1 Introduction
The project method didactic approach has gained a widespread credence among translation researchers and academics. This can be clearly mirrored in: (1) conference topics; (2) books (Davies, 2004; Kelly, 2005; Kiraly, 2016); (3) journal volumes; (4) journal/book articles (Mackenzie 2004; Varney 2009; Mitchell-Schuitevoerder 2013, just to name a few); and finally (5) PhD dissertations (Mitchell-Schuitevoerder, 2014). Despite the various terms applied (collaborative, situated classroom projects and/or project-based learning (PjBL) and/or project work), these studies share the premise that involving students in real translation projects facilitates the construction of their identity as a translator. Although such process has been conceived as challenging in translator education literature (see González-Davies & Enríquez-Raído, 2016; Kiraly, 2016; Marco, 2016), there seem to be few, if any, attempts to understand potential challenges and how students attempt to manage them.
This chapter, therefore, focuses on students’ learning in a project-based environment inspired and guided by the notion of threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003) and its view of liminality. The data was collected from the oral and written stories of a group of Saudi undergraduate students about their learning experiences in one of my project-based teaching classrooms. The stories depict students encountering several troublesome areas where their perceived trustworthiness was challenged, leading them to states of doubt where they questioned their translator selves. As some students were apparently able to transit through while others remained stuck, uncertain whether they were trustworthy translators, this study proposes the construct of trustworthiness as a threshold to students’ transition into translator identity. Based on this premise, this research aims to identify: (i) areas of troubles where students’ sense of being trustworthy translators was threatened; (ii) students’ management strategies; and (iii) what influence these strategies had in their transition through the liminality of the project.
2 The Authentic Project in Translator Education
The authentic project in translator education refers to real or simulated translation commissions, or other types of published work that are assigned to students in the classroom. Learning in the authentic project method is rooted in social constructivist views, but it is further extended to adopt cognitive situated stances forming what Kiraly refers to as an emergent authentic project-based classroom (Kiraly, 2012). This emergent classroom is based on the premise that translators are not taught but emerge, or more precisely co-emerge with their fellow learners, teachers, the institution, and the entire community of translators (Risku, 2002). This emergence, as described by Kiraly (2005), occurs through: significant interaction with clients or publishers; research into a specific topic and text type; and the implementation of procedural skills including teaming, planning and management within a collaborative loosely structured syllabus.
In this project-based classroom, students, particularly at the first stages of learning translation, are exposed to the complexity of the professional work as well as the challenges of autonomy and fluidity associated with authentic learning. That is, in addition to other student commitments, students are expected to carry on translation work from the very initial stages of preparation until the last phases of quality check and sending the project back to the client, as professional translators do in the market. Therefore, this experience is viewed, in this study, as a form of liminality in which students are ‘betwixt and between’ the student identity and that of a professional translator. For a successful transition, students need to move from theoretical-based, teacher-directed learning to practical-based, self-directed learning, and from the classroom community to
3 Trust and Trustworthiness
Trust and trustworthiness are abstract phenomena that have been widely explored in various domains and among groups and individuals. In most of the trust-related studies, as found by Candlin and Crichton (2013), trust is viewed as an “existential decision”, meaning that an individual has the choice to trust or not to trust based on their perceptions of trustworthiness. In other words, people trust themselves or others when they maintain the characteristics that they view as warranting trust. However, the realisation of trustworthiness varies not only based on people’s perceptions of trustworthiness but also on their situated environments (Candlin & Crichton, 2013). Thus, instead of being perceived as a characteristic, Rock (2013, p. 7) proposes we also view trustworthiness as a discursive practice that is “accomplished and dynamically and reflexively situated within” the social interaction in a particular environment.
Rock’s conceptualisation of trustworthiness comes in line with the situated views underlining the authentic project (see Section 2), supporting the link drawn by this study between the construction of the student’s translator identity and the construct of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness, as such, is not merely viewed in this research as an abstract concept, but as a dynamic process that is influenced by the learner’s interaction with the learning environment, artefacts, and other individuals. Therefore, although my discussion of the narratives touches upon students’ conceptual understanding of trustworthiness (see Section 6.2), the focus of my analysis is directed towards procedural issues. These include how the students built and lost trust, the challenges they encountered in this process, and what strategies they applied to transit through with a sense of a translator identity.
4 Defining Trustworthiness as a Threshold
Trustworthiness, as highlighted in the introduction, has been identified as a threshold for translation students in the authentic project-based classroom. It is defined by this study as the capability to: trust oneself; to see oneself as good enough to do tasks as expected; and as good enough to make others trust their work and value working with them. This ability, in my view, enables students to
The discussion of the practical dimension of threshold concepts can be linked to Baillie et al.’s proposal of threshold capabilities (Baillie, Bowden, & Meyer, 2013). In their definitions, threshold capabilities are thresholds to professional learning in a defined area of knowledge. Several capabilities combined to contribute to the development of overall knowledge capability, i.e., the ability to deal with unseen situations and by working out key aspects, relating to previous knowledge, determining the problem, designing a solution, and having the ability to follow through, rather than knowing a lot about the domain and think like a professional.
Therefore, the threshold nature of trustworthiness, in my view, lies in the process of tolerating the doubts and uncertainty associated with losing trust in the learner’s aspired self of translator. It is this process that precedes the development of their sense of being trustworthy translators. Without the ability to cope with the stress and doubts associated with trust-loss, I would argue, students may remain in the liminal space of the authentic project, constantly “surfacing around”, using Osmond et al.’s words (2010, p. 14), in search of answers to questions; the most common of which might include “who I am, and how capable I am of being the translator I need/aspire to be?”
The discussion above might lead us to think of trustworthiness as a synonym for “confidence”, used in education to explore factors contributing to students’ positive feelings about their abilities as well as positive engagement with learning. Although both notions are often used interchangeably, trust literature refers to two major conceptual differences (Adams, 2005). Firstly, unlike confidence which might appear in complex or straightforward situations, trust is only an issue in the presence of risk, uncertainty, vulnerability, and the need for interdependency with another person (ibid.). The second aspect is related to the judgment process. Trustworthiness is derived from a leap of faith from what is known to what is unknown while confidence judgment is based on concreate evidence that is inferred from prior experiences (Shaw, 1997). Accordingly, the feeling of confidence is affected by cognitive factors while that of trustworthiness is a culmination of cognitive as well as affective processes.
Looking at these differences between trustworthiness and confidence, the former lends itself to the nature of the authentic translation project described in Section 2 as well as the students’ profiles in this study. The project method
5 Research Design
This study was based on the grounds of exploratory practice research (Allwright, 2003), where I played the role of a teacher-researcher. As a translation lecturer at Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, I taught the module of Scientific and Technical Translation in the first semester of the Academic year 2020–2021 with the aim of getting more insights into students’ learning in the face of the authentic work challenges. The module, therefore, was built on a published translation work in which the students were invited to work on published projects for a translation platform called Athra.
Data was collected from my students’ stories which they shared through journals and interviews. The students were asked to write three journals throughout the project and one after completion. To get deeper insights into the students’ experiences, I called 19 students to semi-structured interviews after they had received the acceptance/rejection email from Athra. I applied a purposive sampling to ensure that students at all levels and with varied experiences were included in the study. All the students in the class were informed
The students provided me with long descriptive accounts of their experiences, but for this chapter, I only focused on the narratives related to their awareness of their trustworthiness throughout the journey, areas of trust loss, and the strategies they adopted to transit through. The analysis went through three stages: (1) a general reading and interpretation of students’ stories in general including identifying situations involving doubt and uncertainty about their own worthiness; (2) students’ subjective interpretations of these situations; and (3) identifying students’ strategies to handle these situations and their impacts on their transition.
6 Findings
The findings reveal a process of how translation students might negotiate their conceptions of being trustworthy translators through the journey of the authentic project. Different elements of trustworthiness as a threshold came into view in a progressive discursive process as the students entered, moved through, and exited the liminal space. In this section, I will describe this process and shed light on areas of troublesomeness related to self-trust-loss and the mechanisms the students adopted to associate meanings to their trustworthiness, attempting to fit into translator identity.
6.1 Entering the Liminal Space: Do I See Myself Trustworthy?
On the first day of the class, I only shared a tentative and incomplete course plan. The plan included fourteen weeks, the first seven of which included some suggested contents about translation theory and practice, and the rest were left to the students to include what they wanted/needed to learn. The students and I discussed the project-based nature of the project and I introduced Athra’s project. I explained that they would need to translate English articles as part of a big project launched to enhance the published scientific content in the Arabic language. The students showed excitement at the idea and agreed to accept the project.
Thus, I moved to share with them the story of the project and where this idea came from. I also shared with them my communications with Athra who was referring to the students as “translators” in their discourse. I then asked
The students were conscious of the fact that this was a big project with high professional demands, as Ms Wise put it:
When the project was introduced to us in the first class, we all got excited, and I was determined to get the project that I will be working on with my colleagues published. Nonetheless, I did expect it to be difficult, and I tried to be as well prepared as I could.
This awareness also made them conscious about how I trusted them with handling such responsibility, as Ms Judge mentioned when she was talking about the first class, “I was excited, and I liked how you trusted us and gave us this huge project …”.
This consciousness made the students find the project troublesome. For some, this troublesomeness arose from a confrontation between their existing understanding of their roles as merely learners of translation in academic settings and their involvement in professional ways of thinking of and practicing translation. Such conflict was reflected in Ms Kind’s narrative:
I started to get mixed feelings of fear and excitement. It will be my first time translating like this, and I also want to know what will happen to me during the translation of this project, and how it will work! It is something new to me.
Other students found such troublesomeness resulting from a conflict between expectations and requirements, that is how Athra and I expected their translation to be and their actual abilities, skills, and stock of experiences. Ms Topic captured this conflict when she said:
The beginning of my project journey was very exciting and scary at the same time. Honestly, I had never considered starting a lengthy article translation this semester because I thought I still had to learn a lot.
Students’ doubts about engaging with Athra’s project and describing it as being “scary” and “tough” and themselves as being “confused”, “worried” and “nervous” signaled their entry to a liminal space, where they would be involved in a constant questioning of their own trustworthiness.
6.2
In the second class, we discussed in detail Athra’s brief, and decided to get each article translated by a group of students. We discussed the number of members in each team, and we agreed on five. In accordance with the empowerment notion underpinning the project method (Kiraly, 2000, 2012), I gave the students the freedom to choose their team members. The data reveals that high achievers were the ones who tended to invite others to join their project teams and were also the ones who got invited. Excellent students tended to invite their excellent peers whom they “trusted”, though the terms “trust” and “trustworthiness” were not explicitly mentioned in their discourse. Ms Art pointed out to the attributes associated with their judgment about their peers as being trustworthy, “We [her group members] know each other and we know that we are all serious and excellent, so we chose each other”. This can also be supported by Ms Topic’s quote, “I prefer to work with my group members because I know their level, they are excellent and serious”. What seems interesting to highlight here is that trustworthiness, when the students were entering the liminal space (see Section 6.1), was associated with their perceived confidence about their own translation competences. However, as they were going through the experience, their perceptions of being trustworthy further expanded to include translation competence and commitment, and these two characteristics became to be evaluated by peers, not themselves.
As team formation is hardly a linear process, high achievers, in order to complete their team members, on some occasions had to invite peers who did not meet one of their trustworthiness characteristics. Having her team still missing one member, Ms Perfect, for instance, invited Ms Honest to her team though she believed that Ms Honest did not possess a very-well developed competence, but she was a committed learner. Ms Honest, on the other side of the story, seemed to be aware of her weakness as she mentioned in the interview:
Actually, I do not know why Ms Perfect chose me, I was so lucky to be with a group of A students, I was even surprised why they wanted me in the team. I did not expect Ms Perfect to choose me.
When asked about the reason behind her surprise, in the interview, she said, “It is my level, when the leader is an A student, she would choose someone who is at the same level as hers”. Ms Honest came to know that Ms Perfect had invited her to the team believing that she was a hardworking and serious colleague. This realisation did not lead Ms Honest to question her trustworthiness at this stage, but it instead made her view herself as trustworthy – as being able to gain other’s trust. Being trusted and valued by peers triggered
6.3 Starting to Translate: Am I Competent?
The teams then moved on to select the article they were interested in and started planning out the translation process. At this point, the students’ hidden initial doubts and fear triggered by the introduction of the project (see Section 6.1) came back to surface, signaling a mimicry state (Meyer & Land, 2003). Eloquently, Ms Change described this state:
After my group and I chose the article that we will translate, I became frustrated and tense. I was telling myself, what if the translation has not been published? I am not good at translation … How can I translate an article that will be published? I had a lot of questions that dampened my excitement.
Again, Ms Change was focusing on her feeling of incompetence which culminated in her doubt about her ability to translate professionally. Before even starting, she was visualizing an image of failure that was trapping her in a state of doubt, as reflected in her multiple self-questions. Ms Change, in the quote above, was trying to make sense of the negative feelings she was experiencing and went to share this state with her team members who supportably assured her, “Everything will be fine. So, no rush to judge what you have not done yet”. This eased Ms Change’s stress and helped her focus on her current self, driven by the faith that she would be able to be the trustworthy future self she was aspiring to be.
Some other learners started to experience this trust-loss when they held their pens to translate, as Ms Young mentioned:
I started to doubt myself the moment I started translating my part and I was thinking how I am going to do this for a living, I was thinking that I am not capable of doing it, seriously. I did not know how to convey the meaning in Arabic, my Arabic was not that good.
Here is the point where the students’ awareness of their trustworthiness was being practically tested, when they saw, not felt, that they were struggling with translating, the core of their job as translators. Ms Young here, went beyond Ms Change and started to question her future success as a professional translator, “How am I going to do this for a living?”
Other students were more precise in identifying the sources of struggle they encountered while translating: (1) finding the right equivalent for a specific term or phrase; and (2) understanding the meaning of a translation segment
I was very angry when I knew the meaning and could not put it in the Arabic language. Also, when I translate a word and it becomes a literal translation, I cannot describe how I felt at that time. I keep translating and I am not sure about my translation.
Ms Speaker was encountered by her perceived incompetence as reflected in her doubt about the accuracy of her translation. She translated but she was insecure; she was not sure if what she was doing was right or wrong. There was no one to tell her ‘Yes, this is correct’ with every single decision she made. In this lack of knowing, Ms Speaker started to lose faith in her ability to take up this new identity:
I said in Journal 1 that I am excited about this project and that I will give my best, but I am shocked right now that is this my best? Because I did not expect that the translation would be like this … I admit that translation is a little difficult for me.
Ms Speaker acknowledged that translation was difficult for her as Ms Young confessed earlier that she was not good at Arabic. However, neither seemed to accept these realisations as absolute facts. They succeed in freeing themselves from these sticking points when they had allowed themselves to seek support from others. Ms Young stated that when she felt “helpless”, she went to her sister who “supported [her] a lot with the Arabic structure”. Ms Speaker reflected on further strategies:
I used the techniques the teacher discussed with us in class, I tried in every way to come up with the true meaning of the word to fit the topic, I sought help from my colleagues, and my mom who is an Arabic teacher.
The common thread in the students’ struggle in the incidents above is lack of knowing: “Is my translation correct or not?” This lack of knowing is associated with the decrease in the teacher’s guidance as well as their narrow experience about the underlying games of the discipline, culminating in their feelings of untrustworthiness. Being stuck in this area for a long time, they managed to move through after receiving support from others: peers and relatives. This support made them feel valid and trustworthy, bringing them to track and moving them forward to exit the liminal space.
6.4
As the students went through the project, some glimpses of professional thinking and acting started to come to light. This resulted in a confrontation between how the students had been taught to translate in other modules (the pre-liminal state) and what they needed to do as translators in this authentic project. In their narrative essays and interviews, the students reflected on their translation decisions, particularly their choices of equivalents. When explaining how she was translating, Ms Art said, “When I got confused which equivalent I should use for a specific term, I chose the most familiar one to the community”. When asked about the reason, she replied:
Because I want my translation to sound Arabic, because if the target readers notice that this is a translation this would mean that I am not a qualified translator and I would look like any bilingual who translates, not a specialized translator.
Thinking of the target text users indicates that some students were starting, at this point, to view their trustworthiness in professional terms. However, this new perception of trustworthiness was challenged by their pre-liminal views of translation and the translator role, as imposed by other teachers. Ms Why vividly described this conflict:
I keep repeating “I am a translator”, but I have not felt that feeling, even when I was editing the project … because when I try to make the text Arabic, other instructors always tell me ‘This is wrong this word means that, this means that, and why have you added this word? It is not in the text, this word is a noun why have you translated it into a verb”, ok sometimes we have no choice, so we do adapt but not always.
Ms Why conceptually believed that a trustworthy translator should, in certain cases, add or delete from the source text to produce a fluent target text. However, encountered by teachers’ warning against that, Ms Why could not act on this view, influencing her sense of self as a translator. Ms Cloud talked about the same dilemma:
I have done a task in the media translation course, but I lost some marks because I left out some words. These words were not major words and would not affect the understanding of the translated text. When I asked the teacher, he told me that I should translate every word in the source text. I was confused.
6.5 Moving to Editing: Am I a Trustworthy Translator?
Towards the end of the module, the students started to review their peers’ translations, get their individual translations reviewed, and have the whole translated articles reviewed by myself, as the module facilitator, and external professional translators. At this stage, as reflected in the narratives, their meanings of being trustworthy which they had been trying to make sense of through the project journey were severely tested.
Ms Honest was able to manage her doubt in her competence and went through the liminal space (see Section 6.2) when she perceived her trustworthiness based on her colleagues’ positive comments. However, after receiving Ms Perfect’s feedback, as her peer reviewer, Ms Honest said:
Ms Perfect retranslated my part completely … I know that it was my first time to translate but this does not mean that my translation was so weak to the point that it got retranslated. I was wondering how someone else could change my work, this does not mean that I could not do it, but it means that I would never be able to do it and from this point my fight with myself started.
Ms Honest tried to convince herself that this was normal to the translation learning process (“everyone makes mistakes”) and continued the work with the team to fulfil her duties as a member. However, at later stages of editing, Ms Honest entered a reflection state, questioning her abilities and contribution to the teamwork:
I started to wonder why I am not following my group? and why I felt I am not satisfied with myself? and the questions get more and more inside my head. Is this my work or my style in translation? Did I do my best and help my group? did I at least suggest one right suggestion?
Failing to find answers matching her conception of a trustworthy translator, Ms Honest decided to withdraw with a “fragmented identity”, adopting Savin-Baden’s term of “fragmented understanding” (2007, p. 11):
I felt that I am not adding any value to the work, it is even the opposite, I was giving them wrong suggestions. They are right, I am wrong, and I do not want to fail them, so I decided to leave the meeting and I did not attend any other meeting until they sent the project to Athra.
Trustworthiness for other students was challenged later in the journey after receiving the feedback either from me or Athra’s editor. In her second interview, Ms Wise mentioned:
I lost trust mostly after the feedback, there were two feedbacks and each one of them clarified that maybe we did not understand, and I think everyone felt the same, it was obvious, it was like the atmosphere.
Ms Girl experienced the same feeling at the same point:
When we were editing … I felt that I do not want to be a translator anymore, I felt that it takes a lot of time and effort with a group, how am I going to manage that alone in the future.
Feedback can be identified as a factor triggering students’ doubts about their trustworthiness. In their attempts to manage this pain, some students tended to take some time trying to process these negative emotions and decided how to deal with them. Consciously or unconsciously, they adopted emotional reasoning techniques that helped them relieve their stress and develop meanings of their own trustworthiness. Such emotional reasoning was reflected by Ms Wise:
After we edited the translation I thought that some of our improvements were really good. I thought ok maybe I did not understand it at first but now I do, it is not a big deal, and I was satisfied about how my thoughts were taking into consideration.
