 Hofmann, 2006). An implication of this conclusion, following from the data, is that participants' concerns surrounding an imperative to keep up with technological change were not connected to a perception that technology was in control. Rather, the data 277 showed that most participants expressed concern for keeping up with technology in order to benefit students (see Table 20). The two main properties of the core category were pressure to keep up with technology, and resistance to technological change. The theme of resistance to technology emerging from this study is similar to the resistance to change theme found by Cukier et al. (2009) in their qualitative study that examined a technology initiative at a Canadian university. The study's results, showing pressure to implement technology occurring alongside resistance, appears to lend support to Rogers' model o f technological innovation. This model theorizes that technological innovation proceeds alongside resistance from users in varying degrees (Friesen, 2008). Substantive theory. Under the approach to technology decision making Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology, technology is not pursued for the sake of technology. However, under pressures to keep up with technological change, and influenced by an ideological orientation toward technological change, educational technology leaders can place priority on embracing technological change, sometimes adopting it for its own sake. The researcher proposes a theoretical interpretation that presents the two approaches to technology decision making, Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology, and Keep up with Technology (or be left behind), in competition and cognitive dissonance with each other. The core category Keep up with technology (or be left behind) is given the greater weight in technology decision making (see Figure 6). Keep up with technology (or be left behind) emerges as the principal approach to technology decision making, as leaders deal with their perceived experience 278 of the inevitability of technological change, and their concern for preparing students for a technological future. Conceptual frameworks for technological determinism. The starting point for the Strobel and Tillberg-Webb framework underscores that educators should question whether technological determinist assumptions influence thinking about technology (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The core category that emerged from the study, Keep up with technology (or be left behind), has been shown to be influenced by the assumption that technological change is inevitable. The fact that this emerged as the core category supports the framework's concern for critically analyzing technological determinist assumptions in educational technology. However, Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) used the model of hard and soft technological determinism described by Marx and Smith (1994
Hofmann, 2006). An implication of this conclusion, following from the data, is that participant' concern surrounding an imperative to keep up with technical change were not connected to a perception that engineering was in command. Rather, the datum 277 usher that most participants express concern for keeping up with engineering in order to benefit students (see Table 20). The two main properties of the kernel category were pressure to keep up with engineering, and resistance to technological variety. The theme of immunity to technology emerge from this study is similar to the resistance to transfer theme found by Cukier et al. (2009) in their qualitative study that examined a technology initiative at a Canadian university. The study's results, showing pressure to implement technology occurring alongside resistance, appears to lend support to Rogers' model oxygen f technical innovation. This model theorizes that technical initiation proceeds alongside resistance from users in varying degrees (Friesen, 2008). Substantive theory. Under the overture to technology decision making Educational goals and curriculum should drive engineering, technology is not pursued for the sake of technology. However, under pressures to keep up with technological change, and influence by an ideological orientation toward technological change, educational technology leaders can invest priority on embracing technological variety, sometimes adopting it for its own sake. The research worker proposes a theoretical interpretation that presents the two approaches to technology decisiveness making, Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology, and keep open up with Technology (or be left behind), in contest and cognitive dissonance with each early. The core category Keep up with engineering (or be left behind) is given the greater weight in technology decision making (see Figure 6). Keep up with technology (or be left behind) emerges as the chief approach to technology decisiveness making, as leaders deal with their perceive experience 278 of the inevitability of technological change, and their concern for train students for a technological future. Conceptual frameworks for technological determinism. The starting point for the Strobel and Tillberg - Webb model underscores that educators should interrogate whether technological determinist assumptions influence thinking about technology (Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The core class that emerged from the study, Keep up with technology (or be left behind), has been shown to be influenced by the assumption that technological change is inevitable. The fact that this emerge as the core category supports the framework's concern for critically analyzing technical determinist assumptions in educational technology. However, Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) used the model of hard and soft technological determinism described by Marx and Smith (1994
 Hovmann, 2006). An implication of this conclusiou, folloxing frkm the dxta, is that participants' conrernw sureounding an imperative to keep lp with twchnioogical chehge werc not gonneetxd to a perceptlon that tewhnology was it zoutrol. Rather, the data 277 showed that mjst paryifipants expresfed bogcerh for keeping up with technology ih order to benefit syudents (see Table 20). The two maij properties of thf core catetory qere pressurd to keep l' with techhology, and resistance to technouogiccl change. Tye thfke of resisvance no technology emerginc from yhis study is ximmlar to the resistance to change theme founq by Cukiar et al. (2009) in their wuqlitajive vtudh thxt txakihed a hecinology inifiative at q Canadian universiuy. Eye study's reshlts, sroring pressure to implement technology obcurding alongside resistanxe, appears to lend sukport to Rjgers' model o f technological innovation. This modal thxofizts that refhnological innovation proceeds alongside resyatsnbe from users in yarying degrees (Froedem, 2008). Substantive theorv. Uhder the approach ho techgologt decisiog maling Educational goals and xurriculum skouod drive technologv, technology is mot pirsued for the sake of cechnomogy. Howeveg, under pddssures to keep jp eidh technological change, anq influenred bv an ideulogocal owientation towavg technological chwnge, gducathonal techjology leaders can place priorivb on embracinb decvnologiccl chakge, sometimes aqopting it for its owu sake. The reseagcher pro'oses a theowetical inter[tetation that presentf thw twi approxzhes to technokogy decision makint, Educational goalx avs curriculum shiule drive technolpgy, anq Nexp up fith Technolmgy (ur cr lefg behind), in zomprtition and cognitiva diasonance with each obher. The xore catqgory Keep up with technology (og be nefv behimd) ys given the greater weight in technolohy qecision makyng (wee Figure 6). Leep up with technology (or be left behiid) emerges as the princupal approach to teehkology decismon mahing, as laaders deal with theur perceived expevience 278 of the inevitagility of tfchnological change, and their concern for preparing students for a technooogical future. Condeptial fgamzwoxks for tecinulogical determimism. The starting point for the Strobel aud Tillberg-Webb framework undrrrcores that eaucators should question whether technological determinist assukptions influence thinkikg about rechnklogy (Strouel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Tne corz catetory thqt elerged from tfe xtmdy, Keep uo wiuh tzchnology (or be left behind), has bwen shiwj to be influencxd by the asdmmptioh that technological cgangs is ivevitable. The fact that thix emerged as the corv cwtegory supporus the frameworl's concvrn for critirally analyzhng technological determinist assumptions in educatponal techhology. Hoxever, Strobel sid Tillberg-Webb (2009) used thc modql of hafd and soft dechnological determinism described by Marx and Smkth (1994
Hofmann, 2006). An implication of this conclusion, the is that concerns surrounding an technological were not connected a perception that was in control. Rather, the data showed that most participants expressed concern for keeping up with technology in order benefit students (see Table 20). The two main properties of the core category pressure keep with and resistance to technological change. The theme of resistance to technology emerging from this study is to the resistance to change theme found by et al. (2009) in qualitative study that examined a initiative a Canadian The results, pressure to implement occurring alongside resistance, appears to lend support to Rogers' model o f technological innovation. This model theorizes technological innovation resistance from in degrees 2008). Substantive theory. approach to technology decision making Educational should drive technology, technology is not pursued for sake of However, under pressures to keep up technological change, and influenced by an ideological orientation technological change, educational technology leaders can place priority on embracing technological change, sometimes adopting it own sake. The researcher a theoretical interpretation presents two to decision making, goals and curriculum should drive technology, and Keep up with Technology be left behind), in competition and cognitive dissonance with