earticle

한국어

This case study aims to verify the reliability of intuitive assessments conducted by some instructors during comprehensive evaluations, such as midterms, finals, and graduation exams in interpreting and translation graduate programs. Specifically, this research focuses on validating the legitimacy of such intuitive assessments through peer evaluation of final exams, with the additional objective of deepening students' understanding of intuitive assessment. In market-based interpretation settings, the primary assessors of quality are the users (audience or clients). In education settings, that role is assumed by instructors and students. While students typically undergo evaluation to enhance their interpreting abilities, they also participate directly in peer assessment to improve metacognitive skills related to interpreting assessment. Quality assessment of interpretation often relies on accuracy, clarity, and fidelity; however, the overlap and ambiguity between these criteria pose a challenge to the practicality of quality assessment. Therefore, comprehensive assessments in interpreter training programs often adopt a holistic approach. This comprehensive and holistic assessment approach depends on intuition, a sophisticated cognitive structure developed through extensive learning and experience. However, assessments based on instructors' intuition may raise concerns about validity. The results of this case study indicate that the average rankings from the first round of intuitive assessments by 20 peer evaluators largely corresponded with those from the second round of scaled assessments. Through this peer evaluation case study, the validity of intuitive assessments in interpreting has been partially corroborated.