Sözlü Çeviride Düzeltici Geribildirim Uygulamalarına İlişkin Lisans Öğrencilerinin Bakış Açılarının İncelenmesi

Year 2024, Issue: 15, 994 - 1011, 28.04.2024

Sevda Balaman

https://doi.org/10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1452692

Abstract

Sözlü çevirinin etkili bir iletişim aracı olarak önemi düşünüldüğünde, nihayetinde daha doğru çeviriler oluşturulmasını sağlayabilen sistematik hata düzeltme uygulamalarının kritik rolü yadsınamaz. Fakat, geri bildirim mekanizmasını bilhassa sözlü çevirmen eğitimi alanında ele alan araştırma sayısı ilgili alan-yazında oldukça azdır. Bu bağlamda, karma yöntemli bir araştırma tasarımına dayanan bu çalışma, sözlü çevirmen adaylarının gözünden, hata geribildirim sürecinin çok boyutlu özelliklerine dair algıları ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Nicel veriler, Mütercim-Tercümanlık bölümünde öğrenim gören toplam 102 lisans düzeyinden öğrencinin katılımıyla elde edilmiştir. Verilerin analizi sürecinde, ilk olarak Temel Bileşenler Analizi yapılmıştır ve düzeltici hata geri bildirimi konusunda 7 alt boyut elde edilmiştir. Nitel veri ise, 10 öğrencinin katılımıyla yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler şeklinde toplanmıştır. Bu iki yöntemle elde edilen bulgular, katılımcıların performanslarına ilişkin geri bildirim alma konusunda olumlu görüşe sahip olduklarını ortaya koymuştur. Dikkat çekici bir şekilde, katılımcıların çoğu, açık geri bildirim türü konusunda ve tüm hata türlerine yönelik olarak düzeltici geri bildirim alma noktasında en fazla olumlu görüş bildirirken, akran geri bildirimi ve gecikmeli geri bildirim türleri konusunda en az olumlu katılım göstermiştir. Ortaya çıkan bilgiler, öğrencilerin bakış açılarıyla uyumlu bir öğrenme ortamı tasarlama konusunda öğretmenlerin görüşlerini daha da genişletebilecek ve sonuçta daha verimli öğrenme sonuçlarına yol açacaktır.

Keywords

Düzeltici geribildirim, hata, hata düzeltme, sözlü çeviri.

Exploring Undergraduate Students’ Viewpoints on Corrective Feedback Implementations in Interpreting

Abstract

Considering the importance of interpreting as an effective communication tool, the critical role of systematic error-treatment practices, which might ultimately enable the construction of more accurate renditions, is undeniable. However, the number of studies addressing the feedback mechanism, especially in the interpreter training domain, is quite low in the relevant literature. In this vein, the current research, based on a mixed-method research design, aims to portray the perceptions regarding the multidimensional characteristics of the error feedback process from the lens of interpreter candidates. The quantitative data were gathered with the participation of a total of 102 undergraduate-level students majoring in the Translation and Interpreting Department. In the data analysis procedure, firstly the Principal Components Analysis was conducted and 7 sub-dimensions based on the corrective error feedback were extracted. The qualitative data were collected with the participation of 10 students in the semi-structured interviews. The findings gathered with these two methods revealed that the participants had a favourable opinion of obtaining feedback regarding their performances. Notably, while most of the participants reported the highest endorsement on the explicit type of feedback and receiving corrective feedback oriented to all error types, they indicated the least agreement on peer and delayed feedback types. The resulting information may further broaden teachers’ insights into designing a learning environment congruent with students’ perspectives, eventually leading to more efficient learning outcomes.

Keywords

Corrective feedback, error, error correction, interpreting.

