Abstract
This study examined audio description (AD) and interpreting from the perspective of quality assessment in university training programmes. It systematically reviewed and compared the quality assessment criteria of AD and interpreting provided in previous studies, based on which the study put forward a set of quality assessment criteria to be used for AD training (ADT) in interpreting classes. The commonalities and differences between AD assessment criteria and interpreting assessment criteria were identified and discussed. Then, the study examined the learners’ perceptions of AD practice and interpreting practice (including their perceived difficulty of achieving the quality criteria and their ranking of the quality criteria), and their confidence in achieving the quality criteria of AD and interpreting. The study also discussed the influences of learner factors (including AD-related, interpreting-related, and language learning-related factors) on students’ AD learning. It explored the interplay between learner factors, learners’ perceptions of AD practice, and their AD learning outcomes. In addition, this study investigated students’ perceptions of difficulties and strategies to cope with these difficulties in AD training, and their perceived benefits of AD learning. The study ended with an examination of students’ comparison of similarities and differences between AD and interpreting.The research subjects were 118 translation-major students from a university in Hong Kong, 52 of whom were undergraduate students and 66 of whom were postgraduate students. A questionnaire was administered to all of the students after they had finished the 2-week ADT module. The questionnaire consisted of the following surveys: (1) Demographic Information Survey (DIS); (2) Interpreting Learning Survey (ILS); (3) Interpreting Practice Perceptions Survey (IPPS); (4) Audio Description Learning Survey (ADLS); and (5) Audio Description Practice Perceptions Survey (ADPPS). Twenty-two of the undergraduate students and 16 of the postgraduate students participated in focus group interviews. In addition, 30 of the undergraduate students provided written reflections on their AD learning. The AD assignment scores of 20 undergraduate students were obtained from the course instructor, who invited 3 AD visually impaired users to evaluate the students’ AD performance.
The major findings of the study include:
1) AD and interpreting share three broad quality assessment criteria: accuracy, language, and delivery. Many microcriteria used in interpreting quality assessment, such as “no unjustified addition”, “appropriate language styles”, “fluent delivery”, could be applied in AD quality assessment as well. However, some microcriteria, such as "completeness of sentences" and “little source-language interference”, are exclusive to interpreting. Criteria including “no excessive subjectivity” and “vividness of language” are exclusive to AD. Synchrony is a broad criterion exclusive to AD. The differences may be partly explained by the interlingual nature of interpreting and the inter-semiotic nature of AD, and relevant training arrangements.
2) Although AD and interpreting have many quality assessment criteria in common, learners had different perceptions of the criteria. Moreover, students of different genders or from different regions differed significantly in some factors (e.g., film-watching habits) and perceptions of AD practice. Gender and regional differences in interpreting learning do not necessarily exist in AD learning, and vice versa.
3) Differences were found between the students’ perceptions of AD practice and their perceptions of interpreting practice. For instance, students perceived that language quality and delivery were significantly more important in AD practice than in interpreting practice, whereas they perceived that accuracy was more important in interpreting practice than in AD practice, although this difference was not statistically significant. One probable explanation for these results is that the students had different expectations of AD and interpreting.
4) Some interpreting-related learner factors, such as students’ interest in interpreting and their confidence in performing interpreting, were significantly correlated with their perceived difficulty of AD practice. Students’ perceived importance of delivery in AD practice and perceived ability of their own Chinese-writing were found to be the factors that were most predictive of students’ AD learning outcomes.
5) The difficulties encountered by the students in AD learning included content selection and prioritization, oral delivery, synchrony and time management. Students used strategies such as resorting to film narratives, adjusting presentation styles, and adopting different writing techniques to cope with the challenges. Students reported ADT can enhance their information compression skills, multitasking skills, and oral delivery. The similarities between AD and interpreting as provided by the students included information compression, language quality, and multitasking. The differences included the role of creativity, the completeness of information delivered, and the requirement of vocal skills.
This study adopted a student-centered approach to explore ADT-related issues. The findings are an important contribution to the field of ADT research, in particular as they examined the interactions between ADT and interpreting training, and between learner factors, students’ perceptions of AD practice, and AD learning outcomes. A better understanding of students’ perceptions and other aspects of training can help trainers better understand students’ needs, and accordingly make beneficial adjustments in future training activities. Thus, these findings provide important pedagogical implications for AD and interpreting trainers in China and worldwide.
| Date of Award | 18 Nov 2022 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Xiu YAN (Supervisor) |