Melanie Metzger, Keith M. Cagle, and Danielle I.J. Hunt
The role of language learning in interpreter education is not unique to the education of signed language interpreters. This issue has been at the forefront of questions about spoken language interpreter education since before signed language interpreting education programs were formally established. As early as 1959, and in many works since, the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) has held an underlying presumption that the prerequisite for spoken language interpreters to be properly educated in the work of interpreting (including translation, consecutive, and simultaneous interpreting work) is for a learner to first be linguistically (and culturally) fluent within the languages of the communities in which they will work1 (Mackintosh, 1999).
This notion holds true for the education of signed language interpreters as well (Carter, 2015; Monikowski & Winston, 2011). Signed language interpreter education in the US, for instance, has become academic. Concerns are raised about the interpreters who are not native signed language users and do not become bilinguals or multilinguals, and worse, the lack of a clear path to language fluency before they take interpreting courses and are able to focus on the development of the cognitive and professional skills needed to become effective interpreters (Aborn, 2010; Metzger, Cagle, & Hunt, 2019; Winston & Monikowski, 2011).
Understanding the evolution of signed language interpreter education provides the context for considering current practices and future trends. Heretoforth in this chapter, examples from the US are used to illustrate the history and trends in interpreter education worldwide. Historically, interpreter education in the US originated with roots in the civil rights movements of the 1960s, and as such, an immediate need for interpreters led to the proliferation of interpreter education programs (Ball, 2013) without ample time to consider questions of the timing or methodology of language instruction, or even of the education or qualifications of language teachers or interpreter educators.
In recent decades, American educators of signed language interpreters have increasingly expressed concern over an interpreting learner “readiness-to-work gap.” That is, graduates of interpreter education programs (IEPs) are quite frequently not sufficiently prepared upon graduation to meet the needs of deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing consumers in the workplace (Maroney & Smith, 2010; Monikowski & Winston, 2011; Patrie, 1994). This chapter makes the case that the larger field of interpreter education, including spoken and signed language interpreter education, considers L2/Ln language learning a prerequisite to developing cognitive and professional interpreting skills for non-native users training to work as interpreters. This consideration, as well as theoretical and pedagogical considerations, implications for research, and possible future trends regarding the use of L2/Ln signed language in the education of signed language interpreters, will be addressed in this chapter.
The development of signed language interpreter education in the US has essentially been need-driven, rather than theory-driven. Nonetheless, theoretical issues underlie every aspect of interpreter education, and more practically, theory provides answers when empirical research sheds light on the outcomes of need-based interpreter educational programming.
Spoken language interpreter education for many years followed the “master-apprentice” tradition (Pöchhacker, 2010). The following is based on signed language interpreter education in the United States, and is an example of signed language interpreter education in other countries. Signed language interpreter education programs in the US were initially created as vocational programs, with the idea that two years would be a sufficient time to prepare learners (Ball, 2013). The 2012 changes by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), an American professional sign language interpreter organization that developed and grants interpreter certifications, in the requirements of becoming an interpreter include the expectation that interpreters should hold a four-year degree in order to sit for professional certification. These considerations have contributed to the development of a variety of approaches to revise interpreter education to leverage two-year education programs to four-year programs. RID’s call for standards for pedagogy and curriculum for learner interpreters has led to the advent of interpreter education program standards, review, and accreditation. The development of standards has focused on the aim of preparing interpreting learners to graduate ready to enter the interpreting field. However, one clear challenge stems from backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998), suggesting that curricula should begin by starting with the end goal in mind. The desired outcome is for learners to be credentialed professional interpreters. The curricula in interpreter education should provide the learners with the knowledge and skills in becoming interpreters.
Interpreter education is shaped by theoretical and need-driven developments. In the US, legislation provided the primary impetus driving the establishment of signed language interpreter education. A number of legislative acts over a period of approximately 50 years were instrumental in the need-driven development of signed language interpreter education. Some legislation focused on the rights and needs of the American Deaf community, including the provision of interpreters. Other legislation focused on the secondarily arising need for preparing qualified interpreters, hence, for the establishment of interpreter training programs.
According to Ball (2013), legislation reflected a gap and, initially, attempted to fill a need, federally, for people with disabilities (not caused by military service). The first program, the Civilian Vocational Rehabilitation Act (or Smith-Fess Act) of 1920, provided matching funds to state rehabilitation agencies for counseling, vocational training, and job placement service for people with physical disabilities. Decades later, in 1954, and based on experience resulting from the 1920 Vocational Rehabilitation Act, an amendment, the Vocational Rehabilitation Act Amendment (P.L. 83–565), was created. This amendment recognized people working in vocational rehabilitation (VR) as professional counselors and provided money for training them. As a result of this act, federal funding was set aside to engage in research and demonstration projects, education of counselors, and construction of rehabilitation facilities. This is especially pertinent because it mandated that interpreting services be provided, without providing funding to educate interpreters or to prepare interpreter educators. This legislation also prompted the federal government to begin to consider services for deaf people, according to Ball (2013). The VR had not previously considered the need for language access of the people they served, but as the number of deaf people participating in VR workshops and training opportunities increased, the need for signed language interpreters increased as well.
In the years following the VR amendment, additional legislation attempted to address the need that was driven by providing more equitable opportunities for members of the American Deaf community. The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965 (Section 9) P.L. 89–833 made provisions for signed language interpreting services for deaf clients regardless of economic need. The Higher Education Act of 1968 made provisions for special services in higher education, including the provision of interpreters. Ball (2013) suggests that the Babbage Report on the Educational Needs of the Deaf was a critical piece of legislation that led to initial development of interpreter education opportunities in the 1960s. Similarly, the need for interpreters increased significantly when the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93–112) and 1974 Amendments to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93–516) contained initiatives that any deaf person attending a federally funded program had the right to an interpreter.
As the right to a “free and appropriate public education” was legislated in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94–142) increased the demand for interpreters in school systems serving deaf youth in K-12 schools. Finally, in 1978, the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Services Amendments Act (CRSA) provided funding for interpreter education programs to serve all the states and territories in the US.
Ball (2013) draws a clear picture of the increasing demand for interpreters in a variety of settings that led to the eventual financial support to establish programs to help prepare practitioners to meet the demand. Moreover, legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 further expanded the rights of deaf people to have interpreters to provide access in a multitude of settings, including the charge to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide telephone services via video technology (Brunson, 2010). In the case of video relay interpreting, the ruling required it be established within a short time period, thus increasing the need for a large number of interpreters nationwide to provide videophone accessibility that is now provided around the clock. Clearly, legislation that recognized the accessibility rights of deaf people created a need that became the driving force behind the development of interpreter education programs.
Due at least in part to the fact that interpreter education programs (IEPs) were developed in response to a legislated, time sensitive need, most IEPs in the US were originally developed in two-year community colleges in part to prepare practitioners in a relatively short time frame, by focusing primarily on signing and voicing skills. These signing and voicing skills were in conjunction with the vocational preparation yields a different outcome than one incorporating general studies requirements and even theoretical and empirical education in interpreting and translation studies. As a result of this history, today over 100 two-to-three year interpreter education programs exist around the US. After decades of focus on interpreter education at the community college level, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) had a distinct impact on interpreter education curricula with their landmark decision to require hearing candidates for national certification hold a four-year degree in any major prior to national testing by July 2012. This was noteworthy because an interpreter association made a determination to shift the direction of interpreter education from a vocational focus to an academic one. The interpreting learners were given general education requirements that bolstered the world knowledge requisite to the comprehension tasks of interpreting, and the theoretical and empirical tools to develop an academic understanding of their work. Despite the fact that the content of the degree was not designated (that is, an applicant for certification could hold a four-year degree in any subject matter), two-year AA level IEPs clearly felt the need had arisen to shift to four-year degree curricula, or at least were faced with the reality, in recruiting learners to their IEPs, that graduates of the AA program would no longer be qualified to sit for national certification.
The benefits of a university education on the quality of interpretation have been examined in some scholarly studies, and there is support regarding benefits for the requirement of a four-year academic degree on the part of interpreters in the literature (cf. Napier, 2002; Sawyer, 2004). Nonetheless, this professional requirement created a unique challenge for interpreter education programs in the US, and under the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers (NCIEC), a federally funded working group was created to study and recommend options for how to shift from two-year educational curricula to four-year programs. In the resulting report, the options for how to proceed included: maintaining two-year programs (and allowing learners themselves to individually address the need for a BA-level degree post-IEP and prior to being certified), developing partnerships between two-year and four-year programs (to collaborate in support and preparation of learners for professional certification), and even to evaluate the relative role of two-year lower division courses and programs with upper-division courses in four-year educational curricula to develop best practices for preparing interpreters to enter the field in keeping with RID’s four-year degree requirement (Aborn, 2010).
More specifically, Aborn (2010) recommended developing or redesigning two-year IEP curricula to focus on foundational skills for interpreting learners, so that subsequent articulation with four-year programs could focus on developing a secondary set of interpreting skills with this clear foundation established. In keeping with previous recommendations and claims in the spoken and signed language interpreting literature, Aborn’s recommendation was that the foundation skills focus on developing language fluency and communicative competence prior to the secondary development of cognitive and professional-practice related interpreting skills. It is worth noting that Aborn’s recommendation maintains a vocational approach to interpreter education, but still finds sequencing of content to be paramount.
At the same time that the recommendation to focus on L2/Ln signed language learning first for signed language interpreting learners was proliferating, research focusing on the IEP graduates’ readiness-to-credential gap found that while surveyed IEP four-year program graduates were generally able to attain state-level interpreting credentials, one or two years’ post-graduation were required for national credentials (Godfrey, 2010). Significantly, two-year program graduates surveyed reported needing two years to attain state level credentials, and more than two years to attain national ones. Godfrey suggested one reason for this is that two-year IEP programs have insufficient educational time with learners, and therefore rush them through language development and theoretical foundations (cf. Carter, 2015; Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2005).
In the absence of widespread theory-driven curricula, and given the time-sensitive, need-driven evolution of interpreter education, how has L2/Ln signed language teaching been practiced within US IEPs? The teaching of signed languages to L2/Ln learners is the focus of the next section.
Spurred by the rapid development of interpreter education programs resulting from civil rights legislation (Ball, 2013), and fed by the increase in linguistic analyses of signed language structure inspired by Stokoe (1960), pedagogical practices in the teaching of American Sign Language (ASL) as L2/Ln in the US have evolved over the past four decades to incorporate various second language teaching methodologies, ranging from grammar translation to L2/Ln immersion in visual language-only classrooms. This section will address some of the pedagogical practices used for L2/Ln signed language teaching in US interpreter education programs. The notion of ASL as an instructional language in secondary interpretation classes will also be addressed.
In the United States, linguistic research on signed languages in the 1960s and 1970s paved the way for recognition of the American Deaf community’s language as a legitimate language that is distinctive from spoken language’s grammar and syntax, and further, to name American Sign Language (ASL) as the signed language used by Deaf community members in the United States and Canada. This led to many states giving recognition to ASL as the official language of the American Deaf community, and to provide ASL classes for credit in academic settings, beginning with the colleges and universities and then in the K-12 schools (Wilcox, 1992). The Modern Language Association reported that the number of learners taking ASL classes has increased 15.5% from 2006 to 2009 and 19% from 2009 to 2013, and that ASL is the third most common foreign language in America (Goldberg et al., 2015). Many learners who complete ASL classes may pursue a degree in interpreter education programs.
Teaching ASL is a relatively new phenomenon compared to the teaching of other foreign or modern languages. Prior to the 1960s, the idea that sign language was based on the spoken language used in their home community was prevalent. At that time, sign language was taught strictly in parallel with the words from the spoken language. Many sign language classes were provided on a voluntary basis through Deaf community organizations and churches for the deaf (Newell & Cagle, 1997, 2008). Prior to the 1980s, classes often were taught by children of deaf adults (Codas) who were hearing heritage signers, hearing interpreters, and hearing teachers of deaf learners (Cagle, 2016; Newell & Cagle, 1997, 2008). During this era, teachers relied heavily on using spoken English to teach new signs, and on vocabulary drills without much attention to grammatical structure or communicative behaviors (Cagle, 2008). Beginning in the 1980s, signed language instruction changed to being offered as formal ASL courses taken for credit in an academic setting with signed language teachers using ASL to introduce lexical signs, grammar, and Deaf culture (Cagle, 2008).
With limited knowledge about teaching foreign language as L2/Ln in the 1960s and 1970s, many ASL teachers used methods known as the Vocabulary Method and Audiolingual Method (also known as the Army method). In keeping with this L2/Ln teaching methodology, signed language instructors often provided lists of vocabulary and sign dictionaries to the learners, and then taught the signs correlating to the English words from the lists. The learners relied on memorizing the signs through drills where lists of sentences in English were provided for the learners to copy and practice. The learners used the signs following their spoken language’s grammar rather than ASL grammar (Cagle, 2008).
While the work of the American Sign Language Teacher’s Association (ASLTA) has made great strides in settings standards for ASL teaching through their ASL teacher certification process, ASL teaching still occurs with relatively little oversight to ensure standard practices are in place. There are numerous methods and approaches available for teaching L2/Ln languages. Today, most ASL teachers are using an eclectic approach in which they select and use several tactics and methods to fit their teaching styles and learners’ learning styles. Most draw from the following methods and approaches in their ASL classes: direct method, functional notation approach, grammar translation method, total physical response, interactive learning, and learner-centered instruction (see Cagle, 2008, 2016).
L2/Ln teaching methods have evolved over time, and the changes in approach can often be traced to the goal of language teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). For example, depending on whether the teaching an L2/Ln is focused on the literacy skills of reading and writing or on conversational skills for interaction, the teaching method is likely to shift, since language knowledge for reading, writing, and interaction are distinct linguistic skills. One well-known and early method of language teaching, the Grammar Translation (GT) Method, originated in the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe with the goal of teaching Latin (then a “dead” language, so the aim was to teach reading and writing skills, not interactive conversational skills). At that time, learners were given lessons around grammatical features of the language, with lists of vocabulary to memorize, and sentences to translate, while learners were taught in their L1. According to Richards and Rogers (2014), the Grammar Translation Method is still in wide use today, largely due to the fact that it enables the instructor to maintain some measure of control within the teaching and learning process. The grammar translation method, if used in ASL classes, may be a language teaching-learning method that is a precursor to translation as a professional activity (such as translation of ASL-English on video or in print). The role of this method could be quite different if ASL is taught as an L2/Ln teaching occurs prior to interpreter education, or concurrently with it.
The Direct Method is a natural language teaching method that treats language learners as one might treat a child learning a new language, exposing them to language use without detailed study of grammar or translation, and aiming for a more natural acquisition of language (Bhatti & Muktar, 2017). According to Bhatti and Mukhtar (2017), grammar translation is one of the most popular, widely used methods of language teaching despite many decades of reform in the language teaching field. In their study of the effectiveness of GT vs. the Direct Method, Bhatti and Mukhtar suggest that a combination of both methods is the most effective language teaching approach. Because the Direct Method has language use as its goal (forbidding translation, in fact, see Larson-Freeman, 2000), the focus of the Direct Method is for the teacher to generate lessons around topics that provide an opportunity for natural interaction. The Direct Method may incorporate the use of reading, geography, study of cultural attitudes, the use of pictures or objects and demonstration rather than explanation, with immersion in the L2/Ln language of study (Larson-Freeman, 2000).
In keeping with this description of the Direct Method, in recent years, many ASL programs and teachers have established a policy of no voicing in ASL classes to strengthen learners’ receptive skills and natural acquisition of ASL as a visual language. In these classes, different teaching techniques are used: identifying and labeling, substituting, contrasting, setting a scenario or acting out, and defining to introduce new ASL signs without relying much on written or spoken English (Cagle, 2016). At the same time, many ASL teachers (and materials) also incorporate intentional study of grammatical aspects of ASL, helping learners to learn appropriate use of sign order and non-manual aspects of the signed language. Thus, this section shows that elements of various L2/Ln approaches have been incorporated into ASL as L2/Ln teaching in the US.
While multiple and mixed L2/Ln language teaching methods have been found to be used in the US for teaching ASL as L2/Ln to hearing, second language signers, the question remains regarding how signed language is taught to learners who have applied to and been accepted as learners preparing to work as professional signed language interpreters. In keeping with the 1959 AIIC description of interpreter education content, signed language interpreting learners are required to take a variety of interpretation courses focusing on cognitive processing for interpretation and including translation, consecutive, and simultaneous interpreting skill development, as well as professional interpreting skills such as ethical decision making and business practices. When interpretation classes focus on the transfer of meaning between ASL and English, the grammar-translation method may be employed regardless of whether the interpreter educator has formal training in the method, when discussions are led that compare and discuss the two languages’ lexical equivalences, semantics, and grammatical similarities and differences. IEP instructor preparation regarding the use of the grammar translation method for language teaching, and the teaching of translation as a cognitive process for interpreters as two distinct instructor skill sets, are other important considerations to be addressed.
