Teaching translation and interpreting courses to students’ lacks and wants: An exploratory case study of prioritizing instructional objectives

Though formulation and prioritization of instructional objectives is an important link in the chain of course design, little research has been done in this regard in the field of translation and interpreting (T&I) education. This paper aims at demonstrating how to prioritize instructional objectives in implementing a consecutive interpreting course by inviting students to voice their wants and lacks. Thirty undergraduates and one instructor contributed to data collection through questionnaires and self-evaluation reports. Results of students’ pre-course wants and lacks helped prioritize the objectives formulated in the course design phase. Their pre-course post-course gains and post-course lacks were used to measure teaching effectiveness of prioritized instruction and learning, direct the design of the subsequent course, and thus achieve coordination and integration between courses in the overall T&I curriculum. The current study may inspire colleagues to become selfreflective researchers by formulating and prioritizing their instructional objectives and to contribute to instructional effectiveness at the course level and promote course sequencing and integration at the program level.


Introduction
Writing instructional objectives is one of the most important links in the chain of course design. Well-defined instructional objectives aid in the overall process of teaching and learning. For instructors, properly written objectives serve as the foundation from which the whole course design proceeds. Specifically, they facilitate constructive alignment between intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment tasks (Biggs & Tang, 2011;Wiggins & McTighe, 1998), guide selection of appropriate materials that bring about intended outcomes in students, prioritization and implementation of instructional strategies, and creation of valid assessments for evaluating students' performance (Brown, 1995;Gronlund, 2000;Howell et al., 2003;Morrison et al., 2004;Richards, 2001;Schoenfeld-Tacher & Sims, 2013), and result in more efficient use of instructional time (Dean, 1994).
For students, instructional objectives reveal the link between intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment tasks (Howell et al., 2003;Morrison et al., 2004). They provide a framework for students to understand what they are expected to learn and help improve learning outcomes (Gronlund, 2000;Howell et al., 2003;Morrison et al., 2004;Schoenfeld-Tacher & Sims, 2013), assist them in preparing for assessment (Schoenfeld-Tacher & Sims, 2013), and serve as a guide for self-assessing their mastery of learning outcomes (Schoenfeld-Tacher & Sims, 2013).
At the program level, course objectives provide a mapping to the larger program objectives, constitute a common language for communication between colleagues teaching the same course as a team, improve content integration between sections of a course or courses for the same grade level (horizontal integration) and across courses through different grades (vertical integration), and contribute to achievement of the overall program objectives (Howell et al., 2003;Schoenfeld-Tacher & Sims, 2013). In addition, they increase faculty accountability for the failure or success of a course (Howell et al., 2003;Richards, 2001), and provide a baseline standard for peer-evaluation of instruction and course design (Gronlund, 2000).
The importance of instructional objectives has been emphasized in designing translation and interpreting courses. As suggested by Delisle (1998), well-defined instructional objectives not only enhance communication between instructors and learners, but also guide the development of teaching materials, methodologies, and assessment measures. In line with this educational premise, Sawyer (2004) emphasizes the guiding role of goals and objectives in course design while Kelly (2005) offers a broad framework outlining factors to consider in writing objectives.
In spite of its importance, systematic research on the formulation and prioritization of instructional objectives has been rare in the fields of translator and interpreter education. This paper attempts to address the gap by reporting on an exploratory study on the prioritization of objectives through needs analysis in interpreter education.
Needs analysis is an essential step in prioritizing instructional objectives. Objectives are usually formulated by instructors before they meet their students, as agreed by Graves (2000). The design of learning and teaching activities and assessment based on the objectives written in advance following instructors' own mindset may be problematic. For one thing, the achievement of every objective requires time investment, appropriate use of teaching materials, proper design of teaching activities and assessment, adequate instructor support, and other teaching resources. However, for a certain course, time and teaching resources are usually limited. Therefore, instructors need to use the limited time and resources to the greatest effect (Graves, 2000;Huang, 2010). It may not be realistic to cover each objective as planned and treat each objective equally. For another, students' perceptions of the importance of and their baseline competence in the objectives may not align with those of their instructors (Huang, 2010). Such discrepancies may result in misunderstandings between instructors and students and lead to low learning efficiency.
One solution is to conduct needs analysis so that instructors can modify objectives formulated in advance to meet students' needs (Huang, 2010). This is feasible and rational because objectives are flexible and not set in cement (Brown, 1995;Richards, 2001). Instructors may survey the needs of their students during the first one or two weeks of the semester, for example, through pre-assessment of students' skill levels, a method advocated by educational researchers like Wilson (2019). For instance, they may survey students' perception of the importance of the initially formulated objectives. If certain objectives considered important by instructors are thought of as unimportant, the first teaching plan may be to convince them why those are important because such a conflict in perceptions between instructors and students may lead to consequences on learning motivation (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987), an important factor in determining, directing, and sustaining students' learning (Ambrose et al., 2010;Combs et al., 2008). Also, instructors may analyze students' baseline competence in the initially set objectives. Based on the results, objectives may be revised or prioritized to meet students' needs, since instructional objectives are of varying significance, with some being more crucial and significant than others (Mckernan, 2010;Wilson, 2019). Therefore, need analysis is essential before prioritizing objectives and maximizing instructional support (Brown, 1995;Huang, 2010).

Behaviourism, constructivism or an eclectic approach?
Behaviourism is one of the earliest learning theories that influence instructional design. Behaviourists believe that learning is based on mastering a set of predictable and specifiable knowledge, skills or behaviours which can be brought about through time-controlled events and constructed environmental conditions (McLeod, 2003). Key principles impacted by behaviourism in instructional design include the development of observable and measurable objectives and preassessment of students to determine the departure of instruction and the use reinforcement and prompts to impact students' performance (Ertmer & Newby, 2013: 49). Behaviourists hold an objectivistic view of learning; namely, knowledge as a closed system is external to learners and instruction intervenes in the learning process to map the pre-determined knowledge onto them.
However, such tenets are anathema to constructivists who believe that individual learners are responsible for constructing knowledge through open-ended learning experience, that learning outcomes are unpredictable and cannot be prespecified, and that instructional design is facilitative (Ertmer & Newby, 2013: 58). Constructivist instructors assisting learners' mental construction of knowledge need to create a supportive and democratic learning community so that students feel safe and comfortable to reveal and experiment with their perceptions of what they learn (Ambrose et al., 2010;Blinne, 2013), and create student-centred classrooms by shifting the responsibility for learning from the teacher to the learners (Pinto et al., 2012). This constructivist view of learning has been widely applied in translation and interpreting teaching with the pioneering effort of Kiraly (2000Kiraly ( , 2015 and González Davies (2004).
Although the behaviourism-based transmissionist view of learning is criticized by some scholars (see Kiraly, 2000;González Davies, 2005), the author of the present article believes that there are time and places where behaviourism still applies. A recent review of articles on learning outcomes suggests that the behaviourist epistemology is still used uncritically by 40% of the research in the new century (Murtonen et al. 2017). Behaviourist instructional designs facilitate students' development of anchors at their early phases of learning before they sail in the seas of knowledge at advanced phases when a constructivist approach would work well (Jonassen, 1991). While a behavioural design is useful in teaching the content of a profession, constructivist strategies are suitable for dealing with illdefined issues through reflection-in-action (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Factors such as teaching context (curriculum, assessment, etc.), learner characteristics (learning style, prior knowledge, etc.) and subject matter may influence teachers' application of learning theories. It is hard for a teacher to create a constructivist classroom in a country or region where the teaching context traditionally favours the transmissionist approach of learning. For example, in many teaching contexts, instructors are required to list the learning outcomes in the course syllabi. If students expect a transmissionist approach at the early stage of course implementation, the use of a constructivist approach without considering students' psychological needs may bring negative effects. Additionally, instructors may hold a mixed view of learning instead of pure behaviourist or constructivist beliefs (Li, 2018). Since each teaching context can be unique, multi-dimensional and dynamic, the best instructional approach should be contextualised; instructors should select the instructional design that serves optimal learning in their local contexts, whether it is a behaviourist approach, a constructivist approach, a mix of the two, or a mix of many more learning theories (McLeod, 2003;Pinto et al., 2012). This "cherrypicking" technique is known in the instructional design literature as "systematic eclecticism" (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
Therefore, though constructivist approaches are gathering steam and effectuating invaluable change, the use of behaviourism in the current study definitely does not represent a step backward for interpreter education. In the following two sections, the author will elaborate on two behaviourist principles, developing course objectives and pre-assessing students (needs analysis).

Course objectives
Goals are broad and general statements defining what students are expected to be able to do at the end of a program or a course and can be broken down and developed into more learnable and teachable units as objectives (Brown, 1995;Graves, 2000;Richards, 2001). Objectives refer to a series of statements of attainable and observable changes brought about in students in terms of knowledge, skill, or behaviour at the end of a learning unit or course; they are student-centred, alterable, program-specific, and interrelated with goals, needs, material selection, teaching and assessment (Bloom, 1956;Brown, 1995;Graves, 2000;Mager, 1984;Richards, 2001;Schoenfeld-Tacher & Sims, 2013). For example, in a series of objectives of a consecutive interpreting course, the one on note-taking skill may go like this: At the end of the consecutive interpreting course, while listening to one segment of a speech of intermediate difficulty, third-year undergraduates at the School of Translation Studies will be able to note down the main ideas efficiently in a concise and well-structured manner for later information retrieval as measured by a note-taking self-assessment checklist.
This objective is concerned with a change in the skill of note-taking in a certain group of students at the end of the consecutive interpreting course. The statement is student-centred because the change is described from the perspective of students. It is easy for them to know what they are expected to learn in the course. It is not set in cement in that the instructor may revise it if necessary. For instance, "a speech of intermediate difficulty" may be revised as "a speech of low difficulty" if the instructor finds that students cannot handle materials of intermediate difficulty once the course has started. Similarly, the instrument of assessment may change if the instructor or students consider the planned assessment tool as inappropriate. Therefore, it is alterable and interrelates with material selection and assessment. It is program-specific since this objective is written for a certain group of students in a certain program based on the instructor's teaching experience. Though note-taking is a must skill for all consecutive interpreting courses in all translation and interpreting programs, the teaching materials and means of assessment depend on the tradition of the program concerned. Consecutive interpreting courses of different programs, therefore, may have their own versions of objectives for their students. Such diversity in didactics is termed as "productive disagreement" (Pöchhacker, 1999).
Ideally, an instructional objective follows two principles, ABCD (Brown, 1995;Knirk & Gustafson, 1986;Mager, 1984) and SMART (Doran, 1981;Drucker, 1954;Morrison et al., 2004;Schoenfeld-Tacher & Sims, 2013), though it may not be possible and necessary for all types of objectives. The first principle is about what elements an objective needs to include: Audience (who are the learners?), Behaviour (what are they expected to perform?), Condition (under what conditions are they expected to perform a task?), and Degree of measurement (what desired quality or level of accuracy should a successful performance display?). For example, the objective on note-taking mentioned previously can be analyzed from the perspective of the ABCD principle: Audience: third-year undergraduates at the School of Translation Studies; Behaviour: note down the main ideas efficiently in a concise and well-structured manner for later information retrieval; Condition: At the end of the consecutive interpreting course, while listening to one segment of a speech of intermediate difficulty; Degree: as measured by a note-taking self-assessment checklist.
