See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337923637

Integrating technology into young learners' classes: language teachers'

perceptions

Article  in  Computer Assisted Language Learning · June 2019

DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1618876

CITATIONS READS

18 1,840

2 authors, including:

Mahboubeh Taghizadeh
Iran University of Science and Technology
51 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahboubeh Taghizadeh on 13 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Integrating technology into young learners'

classes: language teachers' perceptions

Mahboubeh Taghizadeh & Zahra Hasani Yourdshahi

To cite this article: Mahboubeh Taghizadeh & Zahra Hasani Yourdshahi (2019): Integrating
technology into young learners' classes: language teachers' perceptions, Computer Assisted
Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1618876

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1618876

Published online: 07 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 44

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1618876

Integrating technology into young learners’ classes:

language teachers’ perceptions
Mahboubeh Taghizadeh and Zahra Hasani Yourdshahi
Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
To ensure the successful implementation of technology in Integrating technology;
young learners’ classroom, the significant role of teachers language teachers of young
in the appropriate use of related technologies should be learners; technological tools;
professional development
considered. The purpose of this study was thus to examine
the attitude, knowledge, use, and challenges of English
teachers of young learners to integrate technological tools
into language classes. Survey data were collected from 95
young learner English language teachers working in lan-
guage institutes and schools in Iran. The survey was com-
prised of four parts, namely technological tools
questionnaire, teachers’ attitude questionnaire, teachers’
challenges questionnaire, and 11 open-ended questions.
The results of the study revealed that there was a general
positive tendency towards the integration of technology
into young learner classes. The results also showed that
most teachers did not have sufficient pedagogical and
technological knowledge to use technology to teach the
English language to young learners. The findings also
revealed that a large number of teachers were not pro-
vided with training courses on the use of technology in
young learners’ classes; however, they were willing to par-
ticipate in technology-based professional development pro-
grams. Limited computer facilities, teachers’ lack of skills,
and lack of support from schools and institutes were found
to be the major challenges of using technology in young
learners’ classes. The findings of this study encourage other
researchers to carry out more in-depth studies on the
implementation of technological tools in language classes
of young learners.

Introduction
Technological tools in areas related to education, as Sulaimani, Sarhandi,
and Buledi (2017) point out, have greatly influenced technology integra-
tion, and the appearance of new methods, strategies, and the techno-
logical tools in the field of language learning and teaching is a result of

CONTACT Mahboubeh Taghizadeh mah_taghizadeh@iust.ac.ir

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

having access to the broad range of resources, which are provided

through the use of the Internet and computers. In recent years, there has
been pressure on educators to reform schools by the integration of tech-
nology (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2009). According to Rich (2014), the flow
of information and ideas via improvements in technology can help us
have better practice and understanding about Teaching English to Young
Learners (TEYL). Furthermore, in the twenty-first century, there is a
need to help TEYL instructors to be reflective in their practice (Sowa,
2014) as teachers’ personal and professional development brings about
positive turn in pupils’ performance and simultaneously develop pupils’
academic achievement (Carey, 2004).
It has been shown that teaching children is unlike teaching teenagers
and adult learners and as a result, instructors of children and adults vary
in their teaching methodology and practices (Hird, Thwaite, Breen,
Milton, & Oliver, 2000). Since the 1980s, there have been strong discus-
sions about the effect of computer-assisted learning on children (Brady
& Hill, 1984; Papert, 1980; Taylor, 1980). According to Wang and Hoot
(2006), the question of whether the technology is appropriate for young
learners’ development is not the early childhood educators’ concern;
rather, the effective use of information and communication technology
to facilitate learning and development of children is of great importance.
Bauer and Kenton (2005) state that many teachers are informed that
technology is an effective way for broadening educational opportunities.
However, the biggest obstacle in the successful use of technology into a
language curriculum is teachers’ lack of experience and knowledge in uti-
lizing technology and their incapability to understand its abilities (Blake,
2007). Warschauer (2000) also noted that misbeliefs and phobia about
technology are the biggest problems with integrating Internet technology
into the foreign language curriculum. For instance, administrators and
teachers tend to believe that using computers is harmful and useless
(Thelmadatter, 2007). We thus need to consider the significant role of
teachers in the successful implementation of technology in the young
learners’ classroom.
It is found that the use of technology is beneficial for the learning of
children if utilized appropriately; for instance, children show higher lev-
els of spoken communication and leadership roles while using technolo-
gies, especially email and chat programs (Clements, 1994; Haugland &
Wright, 1997). Lewis (2004) further states that emails seem to be appro-
priate since responses can be formulated, and then they are sent; as a
result, this can cut expenses and save the time of the class because chil-
dren can write emails as their homework assignments. Lewis also states
that chat programs permit children to have real time communication
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 3

through audio, text, or visual connection; however, there are not many
websites designed for learning languages, which are suitable for young
EFL primary students, and some of the existing websites might be diffi-
cult for them since the language demands are great. Educational applica-
tions can also provide children with a safe environment for language
learning because there will be no pressure and fear of being heard by
their classmates; thus, teachers find the technology as a motivating tool,
which can enrich children’s experience of learning language and content
areas (Gonzalez-Carriedo & Esprıvalo Harrell, 2018).

Review of the related literature

Integration of technology into language instruction
Nowadays, there is a wide acceptance of technology as a necessary part
of societies and that learners are in need of being exposed to technology
from young ages (Hew & Brush, 2007). According to Lewis, there is a
broad range of technological tools, which can be implemented into
young learners’ English language classrooms, such as e-cards, e-groups,
e-mail, podcasts, weblogs, downloadable materials, and many other
technological resources. Lewis also states that content sites providing
themes and topics which are amusing to children can add a flavor to
traditional lessons. There is also a wide range of mobile/computer appli-
cations available to teachers, and learning management systems are also
another instance of technological tools (Sulaimani, Sarhandi, &
Buledi, 2017).
Lama (2006) states that teaching EFL young learners through the
implementation of ICT permits instructors to provide young learners
with multisensory and multimedia experiences, which can be via a
blend of sounds, images, animations, and graphics. Technology can also
serve as an important tool to help children’s learning (Gonzalez-
Carriedo & Esprıvalo Harrell, 2018) and to help them develop biliteracy
and bilingualism (Liu, Moore, Graham, & Lee, 2002; Macaruso &
Rodman, 2011). Muir-Herzig (2004) argues that the utilization of tech-
nology has been found to have positive impacts on school grades and
attendance of especially at-risk learners. Xu (2010) also notes that tech-
nology-enhanced teaching can go beyond time and space and can pro-
vide a more authentic environment and can save time while extending
class information, which is contrary to a traditional class with limited
amount of information.
While ICT is supposed to have many advantages to develop learning
in young learners (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005), it has been found to
have its own problems (Manasreh, 2014). As Duhaney (2001) and
4 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

Keengwe (2007) state, most teachers are incompetent to make proper use
of technology, while others are reluctant to use it because of the lack of
interest, lack of motivation, or anxiety. Teachers’ skills and behavior
(Bitner & Bitner, 2002), lack of fund and time and discrepancies between
the curriculum and technology training (Dvorak & Buchanan, 2002) are
the other barriers to the integration of technology in classrooms. The
very young children’s teachers taking part in workshops reported differ-
ent challenges of technology integration, which include insufficient famil-
iarity of teachers with technology, curriculum integration problems, and
absence of technological support (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2009).
The effective integration of technology in education is heavily depend-
ent on how it is utilized by teachers for teaching and learning purposes
(Bingigmlas, 2009; Law, Pelgrum, & Plomp, 2008; Nikolopoulou &
Gialamas, 2009, 2015; Robertson, Webb, & Fluck, 2007). Teachers thus
need to be competent in integrating technology and to guide students to
make use of technology to improve the skills of logical and critical think-
ing (Peters, 2006). A number of researchers (e.g. Cuban, Kirkpatrick, &
Peck, 2001; Zhao & Frank, 2003) have reported that there are some fac-
tors influencing teachers’ use of technology in teaching: teachers’ percep-
tions, their style of teaching, their utilization of computers for purposes
other than teaching, the usefulness of the professional development pro-
grams teachers have been provided with, the amount of administrative
support offered to them, the school culture, and the teachers’ quality of
access to technological tools and resources.

