Bax's criticism to Warschauer's analysis of the development of CALL (p. 20, 2003)

... However, as we have seen earlier, the formulation which he has proposed needs clarification and amendment in a number of areas:

  1. it is not clear whether the phases represent clearly defined historical periods or even whether they are supposed to;

  2. the validity of the characterization of the 1980s as part of "Communicative CALL" requires more support and tighter reference to mainstream CLT methodology if the term is to be acceptable, as well as clarification of whether we are evaluating aims or use of software or software itself, or some combination. It seems more satisfactory to rename the phase as it relates to that historical period;

  3. the rationale for identifying a third phase, and then calling it "integrative" calls for more support- in terms of attitude to language and language teaching it has not been clearly enough distinguished from communicative approaches, while the implied claims for actual integration of CALL into the syllabus and classroom practice require more support and, as I shall argue below, are doubtful.

It would seem necessary, as a consequence, to formulate an alternative vision of the history of CALL, one whose terminology is less confusing, and whose categories seem to fit better with the historical progression of CALL software, approach and practice.