An Investigation of Final Tests of Translation as Practiced in Iranian Undergraduate English Translation Program

Authors: Hossein Heidari Tabrizi, Azizeh Chalak

Abstract:

The present study examined how translation teachers develop final tests as measures for checking on the quality of students’ academic translation in Iranian context. To achieve this goal, thirty experienced male and female translation teachers from the four types of the universities offering the program were invited to an in-depth 30-minute one-session semi-structured interview. The responses provided showed how much discrepancy exists among the Iranian translation teachers (as developers of final translation tests), who are least informed with the current translation evaluation methods. It was also revealed that the criteria they use for developing such tests and scoring student translations are not theory-driven but are highly subjective, mainly based on their personal experience and intuition. Hence, the quality and accountability of such tests are under serious question. The results also confirmed that the dominant method commonly and currently practiced is the purely essay-type format. To remedy the situation, some suggestions are in order. As part of the solution, to improve the reliability and validity of such tests, the present summative, product-oriented evaluation should be accompanied with some formative, process-oriented methods of evaluation. Training the teachers and helping them get acquainted with modern principles of translation evaluation as well as the existing models, and rating scales does improve the quality of academic translation evaluation.

Keywords: Iranian universities, students’ academic translations, translation final tests, undergraduate translation programs.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1109577

References:

[1] F. Arango-Keeth, and G. S. Koby, “Assessing assessment: Translator training evaluation and the needs of industry quality assessment,” in Beyond the Ivory Tower: Rethinking Translation Pedagogy, B. J. Baer. Ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003, pp.117- 134.
[2] L. Bowker, “A corpus-based approach to evaluating student translations,” The Translator, 6 (2), 2000, pp. 183– 210.
[3] B. Hatim, and I. Mason, Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge, 1997.
[4] G. McAlester “Comments in the Round-table discussion on translation in the New Millennium,” in Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives G. M. Anderman, and M. Rogers, Eds. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited, 2003, pp.13-51.
[5] S. Bassnett, Translation Studies, 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2002.
[6] G. Mahn, “Foreign language proficiency criteria in translation,” in Translation Excellence: Assessment, Achievement, Maintenance, M. G. Rose, Ed. Binghamton: SUNY, 1987, pp.44-45.
[7] M. Williams, Translation Quality Assessment: An Argumentationcentered Approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2004.
[8] A. Darwish, Transmetrics: A Formative Approach to Translator Competence Assessment and Translation Quality Evaluation for the New Millennium. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from http://www.atturjuman. com, 2001.
[9] K. Malmkjaer, “Linguistics in functional and through the front door: A response to Hans G. Honig,” in Translation and Quality C. Schaffner, Ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited, 1998, pp. 70-74.
[10] J. Drugan, Quality in Professional Translation: Assessment and Improvement. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.
[11] H. Honig, “Positions, power and practice: Functionalist approaches and translation quality assessment,” in Translation and Quality, C. Schaffner Ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited, 1998, pp. 6-34.
[12] J. House, Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London: Routledge, 2015.
[13] J. Munday, Evaluation in Translation. London: Routledge, 2012.
[14] P. Newmark, “No global communication without translation,” in Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives, G. M. Anderman and M. Rogers, Eds. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Limited, 2003, pp. 55-67.
[15] Z. Dornyei, Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP, 2007.
[16] L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison, Research Methods in Education, 6th ed. London: Routledge, (2007).
[17] L. F. Bachman, Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing, Oxford: OUP, 1990.
[18] T. F. McNamara, Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
[19] K. Klaudy, “Quality assessment in school vs. professional translation,” in Teaching translation and interpreting 3: New Horizons, C. Dollerup, and V. Appel Eds. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1996, pp.197-203.
[20] M. Sainz, “Student-centred correction of translations,” in Teaching translation and interpreting 2: Insights, aims, visions, C. Dollerup and A. Lindegaard Eds. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1994, pp. 133-141.
[21] P. Newmark, A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1988.