In Singapore, passengers of our bus services are allowed to stand and one particular bus service has standing room in the front half of its buses while the seats are located in the rear half. During peak hours, these buses will encounter a jam within the buses as passengers who are standing will clog the front end of the buses and make it difficult for others to board the buses as the entrances are usually located at the front of the buses. The rear half where the seats are mainly located but with grip poles for standing passengers would have no passenger standing. This has led to the drivers having to remind (yell at?) the standing passengers to move to the rear of the bus, usually to little avail. Alighting from the bus is also made difficult as the exit is near the middle of the bus. In my view, the bus services should have just “flipped” the design of the bus and place all the seats in the front half and the standing area at the rear half. Passengers boarding the buses at the front will more naturally move to the rear that is designed for standing only as it leaves them with little option and the appearance of space at the rear will invite them there.

A similar thing can be done to schools. Schools too can be flipped. The flipping here involves the re-thinking on how instruction is done and also the change in emphasis on the collaboration between teachers and students, and also between students and students. A flipped classroom according to Jerry Overmyer is:

“…. a model of teaching in which a student’s homework is the traditional lecture viewed outside of class on a vodcast. Then class time is spent on inquiry-based learning which would include what would traditionally be viewed as a student’s homework assignment. Synonymous with Reverse Classroom.”

Whether it is inquiry-based learning or more traditional classwork is not very important to me. What is important is that the students get more time to work with the teachers and their peers in the classroom, rather than sit passively listening to lectures.

This flip model is made possible with the advances made in ICT. Lectures can be podcasted or “vodcasted“. Recordings of lectures can be done easily and the availability of free online platforms like Moodle to host these online. Email and IM software allows for additional support to be given.

Of course, doing all these is not new. Even in Singapore, it is done by schools. However it is done on an ad hoc basis rather than it becoming central to the delivery of the curriculum. Schools have adopted it as part of the “Teach Less, Learn More” approach. But has never been the main means of curriculum delivery. It is all too often just to pander to “Teach Less, Learn More” where perhaps one week of lessons (out of a possible forty weeks) is transferred online.

A school in the US, Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology, has taken to flipping in earnest and is ripping the advantages of flipping. The advantages of the model are many but two stands out. As Technology with Intention states:

• Flipped teaching means that an educator doesn’t need to guess at what speed to deliver content – with students watching lectures at home they can move at their own speed and review concepts as necessary.
• Without large portions of classroom time spent lecturing, educators can use that time to see students working through projects and assignments that would have previously been done in isolation at home:  break out sessions can occur spontaneously, students can work in mentor-based groupings, jigsaw opportunities, supplemental support, etc.

From the Singapore viewpoint, it can also help address the problem of excessive private tuition that many of its students attend to seek additional assistance. It may also mean a cutting back on the amount of homework. Furthermore, the flexible and more social arrangement inherent will also better reflect a 21st century workplace.

Of course, there are some who will think that such flipping can only benefit the brighter students. What do you think?

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)

I used to be left at home as a kid with my mum while my dad was out at work and all my siblings were in school. I remember being in a world all my own and looking for things to do to occupy myself. I remember getting an old clock to work again after dismantling it and fiddling with it for awhile.

I also remember the miniature “sail cars” that I used to built from cannibalized toys. The sail would usually just be a piece of paper held upright in place by a stick. Sometimes I would use those plastic windmills or propellers in place of these paper sail to power these sail cars of mine. The wheels would come from dismantled Matchbox Superfast cars, and the chasis of my sail cars would be made from empty boxes. They would be held together by rubber bands or glue.

I had hours of fun building different sail cars and racing one against another on the floor of my apartment house. The wind would come from the direction of the balcony. I would build different configurations to see what will make my sail cars move faster. I would try with paper sails or switch to plastic propellers. I would change the wheels and “chassis” to see which chassis is more stable to support the sail or fan.

Looking back I think those were wonderful learning moments for me. I was faced with a problem and had to solve it through some creative thinking. I don’t think I had learned about “center of gravity” but I knew it intuitively through trying to get a stable sail car. I learned something about “harnessing the energy of the wind” even though such words perhaps didn’t exist in my vocabulary. “Creativity” wasn’t a word to me either.

I learned science without a textbook. I explored things. I explored ideas. I learned to be creative through play. I was learning as learning should be done. It was fun and natural, and very importantly, meaningful. Meaningful without having to memorize definitions of concepts like “wind power” or “energy”.

Parents and teachers can do a lot to encourage such curiosity among by providing them with opportunities with do-it-yourself projects. Give them a free reign. Don’t even designate these DIY projects as a “Science project” or a “Mathematics Project”. Don’t attach labels to them. You may  insist that their project must not have electronic parts. Leave it to the kids to share something that interest them. Do you think learning in schools can be like this? For parents, it is a great way to wean your kids off the computers and video games.