Task Based & New Technology_Baer

8/4/2019 Task Based & New Technology_Baer

1/9

2ro Lynne Bowker

Williams, . A. 1996.A translator's eference eeds:Dictionaries r parallelexts?"TargetS(2):275-299.WordSmith Tools:http://www.1exically.net/wordsmith/Wright, S.E. 1987. Translationexcellencen theprivatesector." n Translation xcellence:

Assessment,chievement,aintenance,M. .Roseed.), 13-124. inghamton: UNY'Zanettin,F. 1998. Bilinguai omparableorporaan d he trainingof translators'"Meta

43(4):616-630.Zanettin, .200l. "Swimmingn words:corpora, ranslation nd anguageearning." n

Learning ith Corpora, . Aston ed.),177*I97.Bologna/Houston:LUEBiAthelstan.

Task-based nstructionand the new technologyTiaining translators or the modernlanguage ndustry

GeoffreyS.Kobv and Brian IamesBaer

IntroductionUntil the mid 1980s,when personal omputersbegan o transform he lan-guagendustry, translation skillswere ypicaily passed n to future translatorsby an experiencedeacher/mentorwho would demonstrate he met hods oftranslation y example. ccording o this pedagogical pproach, escribed ylean-RenLadmiral as Ihe performancemagistrale, student's ranslationwould be evaluatedagainst he instructor's "master text" (1977).DonaldKiraly describeshe traditional ranslat ion lassroom sorganizedaround "asingle behavioristprinciple: One learns how to translate by translating"(1995:7).While this may have produced a certain number of cornpetent"solitary" translators, t is an approach hat, like the grammar-translationmethodof foreign anguageeaching, ccommodates imited varietyof earn-ing styles nd ails, or the mostpart, o addresshe extralinguistic ualities hatare ncreasingly rizedwithin the contemporary anguagendustry, such asflexibility,creativity, esourcefulness,rofessionalism, nd the ability to workln teams.

GregorySirreve2000)hasdescribedhe ransl ation ndustryasan ecosys-tem in which change n any one area necessarilympacts all others. t iscertainly he case hat the evolution of the cont emporary anguage ndustryposes numberof challengeso translation edagogyn termsof both contentand methodology.Technologicalnnovation has significantlyexpanded herangeand the nature of texts or tran slation, he number and complexityoftoolsavailableo assisthe ranslat or, nd he varietyofavenues or translators


2/9

2r2 Geoffrey S. Koby and Brian |ames Baer

to carryout research n terminologl, parallel exts,and backgroundnforma-tion. Increasingdemand or translation, ueled n part by the technologyboom,hasproduced hangesn theprofessionalandscape f the ranslator swell,as s evident n the creationof, or increased ernand or, certain ypesoflanguage rofessional, uch as ocalizer, rojectmanager, nd terminologist.This hasalsohad ts effecton the translator's ork environment.The transla-tor today often finds him/herselfpart of a team, a situation that requiresteamwork, flexibility, and well-developed ommunication skills, qualities hatwere ar ess mportant o the"solitary" ranslator.

Thesechangesn the translationecosystemepresent eal challengesotranslator raining.Theperfornlance agistraleisncreasinglynappropriate othe training of the contemporaryanguage rofessional, ho is expectedohavea varietyof extra-linguistic kills hat are lpically not addressedy thosetraditional methodologies.Moreover, esearchn the field of pedagogy uggeststhe relative neffectivenessf thosemethodologies hen compared o peda-gogical pproachesased n CognitiveTheory. n the irst section,we explorethevariousways n whichnew echnology asaffectedhe ranslator'sask.Wethen focus on pedagogicalnitiatives, n particular Task-Basednstruction(TBI), that may be more effective n training today's anguageprofessionals,proposingsomeprinciples or incorporatingTBI within a translator rainingcurriculum.Finally,we offer a number of task-basedearningmodules or usein teachingsoftware ocalization.

TechnologizationOver the last 25 years, he developrnent f powerful computersand relatedtechnologies assignificantly ltered he andscape f documentproduction.Increasingechnologizationasexpandedhe scope ftransiationpedagogy ycreatingnew text types or translation that challengen fundamentalways hetraditionalconcept f what constitutes ext.The methodof presentingnfor-mation on the World Wide Web, or example, epresents new kind of text.There, the traditional concept of a text has given way to hlpertext linking'which allowsa "text" to be composedof many different, nterrelatedpara-graphs or "screens"of information that can be accessedn any order.Cognitively, his requires ranslators o developa sense f the way text compo-nentsare nterrelated, rior to or during translation; echnically,t means hatthe translator must be able to deal with Hlper'Iext Markup LanguageHTML - eitherdirectlyor by using echnologicalools.

