國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
12
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review of this chapter is based on four theoretical frameworks. The first one reviews related studies on translation instruction. The second one introduces cooperative learning, including its definition, theoretical background, features, and main activities. The third one addresses peer response, one kind of cooperative group work (Lui & Hansen, 2005).The last one deals with the introduction of the research method utilized in the study, design-based research.
Research on Translation Teaching
In the area of translation teaching, Kiraly (1995) expressed his surprise that “as late as the mid-nineties the communicative revolution seemed to have passed
translation teaching by” (p.253). With this notice, the stress on language function, communicative competence, creativity, and active student participation has slowly come to the world of translation didactics (Cronin, 2005). The translation theorists in the 1990s on the development of the autonomy and self-confidence of the student translator, such as Giles (1995), Kussmaul (1995), Kiraly (1995) and Robinson (1997), are thus trying to keep up with the pedagogical spirit of the age with its aim to
‘deschool’ education and hand the learning initiative over to the learner, moving away from top-down, teacher-centered approaches.
However, a number of scholars found that that many translation teachers still utilize traditional translation teaching, and the typical activities are teacher’s lecture, translation exercises, teacher’s correction, and appreciation of good translation works (Chang et al., 1993; Mu, 1992; Dai, 2003). The possible reason why teachers still use traditional teaching methods could be a lack of related research on translation
pedagogy, as compared with the abundant research on English teaching methodology.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13
Moreover, there is a lack of a systematic and well-designed translation teaching approach for teachers to shift the class into a more communicative one.
Despite a number of advantages of traditional translation teaching methods, such as delivering translation theories in lectures, some problems have been found in these methods as well. Kiraly (1995) claimed that traditional translation classes seem to lack both pedagogical guidelines and a motivating component. As Kiraly (1995) put it:
“There has been little or no consideration of learning environment, student-teacher roles, scope and appropriateness of teaching techniques, coordination or goal-oriented curricula, or evaluation of curriculum and instructor” (p. 11). González Davies (2004) also found that traditional translation classrooms are usually teacher- and
text-centered and writing-based, without consideration of class dynamics and
interaction. She reported that these traditional translation classrooms usually share the characteristics of transmitted knowledge, teacher-centered instruction, and the
ignorance of respecting learning styles, teaching styles, and translation styles. In other words, in translation classrooms, students may have low learning motivation; a lack of respect for peers’ translation styles, peer response and self-response; and no identity of being professional translators. Many are just followers of teachers’ suggestions.
With the hope of filling the pedagogical gap and improving traditional translation instruction, Kiraly (1995) proposed communicative translation teaching (CoTT) in an attempt to change a passive and singular-perspective student into an active and multi-perspective translator. To do so, he proposed the following:
1. Change classes from teacher-centered to student-centered.
2. Use teaching methods that foster responsibility, independence, and the ability to see alternatives.
3. Use role-plays and simulations.
4. Foster creativity and cooperation through small-group exercises.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
5. Give students the tools for using parallel texts and textual analysis to improve translation.
6. Teach translation as a realistic communicative activity.
7. Adopt new approaches to translation evaluation, such as commented translations.
Sharing a perspective toward translation teaching similar to that of Kiraly (1995), González Davies (2004) observed that translation training is relatively close to
language learning. She attempted to draw teaching approaches and ideas from the language-learning field, and then select, integrate and adapt the special characteristics of translation studies. She advocates incorporating four approaches, Humanistic Teaching Principles, The Communicative Approach, Cooperative Learning, and Social Constructivism, so that the procedures, including activities, tasks and projects, help students to:
1. Reflect on their beliefs about translation and self-concept as translators.
2. Overcome personal and professional constraints.
3. Understand the importance of updating not only their computer & marketing skills, but translation knowledge.
4. Motivate them.
5. Become autonomous problem solvers.
6. Develop problem-spotting and solving abilities.
7. Identify and respect text types and conventions of presentation and style.
8. Understand the full importance of translation assignment and reader.
Similarly, for university students who are studying translation, Malmkjær (2004) suggested that undergraduate translation students’ activities should motivate them, train them as more autonomous problem solvers, develop their skills in
problem-spotting and solving, and raise awareness of the importance of conventions
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
of presentation and style, and the translation assignments. Kiraly (1995) emphasized that a teacher’s responsibility is to help students to see alternatives, the range of possible translations, and these will be paths for learners to become more independent.
González Davies (2004) further proposed experiential learning and task-based learning. Classrooms are often considered artificial and cannot help students to
overcome possible problems in their future profession. However, it is impossible to go back to the apprenticeship system or to unplanned “in-house on-the-job training”
(Gile, 1995, p. 8). Thus, she suggested transforming the classroom into a discussion forum with hands-on workshops, and contacting the outside world by means of projects involving professionals. It is important to include as many real-life situations as possible so that the students have the chance to live in the professional world.
Moreover, this kind of environment should enhance students’ potential and respect different learning styles. It is apparent to see that the notion of cooperation underlying translation classrooms, such as a discussion forum, is little different from the one in language classrooms, with the common goal being to develop the ability to
communicate in the real world. The goal of the cooperation is to bridge the gap between the students and the professional world.
Similar to the experiential learning of González Davies (2004), Nord (2005) believes that team work and management skills are qualifications of a professional translator, whether s/he works for a translation agency or free-lance, while in the traditional translation classroom, these qualifications cannot be acquired. Thus, she advocates role-playing and acquiring responsibility in training. Each student has the chance to play various roles: client, reviser, terminologist, documentation assistant, free-lancer, in-house translator, and so on. The teacher’s role is that of monitor and fire-brigade, but students learn to manage their translation projects autonomously.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
As for task-based learning, González Davies (2004) advocated function-,
process- and product-based teaching. As she (2004) put it: “In task learning, a chain of activities are related to each other and are sequenced in such a way that they lead to a final product” (p. 23). Functional-based teaching attempts to make students aware of why, where and when the translation assignment is carried out. This is the information that should be known by students before doing translation (Nord, 1997).
Process-based teaching asks for awareness of the translation strategies and solutions used by students themselves in their assignments. This approach increases their self-confidence and contributes to greater coherence, quality, and speed in their translation. Finally, product-based teaching looks at what the students achieve. In other words, it focuses on the final translation produced by the student.
Though a notion similar to communicative translation teaching (CTT) has been promoted by a number of scholars (Colina, 2003; Kiraly, 1995; González Davies (2004), few empirical studies have been published to date. Romney’s (1997) study is the only published journal article that specifically examines the possibilities of using collaborative learning in translation classrooms with an attempt to provide an
alternative to traditional classroom structure and increase student participation.
Romney (1997) claimed that in traditional classrooms, the teacher is usually the judge of the quality of the translation, so only the bravest students are dared to offer
alternative translations. Accordingly, students only learn through their own individual efforts and gain limited and erroneous results. Romney’s (1997) results showed that collaborative learning in a translation course can facilitate the understanding of the source text and help students reach greater degrees of grammatical correctness, accuracy, and faithfulness through discussion and negotiation. Moreover, social support is an important element in sharing the difficulties. It has been found that students gain in self-confidence and become more tolerant of different opinions, and
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17
that they appreciate the non-threatening atmosphere of group work.
Another survey study, conducted by Ulrych (2005), examined the translation teaching methodology adopted by the various institutions and the rationale underlying the features of course content. It is found that in response to the question on classroom management and dynamics, more and more instructors recently have been using collaborative discussion/corrections in class in three kinds of interactions:
teacher/student, students in group, students in pairs. The underlying rationale is to train students to cooperate with others such as fellow translators or clients in their future professions.
Studies on Translation Teaching In Taiwan
Information on translation instruction in Taiwan is quite limited, especially that on alternative translation teaching methods. However, some of the studies seem to follow the new trend of communicative translation teaching. For example, Lai (2002)
conducted translation projects with the professional world in different fields, including a book publisher, a television station that plays movies, and a public television station. The main purposes of the intern projects were to offer students chances for contact with real practitioners and understand the needs and challenges of a career in translation in the hopes of helping students prepare for their future careers and further study. Lai’s (2002) attempt has opened the possibilities of bridging the gap between the students and the professional world, as González Davies (2004)
proposed.
