Assessing Quality of Pedagogical Translations: Dominant Evaluative Methods in the Final Tests of Undergraduate Translation Courses
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
1 - دانشیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، اصفهان، ایران
کلید واژه: Translation quality, Translation assessment, Academic translation evaluation, Translation evaluative practices, Undergraduate translation program,
چکیده مقاله :
Translation evaluation is an activity of vital concern in the context of translator education. However, it is one that is, despite being a common practice, under-researched and under-discussed. The leading purposes were to determine the dominant methods for translation evaluation of undergraduate students in the final tests of translation courses at Iranian universities and to identify its major characteristics. To meet the objectives, in a 30-minute semi-structured interview, 10 experienced university translation instructors responded to 10 questions on how they develop their translation tests, how they guarantee the quality of their tests, and most importantly, how they evaluate and score their students’ performance. The results confirmed that the dominant method which is commonly and currently practiced is the purely essay-type format except at Payam-e-Noor University where multiple-choice items are always present as well. The findings also showed how much discrepancy exists among the Iranian translation teachers (as developers of final translation tests), who are least informed about the current translation evaluation methods. It was also revealed that the criteria they use for developing such tests and scoring student translations are not theory-driven but are highly subjective, mainly based on their personal experience and intuition. Hence, the quality and accountability of such tests are under serious question.
ارزشیابی ترجمه دغدغه اصلی در بافت آموزش مترجم است. با این وجود، این موضوع علی رغم اینکه بسیار مرسوم است کمتر به آن پرداخته شده یا مورد تحقیق قرار گرفته است. هدف اصلی تحقیق حاضرشناخت شیوه های غالبِ ارزشیابی در امتحانات پایان ترم دروس کارشناسی مترجمی زبان انگلیسی در دانشگاه های ایران و ویزگی های متمایزکننده آن است. بدین منظور، طی جلسه نیم ساعته مصاحبه نیمه-ساختار یافته، 10 استاد باتجربه ترجمه به 10 سوال مربوط به چگونگی طراحی امتحانات ترجمه، چگونگی تضمین کیفیت امتحان، و مهمتر از همه چگونگی ارزشیابی عملکرد دانشجویان و نمره دهی به آن پاسخ دادند. یافته ها تایید کرد که شیوه غالبِ ارزشیابی که در حال حاضر رایج و معمول است همان شیوه کاملا تشریحی است بجز در دانشگاه پیام نور که سوالات چند گزینه ای هم همواره پای ثابت امتحانات است. یافته های تحقیق همچنین مشخص کرد که نظرات استادان ترجمه به عنوان طراحان امتحانات پایان ترم ترجمه چقدر پراکنده است، استادانی که کمترین اطلاعات تخصصی را درباره شیوه های معمول و در عین حال پیشرفته ارزشیابی ترجمه دارند. همچنین معلوم شد که معیارهای مورد استفاده ایشان در طراحی سوالات و تصحیح اوراق دانشجویان نه تنها بر هیچ اصول نظری استوار نیست بلکه کاملا سلیقه ای و مبتنی بر تجربه شخصی یا شم فردی آنها است. نتیجه اینکه کیفیت روایی، پایایی و اعتبار این امتحانات عملا زیر سوال است.
Amiri Shalforoosh , E., & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2018). The study of English culture specific items in Persian translation based on House’s model: The case of Waiting for Godot. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(1), 135-145.
Arango-Keeth, F., & Koby, G. S. (2003). Assessing assessment: Translator training evaluation and the needs of industry quality assessment. In B. J. Baer (Ed.), Beyond the ivory tower. Rethinking translation pedagogy (pp. 117-134). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Irvine, C., & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to research in education 10th edth ed. Boston (MA): Cengage Learning.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bassnett, S. (2013). Translation Studies (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Bowker, L. (2000). A corpus-based approach to evaluating student translations. The Translator, 6(2), 183-210.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2001). Task-based assessments: Characteristics and validity evidence. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 210-228). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). London: Routledge.
Darwish, A. (2010). Translation applied!: An introduction to applied translation studies-A transactional model. Melbourne: Writescope Publishers.
Drugan, J. (2013). Quality in professional translation: Assessment and improvement. London: Bloomsbury.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Routledge.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2008). Towards developing a framework for the evaluation of Iranian undergraduate students’ academic translation. Doctoral thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.
Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2021). Evaluative practices for assessing translation quality: A content analysis of Iranian undergraduate students' academic translations. International Journal of Language Studies, 15(3), 65-88.
Heidari Tabrizi, H., Chalak, A., & Taherioun, A. H. (2014). Assessing the Quality of Persian Translation of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four Based on House's Model: Overt-covert Translation Distinction. Acta Linguistica Asiatica, 4(3), 29-42.
Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Pezeshki, M. (2015). Strategies used in translation of scientific texts to cope with lexical gaps (Case of Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis Book). Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(6), 1173-1178.
Heidari Tabrizi, H., Riazi, A., & Parhizgar, R. (2008). On the translation evaluation methods as practiced in Iranian universities' BA translation program: the attitude of students. TELL, 2(7), 71-87.
Honig, H. G. (1998a). Complexity, contrastive linguistics and translator training: Comments on responses. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and quality (pp. 83-89). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited.
Honig, H. G. (1998b). Positions, power and practice: Functionalist approaches and translation quality assessment. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and quality (pp. 6-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited.
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
House, J. (2001a). How do we know when a translation is good? In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production (pp. 127-160). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
House, J. (2001b). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation. Meta, 46(2), 243-257.
House, J. (2013). How do we know when a translation is good? Exploring translation and multilingual text production (pp. 127-160): De Gruyter Mouton.
Jalalpour, E., & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2017). A study of English translation of colloquial expressions in two translations of Jamalzadeh: once upon a time and Isfahan is half the world. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(5), 1011-1021.
Karimi, M., Heidari Tabrizi, Hossein , & Chalak, A. (2016). Challenges in English to Persian translation of contracts and agreements: The case of Iranian English translation students. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(6), 188-198.
Khalouzadeh, E., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2013). Translation of news texts in Persian political magazines: van Dijk’s model of critical discourse analysis. Journal of Translation Studies, 10(40), 67-76.
Klaudy, K. (1996). Quality assessment in school vs. professional translation. In C. Dollerup & V. Appel (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 3: New horizons (pp. 197-203). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Larose, R. (1998). Méthodologie de l'évaluation des traductions. Meta, 43(2), 163-186.
Malmkjaer, K. (1998). Linguistics in functionland and through the front door: A response to Hans G. Honig. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and quality (pp. 70-74). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited.
McAlester, G. (2003). Comments in the ‘Round-table discussion on translation in the New Millennium’. In M. R. G. M. Anderman (Ed.), Translation today: Trends and perspectives (pp. 13-51): Multilingual Matters Limited.
McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moeini Fard, Z., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2014). Translation Quality Assessment of English Equivalents of Persian Proper Nouns: A case of bilingual tourist signposts in Isfahan. International journal of foreign language Teaching and Research, 2(8), 25-34.
Montazer, E., & Chalak, A. (2017). Interpretation strategies used by Iranian tour guides in translating cultural specific items. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(8), 121-132.
Munday, J. (2012). Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision-making. London: Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice hall New York.
Newmark, P. (2003). No global communication without translation. In G. M. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation today: Trends and perspectives (pp. 55-67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited.
Riazi, A. M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Sainz, M. J. (1994). Student-centred corrections of translations. In C. Dollerup & A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2 (pp. 133–141). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schaffner, C. (Ed.) (1998). Translation and quality. London: Routledge.
Schiaffino, R., & Zearo, F. (2005). Translation quality measurement in practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the American Translation Association.
Shahsavarzadeh, S., & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2020). Investigating translation theories course in Iranian universities: Students’ expectations and perceptions in focus. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 8(1), 167-194.
Sun, S., Guzmán, F., & Specia, L. (2020). Are we Estimating or Guesstimating Translation Quality? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Tsagari, D., & Van Deemter, R. (2013). Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang AG.
Valipoor, K., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2019). Cultural-specific items in translation of the Holy Quran by Irving. Linguistic Research in the Holy Quran, 8(1), 43-52.
Waddington, C. (2001). Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity. Meta, 46(2), 311-325.
Weber, W. K. (1984). Training Translators and Conference Interpreters. Language in Education: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality assessment: An argumentation-centred approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Yazdani, S., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2020). Exploratory-cumulative vs. disputational talk on cognitive dependency of translation studies: Intermediate level students in focus. International journal of foreign language Teaching and Research, 8(33), 39-57.
REFERENCES
Amiri Shalforoosh , E., & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2018). The study of English culture specific items in Persian translation based on House’s model: The case of Waiting for Godot. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(1), 135-145.
Arango-Keeth, F., & Koby, G. S. (2003). Assessing assessment: Translator training evaluation and the needs of industry quality assessment. In B. J. Baer (Ed.), Beyond the ivory tower. Rethinking translation pedagogy (pp. 117-134). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Irvine, C., & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to research in education 10th edth ed. Boston (MA): Cengage Learning.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bassnett, S. (2013). Translation Studies (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Bowker, L. (2000). A corpus-based approach to evaluating student translations. The Translator, 6(2), 183-210.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2001). Task-based assessments: Characteristics and validity evidence. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 210-228). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). London: Routledge.
