近廿年來譯者訓練及翻譯教學日益興盛，台灣除了翻譯系所接連成立，為數眾多的各大學英文系更廣設（中英）翻譯相關課程，然而不少學者均指出國內翻譯教學成效不彰（主要指大學部翻譯課）。其原因除了學生的外語能力不足之外，教學目的、內涵、教法及教材亦是癥結所在。以目的而言，大學部翻譯課主要仍偏重語言教學，將翻譯視為強化外語的工具，亦即所謂的「教學翻譯」(pedagogical translation)或「語言翻譯教學」(Teaching Translation as a Language Skill)，其性質與功能幾乎與英文閱讀及作文課程無異；內涵上也僅著重中英文字表面的轉換對應，忽略了對翻譯更具影響力的文本外因素；教法上大多仍採老師對學生單向傳輸的傳統講述教學，學生的學習缺乏互動及主動；教材則多侷限於單句練習、新聞段落或文學篇章，難以反映出翻譯實務的真實性及多樣化。這些在在顯示大學部翻譯教學未能著眼於培養學生將來實際從事翻譯工作之能力。
綜觀國內外翻譯教學相關文獻，德國功能論(German functionalism)翻譯學派及社會建構論(social constructivism)為兩大頗受重視的新興學說。以德國翻譯學者萊斯、弗米爾及諾德為首的功能翻譯學派向來主張以翻譯之目的與功能做為翻譯實務及譯者訓練的指導方針；同時也提倡將文本分類、翻譯綱要、翻譯問題分類、翻譯導向之文本分析應用於翻譯教學。源自俄國心理學家維考斯基的社會建構論則強調知識的形成和內化是學習者與他人和環境的互動而來，深受社會情境與文化脈絡影響；美國翻譯學者吉拉里曾歸納出社會建構論的教學特性，如以學生為中心之學習、互動合作式學習、真實情境及材料、多元現實及觀點、鷹架支持等，並將之實施於德國高等教育的翻譯課堂，頗有成效。功能論及社會建構論具備了修正及彌補國內大學部翻譯課偏失與不足的潛力，然而相關的實徵研究（尤其針對台灣的大學部翻譯教學情境）卻極為匱乏。
有鑑於此，本研究以功能論為教學內涵，以社會建構論為教學方法，並以功能論及建構論皆強調的真實及擬真稿件為教材，設計出一適合大學生程度的「專業翻譯教學」(Teaching Translation as a Professional Skill)，實施於台灣北部某著名私立大學英文系之某班30人的大四翻譯課，並以紮根理論(grounded theory)的質性研究方法進行大量的資料蒐集及系統性的編碼分析，探究學生的學習歷程、互動合作、成長收穫及學習感受，並給予教學實施上的建議。
研究結果發現，在學習歷程方面，學生在學習功能論觀念時會有困惑、啟發、受限及質疑四類現象；在接受社會建構論教學方法的過程中則會出現混亂期、探索期、停滯期、成形期及成熟期五個階段。在互動合作上，學生的小組關係可歸納成和諧互惠、一人獨裁、亦敵亦友及表面敷衍四種類型。在成長收穫方面，本功能論及社會建構論之翻譯教學對學生具有「賦權」(empowerment)作用，其內涵則包括了譯者認同、合譯關係、專業能力、自主能力及學習動機五個面向。同時也發現功能論及社會建構論合併實施具有互補作用及加乘效果。本研究除就上述結果提出教學建議細節，亦針對功能論各觀念的部分名稱、定義及分類加以修改，並就社會建構論教學法各項元素在掌控權、時間、專業、資源及同理心方面進一步論述。

The past two decades has seen a surge in translator trainings and translation courses worldwide. In Taiwan, while B.A. and M.A. programs of translation and interpretation have been founded one after another, numerous departments of English across the country have also been offering translation-related courses. However, scholars have pointed out the unsatisfactory efficacy of translation teaching (mostly at the undergraduate level), which can be attributed to not just students’ insufficient English proficiency but also problems in course objective, course content, teaching method and materials. Generally, undergraduate translation courses in Taiwan are predominantly language-oriented (based on the rationale of “pedagogical translation” or “Teaching Translation as a Language Skill), focusing largely on linguistic equivalence and transfer and employing a transmissionist didactic teaching approach with unauthentic materials that hardly reflect professional reality and variety.
German functionalism and social constructivism have been two major innovative doctrines in the field of translation pedagogy. The functionalism school, led by German translation scholars Reiss, Vermeer and Nord, has long proposed skopos (purpose) and function of translation as the rule of thumb for any translation activity, and has advocated the use of text typology, translation brief, classification of translation problems and translation-oriented text analysis in translator education. Social constructivism, originating from the thoughts of Russian psychologist Vygotsky, maintains that knowledge is constructed and internalized through a learner’s interaction with others and the social environment, and is heavily influenced by social and cultural contexts. Its educational approach, as promoted by American scholar Kiraly in the context of translator training in Germany, is characterized by student-centered learning, interactive/collaborative learning, authentic/situated learning, multiple realities/perspectives, and scaffolding, etc. While functionalism and socio-constructivism may well serve as alternatives and remedies to traditional translation teaching, there has been a serious lack of empirical studies on these two doctrines, particularly in the context of undergraduate translation pedagogy in Taiwan.
In the present study, an undergraduate translation course that focused on teaching translation as a professional skill and incorporated functionalism as course content, socio-constructivist approach as teaching method and authentic texts/tasks as materials had been implemented in a class of 30 English-majoring senior students in a private university in northern Taiwan. The study adopted grounded theory qualitative method and, through rich data collection and systematic codings and analysis, aimed to explore the students’ learning process, group dynamics, growth and development, and perceptions in this functional and socio-constructivist translation classroom.
Research results showed that the students demonstrated perplexity, enlightenment, limitation and skepticism when learning about functionalist concepts, while they would go through various stages including disorganization, exploration, stagnation, formation and maturation under a socio-constructivist teaching approach. The students’ group dynamics could be divided into four types: reciprocity, autocracy, frenemy, and superficiality, and their growth and development was marked by what Kiraly had termed “empowerment,” which, as the present study coded, could consist of five dimensions: translator’s identity, co-translatorship, expertise, autonomy, and motivation. A complementary and resonance effect was also discovered between functionalism and socio-constructivism. In addition to some detailed pedagogical suggestions on the application and implementation of the two doctrines in an undergraduate translation course in Taiwan, the study also proposed possible modifications in terminology, definition and classification of some functionalist concepts, and offered more discussions on the issues of control, time, professionalism, resource and empathy regarding each fundamental element of social constructivist teaching approach.

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Barros, E. H. (2011). Collaborative learning in the translation classroom: Preliminary survey results. The Journal of Specialized Translation, 6, 42-60.

Bedmar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory in practice: How do we think? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 17-34). Hillsdale, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bernardini, S. (2004). The theory behind the practice. Translator training or translator education? In K. Malmkjaer (Ed.), Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes (pp. 17-30). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bian, J. (卞建華)，(2008)。傳承與超越：功能主義翻譯目的論研究。北京：
中國社會科學。

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "conversation of mankind." College English, 46, 635-652.

Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache, Jena, Fischer (reprint 1965, Stuttgart, Fischer; English translation by D. Goodwin, Theory of
Language. The Representational Function of Language, 1990, Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Candlin, C. & Murphy, D. F. (1987). Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chang, M. (張美芳)，(2001)。論兩種不同層次的翻譯教學。外語與外語教學，
5，37-39。

Chang, M. (張美芳)，(2005)。功能加忠誠─介評克里絲汀諾德的功能翻譯理論。外國語，1，60-65。

Chang, C. (張沈香)，(2008)。功能目的理論與應用翻譯研究。長沙︰湖南師
範大學。

Chang, C. (張瓊瑩)，(2009)。結合微觀與宏觀的英漢翻譯教學法─兼探討紐馬
克「翻譯教程」適用於大學部英漢翻譯教學之程度。編譯論叢，2(1)，53-76。

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, U.K.: Sage.

