Metacognitive Translator Training: Focus on Personal Resources (Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting) 303097037X, 9783030970376

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN TRANSLATING AND INTERPRETING SERIES EDITOR: MARGARET ROGERS

Metacognitive Translator Training Focus on Personal Resources

Paulina Pietrzak

Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting

Series Editor Margaret Rogers School of Literature and Languages University of Surrey Guildford, UK

This series examines the crucial role which translation and interpreting in their myriad forms play at all levels of communication in today’s world, from the local to the global. Whilst this role is being increasingly recognised in some quarters (for example, through European Union legislation), in others it remains controversial for economic, political and social reasons. The rapidly changing landscape of translation and interpreting practice is accompanied by equally challenging developments in their academic study, often in an interdisciplinary framework and increasingly reflecting commonalities between what were once considered to be separate disciplines. The books in this series address specific issues in both translation and interpreting with the aim not only of charting but also of shaping the discipline with respect to contemporary practice and research. More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/14574

Paulina Pietrzak

Metacognitive Translator Training Focus on Personal Resources

Paulina Pietrzak University of Łódź Łódź, Poland

Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting ISBN 978-3-030-97037-6    ISBN 978-3-030-97038-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97038-3 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Marina Mazitova / Alamy Stock Vector This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This book originated out of my experience not only in translation services but also in translator training. Many observations made in this volume relate to both discussions with professionals and reflections from students. The crucial question behind the book was how to effectively shape the educational reality that translation students experience. It stemmed from the need for a holistic approach, taking into account not only translation-­related competences but also metacognitive skills and market conditions that provided the drive for studying translator education retrospectively from the professional perspective of future career development. Conversations and contacts with translators and translator educators in Poland and abroad, together with the data research reported in this monograph, can be an indication that at least some of the issues raised are directly challenging to translator education. The book explores new developments and objectives in translator education with the main focus on metacognitive aspects of both translating and learning to become a translator. The primary aim is to discuss the elusive and complex notion of metacognition within the framework of translation studies, examining the nature and role of metacognitive skills (such as self-regulation, self-reflection, self-monitoring, self-assessment and self-feedback) in the process of translation and translator training. To this end, the book reports on an exploratory study of translation graduates and their self-perceived personal resources, paying particular v

vi Preface

attention to the effects of metacognitive awareness on their professional development. The data collected and analysed in the study shows that, despite the growing demand for translation services and advancements in translation technology, there are still a large number of translation graduates who decide not to become professional translators. The findings show a number of reasons why they choose different career paths, as well as the correlations between their self-concept and their professional development. Moreover, the book shows possible ways of introducing metacognitive practice in the translation classroom and exemplifies self-regulatory activity here or in any other translator training environment. Taking a transformative stance on learning, it discusses tools that offer students structured opportunities to use their metacognitive skills to analyse, monitor and evaluate their own learning. Given that strategic aspects of translator competence go beyond mere language transfer and involve adaptability to the forever changing situation in the translation market, the need arises for translator educators to foster students’ metacognitive awareness through activating their personal resources and empowering them to meet the market demands of the postpandemic economic future. The results of the study indicate that metacognitive awareness and self-­ concept clearly contribute to a successful and satisfying career in the translation industry, by laying the foundations for flexible professional responses to changing job profiles in translation. Notwithstanding my full responsibility for this manuscript, I am pleased to recognise the extent to which this work relies on the insightful help of the editor of the series. I would like to extend my words of gratitude to Professor Margaret Ann Rogers, for her guidance in the revision process. Łódź, Poland

Paulina Pietrzak

Contents

1 Introduction  1 2 Setting the Scene  7 3 Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 23 4 Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 51 5 Activation of Personal Resources 83 6 Self-reflection as a Strategy in Metacognitive Translator Training105 7 Exploratory Study on Metacognition and Professional Development119 8 A Model of Metacognitive Support179 9 Conclusion197

vii

viii Contents

A  ppendix201 Index211

List of Figures

Fig. 7.1

Employment rates of recent translation graduates by sex and age group (p—probability in Fisher’s exact test, *—statistical significance level (α = 0.05))134 Fig. 7.2 Type of services provided by working graduates (by sex and age). (p—probability in the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, *—statistical significance level (α = 0.05))136 Fig. 7.3 Self-concept of surveyed translation graduates. R reverse coding of responses (e.g. definitely not true that I worry a lot)147 Fig. 7.4 Self-concept by sex 151 Fig. 7.5 Dimensions of metacognitive awareness. R reverse coding of responses153 Fig. 7.6 Metacognitive awareness by sex 156 Fig. 7.7 Satisfaction with career by current occupation (type of work) 157 Fig. 7.8 Self-concept and the perception of success at work. (p— probability in the F-test in the analysis of variance, *—statistical significance level (α = 0.05))160 Fig. 7.9 Reasons for choosing the translation specialisation (multiple responses possible) 162 Fig. 7.10 Metacognition and unemployment (showing mean overall scores for both self-concept and metacognitive awareness) 168 Fig. 7.11 Self-efficacy and unemployment (showing median scores for each chosen option) 169

ix

x 

List of Figures

Fig. 7.12 Self-concept and metacognitive awareness (showing mean overall scores) vs. career choice motivations 170 Fig. 7.13 Self-concept and metacognitive awareness (showing mean overall scores) vs. work status. (p—probability in the t-test, *—statistical significance level (α = 0.05))171 Fig. 7.14 Metacognition (showing mean overall scores for both self-concept and metacognitive awareness) and working as a translator. (p—probability in the t-test; *—statistical significance level (α = 0.05))171 Fig. 8.1 Metacognition brief 186

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8 Table 7.9

The scope of metacognitive strategies in the translation process66 Key results for correlation between self-regulation and translation quality 70 Verbal choices behind the translator’s self-constructs 97 Correlations among variables used to test hypotheses (with research measures) 123 Demographic structure of the sample (N = 154)130 Graduates’ current work status 133 Type of work performed by graduates (overall and by sex and age) (shown in percentages) 137 Form of employment of working graduates (overall and by sex and age) (shown in percentages) 139 Criteria for career choice among in-work respondents (overall and by sex and age) (shown in percentages; multiple responses possible) 141 Factors that influenced career choice among respondents in work (shown in percentages) 145 Self-concept dimensions—mean and median, by age (scale 1–5) 150 Metacognitive dimensions—mean and median, by age (scale 1–5) 155

xi

xii 

List of Tables

Table 7.10 Academic achievement and perceived success, satisfaction, self-efficacy, self-concept and metacognitive awareness Table 7.11 Metacognition (showing mean overall scores for both self-concept and metacognitive awareness) and career choice motivations (multiple responses possible) Table 7.12 Metacognition (showing mean overall scores for both self-concept and metacognitive awareness) vs. type of work and form of work

166 170 172

1 Introduction

The aim of this book is to contribute to the discussion on metacognitive aspects of translation by addressing related questions and challenges of translation pedagogy. With respect to contemporary market demands, the book discusses translator education as related not only to the nature of the translation process but also to translation service provision. The required professional profiles are changing rapidly and the current market challenges are difficult to deal with for translators whose competence is out of step with demand. The question arises about the implications of these changes in local and global markets for translator education and for future translators. Academic translator education needs to take into consideration the characteristics of the work of contemporary translators, who face the constant challenge of employing new solutions to meet the demands of the contemporary, highly competitive* and dynamic translation market. Since translator education aims to identify not only the necessary skills but also ways in which these skills can be acquired, an attempt to investigate the metacognitive aspects of developing the competences associated with the provision of translation services seems well justified and timely.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 P. Pietrzak, Metacognitive Translator Training, Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97038-3_1

1

2 

P. Pietrzak

In the light of numerous requirements and pressures on the already constrained design of the translation curriculum, it is one of the central tenets of this book to advocate for structured metacognitive practice in the translator training environment. In effect, the book offers a more holistic approach to translator education, in which the significance of personal resources in the process of translation service provision plays a central role, providing a model for metacognitive support which can guide translation trainees. It is argued here that activating personal resources such as agency, self-efficacy, self-esteem* and resilience can enable translation trainees to further develop and successfully function as professionals in the translation market. The theoretical foundation is derived from the concept of holistic education and set within the framework of transformative learning (Miller 1996; Mezirow 1981, 1990, 2003), which shifts the perspective from teaching to learning and supports the learner’s holistic growth. The main focus is laid on metacognitive aspects of translator education, as the essential objectives of translation teaching can be argued to be “raising students’ awareness of the factors involved in translation, helping to develop their own translator’s self-concept, and assisting in the collaborative construction of individually tailored tools that will allow every student to function within the language mediation community upon graduation” (Kiraly 2000: 49). Metacognitive translation studies—or rather metacognitive translator studies—has so far received scant coverage in the research literature, although skills such as self-regulation, self-­ reflection or self-study seem crucial in the development of translation expertise, “especially outside of optimally structured work environments, training academies, and other places with defined translation workflows and opportunities for feedback” (Shreve 2006: 32). Metacognitive translator training involves enabling and fostering metacognitive awareness through the activation of students’ personal resources. This approach to training aims to promote practical experience in the metacognitive regulation of the cognitive processes involved in translation service provision. The book provides an overview of a range of concepts from the intersection of translator education and educational psychology, with a particular focus on translator training (see Sect. 2.3 for a discussion of the distinction between training and education). The research discussed

1 Introduction 

3

applies the scientific studies of metacognition to the study of translation with the aim of shedding light on how metacognitive skills and strategies affect translating and the development of translator competence. A metacognitive approach conceives of translator competence as based on personal resources. A number of resource theories have considered personal resources to be factors of the self (Hobfoll 2002; Hobfoll et al. 2003), social and psychological assets (Lin 2017) or, as exemplified by Hobfoll et  al. (2018: 105), “key skills and personal traits such as self-efficacy”. Personal resources are understood here as aspects of the self that relate to the sense of being able to successfully meet demands; these make up the psychological capital of the translator. The concept of psychological capital is identified as “an individual’s positive psychological state of development” which “goes beyond human (‘what you know’) and social (‘who you know’) capital, and is more directly concerned with ‘who you are’ and more importantly ‘who you are becoming’ (i.e., developing one’s actual self to become the possible self )” (Luthans et  al. 2006: 388). Metacognitive translator competence is therefore understood in what follows as the ability to self-regulate cognitive processes that contribute to goal achievement and the professional success of translators. The intention of this book is not only to explore metacognitive and psychosocial aspects of translation but also to exemplify how to incorporate adaptations of translator training intended to strengthen personal resources among trainees. With a view to promoting autonomous and agentic learning, the aim is to identify a conceptual framework for metacognition in translator education. It explores the role and nature of metacognitive skills and discusses the results of a study focusing on Polish translation graduates and their self-perceived personal resources as well as the correlations between their metacognitive awareness and professional development. The book is divided into eight chapters. Chapter 2 opens with a discussion of translation as a profession which has changed considerably over recent years (Sect. 2.1). With the ongoing digital transformation and new demands that the Covid-19 pandemic has imposed on society, the pace of change is now accelerating even faster. This chapter signals the implications of these dynamic changes in the translation industry and global economy for translator education. It investigates the concept of

4 

P. Pietrzak

translator competence in view of job qualifications and requirements (Sect. 2.2), also stressing the importance of personal resources that make up the psychological capital of the translator. Finally, the chapter touches upon the problem of terminological variation in translation pedagogy (Sect. 2.3). Chapter 3 explores various aspects of and approaches to translator training (Sect. 3.1). It offers an analysis of key concepts, main patterns and current situation in translator education (Sect. 3.2). Having identified the issues that emerge from educational theories, it discusses employability as an objective of translator education (Sect. 3.3). Next, it touches upon the idealised picture of the translator that is often cherished by trainee translators and other stakeholders in the translation market such as clients, recipients of the translation, translator trainers and even translators themselves. The chapter presents the translator as a lifelong learner (Sect. 3.4), taking into account the highly dynamic nature of the translation market that requires the translator to be self-directed enough to adapt to changing job demands. Using this scaffolding, in Chap. 4 the construct of metacognition is explored along with its role in the translation process. The chapter discusses major approaches to this concept in psychological, educational and translation theory (Sect. 4.1). To identify the conceptual framework for metacognition, the chapter reviews models of self-regulated learning (Sect. 4.2) and the need for a transition from other-regulation to self-­ regulation (Sect. 4.3). It highlights the role of metacognitive strategies as a facilitative factor in the professional career of translators (Sect. 4.4). The nature of self-regulation and the possible role that it plays in translation are analysed here, followed by the results of a study on the effects of students’ self-regulation on translation quality. Chapter 5 addresses translation from a psychological perspective, with a focus on the translator’s self and those aspects of the self that make up the psychological capital of the translator. First, the psychology of translation is discussed (Sect. 5.1) with particular attention to cognitive or non-­ cognitive psychological processes involved in translation. Then, the chapter investigates personal resources and personal agency as embedded in She social context (Sect. 5.2). It explores the translator’s psychological self (Sect. 5.3), which encompasses metacognitive self-constructs such as

1 Introduction 

5

self-concept, self-efficacy, self-confidence and self-esteem, analysed further as components of the translator’s psychological capital. Chapter 6 focuses on using reflection as an aid in metacognitive translator training. It opens with a discussion of experiential learning and the role of reflecting on experiences (Sect. 6.1). The chapter illustrates the potential of reflective practice in the translator training environment (Sect. 6.2) and of effective feedback based on reflection (Sect. 6.3). It also suggests moving the conceptualisation of self-assessment towards that of self-feedback (Sect. 6.4) and elaborates on assessment-related communication strategies that can facilitate the successful implementation of reflective practice (Sect. 6.5). Chapter 7 presents the results of a study of the post-graduation career choices of eight consecutive years of translation graduates from the University of Łódź, Poland. The findings of the study help to delve deeper into the effects of metacognitive awareness on translators’ career paths and professional development. The chapter covers the methodological framework of the study (Sect. 7.1), aims and hypotheses, research design, data collection tool, sample characteristics as well as the limitations of the study. In Sect. 7.2, the findings are presented including statistical analyses and a discussion. The final section of this chapter (Sect. 7.3) presents a conclusion and reflections on the implications of the study. The findings of the study signal how important it is to promote metacognitive awareness in those who are starting out professionally. With the assumption that translators differ in their psychological capital and those with higher metacognitive skills tend to achieve better results in addressing cognitive challenges, Chap. 8 focuses on exemplifying metacognitive training strategies, offering a selection of ideas that can help the translator trainer adapt or modify instruction to enable trainees to regulate their cognitive activities and become more autonomous and self-reliant through metacognitive guidance.

References Hobfoll, S. E. 2002. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology 6, pp. 307–324.

6 

P. Pietrzak

Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. 2003. Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84, pp. 632–643. Hobfoll, S., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J., & Westman, M. 2018. Conservation of Resources in the Organizational Context: The Reality of Resources and Their Consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 5(1), pp. 103–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych032117-104640. Kiraly, D. 2000. A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. Empowerment from Theory to Practice, Manchester, St. Jerome. Lin, N. 2017. Building a network theory of social capital; Social Capital. Routledge; pp. 3–28. Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. 2006. Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27, pp. 387–393. Mezirow, J. 1981. “A critical theory of adult learning and education.” Adult Education 32. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171368103200101. Mezirow, J. 1990. “How critical reflection triggers transformative learning.” In Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Education, ed. Jack Mezirow et  al. San Francisco: Jossey-­ Bass, pp. 1–20. Mezirow, J. 2003. “Transformative Learning as Discourse.” Journal of Transformative Learning 1(1), pp. 58–63. Miller, J.P. 1996. The Holistic Curriculum. Toronto: OISE Press. Shreve, G.M. 2006. The deliberate practice: translation and expertise. Journal of Translation Studies 9(1), pp. 27–42.

2 Setting the Scene

People are contributors to their life circumstances, not just products of them. Albert Bandura

2.1 Job Requirements and Market Demands With the ongoing digital transformation and new demands that the Covid-19 pandemic has put on society, all professional activities are gaining a new dimension. Translation as a profession has changed considerably in the last few years and the pace of change is now accelerating even faster. The translator’s work depends on a number of shaping factors such as the economic, financial, organisational and psychosocial conditions of the market, so the concept of translator competence is more complex than simply a qualification for translation-related work, as Wilss pointed out nearly 50 years ago (Wilss 1976). The relatively recent changes in the professional profile of the translator are mainly inspired by technological developments and the evolving market situation. Apart from remarkable changes forced by the Covid-19 pandemic, the development of machine

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 P. Pietrzak, Metacognitive Translator Training, Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97038-3_2

7

8 

P. Pietrzak

translation, artificial intelligence and translation technology constantly brings innovation to the translation industry. As Vieira (2018: online) observes, advances in machine translation (MT) technology “have led to perceptions of translation as a profession under pressure from automation, falling prices and globalized competition”. While there may be some significant differences in the extent to which translators make use of technology, numerous aspects of the translation profession have already been automated by computer-assisted translation (CAT) technology (see Pietrzak and Kornacki 2020). Any attempt to map out the scope of the job of a translator in a generic way is likely to run into difficulties in view of the high number of activities performed by translators on a daily basis. Their possible everyday tasks encompass managing a translation project, subtitling a movie, adapting a poem into an advertisement, interpreting for the community, localising software programs or postediting a machine-translated text, to mention but a few examples. Given that translators’ job qualifications differ significantly, that no single translator is likely to cover the whole gamut of translation-related tasks, and that clients differ in the extent and nature of their requirements, agreeing on a single profile of ‘the translator’ is problematic. Nevertheless, in earlier decades, both professional and scholarly sources have offered views on ‘the translator’ and his or her duties and skills, emphasising in particular the importance of self-awareness and continual development. As was established in the Translator’s Charter approved by the International Federation of Translators (FIT), prepared in 1963 at the Fourth World Congress of FIT in Dubrovnik, the translator “shall possess a sound knowledge of the language from which he/she translates and should, in particular, be a master of that into which he/she translates” (FIT 2011: online). Among other general obligations of the translator, the Charter notes that “he/she must likewise have a broad general knowledge and know sufficiently well the subject matter of the translation and refrain from undertaking a translation in a field beyond his competence” (ibid.). The Polish version of the Charter, established in 1993 by the Association of Polish Translators (Stowarzyszenie Tłumaczy Polskich), specifies that the translator is obliged to constantly improve his or her professional skills by developing language and translation skills as well as

2  Setting the Scene 

9

broadening their general knowledge. Klimkowska (2013: 22) considers the profession of the translator to be a set of socially useful activities which involves: appropriate qualifications and competences acquired in the educational process, lifelong learning and constant improvement. Going beyond limitations is seen here as a leading factor in professional self-creation, which makes the development of the translator a dynamic and self-directed process (ibid.). As Gouadec (2007: 150) observes, “it is advisable to have at least some prior inclination and qualities for the job”, although he also notes that “from a purely administrative and legal point of view, in most countries of the world, absolutely anyone can practise translation professionally”. Translation is indeed not a regulated profession, at least in terms of the Professional Qualifications Directive (2005/36/EC), which means that “no one can stop an unqualified person from working as a translator” (Pym et al. 2012: 3). The only group within the translation profession that is regulated, tested and certified by state institutions are sworn (also authorised or certified) translators. Certified translations “must bear a (fraudproof ) signature, a seal and a declaration that the translation is complete and correct to the best of the translator’s knowledge and belief ” (Gouadec 2007: 34). Pym et al. (2012: 3) observe that there are “three quite different ways in which the translation of official documents is handled in Europe: in some countries, translations are certified by notaries, or are not certified at all; in others, a corps of authorised or sworn translators is tested and certified by a state institution of some kind; and in a third set of countries, authorised/sworn translators can be recognised on the basis of educational qualifications alone”. In Poland, authorised translation is regulated by the Act of 25 November 2004 on the profession of sworn translator—Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) from 2015, item 487. It specifies the conditions necessary for obtaining professional rights, clear rules for working in the profession and the scope of professional responsibility. Except for sworn translators, working in the translation profession does not require any formal qualifications. The translation profession covers a very wide spectrum of employment types; Klimkowska (2013: 31) distinguishes the following forms of translation service provision:

10 

P. Pietrzak

• translators employed in institutions, companies, corporations; • positions other than a translator, which, however, also involve the duties of a translator/interpreter—the so-called “invisible” translators, e.g. secretaries, managers who know a foreign language; • full-time translators in a translation company or a language service provider; • independent translators (freelancers) not related to a specific company, usually running their own business, undertaking various types of short-term translation assignments, e.g. –– contract translator; –– contractor with a translation agency; –– contractor with one company or institution; –– second-job translator; –– remote translator, e.g. teleinterpreting –– translator working in the black market of translation services (outlaws) without formal contracts and tax settlements. Klimkowska’s typology of employment types shows a wide diversity of possibilities and working conditions. The broad range of the typology is further compounded by the many different areas of translation, for example translation and interpreting (community, conference, media, etc.), specialised translation (literary, legal, medical, technical, commercial, financial, scientific, IT, advertising), localisation (websites, software, videogames, etc.), and audiovisual translation (dubbing, subtitling, voiceover, etc.). The scope of services is wide, and therefore translator profiles and required qualifications also differ significantly. Any attempt at defining the translator’s job qualifications should take into account not only the actual translation itself (or the interpreting session), but also the whole range of translation-related activities involved in translation service provision, for example negotiating with the client, organising, budgeting and managing translation projects, and fulfilling a job commission (EMT 2017). The translator can therefore be broadly defined as a service provider whose job it is to create effective communication. The activities involved in providing a translation service include both organisational tasks, that is, negotiating, signing a contract and

2  Setting the Scene 

11

terminology mining, and tasks involved in the translation process, that is, correction, revision, formatting and contacting the client with the final version. As a service provider, the translator needs to make allowances for the professional, social, economic and ethical responsibility that translation entails. The translation industry is a significant segment of the service sector, with the global market for outsourced language services and technology reaching 49.6 billion US dollars (DePalma et al. 2019). Translation, apart from its communicative function, has significant power to influence the market. The development of civilisation depends on communication and, thus, translation has influenced the development of the translator’s profession by showing the social role of the translator’s work. As Klimkowska (2013: 25) notes, translation is no longer only the domain of artists with their focus on literary and religious texts, it is also needed by individuals, communities and societies, and conditions their effective functioning. Translation may not only help to develop the export and import of products and values, it also has the potential to promote languages and cultures. Therefore, the key responsibilities and skills that the job of the translator requires go far beyond the linguistic and cultural transfer of meaning. The requirements for candidates aiming to work in the translation market depend on the economic situation, the degree of technological development and the impact of globalisation processes and the overall conditions in the labour market. With the digital transformation forced by the pandemic, coupled with translation market industrialisation, technological progress and changing conceptions of translation as a profession, it is hard to predict what particular skills will be required for this job in the future. The required professional profiles are changing rapidly and very often the current market challenges are difficult to deal with for contemporary translators. All these changes need to be taken into account in translator education when identifying the necessary skills and ways in which these skills can be acquired. Investigating the metacognitive aspects of developing the competences of translation service provision is proposed here as one way of tackling this issue, as a metacognitive perspective presents a possible route for trainee translators to take charge of the

12 

P. Pietrzak

cognitive processes involved in their training in order to build their future career in the uncertain and indeterminate translation industry of today.

2.2 T  ranslator Competence as Based on Personal Resources Different conceptualisations of translator competence have already been and will continue to be formulated as the contemporary translation market changes dynamically and encompasses increasingly diverse services and customers all over the world. Models of translator competence that explore this concept (e.g. Lörscher 1991; Köller 1979; Grucza 1985, 1993; Schäffner and Adab 2000; Gile 1994, 1995; González Davies 2004; Göpferich 2009; Gouadec 2007; Kelly 2005; Kiraly 1995, 2000, 2005, 2015, 2016; PACTE 2003; Pym 1991, 2003, 2011, 2013; EMT 2009, 2017) attempt to identify the necessary skills and expertise needed to make an ideal translator. In the present book, the focus is laid on the aspects of translator competence that are given less critical attention, that is, personal resources and metacognitive skills, in the belief that, in fact, future translators must be able to identify what translator competence means in their particular case so as to successfully adapt to evolving environments and market needs. Translator competence needs to be differentiated from translator qualifications and job requirements, as it is less dependent on social, cultural, geographical or historical conditions. As noted earlier, even nearly half a century ago, Wilss (1976: 119) was already emphasising that “a uniform qualification for translation work is, to all intents and purposes, nonexistent and probably also nondefinable”. According to Pym (2003: 482), although translation teachers, including himself, are above all concerned with preparing translators for proper functioning in a given labour market, translator competence goes beyond professional qualifications which undergo numerous changes due to technology development or social expectations. Some scholars intentionally avoid the very term competence and prefer to discuss the components of translation knowledge (Gile 1995) or the

2  Setting the Scene 

13

components of translation competence but with an emphasis on their independence (Campbell 1998). According to Campbell (ibid.: 166), each of those components is developed in the learning process and can reach different levels depending on the bilingual skills of beginner translators. Gouadec (2007) enumerates skills and types of knowledge, but avoids the use of the term competence as he has no intention of defining competence, only of outlining his guidelines for future translators. Gouadec (2007: 328) observes that, regardless of their type of background, translators must: 1. master their working languages perfectly (i.e., be able to understand the slightest detail and subtle shade of meaning of the material for translation and be able to write clearly and fluently in the target language or languages), 2. be perfectly familiar with every kind of documentation, information retrieval and data research technique, 3. be at home with terminology and phraseology mining and management, 4. have at least a layman’s knowledge of a wide range of subjects in the fields of science, technology, economics, etc., 5. master all the translation-localisation (and revision) techniques, methods and procedures, 6. be totally proficient in the use of all the equipment and software they are likely to come across in their professional environments, 7. be familiar with best professional practice and professional ethics, 8. have some knowledge of commercial and financial management, 9. have some experience of project management and 10. be able to communicate and interact efficiently and amiably with a variety of people. According to PACTE’s (2003) model, translator competence is “expert knowledge and involves declarative and predominantly procedural knowledge” (Hurtado Albir 2015: 259); it comprises what they call five sub-competences and “activates a series of psycho-physiological mechanisms […]: different types of cognitive and attitudinal components and

14 

P. Pietrzak

psycho-motor mechanisms” (ibid.). These five sub-competences can be summarised as follows: • Bilingual sub-competence: predominantly procedural knowledge required to be able to communicate between two languages; • Extralinguistic sub-competence: predominantly declarative knowledge, both implicit and explicit, about the world in general, and field-specific; • Knowledge of translation sub-competence: predominantly declarative knowledge, both implicit and explicit, about translation and aspects of the profession; • Instrumental sub-competence: predominantly procedural knowledge related to the use of documentation resources and information and communication technologies applied to translation; • Strategic sub-competence: procedural knowledge required to ensure the efficacy of the translation process and to solve problems arising. Strategic competence is an essential component of TC [translator competence] as it controls the translation process by activating and creating links between all other sub-competences as they are required. Strategic (sub-)competence, as noted, controls the implementation and functioning of other sub-competences. Göpferich (2009: 22) considers strategic competence to be a metacognitive competence which “sets priorities and defines hierarchies between the individual sub-competences, leads to the development of a macrostrategy […], and ideally subjects all decisions to this macrostrategy”. Bergen (2009: 236) explains the use of the term metacognitive by reference to the elements of strategic competence such as “identifying translation problems, planning, applying procedures and evaluating”, and notes that the use of such strategies “requires awareness, noticing, attention on the part of the learner, hence the term metacognitive”. The complexity and variety of competence models may actually be evidence of the constantly growing demands placed on contemporary translators. In view of significant doubts expressed by translation scholars as to whether there are skills common to all translators regardless of the context (Kiraly 1995: 14), any attempt to precisely delineate the

2  Setting the Scene 

15

knowledge and skills of the translator appears highly idealistic if not utopian. The definition of translator competence tailored to this era cannot involve drawing yet another list of competences or abilities organised in a new combination or grid. The demands that translators face nowadays call for a change of perspective from having, possessing or knowing into being, acting and making. From a more phenomenological perspective, translator competence would be not so much about having certain skills, whether it is a multicomponential model (PACTE 2003; EMT 2017) or a number reduced to two abilities only (Pym 2003), as about being ready to enter the translation market and face a number of hardly predictable challenges that differ depending on the type and context of a translation task. With a broad spectrum of differences in translator profiles and an even broader variety of tasks performed by translators, a metacognitive approach to translator competence—understood as the set of skills and expertise needed to perform these tasks—can help to meet this need. A metacognitive approach conceives of translator competence as based on personal resources, defined here as aspects of the self that refer to the sense of ability to successfully meet demands. These personal resources make up the psychological capital of the translator and are argued here to affect the effectiveness and quality of the translator’s work (see Chap. 5). Metacognitive translator training aims to promote practical experience in using personal resources to autonomously regulate the cognitive processes involved in translation services provision. Muñoz Martín (2014: 2), for example, discusses the construct of what he calls a situated translation and interpreting expertise (STIE), with five overlapping and interacting dimensions (knowledge, adaptive psychophysiological traits, regulatory skills, problem-solving skills and the self-concept). If the key component of the translator’s profession is constant adaptation to new contexts so as to succeed in a rapidly evolving translation market, it seems crucial to consider the role of adaptive and regulatory psychophysiological traits. Given that competence is the ability to do something that is based on both skills and beliefs in the possibility of using these skills (Dudzikowa 1993), translator competence is not only a set of skills used in translation service provision, but also personal beliefs that these skills can actually be used in an integrated and efficient manner.

