Are think-alouds reactive? Evidence from an L2 written corrective feedback study
Abstract
The use of concurrent data elicitation procedures (e.g. think-alouds, eye-tracking, response time) to investigate learners’ cognitive processing and processes is becoming more prominent in research designs as researchers seek to acquire a better understanding of how second language (L2) learners process L2 data (e.g. Martin et al., 2019; Rogers, 2019; Thinglum, 2019; for more recent studies employing concurrent procedures, see Leow, 2019). At the same time, an increasing number of studies have empirically investigated the reactivity of think-aloud protocols in second language acquisition (e.g. Medina, 2019; Morgan-Short et al., 2012). While the studies that have addressed the reactivity issue have yielded mixed findings, only a few studies (e.g. Adrada-Rafael & Filgueras-Gómez, 2019; Sachs & Polio, 2007) have addressed the written mode, particularly in the context of L2 writing that incorporates feedback. As part of a larger study of written corrective feedback, the present study investigates the possible reactive effects of think-alouds during exposure to written corrective feedback, which was provided on learners’ L2 writing, on their L2 development. Fifty-nine Korean university learners of English as a foreign language, randomly assigned to either a think-aloud or to a non-think-aloud (silent control) condition, participated in the study. L2 development was measured by a written story-retelling task and a multiple-choice receptive test. Results showed that thinking aloud while processing written corrective feedback during three feedback sessions did not affect learners’ development of receptive knowledge and their ability to produce the target structure in a new piece of writing when compared to a non-think-aloud condition.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Adrada-Rafael S. (2017). Processing the Spanish imperfect subjunctive: Depth of processing under different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 477–508.
Adrada-Rafael S., Filgueras-Gómez M. (2019). Reactivity, language of think-aloud protocol, and depth of processing in the processing of reformulated feedback. In Leow R.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 199–211). New York: Routledge.
Alanen R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In Schmidt R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259–302). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Bowles M.A. (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.
Bowles M.A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. London: Routledge.
Bowles M.A., Leow R.P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415–440.
Caras A. (2019). Written corrective feedback in compositions and the role of depth of processing. In Leow R.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 186–198). New York, NY: Routledge.
Carrell P.L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121–134.
Celce-Murcia M., Larsen-Freeman D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. 2nd edition. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Cerezo L., Caras A., Leow R.P. (2016). Effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanish ‘gustar’ structures: An analysis of learning outcomes and processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 265–291.
Cohen A.D. (1986). Mentalistic measures in reading strategy research: Some recent findings. English for Specific Purposes, 5, 131–145.
Davis J., Bistodeau L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think aloud protocols. Modern Language Journal, 77, 459–472.
De Bot K., Paribakht T.S., Wesche M.B. (1997). Toward a lexical processing model for the study of second language vocabulary acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 309–329.
Ellis R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.
Ericsson K.A., Simon H.A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ericsson K.A., Simon H.A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gass S.M., Mackey A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
Goo J. (2010). Working memory and reactivity. Language Learning, 43, 245–254.
Izumi S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
Izumi S., Bigelow M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.
Jourdenais R. (2001). Cognition, instruction, and protocol analysis. In Robinson P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 354–375). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jourdenais R., Ota M., Stauffer S., Boyson R., Doughty C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In Schmidt R. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183–216). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Kim H.R., Bowles M. (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained from think-alouds. TESOL Quarterly, 53, 913–938.
Leow R.P. (1998). 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.
Leow R.P. (2001). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113–155.
Leow R.P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.
Leow R.P. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning. New York: Routledge.
Leow R.P., Grey S., Marijuan S., Moorman C. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research, 30, 111–127.
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.
Manchón R.M. (Ed.). (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin A., Niu M., Leow R.P. (2019). Processing instruction, guided induction, and L2 development. In Leow R.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 183–216). Abingdon: Routledge.
Medina A. (2019). Test-enhanced learning in L2 Spanish lexical development. In Leow R.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 258–272). Abingdon: Routledge.
Morgan-Short K., Heil J., Botero-Moriarty A., Ebert S. (2012). Allocation of attention to second language form and meaning: Issues of think-alouds and depth of processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 659–685.
Nassaji H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 645–670.
Nisbett R.E., Wilson T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
Park E.S., Kim O.Y. (2019). Learners’ use of indirect written corrective feedback: Depth of processing and self-correction. In Leow R.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 212–226). New York: Routledge.
Payne J.W., Braunstein M.L., Carroll J.S. (1978). Exploring predecisional behavior: An alternative approach to decision research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 17–44.
Pica T. (1984). Methods of morpheme quantification: their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 69–78.
Plonsky L., Oswald F. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
Qi D.S., Lapkin S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.
Rogers J. (2019). Levels of awareness, depth of processing, and the learning of L2 case markings. In Leow R.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 76–88). New York: Routledge.
Rosa E., O’Neill M.D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.
Rossomondo A.E. (2007). The role of lexical temporal indicators and text interaction format in the incidental acquisition of the Spanish future tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 39–66.
Russo L.E., Johnson E.J., Stephens D. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory and Cognition, 17, 759–769.
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.
Sachs R., Suh B.-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In Mackey A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sanz C., Lin H.-J., Lado B., Bowden H.W., Stafford C.A. (2009). Concurrent verbalizations, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: Two CALL studies. Language Learning, 59, 33–71.
Shintani N., Aubrey S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 296–319.
Song M.-J., Suh B.-R. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295–312.
Stafford C., Bowden H.W., Sanz C. (2012). Optimizing language instruction: Matters of explicitness, practice, and cue learning. Language Learning, 62, 741–768.
Stratman J.F., Hamp-Lyons L. (1994). Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols. In Smagorinsky P. (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 89–112). London: Sage.
Swain M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook G., Seidlhofer B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thinglum A. (2019). Levels of intake: A preliminary look at intake and eye fixation measure vis-à-vis type of linguistic item. In Leow R.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 61–75). New York: Routledge.
Yang C., Hu G., Zhang L.J. (2014). Reactivity of concurrent verbal reporting in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 51–70.
Yang C., Zhang L.J., Parr J.M. (2020). The reactivity of think-alouds in writing research: Quantitative and qualitative evidence from writing in English as a foreign language. Reading and Writing, 33, 451–483.
Yanguas I., Lado B. (2012). Is thinking aloud reactive when writing in the heritage language? Foreign Language Annals, 45, 380–399.
Yoshida M. (2008). Think-aloud protocols and type of reading task: The issue of reactivity in L2 reading research. In M. Bowles R., Foote S., Perpiñán, Bhatt R. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 109–209). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: November 28, 2020
Issue published: September 2023
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 637
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 3 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 3
- Engagement with written corrective feedback: Examination of feedback t...
- Research Trends of Written Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: A Biblio...
- Facilitating L2 writers’ metacognitive strategy use in argumentative w...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
