Review on Theory-driven CALL and the Development Process by Mike Levy

The purpose of Mike’s paper is to examine the implications of theory-driven CALL, particularly in relation to the materials development process.

According to the author, there are three major instructional designs in the development process of CALL. First and foremost, a design suggested by Andrews & Goodson comprises with three key stages: the analysis phase, the development phase and the evaluation phase. There are a number of tasks associated with these three stages, ranging from ‘needs assessment’, ‘measurement’, ‘types of skill/ learning’ to ‘learner characteristics’, etc. Andrews and Goodson’s design is broken down into a number of steps in which the sequence can be varied. Another instructional approach is the one suggested by Meskill. In his suggestions, eight elements in the design process are identified including ‘modifying, rethinking, redefining, rewriting until all these highly interdependent considerations fit together and satisfy one another’s definitions and requirements.’ One special feature about his ideas is that ‘the elements are not hierarchical but circular.’ On the contrary, the approach suggested by Hubbard is hierarchical and ‘it is composed of three levels called Approach, Design and Procedure.’

As summarized by the author of this paper, ‘the development approaches are, by and large, systematic and that discrete elements can be identified and distinguished’ although ‘the method of handling these elements varies from the hierarchical and linear to the non-hierarchical and circular.’ In addition, the media used is taken into account at different points of development process depending on the approach adopted.

In order to examine the points of departure in the development of CALL materials, a survey was done by the author. It was found that 18.6% of the respondents said that they started to develop CALL materials when they came across practical problems in language teaching and learning while 17.6% responded that they started with a higher level theoretical framework such as a review on an educational theory. Syllabus specifications and matching activity to authoring tool as points of departure were less common with an equally weighting of 4.4% respondents saying that they developed their CALL materials based on these.

Apart from the findings regarding the points of departure, the author found that the development process can be fallen into two categories: more structures, discrete element processes and less structures, more iterative processes.

To conclude, the author stated three major issues regarding the development process of CALL materials. First, ‘the initial theoretical orientation has to be reconciled with the technological environment in which it is realized.’ Second, many CALL practitioners were procedualists as they believed that CALL could be advanced and improved through working continuously on ‘writing programs’ and ‘testing them with language learners’ while some of them were formalists as they were theory-driven. Both types of practices have their own advantages and disadvantages. The author advised CALL developers to be more aware of the approach they adopt and handle the shortcomings of their approach with greater care.