current needs of students. To this end, the current researcher employed 4 researcher-made questionnaires as the main instrument and instructor interview to evaluate the research questions of the study and to collect data. The questionnaires were designed based on Tyler model (1949) providing a series of critical steps for developing educational curriculum with measurable and attainable educational objectives. The data obtained in the current research, presented in tables according to the main elements of the curriculum i.e. students and instructors’ thought about the instructional objectives of M.A. English Translation curriculum, about the courses included for M.A English Translation curriculum, about the arrangement of the courses of the current English Translation curriculum and finally about the types of assessments carried out based on the current English Translation curriculum. According to the questionnaire and interview results, it was found out that students and instructors are not satisfied with current instructional objectives included in M.A. curriculum. Also it was found out that translation curriculum should balance theoretical and practical components in their translator training curricula. This thesis also revealed that the students perceived themselves less competent and less prepared for translation profession. By the result of this study the researcher hopes to make clear the educational goals that need to be meets through the program of M.A. English. Moreover, the study is going to explore the areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in education in English Translation at M.A level. Finally, this evaluation study may help administrators make relevant changes, additions and deletions to the program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Table of Contents

current needs of students. To this end, the current researcher employed 4 researcher-made questionnaires as the main instrument and instructor interview to evaluate the research questions of the study and to collect data. The questionnaires were designed based on Tyler model (1949) providing a series of critical steps for developing educational curriculum with measurable and attainable educational objectives. The data obtained in the current research, presented in tables according to the main elements of the curriculum i.e. students and instructors’ thought about the instructional objectives of M.A. English Translation curriculum, about the courses included for M.A English Translation curriculum, about the arrangement of the courses of the current English Translation curriculum and finally about the types of assessments carried out based on the current English Translation curriculum. According to the questionnaire and interview results, it was found out that students and instructors are not satisfied with current instructional objectives included in M.A. curriculum. Also it was found out that translation curriculum should balance theoretical and practical components in their translator training curricula. This thesis also revealed that the students perceived themselves less competent and less prepared for translation profession. By the result of this study the researcher hopes to make clear the educational goals that need to be meets through the program of M.A. English. Moreover, the study is going to explore the areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in education in English Translation at M.A level. Finally, this evaluation study may help administrators make relevant changes, additions and deletions to the program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Table of Contents  
Title Page……………………………………………………………………… i
Dedication …………………………………………………………………….. ii
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………… iii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………… iv
Table of Content……………………………………………………………….. v
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………….. x
Chapter I: Background and Purpose………………………………………..  
1.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………. 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………. 3
1.3. Research Questions ………………………………………………………. 3
1.4. Operational definition of the key terms …………………………………… 4
   1.4.1. Instructional Objectives……………………………………………….. 4
   1.4.2. Curriculum…………………………………………………………….. 5
   1.4.3. Curriculum Evaluation………………………………………………… 5
1.5. Significance of the Study …………………………………………………. 5
1.6. Limitations and Delimitations…………………………………………….. 6
Chapter II: Review of the Related Literature………………………………  
2.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………. 8
2.2. Translation studies in Iran………………………………………………… 9
2.3. Evaluation and its objectives……………………………………………… 10
2.4. Different concepts of Curriculum ………………………………………… 11
2.5. Curriculum Evaluation …………………………………………………… 14
     2.5.1. The Needs for Curriculum Evaluation………………………………. 18
     2.5.2. Summative Evaluation and Formative Evaluation…………………… 18
2.6. Different Evaluation Approaches…………………………………………. 21
     2.6.1. Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Approaches………………………… 21
2.6.2. Management- Oriented Evaluation Approaches…………………….. 22
     2.6.3. Consumer-oriented Evaluation Approaches…………………..…….. 22
2.6.4. Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Approach……………………………. 22
     2.6.5. Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approaches ………………………… 22
     2.6.6. Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approaches………………………… 23
2.7. Evaluation Models………………………………………………………… 23
  2.7.1. Franklin Bobbitt………………………………………………………… 23
   2.7.2. Tyler’s Model………………………………………………………….. 24
      2.7.2.1. The selection of Educational Objectives………………………….. 26
      2.7.2.2. Subject matter as a Source of Objectives…………………………. 27
      2.7.2.3. Needs of the learners as a Source of Objectives…………………… 30
      2.7.2.4. Studied of contemporary life as a source of Objective……………. 34
      2.7.2.4.1. The Philosophical Screen ………………………………………. 35
      2.7.2.5. Selecting and Organizing of Learning Experiences ……………… 38
      2.7.2.6. Evaluation ………………………………………………………… 39
   2.7.3 Stufflebeam’s Context, Input, Process, Product Model………………… 41
      2.7.3.1. Context Evaluation………………………………………………… 42
      2.7.3.2. Input Evaluation ………………………………………………….. 42
      2.7.3.3. Process Evaluation ………………………………………………… 43
      2.7.3.4. Product Evaluation ……………………………………………….. 44
2.7.4. Stake’s model…………………………………………………………… 45
  2.7.5. Eisner’s Model…………………………………………………………. 47
 2.7.6. Oliva’s Model…………………………………………………………… 48
Chapter III: Methodology ……………………………………………………  
3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 50
3.2. Participants ……………………………………………………………….. 50
3.3. Instruments………………………………………………………………… 52
 3.3.1. Questionnaire…………………………………………………………… 53
3.3.2. Interviews……………………………………………………………….. 54
3.4. Data Collection Procedure ……………………………………………….. 55
3.5. Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………… 56
3.6. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………… 59
Chapter IV: Results and Discussion…………………………………………  
4.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 60
4.2. Instructional Objectives…………………………………………………… 62
4.3. Courses for meeting the defined instructional objectives…………………. 65
4.4. Arrangement of the courses for attaining the instructional objective……… 71
4.5. Evaluation Types………………………………………………………….. 74
Chapter V: Conclusion and Implications……………………………………  
5.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 78
5.2. Summary of Findings……………………………………………………… 78
    5.2.1. Instructional Objectives………………………………………………. 78
    5.2.2. Courses for meeting the defined instructional objectives…………….. 79
 5.2.3. Arrangement of the courses for attaining the instructional objectives.. 80
    5.2.4. Evaluation types……………………………………………………… 80
 5.3. Pedagogical implications…………………………………………………. 81
5.4. Suggestions for further research…………………………………………… 84
References………………………………………………………………………. 86
Appendixes …………………………………………………………………….  
    Appendix A: Questionnaire 1 ………………………………………………. 92
    Appendix B: Questionnaire 2………………………………………………. 93
    Appendix C: Questionnaire 3………………………………………………. 95
   Appendix D: Questionnaire …………………………………………………. 96
   

 

 

 

 

List of Tables

Table 4.1.Students’ conceptions of the instructional objectives of the current M.A. English Translation Program ……………………………………………………..…………..63

Table 4.2.Instructors’ conceptions of the instructional objectives of the current M.A. English Translation Program…………………………………………………………………64

Table 4.3.Students’ conception of compulsory courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ………………………………………………………….…….67

Table 4.4.Students’ conception of optional courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ………………………………………………………………..68

Table 4.5.instructors’ conception of compulsory courses included in the current M.A English translation program………………………………………………………….….…69

Table 4.6.instructors’ conception of optional courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ……………………………………………………………….70

Table 4.7.students’ conception of the arrangement of the courses of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum ………………………………………………………..…72

 

Table 4.8.instructors’ conception of the arrangement of the courses of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum………………………………………………….73

Table 4.9.students’ conception of types of assessments given to students during or at the end of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum ……………..………….75

Table 4.10.instructor’ conception of types of assessments given to students during or at the end of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum………………………………………………………….……………….………76

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

 

 

 

 

Background and Purpose

 

 

 

 

1.1. Introduction

Translation studies as a new specific discipline, with no doubt, has great effect in today’s world from different aspects. According to Bassnett (1991), Translation Studies is a science, while translating is no longer a secondary activity. “Any debate about the existence of a science of translation is out of date: there already exists, with Translation Studies, a serious discipline investigating the process of translation, attempting to clarify the question of equivalence and to examine what constitutes meaning within that process.”(Bassnett, 2002) Also, Gentzler (2014)

 

  
Title Page……………………………………………………………………… i
Dedication …………………………………………………………………….. ii
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………… iii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………… iv
Table of Content……………………………………………………………….. v
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………….. x
Chapter I: Background and Purpose………………………………………..  
1.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………. 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………. 3
1.3. Research Questions ………………………………………………………. 3
1.4. Operational definition of the key terms …………………………………… 4
   1.4.1. Instructional Objectives……………………………………………….. 4
   1.4.2. Curriculum…………………………………………………………….. 5
   1.4.3. Curriculum Evaluation………………………………………………… 5
1.5. Significance of the Study …………………………………………………. 5
1.6. Limitations and Delimitations…………………………………………….. 6
Chapter II: Review of the Related Literature………………………………  
2.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………. 8
2.2. Translation studies in Iran………………………………………………… 9
2.3. Evaluation and its objectives……………………………………………… 10
2.4. Different concepts of Curriculum ………………………………………… 11
2.5. Curriculum Evaluation …………………………………………………… 14
     2.5.1. The Needs for Curriculum Evaluation………………………………. 18
     2.5.2. Summative Evaluation and Formative Evaluation…………………… 18
2.6. Different Evaluation Approaches…………………………………………. 21
     2.6.1. Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Approaches………………………… 21
2.6.2. Management- Oriented Evaluation Approaches…………………….. 22
     2.6.3. Consumer-oriented Evaluation Approaches…………………..…….. 22
2.6.4. Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Approach……………………………. 22
     2.6.5. Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approaches ………………………… 22
     2.6.6. Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approaches………………………… 23
2.7. Evaluation Models………………………………………………………… 23
  2.7.1. Franklin Bobbitt………………………………………………………… 23
   2.7.2. Tyler’s Model………………………………………………………….. 24
      2.7.2.1. The selection of Educational Objectives………………………….. این مطلب را هم بخوانید : این مطلب را هم بخوانید : 26
      2.7.2.2. Subject matter as a Source of Objectives…………………………. 27
      2.7.2.3. Needs of the learners as a Source of Objectives…………………… 30
      2.7.2.4. Studied of contemporary life as a source of Objective……………. 34
      2.7.2.4.1. The Philosophical Screen ………………………………………. 35
      2.7.2.5. Selecting and Organizing of Learning Experiences ……………… 38
      2.7.2.6. Evaluation ………………………………………………………… 39
   2.7.3 Stufflebeam’s Context, Input, Process, Product Model………………… 41
      2.7.3.1. Context Evaluation………………………………………………… 42
      2.7.3.2. Input Evaluation ………………………………………………….. 42
      2.7.3.3. Process Evaluation ………………………………………………… 43
      2.7.3.4. Product Evaluation ……………………………………………….. 44
2.7.4. Stake’s model…………………………………………………………… 45
  2.7.5. Eisner’s Model…………………………………………………………. 47
 2.7.6. Oliva’s Model…………………………………………………………… 48
Chapter III: Methodology ……………………………………………………  
3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 50
3.2. Participants ……………………………………………………………….. 50
3.3. Instruments………………………………………………………………… 52
 3.3.1. Questionnaire…………………………………………………………… 53
3.3.2. Interviews……………………………………………………………….. 54
3.4. Data Collection Procedure ……………………………………………….. 55
3.5. Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………… 56
3.6. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………… 59
Chapter IV: Results and Discussion…………………………………………  
4.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 60
4.2. Instructional Objectives…………………………………………………… 62
4.3. Courses for meeting the defined instructional objectives…………………. 65
4.4. Arrangement of the courses for attaining the instructional objective……… 71
4.5. Evaluation Types………………………………………………………….. 74
Chapter V: Conclusion and Implications……………………………………  
5.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 78
5.2. Summary of Findings……………………………………………………… 78
    5.2.1. Instructional Objectives………………………………………………. 78
    5.2.2. Courses for meeting the defined instructional objectives…………….. 79
 5.2.3. Arrangement of the courses for attaining the instructional objectives.. 80
    5.2.4. Evaluation types……………………………………………………… 80
 5.3. Pedagogical implications…………………………………………………. 81
5.4. Suggestions for further research…………………………………………… 84
References………………………………………………………………………. 86
Appendixes …………………………………………………………………….  
    Appendix A: Questionnaire 1 ………………………………………………. 92
    Appendix B: Questionnaire 2………………………………………………. 93
    Appendix C: Questionnaire 3………………………………………………. 95
   Appendix D: Questionnaire …………………………………………………. 96
   

 

 

 

 

List of Tables

Table 4.1.Students’ conceptions of the instructional objectives of the current M.A. English Translation Program ……………………………………………………..…………..63

Table 4.2.Instructors’ conceptions of the instructional objectives of the current M.A. English Translation Program…………………………………………………………………64

Table 4.3.Students’ conception of compulsory courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ………………………………………………………….…….67

Table 4.4.Students’ conception of optional courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ………………………………………………………………..68

Table 4.5.instructors’ conception of compulsory courses included in the current M.A English translation program………………………………………………………….….…69

Table 4.6.instructors’ conception of optional courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ……………………………………………………………….70

Table 4.7.students’ conception of the arrangement of the courses of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum ………………………………………………………..…72

 

Table 4.8.instructors’ conception of the arrangement of the courses of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum………………………………………………….73

Table 4.9.students’ conception of types of assessments given to students during or at the end of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum ……………..………….75

Table 4.10.instructor’ conception of types of assessments given to students during or at the end of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum………………………………………………………….……………….………76

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

 

 

 

 

 

Background and Purpose

 

 

 

 

1.1. Introduction

Translation studies as a new specific discipline, with no doubt, has great effect in today’s world from different aspects. According to Bassnett (1991), Translation Studies is a science, while translating is no longer a secondary activity. “Any debate about the existence of a science of translation is out of date: there already exists, with Translation Studies, a serious discipline investigating the process of translation, attempting to clarify the question of equivalence and to examine what constitutes meaning within that process.”(Bassnett, 2002) Also, Gentzler (2014)

موضوعات: بدون موضوع  لینک ثابت


فرم در حال بارگذاری ...