Enhancing Thai EFL University Students’ English Translation Skills through Online

Collaborative TranslationNakhon Kitjaroonchai 1 Tantip Kitjaroonchai 2

Chomphunut Phutikettrkit3

Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Asia-Pacific International University, Thailand

nakhon@apiu.edu

AbstractAlthough online collaborative learning (OCL) is now gaining broad acceptance in a multitude of

language learning classrooms to improve productivity and language skills, very few studies have investigated online collaboration in EFL translation class. This study attempted to fill the research gap by investigating the Thai students’ translation skills by using online collaborative translation (OCT) in Google Docs. Purposive sampling was used to select 26 students enrolling in the Thai to English translation course during second semester of 2017-2018 Academic Year at Asia-Pacific International University. A paired-samples T-test was used to analyze the data of students’ pre-test and post-test scores before and after participating in online collaborative translation. The results indicated there was a statistically significant difference in the scores on the test from before participating in OCT and after participating in OCT as determined by the paired-samples t-test. Most students held a positive attitude towards OCT. Following these findings, some pedagogical implications are discussed.

Key words: collaborative learning, online collaborative translation, translation, learning

1. IntroductionCollaborative learning (CL)is gaining

broad acceptance in a multitude of language learning classrooms, principally because of its contributions to improving productivity and achievement and providing more opportunities for language learners to improve their language skills (Zhang, 2010; Lin & Maarof, 2013; Razak & Saeed, 2014; Limbu, & Markauskaite, 2015; Talib & Cheung, 2017; Liu, Liu, & Liu, 2018). In the collaborative learning process, language learners are provided the opportunity to explore, discuss, examine, and enhance learning capabilities (Dobao, 2014; Heidar, 2016; Talib & Cheung, 2017).CL is an approach that propels language learners to get involved in cooperative activities, including pairs and small groups of learners in the classroom working to achieve a common goal. This learning approach attempts to develop learners’ critical thinking skills,

which are seen as crucial to learning of any subjects including a foreign language.

Although CL has been actively applied in ESL/EFL writing courses over the last decades to improve language learners’ writing abilities (Wu, 2007; Zhang, 2010; Elola, 2010; Lin & Maarof, 2013; Mahmoud & Mohamed, 2014; Limbu, & Markauskaite, 2015; Talib & Cheung, 2017; Aunurrahman, Hamied & Emilia; 2017), the focus of these earlier works was mostly on investigation of the development of students’ writing skills through participation in collaborative writing activities and instructions orchestrated by the classroom instructors. After a thorough search of the relevant literature, the researchers found three related articles in which two were conducted in China by Yang, Li, Guo & Li (2015) on group interactive network and behavioral patterns in online English-to-Chinese cooperative translation activity, and of Yang,

Guo & Yu (2016) on effects of cooperative translation on Chinese EFL student levels of interest and self-efficacy in specialized English translation. Another study was conducted in Spain by Barros (2011) on CL in the translation classroom. The first study found certain problems in cooperative translation, such as uneven contribution and unrelated chats while doing group work, whereas the results of the second study showed that online cooperative translations could significantly increase student interest, self-efficacy, and performance in specialized English translation. Barros’ study (2011) revealed that students perceived both advantages and disadvantages of teamwork and they would prefer combining both individual and teamwork in translation training studies. Limitation of research outputs with effective use of CL to enhance students’ translation skills in a tertiary educational institution need to be further investigated in countries where English is taught as a foreign language and yet is scarcely used in daily communication due to unsupportive environment and circumstances like Thailand. From the above literature, the present study attempted to fill this identified research gap by investigating if online collaborative translation (OCT) in Google Docs can enhance Thai EFL university students’ English translation skills.

1.1 Purposes of the StudyThe purposes of this study were

1. To examine the significant difference between the students’ translation skills before and after participating in OCT2. To investigate if OCT can improve students’ translation skills3. To examine students’ attitudes toward OCT

1.2 Research QuestionsIn order to achieve the purposes of this

study, the following questions were postulated:1. Is there any significant difference between students’ translation skills before and after participating in OCT?2. Can OCT improve students’ translation skills?3. What are the students’ attitudes toward OCT?

2. Literature Review

2.1 Definitions of Collaborative Learning

Olsen and Kagan (1992) define collaborative learning (CL) as “a group learning activity organized so that learning is dependent on the socially structured exchange of information between learners in groups and in which each learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is motivated to increase the learning of others” (p. 8). Whereas Millis (2009) states that “collaborative learning is a highly structured form of group work that focuses on problem solving that can lead students, when directed by a teacher, to deeper learning and genuine paradigm shifts in their thinking.” (p.17). Similarly, Johnson, Johnson & Smith (2014) term CL as “the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. It may be contrasted with competitive and individualistic learning” (p.3).CL can take on various forms, but it typically includes students having to work toward a common goal by sharing their contribution during the work process (Shafie et al. 2010).

From these definitions, it can be concluded that CL promotes students’ positive interaction and requires critical thinking to help group members accomplish their learning goals with the guidance of the teacher. Hence, CL should be well-structured and implemented to enhance interaction between students.

2.2 Collaborative Learning in Google DocsIn the last decade, there has been

increasing interest in the development of new technological tools to assist collaborative work, such as Wiki modules (Chao& Lo, 2011; Li& Kim, 2016; Liu, Jiao & Chen, 2016; Ansarimoghaddam, Hoon & Yong, 2017) and Google Docs (Zhou, Simpson& Domizi, 2012; Suwantarathip, & Wichadee, 2014; Woodrich & Fan 2017) to enhance learning achievement. Educational institutions are encouraged to integrate technologies to enhance students’ collaborative work as well as promote interpersonal skills. With the growing demand for online collaborative learning, blogs, wikis, chat rooms, and learning logs have been created to accommodate the needs of learners free of cost. Apart from these online applications, Google Docs is another free web-based tool with some significant features to support 21st century

students’ collaborative writing skills (Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014). Google Docs is considered beneficial for group work which alters the means of communication. When the students work through this application, they become less dependent on social media such as text messaging or Facebook (Zhou, Simpson& Domizi, 2012). Google Docs is accessible to the general public, regardless of location, as long as the Internet connection is available. It facilitates students to complete their assigned tasks without restrictions often imposed by traditional face-to-face interaction. Another remarkable aspect of Google Docs is it holds revision history, in which the group members can refer back to track changes. In a recent study carried out by Woodrich and Fan (2017) on Google Docs as a tool for collaborative writing, the researchers found that this application tool could benefit students who want to build language abilities. This free web-based tool is well-suited for off-site collaborative assignments and it becomes an instrument to enhance students’ language learning through peer collaboration.

2.3 Online Collaborative TranslationTranslation is a complex cognitive,

linguistic, and social practice (Keyes, Puzio & Jimenex, 2014), and it must be carried out with great caution and salience since the process of translation involves cognitive, social-cultural knowledge, linguistic units, and ideological phenomena which are in an integral part of the source language and target language (Munday, 2009; Pavlovic, 2013). It is a risk for an individual to carry out the translation work without consulting experts in the area. Recently, the development of technological tools has made collaborative translation more effective. The creation of virtual communities via the Internet drives OCT into reality. Furthermore, the increase in online users with generated-content needed in the translation and localization industry have brought an increasing demand for translation. O’Brien (2011) defines collaborative translation as “an activity when two or more agents cooperate in some way to produce a translation” (p. 17). OCT can be only achieved when individual members work on their assigned task synchronously or asynchronously at a timely manner with careful consideration

and bring their results together for group feedback and revision. The group members need to contribute their parts and produce a shared product which involves negotiations, discussions, and accommodating others’ perspectives with intervention of the software machine (Thelen, 2016). Thus, a web-based collaborative translation tool such as Google Docs can be more effective than traditional-face-to-face methods when group members interact and support each other to achieve their shared goal.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research DesignThis research was carried out to improve

students’ Thai to English translation skills and competency. The study was a one-group pretest and posttest design. The dependent variable was students’ achievement scores of English translation competency. The independent variables were OCT activities. The researchers purposely assigned the participants into balanced collaborative groups of four based on their grades from the previous translation course. Each group consisted of students with different levels of learning achievement. Research sources and patterns were designed as shown in Figure 1.

3.2 ParticipantsThe participants in this research study

were 26 junior and senior English majors from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities (5 males and 21 females, age ranged: 18-23) who were enrolled in a 3-credit course of ENGL 4252 Thai to English Translation in the second semester of Academic Year 2017-2018 at Asia-Pacific International University, Thailand.

3.3 Research InstrumentsThe research instruments used to collect

data in this study included a pretest and posttest for paragraph translation, collaborative translation lessons, four OCT assignments in Google Docs, and a questionnaire to examine students’ attitudes toward OCT. The pretest was given at the beginning of the study and the posttest was given after students had completed all the OCT assignments. The pretest and

posttest were translation passages on tourism information with the word length of approximately 160-180. The pretest and posttest were slightly different in their contents but the

level of language difficulty was similar. The four OCT assignments were passages on inspirational texts, cultural history,

anecdotes, and a social news report. The passages were selected based on the course description which required learners to practice translating various types of text. The length of each assignment ranged from 400 – 500 words. Students were given one week to complete each OCT assignment.

The researchers adapted the survey questionnaire from Mahmoud& Mohamed (2014) with adjustments to reflect the present study. The questionnaire which was designed to investigate students’ attitudes toward OCT in Google Docs consisted of three parts: demographic profile of student, opinion/attitude towards OCT, and open-ended questions. The demographic profile of the students includes gender, age, year of study, previous grade in translation I course, and current CGPA. The twenty statements in Part II investigated students’ attitudes toward OCT are on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The statements in the questionnaire were assessed by two experts for index of item objective congruence (IOC) analysis. The two open-ended questions in Part III were to examine if students like or dislike

OCT activities. The data were analyzed by two researchers. The coding process was carried out to reduce data into easily locatable segments. Two researchers performed the cross-checking of data coding to increase the level of inter-rater reliability. The inter-coder agreement percentage was 87.5% for the open responses. These research instruments were employed to achieve the purposes of the study as outlined on page 2. It was worth mentioning that all students were informed of the purpose of the study and consent was given to accept their data being used for the project. The research project was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB).

3.4 Evaluation Criterion of Thai to English OCT Assignments

Two researchers with at least five-year experience in teaching Thai to English translation evaluated the quality of students’ OCT assignments. The researchers used the ordinary standard criterion designed for translation courses offered by the Faculty of Arts and Humanities where the study took place. The evaluation criterion includes content (5pts),

vocabulary (5pts), language style (5 pts), grammar and structure (5 pts), and overall comprehension (5pts). In the study each OCT assignment was evaluated separately by two researchers. The total score for each OCT assignment was 25 points. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to find the scoring reliability between the two raters, and the reliability was 0.81 (p <0.01). Proven that the two raters had relatively high scoring consistency, the researchers agreed to use the average score as the final score for each OCT assignment.

3.5 Data Analysis Procedure

The pretest was administered at the second week of the semester. The participants were required to do the test in the university’s Moodle learning management system. The posttest was administered in week 12 after all OCT assignments were completed in week 11. Data collected from both the pretests and posttests were analyzed using Paired Samples t-Test. The questionnaire survey was analyzed using means and standard deviations.

To interpret the mean score for students’ attitudinal level towards OCT, the researchers adopted the interpreting procedure of Degang (2010) as follows:

Table 1 Interpretation of Mean Score of Attitudinal Level Towards OCT.

Scale Meaning Attitudinal Level Score Range54321

strongly agreeagree

moderatedisagree

strongly disagree

very highhigh

averagelow

very low

4.50-5.003.50-4.492.50-3.491.50-2.491.00-1.49

4. ResultsResults of the study were presented

based on the research objectives and questions outlined on page two.

4.1 Students’ translation performance after participating in OCT

To establish whether there is a statistically significant difference between students’ pretest and posttest scores before and after participating in OCT to respond to research question 1, a Paired Samples t-Test was employed to analyze the data. Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for means scores and

standard deviations and differences over students’ pretest and posttest scores before and after participating in OCT activities.

As shown in Table 2, there was a significant difference between students’ pretest (M=16.92, SD= 1.38) and posttest scores (M= 18.85, SD= 1.38) after exposing to OCT activities t(25) = -11.08, p <.001. Likewise, in Figure B, the line chart displays the difference between the students’ pretest and posttest scores before and after engaging in OCT. This indicated that the treatment could improve students’ translation skills.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Paired Samples t-Test of Students’ Pretest and Posttest Scores

      Pretest   Posttest  t

 df

 p

Students participating in the collaborative translation activities (n= 26)

M SD M SD

16.92 1.38 18.85 1.38 -11.08 25 .000**

**p < 0.001

To respond to the second question if OCT can improve students’ translation skills, Paired Samples t-Test was used to analyze common errors in Thai to English translation from the pretest and posttest results. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for means scores and standard deviations over the nine common errors in Thai to English translation before and after

participating in OCT. The analysis showed in Table 3 that there was a statistically significant difference between students’ common errors as identified in the pretest (M=1.29, SD= 0.31) and common errors found in the posttest (M= 0.82, SD 0.22) after participating in OCT t(25) = 13.02, p <.001.

Furthermore, the analysis revealed in Table 3 and Figure C that four common errors were significantly dropped after the group participated in OCT. The four improved common errors were sentence structure: before (M= 2.76, SD= 1.39), after (M= 1.76, SD= 0.86) at t(25) =3.75, p <0.005 , subject verb agreement: before (M= 1.03, SD= 0.95), after (M= 0.19, SD= 0.40) at t(25) = 4.12, p <.001 , use of article: before (M= 1.65, SD= 1.16), after (M= 0.65, SD= 1.05) at t(25) = 3.13, p < .005, and word choice: before (M= 3.61, SD= 1.35), after (M=1.38, SD= 0.94) at t(25)= 7.84, p <.001 respectively. The first three common errors could be categorized as syntactic errors whereas the last one is semantic errors. On the contrary, five other common errors namely fragment, tense, active-passive voice, spelling, and

preposition showed no improvement in the posttest. Surprisingly, spelling and preposition errors were found increased in the posttest. This might be due to the fact that in the posttest the passage was slightly more challenging in terms of choosing appropriate vocabulary with correct spelling and sentence structure levels require more use of prepositions. However, the overall common mistakes as indicated in the average mean scores from the pretest and posttest in Table 3 showed a decrease which resulted in better quality of work. Therefore, we can conclude that OCT can generally improve students’ translation skills particularly in sentence structure level, the use of subject verb agreement and article, and choosing more appropriate word choice for the text.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and Paired Samples T-Test of students’ common errors in Thai to English Translation

      Pretest   Posttest          n M SD M SD

Sentence Structure 26 2.76 1.39 1.76 0.86Subject Verb Agreement 26 1.03 0.95 0.19 0.40Article 26 1.65 1.16 0.65 1.05Fragment 26 0.26 0.66 0.15 0.36Tense 26 0.76 0.95 0.84 0.96

Active-Passive Voice 26 0.38 0.49 0.46 0.58Spelling 26 0.53 0.70 0.96 0.91Preposition 26 0.57 0.58 0.96 0.91Word Choice 26 3.61 1.35 1.38 0.94Average Mean Score for Common Errors in T-E Translation 26 1.29 0.31 0.82 0.22

Paired Differences

           

95% Confidence

Interval of the Difference      

n    M SDSTD. error

means

Lower

Upper t df p

Mean Score for Pretest - Mean Score for Posttest 26   0.47 0.18 0.03 0.39 0.54 13.0

2 25 .000**

Pair 1 (Sentence Structure) 26 1.00 1.35 0.26 0.45 1.54 3.75 25 .001*Pair 2 (Subject Verb Agreement) 26 0.84 1.04 0.20 0.42 1.26 4.12 25 .000*

*Pair 3 (Article) 26 1.00 1.62 0.31 0.34 1.65 3.13 25 .004*Pair 4 (Fragment) 26 0.11 0.71 0.13 -0.17 0.40 0.82 25 .416Pair 5 (Tense) 26 -0.07 0.84 0.16 -0.41 0.26 -0.46 25 .646Pair 6 (Active-Passive Voice) 26 -0.07 0.79 0.15 -0.39 0.24 -0.49 25 .627Pair 7 (Spelling) 26 -0.42 1.06 0.20 -0.85 0.00 -2.02 25 .054Pair 8 (Preposition) 26 -0.38 1.02 0.20 -0.79 0.02 -1.91 25 .067

Pair 9 (Word Choice) 26 2.23 1.45 0.28 1.64 2.81 7.84 25 .000**

                       *p < 0.005, **p < 0.001

4.3 Students’ positive attitudes toward OCTTo further investigate the students’

attitude towards OCT in responding to research question 3, percentages and mean scores for the respondents’ attitudes in a 5-point Likert rating scale were analyzed. Table 4 displays the

descriptive statistics of students’ attitude towards OCT in terms of percentages, mean scores, and standard deviations. As can be seen in Table 4, the mean scores for each positive statement from items 1 to 16 implied that students’ attitudinal level was high as defined in

Senten

ce Stru

cture

Subjec

t Verb

Agre

emen

t

Article

Fragmen

tTen

se

Active

-Pass

ive V

oice

Spellin

g

Prepos

ition

Word C

hoice

0

40

80 72

2743

721 10 14 16

94

46

5 17 422 12 26 26 35

Chart Comparing Common Errors in T-E Translation from Pretest and Posttest Per-formance

Pretest number hit Posttest number hit

Figure C. Chart Comparing Common Errors in T-E Translation from Pretest and Posttest

the interpretation of mean score for attitudinal level in Table 1. In other words, over 78 percent of the students had positive attitudes towards OCT activities. It is worth analyzing some items of significance in the questionnaire, in particular the items that secured the highest mean scores for the positive statements. The following are the three items that received the highest mean scores and they are presented from the highest to the lowest.

Highest mean scored items Items Mean SD A/SA 3. I can contribute my part

in online collaborative translation.

6. Online collaborative translation promotes exchange of ideas and information.

4.15

0.73 80.8%7. Online collaborative

translation increases self-esteem.

4.15

0.61

88.4% *note A/SA = Agree and Strongly Agree

Interestingly, as shown in these three items, the statements deal with contribution to the ideas and self-improvement. From the mean scores it can be interpreted that students perceived the usefulness of OCT as a means to improve their language skills while contributing to group achievement. On average, 87% agreed and strongly agreed to these statements.

The negative statements in the questionnaire contain four items as shown. Items Mean SD A/SA 17. I do not like online

collaborative translation because it kills my time.

18. Online collaborative translation gives me more work to do.

19. Online collaborative translation should not be used in translation class when students are in different learning achievement levels.

20. I do not think that online collaborative translation is effective in Thai to English translation context. *note A/SA = Agree and Strongly Agree

As can be seen, the majority of the students (61.5%) did not think that OCT wastes their time (M=2.46, SD= 1.17) or the activity is ineffective in the translation class (46.2%) (M=2.50, SD=1.10). Surprisingly nearly half of the students (46.1%) expressed that OCT gives them more work to do, whereas over one third (38.5%) showed neutral attitude towards this statement (M=3.50. SD = 0.99).

Table 4 The Percentage of Students’ Attitude Towards OCT Activities,Mean Scores and Standard Deviations (N=26)

statement(s) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) M SD1. Online collaborative translation can improve my translation skills. 7.7 65.4 26.9 0.0 0.0 3.81 0.562. Online collaborative translation can improve the quality of group work. 34.6 42.3 19.2 3.8 0.0 4.08 0.843. I can contribute my part in online collaborative translation. 38.5 53.8 7.7 0.0 0.0 4.31 0.614. Online collaborative translation can improve teamwork skills. 30.8 46.2 15.4 7.7 0.0 4.00 0.895. Online collaborative translation can promote social interaction. 19.2 65.4 15.4 0.0 0.0 4.04 0.596. Online collaborative translation promotes exchange of ideas and 34.6 46.2 19.2 0.0 0.0 4.15 0.73

information.7. Online collaborative translation increases self-esteem. 26.9 61.5 11.5 0.0 0.0 4.15 0.618. Online collaborative translation decreases competitiveness. 15.4 46.2 26.9 7.7 3.8 3.62 0.989. Online collaborative translation makes translation more enjoyable. 19.2 61.5 15.4 3.8 0.0 3.96 0.7210. Online collaborative translation makes translation easier. 19.2 61.5 15.4 3.8 0.0 3.96 0.7211. Online collaborative translation promotes group achievement. 26.9 57.7 15.4 0.0 0.0 4.12 0.6512. Online collaborative translation helps students with low achievement to

improve their translation skills.23.1 53.8 15.4 3.8 3.8 3.88 0.95

13. Online collaborative translation enhances knowledge on translation techniques.

11.5 65.4 23.1 0.0 0.0 3.88 0.58

14. Online collaborative translation enhances knowledge on linguistic unit. 7.7 57.7 34.6 0.0 0.0 3.73 0.6015. Online collaborative translation creates a friendly atmosphere of

learning.15.4 61.5 23.1 0.0 0.0 3.92 0.62

16. Through online collaborative translation, I receive positive feedback from peers to improve my translation skills.

15.4 65.4 19.2 0.0 0.0 3.96 0.59

17. I do not like online collaborative translation because it kills my time. 7.7 11.5 19.2 42.3 19.2 2.46 1.1718. Online collaborative translation gives me more work to do. 19.2 26.9 38.5 15.4 0.0 3.50 0.9919. Online collaborative translation should not be used in translation class

when students are in different learning achievement levels. 3.8 19.2 23.1 34.6 19.2 2.54 1.14

20. I do not think that online collaborative translation is effective in Thai to English translation context.

3.8 11.5 38.5 23.1 23.1 2.50 1.10

In order to examine the student’s overall attitude towards OCT, the average mean scores for both positive and negative statements were analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis. Table 5 shows the results of the analysis.

As shown in Table 5, the students overall attitude towards OCT for positive statements was high as indicated in the interpretation of mean score for attitudinal level

in Table 1 (M=3.97, SD = 0.42), whereas their overall attitude towards OCT for negative statements (e.g. the activity kills their time, gives them more work to do, or it is ineffective for translation class when learners are different in learning achievement) was slightly average (M=2.75, SD = 0.90) In other words, the students expressed neutral attitude towards these statements.

Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations of Students’ Attitude Towards OCT and Interpretation

          N   Mean   STD Attitudinal levelStudents' attitude towards OCT (positive items: 1-16) 26 3.97 0.42 HighStudents' attitude towards OCT(negative items: 17-20) 26 2.75 0.90 Average

Improving the quality of translationAs found in the analysis of the data

coding, the majority of the participants valued that OCT propels them to improve the quality of translation. The following excerpt illustrates this most frequently mentioned benefit.

“It is good for us to learn new things from our peers because I sometimes compare my translation with peers’ comment. In addition, I might do poorly but my peers did better in our group work. So we can share ideas and then choose the best one for our group to send to our teacher” (Q1-S26).

Another participant expressed that “when we share our ideas we have opportunity to help each other and that will improve the quality of our work after we edit the text together” (Q1-S21).

As can be seen the participants perceived OCT a beneficial means to improve the quality of work.

Providing learning convenience and flexibilityThe second most frequently mentioned

was providing learning convenience and flexibility. The students discerned that OCT in Google Docs can be done synchronously and

asynchronously depending on their time of convenience since each assignment was given over a period of 10 days to finish before submission. The following except demonstrates this instance.

“My friends and I can check our group work in any time or everywhere we are as long as we have Internet connection. We can communicate with each other even we work in different places on campus or outside campus” (Q1-S16).

Promoting the use of technologyOCT can enhance students’ knowledge

and skills in technology. With the availability of information technology, students can interact and collaborate without being limited by time or place. The following excerpt illustrates students’ preference of OCT.

“Whenever we work in Google Docs, it seems like we put Microsoft together with Facebook. It benefits us a lot because we can talk, share comments even help each other to translate like we face everyone in a meeting room. Working together online also gives us more knowledge about technology” (Q1-S22).

Promoting hand-on learning experience Using Google Docs for OCT promotes

hand-on learning experience. This means students were provided with direct practical experience of active personal involvement in performing a synchronous task. Below is an expression from a participant to demonstrate this instance.

“For me, I like this online collaborative translation because we have our part to contribute and we can spend time to fix the mistakes together in real time. When we do this, we can fix the problem right away and we can learn from our friend’s comments at that moment” (Q1-S14).

Another open-ended question sought to clarify the students’ disfavor of OCT, and the data were analyzed and classified into three categories: creating discrepancy of workload between high and low achievers, requiring reliable Internet connect, and requiring basic knowledge of web-based tools.

5. DiscussionBefore discussing the findings, it is

worth mentioning some limitations of the study. The study site was a single intact translation class with participants enrolling in the course as part of their study program. For this reason, the participants’ learning experiences were more homogenous rather than heterogeneous as encountered in a random sampling method. Further, these participants participated in OCT designated in the study in pursuance of 20 percent of the total score of the course from all the collaborative assignments. Such incidence was obligated and enforcing them to fulfill the requirement. Lastly, the sample size of the study is small, so generalization of the findings must be treated with caveats in similar contexts.

5.1 Students’ translation performance after participating in OCT

Findings from the study indicated that OCT could improve students’ translation skills. This finding echoed the results of previous research such as Yang, Guo & Yu (2016) who found that cooperative translation could significantly increase student self-efficacy and their performance, and Pavlovic (2013) whose study revealed that collaborative translation had slightly lower chances of making syntactic errors than individual translation since the group members collaborated and attempted to produce the finest version of work, and therefore results in better quality. During the OCT process, students could interact with each other allowing them to share ideas, bring out knowledge and talk about the best solution to deal with language use in writing (Elola, 2010) to produce group translation assignment. Often times, collaborative work helped students to improve grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure, spelling, and organization and coherence (Storch, 2005; Lin & Maarof, 2013; Razak & Saeed, 2014; Limbu & Markauskaite, 2015). For this reason, the students in general performed better in the posttest after learning from their peers with OCT activities as the criterion investigates improvement on content, vocabulary, language style, grammar and structure, and overall comprehension. Such finding is evidenced by students’ expressions in

the open-ended question that the majority of them perceived collaborative work is a means to improve the quality of translation as the process of work propelled them to share ideas and insights to enable them with a deeper understanding of the content and develop new skills (Zhou, Simpson & Domizi, 2012; Limbu & Markauskaite, 2015) wider range of vocabulary, better content, greater grammatical accuracy, and overall comprehension of the text (Lin & Maarof, 2013).

5.2 OCT helps improve students’ translation skills

The study results demonstrated that OCT could improve students’ translation skills. The findings of current study revealed significant improvement in students’ use of sentence structure, subject verb agreement, article, and word choice. Such findings were consistent with the study of Pavlovic (2013) who found that collaborative translation could improve students’ syntactic errors such as word order, structure, tenses, active-passive voice, subject-verb agreement, and use of articles. Likewise, Yuliasri (2014)’s study found that cooperative learning could improve the translation skills, particularly in terms of diction, grammar, and content of the text. This is because collaboration encouraged students the opportunity to brainstorm for ideas and provide each other with constructive feedback (Storch, 2005) which result in a good quality of work. As claimed by Storch (2011), collaborative work avails learners with opportunities to deliberate on their understanding and their peer’s language use as they venture to create meaning. It was also found that the groups whose members worked more collectively led by active leaders would produce better quality of work. One possible explanation was that each assignment was given ample time to complete and their collaboration allowed them to pool their linguistic resources and consult one another when encountering difficulties (Begum, 2016). Thus, their joint effort could bring forth more accurate translation and cultivate learning gain. When these students, in particular the average and the low achievers, were later required to produce text individually in the posttest, their knowledge gained through group work practice

allowed them to retain some linguistic features such as grammatical units or sentence structures which were essential in translation. Likewise, Bruton (2007) revealed in his study that any lexical items that were not known by anyone in the class when they were looked up together, students could recall some of them after one week later through collaborative work. This phenomenon proved that when students were involved in collaborative work, they could retain some of the knowledge gained when they were asked to perform tasks independently.

5.3 Students’ positive attitudes toward OCTThe findings revealed that students

generally had positive attitudes toward OCT. Such a finding was congruent with the results from previous studies of Yuliasri (2014) and Yang, Guo, & Yu (2016) who found that students perceived positive attitudes toward CL in the translation classroom as the activity could improve their interest, motivation, self-efficacy, and they gained better understanding of translation techniques as well as improvement on work quality. As Pavlovic (2013) claimed, collaborative work assists the members to extensively identify the mistakes to improve the text. The process of collaborative work requires contribution from individuals and ideas presented are valued by the group, and thus results in improving self-esteem. This assertion is strongly supported by students’ agreement on items 3, 6 and 7 in Table 5, and their expressions in the open-ended questions that they perceived OCT a means to improve the quality of translation. Through CL, students could gain greater achievement results as the activity fosters them to improve self-efficacy and learning responsibility, however, nearly half of the students also expressed that OCT gives them more work to do. In the open-ended questions, about 42 percent of them mentioned that OCT creates inequality in workload among the group members with different learning achievements, and thus members with high achievement may need to take additional time to proofread and finalize the work. This argument is supported by previous studies such as Barros (2011), Zhou, Simpson & Domizi (2012), Suwantarathip & Wichadee (2014), Li & Kim (2016), Liu, Liu, & Liu (2018) who found that collaborative work is

a useful tool to improve students’ learning achievement, however, the procedure is time consuming and oftentimes members with lower achievement would benefit from their peers with higher achievement, and the better ones would dominate the ideas or contribute more than the weaker ones.

