Getting to Skopos in a Mediated Education Environment: Bridging Research and Practice

Debra Russell, Ph.D., Certified Interpreter Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Beginnings: Thank You

 Thank you to research participants  we continue to learn about our work from their willingness to be involved . 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

What Shapes my Interest?

 Background and experiences as:     Interpreter (still interpret) Elementary Teacher: Direct Instruction Interpreter Educator  Curiosity about learning for Deaf children in mediated vs direct learning with the major emphasis on inclusion in Canada Skopos “meaning or purpose” 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Presentation Overview

     Research Questions Methodology Findings Implications Next Steps 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Research Questions

Q: To what extent and in what ways does the use of interpreting services impact the academic performance and social development of Deaf students?

Q: What perceptions are held by Deaf students, their parents, teachers and administrators on the quality and impact of interpreting services on the academic and social success of Deaf students?

5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Methodology

 Case Studies  small samples, in-depth exploration yields richer data  Videotaped Samples  of mediated classroom communication  On-Line Surveys  Interviews  Interpreters, Teachers, Parents of d/Deaf students, and d/Deaf students 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Participants

    Surveys:  Teachers – 93; Interpreters – 128; Parents – 85 Case Study Interviews:  Teachers: 15; Interpreters: 20; Parents: 15; Students: 10 Classroom samples of interpreting:  30 samples across elementary, junior high and high school  3 samples of Intervening Services with Deaf Blind Children Provinces – NS, ON, MB, SK, AB, BC, NB, NL, QB 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Focus of Interpreting Analysis



How are interpreters representing language in teaching/learning context?

 Data being analyzed for linguistic functions in teaching/learning discourse  Six common teaching processes chosen (Cazden, 2004) :   Scaffolding (teaching & language structure) Reconceptualizing   Meta-cognitive Questions Reciprocal Teachings   Feedback Sequencing 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Preliminary Findings

 Surveys & Interviews: little agreement on success of inclusion   Teachers: 78% - working well Administrators: 100% - believe they operate “Inclusive” school settings   Interpreters: 67% - not working well Parents/Students: 83% - not working well  Classroom Interpretation (n=33):

very problematic

5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Access to Language Functions

 8/33 Interpreters (27%)  consistently represented all 6 discourse features of teaching environment  12/33 (40%)  not able to represent all 6 discourse features  13/33 (33%)  able to represent some signs, with frequent and patterned errors  inaccurate messages, dysfunctional grammar, requires child to recover content (if they can)

Example from Case Studies:

 Rural setting:

130/280 (46%)

utterances successful in Grade 5 social studies class  Urban setting:

298/420 (80%)

utterances successful;  access to curriculum, however no access to reciprocal teaching via debate process  Interpreters:  majority less than 5 yrs experience; some less than 2 yrs 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Summary – Access to Meaning

   Experienced (5+ years) intuitively focus on the function of the discourse and to the

meaning

Majority (Less experienced or those trained prior to 1990’s) chose words  didn’t recognize

the

function or lacked strategies to show the

natural grammar and the intent



operated from transmission model

Impact on students:   higher level thinking processes not activated when interpretation lacks these processes moved from active participant to “bystander” or passive learner 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Policy & Practice Implications

 Policies and practices - what can change?

  When is a child suited to a mediated education?

Need for solid training and hiring of interpreters who can work with children  Deaf children falling farther behind with interpreters who cannot provide full access  Need to look to other aspects that can supplement a mediated education: technology, peer interaction with other Deaf children, assessment 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Changing Practices

   Administrators:  assessments for when mediated vs. direct education is possible Teacher:  Processes; knowledge of teaching in bilingual and bimodal class Interpreters & assistants  Linguistic competence that matches teachers and classmates  possess interpreting strategies to reflect educational discourse and teaching processes 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

For whom and under what context

• Challenges:  Language development issues  child coming to school with little exposure to language/starting at a disadvantage  Schools believe that children can learn language by watching an “interpreter”     Is the language model competent? Bystander or active participant in education?

Classroom practices – discourse pacing/strategies Cognitive load issues not yet been studied 5/2/2020 Debra Russell

Rethinking Issues

 Question arising from research:  

How do we determine when a child can manage the cognitive and linguistic demands of dealing with an interpreters?

BICS/CALP (Cummins, 1988) – Deaf children who don’t have BICS prior to working with an interpreter in academic settings?



What are the cognitive demands for any Deaf learner watching an incomplete language model?



Direct Instruction vs. Mediated Instruction Comprehension and Engagement?

5/2/2020 Debra Russell

References

        Cazden, D. 1988 Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Davis, J. 2005. Code Choices and consequences: implications for educational interpreting. In

Educational Interpreting and interpreter education

, eds. M Marschark, R. Peterson and E.A. Winston. New York; Oxford University Press. Marschark, M, P. Sapere, C. Covertino, and R. Seewagen. 2005 Educational Interpreting: its about deaf Students. In

Educational Interpreting and interpreter education

, eds. M Marschark, R. Peterson and E.A. Winston. New York; Oxford University Press.

Napier, J. 2005. Linguistic features and strategies of interpreting: From research to education to practice. In

Educational Interpreting and interpreter education

, eds. M Marschark, R. Peterson and E.A. Winston. New York; Oxford University Press.

Nord, C. 1997.

Translating as a purposeful activity; Functionalist approaches explained

. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing Reiss, K. and H.J. Vermeer 1984. Grundleging einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie, Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Russell, D. (July, 2007).

What do others think of our work? Perspectives on educational interpreting from Deaf students, teachers, administrators and parents.

Paper given at the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters. Paper given at the World Association of Sign Language Interpreters, Segovia, Spain. Winston, E. (2004) Interpretability and Accessibility of Mainstream Classrooms. In In

Educational Interpreting – How it can succeed

. ed. E.A. Winston. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.

7/15/08 Debra Russell