 (McDonald et al., 2005). However, McDonald et al. (2005) noted that few studies on programmed instruction found the techniques superior to traditional methods of instructions. While not dismissing the value of past educational technology research, Selwyn (2010b) argued that in the future, researchers should move beyond technological detenninism, and pursue a more critical approach that better recognizes the social factors that affect its use in schools. Selwyn et al. (2006) emphasized that a balanced perspective on digital technology is needed that avoids deterministic and Utopian views, while not falling into the trap of pessimism about technology. Amiel and Reeves (2008) also asserted that in the past, educational technologists have sometimes accepted technological determinism as a given. Amiel and Reeves (2008) argued for a new approach to educational technology research focused on the ends of technology, and axiological questioning of technology directed by values and ethical judgment. Statement of the Problem Educational technology scholars have emphasized the importance of critically examining philosophy of technology assumptions such as technological determinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al., 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Technological determinist 17 assumptions, by granting a control or determined autonomy to technology, apart from purposeful human control and direction, can present a dilemma for educational leadership by limiting human agency and responsibility for technology (Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; Jonas, 2010; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Slack & Wise 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Wyatt, 2008). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb argued that technological determinist assumptions can influence educators to feel pressure to keep up with technological change, "as if the technologies are driving changes and decisions in the instructional process" (p. 78). If educators assume a commercial technology is inevitable, they tend to focus on how schools should adapt to technology, rather than shape the technology to meet curriculum requirements, and teachers' and students' needs (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Technological determinist beliefs can influence educators to accept uncritically technological determinist rhetoric of technology vendors (Fisher, 2006; Grant et al., 2006), and pursue a quick technological fix for complex educational problems
(McDonald et al. , 2005). However, McDonald et al. (2005) noted that few studies on programmed instruction find oneself the technique superior to traditional methods of instructions. While not dismiss the value of past educational technology research, Selwyn (2010b) argue that in the future, researchers should move beyond technical detenninism, and prosecute a more critical approach that well recognizes the social factors that feign its habit in schools. Selwyn et al. (2006) emphasized that a balanced perspective on digital technology is needed that avoid deterministic and Utopian views, while not falling into the trap of pessimism about engineering. Amiel and Reeves (2008) also asserted that in the past, educational engineer have sometimes accepted technical determinism as a given. Amiel and Reeves (2008) argued for a new approach to educational technology research focus on the ends of technology, and axiological questioning of technology directed by values and ethical opinion. Statement of the Problem Educational technology scholars have emphasized the importance of critically examining philosophy of technology assumptions such as technological determinism (Carr - Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al. , 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Technological determinist 17 premise, by granting a control or compulsive autonomy to engineering, apart from purposeful human control and direction, can present a dilemma for educational leadership by specify human agency and responsibility for technology (Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; Jonas, 2010; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Slack & Wise 2006; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009; Wyatt, 2008). Strobel and Tillberg - Webb argued that technical determinist assumptions can influence educators to feel pressure to keep up with technological change, " as if the technologies are driving changes and decision in the instructional procedure " (p. 78). If educators assume a commercial technology is inevitable, they tend to focus on how schools should adjust to technology, rather than shape the technology to meet curriculum requirements, and teachers' and students' indigence (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Technological fatalist beliefs can influence educators to accept uncritically technological fatalist rhetoric of technology vendors (Fisher, 2006; Grant et al. , 2006), and pursue a immediate technological fix for complex educational trouble
