Learning Approaches and Study Habits of Conference-Interpreting Students

Problem Statement: There is correlation between the final grades of conference-interpreting students and their study habits and learning approaches, namely surface, deep and strategic approaches. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the responses of the conference-interpreting students given to the Learning Approaches and Study Habits Inventory, ASSIST, in accordance with their final grades in the conference-interpreting course. Of the three approaches, ”surface approach" refers to rote learning, ”deep approach" means learning by developing an understanding of the subject matter, and ”strategic approach” is combination of the first two. Method: descriptive method is used, where the data is collected by selfreport inventory. Findings and Results: There is significant correlation between the final grades of the students and the deep-learning approach. The students who attained high scores through the deep approach have high final grades in interpreting. No significant correlation was found between the strategic approach and the final grades. Most of the students preferred the strategic approach, and bit fewer of them preferred the deep approach, while the fewest of them chose the surface approach. Conclusions and Recommendations: Conference-interpreting students mostly prefer the strategic learning approach, followed by the deep approach, with little difference in the grade results. The surface approach, on the other hand, is not preferred by most students. However, in the strategic approach, they can use both surface and deep approaches according to the situation, which means they are flexible enough to switch from one to another. The students receiving high grades from their exams also rate higher in their deep approach preference. It is recommended that the abovementioned inventory be administered to both professionals and students to see the difference between them. Furthermore, other profession—based inventories should be developed to be administered along with ASSIST. Conference-interpreting students are different from other students in processing information; this quality should be considered while developing such instruments.

PDF

___

Aharony, N. (2006). The use of deep and surface learning strategies among students learning English as foreign language in an Internet environment. British journal of Educational Psychology. The British Psychological Society, 76, 851— 866.
Beatty, l. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. Retrieved Aug. 12 2004, from EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research http: www.educause.edu/ LibraeretailPage/ 666?lD=ERBO403.
Biggs, ]. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning-process really measure? theoretical review and clarification. British journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3—19.
Bloom, B.S., Hastings ].T. Madaus, GF. (Eds.). (1971). Handbook on formative and summatioe evaluation of student learning. New Y0rk:McGraw Hill.
Case, ]. Gunstone, R. (2002). Metacognitive development as shift in approach to learning: An in-depth study. Studies in Higher Education, Carfax Publ. Co., 27(4).
Case, ]. Gunstone, R. (2003). Going deeper than deep and surface approaches: study of students' perceptions of time. Teaching in Higher Education. Carfax Publ. Co., 8(1).
Chin, C. Brown, DE. (2000). Learning in science: comparison of deep and surface approaches. journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138.
Dogan, A., Arumi, R. M. Mora-Rubio, B. (June 2009). Metacognitive Tools in Interpreting Training: Pilot Study. ]ournal of Faculty of Letters.Vol. 26, Number: 1, 69-84
Dogan, A. Kafadar, H. (1998). Mütercim Tercümanlık Bölümü öğrencilerinin kısa süreli bellek düzeyleri [Short term memory levels of the students of Translation and Interpretation Department]. Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları []ournal of Translation Studies]. Ankara: Bizim Büro, 197-207.
Entwistle, N. ]. (1991). Approaches to learning and perception of the learning environment. Higher Education. NederlandszKluwer Academic Publishers, 22, 201-204.
Entwistle, N. ]. (1997). The approaches and study skills inventory for students (ASSIST).
Edinburgh: University of Edinburg Center for Research on Learning and Instruction.
Entwistle, N. ]. Waterston, S. (1998). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. British ]ournal of Educational Psychology, 58, 258-265.
Foster, ]. Lin, A. (2007). Approaches to studying and students' use of computer supported learning environment. Education for Information. IOS Pres.,25, 155- 168.
Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the class-room: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 2.
Maya, S.S., R., Krishna, A. Ramnarayan, K. (2004). Learning approaches, learning difficulties and academic performance of undergraduate students of physiotherapy. The Internet journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice (IAHSP), 2(4).
Prosser, M. Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory. British Iournal of Educational Psychology. The British Psychological Society, 76, 405—419.
Rarnsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. In T.F.N. Laird, R. Shoup, GD. Kuh, M.]. Schwarz. Effects of discipline on deep approach to student learning and college outcomes. Researches in Higher Education, 49, pp.469-494). London: Routledge Falmer.
Senemoğlu, N. (2009). College of education students’approaches to learning and study skills (in process).
Tait, H., Entwistle, N. ], McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: re—conceptualization of the approaches to studying inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving students as learners (pp.262—271). Oxford: Oxford Brooks University.