Gamified group interpreting practice for T&I students: Design and implementation.
1. IntroductionThe interpreting profession has a long history dating back to as early as 1,000 BC (Lung, 2011, pp. 3-4), predating the development of written language (P[delta]chhacker, 2004, p. 9). However, it was only in the 20th century that modern professional interpreter training programs at higher education levels were established (P[delta]chhacker, 2013, p. 175). For a significant period, the apprenticeship-based training model was the mainstream approach, emphasising rigorous training to produce highly skilled professional interpreters (Orlando, 2016; P[delta]chhacker, 2004; Setton & Dawrant, 2016). In more recent years, learner-centered education has gained prominence across the educational field, and in the context of interpreter training, out-of-class and self-directed group interpretation practice can be seen as embodying this learner-centered approach (Wang, 2015, p. 66). Group practice is a pivotal pillar of interpreter training because the substantial practice required to develop interpreting expertise can be effectively achieved through self-directed collaborative practice among same-language peers (Wang, 2015, P. 66).
If group practice sessions are essential, motivating students to engage in practice plays a critical role. However, the out-of-class nature of group practice means that a lack of motivation can lead to reduced frequency and quality of practice, ultimately hindering the enhancement of learners' interpreting skills.
In such situations, even the most effective guidance provided by instructors during class may not translate into improved interpreting performance, since classroom instruction alone cannot substitute for consistent out-of-class practice.
Thus, this study focused on incorporating gamification into interpreter training as an alternative approach to the traditional model, focusing on enhancing learner motivation for self-directed group interpreting practice. Gamification refers to "the use of game design elements in non-game contexts" (Deterding et al., 2011, p. 9). In fact, gamification has already been adopted in the field of education. There are many examples of gamification in language education, with Duolingo, Rosetta Stone, and Babbel being notable cases. They use gamification to spark learners' interest, motivate them, and support them in achieving their learning goals (Bilham, 2021; Rosetta Stone, n.d.). The widespread popularity of learning platforms that incorporate gamification suggests that it has a significant impact on learning effectiveness, particularly in terms of motivation (Ho, 2020; Kapp, 2012; Szabo & Kopinska, 2023; Thorne et al., 2012). The examples provided are mainly executed via apps or online platforms, and have been made possible by recent technological innovations, although gamification can also be applied in non-digital or offline contexts.
While gamification has been extensively integrated into general language education, it has yet to gain traction in interpreter training and research, indicating a substantial gap in this area. At the same time, growing interest in Computer-Assisted Interpreter Training (CAIT) suggests a promising direction. Although CAIT is not a form of gamification, the broader trend of technological integration creates fertile ground for incorporating gamified approaches in interpreter training. Recent CAIT research has involved video conferencing platforms, online tools, digital apps, generative AI, and metaverse platforms, which are used in translation and interpretation (T&I) studies to explore applications in remote learning, self-directed interpretation practice, and feedback (Braun et al., 2013; Cao & Zhong, 2023; Chan, 2023; Lee et al., 2017; Lee, 2024; Sahin, 2013; Zhang et al., 2022).
Technological innovations can also facilitate the integration of gamification into interpreter training, without requiring dedicated apps or complex technical developments. Metaverse platforms enable the creation of simulated interpreter training environments within virtual settings, leading to the construction of more immersive experiences. This approach allows interpretation learning to take place anytime and anywhere while leveraging a variety of tools to enhance motivation and engagement. Considering these emerging possibilities and the gap in the existing literature, this study aims to explore the applicability of gamification in interpreter training by designing a gamification-based group interpreting practice environment and implementing it on a metaverse platform.
2. Literature review
Gamification involves applying game-like features to activities or settings that are not traditionally associated with gaming (Deterding et al., 2011, pp. 9-10). Specifically, with gamification, game elements such as storytelling and reward systems can be integrated into a non-game learning environment, while leaving existing teaching methods unchanged (Plass et al., 2019, p. 4). The educational context is a prime example of an area well-suited for gamification, where game mechanics are employed to motivate students to actively participate in class and self-directed studies (Kim et al., 2018, pp. 4-5). Gamified learning has numerous advantages. Students exhibit higher attendance, engage more actively in challenging tasks, contribute more frequently, find learning more enjoyable, and experience a narrowing gap between top and bottom performers (Dicheva et al., 2015, pp. 79-83). These benefits stem from the enjoyable nature of games and its tolerance for failure, which allows learners to improve through reflection and strategy adjustment, ultimately supporting long-term skill development (Osheim, 2016, p. 225). However, gamification does not always yield positive results. For highly motivated students, mandatory gamification can diminish their enthusiasm for learning (Hanus & Fox, 2015, p. 160). Thus, designing gamification strategies that promote voluntary engagement may enhance its effectiveness (Hanus & Fox, 2015, pp. 159-160).
The benefits of gamification can be extended to various areas of education including interpreter training. Interpreter training relies on an apprenticeship-style model and requires extensive self-directed practice to develop and perfect interpreting skills. Instructors provide guidance and feedback on interpreting skills in class, and students refine their skills through out-of-class group practices (Gile, 2005, p. 141; Gillies, 2013; Horvath, 2007; Wang, 2015). This practice component lends itself well to gamification, as it can enable repeated practice that helps students develop specific skills (Kapp, 2012; Koster, 2013, p. 100). Beyond skill development, gamification can also help students manage their stress levels. Interpreting is inherently a stressful activity as it requires the operation of complex skills in public, often leaving students anxious and less motivated from the outset of their training (Hansen & Shlesinger, 2007; Ivars & Calatayud, 2001). Gamification allows learners to practice their skills through trial and error in a safe, less threatening environment (Kapp, 2012, p. 9), and has the potential to provide both entertainment and learning opportunities for interpreting students (Wang, 2022). In fact, a few attempts have been made to incorporate gamification into interpreter training. Alcaide-Martinez and Pastor (2024) developed domain-specific gamified activities for training sub-skills, such as terminology acquisition and sentence-level interpreting, featuring high-quality, interactive visual content using an open-access platform. The corpus used in this game can be compiled on an ad hoc basis by the provider to meet the evolving needs of trainees, and the entire process can be implemented on commercially available platforms, such as Genially and Bamboozle, highlighting the practical potential of gamified approaches for interpreter training (Alcaide-Martinez & Pastor, 2024). Wang's (2022) interpreting game shows great potential, as it offers a gamified platform that goes beyond specific skill development to include comprehensive training in both consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. Game mechanics such as leaderboards, quests, and special missions have been incorporated to motivate students to engage more actively in interpreting practice (Wang, 2022). However, the game design appeared to be primarily oriented toward individual interpreting practice rather than group-based practice and peer feedback.
Studies exploring interpreter training in online or metaverse environments, although not fully gamified, remain significant, because gamification is well suited for such platforms. Studies on online interpreter training often involve the use of learning management systems (LMS), which have now become commonplace in higher education, along with computer-assisted interpreter training tools (CAIT). These efforts have largely centred on providing authentic speech and authoring tools for developing and analysing students' interpreting performances (Hui, 2019; Sandrelli, 2005; Sandrelli & Jerez, 2007; Lee et al., 2017; Wang, 2015), as well as video-based practice and feedback platforms (Crezee, 2026). CAIT has gained increasing attention as it can complement traditional interpreter training models by offering a learner-centric approach, while also providing benefits such as student motivation, real-life simulations, and distance learning (Fantinuoli, 2022; Sandrelli & Jerez, 2007). For PSI interpreter training, authentic text and conversational role-play were integrated into the conversation analytic role-play method (CARM), where participants viewed and discussed authentic videos to develop an understanding of real-life interpreting dynamics (Niemants et al., 2023). With the recent technological advancements, online tools have evolved into mobile applications. One prime example is ODIMEDI, a self-training tool for medico-social workers and interpreters developed by the REMILAS project (Ticca et al., 2023). The tool provides video extracts of communication in PSI settings and insights into interactions and social dynamics, allowing trainees to reflect on their own practice (Ticca et al., 2023). Recently, as distance interpreting has become one of the major modes of interpreting in real practice, remote video conferencing platforms, such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Interprefy have been incorporated into interpreter training courses (Fantinuoli, 2022; Seeber & Fox, 2022). Remote conferencing platforms can be useful in group interpreting practice, even offering the potential for gamified learning. One such example is InterpretimeBank, a commercial online platform where users post their interpreting outputs and are matched with other users who provide feedback via remote conferencing tools, in exchange for credits (Fantinuoli, 2022; InterpretimeBank, n.d.). The use of the metaverse has also been explored. Sahin (2013) implemented an online virtual world called Second Life to provide immersive interpreter training, while Braun et al. (2013) designed and developed a 3D virtual world as part of the IVY project. Leveraging the metaverse platforms, in combination with ongoing advancements in AR and VR technologies, could allow learners and instructors to connect from anywhere and create highly immersive and realistic interpreting scenarios, facilitating more effective and life-like interpreter training.
While various educational attempts have been made, implementing gamification within a well-defined framework could further enhance its effectiveness. In this context, reviewing key gamification frameworks could prove worthwhile. Notable examples are Hunicke et al.'s (2004) Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics (MDA) framework; Werbach and Hunter's gamification framework comprising dynamics, mechanics, and components; and Schell's gamification framework composed of story, technology, aesthetics, and mechanism (Kim et al., 2018, pp. 59-62). Hunicke et al.'s (2004) MDA framework can be regarded as the foundational model in gamification theory and merits further attention (Deterding et al., 2011; Toda et al., 2019). Distinct from subsequent frameworks, it simultaneously addresses the viewpoints of both the game designer and the player (Hunicke et al., 2004). In the MDA framework, mechanics refer to the rules of the game, establishing control mechanisms and defining the actions and behaviours available to players, with common mechanics including points, levels, leaderboards, achievement systems, triggers, identifiers, and pre-requirements (Hunicke et al., 2004; Matallaoui et al., 2017). Dynamics are the desires and behaviours that players exhibit and adopt during gameplay, with representative desires including attention, rewards, recognition, achievement, status, competition, self-expression, and altruism (Hunicke et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2018; Matallaoui et al., 2017). Aesthetics are the emotions experienced by the players in a game, such as challenge, narrative, sensation, discovery, fantasy, expression, and fellowship (Hunicke et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2018; Matallaoui et al., 2017). This MDA framework integrates the mechanical, attitudinal, and affective aspects essential for game motivation and organises them in a systematic framework, making it particularly useful in designing gamification, as it helps organise and develop detailed components in a structured manner.
An illustrative example of the application of Hunicke et al.'s (2004) MDA framework to interpreter training can be found in Huh's (2022) study. Huh (2022) adapted Hunicke et al.'s MDA framework, creating a framework designed for gamified interpreter training. The aim was to motivate learning through fun, enhance the effectiveness of self-directed interpretation practice, and achieve mastery through behavioural change. Huh (2022) established a framework to offer a gamified, socially focused learning environment specifically tailored for consecutive interpretation training. The specific elements were structured to motivate learners, foster a sense of connection, and provide a sense of accomplishment in various interpretation scenarios: Mechanics consist of levels, points, leaderboards, achievement systems, virtual currency, penalties, and avatars; dynamics include rewards, skill progression, achievement, self-expression, competition, and altruism; aesthetics are composed of challenge, fantasy, narrative, expression, and a sense of connection (Huh, 2022). Furthermore, Huh's (2023) in-depth interviews with interpreting trainers and students revealed valuable insights into the key considerations for implementing gamification in interpreter training. With respect to interpreter training itself, participants emphasised the importance of creating an environment similar to actual interpreting settings, enhancing adaptability to the field, maintaining a sense of tension, and encouraging mutual feedback (Huh, 2023). They particularly highlighted the necessity of group practice sessions because students can share and gain knowledge, expressions, and perspectives that are difficult to acquire individually (Huh, 2023). Regarding gamification, they showed little preference for excessively aggressive or competitive approaches (Huh, 2023). Instead, they favoured methods that supported their interpreting practice, such as using checklists or quantifiable learning indicators, while also incorporating interactive and engaging elements, including characters or avatars, to foster camaraderie (Huh, 2023).
The above learner traits are important factors to consider because they can be linked to the type of game player. Bartle's (1996) classification offers valuable insight into this aspect. According to Bartle (1996), players can be categorised into four distinct types: killers, achievers, socialisers, and explorers. Killers are players with a strong sense of challenge and competitiveness, enjoying the thrill of competing with others to win in the game; achievers prioritise accomplishments and results, focusing on achieving goals within the game; socialisers value forming connections with other players and enjoy building a sense of community during the gaming experience; and explorers, on the other hand, take pleasure in pushing boundaries, discovering possibilities, and exploring the limits of the game (Bartle, 1996). In the context of interpreting, however, participants converged on a limited set of player types. Huh's (2023) study showed that interpreting students mainly exhibited traits of achievers and socializers. They preferred practising interpreting in a collaborative and mutually supportive manner rather than a competitive and aggressive one, focusing on enhancing their interpreting skills while building bonds with their peers.
So far, this section has reviewed gamification and its application in educational contexts, including its applicability to interpreter training. Although gamification has been actively explored in general education, interpreter training has primarily relied on in-person, apprenticeship-based models, leaving little room for the application of online-based gamified approaches. Given the benefits of gamified learning and advancements in educational technology, traditional interpreter training should also evolve by embracing new pedagogical approaches. Gamification, in particular, holds considerable potential for interpreter training, in terms of skills development, student engagement, and motivation. While a few interpreting studies have applied gamification and technology in innovative and compelling ways, they remain in their early stages and focus on sub-skill acquisition, individual practice, or the theoretical exploration of gamification frameworks (e.g. Alcaide-Martinez & Pastor, 2024; Huh, 2022, 2023; Wang, 2022). This gap in the existing literature calls for further investigation. The present study, thus, aims to contribute to this emerging area by designing and implementing an actual gamified environment for self-directed group interpreting practice, grounded in a structured framework and learner needs. In doing so, it seeks to enhance students' motivation, develop comprehensive interpreting skills, and integrate the social nature of interpreting. Through this process, it also explores the feasibility of implementing a gamified approach as an alternative to the traditional interpreter training model.
3. Methodology
A gamified group interpreting practice environment was designed and implemented, building on the literature on gamification and interpreter training discussed in Section 2, such as the MDA framework for interpreter training, students' needs in self-directed interpreting practice, their gaming experience, their preferences for a gamified self-directed interpreting practice, and player types (Bartle, 1996; Huh, 2022, 2023; Hunicke et al., 2004). The goal was to motivate students to practice interpreting by incorporating fun factors, such as gamification elements, into existing interpreting practice routines.
