Daryl Crouse, CI, CT

Educational Interpreting: Understanding the Rural Experience. Contributors: Carmel Collum Yarger – author. Journal Title: American Annals of the Deaf. Volume: 146. Issue: 1. Publication Year: 2001. Page Number: 16+. © 2001 American Annals of the Deaf.

For students who are deaf who are attending school in general education settings, the provision of an educational interpreter is an important accommodation. The demand for educational interpreters has soared in recent years and has paralleled the increase in the number of students who are deaf who are attending local schools (Beaver, Hayes, & Luetke– Stahlman, 1995; L. Johnson, 1994; Jones, Clark, & Soltz, 1997; National Task Force on Educational Interpreting, 1989). Rapid growth in the field of educational interpreting has resulted in a shortage of wellprepared interpreters (Dahl & Wilcox, 1990), a situation that is even worse in rural settings. Many individuals employed as interpreters have not completed formal preparation through interpreter preparation programs (IPPs), and fewer still have had appropriate training for employment in educational settings (Hayes, 1992). The paucity of interpreters, coupled with concern about the quality of interpretation (Winston, 1994), raises many questions regarding the field of educational interpreting.

Request Sign Language Interpreting Services Online

Qualified Interpreters

Far too few interpreters demonstrate adequate skills for the positions for which they were hired (Colonomos, 1982; Schein, Mallory, & Greaves, 1991). Winston (1994) described the shortage of qualified educational interpreters:

[A] very important concern must be the nationwide lack of skilled, qualified interpreters to work in educational settings…. The skills, knowledge, and experience of interpreters working in educational settings are often much less than required to provide even minimally satisfactory interpreting for deaf students. Interpreters in educational settings should be more skilled than community interpreters, but most often education attracts inexperienced, unskilled interpreters. (p. 61)

Many interpreters employed in educational settings have had little or no formal preparation for this work (Powers & Elliot, 1996; Schick, Williams, & Bolster, 1999; Winston, 1994). In the 1999 annual reference issue of the American Annals of the Deaf, only 3 of the 73 interpreter training programs listed identified themselves as specifically providing training for schoolbased interpreters (“Programs for Training Interpreters,” 1999). This lack of preparation is disturbing, particularly in light of the fact that more than 50% of graduates of IPPs seek schoolrelated employment (National Task Force on Educational Interpreting, 1989). Hiring highly qualified individuals to interpret in school settings is critical, since educational interpreters function as language facilitators for students who are deaf (Bowen-Bailey, 1996; Calvert, 1996; Schick et al., 1999; Winston, 1985). Yet schools are most often the setting where new interpreters gain their first experiences in the field (Bowen-Bailey, 1996).

The shortage of educational interpreters has led some administrators to substitute teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing in the role of the interpreter (Stewart, 1988). This action reflects a limited understanding of the role and purpose of the interpreter (Jones, 1999) and is unfortunate for these teachers and the students with whom they work. First, the blending of the roles of teacher and interpreter does not help students develop an understanding of the nature of interpreting services (National Task Force on Educational Interpreting, 1989). Second, a dual teacher/interpreter role limits students’ exposure to a continuum of sign communication, as well as their access to a variety of signing styles. Finally, most teachers of students who deaf and hard of hearing have no specific training as interpreters.

The Rural Challenge

Two thirds of schools in the United States are rural; thus they encounter an array of challenges different from those facing their urban and suburban counterparts (Helge, 1991; Luetke– Stahlman, 1995; Wengard, Hayes, & Luetke-Stahlman, 1995). In rural areas, these differences include great distances between schools, the existence of highly distinct and often highly localized cultures and forms of communication, and isolation issues. Living in rural areas often requires interpreters to (a) work with the same student year after year, (b) do more tutoring than might occur in other settings, and (c) become skilled across all content areas. Each of these circumstances contributes to the challenge of providing adequate services.

Even in urban and suburban schools, where opportunities for training are relatively plentiful, qualified educational interpreters are difficult to find (Hayes, 1992). In rural settings, the situation is grave. Very often, administrators who work in rural areas are compelled to hire individuals as educational interpreters with limited signing ability and little or no knowledge of the skills involved in interpreting, such as line-of-sight placement (New Jersey Department of Labor, 1987). The result is a lack of accessibility for students who are deaf, which leads to a highly restrictive learning environment (Cartledge, Paul, Jackson, & Cochran, 1991; Deaf Students’ Education Services, Policy Guidance, 1992; R. Johnson, Liddell, & Erting, 1989).

The integration of students who are deaf into general education classrooms in rural settings carries with it difficulties distinct from those encountered in urban and suburban areas. In a survey conducted by Helge (1984), rural school administrators overwhelmingly identified students with low-prevalence exceptionalities, such as deafness, as the most difficult population to serve appropriately. This is due, in part, to specialized communication and technological needs along with the wide dispersal of students with low-prevalence exceptionalities (Berkeley & Ludlow, 1991; Helge, 1984). Certainly, in rural schools, programs for meeting the needs of students who are deaf and hard of hearing are more expensive and labor intensive than programs in urban schools (Vasa & Steckelberg, 1981).

The undersupply of interpreters is exacerbated when combined with the constraints of a rural setting. Moreover, interpreters are often hired with the expectation they will “follow” the student from preschool to high school. Although some teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing have reported benefits from relationships with specific students over extended periods of time (Wengard et al., 1995), this may not hold true in the case of educational interpreters. The difference lies in the amount of time an interpreter spends with a single student. The familiarity that develops when a student works solely with one interpreter hinders the independence of the student, even when both parties are sensitive to this issue.

Equally important is the challenge of being skilled in sign language and sign systems across all content areas (National Task Force on Educational Interpreting, 1989). It is critical that the interpreter have the capability to switch among sign systems and American Sign Language (ASL), depending on an individual student’s needs and modality preferences.

A concomitant challenge is the expectation that an educational interpreter will be competent in all academic courses offered at any given school (Stedt, 1992). Few individuals are able to fully comprehend, in advance, the content of each course, especially at the secondary level; this makes effective interpreting even more difficult. The expectation that an individual be skilled in all academic areas is unreasonable, yet it is often present (K. Johnson, 1991; Stedt, 1992). In contrast, larger school systems are able to assign interpreters to work with students in classes where the interpreters are especially competent and comfortable, because the larger number of students in such systems allows for more flexibility. Individuals who are well apprised of the content of material being presented are able to produce a more precise interpretation of such material at the discourse level.

Another difference between rural and urban educational interpreters is that rural interpreters provide considerably more tutoring help to students who are deaf than their urban counterparts provide. Interpreter preparation programs do not typically provide training in methods for implementing effective tutoring interventions; therefore, most educational interpreters are unprepared for this task (Jones, 1993).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the present study was to examine the perceptions and professional backgrounds of respondents representing the population of educational interpreters currently employed in two predominantly rural western states. A further purpose was to ascertain specific interventions for supporting and preparing interpreters in rural settings. Although some investigations have clearly demonstrated the lack of preparation of educational interpreters (Dahl & Wilcox, 1990; Hayes, 1992; Powers & Elliot, 1996), none have focused specifically on the support and training rural educational interpreters need to be more effective. The National Task Force on Educational Interpreting (1989) identified a number of concerns regarding educational interpreting. Two of the challenges raised by the task force were addressed in the present study:

Interpreters working with younger children had little or no special preparation or experience in interpreting for deaf children or special knowledge of child development or pedagogy…. Few interpreter preparation programs prepared their students to work specifically in educational settings in spite of the fact that more than 50% of their graduates in recent years have found employment in education. (p. 3)

Marrs (1984) stated that it is likely that individuals who are comfortable in both the social and professional milieus of rural communities will stay in those communities throughout their careers. It is therefore practical to make training accessible to individuals already well established in rural areas (Mercaldo & Griffing, 1995). The investigation described in the present study was an attempt to identify the supports that rural educational interpreters perceived as being helpful to them in becoming more effective in their current position.

Request Sign Language Interpreting Services Online

Methodology

The present study implemented both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The focus of the survey portion of the study was on inquiry into the preparation, training, and available support systems of educational interpreters. The final version of the survey instrument was a four-page document titled Educational Interpreters: A Survey of Needs (see Appendix A).

The interview portion of the present study was designed to gather data from currently employed educational interpreters in the two states where they resided to (a) ascertain the concerns and problems they encountered in their jobs and (b) determine the specific training needs the interpreters believed would increase their skills and effectiveness. Descriptive statistics and naturalistic inquiry were used. The questions were designed to be sufficiently open ended to enable respondents to address the topics most interesting and pertinent to them.

Naturalistic inquiry in the form of eight in-depth interviews was used as a follow-up to the survey in order to obtain detailed descriptions of educational interpreters’ perceptions and beliefs about their job and their needs in their specific positions. Each interview was conducted face to face and recorded, then transcribed for interpretational analysis. In order to develop constructs to frame the data, rich descriptions depicting the re-creation of a situation and its natural context were sought from the data (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). Themes were identified by their co-occurrence, prominence, and characterization of educational interpreting.

Participants

The two states selected as the sites of the present study were chosen primarily for two reasons. First, because the focus of the study was on the needs of interpreters in rural settings, these two states were selected because they are substantially rural (Bureau of the Census, 1991). Moreover, the study was conducted in cooperation with the Educational Interpreter Certificate Project (EICP), directed by Leilani Johnson, an innovative program providing preparation for educational interpreters using distance education technologies. The study provided baseline data to the director for the purposes of identifying and addressing the needs of participants enrolled in and accepted into the EICP, which had recently been awarded a federal grant to provide training to educational interpreters in the two states selected for the study (L. Johnson & Winston, 1999).

Surveys were sent to the total population of currently employed educational interpreters in the two selected states based on information secured by the EICP from each state’s (a) department of education, (b) special education director, (c) education districts and cooperatives, and (d) professional association of interpreters. Follow-up interviews were conducted with survey respondents who indicated interest in further participation. Eight participants were chosen for interviews based on the precepts of maximum variation sampling (Gall et al., 1996). The measures, selected by the researcher to optimize horizonalization, are depicted in Table 1. The variability of the interview participants enabled the researcher to develop a comprehensive overview of educational interpreting in these two states based on the outliers within the group of survey respondents. For example, comparing an individual living and working in a large city with certification as an interpreter to an individual living in a small ranching community who had taken several sign language classes provided the basis for developing informal case studies on the individuals representing the outermost range within the group of survey respondents.

Results

A total of 103 surveys were completed and returned. Of this number, 63 were from currently employed educational interpreters, and thereby qualified for inclusion in the present study. Of the 63 participants, 10 interpreters (16%) had completed IPPs; 52 (83%) had not. (One individual did not respond to this question.) Of the 10 participants who had attended IPPs, 5 had one education course during their IPP; the remaining 5 had no course work pertaining to interpreting in educational settings. The profile of the survey respondent was that of a white female, age 36 years, with 5 years’ experience working as an educational interpreter. She had not attended an IPP and did not hold Registry for Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) certification, but had taken several sign language classes. When asked to self-rate on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not proficient to highly proficient, she ranked her interpreting skills as proficient (average).

Forty-six of the 63 interpreters were screened using the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment, or EIPA (Schick & Williams, 1994; Schick et al., 1999). The EIPA is an evaluation instrument that focuses specifically on interpreters working with students in educational settings (Schick & Williams, 1994). For the purposes of the present study and the EICP, the EIPA looked at interpreters’ (a) English-tosign skills, (b) vocabulary, and (c) prosodic elements. The scores on the EIPA were correlated with the interpreter’s self-reported proficiency rating. The correlation coefficient was .547, indicating a relationship of moderate strength between the two variables (Glass & Hopkins, 1984).

Several questions on the survey focused on the issue of supervision in the classroom. Specifically, respondents were asked if they were evaluated and given feedback on their interpreting skills, and if so, how often. Thirty-six (57%) of the interpreters said they were evaluated; 27 (43%) said they were never evaluated.

The School Environment

The interpreters were asked several questions about specific circumstances in their school environment, including: (a) Were you regularly invited to attend individualized education program (IEP) meetings for the students) with whom you worked? (b) Were you given paid preparation time? (c) Did you have a permanent work area in the school? While most respondents indicated they did have adequate preparation time and a permanent work area within the school, the majority of interpreters were not invited to attend and participate in IEP meetings at their school.

The interpreters were also asked what they enjoyed most and least about educational interpreting. The majority reported “working in an educational setting” or “being with students” as the most desirable aspect of their job. In regard to what they least liked about educational interpreting, the responses varied widely, with “salary” the most selected option, followed by “concept/vocabulary constraints” and “feelings of isolation.”

Open-Ended Questions

The participants were given the opportunity to respond to several openended questions regarding their skills, strengths, and needs. The respondents explained that they maintained and improved their interpreting skills primarily by attending workshops, watching videotapes, reading books and journals, and observing and meeting with other interpreters. In identifying the strengths they brought to their work as educational interpreters, they most frequently cited well-developed interpersonal attributes, such as flexibility, dedication, a positive attitude, and a sense of humor. When they were asked to identify areas of interpreting that were still developing for them, the most frequently cited response dealt with their lack of ability in sign-to-English interpreting and a lack of receptive skills. Additionally, concerns were expressed about insufficient vocabulary and a limited knowledge and understanding of ASL.

When the participants were asked to specifically identify what would help them increase their effectiveness as educational interpreters, their replies were diverse. The most frequent responses were (a) having more opportunities for additional training, (b) taking additional course work relating specifically to the educational setting (e.g., child development, curriculum, and language development), and (c) being evaluated on the job and receiving specific feedback on their skills. In many cases, these interpreters also said they wished they could have a mentor, learn more ASL, or observe and practice with other interpreters.

Interviews

The interviews were framed to encourage participant response to broad, open-ended questions. When discussing how they became interested in educational interpreting, most participants indicated that they developed an interest in sign language at a very young age, some time during grade school. One interpreter joked, “In junior high, we would sign back and forth across the room to each other; then we got in trouble one day and we thought, `This is pretty cool stuff.”‘ Two other interpreters had friendships with people who were deaf, which resulted in an interest in interpreting. As a group, they all described a love of sign language and a desire to increase their effective use of it. One interpreter described her first sign language class:

I was really intimidated. I hadn’t been in school for 20 years and I kind of thought of myself as too old to learn. But I loved it. I got A’s. I was so thrilled, I would hang my test papers on the refrigerator and make my kids look. I just somehow found it to be ballet dancing with my fingers…. And I fell in love with doing it.

Each interpreter who was interviewed expressed a similar sort of passion for learning and using sign language, They enthusiastically recalled their entrance into the field of educational interpreting, discussed their perceptions of their work, and articulated their ongoing professional needs.

Isolation

In populous areas, interpreters work with support professionals such as teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing or educational audiologists. Interpreters in rural areas, however, are isolated from support professionals, and consequently tend to have a difficult time establishing and maintaining a clear concept of their position. Additionally, they often work with the same student year after year and recognize problems that arise because of this exclusivity. As one interpreter explained, “I am the only one in his environment who understands 100% of what he [signs].” Another expressed her concern about always working with the same student: “I’ve been with her now [for 51 years. I have often wondered how good that is for a child, and it bothers me that I have been her only interpreter." These conditions, unique to the field of educational interpreting, are exacerbated by living in isolated areas.

If a school is in a remote setting, the services it provides to students who are deaf and hard of hearing are affected. As a result of living in extremely isolated areas, some of the educational interpreters in the present study not only interpreted and tutored but did work normally done by speech clinicians, audiologists, and teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Some of the responsibilities taken on by the interpreters included caring for and maintaining personal FM systems, implementing speech lessons, and helping students work toward their goals in language development and content areas. This occurred because there were no deaf education specialists in the region to meet with students regularly. In fact, half of the interpreters worked with students who never had access to a teacher of students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Moreover, of the four who did have contact, two met with the teacher an average of three times each school year.

