Construction and Validation of a Translation Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and its Relation to Translation Problem-Solving Strategies

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Roya Araghian ¹
• Behzad Ghonsooly ²
• Afsaneh Ghanizadeh ³

¹ Department of Translation Studies, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran

² ِDepartment of English, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

³ Department of ِEnglish, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/lts.v50i2.50702

Abstract

1. Introduction
Given the role of affective variables in relatively every facet of human life, the research into the function of self-efficacy systems on individuals’ behavior and performance has recently carried much weight for psychologists and educators. Translation as a higher–order cognitive task is also viewed both as a process of problem-solving strategies and decision making. More specifically, translation competence in PACTE’s TC model encompasses five sub-competences, among which strategic competence is of utmost importance, playing a pivotal role in solving problems and making interrelations between the other sub-competences. All these sub-competences are also connected to the psycho-physiological component, reflecting cognitive and behavioral, and psychomotor mechanisms. Consequently, self-efficacy and problem-solving strategies can make contributions to each other according to this model.
Although translation strategies are of essence to translation process, whereby relevant decisions are made, the available literature shows somehow the neglected field of problem-solving strategies in the field of translation. Therefore, this study tries to investigate this relationship and to determine the way and to what extent translators’ self-efficacy influences the complex process of problem-solving and decision making throughout the translation practice.
Self-efficacy, the principal notion of Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1997), is defined as the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to manage prospective situations. In fact, self-efficacy plays a significant role in achieving goals, performing tasks, and approaching challenges. What is more, people’s level of motivation, affective states, and actions are based more on what they believe than on what is objectively true. On the other hand, translation strategies are at the core of translation process; every translation entails a certain strategy and each translator possesses a specific one. Actually, translators face multiple constraints at various levels and stages, which require tapping into more effective decision making and problem-solving strategies; and translators’ self-efficacy perceptions may serve a function on the strategies they choose in their performance.
2. Methodology
A total of 76 translation students of Imam Reza International University and Ferdowsi University of Mashhad participated voluntarily in this study. Their selection was based on convenience sampling. The sample was made up of 19 males (25%), 54 females (71%), and 3 non-mentioned (3.9%) whose first language was Persian. Their background education encompassed BA translation studies and literature in English. The primary purpose of the present inquiry was to develop an inventory scale to examine the probable impact of self-efficacy sense of student translators on their translation strategies. In so doing, two inventory scales of Translation Self-efficacy (TSE) and Translation Problem-solving Strategy (TPSS) in English were designed. The selection of scale items for the self-efficacy questionnaire was based on Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. The earlier version of the questionnaire was also consulted with two translation specialists for the better improvement and clarity of the scale. The construction of translation problem-solving strategy questionnaire was basically a case of the researchers’ personal experience based on their classroom observation of translation students. However, the main focus was on shared translation strategies which are commonly employed and verbally stated by translation students. Moreover, the earlier version of the scale was consulted with two translation teachers who commented on the items.
3. Discussion
Statistical analysis indicated that both scales enjoyed validity and reliability. Upon running an exploratory factor analysis to identify interrelationships among items in the scales, a couple of factors were extracted from both questionnaires. As for TSE, 7 factors were loaded and labeled. They were willingness to translate, motivation enhancement for translating, the ineffectiveness of colleagues’ remedial points on reducing motivation, demotivation in facing problems, positive feeling and translation, and having no fear against translating problems. Along with that, 5 factors were extracted from TPSS and labeled as metacognitive strategy (evaluating and designing strategy), reviewing the text in order to simplify next translating, translating then evaluating, reviewing the text prior to translating, and utilizing dictionaries.
In order to examine the relationship between students’ self-efficacy and translation strategy scores, the Pearson-Product Moment formula was used between the loaded factors of both questionnaires. Statistical calculations accounted for a significant relation between the first factor of the TPSS questionnaire (i.e. metacognitive strategy) and the first and second factors of the TSE questionnaire (i.e. willingness to translate and also self-assuredness in ability to translate). What is more, using a dictionary made a modest contribution to the enhancement of motivation. An important implication of these findings is that the translation students who showed no concern or stress in facing translation problems were more qualified in designing and evaluating the relevant strategy in translating practice. It was also derived that the enthusiasm and confidence of students in translating were perceived to be inclining toward the application of metacognitive strategies. It can also be inferred that high-efficacious people compared to low-efficacious ones are cognitively and metacognitively aware of their behavior, trust themselves, and are able to control their demeanor and envisage success or failure.
4. Conclusion
Summing up the results, self-efficacy’s potentiality in the translation domain is evident in this study, which helped to broaden the insight of such tenet in connection with the application of translation problem-solving strategies. More importantly, the extant literature substantiates the findings of the present study as regards the impact of self-efficacy beliefs on stress, self-confidence, willingness, and motivation; therefore, meticulous recognition of the source, nature, significance, and process of efficacy perceptions serves the merit of proposing and developing practical guidelines on improving training and performance of translation students as well as stimulating translation expertise.

Keywords

• Self-efficacy
• Translation Strategies
• Problem-solving and Decision Making Activities
• Cognition
• Metacognition

20.1001.1.22285202.1396.50.2.3.4

References

1. Angelone, E (2010). Uncertainty, uncertainty management and metacognitive problem solving in the translation task. In Shreve, G.M. & Angelone, E (Eds.), Translation and Cognition (17-40). Kent State University: John Benjamins.

2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

3. Bandura, A. (1983). Self-efficacy determinants of anticipated fears and calamities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 464-469.

4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

5. Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 50(2), 248-287. Stanford University: Academia Press, Inc.

6. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).

7. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2: 21–41.

8. Bandura, A. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist 18: 177–148.

9. Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 805-814.

10. Barling, J., & Abel, M. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 265-272.

11. Bernhardt, S. (1997). Self-efficacy and second language learning. The NCLRC Language Resource, 1 (5).

12. Bogdan, R. J. (2000) Minding minds: evolving a reflexive mind by interpreting others. Cambridge: MA, MIT Press.

13. Bouffard-Bouchard, T., S. Parent and S. Larivee. 1991. Influence of self-efficacy on self- regulation and performance among junior and senior high-school age students. International Journal of Behavioral Development 14: 153–64.

14. Brown, A. (1987) Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds) Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum), 65–116.

15. Brown, D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Longman.

16. Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam, University of Helsinki: John Benjamins Publishing, vol (22).

17. Cohen, Y. and M. North. 1989. Fear, dependence and loss of self-esteem: Affective barriers in second language learning among adults. RELC Journal 20: 61–77.

18. Collins, J.L. (1982) Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York

19. Coronado-Aliegro, J. (2008). The relationship between self-efficacy and self-assessment in foreign language education: A pilot study. Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics, 2(1), 1-4.

20. Darwish, A. (1999). Towards a theory of constraints in translation. Draft Version 0.2. Melbourne, Australia. Internet publication:

21. Davis, F.W., & Yates, B.T. (1982). Self-efficacy expectancies versus outcome expectancies as determinants of performance deficits and depressive affect. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 23-35.

22. Erkan, D. Y. and A. I. Saban. (2011).Writing performance relative to writing apprehension, self- efficacy in writing, and attitudes towards writing: A correlational study in Turkish tertiary level EFL. Asian EFL Journal 13: 164–192.

23. Flavell, J. H. (1971) First discussant’s comments: what is memory development the development of?, Human Development, 14, 272–278.

24. Flavell, J. H. (1999) Cognitive development: children’s knowledge about the mind, Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 21–45.

25. Garcia, M.E., Schmitz, J.M., & Doerfler, L.A. (1990). A fine-grained analysi of the role of self-efficacy in self-initiated attempts to quit smoking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholoy, 58, 317-322.

26. Gerloff, P. (1986). “Second Language Learners' Reports on the Interpretive Process: Think-aloud Protocols of Translation”. In House, J. and Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation: Tübingen. 243- 262.

27. Ghonsooly, B. (2015) Assessing Translation. Unpublished document.

28. Ghonsooly, B. and Elahy, M. (2010). Learners’ self-efficacy in reading and its relation to foreign language reading anxiety and reading achievement. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning 53: 45–67. 23.

29. Ghonsooly, B., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2013). Self-efficacy and self-regulation and their relationship: a study of Iranian EFL teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 41(1), 68-84.

