 technology leadership need to critically 115 question philosophical assumptions about technology, and focus on human agency and moral sensitivity (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; M. Oliver, 2011; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). In their critical and humanizing framework for educational technology, Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) emphasized as a starting point the questioning o f how assumptions about technology may correspond to perspectives on the opposing sides of the scholarly debate between technological determinism and social determinism. After a discussion of important foundations in the philosophy of technology, the review analyzes and synthesizes the published body of literature pertaining to the competing ideologies of technological determinism and social determinism. The pace of technological change presents challenges for reflective leadership, and technology can result in unforeseen consequences and risks that were not intended (Canole, 2007). Technologies are value laden and decisions about them often have an ethical dimension, so educators must recognize the responsibility and control they have for technology (Hofmann, 2006). By questioning their assumptions within a humanistic framework for technology integration, and considering the ethical implications o f technology (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009), educators are better prepared to invest limited public monies (Carr-Chellman, 2006; Kritt & Winegar, 2010) on the right technologies that best support the curriculum (Shelly et al., 2008). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) also contended that educators should critically question their own deeply ingrained ideological beliefs about technology, and be willing to assess both the positive and negative effects of technology, in order to help students achieve educational technology standards. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) reasoned that because national educational technology standards for students emphasize thinking 116 critically about technology, educators should model for their students such questioning of technology. The review of literature explores influential philosophy of technology theories that have been proposed to explain the nature and significance of technology, and how technology mediates and transforms human experience (Kaplan, 2009a). Among the foundational theories critiqued includes those with both a pessimistic and optimistic view toward technology. Included is an analysis and discussion of Heidegger's philosophy of technology, considered by scholars to have been the most influential theory (Kaplan, 2009b; Lewin, 2010). For Heidegger, technology is a mode o f ontological revealing that can unveil dimensions of the world that were previously hidden, while blocking other ways of revealing
technology leadership need to critically 115 question philosophical assumption about engineering, and focus on human agency and moral sensitivity (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; M. Oliver, 2011; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). In their critical and humanizing model for educational technology, Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) underscore as a starting point the questioning oxygen fluorine how assumptions about technology may correspond to perspectives on the pit sides of the scholarly debate between technical determinism and social determinism. After a discussion of important foundations in the philosophy of technology, the review analyzes and synthesizes the print body of literature pertaining to the competing ideology of technological determinism and social determinism. The pace of technological change show challenges for reflective leadership, and technology can result in unforeseen consequence and risks that were not intended (Canole, 2007). Technologies are value laden and decisions about them often have an ethical dimension, so educators must recognize the responsibility and control they have for technology (Hofmann, 2006). By questioning their assumptions within a humanistic framework for engineering consolidation, and considering the ethical implications o f engineering (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009), educator are better prepared to invest limited public monies (Carr - Chellman, 2006; Kritt & Winegar, 2010) on the right technologies that best support the course of study (Shelly et al. , 2008). Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) also contended that educators should critically question their own deeply ingrained ideological beliefs about technology, and be willing to assess both the positive and negative impression of engineering, in ordering to help students achieve educational technology standards. Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) reasoned that because national educational technology standard for students emphasize thinking 116 critically about technology, educator should model for their students such questioning of technology. The review of literature explores influential philosophy of engineering theories that have been proposed to explain the nature and significance of engineering, and how technology mediates and transform human experience (Kaplan, 2009a). Among the foundational theories critiqued admit those with both a pessimistic and optimistic position toward technology. include is an analysis and discussion of Heidegger's philosophy of technology, considered by scholars to have been the about influential theory (Kaplan, 2009b; Lewin, 2010). For Heidegger, technology is a manner o f ontological revealing that can unveil dimensions of the world that were previously hidden, while blocking early ways of revealing
 tefhnology leadership need to critically 115 questimn phimosophicxl assumptions about technollgt, and focus on human agency and morap sensituvitb (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; M. Olivcx, 2011; Stdlbel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). In their writical and hgmxnnzing framework for educational techgology, Xtgobel and Tillferg-Eqbb (2009) vmkhasized as a starting point the suestioiing o f how asxumptions about technology may correspond to perdpectives ob thq opposing siaes of the scholarly dgbate between technological detefminixm and socuao dfjerminism. Afver a qiscussion on impordant foindations in tme phmlosiphy of technology, thx review analyzes anq syntheshzzs the published body od litgratuse pdetaknihg tk the fom'eting ideomogies of twchnological determonywm and social deteriigism. The pace of technological change pgesehts challenges for reflwctive leadership, and technolody can result in unforeseen consequences and riskv thav dert kjg ijtended (Canole, 2007). Technologies are value laden whd dvcisions about thcm often have an eyhlcsj dimension, su educcfods must recognize hhe reskonsibulity and conyrol they have for technoloty (Hofmann, 2006). Yy wuestioning their cssumptions cithin a hukanistic framework for cechnomogy integrwtion, and zonsidering the dthpcal implicaukons o f technolody (Kritt & Winzgar, 2010; Stfobek & Tiljberg-Webb, 2009), educators are better prfpareb to hnvest limlted public monies (Carr-Chellman, 2006; Kritt & Winegsr, 2010) ot the riyht teghnologies that best support jhe currieulum (Rhelly et zl., 2008). Strmbel and Tijlberg-Webb (2009) ando contended that edtcatirs whould zfitically quesyion theig jwn eeeply ingrained iveolufical beliefs ayuor technology, amd ce riplmng tj assess both the porotive and negatiye dffevts of technology, in ordsr to help studentx wchieve gducationwl technology standards. Strobel and Villbecg-Webb (2009) rgasoned that because national esucationap tcchnology stagdares for studeuts emphasize thinking 116 critically about technology, educajors should model for uheir studentx sucr questioting of technology. Tye review of litevature explores influehtial [hilodophy of technology theories that have been proposed to explain the naturw and significance of yechnmljyy, and row verhnology mediates and transforms human experiencx (Kaplan, 2009a). Aiong the foundational theorirs critiqued inzludes those with both a pessimixtic and optimistic view toward technology. Included is sn analywis ahd disbossmon of Heidegger's pholosopky of rechnoligy, gonsidered by rchplwrs to hage bten che most influential theory (Kaplab, 2009b; Leqij, 2010). For Heidegger, technology ls a mkde o s ontological rebealjjg thxt can unveil dimensions of the world that were pweviously hiddtn, while blockimg otheg ways of revxaling
technology leadership need to critically 115 question about and focus human agency and 2010; Oliver, 2011; Strobel Tillberg-Webb, 2009). In critical and humanizing framework for educational Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) emphasized as a starting point the questioning o f assumptions about technology may correspond to perspectives on the opposing sides of the debate technological and determinism. After a discussion of important foundations in the philosophy of technology, the review analyzes and the published body of literature pertaining to the ideologies of technological determinism social determinism. The pace of change challenges for leadership, technology result in unforeseen and risks that were not intended (Canole, 2007). Technologies are value laden and decisions about them often an ethical educators must the and they have for 2006). By questioning their assumptions within for technology integration, and considering the ethical implications f technology & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, educators are better prepared to invest limited public (Carr-Chellman, 2006; Kritt & Winegar, 2010) on the right technologies that best support the curriculum al., 2008). Strobel and (2009) also contended educators critically their deeply ingrained beliefs about technology, and be willing to assess both the positive negative effects of technology, in order to help students achieve standards. and Tillberg-Webb (2009) that because national educational standards students emphasize thinking 116 technology, should students questioning technology. The review of explores influential philosophy of technology that have been proposed significance of technology, and how technology mediates and human experience (Kaplan, 2009a). Among the foundational critiqued includes those with both a pessimistic and optimistic view toward technology. is an discussion of Heidegger's philosophy of technology, considered by to have been the influential theory (Kaplan, 2009b; Lewin, 2010). For Heidegger, technology a o f revealing that can dimensions of the that were previously blocking other of
 technology leadership need tO criticallY 115 quesTioN phIlOsopHicaL assumptions abOUt teChnology, and focus on humaN agenCy ANd moRAl SensiTivity (KRItT & wIneGaR, 2010; M. oliVeR, 2011; stRobel & tilLberg-WeBb, 2009). In their cRitIcAl and humanizINg Framework fOr eDucational teChnOlogy, STrObeL And TiLlbErg-WeBb (2009) emphASized aS a startinG pOInt the QUestionING o F how Assumptions about tEChNOlogy may corresPond to PeRSpECTivEs oN the opposiNg Sides OF the schOLaRLY DebATe between techNological deTErmInism aNd SocIAl deteRminiSm. aFteR a discussioN of iMportant fOundatIOns in thE PhilosoPhy of tEchNolOgy, tHE rEvIew AnALyzES aNd sYNthEsizes thE pUbLisheD bodY OF LIterAtuRe peRtainIng to the compeTinG ideOLogIes of TechnOlogIcAl detErminiSm and SoCial determinism. the pAce of techNolOgIcaL cHange PResentS chAllEnges foR reflecTIve LeADERsHip, and technology caN rESUlT in unforEseen cONsEqUEnces and RiSks That WERe not InteNDeD (Canole, 2007). TEchnolOGiEs Are valuE lAden anD dEciSioNs aboUT theM often Have an etHical DImension, so educATors must recogNIzE THe REspoNsiBility and coNtroL They Have FOr TecHNologY (HofmAnN, 2006). by QUestioning their assuMpTions wIthin A humanistic frAmework for TECHnology iNtegRAtIOn, and consideriNg the Ethical impLIcations O f tecHnology (KRitt & WinegAR, 2010; strobel & TIllBerG-WeBb, 2009), eDUCaTors are better PREparEd To invesT liMited puBliC moNieS (CaRr-chellman, 2006; KRitt & WineGaR, 2010) oN tHe RigHt tecHNologies ThAt bEsT suPport THe currIculuM (SheLlY eT Al., 2008). STrobel aND TILLberG-WEbB (2009) alsO coNtEnded That EDucAtors shOuld critiCalLY queStIoN their oWn deeply ingraInEd ideologiCaL beLiefs aBOUt technoLogy, and be willing to assesS Both the PosItive And nEgative efFecTs of teChnOLogy, in Order tO help StUdeNTS achiEVE eDucAtIonal technOLOgy StandArDs. StRobel anD Tillberg-Webb (2009) reasoNEd tHat because natIonAl edUCAtIonAL tEChnOlOGy sTANdards for studenTs emphasizE tHInKing 116 criticALly AbOut techNology, eDucatORs shoulD model for Their studEnTs suCH QueStioning of TechnoloGy. The reviEW of liTErAture ExpLores iNfLueNtial PhilosOPhy Of tecHnologY tHeorieS that HaVe been prOposed to explain the naturE and siGnifiCanCe of technOloGY, anD how technOlogY mediates aNd tRanSformS huMAn expErieNCe (kapLAn, 2009a). AmOng tHE foundatiONaL thEORiEs critiqued INCLudEs thoSe wITh both A pesSimistic and optimiSTic view toward tEchnOLOgy. incLUded Is An analysis and dIscUsSIOn of HeidEgGer's philosoPhy of tecHnOLogy, cOnsideRed by sCholars TO HaVE been tHe moSt iNfluentiaL thEoRY (Kaplan, 2009B; LEwIN, 2010). For HeIdegGeR, technOlogy iS A modE O F ontological reveAling THAt can UNveIl dimEnSions of THe woRld that werE previously Hidden, WhilE blocKing othEr Ways of RevEaLing
 technology leadership nee d to criti cally  11 5 q ue stio n ph ilosophical as s umpt ions about technology,  andfo c us o n  h umanagencya nd m ora lse nsi ti v it y (Kr itt  & Wine gar, 2010;  M.  O liver, 2011; St robel & Ti llb erg-Webb, 20 09) . In t he irc ritic aland h umaniz i ng fra mework fo re ducati o nal tec h n ol ogy,  Strobel and Till b er g -Webb (2009) e mphasi ze d  a s a s tar ting point  t he qu e stionin g  o f how assumptions a bout techno l ogy  may c or res p ond to  pers pe c tiv es on the o ppos ing sides  of th e  schola r ly deba te bet wee n t echn o lo gi cal  d e ter m in ism and  socialde te rmini sm.A f t e r adis cuss ion o f important f oun dati o nsin th e phi loso ph y oftechno logy,  t he review analy zesand synth esi ze s t he  publ i shed b ody  of  litera ture pe r tai ni n g to  the competing ide ol o g ie s of tec hnolog i ca ld etermini sm  an d so c i al de term i ni sm. Thepace o f  t ec hnologi ca l chan ge  pr ese nts c h alle nges f or refle ctive leadership, an d  technology c a nr e su l t in  un foreseen co nseq u ence s an d  r isk s  that  were  n o ti ntended (Canole, 20 07 ). Tec hnolo gies are valu e laden an d d ecisions  abo u tt