Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Sal Khan't: On Learning by Making but Teaching by Telling

punyamishra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: Why Sal Khan't: On Learning by Making but Teaching by Telling

#21

Post by foxglacier »

blagie wrote: post #14
fullshark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree and the hype surrounding his efforts was something much greater than what KahnAcademy actually is (a very useful resource). He sold his vision in "The One World Schoolhouse" which was essentially global learning via all the best videos (and one unified curriculum) you can make and teachers effectively being technicians/teaching assistants. It was the vision that utopian minded technologists craved in th…

It's not a bad idea in concept, but the core problem is what he delivered was: "essentially global learning via all the Khan videos, in math, by him, and in other subjects, by his team." Khan Academy is 2010-era state-of-the-art for rote learning and procedural knowledge. That's a helpful resource, but as one world schoolhouse, there is: - No room for creativity, or much of anything similar from students (outside of…

Creativity isn't learning, it's the application of learning, and that's not what school is for. There has always been value in somebody showing you how to apply a math technique and practicing using it to solve problems. It's not creative but it gives us the skills to do useful things in the world - including creative things. Even pure rote learning (such as reciting the periodic table) is useful so you can later draw on that knowledge without interrupting your attention on the higher level thinking (such as creativity!) that you're doing.

Re: Why Sal Khan't: On Learning by Making but Teaching by Telling

#22

Post by dprkh »

homieg33 wrote: post #19
jbstack wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Side note, but much as I like Khan Academy overall, I've always struggled with Sal's slow and repetitive speaking style in the videos. "Now you add the five ... [pause] ... add the five ... add the five to the seven ... to the seven..." Running them at 1.5 - 2x helps a bit, but it's still annoying to the point that I find it very distracting.

This is exactly what my kid said about why he doesn’t like Kahn academy.

What would you recommend over khan academy?

Re: Why Sal Khan't: On Learning by Making but Teaching by Telling

#23

Post by jbstack »

wafflemaker wrote: post #7
jbstack wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Side note, but much as I like Khan Academy overall, I've always struggled with Sal's slow and repetitive speaking style in the videos. "Now you add the five ... [pause] ... add the five ... add the five to the seven ... to the seven..." Running them at 1.5 - 2x helps a bit, but it's still annoying to the point that I find it very distracting.

OTOH creating neural connections takes time. It's a real distance. Small for us, but great for the cells. That's why explaining difficult concepts too fast, while cool for people getting things instantly, is not good for general population.

There's a difference between pacing (good), and repetitive speech (bad). Between pacing and repetitive speech.

Re: Why Sal Khan't: On Learning by Making but Teaching by Telling

#24

Post by jknoepfler »

blagie wrote: post #15
wafflemaker wrote: post #9

Is the article about something else than how math on Khan Academy was thaught? I remember minimal videos (3-13 min, usually 5-8), and then exercises drilling the techniques until you understand it and don't make mistakes. If you got a perfect score (no mistakes whatsoever), you went a little faster. That's learning by doing, or am I wrong? Or are there no exercises for things other than math?

You are wrong in understanding the article. Khan: Videos + rote exercises Learning: Projects, complex problem-solving, exploration, argumentation, etc. Dewey is worth reading.

Particularly in early mathematics and language acquisition (but also in most learning domains) you need both rote learning and exploratory learning. Fundamental concepts + exercises to build muscle memory are foundational to enabling students to participate fruitfully in meaningful projects, complex problem-solving, exploration and argumentation.

If you're flailing around without having memorized basic trigonometric identities, you're going to struggle severely to apply them to classical mechanics. If you can't do basic matrix multiplication, you're not going to build a graphics engine.

The article tries to damn Khan with an example about probing how neural myelination works. If you understand the foundations of electricity (by learning about capacitance and impedance) and have done some grueling foundational learning in organic chemistry, ready answers might spring to your mind. You need the former to make asking the latter fruitful or meaningful.

Khan deliberately uses the term "scaffolding" - which since we're throwing around dead education theorists harks from Vygotsky - which is precisely what a teacher provides by pantomiming elementary concepts for a child. Ultimately the child needs to internalize these basics to succeed in more complex projects with a sense of independence.

I really don't understand this article. Two things can be true at once.

