自己做课件,做自己的课件
课件制作的领先理念与实务技巧

可汗演讲有感:以掌握为目的的教学

可汗演讲:考试分数不是教育目的

(视频来源:网易公开课)

演讲者:萨尔曼·可汗,可汗学院创始人,毕业于麻省理工大学、哈佛大学

——————————————————————————-

 

学习可汗学院创始人可汗的这一段TED演讲《考试分数不是教育目的》,让人颇受启发。 

可汗提到的造房子的例子,令人印象深刻。在没有修好的地基上,再修建后面的楼层,自然会导致倒塌。 

这确实是当前教育领域存在的普遍问题。 

“要实现这一点,每个学生都必须遵循自己的学习进度,必须有个性化的教学方式,一对一辅导和有针对性的练习题。这就不是什么新观念了,在100年前的伊利诺伊州、温内特卡市就有这样的实践:他们在那里实践了这种以掌握为目的的教学,成果很显著。” 

可汗指出了一种有效的教学理念:以掌握目的的教学。 

 

对培训教育的作用:

1. 以掌握为目的搭建培训课程体系 

对于培训教育来说,借助现在的网络教育和移动学习,实现以掌握为目的的教学,是完全可行的。

对于知识性的内容,我们可以模仿“可汗学院”的网上学习,针对每个关键知识点进行讲解,并提供适应性练习,让学生根据自己的进度,逐个学习知识点,反复练习,直至真正掌握知识点。

对于技能性的内容,我们可以依照这种教学理念,结合混合式培训方式,通过与线下实操、练习、考试等方式结合,促进技能的完全掌握。

尤其是微课,非常适合地这种以掌握为目的的教学方式。当然,微课的内容不仅需要讲解型,还需要练习型、考核型。

 

 2. 以掌握为目的重新审视现有培训课程体系

虽然不一定所有课程都要以掌握为目的,但有一些课程是需要以掌握为目的的。根据这一标准,重新审视现有培训课程,对有必要的课程体系进行改造。

例如新员工培训,以往的新员工培训,大多是集中起来十天半个月的面授培训。短时间填充大量的信息知识,如果按照以掌握为目的的原则,效果是不理想的。根据这一理念,我们可以把新员工培训的一些应知应会点做成网上课件,配合面授,新员工没听清没记住的,都可以在线上课程中反复学习,再结合有效的反馈和考核手段,有利于达到最终掌握的目标。

 

对育儿的作用:

我把造房子的例子讲给儿子听,他露出一脸惊恐的神色,原来每次改错题马而虎之的他,似乎也意识到自己这样做有多可怕了。

最关键的是,学生真正“掌握”了知识,对培养他们学习的积极性有莫大的好处,鼓励他们不断往前探索。儿子当前对某些科目的畏难情绪严重,这个原则让我似乎找到了突破点。

 

作者:何佳瑾
出处:http://www.kejianttt.com
            (版权所有,转载请注明作者与出处)

 

———————————————————————————————————————-

附:演讲全文(中文翻译):

今天,我要分享两个观点。至少是基于我对可汗学院的观察得出的,有关于学习的核心,或者说是根基。一个是掌握的技巧,另一个是思维方式。

 

一个掌握的技巧

早些年,当我辅导小表亲们的时候就发现,他们之中很多人,刚开始对数学很头疼。因为,他们在学习中不断积累着知识漏洞。所以,当他们开始上代数课时,由于在代数的预备課程中就可能不太跟得上,这导致他们认为自己没有数学天赋。或者,他们之后上微积分课时,才发现自己的代数基础也不太好。

我发现这个问题,是在前些年,当我在YouTube上上传这些视频的时候,我意识到,很多素不相识的人也在看这些视频。

一开始,这些留言只是些简单的谢谢。我认为这很值得重视。我不知道你们都花多少时间在YouTube 上。通常大多数评论都不是“谢谢”,通常措辞都更尖锐一些。

但之后的留言内容越来越丰富多样,接二连三的学生反映,他们长大后,还是不喜欢数学。进入高等数学阶段后,就更加困难。当他们开始上代数的时候,知识中存在的大量漏洞实在是太多了,以至于难以跟上进度。他们会自以为没有数学头脑。

但当他们长大一点的时候,他们有了一点儿动力,并决定下功夫去学。他们找到了像可汗学院这样的资源,帮助他们填充知识漏洞并掌握概念,改善了他们的思维方式;这样,他们知道自己其实有能力学好数学。

在类似的很多方面,这也是我们掌握生活中很多事情的方式。学习空手道也是这样。在武术当中,你往往必须一直练习白带(最低等级)的技巧,只有当你掌握了它们,才能进阶到黄带。学习乐器的方式也是这样:一遍遍地练习最基本的曲目,只有掌握了基本的,你才能向更高级的进攻。

但我们要清楚:这并非传统学习模式的构成方式,并不是我们大多数成长过程中所经历的那种模式。   传统学习模式中,我们通常会按年龄将学生分组;到了中学时期,则是按年龄和外显的学习能力分组;然后我们以相同的节奏引领他们。

最常见的情况是,假设我们身处某中学的代数预备课堂,现在的专题是指数函数。老师就此内容来上课,然后我们回家,做一些相关习题。第二天早上,我们会检查这些作业。之后又是上课、做作业,上课、做作业……这样持续了两到三周,就该测验了。

在考试中,我也许只会75%的题目,你也许会90%,他可能会95%。即使考试能帮助我们查缺补漏,还是会有25%的内容我没有掌握。就算那些得A的学生,依旧有 5%的内容没搞懂。

即使我们认识到了那些漏洞,课堂还是会继续,进入下一个专题。可能是更加复杂的,建立在我们先前漏洞上的内容。可能会是对数函数,或是负指数函数。

随着课程不断推进,你会突然间发现,这种模式的荒谬之处。我明明还有 25% 的基础知识不懂,现在却被逼去学更加深奥的东西。而这会持续数月或数年,直到某一个时间点,我可能会对代数,或是三角函数课完全不知所云了。

这并非因为代数学本身很难学,或者是因为学生不够聪明。而是因为当我看见指数的等式时,其中有30%是我不懂的知识。然后我就不想做了。

(举例:造房子)
为了让大家体会这是多么夸张,可以想象一下,当我们在人生中,以这种方式干其它的事情时,比如:造房子。

我们找来承包商,然后和他说:“我们被告知只有两周时间去打地基,所以能建多少就建多少吧。”

然后他们就尽力去做了。中间也许下雨了,也许有些物资没到位。两周之后,房屋检查员来了,看了一下,说:“看起来这儿的水泥还没干那块儿也还不大行……我就给个80分吧。”

然后你们说:“太好了,是C呢。让我们建第一层吧!”

同样的事情接连发生。我们又努力了两周,然后房屋检查员来了,给了个75分。太好了,居然还有 D+!然后建二楼、三楼,当你建第三层的时候,整栋建筑突然倒塌了。

如果你的反应与上学时的反应一样,或者是很多人会有的那种反应,你也许会说,是我们承包商不够格,也可能检查力度和次数不够多。但真正的问题,其实是过程本身。我们用人为的方式去限制完成某事的时间,为了确保得到一个不变的结果,然后我们费尽力气去检查,我们发现了问题,却还是在此基础上将错就错。

然而,掌握式教育的观念恰恰是就是,反其道而行之。与人为地限制,固定何时以及花多长时间学习某事,把结果按A、 B 、C 、D 、F 分级相反,不如让我们换另一种方式。学生之间的差异在于:每一个孩子何时学习,以及花多长时间学习某事的时间;而能保持不变的则是,他们都掌握了所学的知识。

我们必须意识到它的重要性,这样,不仅可以让学生更好地掌握指数函数,而且会养成一种正确的思维方式。这可以让他们意识到哪怕是他们答错了 20 %,这也不代表着他们天生就只有C 的水平,而只能说明他们还需要在继续努力。为了攻克学习上的难关,你要坚持不懈、迎难而上,满腹热情。

现在,很多怀疑者可能会说,这套以掌握为目的学习方式,以及与之相关联的思维方式,可以让学生积极克服学习中的障碍。从理论的角度而言,的确不错。这听起来很有道理,但不太实际。

要实现这一点,每个学生都必须遵循自己的学习进度,必须有个性化的教学方式,一对一辅导和有针对性的练习题。这就不是什么新观念了,在100年前的伊利诺伊州、温内特卡市就有这样的实践:他们在那里实践了这种以掌握为目的的教学,成果很显著

但是,他们说,这很难大面积推广,毕竟可行性太低了。老师要对每个学生的练习题给出不同的分数,给出个体不同的需求评价。

如今,这已不再是空想,我们有了辅助工具。学生可以根据自己的时间和进度寻求解答。也有基于他们需求的这类视频。他们需要练习吗?需要反馈吗?他们很容易就能找到适应性的练习。

当万事俱备的时候,就会出现良性循环。首先,学生能够真正掌握知识;此外,还能培养他们的积极性,建立勇气和不屈不挠的精神,他们会对学习产生热情。在实际的课堂中,一切也能逐步走上正轨。学生们之间可以进行更多学习上的互动,而不必拘泥于专心听讲。他们能够更加深入地去掌握知识。他们能够模拟苏格拉底式对话。

 

一个思维方式

(思维小实验:400年前的西欧 vs. 现在当下)
为了强化这一点,让大家体会无法激发潜能的遗憾,我想带大家进行一个思维小实验。

假设我们回到400年前的西欧,在当时就已经是地球上文明最发达的地区之一。你会发现,大概有15%的人识字。当你去询问一个识字的人,比如一个神职人员:“你认为,大概有多少人有识字的能力呢?”

他们也许会说:“嗯,基于这强大的教育体系,大概有个20%或30%吧。”

但如果你快进到当下,我们会发现,那样的预测实在太悲观了,现在几乎人人识字。但是,当我问你们一个类似的问题:“你们认为,总人口中有多少是真正掌握微积分的,或是真正懂有机化学的,或是有能力为癌症研究作出贡献的呢?”

你们中的很多会回答:“嗯,基于这强大的教育体系,大概有个20%或30%吧。”

但是,假如那些判断仅仅是基于你们“非掌握体系”的个人经验,是基于你们的自身经历,或仅是对周围人的观察而已呢?或是基于被迫跟从的课堂进度,不断积累漏洞的情况呢?

即使掌握了95%的知识,那剩下的5%呢?漏洞持续积累,等到你到了高等课堂,突然碰壁,然后你们说:“我生来就不是个癌症研究人员,我不是做物理学家的料,我当不了数学家。”我认为,这就是现实情况。

但是,当我们能够从掌握知识的视角去审视,从培养学习动力的角度来看,当我们做错题目的时候,我们把这种失败当作学习的一部分坦然接受,那真正掌握微积分,或者有机化学的人数比例就会接近100%了。

而其意义并不仅仅在于锦上添花。我认为 这是社会进化的必然过程 。用你们的话来说, 我们正处于一个工业时代,我们正在进入信息革命的时代。很明确的是,一些变化正在发生。

工业时代,社会是一个金字塔。在金字塔底端,我们需要的是人力。在金字塔中间,我们需要处理信息,所以有官僚特权阶层,等到了顶端,就会是那些资本家、企业家、还有智囊团队。

但当我们进入信息革命的那一刻,我们就知道将要发生什么事了。在金字塔底端,自动化将取代人力。甚至中间层信息处理的这一段,计算机做的都比他们好

所以对一个社会而言,我们有一个问题:科技带来的这些新生产力,是谁参与其中呢?是不是只有处于金字塔顶端的人,而其他人都置身事外?他们会如何操作?或者,我们是否要从事更加远大的事业呢?我们是否真的愿意尝试去倒转金字塔,让创新人群起主导作用呢,让每个人都可以成为企业家、艺术家,或是研究人员呢?  

我并不认为这仅仅是空想,我认为,这一切都建立在一个理念之上,就是:如果,我们能够借由掌握概念,挖掘学生的学习热情,激发他们的学习潜力,他们就能够达成目标当你想到自己置身于这种理想环境, 其实是很让人激动的一件事。 想象一下我们所能拥有的那种平等, 想象文明所能达到的那种境界。

对此,我充满信心。我认为这个时刻将令人无比激动人心。

谢谢!

 

演讲全文(英文):

I’m here today to talk about the two ideas that, at least based onmy observations at Khan Academy, are kind of the core, or the key leveragepoints for learning. And it’s the idea of mastery and the idea of mindset.

I saw this in the early days working with my cousins. A lot of themwere having trouble with math at first, because they had all of these gapsaccumulated in their learning. And because of that, at some point they got toan algebra class and they might have been a little bit shaky on some of thepre-algebra, and because of that, they thought they didn’t have the math gene.Or they’d get to a calculus class, and they’d be a little bit shaky on thealgebra. I saw it in the early days when I was uploading some of those videoson YouTube, and I realized that people who were not my cousins werewatching.

And at first, those comments were just simple thank-yous. I thoughtthat was a pretty big deal. I don’t know how much time you all spend onYouTube. Most of the comments are not “Thank you.”

They’re a little edgier than that. But then the comments got alittle more intense, student after student saying that they had grown up notliking math. It was getting difficult as they got into more advanced mathtopics. By the time they got to algebra, they had so many gaps in theirknowledge they couldn’t engage with it. They thought they didn’t have the mathgene. But when they were a bit older, they took a little agency and decided toengage. They found resources like Khan Academy and they were able to fill inthose gaps and master those concepts, and that reinforced their mindset that itwasn’t fixed; that they actually were capable of learning mathematics.

And in a lot of ways, this is how you would master a lot of thingsin life. It’s the way you would learn a martial art. In a martial art, youwould practice the white belt skills as long as necessary, and only when you’vemastered it you would move on to become a yellow belt. It’s the way you learn amusical instrument: you practice the basic piece over and over again, and onlywhen you’ve mastered it, you go on to the more advanced one.

But what we point out — this is not the way a traditional academicmodel is structured, the type of academic model that most of us grew up in. Ina traditional academic model, we group students together, usually by age, andaround middle school, by age and perceived ability, and we shepherd them alltogether at the same pace. And what typically happens, let’s say we’re in amiddle school pre-algebra class, and the current unit is on exponents, theteacher will give a lecture on exponents, then we’ll go home, do some homework.The next morning, we’ll review the homework, then another lecture, homework,lecture, homework. That will continue for about two or three weeks, and then weget a test. On that test, maybe I get a 75 percent, maybe you get a 90 percent,maybe you get a 95 percent. And even though the test identified gaps in ourknowledge, I didn’t know 25 percent of the material. Even the A student, whatwas the five percent they didn’t know?

Even though we’ve identified the gaps, the whole class will thenmove on to the next subject, probably a more advanced subject that’s going tobuild on those gaps. It might be logarithms or negative exponents. And thatprocess continues, and you immediately start to realize how strange this is. Ididn’t know 25 percent of the more foundational thing, and now I’m being pushedto the more advanced thing. And this will continue for months, years, all theway until at some point, I might be in an algebra class or trigonometry class and I hit a wall.And it’s not because algebra is fundamentally difficult or because the studentisn’t bright. It’s because I’m seeing an equation and they’re dealing withexponents and that 30 percent that I didn’t know is showing up. And then Istart to disengage.

To appreciate how absurd that is, imagine if we did other things inour life that way. Say, home-building.

So we bring in the contractor and say, “We were told we havetwo weeks to build a foundation. Do what you can.”

So they do what they can. Maybe it rains. Maybe some of the suppliesdon’t show up. And two weeks later, the inspector comes, looks around, says,”OK, the concrete is still wet right over there, that part’s not quite upto code … I’ll give it an 80 percent.”

You say, “Great! That’s a C. Let’s build the firstfloor.”

Same thing. We have two weeks, do what you can, inspector shows up,it’s a 75 percent. Great, that’s a D-plus. Second floor, third floor, and allof a sudden, while you’re building the third floor, the whole structurecollapses. And if your reaction is the reaction you typically have ineducation, or that a lot of folks have, you might say, maybe we had a badcontractor, or maybe we needed better inspection or more frequent inspection.But what was really broken was the process. We were artificially constraininghow long we had to something, pretty much ensuring a variable outcome, and we took the trouble ofinspecting and identifying those gaps, but then we built right on top ofit.

So the idea of mastery learning is to do the exact opposite. Insteadof artificially constraining, fixing when and how long you work on something,pretty much ensuring that variable outcome, the A, B, C, D, F — do it theother way around. What’s variable is when and how long a student actually hasto work on something, and what’s fixed is that they actually master the material.

And it’s important to realize that not only will this make thestudent learn their exponents better, but it’ll reinforce the right mindsetmuscles. It makes them realize that if you got 20 percent wrong on something,it doesn’t mean that you have a C branded in your DNA somehow. It means thatyou should just keep working on it. You should have grit; you should haveperseverance; you should take agency over your learning.

