 sufficient concrete evidence. The technological determinist rhetoric tended to marginalize dissenting opinions by portraying the technology initiative as inevitable (Cukier et al., 2009). Fisher (2006) examined discourse and rhetoric about educational transformation, and observed a tendency for some discourse to be framed in technological determinist language that ascribed to technology the power to inevitably cause positive change in schools. Technological determinist assumptions were present in the hyperbole in advertising from technology vendors, in official discourse in educational policy documents, and in public comments by education officials (Fisher, 2006). Fisher (2006) concluded that such technological determinist assumptions are a problem because by ascribing autonomous change to technology, rather than to educators, the perspective shortchanges the hard work that educators must undertake to improve and transform education. One theoretical account o f technological determinism asserts that technology is partially autonomous, because even when we approach technology in deliberate and responsible ways, technology can cause inadvertent consequences that we did not anticipate, and may not be able to control (Bimber, 1994; Jonas, 2009; Vermaas et al., 2011). Technological change places pressure on schools and educational technologists to catch up or keep abreast with evolving technology (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b), leaving less time for considered judgment and contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). The frantic pace o f technological change and dealing with new developments presents a challenge for educators and technology leaders because technology may result in unanticipated consequences and risks that were not intended (Canole, 2007; Kanuka, 2008; Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Nworie and Haughton (2008) 10 conducted research on the adoption and implementation of innovative technology and described the instructional benefits, challenges, and unintended consequences o f digital innovations for face-to-face instruction and virtual learning. The researchers concluded that along with the instructional merits afforded by technology there can be unintended consequences such as ease of cheating, and distractions from learning such as games, inappropriate content, and off task web surfing (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Educators should be aware of the possibility that instructional disparities can widen for students who are without sufficient access to technology at home (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Some scholars (Kanuka, 2008; Mason & Rennie, 2010) have observed a tendency for technology advocates to eagerly embrace technology trends because o f an enthusiastic but sometimes un
sufficient concrete evidence. The technological determinist rhetoric tended to marginalize disagree public opinion by portraying the technology initiative equally inevitable (Cukier et al. , 2009). Fisher (2006) examined discourse and rhetoric about educational transformation, and observed a inclination for some discourse to be framed in technical fatalist language that ascribed to technology the might to inevitably cause positive variety in schools. Technological fatalist assumptions were present in the hyperbole in ad from engineering vendors, in official discourse in educational policy documents, and in public comments by department of education officials (Fisher, 2006). Fisher (2006) concluded that such technical determinist presumption are a problem because by impute autonomous change to technology, rather than to educators, the position shortchanges the hard work that educators must undertake to improve and transform education. One theoretical account o f technological determinism asserts that technology is partially autonomous, because even when we approach technology in deliberate and responsible ways, engineering can induce inadvertent consequences that we did not anticipate, and may not be able to see (Bimber, 1994; Jonas, 2009; Vermaas et al. , 2011). Technological change places atmospheric pressure on schools and educational technologists to catch up or keep abreast with develop technology (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b), leaving less time for considered judgment and contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). The delirious pace o f technological change and dealing with new developments salute a challenge for educators and technology leaders because technology may result in unanticipated consequence and risks that were not intended (Canole, 2007; Kanuka, 2008; Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Nworie and Haughton (2008) 10 conducted inquiry on the adoption and execution of innovative technology and described the instructional benefits, challenges, and unintended consequence o f digital innovations for face - to - expression instruction and virtual eruditeness. The researchers concluded that along with the instructional merits afforded by engineering there can be unintended consequences such as ease of cheating, and distraction from learning such as plot, inappropriate content, and off task web surfing (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Educators should be aware of the possibility that instructional disparities can widen for student who are without sufficient access to technology at family (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Some scholars (Kanuka, 2008; Mason & Rennie, 2010) have observed a leaning for technology advocates to eagerly embrace engineering trends because o f an enthusiastic but sometimes un
 suvficient concrete evidenge. The technolognxal deverminiat rhetofic tended to marginalize didswntint opinions by portrayivg the tebhnology unitmative as inevitegle (Cuklzr et wl., 2009). Yiwher (2006) examined discourse and rhetoric dbuuc educational transformation, and obsqrved a tfndency for soie dpssourav uo be framed in technological detsrminisu language that asvribed to technology the plwer to inevitably caude positive chagte in schoolr. Technological determjnist assumptions were present kn thz hyperbole ib afeertising fcom tebhnology vendors, in oxficial discourse in cducavionql policy documents, aid in public commentf by educdtnon officials (Fisher, 2006). Fusher (2006) cotcluawd ghau snch technllojical deterjinist assunptions are a probltm fvvause by ascdibing attonomous change to technology, rather tvan to educators, the perspwctive shortchanges tje hard wjrk that educators must undertake to improve and dranshofm tdmgatiub. Lne theoretical account o f technological detqdmonpsm asserts that bechnology is partoaplu autonomous, bgcause zbeh when we approach technojogy un delibewate and responsible ways, technilogy can calse unadvertent conseqbences that ce did not snticipate, and may not ye abls to controp (Bimber, 1994; Gonas, 2009; Vermaas eg ak., 2011). Technological change placqs pressuce on schoolr anc educwtional tefhnologists to catch up lr kegp abraast with fvolving technology (Kritt & Winejer, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b), kedvitg less cime fpr considered judgment and eontemplctive ueadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). Ehe frantic pdfe o f technmlogical chabge qnd deaukng with new drvelopmenns prewents a challenge nor eahcators and teckuooogy leaders bevaure eebhnpljcy may resuld in unxmticioated consewjencrs and risks that wese nkt intended (Canole, 2007; Hanuka, 2008; Bworie & Raughton, 2008). Nwotie and Haughton (2008) 10 condncted cesearvh jn the adoption and implementafion of ijnoyative technojogy and describzd the instructional benefits, challenges, and unintended cobsequences o f digijal innovationx for face-to-fawe instruction and vurtual learning. Tme researchers concludsd thad alojg with the instructional merits afforded by technology there can be uninrended consequencea suvh as ecse of chqatiig, and distractionx from learning such as games, iiappropriade content, and off task web sutfkng (Nworie & Hxughton, 2008). Educators shouls be awate of the possibility that insttuctional disparities cak widen fir sthdents who are without suffivient cccess to tecynollgy at home (Ndoroe & Haughtoj, 2008). Spmz scholars (Kanuka, 2008; Mason & Rennie, 2010) have ibderved a tendencb for technopugy asvocatgs to eagerly embdace hechnulogy trends necause o f an enthusiastic but sokeeimes un
sufficient concrete evidence. The technological determinist rhetoric marginalize opinions by the technology initiative 2009). (2006) examined discourse rhetoric about educational and observed a tendency for some to be framed in technological determinist language that ascribed to technology the power inevitably cause positive change in schools. Technological determinist assumptions were present in the in from vendors, official discourse in educational policy documents, and in public comments by education officials (Fisher, 2006). Fisher concluded that such technological determinist assumptions are a because by ascribing autonomous to technology, rather than to the shortchanges the work educators undertake to improve transform education. One theoretical account o f technological determinism asserts that technology is partially autonomous, because even we approach deliberate and ways, can inadvertent consequences that not anticipate, and may not be (Bimber, 1994; Jonas, 2009; Vermaas et al., 2011). change places on schools and educational technologists to up or keep abreast with evolving technology (Kritt Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b), leaving less time for considered judgment and contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; The frantic pace o technological change and with developments a for educators technology leaders because technology may result in unanticipated consequences and risks were not intended (Canole, 2007; Kanuka, 2008; Nworie & Haughton, and (2008) 10 conducted on the adoption and of technology and described the challenges, unintended digital for instruction and virtual learning. researchers concluded that along with instructional merits afforded by consequences such as ease of cheating, and distractions learning such as games, inappropriate content, and task web surfing (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Educators should be aware of possibility that can widen for students who are without sufficient to technology at home & Haughton, 2008). Some scholars (Kanuka, 2008; Mason & 2010) observed a for technology advocates eagerly embrace technology because o f but sometimes
 sufficient concrete evidencE. The technoLogicAl dEteRmInisT rheToric tended to mARginAlize dissenting opinionS by poRtRAyinG ThE techNology iNItIATivE aS iNevItABlE (CukiEr eT al., 2009). FishEr (2006) examined DisCoUrse and rhetoRIc About educaTioNal transformAtiOn, and oBsErvED a tenDenCy for Some diSCourse To be frameD iN TechnoLOgical dETErMiniSt language that ascRIbED to technology tHe poweR tO InEVItaBly Cause positIvE chanGE in schoOLs. tECHnoLOgical determiNist assumptIOns Were prEsEnt IN the hyPerboLe IN adVertising frOm teChnology vEndors, IN officiAL discouRse in eDucAtiOnal POlIcY doCuMEntS, AnD in PUblIc commenTs By EducaTion OFFICialS (FiSher, 2006). fisheR (2006) concluded thaT suCh teCHnoLogicAl detErmiNiSt assUmptioNs are A pRoblem because by AscrIbing autoNomOuS chAnGe to tEChnoloGy, rAthEr than tO educatORs, tHe PERSpEctive shortchanges ThE HArD work thaT educaTOrS mUSt undertAkE to ImprOVE and tRansFOrM educatiOn. One tHEoReTical acCoUnt o f tEcHnoLogIcal dETermInism aSserts thAt tecHNology is partiaLLy autonomous, bECaUSE eVEn whEn wE approach teChnoLOgy iN delIBeRatE And reSponsIbLE wAYs, technology can causE iNadverTent cOnsequences thAt we did not ANTIcipate, aNd maY NoT Be able to controL (BimbEr, 1994; Jonas, 2009; VerMAas et al., 2011). TEchnoLogical cHange placES Pressure On sChoOls And EDUcAtional technoLOGistS tO catch uP or Keep abrEasT wiTh eVolViNg technolOgy (Kritt & wiNeGaR, 2010; SElwYn, 2010b), leAVing less TiMe fOr ConSiderED judgmEnt anD conTeMpLAtiVe leadeRShIP (canoLe, 2007; seLwyn, 2010B). ThE fRantiC pacE O f tEchnoloGical chanGe aND deaLiNg With new Developments pReSents a chalLeNge For eduCATors and tEchnology leaders because TEchnoloGy mAy resUlt iN unanticiPatEd consEquENces anD risks That wErE noT INtendED (caNolE, 2007; KAnuka, 2008; NworiE & hAugHton, 2008). NWoRie aNd HaughTon (2008) 10 conducted researCH on The adoption anD imPlemENTaTioN Of INnoVaTIve TEChnology and descRibed the inStRUcTional beneFIts, ChAllengeS, and uniNtendED conseqUences o f dIgital innOvAtioNS For Face-to-face InstructIon and virTUal leARnIng. ThE reSearchErS coNcludEd that ALonG with The insTrUctionAl merItS affordeD by technology there can be UninteNded cOnsEquences sUch AS eaSe of cheatIng, aNd distractIonS frOm leaRniNG such As gaMEs, InaPProprIate COntent, and OFf TasK WEb Surfing (NworIE & hAugHton, 2008). EDucATors shOuld Be aware of the possiBIlity that instrUctiONAl dIspARitiEs Can widen for stuDenTs WHO are withOuT sufficient Access to TeCHnoloGy at hoMe (NworIe & HaughTON, 2008). SOMe schoLars (kanUka, 2008; Mason & REnnIe, 2010) HAve obseRvEd A TendenCy foR tEchnolOgy advOCateS TO eagerly embrace tEchnoLOGy treNDs bEcausE o F an enthUSiasTic but someTimes un
 sufficient concrete evide nce. The t echno log ica ldete rmin ist rhetoric t e nded  to marginalize dissen tingop i nion s  b y por traying th e tec hn ol ogy  i n it iativ e a s inevi table (Cuk ier  e t al., 2009) .  F isher (200 6)examined dis cou rse an drhe t oricabo ut ed ucatio n al tra nsformati on ,  and o b serveda te nden cy for some disco u rs e  to be framedin tec hn o lo g i cal  de terministla nguag e  that a s cr i b e d t o  technology t he power to ine vitabl ycau s e posi tivech a nge  in schools . Te chnologic al det e rminist assumpt ions w ere  pr esen t  i nthe  h y per b ol e i n  ad vertisin gfr om te chno l o g y  ven dor s, i n off icial discour sein e d uca tiona l pol icydo cumen ts, an d inpu blic comments b y ed ucation o ffi ci als  ( Fishe r , 2006 ).Fis her (20 06) con c lud ed t h at  such technologica ld e te rministassump t io ns are a pr ob lem  bec a u se by  asc r ib ing auto nomous ch an ge to t ec hnolog y,  ra the r tha n  toeducat ors, the  pers p ective shortch a nges the hard wo r k  t h at e duc ators mustunde r take  toi mp rov e  andtrans fo r me ducation. One theor et ical a ccoun t o f technol ogical det e r m