 technology. To assume that technology determines our choices presents a dilemma for responsible leadership, and Hofmann asserted "if we really are determined by technology in one way or another, it must mean that we have less responsibility for technology" (p. 2). Associated with technological determinism is a tendency to evaluate technology merely in terms of its functional efficiency, with technology in control, and overshadowing other human values including ethical considerations (Vermaas, Kroes, van de Poel, Franssen, & Houkes, 2011). Technological determinism is influenced by a technological rationality that assumes the best solution to any problem is the most technologically efficient one (Vermaas et al., 2011), with technology outside of ethical critique (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007; Vermaas et al., 2011). 2 Such a view is problematic for educational technology leadership, because technologies can be value laden and carry ethical implications (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, 2010). For example, the national framework for K-12 educational technology leadership addresses ethical considerations that are integral to responsible technology leadership, including Internet safety for students, computer security, equitable access to technology, copyright compliance, personal privacy, and environmental protection and energy saving practices (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). The qualitative study was guided by the work of Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) who presented a critical and humanizing framework for educational technology that emphasizes that integrating technology into educational practice should take into account the belief systems and values informing those choices. Strobel and TillbergWebb (2009) asserted that a questioning of assumptions about educational technology should begin by analyzing how philosophical views about technology may correspond to the perspectives of technological determinism or social determinism. Social determinism is the opposite perspective of technological determinism, and assumes 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). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) held that educators, researchers, and policy makers should critique their own beliefs and assumptions about technology, question deeper the connection between technology and human values, and engage in critical dialogue with other educators and students concerning such beliefs. 3 This chapter explores issues surrounding technological determinism for the field of educational technology, and highlights why questioning assumptions about technology, such as technological determin
technology. To assume that technology determines our option confront a dilemma for responsible leadership, and Hofmann asserted " if we really are determine by technology in one way or another, it must entail that we have less responsibility for engineering " (p. 2). consociate with technological determinism is a leaning to evaluate technology merely in term of its functional efficiency, with technology in control, and overshadowing other human values include ethical considerations (Vermaas, Kroes, van de Poel, Franssen, & Houkes, 2011). Technological determinism is influenced by a technical rationality that assumes the best solution to any trouble is the most technologically effective one (Vermaas et al. , 2011), with technology outside of ethical critique (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007; Vermaas et al. , 2011). 2 Such a view is problematic for educational technology leadership, because technologies can be value laden and impart ethical implications (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, 2010). For example, the national framework for K-12 educational technology leadership address ethical considerations that are integral to responsible technology leadership, including Internet safety for students, computer security, equitable access to engineering, copyright conformity, personal privacy, and environmental protection and department of energy preservation practice (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). The qualitative study was guided by the work of Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) who presented a critical and humanizing framework for educational technology that emphasizes that integrate technology into educational practice should take into account the belief systems and value informing those choices. Strobel and TillbergWebb (2009) asserted that a questioning of assumptions about educational engineering should begin by analyze how philosophic view about technology may correspond to the perspectives of technical determinism or social determinism. Social determinism is the opposite perspective of technological determinism, and assumes that technologies evolve and develop through being shaped by social processes, with the engineering fundamentally embed in social systems (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) held that educator, researchers, and policy makers should critique their own beliefs and assumption about technology, wonder deeper the connection between engineering and human values, and engage in critical dialogue with other educators and students concerning such beliefs. 3 This chapter explores issues surrounding technological determinism for the battlefield of educational technology, and highlights why question assumptions about technology, such as technological determin
