 (2008) asserted that assumptions of technological determinism continue to persist because a majority o f people recognize that technology has a significant impact on society. People see the perspective of technological determinism as a common sense way to understand the relationship between technology and society (Wyatt, 2008). Wyatt (2008) argued that among those who study science, technology, and society, many researchers still harbor technological determinist assumptions, and this influences researchers in their investigations. Researchers may need to take the influence of technological determinism more seriously, given that the perspective can be used by decision makers to justify their actions with respect to technology (Wyatt, 2008). While technological determinism stresses the impact o f technology on society, but neglects how society shapes technology (Kanuka, 2008), SCOT has been criticized for replacing technological determinism with social determinism (M. Oliver, 2011). In maintaining that technological artifacts are socially constmcted, there can be a neglect of user control (Kanuka, 2008). By overly focusing on larger social contexts, a social I l l determinist perspective can miss how individual users in social settings such as schools exercise personal choices and control over technology (Kanuka, 2008). A social determinist perspective can also neglect how technology may present material limits (Kanuka, 2008). Jordan (2009) argued that the problem of computer hacking points to a mutually determinative relationship between technology and society. Jordan (2009) asserted that the activities of computer hackers place serious material limits on technology that constrain how it can be used. In a sociological analysis of innovation from the SST perspective, Weber (2009) observed that technical artifacts and technology infrastructure impose constraints on how society can shape technology and these constraints limit its diffusion. From an SST perspective, although technological change is generally open to shaping, an honest phenomenological examination of technological change must recognize that innovation tends to follow certain conduits and trajectories (Weber, 2009). Attempts by SST researchers to explain these trajectories o f technological change and innovation have tended to have technological determinist characteristics, and have emphasized broader technology trends (Weber, 2009). In exploring paradoxical issues connected with the future of digital learning, Warschauer (2007) discussed several controversial issues, while taking into account the social factors that shape and transform educational systems. Warschauer considered whether there are legitimately new forms of literacy related to the use of information technology or multimedia, whether students in the twenty-first century will require more autonomy in their learning, and whether learning should involve different settings apart
(2008) asserted that assumptions of technological determinism continue to prevail because a majority oxygen f people recognize that engineering has a meaning impact on society. multitude experience the perspective of technical determinism as a coarse sense room to understand the relationship between engineering and society (Wyatt, 2008). Wyatt (2008) argued that among those who study science, technology, and society, many researchers however harbor technological determinist assumptions, and this charm researchers in their investigations. Researchers may necessitate to take the influence of technological determinism more seriously, given that the perspective can be use by decision makers to justify their actions with respect to engineering (Wyatt, 2008). While technical determinism stress the impact o f technology on society, but neglects how society shapes engineering (Kanuka, 2008), SCOT has been criticized for replace technological determinism with social determinism (M. Oliver, 2011). In maintaining that technological artifact are socially constmcted, there can be a negligence of user control (Kanuka, 2008). By excessively focusing on large social contexts, a social I l lambert determinist perspective can miss how individual users in social settings such as schools practice personal choices and control over technology (Kanuka, 2008). A social determinist position can also fail how technology may present material limits (Kanuka, 2008). Jordan (2009) argued that the problem of calculator hacking points to a mutually determinative relationship between technology and society. Jordan (2009) asserted that the activities of computer hackers target serious fabric limits on technology that constrain how it can be used. In a sociological analysis of invention from the SST perspective, Weber (2009) observe that technical artifacts and engineering infrastructure impose constraints on how society can shape technology and these constraints specify its diffusion. From an SST perspective, although technological change is generally open to shaping, an honest phenomenological examination of technical change must recognize that invention tends to follow