The pedagogical value of translation : experiences from a newly introduced elective course

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ The pedagogical value of translation : experiences from a newly introduced elective course © Authors and University of Jyväskylä 2024 Published version Károly, Adrienn Károly, A. (2024). The pedagogical value of translation : experiences from a newly introduced elective course. In A. Károly, L. Kokkonen, M. Gerlander, & P. Taalas (Eds.), Driving and embracing change : learning and teaching languages and communication in higher education (pp. 67-98). University of Jyväskylä. JYU Studies, 1. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-86-0238-5 2024 The pedagogical value of translation 67 THE PEDAGOGICAL VALUE OF TRANSLATION Experiences from a newly introduced elective course Adrienn Károly With the expansion of nonprofessional translation activities, language education has gradually rediscovered translation and mediation, seeing them not only as useful tools in language learning but also as transferable skills, useful in their own right. However, the pedagogical value of translation, as a practical activity, a theoretical topic, and a subject for critical discussion, has been less explored from the broader perspective of intercultural education, particularly in multicultural classroom settings where English is the shared language. This article reports the findings of a study conducted at a Finnish university on a recently introduced elective course designed and developed by the author. The course, open for both domestic and international students, focuses on translation and culture and has active and collaborative learning at its core. It promotes creativity, critical thinking, and self-reflection through discussions and practical tasks, while also considering the affective layers of meaning as well as broader social, ideological, and ethical dimensions of translation. The research presented here examines the pedagogical value of translation in the first two course implementations. Student data from surveys and reflections explored the participants’ motivations for taking the course, their previous translation experiences, their initial views on translation as an activity and as a future study or career option, along with their individual learning experiences in the course. Student data were complemented by field notes recording my observations, thoughts, and development ideas. The research underscores the benefits of incorporating translation more strongly into multilingual pedagogies that promote intercultural learning. The implications are discussed from the perspectives of professional development and institutional-level curriculum design. Keywords: Translation, culture-specific items, critical language awareness, multilingual and multicultural pedagogy, intercultural education, collaborative learning A nem hivatásos fordítás terjedésével párhuzamosan a nyelvoktatás fokozatosan újra felfedezte a fordítást és közvetítést, melyek nem csupán a nyelvtanulás hasznos eszközei, hanem önmagukban is hasznos, átváltható készségek. Kevesebb kutatás vizsgálja azonban a fordítás pedagógiai alkalmazását az interkulturális tanulás és oktatás tágabb perspektívájából olyan esetekben, amikor a fordítás nem csupán gyakorlati tevékenység, hanem egyben elméleti téma és a kritikai megbeszélések tárgya is. Ez különösen igaz olyan multikulturális osztálytermi környezetben, ahol az angol a közös nyelv. Ebben Károly 68 a tanulmányban egy pedagógiai kutatás eredményeiről számolok be, amelyet egy általam kidolgozott, újonnan bevezetett választható kurzus keretein belül végeztem egy finnországi egyetemen. A finn és a nemzetközi hallgatók által egyaránt felvehető kurzus pedagógiai vezérelvei az aktív és kollaboratív tanulás. A kurzus a fordítás és a kultúra metszéspontjában lévő témákra irányul és változatos megbeszélések, illetve gyakorlati feladatok révén segíti elő a kreativitást, a kritikai gondolkodást és az önreflexiót. A témák lefedik a jelentés érzelmi aspektusait, valamint a fordítás tágabb társadalmi, ideológiai és etikai dimenzióit. Az itt bemutatott kutatásban fordítás pedagógiai értékét vizsgáltam a kurzus első két megvalósítása során. Az adatgyűjtés felmérések és hallgatói reflexiók segítségével történt, amelyekben feltártam, hogy mi motiválja a hallgatókat a kurzuson való részvételre, milyen korábbi fordítási tapasztalatokkal rendelkeznek, milyen előzetes nézeteik vannak a fordításról mint tevékenységről, illetve mint jövőbeli tanulmányi és karrierlehetőségről, valamint feltérképeztem a kurzus során szerzett tanulási tapasztalataikat. A hallgatóktól gyűjtött adatokat a saját megfigyeléseim, gondolataim és a kurzus fejlesztésére vonatkozó ötleteim egészítették ki, melyeket terepnaplóban rögzítettem. Az eredmények alapján arra következtethetünk, hogy a fordítás értékes pedagógiai eszköz, amely hangsúlyosabb teret érdemel az interkulturális tanulási célokat kitűző többnyelvű pedagógiákban. A végkövetkeztetések levonása során kitérek mind a szakmai fejlődés, mind az intézményi szintű tantervfejlesztés szempontjaira. Kulcsszavak: Fordítás, kultúraspecifikus kifejezések, kritikai nyelvi tudatosság, többnyelvű oktatás és multikulturális pedagógia, interkulturális nevelés, kollaboratív tanulás The pedagogical value of translation 69 Introduction The FIFA World Cup 2022 awards ceremony was a memorable event for sports enthusiasts. Before the iconic moment when Lionel Messi, captain of the winning Argentinian team, was handed the gold trophy, Qatar’s emir placed a black cloak over his shoulders.1 The gesture was a sign of honour and celebration, intended to pay homage to a superstar and emphasise the geopolitical significance of the World Cup 2022. However, the range of responses this move triggered worldwide illustrates not only the complexity of contemporary global professional sport with its closely intertwined dimensions (local–translocal, national–transnational, and cultural–transcultural; Naha, 2017) but also the misinterpretations, misconceptions, misunderstandings, and ideological clashes arising from lacks and gaps of information we have about each other’s and our own cultures and histories and from the resistance to embrace diversity. It is also common to dismiss or disregard the interconnectedness of cultures and “the ways in which cultural forms move, change and are reused to fashion new identities in diverse contexts”, an idea captured by the notion of transcultural flows (Pennycook, 2006, p. 6). The Messi example epitomises the intricacies of the visible–invisible and material–nonmaterial dimensions of culture, along with the complexities of meaning-making. It reminds us to stay open to different perspectives, identities, and mindsets without forgetting that we are connected in multiple ways. The cultural entanglements in contemporary societies foster collaboration but also bring challenges. In higher education, the original goals of internationalisation, including cooperation, mutual understanding, solidarity, and harmonious international relations, have largely been overshadowed by an approach that prioritises local interests, short-term goals, and measurable outcomes, particularly with the increasing global competition since the mid- 1990s (de Wit & Altbach, 2021). Unfortunately, these trends see internationalisation as a goal in itself rather than as an instrument (Latorre et al., 2024) and are underpinned by a narrow, ethnocentric understanding of culture. Perhaps as an effort to realign with the initial objectives, recent discussions on the social responsibility aspects of internationalisation call for a long-term approach oriented towards mutual learning and promoting openness, respect for diversity, cultural sensitivity, and an awareness of global connectedness. Internationalisation at home, including internationalising the curriculum (Leask, 2013), along with collaborative online international learning projects (including virtual exchange) and movements to decolonise curricula, foreground these values and advocate a shift in focus from institutional to personal responsibility, which is believed to more effectively tackle the multiple urgent crises facing us today (Latorre et al., 2024). In 2020, as I embarked on designing a course that promotes these values, I was searching for a theme that could create meaningful learning opportunities for students from diverse cultural backgrounds. As it is closely intertwined with language and culture and has intricate social, ideological, and ethical dimensions, translation emerged as an ideal option, especially because it also aligned with my professional background and interests. Although the University of Jyväskylä (JYU) has a long history of research into languagerelated phenomena,2 only a few practical translation courses on specific language pairs have traditionally been available, mostly for language students. Thus, the idea of a course that 1. The bisht, a traditional Arab garment, is worn on special occasions. Its function and appearance resemble the internationally known graduation gown. 2. Language, culture, and society forms one of the university’s strategic core fields of research. Károly 70 combines theory, practice, and critical discussion and approaches translation from a broader perspective was new. In Finland, translation theory is part of translator training programmes offered at certain universities. In these programmes, translation is predominantly viewed as the institutionalised and norm-governed practice of professionals although it is increasingly recognised as encompassing the everyday activities of multilingual individuals, with repercussions for the whole translation industry (Dam & Koskinen, 2016). In language education, and parallel to the growing practice of nonprofessional translation (Pérez-González & Susam-Saraeva, 2012), multilingual pedagogical approaches have been elevated to the forefront, leading to a reassessment of the value of translation (Cook, 2010). However, translation as a pedagogical resource – seen as a practical activity, a theoretical topic, and a subject for critical discussion – has been less explored from the larger perspective of intercultural education, particularly in multicultural classroom settings where English is the shared medium of communication. Motivated by my interest in pedagogical experimentation and my background in translation, in 2020 I designed a course that considers translation broadly and focuses on topics at the intersection of translation and. In 2021, the course was added to the list of electives offered by the Centre for Multilingual Academic Communication (Movi) 3 and since then it has been offered to all students at the university, regardless of degree programme and student status. In this paper, I present the findings of a study that examined the pedagogical value of translation within the context of this newly introduced course. The research addressed the following specific questions: 1. What are the students’ main motivations for enrolling in the course? 2. What previous translation experience do they have? 3. What are their initial views on translation as an activity and a future study or career option? 4. How did their thinking about translation as an activity and a future study/career option change by the end of the course? 5. What are the students’ individual learning experiences in the course? The research had an overall qualitative design, and as an inquiry-based study, it incorporated analytical, interpretive, and reflective elements (Babione, 2015). Data collected from the students were complemented by field notes. Although the research did not have a systematic action research design, the findings informed the pedagogical development of the course. In the upcoming sections, I first review real-world trends and theoretical approaches central to understanding my motivations behind designing the course. This is followed by outlining the pedagogical framework of the course and describing its first two implementations. After this, I present the methods of data collection and analysis and discuss the findings, while also incorporating the perspective of course development. Finally, I address the implications and suggest future lines of research. 3. Movi’s roles and responsibilities are summarised in the Introduction of this book (Károly et al., 2024). The pedagogical value of translation 71 Shifting theoretical approaches and emerging real-world trends Towards more critical frameworks Contemporary scholarship in various fields highlights the dynamic and multimodal nature of interaction (e.g., Busch, 2017; Pennycook, 2017; Scollon et al., 2012). Scholars also emphasise that cultures should not be equated with homogeneous (ethnic/national) entities as they encompass rich and multilayered heritages and identities and dynamic processes of meaningmaking (Komisarof & Zhu, 2016). Cultural literacy is thus to be seen as meaning negotiation and identity construction rather than as a stable set of factual knowledge about a particular group (Maine et al., 2019). Along the same lines, Kramsch and Zhu (2020) suggest that intercultural communication should not refer to communication across national borders but to “participation in fluctuating networks of individual experiences, memories, and fantasies, multiple allegiances and legitimations” (p. 1).4 In fact, Dervin (2022) argues that we all “do” interculturality every day, directly or indirectly. The main pedagogical implication of these ideas is to move beyond the traditional understanding of culture as a “collection of things” and the rigid dichotomies of self vs. other, and of my culture vs. your culture, and instead, engage with each other’s heritages, identities, perspectives, and values, and explore how they intertwine (Maine et al., 2019). Despite these theoretical advancements, scholars note that intercultural education still largely relies on a narrow and static understanding of culture, contributing to the reinforcement of stereotypes, biases, and prejudices (Sommier et al., 2022). Applied language studies scholars working in the critical paradigm emphasise that language is not merely a communication tool and argue that since power is an essential dimension of interaction today, language and communication teachers cannot dismiss broader and often challenging political, social, and ethical issues (e.g., Dervin, 2023; Ennser-Kananen & Saarinen, 2022; Kramsch, 2020; Pennycook, 2018, 2022; Shapiro, 2022). As Kramsch (2011) has pointed out, language learners’ primary goal, especially at more advanced levels, is not to achieve near-native proficiency as a goal in itself, but to develop a more sophisticated symbolic competence, which enables them to understand the intricacies of interaction (such as underlying ideologies or multimodally and often implicitly conveyed meanings), to identify topics and perspectives that are overlooked or disregarded, and to reflect on and position themselves. These ideas foreground not just the role of the context and collective/individual worldviews in languaging and meaning-making 5 but also the poetic function of language 6: the material aspects of communication (such as tone of voice or silence) and the cultural and affective layers of meaning (Kramsch, 2021). A similar shift in focus is occurring in translation studies. For example, Haapaniemi (2023) advocates the reconceptualization of translation as a broader phenomenon that recognises the role of material forms, modalities, along with the social and cognitive aspects of meaning-negotiation. Affect is receiving renewed attention (e.g., Petrilli & Ji, 2022) and is increasingly seen as the interplay between intra- and interpersonal factors, that is individual emotions (including bodily sensations) and socially/culturally acceptable emotional responses (Koskinen, 2020). 4. Holliday’s (2019) notion of small culture formation on the go captures these transient, everyday encounters in a variety of situations, when we position ourselves, engage in dialogue (or choose not to), and negotiate the rules of behaviour. 5. Cf. Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of heteroglossia. 6. Kramsch drew on Jakobson’s (1960) idea that poetics should be considered an integral part of linguistics. Károly 72 Language education practices worldwide have traditionally been underpinned by a monolingual ideology, viewing languages as distinct, homogeneous, and stable entities and as code systems to master. Such a static approach, however, is disconnected from the realities of our contemporary world and disregards language users’ diverse backgrounds, personal histories, identities, and individual needs. Fortunately, the growing awareness of the linguistic, social, and epistemological inequalities in education (and in academia) has sparked an interest in multilingual and culturally responsive pedagogies (e.g., Kramsch & Zhu, 2016; Laviosa, 2016; Li, 2018, 2022) and drawn attention to the mediating role of identity and emotions (e.g., Dewaele, 2010; Norton, 2013; Pavlenko, 2005). One central concept is translanguaging, which refers not just to switching between languages/language varieties and integrating different modalities but to creating new, hybrid meanings and identities, while still being aware of the existence and powerful impact of named languages (Li, 2011, 2018). According to Li (2018, p. 23), language learners and users bring together their personal experiences, environments, attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies, along with a range of linguistic, cognitive, and semiotic resources in “one coordinated and meaningful performance” (translanguaging space). While translation as a cognitive/linguistic act takes language borders seriously and is product-oriented and linear (moving from source to target language), a translanguaging approach illuminates the creative and strategic processes involved in translation, when the translator is negotiating meaning, relying on a pool of linguistic/semiotic/sensory resources within their repertoire (Baynham & Lee, 2019). In fact, as the authors suggest, each moment during translation is a translanguaging space, where languages, language varieties, registers, discourses, cultural spaces, and semiotic modalities meet, without the translator being strongly aware of the border between them. As they argue, this approach enables us to relinquish the idea of perfect translatability and embrace the complexity of meaning and the polyphony of voices. But most importantly, translanguaging spaces are embedded in a particular cultural and historical context with their dominant ideologies (Baynham & Lee, 2019). When considering translation as an institutionalised practice, ideologies manifest not only in policy decisions and translation norms7 but also in the actual translation decisions made by individual translators (Munday, 2007). These decisions are influenced by personal ideologies (ethical stance, beliefs, values, motivations, attitudes) and shaped by personal histories and contexts. Thus, a critical orientation to translation is helpful, not just when revisiting fundamental concepts like language (see Sakai, 2014) or equivalence,8 but also when considering larger cultural, social, political, and ideological issues, such as translation and power (e.g., Gentzler & Tymoczko, 2002), censorship (e.g., Díaz-Cintas, 2019; Valdeón, 2022), translation as resistance/activism (e.g., Baker, 2007; Tymoczko, 2010), as well as translators’ visibility, roles, and agency (e.g., Meylaert, 2007; Sela-Sheffy, 2005). In language education, as a corollary of the multilingual turn, there is a growing acknowledgement of the value of authentic and communicative translation and mediation 7. Policy decisions include, for example, what gets translated or who is selected as translator (Braden, 2021), while translation norms refer to reader/user expectations, professional standards, and ethical responsibility (Chesterman, 2016; Toury, 2012). 8. In her influential essay, Lori Chamberlain (1988) argued that the distinction between source and target text is modelled on the traditional patriarchal gender binary. She drew a comparison between the representation of women as inferior to men and the status of translated texts as lower than the “original”, as well as between faithfulness in marriage and translation. The pedagogical value of translation 73 activities,9 leading to a burgeoning field of research (e.g., Beiler & Dewilde, 2020; Cook, 2010; González Davies, 2004, 2014, 2015; Muñoz-Basols, 2019; Pintado-Gutiérrez, 2021). In the context of higher education, research has explored the benefits of translation for students majoring in languages (e.g., Källkvist, 2013) and for non-language students (e.g., Lo, 2016), and studies have also addressed the use of machine translation (e.g., Flanagan & Christensen, 2014; Mellinger, 2017). The findings suggest that translation as a practical activity seems to be a useful pedagogical resource with a wide range of benefits for and beyond language learning. Besides improving language competence, translation develops a range of generic skills, including critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, reflection, self-regulation, collaboration, resource use, information management, and concern for quality, along with intercultural awareness and sensitivity (Peverati, 2013). Written translation tasks also have psychological benefits, such as an intense flow experience (Mirlohi et al., 2011) and a high sense of achievement (Sewell, 2004; Washbourne, 2014). Finally, translation can connect linguistics and literary/cultural studies, the two traditionally distinct components of the modern language degree (Kemp, 2012). The growing practice of nonprofessional translation Voluntary and involuntary transnational population flows have resulted in unprecedented cultural and linguistic diversity in many contemporary societies.10 Coupled with technological advances and the growing influence of the media, these trends have far-reaching repercussions for social interaction. As a result, individuals with diverse profiles today engage in nonprofessional translation and mediation (Pérez-González & Susam-Saraeva, 2012).11 Although they have varying degrees of translation experience, they typically lack formal training and hold no professional qualification but translate on an ad hoc and/or voluntary basis, with little or no financial compensation. According to Pérez-González and Susam-Saraeva (2012), nonprofessional translation practices contribute to the transformation of social interaction in different ways—a phenomenon that translation studies can no longer ignore. As they argue, these practices can not only be seen as an emerging form of civic engagement, but they are also changing the media and publishing industry amid the transition to digital culture, and result in new models of mediation in emerging spaces of cultural contact. The authors thus suggest that 9. The CEFR Companion Volume by the Council of Europe (2018) now includes mediation as a basic communicative language activity, in addition to reception, production, and interaction: “In both the receptive and productive modes, the written and/or oral activities of mediation make communication possible between persons who are unable, for whatever reason to communicate with each other directly” (italics added, p. 32). Mediation is used in a broad sense, referring to the activities of mediating texts (including written/oral translation), concepts, or communication (pp. 103–104), each with its own descriptors. 10. Note that multilingualism as a social, institutional, and individual phenomenon has a long history and was the norm in most societies before the development of (mostly) monolingual nation states (see Pavlenko, 2023). 11. In translation studies, several terms are used to describe these emerging forms of nonprofessional translation in various settings: volunteer or fan translation (e.g., of cartoons, TV shows, films, video games, comics, popular fiction, song lyrics), a term overlapping with crowdsourced translation (e.g., of TED talk subtitles), (online) collaborative translation, activist translation (an individual/community endeavour with a political/social agenda, e.g., resistance to censorship, (self-)translation of political blog posts or tweets), volunteer interpreting (typically in crisis situations, often as a form of advocacy, humanitarian action, or civic engagement, but also in multilingual family or workplace settings), and various types of community/public service interpreting (ad hoc assistance provided by untrained staff or companions, including children, to facilitate communication, typically in asylum and migration contexts or in legal, educational, or health and social care settings). Other terms referring to this type of interpreting are (child) language brokering, intercultural mediation, or dialogue interpreting (see Baker & Saldanha, 2020; Pérez-González & Susam-Saraeva, 2012). Self-translation is another growing practice, both in literary and academic contexts (e.g., Pisanski Peterlin, 2019). Károly 74 instead of trying to control these activities for fear that it damages the prestige of the profession and lowers the status of professional translators, translation studies should examine them more thoroughly. Despite clear evidence that translation competence develops with training (e.g., Göpferich & Jääskeläinen, 2009; Toury, 2012), it is also generally acknowledged that bi- and multilingual individuals have an innate predisposition for translating and can learn it without explicit training (e.g., Toury, 2012). Research has suggested that professional translator training is not the only path for achieving expertise (e.g., Jääskeläinen et al., 2011; Sirén & Hakkarainen, 2002). The work of professional translators may not always exhibit superior quality, while untrained individuals can produce high-quality translations, especially when undertaking complex tasks requiring “non-routine mediation approaches”, typically in unfamiliar circumstances or in unexpected situations that demand critical thinking, creativity, and the ability to adapt (Jääskeläinen, 2010; Jääskeläinen et al., 2011). Pérez-González and Susam- Saraeva (2012) consider nonprofessionals as even “more prepared to ‘innovate’, play around with the material in hand, retell it in a way that is likely to be more interesting and intelligible for their audience—often because they are themselves part of the audience” (p. 158). Notwithstanding these findings, general views about translation and translation competence are often overly simplistic (Pérez-González & Susam-Saraeva, 2012). In professional contexts, those who commission translators typically require expertise (qualification/training), but outside this context, the complexity of translation can easily be downplayed, with practical considerations taking precedence. Especially those without formal training or experience (both commissioners and translators) may not fully understand the challenges involved in different types of translation and may assume that a good level of language proficiency is sufficient. In doing so, they overlook the intricacies of meaning-making and interpretation and/or important ideological or ethical considerations. Thus, it seems to be beneficial for everyone, but especially for future language professionals, to have a deeper understanding of translation as a complex activity beyond the linguistic level. The pedagogical design of the newly developed course The new course embraces translation as a pedagogical resource (e.g., Carreres et al., 2021; Galante, 2021; González-Davies, 2017), seeing it not just as a practical activity but also as a theoretical topic and a subject for critical discussion. With active learning (Børte et al., 2023) and student engagement at its core, including support for autonomy, relevance, and enthusiasm12, the course promotes collaboration, self-reflection, and discussion, while also relying on student-generated discussion questions (Aflalo, 2018). One main goal is to help students explore multiple layers of meaning during translation, especially when addressing the challenges involved in the translation of culture-specific items. Additionally, the course addresses larger cultural, social, ethical, and ideological issues inherent in translation. Regarding criticality, it is crucial for teachers teaching culturally diverse groups to examine their own expectations and be aware that students’ language competence, family circumstances, educational experiences, and the sociopolitical environment in their home country strongly influence their familiarity and comfort with critical thinking (Aston, 2023; Bali, 2015). 12. These elements are emphasised in theories of achievement motivation, such as expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020). For an overview of these theories, see Robinson et al. (2024). The pedagogical value of translation 81 Changes in students’ perspectives on translation as a study or career option Changes in the students’ study or career aspirations are presented in Table 3. Table 3 Changes in perspectives on translation as a study/career option Perceived change Frequency, n 2021 (n = 13) Frequency, n 2022 (n = 17) Became even more interested in translation as the primary career goal 3 3 Became less sure due to the challenges recognised, but still generally interested in translation as a career option 6 5 Undecided, translation is one possible career option 4 5 Not interested in becoming a professional translator 0 4 One student reported the following: I was considering becoming a professional translator in the future already before I attended this course, and now I am even more convinced that this would be a very fitting career choice for me. The four students in the second course who had no interest in becoming a professional translator cited various reasons: the work being too demanding and the field too competitive, lacking genuine passion, or not speaking additional languages. However, they added that their future job may still involve translation/mediation. Students’ individual positive and negative learning experiences Students’ positive learning experiences were related to three dimensions of course design: structure, learning events, and learning materials and environments (Appendix E). In terms of the course structure, almost all the participants named the opportunities for intercultural interaction as the most highly valued aspect. Students highlighted that these opportunities enhanced their critical thinking, self-reflection, and expanded their knowledge about other languages and cultures. Students also liked the elective format and emphasised that the content was personally relevant to them and aligned with their interests. Students identified the project work as the most valuable learning event. It was described as “exciting”, “intriguing”, “educational”, “insightful”, “motivating”, “productive”, “fun”, and “different”. As one Finnish student wrote: I often find group work very tiring and without a purpose (group work just for the sake of having something to do), but this time it felt very purposeful as everyone on the team had something to actually contribute. Some international students reported that this was the first time they ever did group work or expressed their own views. The class discussions were generally considered engaging and thought-provoking, and many students appreciated the small pre-tasks asking them to look into a real-world case, activate prior knowledge, or brainstorm ideas. On the other hand, students differed in their preferred Károly 82 learning approach. Some favoured practical tasks and sharing personal experiences, while others valued conceptual discussions and exchanging views. This was also reflected in topic preferences. Many found Pedersen’s model of transfer strategies the most useful, especially due to the illustrative examples and the opportunity to apply the theory in the project work. Others, however, liked discussions on the notion of culture, the social/ideological/ethical aspects of translation, or translation as a professional practice: This was the first course where Hofstede’s ideas were questioned. In [the student’s minor], his ideas are pretty much taken at face value, and we were not encouraged to question them. The conversation about who gets to translate or is allowed to translate something was also very eye-opening. It was fascinating to learn more about the reality of translation work and look at the different ways translation competence has been defined by researchers. The discussion on dubbing and subtitling was seen as particularly illuminating due to the diversity of perspectives addressed: As someone who really enjoys hearing the original voices of actors and voice actors and grew up with mostly subtitled shows, I had never really thought about the positive sides of dubbing. Concerning learning materials/environments, students appreciated multimodal materials and the use of Flinga. In addition, the extra materials, tools, and resources shared during the course were valued highly, especially by those planning further studies in translation. Students also brought up the affective/attitudinal dimension of learning. For example, they mentioned that the relaxed class atmosphere and the conversational tone during open discussions increased their overall engagement. Another frequently mentioned aspect was the interplay between teacher and student emotions and motivation: The teacher seemed to be really enthusiastic about the topic which I think always enhances the overall course atmosphere. . . [it] made me more interested in the topics discussed. The course positively influenced some students’ international mindset as well. A few of them reported having made international friends and agreeing to keep in touch even after the course. One student wrote the following: It was because of the people I met during this course that I had the courage to apply for an exchange in Japan. If that dream comes true, I’ll credit it partly to this course. The course made some participants think about the importance of speaking many languages, and a few of them noticed becoming more positive towards English as a lingua franca. Some students appreciated the opportunity to practise their English and even other languages, a few acknowledging that the course helped them address their language anxiety. Being allowed to bring in their own language/culture also triggered positive emotions: It was a completely new experience for me to use my [student’s first language] in an “English class” and talk about my culture or just freely say what I think. All in all, the course was generally well received. As one student evaluated it: The pedagogical value of translation 83 All in all, the course was very informative, and it made me want to learn about translation even more. I believe the amount of information taught was good for an introductory course. It gave a good overview about what translation is actually about and how it is done, and the group project also worked very well with the content of the course. Students, however, also reported less positive learning experiences, mostly related to the course structure (low amount of credits, short duration of the course).18 Challenges also arose from the size of the project teams and the design of certain learning events. The next section addresses these issues, which are directly related to the pedagogical adjustments already implemented or planned. Discussion The pedagogical value of translation The findings support previous observations about the popularity of translation courses among language students (Sewell, 2004). Translation and mediation, especially in informal situations and/or linked to personal interest, seem to be a natural part of students’ everyday life and are largely seen as personally fulfilling, creative activities with a real-world value. Translation is also an attractive or possible career option especially for students who study for a language degree but do not plan to become teachers. Being aware of the competition characterising the translation market, these students commonly feel the need to study further, in professional training programmes, to become a “good”/professional translator. These findings are particularly interesting in light of the current discussion in translation studies on the status of professional “insiders” and nonprofessional “outsiders” (Pérez-González & Susam-Saraeva, 2012). The debate is linked to the shifting views on translation competence and the development of expertise, reflecting the changing landscape of the translation industry (Jääskeläinen et al., 2011) and the growing practice of nonprofessional translation (Pérez-González & Susam-Saraeva, 2012). The findings also point to the issue that only a few translation courses are available at JYU (mainly practical courses on specific language pairs), suggesting that a course that approaches translation more broadly is highly useful for students in various degree programmes oriented towards languages and cultures, especially because translation can serve as a bridge between these two themes (Kemp, 2012). The results also confirm previous observations that those without formal translation training often have a relatively narrow view of translation competence with a focus on linguistic aspects and cultural background knowledge (Göpferich & Jääskeläinen, 2009; Toury, 2012). However, a single and relatively short course seems to be able to bring about changes in the students’ approach: rather than viewing translation as automatic linguistic transfer, they began to see it as a creative and problem-solving endeavour embedded in complex social/cultural/ ideological contexts (Baynham & Lee, 2019). The findings on student learning experiences suggest that the course, by aiming to move beyond an essentialising and power-evasive approach (Ennser-Kananen & Saarinen, 2022), seems to encourage students to consider/do culture from a more critical perspective (Kramsch & Zhu, 2020). It also challenges them to examine ingrained patterns of thought and 18. These issues were addressed in the most recent update of the curriculum. The changes will apply from the 2024–25 academic year. Károly 84 previously acquired knowledge (such as Hofstede’s [1984] framework,19 which, apparently, may still remain unproblematised). Discussions related to the social, political/ideological, and ethical dimensions of translation seem to effectively promote critical language awareness (Shapiro, 2022) and self-reflection, key aspects of intercultural learning, which are essential in today’s crises-laden climate that requires individuals to act responsibly (Latorre, 2024). When discussing culture, however, teachers need to be mindful of their language use and avoid racialising, stereotyping, and othering discourses (Lee, 2015). Using translation as a resource in culturally responsive/relevant pedagogies (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2014) seems to have multiple benefits, especially when the principles of active, collaborative, and problem-based learning are applied. Making students feel that their diverse (and dynamic) identities are acknowledged and respected (Komisarof & Zhu, 2016; Peskoller, 2022) contributes to transformative intercultural experiences (Fielding et al., 2023). In the translanguaging spaces (Baynham & Lee, 2019; Li, 2018) created, students can examine and negotiate multiple viewpoints and meaning, reflect on themselves, and develop their symbolic competence (Kramsch, 2011). The focus on culture-specific items enables students to zoom in on the microdetails of the translation process and illuminates the complexity of meaning along with the intricate creative and dynamic processes involved in meaning negotiation. However, since some students may be unfamiliar with certain pedagogical approaches/methods and thus experience discomfort, even if they do not explicitly bring this up, there is a need for caution when using teamwork or when expecting students to openly exhibit critical thinking in culturally diverse classrooms (Bali, 2015). The results also confirm previous findings about the importance of considering multiple aspects of student engagement (Shirley & Hargreaves, 2021) and the relationship between teacher and student attitudes and emotions (Cavanagh, 2016; Keller et al., 2016). Course development The basic pedagogical design of the course seems to be effective, but there is certainly room for improvement. In the current update of the curriculum (2024), I have made changes to both the structure and content. Besides revising the course description and learning outcomes, I have raised the number of credits from two to three, added more class sessions, and extended the duration of the course. The aim is not to delve more extensively into translation theory but to enable deeper critical discussions based on topics currently discussed in translation studies and recent real-world cases as well as offer a broader range of tasks with even more opportunities for interaction. I also removed the phrase “culture-specific items” from the name of the course because it may suggest a traditional, limited approach to culture and imply a narrower perspective than what the course actually has. While the project work was generally well received, a few students did not particularly enjoy it, partly due to their learning preferences and partly linked to various issues within the group, particularly time management. In the future, I will dedicate some time in the regular class sessions to the project work, thus reducing the need for students to arrange meetings beyond the course schedule. Determining the group size and team composition has also 19. Hofstede aimed to understand cultural differences based on six key dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism–collectivism, masculinity–femininity, and time orientation. His theory has been widely criticised not just on the grounds of research methodology but also for its oversimplified, static, and deterministic approach to culture. The pedagogical value of translation 85 posed challenges as these are often dependent on the number of domestic and international students in the actual course. Still, I found it important to set a maximum of four as the group size. Extending the time frame for each group presentation is expected to allow a deeper examination of the topic and more meaningful post-presentation discussions without feeling pressed for time. To address the issue of teamwork being an unfamiliar learning method to some students and to increase the transparency of teamwork, I have introduced the CATME rating tool to help students evaluate themselves and their peers (Ohland et al., 2012). One specific activity that needs more careful planning is the discussion on dubbing and subtitling. While not designed as a traditional debate, in the second course this activity had a competitive tone. This may have to do with the face-to-face format or the nature of the pretask, in which students were divided into two groups and collected arguments for one mode and against the other. Anyhow, since debates have social and cognitive risks resulting from the competitive atmosphere (Asterhan & Babichenko, 2015; Asterhan & Schwartz, 2016), I need to change the instructions and ensure that the discussion remains collaborative and constructive with the overall goal of comparing and contrasting ideas, exploring perspectives, and/or reaching a consensus. Although the course is not a translation course per se, and students are not translating longer passages of text,20 many students expressed the wish to do more actual written translation. One concrete idea is to translate short texts into English, the shared language, and/or from English into the participants’ first languages. In this activity, students could also try out free machine or AI-assisted translation tools (e.g., Google Translate, Bing Microsoft Translator, DeepL, Reverso; see Flanagan & Christensen, 2014), and we could discuss their value and limitations. Such a task could be particularly motivating if participants’ own texts are used as source materials (e.g., a poem, a short story, song lyrics, or anything they are willing to share) or when attempting to translate intralinguistic cultural references, such as idioms, proverbs, sayings, collocations, jokes, or puns. A similar idea was piloted by Łoboda and Mastela (2023), where students evaluated and post-edited machine-translated culturebound texts (Polish legends). It would also be beneficial to invite a guest – an experienced translator/interpreter with/ without professional qualification or a someone from a minority culture in Finland – and have an interactive discussion about their work and their views on expertise/competence, about languages and cultures, and about social/political/ideological issues they encountered. Finally, although the principle of multimodality is already reflected in the course, I am planning to highlight the semiotic diversity of meaning-making even more (Pennycook, 2016). For example, students could bring thought-provoking pieces of art/music related to their cultures (again, in a broad sense), which could trigger intriguing discussions about the complexity of culture, identity, and (intersemiotic) translation. As Lautenbacher (2024) has pointed out, engaging with images and multimodal texts is an increasingly common aspect of translation today (translating image titles/captions, audiovisual translation, audio description, etc.), but translators need to be aware of the effect of their own personal interpretations of the visual message. In the course, we could try this out by utilising students’ own photographs, which, evoking personal emotions and experiences, could provide material for meaningful conversations. 20. Since the participants (and the teacher) do not necessarily speak each other’s first languages, assessing longer written translations could be challenging. Regarding live oral translation/mediation activities, even though they would be highly useful, I do not plan to use them as they may cause unnecessary anxiety in some students. Károly 86 Conclusions The research presented here offered insights into the pedagogical value of translation. Given its complex cultural, social, ethical, and ideological dimension, I argue that to harness its full pedagogical potential, translation should not be considered only as a practical activity but also as a theoretical topic and a subject for critical discussion. Approached like this, translation deserves a more prominent place in multilingual pedagogies that also incorporate intercultural learning objectives. Since the research reported here was a small scale, localised study, focusing on a single course, the findings cannot be automatically generalised to other contexts or settings. The research was also limited in several ways. Due to various factors, the data collection methods differed in the two iterations. Moreover, since I conducted the research on my own practice independently, I must acknowledge the potential influence of my personal involvement. To avoid confirmation bias, I tried to remain mindful of my position, perspective, and biases and to actively reflect on the results, while also discussing them with a colleague. Another limitation, inherent in practitioner inquiry, is that the participants were my own students, making transparency and commitment to ethical principles crucial. To minimise social desirability bias, I emphasised that participation in the research was voluntary and reassured the participants that their perspectives would not influence their course assessment in any way. I also underscored the importance of