Sözlü Çeviri Öğrencilerinin Üst-bilişsel Profillerinin Ayrıntılı Bir Analizi

Öz

Sözlü çeviri yeterliğini arttırmada üst-biliş yapısının önemine rağmen, bu değişkenin bu alan özelinde işlevselliğini oldukça az araştırma ele almıştır. Bu sebeple, bu çalışma Mütercim ve Tercümanlık Bölümü'nde öğrenim gören toplam 82 öğrenciyle, bu alanda algılanan üst-biliş yeteneğini derinlemesine betimlemek amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nicel olarak elde edilen verilere dayanarak, betimleyici istatistikler ve yüzde değerleri hesaplanmıştır ve sonuçlar, katılımcıların 3.67 ortalama oran ile yüksek düzeyde üst-biliş yeterliğine sahip olduklarını ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca bulgular, üst-biliş yapısının dört farklı bileşeninden her birinin, yüksek aralığa denk gelen bir ortalama oranına sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Tekli madde analizinde, tüm ölçekten 17 madde, oldukça yüksek ortalama değerler elde etmiştir; bu da ilgili alanda öğrencilerin güçlü bir üst-bilişsel yöneliminin olduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, üst-bilişsel profilin duygusal boyutuna dayanan üç maddenin ölçekteki diğer maddelere göre nispeten daha düşük ortalama değerler elde ettiği bulunmuştur. Bu sonuç ise, bazı öğrencilerin sözlü çeviri uygulamalarına yönelik algıladıkları stres, kaygı veya zorluklarla baş edememe gibi olumsuz duyguları nasıl giderecekleri konusunda rehberliğe ihtiyaç duyduklarını işaret etmektedir. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma ile ortaya çıkan bulgular, öğrenme ortamlarını daha iyi tasarlamak amacıyla, sözlü çeviri kapsamında, öğrencilerin üst-bilişsel yeterliklerindeki güçlü yönlerini ve sınırlılıklarını belirleme konusunda öğretmenlere yardım edebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Duygusal boyut
• bilişsellik
• sözlü çeviri
• üst-biliş
• öz-değerlendirme

A Detailed Analysis of Interpreting Students’ Metacognitive Profiles

Öz

Despite the prominence of the metacognition construct for enhancing the interpretation competence, little research has addressed its functionality in the interpreting specificity. Therefore, this study was conducted with 82 students, majoring at the Translation and Interpretation Department, in order to deeply portray their self-perceived metacognitive ability in this domain. Depending on the data obtained quantitatively, descriptive statistics and percentages were calculated and the results displayed that participants had a high level of the metacognition competency with an average score of 3.67. Also, the findings showed that each of the four different components of the metacognition construct had the mean ratio, corresponding to the high interval. In the individual-item analysis, 17 items of the whole scale obtained relatively high average scores, indicating students’ strong metacognitive orientation in the respective field. However, it was found that three items in the scale, based on the affective dimension of the metacognitive profile, obtained slightly lower mean values than the rest of the items in the inventory. This result indicates that some students need guidance on how to relieve negative feelings including stress, anxiety or inability to cope with difficulties they perceive regarding interpreting practices. In conclusion, the findings revealed in this study can help teachers specify learners’ strengths and limitations in the metacognitive competence within interpretation in order to better design learning environments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Affective dimension
• cognition
• interpretation
• meta-cognition
• self-assessment

