International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org PEDAGOGICAL UTILITY OF TRANSLATION IN TEACHING
READING COMPREHENSION TO IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS
Abbas Mehrabi Boshrabadi
English Department, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Indubitably, the skepticism against the pedagogical utility of translation in language teaching
classroom has drastically changed in recent years. It is no wonder that writers such as Duff
(1994) and Beeby (1996) ardently call for the reintroduction of translation in the process of
second language (L2) acquisition. Due to a failure to understand the potential principles
underlying the translation theories, L2 teachers and practitioners have largely neglected the use
of translation as a technique in teaching foreign languages. Accordingly, the present study aims
at investigating the pedagogical utility of translation in L2 teaching process. For this purpose, a
sample of 180 students studying English as a foreign language was selected randomly. Using an
Oxford Placement Test (OPT), they were homogenized and divided, based upon their proficiency
levels, into six groups, i.e., elementary, intermediate, and advanced, for both experimental and
control groups. During the treatment, the three experimental groups received translation
oriented techniques aiming at teaching. Some textual features and the cross linguistic differences
between the learners’ first language (L1) and the foreign language they are learning were
measured. At the end of the treatment, a post test measuring the same textual features was
administered to both control and experimental groups. Finally, a researcher- developed
questionnaire was also given as a post hoc analysis to gauge the learners’ attitudes towards the
effectiveness of translation as a L2 pedagogical tool. The results illustrated that the idea of the
effectiveness of using translation activities in L2 classrooms to improve student’s learning
process was supported. The findings of the present study does contribute to the field by supplying
the curriculum developers with some useful insights on how to design the grammar section of the
English books in a way in which the learners have to translate sentences from L1 to L2 with the
newly learned structures in question. Some useful translation activities, utilized in the grammar
section of the book as a complementary activity, may improve the efficiency of the learning
process.
KEYWORDS: L2 acquisition, translation, pedagogical utility, proficiency, textual features
INTRODUCTION
In spite of the abandonment of translation, as a pedagogical tool in teaching a foreign language,
by many language practitioners, second language (L2) learners inevitably use it as a viable
learning strategy. The utility of translation as a teaching technique in L2 classes has a long
history and has always been the core of the controversies regarding whether or not it would be
used as a valid and effective tool in foreign language teaching/learning process.
381
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Early in the 20th century, according to the tenets of the Grammar Translation Method (GTM),
translation was highly thought of and used as an effective tool for learning a foreign language. In
GTM, the basis for acquisition of a foreign language was the use of first language (L1). In other
words, translation from L1 into L2 served as a reference system in learning the foreign language
(Brown, 2000).
However, some practitioners of the field began to oppose this method and challenged the
inefficacy of its underlying tenets and its utility for training fluent speakers in English. As a
consequence, the need for a pedagogical shift from GTM to some other method which could
foster the ability to speak the language was greatly felt. Therefore, the focus of interest was
altered to the use of the Direct Method and the Communicative Approaches to language teaching.
Accordingly, many teachers opted for eliminating the use of L1 and translation exercises in the
L2 classroom contexts. The proponents of the Audio-lingual and Communicative Methods firmly
believed that the use of the mother tongue was counter-productive in the process of acquiring a
foreign language, and consequently, the application of translation in the classroom could do more
harm than good, preventing learners from expressing themselves freely in the second language.
Another objection to using translation points out that “a good translation cannot be achieved
without mastery of the second language. We, therefore, teach the language first, and then we may
teach translation as a separate skill, if that is considered desirable” (Lado, 1964, P. 53).
Nevertheless, in a L2 classroom, the goal is to teach the language through all sorts of
communicative, comprehensive and writing activities. Consequently, we are not looking for
professional translations, but for ways of teaching how to express the same idea in L2 in different
ways. That is why the use of translation within the L2 curriculum should be considered as one
more resource, rather than taken as a requirement for becoming professional translators.
