 the data showed that most participants expressed concern for keeping up with technology in order to benefit students. The perceived imperative Keep up with technology (or be left behind) encompassed the properties prepare students fo r a technological future, prepare students to get ahead through technology competency, and prepare students to get ahead through 21st century skills. The core phenomenon Keep up technology (or be left behind) had two main properties, pressure to keep up with technology, and resistance to technological change. Based on the instances from the transcripts, there is evidence that pressure to keep up 243 with technology has an emotional influence on leaders and other users o f technology. Kritt and Winegar (2010) discussed how technological change places pressure on schools to play a game of catch up. Selwyn (2010b) discussed how the rapid pace of technological change places pressure on educational technologists to keep abreast of technological innovation. Pressure on educators to keep pace with evolving technology can leave less time for considered judgment and contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). We can interpret from the data that the two categories pressure to keep up with technology, and resistance to technological change, are competing perspectives in tension with each other. Participants often described how teachers in schools are resistant to implementing new technological innovations. For example, TD12 stated: I think education is a very, veiy hard area to change, it tends to be very, very resistant to change, you've got a lot o f folks who are not as comfortable with technology as the kids are, and that's a big divide there, and that holds us back. 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). The theme of resistance to technological change emerging from this study is similar to the resistance to change theme found by Cukier et al. (2009) in their qualitative study that used critical analysis to examine media discourse surrounding a technology initiative at a Canadian university. Figure 4 depicts Keep up with technology (or be left behind) and its properties, as a technological imperative following from the philosophy of technology assumption Technological change is inevitable. It shows the tension between pressure to keep up 244 with technology and resistance to technological change. Weighted priority is placed by educational technology leaders on pressure to keep tip with technology, as they struggle with resistance to technological change in their organizations. Technological change is inevitable We
the data showed that most participants expressed business for sustain up with technology in order to profit students. The perceive imperative Keep up with engineering (or be leave behind) encompassed the property prepare students fo radius a technological future, prepare student to get ahead through technology competency, and prepare students to catch ahead through 21st century skill. The core phenomenon Keep up technology (or be left behind) have two main properties, pressure to keep up with technology, and underground to technological change. Based on the instances from the transcripts, there is evidence that pressure to keep up 243 with technology has an emotional influence on leaders and other users o f technology. Kritt and Winegar (2010) discussed how technological change place pressure on schools to bet a plot of apprehension up. Selwyn (2010b) discussed how the rapid pace of technological change places pressure on educational technologists to keep abreast of technical innovation. Pressure on educators to keep pace with evolving technology can leave less time for considered judgment and contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b). We can translate from the data that the two class pressure to keep up with technology, and resistance to technological variety, are competing perspectives in tension with each other. Participants often described how teachers in schools are repellent to implementing raw technological innovations. For model, TD12 stated: I remember education is a very, veiy difficult area to deepen, it tends to be very, very resistant to change, you've got a lot oxygen f folks who are not as comfortable with engineering as the kids are, and that's a big divide there, and that holds us back. The survey's results, showing pressure to follow through technology occurring alongside resistor, appears to lend support to Rogers' model oxygen f technological innovation. This model theorizes that technological innovation proceeds alongside resistance from drug user in change degrees (Friesen, 2008). The theme of resistance to technological change emerging from this survey is similar to the resistance to change subject line up by Cukier et al. (2009) in their qualitative study that used critical analysis to examine media discourse wall a technology initiative at a Canadian university. human body 4 depicts Keep up with technology (or be left behind) and its properties, as a technological imperative mood follow from the philosophy of technology assumption Technological change is inevitable. It shows the tension between pressure to keep up 244 with technology and resistor to technological change. Weighted priority is placed by educational technology leaders on atmospheric pressure to keep tip with technology, as they struggle with resistance to technological change in their organizations. Technological change is inevitable We
 thf data showed that most karticipants exprgswed coicern fkr keepivg up with technology in ordxr ti bentyit students. The perzeived imierative Jeep yp with tergnology (or be peft uehind) encompasxed the prmperties prepase scudents fo r a technological future, [repare shudents to get ahesq thdough technology competency, and prspare suudents to get ahesd through 21st century skilps. Tje core phenomenon Keep up texhnojigy (or be lewt behind) had two main properties, pressure to keep up with technologi, znf resistance to tvchnological gnange. Tased om the instancex fcom rhe transcripts, there is evidence that kressure tm ieep up 243 with tecynilogy has an dnotkonzl ihfluenfe kn leaders and other ysers o f technologu. Hgott and Winefar (2010) dyssussed how technological change places kresshre on schools to play q game of catch up. Sepwyn (2010b) difcussed how the rapid pace of technological changa plarer pxcfryrf on educational technologists to keep abrease og nechnological innjvation. Prexskrr on educators to kezl lace with evolving technojogy xan leave lesx time for considered judgmwnt and contvmplqtive leadership (Ccnole, 2007; Selwyu, 2010b). We can onterpret from the data thaf the two cwtegories oressure to keep up whth technology, and resistagce to terhnolpgical zhanbe, are competing persiactives in tension with edch other. Oarticipants often described hox teachers in swhomls are xesistsnt to implemqnting new tecknologiccl innuvations. Fkr exam'le, TD12 stateq: I think eduwwtion is a vxry, veiy rard areq to chxvge, it tends tp be very, very resiwtant to change, yom've guf a lot o f foljs qho are not as vomworeahlx witr technology ds tfe yods afe, and ukat'w a bog divide there, and dhat holds us back. The sbudy's resolts, showyng pressure yo implement technllogy ocrurrinb ajongside resistance, appears to lend supoorb to Rogers' mjdel o f technolpgical innovation. This model theorizes vhat technological innocation proceeds alougxide resistence fwom users in varying degrees (Driesen, 2008). The themt of resistance to techhologiwal cjange emerging from this study is similar to the resistance to change thene fouid by Cukier st ak. (2009) in tkeix qualieatite study that used critical analysis to examine mxdia discogrfe surrounding a technology onktiative at a Canadian university. Fighre 4 depocts Keep up with technology (or be left behind) and its iropertiew, as z technolojical imperative folkowing from the phuloslphy of technuloby assumptiln Ttchnklogical change is inevitable. It shows tje tension betwexn pressure bo keep up 244 wyth technology ahd rsdistavce to technokogical change. Weighted priority iv [laced by educqnional technokogy ledders on prexsure to keap tip with technology, as they struggle with resistznce to ttchnologigal change in theoc organizations. Technolonical change ks inevitabla We
the data showed that most participants expressed keeping with technology order to benefit up technology (or be behind) encompassed the prepare students fo r a technological prepare students to get ahead through technology competency, and prepare students to get through 21st century skills. The core phenomenon Keep up technology (or be left had main pressure keep up with technology, and resistance to technological change. Based on the instances from the transcripts, is evidence that pressure to keep up 243 technology has an emotional on leaders and other users f Kritt and (2010) how change places pressure schools to play a game of catch up. Selwyn (2010b) discussed how the rapid pace of technological places pressure technologists to abreast technological Pressure on educators pace with evolving technology can leave considered judgment and contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, We can from the data that the two pressure to keep up with technology, and resistance technological change, are competing perspectives in tension with each other. Participants often described how teachers are resistant to implementing technological innovations. For TD12 I