Skip to main content
Log in

The reactivity of think-alouds in writing research: quantitative and qualitative evidence from writing in English as a foreign language

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The reactivity of think-alouds (TAs) (i.e., their effects on thinking) has remained an inevitable concern whenever their use is considered or evaluated. This paper reports findings from a study that involved 85 Chinese sophomores, who, having received some instruction in diction, and then written a narrative in English as a baseline task, completed a similar main writing task, either silently or while thinking aloud. Between-groups differences were analysed in 20 measures of writing performance. TA was found to significantly impair only two measures, lexical diversity and nondysfluencies. TA may have constrained newly developed, still unstable thoughts that were perceived as peripheral, apart from its effects on fluency. Further analyses revealed differential effects. Those with high working memory capacity (WMC), especially high reading span, were most affected in lexical diversity, while those with low WMC experienced a significant decline in organization. The participants’ reflections in a follow-up questionnaire, analyzed inductively, show their diverse feelings about the effects of TA, its processing load emerging as the likely primary reactivity-causing factor. Results suggest that, although the reactivity of TAs is small, participants’ between- and within-individual differences should be duly attended to in conducting TAs in second language writing and writing research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adrada-Rafael, S., & Filgueras-Gómez, M. (2019). Reactivity, language of think aloud protocol, and depth of processing in the processing of reformulated feedback. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 201–213). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armengol, L., & Cots, J. (2009). Attention processes observed in concurrent verbal reports: Two multilingual informants writing in two languages. Language Awareness,18, 259–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkenkotter, C. (1983). Decisions and revisions: The planning strategies of a publishing writer. College Composition and Communication,34(2), 156–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, M. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at a L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,30, 359–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, M. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication,18, 80–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M., & Holzman, M. (1983). Talking about protocols. College Composition and Communication, 34, 284–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication,7(4), 482–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Division, Beijing Language Institute Language Teaching. (1986). Xiandai hanyu pinlü cidian [Modern Chinese frequency dictionary]. Beijing: Beijing Language Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning,51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics,30, 474–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,26, 59–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication,34(4), 400–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication,32, 365–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics,21, 354–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. C., Ericsson, K. A., & Best, R. (2011). Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin,137, 316–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfroid, A., & Spino, L. (2015). Reconceptualizing reactivity of think-alouds and eye-tracking: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Language Learning,65(4), 896–928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goo, J. (2010). Working memory and reactivity. Language Learning,60(4), 712–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,34, 445–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in english. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 347–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, M., & Lee, H. K. (2017). Development and validation of the English writing strategy inventory. System,68, 60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System,59, 116–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, H., Zingraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Roweley: Newbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, D., van Waes, L., & van den Bergh, H. (1996). Effects of thinking aloud on writing processes. In C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 233–250). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leow, R. P., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,26, 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory and Cognition,23, 767–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning,60, 501–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. (1990). The child language data exchange system: An update. Journal of Child Language,17, 457–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing,19, 85–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes: Implications for theory. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D. (1983). Response of a laboratory rat—Or, being protocoled. College Composition and Communication,34(2), 169–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics,30, 555–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perl, S. (1980). A look at basic writers in the process of composing. In L. Kasden & D. Holbes (Eds.), Basic writing (pp. 13–32). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning,47, 101–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polio, C., & Friedman, D. (2017). Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polio, C., & Shea, M. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing,26, 10–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ransdell, S. (1995). Generating thinking-aloud protocols: Impact on the narrative writing of college students. American Journal of Psychology,108, 89–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, M., & Russo, R. (1999). A student’s guide to analysis of variance. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & Cognition,17, 759–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,29, 67–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratman, J. F., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols: Issues for research. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 89–112). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation,27, 237–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language,28, 127–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods,37, 498–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners’ processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing,5, 271–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W. Y., & Wen, Q. F. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing,11, 225–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whalen, K., & Ménard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning,44(3), 381–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willey, I., & Tanimoto, K. (2015). We’re drifting into strange territory here: What think-aloud protocols reveal about convenience editing. Journal of Second Language Writing,27, 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D. (1994). The proper protocol: Validity and completeness of verbal reports. Psychological Science,5, 249–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Manoa: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C. S. (2019). The veridicality of think-aloud protocols and the complementary roles of retrospective verbal reports: A study from EFL writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00453-5. (Advance online publication).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C., Hu, G., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). Reactivity of concurrent verbal reporting in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24(1), 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanguas, I., & Lado, B. (2012). Is thinking aloud reactive when writing in the heritage language? Foreign Language Annals,45, 380–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. J. (2002). Metamorphological awareness and EFL students’ memory, retention, and retrieval of English adjectival lexicons. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95(3), 934–944.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has received grants from The Ministry of Education, China, as part of its Planned Humanities and Social Sciences Project 19YJA740070. We are indebted to all reviewers of this paper for their insightful comments and genuine help. The first author holds heartfelt thanks to The University of Auckland, New Zealand, for its generous financial support in the form of a Doctoral Scholarship. It is from his PhD thesis that this paper has been derived.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Jun Zhang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Chinese sentences for judgment in the RSPAN task

