REFLECTION ON THE AA&F MTT TRAINING
A. What has been done
The goal of the workshop was two-fold. The first was to teach Translation Principles, and the second was to translate the Christmas story in Matthew 2:1-12.
The facilitators, in making their lesson plans, aimed to meet both goals. The modules discussed during the workshop were translation problems found in Matthew 2:1-12. We specifically covered the following topics: Implicit and Elliptical Information, Figures of speech found in Mat. 2:1-12 (hyperbole, metonymy, metaphor and personification), Key Biblical Terms (Christ, worship, prophet, chief priests, scribes, Messiah) and Translation. We also taught them how to write Cultural notes on Unknown names of people and places and cultural behaviors such as (Bethlehem, Jerusalem, East, Magi, and King Herod).
We also tried to help them gain more computer skills by introducing them to the basic use of Translator’s Workplace especially in coming up with a key biblical term write-up. We also taught them the basics about Paratext (setting up a project and manipulating the Paratext windows) as not every team is using Adap-It (such was the focus of the first workshop in the area of computer skills). We did this by demonstration and return demonstration.
Over all, the workshop topic was good for the one-week workshop although at Day 2, the methodology had to be adjusted according to the level of understanding of the participants.
B. Evaluation of the works of participants, facilitators and the teaching methodology
On the first day, we tried to present the topics such as Implied information. We give examples from other passages in the Bible, then ask them to give examples from their own languages, then report and discuss with everybody. Afterwhich, we ask them to identify the examples in Matthew 2 and translate and backtranslate the verse into Tagalog or Iloccano keeping in mind (and applying as necessary) the principles learned during the day, then turn it in to the workshop staff for checking. The first day debrief as well as the papers that the participants turned in revealed that this method is not really producing good results. We specifically asked them on Day 1 to find a word or words in their language on how to express ‘cultural note,’ ‘implied information,’ and write a brief definition of each concept, and also to write a cultural note about Bethlehem, then about King Herod. We supplied the historical facts as well as other essential facts about the said topics. This turned out alright as they have only to choose which facts to include from the handout we gave them. When we came to implied information and translation, the participants seem to get hang up on trying to find what word to use in their language for Implied Information (or metonymy, or hyperbole) but not really paying any attention to the passage at hand because when they translated, we saw that it is just like a mirror-image of the Tagalog structure. Therefore, the staff met and decided to adjust and modify the teaching methodology.
On the second day onward, after a brief review of the qualities of good translation (emphasizing naturalness this time), we discuss a verse publicly with a teacher leading the discussion, including all cultural items, and handing out or flashing from the LCD projector) researched materials that would help them better understand the verse; such as cultural items, maps, and pictures. Secondly, we ask each team to translate the verse in their own language (working individually at first and then discussing each individual translation within their groups, and coming up with a group translation to be used for discussion. We taught them how to do a back translation and asked them to do it with their translation. We have them write their translation in a manila paper and we discuss each team’s work one by one. At the end of the day, one representative from each language team verbalized that they have now started to understand what we were trying to do and what we want from them. They also said that looking at how someone handles a passage or looking at someone else’ translation (in this case, other languages) helps them a lot to see what is good in their work and what needs improvement.
The teaching staff from the NPMTTA did quite well. Dalmas Binwag from the CITA team shared three days of his short vacation from AGS to teach at the workshop. He is the one who made an observation that prompted the teaching team to make an adjustment since we seem to be bombarding the participants with new concepts and difficult technical terms which making the participants lose their focus on learning how to incorporate the principles they are learning into their translation.
Mary Ann Donato from the Agta Palanan Translation team taught her topics well with humor and understanding particularly of the Agta culture. It is obvious from the participants especially the Agtas that it was good for them to see one of their own teaching them about Bible translation.
Maricel Chavez from the Paranan Translation Team performed well too with the coolness of a seasoned teacher (both girls are actually studying to be teachers). Her knowledge of the Agta language as well as Tagalog which is mostly the medium of communication during the workshop contributed a lot to the success of the workshop.
Sarah Pido from the Kalanguya Translation Team (a two-time member of LMTTT teaching staff) has contributed much especially on the organization of the workshop. She also taught specific topics and has explained it well to the participants.
In spite of all the above, I know that more exposure and experience in training other MTTs will not only help all of us (facilitators) improve our teaching skills but also gain better understanding of translation itself, after all, teaching is one of the best ways of learning.
During the closing day, a representative from each team gave a short evaluation of the workshop and they are one in saying that they have gained new knowledge and understood translation better. Their concept that they can just take the Tagalog Bible and reword it in their own language has been replaced by an awareness that they need to go deeper and study it, and not only study the passage they are translating but keep in mind also their own language; how their language would handle such kind of speech, utterance, figure of speech, or story.
The participants did their best as can be seen in their output. I believe that with supervision and more training, it is possible for them to become competent Bible translators in spite of the low-educational attainment of the majority. Independence might come much later but I have seen first hand that it is really possible to train them because they can grasp difficult concepts for as long as it is taught at the level of their abilities and translated in a language that they understand better. I believe that in the next two years, we can expect them to produce a translation that can be consultant-checked, say plan workshops that has a translation consultant to check their work.
Challenges
This workshop has been attended by a variety of people groups but the common denominator is that they are all starting in Bible translation and therefore most are relatively new. The challenge was in the language of teaching and discussion. Some preferred Ilocano and some preferred Tagalog. The challenge therefore is trying to discuss and explain mostly English-expressed concepts into Tagalog to people who speak a totally different language. Since 70-80% can understand Tagalog more than Ilocano, Tagalog was chosen to be the major medium of communication. This seemed to have worked quite well although there are still comments that some participants hoped to hear discussions in Ilocano as well. To help this situation, the teaching staff used Ilocano to explain concepts to the individuals who understand Ilocano better than they do Tagalog. This added an extra load to the teachers but the principle was…. anything for the sake of
accurate, clearer and better understanding.
BIG THANKS!!!!!!!!
I would like to take this chance to thank you all who shared your time, resources and presence during the workshop, even to those who prayed for us. A special thanks goes to all those who made themselves available to assist us in any way. For a first timer (as a workshop coordinator, with no mentor present to guide) like me, it was a very encouraging and comforting thing to hear how 'people' are willing to be of assistance. ... So to you Sirs at the Center, thank you for letting me/us know that help is just a holler (and text) away. 
Comments