Article
Reference
‘It really suits the objectives of the master's': how a student Facebook group chat contributes to situated learning in an interpreter training
programme
VALTCHUK, Oleksandra, CLASS, Barbara
Abstract
In the context of an ever-increasing use of social networks, researchers have studied their use in higher education and the development of communities of practice in formal and informal virtual learning environments. However, no research so far has linked non-institutional group chats and (situated) learning as part of interpreter training. This qualitative study therefore aims to explore how a Facebook group chat amongst students of the University of Geneva's master's programme in Conference Interpreting contributed to learning. The content of the group chat among five students was analysed and complemented by semi-structured interviews. Findings indicate that the group chat is used for study-related content and social conversations and that a (sub-)community of practice has developed among the five students.
Findings also show that they think the group chat contributed to their success in the master's programme, both through the close and friendly relationships fostered and academically, although to different extents. Looking at these results against the backdrop of the existing literature could give pointers to [...]
VALTCHUK, Oleksandra, CLASS, Barbara. ‘It really suits the objectives of the master's': how a student Facebook group chat contributes to situated learning in an interpreter training
programme. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer , 2021, p. 1-17
DOI : 10.1080/1750399X.2021.1885231
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:149778
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
1 / 1
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ritt20
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ritt20
‘It really suits the objectives of the master’s’:
how a student Facebook group chat contributes to situated learning in an interpreter training programme
Oleksandra Valtchuk & Barbara Class
To cite this article: Oleksandra Valtchuk & Barbara Class (2021): ‘It really suits the objectives of the master’s’: how a student Facebook group chat contributes to situated learning in an interpreter training programme, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2021.1885231
Published online: 08 Feb 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
ARTICLE
‘It really suits the objectives of the master’s’: how a student Facebook group chat contributes to situated learning in an interpreter training programme
Oleksandra Valtchuk and Barbara Class
Faculty of Translation and Interpreting, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland1
ABSTRACT
In the context of an ever-increasing use of social networks, researchers have studied their use in higher education and the development of communities of practice in formal and informal virtual learning environments. However, no research so far has linked non-institutional group chats and (situated) learning as part of interpreter training. This qualitative study therefore aims to explore how a Facebook group chat amongst students of the University of Geneva’s master’s programme in Conference Interpreting contributed to learning. The content of the group chat among five students was analysed and complemented by semi-structured interviews. Findings indicate that the group chat is used for study-related content and social conversations and that a (sub-)community of practice has developed among the five stu- dents. Findings also show that they think the group chat contrib- uted to their success in the master’s programme, both through the close and friendly relationships fostered and academically, although to different extents. Looking at these results against the backdrop of the existing literature could give pointers to students and trainers on how such social networking tools can be used in a beneficial way.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 10 October 2018 Accepted 1 February 2021 KEYWORDS
Interpreter training; situated learning; community of practice; higher education;
Facebook; social networking tools
1. Introduction
The social networking site Facebook is widely used among students and has been partly officially used for teaching by higher education institutions (e.g. Gray, Annabell, and Kennedy 2010; Mills 2011; Selwyn 2007a). Students use Facebook for a variety of reasons, which can be categorised into three purposes: social relations, study-related purposes, and daily activities (Manasijević et al. 2016; Mazman and Usluel 2010). The site is mostly used for social reasons and very little for learning, and, if it is, it is used more for communication, collaboration, and the sharing of resources and materials rather than performing specific tasks or assignments for university (Aydin 2012; Madge et al. 2009;
Prescott, Wilson, and Becket 2013). To our knowledge, no research so far has described non-institutional group chats as a contributing factor to learning within interpreter training programmes.
CONTACT Oleksandra Valtchuk Oleksandra.Valtchuk@posteo.de
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
The goal of this qualitative case study (Yin 2014) was to explore how the university- related use of Facebook group chats contributed to five students’ learning and helped them achieve the expected outcomes of the Master of Arts in Conference Interpreting at the University of Geneva’s Faculty of Translation and Interpreting (FTI). Learning is understood from a sociocultural perspective, i.e. through the concepts of situated learn- ing (SL), cognitive apprenticeship, and legitimate peripheral participation, as described by Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989), Handley et al. (2006), Lave (1991) and Wenger (2002). This study, with its decidedly qualitative nature, did not aim at establishing a link between the use of group chats and students’ success in the programme (measured through quantitative indicators), but at gaining exploratory insight into the topic at hand through the thematic analysis of different types of data (section 3.2).
The main author, who completed this programme and regularly used social network- ing sites – mostly Facebook – to communicate with fellow students, wished to explore this topic by looking at Facebook Messenger functionalities, shared content, SL, and communities of practice (CoPs). These domains are conceived in strong relationship with the social networking site acting as a ‘cockpit’ (Schneider et al. 2003) allowing the students to easily reach the different master’s-related Groups2 and group chats.
To explore this topic, we first look at the academic and practical context of the study, i.e. the concepts of community of practice (CoP) and SL, the existing literature on the use of Facebook and other social networking tools in higher education, and interpreter training as SL in general and in this master’s programme in particular, before moving on to the methodology and the findings of this study, which are then discussed against the backdrop of the literature review.
The findings of this study might be of interest to interpreter trainers, as several researchers (Gray, Annabell, and Kennedy 2010; deChambeau 2017; Selwyn 2007a) underline the importance of learning institutions being aware of student social network- ing communities in order to advise students on them and facilitate their development in a constructive way. Moreover, students enrolled in interpreting programmes may be interested in finding out how to use the internet and social networking sites efficiently to communicate with fellow students, improve their learning outcomes and find inspiration for their collaboration.
2. Academic and practical contexts 2.1. SL and community of practice (CoP)
According to situated cognition and SL theory, learning, doing, and knowledge are indistinct and always situated in context (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989, 33; Lave 1991, 67; Wenger 2002, 4–7, 52–54, 95). Learning happens through cognitive apprentice- ships or legitimate peripheral participation (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989, 40; Lave 1991, 68–72; Wenger 2002, 115–120). The notion of cognitive apprenticeship emphasises the importance of activity and learning through collaboration (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989, 40). Legitimate peripheral participation means becoming a skilled member of a CoP by moving from its periphery to its centre, from observer and consumer of resources to active producer (Lave 1991, 68–72; Wenger 2002, 3–4, 45).
‘[CoPs] are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly’ (Wenger 2011, 1) and are defined by their members’ mutual engagement, joint enterprise (i.e. the collective goal or purpose), and shared repertoire of resources (Wenger 2002, 73–83). Such communities have relationships with other CoPs: boundaries, overlap and peripheries (Wenger 2002, 115–120). Several sub-communities can form within one CoP and make up its ‘glue’
(deChambeau 2017, 410), as a CoP ‘encompasses apprentices, young masters with apprentices, and masters some of whose apprentices have themselves become masters’
(Lave and Wenger 1991, 56) and ‘[l]earners not only learn from the master as apprentices but also learn as co-participants in the CoP’ (Pan 2016, 108). In higher education, CoPs develop for several reasons, such as to support active and effective learning in groups (Liccardi et al. 2007, 226; deChambeau 2017, 397; Mills 2011, 347–348, 363–365). Web 2.0 technologies – information/communication technologies that allow for user partici- pation in the creation and distribution of content – enable interactions beyond geogra- phical limitations and open possibilities for new kinds of CoPs (Wenger 2011, 6).
2.2. Students’ Facebook use
Social networking sites are widely used and present opportunities, but also risks (Aydin 2012; Barnett-Queen, Blair, and Merrick 2005; Bruckman 2005; Liccardi et al. 2007, 232–233). On the one hand, they allow for easy and direct communication, collaboration, and sharing of information and resources independent of space and time; development of academic skills and qualities such as critical thinking and presenting results; improve- ment of academic performance; integration into social and academic university life;
broader social inclusion; development of communities; group cohesiveness and respon- sibility; and providing feedback through likes and comments. On the other hand, they can be a distraction, and their asynchronous character makes them prone to misunder- standings. Similarly, there are other risks such as cyber-bullying, addiction, endangering future employment through unrestricted self-disclosure, issues of trust and deception, and vulnerability of personal information (Mills 2011, 345–346; Ractham and Firpo 2011;
Selwyn 2007a, 2007b).
It has been suggested in the literature that learning institutions should be aware of student Facebook communities, but not directly interfere with them (deChambeau 2017, 419; Gray, Annabell, and Kennedy 2010, 975–976; Selwyn 2007a, 21) since students explicitly reject formal teaching and communication with instructors on Facebook (Deng and Tavares 2013, 174–175; Madge et al. 2009; Prescott, Wilson, and Becket 2013, 345–148).
Although instant communication tools have been used and discussed in the area of foreign language learning (Mills 2011) and translator training (Li 2017), to our knowl- edge, only one unpublished study (Andres 2017) in the field of conference interpreting describes how students use Web 2.0 programmes to share university material, collabo- rate, organise practice sessions, and forward translation and interpreting assignments using a number of mobile devices. Facebook is a widespread and popular means for these purposes, apart from communication with teachers (pp. 15–17, 80–86).
2.3. Conference interpreting (CI) and interpreter training (IT)
CI lends itself to learning within CoPs. To become professionals, interpreters have to understand the functioning of, relationships within, and appropriate practices in the market (Setton and Dawrant 2016a, 357–361). They need to constantly keep improving their skills and help their peers to do so; hence, they organise themselves in practice groups and use online practice speeches (AIIC 1999; European Commission n.d.;
Llewellyn Smith and Clarke n.d.; Mamini 2014). They share professional values that go beyond the sole activity of interpreting (AIIC 1999, AIIC 2014).
The concepts of cognitive apprenticeship and legitimate peripheral participation have been used to explain IT for a long time (Pöchhacker 2004, 177–178; Sawyer 2004, 76–80).
IT programmes have a strong professionalisation component, are inherently practical and skills-based (Chouc and Conde 2016, 92; Pöchhacker 2004) and still belong to ‘the realm of apprenticeship’ (Sawyer 2004, 76). SL in CI means that ‘learners are exposed to real-life and/or highly simulated work environments and tasks, both inside and outside the classroom’ (González-Davies and Enríquez-Raído 2016, 1). Moreover, deliberate practice with feedback and active coaching are key to becoming an interpreter (EMCI 2013–2014; FTI 2015; Setton and Dawrant 2016b, 44–49). Successful implementations of SL in interpreting programmes have been shared (among others Chouc and Conde 2016;
Nam 2016; Pan 2016). Moreover, the role of information and communication technol- ogies for SL in IT is recognised and requires training programmes to be adapted accordingly (Pan 2016; González-Davies and Enríquez-Raído 2016), and ‘interpreting students are also encouraged to join interpreter communities online by subscribing to interpreters’ blogs and befriending interpreters on Facebook’ (Chang and Wu 2017, 295).
However, the use of technologies and particularly social networking tools in this field remains a ‘relatively unexplored area’ (González-Davies and Enríquez-Raído 2016, 5).
2.4. Context of the study
This study was carried out in the context of the MA in CI at the FTI, a three-semester programme to train students to become professional conference interpreters (FTI n.d.).
The curriculum includes consecutive and simultaneous interpreting modules, lectures on international organisations, parliamentary procedures and conference terminology, modules on interpreting theory, and a master’s thesis (FTI 2015, n.d.).
Learning happens in different types of classes and settings. Students have language pair-specific classes with trainers who are professional conference interpreters and members of professional associations as well as joint master classes for the entire cohort, which usually focus on a particular topic that is communicated to the students in advance and require preparation, research and the creation of glossaries or other documents that help in the booth (FTI 2015). Over time, increasingly difficult and technical speeches are used. These are provided by trainers and guest speakers or delivered as recordings from authentic interpreting situations. Moreover, students are part of mandatory practice groups (6–8 h/week) where they give previously prepared speeches in their A or B language that their peers interpret, after which feedback is given. It is also recom- mended that students practise individually using the ETI Virtual Interpreter Training Archives (EVITA), an online platform to upload interpreting performances and receive
feedback (Motta and Drummond 2005), and keep practice journals to engage in better deliberate practice. As a formal part of the programme, students also have the opportu- nity to listen to their teachers’ and other interpreters’ work in international organisations and are encouraged to gather experience through voluntary interpreting assignments and
‘dummy booth’ practice.
Communication between students and trainers outside of classes happens through the interpreting department’s Virtual Institute (VI), a tailored learning and content manage- ment platform (Class 2009; Moser-Mercer, Class, and Seeber 2005). It is used to share official and teaching-related announcements, documents, and materials. Students can upload completed assignments in folders and receive their marks and trainer feedback on the Student Tracker. The VI is also the access point for EVITA and includes a Private Messages feature, a Shoutbox for urgent announcements, a space to share consecutive symbols, and a glossary on conference terminology.
The programme’s characteristics allow for it to be viewed through the lens of cognitive apprenticeship, SL and legitimate peripheral participation, in line with existing literature (cf. section 2.3): students perform tasks that are increasingly similar to real-life inter- preting assignments, have the opportunity to observe professionals at work and forge ties with their community (of practice) as well as gather their first (mock) practical experi- ences. In this process, they learn together as co-participants within the CoP.
3. Materials and methods 3.1. Research question
The main research question of this study is: How does a student Facebook group chat of FTI’s MA in Conference Interpreting contribute to the situated learning within this programme?
To answer this main question, we developed three sub-questions:
(1) What role do Facebook Messenger and its features play in supporting learning?
(2) Which content is published in this group chat and how is it used for learning in relationship to the master’s curriculum and becoming an interpreter?
(3) Do these students form a community or a sub-community of practice?
3.2. Sampling and data gathering
In this study, a purposive sampling method was used, i.e. the conceptual frame was combined with the setting of contextual boundaries (such as limited time) to define a relevant sample (Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña 2014, 30–32). Each case had to fulfil criteria to assure quality (Miles and Huberman 2003, 58–60). Here, the criteria for sampling were: participants had to be students of the FTI’s MA in CI, they must be in the principal researcher’s cohort, they must be organised in a self-selected and non- institutional Facebook group chat and willing to participate in this study. These criteria were met by five students who had created a Facebook group chat based on one language (LX3) which they all have in their combination, but that is not necessarily their A language.
This study relies on real and opinion data (Table 1) to triangulate what participants did – i.e. shared on the chat – with what they said (in the interviews).
The first author, who was a student in the same cohort as the participants but not a member of the chat, was given full access to the chat retrospectively and in conformity with the university’s ethics commission, meaning that the content is particularly authen- tic as the students were completely unaware that their group chat would be used for a study later on. Analysing participants’ productions and interactions is one method of gathering data for this study (Marshall and Rossman 1999, 106–116; Karsenti and Savoie- Zajc 2004, 133–138).
English was chosen for the interviews in order not to favour some participants’
A languages over others and to avoid having to translate the data. Gathering data through semi-structured interviews allows for different developments with the individual inter- viewees and an ‘active, reflexive, and constitutive role’ of both interviewer and inter- viewee as they interactively generate data and knowledge (Mason 2004, 2021). The interview guide (Appendix 1, https://tecfa.unige.ch/perso/class/AppendicesValtchuk- Class2018/) was developed based on the literature review, the context and research question, along with the recommendations of Savin-Badin and Major (2013, 364–366) and Revillard (2006). The initial interview guide was put to the test in two test interviews and adapted accordingly. To protect the participants’ anonymity, no direct quotes or screenshots from the chat are included in this study.
3.3. Analysis and interpretation
Researchers chose an unspecialised data analysing method for this study: thematic analysis, aiming to get ‘a general sense of what the speaker is saying, the meaning of the whole in context’ (Savin-Badin and Major 2013, 439–447). The content of the chat and the interviews were analysed using the same codebook (Appendix 2, https://tecfa.
unige.ch/perso/class/AppendicesValtchuk-Class2018/) to allow for the triangulation of data. The codebook, initially based on the literature review, was adjusted during data analysis, as coding is always an iterative process (Gilbert, Jackson, and Di Gregorio 2014;
Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña 2014, 71–85). It entails eight categories of codes, extracts of which are presented in the tables in section 4. In the original codebook, a code, a definition and an example were provided for each sub-category to ensure that different Table 1. Data used.
Category Type Extent Timeframe Preparation for analysis
Real data (from the Facebook Messenger chat)
Complete and unaltered content of the
‘Booths with LX BRAVO’ group
chat
Approximately 3,700 words
Shared between 28/10/2016 and 02/06/2017 (i.e.
semesters 1 and 2 of the MA programme), accessed retrospectively by the first
author
Anonymised and translated into English (modified
original quotes are preceded by an asterisk
and italicised) Opinion data
(from interviews)
Semi-structured individual interviews, in
English
5 interviews of about 1 hour each, resulting
in a total of 35,133 words
Interviews conducted December 2017 –
February 2018
Transcribed5, double checked by the
participants,6 anonymised
coders understand the codes in the same way (Friese 2018). The reliability of data has been inferred from the principal researcher coding the whole data set twice, with one week in between, and from comparing a sample set of coded data between both researchers. Based on Miles and Huberman’s intercoder agreement formula (Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña 2014), the percentage of agreements is higher than 80% and the coding is deemed reliable.
For data interpretation, a pragmatic qualitative research strategy was chosen, aiming to produce ‘a basic description of the issue under study’ (Savin-Badin and Major 2013, 458). This strategy focuses on themes emerging during data analysis and their interconnections.
