Leveraging a large language model for error analysis-based automatic feedback in interpreter training

References

1. Balaman, Sevda
   2024 “Exploring Undergraduate Students’ Viewpoints on Corrective Feedback Implementations in Interpreting.” Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (15): 994–1011. 10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1452692
   https://doi.org/10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1452692 [Google Scholar]
2. Barik, Henri. C.
   1971 “A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation.” Meta16 (4): 199–210. 10.7202/001972ar
   https://doi.org/10.7202/001972ar [Google Scholar]
3. Biber, Douglas
   1993 “Representativeness in corpus design.” Literary and linguistic computing8 (4): 243–257. 10.1093/llc/8.4.243
   https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243 [Google Scholar]
4. Bland, J. Martin, and Douglas Altman
   1986 “Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.” The Lancet, 327 (8476): 307–310. 10.1016/S0140‑6736(86)90837‑8
   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8 [Google Scholar]
5. Brown, Tom B.,
   2020 “Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners.” arXiv. 10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165
   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165 [Google Scholar]
6. Caruso, Marinella, Fraschini, Nicola, and Kuuse, Sabine
   2019 “Online tools for feedback engagement in second language learning.” International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 9 (1): 58–78. 10.4018/IJCALLT.2019010104
   https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2019010104 [Google Scholar]
7. Chen, Ziqi,
   2024 “L2 students’ barriers in engaging with form and content-focused AI-generated feedback in revising their compositions.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–21. 10.1080/09588221.2024.2422478
   https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2422478 [Google Scholar]
8. Cohen, Jacob
   2013 Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203771587
   https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 [Google Scholar]
9. Creswell, John. W., and Creswell, J. David
   2023 Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 6th ed.California: Sage.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Dai, Wei,
    2023 “Can large language models provide feedback to students? A case study on ChatGPT.” 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). 10.1109/ICALT58122.2023.00100
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT58122.2023.00100 [Google Scholar]
11. ElSayary, Areej
    2024 “An investigation of teachers’ perceptions of using ChatGPT as a supporting tool for teaching and learning in the digital era.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40 (3): 931–945. 10.1111/jcal.12926
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12926 [Google Scholar]
12. Er, Erkan,
    2025 “Assessing student perceptions and use of instructor versus AI-generated feedback.” British Journal of Educational Technology, 56 (3): 1074–1091. 10.1111/bjet.13558
    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13558 [Google Scholar]
13. Escalante, Juan, Pack, Austin, and Barrett, Alex
    2023 “AI-generated feedback on writing: Insights into efficacy and ENL student preference.” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20 (1): 57. 10.1186/s41239‑023‑00425‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2 [Google Scholar]
14. Fahmy, Yasin
    2024 Student Perception on AI-Driven Assessment: Motivation, Engagement and Feedback Capabilities. Bachelor Essay, University of Twente.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Falbo, Caterina
    2002 “Error analysis: A research tool.” InPerspectives on Interpreting, edited byGiuliana Garzone, Peter Mead, and Maurizio Viezzi, 111–127. Bologna: CLUEB.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Fernandes, Patrick,
    2023 “The devil is in the errors: Leveraging large language models for fine-grained machine translation evaluation.” arXiv. 10.18653/v1/2023.wmt‑1.100
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.wmt-1.100 [Google Scholar]
17. Flores, Glenn,
    2003 “Errors in Medical Interpretation and Their Potential Clinical Consequences in Pediatric Encounters.” Pediatrics, 111 (1): 6–14. 10.1542/peds.111.1.6
    https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.111.1.6 [Google Scholar]
18. Fowler, Yvonne
    2007 “Formative assessment: Using peer and self-assessment in interpreter training.” InThe Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community, edited byCecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta E. Dimitrova, and Anna-Lena Nilsson, vol.701, 253–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.70.28fow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.70.28fow [Google Scholar]
19. Giavarina, Davide
    2015 “Understanding bland altman analysis.” Biochemia Medica, 25 (2): 141–151. 10.11613/BM.2015.015
    https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.015 [Google Scholar]
20. Gile, Daniel
    2009 “Language availability and its implications in conference interpreting (and translation).” InBasic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training, edited byD. Gile, 219–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.8.09lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8.09lan [Google Scholar]
21. Gile, Daniel
    2011 “Errors, omissions and infelicities in broadcast interpreting: Preliminary findings from a case study.” InMethods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies, edited byCecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 201–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.94.15gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.15gil [Google Scholar]
22. Guo, Kai, and Wang, Deliang
    2024 “To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing.” Education and Information Technologies, 29 (7): 8435–8463. 10.1007/s10639‑023‑12146‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0 [Google Scholar]