16 

P. Pietrzak

Although the term translator competence—as opposed to translation competence—is used throughout this book as shorthand for all the skills and knowledge characteristic of the professional translator, it needs to be noted that, as Muñoz Martín (2014: 6) observes, “understandings of translation competence and its implications have been slowly drifting towards those of expertise within cognitive-psychological perspectives, and some authors nowadays use competence as a (near) synonym to expertise”; as examples he cites (Ehrensberger-Dow and Massey 2014; Göpferich 2013; PACTE 2003). He argues that the term expertise is “very different from compartmentalized, linguistic oriented conceptions of competence, which are deemed to be too static and focused on declarative knowledge, and lacking psychological reality. Expertise seems to provide a much more solid basis for empirical research” (Muñoz Martín 2009: 25), and that it subsumes a variety of “cognitive, motivational and personal traits, habits and dispositions that will yield sustained outstanding performance” (Muñoz Martín 2014: 55). As Massey (2017: 506) puts it, “a key role in acquiring translation competence, and thus laying the groundwork of expertise, is ascribed to the metacognitive ability to reflect on decisions and actions during the translation process”. The importance of metacognitive skills and personal resources such as self-motivation, self-efficacy, self-confidence or self-promotion in the translation profession, and especially in freelance translation and interpreting, is emphasised by Atkinson and Crezee (2014). These metacognitive elements of translator competence enable the translator to perform a translation task or adjust so as to be able to perform it. Metacognitive translator competence can therefore be defined here as the ability to self-­ regulate cognitive processes involved in translation, based on a set of personal resources that make up the psychological capital of the translator (see Chap. 5). Empowering the translator to navigate through this challenging profession, metacognitive translator competence is said to contribute to goal achievement and professional success.

2  Setting the Scene 

17

2.3 T  raining or Educating: A Dilemma Revisited In line with socio-constructivist assumptions, translator education should be seen from a broad and multifaceted perspective, as “the acquisition of knowledge of translation theory (episteme) and the development of practical wisdom (phronesis)” (Haro-Soler and Kiraly 2019: 257). From an institutional and pedagogical point of view, translator education also involves all the organisational aspects of translation study programmes and curriculum design. It encompasses identifying market demands, recognising students’ needs and identifying their progress in various assessment procedures, as well as rethinking aims, effects and approaches (Pietrzak 2013). It therefore has a broad meaning, that of a discipline which includes training as a component, focusing on practice-based aspects of the curriculum such as the acquisition of practical translation-­ related skills, organisation of the translation classroom or other translator training environments or professional placements. Education is therefore an inclusive term, and when discussing the holistic development of the translator as an autonomous individual capable of functioning effectively in the labour market, we must take into account not only training but also the overall system of educational processes contributing to learning. The very term chosen to describe the translation educator can be related to the approach to the process of translator education. Two terms in particular—teacher and trainer—have been used somewhat interchangeably in translation studies since neither seems pertinent enough, probably because of the complexity of translator education. If we assume that there is an association between the perspective on the roles in the training process and the term used to describe the translation educator (see Pietrzak 2013), the meaning of the term trainer appears insufficient. As observed by Haro-Soler and Kiraly (2019: 257), “perhaps mere ‘training’ in the use of machine translation and other translator’s tools (techne in Aristotelian terms) is all that will be required in future”. Nevertheless, translator education in a broad sense is not limited to training and includes “the acquisition of knowledge of translation

18 

P. Pietrzak

theory (episteme) and the development of practical wisdom (phronesis)” (ibid.) The term translator education is used in this book whenever a reference is made to the whole system of actions that aim at student development as a professional translator in both formal and non-formal environments. Nevertheless, whenever the focus is on selected metacognitive aspects of the more broadly defined translator education, with a particular interest in students’ personal resources and the translator’s psychological self, the term training is used in the belief that this choice reflects the practical aspect of acquiring metacognitive translator competence. Metacognitive translator training is understood here as support for learning through activating translation students’ personal resources that make up the psychological capital of the translator (see Sects. 5.2 and 5.3) and determine metacognitive translator competence, defined here as the ability to self-regulate cognitive processes involved in translation (see Sect. 2.2). This approach involves fostering metacognitive awareness in the process of learning and gaining practical experience in translation. Metacognitive training involves skills that eschew measurement (see Sect. 4.1), and provides translation students not so much with content, or depth, but rather with breadth, since the main object of metacognitive translator training is the trainee and his or her personal agency.

References Atkinson, D. P., and I. H. M. Crezee. 2014. “Improving Psychological Skill in Trainee Interpreters.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 6 (1): pp. 3–18. Bergen, D. 2009. “The role of metacognition and cognitive conflict in the development of translation International Forum of Teaching and Studies”, Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), pp. 231-250. Campbell, S. 1998. Translation into the second language. London: Longman. DePalma, Donald A., Pielmeier, Hélène and O’Mara, Paul D. (2019). The Language Services Market: 2019. 15th Annual Review of the Services and

2  Setting the Scene 

19

Technology Industry That Supports Translation, Localization, and Interpreting [Private access per subscription. https://csa-­research.com]. Dudzikowa, M. 1993. Kompetencje autokreacyjne. Edukacja, Badania, Innowacje, 4. Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen and Gary Massey. 2014. Constraints on creativity: The case of CAT tools. Online. Available from: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/278676021_Constraints_on_creativity_The_case_of_ CAT_tools (Accessed 24 July 2020) EMT Expert Group. 2009. Competences for professional translators, experts in multilingual and multimedia communication, Brussels: European Commission. EMT Expert Group. 2017. Competence Framework. [Online] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/emt_competence_fwk_2017_en_ web.pdf (Accessed 3 October 2021). FIT. 2011. Translator’s Charter, International Federation of Translators, https:// www.fit-­ift.org/translators-­charter/ (Accessed 20 October 2021). Gile, D. 1994. The Process-Oriented Approach in Translator Training. In: Dollerup, C. & Lindegaard, A. (eds) Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims, Visions. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 122–132. Gile, D. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. González Davies, M. 2004. Multiple voices in the translation classroom: activities, tasks and project, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gouadec, D. 2007. Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Göpferich, S. 2009. Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: the longitudinal study TransComp. In: Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A.L. & Mees, I.M. (eds) Behind the Mind: Methods, Models, and Results in Translation Process Research. Copenhagen Studies in Language Vol 37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 11–37. Göpferich, S. 2013. “Translation competence: explaining development and stagnation from a dynamic systems perspective.” Target: International Journal of Translation Studies, 25(1), 61-76. Grucza, F. 1985, Aspects of Translation and Translation Theory. In: Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny XXXII, 1985/3, 259–276. Grucza, F. (1993), Zagadnienia ontologii lingwistycznej: O językach ludzkich i ich (rzeczywistym) istnieniu. In: B. Kaczmarek (ed.), Opuscula Logopaedica in honorem Leonis Kaczmarek. Lublin. 25–47.

20 

P. Pietrzak

Haro-Soler, M.M. & Kiraly, D. 2019. “Exploring self-efficacy beliefs in symbiotic collaboration with students: an action research project”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13(3), pp.  255-270, DOI: https://doi.org/10.108 0/1750399X.2019.1656405 Hurtado Albir, A. 2015. “The Acquisition of Translation Competence. Competences, Tasks, and Assessment in Translator Training”, Meta 60(2), pp. 256–280. https://doi.org/10.7202/1032857ar Kelly, D. 2005. A Handbook for Translator Trainers. A Guide to Reflective Practice. Manchester: St. Jerome. Klimkowska, K. 2013. Orientacja na sukces zawodowy studentów kończących studia translatorskie. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Kiraly, D. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent: Kent State University Press. Kiraly, D. 2000. A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. Empowerment from Theory to Practice, Manchester, St. Jerome. Kiraly, D. 2005. Project-based learning: A case for situated translation. Meta: Translator’s Journal Vol. 50. No. 4, pp. 1098–1111. Kiraly, D. 2015. “Occasioning Translator Competence: Moving beyond Social Constructivism towards a Postmodern Alternative to Instructionism”, Translation and Interpreting Studies 10(1), pp. 8–32. Kiraly, D. 2016. “Authentic Project Work and Pedagogical Epistemologies: A Question of Competing or Complementary Worldviews?” In Kiraly, D. et al. (eds) Towards Authentic Experiential Learning in Translator Education, Mainz: Mainz University Press, pp. 53-66. Köller, W. 1979. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Lörscher, W. 1991. Translation performance, translation process, and translation strategies: A Psycholinguistic investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Massey, G. 2017. “Translation competence development and process-oriented pedagogy” in Schwieter, John W. and Ferreira, Aline (eds) The handbook of translation and cognition, Walden, MA: Wiley, pp. 496–518. Muñoz Martín, R. 2009. “Expertise and Environment in Translation” Mutatis Mutandis 2(1), pp. 24–37. Muñoz Martín, R. 2014. Situating translation expertise: A review with a sketch of a construct. In: Schwieter, J.W. & Ferreira, A. (eds), The development of translation competence. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 2–56.

2  Setting the Scene 

21

PACTE 2003. “Building a Translation Competence Model” In Alves, F. (ed.) Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in process oriented research, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 43-66. Pietrzak, P. 2013. “Teaching, Training, Educating? Terminological Ambiguity in Translator Education Theory”. In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. and M.  Thelen (eds), Translation and Meaning Part 10. Maastricht: Maastricht School of Translation and Interpreting, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, pp. 245–251. Pietrzak, P., Kornacki, M. 2020. Using CAT Tools in Freelance Translation: Insights from a Case Study, New York: Routledge. Pym, A. 1991. A Definition of Translational Competence, Applied to the Teaching of Translation. In: Jovanovic, M. (ed.) Translation: A Creative Profession: 12th World Congress of FIT. Proceedings. Belgrade: Prevodilac, pp. 541–546. Pym, A. 2003. Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In Defence of a Minimalist Approach. Meta: Translator’s Journal Vol. 48. No. 4, pp. 481−497. Pym, A. 2011. Training Translators. In: Malmkjær, K. & Windle, K. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 475–489. Pym, A. 2013. Translation Skill-Sets in a Machine-Translation Age. Meta: Translator’s Journal Vol. 58. No. 3, pp. 487–503. Pym, A., Grin, F., Sfreddo, C. & Chan, A.L.J. 2012. The status of the translation profession in the European Union. Studies on Translation and Multilingualism (DGT/2011/TST). European Commission. Schäffner, Ch., Adab, B. (eds). (2000). Developing translation competence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wilss, W. 1976. Perspectives and Limitations of a Didactic Framework for the Teaching of Translation. In: Brislin, R.W. (ed.) Translation. Applications and Research, New York: Gardner Press, pp. 117–137. Vieira, L.N. 2018. Automation anxiety and translators, Translation Studies, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2018.1543613.

3 Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education

3.1 Areas and Methods in Translator Education In recent years, a new trend that has been observed in translation studies is called ‘translator studies’ (Chesterman 2009), with the main focus on the translator rather than the product or the process of translation. According to one view, the emergence of translator education can be dated to the seventeenth century but the profession gained global importance after several major events, such as the French Revolution and Industrialisation, events that were highly influential in its development when the importance of education and especially the value of knowledge of foreign languages became evident to the rising middle class (Dollerup 1996: 19–20). There is, however, no definite point at which translator education may be said to have originated.| According to Dollerup (ibid.: 21), foreign language teaching—beyond Greek and Latin—which ties up with the ability to translate, gained ground and became important in the nineteenth century, but, apart from the grammar-translation method of foreign language teaching, he reports that it is impossible to find evidence of any translation teaching per se. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 P. Pietrzak, Metacognitive Translator Training, Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97038-3_3

23

24 

P. Pietrzak

The elusive beginning of what became the academic discipline of translation studies and its inextricable link with foreign language teaching shows that it is evolving and constantly developing. The profession has also evolved due to such factors as “tremendous changes in political regimes, the tremendous impact of technologies” (Pym 2010: 4). The pioneers of the discipline had “no classroom and essentially no students they could address” and “their pronouncements are musings based on their own work, possibly developed into precepts to be followed by those who translate texts (implicitly) of the same type” (Dollerup 1996: 19). Throughout the centuries, translation classes are said to have been conducted in the teacher-centred mode of transfer as the teacher would share their knowledge with students (Kiraly 1995, 2000; Pym 1992, 1993) in a transmissionist manner. The emergence of the concept of translator competence, as opposed to translation competence, can be considered a turning point in translation studies and translator education. The trend has been for the teacher-­ centred approach to be gradually replaced by a learner-centred manner of teaching which favours learner autonomy (Gonzalez Davies 2004). Kiraly (2000: 19) observes that by attempting to control the learning process through teacher-centered instruction, we stifle our students’ creativity, their sense of responsibility toward their own learning and their future position, and the development of that professional and expert self-concept that they must acquire in order to function adequately within the community of professional translators.

In a similar vein, Klimkowski (2015: 85) has remarked that it has been acknowledged that the transmissionist model of translator education “thwarts students’ development of cognitive and metacognitive skills relating to translation/interpreting”. What has gradually gained more and more recognition is the social constructivist approach to translator education “based on the view that social interaction precedes and is the basis for thought: knowledge is constructed by individuals in social interaction” (Kiraly 2015: 20). In this model the translation classroom is re-centred, moving towards a learner-­ oriented approach, which addresses the need for the professional

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

25

development of future translators and brings many advantages for translation students who start to actively participate in their own learning process, carrying out tasks that boost their creative potential and taking responsibility for their work. The shift towards student-centred learning is reflected in the increasing popularity of a systematic transfer of control to the learners (Kiraly 2000) or sharing the classroom between the students and the teacher (Klimkowski 2015). One of the main ideas behind this transfer of control and responsibility is student empowerment which is the result of “effective and constructive learning” (Kiraly 2000: 19), thus enabling them to function more effectively in the contemporary, highly dynamic, translation market. From a perspective that Kiraly calls ‘emergentist’, learning is “subconscious, authentic and complex in a dynamic, largely unpredictable and uncontrollable but clearly emancipatory, embodied, enactive and empowering process” (Kiraly 2016: 136). In some respects, empowering students puts them on a par with teachers as their active and innovative cooperation contributes to the organisation and structure of the translation training environment. Consequently, students become more involved in the process of training and more responsible for its outcome, which resembles a real-life translator’s performance when they need to be self-reliant and not dependent on the teacher. As Kiraly (2019: online) observes, the synergistic collaboration of institutions of higher education with actors within the language mediation professions, can, in my view, facilitate a new, and at the same time ancient, vision of education in our profession; one where learning about the profession, about languages and about theories of translation (episteme) is complemented not only by routine practice, but also reflective and discretionary practice: ie dealing with the language mediator’s work in increasingly authentic settings, and in all its often challenging complexity.

The author suggests a holistic approach to translator education and Aristotle’s concept of phronesis (practical wisdom), “as a potentially invaluable third pillar of knowledge” that he believes “could prove to have an important role in reaffirming the eminently human nature of

26 

P. Pietrzak

language mediation within an ever-changing and increasingly technical profession” (ibid.). Similarly, Klimkowski (2015: 11) emphasises that translator education needs to be “profession-oriented but holistic at the same time”. A holistic stance on learning helps to highlight the importance of human potential and personal resources. The concept of holistic education is a comprehensive approach which goes beyond both the transmissionist (teacher-centred) and transactional approach (learner-centred, based on teacher-assisted knowledge construction) and aims to elicit a transformation of the translation trainee. In this transformative approach, learning is seen as evoking change in the learner and transforming “problematic frames of reference-sets of fixed assumptions and expectations (habits of mind, meaning perspectives, mindsets)—to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change” (Mezirow 2003: 58–59). In the idea of learning as a transformation of perspective (see Mezirow 1990, 1996, 2003), learners not only acquire skills but change holistically. Klimkowski (2015: 90) emphasises that in such an anthropocentric perspective on learning, transformation “cannot be defined in terms of a curricular objective”; he elaborates as follows: That is why an objectivist translation classroom can hardly recognize [transformation] as educationally valid. It cannot be measured by a grid or a grading scale, and, in fact, it can hardly be defined as a skill or competence. The power of transformative education is more accessible to those classroom formats which are ready to recognize the role of human knowledge constructors—learners and teachers—who meet in order to support each other’s holistic growth.

Under this view of learning, both teachers and students take an active part in the process of perspective transformation, developing together through educational interaction. As this needs to happen in addition to other curricular obligations, the role of classroom interpersonal communication cannot be overestimated (see González Davies 2004; Klimkowski 2019). The idea of sharing the translation classroom and curriculum has been advocated in the belief that “these two phenomena can be conceived

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

27

of as spaces where people meet and negotiate (values, interests, needs, senses, solutions, etc.) in order to attain their objectives” (Klimkowski 2015: 12). Transactional and transformative assumptions are particularly implicit in a project-based approach to learning, which moves away from the traditional profile of teaching based on the development of declarative knowledge, towards strengthening the student’s learning through the implementation of professional tasks, thus offering them the opportunity to gain procedural knowledge. Translation projects are authentic translation assignments that allow for sharing and collaboration since they are commissioned by real clients and engage students in various roles. Such projects involve taking students outside the translation classroom. González Davies (2004: 29) states that “they enable a real implementation of an interactive pedagogical approach with real collaboration between teacher and students, field specialists and translation practitioners”. The author further elaborates on the reasons for using project work to improve translation training as follows (González Davies 2004: 29): • they favour a functionalist approach; • the whole process of translation is monitored and valued, not only the product; • the students are responsible for their work and its evaluation, thus shifting the centre away from the teacher, who becomes a collaborator and guide; • the students’ translation competence, self-confidence and capacity to talk about their work improves due to the social skills they need to hone to negotiate deadlines, terminology, textual unity, and so on; • translation competence is also improved as the students apply and extend their linguistic, encyclopedic, transfer and professional skills; • professional skills are enhanced because the students are responsible for their own work (which may not be evaluated by the teacher until after it has been sent to the readers/clients), for keeping to deadlines, for appropriate presentation of their translations, for sharing out the work and coordinating the process, and so on; • they cater for all abilities in the classroom: no one needs to feel left out and each can contribute to the team with what he or she can do best

28 

P. Pietrzak

(some students are better at resourcing, others at formatting, other may have a better knowledge of the discipline in hand, and so on); • the use of new technologies to help the translator can be optimised, e.g. practising resourcing skills and using electronic messages to establish real communication with real readers or clients. An important feature of project work mentioned by González Davies (ibid.) is “the positive effect on the students’ motivation and involvement: cooperation takes over from competition, and they ask questions that are to the point not only inside but also outside class hours and very much look forward to receiving the feedback”. In this approach, students are provided with a holistic view of the translation service process. The idea behind project-based learning is the simulation of professional practice in virtual environments. Students who participate in such projects are provided with multiple tasks to perform and thus get to know the workflow and work practices of professional translators. Apart from translating, students engage in other tasks which all contribute to a contextualised development of their translation-related skills. This situated approach recommends students’ engagement with life-like translation projects as part of their regular curricular activities (Gouadec 2007; Kelly 2005; Kiraly 2000; Risku 2010). Situated learning is dependent on authentic situations in which trainees assume roles, integrate and cooperate, and is understood as “a context-­ dependent approach to translator or interpreter training under which learners are exposed to real-life and/or highly simulated work environments and tasks, both inside and outside the classroom” (González-­ Davies and Enriquez Raído 2018: 1). Risku (2018: 15) identifies seven principles of situated learning as a didactic concept, that is, collaboration, construction, self-organisation, application in a social action context, use of shared artefacts, feedback and reflection. The nature and implementation of the last two principles will be further explored in Chap. 6 of this book (for reflection see Sects. 6.1 and 6.2; for feedback see Sects. 6.3 and 6.4). Klimkowski (2015: 44, cf. González Davies 2004; emphasis in the original) observes that translator education based on the idea of professional simulation has substantial educational advantages:

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

29

Firstly, it gives primacy to learning and student performance, rather than to the procedures for the transmission of ready-made, objectively justified knowledge from the teacher to the learner. Secondly, it is independent of the notion of ideal, universally valid translation competence. Thirdly, this approach to T&I education presupposes opening to multiple voices in the translation classroom.

Emphasising the importance of involving professional stakeholders in the learning process, Klimkowski (2015: 12) claims that “if translator/interpreter education authentically aspires to build bridges between learning and work, its classrooms and curricula must be shared with the stakeholders representing the real world of the translation/interpreting industry (or, in fact, with many others)” and adds that in a shared classroom “real people meet to negotiate and determine their real learning tasks, accept them and enter into various kinds of relations in order to attain these tasks. They also use the tasks and all the narratives that task realization involves to construct their knowledge through negotiating”. The situated approach places knowledge construction in students’ hands and makes them more accountable for their learning process. As Haro-Soler and Kiraly (2019: 267) so aptly put it, “From an emergent perspective on teaching, learning and research, we do indeed make the road by walking”. The transfer of responsibility from teachers to learners lays the foundation for metacognitive training aimed at enabling trainees to activate their personal resources and enter the translation market ready for self-­ directed lifelong learning, which constitutes the basis of translator professional development.

3.2 Patterns of Translator Education The apparent lack of legal regulation of the translation profession affects the profile and standards of translator education. As regards the current situation in translator education, the majority of translation courses are integrated into the university system and take place in academic departments of modern languages or translation studies. In general, such university courses are designed for both undergraduate and postgraduate

30 

P. Pietrzak

students, though the latter are more common. In some countries, such translation courses are therefore a part of foreign language studies (particularly at undergraduate level) with one or more foreign languages or those dealing with the literature written in these languages. Such courses may include translation theory if departments conduct research and require students to write their theses or dissertations with reference to a theoretical framework, as a way of systematising their arguments. In the Polish context—which to a large extent illustrates general tendencies in some non-English-speaking countries—there are three types of translator education at undergraduate level: studies with a general specialisation in translation; studies offering modules in translation; and studies offering more specific specialisations, for example audiovisual translation, literary translation, simultaneous interpreting and specialised translation (Klimkowska 2013: 46). Taking into account the need for professional training of future translators, translator training programmes which offer translation not only as an additional component but as a study ‘profile’ have better tools and a better background to develop multifaceted translator competences (Tabakowska 1992: 15). Other forms of education in Poland include postgraduate studies, which tend to vary in their entry requirements. Candidates applying for such studies are required to possess a BA or MA degree and are usually asked to take an entrance examination or attend an admission interview. Additionally, many institutes and schools for translators have emerged and offer translator-dedicated workshops or specific courses (with no postgraduate degree status), for example courses conducted by the Association of Polish Translators (Stowarzyszenie Tłumaczy Polskich) or the Polish Society of Sworn and Specialised Translators (Polskie Towarzystwo Tłumaczy Przysięgłych i Specjalistycznych). Studies with a major in translation, that is, an official specialisation recorded in an academic record with a translation profile specified on the diploma, have recently been introduced, not only at MA level but also for undergraduate BA studies. However, a three-year BA course may not provide the same level and scope of practice in acquiring all the skills necessary for translation service provision. As Gouadec (2007:163) observes:

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

31

An employer will always take on the most highly qualified applicant for a position and that would typically be the holder of a postgraduate ‘masters’ type diploma in translation. Even most companies taking on interns have a marked preference for students engaged in a ‘masters’ course (or more rarely, fourth-year students). Which goes to show that (a) employers do not put much trust in BAs in translation and (b) they are first and foremost interested in finding people who are immediately operational.

While more extensive training can offer a more thorough preparation for students who are to be fully operational in the translation industry, graduating from translator-dedicated BA studies can still place students in an advantageous position to apply for their first job earlier in their life, by entering the translation market sooner to start gaining work experience. Pym (2011: 481) considers it beneficial for students to be able to take up a professional career earlier, since it enables them to choose a future education path based on their job profile. In Poland, some translation courses offer narrower translation specialisations, which may be due to the fact that the student profile is changing and, as Piotrowska notes (2007: 103), “the traditional roles of a translator or philologist are evolving, thus giving way to graduates functioning as bilingual text editors, multimedia designers, IT specialists, cultural mediators, localisers, terminologists and others”. Given the wide range of roles available to the translator in their professional work, the aim of translator education should not only be to prepare students for completing translation assignments, but above all to help them ease into the challenges of transitioning into professional practice. Facilitating the process of transition into the labour market requires a focus on the professional development of translation students (see Kiraly 2005; Kelly 2005; Gouadec 2007; González-Davies and Scott-Tennent 2005). The needs of the translation market should be considered when designing curricula with the aim of preparing students for professional life. The variety of programmes and courses is probably as great as the differences in the requirements for each particular course. Some of the studies and courses can be undertaken by intermediate foreign language users, while others can impose very precise and stringent requirements and, hence, demand considerable effort. Graduates of such courses differ in

32 

P. Pietrzak

their skills, though all of them may officially be called translators, and thus the quality of translation services offered throughout the world also differs (see Pym 2009). Such a state of affairs—when translators differ in their preparedness for work—entails an increasingly pressing need for further self-directed and self-regulated practice outside the translation classroom or any other translator training environment (see Sect. 3.5).

3.3 Employability as an Objective of Translator Education Effective translator education requires collaboration in a joint effort to create the best environment possible for translation students to acquire knowledge and practice in the most authentic circumstances. The objectives of such a curriculum focus on making translator education impactful and meaningful for future professional careers. Professional development can be defined as an ongoing process through which an individual derives a sense of identity as a translator by integrating the knowledge and skills gained in translator education with their own values and attitudes. Professional development of the translator involves not only the possibility of internships in translation companies, but also the implementation of professional tasks in the classroom learning process so as to gradually develop students’ knowledge of the profession. Biel (2012: 99) observes that the professionalisation of translation curricula consists in bringing the education programme closer to the needs of the market and preparing students well for work in the profession. An example that could be used to illustrate the professionalisation of translator education is the project-based approach, as outlined earlier in this chapter. As noted, translation projects involve methods of work typical of a professional translator workspace where teacher, students, practitioners and field specialists collaborate outside the translation classroom. Olvera Lobo et  al. (2007: 521) postulate a project-based approach, known as PATT (Professional Approach to Translator Training), which takes into account the actual state of the translation market. The main theoretical assumptions of PATT (ibid.) aim to “familiarize students with

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

33

the methods of work typical of translation agencies by recreating the production line of the professional workplace”, “develop teleworking in teams, self-instruction and interdisciplinarity” and “provide a work setting with the tools needed by teachers and researchers to incorporate ICT [information and communication technology] in the classroom and reproduce the environment of the professional work context”. Apart from the project-based approach, any simulation of the translator’s work can also contribute to the professional development of translation students. As Kelly (2005: 93) observes, such a simulated practice involves not only playing different roles that a translator can perform in cooperation with a translation company or a language service provider, but also working on such aspects of the translator’s work as creating a work plan, budget planning or invoicing (ibid.). Activities of this type ensure group interactions and thus the development of social and cognitive skills, such as solving problems, discussing solutions and justifying one’s decisions or decision-making. Thanks to such a professional approach to translator training, students can learn not only translation as a process but also translation as a service. In his reflection on the situation of the translation market, Gouadec (2007: 327) observes that there are “too many translation graduates not finding employment and too many employers or companies not finding the right translators (meaning ‘suitable’ for the jobs or contracts)”. Employability is considered by Klimkowski (2015: 42) to be “a benchmark of an effective translator education curriculum” which is on the one hand clearly understandable if we consider translation to be service provision, but on the other, “the very idea of employability as an ultimate educational objective is controversial”. Arguing that the curricular focus should indeed go beyond the academic framework, Klimkowski (ibid.) claims that “a holistic T&I curriculum must cater for the overall, life-long human growth and functioning [of translators]—as individuals, members of groups, teams, communities and societies”. His approach is in accordance with holistic views on translator education postulated by Kearns (2008: 209), who considers the primary aim of translation pedagogy to be training translators as “members of society”:

34 

P. Pietrzak

What is required is a holistic approach to curriculum renewal which does not presume the needs at the outset, but which defines them as contextually (‘situationally’) dependent on manifold variables. At the basis of such a mode of analysis is the necessity for larger philosophical and ideological reflection on the nature of the curriculum. Are we training translators to enter preordained positions?

Such a holistic approach to translator education involves not only developing transfer, strategic or thematic competence, but also ensuring a thorough ‘psychopedagogical’ background, as Klimkowska terms it (2013: 47). Referring back to Kiraly’s concept of the translator (2000: 49), he notes that this includes “raising students’ awareness of the factors involved in translation, helping them develop their own translator’s self-­ concept, and assisting in the collaborative construction of individually tailored tools that will allow every student to function within the language mediation community upon graduation”. Kiraly’s concept is described by Klimkowska (2013: 47) as including psychosocial sub-­ competences, thanks to which “the translator has such tools as: self-­ awareness, self-control, ability and readiness for introspection, reflexivity, ability of efficient social functioning”. Such a perspective ensures that translation trainees become familiar with both professional and social aspects of translation activity, which contributes to increasing the readiness of a novice translator to undertake new and challenging translation projects.

3.4 The Translator as a Lifelong Learner Drawing upon Kiraly’s (2016: 64) view on learning as a “non-linear, embodied, enactive and autopoietic (self-generating and self-sustaining) system”, it is argued here that classroom interaction must inspire the development of the self in the process of learning. Similarly, Fraser and Greenhalgh (2001) state that “relationships between items of knowledge are not predictable or linear, but neither are they frankly chaotic” (2001: 800). The authors define capability as the “extent to which individuals can adapt to change, generate new knowledge, and continue to improve

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

35

their performance” (ibid.: 799). This stance reflects the idea of lifelong learning as a crucial element of professional development. Taking into account the dynamics of the current translation market, mastering self-learning tools could be seen as more important than the acquisition of structured knowledge. This form of learning is considered to be conducive to taking responsibility for one’s own life, which reflects the natural process of maturation and psychological development. In his theory of adult learning, Malcolm Knowles emphasises the idea of personal growth and ability to learn. Students who take the initiative “learn more things, and learn better, than do people who sit at the feet of teachers passively waiting to be taught” (Knowles 1975: 14). He defines self-­ directed learning as “a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes” (ibid.:18). In his reflexive approach, Brookfield stresses the importance of experience and critical self-awareness. [The] most fully adult form of self-directed learning is one in which critical reflection on the contingent aspects of reality, the exploration of alternative perspectives and meaning systems, and the alteration of personal and social circumstances, are all present. The external technical and the internal reflective dimensions are fused when adults come to appreciate the culturally constructed nature of knowledge and values and when they act on the basis of that appreciation to reinterpret and recreate their personal and social worlds. In such a praxis of thought and action is manifested a fully adult form of autonomous, self-directed learning. (Brookfield 1995: 30–31)

Lifelong learning is focused on personal development and engages students as complex personalities. Jarvis et al. (2003: 89) observe that “the whole idea of lifelong learning and the learning society entails a notion of the individual self-directed learner”. Autonomous, self-directed learning encompasses both external and internal dimensions when learners act on the basis of the knowledge gained and use their personal agency to apply it in their future working environment. As Klimkowski stresses, a holistic

36 

P. Pietrzak

approach to learning means that “the students and the teachers are thought of as human beings taking part in educational initiatives […] beneficial for their lifelong development” (2015: 92). Lifelong learning involves students’ personal agency and aims to prepare them to stay open to lifelong educational experiences. The idea of learning as engaging students in their own learning process aims at empowering them to acquire knowledge and apply it in their future working environment. Taking into account the highly dynamic nature of the translation market and new demands that the pandemic, for example, has put on society, the skills that will be useful for translators in their future career are hardly predictable. It is therefore essential that the translator be self-directed enough to adapt to forever changing job demands. In recent years, the traditional teacher-centred approach to teaching translation, or rather “procedure-oriented and content-oriented teaching” (Klimkowska and Klimkowski 2015: 212), has become less popular since the main assumption behind translator education is no longer just a transfer of knowledge. Focusing on the development of autonomy and responsibility, student-­ centred approaches assume a gradual transfer of responsibility for the learning process from the teacher to the student. With the aim of preparing trainee translators for entering the contemporary market, it needs to be taken into account that the work of a modern translator is associated with continuous self-development based not only on deepening their knowledge by acquiring skills and experience, but also on many other self-regulatory skills necessary for efficient functioning on the labour market.

3.5 A  reas for Further Development and Self-Study Graduates of BA degree programmes in translation studies can differ considerably in the level of competence and skills gained. Combined with the changing nature of the translation profession, the situation forces BA graduates to be ready to identify their own limitations and make up for them on their own. The need to continue learning outside the translation

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

37

classroom highlights the relevance of metacognitive skills for effective work in the translation industry. The three main areas that often go beyond classroom practice and call for self-study are discussed below: language skills (2.5.1), specialised knowledge (2.5.2) and technological skills (2.5.3). These are areas that may still require additional student attention and further work without teacher guidance.

3.5.1 L anguage Skills and Directionality in Translator Training In the majority of European countries, the admission requirements for participating in translation courses stipulate that students have a minimum command of a foreign language (sufficient to enrol in undergraduate programmes) not lower than B2-C1 level (CEFR, Council of Europe 2006). The general tendency is to require students to reach C1 level by the time they graduate from a BA degree programme. This admission requirement is, however, often hard to sustain when university recruitment targets are under pressure. As observed by Pym (1992: 281), “requiring that students have a perfect command of foreign languages before learning about translation may be justified by as many facts and figures as you like, but it will not be adopted in Spain simply because it would mean teaching translation to virtually empty classes”. However divergent they seem, undergraduate study programmes in translation may not offer sufficient language practice, which seems to suggest that translation students who graduate from BA programmes may not be ready to translate into their ‘B’ language (often English for Polish students) as well as from their ‘B’ into their ‘A’ language. Similarly, minimum requirements for translators working in-house, for instance in the EU institutions (as described in the Translator Profile for potential applicants1), are very often limited to knowing their source language at C1/C2 level with the assumption that they are usually going to translate only into their ‘main’ language. As Biel (2017: 44) observes in relation to quality in institutional EU translation, “in general, candidates have to  https://ec.europa.eu/info/jobs-european-commission/working-eu/translator-profile_en (Accessed 9 April 2021). 1

38 

P. Pietrzak

meet the following requirements: a bachelor’s degree and a perfect command of their mother tongue (C2 level) and two official EU languages (C1 level), of which at least one should be a procedural language”. These basic requirements show the common practice and attitude to the directionality of translation. Directionality is a notion that “had long been neglected, if not completely ignored, by traditional translation studies in the sense that translation into a non-mother tongue was completely rejected and disapproved” (Pavlović 2013: 149). The directionality of translation is in fact dependent on the context and settings in which the translation takes place, that is, “language combinations, the availability of translators with these combinations and of subject specialists, genres, deadlines, different kinds of institutional controls and individual translators’ expert competence” (Beeby 2009: 86). In most cases it is the availability of translators as well as market conditions that constitute decisive factors here, and thus in countries where languages of limited diffusion are spoken, translating into the translator’s second language happens to be a must. The direction recommended by many professional associations has always been translation into the mother tongue, also called direct translation, as opposed to inverse translation into a foreign language (Newmark 1988; Weatherby 1998; Mackenzie 1998). However, as Campbell points out: “in theory this is fine, but in practice it poses some difficulties since the supply of translators into particular languages may not match the demand, so that translation sometimes (or perhaps even often) has to be undertaken into the second language”. Making a different point, Whyatt (2018: 89) observes that, “apart from being impractical, the conviction that L2 translation is always inferior to L1 translation is also outdated and undermines the ideals of foreign language teaching methodologies, namely that one can achieve a high level of proficiency in a foreign language”. Nonetheless, as Weatherby notes, it is still the case in countries where languages of limited diffusion are spoken that “students are being instilled with the belief that they should always translate into their mother tongue” (1998: 21). Due to the limited number of native speakers of English available in countries like Poland, translators frequently face the challenge of translating into their second language. The fact that there are not enough L1 users of the target language, as Pavlović (2007: 188)

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

39

observes, “is not only a matter of such users not being physically present in particular countries” but “is more a matter of such users not being interested in learning the small language in question, or learning it well enough to be able to take an active part in professional translation assignments or in translator education”. Such a state of affairs appears problematic in the light of the current situation on the translation market and the reported profiles of educational institutions which train translators. What needs to be taken into account is the fact that in countries where languages of limited diffusion are spoken, students are not always as proficient in high-demand target languages such as English as they are expected to be and yet, having graduated, they are going to translate into English, and native English speakers who would work with these languages are forever in short supply in such countries (see Pietrzak 2013). It is also usually more cost-effective to commission a Polish translator to do a translation into English and it is definitely less common—and consequently less cost effective—to commission an English native speaker to translate from Polish. Native speakers of the target language are, instead, often asked to verify translations and provide translation agencies with such text services as proofreading, editing or stylistic adjustment. As one translator reveals in relation to translation into a foreign language, “it’s more important for the client to use me as a reviser than to have paid me in the first place to do the translation—which I would have preferred to do, because I find editing extremely difficult” (Anderman 2003: 30). As Pavlović (2010: 64) aptly puts it, “for translation teachers in settings where L2 translation is a regular practice, the main dilemma is, therefore, not whether translators should work into their L2, but rather how to help them do it well”. In view of the situation on the translation market, self-directed learning is one way in which students who are not native speakers of, say, English, could be prepared for future professional demands. Hence, the inclusion of metacognitive awareness training in translation curricula could help students to better understand the nature of their competence when translating into their B language. In accordance with the idea of lifelong learning (see Sect. 3.4), it is essential that students recognise the limits of their competence in inverse translation. Skills such as self-regulation, self-reflection or self-feedback (see Sect. 6.4)

40 

P. Pietrzak

appear to be indispensable here. Having gained more metacognitive awareness, students can be expected to work on their own to overcome limitations in their second language skills or make up for any other shortcomings.

3.5.2 Specialised Knowledge For Gouadec (2007: 337) translator specialisation consists of acquiring “real, extensive, proven expertise in: two or more domains, and/or in certain kinds of media, and/or a particular ‘job’ or technique (e.g. localisation or subtitling)”. The author claims that “it is unreasonable to expect graduates fresh out of a university translator training course to be specialised in any true sense of the word” (ibid.). Specialised translation is mostly seen as “the interlingual translation of LSP genres” (Rogers 2018: 18), and “any LSP is characterized by, among other features, a particular terminology, i.e. the special vocabulary of the special field in question” (Picht 1987: 149). Franco Aixela (2004: 32) defines specialised translation as the “translation of any text or text type in which there is a specific terminology belonging to a professional or academic field”. Rather more abstractly, Sandrini (2006: 109) defines LSP translation as: “exteriorisation of specialised knowledge systems and cognitive processes, weighed and selected from an information offer (interiorisation) with the objective of disseminating them in another linguistic (interlingual) and cultural context (transcultural), governed by skopos”. The scope of specialisation is open to interpretation, but the main areas include law, medicine, science, technology, literature, business, information technology or marketing. As far as translator competence is concerned, the component of specialised knowledge is variously called subject knowledge (Williams and Chesterman 2002), domain knowledge (Gerzymisch-Arbogast 2008), domain-specific knowledge (Göpferich 2009), subject area knowledge (Austermühl 2010) or thematic competence (EMT 2009). Specialised translators differ as regards their educational background and expertise in the subject matter. As Rogers observes (2015: 44), “the subject matter of specialised translation is drawn from many disciplines, all with their own

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

41

special languages and disciplinary associations”. Ideally, specialised translators should be experts in both special languages and the discipline in question, but “in terms of feasibility, this would—in most countries— require a minimum of a five-year translation programme combined with a five-year programme in a subject matter field […] making it an option for only the most dedicated of translators-to-be” (Kastberg 2009: 88). The level of expertise required to produce high-quality specialised translations is open to debate, and may depend on a number of factors, including, for instance, the nature of the subject field itself, for example in terms of safety-critical subject matter. As Górnicz (2013: 133) observes, “LSP translators are supposed to talk like the pros, with an emphasis on like. In a way, this is similar to the work of actors, who need to behave like the characters they play would, but not necessarily think like them”. Górnicz (ibid.) adds that “it is actually quite unrealistic to assume that an actor playing the role of a physician taking a patient’s history will actually reason like a physician would. Similarly, a translator translating an employment contract need not busy him- or herself with deciding whether the working conditions offered are fair, etc.”. As Wakabayashi notes in relation to medical translation, “what is essential is not a medical degree, but a broad understanding of the fundamentals and the knowledge of how to acquire, in the most efficient manner, an understanding of other elements as and when necessary” (1996: 357). In one view, it is not the content itself that matters most in specialised translator training but facilitating translation trainees’ development so that they can cope with any specialised content on their own later in their professional life (Pietrzak 2019). Since university courses cannot provide translation students with a thorough specialised education, they need metacognitive skills to self-regulate the process of both becoming and being the translator, which often involves self-study and attempts to make up for certain gaps resulting from, say, non-medical or non-legal education. Just as language proficiency training cannot dominate the curriculum, neither can extensive specialised knowledge modules in many domains be part of the university translation curriculum. Also, it is problematic to predict exactly which subject fields will be the most relevant in the current fast-changing global market. Nevertheless, students can be given a

42 

P. Pietrzak

broad introduction, for example to information mining, and alerted to relevant sources and resources. Students who qualify as proficient general translators need to be ready for self-directed learning. As advocated in this book, metacognitive translator training, aimed at fostering students’ personal resources that make up the psychological capital of the translator, equips students with tools for further development and specialisation.

3.5.3 Technological Skills Translation technology is embedded not only in the translator’s work but also in the translator training environment, especially with the ongoing digital transformation and new educational demands currently resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic situation. Given the enhanced speed and efficiency as well as technological solutions that enable new ways of management and collaboration, computer-based tools offer an important aid to translators as they facilitate the translation workflow and workspace. The increasing popularity and availability of technological tools greatly affects and changes translation (Doherty 2016; Moorkens 2017). For the last two decades, there has been a gradual shift towards automation in the translation process and translation project management, often called a technological turn (Chan 2004), which results in shifting roles for the translator who can “for the first time, easily create their own collections of stored translations for later reuse in their work, for sharing with their colleagues, and for both commercial and academic research purposes” (Doherty 2016: 952). As signalled by Teixeira (2011: 108), “some translation agencies pre-translate their source files using a combination of TM [translation memory] and customized MT [machine translation] before sending them out to translators, who then become reviewers, or post-­ editors”. More and more often the translator works with MT-based pre-­ translated content and post-edits a rough version of the translation. Translation-related technology undoubtedly changes the profile of the translation profession. New developments stimulate changes in the translation process, which results in the emergence of new types of work profiles and work systems. Cronin (2013: 8) observes that “the potential

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

43

instantaneity and accessibility of digital media imply a greater acceleration of translation flows with potentially subversive effects, but equally the widespread dissemination of translations”. Since its rapid development affects the working conditions of translators, digitalisation also presents both challenges and opportunities for translation teachers. Olvera Lobo et al. (2007: 518) note that “in particular, the use of computer tools involves the internalization of work routines that professional translators apply making it essential to familiarize trainee translators with the work systems and environment that are typical of the labor market”. The authors observe that the technological revolution “has placed responsibility for these tasks in the hands of the translator too, shortening the production line and broadening the professional requirements of translators” (ibid.). A lot of tasks previously carried out by other professionals are now handled by translators who are expected to perform their usual duties such as research and translation, but also documentation or terminology management, using a variety of computer tools and software products, which must be taken into consideration in the translation classroom. The use of computer-assisted (CAT) technology has gradually become an indispensable component of translator training. Some students and trainers may feel anxiety about interacting with technological toolkits and thus feel reluctant to use CAT tools. Two main types of technology-­ related anxiety are cognitive friction (O’Brien et al. 2017: 147) and technological anxiety (Pietrzak and Kornacki 2020). Cognitive friction is the irritation that occurs when the state of “flow” is disturbed and is “assumed to detract from the efficiency of the translation process, with potentially negative consequences on translator performance and satisfaction” (Ehrensberger-Dow and O’Brien 2015: 103). While cognitive friction occurs during the translation assignment and can hinder the process of translation, technological anxiety can actually prevent the process from happening. Technological anxiety is understood as “the fear of computer assistance based on the assumption that a potential problem occurs in the process of translation and causes trouble that would be too difficult to solve” and is usually caused by lack of familiarity with technological tools available on the market (Pietrzak and Kornacki 2020: 61).

44 

P. Pietrzak

These negative attitudes can be changed by extensive exposure to technology; research with professional translators and their attitudes towards technology (ibid.) indicates that a great majority of them expect translation programmes to provide students with more extensive practice in the use of CAT tools. Translation technology can be integrated into the translation curriculum fairly successfully as today’s students usually have good IT skills, which allows them to quickly and easily learn the basic skills of using the software. Nevertheless, in cases where students do experience technological anxiety, raising their awareness of the reasons behind this could be helpful. It may help to encourage them to attempt self-feedback (see Sect. 8.2.3), notice the negative attitude that they have and think of areas that may distort their judgement. When they try to identify what sets them back and what the potential root cause of the problem is, they may, for instance, come to realise that the fear of technology is related to their fear of making a mistake or mishandling the software, as indicated in Pietrzak and Kornacki’s study on the use of CAT tools in freelance translation when the participants were asked about their reluctance to use technology (ibid.: 100). Self-feedback has the potential to be useful here, as noticing such negative thoughts or emotions, admitting the fear and letting it flow without judgement could help reduce the anxiety. When students become more metacognitively aware of the relation between their self-concept and their interaction with technology, they are more likely to open up to the benefits from technological developments. Incorporating metacognitive training seems particularly important here since the ability to self-­ regulate and self-study can help translation students further develop their technological skills on their own later in their career. Having become aware of the psychological aspects of their interaction with technology, they can identify their limitations and continue learning without the teacher’s assistance.

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

45

References Anderman, G. .2003. “Round-table Discussion on Translation in the New Millennium”, in Anderman, G. and Rogers, M. (eds.) Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 13–54. Austermühl, F. (2010) “A collaborative approach to the teaching of terminology management” In T21N – Translation in Transition. Available at http://www. t21n.com/homepage/articles/T21N-­2010-­09-­Austermuehl.pdf. (Accessed 20 October 2021). Beeby, A. 2009. “Directionality”, in Baker, M., and Saldanha, G. (eds.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Introduction to the first edition, New York: Routledge, pp. 84–88. Biel, Ł. 2012. Kompetencja w zakresie świadczenia usług tłumaczeniowych a uczenie się przez projekt, in: M. Piotrowska/ A. Czesak/ A. Gomola/ S. Tyupa (eds.) Kompetencje tłumacza. Kraków. 97–105. Biel, Ł. 2017. “Quality in institutional EU translation: Parameters, policies and practices”. In T. Svoboda, Ł. Biel & K. Łoboda (eds.), Quality aspects in institutional translation, Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 31–57. DOI:https:// doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1048183 Brookfield, S. 1995. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. CEFR, Council of Europe 2006) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16802fc0b1 (Accessed 20 October 2021) Chan, Sin-Wei. 2004. A Dictionary of Translation Technology. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Chesterman, A. 2009. The Name and Nature of Translator Studies. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 22(42), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v22i42.96844 Cronin, M. 2013. Translation in the Digital Age. London and New  York: Routledge. Doherty, S. 2016. The Impact of Translation Technologies on the Process and Product of Translation. International Journal of Communication 10, pp. 947–969. Dollerup, C. 1996. “The Emergence of the Teaching of Translation”, in Dollerup, C., Appel, V. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3; New Horizons, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 19–30.

46 

P. Pietrzak

Ehrensberger-Dow, M. and O’Brien, S. 2015. “Ergonomics of the Translation Workplace: Potential for Cognitive Friction”. Translation Spaces 4(1), pp. 98–118. EMT Expert Group. 2009. Competences for professional translators, experts in multilingual and multimedia communication, Brussels: European Commission. Franco Aixela, J. 2004. “The Study of Technical and Scientific Translation: An Examination of its Historical Development”, Journal of Specialised Translation, Issue 1, pp. 29–49. Fraser, S. W., & Greenhalgh, T. 2001. “Coping with complexity: Educating for capability”. British Medical Journal 323, pp. 799–803. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. 2008. Fundamentals of LSP Translation. In: Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H., Budin, G. & Hofer, G. (eds) LSP Translation Scenarios. Selected Contributions of the EU Marie Curie Conference Vienna 2007. MuTra Journal 02, 7–55. González Davies, M. 2004. Multiple voices in the translation classroom: activities, tasks and project, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. González-Davies, M. and Scott-Tennent, Ch. 2005. “A problem-solving and student-centred approach to the translation of cultural references”. Meta: Translators’ Journal 50(1), pp. 160–179. González-Davies, M. & Enriquez Raído, V. 2018. “Situated learning in translator and interpreter training: Bridging research and good practice”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, pp. 1–11. Gouadec, D. 2007. Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Göpferich, S. 2009. Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: the longitudinal study TransComp. In: Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A.L. & Mees, I.M. (eds) Behind the Mind: Methods, Models, and Results in Translation Process Research. Copenhagen Studies in Language Vol 37. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 11–37. Górnicz, M. 2013. “Teaching Medical Translation to Non-medical Students – a case study with some theoretical insight”. JAHR 4(7), pp. 129–144. Haro-Soler, M.M. & Kiraly, D. 2019. “Exploring self-efficacy beliefs in symbiotic collaboration with students: an action research project”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13(3), pp.  255–270, DOI: https://doi.org/10.108 0/1750399X.2019.1656405 Jarvis, P., Holford, J., and Griffin, C. 2003. The Theory and Practice of Learning. London, Sterling: Kogan Page Limited.

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

47

Kastberg, P. 2009. Personal knowledge management in the training of non-­ literary translators. JoSTrans – The Journal of Specialised Translation 11. Kearns, J. 2008. “The Academic and the Vocational in Translator Education.” In Kearns, J. (ed.) Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates. London, New  York: Continuum International Publishing Group, pp. 184–214. Kelly, D. 2005. A Handbook for Translator Trainers. A Guide to Reflective Practice. Manchester: St. Jerome. Kiraly, D. 1995. Pathways to Translation: Pedagogy and Process. Kent: Kent State University Press. Kiraly, D. 2000. A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. Empowerment from Theory to Practice, Manchester, St. Jerome. Kiraly, D. 2005. Project-based learning: A case for situated translation. Meta: Translator’s Journal Vol. 50. No. 4, pp. 1098–1111. Kiraly, D. 2015. “Occasioning Translator Competence: Moving beyond Social Constructivism towards a Postmodern Alternative to Instructionism”, Translation and Interpreting Studies 10(1), pp. 8–32. Kiraly, D. 2016. “Authentic Project Work and Pedagogical Epistemologies: A Question of Competing or Complementary Worldviews?” In Kiraly, D. et al. (eds) Towards Authentic Experiential Learning in Translator Education, Mainz: Mainz University Press, pp. 53–66. Kiraly, D. 2019. “A Human Pyramid (castell): A Metaphor for Authentic Project Work”, Keynote Speech at APTIS Conference 2019 (Association of Programmes in Translation and Interpreting Studies, UK and Ireland) 23–24 November, Presentation, DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.2.28589.03047 Klimkowska, K. 2013. Orientacja na sukces zawodowy studentów kończących studia translatorskie. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Klimkowska, K., Klimkowski, K. 2015. Kształtowanie kompetencji świadczenia usług tłumaczeniowych z perspektywy przyszłych tłumaczy. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Klimkowski, K. 2015. Towards a Shared Curriculum in Translator and Interpreter Education, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Filologicznej. Klimkowski, K. 2019 “Assessment as a Communicative Activity in the Translation Classroom” In: Pietrzak, P. (ed.) New Insights into Translator Training, Special Issue of Intralinea. https://www.intralinea.org/index.php/ specials/article/2428

48 

P. Pietrzak

Knowles M. 1975. Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers, New York, Toronto: Cambridge Adult Education Company. Mackenzie, R. 1998. “The Place of Language Teaching in a Quality Oriented Translators’ Training Programme”. In Malmkjær, K. (ed.) Translation and Language Teaching: Language Teaching and Translation, Manchester: St. Jerome, pp. 15–20. Mezirow, J. 1990. “How critical reflection triggers transformative learning” In Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Education, ed. by Jack Mezirow et al., San Francisco: Jossey-­ Bass, pp. 1–20. Mezirow, J. 1996. “Contemporary paradigms of learning.” Adult Education Quarterly 46 (3): 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369604600303 Mezirow, J. 2003. “Transformative Learning as Discourse.” Journal of Transformative Learning 1(1), pp. 58–63. Moorkens, J. 2017. Under Pressure: Translation in Times of Austerity. Perspectives Studies in Translatology 25(3), pp. 464–477. Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of translation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. O’Brien, S., Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Hasler, M. and Connolly, M. 2017. Irritating CAT Tool Features that Matter to Translators. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business 56, pp. 145–162. Olvera Lobo M. D., Castro Prieto, M. R., Muñoz Martín, R., Robinson, B. J., Villena, B. J., Castro Prieto, R. M., Quero Gervilla, E., Muñoz Martín, R., Muñoz Raya, E., & Díez Lerma, J. L. 2007. A professional approach to translator training (PATT). Meta: Journal Des Traducteurs/ Translators’. Journal 52(3), pp. 517–528. Pavlović, N. 2007. Directionality in collaborative translation processes. PhD dissertation, Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Pavlović, N. 2010. “What Were They Thinking?! Students’ Decision Making in L1 and L2 Translation Processes” Hermes  – Journal of Language and Communication Studies 44, pp. 63–87. Pavlović, T. 2013. “Exploring directionality in translation studies”, Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, pp. 149–165. Picht, H. 1987. “Terms and their LSP Environment – LSP Phraseology.” Meta 32(2), pp. 149–55. http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/003836ar Pietrzak, P. 2013. “Divergent Goals: Teaching Language for General and Translation Purposes in Contrast” In Piątkowska, K. and Kościałkowska-­ Okońska, E. (eds) Correspondences and Contrasts in Foreign Language Pedagogy

3  Rethinking the Aims of Translator Education 

49

and Translation Studies, Second Language Learning and Teaching, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 233–240. Pietrzak, P. 2019. “Self-study strategies in project-based specialised translator training”, Across Languages and Cultures 20(1), pp. 97–116. Pietrzak, P., Kornacki, M. 2020. Using CAT Tools in Freelance Translation: Insights from a Case Study, New York: Routledge. Piotrowska, M. 2007. Proces decyzyjny tłumacza. Podstawy metodologii nauczania przekładu pisemnego. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej. Pym, A. 1992. “Translation error analysis and the interface with language teaching”, in Dollerup, C. and Loddegaard, A. (eds.) Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 279–288. Pym, A. 1993. Epistemological Problems in Translation and Its Teaching, Caminade: Calaceit. Pym, A. 2009. Translation training, Draft for the Oxford Companion to Translation Studies, http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-­line/training/2009_ translator_training.pdf (Accessed 10 May 2021) Pym, A. 2010. Aspects of Translation Education; An Interview with Professor Anthony Pym, Available: http://www.tinet.cat/~apym/on-­line/training/2010_ interview_china.pdf Pym, A. 2011. Training Translators. In: Malmkjær, K. & Windle, K. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 475–489. Risku, H. 2010. “A cognitive scientific view on technical communication and translation: Do embodiment and situatedness really make a difference?” Target 22(1), pp. 94–111. Risku, H. 2018. “Situated learning in translation research training: academic research as a reflection of practice” In Gonzalez-Davies, M. & Enriquez Raído, V. (eds) Situated learning in translator and interpreter training: Bridging research and good practice. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, pp.12–28. 10. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1154339. Rogers, M. 2015. Specialised Translation. Shedding the ‘Non-literary’ Tag. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave, Macmillan. Rogers, M. 2018. “Specialised translation today: A view from the JoSTrans Bridge”, JoSTrans: The. Journal of Specialised Translation 30, pp. 3–22.