3.4. Verification of results
To verify the results, participant feedback (Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña 2014, 309–310) was used: participants were asked to read the findings of this study and express how adequate, relevant, and close to reality they were.
4. Findings
4.1. The group chat and its participants
The five members of the LX group chat, called ‘*Booths with LX BRAVO’, are students of the 2018 class of the FTI’s MA in CI and have LX in their combination, two (Max and Charlie) as an active and three (Johanna, Renée, Alex4) as a passive language. As the interviews, analysed using the code categories ‘Facebook Use’ and ‘Internet’ (Table 2) show, four of them – apart from Johanna – are frequent users of social networks, use the Facebook Messenger application on their smartphones and have, to varying degrees, used Facebook for university-related purposes before (cf. Appendix 3, https://tecfa.unige.ch/
perso/class/AppendicesValtchuk-Class2018/). As the analysis of the chat and the code categories ‘Joint Enterprise’ (Table 6) and ‘Sub-community?’ (Table 8) show, their group conversation was started in the first semester by Johanna as a conversation between LX native speakers and LX-speakers with LY as their A-language, i.e. herself, Max, Alex, and Charlie. The chat record shows that Renée was added a few days later. In the interviews, however, none of the students remember the exact circumstances of the creation of the chat and believe Charlie created it. Although the creation and use of the chat were not initiated or supported by the institution, its purpose, the context in which it was used, and the strong connection between the curriculum and the chat’s content (cf. section 4.3)
Table 2. Code categories ‘Facebook use’ and ‘Internet’.
FB_Multiple Multiple purposes and omnipresence of as well as familiarity with Facebook FB_use Usage habits of the study participants
FB_Social Facebook as part of the social life
FB_AcademicPro Academic and professional uses of Facebook FB_Daily Facebook use for daily activities
FB_Previous Previous academic use of Facebook
Net_Use Characteristics of participants’ internet and social media use Net_Master Participants’ internet use for the master’s
indicate that it is inherently linked to the master’s programme, as further proven by its fall into disuse after the end of the programme.
4.2. Findings for research sub-question (1): what role do Facebook Messenger and its features play in supporting learning?
Based on the analysis of the interviews via the code categories ‘Facebook Characteristics’
(Table 3), ‘Communication’ (Table 4), ‘Facebook Use’, and ‘Internet’, Facebook Messenger features, especially compared to the institutional Learning Management System (LMS), seem to play an important role in the way in which the chat functions.
Generally, Facebook Messenger is perceived as a convenient means to communicate with peers and to share academically useful resources, but is criticised for the lack of a file management feature – some participants say that resources are hard to retrieve because of the chronological display of information.
Compared to the Virtual Institute (VI), the institutional LMS, which was developed years before the study period and hence for a different target audience (Class 2009; Class, Moser-Mercer, and Seeber 2004), Facebook and its different features are described as user-friendly and are widely used. Students need some time to get used to the VI and to learn how to subscribe to new threads to be notified of new content. Even then, the VI is relatively slow and complicated because students receive email notifications and then have to log in to the VI to see the information. On the other hand, Facebook is part of students’ life, used for a wide range of purposes and does not require additional login, especially when accessing it through applications on smartphones, whereas the VI is described as not particularly well adapted for mobile use. Moreover, not all teachers use the VI and are usually faster to reach by email, text, or WhatsApp. Several students also mention that the Shoutbox is less immediate than other parts of the VI, as there are no Shoutbox notifications.
All students see the VI as a necessary tool for the master’s programme and describe it as an effective way to receive class-related information and feedback, especially because it is more organised than a Facebook chat. Nonetheless, their reported use of the VI is passive and formal, as it is linked to official classes and feedback. Additionally, students
Table 3. Code category ‘Facebook characteristics’.
FB_Features Use/discussion of Facebook features to share resources
FB_Privacy Privacy from teachers
FB_InteractFast Rapidity/ease of interaction FB_Distraction Facebook/the chat as a distraction FB_Stress Facebook/the chat cause stress or pressure FB_Misunderstanding Misunderstandings on Facebook/the chat FB_Inundation Inundation with information
Table 4. Code category ‘Communication’.
C_RecountReflect Recounting and reflection of institutional learning experiences C_Supplication Supplication and moral support linked to the master’s or conference interpreting C_Courage Encouragement with regard to the master’s or conference interpreting C_Face Arranging face-to-face study or practice meetings
C_Social Social purposes (not university-related)
feel they cannot express themselves freely – partly because they know other students and teachers can access most of the threads – or post resources and questions that are relevant, but potentially embarrassing. Apart from Johanna, who unsuccessfully tried to convince her peers to share academic content on the institutional LMS, all participants value the privacy from teachers on Facebook when preparing for classes.
The omnipresence, multiple uses, ease and rapidity of communication, and privacy on Facebook (Messenger) are seen as both advantages and disadvantages for its academic use. On one hand, information is shared quickly, conversations develop, and free expression is possible. On the other hand, these factors can lead to stress due to inundation with information even on weekends or during free time, the need to compare oneself to others at all times, as well as negative attitudes and misunderstandings. In the interviews, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in the participants’ view.
4.3. Findings for research sub-question (2): which content is published in this group chat and how is it used for learning in relation to the master’s curriculum and becoming an interpreter?
The academic content (cf. Appendix 4, https://tecfa.unige.ch/perso/class/
AppendicesValtchuk-Class2018/) of the chat, as analysed with the code categories
‘Communication’ and ‘Shared Repertoire’ (Table 5), consists mostly of shared resources for master classes: links to newspaper/media articles, videos, specialised/professional resources, Wikipedia articles, practice speeches, official institutional websites, other references to online resources, and PDF documents. Preparation for specific master classes also happens through brainstorming or speculating about the content of upcom- ing classes as well as discussing vocabulary- or terminology-related questions. Most of the preparation is in and/or directly concerns LX and only sometimes other languages.
Here, a clear overlap between the chat’s content and the master’s curriculum is visible.
General resources about LX, the LX-speaking world or interpreting and practice speeches
Table 5. Code category ‘CoP – shared repertoire’.
CoPSR_Logistics Logistical/practical information, university-related CoPSR_AcademicWork Exchange of specific academic information and group work CoPSR _Speeches Sharing of practice speeches
CoPSR _PrepContent Content-related class preparation
CoPSR _PrepLanguage Linguistic/terminological preparation of classes in LX CoPSR _PrepOL Preparation of classes regarding a language other than LX CoPSR _General General information regarding LX/events of the LX-speaking world CoPSR_sillybutinformative Entertaining information regarding LX/events of the LX-speaking world CoPSR_Experiences Sharing stories and experiences
CoPSR_Jargon Group-specific jargon and emojis
Table 6. Code category ‘CoP – joint enterprise’.
CoPJE_Goal Goal/purpose of the chat
CoPJE_Creation Recounting the creation of the chat
CoPJE_Learning Importance of the chat/Facebook for the success in the master’s CoPJE_Social Social purposes/uses of the chat
CoPJE_ImplicitRules Implicit rules of the chat CoPJE_OwnRules Self-imposed rules of the chat
are also shared, as is ‘silly but informative’ content (Renée) that is both entertaining and useful, such as lists of amusing expressions in LX that might come up in a speech.
Furthermore, the participants use the chat to organise extraordinary ES sessions to have additional deliberate practice opportunities.
The social or conversational content (Appendix 4), reflected in the code categories
‘Communication’, ‘Shared Repertoire’, ‘Joint Enterprise’ (Table 6), consists of university- related comments, including recounting and reflecting on the university experience, seeking of moral support, and encouragement of and empathy with other members, as well as purely conversational content. As mentioned in section 4.5, the members of the chat are of the opinion that the academic and the social content both play an important role in their experience of the master’s and thus their IT.
This production of content does not usually happen without context, but in a process of interaction: a question by one of the participants or the sharing of a particular resource sparks answers and the sharing of further resources. Similarly, there is no clear distinc- tion between the more academic and the more social messages on the chat, as the specific resources (making up the shared repertoire) are presented in a way that reflects and defines the mutual engagement (e.g. through conversational aspects, empathy, and gratitude) and thus the (implicit) joint enterprise.
4.4. Findings for research sub-question (3): do these students form a CoP or a sub-CoP?
The members’ interview statements and their contributions to the group chat indicate that they have developed a joint enterprise (cf. code categories ‘Joint Enterprise’, ‘Mutual Engagement’, Table 7), a ‘common goal’ (Max) that is shared and seen as obvious by all members: ‘it was clear that the group was meant for booths with LX’ (Charlie). There are no explicit rules for the chat, but implicit and self-imposed rules which, for example, define that shared material should be useful or of interest to others or that at least one of the members should always express gratitude for new content in some way.
Mutual engagement (cf. code categories ‘Mutual Engagement’, ‘Communication’,
‘Joint Enterprise’) has developed in the group chat as a reflection of and contribution to the personal relationships between its members. It is expressed indirectly, through the amount of material shared and the ongoing activity on the chat, and more directly, through gratitude for help and shared resources and the awareness of one’s own and
Table 7. Code category ‘CoP – mutual engagement’.
CoPME_Competences Participants’ awareness of own/other members’ competences CoPME_GiversTakers Own/others’ roles as contributors or receivers of content CoPME_Relationships Display/description of mutual relationships
CoPME_Introduction Introductory preambles that interrupt the ongoing conversation CoPME_Gratitude Expressions of gratitude and reactions
Table 8. Code category ‘CoP – sub-community?’.
CoPSub_Continuities Continuities with other groups or communities CoPSub_Discontinuities Discontinuities with other groups or communities CoPSub_Members Membership characteristics/group size
other members’ competences as well as of the roles within the community. The roles were clearly described during the interviews: some students provide useful information (mostly Charlie and Max), entertaining or interesting content (mostly Johanna, Alex, and Renée), whereas others ask questions (mostly Alex), and initiate academic or private communication (mostly Charlie, Alex, and Renée). The fact that all group members erroneously think that Charlie created the chat testifies to his active role. These roles are also visible when analysing the chat. All five students agree that their relationship with the other members is good and/or closer than with their remaining peers in the programme. Emojis, terms of endearment, and expressions of gratitude underline this friendly atmosphere. Interactions on the chat between members ‘brought [them] closer’
(Max) and ‘created a sense of community’ (Alex).
The members have developed a shared repertoire of resources (the content of the chat) and experiences (the master’s programme, the language, teachers, and speeches they have in common) (cf. code category ‘Shared Repertoire’). However, even if they mention both continuities and discontinuities of the LX group chat with other Facebook Groups and group chats, ES groups or language-specific groups in the master’s programme, they also acknowledge that the greater closeness between the group chat members ‘doesn’t mean that [they] are separated from the rest of the class’ (Max), which might point to the creation of a sub-CoP, rather than a CoP (cf. code category ‘Sub-community?’, Table 8).
4.5. Findings for the main research question: how does a student Facebook group chat of FTI’s MA in Conference Interpreting contribute to the SL within this programme?
All five students say that most of the chat’s content was helpful during the master’s, although they have different and ambivalent perceptions of its contribution to their success in comparison to their individual work. The usefulness of the chat seems to reside not only in the study-related content, but also the willingness to share and the more personal conversations, alongside trust between and encouragement of other members.
This social and conversational side of the group chat and other Facebook Groups and chats within the master’s is seen as a way to maintain ‘a better relationship with one another and that is important for the success in the master’s because we need to be mentally healthy [. . .] in order to get to the end’ (Renée). Despite its perceived academic and social usefulness, none of the students sees the group chat as decisive for their success, leading to contradictory statements such as: ‘I probably could have lived without it, but it has still been a major contributor to my success’ (Alex). Given that the participants perceive the group chat as helpful in the context of the master’s, an environment for SL, this group chat can be seen as one of many factors and ways of learning that contributes to this.
For more complete findings, see the first author’s master’s thesis (Valtchuk 2018).
4.6. Limitations and verification of results
The results of this qualitative study are exploratory for several reasons. First, the sample consists of five participants from the same cohort, distributed across two of the four ES groups, studied for a limited period of time. Second, they are closer in age and language
combinations than the average of the 2018 class of the MA in CI. However, as willingness to participate in this study among students of this cohort varied, the participants of this chat were the biggest sample available, which is further limits the representativeness of the participants. Third, to protect the participants’ anonymity, some data that could have provided relevant context for analysis and interpretation, such as age or exam results, could not be included. Fourth, as the principal researcher herself was a fellow student of the participants and a user of Facebook for study-related purposes, the subjective insider view allows for a more in-depth understanding of the participants’ situation and habits, as is desirable for a qualitative study, but is considered a researcher bias by other approaches.
Before discussing the findings, it is important to report participants’ feedback on these findings. Despite some concerns about anonymity and the length of quotes, the purposes, uses of, and interactions on the chat were deemed to have been described accurately: the study is seen as ‘a thorough, accurate and respectful depiction of our chat, its aims and our interaction with it’ (Charlie) that ‘capture[s] the interpersonal dynamics of the group chat’ and ‘shed[s] some light on the unspoken rules that have been governing our conversation’ (Alex), and ‘reflects . . . the contradictory feelings . . . about the use of Facebook’ (Johanna).
5. Discussion and conclusion
Similar to previous findings, the students in this study use Facebook Groups and chats primarily for social purposes, but also for daily activities and to a lesser extent for study- related purposes. For the latter, although the group chat in this study is not formally linked to the university, a direct overlap of the chat content with the curriculum is observed, and, like in other studies, the students use Facebook for communication, collaboration, and resource sharing, rather than completing specific assignments (Gray, Annabell, and Kennedy 2010; Mazman and Usluel 2010; Manasijević et al. 2016). Their university-related private conversations seem similar to those discussed in previous research and include recounting of and reflection on learning events, seeking and giving moral support and encouragement, humorous exchanges, and private conversations (Aydin 2012; Selwyn 2007a). That said, they generally show a more positive and encoura- ging attitude than in Selwyn’s (2007a) study. Due to the use of a group chat and not a Facebook Group, not all features mentioned by Ractham and Firpo (2011) are used in the LX chat, but students write messages, share images, PDF documents, and links, and see these formats as sufficient for their needs.
A CoP, as defined by Wenger (2002), seems to have developed among the group chat members. Through their complementary roles, competences, and friendly interactions, they have created mutual engagement, a joint enterprise with mutual accountability, and a shared repertoire of resources, experiences, and jargon. Continuities and discontinu- ities with other online and offline groups could indicate that they form a sub-community, as observed by deChambeau (2017), rather than a fully-fledged CoP. However, as this study only looked at this particular group chat and not all of the cohort’s chats and Groups, this remains a hypothesis for future research.
Participant statements (with regard to advantages and disadvantages of the academic use of Facebook) resemble findings from previous research: on the one hand, easy and
direct communication, collaboration, and sharing of information and resources, devel- opment of communities, and, on the other hand, the potential for distraction, stress, and misunderstandings (cf. literature cited in section 2.2). The same characteristics seem to constitute both advantages and disadvantages: the omnipresence and instantaneousness of Facebook Messenger. For all five students, the possibility of dynamic and spontaneous conversations as well as easy and fast sharing of resources through the chat outweigh the disadvantages. The chat also presents advantages compared to the institutional LMS, similar to previous findings indicating that social networking sites such as Facebook are more successful among students than formal and institutional virtual learning environ- ments, particularly because of their greater user-friendliness, widespread use and privacy from teachers (deChambeau 2017; Deng and Tavares 2013; Mazman and Usluel 2010). It can be hypothesised that other non-institutional chat applications could be used in the same way and present similar advantages and disadvantages. For example, Li (2017) has shown in a study on the use of Wechat for translator training that this instant online communication tool presented the advantages of rapidity and convenience, contributed to harmonious relationships, and allowed for a freer discussion, but was sometimes also problematic.
The seeming development of this sub-CoP in a training programme for CI is another potential illustration of the situated and context-related character of IT (Chouc and Conde 2016; Pöchhacker 2004; González-Davies and Enríquez-Raído 2016). The group chat members state that the chat is one of the spaces where they acquire (select) interpreting-relevant competences (AIIC 1999; AIIC 2014; Setton and Dawrant 2016a, 357), such as collaborative preparation or sharing of glossaries in the run-up to an interpreting situation, something the main author has also experienced in her profes- sional life. They also state that Facebook Groups and chats support learning interactions in line with the master programme’s objectives, i.e. the completion of the cognitive apprenticeship within their own CoP of learners as one step towards becoming a member of the wider CoP of professional conference interpreters. Social networking sites are part of members’ everyday lives, facilitating this process (Handley et al. 2006;
Lave 1991; Wenger 2002). It thus appears that Web 2.0 services might be able to positively affect SL in IT (Pan 2016; González-Davies and Enríquez-Raído 2016) under certain conditions: the group should be small; students should develop respectful to friendly relationships; students need to trust and want to help each other; interactions should maintain a relatively clear academic focus; members should use Facebook reg- ularly but carefully, so as to limit the disadvantages; and finally, yet importantly, the group should have privacy from teachers.
