School of Interpreting and Translation, Beijing International Studies University, Beijing, China
This study examined students’ satisfaction with distance interpreting classes, which was the sole class format among university students in Beijing during the outbreak of COVID-19. A questionnaire was used to examine students’ preference between face-to-face (F2F) and distance interpreting classes among interpreting students in Beijing International Studies University, and the correlating factors contributing to their preference. The results showed that the majority of students favored F2F classes as a more effective format for interpreting training. Several variables, including the online delivery system, learning environment, and in-class exercises could affect learning effects of distance classes. This study suggested that with a professional delivery system, soundproof learning environment, and more in-class exercises, better learning effects could be achieved. Results derived from this study provided the guidelines for the further improvement in the practice of distance interpreting training.
interpreting training, face-to-face classes, distance classes, students’ preference, correlating factors
Zhang Zhiyao. Does Distance Interpreting Training Work?—A Survey to examine students’ preference for face-to-face versus distance interpreting classes in Beijing International Studies University. Frontiers in Educational Research (2021) Vol. 4, Issue 8: 61-66. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2021.040813.
 Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., & Thompson, T. G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312-331.
 Steinweg, S. B., Davis, M. L., & Thomson, W. S. (2005). A comparison of traditional and online instruction in an introduction to special education course. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 28(1), 62-73.
 Aziz, S., Ozan, E., Kishore, M., Wuensch, K. L., & Tabrizi, M. H. N. (2009). Correlates of student preference for online instruction over face-to-face instruction. E-Learning, 6(4), 400-415.
 Finlay, W., Desmet, C., & Evans, L. (2004). Is it the technology or the teacher? A comparison of online and traditional English composition classes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 163-180.
 Elvers, G. C., Polzella, D. J., & Graetz, K. (2003). Procrastination in online courses: performance and attitudinal differences. Teaching of Psychology, 30(2), 159-162.
 Scott, A., & Jensen. (2011). In-class versus online video lectures. Teaching of Psychology.
 Bergstrand, K., & Savage, S. V. (2013). The chalkboard vs. the avatar: comparing the effectiveness of online and in-class teaching. Teaching Sociology, 41(3), 294-306.
 Ko, & Leong. (2006). Teaching interpreting by distance mode: possibilities and constraints. Interpreting, 8(1), 67-96.