THE FEEDBACK CULTURE IN TRANSLATOR EDUCATION: A COMPARATIVE EXPLORATION OF TWO DISTINCT UNIVERSITY TRANSLATION PROGRAMS A Dissertation Submitted to Kent State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Hisham M. Alfayyadh May 2016 © Copyright by Hisham M. Alfayyadh, 2016 All Rights Reserved ii A dissertation written by Hisham M. Alfayyadh B.A., Imam Mohammed Bin Saud University, Saudi Arabia, 2002 M.Sc., the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 2009 Ph.D., Kent State University, United States, 2016 Approved by Richard Washbourne , Advisor, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Brian Baer , Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Kieran Dunne Kristine Pytash John Dunlosky Accepted by Patrick Gallagher , Acting Chair, Department of Modern and Classical Language Studies James L. Blank , Dean, College of Arts and Sciences iii ABSTRACT Previous studies flagged concerns about a communication gap between translator instructors and students in undergraduate translation practice classes without elaborating on the feedback component. Borrowing the notion of feedback culture (London & Smither, 2002), expanding on Hyland and Hyland’s conceptualization of feedback (2006), and utilizing the reviewed literature on effective feedback, the researcher developed an analytical framework to investigate how feedback was situated, shaped, and negotiated in translator education. Feedback is situated by its sociocultural context, shaped by the delivery and focus of its content, and negotiated through the interaction and reflection of its participants. In this qualitative multi-case study, a group of advanced translation practice instructors (n=8) and their students (n=58) were selected from two different university translation programs: one in Saudi Arabia (SA-CASE) and one in the United States (US-CASE). The qualitative data, which involved observations, interviews, and document reviews, were collected, analyzed, and reported using the research three-dimensional framework. Findings revealed that participants within and across the two cases differed in their perception and, consequently, in their practice of feedback. Collective and broad verbal discussions were the norm in the SA-CASE, while individualized and points-based written corrections occurred consistently in the US-CASE. Emerging themes included a pattern of error detection and rater variability, technology-facilitated feedback, market-oriented feedback, conflicting attitudes toward peer feedback, vague understanding of self-feedback, scarcity of feedback on feedback, and varying forms of dialogue. To enhance the feedback loop, the researcher proposes a model that gives students a more interactive role in the feedback process. Keywords: feedback culture, dialogic feedback, translator education/training, undergraduate translation programs, translation practice courses DEDICATION To the memory of Professor Abdulrahman Al-Jamhoor (former Dean of COLT at Imam University), who called me ‘Doctor’ 18 years ago when I was but a freshman! v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To God, the Most Wise, I give glory, praise, and eternal thanks for everything that I have achieved in my life. This milestone achievement would not have been possible without the immeasurable love, support, and prayers of my wonderful parents Mohammed and Hailah, my amazing wife Haifa, my two precious sons Khalid and Mohammed, and my remarkable siblings, all of who have been truly magnificent throughout this journey. I owe genuine and earnest recognition to my dissertation advisor, Dr. Kelly Washbourne, for his constant advice, flexibility, and commitment. Working with such an intellectual polymath was a real blessing. Sincere gratitude is conveyed to the examining committee members who made the dissertation defense enjoyably challenging and fulfilling. Profound appreciation must go to the faculties and students who participated in my data collection process at both King Saud University and Kent State University. The time, stories, and insights they contributed to this study have been of the utmost value and importance. Words cannot describe how grateful I am to them. Narratives are inadequate to express the extraordinary gratitude I feel for my professors and friends in Saudi Arabia, the USA, and the UK. For my doctoral fellows in the translation program at Kent State: Thank you for sharing unforgettable moments of perseverance, stress, joy, patience, hard work, and long sleepless nights. I am confident we will be the change we wished to see in our field of research. I cannot end these acknowledgements without thanking Dr. Mustafa Bodrick for his faith and encouragement, Dr. Fawzi Younis for reviewing the Arabic translation of the research instruments, and Mrs. Elizabeth Leith for assisting in the proofreading process. I would never forget to mention my longtime friend and mentor, Dr. Ibrahim Shaabi: You have always been a source of inspiration and guidance and I cannot thank you enough. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF TABLES xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Overview 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Research problem 6 1.3 Research questions 10 1.4 Research significance 11 1.5 Definition of key terms 14 1.6 Organization of the dissertation 16 Summary 16 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 17 Overview 17 2.1 Assessment 18 2.1.1 The concept of assessment 18 2.1.2 Summative versus formative assessment 18 2.1.3 The rise of formative assessment 21 2.2 Feedback 23 2.2.1 The concept of feedback 23 2.2.2 Typologies of feedback 27 2.2.3 Effectiveness of feedback 33 2.3 Assessment in translator education 42 2.3.1 Summative assessment in translator education 42 2.3.1.1 Theoretical approaches 43 2.3.1.2 Analytical frameworks 46 2.3.1.3 Empirical studies in university contexts 48 2.3.2 Formative assessment in translator education 51 2.3.2.1 The shift of focus from summative to formative assessment 51 2.3.2.2 Self-assessment: Taras’ study (2001, 2002, 2003) 54 2.3.2.3 Corpus-assisted assessment: Bowker’s study (2001, 2003) 55 2.3.2.4 Electronic mailing lists: Wakabayashi’s study (2002) 56 2.3.2.5 Open Source Systems: Fictumova’s study (2004) 58 2.3.2.6 Task-based formative assessment: González Davies’ study (2004) 59 2.3.2.7 Corpus-based tools: Baer and Bystrova-McIntyre (2009) 60 2.3.2.8 Meaning-oriented assessment criteria: Kim’s study (2009) 61 2.3.3 Feedback in translator education 63 2.3.3.1 Earliest study: Dollerup’s study (1994) 63 2.3.3.2 Peer (online) feedback: Wang and Han’s study (2013) 65 vii 2.3.3.3 Teacher-student perceptions: Južnič’s study (2013) 66 2.3.3.4 Dialogic feedback: Washbourne’s study (2014) 67 Summary 69 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 70 Overview 70 3.1 Research Questions 70 3.2 Theoretical Foundation of Research 71 3.2.1 Sociocultural theory 71 3.2.2 Sociocultural conceptualization of feedback 73 3.2.3 Effective feedback culture 76 3.3 Research Design 79 3.3.1 Analytical framework 79 3.3.2 Qualitative approach 82 3.3.3 Case-study design 83 3.4 Research Contexts 85 3.4.1 The SA-CASE 85 3.4.2 The US-CASE 86 3.4.3 Why the SA-CASE and US-CASE? 87 3.5 Research Participants 89 3.6 Research Procedure 91 3.7 Research Data Collection 93 3.7.1 Classroom observation (Phase 1) 94 3.7.2 Instructor semi-structured interview (Phase 2) 94 3.7.3 Student semi-structured group interview (Phase 3) 95 3.7.4 Document review and analysis (Phase 4) 96 3.8 Research Data Analysis 97 Summary 99 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 100 Overview 100 4.1 The feedback culture in the SA-CASE 100 4.1.1 Setting the scene 100 4.1.2 Situating feedback: Socio-cultural dimension 103 4.1.3 Shaping feedback: Delivery and focus dimension 113 4.1.4 Negotiating feedback: Interactional dimension 126 4.2 The feedback culture in the US-CASE 138 4.2.1 Setting the scene 138 4.2.2 Situating feedback: Socio-cultural dimension 141 4.2.3 Shaping feedback: Delivery and focus dimension 161 4.2.4 Negotiating feedback: Interactional dimension 182 Summary 197 viii CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 198 Overview 198 5.1 Summary of major findings 198 5.1.1 How feedback is situated in the SA-CASE and US-CASE 198 5.1.2 How feedback is shaped in the SA-CASE and US-CASE 203 5.1.3 How feedback is negotiated in the SA-CASE and US-CASE 209 5.2 Emerging Themes and Issues 215 5.2.1 Different perception leads to different practice 215 5.2.2 Verbal collective versus written individualized feedback 216 5.2.3 From broad verbal to specific written criteria 218 5.2.4 Error detection and rater variability 219 5.2.5 Technology-facilitated feedback 221 5.2.6 Market-oriented feedback 223 5.2.7 Peer feedback: Conflicting views and attitudes 224 5.2.8 Self-feedback: ‘Vaguely interesting!’ 227 5.2.9 Feedback on feedback: A tough question! 228 5.2.10 Dialogue(s) and the feedback loop 230 5.3 Implications and Recommendations 232 5.4 Conclusions 245 5.4.1 Limitations of the study 245 5.4.2 Suggestions for further research 247 5.4.3 Final thoughts 249 REFERENCES 253 APPENDICS 265 Appendix A-1: Selected Excerpts and Notes from Bader’s Class Observation 265 Appendix A-2: Selected Excerpts and Notes from Omar’s Class Observation 267 Appendix A-3: Selected Excerpts and Notes from Zaid’s Class Observation 270 Appendix A-4: Selected Excerpts and Notes from Ali’s Class Observation 273 Appendix A-5: Selected Excerpts and Notes from Kate’s Class Observation 275 Appendix A-6: Selected Excerpts and Notes from Sarah’s Class Observation 278 Appendix A-7: Selected Excerpts and Notes from Emily’s Class Observation 280 Appendix A-8: Selected Excerpts and Notes from Thomas’s Class Observation 283 Appendix B-1: Instructor Interview Question Protocol 286 Appendix B-2: Student Interview Question Protocol 288 Appendix C-1: The SA-CASE Program curriculum (English Module) 290 Appendix C-2: The US-CASE Program curriculum (Spanish Module) 291 Appendix C-3: Summary of Instructors’ Profile 292 Appendix D-1: IRB Approval for Human Participants 296 Appendix D-2: Informed Consent Forms 297 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The analytical framework for exploring the feedback culture ......................................