1993 Volume 16 Issue 3 Pages 89-95
Part II of this article provides a methodological review of introspective second language (L2) studies surveyed in Part I , and discusses issues of controversy over the use of introspection in L2 research, concluding with suggestions for future introspective research. The perspectives from which introspective L2 studies were reviewed also serve as criteria for classifying or evaluating the studies. Most of such criteria are either binary (e.g., + /- informant training; + /- combination of methods) or sealer (e.g., degree of structuring; degree of being beneficial to the informant-learner). While what has primarily motivated the recent employment of introspective techniques in L2 research is the proved limited use of extrospective observational research for investigating metal processes, concerns have also been raised about introspection, the most basic one being the questioned veridicality of verbal reports with actual cognitive processes. Suggestions that have been made to enhance the veridicality of verbal reports include the following: (a) use of task-based information, (b) use of a less complicated verbalization task, and (c) reduction of processing-reporting time intervals. With the current increasing attention being paid by L2 researchers to learner strategies, verbal reporting has again come to the fore as a vital methodology for obtaining invisible insights from learners. Although care is always needed to obtain valid mentalistic data, it is expected that introspective data from L2 learners-as-L2-performers actively being engaged in L2 learning will continue to provide us with useful information concerning the inner workings of the mind unobtainable from extrospective observational studies.