In the last few decades, however, there has been an increasing interest in the translation practice
in the foreign language classroom. It seems now that the general attitude towards translation has
begun to change. Recently, foreign language teachers have been reconsidering the use of
translation for different learning purposes. It was observed that translation activity could be used
for pedagogical purposes along with other traditional language teaching activities. Reading,
grammar exercises, translation, etc. “are in fact perceived by learners to be conductive to
learning” (McDonough, 2002, p.409). Those who discuss about the translation in their studies
argue that translation is a legitimate pedagogical tool especially in an EFL environment, and
claim that it deserves to be rehabilitated (Widdowson, 1978:18, Harmer, 1991:62, Ellis, 1992:46,
Bowen, Marks, 1994:93; Ur, 1996:40). However, they provide little methodological guidance as
to how to translate translation into pedagogical practice. The literature on translation deals either
with translation theories or translator’s training and contains only little relevant information on
the applicability of translation for language teaching. According to Klaudy (2003), there are two
types of translation, namely, pedagogical translation and real translation. Pedagogical
translation, which is the focus of this study and will be explained on the next section, is an
instrumental kind of translation in which the translated text serves as a tool of improving the
language learners’ foreign language proficiency. In real translation, on the other hand, the
382
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org translated text is not a tool but the very goal of the process. As such, the aim of real translation
would be to develop translation skills of translators. In fact, only a small number of works are
devoted to translation as an aid to teaching and learning, that is, pedagogical translation (Duff,
1989; Edge, 1986; Ulrych, 1986; Nadstroga, 1988; Urgese, 1989; Eadie, 1999). Accordingly, the
problem discussed in this study pertains to the pedagogical translation as a tool in teaching the
foreign language, and will be the relevance of translation and translation activities for enhancing
learners’ foreign language skills, and more specifically their reading comprehension skill. As
such, the present study aims to discuss that the lack of translation in the language classrooms is
untenable, and also to prove that translation is a valid method for teaching all language skills,
specially reading comprehension. The objectives of the study, therefore, will be:
1. To provide a substantial amount of evidence showing the wrong treatment of translation
in the L2 context and unjustified criticism against it.
2. To examine the effect translation activities may have on teaching and learning foreign
language skills and components, especially on students’ reading comprehension skill.
3. To highlight the possible relationship between language proficiency and the degree of
translation effectiveness.
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
Translation is perceived differently by different linguists, methodologists and teachers. Its use in
foreign language teaching provokes a great deal of disagreement and criticism. The main reason
for this is the fact that throughout the years there have been a number of studies carried out,
which have either favored or completely ignored the use of translation as a learning method. On
one hand, after the fall of Grammar Translation Method, proponents of the Direct Method at the
end of the nineteenth century banned the use of translation activities in the process of L2
learning. They believed in an approach called “Monolingual Approach”. On the other hand,
proponents of “Bilingual Approach” acknowledged the use of L1 and translation as a
pedagogical tool in teaching foreign languages. The problem with the later approach, however, is
that the supporters of using translation activities tend to somehow overuse it, which, as some
experts in the field believe, will naturally reduce the amount of students’ exposure to L2
(Dujmovic, 2007). Besides these two positions, however, according to Nation (2003), there could
still be another position standing somewhere in between the two extremes of the continuum.
Nation called this approach as “Balanced Approach”. He believes that a balanced approach is
needed, which sees a role for the L1 but also recognizes the importance of maximizing L2 use in
the classroom. As Cook (2001) also believes, translation activities used in the process of L2
teaching can be viewed as a rich resource which, if used judiciously, can assist second language
teaching and learning. Therefore, this research study tries to open up a new horizon for English
instructors to find a thoughtful way to use translation activities in the process of second language
teaching.
The two extreme positions of pure translation and forbidding translation in the classroom have
been the topic of most of the studies conducted on the impact of translation technique on the
second or foreign language learning/teaching. Those who are against the use of translation in the
383
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org L2 classroom consider it as inefficient, unreliable and irrelevant. According to Ross (2000), the
rationale against using translation is founded on obliging learners to share their precious L2 use
time with the L1; this is not a productive use of the opportunities given by the class. As a
follower of “monolingual approach”, Malmkjaer (1998) briefly summarizes the main reasons
why translation fell from favour. It is because translation:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is independent and radically different from the four skills which define language
competence: reading, writing, speaking and listening.
Takes up valuable time which could be used to teach these four skills.
Is unnatural.
Misleads and prevents students from thinking in the foreign language.
Is a bad test of language skills.
Produces interference.
Is only appropriate for training translators. (p. 6)
Duff (1994) reveals further reasons why teachers objected to the use of translation in foreign
language classes. The researcher stresses that translation is text-bound and confined only to two
skills, i.e., reading and writing. It is not a communicative activity as it does not involve oral
interaction. Then the use of the mother tongue is required, which is not desirable. Moreover, it is
boring, both to do and to correct. Accordingly, it can be claimed that the objections to the use of
translation in foreign language teaching process are all based on a limited view of translation on
the part of the teachers. It is also a widely held view that translation is not a suitable exercise in
the initial stages of teaching (Muranoi, 2000). It is argued that, before learners can tackle
translation productively, they need to have acquired a significant level of proficiency in the L2.
They need to have moved beyond beginner's level.
Many theorists, linguists, and teachers, on the other hand, agree on the importance of using
translation in foreign language classes. Atkinson (1987), for example, is one of the first and chief
advocates of using translation technique in the communicative classroom. He points out the
methodological gap in the literature concerning the use of the translation activities and argues a
case in favor of its restricted and principled use, mainly in accuracy-oriented tasks. In his article,
Atkinson clearly states that translation from mother language to the target language which
emphasizes a recently taught language item is a means to reinforce structural, conceptual and
sociolinguistic differences between the native and target languages. In his view, even though this
activity is not communicative, it aims at improving accuracy of the newly learned structures.
The proponents of using translation technique in L2 instruction claim that the use of translation
activities not only has a positive effect on students’ second language learning, but also may help
them improve the way they learn the target language. Cook (1999), for example, asserts that
treating translation technique as a classroom resource opens up a number of ways to use it, such
as for teachers to convey meaning, explain grammar, and organize the class, and for students to
use as part of their collaborative learning and individual strategy use. "The first language can be a
useful element in creating authentic L2 uses rather than something to be shunned at all costs" (p.
185).
384
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Pedagogical translation is a term that has recently been used by most of the professionals in the
field (e.g., Klaudy, 2003) so as to treat translation as a more effective tool in the process of
foreign language teaching. On this point of view, Cook (2001) asserts that the word 'translation'
has so far been avoided as much as possible because of its negative implication in teaching. As
Cook puts it, “Translation as a teaching technique is a different matter from translation as a goal
of language teaching" (p. 200). As such, pedagogical translation is used by teachers as a teaching
technique to teach students reading, writing, vocabulary, grammar, and speaking. As translation
is considered a communicative activity, it involves communication between the teacher and the
student. Learners are encouraged “to discuss rights and wrongs as well as problems related to the
translation task” (Leonardi, 2009, p.145). On one hand, students are involved in a conversation
on the translation topic, which helps them strengthen their speaking skills. On the other hand,
students are requested to talk to both the teacher and other learners. In the same way, Researchers
Nolasco and Arthur (1995) suggest that translation activities, as one of the possible ways to
integrate translation in foreign language classes, create a desire for communication and encourage
students to be creative and contribute their ideas. They also add that, by using translation
activities, students work independently of the teacher.
It should be noted that these two extreme positions, i.e., pure translation and forbidding
translation, portraying the existing dialectic which separates those who believe in the use of
translation and those who illuminated it from the classroom is founded on a dogmatic fallacy
which should be banned from language teaching profession. However, as this study tries to
reveal, a Balanced Approach in which teachers strategically use L1 in order to promote foreign
language acquisition seems to be logical. That is, L1 can be admixed with L2 as a complementary
and supportive stimulus. In this regard, Turnbull (2001) states that maximizing the target
language use does not and should not mean that it is harmful for the teacher to use the L1. One of
the principles by which teachers’ maximal use of target language is facilitated is the simultaneous
application of both L1 and L2. Similarly, Stern (1992) asserts that using L1 alongside with L2 is
pedagogically facilitative and this totally depends on the characteristics of learners’ interlanguage
and the language learning process. On the other hand, overuse of L1 will naturally reduce the
amount of exposure to L2. Therefore, an attempt should be made to keep a balance between L1
and L2 use. As such, Turnbull (2001) admits although it is efficient to make a quick switch to the
L1 to ensure, for instance, whether students understand a difficult grammar concept or an
unknown word, it is crucial for teachers to use the target language as much as possible in contexts
in which students spend only short periods of time in class, and when they have little contact with
the target language outside the classroom.
Similarly, Cook (2007), with regards to the use of L1 in the classroom, argues that all second
language learners access their L1 while processing the L2. She suggests that "the L2 user does
not effectively switch off the L1 while processing the L2, but has it constantly available" (p.
571). She also maintains that when working with ESL learners, teachers must not treat the L2 in
isolation from the L1. In fact, according to Cook, one cannot do so because "L1 is present in the
L2 learners' minds, whether the teacher wants it to be there or not. The L2 knowledge, being
created in them, is connected in all sorts of ways with their L1 knowledge" (p. 584). Thus, one
might suppose that using L1, more specifically translation activities, in L2 instruction will lead to
385
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org negative transfer. However, Beardsmore (1993) believes that although it may appear contrary to
common sense, maintaining and developing one's native language does not interfere with the
developing of the second language proficiency. To him, experience shows that many people
around the world become fully bi-and multi-lingual without suffering interference from one
language in the learning of the other.
