Situated learning in translator and interpreter training: bridging research and good practice

ABSTRACT

This issue sets out to gauge the extent to which different embedding systems influence the implementation of Situated Learning models. Situated Learning is generally understood as a context-dependent approach to translator and interpreter training under which learners are exposed to real-life and/or highly simulated work environments and tasks, both inside and outside the classroom. Ultimately, Situated Learning seeks to enhance learners’ capacity to think and act like professionals. All our contributors address considerations pertaining to the impact of different learning environments, levels of study, fields of specialisation, the role of information, communication and translation/interpreting technologies, as well as optimal pedagogical procedures. Of these considerations, the latter stand out as one of the most prominent aspects of Situated Learning theories described in this issue, thus rendering it particularly useful for both novice and seasoned teachers of translation and interpreting (T&I) with an interest in informed practical advice on how to implement the principles of Situated Learning in teaching and learning environments that seek to promote translators’ and/or interpreters’ professional competence.

KEYWORDS:

• authentic learning
• community of practice
• experiential learning
• learning environments
• professional competence
• situated learning
• technologies

1. Bridging academia and the profession: from DIY to situated learning

Situated Learning is generally understood as a context-dependent approach to translator and interpreter training under which learners are exposed to real-life and/or highly simulated work environments and tasks, both inside and outside the classroom. Under this approach, it is the tasks and real-life professional demands, as well as other contextual factors such as institutional, social, geographical, or community beliefs and customs, rather than a predetermined closed syllabus, that drive curricular design. Ultimately, Situated Learning seeks to enhance learners’ capacity to think and act like professionals.

Our understanding of Situated Learning goes beyond previous interpretations of this notion, traditionally dominated by the discussion of pedagogical practices in authentic, real-world professional settings. This wider remit of Situated Learning encompasses previously under-represented contextual factors, pertaining to translation traditions, historical trends, socio-economic constraints, market conditions, institutional practices, budgetary issues and/or resource availability. This issue sets out to gauge the extent to which different embedding systems influence the implementation of Situated Learning models.

The themes that may be addressed from this viewpoint include, but are not restricted to, the emergence of translator and interpreter competence(s); optimal pedagogical procedures that enable the transition from teaching and learning to authentic professional practice; the impact of learning environments, levels of study (undergraduate, postgraduate and others) and fields of specialisation; and the role of information and communication technologies (ICT), as well as of translation/interpreting technologies. Several of these themes as well as other related topics have been addressed by all our contributors to some extent. This is particularly true with regard to the emergence of translator and interpreter competence, generally understood in this issue as the ability to transition from a classroom community of practice to a professional community of practice through Situated Learning. Here, the emphasis is not so much on translation/interpreting competence but on translator/interpreter competence, a distinction made by Don Kiraly (2000) in his seminal socio-constructivist approach to Translator Training and which, as Jun Pan notes in this issue, was later adopted in Interpreter Training too (e.g. Sawyer 2004). And while this generic pedagogical goal is naturally implicit in all accounts of Situated Learning theories, including those in this special issue, explicit accounts that seek to foster specific translator competences in our issue include: Juan Antonio Prieto-Velasco and Adrián Fuentes-Luque’s collaborative and multimodal working environment to promote student translators’ instrumental competence; Francesca Bartrina, Montse Corrius, Marcella De Marco and Eva Espasa’s cross-disciplinary endeavours to foster student translators’ cultural and social competences; and Hanna Risku’s innovative implementation of Situated Learning in academic research (as opposed to translation and/or interpreting praxis) to promote translation students’ research skills in Translation Studies. Contributions on the situated development of interpreter competence — inherently associated with a highly practical and skills-based profession — address the generation of relevant skills in various interpreting modalities, in particular conference/simultaneous interpreting (Fanny Chouc and Jose María Conde, Manuela Motta and Jun Pan) and dialogue interpreting (DI) (Won Jun Nam).

In line with today’s emphasis on employability and lifelong learning, Nam regards DI as a more inclusive modality than community interpreting (CI) in undergraduate programmes that seek to develop translation and interpreting (T&I) skills in the various forms of work that future T&I graduates will be exposed to. By acknowledging that different interpreting modalities suit different levels of study, Nam, citing Chung (2008), explicitly highlights the ‘de facto division of aims between undergraduate and postgraduate T&I programmes’ and argues that undergraduate student interpreters should be nurtured in DI ‘because the majority of students do not wish to limit their career paths to [CI] but want to pursue various paths with their competences in [languages], culture/area studies and T&I’. Pan makes a similar point, albeit in the context of simultaneous interpreting (SI), and claims that ‘despite the potential benefits of a situated pedagogical design to the enhancement of students’ interpreter competence or employability skills, little has been addressed to its application, in particular in SI teaching, at the undergraduate level’. Like other scholars in the field, she states that ‘SI courses, among the most popular electives in many undergraduate T&I programmes, serve different purposes as compared to traditional professional SI or conference interpretation training, which are usually placed at the postgraduate level’ (cf. González Davies 2004b). What both Nam and Pan are in fact recognising by reflecting on the impact of different levels of study on Situated Learning is the new role of learners brought about by socio-economic changes, technology developments and specific local needs. This wider remit of Situated Learning considers key questions of e.g. ‘how to adjust SI [or any other modes of interpreting] teaching to the needs of local undergraduate students whose intentions [are] usually not to become ready-to-perform conference interpreters but to enhance their general employability prospects in finding interpretation related jobs’ (Pan, this issue).

Considerations pertaining to the impact of different learning environments — including the physical dimension commonly associated with the notion of ‘learning spaces’ — fields of specialisation and optimal pedagogical procedures are also addressed in a rather intertwined way by all our contributors. Of these considerations, the use of optimal pedagogical procedures stands out as one of the most prominent aspects of Situated Learning theories described in this issue. As we briefly indicated above, optimal pedagogical procedures in Situated Learning aim at facilitating the transition from (near-)authentic task- and/or project-based work to real-life professional practice. They take the form of various activities, tasks and projects (González Davies 2004a) and lie at the core of our contributors’ implementation of Situated Learning in different teaching and learning communities of practice. Here, we notice three main trends: one in which high simulation is implemented through collaborative task and/or project work and the use of authentic texts/materials based on a realistic task, thus bringing the professional world into the classroom (e.g. Risku, Prieto-Velasco and Fuentes-Luque, Pan and Bartrina et al.). Another trend is present in which student translators and interpreters engage in real-life professional work and/or settings facilitated through work placement schemes (e.g. Marco and Nam), thus taking the classroom outside its physical realm into various professional learning spaces (either physical, virtual or both). And a final trend in which Situated Learning procedures combine: (1) authentic materials and/or key industry players for simulated project work in the classroom or in blended learning; with (2) authentic professional work in real-life settings outside the classroom (e.g. Motta and Chouc and Conde).

The preference toward and/or ability to implement various pedagogical procedures through simulated work, real-life work or a combination of both very much depends on the contextual factors listed previously (i.e. socio-economic constraints, market conditions, institutional practices, budgetary issues and/or resource availability). This seems to imply, as Marco also points out in his contribution to this issue, that ‘consensus is not so wide’ — and, we would add, perhaps not so desirable either — ‘when it comes to designs and procedures’. In fact, the same approach ‘may give rise to different methodologies and these, in turn, can be embodied in different sets of procedures’. Thus, the optimality of said procedures can only be assessed in the context within which they are implemented, as a means to seeking understanding for the tailoring of efficient Situated Learning practices in T&I. One of the most valuable aspects of this special issue is that it spans across very diverse Situated Learning, social and cultural contexts in which T&I for either profit or non-profit purposes have a real significant impact on the role of translators and interpreters in society at large: From interpreting at the Scottish Parliament (Chouc and Conde), in a Geneva-based academic and international context (Motta) or a classroom community of practice in Hong Kong (Pan), to collaboratively translating across various disciplines (Communication Studies and Translation Studies) and educational settings (Universitat de Vic, Spain and London Metropolitan University, UK) (Bartrina et al.); in a multimodal environment in Spanish academia (Prieto-Velasco and Fuentes-Luque) or via work placements for literary translation in Spain (Marco) and humanitarian purposes in Korea (Nam); to researching Translation Studies as a reflection of practice at the University of Graz (Risku).

The last theme mentioned at the beginning of this article, i.e. the role of ICT and translation/interpreting technologies, was one we expected to attract a considerable number of contributions in response to: (1) The increase in (virtual) work placements and (near-)authentic practice schemes (e.g. dummy booths for student interpreters) afforded by technology; and (2) changes brought about by the digital era, the Internet and recent advances in technology and global social media practices, among others. Yet, the topic of recent technologies and their immediate impact on Situated Learning is only directly addressed by Prieto-Velasco and Fuentes-Luque in this special issue. Here, the authors show a positive correlation between the use of Web 2.0 tools in multimodal teaching-learning environments and improved learning performance, above all in the development of student translators’ instrumental and professional competences.

That we received almost no contributions addressing the role of ICT and/or translation/interpreting technologies in Situated Learning — especially in relation to new, digital work placements and schemes facilitated by crowdsourcing technologies and global social media platforms — highlights the fact that this relatively unexplored area has yet to be underpinned by systematic research. In a context in which the traditional boundaries of the discipline and practice of translation are constantly being blurred by new forms of organisation and work conditions, the time is more than opportune to research the impact of Situated Learning on new digital learning spaces that rely on (non-)traditional forms of language and cultural support. Perhaps, the evaluation of Situated Learning in new T&I learning spaces might help encourage the wider community of researchers, key industry players and practitioners to ‘focus on the long-neglected economic and financial aspects of the profession’ (Enríquez-Raído 2016; building on Pym et al. 2006; Gambier 2014) that will continue to challenge (professional) translations and translators, and hence the need in which they should be trained.

Another key aspect that can be seen in some of the contributions in this issue is that, it has been often the case that, once the decision to open university doors to T&I studies was taken, it was left to the programme administrators and teachers to deal with the ins and outs of everyday organisation and outcome quality. Translator and Interpreter Training has become a key issue that has risen to the challenge in the field and prompted relevant practices that are discussed in both academic and professional forums in an attempt to strike a balance between both perspectives. Unfortunately, most translation instructors have not been trained as teachers. In Kelly’s words:

In many countries, compulsory training exists for all other levels of education, but at universities it is simply assumed that those who know, know how to teach. It is still the case in many countries that new members of teaching staff are left literally to sink or to swim in the classroom, while more attention is paid, for example, to their training as researchers in their discipline. (2008, 102)

We are pleased to observe, however, that this situation has been improving in recent years, as perhaps best shown by the increase in the number of train-the-trainer offerings worldwide, which testifies to a heightened interest in suitable pedagogical approaches to the teaching and learning of T&I. To further challenge the above state of affairs, relevant research meets at the crossroads of both worlds, Translation and Education Studies, and explores avenues to build a working framework for efficient teaching that includes applied theory and good practices. And this is, we believe, where this special issue becomes most useful to our reflective teachers and practitioners in the field. This issue in fact provides our main audience, novice and seasoned teachers of T&I, with practical advice on how to implement Situated Learning theories and principles in teaching and learning environments that seek to promote translators and/or interpreters’ professional competence.

The three main questions that have enabled advancement in Translator and Interpreter Training and that have been long discussed in our discipline are relatively simple: (1) Is T&I a question of intuition or of training?; (2) Can T&I be taught?; and (3) Is there a best method to teach and learn how to translate/interpret?

Effective, albeit tentative, answers to these queries are frequently explored from two gradually converging approaches, also visible in the contributions to this issue: on the one hand, and as we mentioned earlier, research is carried out to identify the components of translator/interpreter competence and, on the other, researchers are tuning findings from related fields, mainly, Pedagogy, Cognitive Studies, and Foreign Language Learning, to Translator and Interpreter Training.

1.1. Translator/interpreter competence

The notion of competence can be defined in a first instance as the knowledge, skills, attitudes, or personal characteristics necessary to successfully carry out one’s education or one’s job. In Psychology, Lasnier (2000) defined a competence as:

… a complex know how to act resulting from integration, mobilization and organization of a combination of capabilities and skills (which can be cognitive, affective, psycho-motor or social) and knowledge (declarative knowledge) used efficiently in situations with common characteristics. (32)

Here there are definitely echoes of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956, rev. Anderson and Krathwohl 2001) and Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1993), all of which can be synthesised into three components leading to efficient translation production: (1) To know; (2) to know how to do; (3) to know how to be. Each category includes the sub-competencies necessary for the professional development of an efficient translator and/or interpreter. The Tuning project (González and Wagenaar 2003, 2005), carried out between 2000 and 2004 in the context of the reform of Higher Education in Europe, links these components with the recommended types of competences to be included in T&I programmes quite closely, although not always in a clear cut way:

1. Instrumental: To know (e.g. capacity for organisation and planning, elementary computing skills)

2. Systemic: To know how to do and understand how systems work (e.g. capacity to adapt to new situations, initiative and entrepreneurial spirit, socio-affective skills such as ‘will to succeed’)

3. Interpersonal: To know how to be (e.g. critical and self-critical abilities, capacity for teamwork).

The contributions to this issue include further work on translation competence, thus underlining the situatedness of the research and practices in different institutions and environments, mainly, Prieto-Velasco and Fuentes-Luque, Risku, and Nam.

1.2. Teaching and learning

Contributions from Pedagogy, Cognitive Theories, and Foreign Language Learning can also lead to advancement in Translator and Interpreter Training and favour academic performance. They can be traced back to Dewey’s application of democratic principles to learning contexts (1916), Piaget’s constructivism and Vygotsky’s social constructivism (1978) — adapted to Translation Studies by Kiraly (2000) — to collaborative learning, Rogers’ Experiential Learning, Discovery Learning, Self-Directed Learning — the latter applied to Translation Studies by Zhong (2008) — Bakhtin’s dialogics ((1986) 2004), Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1993) and Bloom’s Educational Objectives (1956/rev. Anderson and Krathwohl 2001). These approaches to learning have gradually developed into mainstream pedagogical practices that reject transmissionist teacher-centred classes in favour of transactional, transformational, and student-centred learning in general, including Translator and Interpreter Training. Yet, not all of these learning approaches have been readily and/or uncritically accepted by all Translator and/or Interpreter Trainers. Marco’s contribution to this issue, for example, offers critical insight into ‘the confluences and divergences between the [literary] translation project’ he describes in his article and ‘the theoretical principles underpinning’ the project. Divergences show that the kind of authentic translation practice that Marco implements in his Situated Leaning environment departs from the general tenets of social constructivism as applied to Translator Training in three main aspects: The role of the teacher as ‘no more than a guide, a facilitator of knowledge’, which Marco rejects on the basis that teachers’ intervention in real-life projects ‘is necessary if the project is to remain viable and the continuity of the work placement scheme is to be ensured’; the closely connected notion of ‘learner’s autonomy, or empowerment’, which, to Marco, only represents a valid notion insofar the learner’s status as ‘semi-professional’ is retained (not all students are ready to assume an expert role upon graduation) and the notion of hierarchy is kept in place (in skills-based professions that involve master/apprentice relationships, governance and leadership practices ‘are anything but horizontal’); and (group) identity formation, which Marco regards as ‘problematic or difficult to fit into the kind of LPP’ (legitimate peripheral practice) he describes in his article, as the community of practice of literary translators ‘is more loosely defined than other professional communities’. Thus, for Marco, ‘identity formation spans a whole lifetime’.

Three main approaches to teaching can be described as follows, moving gradually from teacher-controlled to student-controlled sessions (cf. González Davies 2004a, 14):

1. Transmissionist: A traditional product-oriented and teacher-centred learning context where a predetermined syllabus includes model translations that are singled out to be received by unquestioning students who are instructed to ‘read and translate’.

2. Transactional: This is a step towards empowering the students and is based on cooperative learning. It provides for group work and interaction, but the teacher still determines the syllabus and holds the final answer to the problems set in the activities.

3. Transformationist: A student and learning-centred context that focuses on collaborative study and exploration of the translation process with the teacher acting as a guide. Here, procedures that bridge academic and professional extramural practice are pivotal. As the translation projects are real-life or very nearly so (as in mock conferences), the teachers learn alongside the students to a certain extent, as they cannot foresee all the problems that may arise and, so, have to leave room for the unexpected in the syllabus.

Although we admit that a (non-extreme) teacher-centred approach may also hold value for certain issues, it is thanks to the transactional and the transformationist approaches that pair work, group work, projects, discussion, etc., are now generally accepted. Here, knowledge is constructed both individually and in society, thus transforming cognitive, meta-cognitive and socio-affective structures and strategies through interaction, not only in the academic, but also in the professional context.

Cognitive Studies take us nearer to the mental processes that are especially effective when applied to learning contexts such as problem-solving, issues regarding cognition and metacognition, the influence of emotions on learning and on quality production, learning and teaching styles, multiple intelligences, or think-aloud and written protocols, all of which are now familiar to most of the teaching community.

Regarding contributions from Foreign Language Learning, the following research areas are directly related to Translation Training: Bi and Plurilingualism; Contrastive Linguistics and Transfer Studies; intercultural competence, error analysis, rate (i.e. speed of learning) and route (i.e. learning sequencing); and Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL).

Moreover, innovative teaching and leadership issues are central to the management of new learning contexts (face-to-face, blended and distance) and technologies, to which all the previous has to be adapted — see, for example, Manuela Motta’s contribution on a blended learning environment based on the principles of deliberate practice (e.g. Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer 1993) and cognitive apprenticeship (see below) for the development of conference interpreting skills.

2. Situated learning: learning by doing

This is where Situated Cognition Theory (Kirshner and Whitson 1997) applied to Situated Learning in Translation and Interpreting Studies (SLTIS) can play a part to make converge the various perspectives under the principle that both declarative and procedural knowledge are built through synergic social interaction in a certain context (i.e. situation). Seminal articles by Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) and by Lave (1988) have provided the research base for the theory in arguing that learning is a function of the ‘activity’, ‘context’ and ‘culture’ in which it occurs (i.e. it is situated). This contrasts with classroom learning activities that involve knowledge that is abstract, unconnected and decontextualised. In Situated Learning, learners become involved in a ‘community of practice’ where the student advances from ‘novice’, at the periphery of this community, to ‘expert’, at its centre. This is what Lave and Wenger (1991) call the process of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ in which the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is addressed and reduced through ‘scaffolding’ in a ‘community of practice’. In this way, the apprentice moves towards expertise within an environment that favours applied theory and good practices. An analysis of common features found in all the successful models reveals a set of six critical factors: apprenticeship, collaboration, reflection, coaching, multiple practice and articulation (McLellan 1994). The seminal work of these authors, especially Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) and Lave and Wenger (1991), and their key concepts — i.e. legitimate peripheral participation, cognitive/embodied apprenticeship and community of practice — play a significant role in the theoretical frameworks developed by Risku, Pan, Marco and Chouc and Conde in this issue. Pan’s contribution in particular stands out for its thorough review of Situated Learning theories and their implementation in teaching and learning environments in general and in the SI classroom in particular — which is perhaps a more uncharted area than Situated Learning in translation praxis, as implemented by pioneering researchers like Risku and Kiraly.

Basically, as this special issue shows, Situated Learning entails that knowledge needs to be presented in an authentic context that would normally involve that knowledge. Also, that learning can take place when it is unintentional, not deliberate, i.e. project work, where the students’ (meta)cognitive needs arise from the task and not from a syllabus designed by the teacher or institution. Finally, learning requires social interaction and collaboration, that is, the teaching approach, design and procedures should be adapted to the ‘community of practice’. Practice is foremost without letting go of the theoretical framework. This is what Resnick (1987) called ‘bridging apprenticeships’: to bridge the gap between abstract learning in formal instruction and real-life application of this knowledge in the work environment

Following its main directive, to adapt to circumstances in an informed way, Situated Learning presents a further advantage in that it may include most approaches to Translation and Interpreter Training that are mainstream nowadays (except, perhaps, the decontextualised ‘read and translate’ directive), most syllabus designs and most procedures.

3. (Towards) New approaches, designs and procedures

This setting requires that teachers receive and/or self-acquire appropriate training to access the possible pedagogical paths open to them and, so, choose appropriately according to the situation. We suggest a starting point in Richards and Rodgers’ (1986/2001) three-level model for syllabus planning as it is especially suitable for the integration of the principles of Situated Learning. This proposal fosters the delivery of a sound pedagogical framework by means of connecting approach, design and procedures in an iterative way:

1. Approach: The teacher’s beliefs and perceptions regarding the nature of the subject in hand and of teaching, in our case, a) translation, and b) translator and interpreter training, will set the framework for the following two constituents.

2. Design: Here, classroom dynamics, teachers’ and students’ roles, space distribution, equipment, material and so on are planned. In Situated Learning, real-world practices can combine with professionally oriented hands-on sessions that may include reflective learning, in-house training, seminars led by professional guest speakers, external professional guest markers, tandem projects, direct communication with clients, peer mentoring (e.g. undergraduates in their final year mentor beginners), and updated workstations and ICT. This design fosters the integration of the professional and the reflective aspects of T&I Studies.

3. Procedures: These refer to activities, tasks and projects adapted from good practices in Pedagogy, Cognitive Studies and Foreign Language Learning. We favour Nunan’s division of the procedures into ‘pedagogical’ or ‘real life’ (1989), to be combined coherently in didactic sequences. Pedagogical procedures introduce, reinforce or provide appropriate reflection to enable an effective performance of real-life procedures, for instance, moving from guided sight translation, which implies preparing the text with the help of a peer, to sight translation proper carried out individually with no previous preparation.

All contributions to this issue address Situated Translator and Interpreter Training from different angles in terms of procedures, including both bottom-up and top-down activities (e.g. Bartina et al.’s identification of gender stereotypes in audiovisual marketing texts to identity formation and social role of student translators), task-based learning, project-based learning (which can include both simulations and authentic projects), problem-based learning, or case analyses. In addition to a variety of Situated Learning procedures and closely related to McLellan’s (1994) six critical factors of successful models above, four of our eight contributors — Risku, Motta, Pan and Marco — explicitly refer to the importance of the different methods available in Situated Learning to promote the development of expertise. In particular, the methods proposed by Collins, Brown and Holum (1991) — i.e. modelling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection and exploration — take centre stage in this issue.

4. Conclusion

The guiding premises for SLTIS set the teaching and learning process within the framework of Situated Cognition Theory and socio-constructivist approaches to learning. The main aim is to reproduce the professional context in a community of practice that includes academic scaffolding and/or any of the teaching methods indicated above. In this way, the students’ ZPD is reduced by means of conscious Situated Learning methods that admit both planned and unplanned occurrences and events. An updated approach to SLTIS provides a flexible working framework that allows for the inclusion of different translational/interpreting and pedagogical proposals that aim at reconciling theory and professional know-how. The research presented in this issue provides us with a valid starting point to argue for the inclusion of SLTIS.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the contributors and referees of this issue, who have worked collaboratively and conscientiously in a true community of practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.