A Formative Approach To Translator Training

Öz

This study aimed to identify the challenges that might occur during the implementation of the seven strategies used in formative assessment, to find solutions, and to examine the role of the translation course in teaching the source language English and the students' attitudes towards the translation course in the context of these strategies. For this purpose, the study used mixed methods research design, based on a case study using a performance-based measurement method associated with a constructivist approach. In the study, the researcher's field notes, in which he recorded his observations about the use of formative assessment strategies in the classroom; semi-structured focus group interviews, conducted after the completion of each text translation; student drafts, to determine the improvement the students made after self-assessment; and, to examine the students' attitudes towards the translation class, a Translation Class Evaluation Questionnaire and semi-structured pre- and post-interview forms, were used. In the analysis of the collected data, the researchers used quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods. In line with this data analysis, it was observed that students took an active role in the self-assessment process and made progress in forming the equivalence between source language and target language in the translation courses; and in this sense, it was determined that they developed a positive attitude towards the translation classes. The researchers discussed the findings and results of the study in the light of the research context and presented pedagogical recommendations. Keywords: Formative assessment, Self-assessment, Constructivism, Translation classes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Formative assessment
• Self-assessment
• Constructivism
• Translation classes

Çevirmen Eğitimine Biçimlendirici Bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Bu çalışma; biçimlendirici değerlendirmede kullanılan yedi stratejinin uygulanması esnasında ortaya çıkabilecek zorlukların saptanması, çözüm yollarının bulunması ve bu süreçte çeviri dersinin kaynak dil İngilizcenin öğretilmesindeki rolü ve öğrencilerin çeviri dersine karşı tutumlarının bu uygulanan stratejiler bağlamında araştırılmasını amaçlamıştır. Bu amaçla; çalışma bir oluşturmacı yaklaşım bakış açısıyla ilişkilendirilmiş, performansa dayalı ölçme yöntemini kullanan bir durum çalışması üzerine tasarlanmış karma yöntem araştırma desenini kullanmaktadır. Çalışmada, biçimlendirici değerlendirme stratejilerinin sınıf içinde kullanılmasıyla ilgili araştırmacının gözlemlerini kaydettiği araştırmacı alan notu, her bir çalışmanın tamamlanmasından sonra uygulanan yarı yapılandırılmış odak grup görüşmeleri, öz değerlendirmeden sonra öğrencilerin ne tür değişimler kazandıklarını belirlemek için öğrenci taslakları ve öğrencilerin çeviri dersine karşı tutumlarını ölçmek için Çeviri Dersi Değerlendirme Anketi ve yarı yapılandırılmış ön ve son görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Toplanan verilerin analizinde, araştırmacılar nicel ve nitel veri analiz yöntemi kullanmıştır. Bu veri analizi doğrultusunda, öğrencilerin öz değerlendirme sürecinde etkin rol aldıkları, çeviri derslerinde kaynak dil ile erek dil arasındaki eşdeğerliliği oluşturmada ilerleme kat ettikleri gözlemlenmiş ve bu bağlamda çeviri dersine karşı olumlu tutum geliştirdikleri saptanmıştır. Araştırmacılar, çalışmanın bulgularını ve sonuçlarını araştırma içeriği ışığında tartışmış ve pedagojik öneriler sunmuştur. Anahtar Kelimeler: Biçimlendirici değerlendirme, Öz değerlendirme, Oluşturmacılık, Çeviri dersleri

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biçimlendirici değerlendirme
• Öz değerlendirme
• Oluşturmacılık
• Çeviri dersleri

Kaynakça

1. REFERENCES Alfayyadh, H. M. (2016). The feedback culture in translator education: A comparative exploration of two distinct university translation programs (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved February 10, 2018 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 10109133).
2. Alterman, R. A. (1965). Using Student Diaries to Develop an Evaluative Instrument for Teacher Education Programs. The Journal of Educational Research, (58)8, 369-372.
3. Alhuwaydi, A. A. (2017). Portfolio as an EFL writing assessment in a Saudi university context (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved February 10, 2018 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 10633150).
4. Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting Learning and Achievement through Self-Assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 12-19.
5. Ayala, C. (2005). Formative assessment guideposts. Science Scope, 4(28), 46-48
6. Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A coursebook on translation. London and New York: Routledge.
7. Baleghizadeh, S., & Masoun, A. (2013). The Effect of Self-Assessment on EFL Learners’ Self-Efficacy. TESL Canada Journal, 31(1), 42-58.
8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.

9. Bhagat, K. K., & Spector, J. M. (2017). Formative Assessment in Complex Problem-Solving Domains: The Emerging Role of Assessment Technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 20 (4), 312–317.
10. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: principles, methods, and practices. USF Open Access Textbooks Collection. Book 3 University of South Florida. Retrieved February 9, 2018 from http://scholarcommons.usf. edu/oa_textbooks/3
11. Bogdan, R. (1973). Participant Observation. Peabody Journal of Education, 50(4), 302-308. Retrieved April 3, 2018 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1492424
12. Bourke, R., & Mentis, M. (2013). Self-assessment as a process for inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 854-867.
13. Branch, K. (2013). Translator Trainers’ Attitude About Using Translation Theories in Practical Translation Classes at Iranian Universities. Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(1), 61-65.
14. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to Create and Use rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading. Virgina, USA: Alexandra
15. Brown, G. T., & Harris, L. R. (2014). The future of self-assessment in classroom practice: Reframing self-assessment as a core competency. Frontline Learning Research, 2(1), 22-30.
16. Brown, J. D & Hudson, T. (1998). The Alternatives in Language Assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653-675.
17. Büyükkarcı, K. (2010). The effect of formative assessment on learners’ test anxiety and assessment preferences in EFL context (Doctoral Dissertation). Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
18. Cauley, K., & McMillan, J. (2010). Formative Assessment Techniques to Support Student Motivation and Achievement. The Clearing House, 83(1), 1-6.
19. Chandio, M. C., & Jafferi, S. (2015). Teaching English as a Language not Subject by Employing Formative Assessment. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 2(2), 151-171.
20. Chappuis, J. (2015). Seven strategies of assessment for learning (2nd ed.). New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education.
21. Cook, D. (1962). The Hawthorne Effect in Educational Research. The Phi Delta Kappan, 44(3), 116-122.
22. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London and Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
23. Dixson, D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and Summative Assessment in the Classroom. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153-159.
24. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350.
25. Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and Reliability in Social Science Research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105-124.
26. Efe, H. (2016). Reflective Portfolio Assessment in an EFL Context. Anthropologist, 24(1), 157-16. doi:10.1080/09720073.2016.11892001
27. El-Koumy, A. (2010, October). Student self-assessment in higher education: Alone or plus. Paper presented at the CPLA Conference Lebanese American University, Lebanon. Retrieved August 3, 2018 from https://files.eric.ed.gov /fulltext/ED513289.pdf
28. Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Fraile, J., Panadero, E., & Pardo, R. (2017). Co-creating rubrics: The effects on self-regulated learning, self-efficacy and performance of establishing assessment criteria with students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 69-76.
30. Galan-Manas, A., & Hurtado Albir, A. (2015). Competence assessment procedures in translator training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 9(1), 63-82.
31. Gathercoal, P. (1995). Principles of Assessment. The Clearing House, 69(1), 59-61.
32. Ge, L. L. (2010). Effects of formative assessment in individualized English learning on autonomous learning (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 10372959).
33. Gedye, S. (2010). Formative assessment and feedback: A review. Planet, 23(1), 40-45.
34. Geeslin, K. L. (2003). Student Self-Assessment in the Foreign Language Classroom: The Place of Authentic Assessment Instruments in the Spanish Language Classroom. Hispania, 86(4), 857-868.
35. Glazer, N. (2014). Formative Plus Summative Assessment in Large Undergraduate Courses: Why Both?. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(2), 276-286.
36. Han, T., & Kaya, H. İ. (2014). Turkish EFL Teachers’ Assessment Preferences and Practices in the Context of Constructivist Instruction. Journal of Studies in Education, (4)1, 77-93.
37. Harris, M., & McCann, P. (1994). Assessment: Handbook for the English classroom. Oxford: Macmillan.
38. Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of Learning. London: Sage.
39. Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and Learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-379.
40. Heitink, M. C, van der Kleij, F. M, Veldkamp, B. P., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50–62.
41. Hernández, R. (2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning?. Higher Education, 64(4), 489-502. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational research methods, 1(1), 104-121.
42. Hurtado Albir, A. (2015). The Acquisition of Translation Competence. Competences, Tasks, and Assessment in Translator Training. Meta, 60(2), 256–280.
43. Ivir, V. (1981). Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited. Poetics Today, 2(4), 51-59. Retrieved July 17, 2018 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1772485.pdf?refreqid=search%3A93a53637614a62bf14eeb 191f36f501e
44. Jabir, J. K. (2006). Skopos Theory: Basic Principles and Deficiencies. Journal of the College of Arts, 4. Retrieved from May 30, 2018 from https://www.iasj. net/iasj?func=fulltext &aId= 50013
45. Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130-144.
46. Karimzadeh, A., Samani, E., Vaseghi, R., & Kalajahi, S. A. R. (2015). Micro and macro levels of translation pedagogy: A study on the components of translation competence and the ways to develop it in translation courses. Journal of Studies in Education, 5(2), 158-168.
47. Kashgary, A. D. (2011). The paradox of translating the untranslatable: Equivalence vs. non-equivalence in translating from Arabic into English. Journal of King Saud University-Languages and Translation, 23(1), 47-57.
48. Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y.P. (2008). Establishing the validity and reliability of course evaluation questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 341–353. doi: 10.1080/02602930701563070
49. Kostonsa, D., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 121-132.
50. Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute-by-minute and day-by-day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18-24.
51. Liao, P. (2006). EFL Learners’ Beliefs about and Strategy Use of Translation in English Learning. Regional Language Centre Journal, 37(2), 191-215. doi: 10.1177/0033688206067428
