1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. InContext
  4. Volume 2, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2799-6190
  • E-ISSN: 2799-8592
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

There were no educational institutions in the world which predicted that the COVID-19 pandemic would force them to go completely online. Unlike the more conventional courses which involve the instructor giving a lecture and students asking questions, for interpretation classes, especially simultaneous interpretation, there are more than two people talking at the same time, thereby complicating the technical aspect by several fold. Due to the global outbreak of COVID-19 and the spread of remote interpretation, however, in the future, remote oral language mediation could become the new norm and “the new situation will thoroughly rearrange the market for language service providers as well as interpreter training” (Eszenyi, 2021, p. 112). In view of recent trends, it was felt that educational institutions of interpretation and translation should also engage in a constructive dialogue regarding effective ways to provide remote interpretation instruction. Against this backdrop, this study seeks to analyze online interpretation classes from the point of view of the ‘social presence theory’ which has already been proven to be an effective analytical tool in research regarding online mediated learning environments. To this end, we conducted a survey of instructors and interpreting students at interpretation institutions in Korea. The analysis shows that both instructors and students experienced a low level of social presence in terms of its three dimensions: co-presence, psychological involvement, and behavioral engagement due to 100% online interpretation classes. Based on the findings, we suggest that interpretation and translation institutions offer classes in an online and offline hybrid format with more opportunities for offline interaction outside of class. In addition, we emphasize the need for technical support at the school level because the technical aspects are important in learning efficieny in the computer mediated communication (CMC) environment. Unlike previous remote simultaneous interpretation (RSI) studies, this study holds significance in that it explored the issue of remote interpretation education using the social presence theory.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.54754/incontext.v2i2.25
2022-08-30
2026-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.54754/incontext.v2i2.25
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AIIC
    AIIC (2019) AIIC Guidelines for Distance Interpreting (Version 1.0). RetrievedJune 22, 2022fromhttps://aiic.org/document/4418/AIIC%20Guidelines%20for%20Distance%20Interpreting%20(Version%201.0)%20-%20ENG.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Amato, Amalia, Nicoletta Spinolo and María Jesús González Rodríguez
    (Eds.) (2018) Handbook of Remote Interpreting. SHIFT in Orality.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Andres, Dörte and Stefanie Falk
    (2009) Information and communication technologies (ICT) in interpreting: Remote and telephone interpreting. InDörte Andres & Sonja Pöllabauer (Eds.), Spürst Du, wie der Bauch rauf-runter? Fachdolmetschen im Gesundheitsbereich (pp.9–27). Meidenbauer.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Biocca, Frank, Chad Harms and Judee K. Burgoon
    (2003) Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–480.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Biocca, Frank, Chad Harms and Jenn Gregg
    (2001) The Networked Minds Measure of Social Presence: Pilot Test of the Factor Structure and Concurrent Validity. 4th Annual International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Braun, Sabine
    (2015) Remote interpreting. InHolly Mikkelson & Renée Jourdenais (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting (pp.364–379). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Donovan, Clare
    (2006) Where is Interpreting heading and how can training courses keep up. Future of Conference Interpreting: Training, Technology and Research, University of Westminster, London. https://emci.elte.hu/emci/emci_drupal_data/Where%20is%20interpreting%20heading%20Donovan.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Eszenyi, Réka
    (2021) Teaching simultaneous interpreting during the lockdown: What can we learn from this extraordinary semester?InMárta Seresi, Réka Eszenyi & Edina Robin (Eds.), Distance Education in Translator and Interpreter Training — Methodological Lessons during the Covid-19 Pandemic (pp.110–120). Department of Translation and Interpreting, ELTE.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Gunawardena, Charlotte N.
    (1995) Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Heath, Christian and Paul Luff
    (1991) Collaborative activity and technological design: Task coordination in London Underground control rooms. InLiam Bannon, Mike Robinson & Kjeld Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW ’91 (pp.65–80). Springer Netherlands. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3506‑1_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3506-1_5 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hubscher-Davidson, Séverine and Jérôme Devaux
    (2021) Teaching translation and interpreting in virtual environments. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 36(b), 184–192.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Lee, Migyong
    (2020) Wongyeok tongyeok hwalseonghwareul wuihan yogeongwa tongyeok gyoyuk-e daehan hamui [Requirements for facilitating remote interpretation and implications for interpretation training]. The Journal of Interpretation and Translation Education, 20(1), 14–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Lee, Un-Kon, Kim Kyung Kyu and Lee Jung Reul
    (2013) Keomuniti yosowa maeche pungyodo yosoga sosyeol netweokeu geim iyongjaeui iyonggyeongheome michineun yeonghyang: ‘Aenipang’-eul jungsimeuro [The effect of community artifacts and media richness elements on the experiences of the social network game users: ‘Anypang’ case]. Journal of Society for e-Business Studies, 18(1), 191–211. 10.7838/jsebs.2013.18.1.191
     https://doi.org/10.7838/jsebs.2013.18.1.191 [Google Scholar]
  14. McIsaac, Marina Stock and Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena
    (1996) Distance education. InDavid H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.403–437). Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Moser-Mercer, Barbara
    (2005a) Remote interpreting: The crucial role of presence. Vals-Asla, 811, 73–97. https://doc.rero.ch/record/17447/files/Moser-Mercier_Barbara_-_Remote_interpreting_The_crucial_role_20100310.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (2005b) Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task. Meta, 50(2), 727–738. 10.7202/011014ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/011014ar [Google Scholar]
  17. (2003) Remote interpreting: Assessment of human factors and performance parameters. AIIC Webzine, Summer 2003. https://aiic.org/document/516/AIICWebzine_Summer2003_3_MOSER-MERCER_Remote_interpreting_Assessment_of_human_factors_and_performance_parameters_Original.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Murgu, Dora
    (2021) Approaching stress and performance in RSI: Proposal for action to take back control. Proceedings of the Translation and Interpreting Technology Online Conference, held online. https://aclanthology.org/2021.triton-1.8.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Nestler, Fredo
    (1957) Tel-Interpret: Begründung und Grundlagen eines deutschen Telefon-Dolmetschdienstes. Lebende Sprachen, 2(1), 21–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Oztok, Murat and Clare Brett
    (2011) Social presence and online learning: A review of the research. The Journal of Distance Education, 25(3), 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Seeber, Kilian and Brian Fox
    (2022) Distance conference interpreting. InMichaela Albl- Mikasa & Elisabet Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting (pp.491–507). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Seeber, Kilian, Laura Keller, Rhona Amos and Sophie Hengl
    (2018) Interpreting from the Sidelines: Attitudes Towards Remote Interpreting at the 2014 FIFA World Cup. AIIC Webzine. RetrievedJune 23, 2022fromhttps://aiic.net/p/8675
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Song, Yonsuk
    (2020) Onrain tongbeonyeok-gyowuk-e daehan gyosuja insik — Tongbeonyeok daehagweon sarye yeongu [T&I trainers’ perceptions on online T&I training: A survey-based study]. The Journal of Translation Studies, 21(4), 63–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Stasimioti, Maria
    (2022, June28). Some UN interpreters push back hard against remote interpretation. Slator. https://slator.com/un-interpreters-push-back-hard-against-remote-interpretation/
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Txabarriaga, Rocío
    (2022, June30). EU interpreters suspend remote interpreting services. Slator. https://slator.com/eu-interpreters-suspend-remote-interpreting-services/
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.54754/incontext.v2i2.25
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): behavioral engagement; co-presence; psychological involvement; RSI; social presence theory; 공존감; 사회적 존재감 이론; 심리적 몰입; 원격동시통역; 행동적 의도

Most Cited

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