Immediate vs. Delayed Feedback on Iranian Students’ Translation Competence Based on Angelelli’s Framework
Keywords:
Angelelli’s Framework, Delayed feedback, Immediate feedback, Translation competenceAbstract
This study aimed to investigate how immediate and delayed graduated corrective feedback impacted the development of translation competence in Iranian students using Angelelli's framework as a basis. The researchers selected 60 junior students studying English-to-Persian translation using convenience sampling. Participants were divided into two experimental groups: immediate and delayed. They were given a pre-test translation task to establish a baseline using text from Grisham's novel, Gray Mountain. Two independent raters scored the translations based on Angelelli's rubric, demonstrating a high reliability (0.91) based on Cronbach’s alpha. The mean pre-test scores for the immediate and delayed groups were 11.65 and 12.58, respectively. Throughout the six treatment sessions, both groups were given five texts from the same book for translation. The immediate group received feedback at the moment. The delayed group received the same feedback one week after translating each text, at the beginning of the subsequent session. When they encountered translation difficulties, both groups received feedback using a modified four-item regulatory scale based on Aljaafreh & Lantolf. The same pre-test was administered as a post-test in the final session. The data analysis revealed that both types of graduated feedback significantly enhanced learners' translation competence. The mean post-test scores for the immediate and delayed groups were 17.26 and 19.06, respectively. The results also showed no significant difference between the effectiveness of immediate and delayed CF, although the delayed group seemed to perform better.
References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second Language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483.
Angelelli, C. V. (2004). Medical interpreting and cross-cultural communication. Cambridge University Press.
Angelelli, C. V. (2006). Minding the gaps: New directions in interpreting studies. TIS Translation and Interpreting Studies 1(1), 41-67.
Angelelli, C. V. (2009). Using a rubric to assess translation ability: Defining the construct. In C. Angelelli & H. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies (pp. 13-47). John Benjamins.
Anisah, L., Lustyantie, N., & Murtadho, F. (2024). Assessing The Accuracy of Children's Literature Translation Using the Angelelli Rubric. Journal of Language and Education Studies, 3(1), 21-37.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
Barua, S. (2023). Bilingual Mental Lexicon and Translation: A Psycholinguistic Study of Bengali-English Language Pairs. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS), 7(5), 542-559.
Bergen, D. (2009). The role of metacognition and cognitive conflict in the development of translation competence. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 231–250.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 102–118.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Cao, D. (1996). On translation language competence. Babel, 42(4), 231–238.
Carpenter, S. K., & Vul, E. (2011). Delaying feedback by three seconds benefits retention of face-name pairs: The role of active anticipatory processing. Memory & Cognition, 39(1), 1211–1221.
Colina, S. (2003). Translation teaching from research to the classroom: A handbook for teachers. McGraw-Hill Companies.
Dienes, Z. (2012). Conscious versus unconscious learning of structure. In P. Rebuschat & J. Williams (Eds.), Statistical Learning and Acquisition (pp. 337-364). Mouton de Gruyter Publishers.
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19(1), 18-41. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.04ell
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing. System, 41(2), 257-268.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? . Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 84-161.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press.
Göpferich, S. (2013). Translation competence: Explaining development and stagnation from a dynamic systems perspective. Target, 25(1), 61–76.
Grisham, J. (2014). Gray Mountain (H. Azimzadegan, Trans.). Doubleday.
Halim, T., Wahid, R., & Halim, S. (2021). EFL students’ attitudes toward corrective feedback: A study conducted at the undergraduate level. Saudi Journal of Language Studies, 1(1), 40-49.
Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lemley, D., Sudweeks, R., Howell, S., Laws, R. D., & Sawyer, O. (2007). The effects of immediate and delayed feedback on secondary distance learners. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 251–260.
Liu, H., & Zhang, W. (2023). First Among Equals: Unpacking Patterns of EFL Teachers’ Sustainable Feedback Strategies in Learner-Centered Language Learning Classrooms in the Chinese Context. Sustainability, 15(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3390/su15021677
Loerscher, W. (1997). Process analytical approach to translation and implications for translations teaching. ILHA Do Desterro, A Journal of English Language Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, 33(2), 71-87.
Orozco, M. (2000). Building a measuring instrument for the acquisition of translation competence in trainee translators. In C. Schaffiner & B. Adab (Eds.), Developing Translation Competence (pp. 199-214). John Benjamins.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). MC Graw Hill Education.
Setiajid, H. H., Krisnarani, N., & Nirwinastu, D. G. (2023). Evaluating the Translation Quality of Children's Literature in The Let's Read Mobile Application Using Angelelli's Scoring Rubric to Assess Source Text Meaning Accuracy. Konferensi Linguistik Tahunan Atma Jaya (KOLITA), 21(21).
Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-21.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
Wolf, K., & Stevens, E. (2007). The rule of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learners. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(1), 13-14.
Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 270-275.
Yadav, G., Carvalho, P. F., McLaughlin, E. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2024). Beyond Repetition: The Role of Varied Questioning and Feedback in Knowledge Generalization Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale, Atlanta, GA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3657604.3664688
Yasaei, H. (2016). The Effect of immediate vs. delayed oral corrective feedback on the writing accuracy of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(9), 1780-1790. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0609.09
Zadkhast, M., & Farahian, M. (2017). The impact of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. nternational Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(6), 2200-3592. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.6p.28
Zhang, X., & Zhang, R. (2023). Feedback, Response, and Learner Development: A Sociocultural Approach to Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing. SAGE Open, 13(1). https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1177/21582440231157
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hanieh Azimzadegan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
