1887
image of Building disciplinary knowledge through multimodal presentation
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Digital innovations are revolutionizing education, bringing opportunities that are seized across disciplines including conference interpreting training. This research draws a transdisciplinary framework of Legitimation Code Theory and multimodality research to explore how to build and transfer the disciplinary knowledge of interpreting via an on-line course, a staple of today’s education. The paper first conceptualizes the disciplinary knowledge of interpreting as elite code that entails both specialist knowledge of high semantic density and tacit experience of professionals of the trade. Then, drawing on empirical data from the first interpreting MOOC in China, the paper describes how knowledge of different semantic features is built through distinctive patterns of multimodal presentation. Effectiveness of the multimodal presentation of knowledge is then triangulated with learning outcome research. Findings of this paper highlight how multimodal presentation in on-line lectures support the process of learning and hence elicit reflective perspectives on knowledge building of interpreting in the on-line space.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00176.ouy
2020-07-29
2020-08-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús
    2015 “The history of the interpreting profession”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. byMikkelson, Holly; and Renée Jourdenais, 11–28. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barthes, Roland
    1997a/1961 “The Photographic Message”. InImage–Music–Text, ed. byBarthes, Roland, 15–31. London: Fontana.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1997b/1964 “Rhetoric of the Image”. InImage–Music–Text, ed. byBarthes, Roland, 32–51. London: Fontana.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bearne, Eve; and Wolstencroft, Helen
    2007Visual Approaches to Teaching Writing Multimodal Literacy. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Camilo, Silvia
    2004 “Why trainers should be practicing conference interpreters”. aiic.net/p/1394
  6. Carney, Russell N.; and Levin, Joel R.
    2002 “Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students’ Learning from Text”. Educational Psychology Review14 (1): 5–26. 10.1023/A:1013176309260
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176309260 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chai, Mingjiong
    2019 “Challenges facing translator and interpreter training”. East Journal of Translation58 (2): 4–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clarence, Sherran
    2016 “Exploring the nature of disciplinary teaching and learning using Legitimation Code Theory Semantics”. Teaching in Higher Education21 (2): 123–137. 10.1080/13562517.2015.1115972
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1115972 [Google Scholar]
  9. De Laet, Frans
    2014 “Ongoing T & I Training through One Button Conference Modules: Ideas for Multifunctional Database Design, Remote Students Assessment and Networking Development”. InTeaching English Language and Literature at Home and Abroad, ed. byHo, W. C., 399–417. Taichung: Feng Chia University.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ehrlich, Suzanne; and Napier, Jemina
    2015Interpreter Education in the Digital Age: Innovation, Access and Change. Washington: Gallaudet UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hatim, Basil; and Ian Mason
    1990Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2002 “Interpreting: A text linguistic approach”. InThe Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. byPöchhacker, Franz; and Miriam Shlesinger, 254–265. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kalina, Sylvia
    2000 “Interpreting Competences as a Basis and a Goal for Teaching”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter10: 3–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lederer, Marianne
    2007 “Can theory help translator and interpreter trainer and trainees?” The interpreter and translator Trainer1 (1): 15–35. 10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798748
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798748 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lightfoot, Mary H.
    2015 “Interaction and gamification: An evolving intersection with on-line interpreter education”. InInterpreter Education in the Digital Age: Innovation, Access and Change, ed. byEhrlich, Suzanne; and Jamina Napier, 68–91. Washington (WA): Gallaudet UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Martin, James R.
    2013 “Embedded literacy: Knowledge as meaning”. Linguistics and Education24 (1): 23–37. 10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Martin, James R.; and Karl Maton
    2017 “Systemic Functional Linguistics and Legitimation Code Theory on Education: Rethinking field and knowledge structure”. ONOMÁZEIN Número especial LSF y TCL sobre educación y conocimiento: 12–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Martinec, Radan; and Salway, Andrew
    2005 “A system for image-text relations in new (and old) media”. Visual Communication4 (3): 337–371. 10.1177/1470357205055928
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357205055928 [Google Scholar]
  19. Maton, Karl
    2013 “Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge building”. Linguistics and Education24 (1): 8–22. 10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2014Knowledge and Knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Maton, Karl; Hood, Susan; and Shay, Suellen
    (eds) 2013Knowledge-building: Educational studies in Legitimation Code Theory. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ouyang, Qianhua
    2018 “Assessing meaning dimension quality in consecutive interpreting”. Perspectives26 (2): 196–213. 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1369552
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1369552 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2015 “Evolution of interpreting research”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, ed. byMikkelson, Holly; and Renée Jourdenais, 62–76. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2016Introducing Interpreting Studies, 2nd edition. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315649573
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315649573 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sachtleben, Annette; and Ineke Crezee
    2015 “Digital innovation serving interpreter education in New Zealand”. InInterpreter Education in the Digital Age: Innovation, Access and Change, ed. byEhrlich, Suzanne; and Jamina Napier, 18–38. Washington (WA): Gallaudet UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sawyer, David B.
    2004Fundamental aspects of interpreter education: Curriculum and Assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.47 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schjoldager, Anne
    1995/2002 “An Exploratory Study of Translational Norms in Simultaneous Interpreting: Methodological Reflections”. InThe Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. byPöchhacker, Franz; and Miriam Shlesinger, 301–311. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Seleskovitch, Danica; and Marianne, Lederer
    (Transl. by Yan, S. W.; and Shao, W.) 2011Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Beijing: China Translation and Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Setton, Robin
    2010 “From practice to theory and back in interpreting: the pivotal role of training”. The interpreters’ Newsletter15: 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Setton, Robin; and Andrew Dawrant
    2016Conference interpreting: A complete course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120 [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhong, Weihe
    2019 “Translation education in four decades of reform and opening up: achievements, challenges and development”. Chinese Translators Journal40 (1): 68–75.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00176.ouy
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00176.ouy
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error