The second principle evaluates its effectiveness: Specific (if it is clear and precise), Measurable (if it is feasible to observe and quantify), Achievable (if it specifies a target that can actually be reached in practice), Realistic (if it can be reasonably achieved by learners given their current level), and Time-bound (if it describes the time constraints within which learners are expected to achieve it). For example, the objective on note-taking mentioned previously is specific, since it describes clearly what behaviour a certain group of students should display under certain conditions and how to measure their performance. It is measurable and results-oriented because the specific assessment instrument is given. It is time-bound because it includes the time constraints. The objective is also supposed to be achievable and realistic because it is based on the instructor's experience in teaching the course to students of similar levels. If the instructor considers the objective as far beyond the students' reach within the time constraints, it should be revised to meet the level of the students. It needs to be noted that the principles are not absolute concepts. For example, there is no absolute specificity. The condition of the objective in the example is "while listening to one segment of a speech of intermediate difficulty". A speech of "intermediate difficulty" is not absolutely specific because there are no accurate indicators as to whether a speech is of low, intermediate, or high difficulty. However, the more the principles are applied in writing objectives, the more useful they will be. Their application allows for easy communication between the course instructor, colleagues who teach the same course, colleagues who teach other courses that precede or follow the course, and program director, as discussed previously in the introduction section.
Besides objectives on knowledge, skill, and behaviour which belong to the cognitive domain, there are also process-oriented and experience-based objectives related to the affective domain (e.g., personal, social, or cultural feelings, emotions, awareness, values, and attitude), which may be general in nature and may not follow the ABCD and SMART principle (Brown, 1995;Richards, 2001). One example of an affective objective in a consecutive interpreting course may go like this: At the end of the consecutive interpreting course, given the opportunity to review their learning, third-year undergraduates at the School of Translation Studies will be able to summarize their progress, strengths, and weaknesses, and make plans for learning in future, as reflected in the end-of-course selfreflection report.
Although this objective includes the ABCD components and is achievable, realistic, and time-bound, it is not as specific and measurable as the note-taking objective.
In translator and interpreter education, the cognitive domain objectives and affective domain objectives may correspond two broad categories: one is about the development of knowledge, skills, and behaviours related to translation and interpreting, and the other about the development of an awareness of professional conduct and membership in the translation and interpreting community, as agreed by Sawyer (2004).
As mentioned previously, instructional objectives are not set in cement and need to be revised if necessary so that they meet the needs the students.

Needs analysis
As one important link in the chain of curriculum development, needs analysis refers to systematic collection and analysis of information to validate what to teach and how to teach it within the context of a particular learning community so that the needs of learners can be satisfied (Brown, 1995;Richards, 2001). Based on a "needs-based philosophy", it is commonly practiced by instructors in teaching and vocational training (Brindley, 1984).
Needs fall into two categories, target needs and learning needs. The former can be approached in terms of "necessities" or what learners are expected to function in a target situation (target competence specified into goals and objectives), "lacks" or the distance between what learners can do already (current competence) and what they are expected to do at the end of the course (target competence), and "wants" or learners' own perceptions of what they are expected to function in target situations which might be different from those of the course designer; while the latter is concerned with what learners need to do in order to learn (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998;Hutchinson & Waters, 1987).
If we compare course design to a journey, as Hutchinson and Waters (1987) do, instructors may ask three questions in course planning, where learners are (departure point), where they need to be (destination), and how to help them move from where they are to where they need to be (route). The destination is the "necessities". The distance between students' departure point and destination is the "lacks". The students' own perception of the destination is the "wants". How to cover the distance between the departure point and destination is concerned with learning needs. Needs analysis highlights instructors' shift of positioning from designing courses "for" learners to designing courses "with" them, enhances learners' commitment and roles as co-developers of a course, and help them learn by building from their existing knowledge (Benesch, 1999;Blinne, 2013;Hounsell, 2005). Without knowledge of their existing knowledge, instructors may give learners the opportunity to fly when in fact they want training wings (Corrigan, 2011).
In needs analysis, the necessities can be informed by relevant literature, industry insiders, and analysis of what learners need to perform in target situations, and be specified into target objectives of a course. Learners' lacks can be obtained by rating their current competence in relevant objectives and comparing it with target objectives. Learners' wants can be revealed by analyzing their rating of the importance of each learning objective; learning needs can be analyzed by surveying learners' motivation, preference of learning, resources, etc. (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). The instruments to elicit relevant data include questionnaires, observations, interviews, and informal consultations, and the choice of them depends on the time and resources available (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998;Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Since learners' needs keep changing, it is necessary to perform constant check and re-assessment in the form of initial pre-course needs analysis, in-course ongoing needs analysis, and post-course needs analysis. Depending on the time of needs analysis, the results may allow instructors to set, rank, revise, or modify objectives of a course, affect selection of materials, teaching methodologies, course organization and assessment of the course, and even inform the design of future courses.
The current study is concerned with the analysis of learners' lacks and wants in a consecutive interpreting course and the use of relevant data to prioritize course objectives. Necessities are not the focus of this study. For a certain course, the necessities are described in the form of competence-based course objectives. The target competence for the course are easy to write because instructors are usually professional or freelance translators or interpreters who know well what trainees are expected to function in the market, and literature on translation and interpreting pedagogy depicts well what expertise novice translators and interpreters need to develop to grow into professionals. Simply put, the necessities are usually generated and set by the instructor in the course planning process. However, there may be discrepancies between what is planned by the instructor and what is wanted by and lacked in learners. For this reason, teaching and learning need to consider how learners perceive the objectives as is planned by the course designer (wants) and the distance between their current competence in the objectives and target competence (lacks). Lacks and wants are influenced by many variables related to learners and learning context, and may vary from learner to learner. Educational researchers therefore suggest negotiations between course designers and learners through needs analysis (Brown, 2001;Blinne, 2013;Combs et al., 2008;Long, 2005;McDonough, 1984;Sartor & Brown, 2004;Shor, 1996;West, 1994). Therefore, lacks and wants are valuable sources of data for instructors to modify or prioritize course objectives set in the course planning phase. As for the analysis of learning needs, though it provides useful data to inform the revision or modification of course materials, teaching techniques, and assessment, it is beyond the focus of the current study.
