 Schrum & Levin, 2008), when they were headed for obsolescence. Besides the monetary consequences, another consequence of pressures to keep up with technology leading to quick adoptions is not waiting for educational research to make an informed decision. TS2 wrote: I would like to say that it is solid research that influences me, but I don't need research to see students get excited using response systems, iPads, and interactive whiteboards. The game has changed and research cannot keep up with the changing tide, and I don't want my students left behind. Schrum and Levin (2008) advised that educators should wait for research demonstrating educational benefits before pursuing extensive technology investments. Under the instrumental view of technology, technology is employed as a means to an end, not an end itself, and not for its own sake. In contrast, when viewed from the perspective of inevitable technology, participants described how we should not resist, but should embrace technological change, and there can be a quickness to adopt technology for the sake of technology. In interpreting such results, it appears there is cognitive dissonance between the instrumental view of technology, and the philosophical 266 perspective that technological change is inevitable (see discussion of theory of cognitive dissonance on p. 237). For example, TS16 expressed: I feel and this a struggle how do we balance this change knowing the new things are coming out, how do we balance with the instructional value? We often feel we're one step behind, not on the cusp o f what is available, we're learning about emerging technologies after the rest o f the world has learned about them. Often the same participants who expressed the instrumental view of technology would express an urgency to keep up with technological change. Figure 5 depicts a code matrix showing the same participants holding different philosophy of technology views in cognitive dissonance. Figure 5. Code matrix showing the same participants holding different philosophy of technology views in cognitive dissonance. The code matrix includes the categories (in order) Technology is a tool, Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology, Technological change is inevitable, and Keep up with technology (or be left behind), with the core category highlighted in the fourth row. Each of the vertical increments represents one o f the 62 documents, with a pair (interview and written questionnaire) for each o f the 31 participants, separated by a dark line. The relative size of the box reflects the number o f coding instances in a particular document for a code. Keep up with technology (or be left behind) is given
Schrum & Levin, 2008), when they were headed for obsolescence. Besides the monetary consequences, another consequence of pressures to keep up with engineering go to quick adoptions is not expect for educational inquiry to make an informed decision. TS2 wrote: I would wish to read that it is solid inquiry that charm me, but I don't need inquiry to see students get excited using reception systems, iPads, and interactive whiteboards. The game has changed and research cannot keep open up with the changing tide, and I don't want my students leave behind. Schrum and Levin (2008) advised that educators should wait for research demonstrating educational benefit before pursuing extensive technology investments. Under the instrumental opinion of technology, technology is employed as a means to an end, not an goal itself, and not for its own sake. In contrast, when viewed from the perspective of inevitable technology, participants described how we should not resist, but should embrace technological change, and there can be a adeptness to adopt technology for the sake of engineering. In interpret such resultant role, it appears there is cognitive disagreement between the instrumental view of technology, and the philosophical 266 position that technological change is inevitable (see discussion of theory of cognitive dissonance on p. 237). For example, TS16 expressed: I feel and this a struggle how do we balance this change knowing the newfangled things are come out, how do we balance with the instructional value? We often feel we're one step behind, not on the cusp oxygen f what is available, we're learning about emerging technologies after the rest o f the world has learned about them. Often the like participants who expressed the instrumental view of technology would carry an urgency to keep open up with technological variety. Figure 5 depicts a code matrix usher the same participants defy different philosophy of technology views in cognitive