Request Sign Language Interpreting Services Online

Supports

One of the most pressing objectives of the present study was to identify the supports that educational interpreters felt they needed in order to do their job better. One of their most commonly expressed needs was to be observed in the classroom and receive specific feedback on their interpreting skills. One participant explained,

There are so many things we could use. One thing is my vocabulary; I'm wondering if my presentation is correct... if I'm getting across the best presentation I can for him to understand. And I don't have anybody to check that. My last evaluation was 2 years ago. Nobody in the school can even evaluate me! I feel like such a novice, but everyone says, "Oh, you do such a wonderful job, you know what you're doing." But I ask, "Yeah.. but I am I really? Am I really doing as good a job as other interpreters are?" ,

Each interpreter wanted accessibility to more workshops. Most said they were willing to drive long distances to attend workshops, if only some could be provided. One interpreter said this about her desire for increased opportunities:

I'd like to see ongoing workshops...; the language changes. I need to keep updated, I need to keep that information coming in.... Last year, for the first time, I went to [another state] for the RID regional convention [a distance exceeding 500 miles, one way]. Amazing. Amazing what I learned from those three days.

Another interpreter expressed her need concerning workshops differently:

I feel the school district could have done more. Should do more. They offer us nothing whatsoever. Originally, when I first started, there would be workshops and they would pay my way there, and they would pay for the motel and the different expenses that were incurred. And they stopped doing that. So, I kind of feel that the school district doesn’t offer me much, And there is no incentive in my pay.

Regardless of the means for attending workshops, they were described as an important support by every participant.

In many cases, the interpreters also expressed the need for a mentor– someone with whom to discuss difficult interpreting situations and content-specific vocabulary. One interpreter quipped, “I need 1-800Help-Me-Now!” They wanted to ask a mentor, “How do you handle cheers at a pep rally?” or “How much time is okay to spend with the family?” They expressed the feeling that a mentor would be someone who would help them feel connected to others with similar experiences.

Another recurring recommendation was for increased access to resources such as catalogs, videotapes, books, workshops, and conferences. Another popular idea was a resource list on the Internet that would facilitate access to learning materials, organizations for interpreters, and other professional supports.

Other Recurrent Topics

In addition to the questions already addressed, other topics emerged throughout the course of the interviews. One was the interpreters’ role in the classroom and confusion about how broad or narrow it should be. This issue reflects the controversy in the field over the applicability of the RID Code of Ethics to interpreters working in educational settings, and the accompanying confusion about roles and responsibilities Jones, 1999). For example, some of the interpreters were engaged in activities such as evaluating student work, discussing student progress with parents and others, and making decisions about the sign communication methodology to be used with the student. Furthermore, some took on teaching responsibilities such as establishing goals and objectives. One interpreter with little formal training in education explained, “I was tutoring all morning, one on one…I did all the planning…. And I set up the goal. The language goals, math goals, and reading goals and all that science. I set up the goals for that.” Finally, there was confusion regarding student discipline and teachers’ expectations of the interpreter, as demonstrated by the following comment:

I am the only one who disciplines…. The teacher does step in and do some, but not too much. She has a lot of other problems to deal with, too, but they expect me to make sure she’s [i.e., the student is] doing what’s expected of her.

The educational interpreters who were interviewed expressed concerns about specific aspects of their employment. In many cases, they had been hired on an hourly basis and were not provided with benefits, including health insurance. Several interpreters were deeply anxious because they could not afford to purchase health insurance on their income from interpreting. One interpreter said:

I’m on an hourly wage, and it’s pretty good, But I don’t have benefits, and that’s very hard for me. It’s scary, actually. I don’t have any type of insurance…. So that’s hard. I guess I’m called noncertified [staff]; even though I’ve gone to [postsecondary] school for 2 years, I’m still under the aide [category].

Participants’ salaries varied widely. One interpreter in an isolated area reported, “I got a substantial raise after my first year here. They did it in order to keep me here.” This statement is representative of the views of half the interviewees, who indicated that they were very satisfied with their wages. Interestingly, these individuals also indicated that they felt included and valued as a member of the educational team in their school.