Prioritization of objectives through needs analysis, as argued by educational researchers (Combs et al., 2008), has several advantages. Firstly, analysis of wants measures how learners perceive the importance of course objectives, an important factor of learning motivation. Secondly, analysis of pre-course lacks helps instructors avail of the limited time and resources and focus on the objectives where learners are weak, while analysis of end-of-course lacks can be used to set or revise learning objectives for subsequent courses and thus improve the coordination in a sequence of courses and the efficiency of the overall curriculum. Thirdly, analysis of and comparison between pre-course and end-of-course lacks highlights students' progress in course objectives throughout the course and reveals teaching efficiency.
By basing instructional objectives on needs analysis of learners' lacks and wants, this study reports on the researcher's effort to invite learners to contribute to curriculum design, formulate learner-focused instructional objectives, engage learners in self-assessment to assist reflection, identify their prior knowledge on the objectives, and prioritize the objectives for more efficient learning.

Research questions
Two sets of questions drove the current research: (1) How do students perceive the importance of the instructional objectives at the beginning of course delivery? (pre-course wants)? How does students' baseline competence in the instructional objectives compare to the target competence at the beginning of course delivery? (pre-course lacks)?
(2) How effective is the course design in meeting students' pre-course lacks (progress or pre-course post-course gains in the objectives at the end of course delivery)? How does their post-course competence in the instructional objectives compare to the target competence (post-course lacks)?
By answering the two research questions, the current research aims at demonstrating how to prioritize teaching objectives through needs analysis. The context to apply this paradigm could be any course in a given curriculum. In the following texts, a consecutive interpreting course will be used as an illustration.

Contextualization
The consecutive interpreting course concerned in the current study was one of a series of compulsory interpreting courses in a four-year undergraduate translation and interpreting program. Unlike graduate programs which may consist of three tracks: translation, conference interpreting, and translation and interpreting, there was only one track in the program concerned. Since the undergraduates were not linguistically and psychologically mature enough to specialize in either translation or interpreting, the overall program goal was to provide general education in both fields. The students focused on language and knowledge in their first two years and then took translation and interpreting courses in the rest two years. The series of interpreting courses included sight translation, interpreting basics, consecutive interpreting I and consecutive interpreting II. The sight translation course offered in the first semester of the third school year was used as a stepping stone for interpreting skills as it is used in many other translation and interpreting programs. The interpreting basics course went parallel with the sight translation course, focusing on basic interpreting skills such as analytical listening, memory, note-taking, and so on. The consecutive interpreting I course was taught in the second semester of the third year, building on the interpreting basics course in terms of skills. When this course began, the students were supposed to have some competence in the core skills of consecutive interpreting but need more training to sharpen them.
In the consecutive interpreting II course offered in the first semester of the fourth year, the instructor began to include simulated activities, for example, role plays and mock conferences to help students improve interpreting skills in a contextualized learning environment. Since simultaneous interpreting was too challenging for undergraduates to handle, this mode was not trained at the undergraduate level. That said, it can be seen that, in the program concerned, consecutive interpreting skills formed the core of the teaching goal, and interpreting basics, consecutive interpreting I, and consecutive interpreting II correspond to the beginning, intermediate, and advanced level of teaching.
Since the three courses were taught respectively by three instructors, effective communication is essential between them to ensure clear division of responsibility, avoid waste of time and resources, and maximize instructional effect. As a common language of communication, well defined and ranked objectives may help in this regard.
As the instructor of the consecutive interpreting I course which connected the other two courses, the author of this paper had the responsibility to investigate, during the first few weeks of the course, students' pre-course wants and lacks resulting from the interpreting basics course they attended previously, and to analyze students' progress or pre-course post-course gains at the end of course delivery as well as their post-course lacks. At the course level, precourse wants and lacks help the instructor modify or prioritize instructional objectives at the beginning of course delivery, avail of the limited time and resources, and focus on the objectives where learners are weak. Progress or pre-course post-course gains are important sources of data to evaluate teaching effectiveness of the consecutive interpreting I course. Post-course lacks reveal which objectives should be emphasized in designing the subsequent consecutive interpreting II course. At the program level, the results of precourse and post-course lacks can be analyzed across the three interpreting courses concerned to improve vertical integration, coordination, and consistency, redefine course responsibilities, and refine course objectives of each course. In this way, the results can enhance teaching efficiency, coordination of the overall curriculum, course integration and sequencing, and thus maximize limited teaching time, resources, and teaching support.
The instructor formulated the objectives of the consecutive interpreting I course before course implementation. Relevant literature (see Albl -Mikasa, 2013;Al-Qinai, 2002;Bowen & Bowen, 1984;Ericsson, 2000;Gillies, 2014;Ilg & Lambert, 1996;Kalina, 2000;Kuznik & Hurtado Albir, 2015;Sawyer, 2004) provides a mapping for creating competence-based goals and objectives. Based on the literature, personal interpreting experiences, and experiences in teaching interpreting courses to undergraduates, the instructor set the goal and objectives as follows: (1) Course goal: At the end of the consecutive interpreting (I) course, third-year undergraduates at the School of Translation Studies will have developed skills, knowledge, behaviours, and awareness that can be compared to initiate interpreters, and be able to interpret speeches of intermediate difficulty consecutively with the aid of note-taking. [Expertise evolves from naïveté all the way to master: naïveté, novice, initiate, apprentice, journeyman, expert and master (Klein & Hoffman, 1993: 206)].
