 had been involved with planning and implementing educational technology initiatives requiring strategic reflection about a variety of key issues, including possible questioning of philosophical or ethical issues. The qualitative methods used included semi-structured interviews, and a written questionnaire with open-ended questions. Data analysis employed constant comparative analysis using open and axial coding. Data collection continued with theoretical sampling of additional subjects until data analysis showed that theoretical saturation. Theoretical Framework The study was guided by the work of Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) who proposed a framework for educational technology that emphasizes a critical and humanistic approach to technology integration. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) asserted that historically in the field o f instructional technology, the traditional focus has been on approaching technology as technical tools, more so than approaching technology integration with a view toward the broader social and human implications of technology. In presenting their humanizing framework for educational technology, Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) argued that educators should critically question their philosophical assumptions and ideological perspectives about technology, because beliefs and ways of thinking about technology influence professional discourse, and affect the actions of decision makers. The starting point for the Strobel and Tillberg-Webb humanizing framework for educational technology emphasizes that educators should question whether technological 20 determinist assumptions influence thinking about technology (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Assumptions about technology often correspond to ideological perspectives associated with the opposing positions of technological determinism and social determinism (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). This dichotomy of opposing views is fundamentally an ontological debate because it concerns the connection and causal relationship between technology and society, and which o f the two most impacts the other by causing change (Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Technological determinism is the philosophical perspective that assumes that technology causes inevitable change in society (Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi, 2009), exerting a control over human society with technology considered in some way to be an autonomous force operating outside of social control (Feenberg, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Leonardi, 2009). Social determinism stands in contrast as the opposite philosophical perspective, and assumes that technologies evolve and develop through being shaped by social processes, with the technologies fundamentally embedded in social systems (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). In her elucidation o f philosophies o f technology that are important for the educational technology professional, Kanuka (2008)
had been involved with planning and implementing educational technology initiatives command strategic mirror image about a variety of key issues, include possible questioning of philosophical or ethical issue. The qualitative methods used include semi - structured interviews, and a publish questionnaire with open - ended questions. Data analysis employed changeless comparative analysis using receptive and axial coding. Data collection continue with theoretical sampling of additional subjects until data analysis prove that theoretical saturation. Theoretical Framework The study was guided by the work of Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) who proposed a model for educational engineering that underscore a critical and humanistic approach to technology integration. Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) asserted that historically in the field o f instructional technology, the traditional stress has been on approach technology as technical cock, more therefore than approaching technology integration with a opinion toward the broad social and human implications of technology. In give their humanizing framework for educational technology, Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) argued that educators should critically question their philosophical presumption and ideological perspectives about technology, because beliefs and ways of think about engineering influence professional sermon, and affect the actions of decision makers. The start point for the Strobel and Tillberg - Webb humanizing framework for educational technology emphasizes that educators should question whether technological 20 determinist assumptions influence think about technology (Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). presumption about technology often match to ideological perspectives associate with the opposing side of technological determinism and social determinism (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). This dichotomy of oppose views is fundamentally an ontological argument because it concerns the connection and causal relationship between technology and society, and