PAPER TITLE IN CAPITAL, FONT SIZE 14, SINGLE SPACE, BOLD, CENTER, NOT MORE THAN 15 WORDS Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 40 OPTIMALIZING YOU TUBE VIDEOS TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ TRANSLATION SKILL Humaira 1) , Ilham 2) , & Rudi Arrahman 3) , 1 English Education Department, FKIP-Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram, Indonesia mairamoe@yahoo.com 2 English Education Department, FKIP-Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram , Indonesia ilham_sila@yahoo.co.id 3 FKIP-Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram, Indonesia Abstract This study attempts to formulate the issues of YouTube in teaching translation courses of improving students’ skill. This research used classroom action research. The study was conducted at the VIII semester students in English education program FKIP-UM Mataram with total respondents were 25 students. The results showed a significant improvement related to the ability of students’ translation. It can be seen from the increase of the average value obtained by students at each stage. In try out, their average score is 5.6, then in cycle 1 increased to 6.75 and in cycle 2, the average student score increased to 7.3. Key words: You tube, translation, skill 1. INTRODUCTION Today, the skill of being a translator is considered very important remembering about need analysis toward translation. Translation process has been known well by people of Greek since 1st BC, it was firstly introduced by Cicero and St. Jerome (Munday, J, 2008). St. Jerome translated the holy Bible from Greek to the Latin, and then affected the translation process all over the world. We realize that the transformation of science, knowledge and technology becomes so massive done by the professional translators, as well as sophisticated technological tools that serve as human translators. This is become a big challenge for English students to have skill to become a translator, not only for job-seeking skills, but the main thing is to help students themselves in solving lecturing problems. It is indicating the central role of translation in spreading out the knowledge by translating many books from one source language to the target language (Bassnett, 2002). This phenomena supported translation subject Creation is distributed under the Creative Commons License Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International Published in: http://ejournal.stkipmpringsewu-lpg.ac.id/index.php/smart Jurnal SMART : Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Jurnal SMART , Volume 4, No 1 (2018), Page. 40- 51 ISSN Cetak : 2356-2048 ISSN Online : 2356-203X DOI: https://doi.org/10.26638/js.576.203X mailto:mairamoe@yahoo.com mailto:ilham_sila@yahoo.co.id https://doi.org/10.26638/js.576.203X Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 41 into applied linguistics and become a professional skill learnt intensively in University level (Newmark, 1988). These facts appeared many experts in defining translation formally. Those experts formulated many theories in terms with their background and knowledge; they formulated the translation terms not only in theories but also practice-applicative as a new branch of knowledge. The definition of translation stated by Nida & Taber (1982) that the translation process is an effort to express the meaning from source language to the target language. Another definition comes from Newmark (1991) stated that translation is “rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text”. The same terms also expressed by Hatim, B & Munday, J (2004). They analogized the translation as key words to understand the writer, author and other culture and language without meet the directly. Those definitions showed the strong position of translation in the development of knowledge nowadays. Mostly, textbooks and learning materials of English students generally use books English-based. Thus, their ability to translate texts is also a measurement in assessing the level of English proficiency. The better the quality of translation results is done, the higher the level of student fluency in understanding the English language (Humaira, 2015). However, the translation process is not as easy as we imagine. During teaching courses translation I or II, the authors observed that students found considerable difficulties. Not only caused by the differences of grammar structure between Bahasa Indonesia and the target language (English), cultural differences are also play very difficult constraint in finding the equivalent words for the intended meaning, especially the translation process from Indonesian to English. It’s proved by several studies have been conducted by some researchers; e.i Mulyanto, H (2015) and Humaira (2015) related to the students’ skill in translating text which is placed low categories. In related with this study, there was also research done published by Turner, J.M & Mathieu, S (2007) entitled, “WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS”. This writing focused on how students opened and gathering information access through media and audiovisual in teaching and learning translation course, Humaira.............................................. Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 42 as well as what this research have been done. The next, the problem is also very important is about techniques of teaching translation which has been so monotonous. In general, the author realizes that the space is narrow to create innovation in terms of technique development and methods of teaching translation. Recently, the teaching of translation course commonly related to the translating text only without any other attractive activities to attract students for developing their skills. Even thought, group discussion sometimes implemented. That’s make the translation subjects are bored because students assume that this course is not interesting and there was not kinds of activities carried out in the class. Therefore, as a lecturer, writers are required to have creativity and innovation that must always be dynamic and continuo as an effort to improve the quality of teaching, both the quality of lecturers' knowledge, and the quality of the students as the object of teaching. So, this research tries to offer one of the new variations of technique, namely teaching translation using YouTube. Generally, the use of YouTube techniques will look strange as a text translation medium. Because YouTube is usually a medium commonly applied to teaching listening or sometimes in speaking courses. This is because YouTube always displays verbal visualizations that are easier to use to listen as well as to learn to speak. However, we can see YouTube today displays a variety of topics, and it possible to be used as an effort to develop other skills including in teaching translation course. Teaching model through YouTube in translation is done by asking students to download YouTube videos (in English version) that they most like, they can decide what type of video genre they want; it can be a cooking demonstration, an host of event, political news or even make-up tutorials or other topics. They are then asked to directly interpret/translate what is described by the model on YouTube. Therefore, this research becomes important by noting that the process of interpretation as explains above is expected to make students more enthusiastic in learning translation, because they can see the visuals directly. So, if they have trouble in finding the meaning of the spoken word, they can guess by looking at what the model does in YouTube (without having to open the dictionary, or even open Google translate). It will make them easier to Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 43 understand and translate the verbal language used by the model, adding to their vocabulary, as well as their insights in new, interesting, and much more colorful ways. This technique becomes possible to do because remembering students at the eighth semester who are considered to have good English language skills. They will also become more creative in choosing videos with topics that they master, without having to be tied to the type of text the lecturers give at each meeting. 2. RESEARCH METHODS This research conducted at Faculty of Teacher Training and Education (FKIP) UM-Mataram, English education program at the eighth semester students in academic year 2016-2017. Respondents in this study were 25 students in Class A. It’s because researcher only able to assess 1 class intensively. This research was Classroom Action Research (CAR). Classroom action research is a study focuses on the practical reflection of an issue arises in the teaching and learning process, the classroom action research requires teachers/lecturers/ practitioners who become researchers as a means to solve the problems found in the classroom (Arikunto, 2010: 128). Stages of classroom action research can be seen in the chart adapted from Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) as cited in (Burns, A: 2010: 09) below: The stages of the chart can be concluded in four steps, they are: a) Planning, b) Action, c) Observation, and d) Reflection. (Kemmis & McTaggart, (1988) as cited in Burns, A: 2010: 09). In an effort to collect the data appropriately and systematically, there were several instruments that have been used. Data collection tools focus on observation, recording and also triangulation. Triangulation, not only mean to find the truth, but also to improve the understanding of lecturers or teachers to the problems that still exist (Sugiyono: 2009). Triangulation applied to the source of data derived from the results of the translation of students, then evaluated in each cycle, transcripts of the recording will be given a score in accordance with the standard assessment of translation rules. This research done in qualitative descriptive approach, and assessment Humaira.............................................. Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 44 models of students' verbal translation results were measured according to the adapted translation assessment standards of some models. The measurement standard is as follows: Table 3.1 Assessment Standard Standard of Assessment Description Accuracy 3 (Match) 2 (Lack of Match) 1 (Not Match) Readability 3 (Easy) 2 (Sufficie nt) 1 (Difficul t) Acceptabilit y 3 (Accept able) 2 (Less Accepta ble) 1 (Unacce ptable) Adapted from Nababan (2004) These three standards are commonly used to measure the level of accuracy in translating texts that tend to be written text. However, since in principle the translation model is equally well written or verbal, the measuring instruments used are also standardized by means of measuring instruments for written text. The measuring tools of these three aspects will be described as follows: 1) Accuracy Rating Instrument This instrument is commonly used to measure the equivalence level of translation products based on the theory of Nagao, Nakamura (1998) cited in Nababan et al, 2012), while the scale can be explained as follows: Table 3.2 Modification of Rating Accuracy Instrument S c a le C a te g o ry Indicator 3 M a tc h in g  The message is suited exactly in the target language (BSa)  There’s no deviations/ distortion meaning  There’s no addition, omission, alteration of information  Choosing and the terms usage of each unit of translation 2 L a c k o f M a tc h in g  The message is less suited exactly in the target language (BSa)  There a few deviations/ distortion meaning  There a few addition, omission, alteration of alteration information  There a few mistaken in choosing and the terms usage of each unit of translation 1 N o t M a tc h in g  The message is not convoyed exactly in the target language (BSa)  There deviations/distortion meaning  There addition, omission, alteration of information  There mistaken in choosing and the terms usage of each unit of translation (Nababan et al, 2012) 2) Acceptability Rating Instrument To measure the level of acceptability of the results of students’ translation from English to Indonesian have been tested using the approach of Machali (2000: 119-120). The categories are as follows: Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 45 Table 3.3 The Traffic Assessment of Translation S c a le C a te g o ry Indicator 3 A c c e p ta b le  The translation is natural, genuine, flexible and rigid  It doesn’t like the translation result  The translation is reflect to commonly communication in the context of target language (BSa)  Used grammar and style of common language of the speaker of the target language  It is not relate with the source language 2 L e ss A c c e p ta b le  The translation is seemed rigid thus it is kind of the result of translation  The translation is less usual because of there are grammar and the style of language who didn’t find in the target language  It is relate to the structure of the source language (BSu) 1 U n a c c e p ta b le  The translation is not natural and sense rigid  It sensed as translation result  There are style of language and grammar who didn’t find on the target language (BSa)  It’s related to source language (BSu) (Machali, 2000: 119-120) 3) Readability Rating Instrument The measurement model for legibility in translation results based on the adapting the approach taken by Nababan (2004: 62). The assessment model is as described in the table below: Table 3.4 Modification of Readability of Rating Instrument S c a le C r it e r ia Indicator 3 E a sy The translation is easy to understand and the meaning is understandable. The translator have particular knowledge of the terms in translating 2 S u ff ic ie n t The translation is easy to understand and the meaning is understandable however there 1-2 terms who don’t know by the translator 1 D if fi c u lt The translation is a bit can be understood and known by the translator because there usage of the terms who didn’t understand and know by translator. Nababan (2004) To measure the overall component, calculations will be made using the average standard as in the table. Table 3.5 Computation Standard Per Items The Mean Accuracy Acceptable Readability 9 x 3= 27 9x2= 18 9x1= 9 Adopted from Hartono R (2009) As for calculating the overall percentage of score in each item will be used the following formula: where, P = Percentage f = Score students and n = Number of respondents. From the overall result of the students' assessment, it will be accumulated using the following assessment standards: Humaira.............................................. Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 46 Table 3.6 Individual Classification Score Score Classification 1. 9,6-10 Excellent 2. 8,6-9,5 very good 3. 7,6-8,5 Good 4. 6,6-7,5 Fairly good 5. 5,6-6,5 Fair 6. 3,6-5,5 Poor 7. 0-3,5 Very poor (Heaton’s, 1975: 100) 3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Condition on Pre-Cycle As the Classroom Action research tradition, try out is done to find out the student's ability to translate the text. Students were observed directly during courses translation takes place. Students used to not really enthusiastic in translating texts were often given by lecturers. Although basically, translating text is easier and gives more space for students to think and look up the meaning of difficult words. So, in the try out the researchers asked the students in turns to translate the video without text displayed through the LCD screen and loudspeakers. 1 student translated several line sentences to determine their capability. And almost can be said, most students can not translate the sentences that they hear correctly. From the try out results, the average score of students based on the standard assessment translation as described in Chapter III is; Table 4.1 Student’s Score in Pre- Cycle N o Name Score Total D A A R 1 M 16 14 6 6 Fg 2 MT 12 12 5 4,8 P 3 MA. 14 10 6 5 P 4 NS 15 12 6 5,5 P 5 PS 14 10 4 4,7 P 6 PI 12 12 6 5 P 7 QE 14 12 6 5,3 P 8 RM 15 14 6 5,8 F 9 RB 15 16 9 6,67 Fg 10 RN 15 10 4 4, 84 P 11 RA 18 12 8 6,34 F 12 SH 18 10 7 5, 34 P 13 S 12 8 5 4,5 P 14 S 21 14 8 7, 16 Fg 15 T 18 12 8 6, 34 F 16 U 18 16 8 7 Fg 17 W 16 12 5 5,5 P 18 WS 16 12 6 5,7 F 19 YW 15 12 6 5,5 P 20 TS 18 12 8 6,34 F 21 MU 16 14 7 6,17 F 22 AH 16 12 5 5,5 P 23 AS 14 10 6 5 P 24 CS 12 12 5 4,8 Poor 25 HT 18 15 6 6,5 Fair Total (F) 388 305 156 5,6 Fair P 15,5 2% 12,2 % 6,24 % Category from result try out above, can be presented in the following table: Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 47 Table 4.2 Result of Tryout Score No. Score K P C 1. 9,6 - 10 E 2. 8,6 - 9,5 Vg 3. 7,6 - 8,5 Good 4. 6,6 - 7,5 4 students 16 % Fair Enou gh 5. 5,6 - 6,5 7 students 28 % Fair 6. 3,6 - 5,5 14 students 56 % Poor 7. 0 - 3,5 Total 25 students 100% 1.1 Findings in Cycle 1 (First) 1.1.1 Planning From findings of try out results and also based on the identification of previous problems, the researcher designs the action plan done in the research process (teaching and learning process). The research was intense on the first, second, third and fourth weeks of May 2016. 1.2.2 Action The results of the assessment for the first cycle can be seen in the table below: Table 4.3 Students’ Score in First Cycle No Name Score Total D A A R 1 M 18 15 7 6,67 Fg 2 MT 16 14 7 6,5 Fg 3 MA. 18 16 7 6,8 Fg 4 NS 20 17 6 7,17 Fg 5 PS 18 15 7 6,67 Fg 6 PI 16 14 7 6,17 Fg 7 QE 18 16 9 7,17 Fg 8 RM 18 14 7 6,5 F 9 RB 20 17 8 7,5 Fg 10 RN 18 16 8 7 Fg 11 RA 16 15 7 6,3 F 12 SH 21 16 9 7,67 G 13 S 21 16 8 7,5 Fg 14 S 21 18 8 7,8 G 15 T 16 15 7 6,3 F 16 U 18 16 7 6,83 Fg 17 W 18 16 8 7 Fg 18 WS 18 16 8 7 Fg 19 YW 18 15 8 6,83 Fg 20 TS 16 15 6 6,17 F 21 MU 18 16 7 6,83 Fg 22 AH 16 14 6 6 F 23 AS 20 16 7 7,17 Fg 24 CS 18 15 7 6,67 Fg 25 HT 20 17 8 7,5 Fg Total (F) 457 395 185 6,75 Fair P 18,2 8 % 15,8 % 7,4 % The categories of the above cycle 1 results can be presented in the following table: Table 4.4 Results of Cycle 1 Score K P C 1. 9,6 – 10 E 2. 8,6 - 9,5 Vg 3. 7,6 - 8,5 2 orang 8% G 4. 6,6 - 7,5 18 orang 72 % Fg 5. 5,6 - 6,5 5 orang 20 % F 6. 3,6 - 5,5 P 7. 0 - 3,5 Vp Total 25 orang 100% Humaira.............................................. Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 48 1.2.3 Reflection From the results of try out and also the assessment process during cycle 1, there were some notes that become important to be cared by the researchers. The first reflection lies on the average student scores that still have not been satisfactory. In the try out, the average score of students is still at 5.6 points, while the value in cycle 1 increases at 6.75, which has not fulfilled the standard of minimum GPA is 70 (B). In general, it can be said that learning process is still not successful for research in cycle 1. The improvement achieved is not satisfactory, so it needs revision and improvement to be done, not only in teaching method, but also in overall class management and also the material used in learning process. 1.3 Findings in Cycle 2 (Second) The second cycle is done in June from the first, second, third and fourth week. So, the meeting is held for 4 times as in the first cycle with the same duration. 1.3.1 Revising the Plan Based on some actions performed as an improvement effort done by the researcher were; (1) before the show, students are given time to study and/or listen to the video they want to translate while explaining the evaluation results and notes of the weaknesses and shortcomings of each student when performing in front of the class, (2) the researcher interacted more actively with the students , researchers provided stimulation by delivering constructive questions in order to get feedback and to understand the students’ expectations of what the interesting materials they want to translate, (3) in addition is revising the teaching model, researchers also change the pattern and learning materials, students who find the difficulties to understand the videos that they downloaded, are given the freedom to change their videos with new easier videos and by considering the video’s speed. Thus, students who lack the ability to grasp the speaker's intentions can be more easily resolved. 1.3.2 Action The results of the assessment for the second cycle can be seen in the table below: Table 4.3 Students Score in Cycle 2 No Name Score Total D A A R 1 M 20 18 9 7,83 G 2 MT 18 16 7 6,8 Fg Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 49 3 MA. 21 18 8 7,8 G 4 NS 20 17 8 7,5 Fg 5 PS 18 16 8 7 Fg 6 PI 21 17 9 7,83 G 7 QE 18 17 8 7,17 Fg 8 RM 16 16 7 6,5 F 9 RB 20 18 9 7,83 G 10 RN 18 16 7 6,83 Fg 11 RA 21 17 8 7,67 G 12 SH 18 16 8 7 Fg 13 S 20 17 8 7,5 Fg 14 S 21 17 9 7,83 G 15 T 21 17 8 7,67 G 16 U 21 18 9 8 G 17 W 18 17 8 7,17 Fg 18 WS 20 18 8 7,67 G 19 YW 18 17 8 7,17 Fg 20 TS 20 17 8 7,5 Fg 21 MU 20 18 8 7,67 G 22 AH 18 17 8 7,17 Fg 23 AS 18 16 7 6,83 Fg 24 CS 16 15 7 6,3 F 25 HT 20 17 8 7,5 Fg Total (F) 480 423 20 0 7,3 F P 19,2 % 16,9 2 % 8 % The categories of the above cycle 2 results can be presented in the following table: Table 4.4 Student Categories in Cycle 2 Score K P C 1. 