Abstract
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has brought an unprecedented shift to the mode of educational programs, from face-to-face to online, all over the world. Interpreting courses, being no exception, had to face various challenges as well. This study aims to investigate the impacts of emergency remote teaching on interpreting courses from the trainers' perspectives. To this end, semi-structured interviews were conducted online with a study group consisting of 16 interpreter trainers with at least three years of experience in teaching face-to-face at the undergraduate level, who had to move their courses online during the pandemic. Observation, another qualitative method, was used for the second stage of data collection to ensure triangulation. In all, four online interpreting courses held by three different trainers at separate universities in Turkey were observed by the researchers. Data analysis in reflexive thematic form was conducted using the MaxQda software. The findings are discussed with specific emphasis on course design, student motivation, technical challenges, and the additional workload of trainers to inform both in-person and further online teaching practices.
1 Introduction
Upon the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic early in 2020, various forms of technology began to offer major assistance in various fields to overcome the disruptions. One of these fields was education. In response to the pandemic conditions, emergency remote teaching (ERT) began at Turkish universities around the same time and in line with the rest of the world. However, the transition to online teaching was announced only a week ahead of the commencement of ERT programs. The Council of Higher Education of Turkey (CoHE) called on universities with a Distant Education infrastructure to start online courses on 23 March, 2020, and recommended postponing practice-based courses to later dates (CoHE, 2020a). Accordingly, it was assumed that online teaching would be introduced only for theoretical courses, and for a short time. By the first week of May that same year, though, 75% of all practice-based courses also moved online (CoHE, 2020b). Given the sudden nature of this transition, the first response was to provide the best possible ERT practices. Defined as “a temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to crisis circumstances” (Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust, & Bond, 2020, para. 13), ERT also implies a limited period of remote teaching, which will end “once the crisis or emergency has abated” (para. 13).
It became evident that copying the in-person course design into a virtual one cannot remove the disparities between face-to-face instruction and ERT. “A well-organized online learning platform” is expected to lay the grounds for virtual educational programs by including “a detailed syllabus and clear and complete course materials” (Bilić, 2020, p. 130). However, what distinguishes ERT from online teaching is the time constraint inflicted by the emergency itself on a well-designed course. Also pertinent is the limited resources available to trainers, who are expected to learn the pedagogical principles of online teaching along with technical details. It could be surmised that trainers' acquaintance with online teaching before ERT might have equipped them with more pedagogical technical resources.
Long before the pandemic hit, Class and Moser-Mercer (2013) reported one of the earliest examples of a virtual learning environment (VLE) in the training of interpreter trainers. Accordingly, the blended learning approach consisting of both face-to-face and online learning settings for interpreter trainers has been successfully used for years based on the principles of socio-constructivist pedagogy (p. 309). More recently, Braun, Davitti, and Slater (2020) also reported the potential of VLEs, a videoconferencing setting and 3D virtual world in particular, for providing collaborative and authentic learning environment in dialogue interpreter training. Pointing out the advantages of synchronous online teaching in interpreter training, Ko and Chen (2011) puts forth an instructional design by proposing a series of teaching activities for dialogue interpreting, sight translation, CI and SI courses. In this study, it is suggested that interpreter training can be successfully provided in an online setting. When it comes to Turkey, it can be said that remote teaching completed its evolution by the 2000s, and that it has remained part of the mainstream education since then (Bozkurt, 2019). Within the context of translator and interpreter (T&I) training, on the other hand, online training had not been widely practiced and blended into in-person teaching, except for scarce projects (Güven, 2014; Şahin, 2013; Şahin & Eraslan, 2017), unlike many fully online programs in Europe (Mansilla & González-Davies, 2017) and the U.S.A (Bestué & Orozco, 2016; Bilić, 2020). Therefore, interpreter trainers in Turkey did not have adequate time to learn about new programs, to brush up their information and communication technology (ICT) skills, and to redesign their course schedules, activities, and materials.
1.1 Challenges and constraints of online teaching
The literature of T&I training has reported some challenges posed by online teaching and ERT. Pym (2001) recommends trainers create interactive lessons, control asynchrony in courses, and establish a learning community to tackle the common problems associated with online teaching, namely “student distress, declining motivation, heterogeneous learning needs, and high resource investment” (p.1). In a study conducted by Duranton and Mason (2012) to investigate the experiences of distance learners enrolled in the M.A. program of translation, half of the students expressed “feelings of isolation and alienation” (p.85). Similar findings were also reported by Mansilla and González-Davies (2017) based on their observations of online courses. The lack of non-verbal elements, the isolated environment where students are confined to their computers, and limited participation, particularly of shy students (Ismail, Nasser Alsager, & Omar, 2019) are also discussed as drawbacks of online translator training. To overcome the feelings of loneliness and isolation of learners in an online setting which lead to low participation in the class activities, trainers should take steps to ensure peer interaction, create a collaborative learning environment (Ahrens, Beaton-Thome, & Rütten, 2021; Duranton & Mason, 2012), and implement student-centered, collaborative, and situated learning practices by ensuring student interaction and interdependence (Mansilla & González-Davies, 2017). To improve students' participation in the practices, Lee and Huh (2018) recommend applying group projects to increase a sense of community, and incorporating reflective learning practices such as journals and reflective commentaries. Another suggestion to tackle low student participation in the class activities can be drawn from Bestué and Orozco's (2016) assessment method, which includes both formative and continuous assessment. To overcome the difficulties of formal assessment in an online course, they gave a higher percentage of marks to class participation, in-class tasks, and self-assessment than to a formal exam (Bestué & Orozco, 2016, p. 487) by adopting a process-oriented assessment rather than a product-oriented one. Clifford (2018) presents another study on online interpreter training with a focus on interaction between learners, content, and instructors. In this study, the biggest challenges encountered during the online teaching experience are the unexpected communication-related problems rather than the expected difficulties such as students' and instructors' adaptability to the online setting; technical issues, or complications of online pedagogy (Clifford, 2018, p. 169). As in the pre-COVID-19 era of online teaching, students' motivation and engagement continued to loom large in T&I training during the pandemic as well (Hubscher-Davidson & Devaux, 2021; Wu & Wei, 2021; Şahin, Oral, & Dhabi, 2021). Tivyaeva (2021) stresses that motivation, along with community involvement, is a key factor to support students' adaptation to such challenging times in training.
Technical challenges, such as the need for students to configure their computers and software (Fons & Doménech, 2017), the necessity of remotely troubleshooting software or system errors (Bilić, 2020), poor Internet connection, and lack of mastery of ICT tools (Afolabi & Oyetoyan, 2021) have also been highlighted. This challenge may be aggravated by an abrupt shift in the teaching medium and the lack of organizational support under the pandemic conditions.
Limited non-verbal elements are another constraint in an online setting. This challenge is aggravated in an interpreting course, which relies on non-verbal elements to assess the quality of interpreter-mediated communication. Paralinguistic factors, such as the stance of the interpreter, eye contact, hand movements, and even the proximity to the addressees in the consecutive and bilateral interpreting modes are important parameters taught and assessed in interpreting classes. In interpreter training during the pandemic, visual elements could be easily used via synchronous teaching, which corresponds to teaching in real time in presence of students and the trainer, thanks to the advancement of online meeting software. Synchronous teaching offers trainers opportunities to pick up their students' non-verbal signals, such as frustration and reluctance (Wu & Wei, 2021), albeit less effectively than in-person teaching (Ko, 2006, 2008).
In interpreting courses, which considerably rely on master-apprenticeship practices, continuous assessment is of critical importance to offer timely trainer-to-student and student-to-student feedback. As a process-oriented assessment approach, continuous assessment requires active participation and engagement of students through discussions, hands-on practices, and collaborative tasks. In-person feedback methods have been challenged by “students' demand for highly individualized (written) feedback, a growing impatience with feedback directed towards one particular student, as well as issues regarding keeping track of feedback” (Ahrens et al., 2021, p. 257) observed in online settings. Likewise, trainers noted facing challenges concerning continuous assessment in ERT (Wu & Wei, 2021), while students complained about the lack of detailed feedback on their tasks (Perez & Hodáková, 2021).
With respect to the consecutive interpreting (CI) mode, Seresi (2021) describes her course flow as providing learners with asynchronous tasks and synchronous online feedback. In a study analyzing her students' experience with ERT, she reports that in asynchronous interpreting it was impossible to mimic real-life conditions, since students were able to listen to the speech multiple times before interpreting and to restart their recording when they chose to do so (p. 105). As for the simultaneous interpreting (SI) mode, Krouglov (2021) reports the need for technical tools and platforms to ensure quality in SI training during ERT. Similarly, Eszenyi (2021) lists the main differences between in-person and remote teaching as follows: online platforms require videoconferencing equipment, fundamental devices and internet connection, learners' adaptability to the new setting, and increased fatigue in remote interpreting (pp. 116–117). Eszenyi (2021) also reports that SI students experienced more stress and had to endeavor more effort in the ERT process compared to the traditional learning conditions.
1.2 Benefits of online teaching
The shift to online teaching, despite all its potential drawbacks, may still benefit trainers as well by offering new tools that help them to maximize the efficiency of their courses. The most common advantages of online teaching involve logistic convenience (Duranton & Mason, 2012), a more flexible and student-centered pedagogical model (Bilić, 2020), and the learning and use of ICT (Fons & Doménech, 2017).
In the context of online T&I training, another major advantage of online teaching is that it can help to simulate real-world conditions (Bilić, 2020; Mansilla & González-Davies, 2017), mimic a technology-based professional environment, and facilitate the transition to “professional practice and networking online” (Duranton & Mason, 2012, p. 84). In addition, it fostered “extracurricular activities such as invited talks by professionals, workshops and academic events” (Perez & Hodáková, 2021, p. 308). In online interpreting courses, the biggest advantage is mimicking the real-world future settings that require remote interpreting (RI) services, which are increasingly gaining impetus in the market. Learners' compulsory experience of RI has also been reported as the main contribution of forced transition to online interpreter training (Eszenyi, 2021; Tivyaeva & Vodyanitskaya, 2021). In this case, teaching RI systems would be an indispensable part of training in this field, irrespective of any restrictions.
In a pedagogical context, online teaching is associated with more constructivist learning elements, such as interaction and reflection (Hubscher-Davidson & Devaux, 2021). Similarly, Ahrens et al. (2021) define this contribution as the “unintended benefit” of ERT as it is associated with a collaborative learning environment created by trainers (p. 521). When carefully designed, online teaching provides students with new tools and more flexible self-study opportunities. Thus, a more student-centered atmosphere can be created as the instructor can assume the role of a facilitator during the learning processes (Valentine & Wong, 2021), as opposed to a transmitter of knowledge. In this regard, the shift to a virtual learning setting further contributes to learner autonomy (Kornacki & Pietrzak, 2021). For instance, asynchronous tools that are accessed by students on their own can be offered as valuable means of self-study to interpreting students, especially those who need support, to scaffold their interpreting skills.
In countries where virtual learning practices have been well incorporated into the in-person learning environment, online teaching could help trainers to complement traditional interpreter training, as also suggested by Afolabi and Oyetoyan (2021). Likewise, “the prior experience of the teaching team in delivering online workshops and webinars and their close engagement with students” are closely associated with smooth transition to ERT (Krouglov, 2021, p. 54). In certain cases, the technical constraints of ERT, which may hamper pedagogical quality, may be neutralized by support provided by orientation programs, universities, organizations, and interpreting communities, as exemplified in Tivyaeva and Vodyanitskaya (2021) and Tivyaeva (2021). Another relevant study reveals that interpreter trainers' negative perception of distance training at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic shifted to positive after experiencing ERT for a few months (Xu, Zhao, & Deng, 2021).
Drawing on the literature of both online teaching and ERT during the COVID-19 pandemic as presented above, this study aims to investigate the impact related to the shift to ERT imposed by the pandemic on interpreting courses in Turkey. It seeks answers to the following research questions:
What are the challenges experienced by interpreter trainers in undergraduate programs during ERT in Turkey?
What lessons can be learned from these experiences to inform both in-person and further online interpreter training practices?
2 Methodology
2.1 Research design
In this study, a qualitative research design was used to thoroughly explore the online teaching experiences of trainers, and to throw light on the ‘why’s and ‘how’s of these experiences. It is not intended to reach generalizable conclusions. The case study method is preferred to investigate “a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context” (Yin, 2009, p.18), Interpreter training environments are embedded in a social context that allows us to investigate and observe behaviors in real-world conditions without manipulating the research object under controlled conditions (Saldanha & O’Brien, 2014).
2.2 Participants and setting
In Turkey, interpreter training is mainly offered at the undergraduate level in more than 50 different Translation and Interpreting and Translation Studies programs in various language pairs, such as Turkish–English, –German, –French, –Arabic, –Russian, –Chinese, –Bulgarian, –Persian and –Japanese. Despite this high number of undergraduate programs, graduate-level Conference Interpreting programs are offered by two universities only. In consideration of the remarkable difference between the graduate and undergraduate levels of interpreter training in terms of student selection, contact hours and targeted acquisitions, one has to remember Setton and Dawrant's (2016) distinction between “partial training in interpreting skills offered at the undergraduate level” and “full professional training” at the graduate level (p. 532). In Turkey, on the other hand, conference interpreting courses, such as SI and CI are compulsory for all students and no screening test is applied for these expertise courses in some undergraduate programs. Against this background, it should be noted that the participants of this study are trainers who had been actively teaching interpreting courses at the undergraduate level in Turkey, and whose courses had to be moved online at the onset of the pandemic.
A 13-question semi-structured interview was conducted online with 16 interpreter trainers who voluntarily participated in the study. Seven of the participants are from Ankara, followed by five from İstanbul, two from Adana, one from Bolu, and one from İzmir. Half of the participants work at state universities, while the other half are at foundation universities. Since the majority of trainers teach at well-established universities in major cities, the present paper paid special attention to including interpreter trainers from relatively newly established programs and rural cities as well so as to reflect a more nationwide and comprehensive view of ERT experience. Thirteen of the participants teach in Turkish–English programs, two in Turkish–German, and one in Turkish-French. As to their work experience, five have a professional interpreting experience of 20 or more years, followed by three with 11–15 years, two with 5–10 years, and another two with 1–4 years. The remaining four have no experience at all.
Most of the participants (13) taught multiple interpreting courses in a semester during the ERT period. In this sense, this study is not confined to any specific interpreting course, and the participants holistically narrated their experiences from all the related courses they delivered online throughout the pandemic. Still, it may be helpful to know which courses are the focal points in the experience of the trainers. Accordingly, CI courses were taught by 11 participants, SI by nine, sight translation by five, conference interpreting (a course encompassing SI, CI, and on-sight interpreting, etc. at the same time), note-taking, and introduction to interpreting by four and community interpreting by three. In this respect, the findings mostly reflect conference interpreting courses, CI and SI.
2.3 Data collection
2.3.1 Interviews
The semi-structured interview form (see Appendix) was first piloted on two interpreter trainers for the comprehensibility and appropriateness of the questions. Following the demographic questions at the beginning, four main open-ended questions in the interview inquire mainly about the course content offered in in-person training. The participants were, then, asked to compare their in-person and ERT course content including activities, materials, typical course flow, and so on. The participants were also asked to elaborate and exemplify the problems encountered during online courses along with their positive and/or negative experiences. They were also asked for recommendations on how to improve interpreter training in Turkey. Follow-up and probe questions were asked where needed to keep the respondent on track and to get more detailed answers. The online meetings were recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were coded to be merged later on with observational codes.
2.3.2 Observation
To ensure data triangulation, observation as another qualitative method was used for data collection. To this end, the authors watched the online interpreting courses recorded by the participants during the pandemic. Recording of online courses is required in most universities, so that students who cannot participate in online courses may listen to/watch them later. and also for administrative purposes, such as tracking student attendance, monitoring teaching activities and for archival purposes. All the students were aware of being recorded throughout the courses. All the online courses observed were taught and recorded between October and December 2020. In this sense, all trainers had gained some form of ERT experience for three months regardless of their previous experience when this study was conducted. Four different online interpreting courses, namely Note-Taking, Introduction to Interpreting, CI, and SI, were observed by the researchers. The covert observation method was used since neither the students nor the trainers knew that they would be observed for research purposes, thereby preventing the Hawthorne effect. Course content, the activities involved in the course, the questions of the students and the attitude of the trainers and students towards the course and each other were carefully observed. The entire course flow was written down by the researchers, and the data was later checked against the videos for a second round of observation. Next, observational codes were developed to determine any recurring behaviors, expressions, and actions of the trainers and the students. Through the observation method, the participant statements obtained throughout the interviews were supported by the actions and behaviors exhibited in class. In this way, self-reported interview data were triangulated with data obtained by observation.
2.4 Data analysis
The data obtained were analyzed with the reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) method as the study aims to “describe the lived experiences of particular social groups” and to “examine the ‘factors’ that influence, underpin, or contextualize particular processes or phenomena” (Braun, Clarke, Hayfield, & Terry, 2019, p. 850). RTA is based on “identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79) by acknowledging the active role of the researcher in generating and discussing these patterns of meanings. Following the six steps put forth by Braun and Clarke (2020) for RTA, the transcriptions of the interview and the researchers' observational notes were coded using the MaxQda software. In total, 182 codes were generated after an iterative process of defining, refining, reviewing, and naming the codes generated. The codes were categorized through an itinerary process, and four initial themes, namely Course Design, Students' Motivation, Extra Workload, and Technical Challenges were obtained. Finally, ‘Adaptability to Technological Change’ was generated as an overarching theme to discuss the impacts of ERT in interpreter training. The following scheme (Fig. 1) illustrates the main theme and associated sub-themes with the number of codes involved.
3 Findings and discussion
3.1 Course design
The first category, course design, is the dominant element of ERT as discussed in the interviews and observed in classes. This category includes the codes of disrupted course content and flow, learning and teaching remote interpreting and engagement.
3.1.1 Disrupted course content and flow
The participants noted that the biggest change in their ERT courses is the disruptions to their course instruction due to their dependence on asynchronous feedback, low class participation, lack of pair-work and lack of mock conferences.
Asynchronous feedback: During ERT, most trainers could not listen to the interpreting performance of students synchronously for the following reasons:
high number of students in an online meeting (especially in compulsory courses),
students' reluctance to take part in interpreting practice,
trainers' choice of asynchronous feedback not to put extra stress on performing students, and guiding non-participating students to self-study,
difficulty in dual tracking in software used for remote teaching, e.g., Zoom with Interpretation function.