providing balanced and critical feedback with a view to improving the learning experiences of future course participants. From the viewpoint of my professional development, engaging in pedagogical experimentation and inquiry-based research provided an extremely rewarding experience. The benefits can be identified mostly at the individual level, including increased cultural sensitivity, motivation, and enthusiasm, a higher sense of autonomy, self-efficacy, and agency, and a stronger identity as a teacher–researcher. However, as Edwards (2021) highlighted, the benefits of practitioner research go beyond the level of individual professional development. The course has generated interest among my colleagues and has paved the way for potential future collaborations. In short, translation appears to be a valuable resource and is well-aligned with the pedagogical approach embraced by Movi. It also seems to be beneficial to integrate translation, as a practical activity and/or a critical discussion topic, into the curriculum of various degree programmes. In addition to language and communication studies (including journalism), translation has relevance for music, art, and culture studies, programmes within the social sciences, education, IT, history and ethnology, sport and health sciences, public administration, and business and economics.21 In the future, research could more extensively explore students’ views on translation as an activity and future study/career option, students’ and faculty members’ nonprofessional translation experiences, as well as lecturers’ perspectives on translation as a pedagogical resource. Systematic action research could assess the value of integrating translation into pedagogical practices at various levels, even in monocultural classrooms. Finally, design-based studies could focus on creating and evaluating innovative and evidence-based pedagogical solutions, including courses or programmes utilising translation as a pedagogical resource, whether limited to a single field or encompassing multiple fields or disciplines. 21. I have already incorporated the topic of translation in research and publishing in multilingual academia into the content of my doctoral courses (Károly, 2022). The pedagogical value of translation 87 References Aflalo, E. (2021). Students generating questions as a way of learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418769120 Agar, M. (1994). The intercultural frame.International Journal of Intercultural Relations,18(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(94)90029-9 Ariati, J., Pham, T., & Vogler, J. S. (2023). Constructivist learning environments: Validating the community of inquiry survey for face-to-face contexts. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14697874231183642. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874231183642 Asterhan, C. S. C., & Babichenko, M. (2015). The social dimension of learning through argumentation: Effects of human presence and discourse style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 740–755. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000014 Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 Aston, K. J. (2023). ‘Why is this hard, to have critical thinking?’ Exploring the factors affecting critical thinking with international higher education students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14697874231168341. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874231168341 Babione, C. A. (2015).Practitioner Teacher Inquiry and Research. Jossey-Bass. Baker, M. (2007). Reframing conflict in translation. Social Semiotics, 17(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330701311454 Baker, M., & Saldanha, G. (2020). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678627 Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press. Bali, M. (2015). Critical thinking through a multicultural lens: Cultural challenges of teaching critical thinking. In The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 317–334). Palgrave Macmillan. Baynham, M., & Lee, T. K. (2019). Translation and translanguaging. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158877 Beiler, I. R., & Dewilde, J. (2020). Translation as translingual writing practice in English as an Additional Language. The Modern Language Journal, 104(3), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12660 Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Sølvi, L. (2023). Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(3), 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839746 Braden, A. (2021, March 17). Translators weigh in on the Amanda Gorman controversy. Asymptote. https://www.asymptotejournal.com/blog/2021/03/17/translators-weigh-in- on-the-amanda-gorman-controversy/ Busch, B. (2017). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept of Spracherleben—The lived experience of language.Applied Linguistics,38(3), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv030 Károly 88 Carreres, Á., Noriega-Sánchez, M., & Pintado Gutiérrez, L. (2021). Introduction: Translation and plurilingual approaches to language teaching and learning. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.00066.int Cavanagh, S. R. (2016). The spark of learning: Energizing the college classroom with the science of emotion. West Virginia University Press. Chamberlain, L. (1988). Gender and the metaphorics of translation. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 13(3), 454–472. https://doi.org/10.1086/494428 Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation. The spread of ideas in translation theory (Rev. ed.). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.123 Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford University Press. Council of Europe (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989 Curtis, J. H., Zhang-Wu, Q., & Chang-Bacon, C. K. (2023). Introduction to the Special Issue.Journal of Language, Identity & Education,22(4), 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2023.2202582 Dam, H. V., & Koskinen, K. (2016). The translation profession: Centres and peripheries. JoSTrans:The Journal of Specialised Translation, 25, 2–14. https://jostrans.org/issue25/art_intro.pdf Dervin, F. (2022). Introduction. In F. Dervin & M. Y. Sude (Eds.), Teaching interculturality ‘otherwise’ (pp. 1–12). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003345275-1 Dervin, F. (2023). The paradoxes of interculturality. A toolbox of out-of-the-box ideas for intercultural communication education. Routledge. Dewaele, J.-M. (2010). Emotions in multiple languages. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289505 de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. (2021). 70 years of internationalization in tertiary education: Changes, challenges and perspectives.In H. van’t Land, A. Corcoran & D.-C. Iancu (Eds.), The promise of higher education: Essays in honour of 70 years of IAU (pp. 119–125). Springer. Díaz-Cintas, J. (2019). Film censorship in Franco’s Spain: The transforming power of dubbing. Perspectives, 27(2), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1420669 Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancyvalue theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859 Edwards, E. (2021). The ecological impact of action research on language teacher development: A review of the literature. Educational Action Research, 29(3), 396–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1718513 Ennser-Kananen, J., & Saarinen, T. (2022). Can you imagine? An imaginary of Finland’s higher education as anti-oppressive, intersectional practice. In M. Sommier, A. Roiha & M. Lahti (Eds.),Interculturality in higher education(pp. 11–26). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003322702-2 European Commission (2022). European Master’s in Translation – EMT competence framework. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/emt_competence_fwk_2022_en.pdf The pedagogical value of translation 89 Fielding, R., Galante, A., Bonar, G. J., Wang, M., & God, Y. (2023). Teaching for intercultural understanding – to what extent do curriculum documents encourage transformative intercultural experiences? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2170390 Flanagan, M., & Christensen, T. P. (2014). Testing post-editing guidelines: How translation trainees interpret them and how to tailor them for translator training purposes. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.936111 Galante, A. (2021). Translation as a pedagogical tool in multilingual classes: Engaging the learner’s plurilingual repertoire. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 7(1), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.00064.gal Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. Gentzler, E., & Tymoczko, M. (Eds.). (2002). Translation and power. University of Massachusetts Press. Gibbs, R. W. (2003). Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language, 84(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00517-5 González Davies, M. (2004).Multiple voices in the translation classroom: Activities, tasks, and projects. John Benjamins. González Davies, M. (2014). Towards a plurilingual development paradigm: From spontaneous to informed use of translation in additional language learning. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.908555 González Davies, M. (2015). Translating as translanguaging in additional language learning. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs, 60(2), 338. https://doi.org/10.7202/1032889ar González Davies, M. (2017). The use of translation in an Integrated Plurilingual Approach to language learning: Teacher strategies and best practices. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 4(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2017.1407168 González Davies, M., & Scott-Tennent, C. (2005). A problem-solving and student-centred approach to the translation of cultural references. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs, 50(1), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.7202/010666ar Göpferich, S., & Jääskeläinen, R. (2009). Process research into the development of translation competence: Where are we and where do we need to go? Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.10.2009.2.1 Haapaniemi, R. (2023). Translation as meaning-construction under co-textual and contextual constraints: A model for a material approach to translation. Translation Studies, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2022.2147988 Heltai, P. (2013). Kultúraspecifikus kifejezések és reáliák [Culture-specific items and realia]. Fordítástudomány, 15(1), 32–53. http://hdl.handle.net/10831/65019 Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Sage. Holliday, A. (2019). Understanding intercultural communication: Negotiating a grammar of culture (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351139526 Károly 90 Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). MIT Press. Jääskeläinen, R. (2010). Are all professionals experts? Definitions of expertise and reinterpretation of research evidence in process studies. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and Cognition (pp. 213–227). John Benjamins. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027288110-ata.xv.12jaa Jääskeläinen, R., Kujamäki, P., & Mäkisalo, J. (2011). Towards professionalism — or against it? Dealing with the changing world in translation research and translator education. Across Languages and Cultures, 12(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.12.2011.2.1 Katan, D. (2020). Culture. In Baker, M. & Saldahan, G. (Eds.). The Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (3rd ed.), (pp. 133–138). Routledge. Källkvist, M. (2013). Languaging in translation tasks used in a university setting: Particular potential for student agency? The Modern Language Journal,97(1), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01430.x Károly, A. (2022). Translation and dealing with “the other” in scholarly research and publishing: A call for more reflexivity. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 16(3), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.47862/apples.114741 Keller, M. M., Hoy, A. W., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2016). Teacher enthusiasm: Reviewing and redefining a complex construct. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 743–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9354-y Kemp, S. (2012). Translation studies and the integrated modern languages degree. Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research, 2(1). 121–134. https://pops.uclan.ac.uk/index.php/jsltr/article/view/91 Komisarof, A., & Zhu, H. (2016).Crossing boundaries and weaving intercultural work, life, and scholarship in globalBzing universities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740041 Koskinen, K. (2020).Translation and affect: Essays on sticky affects and translational affective. John Benjamins. Kramsch, C. (2011). The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural.Language Teaching,44(3), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444810000431 Kramsch, C. (2020). Language as symbolic power. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108869386 Kramsch, C. (2021, September 13). The poetic function of language in intercultural education [Online presentation]. Digital series of talks on plurilingualism and interculturality, Department of English, Germanic and Romance Studies, University of Copenhagen. https://engerom.ku.dk/english/calendar/2021/digital-series-of-talks-on- plurilingualism-and-interculturality/the-poetic-function-of-language-in-intercultural- education/ Kramsch, C., & Zhu, H. (2016). Language and culture in ELT. In G. Hall (Ed.), Routledge handbook of English language teaching(pp. 38–50). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676203-5 Kramsch, C., & Zhu, H. (2020). Translating culture in global times: An introduction.Applied Linguistics,41(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz020 Kusters, M., van der Rijst, R., de Vetten, A., & Admiraal, W. (2023). University lecturers as change agents: How do they perceive their professional agency?Teaching and Teacher Education, 127, 104097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104097 The pedagogical value of translation 97 Appendix C Additional Questions Used in the JYU Official Webropol Course Feedback Survey at the End of the First Course Implementation 1. What topics, activities, and modes of learning did you find interesting, enjoyable, thought-provoking, or useful for your own learning? 2. Is there a topic that you would have liked to discuss but was not covered in the course? 3. Has your thinking about translation as an activity and as a future career option changed in any way during the course? If so, how? Appendix D Questions in the Reflective Task Used at the End of the Second Course Implementation 1. What were the most positive aspects of the course? What helped you to learn / what worked particularly well for you? 2. What topics, activities, or modes of learning did you find most interesting, enjoyable, thought-provoking, or useful for your learning? 3. How did the group work go? 4. What aspects of the course did you like the least / what issues did not support your learning? 5. Has your thinking about translation as an activity and a future career option changed in any way during the course? If so, how? 6. Did you have any real-world translation experience before taking this course? Károly 98 Appendix E Main Aspects of Student Learning Experiences Type (elective) Format (Zoom/Face-to-face) Number of credits Duration Participant eligibility Course structure Pre-tasks In-class activities Project work Project presentations Learning events Topics Slides Moodle design Extra online tools and resources Learning materials and environments Multimodality Collaborative learning environments