 account of technological determinism. The humanizing framework for educational technology proposed by Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) guided this study. This framework emphasizes the importance o f questioning assumptions about technology, which can correspond to ideological perspectives associated with technological determinism and social determinism. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) used a conceptual framework for technological determinism based on hard and soft technological determinism. The category Technology causes social change was interpreted as aligning with hard technological determinism. The category Both technology causes social change and social factors shape technology was in alignment with the philosophical position of soft technological determinism. The category Social factors shape technology was in alignment with the philosophy of technology position of social determinism. The humanizing framework for educational technology proposed by Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) also emphasizes the importance of critically analyzing assumptions corresponding to utopianism and dystopianism as it pertains to educational technology. The category Technological optimism was equated with the perspective of technological utopianism. The category Technological pessimism was equated with technological dystopianism. 255 Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions An important theme in the literature concerns the importance for educational technology of critically examining philosophy of technology assumptions such as technological determinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al., 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Research in fields outside of K-12 education found assumptions characterized by technological determinism were an important factor that influenced technology leadership (Grant et al., 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). However, educational technology scholars have argued that research is needed within the field to critically questions technological determinist assumptions, and considers alternate ways of thinking about technology and learning that emphasizes the agency of human actors, and better recognizes the social factors involved with using technology in education (M. Oliver, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b). Such research can better inform professional practice and contribute to what Kanuka (2008) called philosophy in practice pertaining to technology. The purpose of the qualitative study was to a) examine what philosophical assumptions about technology are present in the thinking of K-12 technology leaders, b) investigate how the assumptions
account of technological determinism. The humanizing framework for educational technology aim by Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) guide this study. This framework emphasizes the importance oxygen f questioning assumptions about technology, which can correspond to ideological position associated with technological determinism and social determinism. Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) use a conceptual framework for technological determinism free-base on hard and soft technical determinism. The category Technology causes social variety was interpreted as align with difficult technological determinism. The category Both technology induce social change and social factors shape technology was in alliance with the philosophical position of soft technological determinism. The category Social factors form technology was in alignment with the philosophy of technology position of social determinism. The humanizing model for educational engineering propose by Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) also emphasizes the importance of critically analyzing assumptions corresponding to utopianism and dystopianism as it pertains to educational engineering. The category technical optimism was equated with the perspective of technical utopianism. The class Technological pessimism was equated with technological dystopianism. 255 Chapter 5: Implications, recommendation, and Conclusions An important theme in the literature concerns the importance for educational engineering of critically examining philosophy of technology assumptions such as technological determinism (Carr - Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al. , 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Research in fields outside of K-12 education found assumptions characterized by technological determinism were an authoritative factor that influence technology leadership (Grant et al. , 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). However, educational technology scholars have argued that research is need within the field to critically questions technological fatalist assumptions, and study alternate ways of thinking about engineering and learning that emphasizes the agency of human actors, and better recognize the social factors involve with using engineering in education (M. Oliver, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b). Such research can well inform professional practice and contribute to what Kanuka (2008) address philosophy in exercise pertaining to technology. The purpose of the qualitative report was to a) examine what philosophical assumptions about technology are present in the thinking of K-12 technology leaders, b) investigate how the premise
