臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：大學翻譯教學建構式評量之研究
作者：彭家洋 引用關係
作者(外文)：Peng, Jia-Yang
校院名稱：國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱：翻譯研究所
指導教授：廖柏森
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2017
主題關鍵詞：建構論；翻譯評量；翻譯教學；問卷調查；訪談；課堂觀察；書面資料；constructivism；translation assessment；translation teaching；survey；interview；class observation；written data
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:7
三十年來，隨著翻譯專業人才的需求大增，台灣的翻譯教學呈現蓬勃發展的趨勢。各大學相繼成立翻譯系所，英語相關科系紛紛開設翻譯課程，顯見翻譯教學逐漸獲得重視。課堂評量（classroom assessment）在翻譯教學實踐中扮演重要的角色，不僅可檢驗教學成效，亦可協助教師評估學生的學習成果。由於課堂評量與課程設計密切相關，取決於不同的課程目標和教學內容，加上學生的語言能力各異，評量的形式和方法也各具特色。翻譯較其他語言能力訓練的課程特殊，涉及兩種語言的轉換能力，課堂活動以實作演練為主。翻譯也需考慮文本功能、溝通目的和讀者期待等因素，但部分翻譯課程的評量為檢測學生的語言能力，在文本選擇和活動設計上都偏離翻譯的本質，無法反映翻譯實務所需的技巧，更缺乏客觀可信的評量標準，這些翻譯評量相關議題都有待進一步的檢視探究。
在研究方面，由於翻譯教學的重要性增加，研究的主題漸趨豐富多元，在教學方法、學習型態、課程設計等方面都取得可觀的成績；翻譯評量的研究多數集中在評量標準、評分方法和錯誤分析等主題，以學生的翻譯作品為研究對象，內容傾向教師的教學經驗分享，關於評量的設計、形式、方法以及與教學的關係等主題的文獻相對較少，本研究希望能填補這方面的空缺，以國內的大學翻譯教師為研究對象，並採用問卷調查、訪談、課堂觀察等方法蒐集資料，針對不同類型的資料進行量化和質性的分析，希望客觀呈現翻譯教師的評量實務，提出評量的分析和改進的建議，也做為翻譯教學和研究的參考文獻。
本研究以「建構論」（constructivism）為理論基礎，探討國內現行的大學翻譯教師的評量實務，以檢視評量是否符合建構論的教學和評量原則，也就是以學生為中心，營造合作學習的環境，讓學生經由互動和討論完成翻譯任務，並提供必要的指導，協助學生建構翻譯的知識和技能；除此之外，本研究也透過訪談等資料的蒐集，分析評量的工具、方法、實施的過程和問題，討論教師能否從評量的結果中，了解學生翻譯學習和實作（知識建構）的過程，並調整下個階段的教
學方法，以提升教學和學習的成效。
根據資料分析的結果，大學翻譯教師的評量實務符合建構論的教學原則。在練習文本的蒐集方面，多數教師選擇結構完整的真實文本，或專業譯者實際翻譯的文本，並要求學生經由角色扮演的活動，合作完成篇章翻譯的任務；教師規劃的課堂活動包括實作練習、譯文分享和譯文改正等，讓學生經由互動和討論完成作業，相互觀摩和評論彼此的譯文，共同協商翻譯的問題和解決的方法，並從中反思自己的翻譯過程；在作業檢討方面，教師以「合作學習」為原則，運用師生問答、分組討論、分組報告、同儕互評和檢討授權等多種方式檢討作業，教師可挪用學生的意見，在小組討論或報告時提供鷹架支持，在學生習得基礎的知識和技能時，授權給學生主導檢討的活動，達成自主學習的目標。
在建構論的評量原則方面，部分教師的評量符合信實度的「可信性」原則，教師可透過師生問答、分組討論、課堂練習等，長期參與學生的學習活動，並持續觀察學生的表現；教師也安排數週的協同教學，邀請專業譯者到課堂授課，並與學生進行晤談，讓學生理解作業批閱的訊息，並提供學習上的指導和建議。至於建構式評量的另一原則－真實性，教師選擇真實的文本做為評量素材，也將實務工作融入評量活動中，因此評量可培養學生職場所需的知識、技巧和其他相關能力。另一方面，教師的評量普遍未能符合信實度的「可轉移性」、「可靠性」和「可確認性」原則，教師未能詳實記錄評量的情境，也未考慮評量在其他情境是否適用，教師未能記錄評量的情境和過程，無法證明評量在其他情境是否適用，以及評量的結果是否一致；對於評量資料的來源，教師未寫成書面的記錄，因此無從得知教師對於評量資料的詮釋，也無法判斷訊息的詮釋能否符合整體的評量結果。
The last three decades has seen such a growing demand for translation professionals, and translator training and translation courses have been on the rise in the departments of English and graduate institutes in universities and colleges in Taiwan. There has been a growing recognition that translator training is very important in higher education institutes. Classroom assessment has played a prominent role in the practice of translation teaching, and has not only examined teaching effects but also assisted teachers in evaluating their students’ learning effects. Because classroom assessment, dependent on the differences of course objectives, course content and students’ competence, is closely related to curricular design, classroom assessment has been growing diverse in terms of form and method. Compared to language learning courses, translation courses are more special in feature and requirement for basic reading and writing competence and are practice-oriented since they involve the transfer competence, the ability to complete the transfer process from SL to TL. Some other factors, including textual functions, communicative purposes and readers’ expectations, also need to be considered in translation. Some translation assessments focus on evaluating students’ linguistic competence with exercises in the form of sentence or paragraph translation. These courses deviate from the specialties of translation in text selection and activity design and fail to reflect the skills required for translation practice and lack objective and reliable assessment criteria. These issues of translation assessment are in need of further examination and research.
