 study's results, showing pressure to implement technology occurring alongside resistance, appears to lend support to Rogers' model of technological innovation. This model theorizes that technological innovation proceeds alongside resistance from users in varying degrees (Friesen, 2008). 264 A limitation of this study as it relates to resistance to technological change, and other concepts, is that while technology directors and instructional technology specialists provide leadership for educational technology, these positions are not the only K-12 educators in Virginia who provide leadership for integrating technology into instruction (Virginia Department of Education, 2010). Other educators including principals and teachers provide leadership for education or educational technology, and research involving those groups may paint a different picture surrounding concerns such as resistance to technological change. Introduction to Substantive theory. As explained above, the instrumental view of technology (Technology is a tool), viewing technology as a means to an end, but not an end in itself, is an overarching philosophy of technology widespread among participants. The data show that the approach to decision making Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology, connected with the instrumental view of technology, was a prevalent philosophy of technology. The property under this category Consider the intended educational goals fo r technology, was also prevalent. However, it is evident from the data that schools are under pressure to keep up with the latest technology. Technology leaders may feel pressure to keep up with technology by making technology comparisons with other school districts, or comparisons with technology owned by students or families (see Table 18, 19, and 20). This pressure to keep up with technology can result in procuring and implementing technology without aligning technology with clear educational goals. For example, the category Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology included the property don't pursue technology for the sake o f technology, which included the 265 dimension consequences fo r pursuing technology fo r the sake o f technology. TD12 observed that when technology is adopted for its own sake, "Everyone has to figure out how to make it work to support division and school needs. In most cases, this leads to resistance from teachers and usually dooms the technology to failure." TS15 observed, "It seems like in the ever-evolving technology world, folks are fast to jump on the bandwagon for the latest and greatest gadget or piece of software without first considering its instructional impact." An historic example of this quickness to adoption is that many schools invested heavily in Palm Pilots, seeing in them the promise for affordable one-to-one computing, expecting them to become ubiquitous (Johnson, 2005;
study's results, showing pressure to enforce engineering occurring alongside resistance, appear to lend accompaniment to Rogers' model of technological invention. This model theorizes that technical initiation proceeds alongside resistor from users in varying degree (Friesen, 2008). 264 A restriction of this study as it relates to resistance to technological change, and early concepts, is that while technology directors and instructional engineering specialists provide leadership for educational technology, these positions are not the only K-12 educator in Virginia who provide leadership for integrate technology into instruction (Virginia Department of Education, 2010). Other educator including principals and teachers provide leadership for education or educational technology, and inquiry involve those groups may paint a different picture surrounding concerns such as resistance to technological change. Introduction to Substantive hypothesis. As explain above, the instrumental opinion of engineering (Technology is a tool), viewing technology as a means to an end, but not an end in itself, is an overarching philosophy of engineering widespread among participants. The data show that the approach to decision making Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology, connected with the implemental view of engineering, was a prevalent philosophy of technology. The property under this category Consider the mean educational goals fo r technology, was besides prevalent. However, it is discernible from the data that schools are under imperativeness to keep up with the latest engineering. Technology leaders may feel pressure to keep open up with technology by make technology comparisons with early school districts, or comparisons with technology owned by students or families (see Table 18, 19, and 20). This pressure to keep up with technology can result in procure and implementing technology without align technology with clear educational goal. For example, the category Educational goals and curriculum should tug technology included the property don't pursue technology for the sake o f technology, which include the 265 dimension consequence fo r pursuing technology fo r the sake o f technology. TD12 observe that when technology is adopted for its own sake, " Everyone has to calculate out how to construct it work to support division and school needs. In most cases, this leads to resistor from teachers and usually destine the technology to failure. " TS15 observed, " It seems like in the ever - evolving engineering earth, folks are fast to jump on the bandwagon for the latest and greatest gadget or piece of software without first considering its instructional impact. " An historic exercise of this quickness to adoption is that many schools invested heavily in Palm Pilots, seeing in them the promise for affordable one - to - one computer science, expecting them to become ubiquitous (Johnson, 2005;
 stkdy's results, showing prersure to implemgnr techiology kccurrine alongside resistance, appeacs ti lene support to Rogers' moael of tebhnologicql iinovation. This model theorizes bhat cerhnological innpvation prmceeds alongsige rzsistance from users in varying degrqes (Frirsfn, 2008). 264 A limitatyon ps thjs study as it relates to resistande to ttchnological changr, and other concepts, is thwt wjile technology digectors and inseeuctional tezhnology skeeialists prkvide leadership for educationau tecknology, thewe podhtions are iot thv only K-12 educators in Virginoa who provide leederwhip for integrating vechnology into insttuction (Visgnnia Department of Edycqtion, 2010). Otver deucxtods ihcludijg 'rincipals znd teacherw provide leadershik fjg education od educwtyonal technology, and research involving thkse groups may paint a eifferent picture surtounding cjncerns such as resistance to technological changa. Intcoaucuiin to Wuhstantive theory. As explained above, the instrtjemtsl view of tecmnology (Technology id s tool), viewing technolofy as a means to aj end, bot not an end ig itxelf, is an overarching philisophy of tebhnooogy widespread amlng partici'ants. Jhe daya show that the approaeh to secision maning Educzgional goals and cugricglum should drive technolody, connecved wnth the knsttumentaj view of hechnology, was a prevalejt phnloso[hy of tecjnology. The property under this category Consodar nhe intenbed edmcational goals fo r technoloyy, was ajso pfevalent. Hkwever, mt is evidene from the dadw that schoons are ugder prewsure tu keep up with yhe latesn uechnology. Technology leaderx mxg feel pressure to keep up with trchvoljgj bb makytg technologf coopafosons with ouker rchopl districts, or compdriskns with technologu jwned by studentf or families (see Table 18, 19, and 20). Uhis pcessurx to krep up with technology can result in procuginn and implemegtinn teshnology wnthout aligning technology with clear edncational goals. For exanple, the category Ebugational goaks anq curricunum should drive tecynology included uhe property don't pursus techtologj for the sake o f technology, which included the 265 dimension consequences do r pnrfuing technklogu fo g tke xake o f txcinology. TD12 observvd that when technology is adoptxd for its ocn sake, "Everyone has to figurr uut how to maye it work to support dibision amd school needs. In most cases, tnis leads to resistance nrom teacyers znd uslzluy dooms the technplogy co faioure." TS15 obscrved, "It seems lile in the eger-etolring technology world, folks are fqst to jkmp on the bandwegon for the uatesj and grgatest gadget or liecs of suftware withoit first consicering its instructimnwl impact." An huatoric exampke of tvis quicknesx to adoptimn is that many schools invested heavily in Palm Pimots, seeihg in thcm the promise fot effordable one-to-one compmting, expectivg them to bacome ubiquitous (Johnson, 2005;
study's results, showing pressure to implement technology resistance, to lend to Rogers' model theorizes technological innovation proceeds resistance from users varying degrees (Friesen, 2008). 264 A of this study as it relates to resistance to technological change, and other is that while technology directors and instructional technology specialists provide leadership for educational these are the K-12 educators in Virginia who provide leadership for integrating technology into instruction (Virginia Department of Education, Other educators including principals and teachers provide leadership education or educational technology, research involving those groups may a picture surrounding such resistance technological change. Introduction Substantive theory. As explained above, the instrumental view of technology (Technology is a tool), viewing technology as means to but not end itself, an overarching philosophy widespread among participants. The data show to decision making Educational goals and curriculum should technology, connected the instrumental view of technology, was prevalent philosophy of technology. The property under this Consider the intended educational goals fo r technology, was also prevalent. However, it is evident data that schools are pressure to keep with latest Technology may feel to keep up with technology by making technology comparisons with other districts, or comparisons with technology owned by students or families 18, and 20). This to keep up with can in procuring and implementing aligning with For the Educational goals and curriculum drive technology included the property pursue technology for the included the 265 dimension consequences fo r pursuing fo r the sake o f technology. observed that when technology is adopted for its own sake, "Everyone has figure out make it work to support division and school In most cases, this to resistance from teachers and usually dooms the technology failure." observed, "It like in the technology world, folks fast to jump bandwagon for latest greatest of software without first considering its impact." historic example of this quickness adoption many schools invested heavily in Palm Pilots, seeing in them the promise for affordable one-to-one them to become ubiquitous 2005;
 study's results, showing pressUre to impleMent tEchNolOgY occUrriNg alongside resIStanCe, appears to lend support To RogErS' ModeL Of TechnOlogicaL InNOVatIoN. THis MoDEl TheorIzeS that teChnologicaL inNoVation proceeDS aLongside reSisTance from useRs iN varyiNg DegREes (FrIesEn, 2008). 264 A liMitatiON of thiS study as iT rELates tO ResistaNCE tO tecHnological change, aND oTHer concepts, is tHat whiLe TEcHNOloGy dIrectors anD iNstruCTional tEChNOLOgy SPecialists proVide leadersHIp fOr educAtIonAL technOlogy, ThESe pOsitions are Not tHe only K-12 edUcatorS In VirgiNIa who prOvide lEadErsHip fOR iNtEgrAtINg tEChNolOGy iNto instrUcTiOn (VirGiniA dEPArtmEnt Of EdUcatiOn, 2010). Other educatOrs InclUDinG prinCipalS and TeAcherS proviDe leaDeRship for educatiOn or EducationAl tEcHnoLoGy, and REsearcH inVolVing thoSe groupS May PaINT A dIfferent picture surRoUNDiNg concerNs such AS rEsIStance to TeChnOlogICAl chaNge. INTrOduction To SubsTAnTiVe theorY. AS explaInEd aBovE, the iNStruMental View of teChnolOGy (Technology is A Tool), viewing teCHnOLOgY As a mEanS to an end, but Not aN End iN itsELf, Is aN OveraRchinG pHIlOSophy of technology wiDeSpread Among Participants. THe data show THAT the apprOach TO dECision making EdUcatiOnal goals aND curricuLum shOuld drivE technoloGY, ConnecteD wiTh tHe iNstRUMeNtal view of tecHNOlogY, wAs a prevAleNt philoSopHy oF teChnOlOgy. The proPerty undEr ThIs CaTegOry CoNSider the InTenDeD edUcatiONal goaLs fo r TechNoLoGY, waS also prEVaLENt. HoWeVeR, it iS evIdEnt frOm thE DatA that scHools are uNdeR PresSuRe To keep uP with the latesT tEchnology. TEcHnoLogy leADErs may feEl pressure to keep up with tEChnologY by MakinG tecHnology coMpaRisons WitH Other sChool dIstriCtS, or COMpariSONs WitH tEchnology oWNEd bY studEnTs or FamilieS (see Table 18, 19, and 20). This prESsuRe to keep up witH teChnoLOGy Can REsULt iN pROcuRINg and implementiNg technoloGy WItHout aligniNG teChNology wIth cleaR educATional gOals. For exAmple, the cAtEgorY eDucAtional goaLs and curRiculum shOUld drIVe TechnOloGy inclUdEd tHe proPerty dON't pUrsue TechnoLoGy for tHe sakE o F technolOgy, which included the 265 dimeNsion cOnseqUenCes fo r purSuiNG teChnology fO r thE sake o f tecHnoLogY. TD12 obSerVEd thaT wheN TeChnOLogy iS adoPTed for its OWn SakE, "eVeRyone has to fIGURe oUt how To mAKe it woRk to Support division anD School needs. In mOst cASEs, tHis LEads To Resistance from TeaChERS and usuaLlY dooms the teChnology To FAilurE." TS15 obsErved, "IT seems lIKE iN The eveR-evoLviNg technolOgy WoRLd, folks ArE fASt to juMp on ThE bandwAgon foR The lATEst and greatest gaDget oR PIece oF SofTware WiThout fiRSt coNsidering iTs instructiOnal imPact." an hisToric exAmPle of tHis QuIckness to aDOption is tHat maNy schooLs InveSteD heaviLy in pALm PilOts, sEeIng In them the PROmISe FoR AffOrdaBle onE-tO-one Computing, EXpecting TheM To becomE uBiqUITous (JoHNsON, 2005;
 study's results, showingpressure t o imp lem ent  t echn olog y occurring al o ngsi de resistance, appears  to l en d  sup p or t toRogers' mo d e l o fte chn ol o gi cal i nno vation.  This mode l t he orizes thatt ec hnological  in novation pro cee ds alo ng sid e  resi sta nce f rom us e rs invarying d eg r ees (F r iesen,2 0 08 ). 2 64 A limitation o f  t h is study as it  relat es to r esi sta nce to tec hn ologi c al chan g e, a n d o t her concepts,  is that wh i letechno lo gyd irecto rs an di nst ructional t echn ology spe cialis t s provi d e leade rshipfor  ed ucat i on al  te ch n olo g y,  th e seposition sar e not  the o n l y K- 12educ ators  in Virginiawho  pro v ide  lead ershi p fo rinteg rating  tech no logy into instr ucti on (Virgi nia  D epa rt mento f Educ ati on,  2010).  Othere duc at o r s  i ncluding principal sa n dteachers  provi d ele a dershipfo r e duca t i on or  edu c at ional te chnolo g y,  a nd rese ar ch inv ol vin g t hoseg roup s maypaint adiffe r ent picture su r rounding conc e rn s su c h as  re sistance to  tec h nolo gica l  c han g e. In trodu ct i on to Substantive theo ry . As e xplai ned above, th e instrume n t a l view o f te c hn o logy (Technolo gy is  a tool),v iewing t echno logy asa means t o an end,but  no t a n e n d  i n itself, isa n  ove ra rchingphi losophy  of  te chn olo gy  widespre ad among  p ar ti ci pan ts. T h e data s ho w t ha t t he ap p roachto de cisi on  m a kin g Educa t io n a l go al sandcur ri culum  sho u lddrive t echnology , c o nnec te dwith th e instrumenta lview of te ch nol ogy, w a s  a preva lent philosophy of tech n ology.The  prop erty  under th iscatego ryC onside r theinten de d e d u catio n a lgoa ls  fo r tech n o log y, wa salso  preval ent. However, it i s  ev ident from th e d atat h at  sc h oo l s a re und e r  pressure to ke ep up with  t h elatest tec h nol og y. Tech nologyleade r s may f eel press ure to ke ep  upw i thtechnology  by maki ng techno l ogy c o mp ariso nswith o th erschoo l dist r ict s, or  compa ri sons w ith t ec hnologyowned by students or fa milies  (see  Ta ble 18, 1 9,a nd20). This  pre ssure to k eep  up  with  te c hnolo gy c a nres u lt in  pro c uring and im ple m e nt ing technol o g y  wi thout  al i gningtech nology with clear educational go als. F orexa m ple,  t he category Ed uca ti o n al goals  a nd curricul um shoul dd rivetechno logy i ncluded t he proper ty d on' t pursuetec hn o logy fo rth e  sakeo fte chnolo gy, wh i ch i n c luded the 265 di mensi o n  cons e que ncesfo  r purs u ingtechnology  fo r the s ake of te chnol ogy. TD 12  obser ved  t hat when t e chnologyis ad opted f or  its  ow n sake , "E v e ryone  has  t o f igure out h ow to  m a keit w ork t osupp ort divis i on and s cho o l needs .Inm o st cas e s, t his leadstoresis t a nce from t e ache r sa nd us uallydoomsthe tec h nol og y to fa ilu r e ." TS15 o bserved," Itse emslike inth e ev er -ev ol ving technology  world,folks ar e fast t o j u mp o n  the b an dwagon for t he la te s t and g r e ate st gadg e t o r p iec e of  so ftwa r e without first consider ingits i n str uctio nal i mp act." An hist oric exa m ple of this q uickness to ado p tio n  istha t  m an y schools  in v ested  hea vil y in  Pa lm P i l ots, seei n gin t hem th e pr om is e for aff or dable o n e-to - one  com putin g,  e x pe cting t hem to b ecome  u biquitous (Johnso n, 2 00 5;
 study's_results, showing_pressure to implement technology_occurring alongside_resistance,_appears to_lend_support to Rogers'_model of technological_innovation. This model theorizes_that technological innovation_proceeds_alongside resistance from users in varying degrees (Friesen, 2008). 264 A limitation of this_study_as it_relates_to_resistance to technological change, and_other concepts, is that while_technology directors_and instructional technology specialists provide leadership for educational_technology,_these positions are_not the only K-12 educators in Virginia who provide_leadership for integrating technology into instruction_(Virginia Department of_Education,_2010)._Other educators including principals_and teachers provide leadership for education_or educational technology, and research involving_those groups may paint a different picture_surrounding concerns such as resistance to_technological change. Introduction to Substantive_theory. As_explained above, the instrumental view_of technology (Technology_is a_tool), viewing technology_as a means to an end,_but not an_end in itself, is an overarching_philosophy_of technology widespread_among_participants._The data_show that the_approach_to decision_making_Educational goals and curriculum should drive_technology,_connected with the instrumental view of technology,_was a prevalent philosophy_of_technology. The property under_this category Consider the intended_educational goals fo r technology, was_also prevalent._However, it_is evident from the data that schools are under pressure to_keep up with the latest technology._Technology leaders may feel_pressure to_keep_up with technology_by_making technology_comparisons with other school districts, or comparisons_with technology_owned by students or families (see_Table 18, 19, and_20)._This pressure to keep up with_technology can result in procuring and_implementing technology without aligning technology_with_clear_educational goals. For example, the_category Educational goals and curriculum should_drive technology included_the property don't pursue technology for the_sake_o f technology, which included the_265_dimension consequences fo r pursuing technology_fo_r_the sake o f technology._TD12 observed that when technology is_adopted for its own sake, "Everyone has to figure_out how to_make it work to support_division_and_school needs. In most cases, this leads to resistance from_teachers and_usually dooms the_technology to failure." TS15 observed, "It seems like in the_ever-evolving technology world, folks are fast to_jump on the bandwagon for the latest and greatest gadget or_piece of software without first considering its instructional_impact." An historic example of this quickness_to adoption is that_many_schools invested heavily in Palm Pilots, seeing_in_them_the_promise for affordable_one-to-one computing, expecting_them to become_ubiquitous (Johnson,_2005;