Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-5277
  • E-ISSN: 2542-5285
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The ability of interpreters to engage in metacognitive activity enabling them to self-assess the changing purpose of their task and subsequent strategies can play a pivotal role in their global attainment levels. This paper argues that developing a high degree of metacognition can be key, not only for the expert’s interpreting performance, but also for trainees’ learning processes, helping them develop a more accurate professional self-concept and better self-regulation techniques. The study, carried out with 199 interpreting trainees, tested a tool to assess self-perceived metacognition levels. The measurement tool was developed on the basis of previous relevant academic contributions to the overlapping fields of Education, Interpreting and Psychology. According to the results of a factor analysis, self-perceived metacognition in interpreting trainees can be defined as a construct made up of four dimensions: self-knowledge perception, consolidation of one’s own set of criteria, development of a macro-strategy, and task-focused flow.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aguirre Fernández Bravo, Elena
    2015El desarrollo metacognitivo del estudiante de interpretación: estudio de caso [The Interpreting student's metacognitive development: a case study]. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas. https://repositorio.comillas.edu/xmlui/handle/11531/2497
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arumí Ribas, Marta
    2008 “La práctica reflexiva en la formación de intérpretes [Reflective practice in interpreter training].” InLa traducción del futuro: Mediación lingüística y cultural en el siglo XXI. Actas del III congreso internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación. Barcelona 22–24 de marzo de 2007. Edited by L. Pegenaute , J. A. Decesaris , M. Tricás , and E. Bernal , 442–454. Barcelona: Publicaciones Periódicas Universitarias.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandura, Albert
    2002Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blignault, Ilse , Maria Stephanou and Cassandra Barrett
    2009 Achieving Quality in Health Care Interpreting. InThe Critical Link 5. Quality in interpreting—a shared responsibility. Edited by S. Hale , U. Ozolins , and L. Stern , 221–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.87.17bli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.87.17bli [Google Scholar]
  5. Bransford, John D. , Brown, Ann L. , and Rodney R. Cocking
    1999How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bühler, Hildegund
    (1986) “Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria for the Evaluation of Conference Interpretation and Interpreters.” Multilingua5 (4): 231–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chernov, Ghelly V.
    2004Inference and Anticipation in Simultaneous Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.57
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.57 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chiaro, Delia C. , and Giuseppe Nocella
    2004 “Interpreter’s Perception of Linguistic and Non-linguistic Factors Affecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web.” Meta49 (2): 278–293. 10.7202/009351ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/009351ar [Google Scholar]
  9. Collados Aís, Ángela , Ma Manuela Fernández Sánchez , Esperanza M. Pradas Macías , Elisabeth Stévaux , and Luisa Von Bernstorff
    2003 “Material audiovisual sobre interpretación simultánea: Investigación experimental en evaluación de la calidad” [Audiovisual material form simultaneous interpreting: Experimental research on quality assessment]. InLa evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Docencia y profesión. Edited by Á. Collados , Ma M. Fernández , E. M. Pradas , C. Sánchez-Adam , and E. Stévaux , 17–29. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály
    1975Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Déjean Le Féal, Karla
    1990 “Some Thoughts on the Evaluation of Simultaneous Interpretation.” InInterpreting—Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Edited by D. Bowen , and M. Bowen , 154–160. Binghamton, NY: SUNY at Binghamton. 10.1075/ata.iv.27lef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.iv.27lef [Google Scholar]
  12. Doǧan, Aymil , Marta Arumí Ribas , and Begonya Mora Rubio
    2009 “Metacognitive Tools in Interpreting Training: A Pilot Study.” Journal of Faculty of Letters, Hacettepe University26 (1): 69–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Flavell, John H.