The other half were dissatisfied; they felt that they were underpaid considering the training required to perform their job, as illustrated by this statement: “If you saw our pay! Several times I have threatened to call and apply for a janitorial job. A janitor here makes twice as much money as I do, and I feel those are things that aren’t right.” However, the dissatisfaction seemed to transcend the issue of wages. Threaded throughout these interviews was a perception of insufficient respect from others, accompanied by feelings of not being valued for the skills that educational interpreters are required to acquire and maintain: “They just don’t understand that we have to be educated.” This was further evidenced by exclusion from membership on the educational team, and by insufficient financial or professional support for attendance at workshops and conferences related to interpreting. Poignantly, one interpreter said:

I’m not included in the IEP meetings …. I don’t feel my input is real important here …. I’m not used as a resource. And again, it all falls back to [their looking] at the interpreter as a playground aide who happens to know how to sign.

Discussion

Sixty-three educational interpreters participated in the present study. They shared their insights and perceptions regarding the many facets of their work. As a result of their cooperation, a large quantity of data was obtained and analyzed. The results of the study demonstrated a dearth of information, understanding, and preparation on the part of educational interpreters, school districts, and state education departments regarding appropriate service provision to students who are deaf and living in rural areas.

Preparation and Proficiency

Not a single interpreter in either state working in an elementary or secondary school held certification from the RID, or any other certifying body. Beyond the issue of certification, it was disturbing that even the interpreters who had graduated from interpreter preparation programs reported that they either had only one course specifically related to educational interpreting or no courses at all related to education. It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the most significant needs identified by the respondents was more training and courses specifically pertaining to the educational setting. The respondents wanted information about educational curriculum, child development, language development, and tutoring strategies.

The questionnaire in the present study asked participants to rate their interpreting ability. Subsequently, 46 of the 63 respondents were evaluated on their educational interpreting skills by means of the EIPA. The results showed a moderate correlation (.5) between interpreters’ self-reporting and their actual attainment of scores– an indication of disparate judgments of interpreting ability. In every instance, if the interpreter’s self-rating differed from the EIPA score, the discrepancy was the result of the interpreter’s overestimation of his or her skills. The mean score in the present study for individuals tested by means of the EIPA was 2.6 on a 5-point scale. According to the former coordinator of EIPA testing for the state of Colorado, a score of 3.5 indicates a level of signing and interpreting that is likely to be coherent but not error free (L. Bolster, personal communication, March 5, 1997; Schick et al., 1999). Therefore, a student who is deaf who has an interpreter who interprets below the 3.5 level will need extensive compensatory skills in order to comprehend the message being communicated. Moreover, schools must begin to place the interpreters who have the strongest abilities with students who have the fewest compensatory skills, that is, preschool and primary-level students.

Most survey respondents said they were not invited to attend the IEP meetings for the student they worked with. This clearly affected interpreters’ perceptions of their stature as a member of the educational team. As individuals excluded from decision-making processes, they had little sense of collaboration with others.

The majority of respondents reported that they enjoyed working in an educational setting and being with students. They least enjoyed the pay they received for their work and the difficulty of presenting an appropriate interpretation when the vocabulary or concepts became too difficult for them to readily communicate.

Maintaining and Improving Skills

The results of the present study raised questions about the avenues available and used by educational interpreters in rural areas to maintain and improve their interpreting skills. It was interesting to observe that the majority of interpreters cultivated their skills by attending workshops. In 1 year, each of the two states where these interpreters worked held a total of three workshops for interpreters, but only one of those workshops pertained specifically to educational interpreting (A. Topliff, personal communication, March 21, 1997). If the main pathway for improving interpreting ability is through workshops, and only one workshop was provided specifically for interpreters working in educational settings in a single year, that is cause for concern. Furthermore, workshops are commonly used as a means of disseminating information and seldom focus specifically on skill development.

The respondents reported a need to improve their comprehension of sign language and their sign-to-English interpreting. Often, a lack of skill in these areas results from limited interaction with adults who are deaf. If there are, in fact, deaf adults in their area who are accessible, fostering mutually beneficial relationships is helpful in beginning to address educational interpreters’ need to improve their receptive skills and vocabulary and the prosodic elements of their signing.

When discussing what would help them to increase their effectiveness, the interpreters provided an array of responses. They asked for additional training and course work relating to interpreting. They wanted their interpreting skills evaluated on the job and to be given specific feedback. They also asked for the opportunity to learn more about pedagogically related topics.

Capabilities

In the present study, an attempt was made to discover the strengths selfidentified by the interpreters. In a positive light, many of the interpreters reported that they had strong interpersonal skills. This is an excellent quality useful for establishing and maintaining a role appropriate for the interpreter working in an educational setting. Furthermore, with appropriate preparation, interpreters can use their interpersonal abilities to collaborate successfully with school personnel and advocate effectively and appropriately for their students.

Many of the interpreters explained that the breadth of experiences they brought to the educational setting strengthened their interpreting work. For example, numerous participants reported having strong language skills to support their sign communication. Others listed experiences with travel and education that enabled them to tutor more effectively.

Interviews

Most of the interpreters were intrigued with sign language at a young age, specifically some time during elementary school. This finding underscores the importance of providing opportunities for hearing children to be exposed to sign language at a young age.

Related to preparation was information regarding the role of the educational interpreter, as role-related issues recurred throughout the interviews. Although some of the interpreters had a concise understanding of appropriate boundaries in the interpreting setting, this understanding was lacking in others. Indeed, those who violated commonly established roles and boundaries seemed totally unaware of this breach of ethics. These violations included accepting responsibility for disciplining students, using inappropriate positioning, inconsistently maintaining confidentiality and trust, evaluating student work, and censoring information. Although obviously caring and motivated individuals, many of them were remarkably underinformed.

Although such a situation was clearly not ideal, most of the interpreters were expected to go beyond tutoring, a common task for educational interpreters, and take on additional responsibilities. Because of this reality, the interpreter must be included on the educational team in order to have a sense of the team’s goals for the student, and be provided with the ways and means to work with other professionals toward those goals.

Several of the interpreters reported that they had worked with the same student for years. In the course of investigation of the efficacy of this phenomenon, no literature was uncovered either in support of or against this practice. However, a situation in which the interpreter and the student work together repetitively may be unfavorable for both parties. Students are deprived of the opportunity to interact with a broad spectrum of people, and do not learn to accommodate a variety of sign and communication styles. Likewise, interpreters do not have the opportunity to improve their skills by working with a variety of students.

Clearly, the majority of interpreters being hired to work in schools in these two states needed further training and experience. In particular, they reported that they needed more workshops, access to a mentor, and additional resources. Some described themselves as “not proficient.” Yet, since they were perceived by administrators as the best available person for the position, they were hired. Subsequently, these individuals attempted to learn interpreting skills “on the job,” which is an untenable situation.

Recommendations Practice

Request Sign Language Interpreting Services Online

The Commission on Education of the Deaf has affirmed that the current status of education of students who are deaf-of which educational interpreting is a part-is unsatisfactory (Deaf Students’ Education Services, Policy Guidance, 1992). The following recommendations are intended to assist educational interpreters, general education teachers, teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing, interpreter trainers, and administrators to become more effective at working with children and youth who are deaf:

1. The state department of education in each state should establish a provisional period during an educational interpreter’s initial time of employment for active mentoring and guidance.

2. The state department of education should provide workshops four times each year, with three of the workshops being skills based, and the purpose of the fourth being the dissemination of information. The state department needs to encourage school districts to support the statewide workshops through the provision of paid leave and other financial considerations to the educational interpreters) working in their schools.

3. Before being hired as educational interpreters, all interpreters should be required to go through an intensive, 30- hour, self-paced, videotape study of the roles and responsibilities of the educational interpreter. Included on these tapes should be information on working collaboratively with students, parents, and other education professionals.

4. Each school district should establish clear criteria for the hiring of educational interpreters. Additionally, an explicit job description is needed so that interpreters are able to assess their effectiveness within the framework of the job description, not based on the performance of the student.

5. The interpreter must have the guidance and assistance of a collaborating teacher while working with the student in educational venues. If it is necessary for the interpreter to provide tutoring services to the student, it must occur under the umbrella of the educational team.

6. Given that most interpreters became interested in sign language at a young age, sign language should be taught in elementary schools at every grade level so that every opportunity is made to build upon children’s interest.

7. Expectations of interpreters’ skill levels need to be higher. An accompanying expectation of professional conduct and a collaborative role in the school’s IEP team also needs to be initiated. Further, salary must appropriately reflect the perception of the interpreter as a professional.

8. Since the literature is clear about the attrition rate of individuals involved in special education in rural settings, and since individuals who have lived in a rural community over time tend to stay there, training must be brought to these individuals in a manner respectful of their locale and isolation. The EICP is addressing this need in an effective manner through Web-based instruction, the use of audiotape and videotape, audio- conferencing, e-mail, compressed video sessions, voice messaging systems, and personalized mentoring (L. Johnson & Winston, 1999).

9. Deaf adults who use sign language may be willing to meet with interpreters on a paid, regular basis. Interaction with a deaf adult leads to improved expressive and receptive skills and provides an excellent model for the interpreter. If distance prevents frequent meetings, occasional meetings are still beneficial and should be pursued.

10. Each state needs to establish a lending library that would provide interpreters and other state employees with access to a variety of materials that could include sign language videotapes, books, catalogs, and other reference materials. Information packets with guidelines for teachers, parents, and students working with educational interpreters would also be helpful.

11. When interpreting services are provided to a young child who is deaf, hiring an accomplished interpreter is mandatory. Very often, children are provided with novice interpreters, the rationale being that the vocabulary levels are lower in the primary grades and the interpreter will learn as he or she goes along. However, young children have fewer compensatory skills than their older counterparts and therefore must have access to the most highly skilled interpreters.

If these 11 recommendations were implemented, educational interpreters would have much greater opportunities for support and growth. The direct benefit of such opportunities would be improved accessibility for students who are deaf.

Future Research

The opportunities for research regarding educational interpreting are substantial, as many facets of the field remain unexplored.

First, an examination needs to take place to determine the appropriateness of the RID Code of Ethics as a guideline for interpreters working in educational settings. Much controversy persists in the field regarding this issue, which in turn leaves many educational interpreters to decide for themselves what is appropriate for their role in the educational setting. Although a code of ethics cannot address every possible scenario, it does provide a substantial referential framework. Without a guideline, educational interpreters have fewer ways to measure the appropriateness of their day-to-day decisions.

Second, an ongoing method for evaluating and providing feedback to interpreters in educational settings should exist. The question remains: In a predominantly rural state, who is the person most qualified to function in that role? Often it falls to the teacher of students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Research should be undertaken into the preparation that teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearing receive at the university level to carry out such supervision.

Third, questions about the efficacy of the interpreting model remain. Is it possible for a student who is deaf to get access, through another person, to the same information available to a hearing peer? Many assumptions have been made about the interpreting model, but there is little to support it as an effective means, in its current state, of educating students who are deaf. All placement options, including residential schools, should be carefully considered.

Fourth, students in rural settings often work with the same interpreter for many consecutive years. Research needs to be conducted to determine the effectiveness of this model, exploring both the advantages and disadvantages of the long-term relationship between the student who is deaf and the educational interpreter.

Fifth, and finally, establishing 30 hours of orientation videos addressing the roles and responsibilities of the interpreter in the educational setting may be one effective means of helping to clarify the role of the educational interpreter. The usefulness of such videos as a training tool for interpreters needs to be explored.

Conclusion

Currently in the field of deaf education, increased numbers of educational interpreters with appropriate skills are needed. Yet individuals with strong interpreting abilities and a background in education continue to be hard to find, especially in areas that are rural and isolated. Therefore, individuals who are motivated to work as educational interpreters in these areas need the support of professionals who can assist them in the ongoing development of their role and the improvement of their interpreting expertise.

By providing additional supports for educational interpreters at the state and local levels, it is possible to increase their skills, thereby increasing deaf students’ access to the general education environment, access being the central issue in the provision of educational interpreters. Therefore, attention must be given to the skills and abilities these individuals bring to the educational setting. They need to be viewed as professionals, and as such, held to minimum standards in regard to skill level and other areas.

The interpreters in the present study demonstrated much care and concern for the students with whom they worked. Accordingly, such interpreters need ongoing, intensive support so that they can build on this regard to become more effective when working with students who are deaf.