1887
image of The affordances and challenges of wearable technologies for training public service interpreters
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Interpreter training has evolved from traditional face-to-face classroom settings to alternative modes of delivery such as online and blended learning because of the rise in information and communication technology. The limited body of literature shows that the most documented pedagogical application of interpreter training delivery is via virtual learning environments such as Moodle and Blackboard. To enrich the literature on technology use in interpreter training, a pilot project was conducted in which participant students and trainers accessed a three-dimensional virtual environment using wearable technology (i.e., three-dimensional virtual reality glasses) and students practiced interpreting using a prerecorded animated dialogue. A virtual reality platform was built using Unity 3D and run on Android to host the piloted dialogue, with a view to adding dialogues in the future to develop it into a healthcare interpreting training platform. Qualitative data collected through observations and semi-structured interviews were analyzed. The results show that using wearable devices in interpreter training has the potential to create immersive simulated environments for auto­nomous learning and to improve interpreter training when used with instructional support. However, challenges including physiological effects, level of authenticity, and the need for equipment support warrant further exploration and refinement of its pedagogical application in the future.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00044.ese
2020-03-30
2020-09-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M. & Yuhnke, B.
    (2016) NMC/CoSN Horizon report: 2016 K-12 edition. cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-cosn-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf (accessed18 June 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alvarez, V., Bower, M., de Freitas, S., Gregory, S. & de Wit, B.
    (2016) The use of wearable technologies in Australian universities: Examples from environmental science, cognitive and brain sciences and teacher training. InL. E. Dyson, W. Ng & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Mobile learning futures – sustaining quality research and practice in mobile learning. Paper presented at the 15th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (Sydney, Australia, October 24–26, 2016). Sydney: University of Technology, Sydney, 25–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berber-Irabien, D.
    (2010) Information and communications technologies in conference interpreting. PhD dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili. www.tesisenred.net/bitstream/handle/10803/8775/tesi.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed20 April 2018).
  4. Borthwick, A. C., Anderson, C. L., Finsness, E. S. & Foulger, T. S.
    (2015) Personal wearable technologies in education: value or villain?Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education31 (3), 85–92. doi:  10.1080/21532974.2015.1021982
    https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2015.1021982 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bower, M.
    (2008) Affordance analysis matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International45 (1), 3–15. 10.1080/09523980701847115
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980701847115 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bower, M. & Sturman, D.
    (2015) What are the educational affordances of wearable technologies?Computers and Education88, 343–353. 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  7. Branch, R. M.
    (2009) Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑09506‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Braun, S. & Slater, C.
    (2014) Populating a 3D virtual learning environment for interpreting students with bilingual dialogues to support situated learning in an institutional context. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer8 (3), 469–485. 10.1080/1750399X.2014.971484
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.971484 [Google Scholar]
  9. Braun, S., Slater, C., Gittins, R., Ritsos, P. D. & Roberts, J. C.
    (2013) Interpreting in virtual reality: Designing and developing a 3D virtual world to prepare interpreters and their clients for professional practice. InD. Kiraly, S. Hansen-Schirra & K. Maksymski (Eds.), New prospects and perspectives for educating language mediators. Tübingen: Narr, 93–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bulut, A. & Kurultay, T.
    (2001) Interpreters-in-aid at disasters: Community interpreting in the process of disaster management. The Translator7 (2), 249–263. 10.1080/13556509.2001.10799104
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2001.10799104 [Google Scholar]
  11. Creswell, J. W.
    (2005) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2014) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. D’Hayer, D.
    (2012) Public service interpreting and translation: Moving towards a (virtual) community of practice. Meta57 (1), 235–247. 10.7202/1012751ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1012751ar [Google Scholar]
  14. Engen, B. K., Giæver, T. H. & Mifsud, L.
    (2017) Teaching and learning with wearable technologies. InJ. Dron & S. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (Vancouver, Canada, October 17, 2017). Vancouver, BC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 1057–1067. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/181429 (accessed18 June 2019)
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eser, O., Saltan, F., Solak, E. & Erdem, G.
    (2017) Developing a 3D virtual reality learning environment by using wearable technologies to train public service interpreters. InProceedings of IAC_TLE1 2017. International Academic Conference on Teaching, Learning and E-learning (Budapest, Hungary, April 14–15, 2017). Prague: Czech Institute of Academic Education, 39.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W.
    (2001) Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education15 (1), 7–23. 10.1080/08923640109527071
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gregory, S. & Tynan, B.
