Since the 1980s, interpreters have been facilitating communication for Deaf students accessing education in public education settings. Implicit in the early use of “educational interpreters” throughout the United States and Canada was the dominant conceptualization of interpreters as mere conduits that provide Deaf children with equal access to the curriculum. Russell and Winston (2014) report that most of these Deaf students are experiencing “mediated education” (i.e., the information from teachers and students is mediated through an interpreter). They state:

The importance of effective mediated education has been documented and several studies suggest the vast majority of Deaf students in the United States, Norway, and New Zealand do not receive an equitable educational experience compared to their hearing peers, often due to ineffective linguistic access via interpreting services (La Bue, 1998; Locker-McKee & Biederman, 2003; Muruvik Venen, 2009; Ramsey, 1997; Schick & Williams, 2004; Schick et al., 1999; Winston, 2004). In addition, even with qualified interpreters, Deaf children only appear to have access to the language of instruction through interpretation, as much of this linguistic input does not allow for meaningful inclusion, nor does it allow for Deaf students to fully access the learning environment. In effect, Deaf students have physical access to the inclusive environment, but not effective linguistic and curricular access, leading to an illusion of inclusion. (pp. 1–2)

Further, Russell and Winston (2014) have reported on the mental preparation and strategies that interpreters use when faced with classroom discourse and interaction, finding that interpreters often rely on a conduit model of providing word-sign equivalents, which then influences the interpretation product. However, classrooms are places of instructional discourse, guided by teachers who use language in purposeful ways to guide the engagement of the students in their learning (Cazden, 2017; Cole et al., 2013; Maroney & Smith, 2010; Russell & Winston, 2014; Wadii, 2019).

Some studies (Russell & Winston, 2014; Smith, 2013) found that owing to a lack of understanding of teacher discourse and instruction strategies used by classroom teachers, interpreters working in educational settings struggled to produce interpretations that were meaningful and effective for the student. The results revealed that the most effective interpreters relied on advanced critical thinking strategies to guide their decisions on language and interactional choices. By contrast, other interpreters produced interpretations that relied on transcoding strategies, without comprehending either the teacher’s purposeful use of language or the student’s goals for learning. Building on these results, this intervention study was launched of Canadian and U.S. interpreters working in educational settings.

In this study, we sought to examine the results of providing interpreters working in educational settings with very specific information about teacher discourse, instructional strategies, and engagement practices. This type of intervention allowed us to then determine whether the instruction and topics made a difference in regard to how interpreters prepared and worked in classroom settings. Specifically, we wanted to learn whether experienced interpreters could benefit from instruction focused on discourse specific to teaching, interpreting in mediated settings, and which strategies, if any, were most useful in improving the perceived quality of interpreting and engagement of the Deaf learner. The University of Alberta provided ethics approval for this study.

Literature Review

We begin by examining the literature that frames this study. This research project focused on explicitly providing interpreters with knowledge of classroom discourse and engagement strategies used by teachers and identifying preparation strategies that interpreters may find helpful in educational contexts. Strategies, for the purpose of this study, are defined as the “conscious problem-solving approaches to dealing with the content of the text, the interaction among discourse participants, and decisions made by the interpreter that will influence the interpretation product” (Russell & Winston, 2014, p. 3).

Teacher Discourse

Teachers in K–12 settings use discourse to promote intellectual and social engagement (Cazden, 2017; Gilles, 2015; Gilles & Khan, 2009; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Ramsey, 2004; Willms et al., 2009) in the classroom and realize pedagogical goals through teacher talk, scaffolding of content, and interaction (Cazden, 2001; Cole et al., 2013). Teacher education programs and practicum experiences are designed to help teachers learn these specific discourse patterns, on the basis of learning and psychological theories by Bloom (1956), Vygotsky (1997), as well as Socratic questioning methods where questions are used to construct and critically examine knowledge. Teachers then learn to apply the theories and language-based approaches across the grade levels that they may be teaching in order to create collaborative learning classrooms. Language is also used to create positive student–teacher interaction, which has been found to be the most important factor in effective teaching and learning (Hattie, 2008). Guided inquiry and instructional prompts scaffold and frame learning in order to enable students to eventually guide their own learning. Discourse tools guide student learning by providing key words and phrases to analyze, clarify, compare and contrast, and defend student positions on the topic at hand, whether that be math, science, or language arts. Students learn to guide each other through rich conversations using the tools offered by the teacher, thereby deepening critical thinking as they find the answers, instead of teachers telling them the right answers. These approaches invite problem-solving and active engagement in the learning, whether through individual guided reflection or in small groups. The prompts from the teacher bring students to higher levels of thinking when asking students to persuade, describe their thinking and arguments, synthesize ideas, and arrive at consensus (Hiner, 2013). Such strategies also result in greater retention of information based on the active processes used to understand and apply the concepts and materials. However, an interpreted education bypasses the ability of the student to access the classroom interactions and relationship-building opportunities directly from the teacher. Therefore, Deaf students rely on effective interpretation of these specific educational discourse patterns to remain engaged as students and access the full benefit of their education.

Interpreters can begin to comprehend educational discourse by analyzing the discourse macrostructures of the teacher’s communication, such as analysis at the level of discourse, which includes the entire context of the communications, as opposed to isolated sentences, drawing on a series of macropropositions that organize the meaning of the text into global meaning, theme, or main topic (Skukauskaite et al., 2015). The key to discourse analysis principles is to understand the purpose of the discourse within the context of interaction among discourse participants (Wadensjö, 1998).

Traditional interpreter training has rarely explored the macrostructure of educational discourse, which includes both teacher and student discourse, to help interpreters comprehend the ways in which language is used to shape classroom interactions. Comprehension at this level is imperative for processing the language being used in order to construct an effective target text and to create coherence while interpreting the discourse. In fact, it has been found that this lack of understanding has led to the omission of instructional information and classroom discourse strategies that would engage and involve the student more fully if they were included (Goswell et al., 2016; Kurz & Langer, 2004; La Bue, 1998; McKee, 2004; Russell, 2013; Russell & Winston, 2014; Schick et al., 2006; Winston, 2004, 2015).

This lack of comprehension of teacher and student educational discourse patterns has a profound impact on a Deaf student’s ability to participate in their education. Comprehension, and its role as the first step in interpretation and translation, is highlighted across several cognitive and sociolinguistic models used to teach interpreters (Cokely, 1992; Colonomos, 2007; Gile, 1995; Russell, 2005). It has been widely accepted that preexisting knowledge supports comprehension; however, there is little research examining to what extent it is supportive. The common practice of ASL-English interpreters to prepare themselves for an interpreting task is based on this acceptance that preexisting knowledge is helpful. What remains less clear is an understanding of what preexisting knowledge is most helpful to the task and what method is the best way to access that knowledge. As Nicodemus et al. (2014) report, comprehension depends on language competence, the activation of preexisting information stored in long-term memory, as well as integrating information into logical propositions. The assumption appears to be that English comprehension exists within the interpreter; however, classroom interpreting evidence does not support this comprehension is a “given” (Russell & Winston, 2014).

Critical Thinking and Engagement

Russell and Winston (2014), in a study using Think Aloud Protocol (TAP; Bernardini, 2002), found that owing to a lack of understanding of teacher discourse and instruction strategies used by classroom teachers, interpreters working in educational settings struggled to produce interpretations that were meaningful and effective for achieving educational goals. The results revealed that the most effective interpreters relied on advanced critical thinking strategies to guide their decisions on language and interactional choices. By contrast, other interpreters produced interpretations that relied on transcoding strategies, without comprehending the teacher’s purposeful use of language. This TAP study built on Winston’s (2004) examination of teacher discourse and the ways in which interpreting does and does not allow for access in the classroom. The impact on Deaf children’s cognitive development and development of theory of mind has been well documented by Schick (2004) and Janzen and Shaffer (2008), providing further evidence about the immense challenges of placing interpreters in classrooms and assuming that all signed information is “accessible” to the Deaf child.