Task-basedinstruction 2r3

At thesame ime,software s being ocaliz ed imuitaneouslynto multiplelanguages.ocalizationnvolves, mongother hings, he translationof menuitems, dialog boxes,on-line help, and "strings" of text - words, phrases,sentences, nd paragraphshat appearduring use of the software.For thetranslator,hese exts or translation re ypicallyprovidedout ofcontext (i.e.,collections f help files,strings,etc.).Here again, he translator s facedwiththe cognitive askof constructing oherence nd cohesionor textualelementsthat appear o havenone.The translatormust alsobe awareof extralinguisticelementshat rnayor maynot be culture-specif ic,uchas cons,graphics, olorschemes, r layout.Moreover, he ranslatormust have he echnical oolsandskills o openand translate he text - without inadvertently eleting mpor-tantsoftware odes to resize isualelementso fit the ext,and o edit visualelements icons,graphics) o {rt he targetculture.

As argecompanies aveattempted o deal with an enormousvolume ofinformation in multiple languages,hey have been forced to find ways toefficiently tore, etrieve, nd reuse his nformation. Solutions o thisprobleminvolveorganizing he nfor mation asunique self-contained nits of contentthat ca n bestoredseparately, ssemblednto longer exts o serue he variousneedsof differentend users, nd updatedas needed.For the translator, hismeans hatan nitial translationmay nvolvea onger,coherent ext, but whenchanges remade,only the changed nits aresentout for transiation.As moreinformation s stored n this way, ess ontextwill be availableo the ranslator.Shreve omrnents,As the extremedifferentiationof text typescontinues, twill becomemore andmore difficult or translatorso understand he essentialcharacterof the new texts they are transforming" (2000:222). Therefore,translatorsmust develop kill n constructing ohesion ndcoherencerom theelements resented.

The ncreasen the volume and diversityof text types or translationhasnaturally ed o an expansion f the skillsexpected f a transiator, nd n somecases asproducednew anguage-relatedrofessions, uchasbilingual editor,multirnedia designer, esearch nd information specialist, ultural assessor,multicultural softwaredesigner, oftware ocalizer, erminologist,or projectmanager Shreve OO0: 28).The explosion n documentproduction, global-ization, and tlre concomitantneed or interculturalcommunication has n-creased emand for translation o a point where computer tools - bothgeneral urpose oolsand special urpose ranslation ools are needed ndhavebeendevelopedo dealwith this volumeof work.By tools,we rneansoftwareapplicatiotts as t is generallyassumed hattranslators ow usecomputers. lready n 1994,Alan Melby noted, Over the


3/9

2r4 GeoffreyS. Koby and Brian JamesBaer

past 0 years,he ssue f whetheror not a ranslator houldusea comPuter aslargelybeen eplaced y the issueof what kind of computerhardwareandsoftware o acquire n order o bestsucceedn the translationmarket" (127).Although one might assume hat it should not be our task to teachbasicsoftwareapplications and given he amount of time we have n a class,heassumptions ustified), t is by 1omeanshecasehat students ntera ransla-tion programwith appropriately xtensive kills n suchbasiccomputer asksas word processing r evenWeb browsing'Therefore, ven hough we mayonly teach he specializedools,we must be aware hat studentsmay havefundamental onceptual roblemsand ackknow-how at a more basic evel.

Specializedoftwareools or tralslation aremany andvaried,and changerapidly. Some of the software ools that we must teach nclude CD-ROMdictionaries, he useof online databases,erminologymanagement ystems,computer-assistedranslation (CAT) tools, localization ools, and desktoppublishingsoftware.When teachilg such ools,our fundamentalpedagogicalgoalmustbe he acquisition f colceptualknowledge.Given hat thespecificoperatingprinciplesof the tool will change often in a matter of months),students eed o learn he conceptual rinciples nderlyingeach ool, so hatthey are able to look beyond differences n the interface to find the basicsimilarities. t the same ime, studentsmust earn he actualoPerationof atleast ne ull-featured oftware ool in each ategory. his represents generalpeclagogicalaradigmshift and challenge, ince earninga tool properly n-volvesa argeamountof hands-onexperience t thecomputerwith a teacheror facilitator availablewhen problemsare encountered.Below,we will brieflyexaminethese specialized ools in order of increasingcomplexity, and thespecific edagogicalhallengesnvolvedwith each ne'

The new technologyAt this ime, a CD-ROMdictionarys most often simplyan edition of a paperdictionary hat hasbeenconverted o the new format,with greateror lesserdegrees f success.venso,CD-ROM versions f dictionaries hangehewaythat the inforntation hey containcan be accessed.dvantages f electronicdictionariesnclude peed fiookup, the ability o search sing runcatedwordforms or to searchhe text of an entry for a specificword, the option of havingmultiple definitionsopen n multiple windowssimultaneously usefulwhentryingto indpreciselytheightword fromanumberofsimilaroptions), nd heability o paste irectly nto a ransl ation. eyond heusualchallengesinked o

Task-basedinstruction 2

theuse fdictionaries, e ind ( )alackof serendipity relatedwordshatwouldbe ound on a pagemay not appear n the resultsofa search), 2) a tendencyamongstudents o acceptvhat sseen n a screen svalid nforrnationwithoutverification also oundwith paperdictionaries), ndperhaps 3) screen lutter- manyapplications eed o beopenat the same ime while ranslating.