 tefhnology. To assume that uechnology determnbes ouc choicss presevts a dilemma for responsiblx leqdersyip, and Hofmann assertdd "if we geally arw deuermined by technology in one wzn or cnither, it must kean that fe have less rasoousibility for technology" (p. 2). Associatqd with tfchnological dgtermpnysm js a tendency to evaluate technolofy mereny in terms og its functional efficiencj, wihh technology in clntrol, and iverfyadowing othdr human values includjng ethical considerations (Vermxas, Kxoes, van de Piel, Xranssen, & Hiukes, 2011). Technologigsl detarminisk is influencec bb a rechnological rationanity that assumes jhe best smlbtion to any problem us the kost tecfbolugidaklg effifieit one (Vermzas et al., 2011), qith technology outxiqv of ethical dritiqte (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007; Verkaaa et al., 2011). 2 Such a view iw problematic for edufational eechnology leadership, because technologies can be valux uadtn and zqrgy ethical implications (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consorejuk nor School Netwovking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Loerwnvg, 2010). For example, the ncfiknal framework for K-12 educwtionql technojogy leadership addresses ethicql consideranionw that are integrap to responriblg techmology leadership, inclubing Ihternet saffty for sfjdents, computer reclritf, equitable access to techgology, co'yrigkt complkancg, persogal privacj, and environmental protfctiou and energy saging practices (Consortium for Sriool Networkimg, 2011). Tve qualicative study was guyded by the wotk of Strjbel xnd Tillbegg-Webb (2009) wio presented a critical atf humanizing framewowk fir eeucatiovxl technology yhat emphcfizew that integrating tezgnology into edbeauiinal practice xhojld twkx intj account the belkef xysteos and valucs knfotming those choices. Vtrogel and TillbergWenb (2009) assertgd that a questioning pf assumptions abokt edncatioial tevhnjlogy should begin by analyzinf how phiposjphical viewf abiut technoloyy may correspond to the perspectives of technological dejerminism or social dgtevminism. Sociel detqrminism hs the opposite perspective of technokogical determinism, ahd assgmes hhat technologies evolve and develop through being shaped by social procewses, wmtr the technklogoes flndcmeutally qmbevdxd in social systvms (Kanuka, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg-Webu, 2009). Strobel aud Tillberg-Webb (2009) held that edicxtors, researcfers, and policy makers sgould crotique their own beliefs and asxumptions about technolony, questiin desper the cunnection between yechnonogy qnd humqn vwlues, and engxge ik critical diakoyue with other educators and studwnts cinferning such belmefs. 3 This cmakter exklores ifsues surroundinf tedjnoloeical determimism for the foeld of educational necrnology, and hitglights why auestioting assumptmons about tachnology, such as technological determin
technology. To assume that technology determines our a for responsible and Hofmann asserted by in one way another, it must that we have less responsibility for (p. 2). Associated with technological determinism is a tendency to evaluate technology merely terms of its functional efficiency, with technology in control, and overshadowing other human including considerations Kroes, de Poel, Franssen, & Houkes, 2011). Technological determinism is influenced by a technological rationality that assumes best solution to any problem is the most efficient one (Vermaas et 2011), with technology outside of critique & Reeves, Robinson McKnight, Vermaas et al., 2 Such a view is problematic for educational technology leadership, because technologies can be value laden and ethical implications Reeves, 2008; for Networking, Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, example, the national framework for K-12 addresses ethical considerations that are integral to responsible leadership, including safety for students, computer security, equitable to technology, copyright compliance, personal privacy, and environmental and energy saving practices (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). The qualitative study was guided by of Strobel and Tillberg-Webb who presented a and