Posts Tagged ‘moe’
After reading this tweet and visiting the embedded link, I wondered: What exactly is using Internet and mobile technologies positively?
The linked website provides some insights, but I am still have questions like:
- Why is “cyberwellness” still the term of choice?
- Why are “screen time” and “device-free leisure activities” still the norm?
- Is rocking the boat for progressive change is considered positive?
I am positive that screen time is an uncritical catchall phrase.
I am positive that looking back all the time while trying to move forward leads to missteps and falling flat on your face.
I am positive. So positive that I share select image quotes I made over the last few years.
My hunt for an elusive video brought me to the Singapore Ministry of Education’s Facebook page.
While I did not find what I was looking for, I found a series of images. They served as a helpful reminder of what teachers should stock up on to prepare for the new year.
It was also a stark reminder of the mindset and expectations of teachers. The technologies are not current. If they were, there would be reminders to change passwords, renew VPN plans, update software, check digital archives, etc.
The call to arms was: You will be needing these and more to make a lasting impact on that one student. I get that message and stand behind it because it is a call to individualise, difficult as that will be.
I hope that teachers read this as reaching out to more than just that one student because all students are that one student. However, this task is impossible with the traditional tools and methods because they are largely about centralisation, standardisation, and control.
The newer tools are about decentralisation, individualisation, and self-regulation. This will only happen if school leaders and teachers change their mindsets and expectations about which tools to focus on and how to use them.
by sea turtle
This is my plain vanilla reflection on the MOE Workplan Seninar 2013 yesterday.
Here is what always happens. It rains, there is a traffic jam, and it is held at Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
There is often something surprising or juicy, almost like the late Steve Jobs’ “one more thing”.
Not so much this year. It was mostly about developing what has been established over the last two years. Perfectly acceptable.
There were more videos to illustrate the messages this year. I think this was a subconscious recognition that video is the new text. Videos tell more in a few minutes than a session can do in a few hours. I wonder if other stakeholders will be able to watch the videos on a larger platform like YouTube.
I was glad to hear a special segment about ICT-enabled learning. Not just enhanced or optional, but enabled.
The announcement says that the platform will be ready in 2016.
As far as I am concerned, it is already available. It is just not sanctioned, filtered, or curated officially. It is called the Internet.
The best thing about that resource is that everybody creates, curates, and critiques. Using and shaping those resources means we do not live in a vacuum. We teach and learn in context.
I did not think there were announcements that would cause any seismic shifts. There was no need because the shift started two years ago.
If the keynote was likened to an ice cream stall, it had variants of vanilla. Some folks like vanilla. If you look for it, you might find a poll or two that show it is the most popular flavour of ice cream.
Vanilla is a valid flavour. Most of us might like vanilla. As long as there are no nuts.
Back in the office, I tried the export-to-WordPress tool at the main Storify website. This is what it looks like.
It does a very good job of keeping tweets intact and including my footnotes. Even a comment and likes are included. Too bad the URLs were not automatically created as hyperlinks.
I wish ‘live’ tweeting and backchannelling were a cultural norm at events like these.
Hmm, a National Conversation about this national “conversation” perhaps?
You might have read this Channel News Asia (CNA) article about MOE’s latest buzz phrase. I’ve highlighted two parts of the article but I actually have three things to say about it.
First, teachers now have a vision statement: “Singapore Teachers: Lead. Care. Inspire”. A former colleague of mine that I follow on Facebook said:
slightly bemused at MOE’s new vision statement: ‘lead. care. inspire’. Indeed, but who’s going to do the actual teaching? (not to mention marking!)
It’s tongue-in-cheek, but typical of what an experienced teacher might say. In reality, the vision might play out as teach, mark, cry (teacher), scold, cry (student), teach…
Second, most teachers would recognise the picture that CNA used. Sadly it still represents the typical classroom. So tell me: How do teachers lead, care and inspire with PowerPoint? Oh wait, maybe they will upgrade and use “Smart” boards or “Interactive” White Boards! (Long time readers will know that I am being sarcastic.)
At this point, I highlight an article that a former trainee of mine, Laremy, brought to my attention about a teacher education programme in the UK, Teach First, that emphasizes that teaching is difficult. They do this in an attempt to recruit and retain the best talent. Here’s a snippet from the article:
Unlike government recruitment drives, which tend to present teaching as appealing, even easy, Teach First describes the job as tough and demanding because the right people are those who are attracted by the most daunting tasks.
This is in direct contrast to our MOE-sanctioned ads that show teaching or teachers as inspiring , hip or surrounded by a permanent mist that magically makes everything better. I also recall that MOE used to have a recruitment ad that said: Teach, if you care. My response then (and still) is they should have gone with Teach, if you dare.
So back to the CNA article which reports that MOE has signed 3,040 teachers. Our NIE records indicate that we have 2,233 as of 18 Aug 09. The remaining 807 are either in cold storage or they will join us next year. If they dare!
Have you ever wondered how much money goes into Singapore’s education system? On Feb 4, the Today paper published the amount of money requested by various Ministries in Singapore.
$8.7 billion. That’s more than MCYS, MEWR, MOM, MOF, MICA, MFA, MinLaw and PMO (#8 to #15) combined.
Whichever way you look at it, that’s a lot of money and we in education are spending it. Just how accountable are we with the research and teaching that we do?