 thinking of leaders, including their perceived agency in shaping and managing technological change, affect discourse with stakeholders, and influence the decisions that leaders make on behalf of their organizations (Grant et al., 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). Recent educational technology scholars have argued that research is needed that critically questions technological determinist assumptions, and considers alternate ways of thinking about technology and learning that emphasizes the agency of human actors, and better recognizes the social factors involved with using technology in education (M. 121 Oliver, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b). An important theme in the literature concerns the importance for educational technology of critically examining philosophy o f technology assumptions such as technological determinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al., 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Questioning philosophy of technology assumptions can inform both research and professional practice, but there is a gap in the literature concerning how technological determinist assumptions may influence thinking and decision making in K12 technology leadership (Kanuka, 2008; McDonald et al., 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The purpose of the qualitative study was to a) examine what philosophical assumptions about technology are present in the thinking of K-12 technology leaders, b) investigate how the assumptions may influence technology decision making, and c) explore whether technological determinist assumptions are present. Overview o f research questions and research method. Chapter 3 explores the qualitative methods used for the study, and describes the research design that aligns with Corbin and Strauss qualitative data analysis. The subjects for the study included Virginia school district technology directors, and instructional technology specialists who provide leadership for classroom technology integration. Data collection methods involved semi- structured interviews and a questionnaire with open-ended questions. Three research questions were defined that align with the research purpose and the research problem. To guard against any potential researcher bias, the researcher framed the first question broadly so that the study would be open to any philosophical 122 assumptions about technology present in the thinking of technology leaders. The second research question moved beyond examining what assumptions were present, to investigate how assumptions influence decision making about technology. For example, decisions about technology can
thinking of leaders, including their perceived agency in shape and cope technological change, affect discussion with stakeholders, and influence the decision that leader make on behalf of their organizations (Grant et al. , 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). Recent educational technology scholar have argued that research is need that critically questions technological determinist assumptions, and considers alternate way of thinking about technology and learning that underscore the agency of human actors, and better recognizes the social factor involved with using technology in education (M. 121 Oliver, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b). An important root in the literature concerns the importance for educational technology of critically examining philosophy o f technology assumptions such as technological determinism (Carr - Chellman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al. , 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Questioning philosophy of technology assumptions can inform both research and professional practice, but there is a gap in the literature concerning how technical fatalist assumptions may influence thinking and decision devising in K12 technology leadership (Kanuka, 2008; McDonald et al. , 2005; M. Oliver, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The purpose of the qualitative study was to a) examine what philosophic assumptions about engineering are present in the thinking of K-12 technology leaders, b) investigate how the assumptions may determine technology decision making, and c) explore whether technological determinist assumptions are present. Overview o f research questions and research method acting. Chapter 3 explores the qualitative method acting use for the study, and describes the research design that aligns with Corbin and Strauss qualitative data analysis. The discipline for the study included Virginia school district technology directors, and instructional engineering specialists who provide leadership for classroom technology integration. Data solicitation methods involved semi- structured interviews and a questionnaire with overt - ended question. Three research questions were define that align with the research determination and the research problem. To guard against any potential researcher bias, the researcher framed the first doubt broadly so that the study would be open to any philosophic 122 assumptions about technology present in the thinking of technology leaders. The second research question moved beyond probe what assumptions were present, to investigate how assumptions influence decision making about technology. For example, decision about engineering can
 thlnking of leaders, includlng their perceirwd ageicy in ahaping xnd managing technological ciangw, afftbt discourse with stayeholders, and infouenre the decisions that leaders jwke mi behalf of thelr organizadions (Grant et au., 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardy & Jackxoj, 2004; Prakash & Sigha, 2008). Wecehn tducational technology scholars hzve argled that research is needed that critically quedtions technologicwl determinust wwsumptions, avd considegv alternatg ways of thinking about technolugy aud learning tyat gmphasizes tie agegcy of human actors, dnd betyer recognizes thx soxial factors involved with using technojogy in egueation (M. 121 Oliver, 2011; Selqyb, 2010b). At im[ortxbt gheje ih the pitxrature conderns the inportance for educauiogql technology of crytycally examining philosophy o f technolmgy assumptions such as texhnological determinidm (Carr-Chqllman, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; KcDonela eu ql., 2005; M. Illver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberd-Senb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Queftioning phollspkhy of technolugy assumltions can inform hoth refearcy and prosessoonal practice, but there is a gap in thv lirerature concerniny how technouogival drterminist assumptions oay jnfluence tjinking aha decision makine ik K12 technology leadership (Kantka, 2008; McDoiald zt al., 2005; M. Olifer, 2011; Sqlwyn, 2010b; Stgobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The purplsa of the qkalitative study was to a) examiix what philosppvicdl assum'tions about technojogy are preseut in thz thinying of K-12 nechnologb leaders, b) ynvestigate hma the assumpvions may infouenxe techvulogy decision making, aub c) exploee whether technolpgizzl determinist crwumptions are ptesdnt. Onertiew j f research xuesgiovx and research mcthud. Cnapter 3 explores the quamitative methods uxeq for thg study, agd describes yhe research desigj thav aligis witn Cjrbin and Strauss qualitative sata analjsif. The subjeces fir the study included Virginia school district techiology directors, and inwtructional technolpny specialisvs who provide neadership for classeoom technology iktegration. Data collecfion mathodd involved semi- structured interviews and a questionnaire with open-ended wuestions. Three reaearvh quvstnonx were defmnxd that align witn the research purpose and the cesearch psoylem. To guard against any potrngial researchgr bias, the researcher frajed the girst question broadly so that yhe study would be open bo any phulosolhical 122 asrumptions about tevhnoloyy prewent in the thinking of gecnnllogy leafers. Tke second research question moved beyone fxamining what avsumptions atre preaent, tj investigate hos asakmptiuns influence decision makimg about technology. Xow example, deciwpons about tevhnologj can
thinking of leaders, including their perceived agency and technological change, discourse with stakeholders, leaders on behalf of organizations (Grant et 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). Recent educational technology scholars have that research is needed that critically questions technological determinist assumptions, and considers alternate of about and that emphasizes the agency of human actors, and better recognizes the social factors involved with using in education (M. 121 Oliver, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b). important theme in the concerns the importance for educational of examining philosophy f assumptions as technological determinism 2005; Fisher, 2006; Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt & Winegar, 2010; McDonald et al., 2005; M. Oliver, Pearson & Smith, 2006; & 2009; 2010b). Questioning philosophy assumptions can inform both research and there is a gap in the literature concerning technological determinist may influence thinking and decision making K12 technology leadership (Kanuka, 2008; McDonald et al., M. Oliver, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The purpose of the qualitative study a) examine what philosophical about technology are in thinking K-12 leaders, b) how the assumptions may influence technology decision making, and c) explore technological determinist assumptions are present. Overview o f research questions method. 3 explores the methods used for the and the research design that Corbin Strauss The for study included Virginia school technology directors, and instructional technology who provide leadership for methods involved semi- structured interviews and a questionnaire open-ended questions. Three research questions were defined align with the research purpose and the research problem. To guard against potential researcher researcher framed the first question broadly so that study would be open any philosophical 122 assumptions about technology present in the of leaders. The research question moved examining what assumptions present, to investigate influence decision about For technology can
 thinking of leaders, includinG their percEived AgeNcy In ShapIng aNd managing techNOlogIcal change, affect discouRse wiTh STakeHOlDers, aNd influENcE THe dEcIsIonS tHAt LeadeRs mAke on beHalf of theiR orGaNizations (GraNT eT al., 2006; Jackson & phiLip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; LEonArdi & JaCkSon, 2004; pRakasH & SiNha, 2008). ReCent edUCationAl technolOgY ScholaRS have arGUEd That Research is needed tHAt CRitically questIons teChNOlOGIcaL deTerminist aSsUmptiONs, and coNSiDERS alTErnate ways of tHinking abouT TecHnologY aNd lEArning That eMpHAsiZes the agencY of hUman actorS, and beTTer recoGNizes thE sociaL faCtoRs inVOlVeD wiTh USinG TeChnOLogY in educaTiOn (m. 121 OlivEr, 2011; SeLWYN, 2010B). An iMpoRtanT themE in the literatUre ConcERns The imPortaNce fOr EducaTional TechnOlOgy of critically ExamIning philOsoPhY o f TeChnolOGy assuMptIonS such as TechnolOGicAl DETErMinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005; fiSHEr, 2006; hofmann, 2006; KAnuka, 2008; KRItT & WINegar, 2010; McDOnAld Et al., 2005; m. oLiver, 2011; pearSOn & young, 2002; SmiTh, 2006; StroBEl & tiLlberg-WEbB, 2009; SelwyN, 2010b). queStiOning PHiloSophy oF technolOgy asSUmptions can infORm both researcH AnD PRoFEssiOnaL practice, buT theRE is a Gap iN ThE liTEratuRe conCeRNiNG how technological deTeRminisT assuMptions may infLuence thinKING and deciSion MAkINg in K12 technologY leadErship (KanuKA, 2008; McDonalD et al., 2005; m. Oliver, 2011; SElwyn, 2010b; StrOBEl & TillbeRg-WEbb, 2009). the PurPOSe Of the qualitatIVE stuDy Was to a) eXamIne what PhiLosOphIcaL aSsumptionS about teChNoLoGy Are PreseNT in the thInKinG oF K-12 tEchnoLOgy leaDers, b) InveStIgATe hOw the asSUmPTIons MaY iNfluEncE tEchnoLogy DEciSion makIng, and c) exPloRE wheThEr TechnolOgical determiNiSt assumptiOnS arE preseNT. overview O f research questions and rESearch mEthOd. ChaPter 3 Explores tHe qUalitaTivE MethodS used fOr the StUdy, AND descRIBeS thE rEsearch desIGN thAt aliGnS witH Corbin And Strauss qualitatIVe dAta analysis. ThE suBjecTS FoR thE StUDy iNcLUdeD vIrginia school diStrict techNoLOgY directors, ANd iNsTructioNal techNologY SpecialIsts who prOvide leadErShip FOR clAssroom tecHnology iNtegratioN. data cOLlEctioN meThods iNvOlvEd semI- strucTUreD inteRviews AnD a quesTionnAiRe with opEn-ended questions. Three reSearch QuestIonS were defiNed THat Align with The rEsearch purPosE anD the rEseARch prObleM. to GuaRD agaiNst aNY potentiaL ReSeaRCHeR bias, the resEARCheR framEd tHE first QuesTion broadly so that THe study would be Open TO Any PhiLOsopHiCal 122 assumptions AboUt TEChnology PrEsent in the tHinking oF tEChnolOgy leaDers. ThE second RESeARch queStioN moVed beyond ExaMiNIng what AsSuMPtions Were PrEsent, tO invesTIgatE HOw assumptions infLuencE DEcisiON maKing aBoUt technOLogy. for example, Decisions abOut tecHnolOgy caN
 thinking of leaders, incl uding thei r per cei ved  a genc y in  shaping and m a nagi ng technological chang e, af fe c t di s co ursewith st a ke h o lde rs ,and  i n fl uence  th e decis ions thatlea de rs make on b e ha lf of thei r o rganizations  (G rant e tal. ,  2006 ; J ackso n & Ph i lip, 2 010; Leon ar d i, 200 8 ; Leona r d i& Ja ckson, 2004; Prak a sh & Sinha, 2008) . Rece nt ed u c ati ona l technolo gy  scho l ars hav e  a r g u edt hat researchis needed t h atcritic al lyq uestio ns te ch n olo gical deter mini st assump tions, and con s iders a lterna teway s of th in kin ga bou t  t ech n olo gy and l ea rn ing t hate m p h asiz estheagenc y of human ac tor s, a n d b etter  reco gniz es  thesocial  fact or s involved with  usi ng techno log yined ucati o n (M.121  Ol iver, 2 011; Se l wyn ,2 0 1 0b ). An important th em e in  the lit eratur e  c on c erns the  i mpo rtan c e  foreduc a ti onal tec hnolog y  o fcritica ll y exam in ing  ph iloso p hy o  f tec hnologyassum p tions such ast echnologicald et e r mi n ism(Ca rr-Chellman , 20 0 5; F ishe r ,200 6 ; Hof mann,  2 0 06 ;  Kanuka, 2008; Krit t& Wine gar,2010; McDonal d et al.,2 0 0 5; M. Ol iver ,  2 0 11; Pearson &Young , 2002; Sm i th, 2006 ; Str obel & T illberg-W e b b, 2009;  Se lwy n,201 0 b ).  Questioningp h ilos op hy of t ech nologyass ump tio nsca n informboth res ea rc han d p rofes s ional pr ac tic e,  bu t the r e is a  gapin t he  l i ter ature c o nc e r ning  h ow  tec hno lo gical  det e rmi nist as sumptions  ma y  inf lu en ce thin king and deci si on makingin  K1 2 tech n o logy lea dership (Kanuka, 2008;M cDonald  et  al.,  200 5; M. Oli ver , 2011 ; S e lwyn,2010b;  Stro be l & T illbe r g -W ebb ,2009). The p urp ose o fthequalita tive study was toa ) e xamine what p hil osop h i ca l a s su m pti on s  ab o u t technology ar e presentin th e thinking ofK- 12 tech nologyleade r s, b) i nvestigat e how the  a ssum p t ion s may infl uence te chnologyd ecisi o nmakin g,and c)  e xpl ore w hether tec hnolo gicalde termin ist a ss umptions  are present. Overviewo f re searc h q uestionsand res earch met hod.  Chapter 3  ex plo res t heq ualit ativ e  m eth o ds us ed f o r the stu d y,  an d de scribes the r e sea rch d esi g n that  ali gns with Corbin a n d Strauss qual itat i v e d ata anal ys is. The subjec tsfo r the stud yincluded Vi rginia s ch o ol di strict  techn ology d i r ec t ors, a nd i nst ructional  te ch n ology s pe ci a listswhopr ovideleader s hipf o r classroom tech nolog y integ r ati on. D at a colle c tion  methods i nvolved sem i- str uctu red i ntervie ws  and a  qu es tionnairew ith open- ended  questi on s. T hre e rese arch q uesti onswe redefined t h a ta li gn wit h th e res ea rchpurpose a n d the re sea r ch prob le m.T o  guard ag a i nst any po ten tialr e searcher b i as,t he resea rcherframed  the fi r stqu estionbro a d ly so tha t the stu d y w ou ld b e open t oanyph ilo so phical 122 assu mptionsabout te c h nology  pr e sent in the  t hinking of t echno lo g y leade r s . T he seco n d r ese arc h qu est ionm oved beyond examining wh at a ssump t ion s wer e pre se nt, to i n vest igate ho w  assumptionsinfluence decis i onm akin g a b ou ttechnolog y.F or ex ampl e,deci sio ns a b o ut t e chno l og y ca n
 thinking_of leaders,_including their perceived agency_in shaping_and_managing technological_change,_affect discourse with_stakeholders, and influence_the decisions that leaders_make on behalf_of_their organizations (Grant et al., 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi &_Jackson,_2004; Prakash_&_Sinha,_2008). Recent educational technology scholars_have argued that research is_needed that_critically questions technological determinist assumptions, and considers alternate_ways_of thinking about_technology and learning that emphasizes the agency of human_actors, and better recognizes the social_factors involved with_using_technology_in education (M. 121_Oliver, 2011; Selwyn, 2010b). An important_theme in the literature concerns the_importance for educational technology of critically examining_philosophy o f technology assumptions such_as technological determinism (Carr-Chellman, 2005;_Fisher, 2006;_Hofmann, 2006; Kanuka, 2008; Kritt_& Winegar, 2010;_McDonald et_al., 2005; M._Oliver, 2011; Pearson & Young, 2002;_Smith, 2006; Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb, 2009; Selwyn, 2010b). Questioning_philosophy_of technology assumptions_can_inform_both research_and professional practice,_but_there is_a_gap in the literature concerning how_technological_determinist assumptions may influence thinking and decision_making in K12 technology_leadership_(Kanuka, 2008; McDonald et_al., 2005; M. Oliver, 2011;_Selwyn, 2010b; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009)._The purpose_of the_qualitative study was to a) examine what philosophical assumptions about technology_are present in the thinking of_K-12 technology leaders, b)_investigate how_the_assumptions may influence_technology_decision making,_and c) explore whether technological determinist assumptions_are present._Overview o f research questions and_research method. Chapter 3_explores_the qualitative methods used for the_study, and describes the research design_that aligns with Corbin and_Strauss_qualitative_data analysis. The subjects for_the study included Virginia school district_technology directors, and_instructional technology specialists who provide leadership for_classroom_technology integration. Data collection methods involved_semi-_structured interviews and a questionnaire with_open-ended_questions._Three research questions were defined_that align with the research purpose_and the research problem. To guard against any potential_researcher bias, the_researcher framed the first question_broadly_so_that the study would be open to any philosophical 122_assumptions about_technology present in_the thinking of technology leaders. The second research question moved_beyond examining what assumptions were present, to_investigate how assumptions influence decision making about technology. For example, decisions_about technology can