Best Practices in Consecutive Interpreting Practice Groups: Making your group work

(1)

Master

Reference

Best Practices in Consecutive Interpreting Practice Groups: Making your group work

MARTIN, Conor Henry

Abstract

Group work is an essential element in Conference Interpreting training courses. Students are recommended to spend large amounts of time in group practice, and yet, there is no dedicated, student-focussed resource to aid them in tackling this complex part of their training.

This thesis proposes such an aid in the form of an interactive learning resource delivered through Articulate Storyline 360. This module aims to provide guidelines to best practices in group practice, focussing specifically on Consecutive Interpreting group practice. This paper first identifies pertinent guidelines and theories through an extensive review of the relevant literature, before detailing the content, creation process and user test of the aforementioned module. Future avenues for study raised by this paper include the production of similar modules on Feedback, Journaling, and Simultaneous Interpreting Group Practice.

MARTIN, Conor Henry. Best Practices in Consecutive Interpreting Practice Groups:

Making your group work. Master : Univ. Genève, 2018

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:131158

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

(2)

Conor Martin

Best Practices in Consecutive Interpreting Practice Groups

Making your group work

Mémoire présenté à la Faculté de Traduction et d’Interprétation Pour l’obtention du MA en Interprétation de Conférence

Directrice de mémoire : Manuela Motta Juré : Lucía Ruiz Rosendo

Janvier 2018

(3)

STUDENT INFORMATION:

Conor Martin

Faculté de Traduction et d'Interprétation University of Geneva 40, boulevard du Pont-d'Arve,

CH-1211 Genève 4, Switzerland

(4)

ABSTRACT

Group work is an essential element in Conference Interpreting training courses. Students are recommended to spend large amounts of time in group practice, and yet, there is no dedicated, student-focussed resource to aid them in tackling this complex part of their training. This thesis proposes such an aid in the form of an interactive learning resource delivered through Articulate Storyline 360. This module aims to provide guidelines to best practices in group practice, focussing specifically on Consecutive Interpreting group practice. This paper first identifies pertinent guidelines and theories through an extensive review of the relevant literature, before detailing the content, creation process and user test of the aforementioned module. Future avenues for study raised by this paper include the production of similar modules on Feedback, Journaling, and Simultaneous Interpreting Group Practice.

KEY WORDS:

Group Work, Consecutive Interpreting, Best Practices, Practice Groups, Deliberate Practice

(10)

1. Introduction

1.1 Aim

The aim of this thesis is to identify and provide guidelines to best practices for Consecutive Interpreting practice groups. The identification of such best practices shall first be performed through a review of existing literature from various fields, ranging from works on Interpreter Training and Group Work to Feedback and Learning, all viewed through the prism of a Conference Interpreting student’s perspective (that of the author). The identification of these best practices will make it possible to provide guidelines to Conference Interpreting students on how best to conduct their group practice for Consecutive Interpreting. These guidelines will be delivered through a learning resource which will ultimately take the form of an interactive module (henceforth “the module”) produced in Articulate Storyline 360 (a piece of software designed for producing interactive educational resources).

This paper, and the accompanying module, will focus solely on Consecutive Interpreting and the associated best practice in group work. Just as the two main modes of Interpreting in and of themselves (Consecutive Interpreting and Simultaneous Interpreting), although holding the same objective, are radically different in terms of execution, so too do they require radically different approaches to their group practice, despite the objective of that group practice being essentially the same in each case. As a result, given that this paper focusses uniquely on Consecutive Interpreting, a similar guide focussing on Simultaneous would, no doubt, be of great benefit to students.

Given the very considerable amount of time that Conference Interpreting students are expected to spend on group work and the absence of any specifically student-targeted resource dedicated to this subject, the author, having experienced the initial muddy waters of group work for Consecutive practice (see 2.4), believes that such a module could be a very useful resource both for students beginning their studies, and for those who have already spent some time in the field.

(11)

1.2 Research Question

The fundamental research question for this thesis is “what habits can be adopted to lead to productive and constructive group practice”? This research question is the fruit of a good deal of reflection, and moves away from an original unrealistic notion that there could be factors allowing for a single practice session to be both productive and constructive for all members at all times.

Consequently, the second iteration of the research question seeks to identify factors which establish productive and constructive group practice for all members in the long term.

Given that the terms productive and constructive are somewhat vague, however, it is necessary to establish our working definitions before continuing:

1) PRODUCTIVE: Building on the views of Cohen (1994) and Webb (2010), productive group practice is practice which achieves the goals it sets itself. In the specific case of an

academic Conference Interpreting programme, productive group practice could also be measured in terms of academic progress, in that students engaging in such practice will see their marks rise in line with an institution’s expectations.

2) CONSTRUCTIVE: Building on work by Cohen (1994), Boud and Molloy (2013) and Dresel (2015), constructive group work can be considered as group work which increases self- regulatory practices (e.g. reflection on the session, journal use) in participants. Constructive practice also seeks to maintain motivation and to encourage higher-level thinking.

At this point it is important to point out that measuring how productive and / or constructive a group has been falls far beyond the scope of this thesis, and as such the paper and module will focus simply on what practices both the literature and lived experience demonstrate to be productive and constructive.

In order to steer the creation of the module and answer the rest of the research question, the paper will be guided by five main threads:

(12)

i) To build on already established guidelines:

As mentioned above, the content of the module will largely be informed by a synthesis of guidelines provided in other works on effective group work and on Consecutive Interpreting training. The essential components of these guidelines will be examined in the Literature Review (see Chapter 2).

ii) To insist on the importance of objectives and how to properly give feedback:

As will be discussed, proper objective setting is essential for good group practice.

However, good objectives fall flat unless coupled with good feedback. Consequently, although this thesis is not and does not claim to be a guide to effective feedback, it will touch on some basic guidelines on both feedback and objective setting as part of best practice.

iii) To challenge preconceived notions of a “productive use of time”:

At times, the guidelines provided in Interpreting Training guides can appear counterintuitive at best and counterproductive at worst. The module will attempt to explain some of these guidelines in such a way that the productive nature of the advice remains clear.

iv) To provide ideas of how to avoid stagnation and maintain motivation:

At times demotivation is a serious factor in the prevention of progress. The module will aim to encourage users to experiment with and vary group practice to stimulate learning and maintain motivation, and provide users with some examples of how to do so.

v) To consider group work as a Deliberate Practice activity:

As the module will emphasise, group work requires constant effort on the part of participants. As such it is not just a vehicle for a Deliberate Practise exercise, but can also be seen as a recipient of that approach. To a certain extent, the articles referenced in this thesis can themselves be seen as a reflection of Deliberate Practice being applied to Group Work, with each author identifying an area for improvement in the field, and suggesting how such improvement could be achieved.

(13)

2. Literature Review and Context

2.1 Group work as a tool for developing expertise, and its application to Interpreting

It has long been established that becoming an interpreter is a complex task, and one which requires years of training and practice which no amount of natural talent can make up for (Moser-Mercer, 2008; Setton & Dawrant, 2016). This, of course, is in no way unique to Interpreting, and many other fields also require great deals of training and practice to reach an expert level beyond mere talent;

one might think of doctors, professional sportspeople, teachers, or any number of other professions.

Given that so many fields operate in this way, some researchers in the past went so far as to say there is no such thing as talent, an opinion voiced particularly at the dawn of Deliberate Practice research lead by Ericsson and others (Ericsson, Krampe, Tesch-Römer, 1993). These authors insist that becoming an expert in any given task is purely a matter of time and effort, (Ericsson, Krampe, Tesch-Römer, 1993; Ericsson 2004) whilst adhering to the principles of Deliberate Practice. Current thought, however, is not quite so extreme; in 2014, Macnamara et al wrote an article demonstrating that despite the popularity of Ericsson et al’s thesis and its unquestionable contribution to the field, Deliberate Practice was but one of a series of factors which affected the development of expertise, and by no means the most important (Macnamara et al, 2014). Modern researchers are also more forgiving towards the role of talent, at least with regard to Interpreting; indeed, in their recent twin guide books on Conference Interpreting, Setton and Dawrant argue that “interpreters are both born and made” (2016, p.47), acknowledging that talent does have some part to play in the acquisition of expertise, however small. Although the “born” element is outside the control of both students and teachers, how interpreters are, or rather, should be “made” has been widely discussed, and the best way to apply methods such as Deliberate Practice in the field of Interpreter Training has been studied at length by researchers such as Moser-Mercer (2008), Aldea (2008), Motta (2011, 2013) and Setton and Dawrant (2016).

Distilled to its basic steps, Deliberate Practice is very simple: learners define an element of their performance they would like to improve, or identify an element of their skill they wish to master. They

(14)

set themselves an objective to overcome the problem or learn the skill, perform the activity with the objective in mind, and repeat until the problem is overcome or the skill learnt. This is to oversimplify, however, as both Deliberate Practice and other learning models such as Cognitive Apprenticeship (Collins et al., 1989, Dennen and Burner, 2008) and Scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978) insist upon the presence of other individuals, either peers or experts, for the system to work.

These other individuals are required to provide feedback to the learner on how they progress and what they could change in order to do better. In the Cognitive Apprenticeship and Scaffolding models, experts serve not only as feedback providers but as models for learners to emulate. What is more, socio-constructivist researchers such as Järvelä (1995) view the phenomenon of learning as a social interaction, stating that “[students] should develop their conceptual understanding through social interaction and collaboration in the culture of the authentic domain activity” (1995, p. 240).

This idea has been reconsidered more recently by Coulson and Harvey, who say that “without guidance, structure, and support, learners may be overwhelmed” (2013, p.403) again indicating that learning requires social interaction to be successful. These four elements together, Deliberate Practice, Cognitive Apprenticeship, Scaffolding and learning as a social interaction, make a strong case for small, reciprocal (Järvelä, 1995) training groups, and as such it is no surprise that such groups are recommended by many Interpreter Training experts such as Aldea (2008), Motta (2013), and Setton and Dawrant (2016). The European Masters in Conference Interpreting (EMCI), a consortium of various universities offering such qualifications, also stipulates that “students shall devote time to group practice of Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpreting”, recommending that, in addition to the recommended 400 hours of class time, a further 400 hours be dedicated to group or individual practice (http://www.emcinterpreting.org/?q=node/13 , under point 4). In the specific case of Interpreting, group work and real-life, human-to-human communication also bring us closer to replicating the authentic domain activity sought by socio-constructivism, again underlining the benefit which group work can have for learners. Given the many hours that student interpreters spend in these groups and the benefit which it can have on their learning, it is equally unsurprising that the Interpreter Training researchers mentioned above all provide rough guidelines of how group

(15)

work should be carried out, and it is these guidelines which shall be used as a basis for the best practices put forward in this thesis.

2.2 The groups themselves: structure, composition and the need for preparation

The briefest of scans of literature on groups and group work in a very wide variety of fields reveals that just throwing students together and expecting miracles is naïve at best and unintelligent at worst;

as Webb (2010) states, “simply placing students in small groups does not guarantee that learning will take place” (2010, p. 636). As recognised by Hubscher-Davidson (2008), this sort of approach is extremely unproductive, and apart from yielding little in the way of results, is demotivating for the students involved. Although it is clear that the individual nature of the group activities will vary from subject to subject, thought must be given to how the groups are put together and how group activity should be structured (Jacques, 2003). In the Interpreter Training guides mentioned above, special attention is paid, particularly by Setton and Dawrant (2016), to the structure of the group session, i.e. setting of objectives before the start of a group session, performing an activity, and providing feedback on the activity. Only then, they say, can the students hope to make the most of the exercise.

This can be seen as building upon early notions of productivity put forward by Cohen, who argues that productivity can only be considered relative to the group’s goal(s) (1994, p.3); if the group achieves the goal(s) it set itself, then it has been productive. Webb completes the virtuous (or vicious) circle, stating that “in a group or cooperative goal structure, group members can attain their own personal goals only if the group is successful” (2010, p. 636). Both authors, however, agree on the need for preparation for group practice, not in the sense of preparing level-appropriate material (which Interpreter Trainers would also insist upon), but in the sense of “training for cooperation”

(Cohen, 1994, p. 30). In this way, learners would come to sessions prepared to work with and challenge one another with a view to progressing their learning.

Group composition is another intriguing topic, and although it is not something which students often get to control, it is important for their learning. It goes without saying that students should pay attention to how they put groups together, although, as indicated by Colbeck, Campbell and

(16)

Bjorklund (2000), good, if not better results can be obtained from groups not put together by the students. According to these researchers, students’ tendencies to pick the same friends to be their teammates in every group task “reduced their opportunities to work with individuals of different perspectives, backgrounds, or experiences” (2000, p.81), whereas selecting more diverse groups would have been more beneficial for their learning. The notion of diversity, however, is a complex one, and although Interpreter Trainers frequently focus on group composition in terms of diversity of language combinations, this is but one of many factors involved. For example, Curşeu and Pluut (2011) undertake a thorough statistical analysis of how group composition affects what they call

“cognitive complexity”, with the understanding that more cognitively complex groups learn better.

They conclude that a diversity of opinions and backgrounds amongst group members leads to higher cognitive complexity, and thus better learning, but can cause conflict amongst members. Webb (2010) also identifies this issue, stating that although groups progress best when having to resolve conflicts of opinions, an excess or lack of this conflict can cause problems. Cohen (1994), too, acknowledges that conflict resolution is an essential social skill for productive group practice.

2.3 Feedback and self-regulation

Although the researchers mentioned above focus on what we might call “positive conflict”, the Deliberate Practice approach insists upon what can sometimes become the double-edged sword of feedback; a seriously useful tool for learning, but a major stumbling block for many students. Boud and Molloy (2013) mark a major shift away from the traditional, top-down feedback model, encouraging what they describe as “feedback mark two”: a more dialogue-based, self-regulatory kind of feedback. They encourage what they term a “feedback loop”, where it should be demonstrated that a student benefits from the feedback they receive. Various different researchers have contributed to this new-generation feedback, including Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick (2006), with their recommendations for feedback-giving, Hattie and Timperly’s (2007) three questions, and Gielen et al.’s (2010) seven tenets of constructive feedback. However, an MA thesis investigation undertaken by Serrano Soler (2016) revealed that there is a disconnect between what Interpreting students in particular, at least in her institution, expect or want to hear in feedback they receive, and what they usually or like to include in feedback they give. Although Serrano Soler was discussing

(17)

one very particular set of students and a very specific time, the points she raises are indeed worth bearing in mind more generally. As McClean et al. (2014) point out, students expect and indeed require different kinds of feedback in different situations, and thus a disconnect such as the one revealed by Serrano Soler is not indicative of groups functioning at the highest possible level.

Serrano Soler discusses many possible causes of this disconnect, but a fundamental reason might be that picked up on by Hartley et al (2004), again looking specifically at Interpreting. She states that

“in addition to the arcane language used when discussing criteria, the lack of precision and clarity in the description of individual quality attributes is confusing for trainee interpreters” (2004, p.9); it is only logical that the accurate and useful feedback required in the Deliberate Practice model cannot be given if the ideal (expert) characteristics (in other words, the objectives), are not clear. Echoing earlier calls for training for cooperation, many of the authors mentioned above call for students to be trained in the giving of feedback as well, something which Interpreter Training researchers such as Motta (2011) and Setton and Dawrant (2016) try to do by means of rough guides to giving feedback included in their publications.

Despite the difficulties in providing feedback, its benefits are clear. Nicol et al. (2014) clearly show how students’ own opinions of both giving and receiving feedback, with particular emphasis on giving, indicate that providing feedback allows them to improve their own learning and think more critically about their own performance. This corresponds to McConlogue’s (2014) view that giving feedback is a more complex, and therefore more useful, activity than passively receiving it. Group practice which makes use of this sort of feedback and these sorts of interactions will eventually increase what De Bruijn-Smolders et al (2014) describe as students’ calibration competence, that is to say their ability to match their perceptions of their performance with the reality of their performance.

This will ultimately lead to an improvement in individual students’ abilities to regulate their own learning, because, as Boud and Molloy (2013) indicate, the very act of providing feedback to a peer requires a degree of self-regulation. It is, however, important that self-regulation is not seen as a final step on the learning ladder or a goal to be achieved; Fullana et al (2014), going further than Boud and Molloy, quite simply state that “without reflection on experience, there can be no learning”

(18)

(2014, p.2). That said, students can learn to be better at self-regulation, perhaps by adopting some of the self-regulation processes described by Dresel et al (2015), or perhaps through use of tools such as journals as recommended generally by Boud (2001) or, more specifically for trainee interpreters, by Harmer (2002).

2.4 Context

As mentioned in the introduction, this thesis involves a synthesis of ideas collected from a Literature Review and “viewed through the prism of a Conference Interpreting student’s perspective” (see 1.1). Before proceeding with a proper presentation of the module, then, the context of the work must be made clear.

The author of this paper is a final-year student on the MA in Conference Interpreting programme at the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting (FTI) of the University of Geneva (UNIGE), a member university of the EMCI. Through this experience, the author was exposed not only to the notion of Group Work, but also to the Articulate Storyline 360 software.

In the same vein, it must be acknowledged that inspiration for structuring this paper was drawn from the work of López Sánchez (2017), who, in her MA thesis, also made use of an Articulate Storyline 360 module. As such, her paper served as an excellent guide for how to approach writing about such a module in an academic context.

It must also be stated that, as part of the Masters programme, the author has been engaged in compulsory group work sessions on a weekly basis, for which the entire year group was prepared via an introduction session with the Faculty Teaching Assistants. The Assistants provided the group with an overview to Deliberate Practice, as well as some guidelines to best practice in group work, in the form of a PowerPoint Presentation (Amos, Keller, Arbona, 2016). The presentation also focussed on practicalities specific to the system at the FTI (re. booking rooms etc.).

Recognising the fact that the author’s individual experience is limited to the UNIGE / FTI context, this paper and the accompanying module attempt to bear in mind that there are multiple realities in Interpreter Training, and the guidelines proposed are therefore based primarily on the wide-ranging literature detailed above, although contextualised by a particular institutional experience.

(19)

3. Making your group work: The Module

3.1 General description

The main focus of this paper is the interactive learning resource produced in Articulate Storyline 360 (the module) which shares its title with this paper. However, beyond having the aim of simply providing best practices, the module was constructed on the basis of various specific objectives (linked to the five threads of the research question):

- To provide users with a general overview of the relevant theory (in practice a summarised, more accessible version of the Literature Review).

- To provide users with the necessary information to undertake and engage in productive and constructive group practice (threads one, two, and three).

- To motivate users to get involved in group work (thread four).

- To develop an understanding that group work is not to be taken for granted, and could benefit from a Deliberate Practice approach (thread five).

The module, given its pedagogical nature and rather specific subject matter, is primarily directed at a very specific usership, namely students beginning a Consecutive Interpreting course. However, the module may also be useful for more experienced Interpreting students or professionals, or any other individual interested in developing good group practice.

The entire module takes between 30 – 45 minutes to complete, depending on how long the user takes to move through the slides. Users consulting the module for a second time, for example, would, most likely, use it simply to consult whatever section they were interested in seeing again.

The text and its narration are delivered in English. As well as being the author’s mother tongue (thus avoiding potential issues in translation), English, as the global lingua franca, allows the module to reach the largest possible audience at this stage without the need for translation.

The first phases of the creation of the module began in mid-July 2017 with the final touches added and completed in December 2017. The creation process is outlined in more substantive detail in section 3.3.

3.2 The Module itself

3.2.1 Structure

The module itself has a quadripartite structure (figure 1), in which each of the four sections deals with a different aspect of best practice. The in-module narration recommends that first-time users

(20)

follow a particular order with the purpose of a) making sure that the users can be made comfortable with the way the module works via deliberately positioned and gradually less frequent instructions and b) making sure that users have the information they need to progress through the sections. That said, each section is largely self-contained, meaning that users could complete the module in any order, or revisit just one section without having to move through the module in its entirety. This attempts to address the needs of more experienced users, or those who might want to consult only one or two particular slides. Each slide also contains a menu button, which allows users to return to the menu at any time in the process. As detailed below, the content of each section is presented in as interactive a manner as possible, in order to maintain user interest.

3.2.2 A Bit of Theory

In the first part of the module, users are provided with a brief overview of the relevant theoretical concepts which back up the best practices later developed in the module. This includes the notion of Deliberate Practice and how it applies to Interpreting, Group Work theory, and the practicalities of

Figure 1: The four sections of the module

Figure 2: Clicking to find out more information

(21)

practice (who with, how often etc.). This is the most information-heavy part of the module, and as a result is somewhat more passive for the user, who receives the information via on-screen text and narration. All the same, efforts are made to deliver the information in as interactive a way as possible as shown in figure 2, whereby users can click on items within the slides to get more information.

This section also includes a clickable Deliberate Practice model (figure 3), which explains the Deliberate Practice process step by step as the user clicks on each box. A dynamic model was

chosen over a static one because it allows for this step-by-step effect to be more clearly demonstrated, as well as offering an interactive opportunity to maintain user interest. The Deliberate Practice model presented in figure 3 is featured a second time later in the module, under the Reviewing Things section (3.2.5), where it is adapted specifically to the context of group work.

3.2.3 Dos and Don’ts

This is the key section of the module in the sense that it offers users a direct guide to conducting group practice. In order to make the content more accessible to users, this section invites users to guide Marley, pictured below in figure 4, through the muddy waters of Consecutive Interpreting group practice. The inclusion of the character of Marley and solving her problems calls on users to think

Figure 3: The interactive Deliberate Practice model

(22)

actively about the information they are receiving and how it can be used, rather than simply absorbing it passively.

With regard to the specific content, this section looks at what users should be doing before, during and after group practice, addressing topics such choosing when to have practice sessions and how often, a suggested order of business for the sessions themselves, and introduces the notion of self- reflexion and journaling. In line with thread three of the research question, this section of the module also contains a slide challenging preconceived notions surrounding how to write a speech. In this case, the erroneous ideas are presented as quotes which, when clicked upon, are debunked.