50 

P. Pietrzak

Sandrini, P. 2006. “LSP translation and globalisation”, In Gotti, M. and Šarčević, S. (eds) Insights into Specialized Translation, Linguistic Insights 46. Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 107–120. Tabakowska, E. 1992. “Translation Studies and translator training in Poland – past, present and future”, Folia Translatologica, International Series of Translation Studies 1. Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University, pp. 7–16. Teixeira, C. 2011. Knowledge of Provenance and Its Effects on Translation Performance. In: Sharp, Bernadette, Zock, Michael and Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke (eds.), Human-Machine Interaction in Translation. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 107–118. Wakabayashi, J. 1996. Teaching medical translation. Meta: Translator’s Journal 41(3), pp. 356–365. Weatherby, J. 1998. “Teaching Translation into L2: A TT-Oriented Approach”. K.  Malmkjaer (ed.) Translation and Language Teaching. Manchester: St Jerome, pp. 21–38. Whyatt, B. 2018. “Old Habits Die Hard: Towards Understanding L2 Translation”, Między Oryginałem a Przekładem, DOI: https://doi. org/10.12797/MOaP.24.2018.41.05. Williams, J., Chesterman, A. 2002 The Map. A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies, Manchester, St. Jerome.

4 Towards Metacognitive Translator Training

4.1 Conceptual Framework for Metacognition The approach presented in this book advocates for learning which aims to help translation students gradually gain more control of and take more responsibility for their own process of learning. It is of primary importance in translator education to help translation students recognise the need for lifelong education, openness to various forms of self-study and the desire to further develop their competences. Thus, this chapter attempts to explore the complex construct of metacognition along with its role in the translation process, thereby also preparing the way for the empirical study of the role of metacognition in career development presented in Chap. 7. Metacognition is considered to be a complex concept, mainly due to its multifaceted nature and the interdisciplinary influences that shape it. The relevant literature reviewed in this chapter reveals different understandings of the concept itself, its scope and its components, as well as a number of terminological issues. One of the aims of this chapter is therefore to chart a pathway through these different views.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 P. Pietrzak, Metacognitive Translator Training, Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97038-3_4

51

52 

P. Pietrzak

The Greek prefix ‘meta’ (meaning beyond or after) denotes a change in meaning into “knowledge about one’s own cognition rather than the cognitions themselves” (Brown 1978: 79). As a multidimensional construct, metacognition involves introspective observation of the cognitive processes performed. While cognition is a “constant flow of information” (Langford 1986: 1), metacognition is the knowledge and control of cognitive processes (Flavell 1977; Butterfield 1994; Schraw 2001). The difference between cognition and metacognition is that cognition is necessary to carry out a task and metacognition is necessary to understand how a task is performed (Schraw 2001). According to Flavell (1976: 232), who first defined the term, metacognition refers to the awareness and ability to think critically and employ reflective judgement, consideration and control of one’s own cognitive processes and strategies. It has been suggested that the broadly defined concept of metacognition can be further divided into metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation (Flavell 1979), or knowledge of cognition (or cognition about cognition) and regulation of cognition. Metacognitive knowledge is defined as “one’s stored knowledge or beliefs about oneself and others as cognitive agents, about tasks, about actions or strategies, and about how all these interact to affect the outcomes of any sort of intellectual enterprise” (Flavell 1979: 906). There have, however, been some terminological concerns and confusion regarding the viability of dividing metacognition into the two proposed components of knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. While it is indeed difficult to clearly distinguish between them, they are still identified in much of the literature (Brown 1978, 1987; Flavell 1979) as the two main components of the construct. It is certainly hard to draw clear distinctions as the two concepts are closely linked and interrelated, but to explore the role of metacognition in career development and to operationalise metacognition in the translation classroom, we still need to engage with and evaluate the various views that have been proposed in the literature. Hence, in what follows various aspects of metacognition will be discussed, such as metacognitive awareness and regulation (self and other), including skills and strategies. However, as Flavell (1993, 2002) claims, the construct of metacognition evades precise definition

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

53

and any attempt to define and isolate all its specific constructs would be beyond the scope of the present book.

4.1.1 T  erminological Confusion: Metacognition or Self-regulation? In addition to the conceptual issues surrounding possible components of metacognition on the one hand and the differentiation of metacognition from cognition itself on the other, there is a terminological problem regarding metacognition. In both educational research and translation studies, metacognition is also referred to as self-regulation, blurring even further the conceptual issue of its scope. Both terms are used within the framework of educational, cognitive and developmental psychology, but the term metacognition was used first. It was defined in developmental psychology in the 1970s (Flavell 1979) with the main focus on the development of child autonomy and control of their actions when interacting with others. The term self-regulation started to be used later, most often to refer to the ability to control or regulate one’s actions that involves an interaction of personal, behavioural and environmental processes (Bandura 1986), but which also presupposes access to metacognitive knowledge. As Pintrich et al. (2000: 45)1 explain, “most of the models of self-regulated learning assume that the processes of monitoring, controlling, and regulating are related to, if not dependent on, metacognitive knowledge about the self and cognition”. The construct of self-regulated learning is therefore “more global and inclusive” and “subsumes metacognition and metacognitive knowledge” (ibid.). Some researchers claim, however, that the term metacognition should be reserved for the construct of metacognitive knowledge, excluding control and regulatory activities (cf. Paris and Winograd 1990). In educational settings the construct of self-regulated learning was understood to refer to controlling the process of acquiring and using metacognitive  See also Garcia, T., and Pintrich, P.R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D.H.  Schunk & B.  J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1

54 

P. Pietrzak

knowledge. Thus, in this view self-regulation involves the ability to engage in “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions” (Boekaerts 1999: 446) in order to pursue certain aims. In self-regulated learning, there are—as also with the original two-component model outlined above for metacognition—two general organising constructs, “(1) knowledge/beliefs and (2) strategies used for regulation” (Hofer et al. 1998: 65). As for metacognitive awareness, which encompasses both knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition, as presented in the two-­component models of metacognition (Brown 1987; Flavell 1987), the knowledge of cognition measures “an awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses, knowledge about strategies and why and when to use those strategies” and regulation of cognition measures “knowledge about planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating strategy use” (Schraw and Dennison 1994: 471). Metacognitive awareness means being aware of that knowledge and all the processes that help to plan, monitor and evaluate that knowledge. This is the awareness of how we learn. Metacognitive awareness is a key concept in the survey of translation graduates reported in Chap. 7. Research has shown (e.g. Garner and Alexander 1989; Garner 1990; Ganz and Ganz 1990) that learners who are more metacognitively aware also have better results and perform better than other learners. An important point here is that differences in learners’ performance are not necessarily related to differences in intellectual aptitude but rather to differences in their metacognitive awareness (Swanson 1990). Schraw and Dennison (1994: 460) argue that “metacognitive awareness allows individuals to plan, sequence, and monitor their learning in a way that directly improves performance”. A small-scale study of translation students (Pietrzak 2018) shows that trainees with greater metacognitive skills tend to be more successful in their translation process and that the level of self-regulatory skills, especially translation-related skills, is correlated with student translation quality as reflected in their grades (see Sect. 4.4.2). The idea behind the study discussed in this book (see Chap. 7) is to establish whether metacognitively aware graduates also have better results in their professional development as reflected in their career path, job satisfaction or perceived success.

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

55

4.1.2 Metacognitive Skills As already noted (Sect. 4.1), in educational research, cognitive skills refer to learning and metacognitive skills refer to managing learning. Since the initial focus on child development (James 1983; Piaget 1964; Vygotsky 1986; Flavell 1979), researchers have become gradually more interested in expert thought processes and have tried to use these to improve teaching methods (Hatano and Inagaki 1986). Previous research suggests that metacognition contributes to learning results and better performance, also among adults (Baker 1989; Garner and Alexander 1989). It involves using “higher-level knowledge and strategies to regulate lower performance”, and thus it helps learners “to use their attentional resources more efficiently, to process information at a deeper level, and to monitor their performance more accurately” (Schraw et al. 2000: 223). Metacognitive knowledge is distinguished from the state of having metacognitive skills (Baker 1994). As Baker (ibid.: 206) states, the term self-regulation is sometimes understood as “skills included within the regulatory component of metacognition”. In fact, metacognitive skills are often understood as the broadly conceived concept of regulation (Brown 1978). Moreover, terminology used to discuss metacognitive skills differs; they are often called monitoring skills (Flavell 1979: 910) or regulatory skills (White and Fredriksen 2005: 211). In general, metacognitive skills concern procedural knowledge as one of the three categories of metacognitive knowledge: declarative (person knowledge, i.e. the awareness of one’s own capabilities), procedural knowledge (task knowledge, i.e. the knowledge of the nature and processing demands of an activity) and conditional knowledge (or strategy knowledge, i.e. the knowledge of when to employ and how to adapt specific strategies) (see Flavell 1979; Paris et  al. 1984; Schraw 2001). Therefore, as presented in the two-­ component models of metacognition (Brown 1987; Flavell 1987), metacognitive skills do include both the knowledge and the regulatory component of metacognition, but the term is mostly used (also in this book) when referring to this regulatory aspect of metacognition (i.e. the ability to apply metacognition to specific situations), in contrast to metacognitive awareness, which is included within the knowledge-related

56 

P. Pietrzak

component (i.e. the understanding of the need for all the metacognitive processes).2 Metacognitive skills refer to “conscious control processes such as planning, monitoring of the progress of processing, effort allocation, strategy use and regulation of cognition” (Papaleontiou-Louca 2003: 16). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experiences and metacognitive skills are considered to “form overlapping sets” which “complement and enrich each other” and “are constantly informing and eliciting one another during the course of a cognitive task” (ibid.). These are therefore skills such as planning, monitoring and reflecting (Baker 1994), but also executive processes such as predicting, checking, revising, evaluating, coordinating and controlling (Brown 1978). However, these skills and processes are not necessarily universally applicable: some metacognitive skills can be considered domain-specific (Davidson and Sternberg 1998) and are related to the characteristics of the particular discipline. Strategies that support learning depend on specific features of the discipline as well as the tasks and goals of the learning process. For example, in the discipline of translator education, as Muñoz Martín (2014: 26) observes, all of the mental processes referred to as strategic behaviour “map onto metacognition”. According to Shreve (2006: 39), metacognition “involves active control over the cognitive processes involved in translation”. Metacognitive skills involved in the process of both translating and learning to translate are mostly included within the regulatory component of metacognition. This may be the reason why, in translation studies, the terms metacognitive and self-­ regulatory skills are sometimes used interchangeably (e.g. Shreve 2006: 39). The development of metacognitive skills undoubtedly has social origins. Vygotsky (1978) claims that regulatory skills are internalised through social interaction. Similarly, pointing to the social-cognitive perspective in the child’s acquisition of self-regulation, Brown (1987: 103) observes that: “Following repeated experience with experts (mothers, teachers, etc.) who criticize, evaluate, and extend the limits of their  The term metacognitive awareness will be used in the discussion of the survey exploring this aspect of translation graduates’ metacognition (Chap. 7), while the term metacognitive skills will be referred to in Chap. 8, which shows a model of metacognitive practice. 2

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

57

experience, students develop skills of self-regulation”. Also in translation research, there is a lot of interest in social influences on the metacognitive development of translator competence (Muñoz Martín 2014; Kiraly 2000, 2015, 2019). Social interaction is the preliminary condition for the development of the personal agency of the translator. The role of social agents is further explained in Sect. 4.3. Metacognitive skills directly influence the translator’s psychological self and all it encompasses (see Sect. 5.3). Based on the assumption that there are certain identifiable metacognitive skills which can be taught to translation trainees, metacognitive activities that can potentially help students practise these skills are further discussed in Chap. 6 where reflective practice is presented as an educational strategy, and in Chap. 8 where an exemplary model of metacognitive support is demonstrated.

4.1.3 Measuring Metacognition With its unobservable nature, metacognition may be particularly hard to measure. This section attempts to identify a conceptual framework for measuring metacognition so as to choose the most appropriate tool for assessing and scoring the concept of metacognition in the study reported in Chap. 7. Researchers have argued that “the gap between metacognitive theory and empirical research is as great as any other area of psychological inquiry” (Schraw et al. 2000: 232). The difficulty in measuring metacognition results mostly from methodological issues involved in developing and assessing such inexplicit measures. Pintrich et  al. (2000) list three main constraints that can be categorised as task, test and person constraints. They refer to the characteristics of the experimental task, test-­ related problems such as test type or test difficulty, and also low prior knowledge that affects performance on some test questions (ibid.). It is not easy to measure metacognitive processes in a reliable and unobtrusive manner, and the tools that are used for measurement have their drawbacks that may hinder effective and reliable application in certain scenarios. Tools that have been used to measure metacognition encompass computer-­based testing procedures, self-report inventories, questionnaires and interviews, as well as objective behaviour measurements such as

58 

P. Pietrzak

think-aloud protocols (TAPs), both introspective and concurrent verbal reports. The processual perception during a given task can also be instantiated by process research methods such as eye tracking. However, despite the fact that eye-tracking methodologies allow for investigating behaviour and are useful in providing information about actions, attention or hesitation, looking does not necessarily mean understanding and is limited to the researcher’s interpretation. Assessing metacognition with behaviour measurements (e.g. TAPs or verbal reports) provides insights and instances of thought processes, but is always relatively disruptive as it takes place during the task and changes the environment under consideration (Angelone et  al. 2016). Pintrich et  al. (2000: 60) observe that “think-alouds and interviews require extended periods of time and trained personnel for both administration and scoring” while “questionnaires or self-reports, can be used in whole group settings such as classrooms without too much disruption to established routines. […] Self-report questionnaires are relatively easy and inexpensive to administer and score in terms of labour and time”. Self-­ report measures of metacognition have the “advantage of being easily administered to groups and may be scored rapidly and objectively” (Tobias and Everson 2000: 150). The limitations of self-reports concern mainly participant (in)ability to report on metacognitive processes and the ability to do this in an honest and reliable way. Such potential problematic issues can be avoided if self-­ reports offer options for answers and scales for participants to select from. Moreover, allowing participants to answer a questionnaire anonymously is believed to “reduce social evaluative concerns” (Bandura 2006: 314). Therefore, lack of personal identification can yield more reliable results. There are measures of metacognition that use norms, which assume that responses are general across various situations and can be compared against a certain norm, and measures that do not use norms (Zimmerman et al. 1992), which assume that students’ responses may vary concerning the situation, course or function of the task. There are, however, some specific aspects of metacognition that are easier to measure than others, for example control processes or monitoring processes. Measures of certain metacognitive aspects, for instance monitoring and awareness,

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

59

should assess precisely these constructs and not others such as general intelligence or prior knowledge (Pressley and Ghatala 1990). As exemplified by Pintrich et al. (2000: 56), “a measure of metacognitive monitoring that is dependent on the learner’s verbal fluency and ability to articulate their thinking and awareness may be introducing constructirrelevant variance into the measure”. It needs to be determined whether the chosen instrument “produces scores that avoid two basic measurement problems: (a) construct underrepresentation or not measuring all relevant aspects of the construct and (b) construct irrelevant variance or measuring other constructs, not just the target construct” (ibid.: 54). Human learning and motivation are not only products of education and environmental contingencies, but may be also be heavily influenced by self-constructs. The results of studies on the influence of students’ self-­ concept on their academic performance are not equivocal. The results concerning self-beliefs about abilities in specific academic endeavours are relatively consistent (Multon et  al. 1991), which suggests significant effects on performance and achievement. In translation research, as signalled by Haro-Soler and Kiraly (2019: 258), “it is necesary to design and/or adapt instruments to measure the various ‘self ’ constructs within the context of Translation Studies”. To this end, and drawing on the assumption that “personal agency beliefs of self-efficacy and self-concept may offer explanatory power of academic achievement” (Chong 2007: 66), the study reported in Chap. 7 includes, alongside the investigation of metacognitive awareness, an investigation of the translator’s self, focusing on the effects of personal beliefs and self-conceptions on translation graduates’ professional development. The key ideas of personal resources and self-concept are discussed in Chap. 5.

4.2 Models of Self-regulated Learning As previously discussed, metacognitive skills refer mostly to the regulatory component of metacognition (see Sect. 4.1.2). In the context of translator training and empirical approaches to translation, metacognitive skills are also called regulatory skills (Muñoz Martín 2014: 27). Since selfregulation is considered to be “a noteworthy component of regulatory

60 

P. Pietrzak

skills”, the concept of self-regulation and self-regulated learning will now be discussed in more detail. The term self-regulation will be used here and in the following section in order to draw a line between other-­ regulation and self-regulation and to discuss the learner’s transfer to self-­ regulation as a vital component of effective translator training (see Sect. 4.3). Pintrich (2000: 453) defines self-regulated learning as “an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment”. There are several models of self-regulated learning. Schunk and Zimmerman (1998: 3) observe that self-regulation comprises three cyclical phases: the forethought phase, the performance phase or volitional control and the self-reflection phase. The forethought phase refers to self-regulatory processes that precede efforts to act and set the stage for it, such as goal setting and strategic planning (Bandura 1997, 2001). The performance phase involves self-regulatory processes that occur during motoric efforts and affect attention and action, such as strategy use and self-recording. The self-reflection phase includes self-­ regulatory processes that occur after performance efforts and influence a person’s response to that experience, such as self-evaluative judgements and adaptive self-reactions. These self-reflections, in turn, influence forethought processes and beliefs regarding subsequent efforts to learn—thus completing a self-regulatory feedback cycle. Winne and Hadwin (1998), on the other hand, describe self-regulated learning as unfolding over four flexibly sequenced phases of recursive cognition: definition of task, goals and plan(s), studying tactics and adaptations. Similarly, Pintrich (2000) suggests four phases of self-regulated learning and distinguishes between monitoring and control, as he claims that self-regulated learning follows the following processes: forethought, planning and activation; monitoring; control; reaction and reflection. In this model, the performance phase has been split into monitoring and control. The question arises here about the difference between these two phases. Both monitoring and control are sub-components of metacognitive regulation, but “control processes are used to select performance goals and guide ongoing cognitive activities” and “monitoring processes

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

61

are used to evaluate the present success of one’s performance and the degree to which one has met one’s long-term performance goals” (Schraw et al. 2000: 224). Metacognitive monitoring refers to the assessment of the current state of a particular cognitive activity, while metacognitive control refers to the regulation of the ongoing cognitive activity (Dunlosky and Metcalfe 2009). During the process of learning, they both interact to facilitate the process. There are slight differences between these models of self-regulated learning; different constructs and different conceptualisations are offered by different models, but regardless of the number of phases that each model postulates, all of them share common features and assumptions. All of them consider learners to be active, constructive participants in the learning process who set standards or goals to strive for in their learning (Pintrich 2000: 452). An assumption that is common to all the proposed models is that learners show potential for control over certain aspects of their cognition, motivation and behaviour, and that self-regulatory activities “are mediators between personal and contextual characteristics and actual achievement or performance” (ibid.: 453). However, not all learning processes follow exactly all of the particular phrases of a given model since there are many non-formal learning situations when students learn unintentionally or without such explicit regulation.

4.3 From Other-regulation to Self-regulation The approach to metacognition suggested in the following chapter is based on the assumption that, with the aim of establishing metacognitive knowledge and the ability to regulate this knowledge, the learner must transfer from the state of other-regulation to self-regulation (Brown 1987), an important consideration for developing metacognitive skills (see Chap. 8). We can recall that within the framework of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of internalisation, all cognitive processes begin as social exchanges. To a significant extent, learning is dependent on the guidance and support of others. In other-regulation, the teacher takes an instructive role in order to guide students and their activities and thus dominates classroom interactions (Hadwin and Oshige 2011). Examples of

62 

P. Pietrzak

other-­ regulation interventions include “proleptic/dyactic instruction, cognitive behaviour modification, informed training, and reciprocal teaching” (Manning 1991: 29). Studies on self-regulatory processes show that “learning to be both the regulator and the object of regulation are equally important for the development of self-regulation” (Bodrova and Leong 2007: 81). Guidance on moving from other-regulation to self-regulation is regarded here as an important component of effective learning. It is grounded in the Vygotskian notion of the zone of proximal development. In Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of development, learning takes place on two levels: on the interpersonal level, which is the social level between people, and then on the intrapersonal level, which is the individual level. Learning is internalised if there is external support for learning provided by the teacher, and then the support is gradually removed. With time, less assistance is provided when the learner takes more responsibility for the performance of the task (Bodrova and Leong 2007). With the assumption that social environment supports the emergence of regulation, regulatory processes have also been studied within collaborative groups. Winne and Hadwin (1998, 2008) stress that choices and outcomes in each phase of regulation are inextricably linked with social and environmental conditions. Social regulation or socially shared regulation refers to the processes that groups use to regulate their joint work on a task (Vauras et al. 2003). Since collaborative learning involves complex regulatory processes, a distinction needs to be made between other-­ regulation aimed at guiding and other-regulation aimed at controlling regulatory processes in a group. The former is referred to as facilitative other-regulation and the latter as directive other-regulation (Rogat and Adams-Wiggins 2014). This directive form of other-regulation focuses on managing and controlling others and involves “detailing exactly what group members should do, determining the next step of the task, and maintaining control of monitoring and task contributions” (ibid.: 18). This type of other-regulation is more concerned with the organisation of the task rather than support and guidance. Facilitative other-regulation, on the other hand, means helping students in regulatory processes. As Rogat and Adams-Wiggins put it (2014: 879), facilitative other-regulation yields “higher quality regulation

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

63

given coequal regulation and task contributions, the focus of the other-­ regulator on integrating ideas using behavioral and group process regulation, as well as sustaining a shared focus on developing the task product through the use of high-quality content and disciplinary regulation”. Other-­regulators, who can be defined as facilitative, tend to proactively foster “positive socioemotional interactions by being inclusive of everyone’s ideas and advocating for the respect of alternative perspectives” (Rogat and Adams-Wiggins 2015: 589). Shared regulation is what can be described as a co-constructed process, always mutual, reactive and interdependent. In order to ensure the high quality of otherregulation, it needs to be socially shared, given that “co-regulation is born when other regulation occurs and is acted on in terms of individual or shared regulatory planning, monitoring, evaluating, or strategic action targeting behaviour, motivation, affect, or cognition” (Hadwin et  al. 2018: 83). There are therefore three basic modes of regulation in learning, namely, self-regulation, other-regulation and co-regulation. While self-regulatory processes are applied by individuals to plan and monitor their actions, in the case of co-regulatory processes individuals regulate each other’s metacognitive processes. As Volet et al. (2009: 215) state, “in real time collaborative learning, individuals and social entities should be conceptualized as self-regulating and co-regulated systems at the same time”. What is crucial here is that co-regulatory mechanisms can be both independent and interdependent. They go beyond teacher–student interaction but require constant guidance. The approach suggested here advocates for moving away from other-regulation, through co-regulation, towards self-­ regulation in a structured metacognitive practice. In the proposed model of metacognitive support (Chap. 8), co-regulatory practice is exemplified with activities and training practice aiming to foster individual self-­ regulation. Such a co-regulatory practice is presented first in the form of an activity called ‘Metacognitive brief ’ where students apply self-­ regulatory processes, such as planning, organising and regulating, and then in the form of a guided metacognitive practice in which students are offered inquiry-based guidance aimed at developing monitoring and self-­ regulatory skills.

64 

P. Pietrzak

4.4 Metacognitive Strategies in Translator Training If metacognition is an essential component of academic and professional success (Brown 1978), it deserves attention in view of its value and effects on employability-oriented translator education. Having defined metacognition as both knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition performed using metacognitive skills (see Sect. 4.1.2), metacognitive strategies can be defined as processes that integrate and regulate translators’ cognitive actions. Metacognitive translator training, which involves enabling and fostering metacognitive awareness, needs to provide students with practice in using metacognitive strategies and evaluating the outcome of this practice (see Chap. 8 for an exemplary model of such practice). It is both translating and translator training that require higher-level knowledge and strategies if they are to be effectively carried out (cf. Shreve 2006). Facing a translation task and looking for a solution always involves both cognitive and metacognitive effort. As already mentioned earlier in this chapter, metacognitive processes involved in learning in general can be divided into sub-components such as knowledge about metacognition, and the regulatory monitoring and control of those processes (Pintrich et al. 2000); these processes can also be distinguished in metacognitive translator training. During the translation process and the translation training process, translators and translation trainees rely on both cognitive and metacognitive skills. In translator training, metacognitive regulation involves active control over metacognitive knowledge. It involves an awareness of the cognitive resources that need to be applied in a particular translation task in order to adapt to its demands and optimise the process. Shreve (2006: 32) observes that “self-regulation is heavily associated with expertise and is likely to be important in the development of translation expertise”. Similarly, Moser-Mercer (2008: 14) describes self-­regulation as “the type of behavioural feedback essential to skill acquisition [that also] refers to the use of processes that activate and sustain thoughts, behaviours and affects in order to attain goals”.

