Cover not available
Review published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 19:1 (2017) ► pp.145–151
Book review

Suzanne Ehrlich & Jemina Napier (Eds.). (2015) Interpreter education in the digital age: Innovation, access, and change

Reviewed by
| Université de Genève


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 1 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.1.08cla
References
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R. & Garrison, D. R
(2008) Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education 11 (3/4), 133–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, A. W
(2015) Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning for a digital age. Online open textbook.Google Scholar
Baxter-Magolda, M
(1992) Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bradbury, H
(2015) The Sage handbook of action research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles/London/New Dehli etc.: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cekada, T
(2012) Training a multigenerational workforce: Understanding key needs & learning styles. Professional Safety, 57 (3), 40–44.Google Scholar
Clark, R
(1994) Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (2), 21–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, S., & Vance, K
(2015) Innovative interpreting: iPad technology as a bridge to interpreting services in a post-secondary setting. Translation & Interpreting, 7 (2), 60–74.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W
(2000) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education 2 (2), 87–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jekat, S
(2015) Machine interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 239–242.Google Scholar
Kalina, S. & Ziegler, K
(2015) Technology. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 410–412.Google Scholar
Khan, B
(2009) The global e-learning framework. In S. Mishra (Ed.), Stride handbook 8: E-learning. New Dehli: Indira Ghandi National Open University, 42–51.Google Scholar
Kiraly, D
(2000) A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Kozma, R
(1994) Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development 42 (2), 7–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKenney, S. & Reeves, T
(2012) Conducting educational design research. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moore, M
(1989) Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education 3 (2), 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napier, J., Song, Z. & Ye, S
(2013) Innovative and collaborative use of iPads in interpreter education. The International Journal of Interpreter Education 5 (2), 13–42.Google Scholar
Orlando, M
(2016) Training 21st century translators and interpreters: At the crossroads of practice, research and pedagogy. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Pacansky-Brock, M
(2012) Best practices for teaching with emerging technologies. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F
(2016) Introducing interpreting studies (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandrelli, A
(2015) Computer assisted interpreter training. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge, 75–77.Google Scholar
Schneider, D
(2013) Educational technologies. [URL] (accessed 26 August 2016).
Shlesinger, M
(2009) Crossing the divide: What researchers and practitioners can learn from one another. Translation & Interpreting 1 (1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K
(2014) Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks : SAGE Publications.Google Scholar