Article published In:
FORUM
Vol. 22:2 (2024) ► pp.182–205

Evaluating written versus audio feedback in formative assessment of consecutive interpreting

An exploratory qualitative investigation

ORCID logo | National University of Singapore,
| Xiamen University,
In formative assessment, teacher feedback can enhance student learning. To reap such benefits, educators need to deliver feedback in such a way that arouses students’ learning interest, invites their active engagement, and inspires follow-up action. We report on an exploratory qualitative study that compares two modalities of teacher feedback, namely, written versus audio feedback, provided to a group of 41 students in a consecutive interpreting course. Our qualitative content analysis of the students’ responses to the questionnaire reveals 25 lower-order themes, categorized into seven higher-order themes concerning inherent properties (informational, structural, and prosodic) and consequential aspects (communicative, functional, affective, and metacognitive) of written/audio feedback. Overall, the results seem to show the students’ preference for the audio feedback, because of its informativeness, specificity, interactivity, and affective/cognitive benefits. We discuss these results in terms of students’ learning gains, learning style, task-feedback alignment, and relationship between feedback specificity and modality for interpreter training.
Keywords: formative assessment, feedback, written feedback, audio feedback, interpreting
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Written versus audio feedback in higher education
    • 2.2Feedback in translator and interpreter training
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Background to the study
    • 3.2Research questions
    • 3.3Research design
      • 3.3.1Participants
      • 3.3.2Assessment criteria
      • 3.3.3Formative teacher feedback
      • 3.3.4Data collection
      • 3.3.5Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Potential trends and patterns
    • 4.2Lower-order themes concerning the audio feedback
    • 4.3Lower-order themes concerning the written feedback
    • 4.4Suggestions for the feedback practice
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 5 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.23025.han
References (27)
References
Bilbro, Jeffrey, Christina Iluzada, and David Eugene Clark. 2013. “Responding Effectively to Composition Students: Comparing Student Perceptions of Written and Audio Feedback.” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 24 (1): 47–83.Google Scholar
Chew, E. 2014. “To listen or to read?” “Audio or written assessment feedback for international students in the UK.” On the Horizon 22 (2): 127–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gould, Jill, and Pat Day. 2013. “Hearing You Loud and Clear: Student Perspectives of Audio Feedback in Higher Education.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (5): 554–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Chao, and Fan Qin. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Chao. 2018a. “A Longitudinal Quantitative Investigation into the Concurrent Validity of Self and Peer Assessment Applied to English-Chinese Bi-directional Interpretation in an Undergraduate Interpreting Course.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 581: 187–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. “Latent Trait Modelling of Rater Accuracy in Formative Peer Assessment of English-Chinese Consecutive Interpreting.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (6): 979–994. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Conceptualizing and Operationalizing a Formative Assessment Model for English-Chinese Consecutive Interpreting.” In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting, edited by Elsa Huertas Barros, Sonia Vandepitte, and Emilia Iglesias-Fernández, 89–111. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. “Interpreting Testing and Assessment: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Language Testing 39 (1): 30–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ice, Phil, Karen Swan, Sebastian Diaz, Lori Kupczynski, and Allison Swan-Dagen. 2010. “An Analysis of Students’ Perceptions of the Value and Efficacy of Instructors’ Auditory and Text-based Feedback Modalities across Multiple Conceptual Levels.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 43 (1): 113–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Hong. 2011. “Feedback in Interpreter Training.” Korea Society of Interpretation and Translation Studies 13 (1): 161–174.Google Scholar
Južnič, Tamara Mikolič. 2013. “Assessment Feedback in Translator Training: A Dual Perspective.” In New Horizons in Translation Research and Education 1, edited by N. Nike, K. Pokorn and Kaisa Koskinen, 75–99. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lunt, Tom, and John Curran. 2010. “‘Are You Listening Please?’ The Advantages of Electronic Audio Feedback Compared to Written Feedback.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (7): 759–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Morris, Celile, and Gladson Chikwa. 2016. “Audio versus Written Feedback: Exploring Learners’ Preference and the Impact of Feedback Format on Students’ Academic Performance.” Active Learning in Higher Education 17 (2): 125–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Motta, Manuela. 2016. “A Blended Learning Environment Based on the Principles of Deliberate Practice for the Acquisition of Interpreting Skills.” Interpreter and Translator Trainer 10 (1): 133–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mutch, Alistair. 2003. “Exploring the Practice of Feedback to Students.” Active Learning in Higher Education 4 (1): 24–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, N. Schweda. 1993. “The Constructive Criticism Model.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 51: 60–67.Google Scholar
Pietrzak, Paulina. 2014. “Towards Effective Feedback to Translation Students: Empowering Through Group Revision and Evaluation.” InTRAlinea, Special Issue: Challenges in Translation Pedagogy. [URL]
Price, Margaret, Karen Handley, Jill Millar, and Berry O’Donovan. 2010. “Feedback: All that Effort, but What is the Effect.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (3): 277–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schjoldager, Anne. 1995. “Assessment of Simultaneous Interpreting.” In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3: New Horizons, edited by Cay Dollerup and Vibeke Appel, 187–195. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Setton, Robin, and Andrew Dawrant. 2016. Conference interpreting: a trainer’s guide. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shute, Valerie J. 2008. “Focus on Formative Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 78 (1): 153–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sipple, Susan. 2007. “Ideas in Practice: Developmental Writers’ Attitudes toward Audio and Written Feedback.” Journal of Developmental Education 30 (3): 22–24.Google Scholar
Voelkel, Susanne, and Luciane V. Mello. 2014. “Audio feedback — Better feedback?” Bioscience Education, 22 (1): 16–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Washbourne, Kelly. 2014. “Beyond error marking: Written corrective feedback for a dialogic pedagogy in translator training.” Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (2): 240–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witter-Merithew, Anna, Marty Taylor, and Leilani Johnson. 2001. “Guides Self-Assessment and Professional Development Planning: A Model Applied to Interpreters in Educational Settings.” In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf: Tapestry of Our Worlds, edited by Clay Nettles, 153–226. RID Publications.Google Scholar