The design was implemented on ZEP (zep.us), a metaverse platform. (1) Graduate and undergraduate students of T&I in South Korea were recruited to engage with the gamified practice environment. (2) The interpretation mode employed in this study was consecutive interpreting. A total of 32 T&I students, comprising 16 graduate and 16 undergraduate students from three universities in South Korea, participated in gamified group interpreting practice sessions. Each participant was paired with a peer at the same academic level: graduates were paired with fellow graduates, while undergraduates were paired with other undergraduates. There were eight graduate student pairs in their first and second years (Groups 9-16, Participants 17-32), and 8 undergraduate student pairs in their third and fourth years (Groups 1-8, Participants 1-16). All graduate students were female, while the undergraduate students comprised 12 females and 4 males. The language combination of all participants was English and Korean. Participants were recruited through a combination of convenience and snowballing methods, using both a recruitment notice distributed via social media and group chats by the author's research assistant, supplemented by peer-to-peer referrals. Group practice sessions were conducted between June 6 and June 25, 2023.
The study utilised a triangulated approach, incorporating participant observation, the Think-Aloud Protocol (TAP), and a post-session survey to understand students' acceptance of and reactions to gamified practice, as well as to determine the most effective gamification elements for integration into the environment. All participants joined remotely by accessing both ZEP and Zoom online. One participant from each group shared their ZEP screen with the author, facilitator, and partner using Zoom's screen-share feature, allowing their movements and activities on ZEP to be tracked and recorded. All participants were instructed to continuously verbalise their thoughts during their group practice sessions while keeping their microphones unmuted throughout the session to support participant observation and the TAP procedure. Screen and audio were recorded using Zoom's recording feature and the author's desktop recording tool. After each session, the participants' speech was transcribed using Naver Clova Note, an automatic transcription service. The draft transcripts were then manually reviewed and corrected for accuracy before being analysed. Upon completing the group practice session, participants filled out an online questionnaire via SurveyMonkey. The survey questions pertained to the participants' satisfaction with the gamified practice and their preferred gamification mechanics. An open-ended question was added at the end of the questionnaire to gather additional feedback. All participants signed informed consent forms and the study obtained IRB approval. (3) The design details of the gamified practice environment are presented in Section 4.
4. Design and implementation
This section outlines the design details of a gamified group interpreting practice environment implemented on a metaverse platform. The actual implementation with T&I students will be discussed in Section 5.
4.1 Game mechanics
The following game mechanics were incorporated into the gamified platform design.
* Level: A level indicated the stage of group interpreting practice. The levels were organised sequentially into Levels 1, 2, and 3. The activities performed at each level were different. The activities were structured to help learners internalise the necessary elements of group interpreting practice at each level. The practice was performed in pairs. Basic rules for each level were as follows: (1) At Level 1, participants took turns interpreting and giving feedback freely. Each participant earned 10 points for interpretation and an additional 10 points for feedback. However, no specific instructions were provided on how to conduct the group practice, allowing the participants to follow their usual approach. (2) At Level 2, the participants were instructed to brainstorm with each other and were informed that points were awarded for their participation. Just as in Level 1, learners took turns interpreting and providing feedback. This time, however, they were encouraged to follow the feedback guidelines provided by the gamified platform to internalise effective feedback methods. (3) At Level 3, the focus was on delivering effective interpreting that was clearly understood and had communicative impact on the audience. When one member of the pair interpreted, the other listened only to the interpreting without hearing the source text and then answered a series of yes/no questions about the content of the source text. This measured whether the interpretation was delivered correctly and clearly to the audience.
* Challenge: This mechanic was added to reinforce the fun factor. While the levels were arranged sequentially as Levels 1, 2, and 3, participants had the option to challenge themselves by skipping Level 2 and proceeding directly from Level 1 to Level 3, based on the group's decision. However, if the group failed Level 3, they were required to return to Level 2.
* Game stats (points): Points were awarded to or deducted from participants or their groups to scaffold their engagement in interpreting practice and enhance feedback quality. To motivate learners to engage in learning and practice in a desirable manner, points were awarded for participating in each activity--preparing for interpreting, brainstorming, performing interpreting, and giving feedback--rather than for the quality of their interpreting output. Points were deducted for purchasing items or receiving penalties. Table 1 lists the point schedule integrated into the gamified platform. The points in the table were awarded or deducted for each participant when a relevant act was performed. Determining whether each group passed a level involved totalling the points earned by its participants.
* Badge: Badges represented a participant's status in the game, in addition to the points he/she earned. In this study, badges were awarded either by earning points or by receiving endorsements from partners. The goal was to motivate learners to practice and build stronger connections with each other. The gamified platform offered two types of badges: a feedback badge and a respect badge. Participants were able to earn a feedback badge by achieving 60 or more feedback points at Level 2. They could also earn a respect badge upon receiving their partner's endorsement.
* Leaderboard: The leaderboard displayed individual and group total points to indicate the participant status. The leaderboard was shared with the participants after their practice was completed to help them check their rankings. The names of the other participants were anonymised, and only their own scores were displayed. This was intended to reduce the stress of excessive competition, while enabling the participants to monitor their progress.
* Self-expression: Participants could use features available from ZEP, such as avatars, avatar customisation, multimedia, emoticons, gestures, and chat, to express themselves, bond with other participants, and engage in meaningful emotional interactions.
* Penalty: Points were deducted for a negligent attitude (e.g. neglecting practice) to discourage inappropriate behaviour. This measure was introduced as a gentle reminder to discourage noticeable lack of practice. Additionally, to promote attentive listening, a penalty was charged if the participant listened to the source text twice.
* Narrative: A narrative element was integrated into the gamified session to boost engagement and the fun factor. According to this narrative, participants had voluntarily entered the platform to practice with their partners but then found themselves trapped, unable to leave until they cleared Level 3, the final level. Although they could practice and enjoy the experience as much as they liked, their end goal was to escape the gamified platform by successfully clearing the final level.
4.2 Source text for interpretation and quiz questions
Source texts varied by game level and academic level, with further differentiation between first- and second year-graduate students at Level 3. Within each group, participants interpreted different texts sharing a common topic. A total of 16 source texts were prepared. At Level 1, however, the participants were allowed to use their own source texts to help them warm up to the gamified environment. Only one group (Group 12) used their own texts. All source texts provided by the author were in English and the participants were asked to interpret them into Korean. Source texts were pre-recorded, and the audio was played to the participants during their practice. Participants triggered audio playback by approaching objects in ZEP that contained embedded audio links and pressing the F key on their keyboards. All source texts were pre-written scripts read aloud, either by a person or using a text-to-speech feature. The source texts for undergraduate participants were read aloud and recorded by the author. The source texts for graduate participants were prerecorded using the text-to-speech feature of ElevenLabs (elevenlabs.io). The topics of the source texts were climate change, ESG, Apple glasses, inflation, the effect of sugar on the human brain, telemedicine, and telomeres. The topics fall within domains such as the environment, economy, technology, and healthcare, which were selected to represent the range of areas commonly covered in interpreting programs. The texts were adapted from news articles, online information sources, and the author's offline materials (See Appendix 2 for the online sources). The word counts of the source texts varied between 113 and 222. The pre-recorded audio files ranged from 71 to 110 seconds.
The quiz administered at Level 3 consisted of a total of ten questions for each text (See Appendix 3). The questions were all yes or no questions about the contents of the source texts. Each correctly answered question was awarded 10 points and the total score would indirectly reflect the accuracy and clarity with which the interpretation was delivered to the other participant.
4.3 Player type
Among the four player types identified by Bartle (1996) - killers, achievers, socialisers, and explorers - interpreting students' traits largely aligned with those of achievers and socialisers (Huh, 2023). This study, therefore, focused on designing features and activities aligned with achievers and socialisers within its gamified platform, such as levels, point schedules, interpreting tasks, peer feedback, teamwork, and affective elements. However, this does not imply that killers and explorers have been neglected. Level skipping, a leaderboard, and an explorable environment were incorporated to cater to the tastes of killers and explorers.
4. Practice environment
The gamified practice environment for this study was built on ZEP, a metaverse platform, and it consisted of a reception hall where participants' avatars were welcomed and customised, themed meeting rooms for Levels 1 and 2, a conference hall for Level 3, and other explorable spaces, such as a laboratory, gym equipment, a central lounge, a cafeteria, offices, seminar rooms, desks, and a running track (see Figures 1 and 2).
Meeting rooms for interpreting practice were designed and themed to align with the topics of the source texts used at each level. The topics covered at Level 1 were climate change and ESG, with the space designed as green environments decorated with plants. The topics at Level 2 were inflation and Apple glasses, with the space designed as a business meeting room. Level 3, the final stage, was set in a conference hall environment. The meeting rooms and the conference hall were equipped with installations for displaying topic information and glossaries as well as for playing audio source text files. At Level 3, ChatGPT Cat, a GPT feature provided by ZEP, was installed in the conference hall. Participants could choose to use the feature by spending points.
4.5 Procedure for the gamified group interpreting practice session The procedure for the gamified group interpreting practice session is illustrated in Figure 3, and the activities for each step are detailed in Table 2. The sessions were facilitated by a peer, a non-participating student, to provide a more comfortable environment for the participants. The facilitator was a second-year graduate student, a research assistant, enrolled in an interpreting programme in South Korea. The author greeted the students only at the beginning and end and maintained a minimal presence throughout the session by turning off the video and microphone. Upon completing the practice session, the participants were given a post-session questionnaire to assess their satisfaction levels and identify the factors contributing to their satisfaction.
5. Results and discussion
This section presents the results of the gamified group interpreting practice sessions as designed in Section 4. Findings were derived from participant observations, think-aloud data, and post-session survey results. Think-aloud data were both selectively quoted and integrated into the analysis. The findings are organised into three categories: scaffolding effects, learner traits, and satisfaction factors & preferred game mechanics.
5.1 Scaffolding effect
The advantage of gamification is its ability to motivate learners to study, practice, and refine their skills through repeated exercises. Furthermore, the findings suggest that gamification has a scaffolding effect that supports learning. Participants' behaviours shifted notably across the levels. At Level 1, where little structured guidance was provided, only minimal brainstorming and feedback were observed. In contrast, at Levels 2 and 3, where the point schedule rewarded various feedback types and collaborative brainstorming, participants engaged more actively in these activities, aligning their behaviour with the guidelines to maximise their points. Furthermore, at Level 3, participants appeared motivated to deliver their interpretations as accurately and clearly as possible, knowing that it would impact their partners' quiz scores.
This is further illustrated by the following observations. The overall group brainstorming time increased at Levels 2 and 3 compared to Level 1, and the group feedback time also increased at Level 2 compared to Level 1. At Level 1, where no specific guidelines or points were applied to brainstorming, the participants brainstormed very briefly, with an average briefing time of 2 minutes and 51 seconds. Only one group (Group 7) spent a considerably longer time brainstorming than the others, lasting as long as eight minutes. However, this time was largely devoted to individual web searches, rather than meaningful group discussions. The overall feedback time at Level 1 was also brief, averaging just 4 minutes and 53 seconds.
The situation changed from Level 2, from which point onward a more detailed point system was applied for feedback, brainstorming, and quizzes. Following the briefing on the point schedule, participants generally engaged in brainstorming and feedback more strategically and dynamically. For the six groups that proceeded to Level 2, their average brainstorming time was 5 minutes and 11 seconds, and the average feedback time was 9 minutes and 3 seconds. At Level 3, the point schedule rewarded higher scores for greater collaborative brainstorming among participants. All 16 groups thus engaged in vibrant discussions, utilising the entire 10 minutes allotted to them.
At Level 2, not only was the feedback time extended but the content also became more detailed, with participants generally addressing most of the feedback elements outlined in the point schedule (See Appendix 1). In contrast to Level 1, many groups provided extensive feedback that focused on sentence and vocabulary-level alternatives (Groups 9, 12, 13, 15). While some participants missed covering a couple of feedback elements, such as grammar (Participants 4, 5, 6, 25, 26, 30), delivery (Participants 18, 26, 30), and vocabulary and/or sentence level alternatives (Participant 6), others strategically reviewed the feedback elements outlined in the point schedule and provided detailed feedback on the interpreted output, covering most of the elements, such as key logic, accuracy, vocabulary, grammar, and delivery, and offered sentence- or vocabulary-level alternatives (Groups 2, 12). Furthermore, in some cases where the partner omitted certain feedback elements, the participant receiving feedback took the initiative by asking questions such as "How was the speed of my interpretation?" to prompt feedback. This approach ultimately ensured that they gained points without missing feedback elements (Groups 2, 12).
Participant 3: How you interpreted was great in that it was concise while covering all the main points. Participant 4: How was the speed of my interpretation? Was it alright? Participant 3: Yes, I think the speed was very good. I personally think that it was neither too fast nor slow. Participant 4: Would you like to give any alternatives for my interpretation? Participant 3: Well, I thought that "goods, products and services" [in the source text] could be interpreted into [phrase omitted] [products and services]." (5) (Group 2)
The participants also discussed with each other and made strategic decisions, mindful of the gamified point system. For instance, at Level 3, participants had to consider whether purchasing useful items such as a keyword list, an English-Korean glossary, or subject-specific information was worth losing points. As illustrated in the exchange below, participants carefully considered the point schedule, given topic, and their own background knowledge to assess whether the benefits of accessing these items outweighed the tradeoff of point deduction.
Participant 17: Do you prefer to receive the phrase-level expressions? Or what if we receive the background information first? Participant 18: If we have a keyword list, we can also have a feel, albeit vaguely, for what kind of background information we can search on our own. Participant 17: The keyword list is just a 5-point deduction per person. That sounds like a better option. Then, let's take a look at the keyword list first, and if it's good enough, then we're good to go from there. But if we feel that we could never interpret properly after seeing what the keywords are, then we ask for a keyword list in both Korean and English. How about that? Participant 18: That's great! (Group 9)
On the other hand, one group (Group 3) exchanged brief feedback focusing only on the minimum feedback elements necessary to earn just enough points to pass Level 2. Compared with the other groups, Group 3 omitted more feedback elements (grammar, vocabulary, and sentence level alternatives), and the final score for Level 2 was the lowest of all groups. Nevertheless, it marked a significant improvement for the group, as they had previously spent only 2 minutes and 5 seconds on feedback during Level 1, addressing only key points and omissions. In contrast, from Level 2 onward, the team engaged in a more detailed feedback exchange for 5 minutes and 50 seconds, which was likely guided by the feedback point schedule. This gamified point-based guideline highlights its potential as a scaffolding mechanism, encouraging more active and engaged feedback exchange.