dissonance. Figure 5. Code matrix showing the same participants holding different doctrine of technology views in cognitive disagreement. The code matrix includes the categories (in order) Technology is a tool, Educational goals and curriculum should tug technology, Technological change is inevitable, and Keep up with technology (or be left behind), with the core class highlighted in the fourth row. Each of the vertical increments represents one o f the 62 documents, with a couple (interview and written questionnaire) for each o f the 31 participants, separated by a dark line. The relative size of the box reflect the number o f coding instances in a particular document for a code. keep open up with technology (or be left behind) is given
 Scjrum & Levin, 2008), when they wtre headed for obsolesceice. Besjdes the monetary consequences, anothxr cinseqyence of pressures to yeep up wpth technilogb leading to quiri adoptljns jd noc xaiting for edugational revearch to make av nnformed decision. TS2 wrote: I would lyke to xaj that it is sjlid wesezgcm that influences me, but I don't heed revearch to see students get excited usinh redponse systems, iPafs, and intetzctyce whiteboaras. The gamt kas changed and research cannot keep up wigh thz changing jnee, wtd I don't went my students lenn behing. Schruk and Levin (2008) acvived that educators shoulv wait for research qemonstradiug educational benefirs befote pussuivt ebtehsmve technllojy investmehts. Under tye instrumental viee jd technology, fechnojody is employed as a means to an end, not an end itself, and not for its own sake. In conttast, when diewed from the perspective of inevitable technolmgy, pergicniwvrs described how we should not resist, but shoulq ekbgace technologicaj change, anc hhrte can be a qukckness tk adopt technology for thg sake of technjlogu. In interpreting such resuots, it appeags tyere is cognitive bissonance bztween the onstrumental view of teehnolofy, and the ohilosophjzal 266 perspective thst technological change is igevitable (see discusrion of thqory of cohnitiya dissonance on p. 237). For gxampla, TS16 expredsed: I feel and this a struggle how do we balsnwe nhis chanye knoeing the new ehings are comnng out, kow do we balancv with thx instructiogal value? We mvten feel we'ce one stqp bwhine, not ov the cusp o f ehat is ananlable, we'ee learning about cmergkhg technologies afuee the rest o f thd wjrpd hwv learned abmut gheo. Oftev the same iargicilants who expressed dhe jnstrumental view pf technoligy woulq express an irgency to keep up with terhnolobicwl change. Figure 5 depicts a cose matrix shjwing the saie pqrticipants kolding different philosophy of technolojy views in cognitive dussonance. Figure 5. Cpce matrix siowing the same participants holdint different philoxophy of technology vjews it cogjitive dissonance. The code matrix includes the categories (in order) Technooogy is a tool, Edudatipnal cocls and ctrriruuum should drive technology, Technological changx is inevidayle, and Keep up with technoloby (or be left bghind), with the core categody highloghted in the fourth row. Each og the vertical incrementx represwnts kne o f thx 62 documents, with a lair (iuterviww and qritben questionnakre) flr each o f tie 31 participants, separated by a darj line. Tje relative size of the box veflecjs the nomber o f coding jnstzjces kn a particulsr document fot a code. Keep up witv eechnology (or vv left behind) is givvn
Schrum & Levin, 2008), when they were obsolescence. the monetary another consequence of technology to quick adoptions not waiting for research to make an informed decision. wrote: I would like to say that it is solid research that influences but I don't need research to see students get excited using response systems, and whiteboards. game changed and research cannot keep up with the changing tide, and I don't want my students behind. Schrum and Levin (2008) advised that educators wait for research demonstrating benefits before pursuing extensive technology Under instrumental view technology, is as a means an end, not an end itself, and not for its own sake. In contrast, when viewed from perspective of participants described we not but should embrace and there can be a quickness for the sake of technology. In interpreting such it appears is cognitive dissonance between the instrumental of technology, and the philosophical 266 perspective that change is inevitable (see discussion of theory of cognitive dissonance on p. 237). For example, I feel and this struggle how do balance change the things are out, how do we balance with the instructional value? We often we're one step behind, not on the cusp o f available, learning about emerging after the rest o the has learned about them. same who view technology express an urgency to up with technological change. Figure depicts a code matrix different philosophy of technology views in cognitive dissonance. 5. Code matrix showing the same participants different philosophy of technology views in cognitive dissonance. The code matrix includes categories (in is a tool, Educational goals and curriculum should technology, Technological change is and Keep up with technology (or be left behind), the category highlighted the fourth row. of the vertical represents one o 62 documents, a (interview for each o f the 31 separated a dark line. The relative of reflects the number o f coding instances in a particular document for a code. Keep technology (or be left is
 Schrum & Levin, 2008), when they were heAded for obsOlescEncE. BeSiDes tHe moNetary consequeNCes, aNother consequence of preSsureS tO Keep UP wIth teChnologY LeADIng To QuIck AdOPtIons iS noT waitinG for educatIonAl Research to maKE aN informed dEciSion. TS2 wrote: I WouLd like To Say THat it Is sOlid rEsearcH That inFluences mE, bUT I don't NEed reseARCh To seE students get excitED uSIng response sysTems, iPAdS, AnD INteRacTive whitebOaRds. ThE Game has CHaNGED anD Research cannoT keep up with THe cHanginG tIde, ANd I don'T want My STudEnts left behInd. SChrum and LEvin (2008) adVIsed thaT EducatoRs shouLd wAit For rESeArCh dEmONstRAtIng EDucAtional bEnEfIts beFore PURSUing ExtEnsiVe tecHnology investMenTs. UnDEr tHe insTrumeNtal ViEw of tEchnolOgy, teChNology is employeD as a Means to an End, NoT an EnD itseLF, and noT foR itS own sakE. In contRAst, WhEN VIeWed from the perspectIvE OF iNevitablE technOLoGy, PArticipaNtS deScriBED how wE shoULd Not resisT, but shOUlD eMbrace tEcHnologIcAl cHanGe, and THere Can be a QuicknesS to adOPt technology foR The sake of techNOlOGY. IN InteRprEting such reSultS, It apPearS ThEre IS cognItive DiSSoNAnce between the instrUmEntal vIew of Technology, and The philosoPHICal 266 perspEctiVE tHAt technologicaL chanGe is inevitABle (see diScussIon of theOry of cognITIve dissoNanCe oN p. 237). FOr eXAMpLe, TS16 expressed: i FEel aNd This a stRugGle how dO we BalAncE thIs Change knoWing the nEw ThInGs Are CominG Out, how do We BalAnCe wIth thE InstruCtionAl vaLuE? WE OftEn feel wE'Re ONE steP bEhInd, nOt oN tHe cusP o f wHAt iS availaBle, we're leArnINg abOuT eMerging Technologies aFtEr the rest o F tHe wOrld haS LEarned abOut them. Often the same partICipants Who ExpreSsed The instruMenTal vieW of TEchnolOgy wouLd expReSs aN URgencY TO kEep Up With technoLOGicAl chaNgE. FigUre 5 depiCts a code matrix showINg tHe same particiPanTs hoLDInG diFFeREnt PhILosOPHy of technology vIews in cognItIVe Dissonance. fIguRe 5. code matRix showIng thE Same parTicipants Holding diFfErenT PHilOsophy of teChnology Views in coGNitivE DiSsonaNce. the codE mAtrIx incLudes tHE caTegorIes (in oRdEr) TechNologY iS a tool, EdUcational goals and curricUlum shOuld dRivE technoloGy, TEChnOlogical cHangE is inevitaBle, And keep uP wiTH techNoloGY (oR be LEft beHind), WIth the corE CaTegORY hIghlighted iN THE foUrth rOw. EACh of thE verTical increments rePResents one o f thE 62 docUMEntS, wiTH a paIr (Interview and wrIttEn QUEstionnaIrE) for each o f tHe 31 particIpANts, seParateD by a daRk line. THE ReLAtive sIze oF thE box refleCts ThE Number o F cOdINg instAnceS iN a partIcular DOcumENT for a code. Keep up wIth teCHNologY (Or bE left BeHind) is gIVen
 Schrum & Levin, 2008), wh en they we re he ade d f or  obs oles cence. Besides themonetary consequences,  anot he r  con s eq uence  of pre s su r e s t oke epup wi th te chn ology l eading toqui ck  adoptions i s  n ot waiting  fo r educationa l r esearc htom ake a n i nform ed dec i sion.TS2 wrote :I  would like to s ay  tha t it is solid res e ar c h that influen ces me ,b ut I  do n't  need rese ar ch to see stu d en t s get excited using  response s y ste ms, iP ad s,a nd int eract iv e  wh iteboards.Thegame haschange d  and re s earch c annotkee p u p wi t hth e c ha n gin g  t ide ,  an d I don' twa nt my  stu d e n t s le ftbehi nd. S chrum and Lev in(200 8 ) a dvise d tha t ed uc ators  shoul d wai tfor research de mons trating e duc at ion al  bene f its be for e p ursuing  extens i vete c h n ol ogy investments. U nd e r  t he instr umenta l  v ie w  of tech no log y, t e c hnolo gy i s  e mployedas a m e an sto an e nd , notan  en d i tself ,  and  not f or its o wn sa k e. In contrast ,  when viewedf ro m th e  per spe ctive of in evit a bletech n ol ogy ,  part icipa nt s  d e scribed how we shou ld  not r esist , but shouldembrace te c h n ological  cha n ge ,  and there can  be a  quickness to adopt  tech nology f or the sa k e  of tech nol ogy . I n i n t er preting suchr e sult s,  it app ear s there  is  co gni tiv edissonanc e betwee nth ein str ument a l view o ftec hn olo gy, a n d thephilo soph ic al 266  perspe c ti v e  tha tte chno log ic al ch ange isinevita ble (seedis c ussi on  o f theor y of cognitiv edissonance  o n p . 237) . For exam ple, TS16 expressed: If eel and  th is astru ggle howdowe bal anc e  thischange  know in g t h e  newt h in gsar e coming o u t , h ow do  w e ba lance w ith the instructio n alvalue? We oft enfeel w e' reo ne ste pb ehi n d , not on the cu sp o f wha ti savailable, we' re  learni ng abou t eme r ging te chnologie s after t he  res t o f  the world  has lea rned abou t  them .  O ftenthe  samepa rti cipan ts who exp resse d thein strume ntalvi ew of te chnology would expressan urg encytokeep up w ith tec hnologica l ch ange. Figu re5 d epict s a codematr i xsho w ing t he s a me partic i pa nts h ol ding differ e n t  ph iloso phy of tec hnol ogy views in cogn i tive dissonanc e. F i g ure  5. Code  m atrix showingthe  s a m e partic ip ants holdin g differ en t  phil osophy  of te chnolog y vi e ws incogn iti ve disson anc e. The cod ema t rix in clud es  the c ategor i es ( i n  order) Technolo gy is a  tool ,  Ed ucati on al goal s  and  curriculu m should dr ive te chno logy,  Techno lo gicalcha ng e is inevi t able, and  Keep  up wit htech nol ogy (o r be l eft b ehin d) , w ith the c o r ec at eg o ryhigh light ed  inthe fourt h  row. Ea cho f the v er tic a l  incre m en t s  represent s o ne of the 62 doc u ment s ,w ith a  pair(inter view an d  wr it ten que sti o n naire) fo r each of  th e31 p articipa nt s, s ep ara te d by a dark lin e. The r elatives i ze ofthe boxr eflect sthe number o  f co di n g insta n c esin a pa r tic ula r d ocum ent  for a code. Keep up with tec hnol ogy ( o r b e lef t beh in d) is gi v en
 Schrum_& Levin,_2008), when they were_headed for_obsolescence._Besides the_monetary_consequences, another consequence_of pressures to_keep up with technology_leading to quick_adoptions_is not waiting for educational research to make an informed decision. TS2 wrote: I_would_like to_say_that_it is solid research that_influences me, but I don't_need research_to see students get excited using response systems,_iPads,_and interactive whiteboards._The game has changed and research cannot keep up_with the changing tide, and I_don't want my_students_left_behind. Schrum and Levin_(2008) advised that educators should wait_for research demonstrating educational benefits before_pursuing extensive technology investments. Under the instrumental_view of technology, technology is employed_as a means to an_end, not_an end itself, and not_for its own_sake. In_contrast, when viewed_from the perspective of inevitable technology,_participants described how_we should not resist, but should_embrace_technological change, and_there_can_be a_quickness to adopt_technology_for the_sake_of technology. In interpreting such results,_it_appears there is cognitive dissonance between the_instrumental view of technology,_and_the philosophical 266 perspective_that technological change is inevitable_(see discussion of theory of cognitive_dissonance on_p. 237)._For example, TS16 expressed: I feel and this a struggle how_do we balance this change knowing_the new things are_coming out,_how_do we balance_with_the instructional_value? We often feel we're one step_behind, not_on the cusp o f what_is available, we're learning_about_emerging technologies after the rest o_f the world has learned about_them. Often the same participants_who_expressed_the instrumental view of technology_would express an urgency to keep_up with technological_change. Figure 5 depicts a code matrix_showing_the same participants holding different philosophy_of_technology views in cognitive dissonance. Figure_5._Code_matrix showing the same participants_holding different philosophy of technology views_in cognitive dissonance. The code matrix includes the categories_(in order) Technology_is a tool, Educational goals_and_curriculum_should drive technology, Technological change is inevitable, and Keep up_with technology_(or be left_behind), with the core category highlighted in the fourth row._Each of the vertical increments represents one_o f the 62 documents, with a pair (interview and written_questionnaire) for each o f the 31 participants,_separated by a dark line. The relative_size of the box_reflects_the number o f coding instances in_a_particular_document_for a code._Keep up with_technology (or be_left behind)_is given