 & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). We can interpret that the category Technology causes social change aligns with both nomological technological determinism and hard technological determinism. Soft technological determinism asserts that technology drives social change, but sees technology as an influence among others, occurring alongside a complex interaction of social, economic, political, and cultural factors (Marx & Smith, 1994; Smith, 1994; 248 Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The category Both technology causes social change and social factors shape technology, with coding instances from 20 participants, aligns with the philosophical position of soft technological determinism. Using this interpretation, soft technological determinism was more frequent in the data than hard technological determinism. Social determinism. In contrast to technological determinism, social determinism assumes that social processes shape the development and evolution of technologies, with the technologies fundamentally embedded in social systems (Kanuka, 2008; Lievrouw, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The category Social factors shape technology, associated with three participants, aligns with the philosophy o f technology position of social determinism. This view was not widespread in the results. Technological utopianism and dystopianism. While the contrast between technological determinism and social determinism is concerned with what causes change, the contrast between utopianism and dystopianism is concerned with valuing the results of technological change (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The humanizing framework for educational technology proposed by Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) also emphasizes the importance of critically analyzing assumptions corresponding to utopianism and dystopianism as it pertains to educational technology. Technological utopianism embraces the promise o f technology, and is an optimistic position that presents technological innovation as something for the better (Kritt &Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Vermaas et al., 2011). Technological dystopianism (or Luddism) is a pessimistic position generally not open to technological innovation, and 249 resists technological change (Kritt &Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Vermaas et al., 2011). The category Technological optimism, associated with 28 participants, is aligned with the perspective o f technological utopianism. The category Technological pessimism, associated with six participants, is aligned with technological dystopianism. The category Technological optimism and pessimism (both
& Tillberg - Webb, 2009). We can interpret that the category Technology causes social change aligns with both nomological technical determinism and unvoiced technological determinism. Soft technical determinism asserts that engineering drives social change, but experience technology as an influence among others, occurring alongside a complex interaction of social, economic, political, and cultural factor (Marx & Smith, 1994; Smith, 1994; 248 Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The category Both technology induce social change and social factors condition technology, with coding instances from 20 participants, aligns with the philosophical position of delicate technological determinism. Using this interpretation, indulgent technological determinism was more frequent in the data than hard technological determinism. Social determinism. In line to technological determinism, social determinism bear that social processes shape the development and development of technologies, with the technologies fundamentally embedded in social systems (Kanuka, 2008; Lievrouw, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The category Social factors supreme headquarters allied powers europe engineering, associated with three participants, aligns with the philosophy o f technology position of social determinism. This view was not far-flung in the results. technical utopianism and dystopianism. While the contrast between technological determinism and social determinism is concern with what cause change, the contrast between utopianism and dystopianism is concerned with prize the result of technological change (Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The humanizing model for educational technology proposed by Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) also emphasizes the importance of critically analyzing assumptions corresponding to utopianism and dystopianism as it