Hacker News Reader

Comment by jc4p | Hacker News Reader

Do they need to actually hire educators? I understand that it would raise the level of knowledge but if I remember correctly from the last Google Hangout Khan said that they are currently working on a platform to make it easier for anyone to add things to KhanAcademy without having to do github pull requests.

View on HN

Everyone working there IS an educator.

People saying "they don't hire educators" really mean that they don't hire as many people with Masters degrees in Education, which is known to be one of the degrees that attracts the lowest possible GRE scoring students, and which produces legions of incompetent "teachers" that have created a nation of ignoramuses.

It's a good thing they don't hire more of these folks. They are the ones that have destroyed education in America, why would we want them to have anything to do with Khan Academy?

The average teacher might not be vary qualified, but there are some incredibly intelligent people that work in the education field. The main problem with education in America is inconsistent teacher quality and social issues that take place outside the classroom. So, having people on staff that understand say the cognitive neuroscience of memory would be a great idea, but adding someone that happened to get a Masters because it's a pay bump and they had to take continuing education credits every year anyway is probably a waste.

PS: The Head first series is an example of what happens when you add educators into the mix. They might seem fluffy but they sell well and do teach people surprisingly well. http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/programming/java/059600...

Regarding the design of the Head First series, neither Kathy nor Bert have education degrees, Kathy's degree is in physiology and then she later switched to programming. Bert does say that he talked to teachers over the years while developing his philosophy of pedagogy, but so have a lot of people.

If you are saying that Kathy and Bert are educators because they educate, then I agree, and that was my point in saying that obviously Khan Academy is populated by educators.

he talked to teachers over the years while developing his philosophy of pedagogy that's actually exactly what I am advocating. I am all for subject matter exports being the people on the stage, but they need to be informed of the basics behind learning. There are many great online lectures, but finding ways to add repetition without simply watching the same video again is critical.

PS: Funding is clearly an issue, but there is a long history of education and some extremely valuable lessons have been learned the ridiculously expensive way. Leveraging that history does not take a lot of resources just a willingness to use them.

  > Khan said that they are currently working on a platform
  > to make it easier for anyone to add things to KhanAcademy

That strategy appears to ignore what made KA as successful as it is -- quality content. His 10 minute lessons on, say, calculus are genuinely well-made and effective; not too rigorous, but helpful and to the point. If they fully open up, KA becomes YouTube with exercises.

Not what I find exciting about KA. Educational standards should be enforced, which necessitates the hiring of educators. I'd be disappointed if Khan falls into the good ol' Silicon Valley trap: believing that it's all about technology and platforms.

I don't know, as if they have a good enough method of evaluating lectures and only promoting the good ones. After all, look at the success of Wikipedia as compared to other encyclopedias. There is an important difference, of course, in that the ways you can incrementally improve a video lecture are much narrower. Still, though, there must be many qualified people who would be willing to record lectures for free, which doesn't have to be a full-time job like the technical side.

Yes, they should. However, I think they should hire doctors of education in the same way they're hiring engineers: the engineers are creating the technical infrastructure to deliver lessons, and the educators should be creating the pedagogical standards and informing the engineers about what kinds of tools to create.

I highly doubt they're proceeding in the dark. While they may not have teachers on staff, I'm sure they're consulting with the brightest minds at the best universities to develop optimal delivery.

A doctorate in education is of dubious worth. As an academic field education research doesn't yet have the tools of structures to answer interesting questions. In place of rigorous theories there is currently a swamp of poorly verified or unverifiable notions.

Hire teachers, hire experts, hire anyone who either has deep knowledge or experience transferring knowledge. Hopefully both. A doctorate in education, alone, provides neither.

(this comment brought to you by small sample size interactions with real-life Ed.D. dunces)

I was speaking about people like Dr Stroup or Dr Petrosino (I've had a class with the latter and read papers by the former) who are experts and have written compelling papers. However, you're right, my wording was bad. Anyone with a proven track record or some accomplishment in teaching should be considered. Both of these people have PhDs, I'm pretty sure, not EdDs.

The most exciting thing about being involved with software development is that it is a practical discipline that has both scientific testing (A/B, unit tests), and fast evolution that is discovering successful organisational structures and working processes.

Education seems to test the wrong things (knowledge, ability at tests, not practical nor personal skills), and changes at glacial speeds (conservative, and aiming for politically motivated outcomes).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com