6. ImplicationsThe study employed Google Docs, a

free web-based word processing tool, as a learning platform for OCT to encourage students to interact with one another in groups synchronously or asynchronously to produce a co-authored work. The findings indicated positive outcomes as revealed in students’ significant improvement in using sentence structure, subject verb agreement, article, or word choice which resulted in better quality of work thereafter engaging in the pedagogy. Based on the findings, we recommend that EFL teachers of translation courses may consider employing available web-based applications such as Google Docs to promote CL in the translation classroom. Although web-based collaboration tools are used more extensively in the language classroom these days to improve L2 learners’ writing skills in particular, to date research investigating OCT in tertiary education in Thailand is still limited. The preliminary results from this current study raise awareness among translation teachers and student translators to perceive the need for teamwork with translation since translation is a complex series of problem-solving and decision-making processes (House, 2000) and it involves at least two different languages with complex and diverse linguistic structures and forms (Nida, 1991). This calls for meticulous efforts from translators with a comprehensive knowledge of both source and target languages. Thus, student translators or novice translators are prone to making mistakes, so teachers of translation should encourage students to work hand in hand to reduce risks of making linguistic errors by using an available web-based tool platform to learn and support each other. This learning scenario can lead to a win-win situation in which students with high achievement can impart knowledge to their peers with lower achievement, eliminating competiveness and

promoting harmony and memorable friendship among learners.

From the study results, the students held positive attitudes toward OCT as the activity helped them to improve the quality of translation. They perceived that Google Docs could provide them with learning convenience and flexibility and this online tool promoted hands-on experience in which they can learn in real time or at a time of their convenience. Despite perceiving numerous advantages of online collaborative learning with Google Docs, there are drawbacks of OCT noted by the students, such as time consuming, discrepancy of workload between low and high achievers, unreliable Internet connection, and basic knowledge of web-based tools. This raises awareness among language teachers or researchers who want to implement a web-based application for CL in class or for a research purpose. Teachers or individuals interested in OCT should discern that effective collaboration prevails only when students are properly trained on how to work as a team and receive support and follow-up by their instructors on a constant basis. Beyond any doubt, students must be supplied with reliable broadband Internet access to carry out teamwork smoothly when online collaborative learning is implemented. Not to be forgotten, orientate students and familiarize them with the web-based learning tools prior to pedagogical implementation, or else the team may experience downturn when a tiny mistake is made instead of achieving collectively. Withal, due to the nature of group work, ample time and opportunity should be allocated to students engaging in CL to generate ideas, share insights, provide feedback and mutually agree to revise final product to accomplish one shared goal. For convenience purposes, web-based learning tools used for collaborative work should be made customizable and accessible anywhere with a wide range of electronic devices including mobile phones or tablets. Learning should take place anywhere and anytime inside and outside the classroom since the notion of using a computer laboratory and sitting in front of a designated location to work out a group project is considered old-fashioned. Therefore, pedagogical approaches such as online collaborative learning should be promoted and

enriched through action research. By doing so, students can be better prepared to become effective 21st century learners and prepared to live in a fast-changing world driven by technology.

7. ConclusionA vast number of research studies on CL

over the past years has proved its positive outcomes in EFL and ESL classrooms. As was the case of this present study which investigated the Thai students’ translation skills by using online collaborative translation (OCT) in Google Docs, the findings revealed that students significantly obtained greater results in Thai to English translation skills after they were engaged in OCT during the research phase of ten weeks. The study results indicated that OCT can significantly improve students’ translation skills in terms of syntactic errors (e.g. sentence structure, subject verb agreement, articles) and semantic error (e.g. word choice). The majority of students expressed their positive attitudes toward OCT as a means to contribute knowledge, exchange of ideas and information, increase self-esteem, promote group

achievement, and improve the quality of work. Taking into consideration the results procured from the study, we can claim that OCT is considerably propitious for students in the EFL context. Similar studies in regards to OCT in an EFL context should be further investigated to enrich the findings of current study. Researchers may consider employing true or quasi-experimental design to randomly select heterogeneous participants to either control or treatment groups and compare the results of their translation performances. Lastly, qualitative data from in-depth interviews from participants of such similar study are needed to validate and strengthen quantitative outcomes in order to better perceive the scenario.

AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge

with sincere appreciation to Asia-Pacific International University (AIU) Ranking, Research, and Development Committee for financial assistance towards the research project. They would also like to thank students who dedicated their time and efforts by participating in this study.

