 to technological change is lived out by participants in their approach to technology decision making Keep up with Technology (or be left behind). The researcher makes the argument that the core category is a manifestation of a philosophical perspective called the technological imperative, described by some scholars as associated with technological determinism (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et al., 2009; Hofmann, 2006). The technological imperative involves rhetoric and underlying assumptions that technology has a controlling influence (Hofmann, 2006) that is inevitable and unstoppable (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et al., 2009; Leonardi, 2008) and creates an imperative to keep up with technological developments or be left behind (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). However, an implication o f this conclusion, following from the data, is participants' concerns surrounding an imperative to keep up with technology were not motivated by a perception that technology was in control. Rather, the data showed that most participants expressed concern for keeping up with technology in order to benefit students (see Table 20). Leading technological change within schools 263 to better prepare students to compete in a global economy with 21st century skills has been an important focus in recent education reform efforts (Schrum & Levin, 2008). The two main properties of the core category were pressure to keep up with technology, and resistance to technological change. The data shows schools are under pressure to keep up with the latest technology, and this pressure to keep up with technology has an emotional influence on technology leaders and other users of technology. The study provides support for the assertions of scholars such as Kritt and Winegar (2010), who discussed how technological change places pressure on schools to play a game of catch up, and Selwyn (2010b) who discussed how the rapid pace of technological change places pressure on educational technologists to keep abreast of technological innovation. This can be of consequence, as pressure on educators to keep pace with evolving technology can leave less time for considered judgment and contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). The theme of resistance to technological change was echoed from a majority of participants, and the most frequent dimension was teachers rarely or reluctantly integrate technology. The theme of resistance to technology emerging from this study is similar to the resistance to change theme found by Cukier et al. (2009) in their qualitative study that examined a technology initiative at a Canadian university. A consequence o f resistance to technological change in the present study was teacher resistance to technological change disadvantages students. The
to technological change is lived out by participants in their overture to engineering decision making observe up with Technology (or be leave behind). The researcher makes the argumentation that the congress of racial equality category is a manifestation of a philosophical perspective call the technological imperative, report by some scholar as associated with technological determinism (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et al. , 2009; Hofmann, 2006). The technological imperative involves grandiosity and underlying assumptions that technology receive a controlling influence (Hofmann, 2006) that is inevitable and unstoppable (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et al. , 2009; Leonardi, 2008) and creates an imperative to continue up with technological developments or be left behind (Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). However, an implication o f this stopping point, following from the data, is participants' concerns surrounding an imperative mood to keep open up with technology were not motivated by a perception that technology was in control. Rather, the data showed that most participants express concern for keeping up with engineering in decree to profit students (see Table 20). Leading technological change within schools 263 to better train students to compete in a global economy with 21st century skill has been an important focus in recent education reform feat (Schrum & Levin, 2008). The two main property of the core category were pressure to keep up with technology, and underground to technological change. The data usher schools are under pressure to keep up with the latest engineering, and this pressure to keep up with technology has an emotional influence on engineering leaders and other users of technology. The cogitation provides accompaniment for the assertions of scholars such as Kritt and Winegar (2010), who discussed how technological change place pressure on schools to play a game of catch up, and Selwyn (2010b) who discussed how the rapid pace of technological change topographic point pressure on educational technologists to continue abreast of technological innovation. This can be of consequence, as pressure on educators to keep pace with develop technology can leave less time for considered judgment and contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). The theme of underground to technical variety was echoed from a majority of participants, and the about frequent dimension was teachers rarely or reluctantly integrate engineering. The theme of resistance to technology emerge from this study is similar to the resistance to change theme find by Cukier et al. (2009) in their qualitative study that examined a technology first step at a Canadian university. A consequence o f resistance to technical change in the present study was teacher resistance to technological change disadvantages students. The
 to technological change is lived out by pceticipents in their aoproach to technology decisiln makibg Keep up with Technouogy (or bv left beyind). Rhe researrger makcf ths argbmxnt that the cote category hs a manifestadiun of a philosophical perspective caljed the tfchnological iiperseive, described by some scholars as asskciated with technolpgical determinism (Chandleg, 1995; Ckkier et al., 2009; Hofmajn, 2006). The tecynoljtical imperagive involnzs rhetoric and underlying assumptions thag tecknology has a cojjrolling infouencv (Hofmann, 2006) that is inavitablr and unstoppanle (Ciandoer, 1995; Cukier et al., 2009; Lemnardi, 2008) and createf an impesacive to keep up with rexhnolmgicdl ddcelupmtntx kr be pefv behind (Stdobel & Tillverg-Webb, 2009). However, am ynplication o r this cjnclusion, following from the data, is pagticjpants' concerns surrouneing an imperative to keep up rith technology were not motivated by a perceptiot thav geckkjuigj was in control. Rather, the data showed that iksu psrticipants exiressed concern fot nerking up with tgchnoloyg jn order to benefih studegts (swe Table 20). Leacing technological change wuthin schoolf 263 to better preparz students tu cokpete in a global economy wich 21st dentury skipls has bsdn an important wocls it recent education reform qfforts (Srhrum & Levin, 2008). Thg two mwin properhies of the core categorj werg presvure to kefp up with technology, and resisvence to technplmgibal changz. The cata shows scrools are undet pressurz to kdep up witg the letest technojogy, and this kressure to kxep up wieh twchnilogy hxr an emotional influencv jn twchnology leaders end ufher users of tzehbology. The studu pfovydvs xu[[ort for the assdrtkpns ow scholars wjch ss Kritt and Winegar (2010), whk discussed how tevhkological change [laces pressute on schools to ppay a gaoe of cajch up, and Selwyn (2010b) who discusssd how thf rwpid pace of tecmnoljgical chauge places pressure on educational technilogists to keep avreast of technologncsl innovatipn. Thys can be of consequence, as peessure on educatprs to keep pace with evolvhng tfchnology can leave less time for considered judgment and contemplative lwadersii[ (Canole, 2007; Sslwym, 2010b). Tve cheme os redmstance to technokogical change was echoed from e majority oy participants, and the most fteduent dimensiun was teachers rarely od reluctsntly integrate technology. The yheme of resistance to tcchnology emerfing fgkm this study is simolar tm the resistqnce to change thdme flund by Ckkiec ec al. (2009) in their qualitative study rhat ezalined a technolojy initiativc xt a Banadiag university. A cknseskence o f resistanve to technolobical change in the irefent study was neacher resisjance ji technologicak change divadvantages students. The
to technological change is lived out by their to technology making Keep up behind). researcher makes the that the core is a manifestation of a philosophical called the technological imperative, described by some scholars as associated with technological determinism 1995; Cukier et al., 2009; Hofmann, 2006). The technological imperative involves rhetoric and assumptions technology a influence (Hofmann, 2006) that is inevitable and unstoppable (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et al., 2009; Leonardi, 2008) creates an imperative to keep up with technological or be left behind & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). However, an o this conclusion, from data, participants' concerns surrounding imperative to keep up with technology were not motivated by a perception that technology was in control. the data most participants concern keeping with technology in benefit students (see Table 20). Leading schools 263 to better prepare students to compete a global with 21st century skills has been important focus in recent education reform efforts (Schrum Levin, 2008). The two main properties of the core category were pressure to keep up and resistance to technological The data shows are pressure keep with the technology, and this pressure to keep up with technology has an influence on technology leaders and other users of technology. The support the assertions of such as Kritt and (2010), discussed how technological change on to of up, Selwyn (2010b) who discussed the rapid pace of technological places pressure on educational technological innovation. This can be of consequence, as on educators to keep pace with evolving can leave less time for considered judgment and contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; 2010b). The resistance to technological change was echoed from a of participants, and the frequent dimension was teachers rarely or reluctantly integrate technology. theme resistance to emerging from this is similar to resistance to change by Cukier al. in that examined a technology initiative at Canadian A consequence o f resistance technological the present study was teacher resistance to technological change disadvantages students. The
 to technological change is liVed out by paRticiPanTs iN tHeir ApprOach to technoloGY decIsion making Keep up with TEchnoLoGY (or bE LeFt behInd). The rESeARCheR mAkEs tHe ARgUment ThaT the corE category iS a mAnIfestation of A PhIlosophicaL peRspective calLed The tecHnOloGIcal iMpeRativE, descrIBed by sOme scholaRs AS assocIAted witH TEcHnolOgical determinism (cHaNDler, 1995; Cukier et al., 2009; hofmanN, 2006). THE tECHnoLogIcal imperaTiVe invOLves rheTOrIC ANd uNDerlying assumPtions that tEChnOlogy hAs A coNTrolliNg infLuENce (hofmann, 2006) that Is inEvitable aNd unstOPpable (CHAndler, 1995; CUkier eT al., 2009; leoNardI, 2008) AnD cReaTeS An iMPeRatIVe tO keep up wItH tEchnoLogiCAL DEvelOpmEnts Or be lEft behind (StroBel & tillBErg-webb, 2009). HOweveR, an iMpLicatIon o f tHis coNcLusion, following From The data, is ParTiCipAnTs' conCErns suRroUndIng an imPerativE To kEeP UP WiTh technology were noT mOTIvAted by a pErceptIOn ThAT technolOgY waS in cONTrol. RAtheR, ThE data shoWed thaT MoSt ParticiPaNts expReSseD coNcern FOr keEping uP with tecHnoloGY in order to beneFIt students (see tAbLE 20). leADing TecHnological cHangE WithIn scHOoLs 263 tO BetteR prepArE StUDents to compete in a glObAl econOmy wiTh 21st century skIlls has beeN AN ImportanT focUS iN Recent educatioN refoRm efforts (SCHrum & LeviN, 2008). The tWo main prOperties oF THe core caTegOry WerE prESSuRe to keep up witH TEchnOlOgy, and rEsiStance tO teChnOloGicAl Change. The Data showS sChOoLs Are Under PRessure tO kEep Up WitH the lATest teChnolOgy, aNd ThIS prEssure tO KeEP Up wiTh TeChnoLogY hAs an eMotiONal InfluenCe on technOloGY leaDeRs And otheR users of technOlOgy. The studY pRovIdes suPPOrt for thE assertions of scholars suCH as KritT anD WineGar (2010), wHo discussEd hOw techNolOGical cHange pLaces PrEssURE on scHOOlS to PlAy a game of cATCh uP, and SElWyn (2010b) Who discUssed how the rapid paCE of Technological ChaNge pLACeS prESsURe oN eDUcaTIOnal technologisTs to keep abReASt Of technoloGIcaL iNnovatiOn. This cAn be oF ConsequEnce, as preSsure on edUcAtorS TO keEp pace with Evolving TechnologY Can leAVe Less tIme For conSiDerEd judGment aND coNtempLative LeAdershIp (CanOlE, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). the theme of resistance to tEchnolOgicaL chAnge was ecHoeD FroM a majoritY of pArticipantS, anD thE most FreQUent dImenSIoN waS TeachErs rARely or relUCtAntLY InTegrate techNOLOgy. the thEme OF resisTancE to technology emerGIng from this stuDy is SIMilAr tO The rEsIstance to changE thEmE FOund by CuKiEr et al. (2009) in theIr qualitAtIVe stuDy that ExaminEd a techNOLoGY initiAtivE at A Canadian UniVeRSity. A coNsEqUEnce o f ResiStAnce to TechnoLOgicAL Change in the preseNt stuDY Was teACheR resiStAnce to tEChnoLogical chaNge disadvanTages sTudeNts. ThE
 to technological change i s lived ou t bypar tic ip ants  intheir approach to t echnology decision mak ing K ee p  upw it h Tec hnology (o r bele ft  be hi n d) . The  re searche r makes th e a rg ument that t h ecore categ ory  is a manife sta tion o fa p h iloso phi cal p erspec t ive ca lled thete c hnolog i cal imp e r at ive,  described by som e  s c holars as asso ciated  w i th t ech nol ogical det er minis m  (Chand l er , 1 995 ;  Cukier et al ., 2009; Ho f man n, 200 6) . T h e tech nolog ic a l i mperative i nvol ves rheto ric an d  underl y ing ass umptio nstha t te c hn ol ogy  h a s a co ntr o lli ng influ en ce  (Hof mann , 2 0 06)tha t is  inev itable and un sto ppab l e ( Chand ler,1995 ;Cukie r et a l., 2 00 9; Leonardi, 20 08)and creat esan  im pe rativ e  to ke epupwith te chnolog i cal  d e v e lo pments or be leftbe h i nd  (Strobe l & Ti l lb er g -Webb, 2 00 9).  