Following the trend of humanistic teaching and constructivism in recent years, Liao has been promoting communicative translation teaching and attempted to provide a more creative and student-centered approach of instruction. Liao and Chiang (2005) explored the possibilities of using portfolios as an alternative method to teach translation. The process of portfolio instruction, including the teaching
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
18
materials and assessment criteria, and questionnaire results were provided in that study. Based on class observation, it was found that students generally went through four stages. Students started with high interest and engagement, followed by learning anxiety about filling in forms and producing peer response. In the third stage, students began to adjust to this approach and demonstrated learning autonomy. Finally,
students accepted this approach and learned how to be responsible translators, aware of their own learning process and progress. The survey results showed that 92% of the students believed that portfolios facilitated their learning, and all of the students agreed that it improved their English comprehension. However, he also found that college students’ reflective ability was not well developed, which may result from long-term passive learning and a transmissionist teaching approach.
In 2009, Liao (2009) proposed a theoretical basis of constructivism for teaching translation in Taiwan’s colleges, with the use of communicative translation teaching.
Meaningful tasks, cooperative learning, peer tutoring, and on-line learning platforms have been included as teaching techniques. That study found that generally students had a very positive view of the course design. Students were aware of the major difference in the teacher’s role; the teachers became facilitators of the learning process. The on-line communication mode increased the interactions among the learning Community, the teacher, and the other students, and even the materials.
Moreover, the on-line questioning lowered students’ anxiety about asking questions before class and created a more autonomic and collaborative learning climate.
Sharing a similar perspective toward the innovation of alternative translation approaches and techniques, I also conducted a series of studies on incorporating collaborative learning and a communicative approach in translation classrooms. In order to construct a more student-centered classroom, in 2007, I conducted two needs analysis studies for Chinese to English Translation learning and English to Chinese
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
19
learning in a technological university. In 2008, I compared the results of these two studies and wished to draw some conclusions about students’ expectations toward the study of translation. To closely relate that to the present study, only the most related results will be reviewed here.
First, concerning grouping, both groups preferred group work. The subjects’
agreement (E-C vs C-E) on group work was 61% and 75%, on pair work was 39%
and 27%, on individual work was 27% and 19%, and on the whole class work was 4%
and 2 %. In regard to the learning activities, two groups of subjects preferred ‘training of language skills’, ‘group in-class translation’, and ‘discussion on translation’. It seems that students expected to sharpen their language skills as their first priority, and they needed partners to work on translation problems. Finally, discussion of
translations helps them to identify and analyze errors. However, we may not jump to the conclusion that students prefer more cooperation in response, as peer-editing was ranked sixth in the E-C group, and fifth in the C-E group.
Based on the results of the needs analysis and the exploration of the importance of cooperative learning, I started to design peer activities. In 2007, I explored
students’ perspectives toward peer-response in English translation through blogs.
Each group received responses and corrections from the other nine groups each week, and at the end of the semester, each group needed to turn in their final-version
translation, revised according to peer response. In 2009, I further examined students’
learning logs and found that students became aware of the importance of collaborative learning through log writing. With the emerging evidence from these two studies, I began designing more practical, authentic, and complicated cooperative translation tasks, including a study on translator seminars between a translator and a student audience, and a task-based translation project with a non-profit organization (NPO) in 2009. It was found that the translator seminars raised students’ motivation to dig out
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
20
the best translation through negotiation with peers and with teachers. They started to look at the translation from other perspectives instead of their own or the teachers’.
They learned to insist on their own perspective, to argue for their stand, and also to listen to peers’ suggestions through debate and negotiation. The task-based project with the NPO brought them into the real world of translation work.
