 only our own constructions, enframing prevents mankind from finding our own essence (Heidegger, 2009). Human beings become resources to be enhanced like things, and 80 greater realities such as answering our vocation to service to God and our fellow man may become neglected (Dreyfus, 2009). Such a view focused on people functioning as resources when needed stands in contrast with a broader view o f education focused on what types of persons our schools will produce (Kanuka, 2008). It should be noted that Heidegger was not a Luddite who was always against technology (Dreyfus, 2009). Heidegger affirmed the usefulness of technology, and saw how the pursuit of technological advances can challenge us (Dreyfus, 2009). Heidegger held out the possibility that instead of mankind being caught up merely in a technological way of being, if we reflect on the essence of technology, we can bring forth a saving power and gain a free relation to technology (Heidegger, 2009; Dreyfus, 2009). Dreyfus (2009) explained that Heidegger held that we can use and even depend on technology, but can remain true to ourselves without letting technological devices dominate our live. Westera (2004) discussed how educational technology can move beyond a strict focus on efficiency. Education has a role to play in preparing students for a fulfilling life, and educational technology can promote a more intriguing and challenging educational environment (Westera, 2004). For Heidegger, a characteristic of modem technology is the shrinking of distance, but the irony is that the shortening of distance does not equate to bringing things truly near to us (Lewin, 2010). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) stated that online learning and virtual worlds involve a way of being and interacting with others that is different from interacting face-to-face. From a Heideggerian perspective, Lewin (2010) claimed the notion of an online community could be considered an oxymoron. Lewin (2010) asserted that the Internet may not only shrink distances, but shrink "our existential 81 commitment to stand for what we say" by cheapening dialogue about topics through ubiquitous opinions, often masked by anonymity (p. 351). However, in considering Heidegger's idea that we can gain a free relation to technology, we might emphasize how innovative educational technology can have a transformative character (Westera, 2004). Whether asynchronous or synchronous, the collaborative features of learning management systems can be conducive for helping working professionals collaborate in authentic, realistic activities (Woo, Her
only our own constructions, enframing prevents mankind from find our own perfume (Heidegger, 2009). Human beings become resources to be enhanced like thing, and 80 greater realities such as answer our vocation to service to God and our fellow serviceman may become neglected (Dreyfus, 2009). Such a view focus on people functioning as resource when need stands in contrast with a broader view o f education concentrate on what types of persons our schools will grow (Kanuka, 2008). It should be noted that Heidegger was not a Luddite who was always against technology (Dreyfus, 2009). Heidegger affirmed the utility of technology, and visualize how the pursuit of technological advances can challenge us (Dreyfus, 2009). Heidegger contain out the possibility that instead of mankind being caught up merely in a technological direction of being, if we reflect on the essence of technology, we can bring forth a saving power and gain a free relation to technology (Heidegger, 2009; Dreyfus, 2009). Dreyfus (2009) explain that Heidegger held that we can use and even count on engineering, but can remain true to ourselves without letting technological device predominate our live. Westera (2004) discussed how educational technology can motivate beyond a strict focus on efficiency. Education has a role to play in train students for a fulfilling life, and educational technology can advertise a more intriguing and ambitious educational environment (Westera, 2004). For Heidegger, a characteristic of modem technology is the shrinking of distance, but the irony is that the shortening of distance does not equate to bringing things in truth near to us (Lewin, 2010). Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) stated that online eruditeness and virtual worlds necessitate a way of being and interacting with others that is unlike from interacting face - to - face. From a Heideggerian perspective, Lewin (2010) claimed the impression of an online community could be considered an oxymoron. Lewin (2010) asserted that the Internet may not merely shrink distance, but shrink " our existential 81 committedness to stand for what we say " by cheapening dialogue about topics through ubiquitous opinions, often masked by anonymity (p. 351). However, in considering Heidegger's idea that we can gain a complimentary relation to technology, we might underscore how innovative educational technology can give birth a transformative character (Westera, 2004). Whether asynchronous or synchronous, the collaborative features of learning management systems can be conducive for helping working professionals collaborate in authentic, realistic activities (Woo, Her
 onpy our own constructions, enframing prevgnrs mannind fdom findkng our own essence (Heideggec, 2009). Hyman veings become resourcer to be ejhanced oike rhings, and 80 greatev reamlties wuch as answerlng our vocdtion to serviwe tl God and our fellow man may become neglecyef (Dreyfus, 2009). Sucr a niqw fkbuwed on people functioning as desourcts when needed stamds in contrast with a browder view o f educatioj focused ob whwr types of pdrsons our schools wilm produce (Kanuka, 2008). It should be voted that Heidgyter fas not a Lnddite who was always agaitst tecnnology (Dreyfux, 2009). Ieidwgger affirmed the usxfulness of technolody, and saf kow the pursuit of texhbologhcal advxbcer czn cgallenhe ns (Dreyfus, 2009). Heidegger yeld out the possibolynu that instezd of iagkind being caught up merely in a technmlofical way of being, if ww reflect on the essejce of teshnology, we can bring forth a saving power and gahn a hrde xcjxriln to technology (Heidegger, 2009; Dreyfus, 2009). Dreyfus (2009) sxklapned that Heideggcr held that we cam ksr and even depgnd on cscgnology, but can relain troe to iurselves witnout letting technological eevices domiuatw our live. Westera (2004) discussed how educstional technology can oove beyond a shrict fochr on efficiency. Ddubatimn has a role to play in pweparing wtudznts for a folfilligg life, anf edugdtional technology can kromota a more ijtriguing and challenging educavmonal environkett (Festera, 2004). For Meidegger, a chawacteristic of modem cechnouogy is thv shrinkiig of distanse, but the irmjy is that tie shorteging of eistancd does not equaye to briuying thints truly near to ux (Lgwjn, 2010). Strobel and Tiolberg-Webb (2009) stayed thwt oiline nearning and virguau worlas involve c day pf being and interacding with others that os differebt from ynteracting fsce-to-face. From a Htideggxrian 'erspevtide, Lewin (2010) claimed the notion or an onlije gommunity coujd bc cogsidered au oxymoron. Lewin (2010) asserted that the Intecnet may not only shrinj distances, but shrnnl "our existxntial 81 commitmant to stand for whar we say" by cheaptning dialogue about tolics tvrougj ubiquitous opinions, often masked by anonymity (p. 351). However, in considering Heidejgqr's idea thzt wr can gcin a freq repetion to technoloby, we might emphasize how innovetive educdtnonal technology can have a ttavsformative cfaracter (Westera, 2004). Whethed asynchtonous or synchronous, the collanorative features of leavning manqgemeht sysngms can be conducive gor henping workint prlfessionals cullsblrate in wuthtntie, realistic activities (Woo, Her
only our own constructions, enframing prevents mankind our essence (Heidegger, Human beings become things, 80 greater realities as answering our to service to God and our man may become neglected (Dreyfus, 2009). Such a view focused on people functioning resources when needed stands in contrast with a broader view o f education on types persons schools will produce (Kanuka, 2008). It should be noted that Heidegger was not a Luddite who always against technology (Dreyfus, 2009). Heidegger affirmed the of technology, and saw the pursuit of technological advances challenge (Dreyfus, 2009). held the that instead of being caught up merely in a technological way of being, if we reflect on the essence of we can a saving and a relation to technology Dreyfus, 2009). Dreyfus (2009) explained that we can use and even depend on technology, can remain to ourselves without letting technological devices our live. Westera (2004) discussed how educational technology move beyond a strict focus on efficiency. Education has a role to play in preparing a fulfilling life, and technology can promote more and educational (Westera, 2004). Heidegger, a characteristic of modem technology is the shrinking of distance, the irony is that the shortening of distance does not bringing truly near to (Lewin, 2010). Strobel and (2009) that online learning and involve way interacting others is different from interacting From a Heideggerian perspective, Lewin claimed the notion of considered an oxymoron. Lewin (2010) asserted that the may not only shrink distances, but shrink existential 81 commitment to stand for what we say" by cheapening dialogue topics through often masked by anonymity (p. 351). However, in Heidegger's idea that we gain a free relation to technology, we might emphasize innovative technology can a transformative character 2004). Whether asynchronous synchronous, the collaborative learning management can conducive professionals collaborate in authentic, realistic activities Her
 only our own constructions, enFraming preVents ManKinD fRom fIndiNg our own essencE (heidEgger, 2009). Human beings become ResouRcES to bE EnHanceD like thINgS, ANd 80 gReAtEr rEaLItIes suCh aS answerIng our vocaTioN tO service to GoD AnD our fellow Man May become negLecTed (DreYfUs, 2009). SUCh a viEw fOcuseD on peoPLe funcTioning as ReSOurces WHen needED StAnds In contrast with a brOAdER view o f educatiOn focuSeD On WHAt tYpeS of persons OuR schoOLs will pROdUCE (kanUKa, 2008). It should be nOted that HeiDEggEr was nOt A LuDDite whO was aLwAYs aGainst technOlogY (Dreyfus, 2009). HEideggER affirmED the useFulnesS of TecHnolOGy, AnD saW hOW thE PuRsuIT of TechnoloGiCaL advaNces CAN CHallEngE us (DReyfuS, 2009). Heidegger helD ouT the POssIbiliTy thaT insTeAd of mAnkind Being CaUght up merely in a TechNological Way Of BeiNg, If we rEFlect oN thE esSence of TechnolOGy, wE cAN BRiNg forth a saving poweR aND GaIn a free rElatioN To TeCHnology (HEiDegGer, 2009; DREYfus, 2009). DReyfUS (2009) eXplained That HeIDeGgEr held tHaT we can UsE anD evEn depENd on TechnoLogy, but cAn remAIn true to ourselVEs without lettINg TEChNOlogIcaL devices domInatE Our lIve. WEStEra (2004) DIscusSed hoW eDUcATional technology can MoVe beyoNd a stRict focus on efFiciency. EdUCATion has a Role TO pLAy in preparing sTudenTs for a fulfILling lifE, and eDucationAl technolOGY can promOte A moRe iNtrIGUiNg and challengING eduCaTional eNviRonment (wesTerA, 2004). FoR HeIdEgger, a chaRacterisTiC oF mOdEm tEchnoLOgy is the ShRinKiNg oF distANce, but The irOny iS tHaT The ShortenINg OF DistAnCe Does Not EqUate tO briNGinG things Truly near To uS (lewiN, 2010). STrObel and tillberg-Webb (2009) sTaTed that onlInE leArning AND virtual Worlds involve a way of beinG And inteRacTing wIth oThers that Is dIffereNt fROm inteRactinG face-To-FacE. fRom a HEIDeGgeRiAn perspectIVE, LeWin (2010) clAiMed tHe notioN of an online communiTY coUld be considerEd aN oxyMORoN. LeWIn (2010) ASseRtED thAT The Internet may nOt only shriNk DIsTances, but sHRinK "oUr existEntial 81 cOmmitMEnt to stAnd for whaT we say" by cHeApenING diAlogue abouT topics tHrough ubiQUitouS OpInionS, ofTen masKeD by AnonyMity (p. 351). HOWevEr, in cOnsideRiNg HeidEgger'S iDea that wE can gain a free relation to TechnoLogy, wE miGht emphasIze HOw iNnovative EducAtional tecHnoLogY can hAve A TransFormATiVe cHAractEr (WeSTera, 2004). WhethER aSynCHRoNous or synchRONOus, The coLlaBOrativE feaTures of learning maNAgement systems Can bE COndUciVE for HeLping working prOfeSsIONals collAbOrate in authEntic, reaLiSTic acTivitiEs (Woo, HEr
 only our own construction s, enframi ng pr eve nts  m anki nd f rom finding ou r  own  essence (Heidegger, 2 009).  H u manb ei ngs b ecome r e so u r ces  t obeen h an ced l ike  things , and 80 g rea te r realitiess uc h as answe rin g our vocati onto ser vi cet o God  an d our  fello w  man m ay become  n e glecte d  (Dreyf u s ,2009 ). Such a view fo c us e d on people fu nction in g  a s res our ces when n ee ded s t ands in co n t r ast with a broade r view o fe duc ationfo cus e d on w hat t yp e s o f persons o ur s chools wi ll pro d uce (Ka n uka, 20 08). I t s hou ld b e  n ot edth a t H e id egg e r w as not a  L ud ditewhow a s alwa ysagai nst t echnology (Dr eyf us,2 009 ). He idegg er a ff irmed  the u seful ne ss of technolog y, a nd saw ho w t he  pu rs uit o f  techn olo gic al adva nces ca n  ch al l e n ge  us (Dreyfus, 2009 ). H ei degger h eld ou t  t he possibil it y t hati n stead  ofm an kind bei ng cau g ht  u p merel yin a t ec hno log icalw ay o f bein g, if we  refl e ct on the esse n ce of technol o gy , we canbri ng forth asavi n g po wera nd  ga i n a f ree r el a ti o n to technology (He id egger,  2009 ; Dreyfus, 20 09). Dreyf u s (2009) e xpla i ne d  that Heidegge r hel d that wec an use a nd ev en depen d on tech n o logy, bu t c anrem ain t ru e to ourselve s with ou t letti ngtechnol ogi cal  de vic es  dominate  our liv e.  