 the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Both city and county school districts were included. A technology leader from one of the Governor's Schools in the state also participated. Materials/Instruments Data collection instruments included the Interview Questions and Protocol (Appendix A), that used a semi-structured protocol, followed by the Written Questionnaire (Appendix B) with open-ended questions. Other research instruments included the School District Permission Form (Appendix C) and Informed Consent Form (Appendix D). To guide the process of contacting potential participants using a consistent procedure that emphasized that participating was voluntary, two introductory scripts were used that included the Letter o f Introduction Email (Appendix E), and Introductory Script Telephone (Appendix F). The researcher utilized a semi-structured interview protocol (Ayres; 2008; Harrell & Bradley, 2009; Lahman & Geist, 2008) that took a funnel approach by beginning with a broad open-ended question, followed by more focused questions and probing questions to elicit further information and clarify responses (Harrell & Bradley, 2009). The researcher began by inviting participants to speak openly to describe their philosophy of technology in their own words. This broad opening interview question served to provide data pertaining to the study's first research question, concerned with the broad philosophy of technology assumptions present in the thinking of technology leaders. The ensuing interview questions followed a standardized open-ended approach to interviewing (Turner, 2010) that involved asking each participant the same structured, 134 open-ended interview questions that were aligned with the study's research questions. The standardized but still open approach to interviews provided consistency from one interview to the next, accommodated probing questions, and allowed participants to provide as much information as they felt comfortable sharing (Turner, 2010). The researcher used probing strategies, such as asking for clarification, specificity, or elaboration on responses, to elicit thoughtful and complete responses (Harrell & Bradley, 2009; Persaud, 2010). Concluding the interviews and bringing closure to the process included allowing time for participants to clarify any response, winding things down in a courteous manner, and thanking the participant (Persaud, 2010). In order to enhance the validity and reliability of the qualitative study, triangulation o f data was achieved by comparing data from the interviews with data obtained through a written questionnaire completed by the participants after they were interviewed. Triangulation of data is advantageous for qualitative research because using different data sources can increase insight into the phenomenon under study and develop a more comprehensive understanding, while reducing potential bias (Kitto,
the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Both city and county school districts were included. A technology drawing card from one of the Governor's Schools in the department of state also participated. fabric / Instruments Data solicitation instruments included the Interview Questions and Protocol (Appendix A), that used a semi - integrated protocol, trace by the Written Questionnaire (Appendix B) with open - complete question. Other inquiry instruments included the School District Permission Form (Appendix C) and Informed Consent Form (Appendix D). To guide the procedure of contacting potential participants using a consistent operation that emphasized that participating was voluntary, two introductory script were used that included the Letter o f Introduction Email (Appendix E), and Introductory Script Telephone (Appendix F). The research worker utilized a semi - integrated interview protocol (Ayres; 2008; Harrell & Bradley, 2009; Lahman & Geist, 2008) that took a funnel approach by beginning with a across-the-board open - ended question, followed by more focused questions and probe questions to elicit further information and clarify responses (Harrell & Bradley, 2009). The researcher began by inviting participants to speak openly to describe their doctrine of engineering in their own words. This broad opening consultation motion served to provide datum pertaining to the survey's first research doubt, concerned with the broad philosophy of technology assumptions present in the thinking of technology leaders. The ensuing interview questions followed a exchangeable open - end overture to interviewing (Turner, 2010) that involved asking each participant the like structured, 134 open - ended interview questions that were aligned with the study's research questions. The exchangeable but still open approach to interviews provided consistency from one consultation to the next, accommodated probing questions, and allow participants to leave as much information as they feel comfortable sharing (Turner, 2010). The research worker used probing strategies, such as ask for clarification, specificity, or elaboration on responses, to