Reviewing the above theories suggested by leading scholars in translation
teaching and learning, the present research notices that they contribute significantly to the development of alternative translation pedagogy, despite the fact that at present, research focusing on the areas of translation teaching is still very scarce. It is still worth emphasizing that the newly promoted teaching methodologies analyzed above have shifted from transmitted knowledge to transformational knowledge,
teacher-centered to student-centered, individual work to collaborative work,
molecular learning to social-constructive learning. These teaching methods can train students as more autonomous problem solvers and efficient communicators between the source and target text. These methods also need to meet the needs of modern translation practice. College learners’ translation studies should not only focus on the use of language but also the development of the qualifications of a professional translator, especially for the students at a technological university. Cooperative team work and management skills for their translation projects should be included. With the benefits from both product-based and process-based teaching advocated by scholars, it seems that none of each should be neglected in alternative translation instruction.
With my growing research interests in incorporating collaborative learning in translation instruction, the present study will follow that new trend and continue my research orientation to explore the possibility of realizing a communicative approach and cooperative learning in translation classrooms. In the next section, the
characteristics of cooperative learning (CL) will be discussed in order to explore the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
21
possibility of incorporating it into translation teaching and learning.
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning (CL) has been defined by many scholars (Olsen & Kagan, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Slavin, 1994). Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, leaders in cooperative learning, offer the definition: “Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (1993, p. 9). Generally speaking, Cooperative Learning is a group-work approach, allowing students to actively participant in their own learning and in the construction of knowledge (Slavin, 1997). One more point should be covered in the definition of cooperative learning. For some educators, cooperative learning is synonymous with collaborative learning (e.g., Romney, 1997). Romney sees cooperative learning being used in primary and secondary education, and collaborative learning with older students. On the other hand, Chung (1991) views collaborative learning as an umbrella term that includes cooperative learning. Sharan and Sharan (1992) suggested that there exists a wide range of options in terms of teacher influence of student-student interaction, and that the cooperative learning technique called Group Investigation allows students a great deal of control over such matters as selection of topic, group mates, and collaboration procedures. The present study agrees with Sharan and Sharan’s (1992) broad interpretation; the term
cooperative learning should be understood as including collaborative learning.
Theoretical Perspective of Cooperative Learning
The theories underlying cooperative learning can be discussed from four theoretical perspectives: the motivational perspective, the cognitive developmental perspective, the cognitive elaboration perspective, and social interdependence theory.
The motivational perspective suggests that intrinsic motivation, high expectations for success, high incentive to achieve based on mutual benefit, high epistemic curiosity,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
22
high continuing interest in achievement, high commitment to achieve, and high persistence promote the motivational system (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Dörnyei (1994) suggested that the motivational complex underlying L2 learning is a
multidimensional construct comprising three independent levels: (1) language level;
(2) learner level; and (3) the learning situation level, and that the learning situation level has the greatest impact on learner motivation. Dörnyei (1997) further identifies motivational components at the learning situation level, including classroom goal structure, group cohesiveness, goal-orientedness, and a reward system. In other words, the operation of these motivational components can strengthen students’ motivational system and increase their intrinsic motivation and high incentive to achieve mutual goals in a cooperative context.
The cognitive developmental theory is mainly based on the theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, cognitive science, and academic controversy (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).
In the Piagetian tradition, a student’s intellectual development is accelerated by asking him or her to reach consensus with students who hold opposing opinions. In the Vygotsky tradition, it is claimed that knowledge is socially constructed from cooperative efforts. From the perspective of cognitive science, cooperative learning involves modeling, coaching, and scaffolding. The learner must cognitively rehearse and restructure information to be retained in memory and incorporated into existing cognitive structures (Webb, 1985). It was suggested by Johnson and Johnson (1985) that oral rehearsal, or mentally rehearsing and presenting information to others,
In the Piagetian tradition, a student’s intellectual development is accelerated by asking him or her to reach consensus with students who hold opposing opinions. In the Vygotsky tradition, it is claimed that knowledge is socially constructed from cooperative efforts. From the perspective of cognitive science, cooperative learning involves modeling, coaching, and scaffolding. The learner must cognitively rehearse and restructure information to be retained in memory and incorporated into existing cognitive structures (Webb, 1985). It was suggested by Johnson and Johnson (1985) that oral rehearsal, or mentally rehearsing and presenting information to others,