In Singapore, passengers of our bus services are allowed to stand and one particular bus service has standing room in the front half of its buses while the seats are located in the rear half. During peak hours, these buses will encounter a jam within the buses as passengers who are standing will clog the front end of the buses and make it difficult for others to board the buses as the entrances are usually located at the front of the buses. The rear half where the seats are mainly located but with grip poles for standing passengers would have no passenger standing. This has led to the drivers having to remind (yell at?) the standing passengers to move to the rear of the bus, usually to little avail. Alighting from the bus is also made difficult as the exit is near the middle of the bus. In my view, the bus services should have just “flipped” the design of the bus and place all the seats in the front half and the standing area at the rear half. Passengers boarding the buses at the front will more naturally move to the rear that is designed for standing only as it leaves them with little option and the appearance of space at the rear will invite them there.

A similar thing can be done to schools. Schools too can be flipped. The flipping here involves the re-thinking on how instruction is done and also the change in emphasis on the collaboration between teachers and students, and also between students and students. A flipped classroom according to Jerry Overmyer is:

“…. a model of teaching in which a student’s homework is the traditional lecture viewed outside of class on a vodcast. Then class time is spent on inquiry-based learning which would include what would traditionally be viewed as a student’s homework assignment. Synonymous with Reverse Classroom.”

Whether it is inquiry-based learning or more traditional classwork is not very important to me. What is important is that the students get more time to work with the teachers and their peers in the classroom, rather than sit passively listening to lectures.

This flip model is made possible with the advances made in ICT. Lectures can be podcasted or “vodcasted“. Recordings of lectures can be done easily and the availability of free online platforms like Moodle to host these online. Email and IM software allows for additional support to be given.

Of course, doing all these is not new. Even in Singapore, it is done by schools. However it is done on an ad hoc basis rather than it becoming central to the delivery of the curriculum. Schools have adopted it as part of the “Teach Less, Learn More” approach. But has never been the main means of curriculum delivery. It is all too often just to pander to “Teach Less, Learn More” where perhaps one week of lessons (out of a possible forty weeks) is transferred online.

A school in the US, Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology, has taken to flipping in earnest and is ripping the advantages of flipping. The advantages of the model are many but two stands out. As Technology with Intention states:

• Flipped teaching means that an educator doesn’t need to guess at what speed to deliver content – with students watching lectures at home they can move at their own speed and review concepts as necessary.
• Without large portions of classroom time spent lecturing, educators can use that time to see students working through projects and assignments that would have previously been done in isolation at home:  break out sessions can occur spontaneously, students can work in mentor-based groupings, jigsaw opportunities, supplemental support, etc.

From the Singapore viewpoint, it can also help address the problem of excessive private tuition that many of its students attend to seek additional assistance. It may also mean a cutting back on the amount of homework. Furthermore, the flexible and more social arrangement inherent will also better reflect a 21st century workplace.

Of course, there are some who will think that such flipping can only benefit the brighter students. What do you think?

Heng Swee Keat, Minister of Education, Singapore

At the Ministry of Education (MOE) Work Plan Seminar, Singapore’s Minister for Education, Heng Swee Keat, announced that the MOE will move towards an educational system which is more “holistic and balanced”. According to a report from the Today Online website today, it is announced that:

“To achieve a more student-centric culture, a review will be conducted to determine which practices are too achievements-driven, as well as those which generate too much administrative work, bogging down the teachers. These practices will be refined or done away with entirely, where possible.”

The MOE will also “create a new Character and Citizenship Education framework” in response to request from parents to “place a greater emphasis on character-building among the children.”

My initial impressions of this brief announcement is that this new reform will not make much of a change with regards to reducing stress except perhaps for teachers and school administrators by reducing their administrative workload. No mention is made about making changes (much less removing) the high stakes examinations focus of the Singapore education system.

This the main cause of much of the stress that is in the system. School administrators, teachers, students and parents are affected by the outcome of the students’ performance in these high stakes examinations. No mention is made of the removal of the school ranking system either. In short the changes are only cosmetic at best, and at worst it shows that the country is still stuck in its 19th century factory-like schooling system abetted by an Imperial China-style examination system.

Perhaps more interesting is that the lack of real changes reflects the reluctance by the Minister’s bureaucratic advisors in the MOE themselves to rock the boat. Despite claims in the past, of the need to make changes to meet the demands of the 21st century, little has been done except for an expensive cosmetic infusion of money into a massive MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE), that has still to show any significant result with regards to how teaching and learning is done differently in Singapore schools. Underneath that ICT gloss, Singapore schools are still stuck in the 19th century.

What do you think of these changes that the Minister has just announced? Let us know your thoughts on these planned changes for the Singapore education system.

“What new problems might be created by solving the original problem?” – Neil Postman

This is the third in Neil Postman’s series of questions for anyone who wants to introduce a new technology. Often technology is seen as the savior of much of the world’s ills. However, in more recent times we have become more acutely aware of the problems that have arisen as a result of the introduction of new technologies into the world. Some of these new technologies have made it already threatened our own existence. And we are not only talking about nuclear missiles here.

The trick for us is to discern what that technological genie is going to be doing once it has been released from its bottle. Too often we cannot put the genie back in. For this reason we have to do our very best to try and understand the impact of any technology before we unleash it to the world. As I have written and mentioned before, in this regard we have a lot to learn from the Amish people and their approach and attitude towards technology. Far from being Luddites, I believe they have tried their best to have a proper conversation with technology which is a lot more than can be said of many of us in the developed and developing world. The Amish people try to pre-empt problems that may arise from the use of technology. Those involve in education should adopt the same attitude.

For schools, the introduction of ICT for educational purposes can create problems within the school environment. Bear in mind, this is in addition to the fact that the jury is still out about the positive impact of ICT use in schools. One of these problems is that the introduction of ICT for education can be a distraction from the goals of education itself. many have even come to believe that acquisition of software and ICT hardware skills have become one of the goals of education. They may not announce these as goals but in practice that is what it means. I have on a few occasions already mentioned in this blog how schools teach software to their students in the computer labs s if these students will be Adobe Photoshop  or some other specialists of some other software. How many have stopped to ponder if it is the business of schools to teach students specific software? Not recognizing this means that schools will overburden themselves on wrong priorities and worse, think they are making great progress on educational goals. The real problems related to education that can be addressed in schools may not be addressed in such an environment as there are many things that become distractions.

Teachers already have enough problems making learning meaningful and effective. If ICT is brought into the classroom without careful thought and preparation, there is a real danger that it will add to the problems of designing and managing effective lessons. Teachers become more stressed out if ICT use becomes a requirement when they are ill-prepared to do so. This was the experience even in Singapore. When the MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE) was introduced, there was quite a number of teachers who decided to retire early to avoid having to meet the “recommended” dosage of ICT in the classroom. They know all too well that what has been recommended has a tendency of becoming a “requirement” soon enough. The pressure to adapt to the use of ICT  tools can lead to a negative reaction to ICT use for education

ICT for education has often been touted as the way to get students to learn through collaboration, personal and group research and inquiry and make learning meaningful such that students become life-ling learners. But seriously, if the only ICT adaptation to education that occurs in the classroom is the kind that only re-emphasizes rote-learning and mechanical operations only, then there is only a pretense at trying to achieve those goals. Unprepared teachers will resort to ICT that only repeat what they have been doing all their teaching lives, albeit in an electronic form. It does not matter if they use a software found on a CDROM or on an online platform. The way the teaching and learning is done is still very traditional. In fact, it can easily be further compounded with ICT.

The introduction of ICT on a mass scale for education can also lead to a problem of high maintenance costs, which will then be passed on to the consumer either through higher taxes or higher school fees. Computers need to be repaired regularly, costs of maintaining printers and their ink or cartridges will also rocket as the paperless classroom is still a long way to go despite the introduction of ICT. Will this lead to a greater divide in education between that for the rich and the poor? In Indonesia, we see the divide getting bigger as privately-owned schools which cater to the higher income families try to boast an ICT infrastructure within the school. It is an irony of sorts that the schools for the rich who can already afford the computers in their homes are getting computers in the schools while the poor are not likely to see any for their use both in the home and the schools. Even in ICT-rich Singapore schools, the Minister of Education has had to fend off parental worries that member schools of the FutureSchools@Singapore will be out of reach of lower income families.

ICT in schools is often described as an “enabler”. But many forget that ICT in schools can also be a “disabler”. For this reason, conversations like this, must continue, to help those responsible to draw up better plans for ICT usage in schools. It should also continue so schools will continuous check and -re-check what they are doing with ICT to see that it does not become a “disabler”.