When designing a potential implementation of technological support for English Language Learners (ELL), considerations about barriers to the success of implementation need to be made. Based on the findings within the literature, the most significant barriers to implementation are the difficulty accessing technology and overall support from the administration ( Lecocq, 2015).

The ability to access technology is a significant concern in many places, and the ELL landscape is no exception. Many researchers identified the difficulties accessing technology or consistent IT infrastructure as a barrier in their studies (Lecocq, 2015; Preetha, 2018; Shalevska, 2021). This barrier forced many to implement technological supports that were either free or very inexpensive. The lower cost of the support did not mean that teachers were less effective or that students would learn less if lower-cost or free curricular tools were implemented. For example, Shalevska (2021) explored changes in student sentiment about ELL lessons from the implementation of free online activities such as: “Kahoot, Nearpod, Google Jamboard, Answer Garden, Slido, etc.” The study found that overall, students enjoyed these activities compared to in-person ELL lessons, and teachers found these lessons positively impacted student learning. The fact that the tools were free did not impact the quality of student learning or the students’ sentiment surrounding their introduction to the curriculum.

The cost of resources was a consistent theme in many other studies, even if it was not always explicit in the purpose of the research. In a 2018 study, Preetha found that tools like an interactive whiteboard were “a conduit to support conversations in the classroom.” We may think of interactive whiteboards as a standard fixture in modern classrooms. Still, such devices are a significant investment for many schools, and even in the case of districts that have them, they are not always implemented in their learning environments. The use of technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) have been identified as tools that are “highly desirable because it can support learners' interaction and simulate real-life scenarios the learners are likely to encounter” (Anas, Amansyah, Musdariah, Irmawati, 2020). Simplified and inexpensive options like Google cardboard headsets, which support any type of VR/AR experience, are still hundreds of dollars each, so hi-tech options like these are not realistic for the average ELL student.

The need for financial support is a significant barrier to implementation. However, even before securing financial support, educators need to have training and troubleshooting support resources made available to them by their administration. Working effectively with ELL students requires specific pedagogical techniques, which is compounded by the complexities of implementing new technologies. In order to cleanly implement these techniques and technologies, educators need to have quality professional development opportunities provided to them (Lecocq, 2015). Even so, some professional development supported by administrators is not adequate. In order to truly be effective in the implementation of technological resources for ELL students, there needs to be a commitment to long-term technical support by school districts (Anas, Amansyah, Musdariah, Irmawati, 2020; Andrei, 2016; Shahbazi, 2020).