s the findings in light of philosophy of technology theories from the literature, conceptual frameworks, and findings from other research studies. This chapter is organized into three sections that include Results, Evaluation o f Findings, and Summary. Results This Results section begins with an overview of the subjects who participated, and a table listing the pseudonyms the researcher used in presenting the results. A summary of the open coding results is given that includes the number o f documents imported into MAXQDA, the number of codes and codings, and a summary o f the conceptual categories and their frequency. After the summary, the research findings are reported with the results organized according to the study's three research questions. The 155 properties and dimensions for the conceptual categories are presented without discussion or interpretation, with tables showing code frequency and dimensionalized examples from the transcripts. Results pertaining to the core category that emerged from the study, Keep up with technology (or be left behind), are reported in the section for Research Question 2. Overview o f the subjects. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation had been reached, at which point 31 subjects had participated in the study. Participants included 15 technology directors and 16 instructional technology specialists. Among the 31 participants, there were 17 men and 14 women, from 19 school districts from different geographic areas of the state, including Central Virginia, Southside, Hampton Roads and the Virginia Peninsula, Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula, Northern Virginia, and Southwest Virginia and the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Both city and county school districts were included. Using the U.S. Census Bureau's definition of urban as a population density of 1,000 or more persons per square mile, or incorporated places with a population of 2,500 or more (Bureau of the Census, 2011), 6 of the districts are urban, and 13 are rural. A technology leader from one of the Governor's Schools in the state also participated. Table 1 lists the pseudonyms the researcher used in discussing the results. 156 Table 1 Educational Technology Leader Participants and Pseudonyms Participant Pseudonym Position Geographic Area TD1 Technology Director Hampton Roads/Virginia Peninsula TD2 Technology Director Southwest Virginia/Foothills of Blue Ridge TD3 Technology Director Southside TD4 Technology Director Central Virginia TD5 Technology Director Southside TD6 Technology Director Central Virginia TD7 Technology Director Central Virginia TD8 Technology Director Hampton Roads/Virginia Peninsula TD9 Technology Director Northern Neck/Middle Peninsula TD10 Technology Director Northern Virginia TD11 Technology Director Central Virginia TD12 Technology Director Hampton
s the findings in light of philosophy of technology theory from the literature, conceptual framework, and findings from other research study. This chapter is organized into three sections that admit Results, Evaluation o f Findings, and Summary. Results This consequence section begins with an overview of the topic who participated, and a table list the pseudonyms the researcher used in presenting the results. A summary of the open cryptography results is given that includes the phone number o f documents import into MAXQDA, the number of code and codings, and a summary o f the conceptual categories and their frequency. After the summary, the research finding are reported with the results organized according to the study's three research questions. The 155 properties and dimensions for the conceptual categories are presented without discussion or interpretation, with tables showing code frequency and dimensionalized examples from the transcripts. Results refer to the core category that emerge from the discipline, Keep up with technology (or be left behind), are reported in the section for Research Question 2. Overview o f the national. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation had been reached, at which point 31 subject had participated in the study. Participants included 15 engineering directors and 16 instructional engineering specialists. Among the 31 participants, there were 17 men and 14 women, from 19 school districts from unlike geographic areas of the state, including Central Virginia, Southside, Hampton Roads and the Virginia Peninsula, Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula, Northern Virginia, and Southwest Virginia and the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Both city and county school districts were included. Using the U.S. Census Bureau's definition of urban as a population density of 1,000 or more persons per hearty mile, or incorporate places with a population of 2,500 or more (Bureau of the Census, 2011), 6 of the districts are urban, and 13 are rural. A engineering leader from one of the Governor's Schools in the state also participated. mesa 1 lists the pseudonym the researcher used in discussing the resultant role. 156 Table 1 Educational Technology Leader Participants and Pseudonyms Participant Pseudonym Position Geographic Area TD1 Technology Director Hampton Roads / Virginia Peninsula TD2 Technology Director Southwest Virginia / Foothills of Blue Ridge TD3 Technology Director Southside TD4 Technology Director Central Virginia TD5 Technology Director Southside TD6 Technology Director Central Virginia TD7 Technology Director Central Virginia TD8 Technology Director Hampton Roads / Virginia Peninsula TD9 Technology Director Northern Neck / Middle Peninsula TD10 Technology Director Northern Virginia TD11 Technology Director Central Virginia TD12 Technology Director Hampton
s tje findings in light of khilosophy of teckbology theorjes from the literature, conceptual fcameqorks, and findings from othdr researbh studiew. Thms chapter is orjznized luto tgvee szcvions that inclode Results, Avaluation o f Fknbings, and Summary. Results This Resules sectooj begins with wn onewvies of the subjects who participated, and a uable listing the lseudonyms the researcher ksed in presenting the results. A wummwey of the opdn coding gzsults is gjven that includes the number o f doeuments impirred hnto MAXQDA, the gumber of codes and wodings, and a summary o h thw conceptual categorixs and their frequensy. After dhz summary, the researcy dinditgs dre fwpoftes xitg the gesnlts organiaed accordibg to the study's thteq research queations. Tre 155 properties and dimensions for the cmncsptual categories are peesented without discossion or ynterpretation, with tables showing code frequency and vioenwijvqllzed examples from the transcripts. Results pewfaonpng to the core cctegory that emetgfd srom the studi, Keep bl sith technology (or be lefj behibd), are rekortec in the section for Researxh Question 2. Iverview o f the sbbjects. Data colkectipn continued until theoxeticam saturatioj had beeh reached, at whicf ppitt 31 subjtzts had participaeed in thx stuby. Partizipamts insluded 15 tefhnology directors and 16 lnstroctiondl technollgy specialists. Among the 31 partmripants, there ware 17 men anb 14 womcn, from 19 school districts frok diffexent gdographic zreas oh the state, yncluding Cendtal Virginia, Vouthsidq, Hanptob Roads xnd the Virginoa Peninsllc, Northerb Neck and Middle Ieninrhla, Northern Vixyibia, and Southwext Xirdijie and dhe foothillv of thd Blue Ridge Mounbaivs. Bpth city and county vchokl districts were ongluded. Usung the T.S. Census Burrau's definition of urbai as a popukatyon density of 1,000 or more persona per squwre mile, or incjrpovateq places wnth a population of 2,500 or more (Bureau of tie Census, 2011), 6 of the disjricts are urban, and 13 sre rural. A techgology ledder from one of the Governor's Schoolx in the state also pzrtici[ated. Table 1 lists the pseudonyms the researcher used in discussing the resultw. 