References

• Abdel-Latif, M. M. M. (2020). Translator and Interpreter Education Research: Areas, Methods and Trends. Singapore: Springer.
• Adams, R., Nuevo, A. M., & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and Implicit Feedback, Modified Output, and SLA: Does Explicit and Implicit Feedback Promote Learning and Learner-Learner interactions? The Modern Language Journal, 95(s1), 42–63.
• Aytaş, G., & Köktürk, Ş. (2021). Sözlü Çevirmenliğe İlk Adım: SÖBES [The First Pace Towards Interpretering: SÖBES]. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 9(1), 79-98.
• Balaman, S. (2021). A Comprehensive Review of Systematic Assessment Techniques in Interpreting. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Uluslararası Filoloji Ve Çeviribilim Dergisi [Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University International Philology and Translation Studies], 3(1), 23-45.
• Barik, H. C. (1971). A Description of Various Types of Omissions, Additions and Errors of Translation Encountered in Simultaneous Interpreting. Meta, 16(4), 199-210.
• Bartłomiejczyk, M. (2010). Effects of Short Intensive Practice on Interpreter Trainees’ Performance. In D. Gile, G. Hansen & N. Pokorn (Eds.), Why Translation Studies Matters. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183–194.
• Bayraktar-Özer, Ö. (2022). Current Pedagogical Tendencies and Practices in Interpreter Training: A Study on Turkey (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Ankara: Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University.
• Behr, M. (2015). How to Back students- Quality, Assessment & Feedback. In D. Andres & M. Behr (Eds), To Know How to Suggest…: Approaches to Teaching Conference Interpreting, Berlin: Frank & Timme, 201-217.
• Brimhall, A. R. (2022). Student Perspectives on Feedback in a Spanish Medical Interpreting Course (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Brigham Young University, the USA.
• Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
• Doğan, A., Arumí-Ribas, M. & Mora-Rubio, B. (2009). Metacognitive Tools in Interpreting Training: A Pilot Study. Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Letters, 26(1), 69-84.
• Domínguez-Araújo, L. (2019). Feedback in Conference Interpreter Education: Perspectives of Trainers and Trainees. Interpreting, 21(1), 135-150.
• Dörnyei, Z. & Csizér, K. (2012). How to Design and Analyse Surveys in Second Language Acquisition Research. In A. Mackey, & S. M. Gass (Eds), Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 74-95). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Durukan, E. (2018). Çeviri Öğretimi- Hedef ve Ölçme. İstanbul: Hiperyayın.
• Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
• Fowler, Y. (2007). Formative Assessment: Using Peer and Self-Assessment in Interpreter Training. In C. Wadensjö, B. E. Dimitrova, & A-L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community, (pp. 253–262). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Google Forms (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.google.com/forms/about/
• Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ha, X. V., Murray, J. C., & Riazi, A. M. (2021). High School EFL Students’ Beliefs about Oral Corrective Feedback: The Role of Gender, Motivation and Extraversion. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 235-264.
• Ha, X. V. & Nguyen L. T. (2021). Targets and Sources of Oral Corrective Feedback in English as a Foreign Language Classrooms: Are Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs Aligned? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 697160.
• Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Practice. Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387–398.
• Holewik, K. (2021). Peer Feedback and Reflective Practice in Public Service Interpreter Training. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 133-159.
• IBM Corporation (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 25.0) [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.
• Iglesias Fernández, E. (2011). Under Examination Do All Interpreting Examiners Use the Same Criteria? The Linguist, 50(2), 12-13.
• Kaiser, H. F. (1974) An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.
• Katayama, A. (2007) Students’ Perceptions of Oral Error Correction. Japanese Language and Literature, 41(1), 61–92.
• Kline, P. (1994). An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. New York: Routledge.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: Guildford.
• Kopczyński, A. (1994). Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems. Quality in Conference Interpreting: Some Pragmatic Problems. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (eds.), Translation Studies. An Interdiscipline: Selected Papers from the Translation Studies Congress, Vienna, 1992. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, (pp. 189-198).
• Lee, Y.-H. (2005). Self-Assessment as an Autonomous Learning Tool in an Interpreting Classroom. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 50(4).
• Lee, S.-B. (2017). University Students’ Experience of ‘Scale-referenced’ Peer Assessment for a Consecutive Interpreting Examination. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1015–1029.
• Lee, J. (2018). Feedback on Feedback: Guiding Student Interpreter Performance. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research. 10(1), 152–170.
• Lee, S.-B. (2019). Scale-Referenced, Summative Peer Assessment in Undergraduate Interpreter Training: Self-Reflection from an Action Researcher. Educational Action Research, 27(2), 152-172.
• Li, X. (2018). Self-Assessment as ‘Assessment as Learning’ in Translator and Interpreter Education: Validity and Washback. Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(1), 48–67.
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.
• Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral Feedback in Classroom SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.
• Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral Corrective Feedback in Second Language Classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
• Mahvelati, E. H. (2021). Learners’ Perceptions and Performance Under Peer Versus Teacher Corrective Feedback Conditions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 100995.
• Mirzaee, A. & Razavi, M. S. M. (2021). Directionality and Error Typology in English-Persian Simultaneous Interpreting: A Descriptive-Analytic Corpus-Based Study. New Voices in Translation Studies, 25, 54-80.
• Moser-Mercer, B. (2005). Remote Interpreting: The Crucial Role of Presence. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée, 81, 73–97.
• Motta, M. (2011). Facilitating the Novice to Expert Transition in Interpreter Training: A Deliberate Practice Framework Proposal. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Philologia, 54(1), 27-42.
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Peng, K.-C. (2006). The Development of Coherence and Quality of Performance in Conference Interpreter Training (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Leeds, the UK.
• Pimentel, J. L. (2019). Some Biases in Likert Scaling Usage and Its Correction. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 45(1), 183-191.
• Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 46 (2), 410–425.
• Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for Scale Selection and Evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (pp. 1–16). New York: Academic Press.
• Schjoldager, A. (1996). Assessment of Simultaneous Interpreting. In C. Dollerup & V. Appel (Eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3: New horizons. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187–195.
• Setton, R. & Dawrant, A. (2016a). Conference Interpreting. A Complete Course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Setton, R. & Dawrant, A. (2016b). Conference Interpreting. A Trainer’s Guide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in Its Development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House.
• Yang, J. (2016). Learners’ Oral Corrective Feedback Preferences in Relation to Their Cultural Background, Proficiency Level and Types of Error. System, 61, 75-86.
• Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL Learners’ Anxiety Level and Their Beliefs About Corrective Feedback in Oral Communication Classes. System, 42, 429-439.
• Zhu, Y., & Wang, B. (2019). Investigating English Language Learners’ Beliefs About Oral Corrective Feedback at Chinese Universities: A large-scale survey. Language Awareness, 28(2), 1–29