elicit thoughtful and complete response (Harrell & Bradley, 2009; Persaud, 2010). Concluding the interviews and bring closure to the process included allowing time for participants to clarify any reply, winding things down in a courteous manner, and thanking the participant (Persaud, 2010). In order to enhance the validity and dependability of the qualitative study, triangulation o f datum was achieve by comparing data from the interview with data obtained through a spell questionnaire completed by the participants after they were interviewed. Triangulation of datum is advantageous for qualitative research because use different data reference can increase insight into the phenomenon under study and develop a more comprehensive understanding, while reducing potential diagonal (Kitto,
 thf foothills of the Blue Vidge Mountains. Yith civy and dounty szhool districts were includev. A rechnilogy leader from one uf the Gonernor's Sxhooow in the svzte also partjgipatzd. Materials/Insttuments Data collection invtfulents included the Interview Questijns and Pgotocol (Appendyx A), ehat lstd a semi-structured protocol, follkwed by the Written Auestionnaire (Appendix B) wlth lpen-ended questiond. Other resgzrcr instruments included uhz School Diatrict Permission Form (Appendix C) anb Informed Xobsejj Form (Appenvix D). No guide the igocess mf contscting potentisl 'artucipants using a consmstent procedure thaj emphasizad that participatibg was eoluttarh, twu ihtcodhctory sccipts were hsed that ibcluded the Letter p s Introduction Email (A[pendix E), and Introductory Script Telepvons (Appendix F). The researxher utilized a semi-sjructured ynterview protocol (Ayres; 2008; Harrell & Bradley, 2009; Lahmat & Gemsg, 2008) uhqt touj w funnel approach by beginning with a broad o[sn-tndvd question, folloced by more focuxef aoestions and ptobing queations to elicit fkrther ynfornation anq clsrify responses (Harrell & Brqdley, 2009). The rvseaecher began by invnting particnpants to sleak openly to describe thejr philosopjy of tecgvology in their uwn wmrds. This broad opening ineerview qnestipn servdd tp provyde data pfrtaikhng to the study's virst rasearch qufstion, concerned with the broad philosophy of tachtology afsumpbions present ig the thinking of tecknologh leaders. Nhe ensuiig interview questions fonpowed a stanvardized jpen-wndee approxzh to intervieeing (Turnvr, 2010) thqt involved asking eazg participant tkt sqme structured, 134 opdn-egdvd mnterdhew questionv thxt drre auigned with ghe xtudy's research quesdiona. The standardized bmt still ipen appwoach to intetviews provided cojsistxncy fcom onr igterview to the next, accommodafed probijg zuestions, anq aloowed particnpants to provide as much information as they felt comforjable sharing (Turner, 2010). Uhe researchec used probing vtrategies, such as awking for clarifigation, specificity, or slabordtion on responses, to elicit thoughtful and complete responses (Harrell & Bradlet, 2009; Persaud, 2010). Conclusing the pntzrvnews anq brmnjing closure to tne process included allowing tioe for pdrcicipants to clarify any resppnre, winding thkngs down in a courteous manner, snd thanking the participant (Petsaud, 2010). In order to enhange the vaoiditg and ggliebility of the qualiyative studt, triantulabion o f data das aghieved by comkariug data from the interviews with eata ovtwined through a xritten quesbiunnaite complgted by the partidipahhs afjer they were onterviewed. Troangulation of data ps wdvantageous fig qualitative researbh because usmng differend data sources can increase insight into the phenomgnon under atudy and develop a mote comprehensive understsnqing, whiue reducing [otential bias (Kitto,
the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. and school districts included. A technology Governor's in the state participated. Materials/Instruments Data instruments included the Interview Questions and (Appendix A), that used a semi-structured protocol, followed by the Written Questionnaire (Appendix with open-ended questions. Other research instruments included the School District Permission Form (Appendix and Consent (Appendix To guide the process of contacting potential participants using a consistent procedure that emphasized that participating voluntary, two introductory scripts were used that included Letter o f Introduction (Appendix E), and Introductory Script (Appendix The researcher a interview (Ayres; 2008; Harrell Bradley, 2009; Lahman & Geist, 2008) that took a funnel approach by beginning with a broad open-ended followed by questions and questions elicit information and clarify & Bradley, 2009). The researcher began to speak openly to describe their philosophy of in their words. This broad opening interview question to provide data pertaining to the study's first question, concerned with the broad philosophy of technology assumptions present in the thinking of technology ensuing interview questions followed standardized open-ended approach interviewing 2010) involved each participant same structured, 134 open-ended interview questions that