 students concerning such beliefs (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) proposed that an authentic, humanizing framework for instructional technology integration would consider broader social and cultural issues, and focus on human learners and larger educational goals. Kritt and Winegar (2010) also emphasized the importance o f a nuanced examination of the issues involved in the adoption of technology, and asserted that technology momentum does not equate to specific technologies being inevitable. Deeper dialogue about technology would move beyond stereotypes, recognize cultural and moral dimensions, and assess the positive benefits o f technology while identifying potential problems (Kritt & Winegar, 2010). Buckingham (2006) examined the impact of new media on the lives o f children, and contrasted the view that technology holds great promise for the future, with the opposite view focused on the risks of technology for children and the anxieties that this provokes. Buckingham described the dichotomous views as parallel mythologies, and 99 wrote: "On the one hand, children are seen to possess a natural, spontaneous creativity, which is somehow (perhaps paradoxically) released by the machine; while on the other, children are seen as vulnerable, innocent and in need of protection" (p. 2). While Buckingham stated that such parallel mythologies may overstate the situation, he emphasized that the contrasting viewpoints challenge parents and others concerned with the welfare of children to face the complex dilemmas introduced by new media. He emphasized that we must move beyond just providing children with technology, and naive optimism about its potential, to engage in a deeper dialogue, and better distinguish the educational benefits of technology vs. their entertainment value. Buckingham (2006) asserted that school policy makers should better recognize the social contexts in which students encounter digital media, rethink the contexts in schools in which technology is used, and provide better support and education to students so their interaction with technology is more productive. It is interesting that views characterized by both optimism and pessimism about technology have been associated with technological determinist assumptions, by seeing technology as the cause of change, whether good or bad (M. Oliver, 2011). De Vaney (1998) asserted that whether technology is treated as having heroic power to rescue beleaguered students and save educational institutions, or something villainous that will corrupt the morals of students, the mythological assumption is that the machine has causal powers that limit the agency of human beings. Kanuka (2008) asserted that both instructional technology advocates
students concerning such beliefs (Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) proposed that an authentic, humanizing model for instructional engineering consolidation would consider broader social and cultural issues, and concenter on human learners and larger educational goal. Kritt and Winegar (2010) besides emphasized the importance o f a nuanced examination of the issues involved in the borrowing of technology, and asserted that technology momentum does not equate to specific technology being inevitable. Deeper dialogue about technology would move beyond stereotypes, acknowledge cultural and moral dimensions, and assess the positive benefit o f technology while identifying likely problems (Kritt & Winegar, 2010). Buckingham (2006) examine the impact of new media on the life o f children, and contrasted the view that technology hold great promise for the future, with the opposite view focused on the risks of technology for children and the anxieties that this provokes. Buckingham described the dichotomous views as parallel mythology, and 99 wrote: " On the one hand, child are see to possess a natural, spontaneous creativity, which is somehow (possibly paradoxically) released by the car; while on the other, children are seen as vulnerable, impeccant and in need of protection " (p. 2). While Buckingham stated that such parallel mythologies may overstate the situation, he emphasized that the contrasting viewpoints challenge parents and others concerned with the welfare of child to face the complex dilemma introduce by new media. He emphasized that we must affect beyond just providing children with technology, and naive optimism about its potential, to engage in a deeper negotiation, and better distinguish the educational benefits of technology vs. their entertainment value. Buckingham (2006) asserted that school policy maker should better acknowledge the social contexts in which student encounter digital medium, rethink the contexts in schools in which technology is used, and provide well support and education to students so their interaction with technology is more productive. It is interesting that views characterized by both optimism and pessimism about technology have been associate with technological determinist premise, by seeing technology as the cause of change, whether good or bad (M. Oliver, 2011). De Vaney (1998) insist that whether technology is treated as having heroic power to rescue beleaguered students and salvage educational institution, or something nefarious that will defile the morals of students, the mythological assumption is that the machine have causal powers that limit the agency of human organism. Kanuka (2008) asserted that both instructional technology advocates
 stkdents concerning such btliefs (Strobel & Tnolberg-Xebb, 2009). Sfrobel avd Tillberg-Webb (2009) proposed thet ab autyentic, humanizing framdwork for instrucrionel technology invsgratiok woumf cousmder broader sogial and cuntural issues, dna yocus on human learners and larger equcatiomap goals. Kritt wnd Eynegzg (2010) also emphasized the importande o f e nuanced examimation of the issues involged ln the adoption of technology, and qsserted thag technology momentum soes not equate to specific tecfnoloyies being unwvihdble. Deeper dialjgue about tcbhnologf would move beyond sbereovypew, recognize cultural end moral dimensions, and assevs the positive benwfuts o f tachnuoogh wgike identlfymng potentizl problems (Kritt & Winegar, 2010). Buvkybgham (2006) examinsd the iipact of new media on the lives o f chindrsn, and contrasted the vuew that technology hllds greae promise for the future, with the opposite view fmcusev un uhc fusns of technology for children and the anxietiqa uhan this provokes. Bmckingham describec hhr dichotomous xiews ca larallel mythologifs, and 99 wrotw: "On the jne nand, children are seen to pissess a natlral, spontaneous creatnvity, which ns somghow (prrhaps paradoxically) reueassd by the mwchine; whjue on the other, zhikdsen are seen as vulnerable, innocent and in neea of protestion" (p. 2). Wjile Ngckingham stated tjat soch pasallel mytjologies may overstate the situevion, he emphaxised that thz contvasting viewpoigts challenge karents aud othdrs concerhed witi the welfarq of children jo face the cmmplex dylemnas untroduzdd by new medis. He emphcfizee that we must movc beyuhd just providiuy xhildren with trchvoljgj, aid nayee optimism dboug igx potdntial, uj cngxge on a deeper dialogue, and better distinguisn bhe educajional begefits of tecnnology vs. their ejterteinmenv valur. Bockingham (2006) asserted that school policy mwkevs should beteer vecodnize the xocial contexts in which students encouiter digital media, rethunk the contexts in xchools in xhich eechnologf is used, and providw better support snd education to studsnts sm thelr interaction with technology is more productive. It is interesting that ciews rhwracterized by noth mpcimnsm and pesdmmism about technplogy have been associated with technolmgncal determinist assumptions, ny seeing technulogy as the cause of chznge, wheyher good or bad (M. Oliver, 2011). De Vsney (1998) asserted that whetmer technilogy is trvztxd as having heroic lower co resxue belwagucred students xnd swve educahionel nnstitutions, or something villainius thqt will corrupt thx morals of duudents, the mithological assumltioh is tfat the machime has causal lowers that limit thv adency of human geings. Kanuks (2008) assegted that boti instructiotal technology advocates
students concerning such beliefs (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, and (2009) proposed an authentic, humanizing would broader social and issues, and focus human learners and larger educational goals. and Winegar (2010) also emphasized the importance o f a nuanced examination of issues involved in the adoption of technology, and asserted that technology momentum does equate specific being Deeper dialogue about technology would move beyond stereotypes, recognize cultural and moral dimensions, and assess the benefits o f technology while identifying potential problems & Winegar, 2010). Buckingham examined the impact of new on lives o children, contrasted view that technology great promise for the future, with the opposite view focused on the risks of technology for children the anxieties provokes. Buckingham the views parallel mythologies, and "On the one hand, children are a natural, spontaneous creativity, which is somehow (perhaps released by machine; while on the other, children seen as vulnerable, innocent and in need of (p. 2). While Buckingham stated that such parallel mythologies may overstate the situation, he emphasized contrasting viewpoints challenge parents others concerned with welfare children face complex dilemmas by new media. He emphasized that we must move beyond just children with technology, and naive optimism about its potential, to a dialogue, and better the educational benefits of vs. entertainment value. Buckingham (2006) school makers the contexts which students encounter digital rethink the contexts in schools which technology is used, education to students so their interaction with technology more productive. It is interesting that views by both optimism and pessimism about technology have been associated with technological assumptions, by as the cause of change, whether good or (M. Oliver, 2011). De (1998) asserted that whether technology is treated as having power rescue beleaguered and save educational or something villainous will corrupt the students, the assumption that causal powers that limit the agency human Kanuka (2008) asserted that both technology
 students concerning such belIefs (StrobeL & TillBerG-WeBb, 2009). stroBel aNd Tillberg-Webb (2009) PRopoSed that an authentic, humaNizinG fRAmewORk For inStructiONaL TEchNoLoGy iNtEGrAtion WouLd consiDer broader SocIaL and cultural ISsUes, and focuS on Human learnerS anD largeR eDucATionaL goAls. KrItt and wInegar (2010) Also emphaSiZEd the iMPortancE O F a NuanCed examination of tHE iSSues involved in The adoPtIOn OF TecHnoLogy, and assErTed thAT technoLOgY MOMenTUm does not equaTe to specifiC TecHnologIeS beINg inevItablE. DEEpeR dialogue abOut tEchnology Would mOVe beyonD StereotYpes, reCogNizE culTUrAl And MoRAl dIMeNsiONs, aNd assess ThE pOsitiVe beNEFITs o f TecHnolOgy whIle identifyinG poTentIAl pRobleMs (KriTt & WiNeGar, 2010). BuCkinghAm (2006) exaMiNed the impact of nEw meDia on the lIveS o F chIlDren, aND contrAstEd tHe view tHat techNOloGy HOLDs Great promise for the FuTURe, With the oPpositE ViEw FOcused on ThE riSks oF TEchnoLogy FOr Children And the ANxIeTies thaT tHis proVoKes. bucKinghAM desCribed The dichoTomouS Views as paralleL Mythologies, anD 99 WrOTE: "ON The oNe hAnd, children Are sEEn to PossESs A naTUral, sPontaNeOUs CReativity, which is somEhOw (perhAps paRadoxically) reLeased by thE MAChine; whiLe on THe OTher, children arE seen As vulnerabLE, innocenT and iN need of pRotection" (P. 2). wHile BuckIngHam StaTed THAt Such parallel mYTHoloGiEs may ovErsTate the SitUatIon, He eMpHasized thAt the conTrAsTiNg VieWpoinTS challenGe ParEnTs aNd othERs concErned With ThE wELfaRe of chiLDrEN To faCe ThE comPleX dIlemmAs inTRodUced by nEw media. He EmpHAsizEd ThAt we musT move beyond juSt Providing cHiLdrEn with TEChnology, And naive optimism about itS PotentiAl, tO engaGe in A deeper diAloGue, and BetTEr distInguisH the eDuCatIONal beNEFiTs oF tEchnology vS. THeiR enteRtAinmEnt valuE. Buckingham (2006) asserteD ThaT school policy MakErs sHOUlD beTTeR RecOgNIze THE social contexts In which stuDeNTs Encounter dIGitAl Media, reThink thE contEXts in scHools in whIch technoLoGy is USEd, aNd provide bEtter supPort and edUCatioN To StudeNts So theiR iNteRactiOn with TEchNologY is morE pRoductIve. It Is InterestIng that views characterizEd by boTh optImiSm and pessImiSM abOut technoLogy Have been asSocIatEd witH teCHnoloGicaL DeTerMInist AssuMPtions, by sEEiNg tECHnOlogy as the cAUSE of ChangE, whETher goOd or Bad (M. Oliver, 2011). De Vaney (1998) ASserted that wheTher TEChnOloGY is tReAted as having heRoiC pOWEr to rescUe Beleaguered Students AnD Save eDucatiOnal inStitutiONS, oR SomethIng vIllAinous thaT wiLl COrrupt tHe MoRAls of sTudeNtS, the myThologICal aSSUmption is that the MachiNE Has caUSal PowerS tHat limiT The aGency of humAn beings. KanUka (2008) assErteD that Both insTrUctionAl tEcHnology advOCates
 students concerning suchbeliefs (S trobe l &  Ti ll berg -Web b, 2009). Stro b el a nd Tillberg-Webb (2009 ) pro po s ed t h at  an a uthenti c ,h u man iz in g f ra m ew ork f orinstruc tional tec hno lo gy integrati o nwould cons ide r broader so cia l andcu ltu r al is sue s, an d focu s  on hu man learn er s  and l a rger ed u c at iona l goals. Kritt an d  W i negar (2010) a lso em ph a si z e d t heimportance  o  f an uancede xa m i n ati o n of the issu es involved inthe ad op tio n  of te chnol og y , a nd asserted  tha t technol ogy mo m entum d o es notequate  to  sp ecif i cte chn ol o gie s  b ein g  in evitable .De eperdial o g u e  abo uttech nolog y would movebey onds ter eotyp es, r ecog ni ze cu ltural  andmo ral dimensions,  and  assess t hepo sit iv e ben e fits o  ftec hnology  whilei den ti f y i ng  potential problem s( K ri tt & Win egar,2 01 0) .  