, was consider the intended educational goals fo r technology, which was associated with 44 documents and 28 out of the 31 participants. Technology leaders often described how their philosophy of technology informed them by pursuing an approach to decision making that placed focus on considering the intended educational goals to be accomplished through the technology, rather than placing focus on technology itself. For example, TS4 responded to the written questionnaire: Schools should shape technology to align with educational needs. Decisions concerning use of technology must consider the objectives that must be taught. Technology use should always support learning objectives. Before considering how we might use technology as a tool, we need to examine how the tool will help deliver, review, or help the students practice curriculum objectives. Two other properties associated with Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology were also concerned with an approach to decision making that placed priority on curriculum and educational goals, rather than technology. These two properties, don't pursue technology fo r the sake o f technology, and curriculum should drive technology, rather than technology drive curriculum, were created early in data analysis as in-vivo codes from the transcripts. For example, in response to the second 208 interview question that connected thinking and decision making, TD2 observed, "Sometimes just having money drives technology decisions and others want to purchase new technologies." TD2 then stated, "I don't believe we should purchase technology for the sake of technology." The code curriculum should drive technology was similarly created based on this technology director's response to the written questionnaire. TD2 asserted that the curriculum department should play an important role in planning for educational technology, and stated, "Is technology driving the bus or is teaching and learning when it comes to the use of technology?" There were 71 coding instances for don't pursue technology fo r the sake o f technology, from 36 documents and 24 participants. Technology leaders described how this philosophy of technology was of consequence in leadership and decision making. For example, in response to the first interview question, and expressing the view that technology is a tool, TD4 stated, "I'm not a fan of technology for its own sake, and as a decision maker I like to see reasons for implementing technology." Then in response to the second interview question that linked thinking and decision making, TD4 responded: My philosophy guides my decisions. We get hit often with we need this or we need that, and I look at things analytically and critically to analyze the technology needs presented to me. If a teacher goes to a conference and comes back and approaches me with an idea, I consider do we have
, was consider the intended educational goals fo r engineering, which was consociate with 44 documents and 28 out of the 31 participants. engineering leaders much described how their philosophy of engineering inform them by pursuing an approach to decision making that place focus on considering the intend educational goal to be accomplished through the technology, rather than placing focus on engineering itself. For example, TS4 responded to the written questionnaire: school should shape technology to align with educational need. Decisions refer use of technology must consider the objectives that must be taught. engineering use should always support learning objectives. Before considering how we might practice engineering as a instrument, we need to examine how the tool will help deliver, review, or avail the student practice curriculum objective. Two early place associated with Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology were also concerned with an overture to decision making that placed priority on curriculum and educational goals, quite than technology. These two properties, don't pursue technology fo radius the sake o f engineering, and course of study should tug technology, rather than technology campaign curriculum, were created early in datum analysis as in - vivo code from the transcripts. For example, in reply to the second 208 interview motion that connected thinking and decision devising, TD2 observed, " Sometimes merely having money drive technology decision and others want to purchase modern technologies. " TD2 then state, " I don't believe we should buy technology for the sake of technology. " The code curriculum should drive engineering was similarly created based on this technology director's reply to the written questionnaire. TD2 asserted that the course of study department should play an important role in planning for educational technology, and stated, " Is technology driving the bus or is teaching and learning when it comes to the function of engineering? " There were 71 coding instances for don't pursue technology fo r the sake o f technology, from 36 document and 24 participants. Technology leaders identify how this philosophy of technology was of consequence in leadership and decision making. For example, in reply to the first interview question, and express the view that technology is a instrument, TD4 stated, " I'm not a fan of technology for its own sake, and as a decision maker I like to visit reasons for implementing technology. " Then in response to the second interview question that linked thinking and decision making, TD4 responded: My philosophy guide my decisions. We get hit often with we need this or we need that, and I look at things analytically and critically to analyze the engineering needs presented to me. If a teacher goes to a conference and comes back and approaches me with an idea, I consider do we have
, wad consider the intended tducational goals fo r txchnolofy, which was associated with 44 documeits qnd 28 iut of the 31 participangs. Technopogy leaeers iften desccjbed how theid phinisophy of techkology infosmed them by pgrrunng an approach to decision making trat plavef focus on confidegigg tgv lntended educational goals to be accompnished througn the technology, rather thwn ppacing focus on tefhnology itwelf. Dor example, GS4 respondtd to the wrjtten questionnaire: Schools shojld skape technoooty hm align witi educwtional needs. Decisimns converning use of terhnooogy must consider thx objectives that muft be tauchc. Technology use shouod alwais su[porg lexrnjnj ogjectiges. Before cohsidering hiw we might use tecnnjoogy as a toom, we nqeq to examine how the tool will help delpver, review, or help the stueents practice curricolum objeceives. Two other properties associated with Educathonal eoaos xbd curriculum should drive technology were also domcvrned with an appvoach to decision kanimd that placed priornfy on curriculum and educatyonal goals, rauher yhan technology. These two peoperties, dou't pursue technology yo r the sakz o f jechnokogy, and curriculum shobld drjve technollgy, rathed than technology drpve wurriculum, were created eawly in dava anclysis ar in-fivo cjdes from hhe tvdnscripts. For examole, iu res[onse to tje second 208 interview question tiet connected jhitkitg and dzcisiok making, TD2 obsqrved, "Sometimex just kaving money drines technmlogy decisyons and othesd want to pucchase ner texhnooogies." GA2 then stated, "O don't believe we syould purchase tecmnoloeg for the sake if uexhnology." The cpde cuwrpcukui should driva tezhnukogy das similaroh crrated based on this dechhology director's rrsionse to jhe writtqn questionnaore. TD2 asserted thwt thx currmculum dekartment should play an importaht role ij pjanning for qducqtional techuology, and stated, "Is technology driving vhe bus or is teaching qnd learning when ij cpmes to the use jf technonogy?" There were 71 codung instances for don't pursue technolofy fo s the sake o f technology, from 36 documents and 24 participants. Technology leaders descrmbqd how this phikosopvy pf tecrnolljy was of consequvnce in leadership and decision oaking. Fmr example, in response to the gifst interview question, and expressing the viee that technology is a tool, TD4 xtated, "I'm not a fan of tcchnology for jts own saye, and as a decisipn makzr I luke to wee veasons for imolekekting techjolojy." Chen in response to the second inrervieq euestion that liiked thinkinn xnd dgcision iaking, TD4 responsed: Jj phiuosophy guidex my decisions. We get hit often winh re need this oe we need thaj, and I nook at thinjs analyticanly and critically to analyze the technology needs kresented tk me. If a teacher goes vo a conference and comex fack and approaches ke with an idea, I consider do we have
, was consider the intended educational goals technology, was associated 44 documents and participants. leaders often described their philosophy of informed them by pursuing an approach decision making that placed focus on considering the intended educational goals to be through the technology, rather than placing focus on technology itself. For example, TS4 to written Schools shape technology to align with educational needs. Decisions concerning use of technology must consider the objectives must be taught. Technology use should always support objectives. Before considering how might use technology as a we to examine the will deliver, review, or the students practice curriculum objectives. Two other properties associated with Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology also concerned approach to making placed on curriculum and rather than technology. These two properties, fo r the sake o f technology, and should drive rather than technology drive curriculum, were early in data analysis as in-vivo codes from transcripts. For example, in response to the second 208 interview question that connected thinking and TD2 observed, "Sometimes just money drives technology and want purchase technologies." TD2 stated, "I don't believe we should purchase technology for the sake technology." The code curriculum should drive technology was similarly created this director's response to written questionnaire. TD2 asserted the department should play an in for stated, technology the bus or is and learning when it comes the use of technology?" for don't pursue technology fo r the sake f technology, from 36 documents and 24 Technology leaders described how this philosophy of technology was of consequence in and decision example, in response to the first interview question, expressing the view that is a tool, TD4 stated, "I'm not a fan technology its own and as a maker I like see reasons for Then in to second linked thinking and decision making, TD4 My guides my decisions. We get often need this or we need that, and I look at things analytically and critically to technology needs presented to If teacher goes to a conference and comes back and approaches me with I consider do
, was consider the intended eduCational goAls fo R teChnOlOgy, wHich Was associated wITh 44 doCuments and 28 out of the 31 partIcipaNtS. techNOlOgy leAders ofTEn DEScrIbEd How ThEIr PhiloSopHy of tecHnology infOrmEd Them by pursuiNG aN approach tO deCision making ThaT placeD fOcuS On conSidEring The intENded edUcational GoALs to be ACcompliSHEd ThroUgh the technology, rAThER than placing foCus on tEcHNoLOGy iTseLf. For exampLe, tS4 resPOnded to THe WRITteN Questionnaire: schools shouLD shApe tecHnOloGY to aliGn witH eDUcaTional needs. deciSions concErning USe of tecHNology mUst conSidEr tHe obJEcTiVes ThAT muST bE taUGht. technoloGy UsE shouLd alWAYS SuppOrt LearNing oBjectives. BefoRe cOnsiDEriNg how We migHt usE tEchnoLogy as A tool, We Need to examine hoW the Tool will hElp DeLivEr, RevieW, Or help The StuDents prActice cURriCuLUM ObJectives. Two other prOpERTiEs associAted wiTH EDuCAtional gOaLs aNd cuRRIculuM shoULd Drive tecHnologY WeRe Also conCeRned wiTh An aPprOach tO DeciSion maKing that PlaceD Priority on currICulum and educaTIoNAL gOAls, rAthEr than technOlogY. thesE two PRoPerTIes, doN't purSuE TeCHnology fo r the sake o f TeChnoloGy, and Curriculum shoUld drive teCHNOlogy, ratHer tHAn TEchnology drive CurriCulum, were cREated earLy in dAta analySis as in-viVO Codes froM thE trAnsCriPTS. FOr example, in reSPOnse To The secoNd 208 iNtervieW quEstIon ThaT cOnnected tHinking aNd DeCiSiOn mAking, td2 observeD, "SOmeTiMes Just hAVing moNey drIves TeChNOloGy decisIOnS ANd otHeRs Want To pUrChase New tEChnOlogies." tD2 then staTed, "i Don't BeLiEve we shOuld purchase tEcHnology for ThE saKe of teCHNology." ThE code curriculum should drIVe technOloGy was SimiLarly creaTed Based oN thIS technOlogy dIrectOr'S reSPOnse tO THe WriTtEn questionNAIre. tD2 assErTed tHat the cUrriculum departmenT ShoUld play an impoRtaNt roLE In PlaNNiNG foR eDUcaTIOnal technology, aNd stated, "Is TeCHnOlogy driviNG thE bUs or is tEaching And leARning whEn it comes To the use oF tEchnOLOgy?" there were 71 cOding insTances for DOn't puRSuE techNolOgy fo r ThE saKe o f tEchnolOGy, fRom 36 doCumentS aNd 24 partIcipaNtS. TechnolOgy leaders described how tHis phiLosopHy oF technoloGy wAS of ConsequenCe in Leadership And DecIsion MakINg. For ExamPLe, In rESponsE to tHE first intERvIew QUEsTion, and exprESSIng The viEw tHAt techNoloGy is a tool, TD4 stated, "i'M not a fan of techNoloGY For Its OWn saKe, And as a decision MakEr i LIke to see ReAsons for impLementinG tEChnolOgy." TheN in resPonse to THE sECond inTervIew Question tHat LiNKed thinKiNg ANd deciSion MaKing, TD4 ResponDEd: My PHIlosophy guides my DecisIONs. We gET hiT ofteN wIth we neED thiS or we need tHat, and I look At thinGs anAlytiCally anD cRiticaLly To Analyze the TEchnology Needs PresentEd To me. if a TeacheR goeS TO a conFereNcE anD comes bacK ANd APpRoACheS me wIth an IdEa, I cOnsider do WE have
, was consider the intende d educatio nal g oal s f or te chno logy, which wa s  ass ociated with 44 docume nts a nd 28 o u tof th e 31 pa r ti c i pan ts .Tec hn o lo gy le ade rs ofte n describe d h ow  their philo s op hy of tech nol ogy informed  th em bypu rsu i ng an  ap proac h to d e cision  making t ha t  place d  focuso n  c onsi dering the intend e de ducational goa ls tobe ac c o mpl ish ed through  t he te c hnology ,  r a t h ert han placing f ocus on tec h nol ogy it se lf. For ex ample ,T S4responded t o th e written  quest i onnaire :  School s shou ldsha pe t e ch no log yt o a l ig n w i theducatio na lneeds . De c i s i onscon cern ing u se of technol ogy  mus t  co nside r the  obj ec tives  thatmustbe  taught. Techno logy  use shou ldal way ssuppo r t lear nin g o bjectiv es. Bef o reco n s i de ring how we mightus e te chnology  as at oo l, we needto  ex amin e how t he t o ol  will he lp del i ve r,  review ,or hel pthe  st udent s  pra cticecurricul um ob j ectives. Two o t her propertie s  a s s oc i ated  wi th Educatio nalg oals  and cu rri c ulumshoul dd ri v e technology were a ls o conc erned  with an appr oach to de c i s ion maki ng t h at placed priorit y oncurriculum and educ ation al goals , rathert h an techn olo gy.  Th ese t wo  properties,d o n'tpu rsue te chn ology f o r  th e s ake  o  f techno logy, an dcu rr ic ulu m sho u ld drive  t ech no log y, ra t her th an te chno lo gy dri ve curr i cu l u m, w er ecrea ted  e arlyin d a taanalysi s as in-v ivo code sfr om thetranscripts.Fo r example,  i n r espons e to the s econd 208 interview que s tion th atconne cted  thinking  an d deci sio n  makin g, TD2  obse rv ed, " Somet i m es  ju st  having mo n e y d rives  t echn ology d ecisions and other s  wa nt to purchas e n ew t e c hn olo g ie s ."TD 2  th e n  stated, "I don 't believe  w e  s hould purc h ase  t echnolo gy forthe s a ke of t echnology ." The co de  cur r i cul um shoulddrive te chnologyw as si m il arlycre ated b as edon th is tec h nol ogy d irecto r' s resp onseto  the wri tten questionnaire. TD2  asser ted t hat  the curr icu l umdepartmen t sh ould playanimp ortan t r o le in  pla n ni ngf or ed ucat i onal tech n ol ogy , an d stated, " I s tec hnolo gyd riving  the  bus or is teachi n g and learning  whe n itcom e s to  t he use of tech nol og y ? " Therewe re 71 codin g instan ce s  fordon'tpursue  techno l o gy fo r t he s ake  o f tech nol og y , from36  d o cument s an d24 par ticipa n ts.T e chnology leaders  desc r i bed h o w t his p hi losophy of t echnologywas of cons equenc e in  lead ershipan d deci sio nmaking. Fo r  example,  in r esponse  t o th e f irst i nter v i ew qu esti on , a nd expres s i ng th ev iew  tha t tec hn olog y is a to o l, TD4 s tat e d, "I'm  n ota fan of te c h nology for  it s own s ake, and a s  a d e ci s ion m aker I  liketo seer eas on s for i mpl e m enting te chnology. "  Th en  inresponse  t o th esec on d interview que stion th at linke d thinki nga nd d e cision  m aking, TD4 r espon de d : My ph i l oso phy gui d esmydec isio ns.  Weg et hit often with we nee d th is or weneedthat,  a nd I loo k  atthings a n alytically an d critically to ana l yzethe te ch nology ne eds prese nted  to  me.  If  a t e a cher goes to  a c onfere ncean dcomes bac kand app r oach e s m e wi th an  i de a ,I consi der do w e hav e
, was_consider the_intended educational goals fo_r technology,_which_was associated_with_44 documents and_28 out of_the 31 participants. Technology_leaders often described_how_their philosophy of technology informed them by pursuing an approach to decision making that_placed_focus on_considering_the_intended educational goals to be_accomplished through the technology, rather_than placing_focus on technology itself. For example, TS4 responded_to_the written questionnaire:_Schools should shape technology to align with educational needs._Decisions concerning use of technology must_consider the objectives_that_must_be taught. Technology use_should always support learning objectives. Before_considering how we might use technology_as a tool, we need to examine_how the tool will help deliver,_review, or help the students_practice curriculum_objectives. Two other properties associated_with Educational goals_and curriculum_should drive technology_were also concerned with an approach_to decision making_that placed priority on curriculum and_educational_goals, rather than_technology._These_two properties,_don't pursue technology_fo_r the_sake_o f technology, and curriculum should_drive_technology, rather than technology drive curriculum, were_created early in data_analysis_as in-vivo codes from_the transcripts. For example, in_response to the second 208 interview_question that_connected thinking_and decision making, TD2 observed, "Sometimes just having money drives technology_decisions and others want to purchase_new technologies." TD2 then_stated, "I_don't_believe we should_purchase_technology for_the sake of technology." The code curriculum_should drive_technology was similarly created based on_this technology director's response_to_the written questionnaire. TD2 asserted that_the curriculum department should play an_important role in planning for_educational_technology,_and stated, "Is technology driving_the bus or is teaching and_learning when it_comes to the use of technology?" There_were_71 coding instances for don't pursue_technology_fo r the sake o f_technology,_from_36 documents and 24 participants._Technology leaders described how this philosophy_of technology was of consequence in leadership and decision_making. For example,_in response to the first_interview_question,_and expressing the view that technology is a tool, TD4_stated, "I'm_not a fan_of technology for its own sake, and as a decision_maker I like to see reasons for_implementing technology." Then in response to the second interview question that_linked thinking and decision making, TD4 responded: My_philosophy guides my decisions. We get hit_often with we need_this_or we need that, and I look_at_things_analytically_and critically to_analyze the technology_needs presented to_me. If_a teacher goes_to a_conference and comes_back_and approaches me with an idea, I consider do we have