This article reeks of an academic defending his turf to me. Basically, it all comes down to the author accusing Sal Khan of willfully ignoring research. This is based on a quote that I believe is intentionally misinterpreted. Khan says "you put stuff out there and you see how people react to it". This is basic web testing stuff. That doesn't mean he's ignoring research. Like we don't willfully ignore design best practices with the assumption that A/B testing will sort out the UX. That would be stupid.
I like Khan Academy's videos. But if you watch Khan's TED talk, it's clear neither he nor bill gates sees khan academy as operating outside the education system. His lectures are meant as a complement to quality instruction in classroom by a teacher. Criticizing the Khan academy ecosystem as an independent and parallel instruction system is silly.
The hype may be too much. Maybe it's not revolutionary. But getting a teacher who can explain and engage recorded and available free online is a great idea even if it's not the be all and end all of education.
I like Khan Academy's videos. But if you watch Khan's TED talk, it's clear neither he nor bill gates sees khan academy as operating outside the education system. His lectures are meant as a complement to quality instruction in classroom by a teacher. Criticizing the Khan academy ecosystem as an independent and parallel instruction system is silly.
Khan is a great lecturer. He's better than every lecturer I've had. He may not be the best total educator. I wrote a blog post about this a while back: http://cyclicreality.com/post/26719449459/why-khan-academy-i...
The hype may be too much. Maybe it's not revolutionary. But getting a teacher who can explain and engage recorded and available free online is a great idea even if it's not the be all and end all of education.