CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO OF INTERPRETER EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Elisa M. Maroney, Ph. D., CI and CT, NIC, Ed: K-12 ASLTA Qualified

Amanda R. Smith, MA, CI and CT, Ed: K-12, NIC-M, SC:L, ACC coaching credential

“I did then what I knew how to do, now that I know better, I do better.” ~Maya Angelou

The landscape of interpreter education and training remains constant as the understanding of the profession, work expectations, and consumers served continues to evolve. Between 2009 and 2017, we conducted a longitudinal study of graduates from a bachelor’s in interpreting program (Maroney & Smith, 2010; Smith & Maroney, 2018). We have redesigned the program due to what we have learned about preparing interpreters and the values embedded in the principles below that guide our practice as interpreter educators; Interpreters work in a multicultural/multilingual community of practitioners and consumers; connection, representation, and communication matter. Interpreters provide cultural and linguistic access. Interpreting is interpreting

Being an interpreter, by definition, includes familiarity with and fluency in at least two languages and cultures. Therefore, interpreter education must include the intentional development of both working languages so that students and practitioners can communicate cross-culturally. The higher quality of services provided, the more fully Deaf/hard-of-hearing citizens engage in, contribute to, and prosper within society as autonomous individuals.

Readiness to Work Concerns

The conversation regarding the gap (see Cogen & Cokely, 2016; Godfrey, 2011; Intelligere Solutions, 2017; Patrie, 1994; Ruiz, 2013; Stauffer, 1994; Volk, 2014; Witter-Merithew & Johnson, 2004) continues in our field. We studied the perceived gap between graduation from an interpreter education program and readiness-to-work and/or certification. The findings indicated that graduating seniors who participated had an average EIPA score of 3.39 (Smith & Maroney, 2018), which does not qualify them to work in Oregon or 33 other states where the EIPA requirement is 3.5 or higher (NAIE, 2021).

suspected; though the graduates from the bachelor’s program are gaining employment due to the high demand for ASL/English interpreters, many of them are not credentialed by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID). According to RID, “Candidates earn NIC [National Interpreter Certification] Certification if they demonstrate professional knowledge and skills that meet or exceed the minimum professional standards necessary to perform in a broad range of interpretation and transliteration assignments” (20152022). The Center for Assessment of Sign Language Interpretation (CASLI) states that “The passing rate for the NIC-Interview and Performance Exam has hovered between 25% to 30% since its launch on December 1, 2011” (CASLI, 2022). This pass rate represents the entire pool of candidates nationwide. We believe that if the NIC assesses “minimum professional standards,” interpreter education programs should be graduating interpreters who meet these minimum standards. We hope to address the lack of credentialed interpreters from the interpreter education perspective. Other stakeholders might benefit from reviewing the data and challenging the status quo.

To mitigate the gap between graduation and credentialing, a new pathway, a BS to MA in Interpreting Studies: Theory and Practice, was developed. An undergraduate foundation in interpreting with a concentration in a second working language prepares students to enter the MA degree to apply theory to practice. The entire pathway emphasizes the observation, practice, supervision, and reflective practice of interpreting.

What is entry level work?

Unlike other professions, such as nursing (Nursing License Map, 2022), the interpreting profession has yet to establish what entry-level means or where new interpreters should begin their careers. Unfortunately, some recent graduates without certification or credentialing and who do not possess minimum skills can still find ample job opportunities. Witter-Merithew and Johnson (2004) write, “practitioners can and do work without a credential or academic degree, and the definition of who is qualified to perform the task of interpretation is subject to a wide range of views and standards” (p.2).

Market demand shift and consumers change in the 21st Century

More evidence for changing our approach to interpreter education in the 21st century is the data accumulated during the eight-year study regarding graduation to credential readiness. Throughout this study, the graduate results remained consistent while recognizing that the requirements and stressors of the job of interpreting have increased (Pollard et al., 2021). The needs of the Deaf community have also changed (Holcomb & Smith, 2018). There are more Deaf/hard of hearing individuals completing college degrees who are Black and Latinx, especially Black Deaf women, completing at even higher rates (for example, see NDC, 2021; Thew Hackett et al., 2016). Consistently our data collection from past graduates and employers has indicated a need for a longer duration of supervised experiential courses.

Thew Hackett et al. (2016) conducted a Community Needs Assessment specific to the Deaf/hard of hearing population in Oregon. The findings are informative for the State of Oregon and may serve as an example for other states. This study indicated frequent frustration or lack of access to state services due to the “lack of interpreter availability” and/or “finding qualified interpreters.” The state of Oregon needs more interpreters and more interpreters of quality sufficient to meet the needs of the range of Deaf/hard of hearing citizens, from accessing state services to being able to navigate very specific, technical jargon with Deaf/hard-hearing individuals in the workforce.

Few, if any, interpreter education programs produce graduates with the professional skills necessary to provide adequate educational interpreting services to students who are deaf/hard of hearing (Smietanski, 2016; Smith & Maroney, 2018; Smith, 2010). There is a significant shortage of quality interpreters to serve Deaf citizens in the State of Oregon (Thew Hackett et al., 2016) and the nation at large (Olson & Swabey, 2017). The consequences are compromised quality of life for Deaf/hard of hearing individuals as access to education, work, and health care are limited by the skill set of the assigned interpreter.

A new pathway for the 21st Century

Even in programs that are well respected, with highly sought-after graduates, sufficient numbers of qualified interpreting students are not graduating to meet the needs of the Deaf Community. Though many argue that interpreting is fundamentally about meaning transfer between languages, it is much more than that. We need to look at interpreter education from a completely different angle, starting earlier, including community engagement and growing familiarity with new settings, people, language use, and communication styles. “The time has come in interpreter education and assessment to shift the focus from just ASL development/competence to include the professional practice of interpreting” (Smith & Maroney, 2018, p. 34). Additionally, there

are different needs for those students who are native English speakers and those who are native/ primary users of ASL or another language. CASLI (2022) states, “Data analysis on the various skills evaluated on this exam indicates an area where candidates struggle overall is interpreting from ASL into English. Candidates consistently scored lower on this component than interpreting from voiced English into ASL.” This indicates a need for more emphasis on language development in both working languages. A pathway that includes a bachelor’s degree with a language concentration to a master’s degree with supervised onboarding can address the needs of heritage signers/speakers (Isakson, 2015; Williamson, 2015), Deaf ASL users (Green, 2017; Rogers, 2016), and those who learn ASL as a second language.

In response to the market challenges and the data we have collected, becoming engaged with interpreting students in their first year as college students will allow them to get a feel for the profession and decide if interpreting fits them. In this new pathway, faculty will engage with students during the foundational stages of their education and support students in making connections to program-specific coursework and concepts. This approach encourages faculty to support students in understanding their education in light of their professional goals. The pathway is rooted in demand-control schema (DC-S) (Dean & Pollard, 2013), making the program similar in structure to other practice professional training programs, such as the mental health and medical professions where students work while engaging in supervision. DCS equips interpreters to consider the full context in which the interpreting task occurs.

The design of this new pathway is based upon spoken language conference interpreter programs; an undergraduate degree focused on acquiring working languages mastery and fluency and a graduate degree focused on developing and honing the interpreting skills needed for professional practice (Middlebury Institute for International Studies at Monterey, n.d.). The development of a graduate program in interpreting demonstrates a commitment to promoting high standards and responding to employment market trends. By offering a master’s degree for entry-level interpreters, the need for qualified interpreters in Oregon and the nation will hopefully be addressed.

(Click here for references)

A unique benefit of this design is that BS to MA Interpreting Studies: Theory and Practice students take courses alongside MA students in the Interpreting Studies: Advanced and Teaching Interpreting program throughout their coursework. The interaction between the students on the entry-level track and those on the advanced or teaching tracks allows students to engage in relationships that promote peer mentorship (Nguyen, 2017), collaboration, and the development of a “community of practice” (Mercieca, 2017), which continues after graduation from the program. This may address the isolation that interpreters often experience (Swartz, 2008). This opportunity for a community of practice involving one’s peers and advanced practitioners that students want to emulate is essential for their professional development. An added benefit of this community of practice is that Annarino and Hall (2013) found that interpreters are more likely to be concerned with ethical decisionmaking if they feel they are a part of a professional community.

Conclusion We are collecting data on the obstacles and benefits of this new pathway to determine effective curriculum and sequencing and develop a working definition of “work readiness.” The bottom line is that the range of consumers has expanded and deepened. To do better, entry-level interpreters need to be ready to serve these consumers in a multicultural landscape, meeting the minimum standards set by RID (2022). It is time to expand our understanding of interpreting and adjust our programs to be holistic in nature and not overly focused on one language. To ensure that the consumers are served well, graduates will need to appreciate the multifaceted complexities of interpreting work, from fluency in their working languages to the interpersonal, environmental, and intrapersonal demands and ethical decision-making processes. To do this effectively, graduates will need to exist within a community of practice. Interpreter educators have been doing relatively the same things for nearly 50 years with similar results. The 21st century brings the recognition of new demands that may require new ways of thinking to respond. Now that we know better, it is time to try something new by disrupting and challenging the status quo.

Certifications Field Conventions and Hierarchy

1Valid generalist certifications no longer offered (IC, TC, CSC, MCSC,

RSC, ETC, EIC, OIC, CI and/or CT, OTC, NIC Advanced, Master) appear before all others. IC and/TC appear first (e.g. IC/TC, CSC).

OIC certifications appear directly after all other old generalist certifications (e.g. TC, CSC, OIC:C)

2

3Current generalist certifications (CDI, NIC) appear after

generalist certifications that are no longer offered (e.g. IC, CI and CT, OTC, NIC)

5The OTC certification appears after the NIC certification

NIC certification appears after the CI and/or CT

4

Specialist certifications (SC:L and SC:PA) appear after all generalist certifications

6

7NAD certifications appear after all RID certifications

Ed:K-12 appears after NAD certification

8

9

CI and CT are always expressed together as “CI and CT” or “CI & CT”