Interpreter trainers and interpreting schools may want to clarify how to use social networks and other services and tools in complementarity to institutional services. In addition to the conditions just mentioned, educators might want to give ‘best practices’
advice, which could include: choosing the most fitting social networking site; deciding on (the use of) explicit rules; members assuming different roles and changing roles over time; observing requirements for written communication (e.g. respect, friendliness, trust, gratitude for content, and awareness of potential misunderstandings). Similarly, stu- dents’ perceptions of the institutional LMS could be used by higher education institutions and online platform developers so that existing and future LMS could include features
that students really need and value (such as privacy or better compatibility for mobile use).
In line with the objectives of qualitative research, this exploratory study raises further questions. Future research using different research approaches could explore the link between non-institutional group chats or other social networking tools and SL, for example by comparing the content of a similar chat with that of the institutional LMS or by looking at the relationship between the use of a group chat and the (quantifiable) success in an IT programme (e.g. grades or feedback).
Notes
1. Affiliation at the time of the research (2017–2018); no longer affiliated with this institution.
2. Group with a capital ‘G’ refers to the Facebook functionality. A ‘group chat’ is a conversation involving several people on Facebook Messenger. The word ‘group’ with a lowercase ‘g’ is not defined in a particular way.
3. For anonymity purposes, the language is not disclosed and called ‘LX’.
4. The students’ names are pseudonyms.
5. Following the recommendations of Maulini (2008).
6. As recommended by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the second reader of the first author’s master’s thesis, on which this paper is based, the participants of the test interviews and especially the five participants for their time and for their trust.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interests was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Barbara Class http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5461-2307
References
AIIC. 2014. “Code of Professional Ethics.” Accessed 22 June 2017. http://aiic.net/p/6724
AIIC (Association internationale des interprètes de conférence). 1999. “Practical Guide for Professional Conference Interpreters.” Accessed 22 June 2017. http://aiic.net/p/628
Andres, C. 2017. “Die Verwendung von Web 2.0-Programmen am Zentrum für Translationswissenschaft.” Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.
Aydin, S. 2012. “A Review of Research on Facebook as an Educational Environment.” Educational Technology Research and Development 60 (6): 1093–1106. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9260-7.
Barnett-Queen, T., R. Blair, and M. Merrick. 2005. “Student Perspectives of Online Discussions:
Strengths and Weaknesses.” Journal of Technology in Human Services 23 (3–4): 229–244.
doi:10.1300/J017v23n03_05.
Brown, J. S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.”
Educational Researcher 18 (1): 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189x018001032.
Bruckman, A. 2005. “Learning in Online Communities.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, edited by R. K. Sawyer, 461–472. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, C.-C., and M. M. C. Wu. 2017. “From Conference Venue to Classroom: The Use of Guided Conference Observation to Enhance Interpreter Training.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11 (4): 294–315. doi:10.1080/1750399X.2017.1359759.
Chouc, F., and J. M. Conde. 2016. “Enhancing the Learning Experience of Interpreting Students outside the Classroom. A Study of the Benefits of Situated Learning at the Scottish Parliament.”
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 10 (1): 92–106. doi:10.1080/1750399X.2016.1154345.
Class, B. 2009. “A Blended Socio-Constructivist Course with an Activity-Based, Collaborative Learning Environment Intended for Trainers of Conference Interpreters.” PhD thesis, University of Geneva. doi:10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:4780.
Class, B., B. Moser-Mercer, and K. Seeber. 2004. “Blended Learning for Training Interpreter Trainers.” Paper presented at the 3rd European Conference on E-learning, Paris: Academic Conferences Limited.
deChambeau, A. 2017. “The Practice of Being a Student: CoPs and Graduate Student Success.” In Implementing Communities of Practice in Higher Education: Dreamers and Schemers, edited by J. McDonald and A. Cater-Steel, 395–422. Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-2866- 3_18.
Deng, L., and N. J. Tavares. 2013. “From Moodle to Facebook: Exploring Students’ Motivation and Experiences in Online Communities.” Computers and Education 68: 167–176. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2013.04.028.
EMCI (European Masters in Conference Interpreting). 2013–2014. “EMCI Core Curriculum.”
Accessed 03 August 2017. http://www.emcinterpreting.org/?q=node/13
European Commission. (n.d.) “Speech Repository.” Accessed 03 August 2017. https://webgate.ec.
europa.eu/sr/
Friese, S. 2018. “ATLAS.ti 8 Windows User Manual.” Accessed July 2019. https://atlasti.com/
manuals-docs/
FTI (Faculté de Traduction et d’Interprétation de l’Université de Genève). 2015. “Plans d’études 2015–2016 du Master en Interprétation de Conférence.” Accessed 24 June 2017. http://www.
unige.ch/fti/index.php/download_file/view/16/510/
FTI, A. n.d. “Maîtrise universitaire (Ma) en interprétation de conférence.” Accessed 09 August 2017. https://www.unige.ch/fti/index.php/download_file/view/449/510/
Gilbert, L. S., K. Jackson, and S. Di Gregorio. 2014. “Tools for Analyzing Qualitative Data: The History and Relevance of Qualitative Data Analysis Software.” In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, edited by J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, and M. J. Bishop, 221–236. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_18.
González-Davies, M., and V. Enríquez-Raído. 2016. “Situated Learning in Translator and Interpreter Training: Bridging Research and Good Practice.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 10 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1080/1750399X.2016.1154339.
Gray, K., L. Annabell, and G. Kennedy. 2010. “Medical Students’ Use of Facebook to Support Learning: Insights from Four Case Studies.” Medical Teacher 32 (12): 971–976. doi:10.3109/
0142159X.2010.497826.
Handley, K., A. Sturdy, R. Fincham, and T. Clark. 2006. “Within and beyond Communities of Practice: Making Sense of Learning through Participation, Identity and Practice.” Journal of Management Studies 43 (3): 641–653. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00605.x.
Karsenti, T., and L. Savoie-Zajc. 2004. La Recherche Qualitative/interprétative. La recherche en éducation: étapes et approches. Sherbrooke, Québec: Éditions du CRP.
Lave, J. 1991. “Situating Learning in Communities of Practice.” Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition 2 (1991): 63–82. http://lagim.blogs.brynmawr.edu/files/2015/03/Situating-learning-in -CoPs.pdf
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Li, L. 2017. “Training Undergraduate Translators: A Consciousness-Raising Approach.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11 (4): 245–258. doi:10.1080/1750399X.2017.1359757.
Liccardi, I., A. Ounnas, R. Pau, E. Massey, P. Kinnunen, S. Lewthwaite, M.-A. Midy, and C. Sarkar.
2007. “The Role of Social Networks in Students’ Learning Experiences.” ACM Sigcse Bulletin 39 (4): 224–237. ACM. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/x633f2206
Llewellyn Smith, S., and M. Clarke. n.d. “Speechpool. Speeches to Help You Practise Interpreting.”
Accessed 03 August 2017. http://www.speechpool.net/en/
Madge, C., J. Meek, J. Wellens, and T. Hooley. 2009. “Facebook, Social Integration and Informal Learning at University: ‘It Is More for Socialising and Talking to Friends about Work than for Actually Doing Work’.” Learning, Media and Technology 34 (2): 141–155. doi:10.1080/
17439880902923606.
Mamini, F. 2014. “Interpreters in Brussels Practice Group. About Us.” Accessed 03 July 2017.
http://interpspracticegroup.com/about-us/
Manasijević, D., D. Živković, S. Arsić, and M. Isidora. 2016. “Exploring Students’ Purposes of Usage and Educational Usage of Facebook.” Computers in Human Behavior 60: 441–450.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.087.
Marshall, C., and G. B. Rossman. 1999. Designing Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mason, J. 2004. “Semistructured Interview.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, edited by M. Lewis-Beck, A. E. Bryman, and T. F. Liao, 1021–2022. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Maulini, O. 2008. “Comment transcrire un entretien ?” http://www.unige.ch/fapse/SSE/teachers/
maulini/sem-rech-transc.pdf
Mazman, S. G., and Y. K. Usluel. 2010. “Modeling Educational Usage of Facebook.” Computers and Education 55 (2): 444–453. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 2003. Analyse des données qualitatives. 2nd ed. Paris: De Boeck Université.
Miles, M. B., A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis. A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. CA, US: Sage.
Mills, N. 2011. “Situated Learning through Social Networking Communities: The Development of Joint Enterprise, Mutual Engagement, and a Shared Repertoire.” Calico Journal 28 (2): 345–368.
doi:10.11139/cj.28.2.345-368.
Moser-Mercer, B., B. Class, and K. Seeber. 2005. “Leveraging Virtual Learning Environments for Training Interpreter Trainers.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs 50 (4). doi:10.7202/019872ar.
Motta, M., and J. Drummond. 2005. “EVITA© – Pilot Project in Virtual Interpreter Training.”
Master of Advances Studies, University of Geneva. http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:35392 Nam, W. J. 2016. “T&I Field Taining for Undergraduate Students: A Case Study of Korean
Undergraduate Students’ Peripheral Participation into the Community and Their Furthered Understanding of the Role of Interpreters/Translators.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 10 (1): 44–58. doi:10.1080/1750399X.2016.1154342.
Pan, J. 2016. “Linking Classroom Exercises to Real-Life Practice: A Case of Situated Simultaneous Interpreting Learning.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 10 (1): 107–132. doi:10.1080/
1750399X.2016.1154346.
Pöchhacker, F. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge.
Prescott, J., S. Wilson, and G. Becket. 2013. “Facebook Use in the Learning Environment: Do Students Want This?” Learning, Media and Technology 38 (3): 345–350. doi:10.1080/
17439884.2013.788027.
Ractham, P., and D. Firpo. 2011. “Using Social Networking Technology to Enhance Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study Using Facebook.” System Sciences (HICSS), 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on, 1–10, Kauai, HI, USA: IEEE. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2011.479.
Revillard, A. 2006. Aide-mémoire: Préparer et réaliser un entretien. Cours de Méthodes qualitatives en sciences sociales (L3). Cachan: Ecole normale supérieure de Cachan.
Savin-Badin, M., and C. H. Major. 2013. Qualitative Research. An Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Sawyer, D. B. 2004. Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculum and Assessment.
Vol. 47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Schneider, D. K., P. Synteta, C. Frété, F. Girardin, and S. Morand. 2003. “Conception and Implementation of Rich Pedagogical Scenarios through Collaborative Portal Sites: Clear Focus and Fuzzy Edges.” Paper Presented at the International Conference on Open and Online Learning, Mauritius.
Selwyn, N. 2007a. “‘Screw Blackboard . . . Do It on Facebook!’: An Investigation of Students’
Educational Use of Facebook.” Ponencia. En: Poke. http://startrekdigitalliteracy.pbworks.com/f/
2g19b89ezl6ursp6e749.pdf
Selwyn, N. 2007b. “Web 2.0 Applications as Alternative Environments for Informal Learning-a Critical Review.” Paper for CERI-KERIS International Expert Meeting on ICT and Educational Performance, Cheju Island, South Korea, October 16–17. http://newinbre.hpcf.upr.
edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/39458556-W2-informal-learning.pdf
Setton, R., and A. Dawrant. 2016a. Conference Interpreting: A Complete Course (Vol. 120).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Setton, R., and A. Dawrant. 2016b. Conference Interpreting: A Trainer’s Guide (Vol. 121).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Valtchuk, O. 2018. “‘I Probably Could Have Lived without It, but It Has Still Been a Major Contributor to My Success’: How a Student Facebook Group Chat of FTI’s MA in Conference Interpreting Contributes to Situated Learning.” Master’s Thesis, University of Geneva.
Wenger, E. 2002. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. 2011. “Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction.” Accessed 02 August 2017.
http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/07-Brief-introduction-to- communities-of-practice.pdf
Yin, R. K. 2014. Case Study Research Design and Methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