(2) Course objectives: At the end of the consecutive interpreting (I) course, third-year undergraduates at the School of Translation Studies will have achieved the following instructional objectives (see the methodology section for a discussion of using self-assessment to evaluate some of the following experience-and process-based objectives).
(a) Preparation (cognitive-skill): When assigned an interpreting task of intermediate difficulty, they will be able to make efficient preparations as measured by a preparation self-assessment checklist (see appendix A). (b) Analytical listening (cognitive-skill): After listening to one segment of about one minute taken from a speech of intermediate difficulty, they will be able to comprehend no less than 90% of the original speech as measured in a consecutive interpreting task against the criteria-referenced analytical rating scales (see appendix B).
(c) Working memory (cognitive-skill): After listening to one segment of about one minute taken from a speech of intermediate difficulty without taking notes, they will be able to reproduce about 85% information of the original as measured in a consecutive interpreting task against the criteria-referenced analytical rating scales (see appendix B). (d) Note-taking skills (cognitive-skill): While listening to one segment of about one minute taken from a speech of intermediate difficulty, they will be able to note down the main ideas efficiently in a concise and well-structured manner for later information retrieval as measured by a note-taking self-assessment checklist (see appendix C). (e) Coordination (cognitive-skill): While listening to a segment of about one minute taken from a speech of intermediate difficulty, they will be able to handle both note-taking and analytical listening, the latter not interfering with the former, as measured by a note-taking selfassessment checklist (see appendix C). (f) Psychological quality (cognitive-behaviour): While delivering the interpreted message to the audience in public, they will be able to stay calm under pressure as measured in a consecutive interpreting task against the criteria-referenced analytical rating scales (see appendix B). (g) Target language quality (cognitive-skill): While delivering the interpreted message to the audience in public, they will be able to present the original message in fluent and acceptable target language as measured in a consecutive interpreting task against the criteriareferenced analytical rating scales (see appendix B). (h) Non-verbal communication (cognitive-behaviour): While delivering the interpreted message to the audience in public, they will be able to use non-verbal elements appropriately in communication (eye contact, intonation, voice projection, etc.) as measured in a consecutive interpreting task against the criteria-referenced analytical rating scales (see appendix B). (i) Strategies (cognitive-skill): While listening to a speech of intermediate difficulty or delivering the interpreted message to the audience in public, they will be able to apply appropriate strategies (addition, omission, compression, explanation, etc.) to cope with or prevent problems or emergencies (incomprehension, missed message, high information density, accents, etc.) for effective communication as measured in a consecutive interpreting task against the criteriareferenced analytical rating scales (see appendix B). (j) Formulaic expressions (cognitive-skill): While delivering the interpreted message to the audience in public, they will be able to use patting phrases and set expressions of certain functions in common communicative circumstances (opening remarks, ceremonial speeches, etc.) as measured in a consecutive interpreting task against the criteria-referenced analytical rating scales (see appendix B). (k) Note-taking principles (cognitive-knowledge): Given the opportunity to reflect on their own note-taking performance, they will be able to recall the note-taking principles as reflected in completing the notetaking self-assessment checklist (see appendix C). (l) Criteria of interpreting quality (cognitive-knowledge): Given the opportunity to review their learning, they will be able to recall the criteria of good interpreting performance as reflected in the end-ofcourse self-reflection report (see appendix D). (m) Self-critique and reflection (affective-skill): Given the opportunity to review their learning, they will be able to summarize their progress, strengths, and weaknesses, and make plans for learning in future, as reflected in the end-of-course self-reflection report (see appendix D).
The above objectives provided the building blocks for the development of other course components, for example, assessment measures (Table 1). l. Criteria of interpreting quality m. Self-critique and reflection End-of-course self-reflection report (Appendix D) The preparation self-assessment checklist (appendix A) was based on the work of Choi (2004), Gile (2002), and Luccarelli (2006). The criteria-referenced analytical rating scale (appendix B) rested on those devised by T&I colleagues (Federici, 2010;Lee, 2008;Riccardi, 2002;Robinson et al., 2006;Schjoldager, 1996). The note-taking self-assessment checklist (appendix C) was based on the work of interpreter training colleagues (Gillies, 2014;Liu, 2008;Rozan, 2002). The use of end-of-course self-reflection report (appendix D) was similar in nature to self-assessment; the former had a wider focus which was the learning process in the whole semester while the latter was concerned with such specific interpreting skills as note-taking and preparation. The use of self-assessment was based on commonly accepted beliefs of interpreter trainers that it cultivates students' meta-cognitive skills, reveals their strengths and weaknesses and makes their learning more targeted, and gives them a scope of professionalism and raises self-awareness of their own interpreting performance so that they can improve their skills progressively throughout their careers (Fowler, 2007;Lee, 2005;Postigo Pinazo, 2008;Schjoldager, 1996).

Participants
The participants consisted of one female instructor and a class of 30 third-year undergraduates (2 males and 28 females) at the translation and interpreting program of the participating university. In their early twenties, all students had completed the interpreting basics course and were invited to be involved in the current project as a class activity during the first two weeks of the consecutive interpreting I course. The students participated in the current study anonymously and voluntarily, except for their self-evaluation report which was part of the course assessment plan. The instructor was in her late twenties, with six years of experiences in teaching and practicing interpreting. She taught the interpreting basics course which was followed by the consecutive interpreting I course taught by the author of the current paper.

Instruments
Two questionnaires were used in the current study (Table 2), one on students' perceptions of the importance of the objectives and the other on students' competence in the objectives. Both used five-point Likert scales and included all the thirteen teaching objectives of the consecutive interpreting course. Besides the student participants, the instructor of the interpreting basics course was also asked to rate the students' competence in each objective on a one to five scale. The purpose was to validate results of students' self-assessment, checking if they positively correlate with those of instructor rating. Students' self-evaluation reports were used to triangulate students' progress or pre-course post-course gains and post-course lacks.
