Meta-cognitive: developing peer evaluation skills through evaluating home tasks;
preparing for a transformation task.

Thinking: discussing the features of a translation task;discussing the algorithm of a POV task

a) listening to and evaluating the content generation task
b) discussing the features of a translation task
c) peer evaluation of translation tasks
d) introducing the transformation task

Materials the translation of an extract from the text.
Task: 4.1


The lesson was mainly based on reviewing the homework from the previous class.(See Reflection of April 29, 2011)
For the homework most of the students in all the three groups chose the translation task
and one of them a content generation task.

Task a
Time: 15 min

First we refreshed the criteria of evaluating a content generation task. My role - elicitation of responses.
Here they are:
- Task achievement – whether all is done according to the instruction, whether it has a pre-part
and the part proper
- content (relevant – irrelevant as to the task? is it based on the the text?
whose point of view is presented? are varied parameters used?, is the model ENV used?)
- language (from the text)
- Organisation: introduction, body, conclusion

Task 4.1. people are famous in a different way. Compare the differences between
four groups of famous people, for example: actors, writers, politicians, criminals.

The analysis of the task output showed: no preparation part, the content is not systematised according to  
to parameters, but rather chaotically.

Task b
20 min
Discussing the features of a good translation
Procedure: First think individually, then collect together.
My role - giving examples of translations to elicit the features.

We have seen a contradiction: on the one hand a translation
should be precise, on the other - sound natural in the target language, and be linguistically correct.

So we decided that it should give positive answers to the following:
Criteria for evaluating a Translation task:
Does it adequately relate the source text: content, mood, genre, style, layout?
Does in sound natural in the target language?
Is it accurate: target language (vocabulary +grammar)?
Max evaluation - 10 points to each point.

Task c
Time: 15 min
Peer evaluation of translation tasks.

Task d Preparation for a transformation task: 20 minutes
Time 20 min
My role: questioning and elicitation the responses to focus on POV
Interaction Pattern: teacher - class

Questions: Who is telling the text? (Richard, the author) Who is telling the story of Mary? (Leslie)
How does the author relate to Leslie? What does he think of her?
(He sympathizes, likes, adores, loves her.)
How do you get to know it? (Find the spots in the text showing that.)
Would the story have changed if the author had hated her?
What does a point of view depend on?
POV parameters: who (parameters of a character .....), when/where (parameters of a situation/setting),
in connection with what (context)


Homework: a transformation task (out of part 6) – choose one and do in writing

First of all, I should not have given so many options for homework the previous lesson -
it made a lesson multi-focused.
Secondly, I feel that the aims I have labelled as thinking can hardly be considered such.
They are more like  meta-cognitive ones. I do not actually know how to qualify the work on translation
tasks we did and how to describe it according to the framework.

Thirdly, I did not have time to discuss the steps of doing a transformation task. So they will do it as they can

and we will discuss it next time.

My major challenge is how to get them to make their output more efficient: systematic, comprehensive.

For this they have to realise the use of the HOW TO and the ENV model.


# Alexander Sokol 2011-05-22 10:26
Larisa, I am not sure I can visualise how the evaluation of their homework actually went on. For example, if we take a translation task (or any other task you want to discuss). What actually happened in class? Were the students able to apply the criteria listed above? Were these criteria enough for evaluating the translations of the peers? Why (not)?
I am asking as the thinking part normally takes place when something doesn't work very well. For example, they discover that the criteria are not sufficient or they can't apply them in practice. In this situation, we get to Step 2 of the framework.
In fact, it may also be useful to have a link to the translation task you asked them to do. You can just insert a link to the task or add it to the materials section.
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio