What sort of people and institutions gain special economic and political power from this new technology? ~ Neil Postman

This question is very pertinent in an age where businesses are even more interested and bent on having a say with regards to what goes into education. Has education been sold to corporate or political interests?

While ICT has long been lauded for its democratizing effect, meaning, making education more readily available to the masses, what needs to be ask is the kind of education that the masses have been given access to. Has ICT moved the decision for the contents of a curriculum from teachers who are in the field or to instructional designers sitting somewhere in an office but away from where the teaching takes place? How much flexibility is there for the teachers to adapt their teaching when the curriculum is even more today defined and assessed by a “virtual” someone? Is the institution of the teacher under attack? Is it then a coincident that in this ICT era, teachers are seen to be even more easily replaceable especially in American schools  today? Is that the start of the trend to come globally?

Even at the tertiary level, university professors have expressed concern at how ICT has meant that “learning” has largely gone online. Has this trend strengthened the hands of the bureaucrats who see the economic bottom line as the most important yardstick for the buffet of courses on offer? ICT has made online learning relatively cheap and universities are rushing to offer such courses. Will ICT result in more automation to keep costs down in the “learning” process? Will university lecturers and professors be regarded as mere consultants an instructional design process despite promotion of “blended learning”?

This emphasis on revenues earned will (and has) attract the interest of private conglomerates to offer “education” as a product to be sold.  They in turn will only sell packages that will fit into the economic needs of the country. So who keeps an eye on what is sold to the masses as “education” especially when the political masters have chosen to defer to business interests?

Will the advent of ICT use in education also emphasize the dominance of science and technology as the final arbiter of knowledge? What is the implication of this on what is to be taught in our schools and universities? Will it only further de-legitimise non-scientific institutions in the long run?

However, there could be some positives. Traditional political institutions will have difficulty also circumscribing what is being taught. Censorship becomes all the more difficult. While political authorities can snuff out temporarily the global connections that ICT affords, they will not be able to do so permanently as seen in the Arab Spring uprisings, especially as seen in the example of Egypt.

ICT allows anyone with access to it to turn to “alternative” sources of learning. The wired world allows anyone to choose from a plethora of offerings from anywhere in the world. The officially-approved offerings in brick-and-mortar schools where socialization of political values can take place, can be bypassed. Learning can become truly personal through these personal learning networks as opposed to being a reflection of the demands of political leaders.

Neil Postman’s six questions that we should pose to ourselves whenever we want to introduce new technology is to encourage a dialogue with technology. This is to prevent us from going into an unthinking headlong rush to adapt anything that is technologically “advanced”. In my first post in this series, I alluded to the way the Amish people view technology as highlighted by Howard Rheingold. While we do not advocate a lifestyle like the Amish people, we can learn invaluable lessons from them about keeping technology in a more balanced and correct perspective.

End of series on Neil Postman’s “Six Questions”

“What changes in language are being forced by these new technologies? ~ Neil Postman

Recently, Lee Kuan Yew suggested that Singaporeans should learn American English because of the rapid spread of that version of English due to globalization. This is for a country that was once ruled by the British. I believe that American English has become even more pervasive today because the Internet. Most often the language we used is decided by the default language set by our computers. All too often it is American English. While we hear it spoken for years on TV, it is on the Internet that we really begin to use it because if we spelled it the British way, we will see a red underlining which will disappear only if we re-spell it using the American spelling. Even for Internet marketeers, they would be wise to follow the American spelling on their websites for “anti-ageing” products will not appear as often on search engines as “anti-aging” products. That is the power of SEO.

The above is related to the fifth question that was asked by Neil Postman with regards to the use of technology. Has ICT made changes to language?

With the widespread use of ICT, certain terms have become replacements for everyday English. When we search for information, we say “google it”. When we say this, we accept the impact of the giant search engine on our lives. It conveys  sense of the instantaneous availability of information. This gives rise to the question as to how we value information that is so easily obtained? Has the easy accessibility to information also blurred the difference between information and knowledge? Do more of us think that the knowledgeable man is the same as the one who has Google at his finger tips?

One of my favorite books

Has the meaning of “education” also changed even more profoundly with the rise of ICT? To be sure, the meaning of education has changed with the Industrial Revolution. This is itself proof that meanings change with technology use. It has shifted to a greater emphasis to the acquisition of skills that is useful at the workplace. In other words, when we say “education”, we actually mean training for employable skills. Has this worsen with ICT? What is the meaning of “education” when it is prefixed with “online”? In fact, often it is now usually termed as “online learning”. “Education” has been dropped. Why? Or in the Facebook era, what does it mean to “like” a post? Or to be a “friend”.

What other terms can you think of that has its meaning changed (or may change) due to the pervasiveness of ICT? What is the impact of this to (dare I say the word?) education? Share your thoughts.

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.