1. Melita Koletnik Korošec, University of Maribor, Slovenia
The Role of Translation in Foreign Language Teaching – Time for Reassessment?
Melita Koletnik Korošec,
University of Maribor, Slovenia

2. Controversial role of translation in FLT
Reasons:
Ethno-centric
Economic
Pedagogic
Cognitive
Practical ….
Objectives:
Value-oriented
Tecnical
Cook (2010)
Distinction:
Pedagogical vs.
Real

3. Value-oriented objections
an unnatural, artificial and stilted activity
de-motivating and frustrating
only appropriate in the training of future translators
purposeless and has no application in the real world
is used by language teachers because they have little experience or knowledge of other teaching methods

4. Technical objections
elicits mistakes and promotes interference and (negative) transfer
forces the learners to view the language through the prism of their mother tongue
misleads students into thinking that expressions in two languages correspond 1:1
is not a suitable in the initial stages of learning
is independent and radically different from the four skills which define language competence – reading, listening, speaking and writing
does not allow or make easy the achievement of generally accepted foreign language teaching aims – such as initial fluency in spoken language, the use of situationalised and contextualised language, and the controlled introduction of communicative strategies and communicative language use
is not suitable as a language testing tool

5. The Study Teaching grammar through translation 2 groups, 2 teachers
one taught without resort to translation
the other taught through translation
1st year students of English translation
Exploring (1st stage):
the role of translation in the acquisition of the linguistic competence
Ultimate aim (2nd stage):
its influence on the development of translation competence

6. Translation as a tool for language acquistion
implemented as part of homework assignments
through discussion of homework solutions in class
a combination of synthetic and authentic materials
use of native language as a means of communication

7. Methodology Oxford Online Placement Test (Test 1)
On-line questionaire to determine students’ linguistic background (Questionnaire 1)
Grammar Tests (Tests 2-5) Weeks 7/14/21/28
Oxford Online Placement Test (Test 6)
On-line questionnaire to asses the overall impression (Questionnaire 2)

8. Preliminary Results – Tests 1 & 2
Statistical analyses of Test 1 vs. Test 2 results
No statistical significance could be established in relation to absolute performance of both groups (p=0.603 i.e. p>0.05)
Total
n=20
Group A
n=11
Group B
n=9 t p M SD
Test 1
83.2
13.7
82.1
13.4
84.5
14.8
-0.385
0.705
Test 2
76.2
9.0
76.4
8.0
75.8
10.6
0.146
0.886
Gain
-7.0
-5.7
16.3
-8.7
10.3
0.603
Table 1: Statistical analyses of Test 1 vs. Test 2 results (in %)
M: mean SD: standard deviation
t: t-test for independent samples p: statistical significance

9. Preliminary Results – Tests 1 & 2
Statistical analyses of Test 1 vs. Test 2 results
No statistical significance could be established in relation to absolute performance of both groups
Group A seems to have achieved somewhat better results in all relevant exercises, save for Exercise 7, and the results for Exercise 6 are identical
Group A
n=11
Group B
n=9 t p M SD
Exercise 4
9.1
0.9
9.0
1.1
0.3
0.70
Exercise 5
7.3
1.8
7.2
1.3
0.1
0.85
Exercise 6
7.8
-0.0
0.96
Exercise 7
8.3
8.7
0.8
-0.6
0.53
Exercise 8
7.6
7.1
0.40
Table 1: Statistical analyses of Test 1 vs. Test 2 results (in %)
M: mean SD: standard deviation
t: t-test for independent samples p: statistical significance

10. Preliminary Results – Tests 1 & 2
Cohen’s d
0.067 = indicating a non-significant effect.
Both practices seem to be supportive of the development of linguistic skills of language learners
The following values are given as indicative of the tests: small effect size, d = 0.2 to 0.3; medium effect size, d = ca. 0.5; and large effect size, d = 0.8 to infinity

11. THANK YOU!