Since translation teaching is growing more important and research topics are becoming more diverse, research findings have been achieved in teaching methods,
learning style and curricular design. The research on translation assessment, mainly about assessment criteria, scoring criteria and error analysis, is on students’ translation products and mostly teaching experiences. The research on the design, form and method of assessment and its relation with teaching has been rarely conducted or published. This research is aimed at exploring the practice of assessment designed by translation teachers. With translation teachers in Taiwan as the research subject, the researcher gathered the data through surveys, interviews and class observations. The data was later processed in quantitative and qualitative analysis with an aim of presenting translation teachers’ practice of assessment, propose the analysis and suggestion on assessments and give reference to translation teaching and research.
On the basis of constructivism as theoretical framework, this research explores the current assessments by translation teachers in universities in Taiwan to examine if assessments conform to teaching principles of constructivism. According to these principles, the classroom is student-centered environment for collaborative learning which let students complete translation tasks through interaction and discussion and provide necessary instruction to assist students in constructing knowledge and skills of translation. In addition, this research, through interviews and surveys, analyzes the tools, methods, process and problems of assessments, discusses if teachers are able to understand students’ translation learning and knowledge constructing process and adjust teaching method to enhance teaching and learning effects.
According to the result of data analysis, translation teachers’ assessments meet constructivist principles. In text collection, most teachers choose authentic texts or translation texts by professional translators, have students do role-play activities and collaborate to complete translation task. The class activities designed by teachers are exercises, practices, translation text presentation and revision, which enable students to complete assignments through interaction and discussion, read and comment on their classmates’ translations and reflect their own translation process. In group presentation, the topics are translation concepts, translation process and translation revision. Group presentations have students complete tasks in cooperation, review or comment on other classmates’ translation and negotiate translation problems and solutions to them. In assignment correction, teachers, on the basis of collaborative learning, review and correct assignments with many methods, such as question and answer, group discussion, group presentation, peer review and empowerment. Teachers can appropriate students’ opinions and offer scaffolding to students in group discussion or presentation. When students are acquiring basic knowledge and skills, teachers empower students to hold assignment correction and achieve the goal of automatic learning.
In terms of the principles of constructivist assessment, some assessments conform to credibility, one component of the principle of trustworthiness. Teachers participate in students’ learning and observe their performance through question-and-answer conversation with their students, group discussion and class exercises. They also arrange team teaching and invite professional translators to give lectures; sometimes they have interviews with their students and enable them to understand marking and corrections in the assignments and provide instructions and advice. In terms of authenticity, the other principle of constructive assessment, teachers choose authentic texts to be materials for assessment and involve practical work in assessment activities that help to develop the knowledge, skills and other relevant activities required in translation market. On the other hand, teachers’ assessments generally fail to conform with transferability, dependability and confirmability, the components of the principle of trustworthiness. Teachers never keep a record of situations and processes of assessments, which makes it hard to prove that assessments are applicable to other situations and that the results of assessments remain consistent. As to the sources of assessment-related data, teachers never keep a written record, which makes it hard to understand the interpretations of the data by teachers and assemble the interpretations into structurally coherent and corroborating wholes.
于信鳳（1997）。考試學引論。瀋陽：遼寧人民。
王振亞（2008）。英漢語言測試詞典。北京：北京大學。
王振亞（2009）。現代漢語測試模型。保定：河北大學。
吳清山、林天祐（2005）。教育新辭書。台北：高等教育，144-145。
李明棟（譯）（2013）。C. Nord著。翻譯的文本分析模式：理論、方法及教學
應用（Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic
application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis）。廈門：廈門
大學。
李德鳳（2012）。翻譯教學、需求分析與課程設置。北京：外語教學與研究。
肖維青（2012）。本科翻譯專業測試研究。北京：人民。
林維真（2012）。數位學習、教學設計等辭彙22條。圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/
林維彬（2007）。基隆市新移民與本國籍子女的家長教養信念、教育期望與成就動機之調查研究。台北：台北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所碩士論
文。
金聖華（2000）。翻譯工作坊教學法剖析。翻譯學報，4，67-79。
洪筱涵（2008）。隔代教養祖父母照顧經驗之初探－完整「生命裡的不完整」，台北：國立政治大學社會行政與社會工作研究所學位論文。
張世忠（2001）。建構教學：理論與應用。台北：五南。new window
張秀珍（2000）。網路翻譯教學，翻譯學研究集刊，5，3-22。
張芳全（2008）。問卷就是要這樣編。台北：心理。
張裕敏（2012）。翻譯學習者之翻譯錯誤分析：以語料庫為基準之應用研究。台北：國立台灣師範大學翻譯研究所。new window
張瓊瑩（2009）。結合微觀與宏觀的英漢翻譯教學法—兼探討紐馬克《翻譯教程》
適用於大學部英漢翻譯教學之程度。編譯論叢，2（1），53-76。
張瓊瑩（2010）。台灣大學生真的很被動嗎？英語系學生對於翻譯學習檔案的經驗與看法。翻譯學研究集刊，13，293-318。new window
陳向明（2002）。教師如何作質的研究。台北：洪葉。
陳碧珠、劉敏華（2007）。從量表和評分單位看筆譯客觀評分。國立編譯館館刊，35（3），55-72。
陳獻忠（1999）。錯誤分析在翻譯教學中的應用。翻譯學研究集刊，4，51-80。new window
傅春暉（2010）。外語課堂評價理論與實踐。湘潭：湘潭大學。
黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習。台北：五南。
黃銳（2012）。標準參照語言測試研究。廈門：廈門大學。
甄曉蘭、曾志華（1997）。建構教學理念的興起與運用。國民教育研究學報，3，179-208。new window
楊魯新、王素娥、常海潮、盛靜（2012）。應用語言學中的質性研究與分析。北京：外語教學與研究。
葉純純（2011）。翻譯教學中的譯書計畫初探。翻譯學研究集刊，14，135-167。
詹志禹（1996）。認識與知識：建構論VS.接受觀。教育研究雙月刊，49，4-6。new window
詹志禹（2002）。建構論：理論基礎與教育應用。台北：正中。new window
廖柏森、江美燕（2005）。使用檔案翻譯教學初探。翻譯教學研究集刊，9，291-new window
312。
廖柏森（2007）。英語與翻譯之教學。台北：秀威。
廖柏森（2008）。使用Moodle網路平台實施筆譯教學之探討，翻譯學研究集刊，11，163-186。new window
廖柏森（2009）。溝通式翻譯教學法之意涵與實施。編譯論叢，2（2），65-91。new window
廖柏森（2010）。大學生英譯中的筆譯錯誤分析與教學上的應用。編譯論叢，3new window
（2），101-128。
廖柏森（2011）。大學生翻譯學習型態與其翻譯能力之關係。編譯論叢，4（2），79-104。new window
廖柏森（2012）。翻譯教學論集。台北：秀威。new window
廖柏森等（2013）。翻譯教學實務指引：從15份專業教案開始。台北：眾文。
廖柏森（2014）。翻譯教學理論、實務與研究。台北：文鶴。new window
趙曉維（2000）。互為主體性。教育大辭書。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/
劉月雲（2009）。大學入學考試英文科翻譯試題之再探。台北：輔仁大學翻譯學
研究所。
劉月雲、廖柏森（2010）。大學入學考試英文科翻譯試題之探討。翻譯學研究集new window
刊，13，219-254。
歐冠宇（2012）。以功能理論為基礎的翻譯評量法初探。翻譯學研究集刊，15，189-219。new window
歐冠宇（2014）。功能論暨社會建構論應用於大學翻譯教學之紮根理論研究。new window
台北：國立台灣師範大學翻譯研究所。
歐滄和（2002）。教育測驗與評量。台北：心理。
潘世尊（2012）。結構主義、認知學徒制等辭彙9條。教育大辭書。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/
潘慧玲（2003）。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊，11(1)，115-143。new window
穆雷（2007）。翻譯測試的定義與定位—英漢/漢英翻譯測試研究系列(一)。外語教學，28（1），82-86。
賴慈芸（2002）。結合實習的翻譯教學計畫。翻譯學研究集刊，7，377-397。new window
賴慈芸（2003）。他們走了多遠？—大學部學生、翻譯所學生與專業譯者的翻譯表現比較。第八屆口筆譯教學研討會論文集。台北：台灣師範大學翻譯
研究所。
賴慈芸（2006）。翻譯測驗的研究與現況。建立國家中英文翻譯人才能力檢定考
試「一般文件筆譯」評分機制之研究。台北：國立編譯館。
賴慈芸（2008）。四種翻譯評量工具的比較。編譯論叢，1（1），71-92。new window
賴慈芸（2009）。如何評量翻譯的表達風格：單語評分與雙語評分之比較。長榮new window
大學學報，13，67-80。
賴慈芸（2009）。譯者的養成：翻譯教學、評量與批評。台北：國立編譯館。
戴碧珠（2002）。台灣各大學英文系及應用英文系筆譯教學現狀探討。新北：輔
仁大學翻譯學研究所。

Airasian, P. W. & Russell, M. K. (2008). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction andnew window
evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, method and technique. English Language Teaching, 17, 63-67.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions, and directions. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
Banks, S. R. (2005). Classroom assessment: Issues and practices. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into
practice: How do we link? In Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.),
Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation, Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 17-34.
Bloom, B. (1984). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-
one tutoring. Educational Leadership, 7-17.
Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical
Education, 63(10), 873-878.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Cao, D. (1996). Towards a model of translation proficiency. Target 8: 2, 325-340.
Carroll, J. B. (1966). An experiment in evaluating the quality of translations. Mechanical translation 9, 55-66.
Cherubim, D. (1980). Abweichung und Sprachwandel. In D. Cherubim (Eds.),
Fehlerlinguistik. Beitrage zum Problem der sprachlichen Abweichung,
Tubingen, 124-152.
