LACK OF A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

4 Introduction

Although many of these criticisms may well be justified, a lack of

guidelines or standards for the current generation of CALL materials has
meant that CALL authors, be they language teachers or otherwise, have
no reliable conceptual framework, or yardstick by which to measure
their work (Smith 1988: 5; Last 1989: 35). Emerging most strongly in a
review of the literature on CALL materials is the lack of a generally
accepted theoretical framework that authors can use to guide their work.
The absence of ‘a standard for the industry’, a ‘generally agreed set of
criteria for the present generation of CALL’, or ‘guiding principles’ is
noted by Smith (1988: 3), Last (1989: 35), and Ng and Olivier (1987: 1).
It appears that a clear, general theoretical framework has not emerged
for a number of reasons. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that
materials developers fall into two broad bands in their approach to their
work. As early as 1977, for example, in computer-assisted learning
Kemmis et al. (1977: 391) observed that many developers rely on their
intuition as teachers rather than on research on learning. He referred to
development being practitioner-led, not research-based. A similar
division is noticeable in the field of artificial intelligence, where
Ginsberg (1988) maintains that the field is divided between those who
are primarily interested in solving problems by formulating theory
(formalists), and those who prefer to solve problems by writing programs
(proceduralists). A perception of this division has remained and more
recently in 1995 it was reiterated in slightly different terms at two CALL
Conferences. First, in a keynote address at the EURO CALL Conference
in Valencia, McCarty spoke of the path of engineering versus the path of
science in CALL (McCarty 1993, 1995), and secondly, at the CALL
Conference in Exeter, Sussex, quite independently, contrasted
Engineering CALL with Empirical CALL (Sussex 1995). Such divisions
are worthy of further investigation and reflection.
Where theory has been used as a point of departure, theoretical sources
that have been proposed and used have been diverse, not surprisingly
perhaps given the range of CALL activities and the evolving nature of the
field. Theories emanating from psychology, especially cognitive
psychology and Second Language Acquisition (SLA), are a frequent
point of departure (Schneider and Bennion 1984; Doughty. 1991; Liou
1994). The theories utilized from psychology are usually drawn from a
restricted set thought to be amenable to the CALL context generally. For
instance, Doughty (1991) limits her focus to comprehension-based
models of SLA because of their suitability for the CALL environment.
Other theoretical bases include theories of language (e.g. Demaiziere
1991; Catt 1991) and theories of instruction (England 1989; Lawrason
1988/9). In addition, integrated frameworks have been proposed, such as
Hubbard (1992, 1996), or Mitterer et al. (1990: 136) who suggest an
integrated framework using theories from instructional design, language
teaching, language learning, and knowledge of the applicability of the
technology. Integrated frameworks recognize the multifaceted nature of
CALL materials development.
There is also some evidence to suggest that a number of CALL
projects have not been driven directly by theory as such. Although some
projects clearly begin with a theoretical orientation, others begin at a
lower level of abstraction more immediately determined by conditions
governing actual practice and problems arising directly from it. CALL
projects of this type as they are described by their authors in the literature
include vocational language programs which begin with addressing
student needs (Keith and Lafford 1989), KanjiCard which uses a specific
language problem as a point of departure (Nakajima 1988, 1990) and
CLEF, where developing grammar skills is the goal (Paramskas 1989,
1995).
In all, it is clear there are a number of possible theoretical points of
departure in CALL, either utilizing a single theory or a mix of theoretical
perspectives. It also seems apparent that some CALL projects do not
begin with a theory at all, reflecting the comment by Kemmis and his
colleagues about work that is practitioner-led as opposed to research-
based (Kemmis et al. 1977). To help resolve this issue further, we need to
have a clearer idea of what CALL authors actually do when they go
about designing CALL materials.
Little is known about the conceptual frameworks and working
methods of CALL authors at present. Sussex (1991: 26) stresses the
importance of investigating the processes of CALL materials production
and says:
At the present time rather little work has been done on the question of how
teachers become CAL authors: how they objectify their knowledge do-
mains, learning, and teaching; how they conceptualize learning materials
and learning modes for transfer to the CAL medium; how they achieve this
transfer; how the existence and use of CAL media influence theories of
CAL, and vice versa.
By carefully" reviewing what has already been done, and by exploring
the ways in which CALL is conceptualized, a clearer understanding of
theory and practice will emerge. This book attempts to address these
areas of concern, not by providing definitive answers, but by shedding
light on the nature of the problems. Such a description has the potential
to improve our understanding of:
• the scope of CALL and prominent areas of focus within it;
• the theoretical sources and conceptual frameworks of CALL
authors;
• the possible weaknesses or gaps between theory and practice.