Ericsson think aloud method

8/13/2019 Ericsson think aloud method

1/9

MIND, CU LTURE A N D A CTIVITY, 5(3), 178-186Copyright C 1998, Re gents of the University of California on behalf of the La boratory o f Co m pa rat ive Human Co gnition

H ow to StudyThinkin g in Ev erydayLife: C ontra s tin gTh ink-A l o u dProtocols W ithD e s cript ions an dExplana tions of T hinkin gK .A nd e r s E ricsso n

T he Florida State Universit yH e rbert A . Sim on

C arnegie Mellon University

In his art icle Sm agorinsky (this issue ) describes how protoco l analysis (E ricsson & Sim on , 1980,19 84,19 93) can be applied to study thinkin gwithin the perspective of cultural-historical activitytheory (C H AT). S m a g orinsky's m ain claim is th at verbaliza tion of th inking as speech is a proce ssthroug h whichth inking reach es anew level o f articu lation (p . 173) and he explicit ly qu estionsthe em pirica l evidencereviewed by us th at it is possible under so me circumstan ces to havepartic ip ants think aloud withou t alterin g th e course oftheir thinki ng. A prim ary reason for hismisu nderstanding appears tobe th at Sm agorinsky focused alm ost exclusive ly on our earlierpublications that descri bed our orig inalth eoretical proposals and thereby missed th e num e roussubsequent exper iments exp licitly testing th em . In fa ct, Ericsson and Simon (1993) discussed over30 additional studies th at provide results consis tent with our theoretical framework. In thisc o m m en tary we briefly review th e evidence th a tsu pports different ty pes ofverbalization activ itiesand describehow our distin ctions match the classicdistinction between th inking as in ner speechand as soci al speechand give explicit quote s by Vygots ky (1962), where he argued for very similardi ffe rences. Within our fram ework we ca n incorporate the circum stances where verbalization ofthinking (th inking aloud) can be m ade withoutreactive effects and other c i rcum stances wher everbal descriptionsandexplanations o f th inking serve as a tool th at potentia ll y enableschangesin consciousness (Smagorinsky, this issue, p. 157) .W e endorse Sm a g orinsky 's efforts to integrate pro tocol analysis intothe C H A T perspective asan alternative approach,for particular purposes,to the use o f verbaliza tions as data,and we try toshow that recent lines o f research are cu rr ently applying protocol analysis in this spiri tto studiesofhi nki ng in everyda y li fe in clu ding socially situatedactiv it ies. We hav e organized our comm entsonSm agorinsky's article as answers to th e followingquestions: Is it possib le to st udy objectivelyth at form of thinking th at occ urs co vertly in m any types oftypical tasksa n dactiv it ies in everydayli fe ? f so, under which circumstancesca n adults th ink aloudwithout alt ering the structure andcourse oftheir spon ta neous th inking? A re th ere other circumstances under which the reque st to

Requests for reprints should be sent to Anders Erics son, Departme n t o f Psychol ogy, Florida State Universi ty,Tallahassee , FL 3230 6-1270. E-mail: [email protected]


2/9

H O W TO STU D Y T H IN K IN G 9

des cribe or expla in one s th ough ts can im pro vethe coher ence of th in kin gan dthu s fa cilitatein dividuals ' learn in gand devel opm ent? W hat arepro duct iv e w aysofstudying th e socia l co m ponen ts and conte x ts ofhum an think ing?

S T POSSIBLE TO STUDYTHECOVERTTHINKINGNMANYEVERYDAYACTIVITIES

Everyone w ou ld pro bably ag re e that indiv id uals' speec hin ev erydayli fe re flectsa spect sof theirth ou ghts an dthatth eyty pic ally ver balize on ly afr ac tion of all th eirth oughts . In fa ct, th eexpressionofm an y th ou ghts that m ig ht oc cur toth em in so cial activ ities isactivel y suppre ss ed. V ir tuallya nytypeofsoc ial in ter actio n w ou ld bedra m atica llycha nged if the part ie s ver balize d all th eir thou ghts,in cl udin g t hose thatpeo pl e n or m al ly keep toth em se lv es (e.g ., th eir ev alu ation sofoth er part ic ip antsinth ein te ra ct ion ). .

C on sider thepot en tial effect of ha vin gindiv id uals th in k al oud w hile en gaging inth e fo llow in gth re e so cial activities. If a ches s player th ought alou dabou t w hat he orsh e w aspla nnin gtododuringaches sm at ch, the oppos in g ch es s pla yer w ou ld gain an ad vanta ge. S im ilar ly , if m edica ldoc tors exam in ing thei r patie nt s ver baliz ed all their thou ghts about pote ntia l dia gnos es, theirpatients w ould often be frig hte ned orco nfus ed . Itw ould atlea stbe dis tra ct ing for the cu sto m ersat a re staurantif aw aite r w ith exce ptional m em or y verb aliz edal lhis thoughtsw hile he en codedthe dinner ord ers in m em ory. Inall of th es eexam ples, th inkin gal oud w ould atleasthavean indirecteffe ct on th e verb aliz ing indiv id uals by in fl uen cin gth esoci al reactions and behavior of th esurroundin gpeopl ew hoover hea rdth ever ba lize dtho ughts .Thefirstste p to w ard stu dyin gco vertth inkin g requires tha t w e fin da nonre active se ttin gto reproduce th is ty pe of th inking underco ntrolled condition s.Inhis p io neering st udi es ofch es s, deG ro ot (1 94671978) sh ow ed th a t itis possible tore prod uceth esuperio r thin kin gof ch es s ex per ts during ch ess m atc hes inset tings th a t donotre quire thepres en ce of the opposing pla yer. D e G ro ot presen ted w orld-cl ass and expert ch ess pla yers withspec ific positions fro m unfam il iar che ss gam es and as ked them to se lect the best nex tmov e foreac h pos ition w hile th in kin galou d.Sub seq uent re se arch has con fi rmed th at t he abil ity to find thebest nex t m ov e under suchcir cum stance sis clo sel y rel at edtoin div idualdifference s in ches ssk illan dper for m ance durin g chess tourn am ents (Charn es s, 1991; Ericsso n Leh m ann,1996 ). D eG ro ot's m ethodol ogy has been gener alize dto id entifynat ura lly oc curring tas ksthatar erep re sen ta tive of adom ain of ac tiv ity andcapture co m pe te nce a ndperf orm ance in th atdom ain (Eric ss onSm ith, 1991). For exam ple,wri tten des criptions of th e sy m pto m s and backgro und in fo rm atio nofpa tien ts havebe en pres en te d to m edi cal doc torsfor d iagnosis(P atel,A roc ha, K aufm an, 1994).Furth er m or e, th e naturalco nditions under w hic hsom ein dividuals disp lay exceptional m em oryhav ebe en pa rt ia lly recre ated in the labor ator yto allow the repro duct ion of the exce ptio na lper form ance under co ntrolled circum stances(Ericss on Poiso n,1988a, 1988b) . Inth ela st de ca de,skil le d perf orm ance ob se rv ed in ever yday li fe has been succ essf ully rep roduced w ith rep re sen ta tive ta sks andth usca pturedin th e la bora to ry for aw id e ra nge of dom ains of exper tise(E ricsson L ehm ann, 1996) in clu din g ev er yday sk ills,suchas typin g, m em oriz ation ,an dte x tco m pre hension . (For a dis cuss ion of how grou pb ehavio r and tea m perform ance couldbe stu diedw ith th is type ofm eth od olo gyand so m ecurrent li m itationsfo rthisre se arch approach se eEricsso n,1996, andO kada Sim on, 1997). It isest ablished that m anyty pes of ev erydayperform ance canbesu cc es sf ully re pro duce d outside theirorig in al re activeso cia l se tt ing, th en th enex t st epis to


3/9

18 E RIC S SO N A N D SI M O N

stu dy the proce sses that m edia te itand,in particular, to analy zet he participants ' thinking-aloudpro to co ls.T od emon stratethat th is can be do ne, itis nec es sary to revie w b rie fl ythe ev iden ce th atshow s th at, under som circum stance s,th inkin gca n beverb alize dw ithou taltering its co urse .

