Theory-driven CALL and the development process by Levy (1997) - a reflective summary

In his article, Levy (1997) draws from a number of theoretical frameworks underlying CALL projects as well as the findings of an international CALL survey to explore the nature of theory-driven CALL.

According to the writer, there are two main and distinct groups of CALL practitioners. Those who believe that completed research is necessary for successful CALL development belong to the group known as formalists and they tend to make theory the starting point of any project. Those who believe that research need not be completed right before the start of the development process but can be integrated into that process belong to the group known as proceduralists and they tend to make discoveries as they go along.

One problem with the formalist view is that, since there exists a plethora of CALL theories influenced by a diverse range of disciplines, seldom do we find that research based on a particular theory is complete. In fact, theories can and do undergo constant revision during the course of CALL development, often because they haven't yet fully encompassed the CALL context at hand. Thus, one has to question the need for any CALL development project to be driven by theory.

On the other hand, proceduralists, whose CALL development projects are mainly technology-driven, need to be careful not to become totally fixated on the capabilities of a particular technology and neglect research altogether, because the latter can play a vital role in their projects by providing new theoretical insights into their own work.

In a nutshell, the best CALL development approach for CALL practitioners to adopt is one that proceeds in a circular, rather than linear fashion but places equal significance on theory (of instructional design, teaching or learning) and application (of a particular technology). CALL practitioners should strive towards the desirable goal of establishing a successful fit between the two.

Despite the fact that both the current capabilities of technology and language pedagogy have evolved considerably since the publication of Levy's article thirteen years ago, I believe his notion of 'fit' is relevant more so now than ever. Although I am not an avid CALL practitioner by any means, judging from my previous experiences of using IT in language teaching (e.g. creating word puzzles from online puzzle generators) I would consider myself to be a proceduralist with very little consideration for theories of language pedagogy. The essay written by Levy (1997) serves as a timely wake-up CALL (excuse the pun), because it has already increased my awareness of the need to consider both theory and application in equal measures when I am developing CALL materials for my students.

I end this post by posing a question for the writer. If the international CALL survey were to be conducted again today (almost two decades after it was conducted the first time) how do you think the results would turn out? I just thought this might be interesting.