In that paper, the authors analyse and map out a large number of views on the computerisation of education and identify three clusters of approaches that differ on the most basic assumptions regarding the integration of ICT and education. These approaches live "side by side", largely ignoring each other and not engaging in any meaningful discussion. The authors claim that, given the very doubtful results of the "computerisation of education" up until now, such ongoing discussion is vital for any mindful and successful policy in the future.

It is possible to group the views that guide educationalists and experts when dealing with the integration of ICT and education into three clusters of views. These clusters are far from arbitrary – they reflect three very different starting points and perspectives for viewing the "merger" of ICT and education. The clusters represent three paradigms. We have chosen to call these paradigms, without hiding our biases, the Technocrat, the Reformist, and the Holistic.

1. The Technocratic paradigm:
The Technocratic paradigm characterises those who avoid any discussion about the nature of ICT, its desirability or the extent schooling should or will change as a consequence of the integration of ICT and education. They take the ICT revolution as given, unavoidable and as consisting mainly of necessary instrumental and behaviourist changes ("working with computers or the Internet"), take schools as a given, ignore the issue of the desired or predicted results of the "meeting" between the forces of ICT and education, and refer only to "technocratic aims" as the proportion of students per computer, or the location of computers in schools, or the nature of the connection to the Internet.

2. The Reformist paradigm:
The Reformist paradigm characterises those who see ICT as a tool that can assist in promoting the "right" didactics. The most fashionable buzzwords that are mentioned in this context are: "interdisciplinary", "constructivist" and "collaborative learning". Adherents to this view conceive the ICT revolution as consisting of more than just new instruments and behaviours; they rather see it as encouraging a certain kind of attitude to knowledge and learning that supports constructive leaning (usually without feeling the need to sustain this view - in many cases it is presented as an axiom).

3. The Holistic paradigm:
The Holistic paradigm characterises those that, unlike the educationalists and writers belonging to the previous two paradigms, usually present an explicit set of assertions regarding the socio-cultural situation and the defining impact ICT has on it (cultural approach). They also have an opinion as to the desired values that should guide educational decision making (ideological approach). Not only do they aspire to have comprehensive theories and clear recommendations for the education system, they do not evade discussing the theories of their rivals (unlike the two previous groups). Included in this group are those who start from cultural-ideological approaches. Their attitude is either conservative (e.g. Postman, 1995) or radical and extremely radical (e.g. Aviram & Comay, 2000; Kristmundson et al., 2000).

We call these three clusters of perspectives mind-frames, and the proposed or already-implemented policies they entail towards ICT and education "paradigms" because they differ on fundamental issues. To better understand the opposed views let us take a look below the surface, at the suppositions each of these groups make about the worlds of ICT and education. As we will see, their suppositions about these worlds are different and to a large extent contradictory.

Suppositions underlying the three paradigms

Concerning the world of ICT, the upholders of the three above paradigms give (mostly tacitly) opposed answers to the four following questions concerning the defining nature of the ICT revolution, its predetermined nature, and its ethical value:
· Is the ICT revolution neutral, that is, does not influence our lives, or is it a defining revolution?
· Is the ICT revolution predetermined or can we influence it?
· Can the ICT revolution be judged ethically?
· If so, is it good or bad?

What are the views of the three emerging paradigms regarding the four above questions?

1. The Technocratic paradigm: ICT as technological "progress"
The Technocratic paradigm is implicitly neutralist. Basically, Technocrats do not treat seriously what other take to be defining influences of the ICT revolution (i.e., the way it is redefining major aspects of our lives), and do not take ICT to have far-reaching impact on who we are. Moreover, this paradigm is also implicitly determinist: its members perceive ICT as a "necessary force" the educational system should adapt to, and the sooner the better. They neither imagine that society could, if it so chose, mould ICT according to its needs and values, nor believe that the education system could channel the influences ICT holds in store. To put it simplistically, they buy computers for schools because there are computers to be bought and they are taken to represent "progress" or what is "in" - without further questions or thoughts.

It is reasonable to assume that adherents to this view would give an implicit negative answer to the third question (concerning our ability to ethically judge the ICT revolution), and that their answer would stem both from their determinism and neutralism concerning ICT and their lack of interest in questions of values and about basic educational goals. Thus, Riffel and Levin (1997) conclude from their field study that "technological imperatives (to have the latest, most powerful computers available) overtake unclear educational objectives…the overall educational focus of [’the schools’] efforts remains unclear."

2. The Reformist paradigm: ICT as promoting constructivist didactics
The Reformist paradigm is based on an understanding of some aspect of the defining nature of ICT, and it is therefore non-neutralist. It is also determinist: its adherents don’t think they or anyone else can, or should, have a say concerning the general development of technology. If there is notion of indeterminism in this view it does not lie in its adherents’ understanding of technology’s relationship to culture but rather in the educational use that can be made of it. Many of them seem to believe that since technology is there, schools must learn to do interesting and desirable things with it. They do ask themselves what educational purpose ICT might and should serve; their answer is that ICT can be used to promote the desired (constructivist) didactics.

