Advertisement

The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 531–541 | Cite as

The Veridicality of Think-Aloud Protocols and the Complementary Roles of Retrospective Verbal Reports: A Study from EFL Writing

  • Chengsong YangEmail author
Regular Article

Abstract

This paper reports on a qualitative study that explored the veridicality (i.e., the completeness and accuracy) of think-aloud protocols (TAPs) in English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) writing and illustrates how retrospective verbal reports (RVRs) compensated for TAPs in understanding online revision. Forty-three Chinese sophomores, upon writing while thinking aloud, were asked to provide RVRs regarding revisions, and then to reflect on the veridicality of their TAPs. Their reflections were analyzed inductively. Various omissions of think-alouds were revealed, but they were perceived as not serious, and the accuracy of TAPs was stood by. Further evidence concerning the (in)veridicality was found in the RVRs when 516 episodes of RVRs and corresponding TAPs were compared, and the RVRs were found to offer additional information that concerned intermediate processes leading to revisions. Implications for using TAPs and RVRs in and for EFL writing research and classrooms are given.

Keywords

Think-alouds Veridicality Online revision Retrospective verbal reports 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has received grants from The Ministry of Education, China, as part of its Planned Humanities and Social Sciences Project 19YJA740070. I sincerely thank Dr. Hui-Tzu Min, the Associate Editor, and the two reviewers, especially Reviewer 1, for their insightful comments and earnest help. I hold heartfelt thanks for The University of Auckland, New Zealand, for offering me The Doctoral Scholarship, and Professor Lawrence Jun Zhang and Professor Judy Parr for their supervision. It is my New Zealand years that have laid the foundation for this work.

References

  1. Armengol, L., & Cots, J. (2009). Attention processes observed in concurrent verbal reports: Two multilingual informants writing in two languages. Language Awareness, 18, 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barkaoui, K. (2011). Think-aloud protocols in research on essay rating: An empirical study of their veridicality and reactivity. Language Testing,  28(1), 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowles, M. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breetvelt, I., Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction,  12, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication,  34(4), 400–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication,  32, 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hu, J., & Gao, X. (2017). Using think-aloud protocol in self-regulated reading research. Educational Research Review,  22, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System,  59, 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kellogg, R. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Perl, S. (1980). Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication,  31, 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Robinson, K. M. (2001). The validity of verbal reports in children’s subtraction. Journal of Educational Psychology,  93, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation,  2, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wilson, T. D. (1994). The proper protocol: Validity and completeness of verbal reports. Psychological Science,  5, 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yang, C. S., Hu, G. W., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). Reactivity of concurrent verbal reporting in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of International StudiesXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations