Leah Gerber (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) Leah.Gerber@monash.edu
Marc Orlando (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) Marc Orlando@monash.edu
Shani Tobias (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) Shani.Tobias@monash.edu
Abstract
The translation and interpreting (T&I) profession worldwide is undergoing fundamental changes as a result of globalization and rapid technological developments. It is essential that university training programmes prepare T&I graduates for this new environment through an approach to curricula and pedagogy that combines vocational, academic and transferable skills, responding to the diversity of both the students themselves and their potential future employment contexts. The ‘blended learning’ methodology, which integrates online and face-to-face teaching and learning activities, has been gaining prominence as an effective driver of student-centred, active learning.
Using the example of an MA programme in Australia, this article will show how the application of blended learning in T&I training can facilitate the development of skillsets necessary for 21st century translators. In particular, the case studies demonstrate, with reference to student satisfaction surveys, that the structuring of pre-class, face-to-face and post-class (assessment) activities enhanced students’ ability to engage in discussions and peer-to-peer collaborative tasks, reflect on their learning, apply theory to practice and benefit from a range of formative feedback.
Introduction
The impact of globalization and technologization within the translation and interpreting (T&I) industry has affected T&I training programmes globally. Programmes are now pushed to face the mix of challenges presented by the profession, addressing them directly within the teaching and learning context. The MA in Interpreting and Translation Studies (MITS) at Monash University (Melbourne, Australia), established in 2004 1 , presents an example of a course responding directly to such needs. With a diverse student cohort – students from as many as 15 countries and up to 9 languages other than English (LOTE) 2 are enrolled in the same suite of units – the MITS engages directly with the idea that students will likely practice in a range of different global environments: in the Asia-Pacific, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America. Like many other post-graduate programmes offered throughout the world, the MITS must not only provide the necessary cultural, linguistic and skills training to future professional translators and interpreters, but respond to the reality that its graduates will be working in an array of markets, as well as linguistic and geographical spheres.
Within the tertiary training sector, one of the major shifts in 21st century teaching and learning has been driven by so-called ‘virtual learning environments’ (VLEs), operated by ‘learning management systems’ (LMS), which are being used by universities to drive more student-centred learning. It has been well-acknowledged that the use of a particular technologies in the teaching and learning environment actually improves learning (Beynon, 2007; Clark, 2001; Kozma, 2001), with some scholars arguing that it is not the technology itself, but the way in which activities are designed and students engage, that create the best outcomes (Kozma 2001). VLEs and LMSs have become key access points for both students and academics: students use them to retrieve teaching and learning resources, whilst academics deposit lecture material and readings online, post to and/or communicate with students through forums and provide online video content.
Moodle powered by Blackboard is the primary VLE utilised by Monash University. Monash has over 70,000 enrolled students and teaching spaces are now in great demand, therefore the role of Moodle as an extension of the classroom rather than as a mere file repository has become paramount. One of the major results of the globalised education sector has meant increased student mobility and greater numbers of fee-paying students, mainly from South East Asia (Gardner, 2016). This, coupled with the so-called ‘massification of higher education’ and the ‘shift to provide higher education to a larger proportion of the population in recognition of the need for higher skills for future employment’ (Gardner 2016), has drastically changed the teaching and learning landscape in Australia and, arguably, much of the world. In many universities, digital platforms are now being pushed as a way of moving towards a more student centred learning model, as outlined by the Vice Chancellor of Monash in 2016:
The future is clear […] Education will become more flexible, more formative, more personalised. The ‘flipped classroom’ is on its way to being more common than the large first year lecture. It uses online content to reduce lecture time, allows more group interaction, building problem solving skills. The online platform for holding content and assessment allows for more formative assessment and more ability to interact on the areas that are most important to improve student motivation and learning. In other words, digital disruption and harnessing its possibilities is vital to providing much better teaching and learning in universities in this time of globalization and massification, for here is the promise of better education for our students (Gardner, 2016).
However, as colleagues from Monash have noted, “academics have limited access to training in the effective use of Moodle and this combined with a busy teaching and research load means that we find, unsurprisingly, that Moodle is used in a very basic way” (Gleadow et al 2015, 4). Academics need to understand that changes to teaching and learning practices in the globalized world need not be radical. Instead, if shifts to teaching approaches are done with pedagogies in mind that change according to the unique needs of the learners’ (Osguthorpe & Graham 2003, 227), aiming for a ‘blend that favours the learner and plays to the strengths of different media in different contexts’ (Donnelly & McAvinia 2012, 6), then academic adoption of technology-enhanced delivery becomes more attractive, easier to implement and more productive for all involved.
Blending learning or “flipping the classroom” is the combination of face-to-face and online learning (Auster 2015; Brown 2013; Garrison and Kanuka 2004; Millichap and Vogt 2012). The idea is to promote blended learning principles that complement existing teaching practices, instead of radically altering personal teaching approaches, in order to improve student learning. Though the notion of what constitutes blended learning in terms of technology-enhanced delivery (e.g. pre/in/post-class learning activities) is well researched (Laurillard 2012; Gleadow et al. 2015), it is important to emphasise that academic adoption – as shown in the case studies presented later on – is reliant on moulding the technology to the units’ specific needs, and by providing tailored solutions for individual areas of study. Most importantly, innovators need to be supported and “share their practice with others” (Gleadow et al. 2015), for example, through the publication of their experiences in academic journals. The proliferation of information technology in the tertiary education setting is by no means a new phenomenon (Warren and Holloman 2005; Richardson 2009; Toni Mohr et al. 2012; Porter et al. 2014), but it seems like it is here to stay.
This article aims, through a description of how blended learning was implemented across two units within a MA of T&I Studies, to show how specifically T&I training programs may respond to some of the new demands of the profession through blended learning practices. The student responses featured in this article highlight how a shift in the mode of teaching can have direct benefits on student learning experiences and, potentially, graduate outcomes.
Background: the effect of globalization on higher education and on T&I training
Whether in translation or in interpreting, practitioners, educators and researchers have had to adapt to ever-changing markets and environments because of globalization and technological developments. The industry at large has faced multiple challenges and opportunities, and is now a multifaceted sector. Because of the internationalization of the economy, of global migration, or of technological advances (be it Artificial Intelligence-enhanced tools, Neural Machine Translation for translators or more and more performant platforms to offer Distance Interpreting), T&I professionals of the 21st century are subjected to pressures that their predecessors would not have known, and to various types of professional demands. In a fragmented (and largely unregulated) global market, they are expected to show adaptability and versatility (Orlando 2016, 17-24), while the variety of modalities and contexts of work in which they have to provide their services (Setton and Dawrant 2016, 11) demands a broad palette of aptitudes.
As a result, training contexts are vastly different to those of one or two decades ago (Hurtado Albir 2007), with an increase in the use of technology, diverse student cohorts, more theoretical engagement and greater emphasis on graduate outcomes. Furthermore, as noted by Kearns (2008), Kelly (2008) and Pöchhacker (2016), training contexts have changed with the granting of university status to former vocational institutions or higher education institutions and universities absorbing T&I schools and institutes that used to provide professional training. Internationally, T&I training today is provided mainly by universities, and even if T&I curricula remain to a certain extent the same, they have been turned into Master’s degrees. Internationally, MA degrees have mushroomed and are now structured in line with new qualification frameworks, appropriate to the country in which they are based (Pöchhacker 2016). These frameworks have also meant that training is no longer solely vocational and most T&I students are required to fulfil a research component of the degree. As reported by Pym and Torres-Simón, ‘at least 85 percent of the [EMT] programmes offer theory courses and 90 percent include research work of some kind.’ (2017, 17). Students in T&I Studies today are more exposed to theory and research in their field than T&I students were twenty or more years ago (Gile 2009; Pöchhacker 2010). Even if the number of credits allocated to research/theory seem to vary from one institution to the other (Pym & Torres-Simón, 2017), T&I curricula must reflect the need for marrying the vocational and the academic. Research activities such as writing research abstracts, essays, projects and major theses that complement the more practical elements of the training help students and staff to theorise, self-reflect and re-conceptualise some aspects of the profession. Because of the shift towards more postgraduate training within universities, as well as major developments within the discipline of T&I Studies over the last 20 years or so, students in T&I Studies today are much more exposed to theory and research in their field than T&I students of the past.
Scholars working in the area of translator training like Kelly (2005) or Gouadec (2007) have been somewhat hostile to the idea of translators being trained in a specific kind of university environment – and even more against translators being taught by academics only (a ‘preposterous’ idea, Gouadec 2007, 355) – based on the notion that universities cultivate academic rationalism/conservatism and do not respond to today’s society training needs. Despite such views, there is much to be said for the blending of academic and professional skills training, producing graduates who are better-rounded, and who understand both the profession and the disciplinary background from which it stems. As such, translator training will very likely remain in university environments. Indeed, even if translator training is an activity ‘falling firmly within the purview of vocational technical colleges’, the ‘harmonization of higher education under the Bologna Process will inevitably involve re-conceiving undergraduate and graduate studies in many ways’ and will ‘challenge directly many of the preconceptions of academic rationalism’ (Kearns 2008, 186). Following the implementation of the Bologna Process and of its framework, even beyond European boundaries, as well as the desire to internationalise the activities of universities and to establish cross-border transparency of qualifications, transnational improvement of quality assurance and interregional mobility of scholars and students, many institutions have had to re-evaluate their practices in T&I training.
