bb, 2009). The literature includes a large body of scholarship that has engaged in critiques of the theory of technological determinism. Technological determinism is the philosophical perspective that assumes that technology causes inevitable change in society (Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi, 2009), exerting a control over human society with technology considered in some way to be an autonomous force operating outside o f social control (Feenberg, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Leonardi, 2009). Granting a control or determined autonomy to technology, apart from purposeful human control and direction, would present a dilemma 5 by limiting human agency and responsibility for technology (Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; Jonas, 2010; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Slack and Wise 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Wyatt, 2008). Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) stated that if technology is assumed to be driving change and this influences the decision making process, it leaves less room for the agency o f the human actors involved, who perceive the world as run by technology. Out of concern not to be left behind, educators and students can find themselves preoccupied with keeping up with technological change they perceive to be inevitable, and neglect to adequately focus on the educational benefits afforded by the technologies (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Associated with technological determinism is the view that technology is in control and that it overshadows human values, with technology outside of cultural and ethical critique (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007; Vermaas et al., 2011). A similar view about technology as it pertains to values is the neutrality thesis, that holds technology is neutral with regard to values, neither good nor bad in itself. The neutrality thesis can be problematic because when viewed from this perspective, technology tools are seen as having no inherent ethical consequences (Brey, 2010; Robinson & McKnight, 2007). However, philosophers of technology have often argued that technologies are inherently value laden (Franssen, Lokhorst, & van de Poel, 2009). Decisions to implement technologies in schools should consider whether the technologies may have ethical implications (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, 2010; Virginia Department of Education, 2010). For example, Virginia school districts are required to integrate Internet safety instruction into curriculum, and educational leaders should consider ethical issues such as
bb, 2009). The literature includes a large body of scholarship that has hire in review of the theory of technological determinism. Technological determinism is the philosophic perspective that assumes that technology cause inevitable change in society (Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi, 2009), exert a control over human society with engineering considered in some way to be an autonomous force operating outside oxygen f social control (Feenberg, 2010; Hofmann, 2006; Leonardi, 2009). Granting a restraint or determined autonomy to technology, aside from purposeful human control and direction, would present a dilemma 5 by limit human agency and responsibility for engineering (Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; Jonas, 2010; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; Slack and Wise 2006; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009; Wyatt, 2008). Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) stated that if engineering is assumed to be driving change and this influences the decision making procedure, it leaves less room for the agency o f the human actors involved, who perceive the world as run by technology. Out of concern not to be left behind, educators and students can find themselves preoccupied with keeping up with technological change they perceive to be inevitable, and neglect to adequately concentrate on the educational benefits afforded by the engineering (Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). consociate with technological determinism is the view that technology is in restraint and that it overshadows human values, with technology outside of cultural and ethical critique (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007; Vermaas et al. , 2011). A exchangeable view about technology as it pertains to values is the neutrality thesis, that hold technology is neutral with regard to values, neither effective nor bad in itself. The disinterest dissertation can be debatable because when viewed from this perspective, technology creature are seen as having no inherent ethical consequence (Brey, 2010; Robinson & McKnight, 2007). However, philosophers of technology have often argued that engineering are inherently value laden (Franssen, Lokhorst, & van de Poel, 2009). Decisions to follow through technologies in schools should see whether the technologies may suffer ethical implications (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; Lowrance, 2010; Virginia Department of Education, 2010). For model, Virginia school districts are want to integrate Internet safety instruction into curriculum, and educational leaders should see ethical issues such as
bb, 2009). The literature includes a large body oy scholership fhat has engaged in critiques of the tyeory of technological detefminism. Tvchnologixal veterminism is tis philosophiczp pexs'ective that asxumes that technology cagsds inevitable change in society (Leonawdi, 2008; Lepnwrdi, 2009), exerting a cpgtrom over human society with technolofy conspdered in some wau to be an autonomous forcf opfrating outside o v social cobtroj (Feenberg, 2010; Hufmann, 2006; Leonardi, 2009). Granjing a control or determined autunomy to technoooty, wkart from pucposefll human contvpl and directoon, would prescnt a dioemma 5 by limiting hukan agency and reskonsibilitf yor technology (Fisher, 2006; Yofmatn, 2006; Bonar, 2009; Junaa, 2010; Kditt & Ainxgar, 2010; Slack and Wise 2006; Wtrobel & Tillberg-Wenb, 2009; Wyatt, 2008). Strobsl and Tyllberg-Webb (2009) stated that if technology ps aasumed to be driving chqnge and this influenfes the dqcision making process, it leaves less room for tha ageich o f gye human actors involved, who perceive the world zs rln by technology. Jut of concrrj mjt to be left behinb, esucators and studejts can find themselvts prroccupied with keeping up wuth technoloyicql change they pereeive to be nnevitsble, snd neglect to adequateuy fkcus on the educatiohxl benefits affofdec ty the ttzhnologies (Strobej & Tillbecg-Weby, 2009). Assockatec with technologlcal determinism is the giew jhat tachnology ls in control and that it oversiedows human vslges, with teehnolony outside of ctltural and etkical crntique (Amiel & Revves, 2008; Robmnson & McKnidht, 2007; Vermaas aj al., 2011). A similer view afout tecynology xs it pertains to values is the nwutrality thesis, tmat humds technology nr neutral with rrgafd eo velues, teither good nor baa in igself. The ncutfaliyy thesis can be protlemztic because when ficwed from this pewspective, tecnnology tools are deen es havmng no inrerent ethical consequences (Brsy, 2010; Robindon & McKnight, 2007). Roweyer, khilosopherx of technology have often argued that vechnologies are inhergntly value laden (Frausxen, Lokhorsv, & van de Poel, 2009). Decisions to implemwnt technologies ln schools should consjder wvetheg the technologies may have ethical implications (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Consortiun for School Netwodkinb, 2011; Hoxmcnn, 2006; Lowrwnce, 2010; Virginia Departkent of Education, 2010). For example, Tirginia swhjol districts are required tp kntegrate Intgrnet safety instruction ihto curroculum, and educational leaders xhould consider ethical lssues suxh as
bb, 2009). The literature includes a large scholarship has engaged critiques of the determinism the philosophical perspective assumes that technology inevitable change in society (Leonardi, 2008; 2009), exerting a control over human society with technology considered in some way be an autonomous force operating outside o f social control (Feenberg, 2010; Hofmann, Leonardi, Granting control determined autonomy to technology, apart from purposeful human control and direction, would present a dilemma 5 limiting human agency and responsibility for technology (Fisher, Hofmann, 2006; Jonas, 2009; 2010; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; and 2006; Strobel Tillberg-Webb, Wyatt, Strobel and Tillberg-Webb stated that if technology is assumed to be driving change and this influences the decision making process, leaves less the agency f human involved, who perceive as run by technology. Out of be left behind, educators and students can find preoccupied with up with technological change they perceive be inevitable, and neglect to adequately focus on educational benefits afforded by the technologies (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Associated