Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:34:51.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TASK TYPE AND REACTIVITY OF VERBAL REPORTS IN SLA: A First Look at a L2 Task Other Than Reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2008

Melissa A. Bowles
Melissa A. Bowles*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
*
Melissa A. Bowles, Department of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese, 4080 Foreign Languages Building, MC-176, 707 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801; e-mail: bowlesm@uiuc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the frequency with which verbal reports are used in SLA to gather data on learners' cognitive processes (e.g., Bowles, 2003, 2004; Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000; Rosa & Leow, 2004a, 2004b), only two studies (Bowles & Leow, 2005; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004) have investigated verbal reports' reactivity (i.e., whether they alter cognitive processes) during second language (L2) reading. This is the first study to investigate the reactivity of verbal reports on a L2 problem-solving task. First-semester learners of Spanish were assigned to one of six experimental conditions, which differed in terms of the type of verbalization (i.e., metalinguistic, nonmetalinguistic, or silent) and the type of feedback (i.e., implicit vs. explicit). Results show that metalinguistic verbalization significantly increased time on task and also hindered participants' ability to produce exemplars of the target structure seen during the experimental task. However, neither type of verbalization significantly affected participants' ability to produce novel exemplars of the target structure, and there was no interaction between verbalization and feedback.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 359 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahlum-Heath, M.E. & di Vesta, F.J. (1986). The effect of conscious controlled verbalization of a cognitive strategy on transfer in problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 14, 281–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allport, A. (1988). What concept of consciousness? In Marcel, A. J. & Bisiach, E. (Eds.), Consciousness in contemporary science (pp. 159–182). London: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Allwood, C.M. (1990). On the relation between justification of solution method and correctness of solution in statistical problem solving. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 31, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvermann, D.E. (1984). Second graders' strategic preferences while reading basal stories. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N.J., Bachman, L., Perkins, K., & Cohen, A. (1991). An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test: Triangulation of data sources. Language Testing, 8, 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L.S., Dominowski, R.L., & Rellinger, E.R. (1995). Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 205–223.Google Scholar
Berry, D.C. (1983). Metacognitive experience and transfer of logical reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 39–49.Google Scholar
Berry, D.C. & Broadbent, D.E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 209–231.Google Scholar
Biggs, S.F., Rosman, A.J., & Serfenian, G.K. (1993). Methodological issues in judgment and decision-making research: Concurrent verbal protocol validity and simultaneous traces of process data. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 234–248.Google Scholar
Bower, A.C. & King, W.L. (1967). The effect of number of irrelevant stimulus dimensions, verbalization, and sex on learning bi-conditional classification rules. Psychonomic Science, 8, 453–454.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. (2003). The effects of textual input enhancement on language learning: An online/ offline study of fourth-semester Spanish students. In Kempchinsky, P. & Piñeros, C. E. (Eds.), Theory, practice, and acquisition: Papers from the 6th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium and the 5th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 395–411). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not to CALL. Hispania, 87, 543–555.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. & Leow, R.P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415–440.Google Scholar
Breetvelt, I. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction, 12, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehmer, B. & Lindberg, L. (1971). Omission of feedback in single-cue probability learning. (Umeå Psychological Rep. No. 46). Umeå, Sweden: University of Umeå.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinkman, J.A. (1993). Verbal protocol accuracy in fault diagnosis. Ergonomics, 36, 1381–1397.Google Scholar
Brunk, L., Collister, G., Swift, C., & Stayton, S. (1958). A correlation study of two reasoning problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 236–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners' theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 451–480.Google Scholar
Camps, J. (2003). Concurrent and retrospective verbal reports as tools to better understand the role of attention in second language tasks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 201–221.Google Scholar
Carpenter, P.A., Just, M.A., & Schell, P. (1990). What one intelligence measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Ravens Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97, 404–431.Google Scholar
