Abstract
This study shows that, overall, TAPs affect L2 writing performance negatively, but the effects are only significant on several limited aspects of performance, such as writing dysfluencies and lexical diversity. Such aspects may be liable to change and perceived as peripheral and thus given less attention to by L2 writers, when the additional task of thinking aloud is required. Most noticeably, as this study has suggested, giving TAPs may inhibit an unstable, perhaps recently developed desire benefiting a certain aspect of writing performance, in a writing task that does not particularly emphasize that aspect in its instructions. The study further reveals that the effects of thinking aloud vary with L2 writing proficiency and working memory capacity in some ways. Participants’ reflections confirm that thinking aloud generally has negative effects on L2 writing, and its effects are partial and not strong overall, although they vary from person to person and may spread throughout the writing process. The reasons for reactivity have been classified, with the diversion of attention or the processing load appearing to be the major cause.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Armengol, L., & Cots, J. (2009). Attention processes observed in think-aloud protocols: Two multilingual informants writing in two languages. Language Awareness, 18, 259–276.
Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. Routledge.
Cohen, A. D. (1991). Feedback on writing: The use of verbal reports. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 133–159.
Cohen, A. D. (2000). Exploring strategies in test taking: Fine-tuning verbal reports from respondents. In G. Ekbatani & H. Pierson (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL (pp. 127–150). Erlbaum.
Durst, R. K. (1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 347–376.
Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Towards a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of non-verbal experience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowing effect within the theoretical framework for protocol analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 981–987.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). MIT Press.
Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. (2000). Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook. Psychology Press Ltd.
Green, A. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis in language testing research: A handbook. Cambridge University Press.
Gu, P. Y., Hu, G. W., & Zhang, L. J. (2005). Investigating language learner strategies among lower primary school pupils in Singapore. Language and Education, 19(4), 281–303.
Hu, J., & Gao, X. (2017). Using think-aloud protocol in self-regulated reading research. Educational Research Review, 22, 181–193.
Langer, J. (1986). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies. Ablex.
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392.
Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory and Cognition, 23, 767–779.
Levy, C. M., Marek, P. J., & Lea, J. (1996). Concurrent and retrospective protocols in writing research. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Conzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 542–556). Amsterdam University Press.
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). Multilingual Matters.
Ronowicz, E., Hehir, J., Kaimi, T., Kojima, K., & Lee, D.-S. (2005). Translator’s frequent lexis store and dictionary use as factors in SLT comprehension and translation speed: A comparative study of professional, paraprofessional and novice translators. Meta, 50, 580–596.
Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & Cognition, 17, 759–769.
Selfe, C. L. (1984). The predrafting processes of four high and four low apprehensive writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 45–64.
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). Sage.
Upton, T. A., & Lee-Thompson, L. C. (2001). The role of the first language in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 469–495.
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.
Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 43, 442–451.
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, 28(6), 531–541.
Zimmermann, R. (2000). L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10, 73–99.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yang, C., Zhang, L.J. (2023). Conclusions, Limitations, and Implications for Using TAPs. 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_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39574-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-39573-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-39574-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)