O n f e r e n c e

Short Paper 
Introduction 
What do we mean by a productive research agenda for CALL? To arrive at an answer, we 
begin by examining current drivers governing technology use particularly the interplay 
between theory and practice. We argue that it is essential to understand the profound 
differences between face-to-face (FtF) learning and technology-mediated language 
learning. To flesh out these differences we look at the particularities of the mediated 
context and how these might be better understood through research. 
Researchers need to be alert to two contrasting forces currently operating in the CALL 
domain. The first force bearing down upon the goals and methods of CALL research 
designs is that of theory, particularly theories emanating from the field of second 
language acquisition (SLA), though CALL is subject to the impact and use of many other 
theories as well from areas such as education, psychology and linguistics, game-based 
learning and so on (e.g., see Cornillie et al. on the development of language learning 
games). The second force emanates from the choices languages learners are making 
independently using the powerful personal technologies they now have at their disposal. 
In a recent study by Steel and Levy (2013), the two most frequently used technologies 
were online dictionaries and web-based translators.
This result exposes the central division being explored here because the design of online 
dictionaries and the use of translation in language teaching are rarely the concern of 
theorists in areas such as SLA.
By way of example, it is instructive to digress for a moment to consider the role of 
translation in language learning. Recently, and mostly in Europe, the status of translation 
in language learning has been undergoing a reappraisal, notably through the work of 
Cook (2010) and Pym, Malmkjaer and Plana (2013). Cook provides an insightful 
commentary, expressing a dilemma felt by many who have the necessary languages, 
that tr
anslation has unreasonably been “outlawed”. It is helpful to quote from Cook’s 
conclusion at some length as to possible reasons why: 
There has been a dislocation between theory and practice, or (to put it in more human 
terms) between theorists and practitioners. Some teachers and learners have been 
seriously disturbed and disoriented by the theorists’ diktat never to translate. For others 
there's been a kind of schizophrenic accommodation between the party line and reality. 
They have continued to translate while simultaneously denying that they do, and arguing 
that it is wrong. Some teachers have talked of any use of the students’ own language as 
a kind of professional misconduct. Yet as the weaknesses of monolingualism and the 
absence of any convincing rea
son not to use translation become apparent, teachers’ 
allegiance to monolingualism often evaporates too. (Cook 2010, 155-156) 
Actual evidence from research on the value or otherwise of translation in language 
teaching/learning is almost non-existent (Cook, 2010).

---

-230- 
2014 CALL Conference 
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be 
Mainstream SLA theorists in the west tend to be strongly against its use so much so that 
it is hardly ever mentioned, and it is almost axiomatic that translation is bad. And yet 
from studies such as Steel and Levy (2013) there is strong evidence to support the view 
that students find translation tools very useful. The sheer volume of use by students 
indicates its importance and value. 
The example of translation is useful because it strikingly highlights this ‘dislocation 
between theory and practi
ce’, and the distance between what mainstream SLA theory 
mandates and what language students come to do naturally with the powerful personal 
technologies they have available. Steel and Levy drew similar conclusions for CALL: 
“[T]here appears to be a gap or
disconnect between what students are actually doing and 
where research directions in CALL are taking us.” (p. 319). The two forces described here 
also directly relate to two alternate design philosophies, rationalism and pragmatism (see 
Coyne, 1997; Levy & Stockwell, 2006). These underlying perspectives will be considered 
also. 
In summarising the benefits and limitations of the most penetrating SLA theories applied 
to CALL, interactionist theory, Chapelle, (2005): p.61) notes two negatives: 

Has tradition based on face-to-face interaction (limitation for CALL) 

Doesn’t provide constructs for looking at the complete context of CALL use
We believe that it is in this grey area of the “context” of CALL that the real complications 
for research and productive agendas lie. The idea of context needs to be carefully 
unpacked. For example, Hubbard (2012) mentions a number of studies where results do 
not quite fit the predicted pattern of SLA face-to-face theories and models.