Anotherwidelyused ool is an onlinedatabase,ny repositoryof informa-tion that s accessibleo users hrough he World Wide Web. fhesedatabasesareaccessiblen standardwaysusingstandard rowsers, nd herefore resentfew technologicalssues. nstead, he challenges one teachers crossdisci-plines acewith increasingrequency: tudents ssume hat what they ind onthe Web is corr ect without considering he authority and reliability of thesource. or example, tudents ssignedo find parallel extsor terminology nEnglishwill oftenciteWeb pagesocatedon a siteending n .de Germany)or.f r (France)as being representativ e f authenticEnglishusage. n addit ion,students re ncreasinglyelyingon the World Wide Web as heir only sourceof information,disregarding apersourceshat would require hern o walk tothe library. Sincestudentsprefer to access o-cost sites, he reliability andparticularly he scopeof coverage f these reely accessible atabases ftenleaves greatdeal o be desired.

A third, more complex ool is a tenninology mnagementystenl,a com-puterapplication esignedor docurnenting nd managing erminology."Ter-minology s "the setof aii he erms hat arespecific o a special ub ject ield, agroupof persons, r a single ndividual" and "the disciplinewhoseobject s hesystematic tudy of t he monolingual or multilingual designation f conceptspertaining o domainsof human activity..." (Delisleet al. 1999:186).Thus aterminologymanagement ystem s a software ool that allowsusers o storetheir own terminology or a particular domain or domains.Someof thesesoftware pplications ermit flexibleentryof a broad rangeof information inaddition to simple term-term equivalenc essuch as parts of speech, sageinformation,contexts, tc.),creationof hyperlinksbetween elated erms,andconsistency nforcement cross ata categories. ike many softwareapplica-tions oday, hiskind of tool makest possibleor a broad ange f users o adaptthe softwareo their specific eeds.Here, he conceptual hallengenvolves hefact hatstudents reoftenunable o recognizetems hatarepartof a erminol-ogy, hat s, "The setof all he erms hat arespecific o aspecial ubject ield, agroupof persons, r asingle ndividual" (Delisle tal. 1999:186).Ierminologymanagement ystem oftware asbeenmisused y studentswho sinrply nserta erm or everywordthey o not knowin a sourceext (thus eflectingheir evelof L2 competence) nd do not supplyany of therelevant ncillarynformation.


4/9

216 Geoffrey S. Koby and Brian James 3aer

The fourth and most complex tool involvescomputer-assistedranslation,which s"a modeof ranslationwhere hehuman ranslator reates ext usingacomputerprogramdesignedo support he ranslation rocess"Delisle tal.1999: 26).Computer-assistedranslation ystems enerallyincludeome ormof ranslationmemory.Translationmemory s acomputerprogram hatstoresand aligns reviously ranslated ource extsand heir respectivearget exts nmachine-readableorm and matchesnew texts for translation o previoussolutions n order o reuse revious ranslations" i90). Challengesor peda-gogy here nvolveconstructionof a sufficiently argedatabase f translatedsegmentso actuallydemonstrate he software, inding suitable exts or trans-lationwithin this domain,and,again, eaching tudents ow to evaluateextsprovidedor suggestedy thecomputer. See lsoBowker's oltribution in thisvolurne.)

Last,desktop ublishingsoftwaresnot actuallya translation ool per se, utrather,as he namesuggests, publishing ool. Nevertheless,s he anguageindustry has shifted rom being merely a provider of translated exts o aproviderof multilingualpublishingsolutions, lowledge of at eastone desk-top publishingsystems becorninga useful f not a necessaryomponeutoftranslator nowledge.

Pedagogicalesponseso technologizationIn a cornputerizedranslationciassroom r lab, the overarchinggoal is toenable tudentso acquireboth declarative nowledge i.e.,specific echnicalskills n an application) ndprocedural nowledge i.e., he ability o recognizeand contextualizeechnical ssues ithin a conceptual ramework) o enablethem o work effectivelyn an ncreasinglyechnologizedranslation ndustry,and o dealwith change roactively hrough heir understanding f thenatureand underlyingprinciplesof the technoiogy.Maria-LuisaArias-Marenode-scribeshe distinctionbetweeu eclarative ndprocedural orms of knowledgein the following way: "Declarative nowledges explicit and conscious ndinvolvesknowingwhat' (facts, ules). n contrast, rocedural nowledgeon-sistsof 'knowing how' using cognitive strategies nd procedures o solveproblems" 1999: 38).For example, ne can visit the ATA website n th elnternet and use a searchengine o select ndividual translators rom thedatabase; et without understanding he underlying principles of Booleanlogic, he searchs ikely to producernisleading esults too many or too few"hits."Along the same ines,knowing how to resize oxesand align ext n a

Task-basednstruction

localizationapplicationsuch as Catalyst epresentsmemorized knowledge.Conceptually, owever, t is much more important to understand he meta-phor underlying uchactions, .e., hat a graybox on the screen epresents nobject hat can contain other objects, uch as outlines,divider lines, checkboxes, ext boxes,etc.,eachofwhich is itselfan object.Once he concepthasbeen acquired, he stud ent can encounter any such object in any softwareenvironmentand,knowing hat t canbe manipulated n particularways, eedonly discoverhow thesemanipulationsare implemented n this particularsoftware pplication.

