Correlating Self-Efficacy with Self-Assessment in an Undergraduate Interpreting Classroom: How Accurate can Students be?

9 Porta Linguarum 36, June 2021 9-25 Correlating Self-Efficacy with Self-Assessment in an Undergraduate Interpreting Classroom: How Accurate can Students be? Jing Liu Anhui Normal University Received: 11 March 2020 / Accepted: 15 June 2021 DOI: 10.30827/portalin.v0i36.13897 ISSN paper edition: 1697-7467, ISSN digital edition: 2695-8244 ABSTRACT: The current paper intends to explore whether there are significant correlations between students’ self-efficacy and their self-assessment accuracy and how the former mediates the latter. Framed within an undergraduate interpreting classroom in China, which shares similar pedagogical aims with general foreign language courses, a total of 53 senior students completed an Interpreting Self-Efficacy (ISE) Scale before self-assessing their English-Chinese consecutive interpreting performance. Spearman correlation tests were employed to investigate the correlations between students’ ISE level and their self-assessment accuracy, compared with the teacher’s marks. Although ISE and self-assessment accuracy were positively correlated, the relation was not significant. Medium to low level ISE could only vaguely predict students’ self-assessment performance, but students were capable of accurate self-assessment regardless of their ISE level. This justifies more rigorous reflection on self-regulated learning enabled by accurate self-assessment in language classrooms, which is simultaneously informed by multiple social and psychological variables experienced by individual learners, such as self-efficacy. Key words: interpreting self-efficacy, self-assessment, self-assessment accuracy, consecutive interpreting, Chinese students. Correlación de la autoeficacia con la autoevaluación en un aula de interpretación de pregrado: Que tan exactos pueden ser los estudiantes? RESUMEN: El artículo actual tiene la intención de explorar si existen correlaciones significativas entre la autoeficacia de los estudiantes y la precisión de su autoevaluación y cómo la primera interviene en la segunda. Enmarcado dentro de un aula de interpretación de pregrado en China, que comparte objetivos pedagógicos similares con cursos generales de idiomas extranjeros, un total de 53 estudiantes de último año completaron una escala de autoeficacia en la interpretación (ISE) antes de autoevaluar su desempeño de interpretación consecutiva inglés-chino. Se emplearon pruebas de correlación de Spearman para investigar las correlaciones entre el nivel de ISE de los estudiantes y la precisión de su autoevaluación, en comparación con las calificaciones del maestro. Aunque ISE y la precisión de la autoevaluación se correlacionaron positivamente, la relación no fue significativa. El ISE de nivel medio a bajo solo podía predecir vagamente el desempeño de la autoevaluación de los estudiantes, pero los estudiantes eran capaces de realizar una autoevaluación precisa independientemente de su nivel de ISE. Esto justifica una reflexión más rigurosa sobre el aprendizaje autorregulado gracias a una autoevaluación precisa en las aulas de idiomas, que está informada simul- Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 10 táneamente por múltiples variables sociales y psicológicas que experimentan los alumnos individuales, como la autoeficacia. Palabras clave: autoeficacia de interpretación, autoevaluación, precisión de autoevaluación, interpretación consecutiva, estudiantes chinos. 1. INTRodUCTIoN One of the ultimate aims of education is to enable students to better judge their own work (Boud et al., 2013), and self-assessment (SA) has been widely perceived as a powerful tool in this regard, as witnessed by its innovative implementation in various classrooms (Boud, 1995; Falchikov, 2004). By far, SA research has been dominated by discussion of its significance, validity and best practice (Huang, 2015; Hung, 2019), overshadowing the role played by learner variables, which is a prominent research area in second language acquisition (de Bot et al., 2005; Dörnyei, 2006). Among a long list of examined variables, self-efficacy stands out in a plethora of research (Bandura, 1994; Ivars et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). To ensure maximum investment from students in any course, it is of paramount importance to boost and maintain their self-efficacy, as this psychological trait directly influences how students respond to challenges (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). Moreover, self-efficacy is reported to inform many aspects, including learning styles and strategies, students’ performance, etc., with SA emerging as one frequent topic (Cassidy, 2007; Chemers et al., 2001). Research abounds regarding the driving power of SA to self-efficacy (e.g., Andrade et al., 2009; Brown & Harris, 2013; Kissling, E. & O’ Donnell, 2015; McMillan & Hearn, 2008; Panadero et al., 2012, 2013, 2017; Reybroeck et al., 2017), but studies on the reverse direction are scarce. Limited research reports divergent and inconclusive results as to whether and how self-efficacy informs SA (Chemers et al., 2001; Ivars et al., 2014; Shaban et al., 2016) despite the increasing recognition that accurate SA leads to accurate task selection, thus conducive to self-regulated learning and improved learning outcomes (Brown & Harris, 2013; McMillan & Hearn, 2008; Raaijmakers et al., 2019). It is contended that self-efficacy should be context-specific (Pajares, 1996, p. 547) whereas SA is assumed to be context-sensitive in different disciplines. While the research in self-efficacy proliferates across multiple disciplines (Chan & Lam, 2010; Shaban et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2014), similar endeavours, especially empirical efforts correlating selfefficacy with SA, are scant in the context of interpreting classrooms (Li, 2018). It should be noted that undergraduate interpreting courses in Chinese context are more similar to regular foreign language courses, with the aim of reinforcing bilingual proficiency of students rather than cultivating professional interpreters and translators (Cai & Dong, 2015; Yan et al., 2018). For these students, inaccurate SA might result in inappropriate learning tasks, in turn undermining the monitoring and management of their own language learning (Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009; Kostons et al., 2012). As a result, studies into the factors moderating SA and its accuracy are all the more pertinent. Although it is acknowledged that learner variables, including motivation, anxiety etc., mediate SA in one way or another (MacIntyre et al., 1997; Shaban et al., 2016), there has not been much research centred on accuracy explicitly investigating the exact link. The current study, thus, intends to delve into this area by exploring whether and how self-efficacy, Jing Liu Correlating Self-Efficacy with Self-Assessment... 11 in particular, self-efficacy in interpreting, mediates SA accuracy. It is postulated that the higher self-efficacy students have, the more accurate their SA will be. To achieve this, in an undergraduate interpreting classroom, students were asked to assess their own consecutive interpretation after filling out a questionnaire measuring their interpreting self-efficacy. Certain patterns were recognised, and conclusions reached after the data were quantitatively analysed and qualitatively described. With this, the study hopes to inspire more discussion on mediating factors of SA accuracy in language learning from the perspective of learner variables and to help untangle the complexity in the classroom environment in which both teachers and students work (Panadero et al., 2016). 2. SElf-ASSESSMENT 2.1. Self-assessment in interpreting education SA is the ability of a student to judge his or her own performance so as to make decisions about oneself and one’s abilities based on criteria co-developed by students and teachers (Boud, 1995). In higher education, it is recognised as an influential instrument to enhance students’ self-regulation and power in the learning process (Bourke, 2017; Chen, 2008). Evidence-based studies of SA in translation and interpreting classrooms are still limited (Li, 2018). Interpreting courses aim at preparing students for professional interpreter careers (Lee, 2015; Postigo Pinazo, 2008), thus including a huge amount of exercises, external evaluation and self-assessment of student performance. The modules in a typical undergraduate interpreting course often comprise training on note-taking skills, memory skills, bi-directional consecutive interpreting, sometimes coupled with sight translation ( Li, 2018; Postigo Pinazo, 2008). Notwithstanding the highly demanding course design, in Chinese context, interpreting education is germane to foreign language education in multiple aspects (Yan & Wang, 2012; Yan et al., 2018). Specifically, interpreting courses in many undergraduate programs are part of the overall foreign language programs (Pan & Yan, 2012). Interpreting training is compulsory for almost all foreign language majors, the majority of whom are English majors. These students receive interpreting courses for one or two semesters, the main purpose of which is to enhance their second language competence like any other standardised language courses (Cai & Dong, 2015). Meanwhile, the practice-oriented nature of interpreting courses, be they in China or elsewhere, determines a disproportionate overemphasis on appropriate criteria and accuracy when it comes to SA (e.g., Han & Riazi, 2018; Lee, 2015; Stauffer, 2011). Because without comprehensive criteria for assessing performance or an accurate judgement of one’s own capability, it is nearly impossible for students to improve their weak points. It is noteworthy, however, that across consecutive, sight and sign language interpreting courses, the SA research generally targets advanced learners (e.g., Han & Riazi, 2018; Li, 2018; Stauffer, 2011), with the assumption that they are already capable of assessing themselves before taking the particular courses. Such design naturally invites suspicion because the representation of the data and the heterogeneous characters of the learners are left out. Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 12 2.2. Self-assessment accuracy To support valid uses, an assessment is expected to be accurate and reliable in portraying a learner’s achievement or performance (Brown et al., 2015). Therefore, one important focus of SA research regards the accuracy. Common practice is to compare students’ marks with those of teachers, peers, external raters or standardised tests (e.g., Brown et al., 2015; Stauffer, 2011), holding teachers’ judgement as the benchmark most of the time. Although existing research has identified significant correlation between SA and teacher assessment (Brown et al., 2015; Cassidy, 2007; Chen, 2008; Li, 2018), much of it elaborates on the tendency of students’ under-reporting, especially for students from Chinese backgrounds (Chen, 2008; Li, 2018). To improve the consistency between SA and teacher assessment, various suggestions for future research have been made. For example, it is strongly recommended that before formal SA, training through a workshop or a tutorial should be organised as a necessary step in developing students’ understanding of the criteria and enhancing the quality of SA (Chen, 2008). Researchers are advised to set clear criteria, train students, avoid reliability pitfalls and so on if they intend to compare SA marks with teacher marks (Brown et al., 2015; Han & Riazi, 2018). Even so, the legitimacy of holding teacher marks as the golden standard has been called into question (Brown et al., 2015), because the skills of teachers and their ability to provide quality assessment vary widely. Nevertheless, given the fact that in most cases the same teachers also assess students in the formal examination, consistency can partially be guaranteed. Besides, unless SA scores are part of a summative test, the priority of SA for students, as Brown, Andrade and Chen (2015) argue, is more on their internal reflection concerning the whole learning process than on how well they do in assessing their own performance. In the same vein, it is accentuated that to serve as an effective assessment tool, SA should not simply depend on students’ ability to mark themselves according to certain criteria, nor on the similarity between student and teacher marks. Rather, effectiveness should be judged according to the extent of the students’ development during the process. That is, in addition to statistical analysis of self and teacher marks, how students apply the criteria to assessment, which indicates their understanding of the criteria, should not be overlooked (Orsmond et al., 1997). However, if students are to appropriately monitor their learning process and adjust learning strategies to achieve autonomous learning, a certain level of SA accuracy is still required. But by far the findings in related research have not been consistent. Some research observes that students with poorer competence tend to over-report scores while more competent students are more stringent raters (Dragemark, 2006, p. 178); whereas better translation performance from trainee students accompanies better SA as these students are more aware of their shortcomings and how to improve their translation (Fernández & Zabalbeascoa, 2012). In contrast, in interpreting classrooms, advanced students are less likely to be accurate than beginning students (Stauffer, 2011). It is evident that more research is needed to determine patterns in SA accuracy as well as potential factors at play. Jing Liu Correlating Self-Efficacy with Self-Assessment... 13 2.3. Variables mediating self-assessment accuracy A list of variables has been proposed for closer inspection as to whether they moderate SA accuracy, including training, cultural background etc. (Brown et al., 2015). But much research stops short of touching upon these issues rather than delving into their depth. One exception is Hung (2019), who narrows down to the impact of training on SA accuracy. In a college English class, students practice SA of their oral English five times after receiving the teacher’s instructions, discussions over assessment criteria, pilot SA and feedback from the teacher. It is observed that students’ SA accuracy improves tremendously after repeated practice. With clear guidance and feasible design (i.e., students use cell phones to record their oral response), the methods in this study can be replicated in other classrooms with ease. However, it is argued that even inexperienced students are capable of accurate SA if they are equipped with enough self-efficacy (Cassidy, 2007). It is hypothesised that students who expect to obtain good grades and anticipate they will complete the task effectively also show positive self-efficacy beliefs. Reflected in SA marks, it can be expected that more efficacious students will mark themselves higher than less efficacious peers, leading to more SA accuracy if their self-perception is in line with teachers’ observations. But this correlation is merely a suggestion yet to be confirmed. When self-efficacy is pinpointed, its moderating role in SA is mixed. It is reported by some research that more efficacious students tend to over-report (Shaban et al., 2016) while others observe no significant correlations (Ng & Earl, 2008). To further complicate the picture, it is discovered that first-year college students become more accurate self-assessors with more self-efficacy (Chemers et al., 2001). But several pitfalls need to be considered. The students under scrutiny came from various academic backgrounds; the SA questions and teacher assessment were vague and obscure. Given a lack of focus and context, more validation is required to corroborate the findings. Similarly, Cassidy (2007) warns the multifaceted nature of SA requires a more cautious approach covering potential aspects that might have some influence. It should be noted that the contexts of aforementioned research were not in language education. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Plagued by a dearth of research on the effects of self-efficacy on SA accuracy in language education, more vigorous investigations are required to clarify the intricate dynamics. Besides self-efficacy, other variables are also believed to moderate SA accuracy. For example, anxiety, an affective factor in direct contrast to self-efficacy, is reported to systematically bias students’ perceptions of competence, although the anecdotal belief holds that it does not inform SA accuracy (MacIntyre et al., 1997). That is, more anxious students tend to under-report while less anxious students over-report. Investigations into Chinese students self-assessing oral English tasks support this finding (Chen, 2008), as modesty, seen as a virtue in Chinese society, might be one of the reasons behind under-reporting. This is a meaningful step forward concerning the function of psychological traits combined with social-cultural variables in informing SA. A similar trend is observed in the limited empirical studies of SA in interpreting. Han and Riazi (2018) take a quantitative approach in a longitudinal study to examine how SA accuracy evolves through practice. Although students’ SA accuracy improves over time after repeated training, in English to Chinese consecutive interpreting they are more accurate than in Chinese to English interpreting, revealing a unique pattern regarding the role of language Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 14 directionality in affecting SA. This can be partly explained by comparing students’ mother tongue (Chinese) and their foreign/target language (English), which affects their comprehension and assessment. Meanwhile, self-efficacy is observed to mediate performance among interpreting students, which will be reflected in their SA marks, but not without certain prerequisites. Self-efficacy is reported to predict students’ performance when they are equipped with good linguistic proficiency (Ivars et al., 2014) or with high interpreting self-efficacy (Lee, 2018). It seems that self-efficacy can only improve performance among competent students while less competent ones cannot benefit at all. But as the next section will show, there is neither definite nor direct causal relations between self-efficacy and interpreting performance. Besides, in the learning process, a number of variables are active and more research is needed to clarify their relationship. 3. SElf-EffICACy Self-efficacy is defined as people’s judgement of their capabilities to complete a specific task with the skills they possess (Bandura, 1997). It is a belief that influences virtually every sphere of people’s lives (Ivars et al., 2014, p. 168) and determines how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave (Bandura, 1994). Individuals with high self-efficacy invest more effort and persist longer than those with low self-efficacy, especially when they face setbacks (Chan & Lam, 2010). Defined as a task-specific attribute (Wang et al., 2014), self-efficacy has been examined in various contexts, among which language learning, particularly foreign language learning, stands out as one of the most heavily researched areas (e.g., Cassidy, 2007; Chan et al., 2010; Liu, 2018; Wang et al., 2014). Relevant research elaborates on the measurement of self-efficacy among English language learners in China (Wang et al., 2014) and the impact of different feedback modes on Chinese students’ self-efficacy in English vocabulary acquisition (Chan et al., 2010). Self-efficacy has been closely correlated with many variables and the relationships are never straightforward. When self-efficacy is examined in translation and interpreting classrooms, researchers are generally interested in how it impacts students’ performance and how it can be measured accurately (Ivars et al., 2014; Bolaños-Medina et al., 2018). Researchers either borrow self-efficacy scales from other disciplines or construct their own when measuring self-efficacy, with no consensus reached (e.g., Cassidy, 2007; Bontempo & Napier, 2011; Wang et al., 2014). Nonetheless, Lee (2014) is recognised as the first to have constructed and validated a self-efficacy scale specifically targeting undergraduates in consecutive interpreting. The scale, a self-report questionnaire, is named the Interpreting Self-Efficacy (ISE) scale, which defines ISE as one’s self-beliefs in interpreting competence. By measuring students’ ISE, teachers can predict the performance of students facing an interpreting task. However, one drawback of the scale comes from the generalisation of results interpretation. Although it is claimed that the higher scores students receive, the more efficacious they are, researchers and students still have no clear referential benchmark. Also, the scale appears to have loaded statements that might interfere with obtaining accurate assessment. Since the social response bias is common in self-report questionnaires (Paulhus, 1991), the authenticity of the data gathered might be called into question. Jing Liu Correlating Self-Efficacy with Self-Assessment... 15 In a follow-up study (Lee, 2018), the ISE scale is employed to predict the actual performance of students by triangulating different sources of assessment from the teacher, peer and external raters. It is found that ISE is more closely correlated with the performance among students with relatively high ISE levels, indicating that teachers can assess students’ expected performance and task difficulty with more confidence, but only when they bear in mind there is no direct impact from one on the other. Lee particularly points out the potential interplay between ISE and other psychological or social-cultural factors in the prediction of student performance. It is quite interesting to note that among the factors at play, student SA is frequently cited (e.g., Andrade et al., 2009; Panadero et al., 2017). Multiple studies explore how SA influences student self-efficacy, but seldom has research looked into the reversed direction, namely, how self-efficacy might moderate the former. To recapitulate, the common practice of measuring SA accuracy is by comparing student marks with teacher marks, despite some suspicion of its validity. Second language acquisition and interpreting studies share a strong interest in further exploring SA as a useful and powerful tool. Research from both disciplines has already identified some factors moderating SA accuracy, for example, students’ cultural backgrounds, previous training experiences and psychological traits, with self-efficacy standing out as an influential variable. To further explore the intricate relations between self-efficacy and SA accuracy, the current study examines the following two hypotheses. Hypothesis a: Students’ interpreting self-efficacy has a significant impact on their SA accuracy in the context of an undergraduate interpreting classroom. Hypothesis b: Students with higher ISE tend to be more accurate in their SA. 4. STUdy 4.1. Participants A total of 53 English major students participated in the study, coming from two parallel classes that the researcher taught. They were in their senior year at a regular university in central China. Among them, 45 are female; 8 are male. All were at a similar age of around 22 years old. All completed an introductory course of Chinese/English consecutive interpreting one year earlier. The Advanced Interpreting course, during which the study took place, was a 17-week course and was compulsory despite students’ personal interests or linguistic proficiency. Thus, this helps avoid investigating a group of similarly strongly interested and motivated students that might enrol should the course be optional. The course was theme-oriented, requiring students to write their own bilingual speeches based on preset themes and to take turns in performing consecutive interpreting. Given the idiosyncratic linguistic competence and personal attitudes toward interpreting, all levels of performance were expected. Absences and lack of attention to the course by students were not uncommon throughout the semester. 4.2. Instruments Two grids were employed in the current study: one was for measuring participants’ interpreting self-efficacy; the other was used to self-assess interpreting performance. Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 16 4.2.1. Interpreting Self-Efficacy Scale (ISES) The scale is adapted from Lee’s ISE scale targeting South Korean students (Lee, 2014). The scale, comprised of 21 items, consists of three sub-sections: evaluating self-confidence, self-regulatory efficacy and preference for task difficulty, all of which have high Cronbach’s alpha values, with the overall coefficient reaching .896. A six-point Likert scale is placed alongside the descriptors, ranging from “very untrue of me”, “untrue of me”, “somewhat untrue of me”, “somewhat true of me”, “true of me”, to “very true of me”, with accompanying scores of 1 to 6. Higher scores on the items mean higher levels of ISE. However, 17 items are negatively worded, which requires reverse scoring. The original scale was in English, but to facilitate understanding, the researcher provided a standard Chinese translated version alongside the original one, making the final scale bilingual. The participants were advised to refer to the English original should there be any confusion. Taking into consideration the time and cost of distributing and collecting responses, ISES was administered digitally via an online platform1. Besides all the items related to ISE, only the participants’ names were required because of the need to match their ISE scores with SA scores. 