A Thesis Presented to
The Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation
National Taiwan Normal University
!!
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Posen Liao
!!!
A Preliminary Study on the Use of Translation in English Teaching in
Taiwan’s Junior High Schools
!!
By Keng-Li Shen
!!!
!
January 2014
!
!
!
!
ESL
!!
!
Abstract
!The role of translation in English education is often neglected by ESL/EFL
researchers despite its prevalence in the classroom. This study explores how junior
high school teachers and students in Taiwan view translation and how they employ it
in the classroom by observing teachers in the classroom, interviewing them after
class, and conducting a questionnaire with students. This study finds that despite
depending heavily on translation as a teaching method, the teachers still favor an
“English-only” method. In addition, most students tend to rely on translation while
learning English, especially those with higher English proficiency or stronger
motivation; however, those students hold a more negative attitude toward it.
The study argues that the reason for these contradicting attitudes is that although
English education in Taiwan still prefers the communicative approach to ESL, which
encourages monolingualism, it is not practical to implement this approach in a real
classroom setting in Taiwan.
!!Key Words: translation in language learning, translation in language teaching
!!!!!!!!“ I believe it can be helpful to view the translator as a life-long language
learner and language learner as a natural translator.”
Angeles Carreres (University of Cambridge, UK)
!!
1 1 2 3
! 5
5 9 13 2013 18 24
! 25
25 25 27 29
! 34
34 38
! 46
46 51 60 65
! 68
68 71 72 !
76 77
80 81
94
!
2-1 19 2-1 20 2-2 21 !
3-1 30 !
5-1 46 5-2 47 5-3 48 5-4 48 5-5 49 5-6 49 5-7 50 5-8 51 !
5-9 52 5-10 53 5-11 54 5-12 55 5-13 56 5-14 57 5-15 58 5-16 59 !
5-17 60 5-18 61 5-19 62 5-20 63 5-21 64
!
!
Carreres, 2006: 3
�1
Carreres
an either/or choice Carreres,
2006: 13
!!
!Cook 2010 Translation in Language Teaching
Liao, 2006
!
�2
!
Cook, 2010; Pym, Malmkjaer & Planta 2013
!!
!
2013
�3
!
�4
!
!
Brown, 2006: 17-
19
Grammaer Translation Method
Brown, 2006
the Reform Movement
Cook, 2010
Cook 2010
Berlitz
School
�5
Berlitz Method Cook
Berlitz Method
Direct Method
2007
Audio-lingual Method
Brown, 2006
2007
negative transfer
Brown, 2006: 248
Brown, 2006: 252
cross-linguistic influence
Brown, 2006: 254
�6
Community Language Learning
desuggestopedia the Silent Way
Total Physical Response the
Communicative Approach 2007
2007
2007
1970
Nunan, 2001; Brown, 2006
�7
!
Brown
Brown, 2006
Brown
Principles of Language Learning and Teaching Celce-Murcia
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language
Brown
Teaching English
When the Teacher is a Non-native Speaker
Medgyes, 2001: 439
Brown
�8
Brown, 2006: 18-19
2007
!!
!
Zojer
Zojer, 2009: 33-34
!
�9
exigence absurd
!Zojer
Zojer, 2009: 34-36
!
�10
!Zojer wishful
thinking Zojer, 2009: 36
foreknowledge
�11
Cook
Cook, 2010: 3 2007
Cook
four pillars Cook, 2010: 8-9
monolingualism
naturalism
native-speakerism
absolutism
!Cook
Cook
1990
Cook, 2010
�12
Brown, 2006: 255-256 Witte 2009
Witte, 2009: 94
linguistic imperialism
Liao, 2006
!
!
Kobayashi Rinnert 1992
syntacti complexity
�13
avoidance startegies
Maxfield 2002
Kobayashi Rinnert
Kobayashi Rinnert Kobayashi Rinnert
Maxfield
Kern 1994 think-aloud
Kern
Omura 1996
�14
Omura
Hudson Teaching Second
Language Reading
Hudson, 2007
Liao, 2006
Bagheri Fazel 2011
Karimian Talebinejad 2013
2006
Kavaliauskienė Kaminskienė 2007
8 :20 :17
Ashouri Fotovatnia 2010
�15
tolerance of ambiguity risk-taking
risk-aversers
risk-takers
Takimoto Hashimoto 2010
Wu 2010
Wu Lin 1990
Wu
Wu,
2010: 72
�16
Wu, 2010: 73
Mackinney Rios-Aguilar 2012
EFL
English-only
Rios-Aguilar
83
important or extremely important
get them back on track
Mackinney & Rios-Aguilar, 2012: 360
Lee 2013
Lee
Lee
!
!!
�17
2013
!Directorate-General for Translation, European
Commission 2013 7
Translation and Language Learning: The role of translation in the teaching of
languages in the European Union Anthony Pym Kirsten
Malmkjaer
!
!1990
�18
a
shift
128
!!
2-1
!
2-1 figure 31
!2-1
7%
�19
Translation and language learning 111
The levels of agreement or disagreement with each teaching method can be seen in Figure 30.
Figure 30. ‘How are these language-teaching methods viewed in your institution at the level at which you teach?’ - replies from 124 teachers in China. Standard deviations (1 = high difference between replies)
This suggests that opinions are most divided with regard to the task-based learning and total physical response methods. On the other hand, there is substantial agreement on the use of grammar translation. Among the Chinese respondents, there were similar proportions of responses at each extreme with regard to how often the respondents used translation exercises, with 7 per cent saying that they ‘never’ use them, and 8 per cent saying that they ‘always’ use them. The interesting finding here was that an overwhelming 71 per cent of Chinese respondents used translation exercises in the middle of the frequency scale. This trend is reflected across all three sectors (see Figure 31). Of those who responded that they used translation exercises ‘never’ or ‘rarely’, 29 per cent said that they had never considered it seriously and 24 per cent said that they did not feel qualified to use translation in their classes. Figure 31. ‘Do you use translation exercises in your language-teaching classes?’ - replies as percentages of 112 language teachers in China, according to the level at which they teach
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
Primary
Secondary
Higher0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
1 (Never) 23
45 (Always)
71%
!!
2-1
!2-1
1 5 table 30
!
!!
!
3.182
3.120
2.835
2.821
2.802
2.571
2.432
1.916
�20
2-2
!2-2
5 table31
!
!!
!
1.046 3.717 3.737
1.083 3.938 3.666
0.901 2.575 2.451
1.161 2.469 2.388
0.939 2.292 2.219
�21
Cook, 2010; Pym, Malmkjaer & Planta
2013: 112
!
Pym, Malmkjaer & Planta 2013: 135-136
!
language
lateralisation
scaffolding
�22
!
!
�23
!
Cook
Cook, 2010
ESL
2007: 236
2006
!!
�24
!
!
!
mental
translation
!!
!
�25
Seidman
Seidman, 2006: 7
(Seidman, 2006: 10)
Brown
Brown, 2001: 13
Brown, 2001: 15
!
!
!�26
!
!!
!
�27
Example/Clarification probing
!!
!
!
�28
!
!
200
!
“EFL Learners’ Beliefs about and Strategy Use of
Translation in English Learning” Inventory for Translation as a
Learning Strategy
1-3
4-7
8-10
11,16, 17
12-15
�29
18-21
22-23
24-27
!
Likert scale 1
3 5
!
Cronbach’s Alpha .95
3-1
!3-1
3-1
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8
22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
3.72 3.59 3.54 3.4 3.45 3.27 3.86 3.59
�30
!!
4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4
1.08 1.10 1.26 1.10 1.01 1.03 0.99 1.05
82.0 79.0 78.0 75.0 76.0 72.0 85.0 79.0
3-1
Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17
22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
3.31 2.86 3.4 3.36 3.77 3.86 3.86 3.81 3.27
3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3.5
3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4a
1.09 1.17 0.96 1.26 0.87 0.77 0.94 0.91 1.16
73.0 63.0 75.0 74.0 83.0 85.0 85.0 84.0 72.0
3-1
Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26
22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
3.4 3.13 3.31 3.68 3.86 3.4 3 3.04 3.72
3 3 3.5 4 4 3 3 3 4
3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4a
�31
!!
!
SPSS Statistical Product
and Service Solutions
27 26
0.80 1.04 1.09 1.25 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.95 0.88
75.0 69.0 73.0 81.0 85.0 75.0 66.0 67.0 82.0
�32
26
!!
�33
!
!
!
!
be based on
turn off
�34
!
shine
mind
sign sign
sign
says
smart wise
need to have to
need to each every
each every
!
little few
�35
!
“Actions speak louder than words”
!
Youtube Discovery
National Geography
!!
!
base
�36
!
back translation
back translation
!!
�37
scaffolding Pym,
Malmkjaer & Del Mar Gutiérrez-Colón Plana, 2013: 14
Brown Language
Assessment: Princeples and Classroom Practices
certainly passé
Brown, 2004: 159
input
!
!
�38
Wikipedia Youtube
“Busy Teacher”
Corpus of
Contemporary American English
!
�39
!
�40
�41
so that
summary
�42
!
!
�43
Cook
XXX
trade off
!
�44
2005
!!
�45
!
!200 101 98
3 99 93
6
191 95.5% SPSS
Cronbach’s Alpha .91
!
!191 96 95
98 60 33
5-1
5-1
33 17.3 17.3 17.3
60 31.4 31.4 48.7
98 51.3 51.3 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�46
!1
10 1 2
5.96 7 1.51
7 9 5-
2
!5-2
3 10 5.2 5.3 5.3
4 22 11.5 11.6 16.9
5 43 22.5 22.8 39.7
6 41 21.5 21.7 61.4
7 47 24.6 24.9 86.2
8 18 9.4 9.5 95.8
9 6 3.1 3.2 98.9
10 2 1.0 1.1 100.0
189 99.0 100.0
�47
!4 3
2 1 5-3
!5-3
!4 3
2 1 5-4
!5-4
2 1.0
191 100.0
39 20.4 20.4 20.4
69 36.1 36.1 56.5
72 37.7 37.7 94.2
11 5.8 5.8 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
45 23.6 23.6 23.6
55 28.8 28.8 52.4
72 37.7 37.7 90.1
19 9.9 9.9 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�48
!!
5 90 4 80-89
0-59 1 5-5
191 121 80
63.4% 79 22.5% 5-5
!5-5
!!
5-6
!5-6
27 14.1 14.1 14.1
60-69 16 8.4 8.4 22.5
70-79 27 14.1 14.1 36.6
80-89 51 26.7 26.7 63.4
90 70 36.6 36.6 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
181 94.8 94.8 94.8
6 3.1 3.1 97.9
3 1.6 1.6 99.5
�49
!!
1
2 3 4
5 0
5-7
!5-7
!!
5-8
0.1 0.3
5-3 5-7
!
1 .5 .5 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
155 81.2 81.2 81.2
8 4.2 4.2 85.3
20 10.5 10.5 95.8
3 1.6 1.6 97.4
4 2.1 2.1 99.5
1 .5 .5 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�50
!5-8
!!!
!5-9 5-16
Likert scale 1
3 5 24
25
!
!!
1-10 189 3 10 5.96 1.51
1-4 191 1 4 2.29 0.86
1-4 191 1 4 2.34 0.95
1-5 191 1 5 3.63 1.41
0.1 =
191 0.0 0.3 0.008 0.04
0-6 191 0 6 0.41 0.98
�51
5-9
!5-9
61.2%
14.2% 68.6%
11%
2 3
mental translating
Omura, 1996; Pym,
Malmkjaer & Planta, 2013
1. 3.72 1.15
2. 3.58 1.11
3. 3.81 1.03
3.70 0.89
�52
!5-10
7 4.15 78.0%
8.9%
!
4. 3.8 1.10
5. 3.68 1.18
6. 3.7 1.13
7. 4.15 1.07
3.83 0.92
�53
!5-11
!
authentic
48.2%
18.3%
25
18..9%
!!
!!
!
8. 3.54 1.07
9. 3.25 1.13
10. 3.46 1.16
3.42 0.85
�54
!5-12
!17
37.2% 28.7%
58.7%
10.5%
16
17 11 16
!!
!
11. 3.61 1.10
16. 3.72 1.08
17. 3.1 1.14
3.47 0.84
�55
5-13
!12
4.03 72.2%
7.3%
12 46.1%
!!
12. 3.32 1.16
13. album 3.97 1.10
14. take it for granted 4.03 1.08
15. 3.97 1.05
3.82 0.82
�56
!5-14
18 19
28.7% 29.3%
30.4%
33.5%
19
!
18. 2.99 1.10
19. 2.92 1.13
20. 3.65 1.11
21. 3.48 1.18
3.26 0.77
�57
!!
5-15
!!
61.7%
9.5% 70.6%
7.9%
!
24 25
!
22. 3.83 1.08
23. 3.96 1.04
3.89 0.91
�58
5-16
24 25
26
9.9%
26 16.2% 24
18.9% 25
10%
27
!!
24. 3.48 1.085
25. 3.47 1.209
26. 3.85 1.1
3.60 0.87
�59
!
!
Liao, 2006 5-17
5-17
Pearson 1 0.38** 0.30** 0.29** 0.41** 0.29** 0.17* 0.06 -0.21** 0.36**
(
)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.40 0.00 0.00
191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191
�60
**. 0.01 ( ) *. 0.05 ( )
!!
5-18
!5-18
*. 0.05 ( )
!!
Pearson 1 -0.14 -0.02 -0.05 -0.15* -0.11 -0.06 -0.05 0.10 -0.11
(
)
0.06 0.81 0.47 0.04 0.12 0.38 0.51 0.16 0.15
189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189
�61
5-19
!5-19
**. 0.01 ( )
!!
5-20
Pearson 1 0.37** 0.27** 0.24** 0.38** 0.23** 0.11 0.07 -0.23** 0.32**
(
)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.32 0.00 0.00
191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191
�62
!5-20
**. 0.01 ( ) *. 0.05 ( )
!!!
63.4% 81.2%
5-21
!
Pearson 1 0.35** 0.28** 0.18* 0.32** 0.21** 0.12 0.08 -0.22** 0.29**
(
)
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.29 0.00 0.00
191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191
�63
5-21
**. 0.01 ( )
!
Pearson 1 0.09 -0.06 0.02 0.06 0.05 -0.06 -0.13 -0.34** -0.00
(
)
0.23 0.45 0.83 0.44 0.50 0.40 0.07 0.00 0.97
191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191
�64
26
27 26
5 4
1 2 3
!!
66 34.6% 59
30.9%
!
�65
!
9 4.7% 10 5.2%
!�66
47 24.6%
27
4 5
1 2
conflicting
Liao, 2006
!
�67
!
scaffolding Pym, Malmkjaer & Planta 2013: 135
!
!
1 23 9 12 17 18 19
50% 70%
2006
�68
!
!
65.5%
9.9% 16.2%
18.8% 9.9%
�69
Cook 2010
Cook
Cook, 2010
2005: 9
post-
communicative
2005
2004
Zojer,
2009 2004 ESL
�70
Cook
ESL
ESL
EFL
!!!
!
Cook 2010
sandwiching
2008: 187
authentic
�71
Griggs(1999)
ESL Griggs
Griggs
self-reflection
ESL
ESL
!!!
!
