I'm here today to talk about the two ideas that, at least based on my observations at Khan Academy, are kind of the core, or the key leverage points for learning. And it's the idea of mastery and the idea of mindset.
Saya di sini hari ini untuk bercakap mengenai dua idea iaitu, berdasarkan pemerhatian saya di Khan Academy, menjadi tunjang atau perkara utama dalam pembelajaran. Iaitu idea tentang penguasaan dan idea tentang pola fikiran.
I saw this in the early days working with my cousins. A lot of them were having trouble with math at first, because they had all of these gaps accumulated in their learning. And because of that, at some point they got to an algebra class and they might have been a little bit shaky on some of the pre-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 the algebra. I saw it in the early days when I was uploading some of those videos on YouTube, and I realized that people who were not my cousins were watching.
Saya nampak ketika mula bekerja bekerja dengan sepupu saya. Awalnya, ramai yang alami masalah dengan matematik, kerana mereka ada jurang terkumpul dari pembelajaran mereka. Dan kerana itu, ketika mereka masuk ke satu kelas algebra dan mereka mungkin sedikit goyah pada beberapa asas algebra, dan kerana itu, mereka ingat mereka tiada gen matematik. Atau mereka masuk kelas kalkulus, dan mereka sedikit goyah dengan algebra. Saya nampak ketika mula-mula saya muat naik beberapa video ke YouTube, dan menyedari orang selain sepupu saya sedang menonton.
(Laughter)
(Ketawa)
And at first, those comments were just simple thank-yous. I thought that was a pretty big deal. I don't know how much time you all spend on YouTube. Most of the comments are not "Thank you."
Pada mulanya, komen adalah hanya ucapan ringkas terima kasih. Saya rasa ianya perkara besar. Saya tak tahu berapa lama anda tonton YouTube Kebanyakan komen bukannya “Terima kasih.”
(Laughter)
(Ketawa)
They're a little edgier than that. But then the comments got a little more intense, student after student saying that they had grown up not liking math. It was getting difficult as they got into more advanced math topics. By the time they got to algebra, they had so many gaps in their knowledge they couldn't engage with it. They thought they didn't have the math gene. But when they were a bit older, they took a little agency and decided to engage. They found resources like Khan Academy and they were able to fill in those gaps and master those concepts, and that reinforced their mindset that it wasn't fixed; that they actually were capable of learning mathematics.
Mereka lebih kasar dari itu. Tapi bila komen mula jadi lebih tegang, satu demi satu pelajar berkata mereka membesar tak suka matematik. Ia jadi makin susah bila masuk topik matematik lebih tinggi. Bila mereka sampai ke algebra, ada terlalu banyak jurang pengetahuan yang tidak dapat difahami. Mereka fikir mereka tiada gen matematik. Tapi bila mereka lebih dewasa, mereka memutuskan untuk cuba semula. Jumpa sumber seperti Khan Academy dan mampu mengisi jurang itu dan kuasai konsep itu, dan kukuhkan minda mereka yang anggapan bukan tetap; mereka boleh mempelajari matematik.
And in a lot of ways, this is how you would master a lot of things in life. It's the way you would learn a martial art. In a martial art, you would practice the white belt skills as long as necessary, and only when you've mastered it you would move on to become a yellow belt. It's the way you learn a musical instrument: you practice the basic piece over and over again, and only when you've mastered it, you go on to the more advanced one.
Dalam banyak cara, beginilah cara anda menguasai banyak perkara dalam hidup. Cara anda guna belajar seni mempertahankan diri. Dalam seni bela diri, anda berlatih tahap tali pinggang putih selama mana diperlukan, dan hanya selepas menguasainya baru bergerak ke tali pinggang kuning. Ia cara belajar alat muzik: anda berlatih bahagian asas berulang-ulang, dan hanya selepas menguasainya, anda pindah ke yang lebih sukar.
But what we point out -- this is not the way a traditional academic model is structured, the type of academic model that most of us grew up in. In a traditional academic model, we group students together, usually by age, and around middle school, by age and perceived ability, and we shepherd them all together at the same pace. And what typically happens, let's say we're in a middle school pre-algebra class, and the current unit is on exponents, the teacher 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 we get 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 our knowledge, I didn't know 25 percent of the material. Even the A student, what was the five percent they didn't know?
Tapi apa kami tunjukkan -- bukan cara model akademik tradisional dibangunkan, jenis model akademik kebanyakan kita dibesarkan. Dalam model akademik tradisional, pelajar dikumpul bersama, selalunya mengikut usia, dan sekolah menengah, ikut usia dan kebolehan yang dijangka, dan kita kendalikan mereka semua pada kadar yang sama. Dan kebiasaan yang berlaku, katakan kita di kelas pra algebra sekolah menengah, dan unit sekarang adalah eksponen, guru akan mengajar eksponen, dan kita balik, buat kerja sekolah. Esoknya, kita periksa kerja sekolah, mengajar, kerja sekolah, mengajar, kerja sekolah. Ini berterusan dua atau tiga minggu, kemudian ada ujian. Ujian itu, mungkin saya dapat 75 peratus, mungkin awak dapat 90 peratus, mungkin awak dapat 95 peratus, Dan dari ujian dikenalpasti jurang dalam pengetahuan kita, Saya tidak tahu 25 peratus kandungannya. Untuk pelajar A, apakah lima peratus yang mereka tidak tahu?
Even though we've identified the gaps, the whole class will then move on to the next subject, probably a more advanced subject that's going to build on those gaps. It might be logarithms or negative exponents. And that process continues, and you immediately start to realize how strange this is. I didn't know 25 percent of the more foundational thing, and now I'm being pushed to the more advanced thing. And this will continue for months, years, all the way 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 student isn't bright. It's because I'm seeing an equation and they're dealing with exponents and that 30 percent that I didn't know is showing up. And then I start to disengage.
Walaupun kita mengenalpasti jurang, seluruh kelas akan bergerak ke subjek seterusnya, mungkin subjek lebih sukar yang akan membina lagi jurang itu. Ia mungkin logaritma atau eksponen negatif. Dan proses berterusan, dan kamu serta merta akan dapati ianya pelik. Saya tak tahu 25 peratus perkara yang lebih asas, sekarang dipaksa kepada perkara yang lebih sukar. Dan ini berterusan berbulan, tahun, hingga sampai satu masa, saya mungkin dalam kelas algebra atau trigonometri dan saya tersekat. Ia bukan kerana algebra secara asasnya sukar atau pelajar tidak cerdik. Kerana saya lihat satu persamaan yang melibatkan eksponen dan 30 peratus yang saya tidak tahu telah muncul. Dan saya mula hilang tumpuan.
To appreciate how absurd that is, imagine if we did other things in our life that way. Say, home-building.
Untuk mendalami betapa tidak munasabahnya, bayangkan kita buat perkara lain dalam hidup seperti itu. Katakan, membina rumah.
(Laughter)
(Ketawa)
So we bring in the contractor and say, "We were told we have two weeks to build a foundation. Do what you can."
Jadi kita bawa kontraktor dan cakap, “Kami diberitahu ada dua minggu untuk bina tapak. Buat apa yang boleh.”
(Laughter)
(Ketawa)
So they do what they can. Maybe it rains. Maybe some of the supplies don'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 up to code ... I'll give it an 80 percent."
Jadi mereka buat apa yang boleh. Mungkin hujan turun. Mungkin ada bekalan tidak sampai. Dan dua minggu kemudian, pemeriksa datang, lihat sekeliling, cakap, “OK, konkrit masih lembap di sana, bahagian itu tak menepati kod ... Saya bagi 80 peratus.”
(Laughter)
(Ketawa)
You say, "Great! That's a C. Let's build the first floor."
Awak cakap, “Bagus! Itu C. Mari bina tingkat satu.”
(Laughter)
(Ketawa)
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 all of a sudden, while you're building the third floor, the whole structure collapses. And if your reaction is the reaction you typically have in education, or that a lot of folks have, you might say, maybe we had a bad contractor, or maybe we needed better inspection or more frequent inspection. But what was really broken was the process. We were artificially constraining how long we had to something, pretty much ensuring a variable outcome, and we took the trouble of inspecting and identifying those gaps, but then we built right on top of it.
Perkara sama. Kita ada dua minggu, buat apa yang boleh, pemeriksa datang, ianya 75 peratus. Bagus, itu D tambah. Tingkat dua, tingkat tiga, tiba-tiba, semasa bina tingkat tiga, seluruh struktur runtuh. Dan jika reaksi anda ialah reaksi biasa dalam pelajaran, atau reaksi kebanyakan orang, anda kata, mungkin kontraktor tak bagus, atau mungkin perlu perbaiki pemeriksaan atau lebih kerap periksa. Tapi apa yang salah sebenarnya proses itu. Kita dengan sengaja mengekang tempoh kita perlu lakukan sesuatu, memastikan satu keputusan berubah-ubah, dan kita berusaha memeriksa dan mengenalpasti jurang itu, tetapi kemudian kita bina di atasnya.
So the idea of mastery learning is to do the exact opposite. Instead of 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 the other way around. What's variable is when and how long a student actually has to work on something, and what's fixed is that they actually master the material.
Jadi idea pembelajaran kepakaran ialah melakukan sebaliknya. Berbanding dengan sengaja mengekang, membaiki bila dan tempoh bekerja pada sesuatu, memastikan keputusan berubah-ubah itu terjadi, A, B, C, D, F -- lakukan sebaliknya. Pembolehubahnya bila dan lama mana seorang pelajar perlu mempelajari sesuatu, dan yang tetap ialah mereka menguasai bahan itu.
And it's important to realize that not only will this make the student learn their exponents better, but it'll reinforce the right mindset muscles. 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 that you should just keep working on it. You should have grit; you should have perseverance; you should take agency over your learning.
Perkara penting untuk kita ketahui bukan saja ia menjadikan pelajar belajar eksponen lebih baik, tapi ia kuatkan otot pola fikiran yang betul. Ia buat mereka sedar jika salah 20 peratus pada sesuatu, ia tak bermakna kamu ada C dalam DNA kamu. Ia bermaksud kamu kena berusaha lebih lagi. Kamu kena ada kegigihan; kamu kena ada ketabahan; kamu kena berusaha untuk pembelajaran.
Now, a lot of skeptics might say, well, hey, this is all great, philosophically, this whole idea of mastery-based learning and its connection to mindset, students taking agency over their learning. It makes a lot of sense, but it seems impractical. To actually do it, every student would be on their own track. It would have to be personalized, you'd have to have private tutors and worksheets for every student. And these aren't new ideas -- there were experiments in Winnetka, Illinois, 100 years ago, where they did mastery-based learning and saw great results, but they said it wouldn't scale because it was logistically difficult. The teacher had to give different worksheets to every student, give on-demand assessments.
Sekarang, ramai skeptik berkata, hei, ini semua bagus, semua idea belajar berdasarkan kepakaran dan kaitannya dengan pola fikiran, pelajar ambil alih pembelajaran mereka. Ia masuk akal, tapi ia seperti tidak praktikal. Untuk melakukannya, semua pelajar kena berada dalam trek mereka sendiri. Ia perlu diperibadikan, kamu perlu ada tutor peribadi dan lembaran kerja untuk setiap murid. Dan ini bukan idea baru -- ada eksperimen di in Winnetka, Illinois, 100 tahun lalu. belajar berdasarkan kepakaran dan dapat keputusan bagus. tapi mereka kata tidak boleh diperluas kerana kekangan logistik. Guru perlu beri lembaran kerja berlainan untuk setiap pelajar, penilaian atas permintaan.