which o f the two most impacts the other by causing change (Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). Technological determinism is the philosophical position that assumes that technology cause inevitable change in society (Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi, 2009), exerting a control over human society with technology considered in some room to be an autonomous force operating outside of social control (Feenberg, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Leonardi, 2009). Social determinism stands in contrast as the opposite philosophic perspective, and assumes that technology evolve and develop through being shaped by social processes, with the technologies fundamentally implant in social systems (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). In her elucidation o f doctrine oxygen f technology that are important for the educational technology professional, Kanuka (2008 )
 haf been involved with plakning and implemgnring evucatiohal techvology initiatives requiring srratetic reflection about a variety lf key iwsuew, including possiblc queabioniug of philosophigal or ethiwal issues. The qjapitative methods used included semi-ftructutef interviews, agd a rritfvn questionnaire with open-ended questimns. Data analusis employed constant comoarahive analysis usinh open and qxiaj coding. Data collection continued sith theoretical sampling of adaitioual subjectw yntln data analbsis srowed that tmvoreticdl satutation. Theoretlcal Hramwwork The study was gnided by the work of Strobel dnb Tillberg-Webb (2009) who peoposed a fsamedirk fod xdudationwl vechnology fhat emphasuzes a critical and htnanistic apprkach tj eechnology integration. Strobel and Tillterf-Webb (2009) asserted that hiwtorically in the fiepd o f inftructional technology, the traditional focus has teen kv akpvjxxhlng technology as technical tools, more so thag akprpaching technojogy integrstlom with a view joward cge broader social anf human implucations jf trchnology. In presenting theur humaniziny feamework for educacional technulogi, Stronel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) axgued fhat educatlrs shouls critically quesgiok tveir philosophical assumptyons and mdeolpgical oerskectivef about tefhnology, because beliefs and cays mf thinkinh about technology influence professional disvogrsv, and affzct thc actions of desision makers. Jhe startnng poknt for thv Strobel and Tillbewg-Webb humanislng frameworn for edtcatuonao technuuogy emphasizex that edlcctors shoyld question whethcr tezgnological 20 detzxmunist assumptioms knfjuvncx thigning about tachnuloeu (Strubel & Tillbcrg-Debb, 2009). Assumptions about dechhology often correxpjnd to ieeologicwl perspectivrs associated with the mppusing pofitions of technological deterjinism anf sjcial determynisn (Kanuka, 2008; Stxobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). This dichotomy of o'posing views is fundamwntally an ontologieak debate berause yt concerts the connection ane causal relationxhip between technolofy and socifty, and which o f the two most impacts the other by causing change (Smith, 2006; Strobxl & Tillberg-Wsbb, 2009). Techtojpgical detxroinism is the phplosophical perspective that assnmes that deehnology causes inevitable chsnee in society (Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi, 2009), exedting a vontrol over human society with technology considered ik some wat to ge an autoiomous force operatimg outvide if sociql clntrol (Feenbefg, 2010; Hlfmann, 2006; Lfonacdi, 2009). Social determinism stands in cintrasr ws the opposite 'hilosophicap perskective, wnd assumes that tecgjologkes evolve anc develop throigh being shaped by vosial processes, sith the tecnnologivs fundamentakly embeddeg in social systems (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Pn her eludidation p f philosophoxs o f technology that ave im[ortant wor the educdtional technology professional, Kanuka (2008)
had been involved with planning and implementing initiatives strategic reflection a variety of of or ethical issues. qualitative methods used semi-structured interviews, and a written questionnaire open-ended questions. Data analysis employed constant comparative analysis using open and axial coding. collection continued with theoretical sampling of additional subjects until data analysis showed that saturation. Framework study guided by the work of Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) who proposed a framework for educational technology emphasizes a critical and humanistic approach to technology Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) that historically in the field f technology, the focus been approaching technology as tools, more so than approaching technology integration with a view toward the broader social and human implications technology. In humanizing framework educational Strobel Tillberg-Webb (2009) argued should critically question their philosophical assumptions about technology, because beliefs and ways of thinking technology influence discourse, and affect the actions of makers. The starting point for the Strobel and humanizing framework for educational technology emphasizes that educators should question whether technological 20 determinist assumptions about technology (Strobel & 2009). Assumptions about often to perspectives with the positions of technological determinism and social determinism (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & 2009). This dichotomy of opposing views is fundamentally an ontological it the connection and relationship between technology and and o f the two the by 2006; & 2009). Technological determinism is philosophical perspective that assumes that causes inevitable change in exerting a control over human society with technology in some way to be an autonomous operating outside of social control (Feenberg, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Leonardi, 2009). Social stands in the opposite philosophical perspective, and assumes that technologies and develop through being by social processes, with the technologies fundamentally embedded in systems 2008; Strobel Tillberg-Webb, 2009). In elucidation o f o f technology important for educational professional,
 had been involved with planniNg and impleMentiNg eDucAtIonaL tecHnology initiatIVes rEquiring strategic refleCtion AbOUt a vARiEty of Key issuES, iNCLudInG pOssIbLE qUestiOniNg of phiLosophical Or eThIcal issues. ThE QuAlitative mEthOds used incluDed Semi-stRuCtuREd intErvIews, aNd a wriTTen queStionnairE wITh open-ENded queSTIoNs. DaTa analysis employeD CoNStant comparatiVe analYsIS uSINg oPen And axial coDiNg. DatA CollectIOn CONTinUEd with theoretIcal samplinG Of aDditioNaL suBJects uNtil dAtA AnaLysis showed That TheoreticAl satuRAtion. ThEOreticaL FrameWorK ThE stuDY wAs GuiDeD By tHE wOrk OF StRobel and tiLlBerg-WEbb (2009) wHO PROposEd a FramEwork For educationaL teChnoLOgy That eMphasIzes A cRiticAl and hUmaniStIc approach to tecHnolOgy integrAtiOn. strObEl and tIllberG-WeBb (2009) aSserted That hisTOriCaLLY In The field o f instructIoNAL tEchnologY, the trADiTiONal focus HaS beEn on APProacHing TEcHnology aS technICaL tOols, morE sO than aPpRoaChiNg tecHNoloGy inteGration wIth a vIEw toward the broADer social and hUMaN IMpLIcatIonS of technoloGy. In PReseNtinG ThEir HUmaniZing fRaMEwORk for educational tecHnOlogy, STrobeL and Tillberg-WEbb (2009) argued tHAT EducatorS shoULd CRitically questIon thEir philosoPHical assUmptiOns and idEological PERspectivEs aBouT teChnOLOgY, because belieFS And wAyS of thinKinG about tEchNolOgy InfLuEnce profeSsional dIsCoUrSe, And AffecT The actioNs Of dEcIsiOn makERs. The sTartiNg poInT fOR thE StrobeL AnD tIllbErG-WEbb hUmaNiZing fRameWOrk For educAtional teChnOLogy EmPhAsizes tHat educators sHoUld questioN wHetHer tecHNOlogical 20 Determinist assumptions iNFluence ThiNking AbouT technoloGy (STrobel & tilLBerg-WeBb, 2009). AssuMptioNs AboUT TechnOLOgY ofTeN corresponD TO idEologIcAl peRspectiVes associated with tHE opPosing positioNs oF tecHNOlOgiCAl DEteRmINisM ANd social determiNism (Kanuka, 2008; stRObEl & Tillberg-wEbb, 2009). thIs dichoTomy of oPposiNG views iS fundamenTally an onToLogiCAL deBate becausE it conceRns the conNEctioN AnD causAl rElatioNsHip BetweEn techNOloGy and SocietY, aNd whicH o f thE tWo most imPacts the other by causing cHange (SMith, 2006; STroBel & TillbeRg-WEBb, 2009). TEchnologiCal dEterminism Is tHe pHilosOphICal peRspeCTiVe tHAt assUmes THat technoLOgY caUSEs Inevitable cHANGe iN sociEty (lEonardI, 2008; LeoNardi, 2009), exerting a conTRol over human soCietY WIth TecHNoloGy Considered in soMe wAy TO Be an autoNoMous force opErating oUtSIde of Social ControL (FeenbeRG, 2010; hoFMann, 2006; LeOnarDi, 2009). SOcial deteRmiNiSM stands In CoNTrast aS the OpPosite PhilosOPhicAL Perspective, and asSumes THAt tecHNolOgies EvOlve and DEvelOp through bEing shaped bY sociaL proCesseS, with thE tEchnolOgiEs FundamentaLLy embeddeD in soCial sysTeMs (KaNukA, 2008; StrobEl & TiLLBerg-WEbb, 2009). IN hEr eLucidatioN O F pHIlOsOPhiEs o f TechnOlOgy tHat are impORtant for The EDucatioNaL teCHNology PRoFESsional, KanUka (2008)
 had been involved with pl anning and  impl eme nti ng  edu cati onal technolog y  ini tiatives requiring str ategi cr efle c ti on ab out a v a ri e t y o fke y i ss u es , inc lud ing pos sible ques tio ni ng of philos o ph ical or et hic al issues. T hequalit at ive metho dsusedinclud e d semi -structur ed interv i ews, an d awrit ten questionnaire wi t h open-ended q uestio ns .  D a t a a nal ysis emplo ye d con s tant co m pa r a t ive analysis usin g open anda xia l codi ng . D a ta col lecti on con tinued with  the oreticalsampli n g of ad d itional  subje cts  un tild at aana ly s iss ho wed tha t theore ti ca l sat urat i o n .  The ore tica l Fra mework The st udy  was gui ded b y the  wor kof St robeland T il lberg-Webb (200 9) w ho propos edafra me workf or edu cat ion al tech nologyt hat  e m p h as izes a critical an dh u ma nistic a pproac h  t ot echnolog yint egra t i on. S trob e land Till berg-W e bb  ( 2009) a ss ertedth athis toric a llyin the  field o  f in s tructional tec h nology, the t r ad i t io n al f ocu s has beenon a p proa chin g  t ech n ology  as t ec h ni c al tools, more so t ha n appr oachi ng technology  integrati o n with a v iewt ow a rd the broader  soci al and hum a n implic ation s of tec hnology.I n  present ing  th eir  hu m a ni zing framewor k fored ucation altechnol ogy , S tro bel  a nd Tillbe rg-Webb(2 00 9)  a rgu ed th a t educat or s s ho uld  crit i callyquest ionth ei r  ph ilosoph i ca l assu mp ti onsand  i deolo gica l  pe rspecti ves about  te c hnol og y,  becaus e beliefs and  w ays of thi nk ing  about t echnolog y influence professiona l  discou rse , and  aff ect the a cti ons of  de c isionmakers . The  s tar t i ng po i n tfor  t he Strobel a ndTillb er g-We bb huma nizing framework f o r e ducational te chn olog y em pha s iz e s t ha t  ed u c ators should qu estion whe th e rtechnologi c al20  determ inist a ssump t ions in fluence t hinking a bo ut t e c hno logy (Stro bel & Ti llberg-We b b, 20 0 9) . Ass ump tionsab out  tech nology oft en co rrespo nd  to id eolog ic al persp ectives associated with  the o pposi ngpositions  of tec hnologica l de terminismand  so cialdet e rmini sm ( K an uka ,  2008 ; St r obel & Ti l lb erg - W eb b, 2009). T h i s  di choto myo f oppo sing  views is fundame n tally an ontol ogic a l  de bat e  bec au se it concerns  th ec o nnection  a nd causal r elations hi p  betw een te chnolo gy ands o ci e ty, an d wh ich  o f thetwo  m o st impa ct st he oth er b ycausin g chan g e (S m i th, 2006; Strobe l & T i l lberg - Web b, 20 09 ). Tech n olog ical deter minism is t he phi loso phica l persp ec tive t hat  a ssumes tha t  technolo gy ca uses in ev itab lechange  ins o ciety  (Le on ard i, 2008;L e on a rd i, 200 9),exert in g acontrol o v er human  so c iety wi th  te c h nology co n s idered insom e way t o be an au t onom o us force  opera ting o utsideo f s oc ial con tro l (Feenberg , 2010; H o fma nn , 20 06; Leon ar di,20 09) .Social determin ism stan ds in co n t rast a s t h e op p ositeph ilosophicalpersp ec t ive, an d ass umes th a t t ech nol ogie s e volv e  and develop through bei ng s haped bysocia l pro ce sses, wi t h th e techno l ogies fundame ntally embedded ins ocia l s y st em s (Kanuka , 2 0 08; S trob el& Ti llb erg- W e bb,2 009) .  I n he r eluc idat io no f philo so phies o f te c hno logy  that  a re im portant  for the  educ at ional tec h nologyprof es sional, Kanuk a (2008)
 had_been involved_with planning and implementing_educational technology_initiatives_requiring strategic_reflection_about a variety_of key issues,_including possible questioning of_philosophical or ethical_issues._The qualitative methods used included semi-structured interviews, and a written questionnaire with open-ended questions._Data_analysis employed_constant_comparative_analysis using open and axial_coding. Data collection continued with_theoretical sampling_of additional subjects until data analysis showed that_theoretical_saturation. Theoretical Framework_The study was guided by the work of Strobel_and Tillberg-Webb (2009) who proposed a_framework for educational_technology_that_emphasizes a critical and_humanistic approach to technology integration. Strobel_and Tillberg-Webb (2009) asserted that historically_in the field o f instructional technology,_the traditional focus has been on_approaching technology as technical tools,_more so_than approaching technology integration with_a view toward_the broader_social and human_implications of technology. In presenting their_humanizing framework for_educational technology, Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009)_argued_that educators should_critically_question_their philosophical_assumptions and ideological_perspectives_about technology,_because_beliefs and ways of thinking about_technology_influence professional discourse, and affect the actions_of decision makers. The_starting_point for the Strobel_and Tillberg-Webb humanizing framework for_educational technology emphasizes that educators should_question whether_technological 20_determinist assumptions influence thinking about technology (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Assumptions_about technology often correspond to ideological_perspectives associated with the_opposing positions_of_technological determinism and_social_determinism (Kanuka,_2008; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). This dichotomy_of opposing_views is fundamentally an ontological debate_because it concerns the_connection_and causal relationship between technology and_society, and which o f the_two most impacts the other_by_causing_change (Smith, 2006; Strobel &_Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Technological determinism is the_philosophical perspective that_assumes that technology causes inevitable change in_society_(Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi, 2009), exerting a_control_over human society with technology considered_in_some_way to be an autonomous_force operating outside of social control_(Feenberg, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Leonardi, 2009). Social determinism stands_in contrast as_the opposite philosophical perspective, and_assumes_that_technologies evolve and develop through being shaped by social processes,_with the_technologies fundamentally embedded_in social systems (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). In_her elucidation o f philosophies o f_technology that are important for the educational technology professional, Kanuka (2008)