 that seeing technology as value neutral may interfere with discerning how technologies raise ethical considerations, and we may fail to recognize how some technology decisions can be value laden (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, 2010). Technological determinist assumptions can influence educators not to question the philosophical or ethical issues involved with how technology affects our perceptions and engagements with the world (Robinson & McKnight, 2007). Fisher (2006) held that technological determinism is inadequate as a theory of technology for education. He observed the necessity for a more complete framework to explain the connection between society and technology, while accounting for the importance of technology, and recognizing the complex interplay o f social factors that impact the use of technology. The ensuing discussion on social shaping of technology (SST) will examine another theory of technology that stands opposed to technological determinism (Lievrouw, 2006). Critique of Social Determinism Contrast to the technological determinist position. The section on Theoretical Framework in Chapter 1 explained that the dissertation study leverages the critical and 108 humanizing framework for educational technology proposed by Strobel and TillbergWebb (2009). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) emphasized as a starting point the questioning of how assumptions about technology may correspond to perspectives on the opposing sides of the scholarly debate between technological determinism and social determinism. The previous section presented a critique of technological determinism. The technological determinist position holds that technology drives inevitable change in society (Leonardi, 2008), and is the fundamental force for social change (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The competing perspective of social determinism emphasizes 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). How (2010) explained that determinism is about effects and causality, and stated technological determinism and social determinism are opposing positions that either posit technology as the cause of social change, or social factors as the cause of technological change. Social shaping o f technology. In reaction to technological determinism, scholarly work has turned to investigating the interactions between technology and society (Yang, 2009). Rather than accept that technology develops according to its own technical logic, scholars opposed to the technological determinist position have turned to examining the social processes involved in technological innovation (Williams & Edge, 1996). In the literature, besides the term social determinism,
that seeing technology as value neutral may interfere with spot how technology raise ethical considerations, and we may fail to accredit how some engineering decisions can be value laden (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, 2010). Technological determinist assumption can influence educators not to interrogate the philosophical or ethical issues necessitate with how technology affects our perception and engagements with the world (Robinson & McKnight, 2007). Fisher (2006) held that technological determinism is inadequate as a theory of technology for department of education. He observed the necessity for a more complete framework to excuse the connection between society and technology, while accounting for the importance of technology, and acknowledge the complex interplay o f social factors that impact the use of technology. The ensuing discussion on social formation of technology (SST) will examine another theory of technology that stands opposed to technical determinism (Lievrouw, 2006). review of Social Determinism Contrast to the technological determinist position. The section on Theoretical Framework in Chapter 1 explained that the dissertation study leverages the critical and 108 humanizing framework for educational technology propose by Strobel and TillbergWebb (2009). Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) emphasized as a starting distributor point the questioning of how assumptions about technology may correspond to perspectives on the fight side of the scholarly debate between technological determinism and social determinism. The former section presented a critique of technological determinism. The technological determinist position holds that technology drives inevitable change in society (Leonardi, 2008), and is the cardinal force for social variety (Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The competing perspective of social determinism emphasizes that technologies evolve and develop through being shape by social processes, with the technologies fundamentally implant in social systems (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). How (2010) explained that determinism is about effects and causality, and stated technical determinism and social determinism are opposing positions that either posit technology as the cause of social variety, or social factors as the cause of technological change. Social determine o f engineering. In reaction to technological determinism, scholarly work has plow to investigating the interaction between technology and society (Yang, 2009). Rather than accept that technology develops according to its own technical logic, scholars opposed to the technical determinist position have change by reversal to examining the social processes involved in technological innovation (Williams & Edge, 1996). In the literature, besides the term social determinism,
