國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
136
Picture 5.1 Classroom with One Lectern and One Microphone in Cycle II
I find that some translator groups do not pay attention to the peers’ oral comments. Some members chat among themselves, and one walks back to her seminar table. The instructor sometimes needs to remind the translator groups to take notes on their peers’ comments. Only one translator group responds to the opinions from the comment givers. As there is only one microphone, this translator group can not present an argument with the microphone. This discussion takes place only among the comment givers and the translator groups, and the instructor. It is hard to hear their discussion in class.
When the comment givers are giving their comments, I notice that most of the audience does not pay much attention to the speakers. They are filling in the seminar sheets or talking with fellow seminar members.
The instructor in this session plays the role of moderator. She reminds each comment giver to come to the front. She lets each comment giver talk without any interruptions. She joins the activity only when the translator group argues back, and she attempts to offer her opinions on the errors.
microphone
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
137
Community: Instructor as a Moderator
Division of Labor: Translator’s Responding Accountability and Seminar Results Presentation
Based on the results of Cycle I, it was suggested that the instructor be involved as a moderator to initiate interactions between the translator group and the
comment-giver group, and among students. However, the collaboration between the translators and the speakers was not established successfully in Cycle II, even though the instructor played the role of moderator. She asked a member of each seminar to come to the front to give comments, and attempted to ask the translator groups to respond. In the video, most of the translators did not pay attention to the peers’ oral comments. The instructor sometimes needed to remind the translators to take notes on their peers’ comments. Even though the instructor encouraged the translators to
explain their choices or answers peers’ questions at the beginning of this session, most of the translators kept quiet. Only when the instructor interrupted to ask the translator group to respond did the translators attempt to provide explanations. It seemed that the participation of the instructor was a necessity, and the questions from the instructor had to be given to the translators, for interaction to be generated.
Similarly, the student audience did not pay attention to the peers’ comments, either. Most of the students were talking with their seminar members or filling in the seminar sheets. Student participants said they did not listen to the peers’ oral
comments because it was more important to finish the sheet for the instructor. The only response they listened to was their partner’s. They believed that they should at least show their support for their partner. When asked why they focused on
completing the seminar sheet, Student Participant II-3 claimed that this was the way they learned things. She noted, “This is how we learn things. We are used to being assigned jobs. When we finish the jobs, we don’t care about others. We just want to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
138
finish the jobs” (classroom, 11/17/2009). Her assertion was supported by the other four interview participants. She pointed out a common learning attitude held by college students: Just finish the job. These students’ learning behaviors are
extrinsically motivated, not intrinsically. When the rule was not related to their jobs, they chose to finish jobs first or just give themselves a break. Student Participant II-3 added,
Before going to the stage, we were trying to develop some comments. Every single activity gave pressure. We were not used speaking on stage. When a person decided to speak, she/he thought she was the one being sacrificed, so she/he did not need to make comments. When everyone finished their own jobs, they felt relieved and didn’t want to think about the others. I think it’s human nature. (classroom, 11/17/2009)
Because giving public oral comments and filling in the seminar sheet were the
‘must do’ jobs, student put all their energy into them. All the ‘must do’ jobs gave them pressure. To relieve that pressure, they tried their best to complete the assigned jobs.
When pressure was eliminated, they thought it was time to take a break.
It is interesting to note that the student participant used the word ‘sacrifice’ to describe the member who took the responsibility for oral comments. It seemed that students viewed oral comments as a barbarian ritual, with the student speaker as the sacrifice. This sacrifice even benefited the speaker, allowing him/her to ‘avoid’ the duty of discussion in the student seminar. The member responsible for presenting discussion results could read aloud the comments from her/his group without engaging in discussion.
Another reason why the audience did not pay attention to their fellow students’
comments was doubts about the usefulness of peers’ comments. In interviews, students indicated that peers’ comments were not as useful as the teachers’, as their
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
139
comments were similar. They hoped their peers would provide more suggestions on the inappropriate translations that they had not noticed. If the quality of the peer response could be enhanced, they indicated, they would be more willing to pay attention to it.
To summarize the results of the above analysis, some problems still existed in the community. Even though making the instructor a moderator initiated some
conversations between the translator and the comment-giver group members, the desire to just finish their jobs and the translators’ depreciation of their peers’
comments distracted students from listening to them. In short, the power of a
moderator may not be strong enough to motivate students who view finishing jobs as a top priority to appreciate their peers’ oral response. The instructor may need to play a role that can improve peer response and help the audience to see the value of
listening to the peer response. With these changes, the peer response session would be meaningful and significant to each learner.
Session 4: Oral Teacher Response
In Cycle I, to help students (the Subjects) understand the teachers’ perspectives on their translations (Object), the two teachers provided oral comments. The guest teacher’s comments were given first (Rules) before the instructor. The two teachers marked the acceptable and unacceptable translations and wrote the comments on the handouts (Mediating Artifacts). The guest teacher only commented on translation, while the instructor needed to comment on both translation and other performances, such as oral performance and the comment-giver groups’ suggestions (Division of Labor).
The analysis of the implementation of Session 4 in Cycle I showed that
community and division of labor were the two key factors that influenced the effects of teachers’ comments, and both were related to the instructor. The instructor’s role as
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
140
students’ performance advisor distracted students from the goal of learning translation.
Students regarded oral performance as their main learning focus. As for division of labor, having to comment on other areas of performance reduced the time available for the teacher to provide a translation-oriented evaluation.
Therefore, to avoid distracting students from translation, the instructors’ roles were more translation-oriented, narrowed down to translator evaluator and translation issue continuer. In other words, the instructor’s comments focused only on translation in Cycle II.
Classroom Interaction
The guest teacher gives oral comments from her seat due to the need to read her comments from her notebook computer. She first points out every acceptable
translation, with accompanying compliments, and then moves on to inappropriate translations. For inacceptable translations, she first describes the errors, then gives explanations, and finally provides guidelines or suggested translations for the student translators. If the errors can be solved in multiple ways, she invites the instructor to give her opinion. When she points out either type of translation, the translator group shows the corresponding PowerPoint slides on the screen for the audience. However, since the guest teacher goes over the acceptable translations very quickly, the
translations cannot be shown immediately for the audience.
After the guest teacher’s oral comments, the instructor stands up, facing the audience, and starts from the translation issues raised by the guest teacher. Similarly, she first describes the errors, then gives explanations, and finally offers some
suggestions. Unlike the guest teacher, she does not go over each error on the handout.
Instead, she prefers to point out global errors, usually one or two big errors, and attempts to explain the errors from different perspectives, such as linguistic and sociolinguistic levels.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
141
Most of the audience listens very carefully, especially to the instructor. Most of the students look at the front and do not speak to their partners. Two or three students at each table take notes on the teachers’ comments.
Community: the Instructor Played Two Roles Related to Translation
In Cycle I, the instructor played three roles, with one role not related to translation evaluation, that of the performance advisor. Because this role gave the learners the impression that the instructor placed greater emphasis on oral
performance, it was suggested that the instructor play only two roles: translation evaluator and translation issue continuer.
Similar to their roles in Cycle I, the translator group and the audience were just listeners in this session. When asked for their perspectives on the two teachers’ roles, students were able to identify the roles the two teachers played. They found that the guest teacher pointed out more specific errors, while the instructor raised global translation problems and analyzed them in multiple ways. Even though there were some differences in the two teachers’ roles, the students expressed that they believed both evaluations had value.
From the students’ responses, it can be found that they were aware of the differences in the natures of error types. The modification in the instructor’s role seemed to work. Students’ learning was not distracted to other aspects of performance, such as oral performance. Therefore, the two teachers’ roles in the community will remain the same in the future.
Division of Labor: Evaluate Translation Only
Both the guest teacher and instructor gave students comments only on
translations, mostly on inappropriate translations. In the video, because the teachers’
comments were all on translations, they produced more comments for all the students, as compared with the number of comments in Cycle I. Moreover, the issues raised by
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
142
the guest teacher could be continued by the instructor, as all the instructor’s comment time was devoted to translation evaluation. In other words, having the two teachers’
duties focused only on translation increased the number and quality of the comments.
In the interview, students stated the values of the teachers’ comments. Student participant II-4 indicated that they liked the guest teacher’s comments because she pointed out some problems their peers had not noticed. Moreover, the teacher could find different types of errors. The peers’ opinions tended to be similar, mainly focused on agreeable translations. In addition to the comments and suggestions, student participants expressed that they liked the compliments from the guest teacher. Student Participant II-3 said,
Even though the guest teacher did not speak facing us, we still wanted to listen to her because she usually started with praise on our good translations. When she gave compliments, we had a sense of achievement and gained more confidence in translation. Most importantly, we felt that our efforts were appreciated.
(classroom, 11/03/2009)
Student Participant II-1 pointed out the reasons why she liked compliments:
I think I like to listen to compliments. The guest teacher today said, “I will start with good translations.” I thought she was so cute that I was willing to spend time listening to her, and I learned more than the previous week. I used to think that a good translation was what we should produce, but from the teacher’s mouth, I learned that if I were the translator, I might not translate as well as my classmates did. (classroom, 11/03/2009)
From the interview data, it can be inferred that compliments or praise on student works had good effects on learning. First, students’ motivation to listen to comments was raised. Second, compliments relieved pressure and tension in the translation criticism. The resistance to criticism could be lessened and the willingness to accept
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
143
comments could be increased. Finally, praise for their peers’ works made the students appreciate other peoples’ efforts and wish to learn from them. Thus, it is suggested that when a teacher gives comments, s/he begin with praise on agreeable translations before proceeding to inappropriate translations.
