195

## Problem-based Learning in Computer-assisted Translation Pedagogy

## Abstract

This article discusses problem-based learning (PBL) and its potential application to computer-assisted translation (CAT) pedagogy. Problem-based learning is situated in the CAT classroom as a final course component in which students challenge their previously-acquired knowledge and skill sets to solve unique, ill-defined problems that mirror those encountered in the language industry. This constructivist approach to education is designed to empower students to be self-directed, collaborative learners and to foster critical thinking and reflection. Moreover, problem-based learning is a means to encourage professional behavior and to develop skills beyond the mere use of translation technologies. This article explores the potential advantages and disadvantages of this educational approach as documented in related professional fields. In addition, the article addresses the ways in which problems are designed and implemented in the translation classroom, with a discussion of how they can and should be aligned with course learning objectives. The article concludes with a discussion of ways students' work ought to be assessed to enhance gains often seen in PBL environments.

## Keywords

problem-based learning; computer-assisted translation; pedagogy; CAT tools; course design; translation curriculum

## 1. Introduction

Translator training and education programs regularly incorporate translation technologies in the curriculum in an effort to prepare students for working conditions and tasks encountered in the language industry. Tools regularly appearing in coursework, which can take the form of sepa -rate courses or integrated throughout the curriculum, include computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools, machine translation, localization tools, terminology management systems, and monolin -gual and bilingual corpora. 1 Reflection on how these tools could be taught began as early as the 1990s - concurrently, perhaps, to their commercial availability to translators. Scherf (1992: 153), for instance, indicates that universities 'face the challenge of having to provide students with both knowledge and skills required by the new computerized multi-lingual document processing work environment.' Bowker (2002: 131) echoes this emphasis on preparation for the language indus -try, noting that technology and its continuous development to optimize the translation process is generating new jobs and tasks in translation. Recognition of the role that translation technologies play in shaping the translation task continues to increase in the literature (e.g., Bowker/Marsh -man 2010; Bowker 2015), with a recent special issue of The Interpreter and Translator Trainer edited by Rodríguez de Céspedes, Sakamoto, and Berthaud (2017) extending this discussion to employability as well.

1 For several descriptions on how these tools can figure into translation curricula, see Zanettin et al. (1998), Samson (2005), Kenny/Doherty (2014), Jiménez-Crespo (2015), and Mellinger (2017).

* Christopher D. Mellinger Department of Languages and Culture Studies 9201 University City Blvd. University of North Carolina at Charlotte Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 United States cmelling@uncc.edu

This preparation, however, has not always been provided by university programs; translators and localizers have needed to develop some of the skills required to work in these computer-in -tensive environments on their own. As Arevalillo Doval (2000: 119) describes, many of the first localizers were veteran translators with high levels of subject matter expertise. These profession -als, despite lacking formal education or training in localization, learned their trade via practical job experience. And while the profile of professional translators has perhaps shifted with the in -creased number of translator training programs (e.g., Al-Batineh/Bilali 2017; Plaza Lara 2016), reports such as the Translation and Interpreting Compensation Survey, Fifth Edition conducted by the American Translators Association indicate that not all translators have formal education in translation (ATA 2016). As a case in point, just over 70% of respondents to the ATA survey report not having a degree in translation. While this figure is specific to one survey and should not be generalized to the entire language services industry, its magnitude suggests that formal education in translation is not presently a market requirement and that translators at times learn translation technologies by other means.

A growing body of scholarship examines the role of translation technologies and their potential impact on translation. Doherty (2016), for instance, provides an overview of many of the chang -es that occur with respect to the translation product and process. He suggests that while there are advantages to using translation technologies, such as an increase in productivity, quality, and throughput, there exist simultaneous challenges to their incorporation in the language industry. These challenges may be the result of changes in the translation paradigm and have an impact on cognitive processing. Empirical investigations on the translation process and product have shown changes in the amount of cognitive effort exerted by translators when working with translation memories (e.g., O'Brien 2006, 2008) as well as the tendency to over-edit proposed translations (e.g., Mellinger/Shreve 2016). Cognitive changes with respect to segmentation of the source text are also described by Dragsted (2005, 2008), further demonstrating differences between comput -er-assisted translation and translation without the use of CAT tools.

Despite the clear need and general agreement to incorporate computer-assisted translation in the curriculum, there is a relative dearth of scholarship on how to teach the requisite skills and competences. The wide range of skills, coupled with the evolving technological landscape, sty -mies any attempt to establish a static curriculum and instead necessitates a focus on the translation process. An emphasis on the translation process as opposed to specific functions of translation technologies may be one way to address the diverse ways in which tools are used in professional contexts. For example, Taravella/Villeneuve (2013) and Marshman (2014) note the varying de -gree to which these tools are adopted in professional environments and the dynamic implemen -tation of tools in translation workflows. Moreover, Marshman's (2014) study reveals that transla -tors are able to recognize the benefits garnered from tool use, despite lingering concerns related to their use and the relationship with the client or remuneration practices.

From a pedagogical perspective, Sabaté Carrové (2000: 385) points to this challenge of pre -paring students for an evolving industry, stating that 'the real issue becomes then to coach them into how and when to use computerized tools rather than whether or not it is convenient to use them.' In most cases, translation programs have relied on the experience and knowledge of indi -vidual instructors to dictate how to teach the material. Nevertheless, graduates of translation pro -grams are expected to be prepared for immediate work assignments upon graduation, so a strong foundation in using these tools is imperative. This article proposes problem-based learning as one means to accomplish this goal. First, this article reviews the basic tenets of problem-based learn -ing and its potential application to computer-assisted translation pedagogy. Subsequently, the ad -vantages and potential shortcomings are reviewed, as are several considerations related to overall course design and sequencing in the curriculum. In closing, several potential problems are offered as models for incorporation in the CAT classroom.

## 2. Problem-based learning

Barrows/Myers Kelson (1993: 2) describe problem-based learning (PBL) as 'an ordered instruc -tional approach that models the process by which experts systematically approach real-life prob -lems.' This instructional practice - widely employed in medical education, engineering, and other professional contexts - regularly takes the form of posing problems that are ill-structured, incom -plete, and interdisciplinary (Savery 2006: 12). Rather than an instructor-centered, transmissionist approach to pedagogy, PBL adopts a constructivist epistemology, wherein students are empow -ered to collaboratively construct knowledge guided by a facilitator (e.g., Savery/Duffy 1995; Wil -liams/Williams 1997; Hendry et al. 1999).

The idea of what constitutes a problem in problem-based learning, however, differs somewhat from current conceptualizations of translation problems in the extant translation studies litera -ture. In translation, much of what is characterized as a problem occurs at the textual or cogni -tive levels. For instance, Krings's (1986) review of translation problems distinguishes between source-text-oriented attempts to identify potential linguistic problems or target-text-oriented analyses of errors produced by translators. González Davies/Scott-Tennent (2005: 164) similarly de -fine a translation problem as a segment that requires a translator to consciously decide on how to proceed during the translation task, which they link to Kussmaul's (1995) process-oriented work. Still other scholars, such as PACTE (2011), outline problems not only as they relate to the source text or translated text, but also to the transfer between both languages. 2

Problems as conceived in problem-based learning can take a variety of forms, and Jonassen (2000, 2004) situates problem-solving as a cognitive activity. He describes its two essential at -tributes: a problem is an 'unknown entity in some situation (the difference between a goal state and a current state' and that 'finding or solving for the unknown must have some social, cultural, or intellectual value' (2000: 65). These characteristics - i.e., an unknown entity and the value of finding the unknown - align with conceptions of translation problems as they have been described with respect to textual elements encountered by translators.

However, problem-based learning often adopts a broader view to conceive of problems that move beyond a single text or document in an effort to address 'real-life' problems. For instance, Hung et al. (2008) describes several problems such as diagnosis in medical education, case anal -yses in business programs, and argumentation in law schools (Hung et al. 2008). The problems posed in these settings naturally vary given the disciplinary and professional differences, but ex -hibit the ill-defined, incomplete nature that is a hallmark of problem-based learning. With the challenges faced by translators in the workplace relative to translation technologies (e.g., LeB -lanc 2017; O'Brien et al. 2017), problem-based learning could be used to encompass both the micro-level  problem-solving  tasks  related  to  the  translation  task  itself  as  well  as  macro-level problems  involving  the  selection,  application,  and  use  of  translation  technologies.  Moreover, problem-based learning may be able to address, as Angelone (2018: 18) describes, 'problems in translation […] as a multilayered conglomerate at the crossroads of the product and the process.'

For problem-based learning, one foundational characteristic is student engagement. While ac -tive participation can be difficult to foster initially, Barrows/Myers Kelson (1993) suggest the aim of the educator is to facilitate learning and the co-construction of knowledge. 3 To an extent, this engagement is the result of appropriate framing of expectations; as Pepper (2010) suggests, stu -dents often require support to learn to be self-directed learners. The need for such support is unsurprising, given the significant departure from traditional lectures and instructor-centered teach -ing models. Harland (2003) describes potential hesitation on the part of some students who are unfamiliar with assuming the role of peer-teaching or mentoring. Their previous knowledge and experience can serve to inform the group on the whole, and students must also assume the respon -sibility to gather information and share their findings with the rest of the group to generate poten -tial solutions (Savery 2006; Savery/Duffy 1995). Moreover, the varied nature of student skill level and background knowledge potentially complicates the ability of teachers to pose problems that are just beyond the reach of the students' capabilities to maintain sufficient engagement. Harland (2003) links Vygotsky's zone of proximal development and problem-based learning and illus -trates how this practice should be attainable with sufficient time, resources, and guidance. Moreo -ver, varied student profiles enhance PBL environments since each student can contribute previous knowledge and experiences at some point to solving posed problems.

2 For an overview of translation process research and its relationship to pedagogy and problem-solving, see Massey (2017). See also the overview presented by Núñez/Bolaños-Medina (2017) and Angelone's (2018) review of problems in translation process research.

3 For a review of the role of the problem-based learning facilitator, see Hmelo-Silver/Barrows (2006).

Another important aspect of problem-based learning is self-reflection. Savin-Baden/Howell Major (2004) note the importance of reflective behavior throughout PBL, since reflection empha -sizes not only the final product produced by a team, but also the process by which the solution was generated. This sentiment is echoed by Ryan (2013), who also recognizes the importance of appropriate scaffolding for critical reflection that will be meaningful for the student. Moreover, Ryan outlines several different levels of reflection (in increasingly higher orders of abstraction: re -porting/responding, relating, reasoning, and reconstructing) that must be appropriately scaffolded to maximize the benefit to student development.

The impact of problem-based learning is well-documented in a number of fields. Results pre -sented by Williams/Williams (1997) on the integration of PBL in the technology classroom sug -gest that PBL fostered a realistic work environment while successfully achieving learning goals and outcomes. Sungur/Tekkaya (2006: 315) indicate that 'PBL enhances students' use of elabo -ration strategies, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation, effort regulation, and peer learn -ing.' Moreover, the authors suggest PBL moves beyond teaching content and instead facilitates students learning how to learn. 4

These gains are also seen outside of the traditional classroom setting. Brodie (2009), for in -stance, illustrates the effectiveness of PBL in a virtual environment. The integration of this in -structional practice into a fully online course overcame commonly-touted criticisms of distance learning, namely the lack of social interaction and under-developed computer skills. Shimic/Je -vremovic (2012) echo the applicability of PBL in e-learning environments, demonstrating that self-directed learning can benefit from PBL integration to learn specific skills related to technol -ogy. Students demonstrated the ability to seek out appropriate information. Moreover, instruc -tor-provided  resources  and  declarative  knowledge  provided  sufficient  scaffolding  in  many  in -stances to solve problems encountered during specific projects or tasks. Overall, these students showed greater progress in acquiring programming skills in a shorter time frame, further justify -ing the use of PBL in this technology-mediated environment.