Young learner teachers’ professional development for

integrating technology
It has been pointed out that teachers have a central role in the integra-
tion of technology, and the reason why technology is usually insuffi-
ciently and inadequately used by teachers is closely linked to their desire
and ability to integrate it (Chen & Chang, 2006; Gialamas &
Nikolopoulou, 2010; Han & Wang, 2010; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas,
2009). The researchers noted above also argue that teachers’ perceptions
about technology use besides other factors, including knowledge, skills,
and pedagogy are influential in the effective integration of technology. In
order to successfully implement technology as a teaching tool, teachers
should learn some technology skills, but they do not need to be experts
(Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999; Keengwe, 2007; Keengwe, Onchwari, &
Wachira, 2008).
It has been suggested that teachers’ attitudes and personal beliefs are
great factors that lead teachers to decide on the utilization of technology
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 5

in their classrooms (Abbitt, 2011; Sugar, Crawley, & Fine, 2004).

Focusing on the use of technology for instructional objectives at the pre-
service and in-service levels, Balta and Duran (2015) stated that the
instructors’ beliefs and attitudes to technology are considered to be as
significant as the quantity and quality of using technology by learners. Li
and Ni (2011) state that the integration of technology by teachers is also
related to their confidence to succeed and their perceptions about the
usefulness of technology in classes. Dong (2018) suggests that one of the
barriers for young learners to learn via the use of technology is the
uncertainty of the teachers towards the use of it in young
learners’ classes.
Despite the fact that there is a considerable need to engage with tech-
nology, language teachers are provided with insufficient formal training
about how to implement technology in their teaching as pre-service or
in-service instructors (Hubbard, 2008). Compton (2009) argues that
instructors are often considered to have self-taught basic skills, and if
they are offered with training, the focus is on the practical utilization of
certain software rather than considering the pedagogical aspects of utiliz-
ing the software for teaching. Further, teachers are likely to become
more skillful and confident in CALL integration if they gain enough
positive experience in utilizing computers (Park & Son, 2009). Lack of
support, time, and resources are often reported to be the reasons for the
incapability of teachers to use technology in the class (Egbert, Paulus, &
Nakamichi, 2002; Grau, 1996).
Feiman-Nemser and Remillard (1995) state that in order to support
teachers to use technology, professional development programs must be
offered to teachers to help them understand the relation between the
academic information about the use of computers and the use of com-
puters in various contexts because as Kerckaert, Vanderlinde, and van
Braak (2015) noted, teachers’ experiences relevant to technology such
as their ICT professional development and their ICT knowledge are
essential factors that can influence teachers’ utilization of technology in
their classes. Thus, instructors should be helped to integrate technology
in language classes through different seminars and courses such as
CALL certificates, CALL graduate degrees, and CALL course series
(Hubbard & Levy, 2006).
Given the Literature, a gap of research is found on how instructors
perceive and use technology in pedagogical settings (Tatar & Yıldız,
2010). So far, there has also been limited research on technology-related
professional development for TEYL and little discussion about the imple-
mentation of technology types into young learners’ classes in Iran. The
objectives of this study were thus to examine instructors’ attitudes,
6 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

knowledge, use, and challenges of using technology in TEYL. Besides,

this study evaluated professional development programs in terms of pre-
paring teachers to integrate technologies into young learners’ English
language classes. This study was set out to scrutinize the following
research questions:

1. What is the teachers’ level of knowledge and the use of technology in

young learners’ language classrooms?
2. What are the teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of technology
into young learner classes of English language?
3. What are the challenges of using technological tools for TEYL?
4. What are young learner teachers’ evaluation of professional develop-
ment programs in terms of integrating technology into lan-
guage classes?

Method
Participants
This study was conducted with 95 Iranian teachers who were TEYL aged
up to about 12 in different schools and institutes in Iran. They were 70
female and 25 male teachers of young learners ranging in age from 20 to
55 who were MA graduates of Teaching English as a Foreign Language
(TEFL). The participants’ experience in teaching young learners ranged
from 1 to 20 years. Volunteer sampling was used to select the teachers,
and they were asked to respond to the questionnaire items in a written
format. In other words, in order to collect the data, individuals who
were young learner teachers of different English language institutes and
schools in Iran were asked to respond to the instruments of the study.

Instruments
Three questionnaires (i.e. the technological tools, the attitude, and the
challenges) followed by 11 open-ended questions were applied in this
research. The purpose of administering the technological tools question-
naire was to investigate the knowledge and use of the tools by teachers
of English in young learners’ classrooms. The ’knowledge’ and ’use’ sec-
tions were divided into three parts, including nine websites, seven appli-
cations, and 13 other tools. The knowledge section was a Likert
questionnaire with 5 options (1¼ not at all, 2¼ a little, 3¼ moderate, 4¼
much, & 5 ¼ very much), which appeared on the left side of the ques-
tionnaire, and the use section was a survey with 5 options (1 ¼ never, 2
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 7

¼ rarely, 3 ¼ sometimes, 4 ¼ usually, & 5 ¼ Always), which appeared on

the right side of the questionnaire.
Given the literature, an attitude questionnaire was developed to exam-
ine the teachers’ attitude towards the integration of technology into
young learners’ classrooms. This questionnaire included 20 items with
five options (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neutral, 4 ¼ agree,
& 5 ¼ strongly agree). The challenges questionnaire consisted of seven
items with five options (1 ¼ strongly agree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neutral, 4
¼ agree, and 5 ¼ strongly agree). Eleven open-ended questions were also
administered to determine the teachers’ attitude, knowledge, use, chal-
lenges, and the training and support they received from the institutes
and schools for integrating technology into their classes.

Procedure
This study entailing a descriptive research design to illustrate young
learner teachers’ perceptions of different aspects of integrating technol-
ogy into language classes was carried out in the second semester of the
2018 academic year at the Iran University of Science and Technology.
Firstly, the items of the questionnaires were adopted from the Literature
on the use of technology in young learners’ classes. Secondly, the neces-
sary information was provided to all the participants prior to the admin-
istration of the instruments. The instruments of the study were piloted
to 20 English teachers of young learners, and all the required changes
were made before their administration.
Cronbach’s alpha is considered as one of the useful measurement tech-
niques; thus, it was run to assess the internal consistency of the partic-
ipants’ responses to the attitude and the challenges survey items. The
reliability coefficients for the attitude and the challenges questionnaires
were .806 and .741, respectively. Moreover, the factor analysis was con-
ducted for the attitude questionnaire. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO)
coefficient for the questionnaires was .717. Using Kaiser’s criterion, com-
ponents with eigenvalue of 1 or more explained a total of 7.423% of the
variance. Looking for a change in the shape of the scree plot, the
researchers could obtain three components capturing much more vari-
ance (23.876, 9.095, & 7.423) than the remaining components. In other
words, principal components analysis revealed the presence of three
components (value: items 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17; usefulness: items 4, 5,
6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 20; self-efficacy: items 13, 15, 18, & 19) for the attitude
questionnaire.
The KMO coefficient of concordance for the teachers’ challenges of
integrating technology into young learners’ classes was .757. Using
8 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

Kaiser’s criterion, components with an eigenvalue of 1 or more were

considered for the challenges questionnaire, as well. Only the first com-
ponent reported eigenvalue above 1 (2.792), explaining a total of
39.880% of the variance. Considering the scree plot, the researchers
could also obtain only one component.

Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were conducted to explore young learner teachers’
perceptions of the knowledge and use of websites, applications, and other
tools in young learners’ classes. Moreover, descriptive statistics were run
to determine teachers’ attitude and challenges of integrating technology
in young learners’ classes. In addition, content analysis was carried out
on the young learner teachers’ responses to the open-ended questions. In
other words, patterns in teachers’ responses to the open-ended items
were identified and then analyzed quantitatively using frequency and
percentages.

Results
This study was carried out to examine English language teachers’ readi-
ness and efficacy of integrating technology into young learners’ class-
rooms. It also investigated the teachers’ viewpoints on professional
development programs offered to teachers of English language. In this
section, the results of the descriptive statistics conducted to identify the
young learner teachers’ knowledge and use of websites, applications, and
technological tools, and their responses to items of attitude and chal-
lenges questionnaires were provided. Frequency and percentages of the
teachers’ responses to the open-ended items regarding their perceptions,
use, knowledge, self-efficacy, challenges, and their evaluation of the tech-
nology-based professional development programs are also presented.

Young learner teachers’ knowledge and use of websites

In order to determine young learner teachers’ knowledge about websites, a
list of nine educational websites was included in the technological tools ques-
tionnaire, which was administered to the participants. With the purpose of
identifying the items which received more positive replies and the items
which received less positive replies, the percentage of the teachers’ amount
of knowledge about each website mentioned in the questionnaire were calcu-
lated and presented in Table 1. It is important to highlight the fact that in
this section the combined results for the ’Much’ and ’Very Much’ categories
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 9

Table 1. Percentage of teachers’ knowledge about websites.

Websites Not at all A little Moderate Much Very much
www.educationworld.com 48.4 20.0 14.7 11.6 5.3
www.scholistic.com 57.9 23.2 10.5 5.3 3.2
Dave’s ESL cafe 58.9 17.9 11.6 6.3 5.3
www.quia.com 62.1 15.8 10.5 6.3 5.3
www.en.childrenlibrary.org 50.5 17.9 14.7 12.6 4.2
www.awesomelibrary.org 58.9 14.7 14.7 9.5 2.1
www.pinterest.com 41.1 16.8 14.7 12.6 14.7
LinkedIn 26.3 10.5 17.9 24.2 21.1
www.englishcentral.com 49.5 17.9 17.9 10.5 4.2
www.educationworld.com 48.4 20.0 14.7 11.6 3.2
www.scholistic.com 57.9 23.2 10.5 5.3 5.3

are considered as the positive responses, while ’Not at all’ and ’A little’ cate-
gories are considered as the negative responses.
As indicated in Table 1, the highest amount of knowledge about the
websites was obtained by the following items, respectively: ’LinkedIn’
(45.3%); ’www.pinterest.com’ (27.3%); ’www.educationalworld.com’ (16.
9%); and ’www.en.childrenlibrary.org’ (16.8%). Whereas teachers had the
least amount of knowledge about the following websites, respectively:
’www.scholistic.com’ (81.1%); ’www.quia.com’ (77.9%); ’Dave’s ESL cafe’
(76.8%); ’www.awesomelibrary.org’ (73.6%); ’www.educationworld.com’
(68.4%); ’www.en,childrenlibrary.org’ (68.4%); ’www.englishcentral.com’
(67.4%); and ’www.pinterest.com’ (57.9%). It is important to note that
considering all items, the most frequent option was ’Not at all’. It is
worth noting that the frequency occurrences of the options of all items
except ’LinkedIn’ (p¼.123) were statistically significant.
The highest amount of websites use by the teachers was obtained by
the following websites: ’www.pinterest.com’ (16.9%) and ’LinkedIn’ (15.
8%), while the lowest amount of use of the websites was obtained by
’www.scholistic.com’ (90.5%); ’www.quia.com’ (90.5%); ’www.awesomeli-
brary.org’ (86.3%); ’www.englishcentral.com’ (84.2%); ’Dave’s ESL cafe’
(83.2%); ’www.educationworld.com’ (79%); ’www.en.childrenlibrary.org’
(79%); ’www.pinterest.com’ (70.5%); and ’LinkedIn’ (59%), respectively.

Young learner teachers’ knowledge and use of applications

A list of seven applications was included in the technological tools question-
naire in order to examine the knowledge of teachers of young learners about
the applications. With the purpose of identifying the items which received
more positive replies and the items which received less positive replies, the
percentage of the participants’ amount of knowledge about each application
mentioned in the questionnaire is provided in Table 2. It is important to
highlight the fact that in this section the combined results for the ’Much’
10 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

Table 2. Percentage of teachers’ knowledge about applications.

Applications Not at all A little Moderate Much Very much Chi-square p
HotPotatoes 48.4 15.8 17.9 9.5 8.4 51.053 .000
Audacity 49.5 16.8 20.0 9.5 4.2 58.842 .000
Online/offline picture dictionaries 15.8 10.5 25.3 27.4 21.1 9.053 .060
Learn English kids.videos 24.2 16.8 20.0 24.2 14.7 3.474 .482
Kids educational games 27.4 16.8 22.1 20.0 13.7 5.158 .271
Adobe Connect Pro 47.4 11.6 15.8 12.6 12.6 44.947 .000
Rosetta 42.1 18.9 11.6 15.8 11.6 30.842 .000

and ’Very Much’ categories are considered as the positive responses, while
’Not at all’ and ’A little’ categories are considered as the negative responses.
As shown in Table 2, the highest amount of knowledge about applica-
tions was obtained by the following applications: ’online/offline picture
dictionaries’ (48.5%); ’learn English kids.videos’ (38.9%); and ’kids educa-
tional games’ (33.7%). However, teachers reported the least amount of
knowledge about the following applications: ’Audacity’ (66.3%);
’Hotpotatoes’ (64.2%); ’Rosetta Stone’ (61%); and ’Adobe Connect Pro’
(59%). In other words, for all items except for ’online/offline picture
dictionaries’ and ’learn English kids videos’, the most frequent option was
’Not at all’.
The highest amount of use of applications by the teachers was
obtained by the following applications: ’Online/offline picture dictionaries’
(34.7%) and ’Learn English kids. videos’ (28.4%), whereas the lowest
amount of application use was obtained by the following applications:
’Hotpotatoes’ (86.3%); ’Audacity’ (86.3%); ’Rosetta Stone’ (75.8%); ’Adobe
Connect Pro’ (67.4%); ’Kids educational games’ (50.5%); and ’Learn
English kids.videos’ (50.5%), respectively.

Young learner teachers’ knowledge and use of other tools

A list of 13 technological tools was included in the technological tools
questionnaire. In order to identify the items which received more posi-
tive responses and the ones which received less positive responses, the
percentage of the teachers’ knowledge about each tool is provided in
Table 3. It is important to underline the fact that in this section the
combined results for the ’Much’ and ’Very Much’ categories are consid-
ered as the positive responses, while ’Not at all’ and ’A little’ categories
are considered as the negative responses.
As indicated in Table 3, the highest amount of knowledge was gained
by the following tools: ’CDs/DVDs’ (80%); ’Smart phones’ (76.8%);
’Email’ (72.6%); ’Tablets’ (65.3%); and ’Podcasts’ (50.6%), respectively.
On the contrary, teachers reported the least amount of knowledge about
the following tools: ’Second life’ (76.8%); ’Children specific search engines’
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 11

Table 3. Percentage of teachers’ knowledge about other tools.

Other tools Not at all A little Moderate Much Very much
Ecards 43.2 16.8 13.7 14.7 11.6
Clipart 44.2 15.8 13.7 13.7 12.6
Podcasts 17.9 16.8 14.7 23.2 27.4
CDs/DVDs 1.1 3.2 15.8 27.4 52.6
Tablets 8.4 8.4 17.9 25.3 40.0
Smartphones 11.6 2.1 9.5 22.1 54.7
Email 9.5 8.4 9.5 22.1 50.5
Wikis (e.g. wikidot) 30.5 13.7 20.0 14.7 21.1
Blogs (e.g. edublogs) 30.5 14.7 22.1 15.8 16.8
Second life 57.9 18.9 10.5 9.5 3.2
Children specific Search engines (e.g. kid’s space.org) 54.7 13.7 14.7 12.6 4.2
Digital storytelling 28.4 16.8 22.1 17.9 14.7
Interactive whiteboards 34.7 14.7 20.0 16.8 13.7

(68.4%); ’Ecards’ (60%); ’Clipart’ (60%); and ’Interactive whiteboards ’

(49.4%). On the contrary, the highest amount of use of tools by the
teachers was obtained by the following tools: ’CDs/DVDs’ (69.5%); ’Smart
phones’ (61%); and ’Email’ (46.3%), while the lowest amount of use was
obtained by ’Second life’ (84.2%); ’Children specific search engines’
(75.8%); ’Ecards’ (70.5%); ’Blogs’ (67.4%); ’Interactive whiteboards ’
(61.1%); ’Wikis’ (61%); ’Clipart’ (60%); ’Digital storytelling’ (54.7%); and
’Podcasts’ (51.6%).
An open-ended question, ’How can we teach language courses to young
learners with technology? What technological tools do you use in your
classes?’ was administered to the participants to highlight more insight
into their use of technologies in the young learners’ classes, and the
responses are hierarchically presented as follows: short films and anima-
tions to pre-teach new vocabulary or grammar in the engagement phase
(f ¼ 34, %¼35.8), using audios and videos (f ¼ 28, %¼29.5), CDs of songs
(f ¼ 20, %¼21.1), laptops, computers, and tablets (f ¼ 19, %¼20), applica-
tions (f ¼ 15, %¼15.8), teaching different subjects through age-related
games (f ¼ 14, %¼14.7), interactive whiteboards, eBooks, and computers
(f ¼ 14, %¼14.7), teachers’ smart phones (f ¼ 12, %¼12.6), educational
websites and software (f ¼ 9, %¼9.5), podcasts (f ¼ 9, %¼9.5), ecards and
images from the Internet (f ¼ 8, %¼8.4), TV (f ¼ 7, %¼7.4), online games
(f ¼ 7, %¼7.4), PowerPoint presentations (f ¼ 7, %¼7.4), Email (f ¼ 6,
%¼6.3), IPods or IPads (f ¼ 6, %¼6.3), Pic Dic applications (f ¼ 5,
%¼5.3), digital story telling (f ¼ 4, %¼4.2), video projectors (f ¼ 4,
%¼4.2), quiz-making and assessment applications (f ¼ 3, %¼3.2), inter-
active video games (f ¼ 3, %¼3.2), search engines (f ¼ 3, %¼3.2), head-
phones (f ¼ 2, %¼2.1), and Rosetta stone (f ¼ 1, %¼1.1). It can be stated
that teachers use technological tools including games and interactional
activities as an appropriate way to keep young learners busy doing the
things they love while simultaneously learning the language.
12 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the teachers’ knowledge and use of websites, applications,
& tools (N ¼ 95).
Knowledge & use of technologies Min Max M SD
Websites knowledge 1.00 5.00 2.07 .91
Applications knowledge 1.00 5.00 2.53 .93
Tools knowledge 1.00 4.85 2.97 .84
Websites use 1.00 3.67 1.68 .66
Applications use 1.00 4.57 2.09 .80
Tools use 1.00 4.69 2.50 .77

Comparing young learner teachers’ knowledge and use of technologies

In order to identify the difference between young learner teachers’ know-
ledge and use of technology in English language classrooms, the descrip-
tive statistics of the three categories, namely ’websites’, ’applications’ and
’tools’ were calculated. The results are presented in Table 4.
As shown in Table 4, the highest mean score for the knowledge of
technologies belonged to ’Tools Knowledge’ (M ¼ 2.97), while the lowest
mean was obtained by ’Websites Knowledge’ (M ¼ 2.07). Table 4 also
indicates that teachers’ responses to knowledge about the technological
tools were the most homogeneous (SD ¼ .84), while the responses to the
knowledge about applications were the most heterogeneous (SD ¼ .93).
As also indicated in Table 4, the highest mean score for the technology
use belonged to ’Tools Use’ (M ¼ 2.50), while the lowest mean was
obtained by ’Websites Use’ (M ¼ 1.68). Table 4 also shows that teachers’
responses to website use were the most homogeneous (SD ¼ .66), while
their responses to application use were the most heterogeneous (SD
¼ .80).