Ms Girl’s approach was more practical than Ms Wise as she stated:
I just needed to give myself a break, get back to the text, and read it again with a clearer mind. I felt better I felt confident again I trust myself again I felt that I was … maybe too much dramatic it is ok not to understand and to read it again to understand the meaning, so I felt it’s ok to feel this way as a translator.
Other students continued to negotiate their sense of being trustworthy translators until the last moments before sending the project to Athra. This can be
I started to make the last revision and I was surprised when I found some areas untouched, I was frustrated. Then I decided to calm down and do what I could do in this short time. I wanted this translation to be published, this was my priority.
The uncommitted attitudes of Ms Why’s peers triggered negative feelings, leading her to rethink her work process. Focusing on her goal of getting the article published, Ms Why finally managed to act upon the conceptual view of the translator role that she reached during the translation process: “ok sometimes we have no choice, so we do adapt but not always” (Section 6.4.). The source text, as she narrated, mentioned a title of an English culture-specific story and believing that knowing the story was necessary to understand the author’s message, Ms Why decided to briefly explain it in her Arabic version “it was in the last moment, I did it and I immediately sent it to Athra”, marking her exit from the liminal space.
7 Reflective Summary and Conclusions
The findings above illustrate how translation students might negotiate their awareness of being trustworthy translators through the authentic project experience. Encountered by a conflict between their current self of student and their aspired identity of translator; and between their actual abilities and experiences and the teachers’ and clients’ expectations, students entered a liminal space, located ‘betwixt and between’ their learner and translator identities. This transition elicited feelings of doubt about their competence, putting their conceptions of their trustworthiness under questioning at four areas: (1) making memberships, (2) starting the translation process, (3) making translation decisions; and (4) revision and editing, as presented in Figure 24.1.
Depiction of students’ negotiation with the threshold of trustworthiness in the authentic translation project
As students started to explore the troublesomeness of the project, they encountered the need to establish membership relationships, requiring them to perceive their trustworthiness through their peers’ judgment (Area 1). It is apparent that students had two attributes for a peer to be trusted: competence and commitment. Therefore, when they were invited to a group, they felt valued and visible, which in turn helped them sustain their feelings of trustworthiness that had been doubted since entering the liminal space.
Going deeply into the translation process, students’ conceptions of trustworthiness became strongly encountered by their old learner identities (Area 3). They started to get puzzled by their pre-liminal academic views about translation and the translator role. Attempting to manage this doubt, students thought deeply about the situation and their roles, reflecting on what they had always learned to do and how the project required them to act. Some of them managed to construct a new meaning of their roles as translators that is producing a text that meets the satisfaction of the translation users. However, translating this new vision into actions was not straightforward. Approaching professional working in the field and knowing the reality of the translation game appeared to enable students to do so, leading them to exit liminality with a sense of a translator identity.
Finally, the students reached the final area of editing and revision (Area 4), where their perceptions of their trustworthiness were severely tested. It is apparent that students might tolerate the teachers’ and professionals’ feedback because of their assumption that they are more knowledgeable and experienced. We have seen the students in Section 6.5 talking about depression and trust-loss, but these feelings were eased by emotional resolution techniques. Such techniques enabled them to view these negative emotions as normal to being a translator, adding new meanings to their conceptions of a trustworthy translator. However, the students appeared to have low tolerance to peers’ criticism, particularly when it involved significant changes and came to prove the learner’s initial awareness of their incompetence. This made them reject any new perception of their trustworthiness, leading them to remain stuck or withdraw from the liminal space.
As shown in this transitional process, the key aspect is not students’ conceptual understanding of trustworthiness per se but their abilities to manage the pain associated with trust-loss as well as their abilities to develop new meanings of a trustworthy translator and act upon them. As this enforces the view of trustworthiness as a discursive practice adopted by this study (see Section 2), it supports my initial argument that trustworthiness is a practical threshold to
The complexity of the project experience should move beyond researchers and academic communities to reach students in the classrooms with the aim of raising the latter’s awareness about the identified areas of self-trust-loss. Having said that, students should be simultaneously encouraged to turn these areas into sites for building new meanings of their trustworthy personas by seeking help from relatives, peers, and professionals, and applying conceptual and emotional reasoning techniques. Being misjudged by peers, struggling with understanding the source text and polishing the target text, wondering about the correctness of translation decisions, receiving critical feedback – none of which indicate untrustworthiness, but are essential processes that precede the construction of the translator identity. Academics are not expected to lecture this kind of knowledge to their students, but I would suggest sharing their own stories and inviting graduates and professionals to the classroom to share their own. Through real stories, students are expected to imagine themselves doing it – going through the process, coping with doubts and disappointment, finding new meanings of their beings as trustworthy, and integrating them in their practice, a process identified by Wenger in his cited dialogue with Land (Land, Rattray, & Vivian, 2014, p. 3) as signaling a successful transition to the professional identity.
References
Adams, B. D. (2005). Trust vs. confidence. Department of National Defence: Defence Research and Development https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA630696
Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168803lr118oa
Baillie, C., Bowden, J. A., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2013). Threshold capabilities: Threshold concepts and knowledge capability linked through variation theory. Higher Education, 65(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9540-5
Candlin, C. N., & Crichton, J. (2013). From ontology to methodology: Exploring the discursive landscape of trust. In C. N. Candlin & J. Crichton (Eds.), Discourses of trust (pp. 1–20). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-29556-9_1
González-Davies, M., & Enríquez-Raído, V. (2016). Situated learning in translator and interpreter training: Bridging research and good practice. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1154339
Kiraly, D. (2005). Project-based learning: A case for situated translation. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 50(4), 1098–1111. https://doi.org/10.7202/012063ar
Kiraly, D. (2012). Growing a project-based translation pedagogy: A fractal perspective. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 57(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.7202/1012742ar
Kiraly, D. (2016). Authentic project work and pedagogical epistemologies: A question of competing or complementary worldviews? In D. Kiraly (Ed.), Towards authentic experiential learning in translator education (pp. 53–66). V&R Press. https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737004954.53
Land, R., Rattray, J., & Vivian, P. (2014). Learning in the liminal space: A semiotic approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education, 67(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9705-x
Mackenzie, R. (2004). The competencies required by the translator’s roles as a professional. In K. Malmkjær. (Ed.), Translation in undergraduate degree programmes (pp. 31–38). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.59.04mac
Marco, J. (2016). On the margins of the profession: the work placement as a site for the literary translator trainee’s legitimate peripheral participation. The Interpreter and translator trainer, 10(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1154341
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In: Rust, C. (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving student learning theory and practice – Ten years on (pp. 412–424). Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Mitchell-Schuitevoerder, R. E. H. (2013). A project-based methodology in translator training. In Way, C., Vandepitte, S., Meylaerts, R., & Meylaerts, M. (Eds.), Tracks and treks in translation studies (pp. 127–142). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.108.07mit
Osmond, J., & Turner, A. (2010). The threshold concept journey in design: From identity to application. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & C. Baillie. (Eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning (pp. 347–363). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460912078_022
Rock, F. E. (2013). You say “I’m sure” but you’re not, are you? Trust and distrust in police interviews. In C. N. Candlin & J. Crichton (Eds.), Discourses of trust, Palgrave studies in professional and organizational discourse (pp. 203–219). Palgrave Macmillan.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-29556-9_13
Risku, H. (2002). Situatedness in translation studies. Cognitive Systems Research, 3(3), 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00055-4
Savin-Baden, M. (2007, March 7–9). Second life PBL: Liminality, liquidity and lurking (Keynote Speech). Reinventing Problem-Based Learning Conference, Republic Polytechnic, Singapore. https://maggisavinbaden.wordpress.com/keynotes/