380 FALL 2012

Is Thinking Aloud Reactive When

Writing in the Heritage Language?
Iñigo Yanguas
University of San Diego

Beatriz Lado
Lehman College of the City University of New York

Abstract: Critics argue that requiring subjects to verbalize their thoughts while com-
pleting certain language tasks increases the participants’ cognitive load and impairs their
final performance (e.g., Jourdenais, 2001). Despite the importance of this claim for lan-
guage instructors, few studies have produced contradicting evidence after an empirical
study (e.g., Goo, 2010).
This study investigates whether thinking aloud in either English or Spanish hindered
performance during a semi-guided writing task completed by 37 college students whose
heritage language (HL) is Spanish. This study also explores the validity of implementing
think-alouds to investigate HL writing, an area which requires more research. Results
indicate that thinking aloud while writing in the HL benefits fluency and accuracy. These
results support studies that found positive reactivity and those concluding that concurrent
verbalizations should be employed with caution.

Key words: Spanish heritage language learners, concurrent verbalizations, reactivity,

think-aloud protocols, writing tasks

Introduction
Understanding the cognitive processes that underlie second language (L2) develop-
ment is one of the key issues in the instructed second language acquisition (SLA)
field in the 21st century. A better insight into these processes would certainly have
positive consequences for this field. Theoretically, it could help explain differences
in rate and level of attainment among learners, which have been so evasive to schol-
ars. Pragmatically, instructors and curriculum developers could potentially use this
knowledge to improve L2 teaching and maximize students’ efforts to become pro-
ficient in another language.
Two main options are available to researchers interested in providing insight
into learners’ minds as they perform tasks in the L2: concurrent and retrospective
verbalization procedures (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). The former requires asking
learners to speak aloud their thoughts, which are recorded, while carrying out a

