Evaluating the feasibility of ‘InterpreLab’: A technology-assisted tool for interpreting practice in higher education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28918/erudita.v6i1.14682Abstract
Purpose — ‘InterpreLab’ is a technology-assisted platform designed to support introductory interpreting training in higher education. This platform can be used as one of the solutions for these critical issues in interpreting pedagogy. This research aims to explore the feasibility of the ‘InterpreLab’ in an interpreting course and the students’ concerns regarding the use of ‘InterpreLab’ for interpreting practice.
Design/methodology/approach — This descriptive qualitative research evaluates learners' perceptions of the platform's key features. Open-ended questionnaires and Likert-scale questionnaires were used to elaborate 45 students’ evaluation of the feasibility of ‘InterpreLab’ and identify students’ perceptions regarding the platform’s feasibility. The interviews were then conducted with five selected participants.
Findings — The findings show that ‘InterpreLab’ is generally feasible for supporting the teaching of interpreting. It is measured in six dimensions, including: interface and visual appeal, usability, content quality, audio and text-to-speech technology, instructional effectiveness, and overall feasibility.
Originality/value — This research advances ongoing discussions on technological support for interpreting pedagogy and offer design recommendations for improving ‘InterpreLab’. The study also promotes the systematic evaluation of InterpreLab’s feasibility for introductory interpreting practice in higher education, combined with an investigation of students' concerns about using the platform.
Keywords:
References
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa’deh, R., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004
Angelelli, C. V. (2017). Introduction: The sociological turn in translation and interpreting studies. In S. Colina & Claudia. V Angelelli (Eds.), The Sociological Turn in Translation and Interpreting Studies (pp. 1–6). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bale, R. (2015). An evaluation of spoken corpus-based resources in undergraduate interpreter training. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12036
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
Cao, Y. (2024). Comparing virtual reality-assisted training to traditional face-to-face training mode: Insights into dialogue interpreting teaching and training in universities. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 1(1), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1145/3691720.3691736
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Chan, V. (2023). Investigating the impact of a virtual reality mobile application on learners’ interpreting competence. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(4), 1242–1258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12796
Chan, V. (2024). Using a virtual reality mobile application for interpreting learning: Listening to the students’ voice. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(6), 2438–2451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2147958
Chen, B., & Huang, J. (2022). Toward a framework for understanding translation and interpreting teacher role identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(September), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.980196
Fantinouli, C. (2018). Computer-assisted interpreting: Challenges and future perspectives. In G. C. Pastor & I. Durán-Muñoz (Eds.), Trends in e-tools and resources for translators and interpreters (pp. 153–174). Brill.
Fantinuoli, C. (2023). Towards AI-enhanced computer-assisted interpreting. In G. C. Pastor & B. Defrancq (Eds.), Interpreting Technologies: Current and Future Trends (pp. 46–71). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goldsmith, J. (2018). Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 13(3), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00020.gol
Hansen, I. G., & Shlesinger, M. (2007). The silver lining: Technology and self-study in the interpreting classroom. Interpreting, 9(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.1.06gor
Herrero, E. C. (2017). A critical review of listening comprehension in interpreter training: The case of Spanish translation and interpreting degrees. Porta Linguarum, 28, 7–22. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.54000
Hunt-Gómez, C. I., & Gómez Moreno, P. (2015). Reality-based court interpreting didactic material using new technologies. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 9(2), 188–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1051770
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is “enhanced” and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
Li, M. (2024). Interpreting classroom teaching for translation majors in the AIGC era. World Journal of Educational Research, 11(4), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.22158/wjer.v11n4p11
Li, Z. (2026). A study on the impact and insights of technology on interpreting education. In A. K. F. Cheung, D. Li, K. Liu, & R. Moratto (Eds.), Technology and Interpreting: Navigating the Digital Age (pp. 109–120). Routledge.
Liu, J. (2022). A dynamic approach to understanding motivation in an interpreting course. Language & Communication, 92, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2022.101472
Lu, X., & Fantinuoli, C. (2025). Machine and computer-assisted interpreting: Innovations in and implications for interpreting practice, pedagogy and research. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies, 24, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.52034/lans-tts.v24i.869
Ma, J. (2013). A study of interpreting skills from the perspective of the interpreting process. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(6), 1232–1237. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.6.1232-1237
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364740
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
Pinazo, E. P. (2008). Self-assessment in teaching interpreting. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 21(1), 173–209. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.7202/029690ar
Pratama, I. D., & Rohmatika, A. (2025). “I need more practice”: Exploring difficulties faced by EFL students in practicing interpreting. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature, 19(2), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v19i2.20159
Pysanko, M. L., & Zaitseva, I. V. (2022). Information and communication technologies in professional interpreters training. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 88(2), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v88i2.4205
Roberts, R. P. (2014, June). Enhancing short-term memory for accurate interpreting. The ATA Chronicle, 18–26.
Sandiarsa, D. K. (2025). Integrating digital tools in teaching interpreting: students’ perceptions and learning outcomes at English Education program, FBMB UNDIKMA. JISIP (Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Pendidikan), 9(4), 9391–9400. https://doi.org/10.58258/jisip.v9i4.9589
Sandrelli, A., & Hawkins, J. (2006). Computer-assisted interpreter training (CAIT): What is it and where does it stand? The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(2), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2007.10798757
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
Seeber, K. G., Keller, L., Amos, R., & Hengl, S. (2019). Expectations vs. experience: Attitudes towards video remote conference interpreting. Interpreting, 21(2), 270–304.
Sawyer, D. (2004). Fundamental aspects of interpreter education: Curriculum and assessment. John Benjamins Publishing.
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
Takeda, K. (2010). What interpreting teachers can learn from students: A case study. Translation & Interpreting, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.361052065684162
Tian, S. (2025). Exploring Daily Daka assignments in online interpreting teaching: Evidence from Chinese undergraduates. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04933-6
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Wang, B. (2015). Bridging the gap between interpreting classrooms and real-world interpreting. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 7(1), 65–73.
Wang, H. (2016). Active listening in the MTI interpreting introductory course for Chinese students. CS Canada: Studies in Literature and Language, 12(5), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.3968/8441
Wang, X., & Wang, C. (2019). Can computer-assisted interpreting tools assist in interpreting? Transletters. International Journal of Translation and Interpreting, 3, 109–139. https://doi.org/10.21071/tlijti.vi3.11575
Wulansari, A., Arvianti, G. F., & Rekha, A. (2023). ICATFORLEARNING as interpreting media: Does it fulfill the students’ need? Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra, 22(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.17509/bs_jpbsp.v22i2.55907
Ye, H. (2020). Digital technology-based pedagogy for interpreting. In V. Sugumaran, Z. Xu, & H. Zhou (Eds.), International Conference on Multi-model Information Analytics (Vol. 1, pp. 521–527). Springer.
Yenkimaleki, M., & van Heuven, V. J. (2018). The effect of teaching prosody awareness on interpreting performance: an experimental study of consecutive interpreting from English into Farsi. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 26(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1315824
Zinukova, N. (2016). Acquiring translation and interpreting competences: Integrated approach. Foreign Languages: The Scientific and Methodological Journal, 87(3), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.32589/im.v0i3.122557
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Wildi Adila, Ikke Dewi Pratama, Muhammad Azfa Alfarisi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Erudita: Journal of English Language Teaching is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. An author who publishes in Erudita: Journal of English Language Teaching agrees to the following terms:
- Author retains the copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication of the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
- Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book) with the acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Author is permitted and encouraged to post his/her work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
