An Integrated Approach to Assessment in Translator Training: The Value of Self-reflection

  • Paulina PietrzakEmail author
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)


The aim of the article is to contribute to the discussion of the multifaceted nature of assessment in translator training. It challenges the common misconception that assessment takes place when the translation task is finished and the learning process is over, and postulates the effective use of formative assessment. The author briefly analyses evaluation models and presents some contrasting views on assessment in translator training. With the aim of emphasizing the need for a stronger connection between academic learning and real-world demands, the article discusses metacognitive aspects of translator training. It focuses on self-reflection as one of most important abilities to develop in translation students before they go off to translation market. A selection of strategies that support students’ self-refection will be demonstrated in relation to assessment practice. The point is to consider how reflective assessment can be used by translation teachers to foster students metacognitive skills.


Translation Translator training Formative assessment Metacognition Self-reflection 


  1. Alderson, J. C., & Banerjee, J. (2001). Language testing and assessment: State-of-the-art review. Language Teaching, 34(4), 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen, L., Boud, D., & Cohen, R. (2000). Experienced-based learning. In G. Foley (Ed.), Understanding adult education and training (pp. 225–239). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  3. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Asadi, P., & Séguinot, C. (2005). Shortcuts, strategies and general patterns in a process study of nine professionals. Meta 50(2), 522–547. Available at: Scholar
  5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonniol, J. J., & Vial, M. (1997). Les modèles de l’évaluation. De Boeck: Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  7. Dragsted, B. (2010). Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on unchartered territory. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 41–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Scholar
  8. Ehrensberger-Dow, M., & Massey, G. (2013). Indicators of translation competence: Translators’ self-concepts and the translation of titles. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2001). Form-focussed instruction and second language learning. Special issue of Language Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. González Davies, M., & Kiraly, D. (2006). Translation pedagogy. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 81–85). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grucza, S. (2012). The investigation of translation competences and translation processes. In Vestnik MGLU, Moskiewski Państwowy Uniwersytet Lingwistyczny, Moskwa.Google Scholar
  12. Harris, M., & McCann, P. (1994). Assessment. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 33–68). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hönig, H. G. (1998). Propositions, power and practice: Functionalist approaches and translation quality assessment. In C. Schäffner (Ed.), Translation and quality (pp. 6–33). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  15. House, J. (1981). A model for translation quality assessment. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  16. Jääskeläinen, R. (2000). Focus on methodology in think-aloud studies on translating. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: Outlooks on empirical research (pp. 71–82). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jääskeläinen, R. (2002). Think-aloud protocol studies into translation: An annotated bibliography. Target, 14(1), 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jakobsen, A. L., & Jensen, K. T. H. (2008). Eye movement behaviour across four different types of reading task. Copenhagen Studies in Language, 36, 103–124.Google Scholar
  19. Kiraly, D. (1995). Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kiraly, D. (2000). A social constructivist approach to translator education. Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
  21. Kiraly, D. (2005). Project-based learning: A case for situated translation. Meta: Translator’s Journal, 50(4), 1098–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klimkowska, K. (2013). Orientacja na sukces zawodowy studentów kończących studia translatorskie. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.Google Scholar
  23. Klimkowski, K. (2015). Towards a shared curriculum in translator and interpreter education. Wrocław/Washington, D.C.: WSF, PAN and International Communicology Institute.Google Scholar
  24. Krings, H. P. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp. 263–275). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  25. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leblanc, R., & Painchaud, G. (1985). Self–assessment as a second language placement instrument. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, Y. H. (2011). Comparing self-assessment and teacher’s assessment in interpreter training. T&I Review, 1, 87–111.Google Scholar
  28. Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation performance, translation process and translation strategies: A psycholinguistic investigation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  29. Martínez Melis, N. (1997). Évaluation et traduction: Cadre de recherche sur l’évaluation dans la didactique de la traduction. Thèse, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  30. Melis, N. M., & Hurtado Albir, A. (2001). Assessment in translation studies: Research needs. Meta: Translator’s Journal, 46(2), 272–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Metcalfe, J. (1996). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nord, Ch. (1991). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam/New York, NY: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  33. Oskarsson, M. (1989). Self–assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and applications. Language Testing, 6(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pietrzak, P. (2016a). Students’ engagement in metacognitive activities as a source of feedback for the translation teacher. Journal of Translator Education and Translation Studies, 1(1), 45–67. Available at:
  35. Pietrzak, P. (2016b). The role of self-assessment in balancing the distribution of power and control in translator training. In Ł. Bogucki, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Thelen (Eds.), Translation and meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 173–190). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  36. Pym, A. (2003). Redefining translation competence in an electronic age: In defence of a minimalist approach. In A. Clas (Ed.), Meta: Translators’ journal (Vol. 48, Issue (4), pp. 481–497).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rolheiser, C., Bower, B., & Stevahn, L. (2000). The portfolio organizer: Succeeding with portfolios in your classroom. Alexandra, VA: American Society for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  38. Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 11(10), 1–13.Google Scholar
  39. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Shreve, G. M. (2006). The deliberate practice: Translation and expertise. Journal of Translation Studies, 9(1), 27–42.Google Scholar
  42. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1989). Professional vs. non-professional translation: A think-aloud protocol study. In C. Séguinot (Ed.), The translation process (pp. 73–85). Toronto: HG Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vandepitte, S., Mousten, B., Maylath, B., Isohella, S., Musacchio, M. T., & Palumbo, G. (2014). Translation competence: Research data in multilateral and interprofessional collaborative learning. In Y. Cui & W. Zhao (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching methods in language translation and interpretation (pp. 137–159). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Translation Studies, Institute of English StudiesUniversity of ŁódźŁódźPoland

Personalised recommendations