Asynchronous feedback may help students to get more customized and detailed feedback on their performance, and it was found positive by conference interpreting students as it does not reduce contact time during courses (Ahrens et al., 2021). Nevertheless, it can lead to one-sided comments on interpreting and a teacher-centered learning environment, which prevents active communication between student-trainer and student-student. It also increases the workload of trainers. Another drawback of asynchronous feedback is the danger of fossilized grammatical errors, which may need instant feedback at the moment of interpreting (Setton & Dawrant, 2016), particularly in courses professed to be developing fundamental interpreting skills at the early stages. As online teaching lacks non-verbal elements, any criticism of the performance may be perceived as personal and discouraging by students. Therefore, not to cause frustration and disappointment to students, immediate and individual feedback was not provided as a participant observed that “students rightfully avoid hearing comments targeted at them” (Trainer-7).
Low class participation: Although active participation by students is needed for the efficiency of performance-based activities, the motivation and willingness on their behalf fell drastically: “I reproach students for not attending my course. They cannot learn the techniques like this” (Trainer-2). To involve students in the practice, some trainers reported that they resorted to translation instead of interpreting. To do so, the text of a speech was handed out to the students, who would then have enough time to translate the text in writing, and read their translation to the class afterwards. Based on the authors' observations, such a practice presumably made students more comfortable as they could read their so-called interpreting multiple times, check their errors, and improve the quality of their message. However, this practice only aimed to improve the linguistic skills of students at the expense of neglecting the basic skills of interpreting, mainly prosody.
Lack of pair-work: In online courses, it adversely affected students' participation. It was pointed out that the “students feel anxious as they need to perform immediately before pair-work, and pair-work was impossible in the online environment” (Trainer-5). This can be associated with the trainers' limited knowledge of how break-out rooms can be used in remote learning software. At a technical level, they received little or no assistance on how to use the software. At a pedagogical level, they also lacked assistance regarding how to integrate students into the learning process and to help them engage with each other.
Lack of mock conferences: As a common situated learning activity applied in interpreting classes, mock conferences could not be held for the above-mentioned reasons. The lack of boothmates during online exercises is another disruption as learning how to collaborate with a boothmate in conference settings is an important acquisition. However, it still can be acquired through virtual boothmates on the condition that RI skills are emphasized in the course. Besides, attending physical conferences to let students observe a real conference environment was disrupted due to social distancing and lockdown restrictions. Although Trainer-3 suggested “we have zero chance to get students to a conference”, the students and trainers could have alternatively attended a large number of public-open lectures, seminars, and events held online. Yet again, the course should be re-designed to equip students with RI skills as the Turkish interpreting market still heavily depends on undergraduate training given the limited number of conference interpreting programs at master's degree.
Taking all these disruptions into account, some trainers preferred to offer lectures on theory and tended to focus on pre-interpreting activities like glossary work, text analysis, paraphrasing sentence by sentence, and discussing the topic. All these factors led to limiting the time devoted to practice in interpreting classes during ERT. Instead, mostly pre-interpreting practices were carried out with the voluntary self-study of students, and asynchronous feedback was provided by the trainer. Therefore, there was limited engagement between trainer and students and among the students themselves.
3.1.2 Learning and teaching remote interpreting
Learning and teaching remote interpreting is the second most common concept discussed by the interviewees as a natural consequence of the pandemic-related restrictions in the interpreting market. RI was addressed as the most dramatic change both in the interpreting market and interpreter training programs planned in the near future, since ongoing restrictions pointed to the likelihood of fully online or hybrid working conditions for interpreters. In this sense, the trainers advocated the need to:
include RI in the curricula as an integral part of T&I departments,
train technology-friendly interpreters, who can easily follow technological changes in the market, learn how to use RI tools as well as other technical equipment, and acquire interpreting skills while coping with technical details, increased fatigue and stress,
have technology-friendly trainers who are active in the market as practicing interpreters or can receive organizational and professional training from their institution.
The participants had to cope with the challenges of ERT by relying on the individual efforts to incorporate new technologies and modalities into their interpreting courses without organizational support. It was reported that “RI is now a part of the profession” (Trainer-2), and an RI course encompassing technology literacy skills, ICT skills, knowledge of new technologies related to interpreting “should be incorporated into the curricula” (Trainer-2) and “technology should be embedded in education as the hybrid mode is here to stay for interpreters” (Trainer-4). This finding is compatible with other studies arguing that professional interpreters feel incompetent and unconfident in RI technologies (Kıncal & Ekici, 2020) and there are no specific courses on RI in Turkey (Özkaya, 2017). Hence, it is significant to have technologically well-equipped trainers before adjusting the current curricula to train professional interpreters. This need is well described by Trainer-6; “…to cope with these changes in the field, first, trainers need to train themselves before teaching new technologies to the students”.
3.1.3 Engagement
Thirdly, engagement as a whole is among the most commonly touched-upon issues by the interviewees and observed during the online courses. Although all the courses were carried out synchronously, the trainers either opted for synchronous delivery and students got feedback within the contact hours, or for asynchronous delivery where only volunteering students practiced interpreting and sent their recordings to the trainer outside the contact hours. In this sense, the delivery mode of interpreting activities manifests itself as a key element impacting the engagement between students and trainers throughout the online meeting.
In synchronous delivery, breakout rooms are used after the trainer introduces the topic, speech, or audiovisual content to the students. In breakout rooms, students are usually put in pairs for interpreting, and peer feedback is requested at the end. Following the pair-work, students return to the main room, where one student is asked to interpret once again. In this way, the practicing student gets feedback from her pair, other peers, and the trainer while other students can listen to and observe their friends performing. The use of breakout rooms predisposes students to speak up and perform more actively as the role division is mostly between two students. Such collaborative tasks enable “the instructor to promote and observe active student interaction and identify obstacles to learning” (Valentine & Wong, 2021, p. 220). In this study, students were observed to participate more actively in class work after a spell of pair-work in breakout rooms, as their peers had already fixed possible problems before getting feedback from the trainer. This way of incorporating pair-work in an interpreting class, however, does not contribute to creating an authentic learning environment. It still helps students to be active throughout the course rather than remain quiet observers. This is because, as is known, students tend to zone out more easily, “especially if the discussion during the lesson does not specifically relate to their performance” (Ahrens et al., 2021, p. 271). Hence, synchronous delivery and assessment keep students engaged with the course and peers. Another supporting research finding was detailed by Jelińska and Paradowski (2021) as follows: “[i]n terms of online course delivery mode, instructors who taught their classes in real-time were significantly more engaged in teaching compared with those who used asynchronous modes of delivery” (p. 314).
