There was a long time after the turn of the 20th century where stimulus- response protocols were the main means of research used by psychologists. However, there developed a need to unravel the cognitive mechanisms and processes that underpinned the behaviours being observed.
One means many researchers resorted to for a more detailed understanding of those internal cognitive mechanisms was the use of verbal methods. (Ericsson & Simon, 1993) They also posited that the verbalisations are generated through the cognitive processes that underpin the observable behaviours and actions. The subject simply expresses out loud those thoughts that occur naturally as they think through solving a problem or carrying out a task. Talk aloud protocols reveal the aspects of thinking and reasoning that are consciously available in working memory. It provides observations in a sequence over a period of time. Therefore, changes in working memory that occur during a problem-solving task can be tracked over the duration of the task until completion. Furthermore, not only does the talk aloud protocol shed light on the internal cognitive mechanisms of an individual’s problem solving, it shows the strategies used by different people to solve the same problem (Van Someren, Barnard, & Sandberg, 1994).
Since those verbalisations are generated from the short-term memory, argued Ericsson and Simon 1993, they are untainted by the individual’s perceptions that sit mainly in the long term memory. The ‘talk alouds’ are furthermore insulated from the individual’s interpretations and personal biases as the verbalisations are purely the outpouring of the cognitive processes taking place during a task performance (Van Someren, Barnard, & Sandberg, 1994).
86
Furthermore, according to Kelly and Capobianco 2012, when studying cognitive strategies used by children, it is critical to allow them to communicate their thoughts in a natural way so as to eliminate the risk of the researcher imposing upon the child’s natural cognitive strategies.
However, there were doubts about the reliability and validity of the data gathered through such means. Some subjects may struggle with the demands of focusing on the task and at the same time talking out aloud about what they might be thinking. Also, verbalisations from this protocol are often incoherent (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). Another criticism of the method is that an individual can only verbalise those thoughts they are aware of consciously. Hence, whatever the individual does that occurs automatically may end up being missed.
Moreover, the need for the subject to verbalise may influence the strategic use of knowledge either negatively or positively. This may potentially tarnish the integrity of the cognitive strategies deployed and observed during the task performance.
Methodological improvements in the 1980s and 90s have led to an increasing use of such methods in psychological research. (Austin & Delaney, 1998). For instance, Wulfert, Dougher, and Greenway (1991) first trained participants in how to talk aloud during a problem solving task before actually proceeding to collect data. However, Gibson (1997) cautioned against researcher modelling and coaching about how to carry out think alouds as it could ‘lead’ the participants into using particular strategies. The protocol is meant to capture those processes that occur naturally and that must be guarded robustly. It however does not debar the researcher from providing a brief and appropriate orientation so as to eliminate the ‘cold start effect’ (Gibson, 1997). This technique often uses a two-step process. In the first step, the researcher first collects real-time data asking the participants to think aloud. There is very little distraction through probing or prompting. In the event of a prolonged period of silence, the researcher could simply prompt using a neutral statement such as “keep talking”. Sugirin (1999) chose to use a ‘keep talking’ sign for a neutral prompt to remind participants to verbalize all thoughts instead of addressing them in speech as it might interfere with the thinking taking place in working memory.
87
When the first step of talking aloud is complete, there is a retrospective analysis; the researcher asks follow-up questions to clarify any aspects of the first step.
The think aloud method has clear advantages over other verbal methods as it avoids the problem of interpretation by the subject. It also treats the verbal protocols that are available to everyone who might want to verify them as data, hence makes it a very objective method.
Pettigrew (2005) reported research in UK schools with children aged 7 -14 about their interaction with computer software using a ‘talk aloud’ protocol to generate data. One main finding was that the children found concurrent verbalisation easier than retrospective cognitive ‘talk-throughs’.
Baauw and Markopoulos (2004) also compared talk aloud protocol with post task interviews as a data collection tool on usability of computer software. They found that the children, aged 9-11years, reported more problems during the talk alouds than post task interview. They also found boys reported fewer problems than girls did. Interestingly, they reported the boys had a similar number of problems with talk alouds as during the post task interviews. They also found no significant differences between the two methods and observations.
Think aloud protocol has been used successfully analyse children’s interactions with reading texts. Sainsbury (2003) reports remarkable success with seven year olds. Since the interest was in unravelling the internal cognitive processes children use in interaction with reading texts, think aloud protocol was the most viable tool available. After training the children about how to ‘think aloud’, they proceeded to the actual text where the children thought aloud their impressions of the text as it went on. The researcher observed think aloud opened a window into the reader’s understanding and yielded information that would not otherwise have been gathered through any other method (Sainsbury, 2003).