EXTERN LIZINGCOVERTTHINKING WITHOUT LTERING

Philosop hers sinceA ri stotlehaveargued th at thin king is es sentially se quen tial pro ce ss , w her eonethought leads to another (Eri css on C rutcher, 1991).Tod ay itis re latively unco ntroversialthatthin kin gca nbe repre sented asa se que nce ofth ough ts (rel atively stable cognitive sta te s)in terspers edbyperiods of processing ac tiv ity , as is illustratedin thetop po rt ion of Figure1 Them ainm ethod olo g ical issues havebeen to det erm ine how togai ninform ation abou tth eass ociatedS ent thin king

T h inking aloud

es cribingan d explaining ooec thin king

jr FIG U R E T he rela tion betw een silent th in kin g an dtw o differ ent m odesof verbalizationof th oughts. Th esp ontan eous se qu enc e of thoughts associated w ithsilent think in gisshow n at the to p . he midd le panel show s ho wthe se th oughts can be ve rbalized du ring th inkin galoud without ch an gin g their se quence. T helowerpanel sh ow show par ticipa n ts ' ef for ts to describe and ex plain think in g can ch an ge the se quen ce o f th oughts an dlead to th eintrusion ofadditionalthoughts as w ell s leadpa rti cipants to generate coh eren tdescriptions fo r the so le pur poseof al lo w in g li st en er s to un derstand theirthoughts.


4/9

H O W T O STU Y TH I N K IN

thought states w ithout altering the structure and course of the naturally occurring thoughtsequences. The history is fu ll of attem pts to gain inform ation about the structure ofthinking fromself-observation, from skil led introspective analysis by expert observers, and most recently fromcomplete explanationsof themethods that ex perts cl aim to use when solving pro blems of a certainty pe. In our review of the re active ef fects of those types of verbalizatio n activities, (Ericsson &Simon, 1980,1984,1993) we showed th at the participants have to go beyond merely verbalizingspontaneously generated thoughts to produce the thoughts th at would contain descriptions andexplanations of the kinds just m en tioned (see the lo wer panel of Figure 1 ). In fact, weshowedwhyverbal descriptions of one's thinking directed to another individua l are likely to al ter the courseofthinking onsistent with Smagorins ky's claims in his article. Our distinctiondrew extensivelyon the classic distinction betweenin ner speech and social speech, and to facilitate the m ap ping wem ake repeated references to Vygotsky's (1962) characterization of inner sp eech, al though, as fa ras we know, Vygotsky never tried to elicit and study th inking (inner speech) in adults.Nonreact ive Verbalization o ThinkingThink AloudThe pr imary fo cus of our work has been to identify the circumstances where individuals couldverbalize their thoughts without any, or at worst withm in imal, reactive in fluenceson th eir thinking.Perhaps the single most important precondition for successful direct e xpression of thinking is thatthe participants are al lowed tom aintain un disrupted focus on th e completion of th e presen ted tasks.H en ce, participants are explicitly instructed to focus on the task while th inking aloud andmerelyto verba lize their thoughts (see the m iddlepanel of Figure 1 ra ther th an describe or explain themto anyone else. Smagorinsky (this issue) does a good jobof summ arizing most of the sp ecificprocedures for eliciting think-aloud protocols thatm inimize the dis traction from social influencesand diversion of the participants' attention.H owever, because the expectation that participa nts should describe or explain th eir thoughtsverbally to another person is often deeply ingrained, es pecially in students, we re commend thatafter being given the standard instruction s to think aloud, the partic ipants sh ould be giv en a seriesofsim ple w arm-up tasks (Ericsson & Simon, 1984, 1 99 3) , such as a m en tal m ultiplication (24 x36), that provides opportunities to practice directing th eir full at tention to the presented task whileverbalizing their though ts. Under theseconditio ns the sequence of verbalizations consisting, forexample, of carry the 2, fourteen, one forty four, let's see, and seven twenty do notco nstitute a coherentd iscourse but ra ther the verbalization of a se quence ofintermediate calculat ions and mediating th oughts.These types of verbalizations are consistent with Vygotsky's comm ent that inner speechappearsdisconnected and in complete (p. 139). Withthink-aloud (see m iddle panel ofFigure 1th e participants do not appear to monitor th eir overt verbalizations of th oughts, m ostly generateincomplete sentencesand phrases, andrarelycorrect th eir verbalizationsincluding speecherrors,or in Vygotsky's (1 962) words in inner speech w ords die as they bring forth thought. Inner speechis to a largeextent thinking in pure meanings (p. 149). Furthermore , the think-aloud verbalizationsoften pro vide a relative ly incomplete recordof all the knowledge an dcomplex cognitive processesth at com pose successful ta sk performance. Analyzing the thinking for a task ca lls for a task analysisto explicate all of the-different thought sequences and methodsthat participants, given theirkn owledgeof fa cts and methods, co uld have used to generate so lutions for that ta sk. U sing methods