Today’s T&I curricula are designed to reflect the need for both the vocational and the academic. The vocational/academic dichotomy in T&I courses has been already discussed (Orlando, 2016: 48-54), and it is important to note that universities today need to also respond to societal demands and have to include vocational, experiential components in their programmes (Kiraly et al. 2016). Training in T&I must be market-oriented, and still focus on specific competence, skills, and specialisations (Liu & Hale 2018). Tertiary education institutions are expected to provide graduates with skills that can be applied immediately in specific work environments (Echeverri 2017; González-Davies & Enríquez-Raído, 2016; Way 2008). Moreover, universities also have to ensure they teach transferable skills, seen as preparing the student to be mobile and adaptable between various jobs, whereas traditional vocational skills equip the student for a more specific job (Calvo 2011: 11).
Rationale: supporting student learning
In addition to the above, exploring ways to better support student learning and empowerment in T&I has also been dealt with by various trainers such as Kiraly (2000), Gonzalez-Davies (2004) and Choi (2006), who indicate that the emancipation of trainees depends on their capacity to reflect on their progress and their practice, and to become agents in the learning process. It was our view that, in order to gain this aptitude, metacognitive and self-regulation strategies needed to be introduced into our MITS curriculum, especially in practice-led units. The rationale is that trainees will better understand and conceptualize the practice of T&I if they understand the learning and acquisition process of T&I competence and skills, as well as the way in which theory participates in the acquisition of such competence and skills. In a classroom where students come from different continents, countries and academic backgrounds, proficient in a range of different languages , such a strategy allows for a better ‘learning equilibrium’ to be achieved.
One of the ways this can be achieved is by use of metacognition strategies: the awareness of the learning process by the learner and the ability to adapt to challenges that occur during this process through effective strategies. Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive skills are complementary components of the broader notion of metacognition (Veenman 2006). Metacognitive knowledge refers to the information learners acquire about their learning, while metacognitive skills, i.e. strategies for planning, monitoring and evaluating, are general skills through which learners manage, direct, regulate and guide their learning. Students who develop their metacognitive knowledge and skills better understand the difficulties they may have with specific tasks (metacognitive knowledge) and are able to adopt strategies (metacognitive skills) to monitor and improve their performance. As feedback is central to any metacognitive approach, teaching and learning activities should be organised around metacognitive skills (as opposed to metacognitive knowledge) which ‘have a feedback mechanism built-in’ (Veenman 2006, 5). In the MITS curriculum, this is done through collective, peer or individual assessment and feedback activities that facilitate and improve remediation strategies, using for example process-oriented activities with digital pen technology in interpreting practice (Orlando 2010), or rubric-based formative/process-oriented and summative/product-oriented evaluations grids in translation practice (Orlando 2011).
As for challenges pertaining to the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF), it is also vital that T&I curricula prepares students to cope with the variety of ‘Englishes’ they would have to deal with in their future professional practice. ELF is thereby considered ‘a dynamic and hybrid language whose complexity cannot be fully grasped without taking into account its interaction with other languages and cultures’ (Taviano 2013, 156). For Taviano, ‘the spread of English, combined with globalization processes and practices, should encourage us to reflect on what translating means today and to rethink our pedagogical approaches from new and more challenging perspectives’ (2013, 156). Like her, we believe that, to do so, translation and interpreting curricula should maintain a balance between theory and practice, and that ‘students need to become aware of and reflect on the rapidly changing nature of their future profession’. In addition, ‘one major consequence of the impact of ELF and globalization on translation is that traditional notions of texts written in a clearly identified language and addressed to a specific culture and readership are no longer valid, and translators are hence more often than not required to translate hybrid texts.’ (Taviano 2013, 160). In the MITS, dealing with such considerations was facilitated by the fact students come from various countries, that instructors are not all English native speakers, and that the course is taught in language groups always paired with English. Collective T&I activities in English allow therefore an exposure to all sorts of accents, writing styles, syntactic and grammatical particularities, etc.
At a course design level, two new units were consequently recently added, which again responded directly to desired graduate outcomes: ‘Global Translation and Interpreting Professional Practices’, which teaches vital project management and business skills, applicable in different global contexts, and places translation and interpreting students together with various industry representatives and stakeholders at various touch-points over the semester; and ‘Translation Trends in the Digital Age’, which not only teaches students to use CAT tools and translation memory software, but explores the challenges and ethical dilemmas of translating in the online sphere, including collaborative translation practice, international and technological frameworks for translation in a digital age, knowledge about the localization industry and helps students develop expertise in multimodal translation and the associated requirements, sensitivities, and opportunities. So-called ‘Work Integrated Learning’ (WIL) also forms part of the MITS curriculum for all students, who are required to undertake 50 hours of professional (remote or on-site) practical work experience alongside the degree. Students are encouraged to source out WIL opportunities by themselves from potential future employers in Australia but also in their native country, or in countries where T&I work in their language pair(s) is required.
Findings: blended learning implemented in the MITS
Therefore, in the MITS, we married these new educational approaches with challenges posed by the globalization and technologization of the profession: our aim was to trial blended learning approaches across three core units, forcing students to increase their interaction with online spaces and to drive their own learning. The benefits of blended learning have been well-documented, as summarised below by Ally (2008):
For learners, online learning knows no time zones, and location and distance are not issues. In asynchronous online learning, students can access the online materials anytime, while synchronous online learning allows for real-time interaction between students and instructors. Learners can use the Internet to access up-to-date and relevant learning materials, and can communicate with experts in the field which they are studying. Situated learning, or the application of knowledge and skills in specific contexts, is facilitated, since learners can complete online courses while working on the job or in their own space, and can contextualize the learning (17).
In the units selected, we replaced the traditional lecture with online seminars, which were pre-recorded by the academic, and released week by week to students. Removing the face-to-face lecture allowed for more practical, hands-on workshops and “situated learning”, directly benefitting students’ translation and interpreting skills training. In such cases, the online seminar acts as a ‘pre-class activity’, and students are expected to come to class prepared to put into action their prior learning, thus using an asynchronous approach (Ally 17). Across the MITS, major curricular changes were also made to respond to contemporary training and education realities, in particular around metacognitive activities and feedback, assessment, or the consideration of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in the course.
We also implemented changes to assessment. As Bryan and Clegg note, “the context in which universities operate has changed enormously, yet the traditional architecture of assessment holds firm” (2019, 1). Graduate outcomes now form major part of the student learning experience and, as such, the nature of assessment can be a real “game-changer” for graduates entering the “highly competitive” job market (Bryan and Clegg 2019, 1). In this vein, exams were removed (except in the case of the practical translation and interpreting units), and traditional essays have been replaced with reflective pieces, podcast and vodcast assignments are used in place of group presentations (which also take up valuable class time), and research masterclasses, collaborative translations, student-led project management assignments, the formation of Linkedin pages, as well as interdisciplinary situated learning activities with students from Medicine and Health Sciences, Law and Social Work were added. These assessments, we believe, will better prepare students for the challenges that lie ahead in the 21st century workplace.
The following two case studies illustrate some of the changes made to teaching and learning practices in the MITS, focussing on building the kinds of skills required by the profession in the 21st century, as well as doing so via a shift to blended modes of content delivery. Students were asked to fill out online surveys (one was administered by the Arts Faculty Educational Designers, the other ‘SETU’ survey is administered each semester by the University, to elicit student satisfaction of units undertaken)at the end of each semester to elicit their satisfaction with the approaches taken. Students may elect to answer the survey, and are asked to providing a rating on a five-point Likert scale. In the survey data used in this paper, 14 out of 32 (44%) students responded in s1 2017; and six out of ten students responded (60%) in s2. In the qualitative part of the University-wide SETU survey, students are asked a number of questions such as, Which aspect(s) of this unit did you find most effective?; Would you suggest any changes to enhance this unit in the future?. They are also asked to comment on the clarity of learning outcomes, instructions for assessments, usefulness of feedback, resources and activities, as well as overall satisfaction of the unit.
The survey administered by Faculty Educational Designers probed specifically into the value of the blended approach, and to discover areas we could amend or improve upon in the next iteration of the unit. Students were surveyed in s2 2017, with two out of ten responding (20%). Similar to the SETU survey, we used a five-point Likert scale. The survey included the following nine questions: Please comment on the use of videos to deliver content and activities before the workshop (e.g. do you find it convenient to be able to watch them in your own time, did you find it useful to watch the videos more than once, rewind or pause);. Do you find the video format appealing (e.g. the video player, that lectures are broken down into sections) and easy to view/use?; As there is a lot content to cover in weekly video lectures do you find the specific mention of textbook readings in the online lectures useful to further clarifying key topics in your learning?; What factors motivate you to watch the video lectures, do you find the videos engaging?; Please comment on the workshops (e.g. how is the time used in workshops, are you better prepared to undertake practical tasks in light of having been exposed to theoretical considerations prior to the workshop?; How do you think the preparatory tasks included in your video lectures impact your face-face workshop time (e.g. the activities provide interesting conversation points, do they prepare you for the sorts of tasks undertaken in the workshops?); Do you feel the workshop length (2 hours) is adequate to apply theories learnt online to practical translations in class?; Do you find the overall teaching approach in APG5875 to be clear (e.g. what is expected of you and what you need to do)?; In terms of undertaking a Master program do you think the ‘blended’ teaching approach (e.g. online video lectures and workshops) offers you a flexible learning approach that is beneficial for your studies?; Do you have any further suggestions or comments about improving the teaching and learning approach used in APG5875?
In the case of both survey types, students were emailed a link to the survey (they were not instructed to complete during class) by a person who was not involved in the teaching of the units, and were free to choose whether they engaged with the survey. This meant that comments were more likely to be objective.
Case study 1: Introduction to Interpreting and Translation Studies
As a core unit in the MITS, this introductory theory unit provides students with a comprehensive overview of theoretical approaches to translation studies within one 12-week semester. As mentioned earlier, new educational frameworks have meant that T&I training is no longer viewed as solely vocational, with most T&I students required to fulfil a research component of the degree. Most T&I training courses include an introduction to the area of ‘translation studies’, which is ‘the now established academic discipline related to the study of the theory, practice and phenomena of translation’ (Munday 2016, 1). At Monash, this unit is taught to students in their first semester of study, which allows for the vital contextualisation of their practice into a theoretical study area. Students are not only exposed to a range of traditional theories, including many recent ‘shifts’ in 21st century translation studies, but asked to practically apply these approaches to their own translation practice or experience. Writing in 2013, Saldanha & O’Brien note that with the ‘increase in the number of translation training programmes across the world’, there has been an ‘explosion in the number of masters and doctoral students and […] a concomitant move towards explicit forms of research training in Translation Studies’ (Saldanha & O’Brien 2013, 1). Theoretical units such as this one are therefore vital in helping to form the basis of students’ exposure to relevant theories, debates and discussions in the area of translation studies.
As mentioned, like many similar post-graduate programmes in T&I Studies, the MITS attracts a highly diverse local and international student cohort, which results in great cultural and linguistic diversity, and varied learning styles. Moreover, such MA programmes are now marketed to students from an array of different academic backgrounds: Engineering, Law, Medicine, Fine Art, Accounting, Business, Education, as well as Humanities. It is likely that, in light of the aforementioned massification of education (Gardner 2016), T&I training programmes all over the world will soon find themselves in similar waters: student learning styles and preferences can be vastly different, creating great challenges to delivery of content according to the needs of all students. Given this diversity, as well as the often complex content of theoretical units, we had previously struggled with student engagement and performance in this unit.
As with other units taught in the MITS, the theory unit was traditionally delivered in the traditional mode of a weekly 2-hour seminar and 2-hour workshop. Our aim was to experiment with a blended approach, moving the ‘seminar’ (lecture) content to an online-mode, whilst maintaining weekly face-to-face workshops. The pedagogical premise behind this shift was very clear: to consolidate a wealth of complex material into a more compact 45-minute online seminar, allowing students to watch, pause and replay at any time, to take notes at their own self-determined speed, and to view the material as many times as needed for clarification if required (this would particularly benefit non-English-speaking-background students). Students were provided with powerpoint slides, which they could follow while watching. The approach would then encourage more active learning in the workshop, allowing the lecturer more productive one-on-one time with students. The first hour would be spent on activities completed during the online seminar, asking students to form discussion groups. The second hour was used to undertake additional activities prepared and lead by the Lecturer, which are also undertaken in pairs or groups. Importantly, a 20% mark was awarded for completion of these activities. As Ally cautions: “the [blended] delivery method allows for flexibility of access, from anywhere and usually anytime, but the learning must use sound instructional design principles” (2008, 16). Therefore, we enlisted the support of Educational Designers to assist us with employing design principals that would best match our Learning Outcomes and student needs.
We traced responses from students in the first two semesters of implementation. Students were overwhelmingly positive about the blended approach, offering comments such as: ‘(it was) flexible to fit around schedule, ability to pause, rewind and replay’, ‘the video lectures accompanied by written explanations and examples are informative and engaging’, ‘Discussion time is fun and valuable. Quite enjoy it’, ‘Activities and workshop tasks are highly related’, and ‘(The Lecturer) set a good example of the blended teaching and learning approach’ (Feedback on Teaching Approach for APG5875, Arts Faculty Education Designers 2017). The shift towards a more practical application of theory was also appreciated by students, with one commenting: ‘I liked the online lecture delivery and the activities, I think they were useful. I liked the way we went through the key theory of translation studies in a clear and insightful way with plenty of real life examples’ (Monash University, Faculty of Arts, SETU APG5875, s2 2017). Negative comments were few, but included responses related to the content of the seminars, such as: ‘Too many theories are not clearly explained in seminar or lecture’ and ‘If more examples can be given during the online seminar presentation would be great to help students better understand these theories’ (Monash University, Faculty of Arts, SETU APG5875, s1 2017).
Results indicate that students were, on the whole, satisfied with the shift to blended mode, and appreciated the more active, user-oriented approach to theoretical engagement. Their comments indicated that they are generally satisfied with the delivery of the unit, with no negative comments recorded about the blended mode and particularly complementary in their qualitative comments about the merging of practical online and face-to-face activities. Students consistently reported a preference for being able to watch videos at home and appear to prefer the active workshops including peer discussion as a way of cementing their learning.
Case Study 2: Practical translation units (Translation for Special Purposes and Applied Translation)
We implemented a similar approach for two practical translation units, taught sequentially over different semesters: Translation for Special Purposes and Applied Translation. Both units expose students to a range of domain- and skills-based translation approaches, continuing the methodology described in Case Study 1 of applying theory as an aide to translation practice.
These units attempt to address the challenges mentioned above of blending the vocational skills required by professional translators with academic research skills and transferable skills to boost students’ employability in the global marketplace. As Ally suggests, “educators must tacitly or explicitly know the principles of learning and how students learn”, and this is best realized “before any learning materials are developed” (Ally 19). Thus, the Learning Outcomes, which focus on process-oriented skills, in particular the metacognitive skills of reflective learning, are foregrounded in the design of materials and activities. Teaching and learning activities before, during, and after class required students to reflect on their own learning style and process, articulate their role, justify their translation decisions and critically apply theory to practice. Through domain-specific translation modules (such as legal, health, science and technology, business, and literary translation), students developed skills in text and genre analysis, identifying cultural and linguistic issues for translation. In collaboration with their peers and instructors, they discussed and developed problem-solving methods in response to translation issues, formulating and implementing strategies. They built their competencies in researching and retrieving relevant information, using technology appropriately, and enhanced their ability to write in their target language in various styles and registers, according to the genre. There was also a focus on developing skills in revision and editing of their own and others’ translations.
These units were previously taught in the traditional format of a 2-hour face-to-face seminar plus 2-hour language-specific workshop per week but following the successful implementation of blended learning in the theory unit discussed in Case Study 1, a similar format was introduced for the two practical translation units from 2018. After watching the video and reading the materials, students completed a pre-class worksheet enabling them to apply the knowledge they have gained to practical tasks, such as finding and analyzing parallel texts, compiling glossaries, etc, which they then discussed at the Common Workshop (comprising all <9 language cohorts combined). Finally, they applied their learning to a weekly translation task, which they bring to their Language-Specific Workshop (comprising just the students in their language pair).
As well as gaining student feedback through the Faculty SETU survey, we also designed and implemented a specific survey (APG5690 Survey, 2019) to identify student responses to this new blended learning/flipped classroom structure. At the end of Semester 1 2019, we surveyed students who had completed at least one of the practical translation units, using a paper-based questionnaire that students were asked to fill out during the final class. All 22 students in attendance completed the questionnaire, in which they were asked to rate on a five-point Likert scale their agreement with statements regarding learning outcomes in six categories (video content, reading materials, pre-class activities, common workshop, language-specific workshop, and assessment). There was also space for general comments at the end of each category.
We found that by completing the pre-class material, students were equipped with sufficient theoretical and genre-related knowledge to engage in higher-level activities in class, which promoted their analytical and critical thinking skills. The comments were similar to those of Case Study 1, for example: “I really liked the way that class time was used in this unit… I liked that we prepared the Moodle Book content beforehand, involving the intake of more passive content, videos, podcasts, readings etc, and then we could really engage and interact in the common workshop and language specific workshop” (Monash University, Faculty of Arts, SETU, s2, 2018).
Perhaps more surprisingly, the blended approach also assisted students in their translation work. A significant component of assessment in these units comprises translation tasks, each accompanied by a Critical Reflection for which students have to reflect on their translation process, justify their choices and apply relevant theoretical approaches. In terms of the development of students’ metacognitive skills and knowledge (Veenmnan 2006), the provision of feedback by both instructors and peers for these tasks is crucial, as these are process-oriented, formative assessments 3. We found that transferable skills such as those relating to research and digital literacy were actually enhanced through the flipped classroom structure; for example 82% of students agreed (completely or somewhat) that the pre-class worksheet helped them build skills in parallel text research, and aspects of the research process could be discussed in class, and were thus better understood (APG5690 Survey, 2019).
Studies indicate that graduate outcomes are enhanced by enabling greater incorporation of situated learning (Ally 17) into workshops and pre-class tasks; for example, tasks that simulate real-life professional contexts or pose ethical dilemmas. In these practical translation units, written activities were complemented by the experiential learning provided by WIL, as well as ‘incursions’, whereby experts in the field gave ‘live’ guest presentations. As one student commented: “I really appreciate the opportunity to listen to guest lecturers providing their refresh and unique perspective on translation and also share their own experience in the industry. This helps to establish some expectation of the workforce after graduation” (APG5690 Survey, 2019). Therefore it appears effective to follow a truly ‘blended’ approach and retain some guest seminars for this purpose, rather than having a ‘flipped’ classroom for the whole semester.
Importantly, the pedagogical effectiveness of the Language-Specific Workshop was enhanced by the combination of pre-class learning and interactive learning in the Common Workshop. 85% of students agreed (completely or somewhat) that they could apply knowledge and skills gained in the latter contexts when translating and discussing their workshop text (APG5690 Survey, 2019): they were better prepared to perform the peer revision tasks and collaborative exploration of translation strategies, which are fundamental to building their translation skills. Moreover, the blended approach has provided more time allocation to specific skills-focused modules such as those designed to improve target language writing skills and translation revision/editing skills, which are major skills needed for the 21st century translator. The survey responses also highlighted some avenues for further improvement, such as the need to ensure that discussions in common workshops do not simply rehash content covered in video lectures and are focused on applying and extending students’ knowledge.