On the other hand, trainers who do not know how to use breakout rooms for collaborative activities online allocate the contact hours to text analysis and pre-interpreting activities instead. This, paired with the reluctance of students to interpret directly under the gaze of all classmates and the trainer, seems to force the latter to find asynchronous delivery as a more feasible option. In this mode of teaching, students record their voice within class hours and then send it to the trainer for feedback. The trainers acknowledged not having been able to listen to all the recordings all the time due to busy schedules and high student numbers in classes. An alternative to this, aimed to reduce the extra workload of trainers and increase peer-feedback at the same time, was provided and practiced by Trainer-1; “The voice recordings of students are sent to their peers, who provide asynchronous feedback after class to the student in point”. However, this is not a commonly applied procedure among the interviewees according to their accounts.
Asynchronous delivery is described as “the most flexible and easily managed of online environments” (Duranton & Mason, 2012, p. 84), particularly for translator training, since it mimics a regular translation commission. In view of time constraints and synchronicity as the key elements in interpreting, though, synchronous delivery may mimic an interpreting commission better. Apart from this, independent asynchronous tasks may still lead to learner autonomy in interpreting courses, since students learning at different paces can take advantage of choosing where, when, and how long to work on the given tasks (Lim, 2016). In interpreting courses, pre-classroom study includes terminology practice and subject-based conference preparation, which can easily be incorporated into asynchronous learning for both in-person and online teaching. However, the findings of this study indicate that this strength of asynchrony is not blended sufficiently into the online courses under investigation. This is because asynchrony is used as the primary delivery mode of interpreting practice, rather than a tool for motivating students to self-study, which by itself is a crucial part of interpreter training. Instead, the autonomy of students is hampered by the trainer as the ultimate evaluator of their performance. This implies that one-way communication in the form of trainer feedback is not sufficient to ensure social interaction, which is considered crucial in online teaching (Kornacki & Pietrzak, 2021). Overall, limited engagement between students and trainers results from limited practice in the contact hours and poor class participation of students along with lack of pair work and peer-feedback. Asynchronous delivery and assessment also aggravate all these factors.
3.2 Students' motivation
Unlike face-to-face courses, where students know the basics of a physical classroom and learning environment and foresee what they will experience, they may not be familiar with a virtual setting (Lehmann, 2004), thus leading to anxiety and stress. Besides, in-person courses require them to attend a certain and required number of hours to qualify for exam participation. Such compulsory attendance was made flexible during the pandemic due to a number of factors: The likelihood of contracting the virus, the need to look after infected family and friends, isolation, and simply lack of technical equipment as a result of all of the above. Therefore, in most courses, attendance was only based on student motivation.
Declining student motivation has been widely discussed in studies conducted on ERT courses during the course of the pandemic worldwide (Ahrens et al., 2021; Arribathi, Suwarto, Budiarto, Supriyanti, & Mulyati, 2021; Yates, Starkey, Egerton, & Flueggen, 2021). There is no doubt that the unusual, extreme conditions experienced at the beginning of the pandemic represented a significant factor contributing to a decrease in student attendance, along with unequal access to technology. First of all, not all students have access to facilities such as a functioning laptop or computer, microphone, and webcam. Secondly, since constant recording during courses is required in some universities, for administrative reasons, students may feel uncomfortable about participating due to the possibility of being recorded by anyone involved in the online meeting at any given time.
Concerning motivation, Trainer-12 said, “Those who do not have strong career goals are more at a loss in online courses”, emphasizing the importance of the intrinsic motivation of students, because only those with career plans were willing to take part in in-class activities. In some cases, even if a high number of students appear to attend, many of them fail to activate their cams and microphones, which makes them practically invisible and absent from the course flow. Trainer-8, who mentioned having made no changes in the course content and practice materials and methods during ERT, complained in this way, “No matter what I do, I simply cannot oblige students to take part in practice”, indicating the importance of voluntary class participation (Fig. 2).
Codes under the theme of students' motivation
Citation: Across Languages and Cultures 24, 1; 10.1556/084.2022.00264
In some Turkish programs, conference interpreting courses are elective and students can enroll in these courses only after passing a screening test. Thus, the class population is limited to students who intend to be experts in these fields or at least wish to elect these courses. On the other hand, more fundamental courses, such as Introduction to Interpreting and Note-taking, are core subjects. In this case, students who only want to gain experience in translation and are not necessarily interested in interpreting are obliged to complete these courses too, regardless of how high or low their intrinsic motivation may be. The data obtained in this study also revealed that the key difference in students' motivation to participate stemmed from the nature of the course, i.e., whether it was elective or compulsory. In the elective courses observed, students were eager to participate and showed regular attendance. Compulsory courses, on the other hand, had low attendance, with students unwilling to switch on their cams, despite instructions from the trainers. In these courses, long silences were observed whenever the trainers asked for voluntary performance. Trainers showed their disappointment with the rest of the group when it was always the same students who participated in the activities or answered questions.
To compensate for this lack of motivation, trainers resorted to grading as an external factor. “If you tell me ‘no’ again, I will take you out of the meeting. You can give me any other excuse except ‘I do not want to do it’. This is a must-course, and I cannot give you a grade for class participation like this”. (Trainer-8). “If you don't speak up now, I will eventually make you speak during exams” (Trainer-2). In the literature, student motivation is associated with teachers' support (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020; Szabó as cited in; Jelińska & Paradowski, 2021; Wang, Shannon, & Ross, 2013). However, support for creating external motivation, such as compulsory attendance and grading based on attendance and participation, does not seem to foster class participation. The difference between in-person and online courses in terms of student participation is that unmotivated students have more opportunities to be invisible in the course by turning off the webcam or microphone in ERT courses. In this respect, teachers' support should target internal motivation by creating an interactive and engaging learning environment where students can take part without the fear of being judged or threatened.
