is really Khan Academy changing the rules of Education?

So the hypotenuse is now going to be five. This animal’s fossils are only found in this area of South America – a nice clean band here – and this part of Africa. We can integrate over the surface, and the notation usually is a capital sigma. National Assembly: They create the Committee of Public Safety, which sounds like a very nice committee. Notice, this is an aldehyde,and it’s an alcohol. Start differentiating into effector and memory cells. A galaxy.Hey, there’s another galaxy. Oh look, there’s another galaxy. And for dollars, is their 30 million, plus the 20 million dollars from the American manufacturer.

If this does not blow your mind, then you have no emotion.

Mr Khan himself explains his own vision:

No words about pedagogic methods… it is technology, technology and only technology… but nothing about education.

Some months ago Clive Thompson on Wired Magazine published an stoning article about how is Khan Academy changing Education rules.

Thompson, a Tech Journalist, explains lots of success stories and remarks some criticism around Khan’s learning methods but his article is all about how successful is Khan Academy (and it is if success is about web analytics).

But is really Khan Academy changing the rules or we are facing a new ‘bubble trendy social media feature’?

But, what is Khan Academy?

As Marc Prensky says on his paper A Huge Leap for the Classroom (PDF! in Educational Technology, Nov-Dec 2011) Mr. Khan is making popular the ‘flipping’ learning method from Harvard’s Phisics Professor Mazur: ‘assigning his recorded lectures for night-before watching’.  That sound good.

But Audrey Watters publish on his blog Hack Education a contra-analysis: ‘Author Clive Thompson does offer some critiques of Khan Academy in his article, citing Gary Stager and Sylvia Martinez, for example. But then he waters downConstructivism, the learning theory supported by these two Khan-objectors, to the “idea that students won’t really understand math unless they discover each principle on their own.” For commentary on this, Thompson turns to Bill Gates who dismisses the notion as “bullshit.”

I have to agree with Steve Miranda who wrote ‘Khan’s idea does not represent a “revolution.” Posting video tutorials online is a great idea, and I have no doubt that some teachers find value in “flipping” the curriculum so that students can utilize class time to get one-on-one help. But to suggest that this is a revolution—or that it will have even a modest impact on our overall education system—is pure delusion.’

I agree because we were using videos and lots of different learning methods from years, and ‘flipping’ 180º and 90º or 45º every semester, looking for creative ways to teach. Not only to keep the attention of those who are screen addicted. The Khan’s materials can be a good start to engage students… but never the solution… you can see better experiences like the Stanford Computer Science 101 class: you can trust the contents, accurate and if you succeed to resolve all the exercises proposed you will be an ‘A-guy’. But not because the famous ‘flipping’ method… is just because you have a properly teacher there to help you when needed, and a institution who procures for the best ressources and quality assurance in teaching.

To open contents is not about to be home alone watching videos. Is about sharing with others, and then, to learn better.

Original posted by Gerard Pagès i Camps on Monday, November 21, 2011 on #LibTechNotes a blog from the LibraryLabs at Universitat Oberta de Catalunya Library