11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper
Undergraduate Students’ Experience of Using Web-based Learning Technologies in Translation Studies
Nijolė Burkšaitienė
Vilnius University, Lithuania
Presenting Author: Burkšaitienė, Nijolė
Since the beginning of the 21st century, the use of web-based learning technologies has been growing rapidly at all levels of education, higher education included. The growth reached the peak during the COVID-19 pandemic when education institutions worldwide had to move traditional face-to-face teaching online. Therefore, it is not surprising that numerous studies have explored the best practices and challenges of online learning (Adedoyin & Soykan 2023, Baczek et al. 2021, Carrilo & Flores 2020, Mishra et al. 2020, Tam 2022, etc.). Research has been also focused on effective ways of using web-based learning technologies in different fields of study, including engineering, science and business studies (Buzetto-More 2015; Pal & Patra 2021), sports education (van der Berg and de Villiers 2021), teacher training (Kidd & Murray 2020), teaching and learning English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and as a Foreign language (EFL) (Aldukhayel 2021; Alharbi & Meccawy 2020; Allen 2015; Balula et al. 2020; Bradley et al. 2010; McLain 2019, Taskiran et al. 2018; Wang 2015), to mention just a few.
In the field of translator and interpreter education, the most recent research has been carried out in two major streams. The first one has been focused on the use of translation technology and the development of translator and interpreter curriculum and competencies (Braun et al. 2020; Flanagan & Christensen 2014; Kenny & Doherty 2014; Massey & Ehrensberger-Dow 2011; Mellinger 2017; Moorkens 2018; Pym 2013, etc.). The second one has explored effective teaching methods that integrated digital tools in translator and interpreter training as well as analysed trainers’ and trainees’ experience of using such tools (Hirci & Pisanski Peterlin 2020; Lee & Huh 2018; Pisanski Peterlin & Hirci 2014, etc.).
The research literature demonstrates that even though the use of web-based learning technologies has been widely investigated in higher education contexts in many foreign countries, in Lithuanian higher education their use has been under-investigated. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, no research has been conducted in the field of translator and interpreter training yet. To fill in the gap, the present study set out to gain a deeper understanding of undergraduate translation students’ experience of using web-based learning technologies and the interpretation of their use from the students’ perspective. To this end, two research questions were addressed: (1) what is the undergraduate translation students’ experience of using web-based learning technologies in their studies? and (2) what are the benefits and drawbacks of their use as seen by the students themselves?
In the present study, Bower and Torrington’s (2020) term ‘web-based learning technologies’ is used. It refers to the tools that are used for educational purposes, are freely available and accessible online, and enable their users to create and share digital content. The authors’ typology covers 226 learning technologies organised into 15 clusters, including text-based tools, image-based tools, audio tools, video tools, multimodal production tools, digital storytelling tools, web-site creation tools, knowledge organisation and sharing tools, data analysis tools, 3D modelling tools, coding tools, assessment tools, social networking tools, learning management systems, and web-conferencing tools.
The present research is based on perception theory, the central idea of which is that perception is a process through which knowledge of the objective world is acquired. It is this process that reveals how the interaction between an individual and the world is viewed and understood by that individual (Maund, 2003). This is relevant for the present study as it is through the interaction between the students and the educational technologies they use that the students’ perceptions can be established, which is crucial for further learning and achievement.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe present study was conducted at the end of the spring semester of academic year 2022/2023 at a university in Lithuania with the participation of 34 undergraduate majors (28 female and 6 male students) in translation. The average age of the students during the study was 22.
To address the two research questions, qualitative methodology was chosen. The data for the present research were drawn from the study participants’ essays ‘The role of web-based learning technologies in my studies’. To analyse the data, the method of inductive content analysis was used. According to Elo and Kyngäs (2007), this method enables a researcher to establish content-related categories that reflect different aspects of the phenomenon under analysis. The suitability of inductive content analysis for the present study was supported by the main precondition for its use, i.e., this method of qualitative analysis can be used when the research into the phenomenon is non-existent or fragmented.
The data analysis was conducted following the three stages described by Elo and Kyngäs (2007). During the first / the preparation stage, the study participants’ essays were read several times and the units of analysis relevant to the research questions were selected. During the second stage, open coding was conducted. This process included three steps, such as (i) writing down the headings that reflected all aspects of student-identified benefits and drawbacks and / or challenges of using web-based learning technologies and generating initial categories, (ii) grouping the identified categories under higher order heading, (3) naming each category and identifying and grouping subcategories. Finally, during the third stage, each subcategory was illustrated by samples selected from the students’ essays.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings of the present study allow to draw the general conclusion that the undergraduate translation students’ experience of using web-based learning technologies was both positive and negative. More specifically, it was established that most students perceived it as being both beneficial and challenging, a small minority considered it being exclusively positive and one student named it as being a negative experience.
The inductive content analysis resulted in the identification of two major categories that reflected the student-identified benefits and drawbacks and / or challenges of using web-based learning technologies. The former category covers five subcategories, such as a positive impact of web-based learning technologies on one’s learning, on the access to educational resources, on time economy, on one’s transferable skills, and on one’s health.
The latter category covers seven subcategories that reflect the student-perceived drawbacks and / or challenges of using web-based learning technologies in their studies. These include the negative impacts of using technologies on one’s physical and mental health, on one’s social life, information reliability-related challenges, distractions, the risk of academic cheating, cybersecurity risks, and technical challenges arising while using web-based learning technologies.
The limitation of the present study is its sample size, which does not allow for wide-scale generalisations. Yet, its conclusions are important as, on the one hand, they provide an insight into the undergraduate students’ experience of using web-based learning technologies in translation studies. On the other hand, the research revealed the benefits and drawbacks and / or challenges of using such technologies from the students’ perspective. The findings of the present research are comparable with the results established by researchers in other countries. In this way, they contribute to the scarce international research conducted in the field by deepening our understanding of and expanding our knowledge about it.
References1.Adedoyin, Olasile, and Emrah Soykan. 2023. Covid-19 Pandemic and Online Learning: The Challenges and Opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (2), 863-875. DOI:10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180.
2.Balula, Ana, Ciro Martins, Marco Costa, and Fábio Marques. 2020. Mobile Betting – Learning Business English Terminology Using MALL. Teaching English with Technology, 20 (5), 6–22. http://www.tewtjournal.org.
3.Bower, Matt, and Jodie Torrington. 2020. Typology of Free Web-based Learning Technologies (2020). Technical Report, April 2020, 1-15. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.11064.16647.
4.Braun, Sabine, Elena Davitti, and Caterine Slater. 2020. ‘It’s Like Being in Bubbles’: Affordances and Challenges of Virtual Learning Environments for Collaborative Learning in Interpreter Education. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 14 (3), 259-278. DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2020.1800362.
5.Aldukhayel, Dukhayel. 2021. Vlogs in L2 Listening: EFL Learners’ and Teachers’ Perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34 (8), 1085-1104. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2019.1658608.
6.Elo, S. and Kyngäs, H. (2007). The Qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
7.Flanagan, Marian, and Tina Paulsen Christensen. 2014. Testing Post-editing Guidelines: How Translation Trainees Interpret Them and How to Taylor Them for Translator Training Purposes. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8 (2), 257-275. DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2014.936111.
8.Hirci, Nataša, and Agnes Pisanski Peterlin. 2020. Face-to-face and Wiki Revision in Translator Training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 14 (1), 38-57. DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2019.1688066.
9.Kenny, Dorothy, and Stephen Doherty. 2014. Statistical Machine Translation in the Translation Curriculum: Overcoming Obstacles and Empowering Translators. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8 (2), 276-294. DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2014.936112.
10.Lee, Jieun, and Jiun Huh. 2018. Why not Go Online?: A Case Study of Blended Mode Business Interpreting and Translation Certificate Program. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12 (4), 444-466. DOI:1750399X.2018.1540227.
11.Massey, Gary, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2011. Technical and Instrumental Competence in the Translator’s Workplace: Using Process Research to Identify Educational and Ergonomic Needs, ILCEA, 14. 2011. doi.org/ 10.4000/ilcea.1060.
12.Maund, Barry. 2003. Perceptions. Routledge. DOI:10.4324/978131571063
13.Moorkens, Joss. 2018. What to Expect from Neural Machine Translation: A Practical In-class Translation Evaluation Exercise. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12 (4), 375-387. DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2018.1501639.
14.Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes, and Nataša Hirci. 2014. It's a Wiki World: Collaboration in Translator Training. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 1, 5-15.
15.Pym, Anthony. 2013. Translation Skill-sets in a Machine Translation Age. Meta, 58 (3), 487-503. DOI:10.7202/1025047ar.
