Examining Translator Candidate Students’ Strengths and Weaknesses in Note-taking System While Interpreting Consecutively

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine translator candidate students’ strengths and weaknesses while taking notes in consecutive interpreting based on oral performance and to explore the challenges they face in the process. The present study used a case study research design in which the data were collected qualitatively. The instructional design used in the study was planned in such a way that the students would identify the challenges they experienced in consecutive interpreting, interpret the listening texts consecutively through note-taking technique, identify their strengths and weaknesses through self-assessment, and bridge the gap between their existing knowledge determined in line with their strengths and weaknesses and the knowledge intended to be acquired. Pre- and post-interviews, observation, think-aloud protocol, student diaries, portfolios, and listening texts were used to collect the data in the study. The findings obtained from the study revealed that the students could identify their strengths and weaknesses through self-assessment, bridge the gap between their existing knowledge and the knowledge intended to be acquired in the process, visualize the listening texts in their memories, and make progress in note-taking. The findings were discussed in the research context, and pedagogical implications were recommended in view of a constructivist approach to enrich the content of the note-taking training process in consecutive interpreting.

Keywords

• Consecutive interpreting
• constructivist approach
• note-taking
• translation education

References

1. Afonina, I. Y. (2022). Note Taking for Consecutive Interpreting: Challenge of Teaching, Success of Performing. Publishing House “Baltija Publishing”. https://doi.org/10.30525/978-9934-26-196-1-4
2. Albl-Mikasa, M. (2008). (Non-) Sense in note-taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 10(2), 197-231.
3. Alterman, R. A. (1965). Using Student Diaries to Develop an Evaluative Instrument for Teacher Education Programs. The Journal of Educational Research, (58)8, 369-372.
4. Arumí Ribas, M. (2012). Problems and Strategies in Consecutive Interpreting: A Pilot Study at Two Different Stages of Interpreter Training. Meta, 57(3), 812–835. https://doi.org/10.7202/1017092ar
5. Bada, S. O. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
6. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: principles, methods, and practices. USF Open Access Textbooks Collection. Book 3 University of South Florida. http://scholarcommons.usf. edu/oa_textbooks/3
7. Chen, S. (2017). Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: New data from pen recording. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research, 9(1), 4-23.
8. Chmiel, A. (2010). How Effective is Teaching Note-Taking to Trainee Interpreters? The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 4(2), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2010.10798805

9. Cooperstein, S. E., & Kocevar‐Weidinger, E. (2004). Beyond active learning: A constructivist approach to learning. Reference services review, 32(2), 141-148.
10. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
11. Dam. V. H. (2010). Consecutive Interpreting. Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 75-79). John Benjamins B.V.
12. Dong, Y., Li, Y., & Zhao, N. (2019) Acquisition of interpreting strategies by student interpreters. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13(4), 408-425. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2019.1617653
13. Durukan, E. (2017). Ardıl çeviri eğitiminde not almanın önemi ve not alma duyarlılığının pekiştirilmesi. Diyalog Interkulturelle Zeitschrift Für Germanistik, 5(1), 102-112.
14. Fernández Polo, F. J., & Cal Varela, M. (2011). Learning translation through the use of portfolios: description of an experience. @tic. revista d'innovació educative, (7), 44-51. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3495/349532303006.pdf
15. Fox, R. (2001) Constructivism Examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 23-35, DOI: 10.1080/03054980125310
16. Gile, D. (2009). Conference interpreting, historical and cognitive perspectives. M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd Ed.). Routledge.
17. Gillies, G. (2017). Note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting: A Short Course (2nd Ed). Routledge.
18. Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2007). Constructivism and Education: Misunderstandings and Pedagogical Implications. The Teacher Educator, (43)1, 72-86, DOI: 10.1080/08878730701728945
19. Jiménez Ivars, A., & Pinazo Calatayud, D. (2001). “I failed because I got very nervous”. Anxiety and performance in interpreting trainees: An empirical study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 105–118.
20. Li, X. (2013). Are interpreting strategies teachable? Correlating trainees’ strategy use with trainers’ training in the consecutive interpreting classroom. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 18: 105–128.
21. Li, X. (2019). Material development principles in undergraduate translator and interpreter training: balancing between professional realism and classroom realism. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, (13)1, 18-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2018.1550039
22. Lim, H. O. (2018). Overcoming Performance Anxiety during Consecutive Interpretation. Lagos Notes and Records, 24(1), 1-13.
23. Lu, W. (2013). Developing note-taking skills in consecutive interpreting. Linguistics, Culture & Education, 2, 72-81.
24. Munday, J. (2008). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (2nd Ed.). Routledge.
25. Palumbo, G. (2009). Key terms in translation studies. Continuum.
26. Phuong, H. Y., Lam, T. C. T., & Le, T. T. (2023). Students’ perceptions of using note-taking in consecutive interpreting assignments. Can Tho University Journal of Science, 15(1), 8-21.
27. Rosiers, A., Eyckmans, J., & Bauwens, D. (2011). A story of attitudes and aptitudes?: Investigating individual difference variables within the context of interpreting. Interpreting, 13(1), 53-69.
28. Russell, D. (2005). Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice (pp. 135-164). John Benjamins.
29. Russell, D., & Takeda, K. (2015). Consecutive interpreting. H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp. 96-111). Routledge.
30. Sanchez, M. (2018). (Over) Note-Taking in Consecutive Interpreting. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 6(3), 150-156.
31. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Self‐regulation and learning. Weiner, I. B., Reynolds, W. M., & Miller, G. E (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 59-78). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
32. Varney, J. (2009). From hermeneutics to the translation classroom: A social constructivist approach to effective learning. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research 1(1), 27-43.
33. Wang, B. (2012). A descriptive study of norms in interpreting: Based on the Chinese-English consecutive interpreting corpus of Chinese premier press conferences. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 57(1), 198-212.
34. Wu, Y., & Liao, P. (2018). Re-conceptualising interpreting strategies for teaching interpretation into a B language. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(2), 188-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2018.1451952
35. Yamada, H. (2018). Validity of note-taking for new consecutive interpreting learners: An empirical study of university interpretation courses. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(11), 1387-1396.
36. Yemenici, A. (2019). Ardıl çeviri eğitiminde dikkat yönetimi ve çalışma belleği dinamikleri. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (5), 297-313. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.606163
37. https://breakingnewsenglish.com/