Teaching listening for interpreting through mind mapping

References

1. Akker, E., & Cutler, A.
   (2003) Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and nonnative listening. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 81–96. 10.1017/S1366728903001056
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001056 [Google Scholar]
2. Ala-Antti, S.
   (2003) Preparing for an interpreting assignment: An element of an interpreter’s expertise [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Tampere.
3. Al Naqbi, S.
   (2011) The use of mind mapping to develop writing skills in UAE schools. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 4(2), 120–133. 10.1108/17537981111143855
   https://doi.org/10.1108/17537981111143855 [Google Scholar]
4. Albl-Mikasa, M.
   (2017) Notation language and notation text: A cognitive-linguistic model of consecutive interpreting. InS. Yasumasa (Ed.), Consecutive Notetaking and Interpreter Training (pp.71–117). Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Albl-Mikasa, M.
   (2013) Developing and cultivating expert interpreter competence. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 181, 17–34.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Alderson, J. C.
   (2005) Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. Continuum.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K.
   (2010) How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Arumí Ribas, M.
   (2012) Problems and strategies in consecutive interpreting: A pilot study at two different stages of interpreter training. Meta, 57(3), 812–835. 10.7202/1017092ar
   https://doi.org/10.7202/1017092ar [Google Scholar]
9. Austermühl, F.
   (2012) Using concept mapping and the web as corpus to develop terminological competence among translators and interpreters. Translation Spaces, 11, 54–80. 10.1075/ts.1.09aus
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.1.09aus [Google Scholar]
10. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A.
    (1989) The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6(1), 14–29. 10.1177/026553228900600104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228900600104 [Google Scholar]
11. Bacon, S. M.
    (1992) Authentic listening in Spanish: How learners adjust their strategies to the difficulty of the input. Hispania, 75(2), 398–412. 10.2307/344077
    https://doi.org/10.2307/344077 [Google Scholar]
12. Ballester, A., & Jimenez Hurtado, C.
    (1992) Approaches to the teaching of interpreting: Mnemonic and analytic strategies. InC. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience (pp.237–244). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.56.36bal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.56.36bal [Google Scholar]
13. Benton, S., Duchon, D., & Pallett, W.
    (2013) Validity of student self-reported ratings of learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 377–388. 10.1080/02602938.2011.636799
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.636799 [Google Scholar]
14. Bhanji, F., Gottesman, R., de Grave, W., Steinert, Y., & Winer, L. R.
    (2012) The retrospective pre-post: A practical method to evaluate learning from an educational program. Academic Emergency Medicine, 19(2), 189–194. 10.1111/j.1553‑2712.2011.01270.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01270.x [Google Scholar]
15. Blasco Mayor, M. J.
    (2015) L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting: An empirical study. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 10(1), 108–132. 10.1075/tis.10.1.06bla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.10.1.06bla [Google Scholar]
16. Bowen, D., & Bowen, M.
    (1984) Steps to consecutive interpretation (rev. ed.). Pen and Booth.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Brantmeier, C., & Vanderplank, R.
    (2008) Descriptive and criterion-referenced self-assessment with L2 readers. System, 36(3), 456–477. 10.1016/j.system.2008.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.03.001 [Google Scholar]
18. Brinkmann, A.
    (2003) Mind mapping as a tool in mathematics education. The Mathematics Teacher96(2), 96–101. 10.5951/MT.96.2.0096
    https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.96.2.0096 [Google Scholar]
19. Brown, A., Dewey, D., & Cox, T.
    (2014) Assessing the validity of can-do statements in retrospective (then-now) self-assessment. Foreign Language Annals, 47(2), 261–285. 10.1111/flan.12082
    https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12082 [Google Scholar]
20. Carell, P., Devine, J., & Eskey, D.
    (1991) Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524513
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524513 [Google Scholar]
21. Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E.
    (2000) Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge University press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Cerezo Herrero, E.
    (2017) A critical review of listening comprehension in interpreter training: The case of Spanish translation and interpreting degrees. Porta Linguarum, 281, 7–22. 10.30827/Digibug.54000
    https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.54000 [Google Scholar]
23. Chabasse, C., & Dingfelder Stone, M.
    (2015) Capacity management in interpretation: Efforts, directionality, and language pair considerations. InD. Andres & M. Behr (Eds.), To know how to suggest…: Approaches to teaching conference interpreting (pp.75–102). Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Chernov, G. V.
    (2002) Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation. InF. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader (pp.99–109). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Chmielewski, T. C., & Dansereau, D. F.
    (1998) Enhancing the recall of text: Knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 407–413. 10.1037/0022‑0663.90.3.407
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.407 [Google Scholar]
26. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Conrad, L.
    (1989) The effects of time-compressed speech on native and EFL listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 1–16. 10.1017/S0272263100007804
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100007804 [Google Scholar]
28. D’Antoni, A. V., Zipp, G. P., Olson, V. G., & Cahill, T. F.
    (2010) Does the mind map learning strategy facilitate information retrieval and critical thinking in medical students?BMC Medical Education, 101, 1–11. 10.1186/1472‑6920‑10‑61
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-61 [Google Scholar]
29. D’Eon, M., Sadownik, L., Harrison, A., & Nation, J.
    (2008) Using self-assessments to detect workshop success. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(1), 92–98. 10.1177/1098214007312630
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214007312630 [Google Scholar]
30. Dávila Garibi, A. G., & Lopez Islas, J.
    (1990) Oral cloze: A backup exercise for interpreting. Meta, 35(3), 647–651. 10.7202/002807ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002807ar [Google Scholar]
31. Degueldre, C.
    (2005) Determining language proficiency levels for language professionals. Forum, 3(1), 67–101. 10.1075/forum.3.1.04deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.3.1.04deg [Google Scholar]
32. Díaz-Galaz, S.
    (2020) Listening and comprehension in interpreting: Questions that remain open. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 15(2), 304–323. 10.1075/tis.20074.dia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20074.dia [Google Scholar]
33. Dueñas González, R., Vásquez, V. F., & Mikkelson, H.
    (1991) Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice. Carolina Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Farrand, P., Hussain, F., & Hennessy, E.
    (2002) The efficacy of the ‘mind map’ study technique. Medical Education, 36(5), 426–431. 10.1046/j.1365‑2923.2002.01205.x
    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01205.x [Google Scholar]
35. Field, J.
    (2008) Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Gile, D.
    (2005) Teaching conference interpreting: A contribution. InM. Tennent (Ed.), Training for the new millennium: Pedagogies for translation and interpreting (pp.127–152). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.60.12gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.60.12gil [Google Scholar]
37. Gile, D.
    (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (rev. ed.). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
38. Gile, D.
    (2012, August27–28). Contribution of research to interpreter training [Seminar presentation]. Research and Implications for Interpreter Training, AIIC Training of Trainers Seminar, Helsinki, Finland.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Gillies, A.
    (2017) Note-taking for consecutive interpreting (2nd ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315648996
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315648996 [Google Scholar]
40. Gillies, A.
    (2019) Consecutive interpreting: A short course. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315648972
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315648972 [Google Scholar]
41. Goh, C.
    (2017) Cognition, metacognition and L2 listening. InE. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (volumeIII1) (pp.214–228). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Goh, C.
    (2000) A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55–75. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(99)00060‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00060-3 [Google Scholar]
43. Gran, L., & Dodds, J.
    (1989) The theoretical and practical aspects of teaching conference interpretation. Campanotto Editore.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Hatim, B., & Mason, I.
    (2000) The translator as communicator. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Hay, D., Kinchin, I., & Lygo-Baker, S.
    (2008) Making learning visible: The role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295–311. 10.1080/03075070802049251
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049251 [Google Scholar]
46. Hild, A.
    (2015) Discourse comprehension in simultaneous interpreting: The role of expertise and information redundancy. InA. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting (pp.67–100). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.115.04hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.04hil [Google Scholar]
47. Hill, L. G., & Betz, D. L.
    (2005) Revisiting the retrospective pretest. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(4), 501–517. 10.1177/1098214005281356
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005281356 [Google Scholar]
48. Hönig, H. G.
    (1997) Using text mappings in teaching consecutive interpreting. InC. Hauenschild & S. Heizmann (Eds.), Machine translation and translation theory (pp.19–34). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110802474.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802474.19 [Google Scholar]
49. Ilg, G., & Lambert, S.
    (1996) Teaching consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 1(1), 69–99. 10.1075/intp.1.1.05ilg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.1.05ilg [Google Scholar]
50. Kalina, S.
    (2000) Interpreting competences as a basis and a goal for teaching. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 101, 3–32.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Ke, Z., & Wang, Y.
