Most applications of think-aloud protocols have been conducted from theoretical perspectives that prioritize knowledge that is predictable and controlled by the researchers. In this article, we present an augmented form of the think-aloud method in which we aim to gain situated and participant-generated knowledge. The context for our study is examination of the problem-solving processes used by engineering students. We illustrate how our adaptation of traditional think–aloud protocols provides insights into participants’ thoughts and beliefs and how such think-alouds can increase social scientists’ understandings of complex phenomena such as learning or problem solving. In contrast to a typical focus on researcher-defined processes or an analysis of the products generated by students, our approach to think-aloud utilizes think-aloud procedures in combination with follow-up interviews to expand participants’ perspectives and investigate their experiences more deeply.
AdamsRSTurnsJAtmanCJ (2003) Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice. Design Studies24(3): 275–294.
2.
AtmanCJAdamsRSCardellaME. (2007) Engineering design processes: a comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education96(4): 359–379.
3.
AtmanCJCardellaMETurnsJ. (2004) Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: an in-depth follow-up study. Design Studies26(4): 325–357.
4.
AtmanCJChimkaJRBursicKM. (1999) A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies20(2): 131–152.
5.
BogdanRBiklenS (2010). Foundations of qualitative research in education. In: LuttrellW (ed.) Qualitative Educational Research. New York: Routledge, 21–44.
6.
BowmanDBensonL (2010) MuseInk: seeing and hearing a freshman engineering student ink and think. In: Proceedings of American Society of Engineering Education annual conference and exposition, Louisville, KY, 20–23 June.
7.
ChiMFeltovichPGlaserR (1981) Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science5: 121–152.
8.
CollinsD (2007) Real-time tracking of the creative music composition process. Digital Creativity18(4): 239–256.
9.
CreswellJ (2007) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DenzinNLincolnY (eds) (1998) The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
DutsonAToddRMaglebyS. (1997) A review of literature on teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of Engineering Education86(1): 17–28.
12.
EricssonASimonH (1984) Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
EricssonASimonH (1993) Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Revised Edition). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.
14.
EricssonASimonH (1999) Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Revised, 3rd Edition). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.
15.
FonteynMFisherA (1995) The use of think aloud method to study nurses’ reasoning and decision making in clinical practice settings. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing27: 124–128.
16.
FonteynMKuipersBGrobeS (1993) A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative Health Research3(4): 430–441.
17.
FosnotC (2005) Constructivism revisited: implications and reflections. In: FosnotC (ed.) Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (2nd Edition). New York: Teachers College Press, 276–291.
18.
FunkessonKAnbackenE-MEkA-C (2007) Nurses’ reasoning process during care planning taking pressure ulcer prevention as an example. A think-aloud study. International Journal of Nursing Studies44: 1109–1119.
19.
GetzelsJCsikszentmihalyiM (1964) Creative Thinking in Art Students: An Exploratory Study. Cooperative Research Project No. E-008. Chicago: University of Chicago.
20.
GetzelsJCsikszentmihalyiM (1967) The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
21.
GilhoolyKFioratouEAnthonyS. (2007) Divergent thinking: strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology98: 611–625.
22.
GreenwoodJKingM (1995) Some surprising similarities in the clinical reasoning of expert and novice orthopaedic nurses: report of a study using verbal protocols and protocol analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing22: 907–913.
23.
JonassenDStrobelJLeeC (2006) Everyday problem solving in engineering: lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education95(2): 139–151.
24.
KincheloeJ (2005) Critical Constructivism. New York: Peter Lang.
25.
KingPKitchenerK (1994) Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
26.
Koro-LjungbergMYendol-HoppeyDSmithJJ. (2009) (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher38(9): 687–699.
27.
LatherP (2006) Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education19(1): 35–57.
28.
LatherP (2007) Getting Lost: Feminist Efforts toward a Double(d) Science. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
29.
LauK-L (2006) Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: a think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading29(4): 383–399.
30.
LaufferS (2002) The translation process: an analysis of observational methodology. Cadernos de Tradução10: 59–74.
31.
LincolnYGubaE (2000) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: DenzinNLincolnY (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 163–188.
32.
MasonJDaleA (eds) (2011) Understanding Social Research: Thinking Creatively about Method. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
PressleyMAfflerbachP (1995) Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35.
PrinceMJFelderRM (2006) Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education95(2): 123–138.
36.
SainsburyM (2003) Thinking aloud: children’s interactions with text. Reading: Literacy and Language37(3): 131–135.
37.
SchoenfeldAHerrmannD (1982) Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition8: 484–492.
38.
Van GogTPaasFVan MerriënboerJJG. (2005) Uncovering the problem-solving process: cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied11(4): 237–244.
39.
Van SomerenMBarnardYSandbergJ (1994) The Think Aloud Method. London: Academic Press.
40.
WertheimerM (2000) A Brief History of Psychology (4th Edition). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
41.
WoodsD (2000) An evidence-based strategy for problem solving. Journal of Engineering Education89(4): 443–460.
42.
ZhouJGolledgeR (2007) Real-time tracking of activity scheduling/schedule execution within a unified data collection framework. Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice41: 444–463.
