A Comparative Study on the Components of the Revised M.A. English Translation Curriculum in Asian Universities

Abstract

The current master’s curriculum in English Translation major in Iranian universities has not satisfied the demands of the society in which it was developed. Translation students have complained that some essential skills are not considered in the curriculum. Therefore, this study is aimed at proposing some guidelines for curriculum reformers in Iran to update the curriculum. To investigate effective components for updating the curriculum, it is necessary to focus on the curricula of other universities in foreign countries and compare them with that of Iran. For this aim, a qualitative-comparative analysis is used to compare the revised master’s curriculum of English Translation in Iran with seven prominent Asian universities, to investigate the strength and weaknesses of the curriculum in Iran, and to recognize the effective components included in the curriculum of those seven prominent universities to be recommended to update the curriculum of Iranian universities. Hence, the curricula of eight universities have been compared with five criteria, including the title of the Master’s degree, the number of credits, the course structure, the instructional objectives, and the course content. Results show that to update the curriculum of Iranian universities, a list of courses and instructional objectives needs to be added to train translators who can work with technological tools. To achieve this objective, a course named “co-translator software” should be added to the curriculum. The other objective is to improve students’ interpretation skills, which are accessible by adding a course in interpretation. The findings provide novel information for Iranian curriculum reformers to work on updating the curriculum.

Exploring Common Grammatical Errors in Chinese Students Writing

“…Besides, Chinese students tend to overgeneralize the use of "will" and ignore the customary meaning of the word. As a result, they often see the future tense while writing [9].…”