Over he ast wentyyears,we haveseen he development f a number oflearner-centered edagogical pproaches ased n Cognitive Theory thatmight help translator rainersavoid the temptation to dispense eclarativeknowledge egarding he useof technology of the "press his button first"variety within a traditionalperfornmncengistrale. ask-Basednstruction(TBI) is one suchmethodology.Developed or the teachingof foreign an-guages,t is basednot on Skinner'sbehavioral heory,but on the theory ofcognitive processing laborated y Bloorn. ln his now famous taxonomy,Bloorndelineated ix differentcognitiveprocessesnd organized hem hierar-chically rom the least o the most complex: rnemorization,understanding,application, analysis,synthesis,evaluation. Arguing that behaviorist ap-proacheso anguagenstructionbasedargelyon repetitionand drills engagedonly he owest evels f cognitive rocessing, ethodologistsollowing Bloomdeveloped BI in order o "bring the real world int o the classroom" n suchaway hat "ianguageorm is e arned hough anguage se,"not through explicitexplanations f grammatical orms and functions Krahnke 1987:57,58).

This shift in focus nitiated a major re-thinking of tradit ional classroornactivitiesnsofaras:

From an interactionist perspective,ntost classroom activities or instruments fordatacollectionarenot an efficierr tmeans o assistlanguageearning n the classroomor to study the processes f L2 comprehension and interlanguagenrodilication, asthey do not guarantee he conditions for goal-oriented or negotiated nteraction inwhich learners an ake an active ole. nst ead, hey require eamers o conrply withgoals heyhavehad no part n setting.Their opportunities to work toward collectiveor individual goals are blocked, as teachers and researcherscontrol both thequestions hat are asked and the respons es hat are expected.Opportunities forlearners to negotiate meaning or exchange nformation are also limited sinceinformation flows in only one direction - from answer-suptrrlyingearner toquestion-asking eacher or r esearcher. Pica, Kanagy, Falodun 1993: 10)

AlthoughAnita Cscille nd KrisztinaK6roly aregenerally orrect n saying he"despite he recentwelcomeof the task-based pproach o languagenstruc-


5/9

2r8 Geofftey S. Koby and Brian JamesBaer

tion, the term 'task'lacksa unified, generally ccepted efinition" (1998: ),thereareseveraleatures fthe instructional ask hat distinguisht from otherclassroom ctivities uch as substitutiondrills or role-piaying.An effectivelanguageearning askaims o motivatestudents o acquire anguageorms norder to perform in a real world language vent hat engages igher-levelcognitiveprocessing. Learner-centeredasks,"explainsRobert Davis,"aredesignedo give participants' asociaior personal eason o speak,' uch hattheir production is 'potentially nteresting o the participants,' o use theterminologyof Pattison" Davis1997: 70).As Jarnes eeputs t:

While there s not yet complete agreenlenton how to construct task-based ctivi-ties, the consensus is that task-based activities engage the language learner rnpurposeful languageuse or which the language s the means o an end. (1995: 445,italics added)

Krahnke also nsists hat the goai of the language-iearningask be "non-instructional" 57), hat is, he goalshouldbe related o the student's eal-lifeneeds nd activities. he student s herefore irectly nvestedn the goalofthetask. In an academic etting,"Krahnkeexplains, studentsmight work on apaperor report that is actuallyneeded or a content-area lass.Beginningstudentsmight tackle he process f applying or a programor job, obtainingthe orms and nformation necessaryo complete heprocess" 58).

Pica,Kanagy ndFalodunsumrnarizehe undamental hift n rnethodol-ogy representedy TBI, when they write that "a task s not an action carriedout on taskparticipants; ather,a task s an activitywhich participants,hem-selves, ust carryout" (2). Other essential haracteristicsf a askasdescribedby Krahnke nclude:a process f informationalmanipulation and develop-ment; he acquisitionof informationalcontent hat the languageearnerdidnot h ave at the beginni ngof the task; he application of the higher-ordercognitiveprocesses f evaluation,selection, ombination,modification orsupplementation. ee makesa similar point that a task should nvolve theexpression,nterpretation, nd negotiationof meaning 445).David Nunan,too, emphasizedhehigher-level ognitive rocessingnvolved n the comple-tion of an effectively esignedask:

[A task s] a piece ofclassroom work which involves earners n comprehending,manipulating, producing or interacti ng in the target anguagewhile their atten-tion is principally focusedon meanirrg ather than form. (1989: 0)

In addition to producinggreater ommunicative roficiency, he benelitsofTask-Basednstruction may include: enhancedmotivation, insof ar as thetask relates o the real ife of the students; nhanced elf-confidencen stu-

Task-based nstruction

dentswho areable o accomplish real-world ask;enhanced 2 proficiencyin adult learners; and enhanced cultural literacy (Leaver and Stryker1989:272-3).Moreover, task-basedanguage earning, when organized asgroup work, "can help to bridge the gap betweenwhat Moorjani and Field(1988)have dentified s an inherent nismatch etweeneachers'and tu -dents'preferencesor'functional, global-type xplanations nd oral modesofcommunication" Davis268).

