Future Audio Describers in Museums: Interpreting Visual Thinking through Practice

Öz

This study aims to conduct a functional evaluation of the visual thinking strategies employed by prospective audio description specialists, who are positioned as both audiences and performers. Within the scope of the study, fourteen students enrolled in the elective audio description course at Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and Technology University were asked to visit the Adana Archaeology Museum and create object descriptions based on a translation commission. The commission outlined the purpose, context, and target audience—blind and/or partially sighted individuals—following the principles of skopos theory. These descriptions were then analyzed in accordance with skopos theory and Abigail Housen’s (2007) five visual thinking strategies: accountive (personal, narrative-based observation), constructive (structural analysis), classifying, interpretive, and re-creative. The findings revealed that accountive and constructive strategies were predominantly employed. It was also observed that some students considered the needs of the ‘implied visitor’—a conceptual adaptation of Iser’s (1978) ‘implied reader’ that reflects the describer’s mental model of their audience—by using inclusive language, directional expressions, and familiar measurements, while others focused primarily on the factual characteristics of the objects. The results indicate that students generally approached museum description as an informative task rather than as an experiential or interpretive practice. This highlights the need for further pedagogical development, particularly in fostering greater awareness of audience-oriented strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• museum audio descriptions
• visual thinking strategies
• skopos theory
• implied visitor

Müzelerde Geleceğin Sesli Betimleyicileri: Uygulama Yoluyla Görsel Düşünmenin Yorumlanması

Öz

Bu çalışma, hem birer katılımcı hem de uygulayıcı konumunda olan geleceğin sesli betimleme uzmanlarının kullandığı görsel düşünme stratejilerinin işlevsel bir değerlendirmesini yapmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında, Adana Alparslan Türkeş Bilim ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi Mütercim ve Tercümanlık Bölümü’nde seçmeli sesli betimleme dersini alan ondört öğrenci, Adana Arkeoloji Müzesi’ni ziyaret etmeye ve seçtikleri objeleri bir çeviri talimatı doğrultusunda betimlemeye davet edilmiştir. Bu talimat, skopos kuramı doğrultusunda betimlemenin amacı, bağlamı ve hedef kitlesi—görme engelli ve/veya az gören bireyler—gibi unsurları içermektedir. Öğrencilerin oluşturduğu betimlemeler, skopos kuramı ve Abigail Housen’ın (2007) ortaya koy-duğu beş görsel düşünme stratejisi -anlatımsal (kişisel, hikâyeleştirilmiş gözlem), yapılandırıcı (yapısal analiz), sınıflayıcı, yorumlayıcı ve yeniden yaratıcı stratejiler- çerçevesinde analiz edil-miştir. Bulgular, öğrencilerin ağırlıklı olarak anlatımsal ve yapılandırıcı stratejileri kullandığını ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca bazı öğrencilerin, hedef kitlenin ihtiyaçlarını göz önünde bulundurarak kapsayıcı dil, yön bildiren ifadeler ve tanıdık ölçü birimleri kullandıkları; bazılarının ise daha çok objelerin nesnel özelliklerine odaklandıkları gözlemlenmiştir. Bu bağlamda, öğrencilerin zihinsel olarak betimlemeyi kime yönelik yaptığını yansıtan ‘örtük ziyaretçi’ kavramı, Wolfgang Iser’in (1978) ‘örtük okur’ kuramından uyarlanarak, analiz aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, öğrenci-lerin müze betimlemesine genellikle bilgi aktarımına dayalı bir görev olarak yaklaştıklarını; bu tür bir betimlemeyi deneyimsel veya yorumlayıcı bir eylem olarak görmediklerini göstermekte-dir. Bu durum, hedef kitleye yönelik stratejik farkındalığın gelişimi için pedagojik müdahalelere ve daha derinlemesine eğitime duyulan ihtiyacı ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• müze betimlemeleri
• görsel düşünme stratejileri
• skopos kuramı
• örtük ziyaretçi