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

65

For Shreve metacognitive control subsumes a variety of processes “that may be either conscious or unconscious and include, for instance, monitoring, resource allocation, and planning” (2006: 32). According to Moser-Mercer (2008: 15), typical actions that a self-regulated learner takes include the following: • ‘analyzing the task and interpreting task requirements in terms of their current knowledge and beliefs’ • setting ‘task-specific goals, which they use as a basis for selecting, adapting, and possibly inventing strategies that will help them accomplish their objectives’ • monitoring ‘their progress towards goals, thereby generating internal feedback about the success of their efforts’ • adjusting ‘their strategies and efforts based on their perception of on-­ going progress’ • using ‘motivational strategies to keep themselves on task when they become discouraged or encounter difficulties’ Moser-Mercer’s classification exemplifies which particular actions in the translation process can be regarded as metacognitive strategies. As noted by Klimkowska and Klimkowski (2015: 53), the need for self-regulation concerns both the translation task itself, that is, rethinking decisions, checking alternatives, effective self-correction, including the ability to detect incorrect automatisms and so on, and all the other aspects of professional functioning, that is obtaining and using feedback from stakeholders, improving professional functioning in the field of work and time management, lifelong education and personal development, and flexibility in adapting the offer to the negotiated needs of both sides, for example expanding the offer or specialising and narrowing the scope of the offer. As noted, the process of self-regulated learning consists of three main phases—forethought, performance and self-reflection—and each of these involves a number of underlying processes. As Zimmerman (2002: 65) emphasises, “self-regulation is not a mental ability or an academic performance skill; rather it is the self-directive process by which learners transform their mental abilities into academic skills”. Such an approach makes

66 

P. Pietrzak

Table 4.1  The scope of metacognitive strategies in the translation process Forethought phase—pre-­translation phase •  planning the process of translation •  resource allocation •  workplace organisation •  identifying problems •  evaluating my competence to do the task •  estimating task difficulty •  estimating the amount of time required for the task •  estimating the amount of time required for additional research Performance phase—translation phase •  searching for background information • double-checking •  implementing translation strategies • monitoring •  problem solving •  discussing doubts with the commissioning agent •  reading and proofreading the target text Self-reflection phase—post-­translation phase •  evaluating translation quality •  evaluating task difficulty •  evaluating and reflecting on my competence •  considering the amount of time spent on the task •  considering the amount of time spent on additional research •  reflecting on what I learned from the task •  considering what I can improve

allowances for various interpersonal and intrapersonal conditions which require cyclical adjustments in the process of training. The translator’s self-regulation, which is understood here as the application of metacognitive strategies, manifests itself in a number of translation-­related actions (Table 4.1) taken in each of the three recurrent phases of self-regulation in the translation process (Pietrzak 2018). Deliberately simplified though it is, this list of self-regulatory actions taken by the translator in a translating task provides a good illustration of the scope of metacognitive strategies, from planning and estimating to reflecting and evaluating. Students who use such metacognitive strategies gradually become engaged in the process of their own learning and are better able to monitor their effectiveness (see Wolters 1998).

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

67

We can recall that using and promoting metacognitive strategies encompasses both knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition (see Sect. 4.1.1). Metacognitive strategies help students understand their own learning and autonomously control their actions in the process of translating and translator training, which allows for further raising their metacognitive awareness. In metacognitive translator training, the role of the translator trainer (see Sect. 4.4.3) involves not only enabling and fostering the training environment that promotes metacognition, but also inviting students to be actively engaged in metacognitive practice (see Sect. 8.2) since their role in raising their own metacognitive awareness is crucial. They themselves are the only source of certain realisations. Without careful consideration, for instance in the form of self-feedback, they stand little chance of becoming aware of the personal or psychological reasons behind certain difficulties that they experience. Here, in turn, it is the teacher’s role to support students in learning through activation of their personal resources (see Chap. 5), which facilitates metacognition and thus more effective professional functioning.

4.4.1 Self-regulation as a Construct of Control Personal agency and the translator’s self-concept are inextricably linked with control. Bandura (1989: 1206) claims that “among the mechanisms of agency, none is more central or pervasive than people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over their level of functioning and environmental demands”. Following this claim, the focus will now be on the concept of control in relation to translator education. As Thompson and Spacapan (1991: 7) observe, a lot of terms fall under the rubric of control, namely: “perceptions of control, locus of control, self-efficacy, helplessness, powerlessness, judgments of contingency, control ideology”. Also Rodin (1990: 1) notes that “the construct has been called by many different things, including, besides control, self-­ directedness, choice, decision freedom, agency, mastery, autonomy, self-­ efficacy, and self-determination”. Control is sometimes understood as a component of self-regulation, for instance by Schunk and Zimmerman (1998: 3) who, we can recall, observe that, from a social cognitive

68 

P. Pietrzak

perspective, self-regulatory processes comprise three cyclical phases, that is, forethought, performance or volitional control and self-reflection (see Sect. 4.2). Some scholars use the terms self-control and self-regulation interchangeably (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Similarly, in translation research there are various approaches to the concept of control and most often the term is used interchangeably with self-regulation. Shreve (2006: 39) considers self-regulation and executive control to be synonymous with metacognition. He defines metacognition, as well as “self-regulation, executive control, executive processes” in translation, as “higher order thinking” (cf. Bloom 1956; Flavell 1979), which “involves active control over the component cognitive processes involved in translation”. Fundamental for personal agency, self-regulation is understood here as a metacognitive skill, reflected in the translator’s control of actions and thoughts that helps fulfil certain goals. The sense of control is necessary for self-regulated translators to enact their skills and competences in a translation task. As for the control-related aspects of self-regulation, the two-­dimensional nature of metacognition and self-regulation, which can mean both regulation by self and of self (Pietrzak 2018: 823), is important, namely the control by self over certain actions or the control of self, that is, emotions and thoughts. What constitutes the main focus here is the control by self over translation-related actions and operations. Moreover, in the context of translator education, self-regulation can be twofold, that is, controlling the translation process and controlling the translation learning process. Returning to the postulated transfer from other-regulation to self-­ regulation (see Sect. 4.3), an important distinction needs to be made here. The most important distinction that can form a framework for considering constructs of control is between the objective and the subjective, where objective is the actual control and subjective is the perceived control or an individual’s beliefs about how much control is available (Skinner 1996: 551). Interestingly, the perceived control influences people’s behaviour and emotions “independent of the actual control conditions that may have contributed to those perceptions” (ibid.). Some researchers believe that the perceived control is a more powerful predictor of functioning than the actual objective control (Burger 1989).

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

69

It is therefore important for successful learning for learners not necessarily to gain full control of their learning but at least to fully recognise the gain in control when they move from other-regulation to self-­regulation in order to reach metacognitive knowledge and the ability to regulate it. The fundamental role of this recognition of the gain in control leads us to believe that what is actually more important than selfefficacy is efficacy expectation. Efficacy expectations involve “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcome” (Bandura 1977: 193). At least at the beginning of their career, recent translation students whose self-efficacy levels are not so high need to exhibit efficacy expectations to go through the entry-to practice transition in the easiest possible way.

4.4.2 E  ffects of Self-regulation on Translation Quality: Report of a Study This section presents the results of a study (Pietrzak 2018) conducted with Polish translation students with the aim of identifying and acknowledging evidence of self-regulation in the actual process of the translator’s work and its impact on student achievement. The study set out to explore whether students’ self-regulation actually has any influence on their achievement and translation quality. The results show that some translation students can be described as more self-regulated than others. Moreover, students who apply some metacognitive strategies and carry out self-regulatory activity were found to be more successful in their translation process (as reflected in translation quality and grades received). The results have been assumed to be indicative of the relevance of promoting metacognitive practice and, therefore, applied in order to conduct further research (see Chap. 7). As for the research design and methodology of the 2018 study, it was hypothesised that self-regulatory activity is affected by numerous personal factors, such as personality, educational background or experience, and encompasses motivational, metacognitive and behavioural factors that influence the translation process. The study draws on previous research on regulatory processes and, for example, time management

70 

P. Pietrzak

(Britton and Tesser 1991), self-monitoring (Bouffard-Bouchard et  al. 1991), academic learning strategies (Zimmerman et  al. 1992), self-­ evaluation and goal setting (Zimmerman and Bandura 1994). The investigation to check whether there is a correlation between students’ self-regulatory activity and translation quality was carried out using a questionnaire survey. With a small number of participants (N = 22), the results of the study are only indicative, but they are reported here to illustrate the potential relevance and impact of self-regulation on translation quality and student achievement. The level of self-regulation has been measured with the use of a questionnaire focusing on self-­ regulatory actions that occur in the translation process, mostly reflected in planning, task and time management, forward thinking, self-­ monitoring, self-evaluating and self-reflecting. Questions were divided into three sections and referred to long-term self-regulation, short-term self-regulation and translation-related self-­ regulation. Based on the methodology adopted from Moilanen (2007), in the first two sections, participants were asked to evaluate their own self-regulatory activity in everyday life by specifying the level of their agreement or disagreement with each statement, while in the third section they were asked about the particular actions taken during the process of translation. The findings show that the Pearson correlation between the level of translation students’ self-regulation and their translation grade is 0.48. With the p-value p – 0.024, the results reveal that there is a moderate linear relationship between these variables (Pietrzak 2018) (Table 4.2). As demonstrated in the study, the analysis of the Pearson correlation presents a strong positive correlation between translation-related self-­ regulation and student grades (rp – 0.49; p – 0.022), which indicates that Table 4.2  Key results for correlation between self-regulation and translation quality Type of self-regulation

Pearson correlation (rp)

p-value (p)

A—long term B—short term C—translation-related A, B, C—overall self-regulation

0.30 0.29 0.49 0.48

0.169 0.188 0.022 0.024

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

71

the greater the ability to self-regulate translational actions, the better the grade participants achieve. There is, however, only a weak Pearson correlation between both long-term self-regulation (rp – 0.30; p – 0.169) and short-term self-regulation (rp  – 0.29; p  – 0.188) and achieved grades, which indicates either that no relationship exists between these variables and the student grades, or that there is a nonlinear relationship. The Spearman correlation between student grades and their level of self-­ regulation shows that the higher the grade, the higher the score for answers to questions referring to, for instance, finding a way to stick with their plans and goals, starting a new task even if they are already tired, knowing how much more work they have to do, or consulting more than one source when looking for an equivalent. More detailed findings from the study show that two out of the three highest scores in the section devoted to overall self-regulation belong to students whose grade for translation was 5 (the best passing grade). As for the students who received the highest scores in the section on short-term self-regulation, there are two students with the best grade (5) and one with the lowest grade of the cohort participating in the study (3). The results demonstrate that, when it comes to the lowest scores in overall self-regulation, two of the students who obtained the lowest scores also received the lowest translation grade. In the section on long-term self-­ regulation, two out of three lowest scores belong to students with the lowest grade received in the study (3). Out of those who scored lowest in the section on short-term self-regulation, two out of three students also have the lowest translation grade. In the section on translation-related self-regulatory skills, two out of three highest scores again belong to those who got the highest grade (5) for translation assignments. Similarly, two out of three of the lowest scores belong to those who got the lowest translation grade (3). To recapitulate, all translation students engage in metacognitive regulation when confronted with the cognitive effort needed to complete a translation task; however, as this study shows, some of them are more self-regulated than others. Trainees with greater metacognitive skills tend to be more successful in their translation process. The findings seem to suggest that the level of translation-related self-regulatory skills is correlated with student translation quality as reflected in their grades. The

72 

P. Pietrzak

implications of the study signal the relevance of promoting metacognitive regulation of the processes of both translating and learning to become a successful translator.

4.4.3 A Metacognitive Translator Trainer The findings of the study reported in the previous section imply that students could benefit from being encouraged to self-regulate the process of translating and the process of their own translator training. In order to foster better metacognition, it is necessary for translation educators to incorporate metacognitive practice of self-regulating cognitive processes that contribute to goal achievement and professional success for translators. Because of the complexity of the notion of metacognition, there is, however, “limited evidence regarding precisely what a metacognitive teacher does, how he or she does it, whether doing it is key to student achievement, or how teacher educators can develop it” (Duffy et al. 2009: 251). Shreve (2009: 259) states that “in general the area of translation and metacognition has not been well-studied. A cursory review of the literature shows very little research activity”. Nevertheless, there are various roles that the translation teacher needs to assume in the translation classroom so as to enable trainee translators to learn and practise all the components of translator competence (see Kiraly 2000; Pietrzak 2019b). Reflecting a social constructivist view, the broadly defined role of translation teachers is to be “guides, consultants and assistants who can help set the stage for learning events” (Kiraly 2000: 18) as well as controllers, participants, supporters, advisors, editors, revisers, proofreaders, partners, experts, feedbackers and so on (ibid.). There is also a wide range of other minor functions and duties of the translator educator such as the ones mentioned by Kelly (2005: 3) in relation to the curricular design process, that is, identifying social and market needs, formulating aims and intended outcomes, identifying student profiles and needs, designing overall course content and structure, identifying resources available, designing teaching and learning activities, assessment activities and course evaluation instruments, implementing the course and its evaluation, and enhancing quality.

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

73

Metacognitive translator training favours self-directed learning (see Sect. 3.4) and, as such, it may be a process in which students “will experience anxiety, frustration, and often failure, and so will their teachers” (Knowles 1975: 14). In this view, teachers need to throw off the “protective shield of an authority figure” and show the students that they are human beings “with feelings, hopes, aspirations, insecurities, worries, strengths, and weaknesses” (ibid.: 33). This new role may be difficult to implement for teachers who feel the “compulsion to pose as an expert” (ibid.: 34). Knowles stresses the importance of helping students develop “the ability to go on acquiring new knowledge easily and skilfully the rest of his or her life” in the belief that “the main purpose of education must now be to develop the skills of inquiry” (ibid.: 15–16). The role of the metacognitive translator trainer is to encourage translation students to master the skills of inquiry and thus ultimately raise their metacognitive awareness. Students’ personal resources can be activated thanks to what can be relatively small modifications to the learning process, regarding, for instance, communication or feedback patterns, as exemplified in the contextualised metacognitive practice suggested here (Chap. 8). In order to activate students’ personal resources, the teacher needs to guide them and gradually scaffold their metacognitive awareness during translator training. What is understood here as a scaffolding for self-­ reflective practice is a model of how to think about their work and the established criteria to decide whether their work meets them (see Pietrzak 2019a). This is the role of the teacher, namely to model the process of critical reflection (Mezirow 1990) and provide students with opportunities for structured self-reflection, encompassing not only the process of translation but also the process of learning translation. When students engage in reflective conversations with the teacher and with their peers, “part of the tutor’s skill is to detect these different kinds of reflection and then to enable the student to appreciate the dominance of one or more when talking about their experiences” (Ghaye 2010: 56). Students expected to be metacognitive in the course of training need to be given effective assistance by the translation teacher who scaffolds, models, then fades (removes the support) and coaches only (overseeing students’ learning) (see Collins et  al. 1991). The teacher can act as a model and be metacognitive in their daily communicative interaction

74 

P. Pietrzak

with students, for instance, using an element of reflection (Pietrzak 2019a, b). Students must be expected to draw upon their metacognitive awareness and use it in new contexts. This ‘black box’ of metacognition is not easily accessible, so what seems necessary here is a specific scaffolding, that is, contextualising and modelling metacognitive practice (see Chap. 8) that would offer opportunities to reflect and allow students to engage in metacognitive practice. Despite numerous roles and functions that translation teachers have to play in the translation classroom, introducing metacognition-supportive training seems potentially worthwhile and valuable. It can help students consciously engage in mental processes behind both translating and translation learning, which enhances their autonomy and facilitates this gradual transformation from other-regulation to self-regulation. When Kiraly (2000: 18) signals the importance of teachers’ roles, he stresses that “instead of filling them with knowledge, teachers should serve as guides, consultants and assistants who can help set the stage for learning events”. The teacher’s guidance clearly shapes the growth of students as independent and successful translators. Metacognition is considered a characteristic of translator expertise (Shreve 2006; Muñoz Martín 2014); hence, given the potential relevance of metacognition as a developmental factor in the future career of a translator, however complex it may be for the translation educator to perform all the above-mentioned roles, engaging students in the process of metacognitive learning appears to be of clear importance. The study reported in Chap. 7 will attempt to establish whether metacognition does indeed affect translation graduates’ professional development.

References Angelone, E., Ehrensberger-Dow, M., and Massey, G. 2016. “Cognitive processes.” In C. V. Angelelli and B. J. Baer (Eds.), Researching translation and interpreting, New York: Routledge, pp. 43–57. Baker, L. 1989. “Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader.” Educational Psychology Review 1, pp. 3–38.

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

75

Baker, L. 1994. “Fostering metacognitive development.” In H. W. Reese (Eds.) Advances in child development and behavior, vol. 25, San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 201–239. Bandura, A. 1977. “Self-efficacy: Toward a unified theory of behavioral change.” Psychological Review 84, pp. 191–215. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bandura, A. 1989. “Human agency in social cognitive theory.” The American Psychologist 44, pp. 1175–1184. Bandura, A. 1997. “Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies.” In A. Bandura (Ed.) Self-efficacy in changing societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–45. Bandura, A. 2001. “Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.” Annual Review of Psychology 52, pp. 1–26. Bandura, A. 2006. “Toward a psychology of human agency.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 1 (2), pp.  164–180. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-­6916.2006.00011.x Baumeister, Roy F., and Vohs, Kathleen D. (eds). 2004. Handbook of self-­ regulation: Research, theory and applications, New York: Guilford Press. Bloom, B. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Cognitive domain, New York: David McKay. Bodrova, E., and Leong, D. J. 2007. Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Boekaerts, M. 1999. “Self-regulated learning: Where we are today.” International Journal of Educational Research 31, pp. 445–457. Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., and Larivee, S. 1991. “Influence of self-­ efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high-­ school age students.” International Journal of Behavior Development 14, pp. 153–164. Britton, B. K., and Tesser, A. 1991. “Effects of time management practices on college grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology 83, pp. 405–410. Brown, A. L. 1978. “Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition.” In R. Glaser (ed.) Advances in instructional psychology 1, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 77–165. Brown, A.  L. 1987. “Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms.” In Franz E.  Weinert and Rainer H. Kluwe (eds), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3: Cognitive development, New York: Wiley, pp. 263–340.

76 

P. Pietrzak

Burger, J.  M. 1989. “Negative reactions to increases in perceived personal control.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, pp. 246–256. Butterfield, E. C. 1994. “Metacognition.” In R. J. Sternberg (ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence, vol. 2, New  York: Macmillian Publishing Company, pp. 725–732. Chong, Wan Har. 2007. “The role of personal agency beliefs in academic self-­ regulation: An Asian perspective.” School Psychology International 28 (1), pp. 63–76. Collins, A., Brown, J.  S., and Holum, A. 1991. “Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible.” American Educator 15 (3), pp. 6–11, 38–46. Davidson, J.  E., and Sternberg, R.  J. 1998. “Smart problem-solving: How metacognition helps.” In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser (eds), Metacognition in educational theory and practice, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, pp. 47–68. Duffy, G.  G., Miller, S., Parsons, S., and Meloth, M. 2009. “Teachers as metacognitive professionals.” In Douglas J.  Hacker, J.  Dunlosky and A. C. Graesser (eds) Handbook of metacognition in education, New York and London: Routledge, pp. 240–256. Dunlosky, J., and Metcalfe, J. 2009. Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Flavell, J. H. 1976. “Meta-cognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-development inquiry.” American Psychologist 34, pp.  906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-­066X.34.10.906 (Accessed 13 May 2020) Flavell, J. H. 1977. Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Flavell, J. H. 1979. “Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.” American Psychologist 34 (10), pp. 906–911. Flavell, J.  H. 1987. “Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition.” In F.  E. Weinert and R.  H. Kluwe (eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 21–29. Flavell, J. H. 1993. “The development of children’s understanding of false beliefs and the appearance–reality distinction.” International Journal of Psychology 28, pp. 595–604. Flavell, J.  H. 2002. “Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world.” In W.  W. Hartup and R.  K. Silbereisen (Eds.), Growing points in developmental science: An introduction, Hove, UK: Psychology Press, pp. 102–122.

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

77

Ganz, M.  N., and Ganz, B.  C. 1990. “Linking metacognition to classroom success.” The High School Journal 73 (3), pp. 180–185. Garcia, T., and Pintrich, P. R. (1994). “Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies.” In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 127–153. Garner, R. 1990. “When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings.” Review of Educational Research 60, pp. 517–529. Garner, R, and Alexander, P.  A. 1989. “Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions.” Educational Psychologist 24, pp. 143–158. Ghaye, T. 2010. Teaching and learning through reflective practice: A practical guide for positive action, London: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203833322 Hadwin, A., and Oshige, M. 2011. “Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory.” Teachers College Record 113, pp. 240–264. Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., and Miller, M. 2018. “Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments.” In D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene (eds) Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Routledge. Haro-Soler, M.  M. and Kiraly, D. 2019. “Exploring self-efficacy beliefs in symbiotic collaboration with students: An action research project.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13 (3), pp.  255–270. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/1750399X.2019.1656405 Hatano, Giyoo, and Inagaki, Kayoko. 1986. “Two courses of expertise.” In Harold Stevenson, Azuma, Horishi, and Hakuta, Kinji (eds) Child development and education in Japan, New York: W.H. Freeman, pp. 262–272. Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., and Pintrich, P. R. 1998. “Teaching college students to be self-regulated learners.” In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice, New York, NY: Guilford Publications, pp. 57–85. James, W. 1983. Talks to teachers on psychology; and to students on some of life’s ideals. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Kelly, D. 2005. A handbook for translator trainers: A guide to reflective practice, London/New York: Routledge. Kiraly, D. 2000. A social constructivist approach to translator education. Empowerment from theory to practice, Manchester: St. Jerome.

78 

P. Pietrzak

Kiraly, D. 2015. “Occasioning translator competence: Moving beyond social constructivism towards a postmodern alternative to instructionism.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 10 (1), pp. 8–32. Kiraly, D. 2019. “A human Pyramid (castell): A metaphor for authentic project work.” Keynote Speech at APTIS Conference 2019 (Association of Programmes in Translation and Interpreting Studies, UK and Ireland) 23–24 November, Presentation. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28589.03047 Klimkowska, K., and Klimkowski, K. 2015. Kształtowanie kompetencji świadczenia usług tłumaczeniowych z perspektywy przyszłych tłumaczy. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Knowles, M. 1975. Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers, New York and Toronto: Cambridge Adult Education Company. Langford, G. 1986. “The philosophical basis of cognition and metacognition.” In Charles Antaki and Alan Lewis (eds) Mental mirrors, Sage Publications, pp. 11–26. Manning, B. H. 1991. Cognitive self-instruction for classroom processes, New York: State University of New York Press. Mezirow, J. 1990. “How critical reflection triggers transformative learning.” In Jack Mezirow et al. (eds) Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory education, San Francisco: Jossey-­ Bass, pp. 1–20. Moilanen, K.  L. 2007. “The adolescent self-regulatory inventory: The development and validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long-term self-­regulation.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36, pp. 835–848. Moser-Mercer, B. 2008. “Skill acquisition in interpreting. A human performance perspective.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 2 (1), pp. 1–28. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., and Lent, R. W. 1991. “Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 38, pp. 30–38. Muñoz Martín, R. 2014. “Situating translation expertise: A review with a sketch of a construct.” In J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira (eds) The development of translation competence, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 2–56. Papaleontiou-Louca, E. 2003. “The concept and instruction of metacognition.” Teacher Development 7 (1), pp. 9–30. Paris, S., and Winograd, P. 1990. “How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction.” In B.  F. Jones and L.  Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 15–51.

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

79

Paris, Scott G., Cross, David R., and Lipson, Marjorie Y.. 1984. “Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension.” Journal of Educational Psychology 76, pp. 1239–1252. Piaget, J. 1964. “Cognitive development in children: Development and learning.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2, pp. 176–186. https://doi. org/10.1002/tea.3660020306 Pietrzak, P. 2018. “‘The effects of students’ self-regulation on translation quality.” Babel: International Journal of Translation 64 (5/6), pp. 819–839. Pietrzak, P. 2019a. “Scaffolding student self-reflection in translator training.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 14 (3), pp.  416–436. https://doi. org/10.1075/tis.18029.pie Pietrzak, P. 2019b. “An integrated approach to assessment in translator training: The value of self-reflection.” In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.) Contacts and contrasts in educational contexts and translation, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 105–115. Pintrich, P. R. 2000. “The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning.” In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (eds) Handbook of self-­regulation, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 451–502. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, Ch. A., and Baxter, G. P. 2000. “Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning.” In G. Schraw and J. C. Impara (eds) Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, pp. 43–97. Pressley, M., and Ghatala, E.  S. (1990). “Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text.” Educational Psychologist 25, pp. 19–33. Rodin, J. 1990. “Control by any other name: Definitions, concepts, and processes.” In J. Rodin, C. Schooler, and K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Self-directedness: Cause and effects throughout the life course, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 1–15. Rogat, T. K., and Adams-Wiggins, K. R. 2014. “Other-regulation in collaborative groups: Implications for regulation quality.” Instructional Science 42, pp. 879–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-­014-­9322-­9 Rogat, T. K., and Adams-Wiggins, K. R. 2015. “Interrelation between regulatory and socioemotional processes within collaborative groups characterized by facilitative and directive other-regulation.” Computers in Human Behavior 52, pp. 589–600. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.026 Schraw, G. 2001. “Promoting general metacognitive awareness.” In H. J. Hartman (ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 3–16.

80 

P. Pietrzak

Schraw, G., and Dennison, R.  S. 1994. “Assessing metacognitive awareness.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 19, pp. 460–475. Schraw, G., Wise, S. L., and Roos, L. L. 2000. “Metacognition and computer-­ based testing.” In Gregory Schraw and James C. Impara (eds) Issues in the measurement of metacognition, Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Schunk, D. H., and Zimmerman, B. J. (eds). 1998. Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice, New York: Guilford Press. Shreve, G. M. 2006. “The deliberate practice: Translation and expertise.” Journal of Translation Studies 9 (1), pp. 27–42. Shreve, G. M. 2009. “Recipient-Orientation and Metacognition in the Translation Process.” In R. Dimitriu and M. Shlesinger (eds.) Translators and Their Receivers, Brussels: Les Editions du Hazard, pp. 255–270. Skinner, E. 1996. “A guide to constructs of control.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (3), pp.  549–570. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­3514.71.3.549 Swanson, H. L. 1990. “Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (2), pp.  306–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­0663.82.2.306 Thompson, S. C., and Spacapan, S. 1991. “Perceptions of control in vulnerable populations.” Journal of Social Issues 41, pp. 1–21. Tobias, S., and Everson, H. 2000. “Assessing metacognitive knowledge monitoring.” In Gregory Schraw and James C.  Impara (eds) Issues in the measurement of metacognition, Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, pp. 147–222. Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., and Lehtinen, E. 2003. “Shared-regulation and motivation of collaborating peers: A case analysis.” Psychologia 46, pp. 19–37. Volet, S., Vauras, Marja, and Salonen, Pekka. 2009. “Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective.” Educational Psychologist 44 (4), pp. 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213584 Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, ed. by Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner, and Ellen Souberman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. 1986. Thought and language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. White, B., and Fredriksen, J. 2005. “A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development.” Educational Psychologist 40, pp. 211–223.

4  Towards Metacognitive Translator Training 

81

Winne, P. H., and Hadwin, A. F. 1998. “Studying as self-regulated learning.” In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 277–304. Winne, P.  H., and Hadwin, A.  F. 2008. “The weave of motivation and self-­ regulated learning.” In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman (eds) Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 297–314. Wolters, C. 1998. “Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, pp. 224–235. Zimmerman, B.  J. 2002. “Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview.” Theory Into Practice 41 (2), pp. 64–70. Zimmerman, B. J., and Bandura, A. 1994. “Impact of self-regulatory influences of writing course attainment.” American Educational Research Journal 31, pp. 845–862. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., and Martinez-Pons, M. 1992. “Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal-­ setting.” American Educational Research Journal 29, pp. 663–676.

5 Activation of Personal Resources

5.1 Psychology of Translation Given the interdisciplinary nature of translation, over the last three decades there has been an increase in research interest in translator education drawing on theoretical backgrounds from other disciplines. Such disciplines as psycholinguistics or cognitive studies contribute in important ways to the extension of the conceptual framework of translation studies. However, relatively little empirical research has been devoted to translators’ psychological skills. The study reported in Chap. 7 includes an investigation of the translator’s self, focusing on the effects of personal beliefs on translation graduates’ professional development. Therefore, in this chapter, the focus will be on the role of metacognitive practice in cultivating the translator’s ‘self ’ through the activation of personal resources. Atkinson and Crezee (2014: 3) observe that “traditional interpreter and translator training focuses almost exclusively on technical and linguistic skill advancement, leaving psychological skills largely untouched, or addressing them implicitly rather than explicitly”. The authors signal the lack of research and teaching focus on the ­attitudinal/personality/ © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 P. Pietrzak, Metacognitive Translator Training, Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97038-3_5

83

84 

P. Pietrzak

self-evaluative side of translation and interpreting practice (ibid.). Indeed, several translation scholars have identified the need for addressing translation from the psychological perspective (Fraser 2000; Hubscher-­ Davidson 2009, 2013, 2017, 2020; Jääskeläinen 2012; Haro-Soler 2017). Jääskeläinen (2012: 192) signals that “there is a psychological angle to most translation-related phenomena, which could offer interesting avenues for fruitful, multi-disciplinary research cooperation within translation studies”. The last two decades have seen more and more researchers beginning to incorporate psychological concepts into translation studies. Hubscher-Davidson (2017), for example, offers a new critical approach to the study of emotion in translation where she focuses on emotion perception, emotion regulation and emotion expression. Similarly, Hubscher-Davidson and Lehr (2021) provide a roadmap for the design of an effective emotional intelligence intervention adapted to the needs of translators. Some research attention has, however, been devoted to the translator’s decision-making process, and the relevance of this process has long been recognised (e.g. Wilss 1994; Alves and Gonçalvez 2003; Piotrowska 2007). Núñez and Bolaños-Medina (2018: 282–283) analyse the concepts of translator competence and intrinsic motivation from the perspective of both translation studies and psychology to determine “which psychosocial factors influence translators’ self-perceived problem-solving efficacy and to what extent they seem to do so”. The importance of psychological skill for the performance and success of outcomes for freelance translators was highlighted by Atkinson (2012), who discusses such factors as occupational self-efficacy, explanatory style and locus of control. Haro-Soler (2018, 2019) makes an important distinction between self-­ efficacy and self-efficacy beliefs so as to avoid the terminological confusion “that may arise from the association of self-efficacy with one’s ability, instead of with what someone believes that [sic] can achieve thanks to their ability” (Haro-Soler 2019: 92). ‘Translation psychology’ has been called a new emerging area of translation studies (Núñez and Bolaños-Medina 2018) which focuses on translators as individuals and encompasses the study of their personal resources, traits, behaviour, development, emotion, motivation and so on. This branch of translation studies “embraces the underlying

5  Activation of Personal Resources 

85

emotional, cognitive, behavioural and social factors at play; but it also takes into account their interaction with the translators’ professional environment and with other agents participating in the translation process, from both an objective standpoint and as perceived by the translators themselves” (Bolaños-Medina 2016: 59). Although the study of product- and process-oriented translation arguably remains the main focus of research in translation studies, much research interest has been devoted to the study of the role of psychological variables, primarily as a means for improving the process of translation or the quality of translation technology, but increasingly also in translator training. There are new, ecological approaches, such as the one advocated by González-­ Davies (2021), which view instruction “as a dynamic, non-linear, adaptative process that acknowledges the complexity of teaching and learning and considers not only the cognitive processes, but also emotions, memories, anticipations and empathy”. A distinction is sometimes made in translation psychology between cognitive and non-cognitive psychological processes (e.g. Hubscher-­ Davidson 2013). While cognitive psychological processes encompass perceptions, thoughts or beliefs, non-cognitive psychological skills represent “patterns of thought, feelings and behavior” (Borghans et al. 2008: 973) and “refer to varieties of self-beliefs and goal orientations—such as anxiety, confidence, self-efficacy, and self-concept—which are often seen as dispositional and motivational in nature” (Lee and Stankov 2016: i). These processes can be identified with areas such as personality and emotion, personality research in translation, individual differences and emotional intelligence, trait emotional intelligence measurement, or emotional intelligence in translation. Cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of the learning process are now both considered crucial in educational psychology since emotions, attitudes and beliefs can in fact be an important factor in regulating learning, for example monitoring the process, overcoming frustration, reflecting on actions, adjusting to circumstances, assessing, drawing conclusions and learning from mistakes (see Sect. 4.1.2). As observed by Liem (2019: 705), both cognitive and non-cognitive processes contribute to students’ achievement, since learning goes beyond content knowledge and involves both types of these processes. As Bloom (1964) demonstrates in his

86 

P. Pietrzak

taxonomy of learning, cognitive skills range from lower-order skills that involve less processing to higher-order skills that require a greater degree of cognitive processing: the highest level of cognitive thinking is knowledge, then comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. What has also been acknowledged in the revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy is that the knowledge dimension represents a range from concrete (factual) to abstract (metacognitive) (Anderson et al. 2001: 44). Similarly, in translation psychology the term ‘non-cognitive’ calls for consideration. As in educational psychology, it has been used to differentiate between cognitive aspects and other aspects not related to content knowledge or processing. Nevertheless, the cognitive/non-cognitive distinction appears to be rather misleading here, as it implies that processes such as self-reflection or self-assessment do not involve cognition. The term metacognitive, which also embraces higher-order cognitive skills such as evaluation or reflection, is considered to be a more appropriate alternative here. The implication of rejecting ‘non-cognitive’ in favour of ‘metacognitive’ psychological processes studied in translation psychology is that some of the so-called non-cognitive processes are in fact cognitive. Not necessarily directly or consciously, they involve cognition and intellect and thus they can be considered an equally (if not more complex) form of cognition.

5.2 Personal Resources Personal resources are regarded as important determinants of individual adaptability (Hobfoll 2002) and job satisfaction (Judge et al. 1997). They can be defined as “aspects of the self that are generally linked to resiliency” and refer to individuals’ sense of their ability to control and impact upon their environment successfully (Hobfoll et  al. 2003: 632)​. This higher-order construct—sometimes referred to as psychological resources (Hobfoll 2002) or psychological capital (PsyCap) (Luthans et al. 2006)— is rooted in social cognitive theory (Bandura 1977). Personal resources such as agency, self-efficacy (Bandura 1989), self-esteem (Pierce et  al. 1989), resilience and even optimism (Scheier and Carver 1985) have

5  Activation of Personal Resources 

87

been recognised as fundamental components of individual adaptability; unlike personality traits, which are “stable and relatively fixed”, personal resources are “malleable and open to change and development” (Xanthopoulou et al. 2009: 236). Here, in the context of translator education, personal resources are understood as aspects of the self that refer to the sense of ability to successfully meet demands, which together make up the psychological capital of the translator. Drawing on Vygotsky’s concept of learning based on personal, authentic and social experience (1962), an agentic perspective on human development is followed here. Personal agency “embodies the endowments, belief systems, self-regulatory capabilities and distributed structures and functions through which personal influence is exercised” (Bandura 2001: 1). From the agentic perspective on learning, the self is an agent and agency is the ability to make choices (and later act on these choices). Agency refers to acts done intentionally and involves not only planning but also motivation and guidance for actions in anticipation of future events (Bandura 2001: 6–7). The agentic perspective does not contradict—in fact it supports—the social dimension of autonomous learning. Rooted in social cognitive theory, human agency is considered here to be a unique and decisive factor that creates social systems which in turn influence human life. Sociostructural influences affect personal agency, which operates within agentic transactions where people are producers as well as products of social systems (ibid.: 1). Human agency is not restricted to the individual. In fact, the learner’s agency is always embedded in the social context. As Bandura (2006: 165) observes, “social cognitive theory distinguishes among three modes of agency: individual, proxy, and collective”, and hence others can assist the individual and their development as agents. Schunk and DiBenedetto (2016: 35) point to the reciprocal nature of the influences on personal functioning, which “suggests that individuals as agents contribute to their personal well-being by improving their emotional, cognitive, or motivational processes, increasing their behavioral competencies, or altering their environmental conditions”. The above-mentioned four core agentic features (intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness and self-reflectiveness) are also present in collective endeavours where people share an intention and cooperate to

88 

P. Pietrzak

realise it in the belief that “effective group performance is guided by collective intentionality” (Bandura 2006: 164). Before the novice translator is able to start to control, assess and reflect on their actions, it is necessary to help them activate personal resources and gain personal agency. Zimmerman claims that self-regulation “entails not only behavioural skill in self-managing environmental contingencies, but also the knowledge and the sense of personal agency to enact this skill in relevant contexts” (Zimmerman 2000: 13). Strategies that help translation students discover and activate their personal resources in the development of translator competence empower their transition towards self-regulated performance (Moser-Mercer 2008; Klimkowski 2019). Personal agency is in fact a key factor in the idea of lifelong learning (see Sect. 3.4): The sense of agency in metacognition puts the focus of attention clearly on the individual person. But who is this person? With the rise of cognitive science from behaviourism in the 1960s, the intent was to focus on the person as a thinking agent as opposed to an organism mechanically reacting to stimuli. (Dunlosky et al. 2009: 1)

Learners are regarded as agents in all the models of self-regulation (see Sect. 4.2). Winne and Nesbit (2009: 261), for example, state that “agents observe and intervene in their environments by setting goals and acting to reach them. By metacognitively monitoring qualities of how plans unfold in action […] [t]hey then may exercise metacognitive control by revising goals, adapting plans or changing operations”. Metacognition in the work environment can also be affected by other personal resources. To exemplify, self-efficacy is believed to influence behaviours and environments and, in turn, to be affected by them (Bandura 1997). Schunk and DiBenedetto (2016: 35) observe that “students who feel more efficacious about learning should be more apt to engage in self-regulated learning (e.g., set goals, use effective learning strategies, monitor their comprehension) and create effective environments for learning (e.g., eliminate or minimize distractions, find effective study partners)”. Self-efficacy can be influenced by outcomes achieved by the learner, such as progress and achievement, or by outside inputs, such

5  Activation of Personal Resources 

89

as feedback or assessment. The belief in one’s self-regulative capability to attain goals is the core of a resolute sense of personal agency (Zimmerman and Cleary 2006: 47). Thanks to the ability to adapt their thoughts and actions to achieve certain goals, students with a greater sense of personal agency are able to become independent lifelong learners. It has been acknowleged that self-efficacy influences learning processes, achievement and self-regulation (Schunk and Pajares 2009). Educational researchers argue that self-efficacy, or better still self-efficacy beliefs—as these are concerned not with the ability but the perception of the ability (Bandura 1997: 391)—is the foundation of personal agency (see Sect. 5.3 for a discussion of self-constructs). As Bandura (1997: 2) observes, “people make causal contributions to their own psychosocial functioning through mechanisms of personal agency”. Personal agency can therefore be considered a driving force of autonomous learning that guides agentic learners. In order to facilitate their personal agency, it is necessary for translation educators to incorporate metacognitive strategies into the translation classroom and make sure that students benefit from teaching by engaging with their own learning. What can be useful here is, for instance, vicarious learning, considered to be the source of self-efficacy beliefs within the framework of Social Cognitive Theory (see Haro-Soler 2019). Also, as the findings of the preliminary study of translation performance presented in Chap. 4 (Sect. 4.4.2) demonstrate, encouraging students to self-regulate the process of translating and translator training is important. Nevertheless, real and effective agency calls for complex instruction that involves moving away from traditional mechanistic models of teaching to complex and varied training that aims at helping students become self-aware agents. Metacognitive translator trainers who support their students in learning need to consider activating the students’ personal resources and promoting agency to empower their students to become active participants in their own learning process.

90 

P. Pietrzak

5.3 The Translator’s Psychological ‘Self’ As demonstrated above, personal agency is influenced by certain aims and beliefs that are attributed to the self of the translator, which calls for recognition in today’s translator training. The change in perspective on translation processes, initiated by Kiraly some 30 years ago, shifted the focus away from a “predominantly linguistic focus to a doubly-­articulated internal (psychological) and external (social) perspective” (Haro-Soler and Kiraly 2019: 257). In the belief that people are “self-organizing, proactive, self-regulating, and self-reflecting” (Bandura 2006: 164), the approach adopted in this book is aimed at delving deeper into the multifaceted construct of the translator’s psychological self. Metacognitive skills are abilities that stem from and serve the psychological self of the translator. Maclellan (2014: 59) points out that “there are many labels (sometimes with overlapping meaning) used in relation to the self: attribution, concept, control, efficacy, esteem, regulation and so on”. Baumeister (1998, 1999) proposes three main conceptual roots to explain the self or, in other words, three major human experiences that form the basis of selfhood. Self can therefore be understood first as “a knowledge structure, based on the experience of reflexive consciousness”, second as “an interpersonal being” and, third, as “an agent with an executive function” (Baumeister 2011: 49). The self can in fact be summarised as “the totality of interrelated yet distinct psychological phenomena that underlie, causally interact with, or depend upon reflexive consciousness” (Sedikides and Gregg 2007: 93). This reflexive consciousness might be exemplified by what separates human translators from machines in far more ways than obvious differences such as automation. Metacognitive awareness goes beyond cognitive skills, such as decision-making, as it relies on all those metacognitive strategies that allow for deciding when there are seemingly no solutions available or drawing conclusions and changing strategies accordingly. The psychological self lies in the faculty to act consciously with the feeling of control over actions and their consequences. This agentic self is reflected in the sense of personal agency (see Sect. 5.2).

5  Activation of Personal Resources 

91

Clearly, the self “involves not so much a single concept as a large stock (i.e., multiple pieces) of information” (Baumeister 2011: 49). This self, or, in other words, the consciousness of one’s identities and abilities, is possibly one of the most important human possessions (Kristjánsson 2010). The concept of the self of the translator is more and more frequently a notion of interest to translation educators who promote metacognitive skills and seek to empower students to become active participants in their own learning process (see Kiraly 1995; Göpferich 2009; Ehrensberger-Dow and Massey 2013; Muñoz Martín 2014; Haro-Soler and Kiraly 2019). It goes beyond the scope of this book to explore all the approaches to the concept of the self across the field of social, cognitive and developmental psychology (see, e.g., Damon and Hart 1988; Baumeister 1999, 2011; Moran 1997; Gallagher and Marcel 1999; Strawson 1997). The discussion of the translator’s self is here limited to the context of translation psychology where the term psychology, as Bolaños-Medina (2016: 59) explains, “refers to the particular mental and behavioural characteristics of a given individual or group, as well as to the study of the mind and behaviour in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity”. In this framework, the notion of the translator’s psychological self is understood through the prism of relations between the translator’s identity, abilities and actions involved in translating and translation service provision. This self encompasses personal resources, or in other words self-­ constructs, that make up integral parts of it. The translator’s self includes metacognitive awareness, and thus it involves an awareness of their personal agency. The main self-constructs that influence the translator’s personal agency are analysed in the following sections (5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3) as components of the translator’s psychological self.

5.3.1 Self-concept The psychological self of the translator is reflected in the so-called self-­ concept. Self-concept has become a complex construct, as diverse as the many perspectives that are adopted to investigate it (James 1890/1950). Baumeister (2011: 49) observes that the term self-concept “makes some

92 

P. Pietrzak

researchers uncomfortable because it implies simplicity and coherence, whereas in empirical fact most people’s self-knowledge contains a wide assortment of loosely associated beliefs, only some of which enter awareness at any given time, and some of which may even be contradictory”. Self-concept involves numerous selfs, such as physical self, mental self, social self, cognitive self, automatic self, working self or the perceived self. Such a diversity of selfs appears hardly operationalisable, but “each conceptualisation of self provides some insight into the self-molding and shaping agent” (Dunlosky et al. 2009: 2). There is considerable overlap between the notion of agency that is derived from investigations of self-concept and the notion of agency from investigations of metacognition: comprehending the world and knowing that we comprehend, self-regulating and monitoring our thoughts, evaluating our current cognitive status in pursuit of self-imposed goals, revising our goals in light of developing cognitive and affective states, motivating ourselves, developing strategies and heuristics to make ourselves more capable of adapting to changing situations, and understanding others to gain understanding of ourselves. (ibid.)

As for delineating self-concept, Rogers (1959) claims that this has three different components—self-image, self-esteem and ideal self—that form the view that the translator has of himself and the value that they place on himself. Shavelson et al. (1976) define self-concept as a person’s perceptions of him or herself formed through their experience with and interpretations of their environment that are influenced especially by reinforcements and evaluations. Self-concept is therefore a multifaceted construct which is developmental, evaluative and differentiable from the other constructs to which it is theoretically related (ibid.: 415). Moreover, self-concept is hierarchical, with the general self-concept at the top of the hierarchy and academic and non-academic (physical, emotional and social) self-concept components at a lower level. The academic self-­ concept reflects descriptive as well as evaluative aspects of self-perception (Tan and Yates 2007: 472). The descriptive aspect of self-perception can be exemplified with I like translation and the evaluative aspect with I am good at translation.

5  Activation of Personal Resources 

93

In educational psychology, and especially in motivational research, particular attention has been devoted to self-constructs—or forms of self-­ belief—that are overlapping. Self-concept and self-efficacy appear mutually constitutive; they hold different meanings, “with self-concept impacting on self-efficacy” (Maclellan 2014: 62). They both touch upon the notion of subjective competence. From the conceptual perspective, Bong and Clark (1999: 2) summarise the main difference as follows: “self-concept emerges as a more complex construct incorporating both cognitive and affective responses toward the self and is heavily influenced by social comparison. Self-efficacy, in contrast, concerns primarily cognitive judgments of one’s capabilities based on mastery criteria”. Self-­ concept is understood here in a similar vein, that is, as a complex construct embracing and impacting on other self-constructs or socially constructed self-beliefs, such as self-efficacy (Maclellan 2014) and two other self-­ constructs, that is, self-confidence and self-esteem (Schunk and Pajares 2009: 39). Differences between these overlapping constructs of self-belief will be discussed further in Sect. 5.3.2. It was Kiraly (1990: 100) who first defined the translator’s self-­ concept as a mental construct that serves as the interface between the translator’s social and psychological worlds [and] includes a sense of the purpose of the translation, an awareness of the information requirements of the translation task, a self-evaluation of [one’s own] capability to fulfill the task, and a related capacity to monitor and evaluate translation products for adequacy and appropriateness.

Recognising the popularity of the self-concept in translation research, Ehrensberger-Dow and Massey (2013: 105) state that “various psycholinguistic and cognitive models explicitly […] or implicitly […] consider this a fundamental aspect of translation competence”. The sources on which they base this claim are, respectively, Kiraly 1995 and Göpferich 2009; PACTE 2003. The importance of the translator’s self-concept has also been signalled by Muñoz Martín (2014: 31), who states that translators “understand and handle situations and face difficulties in ways

94 

P. Pietrzak

coherent with our current activated self-concept and avoid courses of action that are not consistent with it”. And Kiraly (2000: 49) observes that: If we see translator competence as a creative, largely intuitive, socially-­ constructed, and multi-faceted complex of skills and abilities, then the primary goals of translator education will include raising students’ awareness of the factors involved in translation, helping them develop their own translator’s self-concept, and assisting in the collaborative construction of individually tailored tools that will allow every student to function within the language mediation community upon graduation.

As Kröner and Biermann (2007) show, self-concept represents the self-­ perceived competence in a given area. It is descriptive in nature and requires certain understanding of one’s feeling about the self and the perceived competence. Self-perceived competence is the knowledge or at least awareness of the acquired skills. Self-concept can therefore be defined as a manifestation of metacognition. In translation research, self-concept can be seen as a collection of socially constructed self-beliefs that the translator has of himself or herself. It has been studied from the perspective of the perceptions that translators have of their profession (Katan 2009) and their role in translation service provision or the so-called occupational self (Sela-Sheffy and Shlesinger 2008). In an attempt to operationalise the development of self-concept, Svahn (2016) takes into account a sociological perspective and explores translation students’ self-concept understood as the way that they think about themselves in relation to “the market, i.e. the student’s position(ing) on the translation market”, as well as to “the translator’s role” and to “other people, i.e. societal self image” (Svahn 2016: 30). The study presented in this book (Chap. 7) focuses on translation graduates and investigates the dimensions of their self-concept with regard to their beliefs about themselves and their attributes. The methodological framework encompasses both measures of self-concept and metacognitive awareness, with the main focus on the effect of variables such as academic achievement, career paths and market-oriented perspective on their perception of success.

5  Activation of Personal Resources 

95

5.3.2 S  elf-efficacy, Self-confidence and Self-esteem: How Different Are They? The three main constructs that self-concept encompasses are self-efficacy (Maclellan 2014), self-confidence and self-esteem (Schunk and Pajares 2009: 39). They are chosen here for further investigation as potentially important for translation service provision. In psychology, self-efficacy is defined as one’s perceived capabilities for learning or performing actions at designated levels (Bandura 1997). Personal efficacy involves “judgments of the self as able to produce acts that should lead to desirable outcomes” (Gurin and Brim 1984: 285). Bandura (1997: 2) stresses the importance of self-efficacy for the way in which personal agency is exercised: Among the mechanisms of agency, none is more central or pervasive than beliefs of personal efficacy. Unless people believe they can produce desired effects by their actions, they have little incentive to act. Efficacy belief, therefore, is a major basis of action. People guide their lives by their beliefs of personal efficacy.

Self-efficacy theory (Bandura 1997, 2006) distinguishes between the source of judgements of efficacy (i.e. the individual) and the level of the phenomenon being assessed (i.e. personal efficacy or group efficacy) (Bandura 2006: 165). Hence, it refers to assumptions and beliefs that individuals have about their abilities, rather than to the abilities that they actually possess. Two other self-constructs that are considered here to be embraced within self-concept (see Sect. 5.3.1) are self-confidence and self-esteem. While self-confidence is a self-perception of one’s ability to engage successfully with the world, self-esteem is considered to be a self-perception of one’s social and personal value (Pajares 2000). Self-efficacy is a form of self-perception and always refers to a specific task, which makes it different from self-confidence. In other words, self-efficacy is argued to be “essentially a situational-specific form of self-confidence” (Block et  al. 2010: 44), and thus it refers to an individual’s beliefs about their abilities concerning a specific task, while self-confidence goes beyond the scope of

96 

P. Pietrzak

a task or a set of tasks. Self-confidence is both trait-like and domain-­ specific (Stanovich and West 1998). In contrast to self-efficacy and self-confidence, self-esteem is not strictly related to beliefs about the concept of the learner’s broadly conceived ability. Self-esteem is a relatively stable belief about one’s self-­ worth. Branden (1969) claims that self-esteem comprises two components, namely self-efficacy and self-respect, but there are more aspects that make up this self-construct. Since it is also a trait, it refers not only to capabilities but to a wide range of other factors (see, e.g., Pajares 2000). Interestingly, although high self-esteem may foster initiative and be relevant to positive performance, it is often associated with negative behaviour. Baumeister et al. (2003: 1) claim that there is no evidence that “boosting self-esteem (by therapeutic interventions or school programmes) causes benefits”. Self-esteem may be an outcome of academic achievement, but is not its cause or a mediating variable (ibid.). Accordingly, the study reported in Chap. 7 does not aim to further explore the concept of self-esteem, focusing instead on determining the implications of the most relevant self-constructs in this area of research, that is, self-concept and self-efficacy, for translator training.

5.3.3 The ‘Self’ from a Linguistic Perspective The three overlapping self-constructs that have already been explored here—self-efficacy, self-confidence and self-esteem—will now be discussed in relation to the linguistic means used to express them verbally. Self-constructs are communicated through specific words and sentence structures, and thus in this section the focus is on some ways in which the self is verbalised or expressed in terms of language, as the expression of those self-beliefs may differ in communication. Self-efficacy beliefs represent one’s perceptions of one’s own competence, and thus the question that best characterises this self-construct is “Can I do that task?” (Pajares 2000). As self-efficacy is task-specific, this belief is usually expressed by means of such expressions as I will do it or I can do it. This aspect of the self can be communicated by statements such as I am able to do this task or, more specifically, I am able to translate it.

5  Activation of Personal Resources 

97

Table 5.1  Verbal choices behind the translator’s self-constructs Self-efficacy

Self-confidence

Self-esteem

I can do it. I will do it. I am able to do this task. I am able to translate it.

I can. I do. I am able to do such tasks. I am able to translate.

I am… I am not… I feel… I do not feel…

The way self-efficacy is usually verbalised is depicted in Table  5.1 and contrasted with the other two self-constructs analysed here in reference to the translator’s self-concept. Self-confidence has been defined as a domain-specific self-perception of one’s abilities which is not task-specific, and thus the question that can characterise this self-construct is Can I do such tasks? It is usually communicated by means of such expressions as I can, I do or I am able to do such tasks, or, for instance, I am able to translate. Students’ self-perceptions of their capabilities (self-efficacy) differ significantly from their self-perceptions of personal worth (self-esteem). In the case of self-esteem, the question that best reflects this self-construct is “How do I feel about myself”? (ibid.). Self-esteem, as the sense of personal worth, can be expressed verbally by means of such expressions as I am or I feel. The delineation of these verbalised differences may prove useful for measurement purposes in the process of exploratory studies. Measures of metacognitive awareness and self-concept are dependent on verbal choices. If metacognition is measured by means of self-reports, the results rely heavily on the participant’s fluency and ability to articulate their thinking. For this reason, the method used in the study discussed in this book (see Chap. 7) is statements which offer answer options and scales for participants to select from as they usually yield more reliable results (see Sect. 4.1.3). The items in the questionnaire used for measuring metacognitive awareness and self-concept (see Sect. 7.1.3 on data collection tool) are based on scales which consist of verbal choices that best reflect respondents’ attitudes and assessments of the self-constructs measured in the study. Much depends on the instrument chosen for measuring metacognition, but the way self-constructs are verbalised in a study can affect the dynamics and relevance of the conducted research.

98 

P. Pietrzak

References Alves, F., and Gonçalvez, J. L.. 2003. “A relevance theory approach to the investigation of inferential processes in translation.” In F. Alves (ed.) Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 3–24. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., and Wittrock, M. C. (eds). 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Atkinson, D. P. 2012. Freelance translator success and psychological skill: A study of translator competence with perspectives from work psychology. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Atkinson, D. P., and Crezee, I. H. M. 2014. “Improving psychological skill in trainee interpreters.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 6 (1), pp. 3–18. Bandura, A. 1977. “Self-efficacy: Toward a unified theory of behavioral change.” Psychological Review 84, pp. 191–215. Bandura, A. 1989. “Human agency in social cognitive theory.” The American Psychologist 44, pp. 1175–1184. Bandura, A. 1997. “Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies.” In A.  Bandura (ed.) Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–45. Bandura, A. 2001. “Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.” Annual Review of Psychology 52, pp. 1–26. Bandura, A. 2006. “Toward a psychology of human agency.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 1 (2), pp.  164–180. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-­6916.2006.00011.x Baumeister, R. F. 1998. “The self.” In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook of social psychology, 4th ed. New  York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 680–740. Baumeister, R.  F. 1999. The self in social psychology. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis Psychology Press. Baumeister, R.  F. 2011. Self and identity: A brief overview of what they are, what they do, and how they work, 1234, pp.  48–55. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1749-­6632.2011.06224.x Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., and Vohs, K. D. 2003. “Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 4, pp. 1–44.

5  Activation of Personal Resources 

99

Block, M., Taliaferro, A., Harris, N., and Krause, J.. 2010. “Using self-efficacy theory to facilitate inclusion in general physical education.” Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 81 (3), pp. 43–46. Bloom, B. 1964. Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: Wiley. Bolaños-Medina, A. 2016. “Translation psychology within the framework of translator studies. New research perspectives and pedagogical implications.” In C. M. de León and V. González-Ruiz (eds) From the lab to the classroom and back again: Perspectives on translation and interpreting training. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 59–100. Bong, M., and Clark, R. 1999. “Comparison between self-concept and self-­ efficacy in academic motivation research.” Educational Psychologist 34, pp. 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_1. Borghans, Lex, Duckworth, Angela L., Heckman, James J., and Weel, Bas ter. 2008. “The economics and psychology of personality traits.” Journal of Human Resources 43 (4), pp. 972–1059. Branden, N. 1969. The psychology of self-esteem. New York: Bantam. Damon, W., and Hart, D. 1988. Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dunlosky, J., Hacker, Douglas J., and Graesser, A. C. 2009. “A growing sense of ‘agency’.” In Douglas J.  Hacker, J.  Dunlosky and A.  C. Graesser (eds) Handbook of metacognition in education. New  York and London: Routledge, pp. 1–4. Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Massey, Gary. 2013. “Indicators of translation competence: Translators’ self-concepts and the translation of titles.” Journal of Writing Research 5 (1), pp. 103–131. Fraser, J. 2000. “The broader view: How freelance translators define translation competence.” In C. Schäffner and B. Adab (eds) Developing translation competence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–62. Gallagher, S., and Marcel, A. J. 1999. “The self in contextualized action.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 6(4), pp. 4–30. González-Davies, M. 2021. “Student agency in translator training. Setting a framework for good practices.” In M. Kornacki and P. Pietrzak (eds) Special Issue of Research in Language 19 (2), de Gruyter. (2), https://doi. org/10.18778/1731-­7533.19.2.01. Available at: https://digijournals.uni. lodz.pl/rela/vol19/iss2/2/ Göpferich, S. 2009. “Towards a model of translation competence and its acquisition: The longitudinal study TransComp.” In S. Göpferich, A. L. Jakobsen and I. M. Mees (eds.) Behind the mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research, pp. 11–37.

100 

P. Pietrzak

Gurin, P., and Brim, O. G. 1984. “Change in self in adulthood: The example of sense of control.” In P. B. Baltes and O. G. Brim (eds.) Life-span development and behavior. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 282–334. Haro-Soler, M.  M. 2017. “Teaching practices and translation students’ self-­ efficacy: The teachers’ perceptions.” Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning 4, pp. 198–228. Haro-Soler, M.  M. 2018. “Self-confidence and its role in translator training: The students’ perspective.” In I. Lacruz & R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.). Innovation and expansion in translation process research, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: ATA Series, John Benjamins, pp. 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xviii Haro-Soler, M. M. 2019 “Vicarious learning in the translation classroom: How can it influence students’ self-efficacy beliefs?” English Studies at NBU 5 (1), pp. 92–113. https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.19.1.5 Haro-Soler, M. M., and Kiraly, D. 2019. “Exploring self-efficacy beliefs in symbiotic collaboration with students: An action research project.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13 (3), pp.  255–270. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1750399X.2019.1656405 Hobfoll, S. E. 2002. “Social and psychological resources and adaptation.” Review of General Psychology 6, pp. 307–324. Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., and Jackson, A. P. 2003. “Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84, pp. 632–643. Hubscher-Davidson, S. 2009. “Personal diversity and diverse personalities in translation: A study of individual differences.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 17, pp. 175–192. Hubscher-Davidson, S. 2013. “Emotional intelligence and translation studies: A new bridge.” Meta: Journal des traducteurs 58, p.  324. https://doi. org/10.7202/1024177ar Hubscher-Davidson, S. 2017. Translation and emotion: A psychological perspective. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Hubscher-Davidson, S. 2020. “Ethical stress in the translation and interpreting professions.” In K. Koskinen and N. Pokorn (eds) The Routledge handbook of translation and ethics. Abingdon: Routledge. Hubscher-Davidson, S., and Lehr, C. 2021. Improving the emotional intelligence of translators: A roadmap for an experimental training intervention. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jääskeläinen, R. 2012. “Translation psychology.” In Y.  Gambier and L.  Van Doorslaer (eds) Handbook of translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 191–197.

5  Activation of Personal Resources 

101

James, W. 1890/1950. The principles of psychology. Vol I.  New  York: Dover Publications. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., and Durham, C. C. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior 19, pp. 151–188. Katan, D. 2009. “Occupation or profession. A survey of the translators’ world.” Translating and Interpreting Studies 4 (2), pp. 187–209. Kiraly, D. 1990. “Toward a systematic approach to translation skills instruction.” PhD diss., University of Illinois. https://doi.org/10.109 9/00221287-­136-­2-­327 Kiraly, D. 1995. Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent: Kent State University Press. Kiraly, D. 2000. A social constructivist approach to translator education. Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester: St. Jerome. Klimkowski, K. 2019. “Assessment as a communicative activity in the translation classroom.” In P.  Pietrzak (ed.) New insights into translator training, Special Issue of Intralinea. Kristjánsson, K. 2010. The self and its emotions. New  York: Cambridge University Press. Kröner, S., and Biermann, A.. 2007. “The relationship between confidence and self-concept—Towards a model of response confidence.” Intelligence 35 (6), pp. 580–590. Lee, J., and Stankov, L. 2016. Non-cognitive psychological processes and academic achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Liem, Gregory Arief D. 2019 “Academic performance and assessment.” Educational Psychology 39 (6), pp.  705–708. https://doi.org/10.108 0/01443410.2019.1625522 Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., and Combs, G. M. 2006. “Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 27, pp. 387–393. Maclellan, E. 2014. “How might teachers enable learner self-confidence? A review study.” Educational Review 66 (1), pp. 59–74. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00131911.2013.768601 Moran, R. 1997. “Self-knowledge: Discovery, resolution, and undoing.” European Journal of Philosophy 5 (2), pp. 141–161. Moser-Mercer, B. 2008. “Skill acquisition in interpreting. A human performance perspective”. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 2 (1), pp. 1–28.

102 

P. Pietrzak

Muñoz Martín, R. 2014. “Situating translation expertise: A review with a sketch of a construct.” In J. W. Schwieter and A. Ferreira (eds), The development of translation competence. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 2–56. Núñez, J.  L., and Bolaños-Medina, A. 2018. Predictors of problem-solving in translation: Implications for translator training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12 (3), pp.  282–298. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1750399X.2017.1359762 PACTE. 2003. “Building a translation competence model.” In F.  Alves (ed.) Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process oriented research. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 43–66. Pajares, F. 2000. “Frank Pajares on nurturing academic confidence.” Emory Report 52 (21). Pierce, J.  L., Gardner, D.  G., Cummings, L.  L., and Dunham, R.  B. 1989. “Organizational-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation.” Academy of Management Journal 32, pp. 622–648. Piotrowska, M. 2007. Proces decyzyjny tłumacza. Podstawy metodologii nauczania przekładu pisemnego. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej. Rogers, C. 1959. “A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework.” In S.  Koch (ed.) Psychology: A study of a science 3: Formulations of the person and the social context. New York: McGraw Hill. Scheier, M.  F., and Carver, C.  S. 1985. “Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and implications of generalised outcome expectancies.” Health Psychology 4, pp. 219–247. Schunk, D. H., and DiBenedetto, M. K. 2016. Self-efficacy theory in education from: Handbook of motivation at school. London: Routledge. Schunk, D. H., and Pajares, F.. 2009. “Self-efficacy theory.” In K. R. Wentzel and A. Wigfield (eds) Handbook of motivation at school. London: Routledge, pp. 35–54. Sedikides, C., and Gregg, A.. 2007. “Portraits of the self.” In M.  Hogg and J.  Cooper (eds) The Sage handbook of social psychology. London: Sage Publications, pp. 93–122. Sela-Sheffy, R., and Shlesinger, M. 2008. “Strategies of image-making and status advancement of translators and interpreters as a marginal occupational group.” In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and D. Simeoni (eds) Beyond descriptive translation studies. Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 79–90.

5  Activation of Personal Resources 

103

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., and Stanton, G. C. 1976. Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research 46, pp. 407–441. Stanovich, K.  E., and West, R.  F. 1998. “Individual differences in rational thought.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, pp. 161–188. Strawson, G. 1997. “The self.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 4 (5–6), pp. 405–428. Svahn, E. 2016. “Feeling like a translator: Exploring translator students’ self-­ concepts through focus groups.” In Turo Rautaoja, Tamara Mikolič Južnič and Kaisa Koskinen (eds), New horizons in translation research and education 4. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland, pp. 27–45. Tan, J.  B. Y., and Yates, S.  M. 2007. “A Rasch analysis of the academic self-­ concept questionnaire.” International Education Journal 8 (2), pp. 470–484. Vygotsky, L. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https:// doi.org/10.1037/11193-­000 Wilss, W. 1994. “A framework for decision-making in translation.” Target 6 (2), pp. 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1075/target. Winne, P. H., and Nesbit, J. C. 2009. “Supporting self-regulated learning with cognitive tools.” In Douglas J. Hacker, John Dunlosky and Arthur C. Graesser (eds) Handbook of metacognition in education. New  York and London: Routledge, pp. 259–277. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Schaufeli, W. B. 2009. “Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (3), pp.  235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003 Zimmerman, B. J. 2000. “Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective.” In Monique Boekaerts, Paul R.  Pintrich, and Moshe Zeidner (eds) Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 13–39. Zimmerman, B. J., and Cleary, T. J. 2006. “Adolescents’ development of personal agency: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill.” In Tim Urdan and Frank Pajares (eds) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greewich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 45–69.

6 Self-reflection as a Strategy in Metacognitive Translator Training

6.1 Experiential Reflecting This chapter aims to discuss reflection as an aid to fostering metacognitive skills. The main idea behind introducing reflection into translator education is derived from a transformative approach to education (see Sect. 3.1) and experiential learning (Schön 1983; Mezirow 1990, 1996), where reflection is considered to be the primary source of learner transformation. Experiential learning is “a holistic integrative perspective on learning that combines experience, perception, cognition and behaviour” (Kolb 1984: 21). The approach presented in this book advocates for learning based on reflecting on experience (see Chap. 8 for examples), which is rooted in social constructivism, the work of Kolb (1984), the concept of learning as a personal, authentic, social experience (Vygotsky 1962), and inquiry-based instruction (Vygotsky 1978). Cognitive psychology focuses on the individual’s ability to think critically, employ reflective judgement and control their own cognitive processes (Flavell 1976: 232). The transformational approach to education moves away from the transmissionist perspective, incorporates the ideas of a transactional approach, which guides learners in their knowledge © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 P. Pietrzak, Metacognitive Translator Training, Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97038-3_6

105

106 

P. Pietrzak

construction, and aims at transformative learning consistent with the idea of holistic education (Miller 1996). Metacognition guides transformative learning and building experience, as it focuses on “the ability to reflect upon, understand and control one’s learning” (Schraw and Dennison 1994: 460). Dewey (1933) even claims that reflecting on experiences is much more important for the learner than the actual experiences themselves. Metacognition combines both thinking about the experience and thinking about experiencing the experience. The need to develop habits of controlling one’s own actions has its roots as far back as the nineteenth century: “a mind which has become conscious of its own cognitive function, plays what we have called ‘the psychologist’ upon itself. It not only knows the things that appear before it; it knows that it knows them. This stage of reflective condition is, more or less explicitly, our habitual adult state of mind” (James 1890/1950: 272–273). Reflection in the translation classroom serves not only as a useful tool for dealing with current issues but above all for fostering the further development of the student. Reflection by both translation trainee and trainer helps to identify needs that require the teacher’s attention and intervention and contributes to raising awareness of the common objective. Experiential learning considers reflection to be the crucial component of the learning process. Schön (1983: 31) considers reflection to be “a dialogue of thinking and doing through which I become more skilful”. The main assumption underlying experiential learning is that “ideas are not fixed and immutable elements of thought but are formed and re-­ formed through experience” (Kolb 1984: 26). Accordingly, this approach to learning puts emphasis on the fact that students do not learn by simply being taught, but develop their own thoughts and ideas by means of reflective experience. In the transformative approach to learning, Mezirow (1990: xvi) observes that the learner’s transformation begins with reflection and involves a change in “meaning perceptions—the structure of assumptions that constitutes a frame of reference for interpreting the meaning of an experience.” The author elaborates on the process of perspective transformation and defines it as

6  Self-reflection as a Strategy in Metacognitive Translator… 

107

becoming critically aware of how and why the structure of psycho-cultural assumptions has come to constrain the way we see ourselves and our relationships, reconstituting this structure to permit a more inclusive and discriminating integration of experience and acting upon these new understandings. (Mezirow 1981: 6)

Experience is both the source and the means since the ability to reflect on actions derives from experience and is later developed with experience (see Metcalfe 1996). As Livingston (1996) observes, the teacher who provides knowledge without experience or experience without knowledge will not contribute to the development of students’ metacognitive resources. In experiential learning, the teacher offers guided reflective practice and assists students in developing their own way to interpret and analyse their experience.

6.2 Reflective Practice Metacognition as an educational approach emphasises the development of metacognitive skills and processes as a means to improve learning. It is predominantly an awareness of the thinking processes that lead to further metacognitive activities. This is why the aim of introducing the model of metacognitive support (see Chap. 8) is to enable translation students to become more strategic, self-reflective and self-reliant in the process of learning to become a successful translator. Self-reflection is an area of activity where students’ active participation is inevitable, because reflection is a metacognitive process in which students need to engage themselves. The value of students’ reflection cannot be overestimated, although many students—if subjected to years of teacher-dominated, mostly transmissionist education—will probably doubt its value. Students need to see that the teacher values their self-­ reflection, which can be initiated by inviting questions and queries. Purposeful reflection needs time, but it is indeed of great value for the teacher as it constitutes invaluable feedback (see Dollerup 1994; Pietrzak 2016).

108 

P. Pietrzak

The particular role of the teacher here is to devote time and attention to effective reflection. There is more to reflecting than simply expressing your opinion or remembering certain details of the experience. Remembering involves the analysis of what students did and how they did it, while reflection is the analysis of what they learned and why they learned it. As González-Davies (2021) explains, “collaborative and situated environments are especially favourable to the development of autonomous strategic learning. This approach involves reflective practice through both planned and spontaneous learning opportunities embedded in contextualised activities, tasks and projects”. In translator education, the two main types of reflective practice refer to problems encountered during the process of translation and problems encountered during the process of learning translation. As Vandepitte et al. (2014: 149) observe, in translation process research, self-reflection has been studied “from either a psycholinguistic view, with the aim of describing translation processing, or from a pedagogical view, with the aim of training translators”. In the translation classroom, the object of reflection can be manifold (Pietrzak 2019): 1. prospective/concurrent/retrospective reflection on the translation product; 2. prospective/concurrent/retrospective reflection on the translation process; 3. prospective/concurrent/retrospective reflection on translator training; 4. introspective reflection on oneself in the translation process; 5. introspective reflection on oneself in the translator training process. Reflective practice is beneficial both for students (gaining more awareness) and teachers (gaining more insight into students’ problems, concerns, assumptions, preconceptions or misconceptions), as demonstrated in a study on pre- and post-translation self-reflection (ibid.). The findings of this study show that, after completing a translation task, students’ initial fears and worries proved unfounded. In this case, reflective practice turned out to be very useful since it had raised students’ awareness before they undertook another task or finally entered the translation market

6  Self-reflection as a Strategy in Metacognitive Translator… 

109

where such worries and doubts could possibly discourage them from facing certain challenges in their professional life.

6.3 Feedback as Based on Reflection From the teacher’s perspective, the purpose of metacognitive studies in relation to learning is the analysis of learners’ reactions and adaptation to changes. One of the most important triggers that cause the learner to notice and possibly adapt to changing conditions is feedback that is effectively delivered and consciously received. Indeed, it has been claimed that feedback on learning performance can have a significant impact on learner performance (Hattie and Timperley 2007). Feedback is the key concept in self-regulatory accounts with the main focus on learning (Zimmerman 1989) and refers to “information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding”. Feedback can therefore be described as a ‘consequence’ of performance (Hattie and Timperley 2007: 81). The provision of feedback to the learner is one of the most frequent psychological interventions in education (Kluger and DeNisi 1998). It is effective provided that it consists of information about student progress or about the way to proceed. Hattie and Timperley (2007: 89) stress that students often seek information about how they are doing, although they may not always welcome the answers. As Kolb (1984: 29) observes, in many cases, resistance to new ideas stems from their conflict with old beliefs that are inconsistent with them. If the education process begins by bringing out the learner’s beliefs and theories, examining and testing them, and then integrating the new, more refined ideas into the person’s belief system, the learning process will be facilitated.

The idea behind effective feedback is to assess formatively and not only show new ways, but also help to get rid of the old and inefficient ways of dealing with a problem or at least modify them. As Wiliam (2014: online) observes, good learners “tend to attribute both failure and success to internal, unstable causes—in other words,

110 

P. Pietrzak

they know that it is within their power to get better”. Given that even expert translators can be considered lifelong learners, it is advisable to help translation students take responsibility for their mistakes, admit failure and realise that it is not dependent on any external factor but is rather incremental. Effective feedback requires the student to admit that they are personally responsible for what they are doing. Students who put the blame for a mistake on factors such as lack of time, computer malfunction, a teacher’s unfairness and so on are unlikely to benefit from even the most complex and valuable feedback. As observed by Zimmerman and Cleary (2009: 247), “the sources of feedback can be social (e.g. such as praise or guidance from a teacher, peer, or a parent), environmental (e.g., task, micro-environment, or computer outcomes), or personal (e.g., awareness of covert, physiological, or behavioral outcomes)”. In the translation classroom or any other training environment outside the classroom (see Kornacki and Pietrzak 2021), feedback can take various forms, including: pre-translation and post-­ translation tasks; shared assignments; sense negotiation; peer, group and self-assessment; self-observation; collaborative brainstorming; peer and group revision and feedback; group interviews; and self-learning (see Pietrzak 2019). Feedback can be either external or internal. External feedback can be provided by the translator trainer in the form of praise, guidance or outcomes, while internal feedback can be described as self-feedback in the form of the awareness of the outcomes and conclusions drawn as a result. Students move from external feedback towards internal feedback in the process of self-discovery. They realise and react to what they learned. Interestingly, it is also a process of discovery for the teacher since a lot can be learned about students’ needs from their self-feedback (see Pietrzak 2016). What is advocated here, as a way of facilitating students’ metacognition, is sharing responsibility for the process of translation training with the student by inviting them to (self-)reflect with the aim of increasing their individual autonomy and self-discovery. In the conceptualisation of assessment presented in this book, the primary aim of feedback is for translation students to learn as much as possible from this form of evaluation, which allows for bridging the gap between the current and desired state of their knowledge or performance

6  Self-reflection as a Strategy in Metacognitive Translator… 

111

(see Sect. 6.5 for more on the aims of feedback). Given that one of the primary aims of metacognitive translator training is fostering students’ ability to become autonomous translators able to function effectively and efficiently in the labour market, the focus will now be on self-feedback mechanisms.

6.4 From Self-assessment to Self-feedback Self-assessment is an essential component of learning and serves as a learning technique (Li 2018). While self-assessment serves both summative and formative purposes, the application of self-feedback is inherently formative in nature. Contrary to the summative function of assessment, which involves assessing the knowledge acquired and the end results after the learning process, the formative use of assessment usually aims at obtaining information during the learning process for the purpose of training (Martínez Melis and Hurtado Albir 2001: 277). Self-assessment is defined as a “wide variety of mechanisms and techniques through which students describe (i.e., assess) and possibly assign merit or worth to (i.e., evaluate) the qualities of their own learning processes and products” (Panadero et al. 2016: 804). This is not an easy task for a learner and usually involves guiding students gradually through the process of group or peer assessment towards self-assessment: “Psychological research has documented the fact that accurately assessing one’s own degree of learning is not something that comes naturally to our species, and fostering this ability is a useful, albeit neglected, component of education” (Pashler et al. 2007: 1). The effectiveness of self-assessment in translator education depends on a number of factors. In order to perform well, translation students need to be provided with clear self-evaluative standards that could help them develop the skill of self-feedback, as well as clear criteria and frameworks for assessment and decision-making (see Huertas Barros and Vine 2019; Way 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015, 2021). Student-centred approaches reject norm-referenced assessment, which establishes the statistical distribution of grades, in favour of criterion-referenced assessment in which “criteria should be transparent and should be discussed with students” (Kelly

112 

P. Pietrzak

2014: 141). Clear standards must be defined for students to later refer to and to reflect on their work. Such assessment criteria must be relatively easy to comprehend and limited in number (see Nord 1991). The criteria depend on the context and function of assessment with a clearly defined object of assessment; they must also be clear for both the evaluator and the evaluee (Martínez Melis and Hurtado Albir 2001: 283). Purposeful self-assessment requires a good understanding of its objectives and tools. Way (2021) presents new rubrics and suggests a useful assessment framework “emphasising TC [Translator Competence], decision-­making and industry demands, stimulating the ability to identify and solve translation problems whilst encouraging autonomous, self-­ regulated learning in graduates” with the aim of preparing them for lifelong learning. Klimkowski (2019: online) observes that “in self-­ regulated learning, assessment pertains to a concrete learning individual. It avoids pretences of being objectivist or idealized (equally valid for all the learners)”. Moving away from summative assessment towards learner-­ oriented formative assessment, he adds that “instead of homogeneity of assessment—ensuring that all the learners meet the same standards—self-­ regulation offers assessment that can be authentically used to facilitate (adjustment, adaptation, inventing strategies etc.) the learning processes of an individual”. From the perspective of metacognitive development of translator competence, self-feedback is particularly useful for translation students as it involves assessment which is followed by action. As Klimkowski (2019: online) sees it, “the reflexive stage can only enhance learning when followed by a performative stage” and the latter “takes place when learners employ their resources to transform self-reflection into planned actions”. Self-feedback is most effective when students not only learn from their own mistakes but also make adjustments in their learning process. Self-feedback is understood here as a form of structured self-reflection which serves as a means to facilitate translator training. According to Panadero et al. (2019: 159), “self-feedback should be seen as the most formative use of self-assessment, in which the learners create their own feedback, one that is anchored in content accuracy, in the development of practice and expertise, and framed within self-regulated learning theories”. As Angelone and Martin Garcia (2019: 139) observe, self-feedback

6  Self-reflection as a Strategy in Metacognitive Translator… 

113

“hinges on receiving input from others” but what is important here is that “translators need to be in a position to provide feedback on and self-­ evaluate their own performance without such external input”. Students can gradually be encouraged to become engaged in metacognitive practices and reflect on their translation and translation-training processes in order to take more control over and thus responsibility for their own professional development. The teacher needs to act as a model here and also to communicate reflectively in their interaction with students (see Sect. 6.5). When given a specific scaffolding (see Sect. 8.2), for instance a model of how to think about their work and established criteria against which to judge their work (Pietrzak 2019), students can potentially move toward developing a habit of reflecting on their own actions. Ideally, what follows is greater metacognitive awareness which helps them to monitor and then adjust their strategies based on their self-feedback on the ongoing learning processes.

6.5 Reflective Communication In a translation training environment, the focus is frequently laid on the issues that students find challenging. The teacher, for instance, invites questions that arise during translation tasks and then discusses these with the group. Reflective practice based on student experience can be facilitated by classroom communication which favours friendly conversation. No elaborate forms of reasoning are necessary here, but, as Candy et al. (1985: 115) signal, what is needed is “prompting here, probing there, inquiring somewhere else, but all the time encouraging the learners to relive the experience and to express in their own words why they behaved the way they did”. Discussions about how students plan and monitor the process of reflective practice can refer to both the process of translation and the process of translator education. Thanks to identifying the very moments when students plan and monitor those processes, students can actively participate in controlling what they do in both processes, finding what the aim of their actions is and whether they can do anything to improve their actions. When they become aware of the need for certain actions,

114 

P. Pietrzak

students are likely to start implementing them on their own. Wiliam (2014) states that what is much more important than all the rules of feedback is a trustful relationship between teachers and students. Interaction within the translator training environment would benefit from a multi-directional approach where knowledge can emerge through collaborative learning between teachers and students as described, for instance, in Haro-Soler and Kiraly (2019: 266), where “instead of setting out to instruct students efficiently by spoon-feeding them with knowledge, teachers can accompany their students on adventures in translation, with an authentic research question to be investigated or translation project to undertake, complete and publish”. As Klimkowski (2019: online) aptly puts it, “a successful implementation of self-regulation in the translation classroom needs to address the relational nature of the learning process. The main instrument that comes to mind in this context is quality feedback”. In a relational classroom context, successful knowledge construction depends on communication that offers inquiry-based instruction. One of the main aims of feedback, apart from helping students recognise their skills, is in one view communicating mistakes and managing them in an empowering way (Klimkowski 2019). In any assessment-related communication, response patterns in the classroom must, according to Klimkowski, be diagnostic and solution-oriented so that they equip students with knowledge and the tools to plan further learning (ibid.). Reflective communication involves both teachers’ and students’ communicative interaction. A classroom which is communicatively interactive can foster students’ reflectiveness and take them through their learning experiences conversationally. Effective communicative interaction calls for the provision of a space for discussion and encouraging students to talk freely about their experiences. In designing and moderating translation classroom communication, Klimkowski (2019) lists three factors to consider, namely, creating a safe space for negotiating ideas, separating the person from the problem to minimise the emotional cost of negotiation and describing behaviours without passing judgement. Although negative feedback can be detrimental to one’s self-esteem, it often appears to be helpful for students with respect to their learning and performance, because it is informative and fills the gap between what

6  Self-reflection as a Strategy in Metacognitive Translator… 

115

they know and what they need to know (Kluger and DeNisi 1998). Negative feedback tends to have more impact that positive feedback (Baumeister et  al. 2001). Nonetheless, negative feedback can never be personal. Negative opinions on students’ work cannot be judgemental. Narratives should indeed make a personal reference to the addressee, but must be objective, diagnostic and solution-oriented (Klimkowski 2019). Negative personal comments and subjective feedback is always detrimental for learning.