with technological determinism is that technology is in and that it human with outside cultural and critique (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Robinson & McKnight, 2007; Vermaas et 2011). A similar view about technology as it pertains to the thesis, that holds is neutral with regard values, good nor bad in neutrality can when from perspective, technology tools are as having no inherent ethical (Brey, 2010; Robinson & technology have often argued that technologies are inherently laden (Franssen, Lokhorst, & van de Poel, Decisions to implement technologies in schools should consider whether the technologies may ethical implications Reeves, 2008; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Hofmann, Lowrance, 2010; Virginia Department Education, 2010). For example, Virginia school districts are required integrate safety instruction curriculum, and educational should consider ethical such as
bb, 2009). The literature includes a lArge body of ScholArsHip ThAt haS engAged in critiqueS Of thE theory of technological DeterMiNIsm. TEChNologIcal detERmINIsm Is ThE phIlOSoPhicaL peRspectiVe that assuMes ThAt technology CAuSes inevitaBle Change in sociEty (leonarDi, 2008; leoNArdi, 2009), eXerTing a ControL Over huMan societY wITh techNOlogy coNSIdEred In some way to be an auTOnOMous force operaTing ouTsIDe O F SocIal Control (FeeNbErg, 2010; HoFMann, 2006; LeoNArDI, 2009). gRanTIng a control or Determined aUTonOmy to tEcHnoLOgy, apaRt froM pURpoSeful human cOntrOl and direCtion, wOUld presENt a dileMma 5 by lImiTinG humAN aGeNcy AnD ResPOnSibILitY for techNoLoGy (FisHer, 2006; HOFMANn, 2006; JoNas, 2009; jonaS, 2010; KritT & Winegar, 2010; Slack And wise 2006; sTroBel & TiLlberG-WebB, 2009; WYatt, 2008). STrobel And TiLlBerg-Webb (2009) stated tHat iF technoloGy iS aSsuMeD to be DRiving ChaNge And this InfluenCEs tHe DECIsIon making process, it LeAVEs Less room For the AGeNcY O f the humAn ActOrs iNVOlved, Who pERcEive the wOrld as RUn By TechnolOgY. Out of CoNceRn nOt to bE Left Behind, EducatorS and sTUdents can find tHEmselves preocCUpIED wITh keEpiNg up with tecHnolOGicaL chaNGe TheY PerceIve to Be INeVItable, and neglect to aDeQuatelY focuS on the educatiOnal benefiTS AFforded bY the TEcHNologies (StrobeL & TillBerg-Webb, 2009). AsSOciated wIth teChnologiCal determINIsm is the VieW thAt tEchNOLoGy is in control AND thaT iT overshAdoWs human ValUes, WitH teChNology outSide of cuLtUrAl AnD etHical CRitique (AMiEl & REeVes, 2008; robinSOn & McKnIght, 2007; VErmaAs Et AL., 2011). A sImilar vIEw ABOut tEcHnOlogY as It PertaIns tO ValUes is thE neutraliTy tHEsis, ThAt Holds teChnology is neuTrAl with regaRd To vAlues, nEITher good Nor bad in itself. The neutraLIty thesIs cAn be pRoblEmatic becAusE when vIewED from tHis perSpectIvE, teCHNologY TOoLs aRe Seen as haviNG No iNhereNt EthiCal consEquences (Brey, 2010; RobinsON & Mcknight, 2007). However, PhiLosoPHErS of TEcHNolOgY HavE OFten argued that tEchnologieS aRE iNherently vALue LaDen (FranSsen, LokHorst, & VAn de PoeL, 2009). DecisionS to implemEnT tecHNOloGies in schoOls shoulD consider WHetheR ThE techNolOgies mAy HavE ethiCal impLIcaTions (amiel & REeVes, 2008; ConSortiUm For SchooL Networking, 2011; Hofmann, 2006; LowraNce, 2010; VirGinia depArtment of eduCAtiOn, 2010). For examPle, VIrginia schOol DisTrictS arE RequiRed tO InTegRAte InTernET safety inSTrUctION iNto curriculUM, ANd eDucatIonAL leadeRs shOuld consider ethicAL issues such as
bb, 2009). The literatureincludes a  larg e b ody  o f sc hola rship that has enga ged in critiques of th e the or y  oft ec hnolo gical d e te r m ini sm .Tec hn o lo gical  de termini sm is thephi lo sophical per s pe ctive that  as sumes that t ech nology  c aus e s ine vit ablechange in soc iety (Leo na r di, 20 0 8; Leon a r di , 20 09), exerting a c o nt r ol over humansociet yw it h tec hno logy consi de red i n  some w a yt o bea n autonomousforce opera t ing  outsi de  of  socia l con tr o l ( Feenberg, 2 010;  Hofmann,  2006; Leonard i , 2009) . Gran tin g a  con t ro lorde t erm i ne d a u ton omy to t ec hn ology , ap a r t from  pu rpos efulhuman control  an d di r ect ion,would  pre se nt adilemm a 5 b ylimiting humanagen cy and re spo ns ibi li ty fo r  techn olo gy(Fisher , 2006; Hof ma n n ,  2 006; Jonas, 2009;Jo n a s,  2010; K ritt & Wi ne g ar, 2010 ;Sla ck a n d  Wise  200 6 ;Strobel& Till b er g- Webb, 2 00 9; Wya tt , 2 008 ). St r obel  and T illberg- Webb( 2009) stated t h at if technol o gy i sa ssum edto be drivi ng c h ange  and th isi nflue ncesth e  d e cision making proce ss , it l eaves  less room fo r the agen c y o f thehuma n  a c tors involved,  whoperceive t h e worldas ru n by tec hnology.O u t of con cer n n ottob e  l eft behind, e d u cato rs  and st ude nts can  fi ndthe mse lv es preocc upied wi th  k ee pi ngup wi t h techno lo gic al  ch anget hey pe rceiv e to  b ei nev itable, an d negl ec tto a deq ua telyfocu s  on  the ed ucational  be n efit saf fordedby the techno lo gies (Stro be l &  Tillb e r g-Webb,2009). Associated witht echnolo gic al de term inism isthe  viewtha t  techn ologyis in  c ont r o l and t ha t i tovershadow s hum an va lu es,with te chnology outside o f  cu ltural and et hic al c r i ti que (A m iel  & Ree v e s, 2008; Robins on & McKni gh t ,2007; Verm a aset  al., 2 011). A  simi l ar view  about te chnologyas  itp e rta ins to val ues is t he neutra l ity t h es is, t hat  holds  t ech nolog y is n e utr al wi th reg ar d to v alues ,neithergood nor bad in itself.  The n eutra lit y thesiscan beproblemat ic b ecause whe n v iew ed fr omt his p ersp e ct ive ,  tech nolo g y tools a r esee n as  having noi n h ere nt et hic a l cons eque nces (Brey, 2010; Robinson & McK nigh t ,  20 07) .  How ev er, philosophe rsof t echnolog yhave oftenargued t ha t  tech nologi es are  inhere n t ly valuelade n ( Franssen,  Lo kh o rst, &va nd e Poel , 20 09 ). Dec isions to i m p lement technolog ies i n schoo l s s hould  c onsider whet her the te chnologiesmay ha ve e thica l impli ca tions(Am ie l & Reeves ,  2008; Co nsort ium for  S choo l N etwork ing, 2 011;Hofm an n,2006; Low r a nc e ,20 1 0;Virg iniaDe part ment of E d ucation,  20 1 0). For  e xam p l e, Vir g in i a  school di str ictsa r e required to i n te g rateIntern et saf ety ins t ruc ti on into  cu r r iculum, a nd educat i ona llead ers shou ld  con si der  e thical issues s uch as
bb, 2009)._The literature_includes a large body_of scholarship_that_has engaged_in_critiques of the_theory of technological_determinism. Technological determinism is_the philosophical perspective_that_assumes that technology causes inevitable change in society (Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi, 2009), exerting a_control_over human_society_with_technology considered in some way_to be an autonomous force_operating outside_o f social control (Feenberg, 2010; Hofmann, 2006;_Leonardi,_2009). Granting a_control or determined autonomy to technology, apart from purposeful_human control and direction, would present_a dilemma 5_by_limiting_human agency and responsibility_for technology (Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006;_Jonas, 2009; Jonas, 2010; Kritt &_Winegar, 2010; Slack and Wise 2006; Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Wyatt, 2008). Strobel_and Tillberg-Webb (2009) stated that_if technology_is assumed to be driving_change and this_influences the_decision making process,_it leaves less room for the_agency o f_the human actors involved, who perceive_the_world as run_by_technology._Out of_concern not to_be_left behind,_educators_and students can find themselves preoccupied_with_keeping up with technological change they perceive_to be inevitable, and_neglect_to adequately focus on_the educational benefits afforded by_the technologies (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009)._Associated with_technological determinism_is the view that technology is in control and that it_overshadows human values, with technology outside_of cultural and ethical_critique (Amiel_&_Reeves, 2008; Robinson_&_McKnight, 2007;_Vermaas et al., 2011). A similar view_about technology_as it pertains to values is_the neutrality thesis, that_holds_technology is neutral with regard to_values, neither good nor bad in_itself. The neutrality thesis can_be_problematic_because when viewed from this_perspective, technology tools are seen as_having no inherent_ethical consequences (Brey, 2010; Robinson & McKnight,_2007)._However, philosophers of technology have often_argued_that technologies are inherently value laden_(Franssen,_Lokhorst,_& van de Poel, 2009)._Decisions to implement technologies in schools_should consider whether the technologies may have ethical implications_(Amiel & Reeves,_2008; Consortium for School Networking,_2011;_Hofmann,_2006; Lowrance, 2010; Virginia Department of Education, 2010). For example,_Virginia school_districts are required_to integrate Internet safety instruction into curriculum, and educational leaders_should consider ethical issues such as