 acfount of technological dtterminism. The humanizinj framesork for educational technology proplswd by Strobel and Tillberg-Wdbb (2009) guidvd this srudy. Rhis framexkrk empmcsizea the mmportance o f auestioninc assumptions dbuuc technology, which can correspond to ideolobifal perspectivgs asxjciafvd with technological determiniam and vocial determonism. Strobel and Tillberg-Aebb (2009) used a conceptuap framework for rechnologicau determinpvm based oh hard and soft technological ddtermnnism. The cqtwgogi Technology causvs social chakbe was interpteted as alignlng wmth yard technological deverminism. The categoty Both tewhuology causes social xhqnge dnd vocixo fxctkrx ahape hecinology was in alignmebt with the philosokhisql position or soft tqchnological determinism. The category Smcizl factors shape technooogy was in alignment with the philosophy of technology position of social detesminiao. Tkc fymwnizing framework for educational technology [dokosvd by Strobel and Tillberg-Wenb (2009) sjso emphasizer the njpkrtance of criticaply anajyzint assumptyons corresponding to utopianisn and dystoppaniwm as it pertains co educationcl tecnnoloby. The category Technolugiczl optimism was equafdd with the persoecnive of technological utopianifm. The cavegorv Technouogival pefsimism wad equated with technologlcal bysto[ianism. 255 Cjapter 5: Implications, Recommendavmons, and Conckuviots An im'ortanb theme in the jiterature coneerns thz impoftance for educatmonal technojogy of critiwwlly examiniig philosjphy of rechnoluey assumptions such as neehnologicql determinism (Carv-Chelujan, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hoyoqnn, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Krott & Wynvgac, 2010; McQmnald et al., 2005; M. Ouivdt, 2011; Pexrson & Younn, 2002; Rmitn, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Febb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Researcn ln fields outside of K-12 educatipn found assumptiojs cheractecized ny jechnological determinism were zn importwnt factor that infouenced techuology leadership (Grant et al., 2006; Jackson & 'hilip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonaedi & Jackson, 2004; Prakaxm & Sinha, 2008). Hoxever, qducationdl technology scholaes have argued thst research is needed withit the field to critically questions technological determinist assumptions, and xonsidxrf alternate wayx of nhiukiug aboue terhiology and learnimg that emphasizes the agency oh human acdoxs, and better recognizes the xozial factors knvolved with using techhology im education (M. Oliver, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b). Xuch research can better inform profeasional prectice and contributr to wkat Kabuka (2008) cqllef philosophy kn lrwctice pegtaiiiny to technology. The purpose of thw qualutwtive study was vo a) examine dhat khilosoprical assumptiona abkkt tezhnology are lresent in the thinking of K-12 technmljgy leaders, b) uhvestigate hpw thg assumptions
account of technological determinism. The humanizing framework technology by Strobel Tillberg-Webb (2009) guided the o f questioning about technology, which correspond to ideological perspectives associated with determinism and social determinism. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) used a conceptual framework for determinism based on hard and soft technological determinism. The category Technology causes social was as with technological determinism. The category Both technology causes social change and social factors shape technology was in with the philosophical position of soft technological determinism. category Social factors shape was in alignment with the of position of determinism. humanizing for educational technology by Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) also emphasizes the importance of critically analyzing assumptions corresponding to utopianism and as it educational technology. category optimism equated with the technological utopianism. The category Technological pessimism technological dystopianism. 255 Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and An important in the literature concerns the importance educational technology of critically examining philosophy of technology such as technological determinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, et al., 2005; M. 2011; Pearson & 2002; 2006; & 2009; Selwyn, Research in fields outside of K-12 education found assumptions characterized by determinism were an important factor that influenced technology leadership (Grant 2006; & Philip, 2010; 2008; Leonardi & Jackson, Prakash Sinha, 2008). However, educational have that within field critically questions technological determinist and considers alternate ways of about technology and learning human actors, and better recognizes the social factors with using technology in education (M. Oliver, Selwyn, 2010b). Such research can better inform professional practice and contribute to Kanuka (2008) in practice pertaining to technology. The purpose of qualitative study was to examine what philosophical assumptions about technology are present in thinking K-12 technology b) investigate how assumptions
 account of technological detErminism. ThE humaNizIng FrAmewOrk fOr educational tEChnoLogy proposed by Strobel aNd TilLbERg-WeBB (2009) gUided This stuDY. THIS frAmEwOrk EmPHaSizes The ImportaNce o f questIonInG assumptions ABoUt technoloGy, wHich can correSpoNd to idEoLogICal peRspEctivEs assoCIated wIth technoLoGIcal deTErminisM ANd SociAl determinism. StroBEl ANd Tillberg-Webb (2009) Used a cOnCEpTUAl fRamEwork for teChNologICal deteRMiNISM baSEd on hard and soFt technologICal DetermInIsm. tHe cateGory TEcHNolOgy causes soCial Change was InterpREted as aLIgning wIth harD teChnOlogICaL dEteRmINisM. thE caTEgoRy Both teChNoLogy cAuseS SOCIal cHanGe anD sociAl factors shapE teChnoLOgy Was in AlignMent WiTh the PhilosOphicAl Position of soft tEchnOlogical dEteRmIniSm. the caTEgory SOciAl fActors sHape tecHNolOgY WAS iN alignment with the pHiLOSoPhy of tecHnologY PoSiTIon of socIaL deTermINIsm. ThE humANiZing framEwork fOR eDuCationaL tEchnolOgY prOpoSed by sTrobEl and TIllberg-WEbb (2009) alSO emphasizes the IMportance of crITiCALlY AnalYziNg assumptioNs coRRespOndiNG tO utOPianiSm and DySToPIanism as it pertains tO eDucatiOnal tEchnology. The cAtegory TecHNOLogical oPtimISm WAs equated with tHe perSpective of TEchnologIcal uTopianisM. The categORY TechnolOgiCal PesSimISM wAs equated with TEChnoLoGical dyStoPianism. 255 chaPteR 5: ImPliCaTions, RecoMmendatiOnS, aNd coNclUsionS an importAnT thEmE in The liTEraturE concErns ThE iMPorTance foR EdUCAtioNaL tEchnOloGy Of criTicaLLy eXamininG philosopHy oF TechNoLoGy assumPtions such as tEcHnological DeTerMinism (cARr-ChellmAn, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; KrITt & WinegAr, 2010; MCDonaLd et Al., 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; peaRson & YoUng, 2002; sMith, 2006; StRobel & TIllbeRg-webB, 2009; sElwyn, 2010B). rEsEarCh In fields ouTSIde Of K-12 edUcAtioN found aSsumptions characteRIzeD by technologiCal DeteRMInIsm WErE An iMpORtaNT Factor that influEnced technOlOGy Leadership (gRanT eT al., 2006; JackSon & PhilIp, 2010; LeoNArdi, 2008; LeoNardi & JackSon, 2004; PrakasH & SInha, 2008). hOWevEr, educatioNal technOlogy schoLArs haVE aRgued ThaT reseaRcH is NeedeD withiN The Field To critIcAlly quEstioNs TechnoloGical determinist assumptIons, anD consIdeRs alternaTe wAYs oF thinking AbouT technologY anD leArninG thAT emphAsizES tHe aGEncy oF humAN actors, anD BeTteR REcOgnizes the sOCIAl fActorS inVOlved wIth uSing technology in eDUcation (M. Oliver, 2011; selwYN, 2010B). SuCh rESearCh Can better inforM prOfESSional prAcTice and contRibute to WhAT KanuKa (2008) callEd philOsophy iN PRaCTice peRtaiNinG to technoLogY. THE purposE oF tHE qualiTatiVe Study wAs to a) eXAminE WHat philosophical AssumPTIons aBOut TechnOlOgy are pREsenT in the thinKing of K-12 techNology LeadErs, b) iNvestigAtE how thE asSuMptions
 account of technologicaldeterminis m. Th e h uma ni zing  fra mework for edu c atio nal technology propose d bySt r obel an d Til lberg-W e bb ( 200 9)  g uid ed th is st udy . Thisframeworkemp ha sizes the im p or tance o fque stioning ass ump tionsab out techn olo gy, w hich c a n corr espond to  i d eologi c al pers p e ct ives  associated witht ec h nological dete rminis ma nd s oci aldeterminis m.  Stro b el andT il l b e rg- W ebb (2009) us ed a concep t ual  frame wo rkf or tec hnolo gi c aldeterminism  bas ed on har d ands oft tec h nologic al det erm ini sm.T he  c ate go r y T e ch nol o gycauses s oc ia l cha ngew a s inte rpr eted  as a ligning withhar d te c hno logic al de term in ism.The ca tegor yBoth technology  cau ses socia l c ha nge  a nd so c ial fa cto rsshape t echnolo g y w as i n  a lignment with theph i l os ophicalpositi o nof soft tec hn olo gica l deter mini s m.  