The task can be easilyadapted or the teachingof technology-relatedtranslationopicssoas o ensurehat ( ) the classrooms earner-centered,2)ciassroom ctivity nvolveshigher-level ognitiveprocessing, nd (3) class-room activity sbased n real-worldknowledge nd actualprofessional itua-tionsand events. fterproviding he necessary aterials or completionof thetask as well as pre-taskexercises,eadings,and/or discussion, he teacherwould sene asa facilitator n the classroom, uiding students n the comple-tion of the ask. n addition o learninghow to usenew technology, BI in thetranslation lassroom anchallenge tudentso think about he mplicationsoftechnoiogical nnovations on text-t)?es, ob descriptions,and translationtools, and may offer the additional benefit of improving professional elf-image, rofessional ehavior, eamwork, lexibilityand resourcefulness.It shouldbe noted hat difficulties nvolvedwith task-basednstruction nthe translationclassroom, articularlyand argely ssues f implementatiou,are similar to those n the language lassroorn. s Brian Baer and TheresaMinick point out, "in order for these eachingapproacheso be successful,special eacher raining is rlecessary,s well as a greatdeal of creativity andinitiative n thepartof the eacher"1999:2).While simulation f real-worldprofessional ituations nd events anbechallengingrorn a pedagogical ointof view, he advisory oard or the new CertificateProgram n LocalizationattheUniversityof Washington ecognizedts mportanceby ncluding t in theirgoals: Model studentprojectsafter hose n the real world. Exercises erivefrom situationsencountered y localizers n the field and are designed ofacilitate roblem-solvingkllls irectly elated o the daily work of localizationprofessionals"Irmler2001: 2,i tal ics dded).

Taking ask-basednstruction nto a localizationclassroom an be chal-lenging o the teacher sed o preparingand presenting ecturesand havitrgstudents o exercisesased n the nformationhe/she mparts.However, inceclassroomime presents nopportunity "to activate nd applycomprehensiouand productionprocesses"Pica,Kanagy,Falodun 19932) through student-studentandstudent-teachernteraction, t is oo valuable o spend n lecturing.Instead,nformation can be provided through readingassignments, o that


6/9

22o Geoffrey S. Koby and Brian JamesBaer

class ime can bespenton tasks hat engage igher-level ognitiveprocessing,which n turn producesmore effectiveearning.Moreover, ask-basednstruc-tion allows he eachero address varietyof competenceshat areessentialoeffectiveocalization nd hat may go unaddressedn a tradit ional classroom.CorneliaGroethuysen,or example, otes hat, in addition to linguistic andtechnical ompetence,ocalizersmust possessocialand organizational om-petence, hich shedescribes s manycompetencies.. effrcient ommunica-tion ... exactplanningand ransparent ommunicationules...",aswell aspragmaticcompetence, r the ability "to work efficientlywith the variousprogramsand ools hat makeup the ncreasingly omplexmodern ransiatorworkplace" 2001: 8). In the following section,we wiil presentexampies fways n which task-basednstruction can be brought into the translation/localization lassroom.

Teaching ocalization through tasksIn this section,wepropose number of tasks hat canbe ncorporated nto anintroductory courseon languageocalization.Localizations definedby theLocalisationndustryStandards ssociationLISA)as the process f modifr-ing productsor serviceso account or differencesn distin ct markets" Fry2000:35). The implicit assumption ere s that most ocalization s softwareIocalization, lthough other productscan also be localized.For translators,localizationusuallymeansusingsoftware ools to tr anslate he textual ele-ments found in a softwarepackage nto another anguage,without "breakingthe code"by deleting r changing ontrol or formattingcodes. he challengeto translation edagogysboth conceptual nd extual: he way n which textis st ored and used n softwareprogramsmakessoftware ocalization extsdiffer n important ways rom conventional exts.Students re acedwith thechallengc ot only of t ranslating ext fragments hat appear o lack context,but alsoof underst anding here he text comes rom, whereand when t willappear to the user, and how to ensure that all of the text in a programis translated. he latest ocalization ools are highly sophisticated, llowingtranslators o work on textual t ems while keeping hem from inadvert entlyrnodifying he software ode, ut theproblemsof textualcohesion nd coher-ence emain.

