Methodological Challenges in Implementing Think-Alouds to Investigate EFL Readers’ Comprehension Strategies

Main Article Content

Wanpen Poomarin
Mongkolchai Tiansoodeenon
Suphannee Arsairach
Benjaporn Meeprom


This study aimed to investigate methodological challenges in using the think-aloud method to assess EFL students’ employment of reading strategies. The participants in this study consisted of 16 Thai EFL university students. Think-aloud and videotaped observations were used to collect the data. The data were analyzed by content analysis. The results of the study revealed that levels of text difficulty and topics of interest, familiarity with the think-aloud method and the observer, ability to verbalize thoughts, and cultural differences were major methodological challenges in the maximum utilization of the think-aloud method for collecting qualitative data. Based on the findings, some pedagogical implications were suggested for utilizing the think-aloud method in the English reading classroom.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

บทความวิจัย (Research Article)


Adunyarittigun, D. (2012). Reading assessment (Unpublished manuscript). Thammasat University, Bangkok.

Afflerbach, P. (2002). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Methods of literacy research: The methodology chapters from the Handbook of Reading Research (Vol 3, pp. 87-103). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 403-427). New York: Routledge.

Ainley, M. D., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545-561.

Albers, E. (2015). Usability of the think aloud method: Link between verbalizing and a second language. Retrieved from eefae9c06aeeb

Bainbridge, L., & Sanderson, P. (2005). Verbal protocol analysis. In J. R. Wilson & E. N. Corlett (Eds.), Evaluation of human work (pp. 159-184). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.

Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319-343.

Branch, J. L. (2000). Investigating the information-seeking processes of adolescents: The value of using think alouds and think after. Library and Information Science Research, 22(4), 371-392.

Chamot, A. U. (2007). Instruction and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), The good language learner: Lessons from research (pp. 71-79). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Flesch, R. (1979). How to write plain English: Let’s start with the formula. Retrieved from

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching: Reading. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Green, A. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis in language testing research: A handbook. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.

Johnstone, C. J., Bottsford-Miller, N. A., & Thompson, S. J. (2006). Using the think aloud method (cognitive labs) to evaluate test design for students with disabilities and English language learners (Technical Report 44). Retrieved from

Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2003). Reading in two languages: How attitudes toward home language and beliefs about reading affect the behaviors of “underprepared” L2 college readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 35-71.

Kasper, L. F. (1993). The keyword method and foreign language vocabulary learning: A rational for its use. Foreign Language Annals, 26(2), 244-251.

Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy instruction (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kim, H. S. (2002). We talk, therefore we think?. A cultural analysis of the effect of talking on thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 828-842.

Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785-800.

Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Think aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299.

Kurtz, K. J., Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. (1999). Reasoning. In B. J. Bly & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Cognitive science: Handbook of perception and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 145-200). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Leighton, J. P. (2004). Avoiding misconception, misuse, and missed opportunities: The collection of verbal reports in educational achievement testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(4), 6-15.

Leighton, J. P., Rogers, W. T., & Maguire, T. O. (1999). Assessment of student problem solving on ill-defined tasks. Allberta Journal of Educational Research, 45(4), 409-427.

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2009). Formal and informal measures of reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 403-427). New York: Routledge.

Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., & Heiman, R. J. (1996). Culture and “basic” psychological principles. In E. T. Higgin & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 857-913). New York: Guilford Press.

Meeampol, S. (2008). What is going on in students’ minds as they read?: The use of think-aloud protocol analysis in reading. BU Academic Review, 8(1), 52-57.

Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental process. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231-259.

Noyes, J. M. (2006). Verbal protocol analysis. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (2nd ed., pp. 3390-3392). London: Taylor & Francis.

Odier, D. (2003). Mediation techniques of the Buddhist and Taoist masters. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pritchard, R., & Breneman, B. (2000). Strategic teaching and learning: Standards-based instruction to promote content literacy in grades four through twelve. Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.

Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimum motivation and performance (pp. 373-404). New York: Academic Press.

Robinson, K. M. (2001). The validity of verbal reports in children’s subtraction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 211-222.

Sasaki, T. (2008). Concurrent think-aloud protocol as a socially situated construct. IRAL, 46(4), 346-347.

Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52.

Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Taylor, K. L., & Dionne, J. P. (2000). Accessing problem-solving strategy knowledge: The complementary use of concurrent verbal protocols and retrospective debriefing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 413-425.

Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think-aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive process. Retrieved from

Walker, G. (2005). Verbal protocol analysis. In N. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas, & H. Hendrick (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (pp. 301-309). New York: CRC Press.

Wu, S. (2016). The use of L1 cognitive resources in L2 reading by Chinese EFL learners. New York: Routledge.