Therefore, as in Case Study 1, results were overwhelmingly positive, with students learning outcomes benefitting from an increase in active, participatory learning, and more class time available for discussion, workshopping and feedback.
Conclusion
In this article, we have emphasized the need for T&I training programs to adapt their pedagogical approaches in response to the changing global environment of the industry and of university education. Challenges include the diversity of students’ academic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, the need to equip graduates with a mix of vocational, academic and transferable skills that enable them to compete in a global marketplace, and the need for training to respond to the hybridity of global English. These challenges can be met through course design that adopts an appropriate balance of theory and practice, academic research and experiential learning, and implements a blended approach of online pre-class content combined with face-to-face workshops to achieve student-centred, active learning.
The case studies presented here have identified several benefits of a blended learning approach to translator training in university T&I programs. The flipped classroom mode enhances student engagement with lecture content, which they can view flexibly at their own pace, and as many times as they wish. This helps cater for the diversity of learning styles and English language abilities. The sequential structure of learning activities (WATCH-READ-THINK-DO) enables students to be more productive in workshop classes, applying their knowledge to practical scenarios and practicing higher-order skills in critical and analytical thinking during group discussions. This pedagogical approach helps develop metacognitive skills in reflective learning; tasks and assessments require students to reflect on their own learning process and translation decisions, encouraging them to be self-motivated. With more student-led discussions occurring in workshops, students can benefit greatly from peer-to-peer learning, simultaneously developing skills in intercultural awareness and teamwork. The shift from a content to skills focus in the face-to-face classes also enables workshops to target specific areas such as writing skills enhancement and revision and editing. The case studies have further demonstrated that while the flipped classroom approach is effective for most weeks in the theoretical and practical translation units, there will also be certain topics that benefit from incursions by guest speakers such as industry professionals. We hope that these case studies may provide T&I educators with examples and approaches that will help them cater for the needs of our globalized industry and globalized student population.
References
Ally, M. “Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning”, in: Anderson, T. 2008. Theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.
Beynon, M. 2007. Computing Technology for Learning: in need of a radical new conception. In: Educational Technology & Society. 10(1): 94-106.
Brown, Sydney 2013. Towards a Taxonomy of Blended Learning. Web.
Bryan, C and Clegg, K (eds). 2019. Innovative Assessment in Higher Education: A Handbook for Academic Practitioners, 2nd Edition. London and New York: Routledge.
Calvo, E. 2011. Translation and/or translator skills as organising principles for curriculum development practice. In: The Journal of Specialised Translation. 16: 5-25.
Choi, J Y. 2006. Metacognitive evaluation method in consecutive interpretation for novice learners. In: Meta. 51(2): 273-283.
Clark, R. E. 2001. A Summary of Disagreements with the ‘Mere Vehicles’ Argument. In R. E. Clark (ed.). Learning from Media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. 125–136.
Common Sense Advisory. 2018. http://www.commonsenseadvisory.com/Home.aspx. Accessed on: 6 January 2019.
Cronin, M. 2003. Translation and Globalization. London and New York: Routledge.
CIUTI. Conférence internationale permanente d’instituts universitaires de traducteurs et interprètes. www.ciuti.org. Accessed on: 2 February 2019.
Donnelly, R. and McAvinia, C. 2012. Academic Development Perspectives of Blended Learning. In: P.S. Anastasiades (ed.) Blended Learning Environments for Adults: Evaluations and Frameworks. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 1-25.
Drugan, J. 2013. Quality in professional translation. New York: Bloomsbury.
Echeverri, Á. 2017. Le discours sur la formation des traducteurs. In : M-A. Belle, & A. Echeverri (eds.). Pour une interdisciplinarité réciproque, recherches actuelles en traductologie, Arras Canada : Artois Presse Université. 155-178.
EMT, the European Master’s in Translation. www.ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/programmes/emt/index_en.htm. Accessed on: 6 January 2019.
EMCI, the European Masters in Conference Interpreting. www.emcinterpreting.org. Accessed on: 6 January 2019.
Feedback on Teaching Approach for APG5875, Arts Faculty Education Designers 2017.
Gardner, M. 2016. Education in the Age of Disruption. Address to the Melbourne Press Club. 8 June 2016.
Garrison, D. Randy, Kanuka, Heather. 2004. Blended Learning: Uncovering Its Transformative Potential in Higher Education. In: Internet and Higher Education. 7:95-105.
Gleadow, R, Macfarlan, B., and Honeydew, M. 2015. Design for Learning: a case study of blended learning in a science unit. In: F1000Research. 4: 898.
