The Current State of ASL-English Interpreting Education Across the United States

Abstract

To better understand the current state of American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter education in the United States, the authors analyzed publicly available website data to document the number and type of active postsecondary interpreter education programs by state. This descriptive study aimed to address a significant gap in the literature by producing an accurate inventory of interpreting programs and concomitant degree or certificate offerings. Inclusion criteria included ASL-English interpreting programs at two- and four-year public and private institutions of higher education in the United States (and territories). Related fields, such as Deaf studies and ASL-only degree and certificate programs, were excluded. This investigation was part of a multiyear study examining American interpreter education. Frequencies were calculated for degree types, and pre-liminary results were reported at the 2022 Conference of Interpreter Trainers biannual conference. The authors identified 126 institutions of higher education that offer a total of 166 degrees. Changes between 2010 and 2022 were also determined. In that time, the number of bachelor's degree programs increased while associate's degree programs decreased-still, the majority of degrees offered at institutes of higher education were at the associate's level.

Headnote

Abstract

To better understand the current state of American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter education in the United States, the authors ana-lyzed publicly available website data to document the number and type of active postsecondary interpreter education programs by state. This descriptive study aimed to address a significant gap in the literature by producing an accurate inventory of interpreting programs and concomitant degree or certificate offerings. Inclusion criteria included ASL-English interpreting programs at two- and four-year public and private institutions of higher education in the United States (and territories). Related fields, such as Deaf studies and ASL-only degree and certificate programs, were excluded. This investiga-tion was part of a multiyear study examining American interpreter education. Frequencies were calculated for degree types, and pre-liminary results were reported at the 2022 Conference of Interpreter Trainers biannual conference. The authors identified 126 institutions of higher education that offer a total of 166 degrees. Changes between 2010 and 2022 were also determined. In that time, the number of bachelor's degree programs increased while associate's degree programs decreased-still, the majority of degrees offered at institutes of higher education were at the associate's level.

Barbara D. Garrett ([email protected]) is a professor and the chair of the Department of American Sign Language and Interpretation Studies at the University of Northern Colorado. Emily G. Girardin ([email protected]) is the director of the Preparing School Interpreters Project (US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs #H325K210024) and an instructor at the University of Northern Colorado. Whitney R. Weirick (she; [email protected]) is a nationally certified interpreter and researcher focused on advancing educational equity for deaf and hard of hearing students.

This investigation was conducted to create an up-to-date inventory of sign language interpreting programs in the United States. This process began through a document analysis designed to gather data from an exhaustive investigation of information from sources, including the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), the Conference of Interpre ter Trainers (CIT), the Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education (CCIE), two American Annah of the Deofreference issues (2019, 2022), hundreds of college and university webpages, individual state publications, federal grant publications, as well as a detailed review of literature on interpreter education and trends in higher education. The researchers compiled, organized, and analyzed the data to identify similarities and differences in the specific degree offerings of interpreting programs in the United States. This study used knowledge from reports and multiple publications to initi-ate a critical examination of interpreter education programs (IEPs) at institutions of higher education (IHEs).

Literature Review

The history of interpreter education provides the context for this research, offering stakeholders a better understanding of how current approaches embedded in programs have evolved. The literature review will examine the various systems involved in interpreter education, including higher education institutions, national organizations, the Deaf community, and the student population.

History of Interpreter Education

Formal ASL-English interpreter education began in 1974 when the Rehabilitation Service Administration funded the preparation of those who were already fluent in American Sign Language (ASL) yet required interpreting instruction (Ball 2013; Cokely 2005). The rationale for this funding was the high demand and limited avail-ability of interpreters (Fant 1990). Approaches varied significantly, as no research was available regarding curriculum and duration (Cokely 2005; Fant 1990). As this need for interpreters expanded, there was an influx of aspiring interpreters who were less connected to the Deaf community, thus requiring ASL instruction. ASL courses were created at community colleges to meet this need (Cokely 2005; McDermid 2009). By the early 2000s, educators noted that two years was insufficiënt for students to develop both ASL and interpreting skills, which led to the increased development of four-year degree programs (Cokely 2005; Witter-Merithew and Johnson 2004).

IEPs have been situated in two- and four-year public and private institutions; these systems determine how programs function (Caspersen and Smeby 2020). Webb and Napier (2015) noted "that constraints in the higher education system influence how the interprater education system functions. That graduates leave higher education institutes to work as professional interpreters without the necessary skill sets shows a breakdown in both systems" (48). For example, IHEs have limits on the number of credits within a degree plan, which impacts student learning outcomes. At the same time, programs are still responsible for graduates' work and credential readi-ness. For decades, interpreter educators have suggested that preparing entry-level practitioners requires at least a bachelor's degree and perhaps graduate-level education (Ball 2013; Witter-Merithew and Johnson 2005). Regardless, two-year programs remain significant in number. Garrett and Girardin (2019) investigated the ASL expressive competence of 250 applicants to an IEP over an eight-year period. They found that there was only a minimal statistical difference in the ASL skills of students who completed a two-year degree in interpre-tation as compared to students who only took ASL I-IV language courses (Garrett and Girardin 2019). In addition, several publications have questioned the validity of expecting current students to develop both fluent ASL and interpreting skills in less than four years (Beal et al. 2018; Cogen and Cokely 2015; Cokely 2005; Garrett and Girardin 2019; Witter-Merithew and Johnson 2004, 2005). Research has yet to be published that compares the outcomes of two-year degrees versus those with four-year degrees. Clearly, the liberal arts core and general education that comes with a four-year degree should impact student learning outcomes and research is greatly needed to determine the merits of one or the other defmitively. This may be why significant variability in program delivery curriculum, and outcomes exists within and between types of institutions and programs across the United States.