Bucking ha m ( 2006 ) exami nedt he  impactof new me di a on th elivesof c hil dren, andcontra sted the  view that technolog y  holds greatp ro m i se forthe  future, wi th t h e op posi t evie w  focu sed o nt he risks of technology  f or chi ldren  and the anxi eties that t h is provo kes. Bu c kingham descri bed t he dichoto m ous view s asparallel  mytholog i e s, and 9 9 w rot e:"On t he  one hand, ch i l dren  a re seen  to  posses s a  na tur al,  s pontaneou s creati vi ty ,wh ich  is s o mehow (p er hap spar adoxi c ally)relea sedby  t h e m achine; wh i l e on  t he  oth er,  c hildr en a r e s een asvulnerabl e,i nnoc en tand inneed of prote ct ion" (p. 2 ).  Wh ile Bu c k ingham s tated that such paralle l  mythol ogi es ma y ov erstate t hesituat ion ,  he em phasiz ed th at  th e contr a s ti ngvi ewpoints c h a lle nge p ar ents  and ot hers concerned wit h  th e welfare ofchi ldre n to  fa c et heco m ple x dilemmas introd uced by ne wm ed ia. He emp h asi ze d thatwe must  move beyondjust prov iding chi ld renw i thtechnology , and na ive optim i sm ab o ut  itspot ential ,toengag e in a dee per d ialogu e,  and b etter  d istingui sh the educational bene fits o f tec hno logy vs.the i r e ntertainm entvalue. Buc kin gha m (20 06) asser tedt ha t s c hoolpoli c y makerss ho uld b et ter recogni z e the  soci alc ontext s in  which students e n counter digita l me d i a,ret h inkth e contexts insch oo l s  in whic htechnologyis used,  a n d pro vide b ettersupport a nd educat iontostudentssoth e ir inte ra ct i on wit h te ch nology  is mo r e pr o d uctive. It is in teres t i ng th a t v iewsch aracter i zedby both op timism andpessim ismabout  techno lo gy hav e b ee n associat e d with te chnol ogicalde term ini st ass umpt i o ns, b y se ei ngtechnolog y as th ec aus e of  chan ge , wh ether goo d  or bad(M. Oliver,  2 011 ) .  De Va n ey ( 1998) asse rte d tha t whether te c hnol o gy is tr eatedas hav ing her o icpo wer tores c u e beleagu ered stud e nts  a nd s ave educ at iona lins ti tutions, or som ething v illainou s that w ill corr u pt the  m orals of stu dents ,t he myth o l ogi cal ass u mpt ion  is  tha t t he m a chine has causal powersthat  limi t  th e age ncy o fhuman be i ngs.  Kanuka( 2008) asserte d that both ins t ruc t iona l t e ch no logy advo cat e s
 students_concerning such_beliefs (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb,_2009). Strobel_and_Tillberg-Webb (2009)_proposed_that an authentic,_humanizing framework for_instructional technology integration would_consider broader social_and_cultural issues, and focus on human learners and larger educational goals. Kritt and Winegar_(2010)_also emphasized_the_importance_o f a nuanced examination_of the issues involved in_the adoption_of technology, and asserted that technology momentum does_not_equate to specific_technologies being inevitable. Deeper dialogue about technology would move_beyond stereotypes, recognize cultural and moral_dimensions, and assess_the_positive_benefits o f technology_while identifying potential problems (Kritt &_Winegar, 2010). Buckingham (2006) examined the_impact of new media on the lives_o f children, and contrasted the_view that technology holds great_promise for_the future, with the opposite_view focused on_the risks_of technology for_children and the anxieties that this_provokes. Buckingham described_the dichotomous views as parallel mythologies,_and_99 wrote: "On_the_one_hand, children_are seen to_possess_a natural,_spontaneous_creativity, which is somehow (perhaps paradoxically)_released_by the machine; while on the other,_children are seen as_vulnerable,_innocent and in need_of protection" (p. 2). While_Buckingham stated that such parallel mythologies_may overstate_the situation,_he emphasized that the contrasting viewpoints challenge parents and others concerned_with the welfare of children to_face the complex dilemmas_introduced by_new_media. He emphasized_that_we must_move beyond just providing children with technology,_and naive_optimism about its potential, to engage_in a deeper dialogue,_and_better distinguish the educational benefits of_technology vs. their entertainment value. Buckingham_(2006) asserted that school policy_makers_should_better recognize the social contexts_in which students encounter digital media,_rethink the contexts_in schools in which technology is used,_and_provide better support and education to_students_so their interaction with technology is_more_productive._It is interesting that views_characterized by both optimism and pessimism_about technology have been associated with technological determinist assumptions,_by seeing technology_as the cause of change,_whether_good_or bad (M. Oliver, 2011). De Vaney (1998) asserted that_whether technology_is treated as_having heroic power to rescue beleaguered students and save educational_institutions, or something villainous that will corrupt_the morals of students, the mythological assumption is that the machine_has causal powers that limit the agency of_human beings. Kanuka (2008) asserted that both_instructional technology advocates