Language, Literature and Life

Introduction and Scope

            It would not be a great stretch of the imagination to envision how digital technology might be at odds with social justice and ecological pedagogy. In truth, advocates of sustainability and social equity could easily show how the majority of digital devices can have adverse effects on society and the environment. A computer in itself, for example, can represent a vast array of objectionable things: a mass of manufactured components often put together by underpaid employees in developing countries; a superficial status symbol that can cost hundreds—even thousands—of dollars; a perpetuator of a “haves” and “have nots” dichotomy in relation to information, knowledge and education; a consumer of vast amounts of electricity; a producer of electronic waste; and, perhaps worst of all, a drain on the time and energy of young people that could be put to better use elsewhere.

Central assumptions

            Social Justice, Peace, and Environmental Education: Transformative Standards is a carefully selected collection of articles, book chapters, and empirical studies, drawn from a range of disciplines. Its editors, Drs. Julie Andrzejewski, Marta P. Baltodano, and Linda Symcox, have compiled these works in an effort to show commonalities among and to address how these commonalities might inform our approach to education about social justice, peace, and environmental education.

            The book is essentially predicated on two main assumptions: first, that social justice, peace, and environmental preservation are all interconnected and inextricable; and second, that there are a number of common themes that emerge when critically examining the work of those invested in the promotion of social justice, peace and environmental preservation.

Read the full paper here...

One good argument against jumping on the tech bandwagon is that modern technology is very volatile, and there seem to be as many innovations that fail as there are that catch on and “succeed” (Facebook was way behind MySpace, Friendster, etc., etc., and now look at them). For some people (especially my father!) keeping up with technology seems to be futile because there is the risk that it either changes drastically or disappears by the time you’ve mastered it. You have to feel for those students who spent 4 years and $40,000 to get their undergraduate degrees in Esperanto! Who are they talking to now?

Another valid argument against embracing new technologies too quickly is that you inevitably take instructional time away from previous technologies (read: putting a pen to paper or sitting down with a real paper book from the library). I love that kids can write and create and express online, but, I also love to see them scribbling away in their Journals during a 7-minute write before class. A classmate from another course said that he sometimes feels his resistance to bringing new technologies into the classroom might be akin to telling Alexander Graham Bell, “No thanks, Mr. Bell. I don’t need your funny invention. I’ll write a letter instead.” The truth is that in hindsight giving Bell’s invention the cold shoulder would seem ridiculous, as would snubbing that funny-looking printing press in favour of a trusty swan feather quill and scroll of papyrus! But, are we wrong to cling to what we know? Do we really run the risk of becoming “obsolete” as educators by not keeping up with the speed of technology? Or, if we do jump in head-first, and then 10 years from now social networking and Web 2.0 collaboration disappear as yet more failed tech ventures, will we be left wishing that we had stuck with the proven tools and methods we knew best?