Further, in a study of interpreter-mediated classrooms in Australia, Goswell et al. (2016) looked at not just the educational content but the quality of Deaf students’ interactions within the classroom. They found that these interactions were quantitatively less than those of the hearing students. The preliminary findings of this study show that the unequal interactions may be a result of teachers accepting answers called out from students, as opposed to being called on by teachers; competing demands for the student’s visual attention, resulting in them missing out on the invitation to interact; and the nature of a fast-paced class and the translation process, causing a lag between the invitation and the ability to participate.

Factors Affecting K–12 Interpreting

Several cognitive, psychological, and sociolinguistic models of interpreting have emerged over the past 50 years, all of which in some way address comprehension as the first stage of interpreting and translating (de Bot, 2000; Cokely, 1985; Colonomos, 1992; Gerver, 1976; Gile, 1995/2009; Ingram, 1974; Janzen, 2005; Moser, 1978; Moser-Mercer, 1994; Seleskovitch, 1978/1998; Wilcox & Shaffer, 2005). These models of interpreting have evolved over the years, moving the profession away from a conduit approach, in which the interpreter is likened to that of a telephone, to a more nuanced understanding that interpreting is an active process of coconstructing meaning based on evidence from the speakers or signers (Angelelli, 2014; Janzen, 2005, 2013; Janzen et al., 2011; Roy, 2000; Wilcox & Shaffer, 2005). However, despite newer ways of conceptualizing effective interpreting and evidence about the challenges of simultaneous interpreting (Leeson, 2005; Napier, 2004; Russell, 2005), interpreting in K–12 educational settings is often performed simultaneously, ostensibly in order not to disrupt the teacher’s rapport with students and to save time.

Xinchao (2018) reported similar results to those of Russell (2005) when examining the propositional information loss with interpreters using the simultaneous interpreting mode, highlighting the operational constraints (concurrent listening and speaking, time constraint, and incremental processing), source language factors (speed, information density, accent, linguistic complexity, technicality, etc.) and interpreting direction (B to A) to be the root of propositional omissions, incomplete structures, or errors. One additional challenge that arises when using the simultaneous interpreting mode for signed language interpreters is that their work is bimodal, in that one language is a spoken language and the other a signed language requiring the use of hands, body, and face in order to create the parameters of the language.

This bimodal aspect of the work of sign language interpreters is an area that is ripe for further study. For example, the majority of interpreters are trained from the beginning of their programs to work from their mother tongue of English, known as their A language, into their B language, American Sign Language (ASL). Nicodemus and Emmorey (2012) found that sign language interpreters (bimodal interpreters) express a preference for working into the B language, whereas spoken language interpreters (unimodal interpreters) expressed the opposite bias. Nicodemus and Emmorey suggest that this preference among sign language interpreters is a result of language production–comprehension asymmetries and/or are a product of training experiences. However, an examination of how spoken language interpreter training has evolved reveals that interpreters are trained to translate mainly from their B language to their strongest language or mother tongue (A language; Hyang-Ok, 2003). This language practice is maintained during their learning of simultaneous interpretation; however, as a field, sign language interpreting has taken a very different path to recruiting students, who are often not heritage language users (Williamson, 2015). We train them to simultaneously interpret into their B language, and this happens against the backdrop of students often learning ASL at the same time that they are acquiring interpreting skills. This context of training and working into one’s B language deserves much greater attention in the overarching narrative of the impact of placing novice interpreters in classrooms with Deaf students.

Russell and McLeod (2009), Smith (2013), and Fitzmaurice (2017) identify further parameters that make the work of K–12 interpreting very difficult, including preparing for classroom content, managing interpreted interactions among teachers and students, the ways in which the interpreter’s role is conceived by the educational system, the expectations placed on Deaf children for learning language via interpretation, and all these mirror the issues found in previous literature. Monikowski (2004) described the language acquisition issues and complexity of Deaf children that are expected to learn language by watching an interpreter, whereas Schick (2004) highlighted the challenges of authentic peer interaction in mediated interpreting environments, and Winston (2004) emphasized the myths of a mediated education with a particular focus on the accessibility of interpreted discourse. However, despite those early studies of K–12 interpreting that brought forth a number of calls to action, the educational interpreting landscape does not appear to have shifted. De Meulder and Haualand (2019) deliver a critique of sign language interpreting services (SLIS) as a social and political institution, where they suggest that SLIS have become a “perpetual emergency solution” in the education of Deaf children (p. 8). Although the authors are addressing situations in Europe when they identify the decrease in bilingual education options for Deaf children, the context is similar to that of North America. They draw on studies from Norway and Belgium that have documented how interpreting services are visually inaccessible to Deaf students because of the lack of teacher adaptation to interpreting, the pace of interaction and dual task demands, and the physical placement of the interpreter that restricted natural interaction among Deaf students and nonstudents, but promoted visual access for nondeaf students to the teaching environment. The authors conclude that the very presence of interpreters requires that other aspects of participation be sacrificed, with Deaf students paying the price for the lack of access, even though an interpreter is present.

In 2019, the National Association of Interpreters in Education released Professional Guidelines for Interpreting in Educational Settings in response to ample evidence gathered over the past 25 years that has pointed to the lack of standardized qualifications and expectations of interpreters working in educational settings (Johnson et al., 2018; Maroney & Smith, 2010, 2018; Winston, 1994). A study conducted by Schick et al. (2006) analyzed the Educational Interpreters Performance Assessment (EIPA) results of close to 2,100 American educational interpreters. This study challenged the expectation that simply providing an interpreter will provide a Deaf student with full access to an education. The findings from this study indicated that about 60% of the interpreters had inadequate language skills, painting a disturbing picture of the negative impact of errors, omissions of concepts, and simplifications of teacher’s messages on learners, especially those who may already be behind their hearing peers.

Although many U.S. states require that educational interpreters take the EIPA and achieve a 3.5 prior to employment, Maroney and Smith (2010) highlight the fact that 86% of the criteria for the EIPA are related to linguistic skills and only 14% seem to relate to interpreting tasks. The researchers go on to argue that the EIPA rating of 3.5, described as the ability to sign “fairly fluently” and as “is not able to convey much of the classroom content,” is insufficient to meet the demands of a K–12 classroom setting and is an arbitrary marker for employability. Schick and Sonnier (2017) state that the minimum standard should be EIPA 4.0 and, ideally, 5.0. Maroney and Smith (2018) join Janzen (2013) in stressing the need for interpreter programs to move beyond a sole focus on ASL development to address the actual practice of interpreting.

Given these long-standing challenges and calls to examine mediated education in a more critical way, how has the interpreting profession responded? What follows next is a description of one U.S. program that is changing how interpreters are trained to work in K–12 settings.

Specialized Interpreter Training Programs

In 1998, the United States had its first Educational Interpreting Certificate Project (EICP), which was one of the pioneering efforts to address educational interpreting as a specialized area of practice (Johnson & Winston, 1998). The curriculum used for the EICP was adapted from a published national curriculum known as the Professional Development Endorsement System (PDES). The curriculum included discourse analysis, curriculum methods and materials, child language acquisition, language and learning, and interpreting theory, along with several other modules. Also notable is that this may well have been one of the first programs to use distance-learning technology to facilitate delivery of the program. However, despite the promise of the program, it would appear that the modules were not used in states outside of the pilot program, and the program did not continue in any major way.

However, in 2013, in response to the lack of training for K–12 interpreters, the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) created a bachelor’s degree in ASL-English interpreting with a specific focus on educational interpreting, one of just a handful specialized programs in the United States. The program’s curriculum is based on 34 performance standards, called the Entry to Practice Competencies, encompassing (1) theory and knowledge, (2) human relations, (3) language skills, (4) interpreting skills, and (5) professionalism. The program purports to graduate interpreters that are work-ready and that can earn their national certification within one year.

The UNC curriculum design built on the earlier work of La Bue (1988), Jones (2004), Winston (1994), and Winston (1990) in identifying the tasks associated with interpreting in mainstream educational settings and is grounded in research conducted by Witter-Merithew and Johnson (2005) that identified all of the competencies desired in new interpreting practitioners, as verified by practitioners, interpreting educators, and Deaf consumers. The program includes components of discourse analysis, interpreting modes, such as consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, and has specific courses that call attention to classroom practices and strategies designed to support effective classroom interpreting. Knowing sign language and knowing how to interpret are distinct areas of competency, and it is necessary for interpreters in K–12 to have both. However, interpreters in educational settings must also understand how teachers use language in order to frame learning, and this may be the first interpreter education program to include such curricula in defining this specialization. We next turn to a review of the literature about preparation strategies used by interpreters.

Preparation Strategies

In reviewing studies in spoken language and signed language interpreting, Nicodemus et al. (2014) conclude that note-taking methods, positive self-talk, rehearsing, and conscious omissions are some of the possible strategies that can support interpreters when preparing for challenging work. The authors also noted that no standard text or curricula exist on preparation techniques for ASL-English interpreters and that students in interpreter education programs may or may not receive instruction on preparation strategies that are derived from evidence-based research (p. 28). Their study explored the methods used by interpreters when tasked with interpreting a dense text. The findings revealed that the experienced interpreters did not have standard approaches to preparing, and the authors argue that a systematic approach to teaching preparation to interpreters may improve the quality of interpreting. Although the study is not specific to educational interpreting, it is applicable, especially at the high school level, where the nature of the discourse and curriculum used in academic classes is dense.

Jackson Nelson (2016) undertook a similar study of preparation methods of ASL-English interpreters. Interpretation product was compared under two interpreted conditions; one with a 20-minute preparation session and the other with no preparation time. The study found that participants who prepared by having time in advance of interpreting reported feeling more confident in their comprehension of the source lecture. However, confidence aside, when the number and accuracy of propositions in the source and target language were compared, no significant benefit was found to the propositional content of the interpreted product among the prepared interpretations. Interpreters in Jackson Nelson’s study reported using the passive preparation strategy of reading presentation slides as their primary preparation strategy.

Napier (2002, 2004) examined interpreters working in postsecondary settings. She found that using conscious omissions was a strategy used by experienced interpreters, who were constantly monitoring their decisions and making informed choices about what not to include in the interpretation in order to manage the interpreting process. Napier’s work has resulted in a taxonomy of omissions that are categorized as conscious strategic, conscious intentional, conscious unintentional, conscious receptive, and unconscious. What is not known from the study is how these omissions as an interpreter strategy then affect the learning environment and the student receiving the interpretation.

The limited research on preparation strategies used by ASL-English interpreters makes some interesting contributions while pointing to the need for evidence-based studies that can support the training of interpreters and lead to effective classroom preparation approaches. Given the absence of previous studies specifically addressing preparation strategies that may support effective interpretation in educational settings with children, this study is a preliminary step in drawing on the experiences of Canadian and American interpreters.

Methodology

The participants for this study were recruited via an email circulated by the Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada (AVLIC) and the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID). This qualitative study was conducted with 36 interpreters who work primarily in educational (K–12) settings.

The study had several phases, beginning with inviting interpreters to complete an online survey that sought demographic information and allowed interpreters to self-select that they would like to participate in subsequent steps. Seventeen interpreters (47.2%) were Canadian and 19 (52.8%) were U.S. interpreters. Females represented a large majority (88.9%) of the study participants, and all reported receiving postsecondary education. The interpreter participants’ experience level ranged from 1 to 33 years as a professional interpreter. Half of the participants reported having 14 years or less of experience and the other half 15 or more, representing the career spectrum. Twelve (33.3%) held generalist interpreter certifications from the RID, the Board of Evaluation of Interpreters, or AVLIC—currently known as the Canadian Association of Sign Language Interpreters. Of the total of 36 participant interpreters, 13 (36%) reported taking the EIPA with an average assessment of 3.756, 5 being the highest possible score. The most common EIPA score among these interpreters was 3.5, and the scores ranged from 3.2 to 4.6.

Online Survey: Reported Strategies

In addition to reporting demographic information, participants completed a further section of the survey, identifying the preparation strategies that they use prior to interpreting in educational settings. The participants then provided a preintervention recorded sample of interpretation based on a standard digitally recorded sample of classroom interaction.¹ Within the survey, the most frequently reported preparation strategy was to read the classroom materials, followed by interpreters reporting that they could not get preparation materials from the teachers. Given that reading preparation materials is a less active form of preparing to interpret into a second language, our interest lay in determining whether we could encourage interpreters to view the act of preparation differently, by understanding teacher discourse and engagement as instruction, and employing active preparation strategies. This initial survey led to the following steps:

a.viewing a self-paced webinar,

b.participating in a group discussion of the webinar,

c.implementing new strategies,

d.journal writing about the experience of applying new strategies,

e.producing a postsample of digitally recorded interpretation, and

f.a final group conversation held via videoconferencing.

Intervention Phase: Self-Paced Webinar and Group Conversations

The intervention stage of the study was then to provide the participants with direct instruction about teacher discourse and interpreting via an asynchronous, self-paced, multimedia webinar. The researchers provided the instruction, which was prerecorded for inclusion in the webinar. The webinar content addressed the ways teachers use discourse to promote intellectual and social engagement (Cazden, 2017; Willms et al., 2009) in the classroom and how pedagogical goals are realized through teacher talk and interaction (Cazden, 2001, 2017). Further topics included a discussion of the myths of a mediated education (Winston, 2004) and the ways in which meaningful engagement may be more difficult in a mediated environment. The webinar offered examples of direct instruction in English and ASL, so that participants could see modeled linguistic and social behaviors and then identify the teacher-intended strategies for engaging learners. The researchers also provided information and applicable techniques about preparation strategies that interpreters can employ in order to understand the classroom content and interaction demands prior to interpreting (see Appendix). The webinar was then followed by an initial group synchronous videoconference conversation in which the participants could engage with the researchers about the webinar content and have their questions addressed prior to moving to the next phase of the study.

The groups were provided with an agenda prior to the initial meeting. After addressing some of the baseline questions, the study participants were asked to

•describe their experience with the webinar in terms of content and application to their workplace;

•provide insights on challenges facing the interpreters working in classrooms; and

•apply the strategies over a 5-week period and to report their experience by using a self-journal tool provided by the researchers.

The group conversations were conducted using a videoconferencing platform, known as Blue Jeans, which allowed participants to see each other. Each conversation was recorded for analysis purposes, and both the initial and final conversations lasted 1 hr and 10 min on average.

Intervention Stage: Applying Knowledge and Strategies

Following the webinar, interpreters were invited to apply the knowledge and strategies they had learned and create weekly electronic reflection journals. To prompt the interpreters’ reflection, the journals were structured with the following guiding questions:

•How did I apply this new learning about teacher discourse to my classroom interpreting?

•What preparation strategies did I use to interpret the classroom discourse?

•What was the impact of the preparation strategy on my interpreting quality?

•What questions do I have about how to use the strategy more effectively?

•How does what I have been doing lead me to become a better interpreter?

•How can I use this approach in the future?

•Did I notice anything different about how the students responded to the interpreting?

These journals were analyzed, revealing the interpreters’ perceptions of which preparation strategies were useful and how the interpreting work was altered to account for the teacher’s purposeful use of language.