Cavalcanti, M.C. & Cohen, A.D. (1990). Comentarios em composições: Uma comparação dos pontos de vista do professor e do aluno [Comments on compositions: A comparison of the professor's and student's points of view]. Trabalhos em Lingüística Aplicada, 15, 7–23.Google Scholar
Cazzoli-Goeta, M., Masullo, P.J., & Young-Scholten, M. (2003, September). L2 acquisition of non-nominative subjects in Spanish. Paper presented at EuroSLA 2003, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Chamot, A.U. & El Dinary, P.B. (1999). Children's learning strategies in language immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 83, 319–338.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. (1986). Mentalistic measures in reading strategy research: Some recent findings. English for Specific Purposes, 5, 131–145.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. (1987). Recent uses of mentalistic data in reading strategy research. Revista de Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teorica e Aplicada, 3, 57–84.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. (1998a). Contrastive analysis of speech acts: What do we do with the research findings? Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 33, 81–92.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. (1998b). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. (2000). Exploring strategies in test taking: Fine-tuning verbal reports from respondents. In Ekbatani, G. & Pierson, H. (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL (pp. 127–150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. & Cavalcanti, M.C. (1987). Viewing feedback on compositions from the teacher's and the student's perspective. ESPecialist, 16, 13–28.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. & Hosenfeld, C. (1981). Some uses of mentalistic data in second language research. Language Learning, 31, 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A.D. & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 33–56.Google Scholar
Cook, R.J. (1998). The encyclopedia of biostatistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Corder, S.P. (1973). The elicitation of interlanguage. In Svartik, J. (Ed.), Errata: Papers in error analysis (pp. 36–48). Lund, Sweden: CKW Geerup.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1981). Item-learning and system-learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10, 79–88.Google Scholar
Davis, J. & Bistodeau, L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think aloud protocols. Modern Language Journal, 77, 459–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J.H., Carey, M.H., Foxman, P.N., & Tarr, D.B. (1968). Verbalization, experimenter presence, and problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 299–302.Google Scholar
Deffner, G. (1989). Interaktion zwischen Lautem Denken, Bearbeitungsstrategien und Aufgabenmerkmalen? Eine experimentelle Prüfung des Modells von Ericsson und Simon [Interaction of thinking aloud, solution strategies, and task characteristics? An experimental test of the Ericsson and Simon model]. Sprache & Kognition, 8, 98–111.Google Scholar
Durst, R.K. (1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 347–376.Google Scholar
Earthman, E.A. (1992). Creating the virtual work: Readers' processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 351–384.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2004). Verbal reports, noticing, and SLA research. Language Awareness, 13, 243–264.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.Google Scholar
Enkvist, I. (1995). Intellectual and linguistic progress in foreign language students: Students' development during their first year of Spanish at a Swedish university (Report No. ISSN-0283-7692). Stockholm: Council for Studies of Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED390253.)Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ewert, P.H. & Lambert, J.F. (1932). Part II: The effect of verbal instructions upon the formation of a concept. Journal of General Psychology, 6, 400–413.Google Scholar
Færch, C. & Kasper, G. (1986). One learner-two languages: Investigating types of interlanguage knowledge. In House, J. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 211–227). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Fehrenbach, C.R. (1991). Gifted/average readers: Do they use the same reading strategies? Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 125–127.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54, 587–653.Google Scholar
Fidler, E.J. (1983). The reliability and validity of concurrent, retrospective, and interpretive verbal reports: An experimental study. In Humphreys, P., Svenson, O., & Vari, A. (Eds.), Analyzing and aiding decision processes (pp. 429–440). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Folger, T.L. (2001). Readers' parallel text construction while talking and thinking about the reading process Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 1329A.Google Scholar
Gagné, R.H. & Smith, E.C. (1962). A study of the effects of verbalization on problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 12–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gascón, C.D. (1998). The Spanish psych verb construction: Beginning and intermediate learners' patterns of usage. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 3, 69–84.Google Scholar
Gass, S.M. & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gavin, C.A. (1989). The strategies of native and limited English proficient test-takers as revealed by think-aloud protocols (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 640A.Google Scholar
Gordon, C.J. (1990). Modeling an expository text structure strategy in think alouds. Reading Horizons, 31, 149–167.Google Scholar
Green, A.J.F. (1998). Using verbal protocols in language testing research: A handbook. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, S. & Sutton, P. (2003). What do children think as they plan their writing? Reading: Literacy and Language, 37, 32–38.Google Scholar
Hafner, J. (1957). Influence of verbalization on problem solving. Psychological Reports, 3, 360.Google Scholar
Hagafors, R. & Brehmer, B. (1983). Does having to justify one's judgments change the nature of the judgment process? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 223–232.Google Scholar
Hammond, K.R. & Summers, D.A. (1972). Cognitive control. Psychological Review, 79, 58–67.Google Scholar
Harmon, J.M. (2000). Assessing and supporting independent word learning strategies of middle school students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 518–527.Google Scholar
Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning about learning: Discovering our students' strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 9, 117–129.Google Scholar
Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and nonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5, 110–123.Google Scholar
Hosenfeld, C. (1979). Cindy: A learner in today's foreign language classroom. In Borne, W. (Ed.), The foreign language learner in today's classroom environment (pp. 53–75). Montpelier, VT: Northwest Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar
Hosenfeld, C. (1984). Case studies of ninth grade readers. In Alderson, J. C. & Urquhart, A. H. (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 231–249). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 347–386.Google Scholar
Jaaskelainen, R. (2000). Focus on methodology in think-aloud studies on translating. In Condit, S. Tirkkonen & Jaaskelainen, R. (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research (pp. 71–82). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jourdenais, R. (2001). Cognition, instruction, and protocol analysis. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 354–376). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1999). Data collection in pragmatics research. University of Hawai‘i Working Papers in ESL, 18, 71–107.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Katona, G. (1940). Organizing and memorizing. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kern, R.G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 441–461.Google Scholar
Knoblich, G. & Rhenius, D. (1995). Zur Reaktivität Lauten Denkens beim komplexen Problemlösen [The reactivity of thinking aloud during complex problem solving]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 42, 419–454.Google Scholar
Lass, U., Klettke, W., Lüer, G., & Ruhlender, P. (1991). Does thinking aloud influence the structure of cognitive processes? In Schmidt, R. & Zambarbieri, D. (Eds.), Oculomotor control and cognitive processes (pp. 385–396). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Leow, R.P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467–505.Google Scholar
Leow, R.P. (1998a). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners' L2 development in SLA. Modern Language Journal, 82, 49–68.Google Scholar
Leow, R.P. (1998b). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa's (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133–159.Google Scholar
Leow, R.P. (1999). The role of attention in second/foreign language classroom research: Methodological issues. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, F. M.-G. J. (Ed.), Advances in Hispanic linguistics: Papers from the 2nd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 60–71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Leow, R.P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.Google Scholar
Leow, R.P. (2001a). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 113–155.Google Scholar
Leow, R.P. (2001b). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496–509.Google Scholar
Leow, R.P. & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35–57.Google Scholar
LoCoco, V.L. (1987). Learner comprehension of oral and written sentences in German and Spanish: The importance of word order. In VanPatten, B., Dvorak, T. R., & Lee, J. F. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 61–75). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based learning. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. M. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S.M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.Google Scholar
Marks, M.R. (1951). Problem solving as a function of the situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 74–80.Google Scholar
Mathews, R.C., Buss, R.R., Stanley, W.B., Blanchard-Fields, F., Cho, J.R., & Druhan, B. (1989). Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A synergistic effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1083–1100.Google Scholar
McGeorge, P. & Burton, A.M. (1989). The effects of concurrent verbalization on performance in a dynamic systems task. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 455–465.Google Scholar