González-Davies, M. and, Enríquez-Raído, V. 2016. Situated Learning in Translator and Interpreter Training: bridging research and good practice. In: The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 10 (1): 1-11.
Gouadec, D. 2007. Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hurtado Albir, A. 2007. Competence-Based Curriculum Design for Training Translators. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 1(2): 163-195.
Katan, D. 2009. Occupation or Profession: a survey of the translators’ world. In: Translation & Interpreting Studies: The Journal of the American Translation & Interpreting Studies Association, 4(2): 187- 209.
Kearns, J. 2008. The Academic and the Vocational in Translator Education. In: Kearns, J (ed.). Translator and Interpreter Training. London: Continuum. 185-214.
Kelly, D. 2005. A Handbook for Translator Trainers. Manchester: St Jerome.
Kelly, N., Stewart, R G. and Hegde, V. 2010. The Interpreting Marketplace: a study of interpreting in North America commissioned by Interpret America. Lowell: Common Sense Advisory.
Kiraly, D., et al. 2016. Towards Authentic Experiential Learning in Translator Education. Mainz: Mainz University Press.
Kozma, R. B. 2001. Counterpoint Theory of ‘Learning with Media’. In: R. E. Clark (ed.) Learning from Media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc. 137–178.
Liu, X. and Hale, S. 2018. Achieving Accuracy in a Bilingual Courtroom: the effectiveness of specialised legal interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 12 (3): 299-321.
Laurillard, D. 2012. Teaching as a Design Science, Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. New York: Routledge.
Massey G, Orlando M, Rösener C. 2018. T&I Graduate Employability Strategies in the 21st Century (TIGES 21).Geneva: CIUTI. Unpublished study.
Millichap, Nancy 2012. Building Blocks for College Completion: Blended Learning. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2012/12/building-blocks-for-college-completion-blended-learning. Accessed on: 10 July, 2019.
Monash University, Faculty of Arts, SETU, s1 2017
Monash University, Faculty of Arts, SETU, s2 2017.
Monash University, Faculty of Arts, SETU, s2 2018.
Munday, J. 2016. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. 4th ed. London and New York: Routledge.
Orlando, M. 2010. Digital Pen Technology and Consecutive Interpreting: another dimension in note-taking training and assessment. In: The Interpreters’ Newsletter. 15: 71-86.
Orlando, M. 2011. Evaluations of Translations in the Training of Professional Translators: at the crossroads between theoretical, professional and pedagogical practices. In: The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 5(2): 293-308.
Orlando, M. 2016. Training 21st Century Translators and Interpreters: at the crossroads of practice, research and pedagogy. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Osguthorpe, R. and Graham, C. 2003. Blended Learning Environments: definitions and directions, Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 4: 227-233.
Pym, A. 2010. Exploring Translation Theories. London and New York: Routledge.
Pym, A., Grin, F., Sfreddo, C. and Chan, A L J. 2012. The Status of the Translation Profession in the European Union, European Commission, Luxembourg. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/publications/studies/translation_profession_en.pdf. Accessed on: July 2019.
Pym, A. and Torres-Simón, E. 2017. European Masters in Translation: a comparative study. http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/training/2016_EMT_masters.pdf. Accessed on: 10 May 2018.
Pöchhacker, F. 2016. Introducing Interpreting Studies. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.
Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., and Welch, K. R. 2014. Blended Learning in Higher Education: institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education. 75: 185-195.
Richardson, J. T. 2009. Face-to-face versus Online Tutoring Support in Humanities Courses in Distance Education. In: Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. 8(1): 69-85.
Saldanha, G. and O’Brien, S. 2013. Research Methods in Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Taviano, S. 2013. English as a Lingua Franca and Translation. In: The Interpreter and Translator Trainer. 7 (2): 155-167.
Toni Mohr, A., Holtbrügge, D., and Berg, N. 2012. Learning Style Preferences and the Perceived Usefulness of E-Learning. In: Teaching in Higher Education. 17(3): 309-322.
Turner, E A L. 2010. Why Has the Number of International Non-Governmental Organizations Exploded since 1960?. In: Cliodynamics. 1: 81–91.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2018. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/interpreters-and-translators.htm#tab-6. Accessed on: 6 January 2019
Way, C. 2008. Systematic Assessment of Translator competence: in search of Achilles’ heel. In: Kearns, J (ed.). Translator and Interpreter Training. London: Continuum. 88-103.
Warren, L. L., and Holloman Jr, H. L. 2005. On-line Instruction: Are the outcomes the same?. In: Journal of Instructional Psychology. 32(2): 148-152.
- In Australia, T&I training is offered in a pool of around ten institutions. All programs are taught at MA level.
- In both interpreting and translation, Monash offers Chinese Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, Indonesian, Russian, German, French, Italian and Spanish.
- Feedback mechanisms in these units include detailed rubrics, instructor-led discussions of common issues and strategies, as well as peer-to-peer feedback in class.