It is interesting to observe the reaction of the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore with regards to the H1N1 virus outbreak in Singapore. With enforced quarantine of students and teachers a possible scenario with the start of the new school term this week (in fact, it has become a reality)an opportunity has arisen for Singapore to show the world how far it has gone with the use of ICT for education at the school level.

Initially, there were announcements that schools are ready to go online when the MOE was contemplating extending the school holidays for one week. The MOE claimed that schools were ready to do so. Then the MOE announced that all schools would open except for those that had a certain number of H1N1 victims.

Strange then, that after all that assurance of online lessons being ready, suddenly the MOE is talking about students being given learning packages for them to bring home to offset the school hours missed. There is no more mention of online learning.

One wonders why? Is the MOE not confident that its teachers can deliver suitable online learning materials for students confined at home? Why is this so after more than a decade of the much lauded MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE)? Sure the MPITE is not just about online learning, but surely MOE would have to think that online learning is one important aspect of it? Why waste an opportunity to show what ICT can do in such times as this?

In fact one even wonders why MOE decided to go ahead with the starting of the new school term at all when it is clear that the situation is becoming worse with local infections rising? Is it just to show that the show must go on and pretend that there is a semblance of normalcy? Or is it because MOE knows that its teachers are far from prepared to provide good online learning for their students? I wouldn’t be surprised at all if MOE has been receiving feedback from the schools that they are worried about “lost” curriculum hours.

Whatever the reasons are, it is an opportunity lost! We have spent billions on the ICT infrastructure and lots of man hours on training the teachers to be able to use ICT for education. Schools have even spend more money on licensed use of online learning portals operated by commercial vendors. Seems like none of these is good enough to replace the physical white board and traditional teacher talk.

PS. Please do not erase this post.

Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be a powerful way to teach students in schools about spatial distribution. When I was at the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore, I was at the forefront of the Educational Technology Division’s (ETD) attempt to encourage teachers to use GIS software as a teaching and learning tool.

While most of the teachers who took part in our workshops and projects involving the use of GIS software have generally found the tool to be powerful, I do not think we have been very successful in encouraging the widespread use of GIS even among the teachers who were involved in our workshops and projects.

In my view, there are a few reasons why GIS has not caught on among teachers in Singapore schools then. I believe one important reason for this is due to the fairly steep learning curve with regards to the use of GIS software. Many of the teachers found the software quite intimidating. This was at a time when the Masterplan for IT in Education (MPITE) was in its first phase. Teachers were still struggling with incorporating ICT into their lessons. Many of these teachers are veterans of the teaching service and generally less ICT-savvy. This made learning GIS software difficult for them. A lack of exposure to the software meant that they never acquired adequate mastery of the software for it to be useful. The lack of exposure to GIS software is also due to the relatively high costs of GIS software. Schools and HODs were reluctant to spend limited budgets on expensive software acquisition especially if the software is seen as useful only for a small portion of the examinations-oriented syllabi.

In addition to the software, to use GIS effectively, it can be argued that it needs its partner which is Global Positioning Systems (GPS). using GPS will also imply the need for GPS hardware like GPS receivers and also GPS software. This again increases costs. Effectively this means that few schools actually bought the software and hardware for using GIS and GPS for teaching and learning. Many teachers are limited to using the software only during workshops and projects undertaken in conjunction with the ETD, which admittedly were at best only sporadic.

Another reason for the lack of enthusiasm for GIS (and GPS) in schools is because the teachers have not undergone a fundamental change in the way they approach teaching. Teachers in Singapore still adopt a very traditional  approach to teaching. It is made worse, by teachers teaching only to the exams. This is largely due to Singapore’s over-emphasis on high stakes examinations that not only decide the academic fate of students but also the professional fate of teachers. Content is over-emphasized as opposed to the acquisition of skills or appropriate attitudes that will lead to independent learning. If perhaps, the emphasis had been on the learning of skills and the inculcation of proper learning attitudes, GIS might not have been seen as useful for only a small portion of the school syllabi. For example, if correct attitudes like getting students to learn to ask good questions for investigation and learning to analyze, gets the proper emphasis in Singapore schools, teachers and school administrators will probably not see the use of GIS as just a niche and expensive thing.

However, all is not lost I hope. There is available for free, legal GIS and GPS software. These are Open Source Software (OSS). They are a viable alternative to the expensive, proprietary (usually) Windows-based GIS software. This would make cost issues no longer relevant. More importantly, their ready availability means that teachers will have the chance to get properly acquainted with GIS and hopefully master the software. Alternatively, the availability of Google Earth offers an interesting alternative option for teachers to use. GPS receivers are also getting cheaper and easier to use too. Perhaps the more difficult aspect of promoting GIS use among schools is the mindset of the teachers and perhaps the policy makers. As long as learning is seen as only for the examinations, teachers will not change their view of tools like GIS to enhance and deepen learning despite its clear real-world application. Hopefully this will change with the influx of new trainee teachers exposed to GIS at the university level especially at the National Institute of Education (NIE) in Singapore. They can act as the catalyst for the widespread use of GIS in Singapore schools.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore has made many grand announcements about its change of emphasis for the Singapore education system. It has introduced “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN)”, “Masterplan for IT in Education (MPITE)”, and lately “Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM)”. All these initiatives and other pronouncements from up high are supposed to help propel Singapore into the 21st century.

The MOE has also introduced new benchmarks and accompanying awards for schools and teachers to push the education system into the new era. ISOs and KPIs have become the norm in Singapore schools today. These jargons have become embedded into the langauge of the teachers and principals of Singapore schools. They now live, breathe KPIs and ISOs (and the examinations of course). These are now the new measures of progress in Singapore schools. It is the “New Stupid” that I mentioned in an earlier post.

I suggest a far simpler measure or assessment gauge for the progress made by the Singapore education system. MOE will not need a consultant to devise a grand plan and strategy for measuring progress and changes in the schools. All the MOE officials have to do is to listen if students and parents have stopped asking this question: “Will it appear in the examinations?”

When no one asks such questions anymore, then MOE has made real progress.