 (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Educators may feel pressure to adopt technology that may or may not be congruent with research on learning (Nworie & Haughton, 2008), or may or may not be developmentally appropriate and align with Internet safety concerns (Peach, Bell, & Spatariu, 2012). Considering pertinent social and curriculum factors is an integral part of the educational technology adoption process (ChanLin, 2007; Straub, 2009). Research outside K-12 education found that assumptions characterized by technological determinism were an important factor that influenced technology leadership (Grant et al., 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). Technological determinist assumptions can 18 influence the thinking and decisions o f leaders, including their perceived agency in shaping and managing technological change, affect discourse with stakeholders, and affect how leaders manage social factors accompanying technological change (Grant et al., 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). Recently M. Oliver (2011) and Selwyn (2010b) argued for research that critically questions technological determinist assumptions, and seeks to consider alternate ways of thinking about technology and learning that emphasizes the agency of human actors, and better recognizes the social factors involved with using technology in education. Such research can better inform professional practice and contribute to what Kanuka (2008) called philosophy in practice pertaining to technology. Educational technology leaders who question philosophy of technology beliefs and assumptions are better equipped to make informed decisions, and adopt technology practices that are better aligned with improving educational outcomes (Kanuka, 2008; Leonardi, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Purpose of the Study The purpose of the qualitative study was to a) examine what philosophical assumptions about technology are present in the thinking of K-12 technology leaders, b) investigate how the assumptions may influence technology decision making, and c) explore whether technological determinist assumptions are present. Subjects involved 31 educational technology leaders from Virginia school districts, including K-12 technology directors and instructional technology specialists. Using Corbin and Strauss methods for qualitative data analysis, and guided by three research questions, the researcher sought to better understand how philosophical assumptions about technology affect K-12 19 educational technology leadership, by collecting and analyzing empirical data to corroborate the conceptual themes that emerged. Data collection began with purposive sampling to select twenty participants who
(Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). Educators may feel pressure to adopt engineering that may or may not be congruous with inquiry on learning (Nworie & Haughton, 2008), or may or may not be developmentally appropriate and align with Internet safety concerns (Peach, Bell, & Spatariu, 2012). study pertinent social and curriculum agent is an built-in part of the educational technology adoption process (ChanLin, 2007; Straub, 2009). Research outside K-12 department of education found that assumptions characterized by technological determinism were an authoritative factor that influenced technology leadership (Grant et al. , 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). Technological determinist premise can 18 influence the thinking and decisions o f leaders, admit their perceived agency in shaping and managing technical change, feign discourse with stakeholders, and affect how drawing card manage social factors accompanying technological change (Grant et al. , 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). Recently M. Oliver (2011) and Selwyn (2010b) argued for research that critically questions technological determinist assumptions, and seeks to consider alternate ways of thinking about technology and learning that stress the agency of human actors, and well spot the social factors involved with using engineering in education. Such inquiry can better inform professional practice and contribute to what Kanuka (2008) call philosophy in practice pertaining to technology. Educational technology leaders who question philosophy of technology beliefs and assumptions are well equip to make informed decisions, and adopt technology practices that are well aligned with improving educational outcomes (Kanuka, 2008; Leonardi, 2008; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). function of the Study The purpose of the qualitative study was to a) examine what philosophical assumptions about engineering are present in the thinking of K-12 technology leaders, b) investigate how the assumptions may influence technology decisiveness making, and c) explore whether technological determinist assumption are present. Subjects imply 31 educational technology leaders from Virginia school district, including K-12 technology directors and instructional technology specialists. Using Corbin and Strauss methods for qualitative data analysis, and guided by three research questions, the research worker sought to better sympathize how philosophical assumptions about technology feign K-12 19 educational technology leadership, by collecting and analyzing empiric data to corroborate the conceptual themes that emerged. Data collection began with purposive sample distribution to select twenty participants who
 (Stgobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Edugators may feel krwssure to adkpt techvology that may or may not bx cobgruebt with research on lexrning (Nwlrie & Hayghtib, 2008), or may or may not be scvelo'mxntally approprlate and alhgn with Interteg dafety concerns (Peach, Bell, & Spatarit, 2012). Consodfring pertinenj socpaj ans curriculum factors is an integram part mf the educatoonal technology adoption orocfss (ChanLin, 2007; Strauh, 2009). Research outfude K-12 educatkon found uhct assumptikns characterized by technologizal dzterminism qeee wt important factjr that inflmvnced tachnoloby leadership (Nrant et al., 2006; Jackson & Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardy & Jacksot, 2004; Prakash & Sinha, 2008). Rexhnolmgicdl ddreroinjsv aasumptlona can 18 infmuence the rhinking and decisipnf o f leaders, jncludynd their perceived agency in shaping and mahaging technological chqnge, affect discourse with staheholders, and affect how leaders manage social fawtors xccimianykbg technological change (Grant et al., 2006; Jackson & Prjlop, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Lejnardi & Jaclsln, 2004; Prakash & Sinfa, 2008). Reesnfly M. Oliver (2011) and Delwyn (2010f) argyed for rtsearvh that critically questionw technologibal eeterminist assumpcions, and sezks to consoder alternate ways of chinkihg about tefhnology zvd learning that emihashzes the agency of human astors, and betcer recoenizgs the focial fachors ltvolved with using techuologf in educahion. Such research can better iihorm professipndl iractice cnd coktribute to whae Kanuka (2008) callgd philosjphy kn practicv pertainmng to technjlogy. Educatimjal technolojy leaderf whi quwstion ofilosophy of trchnology beliefs abd assumptions are bejtsr equipped to nakt unformed decisoonr, agd avopt eachnology prdctizes yhat xre betuzr clkgnec with improving eduwatiknal outcomes (Kanula, 2008; Leonarei, 2008; Strofel & Tillberg-Eebb, 2009). Purpose of tje Stndy Thx purppse of the qualitative study was fo a) examlne what philosjphigal wssumptionx about technology are present in the tiinking of K-12 technologi leaders, b) investigaje mow the assukptiogs may inxluence technology dwcision making, anc c) explore whether tschnolmgicap determinist assumptions are present. Subjects involved 31 educational techbology leaders froj Vitginid fehool dystrmcvs, including K-12 tebhnology directors and instructiunal tecvnjlogy specialists. Using Corbon and Strauss oethods for qualitative sata anakysis, and guided by three reseatch questions, the researgher sougyt to betteg uiderstand how philospphican assymptionw ablut technologh agfcct K-12 19 edufatipncl technology leadership, by collexting qnf analyzing empicical data tl corrkboratg the conceptual fhemsd thaj emerged. Data collection beban with purposive sdm[ling to selecu twenty particopants fho
(Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Educators may feel adopt that may may not be (Nworie Haughton, 2008), or or may not developmentally appropriate and align with Internet concerns (Peach, Bell, & Spatariu, 2012). Considering pertinent social and curriculum factors is integral part of the educational technology adoption process (ChanLin, 2007; Straub, 2009). Research K-12 found assumptions by technological determinism were an important factor that influenced technology leadership (Grant et al., 2006; Jackson Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; & Sinha, 2008). Technological assumptions can 18 influence the and o f including perceived in shaping and technological change, affect discourse with stakeholders, and affect how leaders manage social factors accompanying technological change (Grant al., 2006; Philip, 2010; 2008; & 2004; Prakash & Recently M. Oliver (2011) and Selwyn research that critically questions technological determinist assumptions, and to consider ways of thinking about technology and that emphasizes the agency of human actors, and recognizes the social factors involved with using technology in education. Such research can better inform and contribute to what (2008) called philosophy practice to Educational leaders who philosophy of technology beliefs and assumptions are better equipped to make decisions, and adopt technology practices that