This study aims to gain an integrated perspective on perceptions by learners and instructors toward feedback methods in translation studies training provided at graduate schools of translation and interpreting, and to explore their application in translation training. To realize these goals, the study presents the following research questions. (1) What feedback methods do teachers at graduate schools of translation and interpreting provide during translation classes? (2) What factors have an impact on how instructors provide feedback methods during translation classes at graduate schools of translation and interpreting? (3) How do learners react to different methods of feedback provided during translation classes in the BA direction at graduate schools of translation and interpreting? (4) How do learners’ personality types affect their acceptance of positive/negative feedback provided by the instructor during translation classes in the BA direction at graduate schools of translation and interpreting? (5) What common factors and differences exist between instructors and learners’ perceptions regarding the feedback methods being provided?
The participants of this study were 30 instructors of translation courses at Korean graduate schools of translation and interpretation, and 28 first-year students of translation courses in the BA direction at the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Graduate School of Interpretation and Translation (HUFS GSIT). In the area of feedback methods provided by instructors, general tendencies were identified through analysis of written feedback, further supplemented by conducting in-depth interviews. In the area of learner reactions, more of a focus was placed on qualitative research in the area of learner reactions as well, to thoroughly examine a wide range of views on the part of learners. Instructor feedback was analyzed using written feedback data and transcripts of in-depth interviews, and learner reactions were analyzed using questionnaires and transcripts of in-depth interviews.
In particular, learner reactions were examined in depth through qualitative analysis of learners’ reactions to the five feedback methods used in the study design, conducted on data accumulated from three semesters extending from the 1st semester of 2018 to the 1st semester of 2019. Towards this, students were provided feedback in the form of direct feedback, process-oriented feedback, mid-term assessment feedback, one-on-one conferences, and positive feedback systematically incorporated into the course and provided over each semester. Learners’ reactions were carefully analyzed using various tools, including two in-depth interviews conducted over the course of the semester, questionnaires, and class journals. In particular, the issue of whether learners showed a difference in their reactions to positive/negative feedback according to their personality types was investigated by classifying the students into four categories based on their responses to MBTI questionnaires, after which the characteristics of each personality type and their reactions to feedback were examined.
The analysis results of the study are as follows.
First, in the survey of feedback methods provided by instructors of translation courses at graduate schools of translation and interpretation, nine out of the 30 study participants mostly provided negative feedback while two instructors mostly provided positive feedback. This feedback took the form of direct feedback in the case of 12 instructors and indirect feedback for three instructors. The remaining 15 instructors were shown to be providing a combination of direct and indirect feedback. Feedback was either provided through computers (17) or in handwriting (11), while two of the instructors surveyed were not providing feedback in any written form.
Next, in the survey of oral feedback, 18 out of the 30 instructors in the study replied they did not engage in one-on-one conferences with their students while 12 instructors replied they did. As for the length of feedback provided, 13 of the instructors replied they provided a small amount of feedback, eight a moderate amount, and seven a large amount of feedback, while the two instructors not providing written feedback were excluded. Finally, when asked about any particular forms of feedback they provided, four common characteristics were reported by a number of the instructors, namely, “I try to provide feedback in a positive manner,” “I provide indirect feedback,” “I do not provide written feedback at all or keep it to a minimum,” and “I provide a summary evaluation.”
Second, according to the analysis of factors affecting feedback methods provided by instructors of translation courses at graduate schools of translation and interpretation, both instructor- and subject-oriented factors were shown to have an impact, with the results indicating that subject-oriented factors have a larger effect on differences in providing feedback than instructor-oriented factors. Instructor-oriented factors identified as affecting feedback methods included the native language of the instructor and teaching experience, while subject-oriented factors which had an impact on feedback methods were text genre, language direction, etc. For instance, many instructors replied they provided direct feedback when the class engaged an informational text from the A to B language, while many instructors provided feedback indirectly when treating an expressional text from the B to A direction.
Third, according to the analysis of reactions to instructors’ feedback methods by learners during BA-direction translation courses at graduate schools of translation and interpretation, very high levels of preference were discovered for direct feedback, process-oriented feedback, and mid-term assessment feedback. Also, when analyzing the opinions of learners in regard to the five feedback methods designed into the study, the most prevalent opinion by students was that, in the case of direct feedback, alternative solutions should be provided together with the reason why a portion had been marked an error (17 out of 27 students). 14 out of 27 learners (excluding one subject who did not respond) replied that positive feedback was very influential in improving their translation competence, while 12 responded that it had some influence. The remaining respondent did not think it had that much of an impact.
Fourth, when analyzing the impact of learner personality factors on their acceptance of positive/negative feedback, a difference was confirmed in reactions to positive/negative feedback by personality type. Of the 28 graduate students majoring in Korean-Japanese translation studies, 14 were classified as having an IF-type personality, showing a preference for correction rather than praise, and wishing for concrete feedback in the case of both praise and correction. On the other hand, EF-type learners showed a preference for praise over correction, and placed importance on evaluation (the evaluator). IT-type learners showed a high level of acceptance when praised on their work, as this promoted trust in the instructor, leading to a preference for interactive forms of feedback, while ET-type learners showed a particularly high preference for praise, somewhat contrary to previous studies on T-type personalities.
Fifth, some common factors and differences were discovered between instructors and learners in regard to feedback methods. When comparing and analyzing perceptions by instructors and learners, both shared the perception that positive feedback and mid-term feedback were necessary, but somewhat different perceptions in regard to concrete written feedback and the need for one-on-one conferences.
Based on the above analysis results, the following conclusions can be reached. First, learners recognize the benefits of indirect feedback but prefer direct forms of feedback. Second, interactive feedback is necessary between instructors and learners. Third, learners have a high level of acceptance for mid-term assessment feedback and process-oriented feedback. Fourth, learners show different reactions to positive/negative feedback according to their personality type. The study is somewhat limited in terms of the number of participants examined, but is significant in that it takes an integrated perspective to explore instructor and learner perceptions at the master’s level, an area hitherto neglected, thus providing implications for future studies in the areas of feedback studies and translation pedagogy.