thinking aloud definition education

• Try for free

Think-Alouds

Effective teachers think out loud on a regular basis

Download for free, what are think-alouds.

Think-alouds are a strategy in which students verbalize their thoughts while reading or answering questions. By saying what they're thinking, students can externalize and process their thoughts.

Effective teachers think out loud regularly to model this process for students. In this way, they demonstrate practical ways of approaching difficult problems while bringing to the surface the complex thinking processes that underlie reading comprehension, problem solving, and other cognitively demanding tasks.

Why Use Think-Alouds?

Key takeaways:

• The think-aloud strategy is used to model comprehension processes such as making predictions, creating images, and linking information to prior knowledge.
• Teachers model expert problem-solving by verbalizing their thought processes, aiding students in developing their own problem-solving skills, and fostering independent learning.
• Teachers can assess students' strengths and weaknesses by listening to their verbalized thoughts.
• Getting students into the habit of thinking out loud enriches classroom discourse and gives teachers an important assessment and diagnostic tool.
• Research has demonstrated that the think-aloud strategy is effective for fostering comprehension skills from an early age.

Summary of the research

Think-alouds, where teachers vocalize their problem-solving process, serve as a model for students to develop their inner dialogue, a critical tool in problem-solving (Tinzmann et al. 1990). This interactive approach fosters reflective, metacognitive, independent learning. It helps students understand that learning requires effort and often involves difficulty, assuring them they are not alone in navigating problem-solving processes (Tinzmann et al. 1990).

Think-alouds are used to model comprehension processes such as making predictions, creating images, linking information in text with  prior knowledge , monitoring comprehension, and overcoming problems with word recognition or comprehension (Gunning 1996).

By listening in as students think aloud, teachers can diagnose students' strengths and weaknesses. "When teachers use assessment techniques such as observations, conversations and interviews with students, or interactive journals, students are likely to learn through the process of articulating their ideas and answering the teacher's questions" (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 2000).

Research into the impact of using the think-aloud strategy to enhance reading comprehension of science concepts found that implementing think-alouds as a during-reading activity significantly improved the comprehension of science concepts in Kindergarten students (Ortleib & Norris, 2012). This finding underscores the effectiveness of the think-aloud strategy in fostering comprehension skills from an early age.

How To Use Think-Alouds

Think-alouds are versatile teaching tools that can be applied in various ways. For instance, in math, teachers can model the strategy by vocalizing their problem-solving process as they work through a problem. In reading, the think-aloud strategy enhances comprehension by allowing students to actively engage with the text, verbalizing their thought processes, questions, and connections.

Another approach is the use of reciprocal think-alouds, which fosters collaboration and helps students understand different ways of thinking. Think-alouds can also be used as an assessment tool to pinpoint individual student needs, shaping instruction to better suit each learner.

Think-alouds can be used in a number of ways across different subject areas, including:

• Reading/English: The think-aloud process can be used during all stages of reading, from accessing prior knowledge and making predictions to understanding text structure and supporting opinions.
• Writing: Think-alouds can be used to model the writing process, including pre-writing strategies, drafting, revision, and editing.
• Math: Use think-alouds to model the use of new math processes or strategies, and assess student understanding.
• Social Studies: During discussions on complex topics, have students use think-alouds to explain their reasoning and opinions.
• Science: Think-alouds can be used to model the scientific inquiry process, and students can reflect on this process in their journals or learning logs.

Modeling Thinking-Alouds

Modeling think-alouds is a method where a teacher vocalizes their problem-solving process, serving as a guide for students. This strategy allows learners to see the internal mechanisms of problem-solving, demonstrating that learning is an active process. It helps students develop their metacognitive skills, promoting independent learning.

What does this look like in the classroom?

Before proceeding with the actual think-aloud, first, explain the concept and its significance. For instance, "Today, we're going to use the think-aloud strategy as we work through this problem. The think-aloud strategy helps us to vocalize our inner thoughts and reasoning as we solve a problem. It's a useful tool because it allows us to better understand our own thought processes and identify areas where we might be struggling."

Modeling the Think-Aloud Strategy for Math

The think-aloud strategy is instrumental in developing problem-solving skills as it promotes metacognition, enabling students to understand and evaluate their thought processes while tackling a problem.

For example, suppose during math class you'd like students to estimate the number of pencils in a school. Introduce the strategy by saying, "The strategy I am going to use today is estimation. We use it to . . . It is useful because . . . When we estimate, we . . ."

Next say, "I am going to think aloud as I estimate the number of pencils in our school. I want you to listen and jot down my ideas and actions." Then, think aloud as you perform the task.

Your think-aloud might go something like this:

"Hmmmmmm. So, let me start by estimating the number of students in the building. Let's see. There are 5 grades; first grade, second grade, third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade, plus kindergarten. So, that makes 6 grades because 5 plus 1 equals 6. And there are 2 classes at each grade level, right? So, that makes 12 classes in all because 6 times 2 is 12. Okay, now I have to figure out how many students in all. Well, how many in this class? [Counts.] Fifteen, right? Okay, I'm going to assume that 15 is average. So, if there are 12 classes with 15 students in each class, that makes, let's see, if it were 10 classes it would be 150 because 10 times 15 is 150. Then 2 more classes would be 2 times 15, and 2 times 15 is 30, so I add 30 to 150 and get 180. So, there are about 180 students in the school. I also have to add 12 to 180 because the school has 12 teachers, and teachers use pencils, too. So that is 192 people with pencils."

Continue in this way.

Modeling the Think-Aloud Strategy for Reading

The think-aloud strategy enhances reading comprehension by promoting metacognitive understanding of the reading process. It allows students to actively engage with the text, verbalizing their thought processes, questions, and connections, which leads to deeper understanding and retention of material.

When reading aloud, you can stop from time to time and orally complete sentences like these:

• So far, I've learned...
• This made me think of...
• That didn't make sense.
• I think ___ will happen next.
• I reread that part because...
• I was confused by...
• I think the most important part was...
• That is interesting because...
• I wonder why...
• I just thought of...

More Ways to Model Think-Alouds

Another option is to video the part of a lesson that models thinking aloud. Students can watch the video and figure out what the teacher did and why. Stop the video periodically to discuss what they notice, what strategies were tried, and why, and whether they worked. As students discuss the process, jot down any important observations.

Once students are familiar with the strategy, include them in a think-aloud process. For example:

Teacher: "For science class, we need to figure out how much snow is going to fall this year. How can we do that?"

Student: "We could estimate."

Teacher: "That sounds like it might work. How do we start? What do we do next? How do we know if our estimate is close? How do we check it?"

In schools where teachers work collaboratively in grade-level teams or learning communities, teachers can plan and rehearse using the think-aloud strategy with a partner before introducing it to students. It is often more effective when the whole school focuses on the same strategy and approaches to integrate it into learning.

Reciprocal Think-Alouds

In reciprocal think-alouds, students are paired with a partner. Students take turns thinking aloud as they read a difficult text, form a  hypothesis in science , or compare opposing points of view in  social studies . While the first student thinks aloud, the second student listens and records what the first student says. Then students change roles so each partner can think aloud and observe the process. Next, students reflect on the process together, sharing what they tried and discussing what worked well for them and what didn't. As they write about their findings, they can start a mutual learning log that they refer back to.

Think-Alouds as an Assessment Tool

After students are comfortable with the think-aloud process you can use it as an assessment tool. As students think out loud through a problem-solving process, such as reflecting on the steps used to solve a problem in math, write what they say. This allows you to observe the strategies students use. Analyzing the results will allow to pinpoint the individual student's needs and provide appropriate instruction.

Assign a task, such as solving a specific problem or reading a passage of text. Introduce the task to students by saying, "I want you to think aloud as you complete the task: say everything that is going on in your mind." As students complete the task, listen carefully and write down what students say. It may be helpful to use a tape recorder. If students forget to think aloud, ask open-ended questions: "What are you thinking now?" and "Why do you think that?"

After the think-alouds, informally interview students to clarify any confusion that might have arisen during the think-aloud. For example, "When you were thinking aloud, you said . . . Can you explain what you meant?"

Lastly, use a  rubric  as an aid to analyze each student's think-aloud, and use the results to shape instruction.

For state-mandated tests, determine if students need to think aloud during the actual testing situation. When people are asked to solve difficult problems or to perform difficult tasks, inner speech goes external (Tinzmann et al. 1990). When faced with a problem-solving situation, some students need to think aloud. For these students, if the state testing protocol permits it, arrange for testing situations that allow students to use think-alouds. This will give a more complete picture of what these students can do as independent learners.

See the research that supports this strategy

Tinzmann, M B. et. al. (1996) What Is the Collaborative Classroom? Journal: NCREL. Oak Brook.

Gunning, Thomas G. (1996). Creating Reading Instruction for All Children. Chapter 6, 192-236.

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc .

Wilhelm, J. D. (2001). Improving Comprehension with Think-Aloud Strategies. New York: Scholastic Inc.

Ortlieb, E., & Norris, M. (2012). Using the Think-Aloud Strategy to Bolster Reading Comprehension of Science Concepts. Current Issues in Education , 15 (1)

Featured High School Resources

Related Resources

About the author

TeacherVision Editorial Staff

The TeacherVision editorial team is comprised of teachers, experts, and content professionals dedicated to bringing you the most accurate and relevant information in the teaching space.

Modelling through think alouds

The think aloud strategy involves the articulation of thinking, and has been identified as an effective instructional tool.

Think aloud protocols involve the teacher vocalising the internal thinking that they employ when engaged in literacy practices or other areas of learning. The intention is that think alouds make transparent or overt the cognitive processes that literate people deploy. The effective use of think alouds can positively influence student achievement (Fisher, Frey and Lapp, 2011; Ness, 2016).

It is common for teachers to use think alouds when modelling writing, reading, working out mathematical calculations and for speaking and listening strategies. For maximum impact, it is recommended that think alouds are considered in the planning phase (Ness, 2016).

Students can also use think alouds to monitor their comprehension, which can act as a form of assessment. Student think alouds can benefit the speaker, as links between oral language, reading and writing are made, while acting as a model for other students.

Read more information on think alouds and see an in practice lesson containing think alouds .

Fisher, D., Frey, N., and Lapp, D. (2011). Coaching middle-level teachers to think aloud improves comprehension instruction and student reading achievement. Teacher Educator, 46(3), 231-243.

Ness, M. (2016). Learning from K – 5 teachers who think aloud. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 30, (3), 282 – 292.

Our website uses a free tool to translate into other languages. This tool is a guide and may not be accurate. For more, see: Information in your language

• Our Mission

The Think-Aloud Strategy: An Oldie But Goodie

Sometimes you need to be really far away to get perspective and be reminded of what you already know. As I write this, the eight thousand miles between myself and the schools I work in are illuminating the inside out, backward, and upside down nature of our education system. I'm am talking about the spliced into 55-minute periods, standardized testing, and the disconnection from authentic application and what makes life meaningful. I know, not all schools in the US are like this, but too many are.

I'm in Bali and for the last two weeks have been observing how Balinese children learn music, dance, and other arts. I've never been to a place where the arts were more integrated into daily life. In Ubud, the "cultural center of Bali," it's hard to walk down a street or spend a day without hearing or seeing some kind of artistic expression.

Much of this is connected to religious practices and takes place at the many temples on the island. This I expected. What surprises me is how children throw themselves onto every stage, into the laps of musicians, into the workshops of the carvers and painters and weavers. But perhaps "throws" is the wrong word -- I start to notice that they are pulled onto stages and laps and workshops.

Real-World Application

Early in our trip we wanted to learn something about Balinese gamelan and signed up for a day-long course. Our instructors spoke very little English. They taught by demonstrating, and motioning to us to copy them, and then by holding our hands and moving the hammer-like gavels over the xylophone. We didn't need much language and without it, I paid closer attention to the rhythms, the beats, and the sequences of notes.

Throughout our class other Balinese played along, helping to create the beautiful sounds of a Gamelan ensemble. Amongst these players was a boy of three or four who wandered up and plunked himself down first at an instrument that was full of symbols and then at a small, gong. He played, and then danced, and then pulled out a flute, played that, and then sat next to my son and tried to teach him percussive rhythms.

I wondered whose child he was as he moved from lap to lap, each Balinese adult laughing with him, encouraging him, clapping for him after he danced, and giving him instruction on his music as well.

I was captivated watching this little boy and my own son who was learning by doing -- and for a purpose and authentic application. I want this kind of learning to be a daily reality for the students in the schools where I work.

In the Classroom

Let me take a big leap now into what this reflection might mean for those who are still working within the 55-minute period. While this is far from what I envision schools to be, I know we can start taking steps towards integrating this concept, starting with a strategy as simple as the "think-aloud."

When I first started teaching English Language Arts to middle school students, a wise mentor encouraged me to share my writing practice with my students. "ELA teachers must be readers and writers themselves," she said, "so that they can make their process transparent to their students." She explained how to use the strategy think-aloud as students wrote first drafts.

I began to do them regularly in class as a way to determine a focus for my writing, how I revised it, and how I organized my thoughts. I did the same for reading, narrating the metacognitive processes I used to make sense of texts. I was surprised by how captivated my students were with these mini-lessons; those of us who teach middle-schoolers know that it's hard to captivate this audience! Then I saw the evidence show up in their writing; when we had a conference about a piece they were working on, they'd narrate their thoughts and use phrases I'd used, such as, "here, I want my audience to feel... ."

Why It Works

Now I recognize this strategy as one that parallels what I have been seeing in Bali. It's the old apprentice model, of course, but it can be adapted to our educational context today. This strategy can be applied to any content. It's about making our thinking transparent for kids, the steps we take to figure something out, and the ways in which our actions flow from this thinking. In this way, we are modeling what children need to do, not just telling them what to do.

Using a think-aloud strategy in all content areas, for all ages, is one step towards recovering an apprenticeship style of learning, something that has a legacy of great success and efficacy. Have you used a think-aloud lately? Please share with us in the comment section below.

Mind by Design

How the thinking aloud strategy works | Guide to Implementation

The thinking aloud strategy is a form of self-directed metacognition. It is a technique that encourages learners to monitor and evaluate their own thinking as they complete an activity or solve a problem. The thinking aloud strategy can produce benefits such as improved metacognitive skills; enhanced understanding of the task at hand; better recall and organisation of information; enhanced motivation to undertake tasks that learners may otherwise find difficult, tedious, or boring. It is also known as Metacognition in Practice (MPIP) and Process Metacognition (PM).

For the thinking aloud strategy to be effective, learners need to be aware of their own thinking so that they can analyse their own performance. This includes recognising the elements of a problem, selecting how best to approach it, taking time to consider alternative options, and evaluating how well they have achieved their goal.

Why the thinking aloud strategy is important

This strategy is important because it can provide learners with a powerful tool for improving their self-directed learning and self-regulation.

Self-directed learning is the process by which learners plan, prepare, and practise to learn new knowledge relevant to their course of study. It involves planning and organising lessons, preparing goals to work towards, practising strategies to support learning, and monitoring progress through monitoring one’s own performance. It is about having the internal motivation to acquire knowledge in a way that is most suitable for students’ needs.

Self-regulation is the process of managing cognitive demand. It is important to be able to regulate one’s own thinking and behaviour so that it is effective and appropriate in terms of goals and tasks . Self-regulation includes activating relevant knowledge, monitoring one’s own performance, and regulating one’s emotions, motivations, attention, and strategies when working towards goals. The thinking aloud strategy is an effective way to encourage learners to monitor and evaluate their own performance in the process of self-directed learning.

The thinking aloud strategy also encourages learners to gain a better understanding of their own cognitive processes and how they work. By monitoring what they are doing they can identify why they may have problems when completing a task, and what needs to be changed if improvements are required.

How the thinking aloud strategy works

The thinking aloud strategy is a form of self-directed metacognition. This means that learners monitor and evaluate their own performance as they complete an activity or solve a problem. It does not mean being constantly reflective, but rather reflecting on what was done, how the activity fits into one’s learning goals, how well learners are progressing in applying new knowledge to tasks, and what they need to do to improve.

The thinking aloud strategy is a tool that allows learners to engage in self-directed learning and cultivate their own motivation and interest in the activity they are completing or the problem they are trying to solve. It does this by encouraging them to think about what they are doing as they do it so that if any problems come up, they can recognise them and deal with them proactively rather than having to work backwards from the end product. This way, learners can identify problems and correct them before they have much effect on their performance.

Learning is a process of the mind in which existing knowledge is adapted, extended, and challenged. While learning involves a significant amount of internal mental processing, much of it goes on without the learner’s awareness. Learners tend to concentrate so intently on the task at hand that they are unable to attend to what is happening inside their minds. This can result in major misconceptions developing around what they know, which can have serious impacts on their learning and their ability to apply this knowledge in later situations.

A common example of this is the tendency for people to develop incorrect beliefs about mental processes in their own minds. By reflecting on how they work, learners can identify and remove these misconceptions, increasing their self-confidence and increasing their ability to find solutions to problems.

This strategy encourages learners to use information that they have available at that time (i.e., what they know), as well as new information that they need to know so that they can complete the task successfully. This process develops the learner’s own metacognitive skills, making them more aware of their own thinking as it is happening, and therefore more capable of monitoring and evaluating what they are doing.

The thinking aloud strategy will automatically improve a learner’s level of self-regulation if they continue to utilise it in their day-to-day learning. This is because it encourages learners to reflect on what they are doing, think about how well they are doing it, and identify any areas that could be improved.

Where is the thinking aloud strategy most effective?

This strategy is particularly useful when learners take more than one course that involves problem-solving or an area of expertise. For example, many students take science, maths, English as a Second Language (ESL), and French as Second Language (FSL) at the same time simultaneously. In this situation, the thinking aloud strategy can be used in all three courses and can be effective in all areas of study by allowing learners to identify problems associated with each activity and how to resolve them before they become serious impediments.

Students can use this strategy in any situation where they have a task to complete or a problem to solve. It can be very effective in any form of self-directed learning, especially if it is used to monitor the process while one is doing it, rather than when one looks back over what has been done.

This strategy is particularly useful in those situations which require learners to analyse something that they are currently doing (e.g., driving, cooking, reading a book, doing an experiment). It can also be useful in situations where a learner is learning from materials available to them at that time (e.g., studying for an exam, completing homework), as well as when there is no specific material to work from.

The thinking aloud strategy can be used in combination with other strategies, such as the meta-cognitive strategies of monitoring one’s own performance and monitoring one’s own progress. This increases the effectiveness of the thinking aloud strategy, making it more effective in many situations and enabling learners to monitor and evaluate their own thinking process as it occurs.

The thinking aloud strategy can also be used by learners who find that they do not enjoy or are unable to deal with a task or problem they are faced with, but still need to master the task. They might also use this strategy if they have a particular character trait that makes them think too much about things that are beyond their control rather than concentrating on what they can do. It can enable them to break these negative patterns of thought that might otherwise be hard to overcome.

Getting started – How to implement

In order to use this strategy, a learner has to come up with a plan for the task they are trying to complete. They have to imagine what problems might arise along the way and how they will deal with them. They then need to set explicit goals and have a clear idea of what needs to be done in order for them to reach those goals. Finally, they need to bring their plan into play while they are doing the task.

A lot of learners find this strategy difficult to start because they are not used to planning their activities in advance. Some of them know what is supposed to happen but have difficulty figuring out how it is supposed to happen, or how they are supposed to control the process so that it reaches the goals.

If a learner is used to planning their goals in line with the time it will take to complete the task, they can still use this strategy effectively. This is because people who plan early on what they are trying to achieve will not end up with undesirable or illogical plans that work against the goals of that task.

There are different ways in which learners can plan their tasks, but the most common way is by using a plan-do-review cycle (see diagram below). Learners start by setting clear goals for themselves. They have to plan exactly how they are going to achieve these goals, by defining the necessary steps and tasks that will be involved. They need to do this so that the process can be carried out properly and in an orderly fashion.

After setting these goals, learners evaluate their plans, checking for errors in them and also evaluating any uncomfortable feelings they have when thinking about them. This evaluation can take place at any time during the planning process as long as it occurs before learners act on their plans. There are three main reasons for this:

• The feelings of discomfort that a learner has while they are planning their plan may suggest that there is something wrong with the plan. For example, if a learner feels very anxious or stressed about what they have just done, then it may be an indication that their plan is not thought through properly and will not work as well as they expect.
• The uncomfortable feelings can help learners identify possible problems before they become too serious. Once these problems are identified, the learner can think about how they can be solved before they become serious roadblocks.
• If the uncomfortable feelings are not checked, they could cause learners to give up on whatever plan they have just come up with and end up doing nothing about it. If this happens, then it is possible that these feelings may cause learners to give up altogether on their tasks and never achieve their goals.

As a result of evaluating their plans, learners will be better able to identify what was wrong with their plan and how they can avoid making similar mistakes in the future. This will enable them to put the appropriate effort into planning a better course of action for reaching their goal. It is important that they do this on the basis that it is not possible for all plans to always work as intended.

Some learners find it hard to work out why there are feelings of discomfort when they are planning. They wonder why it is wrong to have thoughts of discomfort when planning a task. It is important for these learners to realise that it is not possible to plan an activity without having some kind of feelings about it. In other words, there is no such thing as a “neutral” feeling when planning something and the feeling of discomfort can come in three forms:

• Being anxious or stressed can mean that someone has a problem with their plan and needs to work harder at it until they manage to solve the problem.
• Feeling uncertain about the plan can also mean a problem with the plan. For example, a learner who is unsure about how to start doing something because they do not know if they are supposed to do it first or second may need to add information telling them exactly what needs to be done.
• Having an uncomfortable feeling while thinking about their plan can be an indication of problems with the plan. For example, if a learner is not sure how to break down a problem into steps that would be easy for them, then they should make the breaks more obvious by outlining these and using arrows or other signs to illustrate the steps.

Learners who are used to planning their tasks in line with the time it will take to complete them can still use this strategy effectively. This is because people who plan early on what they are trying to achieve will not end up with undesirable or illogical plans that work against the goals of that task. They will also be able to identify problems with their plans before they become serious and therefore will not have to give up on them.

For example, if a learner is planning on doing their homework for one hour then it might take them longer than expected because they just do not know what to say. They could go back and make a plan using more detailed steps so that they do not end up getting distracted while doing it. They could also make time limits at a certain point in their plan so that they can check if the process is going well or if they need to change some of their planning.

When learners are used to planning in line with the goal, it is not necessary for them to take detailed notes on how things will be accomplished. In fact, it may be better if they do not make notes or go into too much detail because if they describe to other people how they will complete the task, it can become hard for them to remember enough steps involved in the process.

If a learner finds it difficult to plan in line with their goals then it might be best for them to plan for specific tasks rather than continue with their overall plans. This will make them feel less pressure to accomplish the goals. A task is a smaller goal that can be more easily done than attempting a larger goal.

Learners should also try using the plan-do-review cycle for other types of tasks but not as their only means of planning. They can use the plan-do-review cycle as a guideline for planning but they should not use it as their only planning strategy. If they do this then their plans will not be followed because there will be too much emphasis on doing things in a certain way.

Therefore, instead of following a plan as closely as possible, learners should try to have some freedom in how they perform tasks. This will enable them to meet the goals that they have set themselves easier and therefore increase the likelihood that they will complete them more successfully.

Planning a task is not something people should avoid like it was avoiding the plague. In fact, it is a vital skill that everyone who works in an office should master. It is important for them to spend enough time planning their tasks so that they do not end up wasting valuable time doing things they will later regret. Planning can also help them in doing things in a more efficient way as well as identifying problems and solutions to these before they become big issues during the process of completing the tasks.

The plan-do-review cycle is one planning strategy that people can use when they want to accomplish tasks. It is not a strategy that should be used on its own but it can be combined with other techniques to help people become more skilled at planning their tasks. It is important for learners to understand the process of the cycle and how they can evaluate other plans using it. This will help them in planning their activities more efficiently so that they are better able to complete them successfully without wasting time or discomforting themselves.

The main thing is for learners to understand that planning is not something they can avoid but it should be a necessity. If they plan, they would not have to work so hard or get tired when planning and might end up more satisfied with the results of their activity than if they had not planned at all. This in turn will help them to realise that there are many benefits in doing so and therefore make it easier for them to continue doing this.

Similar Posts

What is positive living and how you can do it

In order to live a life that is richer and more fulfilling one needs to have wise strategies in place for consistently developing an attitude of gratitude and positivity. Yes, there are many things in our lives that can be challenging. Yet, if we focus on what’s good, then those things will also become good….

Doing the Right Thing when no one is looking: The Power of Integrity, Even When No One is Watching 

In a world that often seems driven by self-interest and instant gratification, the concept of doing the right thing might appear to be overshadowed by personal gain. However, the truth remains that integrity is an indispensable virtue that defines our character and influences our choices, even when no one is looking. As C.S. Lewis once…

Thinking Like A Millionaire (17 Ways to develop the mindset to succeed)

Thinking like a millionaire is the ultimate form of acceptance. It means you know that, if you get certain steps in place, the sky’s the limit for what could be yours. Whether you want to break into acting or start your own business venture, this article has infinite amounts of empowering nuggets of wisdom and…

What productivity tools does Elon Musk use?

Many in the entrepreneurial world have heard of Elon Musk, and know him as a genius. From Tesla to SpaceX, he has had an amazing career in the tech industry. In fact, it is no coincidence that this article is all about him and his productivity tools. This article will explore all of Elon Musk’s…

What is quantum creation? Why it’s important to your mindset.

Quantum creation is the idea that an observer creates reality. Quantum creation can be seen as a process of observation and interaction created by the observer. The subject is hotly debated concerning what actually happens, but what it implies is unlimited potential for growth, creativity, and imagination. Joe Dispenza, one of the leading experts on…

How to raise your vibration: 15 ways to lift your vibration.

In the world of spirituality, there are complex, lofty concepts that can seem overwhelming and almost entirely intimidating. However, raising your vibration doesn’t have to be complicated or unattainable. The following post will help you get started on your path to increasing your spiritual power. The concept of spiritual vibrations is used to explain that…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

Responding to Student Understanding Guide: Secondary Math

• Decision Tree
• Diagnosing Misconceptions
• Think Aloud

What is it?

How to do it, considerations, recommended resources.

• Select, Sequence & Connect
• Select & Connect (i.e., Show Call)
• Multiple Methods & Representations
• Model the Process
• Push Students to Justify and Summarize & Continue Instruction
• Modeling with Self-Monitoring and Cues

A Think Aloud is an oft-cited method for use in a wide variety of teaching scenarios, and, when executed well, is a great go-to for adjusting instruction (as well as addressing unfinished teaching in future lessons). Think Aloud's are effective only if they make transparent the cognition required to effectively address misconceptions. This means voicing what you are thinking aloud, to yourself, for students to observe. Students also must have a specific question in mind when observing to focus what they see and hear on the error and false beliefs.

There are infinite ways to execute a Think Aloud for any given scenario, yet they are all structured to set students to focus on teachers’ modeled cognition.  In an effective think aloud teachers:

Model the thinking process orally and in writing

Ask questions at strategic moments to leverage students’ prior knowledge in the process

Use economy of language to present the ideas with as few words as possible

Ask a question(s) to check for understanding and stamp key ideas before moving on

Below is that structure and an example script a teacher may use that incorporates the characteristics above.  Note, this Think Aloud happens in-the-moment and, to isolate a misconception, the teacher sets a focus on one question that will be discussed after the thinking is fully modeled.

Implementing a Think Aloud in the moment, as opposed to pre-planned, requires you to determine:

If students must observe cognition of a concept, a process or an application to clarify the misconception;

Which Standard(s) of Mathematical Practice to model;

The length of the thought process, which should be short enough for students to apply right away as you release responsibility once again;

The Depth of Understanding students require to clarify the misconception and to attain the learning goal.

• Get Better Faster: A 90-day plan for developing new teachers By: P. Bambrick-Santoyo, (2016)
• << Previous: Adjusting Instruction
• Next: Select, Sequence & Connect >>
• Last Updated: Feb 8, 2024 4:08 PM
• URL: https://relay.libguides.com/responding-to-student-understanding

Think Aloud

• Select a central text .
• Project the text in a visible location.
• Asking questions
• Connecting to other texts
• Making predictions
• Narrating thoughts while reading
• Reviewing for information
• Summarizing
• Surveying for text features
• Using evidence from the text to respond
• Visualizing
• Highlight part of the text conducive to demonstrating the skills you selected for the mini-lessons. Model the skills aloud.
• Have students record the skills you demonstrate on the Think Aloud checklist.
• After modeling Think Aloud, have students practice with a partner or in a small group, using the Think Aloud checklist as a talking guide.
• Observe and scaffold students during partner or small group Think Aloud. These observations can function as formative assessments.

English language learners

Connection to anti-bias education.

• Student sensitivity.
• The Power of Advertising and Girls' Self-Image

Print this Strategy

Please note that some Strategies may contain linked PDF handouts that will need to be printed individually. These are listed in the sidebar of this page.

• Google Classroom

Sign in to save these resources.

Login or create an account to save resources to your bookmark collection.

Learning for Justice in the South

When it comes to investing in racial justice in education, we believe that the South is the best place to start. If you’re an educator, parent or caregiver, or community member living and working in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana or Mississippi, we’ll mail you a free introductory package of our resources when you join our community and subscribe to our magazine.

Get the Learning for Justice Newsletter

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS article

What is going through your mind thinking aloud as a method in cross-cultural psychology.

• Department of Psychology, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, United States

Thinking aloud is the concurrent verbalization of thoughts while performing a task. The study of thinking-aloud protocols has a long tradition in cognitive psychology, the field of education, and the industrial-organizational context. It has been used rarely in cultural and cross-cultural psychology. This paper will describe thinking aloud as a useful method in cultural and cross-cultural psychology referring to a few studies in general and one study in particular to show the wide applications of this method. Thinking-aloud protocols can be applied for (a) improving the validity of cross-cultural surveys, (b) process analysis of thoughts and the analysis of changes over time, (c) theory development across cultures, (d) the study of cultural meaning systems, and (e) individual as well as group level analyses allowing hypothesis testing cross-culturally. Limitations of the thinking-aloud method are also discussed.

Introduction

Thinking aloud is the concurrent verbalization of thoughts while performing a task ( Ericsson and Simon, 1993 ). When this method is applied, participants are asked to spontaneously report everything that goes through their minds while doing a task, and they are instructed not to interpret or analyze their thinking. Verbal protocol is another term often used as a synonym for thinking aloud. Verbal protocols can be concurrent (thinking aloud) or retrospective, referring to short reports after the completion of a task.

The study of thinking aloud and of verbal protocols has a long tradition in psychology. It can be traced back to Wilhelm Wundt’s technique “Selbstbeobachtung” (self-observation, also often called introspection; Wundt, 1888 ). Wundt asked participants in his experiments to look inward, pay attention to their inner thought processes, and describe them in detail. Wundt perceived the inner experience, the flow of consciousness, as the core topic of psychology. He saw self-observation as an appropriate method for studying this flow of consciousness when it occurred under controlled conditions in the laboratory. Some researchers criticized the method, believing that self-observation would interfere with the thought process and, thus, would not show the real thought process itself, but rather an interpretation of the thought process ( Ericsson and Crutcher, 1991 ).

The thinking-aloud method was heavily criticized by behaviorists, as they assumed cognitive processes, such as memory, could not be studied scientifically. As Watson (1925) expressed, “The behaviorist never uses the term memory . He believes that it has no place in an objective psychology” (p. 177). The thinking-aloud method became popular again after the influence of behaviorism diminished in mainstream psychology and cognitive psychology became the dominant paradigm. Newell and Simon (1972) , for example, asked participants to think aloud while solving particular problems. Rather than investigating whether a person solved a problem or not, their focus was on the process of human reasoning while solving problems. From these thinking-aloud protocols, they derived the computer-simulated model “General Problem Solver.”

A study conducted by Ericsson and Chase (1982) on exceptional memory showed that a student could increase his digit span from 7 (e.g., 3-5-1-3-7-8-2), the average number of digits a person is able to remember, to 80 digits by training 1 h per day, three to five times a week for 20 months. Retrospective verbal protocols showed that the participant used specific mnemonics to help him remember. One mnemonic was to group the digits together in meaningful units, which is called chunking. For example, the three digits 3 5 1 could be grouped together as one chunk of “3 min 51 s – close to world record mile time,” which, if the participant was a long-distance runner, as this participant was, would make sense and, thus, would be easier to remember. Since the publication of Ericsson and Chase’s work, thinking aloud has been recognized as an acceptable and even essential method in the study of human cognition.

The Wide Application of the Thinking-Aloud Method

Thinking aloud as a scientific method has been used in many other disciplines, showing the relevance and applicability of this method. Not only researchers studying cognition (e.g., Fleck and Weisberg, 2004 ; Hölscher et al., 2006 ; Malek et al., 2017 ), but also researchers studying education (e.g., Cummings et al., 1989 ; van den Bergh and Rijlaarsdam, 2001 ; Bannert, 2003 ; Kesler et al., 2016 ), text comprehension using computer based tools ( Muñoz et al., 2006 ; Van Hooijdonk et al., 2006 ; Wang, 2016 ), discourse processing ( Long and Bourg, 1996 ), software engineering ( Hughes and Parkes, 2003 ), psychology and law ( Santtila et al., 2004 ), sport psychology (e.g., Samson et al., 2017 ), and business management ( Isenberg, 1986 ; Premkumar, 1989 ; Hoc, 1991 ) have applied the thinking-aloud method. In a similar form, thinking aloud has also influenced the fields of counseling and clinical psychology, for example, in the assessment of automatic thoughts as part of cognitive therapy in depression (e.g., Meichenbaum, 1980 ; DeRubeis et al., 1990 ).

Reliability and Validity of Thinking-Aloud Protocols

Following positivism, reliability and validity are central to research. Reliability of thinking-aloud data refers to consistency, the ability to collect the same data at a different time. In order to get reliable data, a clearly understandable, tape or digitally recorded thinking-aloud protocol is necessary, which requires control of the experimental situation. Problems related to transcribing and especially to coding have to be minimized, and, ideally, transcription should be done by native speakers of the participants’ language. The first step of coding is the segmentation of the whole protocol, i.e., the creation of separate meaningful units, depending on the research questions of interest. Usually those statements are in the form of clauses or sentences; these sentences do not need to be complete, necessarily, as participants use colloquial language. The second step refers to the coding of the segments. A detailed coding system and thorough training of coders can increase reliability, resulting in higher inter-coder reliability. This reliability is sometimes described in percent of agreement, but preferably should be described in Cohen’s Kappa or intraclass correlation coefficients. According to Fleiss (1981) , a Kappa value over 0.75 is excellent, between 0.60 and 0.75 is good, and a Kappa between 0.40 and 0.60 is fair. One problem that may be encountered during coding is coder biases or expectations, as can occur when the coders are aware of the hypotheses to be tested, for example. Ideally, then, the coders should not know about the research hypotheses. Also, probable biases or expectations can be acknowledged early to increase trustworthiness of the coding process and, consequently, of the data.

Also at issue is the internal validity of a study. In the context of thinking aloud, the validity question is often framed as the reactivity question. Does the act of thinking aloud interfere with and change a person’ cognitive processes while performing the task? Ericsson and Simon (1993) argued that it did not, citing many studies and stating that as long as the instruction was clear, i.e., that participants should say out loud everything that went through their minds, thinking aloud did not alter the sequence of thoughts. However, prior consideration should be given to the way instructions are to be conveyed to participants. An instruction from a facilitator to “keep talking” while the participant performed a task probably would not disrupt the thought process, though an instruction requiring explanation from the participant, like “Tell me why you did this,” would intervene in the cognitive process by triggering a specific answer to explain an action. If verbal protocols are asked from participants after completion of tasks, it is preferable if verbalization almost immediately follows the task. Generally, a concurrent thinking-aloud protocol has higher validity than a retrospective report, particularly when the task takes a long time to complete.

One way to ensure reliability and validity and to determine whether thinking aloud influences a cognitive process is to create two groups: an experimental group that receives instruction to think aloud, and a control group that does not receive such instruction.

Qualitative Evaluation Criteria: Trustworthiness of Thinking-Aloud Protocols

Researchers conducting qualitative studies use different criteria to evaluate the quality of their research. Whereas quantitative psychologists try to discover general universal laws, qualitative researchers try to understand participants’ “lived experience” ( Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2006 , p. 62), assuming a socially constructed reality. Lincoln and Guba (1999) described four criteria guaranteeing the trustworthiness of the research: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility refers to how confident one can be regarding the truth of a study’s findings. One way to support credibility is to be open to the possibility of falsification and to conduct a “negative case analysis” ( Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2006 , p. 63), i.e., to include cases that contradict or are not in line with the conclusions drawn so far. It speaks for the researcher if he or she is willing to include those cases in the analysis and, as a result, is able to revise the previously drawn conclusions. A second method to support credibility is triangulation. Triangulation can refer to the use of several methods or several sources of information to investigate the same research question. Thinking aloud, for example, could be combined with post-experiment interview or survey data. Triangulation can also refer to different investigators working on the same data set. This is especially relevant for cross-cultural studies and analyses of thinking-aloud protocols. The underlying assumption of triangulation is that it provides a fuller and more credible picture of the phenomenon. Extended experience in the environment can also increase credibility, and it is especially important for cross-cultural psychologists to learn about the other culture and learn the language in order to get a deeper understanding of the utterances made by the participants in the thinking-aloud protocols.

Transferability refers to the application of the findings to other contexts or other people. Quantitative researchers pursue random sampling. Qualitative studies often include small sample sizes and pursue purposive sampling with the goal of getting a wide variety and range of information that can increase the transferability.

Dependability is the third criterion and refers to a study’s reliability. Confirmability, the fourth criterion, refers to the accuracy of findings, and to what extent they were influenced by the researcher’s biases. Researchers can increase both dependability and confirmability by journaling their experiences and biases and by engaging in dialog with other researchers early on in the research process. Participatory research and peer review ( Willis, 2007 ) can also increase dependability and confirmability. In participatory research, the researcher presents initial conclusions of the study to the participants and actively involves them in the research process. For example, thinking-aloud protocols could be shown to and discussed with the participants and ambiguities in the protocol could be clarified. Peer review is similar to triangulation involving other researchers. In cross-cultural research, the ideal, as mentioned before, would be collaboration with a researcher from the target culture. It is recommended to involve other researchers early in the research process and to stay in continuous dialog with them about the research progress.

Cross-Cultural Psychological Research Using Thinking-Aloud and Verbal Protocols

One goal of cross-cultural psychology is “the study of similarities and differences in individual psychological functioning in various cultural and ethnocultural groups” ( Berry et al., 2002 , p. 3). The thinking-aloud method, however, is rarely used in cross-cultural research. A search in PsychInfo, January 2018, with no time limitation showed 503 hits for the term “thinking aloud” used anywhere and 464 hits for the term “verbal protocols” used anywhere. Only six peer-reviewed journal articles were found for the combination of the word “thinking aloud” or “verbal protocol” anywhere with either one of the two keywords “culture” or “cross-cultural.”

Luria (1976) studied reasoning, among other cognitive processes, in Central Asia, comparing illiterate peasants (the term used by Luria), barely literate kolkhoz farm workers, and young people with a few years of schooling. He used an interview technique to investigate the thought processes of the participants. He presented participants with syllogisms such as the following: “Cotton grows well where it is hot and dry. England is cold and damp. Can cotton grow there or not?” (p. 107).

Results showed that illiterate participants who had no formal education had difficulties solving the syllogisms. Luria was not only interested in the outcome, how many of the participants of each group could solve the syllogism correctly, but even more so in their reasoning, how they interpreted the syllogism. The illiterate participants interpreted the syllogisms on the basis of their experiences in a concrete way and did not show abstract thinking. Only the analysis of participants’ thought processes allowed Luria to answer the question of why illiterate participants had difficulties interpreting the syllogisms.

The following is part of a short conversation the interviewer had with a 37-year-old illiterate villager who was presented with the cotton syllogism. It is, however, more an interview than a mere thinking-aloud protocol.

Interviewer: “Cotton can grow only where it is hot and dry. In England, it is cold and damp. Can cotton grow there?”

Participant: “I don’t know.”

Interviewer: “Think about it.”

Participant: “I’ve only been in the Kashgar country. I don’t know beyond that.”

Interviewer: “But on the basis of what I said to you, can cotton grow there?”

Participant: “If the land is good, cotton will grow there, but if it is damp and poor, it won’t grow. If it’s like the Kashgar country, it will grow there too. If the soil is loose, it can grow there too, of course” ( Luria, 1976 , p. 108).

Luria also used grouping tasks where participants were presented with several objects and had to find, which ones belong together and which ones did not. This task assesses categorical classification. The following is the response of a 60-year-old illiterate peasant who was shown pictures of a hammer, a saw, a log, and a hatchet.

They all fit together! The saw has to saw the log, the hammer has to hammer it, and the hatchet has to chop it. And if you want to chop the log up really good, you need the hammer. You can’t take any of these things away. There isn’t any you don’t need ( Luria, 1976 , p. 58).

This thinking-aloud statement related to the classification task shows the participant’s situational thinking. The participant does not classify the objects into a more abstract category, but refers to their “practical utility” (p. 59). Similar studies on formal and informal education and its influence on problem solving, reasoning, or intelligence were reported by Scribner (1979) and Scribner and Cole (1981) , who also instructed participants to verbalize their thoughts when solving certain cognitive tasks. These studies show that thinking aloud can tap into information that cannot be analyzed by other methods alone, explaining the differences or accessing the nuances usually not revealed through other forms of data gathering.

Cultural Meanings 1: Improving the Validity of Cross-Cultural Surveys Using Thinking Aloud

Raitasalo et al. (2005) used the thinking-aloud method in a cross-cultural study in Finland, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands to investigate cultural differences in answering survey items. The survey focused on alcohol use: frequency of drinking, quantity of drinking, frequency of drunkenness, and the context of drinking in the last 12 months. For our purposes, the major finding of interest is cross-cultural differences related to the understanding of the survey questions. We can conclude from this study that allowing participants in cross-cultural studies to verbalize or write down their thoughts when answering Likert-scale survey questions could show the researcher(s) how the participants understand the questions and which cultural meanings participants attribute to these questions. Thinking aloud can also point out the interpretations participants give to the survey questions.

To illustrate this point, I would like to quote two survey questions used in studies published in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology . The first one refers to Keller et al. (2006) , who used the Family Allocentrism Scale ( Lay et al., 1998 ) as one of their measurements. Lay et al. tested for response bias and conducted item analyses with western and eastern samples when they developed their survey. One item of this scale is “My family’s opinion is important to me.” Thinking aloud of participants from different cultural groups regarding this question could be especially beneficial in the first stages of scale development and could reveal (a) if participants think of specific family opinions, (b) if so, which ones they are referring to when answering this question, and (c) who and what defines family: a nuclear family; an extended family with grandparents, uncles, aunts; only one caregiver; or if family is interpreted as only the participant, the individual. One western participant could express, for example: “No, their opinion is not important to me when they want to tell me which clothes I should wear.” Another participant could say, “Sure, I listen to their advice regarding my future major at the university. After all, they will support me.” Another participant might say, “I listen to my mom, because she understands me, but not to my dad, and certainly not to my brothers.” These different answers show that participants understand the question in different ways and participants’ answer choices depend on what they are thinking of at the time. One could specify the question, for example: “My mother’s opinion regarding my professional future is important to me.”

A second example is an item Hershey et al. (2007) used studying retirement planning in the Netherlands and in the United States, a single-item indicator for perceived savings adequacy: “I am saving enough for retiring comfortably.” A participant in Germany might choose, “1-strongly disagree,” thinking aloud, “I do not need to save and I did not save, because I always paid into the social retirement system and I am guaranteed a retirement from the government.” An Indian participant might also choose, “1-strongly disagree,” thinking aloud, “I do not need to save, because I have four children and they will take care of me; one of them is even a computer programmer in Hyderabad.” Additionally, a Filipino might also choose, “1-strongly disagree,” but say, “No matter how hard I try, I will never be saving enough for retirement, there is no well-functioning system of retirement here. We grow old, we stay with our family, we are loved.” Even if the German, Indian, and Filipino have the same survey answer, all indicating that they are not saving for retirement, their thinking-aloud statements show that the underlying reasons for their responses are quite different. The researcher could use those thinking-aloud data to specify the question and perhaps to develop further questions to lessen misinterpretation, garner more accurate responses, or even to be more sensitive to participants’ culture. Possible modified items could be “The government is supporting retired people adequately.” And “I can rely on my family to support me financially when I retire.”

The use of thinking aloud and verbal protocols can be especially helpful when surveys try to assess sensitive topics, meaning topics subject to bias and social desirability, and to those that attempt to be respectful to the context and the larger dimensions of the culture. Edwards et al. (2005) , for example, conducted a study on condom use as a preventive measure for HIV/AIDS. They collected thinking-aloud protocols of sex workers problem solving a simulated task. The goal was to improve a sexual behavior survey instrument. The thinking-aloud data helped the authors to improve comprehension of the instrument and to reduce social desirability, providing appropriate terms and cues for aiding recall, improving the establishment of trust with participants, and creating a sense of cultural competence and credibility from the researchers. Vreeman et al. (2014) transcribed and coded cognitive interviews regarding HIV with pediatric caregivers in Kenya in order to further develop and adapt survey items to this cultural context.

Cross-cultural psychologists have a multitude of quantitative methods to increase reliability and validity of survey instruments used in cross-cultural research (for an overview, see van de Vijver and Leung, 1997 ; van de Vijver and He, 2017 ). The thinking-aloud method is an additional method that can be used to improve the reliability and validity of self-report instruments ( Sudman et al., 1996 ).

Cultural Meanings 2: Thinking Aloud Allows for the Study of Cultural Meaning Systems Beyond the Sentence Level

The previous paragraphs referred to cultural meanings attributed to specific survey items on the sentence and phrase level. Thinking-aloud data can be also analyzed more broadly regarding the meanings expressed by participants going beyond the sentence level. A multitude of other qualitative methods, such as consensual qualitative research methodology ( Hill et al., 1997 ; Güss et al., 2018 ) or grounded theory ( Glaser and Strauss, 1980 ) can be applied to analyze thinking-aloud protocols for meanings expressed by participants of various cultural and ethnic groups. As Smagorinsky (2001) pointed out, “from a cultural perspective a verbal protocol represents the speaker’s cultural conception of the word” (p. 235) and gives insight into his or her cultural world. Needless to say, analysis of such protocols necessarily requires coders from the participants’ respective cultures or coders who are multiculturally competent – not only knowledgeable about other cultures, but deeply aware of their own biases and prejudices.

Concrete Examples of Thinking-Aloud Data Analysis From One Cross-Cultural Study

A study by Güss et al. (2010) illustrates the different options for data analysis using thinking-aloud protocols. The study was conducted in Brazil, Germany, India, Philippines, and the United States with over 500 participants. They were instructed to think aloud while working on two computer-simulated problem -solving tasks. One of the tasks was a computer simulation in which participants took the role of a fire-fighting commander who had to protect three cities and forest from approaching fires. Participants always spoke in their native languages when they thought aloud. However, Indian and Filipino participants often spoke in English. We encouraged participants to use the language they were most comfortable using to minimize potential influences of thinking aloud on the problem-solving process. All the thinking-aloud protocols were tape-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Student volunteers in every country were trained how to transcribe and code the protocols. During the training, the coding system was explained and defined, examples were given, coding was practiced, and the differences between the subcategories were discussed.

Each thinking-aloud protocol was transcribed into Microsoft Excel, so that every statement expressing an idea unit filled one cell. The following example has two different idea units and was therefore transcribed into two cells: “I send truck 5 to city 1 // and then I will clear the forest.” Statements were then coded according to the problem-solving stages. The coding system was initially created following the western stage model of problem solving: problem identification, goal definition, information gathering, mental model building, planning of solutions, prediction of further developments, decision-making, action, evaluation of outcome, and modification of strategic approach (e.g., Bransford and Stein, 1993 ; Dörner, 1996 ). The system was then modified to account for other statements made by participants. These statements referred to emotions and self-descriptions. The final coding system consisted of 21 categories that were summarized in 8 main categories ( Güss et al., 2010 ).

Testing Theories Across Cultures Using Thinking Aloud

Table 1 contains verbatim parts of participants’ thinking-aloud protocols and includes statements from one U.S. participant (USA15) and one Filipino participant (Phil13). The coding is also indicated (the full coding system is available upon request). These data can be used to test specific hypotheses. Based on a literature review (e.g., Nisbett, 2003 ), one hypothesis could refer to a more problem-centered and solution/action-oriented focus on problem solving for U.S. participants and a more context-centered focus for Filipino participants. The frequency of categories can be counted and either absolute or relative frequencies can be shown. Figure 1 shows relative frequencies as the time required to complete the thinking-aloud protocols and the number of statements for the U.S. and Philippine participants differed.

TABLE 1. Coding and idea unit examples transcribed from a study using the thinking-aloud method.

FIGURE 1. Proportions of categories expressed in thinking aloud for U.S. and Filipino participant (excluding other statements).

The distribution of the problem-solving categories of the complete thinking-aloud protocols shows which categories were used frequently and which ones were not. The most frequent category expressed by the U.S. participant (USA15) was planning, decision-making, and action – roughly one-third of all statements. For the Filipino participant (Phil13), the most frequent category, expressed in more than a quarter of all statements, was negative self-reference (SI). The distribution of the categories differed significantly between the U.S. and Filipino participant, χ 2 (169) = 200.27, p = 0.05. The U.S. participant showed relatively more situation description, PI, attributions and predictions, and planning, decision-making, and action. The Filipino participant expressed relatively more information gathering, negative SIs, and laughter. The two participants’ data support the hypotheses. Indeed, results indicated a dominance of categories related to problem identification and problem solution for the U.S. participant and a dominance of information gathering to understand the problem context and less solution-focus for the Filipino participant.

The analysis here refers only to thinking-aloud protocols of two individuals. The same analysis could be conducted for averages of thinking-aloud protocol categories among different cultural groups. Especially when referring to cross-cultural differences and when claiming reliable cross-cultural differences, then the data should be compared at the group level rather than individual level. In fact, a comparison of over 400 Brazilian, German, Filipino, Indian, and U.S. participants’ thinking-aloud protocols shows significant cross-cultural differences among exactly these problem-solving categories with medium to large effect sizes ( Güss et al., 2010 ).

Testing Cross-Cultural Generalizability of Psychological Theories Developed in Western Societies Using Thinking Aloud

The analysis of the thinking-aloud protocols can also be used to test theories that were developed in western industrialized countries for their cross-cultural validity. The dominant theory on problem solving developed in the United States (e.g., Bransford and Stein, 1993 ) and Europe (e.g., Dörner, 1996 ) suggests that problem solvers go through certain stages while solving problems. These stages are clarification of goals, gathering information, prediction of further developments, planning, decision-making, action, and evaluation of effects. In the Güss et al.’s (2010) study, many of these stages were indeed found in the thinking-aloud protocols of participants in all five countries. What the western stage model did not consider, however, were statements referring to negative and positive emotions and statements referring to negative and positive self-evaluations (e.g., “I will never be a good fire fighter”). Our data from the five countries showed that problem solving is not solely a cognitive process, but interacts with emotional and self-evaluative processes. The thinking-aloud data from the five countries support the existing stage model. On the other hand, they provide the basis to further develop the model and include emotional and self-evaluative processes.

Testing Predictions and Differences in Performance Using Thinking Aloud

The thinking-aloud data can also be used as independent variables to test the influence on a dependent variable. One question relevant to the data of the U.S. and Filipino participant refers to which stages can predict performance in the fire simulation. Is it always the same stage or do these stages vary cross-culturally? Analyzing the demands of the simulation, i.e., the development of many fires and the requirement to extinguish them fast to avoid their spreading, indicates that the most crucial of the stages is planning, decision-making, and action. Although cross-cultural differences are expected in the frequency of the categories, it is likely that across cultures the same stages predict performance due to the specific task demands. USA15 protected 68.1% of the forest at the end of the simulations, Phil13 protected 53.1%. Correlations and regression analyses would allow testing those predictions referring to groups of participants. The correlation of performance in the simulation with the frequency of planning, decision-making, and action controlling for the overall number of statements made was r = 0.11, p = 0.04 ( N = 349). This relationship, however, was not significant for the U.S. sample, r = 0.13, ns ( n = 64), and only marginally significant for the Filipino sample, r = 0.22, p = 0.08 ( n = 62).

The effect size (i.e., r ) is smaller in the overall analysis across the United States and Filipino cultures than those within individual cultural samples. However, because of the difference in sample size, the correlation was only significant for the overall analysis. Thus, in this specific case, the result does neither support cultural universality nor cultural differences.

Analysis of Transitions in the Process Using Thinking Aloud

The thinking-aloud data can be analyzed in more detail. One might ask, for example, if the Filipino participant’s laughter is a positive expression related to happiness and other positive emotions or if it is nervous laughter, a coping mechanism relieving negative emotions and tensions. Another question of interest could be related to cultural strategies in problem solving. What do participants do when they identify a problem – for example, a new fire spreading close to one of the cities?

These questions can be answered analyzing the transition probabilities between the stages, also called lag analysis ( Bakeman and Gottman, 1986 ) or latent transition analysis ( Lanza et al., 2005 ). The transitional probability (TP) from any category x to another category y is given by TP ( x → y) = frequency ( xy )/frequency ( x ).

We could examine the thinking-aloud protocols to discover what statements the Filipino participant made before laughing (L). What is the probability that laughing ( y ) follows negative self-reference statements ( x )? Or, what statements were made by both participants after they identified a problem (PI)? This analysis can be quite tedious when done manually in long or multiple protocols, so we developed a computer program ( Parise and Güss, 2006 ) that can read the coded files and give an output file with all the possible transitions. The most frequent transitions in the thinking-aloud protocols of USA15 and Phil13 are shown in Figures 2 , 3 . The figure for PHIL13 shows that laughter was preceded in 24% of all transitions by negative self-reference statements. This might indicate that laughter was used to cope with negative emotions and negative self-evaluations.

FIGURE 2. Lag analysis: most frequent transitions (excluding other statements) for USA15.

FIGURE 3. Lag analysis: most frequent transitions (excluding other statements) for Phil13.

The question above about statements made after PI had to do with culture-specific ways of dealing with problems. The Filipino transitions showed that after PI, the most frequent reaction was a negative self-reference statement (40%). The U.S. participant reacted differently. In the figure showing the U.S. participant’s transitions, the most frequent transition from PI was to planning, decision-making, and action (45%). Whereas the Filipino reacted to PIs with negative emotions and self-evaluations, the U.S. participant proceeded right to the solution process.

The previous analyses referred to one Filipino and one U.S. participant. We also created a program ( Edwards, 2018 ) that compiles all the transition frequencies of the 74 Filipino and the 67 U.S. participants. Although laughter happened almost six times more often in the Filipino sample, it was preceded by negative self-references in 24.6% in the U.S. sample and in 23.2% in the Filipino sample. The differences we discussed before regarding laughter were not found in the two overall cultural samples.

We also analyzed the thinking-aloud protocol transitions for all Filipino and all U.S. participants regarding the stages following PI. Overall, U.S. participants mentioned problem statements twice as often as Filipino participants. Whereas negative self-references followed PI in 14.3% in the U.S. sample, planning, decision-making, and action followed in 53.4% of all transitions. In the Filipino sample, negative self-references followed slightly more often, namely in 16.1% and planning, decision-making, and actions only in 14.4% of all transitions after PI. The tendency we discussed before to proceed with planning and decision-making after a problem is identified was also found in the U.S. sample overall.

The statistical significance of transition probabilities can be tested using chi-square tests and comparing the probabilities with the probabilities expected by chance. If several chi-square tests are run, alpha levels can be adjusted using Bonferroni to reduce Type I error. The example given refers to two-way timetables, i.e., only one stage following another stage was analyzed. The sequences are also called a Markov chain. Depending on the theoretical question, it is also possible to investigate patterns larger than a combination of two, for example, a sequence of PI – negative SR- – planning, decision-making, and action (PlanDM). Statistical methods can help to determine the order of the Markov chain and to test the homogeneity of the transition frequencies ( Gottman and Roy, 1990 ; Bakeman and Quera, 1995 ; Muthén and Muthén, 2017 ).

Studying Changes Over Time Using Thinking Aloud

Thinking-aloud data allow another analysis of the process as well. A researcher might be especially interested in changes that happen over time. Special hypotheses regarding changes in the problem-solving process can be formulated. During the 12 min of the fire simulations, participants might adapt to specific demands of the simulation. Initially, for example, there are no fires, and the participant has time to get familiar with the situation. During that stage, definition of goals might be important: “What do I want to do and achieve?” Toward the middle of the simulation, when several fires are burning, decision-making, and action might be the necessary and dominant stage. Toward the end, a participant might reflect on what he or she has accomplished.

Figure 4 shows the first 20 coded statements at the beginning of the fire simulation, 20 coded statements made in the middle of the simulation, and the last 20 coded statements made at the end of the simulation. Due to space limitations, only the process of the U.S. participant (USA15) is shown. As expected in the hypotheses, initially (codes 1–20) the participant verbalized many goal statements and then moved into planning, decision-making, and action followed by some self-reference statements. In the middle of the simulation (codes 61–80), planning, decision-making, and action was the dominant stage. Some statements referred to problem identification, situation description, and self-references. Toward the end (codes 121–138), however, there is no dominant stage. Every category expressed had a frequency of three or four.

FIGURE 4. Coded thinking-aloud statements from the beginning, middle, and end of the simulation.

Cross-cultural comparisons could reveal that participants from other cultures follow a different approach. They might, for example, not plan ahead and start with goals, but make decisions right away and act. In fact, a cross-cultural study has shown a more presence orientation and short-term planning in a Brazilian sample compared to a German sample with more pronounced long-term planning ( Strohschneider and Güss, 1998 ).

Limitations of the Thinking-Aloud Method

As with every method, the thinking aloud method has limitations. One problem might be related to the completeness of the data. First, some participants may not talk consistently and may remain quiet for long periods of time. The experimenter can remind participants briefly and unobtrusively to keep talking, but a few participants will not be able or willing to do so. It may even be that for participants of certain cultures it is unusual, uncomfortable, and unnatural to spontaneously say out loud what they think (see Kim, 2002 ). The author showed that East Asian Americans had different attitudes regarding talking and thinking aloud compared to European Americans. East Asian Americans regarded talking not as important when solving problems and indicated they talked less often at home with their parents compared to European Americans.

In some cultures, for instance, people learn to keep quiet and stay quiet until they have something worthwhile to say. So there might be some screening or sifting through what they say out loud. In fact, we found cross-cultural differences in the number of statements made during the 12 min of the simulations, F (4,386) = 23.47, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.196. For those tapes that were described and contained more than 10 statements, the average number of statements was 88 for Brazilians, 103 for Germans, 82 for U.S. Americans, 69 for Filipinos, and 49 for Indians. Future research will have to address the validity of the thinking-aloud method for various cultural groups. Potentially familiarizing participants with this method and having practice sessions before starting an experiment could be helpful.

Second, background noise or a participant with a very soft voice can make it hard to understand the participant’s verbal utterances on the tape. To instruct the participant to speak louder might affect the data. It is difficult for a person to change the volume of his or her voice. Speaking louder would most likely require conscious effort, which could possibly limit working memory capacity needed for focusing on the task.

Third, not every cognitive process is active in working memory and can be verbalized. Some psychological processes do not reach consciousness or are automatic processes that cannot be verbalized ( Wilson, 1994 ). Fourth, sometimes a participant may experience various thoughts, but may not have the time to express all of them and, therefore, will be required to select what to report. The fifth limitation is a practical one. The analysis of thinking-aloud protocols is tedious, time consuming, and labor intensive.

An open question refers to the reactivity of thinking-aloud data in various cultures as well as the validity across cultures, as mentioned before. Ericsson and Simon (1993) have put together various studies on verbal reports in Western countries and have shown that it is a quite reliable and valid method if participants are not instructed or stimulated to observe their problem-solving processes and to engage in metacognitive activities that might in turn influence and redirect their problem solving or trigger new thought processes (reactive effects of verbal protocols). Future research will show whether thinking-aloud protocols are also a reliable and valid method of gathering data in non-western countries. Future research could also show for which processes and phenomena across cultures the thinking-aloud method is more and less useful.

Thinking aloud refers to the concurrent verbalization of thoughts while performing a task. It is a method widely used in various areas of psychology, however, not in cross-cultural psychology. This paper discussed the limitations of the method and showed its strengths by discussing various opportunities for cross-cultural research: improving validity of cross-cultural surveys by investigating cultural meanings of survey items, investigating psychological processes rather than outcomes across cultures, testing theories cross-culturally, and allowing individual and group-level analyses across cultures. Thus, thinking-aloud protocols can offer additional insights in human minds around the world.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Florida with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Florida.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

This research was supported in part by a research fellowship of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and from the University of North Florida’s Delaney Presidential Professorship.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Ma Teresa Tuason and Shannon McLeish for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Bakeman, R., and Gottman, J. R. (1986). Observing Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Bakeman, R., and Quera, V. (1995). Log-linear approaches to lag-sequential analysis when consecutive codes may and cannot repeat. Psychol. Bull. 118, 272–284. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.272

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bannert, M. (2003). Effekete metakognitiver lernhilfen auf den wissenserwerb in vernetzten lernumgebungen [Effects of metacognitive help on knowledge acquisition in web-based learning environments]. Z. Pädagog. Psychol. 17, 13–25.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., and Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-Cultural Psychology. Research and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bransford, J. D., and Stein, B. S. (1993). The Ideal Problem Solver: A Guide for Improving Thinking, Learning, and Creativity , 2nd Edn. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Cummings, A. L., Murray, H. G., and Martin, J. (1989). Protocol analysis of the social problem solving of teachers. Am. Educ. Res. J. 26, 25–43. doi: 10.3102/00028312026001025

DeRubeis, R. J., Evans, M. D., Hollon, S. D., Garvey, M. J., Grove, W. M., and Tuason, V. B. (1990). How does cognitive therapy work? Cognitive change and symptom change in cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy for depression. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 58, 862–869. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.58.6.862

Dörner, D. (1996). The Logic of Failure. New York, NY: Holt.

Edwards, M. (2018). Thinking-Aloud Transitions Coder. Jacksonville, FL: University of North Florida.

Edwards, M., Thomsen, S. C., and Toroitich-Ruto, C. (2005). Thinking aloud to create better condom use questions. Field Methods 17, 183–199. doi: 10.1177/1525822X04271029

Ericsson, K. A., and Chase, W. G. (1982). Exceptional memory. Am. Sci. 70, 607–615.

Ericsson, K. A., and Crutcher, R. J. (1991). Introspection and verbal protocols on cognitive processes—Two approaches to the study of thinking: a response to Howe. New Ideas Psychol. 9, 57–71. doi: 10.1016/0732-118X(91)90041-J

Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fleck, J., and Weisberg, R. W. (2004). The use of verbal protocols as data: an analysis of insight in the candle problem. Mem. Cogn. 32, 990–1006. doi: 10.3758/BF03196876

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York, NY: Wiley.

Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1980). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research , 11th Edn. New York, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.

Gottman, J. M., and Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential Analysis: A Guide for Behavioural Researchers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511529696

Güss, C. D., Tuason, M. T., and Gerhard, C. (2010). Cross-national comparisons of complex problem-solving strategies in two microworlds. Cogn. Sci. 34, 489–520. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01087.x

Güss, C. D., Tuason, M. T., Göltenboth, N., and Mironova, A. (2018). Creativity through the eyes of professional artists in Cuba, Germany, and Russia. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 49, 261–289. doi: 10.1177/0022022117730817

Hershey, D. A., Henkens, K., and van Dalen, H. P. (2007). Mapping the minds of retirement planners: a cross-cultural perspective. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 38, 361–382. doi: 10.1177/0022022107300280

Hesse-Biber, S. N., and Leavy, P. (2006). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., and Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. Couns. Psychol. 25, 517–572. doi: 10.1177/0011000097254001

Hoc, J. M. (1991). Effets de l’expertise des opérateurs et de la complexité de la situation dans la conduite d’un processus continu à long délai de réponse: le haut fourneau [Effects of operator expertise and task complexity upon the supervision of a continuous process with long time lags: a blast furnace]. Le Trav. Hum. 54, 225–249.

Hölscher, C., Meilinger, T., Vrachliotis, G., Brösamle, M., and Knauff, M. (2006). Up the down staircase: wayfinding strategies in multi-level buildings. J. Environ. Psychol. 26, 284–299. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.002

Hughes, J., and Parkes, S. (2003). Trends in the use of verbal protocol analysis in software engineering research. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22, 127–140. doi: 10.1080/0144929031000081341

Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Thinking and managing: a verbal protocol analysis of managerial problem solving. Acad. Manag. J. 29, 775–788.

Keller, H., Lamm, B., Abels, M., Yovsi, R., Borke, J., Jensen, H., et al. (2006). Cultural models, socialization goals, and parenting ethnotheories. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 37, 155–172. doi: 10.1177/0022022105284494

Kesler, T., Tinio, P. P. L., and Nolan, B. T. (2016). What’s our position? A critical media literacy study of popular culture websites with eighth-grade special education students. Read. Writ. Q. 32, 1–26. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2013.857976

Kim, H. S. (2002). We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of the effect of talking on thinking. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 828–842. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.828

Lanza, S. T., Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., and Flaherty, B. P. (2005). Using data augmentation to obtain standard errors and conduct hypothesis tests in latent class and latent transition analysis. Psychol. Methods 10, 84–100. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.84

Lay, C., Fairlie, P., Jackson, S., Ricci, T., Eisenberg, J., Sato, T., et al. (1998). Domain-specific allocentrism-idiocentrism. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 29, 434–460. doi: 10.1177/0022022198293004

Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E. (1999). “Establishing trustworthiness,” in Qualitative Research , Vol. III, eds A. Bryman and R. G. Burgess (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Long, D. L., and Bourg, T. (1996). Thinking aloud: telling a story about a story. Discourse Process. 21, 329–339. doi: 10.1080/01638539609544961

Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundation , trans. L. Solotaroff. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Malek, H. B., Berna, F., and D’Argembeau, A. (2017). Reconstructing the times of past and future personal events. Memory 25, 1402–1411. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1310251

Meichenbaum, D. (1980). Treating depression. PsycCRITIQUES 25, 879–880. doi: 10.1037/019346

Muñoz, B., Magliano, J. P., Sheridan, R., and McNamara, D. S. (2006). Typing versus thinking aloud when reading: implications for computer-based assessment and training tools. Behav. Res. Methods 38, 211–217. doi: 10.3758/BF03192771

Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide , 8th Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently and Why. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Parise, A., and Güss, C. D. (2006). TAP: A Thinking-Aloud Analysis Program. Jacksonville, FL: University of North Florida.

Premkumar, G. (1989). A cognitive study of the decision-making process in a business context: implications for design of expert systems. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 1, 557–572. doi: 10.1016/0020-7373(89)90016-3

Raitasalo, K., Knibbe, R., and Kraus, L. (2005). Retrieval strategies and cultural differences in answering survey questions on drinking: a cross-national comparison. Addict. Res. Theory 13, 359–372. doi: 10.1080/1606635042000334179

Samson, A., Simpson, D., Kamphoff, C., and Langlier, A. (2017). Think aloud: an examination of distance runners’ thought processes. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 15, 176–189. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2015.1069877

Santtila, P., Korpela, S., and Häkkänen, H. (2004). Expertise and decision-making in the linking of car crime series. Psychol. Crime Law 10, 97–112. doi: 10.1080/1068316021000030559

Scribner, S. (1979). “Modes of thinking and ways of speaking: culture and logic reconsidered,” in New Directions in Discourse Processing , ed. R. O. Freedle (Norwood, NJ: Ablex), 223–243.

Scribner, S., and Cole, M. (1981). The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674433014

Smagorinsky, P. (2001). Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural perspective. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 21, 233–245. doi: 10.1017/S0267190501000149

Strohschneider, S., and Güss, D. (1998). Planning and problem solving: differences between Brazilian and German students. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 29, 695–716. doi: 10.1177/0022022198296002

Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., and Schwartz, N. (eds). (1996). Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

van de Vijver, F. J. R., and He, J. (2017). “Equivalence in research on positive development of minority children: methodological approaches,” in Handbook on Positive Development of Minority Children and Youth , eds N. Cabrera and B. Leyendecker (New York, NY: Springer), 53–66. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-43645-6_4

van de Vijver, F. J. R., and Leung, K. (1997). Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

van den Bergh, H., and Rijlaarsdam, G. (2001). Changes in cognitive activities during the writing process and relationships with text quality. Educ. Psychol. 21, 373–385. doi: 10.1080/01443410120090777

Van Hooijdonk, C., Maes, A., and Ummelen, N. (2006). “I have been here before”: an investigation into spatial verbalizations in hypertext navigation. Inform. Des. J. 14, 8–21. doi: 10.1075/idj.14.1.03hoo

Vreeman, R. C., Nyandiko, W. M., Ayaya, S. O., Walumbe, E. G., and Inui, T. S. (2014). Cognitive interviewing for cross-cultural adaptation of pediatric antiretroviral therapy adherence measurement items. Int. J. Behav. Med. 21, 186–196. doi: 10.1007/s12529-012-9283-9

Wang, Y.-H. (2016). Reading strategy use and comprehension performance of more successful and less successful readers: a think-aloud study. Educ. Sci. 16, 1789–1813. doi: 10.12738/estp.2016.5.0116

Watson, J. B. (1925). Behaviorism. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wilson, T. D. (1994). The proper protocol: validity and completeness of verbal reports. Psychol. Sci. 5, 249–252. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00621.x

Wundt, W. (1888). Selbstbeobachtung und innere Wahrnehmung [Self-observation and inner perception]. Philos. Stud. 1, 615–617.