4.2.2. Self-Assessment Grid (SAG) An SA grid for simultaneous interpreting was developed by Schjoldager (1996), later undergoing various modifications for different contexts and research purposes. This grid was presented to students with another SA grid specifically measuring Chinese undergraduate students’ competence in consecutive interpreting2. It was assumed that students would choose the second one as it fitted the Chinese context. However, the latter one was dismissed due to its highly academic wording and the mismatch between its description and students’ actual competence. After several rounds of pilot SA and discussion, Schjoldager’s SAG was modified and finalised. The SAG comprises four sub-sections and 16 items in total, assessing comprehensibility and delivery, language, coherence and plausibility, as well as the loyalty of an interpreter. Students are required to mark themselves on each item from 0 to 5. The higher the marks, the better they think they have done. Instead of focusing on the overall competence of students, this SAG targets detailed performance every time students practice. By marking and noting down examples beside each item, students are given the opportunity to reflect and improve. 4.3. Procedure After finalising the SAG, students underwent two rounds of SA training, one in English-Chinese consecutive interpreting, the other in Chinese-English. Through a smart learning 1 The platform, wenjuanxing (wjx.cn, roughly translated into Star of Questionnaires), is a massive, free, and open platform for questionnaire design, distribution and data collection. 2 For this grid, please refer to Luo, M. (2018). Developing a self-evaluating scale of requisite consecutive interpretation competence for interpreting students in China’s Universities [Doctoral dissertation, Shanghai International Studies University]. Jing Liu Correlating Self-Efficacy with Self-Assessment... 17 app3, students downloaded the source text recordings and interpreted multiple times while recording. Then they chose the best version to upload, along with the SAG, after noting down questions and mistakes. The teacher selected some recordings and SAGs as samples to give feedback, make comments and point out common mistakes during classes. In the final week before the end-of-term exam, all students were required to interpret an English-Chinese segment and self-assess as part of the routine practice. But before they interpreted, they were informed of the topic, basic information and requirements to participate in the current study. Anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed and students were assured that non-participation would not affect their summative scores. Only those who gave consent proceeded to fill in the ISES by using mobile phones to scan a quick-response code presented on a PowerPoint slide. Then all students moved on to complete the interpreting and SA. All the requirements were similar to those in previous training except that students recorded their interpretation simultaneously without a second chance. After all the recordings and SAGs were uploaded, those from the participants were extracted and analysed. Altogether 55 students out of a total of 60 took part in the study. Two students failed to upload their recordings, making the final data set contain 53 students’ ISE scores and SA scores. 4.4. Data analysis Students’ ISE scores were compared to their SA accuracy by their SA scores minus the teacher’s scores before employing correlation tests to look for any significant relations between variables. Stata 14, a similar statistics tool to SPSS, was used in this process. 5. RESUlTS A preliminary attempt to correlate ISE with SA accuracy by drawing a scatter plot to delineate any potential relations was undertaken. As Figure 1 shows, the correlation was not immediately clear. Thus, further computation was required. 3 The application, Chaoxingxuetitong (roughly translated into Super Star Master of Learning), provides platforms for teacher-student interaction and smart learning via mobile phone portals and web page portals. Teachers and students can easily access the portals and sign up for virtual classes, thus arranging course notices, up/downloading assignments, checking progress, etc. Porta Linguarum Nº 36, June 2021 24 Ivars, A., Catalayud, D., & Forés, M. (2014). Self-efficacy and language proficiency in interpreter trainees. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(2), 167-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080 /1750399X.2014.908552 Kissling, E., & O’ Donnell, M. (2015). Increasing language awareness and self-efficacy of FL students using self-assessment and the ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Latin American, Latino and Iberian Studies Faculty Publications, (151), 1-24. https://scholarship.richmond. edu/lalis-faculty-publications/151 Kostons, D., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 121–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.004 Lee, S. (2014). An interpreting self-efficacy (ISE) scale for undergraduate students majoring in consecutive interpreting: Construction and preliminary validation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(2), 183-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.929372 Lee, S. (2018). Exploring a relationship between students’ interpreting self-efficacy and performance: Triangulating data on interpreter performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(2), 166-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1359763 Lee, Z. (2015). The reflection and self-assessment of student interpreters through logbooks: A case study [Doctoral dissertation, Heriot-Watt University]. ROS Theses Repository. https://www. ros.hw.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10399/3033/LeeZ_1015_sml.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Li, X. (2018). Self-assessment as ‘assessment as learning’ in translator and interpreter education: Validity and washback. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1 080/1750399X.2017.1418581 Liu, X. (2018). A longitudinal study of dynamic changes in and contributing factors of learner belief of Chinese foreign language learners. English Language Teaching, 11(7), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n7p61 MacIntyre, P., Noels, K., & Clement. R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47(2), 265-287. McMillan, J., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/42923742 Ng, J., & Earl, J. (2008). Accuracy in self-assessment: The role of ability, feedback, self-efficacy and goal orientation. Australian Journal of Career Development, 17(3), 39-50. https://doi. org/10.1177/103841620801700307 Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (1997). A study in self-assessment: Tutor and students’ perception of performance criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 357–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293970220401 Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. Pan, J., & Yan, X. (2012). Learner variables and problems perceived by students: An investigation of a college interpreting programme in China. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 20(2), 199-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2011.590594 Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Strijbos, J. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 803–830. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2 Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004 Jing Liu Correlating Self-Efficacy with Self-Assessment... 25 Panadero, E., Tapia, J., & Huertas, J. (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 806-813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.04.007 Panadero, E., Tapia, J., & Reche, E. (2013). Rubrics vs. self-assessment scripts effect on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy in pre-service teachers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 125-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.04.001 Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1759). Academic Press. Postigo Pinazo, E. (2008). Self-Assessment in Teaching Interpreting. Traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 21(1), 173–209. https://doi.org/10.7202/029690ar Raaijmakers, S., Baars, M., Paas. F., van Merriënboer, J., & van Gog, T. (2019). Effects of selfassessment feedback on self-assessment and task-selection accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 14, 21-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09189-5 Reybroeck, M., Penneman, J., Vidick, C., & Galand, B. (2017). Progressive treatment and self-assessment: effects on students’ automatisation of grammatical spelling and self-efficacy beliefs. Reading and Writing, 30, 1965-1985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9761-1 Schjoldager, A. (1996). Assessment of simultaneous interpreting. In C. Dollerup, & V. Appel (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: New horizons (pp. 187-195). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Shaban, S., Aburawi, E., Elzubeir, K., Elango, S., & El-Zubeir, M. (2016). Factors influencing medical students’ self-assessment of examination performance accuracy: A United Arab Emirates study. Education for Health, 29, 75-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.188688 Stauffer, L. (2011). ASL students’ ability to self assess ASL competency. Journal of Interpretation, 21(1), 80–95. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol21/iss1/7 Stefani, L. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382153 Wang, C., Kim, D., Bai, R., & Hu, J. (2014). Psychometric properties of a self-efficacy scale for English language learners in China. System, 44, 24-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.015 Yan, X., Pan, J., & Wang, H. (2018). The Interplay between foreign language anxiety, willingness to communicate and other learner factors in tertiary interpreting classrooms. In X, Yan, J. Pan, & H. Wang (Eds.), Research on translator and interpreter training: A collective volume of bibliometric reviews and empirical studies on learners (pp. 147-168). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6958-1 Yan, X., & Wang, H. (2012). Second language writing anxiety and translation: Performance in a Hong Kong Tertiary Translation Class. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 6(2), 171-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2012.10798835 9. ACkNowlEdgEMENTS The author would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editors for providing insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Special thanks also go to all the students who willingly participated in this study.