Abstract:

The rapid integration of digital translation tools and artificial intelligence has fundamentally altered language education, introducing unprecedented pedagogical challenges regarding student evaluation, academic integrity, and critical thinking. This paper presents an empirical case study emerging from authentic examination outcomes at the Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade, involving 3rd and 4th-year undergraduate students of Spanish language and literature.

In a specialized course on translation for Hispanic studies, students were permitted to use digital translation tools on their final exams. However, to counterbalance this reliance on technology, the assessment criteria were drastically sharpened by introducing a "zero-tolerance" policy for material errors. Grounded in contemporary translation quality assessment frameworks (such as DQF/MQM and ATA), a material error was strictly defined as a severe semantic, terminological, or contextual distortion that fundamentally alters or loses the core meaning, function, or pragmatic intent of the source text. This established a clear boundary between critical misinterpretations and other formal or stylistic mistakes. Any such material error was classified as eliminatory, resulting in an automatic fail.

The quantitative results were striking. Across different translation modules, failure rates fluctuated but remained disproportionately high, culminating in the final exam session where 93.5% of the attending students failed (only 3 passed out of 46). More importantly, qualitative analysis revealed a profound pedagogical issue: every single student who failed made at least one identical material error that completely distorted the meaning and pragmatic effect of the entire text.

This shared, uniform mistake—a severe contextual misinterpretation generated by the software—serves as concrete evidence of uncritical over-reliance on technological tools. Instead of applying basic post-editing skills or verifying genre-specific conventions, students passively trusted the output, allowing glaring semantic distortions to bypass their scrutiny.

This paper analyzes the pedagogical aftermath of this event. The massive failure rate served as a "shock effect" that profoundly changed the dynamics of subsequent classes. It forced a transition from passive tool consumption to active, critical engagement. Classroom activities were restructured to focus on deep linguistic analysis, standardizing criteria for identifying material errors across different translation genres, and developing 21st-century problem-solving skills.

Ultimately, this study argues that as translation technology becomes universally accessible, educators must shift the focus of assessment. The availability of advanced tools does not lower the required standard of knowledge; rather, it demands stricter criteria for accuracy, a clear methodological distinction between minor and material errors, and a higher level of analytical vigilance, equipping future professionals to critically evaluate the tools at their disposal.

Keywords:

Translation tools, Assessment of Student Learning, Higher Education, Critical Thinking, Language Learning Innovations.