References Angelone, E., and Martin Garcia, A. 2019. “Expertise acquisition through deliberate practice. Gauging perceptions and behaviors of translators and project managers.” In H. Risku, R. Rogl and J. Milosevic (eds) Translation practice in the field: Current research on socio-cognitive processes. Benjamins Current Topics 105, pp. 123–160 Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K. D. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology 5, pp. 323–370. https://doi. org/10.1037/1089-­2680.5.4.323 Candy, P., Harri-Augstein S., and Thomas, L. 1985. “Reflection and the self-­ organized learner: A model of learning conversations.” In D. Boud, R. Keogh, and D. Walker Reflection: Turning experience into learning, London: Kogan Page, pp. 100–116. Dewey, J. 1933. How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Heath. Dollerup, C. 1994. “Systematic feedback in teaching translation.” In C. Dollerup and A.  Lindegaard (eds.): Teaching translating and interpreting 2: Insights, aims, visions, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 121–132. Flavell, J. H. 1976. “Meta-cognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-development inquiry.” American Psychologist 34, pp.  906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-­066X.34.10.906 González-Davies, M. 2021. “Student agency in translator training. Setting a framework for good practices.” In M. Kornacki and P. Pietrzak (eds) Special Issue of Research in Language 19 (2), de Gruyter. (2), https://doi. org/10.18778/1731-­7533.19.2.01. Available at: https://digijournals.uni. lodz.pl/rela/vol19/iss2/2/

116 

P. Pietrzak

Haro-Soler, M.  M., and Kiraly, D. 2019. “Exploring self-efficacy beliefs in symbiotic collaboration with students: An action research project.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13 (3), pp.  255–270. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/1750399X.2019.1656405 Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. 2007. “The power of feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77, pp. 81–112. Huertas Barros, E., and Vine, J. 2019. Training the trainers in embedding assessment literacy into module design: A case study of a collaborative transcreation project. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13 (3), pp. 271–291. James, W. 1890/1950. The principles of psychology. Vol. I.  New  York: Dover Publications. Kelly, D. 2005/2014. A handbook for translator trainers: A guide to reflective practice, London/New York: Routledge. Klimkowski, K. 2019 “Assessment as a communicative activity in the translation classroom.” In: P. Pietrzak (ed.) New insights into translator training, Special Issue of Intralinea. Kluger, A.  N., and DeNisi, A. 1998. Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a double-edged sword, Current Directions in Psychological Science 7, 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8721.ep10772989 Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kornacki, M., and Pietrzak P. 2021. “New translator training environments: Towards improving translation students’ digital resilience.” New Voices in Translation Studies 24, pp. 1–22. Li, X. 2018. Self-assessment as ‘assessment as learning’ in translator and interpreter education: Validity and washback. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(1), pp. 48–67. Livingston, J. A. 1996. Effects of metacognitive instruction on strategy use of college students. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New  York at Buffalo. Martínez Melis, N., and Hurtado Albir, A. 2001. Assessment in translation studies: Research needs. Meta 46 (2), pp.  272–287. https://doi. org/10.7202/003624ar Metcalfe, J. 1996. Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mezirow, J. 1981. “A critical theory of adult learning and education.” Adult Education 32. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171368103200101

6  Self-reflection as a Strategy in Metacognitive Translator… 

117

Mezirow, J. 1990. “How critical reflection triggers transformative learning.” In Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory education (ed.) Jack Mezirow et al., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 1–20. Mezirow, J. 1996. “Contemporary paradigms of learning.” Adult Education Quarterly 46 (3), pp.  158–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 074171369604600303 Miller, J. P. 1996. The holistic curriculum. Toronto: OISE Press. Nord, Ch. 1991. Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis, Amsterdam/New York, NY: Rodopi. Panadero, E., Brown, G. L., and Strijbos, J.-W. 2016. The future of student selfassessment: a review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28, 803–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2 Panadero, E., Lipnevich, A., and Broadbent, J. 2019. “Turning self-assessment into self-feedback.” In D. Boud, M. D. Henderson, R. Ajjawi, and E. Molloy (Eds.), The impact of feedback in higher education: Improving assessment outcomes for learners, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 147–163. Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., and Metcalfe, J. 2007. Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007–2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.  Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ncer.ed.gov Pietrzak, P. 2016. “Students’ engagement in metacognitive activities as a source of feedback for the translation teacher.” Journal of Translator Education and Translation Studies 1 (1), pp.  56–67. http://www.tetsjournal.org/ TETS/2016/01_01/Paper_5_1_1.pdf Pietrzak, P. 2019. “Scaffolding student self-reflection in translator training.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 14 (3), pp.  416–436. https://doi. org/10.1075/tis.18029.pie Schön, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schraw, G., and Dennison, R.  S. 1994. “Assessing metacognitive awareness.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 19, pp. 460–475. Vandepitte, S., Mousten, B., Maylath, B., Isohella, S., Musacchio, M. T., and Palumbo, G. 2014. “Translation competence: Research data in multilateral and interprofessional collaborative learning.” In Handbook of research on teaching methods in language translation and interpretation (ed.) Ying Cui and Wei Zhao, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 137–159.

118 

P. Pietrzak

Vygotsky, L. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https:// doi.org/10.1037/11193-­000 Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, ed. by Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner, and Ellen Souberman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Way, C. 2008. “Systematic assessment of translator competence: In search of Achilles’ heel.” In J.  Kearns (ed.) Translator and interpreter training: Issues, methods and debates, London: Continuum, pp. 88–103. Way, C. 2009. “Bringing professional practices into translation classrooms.” In I.  Kemble (ed.) The changing face of translation, Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth, pp. 131–142. Way, C. 2014. “Structuring a legal translation course: A framework for decision-­ making in legal translator training.” In Le Cheng, Keng Kui Sen and Anne Wagner (eds) Ashgate handbook of legal translation, Farnham, UK: Ashgate, pp. 135–152. Way, C. 2015. “A manageable combined assessment approach: Competence and decision-making”. Paper presented at the IATIS 5th International conference, Belo Horizonte, Brasil. Way, C. 2021. “Developing manageable individualised formative assessment of trainees through rubrics.” In M. Kornacki and P. Pietrzak (eds) Special Issue of Research in language 19 (2), de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731­7533.19.2.03. Available at: https://digijournals.uni.lodz.pl/rela/vol19/iss2/3/ Wiliam, D. 2014. Is the feedback you’re giving helping or hindering? Available from: http://www.dylanwiliamcenter.com/is-­the-­feedback-­you-­are-­giving-­ students-­helping-­or-­hindering/ [Accessed 20 October 2021] Zimmerman, B.  J. 1989. A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (3), pp. 329–339. Zimmerman, B. J., and Cleary, T. J. 2009. Motives to self-regulate learning: A social cognitive account. In K. R. Wenzel and A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 247–264.

7 Exploratory Study on Metacognition and Professional Development

7.1 Methodological Framework Based on previous research on aspects related to the translator’s self (see Sect. 5.3), the main focus of the study lies in the effects of metacognition on the professional development of translation graduates. This introductory section sets out the aims, research questions and hypotheses behind this exploratory study. It presents the research design, data collection tool, sample characteristics and limitations of the study.

7.1.1 Aims, Research Questions and Hypotheses The primary purpose of this exploratory study was to determine the effects of metacognition on translation graduates’ professional development in a Polish university context. The study aims to describe the career choices and reasons behind different career paths. The main research questions that guide this study focus on investigating how metacognitive awareness and self-concept as important aspects of metacognition are correlated with academic achievement, career choice motivations, career development, overall satisfaction, self-efficacy and perceived success. The © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 P. Pietrzak, Metacognitive Translator Training, Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97038-3_7

119

120 

P. Pietrzak

study aims to explore the following research questions related to translation graduates’ metacognition: [RQ1]  Is there is a correlation between unemployment and metacognitive awareness? [RQ2]  Is there any significant difference among male and female graduates between their career development and self-­concept? [RQ3] Is self-concept statistically significantly related to perceived success? [RQ4] Is there any correlation between academic achievement and metacognition? [RQ5]  Is there any correlation between self-concept and career choice motivations? [RQ6]  Is there a correlation between metacognitive awareness and career development? The predicted outcome of the analysis is hypothesised to be a positive answer for RQ1, RQ3, RQ5 and RQ6. The hypotheses are that: there is a correlation between unemployment and metacognitive awareness (H1), self-concept is related to perceived success (H3), there is a correlation between self-concept and career choice motivations (H5) and there is a correlation between metacognitive awareness and career development (H6). A negative answer is hypothesised for RQ2 and RQ 4. The hypotheses here are that: there is no significant difference among male and female graduates between their career development and self-concept (H2) and there is no correlation between academic achievement and metacognition (H4). All the hypotheses that underlie this study have been tested in the analysis (Sect. 7.2); next, the discussion of the findings and implications from the study are presented in Sect. 7.3. The study does not claim to assess the level of graduates’ metacognition, but rather to investigate the role of metacognitive awareness and self-concept and their relevance for professional development. The study also sheds light on the profile of the contemporary beginner translator and on what actually tends to happen when they enter the translation market.

7  Exploratory Study on Metacognition and Professional… 

121

7.1.2 Research Design The present study was designed to provide insight into the impact of the surveyed translation graduates’ broadly conceived metacognition on the way they function in the translation market. The results are correlated with their academic achievement, career choice motivations, career development, overall satisfaction, self-efficacy and perceived success. All data were reviewed and analysed using the SPSS statistics software with the help of an expert statistician.1 This is a descriptive study using a self-report method to collect data. The technique used to collect survey data is the CAWI research (Computer-Assisted Web Interview) and the data collection tool is a questionnaire (see Sect. 7.1.3). The self-report survey allows for making use of self-perceived measures as students read and select responses without any interference. No process research was conducted in the study on the assumption that self-perceived qualities can be better explored through reflection and opinion can be better expressed in a questionnaire than through observational or quasi-experimental research (see Sect. 4.1.3 on measuring metacognition). The research was conducted using quantitative correlational methods to measure possible links between the following selected variables: Academic achievement refers to the mean of final grades obtained by the respondent. Career choice motivations refer to the motivation behind their choice of current occupation and the impact of studies on their career choice. Career development refers to the type of work, form of employment and type of services provided. Metacognitive awareness refers to the total score obtained by the respondent on the metacognition scale. Overall satisfaction refers to the sense of pride, satisfaction with private and social life, satisfaction with studies and self-satisfaction.

 I gratefully acknowledge the support of an expert statistician, Professor Justyna Wiktorowicz from the Department of Social and Economic Statistics at the University of Łódź, Poland. 1

122 

P. Pietrzak

Self-concept refers to the total score obtained by the respondent on the self-concept scale. Self-efficacy refers to the respondent’s self-perceived learning and work efficacy, the self-assessment of their skills (job market skills, social skills) and self-confidence. Perceived success refers to the respondent’s job satisfaction, satisfaction with their income and satisfaction with the volume of work. The research variables are not identified as dependent or independent, because the present study is descriptive and the variables are not manipulated. The chosen analysis does not demonstrate causation, but only possible correlations between metacognition and translation graduates’ professional development. The research measures used for the evaluation of the above variables are questions included in the questionnaire (see Appendix). Quantitative correlational methods were used to measure the correlations shown in Table 7.1. The first column presents the relevant hypothesis and the next two columns show the research variables grouped to demonstrate the correlations that are explored (each row sets out a different correlational analysis between columns 2 and 3). Additionally, each question that was used as a research measure of a particular variable is listed under the heading of each variable. All questions included in the specification of variables are labelled with the relevant number, for example Q12 for Question 12. In the questionnaire (see Appendix), the questions are distributed across six sections (for more information on data collection tool see Sect. 7.1.3). The following list shows which questions were used as research measures for specification of the variables: Academic achievement: section VI (Assessment) Q53–Q57, section III (Studies) Q20–Q21 Career choice motivations: section II (Work) Q12–Q13, section III (Studies) Q18 Career development: section II (Work) Q5–Q11 Metacognitive awareness: section V (Metacognitive awareness) Q38–Q52

7  Exploratory Study on Metacognition and Professional… 

123

Table 7.1  Correlations among variables used to test hypotheses (with research measures) Hypothesis Hypothesis 1

Variables and related questionnaire items

Demographic characteristics Sex—Q1 There is a correlation between Age—Q2 unemployment and metacognitive awareness (H1) Reason for unemployment—Q6 Working abroad after graduation—Q3 Continuation of studies—Q4 Career development Do they work?—Q5 Reason for unemployment—Q6 Type of work—Q10 Form of employment—Q11 Have they ever worked as translator—Q7 Do they want to work as translator—Q8 Do they provide translation service?—Q9 Hypothesis 2 Career development There is no significant difference Do they work?—Q5 Reason for among male and female unemployment—Q6 graduates between their Type of work—Q10 career development and Form of self-concept (H2) employment—Q11 Have they ever worked as translator—Q7 Do they want to work as translator—Q8 Do they provide translation service?—Q9

Metacognitive awareness Sum total points for Q38–Q52

Career choice motivation Matter of chance or conscious choice—Q12 What motivated their career choice—Q13 Influence of specialisation on career choice—Q18 Self-efficacy Learning efficiency—Q25 Work efficiency—Q26 Job market skills—Q27 Social skills—Q28 Self-confidence—Q23

Self-concept Sum total points for Q23–Q37

(continued)

124 

P. Pietrzak

Table 7.1 (continued) Hypothesis

Variables and related questionnaire items

Hypothesis 3 Self-concept is related to perceived success (H3)

Self-concept Sum total points for Q23–Q37

Hypothesis 4

Academic achievement Final grades—Q53, 54, 55 Final grade for a degree—Q56 Self-assessment—Q57 Skills acquired during studies—Q20 Usefulness of skills for the job market—Q21

There is no correlation between academic achievement and metacognition (H4)

Perceived success Job satisfaction—Q14 Satisfaction with income—Q15 Volume of work—Q16 Overall satisfaction Satisfaction with studies—Q17 Self-satisfaction—Q32 Satisfaction with private life—Q33 Satisfaction with social life—Q34 Pride—Q29 Metacognitive awareness Sum total points for Q38–Q52 Self-concept Sum total points for Q23–Q37 Career choice motivation Matter of chance or conscious choice—Q12 Self-efficacy Self-assessment of academic achievement—Q57 Learning efficiency—Q25 Work efficiency—Q26 Job market skills—Q27

(continued)

7  Exploratory Study on Metacognition and Professional… 

125

Table 7.1 (continued) Hypothesis

Variables and related questionnaire items

Hypothesis 5 There is a correlation between self-concept and career choice motivations (H5)

Self-concept Sum total points for Q23–Q37

Hypothesis 6

Metacognitive awareness Sum total points for Q38–Q52

There is a correlation between metacognitive awareness and career development (H6)

Self-concept Sum total points for Q23–Q37

Career choice motivations Matter of chance or conscious choice—Q12 What motivated their career choice—Q13 Influence of specialisation on career choice—Q18 Career development Do they work?—Q5 Reason for unemployment—Q6 Type of work—Q10 Form of employment—Q11 Do they want to work as translator—Q8 Do they provide translation service?—Q9 Career development Do they work?—Q5 Reason for unemployment—Q6 Type of work—Q10 Form of employment—Q11 Have they ever worked as translator—Q7 Do they want to work as translator—Q8 Reason for unemployment—Q6 Perceived success Job satisfaction—Q14 Satisfaction with income—Q15 Volume of work—Q16 Self-efficacy Learning efficiency—Q25 Work efficiency—Q26 Job market skills—Q27 Social skills—Q28 Self-­confidence—Q23

126 

P. Pietrzak

Overall satisfaction: section III (Studies) Q17, section IV (Self-concept) Q29, Q32–Q34 Self-concept: section IV (Self-concept) Q23–Q37 Self-efficacy: section IV (Self-concept) Q23, Q25–Q28, section VI (Academic achievement) Q57 Perceived success: section II (Work) Q14–Q16 Not all questions included in the questionnaire were used in the specification of the research variables as some of them were only used to gather demographic information and determine the general characteristics of the respondents. Only the most pertinent questions were chosen to be used as research measures of particular variables tested in the H1–H6 hypotheses. And some questions were used as measures for more than one variable. For example, Question 25 ‘I am a highly efficient learner’ was used for evaluating learning efficiency associated with both the ‘self-­ efficacy’ and ‘self-concept’ variables. Since self-concept and self-efficacy are mutually constitutive, with self-concept impacting on self-efficacy (see Sect. 5.3.1), some questions used as measures for self-efficacy were taken from the ‘self-concept’ scale (see Sect. 7.1.3). The correlational analysis is intended to identify possible links by showing whether the relations between the variables are statistically significant. The main statistical tools in the analysis of the data include: • chi-square test, which is used to test the relationship between variables comparing the observed values with the expected values to determine if the difference is statistically significant; • correlation coefficient, which is used to measure how strong a relationship is. • between two variables and correlation matrix, which allows the researcher to visualise which pairs of data have the highest correlation (NIST 2013); • Cronbach’s (coefficient) alpha, which is a measure of scale reliability used to verify how closely related a set of items are as a group (UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group 2020); • mean or the arithmetic mean (known as ‘the average’), which is the sum of a list of numbers divided by the number of items on the list;

7  Exploratory Study on Metacognition and Professional… 

127

• median, which is used to determine the middle value and separate the higher half from the lower half of the dataset; • skewness—a measure of the asymmetry of the probability distribution of a real-valued random variable about its mean, quantified to define the extent to which a distribution differs from a normal distribution; • Spearman rank correlation coefficient, which is used to discover the strength, or the quality, of a link between two sets of data (see Spearman 1904); • standard deviation, which is a measure of a spread of data around the mean; • T-test—used to test hypotheses about the mean of a small sample. The tests of statistical significance will be reported in Sect. 7.2. where the statistical results are presented in text, table (for detailed results) and figure form (for results showing general trends). Statistical tests used to test particular hypotheses (H1–H6) will be reported at the bottom of tables and figures showing the characteristics of the data on which the calculations are based. The results of tests will be presented to indicate the statistical significance of the data along with the p-value of the test statistic.

7.1.3 Data Collection Tool The study was conducted using the CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interview) technique based on a questionnaire (Appendix). This study seeks to collect data on the tendencies and mechanisms behind gaining experience and starting a career in translation focusing on the situation in Poland. It explores metacognitive qualities in translation graduates through reflection and opinion expressed in the questionnaire. The data gathering tool is a 57-item self-report instrument, developed for the purpose of this study. In order to group similar items together, the questions were distributed across six sections, that is, section I (Demographic information), section II (Work), section III (Studies), section IV (Self-concept), section V (Metacognitive awareness) and section VI (Assessment). With the main focus on self-concept and metacognitive awareness, the remaining sections collected data on the demographic

128 

P. Pietrzak

structure of the sample as well as information related to the areas of respondents’ work and studies that contributed to answering the research questions. The data from each section was used to measure the relationship between the selected research variables and to test the hypotheses proposed in order to explore translation graduates’ metacognition. The development of the instrument was exploratory in nature. It was prepared using Google Forms for ease of access and data export (CSV). The responses were downloaded in CSV format and parsed using Microsoft Excel. The resulting data were then reviewed and analysed with SPSS statistics software. The questionnaire was originally written in Polish so that respondents could answer in their mother tongue; the English translation of the questions and responses—as shown in the version included here in the Appendix—was done for the purposes of this volume.2 The initial pool of 60 items was piloted with a 20-student sample, followed by item analysis, which helped to assess and adjust the tool. The questionnaire was modified due to poor item correlation, and a selection of items with extreme mean scores or highly intercorrelated items was revised and eliminated. In preparation for the main study, the pilot study tested the validity of the instrument and the statistical processes to establish if they are efficacious. The reliability was assessed through corrected item total correlation and showed significant internal consistency. Once the pilot tool was finalised, the survey was administered to 452 BA graduates from the University of Łódź for the years 2012–2019, of whom 154 answered and thus became the respondents in the study. The instrument captures self-assessed level of agreement to items assessing metacognitive awareness and self-concept and the remaining six variables as listed above (see Sect. 7.1.2). The section of the questionnaire devoted to measuring metacognitive awareness measured respondents’ awareness of their strengths and weaknesses as well as their awareness about planning, monitoring and evaluating. The items used for measuring metacognitive awareness are based on the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory developed by Schraw and Dennison (1994); the scale used here is a redesigned version of the scale used in the previous study (Pietrzak 2018). Items used  The Polish version of the questionnaire has been translated by the author (PP).

2

7  Exploratory Study on Metacognition and Professional… 

129

for measuring self-concept are based on the Marsh Self-Description Questionnaire III, a scale constructed by Marsh (1992), which takes multiple domains of self-concept into account. Likert scales were used in three sections of the questionnaire where it was important to capture data on respondents’ attitudes: section III (Studies), section IV (Self-concept) and section V (Metacognitive awareness). The respondents were asked to self-rate Likert-scale statements by ascribing a value to the degree of their agreement on a 5-point scale in order to quantitatively measure the various dimensions of these items. The rating scale comprised five ordered response levels which presented a balanced scale of answer choices: (1) Strongly disagree/Definitely no; (2) Disagree; (3) Neither agree nor disagree; (4) Agree and (5) Strongly agree/ Definitely yes. The scale items were randomised. The remaining sections used multiple-choice questions: section I (Demographic data), section II (Work), section VI (Academic achievement). This is because this question type allows the respondents to choose between or from pre-determined options resulting in quantitative data on basic information. In the majority of multiple-choice questions only one answer was allowed, but in some cases (Questions 6, 10, 13, 22) multiple responses were possible. Section III (Studies) used both Likert-­ scale statements (Questions 17–21) and a multiple response question (Question 22) in order to get more insights and thus ensure more helpful data. The Likert-scale scoring system was devised to create the score that would best enable the levels of attitudes to studies, self-concept and metacognitive awareness to be quantified. Thus, for Questions 17–21 (section III), 24–28, 32–35 and 37 (section IV) and 38–40, 43, 46, 48–49 and 51 (section V), Strongly agree answers (5 on the Likert scale) were rated as 5 points and Strongly disagree answers (1 on the Likert scale) were rated as 1 point. For instance, for Question 24 (I am usually calm and relaxed), respondents who answered ‘definitely yes’ (5 on the Likert scale) scored 5 points that counted towards their final score on the self-­ concept level. While for items 23, 29, 30, 31 and 36 (section IV) and 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 50 and 52 (section V), Strongly agree answers (5 on the Likert scale) were rated as 1 point and Strongly disagree answers (1 on the Likert scale) were rated as 5 points. For example, for Question 52

130 

P. Pietrzak

(Sometimes I miss my deadlines), respondents who answered ‘definitely yes’ (5 on the Likert scale) scored only 1 point that counted towards their final score on the self-concept level. The rationale for this scoring system was to allot more points for answers implying greater satisfaction with studies (section III), higher self-concept (section IV) and greater metacognitive awareness (section V). Scores were then calculated by adding scores on questions from each section, with higher scores corresponding to greater satisfaction with studies, higher self-concept and greater metacognitive awareness respectively. The results of the statistical analysis conducted on the data collected in the study are presented in Sect. 7.2 and the discussion of the findings is presented in Sect. 7.3.

7.1.4 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample The questionnaire was administered using the CAWI technique (see Sect. 7.1.3) in September 2020 to 452 students who graduated from the University of Łódź in eight consecutive years between 2012 and 2019. All the respondents were graduates from full-time BA studies who specialised in translation (Table 7.2.). The response rate was 34% with 154 participants responding to the study. Over 70% of the graduates who responded are female and approximately half are between 24 and 26 years old. For more information on their work status and services provided see Sects. 7.2.1–7.2.2. Table 7.2  Demographic structure of the sample (N = 154) Sample Characteristics Sex

Age group

Female Male No answer 21–23 24–26 27–29 30 and above No answer

n

%

112 40 2 14 85 47 7 1

72.7 26.0 1.3 9.1 55.2 30.5 4.5 0.6

7  Exploratory Study on Metacognition and Professional… 

131

7.1.5 Limitations of the Study A number of limitations of the study should be noted and addressed before the analysis of the data. Although self-reports are most useful in providing information about metacognition (see Sect. 4.1.3 on measuring metacognition), some issues can be problematic. First, students may not be able to report truthfully on metacognitive qualities that they possess, because processes involved in metacognition are often unconscious. Hence, some insights remain unavailable for the researcher. Nevertheless, if response options are provided in the questionnaire so that the respondents can select from available alternatives, or respond on a given scale, such a questionnaire can be considered more feasible and arguably more reliable than, for instance, process research methods. Nonetheless, the lack of this observational aspect of process research data can be seen as a potential limitation of the study. It must be acknowledged that studies of self-constructs or related variables almost inevitably rely on self-reports. There are voices in educational research that support the value of self-report that do not necessarily rely on task performance. For instance, Pajares (1996: 562) asserts that “judgments of competence need not be so microscopically operationalized that their assessment loses all sense of practical utility”. Here, the perceived personal resources that were the subject of research do not refer to any specific tasks but rather to the overall functioning of translation graduates as workers on the job market. Since the focus of the study is the self of translation graduates, self-reports which make use of self-perceived measures appear the most appropriate tool to gain insight into the self-concept and metacognitive awareness of the respondents. Another potential limitation of the study is the fact that the survey was completed anonymously, which prevents any verification of the accuracy of the data declared. Nevertheless, the respondents appreciated the fact that they could remain anonymous and the data on academic achievement was needed only for the purpose of comparison with the level of participants’ self-assessment. Apart from a few questions which refer to graduates’ demographic data, educational experience and grades,

132 

P. Pietrzak

apparent subjectiveness is not an issue but rather an added value in a study that intends to explore the broadly conceived self of the respondents. A statistical analysis of the data is presented in Sect. 7.2, followed by a discussion of these results including an evaluation of the six research questions and hypotheses in Sect. 7.3.

7.2 Statistical Analysis of the Data: Results The structure of this section is organised, first, to provide some information on background factors such as the demographic characteristics of the respondents, their work status and work rates (Sect. 7.2.1). Next, in Sect. 7.2.2, the area of service, type of work and form of employment are discussed in relation to the demographic data. Section 7.2.3 covers career choice motivations and correlations between factors that influenced the respondents’ work choice and career development. In the next section, the focus is on the respondents’ self-concept (Sect. 7.2.4) followed by their metacognitive awareness (Sect. 7.2.5). Section 7.2.6 describes the respondents’ overall job satisfaction and their career development, and then, in Sect. 7.2.7, the self-concept of the translation graduates is correlated with perceived success. Section 7.2.8 focuses on assessment, both self-assessment and academic assessment. Finally, the last section (Sect. 7.2.9) discusses the levels of both metacognitive awareness and self-­ concept as related to career development, self-efficacy and career choice motivations, all against the backdrop of their work status.

7.2.1 Work Status Table 7.3 shows that of the 154 graduates in the sample, the majority of the respondents are employed (76%) and 43% of them work as a translator. Interestingly, only 35% want to work as a translator and 28% do not know whether they want to work in this profession. Only 7% of the respondents declare that they are unemployed and 16% declare that they are not currently working. The percentage of translation graduates who are not employed varies by sex (see Fig. 7.1).

133

7  Exploratory Study on Metacognition and Professional…  Table 7.3  Graduates’ current work status

Sample Work status

n

%

Did you go to work abroad after your studies?

Yes 14 9.1 Yes, but I have already 11 7.1 returned No 128 83.1 No answer 1 0.6 Did you continue your studies after Yes, in the same 23 14.9 completing your undergraduate studies? subject Yes, but in a different 105 68.2 subject No 25 16.2 No answer 1 0.6 Do you work? Yes 117 76.0 Not at the moment 25 16.2 No 11 7.1 No answer 1 0.6 Do you work as a translator? Yes 67 43.5 No 86 55.8 No answer 1 0.6 Do you want to work as a translator? Yes 54 35.1 No 56 36.4 I do not know 43 27.9 No answer 1 0.6 If you work, the services you provide at work Translation services 29 18.8 can be described as: Services not related to 72 46.8 translation Not applicable (I don’t 49 31.8 work) No answer 4 2.6

Employment is declared significantly more often (p < 0.001*) by men (82%) than by women (60%). The strength of the association is moderate with a Cramer’s V coefficient of V = 0.346. It should be noted, however, that a relatively high percentage of women indicated that they were temporarily not working (nearly 40%). Employment is also related to age (p < 0.001*), but the strength of the association is slightly weaker than for gender (V = 0.287). It is perhaps not surprising that this percentage is the lowest for people aged 21–23 (50%) as they can continue their studies; almost every third respondent at this age does not work. On the other

134 

P. Pietrzak

Sex (p