Since the beginning of the 21^st century, the use of web-based learning technologies has been growing rapidly at all levels of education, higher education included. The growth reached the peak during the COVID-19 pandemic when education institutions worldwide had to move traditional face-to-face teaching online. Therefore, it is not surprising that numerous studies have explored the best practices and challenges of online learning (Adedoyin & Soykan 2023, Baczek et al. 2021, Carrilo & Flores 2020, Mishra et al. 2020, Tam 2022, etc.). Research has been also focused on effective ways of using web-based learning technologies in different fields of study, including engineering, science and business studies (Buzetto-More 2015; Pal & Patra 2021), sports education (van der Berg and de Villiers 2021), teacher training (Kidd & Murray 2020), teaching and learning English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and as a Foreign language (EFL) (Aldukhayel 2021; Alharbi & Meccawy 2020; Allen 2015; Balula et al. 2020; Bradley et al. 2010; McLain 2019, Taskiran et al. 2018; Wang 2015), to mention just a few.

In the field of translator and interpreter education, the most recent research has been carried out in two major streams. The first one has been focused on the use of translation technology and the development of translator and interpreter curriculum and competencies (Braun et al. 2020; Flanagan & Christensen 2014; Kenny & Doherty 2014; Massey & Ehrensberger-Dow 2011; Mellinger 2017; Moorkens 2018; Pym 2013, etc.). The second one has explored effective teaching methods that integrated digital tools in translator and interpreter training as well as analysed trainers’ and trainees’ experience of using such tools (Hirci & Pisanski Peterlin 2020; Lee & Huh 2018; Pisanski Peterlin & Hirci 2014, etc.).

The research literature demonstrates that even though the use of web-based learning technologies has been widely investigated in higher education contexts in many foreign countries, in Lithuanian higher education their use has been under-investigated. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, no research has been conducted in the field of translator and interpreter training yet. To fill in the gap, the present study set out to gain a deeper understanding of undergraduate translation students’ experience of using web-based learning technologies and the interpretation of their use from the students’ perspective. To this end, two research questions were addressed: (1) what is the undergraduate translation students’ experience of using web-based learning technologies in their studies? and (2) what are the benefits and drawbacks of their use as seen by the students themselves?

In the present study, Bower and Torrington’s (2020) term ‘web-based learning technologies’ is used. It refers to the tools that are used for educational purposes, are freely available and accessible online, and enable their users to create and share digital content. The authors’ typology covers 226 learning technologies organised into 15 clusters, including text-based tools, image-based tools, audio tools, video tools, multimodal production tools, digital storytelling tools, web-site creation tools, knowledge organisation and sharing tools, data analysis tools, 3D modelling tools, coding tools, assessment tools, social networking tools, learning management systems, and web-conferencing tools.

The present research is based on perception theory, the central idea of which is that perception is a process through which knowledge of the objective world is acquired. It is this process that reveals how the interaction between an individual and the world is viewed and understood by that individual (Maund, 2003). This is relevant for the present study as it is through the interaction between the students and the educational technologies they use that the students’ perceptions can be established, which is crucial for further learning and achievement.

The present study was conducted at the end of the spring semester of academic year 2022/2023 at a university in Lithuania with the participation of 34 undergraduate majors (28 female and 6 male students) in translation. The average age of the students during the study was 22. To address the two research questions, qualitative methodology was chosen. The data for the present research were drawn from the study participants’ essays ‘The role of web-based learning technologies in my studies’. To analyse the data, the method of inductive content analysis was used. According to Elo and Kyngäs (2007), this method enables a researcher to establish content-related categories that reflect different aspects of the phenomenon under analysis. The suitability of inductive content analysis for the present study was supported by the main precondition for its use, i.e., this method of qualitative analysis can be used when the research into the phenomenon is non-existent or fragmented. The data analysis was conducted following the three stages described by Elo and Kyngäs (2007). During the first / the preparation stage, the study participants’ essays were read several times and the units of analysis relevant to the research questions were selected. During the second stage, open coding was conducted. This process included three steps, such as (i) writing down the headings that reflected all aspects of student-identified benefits and drawbacks and / or challenges of using web-based learning technologies and generating initial categories, (ii) grouping the identified categories under higher order heading, (3) naming each category and identifying and grouping subcategories. Finally, during the third stage, each subcategory was illustrated by samples selected from the students’ essays.

