\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2018-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2018)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2018-01-15}
\title{Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Hamida Abdallah  Saafi}

             \affil[1]{  University of Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 16 December 2017 Accepted: 5 January 2018 Published: 15 January 2018}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Technology ushers in fundamental structural changes that can be essential to achieve significant improvements in all sectors including education. This justifies the great attention that many universities have paid to the incorporation of technology into the classroom in the recent years. The faculty of Science and Arts in Khulais, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and in an attempt to keep up with the technological developments, adopted a computer-mediated software called Rosetta Stone. The latter is claimed to perform the same roles as the teacher and yield effective language learning outcomes from the part of learners. Indeed, this paper addressed such claims by identifying the teachers' perceptions towards technology in general and Rosetta Stone in particular. It also aimed to explore the teachers' attitudes towards the potential adjustments they may make to their roles after the introduction of Rosetta Stone into the educational landscape and whether such programs can replace them.Data was gathered via a semi-structured interview and a questionnaire. The results showed that despite their highly favorable opinions towards technology, teachers emphasized the importance of selecting the kind of technology to be employed in the classroom according to its suitability. Findings also mirrored the teachers' views that Rosetta Stone is no substitute for the teacher. This implies that technology cannot set teachers aside or take them over, by contrast, it adds to their roles.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{technology; integration; learning outcomes; rosetta Stone; teacher roles.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 \par
Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?\par
Introduction y definition learning is the activity or process of gaining knowledge or skill by studying, practicing, being taught, or experiencing something. More specifically, language learning has always been defined as the cognitive process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive, produce and use words to understand, communicate and interact effectively (www. merriam-webster.com). To achieve this goal, language researchers, scholars and academicians never ceased to come up with up-to -date teaching approaches, methods and tools to be implemented in the classroom. When it comes to the English language and considering the facts that "at present, the role and status of English is that it is the language of social context, political, sociocultural, business, education, industries, media, library, communication across borders, and key subject in curriculum" (Shyamlee and Phil, 2012, p.150), improving the language learning process is regarded as a highly desirable goal to be reached. In recent years, technology has been the subject of interest as it has been claimed that its introduction into the language classroom may yield positive language learning outcomes \hyperref[b11]{(Ismail et al (2010)}).\par
The questions that may be posed, in this regard, are about the attitudes of the teachers, as central agents in the classroom \hyperref[b25]{(Wainwright (2013)}), towards technology employment as well as their perceptions towards their changing role after its introduction into the educational realm. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{The Rationale behind the Study}]{The Rationale behind the Study}\par
As a matter of fact, the worldwide recognition of the importance of technology which invaded all sectors, with education making no exception, \hyperref[b22]{(Shyamlee and Phil (2012)}) is the first reason that urges this study to be carried out. The second reason that stands behind this research refers to the general consensus about the effectiveness of technology integration in the language classroom as reported by \hyperref[b11]{Ismail et al (2010)} who asserted that "the potentially positive outcomes of integrating technology into education have convinced a number of countries to embark on the use of the internet and information technology in their educational systems" (p. 38). Further, this paper comes in response to Saqlain et al (2013)'s claim that no research was conducted to explore female teachers' perceptions towards technology integration in Saudi educational settings so as to confer higher credibility on previous researches about this topic. In more particular terms, the serious efforts made by the Faculty of Science and Arts in Khulais to embrace technology and encourage both teachers and students to use it, is still another reason that urges this study's conduct. 
\section[{III.}]{III.}\par
Overview of Literature a) The integration of technology in the English language classroom According to \hyperref[b28]{Wright (2008)}, "technology is everywhere" (p.4). It is no longer restricted to certain universities "with prestigious departments and research centers" as it was the case in the 90s but has considerably evolved and extended rapidly since then  {\ref (Forteza and Ortiz, 2015, p. 207}) to become the normal means of communication and education \hyperref[b4]{(Chapelle, 2003)}. Indeed, many scholars and educational leaders highlighted its effectiveness in language learning and considered computer and related internet technology as important educational innovations \hyperref[b7]{(Forteza and Ortiz 2015)}.  {\ref Pelgrum (2001)} also claimed that ICT (Information and Communication Technology) is not only the "backbone" of the information age, but a "sounding tool" that helps induce educational reforms that will turn learners into "productive knowledge workers" ( cited in  {\ref Cavas et al, 2009, p. 20)}. \hyperref[b0]{Almekhalfi and Almeqdadi (2010)} went further to assert that technology is a "cornerstone" to improve students' language performance. \hyperref[b25]{Wainwright (2013)}, on the other hand, pointed out that technology in education gets plenty of hype. Therefore, she encouraged its introduction into the classroom and considered it a "great way" to guarantee diversity in learning styles. She listed several reasons why learners need technology in the classroom. As a matter of fact, if used correctly, technology will help prepare learners for their future careers, which will definitely include the use of technology. Still, the students become more responsible as technology helps them take more command over their own learning. Within similar lines of thought, Debela (2008) cited three reasons that make technology-based learning an indisputably "well-liked mode" namely; convenience, flexibility and economic advantages (cited in Ismail et al, 2010, p. 40).\par