 

按题目顺序判断(打 √ 或 × ), 有几个句填几格

练习组1

狗逗耗子 √

猫有九命 √

        

练习组2

螃蟹有壳 √

蝴蝶振翅

马儿哞哞 ×

蚊子有腿 √

      

练习组3

蟹有双钳 √

羊生四蹄 √

蝴蝶游泳 ×

蚂蚁吃天 ×

蚊子吸血 √

苍蝇传病 √

    

组1

狗依人势 √

猫咩咩叫 ×

        

组2

青蛙善跳

虾头长角

×

狮子吃石 ×

       

组3

小鸡啄米 √

羊呱呱叫 ×

麻雀唧喳 √

乌龟长寿 √

蛇声如钟 ×

     

组4

马长鬃毛 √

驴脸很短 ×

虎啸山林 √

螃蟹竖行 ×

马爱歌唱 ×

鱼喜欢火 ×

乌龟有壳 √

   

组5

苍蝇能飞 √

鸡蛋有壳 √

虾善疾走 ×

鱼有五目 ×

虾生于水 √

乌龟跳行 ×

老虎吃鸡 √

牛汪汪叫 ×

  

组6

鱼能耕田 ×

猫善爬树 √

        

组7

猪啃白菜 √

鸳鸯戏水 √

羊飞蛋打 ×

驴会踢人 √

沉鱼落猪 ×

瓢虫化蝶 ×

青蛙两栖 √

驴声婉转 ×

瓢虫产卵

 

组8

狮子喵喵 ×

老虎有爪 √

母鸡打鸣 ×

猫爱吃鱼 √

羊长鸡毛 ×

     

组9

欢呼龟跃 ×

蜜蜂长啸 ×

如虎添翼

牛首是瞻 ×

鼠嘴巴尖

兔子豁嘴

鹅毛小雪

×

小鸡抓鹰 ×

狼吃小羊 √

 

组10

雀飞枝头 √

狗摇尾巴 √

狮子出壳 ×

老鼠吱吱 √

      

组11

老虎飞翔

×

麻雀吞象 ×

蛙食飞蛾 √

苍蝇采蜜 ×

马善奔跑

牛力气大 √

    

组12

害群之狗

×

鸭子呱呱

蚊子啄泥

×

鹿头长角

兔吃蔬菜 √

狮是猛禽

×

鱼不离土

×

兔跑得快

鹰击长空

 

组13

驴声唧喳

×

蛇有四肢

×

牛爱吃草 √

       

组14

虾能吼叫 ×

蚊子嗡嗡 √

蝴蝶学舌 ×

狗啃骨头 √

鸡飞千里 ×

牛长尾巴 √

老鼠钻洞 √

蛇身细长 √

  

组 15

虎假狐威 ×

狡兔三窟 √

蛇声鼎沸 ×

猫长胡须 √

蚯蚓钻地 √

蜗牛神速 ×

虾能吞蛇 ×

蚯蚓发光

×

燕子筑巢 √

漏网之马

×

组 16

麻雀食木 ×

鼠有百耳

×

狗飞过墙

×

鱼游水中 √

蛇能爬行

驴是害虫

×

    

组17

鼠目寸光

狮子威猛 √

狗汪汪叫 √

驴耳朵长

青蛙长角 ×

羊爱吃草

蛙声滴答 ×

   

组 18

猪爱哼哼

蟹飞于天 ×

狗长象牙 ×

苍蝇有爪 ×

      

Appendix 2: Chinese characters to be recalled in the RSPAN task

 

请回忆

练习组1

利成

练习组2

安如经没

练习组3

机知的所而此

组1

这明

组2

会物国

组3

在相全使同

组4

克或位向那因实

组5

别者现每受色把事

组6

作再

组7

何快金任男妈师变吃

组8

多和花许时

组9

交终林医制决传画运则

组10

先名问当

组11

光法年自些回

组12

远条呢始达完空求非

组13

定次后

组14

其并表但间员却好

组15

找罗欢吗约各即合论该

组16

西更拉应直字

组17

场报张至放关告

组18

英岁军往

Appendix 3: The main writing task

Title My father’s/mother’s/any other relative’s past, present, changes so far, and future (≥ 300 words, 60 min)

  1. 1.

    Describe his/her life in the past, for example, his/her birth, growth, schooling, work, education of you, love for you, or attitudes towards you (optional) (approximately 80 words), and then summarize or comment on his/her past or how he/she treated you (approximately 20 words);

  2. 2.

    Describe his/her life at present (e.g., his/her work, spare time, how he/she treats you, etc., optional) (approximately 80 words), and then make a summary or comments (approximately 20 words);

  3. 3.

    Describe his/her changes so far (e.g., concerning his/her appearance, state of mind, views, how he/she treats you, etc., optional) (approximately 50 words);

  4. 4.

    Describe (Imagine) his/her life in the future (e.g., his/her work, retirement, interests, health, attitudes towards life and you, etc., optional) (approximately 50 words).

Appendix 4: Scoring samples (* indicates where organization can be improved)

Sample 1 The main writing-TA task (Scored 11 for organization and 18 for content, participant 26)

In my family, my uncle John is my most respectable person. When he was young, his family were very poor. He always got up at 5:00 am, and got school 7:00 am. *He usually walked two hours to school. *It’s very cold in winter, and the door of school* was not open. He waitted with patience, at the same time, He read English very loudly. *He always told me not to waste time. He did it*. When he was a high school student, most of his classmates were out of school. Some were not good at study, Some were not able to go to school because they hadn’t enough money. Uncle John met the same difficulty. Because* lack of money, my grandfather didn’t want his* to go to school. But my uncle persuaded my grandpa. *When he was admitted to a university, he was just 16. He went to school* by train along. It’s the first time* to leave home. I think he is* brave.

Now, he is a teacher. In my eyes, he has knowledge about everything. I admire him very much. He is a good teacher, all his students think highly of him. Not only did he teach his students ademetic things, but also he care about their lifes. For example, he helps his student go to college with his money and his energy. He devotes all his life to his students and education. *He always told me, life is full of fun, Sometime when we pursue something that we think it is important, *don’t forget to enjoy life. *In the past time, he had opposite opinion.

He will retire after five years, *He plans to travel. *He always keep a good attidute towards the things that are bad in his life. *He never give up。*I learn a lot of things from him. *When I become a college student, he always gives me a phone. *I appreciate him Very much. When I am lost or confused, I always talk with him. Because of him, I can achieve my dream more easy and fast. *He is a great man. I love him.

Sample 2 The main writing-TA task (Scored 18 for organization and 27 for content, participant 14)

My father is 42 years old right now but he looks much younger. He is the man that I love most in this world. Everyone knows him would say that he is a very kind, helpful and mild man. So I would like to introduce him to you now.

My father was born in a very poor family in the country and my grandfather died when he was only eight years old. Evidently you can imagine how tough life he lived during his childhood. However, that experience also made great contribution to the change in his character, in other word*, made who he is at present. Because of his sad childhood, he tried every means to become a good father. In my memories, my father never shouted at me and never beated me. He just corrected me when I was wrong and detailed told me why I was wrong. I really, really have great gratitude for that.

After I graduated from high school, it becomes much more difficult for us to see each other. I know that my father misses me and so do I. Thanks to mobile phones and the Internet, we are still able to chat several times a week. For most times, he calls me. But once he knows that I’m busy, he won’t call me for several days in that he’s afraid of disturbing me, which evidently reflects his thoughtfulness. Since I am a college student now, my father always encourages me to be an independent adult and that’s what he did when he was the same age as me. Even right now, he still shoulders the burden of my family and I want to become a man like him someday.

Compared with past, he spares me much more liberty and does not push me that hard any more. Nevertheless, I know his request and anticipation on me has never changed.

Time is brutal. Everyone’s getting older, so is my father. Someday he would retire, he would not be that strong like now, he would even forget a lot of things. But I would always know his love for me would never change. Meanwhile, I prefer to believe that kind, diligent and wise people like him will be capable of arranging his life well. Yes, he will.

That’s my father, my beloved father.

Appendix 5: “The writing tips” section

让词汇闪光 (Let words shine)

在恰到好处的地方,准确地用上一两个别的同学可能想不到用的词,这些词就会像珍珠一样在读者的眼中闪光。 (At right places, accurately use a couple of words that other students may not think of. These words will shine in readers’ eyes like pearls)

  • I looked at the huge sum of money, with ambivalent feelings. 我瞅着巨款,心情很矛盾。

  • Their behaviour has occasioned us a lot of trouble. 他们的行为给我们惹了许多麻烦。

  • His impatience found a vent. 他的不耐烦得到了一个发泄的机会。

  • At a nominal price, the President’s son-in-law got the stocks. 象征性地给个价,总统的女婿就把股票拿到了手。

  • Those dark clouds spell rain. 那些乌云意味着下雨。

  • There was something furtive about his behaviour and I immediately felt suspicious. 他有点偷偷摸摸的样子,我马上起了疑心。

独到措辞 (Unique diction)

可以尝试着把新近学到的比较有特色的词汇,用来代替那些很容易想到的一般词汇。 例如,如果你写了这么一句话 “After drinking too much, he walked slowly in the street”…… 其实我们学过一个更形象的词,可以用来取代“walk slowly”,那就是“stagger”。这么一改,句子就漂亮了不少 (Try to replace those ordinary words you think of very easily with those distinctive words you have recently learnt. For example, if you wrote After drinking too much, he walked slowly in the street … In fact, we have learnt a more vivid word, stagger, which can be used as a substitute for walk slowly. With such a replacement, your sentence will be much more beautiful)。

  • 我喜欢吃蘑菇,可惜吃了难受。

  • I like mushrooms, but unfortunately, they will make me ill if I eat them.

  • I like mushrooms, but unfortunately, they don’t agree with me.

  • 他喜欢炫耀自己的知识。

  • He likes to let others see how much he knows.

  • He likes to air his knowledge.

  • 公共汽车未停稳时,乘客请勿下车。

  • Passengers should never get off when the bus is moving.

  • Passengers should never alight from a moving bus.

  • 我绝不会把他的任何一本书称为是“可以一读的”。

  • I’d never call any of his books “readable”.

  • I’d never apply the word “readable” to any of his books.

(From Write to Learn, 1st ed., pp. 22-25, compiled by Professor Zheng Chao, from Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, with minor abridgement)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, C., Zhang, L.J. & Parr, J.M. The reactivity of think-alouds in writing research: quantitative and qualitative evidence from writing in English as a foreign language. Read Writ 33, 451–483 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09970-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09970-7

Keywords

Navigation