Rethinking the

UNF Writing
Center Website
Usability Testing Report

Juliette Guido Kaylee Klosterman Brooke Wooten

University of North Florida
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary.............................................2
2. Introduction........................................................4
3. Methodolgy..........................................................5
Phase One
Particpants.....................................................5
User Testing Sessions....................................7
Data Collection and Analysis........................8
Limitations.....................................................9
Phase Two
Participants..................................................10
User Testing Sessions..................................12
Data Collection and Analysis.......................13
Limitations...................................................14
4. Findings and Recommendations.......................15
5. Conclusion..........................................................19
6. Appendices.........................................................20
7. References..........................................................24

1
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The University of North Florida Writing Center works as a support for students
through writing consultations and workshops to “support writing across many
disciplines” with a unique emphasis on informing the development of curriculum
to support meaningful interventions for student supplemental instruction and
resources. The research team: Juliette Guido, Kaylee Klosterman, and Brooke
Wooten work in the writing center which lead to the desire to enhance user
satisfication regarding the website. The research team set out to conduct user
testing for the UNF Writing Center so that we could identify and find solutions
for usability issues on both their website as a whole and their appointment
offerings. Our goal with this study was to provide the UNF Writing Center
with recommendations that would help communicate their values, organize
their support index in a way that is most valuable to students, and get students
involved with using the Writing Center support.

We conducted a two-phase usability test of the UNF Writing Center’s website

to carry out our project. For the first phase, we conducted a usability test for
five people to complete with a screener, website perusal with audio recording,
video recording, an d screen recording, and a survey questionnaire to collect
participants in our target user group defined in the participant recruitment
sections of this report. The second phase consisted of website perusal with screen
recording, audio recording, think-aloud protocol, and pre-interview and post-
interview questions. After completing the study,the team found:
• Users expressed that there were little to no issues navigating the website or the
website language
• Users located the Writing Center office was not through the UNF Writing
Center Website.
• Students interpreted the UNF Writing Center support consultations as help
sessions and/or service-like, rather than a collaborative learning process
• Users didnt fully understand the full scope of the support index in which users
book consultation appointments.

2
Following our test sessions, we analyzed the survey responses and users’
comments and reactions to come up with the following five recommendations

• Supply an access link on My Wings that is easily accessible for users

• Improve location description to effectively communicate how users can locate
the physical location of the Writing Center
• Provide more forthright language in the Writing Center description to shift
from service-based language to community-based language, which will provide
clear expectations for users when they schedule a consultation
• Include page descriptors on the support index that allow users to understand
what appointment they have selected

These recommendations will solve users’ initial confusion over the UNF Writing
Center concept. Additionally, they will assist users in accessing not only the
website itself but the physical location of the Writing Center. We believe that the
implementation of these recommendations in future updates to the UNF Writing
Center website will greatly enhance the usability of the online experience for all
student users.

3
 INTRODUCTION
This report details a usability study conducted by three University of North
Florida students on the University of North Florida’s Writing Center web pages.
The site featured tabs and links that served to lead UNF students to appointment-
setting software and other information regarding services and location.

After completing an interviewing process with stakeholders and users, the team
came up with the following five goals to achieve in their research based on user
comments:
• Create tabs that are forthright and provide better access to pages users are
actually seeking to prevent a lack of engagement.
• Provide straightforward directions, staff contact info, and WC hours to build
confidence in users seeking services and to ensure they attend length of
appointment and return.
• Generate consistent appointment expectations for users by providing
direct techniques the WC utilizes and options in scheduling techniques that
narrow down user needs (to avoid lack of clarity during appointments and to
streamline services).
• Provide visuals to increase user accessibility.
• Provide a service that allows ESL users candid information regarding their
options in the WC as well as additional language options for non-native
speakers.

4
 METHODOLOGY
This usability study was performed in two phases. After a meeting with
stakeholders, it was clear that to ensure participants engaged in the study, we
would have to offer multiple ways to engage with them for the sake of time and
participation.

PHASE ONE: Survey Questionnaire during Market Days at UNF

Participant Recruitment:
During this phase, we interviewed stakeholders of the Writing Center website,
including the Director of the Writing Center, and the Coordinator of Instructional
Support of the Writing Center. Through such interviews, we formulated with
target user bases. One of the target user bases was students who had never
engaged with the Writing Center website before, in the hopes to learn about the
website’s usability from a neutral third party. As most of the students who visit
the Writing Center website are first-year undergraduate students, we came up
with the following target user profile for phase one, modeled after our created
persona ‘Quincy’ (see Appendix A) that we created after interviewing students
who had used the Writing Center before:
• Undergraduate Student at the University of North Florida
• Ages 18-22
• Had never used the Writing Center Website before
• Sex/gender, race, the field of study, and varying levels of ability were all
welcome to participate

From this, we created the following questions for a verbal user screening
questionnaire to sort through potential test participants:
• Do you attend the University of North Florida?
• Are you an undergraduate student?
• Are you between the ages of 18-22?
• Have you ever visited the Writing Center for any reason?
• Have you used the Writing Center Website before?

During UNF Market Days, a tabling event near the Student Union Center, the
team set up two laptops with the Writing Center table.
• Laptops had the ability to screen record and audio record.
• A cellular device was also used to video record participant movement and
acted as a backup to the screen recording.
5
Due to the fast-paced nature of Market Days, and students with varying
schedules, the team decided that the quickest way to gain participants was
through a short survey questionnaire and activity in which participants engaged
with the website. The team also believes that UNF Market Days was an ideal
location for randomly selecting students of all demographics. We set up around
9:30 AM for a 10:00 AM start time.

The three team members asked students who seemed willing to approach the
table (i.e. smiled, did not have headphones on, made eye contact) if they had time
to participate in a 5-minute study.
• Altogether, we asked 12 students if they would like to participate. If the student
said yes, we verbally screened them using the above questions.
• Seven students agreed to participate, only two of which were ineligible due to
the screener, as they had used the website before.
• Five students in total were eligible based on the screener.
• Two participants were women, two participants were non-binary, and one
participant was a man.
• No participants were asked about accessibility, and no participants expressed
any accessibility issues.

6
User Test Session

1. Before beginning the study, participants were given a consent form to peruse
that can be located here: https://forms.gle/Lw7ym5zmCABZTsKX8.
One of the team members also verbally outlined what was stated in
the consent form, emphasizing that participants could opt out at any time.

2. Participants were asked on one laptop to access the Writing Center website
in whatever way they saw fit and book an appointment based on their personal
needs.

3. During this time, the laptop was screen recording their actions, audio
recording, and one member of the team was video recording for backup purposes
and to see any body language that may be interpreted. Such tasks were selected
for their fast-paced nature, ease of analysis, and benefits of ‘think aloud’
techniques that the team was hoping to learn more recommendations from.

4. Participants were not given any information as to how they would access
the Writing Center website, and instead, asked to show us how they would
access it, as one stakeholder was particularly interested in figuring out if website
engagement came from Google or through the UNF website itself.
7
5. After students booked an appointment based on their personal needs, they
were asked to access the second laptop and complete the survey questionnaire
which can be found here: https://forms.gle/Ge36YLviQSKMYnXq8.
The survey was 5 questions long, which deployed the Likert scale, from
strongly disagree to strongly agree for the sake of time.

6. At the end of the survey, students could express whether or not they were
interested in participating in a longer usability study that would last 20-30
minutes long. If they said yes, we reached out to them via their student email with
a Google form for them to select a date and time.

7. Participants were thanked and given a lollipop after assisting in the study.

“How do I get back

after booking an
appointment?”
“I would think
I could find
this on Canvas”

Data Collection and Analysis

The team relied on mixed methods to perform this research. All of the website
activities were screen-recorded, audio-recorded, and video recorded. The
recordings were examined in detail for trends in participants’ behaviors,
statements, and body language. Partial transcripts were made of interesting
quotations that were valuable to our findings. The quotations are listed
throughout our report. Quantitative analysis of the survey answers was
performed through Google Forms ability to provide statistics. Graphs were
created for each question of the survey, for a visual of the answers. They can be
observed in Appendix B as pie charts with numerical values and will be further
discussed in the findings section.
8
Limitations
The study came with several limitations such as bias and the analysis of the
qualitative data. Although in-person surveys are “the most effective ways to get a
truly random sample of the population” (Goodman et al. 359), the team’s status
as students at the University of North Florida affected how the students perceived
them. One of the students who participated in the study did so because they knew
who the team was and therefore created a sample bias, and their answers could
have swayed toward the positive for this reason. Additionally, although the team
asked participants to access the Writing Center website in a way they thought
was the way in which to do so, one student could not figure out how to access it,
even via Google. The participant became visibly frustrated and needed pointed
guidance, and one of the team members suggested Google as a place to start.
Though this created a bias, the team still found the participant’s answers to be
very valuable, as the student quoted, “I would think I can find this on Canvas…”,
which gave us new insight to bring to the stakeholders.

Another limitation was that one student misinterpreted what ‘think aloud’ meant.
The student intercepted this to mean that every action they completed needed to
be stated out loud. Although this was an error, we did not correct the student as
they gave us valuable information, showing us that some students do in fact go
through the UNF website to locate resources, stating, “That’s probably where I
would go [to locate this site]”.

The final limitation comes from the analyses of qualitative data. According to
James Scotland (2012), analysis of qualitative data is down to the researchers’
own interpretation, therefore, such agendas need to be defined from the outset.

The final limitation occurred in the snowball sampling, in which we asked the
participants if they were willing to participate in a longer usability study on the
website. Snowball sampling is not an ideal method as it creates bias due to the
over-representation of the sample group (Kirchherr et al 2018). However, as
students are not always willing to participate in a long study in which they are not
compensated for their time, snowball sampling can be beneficial due to the
convenient cooperation of the research population (Cohen & Arielie 2011).

9
PHASE TWO: Pre/Post Interview and Usability Test in the Writing Center
Participant Recruitment:
The second target user base that we identified with our stakeholders were
students who had engaged with the Writing Center website before. These
students could provide deeper insight into their experiences with both the
website and the consultations offered at the Writing Center. Specifically, we
hoped to learn more about the website’s Support Index and whether or not the
options for consultations were forthright. Our user profile was incredibly similar
to phase one, as it required:
• Undergraduate Student at the University of North Florida
• Ages 18-22
• Sex/gender, race, field of study, and varying levels of ability were all welcome
to participate
• Had interacted with the Writing Center website before
• Had attended a consultation with the Writing Center before

As we already had access to a list of students who had recently visited the Writing
Center, along with their age and undergraduate status, we compiled a list of 10
emails of randomly selected students who met the criteria and had visited the
Writing Center in the last month. We set out to gain at least 5 participants, as
“the best results come from testing no more than 5 users and running as many
small tests as you can afford” (Nielsen and Hackos 1997 as cited by Kascak et al.
2013). After drafting an email, we met with stakeholders again to edit the final
email, with an emphasis on a positive and upbeat tone. Additionally, we changed
our initial time limit from 30 minutes to 15-20 minutes, in the hope of gaining
more traction from participants. We sent an email with a Google form attached to
gain participants (see Appendix C).

Unfortunately, the team received no replies. Our second resort was to reach out
to students at the Writing Center that we had a good rapport with, to see if they
would participate in the study. We received only one reply, which was that the
student would be out of town on the date the study was taking place.

10
During our second meeting with the stakeholders referenced above, we
anticipated this would happen and would change the user profile for phase two.
Therefore, we agreed to add a question at the bottom of the survey for phase one,
in which we asked students if they were willing to participate in a longer form
of the usability study. Though these students had not had a consultation with
the Writing Center, it was their second time accessing the website. Stakeholders
and the team saw this as an additional opportunity to gain information on the
user experience of the website, as participants had the opportunity to peruse the
website in-depth. This was a precautionary measure that we had to resort to in
order to complete the usability study.

Three participants out of the five from phase one expressed interest in completing
the second study. Juliette reached out to all three participants with the Google
form listed above for times to attend on Monday, April 10th. Three participants
signed up for respective times of 9:30, 10:00, and 10:30. The 10:30 appointment
did not show up. Therefore, we were left with two participants. Both participants
were Caucasian.

Participants were expected to locate the Writing Center prior to the pre-interview
to assess one of the team’s goals of providing straightforward directions on the
website. Once they had located the site, they were taken to the group work room.
A laptop with screen recording and audio recording abilities was used to screen
record participants’ engagement with the Website and record the pre and post-
interviews. It was also used for students to complete the consent form which can
be located here:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScmbsQETa1Li2rJXMkgfpLFn4v6
aGIyzN03ZciCYoo3HP6jUw/viewform?vc=0&c=0&w=1&flr=0.

