The rapid pace of technological change is expected to continue to propel demand for highly skilled workers who can develop the new technologies and bring them to market and who can exploit the new technologies in the production of goods and services. Moreover, the transition to a knowledge-based economy continues to fuel demand for well-educated workers. Maintaining a high-skilled workforce is also a key component of U.S. comparative advantage in the world economy. Shifts in organizational forms and the nature of employment relationships, brought about by new technologies and global competition, also favor such high-level cognitive skills as abstract reasoning, problem-solving, communication, and collaboration, attributes associated with so-called “knowledge work.”

- “21st Century at Work: Forces Shaping the Future Workforce and Workplace in the United States”, RAND Report
by Lynn A. Karoly and Constantijn W. A. Panis”

Schools often claim that their main function is to prepare students for the work place. This belief has become so entrenched today that to have had an education is almost synonymous to have been prepared for work. I will not discuss here the concerns that I have with such an a belief. I am willing to assume, for the purpose of focusing this discussion, that this view that schools will prepare students for work, is valid.

However, assuming that the goal is valid is one thing but doing it is another. I started off this article with a quote from a RAND report on the future workforce and workplace in the US. I am also making the assumption that the conclusion made above is going to be relevant also for Asian countries like Singapore and Indonesia too.

The report claims that technology is going to continue to be a major driving force in shaping the kind of workplace and workforce of the future. Most school administrators and owners I think are able to accept the idea that technology is important today and for the future. But I believe many of them do not realize exactly how ICT is going to be used in the future workplace. For many of them, the extent of their readiness to prepare their students for such a workplace is to provide the computer hardware in the schools and to teach the students the “how-tos” of software (see my other postings on this blog).

What they neglected are the competencies or skills of such a workforce. If schools seriously claim that they prepare students for the future workplace, then they must take a serious look at the skills or competencies required by it. According to that conclusion made above by RAND, workers of the future need to be able to “who can develop the new technologies and bring them to market and who can exploit the new technologies in the production of goods and services.” Here, it is not only about inventing new technologies but also about using them so that they become part of a productive work environment that can bring about more wealth.

Furthermore, because of the new technologies and globalisation, the workers of the future workplace need “high-level cognitive skills as abstract reasoning, problem-solving, communication, and collaboration, attributes associated with so-called “knowledge work.” Government leaders in Singapore have repeatedly acknowledge this need for change. However, how often are these skills consciously taught or encouraged by teachers? Is the normal behavior seen in a classroom one where collaboration and communication is regarded as a highly-prized asset? Is abstract reasoning or rote-learning the norm in the classrooms? I believe that this is far from the case in most schools all over the world, including those in Singapore.

I suspect that teachers in the US are even more keenly facing this issue of what and how to teach. The “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) policy introduced by the Bush Administration, is forcing US schools to face high stakes examinations. As the US turns to high stakes examinations, we hear great unhappiness from the ground, and also from education experts about what is being sacrificed at the altar of examinations.

This has been the case for many years in Singapore. In recent years, there has been a surge Indonesia in the number of new schools offering high stakes international examinations. Many of these new schools in Indonesia try to emulate the school model that exists in SIngapore. Recently also Indonesia has made the sitting of the UASBN compulsory for the Sekolah Dasar or SD (Primary) level schools. While I can understand the reasons for the move towards high stakes examinations in Indonesia, it is important that it be proceeded with caution. The “Singapore model” with its heavy emphasis on high stakes examinations is often touted as the model to follow for Indonesia and is gaining in popularity with “Singapore-style” schools sprouting like mushrooms.

However, it is important for Indonesians to remember that in Singapore itself, the Ministry of Education (MOE) realizes that it cannot be sticking to the well-known “Singapore model”. In Singapore, the MOE is beginning to introduce different educational pathways for different students including those where students can skip taking the once unquestioned Singapore-Cambridge GCE O levels, whose equivalent examination is the IGCSE that is done in Indonesia in some international schools. The MOE in Singapore is also allowing schools to introduce the International Baccalaureate (IB). Although the IB is still a form of high stakes examination, it is generally considered to offer a more rigorous course that requires greater use of abstract thinking skills.

In addition to these abstract thinking skills, schools in Singapore must also get students to do more work of a collaborative nature where, to follow a co-operative learning principle, they sink or swim together. Where good individual academic performance is usually applauded, it should also applaud good collaborative academic performance. Perhaps even consider that good individual academic performance should not be prized as it has been traditionally. Students must be acclimatised to such an approach an attitude to “work” while in school. It is because schools are so lacking today in preparing such students that employers often lament the selfishness and the difficulty or inability of their new workers to work in teams. Therefore, in general, schools in Singapore and I am certain elsewhere in the world, do not really prepare their students for the future workplace despite all their claims to the contrary.

Another way of how ICT is being put to use inappropriately is when it is included as components of larger courses with little regard for its place in the bigger whole. This may come in two forms.

The first is commonly seen not only in Indonesia but also in Singapore as well. When schools hire external trainers to teach students the use of various software like DreamWeaver, CorelDraw and others, it is usually done for a few reasons. Firstly, it is done because parents clamor for the use of ICT in schools. For this reason, software courses are introduced as separate and ad hoc additions to the school activity. If asked why teach software, the usual answer would be that these software are useful for the students.

It is perhaps true that it may be good to learn something additional and in the name of “usefulness”. But how many of us have asked how useful it is really to teach primary and secondary school students specific software. Are the students going to use their knowledge of these software meaningfully once the course is over? Will the software be the same as what they will be using when they enter the work force which may be many years down the road which is the equivalent of several generations of software evolution?

It is true that the future work force should be ICT literate but is this the same as learning specific software at such an early age? Do the students need to know such in-depth knowledge of software at that point in time? They would if we are certain they are going to be professionals in some IT-related line. But are they? And even if they are, will they have to re-learn everything by the time they reach that age as the software and hardware will probably have changed by then? Would it be useful then for them when they enter the workforce?

The ICT literacy that is required by the future workforce is not about learning specific software. It is about being able to use ICT to connect and collaborate with all stakeholders, store and retrieve data and to seek new information.

The usefulness of teaching specific software is also questionable from another point of view. While it may be “good” to know something additional, to what extent should schools teach additional “good” things? We can go on and on for many other good things to be introduced to the school. But where do we draw the line as to what should be in the school’s agenda? A school must not be adding activities which have little relevance to its main agenda.

A second example of inappropriate use happens at the tertiary level. My son, who is attending a diploma course in accountancy at a local polytechnic, came home one day and said that part of the course requirement was that he had to build a web page using a specific web authoring tool (I won’t name which). He was really at a loss as to why he had to do that when he is doing a course in accountancy. He asked me if I knew how to use a certain web authoring tool. I told him no and I asked him why he needed to use that particular web authoring tool anyway to make a web page. He said that it was also a course requirement and he was not allowed to use another web authoring tool for that purpose.

He said that all his course mates had questioned the lecturer why such a project was needed. The answer was a flippant, “It is important for you to know.” The students clearly could not see the need for them to learn web page design, and to be done only with a specific software. While often students are not the best judges of what is needed in a course, I believe they are correct in thinking that way here.

It just does not make sense for accountancy students to be learning web page design. What is the relevance of it with regards to the main learning objectives of the course concerned? The lecturer told them that they may have to set up a web page themselves when they start work. This is similar to asking someone aspiring to be chef in a restaurant to be asked to do a computer programming component as part of his course requirement.

This is not the only example I have heard of. I know of someone else doing a diploma course on building and estate management being ask to do a computer programming project as part of the course requirement. He too is given the same reasoning when he asked why there is a need for such a component.

Such ridiculous and irrelevant course additions could be due to a few reasons. In both examples, what probably happened was that again the institutions concerned saw the need to show that their courses were keeping up with the times (read ICT development). Therefore, there must be an ICT component to the course. Furthermore, they had told parents that it was compulsory to buy laptops for their children who have enrolled in the polytechnic.

However, the ICT component would not be done by the department that is running the course. For example, if my son is doing an accountancy course, his course is probably run by the department running the business and accountancy courses and it is not the department responsible for developing the polytechnic’s ICT courses. The ICT component is therefore farmed out to the polytechnic’s ICT department. The ICT department would only be given some vague guidelines by the first department because they would not know much about ICT anyway. The ICT department would make some minor changes to an existing ICT course. Very little thought is given if the ICT component that is to be taught for accountancy students is relevant for them. It is probably the same as that for the Media or ICT department students. Come to think of it, I will not be surprised if it is the same for the whole polytechnic. To be fair to the ICT department, even if they ask the requesting department what aspect of ICT ought to be prepared for the ICT component, they will not be given a clear answer as the requesting department will not know what to tell them either since they are not trained ICT people. In such a scenario, it is not surprising then that students would find the ICT component irrelevant. I also wonder why the lecturers from the department running the business and accountancy department were unable to come up with an ICT course themselves since learning ICT is “definitely useful”, as they often claim.

