 both society and the individual, but also stated that society and policy makers determine how technologies will be used. After illustrating different types of technology systems, including stand- alone and embedded systems, she suggested that while technologies shape our world, in actuality there is not a strict technological determinism. Rather, the philosophical differences that exist indicate differences in attitude toward technology. Braman (2004) goes on to explain that these differences matter from a policy making standpoint because the different positions affect perception of risks and opportunities. Technology, and human agency and responsibility. The technological determinist position ascribes agency to technology, rather than to educators, and Fisher (2006) was concerned that this perspective shortchanges the hard work that educators must undertake to improve and transform education. He argued against technological determinism, and for keeping the emphasis in educational change on the human agents involved, supported by technological tools (Fisher, 2006). Wyatt (2008) held that technological determinism presents a dilemma for human responsibility, and asserted that perceiving autonomy in technology leaves little room for human decision making, and "absolves us from responsibility for the technologies we make and use" (p. 169). Kritt 105 and Winegar (2010) also argued for the importance o f human agency shaping educational technology, rather than seeing technology development as occurring in an inevitable and determined way. Slack and Wise studied (2006) the relationship between technology and culture, while discussing issues pertaining to agency, causality, and human responsibility. They reviewed the literature concerning the question of whether technology as a thing in itself can be said to have a type of agency apart from human agency. They concluded that there is a risk to seeing agency in technology because this undermines human responsibility. Hofmann (2006) conducted an axiological study to consider the connection between technology and values. He investigated the view that we are subject to a technological imperative, with inevitable technology exercising a controlling influence over society. Hofmann's research supports the conclusion that the technological imperative is a myth that can negatively impact ethical decision making and responsibility. Hofmann argued that the deterministic logic o f the technological imperative undermines human responsibility ethical accountability. If human society is driven by the inevitability of technology, such logic implies we are not fully in control o f technology, and we can only be held to account for actions and situations we can actually do something about (Hofmann, 2006). Scholars have observed that the technological imperative implies the suspension of ethical judgment, with technology in control and becoming an end it itself (Chandler, 1995
both society and the individual, but also stated that club and policy manufacturer determine how technologies will be used. After illustrate different types of engineering systems, including stand- alone and embedded organization, she suggested that while technologies determine our world, in actuality there is not a strict technological determinism. preferably, the philosophical differences that exist indicate differences in attitude toward engineering. Braman (2004) goes on to explain that these differences count from a policy making standpoint because the different positions affect percept of risks and opportunities. Technology, and human agency and responsibility. The technical determinist position ascribes agency to technology, rather than to educators, and Fisher (2006) was refer that this perspective shortchanges the hard work that educators must undertake to improve and transform education. He argued against technological determinism, and for keep the emphasis in educational change on the human agents imply, supported by technological tools (Fisher, 2006). Wyatt (2008) hold that technological determinism presents a dilemma for human responsibility, and assert that perceiving autonomy in technology leaves little room for human decision making, and " absolves us from responsibility for the technologies we make and use " (p. 169). Kritt 105 and Winegar (2010) besides argued for the importance o f human means shape educational technology, rather than seeing technology growth as occurring in an inevitable and determined way. slump and Wise studied (2006) the relationship between technology and culture, while hash out issues pertain to agency, causality, and human responsibility. They review the literature concerning the doubt of whether technology as a matter in itself can be said to have a character of agency apart from human agency. They concluded that there is a hazard to seeing agency in technology because this cave human responsibility. Hofmann (2006) conducted an axiological study to consider the connection between engineering and values. He investigated the horizon that we are subject to a technological imperative, with inevitable technology exercising a controlling influence over society. Hofmann's inquiry supports the conclusion that the technological imperative is a myth that can negatively impact ethical decision making and responsibility. Hofmann argue that the deterministic logic oxygen farad the technological imperative undermines human responsibility ethical accountability. If human society is driven by the inevitability of engineering, such logic implies we are not fully in control o f technology, and we can only be held to account for actions and situations we can actually do something about (Hofmann, 2006). Scholars have observe that the technological imperative implies the suspension of ethical judgment, with technology in control condition and becoming an end it itself (Chandler, 1995
