On the Use of Verbal Reports in Reading Research

Afflerbach, Peter; Johnston, Peter

doi:10.1080/10862968409547524

Cited by 141 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The think-aloud protocols elicited for this study are subject to the limitations germane to verbal report data (Afflerbach & Johnston, 1984;Ericsson & Simon, 1984). Thus, the predictions reported by subjects may represent a subset of the actual predictions the subjects used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach to preparing subjects for the verbal reporting task appears less likely to bias subjects' responses than other commonly used methods, such as modeling the specific strategies to be investigated (Afflerbach & Johnston, 1984). Immediately prior to the experimental session, subjects were given texts with which they practiced the think-aloud task.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When subjects read the essay they were asked to give verbal reports related to the structure of the text, an instruction not included in the narrative text task instructions. The nature of verbal reports may be severely affected by the instructions given to subjects (Afflerbach & Johnston, 1984;Ericsson & Simon, 1984), and it is possible that the effects of the two different sets of instructions to subjects were confounded with the experimentally controlled factors. However, experimental conditions were considered equivalent by Olson and his colleagues, under both sets of instructions.…”

Section: Quantitative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Influence of Prior Knowledge and Text Genre on Readers' Prediction Strategies

Afflerbach

1990

Journal of Reading Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the influence of prior knowledge and text genre on readers' prediction strategies. Three groups of subjects read two genres of text (short stories and essays), and gave verbal reports of their prediction strategies while reading. Next, subjects rated the texts in terms of relative familiarity of text content. Quantitative analysis of the think-aloud protocols indicated statistically significant differences in frequency of reports of predictions for particular texts. Subjects reported making significantly more predictions on the essays rated more familiar, and on the story which was rated more familiar. There were no significant differences in frequency of reported predictions on the short story and essay which were rated most familiar. Results indicate that readers' prior knowledge for the content of the text may significantly influence the nature of readers' prediction strategies. Qualitative analysis of protocols allowed for examination of the variation in the types of predictions and prediction-related strategies which were used by readers in this study. Implications of findings for reading comprehension theory and educational practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quantitative Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of Prior Knowledge and Text Genre on Readers' Prediction Strategies

Afflerbach

1990

Journal of Reading Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Asking readers to read a selection and think out loud as they do so has provided valuable information about how readers build their situational mental models (Afflerbach & Johnston, 1984;Myers, 1988;Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995;Pritchard, 1990). Such think-alouds offer researchers the opportunity "to examine what the reader does to facilitate comprehension" during reading (Myers & Lytle, 1986, p. 140).…”

Section: Résumémentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking Aloud in Expository Text: Processes and Outcomes

Caldwell

Leslie

2010

Journal of Literacy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines three questions: What kinds of think-aloud statements, in particular what kinds of inferences, are made by middle school students while reading expository text? Does thinking aloud affect comprehension as measured by recall and answers to questions? Does thinking aloud add value to the assessment of comprehension beyond what is learned through recall and question answering? Sixty-eight middle-school students read expository texts and thought aloud on one segment and did not think aloud on another segment. After completing each segment, the students recalled the texts and answered comprehension questions. The content of think-alouds and recall was examined using Trabasso and Magliano's (1996a) clausal coding scheme and inferences were differentiated as explanatory, predictive or associative. Students primarily paraphrased the text as they thought aloud and made associative inferences using text information. Thinking aloud was associated with more associative inferences in recall, which correlated negatively with the ability to answer comprehension questions. The content of think-alouds may provide a more sensitive picture of readers' processing than unaided recall or answers to questions.

show abstract

“…However, problem-solving processes like reading-to-assess are best investigated by using a think-aloud procedure (e.g., Afflerbach & Johnston, 1984;Ericsson, 1988;Lundeberg, 1987;Russo, Johnson, & Stephens, 1989;van Duyne, 1983;Waern, 1980;Wyatt et al, 1993).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%