; Ellul, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Martin, 2008). Ellul (2010) argued that technology has an autonomy that distorts the purposeful ends that are proposed for it, and that man is 106 at risk of being a servant to technology. Similarly, Hofmann (2006) accepted that technology does change our environment, actions, and ideas. However, the technological imperative can consider the pursuit o f technology as an end in itself, to such an extent, that we continually adapt our lives to technology (Hofmann, 2006). Hofmann (2006) argued that such a mindset is problematic because technology was intended to be a means to improve life and provide greater freedom. He asserted that technology as an end in itself results in a type of technological enslavement, and called the technological imperative a reverse adaptation that results in the reduction of human autonomy and responsibility (Hofmann, 2006). Hofmann (2006) argued that a proper focus must remain on human responsibility, with technology as a means to achieve other external ends that benefit humanity, rather than viewing technology as an end in itself (Hofmann, 2006). Technology as value neutral or value laden. Associated with technological determinism is the premise that technology is a neutral tool for storing, processing, and accessing information that is outside o f cultural or personal critique (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007). In the previous discussion of Foundations in Philosophy of Technology, it was discussed that the neutrality thesis is associated with the popular instrumental view of technology. The instrumental view considers technology as a means to an end (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009), as value neutral instruments, neither good nor bad in themselves, which are put to use by users as a means for their own purposeful ends (Franssen et al., 2009). The neutrality assumption tends towards a dismissal o f the social, ethical, and philosophical implications o f technology, and focuses on data or information, rather than knowledge or wisdom, and technical skills rather than citizenship (Robinson & 107 McKnight, 2007). Hofmann (2006) argued that viewing technology as value neutral is a fallacy, because a proper teleological view of the nature of technology would place emphasis on ultimate ends that are supported through means such as technology. Because the ends of technology can have an ethical character, we should understand that technology raises value questions and makes them topical (Hofmann, 2006). A problem with the instrumental view with regard to educational technology is
; Ellul, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Martin, 2008). Ellul (2010) argued that technology has an autonomy that distorts the purposeful end that are aim for it, and that man is 106 at risk of being a servant to engineering. Similarly, Hofmann (2006) accepted that technology does change our environment, action, and ideas. However, the technological imperative mood can think the pursuit oxygen f technology as an end in itself, to such an extent, that we continually adapt our lives to engineering (Hofmann, 2006). Hofmann (2006) argued that such a mindset is debatable because technology was intended to be a mean to improve life and provide great freedom. He asserted that engineering as an end in itself solution in a type of technical enslavement, and called the technological imperative a reverse adaptation that leave in the reduction of human autonomy and responsibility (Hofmann, 2006). Hofmann (2006) argued that a proper focus must remain on human duty, with technology as a means to achieve other external ends that benefit humanity, rather than viewing technology as an end in itself (Hofmann, 2006). engineering as value impersonal or value laden. Associated with technical determinism is the premise that engineering is a neutral tool for storing, processing, and accessing data that is outside o f cultural or personal review (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007). In the previous discussion of Foundations in Philosophy of Technology, it was discussed that the disinterest thesis is associated with the popular instrumental view of technology. The instrumental view considers technology as a means to an end (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009), as value achromatic instruments, neither dear nor bad in themselves, which are put to use by users as a means for their own purposeful end (Franssen et al. , 2009). The neutrality assumption tends towards a judgment of dismissal o f the social, ethical, and philosophic implications o f technology, and focuses on data or data, rather than knowledge or wisdom, and technical skills rather than citizenship (Robinson & 107 McKnight, 2007). Hofmann (2006) argue that viewing engineering as value neutral is a fallacy, because a proper teleological view of the nature of engineering would place emphasis on ultimate ends that are supported through means such as engineering. Because the ends of technology can have an ethical quality, we should understand that technology raises value questions and makes them topical (Hofmann, 2006). A trouble with the instrumental view with respect to educational technology is
; Elpul, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Martin, 2008). Eluul (2010) argued thaj rechnonogy hzs an augonomy that distorts the pur'osedul ebds that are proposed wor it, anf that mqn iw 106 at risk of being a serbwnt co technology. Sikilarly, Hoxmann (2006) accepteg ghct technology does change our envirogment, avtlons, and ideas. Howtvew, ths technological imperative can conaider tie pursuit o f yechnology as an end in itdelf, to such an extent, that we cobtintqlly adapt ojr lives to technology (Hofmann, 2006). Hofmann (2006) argued that ruch c mindset iw prohnematic beceuse tvchnology was intendeg to be a means to imirove lide and provide greatec freedom. He asserteq that tewhuology as an end in irswlf rgsultv in q thpe oh tschnollgiral enslavejent, and caoled the technologivaj imperative a reverfe adaptation that results in the reductimn kf human autonomy and rwsponsibility (Hofmann, 2006). Hofmann (2006) argued that a proper focus must remain on human respkvsiyljkry, with technology as a means to achieve other qsttrnsl ends that bcnefit humanity, rayhfr jhan viewing tgchnoloyg zs an end in itselv (Hofmagn, 2006). Twchnology as falue neutral or value ladeb. Associated qith technological determiniso is the lremise that technology is z neutral tlol for sfuring, processing, anc dccessing information that is outsive o y culturxl ot persogal critiqke (Amlal & Reeves, 2008; Robinsln & MeKnigvt, 2007). In the previous discussion of Foundatmpns in Philoxo[hy of Techuology, it was discufsed that the ueutralicy theris is asskciated with the pjpular instrukgntal view of technoljgy. Rhe unstrumdvtal view consoders teckuology as a means to an end (Betgsr, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Hzndtgter, 2009), as value meugraj pnsvrumegds, neither gmod vor nad iv themstjvcs, dhicn are put to use by gsera as a means for tnelr own putposeful qnds (Franssen et al., 2009). The neutrapity essumpvion trndf towards a dismissal o f the aocial, etjicwl, and philofophlcal implicatipns o f technology, and focuses on data ir information, rajher than knowledge ot wlsdom, and terhnicaj skills sather than citizensyip (Robinson & 107 McLnight, 2007). Hofmann (2006) argusd thad vieaing technology as value neutral is a fallacy, because a proper teleologicql viex jf the natude og tecvnjkogy wjuld 'lace emphasis on ultimate ends that are supportxd through mzans such as technology. Becauxe the ends of jechnology can have an ethjcal chatacter, we should understand thay technology raises valuc questiobs ans makes thxm topical (Hofmann, 2006). S probnem wuth the insbrumental view wiyh regard tl edncacional technology is
; Ellul, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Martin, 2008). argued technology has autonomy that distorts proposed it, and that is 106 at of being a servant to technology. Hofmann (2006) accepted that technology does change our environment, actions, and ideas. However, technological imperative can consider the pursuit o f technology as an end in to an that continually adapt our lives to technology (Hofmann, 2006). Hofmann (2006) argued that such a mindset is because technology was intended to be a means improve life and provide freedom. He asserted that technology an in itself in type technological enslavement, and the technological imperative a reverse adaptation that results in the reduction of human autonomy and responsibility (Hofmann, Hofmann (2006) a proper must on responsibility, with technology means to achieve other external ends rather than viewing technology as an end in (Hofmann, 2006). as value neutral or value laden. with technological determinism is the premise that technology a neutral tool for storing, processing, and accessing information that is outside o f cultural critique (Amiel & Reeves, Robinson & McKnight, In previous of in Philosophy Technology, it was discussed that the neutrality thesis is associated with popular instrumental view of technology. The instrumental view considers technology means an end (Berger, Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009), value instruments, neither good nor themselves, are by as means for their own ends (Franssen et al., 2009). neutrality assumption tends towards social, ethical, and philosophical implications o f technology, focuses on data or information, rather than or wisdom, and technical skills rather than citizenship (Robinson & 107 McKnight, Hofmann (2006) viewing technology as value neutral is a fallacy, a proper teleological view the nature of technology would place emphasis on ultimate that supported through such as technology. the ends of can have an we should that raises makes them topical (Hofmann, 2006). A with instrumental view with regard to technology
; Ellul, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Martin, 2008). Ellul (2010) arGued that teChnolOgy Has An AutoNomy That distorts thE PurpOseful ends that are propoSed foR iT, And tHAt Man is 106 At risk oF BeING a sErVaNt tO tEChNologY. SiMilarly, hofmann (2006) accEptEd That technoloGY dOes change oUr eNvironment, acTioNs, and iDeAs. HOWever, The TechnOlogicAL imperAtive can cOnSIder thE Pursuit O F TeChnoLogy as an end in itseLF, tO Such an extent, thAt we coNtINuALLy aDapT our lives tO tEchnoLOgy (HofmANn, 2006). hOFManN (2006) Argued that sucH a mindset is PRobLematiC bEcaUSe techNologY wAS inTended to be a MeanS to improvE life aND providE Greater FreedoM. He AssErteD ThAt TecHnOLogY As An eND in Itself reSuLtS in a tYpe oF TECHnolOgiCal eNslavEment, and calleD thE tecHNolOgicaL impeRatiVe A reveRse adaPtatiOn That results in thE redUction of hUmaN aUtoNoMy and REsponsIbiLitY (HofmanN, 2006). HofmanN (2006) ArgUeD THAt A proper focus must reMaIN On Human resPonsibILiTy, WIth technOlOgy As a mEANs to aChieVE oTher exteRnal enDS tHaT benefiT hUmanitY, rAthEr tHan viEWing TechnoLogy as an End in ITself (Hofmann, 2006). TeCHnology as valuE NeUTRaL Or vaLue Laden. AssociAted WIth tEchnOLoGicAL deteRminiSm IS tHE premise that technolOgY is a neUtral Tool for storinG, processinG, AND accessiNg inFOrMAtion that is outSide o F cultural oR Personal CritiQue (Amiel & reeves, 2008; RobINSon & McKniGht, 2007). in tHe pRevIOUs Discussion of FOUNdatIoNs in PhiLosOphy of TEchNolOgy, It wAs Discussed That the nEuTrAlItY thEsis iS AssociatEd WitH tHe pOpulaR InstruMentaL vieW oF tEChnOlogy. ThE InSTRumeNtAl View ConSiDers tEchnOLogY as a meaNs to an end (berGEr, 2011; FeEnBeRg, 1991; HeideGger, 2009), as value neUtRal instrumEnTs, nEither GOOd nor bad In themselves, which are put TO use by uSerS as a mEans For their oWn pUrposeFul ENds (FraNssen eT al., 2009). ThE nEutRALity aSSUmPtiOn Tends towarDS A diSmissAl O f thE social, Ethical, and philosopHIcaL implications O f tEchnOLOgY, anD FoCUseS oN DatA OR information, ratHer than knoWlEDgE or wisdom, aND teChNical skIlls ratHer thAN citizeNship (RobiNson & 107 McKniGhT, 2007). HofMANn (2006) aRgued that vIewing teChnology aS Value NEuTral iS a fAllacy, BeCauSe a prOper teLEolOgicaL view oF tHe natuRe of tEcHnology wOuld place emphasis on ultiMate enDs thaT arE supporteD thROugH means sucH as tEchnology. BEcaUse The enDs oF TechnOlogY CaN haVE an etHicaL Character, WE sHouLD UnDerstand thaT TEChnOlogy RaiSEs valuE queStions and makes theM Topical (Hofmann, 2006). a proBLEm wIth THe inStRumental view wiTh rEgARD to educaTiOnal technolOgy is
; Ellul, 2010; Hofmann, 20 06; Martin , 200 8).  El lu l (2 010)  argued that t e chno logy has an autonomy t hat d is t orts th e pur poseful en d s  th at  a repr o po sed f orit, and  that manis10 6 at risk of be ing a serv ant  to technolo gy.  Simil ar ly, Hofma nn(2006 ) acce p ted th at techno lo g y does changeo u renvi ronment, actions, an d  ideas. Howeve r, the  t e ch n o log ica l imperati ve  canc onsider th e p urs u it o f techno logy as ane ndin its el f,t o such  an e xt e nt,  that we co ntin ually ada pt our lives t o  techno logy ( Hof man n, 2 0 06 ).  Ho fm a nn( 20 06) arg ued that  s uc h a m inds e t i s pr obl emat ic be cause technol ogy  was int ended  to b e ame ans t o impr ove l if e and provide g reat er freedo m.He  as se rtedt hat te chn olo gy as a n end i n  it se l f re sults in a type of  t e c hn ological  ensla v em en t , and ca ll edthet e chnol ogic a limperati ve a r e ve rs e adapt at ion th at  re sul ts in thereduct ion of h umana utonomy and re s ponsibility ( H of m a nn ,  200 6).  Hofmann (2 006) argu ed t h at  ap roper  focu sm us t  remain on human re sp onsibi lity,  with technol ogy as a m e a n s to ach ieve ot h er external en ds th at benefit humanity , rat her than  viewingt e chnology  as  an  en d i n it self (Hofmann , 2006 ).  Techno log y as va lue  ne utr alor  value la den. Ass oc ia te dwit h tec h nologica ldet er min ism i s  the p remis e th at  t e chn ology i s  a n eutr al  t oolfor  s torin g, p r oce ssing,and acces sin g  inf or ma tion th at is outside  o  f cultura lorperson a l  critiqu e (Amiel & Reeves, 2008 ;  Robins on& McK nigh t, 2007).  In  the p rev i ous di scussi on of  F oun d a tions i nPhi lo sophy of T e c hno logy,  i t wa s discu ssed that the neut r ali ty thesis isass ocia t e dwit h  t h e p op u lar i nstrumental vie w of techn ol o gy . The inst r ume nt al view  consid ers t e chnolog y as a me ans to an  e nd ( B e rge r, 2011; F eenberg,  1991; He i degge r ,2009) , a s valu eneu tralinstru m ent s, ne ithergo od nor  badin  themsel ves, which are put to u se byusers  as  a meansfor the ir own pu rpos eful ends(Fr ans sen e t a l ., 20 09). Th e n e utral itya ssumption te nds t ow ards a dism i s s alo f t hes ocial,  eth ical, and philoso p hical implicat ions o  ftec h nolo gy , and focusesonda t a  or info rm ation, rath er thankn o wledg e or w isdom,  and te c h ni c al ski llsrat her thancit iz e nship ( Ro bi n son &107Mc Knight , 2007 ) . Ho f m ann (2006) argue d tha t viewi n g t echno lo gy as v a lueneutral is  a fallacy,  becau se a  prop er tele ol ogical  vi ew  of the na t ure of te chnol ogy wou ld  pla ceemphas is o n ultim ateen dsthat ares u pp o rt ed thr ough  mean ssuch  as techn o logy. Be cau s e the e nd s o f techno l og y can have a n e thica l character, we s h ou l d und erstan d that  techno l ogy  r aises v alu e questions  and make s  th em  top ical (Ho fm ann,  2 006 ).  A problem with  the ins trumenta l view w ith rega r d to e du cational tec hnolo gy is
; Ellul,_2010; Hofmann,_2006; Martin, 2008). Ellul_(2010) argued_that_technology has_an_autonomy that distorts_the purposeful ends_that are proposed for_it, and that_man_is 106 at risk of being a servant to technology. Similarly, Hofmann (2006) accepted_that_technology does_change_our_environment, actions, and ideas. However,_the technological imperative can consider_the pursuit_o f technology as an end in itself,_to_such an extent,_that we continually adapt our lives to technology (Hofmann,_2006). Hofmann (2006) argued that such_a mindset is_problematic_because_technology was intended to_be a means to improve life_and provide greater freedom. He asserted_that technology as an end in itself_results in a type of technological_enslavement, and called the technological_imperative a_reverse adaptation that results in_the reduction of_human autonomy_and responsibility (Hofmann,_2006). Hofmann (2006) argued that a_proper focus must_remain on human responsibility, with technology_as_a means to_achieve_other_external ends_that benefit humanity,_rather_than viewing_technology_as an end in itself (Hofmann,_2006)._Technology as value neutral or value laden._Associated with technological determinism_is_the premise that technology_is a neutral tool for_storing, processing, and accessing information that_is outside_o f_cultural or personal critique (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight,_2007). In the previous discussion of_Foundations in Philosophy of_Technology, it_was_discussed that the_neutrality_thesis is_associated with the popular instrumental view of_technology. The_instrumental view considers technology as a_means to an end_(Berger,_2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009), as_value neutral instruments, neither good nor_bad in themselves, which are_put_to_use by users as a_means for their own purposeful ends_(Franssen et al.,_2009). The neutrality assumption tends towards a_dismissal_o f the social, ethical, and_philosophical_implications o f technology, and focuses_on_data_or information, rather than knowledge_or wisdom, and technical skills rather_than citizenship (Robinson & 107 McKnight, 2007). Hofmann (2006)_argued that viewing_technology as value neutral is_a_fallacy,_because a proper teleological view of the nature of technology_would place_emphasis on ultimate_ends that are supported through means such as technology. Because_the ends of technology can have an_ethical character, we should understand that technology raises value questions and_makes them topical (Hofmann, 2006). A problem with_the instrumental view with regard to educational_technology is