Darwish, A. (2010). Translation applied!: An introduction to applied translation studies-A transactional model. Melbourne: Writescope Publishers.
Drugan, J. (2013). Quality in professional translation: Assessment and improvement. London: Bloomsbury.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Routledge.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2008). Towards developing a framework for the evaluation of Iranian undergraduate students’ academic translation. Doctoral thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.
Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2021). Evaluative practices for assessing translation quality: A content analysis of Iranian undergraduate students' academic translations. International Journal of Language Studies, 15(3), 65-88.
Heidari Tabrizi, H., Chalak, A., & Taherioun, A. H. (2014). Assessing the Quality of Persian Translation of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four Based on House's Model: Overt-covert Translation Distinction. Acta Linguistica Asiatica, 4(3), 29-42.
Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Pezeshki, M. (2015). Strategies used in translation of scientific texts to cope with lexical gaps (Case of Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis Book). Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(6), 1173-1178.
Heidari Tabrizi, H., Riazi, A., & Parhizgar, R. (2008). On the translation evaluation methods as practiced in Iranian universities' BA translation program: the attitude of students. TELL, 2(7), 71-87.
Honig, H. G. (1998a). Complexity, contrastive linguistics and translator training: Comments on responses. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and quality (pp. 83-89). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited.
Honig, H. G. (1998b). Positions, power and practice: Functionalist approaches and translation quality assessment. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and quality (pp. 6-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited.
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
House, J. (2001a). How do we know when a translation is good? In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production (pp. 127-160). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
House, J. (2001b). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation. Meta, 46(2), 243-257.
House, J. (2013). How do we know when a translation is good? Exploring translation and multilingual text production (pp. 127-160): De Gruyter Mouton.
Jalalpour, E., & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2017). A study of English translation of colloquial expressions in two translations of Jamalzadeh: once upon a time and Isfahan is half the world. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(5), 1011-1021.
Karimi, M., Heidari Tabrizi, Hossein , & Chalak, A. (2016). Challenges in English to Persian translation of contracts and agreements: The case of Iranian English translation students. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(6), 188-198.
Khalouzadeh, E., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2013). Translation of news texts in Persian political magazines: van Dijk’s model of critical discourse analysis. Journal of Translation Studies, 10(40), 67-76.
Klaudy, K. (1996). Quality assessment in school vs. professional translation. In C. Dollerup & V. Appel (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 3: New horizons (pp. 197-203). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Larose, R. (1998). Méthodologie de l'évaluation des traductions. Meta, 43(2), 163-186.
Malmkjaer, K. (1998). Linguistics in functionland and through the front door: A response to Hans G. Honig. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and quality (pp. 70-74). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited.
McAlester, G. (2003). Comments in the ‘Round-table discussion on translation in the New Millennium’. In M. R. G. M. Anderman (Ed.), Translation today: Trends and perspectives (pp. 13-51): Multilingual Matters Limited.
McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moeini Fard, Z., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2014). Translation Quality Assessment of English Equivalents of Persian Proper Nouns: A case of bilingual tourist signposts in Isfahan. International journal of foreign language Teaching and Research, 2(8), 25-34.
Montazer, E., & Chalak, A. (2017). Interpretation strategies used by Iranian tour guides in translating cultural specific items. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(8), 121-132.
Munday, J. (2012). Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision-making. London: Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice hall New York.
Newmark, P. (2003). No global communication without translation. In G. M. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Translation today: Trends and perspectives (pp. 55-67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited.
Riazi, A. M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Sainz, M. J. (1994). Student-centred corrections of translations. In C. Dollerup & A. Lindegaard (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2 (pp. 133–141). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schaffner, C. (Ed.) (1998). Translation and quality. London: Routledge.
Schiaffino, R., & Zearo, F. (2005). Translation quality measurement in practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the American Translation Association.
Shahsavarzadeh, S., & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2020). Investigating translation theories course in Iranian universities: Students’ expectations and perceptions in focus. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 8(1), 167-194.
Sun, S., Guzmán, F., & Specia, L. (2020). Are we Estimating or Guesstimating Translation Quality? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Tsagari, D., & Van Deemter, R. (2013). Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang AG.
Valipoor, K., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2019). Cultural-specific items in translation of the Holy Quran by Irving. Linguistic Research in the Holy Quran, 8(1), 43-52.
Waddington, C. (2001). Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity. Meta, 46(2), 311-325.
Weber, W. K. (1984). Training Translators and Conference Interpreters. Language in Education: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality assessment: An argumentation-centred approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Yazdani, S., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2020). Exploratory-cumulative vs. disputational talk on cognitive dependency of translation studies: Intermediate level students in focus. International journal of foreign language Teaching and Research, 8(33), 39-57.