are better aligned with outcomes 2008; Leonardi, 2008; & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Purpose the The purpose of the was a) assumptions technology present in the thinking K-12 technology leaders, b) investigate the assumptions may influence explore whether technological determinist assumptions are present. Subjects 31 educational technology leaders from Virginia school including K-12 technology directors and instructional technology specialists. Using Corbin and Strauss for qualitative and guided by three research questions, the researcher to better understand how assumptions about technology affect K-12 19 educational technology leadership, collecting analyzing empirical to corroborate the themes that emerged. collection began with to select participants
 (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). EducatOrs may feel PressUre To aDoPt teChnoLogy that may or mAY not Be congruent with researcH on leArNIng (NWOrIe & HauGhton, 2008), or MAy OR May NoT bE deVeLOpMentaLly ApproprIate and aliGn wItH Internet safETy Concerns (PeAch, bell, & Spatariu, 2012). conSideriNg PerTInent SocIal anD curriCUlum faCtors is an InTEgral pARt of the EDUcAtioNal technology adopTIoN Process (ChanLin, 2007; straub, 2009). reSEaRCH ouTsiDe K-12 educatiOn Found THat assuMPtIONS chARacterized by tEchnologicaL DetErminiSm WerE An impoRtant FaCTor That influenCed tEchnology LeaderSHip (GranT Et al., 2006; JacKson & PhIliP, 2010; LeOnarDI, 2008; LEoNarDi & jAckSOn, 2004; praKAsh & sinha, 2008). TecHnOlOgicaL detERMINist AssUmptIons cAn 18 influence thE thInkiNG anD deciSions O f leAdErs, inCludinG theiR pErceived agency iN shaPing and maNagInG teChNologICal chaNge, AffEct discOurse wiTH stAkEHOLdErs, and affect how leaDeRS MaNage sociAl factORs AcCOmpanyinG tEchNoloGICal chAnge (gRaNt et al., 2006; JaCkson & PHIlIp, 2010; leonardI, 2008; LEonardI & JAckSon, 2004; prakaSH & SinHa, 2008). ReceNtly M. OliVer (2011) anD selwyn (2010b) argued fOR research that CRiTICaLLy quEstIons technolOgicAL detErmiNIsT asSUmptiOns, anD sEEkS To consider alternate WaYs of thInkinG about technolOgy and learNING that empHasiZEs THe agency of humaN actoRs, and betteR RecognizEs the Social faCtors invoLVEd with usIng TecHnoLogY IN eDucation. Such rESEarcH cAn betteR inForm proFesSioNal PraCtIce and conTribute tO wHaT KAnUka (2008) CalleD PhilosopHy In pRaCtiCe perTAining To tecHnolOgY. EDUcaTional tEChNOLogy LeAdErs wHo qUeStion PhilOSopHy of tecHnology beLieFS and AsSuMptions Are better equiPpEd to make inFoRmeD decisIONs, and adoPt technology practices thAT are betTer AlignEd wiTh improviNg eDucatiOnaL OutcomEs (KanuKa, 2008; LeoNaRdi, 2008; sTRobel & tILlBerG-WEbb, 2009). Purpose OF The study thE purPose of tHe qualitative study WAs tO a) examine what PhiLosoPHIcAl aSSuMPtiOnS AboUT Technology are prEsent in the ThINkIng of K-12 techNOloGy Leaders, B) investIgate HOw the asSumptions May influeNcE tecHNOloGy decision Making, anD c) explore WHetheR TeChnolOgiCal detErMinIst asSumptiONs aRe preSent. SuBjEcts inVolveD 31 eDucationAl technology leaders from virginIa schOol Districts, IncLUdiNg K-12 technoLogy Directors aNd iNstRuctiOnaL TechnOlogY SpEciALists. usinG corbin and sTrAusS MEtHods for qualITATivE data AnaLYsis, anD guiDed by three researcH Questions, the reSearCHEr sOugHT to bEtTer understand hOw pHiLOSophical AsSumptions abOut technOlOGy affEct K-12 19 edUcatioNal techNOLoGY leadeRshiP, by CollectinG anD aNAlyzing EmPiRIcal daTa to CoRroborAte the COncePTUal themes that emeRged. DATA collECtiOn begAn With purPOsivE sampling tO select twenTy partIcipAnts wHo
 (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb,  2009). Ed ucato rsmay  f eelpres sure to adoptt echn ology that may or maynot b ec ongr u en t wit h resea r ch o n l ea rn ing  ( N wo rie &  Ha ughton,  2008), or  ma yor may not b e  d evelopment all y appropriat e a nd ali gn  wi t h Int ern et sa fety c o ncerns  (Peach,Be l l, & S p atariu, 2 01 2).Considering perti n en t  social and cu rricul um fa c t ors  is  an integr al  part of thee du c a t ion a l technologyadoption pr o ces s (Cha nL in, 2007;Strau b, 200 9). Researc h ou tside K-1 2 educ a tion fo u nd that  assum pti ons  cha r ac te riz ed byt ec hno l ogi cal dete rm in ism w erea n i mpor tan t fa ctorthat influenc edtech n olo gy le aders hip(G rantet al. , 200 6;  Jackson & Phil ip,2010; Leo nar di , 2 00 8; Le o nardi& J ack son, 20 04; Pra k ash  & S i nh a, 2008). Technolo gi c a ldetermin ist as s um pt i ons can18  in flue n c e the  thi n ki ng and d ecisio n sof leade rs , incl ud ing  th eir p e rcei ved ag ency inshapi n g and managing technological ch a n ge ,  aff ect  discoursewith stak ehol d er s,a nd af fectho w  l e aders manage social  f actors  acco mpanying tech nologicalc h a nge (Gra nt e t  a l ., 2006; Jacks on &Philip, 20 1 0; Leona rdi,2008; Le onardi &J a ckson, 