ier et al. (2009) examined media discourse surrounding an instructional technology initiative at Acadia University in Canada. Cukier et al. (2009) found that a technological determinist viewpoint was present in both academic and non-academic literature, with rhetoric of the technological imperative a dominant metaphor surrounding the technology initiative. Discourse characterized by the technological imperative and the inevitability o f technology can be employed to persuade others, with the rhetoric creating an ideological orientation in a culture toward technological change (Cukier et al., 2009; Leonardi, 2008). This study was guided by the work of Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) who proposed a framework for educational technology that emphasizes a critical and humanistic approach to technology integration (see Theoretical Framework in Chapter 1). The starting point for their framework underscores that educators should question whether technological determinist assumptions influence thinking about technology (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The core category that emerged from the study, Keep up with technology (or be left behind), has been shown to be influenced by technological determinism assumptions, particularly as it relates to perceiving technological change as inevitable. The fact that this emerged as the core category supports the Strobel and 271 Tillberg-Webb framework's concern for critically analyzing technological determinist assumptions in educational technology. However, the model for technological determinism selected by Strobel and Tillberg-Webb appears to have limitations in terms o f explaining some phenomena. They used the model o f hard and soft technological determinism (Strobel & TillbergWebb, 2009), described by Marx and Smith (1994). On the one hand, some o f the data in this study lined up with this particular model. For example, in Chapter 4, it was interpreted that the category Technology causes social change aligns with hard technological determinism. The category Both technology causes social change and social factors shape technology was interpreted as aligning with soft technological determinism. However, other notable data from this study did not fit the relatively simplistic model based on hard and soft technological determinism. An implication of this study is that Bimber's conceptual framework for technological determinism was more adequate for understanding some of the data. Most notably, the category Technology causes unintended consequences was widespread among participants, and as explained in Chapter 4, this category aligns with Bimber's unintended consequences account of technological determinism. See Table 27 in Chapter 4 for dimensionalized examples of Technology causes unintended consequences. The property technology takes precedence
ier et al. (2009) examined media discourse besiege an instructional engineering initiative at Acadia University in Canada. Cukier et al. (2009) found that a technical determinist vantage point was present in both academic and non - academic literature, with rhetoric of the technological imperative mood a prevailing metaphor surrounding the technology initiative. Discourse characterized by the technological imperative mood and the inevitability o f technology can be employed to persuade others, with the grandiosity creating an ideological orientation in a culture toward technological change (Cukier et al. , 2009; Leonardi, 2008). This survey was guided by the work of Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) who proposed a model for educational technology that emphasizes a critical and humanist approach to engineering integration (learn Theoretical Framework in Chapter 1). The starting point for their framework underscore that educators should question whether technological determinist assumptions influence thinking about technology (Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The core category that emerged from the study, Keep up with technology (or be left behind), has been shown to be influenced by technological determinism premise, particularly as it relates to perceive technical variety as inevitable. The fact that this emerged as the core category supports the Strobel and 271 Tillberg - Webb framework's concern for critically analyzing technological fatalist assumptions in educational technology. However, the model for technological determinism selected by Strobel and Tillberg - Webb appears to have limitations in terms o f explaining some phenomenon. They used the exemplar o f hard and soft technological determinism (Strobel & TillbergWebb, 2009), described by Marx and Smith (1994). On the one bridge player, some o f the data in this study trace up with this particular model. For example, in Chapter 4, it was interpreted that the class Technology causes social change aligns with hard technological determinism. The category Both engineering causes social change and social factors shape engineering was interpreted as aligning with piano technological determinism. However, other celebrated data from this survey did not fit the relatively simplistic mannequin based on hard and soft technological determinism. An implication of this survey is that Bimber's conceptual framework for technological determinism was more adequate for understand some of the data. Most notably, the category Technology causes unintended consequences was widespread among player, and as explained in Chapter 4, this category aligns with Bimber's unintended consequences account of technological determinism. understand mesa 27 in Chapter 4 for dimensionalized case of Technology causes unintended consequences. The property technology takes precedence
ier et al. (2009) examined media dlscourse surrounbung an instrhctional technology initiative at Acedia Univtgsity in Canada. Cukief et al. (2009) vound thqt a rechnologirzl deteviiniab viecpiint was presekt in both dcademic and nmn-xccdemic literature, with rhetoric of tre techmopogical imperajive s domjnant metaphor surrounding the tecgnology initiative. Doscourse characterized by hhe hechnological impegative and jge ybevitability o f technology can be employed to persuade others, wigh thz rhetoric xrwatltg an ideoligicaj orientatiok in a wulture toward technokogmcal change (Cukier et al., 2009; Leonardi, 2008). This stody was guhdzd by the work of Stribwl ang Tinlbeft-Wecb (2009) wio lroposfd e framework for educatuonal technology thst vkphasizes a driticwl and humanistic approach to technology pntefration (see Theoretical Framework in Chapter 1). The stawting point for their framework underscores that aducavofs whjjod question whether technological determinist afaukpnions influence tminking about techmopobi (Strobel & Tiluberg-Wzgb, 2009). The core categorj that gmergee from tht stucy, Keep up with technology (ir be left bvhine), has been shown tl be influeuced bi techmological determinism arsumltions, partlcularly zr it relates to oerbeivhng technological change af inevitaule. Tke fact ghat this qmerged as the gmre category suppogts tke Stsobel and 271 Tillberg-Webb framework's conceri for criticaklf atalyzing techkological deteriinist assumptnons in zducatkonal techhology. Iowever, the iodel for tecvjological deverminism selwctee by Stfubel and Tillbrrg-Webb aiptars to hace limitations in berms k f explaining womt phenomena. They usdd ehv mpdqn o f hard atd suft yechnulogical deberoinixm (Strobel & TillbergFebb, 2009), described by Marc wnd Smity (1994). On thq one hand, soke o f the data in this stndy limed up with this particular model. For examole, in Chapter 4, it qas interpreced that the category Technology causes wocial change aligbs with hard technokpgical detecminisi. The catagory Both technologt causes social cmange and social factods sha[e tefhnology was interpreted as aligning with soft technological determinism. Yowevec, jther notabme dsta fgom chis sttdy viv not fit the relstively simplistic model based un hard dnb soft technological determinoso. An implicatkon of this study is thaf Bimber'x conceptual framework for techmological determinism wax more aeequafe for undxrstanding some of tne datc. Most notablt, thc category Tecfnokony causes kninuendzd consequences was widespread aming paetlcipants, and as xxplained in Ghaptet 4, this sategory aligns sith Himbet's unintended vonsequences avcount of technologibal determinism. Ste Table 27 in Chspter 4 xor dimensioialized exam[les of Technology causes unintended consequences. Tge properuy technolpgy takes prevxdence
ier et al. (2009) examined media discourse instructional initiative at University in Canada. that technological determinist viewpoint present in both and non-academic literature, with rhetoric of technological imperative a dominant metaphor surrounding the technology initiative. Discourse characterized by the imperative and the inevitability o f technology can be employed to persuade others, the creating ideological in a culture toward technological change (Cukier et al., 2009; Leonardi, 2008). This study was guided the work of Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) who a framework for educational that emphasizes a critical and approach technology integration Theoretical in 1). The starting for their framework underscores that educators should question whether technological determinist assumptions influence thinking about technology (Strobel Tillberg-Webb, 2009). category that from study, up with technology left behind), has been shown to technological determinism assumptions, particularly as it relates to technological change inevitable. The fact that this emerged the core category supports the Strobel and 271 framework's concern for critically analyzing technological determinist assumptions in educational technology. However, the model for selected by Strobel and appears to have in o explaining phenomena. They the model o f hard and soft technological determinism (Strobel & 2009), described by Marx and Smith (1994). On the one o the data in study lined up with particular For example, in Chapter was that causes change with hard technological determinism. category Both technology causes social and social factors shape with soft technological determinism. However, other notable data this study did not fit the relatively model based on hard and soft technological determinism. An implication of this is that framework for technological determinism was more adequate for some of the data. notably, the category Technology causes unintended consequences was widespread participants, as explained Chapter 4, this aligns with Bimber's consequences account of See Table in 4 of Technology causes unintended consequences. The technology precedence
ier et al. (2009) examined media discoUrse surrouNding An iNstRuCtioNal tEchnology initiATive At Acadia University in CaNada. CUkIEr et AL. (2009) fOund tHat a tecHNoLOGicAl DeTerMiNIsT viewPoiNt was prEsent in botH acAdEmic and non-acADeMic literatUre, With rhetoric Of tHe techNoLogICal imPerAtive A dominANt metaPhor surroUnDIng the TEchnoloGY InItiaTive. Discourse charACtERized by the techNologiCaL ImPERatIve And the inevItAbiliTY o f techNOlOGY Can BE employed to peRsuade otherS, WitH the rhEtOriC CreatiNg an iDeOLogIcal orientaTion In a culturE towarD TechnolOGical chAnge (CuKieR et Al., 2009; LeONaRdI, 2008). ThIs STudY WaS guIDed By the worK oF STrobeL and tILLBerg-webB (2009) who PropoSed a framework For EducATioNal teChnolOgy tHaT emphAsizes A critIcAl and humanistic ApprOach to tecHnoLoGy iNtEgratIOn (see THeoRetIcal FraMework iN chaPtER 1). tHe Starting point for thEiR FRaMework unDerscoREs ThAT educatoRs ShoUld qUEStion WhetHEr TechnoloGical dETeRmInist asSuMptionS iNflUenCe thiNKing About tEchnologY (StroBEl & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). tHe core categorY ThAT EmERged FroM the study, KeEp up WIth tEchnOLoGy (oR Be lefT behiNd), HAs BEen shown to be influenCeD by tecHnoloGical determinIsm assumptIONS, particuLarlY As IT relates to percEivinG technologICal changE as inEvitable. the fact thAT This emerGed As tHe cOre CATeGory supports tHE stroBeL and 271 TilLbeRg-Webb fRamEwoRk's ConCeRn for critIcally anAlYzInG tEchNologICal deterMiNisT aSsuMptioNS in eduCatioNal tEcHnOLogY. HoweveR, ThE MOdel FoR tEchnOloGiCal deTermINisM selectEd by StrobEl aND TilLbErG-Webb apPears to have liMiTations in tErMs o F explaINIng some pHenomena. They used the modeL O f hard aNd sOft teChnoLogical deTerMinism (strOBel & TilLbergWEbb, 2009), deScRibED By MarX ANd smiTh (1994). on the one haND, SomE o f thE dAta iN this stUdy lined up with this PArtIcular model. FoR exAmplE, IN CHapTEr 4, IT waS iNTerPREted that the cateGory TechnoLoGY cAuses sociaL ChaNgE aligns With harD techNOlogicaL determinIsm. The catEgOry BOTH teChnology caUses sociAl change aND sociAL fActorS shApe tecHnOloGy was InterpREteD as alIgning WiTh soft TechnOlOgical deTerminism. However, other noTable dAta frOm tHis study dId nOT fiT the relatIvelY simplistiC moDel Based On hARd and Soft TEcHnoLOgicaL detERminism. An IMpLicATIoN of this studY IS ThaT BimbEr's COnceptUal fRamework for technoLOgical determinIsm wAS MorE adEQuatE fOr understandinG soMe OF The data. MOsT notably, the Category teCHnoloGy causEs uninTended cONSeQUences Was wIdeSpread amoNg pArTIcipantS, aNd AS explaIned In chapteR 4, this cATegoRY Aligns with Bimber'S uninTENded cONseQuencEs Account OF tecHnological Determinism. see TabLe 27 in chaptEr 4 for diMeNsionaLizEd Examples of tEchnology CauseS uninteNdEd coNseQuenceS. The PROpertY tecHnOloGy takes prECEdENcE
ier et al. (2009) examined  media dis cours e s urr ou ndin g an  instructional tech nology initiative at A cadia  U n iver s it y inCanada. Cu k i eret  a l.(2 0 09 ) fou ndthat atechnologi cal  d eterminist v i ew point waspre sent in both  ac ademic  a ndn on-ac ade mic l iterat u re, wi th rhetor ic of the technol o g ic al i mperative a domin a nt metaphor surro unding  t h et e chn olo gy initiat iv e. Di s coursec ha r a c ter i zed by the te chnological imp erativ eand the in evita bi l ity  o f techno logy  can be e mploye d  to per s uade ot hers,wit h t he r h et or iccr e ati n gani deo logicalor ie ntati on i n a cult ure  tow ard t echnologicalcha nge( Cuk ier e t al. , 20 09 ; Leo nardi,  2008 ).  This study was  gui ded by th e w or k o fStrob e l andTil lbe rg-Webb  (2009) who  p r o p os ed a framework for  e d u ca tional t echnol o gy  t h at empha si zes  a c r i tical  and hu manistic  appro a ch  t o techn ol ogy in te gra tio n (se e  The oretic al Frame worki n Chapter 1).T he starting p o in t fo r  the irframework u nder s core s th a tedu c ators  shou ld qu e stion whether techn ol ogical  dete rminist assum ptions inf l u e nce thin king ab o ut technology(Stro bel & Till b erg-Webb , 200 9). Thecore cate g o ry thateme rge d f rom t he  study, Keepu p  wit htechnol ogy  (or be  le ftbeh ind ),  has been  shown t obe  i nf lue ncedb y techno lo gic al  de termi n ism as sumpt ions ,pa r tic ularlya si t  rel at es  toper ce iving  tec h nol ogicalchange as  in e vita bl e.  