Investigating the Metacognitive Strategies During Post-Editing Translation Process: An Application of Think-Aloud Protocols (TAP)

Dwi Indarti

Abstract


Metacognition, the reflection on thinking processes, plays a crucial role in cognitive activities. This study delves into metacognitive strategies employed during post-editing in the translation process, particularly focusing on English-Indonesian translation through the application of think-aloud protocols (TAP). The investigation encompasses planning, monitoring, and evaluation as interconnected phases of metacognitive strategies. A qualitative case study method is employed, with a university student as the participant. Data analysis involves coding and categorizing using a thematic analysis approach, based on the metacognitive strategies framework. The findings show that the participant employes the components of planning such as evaluate the necessity of post-editing, applied knowledge on the specific post-editing cases, and identified the goal and the necessity for having specific post-editing, the components of monitoring such as using facts and instruction learned previously, making changes for a better translation product, and self-monitoring of progress, and elements of evaluating, such as deep level revising to produce better post-editing, and taking action to collect extra information. Pedagogical implications highlight the potential for enhancing learning experiences and improving translation skills through explicit instruction, modeling and systemic strategy training. The study concludes by emphasizing the importance of metacognitive flexibility, cultural influences, and adaptive strategic behavior in post-editing, shaping a roadmap for learners to navigate challenges and continually refine their approach.

Keywords


Metacognitive strategies; Post-editing; Think-aloud protocols

Full Text:

FULL PDF

References


Adawiyah, A. R., Baharuddin., & Wardana, L. A. (2013). Comparing post-editing translations by Google NMT and Yandex NMT. Teknosastik, 21(1), 23–34.

Admin. (2014). Difference between cognition and metacognition. Retreived from https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-cognition-and-vs-metacognition/.

Albazi, S. (2016). Evaluating the effect of metacognitive strategy training on reading comprehension of female students at KAU. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5(3), 172–183.

Aripin, N., & Rahmat, N. H. (2019). Exploring metacognitive writing strategies in the writing process using think aloud protocol: A study across gender. American Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(1), 178–187.

Bai, R., & G, Hu. (2014). The relationship between use of writing strategies and English proficiency in Singapore primary schools. The Asian-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5), 355–365.

Briva-Inglesias, V., O’Brien, S., & Cowan, B. R. (2023). The impact of traditional and interactive post-editing on machine translation user experience, quality and productivity. Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 6(1), 60–86.

Cowan, J. (2019). The potential of cognitive think-aloud protocols for educational action-research. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 219–232.

Cresswell, J. W., & Cresswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed,). London: SAGE Publications.

Fitriani, N. A., & Susanti, A. (2021). EFL students’ metacognitive strategies in online-based learning: In relation to their writing quality. Paramasastra, 8(1–19).

Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 231–235). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Hamiddin., & Saukah, A. (2020). Investigating metacognitive knowledge in reading comprehension: The case of Indonesian undergraduate students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(3), 608–615.

Handayani, W. (2019). An analysis EFL students translation of preposition in, on and at: A think-aloud protocol study. Lingua, 15(1), 1–15.

Harto, S., Hamied, F. A., Musthafa, B., & Setyarini, S. (2022). Exploring undergraduate students’ experiences in dealing with post-editing of machine translation. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 696–707.

Hu, X., Zheng, B., & Wang, X. (2020). The impact of a metacognitive self-regulation inventory in translator self-training: A pre-post study with English-Chinese translation students. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1–10.

Huang, Y., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Facilitating L2 writers’ metacognitive strategy use in argumentative writing using a process-genre approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.

Jia, X., Xu, T., & Zhang, Y. (2022). The role of metacognitive strategy monitoring and control in the relationship between creative mindsets and divergent thinking performance. Journal of Intelligence, 10(35).

Jincheng, Z., & Rahmat, N. H. (2022). Investigating the use of metacognitive reading strategies using think aloud protocol. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(10), 772–784.

Karlen, Y. (2017). The development of a new instrument to assess metacognitive strategy knowledge about academic writing and its relation to self regulated writing and writing performance. Journal of Writing Research, 9(1), 61–86.

Latorraca, R. (2023). Lost in post-editing. An exploratory study on translation trainees’ perceived English and Italian post-editing vs. translation performance. Ampersand, 11.

Li, M., & Yuan, R. (2022). Enhancing students’ metacognitive development in higher education: A classroom-based inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research, 112.

Li, Y., & Lu, X. (2021). Study on post-editing for machine translation of railway engineering texts. SHS Web of Conferences, 96.

Mei, H., & Chen, H. (2022). Assessing students’ translation competence: Integrating China’s standards of English with cognitive diagnostic assessment approaches. Original Research, 13, 1–13.

Mu, C. (2005). A Taxonomy of ESL Writing Strategies. Retreived from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/secure/00000064/01/congjunmu_paper.doc.

Muhid, A., Amalia, E. R., Hilaliyah, H., Budiana, N., & Wajdi, M. B. (2020). The effect of metacognitive strategies implementation on students’ reading comprehension achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 847–862.

Oz, H. (2005). Metacognition in foreign or second language learning and teaching. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 147–156.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Shreve, G. M. (2009). Recipient-orientation and metacognition in the translation process. In R. Dimitriu and M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Translators and Their Receivers (pp. 255–270). USA: Kent State University Publication.

Wu, L., & Liu, D. (2006). Children’s metacognitive monitoring and strategy selection during counting. Psychological Science, 29, 354–357.

Yilmaz, R. M., & Baydas, O. (2017). An examination of undergraduates’ metacognitive strategies in pre-class asynchronous activity in a flipped classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1547–1567.

Zhou, Y., & Lin, Y. (2012). Probe into the translation process based on think-aloud protocols. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), 1376–1386




DOI: https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v12i2.10297

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Dwi Indarti

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching (p-issn: 2338-0810 | e-issn: 2621-1378) has been Indexed/Listed by

 Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.