3.3 Extra workload
It is no surprise that more effort is needed on the part of trainers in online teaching, as it takes time to plan the course content, assessment criteria, and visualization, to engage students, and to tailor current teaching practices to virtual environments (Wu & Wei, 2021). Likewise, one of the key impacts of ERT on interpreter training has been the extra workload undertaken by the trainers (Fig. 3).
Codes under the theme of extra workload
Citation: Across Languages and Cultures 24, 1; 10.1556/084.2022.00264
Codes under the sub-theme of technical challenges
Citation: Across Languages and Cultures 24, 1; 10.1556/084.2022.00264
Resolving technical issues: Primarily, the participants had to resolve technical issues as a part of any remote teaching. Besides having to devote time and energy to these issues, their situation was aggravated by a lack of organizational support. In the present study, the interviewees reported learning how to use online meeting software by themselves without receiving any in-service training. This, in turn, required them to learn by trial-and-error, which cost more time than receiving proper and satisfactory training as reported by Trainer-12, “I had technical difficulties using the Zoom program. I spent quite some time trying to learn it.” Furthermore, they did not have the opportunity to get instant help in cases of technical crises during the courses which, again, reduced contact time and required trainers to spend more energy on technical preparation.
Adding to contact hours: The extra workload was also related to contact hours, which were officially reduced in some programs for ERT. It was significant that all the trainers in these programs reported that they added even more hours to their interpreting course to offer more interpreting opportunities to their students.
Assuming more roles: Trainers had to assume several other roles in addition to that of instructor: coaching, mentoring and encouraging students to take a more active part in class work, in an effort to make the course smooth-running, and to ease the concerns of students. One common feature in such attempts was sharing pandemic-related concerns with students: almost all the observed courses started with a discussion of COVID-19 statistics, new developments, new lockdown decisions, and talks of fear of contracting the disease. In such dialogues, the trainers also shared their concerns and comforted students with empathy. In practical classes, the trainers showed patience towards reluctant students and encouraged them to speak up by stating that “I am sure you can do it, there is no specific terminology [hard and never-seen-before vocabulary] in it” (Trainer-4), “It is just us here, no strangers. You can try and make mistakes here as this place is for learning and making mistakes” (Trainer-16). Trainers also tried to encourage their students by making exam content and tasks easier to enable students to get higher grades.
Outside-class feedback: Although self-study, self-review, and outside-class feedback are prominent components of an interpreting class, the last item is not an extra-curricular factor in ERT. In courses including asynchronous practices, however, outside-class feedback is the only formal evaluation that a student can receive. In an online setting, although peer-review on asynchronous practices is still possible, students participating in interpreting courses believe that trainer feedback is more substantial, reliable, and formal than that of their peers (Lee, 2018). Besides, outside-class feedback does not only involve feedback on interpreting performance, but on glossary and note-taking techniques. This requires trainers to compulsorily allocate a good deal of additional time to such personal feedback to be offered after asynchronous practices.
3.4 Technical challenges
Incompetent use of technology by itself is a profound hurdle to smooth transition from in-person to online settings in education as it generates extra cognitive load and stress. Besides, limited/no organizational or professional technical assistance and lack of on-the-spot resolution of technical problems in synchronous courses are among other stress and extra load-generating factors.
The importance of getting technology training to support trainers in their adaptability to the online setting has been emphasized in other studies as well. By the same token, ‘lack of technical assistance’ is the predominant code of this theme (Fig. 4).
Lack of technical assistance: The trainers needed to learn how to use online conference programs in two respects: technical, such as downloading the software, scheduling meetings, and muting students; and pedagogical, such as using software features for specific pedagogical targets, namely breakout rooms for peer engagement, and language interpretation setup for RI simulations. Trainer-3 added, “We learned the systems by ourselves. Training should be provided to the instructors about distant education systems. Lots can be done on Zoom, but I did not know how to use it properly.” In this way, the full capacity of online learning could not be used in the courses observed; instead, the trainers used their online platforms as a medium where they tried to carry on with their usual face-to-face course content and teaching methods. Therefore, it can be concluded that, in their view, the pandemic-inflicted changes to the usual way of covering the course content served as a limitation or disruption. This view demonstrates that the trainers, in fact, were under the impression that they could continue with their in-person-style teaching practices rather than adapt the course activities to online settings.
Other technical challenges included internet-related issues, such as freezing, student computers varying in downloading speed and capacity, and poor connection. There were also software-related issues, namely dissatisfaction with the Zoom Interpretation function and screen sharing. Trainer-9, for instance, knew how to use the former, but stated, “I have two years of experience with Zoom Interpretation. I did not panic. We contacted Zoom to add a Turkish channel, then we had another problem with interface. We realized that in SI, students could see the screen and info at different times depending on their download speed. Then, we searched for an alternative platform.” Noting the same problem, Trainer-2 suggested the following, “…as we were not satisfied with Zoom Interpretation, we gave up. Instead, students sent their voice recordings at the end of the class.”
Unequal access to technology: This is also a common problem in less developed countries, where not all students can afford to have a computer, stable internet connection, or auxiliary equipment, such as webcams and microphones. The inadequate infrastructure of rural areas resulting in poor Internet connection and access to basic electronic devices due to poverty (Padilla Rodríguez, Armellini, & Traxler, 2021) aggravates the unequal conditions in terms of accessing knowledge. Some trainers reported that they could not get their students to turn on their webcams and microphones. Especially those who came from poor regions of the country and who had to share living space with other members of the family refused to turn their cameras and microphones on. Eliminating background noise was another challenge, not to mention those reluctant to be seen or heard by others – out of security concerns, perhaps – who kept their cameras and microphones inactivated.
4 Conclusion
In this study, the interpreter trainers interviewed expressed more concerns over ERT challenges as against its benefits. Positive changes brought by ERT to usual training practices, as reported by the participants, can be associated with the effective use of online meeting software (particularly breakout rooms). On the positive side, attending open-to-public virtual conferences and the use of audio-visual materials were described as the main advantages of online interpreting courses by some of the participants. Still, common practices such as holding a mock conference and working with a boothmate were perceived ‘hard to implement’ or ‘unpractical’ by all the trainers, regardless of the latter's command of software.
On the negative side, disrupted course content, low student motivation, increased workload of trainers and technical challenges were reported as the main drawbacks of ERT. The main sub-themes of the study, namely course design, students' motivation, extra workload and technical challenges indicate that the problems encountered, as well as the advantages of online teaching, mostly rely on the adaptability of trainers, students, and educational institutions to the abrupt change. Therefore, the findings obtained in this study can be associated with one common theme, which is technological adaptability. The fact that the trainers were not informed of or did not receive any training on the use of remote learning software led to disruptions to the usual training practices, such as pair-work, situated learning activities, synchronous and immediate feedback, and thus high engagement between trainers and students. In this sense, incompetent use of remote learning software limited student interaction and led to a decline in student motivation, particularly in compulsory interpreting courses. The lack of technical and organizational support also resulted in many technology-related challenges experienced by trainers. The need to resolve technical issues without expert support, adjusting in-person course instructions to an online setting, trying to motivate students amidst all of these challenges expanded trainers' non-teaching workload. For all these reasons, the benefits of ERT could not be fully incorporated into online courses.
Regarding the first research question, it was found that trainers faced the challenge of having to redesign their in-person courses to meet the requirements of online teaching, and that they experienced limitations in maintaining their usual course flow in the form of constructivist activities, assessment processes, and students' engagement with one another. The trainers attempted to adapt to the new situation by copying their in-person pedagogical practices in online settings rather than developing new ones. This approach prevented them from making the most of remote teaching in interpreter training, mainly by incorporating RI skills into the course design.
As for the second question, this study concludes that interpreter trainers need immediate and constant support in online teaching for two reasons:
Firstly, online teaching is believed to be here to stay, alone or blended with in-person training. Beldarrain (2006) states that “the versatility of social software and other collaboration tools available today support constructivist environments that seek to motivate, cultivate, and meet the needs of the 21st-century learner” (p. 140). Mirek (2021) also suggests that the socio-constructivist approach can be easily adopted and sustained through virtual conference platforms such as Zoom. To benefit from such versatility of technological opportunities, pedagogical training should be offered to trainers to help them design their courses so that they ensure the active engagement and collaboration of students. Besides, technical in-service training and assistance should be offered to equip trainers with the necessary tools to implement the pedagogical aspects of online learning.
Secondly, the interpreting profession is expected to depend on RI sooner rather than later. The trainers' recommendations on learning and teaching RI mostly focus on future practices in the post-COVID-19 era rather than immediately incorporating RI skills into current ERT practices. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the trainers used their online teaching platforms as a virtual replacement for the classrooms, labs, and booths rather than an opportunity to practice RI technologies.
One key implication of this study is related to in-person interpreter training. Low student attendance and participation in most online courses is usually associated with lack of student motivation, which points to weaknesses in current in-person programs. Another issue deserving reconsideration is the compulsory nature of courses such as CI, SI, and conference interpreting offered to students who do not intend to be professional interpreters. Restricting these courses to those who succeed in a screening test, or offering them as electives could help trainers to focus on a more motivated group of students.
Note
Some of the preliminary findings of this study were presented at The Łódź-ZHAW Duo Colloquium on Translation and Meaning, Switzerland (2–3 September 2021).
References
Afolabi, S., & Oyetoyan, O. I. (2021). Charting a new course for translator and interpreter training in Africa: Lessons from the COVID-19 experience in selected countries. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 36b, 327–350.
Ahrens, B., Beaton-Thome, M., & Rütten, A. (2021). The pivot to remote online teaching on the MA in conference interpreting in Cologne: Lessons learned from an unexpected experience. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 36b, 251–284.
Arribathi, A., Suwarto, R., Budiarto, A. M., Supriyanti, M., & Mulyati, D. (2021). An analysis of student learning anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic: A study in higher education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 69(3), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2020.1847971.
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789498.
Bestué, C., & Orozco, M. (2016). Online training in legal translation: Designing curricula for bilingual students. Babel, 62(3), 470–494.
Bilić, V. (2020). The online computer-assisted translation classroom. Translation and Interpreting, 12(1), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.12807/TI.112201.2020.A08.
Bozkurt, A. (2019). From distance education to open and distance learning: A holistic evaluation of history, definitions, and theories. In S. Sisman-Ugur, & G. Kurubacak (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning in the age of transhumanism (pp. 252–273). IGI Global.
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3778083.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.
Braun V., Clarke V., Hayfield N., Terry G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103.
Braun, S., Davitti, E., & Slater, C. (2020). ‘It's like being in bubbles’: Affordances and challenges of virtual learning environments for collaborative learning in interpreter education. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 14(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2020.1800362.
Class, B., & Moser-Mercer, B. (2013). Training conference interpreter trainers with technology: A virtual reality. In O. Garcia Becerra, E. Pradas Macias, & R. Barranco-Droege (Eds.), Quality in interpreting: Widening the scope (Vol. 1, pp. 293–313). Editorial Comares S.L.
Clifford, A. (2018). What does it take to train interpreters online? Communication, communication and communication. In B. Ahrens, S. Hansen-Schirra, M. Krein-Kühle, M. Schreiber, & U. Wienen (Eds.), Translation – Didaktik – Kompetenz: Zur Einführung (pp. 169–187). Frank & Timme.
Duranton, H., & Mason, A. (2012). The loneliness of the long- distance learner: Social networking and student support. A case study of the distance-learning MA in translation at Bristol University. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 27(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2012.640790.
Eszenyi, R. (2021). Teaching simultaneous interpreting during the lockdown: What can we learn from this extraordinary semester? In M. Seresi, R. Eszenyi, & E. Robin (Eds.), Distance education in translator and interpreter training: Methodological lessons during the Covid-19 pandemic (pp. 110–120). Department of Translation and Interpreting, Eötvös Loránd University.
Fons, I. T., & Doménech, E. V. (2017). Herramientas didácticas para la enseñanza universitaria de la Traducción e Interpretación online. Estudios de Traducción, 7, 151–161.
Güven, M. (2014). Distance learning as an effective tool for medical interpreting training in Turkey. Open Learning, 29(2), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2014.964196.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review .https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
Hubscher-Davidson, S., & Devaux, J. (2021). Teaching translation and interpreting in virtual environments. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 36b, 184–192.
Ismail, S., Nasser Alsager, H., & Omar, A. (2019). The implications of online translation courses on instructors’ philosophy of teaching. Arab World English Journal, 5, 176–189. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/call5.13.
Jelińska, M., & Paradowski, M. B. (2021). Teachers’ engagement in and coping with emergency remote instruction during covid-19-induced school closures: A multinational contextual perspective. Online Learning Journal, 25(1), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2492.
Kıncal, Ş., & Ekici, E. (2020). Türkiye’de uzaktan sözlü çevirinin alımlanması üzerine bir pilot çalışma. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 21, 979–990. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.843469.
Ko, L. (2006). Teaching interpreting by distance mode: Possibilities and constraints. Interpreting, 8(1), 67–96.
Ko, L. (2008). Teaching interpreting by distance mode: An empirical study. Meta, 53(4), 814–840.
Ko, L., & Chen, N. S. (2011). Online-interpreting in synchronous cyber classrooms. Babel, 57(2), 123–143.
Kornacki, M., & Pietrzak, P. (2021). New translator training environments: Towards improving translation students’ digital resilience. New Voices in Translation Studies, 24(24), 1–22.
Krouglov, A. (2021). Emergency remote teaching and learning in simultaneous interpreting: Capturing experiences of teachers and students. Training, Language and Culture, 5(3), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-3-41-56.
Lee, J. (2018). Feedback on feedback: Guiding student interpreter performance. Translation & Interpreting, 10(1), 152–170.
Lee, J., & Huh, J. (2018). Why not go online? A case study of blended mode business interpreting and translation certificate program. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(4), 444–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2018.1540227.
Lehmann, K. J. (2004). How to be a great online teacher. Scarecrow.
Lim, J. M. (2016). Predicting successful completion using student delay indicators in undergraduate self-paced online courses. Distance Education, 37(3), 317–333.
Mansilla, D., & González-Davies, M. (2017). El uso de estrategias socioafectivas en el aula virtual de traducción: Una propuesta didáctica. Revista Digital De Investigación En Docencia Universitaria, 11(2), 251–273.
Mirek, J. (2021). Teaching simultaneous interpreting during the Covid-19 pandemic: A case study. New Voices in Translation Studies, 24, 94–103.
Özkaya, E. (2017). The medium turn in interpreting studies. Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(14), 108–119.
Padilla Rodríguez, B. C., Armellini, A., & Traxler, J. (2021). The forgotten ones: How rural teachers in Mexico are facing the Covid-19 pandemic. Online Learning, 25(1), 253–268.
Perez, E., & Hodáková, S. (2021). Translator and interpreter training during the COVID-19 pandemic: Procedural, technical and psychosocial factors in remote training. Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning, 8, 276–312. https://doi.org/10.51287/cttle20219.
Pym, A. (2001). E-learning and translator training. https://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/training/2001_elearning.pdf.
Şahin, M. (2013). Virtual worlds in interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 7(1), 91–106.
Şahin, M., & Eraslan, Ş. (2017). Sözlü çeviri eğitiminde yeni yaklaşımlar: Sanal dünyalar. In M. Ş. Yetkiner (Ed.), Dilbilim Çeviribilim Yazılar (pp. 189–202). Anı Yayınları.
Şahin, M., Oral, İ. S. B., & Dhabi, A. (2021). Translation and interpreting studies education in the midst of platform capitalism. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 36b, 251–284.
Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S. (2014). Research methodologies in translation studies. St. Jerome.
Seresi, M. (2021). Teaching consecutive interpreting online using asynchronous methods. In M. Seresi, R. Eszenyi, & E. Robin (Eds.), Distance education in translator and interpreter training: Methodological lessons during the Covid-19 pandemic (pp. 90–109). Department of Translation and Interpreting, Eötvös Loránd University.
Setton, R., & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting: A complete course. John Benjamins.
Tivyaeva, I. (2021). Exploring new ways in translator and interpreter training: A student adaptation perspective. New Voices in Translation Studies, 24, 104–117.
Tivyaeva, I. V., & Vodyanitskaya, A. A. (2021). English-to-Russian interpreting course in distance mode: Methodological issues and curriculum implementation challenges. XLinguae, 14(1), 100–109.
Valentine, E., & Wong, J. (2021). Pathway into translation online teaching and learning: Three case-studies. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 36b, 220–250.
Wang, C. H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302–323.
Wu, D., & Wei, L. (2021). Online teaching as the new normal: Understanding translator trainers’ self-efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 36b, 251–284.
Xu, M., Zhao, T., & Deng, J. (2021). Comparison of interpreting teachers’ use and perceptions of distance interpreter training (DIT) before and after the Covid-19 pandemic: An interview-based study. In T. Chuaanmao (Ed.), Contemporary translation studies (pp. 197–223). CSMFL Publications.
Yates, A., Starkey, L., Egerton, B., & Flueggen, F. (2021). High school students’ experience of online learning during Covid-19: The influence of technology and pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 9, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854337.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
Sources
CoHE, (2020b). YÖK üniversitelerimizdeki uzaktan öğretimin bir aylık fotoğrafını çekti. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/uzaktan-egitime-yonelik-degerlendirme.aspx.
Appendix - Interview questions
Age: ☐20–25 ☐26–35 ☐36–45 ☐46–55 ☐56–65 ☐66+
Gender: ☐Male ☐Female
Last academic degree:
Academic title:
University name:
University type: ☐Foundation ☐State
City of the university:
Do you have any previous interpreting experience? ☐Yes______ year(s). ☐No
Courses taught BOTH in-person before the COVID-19 pandemic and online afterward:
☐ Simultaneous interpreting
☐ Consecutive interpreting
☐ Note-taking
☐ Sight translation
☐ Conference interpreting
☐ Community interpreting
☐ Introduction to interpreting
☐ Other (Please specify)
Describe the usual course flow. (Include following questions.) How was it before the pandemic? How is it now? What is the main difference between the face-to-face and online interpreting courses?
What is the main problem you have encountered throughout the emergency remote teaching? (Include following question.) Is there a method you have tried particularly to cope with this problem?
Would you describe your remote teaching experience as positive or negative?
What changes would you recommend to improve interpreter training quality in both in-person and online settings?