were aligned with the research questions. The standardized but still open approach to interviews from interview to the accommodated probing questions, and participants provide as much information felt sharing researcher probing such as asking for specificity, or elaboration on responses, elicit thoughtful and complete Persaud, 2010). Concluding the interviews and bringing closure the process included allowing time for participants clarify any response, winding things down in a courteous manner, and thanking participant (Persaud, order to enhance the validity and reliability of qualitative study, triangulation o data was achieved by comparing data from the interviews data through a questionnaire completed by participants after they interviewed. Triangulation of advantageous for research using can increase insight into the phenomenon study develop a more comprehensive understanding, reducing (Kitto,
 the foothills of the Blue RidgE Mountains. both cIty And CoUnty SchoOl districts werE InclUded. A technology leader fRom onE oF The GOVeRnor's schools IN tHE StaTe AlSo pArTIcIpateD. MaTerials/instrumentS DaTa Collection inSTrUments inclUdeD the IntervieW QuEstionS aNd PROtocoL (ApPendiX A), that USed a seMi-structuReD ProtocOL, followED By The WRitten QuestionnaiRE (APPendix B) with opeN-ended QuEStIONs. OTheR research iNsTrumeNTs incluDEd THE schOOl District PerMission Form (aPpeNdix C) aNd infORmed CoNsent foRM (ApPendix D). To guIde tHe process Of contACting poTEntial pArticiPanTs uSing A CoNsIstEnT ProCEdUre THat EmphasizEd ThAt parTiciPATINg waS voLuntAry, twO introductory ScrIpts WEre Used tHat inCludEd The LeTter o f introDuCtion Email (AppenDix E), And IntrodUctOrY ScRiPt TelEPhone (APpeNdiX F). The reSearcheR UtiLiZED A sEmi-structured interViEW PrOtocol (AyRes; 2008; HarRElL & BRAdley, 2009; LahMaN & GeIst, 2008) tHAT took A funNEl Approach By begiNNiNg With a brOaD open-eNdEd qUesTion, fOLlowEd by moRe focuseD quesTIons and probing QUestions to eliCIt FURtHEr inForMation and clArifY RespOnseS (haRreLL & BradLey, 2009). ThE rESeARcher began by invitinG pArticiPants To speak openly To describe THEIr philosOphy OF tEChnology in theiR own wOrds. This brOAd openinG inteRview queStion servED To providE daTa pErtAinING tO the study's firST ReseArCh questIon, ConcernEd wIth The BroAd PhilosophY of technOlOgY aSsUmpTions PResent in ThE thInKinG of teCHnologY leadErs. THe EnSUinG intervIEw QUEstiOnS fOlloWed A sTandaRdizED opEn-ended Approach tO inTErviEwInG (Turner, 2010) That involved aSkIng each parTiCipAnt the SAMe structUred, 134 open-ended interview qUEstions ThaT were AligNed with thE stUdy's reSeaRCh quesTions. THe staNdArdIZEd but STIlL opEn Approach to INTerViews PrOvidEd consiStency from one interVIew To the next, accoMmoDateD PRoBinG QuEStiOnS, And ALLowed participanTs to providE aS MuCh informatIOn aS tHey felt ComfortAble sHAring (TuRner, 2010). The reSearcher uSeD proBINg sTrategies, sUch as askIng for claRIficaTIoN, specIfiCity, or ElAboRatioN on resPOnsEs, to eLicit tHoUghtfuL and cOmPlete resPonses (Harrell & Bradley, 2009; PerSaud, 2010). CoNcludIng The intervIewS And Bringing cLosuRe to the proCesS inCludeD alLOwing Time FOr ParTIcipaNts tO Clarify anY ReSpoNSE, wInding thingS DOWn iN a couRteOUs mannEr, anD thanking the partiCIpant (Persaud, 2010). In OrdeR TO enHanCE the VaLidity and reliaBilItY OF the qualItAtive study, tRiangulaTiON o f daTa was aChieveD by compARInG Data frOm thE inTerviews wIth DaTA obtainEd ThROugh a wRittEn QuestiOnnairE CompLETed by the participAnts aFTEr theY WerE inteRvIewed. TrIAnguLation of daTa is advantaGeous fOr quAlitaTive resEaRch becAusE uSing differENt data souRces cAn increAsE insIghT into tHe phENOmenoN undEr StuDy and deveLOP a MOrE cOMprEhenSive uNdErstAnding, whiLE reducinG poTEntial bIaS (KiTTO,
 the foothills of the Blue  Ridge Mou ntain s.Bot hcity  and  county school dist ricts were included. A  tech no l ogyl ea der f rom one of t heGo ve rno r' s  S chool s i n the s tate alsopar ti cipated. Mat e ri als/Instru men ts Data coll ect ion in st rum e nts i ncl udedthe In t erview  Question sa nd Pro t ocol (A p p en dixA), that used a s e mi - structured pro tocol,  f o ll o w edbythe Writte nQuest i onnaire (A p p e ndi x  B) with open -ended ques t ion s. Oth er  re s earchinstr um e nts  included t he S chool Dis trictP ermissi o n Form(Appen dix  C)  and In fo rme dC ons e nt  Fo r m ( Appendix  D ).  To g uide t h e  pro ces s of  cont acting potent ial  par t ici pants  usin g aco nsist ent pr ocedu re  that emphasize d th at partic ipa ti ngwa s vol u ntary,  tw o i ntroduc tory sc r ipt sw e r eused that included  t h e  L etter of Intr o du ct i on Email  ( App endi x E), a nd I n tr oductory  Scrip t  T el ephone(A ppendi xF).  Th e res e arch er uti lized asemi- s tructured inte r view protocol (A y r es ;  200 8;Harrell & B radl e y, 2 009; La hma n  & Ge ist,20 0 8) that took a funnelap proach  by b eginning with  a broad o p e n -ended q uest i on ,  followed by m ore f ocused que s tions an d pro bing que stions to e licit fu rth erinf orm a t io n and clarify r espo ns es (Har rel l & Bra dle y,200 9).  T he resear cher beg an  b yin vit ing p a rticipan ts  to  s pea k ope n ly todescr ibeth ei r  ph ilosoph y  o f tech no lo gy i n t he ir ow n wo r ds.  This b road open ing inte rv ie w quest ion served to  p rovide dat aper tainin g to the s tudy's first research q u estion,  co ncern ed w ith the b roa d phil oso p hy oftechno logyas sum p t ionsp r es ent  i n the thin k i ngof te ch nolo gy lead ers. The ensuing i n ter view question s f ollo w e da s t an d ard iz e d o p e n-ended approac h to inter vi e wi ng (Turner ,  20 10 ) thatinvolve d ask i ng each  particip ant the s am e st r u ctu red, 134 o pen-ende d intervi e w que s ti ons t hat  wereal ign ed wi th the stu dy'sresear ch  quest ions.  T he stand ardized but still openapproa ch to  in terviewspro v ide d consist ency  from oneint erv iew t o t h e nex t, a c co mmo d atedprob i ng questi o ns , a n d  a llowed part i c i pan ts to  pr o vide a s mu ch information as they felt comf orta b l e s har i ng ( Tu rner, 2010). T here s e archer u se d probing s trategie s, suchas ask ing fo r clari f i ca t ion, s peci fic ity, or e lab or a tion on  r es p onses,  toel icit t hought f ul a n d  complete respon ses ( H a rrell & B radle y,  2009;P ersa ud, 2010).  Concluding  the i nter views  and br in ging c los ur e to the p r ocess inc luded  allowi ng  tim e f or par tici p a nts t o cl ar ify  any resp o n se ,  w in d ing  thi ngs d ow n in  a courte o us manne r,a nd than ki ngt h e part i ci p a nt (Persau d,2010) . In order t o  enh a nc e  thevalidi ty and  reliab i lit yof thequa l i tative st udy, tria n gul at iono f data  w as a ch iev ed  by comparing d ata from  the int e r viewswit h  dat a  obtai ne d through awritt en questio n n air e compl e ted  by  th e pa rti cipa n ts after they were inter view ed. T r ian gulat ion o fdata isa dvan tageousf or qualitativ e research beca u seu sing  di f fe re nt data s our c es ca n in cre aseins ight i ntot he p h en omen on und er s tu dy  and deve lo p a mor e  com p reh ensi ve un de rs t an ding, w hile red ucing  p otentialb ias (Ki tto, 
 the_foothills of_the Blue Ridge Mountains._Both city_and_county school_districts_were included. A_technology leader from_one of the Governor's_Schools in the_state_also participated. Materials/Instruments Data collection instruments included the Interview Questions and Protocol (Appendix A),_that_used a_semi-structured_protocol,_followed by the Written Questionnaire_(Appendix B) with open-ended questions._Other research_instruments included the School District Permission Form (Appendix_C)_and Informed Consent_Form (Appendix D). To guide the process of contacting_potential participants using a consistent procedure_that emphasized that_participating_was_voluntary, two introductory scripts_were used that included the Letter_o f Introduction Email (Appendix E),_and Introductory Script Telephone (Appendix F). The_researcher utilized a semi-structured interview protocol_(Ayres; 2008; Harrell & Bradley,_2009; Lahman_& Geist, 2008) that took_a funnel approach_by beginning_with a broad_open-ended question, followed by more focused_questions and probing_questions to elicit further information and_clarify_responses (Harrell &_Bradley,_2009)._The researcher_began by inviting_participants_to speak_openly_to describe their philosophy of technology_in_their own words. This broad opening interview_question served to provide_data_pertaining to the study's_first research question, concerned with_the broad philosophy of technology assumptions_present in_the thinking_of technology leaders. The ensuing interview questions followed a standardized open-ended_approach to interviewing (Turner, 2010) that_involved asking each participant_the same_structured,_134 open-ended interview_questions_that were_aligned with the study's research questions. The_standardized but_still open approach to interviews provided_consistency from one interview_to_the next, accommodated probing questions, and_allowed participants to provide as much_information as they felt comfortable_sharing_(Turner,_2010). The researcher used probing_strategies, such as asking for clarification,_specificity, or elaboration_on responses, to elicit thoughtful and complete_responses_(Harrell & Bradley, 2009; Persaud, 2010)._Concluding_the interviews and bringing closure to_the_process_included allowing time for participants_to clarify any response, winding things_down in a courteous manner, and thanking the participant_(Persaud, 2010). In_order to enhance the validity_and_reliability_of the qualitative study, triangulation o f data was achieved_by comparing_data from the_interviews with data obtained through a written questionnaire completed by_the participants after they were interviewed. Triangulation_of data is advantageous for qualitative research because using different data_sources can increase insight into the phenomenon under_study and develop a more comprehensive understanding,_while reducing potential bias_(Kitto,