They probably also insist on the students using a specific web authoring tool because that is the only one that the polytechnic has license to use. Never mind if it is not even the most widely used web authoring tool in the real world. Never mind if there are now lots of free and excellent applications on the web that allows you to set up very sophisticated web sites with all the e-commerce ability that you can think of. The important thing to the polytechnic is that, that is the web authoring tool that the polytechnic has a license for, so that will be the one that the students would have to use.

It seems that convenience is the only criteria used here for deciding on course component design. It is convenient to just pad a course with an ICT component that “does not need” much re-working of the course materials. At the same time, the polytechnic is seen as progressive and up-to-date. What about relevance? Who cares as long as we are in the IT Age!

Many educational institutions are in favor of incorporating the use of ICT in education. However, not many have a good understanding of the appropriate use ICT in education. In a series of articles, I will illustrate this through some examples that I have come across. I will then suggest why these approaches are inappropriate.

One of these examples occurred when I was a teacher in a secondary school in Singapore in 1999. My school principal decided one day that the school together with the other schools in its cluster should hop on a web-based video conferencing system to be shared for use among the schools in the cluster. He told me it would cost S$40 000 which was quite an investment then and I think it still is even now. He was the Coordinator for the cluster’s ICT program. He had heard the sales pitch from the salesperson of the system and he he felt it was a great idea. He also added that the vendor had told him that another cluster of schools had already bought the system and had begun using it. He wanted to know what I thought of his idea.

I asked him how did he envisage using the video conferencing system? He told me that it would be a useful thing to have as principals of the schools in the cluster would not have to drive to a meeting place for their regular meetings. The same would apply to the head of departments and teachers. Bear in mind that we are talking about Singapore, a very tiny nation state. The schools in the cluster are also grouped geographically so they are not too far off from one another.

He also gave another example of the use of the video conferencing system. He said that if a teacher for Tamil Language is absent in one school, the students would in that school would be able to “attend” through video conferencing another lesson by a Tamil language teacher elsewhere (note: Not all schools in Singapore have resident Tamil language teachers).

After hearing his response, I asked him was it really necessary to get all the principals to move to video conferencing since the distance and time involved in traveling to the meeting place was not far at all. I knew it would at most take 10-15 minutes for them to get to any of the member schools. So I asked him if the benefits of using video conferencing really justifies the costs of the system?

Secondly, it may seem easy to just connect students from one school to another lesson through videoconferencing. However, this assumes among other things that the same lesson would be conducted at the same time in both schools. How likely is this going to be? Furthermore, the difference in preparing lessons for videoconferencing and for a typical classroom setting is not considered yet. As I pointed these out to my principal, I could see that he was still not able to see my point of view. I was always seen at the teacher who is keen on using IT for teaching. I think it surprised him that I didn’t share his enthusiasm for the videoconferencing system.

Anyway, he felt that the cluster should acquire the system. I thought that buying the system would be waste of money and would not bring about the benefit as he saw it. I suggested then that he and his team visit the other cluster who had already bought and used the system to ask them how it was used, how regularly it was used and what were the problems they faced using it. My principal agreed to it and said they would do what I had suggested soon.

Weeks went by and I did not hear any news about the planned study visit. In the mean time I had not head anything further about the video conferencing system. I then asked my Head of Department if the visit had been done. She told me that they have visited the other cluster and asked them about the video conferencing system. She seemed reluctant to go further so I probed and asked what was the feedback that they had received. She said that they were told that it was “challenging” to use the system. When I heard that, I dropped the subject. It was never broached again by anyone and I assume that the idea was dropped.

There are a many lessons that can be gleaned from this example but I will only highlight a few points here. School administrators should not be taken in by the latest technology available that is being peddled to them without thinking through carefully how it would be used in school. Many vendors of ICT products will try and sell their product to schools by highlighting only the positives of the product. However, it would be good for those involved in ICT implementation to always try to see from the school administrator’s point of view and also from the point of view of the teaching process. The vendor or salesman is unlikely to know much about how teaching actually takes place. The school administrator responsible for procuring ICT products or systems for a school must be more critical about how these products or systems are to be used.

There is also a tendency to try and fill schools with ICT hardware and software in an ad hoc manner because schools are under some pressure to show their stakeholders, like parents of their students, that the school is not outdated. ICT implementation in schools must always conform to the school’s need for good administration and also good teaching and learning. This implies that a school must have a clear plan about ICT use for an educational institution. ICT must help the school to be run better and also help better teaching and learning to take place. If it does not then it should not be used.