Individualized Categories of Verbal Reports in Classroom Think-Aloud Translation Tasks

  • Anna Michońska-StadnikEmail author
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)


Introspection is one of the most popular qualitative research methods in psychology and it consists of asking participants to report verbally on their cognitive and/or emotional states while performing a specific task or activity (Brown & Rodgers, 2002, p. 53). In second language acquisition studies, introspection is frequently used to observe and analyze learners’ mental processes while they are engaged in a language task. This type of research has an interdisciplinary character as it employs data gathering techniques used primarily in social sciences. Such verbal reports, either audio- or video-recorded, are often referred to as think-alouds or talk-alouds (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). The collected data, often quite extensive, must be then analyzed and categorized in order to define learners’ mental and emotional states. Different sets of categories for coding think-alouds have been proposed, for example, monitoring, signaling, elaborating, and reasoning (Brown & Lytle, 1988). This chapter presents an analysis of the recorded set of think-alouds done by secondary-school students during a written translation task from L2 (English) to L1 (Polish). Apart from categories suggested in different coding schemes for verbal protocols, some new categories emerged, for example, abandoning the message, commenting on other students’ work, asking for help, planning for the task, and many others. They reveal a wide spectrum of learners’ emotional states, which may contribute to a better understanding of task demands, classroom interaction patterns, and may allow the broadening of the repertoire of coding categories in the analysis of think-alouds.


Introspection Think-aloud protocols Written verbal reports Translation tasks Coding categories 


  1. Bernardini, S. (n.d.). Using think-aloud protocols to investigate the translation process: methodological aspects. Retrieved from
  2. Bernardini, S. (2001). Think-aloud protocols in translation research: Achievements, limits, future prospects. Target, 13(2), 241–263. doi: 10.1075/target.12.2.03ber.
  3. Borger, J. (1993, March 17). Sense of humour up the pole. The Guardian, p. 4.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, C. S., & Lytle, S. L. (1988). Merging assessment and instruction: Protocols in the classroom. In S. M. Glazer, L. W. Seafross, & L. M. Gentile (Eds.), Re-examining reading diagnosis: New trends and procedures (pp. 94–102). Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Common European framework of reference for languages. (2001). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  7. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. ([1984]1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1987). Introspection in second language research. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  9. Krings, H. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2). In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp. 263–275). Tübingen: G.Narr.Google Scholar
  10. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, C. H. (1982). Using the ‘thinking aloud’ method in cognitive interface design. Yorktown Heights, NY: IBM T. J. Watson Research Center.Google Scholar
  12. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1997). Who verbalizes what: A linguistic analysis of TAP texts. Target, 9(1), 69–84. doi:10.75/target.9.1.05tir.Google Scholar
  13. van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Barnard, J. A. C. (1994). The think-aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Zhao, T., & McDonald, S. (2010). Keep talking: An analysis of participant utterances gathered using two different think-aloud methods. Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Extending Boundaries—NordiCHI (pp. 581–590). New York: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/1868914.1868979.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WrocławWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations