Exploring Curricular Aspects of Dialogue Interpreter Training: A Report on Two Surveys

SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 2025; 18(3): 83–111 doi: 10.33542/JTI2025-2-6 83 Exploring Curricular Aspects of Dialogue Interpreter Training: A Report on Two Surveys Rachel E. Herring, Century College Anne Catherine Gieshoff, Zurich University of Applied Sciences Abstract The last few decades have seen considerable growth in the availability of formal training opportunities for dialogue interpreters. These training opportunities range from post-graduate university courses to undergraduate certificates to short courses and workshops offered by non-governmental or community organizations. Although many publications have reported on training opportunities and courses, they generally provide high-level overviews of programs. There is little available information provided by individual instructors on the theoretical frameworks informing their work as trainers and the didactic materials that students are exposed to. This paper reports on two exploratory surveys of teachers of dialogue interpreting, encompassing both academic and nonacademic training contexts, aimed at increasing our knowledge of these aspects of interpreter training. The results illustrate commonalities and differences in teachers’ backgrounds, the didactic materials they employ, and the theoretical frameworks that inform teaching and are encountered by learners. The authors argue for strengthening of collaboration among those involved in teaching dialogue interpreters and for continued research efforts focused on teaching and learning of dialogue interpreting. Keywords: public service interpreting, interpreter training, survey, theory in interpreter training, materials in interpreter training 1. Introduction Training 1 opportunities for dialogue interpreters 2 have become more prevalent during the last several decades. Such opportunities are often offered outside tertiary-level institutions (Bao 2015; Kim 2017; Mikkelson 2017; Angelelli 2020), although the number of tertiary-level programs available has increased during the first decades of the twenty-first century. There is also a growing body of pedagogically focused research related to dialogue interpreting and overviews of training programs in a range of contexts (see, for example, Delgado Luchner 2019; Šveda 2021; Wakabayashi & O’Hagan 2022; and Napier et al. 2024). The majority of such reports describe the general outlines of curricula, offering relatively few specifics about aspects such as the materials used with learners and the theoretical frameworks informing teaching and learning. 1 Discussion of the distinction between training and education and the question of which label should be used in what contexts is outside the scope of this paper. Interested readers are referred to Sawyer (2004), Angelelli (2017), and Amato & Mack (2022). For the purposes of this paper, the labels are used interchangeably. 2 There are multiple labels used to describe the type of interpreting that is the focus of this paper, principally community interpreting, public service interpreting, and dialogue interpreting (e.g. Hale 2007, 2011; Merlini 2015; Tipton & Furmanek 2016). In this paper, we use dialogue interpreting, following Tipton & Furmanek (2016) and Niemants & Cirillo (2017). SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 84 Much discourse around dialogue interpreting has focused on the question of professionalization (Gentile 2016; Tiselius 2021). Among the hallmarks of professional status that appear in discussions of professionalization is the existence of a shared body of knowledge that is specific to the profession and the existence of professional education regulated by members of the profession (Weiss-Gal & Welbourne 2008). Perusal of the interpreting studies literature related to teaching and learning of dialogue interpreting suggests that there is some level of consensus around key aspects that should be addressed in training (e.g. Hale 2007; Corsellis 2008; Angelelli 2017; Ozolins 2017; Orlando 2019), as further discussed in Section 2. To date, however, there is relatively little information available about the extent to which dialogue interpreter training programs rest on and disseminate a shared body of knowledge and theory. There is also a lack of information about the professional and educational profiles of the people carrying out such training. Moreover, there has been little systematic comparison between formal academic settings and non-academic settings (e.g. courses offered through NGOs, interpreting agencies, government programs) with regard to such aspects. As a first step toward addressing the paucity of available information regarding a range of aspects of teaching of dialogue interpreting and potential differences between academic and non-academic training contexts, two surveys were developed, one aimed at teachers of dialogue interpreting working in institutions of higher education (formal academic settings, or FAS) and the other aimed at teachers of dialogue interpreting working in non-academic settings (NAS). The study was exploratory in nature, with a broad aim of gathering information directly from teachers of dialogue interpreting about their backgrounds, the programs they teach in, the didactic materials they use, strengths and weaknesses of such materials, and the theoretical frameworks informing teaching and learning, and subsequently making the results available to researchers as an impetus for further research and a baseline for comparison. The two groups (FAS and NAS) were surveyed separately due to the need to tailor the survey content to specific aspects of the experience of each group. This paper focuses on the data related to respondents’ backgrounds (Section 5.1), the didactic materials they employ (Section 5.2), and theoretical frameworks informing teaching and learning (Section 5.3), and discusses the implications of the findings for training of public service interpreters. 