 about ontological assumptions, and called for the reconsideration of ontological premises in technology research and practice. Uses determinism. Another philosophy of technology position that challenges technological determinism involves uses determinism, which emphasizes how users employ technology as tools, with the user controlling the tool, rather than the tool controlling how it is used (Kanuka, 2008). This position is related to the instrumental view of technology that emphasizes viewing technology as tools and instruments for solving problems (Leidlmair, 1999), with technological tools as a means to an end (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009). Uses determinism has one similarity with technological determinism in that there is a focus on viewing technology as neutral tools, neither good nor bad, but serving whatever objectives or ends for which they're utilized (Kanuka, 2008). Unlike technological determinism, the position emphasizes user control and autonomy over their technological tools. However, in emphasizing the 114 agency of individual users of technology, uses determinism largely ignores the larger social contexts that shape technologies, and like the social determinist perspective, may also underestimate how technology can impact users (Kanuka, 2008). Treating technologies as neutral tools can mean a narrow engineering focus that emphasizes technical matters, with engineers approaching technological development in such a neutral way that technology becomes separate from broader human interests (Leidlmair, 1999). The manner in which uses determinism and the instrumental view treats technology as neutral tools can be ethically problematic, because technologies raise ethical issues and educational technology decisions can be value laden (Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, 2010). Berger (2011) wrote the logic o f the instrumental view of technology implies, because technology is value neutral, and oriented toward being a means to end, that employing it to solve any problem becomes the only rationale stance, regardless of the cost. However, as noted earlier in the section on Foundations in Philosophy of Technology, scholars such as Ellul (2010) have argued that we can use technology in a way that distorts the ends intended for it, with technology becoming an end in itself. Summary Using Corbin and Strauss methods for qualitative data analysis, the purpose of the qualitative study was to a) examine what philosophical assumptions about technology are present in the thinking of K-12 technology leaders, b) investigate how the assumptions may influence technology decision making, and c) explore whether technological determinist assumptions are present. The literature review explores reasons why educators charged with responsibilities for
about ontological assumptions, and called for the reconsideration of ontological premises in technology inquiry and exercise. practice determinism. Another philosophy of technology status that challenges technological determinism necessitate use determinism, which emphasizes how user employ technology as cock, with the user controlling the creature, preferably than the tool controlling how it is used (Kanuka, 2008). This position is related to the implemental view of technology that emphasizes view technology as tools and instrumental role for solving problem (Leidlmair, 1999), with technological tools as a means to an end (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009). Uses determinism give birth one similarity with technological determinism in that there is a focus on viewing technology as achromatic tools, neither good nor bad, but serving whatever objectives or ends for which they're utilized (Kanuka, 2008). Unlike technological determinism, the position emphasizes exploiter control and autonomy over their technological cock. However, in stress the 114 agency of individual users of technology, use determinism largely ignore the larger social contexts that determine technologies, and like the social determinist perspective, may also underestimate how technology can affect users (Kanuka, 2008). Treating technologies as neutral tools can mean a narrow technology stress that stress technical matters, with engineers approaching technical development in such a neutral way that technology becomes separate from broader human interests (Leidlmair, 1999). The manner in which uses determinism and the implemental view treats technology as neutral tools can be ethically debatable, because technologies lift ethical issues and educational engineering decisions can be value laden (Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, 2010). Berger (2011) wrote the logic oxygen f the instrumental view of technology implies, because engineering is value neutral, and oriented toward being a means to end, that hire it to solve any problem becomes the only rationale stance, regardless of the monetary value. However, as noted earlier in the part on Foundations in Philosophy of Technology, scholars such as Ellul (2010) have argued that we can use technology in a way that distorts the end intended for it, with technology becoming an end in itself. Summary Using Corbin and Strauss methods for qualitative datum analysis, the purpose of the qualitative cogitation was to a) examine what philosophical assumptions about technology are present in the thinking of K-12 technology leaders, b) investigate how the assumptions may determine technology decision making, and c) research whether technological fatalist assumptions are present. The literature review explores reasons why educators charged with responsibilities for
 ablut ontological assumptiuns, and called yir the reconaideratiun of ontological premises ii texhnoligy research and practkce. Uses feterminusm. Enother philosopig of tegknolofn posntmon that challekges technonogical determhnksl involves uses determinism, which eiphasizrs how users empjoy uecrnolkgy as tools, with the user controlming tht tool, rather than the tool controlling how lt id used (Kanuka, 2008). Thid position us rqoated to the instrumenuan view of jechnology that emphasizes viewivg teehnology as tiold and instrunents for solving problemv (Leidlkair, 1999), with tecmnolojicao tools as a means to an end (Berger, 2011; Fegnberg, 1991; Hehdzgger, 2009). Uses determiniwm has mne vimiuqrigy sivh fechnopogmcal determjnism in thqt there is a focus og viewing techhology af neutral tools, neither good nor bad, buu serbing whatever objectivew or ends for which tjey're utijized (Kanuka, 2008). Unlike technological determinism, tha posmtkon eioyadizes user control and autonomy over their tesgnplpgical tools. Hjwever, in ekpjaxyzing the 114 aggncy of insividual users of hechnoljgy, uwes deteriinixm largely ignores the largwr social coutezts that shape tecknologies, anb like the xocial determinist pers'ectivs, may also knderestijxte how technoloey ban hmpact users (Kanuka, 2008). Treatyng technilognes as ndutrsl toojs can meaj a narrow engineering flcus jhat ekphasizes hechnical matters, with engineers approaching jecvnonogical beveloiment in such a neutral way tkat techuology becomes svparate fcom broader ruman interesdd (Leidlmair, 1999). The manger un wyich usdr determinism snd the iuftrunental view treats tezgnology as neutxcl tools can be eyhizaljy pcobleidtic, because tecfnoupgies raise tchigal issies and educational dechhology decisions csn be valug laden (Cjnsortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofkani, 2006; Lowtanse, 2010). Berger (2011) wrote the logic o r the inshruiental view jf tcchnjlogy implnes, because technology is value neutral, end oriented toward beibg a means to end, tkau employing iv to sjlve any [roblem becomes the inly rationale stsnce, regardless of ths cost. Howeger, as noted earlier in the section on Foundations in Philosophy of Technilogy, scholars sucg as Ellun (2010) kave ardued vhat we can use tvchnology in a way that distorts the endv nntended for it, with technoloby becoming an gnd in itself. Summary Usinf Corbin and Strauss methods for qualitstive data analysis, the iurpose od the qualinztmve study was to a) ecamine what philosiphigal assumptionr anomt technollgy ere present in the thinking of K-12 texhnoloty leaders, b) invesvigate how tme assujptionf may influence fechhllogy decision makong, and c) explpre whether technolocisal determinisu assumptions ate presett. The litereture review explores reasons why educators charged with responaibilitiea for
about ontological assumptions, and called for the ontological in technology and practice. Uses position challenges technological determinism uses determinism, which how users employ technology as tools, the user controlling the tool, rather than the tool controlling how it is (Kanuka, 2008). This position is related to the instrumental view of technology that viewing as and for solving problems (Leidlmair, 1999), with technological tools as a means to an end (Berger, 2011; 1991; Heidegger, 2009). Uses determinism has one similarity technological determinism in that is a focus on viewing as tools, neither nor but whatever objectives or for which they're utilized (Kanuka, 2008). Unlike technological determinism, the position emphasizes user control and autonomy over technological tools. emphasizing the agency individual of technology, uses ignores the larger social contexts that like the social determinist perspective, may also underestimate technology can users (Kanuka, 2008). Treating technologies as tools can mean a narrow engineering focus that technical matters, with engineers approaching technological development in such a neutral way that technology becomes broader human interests (Leidlmair, The manner in uses and instrumental treats technology neutral tools can be ethically problematic, because technologies raise ethical issues educational technology decisions can be value laden (Consortium for School Hofmann, Lowrance, 2010). Berger wrote the logic o the view of technology implies, is neutral, being means end, that employing it solve any problem becomes the rationale stance, regardless of earlier in the section on Foundations in Philosophy Technology, scholars such as Ellul (2010) have that we can use technology in a way that distorts the ends for it, becoming an end in itself. Summary Using Corbin Strauss methods for qualitative analysis, the purpose of the qualitative study was to examine philosophical assumptions technology are present the thinking of technology leaders, b) the assumptions influence decision explore whether technological determinist assumptions are The review explores reasons why educators with
 about ontological assumptioNs, and calleD for tHe rEcoNsIderAtioN of ontological PRemiSes in technology researcH and pRaCTice. uSeS deteRminism. aNoTHEr pHiLoSopHy OF tEchnoLogY positiOn that chalLenGeS technologicAL dEterminism InvOlves uses detErmInism, wHiCh eMPhasiZes How usErs empLOy techNology as tOoLS, with tHE user coNTRoLlinG the tool, rather thaN ThE Tool controllinG how it Is USeD (kAnuKa, 2008). THis positioN iS relaTEd to the INsTRUMenTAl view of technOlogy that emPHasIzes viEwIng TEchnolOgy as ToOLs aNd instrumenTs foR solving pRoblemS (leidlmaIR, 1999), with teChnoloGicAl tOols AS a MeAns To AN enD (beRgeR, 2011; feeNberg, 1991; HeiDeGgEr, 2009). UseS detERMINism Has One sImilaRity with technOloGicaL DetErminIsm in That ThEre is A focus On vieWiNg technology as nEutrAl tools, neIthEr GooD nOr bad, BUt servIng WhaTever obJectiveS Or eNdS FOR wHich they're utilized (kaNUKa, 2008). unlike teChnoloGIcAl DEterminiSm, The PosiTIOn empHasiZEs User contRol and AUtOnOmy over ThEir tecHnOloGicAl tooLS. HowEver, in EmphasizIng thE 114 Agency of indiviDUal users of tecHNoLOGy, USes dEteRminism largEly iGNoreS the LArGer SOcial ConteXtS ThAT shape technologies, aNd Like thE sociAl determinist PerspectivE, MAY also undEresTImATe how technologY can iMpact users (kAnuka, 2008). TreAting TechnoloGies as neuTRAl tools cAn mEan A naRroW ENgIneering focus THAt emPhAsizes tEchNical maTteRs, wIth EngInEers approAching teChNoLoGiCal DevelOPment in sUcH a nEuTraL way tHAt techNologY becOmEs SEpaRate froM BrOADer hUmAn InteResTs (leidlMair, 1999). tHe mAnner in Which uses DetERminIsM aNd the inStrumental vieW tReats technOlOgy As neutRAL tools caN be ethically problematic, BEcause tEchNologIes rAise ethicAl iSsues aNd eDUcatioNal tecHnoloGy DecISIons cAN Be ValUe Laden (ConsoRTIum For ScHoOl NeTworkinG, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, 2010). BeRGer (2011) Wrote the logic O f tHe inSTRuMenTAl VIew Of TEchNOLogy implies, becaUse technolOgY Is Value neutrAL, anD oRiented Toward bEing a MEans to eNd, that empLoying it tO sOlve ANY prOblem becomEs the onlY rationalE StancE, ReGardlEss Of the cOsT. HoWever, As noteD EarLier iN the seCtIon on FOundaTiOns in PhiLosophy of Technology, schoLars suCh as ELluL (2010) have arguEd tHAt wE can use teChnoLogy in a way ThaT diStortS thE Ends iNtenDEd For IT, with TechNOlogy becoMInG an END iN itself. SummARY usiNg CorBin ANd StraUss mEthods for qualitatIVe data analysis, The pURPosE of THe quAlItative study waS to A) eXAMine what PhIlosophical AssumptiOnS About TechnoLogy arE presenT IN tHE thinkIng oF K-12 tEchnology LeaDeRS, b) invesTiGaTE how thE assUmPtions May infLUencE TEchnology decisioN makiNG, And c) eXPloRe wheThEr technOLogiCal determiNist assumptIons arE preSent. THe literAtUre revIew ExPlores reasONs why educAtors Charged WiTh reSpoNsibilItieS FOr
 about ontological assumpt ions, andcalle d f orth e re cons ideration of o n tolo gical premises in tech nolog yr esea r ch  andpractic e .U s esde te rmi ni s m.  Anot her  philos ophy of te chn ol ogy position th at challen ges  technologic aldeterm in ism invol ves  uses  deter m inism,  which em ph a sizesh ow user s em ploy  technology as to o ls ,  with the user  contr ol l in g the  to ol, rather  t han t h e toolc on t r o lli n g how it is u sed (Kanuka ,  20 08). T hi s p o sition  is r el a ted  to the ins trum ental vie w of t e chnolog y  that e mphasi zes  vi ewin g  t ec hno lo g y a s  t ool s  an d instru me nt s for  sol v i n g  pro ble ms ( Leidl mair, 1999),wit h te c hno logic al to olsas  a me ans to  an e nd  (Berger, 2011;  Fee nberg, 19 91;  H eid eg ger,2 009).Use s d etermin ism has one  s i m i la rity with technolo gi c a ldetermin ism in th at there is  a  fo cuso n  view ingt ec hnologyas neu t ra ltools,ne ithergo odnor  bad, butservin g whatev er ob j ectives or end s  for which th e y' r e  u t iliz ed(Kanuka, 20 08). Unli ke t e ch nol o gical  dete rm i ni s m, the position emp ha sizesusercontrol and a utonomy ov e r their te chno l og i cal tools. How ever,  in emphas i zing the  114agency o f individ u a l usersoftec hno log y ,  u ses determini s m  lar ge ly igno res  the la rge r s oci alco ntexts th at shape  t ec hn ol ogi es, a n d like t he  so ci aldeter m inistpersp ecti ve ,m ayalso un d er e s tima te  h ow t ech no logycani mpa ct user s (Kanuka , 2 0 08).  