting students to keep pursuing a subject - students shouldn't move on to more advanced subjects until they've mastered a particular foundational skill
No teaching tool or method is going to be perfect, but I think KA gives parents, educators and most importantly students a really useful tool for self-paced learning that traditional methods can't easily offer.