The silver lining: Technology and self-study in the interpreting classroom

Interpreting

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 95-118

  Hansen, Inge Gorm ^a   Shlesinger, Miriam ^a  

^a Department of International Economics and Management   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Action research; e learning; Pedagogy of interpreter training; Role play dialogues; Self spaced consecutive; Sight translation; Student centered learning; Video based dialogues

Indexed keywords

EID: 43249147369     PISSN: 13846647     EISSN: 1569982X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/intp.9.1.06gor     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. (2000). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
2. Bühler, H. (1989). Discourse analysis and the spoken text: A critical analysis of the performance of advanced interpretation students. In L. Gran & J. Dodds (Eds.), The theoretical and practical aspects of teaching conference interpretation. Udine: Campanotto Editore, 131-137
3. Burger, C. & Zatlin, P. (1989). Using technology in the teaching of interpretation. In D. L. Hammond (Ed.), Coming of age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association. Medford, NJ: Learned Information
4. Campbell, S. & Hale, S. (2003). Translation and interpreting assessment in the context of educational measurement. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation today: Trends and perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 205-224
5. Corsellis, A. (2005). Training interpreters to work in the public services. In M. Tennent (Ed.), Training for the new millennium. Pedagogies for translation and interpreting. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 153-173
6. Cronin, M. (2005). Deschooling translation. Beginning of century reflections on teaching translation and interpreting. In M. Tennent (Ed), Training for the new millennium. Pedagogies for translation and interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 249-265
7. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press
8. Englund Dimitrova, B. (2002). Training and educating the trainers. A key issue in translators' training. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching translation and interpreting 4. Building bridges. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 73-82
9. Fraser, J. (2004). Translation research and interpreting research: pure, applied, action or pedagogic? In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 57-61
10. Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins
11. Gile, D. (2004). Translation research versus interpreting research: Kinship, differences and prospects for partnership. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 10-35
12. Gile, D. (2005). Teaching conference interpreting: A contribution. In M. Tennent (Ed.), Training for the new millennium. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 127-151
13. González Davies, M. (2004). Multiple voices in the translation classroom. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
14. Gran, L., Carabelli, A. & Merlini, R. (2002). Computer-assisted interpreter training. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 277-294
15. Harmer, J. (1996). Dialogue journals-a pedagogical tool for training interpreters. Introducing novice consecutive interpreters to journal-writing. Unpublished paper, "Training the Trainers" course, ETI, University of Geneva
16. Henry, C. & Kemmis, S. (1985). A point-by-point guide to action research for teachers. The Australian Administrator 6 (4), 1-4
17. Ilg, G. & Lambert, S. (1996). Teaching consecutive interpreting. Interpreting 1 (1), 69-99
18. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
19. Kellett, C. J. M. (1995). Video-aided testing of student delivery and presentation in consecutive interpretation. The Interpreters' Newsletter 6, 43-66
20. Kiraly, D. (2000). A social constructivist approach to translator education. Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester: St. Jerome
21. Kurz, I. (2002a). Physiological stress responses during media and conference interpreting. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 195-202
22. Kurz, I. (2002b). Interpreting training programmes: The benefits of coordination, cooperation, and modern technology. In E. Hung (Ed.) Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 65-72
23. Lambert, S. (1992). The cloze technique as a pedagogical tool for the training of translators and interpreters. Target 4 (2), 223-236
24. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
25. Lowe, T. (1998). An experiment in role reversal: Teachers as learners. In M. J. Wallace (Ed.), Action research for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 68-76
26. Mason, I. (1999). Introduction. The Translators (2)-Special Issue: Dialogue Interpreting, 147-160
27. Mason, I. (2000). Models and methods in dialogue Interpreting research. In M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural faultlines: Research models in translation studies 1: Textual and cognitive aspects. Manchester: St. Jerome, 215-232
28. Merlini, R. (1996). InterprIT-Consecutive interpretation module. The Interpreters' Newsletter 7, 31-41
29. Moser-Mercer, B. (1997). Skill components in simultaneous interpreting. In Y. Gambier, D. GiIe & C. Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 133-148
30. Pöchhacker, F. (1999). Teaching practices in simultaneous interpreting. The Interpreters' Newsletter 9, 157-176
31. Russo, M. (1995). Self-evaluation: The awareness of one's own difficulties as a training tool for simultaneous interpretation. The Interpreters' Newsletter 5, 75-85
32. Sandrelli, A. (2001). Teaching liaison interpreting. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 173-196
33. Sandrelli, A. (2002). Computers in the training of interpreters: Curriculum design issues. In G. Garzone, P. Mead & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Perspectives on interpreting. Bologna: CLUEB, 189-204
34. Sandrelli, A. (2003). New technologies in interpreter training: CAIT. In H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, E. Hajičová, P. Sgall, Z. Jettmarová, A. Rothkegel & D. Rothfuß-Bastian (Eds.), Textologie und Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 261-293
35. Sandrelli, A. (in press) Designing CAIT (computer-assisted interpreter training) tools: Black Box. In H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast et al. (Eds.), Challenges of multidimensional translation. Manchester: St. Jerome
36. Schäffner, C. (2004). The debate: True and false opposites. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation research and interpreting research: Traditions, gaps and synergies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 35-48
37. Séguinot, C. (1997). Accounting for variability in translation. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 104-119
38. Shaw, S., Grbic, N. & Franklin, K. (2004). Applying language skills to interpretation. Interpreting 6 (1), 69-100
39. Tennent, M. (Ed.) (2005). Training for the new millennium. Pedagogies for translation and interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
40. Toury, G. (1984). The notion of "native translator" and translation teaching. In W. Wilss & G. Thome (Eds.), Die Theorie des Übersetzens und ihr Aufschlusswert für die Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschdidaktik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 186-195