In this consent form, we asked about levels of ability to gain information on

user experience for users' varying abilities, consistent with one of the goals of
our study. Neither participant expressed accessibility needs. Team member
Juliette took notes during the two phases. One of the team members also verbally
outlined what was stated in the consent form, emphasizing that participants
could opt out at any time.

11
User Test Session
Participants were expected to locate the Writing Center however they saw fit,
as a goal of the study was to understand how users were locating the Writing
Center. Upon arriving at the Writing Center, participants were brought to a
private workroom to begin the testing sessions. During this time, the laptop was
screen recording their actions, audio recording, and one member of the team was
prepared to take notes on participant choices and interview answers. Such tasks
were selected for their ease of analysis, and particularly, the benefits of ‘think
aloud’ techniques. Think-aloud techniques are considered “more accurate for
capturing learners’ learning processes since learners are required to report on
their learning process while they are working on a particular task” (Yoshida 2008
as cited by Hu and Gao). This choice is consistent with the stakeholders’ and
teams’ goals, as we wanted an intuitive experience that allowed us to generate
knowledge on how and why users are using the website. Participants first filled
out the consent form, and a team member verbally reiterated that they could
opt-out at any time. After they consented to the study, the team members began a
pre-interview, in which they asked the following questions:

• How far into your undergraduate degree are you?

• How easily were you able to find the Writing Center?
• Did you use the Writing Center website to help you navigate? If so, how helpful
were the directions given? If not, how did you get here?
• How often do you use the UNF Writing Center website per semester?
• When you visit the website, why are you doing so?
• How often do you use the UNF Writing Center website to book an
appointment?
The answers to the interview were both audio recorded on the laptop, and a team
member took notes of responses.

12
Because participants had already interacted with the website, they were asked
to navigate the website as they normally would navigate a website, and were
also told that they could stop perusing the website when they “felt like they
were finished”. Each participant took between 5 and 10 minutes to navigate the
website. After the participant appeared finished with the website, or verbally
expressed they were finished, they began a post-interview, of the following
questions:
• Did you find the website difficult to navigate? If so, what was difficult?
• Is there any language that is confusing and/or misleading?
• How likely would you use the website again after this experience?
• Do you find the website accessible? If not, why?
• Were you able to identify your needs in the Support Index with ease?

After participants answered the above questions, they were thanked for their
time, offered a cupcake, and were free to go.

Data Collection and Analysis

On the subject of qualitative analysis, James Scotland (2012) states, “Interpretive
methods yield insight and understandings of behavior, explain actions from
the participant’s perspective, and do not dominate the participants” (12). Such
methods include open-ended interviews, think-aloud protocol, and open-ended
observations (Scotland 12). As the goals of the team and stakeholders are In this
user test, the team relied on qualitative analysis, through screen recordings,
audio recordings, and a pre-and post-interview process. The team intended to
implement card sorting within this usability study. However, due to the low
engagement of the usability study, the team decided that card sorting between
two participants who had not had a Writing Center consultation would not be
valuable for this study. Additionally, due to only two participants partaking
in the study, coding was deemed unnecessary, and instead, the team easily
noticed trends in participant statements via note-taking and partial transcripts.
Partial transcripts were made of interesting quotations that were valuable to our
findings. The quotations are listed throughout our report.

13
Limitations
The largest limitation of phaset two was the overrepresentation of the tested
group. As these participants had already participated in phase one, their
responses represent a large portion of our findings. Both participants were first-
year students, therefore, the scope of our study was narrow. Additionally, all of
the team work in the Writing Center where the sessions were held, could have
created a dynamic in which participants felt they had to resort to more positive
answers. When searching for possible consultations, it is possible that students
came across our bios when looking on the UNF Writing Center website.

14
 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding One: Website Navigation
Users expressed that there were little to no issues navigating the website or the
website language. The difficulty resulted from attempting to locate the website in
the first place.Upon being prompted to navigate how to access the UNF Writing
Center web page, users mostly relied on Googling ‘UNF Writing Center’ to locate
the page. One user commented, “I would think I can find this on Canvas on the
student services page”. Four out of five users expressed that they could easily
navigate the website. One user disagreed with the ease of the website navigation.
Our analysis reveals that there was significant value in the user comment
regarding Canvas, as many students do not know how to access the website aside
from Google. Only one user resorted to the search bar on UNF’s website.

