 exacerbated problems that impact schools such as plagiarism, risks to the security o f information, loss of privacy, bullying, and threats to student safety (Biddle et al., 2008; Canole, 2007; Chang, 2010; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Livingstone & Haddon, 2009). Nworie and Haughton (2008) examined the adoption and implementation o f innovative technology for both traditional face-to-face instruction and virtual learning environments, and described the instructional benefits, challenges, and unintended consequences of digital innovations. The researchers concluded that along with the instructional merits afforded by technology there can be unintended consequences such as ease of cheating, and distractions from learning such as games, inappropriate content, and off task web surfing (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Educators should be aware of the possibility that instructional disparities can widen for students who are without sufficient access to technology at home (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). While our predictive knowledge and 69 ability to foresee the consequences o f technology may be limited (Jonas, 2009), and individuals may feel a lack of power over technological development, technology is not outside of responsible human control (Kanuka, 2008). Educators may face ethical challenges and even dilemmas when wrestling with the implications of instructional technology (Lally et al., 2010). How must educational technology leaders simultaneously lead the infusion of innovative technology, while remaining aware of ethical concerns? Both of these responsibilities are essential skills in the framework for competent K-12 technology leadership (Consortium for School Networking, 2009). As educators deliberate over Web 2.0 technologies and ubiquitous mobile devices, they are faced on the one hand with tools that that can promote online collaboration and enhance learning (Jennings, Sutherlin, & Counts, 2010; Lally et al., 2010). On the other hand, the use of the Internet and ubiquitous mobile devices can present risks to student safety (Biddle et al., 2008; Canole, 2007; Chang, 2010; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Lally et al., 2010; Livingstone & Haddon, 2009). Popular Web 2.0 technologies with possibilities for education include social networking sites such as Facebook, social bookmarking sites such as Delicious, media sharing sites such as Flickr and YouTube, blogs, wikis, podcasts, and virtual worlds (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; Hazari, North, & Moreland, 2009;
exacerbated problems that impact schools such as plagiarism, risk to the security system o f information, personnel casualty of privacy, bullying, and threat to student safety (Biddle et al. , 2008; Canole, 2007; Chang, 2010; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Livingstone & Haddon, 2009). Nworie and Haughton (2008) examine the borrowing and implementation o f innovative technology for both traditional face - to - font instruction and virtual learning environment, and trace the instructional benefits, challenges, and unintended consequences of digital innovations. The researchers reason that along with the instructional merits afforded by technology there can be unintended consequence such as ease of cheating, and distractions from learn such as games, inappropriate content, and off task web surfing (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Educators should be mindful of the possibility that instructional disparities can widen for students who are without sufficient access to technology at base (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). While our predictive knowledge and 69 ability to foresee the consequences o f technology may be limited (Jonas, 2009), and individuals may feel a lack of power over technological growth, technology is not outside of responsible human command (Kanuka, 2008). educator may confront ethical challenges and even dilemmas when writhe with the implications of instructional technology (Lally et al. , 2010). How must educational technology leaders simultaneously precede the infusion of innovative technology, while remaining aware of ethical concerns? Both of these responsibilities are substantive skills in the framework for competent K-12 technology leadership (Consortium for School Networking, 2009). As educators consider over Web 2.0 technology and ubiquitous mobile devices, they are faced on the one hand with creature that that can promote online collaboration and enhance learning (Jennings, Sutherlin, & Counts, 2010; Lally et al. , 2010). On the early hand, the consumption of the Internet and ubiquitous mobile device can present risk to student safety (Biddle et al. , 2008; Canole, 2007; Chang, 2010; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Lally et al. , 2010; Livingstone & Haddon, 2009). Popular vane 2.0 technologies with possibility for education admit social networking sites such as Facebook, social bookmarking sites such as Delicious, metier sharing sites such as Flickr and YouTube, web log, wikis, podcasts, and virtual worlds (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; Hazari, North, & Moreland, 2009;
 exwcerbated problems that lmpact schools socy as pnagiarjsm, riskr to the security o f informetiob, losw of privacy, bullying, xnd threans to stueent wafety (Bidvme et al., 2008; Cankpe, 2007; Eheng, 2010; Consortium for Schoon Networking, 2011; Nixiugstone & Haddon, 2009). Nworie and Haughton (2008) examimef the adoption and ymplsmentation o f innovative technolofy for uoth traditionak face-to-face instruction ajd vlrtual learning engironments, qnd qwscribed the instructional benefita, challenges, and unintended conrequeuces of digutql ltnovations. Vhe refearchers cokbluded dhat alpng with the ikstrurtiobal merits afforded bb technology there cwn be unittznded consequences suxh as edse mf cfwatkng, aid sistraftikns from lsarning sucy as games, inapproptiwnr content, ans off eafk web surfing (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Educatmrs should be aware of the possibility that insjructional disparities can widen for students who are withogt suhfkcitnb xxcfss to technology at home (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). Wrjlt olr predictive knocledge and 69 abilotj yj foresee the consequehces o f technologj may bg limired (Jonas, 2009), anc individuals may feel a laxk of power jcer technological bevelopment, cechnokogy os not outside of respousible human contgol (Kanukz, 2008). Educators may wacv etvical challenges and even qilemmas xhen crestline wijh the ymplicatiojs of instructional techjologi (Lallf et al., 2010). Hlw must educational technology leaders simultsnaouvly lead the lnfusion of innjvative technokogy, whnle reoaining awzre of xthical concqrns? Both of djese responsmbilities are esswntial ryills in the ftamework yjr cimpetent K-12 technolpgy meadership (Consirtuum for School Metdorhijg, 2009). Wv educators gelicerxye ovdr Web 2.0 tecmnouogirs and ubiquitous motile devices, they are gaged on thg one hanq with tools yhat that can promlte oiline rollabprajion and enhance learning (Jennihgs, Sutheglik, & Counts, 2010; Lajly ct aj., 2010). On the pther hand, the use of the Internet and nbiquitous mobile devicws can present riskx to student safeey (Biddle et al., 2008; Canole, 2007; Chant, 2010; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Lzlly ed al., 2010; Livingstone & Haddon, 2009). Popular Web 2.0 technologies with possibilities for edycatioi ynclude socjal metwogkiug xites fuch es Facebook, sociak bookmarking sites such as Delmcious, medha sharing sites such as Flickt xnd YouTube, buogs, wikis, podcasts, and birtual eorlds (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; Hazari, North, & Moreland, 2009;
exacerbated problems that impact schools such as to security o information, loss of student (Biddle et al., Canole, 2007; Chang, Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Livingstone Haddon, 2009). Nworie and Haughton (2008) examined the adoption and implementation o f technology for both traditional face-to-face instruction and virtual learning environments, and described the benefits, and consequences digital innovations. The researchers concluded that along with the instructional merits afforded by technology there can unintended consequences such as ease of cheating, and from learning such as inappropriate content, and off task surfing & Haughton, Educators be of the possibility instructional disparities can widen for students who are without sufficient access to technology at home (Nworie & 2008). While knowledge and ability foresee consequences o f be limited (Jonas, 2009), and individuals lack of power over technological development, technology is outside of human control (Kanuka, 2008). Educators may ethical challenges and even dilemmas when wrestling with implications of instructional technology (Lally et al., 2010). How must educational technology leaders simultaneously lead of innovative technology, while aware of ethical Both these are skills in framework for competent K-12 technology leadership (Consortium for School Networking, 2009). educators deliberate over Web 2.0 technologies and ubiquitous mobile devices, faced the one hand tools that that can online and enhance learning (Jennings, Counts, Lally On other the use of the and ubiquitous mobile devices can risks to student safety 2007; Chang, 2010; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; et al., 2010; Livingstone & Haddon, 2009). Web 2.0 technologies with possibilities for education include social networking sites such Facebook, social such as Delicious, media sharing sites such as and YouTube, blogs, wikis, and virtual worlds (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; Hazari, & 2009;
 exacerbated problems that imPact schoolS such As pLagIaRism, RiskS to the security O F infOrmation, loss of privacy, bUllyiNg, ANd thREaTs to sTudent sAFeTY (bidDlE eT al., 2008; caNOlE, 2007; ChanG, 2010; CoNsortiuM for School netWoRking, 2011; LivingsTOnE & Haddon, 2009). NwoRie And Haughton (2008) eXamIned thE aDopTIon anD imPlemeNtatioN O f innoVative tecHnOLogy foR Both traDITiOnal Face-to-face instrucTIoN And virtual learNing enViROnMENts, And Described tHe InstrUCtional BEnEFITs, cHAllenges, and unIntended conSEquEnces oF dIgiTAl innoVatioNs. tHe rEsearchers cOnclUded that aLong wiTH the insTRuctionAl meriTs aFfoRded BY tEcHnoLoGY thERe Can BE unIntended CoNsEquenCes sUCH AS easE of CheaTing, aNd distractionS frOm leARniNg sucH as gaMes, iNaPpropRiate cOntenT, aNd off task web surFing (nworie & HauGhtOn, 2008). eduCaTors sHOuld be AwaRe oF the posSibilitY ThaT iNSTRuCtional disparities CaN WIdEn for stuDents wHO aRe WIthout suFfIciEnt aCCEss to TechNOlOgy at homE (NworiE & haUgHton, 2008). WhiLe Our preDiCtiVe kNowleDGe anD 69 abiliTy to foreSee thE Consequences o f TEchnology may bE LiMITeD (jonaS, 2009), anD individualS may FEel a Lack OF pOweR Over tEchnoLoGIcAL development, technolOgY is not OutsiDe of responsibLe human conTROL (Kanuka, 2008). EDucaTOrS May face ethical ChallEnges and evEN dilemmaS when WrestlinG with the iMPLicationS of InsTruCtiONAl Technology (LalLY Et al., 2010). hoW must edUcaTional tEchNolOgy LeaDeRs simultaNeously lEaD tHe InFusIon of INnovativE tEchNoLogY, whilE RemainIng awAre oF eThICal ConcernS? boTH Of thEsE rEspoNsiBiLitieS are ESseNtial skIlls in the FraMEworK fOr CompeteNt K-12 technology LeAdership (CoNsOrtIum for sCHool NetwOrking, 2009). As educators delibeRAte over web 2.0 TechnOlogIes and ubiQuiTous moBilE DeviceS, they aRe facEd On tHE One haND WiTh tOoLs that that CAN prOmote OnLine CollaboRation and enhance leARniNg (Jennings, SutHerLin, & COUNtS, 2010; LaLLy ET al., 2010). on THe oTHEr hand, the use of tHe Internet AnD UbIquitous moBIle DeVices caN presenT riskS To studeNt safety (BIddle et al., 2008; caNole, 2007; cHAng, 2010; consortium For SchooL NetworkiNG, 2011; LallY Et Al., 2010; LivIngStone & HAdDon, 2009). populAr Web 2.0 tEChnOlogiEs with PoSsibilIties FoR educatiOn include social networkiNg siteS such As FAcebook, soCiaL BooKmarking sItes Such as DeliCioUs, mEdia sHarINg sitEs suCH aS FlICkr anD YoutUbe, blogs, wIKiS, poDCAsTs, and virtuaL WORldS (GreeNhoW, robeliA, & HugHes, 2009; Hazari, North, & MorELand, 2009;
 exacerbated problems that  impact sc hools  su chas  pla giar ism, risks tot he s ecurity o f informatio n, lo ss of p r iv acy,bullyin g ,a n d t hr ea tsto st udent  sa fety (B iddle et a l.,  2 008; Canole, 20 07; Chang,  20 10; Consorti umfor Sc ho olN etwor kin g, 20 11; Li v ingsto ne & Hadd on ,  2009) .  Nworie a nd  Hau ghton (2008) exam i ne d  the adoptionand im pl e me n t ati ono f innova ti ve te c hnology fo r b oth traditional f ace-to-face ins tructi on  an d  virtu al le ar n ing  environmen ts,and descr ibed t h e instr u ctional  benef its , c hall e ng es , a nd uni n te nde d  co nsequenc es  o f dig ital i n n ovat ion s. T he re searchers con clu dedt hat  alon g wit h th einstr uction al me ri ts afforded bytech nology th ere  c anbe  unin t endedcon seq uencessuch as eas eo f ch eating, and distra ct i o ns  from le arning su ch as games ,ina ppro p r iatecont e nt , and of f task we bsurfing  ( Nworie  &  Ha ugh ton,2 008) . Educ ators sh ouldb e aware of the possibility t h at i ns t ruct ion al disparit iesc an w iden fo r s t udent s who  a r ew ithout sufficient a cc ess to  tech nology at hom e (Nworie& H aughton,  200 8 ). While our pred ictiv e knowledg e  and 69abili ty to fo resee the c onsequen ces  of t ech n o lo gy may be lim i t ed ( Jo nas, 20 09) , and i ndi vid ual s m ay  feel a l ack of p ow er  o ve r t echno l ogical d ev elo pm ent , tec h nology  is n ot o ut si d e o f respo n si b l e hu ma ncont rol  ( Kanuk a, 2 0 08) . Educa tors mayfac e  eth ic al  challe nges and even  d ilemmas wh en  wr estlin g with the  implications of instru c tionaltec hnolo gy ( Lally etal. , 2010 ).H ow mus t educ ation al  te c h nolog y le ade rs  simultane o u sly  lead  t he i nfusion  of innovative tec h nol ogy, while re mai ning a wa reo fe thi ca l  co n c erns? Both of t hese respo ns i bi lities are ess en tial sk ills in  thef ramewor k for com petent K- 12  tec h n olo gy leaders hip (Con sortium f o r Sch o ol  Netw ork ing, 2 00 9).  As e ducato r s d elibe rate o ve r Web2.0 t ec hnologie s and ubiquitous mobile  devic es, t hey  are face d o n  th e one han d wi th tools t hat  th at ca n p r omote  onl i ne  co l labor atio n  and enha n ce  le a r ni ng (Jenning s , Sut herli n,&  Count s, 2 010; Lally et al. ,  2010). On the  oth e r  ha nd, theus e of the Inter net  a n d  ubiquit ou s mobile de vices ca np resen t risk s to s tudents a fe t y (Bid dleetal., 2008 ; C an o le, 200 7;  C h ang, 2 010;  C onsort ium fo r  Sch o o l Networking, 20 11; L a l ly et al. , 201 0;  Living s tone  & Haddon,  2009). Pop ular W eb 2 .0 te chnolog ie s with  po ss ibilitiesf or educat ion i ncludeso cial  ne tworki ng s i t es su ch a sFac ebook, so c i al bo ok m ark ingsites  s uchas Delici o us, medi a s h aring s it ess u ch asF li c k r and YouT ube , blo g s , wikis, p o dcas t s, and v irtual  world s (Gree n how ,Robelia , & H ughes, 20 09; Hazar i , N or th,& Morela nd , 20 09 ;
 exacerbated_problems that_impact schools such as_plagiarism, risks_to_the security_o_f information, loss_of privacy, bullying,_and threats to student_safety (Biddle et_al.,_2008; Canole, 2007; Chang, 2010; Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Livingstone & Haddon, 2009)._Nworie_and Haughton_(2008)_examined_the adoption and implementation o_f innovative technology for both_traditional face-to-face_instruction and virtual learning environments, and described the_instructional_benefits, challenges, and_unintended consequences of digital innovations. The researchers concluded that_along with the instructional merits afforded_by technology there_can_be_unintended consequences such as_ease of cheating, and distractions from_learning such as games, inappropriate content,_and off task web surfing (Nworie &_Haughton, 2008). Educators should be aware_of the possibility that instructional_disparities can_widen for students who are_without sufficient access_to technology_at home (Nworie_& Haughton, 2008). While our predictive_knowledge and 69_ability to foresee the consequences o_f_technology may be_limited_(Jonas,_2009), and_individuals may feel_a_lack of_power_over technological development, technology is not_outside_of responsible human control (Kanuka, 2008). Educators_may face ethical challenges_and_even dilemmas when wrestling_with the implications of instructional_technology (Lally et al., 2010). How_must educational_technology leaders_simultaneously lead the infusion of innovative technology, while remaining aware of_ethical concerns? Both of these responsibilities_are essential skills in_the framework_for_competent K-12 technology_leadership_(Consortium for_School Networking, 2009). As educators deliberate over_Web 2.0_technologies and ubiquitous mobile devices, they_are faced on the_one_hand with tools that that can_promote online collaboration and enhance learning_(Jennings, Sutherlin, & Counts, 2010;_Lally_et_al., 2010). On the other_hand, the use of the Internet_and ubiquitous mobile_devices can present risks to student safety_(Biddle_et al., 2008; Canole, 2007; Chang,_2010;_Consortium for School Networking, 2011; Lally_et_al.,_2010; Livingstone & Haddon, 2009)._Popular Web 2.0 technologies with possibilities_for education include social networking sites such as Facebook,_social bookmarking sites_such as Delicious, media sharing_sites_such_as Flickr and YouTube, blogs, wikis, podcasts, and virtual worlds_(Greenhow, Robelia,_& Hughes, 2009;_Hazari, North, & Moreland, 2009;