Post-Editing Skills in a Tech-Savvy World: A Case in an Undergraduate Translation Classroom

Engliana Engliana, Ekarina Ekarina

Abstract


This article reports on a small-scale qualitative study of how undergraduate translation students work with machine translation (MT) output in a post-editing task. The project grew out of concern that translation classes often still rely on traditional, teacher-centered methods and do not always integrate current AI- and MT-based tools. The study is framed by models of translation and post-editing competence, with a particular focus on how students spot, classify, and correct errors. Data were collected from five students using a short survey, a post-editing task based on an MT version of a general English text used in class, and a structured written interview consisting of 18 questions. The analysis adopts a content-analytic approach and is organized around five types of translation problems, or rich points: lexical problems (including specialized and culture-bound items), morphosyntactic issues (such as sentence complexity and voice), textual problems (coherence and tone), extralinguistic knowledge (cultural and domain references), and intentionality/reader adaptation. Sixteen rich points were pre-identified in the source text and examined through the students' post-edited Indonesian outputs and their own explanations of the choices they made. The findings shed light on how students actually use MT in classroom tasks, which problems they notice and which they tend to overlook, as well as how they view MT and AI tools, and the future of translation work. Based on these findings, the study argues for a curriculum design that uses MT as a starting point for training in error handling, critical judgment, and other core competencies in human translation, rather than treating MT as a shortcut for translation.

Keywords


Machine Translation; post-editing; rich points; translation competence; technology

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abu-Ghararah, B. A. (2015). The availability and use of technology and learning resources in translation programs. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL, 2, 81 – 90. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2843979

Aditya, B. R., Ferdiana, R., & Kusumawardani, S. S. (2021). Categories for barriers to digital transformation in higher education: An analysis based on literature. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 11(12), 658–664. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.12.1578

Akram, T. (2023, April). Artificial Intelligence & Digital Intelligence: Big things, small beginnings. https://smallseotools.com/blog/artificial-and-digital-intelligence/

Al-Hadithy, T. M. (2015). The traditional vs. the modern translation classroom: A need for new directions in the UAE undergraduate translation programs. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.026

Alqahtani, M. H., & Al-Ahdal, A. A. M. H. (2025). ChatGPT in English­-Arabic translation: Learner perceptions and the treatment of humor and empathy. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(12). https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i12.11682

Başer, Z., & Aral, M. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and technology implementation in teaching Translation in universities. Bulletin of The Faculty of Languages & Translation, 27(2), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.21608/bflt.2024.399201

Bowker, L. (2020). Machine translation literacy instruction for international business students and business English instructors. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 25(1–2), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2020.1794739

Castillo, L. M. (2015). Acquisition of translation competence and translation acceptability: An experimental study. Translation and Interpreting, 7(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.106201.2015.a07

Daems, J., Carl, M., Vandepitte, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Macken, L. (2016). The effectiveness of consulting external resources during translation and post-editing of general text types. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp. 111–133). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_6

Dahlin, E. (2021). Email interviews: A guide to research design and implementation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211025453

Devika, T. (2024). A study of the evaluation of translation and reader response. Journal of Indian Languages and Indian Literature in English, 02(10), 63–68. https://jilile.in/articles/ySvELljM0

DQ Institute. (2022). What is the DQ framework? Global standards for digital literacy, skills, and readiness. https://live.dqinstitute.org/dq-framework/

Engliana. (2015). Raising pragmatic awareness in translation and translating. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature, IX(April), 171–176. http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/LC/article/view/3707

Engliana. (2016a). Semantics and philosophy of language in translation practice. Language Circle, 10(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.15294/lc.v10i2.5622

Engliana. (2016b). Utilizing logging and recording programs to understand translation process. TransCon 2016: The 6th Atma Jaya International Conference on Translation & Interpretation Studies, “Revisiting Cultural Issues in the Translation and Interpreting Industry,” 17–25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331020900_UTILIZING_LOGGING_AND_RECORDING_PROGRAMS_TO_UNDERSTAND_TRANSLATION_PROCESS

Engliana, E., & Silva, A. M. da. (2025). Peran pendidik dalam AI, kecerdasan digital, dan berpikir kritis. In C. R. P. Ajisuksmo, M. Dua, & L. A. M. Yogatama (Eds.), Perkembangan informasi dan teknologi digital bagi kehidupan manusia kini dan akan datang (pp. 335–372). Penerbit Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya. https://lib.atmajaya.ac.id/default.aspx?tabID=61&src=k&id=257744

European Commission. (2007). Tourists can do their bits. Juvenes Translatores — Practice texts for translation. https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e187b871-5cba-4157-bf42-45267c99d180_en?filename=en_english.pdf

Fan, K., & Chunlei, W. (2023). Translation Studies in the era of AI: Characteristics, fields and significance. International Journal of Translation and Interpretation Studies, 3(4), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijtis.2023.3.4.7x

He, Y. (2021). Challenges and countermeasures of translation teaching in the era of Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1881(2), 022086. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1881/2/022086

ISO. (2017). Translation services. Post-editing of machine translation output. BSI British Standards. https://doi.org/10.3403/30279909U

Latorraca, R. (2023). Lost in post-editing. An exploratory study on translation trainees’ perceived EN>IT post-editing vs. translation performance. Ampersand, 11(July), 100144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100144

Li, M., & Li, D. (2025). Human Expertise vs AI Efficiency: A Comparative analysis of student and ChatGPT post-editing. In S. Sun, K. Liu, & R. Moratto (Eds.), Translation Studies in the age of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 150–171). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003482369-8

Massardo, I., van der Meer, J., O’Brien, S., Hollowood, F., Aranberri, N., & Drescher, K. (2016). MT post-editing guidelines. TAUS. https://github.com/ygraham/direct-assessment/blob/master/post-editing-guidelines

Meixner, C., & Spitzner, D. J. (2023). Leveraging the power of online qualitative inquiry in mixed methods research: Novel prospects and challenges amidst COVID-19. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221084504

Mitchell, L., Roturier, J., & O’Brien, S. (2013). Community-based post-editing of machine-translated content: monolingual vs. bilingual. In S. O’Brien, M. Simard, & L. Specia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice. https://aclanthology.org/2013.mtsummit-wptp.5/

Nitzke, J. (2016). Monolingual post-editing: An exploratory study on research behavior and target text quality. Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics, 83–108. https://doi.org/10.17169/langsci.b108.236

Nitzke, J., & Hansen-Schirra, S. (2021). A short guide to post-editing. Language Science Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=okBQEAAAQBAJ

Nitzke, J., Hansen-Schirra, S., & Canfora, C. (2019). Risk management and post-editing competence. The Journal of Specialised Translation, (31), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.26034/cm.jostrans.2019.185

Opara, V., Spangsdorf, S., & Ryan, M. K. (2023). Reflecting on the use of Google Docs for online interviews: Innovation in qualitative data collection. Qualitative Research, 23(3), 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211045192

PACTE. (2011). Results of the validation of the PACTE translation competence model: Translation problems and translation competence. In C. Alvstad, A. Hild, & E. Tiselius (Eds.), Methods and strategies of process research: Integrative approaches in translation studies (pp. 317–343). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.22pac

PACTE. (2003). Building a translation competence model. In F. Alves (Ed.), Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research (pp. 43–66). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.45.06pac

Pan, J. (2016). Linking classroom exercises to real-life practice: A case of situated simultaneous interpreting learning. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 10(1), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2016.1154346

Pym, A. (2025). Risk management in translation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009546836

Rahman, T., Amalia, A., & Aziz, Z. (2021). From digital literacy to digital intelligence: A comparative study of digital literacy frameworks. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Sustainable Innovation 2020–Social, Humanity, and Education (ICoSIHESS 2020) (pp. 154–159). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210120.119

Ramos, F. P. (2024). Revisiting translator competence in the age of artificial intelligence: the case of legal and institutional translation. Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 18(2), 148–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2024.2344942

Romney, J. (1997). Collaborative learning in a Translation course. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.54.1.48

Shehata, B., Tlili, A., Huang, R., Hodges, C. B., & Kanwar, A. (2025). Implications and challenges of technology adoption in education: A 20-year analysis of Horizon Reports. TechTrends, 69(1), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-01027-z

Shi, Y., Xu, H., Kwok, H. L., & Liu, K. (2024). ChatGPT in professional translation: A double-edged sword—Insights from Chinese translators on capabilities, concerns, and future prospects. In S. Sun, K. Liu, & R. Moratto (Eds.), Translation studies in the age of artificial intelligence. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003482369

Sikora, I. (2015). Students’ errors in business translation: Causes, consequences, and implications. In P. Pietrzak & M. Deckert (Eds.), Constructing translation competence (Vol. 39, pp. 133–156). https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-05760-7

Singun, A. (2025). Unveiling the barriers to digital transformation in higher education institutions: a systematic literature review. Discover Education, 4(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00430-9

Tardel, A., Hansen-Schirra, S., & Nitzke, J. (2021). Post-editing job profiles for subtitlers. 1st Workshop on Automatic Spoken Language Translation in Real-World Settings, ASLTRW 2021, 13–22. https://aclanthology.org/2021.mtsummit-asltrw.2.pdf

Whyatt, B., Witczak, O., Tomczak-Łukaszewska, E., & Lehka-Paul, O. (2023). The proof of the translation process is in the reading of the target text: An eye-tracking reception study. Ampersand, 11, 100149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2023.100149

Xiaohan, G., & Moindjie, M. A. (2022). A perspective on the translator’s subjectivity and its constraints in literary translation: A critical analysis. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(4), 3118 – 3123. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363432565%0AA

Yang, Y. (2022). Translation revision and post-editing: Industry practices and cognitive processes [Review of the book Translation revision and post-editing: Industry practices and cognitive processes, edited by M. Koponen, B. Mossop, I. S. Robert, & G. Scocchera]. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 37(3), 918–920. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqab097

Zhang, W., Li, A. W., & Wu, C. (2025). University students’ perceptions of using generative AI in translation practices. Instructional Science, 53(4), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09705-y

Zhou, J., Müller, H., Holzinger, A., & Chen, F. (2024). Ethical ChatGPT: Concerns, challenges, and commandments. Electronics, 13(17), 3417. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13173417




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18860/ling.v21i1.37550



Copyright (c) 2026 LiNGUA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa dan Sastra

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Member of:

Crossref

Indexed by:

Dimension Google Scolar  Sinta Sinta   Journal TOCS     

Editorial Office:
Laboratory of Information and Publication, Faculty of Humanities
Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang
Jalan Gajayana 50 Malang, Jawa Timur, Indonesia 65144
Email: jurnallingua@gmail.com
Phone: (+62) 341 570872


Creative Commons License
LiNGUA by Laboratory of Information and Publication, Faculty of Humanities is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://ejournal.uin-malang.ac.id/index.php/humbud/index.