The Centre for Testing & Evaluation (CT&E), one of the main R&D
units of the Institute, has been actively functioning since 1984. The objective
of this centre is to undertake fundamental research, develop basic reference
materials, and to coordinate the activities pertaining to this multidisciplinary .
area of evaluation as applied to language and literature education.
During the last 2% decades, the CT & E has produced more than 100
volumes of materials under different series ranging from ‘basic references’
to ‘special purpose assessment tools’. The basic reference materials consist
of two sets of volumes on the same field: The first one Glossary of
Evaluation Terms and Introduction to Evaluation Terminology in English.
They were now published in four Indian languages viz., Kannada, Hindi,
Tamil and Urdu, thus making a total of eight volumes.
The task of preparing the basic reference materials of evaluation
terms in the Indian languages has been taken over by the National Testing
Service-India of the institute from its inception in 2006.
The present ‘Glossary’ provides equivalents in Odia for about 1000
evaluation terms in English (that represent the multidisciplinary concepts of
education, psychology, statistics, etc.). The forthcoming volume on
‘Introduction’ will provide a brief explanatory note on each of these
concepts. The original source for both these works is the Institute’s
publication viz. An Introduction to Evaluation Terminology in English
authored by Prof. Pon Subbiah, the then head of the centre.
The present material has been developed to supplement the ongoing
work of MILES & NTS projects. As the terminology parallels included here
demand consensus for their appropriateness and adaptability, the specialists
have played a decisive role in coining and finalizing them. Our
congratulations are due to all those specialists.
The challenging task has been accomplished after a series of
deliberations over a period of time. The relentless effort put up by the team
headed by Dr. M. Balakumar deserves appreciation. I am sure this will go a
long way to enrich the Indian language Pedagogy and also to encourage the
production of specialized materials in Indian languages.
National Testing Service-India of Central Institute of Indian
Languages prepared a select list of about a thousand technical terms in the
area of testing and evaluation in 2008. This constitutes the source list of the
Glossary of Evaluation Terms in Odia.
Indian languages do not have a well developed discourse on testing
and evaluation at the highest level, as of now. In this context, the creation of
such a lexical resource for our languages is a challenging task, and we
believe that this glossary will contribute to the enrichment of the discourse
on the subject in Odia.
In preparing this important lexical resource, the Committee made
some careful effort to arrive at terms that are intelligible and more readily
intelligible for the target users; in order to understand the same they must
not feel the need for another glossary. To create the Odia equivalents of the
given technical terms, the Committee made use of the resources of not only
Sanskrit, but also formal and semi-formal Odia, English and Hindi-Urdu
(minjas for "mood" for instance). For reasons of naturalness it has also
included in the glossary code-mixed lexical entities, for instance, pas phel
nambar (‘pass fail number" as the equivalent of the source list item "pass
fail mark"). When a certain English term occurs in the familiar discourse, it
is treated as an Odia word, thus it is written in the Odia script. Wherever the
Committee found it desirable, it has given Odia alternatives for items in the
source glossary. Although semantically equivalent, these are differentiated
in terms of stylistic nuances. In sum, intelligibility and naturalness have
been the guiding principle for the Committee in the preparation of this
Coming to some detail, "cut out key", "cloze test", "chi-square" are
listed as "kat aut ki", "kloj test", "kai skwear" in the glossary. These are
highly technical terms in the evaluation discourse and no attempt has been
made to find their Odia equivalents because these would have looked
extremely artificial. Mixed code translations include vyatikrama ai kyu (for"deviation IQ"),
etae gunanka (for "Eta coefficient"), eph maks pariksha
("for "F Max Test"), and kai barg (one of the alternatives for "chi-square"
among others. Since Odia equivalents of "deviation", "coefficient", and
"test" and "squire" are already available, it was decided to use these rather
than retain the English expressions in their Odia spelling.
"Diary" and "central tendency", for example, have been translated as
"dina lipi / dairi" and "kendriya prabruti / sentral tendensi" respectively.
The two equivalents given for "diary" belong to two different styles of
discourses". Diary is more commonly used in informal discourse than "dina
lip’, which is often used in semi-formal or formal discourse. Likewise in
formal and semi-formal spoken Odia, ‘sentral tendensi’ is far more likely to
be used than kendriya prabruti, but in formal and even semi-formal writing
one would tend to prefer the latter. In this glossary, "adaptation" has two
alternative translations: upajogi karana and apaneiba. The former has a
clear tadbhava ring to it whereas the latter is part of colloquial discourse.
The Committee has deliberately chosen to provide alternative lexical
equivalents, often two, sometimes even three, in Odia for a fairly large
number of terms of English. This would help the user of the glossary. If he
or she is unfamiliar with one rendering, the alternative rendering would
hopefully help her to understand the concept. This would also help the
teacher and the content writer to choose the lexical expression keeping in
view its appropriateness in that specific context of use. Everyone knows that
readability and felicity of expression of a discourse is in part a matter of
making the stylistically appropriate lexical choices.
In sum, one is only too aware that a lexical item belongs to a specific
language and also that the fullest realization of the meaning of a lexical item
is in an appropriate discourse of the language. This explains why one can
reasonably aspire to produce only an approximate translation of a lexical
item in another language. The Committee has kept it in mind in making this
glossary. We, the members of the Committee, hope that the users of this
glossary will find it useful.
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend