ICT has often been touted like the miracle drug for the problems that education face. Its use has been promoted to help students learn and also to keep students in school. It is also often touted as the means for students to learn the skills required in the 21st century. This giddy promotion of ICT in education has seen schools clamoring and rushing to use ICT.

The e-primer, “ICT in Education” by V.L. Tinio, published by the Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (APDIP) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) said:

As the half-life of information continues to shrink and access to information continues to grow exponentially, schools cannot remain mere venues for the transmission of a prescribed set of information from teacher to student over a fixed period of time. Rather, schools must promote “learning to learn,” : i.e., the acquisition of knowledge and skills that make possible continuous learning over the lifetime.2 “The illiterate of the 21st century,” according to futurist Alvin Toffler,“will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

It also said:

When used appropriately, different ICTs are said to help expand access to education, strengthen the relevance of education to the increasingly digital workplace, and raise educational quality by, among others, helping make teaching and learning into an engaging, active process connected to real life.”

If one reads the literature on ICT use in education, one cannot help notice an unquestioned optimism in the need and potentially successful use of ICT in education. It is interesting that the author above used the caveat “When used appropriately”. How often has one seen ICT used appropriately in the classroom? The author also uses the phrase “different ICTs are said to help” which indicates a tentativeness of the effectiveness of ICT in assisting the teaching and learning experience. The reality is that the jury is still out with regards to the impact of ICT in education. That is why it is only “said to help”. It sounds almost like a mere hope.

Only issues of costs and efficiency of ICT in education are raised. When the issue of impact is raised, it is only about the impact on learning and teaching. This is itself restrictive since education is supposed to have an impact on the other aspects of society. So why do we measure the impact of the use of technology only within the perimeters of school only?

However, Neil Postman, the social and cultural critic, has posed six questions for anyone coming into contact with technology to consider. This in my view is an important aspect of our ongoing conversations with technology. This ongoing conversations help us to understand  better the impact that ICT has on us. This conversation hopefully will allow us to slow down in our implementation of ICT if only to give us time to understand ICT’s impact better. The first of the six questions posed by Postman as part of this conversation with technology is “What is the problem to which this technology is a solution?”

So to paraphrase this question for the education field, the question is to what educational problem is this technology a solution? This may sound strange as there is an almost unquestioned belief that ICT is good for education. The only issues it seems that is discussed is how to maximize this unquestioned positive effect of ICT in schools, and not whether there is a real need for it in the first place.

Take for example, the third version of Singapore’s MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE) which goes by the name “FutureSchools@Singapore”, where virtual environments were promoted as the new learning platforms for students in Singapore. There was reports in the local press of a virtual market place where students can learn about being in a market place. It is with incredulity that I read such attempts to justify these new technologies. I am not against the use of virtual environments. They have their uses in simulators for example for pilots, or even bomb disposal training and other similar scenarios. But such arguments for its use in schools is strange and absurd. Is it so difficult to bring the students to a real live market? I think the experience in a real one would be a compelling one with its noise, atmosphere and smell. Will the virtual market experience do justice to its intended learning objectives? Why spend on getting on a technology that does not even come near the real experience which could be obtained for free?

There is a place for virtual environments in the classrooms but surely greater thought should be placed to decide what is worth “virtualizing” for the learning and teaching process. It cannot be just taking whatever the vendors of such technology has. Are the students learning to act like virtual surgeons only because that is the learning module available to them? Vendors are mere salesmen for the most part. At the end of the day, it is sales that drive their push for the use of such technology in schools. They are the ones who gained the most through the use of such technologies. So who gains from the use of ICT in schools? Not the teachers. And not the students. But definitely the salesmen. This is seen in the official announcement for the launch of the FutureSchools@Singapore by Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE). The whole scheme is tied to Singapore’s Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), who counts as one of its key responsibilities is the promotion of local infocomm firms (see here). The danger of such a partnership is that the salesmen of ICT products will drive what is being used in schools and not the schools that drive the salesmen to produce the needed ICT tools or platforms for education.

