Which of the approaches identified by Bax would you say most closely approximates your own CALL practice?

I work at a English language training centre, and the adoption of CALL is fairly new, literally coming in during the 4 years I have been working there. We started by adding single computers in classrooms, using textbooks with accompanying CD-ROMs, and now we have IWB’s. In terms of usage, I use the internet to access up-to-date, authentic content, and supplementary CD-ROMs for their interactive, visually-rich quizzes. Comparing this context with Neil’s experience in HE, where ‘discussion forms and chat used outside of the classroom are the norm’, then I would say we have not reached the exact same ‘higher’ stage of normalisation. At the same time, I think we have moved on somewhat from Fear/Awe (p25), but are still lacking in guidance. I think, then, the next step for me is to take up Bax’s suggestion of action research, perhaps using project/inquiry-based learning as a starting point, and/or suggest a larger ethnographic study to be carried out by my school (p26-27).

 Would it be too simplistic, then, to propose that pre and post normalisation will be characterised, in part, by the same features? Where there is an ongoing review and analysis of CALL in order to re-validate its proper place in the classroom?

References

Bax S. (2003) “CALL—past, present and future”. System 31, 1, 13-28