Skill in teaching is not something to be learned and simply repeated;
what makes it exciting is that there is always room to grow.
As you reflect on your classes, you will get new insights and will continue to develop both your theory of teaching and learning and your repertoire of skills and strategies.”
(McKeachie 2011, p.xix)
Northeastern’s Interpreting Pedagogy curriculum provided me with a framework for revisiting the fundamentals of interpreting while also learning the fundamentals of teaching. Reviewing the basics of interpreting, such as discourse analysis and the history and theories of translation, allowed me to reflect on my pre-existing knowledge while also enhancing my understanding of how his information forms the building blocks for interpreting. While my classmates and I shifted our perspectives and began to see interpreting in a different light, we were simultaneously exposed to the theories and conceptual frameworks from the field of education. I found rich learning in discussions about emerging models of education and the socio cultural contexts of education. I was also very intrigued by a course on andragogy (i.e., adult learning) and the power of motivation. Essentially, I was able to build my understanding that teaching and learning are both dynamic and cyclical. Therefore, I must not only understand the history and intricacies of interpreting but stay abreast of current trends and research while striving to keep my teaching full of creativity and innovation. As an educator, I have the power to influence other’s learning while continuing to learn myself.
Within the field of interpreting and translation pedagogy, there is a focus towards social constructivist teaching and learning. This pedagogical approach emphasizes the teacher as a guide with students internalizing socio-cultural knowledge, co-constructing meaning and learning within an authentic environment. My own learning was couched within a social constructivist environment and I have now experienced firsthand the impact of working with others to empower my own learning, as Kiraly (2000) states, “constructivist epistemology leads to transformation, with the goal of empowering the learner to act responsibly, autonomously and competently.” (p. 33)
In addition, working through a constructivist environment complimented our discussions about meaning and how to effectively teach interpreting. My first quarter was a wonderful eye opening moment where I understood even more the complexities of meaning and communication. Essentially, this understanding helped shape the framework for the remainder of the program and my own paradigm about interpreting as meaning transfer and the importance of working collaboratively to learn and explore interpreting. Through my own experiences and with my newfound knowledge of pedagogical approaches I am prepared to guide others in their reflection, exploration and learning.
Within this domain, Teaching and Learning, you will see how I have transferred my own knowledge and experiences of interpreting into relevant classroom discussions. Together with my students we explore the essentials of interpreting through class dialog, group brainstorms and group activities. My artifacts also include writing samples that demonstrate my own learning and reflection on interpreting as meaning transfer and the importance of progressive teaching as it relates to the field of interpreting. I believe these artifacts begin to touch on the connections I am making between reflection of my own experiences as an interpreter and the skills I am developing as an educator; an essential foundation for continued growth and effective teaching.
References:
Kiraly, D. (2000). A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. St. Jerome: Manchester, UK.
Svinicki, M. & McKeachie, W.J. (2011) Teaching Tips: Strategies, Reserach and Theory for College and University Teachers. Wadsworth Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA.
This artifact is a paper I wrote for a class entitled, “Foundations in Teaching Meaning Transfer.” In this course we explored the approaches to teaching theories and trends in meaning transfer for interpreters with an emphasis on discourse based meaning translation approaches. For me, this in depth discussion on translation theories and the basis of interpreting as meaning transfer was an eye opening exploration into the heart of interpreting and interpreter education.
Despite my prior knowledge and experiences of interpreting, I found myself revisiting the core purpose for why and how people communicate. In turn, I was able to redefine my theory of interpreting as meaning transfer. In doing so, I began to question what skills and knowledge interpreters must possess in order to effectively approach a translation or interpretation task. I chose this paper because I believe it exhibits my ability to critically think about language, cultural differences and interpreting as meaning transfer. On pages three and four, I explore the various factors which influence a translator’s decision making including audience and intent. Further within the paper, on pages six and seven, I demonstrate my ability to transfer an understanding of language, meaning and communication into the skills needed for teaching meaning transfer.
This paper was my first exploration into the competencies needed for effective meaning transfer. It served as the foundation of my understanding moving forward throughout the remainder of the program. I believe it is important for interpreters, and in turn interpreter educators, to be able to articulate the nuances of language and culture and the skills needed for producing meaning transfer. I believe this paper showcases my ability to clearly articulate these concepts.
This paper also served as the foundation for a lesson I developed and taught to community interpreters, “Cultural Considerations for Your Interpretations.” To see more about this lesson, please visit the “Instructional Design” domain.
Artifact: Paper from course entitled, “Foundations in Teaching Meaning Transfer”
Transferring Meaning: What to DO-DO?
In the book, Interpreting Skills: American Sign Language to English, Marty Taylor(2002) states, “…if interpreters do not understand the source language they cannot possibly interpret the message into a target language.” (p. 2) Taylor’s comments hit home the importance of ASL/English interpreters developing their language competencies in both ASL and English. These skills are called intra-lingual skills.
The accompanying video clip is a series of segments taken from two lessons provided to a group of staff interpreters. These interpreters often work as mentors with soon to be graduates from college and university interpreting programs. The overarching goal of the series was to equip these interpreters with the knowledge, resources and strategies for working with interns.
In order to prepare these interpreters for working with interns, I chose to address the building blocks of interpreting including intra-lingual skills, inter-lingual skills, meaning transfer, time shifted meaning transfer and real time meaning transfer. A majority of the discussions revolved around intra-lingual skills as shown on the accompanying video clips. Students also engaged in a partnered activity where they worked on intra-lingual English skills by restructuring or restating sentences (in English, to English) while retaining meaning. While I believe the lessons were effective, I have also identified an area for improvement. I would like to more explicitly emphasize the differences between language competencies and interpreting competencies.
