“What changes in language are being forced by these new technologies? ~ Neil Postman

Recently, Lee Kuan Yew suggested that Singaporeans should learn American English because of the rapid spread of that version of English due to globalization. This is for a country that was once ruled by the British. I believe that American English has become even more pervasive today because the Internet. Most often the language we used is decided by the default language set by our computers. All too often it is American English. While we hear it spoken for years on TV, it is on the Internet that we really begin to use it because if we spelled it the British way, we will see a red underlining which will disappear only if we re-spell it using the American spelling. Even for Internet marketeers, they would be wise to follow the American spelling on their websites for “anti-ageing” products will not appear as often on search engines as “anti-aging” products. That is the power of SEO.

The above is related to the fifth question that was asked by Neil Postman with regards to the use of technology. Has ICT made changes to language?

With the widespread use of ICT, certain terms have become replacements for everyday English. When we search for information, we say “google it”. When we say this, we accept the impact of the giant search engine on our lives. It conveys  sense of the instantaneous availability of information. This gives rise to the question as to how we value information that is so easily obtained? Has the easy accessibility to information also blurred the difference between information and knowledge? Do more of us think that the knowledgeable man is the same as the one who has Google at his finger tips?

One of my favorite books

Has the meaning of “education” also changed even more profoundly with the rise of ICT? To be sure, the meaning of education has changed with the Industrial Revolution. This is itself proof that meanings change with technology use. It has shifted to a greater emphasis to the acquisition of skills that is useful at the workplace. In other words, when we say “education”, we actually mean training for employable skills. Has this worsen with ICT? What is the meaning of “education” when it is prefixed with “online”? In fact, often it is now usually termed as “online learning”. “Education” has been dropped. Why? Or in the Facebook era, what does it mean to “like” a post? Or to be a “friend”.

What other terms can you think of that has its meaning changed (or may change) due to the pervasiveness of ICT? What is the impact of this to (dare I say the word?) education? Share your thoughts.

Recently, the Singapore Mass Rapid and Transit (SMRT), that is responsible for the MRT in Singapore, began airing in its stations and trains, a well-known local TV character as the teacher of basic courteous behavior for its MRT commuters. In a rap-like “musical” video, the TV character, Phua Chu Kang exhorts MRT commuters to stand away from the opening doors of the trains, give up their seats for elderly and pregnant and so on. It may seem strange to a foreigner to do this but the “exhortation-style of teaching” is fairly common in Singapore schools too.

Recently, and example of this teach by exhortation was revealed in Facebook. A teacher friend of mine was lamenting how difficult it was to teach her students to think deeply. This was a perfectly legitimate lament. However, soon there were others who chipped to say that it is not difficult as all my friend had to do was to tell her students that they will fail if they cannot answer the question which require deeper thinking and added that it always worked! And this is supposed to be many years after the teaching of thinking skills has been introduced to Singapore schools by the Ministry of Education (MOE).

I am frankly ashamed and indeed appalled by such a response form someone who is a teacher in a school in Singapore. I guess I felt appalled because I know that this is not an isolated instant of the kind of teaching practices that goes on in Singapore schools. To say that students can think better by just threatening them with failure, is tantamount to telling a drowning man that he better swim harder or he will drown. Absurd isn’t it?

Yet such an approach is used everyday in schools in Singapore. Students are told to behave well but not taught how to. For example, they are told must not fight with one another but are not taught skills to manage their anger. Students are told to write better but little time is given to serious teaching of good writing skills. They are even told to work harder to get better results but are not taught proper study techniques and skills. And as in the example above, students are expected to learn to think through some invisible osmotic process.

Obviously all the above seldom, if ever, work. But teaching by exhortation will continue to be one of the accepted ways fo teaching in Singapore. After all, the government in Singapore always exhorts Singaporeans to work harder. It is believed this is how learning takes place. Do you or your teachers teach like this?

Recently, a news report described how Singapore’s National Institute of Education (NIE) would be collaborating with some ICT vendors on the development of a multi-million platofrm for learning. This, together with FutureSchools@Singapore, are visible examples of the Singapore government’s commitment to harnessing the power of ICT for education. They are further add-ons to the government’s MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE). All these initiatives have put Singapore on the map for ICT in education. However, I think all these should be contrasted with some of the experiences I have had with schools in Singapore.

For example, my experience last night with my son’s school was very educational with regards to ICT use in schools. The school had called for a meeting with parents to discuss the students’ progress in their preparation for the GCE O levels. During the course of the meeting, a parent expressed concern about not receiving official communication from the school which was supposed to be handed to the the parents through the students. I noticed the principal was avoiding my gaze at him and I suspected that he realized that I had actually strongly proposed to him some months ago that all official communication be placed on the school website and that the school uses emails to communicate with parents, as after all email lists are easy to create. I was of the view that there should be different avenues of communicating with parents and that school websites can be used to put up with very current notices in addition to email lists. The school had replied that they would be taking up my suggestion to create email lists of the parents of the students. Obviously from last night’s event, that has not been done.

I suspect that this is probably true of many schools in Singapore. It is not shocking if you find that schools in Singapore hardly use these “new” forms of communication with their stake holders. It seems that with the millions already spent on ICT in schools, a paradigm shift still needs to take place in Singapore schools.

Of course there are pockets of more enlightened ICT uses in schools in Singapore. The NIE plan mentioned above and the FutureSchools@Singapore initiative, talks about using virtual environments which costs millions of dollars. One wonders how successful these big money ventures are going to be when there is little done to work on the minds of the people who are supposed to use these “innovations”. How much thought is given to these ICT projects ability to be consumed by the teachers and students out there in the other schools in SIngapore? Are these projects easy to replicate elsewhere? Or are they just the play things of a few researchers, ICT vendors and teachers of a few schools?

While the research may benefit what we know about how ICT is used for education, shouldn’t one also be concerned especially whether they can be easily replicated? Is it realistic to test drive such expensive platforms if in order to duplicate them, it will cost millions more which are not likely to be readily available? While agreeing that we should not expect all schools to be at the same level of ICT use, shouldn’t the Ministry of Education (MOE) seriously look at how much of the ICT infrastructure that has been given to schools is used adequately and consistent with the changes happening outside the school environment before pushing for more exotic ICT hardware use? I am aware that MOE has always claimed that hardware is not the goal but just the means, of its iCT plans. However, in practice it does not seem to be consistent with what MOE is saying.

Students today, and perhaps even parents today, are using more than just emails. Among others, they use, text messaging both on phones and on the Net, Twitter, blogs and social platforms like Facebook to communicate. yet schools have not even got past the adequate use of even emails. How do schools then propose to lead the wave of change in the way their students are going to do their work in the 21st century workplace when they have not even mastered the use of emails? Yet we see millions spent on virtual reality environments which promise much, but may not be cost effective or even easy to replicate for effective use in an educational environment like schools.