On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research

Verbal reports in the reading processes of language learners: A methodological review

“…A holistic view of reading research involving verbal reports will require us to dismantle dichotomies that adopt a single perspective, and instead look towards an approach where sociocultural and cognitivist approaches are both used to explain how LLs talk about their thinking during reading. This recommendation is aligned with the reconceptualisation of research in SLA proposed by Firth and Wagner (), who called for an extension of examinations of language use and acquisition beyond cognitivist perspectives towards orientations that foregrounded the social and contextual factors involved in this process.…”

“…Beyond this, a more complex qualitative–quantitative–qualitative approach seems inadequate even when researchers use solely cognitivist approaches and information‐processing models. As discussed earlier, in the field of applied linguistics, and considering the work of Firth and Wagner () that acknowledged the need for examining language use and acquisition within the social contexts in which they are situated, it is possible to consider the socially situated nature of verbal protocols in data collection, transcription and analysis within the context of verbal reporting that focuses on literacy processes (see Deschambault, ). Researchers are already experimenting with sociocultural approaches to collecting and analysing verbal reports for the purposes of assessing culturally and linguistically diverse learners in areas such as cognitive interviewing and field methods (e.g.…”

“…Second, we used the terms: (a) verbal reports , (b) think‐alouds , (c) reading , (d) verbal protocols , (e) reading process , (f) second language , (g) bilingual , (h) multilingual , (i) English as a Second Language (ESL) and (j) foreign language , along with their combinations, to search the indexes of the selected journals and the databases back to 2000. The inclusion criteria required articles to (a) report an empirical study, (b) include a form of verbal report methodology that occurred in conjunction the product of reading with exploration of the reading task being studied, (c) focus on LLs’ reading processes, (d) involve research conducted within the K‐university levels and (e) have a publication date between 2000 and 2015—from the beginning of the century that coincided with the influential discussion on sociocultural theory by Firth and Wagner (, )—and others up to the last complete year of publications before the preparation of this article. This discussion proposed a reconceptualisation of research in SLA to extend examinations of language use and acquisition beyond cognitivist perspectives that often reflect deficit orientations of language learners, towards orientations that foregrounded the social and contextual factors involved in this process (Firth & Wagner, ).…”

“…The inclusion criteria required articles to (a) report an empirical study, (b) include a form of verbal report methodology that occurred in conjunction the product of reading with exploration of the reading task being studied, (c) focus on LLs’ reading processes, (d) involve research conducted within the K‐university levels and (e) have a publication date between 2000 and 2015—from the beginning of the century that coincided with the influential discussion on sociocultural theory by Firth and Wagner (, )—and others up to the last complete year of publications before the preparation of this article. This discussion proposed a reconceptualisation of research in SLA to extend examinations of language use and acquisition beyond cognitivist perspectives that often reflect deficit orientations of language learners, towards orientations that foregrounded the social and contextual factors involved in this process (Firth & Wagner, ). The exclusion criteria required us to reject studies where verbal reports were: (a) not used in conjunction with a reading task or (b) geared toward an understanding of testing characteristics of participants, rather than reading processes.…”

“…In their use of such protocol analysis, studies primarily reflect a cognitivist approach, one in which reports are considered windows on thought processes as they occur (Bowles, ,b). However, in the more contemporary literature, with the increased attempts to understand literacy practices of LL and with the definition of literacy expanding to reflect multiple literacies and how context affects literacy (Firth & Wagner, ; Leu et al ., ), studies have increasingly used verbal reports to understand the compensatory processing between L1 and L2 and information processing, that is, factors influencing reading that go beyond those inferred from the mind in which second‐language (L2) reading is embedded (e.g. Gass & Mackey, ; Bernhardt, ).…”