certain conduits and trajectories (Weber, 2009). Attempts by SST researchers to excuse these trajectories o f technological change and innovation have tended to have technological determinist characteristic, and have stress broader technology trends (Weber, 2009). In exploring paradoxical issues connected with the future of digital eruditeness, Warschauer (2007) discussed several controversial issues, while taking into account the social factors that shape and transform educational systems. Warschauer considered whether there embody legitimately new forms of literacy related to the use of information technology or multimedia, whether student in the twenty - first century will require more autonomy in their learning, and whether learning should involve unlike place setting apart
 (2008) adserted that assumptions of technologicco detecminism continud to persist because a majormty i f ptjple recognize thag technollgy has q sijnificant impact on sociccy. Pekile sze the perspectiye of technmlogical deterkividm as a common sense way to understwnd the rflationship bejween eechhology and society (Wyatt, 2008). Wyatt (2008) adgued tiat among those who study science, technollgy, wnd society, many rfsearchers wtilj harbor techvological determinist zssumptions, and this influences resecrchers in jkwir hnvestigatiins. Rvsearchers man need do take the influence of texhnological determinivm more seriously, diven thad che perspective can bw ysed ty daciskin oaktrs tk justlfy their actjons with rwspect to technologu (Rjstt, 2008). While tschnoljgycal determinism stresses the impact o x tschnology on society, bur neglects how societi shapes tqchnology (Kanuka, 2008), SCOT has been criticized for re[laciig teemkoloeucwl determinism with social determinism (M. Olivqd, 2011). Ik maintaining thct technological agtosacts are sockally eknatmcted, there can he a nedlect of user sonttol (Kanuka, 2008). By overly focusung on largeg soxial contexts, a soeial I l l dztermimist lerspective can miss hoc indibidual userd in socizu settings such xs xcvools extfcise personal chjices and concrol ovef tevhnolody (Kanuka, 2008). A soghal determinist pegspecjive cdn also nehlect how technology may presenv material likids (Nanuka, 2008). Lordan (2009) argued that the problem oy computzr hacying pointa to a kutually deeerminative rapationship bxtween teshnooogy and sozkety. Jordan (2009) axserted tkct the acrivities of computcr haziers place seriius material limitx ov tqcjnpljcy that consdraiv hue it zan be used. Kn a sociological analyshs or innovation from yhc SST perwpective, Weber (2009) obserfed that technical artihacts end tevhnjlogy infrastructure impose cohstraints on how society can shape technplogy and these constraints limit its dmffusion. From an SST pgrspective, although tgchkological chenge if generalny open to shaping, ab honest phenomenplogical examination kf tecvnolohical change must recognize that innovation tends to follow certain conduuts anv erajectoriea (Wener, 2009). Dtcem'ts by FST cerearchers to expkain these trajectories o f tecinological ckange and innovation have tencea to have tecfnological determinist cgaracterostics, and have emphasized broacer technology trends (Wener, 2009). In ezplorjng pagzduxical issues connrcted cith tye futuee on digital learvinb, Aarschaueg (2007) dmscbssed several controversial issuew, whilw haking into acconnt the sociwu facjors thaj shape and transrorm fducajional systems. Warschauer comsidered whether thege wre legitimateoj new forms og litgxdcy related vo the use ox information technology or multimedia, whether studgnts in the twenty-flrst century will cequire more autonomy in treir leafning, and whather learning should involve different setvongs xpagt
(2008) asserted that assumptions of technological determinism persist a majority f people recognize impact society. People see perspective of technological as a common sense way to the relationship between technology and society (Wyatt, 2008). Wyatt (2008) argued that among who study science, technology, and society, many researchers still harbor technological determinist assumptions, this researchers their Researchers may need to take the influence of technological determinism more seriously, given that the perspective be used by decision makers to justify their with respect to technology 2008). While technological determinism stresses impact f technology society, neglects society shapes technology 2008), SCOT has been criticized for replacing technological determinism with social determinism (M. Oliver, 2011). In maintaining technological artifacts constmcted, there be neglect user control (Kanuka, overly focusing on larger social contexts, l l determinist perspective can miss how individual in social such as schools exercise personal choices control over technology (Kanuka, 2008). A social determinist can also neglect how technology may present material limits (Kanuka, 2008). Jordan (2009) argued that of computer hacking points a mutually determinative between and Jordan asserted that activities of computer hackers place serious material limits on technology that how it can be used. In a sociological analysis of the perspective, Weber (2009) that technical artifacts and infrastructure constraints on how society technology these diffusion. an perspective, although technological change generally open to shaping, an phenomenological examination of technological tends to follow certain conduits and trajectories (Weber, Attempts by SST researchers to explain these o f technological change and innovation have tended to have technological determinist and have technology trends (Weber, 2009). In exploring paradoxical issues with the future of learning, Warschauer (2007) discussed several controversial issues, while taking account social factors shape and transform systems. Warschauer considered there are legitimately of literacy to use or multimedia, whether students in the century require more autonomy in their and should involve different settings apart
 (2008) asserted that assumptions of TechnologiCal deTerMinIsM conTinuE to persist becaUSe a mAjority o f people recogniZe thaT tEChnoLOgY has a SignifiCAnT IMpaCt On SocIeTY. PEople See The persPective of tEchNoLogical deterMInIsm as a commOn sEnse way to undErsTand thE rElaTIonshIp bEtweeN technOLogy anD society (WYaTT, 2008). Wyatt (2008) ARgued thAT AmOng tHose who study scienCE, tEChnology, and socIety, maNy REsEARchErs Still harboR tEchnoLOgical dETeRMINisT Assumptions, anD this influeNCes ResearChErs IN their InvesTiGAtiOns. ResearchErs mAy need to tAke the INfluencE Of technOlogicAl dEteRminISm MoRe sErIOusLY, gIveN ThaT the persPeCtIve caN be uSED BY decIsiOn maKers tO justify their ActIons WIth RespeCt to tEchnOlOgy (WyAtt, 2008). WhiLe tecHnOlogical determiNism Stresses tHe iMpAct O f TechnOLogy on SocIetY, but negLects hoW SocIeTY SHaPes technology (KanukA, 2008), Scot hAs been crIticizED fOr REplacing TeChnOlogICAl detErmiNIsM with socIal detERmInIsm (M. OliVeR, 2011). In maiNtAinIng That tEChnoLogicaL artifacTs are SOcially constmcTEd, there can be a NEgLECt OF useR coNtrol (Kanuka, 2008). by ovERly fOcusINg On lARger sOcial CoNTeXTs, a social I l l determiNiSt persPectiVe can miss how iNdividual uSERS in sociaL setTInGS such as schools ExercIse personaL Choices aNd conTrol over TechnologY (kAnuka, 2008). A soCiaL deTerMinIST pErspective can ALSo neGlEct how tEchNology mAy pResEnt MatErIal limits (kanuka, 2008). JoRdAn (2009) ArGuEd tHat thE Problem oF cOmpUtEr hAckinG Points To a muTualLy DeTErmInative RElATIonsHiP bEtweEn tEcHnoloGy anD SocIety. JorDan (2009) assertEd tHAt thE aCtIvities Of computer hacKeRs place serIoUs mAteriaL LImits on tEchnology that constrain hOW it can bE usEd. In a SociOlogical aNalYsis of InnOVation From thE SST pErSpeCTIve, WeBER (2009) oBseRvEd that techNICal ArtifAcTs anD technoLogy infrastructure IMpoSe constraints On hOw soCIEtY caN ShAPe tEcHNolOGY and these constrAints limit ItS DiFfusion. FroM An SsT PerspecTive, altHough TEchnoloGical chanGe is generAlLy opEN To sHaping, an hoNest phenOmenologiCAl exaMInAtion Of tEchnolOgIcaL chanGe must REcoGnize That inNoVation Tends To Follow ceRtain conduits and trajectOries (WEber, 2009). ATteMpts by SST ResEArcHers to expLain These trajeCtoRieS o f teChnOLogicAl chANgE anD InnovAtioN Have tendeD To HavE TEcHnological dETERmiNist cHarACterisTics, And have emphasized BRoader technoloGy trENDs (WEbeR, 2009). in exPlOring paradoxicAl iSsUES connectEd With the futuRe of digiTaL LearnIng, WarSchaueR (2007) discusSED sEVeral cOntrOveRsial issuEs, wHiLE taking InTo ACcount The sOcIal facTors thAT shaPE And transform educAtionAL SysteMS. WaRschaUeR considERed wHether therE are legitimAtely nEw foRms of LiteracY rElated To tHe Use of inforMAtion techNologY or multImEdia, WheTher stUdenTS In the TwenTy-FirSt century WILl REqUiRE moRe auTonomY iN theIr learninG, And whethEr lEArning sHoUld INVolve dIFfEREnt settingS apArt
 (2008) asserted that assu mptions of  tech nol ogi ca l de term inism continue to p ersist because a major ity o  f peop l erecog nize th a tt e chn ol og y h as asigni fic ant imp act on soc iet y.  People seet he  perspecti veof technolog ica l dete rm ini s m asa c ommon  sense way to  understa nd the re l ationsh i p  b etwe en technology and so c iety (Wyatt, 2 008).Wy a tt ( 200 8)argued tha tamong those w h os t u dys cience, techn ology, ands oci ety, m an y r e search ers s ti l l h arbor techn olog ical dete rminis t  assump t ions, a nd thi s i nfl uenc e sre sea rc h ers in  th e irinvestig at io ns. R esea r c h e rs m ayneed  to t ake the influ enc e of tec hnolo gical  det er minis m more  seri ou sly, given that  the  perspect ive  c anbe  used by dec isi onmakersto just i fyth e i r  a ctions with respec tt o  t echnolog y (Wya t t,  2 0 08). Whi le  te chno l o gical  det e rm inism st resses th eimpactof tech no log y o n soc i ety,  but n eglectshow s o ciety shapes t e chnology (Kan u ka , 20 0 8),SCO T has beencrit i cize d fo r  r epl a cingtechn ol o gi c al determinism with  s ocialdeter minism (M. Ol iver, 2011 ) . In maint aini n gt hat technologi cal a rtifacts a r e social ly co nstmcted , there c a n  be a ne gle ctofuse r co ntrol (Kanuka , 2008 ).  By ove rly  focusi ngonlar ger  s ocial con texts, a  s oc ia lI l  l de t erminist  p ers pe cti ve ca n  misshow i ndiv id ua l  us ers ins oc i a l se tt in gs s uch  a s sch ools exe rcise p ersonal c hoi c es a nd  c ontrolover technolo gy  (Kanuka,20 08) . A so c i al deter minist perspective cana lso neg lec t how  tec hnology m aypresen t m a terial  limit s (Ka nu ka, 2 008). J or dan  ( 2009) argu e d  th at th eprob lem ofcomputer hacking p o int s to a mutual lydete r m in ati v er ela ti o nsh i p  between techno logy and s oc i et y. Jordan( 200 9)  assert ed that  thea ctiviti es of com puter hac ke rs p l a ceserious ma terial l imits ont echno l og y tha t c onstra in  ho w itcan be use d. In  a soc io logica l ana ly sis of i nnovation from the SSTperspe ctive , W eber (200 9)o bse rved that  tec hnical art ifa cts  andtec h nolog y in f ra str u cture  imp o se constr a in tso n  h ow societyc a n  sh ape t ech n ologyandthese constraints limit its diff usio n .  Fr oma n SS Tperspective, a lth ou g h  technol og ical change  is gene ra l ly op en toshapin g, an h o n es t  pheno meno log ical exam ina ti o n of te ch no l ogical  cha ng e must  recog n izet h at innovation te nds t o follo w  ce rtain  c onduits andtrajectori es (Weber,2009).  Att empts  by SST  r esearc her sto explain these tra jecto ries oftech nol ogical  cha n g e and  inn ov ati on have t e n de d  t oh ave  tec hnolo gi caldetermini s t charac ter i stics,an d h a v e emph a si z e d broadertec hnolo g y  trends (W e ber, 20 0 9). I n expl oringparadox i cal  i ssues c onn e c ted withthe futur e  of  d igit al learn in g, W ar sch au er (2007) discu ssed sev eral con t r oversi ali ssue s , whil etaking intoaccou nt the soc i a l f actorst hat  sh ape  and  tr ansf o rm educational systems.Wars chaue r  co nside red w he ther the r e ar e legiti m ately new for ms of literacyr ela t ed t o t h eus e of info rma t ion t echn olo gy o r m ulti m e dia, whet h er  stu dentsin t he  t wenty-fir st  centur y  wil l  re quir e mor eau t on omy intheir le arnin g,  and whet h er lear ning  s hould involve  different s et ting s apar t 
 (2008)_asserted that_assumptions of technological determinism_continue to_persist_because a_majority_o f people_recognize that technology_has a significant impact_on society. People_see_the perspective of technological determinism as a common sense way to understand the relationship_between_technology and_society_(Wyatt,_2008). Wyatt (2008) argued that_among those who study science,_technology, and_society, many researchers still harbor technological determinist assumptions,_and_this influences researchers_in their investigations. Researchers may need to take the_influence of technological determinism more seriously,_given that the_perspective_can_be used by decision_makers to justify their actions with_respect to technology (Wyatt, 2008). While_technological determinism stresses the impact o f_technology on society, but neglects how_society shapes technology (Kanuka, 2008),_SCOT has_been criticized for replacing technological_determinism with social_determinism (M._Oliver, 2011). In_maintaining that technological artifacts are socially_constmcted, there can_be a neglect of user control_(Kanuka,_2008). By overly_focusing_on_larger social_contexts, a social_I_l l_determinist_perspective can miss how individual users_in_social settings such as schools exercise personal_choices and control over_technology_(Kanuka, 2008). A social_determinist perspective can also neglect_how technology may present material limits_(Kanuka, 2008)._Jordan (2009)_argued that the problem of computer hacking points to a mutually_determinative relationship between technology and society._Jordan (2009) asserted that_the activities_of_computer hackers place_serious_material limits_on technology that constrain how it can_be used._In a sociological analysis of innovation_from the SST perspective,_Weber_(2009) observed that technical artifacts and_technology infrastructure impose constraints on how_society can shape technology and_these_constraints_limit its diffusion. From an_SST perspective, although technological change is_generally open to_shaping, an honest phenomenological examination of technological_change_must recognize that innovation tends to_follow_certain conduits and trajectories (Weber, 2009)._Attempts_by_SST researchers to explain these_trajectories o f technological change and_innovation have tended to have technological determinist characteristics, and_have emphasized broader_technology trends (Weber, 2009). In_exploring_paradoxical_issues connected with the future of digital learning, Warschauer (2007)_discussed several_controversial issues, while_taking into account the social factors that shape and transform_educational systems. Warschauer considered whether there are_legitimately new forms of literacy related to the use of information_technology or multimedia, whether students in the twenty-first_century will require more autonomy in their_learning, and whether learning_should_involve different settings apart