McGuire, K.L. & Yewchuk, C.R. (1996). Use of metacognitive reading strategies by gifted and learning disabled students: An exploratory study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 293–314.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (1997). Spanish gustar psych verbs and the unaccusative se construction: The case of dative experiencers in SLA. In Pérez-Leroux, A. & Glass, W. R. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish: Vol. 1. Developing grammars (pp. 189–207). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (1998). The L2 acquisition of dative experiencer subjects. Second Language Research, 14, 27–61.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student's second language learning. Language Awareness, 11, 43–63.Google Scholar
Nevo, N. (1989). Test-taking strategies on a multiple-choice test of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 6, 199–215.Google Scholar
Norris, S.P. (1992). A demonstration of the use of verbal reports of thinking in multiple-choice critical thinking test design. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 38, 155–176.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Nonnative speakers' noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.Google Scholar
Polio, C., Gass, S.M., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 237–267.Google Scholar
Rhenius, D. & Deffner, G. (1990, October). Evaluation of concurrent thinking aloud using eye-tracking data. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
Robinson, K.M. (2001). The validity of verbal reports in children's subtraction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 211–222.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. (1991). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In Kasper, G. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language (pp. 29–84). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Rosa, E. & Leow, R.P. (2004a). Awareness, different learning conditions, and L2 development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269–292.Google Scholar
Rosa, E. & Leow, R.P. (2004b). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88, 192–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, E. & O'Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.Google Scholar
Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49, 26–33.Google Scholar
Russo, J.E., Johnson, E.J., & Stephens, D.L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory and Cognition, 17, 759–769.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. (1999). What form to focus on? Linguistics, language awareness, and the education of L2 teachers. In Lee, J. F. & Valdman, A. (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (pp. 3–23). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schooler, J.W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 122, 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–231.Google Scholar
Shanks, D.R. & St. John, M.F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367–447.Google Scholar
Short, E.J., Schatschneider, C., Cuddy, C.L., Evans, S.W., Dellick, D.M., & Basili, L.A. (1991). The effect of thinking aloud on the problem solving performance of bright, average, learning disabled, and developmentally handicapped students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 139–153.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P.M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83, 1–22.Google Scholar
Stanley, W.B., Mathews, R.C., Buss, R.R., & Kotler-Cope, S. (1989). Insight without awareness: On the interaction of verbalization, instruction, and practice in a simulated process control task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 553–577.Google Scholar
Stratman, J.F. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols. In Smagorinsky, P. (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 89–112). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Van Patten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction in communicative tasks. In Eckman, F. R., Highland, D., Lee, P. W., Mileham, J., & Weber, R. R. (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–186). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Warren, J. (1996). How students pick the right answer: A ‘think aloud’ study of the French CAT. In Burston, J., Monville-Burston, M., & Warren, J. (Eds.), Australian Society for French Studies 2nd Annual Conference: Issues and innovations in the teaching of French (pp. 79–94). Canberra: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.Google Scholar
Wijgh, I.F. (1996). A communicative test in analysis: Strategies in reading authentic texts. In Cumming, A. & Berwick, R. (Eds.), Validation in language testing (pp. 154–170). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Wilder, L. & Harvey, D.J. (1971). Overt and covert verbalization and problem solving. Speech Monographs, 38, 171–176.Google Scholar
Williams, A.M. & Davids, K. (1997). Assessing cue usage in performance contexts: A comparison between eye-movement and concurrent verbal report methods. Behavior Research Method, Instruments, & Computers, 29, 364–375.Google Scholar
Wilson, T.D. & Schooler, J.W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181–192.Google Scholar
Yamashita, J. (2002). Reading strategies in L1 and L2: Comparison of four groups of readers with different reading ability in L1 and L2. ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 135–136, 1–35.Google Scholar
Zellermayer, M. & Cohen, J. (1996). Varying paths for learning to revise. Instructional Science, 24, 177–195.Google Scholar