On the whole, this section is considerably more interactive than the theory section. For example, in addition to the clicking for more information feature demonstrated in figure 2, this section contains several quiz slides, where the user must choose the (very obvious) correct answer from three options (figure 4). Answering correctly grants the user access to the rest of the slide.

3.2.4 Challenges

As the title indicates, the Challenges section presents users with various types of challenges which they might face when engaging in group practice with others, in particular dealing with feedback, managing conflict, and maintaining motivation. In the scripting phase of the module creation (see 3.3.1), it became rapidly apparent that this section, in particular the slides on Feedback, would need to involve more than some text on a slide with a narration. Almost all the Interpreter Training guides featured in the Literature Review offer guidance on how to give feedback, and it is often the case that students are aware, in theory, of how feedback should and shouldn’t be given. The reality of the situation, however, is very different (Serrano Soler, 2016). For that reason, the module adopts an innovative approach: firstly, bad feedback is presented in a deliberately exaggerated fashion in four

Figure 4: Answering a question correctly

(23)

videos. (figure 5) Users are asked to identify potential feedback errors while watching the videos, and can check their answers after having watched. (figure 6). The following slide, entitled “Good Feedback”, attempts to provide the correct response to the situations raised in the videos (figure 7).

Figure 5: Bad feedback videos

Figure 6: Feedback sins are detailed

(24)

This section also provides users two PDF files to print and consult when needed, the first being a summary of the feedback guidelines included both in the module and synthesised from the literature (see Appendix 1), and the second being a list of activities for variation (see Appendix 2), collected from the author’s own experience, the experience of other students and ideas provided by professors.

3.2.5 Reviewing Things

The final section in the module is also the shortest. As well as introducing users briefly to the notion of self-reflexive activities (such as journal-writing) and explicitly discussing the notion of approaching group work as a Deliberate Practice activity, this section also serves as a review of the module as a whole. For example, this section features yet another Deliberate Practice model, this time adapted specifically to Group Work. This not only falls under thread five of the research question, but also shows users how to take the notion of Deliberate Practice in the abstract and apply it to something specific (figure 8).

3.3 The creation process

3.3.1 Pre-Module stage

The aim of the pre-module stage was to make sure that all of the preliminary thinking had been completed with regard to the content of the module and how it was to be presented. At this stage, three simultaneous processes were taking place.

Figure 7: Good feedback explained

(25)

1) Scripting

In this stage, a text document was produced containing a storyboard for each slide. In each case, the storyboard would indicate the slide title and number, any on-screen text, narration, images or effects which were already planned. In so doing, the module content could be easily established and made ready without the added complexity of working directly onto the Articulate Storyline 360 programme.

2) Finding images

In this process, images were found to go alongside the information to be presented both onscreen and in the narration. This was quite a time-consuming process as the images had to be sufficiently relevant to the content so as to be useful, but not so complex as to be visually distracting. The images used in the thesis were obtained entirely from copyright-free sources such as pixabay.com.

3) Writing the narration

Writing the narration was an equally time-consuming task, if not more so. Given that Interpreting students are not necessarily Interpreting researchers (nor might they have any desire to be) and given that thread four of the research question stresses motivation, a key element of the narration was striking an appropriate tone. It had to be respectful of the content and faithful to the information, whilst at the same time delivering it in an entertaining way without being long-winded. The initial review of the narration made clear that the first drafts had been written to be read, and not written to

Figure 8: Deliberate Practice applied to group work

(26)

be heard, and as a result, the second version of the narration was a lot briefer and much more conversational.

It was through these three simultaneous processes that an initial completed storyboard was produced, which would be used then to create the module in the module stage.

3.3.2 Module stage

The module stage involved transforming the storyboard document into a functioning module in Articulate Storyline 360.This, again, involved three main processes, although on this occasion they were sequential, rather than simultaneous.

1) First build of the module

The first build of the module was a very time consuming exercise. Articulate Storyline 360 is a very powerful tool, but it does take a while to get used to the different features available and the way the software works. Given that the module was to be as interactive and as engaging as possible, this meant rapidly acquiring a mastery of the layer, trigger, timeline, state and animation functions of the programme, all visible on figure 9. However, this mastery did not always come straight away; on some occasions solutions could be found by checking the fora on the Articulate website (http://www.articulate.com), but on other occasions certain issues had to be left to one side until a solution became apparent with further work. This was very much the case for the Deliberate Practice models (figure 3 and figure 8), where a technical issue caused both layers of text to appear simultaneously if users clicked boxes after having performed the initial click through of the slide. After

Figure 9: Screenshot of edit mode.

(27)

increased experience with the layer feature (through continued practice), the solution became clear, and was successfully implemented.

2) Rethinking some aspects

In this stage, after the first build of the module had been completed, it became clear that certain aspects of the module were not up to scratch and were in need of review. For example, the narration was too dense and slow, which drained interest from the material and slowed the pace of the module considerably. Consequently, in this stage, the narration was reviewed and made more suitable for aural consumption. This stage also saw some slides lose some of their on-screen content, and an increase in interactivity across the module. These two changes often went hand in hand – it was possible, for example, to take textual information off the main slide, and include it on a text box accessed by clicking an element on the main slide (cf figure 2). After this stage was complete, the module felt instantly more professional and easier to use.

3) Recording and timing

Up until this point, both the videos and the narrations were absent from the module. In this stage, the narrations were recorded and edited using Audacity (a sound recording programme), and the videos recorded with a laptop camera and edited with the Articulate Storyline 360 video editor. Once the sound and videos were recorded, they were imported into the module, and subsequently coordinated with the rest of the slides and animations via the timeline feature (figure 10).

3.3.3 Streamlining stage

The final stage of the creation of the module, before moving to the user test, involved a streamlining process. The aim of this process was to make sure that the module was as user-friendly as possible, and that any preliminary bugs had been sorted out before going to test.

Figure 10: The timeline feature

(28)

Throughout the module creation process, it was clear that the module’s narration was both too slow and used too often. One of the primary activities of the streamlining stage involved adding on-screen instructions, as seen in figure 11. This had the double benefit not only of making the module more user friendly and intuitive (given that users no longer had to wait and listen to find out what it was they needed to do) but also allowed for the parts of the narration which had previously been used for instructions to be deleted, thus saving time and energy. Once this step had been completed, the narration was then pared down even further and the necessary parts were rerecorded, again using the Audacity programme. The final stage of the streamlining process was to ensure that the on- screen text was not excessive or distracting. This was, for the large part, a successful process, although some slides went to test still a little text heavy, for fear of leaving out useful information.

3.3.4 Test stage

Once the module had been planned, built, and streamlined, it was put forward for a user test, discussed in Chapter 4.

3.3.5 Update stage

Based on the results obtained from the user test, the module was updated to respond to some of the suggestions and comments. A discussion of this stage can be found in section 4.5.

Figure 11: On-screen instructions

(29)

4. The user test

4.1 Overview

As mentioned in the previous section, after the module was fully completed following the stages outlined in section 3.3, it was put to a user test. The aim of this test was purely to evaluate whether or not the module was easy and pleasant to use; consequently, the relevance or utility of the content of the module was not evaluated, and participants were kindly asked to refrain from including such information in their answers to the questionnaire part of the test.

The test consisted of a click-through of the module, where users were asked to ensure that all links and clickable content were working as intended, followed by an online questionnaire (see Appendix 3) delivered by Google Forms, in which respondents answered a series of questions on the module.

The questionnaire had five sections, (1: Aesthetics, 2: Usability, 3: External Elements, 4: The User Experience, 5: General Comments), each requiring users to provide their opinion on one particular aspect of the module.

The test was carried out on the premises of the FTI in the University of Geneva on 11^th December 2017 in an Interpreting classroom. Participants sat in booths individually and completed the click- through and subsequent questionnaire. The module was made accessible to the participants after having been exported into HTML5 format (using the Articulate Storyline 360 publish feature), and the questionnaire was accessed via the Google Forms link sharing tool. The faculty IT technician was instrumental in assuring the smooth running of the IT part of the test, ensuring that all booths had functioning access to both parts of the test.

The participants in the user test were the 2017 intake for the FTI Masters in Conference Interpreting (a grand total of nine students). This group was chosen for various reasons:

- The participants are still at the stage in the Masters when the course focusses entirely on Consecutive Interpreting, so the content, although not being evaluated in the test, would at least be somewhat relevant to the participants.

- None of the participants have a particularly strong relationship with the author, therefore there was no risk of participants feeling obliged to answer positively or being influenced by their relationship with the author.

- The group contained students with a range of ages, experiences, and different mother tongues, meaning that any common results in the questionnaire are likely not to be attributable to one specific social factor.

4.2 The Process

On the test day, participants (eight out of the nine first-year students) arrived at the agreed place and time, whereupon the author explained to them the details of the test, and the reason behind it.

(30)

It was made clear that the test was entirely voluntary. It was explained to participants that they were to undertake a “click-through” of the module – that is to say, clicking through the different slides of the module, making sure that all the content was accessible and worked as intended. If participants decided to use the module as a learning resource (rather than simply testing the usability), that was entirely up to them, though they were kindly requested not to mention any opinions they had on the utility or appropriateness of the content in the questionnaire.

After the initial explanations, participants entered the booths and completed both the module and the questionnaire. All users filled in the questionnaire immediately after completing the module, though they were offered the opportunity to complete it at a later date, since Google Forms automatically sends the results to the questionnaire creator. There were no hiccups in the execution neither of the module nor the questionnaire, and all participants seemed content upon leaving the booths.

4.3 The Results

Below are the results for the questionnaire. The questions in this section are listed as they were presented to the users (i.e., before being updated). Any written responses have been left exactly as they were provided. Questions with answers in the form of a five point Likert scale range from

“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

Figure 12: Questionnaire results - Question 1

(31)

(32)

fr

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

Figure 35:Questionnaire results - Question 24

(39)

Figure 36:Questionnaire results - Question 25

(40)

(41)

4.4 Discussion of the results

Having collated the results of the user test, these were analysed to see how the module could be improved in terms of user-friendliness and user experience. Below is a presentation of the discussion of the results.

4.4.1 Aesthetics

On the whole, the users were pleased with the aesthetics of the module – only one user did not agree with the statement “Overall, this module was aesthetically pleasing”. More concretely, regarding the closed-answer questions, only one user responded below neutral on whether or not the slides were “clearly presented and easy to read”, and in all cases the majority of participants (6 or above) believed that the font size, colour scheme, positioning of pictures and text, and animations / effects contributed to the clear presentation. In terms of the amount of visual information on the slides, all users agreed that very few / no slides presented insufficient information. However, the picture was more mixed on the other side of the scale. Only two users reported that there was never an excess of visual information, with the largest number of respondents (4, i.e. 50% of the group) stating that the visual information was excessive on a certain number of slides. This confirmed the author’s general impression, based on remarks provided by other individuals who had seen the module during the final stages of the streamlining process (3.3.3).

In the open-answer questions, users were asked to identify which slides had not been as clear as desired, and explain why. These questions (and all questions of this type in the questionnaire), however, were not obligatory, and as such the information provided was not as rich. In some cases, answers were beneficial: one user explained that the text on screen was distracting when there was a lot of information in the narration, and that there was an excess of text in some of the interactive parts of the module. This response gives a voice to the opinions expressed in the closed-answer questions, and was born in mind during the update stage. In other cases, however, the answers were less helpful: some users just used the text boxes to provide their opinion on a completely different aspect of the module, and in one question, although users indicated on what slides the amount visual information was problematic, they failed to specify whether it was excessive or insufficient. That said, logic dictates that the answer would most likely come down on the side of excessive.

It is interesting to note that most of the slides mentioned as needing review come from the “A bit of theory” section of the module. As mentioned before, this is the most information-dense section of the module, and as such it makes sense that users had more difficulty with this than with other sections.

(42)

In terms of aesthetics, then, it was clear that some slides could do with a lighter touch, and the necessary changes were implemented during the update stage.

4.4.2 Usability

The first question in this section asks users to state whether they followed the recommended order or not – as the module is designed to have a certain number of instructions for first time users following the recommended order, it was important to know if any potential usability issues came from not having seen the instructions, rather than a serious flaw in the module. All users reported having followed the recommended order.

In the closed-answered questions, users indicated that the module is, for the large part, intuitive and easy to use. 100% of users felt that the instructions were clear (in five cases in all slides, in three cases in most slides), and the majority of users felt that it was clear where to click in order to access content. That said, there were some bugs in the module, with 50% of users identifying issues related either to function or to aesthetics.

In this section, the open-answered questions revealed that there were some clear issues for usability.

Users identified that on a number of slides, they were unsure of where to click in order to progress, particularly in the more interactive parts of the module (dos and don’ts, feedback slides). Some users were very specific in their feedback, pointing out exactly which aspects of the slides were hard to use; this is highly useful information, which was implemented in the update stage. A number of users drew attention to the module’s navigation system being counterintuitive, with some suggesting that the menu button was unclear, and that the lack of a clearly defined “next” arrow was off-putting at the beginning. This, again, was a clear element to be addressed in the update stage. Comments in relation to the bugs in the module were also very illuminating, drawing attention to the fact that slides are not always interactive if users return to them a second time, and that the hitboxes for some interactive elements were too small.

On the whole, then, although the module was largely user-friendly, there are some small kinks to be worked out in terms of improving the smoothness of interaction and the clarity of the instructions.

4.4.3 External links

This was a very short section, testing whether or not the links to the PDFs and the EMCI website worked correctly. Apart from one user who didn’t see the link to the EMCI, 100% of participants reported that the external links worked correctly.

4.4.4 The user experience

The responses to this section were particularly positive. In the closed-answered questions, the vast majority of users indicated that “using the module was a pleasant experience.” With regards to the

(43)

amount of factual information on the slides (the counterpart question to the earlier “visual information”

question), 100% of users agreed that no slides contained insufficient information. 50% of users also felt that the information was never excessive, and the other 50% indicated that only very few / some slides contained excessive factual information - this is a very encouraging result. Users were also very positive about the pace and tone of the module, as well as the time given to read on-screen instructions, with no additional comments to be made. Participants were largely very positive about the speed of narration as well, with all but one user stating that the pace was appropriate in all or most of the slides.

In the open-answered questions, users returned once again to the slides concerning feedback and Deliberate Practice, indicating that these slides contained excessive factual information. This, coupled with the excessive visual information in the slides, necessitates a general overhaul to make the slides more accessible and user-friendly. The open-answered questions also revealed that the narration was, at times, too fast, particularly in slides where the information was already dense (the

“a bit of theory” section). One user also commented after the test was completed that their mastery of English may have been to blame, bringing to light an important factor had not previously been considered; namely, that the narration had not been written with a non-English-mother-tongue audience particularly in mind.

In sum, participants were, by and large, very satisfied with the user experience. However, it was once again indicated that certain parts of the module were excessively dense; attention was paid to this aspect in particular during the update stage.

4.4.5 General comments

On the whole, the general comments reinforced and confirmed impressions and comments made in the earlier sections. Users were largely content with the module in terms of its usability and aesthetics, picking up only on some elements they neglected to mention in earlier sections (e.g.

references to hitboxes and to the colour scheme.) One particularly interesting comment made reference to the slightly “old-fashioned” images. In a discussion after the test, users appeared to be divided on whether this contributed positively or negatively to the aesthetic, despite the fact that the images were not chosen to be specifically “old-fashioned” in the scripting phase (3.3.1). A future version of the module, with a budget allowing for non-copyright-free images, might be in a better position to take a more active decision in this regard.

(44)

4.5 Updating the module in light of the results

Having read and analysed the results of the questionnaire, the following eight elements were identified as worthy of attention in the update stage. Most elements were considered and directly addressed, as discussed below.

1. The text of the module should be reviewed for typos of any sort:

This exercise was undertaken without any major issues. At this point, the module was also checked for any aesthetic infelicities (images out of place, bullet points out of line), which were duly rectified.

2. The menu button should be made clearer. A “next” arrow should be immediately visible on the slide:

As mentioned above, (4.4.2) some users found the menu button unclear, and were distracted by the lack of a dedicated “next” button. As a result, a decision was taken to replace the original menu button (figure 42, left) with a new menu and next button (figure 42, right). The upper part of the image shows the button on the slide, and the lower part shows what happens once the button has been

clicked. As can be clearly seen, the new buttons are much clearer, and the next arrow has been placed directly on the slide, responding to user requests. The new design on the menu button also solved the issue which some users had mentioned regarding the hitboxes around the menu button, which were too small, therefore making the button hard to use.

