NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ TIÊU CHÍ ĐÁNH GIÁ CHẤT LƯỢNG BÀI THI PHIÊN DỊCH ỨNG ĐOẠN ANH - VIỆT
Nội dung chính của bài viết
Tóm tắt
Sử dụng kết quả nghiên cứu của Trần và Đỗ (2022), nghiên cứu này tìm hiểu về độ tin cậy và phản hồi của người dùng với rubrics xây dựng bởi hai tác giả để đánh giá bài thi phiên dịch ứng đoạn Anh-Việt của sinh viên tại Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ - Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội. Năm đánh giá viên gồm 2 đánh giá viên nhiều kinh nghiệm và 3 đánh giá viên ít kinh nghiệm đã chấm mười bài thi dịch nói khác nhau một các độc lập và đưa phản hồi về rubric này. Kết quả cho thấy rubrics mới được xây dựng khá thân thiện với người dùng và có tính ứng dụng trong đánh giá dịch nói. Nhìn chung, tính thống nhất trong đánh giá giữa các đánh giá viên, thể hiện qua chỉ số Cronbach’s alpha và hệ số tương quan nội bộ, cho kết quả ở mức có thể chấp nhận được. Bên cạnh đó, giá trị thu được giữa các đánh giá viên ít kinh nghiệm cao hơn đánh giá viên nhiều kinh nghiệm. Nhận thức của người đánh giá về từng tiêu chí và quy trình đánh giá có thể giải thích cho sự khác biệt trong quyết định điểm số của họ. Các phát hiện cũng đề xuất cải thiện về từ ngữ sử dụng khi mô tả từng tiêu chí, trọng số và tập huấn đánh giá viên.
Chi tiết bài viết
Từ khóa
bài thi phiên dịch ứng đoạn, tiêu chí đánh giá, rubrics
Tài liệu tham khảo
Angelelli, C. V. (2009). Using a rubric to assess translation ability: Defining the construct. In C. V. Angelelli & H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call for dialogue between research and practice (pp. 13-47). John Benjamins.
Association internationale des interprètes de conférence. (1982). Practical guide for professional interpreters. International Association of Conference Interpreters.
Bontempo, K., & Hutchinson, B. (2011). Striving for an ‘A’ grade: A case study in performance management of interpreters. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 3(1), 56-71.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231-235.
Chiaro, D., & Nocella, G. (2004). Interpreters’ perception of linguistic and nonlinguistic factors affecting quality: A survey through the world wide web. Meta, 49(2), 278-293.
Gile, D. (1988). Le partage de l’attention et le ‘modèle d’effort’ en interprétation simultanée. The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 1, 4-22.
Gile, D. (1991). A communication-oriented analysis of quality in nonliterary translation and interpretation. In M. L. Larson (Ed.), Translation: Theory and practice. Tension and interdependence (pp. 188-200). John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2001). Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate. Interpretation Studies, (1), 8-20.
Gillies, A. (2019). Consecutive interpreting: A short course. Routledge.
Glen, S. (n.d.). Cronbach’s alpha: Simple definition, use and interpretation. Statisticshowto. https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability and statistics statistics-definitions/cronbachs-alpha-spss/
Glen, S. (n.d.). Intraclass correlation. Statisticshowto. https://www.statisticshowto.com/intraclass-correlation/
Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hale, S., Garcia, I., Hlavac, J., Kim, M., Lai, M., Turner, B., & Slatyer, H. (2012). Improvements to NAATI testing report. NAATI. http://www.naati.com.au/PDF/INT/INTFinalReport.pdf
Jin, Y. (2017). Consecutive interpreting. In C. Shei & Z. M. Gao, The Routledge handbook of Chinese translation (pp. 321-335). Routledge.
Kalina, S. (2005). Quality assurance for interpreting processes. Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 50, 768-784.
Kurz, I. (1989). Conference interpreting: User expectations. In D. Hamond (Ed.), Coming of age: Proceedings of The 30th Annual Conference of The American Translators Association (pp. 143-148). Learned Information Inc.
Lee, J. (2008). Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2(2), 165-184.
Lee, S. B. (2015). Developing an analytic scale for assessing undergraduate students’ consecutive interpreting performances. Interpreting, 17(2), 226-254.
Lee, S. B. (2018). Scale-referenced, summative peer assessment in undergraduate interpreter training: Self-reflection from an action researcher. Educational Action Research, 27(2), 152-172.
Liu, M. (2013). Design and analysis of Taiwan’s interpretation certification examination. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting (pp. 163-178). Peter Lang Edition.
Mahmoodzahed, K. (1992). Consecutive interpreting: Its principles and techniques. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training talent and experience (pp. 231-236). John Benjamins.
Mariana, V., Cox, T., & Melby, A. K. (2015). The multidimensional quality metrics (MQM) framework: A new framework for translation quality assessment. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 23, 137-161.
McNamara, C. (1999). General guidelines for conducting interviews. Managementhelp.org. https://managementhelp.org/businessresearch/interviews.htm
Mesa, A. M. (1997). L’interprète culturel: Un professionel apprécié. Étude sur les services d’interprétation: Le point de vue des clients, des intervenants et des interprètes. Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal-Centre.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: Some methodological issues. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 7, 43-55.
Nolan, J. (2005). Professional interpreting in the Real World series: Interpretation techniques and exercises. Linguistic services.
O’Brien, S. (2012). Towards a dynamic quality evaluation model for translation. Journal of Specialized Translation, 17, 55-77.
Ouvrard, G. (2013). L’interprétation consécutive officielle. Traduire, 229, 81-95.
Pienaar, M., & Cornelius, E. (2015). Contemporary perceptions of interpreting in South Africa. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 24(2), 186-206.
Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta, 46(2), 410-425. https://doi.org/10.7202/003847ar
Riccardi, A. (2002). Evaluation in interpretation: Macrocriteria and microcriteria. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges (pp. 115-126). John Benjamins.
Roberts, R. P. (2000). Interpreter assessment tools for different settings. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham, & A. Dufour (Eds.), The critical link 2: Interpreters in the community (pp. 103-120). John Benjamins.
Russell, D., & Takeda, K. (2015). Consecutive interpreting. In R. Jourdenais & H. Mikkelson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting (pp. 88-102). Routledge.
Setton, R., & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting: A complete course. Benjamins.
Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of translation studies. St. Jerome.
Tran, P. L., & Do, M. H. (2022, April 24). Interpreting quality assessment criteria and implications for English-Vietnamese consecutive interpreting quality assessment in educational context [Conference presentation abstract]. ULIS National Conference 2022, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Wang, J.-H., Napier, J., Goswell, D., & Carmichael, A. (2015). The design and application of rubrics to assess signed language interpreting performance. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 9(1), 83-103.
Wu, J., Liu, M., & Liao, C. (20l3). Analytic scoring in interpretation test: Construct validity and the halo effect. In H.-H. Liao, T.-E. Kao & Y. Lin (Eds.), The making of a translator. Multiple perspectives (pp. 277-292). Bookman.
Zwischenberger, C. (2010). Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: An international vs. a national view. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 15, 127-142.
Association internationale des interprètes de conférence. (1982). Practical guide for professional interpreters. International Association of Conference Interpreters.
Bontempo, K., & Hutchinson, B. (2011). Striving for an ‘A’ grade: A case study in performance management of interpreters. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 3(1), 56-71.
Bühler, H. (1986). Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua, 5(4), 231-235.
Chiaro, D., & Nocella, G. (2004). Interpreters’ perception of linguistic and nonlinguistic factors affecting quality: A survey through the world wide web. Meta, 49(2), 278-293.
Gile, D. (1988). Le partage de l’attention et le ‘modèle d’effort’ en interprétation simultanée. The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 1, 4-22.
Gile, D. (1991). A communication-oriented analysis of quality in nonliterary translation and interpretation. In M. L. Larson (Ed.), Translation: Theory and practice. Tension and interdependence (pp. 188-200). John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2001). Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate. Interpretation Studies, (1), 8-20.
Gillies, A. (2019). Consecutive interpreting: A short course. Routledge.
