Integration of Technology: A utopia?

Due to the student-centered teaching models, performance-based instruction and assessment, and national standards modified to meet the needs of students of the millennium, today's language teachers have encountered the fact that teaching and learning a second/foreign language through technology is a common practice to introduce, facilitate, reinforce, assess, and remediate student mastery of language learning. Therefore, language teachers are expected to know how to use a variety of new technologies and applications in classroom environments in order to meet the needs of students with different learning styles (Otto & Pusack, 1996), and apply the technical pedagogical knowledge in language teaching.

Although there is a high expectation for language teachers to gain technological pedagogical knowledge in emerging technologies that enable the application of technology in classes, there is still a way to succeed in integrating technology in language classes. First of all, the conceptualization of technology is difficult to schematize. Bauer and Kenton (2005) conducted a study on the barriers of technology integration in class and found that teachers think anything they do with technological devices such as using a projector to show a Word document to students or downloading an audio file and making students listen to the file can be samples for the integration of technology in classes. Stolle (2008), in the same vein, pointed out that there is uncertainty about the integration of technology into instructions in classes. The uncertainty is likely due to the fact that most of the teachers regard the integration of technology as a technical capacity rather than a means to master the language skill. For example, they might think the use of PowerPoint to deliver a lecture is integrating technology in class; in reality, it is not the case because there is little space for students’ active participation in learning through technology. For integration to be successful, it is necessary for it to be high-level integration, which is associated with student-centered and constructivist practices (Becker, 1994). Moreover, although there are technical facilities that make the integration feasible, language teachers may not be willing to use it in their class. Marcinkiewicz (1993) stated that “[f]ull integration of computers into the educational system is a distant goal unless there is reconciliation between teachers and computers. To understand how to achieve integration, we need to study teachers.” (p. 23). Teachers’ unwillingness apparently stems from two sources: their belief about its efficiency (intrinsic) and a lack of time and practice (extrinsic). According to the implication of the study by Ansell and Park (2003), teachers are unlikely to try innovation or to put much time and effort into technology integration. Fabry and Higgs (1997) also concluded that the teachers’ unwillingness is a key barrier to integration of technology in the classroom. Elmore, Peterson, and McCarthey (1996) explained the reason for the unwillingness of technology use in classes with the lack of practice stating that “… teachers’ practices are unlikely to change without some exposure to what teaching actually looks like when it’s being done differently” (p. 241). Last but not least, the barrier for technology integration in language classes might be due to the external constraints such as lack of equipment and technical help to teachers when they need it (Beggs, 2000; Cuban, 2001). These internal and external reasons prevent teachers from partaking in experiences of integrating technologies in classroom environments.

There are two possible ways to avoid the aforementioned barriers of technology integration in language classes. Firstly teacher training for language teachers, especially public school teachers, is necessary and can be realized in three ways: macro, micro and personal. In a macro way, there should be a nationwide training scheme for language teachers to encourage them to conceptualize technology and apply it in facilitating learning. In Turkey, there has been an attempt, known as Dyned, to promote the use of technology in language classes by requiring the K-12 teachers’ participation in the online training platform so as to provide time and place flexibility of training language teachers (Ministry of Turkish Primary Education, 2007). However, if there isn’t a good training structure so as to tailor the needs of teachers with different backgrounds and proficiencies of computer literacy, the training might fail. Tilfarlioglu (2011) discussed the reasons for the ‘failure’ of Dyned and concluded that it is time-consuming to complete the assigned tasks and it is compulsory rather than voluntary for a language teacher to register for this training and complete all the tasks. For the nationwide training, voluntary participation, practicality and transferability of the training program to the learning environment must be taken into consideration.  In addition to the macro initiatives, there should be micro level initiations for teachers to encourage and increase their use of technology in language classes. The initiation could be arranged by the institutions or specific centers such as a lifelong learning center. These centers could promote the use of innovative technologies and classroom practices, and provide technical and pedagogical help when the teachers need it. As the teachers are involved in institution based training, they will likely gain practice and encouragement in transferring the skills or experiences into their teaching. Moreover, they will probably be more convinced to see the tangible results of using technology in their language classes. The initiation could be also at personal level and its efficiency depends on how language teachers are willing to cooperate and work on the participatory action research to discuss teaching successes and challenges through technology. They get together, describe and address the problematic issues of technology integration in language classes, then they take action, collect and analyze the data in their immediate environment and finally reflect upon the findings and the whole process of research.

Another solution could be a partnership with the businesses and schools for the development of 21st century education in schools. For example, schools can start a dialogue with businesses for the excellence in teaching, thus convincing them to sponsor for international and national paid training programs for language teachers, donation of mobile devices or computer labs and opening up lifelong learning centers or innovation centers. For example, the Center for Instructional Innovation at Georgia State University encourages and promotes the use of new technologies in classes by providing training, grants and electronic devices like iPads to the academic staff and seminars. This initiation could set an example how a learning center might contribute to the acquisition of knowledge and classroom practice of teachers.

These solutions might not be effective in the short term due to a lack of human resources, current incentives, and high cost; however, it might be effective in the long run. As Tilfarlioglu (2011) indicated, to gain the technical pedagogical skill for a language learner in the new millennium takes time, yet it is unavoidable. The effectiveness of training apparently depends on the frequent practices of technology in language classes. Yildirim (2000), and Zhao and Bryant (2006) indicated the importance of periodic training and expressed a need for more follow-up training or one-to-one mentoring practice in order to support teachers’ integration of technology. As an English teacher, I believe that if there are opportunities for teachers to have experiences in designing language classes by using technology, they will be more motivated to use technology in class. I took a course where I created my own podcast, movie clips and online-corpus data, which empowered my teaching skill. Depending on my own experience, I can state that the most crucial solution to the barrier of technology integration is perhaps giving the feeling of being empowered in teaching through technology. With the critical planning and design of training and sponsorships from businesses, the integration could be easily optimized.

Technology has revolutionized education in the 21st century and apparently the way language instruction is taught and delivered. Teachers feel more obliged to acquire computer literacy and use technology in their classes. Although there are problems in the realization of this integration, when critically planned, technology integration in language classes will no longer be a utopia but a classroom routine in the 21st century education.

References:

Bauer, J. & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/4728.

Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 291-321.

Beggs, T. A. (2000). Influences and barriers to the adoption of instructional technology. In proceedings of the mid-south instructional tech-nology conference. Retrieved from http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed00/beggs/beggs.htm.

Computing in Education, 32(4), 479-495.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L. & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning, and School Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fabry, D. L., & Higgs, J. R. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in education: Current status. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 385-395.

Lee, S. T., & Chang, H. M. (2007). Technology integration in a foreign language class: Successful strategies and challenges. In R. Carlsen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2882-2887). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 220-237.

Ministry of Turkish Primary Education (2007). Dyned Ingilizce Dil Egitim Sistemleri. Retrieved from http://mebides.meb.gov.tr/.

Otto, S. K., & Pusack, J. P. (1996). Technological choices to meet the challenges. In Foreign language for all (pp. 141-186). Northeastern conference reports. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Stolle, E. (2008). Teachers, literacy, & technology: Tensions, complexities,

teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use.

Tilfarlioğlu, F. Y. (2011). An international dimension of the student’s attitudes towards the use of English in Web 2.0 technology. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 63-68.

Warschauer, M. & Meskill, C. (2000) Technology and second language teaching and learning. In J. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of Undergraduate Second Language Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on pre-service and in-service

teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 32(4), 479-495.

Young, C. A., & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English language arts with technology: A critical approach and pedagogical framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss1/languagearts/article1.cfm

Zhao, Y. & Bryant, F. L. B. (2006). Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to high levels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers’ technology integration after State mandated technology training. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, Vol. 5. Retrieved from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume5/Zhao.pdf.