Figure 42: Comparison of old (left) and new (right) menu and next buttons

(45)

3. The slides in the “A bit of theory” section should be reviewed in terms of the visual and factual information in order to make them lighter and more user-friendly:

After the responses received both in the user test and from other individuals, it became clear that the author’s original fear of not providing the user with enough information in the theory section was very much unfounded. As a result, in this update stage, vast amounts of the on-screen text were removed, allowing future users to focus their attentions on the narration. Figure 43, for example, shows how users were left to concentrate on the narration in the new version of the “Deliberate Practice (1 of 2)” slide (the new version is on the right of the image). Efforts were also made to pare back the narrations even further, to assure that no superfluous or distracting information was included.

4. The slides in the “Dos and Don’ts section” should be reviewed in terms of streamlining the clickable elements and clarity of the instructions:

In this section, some users complained that it was not always clear what needed to be clicked on and when, and as such additional red arrows were added in certain slides (figure 44). Complaints were also made about this section being overly cluttered, and, consequently, many parts of the section were tidied up accordingly (figure 45). Lastly, as with the rest of the module, efforts were

Figure 43: Comparison of old (left) and new (right) Deliberate Practice slides

Figure 44: Added red instruction arrows, slide “Before (1 of 2)”

(46)

made to simplify the language were possible, and to make all text as concise as possible without compromising the information it contained.

5. The Bad Feedback and Good Feedback slides should be overhauled, making sure the slides are not overburdened with information, and that clickable elements are clear and unambiguous:

In both of these slides, some users stated that they were unsure of what to do or where to click.

Others complained that the Bad Feedback was rather cluttered, and that how to use the videos themselves was unclear. To tackle this, the slides were checked to make sure that they followed the same format as other slides, e.g. blue text as clickable, using the black X to close popups. Once this was established, the slides were reviewed to make sure that the instructions were clear, and it was decided that a user, having followed the whole module from start to finish and reading the text boxes fully, should have no difficulty in navigating the slides in their new layout. In particular, the layout of the “Bad Feedback” slide was largely simplified, and a new control panel was added for the videos (figure 46).

Figure 45: Comparison of old (upper) and new (lower) “After” slide

Figure 46: Comparison of old (left) and new (right) “Bad Feedback” slides

(47)

6. The inclusion of a single “instructions” slide at the very beginning of the module, as opposed to gradual instructions throughout:

Upon reflection, it was decided that it would not be a good idea to concentrate all of the instructions on a single slide, as there are various features in the module which are hard to describe out of context, and various others which can be amply explained through the inclusion of a simple red arrow. However, a pop-up was added at the beginning of the module responding to user concerns about how to use the menu (figure 47). The new pop-up explains the menu feature to users in a dedicated moment, avoiding a situation where a) the on-slide instruction creates visual clutter or b) the on-slide instruction goes unnoticed by users.

7. The narration should be reviewed to bear in mind speed and clarity for non-native listeners:

This concern was very clearly heard, and in this update phase, various parts of the narration were re-recorded to improve their speed and clarity. This action was taken most often in those slides where the visual information was excessive and factual information heavy, in order to improve the overall experience for users. It is hoped that the new version of these slides is considerably easier for users to digest.

8. A future iteration of the questionnaire should improve on the clarity of some of the questions, and make all questions obligatory:

The problematic element in this case was the wording of some of the open questions, and the fact that they were optional. Consequently, all questions are now obligatory, and the wording has been improved to assure maximum clarity for the user, and best results for the researcher. The updated questionnaire can be found under Appendix 3.

Figure 47: New "instructions" pop-up

(48)

5. Review

5.1 The five threads

In the introduction, five key threads were identified which would serve to guide the creation of the module in its attempt to provide an answer to the research question, “what habits can be adopted to lead to productive and constructive group practice”?”. It is only logical, therefore, that we return to these five threads now, at the end of the paper, to evaluate whether or not they were successfully applied.

i) To build on already established guidelines:

Via the Literature Review, this paper identified the already established guidelines to be built upon and included in the module. This information was then successfully adapted and presented throughout the module, giving users access to the principal ideas, guidelines and theories relevant both to group work and Consecutive Interpreting in a single, easy-use module.

ii) To insist on the importance of objectives and how to properly give feedback:

The module devotes a significant number of slides to the setting of objectives, the provision of feedback, and the notion of linking the two. It makes use of innovative methods to ensure that the message is delivered in a clear and entertaining manner to users, whilst backing up all points made in-module with a downloadable PDF document with six key points on feedback (Appendix 1).

iii) To challenge preconceived notions of a “productive use of time”:

The module specifically tackles the notion of preconceived ideas on how to use time productively, and, when giving advice on best practices, takes care to explain why a particular approach should be adopted over another (thus avoiding the situation where “top-down” advice is provided without any development). The module also provides context to some of the more unusual or counterintuitive pieces of advice provided in pre-existing guidelines, particularly with regard to group composition.

Best Practices in Consecutive Interpreting Practice Groups: Making your group work

Master

Reference

Best Practices in Consecutive Interpreting Practice Groups: Making your group work

Best Practices in Consecutive Interpreting Practice Groups

Making your group work

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

1. Introduction

1.1 Aim

1.2 Research Question

2. Literature Review and Context

2.1 Group work as a tool for developing expertise, and its application to Interpreting

2.2 The groups themselves: structure, composition and the need for preparation

2.3 Feedback and self-regulation

2.4 Context

3. Making your group work: The Module

3.1 General description

3.2 The Module itself

3.3 The creation process

4. The user test

4.1 Overview

4.2 The Process

4.3 The Results

4.4 Discussion of the results

4.5 Updating the module in light of the results

5. Review

5.1 The five threads