References

1. Blasco Mayor, Maria Jesús, and Amparo Jiménez Ivars
   2007 “E-Learning for interpreting.” Babel53(4): 292–302. 10.1075/babel.53.4.01may
   https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.53.4.01may [Google Scholar]
2. Blasco Mayor, Maria Jesús
   2015 “L2 proficiency as predictor of aptitude for interpreting. An empirical study.” Translation and Interpreting Studies10(1): 108–132. 10.1075/tis.10.1.06bla
   https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.10.1.06bla [Google Scholar]
3. Braun, Sabine
   2014 “Comparing traditional and remote interpreting in police settings: quality and impact factors.” InTraduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni, ed. byMaurizio Viezzi and Caterina Falbo, 161–176. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Braun, Sabine, and Catherine Slater
   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]
5. CLILiG Finnland
   CLILiG Finnland 2016 CLILiG-FINNLAND. Ein Überblick mit Einblick. crealang.com/de/clilig-finnland-de/. Last accessed20 August 2018.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Coyle, Do, Philip Hood, and David Marsh
   2010 Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Davitti, Elena
   2013 “Dialogue interpreting as intercultural mediation: Interpreters’ use of upgrading moves in parent-teacher meetings.” Interpreting15(2): 168–199. 10.1075/intp.15.2.02dav
   https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.02dav [Google Scholar]
8. Davitti, Elena
   2015 “Developing interactional skills for dialogue interpreting through digital technologies.” Conference presentation atInDialog. Community Interpreting in Dialogue with Technology. 20–21 November 2015. Berlin, Germany.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Davitti, Elena, and Sergio Pasquandrea
   2016 “Embodied participation: What multimodal analysis can tell us about interpreter-mediated encounters in pedagogical settings.” Journal of Pragmatics107: 105–128. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.008
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.04.008 [Google Scholar]
10. Degueldre, Christian, and Claudia V. Angelelli
    2013 “Implementing new technologies in the teaching of interpreting.” Cuadernos de ALDEEU25: 253–269.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Gorm Hansen, Inge, and Miriam Shlesinger
    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]
12. Grosbois, Muriel
    2016 “Computer supported collaborative writing and language learning.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology, ed. byFiona Farr and Liam Murray, 269–280. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Gran, Laura, Angela Carabelli and Raffaela Merlini
    2002 “Computer-assisted interpreter training.” InInterpreting in the 21st Century. Challenges and Opportunities, ed. byG. Garzone and Maurizio Viezzi, 277–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.43.27gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.43.27gra [Google Scholar]
14. Haataja, Kim
    2009 “Das Konzept LangPerform: Computersimulationen zur Einübung, Überprüfung und Dokumentierung von (fremd-)sprachlichen Kommunikationsfertigkeiten – über die Hintergründe, den Ersteinsatz des Prototyps für Deutsch als Fremdsprache und die Weiterentwicklung des Konzepts.” [The concept LangPerform: Computer simulations for practicing, evaluating and documenting (foreign) language communicative skills – About the background, first usage of the prototype German as a foreign language and the further development of the concept.] Deutsche Lehrer im Ausland56(4): 356–364. Münster: Aschendorff.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Haataja, Kim
    2010 “Das Konzept LangPerform: Entwicklung und Einsatz von Simulationsinstrumenten zur computermedialen Dokumentierung von (fremd-)sprachlichen Kompetenzen – innovativ und integrativ.” [The concept LangPerform: Development and usage of simulation tools for the computer-mediated documentation of second language competences – innovative and integrative.] InJahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache36, ed. byAndrea Bogner, et al., 183–199. München: iudicium.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Haataja, Kim
    2016 “Dem Mehrwert des CLIL auf der Spur. Profilierung sprachlich-fachlicher Kompetenzen in CLIL-Umgebungen mittels Computertechnologie.” [In search of added value through CLIL. Profiling linguistic and content competences in CLIL environments though computer technology.] InFremdsprache Deutsch. Sonderdruck Fach- und sprachintegriertes Lernen (CLILiG)54: 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Hale, Sandra
    2007 Community Interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230593442
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593442 [Google Scholar]
18. Hasan, Eva-Lisa
    2011 L’influence de l’âge sur l’acquisition de la prononciation du français. Une étude pilote sur un test de prononciation utilisant le concept de LangPerform. Master’s thesis. Tampere: University of Tampere.
19. Helminen, Laura
    2014 Developing Language Proficiency Through Multimodal Learning Environments. Master’s thesis. Tampere: University of Tampere.
20. Ibrahim-González, Noraini
    2011 “E-learning in interpreting didactics: Students’ attitudes and learning patterns, and instructor’s challenges.” The Journal of Specialised Translation16: 224–241.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Ilkankoski, Katja
    2012 Apprendre pour la vie ou pour une épreuve, telle est la question. Analyse concept LangPerform. Master’s thesis. Tampere: University of Tampere.
22. INNOCLILiG
    INNOCLILiG 2016 INNOCLILiG. Innovative Wege und Werkzeuge für integriertes Lernen in der Zielsprache Deutsch weltweit. crealang.com/de/innoclilig/. Last accessed20 August 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Kalina, Sylvia
    1998 Strategische Prozesse beim Dolmetschen: theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Fallstudien, didaktische Konsequenzen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Kurz, Ingrid
    2002 “Interpreting training programmes. The benefits of coordination, cooperation, and modern technology.” InTeaching Translation and Interpreting 4. Building Bridges, ed. byEva Hung, 65–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.42.10kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.42.10kur [Google Scholar]
25. Marsh, David, and María Jesús Frigols Martín
    2013 “Content and Language Integrated Learning.” InThe Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. byCarol A. Chapelle, 1–10. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Peterson, Mark
    2016 “Virtual worlds and language learning: an analysis of research.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology, ed. byFiona Farr and Liam Murray, 308–319. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
27. PROFICOM
    PROFICOM 2016 Profiling Learning Progression in CLIL Environments through Computer Simulations. crealang.com/proficom/. Last accessed20 August 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Roberts, Roda P.
    2002 “Community Interpreting. A profession in search of its identity.” InTeaching Translation and Interpreting 4. Building Bridges, ed. byEva Hung, 157–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.42.20rob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.42.20rob [Google Scholar]
29. Sahin, Mehmet
    2013 “Virtual worlds in interpreter training.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer7(1): 91–106. 10.1080/13556509.2013.10798845
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2013.10798845 [Google Scholar]
30. Sandrelli, Annalisa
    2005 “Designing CAIT (Computer-Assisted Interpreter Training) Tools: Black Box.” InEU-High-Level Conference Series: MuTra 2005. Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Sandrelli, Annalisa, and Jesús de Manuel Jerez
    2007 “The Impact of Information and Communication Technology on Interpreter Training: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer1(2): 269–303. 10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798761
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798761 [Google Scholar]
32. Skaaden, Hanne, and Maria Wattne
    2009 “Teaching Interpreting in Cyberspace. The Answer to All Our Prayers?” InInterpreting and Translating in Public Service Settings: Policy, Practice, Pedagogy, ed. byRaquel De Pedro Ricoy, Isabelle Perez, and Christine W. L. Wilson, 74–88. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Tipton, Rebecca, and Olgierda Furmanek
    2016 Dialogue Interpreting. A Guide to Interpreting in Public Services and the Community. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315644578
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644578 [Google Scholar]
34. Tuuna-Kyllönen, Tanja
    2011 Zur Beurteilung der mündlichen Sprachfertigkeit in der Endphase der gymnasialen Oberstufe: Der Test des Zentralamtes für Unterrichtswesen und die Computersimulation LangPerform im Vergleich. Master’s thesis. Tampere: University of Tampere.
35. Tymczýnska, Maria
    2009 “Integrating in-class and online learning activities in a healthcare interpreting course using Moodle.” The Journal of Specialised Translation12: 148–164.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Viljanmaa, Anu
    2017 “Von der Fremdsprachendidaktik zum Dolmetschunterricht. Filmbasierte Computersimulation und Dialogdolmetschertraining.” [From foreign language didactics to interpreter training. Film-based computer simulations and dialogue interpreter training.] InInterpreting Studies at the Crossroads of Disciplines, ed. byAleksanda Nuc and Simon Zupan, 57–80. Berlin: Frank and Timme.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Viljanmaa, Anu
    2015a “Two modes of practice in dialogue-interpreter training: adding live practice in the interpreting booth alongside traditional face-to-face training.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter20: 217–232.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Viljanmaa, Anu
    2015b “Wie den richtigen Ton finden? Gedanken zum professionellen Stimmgebrauch beim Dolmetschen von prosodischen Emotionsausdrücken und ihre Behandlung im Dolmetschunterricht.” [How to find the right tone of voice? Reflections on professional use of voice and prosody in the interpretation of prosodic elements linked to emotions and how to address them in interpreter training.] mTm7: 126–149.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Viljanmaa, Anu
    2015c “Practicing Interpersonal Skills with the Computer: Film-Based Simulations and the Training of Community Interpreters.” Conference presentation atInDialog. Community Interpreting in Dialogue with Technology. 20–21 November, 2015. Berlin, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Viljanmaa, Anu
    2014 “Zwischen Mensch und Maschine: Film-basierte Computersimulationstechnik im Dialogdolmetschertraining – lassen sich Lehrer ersetzen?” [Between man and machine: Film-based computer simulation technology and interpreter training – can teachers be substituted?] InMan vs. Machine?: The Future of Translators, Interpreters and Terminologists, Vo1.1, ed. byWolfram Baur et al., 1034–1040. Berlin: BDÜ Fachverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Wewer, Taina
    2014 Assessment of Young Learners’ English Proficiency in Bilingual Content Instruction CLIL. Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    1999 “Telephone interpreting and the synchronisation of talk in social interaction.” The Translator5(2): 247–264. 10.1080/13556509.1999.10799043
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1999.10799043 [Google Scholar]
43. Wadensjö, Cecilia
    2014 “Perspectives on role play: analysis, training and assessments.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer8(3): 437–451.1. 10.1080/1750399X.2014.971486
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.971486 [Google Scholar]
44. Zannirato, Alessandro
    2008 “Teaching Interpreting and Interpreting Teaching: A Conference Interpreter’s Overview of Second Language Acquisition.” InTranslator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debate, ed. byJohn Kearns, 19–38. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]