But now today, it's no longer impractical. We have the tools to do it. Students see an explanation at their own time and pace? There's on-demand video for that. They need practice? They need feedback? There's adaptive exercises readily available for students.
Tapi sekarang, ia tidak lagi tidak praktikal. Kita ada alat melakukannya. Pelajar lihat penjelasan ikut masa dan kadar mereka? Ada video atas permintaan. Mereka perlu latihan? Perlu maklum balas? Ada latihan penyesuaian tersedia untuk pelajar.
And when that happens, all sorts of neat things happen. One, the students can actually master the concepts, but they're also building their growth mindset, they're building grit, perseverance, they're taking agency over their learning. And all sorts of beautiful things can start to happen in the actual classroom. Instead of it being focused on the lecture, students can interact with each other. They can get deeper mastery over the material. They can go into simulations, Socratic dialogue.
Dan bila ini terjadi, semua perkara bagus berlaku. Satu, pelajar boleh menguasai konsep, tapi juga membentuk pola fikiran membina, mereka pupuk kegigihan, ketabahan, mereka ambil alih pembelajaran mereka. Dan banyak perkara indah akan mula terjadi dalam kelas sebenar. Daripada hanya fokus kepada syarahan, pelajar boleh berinteraksi bersama. Mereka boleh lebih menguasai kandungannya Mereka boleh guna simulasi. Dialog Socrates.
To appreciate what we're talking about and the tragedy of lost potential here, I'd like to give a little bit of a thought experiment. If we were to go 400 years into the past to Western Europe, which even then, was one of the more literate parts of the planet, you would see that about 15 percent of the population knew how to read. And I suspect that if you asked someone who did know how to read, say a member of the clergy, "What percentage of the population do you think is even capable of reading?" They might say, "Well, with a great education system, maybe 20 or 30 percent." But if you fast forward to today, we know that that prediction would have been wildly pessimistic, that pretty close to 100 percent of the population is capable of reading. But if I were to ask you a similar question: "What percentage of the population do you think is capable of truly mastering calculus, or understanding organic chemistry, or being able to contribute to cancer research?" A lot of you might say, "Well, with a great education system, maybe 20, 30 percent."
Untuk hargai perkara yang dibincangkan dan tragedi potensi yang akan hilang di sini, saya mahu memberi satu eksperimen pemikiran. Jika kita kembali 400 tahun ke Eropah Barat, yang ketika itu, salah satu bahagian paling celik huruf, anda akan lihat hampir 15 peratus populasi tahu membaca. Dan saya syak jika anda tanya sesiapa yang tahu membaca, contoh seorang ahli gereja, “Berapa peratus populasi anda rasa boleh membaca?” Mereka mungkin kata, “Hmm, dengan sistem pelajaran yang bagus, mungkin 20 atau 30 peratus.” Tapi jika gerak ke masa kini, kita tahu ramalan itu sangat pesimis, iaitu hampir 100 peratus populasi boleh membaca. Tapi jika saya tanya kamu satu soalan sama: “Berapa peratus populasi kamu rasa mampu betul-betul menguasai kalkulus, atau memahami kimia organik, atau mampu menyumbang kepada penyelidikan kanser?” Ramai akan cakap, ”Hmm, dengan sistem pelajaran yang bagus, mungkin 20 atau 30 peratus.”
But what if that estimate is just based on your own experience in a non-mastery framework, your own experience with yourself or observing your peers, where you're being pushed at this set pace through classes, accumulating all these gaps? Even when you got that 95 percent, what was that five percent you missed? And it keeps accumulating -- you get to an advanced class, all of a sudden 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 suspect that that actually is the case, but if you were allowed to be operating in a mastery framework, if you were allowed to really take agency over your learning, and when you get something wrong, embrace it -- view that failure as a moment of learning -- that number, the percent that could really master calculus or understand organic chemistry, is actually a lot closer to 100 percent.
