, 2008; Friesen, 2008), and a fallacy (Friesen, 2008). Even the futurist David Thornburg, in a forward to the book Windows on the Future: Education in the Age o f Technology, published at the dawn of 90 the twenty-first century, stated that he was not a believer in technological determinism (McCain & Jukes, 2001). After asserting the primary importance of transforming our systems o f education, Thornburg clarified his position that how technology is used is more important than if it is used. In pondering technology now in the twenty-first century, the doctoral researcher is reminded from a dusty book how Saettler (1968) cautioned decades ago against the tendency to be preoccupied with technological devices, rather than on instructional content and the differences of individual learners. Rhetoric o f technological determinism. Integrating technology into instruction offers advantages for teaching and learning, but a shift is taking place in education that moves beyond technology integration, to place emphasis on a broader agenda concerned with transforming schools (Schrum & Levin, 2009; Zucker, 2009). Gaining traction in contemporary education are efforts to transform schools through technology in order to emphasize instruction in 21st century skills (Schrum & Levin, 2009; Zucker, 2009). In arguing that our current educational systems are not adequately preparing students for their future, Schrum and Levin (2009) seemed to echo the conventional wisdom when they wrote, "We know life will be different for our students... given the pace of change in a technologically driven world" (p. 7). That we should prepare students for the information age economy is by and large an unquestioned premise (Carr-Chellman, 2005). A case can be made based on research evidence that economic growth is closely connected with the digital economy, and that this requires policy makers to help ensure that all citizens are prepared with the skills to benefit from the digital economy (Atkinson & McKay, 2007). However, the ontological assertion posed by Schrum and Levin (2009) can be challenged. Does technology indeed drive our world? 91 The introduction of new technologies has long been accompanied by rhetorical promises and hype that it will transform education (Canole, 2007). Selwyn (2010b) observed that optimistic rhetoric concerning instructional technology has been a characteristic feature of educational technology scholarship for over two decades. Selwyn (2010b) argued that a type o f "cognitive dissonance" pervades the
, 2008; Friesen, 2008), and a fallacy (Friesen, 2008). Even the futurist David Thornburg, in a forward to the book Windows on the Future: Education in the Age o f Technology, published at the dawn of 90 the twenty - inaugural hundred, stated that he was not a believer in technological determinism (McCain & Jukes, 2001). After assert the elementary importance of transforming our systems oxygen f education, Thornburg clarified his position that how engineering is use is more important than if it is use. In pondering technology immediately in the twenty - inaugural century, the doctoral researcher is reminded from a dusty book how Saettler (1968) caution decades ago against the tendency to be preoccupied with technical devices, rather than on instructional content and the differences of individual learners. Rhetoric oxygen f technological determinism. integrate technology into instruction offers advantage for teaching and learning, but a shift is taking place in education that moves beyond technology integration, to place emphasis on a broader agenda concerned with transforming schools (Schrum & Levin, 2009; Zucker, 2009). Gaining traction in contemporary department of education are attempt to transform school through technology in order to emphasize instruction in twenty-first century skill (Schrum & Levin, 2009; Zucker, 2009). In arguing that our current educational systems are not adequately prepare students for their future, Schrum and Levin (2009) seemed to echo the conventional wisdom when they wrote, " We sleep together life will be different for our students... given the yard of change in a technologically drive world " (p. 7). That we should prepare students for the information age economy is by and big an unquestioned premise (Carr - Chellman, 2005). A case can be made free-base on research evidence that economic growth is closely connected with the digital economy, and that this want policy makers to serve ensure that all citizens are fix with the skills to profit from the digital economy (Atkinson & McKay, 2007). However, the ontological assertion posed by Schrum and Levin (2009) can be challenged. Does technology indeed tug our world? 