Reconciling opposites to reach compromise during ELT textbook development

Though reports of pedagogic materials production point to the range of compromises authors make when writing language teaching textbooks, many accounts are retrospective in nature. This study sought to expand the research perspective by interrogating writing episodes via qualitative content analysis to discover how two expert ELT (English language teaching) textbook writers managed compromises during ongoing coursebook development. The authors’ data sets – primarily composed of think-aloud protocols and transcripts of pre- and post-concurrent verbalization interviews – revealed that they applied pragmatic judgement when contemplating the incorporation of textually authentic material and reconciled continuity and variety when developing unit frameworks and content, all with textbook audiences, contexts, and purposes in mind. Further, one of the authors reached compromise with project partners to integrate monologue and dialog texts into his book, while the other squared pedagogic imperatives with publishing realities by skillfully navigating textbook length, design, and deadline parameters during her project. By reconciling ostensible opposites to reach compromise, the authors balanced complexities to see their books through to completion. This research may inspire neophyte textbook writers’ efforts as they examine the architecture of writing sessions and prompt teachers to weigh authorial choices and balances during ELT textbook evaluation.

The Adaptive Expertise of Expert ELT Textbook Writers

Although the ELT (English Language Teaching) materials development literature points to the influence of classroom experience on materials design, the literature is less specific about how such experience affects skilled textbook writing. Drawing primarily upon concurrent verbalization and pre- and post-concurrent verbalization interview data collected from two expert ELT textbook writers as they produced coursebook content, this study finds the participants tapped their English language teaching and teacher training experience – with experience operationalized here as knowledge and skills developed as a result of time and effort spent operating in a domain – during writing episodes when using problem-solving skills, navigating constraints, applying pedagogical reasoning skills, and engaging repertoire. The participants, in other words, were able to effect transfer from the neighbouring domains of English language teaching and teacher training to the expertise domain of ELT textbook writing, demonstrating adaptive expertise. This study demonstrates the usefulness of collecting data while participants are writing to discover how transfer effects and adaptive expertise are realized in real-time work and thus makes an important contribution to the research field of materials development. In addition, the results of this study may benefit teachers who look to textbooks for guidance as they develop pedagogic confidence.

The role of affective states in potential applicants’ evaluations of employer attractiveness

What role do emotions play as a job seeker eyes up a potential employer? Our contribution to research into employer attractiveness explores the role that affective states play in potential applicants’ subjective perceptions of companies’ employer attractiveness in the early phase of job seeking. We adopt a concurrent verbalization approach to inquire into qualified potential applicants’ processes of interpreting employer branding material. Based on these data, we provide insights into the neglected role of emotions in research on potential applicants’ assessments of the appeal of an organization. The findings from a multistep qualitative data analysis produce the following four propositions: (1) strong emotions influence the outcome of the opinion-making process; (2) negative emotions play a crucial role in potential applicants’ evaluations of employer attractiveness; (3) some contents of employer information elicit negative emotions, whereas their complementary counterparts do not elicit positive affective reactions; and (4) expectations towards an employer and comparisons among employers influence potential applicants’ sentiments about individual employers.

Actively managed products: Think-aloud data and methods in applied linguistics research

Verbal reports, specifically in the form of concurrent verbalizations (i.e., think-alouds [TAs]), have played a foundational role in the production of knowledge in applied linguistics. Most often drawn upon because the talk they generate is deemed to accurately reflect individual learners’ thought or cognitive processes as they complete an L2 task, concurrent verbalization methods have been central to investigations of and claims about the learning, use, and assessment of L2 vocabulary, listening, speaking, reading, and writing (among others). And although critical discussion concerning the quality of spoken data obtained through concurrent verbalization methods continues among L2 researchers (e.g., Cohen, Andrew D. 1987. Using verbal reports in research on language learning. In Claus Færch & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Introspection in second language research, 82–95. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters; Cohen, Andrew D. 1996. Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning 7(1–2). 5–24; Cohen, Andrew D. 2013. Verbal report. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), the majority of this discussion has focused primarily on how best to generate talk which “more accurately reflect[s] the actual thought processes” of L2 users (Cohen, Andrew D. 2013. Verbal report. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1). The result has been to further naturalize approaches to concurrent verbalizations which treat language as a neutral means for accessing cognition, and similarly, which treat the verbalizations themselves as individually accomplished events. In this article, my aim is to diversify the critical discussion by describing how discursive psychology (e.g., Edwards, Derek & Jonathan Potter. 1992. Discursive psychology. New York: Sage; Potter, Jonathan. 2006. Cognition and conversation. Discourse Studies 8(1). 131–140) and a conversation analytic perspective (e.g., Kasper, Gabriele. 2009. Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics 47. 11–36; Markee, Numa & Mi-Suk Seo. 2009. Learning talk analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 47. 37–63) can be combined to present an alternative to both ‘naturalized’, as well as sociocultural, understandings of concurrent verbalization data and methods. To this end, after establishing some of the key differences between information processing, sociocultural, and discursive approaches, I draw on data from two recently published TA-based studies in an attempt to accomplish two goals: the first is to shift critical discussion towards issues of epistemology, methodology, and research representation, and the second is to identify methodological issues about which researchers working from different conceptual orientations might engage in cross-paradigmatic dialogue.

Experience and Emotion in Empirical Translation Research with Think-Aloud and Retrospection

In empirical process-oriented translation research with different kinds of introspection, two important questions are raised repeatedly: 1. Does concurrent verbalization, like Think-aloud, have an influence on the translation process and 2. What do we actually learn from introspective methods like think-aloud and retrospection? Based on ideas from modern psychology and brain research, it is argued that think-aloud must have an impact on the translation process. Furthermore, it is suggested that it is not only spontaneous, unmodified thoughts about the actual task that are verbalized, but also memories, reflections, justifications, explanations, emotions and experiences.