5.2 Learner traits
The participants' level progression patterns revealed certain traits related to risk-taking preferences. Some participants progressed sequentially through Levels 1, 2, and 3, while others skipped Level 2, advancing directly from Level 1 to Level 3. This approach involved the risk of failing Level 3 and subsequently returning to Level 2. Those who chose to progress through the levels sequentially could be classified as having a disciplined and steady approach, while those who skipped Level 2 could be regarded as risk-takers or challengers. Table 3 provides a summary of the progression styles selected by each group.
Graduate students were evenly split between sequential and level skipping progressions, whereas undergraduates showed a stronger preference for level skipping progression. The reasons behind their choices present a diverse and intriguing picture. Some participants chose to progress step by step, citing the following reasons: a preference for gradual advancement (Groups 2, 12), needing time to adjust to the game (Group 2), a competitive desire to earn more points and outperform other teams (Groups 9, 15), a wish to avoid missing any details (Group 13), or no specific reason (Group 3). Others chose to skip Level 2 for the following reasons: a desire to embrace the challenge (Groups 1, 8), confidence in having the safety net of Level 2 available (Groups 4, 6, 11), an intention to leave it to chance (Group 14), or no specific reason (Groups 5, 7, 10, 16).
Participant 26: I'd like to go through everything. When I play games, I like to play and clear all stages. So, I'd like to proceed to Level 2 (...) This feels like a real game and it's fun. (Group 13) Participant 17: My competitive spirit is on fire! (...) We'll proceed to Level 2 so that we earn the maximum points. (Group 9) Participant 7: Shall we [skip Level 2 and] go straight to level 3? Participant 8: Really? I don't think we could clear Level 3 and get out of here. Participant 7: Well, in that case, we will be sent back to Level 2, anyway. I trust you (...) Let's go straight to Level 3, and if we fail, we come back and do Level 2. Participant 8: Let's give it a go. We'll see what happens. (Group 4)
5.3. Satisfaction with gamification and preferred mechanics The post-session survey findings indicated that participants were satisfied with the gamified practice and highlighted their preferences for specific gamification mechanics, as presented in Tables 4 and 5. Satisfaction levels were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale for each statement in the questionnaire, and participants indicated their level of agreement accordingly. The average scores for all items were 4.0 or higher, with the findings showing high satisfaction rates across fun, learner motivation, meaningful contribution and collaboration, challenge, camaraderie, achievement, friendly competition, and low stress. The results demonstrated that gamified group interpreting practice conducted on a metaverse platform effectively enhanced the aforementioned elements.
Regarding the specific mechanics with which the participants were satisfied with, elements promoting learner motivation and scaffolding were received positively. (7) As shown in Table 5, points awarded for interpreting, points assigned by feedback element, the metaverse setting, avatars, level-based activities and progression, teamwork-oriented approaches, and group-based point assignment emerged as popular mechanics, receiving a positive reception from at least half of the participants. Regarding the level-skipping option, while 20 participants utilised this feature during the experiment, only 10 participants expressed a preference for it in the post-session survey, suggesting that interpreting learners may be less inclined toward risk-taking and tend to favour a diligent, disciplined approach, preferring not to skip learning opportunities.
The post-session survey also included an open-ended question to allow participants to share their opinions freely. The overall responses indicated that participants generally found the gamified practice approach to be more enjoyable and refreshing than traditional practice methods. The teamwork-oriented approach underpinned by the group-based point system was well received, as it allowed participants to interpret individually while also collaborating with one another. In other words, it allowed participants to enjoy the best of both worlds, fostering camaraderie without compromising their practice opportunities. Gamified mechanics, such as a level-based approach, avatars, and the metaverse setting, garnered positive feedback for their immersive and fun aspects. These features allowed the participants to practice effectively and experience a sense of achievement while having fun throughout the process. Most importantly, the scaffolding effect was acknowledged, as the gamified structure reinforced the perception that conducting background research and preparing glossaries were genuinely helpful for interpretation. In the words of the participants:
Through team play, I felt a stronger sense of cooperation and bond with my partner. Most of all, I had fun engaging in a friendly competition with other teams! Normally, practice sessions are often just one-on-one, but this approach allows us to take on challenges in a more engaging and enjoyable way, just as in a game. In particular, points assigned during the brainstorming process encouraged more active participation. (Participant 22) Solving a quiz solely relying on my partner's interpretation without hearing the source text gave me a sense of tension and accountability, as if I were interpreting on the spot. I found this incredibly effective. Additionally, customising my avatar and earning points provided a sense of addiction and achievement, similar to when playing a game. (Participant 20) I was impressed by the practice mission's inclusion of background knowledge and terminology search tasks [through a point system], encouraging us to look up relevant background information about the source text in advance. Although this step is essential, it is often skipped because it can be cumbersome. However, making it a mission provided the motivation to conduct prior research. As a result, I could feel an improvement in the quality of my interpretation. (Participant 11)
In addition, some areas for improvement were highlighted. Suggestions include diversifying the topics of the source texts and refining the scoring system, such as by incorporating more detailed score aggregation records within the metaverse platform. These views suggest directions for further research. Given the rapid advancement and increasing availability of commercial gamification platforms, follow-up research could explore the integration of a broader range of source texts delivered automatically through the system, automatic performance assessment, and the provision of sample interpretations for feedback.
6. Conclusion
This study explored the applicability of gamification in interpreter training by designing a gamified group interpreting practice environment and implementing it on a metaverse platform. Self-directed group interpreting practice is a crucial component of interpreter training. However, research on gamification in interpreter training, particularly for self-directed group practice, remains scarce. To address this gap, this study designed a gamified environment tailored to group interpreting practice based on the needs identified through literature review. A total of 32 undergraduate and graduate students majoring in T&I used the gamified platform and expressed their thoughts aloud during the process following the Think Aloud Protocol. In addition, a post-survey was conducted, and the combined results were analysed to explore the platform's overall applicability.
One of the notable aspects of this gamification approach was its scaffolding effect. While group interpreting practice plays an important role in building interpreting skills (Wang, 2015), the manner in which it is conducted matters most. The interactions and feedback exchanged during group practice sessions affect its quality. However, in conventional group interpreting practice sessions, which are usually performed out-of-class without specific trainer guidance, the quality and satisfaction level can vary widely depending on the practice partners' feedback capacity and individual knowhow. As noted in previous studies, students following the conventional method often felt disappointed when feedback was inaccurate or limited to simple error-checking, without fostering discussion among participants or providing constructive alternatives (Lim, 2014; Pyun, 2021, pp. 83-84). In this regard, leveraging emerging techniques such as gamification could help support out-of-class group practice settings. In this study, compared to the baseline conventional approach observed at Level 1, structured guidance for feedback designed for Levels 2 and 3 led to collaborative brainstorming, strategic engagement, and structured feedback. Specifically, assigning points to specific feedback elements, rewarding collaborative efforts, and applying team aggregate scores appeared to influence learners' attitudes and strategies. This suggests that gamification may help foster desirable learning habits among interpreting students.
Second, the results suggested that gamification benefited the affective dimensions of interpreting learners. This approach could, first and foremost, help reduce stress among interpreter trainees. Conference interpreting practice involves speaking before the public and receiving thorough critique ranging from accuracy, grammar, vocabulary, register to delivery and presentation. This process often causes stress for interpreting students during their initial stages of learning and may serve as a demotivating factor (Hansen & Shlesinger, 2007; Ivars & Calatayud, 2001). Although traditional approaches have continued to be used with limited complementary support, recent pedagogical and technological advances have made various supplementary methods available. If these alternatives can help reduce learner anxiety and drive motivation, there is little reason to not incorporate them into the interpreter training process. This study found that gamified practice boosted learners' motivation, enjoyment, camaraderie, challenge, sense of achievement, and engagement in constructive competition without causing significant stress. Furthermore, it helped bring out learners' underlying competitive spirit and fostered healthy competition. This may have been attributable to the scores and leaderboard system reflecting effort-based points rather than interpretation quality, which allowed learners to challenge themselves and engage in healthy competition without undue stress.