A final conversation was conducted by video with participants, allowing them to further describe their insights and focus on the discourse knowledge and preparation strategies that had been most and least effective for them, as well as identifying future professional development goals.

Data Analysis and Findings

Because the focus of the intervention study was to explore any impact that may come from instructing the interpreters about teacher discourse and preparation strategies, the reflective journal entries served to provide insight into these aspects. Using qualitative data analysis principles (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994), the data were coded for themes and constructs. The researchers used Google Sheets to manage the data analysis, by uploading the journals, and then each of the researchers reviewed them for major themes, providing comments and questions to the research team. These major themes were then collapsed into major coding labels, and the journals were analyzed a total of three more times, after which no more new themes or coding labels were identified. The Google Sheets process allowed the researchers ease of access to highlight and color code data and to ensure reliability and stability of the coding among the researchers. We also performed frequency counts on strategies that were taught in the intervention stage to determine how often, if at all, the interpreters were using specific targeted strategies. The coding constructs that emerged from the reflective journal data set were categorized into three major categories, each divided into subcategories. The three major categories are as follows:

1.Discourse Analysis Strategies: Knowledge and preparation strategies that the interpreters perceived as useful or helpful in creating effective interpretation products.

2.Relationship-Building Strategies: Preparation strategies that were seen to build relationships among the parties, including interpreter–teacher and Deaf student to other students.

3.Active Engagement Strategies: Preparation strategies that appeared to promote active engagement of the interpreter in ongoing deliberate practice and engage the Deaf learner in the interpreted classroom content and/or interaction.

Table 1 describes the strategies and subcategories of strategies that were most frequently used by the participants in this study and perceived as helpful.

Discourse Strategies

The Language of Teaching and Engagement

All of the participants in the study indicated that the most significant learning from the webinar came from the content that described teacher discourse and engagement strategies. Understanding what successful teachers do with language in order to construct meaningful learning environments was knowledge that the interpreters had not been exposed to in their interpreter education sprograms, nor was it part of any professional development that the school districts offered to the interpreters. All of the interpreters expressed an appreciation for seeing samples of direct instruction techniques used by teachers and found particularly helpful the opportunity to see a Deaf teacher incorporating the same techniques of scaffolding, asking metacognitive questions, engaging learners in call and response activities, providing feedback to shape and encourage responses, and so on. They noted that linguistic techniques used by the Deaf teacher such as incorporating dominant and nondominant hands to provide content while eliciting a response were an area of new learning for them and recognized how helpful these strategies are in fostering greater engagement of the Deaf student in the mediated classroom. The following quotes, in the participants’ own words, reveal the perceived value of focusing on classroom discourse and engagement in improving their classroom interpretation:

Table 1. Helpful Teacher Discourse and Preparation Strategies

Note. IEP = individual educational plan.

Viewing direct instruction videos gives me greater insights and skills that will give the deaf and hard of hearing students a more natural interaction during classes. —participant A

Sitting in on a deaf teacher working with deaf kids was a great suggestion and I took the opportunity to be in a direct instruction ASL-ASL environment and observe some teaching and language use strategies. I focused on shared eye-gaze of the teacher and the kinds of discourse strategies as well as how they recycled language to introduce new vocabulary. I then journaled about some of the Deaf teacher strategies and how they can be incorporated into the construction class am currently interpreting in. —participant D

During one drill I started leaning toward the student with my dominant hand extended while my dominant hand would move in “Come here/watch for the point” gesture when the teacher said “morphemes” and then would lean back to sign “meaning”—I want to be on the lookout for ways to incorporate two-handed signing in this way. —participant N

I also tried to apply the Bloom’s Taxonomy theory to understand how the teachers teaching the class. I really benefited from the strategy called the “Questions for critical thinking used by the teacher. —participant F

The webinar provided information about the ways in which both Deaf and nondeaf teachers use language to engage learners, including specific questioning types, discourse strategies designed to provide feedback to individuals and the entire class, and what is expected of learners when teachers use language to encourage academic, social and intellectual engagement. Frequent journal entries, as well as comments made in the final group meeting, highlighted the fact that learning about teacher discourse strategies in spoken English helped the interpreters to attend differently to what they were hearing. For example, interpreters stated that they had better awareness of teacher purpose by listening to the language, and given the emphasis on teacher–student interactions, the interpreters made different decisions about how they interpreted and sometimes chose to prioritize engagement over content. The interpreters reported that they believed the interpreting work shifted in positive ways and that their consciousness about teacher discourse and the chance to explore using strategies that were modeled by Deaf teachers contributed to this shift. They reported that they also reduced the impact of lexical processing by finding strategies to convey “teacher talk” and “student talk.”

The following quote highlights the ways in which this portion of the intervention study impacted one participant.

I find it is a constant tug of war between instruction and social aspects of the classroom. When the two overlap I realize now I typically default and choose to keep instruction and lessen or omit the other information. After this exercise, I wonder if it is always best for the student? —participant H

Preparing for Content: Reviewing the Curriculum Guides

Interpreters reflected that the opportunity to gain a broad overview of the state or provincial government instructional goals, both long-term and short-term, and student outcomes that are necessary for the successful completion of a subject area was a very helpful strategy in framing the classroom work that occurs each year or each semester. This includes reviewing the instructional curriculum guides that are published for each subject and grade level. In the words of one participant:

Knowing better the topics that are going to be taught is also a better way to prepare mentally for the semester. It also meant I could read ahead and prepare if there were curriculum topics that I had never interpreted before. —participant F

Activating the Interpreter’s Mind

Within this theme, several specific interpreter strategies were cited as helpful in activating the interpreter’s mind in order to work through the stages of a cognitive model of interpretation, such as the Cokely model (1992) or the Russell meaning-based model (2002). The interpreters in this study most frequently cited the following substrategies as factors that contributed to raising the consciousness of classroom discourse and improving the quality of the interpretation.

Mind Mapping, Visualizing, and Brainstorming

By using mind mapping and visualizing techniques, the interpreter can tap into previous knowledge that can be used in comprehending the source language and in identifying areas of new knowledge that are needed in order to manage the curriculum. In addition, the mind mapping exercise can lead to understanding how the ideas relate to each other, enhancing the interpreter’s ability to predict how the teacher may unfold the content. During the webinar, the instruction on mind mapping and doing a ten-minute preparation strategy included deep breathing and calming exercises. The interpreters commented on how this strategy can reduce the cognitive and physical stress that they may experience during interpretation. The following quotes illustrate this theme:

The mind map helped me identify the key concepts and also the additional resources I would need for example, a U.S. map and flashcards for the 50 states and capitals, the Social Studies book. —participant H

I have come to realize that if I make a mind map when reading the materials that I’m very unfamiliar with, it will help me become more familiar with the overarching information in the materials. I will then be better prepared to interpret the concepts and should be better able to visualize the specifics of the materials. —participant O

Even a 5-minute prebrainstorming session can make a huge difference. … Then a few minutes of rehearsing the interpretation as prep can help calm the mind, warm up the fingers and prepare me for a clearer interpretation in critical moments. —participant E

Performing a Think Aloud Protocol While Previewing Video Materials

TAPs can also support the interpreter by allowing them to mentally rehearse for the actual interpretation and can highlight areas of the linguistic and/or content that may present challenges for the interpreter. This strategy was most used in combination with previewing a video that would be shown in class.

This helped me to identify what I know and don’t know, so I could research what I needed. —participant C

I really found that watching the video gave me a much stronger approach to setting up the visual groundwork before beginning to interpret the lecture. Being able to refer to that groundwork and other visual clues has launched the deaf student to the top of the class. —participant N

Blending Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpreting Into the Classroom

Participants offered examples of where consecutive interpreting can lead to more effective interpretation and engagement for Deaf learners. Although 20 out of 36 of the interpreters indicated that they could not find ways to use consecutive interpreting during the classroom work, the following quotes reveal examples of where interpreters did apply consecutive interpreting effectively to support student learning.