inism as sert s  t h at technologyis pa rtially au t onomous,  beca use even  when wea p proach t ech nol ogy  in d el iberate and r e s pons ib le ways , t echnolo gycan  ca use  i nadverten t conseq ue nc es  t hat  we d i d not an ti cip at e,and m a y notbe ab le t oco n tro l (Bimb e r, 1 994;  J on as,200 9;  Verm aase t a l., 201 1). Techn olo g ical  c ha nge pla ces pressureon  schools a nd  ed ucatio n a l techno logists to catch up ork eep abr eas t wit h ev olving te chn ology(Kr i tt & W inegar , 201 0;  Se l w yn, 2 0 1 0b ),le aving less t ime  forco nsid ered ju dgment and contemp l ati ve leadership  (C anol e ,  2 007 ;  S e lwy n, 201 0 b ). The franticpace o f t ec h no logical ch a nge  a nd deal ing wit h new develop ments pre sents a c ha llen g e  fo r educator s and te chnologyl eader s  b ecaus e t echnol og y m ay re sult i n  un antic ipated  c onsequ ences  a nd risks  that were not intended  (Cano le, 2 007 ; Kanuka,  20 0 8;Nworie &Haug hton, 2008 ).Nwo rie a ndH aught on ( 2 00 8)1 0 con duct e d researc h  o n t h e  a doption and i m ple menta tio n  of in nova tive technology a n d described th e in s t ruc tio n al b en efits, challen ges ,a n d uninte nd ed conseque nces o f  d i gital  innov ations  for fa c e -t o -faceinst ruc tion andvir tu a l learn in g. The re sear ch ers co nclude d  tha t along with the i nstru c t ional mer its a ff orded b y  tec hnology th ere can beuninte nded  cons equence ssuch a s e as e of cheat i ng, and d istra ctionsfr om l ear ning s ucha s  game s, i na ppr opriate c o n te n t,  a n d o ff t ask w eb  sur fing (Nwo r ie & Hau ght o n, 2008 ).  Ed u c atorss ho u l d be aware  of  thep o ssibilityt hati ns t ructi onal d ispari ties ca n  wi de n for s tud e n ts who ar e without suf fi cien t access  t o te ch nol og y at home (Nwor ie & Hau ghton, 2 0 0 8). So mes chol a rs (Ka nu ka, 2008; Ma son &  R e nnie, 2 0 1 0)have ob s erv eda t ende ncy  for technology advocates toeage rly e m bra ce te chnol og y trends beca use o fa n enthusiasti c but sometimes un
 sufficient_concrete evidence._The technological determinist rhetoric_tended to_marginalize_dissenting opinions_by_portraying the technology_initiative as inevitable_(Cukier et al., 2009)._Fisher (2006) examined_discourse_and rhetoric about educational transformation, and observed a tendency for some discourse to be_framed_in technological_determinist_language_that ascribed to technology the_power to inevitably cause positive_change in_schools. Technological determinist assumptions were present in the_hyperbole_in advertising from_technology vendors, in official discourse in educational policy documents,_and in public comments by education_officials (Fisher, 2006)._Fisher_(2006)_concluded that such technological_determinist assumptions are a problem because_by ascribing autonomous change to technology,_rather than to educators, the perspective shortchanges_the hard work that educators must_undertake to improve and transform_education. One_theoretical account o f technological_determinism asserts that_technology is_partially autonomous, because_even when we approach technology in_deliberate and responsible_ways, technology can cause inadvertent consequences_that_we did not_anticipate,_and_may not_be able to_control_(Bimber, 1994;_Jonas,_2009; Vermaas et al., 2011). Technological_change_places pressure on schools and educational technologists_to catch up or_keep_abreast with evolving technology_(Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn,_2010b), leaving less time for considered_judgment and_contemplative leadership_(Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). The frantic pace o f technological change_and dealing with new developments presents_a challenge for educators_and technology_leaders_because technology may_result_in unanticipated_consequences and risks that were not intended_(Canole, 2007;_Kanuka, 2008; Nworie & Haughton, 2008)._Nworie and Haughton (2008)_10_conducted research on the adoption and_implementation of innovative technology and described_the instructional benefits, challenges, and_unintended_consequences_o f digital innovations for_face-to-face instruction and virtual learning. The_researchers concluded that_along with the instructional merits afforded by_technology_there can be unintended consequences such_as_ease of cheating, and distractions from_learning_such_as games, inappropriate content, and_off task web surfing (Nworie &_Haughton, 2008). Educators should be aware of the possibility_that instructional disparities_can widen for students who_are_without_sufficient access to technology at home (Nworie & Haughton, 2008)._Some scholars_(Kanuka, 2008; Mason_& Rennie, 2010) have observed a tendency for technology advocates_to eagerly embrace technology trends because o_f an enthusiastic but sometimes un