The psychological benefits that the use of students’ mother tongues and translation activities in
the classroom bring about, according to Lucas and Katz (1994), are, “in addition to serving as a
practical pedagogical tool for providing access to academic content, allowing more effective
interaction, and providing greater access to prior knowledge" (p. 539). They also claim that by
using and valuing the learners’ native languages and, as a consequence, translation activities in
the class, their learning process will also be supported and enhanced by virtue of the fact that they
themselves are indirectly valued. Finally, many researchers support the idea that translation is a
motivating activity. Carreres (2006) conducted a questionnaire and came to the conclusion that
learners overwhelmingly perceive translation exercises as useful for language learning.
Consequently, it was in response to student feedback that he decided to introduce translation
more substantially in language classes. He added that translation, by its very nature, is an activity
that invites discussion and students are only too happy to contribute to it, often defending their
version with remarkable passion and persuasiveness.
Various researchers tried to investigate the role of translation in learning any of four language
skills and sub skills. Amongst them, applying the act of translation in improving the reading
comprehension performance of the language learners has received much of interest, which
receives more focus in this study. In this regards, Upton (1997) asserts that reading in a second
language is not a monolingual event and L2 readers have access to their first language as they
read and many use it as a strategy to help comprehend an L2 text. Moreover, some other
researchers have stronger ideas and show that translation is a key element in processing target
texts by learners. Kern (1994), for example, conducted an illuminating study whereby he looked
at the role of translating as a cognitive strategy in the L2 reading comprehension process. He
found that students often used translation to understand the text. He also found that L2 readers
most frequently used mental translation in response to specific obstacles to comprehension, such
as unfamiliar words and structures. As a consequence, translation technique, and more
specifically translation activities, might provide a guided practice in reading comprehension skill
of the learners because before starting to translate a text, they should read and analyze the text
meticulously to determine the content in terms of what, how and why it is formulated by the
respective author (Leonardi, 2009). As such, careful text analysis improves students reading
comprehension awareness and promotes L2 lexical development. In addition, translation can help
students improve their writing skills because it is a transfer of a text from one language into
another. In the same vein, Leonardi (2011) states that translation as a pedagogical tool can be
successfully employed at any level of proficiency, at school or University, as a valuable and
creative teaching aid to support, integrate and further strengthen the four traditional language
skills: reading, writing, speaking and listening. Accordingly, translation in foreign language
classes can set a useful ground by which ample opportunities are provided for the students to
view language as a holistic system with unique communicative capabilities, no matter what
386
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org proficiency level they are in. Moreover, translation activities need not be used in isolation, but
should be included in an inherent part of the language learning course.
On the basis of the above, the main goal of the present study is to consider the use of translation
as a significant pedagogical component for promoting L2 learners’ reading comprehension skills,
by adopting a reconciliatory stance which ardently opposes those professionals in the field who
consider translation and language teaching as wrong bed fellows.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
Considering the above-mentioned facts, the researcher of the present study seeks to answer two
questions regarding the role translation activities play in foreign language teaching:
A. Does the use of translation from L1 to L2 have any effect on the improvement of learners’
foreign language skills on the whole, and on their reading comprehension skill more
specifically?
B. What is the possible link, if any, between learners’ language proficiency level and the
degree of appropriateness of translation as a teaching technique?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
To reach the purpose of the study, a sample of 180 students from the population of the BA
students from Islamic Azad University of Khorasgan, Isfahan, Iran, studying English as their
major, both male and female, aged between 19 and 24, was randomly selected. Using an Oxford
Placement Test (OPT), the selected sample was divided into six groups, thirty each. Three groups
served as the experimental sample, while the other three were determined to receive placebo
treatment, hence, served as control group. At this point, care was taken to equalize the
experimental and control samples based on learners’ proficiency levels so that each group
included elementary, intermediate, and advanced learners’ sample. By employing three
proficiency levels, the researcher wanted to find out whether or not there was an interaction effect
between translation and proficiency variables. The age factor has been kept constant by
employing participants from almost the same age range.