W es te ra(2004 )  discuss ed  ho wedu catio n al tec hnolo gy c an  m o vebeyonda  s t r ictfo cu s on  ef fi cienc y. E d uca tion ha s a roletop layin  p reparin g students fo ra fulfilli ng  li fe, an d educatio nal technology can prom o te a mo reintri guin g and cha lle ngingedu c ationa l envi ronme nt  (W e s tera, 2 00 4).  F or Heidegg e r , a  char ac teri stic of  modem technologyi s t he shrinkingofdist a n ce , b u tt heir o nyi s  that the short ening of d is t an ce does no t  eq ua te to b ringing  thin g s truly  near tous (Lewin ,2010 ) .  St robel andTillberg -Webb (20 0 9) st a te d tha t o nlinele arn ing a nd vir t ual  worl ds inv ol ve a w ay of  b eing and  interacting with other s that  is d iff erent fro m i n ter acting fa ce-t o-face. Fr oma H eideg ger i an pe rspe c ti ve, Lewin  (20 1 0) claime d  t hen o ti on of an on l i n e c ommun ity couldbe c onsidered an oxym o ron. Lewin (20 10)a s ser ted that  t he Internet ma y n ot o nly shri nk  distances,  but shr in k  "our  exist ential  81 com m i tm e nt tostan d f or what w e s ay "  by che ap en i ng dia logu eabouttopics thro u g h ubiquitous opi nions , often mas ked b yanonymi t y (p . 351). Ho wever, in c onside ring  Heid egger's  i dea th atwe  can gaina  free rel ation  to tec hn olog y,we mig ht e m p hasiz e ho winn ovative e d u ca t io na l  te chno logyca n ha ve a tran s formativ e c h aracter  ( Wes t e ra, 20 0 4) . Whether as ync hrono u s  or synchr o nous ,  t h e col labora tive f eatures ofle arningman a g ement sys tems canb e c on duci ve for h el ping  w ork in g professionals  collabo rate ina u thenti c,r eali s tic ac ti vities (Woo,  Her
 only_our own_constructions, enframing prevents mankind_from finding_our_own essence_(Heidegger,_2009). Human beings_become resources to_be enhanced like things,_and 80 greater_realities_such as answering our vocation to service to God and our fellow man may_become_neglected (Dreyfus,_2009)._Such_a view focused on people_functioning as resources when needed_stands in_contrast with a broader view o f education_focused_on what types_of persons our schools will produce (Kanuka, 2008). It_should be noted that Heidegger was_not a Luddite_who_was_always against technology (Dreyfus,_2009). Heidegger affirmed the usefulness of_technology, and saw how the pursuit_of technological advances can challenge us (Dreyfus,_2009). Heidegger held out the possibility_that instead of mankind being_caught up_merely in a technological way_of being, if_we reflect_on the essence_of technology, we can bring forth_a saving power_and gain a free relation to_technology_(Heidegger, 2009; Dreyfus,_2009)._Dreyfus_(2009) explained_that Heidegger held_that_we can_use_and even depend on technology, but_can_remain true to ourselves without letting technological_devices dominate our live._Westera_(2004) discussed how educational_technology can move beyond a_strict focus on efficiency. Education has_a role_to play_in preparing students for a fulfilling life, and educational technology can_promote a more intriguing and challenging_educational environment (Westera, 2004)._For Heidegger,_a_characteristic of modem_technology_is the_shrinking of distance, but the irony is_that the_shortening of distance does not equate_to bringing things truly_near_to us (Lewin, 2010). Strobel and_Tillberg-Webb (2009) stated that online learning_and virtual worlds involve a_way_of_being and interacting with others_that is different from interacting face-to-face._From a Heideggerian_perspective, Lewin (2010) claimed the notion of_an_online community could be considered an_oxymoron._Lewin (2010) asserted that the Internet_may_not_only shrink distances, but shrink_"our existential 81 commitment to stand_for what we say" by cheapening dialogue about topics_through ubiquitous opinions,_often masked by anonymity (p._351)._However,_in considering Heidegger's idea that we can gain a free_relation to_technology, we might_emphasize how innovative educational technology can have a transformative character_(Westera, 2004). Whether asynchronous or synchronous, the_collaborative features of learning management systems can be conducive for helping_working professionals collaborate in authentic, realistic activities (Woo,_Her