Eye Tracking in Interpreting Studies

Some people may argue that experts are born with special talents, or “gifted”.

Experts possess some kind of innate ability that allows a particular individual

to perform better, to achieve a certain goal faster and easier. On the contrary,

those born without talents have to work harder, and may even never be able to

reach the level of expertise the former group have. Therefore for those who are

not born “with the talent”, any form of expertise training or development

would at most yield limited results. However, according to Ericsson, Prietula

and Cokely (2007), experts are made (trained), not born; in fact, it will take a

person at least 10 years (or 10,000 hours) to become an expert. In their article,

they also mentioned the findings of Bloom (1985). Bloom’s study showed that

individuals who perform exceptionally well “had practiced intensively, had

studied with devoted teachers, and had been supported enthusiastically by

their families throughout their developing years”. Ericsson (2000) also

remarked that so far there have not been any set standards for evaluating the

effects of innate talents on adult achievement. If innate talents do bring

certain advantages for individuals, there is no supporting evidence that others

cannot compensate the gap with extensive training later on in life. The only

exceptions would probably be body size and height, especially for athletes. But

overall, given enough motivation and training, individuals who had already

accumulated substantial experience in the area usually can accomplish

different degrees of improvements later in life.

In order to understand the progress of individuals on their journey to become

experts, Dreyfus (2004) purposed a five-level model of expertise development,

starting with Novice, to Advanced beginner, Competence, Proficiency, and

finally, Expertise. The Dreyfus model has been used to study interpreter

training (汝明麗，2010). According to the study done by 汝明麗 (2010), upon

finishing two years of interpreting training, student interpreters in Taiwan

should have a Competence level skillset. However, the implementation of the

Dreyfus model in interpreting studies is still at its beginning stage (汝明麗，

2010).

In the Dreyfus model, both novices and advanced beginners are placed in

controlled environments where they are given simple basic rules to follow.

Individuals at the Novice level begin by simply follow basic rules given by the

instructor, regardless of the environment and situation. Gradually, the novices

begin to note different situations and start to integrate related context and

information for a better performance. This is when they enter the Advanced

beginner level. At this level, advanced beginners have more experience than

novices, and more understanding of related context; yet the learning at the

level are still based on examples and instructions, and distanced from actual

environments and scenarios. Once advanced beginners enter the Competence

level, they begin to make their own choices. Students at this level learn how to

pick out relevant and important aspects and make decisions during tasks.

Results of the tasks are now controlled by the student’s own choices, which,

understandably, cause emotional stress for the student. Interestingly, if

handled well, stress may actually assist the student to improve, as it pushes

them to improve their performance.

Starting from the Proficient stage, the student is able to conceive goals (as in

what they need to accomplish) and form various strategies to react. However,

proficient individuals lack sufficient experience to anticipate possible

outcomes of different strategies; therefore still require time and effort to

decide which method of solution to use. As they do not have enough

experience to assist their decision, proficient individuals would fall back on

their basic trainings. Here experience becomes the biggest difference between

Proficient and Expertise levels: proficient performers, who have relatively

lesser experience, still need to fall back on basic rules and training to make

decisions, consequently requiring more time and effort to complete the task.

On the other hand, experts are able to form intuitive responses immediately

by leveraging their past experiences, and decide on better and more effective

strategies. Dreyfus (2004) pointed out that after the expert encounters a new

situation, their brain will later categorize the final solution, and form a

database-like storage for the expert to reuse or refer to in the future should

their encounter similar problems. This echoes the findings of Klein and

Hoffman (1993) mentioned earlier which suggested that since experts are

more experienced, they are able to quickly predict possible outcomes of

different strategies; therefore more likely to choose and apply the most

efficient solution within the shortest period of time. Again experience is the

crucial factor that distinguishes experts from other levels of expertise.

However, although experience is an important factor that allows experts to

make decisions faster and more efficiently, Ericsson, Prietula and Cokely

(2007) pointed out that some studies have shown that without continuous

training, expertise actually declines with experience. The training here does

not indicate aimless repetitive practice/exercises, as Klein and Hoffman (1993)

points out; but rather a kind of deliberate practice, which is defined as

“practice that focuses on tasks beyond your current level of competence and

comfort” (Ericsson, Prietula, & Cokely, 2007). It includes two aspects:

stepping out of one’s comfort zone and work on something new and

unfamiliar, and to continuously improve on the skills one already possess.

Deliberate practice also makes great difference in performance. As Ericsson,

Prietula and Cokely (2007) found out in their study, senior experts who

neglect to practice deliberately on a regular basis may be more prone to

dealing with events automatically, or even relying on intuition; therefore are

more likely to run into problems when faced with atypical situations they are

not familiar with.

Dreyfus (2004) did not address the issue of deliberate practice in his model.

Expertise in his model is defined by the ability to make immediate, intuitive

responses according to the situation (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 2005; Dreyfus,

2004). When faced with atypical situations, experts should be able to

compensate with their vast experience “data-pool”, and still produce quality

performances (Dreyfus, 2004).

Past literature and studies offer general observations on experts in various

fields, such as expertise and quality performance are the results of experience

accumulation (Ericsson & Smith, 1993; Moser-Mercer, 1997; Hoffman, 1996),

and experts employ “chunking” and other strategies during tasks (Klein &

Hoffman, 1993). One phenomenon often used to decide whether an individual

is an expert or not, is their ability to constantly deliver a quality performance

(Glaser, 1976; Ericsson, Prietula, & Cokely, 2007). Although some may say it is

difficult to objectively grade performances in certains fields, the creative arts,

for example, Ericsson, Prietula and Cokely, (2007) point out there are still

methods to grade leves of technical aspects and skills. Experts, according to

Ericsson, Prietula and Cokely (2007), are deliberately trained and developed,

not just individuals natually born with innate talent. In fact, deliberate

practise is very crucial to the making of an expert (Bloom, 1985; Ericsson,

2000; Hoffman, 1996). Since currently there is no other model established to

distinguish different levels of expertise in the field of interpreting, the Dreyfus

model is used in related interpreting studies as guidelines for grouping

interpreters at various skill levels (汝明麗，2010).