Search

In many MA programmes, input about translation technology is provided in dedicated courses that run parallel to the practical courses. In a session in a revision course module, co-taught by the translation technology lecturer and a translation lecturer, students discovered the collaborative possibilities that CAT tools can offer.

References: Ehrensberger-Dow, M. and G. Massey. 2013. “Indicators of Translation Competence: Translators’ Self-concepts and the Translation of Titles.” Journal of Writing Research 5 (1): 103–131. Haro Soler, M. del M. 2018. “Las creencias de autoeficacia del estudiantado de traducción: Una radiografía de su desarrollo.” PhD diss., Universidad de Granada. https://digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/53590 Kiraly, D., and S. Hofmann, S. 2016. “Towards a Postpositivist Curriculum Development Model for Translator Education.” In Towards Authentic Experiential Learning in Translator Education, edited by D. Kiraly, 67–87. Mainz: V&R unipress. Massey, G., P. Jud, and M. Ehrensberger-Dow. 2015. “Building Competence and Bridges: The Potential of Action Research in Translator Education.” In Constructing Translation Competence, edited by P. Pietrzak and M. Deckert, 27–48. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Pokorn, N. K. 2009. “Natives or Non-Natives? That is the Question… Teachers of Translation into Language B.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 3 (2): 189–208., Learner empowerment is a paramount goal of translation education (cf. Kiraly and Hofmann 2016). It can be fostered by providing learners constructive feedback on their translation processes and products or by having role models, i.e. reflective practitioners, as educators (Massey et al. 2015). This approach allows students to increasingly trust their abilities to adequately perform translation tasks, i.e. develop their self-efficacy beliefs. In the L2 translation classroom, teacher-translators who are L1 speakers of the target language (TL) can help novice students to overcome their limited view of L2 translation as primarily a language exercise (EhrensbergerDow and Massey 2013). However, they might not be readily perceived as role models as they work into the opposite translation direction. In contrast, teacher-translators who, like the students, are L2 speakers of the TL might be able to provide them with problem-solving approaches they can relate to more easily (Pokorn 2009). To investigate whether a mixed co-teaching team could have a positive effect on self-efficacy beliefs and thus complement the L2 translation classroom, we performed an action research project in autumn semester 2020 with two groups of translation students who already had one semester of L1 into L2 translation education. A quarter of the semester lessons included group feedback on selected translation problems that had emerged in the students' translation processes and target texts. In one group, the feedback was given by a guest translator-teacher from her perspective as an L2 translator. In the other group, the feedback was provided by the regular translator-teacher from her perspective as an L1 translator. Self-efficacy beliefs were assessed pre- and post-intervention using a self-report questionnaire adapted from Haro-Soler (2018). In our contribution, we will present the results and discuss potential implications for translation teaching.

References: EMT Board. 2017. European Master’s in Translation: Competence Framework 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/emt_competence_fwk_2017_en_web.pdf Kappus, M. and M. Ehrensberger-Dow. 2020. “The Ergonomics of Translation Tools: Understanding When Less Is Actually More.” Special Issue of The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 14 (4): 386–404. Koponen, M., B. Mossop, I. S. Robert, and G. Scocchera, eds. 2021. Translation Revision and Post-editing. Industry Practices and Cognitive Processes. Abingdon: Routledge. Mossop, B., J. Hong, and C. Teixeira. 2020. Revising and Editing for Translators. 4th ed. Abingdon: Routledge., Training in translation technology and quality assessment are now core elements of translator training programmes and recognised as key skills by the EMT (2017) Competence Framework. However, there appears to be little overlap in training these two skills. Translation technology courses tend to focus on understanding how the technology can be helpful, understanding the main functionalities of one or two tools and practising their implementation, while revision courses often focus on understanding the different translation quality assessment (QA) models, differentiating between revision and post-editing, and understanding the value of QA in the translation market. Given that the boundaries between translation revision and post-editing are now converging in most CAT systems (see Kappus and Ehrensberger-Dow 2020; Koponen et al. 2021), a strong argument can be made that explicit training in translation technology for revision work would foster additional valuable skills. What is less clear is how, when and in which course(s) to include such input in the translation training curriculum. Given the complexity of current translation technology, it is difficult for students to discover the best workflow processes with CAT tools on their own, including QA settings and the risk of false or undetected errors (see Mossop et al. 2020). In our presentation, we will report on a training session we have introduced into our MA programme that is devoted to QA/revision with a CAT tool, co-taught by the translation technology instructor and a translation teacher. We will report on the design of the input and how the activities are meant to empower the students to use the technology not only for their QA/revision processes but also as the basis for dialogue between translator and reviewer. We will also discuss recommendations for curriculum design on the basis of feedback from students who participated in the training session in different semesters in their MA programme.