2. Existing publications on dialogue interpreter training Among the main sources of information about dialogue interpreter training worldwide are overviews of the situation in a specific geographical area or overviews of specific programs or projects. Three recent examples are the volumes edited by Šveda (2021) and Wakabayashi & O’Hagan (2022), which focus on Central Europe (the former) and Australia and New Zealand (the latter), and the volume edited by Napier et al. (2024), which discusses training of interpreters of signed language in a number of countries. In addition to edited volumes such as these, there are a number of papers that report on training efforts in places such as Sweden (Gustafsson et al. 2012), the United Kingdom (de Pedro Ricoy 2010; D’Hayer 2012), Spain (Foulquié-Rubio 2018), Kenya (Delgado Luchner 2019), and Argentina (Manfredi & Lázaro Gutiérrez 2021), among others. Another source of information about the landscape of dialogue interpreter training consists of publications that discuss the subject more generally, rather than with a focus on a specific program or region. These works highlight issues such as the importance of empirically-grounded teaching that embraces pedagogical knowledge, principles, and theory Rachel E. Herring, Anne Catherine Gieshoff 85 (Angelelli 2017) and the need to strike a balance in training programs between translation competence, setting-related content, and social and interactional aspects (Ozolins 2017). Other papers focus on specific challenges confronting dialogue interpreting trainers, such as the diversity of student profiles and the need to transcend traditional notions of interpreting and translation (Valero Garcés 2019). Pedagogical and didactic aspects of dialogue interpreting have also been addressed in edited volumes dedicated to the subject (e.g. Cirillo & Niemants 2017), monographs (e.g. Mazzei & Jay-Rayon Ibrahim Aibo 2022; Tipton 2024), and chapters within more broadly focused handbooks (e.g. several chapters in Gavioli & Wadensjö 2023). Information about dialogue interpreter training can also be found in monographs and manuals that are intended as introductions to the field and in textbooks (e.g. Hale 2007; Rudvin & Tomassini 2011; Tipton & Furmanek 2016). These and other authors address skills and knowledge needed by dialogue interpreters, including the following: • Knowledge of context and subject matter (Corsellis 2008; Hale 2007; Tipton & Furmanek 2016; Gentile et al. 1996) • Language competence (Corsellis 2008; Hale 2007; Gentile et al. 1996; Tipton & Furmanek 2016) • Cross-cultural awareness (Hale 2007; Tipton & Furmanek 2016; Rudvin & Tomassini 2011) • Knowledge of ethics, role behavior, and professional issues (Corsellis 2008; Hale 2007; Tipton & Furmanek 2016) • Interpreting theory (Tipton & Furmanek 2016; Hale 2007; Ozolins 2017) • Practical and business-related aspects (Tipton & Furmanek 2016; Gentile et al. 1996) The publications mentioned in the preceding paragraphs tend to address dialogue interpreter training from a macro perspective, providing overviews of specific programs, regional situations, or high-level recommendations for teaching and learning. The micro-level perspective is also represented in the literature, often in the form of classroom-based studies reported on by teachers who have carried out action research with their students (see Nicodemus & Swabey 2015; Crezee & Burns 2019). Such reports give glimpses of the interpreting classroom, but in a necessarily limited fashion, given their scope and aims. One source of a comprehensive micro-level view of a training program is Maximous’ (2017) dissertation-length case study. Drawing on observations, interviews, and questionnaires, reflecting both faculty and student perspectives, she paints an exhaustive picture of an academic year in a university-level program in Australia. She reports on evidence of variability and lack of uniformity in teaching approaches and methods and a lack of awareness and uptake of research and theory, with many respondents (both faculty and students) viewing them as of low value or relevance. Her findings point to possible gaps and inconsistencies between the macrolevel perspectives contained in overviews and manuals and on-the-ground realities. This raises the question of whether similar patterns would be detected in other training contexts, or whether they are unique to the context that Maximous reports on. The survey data reported on in this paper may serve as a point of reference for development of more in-depth studies similar to that carried out by Maximous, leading to a fuller picture of concepts and frameworks taught of dialogue interpreting SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 86 3. Theory in interpreter training The relationship between theory and practice in interpreter training has been addressed by a number of scholars, who are generally united in emphasizing the fundamental importance of theory and research for both teachers and learners. In relation to this discussion, it is important to distinguish between two aspects of theory (following Setton 2010): on the one hand, theory related to teaching and learning, both in general and in connection with interpreting, which is primarily related to the instructor and how they conceptualize and approach instructional activities; and, on the other, student-facing theory, which is the domain-related theory to which students are exposed through instructional materials (e.g. textbooks, articles) and classroom activities (e.g. lectures, presentations). In connection with the need for instructors to have a balanced knowledge of both the vocational–practical and the academic aspects of interpreting, Orlando (2019: 221) notes that “knowing the profession but nothing of the academic discipline and the findings from the research carried out in T&I Studies will be an impediment to the sound theoretical education of future professionals.” The benefit of theory to student interpreters is clearly explicated by Arumí Ribas (2020: 73), who states that “trainee interpreters need a number of concepts that enable them to put names to the description of the process they go through while interpreting and to analyse the challenges they encounter in their training.” Similar arguments have been made with respect to the need for interpreter training itself, from curricula down to individual class activities, to be rooted in a clear theoretical model or conceptualization of interpreting (e.g. Setton 2010, Angelelli 2017, 2020). In her chapter on training of community interpreters, Hale (2007: 176) describes the connection between theory-informed teaching and learning outcomes: [K]nowledge and skills are crucial elements in any Community Interpreting course. However, teaching these areas will not be effective if it is not underpinned by a theory of interpreting or informed by the results of research […] Applying theoretical principles in the teaching of the practical skills is essential if students are to understand the reasons why their choices are being assessed as appropriate or inappropriate. The theoretical frameworks informing trainers’ approaches to teaching and the frameworks and constructs encountered by students in the course of their studies are thus highly relevant objects of research, inasmuch as they provide insight into the conceptualizations and representations of interpreting that learners are being exposed to during this process of learning and socialization (see Angelelli 2020; see also Washbourne & Liu 2023, on an ontological turn in translator and interpreter training). The macro-level information about dialogue interpreter training that is contained in publications providing high-level descriptions of programs and in manuals and textbooks does not provide detailed insight into the theoretical frameworks and conceptualizations of interpreting and of pedagogy that inform trainers’ work with learners nor into the aspects of theory and research that interpreter trainees are exposed to (that is, student-facing theory). Maximous’ (2017: 242) case study of teaching and learning of community interpreting reports “considerable” variation in teaching practices and approaches within a single program, as well as a lack of awareness and appreciation for research and theory and their relevance to teaching and learning of interpreting. To date, a clear picture of how research and theory inform interpreting training worldwide is lacking. Rachel E. Herring, Anne Catherine Gieshoff 87 4. Method This paper reports on two surveys of trainers of dialogue interpreters. The first survey (late July to mid-September 2021) was aimed at trainers working in formal academic settings (FAS). The second survey (mid-March to late June 2022) was aimed at trainers working in non-academic settings (NAS). Ethics approval for both surveys was sought and obtained through the institutional review process at Century College (Minnesota, USA). Both surveys were built in a secure institutional Microsoft Forms account and were set up to gather responses anonymously. The FAS survey was developed in light of the scope and aims for the project (see Section 1) and on the basis of a review of relevant literature, discussed in part in Sections 2 and 3. It was piloted and revised in response to feedback from colleague interpreter trainers and scholars. The survey was a mix of closed-ended and open-ended questions and consisted of the following sections: • Acknowledgement and consent—1 question, closed-ended • Eligibility to participate in the study—2 questions, closed-ended (see below) • Questions related to the program you teach in—8 questions, mix of open-ended, closed-ended, and Likert scale • Questions about the courses you teach—9 questions, mix of open-ended, closed-ended, and Likert scale • Demographic information—7 questions, mix of open-ended and closed-ended questions The NAS survey was largely the same as the FAS survey. Introductory segments at the beginning of each set of questions were modified to reflect the intended audience. The wording of closed-ended response choices was slightly modified in some cases to better fit the NAS setting; these changes were made in consultation with colleagues training in NAS (for example, the question in the FAS survey about the type of program in which the respondent taught was converted into two questions about the teaching situations in which NAS respondents work). The full text of both surveys is available upon request to the corresponding author. Invitations to participate in the surveys were disseminated via professional associations, emails to professional contacts, and social media. Prospective participants were identified through the first author’s professional networks as well as through internet searches of publicly available listings of faculty (for the FAS survey) and of interpreter training organizations (for the NAS survey). Upon entering the survey tool, participants were asked to confirm that they had read the study description and information (including information about anonymity of responses) and that they consented to participating in the study. The second and third questions of each survey served as screen-in/screen-out questions for respondents, confirming their status as (recently) active trainers of dialogue interpreters in the indicated setting for each survey. Respondents were required to answer all questions, with the exception of two open-ended questions. The FAS survey received 41 complete responses; 13 potential respondents were screened out. The NAS survey received 21 complete responses; 5 potential respondents were screened out. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 88 5. Results 5.1. Demographic information Responses to the FAS survey come from teachers working in 15 countries: Australia (N=3), Austria (N=4), Belgium (N=2), Canada (N=2), Finland (N=1), Germany (N=2), Haiti (N=1), Ireland (N=1), New Zealand (N=1), Norway (N=5), Spain (N=2), Sweden (N=4), Turkey (N=1), the United Kingdom (N=3), and the United States (N=11) 3 . More than half of FAS respondents teach in Europe (56%, N=23 4 ), and 32% (N=13) teach in North America. Respondents to the NAS survey teach in Australia (N=1), Austria (N=1), Canada (N=2), Japan (N=1), Mexico (N=1), Turkey (N=1), and the United States (N=16). The NAS respondents teaching in the United States make up 76% of the respondents to this survey. As detailed in Table 1, respondents teaching in formal academic settings tend to have higher levels of formal education, are more likely to have received more formal training in interpreting, and are more likely to have completed some type of formal training as teachers in comparison with the respondents from non-academic settings, whereas respondents from non-academic settings are more likely to be working as interpreters in addition to working as trainers. Respondents were asked to describe what, if any, formal training in teaching they had taken part in. FAS respondents mention experiences ranging from attendance at conferences to undergraduate coursework to graduate degrees in teaching. The majority describe training related to teaching in higher education, in general, although some also mention training in teaching for compulsory primary and secondary schooling, including completion of teacher certification courses. Of thirty-one respondents to this question, nine (29%) mention completing workshops, courses, or degrees specifically related to interpreting pedagogy. The NAS respondents describe formal training in teaching ranging from continuing education offerings, workshops, summer schools, training aimed at employees in the private sector, training-of-trainers programs aimed at licensees of private short courses, teacher training for compulsory primary and secondary schooling, and postgraduate degrees or certificates in education, including higher education. With the exception of train-the-trainers sessions for private short courses offered by the organizations that license the courses, the respondents do not mention trainings specifically related to interpreting pedagogy. 3 Note that the total number of responses is higher than the total number of respondents, as two FAS respondents and one NAS respondent report teaching in multiple countries. 4 The respondent from Turkey is included in this count. Rachel E. Herring, Anne Catherine Gieshoff 89 Table 1: Respondents’ demographic information NAS FAS Highest level of formal education (not necessarily interpreting-specific): Bachelor’s degree Some graduate coursework Graduate certificate Master’s degree PhD 3 (14.3%) 2 (9.5%) 0 (0.0%) 12 (57.1%) 4 (19.0%) 2 (4.9%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.4%) 14 (34.1%) 24 (58.5%) Formal training in interpreting (NB: respondents were asked to select all that applied to them) None……………………………. Private short course…………….. Continuing education/ professional development……… College/university-based short course, undergraduate level… College/university-based degree (BA or equivalent)…………… College/university-based short course, postgraduate level……. Postgraduate degree (MA or equivalent)……………………. Other…………………………… 1 (4.8%) 11 (52.4%) 11 (52.4%) 2 (9.5%) 1 (4.8%) 2 (9.5%) 5 (23.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (4.8%) 5 (12.2%) 9 (22.0%) 11 (26.8%) 6 (14.6%) 4 (9.8%) 18 (43.9%) 4 (9.8%) Experience training interpreters (in years)5 < 5 5–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 > 30 5 (23.8%) 6 (28.6%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (9.5%) 5 (23.8%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (14.3%) 5 (12.2%) 10 (24.4%) 6 (14.6%) 9 (22.0%) 6 (14.6%) 2 (4.9%) 3 (7.3%) Formal training in teaching Yes No 11 (52.4%) 10 (47.6%) 31 (75.6%) 10 (24.4%) 5 Respondents who teach in both settings were asked to consider only their time spent training in the setting applicable to the survey they were responding to. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 90 5.2. Didactic and instructional materials 6 Respondents were asked a question aimed at better understanding the extent to which the curriculum they use is institutionally mandated or otherwise fixed (that is, consisting of structure and content provided to the trainer, with little room for individual modification), draws on materials made available to them by an institution on a voluntary basis, or is self-created. Within the FAS group, 35% (N=14) of respondents report having access to program-provided syllabi, materials, and activities, but having the freedom to adapt them as they see fit, while 39% (N=16) report that course goals and learning objectives are set by the institutions and they create their own syllabi, materials, activities, and so forth. Only 17% (N=7) of FAS respondents report that they must create everything, including learning