The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Think-Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research
Abstract
The Think-Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research aims to answer key questions about the validity and uses of think-alouds, verbal reports completed by research participants while they perform a task. It offers an overview of how think-alouds have been used in language research and presents a quantitative meta-analysis of findings from studies involving verbal tasks and think-alouds. The book begins by presenting the theoretical background and empirical research that has examined the reactivity of think-alouds, then offers guidance regarding the practical issues of data collection and analysis, and concludes with implications for the use of think-alouds in language research. With its focus on a much-discussed and somewhat controversial data elicitation method in language research, this timely work is relevant to students and researchers from all theoretical perspectives who collect first or second language data. It serves as a valuable guide for any language researcher who is considering using think-alouds.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“The CTA is often associated with reactivity [56,66] that may have a positive impact on the learning process [85,86].”
From Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment (2020) · cites this paper as [86]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
Weber, R. (1990) · doi:10.4135/9781412983488 · Cited by 7,750
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 5,435
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 · Cited by 3,537
Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136 · Cited by 2,569
MEASURING IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE OF A SECOND LANGUAGE: A Psychometric Study
Ellis, R. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263105050096 · Cited by 1,032
Awareness and Second Language Acquisition
Schmidt, R. (1992) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190500002476 · Cited by 825
Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00046-7 · Cited by 383
VISUAL INPUT ENHANCEMENT AND GRAMMAR LEARNING: A Meta-Analytic Review
Lee, S.-K., & Huang, H.-T. (2008) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263108080479 · Cited by 238
Cited by
Winke, P. M. (2013) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263112000903 · Cited by 121
Prokop, M., Pilař, L., & Tichá, I. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20102750 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Bowles, M. A.
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2010-07-02
- OpenAlex
- W1482344241
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 31.08
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Think-Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9780203856338
- The paper
- Bowles, M. A. (2010). The Think-Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research. Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856338
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
