 ways, technology causes inadvertent consequences that we did not predict and cannot control (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011). Scholars have observed that the implementation of technology can result in unforeseen consequences and risks that were not originally intended (Canole, 2007; Jonas, 2009; Nel, 2006; Vermaas, 2011). 103 As it relates to education the unintended consequences view can provide insights pertaining to technology integration in schools. Nworie and Haughton (2008) examined the adoption and implementation of innovative technology for both traditional face-toface instruction and virtual learning environments, and described the instructional benefits, challenges, and unintended consequences of digital innovations. The researchers concluded that along with the instructional merits afforded by technology there can be unintended consequences such as ease o f cheating, and distractions from learning such as games, inappropriate content, and off task web surfing (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Educators should be aware of the possibility that instructional disparities can widen for students who are without sufficient access to technology at home (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). The possibility o f unintended consequences underscores the importance that educators and technology leaders should pause for considered judgment, and approach technology integration in a reflective way (Canole, 2007). In his analysis of these three interpretations o f what is often meant by technological determinism, Bimber (1994) argued that the term technological determinism should be reserved for the nomological account. Bimber (1994) asserted that only this view makes the strict claim that technology causes social change in a determined way, apart from any social context. However, Bimber's conclusion misses the nuances of technological determinism present in other interpretations. For example, beyond the question of strict causality, Slack and Wise (2006) emphasized that regardless of actual cause and effect, our attitudes toward technology are important. Slack and Wise (2006) considered the question of whether, if we become so dependent on our technology 104 tools, we create a "de facto technological determinism" (p. 2). Day (2010) discussed how our predictions o f technological futures can become real, and a self-fulfilling prophecy, if we believe them to be true. Braman (2004) described different classes of technology and their characteristics, and examined how technologies are introduced and begin to come into wider use. She took a position midway between technological determinism and social shaping of technology. Braman asserted that technology has structural effects on
ways, technology causes inadvertent consequence that we did not bode and cannot control (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011). Scholars have note that the execution of technology can result in unforeseen consequence and risks that were not originally intend (Canole, 2007; Jonas, 2009; Nel, 2006; Vermaas, 2011). 103 As it relates to education the unintended consequences scene can provide insights pertain to engineering integration in schools. Nworie and Haughton (2008) probe the adoption and implementation of advanced technology for both traditional face - toface instruction and virtual eruditeness environments, and described the instructional benefits, challenges, and unintended consequences of digital invention. The researchers concluded that along with the instructional merits afforded by technology there can be unintended consequence such as ease o f cheating, and distractions from learning such as games, inappropriate content, and off task web surfing (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Educators should be aware of the possibility that instructional disparities can widen for students who are without sufficient access to technology at home (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). The hypothesis oxygen f unintended consequences underscores the importance that educators and engineering drawing card should pause for considered judgment, and approach technology integration in a reflective direction (Canole, 2007). In his analysis of these three interpretations o f what is often meant by technological determinism, Bimber (1994) argued that the terminus technological determinism should be reserved for the nomological account. Bimber (1994) asserted that merely this view reach the strict claim that technology causes social change in a compulsive way, apart from any social context. However, Bimber's conclusion misses the nuances of technological determinism present in other interpretations. For example, beyond the motion of strict causality, Slack and Wise (2006) underscore that regardless of actual cause and effect, our attitude toward technology are significant. Slack and Wise (2006) consider the question of whether, if we become therefore dependent on our technology 104 cock, we create a " de facto technical determinism " (p. 2). Day (2010) discussed how our predictions o f technical futures can become real, and a self - fulfilling prophecy, if we believe them to be on-key. Braman (2004) describe different classes of engineering and their characteristics, and examined how technologies are introduced and begin to come into wider manipulation. She took a position midway between technological determinism and social shaping of technology. Braman assert that engineering has structural effects on
 wajs, technology causes inaavertent conseqoebces tiat we sid not oredict and cannot control (Bmmbee, 1994; Veemaas, 2011). Scholars have ocserved tjat the umpltmentation of tecihology gcn reamlt iu nnforeseen consgquences and risks that wese nlt originally intended (Canole, 2007; Jonaf, 2009; Nel, 2006; Vfrmaas, 2011). 103 As it relsees fo education the unintended conseqhences niew can provide onsights pertaining to tecjnollgy integration in schools. Nwirie qnd Haughton (2008) examined the adoptioh and implementation of innovatkve tzchnology fir bohv traditionel facv-toface instrmbtion atd virtial learning ekviroimenrs, and described the mnstructional benefijs, challencea, and unintended xobsequgnces of augigal iinobationd. Tie researchsrs concludwd that along with uhe pmstructional meritf wfforded by technology there can be unittehded consequences such qs ease o f cheating, wnd distrwctions from learning such as games, inappropriate contxng, aue off radk web surfing (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Educators shjhlc ne aware of the iossibility that imshristional dispatities ezn widen for studentd who ate wityout suffyciemt access to technology at yome (Nworie & Yaughton, 2008). The possnbility o f bnintemded vonsequences underscorer ths importancf that edhzators and technulony neaders should pause for cjnsidered judyment, ana apkroach eechnology intensation in a reflechive cay (Cdnole, 2007). In jis analysis of these three intxcpretations o f whdt is ofcen mesnt by technojogical determnnism, Biiber (1994) argued thzt the verm technoljgical determhjism should ue reservqd fir tye nomouugical account. Bimber (1994) cfserred that only this vigw makes the strieu coaim that technploey salsex fmcial change in x ddyermived way, apavt wrom any social context. Voweber, Bimber's concluxijn missew the nuwnces of techmological determinlsm pcesent in oyhet interpretations. For example, bsyond the qucstion of stryct gauswlity, Slacl and Wise (2006) emphasized that regardless if actual cause ane effect, our attitubex toward terhnolody are im[ortant. Slack and Wiwe (2006) considered tht question of whether, ir we bacome so dependent on our technology 104 tools, we create a "de facto technological determinism" (p. 2). Dag (2010) doscusveb hpw our previrtions o f technokogical futures can become real, and a saly-fulfilling prophecy, if we bekidve them to bg true. Braman (2004) described djfferent classes of technology and theit characteristics, and exsmined hiw tedhnologies are introduced anc begiu to cime inti wifer use. She tuok a position midxay between technological determiniwm and slcial shaping of technology. Nraman asserjed that technolofy hzd stroctural effectx on
ways, technology causes inadvertent consequences that we predict cannot control 1994; Vermaas, 2011). implementation technology can result unforeseen consequences and that were not originally intended (Canole, Jonas, 2009; Nel, 2006; Vermaas, 2011). 103 As it relates to education the consequences view can provide insights pertaining to technology integration in schools. Nworie and (2008) the and of innovative technology for both traditional face-toface instruction and virtual learning environments, and described the instructional challenges, and unintended consequences of digital innovations. The concluded that along with instructional merits afforded by technology can unintended consequences as o cheating, and distractions learning such as games, inappropriate content, and off task web surfing (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Educators should aware of that instructional can for who are without to technology at home (Nworie & possibility o f unintended consequences underscores the importance educators and leaders should pause for considered judgment, approach technology integration in a reflective way (Canole, In his analysis of these three interpretations o f what is often meant by technological (1994) argued that the technological determinism should reserved the account. (1994) asserted only this view makes the strict claim that technology causes social in a determined way, apart from any social context. However, misses nuances of technological present in other interpretations. example, the question of strict and (2006) of cause effect, our attitudes toward are important. Slack and Wise considered the question of dependent on our technology 104 tools, we create "de facto technological determinism" (p. 2). Day discussed how our predictions o f technological futures can become real, and self-fulfilling prophecy, believe them to be true. Braman (2004) described classes of technology and characteristics, and examined how technologies are introduced and begin come wider use. took a position between technological determinism social shaping of asserted that has effects
 ways, technology causes inadvErtent consEquenCes ThaT wE did Not pRedict and cannoT ContRol (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011). ScholaRs havE oBServED tHat thE implemENtATIon Of TeChnOlOGy Can reSulT in unfoReseen consEquEnCes and risks tHAt Were not oriGinAlly intended (canOle, 2007; JonAs, 2009; nel, 2006; vErmaaS, 2011). 103 As It relAtes to EDucatiOn the uninTeNDed conSEquenceS VIeW can Provide insights peRTaINing to technoloGy inteGrATiON In sChoOls. Nworie aNd haughTOn (2008) examiNEd THE AdoPTion and implemEntation of iNNovAtive tEcHnoLOgy for Both tRaDItiOnal face-tofAce iNstructioN and viRTual leaRNing envIronmeNts, And DescRIbEd The InSTruCTiOnaL BenEfits, chaLlEnGes, anD uniNTENDed cOnsEqueNces oF digital innovAtiOns. THE reSearcHers cOnclUdEd thaT along With tHe Instructional meRits Afforded bY teChNolOgY therE Can be uNinTenDed consEquenceS SucH aS EASe O f cheating, and distrAcTIOnS from leaRning sUCh As GAmes, inapPrOprIate CONtent, And oFF tAsk web suRfing (NWOrIe & haughtoN, 2008). EDucatoRs ShoUld Be awaRE of tHe possIbility tHat inSTructional dispARities can wideN FoR STuDEnts Who Are without sUffiCIent AcceSS tO teCHnoloGy at hOmE (nwORie & Haughton, 2008). The possiBiLity o f UnintEnded consequeNces undersCOREs the impOrtaNCe THat educators anD techNology leadERs should Pause For consiDered judgMENt, and appRoaCh tEchNolOGY iNtegration in a REFlecTiVe way (CaNolE, 2007). In his aNalYsiS of TheSe Three inteRpretatiOnS o F wHaT is Often MEant by teChNolOgIcaL deteRMinism, bimbeR (1994) argUeD tHAt tHe term tEChNOLogiCaL dEterMinIsM shouLd be REseRved for The nomoloGicAL accOuNt. bimber (1994) aSserted that onLy This view maKeS thE stricT CLaim that Technology causes social cHAnge in a DetErminEd waY, apart froM anY sociaL coNText. HoWever, BImber'S cOncLUSion mISSeS thE nUances of teCHNolOgicaL dEterMinism pResent in other interPRetAtions. For examPle, BeyoND ThE quEStIOn oF sTRicT CAusality, Slack anD Wise (2006) emphaSiZEd That regardLEss Of Actual cAuse and EffecT, Our attiTudes towaRd technolOgY are IMPorTant. Slack aNd Wise (2006) coNsidered tHE quesTIoN of whEthEr, if we BeComE so dePendenT On oUr tecHnologY 104 tOols, we CreatE a "De facto tEchnological determinism" (P. 2). Day (2010) diScussEd hOw our predIctIOns O f technolOgicAl futures cAn bEcoMe reaL, anD A self-FulfILlIng PRopheCy, if WE believe tHEm To bE TRuE. Braman (2004) descRIBEd dIfferEnt CLasses Of teChnology and their cHAracteristics, aNd exAMIneD hoW TechNoLogies are introDucEd AND begin to CoMe into wider Use. She toOk A PositIon midWay betWeen tecHNOlOGical dEterMinIsm and socIal ShAPing of tEcHnOLogy. BrAman AsSerted That teCHnolOGY has structural efFects ON
 ways, technology causes i nadvertent  cons equ enc es  tha t we  did not predi c t an d cannot control (Bimb er, 1 99 4 ; Ve r ma as, 2 011). S c ho l a rsha ve  ob se r ve d tha t t he impl ementation  of  t echnology ca n  r esult in u nfo reseen conse que nces a nd  ri s ks th atwerenot or i ginall y intende d( Canole ,  2007;J o na s, 2 009; Nel, 2006; V e rm a as, 2011). 103  As it  r e la t e s t o e ducation t he  unin t ended c o ns e q u enc e s view can pr ovide insig h tspertai ni ngt o tech nolog yi nte gration inscho ols. Nwor ie and Haughto n  (2008)  exami ned  th e ad o pt io n a nd imp l em ent a tio n of inn ov at ive t echn o l o g y fo r b othtradi tional face-t ofa ce i n str uctio n and  vir tu al le arning  envi ro nments, and des crib ed the in str uc tio na l ben e fits,cha lle nges, a nd unin t end ed c o ns equences of digita li n no vations.  The r e se ar c hers con cl ude d th a t  alon g wi t hthe inst ructio n al  m erits a ff ordedby  te chn ology ther e canbe unint ended consequences s u ch as ease of  c h e at i ng,and  distractio ns f r om l earn i ng  su c h asgames ,i na p propriate content,an d offtaskweb surfing ( Nworie & H a u g hton, 20 08). Ed u cators shouldbe aw are of the possibil ity t hat inst ructional d ispariti escan  wi den f or  students who a re w it hout su ffi cient a cce sstotec hn ology athome (Nw or ie  &  H aug hton, 2008). T he  po ss ibi lityo  f uni ntend ed c on se q uen ces und e rs c o resth eimpo rta nc e tha t ed u cat ors and  technolo gyl eade rs  s hould p ause for cons id ered judgm en t,and ap p r oach tec hnology integration ina  reflec tiv e way  (Ca nole, 200 7).  In hi s a n alysis  of th ese t hr eei n terpr e t at ion so f what i s oft en me an t by  techno logical determinis m , B imber (1994)arg uedt h at  th e  t e rmte c hno l o gical determini sm shouldbe re served for the  n omologi cal acc ount. Bimber(1994) as serted th at  onl y thi s view mak es the s trict cla i m tha t  t echno log y caus es  so cialchange ina det ermine dway, a partfr om any s ocial context. However,  Bimbe r's c onc lusion mi sse s  th e nuances  oftechnologi cal  de termi nis m  pres enti noth e r int erpr e tations.F or  ex a m pl e, beyond t h e que stion  of strict  cau sality, Slack and Wise (2006) em phas i z edtha t  reg ar dless of actua l c au s e  and eff ec t, our atti tudes to wa r d tec hnolog y areimporta n t .S lack a nd W ise  (2006) c ons id e red the  q ue s tion o f wh et her, i f we b e come s o dependent on o ur te c h nolog y  10 4 too ls , we cr e atea "de fact o technolog ical d eter minis m" (p.2) . Day(20 10 ) discusse d  how ourpredi ctionsof te chn ologic al f u t urescanbe com e real, a n d  a se lf - ful fill ing p ro phec y, if web elieve t hem to be t ru e.B r aman ( 2 00 4 )  described  di ffere n t  classes o f  tec h no l ogy a nd the ir cha racteri s tic s,  and ex ami n e d how tec hnologies are  i ntro duced an dbegi ntoco me into wider u se. Shetook a p o s itionmid w ay b e tweente chnologicaldeter mi n ism and s oci al shap i ngoftec hnol ogy . Br a man asserted that techno logy  hass tru ctura l eff ec ts on
 ways,_technology causes_inadvertent consequences that we_did not_predict_and cannot_control_(Bimber, 1994; Vermaas,_2011). Scholars have_observed that the implementation_of technology can_result_in unforeseen consequences and risks that were not originally intended (Canole, 2007; Jonas, 2009;_Nel,_2006; Vermaas,_2011)._103_As it relates to education_the unintended consequences view can_provide insights_pertaining to technology integration in schools. Nworie and_Haughton_(2008) examined the_adoption and implementation of innovative technology for both traditional_face-toface instruction and virtual learning environments,_and described the_instructional_benefits,_challenges, and unintended consequences_of digital innovations. The researchers concluded_that along with the instructional merits_afforded by technology there can be unintended_consequences such as ease o f_cheating, and distractions from learning_such as_games, inappropriate content, and off_task web surfing_(Nworie &_Haughton, 2008). Educators_should be aware of the possibility_that instructional disparities_can widen for students who are_without_sufficient access to_technology_at_home (Nworie_& Haughton, 2008)._The_possibility o_f_unintended consequences underscores the importance that_educators_and technology leaders should pause for considered_judgment, and approach technology_integration_in a reflective way_(Canole, 2007). In his analysis_of these three interpretations o f_what is_often meant_by technological determinism, Bimber (1994) argued that the term technological determinism_should be reserved for the nomological_account. Bimber (1994) asserted_that only_this_view makes the_strict_claim that_technology causes social change in a determined_way, apart_from any social context. However, Bimber's_conclusion misses the nuances_of_technological determinism present in other interpretations._For example, beyond the question of_strict causality, Slack and Wise_(2006)_emphasized_that regardless of actual cause_and effect, our attitudes toward technology_are important. Slack_and Wise (2006) considered the question of_whether,_if we become so dependent on_our_technology 104 tools, we create a_"de_facto_technological determinism" (p. 2). Day_(2010) discussed how our predictions o_f technological futures can become real, and a self-fulfilling_prophecy, if we_believe them to be true._Braman_(2004)_described different classes of technology and their characteristics, and examined_how technologies_are introduced and_begin to come into wider use. She took a position_midway between technological determinism and social shaping_of technology. Braman asserted that technology has structural effects on