Abstract
The impact of globalization and technologization has continued to reverberate in the translation industry, causing seismic changes in the translation process, output, and client expectations. Consequently, several approaches and models have been adopted to align training with these changes. Prominent among these is project-based learning, where most research has focused on collaborative practices that mirror authentic translation scenarios in the industry. However, despite the high volume of research on collaborative translation within the training environment, two significant lacunae remain perceptible—there is limited research comparing collaborative teams and individual trainees, and the use of video ethnography as a research methodology is scarce. This study intends to bridge this gap by comparing the performance of collaborative teams and individual trainees in accomplishing several computer-assisted translation (CAT) tasks. The study quantitively analyzes data from video recordings of four collaborative teams and 25 individual trainees performing three computer-assisted task blocks, eight subtasks, and three sub-subtasks. The study investigates compliance with instructions, task completion time, translation output quality, terminology research, and workspace management. The findings reveal that, to different degrees, teams and individual trainees failed to comply with instructions (even though teams spent more time working on the tasks), and teams had higher assessment scores and also enjoyed more downtime. In contrast, individual trainees had less downtime and lower average assessment scores though they consulted more terminological resources than teams. Furthermore, correlations were established between the final assessment score, task completion time, and compliance with instructions. The findings informed our practical and pedagogical reflections on CAT course design, particularly with regard to the training outcomes for collaborative teams and individual trainees.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Al-Shehari, K., & Almanna, A. (2022). Collaborative translation of Wikipedia: With whom do trainee translators collaborate and for what purpose? The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 16(4), 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2022.2036937.
Alhejaili, A., Wharrad, H., & Windle, R. (2022). A pilot study conducting online think aloud qualitative method during social distancing: Benefits and challenges. Healthcare, 10(9), 1700. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10091700.
Barros, E. H. (2011). Collaborative learning in the translation classroom: Preliminary survey results. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 16(3), 42–60.
Bayraktar-Özer, Ö., & Hastürkoğlu, G. (2020). Designing collaborative learning environment in translator training: An empirical research. Research in Language, 18(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.18.2.02.
Bernardini, S. (2001). Think-aloud protocols in translation research: Achievements, limits, future prospects. Target International Journal of Translation Studies, 13(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.13.2.03ber.
Bernardo, A. B., Salanga, M. G. C., Khan, A., & Yeung, S. S. (2016). Internal and external loci-of-hope predict use of individual and collaborative learning strategies: Evidence from university students in four asian cities. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(3), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0249-y.
Casas-Tost, H., & Rovira-Esteva, S. (2008). Chinese-spanish translation studies in tertiary institutions in Spain: Historical review and future perspectives. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2(2), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2008.10798773.
Chang, C. K., & Hsu, C. K. (2011). A mobile-assisted synchronously collaborative translation– annotation system for English as a foreign language (EFL) reading comprehension. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.536952.
Cole, M. W., David, S. S., & Jiménez, R. T. (2016). Collaborative translation: Negotiating student investment in culturally responsive pedagogy. Language Arts, 93(6), 430–443. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44809867.
Doherty, G., Karamanis, N., & Luz, S. (2012). Collaboration in translation: The impact of increased research on cross-organizational work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 21, 525–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-012-9175-1.
Drugan, J., Strandvik, I., & Vuorinen, E. (2018). Translation quality, quality management and agency: Principles and practice in the European Union Institutions. In J. Moorkens, S. Castilho, F. Gaspari, & S. Doherty (Eds.), Translation quality assessment (pp. 39–68). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_3.
Dubroy, P., & Balakrishnan, R. (2010, April). A study of tabbed browsing among mozilla firefox users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 673–682). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753426.
European Commission (2022). European master’s in translation: Competence framework 2022. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2782/858200.
Federici, F. M., & Cadwell, P. (2018). Training citizen translators: Design and delivery of bespoke training on the fundamentals of translation for New Zealand Red Cross. Translation Spaces, 7(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.00002.fed.
Fitriyah, T., & Fauzi, M. F. (2020). Improving quality of arabic translation course through jigsaw cooperative learning. Izdihar: Journal of Arabic Language Teaching Linguistics and Literature, 3(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.22219/jiz.v3i1.11033.
Goods, A. R. (2019). V-Note: A video analysis tool for teacher| researchers. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(3), 753–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9877-x.
Hurtado, A. A. (2015). The acquisition of translation competence. Competences, tasks, and assessment in translator training. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 60(2), 256–280. https://doi.org/10.7202/1032857ar.
Kim, R. (2004, January). Process-oriented pedagogical translation evaluation. FORUM: International Journal of Interpretation and Translation (Vol, 2(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.2.1.04kim. John Benjamins.
Kiraly, D. (2005). Project-based learning: A case for situated translation. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 50(4), 1098–1111. https://doi.org/10.7202/012063ar.
Kiraly, D. (2014). A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760186.
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733.
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091.
Latorraca, R., & Aiello, J. (2021). Investigating translation trainees’ self-perceived competence: A process-oriented, collaborative seminar on translation and translation revision. Babel, 67(4), 460–481. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00232.lat.
Lauscher, S. (2000). Translation quality assessment: Where can theory and practice meet? The Translator, 6(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799063.
Leidner, D. E., & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving student learning of conceptual information: GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning. Decision Support Systems, 20(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(97)00004-3.
Li, D., Zhang, C., & He, Y. (2015). Project-based learning in teaching translation: Students’ perceptions. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1010357.
Lommel, A. (2018). Metrics for translation quality assessment: A case for standardising error typologies. In J. Moorkens, S. Castilho, F. Gaspari, & S. Doherty (Eds.), Translation quality assessment. Machine translation: Technologies and applications (1 vol.). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91241-7_6.
Manterola, A. E. (2017). Collaborative self-translation in a minority language: Power implications in the process, the actors and the literary systems involved. In O. Castro, S. Mainer & S. Page (Eds.), Self-translation and power: Palgrave studies in translating and interpreting. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50781-5_9.
O’Brien, S. (2011). Collaborative translation. Handbook of translation studies, 2, 17–20. In Gambier, Y., & Doorslaer L.V. (Eds.). Handbook of Translation Studies, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.2.col1.
O’Hagan, M. (2011). Community translation: Translation as a social activity and its possible consequences in the advent of Web 2.0 and beyond. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies, 10. https://doi.org/10.52034/lanstts.v10i.275.
Olvera-Lobo, M. D. (2009). Teleworking and collaborative work environments in translation training. Babel, 55(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.55.2.05olv.
Pitkäsalo, E., & Ketola, A. (2018). Collaborative translation in a virtual classroom: Proposal for a course design. Transletters International Journal of Translation and Interpreting, 1(1), 93–119.
Rodríguez-Inés, P. (2010). Electronic corpora and other information and communication technology tools: An integrated approach to translation teaching. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 4(2), 251–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2010.10798806.
Romney, J. (1997). Collaborative learning in a translation course. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.54.1.48.
Rubens, W., Emans, B., Leinonen, T., Skarmeta, A. G., & Simons, R. J. (2005). Design of web- based collaborative learning environments: Translating the pedagogical learning principles to human computer interface. Computers & Education, 45(3), 276–294.
Shepard-Carey, L. J., & Mathieu, C. S. (2022). Technology and translanguaging: Examining the roles of iPads in collaborative translation activities with young emergent bilinguals. In D. K. LaScotte, C. S. Mathieu & S. S. David (Eds.), New perspectives on material mediation in language learner pedagogy (pp.189–204). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98116-7_11.
Somuncu, D., & Sert, O. (2019). EFL trainee teachers’ orientations to students’ non- understanding: A focus on task instructions. In H. Nguyen & T. Malabarba (Eds.), Conversation analytic perspectives on English language learning, teaching, and testing in global contexts (pp. 110–131). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788922890-007.
Thelen, M. (2016). Collaborative translation in translator training. Konińskie Studia Językowe, 4(3), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.30438/ksj.2016.4.3.2.
Thompson, N. A., & Illes, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial learning as practice: A video- ethnographic analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(3), 579–599.
Xu, W., Yu, C., Zhao, S., Liu, J., & Shi, Y. (2013, April). Facilitating parallel web browsing through multiple-page view. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2167–2170).
Yu, C. (2019). Negotiating identity roles during the process of online collaborative translation: An ethnographic approach. Translation Studies, 12(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2019.1692062.
Zwischenberger, C. (2022). Online collaborative translation: Its ethical, social, and conceptual conditions and consequences. Perspectives, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1872662.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interest.
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Tekwa, K. Process-oriented collaborative translation within the training environment: comparing team and individual trainee performances using a video-ethnography approach. Educ Inf Technol 29, 6443–6469 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12046-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12046-3