A Jury of Your Peers
Peer assessment in consecutive interpretation pedagogy
Published online: 1 April 2013
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.11.1.04lim
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.11.1.04lim
Abstract/Résumé
Un moment important du cours d`interprétation consécutive est la discussion entre les étudiants suite à la prestation d’un condisciple. Si dans d’autres domaines il y a eu de nombreuses recherches sur l’évaluation par les pairs, en matière d’interprétation elles sont encore rares. Le présent article décrit tout d’abord le processus d’évaluation par les pairs tel qu’il se déroule dans un cours d`interprétation consécutive, puis présente les résultats d’un sondage réalisé auprès d’étudiants et de diplômés de la GSIT, HUFS, visant à comprendre comment l’évaluation est perçue par les étudiants et tenter d’en améliorer l’efficacité.
References (13)
Bartlomiejczyk, M. (2007). Interpreting quality as perceived by trainee interpreters: Self-evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(2), 247–267.
Bouzidi, L., Jaillet, A. (2009). Can online peer assessment be trusted? Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 257–268. Retrieved from [URL]
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231–235.
Clifford, A. (2001). Discourse, theory, performance-based assessment: Two tools for professional interpreting. Meta, 46(2), 365–378.
De Grez, L., Valcke, M. & Roozen, I. (2009). How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? Computers & Education, 53(1), 112–120. Retrieved from [URL]
Falchikov, N. & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322. Retrieved from [URL]
Gile, D. (2001). Quality assessment in conference interpreting: Methodological issues. In Angela Collados Ais, Maria Manuela Fernandez Sanchez & Daniel Gile (eds.) La evaluacion de la calidad en interpretacion: Investigacion, 109–123. Granada: Editorial Comares.
Kurz, I. (1993). Conference interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 51, pp. 13–21. Retrieved from ([URL])
Liu, N-F & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3),.279–290.
Nicol, D.J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. Retrieved from [URL]
Pöchhacker, F. (2010). The role of research in interpreter education. Translation & Interpreting, 2(1). Retrieved from [URL]
Pöchhacker, F. & Zwischenberg, C. (2010). Survey on quality and role: Conference interpreters’ expectations and self-perceptions. Retrieved from [URL]
Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F. & Moerkerke, G. (1998). Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer- and co-assessment. Learning Environments Research, 1(3), 293–319. Retrieved from [URL]
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Fan, Jiashun, Pingping Hu & Zhuxuan Zhao
Han, Chao & Xiao Zhao
Han, Chao
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.