 thwt seeing technology as yalue neutral mai unterfxre witg discerving how technologies raise xthixal cinsiderations, and we mxy fail tl recognuze iow some technology decisions dwn bz talue laden (Amigl & Reeves, 2008; Wonsortium for Szhlol Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, 2010). Eechnolpglcal determinift axfumpfpoks can influence educators not tk questpon the philosophocal or ethical issues invllvef with how technollgy affects our perceptions xnd engagements with tge world (Robinson & McKnight, 2007). Firher (2006) held that twchjmlogical deverminpsm is inadeqmste as a theoty of technolony foc edycation. He observed tie necessity for a mjre complatz framework to explaib rhe cmnnewtiov begwetn xodiety wnd technologg, while acciunting for the imppreqnce of technklogy, wnq recognizing the complex interplay o f sodial factors that impacr the use of technolohy. The enfuing discussion on social shaping of technology (VST) wmlu erqmine qnlther theory of technology that stands opposeq tp nechnological detcrminism (Lievrouw, 2006). Cgiyyque of Sociau Detexjihism Contrast to tje techgologucal detewminost position. The section on Theoretical Dramework in Chaptzr 1 explaineb that the cissertation study levexages fhe criticap and 108 hujxnizing framewory fpr educational technology prjposed by Strpbel ana TiklbergRebb (2009). Strohel akg Tillberg-Webb (2009) emohasieed as a startinh point the questioning of how exsumptions anogt nechnologv may gorrespond to pqrspectives on the op'osing sides of nhe scholerly debate fetween technmpogical detecminism agd siciao deteroknism. The prevoous sectpou presentwd a critique of tcchnoukgical determinnrn. The technologocau dqtvrmmnist [osition holgs tfat yechnulogy drivew inefitable change in sowietg (Leonardi, 2008), and is tme fundamgntal forse for social change (Strobel & Tlllbecg-Webb, 2009). The coipeting perspective of social seterminidm cmphasizes thwt tcchnjlogies evplve and develop through being shaped bb social processes, with the technologies fondsmentally ekbeddqd in sochal systems (Kanuka, 2008; Wtrobel & Tillberg-Eebb, 2009). How (2010) explained fhat datermlnism is about effects and causality, and stated technological determinism and social determjnisk are o'poxing pjsitmois that either poxit technology as the cause of rocial cvauge, or social factors as the vajse of technouogical change. Social shzping o g technology. In reaction to tecnnological determinism, sgholarly qork gas tughev to investigating tne intzractiins betqeen technology avd xogiety (Yang, 2009). Rauher than accept that technology devwlops qcfording to its oxn technical uogic, scholwrs opposed to tge tsfhnolugical determonist position have turned to exampnigg the social krocesses involfed in nechnological innovation (Williams & Edge, 1996). In the literature, besides the term social dtterminism,
that seeing technology as value neutral may discerning technologies raise considerations, and we some decisions can be laden (Amiel & 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; 2006; Lowrance, 2010). Technological determinist assumptions can influence educators not to question the or ethical issues involved with how technology affects our perceptions and engagements with world & 2007). (2006) held that technological determinism is inadequate as a theory of technology for education. He observed necessity for a more complete framework to explain connection between society and while accounting for the importance technology, recognizing the interplay f factors that impact use of technology. The ensuing discussion on social shaping of technology (SST) will examine another theory of that stands technological determinism 2006). of Determinism Contrast to determinist position. The section on Theoretical 1 explained that the dissertation study leverages the and 108 framework for educational technology proposed by and TillbergWebb (2009). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) emphasized a starting point the questioning of how assumptions about technology may correspond to perspectives on sides of the scholarly between technological determinism social The section a critique technological determinism. The technological determinist position holds that technology drives inevitable in society (Leonardi, 2008), and is the fundamental force for (Strobel Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The perspective of social determinism that evolve and develop through by processes, fundamentally in systems (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel Tillberg-Webb, 2009). How (2010) explained determinism is about effects determinism and social determinism are opposing positions that posit technology as the cause of social or social factors as the cause of technological change. Social shaping o technology. In technological determinism, scholarly work has turned to investigating interactions between technology and (Yang, 2009). Rather than accept that technology develops according its technical logic, opposed to the determinist position have to examining the involved in innovation & the literature, besides the term social
 that seeing technology as valUe neutral mAy intErfEre WiTh diScerNing how technolOGies Raise ethical consideratIons, aNd WE may FAiL to reCognize HOw SOMe tEcHnOloGy DEcIsionS caN be valuE laden (AmieL & ReEvEs, 2008; Consortium FOr school NetwOrkIng, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; LoWraNce, 2010). TecHnOloGIcal dEteRminiSt assuMPtions Can influeNcE EducatORs not to QUEsTion The philosophical oR EtHIcal issues invoLved wiTh HOw TEChnOloGy affects oUr PercePTions anD EnGAGEmeNTs with the worlD (Robinson & MckNigHt, 2007). FishEr (2006) HelD That teChnolOgICal Determinism Is inAdequate aS a theoRY of techNOlogy foR educaTioN. He ObseRVeD tHe nEcESsiTY fOr a MOre Complete FrAmEwork To exPLAIN the ConNectIon beTween society aNd tEchnOLogY, whilE accoUntiNg For thE imporTance Of Technology, and reCognIzing the cOmpLeX inTeRplay O F sociaL faCtoRs that iMpact thE Use Of TECHnOlogy. The ensuing disCuSSIoN on sociaL shapiNG oF tEChnology (sSt) wiLl exAMIne anOtheR ThEory of teChnoloGY tHaT stands OpPosed tO tEchNolOgicaL DeteRminisM (LievrouW, 2006). CritIQue of Social DetERminism ContraST tO THe TEchnOloGical determInisT PosiTion. tHe SecTIon on theorEtICaL framework in Chapter 1 eXpLained That tHe dissertatioN study leveRAGEs the criTicaL AnD 108 Humanizing framEwork For educatiONal technOlogy Proposed By Strobel AND TillberGWeBb (2009). STroBel AND TIllberg-Webb (2009) emPHAsizEd As a starTinG point tHe qUesTioNinG oF how assumPtions abOuT tEcHnOloGy may COrresponD tO peRsPecTives ON the opPosinG sidEs Of THe sCholarlY DeBATe beTwEeN tecHnoLoGical DeteRMinIsm and sOcial deteRmiNIsm. THe PrEvious sEction presentEd A critique oF tEchNologiCAL determiNism. The technological detERminist PosItion HoldS that techNolOgy driVes INevitaBle chaNge in SoCieTY (leonaRDI, 2008), aNd iS tHe fundamenTAL foRce foR sOciaL change (strobel & Tillberg-WebB, 2009). the Competing persPecTive OF SoCiaL DeTErmInISm eMPHasizes 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). how (2010) ExplaIned thAT deTermiNism is AbOut effEcts aNd CausalitY, and stated technological DetermInism And Social detErmINisM are opposIng pOsitions thAt eIthEr posIt tEChnolOgy aS ThE caUSe of sOciaL Change, or sOCiAl fACToRs as the causE OF TecHnoloGicAL changE. SocIal shaping o f technOLogy. In reaction To teCHNolOgiCAl deTeRminism, scholarLy wOrK HAs turned To InvestigatiNg the intErACtionS betweEn techNology aND SoCIety (YaNg, 2009). RaTheR than accePt tHaT TechnolOgY dEVelops AccoRdIng to iTs own tEChniCAL logic, scholars opPosed TO The teCHnoLogicAl DetermiNIst pOsition havE turned to exAmininG the SociaL procesSeS involVed In TechnologiCAl innovatIon (WiLliams & EDgE, 1996). In tHe lIteratUre, bESIdes tHe teRm SocIal determINIsM,
 that seeing technology as  value neu tralmay  in te rfer e wi th discerningh ow t echnologies raise ethi cal c on s ider a ti ons,and wem ay f ail  t orec og n iz e how  so me tech nology dec isi on s can be val u eladen (Ami el& Reeves, 20 08;  Conso rt ium for S cho ol Ne tworki n g, 201 1; Hofman n, 2006;L owrance , 20 10).  Technological de t er m inist assumpti ons ca ni nf l u enc e e ducators n ot  to q u estiont he p h ilo s ophical or et hical issue s  in volved  w ith how te chnol og y  af fects our p erce ptions an d enga g ementsw ith the  world  (R obi nson &Mc Kni gh t , 2 0 07 ).F ish er (2006 )he ld th at t e c h n olog ica l de termi nism is inade qua te a s  atheor y oftech no logyfor ed ucati on . He observed t he n ecessityfor  a  mo re  comp l ete fr ame wor k to ex plain t h e c on n e c ti on between society  a n d  t echnolog y, whi l eac c ountingfo r t he i m p ortan ce o f  t echnolog y, and re co gnizing  t he com pl exint erpla y  o f  socia l factor s tha t  impact the us e  of technolog y .T h ee nsui ngdiscussionon s o cial  sha p in g o f  tech nolog y( SS T ) will examine anot he r theo ry of  technology t hat stands o p posed to  tec h no l ogical determi nism(Lievrouw, 2006). C ritiq ue of So cial Dete r m inism Co ntr ast  to  th e te chnological d e t ermi ni st posi tio n. Thesec tio n o n T he oreticalFramewor kin  C ha pte r 1 e x plainedth atth e d isser t ationstudy  lev er ag e s t he crit i ca l and10 8huma niz in g fra mewo r k f or educ ational t ech n olog ypr oposedby Strobel an dTillbergWe bb  (2 009).S t robel an d Tillberg-Webb (2009)e mphasiz edas astar ting poin t t he que sti o ning o f howassum pt ion s about t ec hno lo gy may cor r e spo nd to  p ersp ectives  on the opposing s i des  of the schol arl y de b a te  be t we e n t ec h nol o g ical determinis m and soci al de terminism. The  p revious  sectio n pre s ented a  critique  of techn ol ogic a l  de terminism.  The tec hnologica l  dete r mi nistpos itionho lds  that  techn o log y dri ves in ev itable  chan ge  in soci ety (Leonardi, 2008), a nd isthe f und amental f orc e  fo r socialchan ge (Strobe l &  Ti llber g-W e bb, 2 009) .  T hec ompet ingp erspectiv e  o f s o c ia l determini s m emp hasiz est hat te chno logies evolve and develop throug h be i n g s hap e d by  s ocial processe s,wi t h  the tec hn ologies fun damental ly embed ded in  socia l syste m s  ( K anuka,  200 8;Strobel &  Ti ll b erg-Web b,  2 0 09). H ow ( 20 10) ex plaine d  tha t determinism is a boute f fects and  caus al ity, an d  sta ted techno logical det ermini sm a nd so cial de te rminis m a re  opposingp ositionsthateitherpo sittec hnolog y as t he ca useof  so cial chan g e ,o rso c ial  fac torsas  the  cause of technolo gic a l chang e.  So c i al sha p in g o f techno log y. In r eaction to tech n ol o gical  deter minism , schol a rly  w ork has  tu r n ed to inv estigatin g  th einte ractions  b etwe en  te ch nology and soci ety (Yan g, 2009) . Rather  th a n ac c ept th at  technologydevel op s  accord i n g t o its o w n t ech nic al l ogi c, s c holars opposed to the te chno logic a l d eterm inist  p ositionh aveturned t o  examining th e social proces s esi nvol ved in  t echnologi cal innov atio n ( Will iam s &E d ge,1 996) .  I n th e lite ratu re ,besides t he  term s o cial det ermi nism, 
 that_seeing technology_as value neutral may_interfere with_discerning_how technologies_raise_ethical considerations, and_we may fail_to recognize how some_technology decisions can_be_value laden (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance,_2010)._Technological determinist_assumptions_can_influence educators not to question_the philosophical or ethical issues_involved with_how technology affects our perceptions and engagements with_the_world (Robinson &_McKnight, 2007). Fisher (2006) held that technological determinism is_inadequate as a theory of technology_for education. He_observed_the_necessity for a more_complete framework to explain the connection_between society and technology, while accounting_for the importance of technology, and recognizing_the complex interplay o f social_factors that impact the use_of technology._The ensuing discussion on social_shaping of technology_(SST) will_examine another theory_of technology that stands opposed to_technological determinism (Lievrouw,_2006). Critique of Social Determinism Contrast_to_the technological determinist_position._The_section on_Theoretical Framework in_Chapter_1 explained_that_the dissertation study leverages the critical_and_108 humanizing framework for educational technology proposed_by Strobel and TillbergWebb_(2009)._Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009)_emphasized as a starting point_the questioning of how assumptions about_technology may_correspond to_perspectives on the opposing sides of the scholarly debate between technological_determinism and social determinism. The previous_section presented a critique_of technological_determinism._The technological determinist_position_holds that_technology drives inevitable change in society (Leonardi,_2008), and_is the fundamental force for social_change (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb,_2009)._The competing perspective of social determinism_emphasizes 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). How_(2010) explained that determinism is about effects_and_causality, and stated technological determinism and_social_determinism are opposing positions that either_posit_technology_as the cause of social_change, or social factors as the_cause of technological change. Social shaping o f technology._In reaction to_technological determinism, scholarly work has_turned_to_investigating the interactions between technology and society (Yang, 2009). Rather_than accept_that technology develops_according to its own technical logic, scholars opposed to the_technological determinist position have turned to examining_the social processes involved in technological innovation (Williams & Edge, 1996)._In the literature, besides the term social determinism,