Regarding possible solutions and suggestions, most students questioned thought it was important when providing feedback and the rest ranked it as “neutral”. All students thought it was important when receiving feedback, according to the questionnaire. In the corpus, it was discussed as an important aspect of peer feedback (57.1%). Although the divide between the perception of the students and their feedback is not as pronounced as in other cases, like terminology or register, we can see that they do not discuss it as much as they think. Perhaps they are aware of the problems in their interpretation and their peer’s interpretation, buy they do not know how to address it. In the questionnaire, one respondent mentions that they see their peers as less authoritative than their teachers and this could be a reason. However, as important as identifying issues may be for their learning, it could be very discouraging to know about a problem but not how to solve it.
In this case, it would perhaps be beneficial for students to have a set way to ask a faculty member (be it one of their teachers or a teaching assistant), how to address an issue they have identified and where to find the information or training they need to do so. For example, an editable online file of Interpreting FAQs that students and teachers can access and edit with questions and answers or a periodic FAQ session for which students are encouraged to bring questions and examples about
89
interpretation. This would reinforce the “supervised” aspect of group practice and extend it beyond the instances in which teaching assistants are able to attend ES, as well as provide all students the opportunity to learn from students from other ES groups and teachers outside their language combination.
.
90
7. CONCLUSION 7.1. Overview
The objective of this MA thesis was to offer a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the practice of peer feedback in the context of interpreter training and, specifically, under the Entraînement supervisé framework used in the FTI.
Deliberate practice requires that students work on developing metacognitive skills that will help them to continue improving their interpreting skills through a well-structured goal-oriented practice that allows them to work both autonomously and in groups (Arumi et al., 2006). In that line, studies suggest that when working in groups, peer feedback can help students develop an understanding of the interpreting process and to get valuable information about their own performance from peers that are going through the same process. The question was, how do students apply and view peer feedback in the framework of a deliberate practice approach, such as the FTI’s ES?
To answer the question, I gathered a peer feedback corpus of the consecutive interpreting feedback given by four students inside their own ES group during their second semester to then analyse it and compare it to their answers to a questionnaire regarding the practice of sharing peer feedback during their trainings. The Consecutive ELPs and the ES guide were the basis of the analysis, as it set a timeframe and criteria regarding their peer feedback, serving as a bridge to examine the differences and similarities between the student’s perception of peer feedback and their comments on their peers’
performance during the second semester.
7.2. Findings
The comparison of the corpus and the questionnaire shed light into how the principles of deliberate practice are applied and perceived by the students regarding the development of metacognitive skills in interpreting, autonomous and group learning and goal-setting as a learning tool. It should be noted that the findings are based on a small sample of students and ideally further studies employing the same parameters would provide a richer perspective.
7.2.1. Autonomous and group learning
The findings of the corpus and the questionnaire suggest that students regard peer feedback as a way to learn about the interpreting process. They seem to think that giving and receiving feedback amongst
91
themselves helps them gain insight into the performance of their peers that they can then apply to themselves. This is supported by the amount of times in which peer feedback stimulates discussion about interpreting strategies in general, solutions and possible difficulties that arise in a real-life situation, which allows them to put into words their own thoughts, disagree on how to tackle a difficulty, learn of new ways to face them and ask for advice.
Moreover, students seem to value the feedback from their peers; they found it to be useful to improve their own performance. This applies to both the feedback they receive and the feedback they provide, as seen in the generally constructive tone of the feedback shared during the sessions recorded for the corpus and the answers to the questionnaire.
Students also consider peer feedback a motivational tool that helps them remain positive during a potentially stressful training course. Most of them appreciated the encouragement it provided and pointed out that it was important to keep them motivated.
7.2.2. Goal-setting
If there was an aspect in which the perspective of the students and the peer feedback shared in the corpus significantly differed, that was regarding goal setting. Choosing a personal objective during practice and working towards it is an important part of deliberate practice, as it makes learning more manageable and it helps students focus on different parts of their performance.
In the questionnaire, students seemed to consider goal setting as important to their learning and to peer feedback, but the corpus did not seem to reflect this view, since they seldom discussed their ad hoc personal objective or even voiced it, in many cases. This disconnect has been discussed in the compared analysis and a few reasons have been considered to try to explain this phenomenon. It could be that the group dynamics do not invite the students to set an objective, because of the emphasis put on ES as a space in which students take control of their own learning. As they are freer to set their own rules, it can be harder to maintain the same discipline as in traditional classes. It is possible that there is a lack of internalization of the practical importance of goal setting and further guidance from teachers and TAs is required, so students have a deeper understanding of the need for these objectives and how to define their own.
