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

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines the implementation of peer feedback as an assessment-as-learning tool in simultaneous interpreting (SI) training within interpreter education. While instructor feedback remains indispensable, peer feedback offers potential to enrich students’ learning experiences. However, its adoption in SI has been limited due to the signifi ant cognitive demands of the task, novices’ underdeveloped assessment skills, and students’ reluctance to critique their peers. This study sought to overcome these challenges by implementing a structured three-level feedback framework with targeted training and multimodal technological support. Conducted over 16 weeks in an introductory SI course at a graduate institute in Taiwan, the study involved eight first-year students participating in four structured rounds of asynchronous peer feedback activities. The framework comprised three levels: the product level (evaluating accuracy, fluency, and delivery of interpreting output), the process level (diagnosing underlying strategies and cognitive management in interpreting), and the future-plan level (offering actionable suggestions for improvement). Using a video assessment platform with crucial features like dual-track audio control and time-stamped commentary, students provided balanced commentary across accuracy, language quality, and delivery dimensions. Findings revealed benefits for both feedback providers and recipients. Providers developed deeper analytical skills and enhanced metacognitive awareness through evaluating peers’ work, while recipients gained valuable insights into their blind spots, received motivation from explicit positive commentary, and discovered alternative strategic approaches. Students particularly valued future-plan level feedback, indicating a preference for solution-oriented commentary that directly guided subsequent practice. The structured feedback framework and technological support enabled students to move beyond surface-level observations to analyze complex underlying processes and propose targeted improvements. These findings suggest that peer feedback can transform assessment into a powerful, collaborative learning experience in SI training when properly structured and supported, thereby creating opportunities for students to develop essential self-regulation and evaluative skills vital for professional growth within a collaborative learning environment.

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.54754/incontext.v5i2.124
2025-11-29
2026-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.54754/incontext.v5i2.124
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena
    (2007) Interpreting quality as perceived by trainee interpreters: Self-evaluation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(2), 247–267. 10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798760
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798760 [Google Scholar]
  2. Earl, Lorna M.
    (2013) Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize Student Learning (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Flanagan, Marian and Carmen Heine
    (2015) Peer-feedback as a translation training tool in web-based communication. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 27(54), 115–136. 10.7146/hjlcb.v27i54.22951
     https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v27i54.22951 [Google Scholar]
  4. Fowler, Yvonne
    (2007) Formative assessment: Using peer and self-assessment in interpreter training. InWadensjö Cecilia, Dimitrova Birgitta Englund & Nilsson Anna-Lena (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community (pp.253–262). John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.70.28fow
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.70.28fow [Google Scholar]
  5. Garrison, D. Randy, Terry Anderson and Walter Archer
    (2010) The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Gile, Daniel
    (2009) Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training (Revised ed.). John Benjamins. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027288080
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Han, Chao and Qin Fan
    (2020) Using self-assessment as a formative assessment tool in an English-Chinese interpreting course: Student views and perceptions of its utility. Perspectives, 28(1), 109–125. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1615516
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1615516 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hattie, John
    (2012) Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Hattie, John and Helen Timperley
    (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. 10.3102/003465430298487
     https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. Kaufman, Julia H. and Christian D. Schunn
    (2011) Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387–406. 10.1007/s11251‑010‑9133‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6 [Google Scholar]
  12. Kuo, Tien-chun Gina
    (2018) An exploratory examination of naturally-generated oral peer feedback in interpreting classes using Hattie and Timperley’s feedback model. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 221, 67–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Lee, Jieun
    (2018) Feedback on feedback: Guiding student interpreter performance. Translation & Interpreting, 10(1), 152–170. 10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a09
     https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.110201.2018.a09 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2008) Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2(2), 165–184. 10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798772 [Google Scholar]
  15. Lee, Yun-Hyang
    (2005) Self-assessment as an autonomous learning tool in an interpretation classroom. Meta, 50(4). 10.7202/019869ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/019869ar [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, Xiangdong
    (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]
  17. Lundstrom, Kristi and Wendy Baker
    (2009) To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. McConlogue, Teresa
    (2015) Making judgements: Investigating the process of composing and receiving peer feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1495–1506.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Min, Hui-Tzu
    (2005) Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308. 10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Nicol, David, Avril Thomson and Caroline Breslin
    (2014) Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Patchan, Melissa M. and Christian D. Schunn
    (2015) Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 431, 591–614. 10.1007/s11251‑015‑9353‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x [Google Scholar]
  22. Schellekens, Lonneke H., Harold G. J. Bok, Lubberta H. De Jong, Marieke F. Van der Schaaf, Wim D. J. Kremer and Cees P. M. Van der Vleuten
    (2021) A scoping review on the notions of Assessment as Learning (AaL), Assessment for Learning (AfL), and Assessment of Learning (AoL). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 711, 101094. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101094
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101094 [Google Scholar]
  23. Setton, Robin and Andrew Dawrant
    (2016) Conference Interpreting: A Trainer’s Guide. John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Sippel, Lieselotte
    (2021) Maximizing the benefits of peer interaction: Form-focused instruction and peer feedback training. Language Teaching Research, 28(2), 413–439. 10.1177/13621688211004638 (Original work published 2024)
     https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211004638 [Google Scholar]
  25. Su, Wei and Axian Huang
    (2022) More enjoyable to give or to receive? Exploring students’ emotional status in their peer feedback of academic writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1005–1015.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Topping, Keith
    (2018) Using Peer Assessment to Inspire Reflection and Learning (1st ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351256889
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351256889 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. 10.3102/00346543068003249
     https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249 [Google Scholar]
  28. Wu, Wen-Chieh
    (2019) Táiwān Fānyìsuǒ Xuéshēng Kǒuyì Huíkuì Kànfǎ Chūtàn [An exploration of performance feedback from student interpreter perspectives] [Master’s thesis]. National Taiwan Normal University.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.54754/incontext.v5i2.124
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): assessment as learning; collaborative learning; interpreter training; peer feedback; simultaneous interpreting; 口譯訓練; 合作學習; 同儕回饋; 同步口譯; 評估即學習

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