We choosea courseon localization or the presentation f a task-basedsyllabusor a numberof reasons. irst, here s an urgentneed or localizersnthe anguagendustry,which putspressure n translator rainingprograms o

Task-based nstruction

"churnout" localizers ssoonaspossible. his need s llustrated y a search nthe IT websitedice.comn March 2002,which showed3,89a ob listingscon-taining he words"localization"and "Japanese"Wright 2002).ln suchsitua-tions, pedagogys often gnored n fa vor ofa straightforward resentation fthe declarativenowledgenvolved n the ocalization f software. econd, heobvious eal-worldapplication f localization kills s an nvitation o TBI.The coursecan be organized round a major, semester-longocalizationproject using authenticmaterials. n order to make it as similar to the realworid aspossible,eamsof students anbe assignedo localizea project ntotheirworking anguage.In a multi-language lassroom,he source rojectcanbe in Englishor the linguafranca of the institution in question;studentslocalize ut of the central anguagento French,Spanish,German,etc.).Thestudents anbe nstructedo treat he assignment s f theywereworking in atranslation ompany.The eacher repares translationbrief (ifdesired, ack-ing some key information that studentswould be expected o notice andrequest, ee elow) and studentsakeon the various olesof projectmanager,translator, roofreader,evisor, lientcontact, tc.,with the eacher ow actingasa mentor aswell assimulating he client.The goal s both to createa finallocalized ersionofthe software nd to present t to the classn a professionalmanner. n the final summative presentation, he other studentshave theopportunity o evaluatecritique) he ob oflocalizationand he presentation,since hey haveall workedon the same o ftware. his forrnatmay alsoexposestudentso various ssueshat arise n connectionwith the different anguagesinto which the softwarewas ocalized.

Many taskscould be assignedo activateand practiceskills of analysis,synthesis, nd evaluation. n the translation/localization lassroom, hesecould nvolve ranslation riefs, he ext types nvolved n localization, ualirycontrol/quality assurance,ocalizationof non-linguistic objects/aspects,ndpresentation f the project at the end of the semester.Possiblegoals nayinclude developingan awareness f the actual situation in the translationindustry, earnworkskills, ndependence, onfidence translatorself-image),professionalism, nd, of course,a deeperand broader understanding f theissues nd concepts nvolved n translationand ocalization.However,whiledevelopment f specific kills n a range f specific oftware pplicationsmay beone of the goalsof a course, he goal of an in-class ask will always e moreeffectiveearning through activation of higher-order cognitive processing.Once he ssues nd concepts avebeenactively rasped y the earner n task-based nstruction, he applicationskills can be practicedat home- throughfollow-up exercises,tc .


7/9

222 Geoffrey S. Koby and Brian JamesBaer

The tasks presentedbelow are elaborated hrough a slightly modifiedversionof Nunan'smodelof the ask.Nunan proposes ix components ssen-tial to the design fa classroomask.Asparaphrasedy Davis, ireyare: agoal,' input'text' (verbal r nonverbal), nactivityderived rom the nput , specifiedteacher ole and student ole, and he setting" Davis270). For each ask,weelaborate: he goal(s)of the task;pre-task eadingand/or exercises;nput;activity;output; eacherole; earner ole;setting.

The Task describeshe overarchin g heme or topic of the activiry,TheGoal(s)ofthe taskare the specificearningobjectiveso be achieved y thistask.The Pre-task xercisenvolveswork (readings, iscussions,ummaries)preliminary o the activity hat may (l) provide studentswith backgroundknowledge, illing in incompleteschemata,2) stimulate hought on a giventopic, (3) prepare tudents or classroom iscussion. hesepre-taskactivitiescanbe done eitherat homeor in class nd should aise onceptualssueshatwill allow studentso engage igher-level ognitiveprocessingn the comple-tion of the activity. nput ref ers o the materials authenticexts)provided othe studentsso that they can carry out the activity. The Activity refers o thestructured, oal-oriented ctivitieshat occurwithin the classroomo facilitatelearning,while heOutput is aproduct hat organizeshe results f the activity- preferably n the form of a real-wor ld communicativeact (an e-mail, abusinessetter, a PowerPointpresentation). he Teacher ole indicates heteacher'snodeofparticipation n the classroom uring completionof the ask(discussioneader, acilitator,mentor), while the Learner ole indicates hecontext in which studentsperform the task (individually, in pairs, groups,etc.).Finally, he Settingdesignates here he askactivityoccurs traditionalclassroom, omputer ab, etc.).

T ask:T anslation BtiefsTranslation riefs or assignments)epresentheproductspecificationsor anytranslation ob. In the actualpracticeof freelancerauslators,he translationbrief softenquitescanty,.e., I have3200wordsof German ext hat need yMondan it's somekind of legal ext." Students, owever,should be madeawareof what inform ation is necessaryn order to carry out a translationresponsibly.Goal:To learn he eatures f the deal ranslation rief versus lpical briefs nindustry practice, o analyze r iefs,and to acquire he skillsand knowledgenecessaryo evaluate nd respond n a professionalmanner o actual ransla-tion briefs.