    (2009) Introducing Jass Easterman: My ‘Second Life’ learning space. InR. J. Atkinson & C. McBeath (Eds.), Same places, different spaces: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ASCILITE Conference (Auckland, New Zealand, December 6–9, 2009). Auckland: University of Auckland, 377–386. www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/gregory.pdf (accessed20 April 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hanna, M. G., Ahmed, I., Nine, J., Prajapati, S. & Pantanowitz, L.
    (2018) Augmented reality technology using Microsoft HoloLens in anatomic pathology. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 142 (5), 638–644. doi:  10.5858/arpa.2017‑0189‑OA
    https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2017-0189-OA [Google Scholar]
  19. Hansen, I. G. & Shlesinger, M.
    (2007) The silver lining: Technology and self-study in the interpreting classroom. Interpreting9 (1), 95–118. 10.1075/intp.9.1.06gor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.1.06gor [Google Scholar]
  20. IVY
    IVY (n.d.). IVY: Interpreting in Virtual Reality. virtual-interpreting.net/ivy (accessed02 July 2018).
  21. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A. & Ludgate, H.
    (2013) NMC Horizon report: 2013 higher education edition. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K. & Beers, P. J.
    (2004) Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development52 (3), 47–66. 10.1007/BF02504675
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504675 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mladenović, S., Kuvač, H. & Štula, M.
    (2012) Virtual learning environment. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Virtual learning environments: Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, 1–16. 10.4018/978‑1‑4666‑0011‑9.ch101
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0011-9.ch101 [Google Scholar]
  24. Moser-Mercer, B., Kherbiche, L. & Class, B.
    (2014) Interpreting conflict: Training challenges in humanitarian field interpreting. Journal of Human Rights Practice6 (1), 140–158. 10.1093/jhuman/hut025
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/hut025 [Google Scholar]
  25. Moustakas, C.
    (1994) Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781412995658
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995658 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mulayim, S. & Lai, M.
    (2015) The community-of-inquiry framework in online interpreter training. InS. Ehrlich and J. Napier (Eds.), Interpreter education in the digital age: Innovation, access, and change. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 95–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Norman, D. A.
    (1988) The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Patton, M. Q.
    (2015) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sandrelli, A. & de Manuel Jerez, J.
    (2007) The impact of information and communication technology on interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer1 (2), 269–303. 10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798761
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798761 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sandrelli, A.
    (2015) Becoming an interpreter: The role of computer technology. MonTISpecial Issue2, 111–138. doi:  10.6035/MonTI.2015.ne2.4
    https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2015.ne2.4 [Google Scholar]
  31. Şahin, M.
    (2013) Virtual worlds in interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer7 (1), 91–106. doi:  10.1080/13556509.2013.798845
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2013.798845 [Google Scholar]
  32. Savin-Baden, M.
    (2011) A practical guide to using Second Life in higher education. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Statista
    Statista (2019) Projected size of the augmented and virtual reality market 2016–2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/591181/global-augmented-virtual-reality-market-size (accessed28 April 2019).
  34. Thackray, L., Good, J. & Howland, K.
    (2010) Learning and teaching in virtual worlds: Boundaries, challenges and opportunities. InA. Peachey, J. Gillen, D. Livingstone & S. Smith-Robbins (Eds.), Researching learning in virtual worlds. London: Springer, 139–158. doi:  10.1007/978‑1‑84996‑047‑2_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-047-2_8 [Google Scholar]
  35. Trahan, M. P., Adams, N. B. & Dupre, S.
    (2011) Virtual learning environments: Second Life MUVEs to leverage student ownership. InG. Vincenti & J. Braman (Eds.), Multi-user virtual environments for the classroom: Practical approaches to teaching in virtual worlds. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, 62–74. 10.4018/978‑1‑60960‑545‑2.ch005
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-545-2.ch005 [Google Scholar]
  36. Tymczyńska, M.
    (2009) Integrating in-class and online learning activities in a healthcare interpreting course using Moodle. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation. 12, 148–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. van Manen, M.
    (1990) Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Viseu, A.
    (2003) Simulation and augmentation: Issues of wearable computers. Ethics and Information Technology5 (1), 17–26. 10.1023/A:1024928320234
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024928320234 [Google Scholar]
  39. Widdowson, H. G.
    (1979) Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wu, T., Dameff, C. & Tully, J.
    (2014) Integrating Google Glass into simulation-based training: Experiences and future directions. Journal of Biomedical Graphics and Computing4 (2), 49–54. 10.5430/jbgc.v4n2p49
    https://doi.org/10.5430/jbgc.v4n2p49 [Google Scholar]
  41. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H.
    (2008) Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. bs). Ankara: Seçkin.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00044.ese
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00044.ese
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