A Psychological Model of Translation Quality Assessment: Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives to Grade English Texts

Natasha Pourdana, John S. Rajeski

Abstract


The present study explored the possibility of grading English texts based on the psychological processes a non-native English translator might go through by applying Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain. The researchers’ primary assumption was that the difficulty of English texts would increase as the translator’s performance proceeds from translating an English text that requires their only language Knowledge through the texts requiring increasing demands of their Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Aynthesis and Evaluation abilities. To the researchers, the quality of the translation performance could be assessed based on the type of psychological processing they conduct in translating a given text. To fulfil the ultimate purpose of the research, 30 undergraduate students majoring in English translation at Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Iran took part in this investigation in 2012. In addition to Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT), the participants were given a translation essay-type test that included six short English passages of 150 to 200 words. The texts were carefully graded based on the type of behavioural objectives (i.e., psychological processes) demanded of the translator and listed according to the hierarchy of Bloom’s cognitive domain. A non-parametric test of Kruskal Wallis proved that except for the fifth level, the Synthesis text, the trainee translators’ quality of performance was graded properly based on the difficulty levels expected and explored in Bloom’s levels of cognitive domain. The findings in this study are considerately practical in translation quality assessment, upgrading the reliability estimate of translation tests and teaching translation skills and strategies.


Keywords


EFL, Bloom’s Cognitive Domain, Grading, Psychological Processing, Translation Quality Assessment

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arjona-Tseng, E. (1994). A psychometric approach to the selection of translation and Interpreting students in Taiwan. In Lambert and Moser-Mercer (eds.) (1994), pp. 69-86.

Bachman, L. F. (1991). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bell, R. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Longman.

Bloom, B. S., Engehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, V. H., and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Longmans Green: New York.

Campbell, S. (1999). The Translatability of a Christian Community. New York: Fuller Theological Seminary.

Campbell, S. & Hale, S. (1991). Translation and interpreting assessment in the context of educational measurement. In G. Anderman and G. Rogers (eds.) (1999), pp. 205-221.

Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1987). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.

Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Holmes, J. S. (1988b). Translated Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Odopi.

Holmes, J. S. (2004). The name and nature of translation studies. In L. Venuti (ed.) (2004), pp. 180-192.

Krings, H. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2). In J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), pp. 262-76.

Lambert, J. R. (1991). Shifts, opposition and goals in translation studies: towards a genealogy of concepts. In K. van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds), pp. 25-37.

Lefevere, A. (1993). Translating Literature: Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Lewis, P. (2004). The measure of translation effects. In L. Venuti (ed) (2004), pp. 256-75.

Mason, I. (2003). Text parameters in translation: transitivity and institutional cultures. In L. Venuti (ed) (2004), pp. 470-81.

Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge.

Munday, J. (2008). Style and Ideology in Translation: Latin American Writing in English. New York: Routledge.

Parks, T. (2007). Translating Style: The English Modernists and Their Italian Translations. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Pym, A. (2004a). Propositions in cross-cultural communication and translation, Target, 16 (1), pp.1-28.

Rebenish, S. (2002). Jerome. London and New York: Routledge.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.2p.89

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




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

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.