Metacognitive Awareness Pattern of Post-Editing: Google Translate Used among EFL Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26877/allure.v6i2.611Keywords:
EFL students, google translate, metacognitive awareness, post-editing, regulation of cognitionAbstract
This study aims to map the patterns of metacognitive awareness among EFL students in post-editing Google Translate through descriptive statistical analysis of the planning, monitoring, and evaluating phases. This study addresses the lack of mapping of metacognitive regulation to provide a comprehensive picture of how students manage thinking strategies and overcome the use of translation technology, which tends to be passive and lacks strategic awareness. This descriptive quantitative study involved 35 English language education students selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected using an expository text post-editing task and the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) questionnaire with a four-point Likert scale. Data analysis employed descriptive statistics via SPSS to identify the distribution, mean, and dominant patterns of students’ metacognitive regulation phases. The results indicated that all metacognitive phases were categorized as high, with monitoring as the dominant pattern, achieving a mean of 24.29 (76%). The planning phase achieved an average of 23.54 (74%) and the evaluation phase 23.03 (74%). These findings confirm a monitoring-dominant pattern, where students were more actively controlling their thinking processes and regulating machine translation outcomes compared to the planning or evaluating stages. The results indicate a dominant monitoring phase in post-editing activities, while the planning and evaluating phases are still less than optimal. These findings underscore the importance of balancing metacognitive strategies in technology-based EFL learning. Instructors are advised to provide comprehensive scaffolding to develop technical skills while strengthening students’ strategic awareness in the translation process.
References
Alfarina, L., & Hartono, R. (2025). Grammatical accuracy in translating direct speech: A Comparison between Professionals and EFL Students. Allure Journal, 5(2), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.26877/allure.v5i2.23528
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
Chyung, S. Y. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., & Hankinson, A. (2017). Evidence-Based Survey Design: The use of a Midpoint on the Likert Scale. Performance Improvement, 56(10), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21727
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ducar, C., & Schocket, D. H. (2018). Machine translation and the L2 classroom: Pedagogical solutions for making peace with Google translate. Foreign Language Annals, 51(4), 779–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12366
Gutierrez de Blume, A. P., Montoya Londoño, D. M., Jiménez Rodríguez, V., Morán Núñez, O., Cuadro, A., Daset, L., Molina Delgado, M., García de la Cadena, C., Beltrán Navarro, M. B., Puente Ferreras, A., Urquijo, S., & Arias, W. L. (2024). Psychometric properties of the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI): standardization to an international spanish with 12 countries. Metacognition and Learning, 19(3), 793–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09388-9
Harto, S., Hamied, F. A., Musthafa, B., & Setyarini, S. (2022). Exploring undergraduate students’ experiences in dealing with post-editing of machine translation. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 696–707. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i3.42825
Indarti, D. (2024). Investigating the metacognitive strategies during post-editing translation process: An Application of Think-Aloud Protocols (TAP). JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 12(2), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v%vi%i.10297
Kallio, H., Virta, K., & Kallio, M. (2018). Modelling the components of metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(2), 94–122. https://doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2018.2789
Kapusta, J., Benko, Ľ., Munkova, D., & Munk, M. (2021). Analysis of Edit Operations for Post-editing Systems. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-021-00048-3
Kok Wei, L. (2021). The use of google translate in english language learning: How students view it. In International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society (Vol. 3, Number 1). http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijares
Li, Y., & Lu, X. (2021). Study on post-editing for machine translation of railway engineering texts. SHS Web of Conferences, 96, 05001. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219605001
Lo, N. P.-K. (2024). The Confluence of Digital Literacy and Eco-Consciousness: Harmonizing Digital Skills with Sustainable Practices in Education. Platforms, 2(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.3390/platforms2010002
Orfan, S. N. (2023). Undergraduate english students’ use of google translate in Afghanistan: A Case Study. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.332398
Ponto, J. (2015). Understanding and evaluating survey research. Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology, 6(2), 168-171.
Pourfeiz, J. (2016). A Cross-sectional Study of Relationship between Attitudes toward Foreign Language Learning and Academic Motivation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 668–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.091
Pratiwi, T. L., Zaki, L. B., & Darsono, E. R. F. (2025). EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness in listening strategies: A study in Indonesian higher education. Celtic : A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics, 12(2), 1121–1138. https://doi.org/10.22219/celtic.v12i2.42061
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Shin & Chon. (2023). Second language learners’ post-editing strategies for machine translation errors. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/73523
Siregar, M., & Stroupe, R. (2025). Theoretically informed students’ worksheet based on metacognitive strategies for a translation course. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v15i1.76549
Stahlberg, F. (2020). Neural machine translation: A Review. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (Vol. 69). 343-418 https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12007
Stanton, J. D., Sebesta, A. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE Life Sciences Education, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289
Teng, F. (2020). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(5), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1615493
Turovsky, B. (2016, April 28). Ten years of Google Translate. Google. Https://Blog.Google/Products-and-Platforms/Products/Translate/Ten-Years-of-Google-Translate/.
Yilmaz, R. M., & Baydas, O. (2017). An examination of undergraduates’ metacognitive strategies in pre-class asynchronous activity in a flipped classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1547–1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9534-1
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