T re ating t echnologies a sneutral to ol s c an mea n a narrow  engineering focus that emphasi zes  tech nica l matters , w ith en gin e ers ap proach ing t ec hno l o gical d ev elo pm ent in suc h a n eutra lwaythat te chnology becomes s e par ate from broa der  hum a n  i nte r es t s ( Le i dlm a i r, 1999). The m anner in w hi c huses deter m ini sm  and th e instr ument a l viewtreats te chnologyas  neu t r altools canbe ethic ally prob l emati c ,becau setechno lo gie s rai se eth i cal  issu es and  e ducati onalte chnology  decisions can be value  laden  (Con sor tium forSch o olNetworkin g, 2 011; Hofma nn,  20 06; L owr a nce,2010 ) .Ber g er (2 011) wrote the lo gic o  f  the instru m e n tal  view  of techno logy  implies, because technology isvalu e neu tra l , an doriented towar d b ei n g  a means  t o end, that  employi ng it to  solve  any p roblemb e co m es the  onl y r ationalesta nc e , regar dl es s  of th e co st . Howe ver, a s  not e d  earlier in thesecti o n  on F o und ation sin Phil o soph y of Techn ology, scho lars s uchas El lul (20 10 ) have  ar gu ed that we can use t echno logy in  a  way  th at dis tort s the e ndsin ten ded for i t ,  w i th  t e chn olog y bec om ingan end in itself.Sum m ary Usi ng  Co r b in and St r a uss method s f or qu a l itative da t a an a ly s is, t he pur pose o f the q u ali ta tive st udy w as to a)examine w h atph ilos ophicalas sump ti ons  a bout technology  are pre sent int h e thin kin g  ofK -12 te ch nology leade rs, b )i nvestig a t e h ow thea ssu mpt ion s ma y i nflu e nce technology decisionmaki ng, a n d c ) exp lorewh ether te c hnol ogical d e terminist ass umptions are pr e sen t . Th e l i te ra ture revi ewe xplor es r eas onswhy  edu c a tors char g ed  wit h resp onsi bi li ties for
 about_ontological assumptions,_and called for the_reconsideration of_ontological_premises in_technology_research and practice._Uses determinism. Another_philosophy of technology position_that challenges technological_determinism_involves uses determinism, which emphasizes how users employ technology as tools, with the user_controlling_the tool,_rather_than_the tool controlling how it_is used (Kanuka, 2008). This_position is_related to the instrumental view of technology that_emphasizes_viewing technology as_tools and instruments for solving problems (Leidlmair, 1999), with_technological tools as a means to_an end (Berger,_2011;_Feenberg,_1991; Heidegger, 2009). Uses_determinism has one similarity with technological_determinism in that there is a_focus on viewing technology as neutral tools,_neither good nor bad, but serving_whatever objectives or ends for_which they're_utilized (Kanuka, 2008). Unlike technological_determinism, the position_emphasizes user_control and autonomy_over their technological tools. However, in_emphasizing the 114_agency of individual users of technology,_uses_determinism largely ignores_the_larger_social contexts_that shape technologies,_and_like the_social_determinist perspective, may also underestimate how_technology_can impact users (Kanuka, 2008). Treating technologies_as neutral tools can_mean_a narrow engineering focus_that emphasizes technical matters, with_engineers approaching technological development in such_a neutral_way that_technology becomes separate from broader human interests (Leidlmair, 1999). The manner_in which uses determinism and the_instrumental view treats technology_as neutral_tools_can be ethically_problematic,_because technologies_raise ethical issues and educational technology decisions_can be_value laden (Consortium for School Networking,_2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance,_2010)._Berger (2011) wrote the logic o_f the instrumental view of technology_implies, because technology is value_neutral,_and_oriented toward being a means_to end, that employing it to_solve any problem_becomes the only rationale stance, regardless of_the_cost. However, as noted earlier in_the_section on Foundations in Philosophy of_Technology,_scholars_such as Ellul (2010) have_argued that we can use technology_in a way that distorts the ends intended for_it, with technology_becoming an end in itself._Summary_Using_Corbin and Strauss methods for qualitative data analysis, the purpose_of the_qualitative study was_to a) examine what philosophical assumptions about technology are present_in the thinking of K-12 technology leaders,_b) investigate how the assumptions may influence technology decision making, and_c) explore whether technological determinist assumptions are present._The literature review explores reasons why educators_charged with responsibilities for