Such an approach is particularly suited to computer-assisted translation pedagogy, given the uniqueness of translation projects and the potential information asymmetry between client and translator (Dunne 2012b). In translation studies, Inoue (2005) has explored the applicability of problem-based learning in courses related to the practice of translation. Inoue argues that PBL increases  learner  autonomy  and  self-reflective  actions  to  help  students  develop  the  necessary skills needed to work in professional situations. Similarly, García González/Veiga Díaz (2015) also present a study suggestive of the problem-based learning paradigm in specialized translation by examining project-based learning as a means to simulate authentic work projects. These au -thors note an increase in students' reflectiveness and a greater awareness of the context in which translation occurs as well as improved motivation, involvement, and collaboration. Lastly, Wash -bourne (2014) explores self-directness in translation education and the importance of fostering learner autonomy and learner control. Given that language professionals frequently work as in - dependent subcontractors and rely on a variety of translation technologies, fostering self-directed learning in CAT pedagogy appears to be a relevant goal.

4 While too numerous to include all of the studies related to PBL-facilitated gains in learning, see Hung et al. (2008). See also Walker et al. (2015) for more information on the development of PBL and its implementation.

## 3. Integration of PBL into the CAT classroom

The initial development of CAT tools arose out of attempts by software companies to achieve high quality machine translation and a subsequent shift to solve specific problems faced by translators. 5 These tools aim to improve efficiency and consistency, to increase throughput during the transla -tion process, and to decrease work effort. To provide two concrete examples, translation memo -ries avoid duplicative work and retrieve previously-translated material quickly, while alignment tools allow translators to create translation memories out of legacy translations. In each case, ex -plicit knowledge of the tool is not an end unto itself, but rather the user must understand the con -text in which each is used for the tools to be effective. Therefore, instructors must move beyond declarative knowledge about how the tools work and incorporate the rationale for their use and the conditions under which their use is favorable.

Computer-assisted translation pedagogy seems well positioned to adopt problem-based learn -ing as a means of accomplishing the previously-mentioned goals while increasing student reflec -tion on the translation process, improving problem-solving skills, and situating CAT tools in the multilingual document lifecycle. Educators who wish to incorporate PBL will need to frame the expectations of students enrolled in courses adopting this instructional approach. Bolaños Medi -na/Isern González (2012), for instance, describe the impossibility of being able to teach every fea -ture or every tool available on the market and, based on self-reported survey data, that a focus on a limited number of tools and functions might improve students' overall performance. This claim needs to be tested to determine the extent to which improvement can be observed when instruc -tors limit the scope of instruction to a specific subset of tool functionality; however, this sugges -tion merits consideration given the increasing complexity and functionality of tools. Instead, a more efficient approach would be to pose problems likely to occur in the language industry within a PBL framework that would allow students to generate solutions using the specific tools at their disposal. In doing so, students can gain procedural knowledge of how to implement these tools and develop the ability to analyze and select the most appropriate tools for the problem.

The likelihood of encountering a specific problem is closely related to the notion of authentici -ty. As Honebein (1996: 11-12) describes, 'educators [often] remove the noise of real life from the learning activity,' suggesting that learning is at times divorced from actual practice. This separa -tion is often counterproductive - the goal of translation education programs is to prepare students to solve problems in the language industry that have not been previously sanitized or decontextu -alized. Language industry projects are by their very definition unique (see Dunne 2012b), thereby requiring a novel solution that is not always readily apparent. If learning activities do not approx -imate problems potentially encountered in industry settings, students are disadvantaged when en -tering the workplace.

Problems encountered in professional translation projects can stem from a number of areas; while too numerous to list comprehensively, problems can occur during the source language (SL) authoring stage, software or website development and implementation, target language (TL) pro -duction, and re-creation of target language files. At any of these stages, translation technologies may be introduced to help mitigate risk or solve specific issues. The ability to appropriately se -lect and implement these tools is of paramount importance if translation program graduates are to meet market demands or industry standards (Sikora 2014; EN15038). Likewise, student reflec -tion and problem-solving related to tool selection helps move students beyond the acquisition of solely declarative knowledge about the tool. Students additionally gain procedural knowledge of how to critically evaluate solutions to a specific problem and how to appropriately use the tools to achieve a desired outcome.

5 Initial efforts to develop fully-automated high-quality machine translation are described by Hutchins (1998) and Quah (2006). For an overview of computer-assisted translation and its development, see Dunne (2012a).

Problems posed in the CAT classroom need to be designed in such a manner that the difficul -ty is appropriate to the students' skill level. Keegan (1995: 207) notes that these problems should 'approximate the relative challenge of the real world' and need to contain a certain level of noise that students must learn to remove themselves. That is not to say, however, that the problems should be of the highest level of difficulty, but rather, should include authentic components that would 'stimulate learners so that their thinking is related to actual practice' (Honebein 1996: 20). In the context of translation studies, Angelone (2018) also describes the importance of pos -ing problems to students that are at an appropriate level; however, he recognizes that in many in -stances, the assessment of difficulty is made on the basis of trainer intuition. Moreover, the het -erogeneous nature of the translation studies classroom complicates attempts at ensuring problem difficulty to be the same for students with differing abilities.

Nevertheless, PBL emphasizes collaborative learning, thereby obviating a number of concerns related to the level at which problems are posed since students will jointly solve problems. More -over, the unique backgrounds of students may foster peer-to-peer learning; variation among stu -dents with respect to skills and knowledge provides an opportunity for students to share their ex -perience in some contexts and to rely on those of their group members in others. Consequently, well-designed problems in the computer-assisted translation classroom ought to be beyond the students' current ability (see Harland 2003 and the discussion of Vygotsky), but that are attainable with sufficient resources, guidance, and modeling.

Creating a learning environment in which students are challenged just beyond their current abilities is congruent with research in expertise studies. As Shreve (2006: 32) describes, 'any translator looking for performance improvement as a result of deliberate practice will necessari -ly have to choose texts whose difficulty profile and characteristics challenge existing and perhaps very specific skills.' Deliberate practice as a means of developing expertise is not confined to translation proper; rather, this concept is applicable to any skill development, which in this case would pertain to the use and application of computer-assisted translation tools. The overarching goal of PBL in the CAT classroom is to create an environment in which students engage with the problems and tasks within the domain, receive feedback on their progress, and have an opportuni -ty to implement changes to their working process. PBL does not presume to develop expertise in a single course but does allow students to actively engage the material and develop skills by chal -lenging their existing knowledge and requiring newer skills to be acquired.

## 4. Course design and sequencing

While the merits of PBL in the CAT classroom are apparent, instructors who incorporate PBL in their courses must consider the course design and schedule as well as the course's position in the curriculum. Computer-assisted translation courses are typically offered as a standalone module, course, or series of courses that operate independently of translation courses. This practice has begun to shift as researchers and instructors recognize value in integrating CAT tools into special -ized translation courses. As an example, Rodríguez-Castro/Sullivan (2015) discuss the integration of CAT tools into the legal translation classroom. In addition, Mellinger (2017) argues for the in -tegration of machine translation into language-specific translation courses to reinforce the use of translation technologies in the service of translation tasks. A full discussion of course sequencing and design is outside the scope of this article; however, problem-based learning may prove most appropriate as a final component of a course or module given the requisite skillsets that students must have to function effectively in a self-directed environment.

Several researchers, such as Scherf (1992) and Olvera Lobo et al. (2007), suggest that students entering CAT tool courses do not have significantly developed computer skills or that their expe -rience with information and communication technologies (ICT) is limited, which can hinder a stu - dent's ability to understand the concepts driving CAT tools. While the prevalence of technology and its increased integration in many facets of daily life require researchers to regularly revisit the extent to which their students are familiar with technology, instructors would be prudent to recog -nize the importance of this type of background knowledge in the CAT tool classroom. 6  Problems encountered in language industry settings regularly move beyond typical computing tasks, and the overall technological complexity of translation projects has equally increased. However, the ways in which translators use electronic resources is not fully understood (Hvelplund 2017) and the intersection of ICT, translation technologies, and translation pedagogy remain underexplored (González Davies/Enríquez-Raído 2016). And while students may enter the CAT tool classroom with some experience using a range of technologies, exposure to CAT technologies is likely to be limited to the CAT classroom. Consequently, students benefit from being exposed to various translation technologies to gain familiarity with their use early in the module or course. From there, instructors can transition to a problem-based learning environment.

## 5. Posing problems

Drawing on the characteristics  of  problem-based  learning  and  the  potential  means  to  inte -grate PBL into the computer-assisted translation classroom, this section proposes two problems as proof of concept. Ill-defined and interdisciplinary by design, these problems do not have a de -finitive answer and allow multiple groups to approach a solution in unique and diverse ways. To an extent, the problems highlight the information asymmetry often encountered between clients and translators (e.g., Dunne 2012b), recognize the challenges of context inherent when working with translation memories (e.g., Killman 2015), and emphasize the amorphous nature of quality (e.g., Dunne 2009).

These examples also aim to accomplish what Barrett (2010, 2013) suggests - namely the crea -tion of problems that not only account for students' previous knowledge, but also strive to maxi -mize the development of professional behaviors and identities in addition to declarative and pro -cedural knowledge. This approach may heighten the ability of students to transfer process skills to other problem-solving domains and better position translation students upon graduation.

For each example, the overarching premise of the problem is first presented. Perhaps most no -table about each example is the relatively amorphous and open-ended nature of the question, al -lowing students and the instructor sufficient flexibility to engage with a range of translation tech -nologies and tools, as well as incorporate macro-level considerations of the practice of transla -tion in professional contexts. Several variations are also included to help instructors adapt the problems to a specific course or university level. The rationale for the problem's structure is then presented, as well as some of the skills required of students to successfully solve each. Future re -search might empirically test the effectiveness of this particular design in a classroom to compare with learning outcomes; however, the goal here is to present how problem-based learning can be integrated and aligned with learning outcomes.

## 5.1.  Example 1: Why did this website localization project of a travel website fail?

As described previously, problem-based learning relies on ill-defined, authentic problems that os -tensibly could occur outside of the classroom. The first example takes as a point of departure the following question: Why did this website localization project of a travel website fail? This prob -lem meets the general criteria for a problem suitable for problem-based learning, as it leaves sev -eral variables undefined and does not prescribe a singular path to answer the posed problem. In addition, this type of question could arise in any number of professional contexts, either as an inhouse translator or localizer who formed part of the team that created the project or as a language service provider who has been engaged to determine why initial efforts to localize their website have failed. In either case, an end user or client has decided that their website localization project was unsuccessful and wants to know why.

6 Alcina et al. (2007) also note a diverse range of technology skills in translation students, with some requiring ad -ditional student-teacher interaction or greater repetition to grasp specific skills or competences.

It is important to recognize that this question is naturally biased; if a company approaches a language service provider stating that the project was a failure, the students are thrust into a situ -ation in which they must first define a number of key concepts to better understand the problem prior to analyzing the website for potential faults. This approach avoids sterilizing the learning environment and allows noise such as an implicit bias in the prompt to require students to analyze the prompt itself to better understand the context in which the problem is being posed. In addi -tion, the determination of what constitutes failure of a project may not be related to the final lo -calized website and is instead based on client's dissatisfaction with how it ultimately functioned in the new locales. The course instructor can use these initial discussions as a starting point to ex -amine what constitutes quality in localization projects, the distinction between product-oriented and process-oriented approaches to translation, and the role that technology plays in localization. Moreover, these initial queries should be student-driven, with the course instructor guiding stu -dents to examine different aspects of website localization to develop a macro-level understanding of the problem.

The posed problem is accompanied by a travel website that contains two or three levels of nav -igation to limit the overall scope and focus their analysis on a restricted number of pages. 7 To facilitate a translation technologies course or module that has a variety of language pairs, the con -tent of the website can be in a commonly-shared language. Language-specific issues can be raised in a diverse set of language combinations, which may help spur discussion among group mem -bers. For an added level of complexity, some materials presented in the failed localization attempt could be the result of machine translation or faulty translation provided by colleagues or modified by the instructor. Content included in the website could include images, documents, advertising, rate sheets, or any other information on which the course instructor wishes to focus. Time con -straints may also dictate the overall size and scope of the problem under consideration.

This type of problem is suitable for PBL since it challenges students to simultaneously address macro-level and micro-level analyses. For instance, students must first determine what constitutes a project failure and the criteria by which language service providers and clients make these de -terminations, contextualizing the product in the larger communicative environment. Moreover, students must learn to discriminate between the salient features of the product that have a direct bearing on project success and potential noise introduced by the context in which the problem has been presented. Students are also faced with the challenge of defining quality in translation and localization and recognizing how textual features may not account for systemic issues spanning multiple documents (i.e., navigation structure, cultural appropriateness, lack of internationaliza -tion). The problem can be extended so that students then must create an appropriate version of the website and justify the rationale behind any changes as is often necessary in professional projects - in order to convince the company to reconsider a new version. An additional problem can be posed about how changes and suggestions will be documented such that they can be reused and referenced for future projects.

To solve this problem, students must challenge and apply previous knowledge and skill sets related to localization, translation, and language courses. Depending on the overall scope and whether a new version of the website is required, students will be able to use a variety of tools, including translation memory, corpora, localization software, image editing software, HTML and XML editors, terminology management systems, authoring tools, or presentation materials. The fact that the posed problem does not have a pre-determined, singular solution makes a full expla -nation impossible regarding how each of these tools may be brought to bear on the present prob - lem. Two examples are provided here to illustrate how these tools might be integrated into a solu -tion. Perhaps most obvious would be the need to use HTML and XML editors or authoring tools to update specific aspects of the website that the students determined to be suboptimal. Errors in the translation, inappropriately localized dynamic context, or presentational aspects can all be ad -dressed using these tools and would require students to learn the necessary functionalities of each to ensure that the website was appropriately updated.

7 While the proposed website in this problem is a travel website, the content domain could just as easily be that of another area.

Alternatively, students might rely on translation memories and terminology management sys -tems to generate a new version of the website. In line with best practices, many translation mem -ory environments present HTML and XML files in intermediary files to allow translators to work outside of the source files. These tools might be used by students to simultaneously update legacy translation material while adjusting the website content. In this case, the translation memory tool may not be used as a means of improving consistency of repetitive text, but rather as a means to ensure the necessary content is updated and that the stored content does not continue to hold suboptimal translation matches. Likewise, terminology management systems might be used in con -junction with the translation memories for the same purpose - to document client-preferred or cli -ent-approved terminology to avoid similar errors in the future.

As noted above, the first subcomponent requires students to analyze the problems present in the website and determine what specific aspects of the website localization project failed. This task extends beyond the simple identification of errors to include considerations of a potential lack of tool implementation during the website's creation. In addition, this aspect of the problem allows students to critique the success-failure binary initially posed in the problem. The second subcomponent requires students to reflect on mistakes and fosters discussion on how to resolve these is -sues. The third and fourth subcomponents require the actual implementation and use of the tools. Here, students are simultaneously analyzing areas for improvement, but also the manner in which this is possible and the appropriateness of each tool. As mentioned previously, the ability to use translation technologies is not an end unto itself, but rather computer-assisted translation requires the ability to determine which tools are best suited to solve specific problems. Finally, students are required to synthesize the information in an organized and compelling manner. The procedur -al and declarative knowledge gained throughout the problem-solving process must be contextu -alized and rationalized to an outside source to potentially resolve the information asymmetry be -tween client and translation provider.

## 5.2.  Example 2: How can Company X increase the number of words translated and maintain the same level of quality?

In this example problem, students are examining computer-assisted translation in the context of professional work environments. The instructor can structure this problem as a case study with each group of students working with a different company, language combination, or domain. These decisions can be driven by the class composition and interests, and might include interna -tional organizations, government entities, multinational companies, or non-governmental organi -zations. Regardless of the specific parameters established, the instructor would indicate a compa -ny or entity that has already undertaken sizeable translation projects.

As in the first example, the problem is ill-defined and incomplete. If decomposed into smaller sub-components, students might first conduct a needs analysis to determine the types of texts that are translated and their corresponding quality. The second component includes an evaluation of the translation technologies that might be implemented and the strategy with which the company would proceed. Then, students could evaluate specific tools that are available and select the most appropriate tool(s) for the task. Lastly, students could test the adopted strategy and technology to measure whether throughput has increased or if the overall quality of the translation product has changed based on their initial proposed solution. A final step would be to present their findings to the company (in a mock setting) as a solution to their increased volume problem.

The solutions to the problem are numerous. Students will once again need to draw on their knowledge of computer-assisted translation and translation technologies to analyze the problem as an initial attempt to formulate a hypothesis or potential solution. Additional research will be needed to understand how some of these tools can be implemented at the enterprise level in addi -tion to that of the role of the individual linguist. The first subcomponent requires students to ana -lyze the texts involved and to operationalize the notion of translation quality. Furthermore, if the specific company or governmental entity has a pre-established style guide, students would need to reconcile previous knowledge with this externalized description of the required translation pro -ject. This information would need to be captured in a digital format to allow students to integrate this additional input into the proposed solution (see Washbourne 2012).