Chen, Q. (2010). The application of text type in non-literary translation teaching. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 5(2), 208-219.

Chesterman, A. (Ed.) (1989). Readings in translation theory. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.

Chou, C. (周中天)，(2004)。臺灣翻譯產業現況調查研究。臺北：國立臺
灣師範大學翻譯研究所（行政院新聞局委託研究）。

Colina, S. (2003). Translation teaching, from research to the classroom: A handbook for teachers. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Crooks, D. L. (2001). The importance of symbolic interaction in grounded theory research on women’s health. Health Care for Women International, 22, 11-27.

Dai, B. (戴碧珠)，(2003)。臺灣各大學英文系及應用英文系筆譯教學現狀探
討（未出版之碩士論文）。輔仁大學，臺北縣。

Deng, X., & Wang, L. (鄧小文、王立弟)，(2010)。英漢筆譯教學：社會建構主義視角下的新嘗試。中國外語教育，3 (2)，29-34。

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117-135.

Duffy T. M, & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 1-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Finkel, D., & Monk, G.A. (1983). Teachers and learning groups: Dissolution of the Atlas Complex. In C. Bouton & R.Y. Garth (Eds.). Learning in groups, (pp. 83-97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.

Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127-143.

Holz-Mänttäri, J. (1984). Translatorisches handeln: Theorie und methode. Helsiniki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Ja, W. (賈文波)，(2004)。應用翻譯功能論。北京：中國對外翻譯。

Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350-377). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Leading the co-operative school (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.

Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34 (40),34-37.

Ju, M. (汝明麗)，(2011)。建構論教學觀之下的情境學習理論於大學中譯英口
譯課程的實踐。翻譯學研究集刊，14，215-245。

Kagan, S. (1985). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. Riverside, CA: University of California.
Kiraly, D. (1995). Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Kiraly, D. (2000). A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester, U.K.: St. Jerome.

Kiraly, D. (2001). Towards a constructivist approachto translator education. Quaderns. Revista de traducció, 6, 50-53

Kiraly, D. (2003). From instruction to collaborative construction: A passing fad or the promise of a paradigm shift in translator education? In B. J. Baer & G. S. Koby (Eds.), Beyond the ivory tower: Rethinking translation pedagogy (pp. 3-27). American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, Vol. XII. Amsterdam, Filadelfia: John Benjamins.

Kiraly, D. (2005). Project-based learning: A case for situated translation. Meta, 50(4), 1098-1111.

Kelly, D. (2005). A handbook for translator trainers: A guide to reflective practice. Manchester, U.K.: St. Jerome.

Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(1), 83-86

Lai, S. (賴慈芸)，(2002)。大學部的翻譯教學：結合實習的翻譯教學計畫。《譯者的養成：翻譯教學、評量與批評》，91-116。台北：國立編譯館。

Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Communicative language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lee, T. E. (2012) Collaborative learning in translating a travel guide: A case study. Translation Journal, 16(3). Retrieved March 10, 2014, from
http://www.bokorlang.com/journal/61travel.htm.

Li, D., & Hu, M. (李德風、胡牧)，(2006)。學習者為中心的翻譯課程設置。外國語，2，2006。

Li, T., & Liao, P. (李亭穎、廖柏森)，(2010)。台灣大學生對於口譯課程看法之探討。翻譯學研究期刊，13，255-292.

Li, S. (李憲榮)，(2006)。在臺灣設立翻譯學系大學部的問題。國立編譯館館刊，34（3），59-66。

Liao, P. (廖柏森)，(2009)。溝通式教學法之意涵與實施。編譯論叢，2(2)，
65-91。

Liao, P., Lin, C., Chou, Y., Chang, Y., Chang, Shu., Ou, K. (廖柏森，林俊宏，丘羽先，張裕敏，張淑彩，歐冠宇)，(2011)。翻譯教學實務指引：從15份專業教案開始。台北：眾文圖書公司。

Lin, K. (2000). Teaching of translation abroad. Chinese Translators Journal, 2. Retrieved March 8, 2014, from http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:52B-jOPk9T8J:scholar.google.com/+Lin+2000+translation+course&hl=zh-TW&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury, CA: Sage.

Lu, Z. (呂世生)，(2010)。翻譯教學模式創新探索：社會建構主義視角。中國社會科學院研究生院學院，5，118-123.

Massey, G. (2005). Process-oriented translator training and the challenge for e-Learning. Meta, 50(2), 626-633.

Mu, L. (穆雷)，(1999)。中國翻譯教學研究。上海：上海外語教育出版社。

Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London, U.K.: Routledge.

Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

Nord, C. (1991). Scopos, loyalty and translational conventions. Target, 3(1), 91-109.

Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St Jerome.

Nord, C. (2001). Text analysis, translation commission and a functional hierarchy of translation problems. In J. Munday (Ed.), Introducing translation studies (pp. 82-83). London, U.K.: Routledge.

Nord, C. (2005). Making otherness accessible: Functionality and skopos in the translation of New Testament texts. Meta, 50(3), 868-880.

Nord, C. (2007). The phatic function in translation: Metacommunication as a case in point. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 21, 171-184.

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.

Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. NY: Basic Books.

Pym, A. (2009). Translator training. Pre-print text for the Oxford Companion to Translation Studies.

Reiss, K. (1971). Possibilities and limitations of translation criticism. Categories and criteria for a fair evaluation of translations. Manich: Hueber.

Reiss, K. (1976). Texttyp und Übersetzsungsmethode. Kronberg: Scriptor.

Reiss, K. (1977). Text types, translation types and translation assessment. In A. Chesterman (Ed.), Readings in translation theory (pp.105-115). Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.

Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. (1984). Groundwork for a general theory of translation. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Risku, H. (2002). Situatedness in translation studies. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 523-533.

Romney, J. C. (1997). Collaborative learning in a translation course. Canadian Modern Language Journal, 54, 48-67.

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, 31-38.

Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96.

Schäffner, C. (2000). Running before walking? Designing a translation programme at undergraduate level. In C. Schäffner, & B. Adab (Eds). Developing translation
competence (pp. 143-156). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Slanvin, R. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315-342.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. Duffy & D.
Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 57-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin J. (1990). Basiscs of qualitative research (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tao, Y. (陶友蘭)，(2010)。翻譯專業筆譯教學的功能主義模式探討。上海翻譯，2，43-47。

Vermeer, H. (1989/2000). Skopos and commission in translational action. In L. Venuti, (Ed.), The translation studies reader, (pp. 221-232). New York and London: Routledge.

Vienne, J. (2000). Which competences should we teach to future translators, and how? In C. Schäffner, & B. Adab (Eds). Developing translation competence (pp.
91-100). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, H. C. (2010). Design-based research on developing cooperative translation tasks. (Doctoral dissertation, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan).
Retrieved March 10, 2014, from http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/49883/1/150501.pdf.

Wang, X., & Hua, H. (王湘玲、華慧敏)，(2008)。建構基於真實項目的過程教學模式─兼評《翻譯能力培養研究》。上海翻譯，2，52-56。

Wang, Y. (王宇)，(2003)。關於本科翻譯教學的再思考：探索「以學生為中心」的翻譯教學模式的一次嘗試。北京第二外國語學院學報，2，69-72。

Xiong, T. (熊婷婷)，(2007)。功能翻譯理論視角下的翻譯教學。四川文理學院學報，4，78-80。

Yeh, C. (2011). Implementing a book translation project in the translation classroom. Studies of Translation and Interpretation, 14, 135-168.