Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Think-Aloud Protocols in Second Language Writing

Part of the book series: English Language Education ((ELED,volume 34))

Abstract

This chapter starts with a presentation of the research questions this study aims to address. It then provides an overview of the research design. Next, it introduces the specific methods used in this study, including the participants recruited, the instruments used, the procedure followed for data collection, and how the data were analysed.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, P. (2005). Analysing learner language. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 17.0 update (10th ed.). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B. (2000a). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Volume I: Transcription format and programs (3rd ed.). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B. (2000b). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. In Volume II: Transcription format and programs (3rd ed.). Erlbaum.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKee, G., Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2000). Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15, 323–337.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, B., & Malvern, D. D. (1997). Quantifying lexical diversity in the study of language development. Faculty of Education and Community Studies, The University of Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 2, 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of International Studies, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China

    Chengsong Yang

  2. Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Lawrence Jun Zhang

Authors
  1. Chengsong Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lawrence Jun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yang, C., Zhang, L.J. (2023). Methodology. In: Think-Aloud Protocols in Second Language Writing. English Language Education, vol 34. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39574-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39574-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-39573-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-39574-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation