Rethinking Translation Evaluation in Academic Contexts: Performance-Based Assessment as an Alternative Practice
محورهای موضوعی :
Hossein Heidari Tabrizi
1
,
Juliane House
2
1 - Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Professor Emerita, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
کلید واژه: Performance-based Assessment, Students’ Academic Translation Evaluation, Translation As-sessment, Translation Evaluative Practices, Translation Tests,
چکیده مقاله :
In the context of translator education, evaluating students’ academic translations is a common, crucial activity. Evaluations are usually done by assigning numerical scores or letter grading in order to detect the relation established between intended instructional objectives and learning outcomes. Research shows that the dominant translation evaluation methods currently and com-monly practiced by university teachers in undergraduate English translation programs are mainly based on the theoretical principles of the conventional testing paradigm. This paper tries to “ad-dress the ‘problem’ of evaluative practices provoked from the challenges and criticisms leveled against principles and procedures of Classical True Score Measurement Theory and convention-al testing tradition. In doing so, the paper first reviews the status quo of translation evaluation and then pinpoints the problems and limitations which are typically associated with translation tests. As a result of the shift from conventional testing to language assessment and from language tests to alternative assessment practices, performance-based evaluation is introduced as one of the potential solutions that may help fill the gaps left by traditional testing. The paper concludes that Performance-based assessment is well-suited for translation evaluation, as both share a lot in terms of nature, features, and purposes. The contributions made by the current work hopefully may open new avenues for further exploration in this decisive facet of research on translation studies, namely, academic translation evaluation.
In the context of translator education, evaluating students’ academic translations is a common, crucial activity. Evaluations are usually done by assigning numerical scores or letter grading in order to detect the relation established between intended instructional objectives and learning outcomes. Research shows that the dominant translation evaluation methods currently and com-monly practiced by university teachers in undergraduate English translation programs are mainly based on the theoretical principles of the conventional testing paradigm. This paper tries to “ad-dress the ‘problem’ of evaluative practices provoked from the challenges and criticisms leveled against principles and procedures of Classical True Score Measurement Theory and convention-al testing tradition. In doing so, the paper first reviews the status quo of translation evaluation and then pinpoints the problems and limitations which are typically associated with translation tests. As a result of the shift from conventional testing to language assessment and from language tests to alternative assessment practices, performance-based evaluation is introduced as one of the potential solutions that may help fill the gaps left by traditional testing. The paper concludes that Performance-based assessment is well-suited for translation evaluation, as both share a lot in terms of nature, features, and purposes. The contributions made by the current work hopefully may open new avenues for further exploration in this decisive facet of research on translation studies, namely, academic translation evaluation.
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. (2020). Translator and interpreter education research: Areas, methods, and trends. Springer Nature.
Adab, B. (2000). Evaluating translation competence. In C. Schaffner & B. Adab (Eds.). Developing translation competence (pp. 215–228). John Benjamins.
Almanna, A., & House, J. (2024). Linguis-tics for translators. Routledge.
Arango-Keeth, F., & Koby, G. S. (2003). Assessing assessment: Translator training evaluation and the needs of industry quality assessment. In B. J. Baer (Ed.), Beyond the ivory tower: Rethinking translation pedagogy (pp. 117–134). John Benjamins.
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about lan-guage assessment: Dilemmas, deci-sions, and directions. Heinle & Heinle.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental consid-erations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L., & Damböck, B. (2018). Lan-guage assessment for classroom teachers. Oxford University Press.
Bowker, L. (2000). A corpus-based ap-proach to evaluating student transla-tions. The Translator, 6(2), 183–210.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2019). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd ed.). Long-man.
Campbell, S., & Hale, S. (2003). Translation and interpreting assessment in the context of educational measurement. In G. M. Anderman & M. Roger (Eds.), Translation today: Trends and perspectives (pp. 205–224). Multilin-gual Matters.
Cheng, L., & Fox, J. (2017). Assessment in the language classroom. Palgrave.
Conde, T. (2013). Translation versus lan-guage errors in translation evalua-tion. Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting, pp. 97–112.