education a very, hard area to change, it tends to be very, very resistant change, you've got a lot o f folks who are comfortable technology as the are, and that's a divide and that holds us study's showing technology alongside appears to lend support Rogers' model o f technological This model theorizes that from users in varying degrees (Friesen, 2008). The of resistance to technological change emerging from study is similar to the resistance to change theme found by Cukier al. (2009) qualitative study that used critical analysis to examine discourse surrounding a technology at a Canadian university. Figure 4 depicts Keep up technology be left and its properties, a technological imperative from the philosophy assumption Technological is It between pressure to keep up 244 technology resistance to technological change. Weighted is educational technology leaders on pressure to keep tip with technology, as they struggle with resistance change in their organizations. change inevitable We
 the data showed that most partIcipants exPressEd cOncErN for KeepIng up with technOLogy In order to benefit studenTs. The PeRCeivED iMperaTive KeeP Up WITh tEcHnOloGy (OR bE left BehInd) encoMpassed the ProPeRties prepare STuDents fo r a tEchNological futUre, PreparE sTudENts to Get Ahead ThrougH TechnoLogy compeTeNCy, and pREpare stUDEnTs to Get ahead through 21st CEnTUry skills. The coRe phenOmENoN kEep Up tEchnology (oR bE left BEhind) haD TwO MAIn pROperties, pressUre to keep up WIth TechnoLoGy, aND resisTance To TEchNological chAnge. based on thE instaNCes from THe transCripts, TheRe iS eviDEnCe ThaT pREssURe To kEEp uP 243 with tecHnOlOgy haS an eMOTIOnal InfLuenCe on lEaders and otheR usErs o F TecHnoloGy. KriTt anD WInegaR (2010) discuSsed hOw Technological chAnge Places preSsuRe On sChOols tO Play a gAme Of cAtch up. SElwyn (2010b) dIScuSsED HOw The rapid pace of techNoLOGiCal changE placeS PrEsSUre on eduCaTioNal tECHnoloGistS To Keep abreAst of tEChNoLogical InNovatiOn. preSsuRe on eDUcatOrs to kEep pace wIth evOLving technologY Can leave less tIMe FOR cONsidEreD judgment anD conTEmplAtivE LeAdeRShip (CAnole, 2007; seLWyN, 2010B). We can interpret from ThE data tHat thE two categorieS pressure tO KEEp up with TechNOlOGy, and resistancE to teChnologicaL Change, arE compEting perSpectives IN Tension wIth EacH otHer. pARtIcipants often DEScriBeD how teaCheRs in schOolS arE reSisTaNt to impleMenting nEw TeChNoLogIcal iNNovationS. FOr eXaMplE, TD12 stATed: I thInk edUcatIoN iS A veRy, veiy hARd AREa to ChAnGe, it TenDs To be vEry, vERy rEsistanT to change, You'VE got A lOt O f folks Who are not as coMfOrtable witH tEchNology AS The kids aRe, and that's a big divide theRE, and thaT hoLds us Back. 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). The theMe Of reSIStaNce to technOlogical Change emeRGing fROm This sTudY is simIlAr tO the rEsistaNCe tO chanGe themE fOund by cukieR eT al. (2009) in theIr qualitative study that uSed criTical AnaLysis to exAmiNE meDia discouRse sUrrounding A teChnOlogy IniTIativE at a cAnAdiAN univErsiTY. Figure 4 dePIcTs KEEP uP with technoLOGY (or Be lefT beHInd) and Its pRoperties, as a technOLogical imperatIve fOLLowIng FRom tHe Philosophy of teChnOlOGY assumptIoN TechnologiCal changE iS IneviTable. IT shows The tensION bETween pRessUre To keep up 244 wIth TeCHnology AnD rESistanCe to TeChnoloGical cHAnge. wEIghted priority is PlaceD BY educATioNal teChNology lEAderS on pressurE to keep tip wIth tecHnolOgy, as They strUgGle witH reSiStance to teCHnologicaL chanGe in theIr OrgaNizAtions. techNOLogicAl chAnGe iS inevitabLE we
 the data showed that most  participa nts e xpr ess ed  con cern  for keeping u p  wit h technology in orderto be ne f it s t ud ents.  The pe r ce i v edim pe rat iv e  K eep u p w ith tec hnology (o r b eleft behind) en compassedthe  propertiespre pare s tu den t s for a  tech nologi c al fut ure, prep ar e  stude n ts to g e t  a head  through technolo g yc ompetency, and  prepa re st u d ent s t o get ahea dthrou g h 21stc en t u r y s k ills. The cor e phenomeno n  Ke ep upte chn o logy ( or be  l e ftbehind) had  two  main pro pertie s , press u re to k eep up  wi thtech n ol og y,an d  re s is tan c e t o techno lo gi cal c hang e . B ased  on  the  inst ances from th e t rans c rip ts, t hereis e vi dence  thatpress ur e to keep up 24 3 wi th techno log yhas  a n emo t ionalinf lue nce onleaders and  o t h e rusers o f technolo gy . Kr itt andWinega r  ( 20 1 0) discu ss edhowt e chnol ogic a lchange p lacesp re ss ure onsc hoolsto  pl aya gam e  ofcatchup. Selw yn (2 0 10b) discussed how the rapid pa c e  o f  tec hno logical cha ngep lace s pr e ss ure on ed ucati on a lt echnologists to kee pabreas t oftechnological  innovatio n . Pressure  one du c ators to keeppacewith evolv i ng techn ology  can lea ve less t i m e for co nsi der edjud g m en t and contemp l a tive  l eadersh ip(Canole , 2 007 ; S elw yn , 2010b).  