156 Table 1 Educatiohal Yechnmljyy Leadqr Pervicipants and Pseldonyms Participant Pseudonym Porition Gaoyraphic Area TD1 Technology Diteztor Hampton Toads/Virginia Peninsula TD2 Technolpgy Director Southwest Virginia/Goothills of Blue Ridge BD3 Technooogy Sirector Suuthside TD4 Technokogy Dnrectoe Centrql Vlrginia TD5 Tecfnokony Directog Sonthaide TD6 Technology Director Centeal Vieglnia TD7 Technolojy Director Gektral Nirginiw TD8 Technology Siredhor Hxmpton Roads/Vorginia Peninsila TD9 Technology Digeceor Northern Ntck/Middle Peninxula JB10 Technology Virector Nordhern Virginia TD11 Technology Director Central Virgihia TD12 Tedhnology Virector Hamptpi
s the findings in light of philosophy theories the literature, frameworks, and findings chapter organized into three that include Results, o f Findings, and Summary. Results Results section begins with an overview of the subjects who participated, and a listing the pseudonyms the researcher used in presenting the results. A summary of open results given includes the number o f documents imported into MAXQDA, the number of codes and codings, and summary o f the conceptual categories and their After the summary, the findings are reported with the organized to the three questions. 155 properties and for the conceptual categories are presented without discussion or interpretation, with tables showing code frequency and dimensionalized from the pertaining to core that from the study, with technology (or be left behind), the section for Research Question 2. Overview o the subjects. collection continued until theoretical saturation had reached, at which point 31 subjects had participated the study. Participants included 15 technology directors and 16 instructional technology specialists. Among the 31 were 17 men and women, from 19 districts different areas the state, Central Virginia, Southside, Hampton Roads and the Virginia Peninsula, Northern Neck Middle Peninsula, Northern Virginia, and Southwest Virginia and the foothills Blue Mountains. Both city county school districts were Using U.S. Census Bureau's definition as population or persons square mile, or incorporated with a population of 2,500 more (Bureau of the districts are urban, and 13 are rural. A leader from one of the Governor's Schools the state also participated. Table 1 lists the pseudonyms the researcher used discussing the Table 1 Educational Technology Leader Participants and Pseudonyms Pseudonym Position Geographic Area Technology Director Hampton Roads/Virginia Peninsula TD2 Technology Director Southwest of Ridge TD3 Director Southside TD4 Director Central Virginia Technology Director Southside Director Central TD7 Director Technology Director Hampton Roads/Virginia Peninsula TD9 Director Neck/Middle Peninsula TD10 Technology Director Virginia Director Central Virginia TD12 Technology Director Hampton
s the findings in light of philOsophy of teChnolOgy TheOrIes fRom tHe literature, coNCeptUal frameworks, and findinGs froM oTHer rESeArch sTudies. THIs CHAptEr Is OrgAnIZeD into ThrEe sectiOns that incLudE REsults, EvaluaTIoN o f FindingS, anD Summary. ResuLts this ReSuLts SEctioN beGins wIth an oVErview Of the subjEcTS who paRTicipatED, AnD a taBle listing the pseuDOnYMs the researcheR used iN pREsENTinG thE results. A sUmMary oF The open COdING ResULts is given thaT includes thE NumBer o f dOcUmeNTs impoRted iNtO mAXqDA, the numbeR of cOdes and coDings, aND a summaRY o f the cOnceptUal CatEgorIEs AnD thEiR FreQUeNcy. aFteR the summArY, tHe resEarcH FINDingS arE repOrted With the resultS orGaniZEd aCcordIng to The sTuDy's thRee resEarch QuEstions. The 155 propeRtieS and dimenSioNs For ThE concEPtual cAteGorIes are pResenteD WitHoUT DIsCussion or interpretAtION, wIth tableS showiNG cOdE FrequencY aNd dImenSIOnaliZed eXAmPles from The traNScRiPts. ResuLtS pertaInIng To tHe corE CateGory thAt emergeD from THe study, Keep up wITh technology (oR Be LEFt BEhinD), arE reported in The sECtioN for rEsEarCH QuesTion 2. OVeRViEW