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.

During my stay in Indonesia, many schools are in a race to achieve the status of “school of international  standards” (Sekolah Berstandar (Bertaraf or Berwawasan) Internasional or SBI). Very often these schools see a need for the use of ICT for teaching and learning. However, often, in Indonesia, what usually happens is that the school only will make a plunge to purchase computers. these computers would then be placed in computer laboratories and vendors or some in-house trainer will be hired to teach the students of the school various software,and usually Microsoft-based ones too. Other than these, often the investment in the hardware is the only serious thing done with regards to ICT use in the school.

It is still rare for schools in Indonesia aspiring to be SBIs to think seriously about how the hardware that has been invested is to be put to serious use by all involved in the school. For example, how often is planning done to prepare the teachers to use this hardware to help them in their main preoccupation which is teaching? Teachers are somehow expected to be able to use ICT through some invisible osmosis-like process. Where or who that osmotic process is to begin from is often unclear.

What framework is there for the use of ICT in such schools? Usually if ICT is used it is not planned and the IT tools in the school will be used in a random and sporadic manner. Often the learning of software like Dreamweaver, CorelDraw and other applications, for example, will be touted as examples of how the students of these schools are moving forward into the ICT era. Few stop to ask if this is indeed the way to go. Indeed the truth is many schools are groping in the dark with regards to the use of ICT for education. Even fewer see a need to do have a bird’s eye view of how ICT is implemented for the betterment of the whole school.

I believe that Indonesian schools need assistance with an ICT framework for their schools. This is important because not only can ICT give the schools a push up in their drive to be schools of international standards but also because the investment in an ICT infrastructure and hardware is usually very high. It would be criminal if the investment is done in ad hoc manner. It will have to be relevant to the needs of schools aspiring to become major players in education. It will be a framework that will allow for the involvement of all the stakeholders of the school. It will also be a very realistic approach to the use of IT that considers the changing roles of the work force of the future.