Dungan, N. (2013). Translation competence and the practices of translation quality assessment in Turkey. In D. Tsagari & R. Van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment is-sues in language translation and in-terpreting (pp. 131–144). Peter Lang AG.
Farhady, H. (2021). Learning-oriented as-sessment in virtual classroom con-texts. Journal of Language and Communication, 8(2), 121–132.
Farhady, H. (2022). Language testing and assessment in covid-19 pandemic cri-sis. In K. Sadeghi (Ed.), Technology-assisted language assessment in di-verse contexts: Lessons from the tran-sition to online testing during COVID-19 (pp. 55–68). Routledge.
Fox, J. (2017). Using portfolios for assess-ment/alternative assessment. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (3rd ed.; pp. 135–147). Springer.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The transla-tor as communicator. Routledge.
Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2008). Towards devel-oping a framework for the evaluation of Iranian undergraduate students’ academic translation (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.
Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2021a). Evaluative practices for assessing translation quality: A content analysis of Iranian undergraduate students’ academic translations. International Journal of Language Studies, 15(3), 65-88.
Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2021b). Pedagogical quality of English achievement tests: An untold story of Iranian high school students’ oral scores. International Journal of Language and Translation Research, 1(1), pp.17-28.
Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2022a). Assessing qual-ity of pedagogical translations: Domi-nant evaluative methods in the final tests of undergraduate translation courses. Journal of Language and Translation, 12(3), 21-34.
Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2022b). Mapping out the terminology for judging quality in various translation practices: A key disciplinary desideratum. Internation-al Journal of Language and Transla-tion Research, 2 (1), pp.1-21.
Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2021). Developing a comprehensive frame-work for evaluation of translated books as MA theses in translation studies in Iranian universities. Journal of University Textbooks Research and Writing, 25(48), 73-87.
Heidari Tabrizi, H., Riazi, A. M., & Parhi-zgar, R. (2008). On the translation evaluation methods as practiced in Iranian universities’ BA translation program: The attitude of students. Teaching English Language and Lit-erature (TELL), 2(7), 71-87.
Holmes, J. S. (1988a/2000). The name and nature of translation studies. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation studies reader (pp. 172–185). Routledge.
Honig, H. (1998). Positions, power, and practice: Functionalist approaches and translation quality assessment. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and quality (pp. 6-34). Multilingual Mat-ters.
House, J. (2014). Translation quality as-sessment: Past and present. Routledge.
House, J. (2015). Translation as communi-cation across languages and cultures. Routledge.
House, J. (2024). Translation: The basics (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Huertas-Barros, E., Vandepitte, S., & Iglesi-as-Fernández, E. (Eds.). (2019). Qual-ity assurance and assessment practic-es in translation and interpreting. IGI Global.
McAlester, G. (2003). Comments in the ‘Round-table discussion on transla-tion in the New Millennium.’ In G. M. Anderman, & M. Rogers, (Eds.). Translation today: Trends and per-spectives (pp. 13–51). Multilingual Matters.
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. Longman.
Meylaerts, R. & Marais, K. (Eds.). (2023). Routledge handbook of translation theory and concepts. Routledge.
Munday, J., Pinto, S. R., & Blakesley, J. (2022). Introducing translation stud-ies: Theories & applications (5th ed.). Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of transla-tion. Prentice hall.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Routledge.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A. (2008). Perfor-mance assessment in language testing. Online Submission, 3(4), 1-7.
Tsagari, D., & Van Deemter, R. (2013). As-sessment issues in language transla-tion and interpreting. Peter Lang AG.
Wigglesworth, G., & Frost, K. (2017). Task and performance-based assessment. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and educa-tion, (Vol. 7, pp. 121–133). Springer.
Yazdani, S., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2020). Exploratory-cumulative vs. disputational talk on cognitive de-pendency of translation studies: In-termediate level students in focus. In-ternational Journal of Foreign Lan-guage Teaching and Research, 8(33), 39-57.
Yazdani, S., Heidari Tabrizi, H., & Chalak, A. (2023). Analyzing exploratory-cumulative talk discourse markers in translation classes: Covertly-needed vs. overtly-needed translation texts. Journal of Language and Transla-tion, 13(1), 15-26.