5/9

82 ER IC SSO N A N D SIM O N

w ithhig h in tercoder re li ability m ak es itpossib le toasse ss many asp ect sof the parti cipants 'thoughtpro ce sse sfro m thetra nscr ibed think-alo ud ver balizat ions.W hen w e on ly considerth ink-aloud pro toco ls elicited with the m eth odsd escribedp revio usl y,th re e majo r fi ndin gs em erg e. F ir st, pro tocols pro v id e detailed eviden ce on the se quen ce softh oughts in aw id erange of ta sks. Theeviden ce sh ow s that ex per tper fo rm ershave notau tom atizedtheir th ought pro cess es but ver bal ize thoughtsi nvolvin gp lanning ,e valu ation, andre aso nin gth atco n tr ibute to th eirsu per ior per form an ce (Eri css on& Leh m an n , 199 6). Sec ond , the ver balizedth ought sequences by par ticipan ts perf orm ing a giv en ta sk are consisten twith th etask analyses,andpar ticipants are at t he sam es kil l lev el displa y sim ilar charac teris ticsofthough t.H ence, at le ast for th e ta sk sstudied up to thispoin t, w hichin clu de repre se n tative tas kscaptu ringever ydayp erf orm ance , Sm ag orinsk y s (this issu e) co nce rn th at theexper im ente r a ndpartic ip ants m ay not converg eon a shared re pres enta tionofth etask se em s unfounded . Byres tric tingth eres ear ch tot asksw ith soc ia llyagreed perform ance chara cteristics, it ap pea rs that th es tructu re ofth e task im poses the co nstra in ts fo r function al m enta lre pre sentations and succes sfu l th inkin g .F inal ly , w hen partic ip antsar eproperly inst ructed m ere ly to verbalize their th oughts (th ink-a lo ud), no changes inth e sequenceofth e th ought pro ce sses hav e bee n foundco m pare dto participantscom ple tin g th esam e tas ks si lently . Sm ag orinsk y(th is issue ), in cl aim ing a la ckof sufficie ntsp ec ific re searc h onpro to colm eth odologies (p .160) om itsthe post -1 9 84e vid ence . Since 1 980,num er ous re sear chers have collectedala rg e bodyof evid ence w her e man y stu die s havebeen ex plicitly desig ned to ass ess th e effe cts of diff ere nt types of ver bal izat ionproce dure s. In ourupdat ed rev iew (Erics son & Sim on,1993) wedis cu sse dar ound 30new studie s, an d since 1993m any additional ones have bee np ublishedc onsi ste nt w ith ourc oncl usi ons.T he e vid ence identi fiestw omod es ofver ba liz atio nof thoughtth atare q ual itativ el ydif fer ent (se eFig ure 1 . W hen par tici pants are thin kin galo ud , th e ir sequences of thoughtsh ave notbeen foundto bes yste m at ica lly alte red byverb alization. H ow ev er, w he npart ic ip an ts are as ked to descr ib e an dexplai n th eir th in kin g , thei r perfo rm ance is often chan ge dmostly it is im pro ved ..Insum , w hen Sm agorin sk yconclu des that th e pr oce ss es ofren der in g th in kin gin to sp eech (p . 173) is area ctiveproc ess wher e thin kin greac hes anew level of art iculat io n, heis desc ribin g so cia lly dire ct ed spe echin perf ect ag ree m entwith th eeff ect sw eatt ributetoLevel3 verbalizat io n (Ericss on & Sim on, 1980,1984 , 1993 ). W hen Sm ag ori nsk y pre se nts exce rpts fr om pro toc ols th at purp ort tosho w alte ring effec ts of verbal ization, thes ev erb aliza tionsdonotmeet the criteriaforthinkin galo ud butinclu deso ci ally directe dspeechwith des criptio ns and expl anation s. H en ce areac tiveinflu en ce fro m soci allydirec te dspe echconfirm s the im port ant dist in ct io ns betw een dif fere nt typesofverb aliza tionsandind ire ctly sup ports th e unobtrusiveex pre ssi onofthough ts while thinkin gal pud .FROM CONCERNS BOUT RECTIVEINFLUENCES

ONNORML THINKINGTOTHETRNSFORMINGPOWEROFREFLECTIVETHOUGHT

T hin k in galoud ha snow gain ed acc epta nce as a cen tral andin dis pen sab le m eth od fo rstu dyingth in king (Cru tc her , 199 4; Payne, 1994; W ilson, 19 94), and it is tim eto sta rt exam in ing th em echa nis m s m edia tin g alt ernativ e re activ e m odesofverb ali zation , such as g iv ing ver baldesc riptions and explanations of one 's thin k in g (Eri csso n & Sim on, 1993). T he nec ess arytra nsf orm ationfr om a m er eex pr ess ion ofone's th oughtsto speech descr ib in g /e xplain ingthem to anotherind iv id ual is substan tial as elo quen tlyoutlined by V ygots ky (1 9 6 2): It is acom plex,dynam ic pro ces sin volv ingthetra nsf orm ationof th epre dicat iv e, idiom atic structu re of sp eec hinto


6/9

HOWTOSTU YTHIN KING 8

sy nta ctica lly art icula tedsp eec hin te ll ig ib leto others (p . 1 48 ). In co nsi st ency w ith V y go ts ky 'sv iew,wepro posed that part ic ip ants ,whiledes crib ingandexplai n ingtheir th inking, h aveto unpackcom ple x th oughts intoa unders tandable s eri esofverbalized id eas a nd als oneed to develo p a sy st emof refe rences to id ea sand perce p tu ally availab le obje cts (E ri css on Sim on, 1 98 0, 1 98 4 , 1 993) .U nder th ese cir cum stan ces, parti ci pan tsal so m onito r th eir sp eec hto ensu re that it isunders ta ndabl e ,an d th ey make corre ctio ns and fu rther explic at io nsof th eirth ough ts, w henever nec essary . Inparticula r,w earg ued that th ese requir em ents fo r v erbalizedexpla nations bia sed p art ic ipan ts to adoptm ore ord erlyan drig oro usstra teg ie stothepro ble m s th at w ere easi er t ocom m unicate in a cohere n tfa sh io n , butin tu rn alt er edthesequenceo fthough ts ( see low erpanelof Figure 1 A lthough ver bal des crip tion san dexpla nations m ay not ref le ct spon ta neousth inki ng w ithcom pleteacc ura cy , su ch verb al iz at io nspre sentagenuine educational opp ort unityt o mak e st udents' reasoningm ore coher en tan d reflective. R ec en t studie sco llec tin g th in kin g-a loudpro to co ls have show n that th em ore su ccess fu l stu den ts studyin g com pl eted exam ple s en gag e m ore in ac tiv e eff orts to mast erth em at eri als th an less su cce ss fu l studen ts, and th e best students gen erate m ore sel f-ex pla nations andm onitortheir le ar nin gbet ter (C hi,Lew is , Reim ann , & C la se r, 1989; see R en kl , 1997 ,for a re vie w ).M ost im po rta nt, C hi, de L ee uw ,C hiu , a nd L aV ancher (1 99 4 ) foundthat st udents pro m pt edto ge nera teself -expl anationsimpro ved theirrecal landun der stan dingcom par ed to a contro lgro up.T herear enow manyi nv estig ato rs st udyin g com