{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025716385011021307, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011756061719324026, 'mean_word_length': 5.247706422018348, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
MALL—SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE TOWER, THE FIELD, THE CLASSROOM AND THE MARKET: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR STOCKWELL'S RESPONSE

In the previous issue of LLT, I commented upon Stockwell (2010), suggesting that the learning activities investigated limited the scope of his research on the effects of the MALL platform. Professor Stockwell responded in the same issue with a spirited riposte. However, it became clear that much of the disagreement lay in a matter of definition. The reply I present here provides a definition of learning activity, intended to clarify any misunderstanding. I then proceed to outline a design for learning activities that would be highly relevant to MALL platforms: I attempt to address the learning activity not only in terms of the constraints imposed on MALL by technological limitations, but also in terms of the psychological and environmental contexts MALL is likely to be used in. My original commentary suggested “that more care needs to be taken to develop a research framework within which the platform is not artificially separated from the learning activity” (Ballance, 2012, p.21); the reply presented here concludes with reflections on the limitations of the design presented herein and implications for future MALL research, with particular reference to “working within constraints in mobile learning” (Stockwell, 2012a, p.24).