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!