Actively managed products: Think-aloud data and methods in applied linguistics research
-
Ryan Deschambault
Abstract
Verbal reports, specifically in the form of concurrent verbalizations (i.e., think-alouds [TAs]), have played a foundational role in the production of knowledge in applied linguistics. Most often drawn upon because the talk they generate is deemed to accurately reflect individual learners’ thought or cognitive processes as they complete an L2 task, concurrent verbalization methods have been central to investigations of and claims about the learning, use, and assessment of L2 vocabulary, listening, speaking, reading, and writing (among others). And although critical discussion concerning the quality of spoken data obtained through concurrent verbalization methods continues among L2 researchers (e.g., Cohen, Andrew D. 1987. Using verbal reports in research on language learning. In Claus Færch & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Introspection in second language research, 82–95. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters; Cohen, Andrew D. 1996. Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning 7(1–2). 5–24; Cohen, Andrew D. 2013. Verbal report. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), the majority of this discussion has focused primarily on how best to generate talk which “more accurately reflect[s] the actual thought processes” of L2 users (Cohen, Andrew D. 2013. Verbal report. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1). The result has been to further naturalize approaches to concurrent verbalizations which treat language as a neutral means for accessing cognition, and similarly, which treat the verbalizations themselves as individually accomplished events. In this article, my aim is to diversify the critical discussion by describing how discursive psychology (e.g., Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter. 1992. Discursive psychology. New York: Sage; Potter, Jonathan. 2006. Cognition and conversation. Discourse Studies 8(1). 131–140) and a conversation analytic perspective (e.g., Kasper, Gabriele. 2009. Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics 47. 11–36; Markee, Numa & Mi-Suk Seo. 2009. Learning talk analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 47. 37–63) can be combined to present an alternative to both ‘naturalized’, as well as sociocultural, understandings of concurrent verbalization data and methods. To this end, after establishing some of the key differences between information processing, sociocultural, and discursive approaches, I draw on data from two recently published TA-based studies in an attempt to accomplish two goals: the first is to shift critical discussion towards issues of epistemology, methodology, and research representation, and the second is to identify methodological issues about which researchers working from different conceptual orientations might engage in cross-paradigmatic dialogue.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Steven Talmy, an anonymous reviewer, and the Editors of this Special Issue for helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this article.
References
Antaki, Charles. 2011. Six kinds of applied conversation analysis. In Charles Antaki (ed.), Applied conversation analysis, 1‒14. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230316874Search in Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (eds.). Vern W. McGee (trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.10.7560/720466Search in Google Scholar
Bengeleil, Nazmia F. & T. Sima Paribakht. 2004. L2 reading proficiency and lexical inferencing by university EFL learners. Canadian Modern Language Journal 61. 225–249.10.3138/cmlr.61.2.225Search in Google Scholar
Bowles, Melissa A. 2010. The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203856338Search in Google Scholar
Chun, Christian & Eunice Jang. 2012. Dialogic encounters with early readers through mediated think-alouds: Constructing the transactional zone. Language and Literacy 14(3). 61–82.10.20360/G2D01KSearch in Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew D. 1987. Using verbal reports in research on language learning. In Claus Færch & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Introspection in second language research, 82–95. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew D. 1996. Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning 7(1–2). 5–24.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew D. 2013. Verbal report. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Deschambault, Ryan. 2012. Thinking-aloud as talking-in-interaction: Reinterpreting how L2 lexical inferencing gets done. Language Learning 62. 266–301.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00653.xSearch in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1997. Open-class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28. 69–101.10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7Search in Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 1991. Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory and Psychology 1. 515–542.10.1177/0959354391014007Search in Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 1997. Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446221785Search in Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 2006. Discourse, cognition, and social practices: The rich surface of language and social interaction. Discourse Studies 8(1). 41–49.10.1177/1461445606059551Search in Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter. 1992. Discursive psychology. New York: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter. 2005. Discursive psychology, mental states, and description. In Hedwig Te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 241–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press10.1017/CBO9780511489990.012Search in Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders & Herbert A. Simon. 1980. Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 87(3). 215–251.10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215Search in Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders & Herbert A. Simon. 1987. Verbal reports on thinking. In Claus Færch & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Introspection in second language research, 25–53. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders & Herbert A. Simon. 1993. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, Rev. edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders & Herbert A. Simon 1998. How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture and Activity 5. 178–186.10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3Search in Google Scholar
Færch, Claus & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 1987. Introspection in second language research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Gass, Susan M. & Alison Mackey. 2000. Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Gu, Yong-qi. 2014. To code or not to code: Dilemmas in analysing think-aloud protocols in learning strategies research. System 43. 73–81.10.1016/j.system.2013.12.011Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2013. Turn-initial position and some of its occupants. Journal of Pragmatics 57. 331–337.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025Search in Google Scholar
Hu, Hsueh-Chao Marcella & Hossein Nassaji. 2014. Lexical inferencing strategies: The case of successful versus less successful inferencers. System 45. 37–38.10.1016/j.system.2014.04.004Search in Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 1998. Analysing verbal protocols. TESOL Quarterly 32. 358–362.10.2307/3587591Search in Google Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele. 2009. Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics 47. 11–36.10.1515/iral.2009.002Search in Google Scholar
Low, Graham. 1996. Intensifiers and hedges in questionnaire items and the Lexical Invisibility hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 17(1). 1–37.10.1093/applin/17.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Markee, Numa & Mi-Suk Seo. 2009. Learning talk analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 47. 37–63.10.1515/iral.2009.003Search in Google Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie. 2006. Conversation analysis. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, 2nd edn., 153–163. Oxford & Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00314-XSearch in Google Scholar
Nassaji, Hossein. 2003. L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly 37(4). 645– 670.10.2307/3588216Search in Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan. 2003. Discursive psychology: Between method and paradigm. Discourse & Society 14. 783–794.10.1177/09579265030146005Search in Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan. 2006. Cognition and conversation. Discourse Studies 8(1). 131–140.10.1177/1461445606059562Search in Google Scholar
Rapley, Tim J. 2001. The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research 1. 303–323.10.1177/146879410100100303Search in Google Scholar
Sasaki, Tomomi. 2003. Recipient orientation in verbal report protocols: Methodological issues in concurrent think-aloud. Second Language Studies 22(1). 1–54.Search in Google Scholar
Sasaki, Tomomi. 2008. Concurrent think-aloud protocol as a socially situated construct. International Review of Applied Linguistics 46. 349–374.10.1515/IRAL.2008.015Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction (Vol. 1): A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel. A. 1991. Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 150–171. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.10.1037/10096-007Search in Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, Peter. 1998. Thinking and speech and protocol analysis. Mind, Culture and Activity 5(3). 157–177.10.1207/s15327884mca0503_2Search in Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, Peter. 2001. Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21. 233–245.10.1017/S0267190501000149Search in Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2014. The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(3). 255–265.10.1080/08351813.2014.925663Search in Google Scholar
Stratman, James F. & Liz Hamp-Lyons. 1994. Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols: Issues for research. In Peter Smagorinsky (ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology, 89–111. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Swain, Merrill. 2006. Verbal protocols: What does it mean for research to use speaking as a data collection tool? In Micheline Chalhoub-Deville, Carol A. Chapelle & Patricia A Duff (eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple research perspectives, 97–113. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.12.07swaSearch in Google Scholar
Yang, Chengsong, Guangwei Hu & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2014. Reactivity of concurrent verbal reporting in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 24. 51–70.10.1016/j.jslw.2014.03.002Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- The social life of methods: Introducing the special issue
- Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction
- Interaction in qualitative questionnaires: From self-report to intersubjective achievement
- Actively managed products: Think-aloud data and methods in applied linguistics research
- Focus group interaction in evaluation research
- Transforming instruction to activity: Roleplay in language assessment
- Achieving epistemic alignment in a psycholinguistic experiment
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- The social life of methods: Introducing the special issue
- Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction
- Interaction in qualitative questionnaires: From self-report to intersubjective achievement
- Actively managed products: Think-aloud data and methods in applied linguistics research
- Focus group interaction in evaluation research
- Transforming instruction to activity: Roleplay in language assessment
- Achieving epistemic alignment in a psycholinguistic experiment