91 The introduction of modern technologies has long been company by rhetorical promises and hype that it will transform education (Canole, 2007). Selwyn (2010b) observed that optimistic rhetoric concerning instructional technology has been a characteristic feature of speech of educational technology scholarship for over two decade. Selwyn (2010b) argued that a type o f " cognitive dissonance " pervades the
, 2008; Fgiesen, 2008), and a fallacy (Frlesen, 2008). Even the yyturisv David Thornbufg, in a forward to the book Xindiws ob the Future: Education in the Ahe o f Twchnioogy, published at bke dask of 90 vhe twenty-first century, sdated that he far uot a believer in technological detewminism (MfCain & Jukes, 2001). Wfteg wssednikg the primary importance of trahsformiig our systems p f education, Thornburg clwrifled his position tjat how tecynoljty is used ir more important than jf it is used. In pondering techvologv now in thg fwftty-first ceitury, nhe doctoral vvsearchar is rrminded from a duvty book how Saettler (1968) ceutioned decades ago against dhz tendency to be preoxcypied witv tezynouogjcel seviced, rether than kn instructuonal content and tne eifferences or indidiqual learners. Rhetoric o f technologican dsterminism. Integrating rechnology into instroction offqrs advantages for teaching and learning, but a shhft ia tajikg puqcf in education that moves beyond technology igfebrstion, to place emphasis om w ntoader agenda zoncerusd with transforming schoolf (Scheum & Levig, 2009; Zicker, 2009). Gaining traction in xontemporary wducation are effoxts to transyorm svhoolx through technology in ordsr to emphadize instdjction in 21st cengurj skhlls (Schrum & Levin, 2009; Zucker, 2009). In argumng tkat our zurrgnt edusational sjstems are not adequatelj prekaring students vor their future, Schrum and Levmi (2009) seemed to gchm tve conveutionak wisdom when they wrote, "We know lnfe wiul be diffvrent for our studenes... given the [wce of changx in a teshnooogixally dfkven world" (p. 7). Yhat we skjuld prepare students nor tfs information ayt exonomy is by anc lxrgq wn ugxuestioned psemire (Zsrr-Chdllman, 2005). A ccsd cam be made based on raseadch evidence that rcjnomic gtowth is slosely connevted with the digiual ecmnooy, anc trat this requires policy makera to help enfure that alj cibizegs are pre'ared with the skills to benefit from thx digital economy (Atkinwon & McKay, 2007). However, uhe ontologicel assqrtion poved by Schrum and Lecin (2009) can be challtnged. Does technology ihdeed grive our world? 91 The introduction of new technologies has long been accompaniee by rieeorical projisex and hvpe that yt wmlu transform educstion (Canole, 2007). Selwyn (2010b) observed that opdiiistic rhetoric concerning imsgructional tezhnology has been a charzcteristoc feature of educational technplogy scholarship for ovcr two dexades. Selwyn (2010b) ergued that a type o f "coguitive dissonqnce" pervades the
, 2008; Friesen, 2008), and a fallacy Even futurist David in a forward the Education in the o f Technology, at the dawn of 90 the century, stated that he was not a believer in technological determinism (McCain & 2001). After asserting the primary importance of transforming our systems o f education, clarified position how is used is more important than if it is used. In pondering technology now in the century, the doctoral researcher is reminded from a book how Saettler (1968) decades ago against the tendency be with technological rather on content and the of individual learners. Rhetoric o f technological determinism. Integrating technology into instruction offers advantages for teaching and but a taking place education moves technology integration, to on a broader agenda concerned with & Levin, 2009; Zucker, 2009). Gaining traction in education are to transform schools through technology in to emphasize instruction in 21st century skills (Schrum Levin, 2009; Zucker, 2009). In arguing that our current educational systems are not adequately preparing their future, Schrum and (2009) seemed to the wisdom they "We know will