In reviewing my recordings, I recognize my use of vague language. I believe the simple addition of being more explicit would add clarity to my explanation. One example of this can be seen within the video when I say, “You have to have intra lingual skills first,” and then give various examples of intra-lingual skills. While I discuss the need to develop intra-lingual skills (by stating, “[develop these skills] first), I fail to clearly articulate “why?” or the differences between language competencies and interpreting competencies. (Viewable on video labeled “Intra-Lingual #1) In the follow up lesson, I spend a few minutes reviewing intra-lingual skills and we discuss an activity of “copying” a radio broadcast (from English, to English). I do discuss how this intra-lingual activity may be useful in identifying whether an interpreter is lacking language skills or processing skills. I also state “so much of interpreting is language…if you can build your intra-lingual skills…then you have that base to do anything with it.” (Viewable on video labeled “Intra-Lingual 2”) While I begin to further explain the concepts of language skills in order to support interpreting skills, I continue to use vague language (i.e., “do do anything with it”). In future lessons, I would prefer to engage in more deliberate dialog about this issue. I would also prefer to ask the group to reflect on the relevance of developing first and second language competencies for effective interpreting practice. I believe both of these additions would clarify, in the minds of students, the importance and the differences of language and interpreting.
While I have identified an area for improvement, I do believe the lesson begins to address the importance of language skills, especially as participants engage in their own intra-lingual skills activity. The post lesson evaluations asked students, “What was your “a-ha” moment?” Students’ responses included:
In reflecting on these answers, I recognize strides were made to assist students in understanding the importance of intra-lingual skill but I still believe additional instruction could be added to articulate the difference between language skills and interpreting skills.
Artifacts:
Video*: Intra-Lingual 1
Video*: Intra-Lingual 2
*Available in my Vimeo Album
References:
Taylor, M. (2002). Interpreting Skills: American Sign Language to English. Interpreting Consolidated: Edmonton, Alberta.
Looking back on the past two years of my educational experience at Northeastern, I cannot help but feel empowered. I have developed clarity surrounding my beliefs about interpreting. For me, this clarity occurred throughout our discussions of meaning and review of translation theories. One theory in particular, Skopostheorie, places emphasis on translation as purposeful action. In discussing Skopostheorie, Nord (1997), explains, “the prime principle determining any translation process is the purpose (Skopos) of the overall translation action.” (p. 27) Understanding this literally transformed my practice, including changes to the information I share with interpreters when hiring them to work for my agency. (Viewable on Video named, “Skopos 1”) This particular artifact is a series of recordings from various lessons with my fellow staff interpreters. The videos show our exploration into the nuances of meaning, strategies for transferring meaning and the influence of an interpreter on any communicated event.
The dialog begins with a group brainstorm regarding “What is Interpreting?” This discussion set the stage for further dissection on the origins of meaning and communication in general. I guided students through the thought processes of meaning as experience, meaning as exposure and interpreters as non-neutral participants in an interpreted event. In discussing the importance of awareness, students began to develop their own awareness of their influence on an interpretation and the challenges we face when creating meaning transfer. (Viewable on the Video named, “Neutrality& Awareness”)
We then begin to discuss strategies or guiding techniques which may be used to transfer meaning from English to ASL and vice-versa. The students posed possible tools, such as examining intent and audience, in order to inform their decisions. This discussion naturally evolved allowing me to transition to the concept of Skopos. I provided the students with a brief history of translation and then we focused on interpreting as purposeful action. What ensued was an incredibly rich conversation of interpreters uncovering the process of how to create meaning transfer. (Viewable on the Video named, “Skopos 2" & "Skopos 3.")
Two of the six students indicated, through post lesson evaluations, that meaning transfer and Skopostheorie were their greatest “a-ha” moments. Later, via email one of the students expressed “I have been having so much fun with that exercise that you taught us in your workshop… I know it shows that none of us are completely unbiased or “neutral” because we bring our own experiences and visual connections with us to the job.” This email was in direct response to an activity where I asked the students what they thought of when I said the word “cake.” Each student described the cake they had in mind and no two students’ answers were alike. As I added details such as “birthday cake for a 7 year old” and “wedding cake” each of their “cakes” changed. As we discussed our own meanings of “cake,” students began to truly understand the influence of their personal experiences on meaning and therefore meaning transfer.
As we explored meaning and strategies for meaning transfer we began to uncover other topics such as genre, prosody and culture. I have highlighted two sections of the dialog where our discussion of meaning expands to include cultural influences. In one instance, one of the students had described an experience of working with a consumer from Africa. Their understanding of “going to get water” included walking to the river to retrieve water in a container; very different from our own experiences of going to a sink or water fountain. The other discussion stems from the need to consider culture when making meaning and the fact that cultures and sub-cultures surround us; our own small group of six was a culture in-and-of itself. (Viewable on the Video named “Meaning & Culture”)
At the end of this series of lessons, students left recognizing that “no two people ever understand words in exactly the same matter.” (Nida & Taber 1969, p. 4) I believe this understanding paired with an emphasis on Skopos truly impacted each of their approaches to working as an interpreters and as mentors.
Artifacts:
Video*: Meaning & Culture
Video*: Skopos 1
Video*: Skopos 2
Video*: Skopos 3
Video*: Neutrality & Awarness
*Available in my Vimeo Album
References:
Nida, E.A. & Taber, C.R. (1969) The Theory and Practice of Translation. Brill: Leiden, Netherlands. Chapter 1.
Nord, C. (1997) Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. St. Jerome Publishing: Manchester, UK.
Please wait...