 (Kroes et al., 2009). Under means and ends reasoning, the normal and appropriate role for educational technology would be the means to achieve the educational ends intended for it (Kanuka, 2008), shaping technology to suit educational needs and requirements (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). It is evident from the results that the instrumental perspective of seeing technology as a means to achieve educational ends was prevalent among the participants. In the section for Research Question 2, it was reported Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology emerged as a widespread approach to technology decision making linked with the philosophy Technology is a tool. Within this category the property consider the intended educational goals fo r technology involved coding instances from 28 participants. The instrumental view of technology considers technology as a means to an end, not an end itself (Berger, 2011; Russo, 1998), and such a view was present in the findings in two properties associated with the category Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology. The property don't pursue technology fo r the sake o f technology was associated with 24 participants. For example, 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." A similar property, curriculum should drive technology, rather than technology drive curriculum, also emerged from the data. For example, TD13 stated, "As a leader if your philosophy is focused on your students, your focus is then on curriculum driving your technology rather than your technology driving the curriculum." This perspective is in alignment with a respected textbook example of what constitutes appropriate technology integration, characterized by curriculum driving technology integration, rather them technology driving curriculum (Shelly et al., 2008). 235 In interpreting these results, the instrumental view of technology, as evidenced by Technology is a tool, is an overarching philosophical view, that when considered from the lens of the Corbin and Strauss (2008) coding paradigm, shows itself to be a macro level context, a broad philosophical perspective from which individuals think and respond. In the Results section for Research Question 2, findings were reported showing the linkage between the category Technology is a tool and the category Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology. The data supports the interpretation that the approach to decision making Educational goals and technology should drive technology is a consequence of holding the instrumental view o f technology. Figure 2 depicts the instrumental view of technology as an overarching philosophy of technology, and its relationship to the decision making practice Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology. 236 Placing focus on technology rather
(Kroes et al. , 2009). Under means and ends reasoning, the normal and appropriate role for educational engineering would be the mean to achieve the educational end intended for it (Kanuka, 2008), shape engineering to suit educational needs and requirements (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). It is apparent from the results that the instrumental position of see engineering as a means to achieve educational ends was prevailing among the participants. In the section for Research Question 2, it was reported Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology emerge as a widespread approach to technology decisiveness making linked with the doctrine Technology is a tool. Within this class the property consider the intended educational goals fo r technology involve coding instances from 28 participants. The instrumental view of technology considers technology as a means to an end, not an end itself (Berger, 2011; Russo, 1998), and such a view was present in the findings in two properties associated with the category Educational goals and curriculum should force technology. The property don't quest for engineering fo radius the sake o f technology was associated with 24 participants. For example, TD4 stated, " I'm not a fan of engineering for its own sake, and as a decision maker I like to see reasons for implementing technology. " A similar property, curriculum should drive technology, preferably than technology campaign curriculum, also emerged from the data. For example, TD13 express, " As a leader if your philosophy is focused on your student, your focus is then on curriculum driving your technology quite than your technology drive the curriculum. " This position is in alignment with a respected textbook example of what constitutes appropriate engineering integration, characterized by course of study driving technology integration, rather them technology drive curriculum (Shelly et al. , 2008). 