�72
land
“A bee landed on a flower.”
serious “be serious about”
“a serious person/mistake”
!
�73
!
2006
17 18
!
�74
ESL EFL
ESL
Carreres, 2006
!
�75
! !
!
!
!
e-mail e-mail ! !
!!
!!
!!
�76
!
1
5
!1.! !_________ !2.! _________ !3.! !_________ !4.! _________ !5.! !6.! !7.! 90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 !
8.! !_________! !_________ __________
!9.! _________
_________ _________ ____________________
�77
! 1: !! 2: ! 3: !! 4: ! 5:
1.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
2.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
3.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
4.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
5.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
6.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
7.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
8.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
9.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
10.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
11.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
12.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
13.!album
1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
�78
27.! 26 !!!!!
14.!take!it!for!
granted
1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
15.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
16.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
17.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
18.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
19.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
20.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
21.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
22.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
23.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
24.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
25.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
26.! 1!!!!!2!!!!!3!!!!!4!!!!!5
�79
http://www.dgpa.gov.tw/
ct.asp?xItem=2335&CtNode=233&mp=1
!�80
1.
!
!!!
2. !
!!
Q1
1 11 5.8 5.8 5.8
2 16 8.4 8.4 14.1
3 47 24.6 24.6 38.7
4 60 31.4 31.4 70.2
5 57 29.8 29.8 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q2
1 10 5.2 5.2 5.2
2 20 10.5 10.5 15.7
3 54 28.3 28.3 44.0
4 64 33.5 33.5 77.5
5 43 22.5 22.5 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�81
3. !
!!
! 4. !
!!!
Q3
1 7 3.7 3.7 3.7
2 14 7.3 7.3 11
3 39 20.4 20.4 31.4
4 79 41.4 41.4 72.8
5 52 27.2 27.2 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q4
1 9 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 14 7.3 7.3 12.0
3 42 22.0 22.0 34.0
4 67 35.1 35.1 69.1
5 59 30.9 30.9 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�82
5.
!!!
6.
!
Q5
1 14 7.3 7.3 7.3
2 15 7.9 7.9 15.2
3 44 23.0 23.0 38.2
4 64 33.5 33.5 71.7
5 54 28.3 28.3 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q6
1 9 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 19 9.9 9.9 14.7
3 47 24.6 24.6 39.3
4 62 32.5 32.5 71.7
5 54 28.3 28.3 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�83
7.
!
!!!8.
!!!
Q7
1 7 3.7 3.7 3.7
2 10 5.2 5.2 8.9
3 25 13.1 13.1 22.0
4 54 28.3 28.3 50.3
5 95 49.7 49.7 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q8
1 10 5.2 5.2 5.2
2 16 8.4 8.4 13.6
3 64 33.5 33.5 47.1
4 63 33.0 33.0 80.1
5 38 19.9 19.9 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�84
9.
!
!!!!
10.
!!!
Q9
1 15 7.9 7.9 7.9
2 28 14.7 14.7 22.5
3 73 38.2 38.2 60.7
4 44 23.0 23.0 83.8
5 31 16.2 16.2 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q10
1 13 6.8 6.8 6.8
2 22 11.5 11.5 18.3
3 64 33.5 33.5 51.8
4 49 25.7 25.7 77.5
5 43 22.5 22.5 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�85
11.
!!!
!12.
!!!!!
Q11
1 9 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 21 11.0 11.0 15.7
3 51 26.7 26.7 42.4
4 65 34.0 34.0 76.4
5 45 23.6 23.6 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q12
1 14 7.3 7.3 7.3
2 32 16.8 16.8 24.1
3 57 29.8 29.8 53.9
4 55 28.8 28.8 82.7
5 33 17.3 17.3 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�86
13. album
!!!
14. take it for granted !
!!
Q13
1 7 3.7 3.7 3.7
2 15 7.9 7.9 11.5
3 31 16.2 16.2 27.7
4 61 31.9 31.9 59.7
5 77 40.3 40.3 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q14
1 9 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 5 2.6 2.6 7.3
3 39 20.4 20.4 27.7
4 57 29.8 29.8 57.6
5 81 42.4 42.4 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�87
15.
!!!!
16.
!!
Q15
1 8 4.2 4.2 4.2
2 7 3.7 3.7 7.9
3 39 20.4 20.4 28.3
4 66 34.6 34.6 62.8
5 71 37.2 37.2 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q16
1 9 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 11 5.8 5.8 10.5
3 59 30.9 30.9 41.4
4 58 30.4 30.4 71.7
5 54 28.3 28.3 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�88
17.
!!!!
18. !
!!
Q17
1 19 9.9 9.9 9.9
2 36 18.8 18.8 28.8
3 65 34.0 34.0 62.8
4 49 25.7 25.7 88.5
5 22 11.5 11.5 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q18
1 20 10.5 10.5 10.5
2 36 18.8 18.8 29.3
3 80 41.9 41.9 71.2
4 36 18.8 18.8 90.1
5 19 9.9 9.9 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�89
19.
!!!
20. !
!!
Q19
1 25 13.1 13.1 13.1
2 39 20.4 20.4 33.5
3 69 36.1 36.1 69.6
4 42 22.0 22.0 91.6
5 16 8.4 8.4 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q20
1 11 5.8 5.8 5.8
2 12 6.3 6.3 12.0
3 60 31.4 31.4 43.5
4 57 29.8 29.8 73.3
5 51 26.7 26.7 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�90
21. !
!!!
!22.
!!
Q21
1 16 8.4 8.4 8.4
2 19 9.9 9.9 18.3
3 56 29.3 29.3 47.6
4 58 30.4 30.4 78.0
5 42 22.0 22.0 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q22
1 7 3.7 3.7 3.7
2 11 5.8 5.8 9.4
3 55 28.8 28.8 38.2
4 53 27.7 27.7 66.0
5 65 34.0 34.0 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�91
23. !
!!!
24.
!
!!
Q23
1 7 3.7 3.7 3.7
2 8 4.2 4.2 7.9
3 41 21.5 21.5 29.3
4 65 34.0 34.0 63.4
5 70 36.6 36.6 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q24
1 8 4.2 4.2 4.2
2 23 12.0 12.0 16.2
3 71 37.2 37.2 53.4
4 48 25.1 25.1 78.5
5 41 21.5 21.5 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�92
25.
!!!26. !
!!!!!!
Q25
1 16 8.4 8.4 8.4
2 20 10.5 10.5 18.8
3 60 31.4 31.4 50.3
4 48 25.1 25.1 75.4
5 47 24.6 24.6 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
Q26
1 9 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 10 5.2 5.2 9.9
3 47 24.6 24.6 34.6
4 59 30.9 30.9 65.4
5 66 34.6 34.6 100.0
191 100.0 100.0
�93
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
�94
!!
!
!Ashouri, A.F. & Fotovatnia Z. (2010). The Effect of Induvidual Difference on Learners’ Translation Belief in EFL Learning. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 228-236. !Bagheri, M.S. & Fazel, I. (2011). EFL Learners Beliefs about Translation and its Use as a Strategy in Writing. The Reading Matrix, 11(3), 292-301. !Brown, H.D. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 5th edition, NY: Pearson Education. !Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: principles and classroom practices. NY: Longman. !Brown, J. D. (2001). Using Survey in Language Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. !Carreres, A. (2006). Strange Bedfellows: Translation and Language Teaching The teaching of translation into L2 in modern languages degrees; uses and limitations. In Sixth Symposium on Translation, Terminology and Interpretation in Cuba and Canada. December, La Habana. Canadian Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters Council Retrived from http://www.cttic.org/publications_06Symposium.asp !Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Language Teaching Approaches: An Overview. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (pp. 3-11). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. !!Chesterman, A. (1998). Communication Strateies, Learning Strategies & Translation Strategies. In Malmkjaer, K. (Ed.) Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and Translation. (pp. 135-144), Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
�95
!Condinho Bravo, M. C. (2008). Putting the Reader in the Picture: Screen Translation and Foreign-Language Learning (Doctoral Dissertation). Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain. !Cook, G. (1998). Use of Translation in Language Teaching. In M. Baker (Ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 117-120. London: Routledge. !Cook, G. (2007). A thing of the future: translation in language learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 396-401. !Cook, G. (2010). Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. !Cordero, A.D. (1984). The Role of Translation in Second Language Acquisition. The French Review, 57(3), 350-355. !Dagilienė, I. (2012). Translation as a Learning Method in English Language Teaching. Studies about Languages, 21, 124-129 !Garcia, I. (2013). Can Machine Translation Help the Language Learner? In ICT for Language Learning 3rd edition, Jan 14, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.pixel-online.net/ICT4LL2010/common/download/ Proceedings_pdf/TRAD02-Garcia.pdf !Gnutzmann, C. (2009). Translation as Language Awareness: Overburdening or Enriching the Foreign Language Classroom? In Witte, A., Harden, T., Ramos de Oliveira Harden, A. (Eds.), Translation in Second Language Learning and Teaching, Intercultural Studies and Foreign Language Learning Vol 3, (pp.53-77 ). Oxford: Peter Lang. !Griggs, A. (1999). Being Aware of Difference: Using Translation Theory to Help Inform Teaching in an ESL Setting (Master’s Thesis). University of Toronto, Canada. !Hentschel, E. (2009). Translation as Language Awareness: Overburdening or Enriching the Foreign Language Classroom? In Witte, A., Harden, T., Ramos de Oliveira Harden, A. (Eds.), Translation in Second Language Learning and Teaching, Intercultural Studies and Foreign Language Learning Vol 3, (pp. 15-30). Oxford: Peter Lang. !Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching Second Language Reading. Oxford: Oxford
�96
University Press. !Izumi, K. (1995). Translation-aided Approach in Second Language Acquisition. JALT Journal, 17(2), 225-237. !Kavaliauskienė G. & Kaminskienė L. (2007). Translation as a Learning Tool in English For Specific Purposes. KALBOTYRA, 57(3), 132-138. !Kalantari, E. & Karimnia, A. (2012). The Application of a Translation Model to Foreign Language Teaching Methodology. World Applied Science Journal, 16(10), 1416-1426. !Karimian, Z. & Talebinejad, M. R. (2013), Students’ Use of Translation as a Learning Strategy in EFL Classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 605-610. !Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of Mental Translation in Second Language Reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 441-461. !Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of First Language on Second Language Writing: Translation versus Direct Composition. Language Learning, 42(2), 183-215. !Lee, T.Y. (2013). Incorporating Translation into Language Classroom and Its Potential Impacts upon L2 Learners. In Tsagari, D. & Floros, G. (Ed.) Translation in Language Teaching and Assessment, (pp. 3-18), Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Retrieved from http:// www.c-s-p.org/flyers/978-1-4438-5044-5-sample.pdf !Lee, J. & Seneff, S. (2005). Interlingua-based Translation for Language Learning Systems. In 2005 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding,, San Juan , Nov. 27, 2005, (pp. 133-138). Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=10480 !Liao, P. (2006). EFL learners’ beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English learning. RELC Journal, 37(2), 191-215. !Liao, P. (2007). Teacher’s Belief’s about Teaching English to Elementary School Children. English Teaching and Learning ( ), 31(1), 43-76. !Macau, C. M. (2003). Teaching Foreign Languages through Translation:
�97
Considering Multiple Intelligences (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat de Vic, Spain. !Machida, S. (2011). Translation in Teaching a Foreign (Second) Language: A Methodological Perspective. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 740-746. !Mackinney, E. & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2012). Negotiating Between Restrictive Language Polities and Complex Teaching Conditions: A Case Study of Arizona’s Teachers of English Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 35, 350-367. !Malmkjaer, K. (1998). Introduction. In Malmkjaer, K. (Ed.) Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. !Maxfield, J. (2002). Using L1 to Write in L2: An Investigation into the effects of Translation versus Direct Composition among “Low-Proficiency” ESL Writers (Master’s thesis), University of Toronto, Canada. !Medgyes, P. (2001). When the Teacher is a Non-native Speaker. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (pp. 429-442). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. !!Muskat-Tabakowska, E. (1973), The Function of Translation in Foreign Language Teaching. In Fisiak, J (Ed.) Papers and Studies on Contrastive Linguistics, 1. (pp. 131-139), Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. !Newson, D. (1998). Translation and Foreign Language Learning. In Malmkjaer, K. (Ed.) Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and Translation. (pp. 63-68), Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. !Nunan, D. (2001). Syllabus Design. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (pp. 55-65). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. !!Omura, Y. (1996). Role of Translation in Second Language Acquisition: Do Learners Automatically Translate? (Doctoral dissertation), University of Texas at Austin, the U.S.
