Peer Feedback and Reflective Practice in Public Service Interpreter Training

Katarzyna Holewik
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0874-1770

Abstract

The paper discusses the importance of student-generated feedback, that is, peer feedback and self-assessment in public service interpreter training. The importance of peer feedback and self-assessment is widely recognised in teaching and learning and benefits include: promoting analytical and critical thinking skills, students’ active participation in the learning process, promoting a collaborative model of teaching and learning, students’ responsibility and autonomy, to name but a few. However, their beneficial character can also be observed in public service interpreter training. The aim of the pilot study conducted among trainee interpreters (MA students) of public service interpreting course was to examine interpreting quality and compare positive (strengths) and negative aspects (weaknesses) of trainee interpreters’ performance identified by them by means of peer feedback and reflection (self-assessment). The trainees participated in simulated public service interpreting sessions and later were asked to reflect on their own as well as their peers’ performance. As seen from data analysis, there are discrepancies between peer feedback and reflection in the perception of students’ strengths and weaknesses and a negative trend can be observed in the case of reflection.


Keywords

self-evaluation; peer evaluation; reflection; public service interpreting training; interpreting quality

Adams, H., & Rosales-Dominguez, L. (2017). Three perspectives on interpreters and stress: The experts, the novices, and the trainees. In A. Łyda & K. Holewik (Eds.), Interdisciplinary encounters: Dimensions of interpreting studies (pp. 60–71). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Alpert, A., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 207–222.

Anderson, J. O. (1989). Evaluation of student achievement: Teacher practices and educational measurement. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 35, 123–133.

Anderson, J. O. (1990). Assessing classroom achievement. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 36, 1–3.

Angelelli, C. V. (2004) Medical interpreting and cross-cultural communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2007). Interpreting quality as perceived by trainee interpreters: Selfevaluation.The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(2), 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798760

Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2009). Jakość własnego oraz cudzego tłumaczenia w ocenie studentów. In A. Kopczyński & M. Kizeweter (Eds.), Jakość i ocena tłumaczenia, 75–86. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SWPS Academica.

Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jse.v3i4.4314

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King’s College London.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985) Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page.

Brew, A. (1999). Towards autonomous assessment: Using self-assessment and peer assessment. In S. Brown & A. Glasner, (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse approaches (pp. 159–171). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Cao, Y. (2017). Peer and self-evaluation for cooperative learning in interpreting course. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 99, 245–247.

Clarke, S. (2008). Active learning through formative assessment. London: Hodder Education.

Coffey, A. M. (2014). Using video to develop skills in reflection in teacher education students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(9), 86–97.

Creswell, J. W, & V. L. Plano Clark (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Creswell, J. W (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dean, R. K, & Pollard, R. Q. (2013). The Demand Control Schema: Interpreting as a practice profession. North Charleston: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

D’Hayer, D. (2013) Public service interpreter education: A multidimensional approach aiming at building a community of learners and professionals. In C. Schäffner, K. Kredens, & Y. Fowler (Eds.), Interpreting in a changing landscape (pp. 321–337). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Flick, U. (2015). Introducing research methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA, London: Sage.

Flick, U. (2018). Doing triangulation and mixed methods. The Sage Qualitative Research Kit. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, London: Sage.

Fowler, Y. (2007). Formative assessment. Using peer and self-assessment in interpreter training. In C. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova, & A. L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4, 253–262. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. London: Further Education Unit.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English Language Teaching. 4th ed. Harlow: Person Longman.

Hartley, T., Mason, I., Peng, G., & Perez, I. (2003). Peer- and self-assessment in conference interpreter training. CILT.

Hattie, J. (1999). Influences on student learning. Auckland: University of Auckland.

Kawulich, B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs6.2.466

Kiraly, D. (2000). A social constructivist approach to translator education; empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester, UK, and Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing.

Krystallidou, D. (2017) Non-verbals in dialogue interpreter education. Improving student interpreters’ visual literacy and raising awareness of its impact on interpreting performance. In L. Cirillo & N. Niemnants (Eds.), Teaching dialogue interpreting: Research-based proposals for higher education (pp. 259–274). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lee, J. (2018). Feedback on feedback: Guiding student interpreter performance. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research. 10(1), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a09

Lee, Y. H. (2016). Comparing self-assessment and teachers assessment in interpreter training. Accessed September 24, 2019. Retrieved from: http://cms.ewha.ac.kr/user/erits/download/review_1/04_Yun-hyang%20Lee.pdf

Lee, Y. H. (2005). Self-assessment as an autonomous learning tool in an interpretation classroom. Meta 50(4). Lee, Z. (2015). The reflection and self-assessment of student interpreters through logbooks: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation). Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.

Llewellyn-Jones, P., & R. G. Lee (2014). Redefining the role of the community interpreter: The concept of “role space.” Lincoln, UK: SLI Press.

McFadzien, N. (2015). Why is effective feedback so critical in teaching and learning? Journal of Initial Teacher Inquiry, 1, 16–18.

Moser-Mercer, B. (2008). Skill acquisition in interpreting. A human performance perspective. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2(1), 1–28.

Niska, H. (1999). Testing community interpreters: A theory, a model and a plea for research. In M. Erasmus (Ed.), Liaison interpreting in the community. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Norberg, U. (2014) Fostering self-reflection in translation students. The value of guided commentaries. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 9(1), 150–164.

Pallero Singleton, A. (2015). The case for peer feedback in interpreter training. Paper presented at the international conference. In Dialogue. Community interpreting in dialogue with technology, 20–21 November 2015, Berlin.

Postigo Pinazo, E. (2008). Self-Assessment in Teaching Interpreting. TTR, 21(1), 173–209. https://doi.org/10.7202/029690ar

Roy, C. (2000) Interpreting as a discourse process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Russo, M. (1995). Self-evaluation: The awareness of one’s own difficulties as a training tool for simultaneous interpretation. Interpreter’s Newsletter, 6, 75‒84.

Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In A. Tashakkoori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 321–350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On Quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, London: Maurice Temple Smith Ltd.

Shin, J., Lee, Y., & Seo, E. (2016). The effects of feedback on students’ achievement goals: Interaction between reference of comparison and regulatory focus. Learning and Instruction, 49, 21–31.

Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – summative and formative – Some theoretical reflections.British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x

Toledano Buendia, C., & Aguilera Avila L. (2017) Stress, interpersonal communication and assertiveness training in public service interpreting. In A. Łyda & K. Holewik (Eds.), Interdisciplinary encounters: Dimensions of interpreting studies (pp. 48–59). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Van den Bogaerde, B., Hammer, A. & Nijen Twilhaar J. (2016). The person behind the interpreter: The importance of social and interpersonal competencies in interpreting. Paper presented at the international conference Critical Link 8 – Critical LinkS/ a new generation. Future-proofing interpreting and translating. 29 June – 1 July 2016 Edinburgh. Heriot-Watt University.

Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as interaction. London–New York: Longman.

Wang, K., & Han, C. (2013). Accomplishment in the multitude of counsellors: Peer feedback in translation training. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research, 5(2), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.105202.2013.a05

Wu, S. (2010). Assessing simultaneous interpreting. A study on test reliability and Examiners’ assessment behaviour (Doctoral dissertation). Newcastle University, Newcastle.

Su, W. (2019). Interpreting quality as evaluated by peer students, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2018.1564192

Download

Published : 2021-01-18


HolewikK. (2021). Peer Feedback and Reflective Practice in Public Service Interpreter Training. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 133-159. https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.7809

Katarzyna Holewik 
University of Silesia  Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0874-1770




Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The Copyright Holders of the submitted texts are the Authors. The Reader is granted the rights to use the material available in the TAPSLA websites and pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution - Share Alike  (CC BY-SA 4.0). The user is free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

1. License

The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

2. Author’s Warranties

The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.

If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".

ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).

3. User Rights

Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

4. Co-Authorship

If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.

I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.