Metacognitive self-perception in interpreting
The ability of interpreters to engage in metacognitive activity
enabling them to self-assess the changing purpose of their task and subsequent
strategies can play a pivotal role in their global attainment levels. This paper argues that developing a high degree of metacognition can be key,
not only for the expert’s interpreting performance, but also for trainees’
learning processes, helping them develop a more accurate professional
self-concept and better self-regulation techniques. The study, carried
out with 199 interpreting trainees, tested a tool to assess
self-perceived metacognition levels. The measurement tool was developed on the
basis of previous relevant academic contributions to the overlapping fields of
Education, Interpreting and Psychology. According to the results of a factor
analysis, self-perceived metacognition in interpreting trainees can be defined
as a construct made up of four dimensions: self-knowledge perception,
consolidation of one’s own set of criteria, development of a macro-strategy, and
task-focused flow.
Article outline
- 1.Relating metacognition to quality in interpreting
- 2.Turning metacognition into a more tangible construct
- 3.Methodology
- 4.The four dimensions of self-perceived metacognition
- 4.1Self-knowledge perception
- 4.2Consolidation of their own set of criteria
- 4.3Development of an interpreting macro-strategy
- 4.4Task-focused flow
- 5.Final remarks
- Note
-
References
References (37)
References
Aguirre Fernández Bravo, Elena. 2015. El desarrollo metacognitivo del estudiante de interpretación: estudio de
caso [The Interpreting student's metacognitive development: a case study]. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas. [URL]
Arumí Ribas, Marta. 2008. “La práctica reflexiva en la formación de intérpretes [Reflective
practice in interpreter training].” In La traducción del futuro: Mediación lingüística y cultural en el siglo
XXI. Actas del III congreso internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de
Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación. Barcelona 22–24 de marzo de
2007. Edited by L. Pegenaute, J. A. Decesaris, M. Tricás, and E. Bernal, 442–454. Barcelona: Publicaciones Periódicas Universitarias.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bandura, Albert. 2002. Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blignault, Ilse, Maria Stephanou and Cassandra Barrett. 2009. Achieving Quality in Health Care Interpreting. In The Critical Link 5. Quality in interpreting—a shared
responsibility. Edited by S. Hale, U. Ozolins, and L. Stern, 221–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bransford, John D., Brown, Ann L., and Rodney R. Cocking, 1999. How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bühler, Hildegund. (1986). “Linguistic (Semantic) and Extra-linguistic (Pragmatic) Criteria
for the Evaluation of Conference Interpretation and
Interpreters.” Multilingua 5 (4): 231–235.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chiaro, Delia C., and Giuseppe Nocella. 2004. “Interpreter’s Perception of Linguistic and Non-linguistic Factors
Affecting Quality: A Survey through the World Wide Web.” Meta 49 (2): 278–293. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Collados Aís, Ángela, Ma Manuela Fernández Sánchez, Esperanza M. Pradas Macías, Elisabeth Stévaux, and Luisa Von Bernstorff. 2003. “Material audiovisual sobre interpretación
simultánea: Investigación experimental en evaluación de la
calidad” [Audiovisual material form simultaneous interpreting:
Experimental research on quality assessment]. In La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Docencia y
profesión. Edited by Á. Collados, Ma M. Fernández, E. M. Pradas, C. Sánchez-Adam, and E. Stévaux, 17–29. Granada: Comares.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Doǧan, Aymil, Marta Arumí Ribas, and Begonya Mora Rubio. 2009. “Metacognitive Tools in Interpreting Training: A Pilot
Study.” Journal of Faculty of Letters, Hacettepe University 26 (1): 69–84.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Flavell, John H. 1976. “Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving.” In The Nature of Intelligence. Edited by L. B. Resnick, 231–236. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gile, Daniel. 1985. “Le modèle d’efforts et l’équilibre d’interprétation
en interprétation simultanée” [The model of efforts and interpreting balance in
simultaneous interpreting]. Meta 30 (1): 44–48. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gopher, Daniel. 1993. “The Skill of Attention Control: Acquisition and Execution of
Attention Strategies.” In Attention and Performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology,
artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience—A silver
jubilee. Edited by D. E. Meyer, and S. Kornblum, 299–322. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hale, Sandra, and Uldis Ozolins. 2009. “Quality in Interpreting: A Shared Responsibility.” In The Critical Link 5. Quality in Interpreting—A Shared
