 into account how educators can be guided by practical wisdom and good pedagogy in shaping the implementation of innovative technology, or in envisioning instructional alternatives (Clegg et al., 2003). Halverson (2002) explored how practical wisdom, or phronesis, in the Aristotelian sense, can guide school technology leaders in integrating innovative multimedia technology. Phronesis can be understood in terms of the wisdom, based on good judgment and guided by a sense o f a higher good, that is a key attribute required for leaders in showing the way and guiding others, and advancing the common good (Adair, 2005; Halverson, 2002). Lally et al. (2010) argued that research on digital technology should proceed from the standpoint of phronesis, with a focus on ethically informed practical reasoning. Lally et al. (2010) reasoned that by examining the ethical dimensions associated with digital technology, researchers and educators can better promote a disciplined and ethically informed conversation about technology enhanced learning (Lally et al., 2010). The study's theoretical framework will leverage ethical considerations integral to educational technology that were defined in national standards for school technology leaders (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). Dichotomy o f techno-utopianism and Luddism. Scholars have observed a tendency in education to categorize general attitudes about technology into one of two diametrically opposed ideological camps, described as techno-utopianism and Luddism (Buckingham, 2006; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2011; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The technological utopian camp presents technology innovation as inevitable and always for the better, while the Luddite camp is not open to technological innovation, or 98 resists adopting new technologies (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). While recognizing that fundamental differences in values exist concerning technology, Kritt and Winegar (2010) emphasized that categorizing views about educational technology into these two extreme categories presents a false dichotomy that limits possibilities, and does not represent the true range o f alternative views. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) similarly argued that it is a false dichotomy to assume that unless one subscribes to the technological utopian view, one is essentially a Luddite. They held that educators, researchers, instructional designers, and policy makers should critique their own beliefs and assumptions about technology, and engage in critical dialogue with other educators and
into account how educators can be guided by practical wisdom of solomon and beneficial pedagogy in shaping the execution of innovative engineering, or in envisioning instructional alternatives (Clegg et al. , 2003). Halverson (2002) explore how virtual wisdom, or phronesis, in the Aristotelian common sense, can steer school technology drawing card in integrating innovative multimedia engineering. Phronesis can be understood in terms of the wisdom of solomon, based on effective opinion and guided by a sense o f a high good, that is a key attribute required for leadership in showing the way and guiding others, and advancing the common commodity (Adair, 2005; Halverson, 2002). Lally et al. (2010) argued that research on digital technology should proceed from the standpoint of phronesis, with a focus on ethically inform practical reasoning. Lally et al. (2010) reasoned that by examining the ethical dimensions associated with digital technology, researchers and educators can better promote a discipline and ethically informed conversation about technology enhance eruditeness (Lally et al. , 2010). The discipline's theoretical framework will leverage ethical considerations integral to educational technology that were defined in national standards for school engineering leaders (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). Dichotomy o f techno - utopianism and Luddism. Scholars have observed a tendency in education to categorize general attitudes about technology into one of two diametrically opposed ideological camps, described as techno - utopianism and Luddism (Buckingham, 2006; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn, 2011; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The technical utopian camp present engineering initiation as inevitable and always for the better, while the Luddite camp is not clear to technological innovation, or 98 resists adopting newfangled technologies (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). While recognizing that fundamental differences in value exist concerning engineering, Kritt and Winegar (2010) emphasized that categorizing views about educational technology into these two extreme categories introduce a false dichotomy that restrict possibilities, and does not map the true range o f alternative views. Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) similarly argue that it is a false dichotomy to simulate that unless one subscribes to the technological utopian view, one is essentially a Luddite. They held that educators, research worker, instructional designers, and policy makers should review their own beliefs and assumptions about technology, and betroth in critical dialogue with other educators and
 inho account how educators can be guided yt pracvical wjsdom ana good pedagogy in shaping tie inplemtutation of innovativd technollgy, or ib entisioning instrurfional alternzbives (Rlegg et al., 2003). Hakverson (2002) efplored how prdcgieal wisdom, or phronesis, in the Aristjtelian sfnse, can guide schpjl tsbhkology leaders in integrating inhovativt multimedia technplogy. Phronesis can be undfrstlod in terms of thf wisdom, bawed jb good judgmdnt and gupbed by a sehse o f a higher good, that is a key cttribute rgqhiggd for leadecs in fhowing the way and cuiding others, and adyanciig tye common good (Adair, 2005; Halverson, 2002). Lally gt al. (2010) arggeb that research on ditiral tgchnonogy whojld pcocsed frlm vhe standpojnt of phrobesis, with a focus pn vyhically infkrmed [rwctical reasoning. Lally et al. (2010) reasoned thzt by examining the ethucal dimensions assoclated witr digital technology, researchers and educators cat betvef pximote q fisciplined and ethically informed conversatijh sbput technology enhanced lragnogg (Lally et au., 2010). The sthdy's theoretical fgameworh wilo leveragt ethocal considerations integrao to educatijbal technology thac were definzd in matiomal standards for schoou tedhnology lewders (Conaurtium for Schoou Nvtwosking, 2011). Dichotomy o f technj-utopianiwm aud Luddirm. Svholarf have obsfrved a tendency in educwtion tm categorixe general attitudes about techiplogy into ome of two diaietrigally opposed iqeological camks, descriyed as techno-utoiianism aid Luddism (Btckingham, 2006; Krhjt & Winegar, 2010; Velwyn, 2011; Ftrovel & Tillbefe-Webb, 2009). The tecnnological utopian xamp presents techkologi jnnovation as iutviuavle and always fof tre bxtter, fhile the Lugditd cxkp is not optu ti tecnnological innovatiot, or 98 resists adopting ncw technooogies (Kwitt & Winegar, 2010; Strobel & Tillberh-Webb, 2009). Wiile rrcodnizing that fundamental diffedences in vajues exist cjncevnind technoloyy, Kritt and Winegar (2010) emphasized that cavegorizing views about wducational technolpny into thesx two qxtreme cdtegories presents a false dichotomy uhat limits possibilitiss, and does not represent the true range o f alternative views. Strobel and Tillberg-Wwbb (2009) smmylarly argusd tnat in if a falfe dmciotomy to assume nhat unless one subscribes to thx technolocieal utopian view, one is essenyixlly a Ludditg. They held that educators, researcners, instructional designers, anc policy makers should cvitique tyeir kwn beliefr and assumptions sbout cechnooogy, ane ennage in criticxl ciwlogue wihh ouher educators and
into account how educators can be guided wisdom good pedagogy shaping the implementation envisioning alternatives (Clegg et 2003). Halverson (2002) how practical wisdom, or phronesis, in Aristotelian sense, can guide school technology leaders in integrating innovative multimedia technology. Phronesis be understood in terms of the wisdom, based on good judgment and guided a o a good, that is a key attribute required for leaders in showing the way and guiding others, advancing the common good (Adair, 2005; Halverson, 2002). et al. (2010) argued research on digital technology should from standpoint of with focus ethically informed practical Lally et al. (2010) reasoned that by examining the ethical dimensions associated with digital technology, researchers and can better disciplined and informed about enhanced learning (Lally 2010). The study's theoretical framework will integral to educational technology that were defined in standards for technology leaders (Consortium for School Networking, Dichotomy o f techno-utopianism and Luddism. Scholars have a tendency in education to categorize general attitudes about technology into one of two diametrically camps, described as techno-utopianism Luddism (Buckingham, 2006; & 2010; 2011; & Tillberg-Webb, The technological utopian camp presents technology innovation as inevitable and always the better, while the Luddite camp is not open to or resists adopting new (Kritt & Winegar, 2010; & 2009). While recognizing that in exist and (2010) that categorizing views about technology into these two extreme presents a false dichotomy not represent the true range o f alternative Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) similarly argued that is a false dichotomy to assume that unless one subscribes to the utopian view, essentially a Luddite. They held that educators, researchers, designers, and policy makers critique their own beliefs and assumptions about technology, and in dialogue with educators and
 into account how educators caN be guided bY pracTicAl wIsDom aNd goOd pedagogy in shAPing The implementation of innOvatiVe TEchnOLoGy, or iN envisiONiNG InsTrUcTioNaL AlTernaTivEs (Clegg Et al., 2003). HalverSon (2002) ExPlored how praCTiCal wisdom, oR phRonesis, in the ariStotelIaN seNSe, can GuiDe schOol tecHNology Leaders in InTEgratiNG innovaTIVe MultImedia technology. PHRoNEsis can be underStood iN tERmS OF thE wiSdom, based oN gOod juDGment anD GuIDED by A Sense o f a higheR good, that is A Key AttribUtE reQUired fOr leaDeRS in Showing the wAy anD guiding oThers, aND advancINg the coMmon goOd (ADaiR, 2005; HalVErSoN, 2002). LaLlY Et aL. (2010) ArGueD ThaT researcH oN dIgitaL tecHNOLOgy sHouLd prOceed From the standpOinT of pHRonEsis, wIth a fOcus On EthicAlly inFormeD pRactical reasoniNg. LaLly et al. (2010) reAsoNeD thAt By exaMIning tHe eThiCal dimeNsions aSSocIaTED WiTh digital technologY, rESEaRchers anD educaTOrS cAN better pRoMotE a diSCIplinEd anD EtHically iNformeD CoNvErsatioN aBout teChNolOgy EnhanCEd leArning (lally et aL., 2010). The sTUdy's theoreticaL Framework will LEvERAgE EthiCal ConsideratiOns iNTegrAl to EDuCatIOnal tEchnoLoGY tHAt were defined in natiOnAl stanDards For school techNology leadERS (consortiUm foR scHOol Networking, 2011). DIchotOmy o f technO-UtopianiSm and luddism. SCholars haVE Observed A teNdeNcy In eDUCaTion to categorIZE genErAl attitUdeS about tEchNolOgy IntO oNe of two diAmetricaLlY oPpOsEd iDeoloGIcal campS, dEscRiBed As tecHNo-utopIanisM and luDdISm (BUckinghAM, 2006; KRITt & WiNeGaR, 2010; SelWyn, 2011; stRobel & tillBErg-webb, 2009). The TechnologIcaL UtopIaN cAmp presEnts technologY iNnovation aS iNevItable AND always fOr the better, while the LuddITe camp iS noT open To teChnologicAl iNnovatIon, OR 98 resisTs adopTing nEw TecHNOlogiES (krItt & wiNegar, 2010; StrobEL & tilLberg-weBb, 2009). WhIle recoGnizing that fundameNTal Differences in ValUes eXISt ConCErNIng TeCHnoLOGy, Kritt and WinegAr (2010) emphasizEd THaT categorizINg vIeWs about EducatiOnal tEChnologY into thesE two extreMe CateGORieS presents a False dicHotomy thaT LimitS PoSsibiLitIes, and DoEs nOt repResent THe tRue raNge o f aLtErnatiVe vieWs. strobel aNd Tillberg-Webb (2009) similarly Argued That iT is A false dicHotOMy tO assume thAt unLess one subScrIbeS to thE teCHnoloGicaL UtOpiAN view, One iS EssentialLY a ludDITe. they held thaT EDUcaTors, rEseARchers, InstRuctional designerS, And policy makerS shoULD crItiQUe thEiR own beliefs and AssUmPTIons abouT tEchnology, anD engage iN cRIticaL dialoGue witH other eDUCaTOrs and
 into account how educator s can be g uided  by  pr ac tica l wi sdom and goodp edag ogy in shaping the imp lemen ta t iono finnov ative t e ch n o log y,  o r i ne nv ision ing  instru ctional al ter na tives (Clegg et  al., 2003 ).Halverson (2 002 ) expl or edh ow pr act icalwisdom ,  or ph ronesis,in the Ar i stoteli a n  s ense , can guide schoo l  t e chnology leade rs inin t eg r a tin g i nnovativemu ltime d ia tech n ol o g y . P h ronesis can b e understoo d  in  terms  o f t h e wisd om, b as e d o n good judg ment  and guid ed bya  senseo  f a hi gher g ood , t hati sakey  a t tri b ut e r e qui red forle ad ers i n sh o w i n g th e w ay a nd gu iding others,  an d ad v anc ing t he co mmon  g ood ( Adair,  2005 ;Halverson, 2002 ). L ally et a l.(2 010 )argue d  thatres ear ch on d igitalt ech no l o g yshould proceed fro mt h estandpoi nt ofp hr on e sis, wit ha f ocus o n eth ical l yinformed  pract i ca lreasoni ng . Lall yetal.  (201 0 ) re asoned  that by  exam i ning the ethic a l dimensionsa ss o c ia t ed w ith  digital te chno l ogy,  res e ar che r s and  educ at o rs can better promoteadiscip lined  and ethicall y informed c o nversati on a b ou t  technology en hance d learning (Lally e t al. , 2010).  The stud y ' s theore tic alfra mew o r kwill leverage e thic al  consid era tions i nte gra l t o e du cationaltechnolo gy  t ha twer e def i ned in n at ion al  st andar d s forschoo l te ch no l ogy  leader s  ( C o nsor ti um  for  Sc ho ol Ne twor k ing , 2011) . Dichoto myo  f t ec hn o-utopi anism and Lud di sm. Schola rs  ha ve obs e r ved a te ndency in education toc ategori zegener al a ttitudesabo ut tec hno l ogy in to one  of t wo  di a m etric a l ly  op po sed ideolo g i cal  camp s,  des cribedas techno-utopiani s m a nd Luddism (B uck ingh a m ,200 6 ;K rit t&  Wi n e gar, 2010; Selw yn, 2011;St r ob el & Tillb e rg- We bb, 200 9). The  tech n ologica l utopian  camp pre se ntst e chn ology inno vation a s inevita b le an d  a lways  fo r thebe tte r, wh ile th e  Lu ddite  campis  not o pen t otechnolo gical innovation, or 98  resis ts ad opt ing new t ech n olo gies (Kri tt &  Winegar,201 0;Strob el&  Till berg - We bb, 2009) . Wh i le recogn i zi ngt h at  fundamenta l d iff erenc esi n valu es e xist concerning t e chnology, Krit t an d Win ega r  (20 10 ) emphasized t hat  c a t egorizin gviews about  educati on a l tec hnolog y into  theset w oe xtreme  cat ego ries pres ent sa  falsedi ch o tomy t hatli mits p ossibi l itie s ,  and does not re prese n t  thet rue  rang eo f alt e rnat ive views.  Strobel an d Till berg -Webb  (2009)  s imilar lyar gued thati t is a fa lse d ichotom yto a ssu me tha t un l e ss on e su bs cri bes to th e te c hn ol o gic al u topia nview , one ise ssential lya  Luddit e.  Th e y  heldt ha t educators,  re searc h e rs, instru c tion a ld esign ers, a nd pol icy mak e rssh ould cr iti q u e their o wn belief s  an dassu mptionsab outte chn ol ogy, and engage  in crit ical dia l o gue wi tho ther educat or s and
 into_account how_educators can be guided_by practical_wisdom_and good_pedagogy_in shaping the_implementation of innovative_technology, or in envisioning_instructional alternatives (Clegg_et_al., 2003). Halverson (2002) explored how practical wisdom, or phronesis, in the Aristotelian sense,_can_guide school_technology_leaders_in integrating innovative multimedia technology._Phronesis can be understood in_terms of_the wisdom, based on good judgment and guided_by_a sense o_f a higher good, that is a key attribute_required for leaders in showing the_way and guiding_others,_and_advancing the common good_(Adair, 2005; Halverson, 2002). Lally et_al. (2010) argued that research on_digital technology should proceed from the standpoint_of phronesis, with a focus on_ethically informed practical reasoning. Lally_et al._(2010) reasoned that by examining_the ethical dimensions_associated with_digital technology, researchers_and educators can better promote a_disciplined and ethically_informed conversation about technology enhanced learning_(Lally_et al., 2010)._The_study's_theoretical framework_will leverage ethical_considerations_integral to_educational_technology that were defined in national_standards_for school technology leaders (Consortium for School_Networking, 2011). Dichotomy o_f_techno-utopianism and Luddism. Scholars_have observed a tendency in_education to categorize general attitudes about_technology into_one of_two diametrically opposed ideological camps, described as techno-utopianism and Luddism (Buckingham,_2006; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Selwyn,_2011; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb,_2009). The_technological_utopian camp presents_technology_innovation as_inevitable and always for the better, while_the Luddite_camp is not open to technological_innovation, or 98 resists_adopting_new technologies (Kritt & Winegar, 2010;_Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). While recognizing_that fundamental differences in values_exist_concerning_technology, Kritt and Winegar (2010)_emphasized that categorizing views about educational_technology into these_two extreme categories presents a false dichotomy_that_limits possibilities, and does not represent_the_true range o f alternative views._Strobel_and_Tillberg-Webb (2009) similarly argued that_it is a false dichotomy to_assume that unless one subscribes to the technological utopian_view, one is_essentially a Luddite. They held_that_educators,_researchers, instructional designers, and policy makers should critique their own_beliefs and_assumptions about technology,_and engage in critical dialogue with other educators and