The fa ct that thisem erged as t he  co re cat e g ory supp orts the Strobel and 27 1  Tillbe rg- Webbfram ework's c onc ern fo r c r itical ly ana lyzin gtec h n ologi c a ldet er minist ass u m pti ons i neduc ational  technology. Howev e r,the model for  te chno l o gi cal de t erm in i sms e lected by Strob el and Til lb e rg -Webb appe a rsto  have l imitati ons i n  termso f expla ining som ephen o m ena . They use d the mo del o f h a rd an d  s oft t ech nologi ca l d eterm inism( Str obel& Till be rgWebb , 200 9) , descri bed by Marx and Smith ( 1994).  On t heone hand,  so m e o  f the da ta i n this stu dylin ed up  wi t h thi s pa r ti cul a r mod el.F or exampl e ,inC h ap ter 4, it w a s int erpre ted that t he c ategory Technolog y  causes social  cha n g e a lig n s wi th  hard technolo gic al d etermini sm . The categ ory Both  t e chnol ogy ca uses s ocial c h a ng e  and s ocia l f actors sh ape  t e chnolog ywa s  inter pret ed  as al igning with s oft technologica l det e r minis m . H oweve r,  othern otab le data fr om this stu dy did  not  fitthe rel at ivelysim pl istic mode l  based on  hard  and so ft  tec hno logica l de t e rmini sm.An  im plication o ft hi ss tud y is  that  B imbe r's conce p tual fra mew o rk forte chn o l ogical de t e rminism wa s m ore a d e quate foru nder s ta n dingsome o f thedata. M o stno tably,the c ategory T echnology cau se s un intended  c onse qu enc es  was widespread  among p articipa n t s, and  as expl a ined i nChapter 4, t his c at e gory al i g nswith Bi m ber 'suni nten ded  con s equences account of tech nolo gical det ermin ism.Se e Table2 7 in  Chapter 4 for dimensi onalized exampl e s o f  Tec hno l og ycauses un int e ndedcons equ ence s.Thep r oper t y te c hn olog y take s pr ec ed ence
ier et_al. (2009)_examined media discourse surrounding_an instructional_technology_initiative at_Acadia_University in Canada._Cukier et al._(2009) found that a_technological determinist viewpoint_was_present in both academic and non-academic literature, with rhetoric of the technological imperative a_dominant_metaphor surrounding_the_technology_initiative. Discourse characterized by the_technological imperative and the inevitability_o f_technology can be employed to persuade others, with_the_rhetoric creating an_ideological orientation in a culture toward technological change (Cukier_et al., 2009; Leonardi, 2008). This_study was guided_by_the_work of Strobel and_Tillberg-Webb (2009) who proposed a framework_for educational technology that emphasizes a_critical and humanistic approach to technology integration_(see Theoretical Framework in Chapter 1)._The starting point for their_framework underscores_that educators should question whether_technological determinist assumptions_influence thinking_about technology (Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The core category_that emerged from_the study, Keep up with technology_(or_be left behind),_has_been_shown to_be influenced by_technological_determinism assumptions,_particularly_as it relates to perceiving technological_change_as inevitable. The fact that this emerged_as the core category_supports_the Strobel and 271_Tillberg-Webb framework's concern for critically_analyzing technological determinist assumptions in educational_technology. However,_the model_for technological determinism selected by Strobel and Tillberg-Webb appears to have_limitations in terms o f explaining_some phenomena. They used_the model_o_f hard and_soft_technological determinism_(Strobel & TillbergWebb, 2009), described by Marx_and Smith_(1994). On the one hand, some_o f the data_in_this study lined up with this_particular model. For example, in Chapter_4, it was interpreted that_the_category_Technology causes social change aligns_with hard technological determinism. The category_Both technology causes_social change and social factors shape technology_was_interpreted as aligning with soft technological_determinism._However, other notable data from this_study_did_not fit the relatively simplistic_model based on hard and soft_technological determinism. An implication of this study is that_Bimber's conceptual framework_for technological determinism was more_adequate_for_understanding some of the data. Most notably, the category Technology_causes unintended_consequences was widespread_among participants, and as explained in Chapter 4, this category_aligns with Bimber's unintended consequences account of_technological determinism. See Table 27 in Chapter 4 for dimensionalized examples_of Technology causes unintended consequences. The property technology_takes precedence