The next subcomponent focuses on the analysis and review of translation technologies and their various functionalities. The problem context guides the specific challenges to be addressed. After this review, students are able to test the selected tools and analyze whether their initial se -lection is appropriate or if other choices would be more prudent. The complexity of this task could be modified based on the availability of software or the use of trial versions or could focus specif -ically on reporting and analysis tools regularly included in these software programs. For instance, students might limit their investigation to tools that report word counts, repetition, time on task, or productivity measures. Analysis of this type integrates the translation process with the transla -tion product and obliges reflection on their interplay.

The final subcomponents related to measuring any potential increase in throughput and pre -senting these findings to a client illustrate the incomplete and ill-defined nature of a problem ap -propriate to problem-based learning. As is often the case in industry settings, language service providers do not always have information related to previous practices of their clients. Neverthe -less, these providers need to find ways to differentiate their process from others. While the ways to do this can vary, students might test their solution prior to any simulated client presentation. For instance, students could translate a small portion of the same text twice, once without the aid of translation technologies and once with their proposed solution. The iterative nature of analyzing and implementing potential solutions allows students to focus on the translation technologies be -ing used and experience firsthand how their incorporation into a specific translation project alters the process. The inclusion of a mock presentation to the client then precipitates a logical ordering of the gathered information, synthesizing what has been learned as they work toward a solution.

## 5.3.  Discussion

Both proposed examples engage students at higher orders of thinking and provoke students to explore beyond their background knowledge. By extension, neither of the problems can be solved with a single answer; instead, various solutions are possible as students gain sufficient under -standing of procedural and declarative knowledge related to computer-assisted translation. Sav -ery (2006) notes this critical thinking component and raises the important final consideration of assessment when implementing problem-based learning in the classroom. With equal emphasis on both product and process, students must be assessed 'on both dimensions at regular intervals to ensure that they are benefiting as intended from the PBL approach' (Savery 2006: 14). Assess -ment will largely be driven based on the posed problems; however, learning logs, guided ques -tions, reflective essays and narratives may all form part of timely formative feedback strategies. In each of the example problems, a final assessment is built-in, namely a final presentation. How -ever, summative assessment is insufficient to capture the reflective nature of PBL in its entirety. The integration of both summative and formative assessment is paramount to maximize the ben -efits of the problem-based learning approach.

Feedback, however, need not come from the instructor alone; self-assessment, peer assessment, and collaborative assessment can also be useful to include. Macdonald (2005: 86, emphasis origi -nal) states that 'it is through peer, self and collaborative assessment that students are able to make judgments about how well they are learning and not just how much they have learned.' As such, instructors need to incorporate students in the assessment process at various stages of the project to ensure that students are benefiting from the problem-learning environment. Macdonald/SavinBaden (2004) suggest multiple assessments, peer assessment, reflective journals, online journals, progress reports, or individual presentations as potential means to accomplish this goal. Though an instructor cannot incorporate every type of assessment in a single course, he or she must match the posed problem to the appropriate assessment tools. The best forms of assessment will address the various learning objectives and skills, knowledge, and tasks engaged in by students.

## 6. Conclusion

The previous example problems demonstrate ways in which problem-based learning can be in -corporated in the computer-assisted translation classroom. Formative and summative feedback, in addition to authentic problems and a collaborative learning environment, allow instructors to achieve benefits derived from a PBL approach to education. Moreover, this instructional practice helps students foster professional behavior and identity while engaging material that situates spe -cific translation technologies in the larger context of professional translation. This type of learning extends beyond the classroom to develop intentionality in self-directed learning (see Washbourne 2014) and integrate procedural and declarative knowledge to solve novel and unique problems. Further research on these educational practices is needed to examine the impact that PBL may play on developing skills and knowledge related to computer-assisted translation; however, this article serves as a proposal for the applicability of problem-based learning in the CAT classroom. In sum, problem-based learning appears to be a natural pairing with translation technology ped -agogy to help universities better prepare students to integrate into an ever-changing language industry.

## References

- Al-Batineh, Mohammed/Bilali, Loubna 2017: Translator Training in the Arab World: Are Curricula Aligned with the Language Industry? In The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11(2-3): 187-203.
- Alcina, Amparo/Soler, Victoria/Granell, Joaquín 2007: Translation Technology Skills Acquisition. In Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 15(4), 230-244.
- Angelone, Erik 2018: Reconceptualizing Problems in Translation Using Triangulated Process and Product Data. In Lacruz, Isabel/Jääskeläinen, Riitta (eds.), Innovation and Expansion in Translation Process Research . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17-36.
- Arevalillo Doval, Juan José 2000: La localización: concepto, nuevas tecnologías y requisitos del nuevo traductor de informática. In Valero-Garcés, Carmen/de la Cruz Cabanillas, Isabel (eds.), Traducción y nuevas tecnologías: Herramientas auxiliares del traductor . Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá, 115-124.
- American Translators Association (ATA) 2016: Executive Summary of the ATA Translation and Interpreting Services Survey, Fifth Edition [online]. Available at https://www.atanet.org/publications/compensation\_executive\_summa -ry\_2016.pdf
- Barrett, Terry 2010: The Problem-based Learning Process as Finding and Being in Flow. In Innovations in Education and Teaching International 47(2), 165-174.
- Barrett, Terry 2013: Learning about the Problem in Problem-based Learning (PBL) by Listening to Students' Talk in Tutorials: A Critical Discourse Analysis Study. In Journal of Further and Higher Education 37(4), 519-535.
- Barrows, Howard S./Kelson, Ann Myers 1993: Problem-based Learning: A Total Approach to Education . Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
- Bolaños Medina, Alicia/Isern González, Josep 2012: Análisis de las actitudes de los estudiantes hacia las herramientas informáticas de traducción asistida. In Sendebar 23, 275-300.
- Bowker, Lynne 2002: Computer-aided Translation Technology . Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
- Bowker, Lynne 2015: Computer-aided Translation - Translator Training. In Chan Sin-wai (ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology . New York: Routledge, 88-104.
- Bowker, Lynne/Marshman, Elizabeth 2010: Toward a Model of Active and Situated Learning in the Teaching of Com -puter-Aided Translation: Introducing the CERTT Project. In Journal of Translation Studies 13(2): 199-226.

- Brodie, L.M. 2009: eProblem-based Learning: Problem-based Learning using Virtual Teams. In European Journal of Engineering Education 34(6), 497-509.
- Doherty, Stephen 2016: The Impact of Translation Technologies on the Process and Product of Translation. In International Journal of Communication 10, 947-969.
- Dragsted, Barbara 2005: Segmentation in Translation: Differences across Levels of Expertise and Difficulty. Target 17(1), 49-70.
- Dragsted, Barbara 2008: Computer-aided Translation as a Distributed Cognitive Task.' In Dror, Itiel E./Harnad, Ste -van (eds.), Cognition Distributed: How Cognitive Technology Extends our Minds . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 237-256.
- Dunne, Keiran 2009: Assessing Software Localization: For a Valid Approach. In Angelelli, Claudia V./Jacobson, Holly E. (eds.), Testing and Assessment in Translation and Interpreting Studies . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benja -mins, 185-222.
- Dunne, Keiran 2012a: Computer-assisted Translation. In Chapelle, Carol A. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics . Blackwell Publishing.
- Dunne, Keiran 2012b: The Industrialization  of Translation:  Causes,  Consequences  and  Challenges.  In Translation Spaces 1, 143-168.
- EN15038 (2006). Translation services - Service requirements. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
- García González, Marta/Veiga Díaz, María Teresa 2015: Guided Inquiry and Project-based Learning in the Field of Specialised Translation: A Description of Two Learning Experiences. In Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 23(1), 107-123.
- González Davies, María/Scott-Tennent, Christopher 2005: A Problem-Solving and Student-Centred Approach to the Translation of Cultural References. In Meta 50(1), 160-179.
- González  Davies,  María/Enríquez-Raido,  Vanessa  2016:  Situated  Learning  in  Translator  and  Interpreter  Training: Bridging Research and Good Practice. In The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 10(1), 1-11.
- Harland, Tony 2003: Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and Problem-based Learning: Linking a Theoretical Concept with Practice through Action Research. In Teaching in Higher Education 8(2), 263-272.
- Hendry, Graham D./Frommer, Miriam/Walker, Richard A. 1999: Constructivism and Problem-based Learning. In Journal of Further and Higher Education 23(3), 359-371.
- Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E./Barrows, Howard S. 2006: Goals and Strategies of a Problem-based Learning Facilitator. In The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 1(1), 21-39.
- Honebein, Peter 1996: Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments. In Wilson, Brent G. (ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 11-24.
- Hutchins, John 1998: The Origins of the Translator's Workstation. In Machine Translation 13(4): 287-307.
- Hung, Woei/Jonassen, David H./Liu, Rude 2008: Problem-based Learning. In Spector, J. Michael/Merrill, M. David/ van Merriënboer, Jeroen/Driscoll, Marcy P. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Third Edition . New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 485-506.
- Hvelplund, Kristian Tangsgaard 2017: Translators' Use of Digital Resources during Translation. In Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication in Business 56, 71-87.
- Inoue, Izumi 2005: PBL as a New Pedagogical Approach for Translator Education. In Meta 50(4). doi:10.7202/019865ar
- Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel 2015: The Internet in Translation Education: Two Decades Later. In Translation and Interpreting Studies 10(1), 33-57.
- Jonassen, David H. 2000: Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving. In Educational Technology Research and Development 48(4), 63-85.
- Jonassen, David H. 2004: Learning to Solve Problems: An Instructional Design Guide . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Keegan, Mark 1995: Scenario Educational Software: Design and Development of Discovery Learning .  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
- Kenny, Dorothy/Doherty, Stephen 2014: Statistical Machine Translation in the Translation Curriculum: Overcoming Obstacles and Empowering Translators. In The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8(2): 276-294.
- Killman, Jeffrey 2015: Context as Achilles' Heel of Translation Technologies: Major Implications for End-users. In Translation and Interpreting Studies 10(2), 203-222.
- Krings, Hans P. 1986: Translation Problems and Translation Strategies of Advanced German Learners of French (L2). In House, Juliane/Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication . Tubingen: Gunter Narr, 263-276.
- Kussmaul, Paul 1995: Training the Translator . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

