پایان نامه :

 

موضوع تحقیق حاضر ارزیابی برنامه درسی رشته مترجمی زبان انگلیسی در مقطع کارشناسی ارشد در ایران است. هدف از این تحقیق ارزیابی میزان تاثیر برنامه رشته مترجمی زبان انگلیسی در حال حاضر می باشد تا مشخص شود که آیا این برنامه با نیازهای دانشجویان مطابقت دارد یا خیر. این تحقیق براساس مدل ارائه شده توسط تایلر صورت گرفته است. محقق در این تحقیق از دو روش پرسشنامه و مصاحبه برای جمع آوری اطلاعات از دانشجویان و اساتید استفاده کرده است. شرکت کنندگان این مطالعه را 120 دانشجوی فارق التحصیل رشته مترجمی زبان انگلیسی در مقطع ارشد و 30 استاد در این رشته تشکیل می دهند. 4 پرسشنامه که شامل اهداف آموزشی رشته مترجمی زبان انگلیسی, دروس ارائه شده در این برنامه, ترتیب قرار گرفتن دروس و نحوه ارزیابی دانشجویان برای رسیدن به اهداف آموزشی بود در اختیار شرکت کنندگان قرار گرفت. نتایج حاصل از این پرسشنامه ها به همراه مصاحبه از اساتید در جدول قرار داده شد. پس از ارزیابی اطلاعات, این نتیجه حاصل شد که که اهداف آموزشی رشته مترجمی زبان انگلیسی در مقطع ارشد بطور کامل در برنامه درسی این رشته گنجانده نشده است. بعلاوه از نظریه های این رشته بصورت عملی در کتاب ها و کلاس ها استفاده نمی شود. برخی از اساتید بر این باور بودند که برای دروسی مانند مقاله نویسی و معادل گزینی باید زمان بیشتری گذاشته شود.  محقق امیدوار است که تحقیق حاضر بتوتند کاستی های برنامه ی مترجمی زبان انگلیسی در مقطع ارشد را برطرف سازد و به هر چه بهتر شدن آن کمک نماید.

 

Abstract

 

 

 

This research was conducted in order to evaluate the current M.A. English Translation Curriculum in Iranian Universities through the students and instructors’ point of view based on Tyler (1949) model to find out whether the curriculum was well-designed enough to matches the current needs of students. To this end, the current researcher employed 4 researcher-made questionnaires as the main instrument and instructor interview to evaluate the research questions of the study and to collect data. The questionnaires were designed based on Tyler model (1949) providing a series of critical steps for developing educational curriculum with measurable and attainable educational objectives. The data obtained in the current research, presented in tables according to the main elements of the curriculum i.e. students and instructors’ thought about the instructional objectives of M.A. English Translation curriculum, about the courses included for M.A English Translation curriculum, about the arrangement of the courses of the current English Translation curriculum and finally about the types of assessments carried out based on the current English Translation curriculum. According to the questionnaire and interview results, it was found out that students and instructors are not satisfied with current instructional objectives included in M.A. curriculum. Also it was found out that translation curriculum should balance theoretical and practical components in their translator training curricula. This thesis also revealed that the students perceived themselves less competent and less prepared for translation profession. By the result of this study the researcher hopes to make clear the educational goals that need to be meets through the program of M.A. English. Moreover, the study is going to explore the areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in education in English Translation at M.A level. Finally, this evaluation study may help administrators make relevant changes, additions and deletions to the program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents
Title Page………………………………………………………………………	i
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………..	ii
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………	iii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………	iv
Table of Content………………………………………………………………..	v
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………..	x
Chapter I: Background and Purpose………………………………………..
1.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………….	1
1.2. Statement of the Problem………………………………………………….	3
1.3. Research Questions ……………………………………………………….	3
1.4. Operational definition of the key terms ……………………………………	4
1.4.1. Instructional Objectives………………………………………………..	4
1.4.2. Curriculum……………………………………………………………..	5
1.4.3. Curriculum Evaluation…………………………………………………	5
1.5. Significance of the Study ………………………………………………….	5
1.6. Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………..	6
Chapter II: Review of the Related Literature………………………………
2.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………….	8
2.2. Translation studies in Iran…………………………………………………	9
2.3. Evaluation and its objectives………………………………………………	10
2.4. Different concepts of Curriculum …………………………………………	11
2.5. Curriculum Evaluation ……………………………………………………	14
2.5.1. The Needs for Curriculum Evaluation……………………………….	18
2.5.2. Summative Evaluation and Formative Evaluation……………………	18
2.6. Different Evaluation Approaches………………………………………….	21
2.6.1. Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Approaches…………………………	21
2.6.2. Management- Oriented Evaluation Approaches……………………..	22
2.6.3. Consumer-oriented Evaluation Approaches…………………..……..	22
2.6.4. Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Approach…………………………….	22
2.6.5. Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approaches …………………………	22
2.6.6. Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approaches…………………………	23
2.7. Evaluation Models…………………………………………………………	23
2.7.1. Franklin Bobbitt…………………………………………………………	23
2.7.2. Tyler’s Model…………………………………………………………..	24
2.7.2.1. The selection of Educational Objectives…………………………..	26
2.7.2.2. Subject matter as a Source of Objectives………………………….	27
2.7.2.3. Needs of the learners as a Source of Objectives……………………	30
2.7.2.4. Studied of contemporary life as a source of Objective…………….	34
2.7.2.4.1. The Philosophical Screen ……………………………………….	35
2.7.2.5. Selecting and Organizing of Learning Experiences ………………	38
2.7.2.6. Evaluation …………………………………………………………	39
2.7.3 Stufflebeam’s Context, Input, Process, Product Model…………………	41
2.7.3.1. Context Evaluation…………………………………………………	42
2.7.3.2. Input Evaluation …………………………………………………..	42
2.7.3.3. Process Evaluation …………………………………………………	43
2.7.3.4. Product Evaluation ………………………………………………..	44
2.7.4. Stake’s model……………………………………………………………	45
2.7.5. Eisner’s Model………………………………………………………….	47
2.7.6. Oliva’s Model……………………………………………………………	48
Chapter III: Methodology ……………………………………………………
3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………..	50
3.2. Participants ………………………………………………………………..	50
3.3. Instruments…………………………………………………………………	52
3.3.1. Questionnaire……………………………………………………………	53
3.3.2. Interviews………………………………………………………………..	54
3.4. Data Collection Procedure ………………………………………………..	55
3.5. Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………	56
3.6. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………	59
Chapter IV: Results and Discussion…………………………………………
4.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………..	60
4.2. Instructional Objectives……………………………………………………	62
4.3. Courses for meeting the defined instructional objectives………………….	65
4.4. Arrangement of the courses for attaining the instructional objective………	71
4.5. Evaluation Types…………………………………………………………..	74
Chapter V: Conclusion and Implications……………………………………
5.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………..	78
5.2. Summary of Findings………………………………………………………	78
5.2.1. Instructional Objectives……………………………………………….	78
5.2.2. Courses for meeting the defined instructional objectives……………..	79
5.2.3. Arrangement of the courses for attaining the instructional objectives..	80
5.2.4. Evaluation types………………………………………………………	80
5.3. Pedagogical implications………………………………………………….	81
5.4. Suggestions for further research……………………………………………	84
References……………………………………………………………………….	86
Appendixes …………………………………………………………………….
Appendix A: Questionnaire 1 ……………………………………………….	92
Appendix B: Questionnaire 2……………………………………………….	93
Appendix C: Questionnaire 3……………………………………………….	95
Appendix D: Questionnaire ………………………………………………….	96

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Tables

 

Table 4.1.Students’ conceptions of the instructional objectives of the current M.A. English Translation Program ……………………………………………………..…………..63

 

Table 4.2.Instructors’ conceptions of the instructional objectives of the current M.A. English Translation Program…………………………………………………………………64

 

Table 4.3.Students’ conception of compulsory courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ………………………………………………………….…….67

 

Table 4.4.Students’ conception of optional courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ………………………………………………………………..68

 

Table 4.5.instructors’ conception of compulsory courses included in the current M.A English translation program………………………………………………………….….…69

 

Table 4.6.instructors’ conception of optional courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ……………………………………………………………….70

 

Table 4.7.students’ conception of the arrangement of the courses of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum ………………………………………………………..…72

 

 

 

Table 4.8.instructors’ conception of the arrangement of the courses of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum………………………………………………….73

 

Table 4.9.students’ conception of types of assessments given to students during or at the end of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum ……………..………….75

 

Table 4.10.instructor’ conception of types of assessments given to students during or at the end of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum………………………………………………………….……………….………76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background and Purpose

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.1. Introduction

 

Translation studies as a new specific discipline, with no doubt, has great effect in today’s world from different aspects. According to Bassnett (1991), Translation Studies is a science, while translating is no longer a secondary activity. “Any debate about the existence of a science of translation is out of date: there already exists, with Translation Studies, a serious discipline investigating the process of translation, attempting to clarify the question of equivalence and to examine what constitutes meaning within that process.”(Bassnett, 2002) Also, Gentzler (2014) believes that “Translation inheres in every discourse; there are many borders impeding communication that have little to do with national languages or disciplinary boundaries. Every language has its multilingual roots and its translational aspects. Every discipline depends upon and thrives within translation matters.

 

The need of translation activities in human communication on everyday life result in dramatic increase for translating efforts which need large scale translation competence. As a result, translators “should be given a sound educational basis and consequently their training needs to be institutionalized” (Sabaté Carrové, 1999, p.1).

 

Cominade and Pym (1995) believed that “Recent surveys indicate more than 250, offering a variety of certificates and degrees, undergraduate and graduate, training not only professional translators, but also scholar-teachers of translation and of foreign languages and literatures” (cited in Venuti, 2000).  The education of translation at academic level in Iran started in 1973(Omid Jafari, 2013). In less than a decade, the number of universities in Iran that offer the postgraduate degree has increased, indicating the reflection of interest in this field. Therefore, it is imperative to take a moment and consider what courses and credits and generally translation studies program are being given at these universities particularly from instructional objectives perspectives that remained untouched in English translation program especially in Iran.

 

Instructional objectives as the most essential act in the curriculum developing should be matched with students and market needs. According to Sheal (1990), if instructional objectives have not been clearly defined and determined, there may be disorder “in the course development; in the presentation; among the learners; in the follow-up after the course; or in making an evaluation”. The current study is to clarify translator training in Iran by evaluating translation programs at the Master’s level, which has received little attention. To do so, the Taylor’s rational or the objectives model (1949) is used as the framework for this study. The current researcher felt that his framework was a well-constructed framework best fit this study.

 

 

 

 

 

1.2. Statement of the Problem

 

Before starting this section, it should be mentioned that apparently translation studies at M.A. should prepare students for particular occupations in translation professions including audiovisual translation, intermodal translation, editing, academic research, journalism, public relations, language teaching so on and so for. To do so, the curriculum should offer a balanced combination of theory and practice credits. Instructional objectives and outcome of each credit need to be clarified first and continually evaluated to make out its strong and weak points (Gredler, 1996). According to Brown (1989) continuous evaluation of some or total components of curriculum should be done without bias which is truly a vital step in any curriculum, and will lead to valuable revisions. In spite of the importance of curriculum evaluation, this crucial step remained untouched in English Translation program in Iran. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of English translation curriculum at Iranian universities, because it seems that the “original curriculum was merely a series of courses selected from well-known universities of the world” (LesanToosi, 2013).