pertains to educational technology. Technological utopianism embraces the promise o f engineering, and is an optimistic situation that give technological innovation as something for the better (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009; Vermaas et al. , 2011). technical dystopianism (or Luddism) is a pessimistic position generally not open to technological innovation, and 249 resists technological change (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009; Vermaas et al. , 2011). The category Technological optimism, consort with 28 participants, is aligned with the position o f technological utopianism. The category Technological pessimism, associate with six participants, is align with technological dystopianism. The category Technological optimism and pessimism (both
 & Tlllberg-Webb, 2009). We can intevpret that the ccregory Technklogy cajses social change aligns wivh bith nimological technologicxl determpnism and harv technological vsterminlfm. Sknt teehiological deterkinism assarts that techtouoyy drives social change, but sees tecrnology ad an influence amomd otgvrw, occurring alongside a complsx integaction of social, economic, political, and cupturwl factors (Marx & Slith, 1994; Smith, 1994; 248 Seeobel & Tillbdrg-Webb, 2009). The category Goth technology causes social cfange and sociao dachmrs shape txchnoljgy, with codlmg insdances grom 20 participsntv, aoigns with the philosmphical position os soft tewhuological determinism. Uwing jhis hntefpregatjoi, skft tefhnklogical dsterminism qas more frequent im eye data than gard tqcrnological determinism. Social determinivm. Jn contrast to technolotical determinism, soclal deteriinism assumes that social processes shape the deeelopjdnt akd exilktion of technologies, with the technologies fthdsmvntally embedded ln social systems (Lajulw, 2008; Lievrouw, 2006; Rtrobel & Fillberg-Webb, 2009). The fategori Sociql factorf shspe technology, associated wuth three pagticupants, aligns with the philosuphy o f yechnology position of rocizl determinlsm. This bkew was not widerprvad hn the rtrults. Technologicwl utopiaiism cnd dystupiamism. Wrile the clntrast between technolohical daterminism and social determinism is concxcned with whaj cdusvs change, the gontrast betweeg utopianism aud dysto'ianiso is concegned with valuing thq results of dgchnological rhange (Stwobeo & Tullberg-Ddbb, 2009). The humanozing framework for educational technploeg proposed by Scxovel and Tillberb-Wecb (2009) apsp qkphasizes tha imoorgsnce uf criticaloh anslyzing assumptions worrssponding to utopisnlsm and distopianifm as it pertsins to educationap tecinologb. Techmoljgical utopianism embraces the promise l f technology, wnd ls ag optimistnc position that presents technological mnnovation as something for the better (Krijt &Einegar, 2010; Stcobel & Tillberg-Febb, 2009; Vermaas et al., 2011). Technological dyxtopianism (or Luddism) is a [essilistic position generally not open to technological innovation, and 249 resisrs tecinjlogical chznge (Kritn &Wnneyar, 2010; Stwobep & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Nermaas et al., 2011). The category Techiological mpcimism, associated with 28 partivioants, is aligved with the perspective o f tecnnological utopianism. The categpry Technological pessimlsm, assocuated with six 'articipants, is aligmed wich tecynologixal fystopianism. Ghe cwtegory Tfchnplkgical optimism and pessimism (borh
& Tillberg-Webb, 2009). We can interpret that Technology social change with both nomological determinism. technological determinism asserts technology drives social but sees technology as an influence others, occurring alongside a complex interaction of social, economic, political, and cultural factors & Smith, 1994; Smith, 1994; 248 Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The category Both causes change social shape technology, with coding instances from 20 participants, aligns with the philosophical position of soft technological Using this interpretation, soft technological determinism was more in the data than technological determinism. Social determinism. In to determinism, social assumes social shape the development evolution of technologies, with the technologies fundamentally embedded in social systems (Kanuka, 2008; Lievrouw, 2006; Strobel & 2009). The factors shape associated three aligns with the f technology position of social determinism. not widespread in the results. Technological utopianism and While the between technological determinism and social determinism concerned with what causes change, the contrast between and dystopianism is concerned with valuing the results of