Introducción de DNA en las células 1 Transformación de bacterias

The present study employed an off-line task and an on-line experiment. Paper-pencil materials were used for both the language-background questionnaire and the off-line test, which consisted of an acceptability rating task and a confidence-rating task. The on-line experiment used computer software, namely Superlab version 5, which was installed on a 30×40 Lenovo laptop. The following sections describe the instruments used in the present study. These involve a background questionnaire (section 3.5.5.1), the off- line task (section 3.5.5.2), and the on-line experiment (section 3.5.5.3).

3.5.5.1 Background questionnaire

The present study included a language history questionnaire, which was designed to elicit information related to the participants’ language background (see Appendix B) . This was used to provide data on the homogeneity among the participants in each group. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. In the first part, some essential information was requested about the participants such as name/ID, gender and age. The second part was

148

mainly concerned with the participants’ native language and their number of L2 languages, apart from English. The questionnaire also asked whether the participants had lived in an English-speaking country and the number of years spent learning L2 English. Finally, the questionnaire asked if participants had any hearing or vision problems.

3.5.5.2 Off-line task

The stimuli for the main study consisted of 16 target items and 16 filler items, 32 items in total. The design of the target items was similar to that in the pilot study. As in the pilot study, the target items consist of eight contexts that evoke a felicitous use of the focus constructions and a further eight that evoke an infelicitous use. Each context is followed by five responses. In the target contexts, the responses are the four focus constructions and a canonical word order sentence, i.e. a non-focus sentence. As previously mentioned, the reason for including the latter is to serve as an acceptable response in situations where the use of the target constructions is considered a dis-preferred option, as in their use in the infelicitous context. The focused element in all the focus constructions is the object (patient) of the sentence. The constructions were presented in a randomised order in each context to avoid promoting systematic answers (Dörnyei, 2007).

As for the filler items, the contexts designed for these were questions that asked about the action that had taken place in the context and the responses to these questions differed in the verb tense employed. None of these responses consisted of any of the target constructions as shown in the example below.

(3) a. What did you do today?

a. I read a book.

b. I have read a book. c. I had read a book.

d. I have been reading a book. e. I was reading a book.

149

The decision to include the filler items was based on implications gleaned from the pilot study. Three important reasons for including the filler items were: (1) to avoid systematic responses; (2) to distract the participants’ attention from the main purpose of the study; and (3) to keep the participants actively engaged in the task throughout its completion.

The instruction for this task was the same as in the pilot study – specifically it asked the participants to rate the appropriateness of each response to a given context on a 6-point Likert scale. Participants were also asked to indicate their level of confidence after rating each response by choosing one of the three options provided (guessing, somewhat confident, very confident). However, the instructions for the main study also included a clarification of what was meant by "appropriateness" by indicating to the participants that it was equal to "acceptably fitting in the context", so as to avoid evoking any indication of politeness or social norms (see Appendix C).

The items (32 contexts) in the test were counterbalanced, that is, the order of the items was different for different participants. Two versions of the test were devised, each with a different ordering of the items (Version x1 and Version x2). Version x2 included the same items as Version x1; however, the items were in the reverse order. Although an equal number of copies of both versions were printed, the numbers of participants using each version differed slightly after excluding some L2 participants who did not complete the tasks.

3.5.5.3 The on-line experiment

The on-line experiment that was adopted in the main study was similar in design and used the same stimuli as the ones used in the pilot study. The main aim of the on-line task was to assess the participants’ sensitivity to the contextual appropriate use of the focus

150

constructions. This was obtained by measuring their reaction times as they read the target constructions in felicitous and infelicitous contexts.

The main study included new comprehension questions. The decision to select comprehension questions over acceptability judgements was based on the evidence form the pilot study, which suggested that acceptability judgements had an effect on processing strategy. The comprehension questions were presented in a randomised pattern after both the experimental sentences and the filler sentences. As in the pilot study, to answer the comprehension questions, the participants were instructed to select one of the alternative answers ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ by pressing the corresponding keys that were highlighted on the computer key board. They were instructed to press key (A) if they thought the answer was ‘Yes’, and to press (L) if they believed the answer to be ‘No’. These choice items were counterbalanced with regard to the number of correct ‘yes’ answers versus ‘no’. These keys were also highlighted with two different colours in order to ensure that the two letters were apparent to the participants.

As in the pilot study, thirty-two blocks were created for the self-paced reading task. Each block consisted of four trials, each of which consisted of two target items and two filler items. The target items, which included the focus constructions in this study, were different in each trial. The presentation of the items in each trial was counterbalanced. Four presentational lists (versions of the test) were created, differing in the sequential ordering of the trials in the experiment. The ordering of the stimuli within each presentational list followed a pseudorandomisation technique, a preferred technique to minimise any effect of the presentation order in the self-paced reading experiments (Jegerski, 2013, p. 33). For example, the first presentational list of the test started with block 1 and ended with block 32, while the second version was in reverse order, starting with block 32 and ending with block 1. The third presentational list started with blocks 16 to1 followed by blocks 32 to17.

151

The fourth list was in reverse order compared to version three, starting with blocks 17 to 32, followed by blocks 1 to 16. Different participants in each group utilised different versions of the test. This step was thought to be important in order to eliminate any effect caused by the order of the items (i.e. the participants feeling fatigued by the end of the task, which might cause inaccurate responses). Different participants utilised different versions of the test, as each participant saw only one version of the test. The order of presentation of the different versions was counterbalanced within each language group.