Abstract
translation process and formative evaluation and the problems perceived in summative evaluation were asked. In the observations, the teaching stages and then- sequencing and the distribution of teachers' feedback on various aspects of students' translations were observed. In the mock-exam markings, the same teachers marked eight student translations. To analyse the data collected through interviews, a coding technique was used. The frequencies and percentages of the themes under each category were quantified for each teacher and teachers' priorities were identified individually. The frequencies of teachers' feedback on various aspects of students' translations in the observed courses were quantified. The mock-exam papers marked by teachers were analysed, error categories were identified and teachers' priorities regarding the errors were determined. The results revealed that teachers differed in the ways they approached translation. Four teachers favoured information translation which took contextual elements of the source texts into consideration and six teachers favoured literal translation which mainly took the structures in the source text into consideration to the exclusion of contextual elements. In accordance with the methods they favoured, their materials selection criteria and evaluation priorities also differed. To minimise the discrepancies among teachers in the marking of the translation tests, an analytic scoring scale and guidelines for testing and marking were suggested.translation process and formative evaluation and the problems perceived in summative evaluation were asked. In the observations, the teaching stages and then- sequencing and the distribution of teachers' feedback on various aspects of students' translations were observed. In the mock-exam markings, the same teachers marked eight student translations. To analyse the data collected through interviews, a coding technique was used. The frequencies and percentages of the themes under each category were quantified for each teacher and teachers' priorities were identified individually. The frequencies of teachers' feedback on various aspects of students' translations in the observed courses were quantified. The mock-exam papers marked by teachers were analysed, error categories were identified and teachers' priorities regarding the errors were determined. The results revealed that teachers differed in the ways they approached translation. Four teachers favoured information translation which took contextual elements of the source texts into consideration and six teachers favoured literal translation which mainly took the structures in the source text into consideration to the exclusion of contextual elements. In accordance with the methods they favoured, their materials selection criteria and evaluation priorities also differed. To minimise the discrepancies among teachers in the marking of the translation tests, an analytic scoring scale and guidelines for testing and marking were suggested.