'fask-based instruction z

Pre-task xercise: eadings hould focus on the "situatedness" f the trans-Iated ext,e.g., he necessity f taking nto consideration he nature and theneeds fthe L2 audience.n the nextclass eriod,studentswould discussheirreadings ndgenerate uestionshat couldbe asked boutany ranslationbrief(e.g.,anguage air, source se, ource udience,argetuse, argetaudience).Input A number of actual ranslationbriefs,assignment heets, nd assign-ment e-mails, referably elated o localization.Activity: Basedon the readings, tudents ormulate the information thatshould be contained n an ideal brief. They then examine he actual briefsprovided,cornparing hem to the idealbrief, and note what desired nforrna-tion is acking n eachof the briefs.Finally, he students ummarize synthe-size) heir resuitsor theclass.Output A business -mail o the client, equesting dditional nformation foroneof thebriefs.Teacher ole: FacilitatorLearner ole:Participant n groupwork.Setting:Classroom.Task:Text Types n LocalizqtionGoal:Acquireunderstanding f text types n localizationand how they differfrom traditional text t)?es.Pre-task xercise: ead nd discuss hapter3 of BertEsselink's racticalGuidetoLocalization2000)on hevarious ypes nd ormatsof files hat are ocalized.Input: Excerpts f various ext types ound in localization e.g.,menu items,help ext,messages),swell asmore raditional ext ypes n the samedornain,suchascomputersoftwaremanuals.Activity: Analyze nd synthesizehe significantdifferenceslack of context,stringsand helpparagraphs otentially ranslatedn isolation,particularly nlarge projects)and similarities importanceof terminologicalaccuracyandconsistency).output: PowerPoint resentation n ocalizationext ypes or clienteducation.Teacher ole:Discussionacilitator.Student ole: Discussion artner.Sett ins: Clacsrnnm


8/9

224 Geoffrey S. Koby and Brian JamesBaer

Task:Localization f Non-'t nguisticContent Cultural Issues)It is usually ecessaryo localize ot only he ext of a software pplication, utalso its non-linguistic content. Graphics,pictures, cons, and even colorschemes an havedifferentmeaningsand thus have a different (sometimesnegative)mpact n differentcultures.Goal:To becomeawareof, analyze, nd evaluate arious urages, swell as oacquire he ability o manipulate uchobjects.Pre-task xercise: eadings nddiscussionmight focuson the culture-specif icand historicallydeterrnined alue attributed o su ch universalcategories scolor arrdshape cf . Umberto Eco,Art and Beauty n theMiddle Ages) r tocertainconrmonplacetems cf. he film TheGodsMust BeCrazf -Inpufi Studentsare providedwith a variety of imagesand with Esselink'sdescription f theculturalspecificity f computer mages 34).Activity: Students ould run the softwareor thecurrentproject,browsing orculturallychargedtems,analyzehe tems or neutral,potentiallyoffensive rmisleading ontent,and suggest lternatives.Output: A table,whereone column shows ulturallychargedmages, nothercolumn ists he culture(s)n whicheachmage s charged, hird describesheproblem,and a ourth column istspossible lternativemages, roviding hemif available.Teacher ole: Discussion acilitator.Student ole: Culturalexpert,discussion artner.Setting: ocalization lassroom.Task:Localizationof Non-Linguistic Corflent (Teclnical Issues)Goal:Learn o accessnd edit or replacernages.Pre-taskexercise:Readproduct descriptions f various mage editors anddiscuss heir advantagesnd disadvantages.Input: An introduction o the software n question.A tutorial demonstratingthe program,and heprogram tself.Activity: Studentswork in pair s at computers,working through softwareolearn o accessndedit or replacemages. tudents ork together n order o

Task-basedinstruction zz5

facilitate igher-order rocessing:hestudentnot at hekeyboard an unctionasan advisor o theother,enablinghem o discover n their own how to openan image,make modifications, eplacements, tc . potentially, informationgaps hat may existwill be filled by the other student,enablingpeer-to-peerlearning.Output Localizedrnageile.Teacher ole:Facilitator, oaming he computer ab to assist tudents.Student ole:Computer earner, iscussion artner.Setting:Computer ab.Task:Quality AssessmentGoal: Acquire a deeperknowledgeand understandingof what translationquality s and how t is maintained.Pre-task xercise:leada varietyofquality evaluation ools,suchas heArneri-canTranslators ssociation rading cale r the sAE J2450 ranslationeualityMetric.Discusshe applicability f these ools o the ocalizationproduct (seealsoArango-Keeth nd Koby n this volume).Inpul Actual ocalized roduct nformation or software.Activity: The taskwould involvediscussion, nalysis, nd evaluationof shortexcerpts f translations f variousquality.Output: Qualityassessmenteport.Setting:Classroom.Task:Presentinga LocalizedProductGoal:Makea professional resentation f a Iocalized roduct.Pre-taskexercise: iscuss ffective ublic-speakingechniques, seofpresen-tation software, ulture-specifi aspectsf professional ehavior.lnput A checklist fcriteria for evaluationofeffectivepresentations, nd theproduct hat hasbeen ocalized ver hecourseof the semester.Activity: students present ocalizedsoftware o the class n a professionallnanner.


9/9

zz 6 GeoffreyS. Koby and Brian JamesBaer

Output: An outline of the presentation nd any presentation oftware ilesused.TeacherRole:Sirnulated lient.StudentRole:SimulatedocalizationProvider' lient.Setting:Conferenceoom.Other tasksmight involve he styleguides eferred o in Kosakaand Itagaki nthisvolume, ssuesn project nanagement,ertninoiogymanagement' tc .

