Borislava ErakovićUniversity of Novi Sad

Third IATIS Regional Workshop onTranslator and Interpreter Training

Constructivist Experience in the Translation Classroom

epistemological assumptions:knowledge is based on experience and insight and is a

unique and essentially personal in nature

Vygotsky (1896-1934), Social Development Theory Social interaction precedes development Cognition is the end product of socialization and social

behaviour, therefore: ◦ students have an active role in learning◦ T should collaborate with S in order to FACILITATE meaning

construction in S◦ Learning as a reciprocal experience for the S and theT

Constructivist Philosophy

Cooperative, task based method (Nord, Gonzales-Davies, Li)

Gradual reduction of T control Simulated Tasks, reduced complexity

Collaborative method (Kiraly 2000) Scaffolding – empowerment Development of intuition

Social-Constructivist Classroom

Cooperative Collaborative

Nord 1996 (“practice-oriented method”)

Gradual rise in the complexity of the tasks

Teacher as a -designer of the course material -organizer of the course material-judge of students’ learning

Reduced complexity of the translation task: adressing particular subcompetences at a time

Kiraly 2000

Authentic task, in all its complexity

Teacher as- facilitator who provides scaffolding, interferes only upon demand, or when it is obviously needed

Conducive to learner autonomy and intuitive learning

empowering

Constructivist approaches

2 groups (x35) of 4th year students of English Language and Literature

All see themselves as future translators G1 (2008) cooperative approach, G2 (2009)

collaborative Course on Translation of Scientific Texts

from English into Serbian

Case Study

Client: Department of Psychology Translation assignment: a chapter from the

book on developmental psychology Target audience: Students of Psychology Deadline: end of semester, 12 weeks Contact hours: 2:15 weekly Renumeration: none

Authentic Project

Translations of 3 texts S diaries Questionnaires (group work, quality of the

course) T diary PACTE Measuring Instrument for the

Acquisition of TC, pre-& post- test

Instruments

Subcompetences: Bilingual (pragmatics, sociolinguistics

aspect, textual knowledge, grammatical & lexical knowledge)

Extralinguistic Instrumental Theoretical (1) Strategic

Results of the Case Study into Acquisition of T C (PACTE 2011) in the 2 Learning Environments

Students’ view on the benefits and drawbacks

of the cooperative and collaborative learning environments?

What objections they raise? How much they feel they have learned? Self-esteem? + Teacher’s side of the coin?

Participant perspective

Cooperative Collaborative

Accepting the project T&S

Definition of subtasksT&S (group discussions) S (&T? – diary, demand)

Translation problem identification

Teacher’s intervention regarding translation mistakes

Indicates the type of mistake (target register, meaning, cohesion,....)

Indicates inadequacy of the source of information

Comments transaltions Comments diaries

Suggests alternative solutions - of other

students, when possible or her own

-

First revision T S

Second revision T S&T

Final revision Expert consultant

Scenarios

Are authentic assignments overwhelming for the students (subject matter, target register)?

Students’ idea of the teacher’s role?

Institutional constraints ◦ dominant teaching approaches, ◦ percieved teachers’ role, ◦ organisation into lectures and practice classes, ◦ assessment

Preliminary doubts

Subjective impressions of the participants:◦ Working conditions and the atmosphere in the

classroom◦ Interpersonal relations ◦ The quality of teacher’s input◦ How much the students progressed◦ Students’ self-esteem after the course◦ Teacher’s reflections on the atmosphere in the

classroom, workload, unresolved issues

Targeted:

Results: Attendance

High for both groups

Reasons for absence: sickness, jobs

G1 G2

86% 87%

G1 G2too difficult 1 student 35%adequate to my abilities 64%too easy -

How demanding was the project assignment?

Instructional scenario

How the students of the two groups feel about the role of the teacher?

G1 G21. introduction of the project, deadlines, course scenario, the roles2. whole class discussion of the problems of the first segment of the text, translation, discussion of the mistakes3. whole class work on the terminology of the first, second and the third segment of the text4. small group translation of the third and fourth segment 5. individual work on the terminology of the fourth segment 6. teacher giving comments and suggestions in the translation of the fourth segment of the text

1. meeting with the client and her demands2. group planning of the project phases 3. group work on terminology, consultations with the expert, learning the concepts4. group translation 5. recording translation problems in the diary6. peer revision of translations7. final revision of one’s own translation based on the all comments received

+ 95% +97%

G1 G2+93% + 82%

no answer: 5% (2 students)-6.9% - 12% (5 students)

2 the comments needed to be more detailed 21 -T did not say which translation was

the best2 -because they did not offer the final

solution

Were the teacher’s comments on your translatons & diaries informative enough?

