Reflecting on the think‐aloud method for evaluating e‐learning
Abstract
E‐learning is increasingly being used in higher education settings, yet research examining how students use e‐resources is frequently limited. Some previous studies have used the think‐aloud method (an approach with origins in cognitive psychology) as an alternative to the more usual questionnaire or focus groups, but there is little discussion in the educational literature about the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. In this paper, we discuss our experience of using the think‐aloud method in a recent study, and we reflect on its potential contribution as a research method. A number of concerns about the method arose during our study, including the level of guidance given to participants, observer influence, and the complexity of data analysis. We conclude, however, that the richness of the data collected outweighs these constraints, and that the think‐aloud method has the potential to enhance research in this field.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Verbal protocol analysis is considered ideal for tracing usability problems in Web applications.
“We chose this method because it is considered ideal for tracing usability problems in Web applications (Cotton and Gresty, 2006).”
From Understanding Blind Users' Web Accessibility and Usability Problems (2010) · cites this paper as Cotton and Gresty, 2006
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yardley, L., Morrison, L. G., Andreou, P., Joseph, J., & Little, P. (2010) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-10-52 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Woo, D. J., Wang, D., Guo, K., & Susanto, H. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12819-4 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Understanding Blind Users' Web Accessibility and Usability Problems
The University of North Carolina - Greensboro, Babu, R., Singh, R., The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, U., Ganesh, J., & Limited, I. T. (2010) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00015 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Yardley, L., Miller, S., Teasdale, E., & Little, P. (2011) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105310377538 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Franken, K., Schuffelen, P., ten Klooster, P., van Doesum, K., Westerhof, G., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.985408 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Ilic, P., & Carr, N. (2023) · 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) · doi:10.1109/fie58773.2023.10343337 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cotton, D., & Gresty, K.
- ORCID
- Gresty, Karen
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-54
- ISSN
- 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8535
- OpenAlex
- W2069754417
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 7.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Keywords
- think-aloud, e-learning evaluation, higher education, research methodology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review