The cat egoryS oc ia l facto rs  shape  t ech nol ogy w a s in  align ment wit h the philosophy oft echnology pos i ti o n  o f  soc ial  determinis m. T h e hu mani z in g f r amewo rk fo re du c ational technologypr oposed  by S trobel and Ti llberg-Web b ( 2009) al so e m ph a sizes the impo rtanc e of criti c ally ana lyzin g assump tions cor r e sponding  to  ut opi ani s m  a nd dystopiani s m  asit  pertai nsto educ ati ona l t ech no logy. The  categor yTe ch no log icalo ptimismwa s e qu ate d wit h  the p erspe ctiv eof tec hnologi c al u topi an is m. T heca tegor y Te c hno logical  pessimis m w a s eq ua te d withtechnological  d ystopianis m.  25 5 Chap t e r 5: Imp lications, Recommendati o ns, and  Co nclus ions  An impor tan t them e i n  the l iterat ure c on cer n s  thei m po rta nc e for educ a t ion al te ch nolo gy of c ritically examinin g  ph ilosophy of t ech nolo g y  a ssu m pt i ons  s u cha s  technologicaldeterminis m( Ca rr-Chellma n , 2 00 5; Fish er, 200 6; Ho f mann, 2 006; Kanu ka, 2008;  K ritt &  Wi negar, 201 0; McDon ald et al . , 200 5 ;M. Ol ive r, 201 1;  Pe arson  & You n g,2002;  Smith ,2006;Strob el  & Tillb erg-Webb, 2009; Selwyn,  2010b ). Re sea rch in fi eld s  ou tside ofK-12  education  fo und  assu mpt i ons c hara c te riz e d bytech n ologicald et erm i n is m were an i m p o rta nt fa cto r  thatinfl uenced technology leadership (Gr ante t  al .,2 006;  J ackson & Phili p,20 1 0 ; Leonar di , 2008; Leo nardi &Ja c kson,  2004;  Praka sh & Si n h a, 2008).  How eve r, educat ion al technol og ys cholar s ha ve  argue d that rese a r ch is needed wit hin t h e  fiel d  to  crit ic ally qu e stio ns technol ogical dete rminis t as sumpt ions, a nd  consi der salternatew ays of th inkin g about  t echn olo gy and  lea r n ing t hatem pha sizes the a ge n cy  o f  hu manactor s,  and  better r e cognizes  th e  social  f act o r s invo l ve d with using  te chnol o g y in educa t ion( M. Olive r, 201 1; Sel wyn, 20 1 0b) .Such re sea r c h can bet ter infor m  pr of essi onal pra ct icean d c on tribute to what  Kanuka(2008) c a l led ph ilo s ophy in pra ct ice pertaini ng to  t e chnolog y .  Th e purpo s e o f t hequal ita tive study was to a) examinewhat  phil o sop hical  assu mp tions ab o ut t echnolog y  are presentin the thinking ofK -12tec h no lo gy leader s,b ) inv esti gat e ho w t he a s s umpt i ons
 account_of technological_determinism. The humanizing framework_for educational_technology_proposed by_Strobel_and Tillberg-Webb (2009)_guided this study._This framework emphasizes the_importance o f_questioning_assumptions about technology, which can correspond to ideological perspectives associated with technological determinism and_social_determinism. Strobel_and_Tillberg-Webb_(2009) used a conceptual framework_for technological determinism based on_hard and_soft technological determinism. The category Technology causes social_change_was interpreted as_aligning with hard technological determinism. The category Both technology_causes social change and social factors_shape technology was_in_alignment_with the philosophical position_of soft technological determinism. The category_Social factors shape technology was in_alignment with the philosophy of technology position_of social determinism. The humanizing framework_for educational technology proposed by_Strobel and_Tillberg-Webb (2009) also emphasizes the_importance of critically_analyzing assumptions_corresponding to utopianism_and dystopianism as it pertains to_educational technology. The_category Technological optimism was equated with_the_perspective of technological_utopianism._The_category Technological_pessimism was equated_with_technological dystopianism._255_Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions_An_important theme in the literature concerns the_importance for educational technology_of_critically examining philosophy of_technology assumptions such as technological_determinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann,_2006; Kanuka,_2008; Kritt_& Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al., 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Pearson_& Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Selwyn,_2010b). Research_in_fields outside of_K-12_education found_assumptions characterized by technological determinism were an_important factor_that influenced technology leadership (Grant et_al., 2006; Jackson &_Philip,_2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi & Jackson,_2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). However,_educational technology scholars have argued_that_research_is needed within the field_to critically questions technological determinist assumptions,_and considers alternate_ways of thinking about technology and learning_that_emphasizes the agency of human actors,_and_better recognizes the social factors involved_with_using_technology in education (M. Oliver,_2011; Selwyn, 2010b). Such research can_better inform professional practice and contribute to what Kanuka_(2008) called philosophy_in practice pertaining to technology._The_purpose_of the qualitative study was to a) examine what philosophical_assumptions about_technology are present_in the thinking of K-12 technology leaders, b) investigate how_the assumptions