TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER

PREPARATION OF EDUCATIONAL INTERPRETERS

National Technical Institute for the Deaf and Monroe #1 BOCES

Department of American Sign Language and Interpreting Education

THINK TANK REPORT

JULY 24-26, 2005

Funding provided by the New York State Education Department (NYSED), Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID)

10 February 2006

CONTENTS

Introductionääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää.3

Questionsäääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää.4

Question One: What is the language, education, social, and cultural background necessary to qualify to enter an educational interpreting program? What research is necessary?

Question Two: What skills must students of educational interpreting programs graduate with and how do we measure these skills? What research is needed?

Question Three: What knowledge must students of educational interpreting programs graduate with and how do we measure that knowledge? What research is needed?

Question Four: What is the statewide (IHE) structure necessary for implementing and following the required learning outcomes consistently in New York?

Question Five: How do expectations apply to the AAS level, the BS level and post graduate studies?

Recommendationsäääääääääääääääääääääääääää.7

Acknowledgementsääääääääääääääääääääääääää10

Appendicesäääääääääääääääääääääääääääää.11

A. Preliminary data, EIPA results, EIKA results

B. Post-EIPA Assessment Summary of 85 Interpreters

C. Think Tank Agenda

D. Consultants and Presenters

E. Think Tank (Online and During) Participants

INTRODUCTION

Education of deaf children changed dramatically from the seventies until today. Public schools went from educating 20% of the D/deaf and hard-of-hearing student population to more than 80%, a dramatic change over a relatively short period of time. The impact of legislation significantly increased the number of D/deaf and hard-of-hearing children being served in mainstreamed educational settings. More than significantly, it also shifted the quality of education this population of children received. One strategy, to make programs more accessible to D/deaf, hard-of-hearing, and Deafblind children in classrooms, was to provide educational interpreters. Unfortunately, the majority of educational interpreters were unqualified to work successfully in the K-12 settings. As well, there were insufficient numbers of qualified interpreters.

The New York Department of Education (NYSED) realized the need to create and implement a paradigm shift in the quality of interpreting services and the quantity of interpreters in the classrooms across the State. The Center, Preparation of Educational Interpreters, was created and established through the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and Monroe #1 Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES), 1998, with the mandate to respond to the identified needs within NYS. The work of the first five years provided data about the number of interpreters in the K-12 settings, educational backgrounds, knowledge (EIKA) and skill (EIPA) abilities of each registered interpreter, and documented training for a total of more than 1,000 interpreters. The EIKA and EIPA, used in New York State, were created by the members of the grant Management Team. Neither is to be interpreted as the national test from Boystown in Nebraska, the EIPA-WT and EIPA (performance test). The data, from reported demographics and assessments is described in Appendix A,

Additional degree programs were created and implemented and a plethora of knowledge and skill modules were developed and delivered to working interpreters across the State from 2001-2003. Following three years of training and degree offerings, the EIPA, as an assessment, was repeated for interpreters, if requested. (See Appendix B for results)

The work of the first five years, through the Preparation of Educational Interpreters, underscored the need for post-secondary programming for educational interpreters. Clearly, this programming needed to be a state wide collaborative effort culminating in the creation of standardized learning outcomes (language pre-requisites and interpretation course work) in partnering Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) through an organized NYS infrastructure. Because of this need a second five-year contract was proposed from NYSED in 2003 and again awarded to NTID at RIT and Monroe #1 BOCES. The responsibilities of the contract included designing objectives and activities to satisfy the continued need for the quantity of qualified educational interpreters and quality of existing interpreting services (through Regional Sites and Empire State College) in the K-12 settings. With that, the Think Tank was created, convening NYS and national experts (see Acknowledgements), to begin the identification of competencies necessary in the design of American Sign Language pre-requisites and in the design of post-secondary courses to prepare interpreters to work in the educational settings. (See Appendix C, Think Tank Agenda)

The work of three experts was used to guide the discussions and decisions of the Think Tank participants. (See Appendix D) Published documents from pertinent works was read and used to support online discussions for two weeks prior to the Think Tank meetings. The documents were:

Jones, B. (2005). Competencies of K-12 Educational interpreters: What we need versus what we have. Educational Interpreting: How It Can Succeed, E. A. Winston, Ed., Washington, DC, Gallaudet University Press (pp. 113-131).

Kurz Brown, K. and Caldwell Langer, E. (2005) Student perspectives on educational interpreting: Twenty deaf and hard of hearing students offer insight and suggestions. Educational Interpreting: How It Can Succeed, E. A. Winston, Ed., Washington, DC, Gallaudet University Press (pp. 9-47).

Witter-Merithew, A. and Johnson. L. (2005) Seeking a gauge to measure progress and entry to practice competencies. Toward Competent Practice: Conversations with Stakeholders, Alexandria, VA, RID, Inc (pp. 21-30).

QUESTIONS

This section highlights the Think Tank participantsπ comments and suggestions regarding the core questions.

Question One: What is the language, education, social, and cultural background necessary to qualify to enter an educational interpreting program? What research is necessary?

Participants agreed that the following background was needed for entry into an educational interpreting program:

∑ High school diploma

∑ English language mastery

∑ Critical thinking abilities

∑ Strong interpersonal skills

∑ ASL knowledge and conversational skills

∑ Knowledge of Deaf Culture/heritage/biculturalism

∑ Some general pedagogical knowledge

∑ Some knowledge of issues involved with educating D/deaf/hard of hearing children

Think Tank participants stated that currently, pre-requisite background knowledge appears to be insufficiently defined for entry into the Stateπs interpreter preparation programs. Responding to this issue was made difficult for participants by the underlying unanswered question as to whether we were specifying background needed for an AAS or BA/BS program.

Additional research/discussion needs:

∑ ASL Skill/knowledge

What level is needed when exiting ASL or Deaf Studies programs?

What level is needed upon entry into ASL/English Interpretation programs?

How do we measure these?

Could this be standardized across the Stateπs Institutes of Higher Education (IHEπs)?

∑ Would a minimal SAT/ACT score be helpful? What would the score(s) be?

Question Two: What skills must students of educational interpreting programs graduate with and how do we measure these skills? What research is needed?

Question Three: What knowledge must students of educational interpreting programs graduate with and how do we measure that knowledge? What research is needed?

Participants referenced existent and current standard practices in the field that respond to these questions. The existing national tools, developed by Boystown in Nebraska, for testing the skills (EIPA) and knowledge (EIPA-WT) of interpreters are valid and reliable. The EIPA-WT and EIPA were recommended by the participants as the best measurements for the skills and knowledge required to be successful in the educational interpreting setting. The necessity of the following skills and knowledge was agreed upon in order to provide the quality of educational interpreting needed to meet the needs of our Stateπs D/deaf and hard of hearing students:

∑ ASL skill

∑ Interpretation/transliteration skill

∑ Ethical decision making

∑ General pedagogical knowledge

o Psychology, childhood development

∑ Knowledge of laws impacting education/special education

∑ Specific issues relating to special education and specifically deaf education

∑ Knowledge of IEP process, communication systems, specialized testing, multiple disabilities, technology, advocacy, etiology of hearing loss, amplification

∑ Role of the educational interpreter/job descriptions

∑ Ethics as it applies in a K-12 setting/professionalism

∑ Repetitive Motion Injury (RMI) prevention

Additional research/discussion needs:

∑ Can consistent ASL exit criteria be establish and utilized among the IHEπs?

∑ How can we coordinate NYS work with that of ASLTA?

∑ What is the current body of pedagogical information needed by a new entrant to the field?

∑ Can a rubric be created to represent the necessary body of knowledge to be utilized by the IHEπs?

Responding to this question was also influenced by the uncertainty of the degree with which the graduates would be receiving.

Question Four: What is the statewide structure necessary for implementing and following the required learning outcomes consistently in New York?

The Think Tank participants were strongly in agreement that a statewide educational system is needed that encourages the acquisition of a BA/BS degree. Two + two programs must be explored. A cooperative infrastructure amongst these programs would include:

∑ Standardized ASL fluency entrance and exit criteria

∑ Consistency constituting the coursework to qualify a degree program as being ≥Educational Interpreting≤

∑ Empire State College helping to connect two-year programs with BA/BS programs such as the NTID ASLIE and Keuka College ASL/English Interpretation programs

∑ Joint summer institutes to develop contacts, develop and implement coursework, and train instructors not readily found or highly qualified from remote sites

∑ Joint ASL immersion opportunities

∑ Creative and consistent access to Deaf Community and Culture

∑ Train the trainer workshops

∑ Cooperative mentorship opportunities

In responding to the current state of affairs in New York State, there were intense, spirited and at times difficult discussions in regard to moving from no degree or certification requirements to the ideal degree and certification structure for the State.

Additional research/discussion needs:

∑ Common definitions and standards

∑ Determine best practice for K-12 educational interpreters for developing coursework

∑ What constitutes best practice for instructors of Educational Interpreting students?

Question Five: How do expectations apply to the AAS level, the BS level and post graduation?

Participants struggled with specifying which particular competencies should be expected at the associate, baccalaureate, and master levels. Knowledge of the end degree required by the State would help determine expectations for each degree. Participants were adamant about the need to require a higher end degree than an associate degree,that end degree being a baccalaureate degree. The existing and recommended models, AA/AAS only, AA/AAS to BS, or AAS to BA/BS would carry different expectations. The current model is demonstrably lacking. The work of the future must move away from the current model toward a model that has greater potential for success. Any degree less than a BA/BS should aim toward that goal. The model supported by the Think Tank participants would possess the following expectations:

∑ AA which develops ASL skill, knowledge of Deaf Culture, Deaf history and literature, along with Liberal Arts coursework and an introduction to ASL/English interpreting and pedagogy

∑ BA/BS focusing on advanced ASL language skills and fluency and in depth interpretation knowledge and skills

Post graduation training options should be available for working interpreters to continue their education and to further improve their skills as educational interpreters.

RECOMMENDATIONS

As previously stated, there was spirited discussion over the two days of the Think Tank and a range of perspectives was expressed. The following recommendations emerged from the exchange of experiences and ideas.

1. Language, Education, Social and Cultural Background

There was strong agreement that fluency in ASL and English is required to become an effective educational interpreter. Two major challenges that students of interpreting face are developing fluency in ASL and acquiring knowledge of the Deaf Community and Deaf Culture.

There was also agreement that more immersion in ASL and Deaf Culture is needed before students begin to learn to interpret between ASL and English communicators. As courses in ASL have been developed and offered, there has been a shift from learning ASL through interaction in the Deaf Community to learning ASL in the classroom. The result is that students have greater difficulty developing natural fluency in ASL. It is well know that development of fluency in a language cannot be achieved through classroom instruction alone. Classroom instruction must be supported by immersion in the language and cultural community.

The other major difficulty is that, unlike spoken language education programs, there are no standard learning outcomes for ASL I-IV. This makes it difficult to know what a student is capable of after completing an ASL course sequence. Thus acceptance into degree programs and transferring from associate degree programs to baccalaureate degree programs is problematic. Students often apply to baccalaureate programs with insufficient skills in and knowledge of ASL and Deaf Culture despite having completed and ≥successfully≤ passed two years of ASL instruction.

The recommendations are:

- Incorporate immersion experiences into ASL instruction that includes immersion in the Deaf Community.

- Develop clear learning outcomes for ASL I-IV.

- Require mastery of ASL through at least two years of ASL instruction and immersion into the Deaf community before beginning interpretation courses.

- Consult with ASLTA in developing the learning outcomes for ASL I-IV

- Utilize the research published in the field (e.g., EIPA, SCPI, etc.)