Now, a lot of skeptics might say, well, hey, this is all great,philosophically, this whole idea of mastery-based learning and its connectionto mindset, students taking agency over their learning. It makes a lot ofsense, but it seems impractical. To actually do it, every student would be ontheir own track. It would have to be personalized, you’d have to have privatetutors and worksheets for every student. And these aren’t new ideas — therewere experiments in Winnetka, Illinois, 100 years ago, where they didmastery-based learning and saw great results, but they said it wouldn’t scalebecause it was logistically difficult. The teacher had to give differentworksheets to every student, give on-demand assessments.

But now today, it’s no longer impractical. We have the tools to doit. Students see an explanation at their own time and pace? There’s on-demandvideo for that. They need practice? They need feedback? There’s adaptiveexercises readily available for students.

And when that happens, all sorts of neat things happen. One, thestudents can actually master the concepts, but they’re also building theirgrowth mindset, they’re building grit, perseverance, they’re taking agency overtheir learning. And all sorts of beautiful things can start to happen in theactual classroom. Instead of it being focused on the lecture, students caninteract with each other. They can get deeper mastery over the material. Theycan go into simulations, Socratic dialogue.

To appreciate what we’re talking about and the tragedy of lostpotential here, I’d like to give a little bit of a thought experiment. If wewere to go 400 years into the past to Western Europe, which even then, was oneof the more literate parts of the planet, you would see that about 15 percentof the population knew how to read. And I suspect that if you asked someone whodid know how to read, say a member of the clergy, “What percentage of thepopulation do you think is even capable of reading?” They might say,”Well, with a great education system, maybe 20 or 30 percent.” But ifyou fast forward to today, we know that that prediction would have been wildlypessimistic, that pretty close to 100 percent of the population is capable ofreading. But if I were to ask you a similar question: “What percentage ofthe population do you think is capable of truly mastering calculus, or understandingorganic chemistry, or being able to contribute to cancer research?” A lotof you might say, “Well, with a great education system, maybe 20, 30percent.”

But what if that estimate is just based on your own experience in anon-mastery framework, your own experience with yourself or observing yourpeers, where you’re being pushed at this set pace through classes, accumulatingall these gaps? Even when you got that 95 percent, what was that five percentyou missed? And it keeps accumulating — you get to an advanced class, all of asudden you hit a wall and say, “I’m not meant to be a cancer researcher;not meant to be a physicist; not meant to be a mathematician.” I suspectthat that actually is the case, but if you were allowed to be operating in a masteryframework, if you were allowed to really take agency over your learning, andwhen you get something wrong, embrace it — view that failure as a moment oflearning — that number, the percent that could really master calculus orunderstand organic chemistry, is actually a lot closer to 100 percent.

And this isn’t even just a “nice to have.” I think it’s asocial imperative. We’re exiting what you could call the industrial age andwe’re going into this information revolution. And it’s clear that some thingsare happening. In the industrial age, society was a pyramid. At the base of thepyramid, you needed human labor. In the middle of the pyramid, you had aninformation processing, a bureaucracy class, and at the top of the pyramid, youhad your owners of capital and your entrepreneurs and your creative class. Butwe know what’s happening already, as we go into this information revolution.The bottom of that pyramid, automation, is going to take over. Even that middletier, information processing, that’s what computers are good at.

So as a society, we have a question: All this new productivity ishappening because of this technology, but who participates in it? Is it justgoing to be that very top of the pyramid, in which case, what does everyoneelse do? How do they operate? Or do we do something that’s more aspirational?Do we actually attempt to invert the pyramid, where you have a large creativeclass, where almost everyone can participate as an entrepreneur, an artist, asa researcher?

And I don’t think that this is utopian. I really think that this isall based on the idea that if we let people tap into their potential bymastering concepts, by being able to exercise agency over their learning, thatthey can get there. And when you think of it as just a citizen of the world,it’s pretty exciting. I mean, think about the type of equity we can we have,and the rate at which civilization could even progress. And so, I’m prettyoptimistic about it. I think it’s going to be a pretty exciting time to bealive.

Thank you.

 

原文来源:TED、网络

 

版权所有,转载请注明作者与出处:领先课件指南 » 可汗演讲有感:以掌握为目的的教学

分享到:更多 ()

评论 抢沙发

  • 昵称 (必填)
  • 邮箱 (必填)
  • 网址

课件制作培训,我们更专业

了解详情