Instruments
The instrumentation utilized in this study included several materials. First, an OPT test was used
for identifying learners’ proficiency level, and insuring homogeneity of both control and
experimental groups. Second, a reading comprehension text was selected from the reading
module of the Barron’s TOEFL (2010) and used as posttest to assess the learners’ knowledge of
text discursive characteristics as a main requirement since it is believed that translation technique
is most suitable for teaching reading comprehension and textual features manifesting different
types of discourse (Polio & Duff, 1994). The rationale behind selecting the reading text from the
TOEFL was to make sure that the test enjoys a high level of validity, and that the level of
difficulty was suitable for each group sample. The test encompassed a reading comprehension
387
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org passage followed by multiple-choice items. The percentage of right answers was used as criterion
for the final score of each student. The reliability of the test was estimated using KR-21 method,
which turned out to be 0.80. Also, a time allocation of 30 minutes was decided for the test to be
appropriate. Finally, an opinionnaire (questionnaire) was also given to the treatment group
hoping to find the participants’ attitudes towards the usefulness of translation in the L2 class.
This would provide a sort of post hoc analysis gauging learners’ opinions about whether or not
they think translation is a useful strategy for learning a foreign language. It should be noted that
most of the questionnaire items were adopted from Liao (2006). Naturally, the validity and
reliability of this instrument must be established based on specialists’ opinions and pilot studying.
Data Collection Procedures
To accomplish the purpose of the present study, the following procedures were carried out. First,
by administering an OPT, the selected sample was classified into three proficiency levels,
namely, elementary, intermediate, and advanced, based on their mean scores obtained from the
test. The test was comprised of 30 multiple-choice and 5 open-ended types of questions, with a
60 minutes time period being determined to be appropriate for participants to answer the
questions. After classifying the sample into three proficiency levels, they were further divided
into three experimental and three control groups. The three experimental groups were supplied
with the necessary discursive background by teacher’s explanation of some textual features in
their L1(in this case, Persian language) and later on checking their understanding by giving them
appropriate assignments involving translation, i.e., the reading comprehension test. It is evident
that the control group was taught the same issues by providing essential explanations but only in
L2 (English). That is, everything was the same as the experimental group except that the teacher
did not use the Persian language in order to explain the textual features of the reading passage.
During a period of six-week course, the researcher attended in both experimental and control
groups classes to take the same reading comprehension tests so as to check students’
understanding of the textual features such as cohesion and coherence. In each session, the
experimental group received a specific treatment that was the use of L1 (Persian language) in
explaining the reading passage and some textual features. Evidently, the situation for the control
group was different due to teacher’s using only L2 (English) to explain about the same textual
features as for the experimental group. After each session, the participants answered the
comprehension questions and finally after six weeks the results of both groups were compared by
using a posttest about which was explained above. The test was first piloted with 30 learners and
some necessary changes were applied in terms of item characteristics, i.e., item facility and item
discrimination, as well as reliability. In order to gauge the participants’ opinions and attitudes
toward the usefulness of translation activities in their foreign language learning, the researcher
provided the participants of experimental group with a well-organized questionnaire. Giving
some explanation on the reason the questionnaire was used, and some instruction on how to
answer the questions, the researcher asked participants to complete the questionnaire. The
questions were all multiple choice, so the participants were asked to choose from among 5
possible choices, based on the Likert Scale (i.e., completely agree, agree, not sure, disagree,
completely disagree), the best one that is in line with their personal opinion.
388
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Data Analysis
With due regards to the data analysis process, certain statistical procedures were utilized to
analyze and interpret the data elicited by the study. In order to statistically analyze the results of
the posttest given to both groups, the software Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was
of great help in this research. The main statistical procedure employed in this project was a oneway ANOVA so as to compare the mean scores of the experimental and comparison groups of
the study so as to determine whether or not the application of the treatment had any considerable
effect on the learning process of the experimental group. Having determined the difference
between two groups, a Tukey test, as a post hoc test, was used to see if there is any significant
difference between each level, i.e., beginner, intermediate, and advanced.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Considering the research questions “1. Does the use of translation from L1 to L2 have any effect
on the improvement of learners’ foreign language skills on the whole, and on their reading
comprehension skill more specifically?” And “2.What is the possible link, if any, between
learners’ language proficiency level and the degree of appropriateness of translation as a teaching
technique?”, a one-way ANOVA was run to compare the mean scores of the participants in each
level of experimental and control groups on the posttest of reading comprehension. As is
displayed in table 1, The mean scores of each level of experimental and control groups
(elementary, intermediate, and advanced) revealed that the effect of using translation technique
on EFL learners’ reading comprehension proficiency did not differ significantly across three
levels (f(2,87)=2.655, p=.076>.05).
Table 1: Results of ANOVA test
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
exp. Posttest
con. Posttest
Between Groups
Df
Mean Square
112.867
2
56.433
Within Groups
1849.133
87
21.254
Total
1962.000
89
13.089
2
6.544
Within Groups
1245.400
87
14.315
Total
1258.489
89
Between Groups
F
Sig.