- Encourage more research on how hearing adults become fluent in ASL and on effective instructional strategies

2. Skills and Knowledge Required of Educational Interpreters

Those in attendance who had interpreted in the classroom agreed that interpreting for students engaged in the educational process requires extensive and specialized knowledge and skill. The interpreter has to be able to work with students with varying and diverse levels of knowledge of ASL and English and with teachers and administrators who are likely to depend on them for information on the educational and linguistic needs of deaf students.

There was also agreement that educational interpreting in K-12 settings is a specialized skill that should be expanded from a solid knowledge of and skill in interpreting for adults. The educational interpreter needs an understanding of the educational process, the cognitive, linguistic and social/emotional development of deaf children and youth, their role in the educational process, and the knowledge and skill to execute that role.

The recommendations are:

- Review the Conference of Interpreter Trainersπ Interpreter Education Standards, www.cit-asl.org, RID Certification Standards, www.rid.org, the Educational Interpreting Performance Assessment (EIPA) performance and knowledge standards. www.classroominterpreting.org, Entry to Practice Competencies, and current Educational Interpreting programs and tracks to develop a clear set of learning outcomes for educational interpreters which can be used by postsecondary institutions to develop Educational Interpreting Programs.

- Utilize the research published in the field (e.g., EIPA, SCPI, etc.)

- Determine the level of achievement needed for associate degree program graduates and baccalaureate degree program graduates.

- Move AA/AAS degree programs in interpretation to Deaf Studies or ASL/English Interpretation Preparation and establish 2 + 2 programs to allow for smooth transitions and/or transfers.

- Assess students before they graduate from interpreting programs using an appropriate assessment tool, e.g., the EIPA or SCPI and establish appropriate levels of achievement to graduate and to begin interpreting in the classroom.

- Require certification of Education of Educational Interpreters working K-12 and use an appropriate testing tool and level of achievement for certification, e.g., the EIPA at 3.5 or above

- Encourage more research on the role of the educational interpreter in the educational process, the knowledge and skills that they need, and the impact of interpreting on the education of deaf children K-12.

3. State-wide Infrastructure

There was strong agreement that ideally, individuals preparing to become Educational interpreters must become fluent in ASL and skilled in ASL-English interpretation before specializing in K-12 educational interpreting. The degree required to enter the field of ASL-English Interpretation should be a baccalaureate degree with a specialization in Educational Interpreting to work in K-12 settings. Associate degrees should focus on developing ASL skills and knowledge of the Deaf Community and Culture with an introduction to the field of interpreting and result in transfer to baccalaureate programs or become 2 + 2 programs.

There was also acknowledgement that we are far from this ideal. Currently, we have many practicing interpreters who are not fluent in ASL, nor trained to interpret in an educational setting. Interpreter education programs in the USA range from certificates to Masters degrees with most programs offering the two-year AAS degree in interpreting. Many programs require no skill in ASL to enter the interpreting program, while others will require one or two years of ASL before beginning to study interpreting. School districts in New York State do not require a degree or an assessment of interpreting skills before or after hire. New York State is in the process of establishing certification requirements, but to date, interpreters do not need to be certified to work in New York schools.

There was much discussion and significant disagreement on how to achieve the ideal. Based on this discussion recommendations are:

- Establish a NYS infrastructure of AS and AAS programs that transfer to baccalaureate programs in ASL-English Interpretation.

- Work with the current AAS programs to incorporate the learning outcomes for ASL I –IV into their courses and require students to meet these learning outcomes to pass the course and continue in the interpreting program.

- Support and guide in the development of AS programs in American Sign Language and Interpreter Preparation that transfer to Baccalaureate degrees in ASL-English Interpretation.

- Support and guide in the development of specialization in Educational Interpreting in Baccalaureate Programs in strategic locations across NYS.

- Utilize the ASL Learning Outcomes and the Learning Outcomes for Educational Interpreting programs or Educational Interpreting tracks to support Empire State College (ESC) sites across NYS offering the baccalaureate degree in Educational Interpreting or Educational Interpreting track to practicing interpreters.

- Support the development and implementation of coursework in an NTID special Summer Institute for three populations, a) students of interpretation intending to work in the K-12 setting upon graduation, b) interpreters working in the K-12 setting and, c) instructors needing training in how to teach to standardized outcomes.

Over time, as more opportunities for baccalaureate degrees are developed through ESC and NTID, transition AAS degree programs to AS transfer programs must focus on developing skills in ASL and Deaf Culture with an introduction to the field of interpreting.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Think Tank, the first of its kind in the United States, could not have happened without the generous support of members of the New York State Department of Education and VESID. The participants of this event are indebted to the State for its foresight and funding, as well as the enthusiastic commitment and support of Dorothy Steele, Coordinator, Deaf and HOH Services, VESID/Lifelong Services Team, NY State Education Department.

The Think Tank committee wishes to thank the presenters, Dr. Kim Brown Kurz, Dr. Bernhardt Jones and Dr. Rico Peterson. Their presentations were inspiring, thought provoking and challenging. Each lecture helped to set the tone for the discussions that followed. They provided insight into the issues at hand and were invaluable contributors to the overall quality of the Think Tank. Thank you to Dr. Jones and Dr. Brown Kurz, facilitators during the break out groups. Their work was professional, focused on the task at hand, and clearly assisted in developing responses to the questions, including helpful and action-based suggestions.

Appreciation is given to the Think Tank organizational team, Donald LaRock, Coordinator for the Think Tank, Marilyn Mitchell, Director of the TAC, Dr. Laurie Brewer and Marty Nelson-Nasca, TAC Project Team, Dr. Rico Peterson, Chair of ASL and Interpreting Education Department (ASLIE) at NTID, Jill Bray, Senior Staff Assistant to the TAC, Peter Brown, former Senior Staff Assistant to the TAC, and Virginia Lindsay, Senior Staff Assistant to ASLIE.

To the practitioners, administrators, researchers and educators from across New York State who contributed quality and quantity time and energy in discussing the questions before them and coming to consensus, thank you. Whether participating in the online discussion, the Think Tank or both, contributions were invaluable. The spirited and intense dialogue and personal integrity moved the agenda forward to the next step, that of improving the quantity and quality of educational interpreting services for D/deaf and hard-of-hearing children in K-12 programs, in New York State. It is expected that this process and this product will serve as an example and model for other states to follow.

Appendix A

Preliminary data, EIPA results, EIKA results

Preparation of Educational Interpreters, 2002

1. Educational Backgrounds of NYS Educational Interpreters

In the Database 1009 Educational Interpreters were identified. Western Region includes 412 Interpreters (40.8% of the state), Central/North/Hudson Valley (CNHV) Region includes 341 (33.8%), New York City Region has 124 (12.3%) and Long Island has 132 (13.0%).

Educational Background - Totals
	Number	Percent of Responding Interpreters
None	74	15.5%
HS/GED	27	5.6%
Some College	38	7.9%
AA/AAS	160	33.5%
BA/BS	98	20.5%
MA/MS	79	16.5%
Doctorate	2	0.4%
Total:	478	(42.4% of interpreters)

Level of Students and level of sign Skills (EIPA)

Out of 1009 Interpreters in the Database, 375 (37.2%) met the criteria for this item:

a) had both EIPA and EIKA scores, AND,

b) answered questions indicating whether or not they were CODAs, had Deaf family members, or had no Deaf or HOH family members, AND,

c) answered the question regarding the levels in which they interpreted.

The data has also been sorted to determine scores for those in both categories who have had ITP training.

Average EIPA Scores State-wide by School Level Interpreted:
	Pre-K	Elem	MS/JH	HS	Voc	Reading Room	Total
Total Statewide:	1.24	2.55	2.61	2.80	2.69	2.25