Introduction

The use of computer technology has had a strong impact on the educational field. Numerous studies have indicated the significant results of technology integration into language learning (Stanley, 2013). Technology integration could

• change the classroom dynamics to a more student-centered learning environment.
• support learners’ autonomous learning.
• help teachers create an engaging and interactive learning environment.
• stimulate learners’ productive interaction via speaking and writing in the target language.
• prepare students to learn 21^st-century skills (Stanley 2013).

Nevertheless, inserting technological tools into teaching practice doesn't necessarily mean that teachers know how to effectively integrate those tools to achieve the already mentioned points. In integrating educational technology into language teaching and learning, educators distinguish between to two important components: content and pedagogy (Graham, 2011). For example, when a teacher gives students technology tools without explaining the relationship of the tool to their content and language objectives, the teacher did not properly integrate technology because he or she neglected the content and the pedagogical aspects of teaching and learning. Technology is only a tool to assist the students’ learning. Therefore, it is critical to state the significant difference between superficially implementing technology and integrating it in a way that harvests the greatest educational outcomes for both teachers and students.

Teachers Resist the Use of Technology as Plato Resisted “Writing”

Many teachers still feel uncomfortable integrating technology into their teaching practices, and they resist using it. This might be due to a lack of professional development and also to several barriers, some of which can be attributed to causes such as teachers’ attitudes toward technology, lack of preparation, lack of technological resources, nostalgia in keeping the same model of teaching.

Fortunately, the resistance to innovation is not a new phenomenon, but part of human nature. There has been a tremendous resistance to the implementation of many technologies, such as the use of pencil with eraser in the classroom" (Baron, 1999). More interestingly, there was resistance to writing itself by Plato and his followers as they thought that writing was deviant and untrustworthy. Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, resisted writing; he feared that writing would deteriorate human memories (Baron, 1999). This reminds me of many teachers who think that technology is a distraction and, as a result, they resist it. This anecdote about writing provides us with an idea about how to think about educational technology: It is an innovation, and it contains the potential that many technologies in the past have contained.

How Can We Change This Resistance to Resilience?

The answer can be found in the recommendations of many pioneers in the field of educational technology.

First, the answer can be found in educators’ continued requests for professional development in areas related to educational technology. Without successful and continual professional training, teachers may continue embracing their traditional teaching methods and fail to face the demands of the 21st century and teach the skills required by their students.

Second, the answer can be found in Egbert’s (2006) emphasis in providing teachers with the opportunity to learn in authentic contexts where they can apply their knowledge. She believes that exposing teachers to classroom realities may help them reduce the level of discomfort in using technology.

Third, the answer can also be found in Kessler’s and Plakans’s (2008) recommendation to gradually introduce technology to teachers. This technique may help them to effectively integrate technological tools with their curricula. Moreover, teachers’ learning is not straightforward. For example, some teachers are self-disciplinary; others need a clear introduction to technology; while still others need extensive, effective training to integrate technology. Therefore, I believe that considering all of the teachers’ learning needs would facilitate the technology integration process.

Creating an Enabling Environment

Part of my PhD research procedure includes leading a technology workshop for my participants. To create an effective workshop, I split it into three professional meetings to meet the following goals:

• The gradual introduction of the technological tools, so teachers would not feel overwhelmed. Each professional development lasted for 2 hours, and teachers were exposed to three tools only.
• The exposure to classroom realities. After each professional development workshop, teachers had enough time to practice what they had learnt in classrooms.
• The continuity of teacher professional development.

However, the last goal was difficult to assess, as I had no control over the continued professional development of my students after I left the center. This happens when an administration hires a technology trainer for a short period of time and believes that this is all that the teachers need. This is one of the big pitfalls that we should find a fundamental solution to. Let us assume that teachers benefited from the technology workshop and they are in the process of gradually integrating technology; the question that poses itself is: How do you sustain the teachers’ professional development with the use of technology in the absence of an educational technology trainer?

I believe that this sustained professional development can be achieved by creating an enabling environment. Within an enabling environment that employs virtual learning environment tools like Facebook, includes a weekly time for face-to-face professional development, and is supported by program administrators, these teachers can grow their technology use.

In conclusion, I believe that providing teachers with the opportunity to learn in authentic contexts would be highly fruitful (Egbert, 2006), and I personally have experienced that introducing technology to teachers gradually positively impacts their attitudes toward technology integration. Additionally, I believe that considering the teachers' learning abilities will help them better understand the integration process and lead to self-assessment. Taking these three factors seriously would turn teacher resistance in using technology into teacher resilience.

References

Baron, D. (1999). From pencils to pixels: The stages of literacy technologies. In G. E. Hawisher, & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Passions, pedagogies, and 21st century technologies (pp. 15–33). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Egbert, J. (2006). Learning in context: Situating language teacher learning in CALL. In P. Hubbard, & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 45‒62). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Graham, C. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers and Education, 57(3), 1953–1960.

Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 269–282.

Stanley, G. (2013). Language learning with technology: Ideas for integrating technology in the language classroom. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Abir El Shaban is a PhD candidate in the Language, Literacy, and Technology Program at Washington State University. She coaches teachers to infuse effective strategies using education technology to support content and language objectives. El Shaban thrives to engage students in technology-enhanced language learning environments.