2.655
.076
.457
.635
Moreover, as it can be induced from table 2, the difference between experimental and control
groups’ man scores on the posttest of reading comprehension is significant (p<.05).
Consequently, the null hypothesis represented as “the use of translation from L1 to L2 does not
have any effect on the improvement of learners’ foreign language skills on the whole, and on
their reading comprehension skill more specifically” would be rejected. Having received the
treatment, the experimental group experienced better performance on the posttest of reading
comprehension than control group. Due to the fact that the control group also underwent a course
of instruction, it makes sense that at the end of the course, they have made some progress. But the
point is that the control group has made little progress compared to the experimental group which
is certain proof of effectiveness of treatment.
389
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Table 2: Paired samples posttest of experimental and control groups
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Pair 1
exp. posttest - con.
posttest
31.622
6.077
Std. Error
Mean
.641
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
30.349
t
df
32.895 49.363
89
Sig. (2tailed)
.000
Comparisons of three levels, using Tukey’s post hoc test, indicated that there was not statistically
any significant difference among the three levels of language proficiency regarding the effect of
using translation technique on students’ reading comprehension ability. A small difference,
however, was found between the intermediate and advanced groups (p=.062) (see table 3). This is
quite compatible with what Leonardi (2011) believed. In her study, Leonardi concluded that
translation can be successfully employed at any level of language proficiency.
Table 3: Multiple comparisons among three proficiency levels
Tukey HSD
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent
Variable
(I) level of
proficiency
(J) level of
proficiency
exp. Posttest
beginner
Intermediate
Intermediate
Advanced
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
-1.167
1.190 .591
-4.01
1.67
Advanced
1.567
1.190 .390
-1.27
4.41
Beginner
1.167
1.190 .591
-1.67
4.01
Advanced
2.733
1.190 .062
-.11
5.57
Beginner
-1.567
1.190 .390
-4.41
1.27
Intermediate
-2.733
1.190 .062
-5.57
.11
The findings of the study are also in line with what Upton (1996) and Kern (1994) assert on the
effect translation technique has on learners’ reading comprehension proficiency. They believe
that reading in a foreign language is not a monolingual event and L2 readers often use their first
language as a strategy in processing and understanding the target language text.
The results of the present study are, however, against the Malmkjaer (1998) and Duff (1994)
views, who are objected to using translation as a teaching tool in foreign language classes.
Muranoi (2000) also believed that translation is not a suitable exercise for the initial stages of
teaching foreign languages because learners need to acquire a sufficient level of proficiency in L2
before they can tackle translation activities productively. But the results of the present study
revealed that the use of translation technique in foreign language classes does not heavily rely on
the overall language proficiency of learners.
390
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org The above-mentioned facts stemmed from the experimental phase of the study inspired the
researcher of the present study to further support the results of the study by gauging the opinion
and attitudes of the participants of experimental group toward the effect translation technique
might have on their learning process. As was mentioned earlier, the participants were provided
with a questionnaire so as to give their opinion and attitudes towards the effect of translation
activities in foreign language learning. The questionnaire was comprised of 15 items and took
about 20 minutes for the participants of experimental group to complete it. The analysis of the
results obtained from the questionnaire revealed that translation from L1 to L2 played a major
role in improving learners’ reading comprehension proficiency. As is illustrated in Table 4, the
means of item 1 indicated that above 68% of participants tended to use translation technique as a
learning strategy in their foreign language learning process. Their answers to item 15 also
revealed that they always flash back to their mother tongue whenever it is hard for them to think
in a foreign language (English, in this case). Moreover, it can be resulted from their answers to
item 4 that they highly accept the teacher’s use of L1 when it comes to more difficult concepts of
the foreign language. For example, they believed that the teacher had better use Persian language
when explaining some the textual features of English reading passages.
Table 4: The examinees’ responses to the items concerning their beliefs about translation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Item Explanation
Mean out of 5 for
elementary level
Mean out of 5 for
intermediate learners
I am interested in translation, using Persian to learn
English.
Translation classes are more enjoyable and profitable.
I make faster progress in the L2 reading comprehension
by means of translation.
A given translation by the teacher will improve my selfconfidence when it comes to answering a reading
comprehension question.
The teacher’s use of L1 helps me become more
familiarized with the target language culture.
Using Persian translation while studying helps me
better recall the content of a lesson later.
Translation activities serve as an adequate learning
strategy in foreign language classes.
