Comparing student self-assessment and teacher assessment in korean-english consecutive interpreting
Focus on fidelity and target language
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 29 November 2022
https://doi.org/10.54754/incontext.v2i3.27
https://doi.org/10.54754/incontext.v2i3.27
Abstract
Self-assessment in interpreter training has been recognized as an important tool to motivate learners and help them learn to evaluate their own performance. The literature on this topic shows that students’ self- assessment ratings positively correlate with trainers’ assessments, but there are certain differences between the two groups in terms of interpretation quality assessment. The present study wishes to contribute to research on self- assessment as a learning tool by comparing students’ self-assessments with teacher assessments in terms of a set of quality categories and identifying in what areas students need more guidance to draw pedagogical implications. For data collection, 20 first-year graduate students of Korean-English interpretation conducted self-assessment of their sentence-by-sentence consecutive interpretation in both directions. Two broad quality categories were applied, which are fidlity to the source text and target language adequacy, along with the three sub-categories of fidelity which are omissions, misinterpretations, and additions. An experienced interpreter trainer was recruited to perform assessment of the students’ consecutive interpretations based on the same quality categories. The results show that the students tended to focus more on target language quality in both directions while the teacher applied stricter criteria in evaluating fidelity of the interpretations. For instance, the study found several instances where students marked parts of their interpretations as target language errors while the trainer marked them as fidlity errors such as omissions and misinterpretations. The results suggest that the students were not consistent and reliable detectors of errors in their interpretation performance during self-assessment. This may be partly attributable to the fact that the participants were in the second semester of the two-year long graduate program, and in the process of learning how to evaluate the quality of interpretation accurately. Pedagogical implications of the findings are discussed, including the kind of guidance needed for students to learn how to conduct self-assessment more successfully.
논문초록
>통역 교육에서 자기평가는 학생들에게 동기부여를 제공하고 자신의 통역을 평가 하는 방법을 배울 수 있는 중요한 도구로 여겨진다. 선행연구에 따르면 학생들의 자기평가 가 대체로 교수자 평가와 긍정적인 상관관계를 보이지만 자기평가와 교수자 평가는 여러 면 에서 차이를 보인다. 이에 본 연구에서는 일련의 통역 품질 기준을 중심으로 학생들의 자기 평가와 교수자 평가를 비교하였다. 이를 통해 학생들에게 자기평가에 대한 어떤 종류의 가 이드를 제공해야 하는지 조사하고 교육적 함의를 도출하여 통역 자기평가 관련 연구에 기여 하고자 한다. 데이터 수집을 위해 통번역대학원 한영과 1학년 학생들이 한영 및 영한 방향으 로 문장별 순차통역을 수행한 후 자기평가를 실시하였다. 자기평가 기준은 크게 충실성과 도 착어 품질의 두 가지 기준을 사용하였고, 통역품질의 가장 중요한 기준인 충실성은 누락, 오 역, 추가의 세 가지 세부 기준으로 평가하였다. 또한 경험이 풍부한 통역 교수자가 학생들의 통역에 대하여 동일한 기준으로 평가하였다. 학생 자기평가와 교수자 평가를 비교한 결과 학 생들은 양방향 통역에서 모두 도착어 품질에 더 집중한 반면 교수자는 통역의 충실성 평가에 더 엄격한 기준을 적용한 것으로 드러났다. 예를 들어 학생들이 자기평가에서 도착어 언어 오류라고 표시한 많은 부분들을 교수자는 누락이나 오역 등 충실성 오류라고 평가하였다. 이 러한 결과는 학생들이 자기평가를 수행할 때 일관성 있게 오류를 감지하고 발견하지 못한다 는 점을 보여준다. 본 연구 참여자들이 아직 1학년 2학기이고 통역 품질 평가 방법을 배우는 과정에 있기 때문에 정확한 자기평가를 수행하기 어렵다고 볼 수 있다. 이러한 결과를 바탕 으로 학생들이 효과적으로 자기평가를 수행할 수 있도록 어떤 가이드와 지침이 필요한 지를 포함한 교육적 함의를 논의한다.
References (17)
Araújo, Lara D. (2019). Feedback in conference interpreter education: Perspectives of trainers and trainees. Interpreting, 21(1), 135–150.
Bartlomiejczyk, Magdalena. (2007). Interpreting quality as perceived by trainee interpreters: Self-evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(2), 247–267.
Gile, Daniel. (1995). Fidelity assessment in consecutive interpretation: An experiment. Target, 7(1), 151–164.
Han, Chao and Qin Fan. (2020). Using self-assessment as a formative assessment tool in an English-Chinese interpreting course: Student views and perceptions of its utility. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 28(1), 109–125.
Han, Chao and Mehdi Riazi. (2018). The accuracy of student self-assessments of English-Chinese bidirectional interpretation: A longitudinal quantitative study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 386–398.
Iaroslavschi, Maria. (2011). Becoming an interpreter: Assessment and self-assessment in untutored practice sessions. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(2), 229–249.
Lee, Mi-Gyong. (2017). Suncha tongyeok gyoyukeseo jagipyeonggaeui hyoyongseonge daehan sogo: Hakbu gwajeongeseoeui tongyeok gyoguk saryereul jungsimeuro [Efficacy of self-evaluation as pedagogical tool in undergraduate consecutive interpreting class]. The Journal of Interpretation and Translation Education, 15(3), 57–82.
Lee, Yun-hyang. (2011). Comparing self-assessment and teacher’s assessment in interpreter training. T&I Review, 11, 87–111.
Li, Xiangdong. (2018). Self-assessment as ‘assessment as learning’ in translator and interpreter education: Validity and washback. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(1), 48–67.
Moser, Peter. (1996). Expectations of users of conference interpretation. Interpreting, 1(2), 145–178.
Sawyer, David B. (2004). Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculum and Assessment. John Benjamins Publishing.
Setton, Robin and Andrew Dawrant. (2016). Conference Interpreting: A Trainer’s Guide. John Benjamins Publishing.
