The Effectiveness between Two Translation Assessment Models for English to Indonesian Translation of Undergraduate Students

Haru Deliana Dewi(1*), Rahayu Surtiati Hidayat(2),

(1) Universitas Indonesia
(2) Universitas Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Research on translation assessment on English to Indonesian translation results using two dissimilar rubrics and a quantitative approach is rarely conducted by Indonesian scholars. This present study investigated the effectiveness between two assessment models, which are very different, one using a holistic approach (the LBI Bandscale) and the other using the error analysis approach (the ATA Framework). The research has been conducted on several language pairs, including the Indonesian-English translation, but it has never been done on the English-Indonesian translation. The research aims to discover whether there is a substantial improvement using both assessment models and whether one model is more effective than the other. The study was conducted in the Introduction to Translation (DDPU) classes of the English Studies Program of the Faculty of Humanities (FIB), Universitas Indonesia (UI) for undergraduate students of Semester 6. The respondents were asked to do translation in class, and then within three weeks, their works were returned with feedback based on both models. After that, they were asked to do revisions of their translation results. The outcome of the analysis shows that there is a great improvement in the translation results because of the two assessment models, but there is no significant difference in the effectiveness between those models.


Keywords


LBI bandscale; ATA framework; assessment models; effectiveness

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arango-Keeth, F. & Koby, G. S. (2003) Assessing Assessment: Translator Training Evaluation and the Needs of Industry Quality Assessment. In B. J. Baer & G. S. Koby (Eds.). Beyond the Ivory Tower: Rethinking Translation Pedagogy (ATA Scholarly Monograph Series Volume XII) (pp. 117-134). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Conde, T. (2009) Proceso y Resultado de la Evaluación de Traducciones [The Process and Results of Translation Evaluation]. Granada: Universidad de Granada, PhD Dissertation.

______. (2011) Translation Evaluation on the Surface of Texts: A Preliminary Analysis. JoSTrans, 15, 69-86.

______. (2012a) Quality and Quantity in Translation Evaluation: A Starting Point. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 67-80.

______. (2012b) The Good Guys and the Bad Guys: The Behavior of Lenient and Demanding Translation Evaluators. Meta, 57(3), 763-786.

______. (2013) Translation versus Language Errors in Translation Evaluation. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (eds.), Assessment Issues in Language Translation and Interpreting. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing, 97-112.

Cravo A. & Neves, J. (2007) Action Research in Translation Studies. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 7, 92–107.

Dewi, H. D. (2015) Comparing Two Translation Assessment Models: Correlating Student Revisions and Perspectives. ( Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Kent State University, Ohio.

Dick, B. (1993) “You Want to Do an Action Research Thesis?” Online at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/arthesis.html (consulted on 4 July 2020).

Doyle, M. S. (2003) Translation Pedagogy and Assessment: Adopting ATA’s Framework for Standard Error Marking. The ATA Chronicle, 32(11), 21-28 & 45.

Heiman, G. W. (2001) Understanding Research Methods and Statistics. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Koby, G. S. & Baer, B. J. (2005) From Professional Certification to the Translator Training Classroom: Adapting the ATA Error Marking Scale. Translation Watch Quarterly, 1, Inaugural Issue, 33-45.

Qu, W. & Zhang, C. (2013) The Analysis of Summative Assessment and Formative Assessment and their Roles in College English Assessment System. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(2), 335-339.

Turner, B., Lai, M., & Huang, N. (2010) Error Deduction and Descriptors – A Comparison of Two Methods of Translation Test Assessment. Translation & Interpreting, 2(1), 11-23.

Vinay, J. & Darbelnet, J. (1995) Comparative Stylistics of French and English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Waddington, C. (2001a) Should Translations be Assessed Holistically or through Error Analysis? Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 26, 15-37.

______. (2001b) Different Methods of Evaluating Student Translations: The Question of Validity. Meta, 46(2), 311-325.

______. (2003) A Positive Approach to the Assessment of Translation Errors. In R. Muñoz-Martín (Ed.), AIETI, 2, 409-426. Granada: AIETI.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/joll.v20i2.2622

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Journal of Language and Literature (JOLL) is published by  Prodi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

JOLL is indexed in:

       


This journal is is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License 

View My Stats