technological change (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). framework for educational technology by Strobel and (2009) emphasizes importance critically analyzing corresponding to utopianism and dystopianism as it pertains to educational technology. utopianism embraces the promise o f technology, and is an that technological innovation as for the better (Kritt 2010; & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Vermaas 2011). dystopianism a position not open to technological and 249 resists technological change &Winegar, 2010; Strobel & 2011). The category Technological optimism, associated with 28 is aligned with the perspective o f utopianism. The category Technological pessimism, associated with six participants, is aligned with dystopianism. The optimism and pessimism (both
 & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). We can interpreT that the caTegorY TeChnOlOgy cAuseS social change aLIgns With both nomological tecHnoloGiCAl deTErMinisM and harD TeCHNolOgIcAl dEtERmInism. sofT technoLogical detErmInIsm asserts thAT tEchnology dRivEs social chanGe, bUt sees TeChnOLogy aS an InfluEnce amONg otheRs, occurriNg ALongsiDE a complEX InTeraCtion of social, econOMiC, Political, and cuLtural FaCToRS (marX & SmIth, 1994; Smith, 1994; 248 StRoBel & TiLLberg-WeBB, 2009). THE CAteGOry Both technoLogy causes sOCiaL changE aNd sOCial faCtors ShAPe tEchnology, wiTh coDing instaNces frOM 20 particIPants, alIgns wiTh tHe pHiloSOpHiCal PoSItiON oF soFT teChnologiCaL dEtermInisM. uSINg thIs iNterPretaTion, soft technOloGicaL DetErminIsm waS morE fRequeNt in thE data ThAn hard technologIcal DeterminiSm. SOcIal DeTermiNIsm. In cOntRasT to techNologicAL deTeRMINiSm, social determinisM aSSUmEs that soCial prOCeSsES shape thE dEveLopmENT and eVoluTIoN of technOlogieS, WiTh The techNoLogies FuNdaMenTally EMbedDed in sOcial sysTems (KANuka, 2008; Lievrouw, 2006; StRObel & Tillberg-WEBb, 2009). tHE cATegoRy SOcial factorS shaPE tecHnolOGy, AssOCiateD with ThREe PArticipants, aligns wiTh The phiLosopHy o f technologY position oF SOCial deteRminISm. tHis view was not wIdespRead in the rESults. TecHnoloGical utoPianism anD DYstopianIsm. whiLe tHe cONTrAst between tecHNOlogIcAl deterMinIsm and sOciAl dEteRmiNiSm is conceRned with WhAt CaUsEs cHange, THe contraSt BetWeEn uTopiaNIsm and DystoPianIsM iS ConCerned wITh VALuinG tHe ResuLts Of TechnOlogICal Change (STrobel & TilLbeRG-WebB, 2009). THe HumanizIng framework fOr EducationaL tEchNology PROposed by strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) aLSo emphaSizEs the ImpoRtance of cRitIcally AnaLYzing aSsumptIons cOrResPONding TO UtOpiAnIsm and dystOPIanIsm as It PertAins to eDucational technoloGY. TeChnological utOpiAnisM EMbRacES tHE prOmISe o F TEchnology, and is aN optimistiC pOSiTion that prESenTs TechnolOgical iNnovaTIon as soMething foR the betteR (KRitt &wINegAr, 2010; Strobel & TIllberg-WEbb, 2009; VermaaS Et al., 2011). TEChNologIcaL dystoPiAniSm (or LUddism) IS a pEssimIstic pOsItion gEneraLlY not open To technological innovatiOn, and 249 rEsistS teChnologicAl cHAngE (Kritt &WinEgar, 2010; strobel & TilLbeRg-WEbb, 2009; VeRmaAS et al., 2011). the cATeGorY technOlogICal optimiSM, aSsoCIAtEd with 28 partiCIPAntS, is alIgnED with tHe peRspective o f technoLOgical utopianiSm. ThE CAteGorY techNoLogical pessimiSm, aSsOCIated witH sIx participaNts, is aliGnED with TechnoLogicaL dystopIANiSM. The caTegoRy TEchnologiCal OpTImism anD pEsSImism (bOth
 & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). W e can inte rpret  th atth e ca tego ry Technologyc ause s social change aligns  with  b o th n o mo logic al tech n ol o g ica lde ter mi n is m and  ha rd tech nologicaldet er minism. Soft te chnologica l d eterminism a sse rts th at  te c hnolo gydrive s soci a l chan ge, but s ee s  techn o logy as a ninfl uence among other s ,o ccurring along side a  c o mp l e x i nte raction of  s ocial ,  econom i c, p o lit i cal, and cult ural factor s  (M arx &Sm ith ,  1994;  Smit h, 199 4; 248 Stro bel& Tillber g-Webb ,  2009). The cat egoryBot h t echn o lo gy  ca us e s s o ci alc han ge and s oc ia l fac tors s h a pe t ech nolo gy, w ith coding in sta nces fro m 20parti cipa nt s, al igns w ith t he  philosophicalposi tion of s oft  t ech no logic a l dete rmi nis m. Usin g thisi nte rp r e t at ion, soft technolo gi c a ldetermin ism wa s  m or e  frequen tinthed a ta th an h a rd  technol ogical de te rminism .Social  d ete rmi nism. In c ontras t to tec hnolo g ical determini s m, social det e rm i n is m  ass ume s that soci al p r oces sess ha pet he de velop me n ta nd evolution of tec hn ologie s, wi th the techno logies fun d a m entallyembe d de d  in social sys tems(Kanuka, 2 0 08; Liev rouw,  2006; S trobel &T i llberg-W ebb , 2 009 ).T h ecategory Soci a l  fac to rs shap e t echnolo gy,  as soc iat ed  with thr ee parti ci pa nt s,  al ignsw ith theph ilo so phy  o ft echnol ogy p osit io no f s ocial d e te r m inis m.  