Part of
The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the communityEdited by Cecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Anna-Lena Nilsson
[Benjamins Translation Library 70] 2007
► pp. 253–262
Edited by Cecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Anna-Lena Nilsson
[Benjamins Translation Library 70] 2007
► pp. 253–262
Formative assessment
Using peer and self-assessment in interpreter training
This paper considers the viability and desirability of three aspects of formative assessment: peer assessment, self-assessment and evaluation, and their importance in the training of the professional interpreter. Even experienced student interpreters are often unaware of omissions, additions and misunderstandings in their own performances. When asked to assess themselves or each other, they frequently lack the analytical tools to be able to carry out such exercises. This paper is informed by educational practice in order to validate the use of these forms of assessment, and it demonstrates how student interpreters can use them to increase the amount of feedback they receive as they become professionals.
Cited by (14)
Cited by 14 other publications
Balaman, Sevda
2024. Exploring Undergraduate Students’ Viewpoints on Corrective Feedback Implementations in Interpreting. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi :15 ► pp. 994 ff. 
Guo, Wei, Xun Guo, Junkang Huang & Sha Tian
2024. Modeling listeners’ perceptions of quality in consecutive interpreting: a case study of a technology interpreting event. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1
Yan, Jackie Xiu & Kangte Luo
2023. Audio description and interpreting training: a comparison of assessment criteria from the perspective of learners. Perspectives 31:6 ► pp. 1049 ff.
Yan, Jackie Xiu & Kangte Luo
2024. Assessment criteria in audio describer training: An investigation of learner perceptions in a university interpreting programme in Hong Kong of China. Interpreting and Society 4:1 ► pp. 26 ff.
Crezee, Ineke & Agustina Marianacci
2022. ‘How did he say that?’ interpreting students’ written reflections on interprofessional education scenarios with speech language therapists. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 16:1 ► pp. 19 ff.
Li, Xiaosa & Ping Ke
2022. An empirical study of peer feedback in translation didactics: quality, response and student perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47:8 ► pp. 1231 ff.
Han, Chao & Xiaolei Lu
2021. Interpreting quality assessment re-imagined: The synergy between human and machine scoring. Interpreting and Society 1:1 ► pp. 70 ff.
Han, Chao & Xiao Zhao
2021. Accuracy of peer ratings on the quality of spoken-language interpreting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 46:8 ► pp. 1299 ff.
Han, Chao & 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 ► pp. 109 ff.
Han, Chao
2018. Latent trait modelling of rater accuracy in formative peer assessment of English-Chinese consecutive interpreting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43:6 ► pp. 979 ff.
Han, Chao
2019. A generalizability theory study of optimal measurement design for a summative assessment of English/Chinese consecutive interpreting. Language Testing 36:3 ► pp. 419 ff.
Han, Chao
2022. Interpreting testing and assessment: A state-of-the-art review. Language Testing 39:1 ► pp. 30 ff.
Lee, Sang-Bin
2018. Exploring a relationship between students’ interpreting self-efficacy and performance: triangulating data on interpreter performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:2 ► pp. 166 ff.
Li, Xiangdong
2018. Self-assessment as ‘assessment as learning’ in translator and interpreter education: validity and washback. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:1 ► pp. 48 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.