framework educational that emphasizes integrating technology into educational practice should take into account the belief and values informing those choices. Strobel and TillbergWebb (2009) asserted questioning assumptions about educational should begin by analyzing philosophical about technology may correspond perspectives technological determinism. determinism the opposite perspective of determinism, and assumes that technologies and develop through being the technologies fundamentally embedded in social systems (Kanuka, Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb held that educators, researchers, and policy makers should critique their own beliefs assumptions about deeper the connection between technology and human values, engage in critical dialogue other educators and students concerning such beliefs. 3 This explores surrounding technological for the field educational technology, and why questioning assumptions such as determin
 technology. To assume that tecHnology detErminEs oUr cHoIces PresEnts a dilemma foR RespOnsible leadership, and HoFmann AsSErteD "If We reaLly are dETeRMIneD bY tEchNoLOgY in onE waY or anotHer, it must mEan ThAt we have less REsPonsibilitY foR technology" (p. 2). assOciateD wIth TEchnoLogIcal dEtermiNIsm is a Tendency tO eVAluate TEchnoloGY MeRely In terms of its functIOnAL efficiency, witH technOlOGy IN ConTroL, and overshAdOwing OTher humAN vALUEs iNCluding ethicaL consideratIOns (vermaaS, KRoeS, Van de POel, FrAnSSen, & houkes, 2011). TechnOlogIcal deterMinism IS influeNCed by a tEchnolOgiCal RatiONaLiTy tHaT AssUMeS thE BesT solutioN tO aNy proBlem IS THE mosT teChnoLogicAlly efficient One (vermAAs eT al., 2011), wiTh tecHnolOgY outsIde of eThicaL cRitique (Amiel & ReeVes, 2008; RObinson & MckniGhT, 2007; VeRmAas et AL., 2011). 2 Such a VieW is ProblemAtic for EDucAtIONAl Technology leadershIp, BECaUse technOlogieS CaN bE Value ladEn And CarrY EThicaL impLIcAtions (AmIel & ReeVEs, 2008; coNsortiuM fOr SchoOl netWorKing, 2011; HOFmanN, 2006; LowraNce, 2010). For exAmple, THe national framEWork for K-12 educaTIoNAL tEChnoLogY leadership AddrESses EthiCAl ConSIderaTions ThAT aRE integral to responsiBlE technOlogy Leadership, incLuding InteRNET safety fOr stUDeNTs, computer secuRity, eQuitable acCEss to tecHnoloGy, copyriGht compliANCe, personAl pRivAcy, And ENViRonmental protECTion AnD energy SavIng pracTicEs (COnsOrtIuM for SchooL NetworkInG, 2011). THe QuAliTativE Study was GuIdeD bY thE work OF StrobEl and tillBeRg-wEbb (2009) Who presENtED A criTiCaL and HumAnIzing FramEWorK for eduCational tEchNOlogY tHaT emphasIzes that integRaTing technoLoGy iNto eduCATional prActice should take into accOUnt the bEliEf sysTems And values InfOrming ThoSE choicEs. StroBel anD TIllBERgWebB (2009) ASsErtEd That a questIONinG of asSuMptiOns abouT educational technoLOgy Should begin by AnaLyziNG HoW phILoSOphIcAL viEWS about technologY may corresPoND tO the perspeCTivEs Of technOlogicaL deteRMinism oR social deTerminism. soCial DETerMinism is thE oppositE perspectIVe of tEChNologIcaL deterMiNisM, and aSsumes 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). StrObel ANd TillberG-weBb (2009) hELD tHat educatorS, RESeaRcherS, anD Policy MakeRs should critique tHEir own beliefs aNd asSUMptIonS AbouT tEchnology, questIon DeEPEr the conNeCtion betweeN technolOgY And huMan valUes, and Engage iN CRiTIcal diAlogUe wIth other eDucAtORs and stUdEnTS conceRninG sUch belIefs. 3 ThIS chaPTEr explores issues SurroUNDing tEChnOlogiCaL determINism For the fielD of educatioNal tecHnolOgy, anD highliGhTs why qUesTiOning assumPTions abouT techNology, sUcH as tEchNologiCal dETErmin
 technology. To assume tha t technolo gy de ter min es  our  cho ices presentsa  dil emma for responsible l eader sh i p, a n dHofma nn asse r te d "if  w erea ll y  a re de ter mined b y technolo gyin  one way ora no ther, it m ust  mean that w e h ave le ss  re s ponsi bil ity f or tec h nology " (p. 2).  A s sociat e d witht e ch nolo gical determinism is a tendency toevalua te te c h nol ogy  merely in  t ermso f its f u nc t i o nal efficiency, w ith technol o gyin con tr ol, and ov ersha do w ing  other huma n va lues incl udinge thicalc onsider ations  (V erm aas, Kr oe s,va n  de Po el, Fra nssen, &  H ou kes,2011 ) . T echn olo gica l det erminism is i nfl uenc e d b y a t echno logi ca l rat ionali ty th at  assumes the be st s olution t o a ny  pr ob lem i s  the m ost  te chnolog icallye ffi ci e n t  o ne (Vermaas et al. ,2 0 11 ), withtechno l og yo utside o feth ical c ritiq ue ( A mi el & Ree ves, 2 0 08 ;Robinso n& McKn ig ht,  20 07; V e rmaa s et a l., 2011 ). 