Teachers planning to move their teaching and learning online must be aware that it is important for them to equip themselves with certain skills. Besides the ICT literacy that is to be expected of them, what other skills would they need?

In truth, the basic teaching skills that a teacher is supposed to have in brick-and-mortar classroom still applies and perhaps it may be argued that some of them become even more essential. The essential ingredients of what makes a good class and lesson will still remain. Teacher beliefs and values, class management skills, a clear understanding of the learning outcomes, the assessment of the learning, good instructional planning and motivational skills are all still important ingredients of a successful class whether online or otherwise.

However, the manner these skill are put into practice in the online classroom will differ quite considerably. For example, with regards to the need to create a safe learning environment, in a brick-and-mortar classroom, everyone is able to see and talk to each other spontaneously while in an online classroom, this is not the case. Plus the facial gestures and the nuances in the way words are spoken that is so important in everyday communication is replaced with only dry and impersonal text. This is where the well-known emoticons come into play. Other examples of unique online class management skills include for example taking into account the types of online behavioral tendencies of online participants.

Good instructional planning or design becomes even more important in the online classroom. Good instructional planning is required in a brick-and-mortar classroom but in such classrooms, teachers can make spontaneous adaptations to the situation in the classrooms. In an online environment it is not as easy to do so. This can influence considerably the flow of the lesson or instruction.

In short, teachers need to familiarize themselves first with the likely online classroom environment. They must also remember that the online classroom environment can differ according to the kind of learning activity that is to be used. A discussion forum is quite different from a synchronous chat session. The facilitation approach for both would also be quite varied. Drill-and-practice activities require perhaps less class management attention. The best way for teachers to understand the differences between these environments is to perhaps undergo an online class themselves.

In seeking to understand the students’ online experience, the teachers must learn to be online students themselves. The online experience for the teachers does not have to be a class on online learning itself. But it is important that whatever the online course the teacher undergoes, the teacher should consciously note the experience and compare it with their past classoom learning experience. Only then can they craft an online lesson themselves. The crafting of an online lesson goes beyond the technicalities of the online learning platform. More important is the re-shaping of the traditional teaching skills to fit the new environment.

Online education is a popular option for many educational institutions. If a school wants to move most or  a big part of its teaching and learning resources, the teachers would have to prepare themselves for what such a move would entail. It is never simply about a transfer of traditional teaching and learning resources to the web.

Teachers would have to decide what are the kinds of lessons that would be moved to the web. Not all would have to be moved and maybe, not even a majority of them. Teachers would first have to decide which lessons are best done online? Would the teachers want these resources to be of the drill-and-practice nature or the exploratory nature?

What are the platforms for these resources? Have the teachers familiarized themselves with these platforms’ strengths and quirks? Would the students be required to work individually or in groups in a collaborative nature? If the latter, how is the work to be chunked so that real collaboration takes place.

They would have to know about, among other things, synchronous and asynchronous online learning. They would have to be aware that in asynchronous online learning, they would not be able to use body language, facial gestures and to some extent even their personality which usually exudes their warmth to the students which is so important towards creating a safe learning environment may undergo some major changes. Any good teacher would know that these are very important aspects of their teaching repertoire. The absence of face-to-face contact in asynchronous would also mean that the immediate feedback that a teacher usually gets from their students through their the same body language and facial expressions would also be lost.

While synchronous learning through, for example, video conferencing, can in theory reduce some of these losses, teachers would still need to adapt to the virtual environment. In short, there is a real need to train teachers to use ICT effectively if a school plans to move its teaching and learning resources online.

These are just a  few of the issues that teachers and school adminsitrators have to grapple with when turning to the web. These are issues that must be decided based on what the school wants to do for its students.

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!