235 In rede these results, the instrumental view of technology, as evidenced by Technology is a instrument, is an overarching philosophical position, that when considered from the lens of the Corbin and Strauss (2008) coding paradigm, shows itself to be a macro level context, a broad philosophic perspective from which individuals think and respond. In the Results section for Research Question 2, findings were reported showing the linkage between the class Technology is a tool and the category Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology. The data supports the interpretation that the access to decision making Educational goals and engineering should drive engineering is a consequence of holding the instrumental view o f technology. Figure 2 depicts the instrumental view of engineering as an overarching philosophy of technology, and its relationship to the decision making practice Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology. 236 Placing stress on engineering rather
 (Krles et al., 2009). Under means akd ends reasoniny, the nmrmal znd apprupriate role for educational twchnooogy would be the meanr to achivve the eeucauional ends intenvsd for lc (Kanhna, 2008), viaping technolony to suit aducational neadr cnd requirements (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). Yt is efifent from the tesulus ehat nht instrumental perspective of seejng tecinology as a mesns to achieve educational endd was prevalent amlng the parjjci[qnts. In the rection fog Research Suestion 2, it was reported Educagionak goals ane xurghculum shouod drpve technologn emergad as a widespread apiroaci to technology decision kaking linked with the philmskphy Technology iw q toon. Widhin rhir cztxgody the prkperty conaider the ibtended educational gjqls fo r techhology igvolved coding instances from 28 participdnta. The instrumental view of technology considgrs technojogy as a means to an end, not an end itself (Berges, 2011; Ruaro, 1998), akd sjxh a view was present in the findings in two prjlettpes associated wibh the category Edicwtojnal goals ana currndumum should drive tfchnolody. Thw propertr dom't pursue technology fo r tye sake o f nechbology was associaced with 24 paxticipsnts. Gor example, TD4 stated, "I'o nof a fan of hechnologg for its own sakd, akd ds a decision maker I like to see rxasonx for ioplekentind technolohy." A similar property, cugricupuk should dgive technology, rather than teciiology drive vusribulum, alsj emevged from the dwta. For examplg, TD13 statzd, "As x leader ir your 'hilosophy if focused on flur students, your fosus us tyen on zjrriculum drivong your neehnology eather than your tcchnoukgy driving the cuteiculum." This prrsoeceine ms in dlignment widh a rerlectea textbook cxaople of what constitutes appdopriate technologu lntegratiin, charasterized by cirriculum driving uechnonogb intebrajion, rather them technology dribing currlcujum (Shelly ee al., 2008). 235 In interpxeting these results, the instrumental vixw of technology, as evieenced by Technologi ix a tool, is an oderarchinc philosophical view, that when considtred from the lens of tge Cortin ajd Strauss (2008) coding paradigm, shows itself to be a macro level context, a briad phmljsophical psrsprctivv fxom which indmvmduals think and gespond. In the Results section fur Reseasck Question 2, findings were repprged showing tfe linkage between the cztegory Yechnology is a tool and the cayegory Educational goals and cureiculhm sholmd drive technology. Yhe daca supports tye ikterpretation ghay bhe approafh tp becision making Educational goals and twcjnology should dcive technollny is z consgquence of holdinf ths insttumental view p f technology. Figure 2 depicts the igstrumental vitw of technologi as an mverarching 'hilosophy ox technology, and its relationship to the decision mzking pradtice Edmcational goals amv curriculum should drivc tecrnology. 236 Placing focgs on technology rather
(Kroes et al., 2009). Under means and the and appropriate for educational technology achieve educational ends intended it (Kanuka, 2008), technology to suit educational needs and (Jones & Czemiewicz, 2010). It is evident from the results that the instrumental of seeing technology as a means to achieve educational ends was prevalent among participants. the for Question 2, it was reported Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology emerged as a widespread to technology decision making linked with the philosophy is a tool. Within category the property consider the educational fo r involved instances 28 participants. The view of technology considers technology as a means to an end, not an end itself (Berger, 2011; 1998), and view was in findings two properties associated category Educational goals and curriculum should property don't pursue technology fo r the sake f technology associated with 24 participants. For example, stated, "I'm not a fan of technology for own sake, and as a decision maker I like to see reasons for implementing technology." property, curriculum should drive rather than technology curriculum, emerged the For example, stated, "As a leader if your philosophy is focused on your your focus is then on curriculum driving your technology rather technology the curriculum." This is in alignment with respected example of what constitutes integration, by integration, them driving curriculum (Shelly et 2008). 235 In interpreting these the instrumental view of is a tool, is an overarching philosophical view, when considered from the lens of the and Strauss (2008) coding paradigm, shows itself to be a macro level a broad from which individuals think and respond. In the section for Research Question findings were reported showing the linkage between the category is tool and category Educational goals curriculum should drive The data supports that the to making technology should drive technology is a of the instrumental view o f Figure the instrumental view of technology as an overarching philosophy of technology, and its relationship to making practice Educational goals curriculum drive technology. 236 Placing focus on technology rather
 (Kroes et al., 2009). Under means and endS reasoning, The noRmaL anD aPproPriaTe role for educaTIonaL technology would be the mEans tO aCHievE ThE educAtional ENdS INteNdEd For It (kAnUka, 2008), shApiNg technOlogy to suiT edUcAtional needs ANd RequiremenTs (JOnes & CzemiewiCz, 2010). IT is eviDeNt fROm the ResUlts tHat the INstrumEntal persPeCTive of SEeing teCHNoLogy As a means to achieve EDuCAtional ends was PrevalEnT AmONG thE paRticipants. in The seCTion for rEsEARCh QUEstion 2, it was rePorted EducaTIonAl goalS aNd cURriculUm shoUlD DriVe technologY emeRged as a wiDespreAD approaCH to techNology DecIsiOn maKInG lInkEd WIth THe PhiLOsoPhy TechnOlOgY is a tOol. WITHIN thiS caTegoRy the Property consiDer The iNTenDed edUcatiOnal GoAls fo R technOlogy InVolved coding insTancEs from 28 parTicIpAntS. THe insTRumentAl vIew Of technOlogy coNSidErS TEChNology as a means to an EnD, NOt An end itsElf (BerGEr, 2011; ruSSo, 1998), and sucH a VieW was PREsent In thE FiNdings in Two proPErTiEs assocIaTed witH tHe cAteGory EDUcatIonal gOals and cUrricULum should drive TEchnology. The pROpERTy DOn't pUrsUe technologY fo r THe saKe o f TEcHnoLOgy waS assoCiATeD With 24 participants. For ExAmple, 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." A simiLAR propertY, cuRriCulUm sHOUlD drive technolOGY, ratHeR than teChnOlogy drIve CurRicUluM, aLso emergeD from the DaTa. foR eXamPle, TD13 STated, "As a LeAdeR iF yoUr phiLOsophy Is focUsed On YoUR stUdents, yOUr FOCus iS tHeN on cUrrIcUlum dRiviNG yoUr technOlogy rathEr tHAn yoUr TeChnologY driving the cuRrIculum." This PeRspEctive IS In alignmEnt with a respected textboOK examplE of What cOnstItutes appRopRiate tEchNOlogy iNtegraTion, cHaRacTERized BY CuRriCuLum driving TEChnOlogy InTegrAtion, raTher them technology DRivIng curriculum (sheLly eT AL., 2008). 235 IN inTErPRetInG TheSE Results, the instrUmental vieW oF TeChnology, as EVidEnCed by TeChnologY is a tOOl, is an oVerarchinG philosopHiCal vIEW, thAt when consIdered frOm the lens OF the CORbIn and strAuss (2008) coDiNg pAradiGm, showS ItsElf to Be a macRo Level cOntexT, a Broad phiLosophical perspective frOm whicH indiVidUals think And REspOnd. In the REsulTs section fOr REseArch QUesTIon 2, fiNdinGS wEre REportEd shOWing the liNKaGe bETWeEn the categoRY tEchNologY is A Tool anD the Category EducationAL goals and curriCuluM SHouLd dRIve tEcHnology. The data SupPoRTS the inteRpRetation thaT the apprOaCH to deCision Making educatiONAl GOals anD tecHnoLogy shoulD drIvE TechnolOgY iS A conseQuenCe Of holdIng the INstrUMEntal view o f technOlogy. fIGure 2 dEPicTs the InStrumenTAl viEw of technoLogy as an oveRarchiNg phIlosoPhy of teChNology, And ItS relationsHIp to the deCisioN making PrActiCe EDucatiOnal GOAls anD curRiCulUm should dRIVe TEcHnOLogY. 236 PlaCing fOcUs on TechnologY Rather
 (Kroes et al., 2009). Und er means a nd en dsrea so ning , th e normal and a p prop riate role for educati onalte c hnol o gy  woul d be th e  m e a nsto  a chi ev e  t he ed uca tionalends inten ded  f or it (Kanuk a ,2008), sha pin g technology  to  suited uca t ional  ne eds a nd req u iremen ts (Jones  & Czemie w icz, 20 1 0 ).  Itis evident from t h er esults that th e inst ru m en t a l p ers pective of  s eeing technol o gy a s  am eans to achie ve educatio n alends w as  pr e valent  amon gt heparticipant s. I n the sec tion f o r Resea r ch Ques tion 2 , i t w as r e po rt edEd u cat i on alg oal s and cu rr ic ulumshou l d d rive  te chno logyemerged as awid espr e adappro ach t o te ch nolog y deci sionma king linked wit h th e philoso phy  T ech no logyi s a to ol.  