From the above it follows that they do presuppose positive answers both to the third and fourth questions. Basically, they too perceive novel technologies to be "advancements", and therefore place an ethical judgement on ICT. Moreover, they find that ICT exerts a positive influence, since it encourages constructivist tendencies, or may potentially do so. This viewpoint underlies the question posed by the editors of the SITES project report in the concluding chapter - "Is our education measuring up with regard to its innovative potential?" (Pelgrum & Anderson, 1999)

3. The Holistic paradigm: ICT as redefining our culture and lives
The third paradigm, the Holistic, is actually defined according to its non-Neutrality, as its upholders treat ICT as a major defining force of culture. Its view is basically indeterminist, although different holists might hold different kinds of indeterminism. Postman (1995) believes it is impossible to preserve the good parts of "American cultural institutions and heritage" while allowing uncontrolled technological development, and advocates serious discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of technology and the way it changes our perception of the world. Aviram & Comay (2000) strive to form "strategies for channelling the inevitable [ICT] revolution in socially and humanely beneficial directions" (italics in the original). One can say that these are two different kinds of indeterminism: strong indeterminism in Postman’s case – since his appeal for social discussion on the fundamentals of the ICT revolution is implicitly based on the supposition that society could change those fundamentals; and soft indeterminism in Aviram and Comay’s case – since here it is assumed that the mere fundamentals are given, but it is possible to channel the processes based on them.

Obviously, authors in this group do not evade discussion of what the desired values of education are. They then judge the ICT revolution in regard to these values - answering the third question positively. As to their judgement, they vary from neutral to negative and positive. Thus, Hermant de Callatay (2000) states that "Technology will have to serve the educational purpose. It should not be the other way around"(- a rather neural judgement). Postman believes ICT is harmful due to its influence on culture at large (Postman, 1992) and on education); While we believe it to have both positive and negative potentials and that its impact on society and on education depends very much on the way we channel its introduction to education (Aviram, 2000).

The differences between the three groups stand out in Table 5, which summarises their presuppositions and the relationships amongst them.

	Holists	Reformists	Technocrats
Will the educational system last in its present shape?	No	Yes, with some modification of the didactic aspects	No opinion (positive answer implied)
Should the educational system last?	Yes / No(depending on the values of the specific writer)	Yes, with some modifications	No opinion (positive answer implied)
Is the ICT revolution neutral or defining?	Defining	Defining	Neutral
Is the ICT revolution predetermined?	Non-determined	Predetermined	Predetermined
Can the ICT revolution be judged ethically?	Yes	Yes	No opinion
Is the ICT revolution good?	Yes / No(depending on the values of the specific writer)	Yes	No opinion (positive answer implied)

Conclusion: the need for rational discourse

We have described the three general paradigms in the field of ICT and education, and showed that there are substantial differences between the suppositions these paradigms make about the worlds of ICT and education.

The most basic concepts of rationality and science entail that when there are three competing theories in a scientific field, a discussion between their upholders is to be expected. The field of ICT and education is a blatant anomaly when viewed in this light. Essentially, there is no rational discourse between the different views about the introduction of ICT to education. Each of the upholders of the three above paradigms takes a stance, either explicitly or implicitly, but doesn’t seem to be aware of and/or care about the existence of competing theories. Most authors, especially the Technocrats and Reformists, but to some extent the Holists as well, do not have a meta-level perspective on the place of their view within the discourse, which is a cornerstone of rationalistic-scientific conduct (see Aviram & Talmi, unpublished).

The question of the field’s development is not only theoretical, but obviously eminently practical, too. The lack of rational discussion is true not only in regard to the theoretical debate; it is even more evident concerning practice (and how could it be different if practicians don’t have systematic theoretical debate to rely on?). Schools, districts, regions and countries develop and implement ICT products and models of ICT based education, but due to the basic lack of culture of rational discourse and rational development, in too many cases there are no clear threads of ongoing improvement to existing models. As it is, everybody is reinventing the wheel time and time again.

The different implementation policies stemming from the different views have an enormous impact on the future of the educational system and the society at large. Given the history of very ambivalent results (to say the least) in the productive introduction of ICT to education in the last twenty years and the huge investments involved, we cannot afford to continue treating this process in the shallow unmindful manner currently prevalent (we elaborate on this issue in Aviram & Talmi, unpublished). It is vital that we look below the surface of the process of ICT introduction to education, expose the fundaments of the different views that have guided this process until now, and encourage an ongoing rational and critical discussion among them. In order to make well-founded implementation decisions in the field, we must initiate a rational discourse between the different theories and form a model for ICT introduction that reflects the state-of-the-art in the field.