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper
Global Perspectives on Hybrid Learning in a Higher Educational Institution
Valerija Drozdova
Turiba University, Latvia
Presenting Author: Drozdova, Valerija
Higher education has experienced changes in recent years, characterized by a shift towards digitalization and online learning existing simultaneously alongside a synchronous in-person form of studies. This change was influenced by the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic that have led to the discussion about the future of educational models in a post-pandemic world. The rapid adoption of various online learning approaches raised questions among academia regarding the most effective and applicable forms of education, especially in the context of international students in a university setting.
The present research focuses on the changes in educational strategies from face-to-face (F2F) or in-person style of learning to a hybrid study approach (Munday, 2022) that combines both F2F and online forms in a post-pandemic era. It investigates the benefits and challenges of hybrid English language learning at Turiba University in Latvia, which has been a globally-focused institution for over fifteen years with 43% international students (Turiba University Handbook, 2022).
Students, as observed by Gu and Huang (2022), have had to adjust to the new modes of education which include not only adapting to Webex, Zoom, or other online teaching platforms but also engaging in digitally realized collaborative learning approaches.
The theoretical framework of the research is based on the theories about different forms of online teaching and learning (OTL), in particular a hybrid style.
The objective of the present study was to conduct a typological examination of the extensive terminology used to describe different methods of online learning styles, specifically focusing on the hybrid style of education. The study looks at the hybrid form of education from an interdisciplinary point of view, integrating such fields as language study, pedagogy, communication studies, and intercultural communication.
Increased empirical attention was paid to the study of different forms of education and approaches used during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2021 to 2023. Such concepts as online teaching, online education (Shrestha et al., 2021; Zhao and Xue, 2023), online learning (Gu and Huang, 2021), e-learning education (Bi et al., 2023), eLearning (Matete et al., 2023), online teaching and learning (OTL) (Scherer, et al., 2021, 2023), blended learning (Ashraf et al., 2022(a), Yu et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2022; Luka, 2022, 2023; Tonbuloğlu and Tonbuloğlu, 2023), bLearning (blended learning) (Galvi and Carvajal, 2022), hybrid coaching (Fidan et al., 2022), hybrid learning (Wang, 2023; Kortemeyer et al., 2023; Munday, 2022), hyflex instruction (Lohmann, et al., 2021), flipped learning (van Alten et al., 2021; Chen and Hsu, 2022), flipped classroom (FC) (Divjak, 2022), dual-mode teaching (Olsen-Reeder, 2021), remote teaching (Moser et al., 2021), and emergency remote teaching (ERT) (Yang, 2023; Sum et al., 2022), among others, were encountered and were often used to denote similar things. Although there was a rich study of education realized with the help of technological devices, there is a lack of one clear source where all definitions are provided. This terminological diversity may cause misunderstandings, so the author attempted to make the classification of them.
Academic personnel in the context of hybrid style are information curators and facilitators who must be trusted, prepared, present online, and accessible to students, whereas the role of a student is to be open, self-directed, community-oriented, and prepared (Carrasco, 2015:22-23).
The main benefits of this approach for students are that it “opens the doors to disconnected, less-privileged students who lack connectivity and financing to engage”; and gives “educational opportunity to those who would otherwise be excluded from traditional higher education system” (Gamage, 2022), as well as “helps to practice internationalization at home” (Gu and Huang 2022:2) and thus allows students to “effectively end their education” (Gamage, 2022).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe theoretical framework was designed based on the systematic analysis of over 50 sources of information published from 2020 to 2023.
Qualitative research included the observation of English for Special Purposes (ESP) lectures for the course "English for Business Studies" during the second semester of the academic year 2022/2023 with students from the Faculty of Business Administration. It involved semi-structured interviews with both online and in-class students enrolled in the course. The experience described in this article spans from the last phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic (starting from September 2022) to the beginning of the post-pandemic era in June 2023, focusing on the hybrid style learning of ESP by international students.
The research period was from January to June 2023. The plan and procedure included the collection of theoretical data, observation and analysis of lectures by the author, and the development of a questionnaire.
Participants were 35 students from such countries as India, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Some students were physically located in Latvia, attending classes F2F on-campus (Munday, 2022), while others studied online from their home country for various reasons. Some students arrived in Latvia later and joined F2F classes, and occasionally, F2F students attended lectures online due to personal reasons, e.g., sickness. All teaching was conducted synchronously. Online students attended lectures using the Cisco Webex platform, which was Turiba University's official teaching platform. Communication also occurred through email, WhatsApp, and BATIS (Turiba University's internal information system).
The research questions guiding this study stem from a need to clarify the confusion surrounding the variety of terminology used in online education. A key task was to differentiate and compile a comprehensive table of methods, their descriptions, respective authors, and years of implementation. This compilation serves as a foundation for understanding the evolution and nuances of online learning methodologies, particularly the hybrid style, in the globalized context of higher education.
The aim of the study was to develop a taxonomy of the vast terminology used to denote similar concepts in online teaching and learning; to study the theoretical background of hybrid learning; and to distinguish the advantages and drawbacks of the hybrid approach used for teaching ESP, looking at it from an interdisciplinary perspective.
The major limitation of the research was the small sample size – a limited number of students participated in the interviews.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe hybrid style proved to be a viable approach in post-pandemic realities in the internationalized context of tertiary education when there is high student e-readiness, including self-motivation and self-control. The major challenge that the researcher encountered in hybrid-style lectures was the heterogeneous, multi-layered form of communication among all stakeholders that requires careful management and observation on behalf of a lecturer; a necessity to introduce instructions and rules of behavior for unexpected situations (for example, loss of internet connection, sound deficiencies, misunderstandings on behalf of online students).
Interview results showed that students perceive benefits in a hybrid approach, while also facing distinct challenges.
The majority considered that a hybrid style is time-saving; benefits from an increase in access to learning and flexibility of studies; and allows some students from underprivileged regions to have access to a safer learning environment, simultaneously having communication with groupmates and academic personnel online.
The following challenges in the process of interacting online were indicated: the lack of eye contact and reduced participation in group discussions; occasional difficulty in sharing work between F2F and online students; and occasional loss of concentration.
The challenges noted from the intercultural perspective included diverse teaching and learning styles; pronunciation; understanding different accents of students from various cultural groups and time zone differences; and the digital divide.
Difficulties noted in learning foreign languages via the hybrid teaching approach included differences in students’ language knowledge and the inability to build perfect synergy between students.
Technical difficulties experienced by students included connectivity and infrastructure problems, such as lack of electricity, disconnection of the Internet, and the digital divide. Respondents noted that the hybrid approach allowed them to develop self-confidence, communicative and cooperation skills; improved their active listening, making them more culturally aware, and breaking cultural barriers.
ReferencesAshraf, M.A., Mollah, S., Perveen, S., Shabnam, N., & Nahar, L. (2022). Pedagogical applications, prospects, and challenges of blended learning in Chinese higher education: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology.
Bi, J., Javadi, M., & Izadpanah, S. (2023). The comparison of the effect of two methods of face-to-face and e-learning education on learning, retention, and interest in the English language course. Education and Information Technologies.
Divjak, B., Rienties, B., Iniesto, F., Vondra, P.& Žižak,M. (2022). Flipped classrooms in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings and future research recommendations, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gamage, K.A.A., Gamage, A. & Shyama C. P. Dehideniya, S.C.P. (2022). Online and hybrid teaching and learning: Enhance effective student engagement and experience, Education Sciences. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/educsci12100651
Gil, E., Mor, Y., Dimitriadis, Y., & Köppe, C. (2022). Hybrid Learning Spaces. Springer.
Gu, M.M. & Huang, C.F. (2022). Transforming habitus and recalibrating capital: University students’ experiences in online learning and communication during the COVID-19 pandemic, Linguistics and Education.
Moser, K.M., Wei, T. & Brenner, D. (2021). Remote teaching during COVID-19: Implications from a national survey of language educators. System.
Munday, D. (2022). Hybrid pedagogy and learning design influences in a higher education context. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning
Olsen Reeder, V.I. (2022). Dual mode teaching in the language classroom: Reconciling the pandemic, equity, and the future of quality language teaching pedagogy. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies.
Scherer,R., Siddiq,F., Howard,S.H. & Tondeur, J. (2023). The more experienced, the better prepared? New evidence on the relation between teachers’ experience and their readiness for online teaching and learning. Computers in Human Behavior.
Smith C.W. & Arnott, S. (2022). “Frencteachers can figure it out: Understanding French as a second language (FSL). Teachers’ work in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Uysal, M. & Çağanağa, K. (2022). Opinions of teachers on distance education applications in English language teaching. Policies in Northern Cyprus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology.
Van Alten, D.C.D, Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2021). Secondary students’ online self-regulated learning during flipped learning: A latent profile analysis. Computers in Human Behavior.
Wang, L. (2023). Starting university during the pandemic: First-year international students’ complex transitions under online and hybrid-learning conditions. Frontiers in Psychology.
Turiba University Handbook for International Students
https://www.turiba.lv/storage/files/bat-international-handbook-2022_2.pdf
|
