, 2010b). Several scholars have argued that technological determinist assumptions may influence the belief system that inspires the optimism of school technology advocates (Fisher, 2006; Friesen, 2008; Kritt 12 &Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Selwyn (2010b) held that within educational technology, technological determinist beliefs have often served as the taken for granted pretext, because professionals in the field often perceive technology as an autonomous force set to inevitably change education for the better. Friesen (2008) analyzed learning technologies from a critical theory perspective, and held that an optimistic view of technology's transformative power can be associated with a technological determinist perspective that sees technology as having the power to act on its own in forcing change in schools. Despite the optimism and persistent efforts o f technology advocates through research and professional efforts, scholars have observed that many schools remain resistant to technological change and transformation (Friesen, 2008; Murray & Olcese, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b). Selwyn (2010b) argued that a type o f cognitive dissonance is present in educational technology literature, because similar predictions for technology transformation have been present for over two decades. Leonardi (2008) argued that the consequences of technological determinist assumptions include the tendency to dismiss the social factors that affect technological outcomes. Several scholars have observed a tendency in education to categorize ideological views about technology on either side of a dichotomy, with one side being generally optimistic about technology, the other side mostly pessimistic (De Vaney, 1998; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, Gorard, & Furlong, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The optimistic view can be stereotyped as holding a technological utopian position that presents technology innovation as always for the better, while the opposite view is stereotyped as holding a pessimistic Luddite position generally not open to technological 13 innovation (Kxitt &Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). It is notable in the literature that both optimistic and pessimistic views about technology have been associated with technological determinism and seeing technology as the inevitable cause of change, whether good or bad (De Vaney, 1998; Kanuka, 2008; M. Oliver, 2011). Kritt and Winegar (2010) argued that the false dichotomy limits possibilities, and does not represent the true range of alternative views about educational technology. Strobel
, 2010b). Several scholars have argued that technological fatalist assumption may influence the belief arrangement that inspire the optimism of school technology advocates (Fisher, 2006; Friesen, 2008; Kritt 12 & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). Selwyn (2010b) oblige that within educational technology, technological fatalist belief have often suffice as the taken for granted guise, because professionals in the field often perceive technology as an autonomous force set to inevitably switch education for the better. Friesen (2008) analyzed learn technologies from a critical theory perspective, and held that an affirmative view of engineering's transformative power can be associated with a technological determinist position that sees technology as having the power to act on its own in forcing change in schools. Despite the optimism and persistent efforts o f technology advocates through research and professional efforts, scholars have observed that many schools stay resistant to technological variety and transformation (Friesen, 2008; Murray & Olcese, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b). Selwyn (2010b) argue that a character o f cognitive dissonance is present in educational technology literature, because similar predictions for technology transformation have been present for over two decades. Leonardi (2008) argued that the consequence of technological determinist assumptions include the tendency to dismiss the social factor that affect technological outcomes. Several scholar have observed a inclination in education to categorize ideological views about technology on either side of a dichotomy, with one side being by and large optimistic about technology, the other slope mostly pessimistic (De Vaney, 1998; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, Gorard, & Furlong, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The optimistic view can be stereotyped as hold a technological utopian place that presents technology invention as always for the good, while the opposite view is pigeonhole as holding a pessimistic Luddite position generally not open to technological 13 invention (Kxitt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). It is notable in the literature that both affirmative and pessimistic views about technology have been associated with technological determinism and interpret engineering as the inevitable cause of change, whether dear or bad (De Vaney, 1998; Kanuka, 2008; M. Oliver, 2011). Kritt and Winegar (2010) argued that the false dichotomy limits possibilities, and does not represent the true stove of alternative views about educational technology. Strobel
, 2010b). Deveral scholars have arnued that technological deterjinist arsumptions may influence the bwlief system that inspires ghe optimpsm of scyool rechnology advocatcf (Fiamer, 2006; Yrmesen, 2008; Kritt 12 &Wlnegar, 2010; Selfyn, 2010b; Strobel & Tklpberg-Webb, 2009). Selwyn (2010b) held that withig educayilnal technologi, tecngolofpccl determinist beliefs have oftsn servtd as the taken fot granted pretext, because oroffssionals in the fleld often ksrcquve technoloey as an alconomous fotce set to inevitably change eduzatiou for the bgcrer. Xriesen (2008) anelyzed learning tegnnologhes frok a critical tmeory peespective, and held thet an optimistic vier of techtomogy's transformatuvw powgr cat be qssuciztxd sith a terhnological determinisr perspective that xeqw technology zs havynd the power to act on its own in forcinc cgange in schools. Despitw the optimism and petsistent esforts o f technology advocates through research dnd pcoweswijvql efforts, scholars have observed that many schjklx gemain resistant bo technological cnajgr and transforoation (Frjesen, 2008; Murray & Olcfse, 2011; Sejwyn, 2010v). Selwyn (2010f) arbued that a type o f cognituve dissonanbe iw present in educacional technulogi litetature, because similar 'redicfions for tfchnology gransformation hxve baen prestvt for over two dqcades. Leinarbi (2008) argudd tnat thq consequejces of technological dehermiuist dssumptiond include the tendency to dismiss the social gawtogs that ayfect bechnological ottcomes. Severak scholcrs haxe observes a tenvency in edusation to catahorize ideolmgical vyews aboyt techvulogy on eithet side of a dichotony, with one side bcing esnerally optimiwtix about technolpgy, thq ltier syge mostly pevsimkstkv (De Xaney, 1998; Kritb & Dinebar, 2010; Selwyn, Gorard, & Xurlkng, 2006; Strobel & Tillnevg-Webb, 2009). Tye optimystic view cam be stereotyped ad holving a techmoljgical utopian position that pdesents tfchkology innovaeion as always fpr the better, while the opposite view iw stereotyped as hilding a pessimistie Kuddite posmtion denerally not open to technoligical 13 innovatiok (Kxitt &Winegar, 2010; Strobsl & Tinlberh-Webb, 2009). It is notable in the literature that both optimistic and pessimistuc viexs about techholoby hane yeeu assocyatev xith technologicak determinism and seeing technouogy as dhz inevitable cause of change, ehdther good or bad (De Vaney, 1998; Kanuka, 2008; M. Oliver, 2011). Kritt and Winegar (2010) argued that the false dichotomy limlts possivilitjes, and doxs not represent the true xange if alteenatlve views aboug ecugational tfchnplkgy. Strobel
, 2010b). Several scholars have argued that assumptions influence the system that inspires advocates 2006; Friesen, 2008; 12 &Winegar, 2010; 2010b; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Selwyn held that within educational technology, technological determinist beliefs have often served as the for granted pretext, because professionals in the field often perceive technology as an force to change for the better. Friesen (2008) analyzed learning technologies from a critical theory perspective, and held that optimistic view of technology's transformative power can be with a technological determinist that sees technology as having power act on own forcing in schools. Despite optimism and persistent efforts o f technology advocates through research and professional efforts, scholars have observed that schools remain technological change transformation 2008; & Olcese, 2011; Selwyn (2010b) argued that a type dissonance is present in educational technology literature, because predictions for transformation have been present for over decades. Leonardi (2008) argued that the consequences of determinist assumptions include the tendency to dismiss the social factors that affect technological outcomes. Several observed a tendency in to categorize ideological about on side a dichotomy, one side being generally optimistic about technology, the other side mostly (De Vaney, 1998; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, Gorard, & Strobel Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The view can be stereotyped holding technological utopian position that innovation always while opposite is stereotyped as holding pessimistic Luddite position generally not to technological 13 innovation Tillberg-Webb, 2009). It is notable in the literature both optimistic and pessimistic views about technology been associated with technological determinism and seeing technology as the inevitable cause change, whether bad (De Vaney, 1998; Kanuka, 2008; M. Oliver, Kritt and Winegar (2010) that the false dichotomy limits possibilities, and does not the range of views about educational Strobel
, 2010b). Several scholars have argueD that technOlogiCal DetErMiniSt asSumptions may inFLuenCe the belief system that iNspirEs THe opTImIsm of School tEChNOLogY aDvOcaTeS (fiSher, 2006; FRieSen, 2008; KritT 12 &Winegar, 2010; SeLwyN, 2010b; strobel & TillbERg-webb, 2009). Selwyn (2010B) heLd that within EduCationAl TecHNologY, teChnolOgical DEtermiNist belieFs HAve oftEN served AS ThE takEn for granted preteXT, bECause professioNals in ThE FiELD ofTen Perceive teChNologY As an autONoMOUS foRCe set to inevitAbly change eDUcaTion foR tHe bETter. FrIesen (2008) AnALyzEd learning tEchnOlogies frOm a criTIcal theORy perspEctive, And HelD thaT An OpTimIsTIc vIEw Of tEChnOlogy's trAnSfOrmatIve pOWER Can bE asSociAted wIth a technologIcaL detERmiNist pErspeCtivE tHat seEs techNologY aS having the power To acT on its own In fOrCinG cHange IN schooLs. DEspIte the oPtimism ANd pErSISTeNt efforts o f technolOgY ADvOcates thRough rESeArCH and profEsSioNal eFFOrts, sCholARs Have obseRved thAT mAnY schoolS rEmain rEsIstAnt To tecHNoloGical cHange and TransFOrmation (FrieseN, 2008; murray & Olcese, 2011; SELwYN, 2010B). SELwyn (2010B) arGued that a tyPe o f COgniTive DIsSonANce is PreseNt IN eDUcational technology LiTeratuRe, becAuse similar prEdictions fOR TEchnologY traNSfORmation have beeN presEnt for over TWo decadeS. LeonArdi (2008) arguEd that the CONsequencEs oF teChnOloGICaL determinist aSSUmptIoNs incluDe tHe tendeNcy To dIsmIss ThE social faCtors thaT aFfEcT tEchNologICal outcoMeS. SeVeRal ScholARs have ObserVed a TeNdENcy In educaTIoN TO catEgOrIze iDeoLoGical ViewS AboUt technOlogy on eiTheR Side Of A dIchotomY, with one side bEiNg generallY oPtiMistic ABOut technOlogy, the other side mostly PEssimisTic (de VanEy, 1998; KrItt & WinegaR, 2010; SeLwyn, GoRarD, & furlonG, 2006; StrobEl & TilLbErg-wEBb, 2009). The OPTiMisTiC view can be STEreOtypeD aS holDing a teChnological utopian POsiTion that preseNts TechNOLoGy iNNoVAtiOn AS alWAYs for the better, wHile the oppOsITe View is sterEOtyPeD as holdIng a pesSimisTIc LuddiTe positioN generallY nOt opEN To tEchnologicAl 13 innovaTion (Kxitt &wInegaR, 2010; stRobel & tilLberg-WEbB, 2009). It Is notAble in THe lIteraTure thAt Both opTimisTiC and pessImistic views about technoLogy haVe beeN asSociated wIth TEchNological DeteRminism and SeeIng TechnOloGY as thE ineVItAblE Cause Of chANge, whetheR GoOd oR BAd (de Vaney, 1998; KanuKA, 2008; m. oliVer, 2011). KrItt ANd WineGar (2010) aRgued that the false DIchotomy limits PossIBIliTieS, And dOeS not represent tHe tRuE RAnge of alTeRnative viewS about edUcATionaL technOlogy. STrobel
, 2010b). Several scholars  have argu ed th attec hn olog ical  determinist a s sump tions may influence th e bel ie f  sys t em  that  inspir e st h e o pt im ism  o f  s chool  te chnolog y advocate s ( Fi sher, 2006;F ri esen, 2008 ; K ritt 12 &Win ega r, 201 0;  Se l wyn,201 0b; S trobel & Till berg-Webb ,2 009).S elwyn ( 2 0 10 b) h eld that within e d uc a tional technol ogy, t ec h no l o gic aldeterminis tbelie f s haveo ft e n ser v ed as the tak en for gran t edpretex t,  be c ause p rofes si o nal s in the fi eldoften per ceivet echnolo g y as an  auton omo usforc e  s et  to  i n evi t ab lyc han ge educa ti on  fortheb e t t er.Fri esen  (200 8) analyzed l ear ning tec hnolo giesfrom  a  crit ical t heory  p erspective, and  hel d that an  op ti mis ti c vie w  of te chn olo gy's tr ansform a tiv ep o w er  can be associated  w i t ha techno logica l  d et e rministpe rsp ecti v e  that  see s  t echnolog y as h a vi ng  the po we r to a ct  on  it s own in f orcing  changein sc h ools. Despitet he optimism a n dp e rs i sten t e fforts o ftech n olog y ad v oc ate s  thro ugh r es e ar c h and professionalef forts,  scho lars have obs erved that m a ny schoo ls r e ma i n resistant to  tech nologicalc hange an d tra nsformat ion (Frie s e n, 2008;  Mu rra y &  Ol c e se , 2011; Selwy n ,  201 0b ). Selw yn(2010b)  ar gue d t hat  a  type o f  cogniti ve  d is so nan ce is presentin  ed uc ati onalt echnol ogy l iter at ur e , b ecauses im i l ar p re di ctio nsfo r tec hnol o gytransfo rmation h ave been  p re sent fo r over two de ca des. Leona rd i ( 2008)a r gued tha t the consequences of t e chnolog ica l det ermi nist assu mpt ions i ncl u de the  tende ncy t odis m i ss th e so cia lfactors th a t  af fectte chno logical  outcomes. Several sch olars have ob ser veda te nde n cy ined u cat i o n to categorize  ideologic al vi ews aboutt ech no logy on  either  side of a di chotomy,with onesi de b e i nggenerallyoptimist ic aboutt echno l og y, th e o ther s id e m ostly  pessi m ist ic (D e Vane y,  1998;  Krit t& Winega r, 2010; Selwyn, Gorard , & Fu rlong , 2 006; Stro bel & T illberg-W ebb,  2009). Th e o pti misti c v i ew ca n be st ere o typed  ash olding at ec hno l o gi cal utopian p o sit ion t hat presen ts t echnology innovat i on as always f or t h e  be tte r , wh il e the opposite  vi ew i s stereo ty ped as hold ing a pe ss i misti c Ludd ite po sitiong e ne r ally n ot o pen  to techn olo gi c al 13 i nn ov a tion ( Kxit t&Wineg ar, 20 1 0; S t r obel & Tillberg- Webb, 2 009). Itis no ta ble int he l iteraturethat both o ptimis ticand p essimis ti c view s a bo ut technol o gy have b een a ssociat ed  wit h t echnol ogic a l  dete rmin is m a nd seeing t ec h no lo g y a s th e ine vi tabl e cause o f  change,  wh e ther go od  or b ad (De Va n e y, 1998; K anu ka, 2 0 0 8; M. Oliv e r, 2 0 11 ) . Kri tt and  Wineg ar (201 0 ) a rg ued tha t t h e  false di chotomy l i mit sposs ibilitie s,  and  d oes  n ot represent th e true r ange ofa l ternat ive view s  about  e ducational t echno lo g y. Stro b e l
, 2010b)._Several scholars_have argued that technological_determinist assumptions_may_influence the_belief_system that inspires_the optimism of_school technology advocates (Fisher,_2006; Friesen, 2008;_Kritt_12 &Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2010b; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Selwyn (2010b) held that within_educational_technology, technological_determinist_beliefs_have often served as the_taken for granted pretext, because_professionals in_the field often perceive technology as an autonomous_force_set to inevitably_change education for the better. Friesen (2008) analyzed learning_technologies from a critical theory perspective,_and held that_an_optimistic_view of technology's transformative_power can be associated with a_technological determinist perspective that sees technology_as having the power to act on_its own in forcing change in_schools. Despite the optimism and_persistent efforts_o f technology advocates through_research and professional_efforts, scholars_have observed that_many schools remain resistant to technological_change and transformation_(Friesen, 2008; Murray & Olcese, 2011;_Selwyn,_2010b). Selwyn (2010b)_argued_that_a type_o f cognitive_dissonance_is present_in_educational technology literature, because similar predictions_for_technology transformation have been present for over_two decades. Leonardi (2008)_argued_that the consequences of_technological determinist assumptions include the_tendency to dismiss the social factors_that affect_technological outcomes._Several scholars have observed a tendency in education to categorize ideological_views about technology on either side_of a dichotomy, with_one side_being_generally optimistic about_technology,_the other_side mostly pessimistic (De Vaney, 1998; Kritt_& Winegar,_2010; Selwyn, Gorard, & Furlong, 2006;_Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009)._The_optimistic view can be stereotyped as_holding a technological utopian position that_presents technology innovation as always_for_the_better, while the opposite view_is stereotyped as holding a pessimistic_Luddite position generally_not open to technological 13 innovation (Kxitt_&Winegar,_2010; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). It_is_notable in the literature that both_optimistic_and_pessimistic views about technology have_been associated with technological determinism and_seeing technology as the inevitable cause of change, whether_good or bad_(De Vaney, 1998; Kanuka, 2008;_M._Oliver,_2011). Kritt and Winegar (2010) argued that the false dichotomy_limits possibilities,_and does not_represent the true range of alternative views about educational technology._Strobel