The findings of the present study allow to draw the general conclusion that the undergraduate translation students’ experience of using web-based learning technologies was both positive and negative. More specifically, it was established that most students perceived it as being both beneficial and challenging, a small minority considered it being exclusively positive and one student named it as being a negative experience. The inductive content analysis resulted in the identification of two major categories that reflected the student-identified benefits and drawbacks and / or challenges of using web-based learning technologies. The former category covers five subcategories, such as a positive impact of web-based learning technologies on one’s learning, on the access to educational resources, on time economy, on one’s transferable skills, and on one’s health. The latter category covers seven subcategories that reflect the student-perceived drawbacks and / or challenges of using web-based learning technologies in their studies. These include the negative impacts of using technologies on one’s physical and mental health, on one’s social life, information reliability-related challenges, distractions, the risk of academic cheating, cybersecurity risks, and technical challenges arising while using web-based learning technologies. The limitation of the present study is its sample size, which does not allow for wide-scale generalisations. Yet, its conclusions are important as, on the one hand, they provide an insight into the undergraduate students’ experience of using web-based learning technologies in translation studies. On the other hand, the research revealed the benefits and drawbacks and / or challenges of using such technologies from the students’ perspective. The findings of the present research are comparable with the results established by researchers in other countries. In this way, they contribute to the scarce international research conducted in the field by deepening our understanding of and expanding our knowledge about it.

1.Adedoyin, Olasile, and Emrah Soykan. 2023. Covid-19 Pandemic and Online Learning: The Challenges and Opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (2), 863-875. DOI:10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180. 2.Balula, Ana, Ciro Martins, Marco Costa, and Fábio Marques. 2020. Mobile Betting – Learning Business English Terminology Using MALL. Teaching English with Technology, 20 (5), 6–22. http://www.tewtjournal.org. 3.Bower, Matt, and Jodie Torrington. 2020. Typology of Free Web-based Learning Technologies (2020). Technical Report, April 2020, 1-15. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.11064.16647. 4.Braun, Sabine, Elena Davitti, and Caterine Slater. 2020. ‘It’s Like Being in Bubbles’: Affordances and Challenges of Virtual Learning Environments for Collaborative Learning in Interpreter Education. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 14 (3), 259-278. DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2020.1800362. 5.Aldukhayel, Dukhayel. 2021. Vlogs in L2 Listening: EFL Learners’ and Teachers’ Perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34 (8), 1085-1104. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2019.1658608. 6.Elo, S. and Kyngäs, H. (2007). The Qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. 7.Flanagan, Marian, and Tina Paulsen Christensen. 2014. Testing Post-editing Guidelines: How Translation Trainees Interpret Them and How to Taylor Them for Translator Training Purposes. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8 (2), 257-275. DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2014.936111. 8.Hirci, Nataša, and Agnes Pisanski Peterlin. 2020. Face-to-face and Wiki Revision in Translator Training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 14 (1), 38-57. DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2019.1688066. 9.Kenny, Dorothy, and Stephen Doherty. 2014. Statistical Machine Translation in the Translation Curriculum: Overcoming Obstacles and Empowering Translators. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8 (2), 276-294. DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2014.936112. 10.Lee, Jieun, and Jiun Huh. 2018. Why not Go Online?: A Case Study of Blended Mode Business Interpreting and Translation Certificate Program. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12 (4), 444-466. DOI:1750399X.2018.1540227. 11.Massey, Gary, and Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2011. Technical and Instrumental Competence in the Translator’s Workplace: Using Process Research to Identify Educational and Ergonomic Needs, ILCEA, 14. 2011. doi.org/ 10.4000/ilcea.1060. 12.Maund, Barry. 2003. Perceptions. Routledge. DOI:10.4324/978131571063 13.Moorkens, Joss. 2018. What to Expect from Neural Machine Translation: A Practical In-class Translation Evaluation Exercise. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12 (4), 375-387. DOI:10.1080/1750399X.2018.1501639. 14.Pisanski Peterlin, Agnes, and Nataša Hirci. 2014. It's a Wiki World: Collaboration in Translator Training. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 1, 5-15. 15.Pym, Anthony. 2013. Translation Skill-sets in a Machine Translation Age. Meta, 58 (3), 487-503. DOI:10.7202/1025047ar.