9,6 – 10 E 2. 8,6 - 9,5 Vg 3. 7,6 - 8,5 10 students 40% G 4. 6,6 - 7,5 13 students 52% Fg 5. 5,6 - 6,5 2 students 8% F 6. 3,6 - 5,5 P 7. 0 - 3,5 Vp Total 25 students 25 students 100% 1.3.3 Reflection From two cycles have been done previously, it needs some reflections comprehensively. The first reflection is to translate video directly is not an easy thing, not only because of the language factor, but also listening ability is supporting someone to be able to translate well and precisely. However, students habitual and routines will help to be more responsive in interpreting or translating native speaker video. The second reflection is that the lecturer did not have to worry about continuing to innovate and develop the teaching technique, because the change started from the willingness and followed up by the real action. It does not matter how long that moves give a change, whether significant or not. Generally, the activities undertaken by the lecturer will affect the pattern of mindset and student learning patterns. By always trying to be innovative, the students will participate creatively in the classroom. It can be Humaira.............................................. Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 50 seen from the many interesting videos displayed by students, who unknowingly provide many new lessons and knowledge not only for students itself but also for lecturers. The third reflection is that, as instructors, researchers also realize that each child (student) has different talents and passion, the teaching task is to provide support for their talents and direct them in a positive context. Therefore, in this case the researcher cannot impose that the student must be able to translate video with a fairly fast speed is perfect and professional. At least, students have other alternatives techniques to learn. Because if you expect students as much as native speakers’ like and also be a very professional translator, is certainly impossible. It’s because the absence of native speakers who cannot be asked to become a student learning partner. Students can further explore other more difficult videos to challenge their ability to translate even though not necessarily in the classroom. They can do this while lying in the room or while hanging out with friends. Upgrades at each stage can be seen in the following graph: Graph 4.1 Student Translation Values from Three Stages of Test From this graph can be concluded that the use of the technique of "Optimalizing You Tube Videos to Improve Students’ Translation Skill at the 8th Semester students of English Education Program, FKIP UM Mataram has met the criteria of success or it can be said that this techniques is success. 4. CONCLUSION The results showed a significant improvement related to the ability of students’ translation. It can be seen from the graph of the increase in the average value obtained by students at each stage. In try out, their average score is 5.6, then in cycle 1 increased to 6.75 and in cycle 2, the average student score increased to 7.3. 5. REFERENCES Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta. Poor 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Categories Poor Fair Fairly Good Good Optimalizing You Tube....................................... 51 Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation Studies. New York: Rountledge. Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching. New York: Rountlegde, Madison Eve. Hartono, R. (2009). Teori Penerjemahan (A Handbook for Translators). Semarang: CV Cipta Prima Nusantara Semarang Hatim, B & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An Advanced Resourse Book. New York: Rountledge. Humaira, (2015). Analisis Kemampuan Mahasiswa Semester V dalam Menterjemahkan Teks Berbasis Budaya Lokal. Mataram: UMM Heaton, J.B. (1975). English Language Test. New York: Longman. Machali. (2000). Pedoman bagi penerjemah: Panduan Lengkap bagi Anda yang Ingin Menjadi Penerjemah Profesional. Jakarta: PT. Grasindo. Mulyanto, H. (2015). A Thesis: Indonesia’s Interferences in Translating Text into English Text. UM Mataram: Unpublished. Munday, J. (2008). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Practice. New York: Rountledge. Nababan., M. R. (2004). Strategi Penilaian Kualitas. Jurnal Linguistic Bahasa, University of Surakarta,Vol. 2.No. 1. Nababan, et. al. (2012). Pengembangan Model Penilaian Kualitas Terjemahan. Journal of Translation in University of Sebelas Maret, Vol. 24, No. 1, June 2012. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook Translation. Shanghai: Foreign Language Education Press. Newmark, P. (1991). About Translation. Britain: Cromwell Press Ltd Nida, E.A & Taber, C.R. (1982). The Theori and Practice of Translation. Leiden: The United Bible Societies. Sugiyono. (2009). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta. Turner, J.M & Mathieu, S. (2007). World Library and Information Congress: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL. 19- 23 August, 1-11. Humaira..............................................