Another possibility is that the structure of the ES would benefit from greater definition. For example, students have an outline of how to conduct their peer feedback and they tend to follow it (first
self-92
assessment, then original speaker, target language feedback, other comments and advice), so it is possible that creating a schedule and assigning the responsibility of noting the objectives to a member of the group on a rolling basis could help them remember to set objectives and to voice them, the way assistants do when they visit the ES: how to do it and who will be charged with this task could be left for the students to decide on a case by case basis.
7.2.3. Metacognition
Another of the aims of this MA thesis was to understand how students view different aspects of consecutive interpreting indicated in the ELPs and how they apply them to their peer feedback during their ES sessions.
Depending on the categories, there were different overlapping measures about how they perceive the feedback they share with their classmates. Content was the most widely discussed aspect in peer feedback and was rated as very important by the students. However, there is a divide between “main and secondary ideas”, which are discussed often and considered very important, and “logical structure and terminology”, which are seen as equally important but are discussed less frequently, although they are also an integral part of the message. Students may benefit from a stronger emphasis on the latter as it is key to a quality performance (Moser-Mercer, 1996).
Students also consider delivery and pre-interpreting aspects (personal objective, complexity of original, preparation) to be important, but they seldom discuss them during feedback. This suggests that students might not feel as comfortable giving their take on those elements of peers’ performance.
It may be interesting to explore this, if it is due to a lack of understanding of said elements or if students do not know how to improve these elements by themselves.
Moreover, form and style were elements ranked as important by the students taking the questionnaire, but not discussed accordingly during the corpus recordings. Perhaps due to a lack of compatibility regarding target languages in the studied group, but it should be noted that it is not an isolated case.
It could be beneficial in these cases to encourage students who share an active language to organize language-focused ES. This is already attempted between students as “booth meetings” and it would be worth exploring how to use the idea in a more structured and regular manner as part of group training sessions, especially in classes where non-active language compatible groups are common.
93
Advice and solutions were confirmed to be an important part of peer feedback in the corpus and in the students’ opinion, as they appreciate constructive feedback and suggestions on how to improve from their peers.
7.2.4. Perspectives
Finally, since this MA thesis focuses on peer feedback during interpreting practice, it would be interesting to conduct a similar study on simultaneous interpreting peer feedback. It would allow to explore the differences between peer feedback given to performances in the two modes and it would continue to help analyze the impact of peer feedback in conference interpreter training. It would be advisable to conduct during the last semester, as it is when students feel more comfortable with simultaneous interpreting and it is when they start to take the time to listen to each other during their performances in this mode, especially when they can use recordings as an original speech.
7.3. Conclusions
There are still ways in which peer feedback could be improved to be more useful to the students’
learning and performance, for example, by tweaking the present system to try to address shortcomings, such as lack of target language feedback or guidance regarding personal objectives.
However, all the above confirms that peer feedback has a positive impact on the learning process students of conference interpreting undergo during their training, both to improve their performance and to keep a positive outlook on what they yet have to learn, which is helpful to their overall learning both during the program and later on, having acquired the knowledge necessary to keep learning autonomously.
94
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, C. (2008). Peer Assessment: Developing an Assessment Sheet. Retrieved April 2015, from EMCI Interpreting:
http://www.emcinterpreting.org/?q=system/files/Peer%20Assessment%20Sheets%20Adams .pdf
AIIC. (2004, March). Practical guide for professional conference interpreters. Retrieved April 2016, from AIIC: http://aiic.net/page/628/practical-guide-for-professional-conference-interpreters/lang/1#2
AIIC. (2012, April 23). What is interpreting? Retrieved April 10, 2015, from AIIC:
http://aiic.net/node/5/conference-interpreting/lang/1
AIIC. (2014, February 26). Regulation governing admissions and language classification. Retrieved April 2015, 12, from AIIC: http://aiic.net/page/6726
Alcser, K., Antoun, C., Bowers, A., Clemens, J., & Lien, C. (2011, November 28). Ethical Considerations in Surveys. Retrieved July 2015, from Cross-cultural survey guidelines:
http://ccsg.isr.umich.edu/ethics.cfm
Arumi, M., Dogan, A. & Mora Rubio, B. (2006). Metacognition in Interpreting: Tools towards self-regulation. Geneva, Switzerland.
Baigorri Jalón, J. (2000). La interpretación de conferencias: el nacimiento de una profesión, de París a Núremberg. Granada: Comares.
Blandino, J. P. (2014, January). Historia de la visibilidad de la interpretación: una profesión invisible. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from La linterna del traductor:
http://www.lalinternadeltraductor.org/n9/historia-interpretacion.html
Clifford, A. (2015, March 8). Five Tips to “Curate” Your Practice. Retrieved April 12, 2015, from
Glendon Master of Conference Interpreting:
http://www.glendon.yorku.ca/interpretation/fivetips/
Dorine Andrews, B. N. (2003). Electronic Survey Methodology: A Case Study in Reaching Hard-to-Involve Internet Users - I 16(2), 185–210 Copyright © 2003,. (I. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ed.) International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2), 185-210.
95
Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits.
Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review, 363-406.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert performance. Psychological Review, 3, 363-406.
European Masters in Conference Interpreting (EMCI). (2014). FAQ. Retrieved April 12, 2015, from EMCI interpreting: http://www.emcinterpreting.org/?q=node/10
Farghaly, A. (2006, May 6). Handbook for Language Engineers.
Gaiba, F. (1998). The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial. Ottawa, Canada:
University of Ottawa Press.
Groves, R. M., Floyd J. Fowler, J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R.
(2011). Survey Methodology. (J. W. Sons, Ed.)
Hartley, A., Mason, I., Peng, G., & Perez, I. (2003). Peer- and Self-Assessment in Conference Interpreting Training. Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies.
Hoffman, R. R. (1997). The cognitive psychology of expertise and the domain of interpreting.
Interpreting 2:1/2, 189–230.
Horváth, I. (2005). The Cognitive Components of Autonomous Learning in Postgraduate Interpreter Training. Retrieved April 12, 2015, from Independent Learning:
http://www.independentlearning.org/uploads/100836/HOR05034.pdf
Interpreting Department of the University of Geneva. (2016). Virtual Institute of the Interpreting Department of the University of Geneva. Retrieved September 16, 2016, from Virtual Institute of the Interpreting Department of the University of Geneva:
http://virtualinstitute.fti.unige.ch/home/index.php?module=content&type=user&func=view
&pid=2
Baigorri Jalón, J. (2000). La interpretación de conferencias: El nacimiento de una profesión. De París a Núremberg. Granada, Spain: Comares.
Keush, F. (2014). The Influence of Answer Box Format on Response Behavior on List-Style Open-Ended Questions. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 306-322.
96
Kurz, I. (2001). Conference Interpreting: Quality in the Ears of the User. Retrieved April 2016, from érudit: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/003364ar
Lambert, S., & Moser-Mercer, B. (1994). Bridging the Gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. John Benjamins Publishing.
Lin, G. H., & Chieh, P. S. (2009, June). An Investigation into Effectiveness of Peer Feedback. Journal of Applied Foreign Languages Fortune Institute of Technology, 3, 79-87.
Mackintosh, J. (2011, January 1). Interpreters are Made not Born. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 14, 67-80.
Merriam Webster. (2015). Merriam Webster Dictionary. Retrieved April 13, 2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feedback
Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: some methodological issues. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 7, pp. 43-55.
Motta, M. (2011). Facilitating the novice to expert transition: A deliberate practice framework proposal. Studia UBB, pp. 27-42.
Motta, M. (2013). Evaluating a blended tutoring program for the acquisition of interpreting skills:
implementing the theory of deliberate practice. Geneva.
Motta, M., & Drummond, J. (2005). EVITA© – Pilot Project in Virtual Interpreter Training. Maîtrise d'études avancées. Geneva. Retrieved from Archive ouverte UNIGE: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:35392
Nelson, M. & Schunn, C. (2009). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance.
Nilson, L. B. (2002). Helping Students Help Each Other: Making Peer Feedback More Valuable.
Essays on Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy, 14(5), 23-27.
Setton, R. (n.d.). New Demands on Interpreting and the Learning Curve in Interpreter Training. Fifth National Conference on Interpreting Practice, Pedagogy, and Research, (pp. 36-71).
