The Role of Translation in Promoting Reading Comprehension of Iranian High School Students

Transcription

1 The Role of Translation in Promoting Reading Comprehension of Iranian High School Students Amir Marzban English Language Department, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran Azadeh Azizi English Language Department, Banda Abbas Branch, Islamic Azad University, Banda Abbas, Iran Abstract The purpose of the present study was to see whether translation (contribution of the mother tongue) had any significant impact on promoting reading comprehension of Iranian high school students. 66 female high school students in grade three participated in this study. To select a sample of subjects, a teacher-made language proficiency test was administered. Then they were randomly assigned into two groups of experimental and control equally. Prior to the treatment a reading comprehension test was administered to and as pretest to reconfirm the homogeneity of the two groups of and and to make sure there was not any significant differences between the performance of the two groups before the treatment. The control group went through the placebo which was regular instruction through Englishonly sessions. The experimental group received the treatment which was instruction through translation from English to Persian. The treatment was performed in 5 separate sessions taking totally ten hours of regular instruction. Finally, two posttests were conducted on two separate sessions. Posttest 1 was exactly the same as pretest. Posttest 2 had two parts. Part I was selected materials presented during treatment and was familiar to both groups whilst part II was selected materials from unfamiliar texts. The results of independent t-tests for each of them individually and for two parts of posttests 2 separately showed that there was no significant difference between the achievements of and, thus the null hypothesis could not be rejected and eventually it could be concluded that translation as an ELT technique has no effect on promoting reading comprehension of Iranian high school students. Keywords: Translation, Reading comprehension, Contextual meaning 1. Introduction When talking about translation, most people think of it as a means of communication or a process of transferring meanings from one language to another. Translation is regarded as an activity confined to those who have already achieved a high degree of language proficiency. However, in the viewpoint of language teachers, translation is not only a means of communication but also a teaching device that can help students to understand and use the target language more clearly and accurately (Mallikamas, 1997). 0

2 The normal use of translation is transferring meanings and conveying messages. Reading is one of the most important activities in any language. Not only is it a means of consolidating and extending the student s knowledge of language but also a source of pleasurable activity. Different approaches and methodologies have emphasized certain language skills according to the aims and objectives of foreign language learning in their respective era. Although some old and modern ones have focused on the oral skills, yet reading has always retained its importance as a means of communication. Kenneth Chastain (1988, p. 217) contends that the reading goal is to read for meaning or to recreate the writer s meaning. Chastain further adds: Reading to improve pronunciation, practice grammatical forms, and study vocabulary do not constitute reading at all because, by definition reading involves comprehension when readers are not comprehending, they are not reading. The purpose of the present study is to determine whether translation as a technique (ELT technique) has any significant impact on promoting the reading comprehension of Iranian high school students, and to see if there exists any significant difference between the achievement of the students who are to be exposed to Persian translation of certain texts and those who are to be taught the original texts through English only. 2. Statement of the Problem The case for and against translation may vary with the social and linguistic relationship between a student s L 1 and L 2 (Guy cook cited in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 1998, p.113). Urges (1989) states that many methodology techniques nowadays use only the target comprehension of a text. However, these techniques do not generally lead to full comprehension. Both translation and reading comprehension can be described as activities trying to explore the intended meaning of a written text. Translation and the use of L 1 as the medium of instruction can promote reading comprehension through better perception of the written texts. In other words, translation if used correctly can promote reading comprehension through strengthening the appreciation of texts. Reading is the most needed skill at ELT and especially ESP world-wide. This study is an attempt to reveal the right place of translation in teaching reading comprehension. This study investigates the possible effect of translation as an ELT technique on promoting reading comprehension of Iranian high school students. 3. Research Question and hypothesis To achieve the purpose of the study the following question was raised: Does translation as an ELT technique have any significant impact on promoting reading comprehension of Iranian high school students? The following null hypothesis was formulated: Translation as an ELT technique has no significant impact on promoting reading comprehension of Iranian high school students. 4. Literature Review Despite the wide spread popular assumption that translation should play a major and necessary part in the study of a foreign language, twentieth century theories of language teaching and learning have at best ignored the role of translation, and at worst vilified it. Form the turn of the century onwards almost all influential theoretical works on language teaching have assumed without argument that a new language (L 2 ) should be taught without reference to the student s first language (L 1 ). 1

3 The study of Bolitho and Sanders (1977) strongly refutes occasional use of the mother tongue. But a stand is made for a pure direct method. The reasons for this are first the question of where to draw the line is difficult for inexperienced teachers to judge. Second, premature use of the mother tongue breaking tension creates a productive classroom atmosphere. Third, the idea that translation saves time is a myth because any item in this way will not be learned and will have to be dealt with later in remedial work. Thus, no time is saved in the long run. Forth, every minute spent on mother tongue deprives students of target language practice time. Fifth, the mother tongue is like a crutch. It is difficult for learners to gain sufficient confidence to do with it. Sixth, the culture gap between languages- word image relationship may be exclusive to target language. The conclusion drawn is that there is nothing in language that can be adequately taught by the use of translation. Translation must be seen as a skill in itself which has to be learned. A number of recent publications have indicated a renewed interest in the potential contribution which the mother tongue can make to TEFL after the complete dismissal which followed after the growth of communicative movement. Tudor (1986) says articles by Baynahm (1985), Edge (1986), and Titford (1983) in ELT Journal, and the valuable collection of papers edited by Titford and Heike (1985) all point to the methodological value of a selective and directed use of translation activities particularly with respect to the development of an improved awareness of stylistic appropriacy in more advanced learners. Farrand-Rogers (1996) reports that the practice of using translation in English classes of a university Mexico proved to have been very successful. He has concluded that translation as a teaching technique is enjoying a return as an innovation. Teachers need to know how to deal with the problems, as well as the advantages that translation can bring to learning. The main point, however, is the recognition that translation can help the learner by the attempt to clarify meaning. It is now seen to be a positive teaching/ learning resource and not as an obstacle, or only a negative means that produces more error and distracts the learner from developing L 1 through L 2. Gabrielatos (2002, pp ) suggests some guidelines for using translation, which would help teachers and translators: a. translation can be used to help learners Realize that ways of thinking and experiences are influenced for even constrained by culture, and see the futility of trying to make English fit their own culture/ language. Become aware of idiosyncrasies in the two languages and accept the personality of the English language. Realize that there is not always a one-to-one correspondence between items in the two cultures/ languages. Realize that two cultures/ languages may express similar items in different ways (single word, compound and expressions) Become aware of different registers, and the importance of appropriacy, as learners are much more sensitive to register in their own language. Become sensitive to cultural connotations. Become aware of the importance of collocations, and realize that the two cultures/ languages may have different collocations for equivalent words. b. And when using translation Ensure that it is always in the context. When learners ask for the English equivalent of an L 1 word ask them first to explain in what situation they want to use it and what they want to express. 2

4 Point out relevant cultural elements- it helps learners become more familiar with the language. Check that equivalent is consistent in terms of the register. Point out connotations. Check if words are parts of fixed expressions- and translate the expression, not the word. Weschler (1997) proposes the method as follows: I intend to show that whatever justification is claimed for the English only classroom is based on two fundamentally flawed arguments: First, the premature, outright rejection of the traditional grammartranslation method, and second, the false assumption that an English only requirement is an essential element of more modern communicative methodologies. Finally, I intend to show that by combining the sterile form. I will call this method, the functional Translation Method (p.1). 5. Method 5.1. Participants At first the researcher selected the sample from among nearly eighty high school female students of the third year of high school. From this population sixty six students were randomly chosen on the basis of a language proficiency test. Then they were randomly assigned into two groups equally. The number of subjects in each group was thirty three Procedure The procedure followed up in this research project was conducted in five main stages as follows: 1. Sample selection 2. Administering a language proficiency test 3. Administering a reading comprehension pretest 4. Treatment 5. Administering two posttests 5.3. Instrumentation Considering the aims of the study the instruments used here included four sets of test (one repeated completely twice and partially used once) through the following steps: Initially, the population was presented a teacher-made language proficiency test of eighty multiple-choice items covering vocabulary; grammar and mini reading comprehension related to what had been learned in the previous years by students. Secondly, for assessing their reading comprehension ability, it was decided to select passages from available books on the market. Eleven passages were chosen; each having multiple-choice and/or true-false comprehension questions. The total number of questions was eighty. This pretest was used to find out whether the two groups were homogenous or not. The result suggested that they were. Then the experimental group received the treatment, which was instruction through translation while the control group went through instruction without the use of translation. The treatment program took about ten hours of instruction in five sessions for both the experimental and the control groups. The material for instruction was fifteen reading passages taken from different books available on the market. Finally, two posttests were conducted, with the same nature, characteristics and scoring measures as of the pretest to measure the achievement of both groups. Posttest 1 was exactly 3

5 the repetition of pretest. Posttest 2 had two parts: Part I was a selective one from some passages (partially, but not completely) of the pretest. Part II was consisted of the new passages that were not treated in the study and therefore students were quite unfamiliar with them. Both parts had thirty reading comprehension questions Design According to Hatch and Farhadi (1981), experimental designs are used when the researchers have some sorts of control over the selection and manipulation of independent variables. In this design, language proficiency test, pretest, treatment and two posttests were administered. 6. Data Analysis To analyze the data SPSS software version 13 was utilized. On the first step descriptive statistics were computed and then using an independent t-test, the null hypothesis of the research was verified. The results of these analyses are reported in the following sections of this study. 7. Results and Findings The first stage is related to the results of language proficiency test. The second stage is related to the results of pretest. The third stage is related to the results of posttest 1. And finally, the last stage is related to the results of posttest 2: As shown in Table 1 and table 2, the results of an independent t-test, reveal that the difference between these two means is not statistically significant. Table 1. and SD of Language Proficiency Test Groups N mean Std. Deviation Table 2. T-test for Equality of s and Variances of Language Proficiency Test groups t df 95% Confidence Interval of the

6 The results of an independent t-test shown in table 4, reveal that the difference between the two pretest means is not statistically significant. Table 3. and SD of Pretest of and groups N mean Std. Deviation Table 4. T-test for Equality of s and Variances of Pretest Groups t df 95% Confidence Interval of the The results of an independent t-test shown in table 6, reveal that the difference between these two means is not statistically significant. Table 5. and SD of Posttest 1 of and groups N mean Std. Deviation Table 6. T-test for Equality of s and Variances of Posttest groups t df 95% Confidence Interval of the 5

7 Table 7 shows that mean score of was about.69 higher than the mean score of, while in posttest 1 the mean score of was about.60 above the mean score of. In posttest 2, had a better performance while in posttest 1 had a better performance. Table 7. and SD of Posttest 2 of and groups N mean Std. Deviation The results of an independent t-test shown in table 8 reveal that the difference between these two means is not statistically significant. Table 8. T-test for Equality of and Variances of Posttest 2 groups t df 95% Confidence Interval of the As mentioned earlier, posttest 2 had two parts: (I) Seen versus (II) Unseen: Table 9 shows that mean score of was about.04 more than the mean score of which is not significant statistically. Table 9. and SD of Part I of Posttest 2 of and groups N mean Std. Deviation

8 The results of an independent t-test shown in table 10 reveal that the difference between these two means is not statistically significant. The results reconfirm the results of posttest1 and posttest 2 as a whole. Table 10. T-test for Equality of s and Variances of Part I of Posttest 2 groups t df 95% Confidence Interval of the Part II of posttest 2 was unseen materials with the same nature and characteristics of part I (seen materials). Table 11. SD and of Part II of Posttest 2 of and groups N mean Std. Deviation Table 11 shows the mean score of was about.67 more than the mean score of. It can be concluded that the had a better performance in dealing with unseen materials and treated the unseen materials more confidently. Table 12. T-test for Equality of s and Variances of Part II of Posttest 2 groups t df 95% Confidence Interval of the

9 The results of an independent t-test shown in table 12 reveal that the difference between these two means is not statistically significant. This confirms what has been said in analyzing posttest 1, part I of posttest 2 and posttest 2 as a whole. 8. Conclusion Considering the data and comparing the mean scores of both groups on language proficiency test, it could be concluded that there was no significant difference between these two groups and they were almost homogenous. The computed data for the means of the two groups and the results of independent t-tests for pretest, posttests 1 and two parts of posttest 2 separately showed that there was no significant difference between the achievements of and. Thus, the null hypothesis could not be rejected; that is, translation as an ELT technique has no significant effect on promoting reading comprehension of Iranian high school students. The results of part II of posttest 2 (unseen materials) showed that the mean score of was a little higher than the mean score of which is indicative of a better performance for rather than on treating unseen materials and from this point it could be concluded that met the new materials a little more confidently which in itself has a significant pedagogical implication. In conclusion, there is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that translation in the classroom can aid learners in their studies better than other techniques, nor that the benefits of translation carry more weight than methodologies that do not use it. For those teachers and linguists who do not favor translation, their minds will not be easily swayed and for those who do see its uses, arguments as to why it should not be used will also fall on deaf ears. Translation is a technique that appeals only to some people. However, with the studies that are conducted and the material that is being tested by teachers, it is hoped that more people will consider the potential of translation as an aspect of language learning, experiment with it, and provide more information that will enable instructors to make a more informed decision about it, rather than basing their disapproval of translation on the extreme applications that have been seen to date. References Baynahm, M. (1985). Bilingual Folk Stories in ESL Classroom. ELT Journal. Vol. 40/2. Oxford University Press. Available at: http// 02/ Bolitho, A. R., and Sandler, P. L., (1977). Learn English for Science. Longman group Limited. Chastain, K. (1988). Developing Second Language Skills: Theory to Practice (3 rd ed.). United States of America. Cook, Guy. (1998). Cited in Routlege Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London & New York: Routledge. 8

10 Edge, J. (1986). Acquisition disappears in adultery: interaction in translation classroom. ELT Journal, Vol 49(2). Oxford University Press. Available at: 49/Issue 02 Farrand-Rogers, J. (1996). A traditional teaching technique which returns as an innovation: Teaching reading via translation. The First Annual TCC-L Online Conference, April Available at: Gabrielato, C. (2002). Translation impossibilities: problems and Opportunities for TEFL. TESOL Grecce ewsletter. Dec. (1998): (21-24). Available at: Hatch, E. & Farhadi, H. (1981). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. (p.108). Tehran: Rahnama. Malikamas, P. (1997). Translation as a language teaching technique. The Online Thai TESOL Bulletin. Vol.10(1). February Available at: Titford, C. (1983). Translation for advanced learners ELT Journal, Vol. 37/1. Oxford University Press. Available at: Urges, T. (1989). Translation: how, when and why? English Teaching Forum. Vol. 27/1, Available at: Weschler, R. (1997). Uses of Japanese (L1) in the English Classroom: introducing the functional-translation method. The Internet TESL Journal Vol. 3, No. 2. Available at: 9