Wi thin th is cate g ory  t h e pr operty consider th ei n te nded edu cation a lgo a ls fo rte chn olog y invol vedc od ing inst ancesf ro m28 part ic ipants .The  in strum e ntal  viewof techn ology considers tech n ology as a me a ns t oa n en d,not an enditse l f (B erge r ,201 1 ; Rus so, 1 99 8 ), and such a view was  p resent  in t he findings i n two prop e r t ies asso ciat e dw ith the catego ry Ed ucationalg oals and  curr iculum s hould dri v e  technol ogy . T hepro p e rt y don't pursu e tech no logy fo  rthe sak e o  ftec hno lo gy was as sociated  w it h24  pa rtici p ants. Fo rexa mp le,  TD4s tated,  "I'm  not  a  f a n o f techn o lo g y  for  i ts  own  sa ke , and  asa  de cisionmaker I l ike to s ee  r easonsfor implement in g technolo gy ."A simi l a r proper ty, curriculum should d r ive tec hno logy,  rat her thantec hnolog y d r ive cu rricul um, a ls o e m e rgedf r om  th edata. Fore x amp le, T D1 3 st ated, " As a leader if you r  ph ilosophy is f ocu sedo n  y our st u den ts ,  yo u r  focus is thenon curricu lu m  d riving you r  te ch nologyratherthany our tec hnology d riving th ecurr i c ulu m." This p erspecti ve is ina lignm e nt  with  arespec te d t extbo ok exa m ple  of w hat co ns titute s app ro priate t echnology integration,charac teriz edby curric ulu m  dr iving tec hnol ogy integr ati on,  rath ert hem t echn o lo gyd rivin g cu r riculum ( S he lly e tal., 2008). 2 3 5 I n int erp r etingthes e results, the in s trumental view  oft e chn olo g y, a sevidenced by T ech no l o gy is ato ol, is an o verarchi ng philo sophic al vie w, that w he n  consi dere d f rom the l ens  o f  the Co rb in and St raus s(2008)  codin g  par a d igm, shows itsel f tob e  a ma c rolevel  c ontext, a br oad philos ophical per specti ve f rom w hich in di vidual s t hi nk and res p ond. In t he Re sults s ec tion  fo r Rese arch Q uesti on 2 ,fin dings wer e re p or te d  sh owin g the  l inka ge betwee n  the cat ego r y Techn ol ogy i s a to o la n d the cate gor y Edu c a tional goa l s an d  c u rricu lum sh ould d rive te c hno lo gy. The  da t a  supports  the inte r pre ta tion  that th eappr oa chto  decision makin g Educat ional go a l s andtec h nolo g y shou ld  drive techn ology  i s  a cons e q uen ce of h o ldi ngthe  ins tru ment a l view o f technology. F igur e 2 d e pic ts th e ins tr umentalv iewof techn o logy as an ov erarching philo s oph y  oftec h no lo gy, and i tsr elati onsh ipto t hedeci s i on m a king pr acti ce Edu cati on al  goals an dcurricu l um s h oul d dr ive t ec hn o lo gy. 236  Placing  focu son techno l ogy rat her
 (Kroes_et al.,_2009). Under means and_ends reasoning,_the_normal and_appropriate_role for educational_technology would be_the means to achieve_the educational ends_intended_for it (Kanuka, 2008), shaping technology to suit educational needs and requirements (Jones &_Czemiewicz,_2010). It_is_evident_from the results that the_instrumental perspective of seeing technology_as a_means to achieve educational ends was prevalent among_the_participants. In the_section for Research Question 2, it was reported Educational_goals and curriculum should drive technology_emerged as a_widespread_approach_to technology decision making_linked with the philosophy Technology is_a tool. Within this category the_property consider the intended educational goals fo_r technology involved coding instances from_28 participants. The instrumental view_of technology_considers technology as a means_to an end,_not an_end itself (Berger,_2011; Russo, 1998), and such a_view was present_in the findings in two properties_associated_with the category_Educational_goals_and curriculum_should drive technology._The_property don't_pursue_technology fo r the sake o_f_technology was associated with 24 participants. For_example, 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." A similar property, curriculum should drive technology, rather than_technology drive curriculum, also emerged from_the data. For example,_TD13 stated,_"As_a leader if_your_philosophy is_focused on your students, your focus is_then on_curriculum driving your technology rather than_your technology driving the_curriculum."_This perspective is in alignment with_a respected textbook example of what_constitutes appropriate technology integration, characterized_by_curriculum_driving technology integration, rather them_technology driving curriculum (Shelly et al.,_2008). 235 In_interpreting these results, the instrumental view of_technology,_as evidenced by Technology is a_tool,_is an overarching philosophical view, that_when_considered_from the lens of the_Corbin and Strauss (2008) coding paradigm,_shows itself to be a macro level context, a_broad philosophical perspective_from which individuals think and_respond._In_the Results section for Research Question 2, findings were reported_showing the_linkage between the_category Technology is a tool and the category Educational goals_and curriculum should drive technology. The data_supports the interpretation that the approach to decision making Educational goals_and technology should drive technology is a consequence_of holding the instrumental view o f_technology. Figure 2 depicts_the_instrumental view of technology as an overarching_philosophy_of_technology,_and its relationship_to the decision_making practice Educational_goals and_curriculum should drive_technology. 236_Placing focus on_technology_rather