Kaynakça

1. Aguirre Fernández Bravo, E. (2015). El desarrollo metacognitivo del estudiante de interpretación: estudio de caso [The Interpreting student's metacognitive development: a case study] (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas.
2. Aguirre Fernández Bravo, E. A. (2019). Metacognitive self-perception in interpreting. Translation, Cognition & Behaviour, 2(2), 147-164.
3. Al-Khresheh, M. H., & Alruwaili, S. F. (2024). Metacognition in listening comprehension: Analyzing strategies and gender differences among Saudi EFL University students. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2291954
4. Amini, D., Anhari, M. H. & Ghasemzadeh, G. (2020). Modeling the relationship between metacognitive strategy awareness, self-regulation and reading proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1787018, https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1787018
5. Arumí, M., & Esteve, O. (2006). Using instruments aimed at self-regulation in the consecutive interpreting classroom: Two case studies. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(2), 158-189.
6. Carrell, P.L., Gajdusek, L. & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science 26, 97–112 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003092114195 Chiang, Y.-N. (2006). Connecting two anxiety constructs: an interdisciplinary study of foreign language anxiety and interpretation anxiety (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). University of Texas, Austin, the USA.
7. Choi, J. Y. (2006). Metacognitive evaluation method in consecutive interpretation for novice learners. Meta: Translators’ Journal 51(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.7202/013256ar
8. Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. & Zhang, L. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462–473.

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.
10. Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3-14.
11. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–287.
12. Efklides, A. (2009). The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process. Psicothema, 21, 76-82.
13. Fan, D. (2012). The development of expertise in interpreting through self-regulated learning for trainee interpreters (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). University of Newcastle upon Tyne, the UK.
14. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
16. Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development (2nd. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Glaser, R. (1994). Learning theory and instruction. In G. D’Ydewalle, P. Eelen & B. Bertelson (Eds), International Perspectives on Psychological Science Vol. 2.: The State of the Art (pp. 341-357). NJ: Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203775738
18. Google Forms (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.google.com/forms/about/
19. Heo, E. (2021). Applying metacognition in interpreter education. The Mirae Journal of English Language and Literature, 26(1), 361-181.
20. IBM Corporation (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 25.0) [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.
21. Kao, P.-C., & Craigie, P. (2013). Evaluating student interpreters’ stress and coping strategies. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(6), 1035–1044. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.6.1035
22. Korpal, P. (2016). Interpreting as a stressful activity: physiological measures of stress in simultaneous interpreting. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 52(2), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0011
23. Mbato, C. L. (2013). Facilitating EFL learners’ self- regulation in reading: Implementing a metacognitive approach in an Indonesian higher education context [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Southern Cross University, Australia.
24. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press.
25. Moser-Mercer, B. (2000). The rocky road to expertise in interpreting: Eliciting knowledge from learners. In M. Kadric, K. Kaindl, & F. Pöchhacker (Eds), Translationswissenschaft: Festschrift für Mary Snell-Hornby zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 339–352). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
26. O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Mazanares, G., Russo, R. & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategies applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly,19, 285–296.
27. 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.
28. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.
29. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self- regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.
30. Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 46(2), 410–425. https://doi.org/10.7202/003847ar
31. Sawyer, D. B. (1994). Monitoring processes in conference interpreting: Towards a model for interpreter-trainees/ Towards a monitoring model for interpreter-trainees. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 39(3): 433–438. https://doi.org/10.7202/004035ar
32. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113–125.
33. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
34. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as a part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.
35. Tallungan, J. R. R. (2017). English language constructs preceding communication effectiveness. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(2), 36-43.
36. Teng, F. (2016). Immediate and delayed effects of embedded metacognitive instruction on Chinese EFL students’ English writing and regulation of cognition. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 289–302.
37. Thamraksa, C. (2005). Metacognition: A key to success for EFL learners. BU Academic Review, 4(1), 95-99.
38. Torre Puente, J. C. (2007). Una triple alianza para un aprendizaje universitario de calidad [A triple alliance for quality higher education]. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas.
39. Wang, W., Xu, Y., Wang B., & Mu, L. (2020). Developing interpreting competence scales in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(481), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00481
40. Winograd, P. & Hare, V. C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies: The nature of teacher explanation. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment Instruction and Evaluation (pp. 121–139). San Diego: Academic Press.
41. Zhang, D., Zhang, L. J. (2019). Metacognition and self-regulated learning (SRL) in second/foreign language teaching. In: Gao, X. (ed.), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 883-897). Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_47
42. Zhao, C. G. & Liao, L. (2021). Metacognitive strategy use in L2 writing assessment. System, 98(2021), pp. 1-11, Doi: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102472
43. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.): Self-regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-reflective Practice (pp. 1-19). New York: Guilford.
44. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2