T hisvie wwas n ot w i des pread i n the res ult s . Te ch no logical  utopianism a nd  dystopian is m.Whilet h e contra st between technologica l  determ ini sm an d so cial dete rmi nism i s c o ncerne d with  what  c aus e s  chan g e ,the  c ontrast be t w een  utop ia nism  and dy stopianism is conc e rne d with valuin g t he r e s ul tso ft ech no l ogi c a l change (Strob el & Tillb er g -W ebb, 2009) .  Th ehumaniz ing fra mewor k  for ed ucational  technolo gy  pro p o sed  by Strobe l and Ti llberg-We b b (20 0 9)  also  em phasiz es  th e imp ortanc e  of  crit ically  a nalyzi ng as su mptionscorresponding to utopia nism a nd dy sto pianism a s i t  pe rtains to  edu cational t ech nol ogy.Tec h nolog ical ut opi a nismembr a ces the p r om ise o  f  technology , a ndis an  op t imisti c po sition that prese n ts technologic al i n n ova tio n  asso mething for th e b et t e r (Kritt  & Winegar, 20 10; Stro be l  & Ti llberg -Webb,  2009;V e rm a as etal.,  20 11). Tech nol og i cal dys to pi a nism ( or L ud dism)is a p e ssim i s tic position gen erall y not o p ento te ch nologic a l in novation,and 249 res ists t echn ologi cal cha ng e (Kri tt&W inegar, 20 1 0; Strobe l & T illberg -W ebb,  20 09; Ve rmaa s et al ., 2 01 1).  The cate g o ry Te ch n olo gica l opt im ism,  associat e d with 2 8 p a rticipa nt s,i s  align e dw i th the per spe ctive o  f technol o gica l  u t opian ism. T he cat egory T e chn ol ogicalpes s i mism, ass ociated w i thsi x pa rticipan ts , is  a lig ne d with technolo gical dy stopiani s m . Thecat e gory Techno lo gical optimi sm an dp essimis m (bo th
 &_Tillberg-Webb, 2009)._We can interpret that_the category_Technology_causes social_change_aligns with both_nomological technological determinism_and hard technological determinism._Soft technological determinism_asserts_that technology drives social change, but sees technology as an influence among others, occurring_alongside_a complex_interaction_of_social, economic, political, and cultural_factors (Marx & Smith, 1994;_Smith, 1994;_248 Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The category Both_technology_causes social change_and social factors shape technology, with coding instances from_20 participants, aligns with the philosophical_position of soft_technological_determinism._Using this interpretation, soft_technological determinism was more frequent in_the data than hard technological determinism._Social determinism. In contrast to technological determinism,_social determinism assumes that social processes_shape the development and evolution_of technologies,_with the technologies fundamentally embedded_in social systems_(Kanuka, 2008;_Lievrouw, 2006; Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The category Social_factors shape technology,_associated with three participants, aligns with_the_philosophy o f_technology_position_of social_determinism. This view_was_not widespread_in_the results. Technological utopianism and dystopianism._While_the contrast between technological determinism and social_determinism is concerned with_what_causes change, the contrast_between utopianism and dystopianism is_concerned with valuing the results of_technological change_(Strobel &_Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The humanizing framework for educational technology proposed by Strobel_and Tillberg-Webb (2009) also emphasizes the_importance of critically analyzing_assumptions corresponding_to_utopianism and dystopianism_as_it pertains_to educational technology. Technological utopianism embraces the_promise o_f technology, and is an optimistic_position that presents technological_innovation_as something for the better (Kritt_&Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009;_Vermaas et al., 2011). Technological_dystopianism_(or_Luddism) is a pessimistic position_generally not open to technological innovation,_and 249 resists_technological change (Kritt &Winegar, 2010; Strobel &_Tillberg-Webb,_2009; Vermaas et al., 2011). The_category_Technological optimism, associated with 28 participants,_is_aligned_with the perspective o f_technological utopianism. The category Technological pessimism,_associated with six participants, is aligned with technological dystopianism._The category Technological_optimism and pessimism (both