30. Ghonsooly, B., Elahy, M. Golparvar, S. E. (2012). General English University Students’ Self-efficacy and their Achievement, Iranian EFL Journal, Volume (8) 3, 2012-6, Pages 153-173

31. Ghonsooly, B., Khajavy, G. H., & Mahjoobi, F. M. (2014). Self-efficacy and Metacognition as Predictors of Iranian Teacher Trainees’ Academic Performance: A Path Analysis Approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 590-598.

32. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley

33. Hoffman, B. and A. Spatariu. 2008. The influence of self-efficacy and metacognitive prompting on math problem-solving efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33: 875–93.

34. http://www.surf.net.au/writescope/translation/constraints.html

35. Jääskeläinen, R. (1993). “Investigating translation strategies”. In Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (Ed.). Recent trends in empirical translation research. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Faculty of Arts. 99-120.

36. Jääskeläinen, R., (1999). Tapping the process: an explorative study of cognitive and effective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Publications in Humanities.

37. Kitsantas, A. 2000. The role of self-regulation strategies and self-efficacy perceptions in successful weight loss maintenance. Psychology and Health 15: 811–20.

38. Kluwe, R.H. (1987). Executing decisions and regulation of problem solving behavior. In F.E.

39. Kos´ciałkowska-Okon´ska. E. (2013). Researching Translation Competence: The Expert Problem. In K. Pia˛tkowska & E. Kos´ciałkowska-Okon´ska (Eds.), Correspondences and Contrasts in Foreign Language Pedagogy and Translation Studies, (219-232). Nicolaus Copernicus University: Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013.

40. Krings, H. P. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2). In House, J. and Blum-Kulka, S. (eds). Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation. Tübingen. 263-276.

41. Kvedyte, V. (2005). Translation strategies in the process of translation: a psycholinguistic investigation. Šiauliai University: Lithuania.

42. Lorscher, W. (1992). Investigating the translation process. University of Dortmund, Germany: Meta XXXVII (3). 425- 439.

43. Lotfipour-Saedi, K. (1996). Translation principles vs. translator strategies. Department of English, University of Tabriz, Iran: Meta, XLI (3). 389-392.

44. Magogwe, J. M. and R. Oliver. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System 35: 338–352.

45. Manning, M.M., & Wright, T.L., (1983). Self-efficacy expectancies, outcome expectancies, and the persistence of pain control in childbirth. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 45, 421-431.

46. Metcalfe, J. (2000) Metamemory: theory and data, in: E. Tulving & F. I. Craik (Eds) The Oxford handbook of memory (New York, Oxford University Press), 197–211.

47. Moafian, F. & A. Ghanizadeh (2011). A correlational analysis of EFL university students’ critical thinking and self-efficacy. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 118-148.

48. Mondahl, M. and K.A. Jensen (1996). Lexical search strategies in translation. Meta 41(1): 97–113.

49. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.

50. PACTE, (2003). Building a Translation Competence Model, in: Alves, Fabio (ed.) Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in process oriented research, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, p.43-66.

51. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 543-578.

52. Parajes, F. (2009). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic contexts: an outline.

53. Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in Education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.

54. Pintrich, P.R. and E.V. De Groot. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 33–40.

55. Rahimi, A. and A. Abedini. (2009).The interface between EFL learners’ self-efficacy concerning listening comprehension and listening proficiency. Novitas-ROYAL 3: 14–28.

56. Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/efftalk.html.

57. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17, 51–65.

58. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351-373.

59. Schraw, Gregory (1998). "Promoting general metacognitive awareness". Instructional Science 26: 113–125

60. Seguinot, C. (1996). Some Thoughts about Think-aloud Protocols. Target 8 (1). 75-95.

61. Siew. L. & Wong, M. (2005). Language learning strategies and language self -efficacy: investigation the relationship in Malasia. ERIC document, 36(3), 245-269.

62. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 31- 64). Hillsdale: Earlbaum Associates

63. Wills. W. (1994). A Framework for Decision-Making in Translation. Universität des Saarlandes: Saarbrücken.

64. Zimmerman, B.J., A. Bandura and M. Martinez-Pons. 1992. Self-motivation for academic attainment: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal 29: 663–76.