Recommendation One:
Supply an access link on My Wings that is easily accessible for users. Providing
a clear link to the UNF Writing Center website will encourage user to interact
with the tool. Three out of five survey respondents claimed they were “neutral”
about using the website in the future. Therefore, incorporating easier access to
the website can encourage engagement, and will prevent using Google’s search
engine as a method to access the website.

15
Finding Two: Locating the Physical Writing Center
The participants in phase two both expressed that the way in which they located
the Writing Center office was not through the UNF Writing Center Website. One
user described in their pre-interview how they took the address from the UNF
Writing Center website, typed it into UNF’s map, and then was able to locate the
building the Writing Center was in. They walked upstairs and looked in rooms
until they found the Writing Center. The second user described in their pre-
interview that they followed a sign that pointed to the Writing Center.

Recommendation Two:
Improve location description to effectively communicate how users can locate the
physical location of the Writing Center. Users only see the building number, and
not the name of the building on the website which can lead to confusion when
trying to locate the physical building. A quick fix to explaining that Building 4 is
the Skinner-Jones building could remedy location issues for the Writing Center.
Additionally, providing a link to the UNF Map or more forthright directions
would alleviate user stress.

16
Finding Three: Clear Service Expectations
Students interpret the UNF Writing Center support consultations as help
sessions and/or service-like, rather than a collaborative learning process. During
the interview sessions, both participants stated that they do not like asking for
help, so therefore, they were “not likely” to return to the website. One user even
stated, “I have done papers alone up until now and I will keep doing so unless I
am really struggling.”

Recommendation Three:
Provide more forthright language in the Writing Center description to shift from
service-based language to community-based language which will provide clear
expectations for users when they schedule a consultation.If users understand
that the writing support offered by the UNF Writing Center is a collaborative
process rather than a copyediting service, it is likely that they will be encouraged
and empowered to take advantage of the collaborative writing support that
the center offers. Therefore, the language on the UNF Writing Center website
currently does not outline the collaborative process and is quite vague. Creating
forthright language regarding what the support looks like can encourage user
engagement.

17
Finding Four: Defining the Support Index
Users demonstrated that the support index is currently insufficient in satitsfying
their needs for consultation appointments. When users were asked to book an
appointment that fit their current course needs, many seemed to randomly select
a consultation or offered little to no explanation as to why they selected certain
offerings. During phase 2, in a post-interview, one user stated, “I am a psych
major so I would select social sciences for help” which was useful and allowed
us to understand that the other users who did not vocalize their choices may not
have known what to select. Additionally, the survey results showed that 2 out of
5 users felt neutral about the booking page support index. One user commented,
“sometimes the consultants aren’t very helpful”.

Recommendation Four:
Include page descriptors on the support index that allow users to understand
what appointment they have selected. Providing descriptions of what each
offering entails would be valuable to users who are confused as to which
appointment to book. Additionally, providing the names of consultants who
are well-versed in certain fields would be valuable for users who are feeling
dissatisfied with their consultations.

18
 CONCLUSION
We believe that the above findings and recommendations will be valuable in
future updates of the UNF Writing Center website. Our reccomendation to
supply an easy access link on MyWings that is easily accessible for users will
assist in website navigation and increase the amount of appointments scheduled.
Improving the location description of the physical Writing Center is consistent
with our goal to provide more straightforward directions to build confidence
in users seeking services. The team suggests more forthright language on the
Writing Center website to meet the goal of consistent appointment expectations
for users, which will meet user needs and leave them satisfied. Finally, updating
the support index with better descriptors will assist in not only user satisfaction
with booking appointments, but user satisfaction with consultations. Therefore,
all of the recommendations fulfill our goals of a better website, which we believe
will create a better environment and workspace for the Writing Center.

Additionally, we find that there are future calls for research that could further
improve the website’s usability. For example, although we identified that the
user index sparked neutral reactions from users, we believe that card sorting
surrounding consultation topics may be valuable to uncover relationships that
users identify, for the sake of creating a support index that meets their unique
course schedule needs. Additionally, while we intended to uncover accessibility
needs during this study, no user met this profile. That being said, Targeting Users
with varying abilities would be useful to address accessibility issues present on
the website. Furthermore, more research is needed on the usefulness of current
visuals on the UNF Writing Center website.

19
 APPENDIX
Appendix A
Bio
Quincy is an 18-year-old first-year
writing student. He is a full-time Sports
Management student that lives and
works on campus. Quincy is quite
involved on campus; he is part of the
Honor's College, plays for the UNF
soccer team, and works at the library a
few days a week. Several of the
professors at the Honor's College,
require that Quincy visits the UNF
Writing Center at least twice a
semester.
Environment
Quincy lives on the UNF campus and
Description: Quincy regularly visits his family home on the
weekends. He is typically surrounded by
Age: 18
other UNF students and has very few
Marital status: Single moments where is he not using the UNF
wifi.
Occupation: Full-time student and athlete
Location: Lives on campus
Income: Stems from an on-campus job at
the Library
Technology
Quincy regularly has access to his personal
tablet and the computers offered at the
Roles school.
• First-Year college student
• Honors Student
• Athlete
• Librarian Assistant
Appendix B
Scenario
Quincy starts the day with an energy drink and
walking to his 9:30 AM class on business writing.
During class, his professor reminds everyone
that their upcoming essay will require APA
formatting, and because nobody has used this
before, the professor is requiring students to
visit the writing center. Quincy uses the last
fifteen minutes of class to google the writing
center website to create an appointment and get
it over with. Quincy quickly becomes confused
with the difference between the writing center
and writing program. Quincy decides he has
enough time to walk to the writing center after
class and before workouts to book an
appointment, using the address he sees online.
He struggles to find the writing center, and when
he finally does, he is greeted by the front desk
clerk who asks him to scan the QR code to make
an appointment, where he selects an APA
appointment, but cannot tell if the consultant he
is working with understands business writing
content. Quincy doesn’t mind as he is only
attending the writing center because he has to.
Quincy is five minutes late to workouts because
he got lost looking for the writing center.
Lifestyle
• Athletic
• Outgoing/ Extroverted
• Studious
• Sport lover
• Punctual but over-scheduled
Research
Quotes
• "I don't have time to make an
appointment. I am too busy with
school and work. I wish that I did not
have to come."
• "The UNF Writing Center website is
confusing. I am not sure which of the
writing specialties fits what I need."
• "I had to do an extra set at workouts
for lateness because the Writing
Center was impossible to find!"
• "I feel like the Writing Center
appointments are useless because I
never know what I need to bring with
me."
User Concerns
• The Writing Center and Writing Program
website are on the same page. This
leads to confusion about where to find
information about booking an
appointment.
• Directions to Writing Center are
confusing. A map would be nice.
• The available sections to book are not
directly listed out. It's confusing to know
what to exactly book to best fit needs.
• Did not receive beneficial help from
front of desk clerk
• Left unsatisfied due to the complicated
process of booking an appointment
20
4

1
1

21
 2

2
1

22
 2

Appendix C

23
 REFERENCES
Cohen, N., & Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Method
ological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research,
48(4), 423–435.https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311405698

Goodman, E., Kuniavsky, M., & Moed, A. (2021). Observing the user experience:
A practitioner's Guide to User Research (2nd ed.). Elsevier Science.

Kascak, L., Rebola, C. B., Braunstein, R., & Sanford, J. A. (2013). Icon design to
improve communication of health information to older adults. Communica
tion Design Quarterly Review, 2(1), 6-32.

Kirchherr, J., & Charles, K. (2018). Enhancing the sample diversity of snowball
samples: Recommendations from a research project on anti-dam move
ments in Southeast Asia. PloS one, 13(8), e0201710. https:/doiorg/10.1371/
journal.pone.0201710.

Hu, J. & Gao, X. A. (2017). Using think-aloud protocol in self-regulated reading

research. Educational Research Review, 22, 181-193. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.004.

Nielsen, J., & Hackos, J. T. (1993). Usability engineering (Vol. 125184069). Aca-
demic press: Boston.

Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Re

lating Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of
the Scientific, Interpretive, and Critical Research Paradigms. English
Language Teaching (Toronto, Canada), 5(9), 9–16. https://doi.
org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9.

Writing Program & Center. UNF Coas. (n.d.). Retrieved April 13, 2023, from
https://www.unf.edu/coas/english/wc/index.html.

Yoshida, M. (2008). Think-aloud protocols and type of reading task: The issue
of reactivity in L2 reading research. In Selected proceedings of the 2007 sec
ond language research forum (Vol. 199209).

24