pre h ensio nandp roble m solv ingw hoanalyz eth ed etailed str uctu re of verb a liz ed thou gh t w ith th e goal of id en ti fy in g the critical though tprocess es that m ediate m ore e ff ec ti ve learn ingand im provedtransf er (B erard i-C ole tt a , Buyer,D om in ow sk i, & R ellinger, 1 995 ;R enkl, 1 997 ; T ra bass o & Suh, 1 99 3 ). H ow ev er, th e best currentev id ence on thekey attribu tes of su perior th in ki n gand perf orm ancecomesfr o m studies of expertperfo rm ers th in ki ng alo ud w hic h sh ow s th at their su perio rp erfo rm an ce is pri m ari ly du e topre v io usl yacquir ed m ental represe n ta tionsth at all o w them to plan , evalu ate , and re aso n abo utalte rna tiv e co ursesof ac ti on (E ric ss on & K ints ch, 1 9 95 ; E ri csso n& L ehm ann, 1 99 6 ; G obet & Sim on,1 996). T here is even som e e v id encefro m exp ert p erf o rm ers sup port ing V y go ts ky 's (1 9 6 2)claim that th ese benefit s an d tra nsfo rm in g effe cts of so cia l com m u nica ti on are enh anced w henpartic ipan ts externa li ze th eir th o ugh ts in w ri ti ng . M an y sc ie ntis ts po in t to w ri ti ngas th em osteffec ti ve(as w ell as dem andin g)activ it y toimpro ve an d deve lo pthe ir th inking (E ric ss on ,Kra m pe,& T esch-R d m er, 1 993 ). B yexternaliz in gth ethou gh ts in an explic itform ,th e scie n ti st s c an critiquean drefin e them even before sh ari ngth em w ithth eir co ll eagues (cf. the m ethodof repea te ddraft sdesc rib edbyV ygotsk y , 1 962, p. 1 44 ).I t is ourh ope and b eli e f th atthe re searchdesc ribedp ro v idesan im po rt an t source of ev id en ceand theoretic al idea sthat suppo rts andela b ora te s S m agori nsk y 's (t h is is su e) argum en tfo r th etransfo rm in g po w ers of describ in g an d explain ingone s th oughts . W e belie ve that m ost of th ediffere nces betw een the stu dy of th in king w ith thin k-alo ud m eth ods and w ith soc ia lly d ire c tedd escri p ti on s/ exp lanatio nsr efle c tbasic dif fere ncesin th egoals of th ese tw okindsof in vesti gati on.W ith th is d if ferencein goals in m in d,a co llabora tive pu rs u it o f both dir ectionso fin quiry ca ncon trib u te to our understa nd in gof h ow to support ind iv id uals ' dev el opm en t of in dep endentth inkingand sk il le d perf o rm ance.THE SOCI LCO MPO NENTS NDCONTEXT OF HUMNTHINKING

In addit io n toh isd isc u ssi o n of th eeff ec tsof th in ki ng alo udonth ou ght pro cess es S m agori nsk ym akessevera l c on tra sts betw een w h at h eperceivesas th e ind iv id u ali stic bia s of th eth in kin g-alo udpro cedureandtheso cial con textof oth er fo rm sof verb al iz atio n .T h e iss u es h ere are ra th er d iff eren t


7/9

84 ER ICSS ON A ND SIM ON

fr om the point just descr ibed (a nd aboutw hich w e seem to be in agreem ent): Behavior is changedw hen student s are asked not simply to th ink aloud but to analyze and explain their ow n ta skbe hav ior.W ebelieve that Sm agorinsk y's account serious ly underestimates the soc ial ch aracter ofth e behavior exhibited in thinking-aloud pro tocols; hence, it is in his ch aracterization of th einform ation processin g (IP) perspective (q uite in accurate in our vie w ) th at w e have our greatestdifferences w ith him .A s w e have se en, th e e videnceis co nsistent th at the course o f he th ought process can be in ferredin co nsiderable detail from th inking-aloud protoco ls. O bvio usly th ispr oce ss isve ry m uc hshapedby what the per son w ho hasgiv en theprotoco lknow s an dw hat sk ills he or sh e possessesbyallofthe th in gs that have be enstored in th ebrain.Butthisstoreof know ledge an dskills includingth e problem-solving techniques that are employed is to th e highest degree a pro duct ofsocialintera ctions(w ith people an d, yes, w ith books and artifact s) overthe w hole lifetim e of th eproblemsolver. The language in w hic h th e pro to col is expresse d isth e language of th e cu lture o f thespe keritsvocabulary , its sy ntax,th e ideas itexpre sses.The prob lem solver is unlikely to usecalculusin solving a problem unless he or she is dr aw n from a cu lture thatis fa m iliar w ith it orto paraphra se Shakespeare or the poetryofJorge Borg es, wi thout previo us social interactionsthatstored m em ories of them , includ in g in th ose mem ories fa m iliar patternsto evoketh em whenthesepatternsreappear in th ecurrent si tuation .Altho ugh it has no t alwaysbeen expressed in these term s, the social character of expertise hasbeen a ce ntral them e in the la rge bodyo fresearchth at has sh ow nhow expert performance dependson stored knowledge and th e stored patterns th at recognize w henth at knowledge is relevantandac cess it. The same th ing appearsw hen we lo ok at th e re se arch on scientific creativity that hasused, if no tprotocols, la boratory record sand other detailed accountsof the scienti st's ve rbal behaviorto tracetheprocesseso f disco very (K ulkar ni & Sim on, 1988).A gainst th is back ground itseem s qui te strange and w holly misleading to characterize thecognitivemodelsthat are builtfrom an IP perspective as relatively stat ic and not developmen-ta lly oriented, as Sm agorin sky doe s. G iv en th ela rge roleplayedin thesem odels by long-term m em ory, itcan besaid, co ntraryto Sm agorinsky, that:

T heyemphasize m ediated act ion in a context. They insist on the im portance of historical levelso f analysis. Theyse ek to gro un dtheir analysis in eve ry day lifeevents(at least if experts can be sa idtohave everyday lives). Theyrecogniz e th at m in d em erges in th ejo int m ediated activity of people. They assume thatindivid uals are active ag ents,but do not act in se ttings enti rely of theirow n ch oosing.

O f th e contrasts thatSm agorinsky propose s betw een the IP and C H A T accountsof cognition ,all th at seem s to re m ain is that the IP acc ou nts do inde ed se ek to em phasize explanations,includingexplanation in term s of causean d effect as well asm ethodologies th at provide as m uc h protectionas possible against th e subjectivism o f th ein vestigator. They have no bia ses o f w hic h w e areaw areagainstemphases on the emergent natureofmindin activity , if w e unders tand the intentofth atphrase.In sh ort ,w e are disappointed in Sm agorinsky 'sfaulty characterization o f the IP perspective a nditsassocia ted research an d, in particular, in hisomissio n of th e recentefforts to stud y everyday


8/9

H O W T O S TU D Y TH IN K ING 8

life events. H owever, w e are ple ased to have this opportunity to correct so m e ofthe m isconceptionsan d point out the m any co m mon goals sh aredby th e tw o theore tical perspectives and thepotentialrelevance of th erecent research on expertise and expert performance for th e C H A T perspective.M ore genera lly , we believe that protocol analysis will pro vide a particular ly rich source of evidenceth atw ould allowboth rese arch traditions tocollect m utually acceptab le evidence relevant to th ecurrent and future theoretical claim s and controversi es.