I feel under pressure when I am asked to think directly
in English.
4.2
4
Mean out of 5
for advanced
learners
4.6
3.8
4
3.2
4.2
3
4.8
3.5
3.8
4.2
4.7
4.2
4.8
4
4
3.86
4.2
4.8
4.46
3.8
3
3.2
Translation of the gist of a passage has a positive effect
on my comprehension, be it oral or written.
By using Persian language occasionally, I will gain a
positive attitude toward learning English.
At some stages of learning, I cannot learn the foreign
language without some translation activities.
The teacher’s use of Persian language helps me learn
such pragmalinguistic resources of English as register,
genre, and some meta-discourse markers.
All language skills and components would be
developed the same using translation activities.
Translation helps me understand the foreign language
vocabulary and idioms easier.
I tend to flash back to Persian language whenever it is
hard to think in English.
4.5
4.9
4.8
2.8
3.5
3.2
3
2.8
2.4
4.5
4
4.7
4.5
3.2
2.86
4
4.2
3.4
4
4.5
3.8
391
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org On the whole, the means of the participants’ answers in all three levels revealed some facts,
which would follow: a) all three groups of proficiency level believed that translation can be
considered as a useful aid in comprehending reading comprehension passages of English, b) the
teacher’s use of mother tongue in explaining some more problematic concepts of a foreign
language such as textual features for learners can be considered as a useful tool, according to all
participants, and c) the attitudes towards the use of translation did not heavily rely on the overall
language proficiency of learners. That is, the responses of less proficient students also indicated
that translation is suitable and useful for students of lower level of proficiency in English. These
finding are compatible with those of Kern (1994) that found the students often used translation to
understand the text.
The results of the questionnaire also revealed that the overall language proficiency of learners did
not have any effect on the use of translation as a foreign language learning strategy, which is
compatible with the study conducted by Leonardi (2011). Leonardi also stated that translation as
a pedagogical tool can be successfully employed at any level of proficiency, at school or
University, as a valuable and creative teaching aid to support, integrate and further strengthen the
four traditional language skills. Finally, all the three groups of participants believed that
translation classes are more enjoyable (related item: 2), which is in line with what Carreres
(2006) claimed based on the findings of his study. Carreres stated that translation, by its very
nature, is an activity that invites discussion and students are only too happy to contribute to it,
often defending their version with remarkable passion and persuasiveness. The study confirmed
that translation activities could be used as a means to provoke the learners’ motivation.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of this study was to explore the effect translation technique might have on students'
reading comprehension proficiency. The results showed that there was a significant difference
between the students' reading comprehension ability before and after the treatment. Almost all
students improved in the posttest and showed positive attitude in the questionnaire.
Therefore, instruction through translation was beneficial to students' learning except in very few
cases. The researcher induced the results and conclusions on the benefits and applications of
using translation in this study as follows:
1. The use of L1 in the process of L2 acquisition would be of great help for foreign language
learners and pave the way for their learning. Accordingly, EFL teachers should take the
use of students’ mother tongue into consideration as a pedagogical tool in the process of
teaching. It does not seem reasonable to deprive learners from deploying this recourse at
the expense of exercising an English-only atmosphere in the classrooms, by virtue of the
fact that mother tongue is truly a very rich resource of linguistic knowledge with which
any L2 learner is already equipped.
2. As mentioned earlier, on one hand, reading in a foreign language is not a monolingual
event (mental translation), and on the other hand, the students are not skilful enough to
understand the passage thoroughly. Therefore, the teacher may help them by providing
392
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org the translation of the gist of the reading passage and facilitate the process of
comprehension.
3. In some special kind of reading passages, mainly texts about culture and traditions of the
people of other nations, beginner learners may not be successful in comprehension due to
that lack of background knowledge and cultural differences. In this regard, translation
technique and the use of students’ first language might be helpful as it help them to better
understand the target language culture and related issues.
The findings of this study may have some useful implications for curriculum development. How
to present the materials for the grammar section of the books has always appeared to be one of
the most controversial issues amongst the materials developers and writers. Although there are a
variety of activities to be used in presenting the structural points of a given lesson, the curriculum
developers may find the findings of this study useful and design the grammar section of the
books in a way in which the learners have to translate sentences from L1 to L2 with the newly
learned structures in question. Some useful translation activities, utilized in the grammar section
of the book as a complementary activity, may improve the efficiency of the learning process.
