I think this is a great idea, and thank you for actually investing in this! No doubt it will effect some very positive changes, especially in Sal’s earlier videos.

However, I disagree that the original video was “poor lecturing”. He very clearly outlined the 4 possible situations when multiplying two numbers, and what the result will be. His goals when he originally made that video were merely different than what some people WANTED his goals to be.

I think there’s a fundamental difference in what some people THINK Khan Academy is versus what its mission actually is. Khan Academy is no short-term project, and more importantly, it is entirely open source and largely community driven.

It really disappoints me to see some educators attack KA as if it’s supposed to be a finished product. The kind of criticism in MTT2K and this contest will absolutely be useful and positive, but talking about “KA should be grateful to these two guys… they gave up their time for free proofreading and peer review” or “Oh hey I hear he’s Bill’s favorite teacher, LOL” does nothing to contribute to the discussion.

psst…James Tanton’s name is misspelled on Justin’s post. Posting here since I have to login on the other site.

I’m looking forward to posting an entry!
It’s very easy to sit back and complain or point out flaws, but it doesn’t solve anything. MTT2K is a great opportunity to be part of the solution or a way to help many students. Thanks for the opportunity!

I find the almost fanatical attempts to fend off criticism of Sal Khan and his product bizarre. He’s put himself in the position of “revolutionizing” mathematics education (and education in general). I’ve yet to see him beg off on all the praise that’s been heaped upon him. He’s spouted off on his educational ideas and his views of “the competition.” He is now, truly, a public figure. And so from any angle I can think of, he’s fully deserving of criticism, as is any and every example of his work.

I do not find the retort, “Can you do better?” a valid response to a critique. It is not the responsibility of those doing critical analysis (and the word “critical” here does not have to mean “negative commentary; if it does to any given person’s mind, however, I hope such readers will substitute the more neutral “evaluate,” “evaluation,” or “evaluative,” as appropriate), to come up with a better product, though that option is open to them if they choose to try. Literary critics are not expected to produce better works of literature than those they analyze, or, in fact, any works of literature at all. True, the late American poet, Charles Olson, wrote CALL ME ISHMAEL and created a critical and biographical work of such literary brilliance as to perhaps have defined an entirely new genre. But there aren’t a lot of Charles Olsons out there. If critics have to be able to “do better,” before they’re allowed to weigh in, that would be a VERY convenient way for Sal Khan and his big fans to minimize the negative commentary that continues to grow regarding his work. But guess what? They don’t get to make the rules.

I think doing a MSTie send-up of Khan is perfectly reasonable. I expect that there will be some excellent things coming out of this challenge. If no one who offers up a critique goes on to create a “counter-video” that gives a concrete example of how to do better, that won’t matter one bit. The profession of mathematics teaching will still be well-served by starting the conversations that no doubt will ensue. And others will learn from those dialogues, leading no doubt to improved lessons, whether on-line, in classrooms, or both. And that’s what we need much more of. Mediocre how-to math videos are a drug on the market already.

Need one frame him/herself a “constructivist” to critique a KA vid?

Does being polite generally mean one’s message will gain credibility or attention? Sal’s not all that polite about other approaches if you hear his talks. Again, I wonder how he’s gotten the leverage to set the rules of the public conversation about anything.

Bit of hypocrisy here, no? Posts in support of KA get warnings of deletion since they are “off topic”, but posts criticizing it get complimented since they are “on point”. I hope at least my email found its way to your inbox Dan.

Anyway, @David – The thing is that if we teach people just procedures, we’re teaching them stuff that is already worthless (well, okay, addition/multiplication still have some value) since computers can do it better. If special needs students can only understand procedural teaching as we are teaching it now, that means we need to get better at teaching it. What’s the point, otherwise?

@Doug – I don’t think tone’s going to matter all that much. The people who have watched MTT2k, and those who will watch the results of this competition, are the ones who want to improve the state of education in any context. Doing so requires an open mind and enough of a thick skin to not take satire personally ;) Plus it might garner more entries and some deeper insight into what makes KA’s older approach good/bad.

As far as procedural learning is concerned, does anyone have a research paper connecting procedural to conceptual learning of math? My intuitive sense is that learning procedure first makes understanding the concepts behind it easier, but that teaching the concepts first is much more engaging and interesting. Also, to be honest it feels to me like the conceptual aspects of many parts of math are just “one more thing to memorize” unless you actually plan to go into theoretical mathematics later on. E.g., you can develop an intuitive sense of why a negative times a negative is a positive without having a formal definition or go-to explanation. Incoming flames?

@David Ng, thank you for sharing your observations. The instruction I have seen in my district and my children’s district is also overwhelmingly procedural — despite both districts using texts that are popular with the constructivists for K-8.

I think a lot of the reason that constructivism has not taken hold is that many education professionals and teachers have an extremely superficial view of constructivism. It would help if more people looked carefully enough to recognize that the vast majority of US lessons are essentially procedural — whether they are straight lecture, or have been slightly disguised by group work or investigations or brief questioning. Looking at the details of Khan’s lectures is a good start for taking a more nuanced look at lessons in general.

@mr Bombastic I like the idea of using KA videos to spark lesson study discussions.

@David Ng I would like to see some of your conceptual models. Have you or Will you be posting them on your website?

My thoughts on why constructivist education gets the short shrift is two fold:

1st it requires a degree of understand mathematics conceptually and connected to real life that many teachers don’t have. (Illinois endorsement in middle school math is I think 15 semester hours which for some means nothing more than calculus) [There is also no requirement to review/relearn conceptual understanding of math as part of professional development]

2nd professional support for constructivist education is usually based on collaboration something many teachers don’t seem to do very well.

Finally, to get on the point. It is not necessary for humor to be mean spirited, some might even say it shouldn’t. On the other hand I think the original video needed to be a bit scathing to gain attention of a wider audience. (look nobody was paying attention to valid critiques so let’s make fun of the videos and show people there are serious flaws that should be addressed.) It has done that job. Future constructive criticism delivered with humor should result in positive gains.

Videos that ask questions of the watcher, and require thinking are far superior, I suspect, than videos which provide “the” correct solution.

It’s difficult to make a statement like this without context. Are the students in a situation where some outside impetus forces them to answer the questions?

One of my frustrations making my own videos is how to convince students to actually attempt the questions. I tried in my logarithm video to include an icon at the same time as asking students to pause, but I have grave doubts any students really did so. Alternately, one could put a question at the end and have no answer provided in video form, but even given some students bother to attempt the problem how many will bother to check their answer?

Your response might be “they need a teacher to remediate”, but the whole point of Khan etc. is for students to be able to learn things without a physical teacher present. Khan’s solution is to then include electronically graded exercises to repeat a particular algorithm. (There’s some experimental stuff to go with the Brit Cruise videos, but that’s a very small portion of the site.) Clearly something is missing here, and I have trouble simply accepting the statement “good self-instruction is impossible”.

I get the sense that since Dan Meyer has done nothing but criticize KA since the very beginning, this MTTK Prize is simply a way to criticize in the guise of altruism.

“Look at the good we’re doing, helping the children of the world by creating overly sarcastic critiques of someone who had an idea and ran with it. ”

Please. KA is a work in progress. If you can create something better, do it and let people decide which product they want.