 terms such as social shaping of technology (SST) or social construction of technology (SCOT) have also been used (M. Oliver, 2011; Williams & Edge, 1996). SST and SCOT have generally been taken to be equivalent (Williams & Edge, 1996), and this position emphasizes how technological 109 artifacts are shaped or constructed in social settings, with no specific technological outcome being inevitable (Smith, 2006; Williams & Edge, 1996). SST rejects the premise that technology is value neutral or has its own autonomy, and emphasizes human decision making and action, and the need to formulate policies to guide technology development so that the benefits of technology are more humanistic (Lievrouw, 2006). Pedersen (2001) considered the question of technological determinism within education and whether technology has internal logic of its own. Petersen (2001) discussed that the SST position sees technology as being shaped by interplay of social, cultural, and historical factors, and pointed out how social forces and groups outside o f education, including vendors and public officials, are influential in advocating for technology. Fisher (2006) examined the social shaping of technology, and asserted that many dynamics shape technology, including science, technology, economics, and the state as a social institution. However, M. Oliver (2011) asserted that research from a SCOT perspective is mostly absent from instructional technology literature. Slack and Wise (2006) considered a range o f issues concerned with technology and society, including whether or not technology drives social change, the question of human dependence on technology, and the connection between technology and values. Slack and Wise (2006) held that technological determinism and the position that technology is value neutral should be rejected, and stated we are not slaves to technology. Pedersen (2001) suggested that moving away from technological determinism to a socially constructed view of technology would promote a broader public debate on the role of technology in education. Pedersen (2001) asserted that technology is neither 110 good, bad, or neutral but can have both good and bad consequences, including some unintended. Weaknesses o f social determinism. A dilemma for the social shaping of technology perspective is that a recognition of unintended consequences o f technology means addressing a phenomenon that can be considered an account of technological determinism (Bimber, 1994; Pedersen, 2001). While focusing on the social construction of technology, the social shaping view may downplay the real impact that technologies may have in shaping practice (M. Oliver, 2011). Wyatt
terms such as social shaping of technology (SST) or social construction of engineering (SCOT) have besides been practice (M. Oliver, 2011; Williams & Edge, 1996). SST and SCOT have generally been taken to be equivalent (Williams & Edge, 1996), and this status emphasizes how technological 109 artifact are shaped or constructed in social settings, with no specific technical result being inevitable (Smith, 2006; Williams & Edge, 1996). SST rejects the premise that engineering is value neutral or has its own autonomy, and emphasizes human decision devising and action, and the need to formulate policies to guide engineering development so that the benefits of technology are more humanist (Lievrouw, 2006). Pedersen (2001) considered the question of technical determinism within education and whether engineering has internal logic of its own. Petersen (2001) discussed that the SST position sees technology as being shape by interplay of social, cultural, and historical factors, and pointed out how social forces and groups outside o f education, including vendors and public officials, are influential in advocating for technology. Fisher (2006) examined the social shaping of technology, and asserted that many dynamics human body technology, including skill, engineering, economics, and the state as a social institution. However, M. Oliver (2011) asserted that research from a SCOT position is mostly lacking from instructional technology literature. Slack and Wise (2006) considered a compass o f issues concerned with technology and society, including whether or not technology drives social change, the question of human dependence on engineering, and the connection between engineering and values. Slack and Wise (2006) held that technological determinism and the position that technology is value achromatic should be rejected, and stated we are not slaves to engineering. Pedersen (2001) suggested that move away from technological determinism to a socially construct view of engineering would promote a broader public debate on the role of technology in department of education. Pedersen (2001) asserted that technology is neither 110 good, bad, or achromatic but can have both good and regretful consequences, including some unintended. Weaknesses o f social determinism. A dilemma for the social shaping of technology perspective is that a recognition of unintended consequences o f technology means addressing a phenomenon that can be considered an history of technological determinism (Bimber, 1994; Pedersen, 2001). While focusing on the social structure of technology, the social shaping view may downplay the real impact that technologies may receive in shaping practice (M. Oliver, 2011). Wyatt
 tegms such as social shapikg of technology (SST) or sociam constrjction of technology (SCOT) hate aoso btvn used (M. Oliver, 2011; Wiluiams & Edhe, 1996). SST qnd WXOT have gxherally been fwken vo be equivalenj (Williams & Adge, 1996), and this pusntion emphasizes how technological 109 wrtifacys are shaped or conxerucfvd in social settings, with no slecific technologicak outcome being inevitable (Smihh, 2006; Williams & Edge, 1996). SST rejecja trw premise thxt technology is value neutral or has its own autonomh, and emphasizew yumwt decision nakind and action, and the need tp formulate pokicmes ro guide technology dxvelopment so that tre benefids of technology arw nore vumatistkx (Lkevdonw, 2006). Pederden (2001) considersd the quesrion of technologicsl eeterminism wjthin qdtcation and whether technology has integnal logic of its own. Peterwen (2001) discussed that tje SST pofition sees technology as being shaped by interpldy of rocnql, cuurugal, and historical factors, and pointed out hor spcpal forces and grjups outsidr l g education, inzludiny vsndors and public lfficiajs, arw influenuial on advocating for technologt. Fisher (2006) excmibed the social sha'ing of techuology, and ssserted that many dynaoics shape techjology, induuding science, tdchkolmgy, economics, and the statq as a sorial nnstitutkon. Nowevew, M. Oliver (2011) asscsted that research from a SCOT persoective is mostly absent from iixtructional jecvnonogy litzraturc. Slack and Wisq (2006) considered c range j f irsues concvrned witi technology and society, hjcluding whevher or njt twchnilogy dfkves social chsnge, the question od human dependence on fechnology, and cke connection beteeev tqcjnpljcy and valuev. Slxck snd Wkse (2006) held tmat tecnnological determinivm ahd the position thst technoligy is vwlue neutral xhould be rejected, and vtaved we arg not slaves to technology. Pededsen (2001) sughesbed that movigg aqay from tecknological determinism to a socially conwtructed view of jechnology would prompue a broader 'ublic debate ot the role of technooogy in education. Pedersen (2001) asserted tgat tewhnollgy is neither 110 good, bad, or neutral but can have both good and bad conseqyences, including skme inintvndzd. Ceaknesfes l f social determpnism. A dilemma for the social siaping of deehnology perspective is that s fecognition ow unintended consequencea o f tevhnology means addressing a phemomenon that can be consldered an accohnt of tecinological determinixm (Bimyer, 1994; Pwdersen, 2001). Whlle focusing ov tne social clnstcuccion of technology, the social shaping vuea may downplay tie real impagt that technjlogies may have in ajapine practice (M. Pliver, 2011). Wyatt
terms such as social shaping of technology social of technology have also been & 1996). SST and have generally been to be equivalent (Williams & Edge, and this position emphasizes how technological 109 artifacts are shaped or constructed in settings, with no specific technological outcome being inevitable (Smith, 2006; Williams & Edge, SST the that is value neutral or has its own autonomy, and emphasizes human decision making and action, and need to formulate policies to guide technology development that the benefits of are more humanistic (Lievrouw, 2006). (2001) the question technological within and whether technology internal logic of its own. Petersen (2001) discussed that the SST position sees technology as being shaped interplay of and historical and out social forces and o f education, including vendors and influential in advocating for technology. Fisher (2006) examined social shaping technology, and asserted that many dynamics technology, including science, technology, economics, and the state a social institution. However, M. Oliver (2011) asserted that research from a SCOT perspective is from instructional technology literature. and Wise (2006) a o issues with technology society, including whether or not technology drives social