It is worth to be noted that although the findings of the present study supported the idea of the
effectiveness of the utility of translation activities in improving learners’ reading comprehension
proficiency, there may be some limitations challenging the generalization of the results of this
study. As an example, a short time period of six weeks might not be appropriate enough to
experience the treatment. Another limitation that might affect the results of this study can be
related to the validity of such tests as OPT and TOEFL. what such tests really measure may not
be related to the purpose of study.
REFERENCES
Beardsmore, H. (1993). The European school model. In H. Beardsmore (Eds.), European models
of bilingual education (pp. 21-54). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Beeby Lonsdale, A. (1996). Teaching Translation from Spanish to English. World beyond Words.
Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Bowen, T., & Marks, J. (1994). Inside Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th Ed.). White Plains, NY:
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Carreres, A. (2006). “Strange bedfellows: Translation and Language Teaching.” University of
Cambridge, UK.
Cook, G. (2007). A thing of the future: translation in language learning. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 17 (3), 396-401.
Cook, V. J. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly,
33(2), 185-209.
Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57(3), 184-206.
Duff, A. (1989). Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duff, A. (1994). Translation: Resource Books for Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
393
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Dujmovic, M. (2007). The use of Croatian in the EFL classroom. Metodicki Obzori, 2(1), 91-100.
Retrieved on February 12, 2013 from http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/19437
Eadie, J. (1999). “A Translation Technique”. ELT Forum, 37 (1), 2-9.
Edge, J. (1986). “Acquisition Disappears in Adultery: Interaction in the Translation Class”. ELT
Journal, 40 (2), 121-124.
Ellis, R. (1992). Second Language Acquisition & Language Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Kern, R. G. (1994). ‘The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16, 441-461.
Klaudy, K. (2003). Languages in Translation. Budapest: Scholastica.
Lado, R. (1964). Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: MacGraw-Hill, Inc.
Leonardi, V. (2009). Teaching Business English through Translation. Journal of Language &
Translation
[online],
10(1),
p.
139–153,
available
at:
http://www.unish.org/unish/DOWN/PDF/5_1_Leonardi_rev_and_ finalD.pdf [Accessed
13/01/2013].
Leonardi, V. (2011). Pedagogical Translation as a Naturally Occurring Cognitive and Lingvistic
Activity in Foreign Language Learning. Annali Online di Lettere-Ferrara [online], vol. 1–
2, p.17–28, available at: http://eprints.unife.it/annali/lettere/2011voll1-2/leonardi.pdf
[Accessed 22/03/2013].
Liao, P. (2006). EFL learners’ beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English learning.
RELC, 37 (2), 191-215.http: Retrieved fromhome.pchome.com.tw (date: 19/2/2013)
Lucas, T., & Katz, A. (1994). Reframing the debate: The role of native languages in English-only
programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 537-561.
Malmkjaer, K. (1998). Translation and Language Teaching. Manchester: St Jerome.
McDonough, J. (2002). The Teacher as Language Learner: Worlds of Differences? ELT Journal
[online],
vol.56,
no4,
available
at:
http://biblioteca.uqroo.mx/hemeroteca/elt_journal/2002/octubre/560404.
[Accessed
07/01/2013]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.404.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal
instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4),
617-673.
Nadstroga, Z. (1988). “A Communicative Use of Translation in the Classroom”. ELT Forum, 30
(4), 12-14.
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. The Asian EFL
Journal, 5(2). Retrieved on February 10, 2013 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.
com/june_2003_PN.html
Nolasco, R., & Arthur, L. (1995). Large Classes. Hemel Hempstead: Phoenix ELT.
Polio, C., & Duff, P. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language classrooms: a
qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Modern Language
Journal, 78(3), 311-326.
Ross, N. J. (2000). Interference and Intervention: Using Translation in the EFL Classroom.
Modern English Teacher, 9(3), 61–66.
Stern, H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
394
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 5 (2), February 2014; 381-­‐395 Mehrabi Boshrabadi, A ISSN (online): 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN (print): 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Ulrych, M. (1986). “Teaching Translation in the Advanced EFL Classes”. ELT Forum, 24 (2),
14-17.
Upton, T. A. (1997). First and second language use in reading comprehension strategies of
Japanese ESL students. TESL-EJ, 3 (1).
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Urgese, T. (1989). “Translation: How, When and Why”. ELT Forum, 27 (3), 38-40
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but....
Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, (4), 150-163.
Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Abbas Mehrabi Boshrabadi is holding a M.A degree in TEFL from Islamic Azad University,
Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran. He has been involved in EFL teaching since 2007 and
has worked as language teacher in many language schools in Iran. His main research interests are
second language acquisition, CALL, and teacher education.
395