DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25007/ajnu.v13n1a1777الملخص
This quantitative and qualitative study aims to determine the extent to which translation teachers accept the proposed criteria for evaluating their students' translation according to academic rank and the differences between translation teachers' viewpoints on the proposed criteria according to years of experience for the purpose of designing a rubric for the summative evaluation of students' translation at the university level. The study addresses the following questions: To what extent the university translation teachers accept the proposed criteria for the summative evaluation rubric according to academic rank? Do the translation teachers view the proposed criteria for the summative evaluation rubric distinctly according to teaching experience? Eight translation teachers completed the Pilot Study questionnaire, and 45 translation teachers received the Main Study questionnaire. The data were statistically analysed to test the study's validity and reliability. The study found out that the reliability and validity were generally acceptable; translation teachers' acceptance of the suggested criteria varied. However, there were no appreciable discrepancies in their opinions about the criteria based on the latter variables. The most important conclusions were as follows:
- Translation teachers’ approval of the suggested criteria for evaluating their students’ translation varies according to academic rank and years of experience in teaching.
- No significant discrepancies in the translation teachers’ perspectives on their application of the proposed criteria according to academic rank and years of experience in teaching.
- Summative evaluation of translation can be effectively accomplished using a rubric including criteria for Equivalence, Translation Method, Mechanics of Writing, Naturalness, and Readability.
التنزيلات
المراجع
Al-qinai, J. (2000). Translation quality assessment: strategies, parameters and procedures. Meta, 45(3), 497-519. https://doi.org/10.7202/001878ar
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. http://www.sinclair.edu/about/learning/assessment/resources/atm/cat/
Arter, J. & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?author=J.+A.+Arter&author=J.+McTighe+&publication_year=2001&title=Scoring+Rubrics+in+the+Classroom%3A+Using+Performance+Criteria+for+Assessing+and+Improving+Student+Performance
Asgari, M. (2021). Relationship between two translation quality assessments: Holistic rating and Waddington’s model of assessment. International Journal of Language and Translation Research, 1(2), 27-46. https://DOI.org/10.12906/978389966720_002
Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315619187
Cruse, D. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.academia.edu/47995936/D_A_Cruse_Lexical_Semantics_Cambridge_Cambridge_University_Press_1986_310_s
Elmgrab, R. (2014). Possible criteria for evaluating students’ translation errors. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1(3), 131-145. https://www.academia.edu/13961599/Possible_Criteria_for_Evaluating_Students_Translation_Errors
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, speech acts, (3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/studypacks/Grice-Logic.pdf
Hady, A. (2015). Assessing translation quality of polemical texts (Master’s Thesis). Faculty of the American University of Sharjah, College of Arts and Sciences. https://dspace.aus.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11073/8788/29.232-2015.18%20Ahmad%20S.%20Abdel%20Hady.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Haryadi, A. (2019). An analysis of scoring rubric use to assess the student translation at D3 English Department, Politeknik Negeri Malang [Malang State Polytechnic] (Master’s Thesis). University of Muhammadiyah Malang. https://eprints.umm.ac.id/57479/1/NASKAH.pdf
Karimnia, A. & Shahraki, A. (2011). Waddington’s model of translation quality assessment: A critical inquiry. Elixir Ling. & Trans, 40, 5219-5224. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266084381_Waddington's_model_of_translation_quality_assessment_a_critical_inquiry
Khanmohammad, H. & Osanloo, M. (2009). Moving toward objective scoring: A Rubric for translation assessment. Journal of English language Studies, 1(1), 131-153. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=221139
Koller, W. (1979). Einführung in die Ũbersetzungswissenschaft [Introduction to the study of translation]. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer. https://kupdf.net/download/koller-werner-einfuhrung-in-die-ubersetzungswissenschaft-pdf_58c58d8edc0d605608339033_pdf
Medadian, G. & Mahabadi, D. (2015). A summative translation quality assessment model for undergraduate student translations: Objectivity versus manageability. Studies about Languages, 40-54. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.26.12421
Martínez Melis, N. (1997). Évaluation et Traduction: Cadre de Recherche sur L’évaluation dans la Didactique de la Traduction [Evaluation and translation: A research framework on evaluation in translation didactics (Doctoral Dissertation)]. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona [Autonomous University of Barcelona]. https://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/5251#page=2
Popham, W. J. (1997). What’s wrong - and what’s right – with rubrics. Educational leadership, 55, 72-75. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/whats-wrong-and-whats-right-with-rubrics
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (n.d.). What are rubrics? https://provost.rpi.edu/learning-assessment/assessment/what-are-rubrics
Riazi, A. M. (2003). The invisible in translation: The role of text structure in translation. Journal of Translation, 7, 1-8. https://translationjournal.net/journal/24structure.htm
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2011). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833835
Rockin Resources. (n.d.). Five different types of rubrics. https://rockinresources.com/2022/10/5-different-types-of-rubrics.html
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. (2004). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Stylus Pub LIC. http://catalog.ebay.ca/introduction-to-rubrics
Straight, H. S. (2002). The difference between assessment and evaluation: Teaching assistant orientation, (PowerPoint slides). http://www.binghamton.edu/academics/provost/documents/assessment-evaluation-straight.ppt
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment, summative and formative: Some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(3), 466-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x
TeachersFirst. (n.d.). Important characteristics of rubrics. https://www.teachersfirst.com/lessons/rubrics/characteristics.cfm
University of Sussex (n.d.). Principles of rubrics and grading forms. https://staff.sussex.ac.uk/teaching/enhancement/support/assessment-design/rubrics-and-grading-forms
Waddington, C. (2001). Should translations be assessed holistically or through error analysis? Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 26, 15-38. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v14i26.25637
Williams, M. (2009). Translation quality assessment. Mutatis Mutandis, 2(1), 3-23. http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/mutatismutandis/article/view/1825/160.
التنزيلات
منشور
كيفية الاقتباس
إصدار
القسم
الرخصة
الحقوق الفكرية (c) 2024 المجلة الأكاديمية لجامعة نوروز
هذا العمل مرخص بموجب Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
بيان الحقوق الفكرية
حقوق التأليف
يوافق المؤلفون الذين ينشرون في هذه المجلة على المصطلحات التالية:
١. يحتفظ المؤلفون بحقوق الطبع والنشر ومنح حق المجلة في النشر الأول مع العمل المرخص له في نفس الوقت بموجب ترخيص المشاع الإبداعي [سيسي بي-نك-ند 4.0] الذي يسمح للآخرين بمشاركة العمل مع الإقرار بحقوق التأليف والنشر الأولي في هذه المجلة.
٢. يمكن للمؤلفين الدخول في ترتيبات تعاقدية إضافية منفصلة للتوزيع غير الحصري للنسخة المنشورة من المجلة من العمل (على سبيل المثال، نشرها في مستودع مؤسسي أو نشرها في كتاب) مع الإقرار بنسخة أولية نشر في هذه المجلة.
٣. يسمح للمؤلفين وتشجيعهم على نشر عملهم عبر الإنترنت (على سبيل المثال، في المستودعات المؤسسية أو على موقعهم على الويب) قبل وأثناء عملية التقديم، حيث يمكن أن يؤدي إلى التبادلات الإنتاجية، فضلا عن الاستشهاد المبكر والأكبر للعمل المنشورة ( انظر تأثير النفاذ المفتوح).
نقل حقوق الطبع والنشر
بيان الخصوصية
المجلة الأكاديمية لجامعة نوروز ملتزمة بحماية خصوصية مستخدمي موقع المجلة هذا. سيتم استخدام الأسماء والتفاصيل الشخصية وعناوين البريد الإلكتروني التي تم إدخالها في هذا الموقع الإلكتروني فقط للأغراض المعلنة لهذه المجلة ولن يتم إتاحتها لأطراف ثالثة بدون إذن المستخدم أو الإجراءات القانونية الواجبة. موافقة المستخدمين مطلوبة لتلقي الاتصالات من المجلة الأكاديمية لجامعة نوروز للأغراض المعلنة للمجلة. ويمكن توجيه الاستفسارات المتعلقة بالخصوص إلى [email protected]