    1976 “Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving.” InThe Nature of Intelligence. Edited by L. B. Resnick , 231–236. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gile, Daniel
    1985 “Le modèle d’efforts et l’équilibre d’interprétation en interprétation simultanée” [The model of efforts and interpreting balance in simultaneous interpreting]. Meta30 (1): 44–48. 10.7202/002893ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/002893ar [Google Scholar]
  15. Gopher, Daniel
    1993 “The Skill of Attention Control: Acquisition and Execution of Attention Strategies.” InAttention and Performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience—A silver jubilee. Edited by D. E. Meyer , and S. Kornblum , 299–322. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hale, Sandra , and Uldis Ozolins
    2009 “Quality in Interpreting: A Shared Responsibility.” InThe Critical Link 5. Quality in Interpreting—A Shared Responsibility. Edited by S. Hale , U. Ozolins , and L. Stern , 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.87
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.87 [Google Scholar]
  17. Harris, Brian
    2003 “The Need for Several Standards of Conference Interpretation.” InLa evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Docencia y profesión. Edited by Á. Collados , Ma M. Fernández , E. M. Pradas , C. Sánchez-Adam , and E. Stévaux , 3–16. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kalina, Sylvia
    2005 “Quality Assurance for Interpreting Processes.” Meta50 (2): 768–784. 10.7202/011017ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011017ar [Google Scholar]
  19. Kent, Stephanie J.
    2009 “A Discourse of Danger and Loss. Interpreters on Interpreting for the European Parliament.” InThe Critical Link 5. Quality in interpreting—A shared responsibility. Edited by S. Hale , U. Ozolins , and L. Stern , 55–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.87.05ken
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.87.05ken [Google Scholar]
  20. Kurz, Ingrid
    1993 “Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User Groups.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter5: 13–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Mason, Ian
    1999 “Introduction.” Dialogue interpreting. The Translator5 (2): 147–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Moser, Peter
    1995Survey on Expectations of Users of Conference Interpretation. Accessed11 September 2018https://aiic.net/page/736/survey-on-expectations-of-users-of-conference-interpretation/lang/1
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    1996 “Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological Issues.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter7: 43–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2000 “The Rocky Road to Expertise in Interpreting: Eliciting Knowledge from Learners.” InTranslationswissenschaft. Edited by M. Kadric , K. Kaindl , & F. Pöchhacker , 339–352. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Pignataro, Clara , and Silvia Velardi
    2013 “The Quest for Quality Assessment Criteria in Media Interpreting.” InQuality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Edited by O. García , E. M. Pradas , and R. Barranco , 129–147. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Pintrich, Paul R.
    2004 “A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning in College Students.” Educational Psychology Review16 (4): 385–407. 10.1007/s10648‑004‑0006‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x [Google Scholar]
  27. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2001 “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting.” Meta46 (2): 410–425. 10.7202/003847ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003847ar [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013 ”Researching Quality: A Two-pronged Approach.” InQuality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Edited by O. García , E. M. Pradas , and R. Barranco , 33–55. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Pradas Macías, Esperanza M.
    2007 “La incidencia del parámetro fluidez” [Repercussions of the fluency parameter]. InLa evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de incidencia. Edited by Á. Collados , E. M. Pradas , E. Stévaux and O. García , 53–70. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rennert, Sylvie
    2013 “The Production of Experimental Material for Fluency Research.” InQuality in interpreting: widening the scope. Edited by O. García , E. M. Pradas , and R. Barranco , 175–200. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sawyer, David B.
    1994 “Monitoring Processes in Conference Interpreting: Towards a Model for Interpreter-Trainees.” Meta39 (3): 433–438. 10.7202/004035ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/004035ar [Google Scholar]
  32. Setton, Robin
    1999Simultaneous Interpretation. A Cognitive-pragmatic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2002 “Deconstructing SI: A Contribution to the Debate on Component Processes.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter11: 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Tolosa Igualada, Miguel
    2013 “Del ‘síndrome de Mafalda’ a la metacognición. La autoevaluación de la calidad de los intérpretes en formación a través de una nueva plataforma multimedia” [From ‘Mafalda’s Syndrom to metacognition. Interpreting trainee quality self-assessment through a new multimedia platform]. InQuality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Edited by O. García , E. M. Pradas , and R. Barranco , 315–335. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Torre Puente, Juan C.
    2007Una triple alianza para un aprendizaje universitario de calidad [A triple alliance for quality higher education]. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Viaggio, Sergio
    2003 “La calidad en la mediación interlingüe. Qué es, quién la determina, quién la juzga y quién la enseña” [Quality in interlinguistic mediation. What is it? who determines it? who evaluates it? and who teaches it?]. InLa evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Docencia y profesión. Edited by Á. Collados , Ma M. Fernández , E. M. Pradas , C. Sánchez-Adam , and E. Stévaux , 17–29. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Zwischenberger, Cornelia
    2013Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen Konferenzdolmetschen [Quality and role construction in simultaneous interpreting]. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
    [Google Scholar]

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