A Proposed Rubric for Assessing Student Performance in Sight Translation

Öz

Rubrics are scoring tools used to assess student performance based upon a specific set of criteria. They enable instructors to provide a more accurate, unbiased, and consistent scoring, and they can, on the other hand, give students a clear sense of the expectations in a given assignment or task. It has been observed that the assessment of students’ abilities in the sight translation course offered in the English Language Translation and Interpreting departments of Turkish universities is not enough efficient and consistent. So, the goal of the present study is to establish a simple, reliable, and effective rubric for assessing the undergraduate students’ nonverbal and verbal communicative skills when they read a written text in English and then translate it orally into their mother tongue (Turkish). While using the validity model of Lawshe (1975), the content validity of the proposed rubric in a triple period was tested by 5 experts in the first trial, 8 ones in the second trial, and 10 ones in the third trial. The inter-rater reliability of the tool was also substantiated in the assessment of the recorded performance of eighteen students by three ratters.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sight translation
• Rubrics
• Assessment
• Performance

Andaş Çeviride Öğrenci Edim Değerlendirmesi İçin Önerilen Bir Değerlendirme Rubriği

Öz

Rubrikler bir türlü değerlendirme aracıdır. Bu araçlar belirli bir dizi kritere dayalı olarak öğrencinin edim değerlendirmesi için kullanılır. Onlar öğretmenlerin daha doğru, tarafsız ve tutarlı bir puanlama yapmalarını sağlar. Öte yandan, öğrencilere belirli bir ödev veya görevdeki beklentiler hakkında net bir fikir verebilirler. Türkiye üniversitelerinde İngilizce Mütercim Tercümanlık bölümlerinde sunulan andaş çeviri dersinin öğrenci yeteneklerinin değerlendirilmesi yeterince verimli ve tutarlı olmadığı kanıtlanmıştır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmanın amacı, lisans öğrencilerinin İngilizce yazılı bir metni okuduktan sonra sözlü olarak onu ana dillerine (Türkçe) çevirdiklerinde iletişim becerilerini ölçmek için basit, güvenilir ve etkili bir rubrik oluşturmaktır. Lawshe'nin (1975) modeli kullanılırken, bu rubriğin kapsam geçerliği ilk denemede 5, ikinci denemede 8 ve üçüncü denemede 10 uzman tarafından test edilmiştir. Ayrıca, bu aracın değerlendiriciler arası güvenilirliği, üç değerlendirici tarafından on sekiz öğrencinin kayıtlı performansının değerlendirilmesinde doğrulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Andaş çevirisi
• Rubrik
• Değerlendirme
• Edim

Kaynakça

1. Agrifoglio, M. )2004(. Sight translation and interpreting: A comparative analysis of constraints and failures. Interpreting, 6(1), 43-67. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr
2. Albl-Mikasa, M. (2008). (Non-)Sense in note-taking for consecutive interpreting. Interpreting, 10(2), 197–231. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.2.03alb
3. Ali, M. (2018). Communication skills 3: Non-verbal communication. Nursing Times, 114(2), 41-42. www.nursingtimes.net
4. Andrade, G. H. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27-31. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-31
5. Angelelli, V. C. (2009). Using a rubric to assess translation ability: Defining the construct. In C. V. Angelelli and H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice (pp. 13-48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
6. Angelelli, V. C., & Jacobson, E. H. (2009). Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
7. Apresyan, M. (2018). On the concept of “expressiveness” in modern linguistics. Annals of Language and Literature, 2(4), 8-12. https://www.sryahwapublications.com/annals-of-language-and-literature/pdf/v2-i4/2.pdf
8. Armbruster, B. B. (2004). Considerate texts. In D. Lapp, J. Flood and N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and learning: Instructional strategies (2nd ed.), (pp. 47-58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

9. Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
10. Baxodirjonova, X. (2020). The role of paralinguistics in English communications. Science and Education Scientific Journal, 1(9), 321-324. www.openscience.uz
11. Brookhart, S. M. (2018). Appropriate criteria: Key to effective rubrics. Frontiers in Education, 3, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00022
12. Cabell, S. Q., & Hwang, H. J. (2020). Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.338
13. Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.1989.73
14. Chen, W. (2015). Sight translation. In H. Mikkelson and R. Jourdenais (Eds.), Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics (pp. 144-153). London and New York: Routledge.
15. Čeňková, I. (2010). (2010). Sight translation. In Y. Gambier and L. Van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies, Vol. 1 (pp. 320-323). John Benjamins.
16. Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. DeVito, J. (2005). Essentials of human communication (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Dickson, D., & Hargie, O. (2003). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice. London: Routledge.
18. Ersozlu, E. (2005). Training of Interpreters: Some suggestions on sight translation teaching. Translation Journal, 9 (4). http://translationjournal.net/journal/34sighttrans.htm
19. Gillies, A. (2017). Note-taking for consecutive interpreting: A short course (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
20. Girsang, I. M., Sumbayak, M. D., & Yusuf, M. (2021). Paralinguistic features in students’ speaking performance. LingPoet: Journal of Linguistics and Literary Research, 2(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.32734/lingpoet.v2i2.4452
21. Ghorbani Shemshadsara, Z., Ahour, T., & Hadidi Tamjid, N (2019). Raising text structure awareness: A strategy of improving EFL undergraduate students’ reading comprehension ability. Cogent Education, 6, 1644704. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1644704
22. Grabe, W. (2002). Dilemmas for the development of second language reading activity. In J. C. Richards and W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching an anthology of current practice (pp. 276-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Harackiewicz, J. M., Durik, A. M., Barron, K.E., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Tauer, J. M. (2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.105
24. Harackiewicz, M. J., Smith, L. J., & Priniski, J. S. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci., 3(2), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216655542
25. Haradhan, M. J. (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University, 17, 59-82. https://doi.org/10.26458/1746
26. Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice (5th ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
27. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
28. Hogg, A. M., & Vaughan, M. G. (2018). Social psychology (8th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
29. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Krapivkina, A. O. (2018). Sight translation and its status in training of interpreters and translators. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 695-704.
31. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310
32. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575. Lee, J. )2012(. What skills do student interpreters need to learn in sight translation training? Meta: Translators’ Journal [Meta: Journal des traducteurs], 57(3), 694-714. https://doi.org/10.7202/1017087ar
33. Mehrabian, A. (1980). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
34. Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1982). The interaction of reader strategies and the organization of text. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 2(1-3), 155-192. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1982.2.1-3.155
35. Mikkelson, H. (1994). Text analysis exercises for sight translation. In W. Peter (Ed.), Vistas: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the American Translators Association (pp. 381–390). Learned Information.
36. Mikkelson, H., Willis, J., & Alvarez, N. (1995). The interpreter’s edge. Spreckels, CA: ACEBO. Pöckhacker, F. (2016). Introducing interpreting studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
37. Smith, R., Snow, P., Serry, T., & Hammond, L. (2021). The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension: A critical review. Reading Psychology, 42(3), 214-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348 Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
38. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; How to choose a sampling technique for research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5, 18-27. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205035
39. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Chronbach’s Alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
40. Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg. A. M. (1998). Introduction to social psychology (2nd ed.) Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
41. Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, A. M. (2002). Introduction to social psychology (3th ed.). Australia: Pearson Education.
42. Vural, H. (2021). The probable reasons for mistakes in second versions in simultaneous interpretation. In M. Kahyaoğlu (Ed.), Multidisciplinary perspectives in educational and social sciences iv (pp. 133-152). Ankara: İksad Publishing House.
43. Yamada, H. (2020). Efficacy of sight translation in English-Japanese consecutive interpreting training in a university course. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(4), 343-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1004.01