objectives and curricula, on their own. In contrast, 43% (N=9) of the NAS respondents report creating their own curricula and finding or creating all of their own materials, 29% (N=6) have some curriculum and materials provided for them but also create some materials on their own, and 24% (N=5) use curricula and materials that are created and provided by someone else (e.g. private training programs). In both groups, most trainers are responsible for creating at least some of the didactic materials they use with learners, with the proportion being higher in the FAS group. As noted above, the existing literature provides little information about the types of didactic materials (that is, excluding those used as stimuli for interpreting exercises and practice) that are used in dialogue interpreting classrooms. In order to take a first step toward gathering such information, respondents were provided with a list of types of didactic materials and asked to state how frequently they use each type of material with learners. Details of these results appear in Figures 1–3. Figure 1: Types of instructional materials used with learners, #1 6 Throughout the survey and this paper, “didactic and instructional materials” refers to materials used to teach content and skill, rather than to material used as stimuli for interpreting practice (e.g. speeches, role plays). This definition was provided to survey respondents in narrative text preceding these questions. Rachel E. Herring, Anne Catherine Gieshoff 91 Figure 2: Types of instructional materials used with learners, #2 Figure 3: Types of instructional materials used with learners, #3 We conducted chi-square tests to compare the FAS and NAS responses for each of the types of material listed. A statistically significant relationship between type of material and FAS/NAS responses was only found for articles published in academic journals (X2=18.853, p=0.001). Binomial testing revealed that FAS respondents significantly more often reported that they use academic articles frequently or very frequently (FAS: 34%, NAS: 0%, p <0.000), while the proportion was significantly lower for the answer option “never” (FAS: 5%, NAS: 38%, p < 0.000). No statistically significant difference was found for the answer options SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 98 Education of individual US states, professional organizations, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), textbooks or other didactically oriented volumes, academically oriented volumes (e.g. monographs, edited volumes), and papers from scholarly journals. Many of the textbooks mentioned by FAS respondents are aimed at students training to go into a specific setting, such as courts or healthcare. However, textbooks are mentioned less frequently than academically oriented books (whether monographs or edited volumes) and peer-reviewed journal articles, which is in line with the responses to the question about frequency of use of various types of materials (see Figures 1–3 above). Publications listed by the NAS respondents include textbooks and didactically oriented books, peer-reviewed articles, academically oriented monographs, curricula for specific private training programs, codes of ethics and standards of practice, news articles, videos and podcasts, and government policies. Fewer materials were mentioned by NAS respondents than by FAS respondents; indeed, some NAS respondents stated that they do not generally assign homework to trainees, but, if they do, it is likely to be practice-oriented, rather than involve consumption of didactic material. 6. Discussion 6.1. Geographic coverage and respondent profiles The majority of the responses to both surveys are from trainers working in Europe and North America. The limited geographical coverage may be in part due to the existence of fewer training programs for dialogue interpreters outside these regions; it may also, however, reflect insufficient dissemination of the survey, despite efforts to reach a wide audience. The survey was also only available in English, which may have influenced the geographical range reached. Within this sample, respondents from FAS tend to have higher levels of formal education, are more likely to have completed some type of formal training as teachers and are more likely to have received more formal training in interpreting, in comparison with the respondents from NAS. The fact that 95% (N=39) of FAS respondents have completed at least some graduate study and that more than half (59%, N=24) have completed a PhD may be a reflection of the fact that tertiary-level institutions generally require such qualifications in order to teach; it may also reflect the possibility that FAS trainers with PhDs were more likely to respond to a request to participate in a research study. That said, the percentage of NAS respondents reporting having completed some type of graduate-level studies is also quite high, at 76% (N=16). With regard to formal training in interpreting, 24% (N=5) of the NAS respondents report having completed a post-graduate level program (MA degree or equivalent), in comparison with 44% (N=18) of the FAS respondents. Given the paucity of graduate-level training specifically focused on dialogue interpreting before the last couple of decades, it might be seen as noteworthy that so many of the participants in both groups have graduate-level training in interpreting. However, it is possible that the graduate-level study of interpreting undertaken by many of these respondents was focused on conference interpreting or on interpreting and translation in general, rather than on dialogue interpreting in particular. FAS respondents are also more likely to have