Peer-assessment on the students’ performance of interpreting prose text

Titik Ismailia, Nila Susanti


Peer-assessment is one alternative assessment to grade  peers in group or individuals by commenting on and judging other students work. This kind of evaluation  helps a teacher to have a different view on giving value and comment to the students’ performance. Interpreting is translating spoken discourse orally. There are some types of interpreting from the experts, they are simultaneous interpreting, consecutive interpreting, whispered interpreter, conference interpreting, seminar interpreting, escort interpreting. Some requirements needed like ability to speak clearly, clarity, fluency, eye contact, and self-confidence. Some experts give opinion on evaluating student’s performance on interpreting such as AIIC adopted from Bühler, EMCI, and Schjoldager. From those experts, the writer formulated one form of assessment for student in interpreting class.  Prose text is a kind of expressive text and it needs some requirements to translate like ability to comprehend parts and whole story, idioms, structure, culture, and expressions. This paper  discusses the results of students’ performance on consecutive interpreting prose text with their partner through video. One student gave the score and comment for the other student on the assessment sheet while they were watching video in the classroom. The result shows that there were 1 (1,5%)  student categorized into poor, 14 (21,5%) students categorized into fair, 33 (50,8%) students categorized  into good, and 17 (26,2%) students categorized into very good. 
Keywords: Peer-assessment, interpreting prose text, students’performance

Full Text:



Hale, S.B. (2007) Community Interpreting. Great Britain:Antony Rowe Ltd. Chippenhan and Eastbourne. Newmark, P. (1988) A Textbook of Translation. Great Britain: Pearson Education. Landers, C. E. (1999) A Practical Guide. Toronto: MultilinCual Matters Ltd. Haque, Md., Z. (2012) ‘Translating Literary Prose: Problems and Solutions’, International Journal of English Linguistics, Published by canadian Center of Science Education. URL: Bassnet, S. (2005) Translation Studies: Third Edition. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis e-library. Li, L. (2011) ‘How do students of diverse achievement levels benefit from peer assessment?’, Accessed on 16 December 2011, [Online]. Available at: Peng, J. (2010)’Peer Assessment in an EFL content: Attitudes and Correlation’, Accessed on 16 Desember 2011, [Online]. Available at: 2387 pd Pandu B, G. (2016) ‘Student’s Opinion to the Implementation of Peer-assessment’, ELTIN Journal, Vol.4/II, Oktober 2016 Azarnoosh, M. (2013) ‘Peer assessment in an EFL context:attitudes and bias’, Language Testing in Asia a SpringerOpen Journal, 3:11, context/3/1/11 Roberts, T. (2006) Self, peer-, and group assessment in E-learning. United States of America: Information Science of Publishing. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshal, B., and Wiliam, D., (2003) Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice. New York: Open University Press.

Jones, R. (1998). Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing. Bühler, H. (1986).’Linguistic (semantic) and extralinguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters’, Multilingua, 5(4), 231-235. Amy Hamilton. (2010). Collaborative learning & self-and peer assessment, Beijing: Normal Capital University. Heaton, J. B.(1990).Classroom testing. New York: Longman. EMCI.(2000).What is emci? European masters in conference interpreting, [Online]. Accessed on: 12 May 2012 Available: LNTO. (2001). The National Standards in Interpreting, London: Languages National Training Organisation. Schjoldager, A.(1996).Assessment of Simultaneous Interpreting, In C. Dollerup & V. Appel (Eds), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, 187-195. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cangelosi, J., (2000). Classroom management strategies, gaining and maintaining Students'cooperation 4th ed., USA: John Wiley and Sons. Nitko, A., (2007). Educational Assessment .Ohio:Upper saddle River, New Jersey Columbus.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN: 2356-2862