Shanghai.
Setton, R., & Drawant, A. (2016). Conference Interpreting: A Trainer’s Guide. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
97
Shannon, S. V. (2008). Using Metacognitive Strategies and Learning Styles to Create Self-Directed Learners. Institute for Learning Styles Journal, 1, 14-28.
Tiselius, E. (2013, November 26). Experience and Expertise in Conference Interpreting. University of Bergen, Sweden.
Tiselius, E. (2013, November 26). Experience and Expertise in Conference Interpreting. Bergen.
Tiselius, E. (2013). Expertise without Deliberate Practice? The case of Simultaneous Interpreters. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 18, pp. 1-15.
University of Geneva. (2017, March 20). Formation continue. Retrieved March 25, 2017, from University of Geneva: https://www.unige.ch/formcont/masit/
University of Sidney. (n.d.). Self and peer assessment – advantages and disadvantages. Retrieved April 13, 2015, from Faculty of Education and Social Work:
http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/groupwork/docs/SelfPeerAssessment.pdf University of Sussex. (2015). Peer Assessment and Feedback. Retrieved April 11, 2015, from
Teaching and Learning Development Unit:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/tldu/ideas/assessment/peer
Viaggio, S. (2002). The quest for optimal relevance: the need to equip students with a pragmatic compass. In G. Giuliana, & M. Viezzi, Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities : Selected paper (pp. 229-245). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wang, K., & Han, C. (2013). Accomplisment in the multitude of counsellors: Peer feedback in translation training. The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research, 5(2), 62-75.
Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publishing.
Wreally Studios. (n.d.). Transcribe. Retrieved February 2016, from https://transcribe.wreally.com/
Zhang, S. (1995, September). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
Zimmerman, B. (2006). Development and Adaptation of Expertise: The Role of Self-Regulatory Processes and Beliefs. In The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 705-722). Cambridge University Press.
98
9. APPENDIXES
Appendix 1: Corpus (feedback transcripts)
1. March
P2. My objective was to express the structure and to get all the bones in the skeleton in the right order from one to the next, so including the links of the ideas and the red thread so to speak. I'm actually pretty happy with how it went and it helps build confidence back, which is sorely needed and... Yes,
99
so I think I attained my objective. And then I may have got some things wrong actually, but I'm not sure what I got wrong. So that's all for myself. Do we keep recording?
P3. Yes, I'll just take out the parts that are not relevant.
P1. I was happy with the second part.
P2. You were not happy with the second part?
P1. I said I was happy with the second part.
P2. The second part.
P1. I think you had the skeleton.
P2. The skeleton? For the whole thing?
P1. Yeah. The main ideas.
P2. Ok, happy for the second part. The skeleton for the whole thing.
P1. Hum.
P2. (RUSTLING NOTES) I'm trying to find this again.
P1. I think you are going at a much nicer pace than you used to.
P2. Ah.
P1. Cause you don't hesitate that much anymore and you seem more confident. But you still talked for more than... you talked two minutes more.
P2. Wow
P1. And I can't really tell why, because before you hesitated so much. (INAUDIBLE) P2. I know why.
P1. I spoke for six and a half minutes and so did M and you spoke for eight and a half.
P2. I know why.
P1. Why?
P2. Because I added a lot of fillers. I repeated the same ideas with other words. Kind of like to because I was like unhappy with the English so sometimes the first time I expressed it in English I wanted to
100
say better in English and sometimes because I was like "oh, let me decode the first part of my note while…”
(LAUGHTER)
P4. Yeah, that happens.
P1. One thing that I noticed is that you strayed of fact?) which I didn't do
P2. That's true! And I was kind of telling myself while I was doing that "wait a minute, she didn't say this".
P1. And you still add stuff.
P2. No.
P1. And the first part, there were some relation problems. Hum.
P2. Oh, that's bad. So I...
P1. You did have the skeleton, it was more in the first ideas, there were some things that were...
P2. Disjointed.
P1. Confused. For example, at the beginning you said that I am going to talk about the report. I don’t think I said that.
P2. I’m still trying to…
P1. Maybe.
P2. ¡Yes! And it... it became a… a noun. I think what you can do is just add a “d” to it, to… I’ll do
P2. ¡Yes! And it... it became a… a noun. I think what you can do is just add a “d” to it, to… I’ll do