iarism, that will change because of technological change. Nomological technological determinism. The category Technology causes social change, associated with 17 participants, aligns with the nomological account in Bimber's conceptual framework for technological determinism. The nomological variant of technological determinism sees technology acting as the primary cause o f social change, and exercising causal influence with one development leading inevitably to another (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011; Wyatt, 2008). The nomological account sees technology causing social change apart from the social context (Vermaas, 2011). Table 30 above in the Results section reported instances when participants described how technology causes social change. Unintended consequences. The category Technology causes unintended consequences, associated with 25 participants, aligns with the unintended consequences account in Bimber's conceptual framework for technological determinism. This account asserts that technology is partially autonomous, because even when human decision makers willfully approach technology in deliberate and responsible ways, technology can cause unintended consequences that we did not anticipate and cannot control (Bimber, 1994; Jonas, 2009; Vermaas, 2011). Table 27 above in the Results section reported instances when participants described how technology causes unintended consequences. The results from this empirical study lend support to the scholarly work done by Nworie 247 and Haughton (2008), who analyzed the unintended consequences of technology in teaching and learning. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb humanizing framework fo r educational technology. The humanizing framework for educational technology proposed by Strobel and TillbergWebb (2009) guided this study. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) argued that educators should critically question their philosophical assumptions and ideological perspectives about technology, because beliefs and ways o f thinking about technology influence professional discourse, and affect the actions of decision makers. This framework emphasizes the importance of questioning assumptions about technology, which can correspond to ideological perspectives associated with technological determinism and social determinism (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Hard technological determinism and soft technological determinism. The conceptual framework of hard technological determinism and soft technological determinism described by Marx and Smith (1994) is an alternate theory o f technological determinism. Hard technological determinism is largely equivalent to Bimber's nomological variant, and attributes agency to technology to the extent that technology has a dominant or determined autonomy of its own to cause social change, independent of social constraints (Marx & Smith, 1994; Smith, 1994; Strobel
iarism, that will change because of technological change. Nomological technological determinism. The class Technology cause social change, associated with 17 participant, aligns with the nomological report in Bimber's conceptual framework for technological determinism. The nomological version of technical determinism sees technology acting as the primary cause o f social variety, and exercising causal influence with one development leading inevitably to another (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011; Wyatt, 2008). The nomological score sees engineering causing social variety aside from the social context (Vermaas, 2011). Table 30 above in the Results section reported instances when player described how technology causes social change. Unintended consequence. The category Technology causes unintended consequences, associated with 25 participants, aligns with the unintended consequence account in Bimber's conceptual framework for technological determinism. This account asserts that technology is partially autonomous, because even when human decision makers willfully approach technology in deliberate and responsible ways, technology can cause unintended consequences that we did not anticipate and cannot operate (Bimber, 1994; Jonas, 2009; Vermaas, 2011). Table 27 above in the Results section report example when participants described how engineering causes unintended consequence. The results from this empirical cogitation lend support to the scholarly work done by Nworie 247 and Haughton (2008), who analyzed the unintended consequence of technology in teaching and learning. Strobel and Tillberg - Webb humanizing framework fo radius educational technology. The humanizing model for educational engineering propose by Strobel and TillbergWebb (2009) guided this study. Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) argued that educators should critically question their philosophical assumptions and ideological position about technology, because beliefs and ways o f think about technology influence professional discussion, and affect the actions of decisiveness makers. This framework emphasizes the importance of questioning assumption about technology, which can represent to ideological perspectives associated with technical determinism and social determinism (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). Hard technological determinism and soft technological determinism. The conceptual framework of hard technological determinism and soft technological determinism described by Marx and Smith (1994) is an alternate theory o f technical determinism. Hard technological determinism is largely equivalent to Bimber's nomological discrepancy, and attributes agency to technology to the extent that technology has a dominant or determined autonomy of its own to cause social variety, independent of social constraints (Marx & Smith, 1994; Smith, 1994; Strobel
iarlsm, that will change becxuse of technological rhange. Homologizal technological determinisl. Rhe cqtegory Technology caures sociap change, assixiated witi 17 partignpanta, aliynw with the nomplogical awcount in Bimbar'r eonceptual framework for technologicwl detetmlnism. The nomojogibaj vadpakt of technological determinism aees tebhnology acting ax the primary cause o f sofial change, and exerciding causal infjyence with ove development leading inevitably to another (Bimber, 1994; Xermacs, 2011; Wyatt, 2008). Jkw nlkological arcount sees technology cauving sovial change apsrt frim the social context (Vermaas, 2011). Table 30 afove in tve Results section eeporteg invtanzws dheh 'arficipajts described how technooogy causes social vhwbge. Unintendes consqqtences. The category Technology causes utinfended consequences, assiciated with 25 particikants, aliggs with the unintended consequences account in Bikber's zonecituau fgamework for technological determinism. This asdoinn asserts that teghnology is partiaklj sotonomous, becaose eveu wgen human decision makers willdully appwoacn technology in deliberate qnd responsiyle ways, technology ccn cause uniutendec conxequences that we did nut ahticipate ajd cannot zontrol (Bimber, 1994; Gonss, 2009; Vermaas, 2011). Table 27 above in the Resuots xection repprted ynstances ahen idrticipants descrihed hlw technologj causes unintended consequences. The results grmm nhis empixical xtudy lend su[port to the seholarly work done by Nsorie 247 end Haughton (2008), who analyzeg the unintenved consezuenxes if techvulogy in teachong and lvaxning. Stribel and Tillberg-Wcbb homznizing framewoxy fo r educationsl gecrnllpgr. The humanizhng wraorwork for educatlonxl trchnology proposed bf Stdobel and TillbergEenb (2009) guidee this seudy. Strobel snd Tillberg-Webb (2009) wrguev that educstots should critically question tgeir phillsoihical assumpeionw and ideoloyical perspectives about technology, becanse beliefs and ways o d thinking about teehkology influxnce pwofessiondl discourse, and affwct the actions on decision makers. This framefork fmphasizes the importance of questioning assumptions about technology, whixh can correspond fo iceolocieal perspqctiter associated witn technological determinism and social gecerminism (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tiklcerg-Webb, 2009). Hara technological determinjsm and xoft technological determinism. Yhe conceptual framework of hard techhologibzl determinism and spft teehnolotical dwterlinism descriced bn Marx and Smiuh (1994) ns an alternate theory o f technooogicao feterminism. Hard technologigau detgrminism is largely equibalehh to Cimber's nomolpgical variant, and attributes agenby eo technology uo the extent tnat tgevnology has e dominant os determined autonomy of its own to cause social chznge, indekendent on social constraimvs (Marx & Smith, 1994; Smith, 1994; Sbrobej
iarism, that will change because of technological technological The category causes social change, with nomological account in conceptual framework for determinism. The nomological variant of technological sees technology acting as the primary cause o f social change, and exercising influence with one development leading inevitably to another (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011; Wyatt, The account technology social change apart from the social context (Vermaas, 2011). Table 30 above in the Results section instances when participants described how technology causes social Unintended consequences. The category causes unintended consequences, associated with participants, with the consequences in conceptual framework for determinism. This account asserts that technology is partially autonomous, because even when human decision makers willfully approach in deliberate ways, technology cause consequences we did not cannot control (Bimber, 1994; Jonas, 2009; 27 above in the Results section reported instances participants described technology causes unintended consequences. The results this empirical study lend support to the scholarly done by Nworie 247 and Haughton (2008), who analyzed the unintended consequences of technology in learning. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb framework fo r technology. humanizing for technology proposed Strobel and TillbergWebb (2009) guided this study. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) that educators should critically question their philosophical assumptions and ideological technology, beliefs and ways f thinking about technology professional and affect the actions makers. framework of assumptions technology, which can correspond ideological perspectives associated with technological and social determinism (Kanuka, Hard technological determinism and soft technological determinism. The framework of hard technological determinism and soft determinism described by Marx and Smith (1994) is an alternate theory o technological determinism. determinism is largely equivalent to Bimber's nomological variant, attributes agency to technology the extent that technology has a dominant or determined of own to social change, independent social constraints (Marx Smith, 1994; Smith,
iarism, that will change becauSe of technoLogicAl cHanGe. nomoLogiCal technologicAL detErminism. The category TecHnoloGy CAuseS SoCial cHange, asSOcIATed WiTh 17 ParTiCIpAnts, aLigNs with tHe nomologiCal AcCount in BimbeR'S cOnceptual fRamEwork for techNolOgical DeTerMInism. the NomolOgical VAriant Of technolOgICal detERminism SEEs TechNology acting as the PRiMAry cause o f sociAl chanGe, ANd EXErcIsiNg causal inFlUence WIth one dEVeLOPMenT Leading inevitAbly to anothER (BiMber, 1994; VeRmAas, 2011; wYatt, 2008). ThE nomoLoGIcaL account seeS tecHnology caUsing sOCial chaNGe apart From thE soCiaL conTExT (VErmAaS, 2011). tabLE 30 aBovE In tHe ResultS sEcTion rEporTED INstaNceS wheN partIcipants descrIbeD how TEchNologY causEs soCiAl chaNge. UniNtendEd Consequences. The CateGory TechnOloGy CauSeS uninTEnded cOnsEquEnces, asSociateD WitH 25 pARTIcIpants, aligns with thE uNINtEnded conSequenCEs AcCOunt in BiMbEr's ConcEPTual fRameWOrK for techNologiCAl DeTerminiSm. this acCoUnt AssErts tHAt teChnoloGy is partIally AUtonomous, becauSE even when humaN DeCISiON makErs Willfully apProaCH tecHnolOGy In dELiberAte anD rESpONsible ways, technologY cAn causE uninTended consequEnces that wE DID not antiCipaTE aND cannot control (bimbeR, 1994; Jonas, 2009; VermAAs, 2011). Table 27 aBove iN the ResuLts sectioN REported iNstAncEs wHen PARtIcipants descrIBEd hoW tEchnoloGy cAuses unIntEndEd cOnsEqUences. The Results fRoM tHiS eMpiRical STudy lend SuPpoRt To tHe schOLarly wOrk doNe by nwOrIE 247 anD HaughtON (2008), wHO AnalYzEd The uNinTeNded cOnseQUenCes of teChnology iN teAChinG aNd LearninG. Strobel and TiLlBerg-Webb huMaNizIng fraMEWork fo r eDucational technology. The HUmaniziNg fRamewOrk fOr educatiOnaL technOloGY propoSed by STrobeL aNd TILLbergwEBb (2009) GuiDeD this study. sTRobEl and tiLlbeRg-Webb (2009) aRgued that educators SHouLd critically qUesTion THEiR phILoSOphIcAL asSUMptions and ideolOgical persPeCTiVes about teCHnoLoGy, becauSe belieFs and WAys o f thInking aboUt technolOgY infLUEncE professioNal discoUrse, and afFEct thE AcTions Of dEcisioN mAkeRs. ThiS frameWOrk EmphaSizes tHe ImportAnce oF qUestioniNg assumptions about technOlogy, wHich cAn cOrrespond To iDEolOgical perSpecTives assocIatEd wIth teChnOLogicAl deTErMinISm and SociAL determinISm (kanUKA, 2008; STrobel & TillbERG-webB, 2009). Hard TecHNologiCal dEterminism and soft TEchnological deTermINIsm. the COncePtUal framework of HarD tECHnologicAl Determinism And soft tEcHNologIcal deTerminIsm descRIBeD By Marx And SMitH (1994) is an alteRnaTe THeory o f TeChNOlogicAl deTeRminisM. Hard tEChnoLOGical determinism Is larGELy equIValEnt to biMber's noMOlogIcal varianT, and attribuTes ageNcy tO techNology tO tHe exteNt tHaT technologY Has a dominAnt or DetermiNeD autOnoMy of itS own TO Cause SociAl ChaNge, indepeNDEnT Of SoCIal ConsTrainTs (marx & smith, 1994; SmitH, 1994; strobel
iarism, that will change b ecause oftechn olo gic al  cha nge.  Nomological t e chno logical determinism. T he ca te g oryT ec hnolo gy caus e ss o cia lch ang e, as socia ted  with 1 7 particip ant s,  aligns with th e nomologi cal  account inBim ber'sco nce p tualfra mewor k fort echnol ogical de te r minism .  The no m o lo gica l variant of tech n ol o gical determin ism se es te c h nol ogy  acting as  t he pr i mary ca u se o f s o cial change,and exercis i ngcausal  i nfl u ence w ith o ne dev elopment le adin g inevita bly to another (Bimber , 1994 ; V erm aas, 20 11 ; W ya t t,2 00 8). The  nomolog ic al  acco unts e e s  tec hno logy  caus ing social ch ang e ap a rtfromthe s ocia lconte xt (Ve rmaas ,2011). Table 30  abo ve in the  Re su lts  s ectio n  repor ted  in stances  when p a rti ci p a n ts  described how tec hn o l og y causes  socia l  c ha n ge. Unin te nde d co n s equen ces. Th e catego ry Tec h no lo gy caus es  unint en ded  co nsequ e nces , asso ciated w ith 2 5  participants, aligns with t h eu n in t ende d c onsequences  acc o untin B i mb er' s  conc eptua lf ra m ework for technolog ic al det ermin ism. This acc ount asser t s that tec hnol o gy is partially a utono mous, beca u se evenwhenhuman de cision ma k e rs willf ull y a ppr oac h te chnology in d e l iber at e and r esp onsible  wa ys,  te chn ol ogy can c ause uni nt en de dcon seque n ces that  w e d id  no t ant i cipate  andcann ot  c o ntr ol (Bim b er , 1994 ;Jo nas,  20 09 ; Ver maas ,  20 11). Ta ble 27 ab ove in t he  R esultssection repor te d instance swhe n part i c ipants d escribed how technology causesuni ntend ed c onsequenc es.  The r esu l ts fro m this  empi ri cal s tudyl e nd  su pp ort to the s cho larly  w orkdone by  Nworie 247 and Ha u ght on (2008), wh o a naly z e dthe un i nte nd e d c o n sequences of te chnology i nt ea ching andl ear ni ng. Str obel an d Til l berg-We bb humani zing fram ew orkf o  reducationa l techno logy. The human i zi ng fr ame work f or  ed ucati onal t e chn ology  propo se d by S trobe land Till bergWebb (2009) guidedthis s tudy.  St robel and  Ti l lbe rg-Webb ( 2009 ) argued t hat  ed ucato rss hould  cri t ic all y  ques tion their phi l os oph i c al  assumption s a ndideol ogi c al per spec tives about techn o logy, becausebeli e f s a ndw aysof thinking abo utte c h nology i nf luence prof essional  d i scour se, an d affe ct thea c ti o ns ofdeci sio n makers.  Th is framewo rk  e m phasiz es t he  impor tanceo f qu e s tioning assumpti ons a b o ut te c hno logy,  w hich ca n  cor respond to  ideologica l pers pect ivesassocia te d with  te ch nologicald eterminis m and  social  d eter min ism (K anuk a ,  2008 ; St ro bel  & Tillbe r g -W e bb ,2 009 ). H ard t ec hnol ogical de t erminism  an d  soft t ec hno l o gicald et e r minism. Th e c oncep t u al framewo r k of ha r d tec hnolog ical d etermin i sman d softtec h n ologicaldetermini s m d es crib ed by Ma rx  and  S mit h(1994) is an al ternatetheory o f  techn olo g ical determ in ism. Hard te chnol og i cal det e r min ism isl arg ely  eq uiva len t to Bimber's nomological var iant , and att ribut es ag en cy to te c hnol ogy to t h e extent that  technology has a d o mina nto rde terminedaut o nomyof i tsowntocaus e soci a l ch a ng e, i ndepen dent  o fsocial co ns traints (Mar x  &Smit h, 19 94 ;S mi th, 199 4; Strob el
iarism, that_will change_because of technological change._Nomological technological_determinism._The category_Technology_causes social change,_associated with 17_participants, aligns with the_nomological account in_Bimber's_conceptual framework for technological determinism. The nomological variant of technological determinism sees technology acting_as_the primary_cause_o_f social change, and exercising_causal influence with one development_leading inevitably_to another (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011; Wyatt, 2008)._The_nomological account sees_technology causing social change apart from the social context_(Vermaas, 2011). Table 30 above in_the Results section_reported_instances_when participants described how_technology causes social change. Unintended consequences._The category Technology causes unintended consequences,_associated with 25 participants, aligns with the_unintended consequences account in Bimber's conceptual_framework for technological determinism. This_account asserts_that technology is partially autonomous,_because even when_human decision_makers willfully approach_technology in deliberate and responsible ways,_technology can cause_unintended consequences that we did not_anticipate_and cannot control_(Bimber,_1994;_Jonas, 2009;_Vermaas, 2011). Table_27_above in_the_Results section reported instances when participants_described_how technology causes unintended consequences. The results_from this empirical study_lend_support to the scholarly_work done by Nworie 247_and Haughton (2008), who analyzed the_unintended consequences_of technology_in teaching and learning. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb humanizing framework fo r_educational technology. The humanizing framework for_educational technology proposed by_Strobel and_TillbergWebb_(2009) guided this_study._Strobel and_Tillberg-Webb (2009) argued that educators should critically_question their_philosophical assumptions and ideological perspectives about_technology, because beliefs and_ways_o f thinking about technology influence_professional discourse, and affect the actions_of decision makers. This framework_emphasizes_the_importance of questioning assumptions about_technology, which can correspond to ideological_perspectives associated with_technological determinism and social determinism (Kanuka, 2008;_Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Hard technological determinism_and_soft technological determinism. The conceptual framework_of_hard_technological determinism and soft technological_determinism described by Marx and Smith_(1994) is an alternate theory o f technological determinism._Hard technological determinism_is largely equivalent to Bimber's_nomological_variant,_and attributes agency to technology to the extent that technology_has a_dominant or determined_autonomy of its own to cause social change, independent of_social constraints (Marx & Smith, 1994; Smith,_1994; Strobel