52. Mangino, P. J. (2012). Exploring the four core elements of formative assessment in college classroom instruction: Faculty member perspectives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved April 8, 2018 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 3540811).
53. McCrum-Gardner, E. (2008). Which is the correct statistical test to use?. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 46(1), 38-41.
54. McDonald, B. (2007). Self Assessment for Understanding. Journal of Education, 188(1), 25-40.
55. Mican, A. D., & Medina, L. C. (2017). Boosting vocabulary learning through self-assessment in an English language teaching context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 398-414. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1118433
56. Moskal, B.M., & Leydens, J.A. (2000). Scoring Rubric Development: Validity and Reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 7(10), 71–81.
57. Munoz, S. R., & Bangdiwala, S. I. (1997). Interpretation of Kappa and B statistics measures of agreement. Journal of Applied Statistics, 24(1), 105-112, doi: 10.1080/02664769723918
58. Ndoye, A. (2017). Peer / Self-Assessment and Student Learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(2), 255-269.
59. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter Publishers.
60. Palumbo, G. (2009). Key terms in translation studies. London / New York: Continuum.
61. Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: Theoretical and Practical Connotations. When it Happens, How is it Acquired and what to do to Develop it in our Student. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(2), 551-576. doi: 10.14204/ejrep.30.12200
62. Panadero, E., Brown, G., & Courtney, M. (2014). Teachers’ reasons for using self-assessment: a survey self-report of Spanish teachers. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(4), 365-383. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.919247
63. Pérez, C. M. (2004). Applying translation theory in teaching. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 12(2), 119-133.
64. Pym, A. (2010). Exploring Translation Theories. New York, NY: Routledge.
65. Rawlusyk, P. (2016). Exploring assessment practices in higher education: A focus on learning-oriented assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved March 4, 2018 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 10124987).
66. Robinson, B. J., López Rodríguez, C. I., & Tercedor Sánchez, M. I. (2006). Self-assessment in translator training. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 14(2), 115-138.
67. Rodgers, C. R. (2006). Attending to student voice: The impact of descriptive feedback on learning and teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 209-237.
68. Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. B. (2012). Formative assessment: Simply, no additives. The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 534-538.
69. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
70. Saxton, E., Belanger, S., & Becker, W. (2012). The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric (CTAR): Investigating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a scoring mechanism for critical thinking performance assessments. Assessing Writing 17(4), 251-270.
71. Schäffner, C. (1998). Skopos Theory. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 235-238). London & New York: Routledge.
72. Schuessler, J. N. (2010). Self-assessment as learning: Finding the motivations and barriers for adopting the learning-oriented instructional design of student self-assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved March 8, 2018 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 3390348).
73. Shatri, Z. G., & Zabeli, N. (2018). Perceptions of students and teachers about the forms and student self-assessment activities in the classroom during the formative assessment. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 9 (2), 28-46.
74. Stemler, S. E. (2004). A Comparison of Consensus, Consistency, and Measurement Approaches to Estimating Interrater Reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 9(4), 1-11.
75. Sulaiman, N. D., & Shahrill, M. (2015). Engaging Collaborative Learning to Develop Students’ SkiIls of the 21st Century. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 544-552.
76. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment: Summative and Formative: Some Theoretical Reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466-478.
77. Thawabieh, A. M. (2017). A Comparison between Students' Self-Assessment and Teachers' Assessment. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 6(1), 14-20. doi:10.5430/jct.v6n1p14
78. Ulanska, T. (2015). The Role of Linguistic Factor in Translation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 2585-2587.
79. Ünaldı, İ. (2016). Self and teacher assessment as predictors of proficiency levels of Turkish EFL learners. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 67-80. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.980223
80. Van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational research review, 6(2), 95-108.
81. Wakim, B. (2010). Psycholinguistic dimensions of translation competence into english as a second language: Developing a diagnostic tool (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved April 5, 2018 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 10309073).
82. Wang, X. H. (2010). An action research on oral proficiency development of english-major students through formative assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved March 10, 2018 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 10372810).
83. Woods, D. (1987). Student Self-Performance Assessment. Journal of College Science Teaching, 16(6), 565-570. Retrieved October 10, 2018 from www.jstor.org/stable/42987324
84. Xu, C. (2011). An investigation on hinders and problems of the implementation of formative assessment in senior high schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved March 8, 2018 from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 10496825).
85. Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). A cyclical self-assessment process: towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1247-1262. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1260091
86. Yazıcı, M. (2005). Çeviribilimin Temel Kavram ve Kuramları. İstanbul: Multilingual.
87. Yazıcı, M. (2017). The Barriers in Translator Training. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(7), 43-50.
88. Yousofi, N. (2014). Describing the Errors in the Translations of Iranian novice English Translators. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1952-1958.
89. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70.