 bohh society and the indivldual, but also sjared thet socisty and oolicy makers determine how vechbologues will be used. After illustraning diffwrenu types of technology sysbzms, ihgludiug stand- alone akd embedded systems, she sggeedted that while technologies shape jur workd, in actuality jhere ys nkn c strict technological determinjsm. Ratier, the philosolhical differences that exlst lndicate differencfs in attitose eiward technouogy. Braman (2004) goes on tk explain that these differencer matcer from a komifi making staidpoinn because the differett posiyions affect pcrcepvion of risks and opportuiities. Technology, anq human aceucy and responsibilitt. Rhe tgchnonogizql aettrmmniat posltikn ascribea agency to technology, rather uhag to educators, and Fysrer (2006) was concerned that this perspectivt shodtchanges the hard work that educators must ondertake eo improve and transform education. He argued agaitst txcfnooonicau dfterminism, and for keeping the emphasis in edtdauiokal change on thc human agents invplgec, supported by technolofical tools (Fisher, 2006). Wyatt (2008) hele that teshnokogical determinism presentw a dilemma yor human responsibilnty, and assexted tnat prrceiving autonomy in tzchnolkgy leaves pittle roko for human deciriok mdking, and "absolves us from responsiuilitv for thd tevhnolodies we mane and use" (p. 169). Kritt 105 and Wineyar (2010) dlso arguef for the importance o f human ejency shaping egucdtional cechnokogy, rather tran seeing tecknology bevelooment as obcurring mn an inevitwble and deteslined way. Sleck and Wyse wtudued (2006) thd relationship netween tvcknology abd culture, while dlscusrjng issues pertcnnung to agency, csusxliey, aid huidn responsibhlith. Tfry rexiewed uke oktersture concerning the queation of whether trcmnology aw a thind in itself csn be said to have a ty'e of egency apwrt from human agency. They condluded thwt bhere is a rifk ti seeing ageucy in technology because this underminew human responsibioity. Hofmann (2006) conduettd an axiologmcal seudy to cmnsider the connectiin between technokogy and values. He inbestigdted hhe view that we are subject to a technological imperative, with inevitablw techiojogy exerciaing a cottxolking igfluxnre over society. Hpfmann's research supports the cunclusiot chat the technological imperayixe is a myth jhat can negatively impact ethical decision making and responsibikity. Hofmann argued that the detwrminjstic logir o f the technologival im'eratice undeemincs human respovsinipity ethifal ecckuntability. If human society is eriven bj the inevitabilmty of technluogy, auch ljgic implies we zre hlt fuuly in controk o f technoloby, and we can only bv hqld to account ror actions snd sitlations we cai actually dm something about (Hofmann, 2006). Scholars have observed tgat the ttchnologigal imperative imklmes the suspension of etmical judgmeng, with technmlogy in control and becoming an end it itsxkf (Chxndjer, 1995
both society and the individual, but also society policy makers how technologies will types technology systems, including alone and embedded she suggested that while technologies shape world, in actuality there is not a strict technological determinism. Rather, the philosophical that exist indicate differences in attitude toward technology. Braman (2004) goes on to that differences from policy making standpoint because the different positions affect perception of risks and opportunities. Technology, and human and responsibility. The technological determinist position ascribes agency technology, rather than to and Fisher (2006) was concerned this shortchanges the work educators undertake to improve transform education. He argued against technological determinism, and for keeping the emphasis in educational change on the agents involved, technological tools 2006). (2008) that technological determinism dilemma for human responsibility, and asserted in technology leaves little room for human decision and "absolves from responsibility for the technologies we and use" (p. 169). Kritt 105 and Winegar also argued for the importance o f human agency shaping educational technology, rather than seeing as occurring in an and determined way. and studied the between technology culture, while discussing issues pertaining to agency, causality, and human responsibility. reviewed the literature concerning the question of whether technology as in can be said have a type of apart human agency. They concluded is risk in because undermines human responsibility. Hofmann conducted an axiological study to the connection between technology view that we are subject to a technological with inevitable technology exercising a controlling influence society. Hofmann's research supports the conclusion that the technological imperative is a that can ethical decision making and responsibility. Hofmann argued that deterministic logic o f technological imperative undermines human responsibility ethical accountability. If human is by the of technology, such implies we are fully in control technology, and can be for actions and situations we can do about (Hofmann, 2006). Scholars have that imperative implies the suspension of ethical judgment, with technology in control and becoming an end (Chandler, 1995
 both society and the individuAl, but also sTated ThaT soCiEty aNd poLicy makers deteRMine How technologies will be uSed. AfTeR IlluSTrAting DiffereNT tYPEs oF tEcHnoLoGY sYstemS, inCluding Stand- alone And EmBedded systemS, ShE suggested ThaT while technoLogIes shaPe Our WOrld, iN acTualiTy therE Is not a Strict tecHnOLogicaL DetermiNISm. rathEr, the philosophicaL DiFFerences that exIst indIcATe DIFfeRenCes in attitUdE towaRD technoLOgY. bRAmaN (2004) Goes on to explaIn that these DIffErenceS mAttER from a PolicY mAKinG standpoint BecaUse the difFerent POsitionS Affect pErceptIon Of rIsks ANd OpPorTuNItiES. TEchNOloGy, and humAn AgEncy aNd reSPONSibiLitY. The TechnOlogical deterMinIst pOSitIon asCribeS ageNcY to teChnoloGy, ratHeR than to educatorS, and fisher (2006) was ConCeRneD tHat thIS perspEctIve ShortchAnges thE HarD wORK ThAt educators must undErTAKe To improvE and trANsFoRM educatiOn. he aRgueD AGainsT tecHNoLogical dEtermiNIsM, aNd for keEpIng the EmPhaSis In eduCAtioNal chaNge on the Human AGents involved, sUPported by techNOlOGIcAL tooLs (FIsher, 2006). Wyatt (2008) hEld tHAt teChnoLOgIcaL DeterMinisM pREsENts a dilemma for human ReSponsiBilitY, and asserted tHat perceivING Autonomy In teCHnOLogy leaves littLe rooM for human dECision maKing, aNd "absolvEs us from rESPonsibilIty For The TecHNOlOgies we make anD USe" (p. 169). KRiTt 105 and WiNegAr (2010) also aRguEd fOr tHe iMpOrtance o f Human ageNcY sHaPiNg eDucatIOnal techNoLogY, rAthEr thaN Seeing TechnOlogY dEvELopMent as oCCuRRIng iN aN iNeviTabLe And deTermINed Way. SlacK and Wise sTudIEd (2006) thE rElAtionshIp between techNoLogy and culTuRe, wHile diSCUssing isSues pertaining to agency, cAUsality, And Human RespOnsibilitY. ThEy reviEweD The litEraturE concErNinG THe queSTIoN of WhEther technOLOgy As a thInG in iTself caN be said to have a type OF agEncy apart from HumAn agENCy. theY CoNCluDeD ThaT THere is a risk to seEing agency In TEcHnology becAUse ThIs underMines huMan reSPonsibiLity. HofmaNn (2006) conductEd An axIOLogIcal study tO consideR the conneCTion bETwEen teChnOlogy aNd ValUes. He InvestIGatEd the View thAt We are sUbjecT tO a technoLogical imperative, with inEvitabLe tecHnoLogy exercIsiNG a cOntrollinG infLuence over SocIetY. HofmAnn'S ReseaRch sUPpOrtS The coNcluSIon that thE TeChnOLOgIcal imperatIVE Is a Myth tHat CAn negaTiveLy impact ethical deCIsion making and RespONSibIliTY. HofMaNn argued that thE deTeRMInistic lOgIc o f the techNologicaL iMPeratIve undErmineS human rESPoNSibiliTy etHicAl accountAbiLiTY. If humaN sOcIEty is dRiveN bY the inEvitabILity OF Technology, such loGic imPLIes we ARe nOt fulLy In contrOL o f tEchnology, aNd we can only Be held To acCount For actiOnS and siTuaTiOns we can acTUally do soMethiNg about (hoFmanN, 2006). ScHolars Have OBServeD thaT tHe tEchnologiCAL iMPeRaTIve ImplIes thE sUspeNsion of etHIcal judgMenT, With tecHnOloGY In contROl AND becoming aN enD it itSELf (Chandler, 1995
 both society and the indi vidual, bu t als o s tat ed  tha t so ciety and poli c y ma kers determine how tec hnolo gi e s wi l lbe us ed. Aft e ri l lus tr at ing  d i ff erent  ty pes oftechnology  sy st ems, includi n gstand- alo neand embedded  sy stems,  s hes ugges ted  that  while techno logies sh ap e  our w o rld, in a ct uali ty there is not a st r ict technologi cal de te r mi n i sm.  Ra ther, theph iloso p hical d i ff e r e nce s  that exist i ndicate dif f ere nces i natt i tude t oward  t e chn ology. Bram an ( 2004) goe s on t o  explai n  that t hese d iff ere nces ma tt erfr o m a po lic y  ma king sta nd po int b ecau s e t he d iff eren t pos itions affect  pe rcep t ion  of r isksandop portu nities . Tec hn ology, and huma n ag ency andres po nsi bi lity. The te chn olo gical d etermin i stpo s i t io n ascribes agencyto t ec hnology,  rathe r  t ha n  to educ at ors , an d Fishe r (2 0 06 ) was co ncerne d  t ha t thispe rspect iv e s hor tchan g es t he har d work t hat e d ucators must u n dertake to im p ro v e  a n d tr ans form educat ion. He a rgue d  a gai n st te chnol og i ca l  determinism, and f or  keepi ng th e emphasis in  education a l change o n th e  h u man agents inv olved , supporte d  by tech nolog ical too ls (Fishe r ,  2006).Wya tt(20 08) h el d that techno l o gica ldetermi nis m prese nts  adil emm afor human  respons ib il it y,  an d ass e rted tha tper ce ivi ng au t onomyin te chno lo gy lea ves lit t le r oomfo rhuma n d ec ision  mak i ng,  and "a bsolves u s f r om r es po nsibili ty for the te ch nologies w emak e andu s e" (p. 1 69). Kritt 105 and Wine g ar (201 0)alsoargu ed for th e i mporta nce o f hu man ag encysh api n g  educ a t io nal  t echnology, r ath er th an  see ing tec hnology developmen t  as  occurring in  an  ine v i ta ble an d  de te r min e d  way. Slack and  Wise stud ie d  ( 2006) ther ela ti onshipbetween  tech n ology a nd cultur e, whiledi scus s i ngissues per tainingto agency ,  caus a li ty, a ndhumanre spo nsibi lity.T hey  revi ewed t he  liter ature  c oncernin g the question of wheth er tec hnolo gyas a thin g i n  it self canbe s aid to hav e a  ty pe of  ag e ncy a part fr omh umanagen c y. They c o nc lud e d  t hat there i s a  ri sk to  se e ing ag ency  in technology be c ause this unde rmin e s  hu man resp on sibility. Hofm ann  ( 2 0 06) cond uc ted an axio logicalst u dy to  consi der th e conne c t io n  betwe en t ech nology an d v al u es. Hein ve s tigate d th eview t hat we ares u bject to a techn ologi c a l imp e rat ive,wi th inev i tabl e technolo gy exercisi ng a c ontr ollin g influ en ce ove r s oc iety. Hofm a nn's rese archsupport sthecon clusio n th a t  thetech no log ical impe r a ti v eis a m yththatca n ne gativelyi mpact et hic a l decis io n m a k ing an d  r e s ponsibilit y.Hofma n n  argued th a t th e  d e termi nistic  logic  o f th e  te ch nologic ali m perativeundermine s  hu ma n re sponsibi li ty e th ica laccountability.  If huma n societ y is dri ven by t h e inev it ability of t echno lo g y, such l ogi c impli e s w e a renotful ly i n  control o f technology,  and  we c a n o nly b e hel dto accou n t fo r action s  and situatio ns we can actua l lyd o so met h in gabout (Ho fma n n, 20 06).  Sc hola rshave o bser v ed t h at  the  techn olog ic al  imperati ve  implie s  the sus pens ion o fet h ic al judg ment, wi th te ch nology in control  and  b ecoming an en d it itself(C hand ler, 1 9 95
 both_society and_the individual, but also_stated that_society_and policy_makers_determine how technologies_will be used._After illustrating different types_of technology systems,_including_stand- alone and embedded systems, she suggested that while technologies shape our world, in_actuality_there is_not_a_strict technological determinism. Rather, the_philosophical differences that exist indicate_differences in_attitude toward technology. Braman (2004) goes on to_explain_that these differences_matter from a policy making standpoint because the different_positions affect perception of risks and_opportunities. Technology, and_human_agency_and responsibility. The technological_determinist position ascribes agency to technology,_rather than to educators, and Fisher_(2006) was concerned that this perspective shortchanges_the hard work that educators must_undertake to improve and transform_education. He_argued against technological determinism, and_for keeping the_emphasis in_educational change on_the human agents involved, supported by_technological tools (Fisher,_2006). Wyatt (2008) held that technological_determinism_presents a dilemma_for_human_responsibility, and_asserted that perceiving_autonomy_in technology_leaves_little room for human decision making,_and_"absolves us from responsibility for the technologies_we make and use"_(p._169). Kritt 105 and_Winegar (2010) also argued for_the importance o f human agency_shaping educational_technology, rather_than seeing technology development as occurring in an inevitable and determined_way. Slack and Wise studied (2006)_the relationship between technology_and culture,_while_discussing issues pertaining_to_agency, causality,_and human responsibility. They reviewed the literature_concerning the_question of whether technology as a_thing in itself can_be_said to have a type of_agency apart from human agency. They_concluded that there is a_risk_to_seeing agency in technology because_this undermines human responsibility. Hofmann (2006)_conducted an axiological_study to consider the connection between technology_and_values. He investigated the view that_we_are subject to a technological imperative,_with_inevitable_technology exercising a controlling influence_over society. Hofmann's research supports the_conclusion that the technological imperative is a myth that_can negatively impact_ethical decision making and responsibility._Hofmann_argued_that the deterministic logic o f the technological imperative undermines_human responsibility_ethical accountability. If_human society is driven by the inevitability of technology, such_logic implies we are not fully in_control o f technology, and we can only be held to_account for actions and situations we can actually_do something about (Hofmann, 2006). Scholars have_observed that the technological_imperative_implies the suspension of ethical judgment, with_technology_in_control_and becoming an_end it itself_(Chandler, 1995