According to a recent survey of 138 interpreter education programs in the US, interpreter educators in many interpreter education programs across the country report using spoken English as a major instructional tool in interpreting courses, as well as using spoken English for classroom discussion (Hunt, Cagle, & Metzger, 2017). Conversely, some educators report the use of ASL as the language of instruction for interpretation classes. The use of L2/Ln signed language as the language of instruction in interpretation classes is theoretically supportable based on the concepts underlying the Direct Method, with language use as central, and immersion as a pedagogical practice. It is helpful to know the role of language teaching and learning currently in place in American signed language interpreter education programs.
As mentioned earlier, legislation has had a direct impact on the establishment of formal signed language interpreter education in the US. However, despite a relatively long history of 50 years or so, very little formal education exists to prepare faculty to teach interpreting learners. In 1988, the first graduate-level ASL-English interpreter education program in the US was established at Gallaudet University, but the program was dedicated to preparing interpreters to enter the field as practitioners, not to prepare educators. When the Department of Interpretation and Translation at Gallaudet opened an interpreter education program at the BA level in 2005, the question of how curricular content should be tailored to learners entering the field at the BA level, rather than the MA level at Gallaudet, was carefully considered (cf Shaw, Collins, & Metzger, 2006). In 2010, the Department of Interpretation and Translation at Gallaudet University opened a doctoral level program in interpretation designed to prepare interpreter educators and scholars. As a result, an unanticipated, but perhaps not surprising, outcome of this new program raised the question of curricular distinction by academic level yet again.
The unexpected outcome results from the fact that, while the US hosts over 130 interpreter education programs, over 100 at the AA/AAS level, over 30 at the BA level, and at least five at the MA level at the time of this writing, Gallaudet University is the only university that provides degrees in signed language interpretation at all three academic levels: BA, MA, and PhD. This fact has created a cycle that both feeds into and is impacted by the content of IEP curriculum and language teaching in programs across the US. Most pertinently, these learners arrive at Gallaudet with a range of language abilities in ASL as their L2/Ln. The doctoral learners who graduated work in faculty positions in AA, BA, or MA level sign language interpreting programs. This cycle brings the question of academic level and curricular content to the center of pedagogy in all three programs at Gallaudet.
The authors of this chapter, all engaged in program administration at the time of the study, conducted a survey of IEPs at the AA, BA, and MA levels in the US to gather information about curricular content. The survey was sent to 138 interpreter education programs around the US, yielding 37 responses, or 27% response rate, from AA, BA, MA, and Certificate programs. For the purpose of this study, Gallaudet University was not included in the survey, and certificate programs were not examined. The results of this survey as they pertain to teaching L2/Ln signed language to interpreting learners are reported here. As can be seen below, the results showed variation in L2/Ln signed language entry and exit requirements and curriculum, suggesting a lack of differentiation and standardization across IEPs and academic levels.
Of the 37 IEPs in the US, 15 were from AA/AAS programs, 13 from BA programs, and three from MA programs. This distribution reflects the prevalence of degree levels offered by the IEPs, where the greatest number of programs exist at the AA level.
Language Requirements for Program Entry. Fifteen IEPs have language entry requirements. Seven programs require either an American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI) or Sign Language Proficiency Interview: American Sign Language (SLPI:ASL),2 and eight IEPs use some other measure, such as an in-house evaluation or a mock interpreting assignment for language evaluation. Some IEPs have an open enrollment policy with no language entry requirement.
Breakdown by Degree Level. Two-thirds of the IEPs that responded to the survey have an open enrollment policy, with no entry language skills requirement, and 7% of the IEPs require standardized reading and writing tests that are not related to ASL fluency. Of the 15 AA-degree level programs, eight programs require minimal language ability, with 13% of those indicating the use of language screenings measures such as the ASLPI or SLPI:ASL, while seven programs use other forms of language screening. Of the 13 BA-level IEPs, 30% require an ASL screening, though only 15% said that they require minimal language ability. Of the BA-level IEPs, 31% indicate an open enrollment policy, with one program indicating an ASLPI requirement at the end of the sophomore year. Of the three MA program respondents, one program indicated an open enrollment policy, and two programs indicated a minimal language fluency requirement demonstrated experientially, such as via certification or other criteria establishing that they have experience with the languages they work between and interpreting.
For the 30% of the AA- and BA-level IEPs that have an open enrollment language policy, three clear questions arise: What are the language requirements for taking the IEP courses if some learners enter with signed language ability and others do not? Are these courses sequenced so that learners learn signed language prior to learning interpreting skills, as recommended by AIIC and others? For the learners who graduate from the AA-level IEPs and enter in the BA-level IEPs, how does the BA curricula meet the needs of just-graduated AA-level interpreting learners? Further research would be needed to better understand how language teaching and learning is occurring in AA-level as opposed to BA-level IEPs.
ASL classes. Ninety-seven percent of the 34 IEPs that responded to this item indicate that they require ASL classes as a part of their IEP degree requirements. The results indicate that nearly all IEP respondents are offering ASL at the same time that they are teaching the cognitive and professional skills of interpretation. This is in contrast to AIIC’s recommendation for learner interpreters to demonstrate bilingual fluency prior to learning the cognitive and professional skills of interpretation. Given the variation in entry-level signed language requirements, and given the centrality of language abilities in the task of interpretation, the result is heartening.
Instruction in ASL. In the 37 IEPs where ASL courses are a part of degree requirements, 35 IEPs offer self-contained L2/Ln language courses. Twenty-three IEPs incorporate L2/Ln ASL instruction within other program courses. Twenty-four IEPs provide feedback3 to learners on their L2/Ln learning progress in addition to their performance in interpretation assignments in the program courses. Results suggest that IEPs vary in assessment procedures in ASL as L2/Ln.
ASL instruction also varies by the degree level of the IEPs. All AA- and BA-level IEPs offer ASL instruction in L2/Ln language courses and interpreting courses. One AA-level program offers a sequence of ASL 7–12 courses. Two-thirds of the AA-level IEPs integrate ASL instruction in many courses, and 73% provide signed language feedbacks to learners. Although two-year AA-level programs might appear to have no option to sequence language learning prior to interpreter education, there are a few AA-level programs that require ASL as an entry requirement, or even require ASL courses or an ASL certificate as prerequisite to the two-year IEP. Thus, this finding is significant to the question of the timing of L2/Ln teaching in interpreter education. Eight BA-level IEPs integrate ASL instruction in several courses, and nine IEPs provide feedback in ASL learning progress. Two MA-level IEPs offer ASL instruction in program courses, with one providing feedback in ASL learning progress in addition to performance in course content. One AA-level and one MA-level program volunteered that deaf instructors teach ASL I, II, III, and IV, fingerspelling, ASL Lab, and Fingerspelling Lab, and professional interpreters teach interpreting courses.
In keeping with the need-driven development of US IEPs, these results suggest that AA and BA programs are both teaching language and interpreting skills. Because of the call for interpreter education to be sequenced with language learning as the first scaffold, further research is needed to identify programs that do follow a language-first curriculum to see if any AA-to-BA curricula collaborate in the sequencing of curriculum, and if so, how they compare in efficacy with programs that do not.
Language immersion. Twenty-six IEPs offer opportunities for signed language immersion for interpreting learners outside of classrooms. There is a variety of immersion experiences for their learners across the IEPs, including communicating within signing-only environments within departments, regular attendance at Deaf community events, signed language immersion weekends, and in non-interpreting classes where signed languages are used. At Gallaudet, for instance, signed language immersion for its interpreting learners occurs where ASL is used by deaf learners in non-interpreting courses, dormitories, and social activities due to the bilingual mission of the university. IEPs in hearing-centric campuses that have signing faculty provide signed language immersion experience by teaching signed languages in program courses.
Language requirements for graduation. Twenty-four IEPs reported exit level graduation requirement related to signed language skills. IEPs reported a variety of evaluation options for the signed language exit requirement. Eleven IEPs reported that the RID National written certification exam is its signed language exit requirement. One IEP reported that the RID National performance certification exam is its signed language exit requirement. Six IEPs reported that state-level exams that assess knowledge of signed languages are their exit requirements, and three IEPs indicated that state-level exams that assess performance in signed languages are their exit requirements. Three IEPs indicated that the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) is their exit requirement. Four IEPs reported that minimal language ability4 or other skills evaluations stand as exit requirements at the program level.
There are variations in signed language exit requirement by program degree level. Of the 15 AA-level IEPs, more than half indicated a signed language exit requirement prior to graduation. Two programs use ASLPI or SLPI:ASL as its exit requirement. Two other programs require a state-wide or national interpreting performance test prior to graduation. Still another two IEPs use a program-developed language assessment as its exit requirement. Of the 13 BA-level IEPs, 23% have a minimum exit language assessment requirement as measured by the ASLPI or SLPI:ASL. One program requires a state-level performance exam and another program requires the EIPA performance exam. Eight IEPs use program-developed signed language requirements prior to graduation. None of the three MA-level IEPs requires an exit signed language assessment.