ICT is also often used as the solution for all kinds of educational goals. For example, when launching the FutureSchools@Singapore initiative, Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew, was reported to have said that the aim was to get more students to participate in class as opposed to traditional one-way teacher teacher lecture approach (see here). In my view, that is astonishing. If the goal is too move away from the “traditional” teaching approach, the solution is not through ICT use. Teachers must be retrained to adopt more, for example, co-operative learning strategies. Their lesson design could be changed to move away from such traditional one-way teacher lectures without the use of ICT. Who says you need ICT to get greater student participation?

In fact, introducing ICT to teachers who have never adopted student-centered approaches only increases the difficulties for the teachers. They will have to learn how to not only move away from their usual approach to teaching but at the same time, they have to learn to integrate ICT  effectively for eduaction. This is a tall order indeed and from my previous experience in the MPITE team, likely to fail. This is backed by studies that has been done on ICT integration in education. The change in the teaching paradigm must come first before you bring ICT into the picture. So again does ICT solve this problem which is essentially a problem of pedagogy which can be corrected without ICT coming into play?

There is a more insidious reason why ICT is promoted. The introduction of ICT purportedly for education is used by schools as kind of benchmark about the quality of schools. This is true of schools both in and out of Singapore. If schools have a large number of ICT equipment, then the schools are seen as progressive and good.  The availability of ICT equipment is seen as part of the “international standard” of the schools. Often as mentioned above, little thought is given to its proper use that leads to meaningful learning. ICT is therefore used a mere marketing tool for gullible parents. I have highlighted other examples of such inane use of ICT in schools before in my blog. Singapore has benefited in this way. Foreigners are impressed by the breathtaking array of ICT-related equipment in a typical Singapore school. Without a doubt this is also one reason why Singapore’s education system is highly regarded. It solves the Singapore government’s need to promote Singapore as an education hub. In a similar light, private school owners in countries elsewhere in the world, also introduced ICT to change the prestige attached to their schools.

In short, there is no need to think that ICT is required to teach students to “learn, unlearn and relearn”. It is not even true that it will make that goal easier. Too often, when we try to answer the first of Postman’s questions about the use of technology, we find that we have not thought through carefully what is the problem that ICT is meant to solve, especially in the light of how it is envisaged that ICT is to be used in schools for education. Perhaps, I should end this post with what Alan Kay, considered to be the Father of the PC, has to say about how ICT is used in schools:

“But I think the big problem is that schools have very few ideas about what to do with the computers once the kids have them. It’s basically just tokenism, and schools just won’t face up to what the actual problems of education are, whether you have technology or not.
Think about it: How many books do schools have—and how well are children doing at reading? How many pencils do schools have—and how well are kids doing at math? It’s like missing the difference between music and instruments. You can put a piano in every classroom, but that won’t give you a developed music culture, because the music culture is embodied in people.
On the other hand, if you have a musician who is a teacher, then you don’t need musical instruments, because the kids can sing and dance. But if you don’t have a teacher who is a carrier of music, then all efforts to do music in the classroom will fail—because existing teachers who are not musicians will decide to teach the C Major scale and see what the bell curve is on that.
The important thing here is that the music is not in the piano. And knowledge and edification is not in the computer. The computer is simply an instrument whose music is ideas….”

~ from “face to face: Alan Kay Still Waiting for the Revolution (See here for full interview)

When I first got interested in the teaching of thinking, I turned to Edward de Bono. Edward de Bono is of course perhaps almost always associated with the concept of “lateral thinking”. I did what I usually do when I am interested in something, that is, I went out to buy his books. I am one of those who don’t like to borrow books from the library because I prefer to have a copy in my own personal library.

De Bono’s approach was at one time fashionable in schools in Singapore. His CoRT program was used by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore. De Bono’s methods (and there are quite a few) is now hardly heard of in MOE since the ministry shifted its attention to integrating thinking skills into the subjects taught in schools instead of an adjunct to the main teaching program. Still, I find that de Bono’s does provide with interesting tools for the would-be thinker.

His tools from the CoRT program brought into view a new set of alphabet soup. PMI, CAF, C&S, FIP, OPV, APC among others. Later I learn about “po”, some colorful hats and shoes in his Six Thinking Hats and Six Action Shoes. Among his books I found his book, Masterthinker’s Handbook: a Guide to Innovative Thinking most useful.

Although I have moved on as an educator to be aware of Robert Marzano‘s and other thinking skills guru’s approaches to teaching thinking, I still find de Bono’s approaches to be very interesting and useful. They become part of my personal repertoire of thinking tools and strategies. In my view, de Bono’s works on learning how to think are still invaluable resources.

In today’s Straits Times, January 25, in its headline report, “Social Studies to get a boost in schools”, is a clear evidence that the political education of students will be given added impetus. It is said to be consistent with the 2007 report of the Committee on National Education. A Ministry of Education (MOE) spokesman is reported to have said that the aim of social studies is to mould students into “well-informed, thinking and concerned citizens.”

In the same edition of the same newspaper, there is also full copy of the text of Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo’s Fullerton-SJI Leadership lecture.

It is strange that despite it being clear for most “well-informed, thinking and concerned citizens” that political education is already taught in schools, the government in Singapore is trying to pretend that there is still a debate as to whether political education should be “introduced” to schools. Is this an attempt to pull wool over the public’s eyes?

An anonymous (they usually are when they don’t know whether they will get their heads bitten off or otherwise) school principal who was privy to the discussions about this new development was quoted as saying that students would be taught why group representation constituencies were introduced. For those, not in the know about Singapore politics, this policy has been the subject of intense criticism from the opposition. So make a guess whose view will be given a lot of airing in this new syllabus? Will it be objective or “objective according to a certain view”? The fact that the word “mould” is used is scary as implies “clones”.

The MOE should take a leaf from what Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo said in his recent Fullerton-SJI Leadership lecture. Yeo said:

“The fact is hierarchies are breaking down, dissolving into messy networks and this affects everything. It affects the relationships of teachers with students, of parents and children, employers and employees, ministers and ordinary citizens. With the revolution in information technology, everyone has choices they never had before.

You ask a kid anything now, you give him a textbook, he will Google, he will check, he will find alternative views and teachers are often put on the defensive. Well you can try and shout down the student, say “Shush, quiet,” but can you win the respect of the students? Or is it not wiser to say, “Look, what does Google say? What does Wiki say?…let’s have a discussion.”

He also said:

“In this day and age, clone armies are weak armies. Mindless supporters are worthless.”

Compare this last statement from George Yeo with MOE‘s attempt to “mould” students!

I am actually amazed by what George Yeo has said in the light of the current debate over the need to teach “political education” in Singapore schools.

Is the MOE’s new initiative an outdated reflection of the thinking in the MOE. The recommendations of the Committee on National Education was in 2007. At least two years have passed by and the intent to teach more political education seems to run counter to what MOE George Yeo wants to do. George Yeo seems to suggest an openness while knowing MOE there will be a textbook with an official view of things. They seem to run counter to each other. The bureaucrats in MOE should take stock of George Yeo’s speech before they proceed further on their new social studies syllabus.

I am also amazed at George Yeo’s speech as it seems to run counter to what the Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, who was pushing for “introducing” political education. Are there two camps in the People’s Action Party’s (PAP), the governing party in Singapore, leadership now? Though George Yeo did not rule out teaching politics but I suspect what he has in mind about teaching people will be very different from what the Law Minister meant, and what MOE will do.

Reading Foreign Minister George Yeo’s speech, I cannot help but feel that he makes a lot more sense than the people in MOE especially. The bureaucrats in MOE tend to try to satisfy the whims of their immediate masters. My fear is that the new social studies syllabus is going to reflect more the perceived need of these bureaucrats to appease their political masters and they usually become ultra-conservative in doing so.