Cover not available
Part of
Interpreting Technologies – Current and Future Trends
Edited by Gloria Corpas Pastor and Bart Defrancq
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 37] 2023
► pp. 6–26

Chapter 1
Using smartpens and digital pens in interpreter training and interpreting research

Taking stock and looking ahead

 | Macquarie University |
For over a decade, digital pen technology has been investigated, trialled and recommended for use in interpreter training and interpreting research, whether as a tool to develop metacognitive activities and provide feedback in the interpreting classroom, or as an instrument to test and explore various areas of interpreting research (e.g. note-taking processes, hybrid modes, cognitive load) in new ways. This chapter aims at reviewing and taking stock of the training and research initiatives undertaken on digital pens and smartpens, as well as at looking ahead and making suggestions about equipment and potential future initiatives that would benefit interpreting students, educators, and researchers.
Keywords: digital pen technology, smartpens, interpreter training, metacognition, classroom techniques, interpreting research, modes of interpreting, cognitive processes
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The evolution of digital pen technology
  • 3.The use of digital pen and smartpens in interpreter training
    • 3.1Reported pedagogical initiatives undertaken in the consecutive interpreting classroom
    • 3.2Promoting the pedagogical use of digital pens and smartpens further
  • 4.The use of smartpens and digital pens in interpreting research
    • 4.1Cognitive processes in note-taking
    • 4.2Digital pen technology and simultaneous-consecutive
  • 5.Equipment used and available technology
    • 5.1Equipment used in interpreting studies
    • 5.2Currently available technology and equipment
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Bibliography
Published online: 9 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.37.01orl
References (36)
Bibliography
Ahrens, Barbara. 2001. “Einige Überlegungen zur Didaktik der Notizentechnik”. In Dolmetschen. Beiträge aus Forschung, Praxis, Lehre, edited by Andreas F. Kelletat, 227–241. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ahrens, Barbara, and Marc Orlando. 2021. “Note-taking for Consecutive Conference Interpreting”. In The Routledge Handbook of Conference Interpreting, edited by Michaela Albl-Mikasa and Elisabet Tiselius, 34–48. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altieri, Mirko. 2020. “Tablet Interpreting: étude expérimentale de l’interprétation consécutive sur tablette.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 25:19–35.Google Scholar
Andres, Dörte. 2002. Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chen, Sijia. 2017. “Note-Taking in Consecutive Interpreting: New data from Pen Recording”. The International Journal for Translation and Interpreting Research 9 (1): 4–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “The Process of Note-Taking in Consecutive Interpreting: A Digital Pen Recording Approach”. Interpreting 22 (1): 117–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpas Pastor, Gloria. 2018. “Tools for Interpreters: The Challenges that Lie Ahead.” Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E, 5:157–182.Google Scholar
Darden, Vicky. 2019. Educator Perspectives on Incorporating Digital Citizenship Skills in Interpreter Education. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Walden University.
Dimond, Tom. 1957. “Devices for reading handwritten characters.” In Proceedings from the Eastern Joint Computer Conference, 232–237. DOI logo
Dingfelder Stone, Maren. 2015. “The Theory and Practice of teaching note-taking”. In To Know How to Suggest … Approaches to Teaching Conference Interpreting, edited by Dörte Andres and Martina Behr, 145–169. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Drechsel, Alexander, and Joshua Goldsmith. 2016. “Tablet Interpreting: the evolution and uses of mobile devices in interpreting”. [Online] Available at [URL]
Gile, Daniel 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gillies, Andrew. 2019. Consecutive Interpreting. A Short Course. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Joshua. 2018. “Tablet Interpreting: Consecutive 2.0.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (3): 342–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiebl, Bettina. 2011. Simultanes Konsekutivdolmetschen mit dem LivescribeTM EchoTM Smartpen, (Simultaneous Consecutive Interpreting with the LivescribeTM EchoTM Smartpen), unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna.
Kellet Bidoli, Cynthia J. 2016. “Traditional and Technological Approaches to Learning LSP in Italian to English Consecutive Interpreter Training”. In Focus on LSP Teaching: Developments and Issues, edited by Giuliana Garzone, Dermot Heaney and Giorgia Riboni, 103–126. Milan: LED. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellet Bidoli, Cynthia J., and Sonia Vardè. 2016. “Digital Pen Technology and Consecutive Note-taking in the Classroom and Beyond.” In Interchange between Languages and Cultures: The Quest for Quality, edited by Jitka Zehnalová, Ondrej Molnár, and Michal Kubánek, 131–148. Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar
Maldonado, Heidi, Lee, Brian, and Scott Klemmer. 2006. “Technology for design education: A case study”. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction: CHI 2006, Montreal, Canada, 1067–1072. DOI logo
Mielcarek, Mathis. 2017. Das simultane Konsekutivdolmetschen (Simultaneous Consecutive Interpreting), unpublished MA thesis, University of Vienna.
Nguyen, Ngoc P. H. 2006. Note taking and sharing with digital pen and paper: Designing for practice-based teacher education. Unpublished Master’s Thesis in Science and Computer Science. Trondheim University of Science and Technology.
Okoniewska, Alicja. 2021. “Critical Discourse Analysis: A Theory-based Module in Interpreter Training”. In 100 Years of Conference Interpreting: A Legacy, edited by Kilian Seeber, 141–161. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Orlando, Marc. 2010. “Digital Pen Technology and Consecutive Interpreting: Another Dimension in Note-Taking Training and Assessment”, The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15:71–86.Google Scholar
. 2014. “A Study on the Amenability of Digital Pen Technology in a Hybrid Mode of Interpreting: Consec-simul with Notes”, The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 6 (2):39–54.Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Digital Pen Technology and Interpreter Training, Practice and Research: Status and Trends.” In Interpreter Education in the Digital Age, edited by Suzanne Ehrlich and Jemina Napier, 125–152. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. “Implementing Digital Pen Technology in the Consecutive Interpreting Classroom.” In To Know How to Suggest … Approaches to Teaching Conference Interpreting, edited by Dörte Andres and Martina Behr, 171–199. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
. 2016. Training 21st Century Translators and Interpreters: At the Crossroads of Practice, Research and Pedagogy. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Orlando, Marc, and Jim Hlavac. 2020. “Simultaneous-consecutive in Interpreter Training and Interpreting Practice: Use and Perceptions of a Hybrid Mode.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 25:1–17.Google Scholar
Özkan, Can Elvan. 2020. To Use or not to Use a Smartpen: That is the Question. An Empirical Study on the Role of Smartpen in the Viability of Simultaneous-consecutive Interpreting, unpublished MA thesis, Ghent University.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2016. Introducing Interpreting Studies (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pogue, David. 2008. “Gadget Fanatics, Take Note”. The New York Times, May 8. [Online] Available at [URL]
Prandi, Bianca. 2020. “The use of CAI Tools in Interpreter Training: Where We Are Now and Where Do We Go From Here”. inTRAlinea Special issue: Technology in Interpreter Education and Practice. [Online] Available at [URL]
Riccardi, Alessandra, Ceňková, Ivana, Tryuk, Małgorzata, Maček, Amalija, and Alina Pelea. 2020. “Survey of the Use of New Technologies in Conference Interpreting Courses.” In The Role of Technology in Conference Interpreter Training, edited by Maria Dolores Rodriguez Melchor, Ildikó Horváth and Kate Ferguson, 7–42. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Romano, Eleonora. 2018. “Teaching Note-taking to Beginners Using a Digital Pen”. Między Oryginałem a Przekładem 24 (42):9–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schweda Nicholson, Nancy. 1990. “Consecutive Note-taking for Community Interpretation”. In Interpreting: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, edited by David Bowen and Margareta Bowen, 136–145. Binghamton: State University of New-York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin, and Andrew Dawrant. 2016. Conference Interpreting. A Trainer’s Guide. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svoboda, Stepan. 2020. SimConsec: The Technology of a Smartpen in Interpreting, unpublished MA thesis, Palacký University Olomouc.