R FR N SBerardi- Coletta, B., Buyer,L . S.,D om in owski, R . L., & R ellinger, E . R . (1995).M etacognitio n and pro blem solving: Apr oce ss-oriente dapproach. Journal oExperim ental P sy chology : Learning, M emory and C ognition, 21 , 20 5 -223.Cham es s, N. (1 991). Expertise in ch ess: The balance between knowledg e and search. In K. A. Ericsson& J. Sm ith (Eds.) ,Toward agen eral th eory o exp ertise: Prospects an d limits (pp. 39-63) . N ew Y ork: Cam bridge U niversity Press.Ch i, M . T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & L aV an cher, C.(1994). E liciting sel f-explanat ions improves understanding.C ognitiveS cience, 18 , 4 39-477.Chi, M. T.H., L ew is, M. W ., Reimann,P., & Glaser,R . (1 98 9). Self-explanations: How students study and us eex am pl esin le ar ning to solve problems. C og nitive Science, 13 , 14 5-1 82.Crutcher ,R . J. (1994). Telling what we know: Theuse of verbal report meth odologies in psychol ogical research.Psychological Science, 5, 241-244 .de Groot, A.(1978).Thought an dchoice an dchess. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton. (Original work published 19 46)E ricsson, K. A. (19 ). The acqui sition o fexpert pe rformance: An introdu ction to som e of the issues. In K. A. Ericsso n(E d.), The road to excellence: The ac quisition o ex pert perfo rmance inthe arts and scienc es, sports, and game. (p p.1-50). M ahwah, NJ:Lawrence E rlbaum Associates,Inc.E ricsson, K. A., & Cr utcher, R . J . (1991). Introspectionand verb al reports on cognitive processes two ap proaches to th estudy of th ought processes: Aresponseto Howe. New Id eas in Psycho logy, 9, 5 7- 71.Ericsson, K. A., & K intsch, W .(1995). Long-term w orking memory. Psycho logical Review, 10 2, 211-24 5 .E ricsson, K.A., Kram pe, R . Th., & Tesch-R omer, C. (1993). The role of de liberate prac tice inth eacquisitio nof expertperformance. Psychological Review, 100, 36 3- 406.Ericsson, K. A., & L ehmann,A. C. (19 ).' Expert and exceptio nal perform ance: Evid ence on maximal ada ptations on task

co nstraints. Annual Review o P syc hology, 47, 273-30 5 .Ericsson, K. A. , & Poison , P G. (1 988a). An exp erimental analysiso f the mechanisms o f a m em ory sk ill. Jo urna l oExperimental P sychology : Learning, M emory and Cognition, 14, 305-316.Ericsson, K. A., & Poison, P G. (1988b ). Memoryfor restauran t orders. In M. Chi,R . Glaser, & M. an (Eds.) , Th enatureo expertise (p p. 23-70).Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Ericsson , K. A., & S imon, H . A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychol ogical Review, 87, 215-251.Ericsson, K. A. ,&Simon, H. A. (1 98 4). Protoco lanalysis :Verbal rep orts as da ta. Cambridge, MA: B radford Book s/ MITP re ss.Ericsson, K. A., & Simon,H. A. (1 993 ). Protoco l analysis: Verbal rep orts as da ta (Rev. ed.). Cambridge ,MA: B radfordB oo ks/ MIT Press.Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J.(1991). Prospects and limits in th e empirica l stu dy of expertise: An introdu ction. InK. A.E ricsson & J.Smith (E ds.), To w ard a general theory oexpertise: Prospects and limits(pp. 1-38). Ca mbridge, England:Ca m bridge U niversity Press.Gobet, F., & Si mon, H . A. (1996). T emplates in chess m emory: A m echanism for recalling several boards. C ognitiveP sycholog y , 31, 1- 40 .Kulkami,D ., & Simon, H. A. (1988 ). The processe s of scientific discovery: The strategyof experime nt ation. C ognitiveScience, 12 , 139-175 .Okada, J., & Si m on, H . A. (1997). Collaborativediscoveryin a scientif ic domain. Cognitive Science, 21, 109-1 46.Patel,V. L., Aroc ha, J. F.,& Kaufman, D. R. (1994). Diagno stic reason ing and m edical expe rtise. In D . Medin (Ed.), Th epsychology o earn in g an d motivation (Vo l. 30 , pp. 18 7-251). N ew York:Academic.Pay ne, J. W . (1994). Think ing aloud: Insightsinto information processing. Psychological Scienc e, 5, 24 1 ,245-248.R enkl, A. (1 997). Learning from worked-out examples:A study on individual differences. C og ni tive Scienc e, 21, 1-29 .


9/9

86 ERICS S O NA N D S IMO N

Trabasso, T., Suh , S. 1993). U nd erstanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences andmental operationsin working mem ory. D iscourse Processes 16 3-34.Vygotsky, L . S. 1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, M A: MIT Press.Wilson, T . D . 1994). The proper protoco l: Validity and completeness o f verbal reports. Psychological Science 5,249-25 2 .

Ericsson think aloud method

Documents

Transcript of Ericsson think aloud method