Leaving the “peer” out of peer-editing: Online translators as a pedagogical tool in the Spanish as a second language classroom.

Maite Correa

doi:10.5294/3568

Autores/as

Maite Correa Autor/a Colorado State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5294/3568

Palabras clave:

deshonestidad académica, trampas, comparación lingüística, conciencia metalingüística, traductores e n línea .

Resumen

If you can not beat them, join him [sic] (Traducción automática del traductor de Google de Si no puedes con tu enemigo, únete a él ). La deshonestidad académica es común en escuelas y centros educativos de todo el mundo y, con la ayuda de la tecnología, es más fácil que nunca: mientras las computadoras e internet proporcionan a los estudiantes todas las herramientas necesarias paraplagiar cómodamente desde casa, los maestros se encuentran haciendo de “lingüista forense” para recoger evidencia de trampas académicas. La deshonestidad académica en la clase de lengua extranjera no es muy diferente de la que se puede encontrar en otras disciplinas excepto por dos tipos: edición no autorizada por parte de un nativo hablante o alguien con nivel avanzado de la lengua meta y el uso de traductores en línea. Aunque no sean un problema para asignaturas como química o psicología, son dos tipos de engaño académico muy comunes en clases de lengua extranjera. En este artículo examino el uso de los traductores en línea: ¿en qué se diferencian de los diccionarios en línea? ¿Cómo se pueden detectar? ¿Cómo se puede prevenir su uso? Finalmente propongo ut ilizarlos como parte de la clase para minimizar y disuadir su uso así como para aumentar la conciencia metalingüística de los estudiantes.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Maite Correa, Colorado State University

Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics

Foreign Languages and Literatures

Citas

Anderman, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2007). Psychology of academic cheating. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Beasley, J. D. (2004). The impact of technology on plagiarism prevention and detection: Research process automation, a new approach for prevention (pp. 1–11). Presented at the Plagiarism: Prevention, Practice & Policy Conference, Newcastle upon Tyne. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134.2382&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5

Blum, S. D. (2009). My word!: Plagiarism and college culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Bolin, B. (2010). Addressing plagiarism with Stasis Theory. Currents in Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 4–12.

Bunn, D. N., Caudill, S. B., & Gropper, D. M. (1992). Crime in the classroom: An economic analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior. Journal of Economic Education, 23(3), 197–207.

Byrd, D. R. (2003). Practical tips for implementing peer editing tasks in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 434–441. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02125.x

Correa, M. (2011). Academic dishonesty in the second language classroom: Instructors’ perspectives. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 1(1), 65–79.

Eisner, C., & Vicinus, M. (Eds.). (2008). Originality, imitation, and plagiarism: Teaching writing in the digital age. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Fandrych, I. (2001). Word processors’ grammar and spelling assistance: Consequences for second language learning and teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(6). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Fandrych-WordPro.html

French, J. R. (1991). Machine translation. In W. Brierley & I. R. Kemble (Eds.), Computers as a tool in language teaching (pp. 55–69). Chichester, West Sussex: Ellis Horwood Limited.

Garcia, I., & Pena, M. I. (2011). Machine translation-assisted language learning: writing for beginners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 471–487. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.582687

Harris, R. A. (2001). The plagiarism handbook: Strategies for preventing, detecting, and dealing with plagiarism. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Higbee, J. L., Schultz, J. L., & Sanford, T. (2011). Student perspectives on behaviors that constitute cheating. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 4(10), 1–8.

Houtman, A. M., & Walker, S. (2010). Decreasing plagiarism: What works and what doesn’t. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 21(1), 51–71.

Hughes, D. (2003). Teaching an old dog new tricks: Effective use of the word processor in ESL classrooms. Teaching English with Technology: A Journal for Teachers of English, 3(1), 25–40.

Kavadlo, J. (2010). Preventing plagiarism, promoting honor: Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love online discussions. Currents in Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 54–63.

Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2008). The phenomena of contract cheating. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Student plagiarism in an online world: Problems and solutions. (pp. 144–158). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Lathrop, A., & Foss, K. (2000). Student cheating and plagiarism in the Internet era: A wake-up call. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Lathrop, A., & Foss, K. (2005). Guiding students from cheating and plagiarism to honesty and integrity: strategies for change. Wesport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Layton, T. G. (2005). The digital child. In A. Lathrop & K. Foss (Eds.), Guiding students from cheating and plagiarism to honesty and integrity: strategies for change (pp. 7–9). Wesport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press/ELT.

Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605–651. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002

Luton, L. (2003). If the computer did my homework, how come I didn’t get an “A”? The French Review, 76(4), 766–770.

McCarthy, B. (2004). Does online machine translation spell the end of take-home translation assignments? CALL-EJ Online, 6(1), 6–1.

Niño, A. (2009). Machine translation in foreign language learning: Language learners’ and tutors’ perceptions of its advantages and disadvantages. ReCALL, 21(02), 241–258. doi:10.1017/S0958344009000172

O’Neill, E. M. (2012). The effect of online translators on L2 writing in French. University of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Il.

Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9

Pecorari, D. E. (2002). Original reproductions: An investigation of the source use of postgraduate second language writers. The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Richmond, I. M. (1994). Doing it backwards: Using translation software to teach target-language grammaticality. Computer assisted language learning, 7(1), 65–78.

Somers, H., Gaspari, F., & Niño, A. (2006). Detecting inappropriate use of free online machine translation by language students–A special case of plagiarism detection. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation (pp. 41–48). Oslo, Norway.

Stapleton, P. (2012). Gauging the effectiveness of anti-plagiarism software: An empirical study of second language graduate writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 125–133. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.003

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2008). Plagiarism, the internet, and student learning: Improving academic integrity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Williams, L. (2006). Web‐based machine translation as a tool for promoting electronic literacy and language awareness. Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 565–578. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02276.x

Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29–38.

Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. (2006). Games for language learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 426–437. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05378.x