2S uch a view isp roblematic fo r  e d u ca t iona l t echnology l eade r ship , be c au set echno logie sc an be value laden andca rry et hical  implications  (Amiel &R e e ves, 200 8; C o ns o rtium for Scho ol Ne tworking,2 011; Hof mann,  2006; L owrance,2 0 10). For  ex amp le,  th e na tional framew o r k fo rK-12 ed uca tionaltec hno log y l ea dership a ddresses  e th ic al  co nside r ations t ha t a re  in tegra l  to re spons ible  t ec h nol ogy lea d er s h ip,in cl udin g I nt ernet  saf e tyfor stu dents, co mpu t er s ec ur ity, eq uitable acces sto technol og y,copyri g h t compli ance, personal privacy, and env iro nment al p rotection  an d ener gys avingpracti ces ( Co nso r t ium f o r  S cho ol  Networkin g ,  20 11).Th e qu alitati ve study was guide d  by  the work ofStr obel a nd  Ti l lb e rg- We b b ( 2 0 09) who present ed a criti ca l  a nd humaniz i ngfr amework  for ed ucati o nal tec hnology t hat empha si zest h atintegratin g techno logy into educa t io nal p rac tice s ho uld  take  intoa cco unt t he bel ie f syst ems a nd  valuesinforming those choices . Stro bel a ndTillbergW ebb (20 09) asser tedthat a que sti oni ng of  as s umpti onsa bo ute ducat iona l  technolo g ysho u l dbegin by an a l y zin g how  ph i losoph ical  views about tech n ology may corr espo n d  to  th e  per sp ectives of tec hno lo g i cal dete rm inism or so cial det er m inism . Soci al det erminis m is the op posi teperspecti veof technol og ic a l dete rmin is m, and  assum e s th a t  technologies ev olvea n d dev e lop  thro ug h being shap ed by soci al processe s, wit h th e tec hnologi es  funda men ta lly embedd e d in soci al sy stems ( Ka nuka , 2 008; S trob e l  & Ti llbe rg -We bb, 2009) . St r ob el and  Til lberg -W ebb(2009) he l d that e duc a tors, r es ear c h ers, a n dp o licy maker s s hould c ritique th e ir o w nb elief s andassump tions a b out  t echnolo gy, q uestion d eeper the con ne ctio n betwee ntech no log yand human value s, and e ngage in c ritica l d i alog u e with  o ther educato rs an ds tudents c onc ernings uch  be lie fs.3 T hisc hapter explores issues s urro undin g  te chnol ogica ldetermin i sm f or the f i eld of educat ional technolog y , a n d hi ghl i gh ts  why ques tio n ing a ssum pti onsabo ut t e c hnol o gy,s uc h as  techn olog ic al  determin 
 technology._To assume_that technology determines our_choices presents_a_dilemma for_responsible_leadership, and Hofmann_asserted "if we_really are determined by_technology in one_way_or another, it must mean that we have less responsibility for technology" (p. 2)._Associated_with technological_determinism_is_a tendency to evaluate technology_merely in terms of its_functional efficiency,_with technology in control, and overshadowing other human_values_including ethical considerations_(Vermaas, Kroes, van de Poel, Franssen, & Houkes, 2011)._Technological determinism is influenced by a_technological rationality that_assumes_the_best solution to any_problem is the most technologically efficient_one (Vermaas et al., 2011), with_technology outside of ethical critique (Amiel &_Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007;_Vermaas et al., 2011). 2_Such a_view is problematic for educational_technology leadership, because_technologies can_be value laden_and carry ethical implications (Amiel &_Reeves, 2008; Consortium_for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006;_Lowrance,_2010). For example,_the_national_framework for_K-12 educational technology_leadership_addresses ethical_considerations_that are integral to responsible technology_leadership,_including Internet safety for students, computer security,_equitable access to technology,_copyright_compliance, personal privacy, and_environmental protection and energy saving_practices (Consortium for School Networking, 2011)._The qualitative_study was_guided by the work of Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) who presented_a critical and humanizing framework for_educational technology that emphasizes_that integrating_technology_into educational practice_should_take into_account the belief systems and values informing_those choices._Strobel and TillbergWebb (2009) asserted that_a questioning of assumptions_about_educational technology should begin by analyzing_how philosophical views about technology may_correspond to the perspectives of_technological_determinism_or social determinism. Social determinism_is the opposite perspective of technological_determinism, and assumes_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). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb_(2009) held that educators, researchers, and_policy makers should critique their own beliefs and assumptions_about technology, question_deeper the connection between technology_and_human_values, and engage in critical dialogue with other educators and_students concerning_such beliefs. 3_This chapter explores issues surrounding technological determinism for the field_of educational technology, and highlights why questioning_assumptions about technology, such as technological determin