Khan Academy: Innovative Or Traditional? ( Feedback To Classmate Work) Follow The Guided

  Guided Response: Respond to two of your classmates’ posts.  For at least one of your responses, take a point of view that is opposite from your original post, and provide at least two rationales for why the opposite idea has value.  Your response References Your response classemate 1:   Calenthia Cheatham   How do you reconcile the two different perspectives on learning exhibited in the videos? It is my opinion that the reconciliation of the two different perspectives on learning exhibited in the videos would require research. I understand the success that is evident from Japan’s method, however, I am not certain that we would see the same results here in the United States unless the Japan method was the initial way that our students are taught. In the United States, if we started off teaching our students to solve problems first and then provide them with the strategies, this method would definitely open a gateway to higher order thinking. A merge between the Khan Academy’s flipped classroom and the Japan method would allow students to initially make an attempt to solve a problem and then learn different strategies to solve the problem. After learning the strategies, they would then be applied to solve more like kind problems. What relevance do you see in each perspective? The relevance of the Khan Academy’s method is that students have the ability to learn at their own pace. Students are not pressured to keep up with the pace of the class. This allows the student to fully comprehend and master strategies before they have to progress to a more advanced level. Students have the ability to go back and review strategies for better understanding in case they have forgotten material and the relevance in Japan’s method is that students are required to apply higher order thinking initially. In what ways, if any, does either approach to teaching and learning reflect constructivism? I believe that both approaches reflect constructivism due to the fact that each method requires students to apply previous knowledge. In Khan Academy’s approach, students are using knowledge, skills, and experience from prior lessons in order to advance to the next level of lessons. In the Japan approach, students are required to use prior knowledge, skills, and experience to come up with a solution to a problem. Because of this, in my opinion, both methods reflect constructivism. If you were asked to pick a side to support, which strategy would have a greater impact on ensuring students master twenty-first-century skills? Explain your thinking. I would choose Japan’s method to support and ensure students master twenty-first-century skills. The Japan method requires students to think first. Not only do students just have to think, they have to utilize higher thinking strategies. After students think of ways to problem solve on their own, they collaborate and strategize collectively. These skills are essential for the twenty-first-century student. The Japan method involves students utilizing their “how to skills” regularly. They aren’t dependent on one strategy to solve a problem, yet their brains are being conditioned to find out how to do things without a strategy, then the students are provided with several ways to problem solve, hence equipping them with several tools in their toolboxes.   References Michael Pershan.  (2012, July 6).  What if Khan Academy was made in Japan?   TED Talks.  (2011, March).  Salman Khan: Let’s use video to reinvent education [Video file].  Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html  Classmate 2:   Catherine Hattori   EDU650 Week 4 Discussion 2:  Innovative or traditional? Initial Post:  After you watch both videos, think about the focus of this week’s reading: delivering effective lessons that connect your students to learning.    How do you reconcile the two different perspectives on learning exhibited in the videos?  Watching the video on “What if Khan Academy was made in Japan?”- the concept of allowing student to struggle with problems, gave them a chance to solve the problem on their own and then being grouped with fellow students and teacher observing students on how they concluded to the answer, would be a great approach for teachers in America to try in their classrooms. Both videos have one thing in common which is peer to peer assisting with lesson, which allows the teacher to help students one on one. It is a collaborative effort with both teacher and students benefiting from “technological classroom”.  Allowing students to struggle with a problem, so that teachers can assist with the areas of not comprehending and trying different approaches to allow the student grasp and fully understand the lesson. Salman Khan stated “it’s not about technology trying to replace human beings, it’s about technology trying to empower human beings (TakePart, 2014). Technology is the way forward for schools today and for students to have 21st century skills. What relevance do you see in each perspective?  According to TakePart, the concept of blended learning, it’s called blended learning part computer time, blended with part instruction, kids learn by watching lessons online, which allows students to visually learn from Khan Academy, if they miss something they can rewind as many times, they answer questions to master the concept. The program allows teachers to see where students are having trouble, with this data, teacher will know exactly they are getting it or not (2014). Then the concept of C3B4ME – See three before me – train students to always check with three different sources before asking teacher for help (Rystad, 2013). The idea of peer to peer collaboration, reinforces that the student has mastered the lesson and they are able to teach the concept to fellow students. In what ways, if any, does either approach to teaching and learning reflect constructivism?  Constructivism is a process of active learning that allows students to link new information to prior knowledge. This concept allows children to not fall behind but to learn and master to move on to the next lesson and apply the past knowledge to the new knowledge. For teachers to allow for peer to peer assistance, which allows students to facilitate the learning in a different style and allowing teacher to assist students who may require more help than peer to peer. If you were asked to pick a side to support, which strategy would have a greater impact on ensuring students master twenty first century skills?  Explain your thinking. Khan Academy approach is a great resource for students and an additional tool for teachers to move toward the blended classroom approach. Traditional classrooms are considered as a one size fits all type of teaching. Allowing laptops and collaborating with peer to peer facilitating, gives ownership to students, responsibility and respect for both fellow students and teachers and “Partnership for 21stCentury Learning’s model for acquiring 21st century skills. In order to master 21st century learning, students must develop crucial skills, including: life and career skills; learning and innovation skills; and information, media, and technology skills. These skills are built on the foundation of core subjects and curriculum” (Newman 2013).     References  Michael Pershan.  (2012, July 6).  What if Khan Academy was made in Japan? Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHoXRvGTtAQ Rystad, M.  (2013, April 7).  Assessment for learning   Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcLMlY6R7RM Takepart (2014, August 18). Khan Academy Empowers Teachers/TEACH/ TakePart. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyumCz5lJ8c