Effects and Students’ Perspectives of Blended Learning on English/Arabic Translation
Keywords:
Blended Learning, Translation Skills, English/Arabic, Students’ Perspectives, Mixed MethodsAbstract
Translation constitutes a problem for many students worldwide and Arab students particularly due to the ineffective approaches to the teaching of translation. The current study aimed at measuring the effect of a proposed blended learning programme on developing Egyptian secondary students’ translation skills from English into Arabic; and exploring students’ perspectives on this proposed programme. Social constructivism informs this study as its theoretical framework. This study adopted a mixed-methods research design with quasi-experimental research design and semi-structured interviews. Participants were divided into experimental and control groups, 20 students each. Results showed that the blended learning programme proved statistically effective in developing the translation skills of the experimental group students. Moreover, students' perspectives on the benefits and challenges of using the blended learning programme were reported. Theoretical and pedagogical implications for the teaching of translation using blended learning are provided.
References
Al Zumor, A., Al Refaai, I., Bader Eddin, E., & Aziz Al-Rahman, F. (2013). EFL students’ perceptions of a blended learning environment: Advantages, limitations and suggestions for improvement. English Language Teaching, (6)10, 95-111.
Al-Jarf, R. (2005). The effects of online grammar instruction on low proficiency EFL college students’ achievement. Asian EFL Journal, 7(4), 166-190.
Awwad, M. (1990). Equivalence and translatability of English and Arabic idioms. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 26(57), 57-67.
Baker, M. (2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation. Routledge: London & New York.
Banados, E. (2006). A blended learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL successfully through an online interactive multimedia environment. CALICO Journal, 533-550.
Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. John Wiley & Sons.
Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1-18.
Bonk, C., Olson, T., Wisher, R., & Orvis, K. (2002). Learning from focus groups: An examination of blended learning. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 17(3), 97-118.
Brammer, C., & Rees, M. (2007). Peer review from the students' perspective: Invaluable or invalid? Composition Studies, 35(2), 71-85.
British Educational Research Association [BERA], (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research, 4th edition, London. https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethicalguidelines-for-educational-research-2018
Carreres, A. (2006). Strange bedfellows: Translation and language teaching. The teaching of translation into L2 in modern languages degrees: Uses and limitations. Paper presented at the 6th Symposium on Translation, Terminology and Interpretation in Cuba and Canada. Canadian Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters Council. Available online at www.cttic.org/publications_06Symposium.asp
Chen, C., & Jones, K. (2007). Blended learning vs traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA accounting course. The Journal of Educators Online, 4(1).
Cobb, P. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice. New York: Teacher's College Press.
Derntl, M., & Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 111-130.
Dichy, J., & Farghaly, A. (2003, September). Roots & patterns vs stems plus grammar-lexis specifications: On what basis should a multilingual lexical database centred on Arabic be built? In The MT-Summit IX workshop on Machine Translation for Semitic Languages, New Orleans.
Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers & Education, 54, pp. 350-359.
Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction, 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Dudeney, G. and Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Farghal, M. (1995). Lexical and discoursal problems in English-Arabic translation. Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 40(1), 54-61.
Farghal, M., & Shunnaq, A. (1992). Major problems in students' translations of English legal texts into Arabic. Babel, 38(4), 203-210.
Faris, A., & Sahu, R. (2013). The translation of English collocations into Arabic: Problems and solutions. Adab Al-Basrah, (64), 51-66.
Fosnot, C. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice. New York: Teacher's College Press.
Garrison, D., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2003, September). Critical factors in student satisfaction and success: Facilitating student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry. Paper presented to the Sloan Consortium Asynchronous Learning Network Invitational Workshop, Boston, MA.
Garrison, D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
Given, L. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage Publications: United Kingdom.
Hockly, N. (2011). Five things you always wanted to know about blended learning (but were afraid to ask). English Teaching Professional, 75, 58.
Jiang, X. (2006). Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34, 36-54
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories and models (pp. 215−239), 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7−25.
Khalil, A. (1993). Arabic translation of English passive sentences: Problems and acceptability judgements. Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics, 27, 169-181.
Kiraly, C. (1995). Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press.
Lee, K. & Chong, M. (2007). An Observational study on blended learning for Japanese language studies in a local university in Hong Kong. Workshop on blended learning, 88-100.
Li, D. (2006). Making translation testing more teaching-oriented: A case study of translation testing in China. Meta, 51(1), 72-88. Retrieved from: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/012994ar
Lim, D., & Morris, M. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 282–293.
López-Pérez, M., Pérez-López, M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education, 56, 818–826.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature, Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library/content.asp?contentid=16882.
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students' perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38(2), 185-199.
Naimushin, B. (2002). Translation in foreign language teaching: The fifth skill. Modern English Teacher. 11. 46-49.
Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning—parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 163-178.
Osguthorpe, R. and Graham, C. (2003). Blended learning systems: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Learning, 4(3), 227–234.
Owston, R., York, D., & Murtha, S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 38 – 46.
Radnor, H. (2001). Researching your professional practice: Doing interpretive research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Reichardt, C. (2009). Quasi-experimental design. The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology, 46, 71.
Rovai, A. (2002). Sense of community perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319 – 332.
Sagarra, N. & Zapata, G. (2008). Blending classroom instruction with online homework: A study of student perceptions of computer-assisted L2 learning. ReCALL, 20(2), 208-224.
Sharma, P. and Barrett, B. (2007). Blended Learning. Oxford: Macmillan.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage Publications.
Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programmes. Educational Technology-Saddle Brook Then Englewood Cliffs NJ-, 43(6), 51-54.
Singh, H., & Reed, C. (2001). A white paper: Achieving success with blended learning. Available online at www.p2partners.co.uk
Stevenson, A. (2003). The New Oxford Dictionary of English. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.
Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL, 19/1: 57–78.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2010). Talking it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/learning (pp. 112–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 5–29.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306 – 331.
Thawabteh, M. (2011). Linguistic, cultural and technical problems in English-Arabic subtitling. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 5(1).
Todorova, D. (2012). Promoting intercultural competence by means of blended learning: Application of forum exercises in beginners german language class in Jordan. In M. Strano, H. Hrachovec, F. Sudweeks and C. Ess (Eds.), Proceedings of Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication, (pp.163-173), Murdoch University, Australia.
Ury, G. (2004). A comparison of undergraduate student performance in online and traditional courses. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19(4), 99-107.
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1-12.
Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339−362.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williamson, D., Bennett, R., Lazer, S., Bernstein, J., Foltz, P, Landauer, T., & Sweeney, K. (2010). Automated scoring for the assessment of common core standards. Retrieved from http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/8/ccss-2010-5-automated-scoring-assessment-commoncore-standards.pdf
Woltering, V., Herrler, A., Spitzer, K., Spreckelsen, C. (2009). Blended learning positively affects students’ satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: results of a mixed-method evaluation. Advances in Health Science Education, 14, pp. 725-738.
Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15-25.
Zhang, M. (2013). Contrasting automated and human scoring of essays. R & D Connections, 21(2).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
By submitting to AJAL, authors agree to the following terms:
- Authors grant the journal right of first publication, with the work for an indefinite period of time after publication.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
