Technology Integration Theory One of the challenges with respect to technology integration in the classroom lies with teacher pedagogical beliefs. Ertmer (2005). Teachers form their opinions about technology in the classroom based largely on their own experiences, the socio-cultural environment and the vicarious experiences of other teachers. The evidence shows that since 2000, technology use in classrooms has increased. Given the increasing number of teachers who were trained in high-technology environments, it is expected that this trend will continue going forward.

Hughes (2005) finds support for this, noting that teacher experience and knowledge can play a significant role in their adoption of technology in the classroom. The way a teacher interprets a technology's value is particularly important. To a point, there are real constraints here, such as how much time a teacher has to evaluate new technology, whether the school can afford it, what sort of hardware the school has and other such practical considerations.

Other studies around the same time noted that even when teachers have a high degree of technical competency, they can run into problems with outdated hardware, lack of appropriate software, technical difficulties and students who lack the basic skills needed to excel in technological environments (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). This research suggested that technological integration into education lagged expectations in part because many simple, operational issues, had not yet been resolved.

Yet, technology holds significant promise in English language learning, perhaps even more than in other areas of application. Chapelle (2003) outlines how this works. There are multiple different perspectives at work. First, there is the technological perspective. This is what is possible, or could be possible (if you are the one developing the technology). Developments such as speech recognition, along with software aimed at assisting students to learn new languages (computer-assisted language learning, or CALL), all flow from the development of technology that allows learners the opportunity for both self-guided work and for instructed work as well.

There is also the social pragmatist's view. This view, espoused by Brown and Duguid tempers the technologist's view, which they see as being inherently optimistic. While the technologist sees CALL as being full of possibilities, the social pragmatist notes that these possibilities tend to bump up against social constraints (Chapelle, 2003). They note that there are technological problems, for example, which is something supported by Bauer and Kenton's work. They argue that these challenges have limited the adoption of technology in the classroom. Their view is probably overly-pessimistic in that they assume all software fraught with error messages, crashes, data corruption, etc., but at the same time there are some very practical challenges that are impairing the adoption of technology even for language learners.

The third vision noted by Chapelle (2003) is the critical analyst's perspective. This adds yet more pessimism to the philosophy, arguing that technologists see technology as linear and positive (might be a straw man there) but that this is not necessarily the case. This view holds the least water, because it seems to exist solely as an counter to the technologists' view, but lacks coherent arguments and more important, evidence. They offer critical discourse, but anybody can argue -- a worthy perspective would have facts to support it.

The "critical analyst" perspective is echoed by many in education, typically arguing that there is no benefit -- or that the benefits of CALL are not proven. Such critiques emerged again when mobile assisted language learning (MALL) emerged (Chinnery, 2006), the argument typically resting on sort of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument. This is not really evidence-based practice, but it is certainly a philosophy that exists amongst educators, who likely are deflecting their own resistance to learning technology by diminishing its value.

For advanced level learners, systemic-functional linguistics provides a framework (). This view holds that...

The technology in this view is the key driver, at least of the potential of CALL (Kern, 2006).
There are also web-based platforms that can contribute to the teaching of language with technology. Web-based platforms are valuable because they are accessible any time, on mobile, in the classroom or at home. They allow students to learn at their own pace, on their own time. That kind of access is powerful. Vocabulary.com is one of those web-based applications for learning language. Such a platform can assist with ELLs in school, because it begins with an assessment of their abilities, and then works to build their vocabularies. It is easy to use, and can be an effective tool in education.

What the research has shown is that when the different pragmatic factors are addressed, computer-assisted language learning in its many forms, including web-based and mobile, can be quite powerful. There is the potential, however, for both positive and negative instructional impacts. Students can benefit from the self-guided aspect of the instruction, but the instructors may be challenged if the technology is not up to par, or if the instructor lacks familiarity with the hardware or software. Thus, there will probably need to be some training with respect to the use of such technologies in order to maximize their positive impacts.

There can be a move towards 24-hour education with this. Students are able to structure their own education, something that will help them significantly. Most English language learners are quite keen, and therefore would benefit from being able to move faster, something that is facilitated by computer-assisted language learning, and certainly more than traditional classroom education. These students will therefore benefit from learning more quickly, but so too will the entire nation because these students will be brought more fully into the economic and educational systems more quickly.

When extrapolated across the entire nation, there is potential for much improved English language learning. There are hundreds of thousands of English language learners at any given point in time. If the quality of instruction and the pace of instruction can be improved, then this will bring these people into regular classrooms more quickly, and improve their job prospects as well. First, CALL need not replace traditional classroom learning; it can complement it. One of the ways that this works is specifically with the use of apps or the Internet. Something like Vocabulary.com can supplement classroom lessons, allowing students to build on grammar lessons, for example, with an increased vocabulary. Vocabulary itself lends comfort to students, as they understand more, especially when learning a language to which they are exposed in the course of their daily lives.

One of the biggest challenges with implementing ELL education using computers is the cost. One of the issues identified was old computers, or software-hardware mismatch. Software might run on Windows when the school has Macs. Or the software might be new, and the computers old. These sorts of issues can undermine the use of technology. This is often compounded with ELL because new immigrants tend to cluster in less affluent areas. These schools often are poorly-funded and less likely to have the best computers. This does not invalid the use of computers in ELL, but it definitely represents a challenge to it.

Where there are no such impediments, however, it is recommended that teachers implement computers in ELL education. There are a few reasons for this. First, it has been demonstrated effective. Second, it makes an excellent complement to traditional classroom education. Third, using computers in the classroom can engage students better. Fourth, the use of online applications like Vocabulary.com are valuable because students can learn at home, on their own time. They can learn when not at home, too, via mobile. Additionally, people use computers all the time in their daily lives. The impediments that might have existed ten or fifteen years ago are falling by the wayside. Younger people in particular have very high computer literacy, and will respond better to the use of computers than perhaps students of the past might have.

Overall, it is fairly easy to conclude that there is value to using computers to help teach ELL. There are a number of different advantages. However, schools must ensure that the impediments that are making teachers resist implementing computer-assisted language learning into their classrooms have to be overcome. This can occur with things like training sessions, for example, to help teachers learn the technology themselves, thereby increasing their comfort level.

It is important that all avenues for improving English language learning are examined. There is little doubt that this is the pathway for the future, but adoption has occurred at a slower pace that was expected. That said, there are no reasonable arguments against it. Educators need to recognize that there is a lot of value in working with computers to help teach people English, there are many different options for making it work and ultimately the technology is only going ot keep advancing, and to fail to adopt it is simply to do a disservice to the students who would otherwise…