The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of an iPad for Every Child, by Terrie Hamilton-Smith

The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of

an iPad for Every Child
Terrie Hamilton-Smith
Abstract
Schools in Australia and overseas are rapidly introducing and then replacing new forms of
information technology as learning aids. There is a growing trend for this to include
individual personalised devices which provide 24/7 access to the internet and effectively
endless information, apps and virtual gadgetry. The drivers of these programs reflect the way
we have come to think about our relationship with technology, nature and the purpose of
education, generating a range of consequences that are incompatible with sustainable
development. In this paper I aim to illustrate how we can reveal this largely unrecognised
way of thinking that underpins how we relate with the world, and thereby harness
opportunities for change.

Context
It seems that my childrens local Victorian Government primary school (School1) is behind
and slow2. In 2011, a 1:1 Netbook program was introduced to the School for all students in
grades three to six3, whereby each child received a Netbook for their personal use at school
and home. Some three years later it seems we are behind and slow again. A corporate grant,
iPads and more information and communications technology (ICT) teacher training is the
proposed fix. A new program (Program) now involves every student in years five and six
needing to supply their own iPad, while the school supplies iPads for the younger grades and
the foreign language classes4.

What does sustainability mean?

The term sustainability, like language generally, is an evolving and socially constructed
concept (Floyd 2012). While it has been defined in a plethora of ways, and is ascribed
meaning by the user of the term:
common to all definitions are three principle dimensions: depth, space and time.
These dimensions represent responses to three questions: What is to be sustained?
For whom is it to be sustained? And for how long is it to be sustained? (Varey, cited
in Floyd 2012).

For privacy reasons, I have not identified the school.

According to the sentiments expressed by many parents of children attending the School.
3
This was part of a State driven initiative which was effectively an extension of Kevin Rudds 2007 promise to
create a $1 billion fund to give every senior secondary school student in years nine to twelve access to a
computer at school (Winterford 2007). Netbooks are small, lightweight, relatively inexpensive laptop
computers.
4
This is in addition to there being desktop computers in the library, interactive whiteboards in every classroom
and a bank of spare Netbooks, iPods and iPads.
2

Page 1 of 10

Journal of the National Centre for Sustainability, June 2014

Vol.1 No.2

The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of an iPad for Every Child, by Terrie Hamilton-Smith

In this context, my answers to the for whom and the what questions include my own
children, the School, the broader local and global communities (both present and future) and
their respective health and human development. Health and development are also big
concepts that need defining. Essentially, what I seek to convey by these terms is a broad
notion of social and environmental health, resilience and a sense of evolution towards a more
holistic common good. This widely accepted definition broadly reflects my intent:
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs [my emphasis] (World Commission on Environment and
Development 1987). With that in mind, lets examine the sustainability related
characteristics, contexts and systems of the Program.

Drivers and benefits

The Program (and its Netbook predecessor) has been introduced at the Schools choosing.
There is no overarching legislation or directive from the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development (Department) requiring students to have an individual device.
Though it is certainly being strongly encouraged. Indeed, the Department is promoting,
encouraging and providing funding assistance for the take-up of both 1:1 Netbook and iPad
Programs (Department 2012a and 2013b).
There appear to be a number of key inter-related drivers for the wholesale uptake of personal
electronic devices as learning aids, including:
1. Wanting to be seen as up to date with local and global trends, reflecting a kind of
keeping up with the Joneses dynamic (even in the context of education). This is also
reflected in pressure that parents place on the School to have good ICT5. The Netbook
Project is part of a global movement towards a 1:1 ratio of students to wireless-enabled
computers (Department 2013b; School 2013).
2. The consumerisation6 and individualisation of education (Gruman 2013). Research
shows students are more motivated and engaged in learning when they have their own
computer (Department 2013a). That is why [the Department], with support from Apple
Corporation, examined how iPads can be best used for education through the iPads for
Learning trial (Department 2013b).

Personal ownership of the device is seen as the single most

important factor for successful use of this technology
(University of Hull 2013; Professor Chambers, Melbourne
University, cited in Cauchi 2011).
3. The idea that the primary function of education is to prepare children from an early age
for a role in a competitive workforce (the look and make-up of which, it is
acknowledged, we cannot accurately predict), together with an assumption that this will

I have attempted to gauge parents responses to the program and have identified mostly support, along with
criticisms that the School has been slow with its ICT uptake.
6
The iPad is a quintessential example of consumerisation, whereby this new technology spread first in the
consumer market before spreading into businesses and organisations. Apple, IBM, Dell, Hewlett-Packard etc.
have been touting the educational use of their computers since the 1980s (Gruman 2013).
Page 2 of 10

Journal of the National Centre for Sustainability, June 2014

Vol.1 No.2

The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of an iPad for Every Child, by Terrie Hamilton-Smith

involve heavy reliance on and dexterity with digital ICT (Department 2013a, 2013b;
School 2013, Robinson 2010; Gurney-Read 2013).
4. A global economic system based on the premise and reward of perpetual consumptive
growth (Jackson 2009; Hamilton 2002) which often ignores, or at best struggles to find a
mechanism or metric which can measure and create equivalencies for, economic, social
and environmental costs (Norman & McDonald 2004).
The putative benefits of the Program are consistently said to promote and facilitate greater
engagement in learning, instant access to information and tools, collaboration, innovation,
creativity, independent and anywhere, anytime learning (Department 2013a, 2013b; School
2013; University of Hull 2013).
These drivers and benefits incorporate and reflect the socially constructed values, habits and
systems that provide the broader framework and context for the Program (Fisher 2006).

Finding meaning in metaphors and illusions

It seems apparent from a review of the drivers and benefits that the needs or problems
being addressed in this context are ones that have in fact been created by the drivers
themselves (and their underlying social structures). No other reasons (such as a lack of
participation, engagement or collaboration in education and learning) have been identified in
the related literature as the issues being addressed. It therefore seems to follow that the
drivers and benefits are in fact masquerading as perceived needs or problems or, to put it
another way, they have become embedded in new metaphors that are guiding behaviour.
Lakoff and Johnson (2003, p.4) argue convincingly that our ordinary conceptual system, in
terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature and that this
system, which we are not normally aware of, plays a central role in defining our every day
realities (Lakoff & Johnson 2003, p. 4).
What can be extrapolated from the drivers, benefits and related literature, is that faster,
more, instant, competitive, individual ownership, autonomy and independence
have, in effect, become metaphors for good, better, improvement and progress.
Related to this, our cultures predominantly dualistic interpretation of nature generates the
illusion [that] each of us exists on Earth as an independent, separate entity (Doppelt 2012,
p. 2).

Central to this illusion is the paramountcy of the sacredness

of the individual, that is, anything that threatens our ability
to do whatever we want, whenever we want, is seen as a
danger to our economy, personal freedom, and way of life
(Doppelt 2012, p.2).
This metaphorical understanding has given meaning to and created a legitimised structure
and reality for the Program (Lakoff & Johnson 2003; Fisher 2006). It effectively embodies
what has largely become an end in itself. In this sense, it can be seen as representative of the
broader consumption game, where the goal is simply more (Leonard 2013). This produces

Page 3 of 10

Journal of the National Centre for Sustainability, June 2014

Vol.1 No.2

The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of an iPad for Every Child, by Terrie Hamilton-Smith

consequences that are not compatible with the goals of sustainable development as defined
above.

Consequences
What is striking about this education Program, from a sustainability perspective, are the
consequences that fail to rate a mention in the literature produced by the School, Department,
and broader research.
Cumulative Environmental Impacts
In a period of less than five years, the School has acquired a bank of desktop computers for
the library, then the Netbooks and interactive whiteboards, iPods and now the iPads. Its hard
not to wonder whats next and how soon (Welch 2013).

Apple (and most device and appliance manufacturers for that

matter) is hardly in the business of manufacturing once-perlifetime heirloom devices.
Another government agency, Sustainability Victoria, has introduced the ResourceSmart
AuSSI Vic program which aims to help Victorian schools actively build sustainability into
everyday school and community life (Sustainability Victoria 2013). And although
Sustainability Victoria is working in partnership on this initiative with the Department
(Sustainability Victoria 2013), it is striking to note that there is no mention of the
environmental impacts inherent in the devices manufacture, use and ultimate disposal in the
literature produced by either government agency. In fact, a search of Sustainability Victorias
website returns zero results for Netbook, iPad and e-waste7.
By environmental impacts I refer to the devices embodied energy, material resources and
waste, among other aspects (including the horrific labour conditions and worker suicides that
have gained press in recent years) inherent in their manufacture. And we also need to
recognise the cumulative energy use resulting from the operation of the devices, including
that used by internet search engines, the innocent sounding Cloud storage, endless apps,
servers, satellites, the related industries that support this use and the mountains of e-waste
that this all generates (including in outer space) (Ramos c.2011; Owen 2012, p.211; Glanz
2011; Clark 2011).
And while the devices have become more efficient in the sense that they require less
material resources and use less energy individually, the corresponding price decreases
resulting from that greater efficiency serve to accelerate their uptake and turnover. Therefore,
the net cumulative impact of cheaper, more efficient and more portable models (thus
making them appear more environmentally and therefore socially acceptable) results in far
greater overall impacts. This dynamic is not new to us; it is known as the Jevons Effect
(Fisher 2006, p. xv; Owen 2012). The 1:1 aspect of the Program across the entire school
spectrum spurs this dynamic, exacerbates these environmental impacts, and arguably

The only relevant references I have located are to increase electronic waste recycling (in a hard copy leaflet)
and to turn off monitors and computers while not in use.
Page 4 of 10

Journal of the National Centre for Sustainability, June 2014

Vol.1 No.2

The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of an iPad for Every Child, by Terrie Hamilton-Smith

represents a gross excess, inefficiency and waste, particularly in the absence of definitive
evidence8 associated with the claimed benefits.
The Technical Fix and Loss of Self

One of the telling aspects of the literature and supportive

media coverage in relation to this and similar initiatives is the
dominant focus on the capacities of the device itself.
Lists of pros include its lightness, portability, instant powering up, capacity for endless
apps and the 24/7 access to a galaxy of information, tools and virtual gadgetry. This suggests
a technical fix for a problem which has been considered in isolation and without tackling
its social context (Fisher 2006, p. xv). And the benefits seem to involve quite a lot of
outsourcing of important human attributes and skills to an electronic device. Consideration
of the broader social context (and our participation in and construction of it) offers the
opportunity for us to not only better see the significant environmental impacts discussed
above, but also some of the more insidious social and cultural implications.
The difficulty lies not so much in the technology itself, but rather in its implementation
(Fisher 2006, p. xv). Sounding the alarm in this context is the arguably unnecessary and
potentially harmful insistence on an independently owned device for each child (with 24/7
access9 being insisted upon as an integral and necessary component to achieve the touted
benefits (University of Hull 2013; Chambers, cited in Cauchi 2011)). Apart from reinforcing
the habits and structures identified by the drivers of the Program, we risk losing aspects of
what it means to be human (Fisher 2006; James 2012). The following observation by
childrens author, Mem Fox, illustrates one take on this problem:
an increasing reliance on technology to teach children how to read could inhibit
their empathy and social skills.Apps had no beginning, middle or end, and did not
describe forgiveness or courage in adversity (cited in Battersby 2013).
And as the works of Jackson (2009), Hamilton (2002), Doppelt (2012) and Wilkinson and
Picket (2009) convincingly demonstrate, having everything in a material sense does not,
past a certain threshold, increase our sense of wellbeing. Nor does it bring benefits to the less
fortunate in our communities. Rather it creates and exacerbates serious problems and
inequities across the social spectrum.
Absolute technical connectivity risks bringing about further widespread 'dis-connectivity'
with each other and the rest of the environment.

What our dystopian master storytellers did not foresee is that

the threat from technology is not a universal and deadening
conformity, but quite the opposite, a universal and deadening
8

There is a vast body of research, going back to the 1980s, demonstrating the lack of correlation between
computers (whatever the device or platform) and learning (Gruman 2013). As iPads only started being trialled
in schools in 2012 (with iPad 2, which was released in 2011), it would be difficult for any research to
convincingly demonstrate, at this early stage, that there are proven educational benefits.
9
Whilst it is hoped that it is not really anticipated that children will actually use the devices 24/7, lack of, and
poor quality, sleep due to extensive use of electronic devices is a growing issue of concern (Walsh et al. 2010,
p.195; University of Alberta 2012; Maushart 2011).
Page 5 of 10

Journal of the National Centre for Sustainability, June 2014

Vol.1 No.2

The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of an iPad for Every Child, by Terrie Hamilton-Smith

individuality (Sarewitz 2013).