Keywords : thinking aloud, verbal protocols, transitional probability, cross-cultural, culture, complex problem solving

Citation: Güss CD (2018) What Is Going Through Your Mind? Thinking Aloud as a Method in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Front. Psychol. 9:1292. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01292

Received: 24 January 2018; Accepted: 05 July 2018; Published: 13 August 2018.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2018 Güss. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: C. Dominik Güss, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Engaging Students Through Think Alouds

Like many teachers today, I sometimes struggle to engage the learners in my classrooms. My competition is fierce; I compete for their attention with technology, with the short attention spans, general distractability of young children, and with fads like Pokemon cards and fidget spinners. To engage all learners, I have to be on top of my game with the materials I select, the activities I include, and the instruction I provide.

One of the most effective ways I have found to engage all learners is the frequent inclusion of think alouds in my K-5 classroom instruction. In a think aloud – a tried-but-true instructional strategy – the teacher verbalizes the thinking s/he is doing in order to understand a text. Think alouds are transparent efforts to guide the sophisticated process of reading comprehension. They are meant to be quick explanations—not lengthy or convoluted extrapolations—of what is going through the mind of a proficient reader.       

Though read alouds are somewhat ubiquitous in elementary classrooms, think alouds are not yet commonplace. Too often, read alouds often become an activity that monitors comprehension rather than one that builds comprehension. We ask questions that gauge whether or not students understanding the text. We use turn-and-talks for students to make predictions. The benefits of periodic think alouds are plentiful; children who listen to proficient readers verbalizing their thinking outperform their peers on measures of reading comprehension. Furthermore, students enjoy think alouds and request more explicit instruction on what they can do to succeed in reading.

Why are think alouds so engaging? Because they provide students with a concrete model for success. In a think aloud, we take away the guesswork behind what skilled readers do to understand what they are reading. We show our students exactly what we are doing to comprehend, making it possible for them to do the same in their independent reading. Researcher Dr. John Guthrie has defined engagement as when motivation meets thoughtfulness. Think alouds motivate readers by showing them a recipe to successfully navigate a text in a thoughtful and purposeful manner.

I challenge us to do even better with our read alouds, by providing thoughtfully-crafted, purposeful think alouds while reading. The following tips will help teachers plan clear, focused think alouds, no matter what you are reading aloud.

• Plan in advance . Whether Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham or Hemingway’s A Moveable Feast , every think aloud requires that you peruse the text and use sticky notes to mark “juicy stopping points.” These are the junctures that in one way or another invite you to do something as a reader. Infer, ask a question, lean in and take notice of figurative language, and so on. Next, examine each stopping point and reflect on the need for that particular point. Your aim is to write out a script (of exactly what you will say to students!) of a dozen or so spots in a approximately ten minutes of a read aloud.
• Focus on a few strategies . My favorite reading comprehension strategies to use during think alouds are making inferences, identifying the author’s purpose, generating questions, monitoring / clarifying, and synthesizing. Not only are these the strategies with which most students struggle, they provide the most instructional bang for your buck.
• Provide a visual cue to indicate when you are thinking aloud. As I think aloud, I provide an explicit gesture that helps students differentiate between when I am reading from the text and when I am thinking about the text. To signal for when I’m thinking aloud, I point my index finger to my temple or to tap on the side of my head. With this gesture, students readily get that the words I’m saying are not found in the book, but rather are in my head.
• Use I-language to jumpstart your think alouds. These “I “ statements – as in, “I wonder if the author means…” and “I’m going to reread…” are the clearest way for teachers to give a model of the reading comprehension strategies that we are proficient readers do. This “I” language is a powerful reminder that a think aloud is not meant to be a time to ask students for their thoughts on the text or to mistake the think aloud for a turn-and-talk. Through “I” language, students begin to see how to apply reading strategies to their independent reading.

As teachers provide meaningful, well-prepared think alouds, they engage students in the process of understanding text – a process which is too often full of secrecy and confusion for young readers. When we give students concrete steps for success, our readers are more purposeful and more engaged.

Written by Molly Ness

Molly Ness is an associate professor at Fordham University’s Graduate School of Education and the author of  Every Minute Matters  and  Thing Big With Think Alouds .  She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Johns Hopkins University, and earned her P hD in Reading Education from the University of Virginia.  Her research focuses on reading comprehension instruction, the instructional decisions and beliefs of preservice and inservice teachers, and the assessment and diagnosis of struggling readers.  A former Teach For America corps member, she is an experienced classroom teacher.  She is the author of Lessons to Learn: Voices from the Front Lines of Teach For America (Routledge Falmer, 2004).  Her research has been published in national and international peer-reviewed journals including The Reading Teacher, Educational Leadership, Reading Horizons, Journal of Reading Education, Reading Psychology, and Journal of Research in Childhood Education.  She is an active member of the following professional organizations: Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers (ALER), National Council of the Teachers of English (NCTE), Literacy Research Association (LRA), International Reading Association (IRA), Professors of Reading Teacher Educators, Organization of Teacher Educators in Reading, and Phi Delta Kappa.  Her book, The Question is the Answer, was published in 2015 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Ten Tips to Engage Students with Mathematics

Designing pd with teacher generations in mind, no comments, leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related posts

Powered by Picture Books

Teaching Students to Drive Their Learning By Teaching Others

Empowering Students as Questioners: A High School’s Journey

Teaching Reading: A Call for Fluency to be Hot

How to Handle Election Conversations in the Classroom

Revealing the Secret Business of Student Engagement

U.S. Dictionary.com Newsletter

Fill in the form below and receive news in your email box, thinking aloud: definition, meaning, and origin.

Everyone's had a moment when they start voicing their thoughts without realizing it. We call this phenomenon "thinking aloud," and it's something that might happen when you're pondering over something deeply. It means expressing your thoughts and inner dialogues openly, often without the intention to share them with others.

In short: "Thinking aloud" means to vocalize your thoughts, ideas, or concerns, often unintentionally or unconsciously.

What Does “Thinking Aloud” Mean?

"Thinking aloud" has a few nuanced meanings. It's all about saying what's on your mind, often without a filter.

Here are some important aspects of this idiom's meaning:

• Speaking your thoughts out loud, without necessarily intending for others to hear.
• Vocalizing internal thoughts is a way of processing or understanding them better.
• Sometimes, you use it to purposefully share your inner process with others, particularly in a professional or educational setting.

For example, engineers or designers might use the phrase to verbally describe the process of working through a problem so colleagues can understand their thought process. The practice of "thinking aloud" often links to a deeper understanding of oneself, as it allows people to vocalize thoughts they might not otherwise explore.

Where Does “Thinking Aloud” Come From?

The idiom "thinking aloud" dates back to the 16th century. It's an expression that has evolved over time and has been used in various works of literature.

Historical Usage

The Tempest by William Shakespeare is a prominent example where the phrase is used. In it, the character Prospero muses:

"Ye elves of hills, brooks, standing lakes and groves... And forthwith call his proper for 'thinking aloud'."

The usage of the phrase in literary works like these helped cement its place in the English language.

10 Examples of "Thinking Aloud” in Sentences

Here are examples of "thinking aloud" used in different contexts and situations:

• Don't get me started on why James was thinking aloud about his plans last night.
• Sarah was thinking aloud about her holidays; her excitement was palpable.
• While working on a complex problem, engineers often find thinking aloud helpful.
• The detective was thinking aloud , linking clues to unravel the mystery.
• During the lecture, the professor was thinking aloud , explaining his thoughts step by step.
• In awe of the painting, Jane started thinking aloud about its beauty.
• The author was thinking aloud about the plot twists, giving a glimpse into his creative process.
• The scientist was thinking aloud about the research, detailing every step.
• Emily might never have solved the equation if it weren't for her habit of thinking aloud .
• The coach was thinking aloud about the game strategy and sharing it with the team.

Examples of “Thinking Aloud” in Pop Culture

"Thinking Aloud" has also found its way into pop culture:

• In the film "A Beautiful Mind," John Nash is often seen thinking aloud.
• The TV series "House M.D." frequently features Dr. House thinking aloud about medical cases.
• The song " Thinking Out Loud " by Ed Sheeran.
• In the book "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," Dumbledore is often caught thinking aloud.
• The documentary "Inside the Mind of a Chef" often features chefs thinking aloud about their culinary creations.

10 Frequently Asked Questions About “Thinking Aloud”:

• What does "thinking aloud" mean?

It refers to the act of speaking your inner thoughts, either unintentionally or to process them.

• Where does the idiom originate from?

It has historical roots dating back to the 16th century, with usages in literature such as Shakespeare's works.

• Is "thinking aloud" common in everyday language?

Yes, it's a common expression used to describe vocalizing thoughts, often unconsciously or during problem-solving.

• Is there a song titled "thinking aloud"?

No, but there's a song titled "thinking out loud" by Ed Sheeran, which is a play on the idiom.

• Can "thinking aloud" be considered a method of problem-solving?

Absolutely! Professionals like engineers and designers often use this method to work through complex problems.

• Is "thinking aloud" always unintentional?

Not always. Sometimes, it's used intentionally to communicate a thought process or for self-reflection.

• Are there variations of "thinking aloud"?

Yes, similar expressions include "thinking out loud" and "speaking one's mind."

• How is "thinking aloud" portrayed in films?

It's often used to give insight into a character's thoughts, as seen in movies like "A Beautiful Mind."

• Is "thinking aloud" different from "thinking out loud"?

They are used interchangeably, though "thinking out loud" is often used more casually.

• Is "thinking aloud" helpful in educational settings?

Yes, educators and students use it as a tool for learning and understanding complex concepts.

Final Thoughts About “Thinking Aloud”

"Thinking Aloud" is an intriguing idiom that captures a universal human experience. More than just talking to oneself, various fields use it as a powerful tool. It touches on various aspects of daily communication, literature, and cognitive psychology.

Here, we'll summarize the key takeaways about this intriguing idiom:

• Meaning and Variations: The idiom "thinking aloud" encompasses the act of verbalizing thoughts, often without realizing it. It can be used in various contexts, expressing different shades of the same idea. In some cases, it represents the unintentional sharing of personal or confidential thoughts.
• Origins: Tracing back through history, "thinking aloud" has a rich heritage. The idiom has evolved through time and has been used by many prominent authors and thinkers. It's a timeless expression that continues to be relevant.
• Examples in Literature and Pop Culture: From classic novels to modern films, "thinking aloud" has been portrayed in a multitude of ways. It resonates with people across generations, cultures, and backgrounds.
• Applications and Significance: Beyond its literary usage, "thinking aloud" has practical applications in fields like psychology. For example, "thinking aloud" protocols are used in cognitive research to understand problem-solving and decision-making processes.
• Everyday Usage: It's a versatile idiom that's widely understood and used by people from all walks of life. From casual conversations to professional settings, "thinking aloud" adds color and nuance to the English language.

Related posts:

• Laugh Riot: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Know What You're Talking About: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Lunching Out: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Cramping My Style: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Commit Myself To: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Styled Up: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Focus on Him: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Be That as It May: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Burn the Candle at Both Ends: Definition, Meaning and Origin
• Old Wine in a New Bottle: Definition, Meaning and Origin
• Slip Back: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• A Wee Dram: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Bottle Up: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Keep in Mind: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Snap Off: Definition, Meaning, and Origin

We encourage you to share this article on Twitter and Facebook . Just click those two links - you'll see why.

It's important to share the news to spread the truth. Most people won't.

• Buy Time: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• A Roller-Coaster Ride: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Take Me Out to Dinner: Definition, Meaning, and Origin
• Last Hurrah: Definition, Meaning, and Origin

Thinking Aloud in Mathematics

Introduction, key elements of thinking aloud.

• Students talk about:
• All the things they notice
• Every decision they make
• Why they belive their choices are correct

When students verbalize what they know, it helps them to reflect upon and clarify the problem they are trying to solve, and to focus on solving it one step at a time. “Thinking aloud” requires students to talk through the details of the problem, the decisions they have made as they try to solve the problem, and the reasoning behind those decisions. Struggling students, in particular, can benefit from slowing down and articulating the problem-solving process, because it gives them time to focus on the key parts of the problem. This helps them to more fully comprehend the problem before they try to solve it. The graphic lists what students should be thinking and talking about as they delve into problems.

Thinking aloud helps students, especially those who struggle with mathematics, to clarify their ideas, identify what they do and do not understand, and learn from others when they hear how their peers think about and approach the problem. It also helps the teacher to monitor students’ progress as part of the formative assessment process.

Using Evidence- Based Practice

Teachers can help their students to organize information and find and use patterns by adopting three categories of evidence-based practices: provide clear explanations (opens in a new window) , give students strategies and models (opens in a new window) , and provide ongoing formative assessment (opens in a new window) . The chart below provides a concrete teaching strategy for each of these categories.

Technology Resources

Teachers and students can use online and offline tools that allow students to practice this “thinking aloud” strategy. They can create problems with natural stopping points, experiment, consider, and then decide their next steps. This chart shows a variety of tools that you could use in your classroom.

Audio recording a student’s thinking aloud (using a recording device on a computer, tablet, or smart phone) allows the student, the teacher, and the student’s peers to review the thinking process so that revisions and edits can be made. Teachers can also consider posting podcasts on their class website to show how different students thought about the problem and tried to solve it. Making comparisons allows students to understand how their peers think.

Virtual manipulatives also have a role to play in helping students. This short video, “ Virtual Manipulatives (opens in a new window) ” provides background information manipulatives and explains how they can be integrated into instruction. Imagine students manipulating problems and trying out solutions that might work. These virtual manipulatives offer students varied practice in thinking aloud for each new iteration.

In the Classroom

When school started last week, Mrs. Jefferson devoted some time to figuring out where her fifth-grade students were in terms of their mathematical understanding. She found out that they know their addition and subtraction facts, and that most of them remember their multiplication facts. As she expected, however, the students are reluctant to describe aloud the steps they follow to find an answer. When she asks them to explain the steps they follow in their work, her students say they don’t know or they just look at her, clearly unsure what to say.

To ensure that her students are college and career ready, she is focusing on the following Common Core State Standards:

• CCSS.Math.5.OA.3 (opens in a new window) Generate two numerical patterns using two given rules. Identify apparent relationships between corresponding terms. Form ordered pairs consisting of corresponding terms from the two patterns, and graph the ordered pairs on a coordinate plane.
• CCSS.Math.MP2 (opens in a new window) Reason abstractly and quantitatively.

She is planning a lesson with a specific objective: Students will begin practicing thinking aloud so that they can effectively employ this strategy as they move forward and learn the mathematical language necessary to communicate their thinking.

Mrs. Jefferson will take advantage of her interactive whiteboard (as well as students’ individual whiteboards) to communicate visually with the class and to allow the class to communicate visually with her. She will use a classroom response system to collect anonymous feedback from her students. A colleague recently told her about a particularly effective applet, Whole Number Cruncher (opens in a new window) , which can provide numerical patterns.

She has found that formative assessment truly helps her strengthen her teaching. She will observe her students as they use the thinking aloud strategy, particularly when they use Whole Number Cruncher (opens in a new window) . She will elicit comments from students about the learning task and will read students’ critiques of the strategy.

Her lesson plan is divided into three sections—launch, learning task, and closure—and is outlined below.

Lesson Plan

• Introduce the mathematical content and strategy goals for the lesson.
• Model the thinking aloud process for students before the groups start work.

Learning Task

• Have students work in pairs.
• Remind students to be supportive listeners.
• Circulate around the room as pairs work, providing prompts and feedback as needed.
• After all the pairs have worked on two rules, bring the class back together for a discussion.
• Give students a handout with tables based on pairs of sequences.
• Divide students into groups of three or four and give each group a different table to work on.
• Circulate around the room as the pairs work, providing prompts and suggestions, as needed.
• Bring the class back together for a final discussion.
• Ask students to share how thinking aloud can help them in the future.
• Have all students write a paragraph about what they liked and disliked about thinking aloud.

Online Teacher Resources

This article draws from the PowerUp WHAT WORKS (opens in a new window) website, particularly the Thinking Aloud Instructional Strategy Guide (opens in a new window) . PowerUp is a free, teacher-friendly website that requires no log in or registration. The Instructional Strategy Guide on thinking aloud includes a brief overview with an accompanying slide show; a list of the relevant mathematics Common Core State Standards; evidence-based teaching strategies to differentiate instruction using technology; short videos; two Lessons in Action, and links to resources that will help you use technology to support mathematics instruction. If you want to dig deeper into the research foundation behind best practices in the use of virtual manipulatives, take a look at our Tech Research Brief (opens in a new window) on the topic. If you are responsible for professional development, see PowerUp Your Professional Development (opens in a new window) for helpful ideas and materials for using the thinking aloud resources. Want more information? See PowerUp WHAT WORKS (opens in a new window) .

Liked it? Share it!

Visit our sister websites:, reading rockets launching young readers (opens in a new window), start with a book read. explore. learn (opens in a new window), colorín colorado helping ells succeed (opens in a new window), adlit all about adolescent literacy (opens in a new window), reading universe all about teaching reading and writing (opens in a new window).

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

What Is Going Through Your Mind? Thinking Aloud as a Method in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Thinking aloud is the concurrent verbalization of thoughts while performing a task. The study of thinking-aloud protocols has a long tradition in cognitive psychology, the field of education, and the industrial-organizational context. It has been used rarely in cultural and cross-cultural psychology. This paper will describe thinking aloud as a useful method in cultural and cross-cultural psychology referring to a few studies in general and one study in particular to show the wide applications of this method. Thinking-aloud protocols can be applied for (a) improving the validity of cross-cultural surveys, (b) process analysis of thoughts and the analysis of changes over time, (c) theory development across cultures, (d) the study of cultural meaning systems, and (e) individual as well as group level analyses allowing hypothesis testing cross-culturally. Limitations of the thinking-aloud method are also discussed.

Introduction

Thinking aloud is the concurrent verbalization of thoughts while performing a task ( Ericsson and Simon, 1993 ). When this method is applied, participants are asked to spontaneously report everything that goes through their minds while doing a task, and they are instructed not to interpret or analyze their thinking. Verbal protocol is another term often used as a synonym for thinking aloud. Verbal protocols can be concurrent (thinking aloud) or retrospective, referring to short reports after the completion of a task.

The study of thinking aloud and of verbal protocols has a long tradition in psychology. It can be traced back to Wilhelm Wundt’s technique “Selbstbeobachtung” (self-observation, also often called introspection; Wundt, 1888 ). Wundt asked participants in his experiments to look inward, pay attention to their inner thought processes, and describe them in detail. Wundt perceived the inner experience, the flow of consciousness, as the core topic of psychology. He saw self-observation as an appropriate method for studying this flow of consciousness when it occurred under controlled conditions in the laboratory. Some researchers criticized the method, believing that self-observation would interfere with the thought process and, thus, would not show the real thought process itself, but rather an interpretation of the thought process ( Ericsson and Crutcher, 1991 ).

The thinking-aloud method was heavily criticized by behaviorists, as they assumed cognitive processes, such as memory, could not be studied scientifically. As Watson (1925) expressed, “The behaviorist never uses the term memory . He believes that it has no place in an objective psychology” (p. 177). The thinking-aloud method became popular again after the influence of behaviorism diminished in mainstream psychology and cognitive psychology became the dominant paradigm. Newell and Simon (1972) , for example, asked participants to think aloud while solving particular problems. Rather than investigating whether a person solved a problem or not, their focus was on the process of human reasoning while solving problems. From these thinking-aloud protocols, they derived the computer-simulated model “General Problem Solver.”

A study conducted by Ericsson and Chase (1982) on exceptional memory showed that a student could increase his digit span from 7 (e.g., 3-5-1-3-7-8-2), the average number of digits a person is able to remember, to 80 digits by training 1 h per day, three to five times a week for 20 months. Retrospective verbal protocols showed that the participant used specific mnemonics to help him remember. One mnemonic was to group the digits together in meaningful units, which is called chunking. For example, the three digits 3 5 1 could be grouped together as one chunk of “3 min 51 s – close to world record mile time,” which, if the participant was a long-distance runner, as this participant was, would make sense and, thus, would be easier to remember. Since the publication of Ericsson and Chase’s work, thinking aloud has been recognized as an acceptable and even essential method in the study of human cognition.

The Wide Application of the Thinking-Aloud Method

Thinking aloud as a scientific method has been used in many other disciplines, showing the relevance and applicability of this method. Not only researchers studying cognition (e.g., Fleck and Weisberg, 2004 ; Hölscher et al., 2006 ; Malek et al., 2017 ), but also researchers studying education (e.g., Cummings et al., 1989 ; van den Bergh and Rijlaarsdam, 2001 ; Bannert, 2003 ; Kesler et al., 2016 ), text comprehension using computer based tools ( Muñoz et al., 2006 ; Van Hooijdonk et al., 2006 ; Wang, 2016 ), discourse processing ( Long and Bourg, 1996 ), software engineering ( Hughes and Parkes, 2003 ), psychology and law ( Santtila et al., 2004 ), sport psychology (e.g., Samson et al., 2017 ), and business management ( Isenberg, 1986 ; Premkumar, 1989 ; Hoc, 1991 ) have applied the thinking-aloud method. In a similar form, thinking aloud has also influenced the fields of counseling and clinical psychology, for example, in the assessment of automatic thoughts as part of cognitive therapy in depression (e.g., Meichenbaum, 1980 ; DeRubeis et al., 1990 ).

Reliability and Validity of Thinking-Aloud Protocols

Following positivism, reliability and validity are central to research. Reliability of thinking-aloud data refers to consistency, the ability to collect the same data at a different time. In order to get reliable data, a clearly understandable, tape or digitally recorded thinking-aloud protocol is necessary, which requires control of the experimental situation. Problems related to transcribing and especially to coding have to be minimized, and, ideally, transcription should be done by native speakers of the participants’ language. The first step of coding is the segmentation of the whole protocol, i.e., the creation of separate meaningful units, depending on the research questions of interest. Usually those statements are in the form of clauses or sentences; these sentences do not need to be complete, necessarily, as participants use colloquial language. The second step refers to the coding of the segments. A detailed coding system and thorough training of coders can increase reliability, resulting in higher inter-coder reliability. This reliability is sometimes described in percent of agreement, but preferably should be described in Cohen’s Kappa or intraclass correlation coefficients. According to Fleiss (1981) , a Kappa value over 0.75 is excellent, between 0.60 and 0.75 is good, and a Kappa between 0.40 and 0.60 is fair. One problem that may be encountered during coding is coder biases or expectations, as can occur when the coders are aware of the hypotheses to be tested, for example. Ideally, then, the coders should not know about the research hypotheses. Also, probable biases or expectations can be acknowledged early to increase trustworthiness of the coding process and, consequently, of the data.

Also at issue is the internal validity of a study. In the context of thinking aloud, the validity question is often framed as the reactivity question. Does the act of thinking aloud interfere with and change a person’ cognitive processes while performing the task? Ericsson and Simon (1993) argued that it did not, citing many studies and stating that as long as the instruction was clear, i.e., that participants should say out loud everything that went through their minds, thinking aloud did not alter the sequence of thoughts. However, prior consideration should be given to the way instructions are to be conveyed to participants. An instruction from a facilitator to “keep talking” while the participant performed a task probably would not disrupt the thought process, though an instruction requiring explanation from the participant, like “Tell me why you did this,” would intervene in the cognitive process by triggering a specific answer to explain an action. If verbal protocols are asked from participants after completion of tasks, it is preferable if verbalization almost immediately follows the task. Generally, a concurrent thinking-aloud protocol has higher validity than a retrospective report, particularly when the task takes a long time to complete.

One way to ensure reliability and validity and to determine whether thinking aloud influences a cognitive process is to create two groups: an experimental group that receives instruction to think aloud, and a control group that does not receive such instruction.

Qualitative Evaluation Criteria: Trustworthiness of Thinking-Aloud Protocols

Researchers conducting qualitative studies use different criteria to evaluate the quality of their research. Whereas quantitative psychologists try to discover general universal laws, qualitative researchers try to understand participants’ “lived experience” ( Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2006 , p. 62), assuming a socially constructed reality. Lincoln and Guba (1999) described four criteria guaranteeing the trustworthiness of the research: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility refers to how confident one can be regarding the truth of a study’s findings. One way to support credibility is to be open to the possibility of falsification and to conduct a “negative case analysis” ( Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2006 , p. 63), i.e., to include cases that contradict or are not in line with the conclusions drawn so far. It speaks for the researcher if he or she is willing to include those cases in the analysis and, as a result, is able to revise the previously drawn conclusions. A second method to support credibility is triangulation. Triangulation can refer to the use of several methods or several sources of information to investigate the same research question. Thinking aloud, for example, could be combined with post-experiment interview or survey data. Triangulation can also refer to different investigators working on the same data set. This is especially relevant for cross-cultural studies and analyses of thinking-aloud protocols. The underlying assumption of triangulation is that it provides a fuller and more credible picture of the phenomenon. Extended experience in the environment can also increase credibility, and it is especially important for cross-cultural psychologists to learn about the other culture and learn the language in order to get a deeper understanding of the utterances made by the participants in the thinking-aloud protocols.

Transferability refers to the application of the findings to other contexts or other people. Quantitative researchers pursue random sampling. Qualitative studies often include small sample sizes and pursue purposive sampling with the goal of getting a wide variety and range of information that can increase the transferability.

Dependability is the third criterion and refers to a study’s reliability. Confirmability, the fourth criterion, refers to the accuracy of findings, and to what extent they were influenced by the researcher’s biases. Researchers can increase both dependability and confirmability by journaling their experiences and biases and by engaging in dialog with other researchers early on in the research process. Participatory research and peer review ( Willis, 2007 ) can also increase dependability and confirmability. In participatory research, the researcher presents initial conclusions of the study to the participants and actively involves them in the research process. For example, thinking-aloud protocols could be shown to and discussed with the participants and ambiguities in the protocol could be clarified. Peer review is similar to triangulation involving other researchers. In cross-cultural research, the ideal, as mentioned before, would be collaboration with a researcher from the target culture. It is recommended to involve other researchers early in the research process and to stay in continuous dialog with them about the research progress.

Cross-Cultural Psychological Research Using Thinking-Aloud and Verbal Protocols

One goal of cross-cultural psychology is “the study of similarities and differences in individual psychological functioning in various cultural and ethnocultural groups” ( Berry et al., 2002 , p. 3). The thinking-aloud method, however, is rarely used in cross-cultural research. A search in PsychInfo, January 2018, with no time limitation showed 503 hits for the term “thinking aloud” used anywhere and 464 hits for the term “verbal protocols” used anywhere. Only six peer-reviewed journal articles were found for the combination of the word “thinking aloud” or “verbal protocol” anywhere with either one of the two keywords “culture” or “cross-cultural.”

Luria (1976) studied reasoning, among other cognitive processes, in Central Asia, comparing illiterate peasants (the term used by Luria), barely literate kolkhoz farm workers, and young people with a few years of schooling. He used an interview technique to investigate the thought processes of the participants. He presented participants with syllogisms such as the following: “Cotton grows well where it is hot and dry. England is cold and damp. Can cotton grow there or not?” (p. 107).

Results showed that illiterate participants who had no formal education had difficulties solving the syllogisms. Luria was not only interested in the outcome, how many of the participants of each group could solve the syllogism correctly, but even more so in their reasoning, how they interpreted the syllogism. The illiterate participants interpreted the syllogisms on the basis of their experiences in a concrete way and did not show abstract thinking. Only the analysis of participants’ thought processes allowed Luria to answer the question of why illiterate participants had difficulties interpreting the syllogisms.

The following is part of a short conversation the interviewer had with a 37-year-old illiterate villager who was presented with the cotton syllogism. It is, however, more an interview than a mere thinking-aloud protocol.

• simple  Interviewer: “Cotton can grow only where it is hot and dry. In England, it is cold and damp. Can cotton grow there?”
• simple  Participant: “I don’t know.”
• simple  Interviewer: “Think about it.”
• simple  Participant: “I’ve only been in the Kashgar country. I don’t know beyond that.”
• simple  Interviewer: “But on the basis of what I said to you, can cotton grow there?”
• simple  Participant: “If the land is good, cotton will grow there, but if it is damp and poor, it won’t grow. If it’s like the Kashgar country, it will grow there too. If the soil is loose, it can grow there too, of course” ( Luria, 1976 , p. 108).

Luria also used grouping tasks where participants were presented with several objects and had to find, which ones belong together and which ones did not. This task assesses categorical classification. The following is the response of a 60-year-old illiterate peasant who was shown pictures of a hammer, a saw, a log, and a hatchet.

They all fit together! The saw has to saw the log, the hammer has to hammer it, and the hatchet has to chop it. And if you want to chop the log up really good, you need the hammer. You can’t take any of these things away. There isn’t any you don’t need ( Luria, 1976 , p. 58).

This thinking-aloud statement related to the classification task shows the participant’s situational thinking. The participant does not classify the objects into a more abstract category, but refers to their “practical utility” (p. 59). Similar studies on formal and informal education and its influence on problem solving, reasoning, or intelligence were reported by Scribner (1979) and Scribner and Cole (1981) , who also instructed participants to verbalize their thoughts when solving certain cognitive tasks. These studies show that thinking aloud can tap into information that cannot be analyzed by other methods alone, explaining the differences or accessing the nuances usually not revealed through other forms of data gathering.

Cultural Meanings 1: Improving the Validity of Cross-Cultural Surveys Using Thinking Aloud

Raitasalo et al. (2005) used the thinking-aloud method in a cross-cultural study in Finland, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands to investigate cultural differences in answering survey items. The survey focused on alcohol use: frequency of drinking, quantity of drinking, frequency of drunkenness, and the context of drinking in the last 12 months. For our purposes, the major finding of interest is cross-cultural differences related to the understanding of the survey questions. We can conclude from this study that allowing participants in cross-cultural studies to verbalize or write down their thoughts when answering Likert-scale survey questions could show the researcher(s) how the participants understand the questions and which cultural meanings participants attribute to these questions. Thinking aloud can also point out the interpretations participants give to the survey questions.

To illustrate this point, I would like to quote two survey questions used in studies published in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology . The first one refers to Keller et al. (2006) , who used the Family Allocentrism Scale ( Lay et al., 1998 ) as one of their measurements. Lay et al. tested for response bias and conducted item analyses with western and eastern samples when they developed their survey. One item of this scale is “My family’s opinion is important to me.” Thinking aloud of participants from different cultural groups regarding this question could be especially beneficial in the first stages of scale development and could reveal (a) if participants think of specific family opinions, (b) if so, which ones they are referring to when answering this question, and (c) who and what defines family: a nuclear family; an extended family with grandparents, uncles, aunts; only one caregiver; or if family is interpreted as only the participant, the individual. One western participant could express, for example: “No, their opinion is not important to me when they want to tell me which clothes I should wear.” Another participant could say, “Sure, I listen to their advice regarding my future major at the university. After all, they will support me.” Another participant might say, “I listen to my mom, because she understands me, but not to my dad, and certainly not to my brothers.” These different answers show that participants understand the question in different ways and participants’ answer choices depend on what they are thinking of at the time. One could specify the question, for example: “My mother’s opinion regarding my professional future is important to me.”

A second example is an item Hershey et al. (2007) used studying retirement planning in the Netherlands and in the United States, a single-item indicator for perceived savings adequacy: “I am saving enough for retiring comfortably.” A participant in Germany might choose, “1-strongly disagree,” thinking aloud, “I do not need to save and I did not save, because I always paid into the social retirement system and I am guaranteed a retirement from the government.” An Indian participant might also choose, “1-strongly disagree,” thinking aloud, “I do not need to save, because I have four children and they will take care of me; one of them is even a computer programmer in Hyderabad.” Additionally, a Filipino might also choose, “1-strongly disagree,” but say, “No matter how hard I try, I will never be saving enough for retirement, there is no well-functioning system of retirement here. We grow old, we stay with our family, we are loved.” Even if the German, Indian, and Filipino have the same survey answer, all indicating that they are not saving for retirement, their thinking-aloud statements show that the underlying reasons for their responses are quite different. The researcher could use those thinking-aloud data to specify the question and perhaps to develop further questions to lessen misinterpretation, garner more accurate responses, or even to be more sensitive to participants’ culture. Possible modified items could be “The government is supporting retired people adequately.” And “I can rely on my family to support me financially when I retire.”

The use of thinking aloud and verbal protocols can be especially helpful when surveys try to assess sensitive topics, meaning topics subject to bias and social desirability, and to those that attempt to be respectful to the context and the larger dimensions of the culture. Edwards et al. (2005) , for example, conducted a study on condom use as a preventive measure for HIV/AIDS. They collected thinking-aloud protocols of sex workers problem solving a simulated task. The goal was to improve a sexual behavior survey instrument. The thinking-aloud data helped the authors to improve comprehension of the instrument and to reduce social desirability, providing appropriate terms and cues for aiding recall, improving the establishment of trust with participants, and creating a sense of cultural competence and credibility from the researchers. Vreeman et al. (2014) transcribed and coded cognitive interviews regarding HIV with pediatric caregivers in Kenya in order to further develop and adapt survey items to this cultural context.

Cross-cultural psychologists have a multitude of quantitative methods to increase reliability and validity of survey instruments used in cross-cultural research (for an overview, see van de Vijver and Leung, 1997 ; van de Vijver and He, 2017 ). The thinking-aloud method is an additional method that can be used to improve the reliability and validity of self-report instruments ( Sudman et al., 1996 ).

Cultural Meanings 2: Thinking Aloud Allows for the Study of Cultural Meaning Systems Beyond the Sentence Level

The previous paragraphs referred to cultural meanings attributed to specific survey items on the sentence and phrase level. Thinking-aloud data can be also analyzed more broadly regarding the meanings expressed by participants going beyond the sentence level. A multitude of other qualitative methods, such as consensual qualitative research methodology ( Hill et al., 1997 ; Güss et al., 2018 ) or grounded theory ( Glaser and Strauss, 1980 ) can be applied to analyze thinking-aloud protocols for meanings expressed by participants of various cultural and ethnic groups. As Smagorinsky (2001) pointed out, “from a cultural perspective a verbal protocol represents the speaker’s cultural conception of the word” (p. 235) and gives insight into his or her cultural world. Needless to say, analysis of such protocols necessarily requires coders from the participants’ respective cultures or coders who are multiculturally competent – not only knowledgeable about other cultures, but deeply aware of their own biases and prejudices.

Concrete Examples of Thinking-Aloud Data Analysis From One Cross-Cultural Study

A study by Güss et al. (2010) illustrates the different options for data analysis using thinking-aloud protocols. The study was conducted in Brazil, Germany, India, Philippines, and the United States with over 500 participants. They were instructed to think aloud while working on two computer-simulated problem -solving tasks. One of the tasks was a computer simulation in which participants took the role of a fire-fighting commander who had to protect three cities and forest from approaching fires. Participants always spoke in their native languages when they thought aloud. However, Indian and Filipino participants often spoke in English. We encouraged participants to use the language they were most comfortable using to minimize potential influences of thinking aloud on the problem-solving process. All the thinking-aloud protocols were tape-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Student volunteers in every country were trained how to transcribe and code the protocols. During the training, the coding system was explained and defined, examples were given, coding was practiced, and the differences between the subcategories were discussed.

Each thinking-aloud protocol was transcribed into Microsoft Excel, so that every statement expressing an idea unit filled one cell. The following example has two different idea units and was therefore transcribed into two cells: “I send truck 5 to city 1 // and then I will clear the forest.” Statements were then coded according to the problem-solving stages. The coding system was initially created following the western stage model of problem solving: problem identification, goal definition, information gathering, mental model building, planning of solutions, prediction of further developments, decision-making, action, evaluation of outcome, and modification of strategic approach (e.g., Bransford and Stein, 1993 ; Dörner, 1996 ). The system was then modified to account for other statements made by participants. These statements referred to emotions and self-descriptions. The final coding system consisted of 21 categories that were summarized in 8 main categories ( Güss et al., 2010 ).

Testing Theories Across Cultures Using Thinking Aloud

Table ​ Table1 1 contains verbatim parts of participants’ thinking-aloud protocols and includes statements from one U.S. participant (USA15) and one Filipino participant (Phil13). The coding is also indicated (the full coding system is available upon request). These data can be used to test specific hypotheses. Based on a literature review (e.g., Nisbett, 2003 ), one hypothesis could refer to a more problem-centered and solution/action-oriented focus on problem solving for U.S. participants and a more context-centered focus for Filipino participants. The frequency of categories can be counted and either absolute or relative frequencies can be shown. Figure ​ Figure1 1 shows relative frequencies as the time required to complete the thinking-aloud protocols and the number of statements for the U.S. and Philippine participants differed.

Coding and idea unit examples transcribed from a study using the thinking-aloud method.

Proportions of categories expressed in thinking aloud for U.S. and Filipino participant (excluding other statements).

The distribution of the problem-solving categories of the complete thinking-aloud protocols shows which categories were used frequently and which ones were not. The most frequent category expressed by the U.S. participant (USA15) was planning, decision-making, and action – roughly one-third of all statements. For the Filipino participant (Phil13), the most frequent category, expressed in more than a quarter of all statements, was negative self-reference (SI). The distribution of the categories differed significantly between the U.S. and Filipino participant, χ 2 (169) = 200.27, p = 0.05. The U.S. participant showed relatively more situation description, PI, attributions and predictions, and planning, decision-making, and action. The Filipino participant expressed relatively more information gathering, negative SIs, and laughter. The two participants’ data support the hypotheses. Indeed, results indicated a dominance of categories related to problem identification and problem solution for the U.S. participant and a dominance of information gathering to understand the problem context and less solution-focus for the Filipino participant.

The analysis here refers only to thinking-aloud protocols of two individuals. The same analysis could be conducted for averages of thinking-aloud protocol categories among different cultural groups. Especially when referring to cross-cultural differences and when claiming reliable cross-cultural differences, then the data should be compared at the group level rather than individual level. In fact, a comparison of over 400 Brazilian, German, Filipino, Indian, and U.S. participants’ thinking-aloud protocols shows significant cross-cultural differences among exactly these problem-solving categories with medium to large effect sizes ( Güss et al., 2010 ).

Testing Cross-Cultural Generalizability of Psychological Theories Developed in Western Societies Using Thinking Aloud

The analysis of the thinking-aloud protocols can also be used to test theories that were developed in western industrialized countries for their cross-cultural validity. The dominant theory on problem solving developed in the United States (e.g., Bransford and Stein, 1993 ) and Europe (e.g., Dörner, 1996 ) suggests that problem solvers go through certain stages while solving problems. These stages are clarification of goals, gathering information, prediction of further developments, planning, decision-making, action, and evaluation of effects. In the Güss et al.’s (2010) study, many of these stages were indeed found in the thinking-aloud protocols of participants in all five countries. What the western stage model did not consider, however, were statements referring to negative and positive emotions and statements referring to negative and positive self-evaluations (e.g., “I will never be a good fire fighter”). Our data from the five countries showed that problem solving is not solely a cognitive process, but interacts with emotional and self-evaluative processes. The thinking-aloud data from the five countries support the existing stage model. On the other hand, they provide the basis to further develop the model and include emotional and self-evaluative processes.

Testing Predictions and Differences in Performance Using Thinking Aloud

The thinking-aloud data can also be used as independent variables to test the influence on a dependent variable. One question relevant to the data of the U.S. and Filipino participant refers to which stages can predict performance in the fire simulation. Is it always the same stage or do these stages vary cross-culturally? Analyzing the demands of the simulation, i.e., the development of many fires and the requirement to extinguish them fast to avoid their spreading, indicates that the most crucial of the stages is planning, decision-making, and action. Although cross-cultural differences are expected in the frequency of the categories, it is likely that across cultures the same stages predict performance due to the specific task demands. USA15 protected 68.1% of the forest at the end of the simulations, Phil13 protected 53.1%. Correlations and regression analyses would allow testing those predictions referring to groups of participants. The correlation of performance in the simulation with the frequency of planning, decision-making, and action controlling for the overall number of statements made was r = 0.11, p = 0.04 ( N = 349). This relationship, however, was not significant for the U.S. sample, r = 0.13, ns ( n = 64), and only marginally significant for the Filipino sample, r = 0.22, p = 0.08 ( n = 62).

The effect size (i.e., r ) is smaller in the overall analysis across the United States and Filipino cultures than those within individual cultural samples. However, because of the difference in sample size, the correlation was only significant for the overall analysis. Thus, in this specific case, the result does neither support cultural universality nor cultural differences.

Analysis of Transitions in the Process Using Thinking Aloud

The thinking-aloud data can be analyzed in more detail. One might ask, for example, if the Filipino participant’s laughter is a positive expression related to happiness and other positive emotions or if it is nervous laughter, a coping mechanism relieving negative emotions and tensions. Another question of interest could be related to cultural strategies in problem solving. What do participants do when they identify a problem – for example, a new fire spreading close to one of the cities?

These questions can be answered analyzing the transition probabilities between the stages, also called lag analysis ( Bakeman and Gottman, 1986 ) or latent transition analysis ( Lanza et al., 2005 ). The transitional probability (TP) from any category x to another category y is given by TP ( x → y) = frequency ( xy )/frequency ( x ).

We could examine the thinking-aloud protocols to discover what statements the Filipino participant made before laughing (L). What is the probability that laughing ( y ) follows negative self-reference statements ( x )? Or, what statements were made by both participants after they identified a problem (PI)? This analysis can be quite tedious when done manually in long or multiple protocols, so we developed a computer program ( Parise and Güss, 2006 ) that can read the coded files and give an output file with all the possible transitions. The most frequent transitions in the thinking-aloud protocols of USA15 and Phil13 are shown in Figures ​ Figures2, 2 , ​ ,3 3 . The figure for PHIL13 shows that laughter was preceded in 24% of all transitions by negative self-reference statements. This might indicate that laughter was used to cope with negative emotions and negative self-evaluations.

Lag analysis: most frequent transitions (excluding other statements) for USA15.

Lag analysis: most frequent transitions (excluding other statements) for Phil13.

The question above about statements made after PI had to do with culture-specific ways of dealing with problems. The Filipino transitions showed that after PI, the most frequent reaction was a negative self-reference statement (40%). The U.S. participant reacted differently. In the figure showing the U.S. participant’s transitions, the most frequent transition from PI was to planning, decision-making, and action (45%). Whereas the Filipino reacted to PIs with negative emotions and self-evaluations, the U.S. participant proceeded right to the solution process.

The previous analyses referred to one Filipino and one U.S. participant. We also created a program ( Edwards, 2018 ) that compiles all the transition frequencies of the 74 Filipino and the 67 U.S. participants. Although laughter happened almost six times more often in the Filipino sample, it was preceded by negative self-references in 24.6% in the U.S. sample and in 23.2% in the Filipino sample. The differences we discussed before regarding laughter were not found in the two overall cultural samples.

We also analyzed the thinking-aloud protocol transitions for all Filipino and all U.S. participants regarding the stages following PI. Overall, U.S. participants mentioned problem statements twice as often as Filipino participants. Whereas negative self-references followed PI in 14.3% in the U.S. sample, planning, decision-making, and action followed in 53.4% of all transitions. In the Filipino sample, negative self-references followed slightly more often, namely in 16.1% and planning, decision-making, and actions only in 14.4% of all transitions after PI. The tendency we discussed before to proceed with planning and decision-making after a problem is identified was also found in the U.S. sample overall.

The statistical significance of transition probabilities can be tested using chi-square tests and comparing the probabilities with the probabilities expected by chance. If several chi-square tests are run, alpha levels can be adjusted using Bonferroni to reduce Type I error. The example given refers to two-way timetables, i.e., only one stage following another stage was analyzed. The sequences are also called a Markov chain. Depending on the theoretical question, it is also possible to investigate patterns larger than a combination of two, for example, a sequence of PI – negative SR- – planning, decision-making, and action (PlanDM). Statistical methods can help to determine the order of the Markov chain and to test the homogeneity of the transition frequencies ( Gottman and Roy, 1990 ; Bakeman and Quera, 1995 ; Muthén and Muthén, 2017 ).

Studying Changes Over Time Using Thinking Aloud

Thinking-aloud data allow another analysis of the process as well. A researcher might be especially interested in changes that happen over time. Special hypotheses regarding changes in the problem-solving process can be formulated. During the 12 min of the fire simulations, participants might adapt to specific demands of the simulation. Initially, for example, there are no fires, and the participant has time to get familiar with the situation. During that stage, definition of goals might be important: “What do I want to do and achieve?” Toward the middle of the simulation, when several fires are burning, decision-making, and action might be the necessary and dominant stage. Toward the end, a participant might reflect on what he or she has accomplished.

Figure ​ Figure4 4 shows the first 20 coded statements at the beginning of the fire simulation, 20 coded statements made in the middle of the simulation, and the last 20 coded statements made at the end of the simulation. Due to space limitations, only the process of the U.S. participant (USA15) is shown. As expected in the hypotheses, initially (codes 1–20) the participant verbalized many goal statements and then moved into planning, decision-making, and action followed by some self-reference statements. In the middle of the simulation (codes 61–80), planning, decision-making, and action was the dominant stage. Some statements referred to problem identification, situation description, and self-references. Toward the end (codes 121–138), however, there is no dominant stage. Every category expressed had a frequency of three or four.

Coded thinking-aloud statements from the beginning, middle, and end of the simulation.

Cross-cultural comparisons could reveal that participants from other cultures follow a different approach. They might, for example, not plan ahead and start with goals, but make decisions right away and act. In fact, a cross-cultural study has shown a more presence orientation and short-term planning in a Brazilian sample compared to a German sample with more pronounced long-term planning ( Strohschneider and Güss, 1998 ).

Limitations of the Thinking-Aloud Method

As with every method, the thinking aloud method has limitations. One problem might be related to the completeness of the data. First, some participants may not talk consistently and may remain quiet for long periods of time. The experimenter can remind participants briefly and unobtrusively to keep talking, but a few participants will not be able or willing to do so. It may even be that for participants of certain cultures it is unusual, uncomfortable, and unnatural to spontaneously say out loud what they think (see Kim, 2002 ). The author showed that East Asian Americans had different attitudes regarding talking and thinking aloud compared to European Americans. East Asian Americans regarded talking not as important when solving problems and indicated they talked less often at home with their parents compared to European Americans.

In some cultures, for instance, people learn to keep quiet and stay quiet until they have something worthwhile to say. So there might be some screening or sifting through what they say out loud. In fact, we found cross-cultural differences in the number of statements made during the 12 min of the simulations, F (4,386) = 23.47, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.196. For those tapes that were described and contained more than 10 statements, the average number of statements was 88 for Brazilians, 103 for Germans, 82 for U.S. Americans, 69 for Filipinos, and 49 for Indians. Future research will have to address the validity of the thinking-aloud method for various cultural groups. Potentially familiarizing participants with this method and having practice sessions before starting an experiment could be helpful.

Second, background noise or a participant with a very soft voice can make it hard to understand the participant’s verbal utterances on the tape. To instruct the participant to speak louder might affect the data. It is difficult for a person to change the volume of his or her voice. Speaking louder would most likely require conscious effort, which could possibly limit working memory capacity needed for focusing on the task.

Third, not every cognitive process is active in working memory and can be verbalized. Some psychological processes do not reach consciousness or are automatic processes that cannot be verbalized ( Wilson, 1994 ). Fourth, sometimes a participant may experience various thoughts, but may not have the time to express all of them and, therefore, will be required to select what to report. The fifth limitation is a practical one. The analysis of thinking-aloud protocols is tedious, time consuming, and labor intensive.

An open question refers to the reactivity of thinking-aloud data in various cultures as well as the validity across cultures, as mentioned before. Ericsson and Simon (1993) have put together various studies on verbal reports in Western countries and have shown that it is a quite reliable and valid method if participants are not instructed or stimulated to observe their problem-solving processes and to engage in metacognitive activities that might in turn influence and redirect their problem solving or trigger new thought processes (reactive effects of verbal protocols). Future research will show whether thinking-aloud protocols are also a reliable and valid method of gathering data in non-western countries. Future research could also show for which processes and phenomena across cultures the thinking-aloud method is more and less useful.

Thinking aloud refers to the concurrent verbalization of thoughts while performing a task. It is a method widely used in various areas of psychology, however, not in cross-cultural psychology. This paper discussed the limitations of the method and showed its strengths by discussing various opportunities for cross-cultural research: improving validity of cross-cultural surveys by investigating cultural meanings of survey items, investigating psychological processes rather than outcomes across cultures, testing theories cross-culturally, and allowing individual and group-level analyses across cultures. Thus, thinking-aloud protocols can offer additional insights in human minds around the world.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Florida with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Florida.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Ma Teresa Tuason and Shannon McLeish for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Funding. This research was supported in part by a research fellowship of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and from the University of North Florida’s Delaney Presidential Professorship.

• Bakeman R., Gottman J. R. (1986). Observing Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakeman R., Quera V. (1995). Log-linear approaches to lag-sequential analysis when consecutive codes may and cannot repeat. Psychol. Bull. 118 272–284. 10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.272 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bannert M. (2003). Effekete metakognitiver lernhilfen auf den wissenserwerb in vernetzten lernumgebungen [Effects of metacognitive help on knowledge acquisition in web-based learning environments]. Z. Pädagog. Psychol. 17 13–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry J. W., Poortinga Y. H., Segall M. H., Dasen P. R. (2002). Cross-Cultural Psychology. Research and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bransford J. D., Stein B. S. (1993). The Ideal Problem Solver: A Guide for Improving Thinking, Learning, and Creativity , 2nd Edn. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummings A. L., Murray H. G., Martin J. (1989). Protocol analysis of the social problem solving of teachers. Am. Educ. Res. J. 26 25–43. 10.3102/00028312026001025 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeRubeis R. J., Evans M. D., Hollon S. D., Garvey M. J., Grove W. M., Tuason V. B. (1990). How does cognitive therapy work? Cognitive change and symptom change in cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy for depression. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 58 862–869. 10.1037/0022-006X.58.6.862 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörner D. (1996). The Logic of Failure. New York, NY: Holt. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edwards M. (2018). Thinking-Aloud Transitions Coder. Jacksonville, FL: University of North Florida. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edwards M., Thomsen S. C., Toroitich-Ruto C. (2005). Thinking aloud to create better condom use questions. Field Methods 17 183–199. 10.1177/1525822X04271029 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson K. A., Chase W. G. (1982). Exceptional memory. Am. Sci. 70 607–615. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson K. A., Crutcher R. J. (1991). Introspection and verbal protocols on cognitive processes—Two approaches to the study of thinking: a response to Howe. New Ideas Psychol. 9 57–71. 10.1016/0732-118X(91)90041-J [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson K. A., Simon H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleck J., Weisberg R. W. (2004). The use of verbal protocols as data: an analysis of insight in the candle problem. Mem. Cogn. 32 990–1006. 10.3758/BF03196876 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleiss J. L. (1981). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B. G., Strauss A. L. (1980). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research , 11th Edn. New York, NY: Aldine Publishing Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. M., Roy A. K. (1990). Sequential Analysis: A Guide for Behavioural Researchers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 10.1017/CBO9780511529696 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Güss C. D., Tuason M. T., Gerhard C. (2010). Cross-national comparisons of complex problem-solving strategies in two microworlds. Cogn. Sci. 34 489–520. 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01087.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Güss C. D., Tuason M. T., Göltenboth N., Mironova A. (2018). Creativity through the eyes of professional artists in Cuba, Germany, and Russia. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 49 261–289. 10.1177/0022022117730817 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hershey D. A., Henkens K., van Dalen H. P. (2007). Mapping the minds of retirement planners: a cross-cultural perspective. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 38 361–382. 10.1177/0022022107300280 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hesse-Biber S. N., Leavy P. (2006). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill C. E., Thompson B. J., Williams E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. Couns. Psychol. 25 517–572. 10.1177/0011000097254001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoc J. M. (1991). Effets de l’expertise des opérateurs et de la complexité de la situation dans la conduite d’un processus continu à long délai de réponse: le haut fourneau [Effects of operator expertise and task complexity upon the supervision of a continuous process with long time lags: a blast furnace]. Le Trav. Hum. 54 225–249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hölscher C., Meilinger T., Vrachliotis G., Brösamle M., Knauff M. (2006). Up the down staircase: wayfinding strategies in multi-level buildings. J. Environ. Psychol. 26 284–299. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes J., Parkes S. (2003). Trends in the use of verbal protocol analysis in software engineering research. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22 127–140. 10.1080/0144929031000081341 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Isenberg D. J. (1986). Thinking and managing: a verbal protocol analysis of managerial problem solving. Acad. Manag. J. 29 775–788. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keller H., Lamm B., Abels M., Yovsi R., Borke J., Jensen H., et al. (2006). Cultural models, socialization goals, and parenting ethnotheories. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 37 155–172. 10.1177/0022022105284494 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kesler T., Tinio P. P. L., Nolan B. T. (2016). What’s our position? A critical media literacy study of popular culture websites with eighth-grade special education students. Read. Writ. Q. 32 1–26. 10.1080/10573569.2013.857976 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim H. S. (2002). We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of the effect of talking on thinking. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83 828–842. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.828 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lanza S. T., Collins L. M., Schafer J. L., Flaherty B. P. (2005). Using data augmentation to obtain standard errors and conduct hypothesis tests in latent class and latent transition analysis. Psychol. Methods 10 84–100. 10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.84 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lay C., Fairlie P., Jackson S., Ricci T., Eisenberg J., Sato T., et al. (1998). Domain-specific allocentrism-idiocentrism. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 29 434–460. 10.1177/0022022198293004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln Y., Guba E. (1999). “Establishing trustworthiness,” in Qualitative Research , Vol. III , eds Bryman A., Burgess R. G. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Long D. L., Bourg T. (1996). Thinking aloud: telling a story about a story. Discourse Process. 21 329–339. 10.1080/01638539609544961 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luria A. R. (1976). Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundation , trans. L. Solotaroff . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malek H. B., Berna F., D’Argembeau A. (2017). Reconstructing the times of past and future personal events. Memory 25 1402–1411. 10.1080/09658211.2017.1310251 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meichenbaum D. (1980). Treating depression. PsycCRITIQUES 25 879–880. 10.1037/019346 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muñoz B., Magliano J. P., Sheridan R., McNamara D. S. (2006). Typing versus thinking aloud when reading: implications for computer-based assessment and training tools. Behav. Res. Methods 38 211–217. 10.3758/BF03192771 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén L. K., Muthén B. O. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide , 8th Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newell A., Simon H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nisbett R. E. (2003). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently and Why. New York, NY: The Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parise A., Güss C. D. (2006). TAP: A Thinking-Aloud Analysis Program. Jacksonville, FL: University of North Florida. [ Google Scholar ]
• Premkumar G. (1989). A cognitive study of the decision-making process in a business context: implications for design of expert systems. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 1 557–572. 10.1016/0020-7373(89)90016-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raitasalo K., Knibbe R., Kraus L. (2005). Retrieval strategies and cultural differences in answering survey questions on drinking: a cross-national comparison. Addict. Res. Theory 13 359–372. 10.1080/1606635042000334179 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Samson A., Simpson D., Kamphoff C., Langlier A. (2017). Think aloud: an examination of distance runners’ thought processes. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 15 176–189. 10.1080/1612197X.2015.1069877 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Santtila P., Korpela S., Häkkänen H. (2004). Expertise and decision-making in the linking of car crime series. Psychol. Crime Law 10 97–112. 10.1080/1068316021000030559 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scribner S. (1979). “Modes of thinking and ways of speaking: culture and logic reconsidered,” in New Directions in Discourse Processing , ed. Freedle R. O. (Norwood, NJ: Ablex; ), 223–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scribner S., Cole M. (1981). The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 10.4159/harvard.9780674433014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smagorinsky P. (2001). Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural perspective. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 21 233–245. 10.1017/S0267190501000149 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strohschneider S., Güss D. (1998). Planning and problem solving: differences between Brazilian and German students. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 29 695–716. 10.1177/0022022198296002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sudman S., Bradburn N. M., Schwartz N. (eds). (1996). Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• van de Vijver F. J. R., He J. (2017). “Equivalence in research on positive development of minority children: methodological approaches,” in Handbook on Positive Development of Minority Children and Youth , eds Cabrera N., Leyendecker B. (New York, NY: Springer; ), 53–66. 10.1007/978-3-319-43645-6_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van de Vijver F. J. R., Leung K. (1997). Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Bergh H., Rijlaarsdam G. (2001). Changes in cognitive activities during the writing process and relationships with text quality. Educ. Psychol. 21 373–385. 10.1080/01443410120090777 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Hooijdonk C., Maes A., Ummelen N. (2006). “I have been here before”: an investigation into spatial verbalizations in hypertext navigation. Inform. Des. J. 14 8–21. 10.1075/idj.14.1.03hoo [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vreeman R. C., Nyandiko W. M., Ayaya S. O., Walumbe E. G., Inui T. S. (2014). Cognitive interviewing for cross-cultural adaptation of pediatric antiretroviral therapy adherence measurement items. Int. J. Behav. Med. 21 186–196. 10.1007/s12529-012-9283-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang Y.-H. (2016). Reading strategy use and comprehension performance of more successful and less successful readers: a think-aloud study. Educ. Sci. 16 1789–1813. 10.12738/estp.2016.5.0116 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson J. B. (1925). Behaviorism. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willis J. W. (2007). Foundations of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson T. D. (1994). The proper protocol: validity and completeness of verbal reports. Psychol. Sci. 5 249–252. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00621.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wundt W. (1888). Selbstbeobachtung und innere Wahrnehmung [Self-observation and inner perception]. Philos. Stud. 1 615–617. [ Google Scholar ]

Think Aloud

Think-alouds are strategies that educators employ to help students monitor their thinking while reading. As a result, students improve their comprehension, confidence, and reading abilities. In essence, this practice encourages pupils to derive meaning from a text by using context clues and thinking out loud. With this strategy, the reading process is slowed, giving students the opportunity to delve deeper into their interpretations. 

The overall purpose of the think-aloud method is to motivate pupils to ask questions as they read. With the proper techniques, kids should be asking themselves what they learned, what the significance of the topic was, and how the information gleaned can apply to their life. Think-aloud strategies give students permission to provide more insight into their thoughts and ideas. Permitting this level of creativity bodes well for active, engaged, and enthusiastic learning. For optimal results, this model works best when performed in small groups or individually.

Product Overview

Teaching resources, more terms starting with t, tacit knowledge, teaching assistant.

• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

think aloud / out loud

Definition of think aloud / out loud, examples of think aloud / out loud in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'think aloud/out loud.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Dictionary Entries Near think aloud / out loud

think ahead

think aloud/out loud

Cite this Entry

“Think aloud/out loud.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/think%20aloud%2Fout%20loud. Accessed 28 Apr. 2024.

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

More commonly misspelled words, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - apr. 26, 9 superb owl words, 'gaslighting,' 'woke,' 'democracy,' and other top lookups, 10 words for lesser-known games and sports, your favorite band is in the dictionary, games & quizzes.

Community Member

First time visit profile message with url to edit your profile

Choose content type

Create a post from the types below.

Visible thinking & thinking aloud with keynote.

💭💡Effective thinkers make their thinking. visible, meaning they externalize their thoughts through speaking, writing, drawing, or some other method. They can then direct and improve those thoughts. Visible Thinking also emphasizes documenting thinking for later reflection.

• Directions included for set up and how to use the features included in the slides.

Visible Thinking & Keynote Live Video:

• Use Live Video to create a “Visible Thinking” response. Screen record as you process through your thoughts.

Thinking Aloud & Record Audio:

• Use the Record Audio feature to verbalize your thoughts and include them on the Keynote Slide.

Attachments

You might also like

Visible Thinking Routines

Keynote for iPad: Magic Move

Everyone Can Create: Projects

All Comments

There are no replies.

Loading page content

Page content loaded

250032751020

Insert a video

Supported file types: .mov, .mp4, .mpeg. File size: up to 400MB.

Add a still image to display before your video is played. Image dimensions: 1280x720 pixels. File size: up to 5MB.

Make your video more accessible with a closed caption file (.vtt up to 5MB).

Insert an image

Add an image up to 5MB. Supported file types: .gif, .jpg, .png, .bmp, .jpeg, .pjpeg.

Add details about your image to make it more accessible.

Add a caption below your image, up to 220 characters.

This action can’t be undone.

Error message, are you sure you want to continue your changes will not be saved..

Sorry, Something went wrong, please try again

This post contains content from YouTube.

Attach up to 5 files which will be available for other members to download.

You can upload a maximum of five files.

Choose language

Accept the following legal terms to submit your content.

I acknowledge that I have the rights to post the material contained in this comment.

Review the Apple Education Community Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Your comment includes attachments that must be reviewed.

This content won’t be publicly available until it clears moderation. Learn more

Sign in to continue.

Not a member yet? Join for free when you sign in.

This action is unavailable.

Some actions are unavailable in your country or region.

Please complete your registration.

You must complete your registration to perform this action.

This account may not publish.

This account has been restricted from publishing or editing content. If you think this is an error, please contact us.

Some actions are unavailable outside of your Apple Group.

Do you want to stay logged in?

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Biden Administration Releases Revised Title IX Rules

The new regulations extended legal protections to L.G.B.T.Q. students and rolled back several policies set under the Trump administration.

By Zach Montague and Erica L. Green

Reporting from Washington

The Biden administration issued new rules on Friday cementing protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students under federal law and reversing a number of Trump-era policies that dictated how schools should respond to cases of alleged sexual misconduct in K-12 schools and college campuses.

The new rules, which take effect on Aug. 1, effectively broadened the scope of Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding. They extend the law’s reach to prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and widen the range of sexual harassment complaints that schools will be responsible for investigating.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, said in a call with reporters.

The rules deliver on a key campaign promise for Mr. Biden, who declared he would put a “quick end” to the Trump-era Title IX rules and faced mounting pressure from Democrats and civil rights leaders to do so.

The release of the updated rules, after two delays, came as Mr. Biden is in the thick of his re-election bid and is trying to galvanize key electoral constituencies.

Through the new regulations, the administration moved to include students in its interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark 2020 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. The Trump administration held that transgender students were not protected under federal laws, including after the Bostock ruling .

In a statement, Betsy DeVos, who served as Mr. Trump’s education secretary, criticized what she called a “radical rewrite” of the law, asserting that it was an “endeavor born entirely of progressive politics, not sound policy.”

Ms. DeVos said the inclusion of transgender students in the law gutted decades of protections and opportunities for women. She added that the Biden administration also “seeks to U-turn to the bad old days where sexual misconduct was sent to campus kangaroo courts, not resolved in a way that actually sought justice.”

While the regulations released on Friday contained considerably stronger protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students, the administration steered clear of the lightning-rod issue of whether transgender students should be able to play on school sports teams corresponding to their gender identity.

The administration stressed that while, writ large, exclusion based on gender identity violated Title IX, the new regulations did not extend to single-sex living facilities or sports teams. The Education Department is pursuing a second rule dealing with sex-related eligibility for male and female sports teams. The rule-making process has drawn more than 150,000 comments.

Under the revisions announced on Friday, instances where transgender students are subjected to a “hostile environment” through bullying or harassment, or face unequal treatment and exclusion in programs or facilities based on their gender identity, could trigger an investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Instances where students are repeatedly referred to by a name or pronoun other than one they have chosen could also be considered harassment on a case-by-case basis.

“This is a bold and important statement that transgender and nonbinary students belong, in their schools and in their communities,” said Olivia Hunt, the policy director for the National Center for Transgender Equality.

The regulations appeared certain to draw to legal challenges from conservative groups.

May Mailman, the director of the Independent Women’s Law Center, said in a statement that the group planned to sue the administration. She said it was clear that the statute barring discrimination on the basis of “sex” means “binary and biological.”

“The unlawful omnibus regulation reimagines Title IX to permit the invasion of women’s spaces and the reduction of women’s rights in the name of elevating protections for ‘gender identity,’ which is contrary to the text and purpose of Title IX,” she said.

The existing rules, which took effect under Mr. Trump in 2020, were the first time that sexual assault provisions were codified under Title IX. They bolstered due process rights of accused students, relieved schools of some legal liabilities and laid out rigid parameters for how schools should conduct impartial investigations.

They were a sharp departure from the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law, which came in the form of unenforceable guidance documents directing schools to ramp up investigations into sexual assault complaints under the threat of losing federal funding. Scores of students who had been accused of sexual assault went on to win court cases against their colleges for violating their due process rights under the guidelines.

The Biden administration’s rules struck a balance between the Obama and Trump administration’s goals. Taken together, the regulation largely provides more flexibility for how schools conduct investigations, which advocates and schools have long lobbied for.

Catherine E. Lhamon, the head of the department’s Office for Civil Rights who also held the job under President Barack Obama, called the new rules the “most comprehensive coverage under Title IX since the regulations were first promulgated in 1975.”

They replaced a narrower definition of sex-based harassment adopted under the Trump administration with one that would include a wider range of conduct. And they reversed a requirement that schools investigate only incidents alleged to have occurred on their campuses or in their programs.

Still, some key provisions in the Trump-era rules were preserved, including one allowing informal resolutions and another prohibiting penalties against students until after an investigation.

Among the most anticipated changes was the undoing of a provision that required in-person, or so-called live hearings, in which students accused of sexual misconduct, or their lawyers, could confront and question accusers in a courtroom-like setting.

The new rules allow in-person hearings, but do not mandate them. They also require a process through which a decision maker could assess a party or witness’s credibility, including posing questions from the opposing party.

“The new regulations put an end to unfair and traumatic grievance procedures that favor harassers,” Kel O’Hara, a senior attorney at Equal Rights Advocates. “No longer will student survivors be subjected to processes that prioritize the interests of their perpetrators over their own well being and safety.”

The new rules also allow room for schools to use a “preponderance of evidence” standard, a lower burden of proof than the DeVos-era rules encouraged, through which administrators need only to determine whether it was more likely than not that sexual misconduct had occurred.

The renewed push for that standard drew criticism from legal groups who said the rule stripped away hard-won protections against flawed findings.

“When you are dealing with accusations of really one of the most heinous crimes that a person can commit — sexual assault — it’s not enough to say, ‘50 percent and a feather,’ before you brand someone guilty of this repulsive crime,” said Will Creeley, the legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The changes concluded a three-year process in which the department received 240,000 public comments. The rules also strengthen protections for pregnant students, requiring accommodations such as a bigger desk or ensuring access to elevators and prohibiting exclusion from activities based on additional needs.

Title IX was designed to end discrimination based on sex in educational programs or activities at all institutions receiving federal financial assistance, beginning with sports programs and other spaces previously dominated by male students.

The effects of the original law have been pronounced. Far beyond the impact on school programs like sports teams, many educators credit Title IX with setting the stage for academic parity today. Female college students routinely outnumber male students on campus and have become more likely than men of the same age to graduate with a four-year degree.

But since its inception, Title IX has also become a powerful vehicle through which past administrations have sought to steer schools to respond to the dynamic and diverse nature of schools and universities.

While civil rights groups were disappointed that some ambiguity remains for the L.G.B.T.Q. students and their families, the new rules were widely praised for taking a stand at a time when education debates are reminiscent to the backlash after the Supreme Court ordered schools to integrate.

More than 20 states have passed laws that broadly prohibit anyone assigned male at birth from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams or participating in scholastic athletic programs, while 10 states have laws barring transgender people from using bathrooms based on their gender identity.

“Some adults are showing up and saying, ‘I’m going to make school harder for children,” said Liz King, senior program director of the education equity program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “It’s an incredibly important rule, at an incredibly important moment.”

Schools will have to cram over the summer to implement the rules, which will require a retraining staff and overhauling procedures they implemented only four years ago.

Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,700 colleges and universities, said in a statement that while the group welcomed the changes in the new rule, the timeline “disregards the difficulties inherent in making these changes on our nation’s campuses in such a short period of time.”

“After years of constant churn in Title IX guidance and regulations,” Mr. Mitchell said, “we hope for the sake of students and institutions that there will be more stability and consistency in the requirements going forward.”

Zach Montague is based in Washington. He covers breaking news and developments around the district. More about Zach Montague

Erica L. Green is a White House correspondent, covering President Biden and his administration. More about Erica L. Green