Individual students' belief in their ability to accomplish a task or achieve a goal is referred to as self-efficacy which guides students' efforts and motivation (Bandura, 1995). Students' self-assessment data have been successfully used to enhance curriculum design and delivery by educational researchers (see Combs et al., 2008).
In the current study, self-assessment was used for three reasons. Firstly, it is impossible to separately measure students' competence in some of the thirteen objectives, partly because some of them are process-oriented objectives instead of product-oriented objectives, for example, the objective on preparation and coordination, and partly because some of them are individual-specific and can hardly be measured in a standardized way, for instance, the objective on selfcritique and reflection.

Research questions Instruments
Pre-course wants Pre-course lacks Questionnaire on students' perceptions of the importance of the objectives (for the students as pre-course self-assessment) Questionnaire on students' baseline competence in the objectives (for the students as pre-course self-assessment; for the instructor to rate the students' pre-course competence triangulating students' self-assessment results) Progress or precourse postcourse gains Post-course lacks Questionnaire on students' competence in the objectives (for the students as post-course self-assessment) Students' self-evaluation reports (to triangulate students' postcourse self-assessment) Secondly, separate assessment of each objective is impractical. The quality of consecutive interpreting performance is influenced by a series of factors which interact with each other, for example, analytical listening, note-taking, strategies, and psychological quality. Students' ability in each of them is not easy to measure through interpreting performance. Composing and administering direct measures to assess students' competence separately in all the thirteen objectives is too time-consuming and costly for classroom research. This is particularly true for the measurement of pre-course lacks and wants which need to be done within the first few weeks of course implementation so that timely revision or modification can be made. Thirdly, educational, language teaching, and translation teaching research indicates that self-assessment results correlate positively with those of direct external measures (Benton et al., 2013;Brown et al., 2014;Falchikov & Boud, 1998;Fernández & Zabalbeascoa, 2012;Lappin-Fortin & Rye, 2014;Ünaldı, 2016). In particular, Oscarson (1997) finds that the correlation level between self-assessments and more objective measures are of the same degree as that between different subsections in a standardized direct test. Self-assessment can therefore be a valid and reliable measurement. In interpreter training, selfassessment can be considered as a valid instrument because research finds that its result correlates positively with that of instructor assessment and it has distinct characteristics complementary to instructor assessments (Lee, 2011).
Students' familiarity with objectives or experience in performing tasks related to the objectives may impact the accuracy of self-assessment. If a course is completely new to students and they have no experience in the learning tasks, pre-course and post-course self-assessment may not generate accurate and consistent results, as agreed by Brown et al. (2014). In pre-course selfassessment, students may underestimate or overestimate their competence because of a lack of relevant experiences, while in post-course self-assessment, their rating may be more accurate because they know better what the learning task requires in them. Therefore, students may use different standards to evaluate their pre-course competence and post-course competence if they have no experiences in performing tasks related to the objectives. For the consecutive interpreting I course concerned, it was one component in a series of interpreting courses in the program concerned and built on the preceding interpreting basics course. Given students' familiarity with the basic interpreting skills, they were more likely to provide accurate and consistent ratings of their competence in the objectives in the pre-course and post-course self-assessment.

Data collection and analysis
Before completing the questionnaires, the instructor went through the thirteen objectives with all the students to ensure that they understood them quite well to improve accuracy. One questionnaire was completed by the students during the first two weeks of course delivery to investigate their pre-course wants. While completing this questionnaire, they rated the importance of each objective on a five-point Likert scale: "1 Very unimportant", "2 Unimportant", "3 Neutral", "4 Important", and "5 Very important".
The other questionnaire was administered twice, firstly during the first two weeks of course delivery as the pre-course self-assessment questionnaire and then at the end of course delivery as the post-course self-assessment questionnaire, to respectively investigate the pre-course lacks and post-course lacks. The five scales for each questionnaire item were "1 Very low competence", "2 Low competence", "3 Neutral", "4 High competence", and "5 Very high competence". A comparison of the pre-course data with the postcourse data generated students' progress or pre-course post-course gains in each objective.
The instructor of the previous course, interpreting basics, was invited to complete the second questionnaire, rating the students' competence in each objective on the five-point scale based on her observations of their performance throughout the previous semester.
At the end of the consecutive interpreting I course, the students were asked to submit a report reflecting on their strengths, progress, weaknesses, and learning plans.
The mean of the importance of and competence in each objective (precourse self-assessment) was calculated by the researcher and entered into SPSS 16.0 together with the letters representing the objectives to draw a graph through the "graphslegacy dialogsinteractive -scatterplot" route which helped the researcher identify students' pre-course wants and lacks. The use of scatterplot to display the relationships between different objectives was inspired by Combs et al. (2008).
To validate students' self-assessment, the mean of students' self-assessment of their competence in each objective and the instructor's rating of students' competence in each objective were entered into SPSS 16.0 to run a correlation analysis.
The mean of students' pre-course competence and that of their post-course competence in each objective were calculated and entered into SPSS 16.0 together with the letters representing the objectives to draw a graph through the "graphslegacy dialogs -lines" route which mapped students' progress or precourse post-course gains in each objective.
The mean of their post-course competence and that of their progress (precourse post-course gains) in each objective were calculated and entered into SPSS 16.0 together with the letters representing the objectives to obtain a graph through "graphslegacy dialogsinteractive -scatterplot" route that helped identify students' post-course lacks.
To triangulate students' self-assessment of their post-course competence, their self-reflection reports were analyzed and categorized into areas of progress and weaknesses. Simple frequencies and percentages were calculated.

Pre-course wants, lacks, and objective prioritization
The first research question is related to the students' pre-course wants (their perceptions of the importance of the objectives) and their pre-course lacks (what their pre-course competence is compared with the target competence). The mean of students' self-assessment of the importance of the objectives and their competence in each (Table 3) were plotted on a graph of importance versus competence by running SPSS 16.0 (Figure 1). Figure 1 demonstrates four areas, A, B, C, and D. For each area and the objectives fall into it, the instructor may use different teaching strategies, as illustrated in Table 4. Figure 1. A scatterplot of the objectives based on self-assessment of their importance and students' pre-course competence in them.
As can be seen from Table 3 and Figure 1, the students rated all thirteen objectives as important, which means their wants were the same as what the instructor had expected them to learn. Therefore, the set objectives can meet students' wants. Compared with the students' perceptions of the importance of the objectives, their ratings of their competence in them were generally low. According to Table 3 and Figure 1, their pre-course competence varied from objective to objective. The top three objectives in which they thought they were competent were objective l, j, and k, while objective c, d, and e belonged to those in which they were least competent. Two objectives (c and d) fell into area A (important but not competent), three objectives (m, b, and e) near the divide between area A and area C, and the rest objectives into area C (important and competent). From the perspective of needs analysis, the students' pre-course lacks were related to objectives falling into area A and those on the divide between area A and C.
Such results were a cue that the thirteen objectives were of different significance in course delivery. Given the limited time, resources, and instructor support, the objectives into which the students were least competent were put on the priority list. Therefore, in delivering the consecutive interpreting course, more attention was directed to objectives c (working memory), d (note-taking skills), m (self-critique and reflection), e (coordination), and b (analytical listening), though the rest should also be focus of training. Resulting from the prioritized teaching objectives, the course organization, teaching materials, learning tasks, and assessment underwent minor or major changes. For example, objectives c (working memory) and d (note-taking skills) were given adequate teaching and practicing hours. Teaching modules on working memory and note-taking were designed to include lectures on memory strategies and note-taking skills and to involve the students more in in-class exercises. Also, the instructor involved them in peer and self-evaluations from time to time to raise their awareness of self-critique and reflection. Since their pre-course competence in analytical listening was limited, they were occasionally invited to feedback on the difficulty of the materials during clas s break time so that timely modifications could be made. Since the focus of the current paper is on the prioritization of objectives, resulting modifications of other elements in course design will not be discussed in detail here. After prioritizing the objectives based on students' wants and lacks, the instructor checked the students' responses to each objective and found that it was characterized by variation. According to the prioritized objectives, for those in which the students' were already competent, for example, objective l (criteria of interpreting quality), j (formulaic expressions), and k (note -taking principles), they would be given comparatively less attention in course delivery compared with those in which they were least competent. However, the average response to a certain objective cannot represent the level of all students. For example, the average of students' rating on their competence in objective l (criteria of interpreting quality) was about 3.5; however, one student rated his or her competence in this objective as "1 very low competence", though most students selected "4 high competence" or "5 very high competence". Since the data were submitted anonymously, it was impossible to know more about the issue with the student concerned face to face. As an alternative, the instructor shared with the students their self-assessment results and told them that if some believed they had low competence in certain objectives where most of the class showed medium or high competence, they need to have additional readings or exercises provided by the instructor so that they can improve their competence to the average level of the class. Likewise, the students' responses to the importance of the objectives were also checked and it was found that only a few students rated some objectives as not important. The instructor attempted to emphasize occasionally why those objectives are important. In this way, checking the variation level of students' responses led the instructor to customize the course delivery to fit the needs of all students as much as possible.
Correlation analysis between the mean of students' self-assessment of their pre-course competence and the rating of their pre-course competence by the instructor of the interpreting basics course (Table 5) was conducted. As displayed in Table 6, correlation analysis showed that the two were positively correlated to each other at the 0.01 level, suggesting that the students' selfassessment was valid. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 13 13 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Pre-and post-course gains, post-course lacks, and objective prioritization
The second research question is about the students' progress (pre-course postcourse gains in the objectives) and their post-course lacks (what their postcourse competence is compared with the target competence).
Based on the mean of the students' self-assessment of their pre-course competence and that of their self-assessment of their post-course competence, students' progress (pre-course post-course gains) was calculated (Table 7). Figure 2 illustrates their pre-course post-course gains in each objective in a decreasing manner. As shown in Figure 2, the students had made different degrees of progress in most objectives, except in objective e (coordination) where they made minor progress.
According to the prioritized list of objectives based on the students' precourse wants and lacks, emphasis had been placed on objectives c (working memory), d (note-taking skills), m (self-critique and reflection), e (coordination), and b (analytical listening) in course delivery. It seems that the prioritized instruction was generally effective because the student had made progress in most of the objectives except in objective e.  To illustrate the students' post-course lacks and obtain implications for the design of the subsequent consecutive interpreting II course, the students' progress (precourse post-course gains) and the mean of their post-course competence in each objective were plotted on a graph of progress versus competence. As demonstrated in Figure 3, the objectives generally fell into three areas. In area A, the students had made some progress but they were still not competent in them (objective c). In area C, they had made some progress and were generally competent (objective f, h, l, k, j, a, and m). In area D, they had made comparatively minor progress but were generally competent (objective d, j, b, i, and e). As mentioned previously, the target competence of the consecutive interpreting I course concerned is to develop skills, knowledge, behaviours, and awareness in students who can be compared to initiate interpreters and interpret speeches of intermediate difficulty consecutively with note-taking. The instructor treated objectives in which the students' competence was higher than 3.5 in Figure 3 as meeting the goal of the consecutive interpreting I course. Then competence related to objective c, e, d, b, m, and i would be students' post-course lacks. Based on the students' post-course lacks, competence related to objective c, e, d, b, m, and i should be shortlisted as priority in the subsequent course. Among those, objective e should deserve attention and may challenge the next instructor's pedagogical expertise, as the instructional design of the consecutive interpreting I course was not effective in improving the students' ability in this regard. The instructor of the consecutive interpreting II course may consider designing separate learning activities to sharpen students' skills in coordinating between analytical listening and note-taking.