Young learner teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration into

language instruction
In order to determine the teachers’ attitude to the integration of technol-
ogy into young learners’ classes, a certain number of statements were uti-
lized to develop a Likert scale questionnaire. With the purpose of
identifying the items which received more positive replies and the items
which received less positive replies about teachers’ attitude towards the
integration of technology, the percentage of the participants’ agreement
and disagreement about each item of the attitude questionnaire was cal-
culated. It is important to highlight the fact that the positive responses
are the results of the combination of ’Agree’ and ’Strongly agree’ catego-
ries, while negative responses are the combination of the ’Disagree’ and
’Strongly disagree’ categories.
The highest amount of agreement was obtained by the following state-
ments: ’Teachers need to be aware of technology’s potential benefits or
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 13

harm to young children’ (92.6%); ’Technology (e.g. tools, applications,

websites … ) has the potential to help young learners to improve their lan-
guage knowledge’ (91.6%); ’There is a need to adopt a suitable technology
integration professional development for teachers to support teaching
young learners’ (91.6%); ’It is important to create appropriate technology-
based activities and materials for children’ (87.4%); ’Technology training
programs make teachers more confident to use technological tools to teach
English to young learners’ (83.2%); ’Technology makes English learning
easier for young learners’ (78.9%); ’Using technological tools gives teachers
more chance of using authentic English in young learners’ classes’ (78.9%);
’Young learners become more motivated by the use of technological tools
in the language classroom’ (77.9%); ’Teachers can find relevant techno-
logical tools suitable for instruction in young learners’ language classes’
(77.9%); ’Teachers’ quality of work can be improved by using technology
for the instruction in young learners’ language classes’ (77.9%); ’Teachers’
proficiency in using technology in young learners’ classes largely depends
on their attitude towards the use of technology in language classes’
(75.8%); ’Young learners’ autonomy can be fostered by using technology’
(71.6%); and ’It is necessary to use technology in teaching English to young
learners’ (71.6%). The highest amount of disagreement was obtained by
’Internet resources can replace textbooks in young learners’ classes’ (41%).
In addition to the questionnaire, four open-ended questions were
administered to the participants. The first question, ’What do you think
about the use of computers and technological tools in the classroom for
young learners? Do you think using computers and technological tools can
contribute to young learners’ language development? If yes, How? If no,
Why not?’ was administered to the participants and the responses are
hierarchically presented as follows: Most of the teachers agreed with the
use of technologies in young learners’ classrooms (f ¼ 79, %¼83.2), and
the reasons were as follows: motivating (f ¼ 34, %¼ 35.8%), interesting
(f ¼ 27, %¼28.4), helpful for language development (f ¼ 26, %¼ 27.4),
increasing kids’ familiarity with technology (f ¼ 10, %¼ 10.5), enhancing
kids’ learning (f ¼ 8, %¼8.4), providing authentic language to the class
(f ¼ 7, %¼ 7.4), making learning easier (f ¼ 5, %¼5.26), helping learners
spend more time studying (f ¼ 4, %¼ 4.2), essential for learning (f ¼ 4,
%¼ 4.2), useful if kids have enough knowledge about computers (f ¼ 4,
%¼ 4.2), to avoid wasting time in the class, we need to choose appropri-
ate software/technology (f ¼ 3, %¼ 3.2), technology as a facilitator (f ¼ 3,
%¼3.2), and increasing access to more data and information
(f ¼ 3, %¼3.2).
Some of the teachers’ reasons for not using technologies in classes are
provided as follows: it is impossible to use technology because of
14 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

financial issues (f ¼ 5, %¼ 5.26), it is only practical in small classes

(f ¼ 2, %¼2.1), using too much technology is tiring for kids (f ¼ 2,
%¼2.1), and it might distract children from the main focus of the lesson
(f ¼ 2, %¼ 2.1).
The second question, ’How do you evaluate your ability to use techno-
logical tools in young learners’ classes?’ was administered to the young
learner teachers and the responses are hierarchically presented as follows:
I am not good (f ¼ 29, %¼30.5), I am good enough at using them
(f ¼ 18, %¼19), I am moderate in using technological tools in my classes
(f ¼ 11, %¼11.6), I still need to be trained and get familiar with the new
tools and techniques (f ¼ 8, %¼8.4), I can evaluate my ability by identify-
ing the amount of progress, performance, and interest of the learners
while using technology (f ¼ 6, %¼6.3), and I am pretty good and creative
at using them (f ¼ 5, %¼5.3).
The third question, ’Do you think that using technological tools in
young learners’ classes is more interesting and easier than traditional
English instruction?’ was administered to the participants, and the
responses are hierarchically presented below: yes (f ¼ 70, %¼73.7) and
maybe more interesting and motivating (f ¼ 26, %¼27.4), and the reasons
were as follows: it can be easier to teach with the use of technology
(f ¼ 13, %¼13.7), they are complementary (f ¼ 12, %¼12.6), it can be
more fun (f ¼ 8, %¼8.4), it depends on the teacher and students’ know-
ledge about technology (f ¼ 8, %¼ 8.4), the class without technology is
boring for kids (f ¼ 5, %¼5.3), the class can be more dynamic through
the use of interactive activities (f ¼ 2, %¼2.1), and the class is attractive
to less active students (f ¼ 2, %¼2.1).
Six participants had negative responses to the question and their rea-
sons were as follows: traditional instruction is more helpful for the
beginners, and technology should only be used after pre-intermediate
levels (f ¼ 1, %¼ 1.1), it is only better in small classes (f ¼ 1, %¼ 1.1),
most of the people from present and past generations have learned
English attending traditional classes, which are not bad (f ¼ 1, %¼ 1.1),
and teachers are more experienced using traditional ways (f ¼ 1,
%¼ 1.1).
The fourth open-ended question, ’Are you confident in teaching young
learners with technological tools?’ was administered to the participants,
and the responses are hierarchically presented as follows: I am confident
in teaching young learners with technological tools (f ¼ 54, %¼ 56.8), I
am not confident (f ¼ 18, %¼19), not much, because I need to be very
familiar with the use of the tools (f ¼ 15, %¼ 15.8), I need to have some
special skills related to the use of technology (f ¼ 9, %¼ 9.5), I try to
improve my confidence through practice (f ¼ 5, %¼ 5.3), my colleagues
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 15

who are older are not familiar with using technology in their classes
(f ¼ 1, %¼1.1), I do not have access to appropriate educational tools
(f ¼ 1, %¼1.1), I like to use more technological tools in my classes but I
don’t want to have a class just based on technology (f ¼ 1, %¼1.1), and
when I use technology, I am more confident than the time I teach trad-
itionally (f ¼ 1, %¼1.1).

Young learner teachers’ challenges of technology integration into

instruction
The highest amount of agreement was obtained by the following statements
about the teachers’ challenges of integrating technologies in young learners’
classrooms: ’Limited computer facilities prevent teachers from using technol-
ogy in young learners’ classes’ (81.1%); ’Teachers’ lack of skills are barriers to
technology integration in young learners’ classes’ (80%); ’Teachers are not sup-
ported by schools and institutes to use technological tools in young learners’
classes’ (69.4%); ’Teachers’ lack of time is the barrier to technology integration
in young learners’ classes’ (66.3%); ’Some teachers are unwilling to use techno-
logical tools because of anxiety’ (61.1%); ’It is difficult for teachers to find
appropriate technology-enhanced materials to teach young learners’ (57.9%);
and ’There is no technology training provided in teacher education programs
for teaching English to young learners’ (51.6%).
An open-ended question, ’What are the challenges of effectively inte-
grating technology into your classroom to teach young learners?’, was
administered to the participants and the responses are hierarchically pre-
sented as follows: lack of facilities (f ¼ 33, %¼34.7), lack of time (f ¼ 14,
%¼14.7), students’ lack of knowledge (f ¼ 13, %¼13.7), lack of support
from institutes (f ¼ 10, %¼10.5), technical problems (f ¼ 9, %¼9.5),
financial issues (f ¼ 9, %¼9.5), difficulty in motivating kids to use educa-
tional technologies (f ¼ 8, %¼8.4), lack of support from families (f ¼ 8,
%¼8.4), teachers’ lack of knowledge and skills (f ¼ 8, %¼8.4), low
Internet speed (f ¼ 5, %¼5.3), distracting (f ¼ 5, %¼5.3), lack of facilities
at home (f ¼ 4, %¼4.2), preparation of tools (f ¼ 4, %¼4.2), classroom
management (f ¼ 3, %¼3.2), inappropriate use of software (f ¼ 1,
%¼1.1), and old equipment provided in schools and institutes (f ¼ 1,
%¼1.1). Some of the teachers’ responses are presented below:

 Teachers who are old tend not to use technology in classes.

 Schools are only equipped with OHP and a computer full of viruses,
and books are not designed to include the use of technology–there
are only listening files, which are mostly played on teachers’
smartphones.
16 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

 Technology is a tool but not the only solution.

 The use of technology has not been included in the curriculum, so
the teachers need to use their own devices.

Young learner teachers and their evaluation of Technology-Based

professional development programs
Five open-ended questions were administered to 95 teachers of young
learners in order to evaluate their perceptions on the professional
development programs and the integration of technologies into
classes. The first question, ’Did you have any training courses on the
use of technology in young learners’ classes in your studies as a TEFL
student?’ was administered to the teachers, and a large number of
them provided negative responses to the question (f ¼ 80, %¼84.2).
The participants’ positive responses to the question are hierarchically
presented as follows: yes (f ¼ 10, %¼10.5), courses like CALL and lan-
guage testing provided some general information (f ¼ 9, %¼9.5), I
participated in a workshop (f ¼ 7, %¼7.4), and the technological issues
were theoretically explained, but no practice in using them was
offered (f ¼ 3, %¼3.2).
The second question, ’Do you think that any software training or spe-
cial computer skills are necessary for teachers to integrate technological
tools in young learners’ classes?’ was administered to the participants, and
most of the teachers gave positive responses (f ¼ 82, %¼86.3), and their
reasons are hierarchically presented as follows: it is necessary (f ¼ 18,
%¼19), technological tools should be offered (f ¼ 11, %¼11.6), there is a
need to know the appropriate kind of software (f ¼ 10, %¼10.5), teachers
need to have up to date knowledge about technology (f ¼ 8, %¼8.4),
some teachers might need training (f ¼ 4, %¼4.2), and it will boost
teachers’ self-confidence (f ¼ 1, %¼1.1). Some of the teachers’ responses
are presented below.

 Yes, definitely, especially on how to work with adaptive content

development or content authoring software; it is definitely required.
We need graded professional development programs.
 Yes, there is no support, neither financially nor spiritually towards
the integration of technology for teachers to use them in their classes.
 As providers of information and facilitators, teachers must be profession-
ally trained to use technology; otherwise, they will not be able to succeed
in implementing technology.
 If teachers do not know anything about learning technologies, they
will always prefer the traditional ways of teaching.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 17

The third question, ’Are pedagogical and technical knowledge of TEFL

students/graduates sufficient to activate technology-enhanced education?’
was administered to the participants. A small number of teachers pro-
vided positive responses (f ¼ 8, %¼8.4), and the teachers’ negative
responses and the reasons are hierarchically presented as follows: no
(f ¼ 81, %¼85.3), teachers do not know about suitable tools and software
to teach young learners (f ¼ 8, %¼8.4), teachers do not know about dif-
ferent skills and techniques for integrating technology (f ¼ 5, %¼5.3),
and courses offered to pre-service and in-service teachers must be prac-
tical and help them experience using technologies in young learners’
classes (f ¼ 1, %¼1.1). Some of the teachers’ responses are pro-
vided below.

 No, the problem is that we have only 16 sessions available for TEFL
graduate students to learn about technology, so what can we learn in
16 sessions? Just the tip of the iceberg. It is somewhat sufficient to
provide technological knowledge, but not the pedagogical knowledge.
 The necessary knowledge is usually provided to TEFL or graduate
students but practicing the knowledge depends on the teachers’ ability
and tendency. Sometimes the teachers themselves are enthusiastic to
find out the proper information and technologies to help them
through the process of instruction.

The fourth question, ’What courses or course units, topics, procedures,

etc. should be embedded within the professional development programs for
teachers of young English learners to integrate technology into their class-
es?’ was administered to the participants, and the responses are hierarch-
ically presented as follows: I have no idea (f ¼ 48, %¼50.5), courses on
the use of technology and educational software suitable for young learn-
ers (f ¼ 13, %¼13.7), teaching methodology, CALL, and Psychology to
know about teaching methods, tools, and psychological factors (f ¼ 10,
%¼10.5), courses on the challenges of using technology (f ¼ 4, %¼4.2),
the latest technological tools, applications, and websites (f ¼ 3, %¼3.2),
and courses on the pedagogical and technological methods of using tech-
nology (f ¼ 3, %¼3.2). Some of the teachers’ responses are pre-
sented below:

 Plenty of different things including first of all the underlying theories of

teaching young learners, technological tools which are useful for young
learners, materials development, content authoring, affective issues
related to personality types and traits, and assessment with technology or
technology-enhanced evaluation.
18 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

 A course that would happen every two or three months, like a work-
shop. It has to be something ongoing, which is not available
right now.
 Except for the ways of using technology in young learners’ classes,
ways of dealing and behaving to kids, meeting their needs, and needs
analysis are very important to be offered to teachers.

The fifth question, ’Do you feel that schools/institutes have had specific
expectations of you for using technological tools in the language classes of
young learners? Can you describe the support, both pedagogical and
technological, that you have had for the use of computers and techno-
logical tools in schools and institutes?’ was administered to the partici-
pants, and a large number of the teachers provided negative responses
(f ¼ 81, %¼85.3). The reasons are hierarchically presented as follows:
they have not provided the required facilities (f ¼ 10, %¼10.5), they only
expect teachers to use technology, but there is no training or workshops
(f ¼ 8, %¼8.4), schools and institutes are not well-equipped in Iran
(f ¼ 8, %¼8.4), they only expect teachers to cover the lessons on the
books (f ¼ 5, %¼5.3), schools appear to be very weak in providing the
infrastructure, but most institutes are more successful (f ¼ 3, %¼3.2),
and schools and institutes are not aware of the learning technologies and
they only suffice to some basic devices including TVs or MP3 players
(f ¼ 1, %¼1.1).

 In the institutes where I teach, there is more emphasis on the trad-

itional ways of teaching.
 Schools and institutes are so biased about their own policies regard-
less of any creativity.
 No, schools/institutes are more concerned about cost issues and
quantity rather than quality, and whether I use technology does not
have any impact on authorities and policy makers as long as the stu-
dents are satisfied.
 There is not much support on the side of the institutes but the stu-
dents enjoy it whenever I use technology in my teaching.

Discussion
In this study, teachers of young learners were found to have the greater
awareness about technological tools, which might be related to the fact
that the tools namely email, smartphones, tablets, CDs/DVDs, and pod-
casts were commonly used in their everyday activities. However, their
lack of knowledge about websites and application might be related to
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 19

their lack of engagement with technologies in the field of TEFL to young

learners. This also refers to the fact that there was no space for the intro-
duction of different technologies to the teachers, which could be pro-
vided to the teachers by educators and stakeholders.
With regard to young learner teachers’ use of websites, application,
and technological tools, teachers’ use of tools was higher than that of
websites and applications. It is again suggested that most of the tools
were frequently used by the teachers even outside the classrooms provid-
ing them with the higher levels of confidence and familiarity with regard
to the use of those technologies. Teachers’ lack of use of websites and
applications can be the result of the absence of introduction and integra-
tion of technology by educators through professional development pro-
grams and the TEFL educational plans in the Iranian context. It is also
considered to be a new approach in the field of TEFL to implement tech-
nology into language classes of young learners. In addition, there is a
lack of infrastructure and support on the part of schools, English lan-
guage institutes, and stakeholders.
Although technology integration has not been a part of the Iranian
educational plan, teachers found it necessary to take part in technology
integration professional development programs, promoting young learn-
ers’ language development and boosting their confidence and compe-
tence to use technological tools. They also believed that there is an
essential need to create technology-based materials and activities for chil-
dren since they are familiar and interested in using technology for their
language learning. Although some teachers were doubtful about the
impacts of technology-based instruction on having stress free and relax-
ing atmosphere for children, most reported that the integration of tech-
nology could help children have access to a variety of authentic
materials, foster their autonomy, motivate them to learn English, and
improve their communication skills as they find technology
quite appealing.
Considering the results on the challenges of integrating technology
into young learner classes, it was found that the use of technology was
neglected by teachers due to anxiety, which could be a reasonable
explanation for the fact that teachers had not experienced TEYL accord-
ing to a standardized technology-enhanced educational system where the
need to use technology was not recognized by policymakers. In addition,
young learner teachers’ lack of skills to use technology in English classes
which was the result of the absence of teacher training programs was
one of the challenges encountered by teachers. Furthermore, lack of time
and essential facilities were found to be other concerns of the teachers,
which could be related to the fact that teachers were neither
20 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

technologically nor pedagogically supported by schools or institutes to

integrate technology in language classes. The findings of this study sup-
ported those of Leung (2010), in which there were difficulties of shortage
of ICT resources, knowledge, and skills of teachers to integrate ICT into
classes, although they all considered ICT essential to teaching and learn-
ing practice.
Due to the shortage of facilities, in this study technology was mostly
used as a tool for instructors to deliver their lessons and not as a tool
for students’ learning. This is in line with the results of Li and Ni (2011)
who suggested that although the instructors expressed positive attitude to
technology and believed that technology was valuable to the learning of
students, they mostly used technologies for activities and tasks, which
were teacher-centered such as making PowerPoint presentations, making
lesson plans, and preparing materials for instruction.
Given the results of the current study, young learner teachers believed
that there need to be technology-based teacher training courses providing
instructors with the required knowledge, both pedagogically and techno-
logically, to integrate technology into classes. The teachers also found
that they were usually unwilling to use technologies because they were
not knowledgeable enough to integrate suitable technologies into instruc-
tion. This also supported the results of Dong (2018) who argued that the
need for professional development programs which are specially designed
for the use of technology offers teachers with the knowledge, understand-
ing, and the skills necessary to use technology in classes.

Conclusions
The results of the study revealed that the need for the use of technology
in instruction is not recognized by stakeholders and educational policy
makers leading to young learner teachers’ unfamiliarity to integrate tech-
nology into their classrooms. The findings of the study, however, showed
that there is a general positive tendency towards the integration of tech-
nology into young learner classes due to the fact that children can be
more interested and engaged with the lessons being taught by using
technological tools and may probably learn more easily and can improve
their communication skills through the use of technological tools inside
the English language classes. It is also concluded that most of the teach-
ers agreed on the implementation of pre-service and in-service technol-
ogy-based teacher training programs into the curriculum to help learners
outperform in learning the English language. For instance, Wozney,
Venkatesh and Abrami (2006) found that teachers’ preference for stu-
dent-centered teaching approaches led them to frequently integrate
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 21

technology allowing themselves at more complicated levels of technology

use in the classroom, which is similar to the findings of the current study
showing that the use of technology in the class, which is a result of the
teachers’ tendency and positive attitudes to its use, can foster young
learners’ engagement and autonomy.
Young learner teachers need to implement technologies in their teach-
ing for the reason that children as digital natives are familiar with differ-
ent technologies and can benefit from its utilization for educational
purposes. Teacher educators also need to raise teachers’ pedagogical and
technological knowledge in order to use websites, applications, and
technological tools. In addition, course designers and materials develop-
ers could include various tasks devoted to the implementation of tech-
nologies, which could provide help for young learner teachers to
integrate technology while TEYL. Decisions must be taken about the
integration of technology in a systematic and standardized manner to
help teachers to have a positive attitude towards the use of technology
through technology-based professional development programs. For
instance, stakeholders need to take the challenges of technology integra-
tion into account and provide solutions to the problems of technology
integration faced by young learner teachers of English language.
The findings of this research may encourage other researchers to carry
out more in-depth experimental studies on the implementation of
technological tools by language teachers of young learners. For instance,
they can investigate the impact of training on the improvement of peda-
gogical and technological knowledge of the teachers in order to use tech-
nologies to teach English to young learners. A further study can be
conducted to raise the awareness of the teacher educators and principals
of schools and institutes about the advantages, challenges, and the neces-
sary infrastructure to integrate technology into English language classes
of young learners. Furthermore, some psychological factors and age- and
gender-related factors can be taken into account in the integration of
technology into instruction of English language.
The participants of this study were limited to 95 young learner
teachers of English language institutes and schools in the Iranian con-
text and despite receiving instruction on all items of the instruments,
not all of the teachers replied to the open-ended questions relating to
the integration of technologies into young learners’ classes. The study
was also limited to investigating a number of websites, applications,
and technological tools, which were chosen to determine the young
learner teachers’ knowledge and use of technologies in English lan-
guage classes, while other educational technologies were not taken into
consideration.
22 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Mahboubeh Taghizadeh is an Assistant professor in TEFL at the Iran University of
Science and Technology. She holds a PhD in TEFL from University of Tehran, an MA
in TEFL from Iran University of Science and Technology, and a BA in English
Language and Literature from Az-Zahra University. She has published in some national
and international journals. She has also presented some papers at international conferen-
ces. Some of her current interests include CALL, teacher education, and ESP.