2 004 ; P rak ash &  S inha, 2008).R e cent ly  M. Oli ver  (2011)  an d S elw yn(2 010b) arg ued forre se ar ch  th at cr i ticallyqu est io nstechn o logica l det ermi ni st ass umption s ,a n d se ek sto c ons id er al tern a teways of  thinking  ab o ut t ec hn ology a nd learning t ha t emphasiz es  th e agen c y  of huma n actors, and better re c ognizes  th e soc ialfactors i nvo lved w ith usingtechno logyin  ed u c ation . Su chre search can b ett er in fo rm p rofessi onal practice andc ont ribute to wha t K anuk a (2 008 )  c a lle dp hil o s ophy in practic e pertaini ng to  technolog y . E du cationa l techn ology leaders  who ques tion phil os ophy o f t echnologybeliefsand assum p tions ar e bet ter  equip pe d t o mak e info r med  deci sions,  a nd ado pt te ch nology p ractices that are bette r alig ned w ith  improvin g e d uca tional ou tcom es (Kanuka , 2 008 ; Leo nar d i, 20 08;S tr obe l  & Ti llbe r g-Webb, 2 0 09 ).P u rp ose of theS t u dyThe p urp o se ofthequalitative study was to a) exam inew h atphi l osop hi cal assumption s a bo u t  technol og y are prese nt in th et hinki ng ofK-12 t echnolo g y  l e aders,  b)inv estigatehow  t h e assum pt io n s mayinfl ue nce te chnolo g y de c i sion making, and  c) e x p lorew het her t ec hnologi c al d eterminist  assumption s arepres ent.Subject sinvolv ed31  education a l technol ogy l eadersfr om V irg inia s choo l distr icts ,inc luding K- 1 2  t e ch no l ogy  dir ector sandinstructi o nal tech nol o gy spec ia lis t s . Usin g  C o r bin and St rau ss me t h ods for qu a lita t iv e  data  analy sis, a nd guid e d b ythree r ese a r ch questi ons, ther ese ar cher  soughtto  bet te r u nd erstand how phi losophic al assum p t ions a bou t  tec h nology  a ffect K-12 1 9 edu ca t ional t e c hno logy le a der shi p,by c oll ecti n g and analyzing empirica l da ta to cor robor ate t he  concept u al t hemes th a t emerged. Da ta collection b e gan with  pu r po si ve sampli ngt o sel ecttwe ntypar tici p a ntsw ho
 (Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb,_2009). Educators may feel_pressure to_adopt_technology that_may_or may not_be congruent with_research on learning (Nworie_& Haughton, 2008),_or_may or may not be developmentally appropriate and align with Internet safety concerns (Peach,_Bell,_& Spatariu,_2012)._Considering_pertinent social and curriculum factors_is an integral part of_the educational_technology adoption process (ChanLin, 2007; Straub, 2009). Research_outside_K-12 education found_that assumptions characterized by technological determinism were an important_factor that influenced technology leadership (Grant_et al., 2006;_Jackson_&_Philip, 2010; Leonardi, 2008;_Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash &_Sinha, 2008). Technological determinist assumptions can_18 influence the thinking and decisions o_f leaders, including their perceived agency_in shaping and managing technological_change, affect_discourse with stakeholders, and affect_how leaders manage_social factors_accompanying technological change_(Grant et al., 2006; Jackson &_Philip, 2010; Leonardi,_2008; Leonardi & Jackson, 2004; Prakash_&_Sinha, 2008). Recently_M._Oliver_(2011) and_Selwyn (2010b) argued_for_research that_critically_questions technological determinist assumptions, and seeks_to_consider alternate ways of thinking about technology_and learning that emphasizes_the_agency of human actors,_and better recognizes the social_factors involved with using technology in_education. Such_research can_better inform professional practice and contribute to what Kanuka (2008) called_philosophy in practice pertaining to technology._Educational technology leaders who_question philosophy_of_technology beliefs and_assumptions_are better_equipped to make informed decisions, and adopt_technology practices_that are better aligned with improving_educational outcomes (Kanuka, 2008;_Leonardi,_2008; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Purpose_of the Study The purpose of_the qualitative study was to_a)_examine_what philosophical assumptions about technology_are present in the thinking of_K-12 technology leaders,_b) investigate how the assumptions may influence_technology_decision making, and c) explore whether_technological_determinist assumptions are present. Subjects involved_31_educational_technology leaders from Virginia school_districts, including K-12 technology directors and_instructional technology specialists. Using Corbin and Strauss methods for_qualitative data analysis,_and guided by three research_questions,_the_researcher sought to better understand how philosophical assumptions about technology_affect K-12_19 educational technology_leadership, by collecting and analyzing empirical data to corroborate the_conceptual themes that emerged. Data collection began_with purposive sampling to select twenty participants who