Iñigo Yanguas (PhD, Georgetown University) is Associate Professor of Spanish at

the University of San Diego, California.
Beatriz Lado (PhD, Georgetown University) is Assistant Professor of Applied Lin-
guistics at Lehman College of the City University of New York.
Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 45, Iss. 3, pp. 380–399. © 2012 by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
DOI: 10.111/j.1944-9720.2012.01198.x
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. 3
learning task. The latter involves asking
learners about their perceptions of their per-
formance after the task; stimulated recall is
widely used. A short time after the task, sub-
jects are exposed to the recording of their
task performance so that they can recall
their thought processes when prompted by
the researcher (Gass & Mackey, 2000).
There are advocates and opponents
for both methods among SLA scholars, as
both present limitations. On the one hand,
concurrent verbal protocols have been
argued to be reactive; several researchers
have contended that demanding subjects to
think aloud while carrying out certain tasks
places an additional burden on participants’
cognitive load so that final performance
is most certainly affected (Ellis, 2001;
Jourdenais, 2001). On the other hand,
retrospective verbalizations are obviously
“subject to confounds such as memory
decay” (Bowles, 2010, p. 11). It is therefore
possible to question the validity and accu-
racy of the information gathered through
the use of this technique.
The argument continues, and the field is
still debating the validity of concurrent pro-
tocols to investigate L2 learners’ cognitive
processes. The issue is key to SLA, as critics
of the use of think-aloud procedures have
argued that this technique imposes a double
burden on participants’ cognitive process-
ing capacity, which could affect their ability
to process language. Due to the important
consequences of this claim for SLA, a grow-
ing body of researchers has empirically
addressed the reactivity of verbal proto-
cols (Bowles, 2008; Bowles & Leow, 2005;
Goo, 2010; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004;
Rossomondo, 2007; Sachs & Polio, 2007;
Sachs & Suh, 2007; Sanz, Lin, Lado,
Bowden, & Stafford, 2009; Yoshida, 2008).
It is not possible to draw general conclu-
sions from these studies because they have
produced contradicting evidence. Bowles
conducted a meta-analysis that included
most of these studies and concluded that
“the answer to the question of reactivity and
think-alouds is not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but
rather is dependent on a host of variables”
381
(Bowles, 2010, p. 106). Among the variables
considered, Bowles stressed type of verbali-
zation (cognitive vs. metacognitive), type of
task (e.g., reading, writing, grammar learn-
ing), and level of L2 proficiency, and she
claimed that research on writing and reac-
tivity with advanced levels of L2 proficiency
is required.
The present study, therefore, adds to
the reactivity literature by investigating
heritage language (HL) learners’ writing,
an area that has gone mainly unexplored in
this strand of research. Although HL speak-
ers usually have a language of preference for
particular domains (i.e., education, home,
friends, etc.), they are considered bilinguals
with a high level of oral proficiency in both
the language they learn at home and the
language they learn in school. In the former,
however, they usually display very low levels
of literacy. For this reason, those HL speak-
ers who take Spanish at the university level
are often placed in courses for HL speak-
ers designed to help them improve their
formal command of the language. Hence,
this study expands on previous findings on
reactivity to determine whether thinking
aloud affects performance during a writing
task completed by Spanish HL speakers. By
doing so, this study also explores the valid-
ity of implementing think-alouds to investi-
gate writing by HL speakers, an area where
the number of studies has been very limited
(e.g., Schwartz, 2003, 2005). Participants
in this study could use their language of
choice to perform the think-alouds.
Review of the Literature
Think-aloud protocols have been widely
used to investigate cognitive processes in sev-
eral fields since the 1980s (for a summary,
see Bowles, 2010). It was not until the early
1990s, however, that the distinction between
concurrent and retrospective verbalizations
was made (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). These
researchers classified verbalizations as either
concurrent or retrospective, categorizing
the temporal frame in which verbal proto-
cols are collected. The former requires that
382
subjects verbalize their thoughts while they
carry out the task, whereas the latter makes
participants recall their thoughts shortly
after completing the task. In addition, these
authors distinguished three different levels of
verbalizations: Type 1—vocalization of verbal
contents, Type 2—verbalizations of nonver-
bal contents that are put into verbal form, and
Type 3—those protocols that have subjects
explaining their thought processes. In the
context of SLA research, Bowles and Leow
(2005) and Bowles (2008) referred to ver-
balizations of thoughts per se as nonmetalin-
guistic and verbalizations of explanations and
justifications as metalinguistic. More recently,
Bowles (2010) used the terms metacognitive
and nonmetacognitive, because those terms
could be used to refer to both verbal and non-
verbal tasks. The present study adheres to the
former terminology, which has traditionally
been used in SLA to refer to verbalizations
produced during verbal tasks.
As mentioned above, reactivity (either
positive, improving task performance or neg-
ative, deteriorating learners’ performance)
seems to be one of the most controversial
issues concerning the use of concurrent ver-
bal elicitation techniques, and, as such, it
has been investigated in studies across differ-
ent fields in cognitive psychology (Bowles,
2010). In general, results of these studies,
most of which utilized nonverbal tasks,
have supported Ericsson and Simon’s claim
that verbalizations that require participants
to explain their thoughts have more poten-
tial for reactivity. Bowles’s review, including
studies that appeared after Ericsson and
Simon (1993), also supported Ericsson and
Simon’s claim that the type of cognitive task
conducted may influence the presence or
absence of reactivity. Overall, it seems that
studies with tasks that pose greater cogni-
tive demands are more susceptible to reac-
tivity when compared to those with less
cognitively demanding tasks.
The Exploration of Reactivity in SLA
As mentioned above, studies in this strand
of research have produced contradicting
FALL 2012
evidence. Some investigations have not
found any supportive evidence for reactiv-
ity. For example, Leow and Morgan-Short
(2004) compared a control group with no
verbalizations (–TA) to a nonmetalinguistic
verbalization group (⫹TA) in 77 Spanish
language beginners. As dependent meas-
ures, this study used text comprehension,
intake, and written production of the for-
mal imperative in Spanish, and participants
were instructed to think aloud during the
treatment and the tests in either their L1
or L2, as they preferred. Results showed no
significant differences between the groups
on either text comprehension or postassess-
ment task performance. No supportive evi-
dence for reactivity was found. In a similar
vein, Bowles and Leow (2005) compared
a control group to two different verbaliza-
tion groups, metalinguistic and nonmeta-
linguistic, in 45 Spanish advanced learners.
As in Leow and Morgan-Short (2004),
participants were asked to read a text with
enhanced forms of the target form, which
was the Spanish pluperfect subjunctive.
Assessment tools included one comprehen-
sion test and two fill-in-the-blank produc-
tion tests with both old and new items.
Results showed no reactivity effect for the
nonmetalinguistic group in comprehen-
sion and production tasks, whereas a slight
decrease was shown in comprehension for
the metalinguistic group; furthermore, no
difference was shown in production for the
metalinguistic group when compared to
either group. In addition, both verbaliza-
tion groups took significantly more time to
complete the tasks when compared to the
control group.
Along the same lines, Yoshida (2008)
did not find any reactivity. This study inves-
tigated reading and reactivity in 64 Japa-
nese ESL learners distributed in six groups
formed from a combination of ⫹/–TA and
type of reading condition (control text, text
with questions embedded, and text with
instructions to prepare an outline). After
reading the passage and completing the
corresponding task, participants completed
a written recall task to measure reading
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. 3
comprehension. Participants in the think-
aloud group produced metalinguistic ver-
balizations as they were asked to explain
their decisions in the language of their
choice (L1 or L2). The results showed
that the ⫹TA group needed more time to
complete the task. However, no difference
between groups was found for performance.
Among the studies that found sup-
portive evidence for reactivity, Sachs and
Polio (2007) is the only study that has
investigated reactivity with a writing task.
They found negative reactivity when inves-
tigating a writing task and different types
of feedback in 15 high-intermediate ESL
students. These authors reported on two
studies conducted to investigate any pos-
sible differences in the linguistic accuracy
of writing revisions when different feed-
back was provided as well as how reports
of awareness were related to the changes
they made on those revisions. Think-
aloud procedures were utilized to investi-
gate reactivity and to assess awareness and
linguistic accuracy of revisions. Results
of the first study (a three-week repeated-
measures design) showed that learners in
the –TA group produced significantly more
accurate revisions than those in the ⫹TA
group. However, the second study (a non-
repeated-measures design) results showed
no reactivity. The authors concluded that
“although [concurrent] verbal protocols
can shed light on learner-internal processes
in relation to written feedback, they should
be interpreted with care […] keep in mind
that the requirement to verbalize concur-
rently might affect their results” (p. 86).
When interpreting these results, it should
be borne in mind that, as opposed to the
majority of the studies on reactivity where
participants were asked to verbalize in their
language of preference, Sachs and Polio
asked their participants to verbalize in the
L2.
Research where reactivity was found
also includes Bowles (2008). In this study,
Bowles found reactivity only for some
variables. She conducted a study with 194
first-semester Spanish learners assigned to
383
one of six groups in a computer-assisted
language learning (CALL) environment;
the groups were formed from a combina-
tion of type of think-aloud (metalinguistic,
nonmetalinguistic, and silent) and type of
feedback (⫹/– explicit). All groups com-
pleted a Pac-Man game designed to teach
the correct use of the verb gustar (to like).
Participants in the think-aloud group could
verbalize in their L1 or L2, as desired, while
completing the treatment and production
tests. The results revealed reactivity in the
metalinguistic group for latency and for
production of items seen during the treat-
ment. Bowles found no reactivity, however,
for the nonmetalinguistic group in any of
the measurements or for the metalinguistic
group in production of new items.
Rossomondo (2007) investigated reac-
tivity in a study with 161 first-semester
Spanish learners. The study explored the
role of temporal indicators (e.g., temporal
adverbs) in the incidental acquisition of
the Spanish future tense. Participants were
instructed to read a text for comprehension
and were later asked to complete compre-
hension, recognition, and production tests.
The results revealed no difference between
groups (⫹/–TA) in the comprehension test.
However, in the recognition and production
tests, the ⫹TA outperformed the –TA group.
More recently, Sanz et al. (2009)
reported on two CALL experiments carried
out to assess the impact of concurrent ver-
balizations. In these studies, a think-aloud
group and a control group interacted with
the computer to receive a Latin grammar
lesson, task-essential practice, and explicit
