Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-l9twb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:55:27.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TO THINK ALOUD OR NOT TO THINK ALOUD: The Issue of Reactivity in SLA Research Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2004

Ronald P. Leow  and
Kara Morgan-Short
Ronald P. Leow
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Kara Morgan-Short
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, several studies in SLA (e.g., for discourse, Alanen, 1995; Leow, 2001b; Rott, 1999; for problem-solving tasks, Leow, 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2001a; Rosa & Leow, in press a, in press b; Rosa & O'Neill, 1999) have addressed the operationalization and measurement of attention (and awareness) in their research methodology. Studies have employed think-aloud protocols to gather concurrent, on-line data on learners' cognitive processes while they interacted with L2 data. However, the issue of reactivity—the act of thinking aloud potentially triggering changes in learners' cognitive processes while performing the task—has not been empirically addressed in the SLA field. The present study empirically addresses the effects of thinking aloud during the reading process on learners' comprehension, intake, and controlled written production. Participants were first-year college-level students of Spanish exposed to the same passage, pretest, and posttest assessment tasks but differed on type of condition (±think aloud). Results indicate that reactivity does not play a significant role in learners' subsequent performances.We would like to especially thank the SSLA statistician and our own statistician Dr. Rusan Chen for improving the statistical section of our study.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 35 - 57
Copyright
2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Biggs, S. F., Rosman, A. J., & Serfenian, G. K. (1993) Methodological issues in judgment and decision-making research: Concurrent verbal protocol validity and simultaneous traces of process data. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 234–248.Google Scholar
Brinkman, J. A. (1993) Verbal protocol accuracy in fault diagnosis. Ergonomics, 36, 1381–1397.Google Scholar
Carrell, P. L. (1989) Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121–134.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. (1986) Mentalistic measures in reading strategy research: Some recent findings. English for Specific Purposes, 5, 131–145.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. (2000). Exploring strategies in test taking: Fine-tuning verbal reports from respondents. In G. Ekbatani & H. Pierson (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL (pp. 127–150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, J., & Bistodeau, L. (1993) How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think aloud protocols. Modern Language Journal, 77, 459–472.Google Scholar
Deffner, G. (1984). Think aloud: An investigation of the validity of a data-collection procedure. Bern: Peter Lang.
Deffner, G. (1989) Interaction of thinking aloud, solution strategies, and task characteristics? An experimental test of the Ericsson and Simon model. Sprache und Kognition, 9, 98–111.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001) Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1987). From product to process: Introspective methods in second language research. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 5–23). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jourdenais, R. (1998). The effects of textual enhancement on the acquisition of the Spanish preterit and imperfect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Jourdenais, R. (2001). Protocol analysis and SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 354–375). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leow, R. P. (1993) To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 333–355.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1997a) Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467–506.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1997b) The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers' comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8, 151–182.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1998a) The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners' L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 82, 49–68.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1998b) Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa's (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133–159.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1999). The role of attention in second/foreign language classroom research: Methodological issues. In F. Martínez-Gil & J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Eds.), Advances in Hispanic linguistics: Papers from the 2nd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 60–71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Leow, R. P. (2000) A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2001a) Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113–155.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2001b) Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496–509.Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2002) Models, attention, and awareness in SLA: A response to Simard and Wong's (2001) “Alertness, orientation, and detection: The conceptualization of attentional functions.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 113–119.Google Scholar
Lyons, W. (1986). The disappearance of introspection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mackey, A. (1999) Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.Google Scholar
Nevo, N. (1989) Test-taking strategies on a multiple-choice test of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 6, 199–215.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.Google Scholar
Norris, S. (1992) A demonstration of the use of verbal reports of thinking in multiple-choice critical thinking test design. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38, 155–176.Google Scholar
Olson, G., Duffy, S. A., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Thinking-out-loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension processes. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 253–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pritchard, R. (1990) The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 273–295.Google Scholar
Rhenius, D., & Heydemann, M. (1984) Think aloud during the administration of Raven's matrices. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psycholgie, 31, 308–327.Google Scholar
Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (in press a). Awareness, different learning conditions, and L2 development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25.
Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (in press b). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, and type of feedback on Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88.
Rosa, E. M., & O'Neill, M. (1999) Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.Google Scholar
Rott, S. (1999). Relationships between the process of reading, word inferencing, and incidental vocabulary acquisition. In J. F. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (pp. 255–282). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Russo, L. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. (1989) The validity of verbal protocols. Memory and Cognition, 17, 759–769.Google Scholar
Seliger, H. W. (1983) The language learner as linguist: Of metaphors and realities. Applied Linguistics, 4, 179–191.Google Scholar
Stratman, J. F., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 89–112). London: Sage.
Wade, S. E. (1990) Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 43, 442–451.Google Scholar
Williams, A. M., & Davids, K. (1997) Assessing cue usage in performance contexts: A comparison between eye-movement and concurrent verbal report methods. Behavior Research Method, Instruments, and Computers, 29, 364–375.Google Scholar