This survey showed a higher percentage of BA-level IEPs (62%) than AA-level IEPs (50%) require exit signed language assessment. A small percentage of IEPs require bilingual fluency in interpreting learners prior to graduation, and use both English language and ASL assessments as their exit language requirements. These programs also require bilingual fluency as the prerequisite prior to enrollment in interpreter education.5 The possibility that entry-level requirements may correlate to exit language requirements is an area worth exploring.
The above survey results provided a snapshot of the situation of signed language teaching in the IEPs in the US. There are variations across IEPs in entry and exit language requirements, and the courses where signed language instruction is offered. It is now worth considering the preparation of and what formal education and professional development opportunities exist for signed language interpreter educators.
In recent decades, researchers have called for the need for systematic research and preparation of interpreter educators (see Godfrey, 2010). Since these calls began, formal training and professional development have been expanded, including the opening of graduate degree programs focusing on interpreter educator preparation, and doctoral degree programs to increase research and develop scholars and faculty for IEPs. Cagle (2016) proposes that formal training and professional development of sign language and interpreter educators include coursework and practicum in teaching; interpretation theory and history; methodology; assessment; curriculum development; research designs; signed languages; comparative linguistics of signed and spoken languages; Deaf people, history, community, and culture including signed language and Deaf literature; and professional practice and ethics.
There are professional development opportunities available for signed language and interpretation teachers worldwide through numerous workshops and conferences, such as the American Sign Language Teachers Association (ASLTA), Sign Language Instructors of Canada (SLIC), the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), and the Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada (AVLIC). Graduate-level training in teaching signed languages and a Masters degree in Interpretation are granted through colleges and universities.
The methods and timing of language teaching and learning in translation and interpreter education are critical. A deeper understanding of the relevance and applications of various L2/Ln teaching methods, such as grammar translation for language learning discussed earlier, is critical in the L2/Ln signed language teaching within interpretation courses. The significance of building interpreter education on theories of interpretation, communication, and cognitive processing are central to success in IEPs that are theory-driven rather than need-driven.
What can be seen in this chapter by unpacking the evolution of signed language interpreter education in the US is that, to date, there appears to be two separate lines of research and pedagogy that are symbiotic in the development of interpreters who might graduate ready-to-work. They are signed language pedagogy and interpreting pedagogy. The juxtaposition of these two seems to be the center of interpreter education, and certainly a driver of future trends in L2/Ln signed language teaching in interpreter education.
Research in the past decade shows that IEP learners are not gaining the skills required to enter the field or pass national certification by graduation (Godfrey, 2010). Hence, the most pressing future trend will likely be a shift from the need-driven curricula of the past, to a future pedagogy that is research-driven and evidence-based. As graduate programs increase worldwide, so too does the quantity and quality of empirical research about interpretation, interpreting pedagogy, and the teaching of as L2/Ln to interpreters. The topics that are likely to be addressed in future research studies include translation and sign language learning processes. These research studies should be guided by solid theoretical backgrounds that can inform the education of sign language teachers and interpreter educators. Some studies may explore language teaching methods that provide best practices for preparing bilingual and multilinguals toward success as future interpreters. Other studies may examine the impact of various language teaching methodologies in the teaching of visual languages.
The considerations that are likely to be addressed in future pedagogical practice concern program and teacher development and teaching approaches. There is a need to increase the number of programs that focus on preparing deaf translators, interpreters, and instructors in interpreting and language teaching programs. There is a need for an increase in programs that require L1 and L2/Ln language fluency and proficiency prior to commencing interpreter education. The programs should increase the diversity of interpreter educators and learners, including people of color, heritage signers, and trilingual interpreters. There should be collaboration among the programs regarding content and sequencing of language learning and interpreter education. One possibility is team teaching to pair native L1 signers with L2 signers. Interpreting courses need to be offered in the signed language of the countries where training is being provided.
As Monikowski and Winston (2011) suggested, educators of signed language interpreters recognize the lack of consistency in two- and four-year degree interpreter education programs, a lack of consistent entry and exit requirements, coupled with a very widespread approach that combines language teaching and interpreter education simultaneously. The need for additional research is clear, to determine realistic outcomes for language learners prior to interpreter education courses, effective sequencing by degree level for learners, and, as well, to examine best practices in signed language teaching and assessment.
Of the trends that can be expected in coming years, two seem likely to have the greatest impact on the teaching of L2/Ln sign language to interpreters. One trend is the change in the timing of language teaching versus cognitive and professional interpreting skills. A growing body of research and literature calls for an established language base before interpreter education commences. Interpreter education curricula will shift to accommodate the need for language learning semesters (and successful language acquisition) prior to the beginning of interpretation courses (see Cagle, Metzger, & Hunt, 2016). Another trend is the increased use of L2/Ln sign language as the language of instruction in interpreting courses in both cognitive and professional skills in interpreter education programs, for interpreting learners’ language immersion, and for increasing the number of deaf interpreting educators.
Notes
Aborn, L. (2010). Language to Interpretation Model. In P. Annarino, & L. Stauffer (eds), AA-BA partnerships: Creating New Value for Interpreter Education Programs (pp. 67–76). Boston, MA: National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers.
Ball, C. (2013). Legacies and Legends: History of Interpreter Education from 1800 to the 21st Century. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Interpreting Consolidated.
Bhatti, M.S., & Muktar, R. (2017). Analyzing the utility of grammar translation method and direct method for teaching English at intermediate level. International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 3 (7), 2–9.
Brunson, J. (2010). Visually experiencing a phone call: The calculated consumer labor Deaf people perform to gain access through video relay services. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30 (2).
Cagle, K. (2008). Historical and Current Curricula for AAS, BA, and MA Programs in ASL/Deaf Studies and ASL Education and ASL Courses. Presentation at the 2008 Biennial Conference of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Cagle, K. (2016). Sign Language Teaching, History of. In G. Gertz, & P. Boudreault (eds.), The SAGE Deaf Studies Encyclopedia (pp. 854–8). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cagle, K., Metzger, M., & Hunt, D. (2016). Interpreter Education: AA, BA, MA … Oh My! Paper presented at the 2016 Biennial Conference of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, Lexington, KY.
Carter, C.A. (2015). Current Practices: Pre-admission Assessment of American Sign Language and English Language Competency in Interpreter Education Programs. Unpublished Masters thesis, Western Oregon University, Oregon.
Godfrey, L.A. (2010). Characteristics of Effective Interpreter Education Programs in the United States Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Tennessee-Chattanooga.
Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2015). Enrollments in Languages other than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education. Modern Language Association, Retrieved from www.mla.org/content/download/311809/1452509/2013_enrollment_survey.pdf
Hunt, D., Cagle, K., & Metzger, M. (2017). The role of language and cognition in US undergraduate and graduate curricula. Paper presented at the Second International Symposium on Signed Language Interpreting and Translation Research. Gallaudet University, Washington, DC. March/April 2017.
Larson-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackintosh, J. (1999). Interpreters are made not born. Interpreting, 4 (1), 67–80.
Maroney, E., & Smith, A.R. (2010). Defining the nature of the “gap” between interpreter education, certification and readiness-to-work: A research study of Bachelor’s degree graduates. RID VIEWS, 27 (4), 35–7.
Metzger, M., Cagle, K., & Hunt, D. (2019). Undergraduate and graduate level interpreter education: Pedagogical considerations. In D. Sawyer, & F. Austermühl (eds.), The Evolving Curriculum in Interpreting and Translator Education. ATA Scholarly Monograph Series. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.
Monikowski, C., & Winston, E.A. (2011). Interpreters and interpreter education. In P. E. Spencer, & M. Marschark (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education (Vol. 1) (2nd ed.) (pp. 367–79). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Napier, J. (2002). Sign Language Interpreting: Linguistic Coping Strategies. Coleford, UK: Douglas McLean Publisher.
Newell, W., & Cagle, K. (1997, 2008). Guidelines for Hiring ASL Teachers. Retrieved from www.aslta.org/node/31
Patrie, C. (1994). The readiness to work gap. In E.A. Winston (ed.), Mapping Our Course: A Collaborative Venture: Proceedings of the 10th National Convention of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers (pp. 53–56). Charlotte, NC: CIT.
Pöchhacker, F. (2010). The role of research in interpreter education. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research, 2 (1), 1–10.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, D. (2004). Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculum and Assessment. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). What is backward design? In G. Wiggins, & J. Mc Tighe, Understanding by Design (1st ed.) (pp. 7–19). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Wilcox, S. (1992). Academic Acceptance of American Sign Language. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press, Inc.
Witter-Merithew, A., & Johnson, L.J. (2005). Toward Competent Practice: Conversations with Stakeholders. Alexandria, VA: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.