ReferencesAnsarimoghaddam, S., Hoon, T. B., & Yong, M. F. (2017). Collaboratively composing an argumentative essay:

Wiki versus face-to-face interactions. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 17(2), 33-53.Aunurrahman, A., Hamied, F. A. H., & Emilia, E. (2017). Exploring the tertiary EFL students’ academic writing

competencies. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 72-79.Barros, E. H. (2011). Collaborative learning in the translation classroom: preliminary survey results.

The Journal of Specialised Translation, 16, 42-60.Begum, J. (2016). Practicing collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: Techniques and achievements.

Language in India, 16(10), 25-39.Bruton, A. (2007). Vocabulary learning from dictionary reference in collaborative EFL translational writing.

System, 35, 353-367.Chao, Y. C. J., & Lo, H. C. (2011). Students' perceptions of Wiki-based collaborative writing for learners

of English as a foreign language. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 395-411.Degang, M. (2010). Motivation toward English language learning of the second year undergraduate Thai

students majoring in Business English at an English-medium university. (Unpublished master's thesis). Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Dobao, A. F. (2014). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(2), 158–187. Elola, I. (2010). Collaborative writing: fostering foreign language and writing conventions development.

Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51-71.Heidar, D. M. (2016). ZPD-assisted intervention via web 2.0 and listening comprehension ability.

English for Specific Purposes World, 17(4), 1–17.House, J. (2000). Consciousness and the strategic use of aids in translation. In Tirkkonen-Condit, S., &

Jääskeläinen, R. (Eds.).Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research, 37, 149-162.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Collaborative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in University Teaching, 25(4), 1-26.

Keyes, C. S., Puzio, K., & Jimenez, R. T. (2014). Collaborative translations: Designing bilingual instructional tools. Journal of Education, 194(2), 17-24.

Li, M., & Kim, D. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writingtasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25-42.

Limbu, L., & Markauskaite, L. (2015). How do learners experience joint writing: University students' conceptions of online collaborative writing tasks and environments. Computers & Education, 82, 393-408.

Lin, O. P., & Maarof, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in summary writing: Student perceptions and problems. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 599-606.Liu, M., Liu, L., & Liu, L. (2018). Group awareness increases student engagement in online collaborative writing. The Internet and Higher Education, 38, 1-8.Liu, X., Jiao, J., & Chen, J. (2016). Writing collaboratively via wiki: An English teaching study.

In International Conference on Blending Learning (pp. 14-23). Springer International Publishing.Mahmoud, A., & Mohamed, M. (2014). The effectiveness of using the cooperative language learning approach to

enhance EFL writing skills among Saudi University students. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(3), 616-625.

Millis, B. J. (2009). Becoming an effective teacher using collaborative learning. Peer Review, 2(2),17-21.Munday, J. (Ed). (2009). The Routledge companion to translation studies. Abingdon, London: Routledge.Nida, E. (1991). Theories of Translation. TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 4(1), 19–32.O’Brien, S. (2011). Collaborative translation. In G. Yves & V.D. Luc (Eds.), Handbook of translation

(pp. 17-20). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Olsen, R.E., & Kagan, S. (1992). About collaborative learning. In Kessler (ed.), 1-30. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Pavlović, T. (2013). The role of collaborative translation protocols (CTPs) in translation studies. Jezikoslovlje, 14(2-3), 549-563.Razak, N. A., & Saeed, M. A. (2014). Collaborative writing revision process among learners of English as a foreign

language (EFL) in an online community of practice (CoP). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5), 580-599.

Shafie, L. A., Maesin, A., Osman, N., Nayan, S., & Mansor, M. (2010). Understanding collaborativeacademic writing among beginner university writers in Malaysia. Studies in Literature and Language, 1, 58-69.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of second language writing, 14(3), 153-173.

Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288.Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google Docs on

students' writing abilities. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 148-156.Talib, T., & Cheung, Y. L. (2017). Collaborative writing in classroom instruction: A synthesis of recent research.

The English Teacher, 46(2), 43-57.Thelen, M. (2016). Collaborative translation in translator training. Konińskie Studia Językowe, 4 (3), 253-269.Woodrich, M. P., & Fan, Y. (2017). Google Docs as a tool for collaborative writing in the middle school classroom.

Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 391-410. Retrieved from http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/3870

Wu, S. R. (2007). Effects of group composition in collaborative learning of EFL writing. In International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 843-849). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Yang, X., Li, J., Guo, X., & Li, X. (2015). Group interactive network and behavioral patterns in onlineEnglish-to-Chinese cooperative translation activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 28-36.

Yang, X., Guo, X., & Yu, S. (2016). Effects of cooperative translation on Chinese EFL student levels of interest and self-efficacy in specialized English translation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 477-493.

Yuliasri, I. (2014). Cooperative learning techniques to improve students' translation. Language Circle, 8(2), 107-114.

Zhang, Y. (2010). Cooperative language learning and foreign language learning and teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(1), 81-83.Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. P. (2012). Google Docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing activity.

International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 359-375.