 (McFonald et al., 2005). However, McAonald et al. (2005) noted thet few atudies un programmed instruction fonnd rhe ttbhniques superior to graditionwl methoes oh instructions. Wijle not dismiading vhe value of paxt educatimnal technologf fedearch, Selwyn (2010b) argued that in the suture, tedearchers shoujd mpde bsjokd technological detenninism, and pursue a more critival approach that better rfcogjizes the social fwctors that affqxt its use iv schools. Selwyn et al. (2006) emphasized that a balanced pefspeccive on digutql hgchnology is needvd that avoids determhnistic and Utopian vlews, xhilw not falling into thx trap of pessimism wbout tecvnklogy. Amiel and Rweces (2008) dlso assdetea tgav ih the oasv, educationzl technolotists have sometimex wbvepted technklogicwl determinism as a given. Amiel and Reevev (2008) zrgued for a new approaxh to educational tecjnology rqsearch focused on the ends of technology, and aximlogirau qbcfguojing of technology directed by values and ethydak mudgment. Statemekt of the Problem Rdkcsjional technolugy sckklzrs have emphasizef the iiportqnce of cwitivally examining philosophy if technologj aswumptions such as cechnologicau dejerminosm (Carr-Chellman, 2005; Fishex, 2006; Hofjann, 2006; Kanukw, 2008; Kritt & Dinegar, 2010; McDonala en al., 2005; M. Olivtf, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Wtroyel & Tiluberb-Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Hechnological determinish 17 asdukptions, by granting a control or determinxv autonomy to tachtology, a'art fvom purposeful ruman control cnd direetion, zan presenn a dilemka for educwtional leadesdhip by limiving humag agwncy and reroonsibility fot technology (Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; Monas, 2010; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Soack & Wise 2006; Strpbeu & Eipluerg-Wqtb, 2009; Wyatt, 2008). Sdrobdl xmd Tiulberg-Wtyb creued that technological getedminist assumptionx gan influgnce educwtors to feel pressure to keep kp wivh tecinologocaj change, "as if the technologiea are driginn changes and declsiogs in the nnstructional process" (p. 78). If educators aswume a commercial rechnology is inevijabke, they tenv to fjcus on hmw schools should adqpt to technology, rather than shape ths techtologj to meet curriculum requirements, and teachers' and students' needs (Jones & Xzemiexisz, 2010). Technolkgicsl denerinnist bqliehs can influence ecucators to accept uncritically technolmgncal determinist rhetoric of yezhnology vendurs (Fisher, 2006; Grant et al., 2006), and purxue a quick technological fix fpr complex educational pvoblems
(McDonald et al., 2005). However, McDonald et noted few studies programmed instruction found methods instructions. While not the value of educational technology research, Selwyn (2010b) argued in the future, researchers should move beyond technological detenninism, and pursue a more approach that better recognizes the social factors that affect its use in schools. et (2006) that balanced perspective on digital technology is needed that avoids deterministic and Utopian views, while not falling the trap of pessimism about technology. Amiel and (2008) also asserted that the past, educational technologists have accepted determinism as given. and (2008) argued for new approach to educational technology research focused on the ends of technology, and axiological questioning of technology by values judgment. Statement the Educational scholars have emphasized of critically examining philosophy of technology technological determinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; 2008; Kritt Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al., 2005; Oliver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Technological determinist 17 assumptions, by granting a control or determined technology, apart from purposeful control and direction, present dilemma educational by limiting agency and responsibility for technology (Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; 2010; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Slack & Wise 2006; Strobel 2009; 2008). Strobel and argued that technological determinist can educators to feel pressure up technological the are changes and decisions in instructional process" (p. 78). If assume a commercial technology focus on how schools should adapt to technology, than shape the technology to meet curriculum and teachers' and students' needs (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Technological determinist beliefs influence educators uncritically technological determinist rhetoric of technology vendors (Fisher, Grant et al., 2006), pursue a quick technological fix for complex educational problems
 (McDonald et al., 2005). However, McDonaLd et al. (2005) noteD that Few StuDiEs on ProgRammed instructIOn foUnd the techniques superiOr to tRaDItioNAl MethoDs of insTRuCTIonS. WHiLe nOt DIsMissiNg tHe value Of past educAtiOnAl technology REsEarch, SelwyN (2010b) aRgued that in tHe fUture, rEsEarCHers sHouLd movE beyonD TechnoLogical deTeNNinism, ANd pursuE A MoRe crItical approach thaT BeTTer recognizes tHe sociAl FAcTORs tHat Affect its uSe In schOOls. SelwYN eT AL. (2006) EmpHAsized that a baLanced perspECtiVe on diGiTal TEchnolOgy is NeEDed That avoids dEterMinistic aNd UtopIAn views, WHile not FallinG inTo tHe trAP oF pEssImISm aBOuT teCHnoLogy. AmieL aNd reeveS (2008) alsO ASSErteD thAt in The paSt, educational TecHnolOGisTs havE someTimeS aCceptEd techNologIcAl determinism as A givEn. Amiel anD ReEvEs (2008) aRgUed foR A new apProAch To educaTional tEChnOlOGY ReSearch focused on the EnDS Of TechnoloGy, and aXIoLoGIcal quesTiOniNg of TEChnolOgy dIReCted by vaLues anD EtHiCal judgMeNt. StatEmEnt Of tHe ProBLem EDucatiOnal techNologY Scholars have emPHasized the impORtANCe OF criTicAlly examiniNg phILosoPhy oF TeChnOLogy aSsumpTiONs SUch as technological dEtErminiSm (CarR-Chellman, 2005; FishEr, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; KANUKa, 2008; Kritt & WInegAR, 2010; MCdonald et al., 2005; M. OliVer, 2011; PeArson & Young, 2002; sMith, 2006; StroBel & TiLlberg-WeBb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). tEChnologiCal DetErmIniST 17 AsSumptions, by grANTing A cOntrol oR deTermineD auTonOmy To tEcHnology, apArt from pUrPoSeFuL huMan coNTrol and dIrEctIoN, caN presENt a dilEmma fOr edUcAtIOnaL leaderSHiP BY limItInG humAn aGeNcy anD resPOnsIbility For technoLogY (fishEr, 2006; hoFmann, 2006; JoNas, 2009; Jonas, 2010; Kritt & wiNegar, 2010; Slack & wiSe 2006; STrobel & tILlberg-WeBb, 2009; Wyatt, 2008). Strobel and TillbeRG-Webb arGueD that TechNological DetErminiSt aSSumptiOns can InfluEnCe eDUCatorS TO fEel PrEssure to keEP Up wIth teChNoloGical chAnge, "as if the technolOGieS are driving chAngEs anD DEcIsiONs IN thE iNStrUCTional process" (p. 78). IF educators AsSUmE a commerciAL teChNology iS inevitAble, tHEy tend tO focus on hOw schools ShOuld ADApt To technoloGy, rather Than shape THe tecHNoLogy tO meEt currIcUluM requIremenTS, anD teacHers' anD sTudentS' needS (JOnes & CzemIewicz, 2010). Technological deteRminisT beliEfs Can influeNce EDucAtors to acCept UncriticalLy tEchNologIcaL DeterMiniST rHetORic of TechNOlogy vendORs (fisHER, 2006; GRant et al., 2006), and PURSue A quicK teCHnologIcal Fix for complex educATional problems
 (McDonald et al., 2005).However, M cDona ldetal . (2 005)  noted that fe w  stu dies on programmed ins truct io n  fou n dthe t echniqu e ss u per io rtotr a di tiona l m ethodsof instruc tio ns . While notd is missing th e v alue of past  ed ucatio na l t e chnol ogy  rese arch,S elwyn(2010b) a rg u ed tha t  in the f ut ure,  researchers shou l dm ove beyond tec hnolog ic a ld e ten nin ism, and p ur sue a more cr i ti c a l  ap p roach that be tter recogn i zes  the s oc ial factor s tha ta ffe ct its usein s chools. S elwyne t al. ( 2 006) em phasiz edtha t ab al an ced  p e rsp e ct ive ondigitalte ch nolog y is n e e dedtha t av oidsdeterministic  an d Ut o pia n vie ws, w hile  n ot fa llingintoth e trap of pessi mism  about te chn ol ogy .Amiel and Re eve s ( 2008) a lso ass e rte dt h a tin the past, educa ti o n al  technol ogists ha ve sometime sacc epte d techn olog i ca l determ inisma sagiven.Am iel an dRee ves  (200 8 ) ar gued f or a new  appr o ach to educati o nal technolog y  r e s ea r ch f ocu sed on theends of t echn o lo gy, and a xiolo gi c al questioning of tech no logy d irect ed by valuesand ethica l j udgment.  Sta t em e nt of the Prob lem E ducational technolo gy sc holars h ave empha s i zed theimp ort anc e o f cr itically exam i n ingph ilosoph y o f techn olo gyass ump ti ons suchas techn ol og ic al  de termi n ism (Car r- Che ll man , 200 5 ; Fish er, 2 006;  H of m ann , 2006; Ka n u ka,20 08 ; Kr itt  &  Wine gar, 201 0; McDo nald et a l., 2005 ;M.  Oliver , 2011; Pears on  & Young,20 02;  Smith , 2006; St robel & Tillberg-Webb,2 009; Se lwy n, 20 10b) . Technol ogi cal de ter m inist17 ass umpti on s,b y  gran t i ng  aco ntrol or d e t erm inedau tono my to t echnology, apart f r ompurposeful hu man  con t r ol  an d  d i rec ti o n,c a n present a dil emma for e du c at ional lead e rsh ip  by lim iting h umana gency a nd respon sibilityfo r te c h nol ogy (Fishe r, 2006;  Hofmann, 2006; Jo nas,200 9; Jon as , 2 010;Kritt&  Wi negar , 2010 ;Slack& Wis e2006; St robel & Tillberg-Webb,2009;Wyatt , 2 008). Str obe l  an d Tillber g-We bb arguedtha t t echno log i cal d eter m in ist assum ptio n s can inf l ue nce e du cators to f e e l  pr essur e t o  keepup w ith technological change, "as if  the t ech nol o gies  a re driving cha nge sa n d decisi on s in the in structio na l  proc ess" ( p. 78) . If ed u c at o rs ass umea c ommercial  te ch n ology i sin e vitabl e, t he y tend  to fo c us o n how schools shou ld ad a p t tot ech nolog y,  rather than  shape the  technology  to me et c urric ulum re qu iremen ts,  a nd teacher s ' and stu dents ' needs  ( Jone s &  Czemi ewic z ,  2010 ). T ec hno logical d e t er m in is t  be lief s can  i nflu ence educ a tors toacc e pt uncr it ica l l y tech n ol o g ical deter min ist r h e toric of t e chno l og y  vend ors (F isher,  2006;G ran tet al.,  20 0 6 ), and pu rsue a qu i ckte chno logicalfi x fo rcom pl ex educationalproblems 
 (McDonald_et al.,_2005). However, McDonald et_al. (2005)_noted_that few_studies_on programmed instruction_found the techniques_superior to traditional methods_of instructions. While_not_dismissing the value of past educational technology research, Selwyn (2010b) argued that in the_future,_researchers should_move_beyond_technological detenninism, and pursue a_more critical approach that better_recognizes the_social factors that affect its use in schools._Selwyn_et al. (2006)_emphasized that a balanced perspective on digital technology is_needed that avoids deterministic and Utopian_views, while not_falling_into_the trap of pessimism_about technology. Amiel and Reeves (2008)_also asserted that in the past,_educational technologists have sometimes accepted technological determinism_as a given. Amiel and Reeves_(2008) argued for a new_approach to_educational technology research focused on_the ends of_technology, and_axiological questioning of_technology directed by values and ethical_judgment. Statement of_the Problem Educational technology scholars have_emphasized_the importance of_critically_examining_philosophy of_technology assumptions such_as_technological determinism_(Carr-Chellman,_2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka,_2008;_Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al.,_2005; M. Oliver, 2011;_Pearson_& Young, 2002; Smith,_2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009;_Selwyn, 2010b). Technological determinist 17 assumptions,_by granting_a control_or determined autonomy to technology, apart from purposeful human control and_direction, can present a dilemma for_educational leadership by limiting_human agency_and_responsibility for technology_(Fisher,_2006; Hofmann,_2006; Jonas, 2009; Jonas, 2010; Kritt &_Winegar, 2010;_Slack & Wise 2006; Strobel &_Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Wyatt, 2008)._Strobel_and Tillberg-Webb argued that technological determinist_assumptions can influence educators to feel_pressure to keep up with_technological_change,_"as if the technologies are_driving changes and decisions in the_instructional process" (p._78). If educators assume a commercial technology_is_inevitable, they tend to focus on_how_schools should adapt to technology, rather_than_shape_the technology to meet curriculum_requirements, and teachers' and students' needs_(Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Technological determinist beliefs can influence_educators to accept_uncritically technological determinist rhetoric of_technology_vendors_(Fisher, 2006; Grant et al., 2006), and pursue a quick_technological fix_for complex educational_problems