The platform's processes, rules, mechanics, and avatars showed the potential to enhance teamwork and connection among learners. In the post-session survey, 75% of the participants favoured a teamwork-oriented approach, indicating a strong preference for collaborative learning and the effectiveness of gamification in supporting it.
Third, the metaverse showed strong potential as a gamification platform. Learners enjoyed using the metaverse environment and features such as avatars, and the tools provided by commercial platforms made implementation relatively easy.
Fourth, with further development, gamified self-directed group practice could be incorporated into interpreting courses as after-class activities or class assignments. This would allow such practices to function as an extension of regular classes, enhancing student engagement and complementing traditional classroom-based interpreter training.
While the findings indicate educational benefits, this study has certain limitations. First, the research remains exploratory and limited to a small group of students. Second, owing to the limitations of the features provided by the commercial metaverse platform, certain tasks such as score aggregation had to be performed manually, resulting in a lack of sophisticated statistics that were visible to users. This area requires additional research and development in the future to further validate its pedagogical effectiveness. Finally, further studies with diverse settings and game mechanics are required for broader applications, with the hope of inspiring continued exploration in this field.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2022S1A5A2A01038817). I would like to express my sincere thanks to all the participants who took part in the gamified interpreting practice, as well as to my research assistant, Ms. Eunwon Kim, for facilitating the practice sessions.
References
Alcaide-Martinez, M., & Pastor, G. C. (2024). Interpreting for the agri-food sector: A gamified approach. In I. P. Gil & M. O. Anton (Eds.), Interpreting and translation for agri-food professionals in the global marketplace (pp. 143-165). De Gruyter.
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research, 1(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247190693_Hearts_clubs_diamonds_spades_Players_who_suit_MUDs
Bilham, J. (2021, July 2). Case study: How Duolingo utilises gamification to increase user interest - Raw. Studio. Raw. https://raw.studio/blog/how-duolingo-utilises-gamification/
Braun, S., Slater, C., Gittins, R., Ritsos, P. D., & Roberts, J. C. (2013). Interpreting in virtual reality: Designing and developing a 3D virtual world to prepare interpreters and their clients for professional practice. In D. C. Kiraly, K. Maksymski, & S. Hansen-Schirra (Eds.), New prospects and perspectives for educating language mediators (pp. 93-120). Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
Cao, S., & Zhong, L. (2023). Exploring the effectiveness of ChatGPT-based feedback compared with teacher feedback and self-feedback: Evidence from Chinese to English translation. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.01645
Chan, V. (2023). Research on computer-assisted interpreter training: A review of studies from 2013 to 2023. SN Computer Science, 4, 648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-023-02072-w
Crezee, I. (2026). Training interpreters of languages of lesser diffusion in an English-medium, non-language-specific interpreting classroom. Estudios de Traduccion, 16, 69-79.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining "gamification". In A. Lugmayr, H. Franssila, C. Safran, & I. Hammouda (Eds.), Envisioning future media environments. Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference, USA, 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75-88. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.3.75
Fantinuoli, C. (2022). Conference interpreting and new technologies. In M. Albl-Mikasa & E. Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of conference interpreting (pp. 508-522). Routledge.
Gile, D. (2005). Teaching conference interpreting: A contribution. In M. Tennet (Ed.), Training for the new millennium (pp. 127-151). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.60
Gillies, A. (2013). Conference interpreting: A student's practice book. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003330028
Hansen, I., & Shlesinger, M. (2007). The silver lining: Technology and self-study in the interpreting classroom. Interpreting, 9, 95-118.
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
Ho, J. (2020). Gamifying the flipped classroom: How to motivate Chinese ESL learners? Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(5), 421-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1614185
Horvath, I. (2007). Autonomous learning: What makes it work in postgraduate interpreter training? Across Languages and Cultures, 8(1), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.8.2007.1.6
Hui, M. (2019). Deployment of an e-platform for interpreting novices' self-directed learning. trans-kom, 12(4), 52-75. http://hdl.handle.net/10397/97904
Huh, J. (2022). [phrase omitted] [Exploratory study on designing a gamification based interpreting education framework]. [phrase omitted][The Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 21], 13(5), 1185-1200. https://doi.org/10.22143/HSS21.13.5.83
Huh, J. (2023). [phrase omitted] [Gamification and metaverse based interpreter education for enhancing learning motivation: Focusing on the needs of learners and trainers]. [phrase omitted] [The Journal of Interpretation and Translation Education], 21(2), 25-46. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE11733701
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004, July). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research [Paper presentation]. AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, San Jose, CA. United States. https://cdn.aaai.org/Workshops/2004/WS-04-04/WS04-04-001.pdf
InterpretimeBank. (n.d.). How it works. https://interpretimebank.net
Ivars, A. J., & Calatayud, D. P. (2001). "I failed because I got very nervous". Anxiety and performance in interpreter trainees: An empirical study. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 11, 105-118.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. Pfeiffer.
Kim, S., Song, K., Lockee, B., & Burton, J. (2018). Gamification in learning and education: Enjoy learning like gaming. Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-47283-6
Koster, R. (2013). A Theory of Fun for Game Design (2nd ed.). O'Reilly. Lee, J. (2024, October). GPT [phrase omitted] [Reflections on translation and interpretation feedback utilizing ChatGPT][Paper presentation]. 2024 KATS-EWHA GSTI Joint Academic Conference: AI Turn? New Frontier and Tasks of Translation Studies, Seoul, ROK. Lee, J., Park, H., & Park, S. (2017). [phrase omitted] [Using smart learning technology in consecutive interpreting class: Focusing on the Korean-Japanese language pair]. Journal of Japanese Language and Culture, 41, 227-251. https://www.earticle.net/Article/A326595
Lim, S. J. (2014). [phrase omitted] [Suggesting teaching method based on the analysis of learners' note taking practice]. [Interpretation and Translation], 19(1), 113-138. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002214950
Lung, R. (2011). Interpreters in early Imperial China. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.96
Matallaoui, A., Hanner, N., & Zarnekow, R. (2017). Introduction to gamification: Foundation and underlying theories. In S. Stieglitz, C. Lattemann, S. Robra-Bissantz, R. Zarnekow, & T. Brockmann (Eds.), Gamification: Using game elements in serious contexts (pp. 3-18). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-45557-0_1
Niemants, N., Hansen, J. P. B., & Stokoe, E. (2023). The conversation analytic role-play method. In L. Gavioli & C. Wadensjo (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of public service interpreting (pp. 342-361). Routledge.
Orlando, M. (2016). Training 21st century translators and interpreters: At the crossroads of practice, research and pedagogy. Frank & Timme. https://www.frank-timme.de/en/programme/product/training_21st_century_translators_and_interpreters-at_the_crossroads_of_practice-research_and_pedagogy
Osheim, D. (2016). Gamification of the classroom: Potential, pitfalls, and practices. In H. Gangadharbatla & D. Z. Davis (Eds.), Emerging research and trends in gamification (pp. 224-248). IGI Global. https://doi.org/0.4018/978-1-4666-8651-9.ch010
Pochhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. Routledge.
