AI赋能的师生共建信息类文本翻译评分标准质量研究

上海翻译 ›› 2026, Vol. 190 ›› Issue (5): 54-61.

AI赋能的师生共建信息类文本翻译评分标准质量研究

徐鹰, 陈静蕊, 肖同舟

华南理工大学,广东广州 510641

收稿日期:2026-04-08 出版日期:2026-09-10 发布日期:2026-09-14
通讯作者: 肖同舟,华南理工大学外国语学院博士后,研究领域:外语教学与测试。
作者简介:徐鹰,华南理工大学外国语学院教授,研究领域:语言测试、翻译测试;陈静蕊,华南理工大学外国语学院硕士研究生,研究领域:语言测试、翻译测试。
基金资助:
全国教育科学规划教育部青年项目“教师智慧课堂互动能力发展及其智能化测评研究”(编号:ERA250465)、广东省教育科学规划项目“AI虚拟教师的情绪设计对外语学习的影响机制及其优化方法研究”(编号:2025GXJK0354)、华南理工大学教改项目“多元学科背景下AI赋能学术英语分层教学实施路径构建与实践”(编号:C9263820)。

Received:2026-04-08 Online:2026-09-10 Published:2026-09-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究采用混合研究方法,探讨“师—生—机”合作共建翻译分项评分标准的质量以及学生对其的感知。研究对象为某双一流高校的24名非英语专业大一新生。在使用生成式人工智能大语言模型工具Kimi的基础上,学生与教师共同构建了面向信息类文本翻译的分项评分标准。多层面Rasch模型分析结果显示,该评分标准区分度较好,各评分维度的难度存在显著差异,且整体拟合情况良好。学生普遍认为该评分标准可操作性强,对信息类文本的翻译课堂教学与评估具有一定的参考价值。

关键词: 生成式人工智能, 翻译分项评分标准, 共建, 信息类文本, 多层面Rasch模型

中图分类号:

H059

徐鹰, 陈静蕊, 肖同舟. AI赋能的师生共建信息类文本翻译评分标准质量研究[J]. 上海翻译, 2026, 190(5): 54-61.

参考文献

[1] Bearman, M., Ajjawi, R. Can a rubric do more than be transparent? Invitation as a new metaphor for assessment criteria[J]. Studies in Higher Education, 2021, 46(2): 359-368.
[2] Becker, A. Student-generated scoring rubrics: Examining their formative value for improving ESL students' writing performance[J]. Assessing Writing, 2016, 29: 15-24.
[3] Brown, A., Iwashita, N., McNamara, T. An examination of rater orientations and test-taker performance on English-for-Academic-Purposes speaking tasks[R]. TOEFL Monograph Series Report (RR-05-05), 2005.
[4] Fraile, J., Panadero, E., Pardo, R. Co-creating rubrics: The effects on self-regulated learning, self-efficacy and performance of establishing assessment criteria with students[J]. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2017, 53: 69-76.
[5] Ghaffar, M. A., Khairallah, M., Salloum, S. Co-constructed rubrics and assessment for learning: The impact on middle school students' attitudes and writing skills[J]. Assessing Writing, 2020, 45: 1-15.
[6] Jones, L., Allen, B., Dunn, P., et al. Demystifying the rubric: A five-step pedagogy to improve student understanding and utilisation of marking criteria[J]. Higher Education Research & Development, 2017, 36(1): 129-142.
[7] Kilgour, P., Northcote, M., Williams, A., et al. A plan for the co-construction and collaborative use of rubrics for student learning[J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2020, 45(1): 140-153.
[8] King, J., Brundiers, K., Fischer, D. Student agency in a sustainability-oriented assessment process: Exploring expansive learning in student-led rubric co-design[J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2024, 49(6): 851-863.
[9] McNamara, T. F. Measuring Second Language Performance[M]. New York: Longman, 1996.
[10] Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., et al. A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research[J]. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2023, 22: 1-18.
[11] Panadero, E., Jonsson, A. The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review[J]. Educational Research Review, 2013, 9: 129-144.
[12] Reddy, Y. M., Andrade, H. A review of rubric use in higher education[J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2010, 35(4): 435-448.
[13] Sadeghi, K., Rahmati, T. Integrating assessment as, for, and of learning in a large-scale exam preparation course[J]. Assessing Writing, 2017, 34: 50-61.
[14] Torrance, H. Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning[J]. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2007, 14(3): 281-294.
[15] Xi, X. Advancing language assessment with AI and ML-leaning into AI is inevitable, but can theory keep up?[J]. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2023(4-5): 357-376.
[16] Yan, D. Rubric co-creation to promote quality, interactivity and uptake of peer feedback[J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2024, 49(8): 1017-1034.
[17] Zhao, K., Zhou, J., Dawson, P. Using student-instructor co-constructed rubrics in signature assessment for business students: Benefits and challenges[J]. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2021, 28(2): 170-190.
[18] 范梓锐, 杨文地. 人机耦合时代机器翻译译后编辑原则与策略例析[J]. 上海翻译, 2024(4): 29-34.
[19] 葛颂, 王宁. 人工智能时代的文学翻译:挑战与机遇[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2024(1): 94-101, 149-150.
[20] 柯清超, 米桥伟, 鲍婷婷. 生成式人工智能在基础教育领域的应用:机遇、风险与对策[J]. 现代教育技术, 2024(9): 5-13.
[21] 孔蕾. 生成式人工智能在外语专业教学中的应用:以《大学思辨英语教程·精读》教学为例[J]. 外语教育研究前沿, 2024(1): 11-18, 90.
[22] 李清华. 高等学校英语专业四级测试写作评分标准的设计和效度研究[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2014.
[23] 刘建达. 评卷人效应的多层面Rasch模型研究[J]. 现代外语, 2010(2): 185-193, 220.
[24] 穆雷, 梁伟玲, 刘馨媛. 《中国翻译能力测评等级标准》与《中国英语能力等级量表》翻译能力等级量表对比研究[J]. 中国外语, 2024(3): 87-97.
[25] 王均松, 张政. 人机共生视域下的人智协同翻译模式构建[J]. 上海翻译, 2026(1): 13-19, 95.
[26] 吴青, 赵广辉, 张铭. 生成式探究学习赋能人机共生的逻辑与路径[J]. 中国大学教学, 2024(11): 67-74.
[27] 肖维青, 熊凌崧. 翻译测试研究二十年:现状与展望[J]. 外语界, 2023(4): 25-33.
[28] 徐鹰. 语言做事测试评分标准的开发和效度验证:回顾与反思[J]. 外语教育研究前沿, 2018(2): 73-80, 93.
[29] 徐鹰, 邓雅玲. 大规模语言测试翻译任务内容效度研究——以CET为例[J]. 山东外语教学, 2023(3): 26-37.
[30] 徐鹰, 杨梦妮. 非英语专业大学生对师生共建写作评分标准感知的质性研究[J]. 山东外语教学, 2024(4): 53-63.
[31] 许家金. 大语言模型背景下个性化外语教育的实施策略[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2025(1): 81-91.
[32] 许志勇, 范英军. 生成式人工智能分析工具在高考评价中的应用:以Kimi为例[J]. 考试研究, 2024(6): 42-50.
[33] 杨艳霞, 陈莹, 魏向清. 生成式智能时代的人机协同翻译素养研究[J]. 上海翻译, 2025(1): 39-45.