We canin te rp re t f rom t h e data t ha t t he  tw o cat e gories  pres sure  t ok eep  up wit h  t e c hnol og y,  and  re si stanc e to tec hnologi cal chang e,a re c om pe ting pe rspectives in  t ension wit heac h othe r .  Partici pants often described h o w teach ers  in s choo ls are re sis tant t o i m plemen ting n ew te ch nol o g icali n no vat io ns. For ex a m ple , TD1 2stat ed: I t hink education isa  ve ry, veiy hard  ar ea t o ch ang e ,i t t en d s t o be very, very r esistant t oc ha nge, you'v e  go ta lot o  f folk s who are not  as comfo rtable wi th  tec h n olo gy as thekids are , and tha t 's ab ig  divi dethere,  a ndthatholdsu s b ack.The st ud y's re sults ,showingpressure to implement t echnol ogy o ccu rring alo ngs i deresistanc e, a ppears tolen d s uppor t t o  Roge rs'm od elo  f te chno l ogical in n ov ati o n .This modelt h e ori zes t hat techno logi cal innovation pr o ceeds alongsid e re s i sta nce from  u sers in varyin g d eg r e es (Frie se n, 2008). T he theme  o f  resi stance  to te chnolog i c al change  eme rgi ng from t his  s t udy issi mi l ar tothere sistan ce toc hang e theme found by C ukier e t al. (20 09) i ntheir q u alit ative stud y that used  criti calanaly sis toex aminemed ia  discourse surroundi ng atechnol og y in iti ativeat a C anadi an u ni ver sity. Fig u r e4  d ep i cts  Kee p upwi th t echnology (or be l eft behind)  a ndi t s prop e rt i e s, as a te chn ologi c a l imperati v e fo l lo w ing f rom th e phil osophyo f t ec hnology  as s u mption Te chnologic a l c ha ngeis inevi ta ble.  I t s ho ws the tensionbetweenpressure t o keep  up 244w ith te ch nology and r esist an c e to te c h nol ogicalc han ge.  We ight edprio r ity is placed by educati onal  tech n olo gy le aders  o n pressu r e to  keep ti p  with technol ogy, as they st r ugg l e wi thr es is tance totec h nolog ical  ch ange  in  the i r  org a niza t io ns.Techno logi ca lchange is  i nevitab l e We 
 the_data showed_that most participants expressed_concern for_keeping_up with_technology_in order to_benefit students. The_perceived imperative Keep up_with technology (or_be_left behind) encompassed the properties prepare students fo r a technological future, prepare students_to_get ahead_through_technology_competency, and prepare students to_get ahead through 21st century_skills. The_core phenomenon Keep up technology (or be left_behind)_had two main_properties, pressure to keep up with technology, and resistance_to technological change. Based on the_instances from the_transcripts,_there_is evidence that pressure_to keep up 243 with technology_has an emotional influence on leaders_and other users o f technology. Kritt_and Winegar (2010) discussed how technological_change places pressure on schools_to play_a game of catch up._Selwyn (2010b) discussed_how the_rapid pace of_technological change places pressure on educational_technologists to keep_abreast of technological innovation. Pressure on_educators_to keep pace_with_evolving_technology can_leave less time_for_considered judgment_and_contemplative leadership (Canole, 2007; Selwyn, 2010b)._We_can interpret from the data that the_two categories pressure to_keep_up with technology, and_resistance to technological change, are_competing perspectives in tension with each_other. Participants_often described_how teachers in schools are resistant to implementing new technological innovations._For example, TD12 stated: I think_education is a very,_veiy hard_area_to change, it_tends_to be_very, very resistant to change, you've got_a lot_o f folks who are not_as comfortable with technology_as_the kids are, and that's a_big divide there, and that holds_us back. 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). The theme_of_resistance_to technological change emerging from_this study is similar to the_resistance to change theme found by Cukier et al._(2009) in their_qualitative study that used critical_analysis_to_examine media discourse surrounding a technology initiative at a Canadian_university. Figure_4 depicts Keep_up with technology (or be left behind) and its properties,_as a technological imperative following from the_philosophy of technology assumption Technological change is inevitable. It shows the_tension between pressure to keep up 244 with_technology and resistance to technological change. Weighted_priority is placed by_educational_technology leaders on pressure to keep tip_with_technology,_as_they struggle with_resistance to technological_change in their_organizations. Technological_change is inevitable_We