口譯教師於不同學習階段給予學生的回饋
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2023
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
教師回饋在口譯教學場域至關重要,然而目前國內文獻探討口譯回饋時,普遍未將學習階段納入考量。因此本研究採個案研究法,希望探討口譯學習歷程中,教師回饋與學習階段之間的關聯。先以教師於 GoReact 平台給予學生的回饋作為研究素材,再以課堂學生為訪談對象,從回饋數據統計作量性分析,依回饋內容和訪談結果作質性分析。主要發現如下:一、本研究以 Schweda Nicholson (1993) 的建設性評論模型為基礎,加上 Lee (2018) 口譯回饋研究的情感支持回饋,將回饋分為「指出問題/優點」、「分析錯誤發生/表現優良原因」、「討論替代譯法」、「情感支持」四大類別。「指出問題/優點」再分為子項「完整度與精確性」、「辭彙」、「演說技巧」、「聽譯時間差」和「困難處理策略」。結果顯示,「指出問題/優點」是比例最高的回饋種
類,其子項數量最多的依序為「完整度與精確性」、「辭彙」和「演說技巧」,顯示教師回饋著重於口譯品質的評估。
二、本研究在學習歷程分期上,參考 Dawrant 與 Setton (2016)的口譯學習五階段,並以資格考作為分水嶺。在前後學習階段,「指出問題/優點」類回饋比例上升,「分析錯誤發生/表現優良原因」類回饋比例下降。所有類別的回饋皆因學習目標的不同而有內涵面向的轉變。受訪學生皆有明顯感受,教師除了配合各階段學習目標、調整回饋方針,也循序漸進提高口譯產出標準。
三、個別學生獲得的回饋變化同樣存在差異性。可見教師給予回饋主要依據學生當下的學習狀況與需求,給予學生個別化的引導。
本研究以實際課堂案例探討口譯回饋與學習階段之關聯。新手口譯教師可參考本研究結果,提升教師回饋的建設性,於各階段因材施教給予學生適合的回饋,使口譯教學更趨完善。
This study aims to explore the relationship between feedback and learning stages in the interpreter training process. To this end, the researcher carried out a case study, where a particular teacher’s feedback for his interpreting students was collected and categorized, and the students in question were interviewed. Both qualitative and quantitative data thus gathered were analyzed, resulting in the following findings:1. This study applied Schweda Nicholson’s (1993) Constructive Criticism Model and Lee’s (2018) study on interpretation feedback, dividing the feedback into four categories: “identification of problems/strengths,” “analysis of reasons for mistakes/good performance,” “discussion of alternatives,” and “emotional support.” “Identification of problems/strengths” was further divided into “completeness and accuracy,” “terminology,” “speaking skills,” “lag time,” and “handling of difficult points.” Statistical analysis showed that most feedback focused on “identification of problems/ strengths.” Among its sub-categories, “completeness and accuracy,” “terminology” and “speaking skills” ranked as the top three types of feedback given, indicating the importance of these three aspects in the assessment of interpretation quality.2. This study, informed by Dawrant and Setton’s (2016) five-stage interpretation training, used the qualifying examination as the watershed of data calculation. Statistical analysis showed that after the qualifying examination, there was an increase in “identification of problems/strengths,” and decreases in “analysis of reasons for mistakes/ good performance” and “discussion of alternatives.” 3. The change in feedback pattern, however, varied among students, suggesting that the teacher gaveindividualized feedback according to students’ learning status, which has been corroborated by the students in the interviews.It is hoped that the findings of this study may help novice interpreting instructors see the importance of linking feedback with students’ learning stages, and eventually improve the overall quality of interpreter training.
This study aims to explore the relationship between feedback and learning stages in the interpreter training process. To this end, the researcher carried out a case study, where a particular teacher’s feedback for his interpreting students was collected and categorized, and the students in question were interviewed. Both qualitative and quantitative data thus gathered were analyzed, resulting in the following findings:1. This study applied Schweda Nicholson’s (1993) Constructive Criticism Model and Lee’s (2018) study on interpretation feedback, dividing the feedback into four categories: “identification of problems/strengths,” “analysis of reasons for mistakes/good performance,” “discussion of alternatives,” and “emotional support.” “Identification of problems/strengths” was further divided into “completeness and accuracy,” “terminology,” “speaking skills,” “lag time,” and “handling of difficult points.” Statistical analysis showed that most feedback focused on “identification of problems/ strengths.” Among its sub-categories, “completeness and accuracy,” “terminology” and “speaking skills” ranked as the top three types of feedback given, indicating the importance of these three aspects in the assessment of interpretation quality.2. This study, informed by Dawrant and Setton’s (2016) five-stage interpretation training, used the qualifying examination as the watershed of data calculation. Statistical analysis showed that after the qualifying examination, there was an increase in “identification of problems/strengths,” and decreases in “analysis of reasons for mistakes/ good performance” and “discussion of alternatives.” 3. The change in feedback pattern, however, varied among students, suggesting that the teacher gaveindividualized feedback according to students’ learning status, which has been corroborated by the students in the interviews.It is hoped that the findings of this study may help novice interpreting instructors see the importance of linking feedback with students’ learning stages, and eventually improve the overall quality of interpreter training.
Description
Keywords
教師回饋, 口譯教學, 口譯學習階段, Instructor feedback, Interpreter training, Interpretation learning stages