    (2022) Exploring the relationship between aural decoding and listening comprehension among L2 learners of English. System, 1041, 102688. 10.1016/j.system.2021.102688
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102688 [Google Scholar]
52. Khajavi, Y., & Ketabi, S.
    (2012) Influencing EFL learners’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy beliefs: The effect of concept mapping strategy. Porta Linguarum, 171, 9–27. 10.30827/Digibug.31953
    https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.31953 [Google Scholar]
53. Kohn, K., & Albl-Mikasa, M.
    (2002) Note-taking in consecutive interpreting: On the reconstruction of an individualised language. Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 11, 257–272.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Kostovich, C. T., Poradzisz, M., Wood, K., & O’Brien, K. L.
    (2007) Learning style preference and student aptitude for concept maps. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(5), 225–231. 10.3928/01484834‑20070501‑06
    https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20070501-06 [Google Scholar]
55. Lappin-Fortin, K., & Rye, B. J.
    (2014) The use of pre-/post-test and self-assessment tools in a French pronunciation course. Foreign Language Annals, 47(2), 300–320. 10.1111/flan.12083
    https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12083 [Google Scholar]
56. LeBlanc, R., & Painchaud, G.
    (1985) Self-assessment as a second language placement instrument. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 673–687. 10.2307/3586670
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586670 [Google Scholar]
57. Li, X.
    (2015) Putting interpreting strategies in their place: Justifications for teaching strategies in interpreter training. Babel, 61(2), 170–192. 10.1075/babel.61.2.02li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.61.2.02li [Google Scholar]
58. Li, X.
    (2018) Self-assessment as ‘assessment as learning’ in translator and interpreter education: Validity and washback. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(1), 48–67. 10.1080/1750399X.2017.1418581
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1418581 [Google Scholar]
59. Liu, P.
    (2011) A study on the use of computerized concept mapping to assist ESL learners’ writing. Computers & Education, 571, 2548–2558. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.015 [Google Scholar]
60. Liu, P., Chen, C., & Chang, Y.
    (2010) Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 541, 436–445. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.027
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.027 [Google Scholar]
61. Luccarelli, L.
    (2006) Conference preparation: What it is and how it could be taught. Conference Interpretation and Translation, 8(1), 3–26.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Marlsen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K.
    (1980) The temporal structure ken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1–71. 10.1016/0010‑0277(80)90015‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3 [Google Scholar]
63. Murphy, M. L.
    (2015) Meaning relations in dictionaries: meaning relations in dictionaries: Hyponymy, meronymy, synonymy, antonymy, and contrast. InP. Durkin (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of lexicography (pp.439–456). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199691630.013.33
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199691630.013.33 [Google Scholar]
64. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B.
    (1984) Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173469
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173469 [Google Scholar]
65. Ojima, M.
    (2006) Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. System 34, 566–585. 10.1016/j.system.2006.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.08.003 [Google Scholar]
66. Oliver, K.
    (2009) An investigation of concept mapping to improve the reading comprehension of science texts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 402–414. 10.1007/s10956‑009‑9157‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9157-3 [Google Scholar]
67. Orlando, M.
    (2010) Digital pen technology and consecutive interpreting: Another dimension in notetaking training and assessment. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 151, 71–86.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Oscarson, M.
    (1997) Self-assessment of foreign and second language proficiency. InC. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, vol. 7: Language testing and assessment (pp.175–187). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑4489‑2_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4489-2_17 [Google Scholar]
69. Peng, G.
    (2009) Using rhetorical structure theory (RST) to describe the development of coherence in interpreting trainees. Interpreting, 11(2), 216–243. 10.1075/intp.11.2.06pen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.2.06pen [Google Scholar]
70. Peng, G.
    (2017) A case study of knowledge enhancement in undergraduate interpreter training courses in Taiwan. Compilation and Translation Review, 10(1), 121–158.
    [Google Scholar]
71. Phuong Nguyen, T. C., & Tochon, F. V.
    (1998) Influence comparée de la carte de concepts et du résumé sur la compréhension et la production orales durant l’interprétation consécutive. Meta, 43(2), 220–235. 10.7202/003730ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003730ar [Google Scholar]
72. Pöchhacker, F.
    (1993) From knowledge to text: Coherence in simultaneous interpreting. InY. Gambier & J. Tommola (Eds.), Translation and knowledge (pp.87–100). University of Turku.
    [Google Scholar]
73. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2016) Introducing interpreting studies (2nd ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315649573
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315649573 [Google Scholar]
74. Pohl, N. F.
    (1982) Using retrospective pre-ratings to counteract response-shift confounding. Journal of Experimental Education, 50(4), 211–214. 10.1080/00220973.1982.11011826
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1982.11011826 [Google Scholar]
75. Powers, D. E.
    (1986) Academic demands related to listening skills. Language Testing, 3(1), 1–38. 10.1177/026553228600300101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228600300101 [Google Scholar]
76. Pratt, C. C., McGuigan, W. M., & Katzev, A. R.
    (2000) Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3), 341–349. 10.1177/109821400002100305
    https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400002100305 [Google Scholar]
77. Richards, J. C.
    (1990) The language teaching matrix. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667152
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667152 [Google Scholar]
78. Ross, S.
    (2006) The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 11(10), 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
79. Russell, D.
    (2005) Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. InT. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting: Theory and practice (pp.135–164). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.63.10rus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.63.10rus [Google Scholar]
80. Rütten, A.
    (2004) Why and in what sense do conference interpreters need special software?Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 31, 167–177.
    [Google Scholar]
81. Seleskovitch, D.
    (1989) Teaching conference interpreting. InP. W. Krawutschke (Ed.), Translator and interpreter training and foreign language pedagogy (pp.65–88). John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.iii.07sel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.iii.07sel [Google Scholar]
82. Seleskovitch, D., & Lederer, M.
    (1995) A systematic approach to teaching interpretation (trans.J. Harmer). Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
    [Google Scholar]
83. Setton, R.
    (1999) Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
84. Setton, R., & Dawrant, A.
    (2016) Conference interpreting: A complete course. John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120 [Google Scholar]
85. Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, T.
    (2001) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
86. Skeff, K. M., Stratos, G. A., & Bergen, M. R.
    (1992) Evaluation of a medical faculty development program: A comparison of traditional pre/post and retrospective pre/post self-assessment ratings. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 15(3), 350–366. 10.1177/016327879201500307
    https://doi.org/10.1177/016327879201500307 [Google Scholar]
87. Stoll, C.
    (2009) Jenseits simultanfähiger Terminologiesysteme. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
    [Google Scholar]
88. Sylvia, K.
    (2015) Comprehension. InF. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp.73–74). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
89. Takahashi, K.
    (2009) Identifying the common problems in English-to-Japanese consecutive interpretations performed by Japanese interpreting students: A case of Japanese interpreting students [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Sophia University.
    [Google Scholar]
90. Takahashi, K.
    (2016) The causes of the problems in CI in a case of Japanese EFL university students and pedagogical suggestions. Forum, 14(1), 144–164. 10.1075/forum.14.1.08tak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.14.1.08tak [Google Scholar]
91. Thomas, E. V., Wells, R., Baumann, S. D., Graybill, E., Roach, A., Truscott, S. D., Crenshaw, M., & Crimmins, D.
    (2018) Comparing traditional versus retrospective pre-/post-assessment in an interdisciplinary leadership training program. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 23(2), 191–200. 10.1007/s10995‑018‑2615‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-018-2615-x [Google Scholar]
92. Tzou, Y., Eslami, Z. R., Chen, H., & Vaid, J.
    (2012) Effect of language proficiency and degree of formal training in simultaneous interpreting on working memory and interpreting performance. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(2), 213–227. 10.1177/1367006911403197
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403197 [Google Scholar]
93. Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. M.
    (2012) Teaching and learning second language listening. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
94. Vanderplank, R.
    (1988) Implications of differences in native and non-native speaker approaches to listening. British Journal of Language Teaching, 26(1), 32–41.
    [Google Scholar]
95. Wakamoto, N., & Rose, H.
    (2021) Learning to listen strategically: Developing a listening comprehension strategies questionnaire for learning English as a global language. System, 1031, 102670. 10.1016/j.system.2021.102670
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102670 [Google Scholar]
96. Winston, E., & Monikowski, C.
    (2000) Discourse mapping: Developing textual coherence skills in interpreters. InC. B. Roy (Ed.), Innovative practices for teaching sign language interpreters (pp.15–66). Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
97. Yan, J. X., Pan, J., & Wang, H.
    (2010) Learner factors, self-perceived language ability and interpreting learning. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 4(2), 173–196. 10.1080/13556509.2010.10798803
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2010.10798803 [Google Scholar]
98. Yasumasa, S.
    (2017) A propositional representation theory of consecutive notes and notetaking. InS. Yasumasa (Ed.), Consecutive notetaking and interpreter training (pp.147–190). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]