Deep, very deep!

Man, talk about serious stuff! Just when I thought I had all these new technological tools down pat, in comes this article on the theoretical side and development process of CALL. While there is nothing quite as practical as a good theory, it does turn people off. People just want to get into the meat and potatoes of things. Don't believe me? Check this out as theory/practice (which, in essence, is more talk than action) can turn the most interested and talented parties off. I remember myself dropping piano once theory came into play. That being said, what we have in the field of education today, from curricula to syllabuses to extra-curricular programs, are all products of sound theoretical framework.

Levy's (1997) article is a bit dated, to be honest, as we have way more advanced technological tools nowadays. Hence, program developers, or proceduralists, as Levy calls them, are now front and center with theory advocates, or formalists, taking a back seat. Indeed, when we teachers decide to adopt an IT-teaching tool, the first thing that we look for is its user-friendliness and how exciting or stimulating it is. Little do we examine the cognitive psychology and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories mentioned by Levy that underlie language learning. Truth be told, who's got time to analyze complicated theories when you're already going into overdrive. Eventhough scholars like Jonassen warns against the field of CALL being technology-led and that the medium used should not be the primary focus, I tend to go with Meskill's (1991) postulation that media selection should come first because too much discussion on theory would eventually result in a serious case of lost in translation. I remember that one time, I had to come up with an oral project involving technology and immediately I thought of making movie trailers. My team and I then formulated a plan around the chosen medium and had no trouble implementing the project. So yeah, it is important to consider the technology early rather than late because with technology, you never know how it might surprise you at the very last minute.

But then again, Hubbard's (1992, 1996) also right in saying that CALL isn't so much a process but "a network of interdependent relationships between elements that need to be taken into account". So I guess it's all about balance, as indicated by Levy in his conclusion. Proceduralists should beware of being so obsessed with technology "to the point where they have no coherent theoretical basis to support their work". On the other hand, formalists must be careful that their theories actually encompass the CALL context in question. Bear in mind that the development process of CALL is dynamic and that there's no one single approach.

As for myself, I would definitely cut all the mumble jumble and just do it. Feedback from students and teachers is infinitely more important. Do a trial run, evaluate and adjust.