Responsibility. Edited by S. Hale, U. Ozolins, and L. Stern, 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harris, Brian. 2003. “The Need for Several Standards of Conference
Interpretation.” In La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Docencia y
profesión. Edited by Á. Collados, Ma M. Fernández, E. M. Pradas, C. Sánchez-Adam, and E. Stévaux, 3–16. Granada: Comares.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kalina, Sylvia. 2005. “Quality Assurance for Interpreting Processes.” Meta 50 (2): 768–784. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kurz, Ingrid. 1993. “Conference Interpretation: Expectations of Different User
Groups.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter 51: 13–21.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mason, Ian. 1999. “Introduction.” Dialogue interpreting. The Translator 5 (2): 147–160.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moser, Peter. 1995. Survey on Expectations of Users of Conference Interpretation. Accessed 11 September
2018 [URL]
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 1996. “Quality in Interpreting: Some Methodological
Issues.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter 71: 43–55.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moser-Mercer, Barbara. 2000. “The Rocky Road to Expertise in Interpreting: Eliciting Knowledge
from Learners.” In Translationswissenschaft. Edited by M. Kadric, K. Kaindl, & F. Pöchhacker, 339–352. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pignataro, Clara, and Silvia Velardi. 2013. “The Quest for Quality Assessment Criteria in Media
Interpreting.” In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Edited by O. García, E. M. Pradas, and R. Barranco, 129–147. Granada: Comares.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pintrich, Paul R. 2004. “A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and
Self-Regulated Learning in College Students.” Educational Psychology Review 16 (4): 385–407. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2001. “Quality Assessment in Conference and Community
Interpreting.” Meta 46 (2): 410–425. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2013. ”Researching Quality: A Two-pronged Approach.” In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Edited by O. García, E. M. Pradas, and R. Barranco, 33–55. Granada: Comares.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pradas Macías, Esperanza M. 2007. “La incidencia del parámetro
fluidez
” [Repercussions of the fluency parameter]. In La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación simultánea: Parámetros de
incidencia. Edited by Á. Collados, E. M. Pradas, E. Stévaux and O. García, 53–70. Granada: Comares.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rennert, Sylvie. 2013. “The Production of Experimental Material for Fluency
Research.” In Quality in interpreting: widening the scope. Edited by O. García, E. M. Pradas, and R. Barranco, 175–200. Granada: Comares.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sawyer, David B. 1994. “Monitoring Processes in Conference Interpreting: Towards a Model
for Interpreter-Trainees.” Meta 39 (3): 433–438. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Setton, Robin. 2002. “Deconstructing SI: A Contribution to the Debate on Component
Processes.” The Interpreter’s Newsletter 111: 1–26.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tolosa Igualada, Miguel. 2013. “Del ‘síndrome de Mafalda’ a la metacognición. La
autoevaluación de la calidad de los intérpretes en formación a través de una
nueva plataforma multimedia” [From ‘Mafalda’s Syndrom to metacognition.
Interpreting trainee quality self-assessment through a new multimedia
platform]. In Quality in Interpreting: Widening the Scope. Edited by O. García, E. M. Pradas, and R. Barranco, 315–335. Granada: Comares.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Torre Puente, Juan C. 2007. Una triple alianza para un aprendizaje universitario de
calidad [A triple alliance for quality higher
education]. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Viaggio, Sergio. 2003. “La calidad en la mediación interlingüe. Qué es,
quién la determina, quién la juzga y quién la enseña” [Quality in interlinguistic mediation. What is it? who determines it? who evaluates it? and who teaches it?]. In La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Docencia y
profesión. Edited by Á. Collados, Ma M. Fernández, E. M. Pradas, C. Sánchez-Adam, and E. Stévaux, 17–29. Granada: Comares.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2013. Qualität und Rollenbilder beim simultanen
Konferenzdolmetschen [Quality and role construction in simultaneous
interpreting]. Berlin: Frank & Timme.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Zhu, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2022.
A Synthetic Review of Cognitive Load in Distance Interpreting: Toward an Explanatory Model.
Frontiers in Psychology 13
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020.
Translation and Interpreting Assessment Research. In
Translator and Interpreter Education Research [
New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],
► pp. 61 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.