received formal training in teaching (FAS respondents: 76%, N=31; NAS respondents, 52%, N=11) and to have participated in training specifically related to interpreting pedagogy. Only 29% (N=9) of the 31 FAS respondents who report having received formal training related to teaching specifically Rachel E. Herring, Anne Catherine Gieshoff 99 mention training related to teaching interpreting, while the only type of interpreting-pedagogy-specific training mentioned by the NAS group is training-of-trainers (TOT) sessions intended to prepare trainers to teach specific private curricula. The need for teaching staff to have training in pedagogy, both in general and specific to interpreting, has been addressed by scholars such as Angelelli (2017), Orlando (2019), and Kadrić & Pöllabauer (2023). Availability of TOT courses and materials is a highly relevant topic for trainers in both FAS and NAS. Although the data gathered in these surveys provides only limited information about trainers’ access to and participation in TOT activities, these findings resonate strongly with the discussions found in the just-cited literature of the need for teacher training for trainers of dialogue interpreters. In our view, efforts to respond to this need should take trainers in NAS into account, rather than focusing solely on trainers in FAS, inasmuch as NAS trainers may have received less formal training in interpreting (and thus may have less grounding in theory) and, by virtue of their training context, may not have institutional affiliations that would allow them the same access to academic publications enjoyed by their FAS colleagues. 6.2. Didactic materials The section of the survey focused on curriculum began with a question aimed at understanding the extent to which respondents create their own curricula and teaching materials versus teach from a fixed curriculum and set of materials. The great majority of respondents in both groups report that they create and/or adapt materials for use with their students (NAS: 71%, N=15; FAS: 98%, N=40). This suggests a landscape that allows for significant individual variation among trainers. This can be a strength of training programs, inasmuch as it allows for flexibility and tailoring of instruction to learner needs and profiles. At the same time, it can potentially be a weakness, since developing one’s own curricula and teaching materials requires a significant amount of time and effort, the need for which may or may not be reflected in remuneration rates. Additionally, lack of shared understandings and frameworks (both of interpreting and of teaching and learning) within a program or across programs in a geographical area can lead to inconsistencies and confusion for both service users and interpreters in relation to issues such as standard practices, understanding of role boundaries and decision-making latitude, and conceptualizations of what constitutes (un)ethical behavior. The range of types of didactic materials encountered by students in both FAS and NAS settings reinforces the impression of a heterogeneous landscape. While some materials and authors are mentioned by multiple respondents, learners are likely to encounter a wide range of materials by a wide range of authors. Many of the materials that respondents mention assigning to learners are focused broadly on dialogue interpreting, often addressing multiple settings rather than one single setting (e.g. medical, legal). This may be evidence of a curricular tendency toward what Taibi et al. (2022: 97) describe as a “generic skills education,” with a primary focus on developing interpreting skills in general, rather than on preparation for a specific work setting. The fact that FAS respondents are significantly more likely than NAS respondents to assign academic, peer-reviewed publications as reading material for their students is indicative of some differences in the type of materials that learners in the two settings encounter. It is perhaps not surprising that credit-granting institutions of higher learning would require more engagement with academically oriented texts. Additionally, as noted above, FAS respondents are also more likely to have higher levels of education, in general, and may therefore be more likely to be acquainted with researchand theory-focused texts. The frequent use of academic, peer-reviewed publications as texts in the interpreting classroom merits further SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 100 investigation, given that such texts are by nature not intended for an audience of learners and may present a number of challenges for use in the dialogue interpreting classroom (Tiselius & Herring 2023). Most respondents in both groups report being happy with the didactic materials they use (NAS: 90%, N=18 strongly agree or agree; 9 FAS: 85%, N=35 strongly agree or agree) and feeling that the materials they use are approachable for learners (NAS: 80%, N=16 strongly agree or agree; FAS: 90%, N=37 strongly agree or agree). At the same time, a majority of both groups reports having to do a lot of work to adapt materials to meet learners’ needs (NAS: 55%, N=11 strongly agree or agree; FAS: 68%, N=28 strongly agree or agree), and half (NAS) or close to half (FAS) report not having materials available in their students’ primary language (NAS: 50%, N=10 strongly disagree or disagree; FAS: 46%, N=19 strongly disagree or disagree). The need to create and adapt materials, the approachability of materials, and the languages in which materials are available are common themes in the responses to the open-ended question about weaknesses of available instructional and didactic materials, as discussed in Section 5.2. These responses resonate with Orlando’s (2016: 65) call for “more and more accessible, journal articles and … books or textbooks on the didactics of T&I.” Similar themes are also highlighted by Hale (2007: 17), who reports on focus groups in which community interpreter trainers identified “lack of teaching materials and textbooks to guide them, time limitations and the students’ mixed bilingual and bicultural competence” as the main challenges facing them. The same group of trainers reported needing to create their own teaching materials, although in Hale’s case the comments regarding materials appear to be largely focused on practice materials rather than didactic materials. 6.3. Theory in teaching and learning Several survey questions elicited information from respondents related to theory in teaching and learning. As noted in Section 5.2, a significant difference emerged between the two groups with regard to the Likert scale item “interpreting theory and research are not very relevant for my students,” with FAS respondents disagreeing more strongly with the statement than NAS respondents. In contrast, the majority of both groups were in agreement with the statement “my course(s) are informed by interpreting theory and research” (NAS: 85%, N=17 strongly agree or agree; FAS: 90%, N=37 strongly agree or agree), with no statistically significant difference found between the two groups. The fact that some NAS respondents endorse the role of theory in informing their courses while others endorse the statement that theory is irrelevant for their students is an interesting contrast worthy of further investigation, potentially via observation, interview, case studies or other methods that allow for a qualitative analysis of classroom practices. Responses regarding the theoretical constructs and frameworks that inform respondents’ work as trainers suggest a landscape characterized by some commonalities, but also much diversity and variation. Similarly, responses to the question focused on student-facing theory (that is, materials assigned to students) demonstrate a notable heterogeneity in terms of the types of materials assigned and the theoretical content to which learners are exposed during their studies. Within the responses to these questions we see abundant evidence of the influence of dialogue interpreting-focused scholarship (e.g. Claudia Angelelli, Sandra Hale, 9 NAS total N=20 for the questions about specific materials because one respondent stated that they do not use didactic materials. Rachel E. Herring, Anne Catherine Gieshoff 101 Holly Mikkelson, Hanne Skaaden, Cecilia Wadensjö) and of theoretical frameworks developed by scholars of signed language interpreting (e.g. Robyn Dean & Robert Pollard, Peter Llewellyn-Jones & Robert G. Lee), as well as of the continued influence of scholarly work arising from simultaneous conference interpreting (e.g. Daniel Gile) or encompassing a broad view of interpreting studies (e.g. Franz Pöchhacker). There is also evidence of the influence of translation studies, narrowly defined, on our respondents’ work as educators, particularly with respect to pedagogy of translation (e.g. Mona Baker, María González Davies, Donald Kiraly, Kelly Washbourne). The method (i.e. survey) and exploratory nature of this study provide only limited information regarding this topic. Although the results provide some evidence of trends and of points in common (e.g. socioconstructivist approaches to teaching and learning; see also Orlando 2016 and Tiselius & Herring 2023) and points of difference in terms of the theoretical frameworks informing teaching and to which learners are exposed, the exploratory nature of the study did not allow for in-depth investigation of the ways and extent to which the constructs and frameworks mentioned by respondents are integrated into training programs. Further in-depth exploration is needed in order to get a better understanding of the specifics of teaching and learning theory in the dialogue interpreting classroom. Additionally, further research is needed to explore trainers’ teaching beliefs and practices and learners’ and program graduates’ perspectives on curricula and teaching practices. In this we join other scholars who have argued for increased research into the effectiveness of teaching approaches and practices (e.g. Pöchhacker 2010; Winston 2013; Orlando 2016). In addition, given evidence of differences in learners’ and instructors’ perceptions and beliefs regarding issues such as beliefs and practices related to teaching & learning and the relevance of theory in interpreter education (see Takeda 2010; Li 2018; Liu 2019; Arumí Ribas 2020), this investigatory angle is highly relevant. 7. Conclusion The survey results discussed in these pages offer an initial, wide-angle view of several aspects of dialogue interpreter training and draw our attention to a number of aspects that need closer examination. The overall impression given by the data is of a landscape that has a number of points of commonality but also a great deal of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity is not necessarily problematic, and is to some extent necessary, given the variety of possible training situations, cultural contexts, and work settings in which dialogue interpreters are trained and carry out their professional responsibilities. At the same time, ongoing efforts to professionalize dialogue interpreting—and, indeed, its established status as a (semi-)profession in some areas— might be expected to imply a corresponding trajectory of professionalization or regularization of the body of knowledge and the theoretical frameworks employed in the teaching of dialogue interpreting. While recognizing the need for training to be adapted to context and situation, we also echo Arumí Ribas’ (2020: 77) assertion that there is a need to work toward a “shared collective decision” regarding theory and concepts to be included in interpreter training. We join Kadrić & Pöllabauer (2023: 424) in their call for a “global exchange between interpreter educators,” in the hopes that such collaborative efforts will lead to intentional, collaborative efforts to develop relevant materials and curricula and make them available to teachers in all types of situations and settings. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 102 Authorship statement Rachel E. Herring designed the study, collected the data, led the qualitative data analysis, and wrote the initial draft of the literature review, method, and results sections. Anne Catherine Gieshoff carried out and wrote up the quantitative data analysis. Both authors collaborated on drafting the discussion and conclusions sections and preparing the paper for publication. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the following colleagues for their valuable input during the survey design and/or data analysis phases of this project: Aleksandra Adler, Carmen Delgado Luchner, Raluca Droahna, Jacolyn Harmer, Isabelle Heyerick, Christopher Mellinger, Jeanette Nicholson, Jori Nkwenti, Erin Rosales, Elisabet Tiselius, and Melissa Wallace. Rachel E. Herring, Anne Catherine Gieshoff 103 Appendix: Detailed Statistical Analyses Table 5: Descriptive statistics and test statistics (chi-square-test) for didactic material Variable N Percent N_1 Percent_2 Test Survey FAS NAS Textbook 41 20 X2=8.9, p=0.064* ... Never 5 0.122 8 0.4 ... Rarely 5 0.122 3 0.15 ... Occasionally 12 0.293 4 0.2 ... Frequently 7 0.171 0 0 ... Very Frequently 12 0.293 5 0.25 acaJournal 41 20 X2=18.853, p=0.001*** ... Never 2 0.049 8 0.4 ... Rarely 3 0.073 3 0.15 ... Occasionally 8 0.195 5 0.25 ... Frequently 14 0.341 4 0.2 ... Very Frequently 14 0.341 0 0 profJournal 41 20 X2=3.399, p=0.493 ... Never 5 0.122 5 0.25 ... Rarely 3 0.073 3 0.15 ... Occasionally 17 0.415 6 0.3 ... Frequently 13 0.317 4 0.2 ... Very Frequently 3 0.073 2 0.1 Blog 41 20 X2=5.626, p=0.131 ... Never 11 0.268 10 0.5 ... Rarely 15 0.366 2 0.1 ... Occasionally 12 0.293 6 0.3 ... Frequently 3 0.073 2 0.1 ... Very Frequently 0 0 0 0 publicVideos 41 20 X2=5.475, p=0.242 ... Never 0 0 2 0.1 ... Rarely 2 0.049 0 0 ... Occasionally 12 0.293 7 0.35 SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 104 ... Frequently 15 0.366 6 0.3 ... Very Frequently 12 0.293 5 0.25 subscribedVideos 41 20 X2=5.568, p=0.234 ... Never 14 0.341 9 0.45 ... Rarely 7 0.171 2 0.1 ... Occasionally 12 0.293 4 0.2 ... Frequently 8 0.195 3 0.15 ... Very Frequently 0 0 2 0.1 podcast 41 20 X2=5.59, p=0.133 ... Never 17 0.415 14 0.7 ... Rarely 13 0.317 2 0.1 ... Occasionally 8 0.195 2 0.1 ... Frequently 3 0.073 2 0.1 ... Very Frequently 0 0 0 0 codesConduct 41 20 X2=6.983, p=0.137 ... Never 1 0.024 3 0.15 ... Rarely 1 0.024 0 0 ... Occasionally 7 0.171 1 0.05 ... Frequently 12 0.293 3 0.15 ... Very Frequently 20 0.488 13 0.65 Rachel E. Herring, Anne Catherine Gieshoff 105 Table 6: Descriptive statistics and test statistics (chi-square-test) for didactic material Variable N Percent N_1 Percent_2 Test survey FAS NAS I’m happy with the materials 41 20 X2=1.086, p=0.896 ... Strongly disagree 1 0.024 0 0 ... Disagree 1 0.024 0 0 ... Unsure 4 0.098 2 0.1 ... Agree 24 0.585 13 0.65 ... Strongly agree 11 0.268 5 0.25 cost considerations play a role in my choice 41 20 X2=9.297, p=0.054* ... Strongly disagree 4 0.098 0 0 ... Disagree 13 0.317 2 0.1 ... Unsure 5 0.122 6 0.3 ... Agree 11 0.268 4 0.2 ... Strongly agree 8 0.195 8 0.4 interpreting theory is not very relevant for my students 41 20 X2=11.606, p=0.021** ... Strongly disagree 21 0.512 3 0.15 ... Disagree 16 0.39 9 0.45 ... Unsure 1 0.024 1 0.05 ... Agree 2 0.049 6 0.3 ... Strongly agree 1 0.024 1 0.05 the materials are not as in-depth as I would like 41 20 X2=2.305, p=0.68 ... Strongly disagree 8 0.195 4 0.2 ... Disagree 15 0.366 6 0.3 ... Unsure 7 0.171 3 0.15 ... Agree 11 0.268 6 0.3 ... Strongly agree 0 0 1 0.05 SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 106 the materials are available in my students’ L1 41 20 X2=1.324, p=0.857 ... Strongly disagree 6 0.146 5 0.25 ... Disagree 13 0.317 5 0.25 ... Unsure 6 0.146 2 0.1 ... Agree 11 0.268 5 0.25 ... Strongly agree 5 0.122 3 0.15 I have a lot of work to adopt the materials 41 20 X2=2.528, p=0.64 ... Strongly disagree 2 0.049 3 0.15 ... Disagree 6 0.146 3 0.15 ... Unsure 5 0.122 3 0.15 ... Agree 23 0.561 8 0.4 ... Strongly agree 5 0.122 3 0.15 my course is informed by interpreting theory 41 20 X2=5.752, p=0.124 ... Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 ... Disagree 3 0.073 1 0.05 ... Unsure 1 0.024 2 0.1 ... Agree 13 0.317 11 0.55 ... Strongly agree 24 0.585 6 0.3 the materials are approachable 41 20 X2=4.652, p=0.199 ... Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 ... Disagree 0 0 2 0.1 ... Unsure 4 0.098 2 0.1 ... Agree 22 0.537 8 0.4 ... Strongly agree 15 0.366 8 0.4 Rachel E. Herring, Anne Catherine Gieshoff 107 Table 7: Proportions and binomial test statistics statement answer option number of successes number of trials proportion of successes (FAS) estimated probability (based on NAS) p-value cost considerations play a role for my choice of didactic materials Strongly disagree 4 41 0.1 0 0 Disagree 13 41 0.32 0.1 0 Unsure 5 41 0.12 0.29 0.023 Agree 11 41 0.27 0.19 0.23 Strongly agree 8 41 0.2 0.38 0.015 interpreting theory is not very relevant Strongly disagree 21 41 0.51 0.14 0 Disagree 16 41 0.39 0.43 0.64 Unsure 1 41 0.02 0.05 1 Agree 2 41 0.05 0.29 0 Strongly agree 1 41 0.02 0.05 1