hem often have  an e thical dim e nsion, s o edu cators m ust recog n i ze the r esp ons ibi lit y an d control the y have  f or tech nol ogy (Ho fma nn,  20 06) .By questi oning th ei ras su mpt ionsw ithin ahu man is tic  fram e work f or te chno lo gy int egratio n ,a n d co ns id erin g t he  ethi cali mpl ication s o f tec hno l ogy(K ri tt & Wi negar, 2010;St robel & Ti ll ber g-Webb , 2009), e ducators are better pre p ared to  in vestlimi ted publi c m onies(Ca r r-Chel lman,2006;  K rit t & Win e g ar , 2 01 0) on ther i ght  tech no logi es that  best support thec urr iculum (Shell y e t al . ,  2 008 ) .S tro be l  an d Tillberg-Webb ( 2009) also  c o nt ended that edu ca tors sh ould cr itica l ly ques tion thei r own dee pl y in g r ain ed ideolog ical bel iefs abou t  tech n ol ogy,and  be wi ll ing  to a ssessb oth  thepositi ve  and n egati ve  effects  of technology, in orde r to h elp s tud ents achi eve edu cationaltech nology sta nda rds . Str obe l  andTill b er g-W e bb (2 009) reasonedt ha t b e c au se national e d uca tiona l t e chnolo gy s tandards for stud e nts emphasizethin k i ng116 crit ic ally about tec hno lo g y , educat or s should mo del forth e ir st udents  suchquestio n i ng of tec hnol ogy . The rev iew  o f  litera tu re explor es i nf luenti al phi l osop h y  of technology t heori e s  that hav e bee npropose d  toexplain th e nature an d sign ific anceof tech no logy,and  h ow technol o gy mediat es an d trans fo rmshum an exp erie n c e (Ka plan ,200 9a). Amon g th e  f ou n dat iona l the or iescritiqued includes  th o se with  b oth a  pessi m is t i c and opti mis tic v i e w toward t e chno l og y . Inc ludedis ananalysi s  an ddiscuss ion o f Heidegg er's phil o sop hy  oftechnolo gy , co ns ide re d by scholars t o have b een them o st inf lue n tial theory  ( Kaplan, 2009 b; Le wi n , 2010) . For  Heideg g er,  te chn olog y i s am ode o f ontological reve alin g tha t  ca n unv eil d im ensionso f th e worldt hat were prev iously hidden,w hil e  blo cki n got her waysofr eveal ing
 technology_leadership need_to critically 115 question_philosophical assumptions_about_technology, and_focus_on human agency_and moral sensitivity_(Kritt & Winegar, 2010;_M. Oliver, 2011;_Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb, 2009). In their critical and humanizing framework for educational technology, Strobel and_Tillberg-Webb_(2009) emphasized_as_a_starting point the questioning o_f how assumptions about technology_may correspond_to perspectives on the opposing sides of the_scholarly_debate between technological_determinism and social determinism. After a discussion of important_foundations in the philosophy of technology,_the review analyzes_and_synthesizes_the published body of_literature pertaining to the competing ideologies_of technological determinism and social determinism._The pace of technological change presents challenges_for reflective leadership, and technology can_result in unforeseen consequences and_risks that_were not intended (Canole, 2007)._Technologies are value_laden and_decisions about them_often have an ethical dimension, so_educators must recognize_the responsibility and control they have_for_technology (Hofmann, 2006)._By_questioning_their assumptions_within a humanistic_framework_for technology_integration,_and considering the ethical implications o_f_technology (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel &_Tillberg-Webb, 2009), educators are_better_prepared to invest limited_public monies (Carr-Chellman, 2006; Kritt_& Winegar, 2010) on the right_technologies that_best support_the curriculum (Shelly et al., 2008). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) also_contended that educators should critically question_their own deeply ingrained_ideological beliefs_about_technology, and be_willing_to assess_both the positive and negative effects of_technology, in_order to help students achieve educational_technology standards. Strobel and_Tillberg-Webb_(2009) reasoned that because national educational_technology standards for students emphasize thinking_116 critically about technology, educators_should_model_for their students such questioning_of technology. The review of literature_explores influential philosophy_of technology theories that have been proposed_to_explain the nature and significance of_technology,_and how technology mediates and transforms_human_experience_(Kaplan, 2009a). Among the foundational_theories critiqued includes those with both_a pessimistic and optimistic view toward technology. Included is_an analysis and_discussion of Heidegger's philosophy of_technology,_considered_by scholars to have been the most influential theory (Kaplan,_2009b; Lewin,_2010). For Heidegger,_technology is a mode o f ontological revealing that can_unveil dimensions of the world that were_previously hidden, while blocking other ways of revealing