Khan Academy: Innovative or Traditional? ( feedback to classmate work) follow the guided

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



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.


You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
error: Content is protected !!