As the proverb states, “It takes a village to raise a child,” and most educators will agree “it takes a village to educate a child” as well. In their effort to provide quality educational interpreting services, interpreters must acknowledge the value of effective collaboration among educational team members for students who are Deaf or hard of hearing (Deaf). Indeed, collaboration in the K–12 setting is a critical component of curriculum delivery, and therefore student success, as indicated by the literature (Drake, 2001; John-Steiner et al., 1998; Montiel-Overall, 2005a; Smith, 2013).

Endeavoring to guide a fledgling profession, Stuckless et al. (1989) released findings from a national task force studying educational interpreting. That report’s goal was to establish patterns of practice for educational interpreters. Among other aspects, the report suggested minimum standards and protocols for specifying an educational interpreter job description and delineating roles and responsibilities, and made suggestions for training educational professionals and parents in the effective use of interpreting services. Stuckless et al. (1989) sketched out standards of practice and professionalism for educational interpreters and recommended that they should have the ability to work with educators to provide resources, assess the student’s ability to learn via an interpreter, and participate in the individualized education program (IEP) team and process. However, Stuckless et al. did not detail how interpreters should accomplish such goals.

At a time when educational interpreters were “facing virtually uncharted territory” (Langer, 2004, p. 91) in mainstream classrooms across the nation, Langer (2004) investigated issues raised by educational interpreters regarding their daily work. Langer (2004) analyzed online discussion forum posts from 350 forum members and 19 member interviews and discussed the educational interpreter participants’ perspectives regarding interpreter role and identity, communication breakdowns between interpreters and teachers, and physical navigation of the educational space. These were cited as the most common challenges encountered by those interpreters while determining how to respond to day-to-day circumstances they faced in the educational setting and pertained to elements of collaboration, although at the time Langer (2004) did not characterize them as such. The suggestions for solutions or improvement that were provided by interpreters ultimately involved collaborative activities, although the quoted interpreters did not mention collaboration directly. Langer suggested that further research, including the teachers’ perspective on these topics, would be beneficial to the field.

Despite these early calls for collaboration, interpreters continue to struggle to navigate the educational setting (Johnson et al., 2014; Smith, 2013; Witter-Merithew et al., 2010). This is partly because, although best practices encourage interpreters to collaborate (NAD-RID, 2015; NAIE, 2019; Schick, 2007; Seal, 2004; Stuckless et al., 1989), strategies for collaborating with other educational professionals (OEPs) are still not clearly outlined (Mertens, 1991; Smith, 2013). The interpersonal demands (Dean & Pollard, 2001) that occur in mainstream classrooms remain among the most challenging roadblocks to the collaborative delivery of an equitable educational experience for students who are Deaf. There remains a lack of data on collaboration between interpreters and OEPs working together in a K–12 environment (Langer, 2004; Smith, 2013). This study examines collaboration between educational interpreters and other professionals whom educational interpreters often work with, including general education teachers, teachers of the Deaf, special education teachers, and speech-language pathologists (SLPs). This study is a first step toward addressing this data deficit and providing beneficial information about collaborative practices between interpreters and K–12 educators. The study investigates what such collaboration looks like and aims to offer suggestions for improved collaborative practices.

Literature Review

Framework for Collaboration

Although collaboration in business and education has been studied in depth (Cook & Friend, 1991, 2010; Pugach & Johnson, 2002; Schutz et al., 2001), researchers have not agreed on a precise definition of collaboration. The nature of collaboration is dependent on the context in which it occurs. Additionally, there is a common misconception that collaboration happens whenever people work together (Elliott, 2001). Although collaboration does occur when people work together, one of the foundational characteristics of collaboration is the necessity of pursuing a common goal (Giangreco et al., 2000; Hoza, 2010). Rather than being construed as an end-product resulting from collegiality, collaboration should be conceptualized as a process. For the purposes of this study, collaboration in K–12 interpreting is operationally defined as a process whereby willing professionals work together through cooperation and the combining of expertise to provide educational and social access to the student(s) with whom they work (Elliott, 2001; Hoza, 2010; Montiel-Overall, 2005a).

Education research characterizes successful collaborative efforts as including the following elements: (a) rapport building, (b) democratic establishment of project goals, (c) commitment, (d) cultural and institutional awareness, and (e) acknowledgment of individual areas of expertise (Elliott, 2001). Loosely defined, rapport is the establishment of meaningful interpersonal relationships to create mutual understanding (Elliott, 2001). Elliott (2001) was concerned with instructors and researchers in the postsecondary setting, but these principles and characteristics can be generalized and applied to the K–12 setting.

Drake (2001) examined collaboration as an organizational process applied by educators while delivering a curriculum. Both Drake (2001) and Elliott (2001) asserted that parties from different backgrounds and specializations must participate willingly in order for collaboration to be successful. Drake (2001) also identified three general levels of collaboration: (a) information exchange; (b) joint planning and participation; and (c) joint and concurrent implementation. Educators’ lack of available time to engage with one another was a significant hindrance to collaborative activities, as well as to establishing and maintaining working relationships (Drake, 2001). This supports earlier observations by DiPardo (1997) and Smith (1998) regarding the scarcity of available time.

Montiel-Overall (2005a) approached the topic of professional collaboration from the perspective of teachers and librarians in secondary schools. Much like Elliott (2001), Montiel-Overall (2005a) acknowledged that collaboration is a widely used term with many definitions; however, for the purposes of her study, she defined collaboration as a process whereby individuals partner to integrate information for the benefit of their students. The four models of collaboration that Montiel-Overall (2005a) put forth specified several interpersonal attributes necessary for effective collaborative effort, namely: friendliness, collegiality, respect, shared vision and problem solving, trust, flexibility, and communication. Montiel-Overall (2005a) concluded that collaboration is critical among specialists who are tasked with serving the needs of the student holistically.

Specific to the interpreting profession, collaboration is most commonly framed as an interdependent relationship between two (or more) interpreters acting together as a team to create an effective interpretation (Hoza, 2010). MacDonald (2002) further defined a professional as a member of a self-regulating occupation group who has the right to practice in a specific field. To be considered interdependent, interpreting professionals must bring their own competence and abilities to the interpreting team so that they can rely on each other for expertise and assistance (Hoza, 2010; Montiel-Overall, 2005b). Hoza (2010) noted that 32% of surveyed interpreters practiced collaborative and interdependent teaming, suggesting that the interpreting field was beginning to view collaboration as more than simply a paradigm where two interpreters work together on the same assignment. Rather, collaboration included teaming as a partnership involving a contributive process.

Giangreco et al. (2000) and Cook and Friend (1991) all suggested that collaboration and communication among related service providers and teachers is essential for efficient and effective service provision. Specialists should adopt this shared framework of collaboration (Giangreco et al., 2000), despite natural tendencies to sometimes protect their areas of expertise as singularly important. It must also be acknowledged that as related service providers, educational interpreters may themselves provide interpreting services at proficiency levels ranging between novice and expert and possess varying levels of knowledge regarding pedagogy and educational systems (Seal, 2000). By the time of Langer’s (2004) study, results indicated that interpreters were still establishing their professional status in the classroom. Interpreters stated that they felt that they were not always treated as professionals and that their place in the educational process was often misunderstood and reduced in status (Langer, 2004). Fellow professionals referred to them as “‘aides,’ ‘assistants,’ and ‘signers’ …” (Langer, 2004, p. 94). Most of the interpreters interviewed felt that this type of mislabeling led to negative consequences in the form of confusion about and mischaracterization of the interpreter’s role (Langer, 2004).

Control of Bodies and Spaces Versus Space-Sharing and Autonomy

Langer (2004) found that educational interpreters need and use physical space during their work and that they expressed frustration because of a lack of control over where the interpreter sat or stood, how interpreting logistics were handled, and over rarely having a workspace of their own. A sense of “classroom homelessness” and feeling like an outsider was a common theme (Langer, 2004, p. 99). Antia (1999) noted that the collaborative classroom tended to have more than the standard number of adults entering and exiting the room in the course of delivering services, which can be disruptive if handled improperly and can cause friction between adults who may feel territorial about sharing a professional space. Cawthon (2001) echoed this observation. The teachers reported that at times they were uncomfortable with the interpreter’s presence in the classroom. A general lack of time available for interspecialty planning and collaborating was also noted during the school day. This negatively impacted collaboration, because time is required for establishing rapport, sharing resources and expertise, and formulating ways to attain shared goals (Antia, 1999; DiPardo, 1997; Hunt et al., 2003).

Witter-Merithew et al. (2010) explained that interpreter autonomy, rather than being free agency for the interpreter to decide whatever they like, is, in fact, dependent on the social systems in which it is employed; in other words, interpreters experience relational autonomy. They introduced a conceptual framework for relational autonomy and discussed that topic in reference to student and novice interpreters’ decision-making skills development during their interpreter training. They noted that policy mandates and patterns of practice contribute to the framework of acceptable conduct, as do the inter- and intrapersonal relationships formed during work. Decision-making leads to professional action, which must occur within the normed boundaries of behavior in that setting. Building on the work of many, including Kasher (2005) and Dean and Pollard’s (2001) Demand Control Schema framework for ethical decision-making, Witter-Merithew et al. (2010) noted that interpreters displayed professional maturity and relational autonomy by avoiding uninformed decisions and embracing collaboration with others. This system-centric, rather than interpreter-centric, approach boosts professional growth and integrated partnerships, and this approach to autonomy is compatible with collaboration.

Methodology

The current study examined collaboration in the K–12 school setting between educational interpreters and OEPs (i.e., general education teachers, teachers of the Deaf, special education teachers, and speech language pathologists) to identify the patterns of collaborative practices. During the first phase, the researcher distributed a national survey instrument via Qualtrics, an online survey platform. All participants were adults 18 years old or older. The study targeted educational interpreters who worked on average at least three days per week in the K–12 educational setting for 3 years or more and who described themselves as having satisfied their state’s requirements as “qualified” in accordance with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)(2017). The study also recruited participation from OEPs who had prior experience working on an educational team with an interpreter. The final survey contained 63 items designed to elicit qualitative and quantitative answers pertaining to collaborative practices and interactions. Ultimately, 79 interpreters and 41 OEPs provided responses during phase one, which were coded and analyzed. The second phase of the study included 5 one-on-one video-recorded interviews with one randomly selected volunteer from each job category, conducted via the Zoom.com online videoconferencing platform. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed.

Findings

Survey participants generally characterized collaboration itself as (a) working together, (b) bringing together individual insights, (c) coordinating work with other service providers, (d) cooperating, (e) sharing experiences, (f) working in concert to come to an agreement, (g) coconstructing meaning, and (h) being a full and active member of the IEP team. The respondents expressed that collaboration serves the purpose of accomplishing goals such as: (a) providing direct or related service, (b) providing accommodations or curriculum modifications, (c) teaching curriculum and developing both academic and advocacy skills, (d) planning lessons and strategies, (e) developing environmental setups and establishing educational routines, (f) successful and ethical decision-making in order to determine the best course of treatment or instruction, (g) identifying students’ target goals and supporting students in achieving them, (h) giving equal or increased access to the educational environment, (i) determining best practices in order to create the best learning environment, (j) problem-solving, and (k) communicating information. The types of communication being employed by the respondents included regularly sharing, discussing, and exchanging relevant information, ideas, and feedback and engaging in a student-centered approach through active dialog. That communication might involve collaborative activities such as brainstorming, listening to the input and concerns of others, and inviting each other to ask specific questions for the benefit of the student. It may also involve sharing: (a) resources and materials, (b) background information about the student or the curriculum topic, (c) topics of expertise specific to the participants’ professions, and (d) schedules or calendars. Professionals also discussed student concerns, either personal or academic, for the benefit of the students’ development. This collaboration occurs before, during, or after class, with varying degrees of frequency.

Findings identified common situations and challenges experienced during collaboration. Five overarching challenges necessitating problem-solving were noted: (a) curriculum modification, (b) increasing the Deaf-friendliness of the classroom experience, (c) interpersonal issue management, (d) interpreting logistics, and (e) student-specific approach development. Interpreters and OEPs problem-solved via discussion, strategizing, and brainstorming. Problem-solving that rose to a level perhaps characterized as dispute resolution was cited as being most appropriately handled “outside of class.”

Nearly all the survey participants noted that collaboration was very important in their work. However, only 53% of educational interpreters and 61% of OEPs reported that they collaborated every day. Only a portion of that percentage of general collaborative interaction was specifically between interpreters and OEPs, so it follows that collaboration is not happening every time the two subgroups work together. Simply working together in the same environment does not constitute collaboration.

Many of the themes mentioned in connection with inhibition and support of collaboration pertained to the establishment of effective rapport between collaborators, and rapport ultimately became an overarching element mentioned throughout the study. These comments related to six general categories: behaviors related to goal sharing and accomplishment, effective classroom logistics, student-centered practices, professionalism, friendliness and engagement, and overall communication between parties. Communication between parties was prominently noted by both subgroups as a critical component of rapport development. OEPs expressed the desire for interpreters to ask about the curriculum elements and the goals set for the student who is Deaf, whereas interpreters wished that OEPs would acknowledge interpreters as a resource for Deaf-related information (NAIE, 2019). Lack of communication reportedly led to inhibition of rapport establishment.

In this study participants were asked to describe actions and behaviors that would either support or inhibit effective rapport between interpreters and OEPs. OEPs reported a dislike for “cold” or “arrogant” attitudes exhibited by some interpreters in the classroom and recommended that interpreters remain student centered in their approach to their work. Neither subgroup preferred to be “told”; OEPs did not like it when interpreters “tell me ‘that’s not my job’” or “tell me ‘I’m only here to interpret,’” which also indicated that OEPs recognized problems with interpreters’ rigidity regarding their role-space (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014). Likewise, interpreters did not like to have an OEP “tell me how to do my job” or “tell me what to do.” Doing so would prevent rapport from developing and lead to interpersonal problems in the professional relationship.

When asked how they “see the interpreter” to determine a baseline for how interpreters are now characterized in the K–12 environment, most of the OEPs who responded characterized the interpreter’s role positively. Most chose the label “colleague” or “professional.” The “communication conduit” label was chosen by six OEPs, all of whom were either speech language pathologists (SLPs) or teachers of the Deaf. The “paraprofessional” and “related service provider” labels were chosen by only two participants each. The remaining options of “assistant,” “one-on-one,” and “resource” were not selected by any participants.

Despite this generally positive role characterization, OEPs expressed a desire to better understand and be informed about the interpreter’s work and practice so that OEPs could establish a rapport with them. OEPs indicated that lack of role clarity detracted from successful rapport, a feeling that was echoed by many interpreter participants and concurred with Langer (2004). Interpreters felt devalued and found it difficult to establish effective rapport when OEPs did not understand the interpreter’s practice (e.g., the interpreter’s positioning or job purpose) or seemed confused about what the interpreter’s responsibilities were in the classroom (e.g., seeing them as a helper, aide, or assistant). At least 20 of the interpreters surveyed cited that this type of role disdain was of concern to them, but although OEPs did express concern about lack of role clarity, they did not explicitly express disdain for interpreters or what they do. This indicates that some interpreters may have insecurity in regard to perceived professional disrespect that may not, in fact, exist.

The survey included open-ended survey items in which each subgroup was asked how they felt about sharing space with another professional. OEPs were asked, “When there is an interpreter(s) working in the room with me, I feel … (text box),” whereas the educational interpreters were asked, “Interpreters often work in spaces that are not their own. How do you feel when you interpret in someone else’s space (e.g., classrooms, offices)? (text box).” These questions were intended to elicit answers pertaining to interpersonal challenges that the researcher predicted would, on the basis of Langer’s (2004) and Antia’s (1999) findings concerning interpersonal discomfort, reflect areas of difficulty for both subgroups connected to territorialism or personal space. On the contrary, although some interpreters did indicate that they felt “awkward,” “intrusive,” “like a visitor,” and tried to “be as unobtrusive as possible,” many of them indicated that they felt “comfortable,” “welcomed,” or were used to sharing space. The data showed that OEPs almost exclusively responded with positive feelings such as “comfortable,” “grateful,” “supported,” and “empowered” by or with interpreter presence in the classroom. This suggests that whereas Langer (2004) noticed that interpreters perceived that “some teachers seem to feel ‘territorial’” (p. 100), in the interim between Langer’s (2004) study and the current study this issue has become much less pronounced. This is possibly because of educational interpreters’ evolving sense of relational autonomy during the performance of their daily work.

All participants surveyed claimed to strive for the maintenance of a student-centered environment in which interpreters and OEPs are “willing to do what it takes” to meet the needs of the students while accomplishing the educational team goals. Participants emphasized the importance of student autonomy and self-advocacy, including involving the student in their education where appropriate; however, both groups mentioned the expectation that others should be willing to advocate for the Deaf student (for services, equity, communication access, and the like) if it became necessary. Interpreters specifically wanted OEPs to invest in their students’ success and not divest themselves of responsibility for the student simply because the interpreter was involved in the dynamics. Likewise, OEPs did not want interpreters to refuse to interact with hearing students, as if the Deaf student were the only interlocutor in the environment.

The current study also noted a reliance on what this author characterizes as student-info sourcing, meaning that the educational interpreter often served as a source of academic, behavioral, linguistic, and personal information pertaining to the students who are Deaf whom they worked with daily. This is a foundational educational interpreter role function recommended by Seal (2000, 2004). Although OEPs did not characterize interpreters as a “resource,” many of them mentioned that they relied on the interpreter they worked with to be a source of wide-ranging information about the students who were Deaf. This indicates that to some extent interpreters are being utilized to make the most of their expertise, as recommended by Seal (2000) and Giangreco et al. (2000). As stated by the interview subject who works as a teacher of the Deaf,

I got so much more information about the student, their classwork, their abilities. … The child may not have realized that they had misunderstood something, but the interpreter knew and could come to me and [fill me in] … I was always so much better informed, and I was always able to effect a much greater change because I knew so much more about what was going on with the student.

And the SLP interviewed said,

If I’m struggling and I don’t feel like the child has the concept, I’d like to be able to ask the interpreter “Can you think of anything else? Is there another way that you can think of to convey this concept?” I think that their knowledge base is so important.

Q: So, you are looking to [interpreters] to be willing to be a resource for you?

A: Yes

Interpreters who were not tapped for student-info sourcing claimed to feel ignored or disempowered, whereas those who were tapped felt valued and respected.

OEPs ranked the lack of available time first among factors that inhibit successful collaboration, whereas interpreters ranked lack of time as the third most inhibitive factor. Both groups indicated that when collaborative meetings did occur, they tended to be held before or after class or, more rarely, as stand-alone appointments inserted into the regular work schedule. While prioritizing respect for other professionals, participants preferred disputes not be settled in front of students. Collaboration during class tended to be of an in-the-moment, problem-solving nature, rather than of a planning or strategizing nature.

Discussion

Owing to the apparent reliance on interpreters for extensive student-info sourcing and expertise in interpretation of curriculum, educational interpreters may logically assume that OEPs construe them as “experts” regarding that student and about language accommodation considerations. Such reliance may give interpreters the impression that they are the greater expert compared with the OEP, whereas the OEPs may feel that their expertise in pedagogy supersedes that of the interpreters. This misconception leads to the inhibitive behaviors mentioned by both subgroups, which were construed as “arrogant” or “disrespectful,” behaviors that both subgroups identified as being detrimental to collaborative efforts and causing lack of trust and effective rapport. This type of misunderstanding may cause challenging interpersonal situations, and this behavior conflicts with recommendations that collaborators should not presuppose authority over each other solely by virtue of their expertise in a specific content area (Thousand & Villa, 2000).

If the educational interpreters approach their work with collaborative attitudes and cooperative practices, trust and interdependence within the educational team will be more readily built. Consequently, OEPs and interpreters may be less likely to construe each other as arrogant or full of hubris. Educational interpreters must find ways to convey that they are professionals who possess specialized skills and knowledge in matters related to interpreting and curriculum delivery yet also acknowledge that they are not subject matter or systems experts.

Langer (2004) suggested that interpreters should fit themselves into the cultures of the schools in which they work, modeling their behavior after the teachers so that they might be more adaptable in the performance of their duties and signal that they wish to belong to the educational environment and be members of that system. Although the current study findings supported that notion, noting that interpreters who were not treated like “interlopers” felt accepted, valued, and therefore empowered, interestingly, several OEPs and interpreters expressed concern over the negative consequences that tended to result from an interpreter violating interpreting industry standards of behavior, such as engaging in gossip (which, as one teacher pointed out, seems to be an intrinsic part of the educational environment culture). Interpreters who were perceived as giving up foundational interpreter behavioral norms in favor of norms practiced by teachers were construed as being unprofessional. These findings indicate that it is important for interpreters to remember that, although they need to collaborate with OEPs as team members, interpreters are not, in fact, teachers.

Interpreters expressed concern that their performance of any job task other than interpreting, particularly tutoring, causes the interpreter to be mistaken for an instructional aide. Interpreters were generally given the latitude to tutor or engage in expansion for the sake of providing contextual information or curriculum reinforcement, but OEPs uniformly asserted that tutoring should be provided under their guidance because the teacher or service provider of record is ultimately responsible for the student’s progress. Therefore, tutoring should be a joint effort. Tutoring could be reframed as a collaborative activity that is an extension of the instructional session. Instead of being construed as an additional duty above and beyond interpreting, tutoring can be conceptualized as an interdependent activity (Caruso & Woolley, 2008) where interpreters restate and reinforce concepts and messages delivered originally by the teacher during a lesson (NAIE, 2019). Tutoring provides a context for the overlapping of expertise where the interpreter utilizes their linguistic knowledge to support the instruction or the educational professional who is an expert in an area of curriculum content, and then the interpreter brings any insight from the tutoring activity back to the professional to inform their ongoing or future instructional practice.

Additionally, these findings noted how some SLPs and teachers of the Deaf characterize the role of the interpreter in the classroom. As mentioned before, most OEPs characterize interpreters as either “colleagues” or “professionals,” descriptors that align with the current conceptualization preferred by the interpreting industry, which presents the interpreter as a professional bicultural–bilingual mediator (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014). However, 15% of respondents, all SLPs or teachers of the Deaf, chose the descriptor “communication conduit.” To the average interpreter who follows current industry trends, that characterization seems outdated and mildly derogatory, implying that the interpreter is simply a machine through which messages flow (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014). This discrepancy in perception may lead to damaged rapport and subpar collaboration, because it may covertly communicate to interpreters that they are not valued as professionals or that they have no latitude for their own role-space (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014).

Viewing educational interpreter services through the lens of collaborative effort can help to mitigate this discrepancy. When SLPs or teachers of the Deaf utilize an educational interpreter, they are not always solely communicating conceptual information to the student for the purposes of teaching material. They also interact with the student for the purpose of gathering data, which is used to evaluate the student’s language and communication skills and to develop and meet skill improvement goals. In these moments, the SLPs rely on the interpreter as a diagnostic tool or a means to a diagnostic end. Educational interpreters would benefit from framing their services in this way, acknowledging that the interpreted product is not only for relaying outgoing information messaging, but is also a useful conduit of linguistic data. Comments from SLPs in the current study indicate the need for this conduit service model (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Seal, 2000) and mention the negative impact of role characterization disconnect:

[In a session with two students] one was profoundly Deaf, and one had hearing aids and could pick up and benefit from sound. I wanted to give each of them the opportunity to respond to questions, so I did not want the interpreter to voice the profoundly Deaf child’s response until the child with more hearing could also respond. And I just couldn’t somehow make that understood … [the interpreter said] “I’m here to interpret.” [That approach] minimized the opportunity for me to collect data. So, I may have only had half of the responses that I was hoping to get, and half of the opportunities for the other child to give a response.

The SLP needed the interpreter to be a willing partner in providing services that could result in meeting an established goal of the interaction. In this case, the goal was unbiased data collection. Flexibility on the part of the educational interpreter in terms of role would have more effectively supported collaboration.

Langer (2004) noted that interpreters emphasized the need for clarity regarding the role of the interpreter and suggested that each school year include initial and repeated explanation of the interpreter role. Participants in this study echoed that suggestion and also recommended that interpreters develop a self-introduction in the form of a short “elevator speech” that would summarize essential elements of their work; mention on-the-job expectations, needs, and limitations; and signal their intention to work in collaboration with the educational team members. One teacher noted that doing so would establish that the interpreter is not just “tagging along” with the Deaf student but instead is a professional related service provider. Taking the time and effort to make formal introductions between educational interpreters and OEPs is energy well spent, establishing role expectations, as well as a positive rapport. This simple step, which is reportedly often missing at the start of interpreter–OEP professional relationships, is a critical piece of socialization that engenders respect and conveys professionalism, and several study participants specifically mentioned introductions as a tool that can support effective collaboration.

Communication Breakdowns Versus Rapport Building and Dispute Resolution

One section of Langer’s (2004) investigation focused on the issue of breakdowns in communication between interpreters and teachers. Langer (2004) noted that teachers pursue the goal of teaching the classroom material and that interpreters aim to provide access to it and thereby serve similar academic goals, but often teachers and interpreters miscommunicate owing to divergent social goals (Langer, 2004). This type of miscommunication led to interpreters’ performance of noninterpreting duties in order to satisfy a short-term classroom need, thereby perpetuating role confusion, which at that time was described as the interpreter being asked to “step out of role,” a term often used by interpreters (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014) but that is especially ambiguous when framed with the K–12 educational environment.

The current study findings indicate that members of the education team tended to desire or expect that should an immediate, noninterpreting need arise, the interpreter should actively support the teacher by “helping,” “jumping in,” or intervening. Conversely, educational interpreters indicated that the interpreters’ first reaction would be to “alert the teacher or other staff” so that others could “handle it” rather than stepping in themselves. Educational interpreters agreed with OEPs that in instances where safety is an issue, educational interpreters should function as another adult in the classroom and behave accordingly. However, interpreters clearly preferred to defer to OEPs for most circumstances except the most serious. This disconnect in role expectations and joint problem-solving between the parties has the potential to damage trust and rapport and may negatively impact collaborative success.

Many participants wished colleagues would not make assumptions about each other’s roles or motivations in the classroom. Rather, participants wished for members of the team to inform each other about the goals and expectations in order that they may be aligned during their daily work. Interpreters wanted OEPs to ask for their opinions regarding the best way to serve the student, provide appropriate accommodations, and maintain reasonable goals for both the interpreter’s services and the student’s participation. OEPs wanted interpreters to ask about the lesson goals, understand the educational process, and keep the OEPs informed of what might be needed for the interpreter to do their best work.

Interpreters and education team members indicated that the logistics of interpreting and the role of the educational interpreter should be clarified early and often. Everyone needs to understand how the interpreting process works, what it “looks like” in a classroom setting, and what the expectations are for the interpreter under normal circumstances. Interpreters mentioned the need for clarification of role expectations more often than OEPs did, however, which may indicate that interpreters are more aware than OEPs are that role confusion has historically been an issue in the educational setting. OEPs appeared to tend to defer to interpreters as experts regarding communication issues, but interpreters expressed the wish to be able to educate OEPs about interpreting without causing OEPs to feel professionally threatened or “talked down to.” OEPs wanted interpreters to discuss the physical logistics of interpreting, whereas interpreters wanted OEPs to fully understand the visual demands students experience during an interpreted education.

Regarding professionalism as it relates to rapport building, educational interpreters were concerned about not being construed as professional, whereas OEPs mainly provided suggestions as to what they felt constituted professional behavior for interpreters. OEPs surveyed wanted interpreters to be punctual, flexible (NAD-RID, 2015), behave ethically and with confidentiality (NAIE, 2019), make themselves available, refrain from “doing the student’s work for them,” and refrain from complaining (either about the student or about other teachers) or insisting on frequent breaks. (One OEP commented, “Don’t tell me that your job is so hard that you need a 20-minute break every 20 minutes.” This comment indicates that some educational interpreters may be misapplying community interpreting’s 20-min turn-taking standard to the detriment of effective functioning in the classroom.) OEPs considered it unprofessional for an interpreter to insist that they “don’t feel that they need to prepare” for their work (what one OEP labeled “interpre-tude”) or for interpreters to engage in noninterpreting related activity during class time, such as using their phones or conducting personal business. Most of the OEPs’ suggestions to interpreters in the current study echo the suggestions interpreters in the Langer (2004) study provided to fellow interpreters.

Although OEPs may not know the particulars of interpreter professional practice in the classroom prior to having worked with an interpreter, it seems that one aspect of interpreting that noninterpreters are familiar with is the “dress code,” which is industry standard: plain clothing including a nonpatterned shirt in a color that contrasts with the skin tone. OEPs expected interpreters to look professional. Interpreters are encouraged by the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct (2015) to “comply with established workplace codes of conduct” (Tenet 3.4) and to “conduct and present themselves in an unobtrusive manner and exercise care in choice of attire” (Tenet 3.5). This may lead educational interpreters to the conclusion that it is acceptable for them to follow teaching staff norms of dress in order to match the educational environment cultural norms, as mentioned previously. However, the current study indicated that when an educational interpreter failed to follow interpreter dress norms, OEPs construed them as being less professional, regardless of whether or not the interpreter was a long-time member of that educational team. Therefore, instead of attempting to match the dress of others in the educational environment (which is sometimes themed, colorful, eye-catching, or overly casual), educational interpreters may benefit professionally from asking themselves, “What interpreter-appropriate clothing would allow me to function best in the educational environment?” and then select clothing that fulfills that goal.

As for interpreters’ comments regarding professionalism, they insisted that they wanted to be perceived and recognized as professionals and members of the educational team. They did not want to be looked down upon, micromanaged as if they did not know how to do their jobs, or doubted regarding the legitimacy of their presence in the classroom. They wanted OEPs to consider them as educated and as a “resource” with expertise.

Appropriate and constructive sharing of expertise appeared to be challenging for both groups. Interviewees, and indeed some survey respondents, indicated that Deaf-related staff may experience a silo effect, or isolation from members of other academic specialties (Cox, 2004). Communication breakdowns (Langer, 2004) were detected in the current study, possibly because of this lack of effective sharing of expertise and joint problem-solving. This “silo effect” was especially apparent regarding teachers of the Deaf and their interaction with other staff, including interpreters, causing a negative impact on collaboration; there appeared to be a paucity of sharing of academic goals, information, and planning time between the teachers of the Deaf and other professionals.

To build rapport, educational interpreters need to consider social behavior and friendliness. Most of the suggestions from both OEPs and interpreters referred to elements of teamwork and teambuilding rather than personal friendships. Both groups agreed that being “cold” or “standoffish” at the start would inhibit the development of a positive working relationship going forward. Interpreters want OEPs to be patient and supportive of the student and the interpreter and not feel threatened by the interpreter’s presence. Interpreters do not want OEPs to be offended by the student’s need to look at or attend to the interpreted message at least part of the time as opposed to watching the speaker exclusively (Mather & Clark, 2012).

Many responses related to rapport-building indicated that effective communication is key to both groups. Participants confirmed that it is a valuable part of collaboration and promoted open communication and idea, resource, and information sharing (NAIE, 2019). Such sharing, however, should not be limited to one party or another. Both groups apparently wish to be actively solicited for inclusion in brainstorming and problem-solving and indicated that when they were not solicited to contribute they felt less valued as team members. However, interpreters pointed out that they could not conduct discussions with OEPs while they were actively interpreting, and teachers mentioned that they did not want to be interrupted while engaged in providing a lesson, indicating that communication should take place at an appropriate time. This study found that time, as well as timing, were crucial components of rapport building and problem-solving to avoid the kinds of communication breakdowns found by Langer (2004).

Face-to-face communication was the most common format used to initiate collaborative interactions, to establish rapport, and to perform collaborative activities such as sharing materials and problem-solving. However, lack of available time for meeting and collaboration was one of the top inhibiting factors mentioned throughout this study and in the literature (DiPardo, 1997; Drake, 2001; Smith, 1998). This inhibiting factor needs to be purposefully addressed by educational interpreters and OEPs in order for face-to-face meetings to be available as an avenue of collaboration in the K–12 setting. Intentionally scheduling time to collaborate and discuss issues, strategies, and goals is key. However, teachers have trouble finding the time or enthusiasm to set up meetings with educational interpreters outside of their regularly scheduled, teacher-related meetings. (“Nobody wants more meetings!”—teacher participant). For educational interpreters and OEPs, the best solution may be to make it standard practice to find short, regular gaps in their overlapping schedules when they could conduct constructive mini meetings involving prepared agendas or talking points. This will ensure such brief meetings have goals and a purpose and will therefore feel more productive and useful. In the same way that simply working together without shared goals does not constitute collaboration (Drake, 2001), meetings are not collaborative without stated goals or common objectives.

Most of the elements that impacted the interpreters’ feelings of empowerment in their ability to perform relationally autonomous work aligned with the literature (Kasher, 2005; MacDonald, 2002; Witter-Merithew et al., 2010) in that 17% of educational interpreters felt “extremely empowered,” the highest level of empowerment possible on the scale provided. Thirty-one percent of educational interpreters reported feeling “very empowered” and mentioned supporting factors that bolstered their feelings of empowerment, such as confidence in their own education; acceptance by and/or respect from the classroom teacher; being trusted or valued; being treated as professionals; receiving support from the teacher of the Deaf, building administration, or direct supervisor; feeling that their opinions were taken into consideration; and staff understanding of the interpreter’s role or purpose.

Another 31% of educational interpreters felt “moderately empowered.” When analyzed in the context of the elaborative comments provided by those individuals, it is apparent that the qualifier “only” was implied, meaning that this label was construed as representing a less than satisfactory level of empowerment by the group who chose it. Fourteen percent of interpreters reported feeling “slightly empowered,” and the remaining 7% reported feeling “not at all empowered.” This means that fewer than half of the respondents felt satisfactory levels of empowerment. These interpreters noted the lack of the supporting factors mentioned by the empowered interpreters, as well as other inhibiting factors such as: the student they served being ignored or forgotten; lack of input on decision-making processes; being treated like a guest, outsider, or interloper in the classroom; being deprived of or denied preparation materials.

Lack of support from the teacher of the Deaf and from Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) department members negatively impacted interpreters’ feelings of empowerment. One educational interpreter stated, “I am not supported by the DHH professionals with whom I work … Without collaboration among those working with DHH, it is difficult to gain support within the mainstream.” Whereas at the time of the Langer (2004) study, respondents indicated that some classroom teachers “[felt] threatened by the interpreter” (p. 96), a current study participant stated that he or she felt that “the classroom teacher is open to my suggestions and trusts that I am doing what’s best for the student. I feel the Deaf Ed teacher feels threatened by me. …” This may indicate that relationships with classroom teachers may have improved over time but that relationships with teachers of the Deaf may not have. Interview subjects in the current study later echoed concerns regarding a perceived disconnect between teachers of the Deaf and interpreters, and between teachers of the Deaf and other educational staff.

Reframing Collaboration Between Interpreters and Other Educational Professionals

This study indicates that collaboration practiced by educational interpreters and OEPs aligns with definitions found in research (Elliott, 2001; Giangreco et al., 2000; Montiel-Overall, 2005a), although most participants seemed not to recognize that collaboration is an ongoing process. Reframing collaboration as a continuous partnership or cohort activity rather than as an abstract ideal or as a series of isolated incidents would allow rapport to be established and support continuity of practice. In the educational setting, it is reasonable to expect that the educational interpreter can support throughout the day the student’s use of the skills that the OEP is trying to cultivate, so collaborative efforts extend outside of each discrete classroom or office. An interpreter must be a partner in carrying forward the skills and curricular elements that they have seen OEPs introduce with the student, in hopes of continuing that effort until the next time the child encounters the OEP. Collaboration should be carried on after the class or session through reinforcement of concepts and skills across the curriculum.

Limitations of Study

The sample size for the OEP participant pool was small and thus prevented an analysis of each job category as compared with another. Discrimination or differences in opinion or experiences across job categories might have led to many more insights specific to certain professional types. OEPs were mostly examined as an aggregated subgroup instead, compared with the educational interpreters’ subgroup. Similar future studies could be conducted to include a larger participant pool, providing a more accurate breakdown of opinion and experience.

Data provided through the survey and interviews was self-reported and therefore not verifiable. Respondents professed to meet demographic requirements, but because no proof of their experience and qualifications was requested, participation was allowed on an “on your honor” basis. This limitation is unavoidable if survey respondents’ identities are to remain anonymous.

The researcher’s own professional network influenced the size and demographics of the respondent pool. This could have been avoided if the researcher had relied solely on organizational-level distribution of the study’s promotional information; however, doing so would have reduced the overall number of respondents participating in the research.

The participant pool did not include the Deaf students themselves or their parents. Although they are IEP team members and the opinions and perspectives of these individuals would be extremely valuable additions to the body of educational interpreting research, collection of data from students who are DHH and from parents of children who were DHH regarding their collaboration with interpreters would constitute a separate topic of study.

The OEP subgroup was limited to four job categories customarily practiced in K–12 classroom environments, but this group was not fully inclusive of all professional job categories known to appear in that setting, excluding paraprofessional and administrative job categories altogether. Future studies should include input from a wider scope of professional and paraprofessional job categories in order to render the results more generalizable.

Future Direction

Further examination of the silo effect (Cox, 2004) as it pertains to interpreters and educational professionals could illuminate wider paths to improving collaborative effort success probability. “Fitting into the school culture” (Langer, 2004, p. 102) is a complex endeavor in that it involves aspects of behavioral norms and professional conduct that appear to have “lines that can be crossed,” for better or worse. More should be known about how educational professionals become isolated from their peers who practice other specializations and about how to prevent that isolation from starting or festering. It would also be beneficial to educational interpreters and SLPs specifically for research to be conducted regarding patterns of collaborative practice evident in their interactions during therapy sessions. Seal (2000) delineated some suggestions for procedures and practices that could be implemented by these two groups of professionals, but it is not readily apparent whether those suggestions are commonly known or practiced. Furthermore, future research would benefit the interpreting industry by determining whether or not interpreter training programs identify and teach collaboration explicitly as a crucial skill in the interpreter trainee’s toolbox. During professional training, interdisciplinary exposure to commonly overlapping systems would benefit learners by familiarizing them with the best practices of collaboration with specialists from outside their areas of expertise.

Conclusion

This study finds not only that collaboration is taking place in K–12 settings but also that it appears to be a critical element of the work done by educational interpreters and OEPs, and that collaboration and its related activities were cited as the most challenging aspects of those educational interpreters’ daily work. Nearly all survey participants noted that collaboration is very important in their work, but a significant number of them reported that it was not occurring daily. Hence, it follows that collaboration is not happening every single time interpreters and OEPs work together, because simply working together in the same environment does not constitute collaboration.

Collaboration requires coordinated and strategic efforts by all members of the education team in order to form a solid rapport from the start of their working relationship. For example, introducing themselves to each other at the start of the school year can set up a positive personal and professional dynamic that allows all parties to be aware of their roles, responsibilities, and areas of expertise or specialization (Langer, 2004). Time must be invested purposefully and constructively toward collaborative activities, such as planned meetings, team huddles, brief check-in chats, and email updates, so that educational team members feel valued, useful, and contributory. The onus for establishing times or routines for these planned activities may fall to educational interpreters.

Collaboration must be recognized as an ongoing and continuous process of goal setting, service delivery, and evaluation, with all educational team members in pursuit of the Deaf students’ goals. Any factors that arise that inhibit the collaborative effort must be acknowledged and dealt with through constructive and respectful problem-solving, or else the collaborative effort may be impossible to continue or may never begin.

Educational interpreters do not work in isolation but within a system populated by OEPs who are dependent on them to provide educational and social access to students who are Deaf. Educational interpreters rely on OEPs for the provision of expertise and original curriculum content. (“Without [the interpreter], this kid fails. Without me, this kid also fails”—special education teacher). Successful collaboration must take place between professionals for Deaf students to receive essential services that will help them live up to their greatest potential.

References

Antia, S. (1999). Empirical paper. The roles of special educators and classroom teachers in an inclusive school. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4(3), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/4.3.203

Anita, S., & Kreimeyer, K. (2001). The role of interpreters in inclusive classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0142

Caruso, H., & Woolley, A. W. (2008). Harnessing the power of emergent independence to promote diverse team collaboration. In K. W. Phillips (Ed.), Diversity and groups (pp. 245–266). Emerald Insight. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-0856(08)11011-8

Cawthon, S. (2001). Teaching strategies in inclusive classrooms with deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/6.3.212

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1991). Collaboration in special education: Coming of age in the 1990s. Preventing School Failure, 35(2), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.1991.10871064

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2010). The state of the art of collaboration on behalf of students with disabilities. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535398

Cox, M. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004(97), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.129

Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2001). The application of demand-control theory to sign language interpreting: Implications for stress and interpreter training. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/6.1.1

DiPardo, A. (1997, Winter). Of war, doom, and laughter: Images of collaboration in the public-school workplace. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(1), 89–104. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23477778

Drake, S. (2001). Collaboration as the foundation for negotiating new models of education. In M. Richards & A. Elliott (Eds.), Collaboration uncovered the forgotten, the assumed, and the unexamined in collaborative education (pp. 83–100). Greenwood.

Elliott, A. (2001). Introduction. In M. Richards & A. Elliott (Eds.), Collaboration uncovered the forgotten, the assumed, and the unexamined in collaborative education (pp. 1–15). Greenwood.

Giangreco, M., Prelock, P., Reid, R., Dennis, R., & Edelman, S. (2000). Roles of related service personnel in inclusive schools. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (2nd ed., pp. 360–389). Brookes.

Hoza, J. (2010). Team interpreting as collaboration and interdependence. RID Publications.

Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., & Doering, K. (2003). Collaborative teaming to support students at risk and students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440290306900304

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], § 300.34. (2017). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.34

Johnson, L., Brown, S., Taylor, M., & Austin, N. (2014, October 30). Patterns of practice: Current investigations in educational interpreting. In D. I. J. Hunt & S. Hafer (Eds.), Our roots: The essence of our future, CIT conference proceedings (pp. 63–72). CIT. http://www.unco.edu/cebs/asl-interpreting/pdf/osep-project/2014-cit-proceedings.pdf

John-Steiner, V., Weber, R., & Minnis, M. (1998). The challenge of studying collaboration. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 773–783. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312035004773

Kasher, A. (2005). Professional ethics and collective professional autonomy: A conceptual analysis. Ethical Perspectives: Journal of the European Ethics Network, 11(1), 67–97. https://doi.org/10.2143/ep.12.1.583363

Langer, E. C. (2004). Perspectives on educational interpreting from educational anthropology and an internet discussion group. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed (pp. 91–112). Gallaudet University Press.

Llewellyn-Jones, P., & Lee, R. (2014). Redefining the role of the community interpreter: The concept of role-space. SLI Press.

MacDonald, C. (2002). Nurse autonomy as relational. Nursing Ethics, 9(2), 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1191/0969733002ne498oa

Mather, S., & Clark, D. (2012). An issue of learning: The effect of visual split attention in classes for deaf and hard of hearing students. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 13, 20–24. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ976477.pdf

Mertens, D. (1991). Teachers working with interpreters: The deaf student’s educational experience. American Annals of the Deaf, 136(1), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0519

Montiel-Overall, P. (2005a). Toward a theory of collaboration for teachers and librarians (TLC). School Library Media Research, 8. http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol8/SLMR_TheoryofCollaboration_V8.pdf

Montiel-Overall, P. (2005b). A theoretical understanding of teacher and librarian collaboration (TLC). School Libraries Worldwide, 11(2), 24–48.

NAD-RID. (2015). NAD-RID code of professional conduct. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-_HBAap35D1R1MwYk9hTUpuc3M/view

National Association of Interpreters in Education. (2019). Professional guidelines for interpreting in educational settings (1st ed.). www.naiedu.org/guidelines

Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. (Eds.). (2002). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools (2nd ed.). Love Pub.

Schick, B. (2007). EIPA Guidelines of professional conduct for educational interpreters. https://www.classroominterpreting.org/Interpreters/proguidelines/EIPA_guidelines.pdf

Schutz, A., Murray, N., Woloshyn, V., Elliott, A., Morgan, N., & Haskins, B. (2001). Not just smooth sailing: Issues in collaboration. In M. Richards & A. Elliott (Eds.), Collaboration uncovered the forgotten, the assumed, and the unexamined in collaborative education (pp. 219–235). Greenwood.

Seal, B. C. (2000). Working with educational interpreters. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.3101.15

Seal, B. C. (2004). Best practices in educational interpreting (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

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

Smith, S. T. (1998). The roles and responsibilities of the special educator, the general educator, and the educational interpreter in the education of students who are deaf or hard of hearing (Order No. 9920871) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Stuckless, E., Avery, J., & Hurwitz, T. (Eds.). (1989). Educational interpreting for deaf students: A report on the National Task Force on Educational Interpreting. NTID/RIT.

Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (Eds.). (2000). Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together (2nd ed.). Brookes.

Witter-Merithew, A., Johnson, L., & Nicodemus, B. (2010). Relational autonomy and decision latitude of ASL-English interpreters: Implications for interpreter education. In L. Roberson & S. Shaw (Eds.), Connecting our world: Expanding our horizons (pp. 49–66). CIT. http://www.cit-asl.org/new/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CIT-2010.pdf