Lecturers’ Perceptions on the Utilization of Translation Rubrics for Guiding Peer and Self-Assessment in Higher Education
Abstract
Abstract
Evaluating translation skills in students is challenging due to difficulties in maintaining fairness and providing proper feedback. This study examines the perspectives of college teachers on using translation rubrics to guide self-assessment and peer assessment among students. Interviews with two instructors from Politeknik Negeri Padang showed that rubrics are crucial tools for conducting fair and organized evaluations. These rubrics reduce bias and clarify what is expected by focusing on key aspects like translation accuracy, readability, and maintaining the original meaning. Both instructors agree that students assessing their own work and others' is beneficial because it enhances editing skills and increases their understanding of translation. Despite this, there are some challenges. People might interpret rubric criteria in different ways, time for assessment can be tight, and existing technology doesn't always meet the needs. Nevertheless, digital tools such as MS Word and Google Docs are considered helpful in simplifying the process. The study stresses the importance of having uniform rubrics and technological support to improve the teaching of translation and encourage students to become more independent learners.
Keywords: Lecturers’ Perceptions, Peer Assessment, Rubrics, Self-Assessment, Translation Assessment.
References
References
Andrade, H. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27–30.
Black, P., &Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Bowker, L. (2002). Computer-Aided Translation Technology: A Practical Introduction. University of Ottawa Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Byram, M., & Grundy, P. (2003). Context and Culture in Language Teaching and Learning. Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., & Morgan, C. (1994). Teaching-and-Learning Language-and-Culture. Multilingual Matters.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Dawson, P. (2017). Assessment rubrics: Towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 347–360.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
Gaspari, F., Toral, A., & Way, A. (2015). Online MT for translators: A case study. Machine Translation, 29(3-4), 195–215.
House, J. (2015). Translation as Communication across Languages and Cultures (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315668956
Hurtado Albir, A. (2017). Translation and Meaning. John Benjamins.
Jonsson, A., &Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144.
Mossop, B. (2014). Revising and Editing for Translators (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Munday, J. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (4th ed.). Routledge.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Oscarson, M. (2009). Self-assessment of writing in learning English as a foreign language. In R. Haswell (Ed.), Teaching Writing Grades 7–12 in an Era of Assessment. Teachers College Press.
Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: Theoretical and practical connotations. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 806–820.
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.
Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179.
Shih, R. C., & Tsai, C. W. (2017). Using online peer assessment and comments to enhance students’ writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 104–117.
Tai, H. C., Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C. (2018). Exploring the effectiveness of peer feedback in academic writing. Language Teaching Research, 22(5), 594–614.
Tremblay, D. (2011). Evaluation and quality in translation. Translation Journal, 15(4).
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.
Waddington, C. (2001). Different methods of evaluating student translations: The question of validity. Meta, 46(2), 311–325.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24014/ijielt.v11i1.36641
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Indonesian Journal of Integrated English Language Teaching (P-ISSN 2355-5971 and E-ISSN 2964-6448)
Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan
Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau
Address: Jl. H. R. Soebrantas KM. 15 Tuahmadani, Tuahmadani Pekanbaru