G1 G2

Was the teacher engaged enough during the course?

Taking into account the diaries, translations and revisions you submitted, was the teacher aware of everything you did during the course?

+93% 84%no answer:7.5%

- 7%- S offered no explanations

-7.5%- T could not know how long we worked on translations (1 student)- T was partly aware (1 student)- There should have been more communication during the class (1 student)

G1 G2+ 88.5%- 11.5%

+ 90%- 10%

Are you satisfied with the amount and quality of new information you acquired during the course from the sources that were available (textbooks on psychology, dictionaries, internet, experts)?

G1 G2+ 81% +79%- 13%too independent in their learning, unequal workload in some phases of the course, unclear role of the teacher during the translation phase

-17%not enough communication between the groups

the members of the group did not always deliverconstant murmurs in the class

What did you think of the atmosphere in the classroom?

Do you think you will be able to keep learning and improving your abilities to translate scientific and technical texts on your own in the future?

Is self-esteem higher of the students in the collaborative approach?

G1 G2definitely yes 80% 67%‘probably’, ‘not sure, ‘I hope so’: 7% 23%definitely no: 7% 0%no answer: 6% 0%

no significant difference in the students’ reactions to the teacher’s role,

Even in an overwhelmingly transmissionist educational context, the majority of students do not mind the ‘absence of direct teaching’

The collaborative group seems to be more confident in their ability to keep progressing in the future

1/3 of the collaborative group feels that the project is too demanding (not relevant?)

Conclusions: Student perspective

Remaining challenges in the collaborative approach:

students learning styles what does the teacher do in the classroom

when everybody is absorbed in the translation task?

the teacher’s workload between the contact hours – 30-45 min per diary (40 students?)

Conclusions: Teacher’s perspective

Educational context as an important factor: Is there a dominant teaching style in the educational institution?

Students attitude toward learning? Are they used to be autonomous? Do they expect to be autonomous?

The composition of a particular group: How many students in the group? Is the group dominantly extrovert, introvert?

Promotion of learner autonomy within 1 course?

Conclusions: what needs to be factored in?

Gile, Daniel (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsteradm/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 123-124.

Gile, Daniel (2004). "Integrated problem and decision reporting as a translator training tool". The Journal of Specialised Translation 2: 2-20. http://www.jostrans.org/issue02/art_gile.php

Gojkov, Grozdanka (2002). „Od konstruktivizma do alosteričnog modela učenja“. Zbornik Instituta za pedagogiju 17:30-41. Gojkov, Grozdanka (2006). Metateorijske koncepcije pedagoške metodologije: Uvod u pedagošku metodologiju. Vršac: Tuli.

http://www.uskolavrsac.edu.rs/KnjigeGG/Metateorijske%20koncepcije%20pedagoske%20metodologije.pdf Gonzalez-Davies, Maria. (2004). Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins,

67-81. Hansen, Gyde (2006). "Retrospection methods in translator training and translation research". Journal of Specialised

Translation 5. http://www.jostrans.org/issue05/art_hansen.pdf Ivić, Ivan i dr. (2001). Аktivno učenje. Beograd: Institut za psihologiju.

http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/active-learning-yug-ser-srb-t03.pdf Kelly, Dorothy (2005). A Handbook for Translator Trainers: a guide to reflective practice. Manchester: St. Jerome

Publishing. Kiraly, Donald (2000). A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education: Empowerment from Theory to Practice.

Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Kovačević, Zorica (2004). „Kooperativni oblici učenja u nastavi koja traži i daje više“. Pedagogija 42/1: 104-110. Li, Defeng (2002). "Translator Training: What Translation Students Have to Say". Meta, 47/4: 513-531.

http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2002/v47/n4/008034ar.pdf Li, Defeng (2013). “Teaching Business Translation. A Task-basedApproach”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 7(1),1-26 Nord, Chrstiane (1996). "Wer nimmt denn mal den ersten Satz? Überlegungen zu neuen Arbeitsformen im

Übersetzungsunterricht". U: A. Lauer, H. Gerzymisch-Arborgast, J. Haller, E. Steiner (ur.) Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch. Tübingen: Gunter-Narr, 313-28.

Nord, Christiane (1991, 2005). Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Panitz, Ted (1997). "Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: comparing the Two Definitions Helps Understand the

Nature of Interactive Learning". Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, V 8/2. http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm

Pavlović, Branka (2004). "Partnerski odnosi u nastavi kao faktor podsticanja učenja i kognitivinog razvoja". Zbornik Instituta za peadgoška istraživanja. Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja, 36:151-167. http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0579-6431/2004/0579-64310436151P.pdf

References