1.5. Measuring Translation Learning Progress
To verify this study's hypothesis, the progress of the
subjects' learning process needs to be measured. This objective has been, also,
the concern of all translation schools as well as professional milieus
throughout the world (Larose, 1998). Although the aim of evaluation in the
context of research is slightly different from that of a pedagogical context,
both, in fact, are interested in measuring learning progress. Given this,
available research on evaluation, as far as translation teaching is concerned,
is also of interest to the present study.
Assessment in translation teaching evaluates the student's
translation competence as well as program acquisition. This is carried out
through individual performance observation (Martinez Merls and Hurtado Albir,
2001). Evaluation is performed in many ways, and different approaches are
adopted. Students are assigned different types of translation tests. Teachers,
as well, correct tests, assignments and examinations in different ways
(Waddington, 2001).
Available literature on the subject treats two central issues:
what to assess and how. What to assess refers to the question
of establishing objective, reliable and observable criteria that reflect the
object of assessment. This task constitutes a major difficulty in the field.
This is explained by the fact that the object of assessment is not only the
student's product, but also his competence and followed
processes (Martinez Merls and Hurtado Albir, 2001). This does not pose problem
as far as declarative knowledge is concerned. It does however when it cornes to
translation competence evaluation. This is why the evaluator should first
determine the decisive factors of translation competence and the indicators of
its acquisition according to the learning objectives (ibid.). Although scholars
consider assessment criteria according to the way they perceive the nature of
translation competence, they seem to agree on some criteria: translation
errors, and performance regarding translation problems (Orozco and Hurtado
Albir, 2001; Campbell, 1991; Waddington, 2001).
How to assess, on the other hand, is related to the
methods and instruments of evaluation. The method may be, for
example, holistic or analytical (Larose, 1998; Waddington,
2001). The holistic is more concerned with overall quality and purpose
achievement. The analytical examines translation errors and good solutions
(Waddington, 2001).
Instruments are evaluation models that can apply to a large
number of situations. These models draw on a set of criteria and one or more
specific evaluation methods. They may be under the form of texts to translate;
translations to analyse, revise, or compare; multiple-choice tests; comparison
exercises; isolated problems to solve; interviews or the like (Melis Martinez
and Hurtado Albir, 2001). However, very few
instruments can be considered to be comprehensive. Only a
reasoned combination of a good number of instruments may be said to provide
sufficient data for the evaluator to measure the subject's translation
competence.
Lack of measuring translation competence acquisition
instruments constitutes one of the main weaknesses of Translation Studies
research. Campbell (1991) attributes this to "the wealth of research on
educational measurement in general and language assessment in particular" (p.
329).
Moreover, what goes on in the translator's mind is of great
importance in the field of translation. This is why a debate between
process-oriented and product-oriented approaches is characteristic of field
research. A large part of research uses Think-Aloud- Protocols, or
what is also called verbal reporting. il is a process-oriented
instrument that consists in asking the subjects to verbalise their mental
processes when carrying out a translation task, and in recording these
information on what is called 'protocols' (Rydning, 2002). However, this
instrument is criticised on the grounds that it is not specially designed for
the field of translation studies, since it originally belongs to psychology.
Moreover, the instrument is not able to account for unconscious mental
processes (Orozco and Hurtado Albir, 2002). Hence, the description of the
mental decisions taken by subjects will still be based on an interpretation of
the data (Rydning, 2002).
As to measuring instruments specially designed for translation
studies, the translation task and some computer programs, such as
Translog, are the best known. Translog is a computer program designed
by Arnt Lykke Jakobsen & Lasse Schou in 1998 (Rydning, 2002) to log all
keyboard activity while a translator is carrying out a translation task. This
includes pauses, corrections and electronic dictionary lookups (ibid.). The
recorded data are expected to help understand the translator's mental processes
and strategies.
The translation task, which is commonly believed as a
productoriented instrument, consists in giving the subjects a text to be
translated according to a brief, i.e. a set of information and
instructions concerning the text to be translated. This is usually followed by
a specific questionnaire (Orozco and Hurtado Albir, 2002). The text includes
the translation problems, attitude towards which the researcher intends to
examine. The questionnaire is intended to elucidate the information the
subjects' translations do not reveal, such as explanation of some choices,
strategies used or opinions concerning the test's areas of difficulty.
This measuring instrument is in its turn rejected by some
theorists. They hold that it is centred round the product with a focus on
comparative structural analysis of the original text and the translation
(Rydning, 2002). The main aim of measuring instruments is, however, to
gain insight into mental processes underlying the translation
task, through observing the translation process itself (Campbell, 1991, p.
330).
Campbell (1991) on the other hand presents a model where he
intends to demonstrate that a translation product is largely able to account
for translation processes. This view is accepted in this study, and the
evaluation of translated texts will be our main source of information as far as
measuring students' progress is concerned.
| 
