Development of Reliable Evaluation Tools in Legal Interpreting: A Test Case

1. Introduction Before discussing the final examination in LI (Legal Interpreting) at KU Leuven, Antwerp campus, we would like to shed some light on the use of concepts without going into too much detail, however, or reinventing the wheel. We will also briefly explain the situation in Belgium and outline those elements which we will be unable to discuss in this contribution for reasons of space. 1.1 Certification through independent bodies The final LI examination in combination with the other (written) examinations on legal knowledge, legal terminology, methodology and sources of law leads to certification, meaning that "certificates are usually awarded after completion of a course of study and demonstration of mastery of the knowledge or skills imparted in courses" (Mikkelson, 2013, p. 66). Furthermore, Mikkelson notes the following: Credentialing or certification, whereby mastery of the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to practice the profession is verified by an independent body, is inextricably linked to this formative education. (2013, p. 67). Unfortunately, this is not yet the case in Belgium where no national register of sworn translators and interpreters exists and the title of legal interpreter is not protected. As a result, there are no standardized procedures allowing one to become a legal interpreter; each court has its own system for the recruitment of interpreters. The court of Antwerp alone has strict rules about the education, training, evaluation and certification of interpreters. This has come about as a result of the court's close collaboration with the LIT department of KU Leuven, Antwerp campus. Consequently, we are still light years away from welldesigned specific certification tests like those in the United States (Feuerle, 2013) or other countries such as Australia, Austria, Canada, Sweden or the UK (Hlavac, 2013). Nevertheless, the fact that an independent body exists in Belgium that certifies community interpreters, together with our experience as graders and contributors to the design of tests for community interpreters, were of great help in developing actual legal interpreting evaluation criteria. Vermeiren, Van Gucht and De Bontridder (2009) write about the certification of social interpreters (i.e. community interpreters) in the early years, while Roels (2013) explains how this certification process evolved, which led not only to a better and more valid test design, but also to training for graders and guidelines for more reliability in the testing procedure. 1.2 Assessment and evaluation We wish to state clearly at this point that we will not comment in detail on the assessment procedure of the LIT course at KU Leuven, Antwerp campus. This would take in too much detail and would mean starting from screening during the admission procedure, moving on to feedback during class performances (formative assessment), and then to the final examination (summative assessment). Instead, only the LI evaluation at the end of the course will be discussed here because it rates the candidate's performance and achievements, while assessment procedures measure the performance and progression of an individual, giving feedback so that performance can improve. This terminological difference between evaluation and assessment has been emphasized in many sources (see for example CIE, n.d.; PCrest, n.d.; ITLAL, n.d.) or kinds of assessment according to the time period(s) in which they take place). As expressed by the Institute for Teaching, Learning and Academic Leadership (ITLAL, n.d.): Assessment is the process of objectively understanding the state or condition of a thing, by observation and measurement. Assessment of teaching means taking a measure of its effectiveness. "Formative" assessment is measurement for the purpose of improving it. "Summative" assessment is what we normally call "evaluation. …