feedback. In a pre-post design, both groups
were assessed on accuracy and reaction
time for three different tests: aural interpre-
tation, grammatical judgment, and written
production. These two studies only differed
in the treatment: The second study did not
include a grammar lesson. Results showed
that for the first study, verbalizations did
not affect accuracy scores but considerably
slowed down performance on grammatical-
ity judgments. For the second study, how-
ever, results showed that concurrent verbal
384
protocols positively affected performance
on all accuracy tests. These results have
important implications for the field, given
that they seem to suggest that “reactiv-
ity does not only depend on the nature of
the treatment or on the tool to measure the
effects but also on the nature of the depend-
ent variable” (Sanz et al., 2009, p. 2). These
authors concluded that concurrent verbali-
zations should be used with caution.
Goo (2010) investigated think-alouds
and working memory capacity in a study
with 42 first-semester Spanish learn-
ers completing a reading task and two L1
working memory (WM) tests (listening
and operation span test). Participants were
divided into two groups (⫹TA and –TA)
and were instructed to read a text contain-
ing 20 instances of the target form (i.e.,
immediate future in Spanish in the first
person plural vamos a ⫹ infinitivo [we are
going to ⫹ infinitive]). Assessment tools
included a reading comprehension test
and a fill-in-the-blank production test. The
results showed negative reactivity for read-
ing comprehension but not for production
of the target form. In addition, this study
also revealed an interesting finding with
regard to the relationship between thinking
aloud and WM capacity: Reactivity seemed
to appear among high WM capacity learn-
ers during the production of new items.
Some studies, such as Sachs and Suh
(2007), have not been conclusive in their
results. These authors explored reactivity in
a study on recast effects in a computer-medi-
ated communication (CMC) environment.
Thirty Korean EFL learners read a story in
their native language and were later asked to
retell it in English. The think-aloud group
was asked to verbalize their thoughts in the
language in which they felt most comfort-
able. The target form was the sequencing of
tenses in English. Assessment tasks included
a text completion multiple-choice test and an
interactive computer-mediated test designed
to measure learners’ ability to produce the
target form. As mentioned by the research-
ers, the results were not conclusive for reac-
tivity due to the lack of interaction between
FALL 2012
time and group (⫹/–TA). A main effect for
group was only found on text completion,
which indicated that both groups performed
differently regardless of time.
These results can also be interpreted in
the context of the meta-analysis conducted
by Bowles (2010), in which all these stud-
ies (except Goo, 2010) were included. In
this meta-analysis, the researcher concluded
that the presence or absence of reactivity
was related to the variables present in each
study. Factors such as type of verbal report
(metacognitive vs. nonmetacognitive), type
of task (reading, writing, and grammar
learning), or L2 proficiency were included
in the analyses and revealed contradicting
results. Thinking aloud had a small, facilita-
tive effect on text comprehension, a small to
medium-sized facilitative effect on receptive
form learning, and a medium-sized effect on
measures of productive form learning, rang-
ing from being detrimental to being facili-
tative. Bowles (2010) concluded that more
research is needed on reactivity in relation
to several factors, such as language of verbal
report, writing, and level of L2 learners. The
present study contributes to filling some of
these gaps by investigating reactivity in the
writing of Spanish HL speakers, English/
Spanish bilinguals enrolled in a Spanish-for-
native-speakers college course. HL speakers
are considered advanced learners of their
HL, although their needs are thought to dif-
fer from those of the regular advanced L2
learner. Their needs typically include devel-
oping a formal variety of the language as
well as improving their writing skills. Thus,
in addition to contributing to the reactivity
issue with a population of high-proficiency
learners, this study may be informative to
the field of HL writing, where concurrent
verbal protocols have rarely been used. The
next section summarizes the studies that
have investigated writing in HL speakers
from different perspectives.
Spanish HL Speakers’ Writing
In broad terms, two types of studies abound
in the field of HL writing: investigations that
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. 3
explore HL speakers’ writing strategies (e.g.,
Schwartz, 2003, 2005) and studies that
offer pedagogical models to improve this
population’s writing skills (e.g., Chevalier,
2004; Martínez, 2007). Recently, attitudes
toward and experiences of writing among
HL speakers outside the academic context
have also been investigated (e.g., Callahan,
2010).
Martínez (2007) claimed that inves-
tigations have recently revealed two dif-
ferent tendencies in the study of writing
strategies in Spanish as HL: backward and
forward biliteracy. In the former, writing
follows the rhetorical traditions in the
dominant language, whereas in the lat-
ter, HL writers transgress those barriers
and create “their own transcultural paths
of expression” (p. 31). In particular, his
study focused on the variation between
overt and null subject pronouns in Spanish
in the context of those two different writ-
ing tendencies. After analyzing the writing
of two different types of text by 13 first-
year HL speakers, Martínez concluded that
his data suggested that transfer of literacy
skills is “discursively situated in different
contexts of situation” (p. 40). In this fash-
ion, he challenged the notion that linguis-
tic and rhetoric transfer is unidimensional
and proposed a model of multidimensional
transfer. This model takes into account
and validates the multiple literacies that
students bring with them to the classroom
in both the HL and the dominant language.
Chevalier (2004) took the opposite
stance and proposed a pedagogical model
based on the view that literacy should be
developed by expanding HL speakers’ famil-
iarity with genres of written discourse. The
model has six writing modes grouped in
four stages: stage I (conversation), stage II
(description and narrative), stage III (evalu-
ation and explanation), and stage IV (argu-
ment). In each one of these modes, writers
focus on the processes, discourse types, and
linguistic resources needed in every genre.
Chevalier concluded that this model “is
designed to give students tools for express-
ing themselves effectively in writing and
385
strengthening their overall grasp of the her-
itage language” (p. 10).
As noted by Jourdenais (2001), verbal
protocols have been employed extensively
in writing research to inform general mod-
els of composition (e.g., Hayes & Flower,
1980) and to investigate the cognitive pro-
cesses of L1 and L2 writers (e.g., Swain &
Lapkin, 1995). The only two studies in the
Spanish-as-HL literature that have included
think-aloud protocols in their research
designs did so to explore writing strategies.
Schwartz’s (2003) case study, for example,
utilized different data-gathering techniques
in order to investigate Spanish HL speakers’
writing strategies. First, her three partici-
pants filled in the self-efficacy questionnaire
that assessed their level of confidence in
the four skills. Participants also made indi-
vidual appointments with the researcher to
complete the writing assignment (a descrip-
tive writing task) in her office. Subjects
were then instructed on how to think aloud
and were given the topic for the composi-
tion essay that they would complete while
thinking aloud. These concurrent verbali-
zations were tape-recorded, and so were the
interviews that took place right after par-
ticipants had finished their compositions.
Schwartz claimed that the most interesting
findings concerning the think-alouds were
that all three participants thought mainly
in English, followed similar writing strat-
egies (even if they were not equally suc-
cessful), and based their writing on what
they thought sounded right to their
own Spanish-native ear. Schwartz (2003)
reported that the “student dealt with search-
ing for the ‘right’ way to express her ideas
in Spanish so that the language she used
satisfied her inner L1/HL model” (p. 247).
Interestingly, she acknowledged that these
verbal protocols had actually intervened in
all three participants’ writing processes, as
revealed in the interview. In particular, she
mentioned that all three participants’ writ-
ing routines were disrupted by the think-
aloud procedures.
In her follow-up study, Schwartz (2005)
explored differences and similarities
386
between two different types of bilingual
students according to Valdés’s (1997) well-
known definition. Valdés defined Type A
speakers as having basic academic skills
in Spanish and being fluent in a rural con-
tact variety of Spanish. Type B students do
not have any academic skills in Spanish
and are limited speakers of a rural contact
variety of Spanish. Three of Schwartz’s par-
ticipants were considered Type B, whereas
the remaining two participants were clas-
sified as Type A bilinguals. Schwartz not
only compared both groups of students but
also analyzed the individual writing perfor-
mance and writing strategies used by each
participant in three different writing phases
(pre-writing, composing, and editing).
Schwartz assessed six linguistic measures:
number of words, number of T-units, num-
ber of words per T-unit (W/T), total num-
ber of clauses divided by total number of
T-units (C/T ratio), total number of errors
divided by total number of T-units (E/T
ratio), and number of error-free T-units.
The definition of a T-unit used in Schwartz’s
study is a main clause plus any subordinate
clauses containing a subject and a finite
verb.
Think-aloud protocols were used to
assess writing strategies along with a strat-
egy questionnaire. Several similarities were
found within and between the groups. All
participants composed strategies (e.g.,
repeating words, phrases, or parts of a sen-
tence) and planned and revised as they
wrote rather than before or after writing a
first version. As for differences, the most
distinct one seemed to be the total depend-
ence on translation as a composing strategy
of Type B participants. Type A students,
however, did not use this strategy. Given
the reduced number of participants, no sta-
tistical analyses were carried out to explore
possible differences between groups in the
fluency, complexity, and accuracy measures.
Descriptive analyses, however, showed
very small differences between groups in
all measures. These results made Schwartz
conclude that many factors affect the writ-
ing level of Spanish HL speakers and that
FALL 2012
“assumptions cannot be made about writing
proficiency based on perceived oral profi-
ciency or on prior preparation when defined
as attendance or participation in a course or
program” (Schwartz, 2005, p. 333).
In summary, it appears that given the
clear imbalance between HL speakers’ oral
and written abilities, the field has focused
on fostering these speakers’ literacy skills.
As seen above, the exploration of writing
strategies has been a very fruitful line of
research in which think-alouds have been
used as a tool to gain insight into the writ-
ers’ mental processes. However, the reactiv-
ity of think-aloud procedures is still under
debate, and more research is needed to
ascertain what tasks are amenable to con-
current verbal protocols. Bowles (2010)
put it clearly: “[T]he answer to the ques-
tion is not one-size-fits-all” (p. 137). There
are many variables involved and different
contexts that make the use of think-alouds
hard to compare across the board. For these
reasons, there is a need to increase the num-
ber of studies that address reactivity so that
the field can have a better insight into the
use of concurrent verbal protocols with dif-
ferent learning tasks. In particular, there is
a shortage of research that investigates the
reactivity of concurrent verbal protocols
in writing tasks and with more proficient
participants.
Thus, the main goal of this study was to
investigate the effects of concurrent verbali-
zations on the performance of Spanish HL
speakers in a semi-guided writing task. The