Pochhacker, F. (2013). Teaching interpreting/Training interpreters. In Y. Gambier & L. V. Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies, Vol. 4, (pp. 174-180). John Benjamins. http://prof.khuisf.ac.ir/images/Uploaded_files/Handbook%20of%20translation%20studies[7246719].PDF#page=187
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Mayer, R. E., & Kinzer, C. K. (2019). Theoretical foundation of game-based and playful learning. In J. L. Plass, R. E. Mayer, & B. D. Homer (Eds.), Handbook of game-based learning (pp. 3-24). MIT Press.
Pyun, H. (2021). [phrase omitted] [What do apprentice interpreters watch for feedback? - A case study of Korean-French consecutive interpreting feedback-]. [phrase omitted] [The Journal of Interpretation and Translation Education],19(4), 69-90.
Rosetta Stone. (n.d.). Rosetta Stone foundations: Games and activities. https://www.rosettastone.com/k12/resources/content/feature-preview-foundations-games-and-activities/ Sahin, M. (2013). Virtual worlds in interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 7(1), 91-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2013.10798845
Sandrelli, A. (2005, May). Designing CAIT (Computer-assisted interpreter training) tools: Black box. In H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast & S. Nauert (Eds.), MuTra 2005 -Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings, USA (pp. 1-18). https://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/2005_Sandrelli_Annalisa.pdf
Sandrelli, A., & Jerez, J. D. M. (2007). The impact of information and communication technology on interpreter training: State-of-the-art and future prospects. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1(2), 269-303.
Seeber, K. G., & Fox, B. (2022). Distance conference interpreting. In M. Albl-Mikasa & E. Tiselius (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of conference interpreting (pp. 491-507). Routledge.
Setton, R., & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting. A trainer's guide. John Benjamins.
Szabo, F., & Kopinska, M. (2023). Gamification in foreign language teaching: A conceptual introduction. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 13(3), 418-428. https://doi.org/10.1556/063.2023.00202
Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I., & Lu, X. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online game world. ReCALL, 24(3), 279-301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000158
Ticca, A. C., Traverso, V., & Jouin, E. (2023). Training interpreters in asylum settings: The REMILAS project. In L. Gavioli & C. Wadensjo (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of public service interpreting (pp. 362-382). Routledge.
Toda, A. M., Klock, A. C. T., Oliveira, W., Palomino, P. T., Rodrigues, L., Shi, L., Bittencourt, I., Gasparini, I., Isotani, S., & Cristea, A. I. (2019). Analysing gamification elements in educational environments using an existing gamification taxonomy. Smart Learning Environments, 6(16), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0106-1
Wang, B. (2015). Bridging the gap between interpreting classrooms and real-world interpreting. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 7(1), 65-73. Retrieved from https://open.clemson.edu/ijie/vol7/iss1/6
Wang, H. (2022). Gamification of interpreter training: A future perspective. Translation Quarterly, 105, 47-63.
Zhang, X., Chen, Y., Hu, L., & Wang, Y. (2022). The metaverse in education: Definition, framework, features, potential applications, challenges, and future research topics. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1016300. htps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016300
Appendix 1: Points achieved by participants
Classification Criteria for point
assignment
Level 1 Interpreting Participant performs
Feedback interpreting.
Participant provides feedback
for his/her partner's
interpreting performance.
Group total for Level 1
All groups passed 3d Level 1
Level 2 Preparation Participant prepares before
interpreting: subject knowledge
research, terminology
preparation, discussion with
partner.
Interpreting Participant performs
Feedback interpreting. Participant
provides feedback on key logic.
Participant provides feedback
on accuracy.
Participant provides feedback
on vocabulary, register and
terminology.
Participant provides feedback
on grammar and syntax.
Participant provides feedback
on pronunciation/accent
/intonation/speed/delivery.
Participant provides 2 or more
alternatives at the sentence
level.
Participant provides 2 or more
alternatives at the vocabulary
level.
Penalty Participant listens to the
source text twice.
Participant displays negligent
Group total for Level 2 attitude.
All groups that
opted to play Level 2
successfully passed it.
Level 3 Preparation Participant collaborates with
his/her partner to research and
brainstorm both subject
knowledge and relevant
Penalty terminologies. Participant
listens to the source text
twice.
Participant displays negligent
attitude.
Item purchase Participant receives a keyword
list.
Participant receives background
information.
Participant receives a keyword
list in both Korean and
English.
Participant receives a list of
phrase-level expressions.
Participant uses ChatGPT Cat, a
generative AI feature provided
from the ZEP platform.
Interpreting Participant performs
Quiz interpreting.
Participant responds to a total
of 10 yes/no questions after
listening to his/her partner's
interpretation.
Group total
for Level 3
Group total scores
across all levels
All groups passed
Level 3.
A total of 22
respect badges and
1 feedback badge were
awarded
Average
points
Level 1 10.0
10.0
20.0
Level 2 10.0
50.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
3.8
12.9
12.6
0.0
0.0
213.5
Level 3 50.0
0.0
0.0
-2.2
-0.6
0.0
-0.9
0.0
50.0
85.9
364.4
617.9
Appendix 2: Online ST sources
Domain Source URL
Environment https://www.ucsusa.org/climate
https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/solutions
https://www.deloitte.com/ce/en/services/consulting
/perspectives/esg-explained-1-what-is-esg.html
Economy https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/what-is
-inflation/
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-are
-interest-rates
Technology https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-06-07
/apple-s-vision-smart-glasses-are-a-change-of-tim-cook-s
-heart?
Healthcare https://www.sciencealert.com/research-shows-sugar-can
-change-your-brain-here-s-how
https://www.healthline.com/health/telemedicine
Appendix 3: Source text and quiz examples
Source text (excerpt):
Telemedicine is also called telehealth, evisits, e-health, or mobile health. It's the delivery of medical care from a distance. In other words, it's healthcare that doctors provide virtually, outside the typical doctor's office setting and face-to-face appointment. Telemedicine may seem new. The widespread use of video conferencing has made it more common. But in reality, telemedicine has been around for many years. For decades, doctors could perform a consult on a telephone call. Then, emails provided a way for patients to connect with their doctors. Although you can still choose to communicate with your doctor via phone or email, live telemedicine has become increasingly common. Telemedicine isn't just for busy workers. Originally, this kind of remote care was a great option for people living in rural or underserved communities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was a safer way to get medical care. (Source: https://www.healthline.com/health/telemedicine)
Quiz questions:
* The quiz items were translated by the author from Korean to English, with the correct answers marked by underlining.
1. Telemedicine is a face-to-face form of medical care. (Yes/No)
2. Telemedicine is a completely new concept. (Y es/No)
3. Doctors can conduct consultation over the phone through telemedicine.
(Yes/No)
4. Patients can receive the results of their consultation via text message. (Yes/No)
5. In addition to phone and email, real-time consultation services are also offered. (Yes/No)
6. Telemedicine is a medical service mostly for busy people. (Y es/No)
7. Originally, the primary beneficiaries of telemedicine were busy office workers. (Yes/No)
8. During COVID-19, the main beneficiaries of telemedicine were people in rural areas or with limited access to healthcare. (Yes/No)
9. Telemedicine has only recently emerged. (Y es/No)
10. During COVID-19, telemedicine emerged as a safe method of care. (Yes/No)
Jiun Huh
Ewha Womans University, South Korea
huhj iun@ewha. ac .kr
(1) In this study, the gamified environment implemented on a metaverse platform will be referred to interchangeably as a gamified environment or a gamified platform.
(2) The participants are referred to collectively as students of T&I. Neither group was trained in public service interpreting; both were oriented toward conference interpreting. The graduate students specialized in it, while the undergraduates studied translation along with the fundamentals of conference interpreting.
(3) IRB #: ewha-202302-0002-01. To address ethical concerns, including any potential power differential between the author and participants, this study received IRB approval prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
(5) The excerpts of participant conversations quoted in this manuscript were originally in Korean and translated into English by the author.
(6) This item was reverse-coded to align with the direction of the scale, where higher scores indicate greater agreement.
(7) Multiple selections were allowed for this question.
DOI: 10.12807/ti.118202.2026.a01
Table 1: Point Schedule
Classification Criteria for
point assignment
Level Interpreting Participant performs interpreting.
1 Feedback Participant provides feedback for
his/her partner's interpreting
Requirement for passing performance.
Level 1: 20 points
per participant; 40
points total per
group
Points per participant
at Level 1 = Interpretation
points + Feedback points
In the event of
failure, the same
level must be
repeated.
Level Preparation Participant prepares before
2 knowledge research, terminology
preparation, brainstorming with a
partner
Interpreting Participant performs interpreting.
Feedback Participant provides feedback on
key logic. Participant provides
feedback on accuracy.
Participant provides feedback on
vocabulary,
register and terminology.
Participant provides feedback on
grammar and syntax.
Participant provides feedback on
pronunciation/accent/intonation
/speed/delivery.
Participant provides 2 or more
alternatives at the sentence
level.
Participant provides 2 or more
alternatives at the vocabulary
level.
Penalty Participant listens to the source
text twice.
Participant displays a negligent
attitude.
Requirement for
passing Level 2:
70 points per
participant; 140
points total per
group
Points per participant
at Level 2 =
Preparation points
+ Interpretation points +
Feedback points
- Penalty points
In the event
of failure, the
same level must
be repeated.
Level Preparation Participant collaborates with
3 his/her partner to research and
brainstorm both subject knowledge
and relevant terminologies.
Participant collaborates with
his/her partner to research and
brainstorm either subject
knowledge or relevant
terminologies.
Participant prepares individually
without collaborating with his/her
partner.
Penalty Participant listens to the source
text twice.
Participant displays negligent
attitude.
Item purchase Participant receives a keyword
list.
Participant receives background
information.
Participant receives a keyword
list in both Korean and English.
Participant receives a list of
phrase-level expressions.
Participant uses ChatGPT Cat, a
generative AI feature provided by
the ZEP platform.
Interpreting Participant performs interpreting.
Quiz Participant responds to a total of
10 yes/no
questions after listening to
his/her partner's interpretation.
Requirement for
passing Level 3:
150 points per
participant; 300
points total per
Points per
participant at
Level 3 = Preparation
points + Interpretation
points + Quiz
points - Penalty
points - Item purchase
points
In the event
of failure, the
group returns to
Level 2.
Points per
person
Level 10 points
1 10 points
Level 10 points
2
50 points
5 points
5 points
5 points
5 points
5 points
10 points (+5 additional points per extra alternative)
5 points (+2 additional points per without alternative)
10 points deducted
30 points deducted
Level 50 points
3
40 points
30 points
10 points
deducted
30 points
deducted
5 points
deducted
10 points
deducted
15 points
deducted
15 points
deducted
25 points
deducted
50 points
10 points
per
correctly
answered
question
per person
Table 2: Breakdown of Procedures and Activities in the Gamified Group
Interpreting Practice Session
Procedure Activities
Pre-session 1. Check if desktop sharing, audio, and recording
setup and functions are working properly.
check-in
Orientation and 2. Participants review their avatars and customise
familiarisation them accordingto their preferences.
with the 3. The facilitator briefs the participants on the
environment procedure and the point schedule.
Level 1 4. Participants review the subject information and the
glossary terms.
5. Participants begin brainstorming. (4)
6. Participants take turns interpreting and providing
feedback.
7. The facilitator adds up the points. If the group
meets the score requirement for Level 1, they decide
whether to proceed to Level 2 or skip directly to
Level 3.
Level 2 8. Participants review the subject information and the
glossary terms.
9. Participants begin brainstorming.
10. Participants take turns interpreting and providing
feedback.
11. The facilitator adds up the points. If the group
meets the score requirement for Level 2, they proceed
to Level 3.
Level 3 12. Participants review the subject information and
the glossary terms.
13. Participants begin brainstorming.
14. Participants may choose to buy items.
15. Participants take turns interpreting and solving
quizzes.
16. Participants can relax and engage in conversations
with each other while awaiting the results.
17. The facilitator adds up the points. If the group
meets the score requirement for Level 3, they proceed
to the wrap-up phase.
Otherwise, the group returns to Level 2.
Wrap-up 18. The facilitator calculates the scores and allows
participants a moment to endorse their partners for a
respect badge.
19. The facilitator displays the leaderboard,
highlighting the final scores and badges, to the
participants.
20. Participants respond to the post-session
questionnaire.
Table 3: Progression Style Selected by Each Group
Progression Total Graduate
level
Level 1[right arrow]2[right arrow]3 6 groups Groups: 9, 12, 13, 15
Level 1 [right arrow] 3 10 groups Groups: 10, 11, 14,
16
Progression Undergraduate
level
Level 1[right arrow]2[right arrow]3 Groups: 2, 3
Level 1 [right arrow] 3 Groups: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Table 4: Satisfaction Rate
Statement Average
score
I enjoyed practicing 4.75
on this platform.
I felt motivated to practice 4.34
interpreting more, regardless
of the format.
I felt that I made a 4.28
meaningful contribution
to my partner's interpreting
practice.
I felt motivated to try 4.53
a more challenging
interpreting practice
in the
future.
I felt a stronger sense 4.47
of camaraderie with my
study partner.
I felt a sense of achievement. 4.53
I was able to engage in 4.44
friendly competition.
I was not stressed. (6) 4.00
Table 5: Preferred mechanics Preferred Respondents % of total mechanics (Yes) Points awarded 20 62.50% for performing interpretation Points assigned 17 53.13% to each feedback element Points deducted 14 43.75% based on the items purchased Points deducted for 7 21.88% receiving a penalty Metaverse setting 21 65.63% Avatar 25 78.13% Practice time tracker 12 37.50% Leaderboard 12 37.50% Level-based 18 56.25% activities and progression Level-skipping option 10 31.25% A teamwork-oriented 24 75.00% approach (e.g., brainstorming collaboratively and solving questions after listening to interpretation only) Recognition for 11 34.38% achievement, such as a feedback badge and a respect badge Affective expression 12 37.50% through avatars, emoticons, and chats Points calculated on 23 71.88% a group basis Points calculated 14 43.75% on an individual basis None of the above 0 0.00%
[Please note: Some non-Latin characters were omitted from this article]
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Huh, Jiun |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Translation & Interpreting |
| Geographic Code: | 9SOUT |
| Date: | Jul 1, 2026 |
| Words: | 10481 |
| Previous Article: | Book Review Searls, D. (2024). The philosophy of translation. Yale University Press. ISBN: 9780300247374. |
| Next Article: | Assessing English-Arabic translation of verb phrase ellipsis: A comparative study of Google Translate and ChatGPT-4o. |
| Topics: | |