“Whose problem is it?” ~ Neil Postman

This is the next question that Postman posed when considering why a new technology is to be introduced. After answering “what is the problem to which this technology is a solution”, Neil Postman wants us to identify the real owner of the problem. This is important because by seeing this we will realize whether we are trying to solve our problems or that of someone else?

Let’s look at virtual environments. Why are virtual environments created for schools? As explained in my previous post, I do not think that such virtual environments are important for schools. I believe that the fact that it was pushed to schools shows that there is a problem but it is not that of the schools. It is that of the software industries. They want to create a market for them to sell their products. It is largely a problem for the sales managers and their salesmen. Not for schools. For this reason, school teachers and administrators must learn to see through the hype, or sales pitches. Do schools really need them?

As mentioned in my previous posts, ICT is also often introduced to schools to lend an aura of prestige and progressiveness to the schools. For example, one reason why Singapore’s schools are considered world class is the ubiquitous presence of ICT equipment. In Indonesia, the surest way to lend a school an air of “international” quality is to promote the availability of computers in the school. Never mind if in both cases, rote learning and mechanical operations are the order of learning in the schools.

Whose problem is it that there is a need for such prestige? Does the prestige affect the teaching and learning process in schools? Quite obviously, it doesn’t. What it does affect is the image of the school. This is important for the owners of the schools, the parents of the students and the student themselves. What it does give to all three groups is bragging rights. For the owners of such schools, it means that they hope bragging about the introduction of ICT will bring about more “customers” for the school. For the parents, it assuages their fears about not giving the best for their children’s future. And for the students themselves, they can brag that they come from a “technologically sophisticated” school.

Whose problem is it also that schools are expected to use ICT to teach students the so-called 21st century skills like collaboration and problem-solving? Are students and teachers supposed to be test pilots of every new technology? Does this come under the ambit of the schools? Where is the line drawn with regards to what is considered to be suitable as part of a school’s goals? School teachers and administrators need to ask these questions so they do not become saddled with other people’s problems. Schools as they are, are already crammed with all kinds of new initiatives to overcome all of society’s ills. Currently everybody’s agenda has become the schools’ agenda. A more discerning approach can help to reduce the overload that is happening in schools and bring back some semblance of sanity.

In one of my posts, I highlighted Howard Rheingold’s post about the Amish and their relationship with technology. He suggested that instead of a mad rush to bring technology into our lives, we should have an ongoing conversation with technology. The cultural critic, Neil Postman, also has a similar view about technology. Postman in fact tries to make this conversation a little clearer by suggesting that we think about six questions that we should ask when a new technology is introduced. The six questions are:

• What is the problem to which this technology is a solution?
• Whose problem is it?
• What new problems might be created by solving the original problem?
• Which people and what institutions will be most seriously harmed by this new technology?
• What changes in language are being forced by these new technologies?
• What sort of people and institutions gain special economic and political power from this new technology?

In my view, the questions are meant to prevent us from rushing into implementing or using any new technology. In the field of education, these questions become all the more important because it is going to impact and area of human endeavor, that is, education, that is clearly supposed to be designed for the future. As an educator who had been part of Singapore’s well-known MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE) team, I have had an abiding interest in the use of ICT in schools. However, Rheingold’s and Postman’s suggestions for a conversation with ICT, have both given me cause to reflect on the use of ICT in education. I will be sharing my thoughts on the questions raised by Postman in relation to how ICT is supposed to be used in education. So do look out for them. In the meantime, click on the book cover to read Postman’s “Technopoly”.

Lately there has been a lot of buzz about the use of eBook readers like Kindle, Nook or Sony’s Reader models and so on. In the US, there are also reports of schools acquiring and trying out eBook readers like these. The excitement is understandable as these eBook readers promise lots of things. The promise of portability, and the ability to carry lots of books at one go makes them seem very attractive. They are also “make it easy to take notes, save clippings of quotations and highlight passages we want to be able to find again.” Plus they help save the environment with less paper being used.

However, I cannot help feel that these hype does not address the main problems with reading by students which are the inability to read and getting students excited to want to read. In addition there is the issue of costs.

Seriously speaking, as much as there is that novelty value to using an ebook reader, at the end of the day it doesn’t help students to read. I hope schools that go to eBook readers as a panacea for their students ianbility to read will realise this. Good reading programs are still required whether the material they use to read is paper or a digital screen.

The novelty value of the eBook reader will also wear out once the students don’t get to read what they like. If schools today cannot meet the desires of students with reagrds to the kind of subjects that they like, will they be able to do so in electronic form? Reading is very much a personal choice. Perhaps some day schools will have that wide variety of eBooks for their students to read but will they be allowed to share theese books among their students? What are the copyright issues here? What will the licenses be like? Will it be just like that of paper books?

The eBook reader manufacturers also claim that students will be able to do wonderful things with their gadgets. How many of us make notes on our books or while we read? How do students keep these notes and quotation clippings if the Kindles are shared in school as I don’t see it happening soon that such eBook readers will be cheap enough for everyone to own? In the US, for example, many students have to be provided with daily lunches by the schools.

Is portability a real issue too? Or a “created issue”? It is not like books weigh like heavy laptops which then led to the creation of light weight netbooks. There are also magazines and comics which do not weigh much. How many books do you want to carry with you on a typical daily trip anyway? How many will you read anyway? A recent survey showed that some students at a university didn’t like using an eBook reader as opposed to more traditional media.

Lastly, the costs of such eBook readers are still quite significant. While schools still have serious problems with their budgets, adding the cost of such devices is questionable. Even if money is found for such eBook readers, is the school better off buying such devices or buying netbooks which give greater flexibility to the students in terms of what can be done with the devices?

For these reasons, I have doubts about the practicality of using eBook readers for school. I am not against technology in education. But I am against unthinking use of ICT. Technology for education must always bear in mind the objectives for its use. It must never be the tool first. It must be about the learning objectives first.