## 6 Test Scenarios
### Questionnaire  
An analytical evaluation was chosen instead of a practical one, in order that prior experience with the paradigm did not bias the answers, as, during the initial tests of SN, it was observed that those who work with SN without experience in a naturalistic context seek to shape ideas according to the dominant paradigms. For example, SN enables work with syntax that is closer to OOP, but this is achieved at the cost of sacrificing the naturalistic expressiveness expected from SN. Based on the above, it is observed either that a process of \"unlearning\" the dominated paradigm is required or that subjects have no prior programming knowledge in order to reduce bias in the evaluation of SN expressiveness. On the other hand, were participants to be solely taught to program in SN, this would create another bias where already knowing the paradigm and syntax would mean that subjects would consider the code expressive, not because of its naturalness, but because of their own previous experience. The tests were performed using a Likert scale-based questionnaire [39] because no standardized mechanism is reported for comparing the correctness of code to its description in natural language [28]. For example, [PERSON] [13] presented the sentence \"colourless green ideas sleep furiously\" which, while grammatically correct, lacks meaning. In fact, this sentence can be implemented in SN with only minor modifications, giving \"the Colourless and Green Ideas sleep furiously\". Undergraduate students from the computer systems engineering degree program of the _Tecnologico Nacional de Mexico (National Technological Institute of Mexico), campus Orizaba_ participated in the tests, in which 49 students reviewed examples of programs written in SN. Students ranged in age from 18 to 32, with, when asked to estimate their level of programming knowledge, 46.9% considering themselves as having a medium level, 2% considering themselves as having a high level, and 51.1% considering themselves as having a low or zero level. In terms of their mastery of English, 8.1% of the students considered themselves as having a high level, 53.1% considered themselves as having a medium level, and 38.7% considered themselves as having a low or zero level. A scale was established with values between 1 and 4, where 1 is _not expressive_ and 4 is _totally expressive_. The tests ranged from analyzing simple instructions to understand their meaning and context to analyzing complete programs that perform tasks such as arithmetic operations via English sentences, defining nouns, adjectives and their combinations, or database management. Questions 4 and 5 consisted of two true or false questions. The Likert scale was adapted to four alternatives, as options such as \"very expressive\" were considered too diffuse to be distinguished from the \"totally expressive\" or \"self-documented\" option, which already covers the positive range, while, at the opposite extreme, the difference between \"little expressive\" and \"inexpressive\" is more evident. In addition, an explicitly neutral option using \"moderately expressive\" was retained. The list of questions, with their respective percentages, can be found in Appendix D.  
Table 1 presents a summary of the results for the questions regarding expressiveness levels, while Table 2 presents the percentages of answers given to the two true or false questions. As noted in Table 1, the expressiveness level of the language tends to be moderate when students without language knowledge are asked to evaluate instructions, presenting a tendency to _little expressive_ when examples are shown with several indirect references, such as in Question 19. This is an expected result, derived from the complexity of understanding instructions in which identifiers are dispensed with, while questions such as Question 3 revealed that a simple instruction with indirect references is understood at least moderately by more than half of the students, a situation repeated in Questions 6 and 7.