social construction of american sign languageâ€”english interpreters

Social Construction of American Sign Language—English

Interpreters

Campbell McDermid

George Brown College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Instructors in 5 American Sign Language—English Inter-

preter Programs and 4 Deaf Studies Programs in Canada

were interviewed and asked to discuss their experiences as

educators. Within a qualitative research paradigm, their

comments were grouped into a number of categories tied

to the social construction of American Sign Language—

English interpreters, such as learners’ age and education

and the characteristics of good citizens within the Deaf com-

munity. According to the participants, younger students

were adept at language acquisition, whereas older learners

more readily understood the purpose of lessons. Children of

deaf adults were seen as more culturally aware. The partic-

ipants’ beliefs echoed the theories of P. Freire (1970/1970)

that educators consider the reality of each student and their

praxis and were responsible for facilitating student self-

awareness. Important characteristics in the social construc-

tion of students included independence, an appropriate

attitude, an understanding of Deaf culture, ethical behavior,

community involvement, and a willingness to pursue lifelong

learning.

In the winter and spring 2004, instructors in five

Canadian American Sign Language—English Inter-

preter Programs (AEIP) and four Deaf Studies Pro-

grams (DSP) were contacted and asked to be part of

a research project to discuss their experiences as edu-

cators. The following qualitative description involved

a process of guided reflection facilitated by the re-

searcher to address the lack of exploration into cultural

awareness and role expectations of interpretation stu-

dents identified by Page (1993). As a result, a profile of

learners was complied from the perspective of inter-

preter educators.

Review of the Literature

In Canada, sign language interpreters have been pro-

viding service to both deaf and non-deaf individuals

for over a century (Carbin, 1996). Initially, many inter-

preters were either an employee of a provincial school

for the deaf or had a deaf relative or sibling (Carbin,

1996), similar to the history of sign language interpre-

tation in the United States (Cokely, 2003; Deninger,

1987), Australia (Napier, 2006), and Belgium (Van

Herreweghe & Van Nuffel, 2000). In several countries,

it was reported that historically, individuals were in-

vited to interpret by the community (Cokely, 2003;

Evans & Bomak, 1996; Fenton, 1993; Van Herreweghe

& Van Nuffel, 2000), and this cohort has been de-

scribed as ‘‘evolved’’ interpreters (Cokely, 2003),

‘‘ad hoc’’ (Slatyer, 2006) or ‘‘untrained practitioners’’

(Fenton, 1993).

Evidence was found in the literature on Canadian

interpreters to support an evolved nature to the field.

In 1988, the Association of Visual Language Inter-

preters of Canada (AVLIC) conducted a survey of

seven Deaf leaders and found that, at that time, some

lacked trust in professional interpreters and instead

turned to family members or friends for interpretation

services (AVLIC, 1988). At the same time, many

applicants to Canadian American Sign Language

(ASL)—English interpretation programs began their

No conflicts of interest were reported. Correspondence should be sent to

Campbell McDermid, #104-77 Maitland Place, Toronto, Ontario,

Canada M4Y 2V6 (e-mail: [email protected]).

� The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

For Permissions, please email: [email protected]

doi:10.1093/deafed/enn012

Advance Access publication on April 18, 2008

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/jdsde/article/14/1/105/380226 by guest on 22 D

ecember 2021

education with several years of interpreting experience

(Taylor, 1988) and were fluent in ASL (Scully, 2000).

Some applicants had certification from the Registry

of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID; Taylor, 1988).

Mallory, Schein, and Zingle (1992) interviewed a num-

ber of deaf couples in the early 1990s and reported

that their hearing children were often called upon to

provide interpreting services, which again supports

the notion of evolved interpreters.

‘‘Schooled’’ Interpreters

Since the mid-1970s, however, entrance to the field of

sign language interpreting has become more pre-

scribed through the advent of interpreter education

programs (Janzen, 1994). Initially, a year or less in

duration, in 1988, Red River Community College be-

gan the trend to longer programs as it opened the first

2-year diploma program in Canada (Taylor, 1988).

In the United States, and with the onset of formal

interpreter preparation programs, this new cohort of

students has been referred to as schooled interpreters

(Cokely, 2003). A survey of 201 interpreters at the

RID conference in 1997, for example, found that al-

most two thirds, 65%, of the respondents learned to

be an interpreter through formal education (Stauffer,

Burch, & Boone, 1999).

Fenton (1993), in a discussion of visual language

interpreters in New Zealand, believed that the advent

of education programs would lead to tension and dis-

order in the field, as ‘‘After a certain time the practi-

tioners will be roughly divided into trained,

inadequately trained, and untrained practitioners’’

(p. 158). In Canada, this tension has become evident

in a number of ways. Interpreter educators have raised

concern that the study of Deaf culture has become

more incidental in programs, for example, through

field trips (Scully, 2000). It has been postulated that

students enter the field without social connections to

the Deaf community (Evans & Bomak, 1996). Several

authors are troubled by the lack of ASL fluency of

program applicants and graduates (Barker, 2002;

Scully, 2000; Stratiy, 1995; Taylor, 1990). It is not

surprising then that this trend has left deaf Canadians

concerned about who controls entry to the field (Evans &

Bomak, 1996) and distressed by the condescending

views of some practitioners (Cripps, 1994; Cundy,

1989; Stratiy, 2002) and their inability to interpret

successfully (Palusci, 2003; Stratiy, 1995), especially

from ASL to spoken English (Cripps, 1994; Cundy,

1989).

Age

In addition to interpersonal ties to the community, and

as identified by the literature, the age at which stu-

dents acquire ASL seems to be a significant issue in

the education of sign language interpreters. In Canada

in the late 1980s, perhaps due to the predominately

evolved nature of the field, it was reported that the

average age of interpretation students ranged from

30 to 35 years (Taylor, 1988).

ASL instructors have described the effect of in-

creased age as an ‘‘inhibiting’’ factor in students’ sign

language acquisition (McKee & McKee, 1992, p. 138).

Although older students might learn ASL ‘‘more

quickly in the first stages of acquisition,’’ it is believed

that younger students eventually became more fluent

(Taylor & Mann-Dale, 1996, p. 105). Taylor and

Mann-Dale noted that in a review of second language

learning, age was in fact ‘‘the most differentiating

condition’’ (p. 105), and in a study of sign language

interpreters, they found that all the certified inter-

preters (N 5 62) had learned ASL prior to the age

of 25.

In the United States, it has been reported that

students are learning ASL at even younger ages. In

2004, for example, several, some American high

schools were accepting ASL as a foreign language

credit (Pfeiffer, 2004). Peterson (1999) noted that

67% of the applicants to college-level ASL programs

were ‘‘between 18 and 24 years of age’’ (p. 189), and

Stauffer and Shaw (2006) reported similar findings as

75% of the ASL students in their study ‘‘were be-

tween 18 and 25 years of age’’ (p. 16). Drawbacks have

been noted, however, in regard to ASL classes situated

in secondary settings. Students who needed foreign

language creditsand who either struggled in other ac-

ademic subjects or who had special needs were rou-

tinely referred to ASL classes, perhaps due to the

perception that ASL was easier to acquire than other

languages (Pfeiffer, 2004).

106 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 14:1 Winter 2009

Dow



ecember 2021

Adult Education

The participants of this study raised several issues that

are discussed within the framework of adult education.

Those issues touched on the nature of learning for

adults, epistemological practices, and in particular

the tolerance for self-directed, independent study.

In a survey of Canadian adults, Livingstone (2000)

found that ‘‘over 70% of the knowledge individuals

acquire about their jobs [was] gained through informal

learning’’ (p. 14). As part of that process, Livingstone

reported that ‘‘definitely older workers [were] teaching

younger ones informally,’’ and this was especially true

for individuals younger than 24 years, who relied

on senior employees more than their peers for help

(p. 14).

Both MacKeracher (2004) and Livingstone (2000)

addressed the ability of adult learners to work inde-

pendently. MacKeracher suggested that educators

should not assume that adult learners preferred to

work independently and in fact should understand

that they bring varying degrees of tolerance and pre-

paredness for self-directed study. Livingstone noted

that typically younger adults desired formal, didactic

learning contexts more ‘‘than their own independent

informal efforts in their learning activities, with nearly

three-quarters indicating a preference for courses over

informal learning’’ (p. 13).

MacKeracher (2004) also felt that it was important

to consider time pressures on older learners. As stu-

dents aged, assignments due within a limited time

frame were described as ‘‘increasingly counterproduc-

tive’’ as older students saw their time as more limited

or had more, or different, responsibilities than younger

learners (MacKeracher, 2004, p. 32).

Postsecondary Education

In 1988, Taylor noted that a number of program appli-

cants in Canada had completed postsecondary educa-

tion. Since that time, there has been some discussion

about the need for university-level programs (Boldrini &

McDermid, 2000; MacFarlane, 1990), and in a survey

of Canadian interpreters, Madore (2000) found that

‘‘the majority of respondents would like [the] pro-

gram[s] to be of university level’’ (p. 26). In the United

States, demographic surveys of ASL-English inter-

preters found that the number of working interpreters

with a degree ranged from as low as 20.3% in educa-

tional settings (45 of 211 individuals) (Jones, 1995) and

from 59.9% (Cokely, 1984) to 63.6% (Stauffer et al.,

1999), to as high as 79% (Taylor & Mann-Dale, 1996).

Gender

Gender is another issue that was raised during the

research process and in the literature review. Over

the past two decades, researchers in the United States

have determined that the field of sign language inter-

pretation predominately comprises female, with per-

centages ranging from 76.2% (Cokely, 1984) to 79%

(Stauffer et al., 1999), to as high as 93.5% for inter-

preters in educational settings (Jones, 1995). In a sur-

vey of ASL students, Peterson (1999) noted that

90.4% identified themselves as female. Both Jones

and Burch (1997) suggested a need for more male

interpreters in the field and further suggested targeted

program recruitment as a means by which to achieve

increased numbers of male students.

Multicultural Perspective

In addition to gender disparity, and in terms of de-

mographics within the field, the need for a multicul-

tural perspective and sensitivity has been raised

repeatedly. This concern stems from the lack of

African American interpreters (Burch, 1997) and the

preponderance of Caucasian interpreters, with percen-

tages ranging from 80% (Stauffer et al., 1999) to

97.6% (Cokely, 1984), to as high as 98% (Jones,

1995) for educational interpreters in the United

States.

Several authors (Harrigan, 1997; Jones, 1995;

Malcolm, 2003; Stawasz, 1995) have encouraged pro-

grams to recognize and include an antiracist, multi-

cultural perspective in their curricula and stressed the

need to recruit instructors and students from different

cultures (Stawasz, 1995). Shaw (1997) has suggested

that working interpreters take further training in mul-

ticultural issues. In fact, an entire curriculum with

a multicultural is available from El Paso Community

College, built on the philosophy that students ‘‘view

concepts, issues, events, and themes from the perspec-

tives of diverse ethnic and cultural D/deaf groups’’

Social Construction of ASL-English Interpreters 107

Dow



ecember 2021

and ‘‘participate in dialogue on important social, com-

munity issues, and problems’’ (Mooney & Lawrence,

2000, pp. 5–6).

Children of deaf adults. Within the framework of

multiculturalism, there was one cohort mentioned by

the participants of this study and within the literature

unique to ASL-English interpretation programs. The

offspring of deaf parents, individuals who have be-

come interpreters due to their familial ties, have often

been referred to as children of deaf adults (CODA).

Rudser and Strong (1992), in a study to determine

the characteristics required of interpreters, found that

CODA participants were ‘‘the top performers overall’’

in terms of accuracy of interpretation (p. 21). In 1992,

Mallory et al. interviewed 15 deaf couples and found

that their hearing children frequently interpreted, for

example, when visitors came to the door, for telephone

calls, and for visiting relatives (Mallory et al., 1992).

Of particular interest is the finding that ‘‘14 of 15 inter-

viewed parents expressed positive views regarding

hearing offspring mediating for them,’’ but the authors

were concerned about the stress placed on the children

(Mallory et al., 1992, p. 203).

Good Citizens

In addition to considering issues of students’ age, gen-

der, and ethnicity, programs have been given the re-

sponsibility of creating good citizens within the Deaf

community, and educators play an active part in the

social construction of sign language interpreters. Four

properties were identified in the literature that tried to

capture the role expectations of a good citizen. These

were organized into the categories of general charac-

teristics, attitude and values, cultural sensitivity, and

ethical behavior.

To understand this role from a pedagogical per-

spective, it might first help to look at the work of

Freire (1970/1970) as a framework. To discuss the

social construction of students, Freire (1970/1970)

believed that educators must first consider their stu-

dents’ lived experiences and their praxis and acknowl-

edge that education is fundamentally a social

experience, especially true for students of interpreta-

tion. Within the philosophy of Freire (1970/1970),

educators should work to foster student self-awareness

and use a pedagogical approach that is social and di-

alogic in nature, which values input from all partici-

pants, and which fosters critical thinking and

emancipation. This approach was evident in both

the literature review and the participant interviews,

as is discussed next.

General characteristics. At one time, a successful in-

terpreter was compared to an inanimate translation ma-

chine (Frishberg, 1986; Humphrey & Alcorn, 2001;

Page, 1993), a metaphor that sadly ‘‘ignore[d] the es-

sential fact that the interpreter [was] a human being’’

(Frishberg, 1986, p. 59). Since that time, however,

researchers, interpreter educators, and ASL instructors

have tried to describe the desired and undesirable char-

acteristics of a successful interpreter or student of ASL

from an individual, psychological perspective.

It has been suggested that interpreters needed to

be flexible (Kaye, 1988; Schein, 1974), outgoing, will-

ing to be the center of attention at times, autonomous,

not prone to perseveration, and not anxious (Schein,

1974). In a review of the AVLIC News, program grad-

uates described the need for ‘‘discretion, impartiality,

self-policing, objectivity and flexibility’’ (Kaye, 1988,

p. 11). ASL instructors have shared concerns about

learners who avoided taking risks (McKee & McKee,

1992; Taylor & Mann-Dale, 1996) and who were intro-

verted, felt intimidated, suffered from performance

anxiety, or expended ‘‘insufficient effort’’ practicing

outside class (McKee & McKee, 1992, p. 147).

In 1992, Rudser and Strong examined the accu-

racy of interpreters while interpreting and compared

individuals who had deaf parents—CODA—and those

with hearing parents—non-CODA. ‘‘Insightful’’ was

a desired characteristic they believed that was tied to

accuracy for both groups (Rudser & Strong, 1992).

Differences between the groups in traits were also

found that the authors suggested correlated with ac-

curacy, as the CODA interpreters were described as

‘‘dependable, tactful, patient and conscientious’’

(p. 25), whereas the interpreters who were non-CODA

were characterized as ‘‘assertive and egoistic’’ (Rudser &

Strong, 1992, p. 26).

Undesirable characteristics for both cohorts in-

cluded ‘‘aloof ’’ and ‘‘unconcerned with how others


Dow



ecember 2021

react to them’’ (Rudser & Strong, 1992, pp. 25–26).

Although traits such as ‘‘conventional and stereotyped

in thinking, easygoing, defensive’’ (p. 25) were unde-

sirable specifically for CODA interpreters, it was sug-

gested that a lack of accuracy for non-CODA

interpreters correlated to being ‘‘somewhat change-

able, under-controlled, impulsive and temperamental’’

(Rudser & Strong, 1992, p. 26).

Perhaps, as the field of interpretation has matured

and with the recognition of Deaf culture, there has

been a shift from a psychological to a sociocultural

framework. Interpreters are now expected to master

several ‘‘interpersonal competencies,’’ which fall under

‘‘Human Relations’’ training (Witter-Merithew,

Johnson, & Taylor, 2004, p. 33), and to become ‘‘a

public relations specialist’’ to facilitate cross-cultural

experiences (Deninger, 1987, p. 312). ASL instructors

in particular have stressed that they did not want to

teach students they saw as ‘‘failures in the hearing

world’’ (McKee & McKee, 1992, p. 149).

As a result of this shift, program graduates are

now expected to have well-developed, interpersonal

(AVLIC, 2003; Lawley, 2000) and communication

skills, diplomacy, and self-discipline (AVLIC, 2003,

para. 9). They must have ‘‘a desire to work with,

and be of assistance to people’’ (AVLIC, 2003, para.

10), be able to establish good relationships with col-

leagues (Lawley, 2000), and should ‘‘have a high likeli-

hood of being embraced by the Deaf and interpreting

communities’’ (Humphrey, 1996, p. 6).

In addition to the characteristics mentioned above,

educational programs are also expected to instill in

students the value of community or civic involvement

(Decator, 1998; Malcolm, 1994; Ontario Ministry of

Education and Training, 1998a), volunteerism

(Malcolm, 1994), lifelong learning (AVLIC, 2003;

Decator, 1998; Ontario Ministry of Education and

Training, 1998a), self-directed study (Malcolm,

1994), a bilingual–bicultural philosophy (Decator,

1998), and the provision of leadership to the field

(Decator, 1998; Janzen, 1994).

Attitude and values. Within the framework of social

construction, the participants and the literature re-

peatedly mention attitude and values, and in partic-

ular respect (AVLIC, 2003; Cooper, Rose, & Mason,

2004; Humphrey & Alcorn, 2001; RID, 2003). An

appropriate attitude was seen as ‘‘non-judgmental’’

(AVLIC, 2003, para. 9) and positive (Bennett, 1996;

Kaye, 1988). Graduates of interpretation programs,

however, were described as more aware and influ-

enced by issues of personal rights and freedoms

and less by the communal attitudes that existed in

the 1960s and 1970s (Scully, 2000). ASL instructors

worried that some had enrolled in ASL classes to

find better employment or because they pitied deaf

people (McKee & McKee, 1992). This individualis-

tic, pathological view differed from the collectivist,

cultural perspective of the Deaf community

(Humphrey & Alcorn, 2001; Mindess, 1996; Page,

1993). The participants of this study and the litera-

ture also noted a competitive attitude in students,

and Shaw (1997) suggested that students be taught

consideration and cooperation as a means of dealing

with this.

To understand the nature of competitiveness in

students of ASL, it is considered helpful to examine

the writings of Dewey (1990). Dewey (1990) was con-

cerned that education had placed students in the role

of passive participants and had separated learning

from the community and workforce, perhaps what

has occurred in interpreter education programs today.

As a result, Dewey (1990) believed that students did

not understand the significance of the knowledge and

abilities that they were being taught and yet simulta-

neously felt compelled to find value in their education.

This lack of understanding could manifest itself as

a competitive nature in students, one that emphasized

grades or abilities as a tangible reward for their efforts

(Dewey, 1990).

Smith and Savidge (2002) and Witter-Merithew

(1995) felt that instructors were responsible for both

teaching and evaluating the attitude of students in in-

terpretation programs. Activities to address attitude

included modeling (Smith & Savidge, 2002; Witter-

Merithew, 1995), healthy confronting techniques

(Smith & Savidge, 2002), and open discussions

concerning racism and the students’ lack of self-

awareness, to help them become agents of change

(Witter-Merithew, 1995). Two program graduates,

however, questioned whether a good attitude could

actually be taught (Bennett, 1996; Kaye, 1988).


Dow



ecember 2021

Cultural sensitivity. Most interpreters are hearing and

as such are members of the majority culture and not

native ASL users (Taylor, 1990). Metaphors to de-

scribe their role have evolved from an interpreting

machine (Page, 1993; Roy, 1993) to a bilingual, bicul-

tural professional (Page, 1993; Roy, 1993) or perhaps

a third culture group (Page, 1993). They must be able

to make ‘‘appropriate cultural adjustments’’ that lead

to ‘‘accurate and reliable interpretations in the target

language’’ (Witter-Merithew et al., 2004, p. 34).

Accuracy in interpretation requires an intercultural

awareness (Ontario Ministry of Education and

Training, 1998a) and the ‘‘ability to establish rapport

with a wide variety of people and to understand the

implications of working with various populations’’

(Resnick & Hoza, 1990, p. 3). It entails reflection

and understanding of their own expectations and of

the sociocultural attitudes and structures that exist

(Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, 1998a;

Witter-Merithew et al., 2004).

In terms of Deaf culture, specific outcomes have

been suggested related to cultural sensitivity. Program

graduates must know how to act appropriately in terms

of ‘‘greeting and leave-taking skills, forms of polite

speech, etc.’’ (Humphrey & Alcorn, 2001, p. 10.8).

They should be aware of ‘‘major historical eras, events

and figures in the D/deaf community’’ such as

Laurent Clerc and the infamous Milan conference

(Witter-Merithew et al., 2004, p. 33). Interpreters

must be able to recognize cultural differences in facial

expressions (Still, 1990) and in politeness and face-

saving behaviors between Deaf and non-Deaf cultures

(Hoza, 1999; Page, 1993). Still (1990) and Smith

(1983) also drew attention to differing norms concern-

ing reciprocity, as perhaps the Deaf community

expected a different level of contribution.

Several authors (Evans & Bomak, 1996; Mindess,

1996; Page, 1993) suggest that interpreters consider

examining culture through the framework of collectiv-

ist and individualistic frameworks. A community with

a collectivist orientation privileges the goals of the

group, such as cultural survival, over those of an in-

dividual (Evans & Bomak, 1996). Hearing interpreters,

however, are more individualistic in nature and have

not been called upon to be ‘‘as introspective’’ concern-

ing issues of culture and language (Evans & Bomak,

1996).

Interpreters must further become cognizant of

issues of power and oppression, as these shape their

work (Baker-Shenk, 1986; Page, 1993; Taylor &

Stratiy, 1992). Some interpreters have either con-

sciously or subconsciously adopted a ‘‘pejorative view’’

of deaf people and regard them as inferior, or consider

deaf people misguided when they do not adopt hearing

values (Baker-Shenk, 1986, p. 49). Even simple acts

such as entering a room first or interpreting into an

informal register during a formal presentation signal

an act of power (Taylor & Stratiy, 1992).

These outcomes reflect the philosophy of Freire

(1970) who felt that the process of education must

acknowledge the impact of oppression and power.

Freire wrote that educators must help students be-

come self-actualized and develop a conscious aware-

ness of their social capital and power, what he referred

to as ‘‘conscientizacxao.’’ It is only through authentic

thinking, a critical examination of reality and power,

that students can work together to overcome oppres-

sion (Freire, 1970).

Students of ASL have recognized the need for

coursework in culture (Peterson, 1999) and the bene-

fits of socializing with Deaf community members

(McKee & McKee, 1992; Peterson, 1999). In a survey

of college-level ASL students in the United States,

however, it was found that almost four fifths (79.2%)

of the learners had little or no contact with deaf people

and less than half (42.7%) of the incoming students

agreed or strongly agreed to the statement: ‘‘Deafness

is a form of cultural identity’’ (Peterson, 1999, p. 195).

Instead, two thirds (67.2%) responded that they be-

lieved that ‘‘deaf people’s values and hearing people’s

values are more alike than they are different’’ (p. 193).

Although 58% did not ‘‘consider deaf people as dis-

abled,’’ in fact, many seemed to place deaf people in

a subordinate or vulnerable role (Peterson, 1999,

p. 191). Peterson (1999) and McKee and McKee fur-

ther found that many students believed that ASL was

easier to master than other languages. For example, in

one study (Peterson, 1999), most students (67.8%)

likened ASL to ‘‘a visual-gestural form of English’’

(p. 197) and equated its acquisition to mastering

a new skill in less than 3 years.


Dow



ecember 2021

Ethical behavior. The field of ASL-English interpre-

tation has a long established code of ethics in North

America (Deninger, 1987), another facet in the social

construction of professional interpreters who must

have a thorough understanding of this code and abide

by its tenets (AVLIC, 2003). Concern about the lack of

ethical behavior of interpreters has been expressed by

educators in New Zealand (Fenton, 1993) and has led

to mandated coursework in ethics in Australia (Napier,

2006; Slatyer, 2006) and Belgium (Van Herreweghe &

Van Nuffel, 2000).

The need for such a code and related courses no

doubt stems from the professionalization of the field

and the shift from evolved to schooled interpreters as

mentioned earlier. Increasingly, deaf individuals are

being asked to give their trust to someone they have

not met before, who has no prior or even current

connection to their community, and who might not

understand their values and culture.

It is the duty of programs to ‘‘instill a sense of

values, ethics and personal responsibility appropriate

to professional practice’’ in their students (Humphrey,

1996, p. 7). As future professionals, students must also

learn to maintain professional boundaries (Humphrey &

Alcorn, 2001; Witter-Merithew et al., 2004) and use

a model of ethics to ‘‘discuss effective professional and

ethical decision-making’’ (Witter-Merithew et al.,

2004, p. 33). At the same time, however, cultural dif-

ferences might exist in terms of expectations around

professional distance to which interpreters must be

sensitive (Page, 1993; Still, 1990).

Canadian educators have provided exercises

designed to explore the code of ethics (Janzen,

1992). Texts on sign language interpreting also cover

the topic in some detail (Frishberg, 1986; Humphrey &

Alcorn, 2001), and Northeastern University in

Boston has an entire practicum devoted to ethics

(Cokely, 2003).

In Ontario, program graduates are expected to

represent their ‘‘skills, knowledge, and experience re-

alistically for personal and employment purposes’’ and

not mislead consumers into thinking that they are

more qualified than they are (Ontario Ministry of

Education and Training, 1998b, para. 1). They must

further be cognizant of potential conflicts between the

demands of doing business and the expectations of the

Deaf community (Ontario Ministry of Education and

Training, 1998b) and only accept assignments that

they can handle (Ontario Ministry of Education and

Training, 1998a). As Cogen (1995) described it, they

need an understanding of the pressures interpreters

face ‘‘subject to a job market that places them where

they are not ready to work and frustrates them until

many leave the field’’ (Cogen, 1995, p. 3). By develop-

ing this awareness, graduates can ‘‘demonstrate per-

sonal and professional integrity by avoiding conflicts

of interest’’ (Witter-Merithew et al, 2004, p. 35).

Methodology

Researcher Positioning

When conducting qualitative research and especially

within bilingual and multicultural settings, it is essen-

tial to situate the principal researcher within the re-

search process. This honors the collectivist nature of

the deaf participants and helps the reader understand

the cultural biases and framework that ultimately in-

form the researcher’s methodology and analysis. As an

interpreter and interpreter educator, the author has

more than 20 years of involvement in the Deaf com-

munity and believes that any discussion of interpreter

education must regard deaf individuals and Deaf cul-

ture from a bilingual, sociocultural perspective. As

a nationally certified interpreter and as a colleague,

the principal researcher was also able to establish

a meaningful rapport with the participants.

Selection of Data and Research Participants

As mentioned earlier, five education programs for

ASL-English interpreters (AEIP) in Canada were

asked to participate in this study: Douglas College,

Red River College, St. Clair College, George Brown

College, and the Nova Scotia Community College.

The program coordinators were contacted by elec-

tronic mail and asked to distribute the research pro-

posal and questions to their staff (Appendix). Faculty

members of four Deaf Studies or Pre-Interpreter pro-

grams were also invited to participate for a number of

reasons. Several instructors were cross-appointed to

teach in the AEIP and their programs typically were


Dow



ecember 2021

a prerequisite for the AEIP. As Red River Community

College and the University of Manitoba’s Faculty of

Linguistics had established a joint program, faculty

members from the University of Manitoba were in-

vited to participate.

Participant Demographics

There were a total of 34 participants in this study,

almost the entire complement of staff within the nine

programs. This level of involvement indicated the

commitment of the participants to support this

research endeavor. Of the instructors interviewed,

20 were female and 14 male. An almost equal number

were identified as deaf (18) and hearing (16). Only one

instructor was a child of deaf adults.

Of the 16 hearing participants, 7 were graduates of

an AEIP, 8 were certified by AVLIC or RID, and at

least 14 had at least a BA or BS degree. On average,

the hearing instructors had 11.7 years of teaching ex-

perience and 21.7 years of interpreting experience.

Fifteen of the 16 hearing staff reported working as

an interpreter.

Of the 18 Deaf staff, 14 had a minimum of a BA or

BS degree. The average number of years of teaching

experience was 8. Of interest was that 17 of the 18 Deaf

staff reported prior work experience as a deaf inter-

preter or deaf blind intervener.

In terms of diversity, nine of the instructors iden-

tified themselves as gay or lesbian, and only two

instructors were from a visible minority.

Data Gathering

A preliminary review of the literature identified issues

facing interpreter education programs, such as the

applicants’ cultural sensitivity and attitude. From

these findings, open-ended questions were created

(Appendix) for use during the interviews with the

educators, who were also encouraged to discuss other

issues that they felt were relevant.

Individual interviews were then held with each

participant, lasting a minimum of 1 hr, and several

approached 2 hr in duration. During the interviews,

the principal researcher took notes and the dialogue

was videotaped. Following the transcription of the

taped dialogues, common themes were identified in

accordance with a qualitative research methodology

(Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Each participant was sent

a copy of their transcribed interviews electronically

for triangulation and asked for further comments

and verification.

Interviews with the deaf participants were con-

ducted in ASL and later translated by the principal

researcher to written English. This translation was

then shared with each participant for verification and

further comment.

Identifiers were given to each participant to ensure

anonymity. These identifiers consisted of two letters

and a number, such as HP or DP, indicating a hearing

participant or a deaf participant, respectively. For exam-

ple, HP1 represented hearing participant number 1,

whereas DP5 indicated deaf participant number 5, and

so on.

Data Analysis

Grounded within an analytic-induction framework

(Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Hatch, 2002), theory devel-

opment was driven by the information gathered dur-

ing the research process by examining the responses of

the participants. These findings were also compared to

the trends and concerns identified in an ongoing

literature review. Within a qualitative framework

(Bogdan & Biklen, 1992), descriptive information

was included to the extent possible so as to give voice

to the participants’ experiences.

The principal researcher identified tentative

themes subsequent to each interview, which consisted

of broad categories, more specific properties, and dis-

crete subproperties, as shown in Table 1. As successive

participants were interviewed, their comments shaped

the categories and properties identified. For example,

one of the major categories identified was that of ‘‘good

citizens’’ within the Deaf community. Within this

Table 1 Example of categories and properties

Category Specific properties Subproperties

Good citizens Attitude and values Competitive

nature

Cultural sensitivity

Community involvement

Ethical behavior

Lifelong learner


Dow



ecember 2021

category, five specific properties were identified that

were labeled ‘‘attitude and values,’’ ‘‘cultural sensitivity,’’

community involvement,’’ ‘‘ethical behavior,’’ and ‘‘life-

long learner.’’ The other major categories were age,

gender, postsecondary education, and multicultural

perspective. The latter categories are reported and

examined first.

Findings

Age

When asked about the age of students, participants

described two categories: either older or younger

learners. Eight of the faculty members reported that

students were typically very young, and according to

12 of the 34 participants, the programs had accepted

students as young as 16 years of age. Eleven other

instructors talked about working with students from

their early 40s right up to mid-50s or even 60 years

old. One participant felt that a range in ages created

a nice balance and another commented, ‘‘I don’t think

age really matters if they want to learn to be an in-

terpreter.’’ From the perspective of a third faculty

member, the students came with diverse needs and

challenges and had good and bad days regardless of age.

Older learners. When asked if age made a difference

in their pedagogical practices or in students’ success,

the participants had many positive comments about

working with older students and only a few significant

concerns. Some of the older students were reportedly

working interpreters who were in their 30s or 40s and

who had come back for retraining or who wanted

to work specifically as a church interpreter. According

to one instructor, ‘‘Older students always seem[ed] to

do well,’’ whereas another wanted to dispel the ‘‘urban

myth that the older you are the less likely it is you

can do it. That maybe true, but we’ve had some suc-

cess, so that’s worth noting.’’ Five of the Deaf faculty

members and one of the hearing instructors specifi-

cally talked about how they enjoyed and wanted to

continue working with older learners. Only two of

the hearing instructors, however, suggested increasing

their program minimum age requirements, for exam-

ple, to 23, as the program would then be a whole lot

better off.

In terms of strengths, participants reported that

they believed that the older students exhibited a higher

level of maturity than the younger students, more life

experience, and had a good pragmatic sense. They had

more world knowledge and, for some, a lot of wisdom.

This knowledge led to more interesting discussions in

class and made a difference in the class content.

Mature students were seen as more likely to suc-

ceed at the kinds of multitasking and interpersonal

kinds of things required in the program. Several par-

ticipants reported that many older students had re-

spect for diversity and seemed to understand issues

of oppression, majority and minority dynamics. Some

were also parents of a deaf child. As a student in an

AEIP, they had a chance to learn about their deaf

child’s life, which made it a very positive experience

for them.

According to two hearing instructors, older stu-

dents also seemed to understand the process of inter-

preting more readily. Even when they struggled to

interpret something from English to ASL, they un-

derstood what the message meant. For example, they

knew what it was like to go through a job interview or

divorce. Another educator felt that older students ap-

preciated the course content and could see how things

that were taught in one course related to what was

taught in another course and made the connection to

the field.

Older students were seen as giving a nice balance

to the class because they would not get all excited

about nothing and were a good role model for the

others. For example, they calmed other students down

‘about not getting their marks back, or over getting an

86 when they thought they deserved 88%,’’ and they

helped put things in perspective. They had also

helped to bring weaker students along. In one pro-

gram, for example, the faculty had identified two or

three in the class who would not have made it if that

older group had not been there.

One instructor did not want to be seen as an ageist

but talked about how the older students on average

had made a very conscious decision to enroll in the

program and wanted to do well, which fit with an adult

education model. Other instructors believed that older

learners had a more serious attitude, were more stu-

dious, and had expectations appropriate for working as


Dow



ecember 2021

an interpreter. They were more motivated and inter-

ested in learning, more willing to get down to work, or

worked the hardest. They came with a goal.

In terms of their attitude, mature students were

also described as more willing to accept feedback and

it was easier to identify and discuss their weaknesses

with them. They also seemed to know not to discredit

the program in any way or that it was not appropriate

to ‘‘bash’’ a program or a teacher. Younger students, on

the other hand, sometimes jumped to blaming others

for their weaknesses or mistakes and were not mature

enough to accept feedback, which made it difficult to

work with some of them.

Only one participant had worked with an older

student who had not done well. The greatest challenge

facing older students, cited by 10 of the instructors

(5 deaf and 5 hearing), was their struggle to gain flu-

ency in ASL. Deaf faculty members in particular felt

that there were some restrictions or limits on their

ability to learn, which might have been due to fossil-

ized habits or because they were unable to memorize

things as quickly as the younger students. As a result,

older pupils required more time in class or wanted the

instructors to go slower when signing and seemed to

lack confidence in their ASL fluency. One participant

described the ability of older students to learn ASL in

this way: ‘‘I’ll use the analogy of a sponge. Their

sponge is a bit dry and it is harder for them to absorb

the language.’’

If the older pupils were willing to accept that they

could not do everything and that they had limits, it

was felt that they would eventually be successful. Pro-

grams were advised to make more ASL tutoring avail-

able to them because it was frustrating for them as an

adult. They did not have the ability to express their

ideas in their second language.

Other concerns were based on the belief that

older learners were more established and it was

harder for them to get involved in the Deaf com-

munity as they kept a separate social life. They had

more responsibilities than younger students, which

resulted in less time to study. It might also explain

why, in the experience of one faculty member,

‘‘if you gave the older students something at the

last minute, they felt more stressed and became

emotional.’’

Younger students. The younger students, on the other

hand, were observed to have significantly different

strengths and weaknesses. Nine of the participants

(three hearing and six deaf) believed that younger stu-

dents, for the most part, were able to acquire ASL

quickly if not effortlessly. As several secondary pro-

grams had begun offering ASL as a credit course in

one area, there was an increase in younger applicants

to the AEIP who occasionally had ‘‘pretty good’’ flu-

ency in ASL. Some also came from educational set-

tings where they had experienced, firsthand working

with interpreters and deaf students, a trend that one

instructor felt would increase.

Overall, three of the instructors had worked with

some very young, very sharp students, who were very

bright and quite intelligent. Some had a good grasp of

world knowledge and came to the programs with

a fresh mind. They learned content rapidly, and with

the younger students, the classes went very quickly.

They seemed to be skilled at memorization and could

handle things they were given at the last minute and

could deal with stress. They also had more time

for their studies than the older students and would

stay later at night to work in the laboratory on their

homework.

Three of the instructors (two hearing and one

deaf), however, felt that programs should not be mar-

keted to younger students, such as recent high school

graduates. Although younger students signed well, it

was also important to look at what else they had to

offer this field, ‘‘except for good ASL.’’ For example, it

was felt that learners needed the interpersonal makeup

and aptitudes and orientation to people that were not

found in students usually right out of high school,

though there were ‘‘exceptions.’’

Transitioning to college. Seven of the instructors noted

that some of the younger students had a difficult time

transitioning from high school to a college environ-

ment. Three hearing instructors in particular were

concerned about the level of English fluency in high

school graduates and wondered about their ability to

interpret as a result.

In high school, a hearing instructor felt that stu-

dents were very dependent learners, but the college

environment required an independent way of learning,


Dow



ecember 2021

which some students were not ready to handle. Al-

though it was considered normal in the first year to

be lost and not sure what to do, the younger interpret-

ing students seemed to be more naive than expected

and lacked life experience and a real sense of where

they were going. Some just seemed to go through the

motions and if they learned something ‘‘good.’’ Youn-

ger students did not take the program seriously, and

for them, it almost looked like ‘‘a party.’’ In class, some

would miss information but then would not ask for

clarification. The participants reported that the pro-

grams continued to deliver curriculum content, and it

was expected that the students were responsible for

learning it, something that one instructor believed

younger students would not ‘‘ever really get.’’

The issue of attendance was raised as a concern by

six of the Deaf instructors, who believed that when

students missed class, it demonstrated a lack of com-

mitment to the program. Students seemed to be ab-

sent more often if they lived far away from the

program, had to get up at 8 in the morning, or just

as a factor of age as younger students were described

as more prone to missing classes or arriving late.

Perhaps due to the concerns noted above, two

of the Deaf instructors referred to the students as

‘‘children’’ or ‘‘kids,’’ whereas another described her

role as ‘‘a mother hen.’’ As a result, one Deaf educator

felt the need to take more control of the class, to set up

class rules such as to pay attention while they were

teaching or modeling ASL and found it difficult to

treat the students like equals.

Three of the instructors recommended that pro-

grams provide help preparing younger students for

college. They needed to be made aware of the in-

creased responsibilities and new expectations placed

on them, such as the need to communicate with their

instructors when things happened.

World knowledge. Eleven educators also commented

on the lack of world knowledge of the younger stu-

dents, which they felt was needed to become inter-

preters. Some of the younger students, for example,

did not know how to write a resume or understand

areas like banking. One faculty member stated,

‘‘Imagine them trying to interpret about a mortgage.

They don’t even know about rent.’’ There was also

some anxiety that the students were too young to re-

ally understand the purpose of community service. As

a result, when they placed students in community

settings, one instructor could not make assumptions

about how the students were going to behave or what

they were going to do, knowing that they had that very

limited world experience.

The instructors also believed that it was also im-

portant for students to understand the Deaf commu-

nity as well as the broader community, so they could

incorporate the seven expansions of ASL that were

based on examples from real life. But when talking

about cross-cultural interactions, many students did

not seem to understand the experiences taken from

other cultures, as they did not have their own experi-

ences to draw upon.

The perceived lack of world knowledge in younger

students had a direct impact on course delivery as the

participants noted that they had to bring the level of

the class down to accommodate recent high school

graduates and were always explaining things to them

and ‘‘spoon-feeding’’ them. This lack of awareness

meant that the students were not able to tackle texts

and to do what they needed to be able to do to in-

terpret. They also did not seem to understand or they

did not get the point of the course content, how it

related to interpreting and could not see the connec-

tions. Instructors then had to go back to the basics for

some students, and as one put it, teach the students

‘‘things I think they should know.’’ As a result, six of

the Deaf staff in particular and one hearing instructor

felt that it was necessary to include current events and

general world knowledge in their classes.


When asked about program requirements, the next

topic of discussion, three hearing participants

reported that a high school diploma was needed.

Reportedly, some students came to their programs

with a bachelor’s degree (15%–25% of the appli-

cants), and a few had graduate degrees as well.

Two instructors suggested that a degree might in-

dicate more proficiency in English, but another

questioned if that assumption was valid. Five of

the instructors would like to see this trend continue


Dow



ecember 2021

and wanted an increase in the number of students

with degrees.

Gender

Gender was an area discussed by the participants of

this study. Seventeen of the educators commented on

the preponderance of female students, and nine

instructors believed that programs typically accepted

only two male students per cohort, though one

educator felt that the number of male students was

increasing. It was suggested that the lack of male stu-

dents was due to the perception of sign language inter-

preting as a helping profession and so attracted more

females, or perhaps as two Deaf instructors suggested,

women had more facility with ASL.

Several of the male students who had taken sign

language classes, according to one Deaf instructor, al-

ready had a good career and did not plan on becoming

interpreters. Instead, they were only interested in

communicating with Deaf staff or Deaf employees

back at their jobs.

Thirteen of the faculty members talked about

a need for more male students, a balance in genders

or an increase in the number of male students to half

and half. But a hearing instructor suggested that in-

stead of recruiting a specific gender, it made sense to

look for more of the people with the right orientation

and ‘‘if they come in a male body, great.’’

Only five instructors discussed the impact of gen-

der on their epistemological beliefs. One felt that it did

not make a difference in terms of pedagogical practi-

ces. A second educator, however, believed a predomi-

nately female class led to a closer or more informal

relationship, whereas a third could relate with students

who were mothers and understood how having a baby

at home had an impact on the teaching and learning

process. A fourth instructor wondered if her pedagog-

ical practices and her instructions made perfect sense

to certain people in the class, that is, the female stu-

dents, but perhaps not to the male students. She sug-

gested that faculty take into account not only the

cultural background of students but also gender differ-

ences while teaching.

A fifth instructor had students read an article and

write a paper on hearing privilege. She was uncon-

sciously assuming that it was for female White stu-

dents who would both identify somewhat as an

oppressed group, because of being women, and would

also identify as the majority group, being White. How-

ever, she realized that it was harder for the male White

students to work with the article as they were in an

oppressor group twice.


Cultural sensitivity was an issue that was raised during

the interviews and is addressed next in terms of three

areas: general comments, native Canadians, and

CODA students. In terms of general comments, only

one instructor commented on the intersection of her

own ethnicity and pedagogy and felt that being bilin-

gual or multilingual helped her become more sensitive

to multicultural dynamics, which in turned helped her

prepare her students to work in a multicultural world.

This preparation included, for example, awareness

that individuals acted differently when they used dif-

ferent languages.

Another educator explored the interaction of

culture and pedagogy and talked about how students

were traditionally asked to read an article that

was called White privilege: Unpacking the invisible

backpack (McIntosh, 2007). It asked students to

identify the ethnicity of individuals they might en-

counter in positions of authority, and this act of

reflective reading and discussion was described as

a consciousness raising activity that prepared the

students for a discussion of hearing privilege. When

a Black student took the course, the instructor re-

alized how she (the Black student) did not identify

with the article for recognizing privilege even

though she was hearing because she was also a mem-

ber of a minority.

When asked about the ethnicity of their students,

18 instructors described their students as predomi-

nately Caucasian. As one educator described them,

‘‘I have to say it again, our student body is way too

white . and way too middle-class.’’

Two faculty members also discussed the religious

beliefs of students and found that certain churches or

religious organizations were the source of many inter-

preters. There was concern that sometimes these


Dow



ecember 2021

students brought basically narrow views based on their

religious affiliation and there was a need to balance

that with a good mix of students, for example, people

who were living their lives in all sorts of different

ways.

Eleven educators said that they would like to see

more diversity; a variety of experiences or cultures;

and a mix of socioeconomic status, age, and gender.

Having a predominately White classroom was seen as

not proportional to the community some programs

served, which were very multicultural. To support di-

versity, it was believed that programs should recruit

cohorts of minority students, as ‘‘you’ve got to have at

least two because one is overwhelmed or lost really

quickly.’’

Seven instructors, however, believed that over the

past few years, a more diverse population of students

had been accepted into the programs that included

a good variety of affluent and less affluent students.

It was suggested that there was even more diversity

than educators realized, given that not all cultural

groups were a visible minority, and, for example, given

the belief of one instructor that most of the male

students were gay.

Programs were generally seen, however, as lacking

targeted recruitment and advertisement. Instructors

expressed the desire to learn how to support students

from different cultures and with different needs. They

wanted to recognize the ethnicity of the students and

hoped that their programs were ‘‘friendly’’ to cultural

diversity. These issues had been left unexplored in

some programs, as the assumption was that because

the instructors were ‘‘good people,’’ students would

feel welcomed.

Benefits of diversity. Educators felt that students

from diverse ethnic groups improved the quality of

their programs as they brought different perspectives

and experiences that would only heighten the oppor-

tunities to learn for all and helped develop more

respect for cultural differences. They made a contri-

bution to the cross-cultural experience of the class,

which resulted in more interesting discussions. When

the students were predominately Caucasian, they

might talk about respecting diversity, but the instruc-

tors suspected that they did not really understand

cultural differences. In the words of one faculty

member:

I think that brings a richness to the classroom and

to classroom discussions. In a way it kind of forces

people to . . I want to say watch what they say.

I don’t mean it superficially, but to tune in to their

beliefs and values because you learn the most about

your own beliefs and values when you are

reminded that there are others who don’t have

the same ones, right. So every time you have di-

versity in a group, then, people can’t start running

off at the mouth like their group is the only group

on the planet. (HP26)

Four participants talked specifically about the

diversity in the Deaf community and the need for

interpreting programs to reflect that. Instructors com-

mented that it would be nice if the interpreters were

from the same background as the deaf individuals they

were working with, such as native Canadians. One

educator likened it to how a female deaf consumer

might not want a male interpreting in certain settings.

Barriers to diversity. One impediment to minority

student success and recruitment, mentioned repeat-

edly by seven of the participants (four deaf and three

hearing), was English language fluency. Some students

came to the programs with English as a second lan-

guage (ESL) or even a third language and were able to

speak as many as four or five different languages. This

lack of native fluency in English was described as a po-

tential barrier to enrollment as four educators felt that

their programs had more stringent requirements for

applicants in English than in ASL. Also once ac-

cepted, the ESL students sometimes appeared a bit

shy about practicing their sign language with the Deaf

instructors and were embarrassed about their level of

English fluency. These characteristics made it very

difficult to teach them.

Native Canadians. Three of the Deaf staff described

how happy they were to have First Nations or native

students in their programs. It was hoped that these

graduates would later work with native deaf Canadians

to help them feel more comfortable or confident in the

legal system, traditionally a ‘‘very oppressive’’ setting


Dow



ecember 2021

for native Canadians. Furthermore, by enrolling in an

AEIP, it was believed that this would alleviate the lack

of native leaders and give the native Deaf community

‘‘someone to look up to.’’ However, some native stu-

dents had a difficult time coming back to school as

college programs had many expectations, especially

around homework and assignments and handing

things in, which some students had found difficult to

manage. It was suggested that even when programs

attracted native students, they would go through a cul-

ture shock when they enrolled as some had become

very homesick.

In terms of pedagogical practices, questions were

raised by the educators about how they could discuss

native and nonnative cultures. For example, one Deaf

instructor asked, ‘‘Do Deaf natives use ASL or some

other form of language? Are the rules of behaviour the

same in both cultures?’’ and was hoping for more re-

search into this area. A hearing participant described

a lack of any firsthand experience with Aboriginal cul-

tures but believed that much of the research on Deaf

culture and interpreting had been informed from

examples from White or non-Aboriginal versus Ab-

original cultures.

Children of deaf adults. Another cohort mentioned by

the participants was CODA. Five educators reported

working with these students, and in some cases on

average one CODA every year. To increase CODA

enrollment, one participant had tried targeted recruit-

ment, by talking to deaf parents with hearing

offspring.

Some educators were supportive of having these

students, and the experience was described as great

and positive. In the words of one participant, ‘‘I would

love to have more CODAs, or at least some.’’ Another

wondered why there were not more CODA applicants

and if the Deaf community perceived programs as not

friendly to CODA students.

Participants reported that CODA students had

a positive impact on the programs, especially for the

Deaf staff. The CODA students, more so than their

hearing peers, were willing to approach Deaf instruc-

tors for guidance and counseling. CODA students,

according to several instructors, were an important

ingredient in the class experience as they brought

something to everyone else’s education in the field of

interpreting that the other students who grew up in

hearing families could not contribute. For example,

students who were CODA brought to class a higher

level of sensitivity to Deaf culture and more awareness

of deaf people than their non-CODA peers. They were

described as advanced students and were seen as will-

ing to help the other students when asked for advice.

Several concerns were raised by the participants

about CODA students, however, especially around

their lack of knowledge vis-a-vis Deaf culture, their

language fluency, and their attitude in general, which

are addressed next. As one instructor put it, working

with a student who was CODA could be problematic.

Another instructor did not believe that being a child of

deaf parents was enough to guarantee success in an

AEIP. A third educator did not feel that they had

much success with supporting CODA students, and

a fourth worked with a CODA who had not graduated.

As these students had learned ASL from their

parents or in community courses, they had missed

out on the coursework in the DSP, which covered

topics such as oppression on the Deaf community. It

could be a ‘‘little tricky’’ from a teaching perspective,

but this was overcome by one instructor who had stu-

dents describe their understanding of Deaf culture

and oppression to see what the majority of students

understood and when needed also suggested an extra

reading to help those students ‘‘get up to speed.’’

A few participants felt that the program standards

around language fluency were a challenge for some

CODA. For example, in some cases, there were

assumptions that the individual and the community

had made about their language readiness in terms of

sign language. CODA students, however, were not

always as fluent in ASL as everyone expected and, as

one instructor put it, did not ‘‘sign well.’’ This dysflu-

ency was due to bad habits such as grammatically in-

correct ways of signing that had become fossilized and

that might be comprehensible to their parents but not

to the average deaf person. Some CODA students had

a tendency to follow spoken English grammar while

signing, made use of excessive fingerspelling, infre-

quently role shifted while interpreting, and either

lacked classifiers and nonmanual grammar or refused

to use these features of ASL as the faculty could ‘‘tell


Dow



ecember 2021

by their body language and facial expression they

[didn’t] want to. They [were] not used to it.’’ On the

other hand, teaching students who had hearing parents

and did not know ASL was much easier especially for

specific language features such as classifiers.

One reason given for the lack of fluency in ASL of

CODA students was the language use of their parents,

who as language models might have modified their

signs for their children. As a result, it was very diffi-

cult to convince the CODA students to change their

language.

Four participants (three hearing and one deaf)

were concerned with the English language fluency of

CODA students, as they were not as strong in English

as they were in ASL. One CODA student, for exam-

ple, struggled to keep a journal and to answer written

questions to such an extent that it was suspected that

they ‘‘couldn’t write—period.’’

To address this problem, programs were advised to

reexamine their intake protocols. One program had

in fact lowered its expectations around English fluency

in order to accept CODA students, and instructors in

another program were asked to accept CODA students

based on their ability to predict if the individual was

capable of improving their English fluency enough to

succeed. Perhaps, these lowered expectations had in

fact led to CODA students then struggling to achieve

the level of English fluency required by the programs.

Conversely, some participants were concerned that

the program intake requirements demanded higher

levels of fluency in English than in ASL. As a result,

some CODA applicants had been excluded due to

their low English test scores, which was unfortunate

as they brought many skills to the job.

The attitude of CODA students was raised by

some of the participants as a concern. Two Deaf

instructors felt that CODA students ended up dis-

agreeing with them a lot and had gotten into argu-

ments over how to sign things. A hearing educator was

concerned that CODA students had unrealistic

expectations, as they did not understand that pro-

grams were challenging and required them to engage

academically. Some of these students enrolled because

they thought it would be a fast way to get some kind

of job but then later found the college experience

overwhelming.

The instructors were also uneasy with CODA stu-

dents interpreting while on placement when told not

to, especially in challenging situations such as medical

settings. This practice was not limited to the CODA

students, however, as some of the students with hear-

ing parents did the same thing. It was very frustrating

as the Deaf community had become upset with one

program over it, and in one institution, the students

had to sign ‘‘basically a contract,’’ saying that they

would not interpret.

The CODA students were also under additional or

different social pressures than their peers and had

their own issues as well. For example, the hearing

students expected the CODA students to know more

than they did, and because they signed better, they felt

that they should pass their classes without difficulty.

For CODA students, issues always came up, when

talking about culture, bias, schemas. Occasionally, for

example, instructors noticed that a CODA who was the

eldest sibling in a family had expectations around

‘‘looking after’’ or acting as a caretaker for deaf clients.

Some had never heard of the term CODA before, and

as a result, their first semester was described as a time

of ‘‘letting-out of their pain and hurt and embarrass-

ment. They finally [had] that Aha!’’ If they had ac-

cepted their CODA identity and had a healthy

relationship with Deaf culture, it was felt that they

would have more success in a program.

One faculty member recognized that it was hard

for this cohort, given some of the issues above. Two

others felt that the lack of language fluency or inap-

propriate expectations in CODA students could be

dealt with and were ‘‘easy’’ issues to resolve. A third

instructor recommended that research be done to ad-

dress these issues. To begin ameliorating some of those

challenges, it was suggested that CODA students meet

with 2nd- and 3rd-year CODA students in peer sup-

port groups.

Good Citizens

The comments of the participants suggested that

within the social construction of ASL-English inter-

preters, they recognized their duty to prepare future

citizens of the Deaf community, and it is to this aspect

of their social construction that the discussion now


Dow



ecember 2021

turns. It was hoped, for example, that the students

would become productive and contributing members

of society and upon graduation immediately do some

kind of useful work in the community. The character-

istics of a good citizen were grouped into the properties

of attitude and values, cultural sensitivity, community

involvement, ethical behavior, and their willingness to

pursue lifelong learning.

In terms of general characteristics, it was felt that

students needed a variety of interpersonal skills and

should be a good listener, friendly, and not angry.

These characteristics included having a good sense

of where they are and what they were trying to accom-

plish and an awareness of their ‘‘buttons’’ and situa-

tions they should stay away from.

Seven instructors stated that they hoped their stu-

dents would be motivated enough to independently

participate in class and program activities, which to

them demonstrated a commitment to the field. Moti-

vation further meant dedication to hard work and to

completing assignments on time. It also meant inde-

pendently getting the notes for missed lectures and

not expecting the instructor to go over a whole lecture

again. One participant thought that it was a good sign

that graduates were not ‘‘coming to my office a lot, or

calling a lot, or calling the Deaf faculty’’ looking for

support, perhaps a sign of independence.

Unfortunately, sometimes the faculty had to

‘‘pinch their [students’] butts to get them to practice,’’

and some of the students thought that because their

parents were paying, it was not their money, they did

not care and would not participate. Particularly in the

first year, the instructors admitted to being ‘‘softer’’ on

the students in the first semester, but by second se-

mester, they had to be working more independently

and demonstrating motivation.

Attitude and values. During their interviews, most of

the participants discussed the values and attitudes of

the students they taught. Many educators stated that

they hoped their graduates would know their own

values and beliefs, which should include personal

well-being, health, and career objectives. Several

instructors also stressed that students needed a good

or positive attitude to work in the community, espe-

cially to build trust, and described how their program

screenings had been designed to look at this charac-

teristic. For example, three instructors explained how

students were asked to participate in a dinner with

volunteers from the Deaf community, and they were

later assigned a group of hearing peers to work with on

a number of projects. Each applicant’s attitude was

then assessed based on their behaviors, such as their

continued use of ASL while in the presence of a deaf

individual, their ability to work respectfully and suc-

cessfully in their peer groups, and their sensitivity to

issues of power. One means of assessing their aware-

ness of power was by watching how students allowed

a Deaf volunteer to independently interact with hear-

ing restaurant staff or conversely took control of the

communicative event.

Several instructors also shared with students that

skills were not as important as attitude. Students were

sometimes ‘‘shocked’’ when told that the Deaf com-

munity would accept even dysfluent signers if they

had a good attitude. If, on the other hand, they signed

well but had a horrible attitude, deaf people would

‘‘avoid them.’’

The definition of a good attitude encompassed

a variety of characteristics and behaviors. For example,

five of the participants wanted students who were

mature, and one suggested that they needed life expe-

rience. Respect was frequently mentioned, for them-

selves and others, for diversity, and for the Deaf

community, and the hearing world. Respect entailed

not only viewing the community with pity or with an

attitude of ‘‘helping’’ but also meant not studying ASL

just because it was a beautiful language. Demonstrat-

ing respect also meant using the language and signs of

the local Deaf community and admitting and clarify-

ing mistakes while interpreting.

Six of the Deaf instructors listed a variety of char-

acteristics that were tied to values and attitude that

they did not want to see in their students. In terms

of values, one Deaf instructor noted that each year,

some incoming students acted as if only their values

were ‘‘correct.’’ Instead, it was suggested that they

examine how they were raised and think twice before

they ‘‘blamed’’ people from different cultures for act-

ing differently.

Five of the Deaf faculty in particular were con-

cerned that the students’ values conflicted with the


Dow



ecember 2021

values of the Deaf community, perhaps based on the

difference between individualistic and collectivist

views. But instructors were also advised to avoid crit-

icizing the students for their inappropriate behavior or

attitudes, as it was probably due to the values of

today’s society.

In a discussion of language fluency, the Deaf

instructors were concerned with the unwillingness of

some students to accept or incorporate feedback and

a tendency to become angry, emotional, or argumen-

tative with the instructors who were native signers or

interpreters about how to translate texts. It was chal-

lenging working with students who believed that they

were more fluent in ASL than they really were or who

had a superior attitude about their skills. One of the

hearing instructors made a similar comment and

hoped that students realized that feedback from

instructors was meant to improve their interpretation,

‘‘it’s not [about] them.’’

Nine of the educators did not like to work with

students who had a lack of maturity and who were

arrogant, opinionated, or judgmental. These charac-

teristics were considered traits that a good interpreter

would not exhibit.

Six of the Deaf staff found it difficult working with

passive students, as instructors felt like they were con-

stantly trying to pull information out of them and

were not sure if the information was new for them.

To deal with this, one Deaf instructor always asked

students to repeat back the lesson and would not let

them just sit in class and nod their head yes when they

did not understand things. Another Deaf instructor

suggested mixing active and passive students in

groups.

Instructors disliked it when students repeatedly

discussed their grades or were prone to complaining

about assignments or workload. They felt that it was

the responsibility of students to keep track of those on

their own.

Participants did not like working with students

who were just interested in a salary or a job, or indi-

viduals who believed that it was easy to find work as an

interpreter. It was also difficult to work with students

who did not seemed to be interested in language. As

a hearing participant stated, students needed a procliv-

ity for language and a fascination with how people

communicated. On the other hand, some students

came to the program with ‘‘some romantic notion of

something, about how cool ASL was, or how wonder-

ful they were because other people say that, you know,

they were working with Deaf individuals,’’ which was

an attitude instructors hoped students would avoid.

Professional boundaries were another concern, as

some students refused to accept responsibility for

their education or for their work. While on placement,

some students did not have successful interpersonal

skills and could not manage stress. They demonstrated

behaviors and attitudes that were disrespectful or

‘‘blind’’ to some of the interactions happening.

A deaf educator believed that although the pro-

grams did not ask the students to give up their values,

they were expected to ‘‘learn a new attitude,’’ which in

turn helped them became a better person. Another

Deaf teacher did not want to work with students

who were not going to grow or change. As the first

Deaf instructor put it, if a student refused to change

by maintaining the same attitude, they eventually left,

as their program was ‘‘not a good fit for them.’’ A third

Deaf instructor suggested that programs offer a spe-

cific course about attitude for interpreters who

planned to work with the Deaf community.

Competitive nature. Observations by four of the

instructors (three deaf and one hearing) pointed to

a competitive nature among the students. They found,

for example, that the students compared themselves to

each other and were worried about who signed better.

CODA students, as mentioned earlier, were often tar-

geted by the other students for comparison. Students

who did not graduate from a DSP compared them-

selves to DSP graduates and confided in the staff that

they felt less qualified and fluent than their peers. This

lack of language fluency could have been tied to the

quality of education in the part-time ASL classes,

which was described as ‘‘very low.’’

In some programs, students had formed two cli-

ques: DSP graduates in one group and everyone else

in the rest. Or sometimes there were three groups: the

DSP graduates, students who had left the program for

a year or more and then returned, and the regular co-

hort. These cliques made it very difficult to get the

students to work together, especially in a large group.


Dow



ecember 2021

Cultural sensitivity. The next characteristic of a good

citizen of the Deaf community mentioned by the par-

ticipants was that of cultural sensitivity. It was sug-

gested that students should have sensitivity, in a broad

sense, for example, to gay or lesbian issues, Black

issues, issues of race, and different people. Sensitivity

included an interest in learning about other cultures,

being open-minded, and being willing to accept peo-

ple’s differences. Six of the staff (three deaf and three

hearing) stressed the need to recognize the uniqueness

of Deaf culture and the need for students to be

bicultural. Typically, however, students began their

studies thinking Deaf and hearing cultures to be

similar.

Younger students in particular, took for granted

their cultural identity, lacked any self-awareness

around who they were and just dismissed issues of

culture and power. Some demonstrated a lack of sen-

sitivity to the linguistic needs of their Deaf instructors

and talked in class without signing, though one par-

ticipant noted how ‘‘after a few weeks they started to

realize that there really was a difference between Deaf

culture and that they were part of hearing culture.’’

Community involvement. As part of the social con-

struction of sign language interpreters, each program

tried to instill the value of community involvement in

their students and expected them to participate in the

Deaf community and in a placement with a profes-

sional interpreter. Placement sites included a deaf

upgrading program, a deaf summer camp, or a student

run volunteer interpreter referral service. In some

cases, students were also placed with a deaf profes-

sional in a local social service agency.

Comments from the participants indicated that they

believed that students needed a good understanding of

what community was and what community meant, both

the Deaf community and of their own community too

before they could even hope to feel comfortable going

into the Deaf community. Students should want to

contribute to the community and should develop a sin-

cere belief and interest in the community.

Educators preferred students who had prior expe-

rience in the Deaf community, not just ‘‘someone

who’s just graduated from a sign language program.’’

It was hoped that the students would be comfortable

interacting with deaf individuals and would continue

or increase their participation in the Deaf community

as a lack of involvement limited their fluency in ASL.

It was important for the students to recognize that

the Deaf community expected their involvement. If

they were approached by a deaf person, they should

be kind hearted enough to chat with them or be will-

ing to provide interpreting services 24 hr a day, any-

time, especially for emergencies, but a Deaf instructor

felt that it was doubtful graduates would do this based

on some student’s unwillingness to participate in Deaf

community events.

Some students, however, were too busy working at

part-time jobs or too shy or frightened to get involved

in the Deaf community. They also felt that it was not

professional to participate in social events, which led

to one instructor wondering if there were conflicting

views in the hearing and Deaf community about what

professional meant. Another mused, ‘‘Why do they

want to become an interpreter? Especially if they’re

too busy to attend community events.’’ But one edu-

cator recognized that it was overwhelming for them to

go into a new culture where they worried about be-

having appropriately.

Ethical behavior. Eight of the staff (six hearing and

two deaf) also wanted to graduate students who be-

haved ethically, and three hearing instructors men-

tioned teaching courses on ethics. Central to ethical

behavior was the ability of community members to

trust the students, something even more important

than language fluency or the ability to interpret. Edu-

cators hoped that the students would realize that they

were not going to be able to fool deaf people and that it

was important to instead be honest with community

members and accept only the assignments they were

qualified to handle. It was crucial that the Deaf com-

munity felt satisfied with their service and that as

interpreters, they never took advantage of a deaf per-

son. Ethical behavior also meant not being afraid to

make mistakes, accepting responsibility for them, and

learning how to deal with ‘‘sticky’’ situations. As one

educator described it, ‘‘It’s important to work with

each other.’’

Confidentiality and neutrality were discussed by

the participants briefly, as well as professional


Dow



ecember 2021

distance, the need to be conscientious, and a good

team player. Neutrality was something students also

struggled with. Some instructors reported that some-

times their students could not see how their behavior

or the behavior of others might be viewed as oppres-

sive or unprofessional and did not have the ability to

identify when it was not about them.

For the instructors, it was also sometimes hard to

let go of the fact that they were not responsible for

students’ ethical behavior after they graduated from

a program. The staff could only give them the tools

they needed and assess their abilities and behaviors

while they were students.

Lifelong learner. Perhaps as a response to their con-

cerns about ethics and language fluency, participants

discussed the need for graduates to continue their pro-

fessional growth and development and to leave the

programs with the value of self-directed professional

development and lifelong learning. This commitment

to ongoing learning also meant furthering their world

knowledge. As one instructor shared:

Hopefully they will realize that their work is not

done after they graduate and they really need to be

involved and still care about their work. They need

to show a commitment to doing what it takes to be

able to do a good job as an interpreter. (HP5)

The educators believed that Deaf community

members expected students to be knowledgeable of

current events and to share that information with deaf

people, and so it was important for the graduates to be

ready to talk about such things and to incorporate that

information into their work.

Some graduates had embraced this philosophy and

formed study groups and were using those for support

and debriefing and to work on certification and pro-

fessional development. Others had gotten involved in

local interpreting organizations, and in one area, more

than 75% of the graduates were members of their local

chapter.

Discussion

As can be seen from the categories identified in the

participant interviews, program staff held specific

beliefs about the social construction of their students,

future ASL-English interpreters, some of which were

also found in the literature. Discussion now turns to

some of the implications of their beliefs and their

axiology, in relation to the literature review and their

epistemological practices.

Age

The participants in this study talked about working

with students who varied in age, from the very young

to those in midlife and beyond. Their comments in-

dicated that they understood that students could be-

come successful interpreters regardless of age due to

different skill sets and that programs benefited from

age diversity. Older students, for example, functioned

as tutors for younger students. They were able to keep

the other students on track in terms of what was rel-

evant and brought more life experience and a better

developed sense of their praxis and power. These

observations were echoed by Livingstone (2000),

who noted that mature workers were often a source

of support and informal learning for younger, newer

employees. Older learners also had the ability to un-

derstand the purpose of the lessons and how to apply

their learning to a broader context, a necessary ingre-

dient in education as espoused by Dewey (1990).

At the level of axiology, it was clear from the

instructors’ comments that they valued older students,

but some of their epistemological practices could be

perceived as barriers to this cohort’s success. For ex-

ample, information taken from a review of the pro-

gram intake procedures suggested a trend to younger

students, which was supported by the observations of

many participants. This increase in younger applicants

might in turn lead to an increase in more schooled and

fewer evolved interpreters.

When accepting mature students, educators

should be aware that older students might have a dif-

ferent sense of time and additional commitments out-

side the program, as noted by the participants and in

the literature on adult education (MacKeracher, 2004).

These additional commitments might mean reconsi-

dering some assignments, especially with short turn-

around times, and establishing flexible due dates.

In terms of epistemological practices, programs

would be advised to ensure that ASL tutoring services


Dow



ecember 2021

and other supports were available for older students

immediately upon acceptance. The creation of peer

study groups or contact with program graduates

would also benefit this cohort.

Younger students, on the other hand, might need

support in different ways. As Dewey (1990) has sug-

gested and participants in this study agree, younger

students in particular might not be able to understand

the purpose of their lessons and are at risk for becom-

ing competitive with each other. Instructors should

consider activities that clearly relate the classroom ac-

tivities to the interpreting profession, redirecting com-

petitive behaviors toward cooperation and exploring

issues of reciprocity, sharing, and teamwork. Oppor-

tunities to practice interpreting in authentic situations,

field trips, and contact with working interpreters

might help younger students in this endeavor as well.

As described by the participants, younger students

did not seem to understand their praxis, power, and

privilege, something that Freire (1970) described as

necessary in the process of authentic education. Pro-

grams might wish to address these issues more overtly

by including additional coursework, field trips, or

guest speakers, which provide opportunities to explore

cross-cultural issues. From an epistemological per-

spective, younger learners might need initial exposure

to concrete, experientially based examples, in lieu of

more abstract theoretical approaches such as course

readings and class discussions.

As suggested by the research (Livingstone, 2000;

MacKeracher, 2004), educators should recognize that

younger students might not be independent learners

and instead prefer more teacher-directed classes and

activities, at least in the initial stages. This lack of

independence seems to conflict with the values or atti-

tudes that educators prefer. Perhaps, programs need to

consider pedagogical practices in initial coursework

that scaffold skill sets and attitudes needed for inde-

pendent learning in later years of study. This scaffold-

ing would allow instructors to maintain independence

as an outcome but recognize the experience and pref-

erence of younger students.

Younger students, especially those coming directly

from high school, might need additional support in

their transition to postsecondary studies. Two areas

that should be addressed are their English language

fluency and their experiential base. Support could be

given to the students through formal means such as

preparatory coursework or additional classes and

through informal processes such as tutoring, self-

study, field trips, presentations on current events, or

a peer support system with older students or program

graduates. It should be noted that one program has

already established a mentoring program with working

interpreters and the students have been grouped into

family units with a faculty advisor.


There was some evidence that the instructors would

like to advance the level of education of ASL-English

interpreters from a college diploma to a university

baccalaureate, as suggested by the literature review

(Madore, 2000). To achieve this aim, two programs

have established articulation agreements with degree

granting institutions. Perhaps, each college program,

or a designated body representing all the programs,

should be encouraged to explore this option and make

this type of arrangement a national standard.

During the application process, it was not clear if

students with a degree were privileged over other

applicants, but this might be a requirement programs

wish to discuss. Another strategy might be targeted

recruitment of university graduates, especially from

institutions that offer ASL classes or deaf education

programs.

Gender

Most of the participants reported a high percentage of

female students, similar to the findings in the litera-

ture review (Burch, 1997; Jones, 1995). Although

there was discussion of an adult-based pedagogy, there

was little recognition of the impact of gender on

teaching practices, perhaps signaling a disconnection

between program axiology or beliefs and epistemolog-

ical practices. Perhaps, it is time to examine the litera-

ture on feminist pedagogical practices where educators

have not done so.

At the same time, instructors might also consider

how to attract and retain more male students. At the

level of pedagogy, educators might explore how to in-

corporate the experiences of male students into the


Dow



ecember 2021

curriculum and consider the impact of assignments

that identify male students as members of an oppres-

sor group. Perhaps, the colleges should also consider

targeted marketing of male students, by reaching out

to ASL classes, deaf parents of hearing children, and

by soliciting support from Deaf and interpreting

organizations.


In terms of promoting a multicultural program,

instructors should recognize that CODA and students

from multicultural backgrounds play a significant role

in the cultural sensitivity of their White hearing peers.

Although most participants would like to see both

cohorts involved in interpreter education, as evi-

denced by the number of recommendations and

insights shared, there is again a disparity between

the participants’ values, their axiology, and their epis-

temological and ontological beliefs.

At the level of epistemology and ontology, for

example, programs would do well to examine their

recruitment mechanisms, screening protocols, peda-

gogical practices, and curriculum for a White hearing

bias. In terms of pedagogical practices in particular,

they might want to reflect on how issues of culture and

oppression can be woven into entire programs instead

of individual courses. Teachers should consider, for

example, how their programs encourage introspection

and identify how they can give voice to the differing

cultural experiences held by their learners and the

communities they serve. Perhaps, by allowing students

from minority cultures to select assignments and

materials that fit their experiences, they will feel

empowered and will be able to share their culture with

their peers. Recognizing that younger students might

not see the applicability of lessons, these students

especially might need opportunities to interact with

individuals from different cultures through field trips

and guest speakers. An examination of the National

Multicultural Interpreter Project would be helpful in this

regard, to see how a curriculum could incorporate a mul-

ticultural perspective from a ‘‘Transformative’’ or

‘‘Action’’ approach (Mooney & Lawrence, 2000, pp. 5–6).

In terms of supporting students from minority

status backgrounds, educators should consider how

difficult it might be for First Nations students and

students who are CODA to make the transition to

postsecondary studies. Where possible, programs

should try to accept groups of students from similar

backgrounds. These cohorts should be encouraged to

establish support groups with peers and graduates of

the program who share their experiences. Preparatory

or additional coursework and tutoring to address areas

such as language fluency should be immediately con-

sidered to support them in their transition to a pre-

dominately White, hearing, middle-class academic

setting.

To better understand multiculturalism, interpreter

educators might want to work with their local Deaf

associations to understand their views on cultural di-

versity. Perhaps, individuals from different groups

could be brought in to share their experiences in class

and to examine the curriculum and teaching resources.

It should be noted that this is happening in some of

the programs already, where deaf individuals from dif-

ferent ethnicities have been invited to participate as

interviewers in the program screening processes, guest

speakers, student supervisors on placement, and

examiners for portfolio assessments. In addition, grad-

uates who identify with a minority culture could also

be invited back to the programs to share their experi-

ences, to examine pedagogical practices and expect-

ations, and to act as a mentor to students currently

enrolled.

Good Citizens

The instructors within AEIP certainly approached

their work from a sociocultural perspective and were

undoubtedly aware of their responsibility to shape the

next generation of interpreters, future citizens of the

Deaf community. The entrance screening protocols

typically examined each applicant’s cultural awareness

and ability to work with others. Coursework covered

Deaf culture, ethics, and professionalism, and intro-

duced historical figures and events in the Deaf com-

munity and appropriate behaviors as recommended by

the literature review (Humphrey & Alcorn, 2001;

Witter-Merithew et al., 2004). Comments from the

participants indicated that community members had

been invited to partake in the programs during student


Dow



ecember 2021

screenings and as guest lecturers. These practices were

designed to foster a social identity for the students as

members of the Deaf community and allowed them to

explore their own beliefs, as well as issues of oppres-

sion and power.

In terms of being a good citizen within the Deaf

community, it would appear that the beliefs of the

educators reflected much of the information found

in the literature review. Students were expected to

demonstrate a positive attitude that incorporated re-

spect and reciprocity but not a competitive nature.

The instructors clearly preferred students who worked

independently and trusted that they would continue

their studies throughout their career.

As was noted in the research in a discussion of ASL

students and community involvement (McKee &

McKee, 1992), the instructors also advocated for

ongoing community participation but found varying

degrees of anxiety in their students when they were

asked to participate in Deaf community events. As the

students were negotiating multiple identities as hear-

ing individuals, interpreters, and good citizens in an

unfamiliar culture, some level of anxiety should have

been expected. To address students’ fears or to avoid

potentially impolite behaviors, a Deaf instructor in one

program recommended that at least one Deaf faculty

member accompany the students on their initial forays

into the community, to make introductions and to act

as a cultural guide and language interpreter.

In terms of ethics, again the comments of the par-

ticipants echoed much of the literature on interpret-

ing, as students were expected to balance community

involvement with professional distance. It was also

believed that they should be able to assess their ability

to interpret, accept assignments that were within their

limitations, and represent their fluency and interpret-

ing skills honestly to employers and deaf clients.

From a sociological or anthropological perspective,

it should be recognized that some students begin their

programs with an individualistic, pathological view of

the Deaf community as suggested by the research

(Humphrey & Alcorn, 2001; Mindess, 1996; Page,

1993). These learners believe that there is no difference

between hearing and Deaf cultures (Peterson, 1999).

At the same time, it should be kept in mind that as

an oppressed minority group, perhaps the Deaf staff

do not feel empowered to challenge those beliefs. Col-

leges also typically mandate empirical standards of

measurement, a paradigm that might be suitable for

assessing overt behaviors but one that does not capture

interpersonal skills easily. Thus, instructors might feel

reticent to teach or evaluate something that they can-

not quantify accurately. These beliefs and attitudes

must be addressed, however, if the students are to

understand how issues of power and oppression im-

pact their role and to avoid adopting a paternalistic or

pejorative view of the Deaf community, as some inter-

preters do (Baker-Shenk, 1986).

To further facilitate the social construction of the

students, and at the level of epistemology, it is recom-

mended that programs continue to discuss the defini-

tion of a good citizen and include the Deaf community

and students in those deliberations. Coursework on in-

terpersonal skills and emotional well-being should be

made available if they are not already established, and

programs should consider how issues identified by the

participants of this study as ‘‘attitude’’ can be addressed

within those classes. Instructors might consider using

research on the drama triangle (Smith & Savidge, 2002)

and the work of Baker-Shenk (1986) on oppression to

enable them to model culturally appropriate behaviors

and to feel empowered to confront inappropriate or

oppressive attitudes in their students. At the same time,

they must remain aware and accept that the students

are there to learn and will commit cultural faux pas in

their attempt to master the language and culture.

Further research is needed into a number of areas,

in particular the experiences of recent graduates and

their role as hearing citizens in a Deaf community.

There is little research on their ethical or unethical

behaviors, their level of community involvement, their

fluency in ASL or English, or on their commitment to

ongoing education and learning. Investigations into

these areas would help programs determine the effi-

cacy of their current pedagogical models and could be

used as a basis of change if needed.

Educators would also do well to identify their own

values and expectations of the students, their axiology,

and consider where these conflict with their teaching

and learning practices, their epistemology. Perhaps,

this article will serve as a basis for those discussions

and research.


Dow



ecember 2021

Study Limitations

In conclusion, as the nature of this investigation was

qualitative, it represents the principal researcher’s at-

tempt to capture the emerging themes from the com-

ments of the faculty members who participated in this

study in the context of the existing literature on visual

language interpreter education. It is also important to

recognize that as a hearing individual and a colleague,

the experiences of the principal researcher had to be

identified in order to avoid privileging them over the

actual reported experiences of the participants. Deci-

sions had to be made around grouping comments into

categories such as age and good citizens and balancing

the literature review findings with the participants’

comments.

Therefore, the applicability and the validity of

this study, the centrality of meaning, are based

upon the reader’s teaching practices and experien-

ces. Some readers will have similar experiences

as those described above and will perhaps empa-

thize with the participants of this study, whereas

others might have disparate student cohorts and

expectations.

This study did not capture the perspectives of

groups such as the Deaf community, employers, or

the students themselves. It also does not attempt to

describe the ideal student as educators and commu-

nities have different standards. Hopefully, it will

act as a starting point from which to have those

discussions.

Appendix: AEIP questionnaire

Demographic questionsGender?Education and field of study?Certification(s)?Membership(s)?Courses taught?Part-time or full-time?Years of experience teaching interpretation?Years of interpreting experience?Languages you sign, speak, read, write?What led you into teaching sign language interpreting?

Program questionsWhat is the organizational model for the staff/faculty?Can you describe the philosophy and mission statement of your program?Can you describe the outcomes of your program?What does your program evaluation entail?Can you discuss the student/staff ratio and how it impacts your work?Can you talk about the clerical or support your program offers you?What support is available to you as a faculty member?What are your duties as a faculty member?What courses do you teach and can you describe their content?Can you discuss curriculum design and decisions for your classes and program?Can you describe what a typical class would look like?What teaching methodologies do you employ?Can you talk about how you evaluate the students you teach?Can you describe the qualifications and/or competencies of the faculty in your program?What readings or coursework have informed your practices?Can you discuss the model or models of interpretation you follow in your program?Can you describe the financial, physical, and learning resources of your program?What, in your opinion, are the expectations of the interpreting community concerning your graduates?What, in your opinion, are the expectations of the Deaf community concerning your graduates?What are some of the internal or external challenges that you’ve faced individually or as a program?


Dow



ecember 2021

References

Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada (1988).

Deaf consumers: Their opinions and concerns. AVLIC

News, 6(1), 15–19.

Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada. (2003).

AVLIC frequently asked questions. Retrieved October 17,

2003, from http://www.avlic.ca/faq%20s.htm.

Baker-Shenk, C. (1986). Characteristics of oppressed and op-

pressor peoples: Their effect on the interpreting context. In

M. McIntire (Ed.), Interpreting: The art of cross cultural

mediation. Proceedings of the Ninth National Convention

of the Register of Interpreters for the Deaf (pp. 43–53).

Silver Spring, MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf

Publications.

Barker, B. (2002). What about language acquisition? AVLIC

News, 18(1), 4.

Bennett, J. (1996). A student’s perspective. AVLIC News, 12(2), 6.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for

education: an introduction to theory and methods. Toronto,

ON, Canada: Allyn and Bacon.

Boldrini, G., & McDermid, C. (2000). College or university:

Where do we belong? In D. -C. Belanger, N. Smith, & M.

West (Eds.), AVLIC ‘98 at the turn of the century: Research

and practices in interpretation (pp. 17–22). Edmonton, AB,

Canada: Association of Visual Language Interpreters of

Canada.

Burch, D. D. (1997). Relationship of the Sign Language Pro-

ficiency Interview and the National Association of the Deaf

Interpreter Assessment Program in the Louisiana State Cer-

tification of sign language interpreters. In M. L. McIntire &

S. Wilcox (Eds.), Journal of Interpretation (pp. 39–48).


Publications.

Carbin, C. (1996). Deaf heritage in Canada. Toronto, ON, Can-

ada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Cogen, C. (1995). Castles in the air. In E. A. Winston (Ed.),

1994 CIT Conference Proceedings. Mapping our course: A

collaborative venture (pp. 1–4). Monmouth, OR: Conference

of Interpreter Trainers.

Cokely, D. (1984). Demographic characteristics of interpreters.

Reflector, 1(81), 21–28.

Cokely, D. (2003). Curriculum revision in the twenty first century:

Northeastern’s experience. Project TIEM online: Teaching

interpreting educators and mentors. Retrieved October 17, 2003,

from http://208.185.149.218/[email protected].

[email protected].

Cooper, A., Rose, J., & Mason, O. (2004). Measuring the atti-

tudes of human service professionals toward deafness.

American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 385–389.

Cripps, J. (1994). An open letter to the Deaf community and

concerned interpreters. AVLIC News, 10(2), 12–13.

Cundy, L. (1989). How well are we represented by message relay

operators or by interpreters for that matter? AVLIC News,

7(2), 6.

Decator, S. W. (1998). St. Claire College of Applied Arts and

Technology: New American Sign Language—English In-

terpreter Program. AVLIC News, 9(1), 9.

Deninger, C. (1987). Issues in interpreter education. In K.

Kummer (Ed.), Across the language gap: Proceedings of the

28th Annual Conference of the American Translators Associa-

tion (pp. 307–314). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.

Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society. The child and the cur-

riculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Evans, G., & Bomak, R. (1996). Where’s the me in we? In T.

Janzen & H. Demers (Eds.), Celebrating Our Roots: Papers

from the 1994 AVLIC Conference. Edmonton, AB, Canada:

Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada.

Fenton, S. (1993). Interpreting in New Zealand: An emerging

profession. Journal of Interpretation, 6(1), 155–165.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The

Continuum International Publish Group.

Frishberg, N. (1986). Interpreting: An introduction. Silver

Spring, MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf

Publications.

Harrigan, A. K. (1997). Interpreters and the diverse Deaf com-

munity: An anti-racist response. In M. L. McIntire & S.

Wilcox (Eds.), Journal of Interpretation (pp. 101–114).


Publications.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education set-

tings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hoza, J. (1999). Saving face: The interpreter and politeness. In

D. Watson (Ed.), Journal of Interpretation (pp. 39–68).

Appendix: Continued

Student demographicsCan you discuss the following areas concerning the demographics and background of your students?Age?Ethnicity?Selection procedure and prerequisites?Guidance?Competencies?Retention/attrition?Graduation?Employment?

Note. AEIP 5 American Sign Language—English Interpreter Programs.


Dow



ecember 2021

http://www.avlic.ca/faq%20s.htm

http://208.185.149.218/[email protected]@.ee971e9

http://208.185.149.218/[email protected]@.ee971e9


Publications.

Humphrey, J. (1996). The role and responsibility of programs

teaching sign language interpretation. AVLIC News, 12(2),

6–7.

Humphrey, J. H., & Alcorn, B. J. (2001). So you want to be an

interpreter? An introduction to sign language interpreting (3rd

ed.). Amarillo, TX: H& H Publishing Company.

Janzen, T. (1992). The new ethics. In interpreters—Bridging the

gap. Conference papers of the Association of Visual

Language Interpreters of Canada. Edmonton, AB,


Canada.

Janzen, T. (1994). Red River Community College ITP. AVLIC

News, 10(4), 13.

Jones, B. E. (1995). Responsibilities of educational sign language

interpreters in K-12 public schools in Kansas, Missouri and

Nebraska. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Mapping our course: A

collaborative venture, Proceedings of the Tenth National Con-

ference of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 291–312).

Monmouth, OR: Conference of Interpreter Trainers.

Kaye, K. (1988). Grant MacEwan class of ‘87 graduates. AVLIC

News, 6(1), 11.

Lawley, A. (2000). Reflections on George Brown College.

AVLIC News, 16(2), 7.

Livingstone, D. W. (2000). Exploring the icebergs of adult learn-

ing: Findings of the first Canadian survey of informal learning

practices. Toronto, ON, Canada: Ontario Institute for Stud-

ies in Education. NALL Working Paper #10. Retrieved July

10, 2004, from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/

csew/nall/res/10exploring.htm.

MacFarlane, D. (1990). Needed visual language interpreters in

Canada. AVLIC News, 8(3), 7–8.

MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learning. (2nd ed.,

pp. 23–52). Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto

Press.

Madore, N. (2000). Training sign language interpreters in

Canada: The needs of the interpreters vs training pro-

grams. In D. -C. Belanger, N. Smith, & M. West (Eds.),

AVLIC ‘98 at the turn of the century: Research and

practices in interpretation (pp. 23–26). Edmonton, AB,


Canada.

Malcolm, K. (1994). Douglass College program of sign language

interpretation. AVLIC News, 10(4), 8–9.

Malcolm, K. (2003). Specific needs of teachers and presenters. Pro-

ject TIEM online: Teaching interpreting educators and mentors.

Retrieved October 2003, from http://208.185.149.218/

[email protected]@.ee971ee.

Mallory, B. L., Schein, J. D., & Zingle, H. W. (1992). Hearing

offspring as visual language mediators in Deaf-parented

families. Sign Language Studies, 76, 193–213.

McIntosh, P. (2007). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible

backpack. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.

uakron.edu/centers/conflict/docs/whitepriv.pdf.

McKee, R. L., & McKee, D. (1992). What’s so hard about

learning ASL?: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. Sign

Language Studies, 75, 129–158.

Mindess, A. (1996). Intercultural communication for sign lan-

guage interpreters. In D. B. Swartz (Ed.), A celebration of

the profession: Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conven-

tion of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (pp. 69–83).


Publications.

Mooney, M. L., & Lawrence, A. (2000). National Multicultural

Interpreter Project. Multicultural curriculum overview for

instructors. El Paso, TX. El Paso Community College. Re-

trieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.epcc.edu/Portals/

126/curriculum/pdf/1A.pdf.

Napier, J. (2006). Educating signed language interpreters in

Australia: A blended approach. In C. B. Roy (Ed.), New

approaches to interpreter education (pp. 67–103). Washington,

DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1998a). American

Sign Language—English Interpreter Program Standard: Gen-

eral Education Standard—Goals and broad objectives. ON,

Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved October

18, 2003, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/

college/progstan/humserv/easleint.html#goals.

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1998b). American

Sign Language—English Interpreter Program Standard:

Synopsis of the Generic Skills Learning Outcomes. ON, Can-

ada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved October 18,

2003, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/college/

progstan/humserv/easleint.html#synopsis1.

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1998c). American

Sign Language—English Interpreter Program Standard: Syn-

opsis of the Vocational Learning Outcomes. ON, Canada:

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved October 18, 2003,

from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/college/progstan/

humserv/easleint.html#synopsis.

Page, J. (1993). In the sandwich or on the side? Cultural vari-

ability and the interpreter’s role. Journal of Interpretation,

6(1), 107–126.

Palusci, S. (2003). Interpreters in the educational setting.

AVLIC News, 19(2), 4–6.

Peterson, R. (1999). The perceptions of deafness and language

learning of incoming ASL students. In C. Nettles (Ed.),

Honoring our past, creating our future together. Proceedings

of the 16th National Convention of the Registry of Interpreters

for the Deaf (pp. 185–240). Silver Spring, MD: Registry of

Interpreters for the Deaf Publications.

Pfeiffer, D. A. (2004). Implementation and administration of

American Sign Language programs for foreign language

credit in public secondary schools. In E. M. Maroney

(Ed.), CIT: Still shining after 25 years. Proceedings of

the 15th National Convention of the Conference of Inter-

preter Trainers (pp. 3–22). Conference of Interpreter

Trainers.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (2003). Professional

sign language interpreting—Standard practice paper. Re-

trieved October 17, 2003, from http://www.rid.org/spp.

html.

Resnick, S., & Hoza, J. (1990). Northeastern University American

Sign Language—English Interpreting Certificate Program

Curriculum. Boston: Northeastern University.


Dow



ecember 2021

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/10exploring.htm

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/10exploring.htm

http://208.185.149.218/[email protected]@.ee971ee

http://208.185.149.218/[email protected]@.ee971ee

http://www.uakron.edu/centers/conflict/docs/whitepriv.pdf

http://www.uakron.edu/centers/conflict/docs/whitepriv.pdf

http://www.epcc.edu/Portals/126/curriculum/pdf/1A.pdf

http://www.epcc.edu/Portals/126/curriculum/pdf/1A.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/college/progstan/humserv/easleint.html&num;synopsis






http://www.rid.org/spp.html

http://www.rid.org/spp.html

Roy, C. B. (1993). The problem with definitions, descriptions,

and the role metaphors of interpreters. Journal of Interpre-

tation, 6(1), 127–154.

Rudser, F. R., & Strong, M. (1992). An examination of some

personal characteristics & abilities of sign language inter-

preters. In D. Cokely (Ed.), Sign language interpreters and

interpreting (pp. 15–28). Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.

Schein, J. (1974). Personality characteristics associated with in-

terpreter proficiency. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 7,

33–43.

Scully, L. (2000). Toxic shock or culture shock? AVLIC News,

16(2), 5–6.

Shaw, R. (1997). Many stones to form an arch: Cooperation and

consideration as the cornerstones of successful interpreta-

tion. In M. L. McIntyre & S. Wilcox (Eds.), Journal of

Interpretation (pp. 23–38). Silver Spring, MD: Registry of

Interpreters for the Deaf Publications.

Slatyer, H. (2006). Researching curriculum innovation in inter-

preter education: The case of initial training for novice

interpreters in languages of limited diffusion. In C. B.

Roy (Ed.), New approaches to interpreter education (pp.

47–65). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Smith, T. B. (1983). What goes around, comes around: Reci-

procity and interpreters. Reflector, 5, 5–6.

Smith, T. B., & Savidge, E. (2002). Beyond knowledge and

skills: Teaching attitude. In L. Swabey (Ed.), New designs

in interpreter education: Proceedings of the 14th National Con-

vention Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 17–31).


Stauffer, L. K., Burch, D. D., & Boone, S. E. (1999). A study of

the demographics of attendees at the 1997 biennial conven-

tion of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. In D.

Watson (Ed.), Journal of Interpretation (pp. 105–118).


Publications.

Stauffer, L. K., & Shaw, S. (2006). Personality characteristics

for success in interpreting courses: Perceptions of spoken

and sign language interpretation students. In D. Watson

(Ed.), Journal of Interpretation (pp. 11–25). Alexandria,

VA: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.

Stawasz, P. (1995). Issue paper: Diversity in interpreter educa-

tion. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Mapping our course: A collab-

orative venture, Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference

of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 27–28).


Still, D. (1990). Interpreting: A bilingual/bicultural approach.

In S. MacFayden (Ed.), AVLIC ‘90 Gateway to the Future:

Papers from the 1990 AVLIC Conference (pp. 23–35).

Edmonton, AB, Canada: Association of Visual Language

Interpreters of Canada.

Stratiy, A. (1995). Are you satisfied with interpreters? Deaf

Canada, 2(3), 2–3.

Stratiy, A. (2002). Angela Stratiy writes . AVLIC News, 18(1),

7. [Letter to the Editor].

Taylor, M. (1988). Sign language interpreter education in

Canada. In D.-F. Dinning (Ed.), Papers from the 1988 Con-

ference of the Association of Visual Language Interpreters of

Canada (pp. 38–40). Edmonton, AB, Canada: Association

of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada.

Taylor, M. (1990). The novice, competent or expert interpreter:

What are you? In S. MacFayden (Ed.), Gateway to the fu-

ture: Papers from the 1990 AVLIC Conference (pp. 37–46).

Edmonton, AB, Canada: Association of Visual Language

Interpreters of Canada.

Taylor, M., & Stratiy, A. (1992). Points to ponder: Culturally

appropriate interpreting behaviours. Interpreters—Bridging

the gap. Conference papers of the Association of

Visual Language Interpreters of Canada. Edmonton, AB,


Canada.

Taylor, P., & Mann-Dale, L. (1996). Do second language acqui-

sition theories predict who will become successful inter-

preters? In D. B. Swartz (Ed.), A celebration of the

profession. Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conven-

tion of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (pp.

105–110). Silver Spring, MD: Registry of Interpreters for

the Deaf Publications.

Van Herreweghe, M., & Van Nuffel, M. (2000). Sign (language)

interpreting in Flanders, Belgium. In D. Watson (Ed.),

Journal of Interpretation (pp. 101–127). Silver Spring,

MD: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf Publications.

Witter-Merithew, A. (1995). Response parser: Diversity in the

curriculum. In E. A. Winston (Ed.), Mapping our course: A

collaborative venture (pp. 29–30). Monmouth, OR: Confer-

ence of Interpreter Trainers.

Witter-Merithew, A., Johnson, L., & Taylor, M. M. (2004). A

national perspective on entry-to-practice competencies for

ASL-English interpreters. In E. M. Maroney (Ed.), Pro-

ceedings of the 15th National Convention of the Conference of

Interpreter Trainers (pp. 23–42). Monmouth, OR: Confer-

ence of Interpreter Trainers.

Received September 15, 2007; revisions received March 12,

2008; accepted March 14, 2008.


Dow



ecember 2021

social construction of american sign languageâ€”english interpreters

Documents