Although research has investigated the presence of deaf students and educational interpreters in the K–12 classroom (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Schick et al., 2006; Seal, 2004; Stuckless et al., 1989; Winston, 1990, 2004, 2015), the specific, empirical needs of deaf students in mediated learning environments remain minimally attended to. Although these have been described in some research studies, the results are often disseminated primarily in interpreter education circles, whereas education and deaf education professionals rarely consider them. Interpreter education has long attempted to mold the role of the educational interpreter to encompass these needs and has attempted to fit the role to the tasks. Meanwhile, interpreters who find themselves within these settings are stuck. School administrators do not understand the potential types of support needed, deaf educators focus on those times when they work with the deaf student, mainstream teachers expect interpreters to be an extra set of helping hands, and, in the end, both the deaf student and the interpreter are walking through a minefield—not one where things explode but one where sinkholes abound, and deaf students disappear into them with frightening regularity. While trying to squeeze multiple roles and tasks out of a single person, it is time to acknowledge that mediated education requires mediators with the skills and knowledge appropriate and sufficient to the task and a realistic role metaphor for educational interpreters to adopt. In much of the research about educational interpreting, the focus has been on the what and how the educational interpreter’s provision of access for deaf students. For example, at a most fundamental level, educational interpreters provide mediated access to the communication and discourse features in settings where deaf students are educated in spoken language classrooms (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Pöchhacker, 2004; Schick et al., 2006; Seal, 2004; Stuckless et al., 1989; Winston, 1990, 2004, 2015). This chapter first surveys the literature to address the evolving concepts of an educational interpreter’s role over the last 35 years and briefly describes how role theory can be applied to educational interpreters. It then identifies the enacted role metaphors from the perspectives of educational administrators and teachers, compares those findings with previous research and presents an unambiguous, realistic role metaphor for educational interpreters.

Development of Roles for Educational Interpreters: A Brief History

In order to understand how and why educational interpreters experience role ambiguity and conflict, it is important to understand the history of roles as defined or imagined in interpreting. This section describes that development, from roles to role space.

Role Theory

Roy (2014) writes, “[R]oles are created and performed within each interaction” (p. xii) and are not a one-size-fits-all singular presentation. That is, a role is a continuum of choices, and interpreters are human beings, not machines, with their own presence. However, interpreters should be provided with guidance on how to make appropriate professional decisions (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014). To reinforce why more clarity is needed for the role of an educational interpreter, role theory can be used to examine role ambiguity and role conflict. Role theory is a sociological framework used to detail system properties and individual actions (Schuler et al., 1977). Role theory has not been widely applied to educational interpreters, yet closely examines how individuals in a system negotiate role behaviors with other members in the system (Hardy & Hardy, 1988). Role theory emphasizes the reciprocal social connections of individuals to create their environment through a process of self-reflexive interaction (Hardy & Hardy, 1988) and how individuals negotiate their own interpretation of the social order, acceptable role behaviors, and norms (Hardy, 1988). Within the educational system “members communicate explicitly and implicitly their expectations and standards of behaviors for others” (Tubre & Collins, 2000, p. 157).

Individuals learn their roles through the process of interaction with members within the same organizational position; however, often there are only a few educational interpreters in the school system with little opportunity for interaction with each other. Thus, educational interpreters may be learning their roles first from preparation for the field via interpreter preparation programs (IPPs) and then from interactions with teachers and paraprofessionals. The explicit and implicit communications of expectations are an important indicator of how the educational interpreter and the teacher or administrator perceive the role of educational interpreters. Role theory argues role senders have their own perceptions of role occupants (Biddle, 1986). More specifically, a student, an administrator, or teacher has their own expectation and anticipation of the role spaces of an educational interpreter at any given time. Each of these people within the system develops their sense of role expectations from their own experience (or lack thereof) with educational interpreters. However, unless each system person agrees on a common understanding of the range of role spaces enacted by educational interpreters, there is bound to be some role ambiguity and role conflict.

Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict

Ideally, in every system there is a clear definition of each person’s role “such that each employee is clear about his or her role” (Jex, 2011, p. 34.27). However, the confusing role metaphors and perceptions of a multitude of individuals within the education system about the role of the educational interpreter, as framed through the conflicting lenses of interpreting and education, ultimately set the stage role ambiguity for educational interpreters. Role ambiguity is broadly found when there is a lack of clarity and lack of agreement about roles and expectations (Hardy & Conway, 1988; Major, 2003). In the case of educational interpreters, this is caused by a lack of a clear definition of the expectations, requirements, or methods for educational interpreters to complete their job tasks (Rizzo et al., 1970).

Minimizing role ambiguity avoids confusion, reduces wasted time and effort (Aydintan & Simsek, 2017), and increases accountability for performance. For example, if an educational interpreter does not know what they are expected to do, and how they will be judged, there is an increase in the likelihood that they will be dissatisfied with their work. According to Aydintan and Simsek (2017), cases of role ambiguity produce negative attitudes and significantly diminish performance and effectiveness. Further, role ambiguity also contributes to employee anxiety, dissatisfaction, and lower performance and is often a precursor to individuals leaving their position (Aydintan & Simsek, 2017).

Because of role ambiguity, educational interpreters can and will experience role conflict when “incompatible roles are projected on the role occupant [educational interpreters]. In meeting one set of expectations the role occupant is unable to meet the expectations of another group” (Brookes et al., 2007, p. 150). In other words, role conflict arises when an educational interpreter experiences pressures within one role space that are incompatible with the pressures that arise within another role space (Kopelman et al., 1983). The incompatibility of requirements and expectations from the role (Rizzo et al., 1970) is more profound if positions, such as educational interpreting, require abstract thinking, critical thinking, and decision-making (Glissmeyer et al., 2007; Menon & Aknilesh, 1994). Merton (1968) finds such incompatible roles will cause some people to distance themselves from certain role expectations altogether and negatively affect a worker’s self-efficacy, or belief in their own competency to perform a specific task (Chebat & Kollias, 2000; Hartline & Ferrell, 1996; Jex & Gudanowski, 1992).

In other words, if an educational interpreter, student, administrator, or teacher is unclear about the educational interpreter’s role, the educational interpreter will experience role ambiguity (Rizzo et al., 1970). And, without clearly addressing the role space of educational interpreters, systemic change cannot be addressed with the presence of any role ambiguity. As we will see later in this chapter, a review of the literature clearly indicates that there are “ambiguous roles in actual practice in K–12 educational interpreting” (Smietanski, 2016, p. 37) that can lead to role conflict.

Contributing Factors to Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict for Educational Interpreters

Much of current educational interpreting practice has grown from two fundamental perspectives: the perspective from the interpreting field based on its role metaphors and the perspective from the educational system of role functions where they are actively working. Each has developed from separate perspectives; both assume that they address the need to provide access for deaf students to the educational setting. Yet it is argued here that the frame needs to be flipped and the perspectives turned on their heads. Supporting the needs of deaf students navigating a mediated education needs to be the driving factor when defining the role(s) of interpreters in education, as well as the roles of essential support personnel. Rather than trying to squeeze, stuff, and distort contradictory, and often impossible, tasks into a single “role” simultaneously, it is time to accept that those roles may often need to be filled, and the tasks performed, by separate individuals with separate qualifications, each of which focuses on the needs of the deaf student navigating a mediated setting. The perspectives of “interpreting” and “education” need to be secondary to the perspective of the deaf student. The lenses themselves are outdated and misconceived in terms of what actually occurs, and in terms of expectations of what or how deaf students need to be supported in mediated educational environments. Interpreting and interpreter education has framed the needs in terms of the educational interpreter; schools have framed the needs in terms of systems. It is time to frame them in terms of what deaf students need to navigate effectively through a mediated education.

Framing Mediated Education From the Interpreting Field

Evolving Metaphors of the Interpreter’s Role

There are several commonly acknowledged role metaphors of behavior that interpreters have enacted since the early days of professional American Sign Language (ASL)-English interpreting (Baker-Shenk, 1991; McIntire & Sanderson, 1993). Some have referred to these role metaphors as models. They are not models in that they do not represent any generalized interpreting processes; rather, they are metaphors in that they explicitly make comparisons between two things that are unrelated. These include the helper metaphor, the machine or conduit metaphor, the facilitator metaphor, and the bilingual–bicultural metaphor. Each will be discussed because they have each had a significant impact on the current role ambiguity and conflict currently experienced by educational interpreters, and a brief discussion of them and their impact “clarifies” that impact.

Helper Metaphor

The first is a helper metaphor, which is marked by interpreters becoming overtly involved with deaf consumers and advising, directing, or teaching. This metaphor underpins attitudes that “deaf individuals are not able to take care of their own business, be it personal, social or professional without the intervention of the helper” (Roy, 1993, p. 139). Interpreters are present to help the disabled, deaf person interact with nonsigners (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014; McIntire & Sanderson, 1993). Kindergarten–12th grade (K–12) interpreters often continue to adopt the helper metaphor in the education system.

Framed within this metaphor, the educational interpreter becomes friends with the deaf students, helps deaf students with homework or taking notes, practices speech therapy with deaf students, eats lunch with deaf students, and takes care of the deaf students’ needs. Being helpful as a part of the school community is also attributed to the helper metaphor, for example, when supervising bus or recess duty or helping hearing students and teachers while not interpreting.

Conduit Metaphor

Owing in part to changing expectations of deaf consumers and the profession (Baker-Shenk, 1991; McIntire & Sanderson, 1993; Metzger & Fleetwood, 2004; Roy, 1993), the helper metaphor was replaced by the conduit metaphor. The conduit metaphor included merely acting as a mechanistic conduit of information and meaning, interpreting all auditory information in a classroom, neutrally interpreting verbatim everything that happens. When enacting the conduit metaphor, interpreters aim to be invisible machines that render, or convey, a verbatim transmission (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014). Enacting this metaphor, interpreters adopt a machinelike approach to the communication process and assume no responsibility for the interaction or communication dynamics taking place between parties. In other words, interpreters are unengaged reflections of the speaker (Roy, 1993). The conduit metaphor allows interpreters to deny responsibility for, or the consequences of, an interpreted transaction (Roy, 1993) and was also criticized for not allowing the participants enough support and for not describing the complex structures in face-to-face interpreter-mediated dialogues (Berge & Ytterhus, 2015). Dismissing the conduit metaphor, however, are multiple studies indicating that interpreters are not, and indeed cannot be, simple translation machines, but that they are full participants in interpreted interactions (Marks, 2012; Marszalenko, 2016; Metzger, 1995; Roy, 2000; Wadensjö, 1998).

Applying this to educational interpreters, the literature consistently demonstrates that educational interpreters are not working in machinelike fashion, decoding, transferring, and re-encoding classroom speech acts. Educational interpreters are active communicative participants in the classroom, usually/often with some ambiguous other duties as members of the school community (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Johnson et al., 2014; Schick, 2008; Smith, 2010). Although the conduit metaphor fell out of favor as being too rigid within the interpreting field, it is still often the metaphor most assumed by those not knowledgeable, e.g., administrators and teachers, about the work of interpreters and throughout the educational system.

Facilitator Metaphor

The next role metaphor that gained popularity is the communication facilitator metaphor. This metaphor recognized interpreters as human beings (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014) and allowed for the interpreter’s personal evaluations of the context of the communication event and mediation of the dialogue. It acknowledged that the interpreter’s presence will influence the dialogue (Berge & Ytterhus, 2015; Napier, 2002). The facilitator metaphor recognizes the interpreter’s responsibility for language mediation: coordinating interaction and overcoming barriers related to time-lag and turn-taking sequences (Metzger, 1995; Roy, 2000; Wadensjö, 1998). However, this metaphor continues to portray the interpreter as a channel that merely transfers messages from sender to receiver, albeit as a communication expert (Roy, 1993).

Although there are other role metaphors such as the bilingual–bicultural metaphor (Baker-Shenk, 1991; Berge & Ytterhus, 2015; Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014; McIntire & Sanderson, 1993; Roy, 1993), the preceding three role metaphors were generally adopted as a singular approach to interpreting and are rooted in a conduit framework (Metzger & Fleetwood, 2004; Wilcox & Shaffer, 2005). Roy (1993) first argued, however, that interpreters are “active, third participant[s] with the potential to influence both the direction and outcome of the event, and that the event itself is intercultural and interpersonal rather than simply mechanical and technical” (p. 151). Particularly if an interpreter works in a public-school environment where “many of the standards of practice that are established for interpreting for adults are problematic in a K–12 setting, … some adult interpreting practices do not seem to be in the best interest of a developing child” (Schick, 2008, p. 373). Having discussed how the field of interpreting defines the roles and tasks of educational interpreting, we will explore the expectations of the system in which educational interpreters work in the next section.

Framing Mediated Education From Within the Education System

Evolving Concepts of the Educational Interpreter’s Roles and Functions

Outside of the interpreting field, but within the educational system, there are several tasks or functions that individuals perform, including facilitator, access, least-restrictive environment. These have been developed largely from within the educational systems where interpreters are placed to mediate the delivery of education for deaf children but have potentially different definitions. Research has shown that administrators and teachers frequently reference educational interpreters as helpers, translation machines, or language facilitators and even a quasi-teacher (Fitzmaurice, 2018, 2021). Administrators view interpreters as conduits of sound-based information, yet teachers seek interpreters who work as part of the team and build relationships. Some teachers want classroom helpers or coteachers, whereas teachers of the deaf want interpreters to be information sharers and not cold interpreting machines. The vast diversity of perceptions of the role of educational interpreters from administrators and teachers creates grave confusion in terms of role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload for educational interpreters (Fitzmaurice, 2018, 2021).

Although administrators and teachers have little experience with deaf students (Hurwitz, 1995), they all believe educational interpreting is an effective way to teach deaf students (Fitzmaurice, 2018, 2021). Yet there is remains systemic confusion on the role of educational interpreters (Fitzmaurice, 2018, 2021; Johnson et al., 2014; Melnyk, 1997; Yarger, 2001), Thirty years ago, Winston (1990) identified the common school system perception that by providing an interpreter, access to the entire educational experience is provided and classroom communication is equalized for deaf students—this issue seems prevalent even today (Fitzmaurice, 2018, 2021).

This systemic confusion often results in educational interpreters being assigned other duties with a significant variety in standards of work (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Johnson et al., 2014; Jones, 1993, 2004; Jones et al., 1997; Lawson, 2012; Peterson & Monikowski, 2010; Russell, 2008; Russell & McLeod, 2009; Seal, 2004; Smith, 1998; Stewart & Kluwin, 1996; Winston, 1994, 2004, 2015; Yarger, 2001). Although administrators and teachers desire educational interpreters who are flexible or who fit into their own individual expectations (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Russell, 2008; Russell & McLeod, 2009; Yarger, 2001), the discrepancies in their different expectations and the interpreter’s resulting role ambiguity (Smietanski, 2016) set the stage for a series of role conflicts with no clear, informed consensus on what an educational interpreter should be doing. In addition, most of the educational interpreting practices are, and continue to be, implemented without any empirical evidence supporting those practices (Winston, 2015). Yet the professional practices of the educational team, including classroom teachers, administrators, and educational interpreters, is a major determiner of how well a student can learn via an interpreted education (Schick, 2008; Winston, 1994, 2015). Three main roles are described here, as identified by those within the educational system.

Facilitator

The term facilitator is commonly used by administrators and teachers. For example, discussions about the role of educational interpreters often include phrases such as those who facilitate communication in a K–12 educational setting (Jones, 2004; Nebraska Department of Education, 2002; Ohio School for the Deaf, 2011; Smietanski, 2016; South Carolina Department of Education, 2017; West Virginia Department of Education, 2016).

The facilitator metaphor also promotes the notion of an interpreter as a flexible person who can be fully engaged in the classroom (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001) with the caveat that if the need arises for both interpreting and some other task, interpreting should take priority. In addition to interpreting, a facilitator metaphor can include meeting with teachers to discuss student progress; informing teachers what gaps the deaf student may have; tutoring students; changing the content so the deaf student can understand it; and directly answering questions from the deaf student instead of interpreting the questions to the teacher. The facilitator approach can also include advocating for deaf students, proctoring test administration for students, and helping deaf students develop language skills.

Applying this to educational interpreters, there are two challenges with this metaphor as adapted by the education system. The first is the ambiguity of the term “facilitator,” or a person who makes things happen more easily. “More easily” is often dictated by administrators and teachers, for whom “ease” can mean having the interpreter do it. The second challenge is an apparent overarching assumption that the educational interpreter is qualified or has the training to address any and all of those “other things” when their preparation and credentials generally prepare them for few, if any, of them.

Quasi-Teaching Metaphor

Some teachers and administrators expand well beyond the idea of a facilitator to others as quasi-teachers. This role metaphor includes even more highly skilled tasks than facilitators might undertake, including direct instruction, preteaching vocabulary, assisting with lesson planning, reteaching content material, helping students remember previous lessons, helping the deaf student with seat work, providing feedback to the teacher about their teaching, and often stopping interpreting and directly teaching the material firsthand (Fitzmaurice, 2018, 2017; Lawson, 2012). Owing to a lack of mutual understanding and acceptance of this role metaphor, this becomes a quasi-teaching role metaphor. This role metaphor is different than the facilitator metaphor in that interpreters are taking on direct responsibility for teaching material and not simply relaying information and sharing what has been happening in each student’s classrooms. However, as with the facilitator role metaphor, it assumes that the educational interpreter has the training and skills to perform the tasks embedded in this metaphor. There is little evidence that either educational interpreter preparation, or the educational system’s norms for credentialing, degrees, or qualifications of any sort require, or even consider, such abilities.

Educational Interpreters and Their Understanding of Their Role

Inverted Triangles of Responsibility Metaphor

Much of the information about the role of an educational interpreter has been created “in a vacuum of knowledge and experience, with little existing information, data or understanding of the impact of interpreted education on deaf students” (Winston, 2015, p. 2). For example, it is commonly thought that the role of an educational interpreter also changes depending on the age of the student (Davino, 1985; Lawson & Hamrick, 2011). As the student grows older, their independence grows, and the educational interpreters’ expectations and behaviors shift accordingly. As students mature, it is commonly believed that they are better able to care for their own personal possessions, materials, and supplies; advocate for themselves, take responsibility for their own learning; and ultimately manage their own interpreting services. Nearly 35 years ago, Davino (1985) proposed a model of responsibilities or role metaphor (Figure 1) in which younger children need more support from educational interpreters, whereas older students need to have more independence. This metaphor was based not on any empirical evidence but rather on assumptions aligned with the general maturation of deaf students.

The educational interpreting literature proposes that there should be a reduction of additional interpreter responsibilities and an increase in student responsibilities as the student matures (Davino, 1985; Lawson & Hamrick, 2011; Zawolkow & DeFiore, 1986), moving toward an exclusively interpreting role in secondary settings; however, there is no empirical evidence for these theories. On the basis of the data for this study, this distribution shift does not appear to be occurring, and this may be a factor in the teachers’ concerns about the student’s success after high school.

Figure 1. Davino’s (1985) inverted triangles of responsibility.

More recently, Lawson and Hamrick (2011, Chapter 12, this volume) redrew the Davino (1985) model to more clearly show a reduction of interpreter responsibilities and an increase in student responsibilities as the student matures. Using this metaphor, McCray (2013) suggests

while in high school, the deaf students should begin the process of working with interpreters in a more professional manner. As the deaf student is closer to transitioning out of high school, the behavior of the K–12 interpreter should be more professionally distant (p. 144)

and less parentlike. Although the distribution of responsibility may or may not change as students mature (Lawson, 2012; Chapter 12, this volume), the role of the educational interpreter at each stage needs to be clearly articulated and well understood. However, Davino’s (1985) metaphor has become de facto practice despite the lack of empirical evidence to support its efficacy or value for deaf students’ education.

Windmill Metaphor

Recognizing that educational interpreting is different than traditional community-based interpreting, Jones (1999) proposes the windmill metaphor (Figure 2) for educational interpreters to self-assess how much time they spend performing tasks related to interpreting, tutoring, working as an educational aide or assistant, and serving as a consultant. Jones (1999) suggests the windmill metaphor will help educational interpreters identify role conflicts by determining which windmill blade to put forward and how to address the conflict. Despite being more reflective of the different aspects of the educational interpreters’ role and requiring the interpreter to contribute reflective input to the expectations of education, this model has not been widely adopted.

Figure 2. Jones’s (1999) windmill metaphor for educational interpreters.

As discussed previously, there are various expectations about the roles educational interpreters (should) enact, about who does (or does not), and about who should (or should not) determine the appropriateness of those multiple roles. Currently, the various perceptions are floating around, and each participant is grabbing onto any idea that happens to be within reach. Someone, or a combination of “someones,” from both the fields of interpreting and education must evaluate which one is more appropriate from moment to moment (Fitzmaurice, 2017, 2018; Lawson, 2012; Wolbers et al., 2012). There is a need for a more concise model or role metaphor for educational interpreters that is described less by a public school setting and more by actual role, functions, and identified effectiveness within mediated educational settings, based on data and empirical evidence about deaf students’ needs for successfully navigating mediated educations.

Empirical Functions of the Educational Interpreter in Practice

The conceived role of community interpreters and the assumed activities dictated by educators and administrators has resulted in role ambiguity, leading to role conflict. This study presents empirical evidence of the misconceptions of administrators and educators. Before presenting that, it is important to understand the functions that educational interpreters do report on the basis of experience and practice within the educational system. Incorporating these into an eventual role metaphor that is empirically based is essential.

One of the earliest accounts of an educational interpreter’s perception of their own work is by Winston (1985), who clearly articulates that, in addition to being able to interpret, educational interpreters must also serve as a role model; work as a source of information; function as a communication expert; be trained in child development and language acquisition; serve as an advocate; and work as a messenger between teaching staff all while being friendly and approachable (p. 118). She further argues that educational interpreters cannot be expected to fulfill dual roles in “the absence of clearly defined roles and expectations” (p. 119). Although interpreters can easily fulfill several key roles on the basis of the immediate demands of the situation, Winston (1985) warns that everyone must be “aware of the roles and the boundaries of each role” (p. 119).

Educational interpreters also report factors that improve their performance, such as receiving and previewing materials in advance of instruction; regular collaboration with teachers; and flexible, organized teachers who accommodated the needs of deaf students and interpreters (Melnyk, 1997). Educational interpreters also take on 17 other noninterpreting duties, such as being responsible for taking notes, tutoring, grading papers, helping students with homework, clerical duties, and teaching and taking care of hearing aids (Jones et al., 1997).

Yarger (2001) notes that isolation factors can also contribute to educational interpreters having a difficult time establishing and maintaining a “clear concept of their position” (p. 21). She finds that educational interpreters working in rural settings provided considerably more tutoring help than those working in more urban settings. Rural educational interpreters also evaluate students’ work, discuss student progress, establish educational goals, and perform “work normally done by speech clinicians, audiologists, and teachers” (Yarger, 2001, p. 21).

Educational interpreters are not, nor have they ever been, fixtures that translate messages; they are active, engaged participants not just in the communication process but in the classroom as a whole (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001). Invariably, educational interpreters and teachers are another set of helping hands (helper metaphor) in the classroom, functioning far beyond that of a translator. Accordingly, some classroom teachers report that the interpreter “has to be just as much a teacher” (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001, p. 361), and the interpreter is a member of the classroom taking on responsibility for other children too (quasi-teaching metaphor).

Teachers prefer educational interpreters who work as part of the teaching team, not too rigidly defined in their roles, prepared, and generally interested in students (Russell, 2008). This is in direct contrast to educational interpreters who are disinterested, unprepared, and simply conduits “without any interaction with the teacher or the students” (Russell, 2008, p. 41).

Many deaf students experience educational interpreters enacting the role of parents or teachers by checking homework, advising students to pay attention, and correcting behavior in the classroom (Russell, 2008). Students do not necessarily want such a “pseudo-parent” (p. 40). Deaf students describe the role of educational interpreters as changing as students advance through the grades (Kurz & Langer, 2004). In early grades, educational interpreters tutor and offer more help, but by high school, educational interpreters align closely with traditional conduit models of interpreting (Davino, 1985). Deaf students also recognize that educational interpreters often function as members of a support team, communication facilitators, and friends but are often confused about the role of educational interpreters (Kurz & Langer, 2004).

Although “interpreting responsibilities supersede anything else” (Peterson & Monikowski, 2010, p. 151), educational interpreters’ functions include photocopying, supervising lunch duty, doing bus duty, tutoring, monitoring the classroom, and performing duties similar to a teacher’s aide in an effort to be as useful or helpful as needed in the classroom (Johnson et al., 2014; Peterson & Monikowski, 2010; Smith, 2013). While interpreting (or the appearance of interpreting), educational interpreters are supplementing information, holding information so deaf students can tend to competing visual demands, and even modifying content and providing direct instruction (Fitzmaurice, 2017; Lawson, 2012; Smith, 2010).

In other words, educational interpreters nationwide fill a variety of roles in their schools, despite their training or lack thereof. This is in addition to filling several different roles in the life of a deaf student, namely, the role of a friend, teacher, professional colleague, and mentor or parent (Fitzmaurice, 2017; Oliva & Risser Lytle, 2014). The lack of consensus “about interpreters and interpreting is exacerbated by the uncertain role and qualifications” of educational interpreters (Winston, 2015, p. 2).

However, despite these studies and evidence of what interpreters actually do, the functions they perform, and the inferred competencies and qualifications they should have, there is no empirically founded role metaphor that is agreed on by both interpreters and educators, let alone deaf students and the community. Educational interpreters, teachers, and administrators “are often left without a template for responding to the day-to-day circumstances” (Langer, 2004, p. 91). But perhaps most importantly, deaf students are left without guidelines and expectations for success within mediated education. Research (Fitzmaurice, 2018) has shown that the assumptions and role expectations of those within the educational system, the administrators and teachers who most frequently define the functions and roles of interpreters, are in direct conflict with those of interpreters, and often fail to provide Free Appropriate Public Education (see Chapter 16, this volume), owing to their inadequate understandings of interpreting, interpreters’ qualifications, or the impact of mediated educations on deaf students. Comparing the conflicting expectations of in-system and outside of system, a less ambiguous, more accurate description acknowledging what is actually occurring as part of the educational interpreters’ role enactment (interpreter, teacher, parent, assistant, ally, consultant) is provided. Whether these tasks and roles should be enacted by one or more individuals and whether or not an educational interpreter is qualified to enact such a series of diverse roles are separate issues.

This lack of clarity and disagreement about the role metaphor and expectations of educational interpreters cause numerous occurrences of role ambiguity for interpreters (Hardy & Conway, 1988; Major, 2003; Rizzo et al., 1970) and educational uncertainty for deaf students. Educational interpreters do not work with just one administrator or teacher but with several administrators and teachers, each of whom hold different perceptions of the role of the educational interpreter. In other words, role ambiguity for educational interpreters is not the product of just one or two administrators or teachers but of several administrators, and teachers, both general education and teachers of the deaf (some itinerant).

As discussed in the introduction and literature review, the systemic role ambiguity creates a significant number of role conflicts for educational interpreters, school staff, and, most importantly, for deaf students. By meeting the expectations of one group, educational interpreters are unable to meet the expectations of another group (Brookes et al., 2007; Rizzo et al., 1970). These findings align with those of Pöllabauer (2004) and Mellinger (Chapter 3, this volume) in that the role expectations are not clear cut and the different expectations created by individuals in power similarly create significant role conflicts for interpreters.

Discussion

It is evident in these descriptions that educational interpreters have inadequate and few metaphors to apply to their specific profession. Administrators and teachers frequently reference interpreter role metaphors such as a helper metaphor, a conduit metaphor, or a language facilitator metaphor (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Fitzmaurice, 2018; Roy, 1993; Russell, 2008; Russell & McLeod, 2009; Winston, 2001, 2004, 2015), and even a quasi-teaching role metaphor. In addition, it seems the traditional interpreter metaphors are often misused or misinterpreted from their original renditions. For example, an educational interpreter as language facilitator (Roy, 1993) is often misapplied by administrators and teachers. And this newly recognized quasi-teaching role metaphor is far removed from the general training, skills, and qualifications of educational interpreters.

Teachers are seeking interpreters who work as part of the team and build relationships, because “the goal for all students is to develop language skills to be able to access information that will lead to learning. The interpreter is a key part of that language development.” Enacting a machinelike role does not support deaf students (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Johnson et al., 2014; Schick, 2008; Smith, 2010). Educational interpreters themselves report that simply interpreting is not what their job entails and complain of a systemwide lack of understanding about the roles and responsibilities of educational interpreters (Johnson et al., 2014).

Throughout, it seems, educational interpreting is described by a public school setting and is not role derived. We need to adopt a role metaphor that encompasses empirical factors such as the age of the child; the sociocultural development of the student; and focus on literacy development of deaf children. Within the context of these findings and previous literature, it becomes clear that an empirically driven role metaphor that clearly details the role of an educational interpreter needs to be crafted and acknowledged. Shifting the focus from the current, flawed role metaphors to one that is grounded in what is actually happening in classrooms enables us to better detail the role of educational interpreters and map out success for deaf children. The Partners in Education Role metaphor, discussed in the next section, addresses this need and is the first step to systemic change for deaf students experiencing mediated education.

Conclusions and Recommendations: The Realistic Role Metaphor for Educational Interpreters

More than 35 years ago, Winston (1985) argued that educational interpreters cannot be expected to fulfill dual roles in “the absence of clearly defined roles and expectations” (p. 119). Although interpreters can easily fulfill several key roles on the basis of the immediate demands of the situation, Winston (1985) warns that everyone must be “aware of the roles and the boundaries of each role” (p. 119). This research and previous literature (see above) demonstrate the lack of a clearly defined role or role ambiguity, which in turn creates role conflict.

For better or worse, based on the previous literature, the Partners in Education role metaphor (Figure 3) is an empirically driven, cohesive description of the role that encompasses the tasks identified so far in mediated education of deaf students. The role metaphor details five stage points that educational interpreters enact, namely, interpreting, team liaison, being a helpful employee, direct instruction, and being an advocate. The Partners in Education metaphor for educational interpreters is the first step intended to minimize role ambiguity and role conflict and provide the education, interpreting, and deaf communities greater role clarity for, and about, educational interpreters.

We may envision an actor adopting a character or role in a theatrical production, moving to different points across the stage throughout the performance. At one point, the actor may move upstage right, downstage left, or centerstage—delivering different lines or mini performances within the production but still staying in character or role. At one point, the actor may be the dutiful daughter, the villainous stepsister, the loving mother, or the tender romantic partner, but all within the parameters of the character or role they are portraying. In our daily lives, we all portray the intersectionality of who we are as interpreters, parents, employees, shoppers, children, and spouses or partners (to name a few). Goffman (1990) notes that individuals perform or enact a character or role when involved in different facets of their lives. These role enactments are also part of our individual stage as human beings. For educational interpreters, it means that for one scene they may be interpreting, whereas for another scene they may be consulting with teachers, and moments later providing direct instruction and social coaching for deaf students.

Figure 3. Partners in Education: Educational interpreter role metaphor.

The Partners in Education (Figure 3) role metaphors for educational interpreters is shaped much like a theatrical stage as educational interpreters move to five different points on the stage to enact different roles in mediated education: interpreting, consulting, assisting, instructing, and advocating. All points on the stage, or role enactments, are based on this research and the findings from the literature review. The realistic Partners in Education role metaphor is grounded in empirical findings and acknowledges what educational interpreters are actually doing in their work. A key factor about this role metaphor is that none of the stage places of role enactments are done behind the scenes. Educational interpreters move across the metaphorical stage, overtly ensuring that each member of the team is aware of exactly what the deaf student is accessing during their mediated education.

Interpreting

Obviously, the primary responsibility of educational interpreters is interpreting (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Fitzmaurice, 2017; Johnson et al., 2014; Jones, 1999; Kurz & Langer, 2004; Lawson, 2012; Peterson & Monikowski, 2010; Schick, 2008; Smith, 2010; Winston, 1985) and “interpreting responsibilities supersede anything else” (Peterson & Monikowski, 2010, p. 151). In addition to interpreting course content, interpreters keep tabs on the communication by and between nondeaf parties (Fitzmaurice, 2017), while also directing students’ attention, timing interruptions, and interpretations and constantly assessing a wide constellation of factors involved in the interpreting process (Smith, 2013). Each of the educational interpreters is constantly “on call” to interpret a wide variety of interactions among peers and are diligent at tracking when they are needed. It bears repeating that interpreting is not the same as decoding messages in a machinelike manner—educational interpreters must understand the learning process and adjust their interpreting on the basis of the type of presentation (Winston, 1990) and understanding of the educational goal (Winston, 2001).

Educational interpreters are also translating by taking signed texts from deaf students and translating them into written English. They may also be translating print material into visual language so that deaf students may have signed access to English print (Fitzmaurice, 2017).

Furthermore, a large part of the interpreting stage position also includes preparing (Melnyk, 1997; Russell, 2008), which includes adjusting the physical environment, readying content materials for interpretation (Jones, 1993), requesting a variety of texts and handouts (Smith, 2013), and meeting members of the educational team (Fitzmaurice, 2017). For want of planning time, educational interpreters are often involved in both simple and more creative solutions to prepare the environment for interpreting by quickly meeting with teachers to review objectives before the lesson begins. Educational interpreters also spend dedicated time early in the academic year to prepare faculty for having a deaf student in their classrooms (Fitzmaurice, 2017) and preparing for meetings as a member of the educational team (Johnson et al., 2014).

As with all other interpreters, educational interpreters’ role encompasses factors of assessment of efficacy. Because students often do not have sufficient language and background skills to succeed with interpreting alone (Marschark et al., 2005, 2008) and are then inappropriately placed into a mediated education setting, educational interpreters are continuously assessing how to modify the interpreting to support the educational goal of the activity (Lawson, 2012; Smith, 2010;Winston, 2001).

Consulting

The next major stage position is that of consulting (Fitzmaurice, 2017; Jones, 1999; Kurz & Langer, 2004; Lawson, 2012; Melnyk, 1997; Schick, 2004; Smith, 2013; Winston, 1985; Yarger, 2001; facilitator metaphor), in which educational interpreters need to discuss with classroom teachers how to work with an interpreter (Davino, 1985), how to make classroom discourse and activities more accessible (Smith, 2013), explaining “deafness” or cochlear implants to others in the school (Jones, 1999), or educating teachers and students about the uninterpretablity of certain situations (Davino, 1985; Winston, 2001).

Embedded within the consulting role, educational interpreters also serve as a liaison by keeping members of the educational team informed about student progress (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Fitzmaurice, 2017; Smith, 2013; Winston, 1985). For the benefit of the deaf student, everyone on the team must have current information about student progress (Schick, 2004; Smith, 2013), and, by virtue of their position, educational interpreters have the most comprehensive exposure to the deaf student.

Assisting

The third task needed for any employee in education, including educational interpreters, is that of assisting or being a helpful employee (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Johnson et al., 2014; Jones, 1999; Lawson, 2012; Peterson & Monikowski, 2010; Russell, 2008, Smith, 2010; helper metaphor). Educational interpreters work within a much larger education system (Fitzmaurice, 2021), and, as such, when they are not directly interpreting they are active participants in a classroom (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001).

Educational interpreters are present in the education system not only for the deaf student but also for each student in the building. Teachers appreciate it when educational interpreters provide assistance to teachers (Fitzmaurice, 2021) such as “reminders about where a teacher had left off” (Smith, 2013, p. 68), helping make classroom materials and clerical paperwork (Johnson et al., 2014; Jones, 1993, 1999; Lawson, 2012), or helping nondeaf students (acting aidelike) when not actively interpreting (Russell, 2008). As helpful employees, educational interpreters are also copying, tending lunch duty, bus duty, briefly monitoring the classroom, and, generally, assisting teachers when possible (Peterson & Monikowski, 2010). Being helpful employees, however, should never be at the expense of interpreting for deaf students (Peterson & Monikowski, 2010).

Instructing

Sometimes referred to as tutoring, the fourth task interpreters in mediated educations enact is instructing (Antia & Kreimeyer, 2001; Johnson et al., 2014; Jones, 1993, 2004; Jones et al., 1997; Kurz & Langer, 2004; Lawson, 2012; Oliva & Risser Lytle, 2014; Peterson & Monikowski, 2010; Fitzmaurice, 2017; Yarger, 2001; quasi-teaching metaphor). Although educational interpreters are not teachers, nor have any qualifications or competencies as teachers (Fitzmaurice, 2017; Lawson, 2012), instructing, explaining, or tutoring class content during self-contained classroom time, preteaching vocabulary, teaching concepts students do not know, and reteaching content material (Johnson et al., 2014; quasi-teaching metaphor above) all fall on the educational interpreter.

Direct instruction frequently happens during general education teaching by default, when the teaching is usurped by the interpreter in order to teach vocabulary or backfill prior knowledge that is lacking (Marschark et al., 2005, 2008). Other possibilities include teaching English vocabulary (see Chapter 8, this volume) instead of interpreting and directly answering questions from the deaf student instead of interpreting the questions to the teacher (quasi-teaching metaphor; Fitzmaurice, 2017; Lawson, 2012). Because deaf students are often placed in mediated education without the appropriate skills, the deaf student and the educational interpreter are left to their own devices to fill those extensive gaps: in order to cope, many actions constitute actual teaching.

In an effort to promote independence, yet often never acknowledged, educational interpreters also serve as a social coach (Kurz & Langer, 2004; Russell, 2008; helper metaphor) and encourage students “to interact directly with teachers and peers whenever possible” (Smith, 2013, p. 72). Social coaching also includes encouraging deaf students to offer an answer in class at an appropriate time (Winston, 2004), and to enact this, educational interpreters are constantly seeking cues from deaf students to determine their readiness to interact independently (Smith, 2013).

Regardless of whether the educational interpreter is qualified or not, it must be acknowledged that they are providing direct instruction and social coaching in their daily work. Instructing relies heavily on the interpreters’ specific perception of what the deaf student knows in terms of background knowledge and is often an attempt to backfill gaps in the deaf students’ knowledge. This instruction relies heavily on teaching strategies or scaffolding to meet students’ learning needs—and when it is occurring should always be shared with every member of the team (at present—and to the detriment of the deaf student—it is frequently not).

Advocating

The final stage point role position for educational interpreters includes advocating (Winston, 1985) on behalf, and alongside, of deaf students. While advocating, educational interpreters tend to constantly align highly with the deaf student. In this stage position, the educational interpreter addresses issues on behalf of the deaf student, and, ideally, this should not be done solely by the educational interpreter, but rather by a deaf person who understands the complex dynamics of being deaf in a hearing world (see Chapter 2 for how CDIs can provide tremendous advocacy). However, we must acknowledge that advocacy from the educational interpreter’s role should always be done in full view of the deaf student so they may learn self-advocacy skills. Further, educational interpreters should always be inviting the deaf student to lead such discussions. This can include (with the deaf student) informing general education faculty about how to work with students who are deaf, negotiating strategies for accommodation (Jones, 2004), making requests in regard to access (Smith, 2013), and requesting that deaf students have access to captioning and a videophone in school.

Once students are more equipped to advocate for themselves (in the absence of deaf role models or CDIs), educational interpreters may spend more time being an ally for the deaf student and less time advocating on their behalf (Oliva & Risser Lytle, 2014; Winston, 1985). At this point on the stage, the educational interpreter can be seen supporting the deaf student as they struggle for their own liberation.

Finally, educational interpreters are often “the only people with whom deaf students can interact freely” (Smith, 2013, p. 71) and are human beings. There is little doubt that at times deaf students need someone to act more like a friend and role model (Kurz & Langer, 2004; Oliva & Risser Lytle, 2014; Winston, 1985). Although this should be done by deaf role models, it is often another unacknowledged space the deaf student and educational interpreter fall into, but this is best described as being personable rather than interpreting.

Conclusion: Five Stage Points

On the basis of these findings and the previously cited literature, as uncomfortable (and arguably as inappropriate) as it may seem, all of these roles are enacted in the daily work of educational interpreters. However, several of these five stage points are direct communication settings and not the mediated space of interpreting and interpreters. The Partners in Education role metaphor for educational interpreters acknowledges a long history of educational interpreters interpreting, preparing materials, being helpful employees, serving as team liasions, consultants, advocates, allies, and providing direct instruction and tutoring.

Ultimately, the needs of the deaf student, and the context of the situation, dictate shifting positions on the mediated education stage. For example, an educational interpreter may spend more time interpreting for one lesson and may only briefly move to a stage point of being a helpful employee while the deaf student is doing independent seat work. Whereas during another lesson that involves more complex topics, the educational interpreter may spend more time enacting direct instruction. Before the lesson starts, the educational interpreter may spend more time being an ally, or being personable, as the deaf students share the adventures of their weekend with the interpreter. There is, however, no expectation that an educational interpreter will avoid parts of the stage on the basis of an arbitrary factor such as age or grade level. Some older students may need an ally or friend and social coach.

What is implicit in this role metaphor is that deaf students are adequately prepared in terms of language skills; background knowledge; and social, cognitive, and emotional maturity (Winston, 2004). If a deaf student is unprepared, educational interpreters spend less time at the interpreting stage position and more time in direct instruction (for which they may not even be qualified). However, a brief reminder may be in order, namely, that “interpreting should not be seen as the solution to classroom access; it should be seen simply as an educational tool” (Winston, 2001). Deaf students must have the language skills to be able to benefit from using a skilled educational interpreter (See Cates in this text for the implications of an unqualified interpreter on student learning.)

Lastly, educational interpreters need to stop referencing their work with incorrect descriptions such as a conduit metaphor. This includes avoiding such phraseology as “I’m just going to interpret exactly what you say”; “I’m just the interpreter”; “My goal is to be invisible”; and “My job is to convey your meaning” (as if meaning is a tangible item and not coconstructed). Administrators and teachers and those who do not know about interpreting frequently reference this type of role metaphor, and there is ample data that indicates these attributions are not accurate (Marks, 2012; Marszalenko, 2016; Metzger, 1995; Roy, 2000; Wadensjö, 1998; Wilcox & Shaffer, 2005).

By adopting and acknowledging the Partners in Education role metaphor for educational interpreters, the interpreting and education systems can finally begin to determine who is qualified for what areas on the stage. Educational interpreting is not solely about interpreting skills. The daily work of educational interpreters extends far beyond actual interpreting—it is time to stop pretending otherwise—and ultimately to begin meeting the needs of deaf students.

References

Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (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

Aydintan, B. & Simsek, T. (2017). Role stress sources (Role perceptions)’s effect on intention to leave the work: Research at a state university in Turkey. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 6(4), 8–17.

Baker-Shenk, C. (1991). The interpreter: Machine, advocate, or ally? In J. Plant-Moeller (Ed.), Expanding horizons: Proceedings of the 1991 RID convention (pp. 120–140). RID Publications.

Berge, S. S., & Ytterhus, B. (2015). Deaf and hearing high school students’ expectations for the role of educational sign-language interpreter. Society, Health & Vulnerability, 6(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3402/shv.v6.28969

Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435

Brookes, K., Davidson, P. M., Daly, J., & Halcomb, E. J. (2007). Role theory: A framework to investigate the community nurse role in contemporary health systems. Contemporary Nurse, 25(1–2), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2007.25.1-2.146

Chebat, J. C., & Kollias, P. (2000). The impact of empowerment on customer contact employees’ roles in service organizations. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050031005

Davino, D. (1985, February). The roles and responsibilities of the educational interpreter [Presentation]. Orange County Department of Education Secondary Hearing Impaired Program staff meeting, University High School, Irvine, CA.

Fitzmaurice, S. B. (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

Fitzmaurice, S. B. (2018). An investigation of administrators’ and teachers’ perception of educational interpreters’ role in K–12 education: A case study [Doctoral dissertation, Gallaudet University]. ProQuest Dissertations and These Global.

Fitzmaurice, S. B. (2021). The role of the educational interpreter: Perceptions of administrators and teachers. Gallaudet University Press.

Glissmeyer, M., Bishop, J. W., & Fass, R. D. (2007). Role conflict, role ambiguity, and intention to quit the organization: The case of law enforcement officers. Proceedings from Southwest Decisions Science Institute (pp. 458–469). University of Mississippi.

Goffman, E. (1990). The presentation of self in everyday life. Penguin Books.

Hardy, M., & Conway, M. (1988). Role theory: Perspectives for health professionals (2nd ed.). Appleton & Lange.

Hardy, M. E. (1988). Perspectives on science. In M. Hardy & M. Conway (Eds.), Role theory: Perspectives for health professionals (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Appleton & Lange.

Hardy, M. E., & Hardy, W. L. (1988). Development of scientific knowledge. In M. Hardy & M. Conway (Eds.), Role theory: Perspectives for health professionals (2nd ed., pp. 29–62). Appleton & Lange.

Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer-contact service employees: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 52–70.

Hurwitz, T. A. (1995). Current issues: Interpreters in the educational setting [Paper presentation]. International Congress on Education of the Deaf, Tel Aviv, Israel.

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.

Jex, S. M. (2011). Role clarity and role overload. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of occupational health & safety (Vol. 1, pp. 686–687). SAGE. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952651.n263

Jex, S. M., & Gudanowski, D. M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An exploratory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 509–517. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130506

Johnson, L., Brown, S., Taylor, M., & Austin, N. (2014). Patterns of practice: Current investigation in educational interpreting. In D. I. J. Hunt & S. Hafer (Eds.), Our roots: The essence of our future (pp. 63–72). CIT.

Jones, B. E. (1993). Responsibilities of educational sign language interpreters in K–12 public schools in Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Jones, B. E. (1999). Providing access: New roles for educational interpreters. VIEWS, 16(2), 15.

Jones, B. E. (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.

Jones, B. E., Clark, G. M., & Soltz, D. F. (1997). Characteristics and practices of sign language interpreters in inclusive education programs. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299706300209

Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connoly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and inter role conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32(2), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90147-2

Kurz, K. B., & Langer, E. C. (2004). Student perspectives on educational interpreting: Twenty deaf and hard of hearing students offer insights and suggestions. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed (pp. 9–40). Gallaudet University Press.

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. (91–112). Gallaudet University Press.

Lawson, H. R. (2012). Impact of interpreters filling multiple roles in mainstream classrooms on communication access for deaf students [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Lawson, H. R., & Hamrick, M. (2011). Distribution of responsibilities. http://www.terptap.org/zndocs/TerpStudResponsibilities.pdf

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

Major, D. A. (2003). Utilising role theory to help employed parents cope with children’s chronic illness. Health & Education Research, 18(1), 45–57.

Marks, A. R. (2012). Participation framework and footing shifts in an interpreted academic meeting. Journal of Interpretation, 22(1), 1–28. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol22/iss1/4

Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Covertino, C. M., & Pelz, J. (2008). Learning via direct and mediated instruction by deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(4), 546–561. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enn014

Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C., & Seewagen, R. (2005). Access to postsecondary education through sign language interpreting. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eni002

Marszalenko, J. E. (2016). Conduits, communication facilitators, and referees: Revisiting the role of the court interpreter in the Japanese context. SKASE Journal of Translation & Interpretation, 9(2), 29–43.

McCray, C. L. (2013). A phenomenological study of the relationship between deaf students in higher education and their sign language interpreters [Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia]. MOspace Institutional Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/10355/37795

McIntire, M. L., & Sanderson, G. R. (1993). Bye-bye! Bi-Bi! Questions of empowerment and role. In Confluence of diverse relationships: Proceedings of the thirteenth national convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (pp. 94–118). RID Publications.

Melnyk, K. P. (1997). The role of sign language interpreters in kindergarten to senior 4 educational settings [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Menon, N., & Aknilesh, K. (1994). Functionally dependent stress among managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(3), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949410062547

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Free Press.

Metzger, M. (1995). The paradox of neutrality: A comparison of interpreters’ goals with the reality of interactive discourse. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgetown University.

Metzger, M. M., & Fleetwood, E. (2004). Educational interpreting: Developing standards of practice. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Educational interpreting: How it can succeed (pp. 171–176). Gallaudet University Press.

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

Nebraska Department of Education. (2002). Guidelines for educational interpreters: Technical assistance document. https://www.education.ne.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/InterpretersGuideline.pdf

Ohio School for the Deaf. (2011). Ohio guidelines for educational interpreters. https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Special-Education/Students-with-Disabilities/Operational-Standards-and-Guidance/Ohio-Guidelines-for-Educational-Interpreters/Interpreter-Guidelines_Revision_7-2011.pdf.aspx

Oliva, G. A., & Risser Lytle, L. (2014). Turning the tide: Making life better for deaf and hard of hearing schoolchildren. Gallaudet University Press.

Peterson, R., & Monikowski, C. (2010). Perceptions of efficacy of sign language interpreters working in K–12 settings. In K. M. Christensen (Ed.), Ethical considerations in educating children who are deaf or hard of hearing (pp. 129–153). Gallaudet University Press.

Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. New York: Routledge.

Pöllabauer, S. (2004). Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of role, responsibility, and power. Interpreting, 6(2), 143–180. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.03pol

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in completx organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486

Roy, C. B. (1993). The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role metaphors of interpreters. Journal of Interpretation, 6(1), 127–154.

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

Roy, C. B. (2014). Foreword. In P. Llewellyn-Jones & R. G. Lee (Eds.), Redefining the role of the community interpreter: The concept of role-space (pp. ix–xii). SLI Press.

Russell, D. (2008). What do others think of our work? Deaf students, teachers, administrators, and parent perspectives on educational interpreting. In C. Roy (Ed.), Diversity and community in the worldwide sign language interpreting profession: Proceedings of the 2nd WASLI Conference (pp. 34–38). Douglas McLean.

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.

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. (2008). A model of learning in an interpreted education. In M. Marschark & P. Hauser (Eds.), Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes. Oxford University Press.

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

Schuler, R., Aldag, R., & Brief, A. (1977). Role conflict and ambiguity: A scale analysis. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 20(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90047-2

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

Smietanski, R. (2016). Secondary educational interpreters: Role ambiguity and role strain. Master of Arts in Interpreting Studies Theses, 33. https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/theses/33

Smith, M. (2010). Opening our eyes: The complexity of competing visual demands in interpreted classrooms. In K. M. Christensen (Ed.), Ethical considerations in educating children who are deaf or hard of hearing (pp. 154–191). Gallaudet University Press.

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 interpreters in the education of students who are deaf or hard of hearing (Order No. 9920871) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

South Carolina Department of Education. (2017). Best practices for educational interpreters in South Carolina. http://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/Best%20Practices%20Educational%20Interpreters_FINAL_2017.pdf

Stewart, D. A., & Kluwin, T. N. (1996). The gap between guidelines, practice, and knowledge in interpreting services for deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.deafed.a014277

Stuckless, E. R., Avery, J. C., & Hurwitz, T. A. (1989). Educational interpreting for deaf students. Report of the National Task Force on Educational Interpreting. National Technical Institute for the Deaf at Rochester Institute of Technology.

Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A metaanalysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Management, 26(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00035-5

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

West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Special Education. (2016). Educational sign language interpreters: Guidance for West Virginia schools and districts. https://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/2016_guidelinesforinterpreters.pdf

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.

Winston, E. A. (1985). Mainstreaming: Like it or not. Journal of Interpretation, 2, 117–119.

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 (pp. 51–67). CIT.

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

Winston, E. A. (2001). Visual inaccessibility: The elephant (blocking the view) in interpreted education. Odyssey, 2(2), 5–7.

Winston, E. A. (2004). Educational interpreting: How it can succeed. Gallaudet University Press.

Winston, E. A. (2015). Educational interpreting. Setting. Signed language interpreting. In F. Pöchhacker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies (pp. 130–135). Routledge.

Wolbers, K. A., Dimling, L. M., Lawson, H. R., & Golos, D. B. (2012). Parallel and divergent interpreting in an elementary school classroom. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.1609

Yarger, C. C. (2001). Educational interpreting: Understanding the rural experience. American Annals of the Deaf, 146(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0074

Zawolkow, E., & DeFiore, S. (1986). Educational interpreting for elementary and secondary level hearing-impaired students. American Annals of the Deaf, 131(1), 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0791