Kaynakça

1. ADLAB PRO. (2016). Audio description for static arts – Core video transcript [Module 4: (Semi-) live or recorded AD for static arts and environments]. https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/recdoc/2018/199904/RL_M4.pdf
2. Bartolini, C. (2023). Museum audio descriptions vs. general audio guides: Describing or inter-preting cultural heritage? Journal of Audiovisual Translation, 6(2), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.47476/jat.v6i2.2023.253
3. Bartolini, C., & Manfredi, M. (2022). Combining intersemiotic and interlingual translation in training programmes: A functional approach to museum audio description. Status Quaestionis, 23, 75–98. https://dx.doi.org/10.13133/2239-1983/18225
4. Bennet, A. (1998). Visual thinking and number relationship. Mathematics Teacher, 81(4), 267-272. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.81.4.0267
5. Çolak, O., & Karakan, H. I. (2024). Integrated evaluation of visitor experience factors in the scope of museum management. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 7(4), 1720–1742. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-06-2022-0261
6. DeSantis, K., & Housen, A. (2009). Visual thinking strategies: A learning model for museum education. Visual Understanding in Education. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document? repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=04b59ca7b6ff78131903356249eee162d0177f db
7. Du, X. (2012). A brief introduction of Skopos theory. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2189–2193. https://doi:10.4304/tpls.2.10.2189- 2193
8. Eardley, A. F., Fryer, L., Hutchinson, R., Cock, M., Ride, P., & Neves, J. (2017). Enriched audio description: Working towards an inclusive museum experience. In: Halder, S., Assaf, L. (eds), Inclusion, disability and culture: An ethnographic perspective traversing abilities and challenges (pp. 195-207). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55224-8_13

9. Gao, B., & Yu, S. (2024). Upgrading museum experience: Insights into offline visitor perceptions through social media trends. Emerging Trends in Drugs, Addictions, and Health, 4, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etdah.2023.100137
10. Guillot, M. N. (2014). Cross-cultural pragmatics and translation: The case of museum texts as interlingual representation. In J. House (Ed.), Translation: A multidisciplinary ap-proach, (pp. 73-95). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137025487_5
11. Hermans, T. (2007). The conference of the tongues. St. Jerome Publishing.
12. Hongyu, B. A. O. (2024). A study on the subtitle translation of the American TV series Person of Interest from the perspective of Skopos theory. Region - Educational Research and Re-views, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.32629/rerr.v6i3.1861
13. Housen, A. (2001). Eye of the beholder: Research, theory and practice. vtshome.org. https://vtshome.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Eye- of-the-Beholder.pdf
14. Housen, A. (2007). Art viewing and aesthetic development: Designing for the viewer. In The National Art Education Association (Ed.), From periphery to center: Art museum edu-cation in the 21st century (pp. 172–191). Natl Art Education Assn.
15. Housen, A., & Yenawine, P. (2018). Understanding the basics. Visual Thinking Strategies. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/-/media/institute-excellence- education/documents/understanding-the-basics.pdf
16. Hutchinson, R. S., & Eardley, A. F. (2019). Museum audio description: The problem of textual fidelity. Perspectives, 27(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1473451
17. Hutchinson, R., & Eardley, A. F. (2021). Inclusive museum audio guides: ‘guided looking’ through audio description enhances memorability of artworks for sighted audiences. Museum Management and Curatorship, 36(4), 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2021.1891563
18. Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Johns Hopkins University Press.
19. King, E., Smith, M. P., Wilson, P. F., Stott, J., & Williams, M. A. (2023). Creating meaningful museums: A model for museum exhibition user experience. Visitor Studies, 26(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2022.2129944
20. Li, P. (2024). Cultural communication in museums: A perspective of the visitors' experience. PLOS ONE, 19(5), e0303026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303026
21. Liao, M. H. (2018). Museums and creative industries: The contribution of Translation Stud-ies. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (29), 45- 62. https://doi.org/10.26034/cm.jostrans.2018.211
22. Macdonald, S. (2006). A companion to museum studies. John Wiley & Sons.
23. Matamala, A., & Orero, P. (2007). Accessible Opera: Overcoming Linguistic and Sensorial Barri-ers. Perspectives, 15(4), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050802326766
24. Perego, E. (2019). Into the language of museum audio descriptions: A corpus-based study. Per-spectives, 27(3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1544648
25. Rai, S., Greening, J., & Petré, L. (2010). A comparative study of audio description guidelines prevalent in different countries. Royal National Institute of Blind People. https://dcmp.org/learn/326-a-comparative- study-of-audio-description-guidelines-prevalent-in-different- countries
26. Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (2014). Towards a general theory of translational action (C. Nord, Trans.). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315759715
27. Simon, S. (2013). Cities in translation: Intersections of language and memory. Routledge.
28. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
29. Vermeer, H. J. (1996). A skopos theory of translation: (Some arguments for and against). TextconText-Verlag.