SLA, New Technologies and EAP (3)

CALL and SLA: Language learning potential should be the central criterion in evaluation of CALL.

If this premise is correct, then it is essential to, firstly, look to SLA theories to frame technological choices. This means that, when investigating technologies, the potential of these technologies has to be seen in the light of these technologies to enhance second language acquisition.

The first question that needs to be answered is: What is the relationship between SLA and language teaching?

Pica (1997) claims that the interface between SLA and language teaching can take one of 3 forms:

• coexistence
• collaboration
• complementary

On Pica’s categorisation Chapelle states:

Historically, many applied linguists and teachers have been reluctant to make any application of research to second language teaching, but more recently Pica (1997) has shed light on the complex issue of relationships between research and practice. She categorizes approaches to SLA research on the basis of their interface with teaching: Some SLA research coexists with L2 teaching while having little if any intellectual interface. Other SLA research collaborates with L2 teaching when teachers and researchers work together toward similar goals within the classroom and the sociopolitical environment of education. A third type of SLA research, which is most significant for CALL design, complements L2 instruction.
Chapelle (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 22-34.

Pica (1997) claims that the third type:

In classroom experiments that illustrate. . .complementarity, theoretically grounded learning materials and strategies to facilitate L2 learning are selected or developed by researchers. The researchers then work with participating teachers toward classroom use of these materials and strategies, followed by classroom research on their impact on students' learning.
Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American view. Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 48-72

Very importantly, the impact on students is central to this approach. This approach is key when assessing the impact/use of new technologies in language teaching.

So, which SLA Theory?

Pica claims that:

Since its inception, the field of second-language acquisition (SLA) has been both theory-less and theory-laden. It has been theory-less in that, as most major text-books remind us, there has yet to emerge a single, coherent theory that can describe, explain and predict second-language learning. Yet it is theory-laden in that there are at least forty claims, arguments, theories and perspectives that attempt to describe and explain the learning process and predict its outcomes.
Pica (1997:9)

This presents our first problem. As Pica demonstrates, there is no coherent theory of SLA and there are forty theories of SLA to choose from. In trying to demonstrate that technologies have the potential to enhance second language acquisition we are faced with competing theories of SLA and, having settled on one theory, we should be aware that this theory will be incomplete.

Pica’s comments should provide warning on over-relying on SLA to provide a comprehensive framework to settle issues relating to the efficacy of new technologies. One might argue, if nihilistic, that SLA research is so inconclusive that it would be better to abandon SLA as a means to evaluate technologies. This can be counter-argued on the basis that, even if there is no universal (and universally accepted) theory of SLA which can fulfil scientific criteria of description, explanation and prediction, that does not mean that there has been little or no progress in SLA research in the past forty years. Put simply, we know much more about SLA now than we did even ten years ago.