 |
Technology in Interpretation Methods: Professional Interpreter Survey |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One purpose of a university course is to provide students with the knowledge and skills required to be successful in their chosen professions. Consequently, course designers must have an intimate and current understanding of the profession beyond the university setting if students are to graduate with the training they need. To integrate future computer training into the courses at UWSP, the researcher must obtain accurate insight into the current uses of computers in the interpretive field. With
the rapid changes being made with modern technology, it is difficult to
clearly understand the specific needs and desires of professional
interpreters in regards to computer skills.
The course modules were constructed from general concepts that
have been developed in the interpretive courses over a number of years.
To gain insight into more specific skills that are important to
the interpretive profession, however, a survey was designed to gather
data from interpreters currently working in the field and supervisors
that hire interpreters. The
results of this survey were used to make recommendations for the future
incorporation of technology into the interpretive courses.
The
purpose of the survey was to gain background information about how
interpreters currently use computers and to determine which skills they
believe are most important. It
was hoped that the data would represent the interpretive profession as a
whole. The interpretive
courses at UWSP are not designed to train students for a specific
segment of the environmental education/interpretation field, but rather
to provide them with essential background knowledge and skills to assist
them wherever they decide to work. Therefore,
the survey was sent to many different interpreters and supervisors
working in a variety of settings (zoos, exhibit firms, parks, forests,
historical sites, museums, visitor centers).
To successfully complete this questionnaire method, a series of steps were developed from a variety of survey resources (Peterson, 2000, Salant, 1994, and Creative Research System, 2001). Descriptions of each step were introduced in the Evaluation Methods section of the Literature Review. Please choose one of the steps below:
Step
1: Information and Goals
Analysis
The purpose of the questionnaire was twofold. First, it would provide a snapshot to reveal how interpreters are currently using computer technology in the field. What programs are interpreters using? What equipment do they have access to? Second, the questionnaire would highlight those computer skills that would make an interpreter successful and effective. Since the questionnaire was used in conjunction with exploratory study methods, the depth of information was general. The questionnaire was developed, submitted, and analyzed within a two-month time period. The next step was to identify a group of potential participants who
would receive the survey. As
identified in the purpose, this study was developed to gain general
insight into the current use and importance of computer technology in
the interpretive profession. Therefore,
the survey population included all people who are in an
interpreter-related field (naturalists, rangers, museum docents, zoo
educators, environmental center educators, interpretive sign and exhibit
designers) and supervisors that ultimately hire interpreters at a site.
As defined, the population was quite broad, which could
potentially provide general results applicable to the interpretive
profession as a whole. On
the other hand, no accurate population list existed that included all
interpreter-related professions, making inexpensive probability sampling
nearly impossible. Since the results would not be used for statistical or experimental
analysis and due to the lack of an accurate population list, a random
selection method was not used for the study.
The survey strove to gain general background information from a
variety of interpreters and hopefully highlight some patterns that are
occurring within the profession. Using
a non-probability convenience sampling method, the surveys were sent to
interpreters and supervisors that the researcher personally knew, that
were recommended by the graduate committee, and that were listed on the
Internet (NAI distribution list, National Park Service interpreters,
Wisconsin State Parks and Forests naturalists).
A complete listing of the different study groups is included in
Table 2. Table
2: Interpretation Technology Survey Recipient Group
After determining the sample group, the next step was to list all of the questions that could provide significant insight into the uses and needs of computers. By concentrating on the purposes of the study, broad questions were developed that would help to further the research. Through several brainstorming sessions, a long list of questions and study topics was created. Step 4:
Assess Research Questions The list of questions and topics was submitted to Dr. Michael Gross and Ron Zimmerman, the instructors ultimately responsible for making changes in the interpretive courses. Gross and Zimmerman selected the questions that they felt were most important to the objectives of the study. These questions were reviewed and reworded to be more concise. A first draft of the survey was written. Step 5:
Determine Types of Questions Both close-ended (ranking continuum) and open-ended questions were incorporated into the questionnaire, to provide well-rounded responses from the participants. The questions on the survey were revised several times to be brief, relevant, unambiguous, specific, and objective. The researcher worked closely with Gross and Zimmerman to design the original questions. Step 7: Determine the Structure of the Questionnaire · Introductory section: The first part of the questionnaire introduced the researcher and supporting institution. It explained the purpose of the study, and how the results would be used. In addition, participants were informed how long it would take to complete the survey and given special instructions for sending the survey back to the researcher, especially important with an e-mail survey. · Substantive question section: The questions were logically ordered, from simple current use inquiries to the more complex attitude and opinion questions. · Classification quota section: The classification section was not included for this survey. The survey needed to be as short and concise as possible. · Conclusion section: The conclusion was actually included in the introductory paragraphs, which seemed to keep the e-mail survey better organized. Step 8:
Evaluate the Questionnaire Before being submitted to the entire study group, the survey was checked for accuracy by the interpretive course instructors (Ron Zimmerman, Dr. Michael Gross), selected interpreters (Scott Johnson, outdoor educator at Wyalusing State Park, Deb Beringer, chief naturalist of Wisconsin) and selected supervisors currently working in the field (James Buchholz, Sr., superintendent of Kohler-Andrae State Park). Their suggestions and comments were used to revise the questionnaire into its final form. The final revised survey is included below. Dear
Sir or Madam: I
am a research assistant working with Dr. Michael Gross and Ron Zimmerman
at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UWSP), a leading
institution for training environmental educators and
interpreters/naturalists. We are expanding our teaching of “computer skills” in the
interpretation courses. As
a professional interpreter/naturalist or someone who hires interpreters,
your opinion about what students should be learning is invaluable to us. Please take 5 minutes to comment on the computer skills
needed as an interpreter. Your responses will help us to shape the
evolving courses in ways that benefit both students and the field of
interpretation. Thank you
very much for contributing to this study.
