ÇEVİRİNİN YABANCI DİL ÖĞRETİMİNDE KULLANILMASI: DENEYSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı çevirinin aktif bir öğretim tekniği olarak kullanılmasının Malatya İnönü Üniversitesi Battalgazi Meslek Yüksek Okulunda okuyan öğrencilerin yabancı dil (İngilizce) öğrenimine etkisini incelemektir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu 2005-2006 akademik yılında Malatya İnönü Üniversitesi Battalgazi Meslek Yüksek Okulu Bahçe Ziraatı, Basın Yayıncılık, Seracılık ve Süs Bitkileri Yetiştiriciliği ve Yerel Yönetimler bölümlerine devam eden toplam 100 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmada, deney ve kontrol gruplu ön test-son test deseni kullanılmıştır. Ön test-son test formu olarak öğrencilere 30 sorudan oluşan bir başarı testi verilmiştir. Haftada iki ders saati (2 x 45 dk.) olmak üzere toplam iki hafta boyunca süren deneysel sürecin ardından verilen son test formundan elde edilen puanlar SPSS 13.0 Windows paket programı yardımıyla bağımsız gruplarda ve eşleştirilmiş gruplarda t-testi analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Deneysel değişken olan çevirinin etkisinin manidarlığı 0.05 düzeyinde sorgulanmıştır. Yapılan t-testi sonucunda deneysel değişken olan çevirinin öğrenci başarısı üzerinde 0.05 düzeyinde istatistiksel açıdan manidar bir fark yarattığı bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İngilizce öğretimi, çeviri, bilişsel alan, yüksek öğretim

USING TRANSLATION IN TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGE: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

Öz

This study aims to analyze the effect of using translation as an active teaching technique on the foreign language (English) learning performance of the students attending Battalgazi Vocational School at İnönü University in Malatya. The subjects of this study are 100 students attending the departments of Gardening, Pressing and Publishing, Greenhouse and Ornamental Plants Agriculture, and Local Administrations in Battalgazi Vocational School at İnönü University in Malatya during the academic year of 2005-2006. Pre-test/Post-test control and experiment group design was used in this study. The students were given a test with 30 questions as the pre-test/post-test form. Following the experimental process lasting for two weeks each having two lessons (2 x 45 mins.), the post-test form was given to the participants. And the scores from the post-test were analyzed using independent samples t-test and paired-samples t-test with the help of SPSS 13.0 Windows software program. The significance of the effect of translation, which is the experimental variable, was tested at 0.05 probability level. As a result of the t-test, it was found out that translation has a statistically significant effect on students’ success at 0.05 probability level.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teaching English, translation, cognitive domain, higher education

Kaynakça

1. Arranz, J. (2004). Forgiven, not forgotten: Communicative translation activities in second language teaching. Revista Estudios Ingleses, 17, 239–259.
2. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W. ve Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
3. Bialystok, E. (1991). Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language proficiency. E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language Processing İn Bilingual Children (113–140). London: Cambridge University Press.
4. Birdsong, D. (1999). Introduction: whys and why nots of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition. D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition And The Critical Period Hypothesis (1–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lavrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bonyadi, A. (2003). Translation: Back from Siberia. Translation Journal, 7(3). Internet‟ten http://www.accurapid.com/journal/25edu.htm. elde edilmiştir.
6. Boztaş, İ. (1996). Çevirinin yabancı dil öğretimine katkıları. Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 6, 1–4.
7. Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles: An ınteractive approach to language pedagogy. (2. Baskı) White Plains: Addison Wesley Longman.
8. Bulut, A. (2000). Re-Evaluating the Role of Translation in Language Teaching: A Text-Linguistic Perspective. Conference Proceedings (yay. haz. D. Köksal, İ. H. Erten) Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, 27–29 Mayıs 1999 "First International ELT Research Conference-Challenges for Language Teachers Towards the Millenium, YADEM, 94–99.

9. Cemal, A. (1978). Öğretimde amaç ve araç olarak çeviri. Türk Dili Çeviri Özel Sayısı, TDK, Ankara, 322.
10. Dekeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533. (Makale Özeti, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: EJ655731)
11. Demircan, Ö. (1990). Yabancı dil öğretim yöntemleri. İstanbul: Ekin Eğitim- Yayıncılık ve Dağıtım.
12. Demirel, Ö. (2003). Yabancı dil öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
13. Doğan, A. (2000). Teaching translation as an undergraduate course. Conference Proceedings (yay. haz. D. Köksal, İ. H. Erten), Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, 27–29 Mayıs 1999 "First International ELT Research Conference-Challenges for Language Teachers Towards the Millenium, YADEM, 99–104.
14. Ekmekçi, Ö. (2003). Türk Eğitim Sisteminde yabancı dil eğitimi ve kalite arayışları. İstanbul: Özel Okullar Derneği, 92–96.
15. Gantt, B. ve Susana, V. (1999). From linguistic analysis to cultural awareness: a translation framework for the spanish language classroom. Journal of Language for International Business, 10(2), 1–13. (Makale Özeti, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: EJ587997)i.
16. Harley, B. ve Hart, D. (2002). Age, aptitude, and second language learning on a bilingual exchange. P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual Differences And İnstructed Language Learning (301–330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17. Hervey, S. ve Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking Translation: A course in translation method. London: Taylor & Francis Routledge.
18. Hyltenstam, K. ve Abrahamsson, P. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. Catherine J. Doughty ve Michael H. Long (Ed.) The Handbook Of Second Language Acquisition (539–588). Oxford: Blackwell.
19. Johnson, J. S. ve Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.
20. Johnson, J. S. ve Newport, E. L. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: the status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39, 215–258.
21. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science learning, development, and conceptual change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Kocaman, A. (1983). Üniversitelerde yabancı dil öğretimi üzerine saptamalar. Türk Dili Dil Öğretim Özel Sayısı, Sayı: 379–380/Temmuz – Ağustos, 191–194.
23. Königs, F.G. (1985). Translation ınside and outside of the teaching context: the text as a starting point. C. Titfod ve A. E. Hieke (Ed.), Translation in Foreign Language Teaching and Testing (29–50). Narr: Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen.
24. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon Press Inc.
25. Krashen, S.D. ve Tracy, D. T. (1983). The natural approach. New Jersey, USA: Press Emglewood Cliffs.
26. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27. Levenston, E. A. (1985). The place of translation in the foreign language classroom. English Teachers' Journal (Israel), 32(4), 33–43. (Makale Özeti, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: EJ331600).
28. Lozanov, G. (1992). Suggestology and outline of suggestopedy. Philadelphia: Gordon & Breach Publishing Group.
29. Mills, G. (1977). Contrastive analysis and translation in second-language teaching. Canadian Modern Language Review, 33(5), 733–745. (Makale Özeti, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: EJ164437).
30. Munro, S. R. (1992). Translation: A tool or a goal? Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 27 (1–2), 45–53. (Makale Özeti, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: EJ453012)
31. Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.
32. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teahing and learning. Boston, USA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
33. Richards, J.C. ve Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34. Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning (113–136). Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
35. Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45–105.
36. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
37. Snell-Hornby, M. (1985). Translation as a means of ıntegrating language teaching and linguistics. C. Titfod ve A. E. Hieke (Ed.), Translation in Foreign Language Teaching and Testing (21–28). Narr: Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen.
38. Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The turns of translation studies: New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
39. Sönmez, V. (2004). Program geliştirmede öğretmen el kitabı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
40. Thornton-Smith, C. B. (1967). A case for translation. Babel, 3(3), 7–11.
41. Tudor, I. (1987). Guidelines for the communicative use of translation. System 15(3), 365–71.(Makale Özeti, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: EJ363605)
42. Turgut, F. (1983). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme metodları. Ankara: Saydam Matbaacılık.
43. Zhenhui, R. (1999). Modern vs. Traditional. Forum 37(3) 27, İnternet„ten 21.04.2009‟da http://eca.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no3/p27.htm elde edilmiştir,