Theoretical Framework

  • Regine HampelEmail author


This chapter argues that many of the theoretical approaches currently used to explore computer-assisted language learning originate in face-to-face pedagogy and do not provide explanatory power to account for change in learning contexts where digital tools are being used for communication and interaction. It proposes an alternative approach where complex systems theory is used as a metatheory, offering an overall framework for examining processes of change. In addition, sociocultural theory reflects the belief that learning is a social process, and the multimodal theory of communication allows for a focus on how language learners make meaning today using the various resources that different technologies provide.


CALL research tradition Complex systems theory Sociocultural theory Theory of multimodality 


  1. Antoniou, I. (2003). Epilogue. In I. Prigogine (Ed.), Is future given? (pp. 77–83). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Available at
  2. Bar-Yam, Y. (2009). General features of complex systems. In L. D. Kiel (Ed.), Knowledge Management, Organizational Intelligence and Learning, and Complexity, 1, 43–95.Google Scholar
  3. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bebee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., et al. (Eds). (2009). Language is as a complex adaptive system: Position paper (Special issue). Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 1–26.
  4. Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breen, M. P. (1999). Teaching language in the postmodern classroom. In R. Ribé (Ed.), Developing learner autonomy in foreign language learning (pp. 47–64). Barcelona: University of Barcelona Press.Google Scholar
  6. Burns, A., & Knox, J. (2011). Classrooms as complex adaptive systems: A relational model. TESL-EJ, 15(1), 1–25. Available at
  7. Cameron, L., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Complex systems and applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 226–239. Scholar
  8. Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–753. Available at Scholar
  9. Cook, G., & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.). (1995). Principles and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Daniels, H. (2007). Pedagogy. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 307–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 166–178. Scholar
  12. de Bot, K. (2011). Epilogue. In M. Verspoor, K. De Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 123–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S., & Verspoor, M. (2013). Dynamic systems theory as a comprehensive theory of second language development. In M. del Pilar García Mayo, M. Junkal Gutiérrez Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam and Philadelphia. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  14. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005a). Dynamic systems theory and applied linguistics: The ultimate “so what”? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 116–118. Scholar
  15. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005b). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007a). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. Scholar
  17. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007b). A dynamic view as a complementary perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 51–55. Scholar
  18. Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48(4), 631–664. Scholar
  19. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics—Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589. Scholar
  21. Finch, A. E. (2001). Complexity in the language classroom. Secondary Education Research, 47, 105–140. Available at
  22. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  23. Heisenberg, W. (1969). Der Teil und das Ganze. München: Piper.Google Scholar
  24. Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2016). Theory in computer-assisted language learning research and practice. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 24–38). London and New York: Routledge. Available at
  25. Jewitt, C. (2005a). Multimodality, “reading”, and “writing” for the 21st century. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 315–331. Scholar
  26. Jewitt, C. (2014). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3–4), 191–206. Scholar
  28. Jörg, T. (2009). Thinking in complexity about learning and education: A programmatic view. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 6(1), 1–22.
  29. Kirshner. D., & Kellogg, D. (2009). Lev Vygotsky as muse to complex learning/teaching: A response to Ton Jörg’s programmatic view. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 6(1), 45–55.
  30. Kress, G. (2000a). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 153–161). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Kress, G. (2000b). Multimodality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 182–202). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  33. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  34. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79–96. Scholar
  35. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  36. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. Scholar
  38. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45(2), 202–214. Scholar
  39. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013, May). A promising combination: Complexity theory, design-based research, and CALL (Vol. 11). CALICO Book Series.
  40. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Toward an integrative framework for SLA. In AAAL Conference 2015. Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  41. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & H. ZhaoHong (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Scholar
  42. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (2011). Introduction: Learning across sites; new tools, infrastructures and practices. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 1–13). Abigndon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Marek, M. W., & Wu, W.-C. V. (2014). Environmental factors affecting computer assisted language learning success: A complex dynamic systems conceptual model. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(6), 560–578. Scholar
  45. McNamara, T. (2015). Applied linguistics: The challenge of theory. Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 466–477. Scholar
  46. Mercer, S. (2011a). Language learner self-concept: Complexity, continuity and change. System, 39(3): 335–346. Scholar
  47. Mercer, S. (2011b). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39(4), 427–436. Scholar
  48. Mercer, S. (2014). A complexity perspective on the self. In S. Mercer & M. Williams (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on the self (pp. 160–176). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429. Scholar
  50. Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227–241. Scholar
  51. Prigogine, I. (1996). The end of certainty: Time, chaos and the new laws of nature. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1–20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  53. Schrödinger, E. (1926). Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem. Annalen der Physik, 80(13), 437–490. Scholar
  54. Schulze, M., & Scholz, K. (2016). Complex adaptive systems. In C. Caws & M.-J. Hamel (Eds.), Language-learner computer interactions (pp. 65–87). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  55. Schulze, M., & Smith, B. (2015). In theory: We could be better. CALICO, 32(1), i–vi. Scholar
  56. Thorne, S. L. (2000). Second language acquisition theory and the truth(s) about relativity. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 219–243). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Available at
  58. van Lier, L. (2004a). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A Sociocultural perspective. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, and Moscow: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  59. van Lier, L. (2004b). The semiotics and ecology of language learning: Perception, voice, identity and democracy. Utbildning & Demokrati, 13(3), 79–103.Google Scholar
  60. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. Scholar
  61. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language StudiesThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations