Advertisement

Crossing Frontiers in the Think Aloud on Reading: Revealing Text-Recounting Method Effect

  • Anna KoniecznaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

The paper is concerned with think aloud (TA) research. The author argues that think aloud is exposed to invalidity of data collection stemming from the need to verbalize on the text read. The concrete strategies often used by respondents and considered here to be, at least to a certain extent, method-induced were altogether denoted as text-recounting strategies, and include: paraphrase, restatement, translation, summary and reading aloud. It is argued that a researcher using the TA method should not uncritically code and quantify these strategies as aspects of the reading comprehension process, as they may be stimulated more by the need to verbalize than by the fact that readers need them to understand a written passage. The paper looks critically at reading comprehension data provided in several TA reports and re-analyzes the statistics originally quoted in the reports in order to indicate the possibility of the occurrence of the method effect.

The article also reports the author’s research concerned with the extent to which text-recounting strategies appear in different varieties of TA protocol. The kinds of think aloud investigated were: (a) unprompted protocol, in which respondents provide verbalization concurrently with reading and decide on their own when and what to verbalize, (b) prompted protocol, stimulating respondents to verbalize after each sentence, and (c) the newly introduced and so called here read and think aloud protocol, asking respondents to verbalize both their reading and thinking. It was shown that the frequencies of text-recounting strategies occurrence differ across think aloud varieties, which points to the existence of text-recounting method effect in the reports.

References

  1. Anderson, N. J., L. Bachman, K. Perkins and A. D. Cohen. 1991. An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test: triangulation of data sources. Language Testing 8: 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Block, E. 1986. The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly 20: 463–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braten, I. and H. Stromso. 2003. A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 16: 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldwell, J. and L. Leslie. 2003–2004. Does proficiency in middle school reading assure proficiency in high school reading? The possible role of think-alouds. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 47: 324–335.Google Scholar
  5. CKE, Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna. January, 2006. Egzamin maturalny z języka angielskiego. Warszawa.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, A. D. and T. A. Upton. 2007. “I want to go back to the text”: Response strategies on the reading subtest of the new TOEFL. Language Testing 24: 209–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, J. N. and L. Bistodeau. 1993. How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think aloud protocols. Modern Language Journal 77: 459–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ericsson, K. A. and H. A. Simon. 1993. Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gryca, D. and J. Sosnowska. 2004. Repetytorium z języka angielskiego. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Konieczna, A. 2009a. Raport werbalny i jego wykorzystanie w badaniach nad strategiami rozwiązywania testów z zakresu czytania. Neofilolog 33: 77–88.Google Scholar
  11. Konieczna, A. 2009b. The use of strategies in gapped-text reading task. In Current issues in English studies, eds. M. Misztal and M. Trawiński, 153–166. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego.Google Scholar
  12. Konieczna, A. 2010. Theoretical considerations concerning the use of think aloud protocol in the research on testing reading. (in press).Google Scholar
  13. Olshavsky, J. E. 1976–77. Reading as problem solving: An investigation of strategies. Reading Research Quarterly 12: 654–674.Google Scholar
  14. Pressley, M. and K. Hilden. 2004. Verbal protocols of reading. In Literacy Research Methodologies, eds. N. K. Duke and M. H. Mallette, 308–321. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Scott, D. B. 2008. Assessing text processing: A comparison of four methods. Journal of Literacy Research 40: 290–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State School of Higher Professional EducationNysaPoland

Personalised recommendations