The teacher often speaks while demonstrating and I find using consecutive interpretation is a good way to deal with this. —participant M

I also spoke to the teacher about modifying his approach so that he paused and didn’t talk during the knife demonstration so that the student had the full opportunity to watch the teacher’s hands and knife technique. —participant B

Spoken language interpreters are used more frequently at our school with many families and I feel consecutive interpreting will be the key for a more successful by both myself, and the spoken language interpreters. —participant L

Using Conscious Omissions

The interpreters in this study were exposed to Napier’s (2002, 2004) findings based on interpreters working in postsecondary settings. Napier found that using conscious omissions was a strategy used by experienced interpreters, who were constantly monitoring their decisions and making informed choices about what not to include in the interpretation in order to manage the interpreting process. The following comments suggest that the participants in this study also found an understanding of Napier’s taxonomy of omissions to be a useful approach in the classroom:

This is a great strategy for tackling complex topics, keeping up with the processing and interpreting for fast talkers, multiple speakers, etc. —participant C

I have achieved the ability to build in more processing time, smoother and clearer interpretation and less stress on my mind and body when I consistently use conscious omissions. —participant F

I believe this strategy enabled my interpreting to be more concise and clearer. I had fewer run-on sentences and more use of discourse markers to show pauses, topics changes, etc. —participant E

However, what is not known, and outside the scope of this study, is how the use of conscious omission strategies affects the overall learning opportunities for the Deaf student.

Relationship Building

Teacher–Interpreter Relationship

This theme focused on the types of strategies that helped to build the teacher–interpreter professional relationship, which can then lead to better interpreting outcomes in the day-to-day classroom. The subthemes reported included reviewing the individual educational plan (IEP) with the teacher, holding regular check-in meetings with the teacher in order to discuss specific instructional approaches that they will draw on and teacher instructional goals, creating collaborative signals with the teacher to cue them when the interpreter needs something repeated or to slow down, and working together to increase the social interactions and cultural capital of the Deaf student.

I was surprised that the teacher was willing to meet with me, and the more often we met the more I realized that I am part of the team, and that it is valuable to learn more about her approaches, activities and plans. Those meetings really strengthened our professional relationship. —participant K

The participants also emphasized how effective the strategy of planning regular teacher-interpreter meetings was in in helping them understand the teacher’s pedagogical goals, make better predictions about how to interpret content and interactions, and further solidify the professional and collaborative relationship between teacher and interpreter. Several participants admitted that they had never asked for formal meetings but rather had relied on brief exchanges prior to class about the subject focus for the class that was about to begin. However, on requesting more frequent meetings, the interpreters saw the benefits to their interpreting work and also how it addressed gaps in their knowledge about teaching practices.

I have been talking to the teacher about instructions strategies that would be used during that week … which was an excellent way to create confidence for me and to draw on my strengths. —participant A

I felt so much better knowing more about the teacher’s approach and plan for the class. Sometimes that is more important than vocabulary and content. —participant K

To become more familiar with the teachers’ motivations and goals can only help me to become better at interpreting his/her lesson plans and materials. —participant E

I decided I could use the meetings to my advantage and get more out of the preparation as the instructor was quite willing to work with me. That surprised me! —participant N

Differing expectations emerge in the following quote, in that the interpreter expected the teacher to always follow the plan that was discussed in preparation, perhaps speaking to the need for interpreters to recognize that teachers will, and do, change plans for pedagogical reasons and that interpreters must draw on their previous knowledge in order to work with new material (For further discussion of expectations, see Fitzmaurice, this volume.)

I find that a number of times the teacher did not send me the plans in advance, or she veered from the plans and taught something different or played a movie. This frustrated me, especially when I did a lot of prep. —participant G

Student Relationships

Interpreters reported sharing ideas with teachers that could potentially increase the relationships between a Deaf student and nondeaf students in the classroom. Relationship building was enhanced when the Deaf student was seen as a unique and valuable member of the classroom, for example, using Deaf-centered curriculum projects such as ASL poetry during the spoken/written poetry activities, or having the student teach others some sign language on a daily basis. Interpreters suggested that by holding these conversations with teachers that resulted in changes in classroom practices, Deaf students also experience an increase in their “social capital” among their peers and also that it allowed the child to see themselves reflected in culturally supportive ways.

The teacher was really open to ideas about ways that the Deaf student could teach some signs to the class and adapting assignments like the poetry unit to include ASL poetry. I think this went a long way to the Deaf student being seen as a valuable peer in the classroom and having the ASL poetry was wonderful for the student’s self-esteem and cultural knowledge. Prior to this [intervention study] I would have never offered ideas about instruction. —participant P

Creating Collaborative Signals With the Teacher

The interpreters also reported that, on the basis of the intervention webinar, they had increased awareness in managing classroom discourse and interpreting processes and that when things were not working well they could request modifications. For example, asking the teacher to slow down, repeat something, or pointing to board examples, they were able to develop a strategy to communicate that need to the teacher.

I liked coming up with a “secret signal” to notify that teacher to repeat/reteach in another way. This allowed the teacher and me to communicate about the needs of the deaf and hard of hearing students discreetly. In my opinion, it also benefited the hearing students as well. —participant D

Video Recording My Interpretation for Review With Colleague/Supervisor

One of the strategies highlighted in the self-paced webinar was the need to videotape yourself while interpreting in order to review it with a colleague and/or supervisor. This strategy promotes critical reflection and helps the interpreter see what the interpretation looks like to the Deaf student. It can also serve to build stronger relationships among colleagues. The following quote emphasizes that the reflective conversation can be useful with a noninterpreter, as well, and can facilitate useful learning conversations.

Then I sat with my supervisor and we watched the clip together. Occasionally we would pause the video I would tell her what I saw, or didn’t see. While she is not knowledgeable about the dynamics of interpreting, her feedback was valuable nonetheless. —participant Q

Active Engagement

Applying Active Preparation and Deliberate Practice Strategies

Thirty of the 36 interpreters (83%) reported in their journals that they had never considered the need for deliberate practice as a classroom interpreter but rather that their approach to the work was to read the materials, if available, and interpret. It had not occurred to them to implement an approach of deliberate practice.² The following quotes provide insight into the growing awareness among the study participants:

I need to make this preparation a habit. —participant B

After reviewing the content, and jotting down unfamiliar vocabulary/content, I then utilized some web-based resources as well as consulting Deaf staff on site. I then went back and signed each of the questions and the 5-level response rating. —participant G

While the prep is time consuming, signing the words in context before class is a good habit to develop when prepping…The practice of signing the explanations that might be used for the experiment was really helpful prep—actually doing it myself helped me to figure out how to make it “look right” in ASL. —participant C

I found that by talking with interpreter colleagues and the deaf student to find out what the assignment was about and what specific vocabulary was going to be used, my work was much smoother and effective. —participant M

Attending the Student’s Individual Educational Plan Meeting

As part of building effective professional relationships and promoting active engagement in order to serve the Deaf student well, the participants consistently commented on the value of attending the IEP meeting.

This meeting was really productive. It was a time to celebrate the student’s strengths, which are many, but easily lost in the light of rigorous standards. It was also a time to share with the team what each professional was working on and where the student needs to improve. I left the meeting with a renewed sense of direction. —participant F

Attending the IEP meeting impacted my interpreting in that it helped me realign with the student’s IEP goals. I am better able to support the student because I am aware that the student has huge comprehension gaps, struggles with answering how and why questions and socially needs more support. I am noticing that I am better able to cue/phrase questions so he is more successful in his response to the teacher. —participant H

Classroom Audit of Interpretability

Building on the work of Winston (2004), interpreters were instructed in how to examine the classroom discourse for aspects that can be interpreted easily, content and/or interactions that can be interpreted with modification, and content and/or interactions that are not possible to interpret effectively. Examples of situations where it may not be possible to interpret effectively are very fast-paced lectures, overlapping speakers, or tasks that require viewing a demonstration and receiving further instructions concurrently. By attending to these factors the interpreters were exploring how best to facilitate effective engagement of the Deaf students. In the words of one participant:

I have also audited the classroom for what can be interpreted and what cannot and what can be interpreted with modifications, which I could then talk to the teacher about. This gave the teacher much more insight into what the interpreting process is and isn’t and I think strengthened our ability to work together. —participant D

Discussion

Our study sought to determine whether instructing interpreters about teacher discourse and engagement, along with active preparation strategies, would enhance their abilities to interpret effectively. The use of an intervention framework has allowed us to analyze the ways in which instructing interpreters about teacher discourse, teaching methods, strategies used when employing direct education, whether it be from English to English or ASL to ASL, supplemented with preparation strategies that are considered to be useful to interpreters, can impact classroom interpreting performance and engagement strategies. Such methodology may be useful in designing future studies with interpreters on any range of research topics.

The results were illuminating: We discovered that although the interpreters in this study had graduated from interpreter education programs, and were hence viewed as “qualified and prepared” to work in K–12 settings, none were explicitly taught strategies that pertained to working in classroom environments with Deaf students from kindergarten to high school. None of the participants had ever received any instruction on teacher discourse strategies and pedagogical approaches embedded in language and activities. The vast majority of participants reflected back to their interpreter education programs and reported that the programs focused on teaching interpreters to work with Deaf adult consumers who use ASL. In the final debrief conversations, participants frequently commented that the IEP that they attended emphasized ASL acquisition, with little emphasis on cognitive models and discourse approaches to understanding interpretation, let alone content that was specific to teacher discourse in K–12 settings. Further, although it is crucial that interpreters working in K–12 settings understand typical, robust adult language use in English and ASL, it is also necessary to teach interpreters how to work with Deaf children who are more likely than not to have underdeveloped language structures (Monikowski, 2004; Schick, 2004; Winston, 2004).

Thirty-five of the interpreters participating in this study had significant experience interpreting in the classroom, except for only one interpreter providing her first year of service. What all of them had in common was the lack of understanding of how teachers use language in purposeful ways and the manner in which teachers engage learners academically, intellectually, and socially. Seeing language in new ways, especially seeing how Deaf teachers use the same approaches to stimulate critical thinking among the students they work with, was significant for all participants, as was understanding engagement and interaction patterns within educational settings. The specific question styles used to address Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) were viewed as very useful, as were the examples of prompts used by teachers to shape responses. All of the participants indicated that understanding how teachers may use language, along with an understanding of the Deaf student’s IEP and overall curriculum goals, were very strong “takeaway” messages from the webinar, and the interpreters reported that this knowledge helped them shift their practice to get beyond the act of lexical interpreting in order to produce more meaningful language constructions that more closely represented the pedagogical purpose.

Similarly to the results reported by Nicodemus et al. (2014), the interpreters responded favorably to the active preparation strategies that drew on mental preparation conducted prior to the assignment. The strategies of mind mapping, TAPs, brainstorming, and reviewing curriculum guides and materials prior to discussing them with the teacher were used consistently by all participants and viewed as helpful. However, what appeared to be more useful or impactful was the information specific to teacher discourse, with particular reference to direct instruction in ASL, and to this end the interpreters all noted that in terms of ongoing professional development it was challenging to find examples of direct instruction in ASL or ASL linguistic resources in one central website.

The interpreters also reported that building an effective relationship with the teacher was an important aspect of preparing for the work, in that it facilitated the interpreter’s understanding about the nature of teaching and learning processes, interpreting teacher discourse, and reinforced the reasons why advanced preparation was crucial to activating the interpreter’s mind.

Given how important the discourse-related content was to participants, as well as the relationship-building theme between teacher and interpreter, it would be useful for interpreter education curricula to focus on these aspects. It would also be helpful for educators, either during preservice training or via professional development, to model how to support collaboration in the classroom between teachers and interpreters, especially those teachers who have never taught Deaf learners and possess no specialized skills or knowledge for that task and those interpreters that have little or no training on teacher discourse and teaching strategies. Teacher education programs often include coursework on how to work within educational systems and to form collaborative relationships among teachers, teaching assistants, educational consultants and so on; however, it would appear that this is not a course in any of the education interpreting modules taught in interpreter education programs.

Another aspect of relationship building that is key but that seemed to have less of a focus for these participants was the relationship between the Deaf student and other students and between the Deaf student and the interpreter. Nearly half of the interpreters identified strategies that could increase the ways in which the Deaf student connects with their peers, for example, by teaching sign language and/or having content that is adapted to include culturally appropriate activities; however, this was not consistent among the participants. This could be a consequence of how the study was designed to focus on teacher discourse and had less intervention instruction on relationship development. However, all of the relationships in the classroom are important, and the quality of interpreting services will be enhanced if interpreters are able to know students well and have strategies for building effective relationships with all learners, especially the Deaf learner.

Implications for Interpreters

The findings invite current K–12 interpreters to consider the ways in which targeted learning about teacher discourse in English and also in ASL could enhance their interpreting skills. The specific active strategies that the interpreters used in this study can be easily learned and incorporated into professional practice. The notion of interpreting audits put forward by Winston (2004) was useful to the participants in this study, and by doing them, the interpreters and teachers were able to come to shared solutions about how to lessen the “appearance of access,” and to support the Deaf student as an active participant in the learning. For interpreters that mentor newer K–12 interpreters, the findings also encourage us to learn much more about the nature of interpreting decisions and the impact on the learning environment. For example, what impact do conscious omissions have on the student? Do interpreters prioritize content choices over social interactions, and, if so, what can interpreters and teachers do to ensure the Deaf student has opportunities to engage with their peers, as learners and as friends? As professional associations, there are opportunities to take a planned approach in partnering with interpreter education programs, in order to design a robust continuing education agenda for K–12 interpreters.

Implications for Educators

The findings require us to consider how best to provide additional interpreter education to support effective classroom interpretation so that this specialized area of practice results in better outcomes for Deaf students. Such education is needed for new K–12 interpreters and current K–12 interpreters. The participants in this study clearly benefited from the intervention that offered a foundation in teaching discourse, teaching strategies, and active preparation techniques. This data set invites interpreter educators to consider how we can move interpreter education practices to attend more to cognitive processes and sociolinguistic approaches to understanding interpreted interaction, as opposed to focusing on the interpreting product, which applies to many settings beyond the kindergarten to high school classroom setting. Several of the interpreters in this study reflected that their interpreter program, when it did address educational interpreting, put the emphasis on vocabulary building (product focused) instead of teaching interpreters to build vocabulary by scaffolding on what the student and interpreter already know. When interpreters understand how teachers and students are using language, for what purpose, and the interaction demands in a classroom, then perhaps we will have Deaf students who are able to engage in the learning in ways that are more helpful and supportive of the process.

Conclusion

This study was aimed at determining whether providing interpreters with instruction about teacher discourse and pedagogy that is commonly used in kindergarten through grade 12 classrooms, along with specific active preparation strategies could shift interpreting practices in the classroom. Although there have been other studies that have examined sign language interpreter preparation strategies (Jackson Nelson, 2016; Nicodemus et al., 2014), to our knowledge this may be the first in our field that drew on an intervention study design. The results reveal that the intervention was useful in shifting both the knowledge levels of interpreters and their interpreting practices, and several of the preparation strategies that were taught were found to be useful by the interpreters. The study has implications for interpreters working in K–12 classrooms, those considering working in such settings, and interpreter educators tasked with improving the quality of interpreter education.