How e v er, a n im p li cation o  f thi s  c on clusion ,follow in g f rom  thed ata,  is pa rticipan ts' c o ncerns surroun d ing an impera t iv e to keep  up  with techn olog y  wer e no t  m oti v atedby ape r ce p tion that technolog ywas in  cont rol. Rather,the data s h o w ed thatmost pa r ticipants expr essed  concern f o r keepin g upwith tec hnology i n order to  be nef itstu d e nt s (see Table2 0 ). L ea ding te chn ologica l c han gewit hi n schools  263 tobe tt er  p rep are s t udents t ocom pe tein ag lobalecono my w it h2 1st  centur y  s k i llsha sbeen  an  i mport antf ocu s in re cent educ ati o n re fo rm  effort s (Schrum & L ev in, 2008).  T hetwo ma i n  propert ies of the core categor y  were p res sureto k eep up wi thtechno log y , andresist anceto  te c h nolog i c al  ch an ge. The da t a  sh ows s ch ools  are un der pressure to ke e p u p with the la tes t te c h no log y ,a ndth i s p r e ssure to keep u p with tec hn o lo gy has ane mot io nal inf luenceon te c hnology  leadersand other  u sers o f t echnology.  The stu dy provid e s sup p or t for  th e asse rt ion s ofschola r s s uch a s Krit tand Wi negar  ( 2010), w ho discussed how techno logica l cha nge  places p res s ure  on schoo ls t o play a g ame  of  catc h u p , and  Sel w yn  (2 0 10b)whod iscussedh ow  th e ra pid pace of t e chn ologi cal change  pla ces pressure on e d ucational tech nolo g i sts  to keep  a breast of tech nol og i c al innov at ion. This c an be of  c o nsequ ence,as pre ssure o n ed u cators  tokee p pace wi thev o lving t ec hn o logy c an l ea ve les s time forc o nsidered judgmen t and c ontem p lat ive l ea dership (Can ole, 2007;  Selwyn, 20 10b).Thetheme  of res is tancetote chnologica l  change w as ec hoed fr om  a m ajo rity o f pa r t icipa nts,  a ndthe mostf r eq u en td ime nsio n was  t each ers rarel y  or relu cta n tly int eg rat e techno l og y .  The theme  of  resi s t ance to te c hnol o gy emerg ing fr om thi s study issi milar t o t h e  resistan ce to cha n geth emefound by  C ukie retal . (2009) in the ir quali tative s t u dy tha t e x amin e d a te ch nology initi ative  a t  a Cana d i anunivers i ty.  Acon sequ enc e of  resistance to technolog ical  chan g e i n the  pres en t studyw as t eacher r e sistance to t echnological ch a nge disa dva n ta ge s student s.T he
 to_technological change_is lived out by_participants in_their_approach to_technology_decision making Keep_up with Technology_(or be left behind)._The researcher makes_the_argument that the core category is a manifestation of a philosophical perspective called the_technological_imperative, described_by_some_scholars as associated with technological_determinism (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et_al., 2009;_Hofmann, 2006). The technological imperative involves rhetoric and_underlying_assumptions that technology_has a controlling influence (Hofmann, 2006) that is inevitable_and unstoppable (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et_al., 2009; Leonardi,_2008)_and_creates an imperative to_keep up with technological developments or_be left behind (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb,_2009). However, an implication o f this_conclusion, following from the data, is_participants' concerns surrounding an imperative_to keep_up with technology were not_motivated by a_perception that_technology was in_control. Rather, the data showed that_most participants expressed_concern for keeping up with technology_in_order to benefit_students_(see_Table 20)._Leading technological change_within_schools 263_to_better prepare students to compete in_a_global economy with 21st century skills has_been an important focus_in_recent education reform efforts_(Schrum & Levin, 2008). The_two main properties of the core_category were_pressure to_keep up with technology, and resistance to technological change. The data_shows schools are under pressure to_keep up with the_latest technology,_and_this pressure to_keep_up with_technology has an emotional influence on technology_leaders and_other users of technology. The study_provides support for the_assertions_of scholars such as Kritt and_Winegar (2010), who discussed how technological_change places pressure on schools_to_play_a game of catch up,_and Selwyn (2010b) who discussed how_the rapid pace_of technological change places pressure on educational_technologists_to keep abreast of technological innovation._This_can be of consequence, as pressure_on_educators_to keep pace with evolving_technology can leave less time for_considered judgment and contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b)._The theme of_resistance to technological change was_echoed_from_a majority of participants, and the most frequent dimension was_teachers rarely_or reluctantly integrate_technology. The theme of resistance to technology emerging from this_study is similar to the resistance to_change theme found by Cukier et al. (2009) in their qualitative_study that examined a technology initiative at a_Canadian university. A consequence o f resistance_to technological change in_the_present study was teacher resistance to technological_change_disadvantages_students._The