At the horizontal level, the two teachers did not give comments based on the team-teaching plan in the pre-activity meeting. According to the original plan, they were supposed to give comments, applying the language levels as evaluation criteria.
The guest teacher was to be responsible for vocabulary and sentence level comments, while the instructor was to focus on the discourse and extralinguistic level. However, as can be seen in the video, the teachers did not give comments on the four language levels.
They both pointed out their difficulties in using language-level criteria. The guest teacher stated that she tried to give comments on the vocabulary and sentence levels, but she sometimes found it was hard to categorize errors into these two levels. Some errors may contain problems from more than one level. Moreover, some translations did not have linguistic errors, but were expressed in an appropriate way. It was hard to classify the errors. The guest teacher found it easier for her to point out every error by page order. Similarly, the instructor found that she looked at problems from a holistic perspective, not just the two levels assigned to her. It can be concluded that translation evaluation is a complicated procedure needing multiple criteria for evaluation.
To summarize the above analysis, some problems still existed in division of labor, at the horizontal level. The two teachers confronted the problems in job assignment.
Language-level criterion was difficult to apply, as some errors contained more than one language-level problem. Moreover, it was also difficult to examine translation from only one or two perspectives, as the evaluation process incorporates multiple levels of analysis. Under time constraints, identifying errors at the same
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
144
language-level, while searching between pages, would consume much time. Therefore, there is a need to reexamine the effectiveness of language-level criteria for the
teachers, and the efficacy of the criteria for team-teaching should be considered carefully.
Post-presentation Stage
In the Post-presentation Stage, the students were to use the oral comments gathered at the second stage and make final revisions. Similar to the previous two stages, each session started with a review of the implementation process and results in Cycle I, along with the planned modifications for Cycle II. Then the results of the modifications in Cycle II were analyzed within the framework of Activity Theory.
Finally, all necessary modifications were summarized at the end of Session 6.
Session 5: Final Revisions
In Cycle I, to motivate the students (the Subjects) to use the comments from the two teachers and peers (Object), each group was required to use those comments (Mediating Artifacts) to make final revisions and to underline the revised translation for the instructor (Division of Labor).
The analysis of the implementation of Session 5 showed that mediating artifacts and division of labor were the key factors that influenced the effects of final revisions and the efficiency of the teachers’ evaluations. In terms of mediating artifacts,
learners turned in a final product without giving explanation of how they used the collected comments in the file. This hindered the instructor’s ability to identify the revisions, and it was impossible to determine the students’ response process and how the comments were used. As for division of labor, students showed a desire to present a finished accomplishment to the instructor, so they turned in a final version without marking the revisions. The result was that the instructor had no knowledge of the learners’ revision processes.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
145
Therefore, students in Cycle II were asked to use both process-oriented and product-oriented methods in order to help raise awareness in both the instructor and the students of the importance of the revision process. Each group was required to use a new mediating artifact, the Comment function in word-processing software, to insert (1) comments from teachers and peers, (2) acceptance level of comments, and (3) the final translation.
Translator Groups’ Final Revisions and Notes
At the session, all five groups turned in their final products and showed how they had used the comments. They first inserted all the comments collected from teachers or peers, then noted their acceptance level, and finally revised the translations in the files. If they agreed on the comments, they just inserted the word ‘agree’ or ‘accept’, without further explanation. If they did not agree, they put ‘disagree’ or ‘Don’t accept’, but most of the students explained why they did not accept the comments. It was not surprising to note that students tended to disagree only with peers’ comments. They adopted almost all of the teachers’ suggestions. This indicates the high status of teachers’ comments and learners’ belief in teacher’s suggestions. However, we still saw evidence of learner autonomy in decision making, as some of the students still indicated disagreement with teachers’ comments and insisted on their own translations.
The opportunity to accept or reject both teacher and peer comments made learners rethink whether they should directly accept all comments from others.
Community: a Leader for Managing Final Revision Work
In Cycle I, the final product file did not allow the instructor to know what the revisions were and who was responsible for them. Therefore, the planned
modification was to assign a group leader in each group to coordinate the job
assignments and monitor the revision process and product. However, because the final revision work was not done in class, the researcher could not observe how the leaders
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
146
guided their groups to make final revisions. According to the student interviews, each group approached the revisions in their own way. Some groups did conduct a
within-group discussion, while some assigned jobs and finished revisions individually, without any group discussion.
within-group discussion, while some assigned jobs and finished revisions individually, without any group discussion.