Re: Why Sal Khan't: On Learning by Making but Teaching by Telling

#25

Post by bee_rider »

rhdunn wrote: post #5
skulk wrote: post #3

Overall, I do agree with the thesis but: > Now… how does Sal Khan want my kid to learn? > Watch a video. I find this a little uncharitable. I learned a lot of math at a young age from Sal Khan's early videos (back when he used to erase by switching to a black pen and scribbling across the entire screen) and, to put it in the author's terms, it served as an easy-to-digest scaffolding on top of which to build a deeper…

My understanding is that the idea behind Khanacademy is to switch the classroom -- learn a topic as homework; do the questions in the classroom. That way the teacher can assess (and help) the students. The other idea is that a student only advances to the next topic once they've mastered the current topic (e.g. by getting 4/5 questions right). The theory behind this is that if you don't understand a concept/topic the…

The idea of Mastery Learning seems to resurface every couple decades. I guess because it pretty appealing but requires more per-student customization; there’s always a hope that now, finally, we’ve got the tech to let everyone advance at their own pace.

IDK. Maybe some sort of RAG-on-textbook solution will let us do it.

Re: Why Sal Khan't: On Learning by Making but Teaching by Telling

#26

Post by jbstack »

dprkh wrote: post #22
homieg33 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what my kid said about why he doesn’t like Kahn academy.

What would you recommend over khan academy?

I've not tried it myself, but I consistently hear good things about Math Academy. It uses a knowledge graph so that it knows whether you've satisfied prerequisites for a topic, and it adapts itself to your level. I've never taken the plunge because it's very expensive at $49 a month, but it seems to be the one that serious maths learners use.

I did the trial of Brilliant the other day. You can get 7 days free, then another 7 days added if you cancel the first trial before the end. After that you can continue to get 2 free lessons per day with ads. I think it's about $20 a month for unlimited lessons. The maths problems are more visual (which makes them quite intuitive) and it has a nicer, more polished UI than Khan Academy. It's easier to stay in the mood for doing more lessons. The main downsides compared to Khan are that the explanations are quite minimal (short descriptions, no videos), and it doesn't reach as advanced a level as Khan. I'm looking at it as more a way to do a refresher on the maths I already learned at school rather than a serious learning tool. If it were $5 a month I'd probably consider subbing for a couple of months and trying to blitz through all the material before switching back to Khan to fill in the gaps.

Re: Why Sal Khan't: On Learning by Making but Teaching by Telling

#27

Post by sudo_cowsay »

I have been using Khan Academy for over 7 years growing up. It has helped tremendously and taught me to be a critical thinker. There are exercises, quizzes, and unit tests to test a student's understanding and if they get something wrong, KA marks what videos or articles they should go back to and review. I agree with one of the commenters here, this article is uncharitable.

Re: Why Sal Khan't: On Learning by Making but Teaching by Telling

#29

Post by kamranjon »

wafflemaker wrote: post #9

Is the article about something else than how math on Khan Academy was thaught? I remember minimal videos (3-13 min, usually 5-8), and then exercises drilling the techniques until you understand it and don't make mistakes. If you got a perfect score (no mistakes whatsoever), you went a little faster. That's learning by doing, or am I wrong? Or are there no exercises for things other than math?

Yeah the article feels as though its describing Khan Academy from 10 or more years ago - it is quite odd.

"What he has never had is pedagogical knowledge: an understanding of how people learn, what motivates them, what makes the difference between someone who pushes through difficulty and someone who types “IDK.”"

It is almost as though the author thinks that Khan Academy is an organization of 1, and that they don't employ learning scientists and have a content team and don't publish research papers in the learning science field.

Re: Why Sal Khan't: On Learning by Making but Teaching by Telling

#30

Post by rzz3 »

It feels weird and unfair to focus solely on Kahn here when he’s competing with some random teacher or professor’s droning, confusing, non-interactive lecture that’s less engaging and just as lacking in interactivity or application.

I also don’t think he ever purports to be “all you need” to learn.

It reminds me of the people who criticize Duolingo because you can’t actually reach perfect fluency through their app--like wasn’t it always obvious that it was never meant to be the only education you need; wasn’t it always obvious that you need to actually _speak_ a language to learn it? And yet it’s still a great app that has helped millions of people learn languages.

Post reply on HN