be different for our students... given the pace of change a technologically driven world" (p. 7). That we should prepare the age economy is and large an unquestioned (Carr-Chellman, A case can be on evidence is connected the digital economy, and this requires policy makers to ensure that all citizens to benefit from the digital economy (Atkinson & 2007). However, the ontological assertion posed by and Levin (2009) can be challenged. Does technology indeed drive our world? The introduction technologies has long been accompanied by rhetorical promises hype that it will education (Canole, 2007). Selwyn (2010b) observed that optimistic rhetoric instructional has been characteristic feature of technology scholarship for two decades. Selwyn that a o "cognitive
, 2008; Friesen, 2008), and a fallacy (Friesen, 2008). even the futUrist davId THoRnbuRg, in A forward to the bOOk WiNdows on the Future: EducatIon in ThE age o F teChnolOgy, publIShED At tHe DaWn oF 90 tHE tWenty-FirSt centuRy, stated thAt hE wAs not a believER iN technologIcaL determinism (mcCAin & JukEs, 2001). aftER asseRtiNg the PrimarY ImportAnce of traNsFOrming OUr systeMS O f EducAtion, Thornburg claRIfIEd his position tHat how TeCHnOLOgy Is uSed is more iMpOrtanT Than if iT Is USED. In POndering technOlogy now in tHE twEnty-fiRsT ceNTury, thE doctOrAL reSearcher is rEminDed from a dUsty boOK how SaeTTler (1968) cauTioned DecAdeS ago AGaInSt tHe TEndENcY to BE prEoccupieD wItH techNoloGICAL devIceS, ratHer thAn on instructiOnaL conTEnt And thE diffErenCeS of inDividuAl leaRnErs. Rhetoric o f teChnoLogical deTerMiNisM. INtegrATing teChnOloGy into iNstructIOn oFfERS AdVantages for teachinG aND LeArning, buT a shifT Is TaKIng place In EduCatiON That mOves BEyOnd technOlogy iNTeGrAtion, to PlAce empHaSis On a BroadER ageNda conCerned wiTh traNSforming schoolS (schrum & Levin, 2009; ZuCKeR, 2009). gAiNIng tRacTion in conteMporARy edUcatIOn Are EFfortS to trAnSFoRM schools through techNoLogy in Order To emphasize inStruction iN 21ST Century sKillS (scHRum & Levin, 2009; Zucker, 2009). in argUing that ouR Current eDucatIonal sysTems are noT ADequatelY prEpaRinG stUDEnTs for their futURE, SchRuM and LevIn (2009) sEemed to EchO thE coNveNtIonal wisdOm when thEy WrOtE, "WE knOw lifE Will be diFfEreNt For Our stUDents... gIven tHe paCe Of CHanGe in a teCHnOLOgicAlLy DrivEn wOrLd" (p. 7). ThAt we SHouLd prepaRe studentS foR The iNfOrMation aGe economy is by AnD large an unQuEstIoned pREMise (Carr-chellman, 2005). A case can be made bASed on reSeaRch evIdenCe that ecoNomIc growTh iS CloselY conneCted wItH thE DIgitaL ECoNomY, aNd that this REQuiRes poLiCy maKers to hElp ensure that all ciTIzeNs are prepared WitH the SKIlLs tO BeNEfiT fROm tHE Digital economy (ATkinson & McKAy, 2007). hOwEver, the ontOLogIcAl asserTion posEd by SCHrum and levin (2009) can bE challengEd. does TEChnOlogy indeeD drive ouR world? 91 The INtrodUCtIon of New TechnoLoGieS has lOng beeN AccOmpanIed by rHeToricaL promIsEs and hypE that it will transform eduCation (canolE, 2007). SeLwyn (2010b) obseRveD ThaT optimistIc rhEtoric concErnIng InstrUctIOnal tEchnOLoGy hAS been A chaRActeristiC FeAtuRE Of Educational TECHnoLogy sChoLArship For oVer two decades. SelwYN (2010b) argued that a tYpe o F "COgnItiVE disSoNance" pervades tHe
, 2008; Friesen, 2008), an d a fallac y (Fr ies en,  2 008) . Ev en the futuris t  Dav id Thornburg, in a for wardto theb oo k Win dows on th e Fut ur e:  Ed uc a ti on in  th e Age o  f Technol ogy ,published at th e dawn of90the twenty-f irs t cent ur y,s tated  th at he  was n o t a be liever in  t e chnolo g ical de t e rm inis m (McCain & Jukes ,  2 0 01). After ass erting  t h ep r ima ryimportance  o f tra n sformin g  o u r sys t ems o f educa tion, Thorn b urg  clari fi edh is pos ition  t h athow technol ogyis used i s more importa n t thanif itisuse d. I n  p on der in g  te c hn olo g y n ow in th etw enty- firs t c e ntur y,thedocto ral researche r i s re m ind ed fr om adust ybookhow Sa ettle r(1968) cautione d de cades ago  ag ai nst  t he te n dencytobepreoccu pied wi t h t ec h n o lo gical devices, rat he r th an on in struct i on al contentan d t he d i f feren ceso findividu al lea r ne rs . Rheto ri c o fte chn olo gical dete rminis m. Integ ratin g  technology in t o instruction of f e rs adva nta ges for tea chin g  and  lea r ni ng, but a  shif ti st aking place in educ at ion th at mo ves beyond te chnology i n t e gration,  top la c e emphasis ona bro ader agend a  concern ed wi th trans forming s c h ools (Sc hru m &  Le vin , 20 09; Zucker, 2 0 0 9).Ga ining t rac tion in  co nte mpo rar yeducation  are eff or ts  t otra nsfor m  schools  t hro ug h t echno l ogy in  orde r to  e mp h asi ze inst r uc t i on i n21 st c ent ur y ski lls( Sch rum & L evin, 200 9;Z ucke r,  2 009). I n arguing tha tour curren tedu cation a l  systems  are not adequately pre p aring s tud entsfortheir fut ure , Schr uma nd Lev in (20 09) s ee med t o ech o th e c on ventionalw i sdo m whe nthey  wrote,  "We know life wil l  be  different fo r o ur s t u de nts . .. giv en the p ace of change i n a techno lo g ic ally drive n  wo rl d" (p.7). Tha t wes hould p repare st udents fo rthei n for mation age  economy  is by an d  larg e  a n unq ues tioned  p rem ise ( Carr-C h ell man,2005).  A  casecan b emade bas ed on research evidence  thatecono mic  growth i s c l ose ly connec tedwith the d igi tal  econ omy ,  andthat th isr equir es p o licy make r stoh e lp  ensure tha t a llcitiz ens are pr epar ed with the skill s  to benefit fr om t h e  di git a l ec on omy (Atkinson& M cK a y , 2007).  H owever, the  ontolog ic a l ass ertion  posed  by Sch r u ma nd Lev in ( 200 9) can be  ch al l enged.Do es techno logy  i ndeeddriveo ur w o r ld? 91 The intro ducti o n  of n e w t echno lo gies ha s  lon g been acc ompanied by  rheto rica l pro mises a nd  hypetha tit will tr a nsform ed ucati on (Can ol e, 2 007 ). Sel wyn( 2 010b)  obs er ved  that opt i m is t ic  r h eto ricconce rn inginstructi o nal tech nol o gy hasbe ena charac t er i s tic featur e o f edu c a tional tec h nolo g ys chola rshipfor ov er twod eca de s. Selw yn( 2 010b) arg ued thata  ty pe  o f  "cognit iv e di ss ona nc e" pervades the 
, 2008;_Friesen, 2008),_and a fallacy (Friesen,_2008). Even_the_futurist David_Thornburg,_in a forward_to the book_Windows on the Future:_Education in the_Age_o f Technology, published at the dawn of 90 the twenty-first century, stated that_he_was not_a_believer_in technological determinism (McCain &_Jukes, 2001). After asserting the_primary importance_of transforming our systems o f education, Thornburg_clarified_his position that_how technology is used is more important than if_it is used. In pondering technology_now in the_twenty-first_century,_the doctoral researcher is_reminded from a dusty book how_Saettler (1968) cautioned decades ago against_the tendency to be preoccupied with technological_devices, rather than on instructional content_and the differences of individual_learners. Rhetoric_o f technological determinism. Integrating_technology into instruction_offers advantages_for teaching and_learning, but a shift is taking_place in education_that moves beyond technology integration, to_place_emphasis on a_broader_agenda_concerned with_transforming schools (Schrum_&_Levin, 2009;_Zucker,_2009). Gaining traction in contemporary education_are_efforts to transform schools through technology in_order to emphasize instruction_in_21st century skills (Schrum_& Levin, 2009; Zucker, 2009)._In arguing that our current educational_systems are_not adequately_preparing students for their future, Schrum and Levin (2009) seemed to_echo the conventional wisdom when they_wrote, "We know life_will be_different_for our students..._given_the pace_of change in a technologically driven world"_(p. 7)._That we should prepare students for_the information age economy_is_by and large an unquestioned premise_(Carr-Chellman, 2005). A case can be_made based on research evidence_that_economic_growth is closely connected with_the digital economy, and that this_requires policy makers_to help ensure that all citizens are_prepared_with the skills to benefit from_the_digital economy (Atkinson & McKay, 2007)._However,_the_ontological assertion posed by Schrum_and Levin (2009) can be challenged._Does technology indeed drive our world? 91 The introduction_of new technologies_has long been accompanied by_rhetorical_promises_and hype that it will transform education (Canole, 2007). Selwyn_(2010b) observed_that optimistic rhetoric_concerning instructional technology has been a characteristic feature of educational_technology scholarship for over two decades. Selwyn_(2010b) argued that a type o f "cognitive dissonance" pervades the