Given that interpreting for Deaf students in K–12 settings continues to grow, the approach to how we educate interpreters for this specific type of discourse and engagement requires a shift from a product-focused approach to one of cognitive process and specific inclusion of linguistic attention on teacher talk and academic, social, and intellectual engagement. The results of this study show that such information can influence the interpretation offered to students, and we suggest that this type of instruction be included in interpreter education programs that purport to prepare interpreters to work with Deaf students. Without this knowledge, interpreters may continue to interpret in the classrooms, defaulting to a transcoded message that does not engage a Deaf learner, furthering the “illusion of inclusion.” Sadly, this is not a new call to action, and the past more than 30 years have witnessed numerous studies and initiatives, including the PDES, all of which lobbied for significant change. Have these previous studies been forgotten or discarded in favor of seeing education for Deaf students as simply a placement process and not an educational process? Given that K–12 education continues to be such a huge employer of interpreters, it is incumbent on our field to understand the ways in which our interpreting work can, by default, continue to support the “appearance of access” or we work at advancing meaningful change.

This study offers insight on ways that interpreters in classroom settings can effectively prepare for the work, revealing that novice to very experienced interpreters can adapt to new knowledge and incorporate that knowledge into their practice. As with all research, this study has limitations, in that we explored what interpreters reported they did via the reflective journals and group conversations, rather than what they actually did. Further research is needed on this topic as we continue to explore how best to serve Deaf learners who are educated in mediated learning environments.

Acknowledgments

Intervention studies are frequently used in education, medicine, nursing, and psychological studies, with the goal of introducing an intervention and examining its effect on the research participant. The study was supported by graduate student assistants, and we gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Josiah Fehlauer in the early stages of this study.

Notes

1.This data set is reported in Russell et al. (in progress).

2.For a more in-depth discussion of signed language interpreters and deliberate practice, see Shafer (2011).

References

Angelelli, C. (2014). The sociological turn in translation and interpreting. John Benjamins.

Bernardini, S. (2002). Think-aloud protocols in translation research: Achievements, limits, future prospects. Target, 13(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.13.2.03ber

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: The cognitive domain. McKay Co.

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Heinemann.

Cazden, C. B. (2017). Communicative competence, classroom interaction, and educational equity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315465371

Cokely, D. (1985). Towards a sociolinguistic model of the interpreting process: Focus on ASL and English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgetown University.

Cokely, D. (1992). Towards a sociolinguistic model of the interpreting process. Linstok Press.

Cole, R., Becker, N., & Stanford, C. (2013, December). Discourse analysis as a tool to examine teaching and learning in the classroom. ACS Symposium Series 1166, 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2014-1166.ch004

Colonomos, B. (1992). Processes in interpreting and transliterating: Making them work for you [Workshop handout]. Front Range Community College, Westminster, Colorado.

de Bot, K. (2000). Simultaneous interpreting as language production. In B. Englund Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 65–88). John Benjamins.

De Meulder, M., & Haualand, H. (2019, September 6). Sign language interpreting services: A quick fix for inclusion? Translation & Interpreting Studies. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.18008.dem

Fitzmaurice, S. (2017). Unregulated autonomy: Uncredentialed educational interpreters in rural schools. American Annals of the Deaf, 162(3), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2017.0024

Gerver, D. (1976). Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: A review and a model. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Application and research (pp. 165–207). Gardner Press.

Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. John Benjamins.

Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Rev. ed.). John Benjamins.

Gilles, R. M. (2015). Dialogic interactions in the cooperative classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 76, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.009

Gilles, R., & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during small group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701945

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

Goswell, D., Napier, J., Leigh, G., Carty, B., & Clarke, C. (2016, June). Interpreting for the next generation: Insights into question/answer interaction between teachers and deaf students in an interpreter-mediated classroom [Paper presentation]. Critical Link 8, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Hiner, A. (2013). Critical thinking in the literature classroom, part 1: Making critical thinking visible. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 28(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryct20132813

Hyang-Ok, L. (2003). Interpreting into B: To B or not to be. International Journal of Interpretation and Translation, 1(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.1.2.07lim

Ingram, R. M. (1974). A communication model of the interpreting process. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 7(3), 3–9.

Jackson Nelson, T. (2016). Preparation by American Sign Language-English interpreters: Methods, effectiveness, and perceptions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gallaudet University.

Janzen, T. (2005). Introduction to the theory and practice of signed language interpreting. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting: Theory and practice (pp. 3–24). John Benjamins.

Janzen, T. (2013). The impact of linguistic theory on interpretation research methodology. In E. A. Winston & C. Monikowski (Eds.), Evolving paradigms in interpreting education (pp. 87–118). Gallaudet University Press.

Janzen, T., & Shaffer, B. (2008). Intersubjectivity in interpreted interactions: The interpreter’s role in co-constructing meaning. In J. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 333–355). John Benjamins.

Janzen, T., Shaffer, B., & Wilcox, S. (2011). Signed language pragmatics. In J.-Ola Ostman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Pragmatics in practice. Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 276–294). John Benjamins.

Johnson, L., & Winston, E. A. (1998). You can’t teach interpreting at a distance! (And other myths of a fading century). http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Johnson-Winston-CIT-1998.pdf

Jones, B. (2004). Competencies of K–12 educational interpreters: What we need versus what we have. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed (pp. 113–131). Gallaudet University Press.

Johnson, L., Taylor, M., Schick, B., Brown, S., & Bolster, L. (2018). Complexities in educational interpreting: An investigation into patterns of practice. Interpreting Consolidated.

Kurz, K., &. Langer, E. C. (2004). Student perspectives on educational interpreting: Twenty deaf and hard of hearing students offer insights and suggestions. In E. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed (pp. 9–47). Gallaudet University Press.

La Bue, M. A. (1998). Interpreted education: A study of deaf students’ access to the content and form of literacy instruction in a mainstreamed high school English class (Order no. 9830061) [Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Leeson, L. (2005). Making the effort in simultaneous interpreting: Some consideration for signed language interpreters. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting (pp. 51–68). John Benjamins.

Locker-McKee, R., & Biederman, Y. (2003). The construction of learning contexts for deaf bilingual learners. In R. Bernard & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual children’s language and literacy development (pp. 194–225). Multilingual Matters.

Maroney, E., & Smith, A. (2010, Fall). Defining the nature of the “gap” between interpreters’ education, certification and readiness-to-work: A research study of bachelor’s degree graduates. RID Views, 27, 35–47.

Maroney, E., & Smith, A. (2018, February). Revisiting: Defining the nature of the “gap” between Interpreter education, certification and readiness-to-work. RID Views, 35(1), 15–32. https://issuu.com/ridviews/docs/views_feb2018

McKee, R. (2004). Roles and perceptions of teacher aides of “high” and “very high needs” deaf students in mainstream schools: a summary of survey findings. Deaf Education Aotearoa New Zealand Journal, 2(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2163.1680

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203946657

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.

Monikowski, C. (2004). Language myths in interpreted education: First language, second language. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed (pp. 48–60). Gallaudet University Press.

Moser, B. (1978). Simultaneous interpretation: A hypothetical model and its practical application. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication (pp. 353–368). Plenum.

Moser-Mercer, B. (1994). Paradigms gained or the art of productive disagreement. In S. Lambert & B. Moser-Mercer (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation (pp. 17–23). John Benjamins.

Muruvik Venen, A. (2009). Ten years of bilingual education in Norway—where are we? In J. Mole (Ed.), International perspectives on educational interpreting (pp. 164–169). Direct Learn.

Napier, J. (2002). Sign language interpreters: Linguistic coping strategies. Douglas McLean.

