Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Consecutive Interpreter Training from Students’ Perspectives
The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed new demands on the global educational system and many classes are currently being held online. Based on Kelly’s (2005) evaluation framework, the present study is an attempt to explore the advantages and disadvantages of online interpreter training from students’ point of view. To do so, 24 students who had successfully passed an online consecutive interpreting course completed a questionnaire, which was developed by the researcher. The responses to the questionnaire items were analyzed and codes and themes were extracted. The results indicated that two thirds of the students were dissatisfied with online implementation of the course mainly due to technical and psychological problems they had experienced. However, a third of students were satisfied with online interpreter training via Adobe Connect, citing several educational, personal, and psychological benefits they gained from the course. Based on the congruity between the identified themes and the main tenets of constructivism, it was found that the online course was more compatible with cognitive rather than social constructivist principles. Finally, the pedagogical implications of the findings were discussed.
Bahri, H. & Gholami, M. (2012). Handbook of Interpreter Training (HIT). Tehran: Rahnama Press.
Class, B. & Moser-Mercer, B. (2013). Training conference interpreter trainers with technology – a virtual reality. In O. García Becerra, E. M. Pradas Macías & R. Barranco-Droege (Eds.) Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Vol. 1. Granada: Editorial Comares, 293–313.
Colina, S. (2003). Translation Teaching, from Research to the Classroom: A Handbook for Teachers. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
do Carmo, F., Shterionov, D., Moorkens, J., Wagner, J., Hossari, M., Paquin, E., Schmidtke, D., Groves, D. & Way, A. (2020). A Review of the State-of-the-Art in Automatic Post-editing, Machine Translation. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-020-09252-y
Doherty, S. (2016). The Impact of Translation Technologies on the Process and Product of Translation. International Journal of Communication, 10, 947–969.
Dörnyei, Z. & Taguchi, T. (2009). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. London: Routledge.
Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Taylor & Francis.
González Davies, M. (2004). Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Activities, Tasks and Projects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gouadec, D. (2007). Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hamilton, D. (2005). Illuminative Evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 192–194.
Hartman, H. J. (2012). Consuming and constructing knowledge through WebQuests. In Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Online Learning Activities. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 6, 255–289.
Ibrahim-González, N. (2011). E-learning in interpreting didactics: Students’ attitudes and learning patterns, and instructor’s challenges. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation, 16, 224–241.
Jiménez-Crespo, M. A. (2017). Crowdsourcing and Online Collaborative Translations Expanding the Limits of Translation Studies. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kelly, D. (2005). A Handbook for Translator Trainers: A Guide to Reflective Practice. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kiraly, D. (2000). A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. Empowerment from Theory to Practice. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Klimkowski, K. (2015). Towards a Shared Curriculum in Translator and Interpreter Education. Wrocław/Washington, D.C.: WSF, PAN and International Communicology Institute.
Ko, L. (2008). Teaching interpreting by distance mode: An empirical study. Meta 53(4), 814–840.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design. (2nd Ed.). Routledge: New York and London.
PACTE (2005). Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Meta 50(2). 609–619.
Pietrzak, P. & Kornacki, M. (2020). Using CAT Tools in Freelance Translation: Insights from a Case Study. Routledge.
Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241–250.
Pym, A. (2000). Innovation in translator and interpreter training: Report on an on-line symposium. Across Languages and Cultures, 1(2), 209–273.
Pym, A. (2011). What technology does to translating. Translation & Interpreting, 3(1), 1–9.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Saldanha, G. & O’Brien, S. (2014). Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sandrelli, A. & de Manuel Jerez, J. (2007). The impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on interpreter training: State-of-the-art and future prospects. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(2), 269–303.
Stewart, D. (2008). Vocational translation training into a foreign language. Intralinea, 10. Retrieved from https://www.intralinea.org/archive/article/1646
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
How to Cite
Copyright Licensee: Iranian Journal of Translation Studies. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0 license).