. The implications of technology having its own autonomy beyond human control are examined, and how such autonomy presents problems for human agency (Fisher, 2006; Jonas, 2010; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Marx & Smith, 1994), and for human responsibility for technology (Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; Slack & Wise 2006; Wyatt, 2008). 118 Axiological questions are taken into account in order to consider human responsibility for technology while appraising its benefits and risks, and assessing whether technology is value neutral or value laden. Technologies can raise ethical questions that may test the limits of traditional ethics (Kaplan, 2009c), and the literature review explores ethical theories pertaining to technology. The critique examines the debate between techno-utopianism vs. pessimism about technology, and ways that this dichotomy can be overcome (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn et al., 2006, Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The review of literature presents a critique of technological determinism using recent literature and important seminal works. The critique examines rhetoric connected with technological determinism, such as how the introduction of new technologies can be accompanied by rhetoric that it will transform education (Canole, 2007; Cukier et al., 2009; Fisher, 2006). There is also discussion of rhetoric characteristic of the technological imperative (Hofmann, 2006) that sees technology as inevitable (Leonardi, 2008) and unstoppable (Cukier et al., 2009), and creates an imperative to keep up with technological developments by keeping up or being left behind (Strobel & TillbergWebb, 2009). Associated with technological determinism is a tendency in education to categorize general attitudes about technology using a dichotomy of techno-utopianism vs. a Luddite position of being opposed to technology (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The literature review discusses scholarly critiques of this dichotomy, and considers alternate ways of viewing technology in a value context. For example, Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) proposed an authentic, humanizing 119 framework for instructional technology integration that would consider broader social and cultural issues, and focus on human learners and larger educational goals. After the critique of technological determinism, the literature review examines the competing view of social determinism, or social shaping o f technology (SST). Social determinism emphasizes that technologies evolve and develop through being shaped by
. The implications of technology having its own autonomy beyond human control are probe, and how such autonomy confront problems for human agency (Fisher, 2006; Jonas, 2010; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Marx & Smith, 1994), and for human responsibility for engineering (Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; Slack & Wise 2006; Wyatt, 2008). 118 Axiological questions are taken into account in holy order to consider human responsibility for engineering while measure its benefits and risk, and assessing whether technology is value inert or value laden. technology can raise ethical questions that may test the limits of traditional ethics (Kaplan, 2009c), and the literature reappraisal explores ethical theories pertaining to engineering. The critique examines the argument between techno - utopianism vs. pessimism about technology, and manner that this dichotomy can be overcome (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn et al. , 2006, Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The review of literature presents a critique of technological determinism use recent literature and important seminal works. The critique examine palaver connected with technological determinism, such as how the introduction of new technologies can be accompanied by rhetoric that it will transform department of education (Canole, 2007; Cukier et al. , 2009; Fisher, 2006). There embody also discussion of rhetoric feature of the technical imperative (Hofmann, 2006) that sees technology as inevitable (Leonardi, 2008) and unstoppable (Cukier et al. , 2009), and creates an imperative mood to keep up with technical developments by keeping up or being left behind (Strobel & TillbergWebb, 2009). consociate with technological determinism is a tendency in education to categorize general attitudes about technology using a dichotomy of techno - utopianism vs. a Luddite position of being opposed to technology (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The literature review discourse scholarly critiques of this dichotomy, and consider alternate way of viewing technology in a value context. For example, Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) propose an authentic, humanizing 119 framework for instructional technology integration that would consider broader social and cultural issues, and focus on human apprentice and larger educational finish. After the critique of technological determinism, the literature reappraisal examines the compete view of social determinism, or social shaping o f technology (SST). Social determinism underscore that technologies evolve and develop through being shaped by
. Thf implications of technouogy having its own auvonomy geyond hjman control are examined, anv hoq sucy autonomy presents prublems fog human atencb (Fisher, 2006; Jonas, 2010; Kritt & Winegad, 2010; Maxx & Smith, 1994), and fpr human rasponsibility xof cechnology (Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; Slack & Wife 2006; Wyayt, 2008). 118 Axiological quexeiona are taken into account in order fo conspder human responxibility for technology whlle wppraising its benffits and rusks, qnd assessine whether ueehnology is value neutral or value laden. Tdchnokogies can rqisf ethical quxstionf that may tcxt the limits of traditionak evhicw (Kaplan, 2009c), and the liverature review expljres ethiwam theories pertaibibg to tecvnoluty. Ghe ccitjque edammnes the degate betweeb techno-utopianism fs. irssimism aboht tecrnjlogy, and ways that this dichotomy can te kvercome (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn et al., 2006, Strobgl & Tillbewg-Webb, 2009). The review of literature presents a critixue oh geckkjuiglcal determinism using recent literature and yjpprnant seminal workf. The critiauf rvamines rhetotic conuscfed with technologlcal dejerminusm, such ws hpw the introduction of new rechnologies xan be accompanied by rhetorie that it woll transform education (Cankle, 2007; Cukier et al., 2009; Fjrher, 2006). There is auso dhscussion of rhetoric charwcteristir of che techvolobical ymperative (Hofmann, 2006) that sees techjologi as itevitable (Peonardi, 2008) and unstoppable (Cukiec et al., 2009), and vraatvs an impzrativc to keep up wieh technologiccl develjpmengs by keeppng up or being left behind (Strobap & TillbergWxbb, 2009). Assosiatwd wuth tecfvological detetminism is a tendenxy in education to cajeforize general cutiuuees about techmolugy udiig a qhchotomy of dechvo-ugppianksm vs. a Lubdkte losition of being op[oses to technology (Krotb & Winegat, 2010; Strobej & Tillberg-Wenb, 2009). The literature revixw disrusses scrolarly critiques of this dichktomy, and coksiders altergate ways of viecing technology in a value context. For eeample, Strobel and Tillverg-Webb (2009) proposed cn authentic, iumanising 119 frakework for instructiinal technology iktegration that would donsidar brlader social and cultural issues, and focus on human learners and larger eeucational goals. Arter the briciqbe of tqchnluogical determinpsm, the literature review examinxs the com[ecing view of social determinixm, or social shxping o f technology (SST). Social ceterminism emphasizes that tecnnologies evolve and devclop throygh bsing shapev by
. The implications of technology having its beyond control are and how such agency 2006; Jonas, 2010; & Winegar, 2010; & Smith, 1994), and for human for technology (Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; Slack & Wise 2006; Wyatt, 2008). 118 questions are taken into account in order to consider human responsibility for technology appraising benefits risks, assessing whether technology is value neutral or value laden. Technologies can raise ethical questions that may the limits of traditional ethics (Kaplan, 2009c), and literature review explores ethical pertaining to technology. The critique the between techno-utopianism pessimism technology, ways that this can be overcome (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn et al., 2006, Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The review literature presents of technological using literature important seminal works. examines rhetoric connected with technological determinism, the introduction of new technologies can be accompanied rhetoric that will transform education (Canole, 2007; Cukier al., 2009; Fisher, 2006). There is also discussion rhetoric characteristic of the technological imperative (Hofmann, 2006) that sees technology as inevitable (Leonardi, 2008) (Cukier et al., 2009), creates an imperative keep with developments keeping up being left behind (Strobel & TillbergWebb, 2009). Associated with technological determinism a tendency in education to categorize general attitudes about technology dichotomy techno-utopianism vs. a position of being opposed technology & Winegar, 2010; Strobel 2009). literature critiques this and considers alternate ways viewing technology in a value For example, Strobel and humanizing 119 framework for instructional technology integration that consider broader social and cultural issues, and on human learners and larger educational goals. After the critique of technological the literature the competing view of social determinism, or social o f technology (SST). determinism emphasizes that technologies evolve and develop through being by
. The implications of technoloGy having itS own aUtoNomY bEyonD humAn control are exAMineD, and how such autonomy preSents PrOBlemS FoR humaN agency (fIsHER, 2006; JoNaS, 2010; KRitT & WINeGar, 2010; MaRx & SMith, 1994), and For human reSpoNsIbility for teCHnOlogy (HofmaNn, 2006; JOnas, 2009; Slack & WisE 2006; WyAtt, 2008). 118 AxiOlOgiCAl queStiOns arE taken INto accOunt in ordEr TO consiDEr human RESpOnsiBility for technoloGY wHIle appraising iTs beneFiTS aND RisKs, aNd assessinG wHetheR TechnolOGy IS VAluE Neutral or valuE laden. TechnOLogIes can RaIse EThical QuestIoNS thAt may test thE limIts of tradItionaL Ethics (KAPlan, 2009c), anD the liTerAtuRe reVIeW eXplOrES etHIcAl tHEorIes pertaInInG to teChnoLOGY. the cRitIque ExamiNes the debate bEtwEen tEChnO-utopIanisM vs. pEsSimisM about TechnOlOgy, and ways that tHis dIchotomy cAn bE oVerCoMe (KriTT & WinegAr, 2010; SElwYn et al., 2006, STrobel & TILlbErG-wEBb, 2009). the review of literatUrE PReSents a crItique OF tEcHNologicaL dEteRminISM usinG recENt LiteratuRe and iMPoRtAnt semiNaL works. thE crItiQue exAMineS rhetoRic conneCted wITh technologicaL Determinism, suCH aS HOw THe inTroDuction of neW tecHNoloGies CAn Be aCCompaNied bY rHEtORic that it will transfOrM educaTion (CAnole, 2007; Cukier et Al., 2009; Fisher, 2006). ThERE Is also diScusSIoN Of rhetoric charActerIstic of the TEchnologIcal iMperativE (Hofmann, 2006) tHAT sees tecHnoLogY as IneVITaBle (Leonardi, 2008) anD UNstoPpAble (CukIer Et al., 2009), and CreAteS an ImpErAtive to keEp up with TeChNoLoGicAl devELopments By KeePiNg uP or beINg left BehinD (StrObEl & tIllBergWebB, 2009). asSOCiatEd WiTh teChnOlOgicaL detERmiNism is a Tendency iN edUCatiOn To CategorIze general attItUdes about tEcHnoLogy usING a dichotOmy of techno-utopianism vs. A luddite PosItion Of beIng opposeD to TechnoLogY (kritt & WInegar, 2010; strobEl & tilLBErg-WeBB, 2009). thE liTeRature reviEW DisCusseS sCholArly criTiques of this dichotOMy, aNd considers alTerNate WAYs Of vIEwINg tEcHNolOGY in a value contexT. For examplE, STRoBel and TillBErg-weBb (2009) propoSed an auThentIC, humaniZing 119 frameWork for inStRuctIONal Technology IntegratIon that woULd conSIdEr broAdeR sociaL aNd cUlturAl issuES, anD focuS on humAn LearneRs and LaRger educAtional goals. After the criTique oF techNolOgical detErmINisM, the literAturE review exaMinEs tHe comPetINg vieW of sOCiAl dETermiNism, OR social shAPiNg o F TEcHnology (SST). SOCIAl dEtermIniSM emphaSizeS that technologies EVolve and develoP thrOUGh bEinG ShapEd By
. The implications of tech nology hav ing i tsown  a uton omybeyond human c o ntro l are examined, and ho w suc ha uton o my  pres ents pr o bl e m s f or  h uma na ge ncy ( Fis her, 20 06; Jonas,  20 10 ; Kritt & Wi n eg ar, 2010;Mar x & Smith, 1 994 ), and  f orh umanres ponsi bility for te chnology(H o fmann, 2006; J o n as , 20 09; Slack & Wise2 00 6 ; Wyatt, 2008) . 118Ax i ol o g ica l q uestions a re  take n  into a c co u n t  in order to cons ider humanr esp onsibi li tyf or tec hnolo gy whi le appraisi ng i ts benefi ts and risks,a nd asse ssingwhe the r te c hn ol ogy  i s  va l ue  ne u tra l or val ue  l aden.  Tec h n o l ogie s c an r aiseethical quest ion s th a t m ay te st th e li mi ts of  tradi tiona lethics (Kaplan,  200 9c), andthe  l ite ra turer eviewexp lor es ethi cal the o rie sp e r ta ining to technolog y. T he  critiqu e exam i ne st he debat ebet ween t echno -uto p ia nism vs.  pessi m is mabout t ec hnolog y,  an d w ays t h at t his di chotomycan b e  overcome (Kri t t & Winegar,2 01 0 ;  S e lwyn  et  al., 2006,  Str o bel& Ti l lb erg - Webb,  2009 ). Th e  review of literatu re  prese nts a  critique oftechnologi c a l  determi nism us i ng recent lite ratur e and impo r tant sem inalworks. T he critiq u e  examine s r het ori c c o n ne cted with tec h n olog ic al dete rmi nism, s uch  as  ho w t he  introduc tion ofne wte ch nol ogies can be a cc omp an ied  by r h etoric  that  itwi ll tra nsforme du c a tion  ( Ca nole , 2 00 7; Cu kier etal., 20 09; Fishe r,2 006) .Th ere isalso discussi on  of rhetor ic  ch aracte r i stic ofthe technological imper a tive (H ofm ann,2006 ) that se estechno log y  as in evitab le (L eo nar d i , 200 8 )  a ndun stoppable( C uki er et  a l.,2009),and creates an imp e rat ive to keep u p w itht e ch nol o gi c alde v elo p m ents by keeping  up or bei ng le ft behind( Str ob el & Ti llbergW ebb,2 009). A ssociated  with tec hn olog i c aldeterminis m is a t endency i n  educ a ti on to  ca tegori ze  ge neral  attit u des  abou t tech no logy u singadichotom y of techno-utopianismvs. aLuddi tepositionofb ein g opposed  totechnology  (K rit t & W ine g ar, 2 010; St rob e l & T illb e rg-Webb,2 00 9). T he  literature r e vie w dis cus s es sch olar ly critiques of t h is dichotomy,andc o nsi der s  alt er nate ways of v iew in g technolo gy  in a value  context .F or ex ample,  Strob el andT i ll b erg-We bb ( 200 9) propos edan authent ic ,h umaniz ing11 9 fram eworkf or i n s tructional techn ology i ntegr a tio n tha twould c o nsid er broader  social and  cultu ralissue s, andfo cus on  hu ma n learners and large r edu cationa lgoal s.Afterthec r itiqu e of  t ech nological d et e rm in i sm,  the  lite ra ture  review e x amines t hec ompetin gvie w of soc i al d eterminism , o r soc i a l shapingo  f t e ch n ology  (SST) . Soci al dete r min is m empha siz e s  that tec hnologies evo lv e an d develo pthro ug h b ei ng shaped by
. The_implications of_technology having its own_autonomy beyond_human_control are_examined,_and how such_autonomy presents problems_for human agency (Fisher,_2006; Jonas, 2010;_Kritt_& Winegar, 2010; Marx & Smith, 1994), and for human responsibility for technology (Hofmann,_2006;_Jonas, 2009;_Slack_&_Wise 2006; Wyatt, 2008). 118_Axiological questions are taken into_account in_order to consider human responsibility for technology while_appraising_its benefits and_risks, and assessing whether technology is value neutral or_value laden. Technologies can raise ethical_questions that may_test_the_limits of traditional ethics_(Kaplan, 2009c), and the literature review_explores ethical theories pertaining to technology._The critique examines the debate between techno-utopianism_vs. pessimism about technology, and ways_that this dichotomy can be_overcome (Kritt_& Winegar, 2010; Selwyn et_al., 2006, Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb,_2009). The review_of literature presents a critique of_technological determinism using_recent literature and important seminal works._The_critique examines rhetoric_connected_with_technological determinism,_such as how_the_introduction of_new_technologies can be accompanied by rhetoric_that_it will transform education (Canole, 2007; Cukier_et al., 2009; Fisher,_2006)._There is also discussion_of rhetoric characteristic of the_technological imperative (Hofmann, 2006) that sees_technology as_inevitable (Leonardi,_2008) and unstoppable (Cukier et al., 2009), and creates an imperative_to keep up with technological developments_by keeping up or_being left_behind_(Strobel & TillbergWebb,_2009)._Associated with_technological determinism is a tendency in education_to categorize_general attitudes about technology using a_dichotomy of techno-utopianism vs._a_Luddite position of being opposed to_technology (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The literature_review_discusses_scholarly critiques of this dichotomy,_and considers alternate ways of viewing_technology in a_value context. For example, Strobel and Tillberg-Webb_(2009)_proposed an authentic, humanizing 119 framework_for_instructional technology integration that would consider_broader_social_and cultural issues, and focus_on human learners and larger educational_goals. After the critique of technological determinism, the literature_review examines the_competing view of social determinism,_or_social_shaping o f technology (SST). Social determinism emphasizes that technologies_evolve and_develop through being_shaped by