4 ms·

> Yes, it is, and it have nothing to do with our funding. The way we teach is extraordinary inefficient and outdated. I don't disagree, but do you have anythin

• kiba 14y ago
  I don't disagree, but do you have anything to back this up? Like what? Numbers and studies? Khan Academy said that they have very promising results in which students perform significantly better on standardized tests. That being said, I already wrote in my post how we can improve efficiency and effectiveness by leveraging computers for all they're worth. I think this is sufficient to show how dated the teaching is done in schools, if not exactly proves how inefficient our school teach. I think it's quite obvious that it's better to watch a recorded lecture than to see the teacher perform the same lecture years after year. I ask because my girlfriend is a teacher, and teaching is a lot harder than most people seem to believe. All I am advocating is giving the teachers and students better tools based on cognitive science that we discovered a long time ago. Making sure students get the practice they need on summer vacations and scheduling practice problems to reduce unnecessary studying isn't rocket science.
  • EnderMB 14y ago
    But if it's so easy, why has nothing changed after all this time? It's apparently not rocket science, yet all these intelligent people are going into teaching and the same methods are still used. Teachers continue to spend long hours after school planning lessons and aside from module websites made using Google's site builder tools and interactive whiteboards there is little difference in the UK. Originally, I thought it was a money problem, but some schools have a ridiculous budget and are happy to spend them on the same old stuff. Why is no one investing in these things that will apparently improve education?
    • DanBC 14y ago
      People think they are right. They will ignore evidence that they are wrong, and over-emphasise the evidence that shows they are right. The debate becomes politicised. The debate splits along lines of unions vs others; politicians vs teachers; parents vs others; etc. Proper double blind research is hard to conduct on students for a number of reasons, and so we don't bother with effective research. See, for example, the length of time that it's taken to get synthetic phonics over analytic phonics recognised as better for teaching children to read.
  • loup-vaillant 14y ago
    > I think it's quite obvious that it's better to watch a recorded lecture than to see the teacher perform the same lecture years after year. Ah, actually, it's not. For instance, a number of studies unequivocally showed that an infant learns nothing in front of an televised education program. A young child cannot learn a language from a visual recording, but somehow can if the child sees the same thing live. Somehow the screen seems to screen of the magic. As we get older and learn to focus our attention ourselves, this becomes less important. But direct human contact, even through a mere lecture, still counts. So my guess is that while mechanised teaching (not just videos —we' have computers for Omega's sake!) has certainly great potential, merely replacing the teacher by a computer, even part time, is probably not optimal.
  • jrmg 14y ago
    Like what? Numbers and studies? Khan Academy said that they have very promising results in which students perform significantly better on standardized tests. Without numbers and studies, this sounds like self-selection to me - people doing Khan Academy courses are surely more self-motivated than people attending colleges and universities, a substantial percentage of whom probably don't really enjoy being there. I think it's quite obvious that it's better to watch a recorded lecture than to see the teacher perform the same lecture years after year. Do you mean obvious from some study you've heard of, or obvious to you? Because that's not at all obvious to me personally - in fact, the opposite is true. I think I learn much better from in-person lecturers (providing the lecturer is good, which would have to be true in a video lecture too). I think there are two forces at play that make this true - first, the lecturer can gauge the response of the audience and tailor his presentation - timing, level of explanation etc. Second, the atmosphere makes me pay attention more - in much the same way as going to the cinema or to see a play in a theater is more engaging that watching the same thing on TV or YouTube. I know that basically everything I've said is all anecdote and presumption, but my presumption seem just as valid (to me, more valid :-P) than yours in the absence of hard data. On your point that we should [give] the teachers and students better tools based on cognitive science that we discovered a long time ago, I wholeheartedly agree, but it needs to be done based on scientific conclusions, not anecdata (yours or mine).
    • JoeAltmaier 14y ago
      Not fair - you don't know how Khan Academy students are selected, you just claim its self-selection. Cupertino schools ran a whole school year on Khan Academy - no self-selection there. So at least some of their numbers are meaningfully correlated to a general population. And why should essentially randomly virally selected people be labelled self-selected, any more than any people who answer an ad for a psychological study? From those in the group, statistics can be gleaned by including factors like age and economics. And there are lots of reasons a lecture you can repeat, stop, talk to a buddy about real-time is better than an assembly-hall lecture. This is obvious to those paying attention to the Khan Academy movement.
    • kiba 14y ago
      Without numbers and studies, this sounds like self-selection to me - people doing Khan Academy courses are surely more self-motivated than people attending colleges and universities, a substantial percentage of whom probably don't really enjoy being there. Spaced repetition and spacing effect is well known science and it works. For everything else I said, there should be more studies and experiments.