Chapter 3 Research Method
3.3 Procedures
The study adopts a within-subject designed experiment, in which the researcher had each participant perform all the tasks that was being tested, compared the results and observed if there were any changes in their performances (Charness, Gneezy &
Kuhn, 2012). The procedure in this research included an experiment in which the participants performed two segments of CI with the source speech delivered at two different SRs, immediately followed by a semi-structured retrospective interview. The experiments took place in quiet classrooms in graduate institutes in translation and interpretation in northern Taiwan.
3.3.1 CI Task
In the experiment, there was a practice session where the participants listened to
the practice speech and interpreted the speech. After that, the formal session began during which all the participants were asked to interpret the FSR and SSR formal speeches.
A possible disadvantage of within-subject design is the learning effect. Participants may perform better under the second condition due to the previous practice they get in the experiment under the first condition. To compensate for the learning effect,
counterbalancing was used. This method can decrease the effect of learning by randomly assigning participants to perform tasks in different orders. In this study, counterbalancing was done by implementing two different protocols. Half of the participants interpreted the SSR speech first, and the other half interpreted the FSR speech first. Group I participants were divided into half; half of them received Protocol A and half of them B, and the same went for Group II participants (Table 3.5).
Table 3.5 Treatment protocols
Group Protocol CI session 1 CI session 2
A I SSR Speech FSR Speech
II FSR Speech SSR Speech
B I SSR Speech FSR Speech
II FSR Speech SSR Speech
Then, the researcher assigned protocols to each participant by their programs.
Roughly half of the participants in Group A who were in the same program were
subjected to Protocol I, and the other half in that program were subjected to Protocol II.
For example, there were four participants from Program X in Group A; two of them were subjected to Protocol I, and the other two were subjected to Protocol II. The same method applied to Group B.
Before the data collection started, the researcher explained to each participant the procedure and instructions of the experiment and retrospective interview as follows.
First, the participants were told that they would be performing CI, interpreting two
two-minute English speeches that would be delivered at different speeds into Mandarin, and that before the formal experiment, there would be a short practice session where they would be doing the same task. Second, they were told that taking notes is mandatory in this experiment, because one of the purposes of the research is to study the notes of participants, and they should be aiming for rendering as many details in the speeches as possible in their final output. Last, the researcher told the participants that their interpreting output in the formal session and the retrospective interview would be recorded, and their notes would be collected by the researcher. After the researcher made sure the participants did not have any questions, the participants signed the form of consent and filled out the basic information sheet.
The researcher then invited the participants to the seat in front of a computer. The participants were directed to an information sheet put on the table, on which basic information about the scenario of the speeches was provided (see Appendix i.). When the participants were ready, the practice session began. The purpose of a practice session was to familiarize the participants with the procedure of the tasks they were about to perform in the formal experiment, and the topic and setting of the speeches.
The video started with the instruction clip. After the clip ended, the researcher checked whether the participants had any questions. If they did, the researcher would pause the video and answer their questions. After all was clear, the video was continued to play, and the practice speech started. The output by the participants in the practice session was recorded only for the purpose of checking whether the recorder was operating alright, and the recordings were deleted afterwards. After the practice session, the
researcher made sure that there was no more question, and moved on to the formal session.
The formal session started with the participants directed to the other side of the information sheet, where there were two terms that would appear in the upcoming speeches, and their Mandarin translation. After the participants were ready, the researcher played the first video in the formal session, and after the participants interpreted the speech, the second video was played. The two videos, like the practice speech video, also started with the instruction clip. The two segments of interpreting output in the formal session were both recorded. During the output phase, the researcher listened to the participants’ interpretation and marked out places where they omitted and misinterpreted information on the source speech transcripts for discussion in the next phase of the data collection.
3.3.2 Retrospective interview
Right after the experiment, the participants took part in a retrospective interview.
In the interview, the participants were first asked to go over their notes again and inform the researcher of the meaning of the notes the latter could not decipher, because this would make it easier for the researcher to categorize each kind of notation. Then, the researcher showed the participants the marks and notes that had been taken by the researcher during their interpreting output. The researcher pointed to specific parts where they omitted or misinterpreted something, and asked the participants what happened during those points to understand in which phase in Liu’s (2008) proposal of
to review their own notes that represented these parts when necessary to refresh their memory. After all the errors and omissions were discussed in both interpreting output segments, the researcher asked the participants if they noticed any differences in the way notes were structured or the way information was written down in CI session one and CI session two. This question served the purpose of preparing the participants to answer the upcoming questions.
Last, the researcher asked four standardized questions to understand the participants’ note-taking strategy and their perception of the impact of FSR on note-taking and CI. The questions are:
(1) Is faster speech rate a difficulty for you? On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not difficult at all and 5 being very difficult, how would you rate the difficulty brought about by faster speech rate in the experiment?
(2) What challenges did the faster speech bring in the phase of note-taking?
(3) Did you resort to different strategies when you were taking notes in the two settings?
What were the differences?
(4) Did the faster speech affect your final output performance? If yes, please give the reasons.