23. Hallgren, Kevin A.
    2012 “Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial.” Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology8(1): 23–34. 10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
    https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023 [Google Scholar]
24. Han, Chao
    2018 “Using rating scales to assess interpretation: Practices, problems and prospects.” Interpreting, 20 (1): 59–95. 10.1075/intp.00003.han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00003.han [Google Scholar]
25. Han, Chao
    2021 “Interpreting testing and assessment: A state-of-the-art review.” Language Testing, 00 (0): 1–26. 10.1177/02655322211036100
    https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211036100 [Google Scholar]
26. Han, Chao, and Lu, Xiaolei
    2021 “Interpreting quality assessment re-imagined: The synergy between human and machine scoring.” Interpreting and Society, 1 (1): 70–90. 10.1177/27523810211033670
    https://doi.org/10.1177/27523810211033670 [Google Scholar]
27. Han, Chao, Lu, Xiaolei, and Fan, Qin
    2025 “Taming generative AI for interpreter education: using large language models in classroom-based assessment of English-Chinese consecutive interpreting.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 19 (3–4): 444–464. 10.1080/1750399X.2025.2533606
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2025.2533606 [Google Scholar]
28. Han, Lili
    2022 “Portuguese interpreting teaching in China: past, present and future — Macao’s contribution.” Macao Polytechnic University Journal, (2): 52–61.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Hattie, John, and Timperley, Helen
    2007 “The power of feedback.” Review of educational research, 77 (1): 81–112. 10.3102/003465430298487
    https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 [Google Scholar]
30. Holewik, Katarzyna
    2020 “Peer feedback and reflective practice in public service interpreter training.” Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 2 (6): 133–159. 10.31261/TAPSLA.7809
    https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.7809 [Google Scholar]
31. Huang, Jerry
    2023 “Engineering ChatGPT prompts for EFL writing classes.” International Journal of TESOL Studies, 5 (4): 73–79. 10.58304/ijts.20230405
    https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.20230405 [Google Scholar]
32. Kelly, Dorothy
    2014 A Handbook for Translator Trainers: A Guide to Reflective Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315760292
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760292 [Google Scholar]
33. Khansir, Ali Akbar
    2012 “Error analysis and second language acquisition.” Theory and practice in language studies, 2 (5): 1027–1032. 10.4304/tpls.2.5.1027‑1032
    https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.5.1027-1032 [Google Scholar]
34. Kocmi, Tom, and Federmann, Christian
    2023 “GEMBA-MQM: Detecting translation quality error spans with GPT-4.” arXiv. 10.18653/v1/2023.wmt‑1.64
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.wmt-1.64 [Google Scholar]
35. Korzynski, Pawel,
    2023 “Artificial intelligence prompt engineering as a new digital competence: Analysis of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT.” Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11 (3): 25–37. 10.15678/EBER.2023.110302
    https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110302 [Google Scholar]
36. Lee, Jieun
    2018 “Feedback on feedback: Guiding student interpreter performance.” Translation & Interpreting: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 10 (1): 152–170. 10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a09
    https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a09 [Google Scholar]
37. Lee, Ziying
    2015 The reflection and self-assessment of student interpreters through logbooks: A case study. Doctoral Dissertation, Heriot-Watt University.
38. Liang, Weixin,
    2024 “Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis.” NEJM AI, 1 (8). 10.1056/AIoa2400196
    https://doi.org/10.1056/AIoa2400196 [Google Scholar]
39. Lu, Rong,
    2024 “Modelling error types in consecutive interpreting.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Chinese Interpreting, edited byRiccardo Moratto and Cheng Zhan, 207–225. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781032687766‑18
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032687766-18 [Google Scholar]
40. Lu, Rong,
    2021 “Error Types in Consecutive Interpreting among Student Interpreters between Chinese and English: A pilot study.” Proceedings of 7th Malaysia International Conference on Foreign Languages, compiled byHazlina Abdul Halim and Lay Hoon Ang, 267–275. Selangor: Universiti Putra Malaysia.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Lu, Xinchao
    2025 “The effectiveness of ChatGPT-assisted Lexical-syntactic Flexibility practice for interpreting competence and quality: the case of Chinese-to-English consecutive interpreting.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 10.1080/1750399X.2025.2533014
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2025.2533014 [Google Scholar]
42. Machová, Lydia
    2016 “Students’ Self-Assessment of Simultaneous Interpreting: Distribution of Comments on Quality and Processes.” InInterchange between languages and cultures: The quest for quality, edited byJitka Zehnalová, Ondřej Molnár, and Michal Kubánek, 103–118. Olomouc: Palacký University.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Malau, Putri Pridani,
    2021 “Errors in Consecutive Interpreting: A Case of Jessica Kumalawongso’s Court.” Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching, 5 (1): 71–79. 10.30743/ll.v5i1.2611
    https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v5i1.2611 [Google Scholar]
44. Mraček, David, and Vavroušová, Petra Mračková
    2021 “Self-reflection tools in interpreter training: A case study involving learners’ diaries.” InChanging paradigms and approaches in interpreter training, edited byPavol Šveda, 229–247. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003087977‑13
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003087977-13 [Google Scholar]
45. Musa, Zakariya Yaseen and Al-Maryani, Jasim Khalifah Sultan
    2021 “Assessing the Simultaneous Interpreting Outputs of Trainee Interpreters in Iraqi Departments of Translation.” Adab Al-Basrah, 2 (95).
    [Google Scholar]
46. Nazaretsky, Tanya,
    2024 “AI or human? Evaluating student feedback perceptions in higher education.” InTechnology Enhanced Learning for Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education. EC-TEL 2024: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, edited byRafael Ferreira Mello, Nikol Rummel, Ioana Jivet, Gerti Pishtari, and José A. Ruipérez Valiente, vol151591. Switzerland: Springer Cham. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑72315‑5_20
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72315-5_20 [Google Scholar]
47. Pankiewicz, Maciej, and Baker, Ryan S.
    2023 “Large Language Models (GPT) for automating feedback on programming assignments.” arXiv. 10.58459/icce.2023.950
    https://doi.org/10.58459/icce.2023.950 [Google Scholar]
48. Postigo, Pinazo Encarnación
    2008 “Self-assessment in teaching interpreting.” Traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 21 (1): 173–209. 10.7202/029690ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/029690ar [Google Scholar]
49. Pratiwi, Rully Sutrirasa
    2016 “Common Errors And Problems Encountered by Students English to Indonesian Consecutive Interpreting.” Journal of English and Education, 4 (1): 127–146.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Shehab, Ali Ahmed, and Al-Maryani, Jasim
    2019 “The Impact of Ideological and Non-Ideological Factors on the Quality and Quantity of Error in the Simultaneous Interpreting of Contemporary American Political Discourse.” Adab Al-Basrah, 901: 33–84.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Su, Yanfang, Xu, Simin and Liu, Kanglong
    2025 “Adapt or adopt? Examining the efficacy of ChatGPT in providing translation feedback.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 19 (3–4): 296–316. 10.1080/1750399X.2025.2541486
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2025.2541486 [Google Scholar]
52. Tahraoui, Amina
    2022 “Teaching sight and bilateral interpreting online: students’ perceptions of teacher feedback.” Texto Livre, 151: e39545. 10.35699/1983‑3652.2022.39545
    https://doi.org/10.35699/1983-3652.2022.39545 [Google Scholar]
53. Teng, Mark Feng
    2024 “‘ChatGPT is the companion, not enemies’: EFL learners’ perceptions and experiences in using ChatGPT for feedback in writing.” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 71, 100270. 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100270
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100270 [Google Scholar]
54. Teng, Mark Feng
    2025 “Metacognitive Awareness and EFL Learners’ Perceptions and Experiences in Utilising ChatGPT for Writing Feedback.” European Journal of Education, 60 (1): e12811. 10.1111/ejed.12811
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12811 [Google Scholar]
55. Tian, Lili, and Zhou, Yu
    2020 “Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context.” System, 911, 102247. 10.1016/j.system.2020.102247
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247 [Google Scholar]
56. Wang, Binhua
    2015 “Bridging the gap between interpreting classrooms and real-world interpreting.” International journal of interpreter education, 7 (1): 65–73.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Wang, Hairuo
    2015 “Error Analysis in Consecutive Interpreting of Students with Chinese and English Language Pairs.” Canadian Social Science, 11 (11): 65–79. 10.3968/7755
    https://doi.org/10.3968/7755 [Google Scholar]
58. Wang, Xiaoman, and Wang, Binhua
    2025 “Advancing automatic assessment of target-language quality in interpreter training with large language models: insights from explainable AI.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 19 (3–4): 465–485. 10.1080/1750399X.2025.2533015
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2025.2533015 [Google Scholar]
59. Wiliam, Dylan, and Thompson, Marnie
    2017 “Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work?” InThe future of assessment: shaping teaching and learning, edited byCarol Anne Dwyer, 53–82. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315086545‑3
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315086545-3 [Google Scholar]
60. Wu, Wenchieh
    2019 An exploration of performance feedback from student interpreter perspectives. Master Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Wu, Zhiwei
    2017 “The interrelationship among in-class peer-assessment, interpreting anxiety and interpreting performance.” Language Education, 5 (4): 33–37.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Xu, Simin,
    2024 “Integrating AI for Enhanced Feedback in Translation Revision-A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Student Engagement.” arXiv. 10.48550/arXiv.2410.08581
    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.08581 [Google Scholar]
63. Xu, Simin,
    2025 “Investigating student engagement with AI-driven feedback in translation revision: A mixed-methods study.” Education and Information Technologies, 1–27. 10.1007/s10639‑025‑13457‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13457-0 [Google Scholar]
64. Xue, Ruqian, and Liu, Qin
    2024 “Exploring student interpreters’ engagement with different sources of feedback on note-taking.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62 (4): 1135–1148. 10.1080/14703297.2024.2354739
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2354739 [Google Scholar]
65. Yu, Jing, and Liu, Kanglog
    2024 “Reshaping Translation Studies: Paradigm Shifts and Future Directions in the Age of AI Technology.” Journal of Foreign Languages, 47 (4): 72–81.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Yu, Yi, Wei, Wei and Chen, Ziqi
    2025 “Comparing learners’ engagement strategies with feedback from a Generative AI chatbot and peers in an interpreter training programme: a quasi-experimental study.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 10.1080/1750399X.2025.2533069
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2025.2533069 [Google Scholar]
67. Zhai, Xiaoming, and Nehm, Ross H.
    2023 “AI and formative assessment: The train has left the station.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60 (6): 1390–1398. 10.1002/tea.21885
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21885 [Google Scholar]
68. Zhan, Cheng, and Huang, Jing
    2024 “Learner engagement with corrective feedback in interpreting training.” Foreign Language Education in China. 10.4324/9781003377771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003377771 [Google Scholar]
69. Zhao, Nan,
    2023 “Speech errors in consecutive interpreting: Effects of language proficiency, working memory, and anxiety.” Plos One, 18 (10). 10.1371/journal.pone.0292718
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292718 [Google Scholar]