�98
!Oxford, R.L. (2001). Language Learning Styles and Strategies. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (pp. 359-366). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. !Pym, A., Malmkjaer, K. & Del Mar Gutiérrez-Colón Plana, M. (2013). Translation and language learning: the role of translation in the teaching of languages in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. !Randaccio, M. (2012). Translation and Language Teaching: Translation as a Useful Teaching Resource. In Gori, F. & Taylor, C. (Ed.) Aspetti della didattica e dell'apprendimento delle lingue straniere: contributi dei collaboratori del Centro Linguistico dell'Università di Trieste. vol. 2, (pp. 78-91), Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste. !Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Science. New York: Columbia University Teachers College. !Stibbard, R. (1998). The Principled Use of Oral Translation in foreign Language Teaching. In Malmkjaer, K. (Ed.) Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and Translation. (pp. 69-76), Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. !Takimoto, M. & Hashimoto, H. (2010). An “Eye-Opening” Learning Experience: Language Learning through Interpreting and Translation. Eletronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(1), 86-95. !Takimoto, M. & Hashimoto, H. (2010). Intercultural Language Learning through Translation and Interpreting: A Study of Advanced-level Japanese Learners. Babel, 45(2-3), 11-16. !Vermes, A. (2010). Translation in foreign Language Teaching: A Brief Overview of Pros and Cons. Eger Journal of English Studies, 10, 83-93. !Vienne, J. (1998).Teaching What They Didin’t Learn as Language Students. In Malmkjaer, K. (Ed.) Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and Translation. (pp. 111-116), Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. !Wang, C. & Seneff, S. (2006). High-quality speech-to-speech translation for computer-aided language learning. ACM Transactions on Speech and
�99
Language Processing, 3(2), 1-21. !Witte, A. (2009). From Translating to Translating in Foreign Language Learning, In Witte, A., Harden, T., Ramos de Oliveira Harden, A. (Eds.), Translation in Second Language Learning and Teaching, Intercultural Studies and Foreign Language Learning Vol 3, (pp. 79-97). Oxford: Peter Lang. !Wu, T. (2010). Open the Door to English with Your Native Language: The role of the Mother Tongue in English Language Teaching in China. (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Aachen, Germany. !Saito, Y. (2012). Translation in English Language Teaching in Japan. Komaba Journal of English Education, 3, 27-36. !Zare, P. (2012). Language Learning Strategies among EFL/ESL Learners: A Review of Literature. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(5), 162-169. !Zojer, H. (2009). The Methodological Potential of Translation in Second Language Acquisition: Re-evaluating Translation as a Teaching Tool, In Witte, A., Harden, T., Ramos de Oliveira Harden, A. (Eds.), Translation in Second Language Learning and Teaching, Intercultural Studies and Foreign Language Learning Vol 3, (pp. 31-51). Oxford: Peter Lang. !
�100