each core Keep up with (or be left behind) given greater weight in technology (see 6). technology be behind) emerges as the approach to technology decision making, leaders deal with their inevitability of technological change, and their concern for students for a technological future. Conceptual frameworks technological determinism. The starting point for the Strobel and Tillberg-Webb framework underscores educators should technological determinist assumptions influence thinking about technology (Strobel Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The core that emerged from the study, Keep up with technology be behind), has shown to be by the assumption technological change is fact that emerged the the framework's concern for critically analyzing determinist in educational technology. However, Strobel Tillberg-Webb the model of hard and soft technological determinism described by Marx and Smith (1994
 Hofmann, 2006). An implication of thiS conclusioN, follOwiNg fRoM the Data, Is that participANts' cOncerns surrounding an imPeratIvE To keEP uP with TechnolOGiCAL chAnGe WerE nOT cOnnecTed To a percEption that TecHnOlogy was in coNTrOl. Rather, thE daTa 277 showed that MosT partiCiPanTS exprEssEd conCern foR KeepinG up with teChNOlogy iN Order to BENeFit sTudents (see Table 20). ThE TwO Main properties Of the cOrE CaTEGorY weRe pressure To Keep uP With tecHNoLOGY, anD Resistance to tEchnologicaL ChaNge. The ThEme OF resisTance To TEchNology emergIng fRom this stUdy is sIMilar to THe resisTance tO chAngE theME fOuNd bY CUKieR Et Al. (2009) iN TheIr qualitAtIvE studY thaT EXAMineD a tEchnOlogy Initiative at a canAdiaN UniVersiTy. The StudY's ResulTs, showIng prEsSure to implement TechNology occUrrInG alOnGside REsistaNce, AppEars to lEnd suppORt tO ROGERs' Model o f technologicAl INNoVation. ThIs modeL ThEoRIzes that TeChnOlogICAl innOvatIOn Proceeds AlongsIDe ReSistancE fRom useRs In vAryIng deGRees (frieseN, 2008). SubstanTive tHEory. Under the apPRoach to technoLOgY DEcISion MakIng EducatioNal gOAls aNd cuRRiCulUM shouLd driVe TEcHNology, technology is nOt PursueD for tHe sake of technOlogy. HowevER, UNder presSureS To KEep up with technOlogiCal change, aND influenCed by An ideoloGical orieNTAtion towArd TecHnoLogICAl Change, educatiONAl teChNology lEadErs can pLacE prIorIty On Embracing TechnoloGiCaL cHaNge, SometIMes adoptInG it FoR itS own sAKe. The rEsearCher PrOpOSes A theoreTIcAL InteRpReTatiOn tHaT presEnts THe tWo approAches to teChnOLogy DeCiSion makIng, EducationaL gOals and curRiCulUm shouLD Drive tecHnology, and Keep up with TecHNology (oR be Left bEhinD), in competItiOn and cOgnITive diSsonanCe witH eAch OTHer. ThE COrE caTeGory Keep up WITh tEchnoLoGy (or Be left bEhind) is given the greATer Weight in technOloGy deCISiOn mAKiNG (seE FIGurE 6). kEep up with technoLogy (or be leFt BEhInd) emerges AS thE pRincipaL approaCh to tEChnologY decision Making, as lEaDers DEAl wIth their peRceived eXperience 278 OF the iNEvItabiLitY of tecHnOloGical Change, ANd tHeir cOncern FoR prepaRing sTuDents for A technological future. ConCeptuaL framEwoRks for tecHnoLOgiCal determInisM. The startiNg pOinT for tHe STRobel And TILlBerG-webb fRameWOrk undersCOrEs tHAT eDucators shoULD QueStion WheTHer tecHnolOgical determinist ASsumptions inflUencE THinKinG AbouT tEchnology (StrobEl & TIlLBErg-Webb, 2009). THe Core categorY that emeRgED from The stuDy, Keep Up with tECHnOLogy (or Be leFt bEhind), has bEen ShOWn to be iNfLuENced by The aSsUmptioN that tEChnoLOGical change is ineVitabLE. the faCT thAt thiS eMerged aS The cOre categorY supports thE frameWork'S concErn for cRiTicallY anAlYzing technOLogical deTermiNist assUmPtioNs iN educaTionAL TechnOlogY. HOweVer, StrobeL ANd tIlLbERg-WEbb (2009) uSed thE mOdel Of hard and SOft technOloGIcal detErMinISM descrIBeD BY Marx and SmIth (1994
 Hofmann, 2006). An implic ation of t his c onc lus io n, f ollo wing from thed ata,  is that participants'  conc er n s su r ro undin g an im p er a t ive  t okee pu pwithtec hnologi cal change  we re  not connect e dto a perce pti on that tech nol ogy wa sinc ontro l.Rathe r, the data 2 77 showed  t h at mos t  partic i p an ts e xpressed concernf or keeping up wit h tech no l og y inord er to bene fi t stu d ents (s e eT a b le2 0). The two m ain propert i esof the  c ore catego ry we re pre ssure to ke ep u p with te chnolo g y, andr esistan ce totec hno logi c al  c han ge .  Th e  t hem e  of  resista nc eto te chno l o g y  eme rgi ng f rom t his study issim ilar tothe r esist ance  t o cha nge th eme f ou nd by Cukier et  al.  (2009) i n t he irqu alita t ive st udy  th at exam ined at ech no l o g yinitiative at a Ca na d i an  univers ity. T h est u dy's res ul ts,  sho w i ng pr essu r eto imple ment t e ch no logy oc cu rringal ong sid e res i stan ce, ap pears to  lend support to Rog e rs' model o f te c h no l ogic alinnovation.  Thi s  mod el t h eo riz e s tha t tec hn o lo g ical innovation pro ce eds al ongsi de resistance  from user s i n varyin g de g re e s (Friesen, 20 08).Substantiv e  theory.  Unde r the ap proach to t echnolog y d eci sio n m a k in g Educational g oals  a nd curr icu lum sho uld  dr ive  te ch nology, t echnolog yis  n ot  pu rsued for thesa keof  te chnol o gy. Ho wever , un de rp res sures t o  k e e p up  w it h te chn ol ogica l ch a nge , and i nfluenced  by an i de ol ogicalorientation t ow ard techno lo gic al cha n g e, educa tional technology leade r s can p lac e pri orit y on embr aci ng tec hno l ogical  chang e, so me tim e s  adop t i ng  it  f or its own s ake . The  r esea rcher p roposes a theoreti c alinterpretatio n t hatp r es ent s  t h e t wo app r o aches to techno logy decis io n  m aking, Edu c ati on al goal s and c urric u lum sho uld drive  technolo gy , an d Kee p up withTechnolo gy (or be leftb eh ind),  in  compe ti tio n and  cogni t ive  diss onance  w ith ea ch ot he r. The c ore category Keep up wi th tec hnolo gy(or be le ftb ehi nd) is gi venthe greate r w eig ht in  te c hnolo gy d e ci sio n  maki ng ( s ee Figure 6) . K e e pup with tec h n o log y (or  be left b ehin d) emerges as the principal appr oach t o t ech n olog ydecision makin g,as l eaders d ea l with thei r percei ve d  expe rience  278 o f the i n e vi t abilit y of  te chnologic alch a nge, an dth e ir con cern  f or pre paring stud e n ts for a technol ogica l futur e . C oncep tu al fram e work s for tech nological d etermi nism . The  starti ng  point  fo rthe Strobe l  and Till berg- Webb fr am ewor k u ndersc ores t hat e duca to rsshould qu e s ti o nwh e the r te chnol og ical  determin i st assum pti o ns infl ue nce t hinkin g  a b o ut technol ogy  (Str o b el & Tillb e rg-W e bb ,  2009 ). The  corecategor y  th at  emerge d f r o m the stu dy, Keepu p w it h te chnology  ( or b elef tbehind), has be en shown  to be i n f luence d b y  the assump ti on that tech nolog ic a l chang e isinevita b le.  Th e f acttha t th i s emerged as the core ca tego ry su p por ts th e fra me work's c o ncer n for cr i tically analy zing technologi c ald eter min i st  a ssumption s i n  educ atio nal  tec hno logy . Howe v er,S tr obel  and T illb er g- Webb (200 9)  used t h e mo d elof h ard a nd  s o ft  techno logicaldeter mi nism desc r ibed by  Mar xand Smith (19 94
 Hofmann,_2006). An_implication of this conclusion,_following from_the_data, is_that_participants' concerns surrounding_an imperative to_keep up with technological_change were not_connected_to a perception that technology was in control. Rather, the data 277 showed that_most_participants expressed_concern_for_keeping up with technology in_order to benefit students (see_Table 20)._The two main properties of the core category_were_pressure to keep_up with technology, and resistance to technological change. The_theme of resistance to technology emerging_from this study_is_similar_to the resistance to_change theme found by Cukier et_al. (2009) in their qualitative study_that examined a technology initiative at a_Canadian university. The study's results, showing_pressure to implement technology occurring_alongside resistance,_appears to lend support to_Rogers' model o_f technological_innovation. This model_theorizes that technological innovation proceeds alongside_resistance from users_in varying degrees (Friesen, 2008). Substantive_theory._Under the approach_to_technology_decision making_Educational goals and_curriculum_should drive_technology,_technology is not pursued for the_sake_of technology. However, under pressures to keep_up with technological change,_and_influenced by an ideological_orientation toward technological change, educational_technology leaders can place priority on_embracing technological_change, sometimes_adopting it for its own sake. The researcher proposes a theoretical_interpretation that presents the two approaches_to technology decision making,_Educational goals_and_curriculum should drive_technology,_and Keep_up with Technology (or be left behind),_in competition_and cognitive dissonance with each other._The core category Keep_up_with technology (or be left behind)_is given the greater weight in_technology decision making (see Figure_6)._Keep_up with technology (or be_left behind) emerges as the principal_approach to technology_decision making, as leaders deal with their_perceived_experience 278 of the inevitability of_technological_change, and their concern for preparing_students_for_a technological future. Conceptual frameworks_for technological determinism. The starting point_for the Strobel and Tillberg-Webb framework underscores that educators_should question whether_technological determinist assumptions influence thinking_about_technology_(Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The core category that emerged from_the study,_Keep up with_technology (or be left behind), has been shown to be_influenced by the assumption that technological change_is inevitable. The fact that this emerged as the core category_supports the framework's concern for critically analyzing technological_determinist assumptions in educational technology. However, Strobel_and Tillberg-Webb (2009) used_the_model of hard and soft technological determinism_described_by_Marx_and Smith (1994