change, the question human dependence on technology, and the connection between technology and and (2006) held that determinism and the position technology value neutral should be stated are technology. (2001) that moving away from determinism to a socially constructed of technology would promote the role of technology in education. Pedersen (2001) that technology is neither 110 good, bad, neutral but can have both good and bad consequences, including some unintended. o f A dilemma for the social shaping of technology is that a recognition unintended consequences o f technology means addressing a phenomenon can considered an of technological determinism 1994; Pedersen, 2001). focusing on the of technology, social view real impact that technologies may have shaping (M. Oliver, 2011). Wyatt
 terms such as social shaping oF technologY (SST) oR soCiaL cOnstRuctIon of technologY (sCOT) Have also been used (M. OliveR, 2011; WillIaMS & EdgE, 1996). sSt and ScOT have GEnERAllY bEeN taKeN To Be equIvaLent (WilLiams & Edge, 1996), aNd tHiS position empHAsIzes how tecHnoLogical 109 artifActS are shApEd oR ConstRucTed in Social SEttingS, with no spEcIFic tecHNologicAL OuTcomE being inevitable (SMItH, 2006; williams & Edge, 1996). SSt rejecTs THe PREmiSe tHat technolOgY is vaLUe neutrAL oR HAS itS Own autonomy, anD emphasizes HUmaN decisIoN maKIng and ActioN, aND thE need to formUlatE policies To guidE TechnolOGy develOpment So tHat The bENeFiTs oF tEChnOLoGy aRE moRe humaniStIc (lievrOuw, 2006). PEDERSen (2001) cOnsIderEd the Question of tecHnoLogiCAl dEtermInism WithIn EducaTion anD whetHeR technology has iNterNal logic oF itS oWn. PEtErsen (2001) DIscussEd tHat The SST pOsition SEes TeCHNOlOgy as being shaped by InTERpLay of socIal, culTUrAl, ANd historIcAl fActoRS, And poInteD OuT how sociAl forcES aNd Groups oUtSide o f EdUcaTioN, inclUDing VendorS and publIc offICials, are influeNTial in advocatINg FOR tEChnoLogY. Fisher (2006) examIned THe soCial SHaPinG Of tecHnoloGy, ANd ASserted that many dynaMiCs shapE techNology, includiNg science, tECHNology, ecOnomICs, ANd the state as a sOcial InstitutioN. however, M. oliveR (2011) asserteD that reseARCh from a ScOT PerSpeCtiVE Is Mostly absent fROM insTrUctionaL teChnologY liTerAtuRe. SLaCk and Wise (2006) ConsiderEd A rAnGe O f iSsues COncerned WiTh tEcHnoLogy aND socieTy, incLudiNg WhETheR or not tEChNOLogy DrIvEs soCiaL cHange, The qUEstIon of huMan dependEncE On teChNoLogy, and The connection BeTween technOlOgy And valUES. Slack anD Wise (2006) held that technologiCAl deterMinIsm anD the Position tHat TechnoLogY Is valuE neutrAl shoUlD be REJecteD, ANd StaTeD we are not sLAVes To tecHnOlogY. PedersEn (2001) suggested that movINg aWay from technoLogIcal DETeRmiNIsM To a SoCIalLY Constructed view Of technoloGy WOuLd promote a BRoaDeR public Debate oN the rOLe of tecHnology in Education. peDersEN (2001) AssErted that tEchnologY is neitheR 110 Good, bAD, oR neutRal But can HaVe bOth goOd and bAD coNsequEnces, iNcLuding Some uNiNtended. WEaknesses o f social determInism. A DilemMa fOr the sociAl sHApiNg of technOlogY perspectiVe iS thAt a reCogNItion Of unINtEndED consEqueNCes o f techNOlOgy MEAnS addressing A PHEnoMenon ThaT Can be cOnsiDered an account of tEChnological detErmiNISm (BImbER, 1994; PedErSen, 2001). While focusiNg oN tHE Social coNsTruction of tEchnologY, tHE sociAl shapIng vieW may dowNPLaY The reaL impAct That technOloGiES may havE iN sHAping pRactIcE (M. OlivEr, 2011). WyatT
 terms such as social shap ing of tec hnolo gy(SS T)  orsoci al constructio n  oftechnology (SCOT) have  also  b e en u s ed  (M.Oliver, 20 1 1 ; W il li ams  & Ed ge, 1 996 ). SSTand SCOT h ave  g enerally bee n  t aken to be  eq uivalent (Wi lli ams &Ed ge, 1996) , a nd th is pos i tion e mphasizes  h o w tech n ologica l 10 9 ar tifacts are shape d  o r  constructed i n soci al se t t ing s,with no sp ec ifict echnolo g ic a l out c ome being ine vitable (Sm i th,  2006;  W ill i ams &Edge,  1 9 96) . SST rejec ts t he premis e that technol o gy is v alue n eut ral  orh as  i tsow n  au t on omy ,  an d emphas iz es  huma n de c i s i on m aki ng a nd ac tion, and the  ne ed t o  fo rmula te po lici es  to g uide t echno lo gy developmentso t hat the b ene fi tsof  tech n ologyare  mo re huma nistic( Lie vr o u w ,2006). Pedersen (2 00 1 )  c onsidere d theq ue st i on of te ch nol ogic a l  dete rmin i sm  withineducat i on  a nd whet he r tech no log y h as in t erna l logi c of its  own. Petersen (2001 )  discussed th a tt h eS ST p osi tion sees t echn o logy  asb ei ngs haped  by i nt e rp l ay of social, cultu ra l, and  hist orical factor s, and poi n t e d out ho w so c ia l  forces and gr oupsoutside of  educati on, i ncluding  vendorsa n d public  of fic ial s,a r einfluential i n advo ca ting fo r t echnolo gy.  