Glen, S. (n.d.). Cronbach’s alpha: Simple definition, use and interpretation. Statisticshowto. https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability and statistics statistics-definitions/cronbachs-alpha-spss/
Glen, S. (n.d.). Intraclass correlation. Statisticshowto. https://www.statisticshowto.com/intraclass-correlation/
Hale, S. (2007). Community interpreting. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hale, S., Garcia, I., Hlavac, J., Kim, M., Lai, M., Turner, B., & Slatyer, H. (2012). Improvements to NAATI testing report. NAATI. http://www.naati.com.au/PDF/INT/INTFinalReport.pdf
Jin, Y. (2017). Consecutive interpreting. In C. Shei & Z. M. Gao, The Routledge handbook of Chinese translation (pp. 321-335). Routledge.
Kalina, S. (2005). Quality assurance for interpreting processes. Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 50, 768-784.
Kurz, I. (1989). Conference interpreting: User expectations. In D. Hamond (Ed.), Coming of age: Proceedings of The 30th Annual Conference of The American Translators Association (pp. 143-148). Learned Information Inc.
Lee, J. (2008). Rating scales for interpreting performance assessment. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 2(2), 165-184.
Lee, S. B. (2015). Developing an analytic scale for assessing undergraduate students’ consecutive interpreting performances. Interpreting, 17(2), 226-254.
Lee, S. B. (2018). Scale-referenced, summative peer assessment in undergraduate interpreter training: Self-reflection from an action researcher. Educational Action Research, 27(2), 152-172.
Liu, M. (2013). Design and analysis of Taiwan’s interpretation certification examination. In D. Tsagari & R. van Deemter (Eds.), Assessment issues in language translation and interpreting (pp. 163-178). Peter Lang Edition.
Mahmoodzahed, K. (1992). Consecutive interpreting: Its principles and techniques. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting: Training talent and experience (pp. 231-236). John Benjamins.
Mariana, V., Cox, T., & Melby, A. K. (2015). The multidimensional quality metrics (MQM) framework: A new framework for translation quality assessment. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 23, 137-161.
McNamara, C. (1999). General guidelines for conducting interviews. Managementhelp.org. https://managementhelp.org/businessresearch/interviews.htm
Mesa, A. M. (1997). L’interprète culturel: Un professionel apprécié. Étude sur les services d’interprétation: Le point de vue des clients, des intervenants et des interprètes. Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal-Centre.
Moser-Mercer, B. (1996). Quality in interpreting: Some methodological issues. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 7, 43-55.
Nolan, J. (2005). Professional interpreting in the Real World series: Interpretation techniques and exercises. Linguistic services.
O’Brien, S. (2012). Towards a dynamic quality evaluation model for translation. Journal of Specialized Translation, 17, 55-77.
Ouvrard, G. (2013). L’interprétation consécutive officielle. Traduire, 229, 81-95.
Pienaar, M., & Cornelius, E. (2015). Contemporary perceptions of interpreting in South Africa. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 24(2), 186-206.
Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta, 46(2), 410-425. https://doi.org/10.7202/003847ar
Riccardi, A. (2002). Evaluation in interpretation: Macrocriteria and microcriteria. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges (pp. 115-126). John Benjamins.
Roberts, R. P. (2000). Interpreter assessment tools for different settings. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham, & A. Dufour (Eds.), The critical link 2: Interpreters in the community (pp. 103-120). John Benjamins.
Russell, D., & Takeda, K. (2015). Consecutive interpreting. In R. Jourdenais & H. Mikkelson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting (pp. 88-102). Routledge.
Setton, R., & Dawrant, A. (2016). Conference interpreting: A complete course. Benjamins.
Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of translation studies. St. Jerome.
Tran, P. L., & Do, M. H. (2022, April 24). Interpreting quality assessment criteria and implications for English-Vietnamese consecutive interpreting quality assessment in educational context [Conference presentation abstract]. ULIS National Conference 2022, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Wang, J.-H., Napier, J., Goswell, D., & Carmichael, A. (2015). The design and application of rubrics to assess signed language interpreting performance. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 9(1), 83-103.
Wu, J., Liu, M., & Liao, C. (20l3). Analytic scoring in interpretation test: Construct validity and the halo effect. In H.-H. Liao, T.-E. Kao & Y. Lin (Eds.), The making of a translator. Multiple perspectives (pp. 277-292). Bookman.
Zwischenberger, C. (2010). Quality criteria in simultaneous interpreting: An international vs. a national view. The Interpreters' Newsletter, 15, 127-142.