adequacy as purported theories for explaining the interconnections 89 between technology and society. As presented previously in the Introduction, technological determinism is the ideological viewpoint that sees technology as an autonomous causal agent and force driving inevitable change in society (Kanuka, 2008; Leonardi, 2008; Marx & Smith, 1994; Smith, 1994). The critique will critically examine the assumptions implicitly held in the technological determinist perspective, which include technology operating according to its own internal logic (Strobel & TillbergWebb , 2009), in an inevitable maimer (Instone, 2004; Leonardi, 2008) as an autonomous force outside of social control (Feenberg, 2010; Leonardi, 2009). The critique will contrast the differences between hard technological determinism, which sees technology acting as a singularly autonomous agent, and soft technological determinism, which asserts that technology drives socialchange, but does so along with a complex interaction of social factors (Marx & Smith, 1994). Above all, a crucial issue for inquiry concerns the relationship between human agency and technological development and implementation, and the responsibility that human beings have for technology in society and education (Hofmann, 2006; Kritt & Winegar, 2010). Few people admit to being proponents o f the technological determinist philosophical viewpoint, and the label of technological determinism tends to have negative connotations (Kanuka, 2008). The characterization o f technological determinism in the literature often uses highly critical terms. For example, technological determinism has been described as a misconception (Aibar, 2010; Pearson & Young, 2002), a myth (Buckingham, 2006; Burnett, Senker & Walker, 2008; Friesen, 2008), and a fallacy (Friesen, 2008). Even the futurist