ConclusionWe believehat he ask-basedxercisesresentedn thisarticlearean effectivemethod of addressing tudent needs o acquire he skills and informationnecessaryo be a competent ranslator n today's ncreasinglyechnologizedlanguagendustry.While instructorsmay be temptedsimply to providestu-{ents with the declarative nowledgenecessaryo operatea given softwareapplication,asks uchas hoseelaborated bovemayhelp hem o createmorelearner-centeredlassrooms,onducive o theacquisition f thecognitive ndtheoretical ackground ecessaryo be more effective,houghtful translatorswho understandhe conceptualoundations ftheir craft.

ReferencesArias-Mareno, M.-L. 1999. What? Teach translation?" n Proceedings f the 40th Annual

conference of the American l-ranslators Association.Alexandria, Virginia: AmericatlTranslators Association.

Baer,B. and Minick, T. 1999. Task-based nstruction and the Internet: Overcoming theobstacles." In Perspectivesn Foreign Language Teaching, volume XlI. [Proceedings ofthe'l'wenty-Third Annual conference on the Teaching of Foreign LanguagesandLiteratures,Youngstown state university, october 8-9, 1999]. J. Sarkissian ed), 1-7'Youngstown, OI{: Youngstown StateUniversity.

Csatlle, . and Kiiroly, K. 1998. Learning from errors:A task-based pproach." NovELT'y:Alournal of English anguageTeachingand cultutnl studies n Hungary.5.3. online.Available:

Davis,R. L. 1997. Group work is NoT busy work: Ivlaxin-rizinguccess f group work inthe L2 classroom."ForeignLanguage nnak30.2:265-279'

Delisle,J., Lee-Jahnke, ., and Cormier, M. C. (eds). 1999. Ternrinologie e la traductiort/'l'ranslation Tern'tinology/T'erntinologiade la tratlucci6n/Tenrrinologie tler Ubersetzrurg.

Task-basedinstruct ion zz

FIT Nlonograph Series . Amsterdam: Benjamins.Eco, U. 2002.Ar t and Beauty n the Nfiddle Ages.Bredin, H. (translator). New Haven: YaleUP.Esselink,B. 2000.A PracticalGuide o Localizatiotr. anguage nternational World Directory

4. Amsterdam: Ben amins.GodsMust BeCrazy,The. 198 . Dir. Uys, f Fox l-lome Entertainnrent.Groethuysen,C. 2001 "Real-life raining for translators:Software oc alization and technical

docunrentation at the Sprachen-und Dolmetscher Institut Miinchen." Language rtter-nationnl13 4):16-19.

Fry, D. 2000.Localizatiort rtdustry Primer. Fdchy,Switzerland: Localisation ndustry StandardsAssociat ionLISA).

Irmler, U. 2001. "The University of Washington presents a new certihcate program inlocalization." Language tilerntational13 (2): 20-22.

Kiraly, D, C. 1995.Pathways o 7\'anshttion:Pedagogy nd Process.'l'ranslationStudies 3.Kent,OH : Kent StateUP .

Krahnke, K. I 9B7. Approaches o SyllabusDesignfor Foreign Language Teaching. New York:Prentice-Hall.Ladmiral, .-R.1977."Lalraduction dans e cadrede 'institution pddagogique."Die Neueren

Sprnchett 6: 489-516.Leaver, B. L., and Str yker, S. B. 1989. "Content-based instruction for foreign languageclassroonrs." oreignLanguage nnals 22.3: 269-275.Lee, J. F. 1995. Using task-based ctivities o restr ucture classdiscussions." Foreign Lan-

guageAru nls 28.3:437 446.Melby, A. 1994. "The translator workstation" in ProJbssiornl ssuesfor Translotors andItfterpreters, D. L. Hammond (ed), (American 'Irar.rslatorsAssociation Scholarly

Monograph Series, olume VII) Amsterdarn/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 127-147.Nunan, D. 1989.DesigningTasksJbr the ComntutrictttiveClassroont. anrbridge: CambridgeUP .Pica,T., Kanagy, R., and Falodun, I. 1993. Choosing and using conrmunication tasks or

second anguage nstruction." I n Tasks rtd LanguageLeanting: ntegrating Theory andPractice.G. Crookesand S. M. Gass eds),9-34. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Shreve, G. M. 2000. "Translation at the millennium: Prospects for the evolution of aprofession." In Paradigntenwechseln der'franslation. Festsclriftfi ir Albrecht Neuhertzuttr70. Geburtstag. . A. Schmitt (ed),217-234. Tiibingen: StaulfenburgVerlag.

Wright, S. E. 2002. Market-oriented translation pedagogy."Preserrtation t the First Con-ferenceof the American Translation StudiesAssociation, Kent StateUniversity, March2002.

Task Based & New Technology_Baer

Documents

Transcript of Task Based & New Technology_Baer