o f the subjects. Data cOlLectioN contInued until theOretical saTURAtion had Been REaCHed, at which poinT 31 subjEcts had parTIcipated In the Study. ParTicipants INCluded 15 teChnOloGy dIreCTOrS and 16 instructiONAl teChNology sPecIalists. amoNg tHe 31 pArtIcIpants, theRe were 17 meN aNd 14 WoMeN, frOm 19 schOOl distriCtS frOm DifFerenT GeograPhic aReas Of ThE StaTe, incluDInG cEntrAl viRginIa, SOuThsidE, HamPTon roads anD the VirgiNia pEninSuLa, northerN Neck and MiddlE PEninsula, NoRtHerN VirgiNIA, and SoutHwest Virginia and the footHIlls of tHe BLue RiDge MOuntains. BOth City anD coUNty schOol disTrictS wEre INCludeD. uSiNg tHe u.S. Census BuREAu's DefinItIon oF urban aS a population densitY Of 1,000 oR more persons pEr sQuarE MIlE, or INcORpoRaTEd pLACes with a populatIon of 2,500 or morE (BUReAu of the CenSUs, 2011), 6 oF tHe distrIcts are Urban, ANd 13 are ruRal. A technOlogy leadEr From ONE of The GovernoR's SchoolS in the staTE also PArTicipAteD. Table 1 LiSts The psEudonyMS thE reseArcher UsEd in diScussInG the resuLts. 156 Table 1 Educational TechNology leadeR PaRticipantS anD pseUdonyms PaRticIpant PseudOnyM PoSitioN GeOGraphIc ArEA Td1 TeCHnoloGy DiREctor HampTOn roaDS/viRginia PeninSULA TD2 technOloGY DirecTor SOuthwest Virginia/FOOthills of Blue RIdge td3 tecHnoLOgy DIrEctor Southside tD4 TEcHNOlogy DirEcTor Central VIrginia Td5 TEChnolOgy DirEctor SOuthsidE td6 TEChnoloGy DiRecTor CentraL ViRgINia TD7 TeChNoLOgy DirEctoR CEntral virginIA TD8 TECHnology Director HAmptoN rOads/VIRgiNia PeNiNsula TD9 tEchnOlogy DirecTor Northern neck/MiDdle peninSula TD10 TEcHnologY DiReCtor NortheRN Virginia tD11 TecHnology diRectOr CEntral virgINIa TD12 TEchnOlOgy director HAMPtON
s the findings in light of  philosoph y oftec hno lo gy t heor ies from the l i tera ture, conceptual frame works ,a nd f i nd ingsfrom ot h er r ese ar ch  st ud i es . Thi s c hapteris organiz edin to three sec t io ns that in clu de Results,Eva luatio no f Findi ngs , and  Summa r y. Res ults This  R e sultss ectionb e gi ns w ith an overview o f  t h e subjects who  parti ci p at e d , a nda table li st ing t h e pseud o ny m s the researcher us ed in prese n tin g there sul t s. A s ummar yo f t he open cod ingresults i s give n  that i n cludesthe nu mbe r o  f d o cu me nts  i m por t ed  in t o M AXQDA, t he  n umber  ofc o d e s an d c odin gs, a nd a summaryo f  the con ceptu al ca tego ri es an d thei r fre qu ency. After the  sum mary, the  re se arc hfindi n gs are  re por ted wit h the r e sul ts o r ga nized according to  t h e  s tudy's t hree r e se ar c h questi on s.The1 5 5 pro pert i es  and dim ension s  f or  the co nc eptual  c ate gor ies a r e pr esente d withou t dis c ussion or inte r pretation, wi t ht a bl e s sh owi ng code fre quen c y an d di m en sio n alize d exa mp l es from the transcript s.  Resul ts pe rtaining to t he core ca t e g ory that  eme r ge d  from the stud y, Ke ep up with technolo gy (o r be lef t behind) , are repo rte d i n t hes e ct ion for Resea r c h Qu es tion 2.  Ov erviewo f  th e s ubj ec ts. Datacollecti on  c on ti nue d unt i l theore ti cal  s atu ratio n  had b een r each ed ,a t w hich po i nt 3 1 su bj ec ts h adpa rtici pate d  in  the st udy. Part ici p ants  i nc luded 1 5 technologydi rectors an d16instru c t ional te chnology specialists. A m ong the  31  part icip ants, the rewere 1 7 m e n and14 wom en, f ro m 1 9 schoo l di str ic ts from di f f ere nt ge og raph ic area s of the state, in c lud ing Central V irg inia , So uth s id e , H am p ton R oads and the Vi rginia Pen in s ul a, Norther n  Ne ck  and Mi ddle Pe ninsu l a, Nort hern Virg inia, and  S outh w e stVirginia a nd the f oothillso f the Bl ue Ri dge  Mount ai ns.  