The acceptance of tablet for note-taking in consecutive interpreting in a classroom context: The students’ perspectives
Abstract
This study aims to examine interpreting students’ perceptions of using tablets for interpreting note-taking (INT). A mixed-method approach was adopted, including quantitative methods based on Gile’s two-phase effort model of consecutive interpreting (CI) to investigate respondents’ experiences and perceptions, as well as qualitative methods to explore differences between professionals and beginners regarding their preferences and user experiences with note-taking tools. Additionally, factors within the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework that significantly impacted the acceptance of tablet-based interpreting were analyzed. Our research findings reveal valuable insights into students’ attitudes towards integrating technology into interpreter training programs while highlighting key factors influencing tablet-based note-taking adoption or rejection among participants. Moreover, this study emphasizes the importance of developing an application specifically designed for INT to meet the unique needs of interpreters and stresses that training plays an essential role in facilitating the adoption of tablet-based INT. Teachers are suggested to take the initiative to try tablet-based INT themselves before they make their decisions on whether to introduce the technology to their students.
References
American Translators Association (ATA, 2017). Tablets for interpreters: The device you didn’t know you wanted. Available online: https://www.atanet.org/resources/tablets-for-interpreters-the-device-you-didnt-know-you-wanted/ (accessed on 19 April 2023).
Behl H (2013a). The paperless interpreter experiment: Part I. Available online: https://www.precisolanguage.com/2013/01/paperless-interpreter-part-i/ (accessed on 19 April 2023).
Behl H (2013b). The paperless interpreter experiment: Part II. Available online: https://www.precisolanguage.com/2013/05/paperless-interpreter-part-ii/ (accessed on 19 April 2023).
Brinkmann S (2013). Qualitative Interviewing. Oxford University Press.
Costa H, Pastor GC, Muñoz ID (2014). A comparative user evaluation of terminology management tools for interpreters. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Computational Terminology; 23 August 2014; Dublin, Ireland. pp. 68–76.
Davis FD (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008
Drechsel A, Bouchard M, Feder M (2018). Inter-institutional training cooperation on the use of tablets in interpreting. CLINA Revista Interdisciplinaria de Traducción Interpretación y Comunicación Intercultural 4(1): 105–114. doi: 10.14201/clina20184199108
European Commission Directorate-General Interpretation (SCIC, 2015). Technology in interpreter training. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/education/knowledge-centre-interpretation/en/technology-interpreter-training (accessed on 17 April 2023).
Gile D (1995). Insights into Conference Interpreting Research (French). Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
Gillies A (2017). Note-taking for Consecutive Interpreting: A Short Course. Taylor & Francis.
Goldsmith J (2018). Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13(3): 342–365. doi: 10.1075/tis.00020.gol
Goldsmith J, Drechsel A (2016). Tablet interpreting: Tips, tools and applications to make the most of your tablet while interpreting. Presented at 2016 Virtual Conference for International Translation Day; 30 September 2016.
Goldsmith J, Holley J (2015). Consecutive Interpreting 2.0: The Tablet Interpreting Experience [Master’s thesis]. University of Geneva.
Hof M (2012). Ipad: The ideal boothmate Available online: http://aiic.net/p/6354 (accessed on 17 April 2023).
Hoi VN, Mu GM (2020). Perceived teacher support and students’ acceptance of mobile-assisted language learning: Evidence from Vietnamese higher education context. British Journal of Educational Technology 52(2): 879–898. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13044
Hsia JW, Tseng AH (2008). An enhanced technology acceptance model for e-learning systems in high-tech companies in Taiwan: Analyzed by structural equation modeling. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Cyberworlds; 22–24 September 2008; Hangzhou, China. pp. 39–44. doi: 10.1109/CW.2008.46
Kose M, Isik E, Aykut A, et al. (2021). The utility of next-generation sequencing technologies in diagnosis of Mendelian mitochondrial diseases and reflections on clinical spectrum. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism 34(4): 417–430. doi: 10.1515/jpem-2020–0410
Lee Y (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Information Review 30(5): 517–541. doi: 10.1108/14684520610706406
Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Moghadam AH, Bairamzadeh S (2009). Extending the technology acceptance model for e-learning: A case study of Iran. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations; 27–29 April 2009; Las Vegas, NV, USA. pp. 1659–1660. doi: 10.1109/ITNG.2009.152
Oceguera López P (2017). The Use of Applications for Tablets in the Interpreter’s Note-taking (French) [Bachelor’s thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California.
Rosado T (2013). Note-taking with iPad: Making our life easier. Available online: https://rpstranslations.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/note-taking-with-ipad-making-our-life-easier-2/ (accessed on 17 May 2023).
Teo T (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education 57(4): 2432–2440. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008
Teo T, Zhou M (2017). The influence of teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning on their technology acceptance. Interactive Learning Environments 25(4): 513–527. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2016.1143844
Torkzadeh G ,Van Dyke TP (2002). Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior 18(5): 479–494. doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00010-9
Venkatesh V, Bala H (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences 39(2): 273–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46(2): 186–204. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3): 425–478. doi: 10.2307/30036540
Wikipedia (2023). Ipad. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad (accessed on 18 May 2023).
Yuen AH, Ma WW (2008). Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia–Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 36(3): 229–243. doi: 10.1080/13598660802232779
Copyright (c) 2023 author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The author(s) warrant that permission to publish the article has not been previously assigned elsewhere.
Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher right for the first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under:
OA - Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows for the copying, distribution and transmission of the work, provided the correct attribution of the original creator is stated. Adaptation and remixing are also permitted.
This broad license intends to facilitate free access to, as well as the unrestricted reuse of, original works of all types.
_%E5%89%AF%E6%9C%AC1.png){kind=logo}