Bagaimana jika ramalan itu hanya berdasarkan pengalaman anda di dalam rangka kerja tanpa kepakaran, pengalaman diri sendiri atau memerhati rakan-rakan, di mana anda dipaksa ikut kadar dalam kelas, mengumpul semua jurang ini? Walaupun kamu dapat 95 peratus, apakah lima peratus kamu terlepas? Dan ia makin mengumpul -- kamu ke kelas lebih sukar, tiba-tiba kamu tak faham dan cakap, “Saya tak layak jadi penyelidik kanser; tak layak jadi doktor, tak layak jadi ahli matematik.” Saya rasa itu sebenarnya terjadi, tapi jika kamu dibenarkan beroperasi dalam rangka kerja kepakaran, jika kamu dibenarkan mengambil alih pembelajaran kamu, dan jika kamu buat kesilapan, terimanya -- lihat kegagalan itu satu detik pembelajaran -- yang nombor, peratusan yang boleh menguasai kalkulus atau memahami kimia organik, sebenarnya hampir kepada 100 peratus.
And this isn't even just a "nice to have." I think it's a social imperative. We're exiting what you could call the industrial age and we're going into this information revolution. And it's clear that some things are happening. In the industrial age, society was a pyramid. At the base of the pyramid, you needed human labor. In the middle of the pyramid, you had an information processing, a bureaucracy class, and at the top of the pyramid, you had your owners of capital and your entrepreneurs and your creative class. But we 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 middle tier, information processing, that's what computers are good at.
Dan ini bukan sekadar “elok untuk ada.” Saya rasa ianya kemestian sosial. Kita sedang keluar dari zaman perindustrian dan kita menuju ke revolusi maklumat. Jelas sesetengah perkara sedang berlaku. Di zaman perindustrian, masyarakat dalam piramid. Pada dasar piramid, perlukan tenaga manusia. Tengah piramid, ada pemprosesan maklumat, satu kelas birokrasi, dan puncak piramid, ada pemilik modal anda dan golongan usahawan dan golongan kelas kreatif. Tapi kita tahu yang terjadi sekarang, bila memasuki revolusi maklumat ini. Dasar piramid, automasi, mengambil alih. Malah peringkat tengah, pemprosesan maklumat, komputer menguasainya.
So as a society, we have a question: All this new productivity is happening because of this technology, but who participates in it? Is it just going to be that very top of the pyramid, in which case, what does everyone else 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 creative class, where almost everyone can participate as an entrepreneur, an artist, as a researcher?
Sebagai masyarakat, ada satu soalan: Semua produktiviti baru terjadi ini kerana teknologi ini, siapa yang menyertainya? Adakah yang di puncak piramid, jadi, apa yang orang lain buat? Bagaimana beroperasi? Atau kita buat sesuatu yang lebih bercita-cita tinggi? Adakah kita sebenarnya cuba menyongsangkan piramid, di mana ada kelas kreatif lebih besar, di mana hampir semua boleh menjadi usahawan, artis, penyelidik?
And I don't think that this is utopian. I really think that this is all based on the idea that if we let people tap into their potential by mastering concepts, by being able to exercise agency over their learning, that they 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 pretty optimistic about it. I think it's going to be a pretty exciting time to be alive.
Dan saya tak rasa ini utopia. Saya betul-betul rasa ini berdasarkan kepada idea jika kita beri orang manfaatkan potensi mereka dengan menguasai konsep, dengan benarkan ambil alih pembelajaran mereka, mereka boleh ke situ. Dan bila fikir sebagai seorang rakyat dunia, ianya sangat menarik. Maksudnya, fikir jenis ekuiti kita boleh ada, pada kadar tamadun boleh maju. Seterusnya, saya optimistik tentang ini. Saya fikir ia akan menjadi satu masa paling menarik untuk hidup.
Thank you.
Terima kasih.
(Applause)
(Tepukan)