Napier, J. (2004). Interpreting omissions: A new perspective. Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 6(2), 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap

Nicodemus, B., & Emmorey, K. (2012). Direction asymmetries in spoken and signed language interpreting. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 624–636. https://doi.org/10.1017?S1366728912000521

Nicodemus, B., Swabey, L., & Taylor, M. (2014). Preparation strategies used by American Sign Language-English interpreters to render President Barack Obama’s inaugural address. The Interpreters Newsletter, 19, 27–44. https://doi.org/10.13137/1591-4127/10648

Ramsey, C. (1997). Deaf children in public schools. Gallaudet University Press.

Ramsey, C. (2004). Theoretical tools for educational interpreters or the true confessions of an ex-educational interpreter. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed (pp. 206–277). Gallaudet University Press.

Roy, C. B. (2000). Interpreting as a discourse process. Oxford University Press.

Russell, D. (2002). Interpreting in legal contexts: Consecutive and simultaneous interpretation. Linstok Press.

Russell, D. (2005). Consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting: Theory and practice (pp. 135–164). John Benjamins.

Russell, D. (2013). The role of the interpreter [Video]. Minerva Deafness Lab, University of Alberta. https://mdrltoolkit.ualberta.ca/node/546

Russell, D., & McLeod, J. (2009). Educational interpreting: Multiple perspectives of our work. In J. Mole (Ed.), International perspectives on educational interpreting (pp. 128–144). Direct Learned Services.

Russell, D., & Winston, B. (2014). Tapping into the interpreting process: Using participant reports to inform the interpreting process in educational settings. International Journal of Translation & Interpreting, 6(1), 102–127. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.106201.2014.a06

Schick, B. (2004). How might learning through an educational interpreter influence cognitive development. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed (pp. 73–87). Gallaudet University Press.

Schick, B., & Sonnier, A. (2017, November 28). K–12 educational interpreting [Presentation]. Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.

Schick, B., & Williams, K. (2004). The educational interpreter performance assessment: Current structure and practices. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed (pp. 186–205). Gallaudet University Press.

Schick, B., Williams, K., & Bolster, L. (1999). Skill level of educational interpreters working in public schools. Journal of Deaf Studies and Education, 4(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/4.2.144

Schick, B., Williams, K., & Kupermintz, H. (2006). Look who’s being left behind: Educational interpreters and access to education for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enj007

Seleskovitch, D. (1978/1998). Interpreting for international conferences (3rd ed.). Pen & Booth.

Seleskovitch, D., Lederer, M., & Harmer, J. (1995). A systematic approach to teaching interpretation and translation. RID Publications.

Shafer, T. (2011). Developing expertise through a deliberate practice project. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 3, 17–27.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1–34). Routledge.

Skukauskaite, A., Rangel, J., Garcia Rodriguez, L., & Krohn Ramon, D. (2015). Understanding classroom discourse and interaction: Qualitative Perspectives. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 44–59). Wiley & Sons.

Smith, M. B. (2013). More than meets the eye: Revealing the complexities of an interpreted education. Gallaudet University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology. R. Rieber & J. Wollack (Eds.). Plenham Press.

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. Longman.

Wadii, M. (2019). Classroom discourse: A model of language classroom research. Jaked Publishing.

Wilcox, S., & Shaffer, B. (2005). Towards a cognitive model of interpreting. In T. Janzen (Ed.), Topics in signed language interpreting: Theory and practice (pp. 27–50). John Benjamins.

Williamson, A. (2015). Heritage learning to professional interpreter: Who are deaf-parented interpreters and how do they achieve professional status. Western Oregon University.

Willms, J. D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual engagement. Canadian Education Association.

Winston, E. A. (1990). Mainstream interpreting: An analysis of the task. In L. Swabey (Ed.), The challenge of the 90’s: New standards in interpreter education: Proceedings of the 8th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers Conference Proceedings. CIT.

Winston, E. A. (1994). An interpreting education: Inclusion or exclusion? In R. C. Johnson & O. P. Cohen (Eds.), Implications and complications for deaf students in the full inclusion movement (pp. 5–62). Gallaudet Research Institute Occasional Paper 94-2. Gallaudet University.

Winston, E. A. (2004). Interpretability and accessibility of mainstream classrooms. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed (pp. 132–167). Gallaudet University Press.

Winston, E. A. (2005). Designing a curriculum for American Sign Language/English interpreting educators. In M. Marschark, R. Peterson, & E. A. Winston (Eds.), Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice (pp. 208–234). Oxford University Press.

Winston, E. (2015). Educational interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp. 1–9). Routledge.

Witter-Merithew, A., & Johnson, L. (2005). Toward competent practice: Conversations with stakeholders. RID Publications.

Xinchao, L. (2018). Propositional information loss in English to Chinese simultaneous conference interpreting. Babel, 64(5–6), 792–818. https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00070.lu

Appendix: Preparation Strategies for Classroom Interpreting

Overarching Strategies:

1.Explore Bloom’s Taxonomy to enhance your understanding of the ways in which teachers structure learning environments.

2.Identify the most common questions that the teachers you work with reflect the levels within Bloom’s Taxonomy.

3.Review the curriculum guides for the content being taught, attending to the outcomes for all learners.

4.Ask the teacher about specific individual education program goals for the deaf learner.

5.Look for ways to increase the social and cultural capital of the deaf learner in the school—Deaf-centered curriculum projects (e.g., ASL poetry may be something the teacher never considered but would be open to adding with your suggestion).

6.Have the student, if age appropriate, teach the teacher/class basic ASL signs for social interactions.

7.Videotape your classroom work once a month; analyze your work and ask a colleague, ASL tutor, ASL instructor, etc., to comment on ASL prosody, in specifically pacing, completeness of ASL grammar, question forms, feedback phrases, and use of pauses/silences to allow for processing visually.

8.Conduct a classroom audit of what can be interpreted, what can be interpreted with modifications, and what cannot be interpreted. Share results with teacher to find solutions to make the environments and tasks more possible for the deaf learner to access the learning experience.

9.Create collaborative signals with the teacher for when you need the environment to be modified, and note how many times they need to be used in order to inform your collaborative preparation with the teacher (e.g., slow down, repeat something, or reshow board examples).

Specific Content/Instructional Strategies

1.Talk with the teacher about instruction strategies and approaches they will use for the week/day; record those in your preparation notebook.

2.Review the content/curricula prep materials creating a mind map, moving from passive to active preparation.

3.Create your own version of summarizing the content from your mind map into ASL.

4.Perform Think Aloud Protocols on material that you can preview, such as movies. This can help identify areas that you may want to research further and the ways in which your background knowledge can support a more effective interpretation.

5.Check with Deaf teachers and/or ASL consultants and/or web-based resources on language framing for specific concepts that you are unfamiliar with.

6.Practice ASL versions for asking metacognitive questions and for scaffolding techniques and compare them to master teachers who offer direct instruction.

7.Note the ways in which the teacher engages learners both individually and in groups. Do you have similar strategies in ASL to represent the classroom “offers”?

8.Develop ten ways in ASL to represent the positive feedback phrases used by the teacher; note when you can use two-handed options for modeling content on the one hand and offering group feedback on the other hand.

9.Examine where you may have to consciously omit something in order to complete concepts; is there a pattern to your omissions (e.g., multiple examples, when deaf student has an answer at the same time that other students are talking, or feedback for entire group, or side comments of students)? Have a notebook near to tag those moments. How can you bring those to the attention of the teacher so that she can help ensure the student has a more equitable experience, for example, reducing the number of students speaking all together, or individually reviewing content missed with the student, or a peer providing the information to the deaf student, or you reviewing the examples with the student?

10.Determine when you may need to use consecutive interpreting, pausing the teacher to allow for the interpretation to be completed (demonstrations with instructions, any dual attention task, etc.)

11.Note the discourse markers that are used by the teacher to mark summarizing sections, or topic or activity transitions, or to contrast perspectives, and adopt ASL discourse markers that can match.