Feel free to send this survey to other supervisors or
interpreters that would be interested in providing feedback. Sincerely, Jim
Buchholz Please
press the “Reply” button and fill out the survey.
When you are done, press the “Send” button to return the
survey to Jim Buchholz at jbuch209@uwsp.edu. Please return this survey by April 18. 1.
How do interpreters currently use computers at your site? On a scale of 1 to 5, please indicate how often each of these
skills is used on the job (1 = rarely used, 5 = used all the time).
2.
From the choices above, list the top 3 that are the most important for
an interpreter at your site to be successful? 3.
What type of computer technology equipment do you currently have access
to at your site?
4.
Listed below are computer skills that we are currently teaching in our
interpretive courses. On a
scale of 1 to 5, please rank these skills based on their importance to
an interpretation job (1 = rarely needed in the job, 5 = essential to
the job).
5. From the choices above, list the top 1 or 2 skills that would make an interpretive student most employable in the interpretive profession? 6.
Are there other advanced computer skills that students should be
learning in a college program not included on the list? 7. Do you have any other suggestions for teaching interpreters/naturalists about using computers and other technology? Step 9: Send out the Questionnaires and Enter Data
As stated previously, the questionnaires were sent via e-mail. Due to time and budget restraints, an inexpensive and quick
survey method was preferred for gathering results. E-mail is one of the quickest and most cost effective options
for sending questionnaires. A
major disadvantage to using e-mail is the inability to generalize the
results to a broader population, since usually not everyone in the
population will have access to e-mail.
However, this project A variety of e-mail questionnaire formats could have been chosen, from electronic forms with a graphic interface, to a rich text format that includes bullets, italicized words, and color. However, agencies and organizations often use very different e-mail systems. Forms, although easier for participants to complete, require the use of a specific e-mail program like Microsoft Outlook. Formatted e-mails with bullets and color enhance the organization and professional quality of the questionnaire, but “simple text” e-mail systems cannot display the messages correctly. Therefore, a “simple text” e-mail questionnaire was designed, which could be accurately reproduced on every e-mail system regardless of the program used. Data gathered from the close-ended survey questions was entered into Microsoft Excel, a spreadsheet program that simplifies calculations and can generate graphs and charts. The program was used to assist in the analysis step. Comments found within the open-ended questions were initially written down, and later entered into categories on Microsoft Excel. Step 10:
Analyze the Data and Produce Reports Close-ended questions were directly analyzed through the spreadsheet program. Ranking continuum questions based on a 1 to 5 scale (questions #1 and #4) were averaged together to reveal the overall importance of each item on the list. The equipment available question (#3) was calculated in terms of percentage of the total sample. The specific importance questions (#2 and #5) were also analyzed in terms of percentage of the total respondents. A coding system was used to interpret the open-ended survey questions (#6 and #7). Each comment provided in the questions was written down on a piece of paper. If a comment was identical to a previous one, a tally mark was placed next to the comment. After all of the comments were recorded, they were grouped into major categories based on broad characteristics. More specific characteristics were used to group comments into sub-categories. The response rate within certain categories guided the researcher to issues and suggestions that were most important to the interpretive field. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Introduction | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Related Readings | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Thesis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For More Information, contact: Jim Buchholz Schmeeckle Reserve University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (715) 346-4992 jbuchhol@uwsp.edu
|
All pictures and text are copyrighted by Jim Buchholz, 2002. No part of this website may be duplicated without written permission of the author. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
was an exploratory study that used non-probability sampling, which
already limited the generalization of the data.