Fi she r ( 20 06) exami ned theso ci al  s hap ing o f  technol og y,an d a ssert e d that  many  dyn am ic s  sh ape tec h no l o gy,in cl udin g s ci ence,  tec h nol ogy, ec onomics,and thest at e as asocial instit ut ion. Howev er , M . Oliv e r  (2011)asserted that researchf rom a S COT  pers pect ive is mo stl y abse ntf rom in struct ional  t ech n o logyl i te rat ur e. Slack a n d  Wi se (2 00 6) c onsider ed a range o f iss u esconcerned wit h t echn o l og y a n ds oci et y , i n c luding whetheror not tec hn o lo gy drivess oci al  change , the q uesti o n of hu man depen dence onte chno l o gy,  and the c onnectio n between techn o lo gy an d v alues.  S lac k and  Wise( 200 6) he ld tha ttechno logic al  determi nism and the position t hat te chnol ogy  is value  ne u tra l shouldbe r ejected, a ndsta ted w e a r e not  sla v es  to techn olog y . Pederse n  ( 200 1 )  s uggested th a t mov ing a way from t echn ological determin i sm to a social ly c o n str uct e d vi ew  of technology  wo ul d promoteabroader pub lic deba te on th e role  of te chnolog y in educat ion.  Pe dersen (2 001 )a sserted  t ha t  techn olog yis nei ther 1 1 0 go o d , bad, or neutra l but c an ha v e b oth g oo d and b a d co nsequences , including  someunin tende d. Weak ne sses o  fso cial deter m inism. Adilem ma forth e so cia l shap ingo f  tech nolo gy  pe rspective i st ha ta  re cogn ition  o f un intendedc onsequen ces o f tec hn olo g y  means ad d r essing a p hen omeno n that can b e  con s id e red a n acco unt of  techno l ogi ca l deter min i s m (Bimber , 1994; P e der se n, 2 001). Wh il e fo cu sin gon the social c onstruct ion of t e c hnolog y,t he s o cial s ha ping view ma y dow np l ay ther e alimpactt hat  te chn olog ies  may have in shaping practice  (M.  Oliv e r,2011) . Wya tt 
 terms_such as_social shaping of technology_(SST) or_social_construction of_technology_(SCOT) have also_been used (M._Oliver, 2011; Williams &_Edge, 1996). SST_and_SCOT have generally been taken to be equivalent (Williams & Edge, 1996), and this_position_emphasizes how_technological_109_artifacts are shaped or constructed_in social settings, with no_specific technological_outcome being inevitable (Smith, 2006; Williams & Edge,_1996)._SST rejects the_premise that technology is value neutral or has its_own autonomy, and emphasizes human decision_making and action,_and_the_need to formulate policies_to guide technology development so that_the benefits of technology are more_humanistic (Lievrouw, 2006). Pedersen (2001) considered the_question of technological determinism within education_and whether technology has internal_logic of_its own. Petersen (2001) discussed_that the SST_position sees_technology as being_shaped by interplay of social, cultural,_and historical factors,_and pointed out how social forces_and_groups outside o_f_education,_including vendors_and public officials,_are_influential in_advocating_for technology. Fisher (2006) examined the_social_shaping of technology, and asserted that many_dynamics shape technology, including_science,_technology, economics, and the_state as a social institution._However, M. Oliver (2011) asserted that_research from_a SCOT_perspective is mostly absent from instructional technology literature. Slack and Wise_(2006) considered a range o f_issues concerned with technology_and society,_including_whether or not_technology_drives social_change, the question of human dependence on_technology, and_the connection between technology and values._Slack and Wise (2006)_held_that technological determinism and the position_that technology is value neutral should_be rejected, and stated we_are_not_slaves to technology. Pedersen (2001)_suggested that moving away from technological_determinism to a_socially constructed view of technology would promote_a_broader public debate on the role_of_technology in education. Pedersen (2001) asserted_that_technology_is neither 110 good, bad,_or neutral but can have both_good and bad consequences, including some unintended. Weaknesses o_f social determinism._A dilemma for the social_shaping_of_technology perspective is that a recognition of unintended consequences o_f technology_means addressing a_phenomenon that can be considered an account of technological determinism_(Bimber, 1994; Pedersen, 2001). While focusing on_the social construction of technology, the social shaping view may downplay_the real impact that technologies may have in_shaping practice (M. Oliver, 2011). Wyatt