- LeBlanc, Matthieu. 2017: 'I Can't Get No Satisfaction': An Ethnographic Account of Translators' Experiences of Translation Memory and Shifting Business Practices. In Kenny, Dorothy (ed.), Human Issues in Translation Technology . New York: Routledge, 45-62.
- Macdonald, Ranald 2005: Assessment Strategies for Enquiry and Problem-based Learning. In Barrett, Terry/Labhrainn, Iain Mac/Fallon, Helen (eds.), Handbook for Enquiry and Problem Based Learning . Galway: CELT, 85-93.
- Macdonald,  Ranald/Savin-Baden,  Maggi  2004: A  Briefing  on  Assessment  in  Problem-based  Learning .  Heslington York, UK: Learning and Teaching Support Network.
- Marshman, Elizabeth 2014: Taking Control: Language Professionals and their Perception of Control when using Lan -guage Technologies. In Meta 59(2), 380-405.
- Massey, Gary 2017: Translation Competence Development and Process-oriented Pedagogy. In Schwieter, John W./ Ferreira, Aline (eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition . Walden, MA: Wiley, 497-518.
- Mellinger, Christopher D. 2017. Translators and Machine Translation: Knowledge and Skills Gaps in Translator Peda -gogy. In The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11(4), 280-293.
- Mellinger, Christopher D./Shreve, Gregory M. 2016: Match Evaluation and Over-editing in a Translation Memory En -vironment. In Muñoz Martín, Ricardo (ed.), Reembedding Translation Process Research . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 131-148.
- Nuñez, Juan L./Bolaños-Medina, Alicia 2017: Predictors of Problem-Solving in Translation: Implications for Transla -tor Training. In The Interpreter and Translator Trainer . doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2017.1359762
- O'Brien,  Sharon  2006:  Eye-tracking  and  Translation  Memory  Matches.  In Perspectives:  Studies  in  Translatology 14(3), 185-205.
- O'Brien, Sharon 2008: Processing Fuzzy Matches in Translation Memory Tools: An Eye Tracking Analysis. In Göpfer -ich, Susanne/Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke/Mees, Inger M. (eds.), Looking at Eyes: Eye-Tracking Studies of Reading and Translation Processing . Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, 79-102.
- O'Brien, Sharon/Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen/Connolly, Megan/Hasler, Marcel 2017: Irritating CAT Tool Features that Matter to Translators. Hermes 56, 145-162.
- Olvera Lobo, María Dolores et al. 2007: A Professional Approach to Translator Training (PATT). In Meta 52(3), 517528.
- PACTE Group 2011: Results of the Validation of the PACTE Translation Competence Model: Translation Problems and Translation Competence. In Alvstad, Cecilia/Hild, Adelina/Tiselius, Elisabet (eds.), Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 317-343.
- Pepper, Coral 2010: 'There's a lot of Learning Going On but NOT Much Teaching!': Student Perceptions of Prob -lem-based Learning in Science. In Higher Education Research & Development 29(6), 693-707.
- Plaza Lara, Cristina 2016: Contextualising Translator Training: Defining Social, Professional and Disciplinary Require -ments. In Lebende Sprachen 61(2): 333-352.
- Quah, C. K. 2006: Translation and Technology . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Rodríguez de Céspedes, Begoña/Sakamoto, Akiko/Berthaud, Sarah (eds.) 2017: Employability in the Translation and Interpreting Curriculum , a special issue of The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11(2-3).
- Rodríguez-Castro, Mónica/Sullivan, Clare E. 2015: Rethinking the Legal Translation Classroom: A Course for Legal Translation Professionals. In The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9(2), 205-228.
- Ryan, Mary E. 2013: The Pedagogical Balancing Act: Teaching Reflection in Higher Education. In Teaching in Higher Education 18(2), 144-155.
- Sabaté Carrové, Mariona 2000: A Framework for Translation Pedagogy Aimed at Training Students through Computer Assisted Translation Tools. In Valero-Garcés, Carmen/de la Cruz Cabanillas, Isabel (eds.), Traducción y nuevas tecnologías: Herramientas auxiliares del traductor . Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá, 383-390.
- Samson, Richard 2005: Computer-assisted translation. In Tennent, Martha (ed.), Training for the New Millennium: Pedagogies for translation and interpreting . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101-126.
- Savery, John R. 2006. Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. In The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 1(1), 9-20.
- Savery,  John  R./Duffy,  Thomas  M.  1995:  Problem-based  Learning: An  Instructional  Model  and  its  Constructivist Framework. In Educational Technology 35(5), 31-38.
- Savin-Baden, Maggi/Howell Major, Claire 2004: Foundations of Problem-based Learning . Berkshire, UK: Open Uni -versity Press.

- Scherf, Willi G. 1992: Training, Talent, and Technology. In Dollerup, Cay/Loddegaard, Anne (eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent, and Experience . Copenhagen Studies in Translation. Amsterdam/Philadel -phia: John Benjamins, 153-160.
- Shimic,  Goran/Jevremovic, Aleksandar  2012:  Problem-based  Learning  in  Formal  and  Informal  Learning  Environ -ments. In Interactive Learning Environments 20(4), 351-367.
- Shreve, Gregory M. 2006: The Deliberate Practice: Translation and Expertise. In Journal of Translation Studies 9(1), 27-42.
- Sikora, Iwona 2014: The Need for CAT Training within Translator Training Programs: Modern Bare Necessities or Unnecessary Fancies of Translation Trainers?' Intralinea [online]. Available at: http://www.intralinea.org/specials/ article/2092
- Sungur, Semra/Tekkaya, Ceren 2006: Effects of Problem-based Learning and Traditional Instruction on Self-regulated Learning. In The Journal of Educational Research 99(5), 307-320.
- Taravella, AnneMarie/Villeneuve, Alain O. 2013: Acknowledging the Needs of Computer-assisted Translation Tools Users: The Human Perspective in Human-Machine Translation. In The Journal of Specialised Translation 19, 6274.
- Walker,  Andrew/Leary,  Heather/Hmelo-Silver,  Cindy/Ertmer,  Peggy  A.  (eds.)  2015: Essential  Readings  in  Problem-based Learning: Exploring the Legacy of Howard S. Barrows . Purdue, IN: Purdue University Press.
- Washbourne, Kelly 2012: Translation Style Guides in Translator Training: Considerations for Task Design. In The Journal of Specialised Translation 17, 2-16.
- Washbourne, Kelly 2014: The Self-directed Learner: Intentionality in Translator Training and Education. In Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 22(3), 373-387.
- Williams, Anthony/Williams, P. John 1997: Problem-based Learning: An Appropriate Methodology for Technology Education. In Research in Science & Technological Education 15(1), 91-103.
- Zanettin,  Federico/Bernardini,  Silvia/Stewart,  Dominic  (eds.)  1998: Corpora  in  Translator  Education .  New York: Rout  ledge.