Opportunities for change
This situation (which is becoming the norm across industrialised and industrialising
countries) has come about due to our cultures dualistic way of thinking whereby we humans
think of ourselves as separate from the rest of nature. This creates such a dislocation that the
broader context, as illustrated in this paper by the drivers and consequences, is simply not
seen. Revealing this thinking and the broader consequences it generates is the real
sustainability challenge and opportunity here. As Professor Frank Fisher (2006, p. xiv) put it:

An understanding of the social construction of meaning is a

guide to taking effective action for social change and
compels a responsiveness to the natural environment.
Environment is context. We adapt to the natural environment,
and we adapt it to suit our adapted selves. Accordingly, we are
responsible for our interactions with it.
Consumption and the sacredness of the individual have essentially become ends in
themselves. No higher purpose or problem has, as far as I can tell, been clearly identified
as needing a solution. This is not to argue that the School wants anything other than to
provide better or more appropriate education. With this clearly articulated aim in mind,
however, we need to not only ask ourselves how education will be delivered (that is, through
what material means or technology). We need to concurrently and continually ask about its
purpose: education for what, and why? These are particularly pertinent questions for a
society that invests such great meaning in formal education, believing it to be the key to
everything (Schumacher 1973, p. 59).
It is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into those questions here, though we may
speculate how likely they are to generate responses referring more to human qualities and
values (rather than devices). Indeed, these may not be dissimilar to some of those identified
in the claimed benefits of the Program, such as collaboration (which might be considered a
form of sharing), creativity, innovation and engagement. But with this broader purpose
explicitly in mind, the debate opens up with regard to the best means of going about such
education; and we would not become so mired in justifications for choices of technology that
go little further than its improved technical capacity. We would be empowered to create
education programs appropriate to the world we live in, programs that meet the needs of
sustainable development.
Engagement and debate
So how might we work towards revealing our problematic thinking in ways that are likely
to positively influence others? This becomes a question of how we might best be able to
engage the School, the Department and the community at large on the issue (Fisher 2006,
p.213). Practical means that come to mind include raising awareness of context and
sustainability issues generally through activities, targeted class sessions and initiatives at the
School. These could include facilitating guest speakers, Q&A sessions and seeking to have
the issue raised and debated in the media more often. We could also write to the relevant
Page 6 of 10

Journal of the National Centre for Sustainability, June 2014

Vol.1 No.2

The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of an iPad for Every Child, by Terrie Hamilton-Smith

government departments raising these issues and inviting a response (Fisher 2006, p. 214).
Communication with Sustainability Victoria is definitely in order given they do not seem to
have thought about the impacts of iPads beyond those that derive from their immediate
energy use. The new Australian Curriculum, which requires sustainability to be included as a
cross-curriculum priority, is a timely driver for such activities (Australian Association for
Environmental Education 2014; Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority 2014).
A telling alternative
Or perhaps we could take a leaf out of the book of eBays chief technology officer and
other employees of Silicon Valley giants (including Google, Apple, Yahoo and HewlettPackard) who send their children to a nine classroom Steiner school10 in Los Altos,
California (Richtel 2011). These ICT experts say technology is a distraction when we need
literacy, numeracy and critical thinking, and that computers inhibit creative thinking,
movement, human interaction and attention spans (Eagle, cited in Richtel 2011).
And to counter the claims of those who advocate that children need computer time to
compete in the modern world they ask: what's the rush, given how easy it is to pick up those
skills? It's like learning to use toothpaste.

At Google and all these places, we make technology as braindead easy to use as possible. There's no reason why kids can't
figure it out when they get older (Eagle, cited in Richtel 2011).
Artist in residence
A practical program that could be fun to incorporate into students lessons would be to
introduce some of the brain training activities that Todd Sampson investigated and
demonstrated in Make Me Smarter (2013). Many of the activities and exercises that Sampson
engaged in, with a view to expanding his capacities for memory, creativity and innovation,
involved changing his thinking and mind set. Notably, the key techniques he used involved
mostly coaching by experts and exercises using simple low-tech household items. Sampson
would make for a very entertaining artist in residence.
Had there been an opportunity for the School to think about the Program in this light, it could
have chosen to use the corporate grant11 to engage a suitable person to design and implement
a program which incorporates sustainability, along with different ways of thinking and
knowing, into the curriculum.

Conclusion
I have attempted to demonstrate that the Program is an unsustainable technical fix to a
perceived need that is being driven by our problematic ways of thinking and the dominant
consumerist paradigm. The solution is not to be found in technology, but rather by revealing
the systems we have created and the ways we think about them. It is by no means easy to
change the metaphors and illusions we live by but new metaphors have the power to create a
10

In the US, Steiner schools are referred to as Waldorf schools. These schools subscribe to a teaching
philosophy focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks (Richtel 2011).
11
The grant was able to be used for a variety of purposes, including sustainability.
Page 7 of 10

Journal of the National Centre for Sustainability, June 2014

Vol.1 No.2

The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of an iPad for Every Child, by Terrie Hamilton-Smith

new reality (Lakoff 2003, pp.146, 158; Doppelt 2012). Revealing this provides both a
challenge and an opportunity for sustainable development. And we will be all the better
equipped to deal with this, and to create genuinely sustainable societies, when freed from our
unrecognised default patterns of thinking and behaving.

References
Australian Association for Environmental Education 2014, Submission to the Review of the
Australian Curriculum, Australian Association for Environmental Education,
<http://www.aaee.org.au/wp-content/uploads2/2013/08/Review-of-the-AustralianCurriculum-SUBMISSION.pdf%3E>.
Battersby, L 2013, Technology no substitute for reading time: Mem Fox, The Age, 10
November, viewed 10 November 2013, <http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-lifenews/technology-no-substitute-for-reading-time-mem-fox-20131109-2x8dw.html>.
Cauchi, S 2011, Schools ponder if an Apple a day keeps ignorance at bay, The Age, 31 July,
viewed 11 November 2013, <http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/schools-ponder-if-an-applea-day-keeps-ignorance-at-bay-20110730-1i5kr.html>.
Clark, D 2011, Google discloses carbon footprint for the first time, The Guardian, 9
September, viewed 30 October 2013,
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/08/google-carbon-footprint>.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEEDC) 2013a, The Netbook
Project, DEECD, 28 September, viewed 13 November 2013,
<http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/archive/pages/netbook.aspx>.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2013b, iPads for Learning,
DEECD, viewed 13 November 2013, <http://www.ipadsforeducation.vic.edu.au/ipadstudent-trial>.
Doppelt, B 2012, From Me to We: The five transformational commitments required to rescue
the planet, your organization and your life, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK.
Fisher, F 2006, Response Ability: Environment, health and everyday transcendence, Vista
Publications, Melbourne.
Floyd, J 2012, A critical review of Corporate Sustainability, Corporate Responsibility and
the Triple Bottom Line, unpublished, reproduced in RAPTS 2013 Lesson 3 Reader Guide.

Page 8 of 10

Journal of the National Centre for Sustainability, June 2014

Vol.1 No.2

The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of an iPad for Every Child, by Terrie Hamilton-Smith

Glanz, J 2011, Google Details, and Defends, Its Use of Electricity, New York Times, 8
September, viewed 20 October 2011,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/technology/google-details-and-defends-its-use-ofelectricity.html?_r=2&>.
Gruman, G 2013, Giving kids iPads won't solve the education challenge, Info World, 9
August, viewed 11 November 2013,
<http://www.infoworld.com/d/consumerization-of-it/giving-kids-ipads-wont-solve-theeducation-challenge-224485>.
Gurney-Read, J 2013, Digital literacy as important as reading and writing', UK Telegraph,
11 November, viewed 11 November 2013,
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10436444/Digital-literacy-asimportant-as-reading-and-writing.html>.
Hamilton, C 2002, Overconsumption in Australia: the rise of the middle class battler, The
Australia Institute, Discussion Paper No. 49, November, viewed 20 October 2013,
<www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/DP49.pdf>.
Jackson, T 2009, Prosperity Without Growth, Earthscan, London.
James, A 2012, Losing Sight of Ourselves, Arena Magazine, No.115, January, viewed 21
August 2013, <http://www.arena.org.au/2012/01/losing-sight-of-ourselves/>.
Lakoff, G & Johnson, M 2003, Metaphors we live by, 2nd edn, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Leonard A 2013, The Story of Solutions, 1 October, viewed 10 October 2013,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpkRvc-sOKk>.
Make me Smarter 2013 [TV program], Redesign my Brain, ABC Television, 10 October
2013.
Maushart, S 2011, The Winter of Our Disconnect: How Three Totally Wired Teenagers (and
a Mother Who Slept with Her iPhone) Pulled the Plug on Their Technology and Lived to Tell
the Tale, Penguin, New York.
Norman, W and McDonald, C 2004, Getting to the bottom of Triple Bottom Line,
Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 14, issue 2, April, pp. 243-62.
Owen, D 2012, The Conundrum: How scientific innovation, increased efficiency, and good
intentions can make our energy and climate problems worse, Scribe, Brunswick.
Richtel, M 2011, Computers ok? Not in Silicon Valley, The Sydney Morning Herald, 8
November, viewed 11 November 2013, <http://www.smh.com.au/digitallife/computers/computers-ok-not-in-silicon-valley-20111106-1n1qc.html>.
Ramos, J c2012, unpublished The impacts of ICT: the ecological tsunami, provided in
RAPTS 2013 reading materials.

Page 9 of 10

Journal of the National Centre for Sustainability, June 2014

Vol.1 No.2

The Education Revolution or Devolution: The Consequences of an iPad for Every Child, by Terrie Hamilton-Smith

Robinson, K 2010, Changing Education Paradigms, October, viewed 3 November 2013,

<https://www.google.com.au/search?q=ken+robinson+changing+education+paradigms&rlz=
1C1GGGE_enAU411AU411&oq=ken+robinson+&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.5728j0j4&sourc
eid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8>.
Sarewitz, D 2013, From iPhone to mePhone: why mobiles are turning us into narcissists,
by, The Age, 12 November, viewed 12 November 2013,
<http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/from-iphone-to-mephone-whymobiles-are-turning-us-into-narcissists-20131112-2xd8e.html>.
School 2013, 1-1 iPad Program Parent Information Booklet, School, 24 October.
Schumacher, EF 1973, Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered, Blond
and Briggs, London.
Sustainability Victoria 2013, Schools, Sustainability Victoria, viewed 18 November 2013,
<http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/en/Services-and-Advice/Schools>.
University of Alberta 2012, TV, devices in kids' bedrooms linked to poor sleep, obesity,
Science Daily, 22 October, viewed 23 June 2014,
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145344.htm>.
University of Hull 2013, iPad research in schools, University of Hull, 11 April, viewed 11
November 2013, <http://www2.hull.ac.uk/ifl/ipadresearchinschools.aspx>.
Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority 2014, AusVELS - Home, State Government
Victoria, viewed 15 May 2014, <http://ausvels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/%3E>.
Walsh, S, White, KM & Young, R 2010,Needing to connect: The effect of self and others on
young peoples involvement with their mobile phones, Australian Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 62, No. 4, December, pp. 194203.
Welch, C 2013, What to expect from Apple's October 22nd iPad event, The Verge, 18
October, viewed 12 November 2013, <http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/18/.../apple-ipad-5event-what-to-expect>.
Wilkinson, R & Pickett, K 2009, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always
Do Better, Allen Lane, London
Winterford, B 2007, Rudd promises a computer on every school desk, ZDNet Special
Report, 17 November, viewed 16 November 2013, <http://www.zdnet.com/rudd-promises-acomputer-on-every-school-desk-1339283831/>.
World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our common future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

Page 10 of 10

Journal of the National Centre for Sustainability, June 2014

Vol.1 No.2