Methodology
For this project，we adopt a qualitative approach for data collection，including self-reflective journals of the students，regarding their perceptions of their interpreting training in an MBL environment in relation to their selfefficacy beliefs，semi-structured individual and focus group interviews with the students，as well as a semi-structured interview with the lecturer in relation to the lecturer’s role in enhancing students’self-efficacy.
There were 53 students participating in the interviews and reflective journals.These students were enrolled in the unit of From Translation to Interpreting in Chinese 1 and/or 2 at a university in Australia.Students in this unit come from various countries and regions and have differing levels of proficiency in both English and Chinese.These students are enrolled on the basis that they are bilingually proficient and may have learned Chinese translation units at a tertiary level，despite not having equal levels of proficiency in English and Chinese.They study in different faculties and undertake different majors.Moreover，these students have different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.Their ages range between 19 and 25.The unit consists of two 50-minute lectures and two 50-minute tutorials each week of a 12-week semester.The goal of the unit is to enhance students’bilingual English and Chinese speaking and listening abilities，with an emphasis on meaning-based communication，and to train students’bilingual proficiency and competence in relation to relevant translation and interpreting theory，ethics，and practice of intercultural communication.This unit has been adopting a multimedia language classroom system named ROBOTEL SmartClass+since 2009.
As far as the students’journal reflective entries are concerned，over the 12-week semester，the students each had five respective entries，with 120～150 words for each entry，shared electronically on the Moodle fortnightly.The reflective journals have five different topics in relation to the interpreting training and their self-efficacy beliefs.The first entry(coded as I)was about reasons for the students(coded with serial numbers，e.g.，1，2，and 3)to take the unit;the second entry(coded as II)was about examples of most successful and unsuccessful experiences of the students in their SmartClass+activities;the third entry(coded as III)was about the students’reflections on their interpreting performance，peer learning and self-confidence;the fourth entry(coded as IV)was about examples of students’preparation and confidence leading up to the interpreting test，and their examples of successful and less successful performances;and the fifth entry(coded as V)was about the students’self-perceptions of how the four major sources of self-efficacy relate to them，including mastery experience，vicarious experience，verbal persuasion，and physiological state.The excerpts taken from the reflective journal entries for the analysis below are coded with information regarding the entries and the students，e.g.，I-3 is an excerpt taken from entry 1，provided by student 3;V-33 is an excerpt taken from entry 5，provided by student 33.
In addition，at the end of the semester of interpreting training through SmartClass+activities，we also conducted semi-structured individual and focus group interviews with the students to develop an in-depth understanding of the sources and factors that the students perceive for developing their self-efficacy in interpreting learning.The students were asked a number of questions regarding their experiences of completing the interpreting training unit.For the interview data，the students were sequentially coded as S1，S2 and S3，referring to student 1，student 2 and student 3.The coding for the interview data also corresponds to the reflective journal entries data.For example，II-6 refers to the excerpt taken from the second entry and it was provided by student 6，and in the interviews data analysis S6 was the same student，who participated in both reflective journals data and interviews data collections.
The following were the semi-structured individual and focus group interview questions:
(1)Do you think your confidence for interpreting has improved after completing the SmartClass+interpreting activities in class?
(2)Apart from confidence，are there any other aspects that you would think have improved?
(3)In which class activity of this semester do you believe you performed the best in，and please explain why?
(4)Which learning activity do you believe that you may have underperformed in?Please give examples.
(5)Overall，in the unit as a whole，what difficulties have you encountered during your learning?
(6)How well can you overcome challenges that you face during learning or during the unit?Do you believe you can overcome these challenges?
(7)Which source do you believe is the main contributor to your self-efficacy in interpreting training?
The interview with the lecturer took the form of email exchanges with the interview questions attached in a word file.The written interview has the following guiding questions:
(1)Why are you interested in“self-efficacy”research among your students?
(2)How do you define“self-efficacy”?
(3)What do you think are the major factors that affect your students’“selfefficacy”?
(4)What are the objectives(or outcomes)and key features of your interpreting training class?
(5)What are the major things you have considered and implemented in your class that help enhance your student self-efficacy?
(6)As the lecturer，how do you reflect on your own“self-efficacy”in coordinating and teaching the interpreting training class?Does your own“self-efficacy”affect your students’“self-efficacy”and class performance?
(7)What role(s)do you think you play in relation to student self-efficacy?
In the following section，we analyse the data，including students’reflective journal entries，semi-structured individual and focus group interview transcripts with the students，and the written interview with the lecturer.We also elaborate on the findings and explore the implications for teaching Chinese-English interpreting in the Australian context.