 called for further research to examine the current reality of young people and their use of technology, in part to dispel technological determinist assumptions and rhetoric. Bennett and Maton (2010) conducted a review of research and concluded that the broad claims about digital natives were not supported by research evidence. Rather than students being inevitably changed by technology in determined ways, empirical research showed that the choices which students make based on their purposes and interests shape how they engage with technology (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett and Maton (2010) found that the frequency and use o f technology by students was highly variable, and students chose technology for its value and suitability for particular purposes and interests. 66 Witt (2012) argued that digital technologies have important implications for gifted students, and that gifted students are often ahead of their peers in becoming proficient with technology. Brown and Czemiewicz (2010) found that a small group of talented students shared characteristics o f digital natives. However, Jones and Healing (2010) investigated college freshmen and found that students were not a homogenous group in terms of their use and skill with technology, and significant variations were present in their competencies. Based on an ongoing six-year study, Brown and Czemiewicz (2010) found that age was generally not a factor in determining students' use o f digital technology. Even though students may have a wide exposure to using technologies, this can be a superficial exposure that does not develop the technology skills needed to be successful in their coursework, such as creating their own content (Bennett et al., 2008; Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett et al. (2008) referred to a lack of evidence that digital natives are uniquely suited for multitasking compared with other generations. The findings from recent empirical studies about digital natives calls into question the technological determinist assumptions that educators may have about technology causing inevitable change to students (Jones & Healing, 2010). Philosophy o f technology assumptions and ethical considerations in leadership. Technology leaders face many ethical issues important for responsible educational technology practice (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). Ethical considerations pertaining to responsible K-12 technology leadership have been defined in national professional standards as a core skill area for school technology leaders (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). The framework of essential skills for technology leadership includes addressing ethical issues that pertain to policy-making and enforcement, and the 67 ethical purchasing and utilization of technology (Consortium for School Networking, 2011).
called for further research to examine the current reality of unseasoned citizenry and their use of technology, in part to disperse technological determinist assumption and palaver. Bennett and Maton (2010) conducted a reappraisal of research and concluded that the across-the-board claims about digital natives were not back by research evidence. Rather than students being inevitably changed by technology in determine ways, empirical research show that the choices which students make based on their purpose and interests shape how they engage with technology (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett and Maton (2010) found that the frequency and practice o f technology by students was highly variable, and students chose engineering for its value and suitability for especial purposes and interests. 66 Witt (2012) argued that digital technologies have important implications for gifted students, and that talented student are often ahead of their peer in become proficient with technology. Brown and Czemiewicz (2010) found that a belittled group of talented students shared characteristics o f digital native. However, Jones and Healing (2010) investigated college freshmen and found that students were not a homogenous group in terms of their consumption and skill with technology, and significant variations were present in their competencies. free-base on an ongoing six - year cogitation, Brown and Czemiewicz (2010) found that age was generally not a factor in determining student' use o f digital technology. Even though student may have a wide exposure to using engineering, this can be a superficial exposure that does not train the technology skills necessitate to be successful in their coursework, such as creating their own message (Bennett et al. , 2008; Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett et al. (2008) referred to a lack of evidence that digital native are uniquely suited for multitasking compare with other generations. The findings from recent empirical cogitation about digital natives calls into question the technological determinist assumptions that educators may have about engineering causing inevitable change to student (Jones & Healing, 2010). Philosophy o f technology assumptions and ethical considerations in leadership. Technology leaders confront many ethical issues important for responsible educational technology practice (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). Ethical considerations refer to creditworthy K-12 technology leadership have been defined in national professional standards as a core skill area for school technology leaders (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). The model of essential skills for technology leadership includes addressing ethical issues that pertain to policy - making and enforcement, and the 67 ethical purchasing and utilization of engineering (Consortium for School Networking, 2011).
 capled for further researcm to examine the currenv realify of yojng people and their use of vechbologt, in part to dispel tezhnologicwl deterniniwr assumptions and vketorjg. Benuevt and Maton (2010) cpnducted a review of resaafck and concluded that the broad claimf about dlgital natives wert njt shipirted by research evidence. Rafher then students beimg inevitably changed by tfchnllogy in determinef ways, empitjcaj research shuwed that uhz choices wgich students make based on thekr puxposes and unrerfvts shape hiw thvy engage witm technmlogy (Brnnett & Maton, 2010; Joies & Healing, 2010). Bennett and Maton (2010) found that the freqgeucy and use o f techniligy bi stugentr war hjgily variahle, and studehts chose twchnology for its vsltv and suitabimity fjr particular purposes and interests. 66 Witu (2012) arfued that digital technilogies have importanj implicatyons for gifted students, and that gifted students are kwteu aheaa ov their peers in becoming proficient with tecrhokony. Brown and Czeiiewicz (2010) foinf yrat a small gtoup of tamented students shwred chwractwristics j f cigital natives. However, Jonws and Healiug (2010) investigated collzge freshmen and founc that students were noc a hojogenous grlup in tedos of their use xnd snill with technology, and sygnificanv varnations dere presegt in theig comiatencies. Based on wn onyoing six-year shudy, Brown and Czemiewicz (2010) founv that age wax cenvrally noc a fagtor in determiging students' ose o f dngital technologj. Even thmugh studenes may have a aide exposurx to usind texhnooogies, gfis can be a siperficial exposure that does not devclop jhs technology sknuos needed to be suzcefsvuk yt their courvewofk, rich ar creating bhekr oen content (Bennett ed al., 2008; Jones & Healing, 2010). Neknett et ql. (2008) refewred to a lacl of evidence that digival navives sre uniquely suited for multitaskjng compaged with other denevatijns. The fiudings from recent empirical studies abont digital natives callw into question the uechnological detewminist avsumptions that educqtors may have abput technology causinf inevhtablf change to students (Jones & Healing, 2010). Philosophy o f technology assumptionw and xtrical consiserayions iu lzadershyp. Txcinology leaders fsce many ethical issues importait for res[ousible educational technology pfactice (Consottium for School Networkinf, 2011). Ethicsl considerations pertaining to responsible K-12 technologn leadersyip hzve bevh vefined in national lrofesvionao standqrds as a core skkll avea for scjool tzchnology leaders (Consortium for Wchool Nftworking, 2011). The fcamework of csrentizl skijls for technolofy lswdersfip includes sddressing ethocal issues that pernaig to policy-makuhg and enforvemenj, and the 67 ethiral purchasitg and utilization of technology (Consortium for Schkol Netwodking, 2011).
called for further research to examine the of people and use of technology, determinist and rhetoric. Bennett Maton (2010) conducted review of research and concluded that broad claims about digital natives were not supported by research evidence. Rather than being inevitably changed by technology in determined ways, empirical research showed that the which make on purposes and interests shape how they engage with technology (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Jones & Healing, Bennett and Maton (2010) found that the frequency use o f technology students was highly variable, and chose for its and for purposes and interests. Witt (2012) argued that digital technologies have important implications for gifted students, and that gifted students are ahead of in becoming with Brown Czemiewicz (2010) found small group of talented students shared digital natives. However, Jones and Healing (2010) investigated freshmen and that students were not a homogenous in terms of their use and skill with and significant variations were present in their competencies. Based on an ongoing six-year study, Brown (2010) found that age generally not a in students' o digital technology. though students may have a wide exposure to using technologies, this be a superficial exposure that does not develop the technology to successful in their such as creating their content et al., 2008; Jones 2010). et to lack evidence that digital natives uniquely suited for multitasking compared other generations. The findings digital natives calls into question the technological determinist that educators may have about technology causing change to students (Jones & Healing, 2010). Philosophy o f technology assumptions ethical considerations Technology leaders face many ethical issues important for educational technology practice (Consortium School Networking, 2011). Ethical considerations pertaining to responsible K-12 leadership been defined national professional standards a core skill for school technology for School 2011). framework for technology leadership includes addressing ethical that to policy-making and enforcement, and 67 and utilization of technology (Consortium for School Networking, 2011).
 called for further research tO examine thE currEnt ReaLiTy of YounG people and theiR Use oF technology, in part to disPel teChNOlogICaL deteRminist ASsUMPtiOnS aNd rHeTOrIc. BenNetT and MatOn (2010) conducteD a rEvIew of researcH AnD concluded ThaT the broad claIms About dIgItaL NativEs wEre noT suppoRTed by rEsearch evIdENce. RatHEr than sTUDeNts bEing inevitably chaNGeD By technology in DetermInED wAYS, emPirIcal researCh ShoweD That the CHoICES whICh students makE based on theIR puRposes AnD inTErests Shape HoW TheY engage with TechNology (BenNett & MaTOn, 2010; Jones & hEaling, 2010). BEnnett And matOn (2010) foUNd ThAt tHe FReqUEnCy aND usE o f technOlOgY by stUdenTS WAS higHly VariAble, aNd students choSe tEchnOLogY for iTs valUe anD sUitabIlity fOr parTiCular purposes anD intErests. 66 WitT (2012) arGuEd tHaT digiTAl techNolOgiEs have iMportanT ImpLiCATIoNs for gifted studentS, aND ThAt gifted StudenTS aRe OFten aheaD oF thEir pEERs in bEcomINg ProficieNt with TEcHnOlogy. BrOwN and CzEmIewIcz (2010) Found THat a Small gRoup of taLenteD Students shared CHaracteristicS O f DIGiTAl naTivEs. However, JoNes aND HeaLing (2010) INvEstIGated ColleGe FReSHmen and found that stuDeNts werE not a Homogenous groUp in terms oF THEir use anD skiLL wITh technology, anD signIficant varIAtions weRe preSent in thEir competENCies. BaseD on An oNgoIng SIX-yEar study, Brown AND CzeMiEwicz (2010) foUnd That age Was GenEraLly NoT a factor iN determiNiNg StUdEntS' use o F Digital tEcHnoLoGy. EVen thOUgh stuDents May hAvE a WIde ExposurE To USIng tEcHnOlogIes, ThIs can Be a sUPerFicial eXposure thAt dOEs noT dEvElop the Technology skiLlS needed to bE sUccEssful IN Their couRsework, such as creating thEIr own coNteNt (BenNett Et al., 2008; Jones & heaLing, 2010). BeNneTT et al. (2008) rEferreD to a lAcK of EVIdencE THaT diGiTal natives ARE unIquelY sUiteD for mulTitasking compared wITh oTher generatioNs. THe fiNDInGs fROm REceNt EMpiRICal studies about Digital natIvES cAlls into quEStiOn The techNologicAl detERminist AssumptioNs that eduCaTors MAY haVe about tecHnology cAusing ineVItablE ChAnge tO stUdents (joNes & healiNg, 2010). PhilOSopHy o f tEchnolOgY assumPtionS aNd ethicaL considerations in leaderShip. TeChnolOgy Leaders faCe mANy eThical issUes iMportant foR reSpoNsiblE edUCatioNal tEChNolOGy praCticE (consortiuM FoR ScHOOl networking, 2011). ETHICal ConsiDerATions pErtaIning to responsiblE k-12 technology leaDersHIP haVe bEEn deFiNed in national pRofEsSIOnal stanDaRds as a core sKill area FoR SchooL technOlogy lEaders (CONSoRTium foR SchOol networkinG, 2011). ThE fRAmework Of EsSEntial SkilLs For tecHnologY LeadERShip includes addrEssinG EThicaL IssUes thAt Pertain TO polIcy-making aNd enforcemeNt, and tHe 67 etHical PurchasInG and utIliZaTion of techNOlogy (ConsOrtiuM for SchOoL NetWorKing, 2011).
 called for further resear ch to exam ine t hecur re nt r eali ty of young pe o pleand their use of techn ology ,i n pa r tto di spel te c hn o l ogi ca ldet er m in ist a ssu mptions  and rheto ric .Bennett andM at on (2010)con ducted a rev iew  of re se arc h  andcon clude d that the br oad claim sa bout d i gital n a t iv es w ere not supported by research evide nce. R at h er t han  st udents bei ng  inev i tably c h an g e d  by technology in  determined way s, emp ir ica l  resea rch s ho w edthat the ch oice s which s tudent s  make b a sed ontheirpur pos es a n din ter es t s s h ap e h o w t hey enga ge  w ith t echn o l o g y (B enn ett& Mat on, 2010; Jon es& He a lin g, 20 10).Benn et t and  Maton  (201 0)  found that the  fre quency an d u se  oftechn o logy b y s tud ents wa s highl y  va ri a b l e,  and students chos et e ch nology f or its va lu e  and sui ta bil ityf o r par ticu l ar  purpose s andi nt er ests. 6 6Witt ( 20 12)  ar guedt hatdigita l techno logie s  have importan t  implications fo r gi f tedstu dents, andthat gift ed s t ud ent s  areoften  a h ea d  of their peers inbe coming  prof icient with t echnology. B r own andCzem i ew i cz (2010) foun d tha t a smallg roup oftalen ted stud ents shar e d  charact eri sti cso f d ig ital natives. H owev er , Jones  an d Heali ng(20 10)  in ve stigatedcollegefr es hm en  an d fou n d that s tu den ts  we re no t  a hom ogeno us g ro up interms o f  t h e ir u se  a nd s kil lwithtech n olo gy, and  signific ant vari at io ns were  present in t he ir compete nc ies . Base d on an on going six-year study, B r own and  Cz emiew icz(2010) fo und  thatage was ge nerall y not  a  fa c t or in d et erm in ing studen t s ' u se ofdigi tal tec hnology. Even thou g h s tudents may h ave  a w i d eexp o su r e t ou sin g technologies, t his can be  a su perficiale xpo su re that  does n ot de v elop th e technol ogy skill sneed e d  to  be succes sful intheir cou r sewor k ,suchascreati ng  th eir o wn con t ent  (Ben nett e tal., 2 008;Jo nes & He aling, 2010). Bennett e t al.(2008 ) r eferred t o a lac k of evid ence  that digi tal  na tives  ar e  uniq uely su ite d  formult i tasking c o mp are d wi th other ge n e r ati ons.The findin gs f rom recent empiri c al studies abo ut d i g ita l n a tive scalls into que sti on t he techn ol ogical dete rministas s umpti ons th at edu catorsm a yh ave ab outtec hnology c aus in g  inevit ab le change  tost udents  (Jone s  & H e a ling, 2010). Phi losop h y  o ft ech nolog yassumpt i onsand ethica l considera tionsin l eader ship. T ec hnolog y l ea ders facem any ethic al is sues im po rtan t f or res pons i b le ed ucat io nal  technolo g y  p r ac ti c e ( Cons ortiu mforSchool Ne t working,  20 1 1). Eth ic alc o nsider a ti o n s pertaini ngto re s p onsible K- 1 2 te c hn o logyleader ship h ave bee n  de fi ned innat i o nal profe ssional s t and ar ds a s a core  s kill  a rea  f or school techn ology le aders (C o n sortiu m f o r Sc h ool Ne tw orking, 2011 ). Th ef ramewor k ofessenti a l s kil lsfortec hnol o gy leadership includes a ddre ssing eth icalissue sthat per t ainto polic y -making and e nforcement, and the 67 e thi c al  p urchasing  an d  util izat ion  oftec hnol o g y (C o nsor t iu m fo r Scho ol N et wo rking, 20 11 ).
 called_for further_research to examine the_current reality_of_young people_and_their use of_technology, in part_to dispel technological determinist_assumptions and rhetoric._Bennett_and Maton (2010) conducted a review of research and concluded that the broad claims_about_digital natives_were_not_supported by research evidence. Rather_than students being inevitably changed_by technology_in determined ways, empirical research showed that the_choices_which students make_based on their purposes and interests shape how they_engage with technology (Bennett & Maton,_2010; Jones &_Healing,_2010)._Bennett and Maton (2010)_found that the frequency and use_o f technology by students was_highly variable, and students chose technology for_its value and suitability for particular_purposes and interests. 66 Witt_(2012) argued_that digital technologies have important_implications for gifted_students, and_that gifted students_are often ahead of their peers_in becoming proficient_with technology. Brown and Czemiewicz (2010)_found_that a small_group_of_talented students_shared characteristics o_f_digital natives._However,_Jones and Healing (2010) investigated college_freshmen_and found that students were not a_homogenous group in terms_of_their use and skill_with technology, and significant variations_were present in their competencies. Based_on an_ongoing six-year_study, Brown and Czemiewicz (2010) found that age was generally not_a factor in determining students' use_o f digital technology._Even though_students_may have a_wide_exposure to_using technologies, this can be a superficial_exposure that_does not develop the technology skills_needed to be successful_in_their coursework, such as creating their_own content (Bennett et al., 2008;_Jones & Healing, 2010). Bennett_et_al._(2008) referred to a lack_of evidence that digital natives are_uniquely suited for_multitasking compared with other generations. The findings_from_recent empirical studies about digital natives_calls_into question the technological determinist assumptions_that_educators_may have about technology causing_inevitable change to students (Jones &_Healing, 2010). Philosophy o f technology assumptions and ethical_considerations in leadership._Technology leaders face many ethical_issues_important_for responsible educational technology practice (Consortium for School Networking, 2011)._Ethical considerations_pertaining to responsible_K-12 technology leadership have been defined in national professional standards_as a core skill area for school_technology leaders (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). The framework of essential_skills for technology leadership includes addressing ethical issues_that pertain to policy-making and enforcement, and_the 67 ethical purchasing_and_utilization of technology (Consortium for School Networking,_2011).