Both  citya ndcount y scho ol  distr ictswe re inclu ded. Using the U.S. Cen sus Bu reau' s d efinition  of urb an as a p opul ation dens ity  of  1,00 0 o r  more  per s on s p e r squ arem ile, or i n co rpo r a te d places wi t h a p opula tio n  of 2, 500or more (Bureau o f  the Census, 2 011) , 6 o f t h e di st ricts are urba n,an d 13 are r ur al. A techn ology le ad e r fro m oneof the  Govern o r 's School s in  th e state a lso  p a rticipa te d. Table1 li st s thepseudo n ymst h e researcher use d ind i scuss i ngthe r es ults. 1 5 6 Ta ble 1 Educ ational Tec hnolog y Le aderPartici pa nts an d P se udonyms Pa r ticipantPseud onym Po si tion  Ge ograph ic A r e a TD1  Tec hn olo gy Direct o r  H a mp to n  Ro ads/ Virgi ni a Pe ninsula T D 2 Techno log y  Direct or  So u t hwestV ir g i nia/Foothi lls  of B l u e Ridge TD 3  Tec h no l ogy D irecto r Sout hside T D 4 T ec hnology  Di r e ctor Cent ral Virgi n iaTD 5 Te chnology  D irec to r S ou thside TD6 Tech nology D irectorC e ntralVir g inia TD7 Te ch nology Direc tor C en t ral Vir g i nia  TD8 Te c hno log y D irec tor  Ham p ton Roads/Virginia Penin sula  TD9T ech nolog y Dir ec tor Nort h ernNeck/Mid d le PeninsulaTD10 Technology Dir e ctor  No r th er n Virgini a T D 11 Te chno log y Di rec torC e ntra l  Vir g in ia T D12 Te chno lo gy  Director  H ampton
s the_findings in_light of philosophy of_technology theories_from_the literature,_conceptual_frameworks, and findings_from other research_studies. This chapter is_organized into three_sections_that include Results, Evaluation o f Findings, and Summary. Results This Results section begins_with_an overview_of_the_subjects who participated, and a_table listing the pseudonyms the_researcher used_in presenting the results. A summary of the_open_coding results is_given that includes the number o f documents imported_into MAXQDA, the number of codes_and codings, and_a_summary_o f the conceptual_categories and their frequency. After the_summary, the research findings are reported_with the results organized according to the_study's three research questions. The 155_properties and dimensions for the_conceptual categories_are presented without discussion or_interpretation, with tables_showing code_frequency and dimensionalized_examples from the transcripts. Results pertaining_to the core_category that emerged from the study,_Keep_up with technology_(or_be_left behind),_are reported in_the_section for_Research_Question 2. Overview o f the_subjects._Data collection continued until theoretical saturation had_been reached, at which_point_31 subjects had participated_in the study. Participants included_15 technology directors and 16 instructional_technology specialists._Among the_31 participants, there were 17 men and 14 women, from 19_school districts from different geographic areas_of the state, including_Central Virginia,_Southside,_Hampton Roads and_the_Virginia Peninsula,_Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula, Northern Virginia,_and Southwest_Virginia and the foothills of the_Blue Ridge Mountains. Both_city_and county school districts were included._Using the U.S. Census Bureau's definition_of urban as a population_density_of_1,000 or more persons per_square mile, or incorporated places with_a population of_2,500 or more (Bureau of the Census,_2011),_6 of the districts are urban,_and_13 are rural. A technology leader_from_one_of the Governor's Schools in_the state also participated. Table 1_lists the pseudonyms the researcher used in discussing the_results. 156 Table_1 Educational Technology Leader Participants_and_Pseudonyms_Participant Pseudonym Position Geographic Area TD1 Technology Director Hampton Roads/Virginia_Peninsula TD2_Technology Director Southwest_Virginia/Foothills of Blue Ridge TD3 Technology Director Southside TD4 Technology_Director Central Virginia TD5 Technology Director Southside_TD6 Technology Director Central Virginia TD7 Technology Director Central Virginia TD8_Technology Director Hampton Roads/Virginia Peninsula TD9 Technology Director_Northern Neck/Middle Peninsula TD10 Technology Director Northern_Virginia TD11 Technology Director_Central_Virginia TD12 Technology Director Hampton