research question is as follows:
Are there any significant differences in
the writing performance of two different
think-aloud groups (⫹TA/–TA) on measures
of:
1. Fluency (W, W/T);
2. Accuracy (EFT);
3. Lexical complexity (LV)?
Method
Participants
Two intact sections of two classes (N ⫽ 24,
20) designed for Spanish HL speakers at
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. 3
a major public research university on the
Eastern Seaboard took part in this study.
These classes were called “Review of Oral
and Written Spanish for Native Speakers
Educated in the United States” and were
offered by the Spanish Department as part
of a sequence of three courses for native
speakers of Spanish. The first course in this
sequence (Spanish I for Native Speakers)
was designed for those students who spoke
Spanish at home but who had never for-
mally studied the language. This course pro-
vided a review of oral and written Spanish
in the content area of Latinos in the United
States. The program was developed around
the topics present in the textbook assigned
for the class: Nuevos Mundos (Roca, 1999).
The second course (Spanish II for Native
Speakers) was developed for those students
who had successfully completed the previ-
ous course focusing on complex grammati-
cal structures through the reading of texts
and writing of compositions and essays in
the content area of American Latinos/as. In
addition, Spanish HL learners could take
the third course in the sequence (Commu-
nication Skills for Native Speakers of Span-
ish), which exposed students to rhetorical
devices and provided practice in formal
public speaking in Spanish.
The participants (see Appendix A)
were 20 female and 24 male students
enrolled in two sections of the first course
in the sequence for native speakers (Span-
ish I for Native Speakers). Their origins
were diverse; 11 participants were born
outside the United States, but only six had
stayed in their home country long enough
to attend school. Only three participants
reported a parent or grandparent who was
born in the United States, and all the rest
reported that their parents and grandpar-
ents were born in their country of origin. In
all, more than 56% of the participants were
to some degree of Central American origin.
To be included in the study sample, partici-
pants had to be enrolled in these classes.
Extra credit or any other type of incentive
was not offered for participating. A total of
37 participants attended class on the days
387
the study took place, 20 and 17 respec-
tively in each class.
Materials—Semi-Guided Writing Task
On this writing task, participants were
instructed to create their own story based
on three comic strips (Appendix B shows
the original instructions in Spanish). In
these instructions, they were asked to write
a story in the past based on the comic strips.
They had to narrate what they thought was
going on in the story, including charac-
ter descriptions and dialogue. They were
also reminded that they should use con-
nectors and any other elements necessary
to improve the flow of the story. “Baldo”
comic strips (by Hector D. Cantu and
Carlos Castellanos) were used for this
activity; they feature Latino characters and
themes. On the strips used in the present
study (see Appendix B), we can see Baldo
and his father interacting in different ways.
This free-writing activity was used to
practice and reinforce the formal features,
both linguistic and textual, of narrative writ-
ing that were being discussed in class. To com-
plete it successfully, learners had to perform
at different levels. First, this task asked par-
ticipants to narrate a story in the past, which
would require them to use both the pret-
erit and the imperfect tenses of regular and
irregular verbs. Second, they were required to
include dialogues in which they would have
to use the present tense of both regular and
irregular verbs and form questions. Finally,
learners had to compose a story with all
the necessary cohesive devices discussed in
class for this type of writing. Therefore, this
task posed a double burden on participants,
because they were required to draw on their
explicit knowledge of certain linguistic and
textual structures in order to complete it suc-
cessfully. As claimed by Montrul (2010), HL
learners are primarily naturalistic learners,
and as such, they are better than L2 learners
at processing the language aurally. They are
worse, however, in written tasks that maxi-
mize the use of metalinguistic and explicit
knowledge of the language.
388
The level of difficulty that this task
posed for the participants (i.e., first-year
Spanish HL students with limited formal
training in Spanish) was a key argument in
selecting it for the present study, given that
the main goal was to explore think-aloud
reactivity. In other words, the task had to
be difficult enough for these researchers to
assess the facilitative or negative effects of
concurrent verbal protocols.
Procedure
Both groups of participants, those who had
to think aloud while doing the task (⫹TA,
N ⫽ 20) and those who did not (–TA,
N ⫽ 17), met in the language lab in the
third week of November at their regular
class time. Because these were two different
sections of the same class, these two groups
met on consecutive days. Both the instruc-
tor of the class and one of the researchers
were present at this time; participants were
familiar with the researcher, given that this
study was part of a larger longitudinal pro-
ject that investigated general and specific
motivation throughout the semester.
On the day in question, participants
in the ⫹TA group were instructed on how
to think aloud and what the process of
recording their thoughts was going to be.
Previously, they had agreed on the con-
sent form to having their thoughts digi-
tally recorded. This form explicitly stated
that they needed to speak aloud whatever
came to their mind while they were carry-
ing out the task. Before starting the writ-
ing task, the researcher clearly explained
the procedure to participants. As suggested
by Bowles (2010), these instructions reit-
erated the reason participants were being
asked to think aloud, and they also speci-
fied how they should think aloud as well as
a warm-up activity. Participants were thus
reminded that these verbal protocols were
being recorded to analyze and assess task
motivational processes during their perfor-
mance. The message was also conveyed in
plain and simple language: The focus of the
investigation was on exploring how moti-
FALL 2012
vated they were to carry out the task and
how they felt about it.
Specific instructions on how to think
aloud then followed. Participants were told
that they should verbalize their thoughts
as they wrote their story (i.e., say out loud
anything they would say to themselves
while they thought). As this is the main
difference between linguistic and meta-
linguistic concurrent verbal protocols, it
was emphasized that they should not try
to explain or justify their thoughts. The
decision about which of these types of ver-
balizations to use was based on their ability
to answer the research questions (Bowles,
2010); in the present case, linguistic proto-
cols, as proven in the pilot study, provided
enough detail for the researchers to inves-
tigate motivational fluctuation along the
task.
Finally, as a warmup for the ⫹TA
group, one of the researchers played part
of a think-aloud protocol using a sam-
ple from the pilot study so that learners
would be familiar with the type of verbali-
zation required. Following the SLA tradi-
tion, participants were allowed to think
aloud in their L1, their L2, or a combi-
nation of the two, as they desired. When
this procedure was clear to participants,
they were provided with the instructions
to complete the writing task and the task
itself (see Appendix B). The researcher
went through the instructions with the
learners, making sure they were clear. On
the blank page they were given to write
on, participants were reminded to always
think aloud. In addition, the researcher
reminded participants to think aloud
while circulating in the language lab. After
25 minutes, the researcher gathered all
the writing samples—this time limit was
established after the pilot study in which
all participants finished the task within
this time frame.
The same procedure took place in the
language laboratory with the –TA group,
the only difference being the think-aloud
explanations, instructions, and warmup
that this group did not undergo.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. 3
Analysis and Scoring Procedures
In order to find an answer to this study’s
only research question, a series of one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was per-
formed on the scores of the four different
linguistic variables measured in the writ-
ing task (see below) for think-aloud groups
(⫹TA/–TA).
Four linguistic variables were explored
in this semi-guided writing task: number
of words (W), lexical variety (LV), number
of words per T-unit (W/T), and error-free
T-units (EFT). W and LV (fluency and lexi-
cal complexity measures, respectively) were
used by Kormos and Dörnyei (2004) in their
investigation of oral argumentative tasks
and served to compare results across tasks.
W is the only frequency fluency measure,
according to Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, and
Kim (1998), for which any significant dif-
ference across groups has been found. The
Uber Index was utilized to determine LV.
Jarvis (2002) proposed the use of this for-
mula to compensate for the type-token ratio
problem (i.e., this ratio falls significantly as
the speech sample increases). Kormos and
Dörnyei (2004) used this formula, which is
an arithmetical transformation of the type-
token ratio: Uber Index: (log tokens) 2 / (log
tokens – log types). Regarding W/T, Wolfe-
Quintero et al. (1998) claimed that it is one
of the best fluency measures of development
in the L2 writing research field because it is
“consistently linear and significantly related
to program or school levels” (p. 119). Finally,
EFT is the accuracy measure for which most
noteworthy/significant results have been
shown, according to the meta-analysis car-
ried out by Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998).
While there are several definitions
of the term T-unit in the field of L2 writ-
ing, the present study operationalizes this
term as a minimal, independent, termina-
ble clause, which has all modifying phrases
attached to it (Larsen-Freeman, 1991).
Results
In order to find an answer to the research
question and assess whether think-aloud
389
procedures reacted with task performance,
four one-way ANOVAs were performed on
the scores of every writing measure assessed
in this study (W, LV, W/T, EFT). The scores
for each one of these measures were entered
as dependent variables on the ANOVAs
conducted, whereas group (⫹TA/–TA) was
entered as the independent variable.
The results presented in Table 1 show
a significant difference between TA groups
in one of the writing measures analyzed:
EFT (F(1,36) ⫽ 8.896, p ⫽ 0.005). In
addition, a trend toward significance
was found for LV (F(1,36) ⫽ 4.057, p ⫽
0.052). Following Cohen (1988), medium
effect sizes were found (d ⬎ 0.50) for both
analyses. The means for the TA groups
(see Table 2) help further interpret these
results: The concurrent verbal protocols
utilized were positively reactive for this
accuracy measure. In other words, those
participants who thought aloud while
writing this task made fewer errors. In
addition, their lexicon tended to be more
varied than that of participants who did
not speak their thoughts. Finally, no sig-
nificant difference was found between TA
groups for W or W/T.
Discussion
This study was conducted to investigate the
effects of thinking aloud on the writing of
HL speakers in Spanish-for-native-speak-
ers college courses. This line of research
has been suggested in the most recent lit-
erature on think-alouds, because clearly
there is a lack of studies that address the
reactivity of concurrent verbalizations
involving advanced learners and writ-
ing tasks (Bowles, 2010). In this fashion,
the researchers set out to assess how non-
metacognitive concurrent verbalizations
affect fluency (W, W/T), accuracy (EFT),
and lexical complexity (LV) measures in
writing. Specifically, the research question
investigated possible group differences
(⫹/–TA) on these variables’ scores. The
results warrant different responses depend-
ing on the variable under investigation.
390 FALL 2012

TABLE 1
One-Way ANOVA Analyses

ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
W Between 7,880.910 1 7,880.910 2.692 .110
groups
Within 102,476.009 35 2,927.886
groups
Total 110,356.919 36
EFT Between 116.576 1 116.576 8.896 .005
groups
Within 458.668 35 13.105
groups
Total 575.243 36
W/T Between 8.669 1 8.669 .752 .392
groups
Within 403.701 35 11.534
groups
Total 412.370 36
LV Between 25,265.280 1 25,265.280 4.057 .052
groups
Within 217,946.978 35 6227.057
groups
Total 243,212.259 36

In other words, there were no significant
differences between verbalization groups
on either fluency measure (W/WT). The
present results, however, do indeed indi-
cate significant differences between groups
on the accuracy measure utilized (EFT).
The group of students that thought aloud
wrote significantly more EFTs. Finally,
regarding the lexical complexity measure
assessed here (LV), results showed a trend
toward significance that should be further
investigated.
These results run contrary to the SLA
studies that included writing in their designs
(Sachs & Polio, 2007; Sachs & Suh, 2007).
Bowles (2010) concluded in her meta-
analysis that “thinking aloud while writing
has a small, detrimental effect on produc-
tive form learning compared to a group that
writes silently” (p. 104). The contradictory
evidence provided by this study could be
explained by looking at the type of design,
task demands, level and language (L1 and
L2) of the participants, and language of ver-
balization. Whereas Sachs and Polio (2007)
and Sachs and Suh (2007) investigated ver-
balizing in conjunction with writing and
feedback, this study did not include any
type of feedback; it was designed to meas-
ure the effects of thinking aloud on HL
learners’ overall fluency, accuracy, and com-
plexity in writing. Sachs and Polio asked
participants to verbalize while comparing
an original writing piece to a reformulated
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. 3 391

TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics for One-Way ANOVA

N Mean Std. Deviation

W +TA 20 184.05 56.43
–TA 17 154.76 51.21
Total 37 170.59 55.36

W/T +TA 20 11.65 3.50

–TA 17 12.62 3.25
Total 37 12.10 3.38

EFT +TA 20 11.15 3.68

–TA 17 7.58 3.53
Total 37 9.51 3.99

LV +TA 20 309.41 80.51

–TA 17 256.97 76.96
Total 37 285.32 82.19

version. In addition, participants had to
verbalize in their L2, which may have posed
a greater cognitive burden on participants.
On the contrary, participants in our study,
as in Sachs and Suh, were able to verbalize
in either their L1 or their L2, and no nega-
tive reactivity was revealed. These results
appear to provide evidence to support the
argument that verbalizing in the language
of choice while writing does not hinder
the overall writing process. Finally, partici-
pants in Sachs and Polio and Sachs and Suh
were ESL learners, while participants in our
study, as previously mentioned, were Span-
ish HL learners.
The following excerpt shows how par-
ticipants in this study did indeed make
use of both English and Spanish in their
verbalizations. For example, John’s verbal
protocol (participants’ names have been
changed to protect their identity) shows
how he spoke his mind in both languages
as he wished.
[unintelligible, reading the instruc-
tions] … OK, good, comenzamos, let’s go!
Alright, so we got Baldo y su padre …
Um, what to do here? Like they’re argu-
ing; then he’s looking for a car, pulls out
a book about being a teacher. Let
me see … ¿dónde empezamos? … en Espa-
ñol … [pause] [appears to be thinking]
[OK, good, let’s start, let’s go! Alright,
so we got Baldo and his dad … . What
to do here? Like they’re arguing; then
he’s looking for a car, pulls out a book
about being a teacher. Let me see …
Where should we start? In Spanish…]
In line with Bowles’s (2010) meta-analysis,
the present results appear to indicate that
reactivity depends on the type of measure
investigated. Verbalizing did not have an
effect on the number of words produced
overall (W) or on the number of words pro-
duced per T-unit (W/T), which supports
studies where no reactivity was found for
nonmetalinguistic verbalizations (Bowles,
2008; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Goo, 2010;
Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Sachs &
Suh, 2007). In other words, fluency was
not affected by current verbalizations. Nev-
ertheless, contrary to the research above,
392
these results show reactivity for EFTs, which
seems to indicate that thinking aloud could
have made participants write more accurate
T-units. In addition, marginal significance
between TA groups was found for LV.
These findings support research that
found that verbalization enhances task
performance in both non-SLA (Ahlum-
Heath & Di Vesta, 1986; Baumann,
Seifert-Kessell, & Jones, 1992; Gagné &
Smith, 1962; Meissner, Brigham, & Kel-
ley, 2001; Williams & Davids, 1997) and
SLA studies (Rossomondo, 2007; Sanz
et al., 2009). The study herein extends
these results to include HL learners; that
is, verbalizing is not only beneficial for
naïve (Sanz et al., 2009) or first-semester
learners (Rossomondo, 2007), but also
for bilinguals who grew up using two
languages. In addition, the results herein
show that verbalizing might improve
accuracy in L2 writing, thus expanding
positive reactivity beyond text compre-
hension (Rossomondo, 2007) or language
processing during practice with feedback
(Sanz et al., 2009).
There are two types of evidence in the
transcriptions of the verbal procedures
that seem to provide valid arguments to
support the above assumption—that the
think-alouds themselves made learners
write more accurate T-units. First, there
are implicit indications that participants
may have been made aware of the syntactic
structure of their writing by simply speak-
ing aloud. For instance, an excerpt from
Tomás’s think-aloud protocol could be used
to illustrate this point:
Baldo estaba ehhh llegando … es …
cu … e … a … [reviews the last sentence]
wassup pop le dijo Baldo a su papá, Baldo
estaba llegando de su escuela y su papá
estaba … eh … estaba, estaba, estaba …
eh … eh … leyendo un periódico, periód-
ico, pe … rio … di … co, y su papá estaba
leyendo un periódico, su … eh … eh papá
le con … tes … to hola mijo mijo, hola
mijo, hola mijo, co mo es tas? eheh huh
[pauses] [appears to be thinking]
FALL 2012
[Baldo was getting home from
school … “Wassup papa?” Baldo said
to his dad. Baldo was getting home
from school, and his dad was reading
the paper. His dad answered, “Hi, son;
how are you?”]
This excerpt shows Tomás’s think-aloud dur-
ing the first part of the composition. There
was no explicit mention on the part of the
learner that might indicate that the process
of thinking aloud was helping him to write
sentences or compose paragraphs. One can
see, however, Tomás’s writing process at this
stage and how he seemed to struggle com-
posing a longer unit such as a sentence. By
thinking aloud and repeating what he was
writing, this learner appeared to be able to
complete the sentence, not without effort. It
could be argued that the process of think-
ing aloud itself seemed to have contributed
to the successful completion of the sentence
and also to write more accurate sentences.
There were several other cases like the
one shown above that implicitly pointed
to learners realizing their deficiencies in
composing the text, but the discussion now
turns to the second type of evidence: those
cases in which participants clearly stated
that there was some kind of problem with
their writing structure. Andrés’s verbal pro-
tocol displayed such an example:
Uhm el … hi jo le di … ce a su pa … dre
que no quiii … e re ir a la es … cueee …
la, que ya no quieee re iiiiir a la es cue
la … el pa dre cree … que el hi … jo no
es … ta se…rio, no está hablando en serio,
en se … rio. El hi … joooo le di … ceee
que sí essss … taaa seee … riiiio. ¿Tiene
sentido eso? creo que me falta algo aquí
mmmm.
[Uh, the son tells his father that he
doesn’t want to go to school, that he
doesn’t want to go anymore. The father
believes that … that the son … is not
serious, he is not being serious. The
son says that he is. The son says that he
is serious. Am I making sense? There’s
something missing here, I believe.]
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. 3
Here was an explicit statement in which
Andrés claimed that there was something
missing in his writing. There are other pos-
sible interpretations, but this process of
awareness could also be attributed to the
verbal protocol itself because it was mak-
ing this learner say what he was writing out
loud.
Along the same lines, Christine’s ver-
bal protocol also contained an explicit
comment that signaled her perception of
a problem in her writing. This participant
explicitly stated that part of her writing did
not sound right. It seems that what she had
just said out loud made her aware of some
structural problems with her writing:
En el último comic strip … a ver … Baaal
do en … tra la co … ci … na le … yen …
do un li bro su pa … pa le pree gun … ta
es … tas leyendo, estás leyendo … bal do
le mu … es traaa el li … bro y di … ce
how to be a teacher. No, this doesn’t sound
right … Let me see … .
[In the last comic strip, let’s see, Baldo
enters the kitchen reading a book. His
dad asks him, “What are you reading?”
Baldo shows him the book and says,
“How to be a teacher.” No, this doesn’t
sound right … Let me see … .]
A further argument to support the fact
that participants in the think-aloud
group wrote more accurate T-units was
found in some of their writing strategies.
Eighty percent of the participants in this
group generated and implemented writ-
ing subtasks, such as rereading instruc-
tions or reviewing their writing after they
had finished one comic strip. More than
80 percent of these participants reread
some of the sentences they had written
at some point during the composition of
their story. The following is an example in
Rico’s verbal protocol:
En … ton … ces fue … ron entonces
fueron a ver … fueron a ver … uhm …
el carro, el ca … rro y … uhm … y a
pro … pro … bar … lo y a probarlo …
[pauses] [reviews the last sentence]
393
en … ton … ces entonces le dijo el papa
que ya andaba, andaba bien [writing].
[Then they went to see the car and try
it, and then his dad said that it was
OK.]
Besides reviewing for meaning, one could
argue that these reviewing strategies helped
participants in this group improve the qual-
ity of the sentences they wrote. Thinking
aloud would then help learners monitor
their own writing processes and acquire
helpful strategies, just as it helped com-
prehension monitoring in Baumann et al.
(1992). However, to compare the two
groups and validate this argument, one
would have to analyze the writing strategies
of participants in the silent group, which
the present study did not set out to do.
Further investigations of HL learners’
writing should be carried out to confirm
the above interpretations; nevertheless,
they seem to be very plausible explanations
for the quantitative results achieved in this
study.
Combining all measures, the research-
ers can conclude that thinking aloud did not
make participants write more words overall
or per clause, but it made them write more
accurate clauses than the ones written by par-
ticipants in the silent group. This interpreta-
tion of the results is in line with the claim
of Sanz et al. (2009) that “requiring learn-
ers to perform think-aloud protocols has
the potential to alter the very processes they
are meant to reflect” (p. 63). As Sanz et al.
also noted, an explanation for the enhanced
performance can be found in Swain’s output
hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2000), given
that verbalizing allows the learner to get
additional input, thus enhancing the oppor-
tunities to notice certain forms that might
then become part of the learner’s internal
grammar (Schmidt, 1993). For HL learn-
ers, verbalizing may help them test or notice
certain expressions that sound native-like to
them (Schwartz, 2003).
The following excerpt from Anne’s
think-aloud protocol illustrates this last
point well:
394
Ser algo en la vida, en … la … vi … da, si
que … ría ser al … go en la vida te … nía
que … If he wanted to be someone, he had
to get a job and show some responsibility
… Que si quería ser algo en la vida tenía
que … agarrar un trabajo … good idea,
un trabajo, a … ga … rrar … un … tra …
ba … jo, uhm uhm … fueron para cami-
nar … fue … ron … pa … ra … ca … mi
… nar … y vieron un carro for sale … de
venta? en venta? en venta … uhm uhm …
en venta, vie … ron … un ca … rro … en
… mmm ven … ta … en … ven … ta?
[Be someone in life, if he wanted to be
someone, he had to get a job and show
some responsibility … Went walking,
and they saw a car for sale … On sale?
For sale?]
Supporting Schwartz (2003), it is evident
how Anne tests aloud two different ways of
saying “on sale” (de venta and en venta) and
decides to use en venta, which is the most
common way of saying “for sale” in Span-
ish. It would seem that testing aloud her
options allowed Anne to come up with the
right choice, confirming that concurrent
verbal protocols might aid HL learners in
noticing native-like expressions.
The main purpose of this study is to ana-
lyze think-aloud reactivity in HL speakers’
writing, not their writing strategies. How-
ever, some writing strategies were indeed
revealed in the analysis of the verbalization
protocols. As mentioned above, 80 percent
of the participants in the ⫹TA group gener-
ated some writing subtasks, such as reread-
ing instructions or summarizing the story
they were going to write before actually
starting. An even larger percentage of learn-
ers reread some of the sentences they had
written at some point during the composi-
tion of their story while they were writing.
Schwartz (2005) found these strategies to be
common in the two population samples that
she analyzed in her case study. She classified
strategies such as commenting on the draft;
repeating words, phrases, or sentences; or
rereading as composing strategies (versus
pre-writing and editing strategies). As in her
FALL 2012
study, most of these participants made edits
at the surface level while they were writing
rather than making a final revision after they
were finished writing. In addition, very few
writers utilized any pre-writing strategies.
As far as writing strategies are concerned,
the researchers have to agree with Schwartz’s
(2005) conclusions:
For these students, as for all of us,
the most active phase of writing is the
composing phase. They read their work
critically for meaning while they write,
constantly evaluating how their text
sounds […] they have to resort to their
own oral models to guide their writing.
(p. 332)
However, this does not imply that all Span-
ish HL speakers’ writing strategies should
be considered equal. On the contrary, these
researchers argue, as have other scholars in
the field (e.g., Martínez, 2007; Schwartz,
2003, 2005), that many factors and vari-
ables affect the skill level of these learners
and that the approaches utilized to explore
them should be kept open to try to match
this variability. Think-aloud procedures are
one of the methods that can allow research-
ers to take such an open stance, and as
such, they should be considered. Neverthe-
less, given that verbalizations may have an
effect on task performance, it is advisable to
include a control group.
Conclusions and Future Research
This study has provided some evidence
to support the notion that thinking aloud
may have a positive effect on the writing
process of HL learners. In addition, it has
shown that verbalization does not play
a role in overall writing fluency, but it
seems to have an effect on some accuracy
measures. Furthermore, thinking aloud
while writing seems to help HL learners
notice both their weaknesses and strengths,
which leads to better monitoring of their
own writing process and to self-correc-
tion. Finally, although verbalizing provides
valuable information about the types of
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. 3
strategies used by learners, these results
suggest that caution is needed when imple-
menting think-alouds to investigate writ-
ing. As suggested by previous researchers
(Sachs & Polio, 2007; Sanz et al., 2009), the
inclusion of a silent control group is recom-
mended.
Further studies should include a larger
sample to replicate these results. In addi-
tion, it would be advisable to include ran-
domization of the groups in the research
design. Moreover, it would be interesting to
include different populations in an attempt
to find out if the results for HL learn-
ers are observed, for example, in non-HL
high-proficient L2 learners. The pedagogi-
cal implications of finding a positive effect
of verbalizing on the writing process of
these two populations would be obvious
and should be taken into account in any
writing class. Future research should also
look into the effect of HL verbalizations on
writing with feedback, as in Sachs and Polio
(2007), in order to investigate if the positive
evidence provided by the think-alouds on a
final writing product is maintained when
different revisions come into play. Finally,
it could be argued that the demands of the
task in the present study (a semi-open and
relatively untimed writing task) allowed
participants to reflect on their writing pro-
cess more and to use their verbalizations as
a successful strategy. It remains to be seen
whether these same results will appear in
more controlled or more demanding tasks.
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.
Baumann, J. F., Seifert-Kessell, N., & Jones, L.
A. (1992). Effect of think-aloud instruction
on elementary students’ comprehension mon-
itoring abilities. Journal of Reading Behavior,
24, 143–172.
Bowles, M. A. (2008). Task type and reactiv-
ity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at a
L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 30, 359–387.
395
Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think aloud contro-
versy in second language research. New York:
Routledge.
Bowles, M. A., & Leow, R. P. (2005). Reactiv-
ity and type of verbal report in SLA research
methodology: Expanding the scope of investi-
gation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
27, 415–440.
Callahan, L. (2010). U.S. Latinos’ use of writ-
ten Spanish: Realities and aspirations. Herit-
age Language Journal, 7. Retrieved July 16,
2012, from http://www.heritagelanguages.org
Chevalier, J. F. (2004). Heritage language lit-
eracy: Theory and practice. Heritage Language
Journal, 2. Retrieved July 16, 2012, from
http://www.heritagelanguages.org
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for
the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating
form-focused instruction. Language Learning,
51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Proto-
col analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Gagné, R. H., & Smith, E. C. (1962). A study
of the effects of verbalization on problem-
solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
63, 12–18.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated
recall methodology in second language research.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goo, J. (2010). Working memory and reactiv-
ity. Language Learning, 43, 245–254.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Writing as
problem solving. Visible Language, 14, 388–399.
Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting
curves, and new measures of lexical diversity.
Language Testing, 19, 57–84.
Jourdenais, R. (2001). Cognition, instruction,
and protocol analysis. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognition and second language instruction (pp.
354–375). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Kormos, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The interac-
tion of linguistic and motivational variables in
second language task performance. Zeitschrift
für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunter-
richt. Retrieved April 10, 2011, from http://
zif.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/jg-09-2/beitrag/
kormos2.htm
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Research on lan-
guage teaching methodologies: A review of
396
the past and an agenda for the future. In K.
de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.),
Foreign language research in cross-cultural
perspective (pp. 119–132). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
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.
Martínez, G. A. (2007). Writing back and
forth: The interplay of form and situation
in heritage language composition. Language
Teaching Research, 11, 31–41.
Meissner, C. A., Brigham, J. C., & Kelley, C.
M. (2001). The influence of retrieval pro-
cesses in verbal overshadowing. Memory &
Cognition, 29, 176–186.
Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in herit-
age language acquisition. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 30, 3–23.
Roca, A. (1999). Nuevos mundos. New York,
NY: John Wiley.
Rossomondo, A. E. (2007). The role of lexical
temporal indicators and text interaction for-
mat in the incidental acquisition of the Span-
ish future tense. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 29, 39–66.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses
of two types of written feedback on a L2 writ-
ing revision task. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 29, 67–100.
Sachs, R., & Suh, B. R. (2007). Textually
enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2
outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated
interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversa-
tional interaction in second language acquisition:
A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197–227).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sanz, C., Lin, H. J., Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., &
Stafford, C. A. (2009). Concurrent verbaliza-
tions, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: Two
CALL studies. Language Learning, 59, 33–71.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second
language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 13, 206–226.
Schwartz, A. M. (2003). Heritage Spanish
speakers’ writing strategies. In A. Roca & C.
Colombi (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a her-
itage language in the United States: Research
and practice (pp. 235–257). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Schwartz, A. M. (2005). Exploring differ-
ences and similarities in the writing strate-
FALL 2012
gies used by students in SNS courses. In L. A.
Ortiz López & M. Lacorte (Eds.), Contactos y
contextos: El Español en los Estados Unidos y
en contacto con otras lenguas (pp. 323–334).
Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative compe-
tence: Some roles of comprehensible input
and comprehensible output in its develop-
ment. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input
in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output
in second language learning. In G. Cook &
B. Seidelhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice
in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G.
Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and
beyond: Mediating acquisition through collab-
orative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocul-
tural theory and second language learning (pp.
97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in
output and the cognitive processes they gen-
erate: A step towards second language learn-
ing. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Valdés, G. (1997). The teaching of Spanish
to bilingual Spanish-speaking students: Out-
standing issues and unanswered questions.
In M. C. Colombi & F. X. Alarcon (Eds.),
La enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes.
Praxis y teoría (pp. 8–44). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Williams, A. M., & Davids, K. (1997). Assess-
ing cue usage in performance contexts: A
comparison between eye-movement and
concurrent verbal report methods. Behavior
Research Method, Instruments, & Computers,
29, 364–375.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y.
(1998). Second language development in writ-
ing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and com-
plexity. Technical report 17. Manoa, Hawai’i:
University of Hawai’i Press.
Yoshida, M. (2008). Think-aloud protocols
and type of reading task: The issue of reac-
tivity in L2 reading research. In M. Bowles,
R. Foote, S. Perpiñán, & R. Bhatt (Eds.),
Selected proceedings of the 2007 Second
Language Research Forum (pp. 199–209).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings
Project.
Received April 20, 2011
Accepted April 3, 2012
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. 3 397

APPENDIX A

Participants

⫹TA Group
Family Born/schooling Language Spanish at home Spanish with
from abroad pref. friends
1 El Salvador USA/no Both Very often Often
2 Dominican DR/5 years English Often Never
Republic
3 Peru/ Venezuela/8 Both Very often Often
Argentina years
4 El Salvador El Salvador/no English Very rarely Very rarely
5 El Salvador/ USA/no English Always Very often
Ethiopia
6 Uruguay Israel/no English Often Very rarely
7 Guatemala/ USA/no Both Very often Very often
Peru
8 El Salvador El Salvador/yes Both Very often Very often
9 Honduras/ USA/no Both Often Very rarely
USA
10 Puerto Rico/ USA/no English Rarely Always
USA
11 Colombia Colombia/no English Rarely Never
12 Bolivia/El USA/no English Often Often
Salvador
13 Chile/ USA/no Both Very often Often
Jamaica
14 Romania Romania/11 Both Often Often
years
15 Ecuador USA/no Both Very often Rarely
16 Colombia/ USA/no English Often Rarely
Peru
17 Dominican DR/no English/Both Often Never
Republic
18 Costa Rica/ USA/no Both Always Often
Nicaragua
19 Puerto Rico USA/no English Very rarely Never
20 El Salvador USA/no English Rarely Never
398 FALL 2012

–TA Group
Family from Born/schooling Language Spanish at Spanish with
abroad pref. home friends
1 Puerto Rico USA/no Both Often Rarely
2 Ecuador USA/no English Always Very rarely
3 El Salvador El Salvador/yes Both Always Very often
4 Mexico USA/no Both Often Rarely
5 Puerto Rico USA/no Both Always Often
6 Guatemala USA/no English Always Often
7 Honduras Honduras/no English Always Very often
8 Puerto Rico/ USA/no English Rarely Never
Cuba
9 El Salvador USA/no Both Often Rarely
10 Costa Rica/ USA/no Both Always Often
Colombia
11 El Salvador USA/no Both Always Very rarely
12 Dominican USA/no English Often Rarely
Republic
13 Puerto Rico USA/no English Often Very rarely
14 El Salvador USA/no English Often Very rarely
15 El Salvador USA/no Both Always Often
16 El Salvador/ USA/no Both Always Often
Honduras
17 El Salvador USA/no Both Always Often
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 45, NO. 3 399

APPENDIX B

Semi-Guided Writing Activity

BALDO © Baldo Partnership. Used by permission of Universal Uclick. All rights reserved.
Copyright of Foreign Language Annals is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.