Scott, D. & Usher, R. (2011) Researching Education: Data Methods and Theory in Educational Inquiry, 2nd edition. London: Continuum.
I read this book on the recommendation of my not-yet-PhD-supervisor, and found it both thought-provoking and frustrating. The authors take a critical view of research paradigms in general, but specifically in education and social sciences. It was a tough book to get through, as the authors approach their subject from an abstract, philosophical angle. I am used to reading academic texts, but when reading this book I frequently had to stop and look things up to make sure that I really understood the concepts being explored. I found some chapters of the book to be much more lucid and helpful than others–perhaps each author wrote some of the chapters?
Rather than saying that I learned a lot from this book, I would say that the book made me think about many things from a different perspective, and that it helped me (un)clarify the approach I’m taking to developing a research question and design for my not-yet-PhD. It’s definitely not a book to read in search of answers–the authors raise many questions and critique every idea they present–but I found it worth my while. I am not generally drawn to philosophy or to postmodernism, but I do like asking questions and thinking critically.
I pulled out this long quote as I think it gives a good idea of the authors’ approach in this book, and of the reasons why I found the book thought-provoking and useful.
“What is it, then, that we silently think when it comes to research? Obviously, this is a question that does not readily lend itself to a single answer. One possible answer is to do with the tendency to assume that doing research is simply a matter of following the right procedures or methods. This assumption, however, needs to be questioned because it misleadingly portrays research as mechanistic and algorithmic. If we uncritically accept this portrayal, we forget that research is social practice and that it is therefore both embedded and embodied. Thus, one thing we can do in terms of becoming more aware of what we silently think is to recognize that research is not a technology but a practice, that it is not individualistic but social, and that there are no universal methods to be applied invariantly.” (p. 10)
Nicodemus, B. and Swabey, L., Eds. (2011) Advances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
In the introduction to this volume, the editors mention “a need for publications for interpreters interested in research, aspiring researchers in interpreting studies, and interpreting educators” (p. 2). As a person who fits into at least two of those three categories, I found this volume to be an engrossing and extremely useful read. Rather than give an in-depth review or synopsis of the whole book, I’m going to highlight specific chapters and concepts which I found most relevant to my own work.
Jarvis, M. (2005) The psychology of effective teaching and learning. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes.
I found the first six chapters of this book to be a useful overview of theory and research related to a variety of topics: teaching and learning theory, cognitive development, intelligence and academic ability, learning/thinking/studying styles, thinking skills, and motivation. The chapters on emotional factors in learning, technology, stress, and research were less useful.
I will post some notes on the items I found most interesting or valuable in this volume. I do have some things to reflect on about some of it, but will address that in another post about the book on research in education that I read just before this one.
Fontes, Lisa A. (2008) Child Abuse and Culture: Working with Diverse Families. New York: Guilford Press
Fontes, Lisa A. (2009) Interviewing Clients across Cultures. New York: Guildford Press
I’m not going to write a long post about these two books, but it’s not because I don’t find them useful. In fact, my primary reason for posting is to strongly recommend them to interpreters and to all professionals who work in multicultural or multilingual settings. There’s a fine line between exploring cultures and descending into generalizations and stereotypes. There are few non-interpreters who really ‘get’ interpreting and interpreters. Fontes, in my opinion, does an excellent job in both areas.
Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. (2010) Language Assessment in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
In chapter 16, the authors discuss rating language performance in situations where the response to the assessment stimulus is extended and relatively unlimited in scope, and language use is situated or in the form of discourse. These are situations in which it is not possible or practicable to use a rating system in which specific tasks or items are scored. Thus, rating of these types of assessments is done by describing the person’s level of ability as demonstrated by the response.
Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. (2010) Language Assessment in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This is a detailed, exhaustive guide to developing and using language assessments. I learned a lot from it about all stages of the language assessment process, including a lot of useful theoretical and practical knowledge about issues surrounding development, administration, and scoring of language assessments. There are numerous examples in the book, and a website of sample materials available for further study. Each chapter also has exercises at the end. I skimmed a lot of it, but read several sections with greater attention. There are several things I got out of this book that I want to explore in more depth and attempt to apply to assessing interpreting performance. To facilitate reading, I’m going to divide it up into multiple post.
Notice: All the information about language use and assessment in this post is from the book cited above, and is noted as such throughout. All portions of this post related to interpreting are my own work and protected by my copyright.
Knowles M., et al. (2005) The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. 6th edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Although this is a recent edition of the book, the content doesn’t appear to have changed much. As a first-time reader, I’m disappointed by this. I was interested in the concepts being presented, and in the discussion of various theoretical approaches to education (both of children and of adults); however, the references are primarily from the 1970s & 1980s, which became frustrating to me. As a contemporary reader (and adult, self-directed learner), I would like to be informed of the latest thinking on the questions that the author(s) explore. Even if they didn’t choose to update Knowles’ original chapters, they could have included a list of further reading based on publications from the past 10 years. As it is, I am left with the sure knowledge that things have developed in the past decade or two, but no guidance as to where to continue my reading.
Hlavac, J. et al. (2012) Intake Tests for a Short Interpreter-Training Course: Design, Implementation, Feedback. International Journal of Interpreter Education 4:1.
This article describes an assessment test designed and implemented as a pre-training admission process for a short (30-hour) community interpreter training program in Victoria, Australia. The training was intended for speakers of “new and emerging languages” (p. 22). The training program was offered in two cities, to two groups of students. The trainers were not involved the design or administration of the test. At the end of the training program, both trainers and trainees were asked to evaluate the intake test by completing a survey. 3 out of 5 trainers and 16 out of 25 trainees completed the evaluation survey. The authors’ focus was on judging the authenticity of the test–that is, whether “the relationship between test contents and the elicitation of skill performance during the test are those skills that were the focus of post-trest training.”
Van De Mieroop, D. (2012) The quotative “he/she says” in interpreted doctor-patient interaction. Interpreting 14:1.
This study looks at data from 4 interpreted medical encounters (Dutch/Russian; Dutch was the providers’ native language, while not all the Russian speakers were native speakers), all interpreted by the same interpreter. The author discusses the fact that third person (“he says/she says”) interpreting is frequently attested in the literature and in her data, despite scholarly consensus in re the use of the first person in dialogue interpreting, as well as the injunction to use first person in the Flemish government’s Code of Ethics for interpreters. She points out that use of the third person has been found to serve as a distancing strategy or to mark changes in footing in other settings (such as media interpretation), and seeks to determine what function(s) it serves in medical discourse. Referencing Goffman’s (1981) notion of participation frameworks, she highlights the interpreter’s dual role as listener (within the provider’s framework) and speaker (within the patient’s framework).
Brookhart, S. (2010) How to Assess Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
What is higher-order thinking?
–>Includes transfer, critical thinking, and problem solving
Transfer–requires that students not only remember what they have learned, but also be able to make sense of and use it. (p. 3, quoting Anderson & Krathwohl, 2011)
Transfer is contrasted with recall. It implies making novel (to the learner) use of knowledge and skills.
Critical Thinking–“is reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.” (p. 4, quoting Norris & Ennis, 1989)
Requires the student to make a good decision/judgment, or to produced a well-thought out reaction/criticism.
Problem Solving--the student has a problem but does not automatically know how to solve it (ie does not recognize the path or solution s/he needs); must employ higher-order thinking skills to figure out the solution (p. 4, quoting Nitko and Brookhart, 2007)
It’s not a problem if you know the solution right off; not having a memorized or readily apparent answer is implicit in the term. Problems can be closed-ended or open-ended. We want to equip students to recognize problems in the world around them and to be able to work toward solutions. Interesting to note the contrast between problems set for students and problems that students set for themselves.