To triangulate the students' progress (pre-course post-course gains), their selfevaluation reports were analyzed against the categories of objectives. Since the students were not told to frame their self-evaluation according to the objectives, their reports were quite individualized in length and content. Some mentioned one or two points of their progress and weaknesses without giving the reasons. Some of the content was not closely related to the objectives. The frequencies of their reported progress and weaknesses related to the objectives were calculated. As can be seen in Table 8, the students' frequently reported areas of progress were related to objective f, h, b, i, g, l, j, c, and a, while their frequently reported areas of weaknesses were related to objective b, d, e, and c. According to Figure 2, students had more pre-course post-course gains in objective f, h, l, j, k, c, and a, while they had less gains in objective e, i, b, g, and d. The two sources of data were basically parallel with each other, except for discrepancies in objective b, i, and g. The students' pre-course post-course gains and their reported areas of weaknesses in combination pointed to the fact that they were still weak in objective b (analytical listening), d (note-taking skills), and particularly, objective e (coordination) in which they had made very little progress. The three areas of objectives are interrelated and affect students' information processing abilities. In the listening phase of consecutive interpreting (Gile, 2009), interpreters need to divide attention between the three skills and perform them simultaneously. If students' analytical listening was not adequately competent, they had to put more efforts in analytical listening. If listening took up much of their attention, there would be less for note-taking and vice versa. In such circumstances, coordination between them was hard. Only when they were competent in both would they coordinate them well. The interplay between them can be traced in the students' self-evaluation report. Two students reported: My main weaknesses were note-taking and listening. If the segment of the original speech for consecutive interpreting was long or difficult to understand, I would have difficulties in handling listening and note-taking at the same time.
(Student LKW) I wish I had more listening and interpreting exercises after class. However, I did not have the motivation. I did not spend much time practicing note-taking either. My note-taking was therefore not systematic, which I think should be responsible for my poor coordination between listening to the original and notetaking. (Student ZQ) One student reported that she progressed in objective e (coordination) because of her improvement in analytical listening skills, the instructor's appropriate use of materials, and her extra practice: Though my note-taking system still needs refining, my ability to simultaneously focus on listening to the original speech and taking notes improved, which I think may have been due to my progress in listening comprehension. Also, the materials the teacher used in class were neither too difficult nor too easy. I therefore did not have to put much effort in listening while taking notes. Another factor that contributed to my progress was that I had formed the habit of autonomous learning after class this semester. (Student GYH) This is of pedagogical value for the design of the subsequent course. When formulating objectives, competence related to analytical listening, note-taking, coordination and so on needs to be put on the priority list. In terms of course organization, given the interplay between analytical listening, note-taking, and coordination, it may not be easy for them to have big strides in coordination before they make progress in listening and note-taking skills. Since the students were weak in analytical listening and note-taking both of which require a long time of practice to see evident progress, extra time on listening and note-taking activities may be part of the class exercises in the subsequent course. For analytical listening skills, the instructor may also consider asking the students to have more listening practices after class. In material selection, since the students' analytical listening skills is given, the materials selected for training note-taking skills should be wellstructured and appropriately meet students' current level of listening comprehension. In this way, the potential negative influence of listening problems on their division of attention between listening and note-taking is reduced to a minimum so that they have enough effort left to sharpen their note-taking skills. If the difficulty of materials is beyond their current level, students will be struggling in grasping the main ideas of the original, which takes up much of their capacity, thus leaving no space for them to focus on note-taking skills.

Conclusions
Based on the premise of developing courses "with" students instead of "for" them, the purpose of the current paper is to demonstrate how to prioritize instructional objectives in course design by inviting students to voice their wants and lacks. This students-centred and needs-based approach of setting and modifying instructional objectives provides the instructor with information on students' prior knowledge they bring to the course (pre-course wants and pre-course lacks) at the very beginning of course delivery. Such information is useful for instructors to prioritize the objectives they have formulated before meeting their students, which will subsequently lead to modifications to other links in the chain of course development, for example, course organization, materials development, teaching methodology and so on. This approach also informs instructors of their students' pre-course post-course gains and post-course lacks at the end of course delivery. Pre-course post-course gains are a very good indicator of students' progress in the objectives, and thus can be used as a measure of teaching effectiveness and a source of information for the design of the subsequent course. Post-course lacks suggest in which objectives students are still weak after taking the course and thus directs the design of the subsequent course in terms of formulation of objectives, selection of materials, teaching methodology, and so on. Additionally, if instructors of core courses in a given T&I program formulate and then prioritize instructional objectives this way, coordination between different courses will be greatly enhanced. In sum, this way of prioritizing teaching objectives shows high potential for offering valuable and specific information to enhance the effectiveness of course design as well as integration between different courses in a certain program. Though the nature of a case study keeps the findings of the current exploration from being generalized to a wider teaching context, the value of the current paper is that it can inspire colleagues to research the formulation and prioritization of their instructional objectives of their own courses in their own classrooms. Since instructional objectives are alterable and program-specific, the most practical and far-reaching impact of doing research on objectives will not necessarily take place at the macro-level, but rather at the individual classroom level. In other words, instructors become researchers to achieve the formulation and prioritization of objectives and contribute to the instructional effectiveness at the course level and promote course sequencing and integration at the program level.
Note: This self-assessment checklist needs to be verified by the instructor after it has been completed by students. Completion of one item means one point. If a student completes 25 items, he or she will get 25 points out of the 30 points which will account for 5% of his or her final grade.