Additionally, \hyperref[b16]{Mustafa et al (2012)} stressed the importance of exploiting the "plethora of resources provided by computer" (p. 426) in learning a second language. The same idea was articulated by \hyperref[b3]{Cavas et al (2009)} who highlighted the strong effect technology has in education as "it provides enormous tools for enhancing teaching and learning" (p. \hyperref[b21]{21)}.\par
At the empirical level, Viswanathan (2008) conducted a research about the internet effect on education in India and came to the result that the teaching of the English language is promoted with the help of internet at all levels of education. With reference to a meta-analysis carried out in 2003 that consisted of 42 studies on 7000 students, technology was found to be very effective and positively affect the learners' achievements as well as their cognitive and affective skills (cited in \hyperref[b20]{Saglam and Sert, 2012)}.\par
Things, then, have come a long way since Levy (1997) wrote "CALL remains a peripheral interest in the language teaching community as a whole, still largely the domain of the CALL enthusiast, and there is scant evidence to suggest CALL has really been absorbed into mainstream thinking, education, and practice" (cited in Stanley, 2013, p.46).\par
In another vein, \hyperref[b30]{Zhao (2003)} raised two problematic issues related to technology. The first was about the terminology itself and described it as an illdefined term that encompasses "a wide range of tools, artifacts, and practices, from multimedia computers to the internet, from video tapes to online classrooms, from web pages to interactive audio conferencing" (p. 8). Therefore and according to this author, it is "misleading" to consider a certain tool as effective as another simply because they are all called "technology". The second issue has to do with the way how a specific technological tool is used. He argued that "assessing the effectiveness of a technology is in reality assessing the effectiveness of its uses rather than the technology itself." (p.8). He came to the conclusion that it is "inappropriate to over generalize the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of one way of using technology to the technology itself" (p. 10). He went further to stress that the use of the same technological tool under different circumstances and in different settings may result in different learning outcomes. The same idea was conveyed by \hyperref[b12]{Jung (2005)} who claimed that despite their recognized importance as essential teaching and learning tools, technologies cannot be a panacea for all educational problems. \hyperref[b3]{Cavas et al (2009)} recommended that, in education, ICT should not be used as a mere tool to transfer instructional materials but as a means for "learning, discovering, sharing and creating knowledge" (p.30). In this respect, Albirini (2006) argued that investments are done in the latest technologies without considering the target group needs and interests (cited in \hyperref[b3]{Cavas (2009)}, p. 10).\par
It becomes evident that we are now at a time in human development where digital technologies are making an increasingly significant contribution to language learning in many parts of the world \hyperref[b4]{(Chapelle, 2003)}. In many societies, educational policy makers are trying to redesign and reconstruct their educational systems based on the new educational paradigms  {\ref (Cavas et al, 2009, p.20)}. The Saudi Government, for example, is striving to integrate technology at all school levels \hyperref[b21]{(Saqlain et al, 2013)}. In an attempt to fit within this digital era and seize the effectiveness of educational technology, serious attempts have been made by the Faculty of Science and Arts in Khulais in terms of technology integration as it has incorporated various forms of technology to support teaching practices and engage the students in the learning process. The most noticeable of these attempts is the implementation of Rosetta Stone. 
\section[{b) Rosetta Stone program}]{b) Rosetta Stone program}\par
This program has as objective to raise the overall English language proficiency of the students. It deals with the four constructs of the language namely; speaking, writing, reading and listening. It also focuses on grammar and vocabulary. The students can control their own learning as they learn at their own pace. There are three Levels to each language taught by Rosetta Stone, and each Level contains four lessons. Within these lessons, there are several units. The layout of the course is so tightly structured to keep the learner on task trying to learn a language without a real teacher.\par
Rosetta Stone never uses L1 translations or explanations, forcing the users to rely solely on their own intuition while gradually acquiring the language content necessary for the next level. In order to do this successfully, it is expected that learners move through the program in a linear progression, expanding on the initial one or two word building blocks at the beginning of level 1 to some long, grammatically complex sentences in the higher levels. 
\section[{c) The effectiveness of Rosetta Stone}]{c) The effectiveness of Rosetta Stone}\par
Stanley (2013) fore grounded the importance of such programs in acquiring a language and underlined the positive attitudes of learners towards them. To put it in his words "some learners have found English learning software like Rosetta Stone (www.rosettastone. co.uk/) effective for swift acquisition of surface language" (p.36). Indeed and in an EFL context, learners can really benefit from self-directed vocabulary and grammar-based exercises, particularly those that monitor voice input and assess the accuracy of pronunciation which becomes possible through such programs as Rosetta Stone. Wegerif (2004) added that the endlessly patient and non-judgmental nature of computers makes them perfectly convenient to enable repetitive language learning activities that provide instantaneous feedback to the user (cited in \hyperref[b23]{Stanley;}. Still, the effectiveness of Rosetta Stone was defended by Vesselinov (2009) who found out that after using this program for 55 hours, learners language proficiency level improved significantly (cited in \hyperref[b13]{Lord, 2016)}. \hyperref[b6]{Dewaard (2013)}, however, found this program lacking in a number of areas; specifically its shaky theoretical foundations, cultural in authenticity and the overall limitations of a nonhuman system, among other limitations. She came to the conclusion that this program cannot be "a viable replacement of current instruction" (p.61). In the same vein, Lord (2016) argued that such program is still lacking convincing empirical evidence to support its claimed effectiveness. Santos (2011), on the other hand, subsequently reviewed Rosetta Stone program and noted that it lacks contextualization in the materials. He added a major weakness in terms of interaction which he described as poor and limited when compared to real-life conversation managed by teachers (cited in \hyperref[b13]{Lord, 2016)}. \hyperref[b17]{Nielson (2014)} concluded that despite the attractive options this program offers, it is "not yet able to offer an alternative to human support or interaction" (p.125). 
\section[{d) Teacher or Rosetta stone}]{d) Teacher or Rosetta stone}\par
Rosetta Stone is an example of a stand-alone self-paced language learning program. It is claimed that such programs would be more efficient, effective and enjoyable than the traditional learning forms (cited in \hyperref[b13]{Lord, 2016)}.\par
This software is adopted by the Faculty of Science and Arts in Khulais, Jeddah. It is institutionally embraced as a way to improve the students' English level. Students have access to this program 6 hours per week in the language labs. Their performance is automatically assessed and their marks are included in the calculation of their overall average in the English language subject. While Rosetta Stone is being performed, the teachers are in the labs just to supervise and ensure that the learners are using the program appropriately i.e. Rosetta Stone is functioning on the computer. Students are exposed to their computers which are, in this respect, the sole source of learning. This engenders many concerns about the teachers' positions, availability, functions and roles in the educational setting.\par
Therefore, exploring teachers' perceptions towards technology in general and this program, in particular, seems to be of relevance. e) Teachers' perceptions \hyperref[b25]{Wainwright (2013)} argued that teachers are central to what happens in the classroom. Bill (1997) confirmed that teachers are "an integral part of any educational system" and highlighted the significance "to know their concerns and issues through their perspectives" (cited in  {\ref Saqlain et al, 2013, p.148)}. In this regard and in terms of technology integration, Cavas et al (2009) considered teachers as the prime actors in implementing ICT in learning and teaching and should be the center of attention. The same idea was conveyed by \hyperref[b10]{Gilakjani (2012)}  
\section[{who claimed that "to successfully implement the integration of a new technological tool, consideration of what the implementation will mean to teachers' personal beliefs and values is of great concern " (p. 67).}]{who claimed that "to successfully implement the integration of a new technological tool, consideration of what the implementation will mean to teachers' personal beliefs and values is of great concern " (p. 67).}\par
Mollaei and Riasati (2013) conducted a research in Iran and found that EFL teachers there perceived technology use very beneficial as it augmented language learning. Concomitantly, Park and Son (2009)'s study revealed that the Korean EFL teachers consider computer technology a useful teaching instrument that enhances learning by providing learners with a variety of language inputs and boosts their learning capabilities in real-life contexts (cited in  {\ref Merc, 2015, p.230)}.\par
Russell Stannard, a linguistics lecturer at Warwick and founder of a teacher training website, advocated that those who use technology argued that the advantages are obvious. Indeed, languages and digital technology are a natural fit. Language development is around four skills-reading, writing, speaking and listening -and all of those are facilitated by technology. There's a very strong link between the affordances of technology and the type of things we're trying to do as teachers (cited in \hyperref[b27]{Williams (2014)}).\par
In an analysis of a correlation between teachers' attitudes and the effective use of technology, \hyperref[b3]{Cavas et al (2009)} found out that these two variables are strongly linked. They added that the teachers' attitudes as well as their talents and desires are accounted for as crucial points that affect the results of technology application. Indeed, "the basic agent for establishing this system is teachers" (p.21). They reported that the success of integrating ICT into the classroom will ease the move from the teacher-centered to student-centered mode, one of the major goals of the communicative language teaching approach.\par
In the same vein, Ismail et al (2010) pointed out that "the success of integrating instructional technology in teaching and learning languages depends heavily on the attitude and support of the teachers involved" (p.37). They added that "Teachers are seen to be active agents in the process of changes and implementation of new ideas as their beliefs and attitudes may support or impede the success of any educational reform" (p.37). As a matter of fact, their positive attitudes towards computers are "widely recognized as a necessary condition" for effective technology employment in the classroom (Woodrow (1992) as cited in Ismail, 2010, p.38).\par
Aydin (2007) carried out a research whose sample was 115 Turkish EFL teachers and found that a great majority of these teachers positively perceive technology use and foregrounded its effectiveness as an educational tool to reach information (cited in Saglam and Sert, 2012).\par
However, Odabasi (2000) researched the attitudes of 144 Turkish faculty members towards ICT in terms of familiarity, use and effectiveness and the results indicated that most participants were familiar with outdated applications and used current educational technology in a rather old-fashioned way (cited in Saglam and Sert, 2012). The same idea was supported by \hyperref[b2]{Asan (2003)} who carried out a research to explore the teachers' perceptions and awareness towards three main variables namely specific technologies, the role of technology in education and the technological problems faced by schools in Turkey. Results revealed that the use of computer is not a routine part of their teaching practices. Teachers also lack computer capabilities that would allow them to professionally integrate it within their teaching paradigms. In the same respect, Hawkins (2002) confirmed that many teachers do not feel comfortable in applying ICT in their educational settings and feel more confident with their old traditional teaching styles (cited in Cavas (  {\ref 2009})). Eugene (2006), on the other hand, investigated the relationship between teachers' beliefs and technology integration and came to the conclusion that there was a discrepancy between what these teachers believe and their actual implementation of technology in their teaching (cited in Gilakjani (  {\ref 2012})). 
\section[{f) The changing role of the English language teacher}]{f) The changing role of the English language teacher}\par
From a constructivist point of view, Plomp et al  {\ref (1996)} claimed that the learning process includes four components that interact: (1) the teacher, (2) the learner, (3) curriculum content and goals, (4) instructional materials and infrastructure. He argued that any change in one of these four components will definitely lead to a change in the other three. Consequently the whole teaching and learning process alters (cited in McGhee and Kozma (2005)).\par
"The computer explosion and internet have transformed the environment in which language is used and learning takes place"  {\ref (Mustafa et al, 2012, p.426}). As a result and "with the improvements in technology and its use in EFL classrooms, the roles of the EFL teachers are also changing"  {\ref (Merc, 2015, p. 229}).\par
In the same vein, Fernandez (2001) stressed that the teacher's role must change if computer and internet are introduced into the classroom (cited in Xiaoli (  {\ref 2009})). The same idea was conveyed more recently by Shyamlee and Phil (2012) who reported that "The new era assigns new challenges and duties on the modern teacher. The tradition of English teaching has been drastically changed with the remarkable entry of technology" (p.150).\par
However, Harris et al  {\ref (2002)} insisted that teachers should be involved in all stages of technology implementation and meanwhile be assured that this approach is advantageous over the previous one and compatible with their teaching practices. Due to the ICT introduction in the classroom, a change is expected to happen in the teaching and learning styles. To put it in their words "it is not necessarily the technology that has to be innovative, but the approach to teaching and learning has to be" (cited in Cavas et al, 2009, p. 32). The change of teaching and learning mode has brought a great challenge to the English teachers.\par
Several studies stressed the change in the teacher's role when network and internet based technologies are introduced into the classroom  {\ref (Fernandez,2001;} {\ref Feng, 2006;} {\ref Li, 2008;} as cited in Xiaoli (2009)). Xiaoli (2009) speculated that the role of the teacher is transforming from the traditional knowledge implementer to a multiple one. In this vein, he pointed out that "the teacher will be less of an information-giver and more of a learning facilitator" (p.336).\par
Computer-based activities allow the teacher to assume the role of a facilitator whilst students take on an increasing responsibility of their own learning. In fact, technology will shift the emphasis of activities away from the teacher towards the students and enhance social interaction (Xiaoli (2009)).\par
The same idea was conveyed by Ghishan and Amarin (2013) who reported that because technology becomes an integral part of the teaching/learning process, the role of the classroom teacher changes noticeably. Classroom teachers become facilitators who assist students in constructing their own understandings and capabilities in carrying out tasks on computer technologies. There is a shift from lecturing and recitation to coaching because computer encourages the teacher to play the role of a coach. In this regard, Gao (2005), added that in an internet based teaching environment, the teacher tends towards being a "researcher, director and cooperator" (cited in Xiaoli, 2009, p. 339).\par
The same author argued that among the traditional teaching drawbacks are the learners' dependence on the teacher as "the chief instructor, knowledge implementer, and the most important information sources" (p.338). He stressed that with the advent of internet based programs, these problems were addressed and the learner's autonomy, one of the major objectives of learning, has increased. He came to the conclusion that one of the key issues in making this new teaching mode successful is the shift of the teacher's role.\par
In another respect, Saglam and Sert (2012) noted that ICT integration leads to "a pause in studentteacher interaction" (p.6). In other words, this kind of interaction disappeared because learners become very busy using their computers and "responded neither to their peers nor to their teachers" (p.6). Shyamlee and Phil (2012) admitted the truth "that these technologies have proved successful in replacing the traditional teaching" (150). Selgam and Sert (2012) went further to claim that the integration and implementation of ICT in the curriculum has radically changed the educational paradigm and by consequence "face to face learning has started to give way to web-enhanced instruction via internet based resources and systems" (p.1). However, Gilakjani (2012) warned that "computer technology policy makers need to understand that teachers shouldn't be excluded from instructional planning when considering future educational computer technology use" (p.73).\par
In the same vein, Xiaoli (2009) affirmed that with the implementation of internet based technologies, a very limited number of teachers may be needed if roles changed "  {\ref [But]} in no way should the teacher be denigrated. The more a teacher participates in the planning of instructional delivery, the greater the fidelity and agreed-upon implementation design" (p. 339).\par
The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) acknowledged and highlighted the importance of technology integration into the classroom. However and due to the complexity of the learning process, it recognized the pivotal role of eachers in making the language learning experience a success. The council also stressed the availability of teachers as a crucial condition for successful technology incorporation and management.\par
In answer to the question "does teaching become obsolete?" Shyamlee and Phil (2012) wrote "all in all, the multimedia as an assisting instrument, cannot replace the dominant role of teachers and it is part of a complete teaching process. Teachers still play the leading role that their position could never be replaced by the computer" (p.154).\par
The following paper proceeds with the hypothesis that the integration of technology-based programs reduces the role of the teacher and has as objective to answer the following two questions:\par
1. What are the teachers' perceptions towards the integration of technology in the curriculum in general and that of Rosetta Stone in particular? 2. What are the teachers' perceptions towards their changing role after the introduction of Rosetta Stone?\par
IV. 
\section[{Methodology a) Subjects}]{Methodology a) Subjects}\par
This study is based on data gathered from a group of participants which includes 26 non-native English language teachers currently working at the Faculty of Science and Arts in Khulais that is located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. These participants have a varying teaching experience ranging from 2 to 20 years. They are either holders of master or PhD degrees in applied linguistics or literature and teach different English language subjects such as poetry, grammar, reading, phonetics?etc. All of them had an experience with Rosetta Stone program given that they work as labassistants as part of their teaching duties.\par
It is worth noting that all the participants are female and this choice is made intentionally for cultural and religious considerations. 
\section[{b) Instruments}]{b) Instruments}\par
The instruments used in the data collection consisted of a semi-structured interview (appendix I), and a teacher questionnaire (appendix II).\par
The semi-structured interview was conducted to obtain more comprehensive information as well as to better understand the attitudes of the teachers towards Rosetta stone implementation and their changing role. This kind of instrument as articulated by \hyperref[b5]{Dunn (2005)} "has some degree of predetermined order but still ensures flexibility in the way issues are addressed by the informant" (p.80). Indeed, the interviewer follows the guide, but is still able to follow topical trajectories in the conversation that may differ from the guide if need be. In this research, all the interviewees have working hours at the language labs where Rosetta Stone is employed.\par
To confer a higher reliability on this research, a second instrument namely; a teacher's questionnaire was used. It was developed by the researcher herself and was administered and welcomingly completed by the teachers who appreciated the contribution to this research. This teacher's questionnaire consists of three parts each part contains 10 items. The first intends to explore the teachers' perceptions of technology integration in the curriculum as a whole. The second part investigates the teachers' attitudes towards the application of Rosetta Stone. The third part, on the other hand, elicits the teachers' views about their changing role after the implementation of Rosetta Stone. The questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree.\par
In an attempt to obtain more objective answers and in order not to orient the informants, the semi structured interview was conducted before administering the questionnaire.\par
V. 
\section[{Results and Implications}]{Results and Implications}\par
It is worthwhile to note that the average response value for each statement was calculated by adding the response values of each teacher by statement (1, strongly disagree; 2, disagree; 3, neutral; 4, agree; 5, strongly agree) and then dividing them by the total number of respondents \hyperref[b27]{(26)}. The same approach was operated on the three variables on this paper.\par
Table1: Percentage of respondents for each category statement concerning their perceptions towards technology integration in the classroom in general  Table  {\ref 1} above displays the results concerning the first research question namely the teachers' perceptions of technology integration in the language classroom. The responses towards the statements did not have wide variations. As a matter of fact, the average response value is near 4 or higher. This reflects the teachers' highly positive perception of technology integration into the language classroom and its effectiveness in developing and improving the language teaching process which, in turn, helps to achieve better learning outcomes from the part of the students.\par
As mirrored in table 1, most of the respondents agree or even strongly agree that technology introduction is a must (96\%) and that technology literacy has become one of the basic skills of teaching (92\%).\par
Be it the case and as reflected through the table, teacher training is highly recommended (100\%). The same idea was articulated by Saglam and Sert (2012) who asserted that technology is changing the educational paradigms very rapidly and warned that teachers may be caught unguarded due to the lack of professional training in this aspect. Further, findings showed the importance of technology incorporation in the classroom and thus the urgent need for teacher training in this field. Indeed, all the participants confirmed that technology integration becomes a necessity and therefore teachers as material developers should be trained for successful technology integration. This conforms to Jung (  {\ref 2005} challenges. These challenges, in turn, place new demands on teachers to incessantly retrain themselves and acquire new skills and knowledge while maintaining their jobs.\par
The same ideas were conveyed through the interviewees' answers. As a matter of fact, 23 of the teachers reported that their competency in technology is highly required and that they use different kinds of technologies in their classrooms. They argued that the application of technology becomes evident. "It goes without saying that I use my computer, internet, different types of software in my classroom", one of the teachers commented. This conforms to Chapelle (2003)'s conclusion. To put it her words "in the 21 st century, English language teachers apparently need to add another thick layer to the object of their critical thinking reflection-technology" (p.9). All the participants in this study asserted that technology helps to realize the teaching goals. This supports Saglam and Sert (2012)'s claim that technology has a great potential as a teaching tool.\par
A great majority of the participants in this study hold favorable attitudes towards the use of technology in the language classroom and attributed this to such variety of options that technology affords as making teaching interesting and more productive in terms of improvements. Shyamlee et al (2012) came to the same conclusion and proved that "technology has a positive role in promoting activities and initiatives of student and teaching effect in English class" (p.151). 12. I know why Rosetta Stone is an integral part of the curriculum and the rationale behind its diffusion in it. 13. Rosetta Stone is a reliable software that encompasses all language constructs (grammar, vocabulary, listening, reading?..etc.) 14. Rosetta Stone is a well-liked teaching mode. 15. Rosetta Stone is an effective application that results in higher learning achievements. 16. Rosetta Stone raises the students interest, engagement and motivation in learning the language as it offers visibility and liveliness where sounds and pictures are set together. 17. Using Rosetta Stone would require more effort from the learners. As indicated through the table above, most of the teachers displayed a self-evident ignorance of why Rosetta Stone was introduced to the language classroom given that the average response value for each statement was near 3 or lower. 71\% of the respondents do not know if Rosetta Stone is reliable to achieve better learning outcomes. They either disagree or even strongly disagree that such software can nurture the learners thinking potential.\par
One of the interviewees argued that "teachers can guarantee the students effective learning outcomes in many ways, while Rosetta Stone cannot," she argued that "Rosetta Stone cannot provide feedback".\par
This would be similar to that of De Waard (2013)'s findings as she claimed that language classrooms are structured by putting students in the kinds of situations they would encounter in real life. They are also given an abundance of grammar support. She added that Rosetta Stone software is simply not flexible enough to allow for deep learning of a foreign language. Without a focus on structure or grammar, she suggested, students are merely memorizing words, not learning to speak a language.\par
One important implication that we came to in this paper is that the teachers do not oppose technology integration in the classroom. "We are protechnology," stated one of the respondents, "when it is properly selected". What matters, here, is the kind of technology being applied. As such, after being selected, technology effectiveness in terms of learning outcomes should be assessed. Indeed, technology should not be blindly embraced. 
\section[{Year 2018}]{Year 2018}\par
Volume XVIII Issue XIII Version I ( G )  As seen in Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3}, the average response for the first six statements is almost 4 which indicated that most of the respondents agreed that after the introduction of Rosetta Stone, their roles changed. This supports Proctor (2002)'s claim that the implementation of Rosetta Stone poses challenges and urges the teachers to make adjustments to their traditional activities. Practically speaking, most of the teachers strongly agreed that the teacher's voice is replaced by the computer sound and that his/ her analysis was substituted by visual images which justifies the respondents consensus that Rosetta Stone relatively limits the teacher's roles in the leaning process and therefore hampers their productivity in the classroom. One of the informants protested "with Rosetta Stone, the students do not need the teacher, they need a technician may be". Another complained "my students are exposed to the computer and barely notice me in the classroom".\par
It is worth noting, however, that all the respondents displayed a strong opposition towards the last four items on the questionnaire. This implies that despite their admission of their changing role, teachers still perceive themselves as the only agents who are able to pass on certain crucial skills to their students. The same idea was conveyed by \hyperref[b29]{Wright (2015)} who stated that a teacher does not only transmit knowledge; s/he guides her/his students. Teachers are mentors who encourage students to develop critical thinking skills and apply them to real life. Indeed, 23 of the respondents do not perceive that students can reach a proficiency level by relying solely on Rosetta Stone software by contrast they fore grounded the importance of input and guidance from a qualified teacher. All of the teachers either disagree or even strongly disagree that teaching can in anyhow be archaic. Through the semi-structured interview, the teachers stressed that "Rosetta Stone cannot in anyway replace the teacher??it's just a program and is no way a substitute of the teacher", "teaching can never be obsolete, be it Rosetta Stone or whatever program applied". The same idea was conveyed by Shyamlee et al (2012) who highlighted the paramount importance of technology but "teachers still play the leading role that their position could never be replaced by the computer." (p. 154).\par
"While technology will certainly help to promote the learning process, it is useful -sometimes essentialto have a real live human who gives valuable help. Will these technologies mean ???.fewer teachers? Let's hope there will always be a friendly human face to brighten up your learning experience" expressed one of the informants. As a matter of fact, this lends strong support to Wright (2013)'s claim which described the teachers as role models that create trust and inspire students in an environment where learning occurs. She added that technology alone cannot offer these skills.\par
Hence, an important issue appears in this respect that is the necessity to consider teachers attitudes before employing Rosetta stone or any other kind of technology into the English language classroom. Indeed, Shyamlee et al (2012) insisted that the teachers are to determine whether or not to adopt multimedia technology. They suggested that when it comes to language curriculum, teachers play a pivotal role in the decision making process. Therefore, the success of any implementation rests on the teacher engagement and a deep understanding of the technology to be incorporated. 
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{Study Limitations}]{Study Limitations}\par
Before moving on to concluding remarks, it seems of relevance to point out that the current study results may be confounded by a number of issues, namely; the focus on a single application in a relatively short time. Hence the need for studies that evaluate the effectiveness of more comprehensive uses of technology over a longer period of time is very much higher recommended for the sake of reliability as suggested by \hyperref[b30]{Zhao (2003)}.\par
Additionally, the conclusions drawn through this research are very much the opinions of a relatively restricted number of female teachers. Despite their recognized importance, attitudes and perceptions alone cannot be reliable to measure technology successful incorporation. This may lay the ground for more researches to be conducted and proficiency level tests to be taken in order to come up with more definite results about the potential effectiveness of Rosetta Stone program and its impact on the learners language achievements. As a matter of fact, A clear cut answer to the question whether technology could substitute the teacher cannot be obtained through a mere elicitation of the teachers perceptions as many other variables may interact, therefore more investigation should be sought. Additionally and according to  {\ref Pelgrum and Plomp (1996)}, students are an important element in the teaching/ learning process, thus, their views about what helps to improve their learning is substantial. However, this paper did not cover such views. In this respect, students' perceptions seem to be significant if technology is to be successfully incorporated within the curriculum. 
\section[{VII.}]{VII.} 
\section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par
It goes without saying that the internet and computer explosion have transformed the environment in which language is used and learning takes place. In this vein, the present paper addressed the growing faculty concern that software could replace classroom teaching with a particular focus on the role of the teacher. Among the conclusions drawn from this research is that in this digital era and within the English language classroom boundaries, to apply technology or not seems to be an irrelevant question. The real issue is which technology to introduce and how and in what ways the uses of this technology are effective in improving language learning. Given that they positively perceive technology integration, teachers should foster their technology competencies in order to successfully integrate it in their classrooms. Therefore, more skills are needed from the part of the teachers. Indeed, modern developments of innovative technologies cannot replace the teacher; by contrast, they have provided new possibilities to teaching professions.\par
Ideally speaking, the purpose of both traditional and computer-mediated software language learning processes is to provide a space in which the facilitation of language learning itself can take place and thus better language learning outcomes may be achieved. A partnership of such processes and more would make language learning a better journey. Further researches to deeply investigate the relationship between teachers' pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education, which becomes essential, are still needed to enrich the educational landscape.\par
Instructions: Please read each statement and then tick the number which best shows how you feel.\par
1= strongly disagree 2= disagree 3= neutral 4= agree 5= strongly agree Questions 1 2 3 4 5 Your perception of technology 1-Nowadays technology introduction into the language classroom is a must. 2-Technology introduction into the classroom is effective in education.\par
3-The teacher's competency in technology helps to successfully integrate it into the curriculum. 4-The use of technology helps improve the English language learning. 5-The use of different kinds of technologies in the classroom is highly recommended. 6-Technology integration helps me to achieve my teaching objectives. 12-I know why Rosetta Stone is an integral part of the curriculum and the rationale behind its diffusion in it. 13-Rosetta Stone is a reliable software that encompasses all aspects of the language (grammar, vocabulary, listening, speaking?.etc.) 14-Rosetta Stone is a well-liked teaching mode. 15-Rosetta Stone is an effective application that results in higher learning achievements. 16-Rosetta Stone raises the students interest, engagement and motivation in learning the language as it offers visibility and liveliness where sounds and pictures are set together. 17-Using Rosetta stone would require more effort from the learners. Year 2018\par
Volume XVIII Issue XIII Version I ( G )\par
28-Rosetta Stone can provide that high quality language instruction as done by a qualified English teacher.\par
29-Even with the provision of such programs as Rosetta Stone, students still need input and guidance from a qualified teacher to learn the language effectively. 30-After the introduction of Rosetta Stone, teaching has become obsolete.     \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.6443548387096774\textwidth}P{0.04112903225806452\textwidth}P{0.04112903225806452\textwidth}P{0.04112903225806452\textwidth}P{0.04112903225806452\textwidth}P{0.04112903225806452\textwidth}}
Statement\tabcellsep 1 (\%)\tabcellsep 2 (\%)\tabcellsep 3 (\%)\tabcellsep 4 (\%)\tabcellsep 5 (\%)\\
11. I have a full understanding of what Rosetta Stone is, its vision and how it\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
works.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.24285714285714283\textwidth}P{0.12142857142857141\textwidth}P{0.12142857142857141\textwidth}P{0.12142857142857141\textwidth}P{0.12142857142857141\textwidth}P{0.12142857142857141\textwidth}}
Statement\tabcellsep 1 (\%)\tabcellsep 2 (\%)\tabcellsep 3 (\%)\tabcellsep 4 (\%)\tabcellsep 5 (\%)\\
21.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals Does Rosetta Stone Declare the Death of the Teacher?} 		 		\backmatter  			 
\subsection[{Appendix i}]{Appendix i}\par
A semi-structured interview 			 			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[ International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology}  		3  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Networks]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Securedge Networks 		.  		 \url{http://www.securedgenetworks.com/blog/10}  	 	 		-Reasons-Todays-Students-NEED-Technology-in-the-Classroom  		 	 
\bibitem[Almekhalfi and Almeqdadi ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{},  		 			A G Almekhalfi 		,  		 			F A Almeqdadi 		.  		2010.  	 
\bibitem[Wainwright ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		\textit{10 Reasons Today's Students Need Technology in the Classroom},  		 			A Wainwright 		.  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Cavas et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘A Study on Science Teachers' Attitudes toward Information and communication Technologies in Education’.  		 			B Cavas 		,  		 			P Cavas 		,  		 			B Karaoglan 		,  		 			T Kisla 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Turkish online Journal of Educational Technology}  		2009. 8  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Saqlain et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Are English language teachers in Saudi Arabia ready to integrate technology?’.  		 			N Saqlain 		,  		 			F Al-Qarni 		,  		 			N Ghadi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences},  				 (edia-Social and Behavioural Sciences)  		2013. 103 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wright ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		\textit{Can Technology Replace Teachers},  		 			L Wright 		.  		 \url{http://www.ipadin-schools.com/310/can-technology-replace-teachers/}  		2015.  	 
\bibitem[Asan ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Computer Technology Awareness by Elementary School Teachers: A Case Study from Turkey’.  		 			A Asan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Information Technology Education}  		2003. 2 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gilakjani ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘EFL Teachers' Beliefs toward Using Computer Technology in English Language Teaching’.  		 			A B Gilakjani 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Studies in Education}  		2012. 2  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chapelle ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{English language learning and technology},  		 			C Chapelle 		.  		2003. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.  	 
\bibitem[Wright ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		\textit{Glut Mastering information through the ages},  		 			A Wright 		.  		2008. Washington. D.C: Joseph Henry Press.  	 
\bibitem[Proctor ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		\textit{Handbook for Teachers. USA: Fairfield Language Technologies},  		 			B L Proctor 		.  		2002.  	 
\bibitem[Jung ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘ICT-Pedagogy Integration in Teacher Training: Application Cases Worldwide’.  		 			I Jung 		.  	 	 		\textit{Educational Technology \& Society}  		2005. 8  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Stanley (ed.) ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{Integrating Technology into Secondary English Language Teaching},  		 			G Stanley 		.  		G. Motteram (ed.)  		2013. London: British Council. p. .  	 	 (Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching.) 
\bibitem[Dunn ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Interviewing’.  		 			K Dunn 		.  	 	 		\textit{Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. 2 nd ed. ed. Iain Hay},  				 (Oxford)  		2005. Oxford University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Dewaard ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Is Rosetta Stone a Viable Option for L2 Learning?’.  		 			L Dewaard 		.  	 	 		\textit{ADFL Bulletin}  		2013. 42  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Williams ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		\textit{Is technology a silver bullet for language teaching and learning? The Guardian},  		 			M Williams 		.  		 \url{http://www.theguardian.com/tea-cher-network/teacherblog/2014/may/12/technology-language-teaching-learning-pedagogy}  		2014.  	 
\bibitem[Ghishan ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{Learning With Technology from a Constructivist Point of View},  		 			Amarin Ghishan 		.  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Mcghee and Khozma ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{New Teacher and Student Roles in the Technology-Supported language Classroom. The Friday Report},  		 			R Mcghee 		,  		 			R Khozma 		.  		 \url{http://christycain.typepad.com/fridayreport/200}  		2005.  	 
\bibitem[Saglam and Sert ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘Perceptions of In-Service Teachers Regarding Technology Integrated English Language Teaching’.  		 			A G Saglam 		,  		 			S Sert 		.  	 	 		\textit{Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry}  		2012. 3  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Perceptions of Technology Integration in the United Arab Emirates School Classrooms. Educational Technology and society]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Perceptions of Technology Integration in the United Arab Emirates School Classrooms. Educational Technology and society},  		13 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Forteza and Ortiz ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Quality standards for the self-learning of languages through the internet’.  		 			F R Forteza 		,  		 			R S Ortiz 		.  	 	 		\textit{Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences}  		2015. 187 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Zhao ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		\textit{Recent Development in Technology and Language Learning: A Literature Review and Meta-analysis. The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium},  		 			Y Zhao 		.  		2003. 21 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lord ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Rosetta Stone For Language Learning: An Exploratory Study’.  		 			G Lord 		.  	 	 		\textit{The IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies}  		2016. 46  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Nielson (2011)]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Self-Study with Language Learning Software in the Workplace: What Happens’.  		 			Katharine B Nielson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Language Learning and Technology}  		2011. July 2014. 15 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Shyamlee and Phil ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		 			D S Shyamlee 		,  		 			M Phil 		.  		\textit{Use of Technology in English Language Teaching and Learning": An Analysis. International Conference on Language, Media and Culture},  				2012. 33 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ismail et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Teachers' Perceptions of the Use of technology in Teaching Languages in United Arab Emirates Schools’.  		 			A S Ismail 		,  		 			A G Almekhalfi 		,  		 			M H Al-Mekhalfy 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal for research in Education}  		2010. 27 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Xioali ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘The Roles of Teachers in a Network-based Teaching Mode of Listening and Speaking in College English’.  		 			Z Xioali 		.  		 \url{http://www.seiofbluemountain.com/en/search/index}  	 	 		\textit{Science Innovation Academic Frontier}  		2009.  	 
\bibitem[Pelgrum and Plomp ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		\textit{The use of computers in education worldwide: Results from a comparative study in 18 countries},  		 			W Pelgrum 		,  		 			T Plomp 		.  		1991. Chicago, IL: American Educational Research Association.  	 
\bibitem[Mustafa et al. ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Using Internet for Learning Vocabulary among Second Language Learners in a Suburban School’.  		 			H R Mustafa 		,  		 			N Sain 		,  		 			N Z Razak 		.  	 	 		\textit{Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences}  		2012. 66 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Merc ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Using Technology in the Classroom: A Study with Turkish Pre-Service EFL Teachers’.  		 			A Merc 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Turkish online Journal of Educational Technology}  		2015. 14  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Volume XVIII Issue XIII Version I ( G )]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		\textit{Volume XVIII Issue XIII Version I ( G )},  		 	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