Colina, S. (2003). Translation teaching, from research to the classroom: A handbook for teachers. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Eds.),
Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, J. W. & O’Brien, N. P. (2003). The Greenwood dictionary of education (2nd
ed.). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Confrey, J. (1995). How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches, and social constructivism? In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education (pp. 185-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associsates.
Dancette, J. (1989). La faute de sens en traduction. TTR, 2-2, numéro spécial L’erreur
en traduction, 83-99.
Danielson, C. & Abrutyn, L. (1997). An introduction to using portfolios in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Davies, M. G. (2004). Multiple voices in the translation classroom: Activities, tasks and projects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Dollerup, C. & Loddegaard, A. (Eds.). (1992). Teaching translation and interpreting 1: Training, talent and experience. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dollerup, C. (1994). Systematic feedback in teaching translation. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2: Insights, aims, visions (pp. 121-132) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dollerup, C. & Loddegaard, A. (Eds.). (1994). Teaching translation and interpreting 2: Insights, aims visions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dollerup, C. & Appel, V. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching translation and interpreting 3: New horizons. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associsates.
Dunlap, J. C. & Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning in the higher education classroom, In B. G. Wilson (Eds.), Constructivist learning environments. Case studies in instructional design. (pp. 62-85). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Easley, S. D. & Mitchell, K. (2003). Portfolios matter: What, where, when, why and how to use them. Ontario: Pembroke Publishers.
Farahzad, F. (1992). Testing achievement in translation class. In C. Dollerup & A.
Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching of translation and interpreting: Training, talent
and experience (pp. 271- 278) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Flexner, S. B. (1993). Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. (2nd ed.).
New York: Random House.
Fox, O. (2000). The use of translation diaries in a process-oriented translation teaching methodology. In C. Schaffner & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing translation competence (pp. 115-130). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Genesee, F. & Upshur, J. A. (1996). Classroom-based evaluation in second language
education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gouadec, D. (1981). Paramètres de l’évaluation des traductions, Meta, 26-2, 99-116.
Grusko, R. (1998). Realizing the power of reflection. In G. Martin-Kniep (Eds.), Why am I doing this? Purposeful teaching through portfolio assessment (pp. 99-111). Portsmouth: Heineman.
Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications.
Guthrie, J. W. (2003). Encyclopedia of education. New York: Macmillan.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
Hönig, H.G. (1987). Wer macht die Fehler?. In J. Albrecht, H. W. Drescher et al.,
(Eds.), Translation und interkulturelle Kommunikation (pp. 37-45). Frankfurt:
Lang.
Honig, H. G. (1998). Positions, power and practice: Functionalist approaches and translation quality assessment. In C. Schaffner (Eds.), Translation and quality (pp. 6-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In J.
Thousand, A. Villa & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning.
(pp. 31-44). Baltimore, NY: Brookes Publishing.
Johnson, J. E. (2003). Learning through portfolios in the translation classroom. In B. J. Baer & G. S. Koby (Eds.), Beyond the ivory tower: Rethinking translation pedagogy (pp. 97-116). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kaufman, D. (2004). Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual review of applied linguistics, 24, 303-319.
Kelly, D. (2005). A handbook for translator trainers: A guide to reflective practice. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kiraly, D. C. (1995). Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process, Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.
Kiraly, D. C. (2000). A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.
Kiraly, D. C. (2003). From instruction to collaborative construction: A passing fad or the promise of a paradigm shift in translator education? In B. J. Baer & G. S. Koby (Eds.), Beyond the ivory tower: Rethinking translation pedagogy (pp. 3-
27). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Klaudy, K. (1994). Quality assessment in school vs professional translation. In C. Dollerup & V. Appel (Eds.), Teaching of translation and interpreting 3: New horizons (pp. 197- 204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kupsch-Losereit, S. (1985). The problem of translation error evaluation. In C. Tietford & A. E. Hieke (Eds.), Translation in foreign language teaching and testing (pp. 169-179). Tubingen: Narr.
Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the translator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lang, M. F. (1994). The problem of mother tongue competence in the training of translator. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pochhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies—An interdiscipline (pp. 395-400). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Larose, R. (1989). Théories contemporaines de la traduction, (2nd ed.). Québec,
Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.
Li, D. (2006). Making translation testing more teaching-oriented: A case study for translation testing in China. Meta 51, 72-88.
Li, D. (2007). Translation curriculum and pedagogy: Views of administrators of translation services. Target, 19(1), 105-133.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
McCarney, R., Warner, J., Lliffe, S., van Haselen, R., Griffin, M. & Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne effect: A randomized, controlled trial. BMC medical research methodology.
Melis, N. M. & Hurtado Albir, A. (2001). Assessment in translation studies: Research
needs. Meta 46, 272-287.
Mercer, N. (1994). Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education, In B. Stierer
and J. Maybin (Eds), (pp. 92-110). Language, literacy and learning in
educational practice, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Miller J. P. & Seller, W. (1985). Transmission position: Educational practice. In J. P. Miller and W. Seller (Eds.), (pp. 37-61). Curriculum perspectives and practice, New York: Longman.
Neubert, A. (1994). Competence in translation: A complex skill, how to study and
how to teach it. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pochhacker & K. Kaindl (Eds.), Translation studies—An interdiscipline (pp. 411-420). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nord, C. (1991). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic
application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis, Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi B. V.
Nord, C. (1992). Text analysis in translator training. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching of translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience. (pp. 39- 48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nord, C. (1996). ‘Wer nimmt den mal den ersten Satz? Uberlegungen zu neuen Arbeitsformen im Ubersetzungsunterricht’, in Angelika Lauer, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, J. Haller and E. Steiner (Eds.), Ubersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch, Tubingen: Gunter Narr, 313-328.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Nord, C. (2005). Training functional translators. In, M. Tennent. (Eds.), Training for the new millennium: Pedagogies for translation and interpreting (pp. 209-223). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage.
Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. NY: Basic Books.
Presch, G. (1980). Uber schwierigkeiten zu bestimmen, was als fehler gelten soll, In
D. Cherubim (Eds.), Fehlerlinguistik. Beitrage zum Problem der sprachlichen
Abweichung, Tubingen, 224-252.
Pym, A. (1992). Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching of translation and interpreting: Training, talent and experience (pp. 279- 288). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Reiss, K. (2000). Translation criticism: The potentials & limitations. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (1998). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Sainz, M. J. (1994). Student-centered corrections of translations. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard. (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions (pp. 133-141). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Scriven M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Newbury Park: Sage.
Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Stansfield, C., Scott M. L., & Kenyon, D. M. (1992). The measurement of translation
ability. The Modern Language Journal 76, 455-467.
Summers, D. (1992). Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Harlow,
UK.: Longman.
Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vivanco, H., Palazuelos, J. C., Hormann, P., Garbarini, C. & Blatrach, M. (1990).
Error analysis in translation: a preliminary report. Meta 35, 538-542.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education (pp. 3-15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associsates.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waddington, C. (2001). Should translations be assessed holistically or through error
analysis? Hermes 26, 15-38.
Waddington, C. (2001). Different methods of evaluating student translations: The
quality of validity. Meta 46, 311-325.
Waddington, C. (2003). A positive approach to the assessment of translation errors. Actas del I Congreso Internacional de la Asociacion Iberica de Estudios de Traduccion e Interpretacion. 2, 409-426.
Wertsh, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilss, W. (1982). The science of translation. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Wyatt, R. L. & Looper, S. (2004). So you have to have a portfolio: A teacher’s guide to preparation and presentation (2nd ed.). California: Corwin Press.
Zubizarreta, J. (2009). The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student learning (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：714（臺灣：711，外國：3） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1780212 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67586123
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上