Zahra Hassani Yourdshahi holds an MA in TEFL from Iran University of Science and
Technology. She is interested in teaching English and its related fields, and her areas of
research include CALL and teaching English to young learners

ORCID
Mahboubeh Taghizadeh http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8593-6507

References
Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs
about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack)
among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4),
134–143. doi:10.1080/21532974.2011.10784670
Balta, N., & Duran, M. (2015). Attitudes of students and teachers towards the use of
interactive whiteboards in elementary and secondary school classrooms. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 15–23.
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.
Bingigmlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and
learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to
success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95–100.
Blake, R. (2007). New trends in using technology in the language curriculum. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 1–17.
Brady, E. H., & Hill, S. (1984). Research in review: Young children and microcomputers.
Young Children, 39(3), 49–61.
Carey, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: Using new information about teacher effect-
iveness to close the achievement gap. Thinking K–16, 8(1), 3–42.
Chen, J.-Q., & Chang, C. (2006). A comprehensive approach to technology training for
early childhood teachers. Early Education & Development, 17(3), 443–465. doi:
10.1207/s15566935eed1703_6
Clements, D. H. (1994). The uniqueness of the computer as a learning tool: Insights
from research and practice. In J. L. Wright & D. D. Shade (Eds.), Young children:
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 23

Active learners in a technological age (pp. 31–49). Washington, DC: National

Association for the Education of Young Children.
Compton, L. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at
skills, roles and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 73–99.
doi:10.1080/09588220802613831
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies
in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. doi:10.3102/00028312038004813
Dong, C. (2018). Preschool teachers’ perceptions and pedagogical practices: Young child-
ren’s use of ICT. Early Child Development and Care, 188(6), 635–650. doi:10.1080/
03004430.2016.1226293
Duhaney, D. C. (2001). Teacher education: Preparing teachers to integrate technology.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(1), 23–30.
Dvorak, J., & Buchanan, K. (2002). Using technology to create and enhance collaborative
learning. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002-World
conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications (pp. 459-
464). Denver, Colorado, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education (AACE).
Egbert, J., Paulus, T., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on class-
room computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education.
Language Learning and Technology, 6(3), 108–126.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1995). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. B.
Murray, (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the
preparation of teachers (pp. 63–91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Gialamas, V., & Nikolopoulou, K. (2010). In-service and pre-service early childhood
teachers’ views and intentions about ICT use in early childhood settings: A com-
parative study. Computers & Education, 55, 333–341. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.
2010.01.019
Gonzalez-Carriedo, R., & Esprıvalo Harrell, P. (2018). Teachers’ attitudes toward tech-
nology in a two-way dual-language program. Computers in the Schools, 35(2),
111–133. doi:10.1080/07380569.2018.1462634
Grau, I. (1996). Teacher development in technology instruction: Does computer course-
work transfer into actual teaching practice? Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Southwest Educational Research Association. Dallas, Texas.
Han, J., & Wang, Z. (2010). Capability building in educational technology for teachers
in China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(4), 607–611. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8535.2010.01089.x
Haugland, S. W., & Wright, J. L. (1997). Young children and technology: A world of dis-
covery. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning:
Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Hird, B., Thwaite, A., Breen, M., Milton, M., & Oliver, R. (2000). Teaching English as a
second language to children and adults: Variation in practices. Language Teaching
Research, 4(1), 3–32. doi:10.1177/136216880000400102
Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO
Journal, 25, 175–188.
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006). The scope of CALL education. In P. Hubbard, & M.
Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 3–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24 M. TAGHIZADEH AND Z. HASANI YOURDSHAHI

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A con-
structive perspective. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction and students’ per-
ceptions of computer technology to improve student learning. Journal of Information
Technology Education: Research, 6, 169–180. doi:10.28945/208
Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2009). Technology and early childhood education: A tech-
nology integration professional development model for practicing teachers. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 37(3), 209–218. doi:10.1007/s10643-009-0341-0
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and
student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
7(6), 560–565. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5
Kerckaert, S., Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2015). The role of ICT in early child-
hood education: Scale development and research on ICT use and influencing factors.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(2), 183–199. doi:10.1080/
1350293X.2015.1016804
Lama, D. (2006). Using ICT to support young learners who are non-native speakers of
English. IATEFL Young Learner Newsletter, 6, 26–27.
Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around
the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: CERC-Springer.
Leung, W. M. (2010). Young children’s learning with information and communication
technologies in Hong Kong kindergartens (Doctoral dissertation). Victoria University.
Australia Digital Theses Program database.
Levy, M. (2006). Effective use of CALL technologies: Finding the right balance. In R. P.
Donaldson, & M. A. Haggstrom, (Eds.), Changing language education through CALL.
Oxon: Routledge.
Lewis, G. (2004). The internet and young learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, G., & Ni, X. (2011). Primary EFL teachers’ technology use in China: Patterns and
perceptions. RELC Journal, 42(1), 69–85.
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research on computer-
based technology use in second language learning: Review of literature from
1990–2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 250–273. doi:
10.1080/15391523.2002.10782348
Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2011). Benefits of computer-assisted instruction to support
reading acquisition in English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3),
301–315. doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.622829
Manasreh, M. (2014). Scaffolding listening through ICT with young learners in Qatar. In
S. Rich, (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching English to young learners. The
UK: Palgrave McMillan.
Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers &
Education, 42(2), 111–131. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00067-8
Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2009). Investigating pre-service early childhood
teachers’ views and intentions about integrating and using computers in early child-
hood settings compilation of an instrument. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
18(2), 201–219. doi:10.1080/14759390903003837
Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2015). ICT and play in preschool: Early childhood
teachers’ beliefs and confidence. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(4),
409–425. doi:10.1080/09669760.2015.1078727
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J., & Lippincott, J. K. (2005). Educating the net generation.
New York: Brockport Bookshelf.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 25

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Sussex:

Harvester Press.
Park, C. N., & Son, J. B. (2009). Implementing computer assisted language learning in
the EFL classroom: Teacher perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of
Pedagogy and Learning, 5(2), 80–101. doi:10.5172/ijpl.5.2.80
Peters, M. (2006). Developing computer competencies for pre-service language teachers:
Is one course enough? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL
(pp. 153–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rich, S. (2014). Conclusion: The added value of international perspectives on TEYL. In
S. Rich (Ed), International perspectives on teaching English to young learners. The UK:
Palgrave McMillan.
Robertson, M., Webb, I., & Fluck, A. (2007). Seven steps to ICT integration. Camberwell,
VIC: ACER Press.
Sowa, E. (2014). Addressing intercultural awareness-raising in the young learner EFL
classroom in Poland: Some teacher perspectives. In S. Rich (Ed.), International per-
spectives on teaching English to young learners. The UK: Palgrave McMillan.
Sugar, W., Crawley, F., & Fine, B. (2004). Examining teachers’ decisions to adopt new
technology. Educational Technology and Society, 7(4), 201–213.
Sulaimani, A., Sarhandi, P., & Buledi, M. (2017). Impact of CALL in-house professional
development training on teachers’ pedagogy: An evaluative study. Cogent Education,
4(1), 1–12.
Tatar, S., & Yıldız, S. (2010). Under use of technology: Perspectives from Turkish teachers
of English. The 35th Annual Conference of the Association for Teacher. Education in
Europe (ATEE), Budapest, Hungary.
Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Thelmadatter, L. (2007). The computers are coming … are here! TESOL Greece
Newsletter, 95, 1-3.
Wang, X. C., & Hoot, J. L. (2006). Information and communication technology in early
childhood education. Early Education and Development, 17(3), 317–322. doi:10.1207/
s15566935eed1703_1
Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms. In M.
Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice
(pp. 41–58). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technolo-
gies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 14(1), 173–207.
Xu, J. (2010). On the problems and strategies of multimedia technology in English
teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 215–218.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An eco-
logical perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840. doi:
10.3102/00028312040004807

View publication stats