Community colleges typically offer two-year programs, with some requiring an additional year of ASL coursework before entry. Univer-sities usually offer four-year degrees, but some also provide two-year degrees and certificates. Multiple publications have identified incon-sistency in programs regarding structure, content, curriculum, in-struction, entry/exit requirements, and Deaf community involvement (Fitzmaurice 2010; Johnson et al. 2023; McDermid 2009; Mo and Hale 2014; Snyder and McDermid 2019). McDermid (2009) identified the wide variety of methods of interpreter education, including different curriculum foundations (from opinion- to research-based), faculty demographics (predominandy White, hearing individuals who identify as female to more diverse individuals), and widely different andragogical approaches. "It is not surprising given the findings that Deaf educators have continued to openly question the practices and ideology of interpreter education programs" (McDermid 2009, 245).

The CIT, the national organization for interpreter educators, es-tablished the CCIE, which accredits IEPs. This accrediting body has standards that include a research-based curriculum, field experience expectations, specific student outcomes, and regular ongoing program assessment. The CCIE accredits two- and four-year programs without indicating levels or differences in standards for the length of the program. Expectations for accrediting at the graduate level are unclear, even though, as far back as 1979, publications argued for the field to move to a master's degree (Ball 2013). To date, the number of accredited programs remains small. The reasons for this are unclear. Accreditation standards have been published for over a decade and are based on research that is nearly twenty years old. Some might speculate that most programs incorporate the CCIE standards into their curriculum. However, only a handful of IEPs are at research universities. Therefore, most programs require instructors and program leaders to carry heavy instructional loads. The work of initial accreditation is extremely time-consuming and requires gathering an enormous amount of program and institutional data. Without insti-tutional support, it is a daunting task.

Professional Standards

Federal laws intended to provide the Deaf community access to public education have not clarified what makes an interpreter "qualified" to work; thus, each state has been left to establish its standards, with some states not setting any standards (Johnson et al. 2023). Johnson and colleagues (2023) noted that only ten state education agencies (SEAs) in the United States have academie requirements for educational inter-preters, with five requiring a four-year degree. Twenty states require an assessment of the educational interpreters' knowledge foundation through the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) written test. Forty-one SEAs required skills assessments through the EIPA performance test, state-run assessments, or national certification. Extensive literature has regularly identified inconsistent standards for interpreters across the United States (Fitzmaurice 2017; Johnson et al. 2023; Schick, Williams, and Kupermintz 2006). Although more classroom interpreters have graduated from an IEP, patterns are still unfortunately apparent that provide evidence that formal interpreter education may not prepare students to meet the specialized needs of the public school setting (e.g., curricular and pedagogical approaches, child and language development, educational psychology management strategies, implication of state/federal laws, and the roles carried out by all members of the educational team) (Cates 2021; Johnson et al 2023). Johnson and colleagues (2023) challenged the field to move to the minimum foundations for school interpreting, including academie credentials (i.e., a bachelor's degree in interpreting), professional cre-dentials for interpreting in schools, continuing education, and supervi-sion and accountability. However, most states' employment standards for school interpreters were not firm and had the option to hire unqualified individuals under provisional or temporay status (Johnson et al. 2023). Many interpreters express concern about the quality of services delivered to Deaf and hard of hearing children when qualifica-tions, evaluations, and professional development vary widely (Johnson et al. 2023; Kurz, Schick, and Hauser 2015; Williamson 2020; Weirick 2021). With the high de mand and limited supply of interpreters, many hiring agencies in education and community settings have offered positions to new graduates prior to credentialing (Fitzmaurice 2017; Johnson et al. 2023; Walker and Shaw 2011).

However, despite these concerns with the state-established stan-dards, the RID has not required a discipline-specific degree for na-tional certification. The RID's decision required all certification candidates to have completed a four-year degree in any major. Al-though some students began pursuing four-year degrees in inter-preting, others chose to complete degrees in unrelated disciplines (Johnson et al. 2018; Winston and Monikowski 2013). Research has challenged the RID's decision that a noninterpreting degree does little to prepare students with the competencies needed to success-fully enter the field (Ball 2013; Cokely 2005; Garrett and Girardin 2019; 2020; Volk 2014; Witter-Merithew and Johnson 2004; 2005). Garrett and Girardin (2020) challenged the RID to partner with the CIT to establish correlations between standards for IEPs and expec-tations of RID's credentials, thus ensuring students were taught the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for credentialing. An IEP as a prerequisite for national certification remains consistent with the research on new interpreters' readiness to work.

In addition to increasing standards for national certification, there has also been ongoing discussion on how to support the preparation of more diverse interpreters and Deaf populations. The most recent RID annual report (2021) listed 14,342 members; of the 11,504 who provided self-reported demographic information, 83 percent (n = 9577) identified as European American/White, 7 percent (n = 778) identified as Hispanic/Latinx, 6 percent (n = 700) identified as African American, 2 percent (n = 227) identified as Asian American/Pacific Islander, and 2 percent (n = 222) identified as American Indian/Native Alaskan. West Oyedele (2015) described IEPs as needing more cultural competence, capital, and diversity among interpreter educators.

Student Readiness

Most interpreting students enter IEPs with little to no ASL expe-rience and lack pre-established ties to the Deaf community (Kurz and Hill 2018). Literature has shown that this population has been less motivated to connect with the Deaf community (Jennings-Arey 2020; Willoughby and Sell 2019). This may be wby students' lan-guage fluency was noted as lacking, negatively impacting readiness for credentialing (Beal et al. 2018, 2020; Gamache 2018; Garrett and Girardin 2019; Girardin 2023; Snyder and McDermid 2019). Students were not always aware of gaps in their learning, which include meta-cognition and inability to self-evaluate, due to the Dunning-Kruger effect: the overestimation of one's abilities and lack of self-awareness of one's actual level of competence (Fitzmaurice 2020; Girardin 2023; Prozesky et al. 2019; Stauffer 2011).

To compound matters, the pandemic that began in 2019 impacted interpreter education in ways still yet to be fully understood. Bozkurt and colleagues (2020) described how students' experiences in IHEs were impacted due to emergency remote education. For example, the pandemic limited authentic ASL learning through Deaf community interactions due to shutdowns, quarantines, and restrictions of group gatherings. For ASL and interpreter educators, the impact of remotely delivering education in the skills needed for a practice profession that involved both auditory and visual languages was daunt-ing. Halley Wessling, and Sargent (2022) noted that 87 percent of educators in their study (n = 44) reported that the pandemic signifi-cantly impacted students' ASL skills. Throughout the pandemic, many students remained in programs and worked through degrees, some planning to move to a higher degree program after completing the one they were in.

Students who completed two-year programs often looked to transfer to a four-year interpretation program. Transferring from one program to another can be challenging for students (Ballentine et al. 2022). As a result, various programs have developed articulation agreements, but limited public information is available (Ballentine et al. 2022).

Preparing Interpreters for Specialized Settings

Most IEPs provide students with an overview of specializations or advanced settings with the primary goal of preparing them to be entry-level interpreters (Walker and Shaw 2011; Johnson et al. 2023). Walker and Shaw (2011) noted how students graduating with two-or four-year degrees were not yet ready to enter complex, advanced, or specialized settings. Cogen and Cokely (2015) described how the majority of graduates from interpreting programs began work in edu-cational settings. Johnson and colleagues (2023) described the lack of consistency in preparation of interpreters for specialized settings, particularly K-12 schools. Garrett and Girardin's (2019) quantitative study challenged the ASL expressive fluency of graduates from two-year IEPs, most of whom were already employed as interpreters in schools. In that study, the majority of graduates with a two-year de-gree in interpreting required two additional years of ASL instruction to develop their language prior to entering interpreting coursework at a four-year interpreting program, or year three of their academie study (Garrett and Girardin 2019). Therefore, with the inconsistency of program preparation for specialized settings and varying degrees of skills, questions remain regarding the degree of competence of new graduates entering the educational setting.

Specialized training allows interpreters to work in complex situ-ations. Specific education and training were designed to work with Deaf signers of highly diverse linguistic backgrounds or to be prepared for specific settings such as educational, legal, healthcare, and mental health (Walker and Shaw 2011). Some IEPs may offer a specialized degree program that prepares interpreters to meet users' unique needs and reduce the shortage of interpreters in these specific complex settings. While many entry-level interpreters work in education, it is one of the most complex settings in which an interpreter may work (Johnson et al. 2018, 2023). Most interpreters work in the classroom at one time or another during their career. Programs that provide specific curricula for this do so on the belief that "the interpreter works with everyone in the school, not just the student(s) assigned for the academie year. . . . The work of interpreters in educational settings is multi-faced and requires a wide range of competencies encompass-ing knowledge, attitudes, and skills" (Preparing School Interpreters Project n.d., 14).

Witter-Merithew and Nicodemus (2011) emphasized the need for specialized knowledge and skills to support the growing diverse needs in interpreting: 'Without the intentional development of specialization . . . it will remain difficult-perhaps impossible-to protect the interest of consumers who rely on the services of interpreters with specialized competence" (p. 73). However, this training should occur post-graduation with supervision and mentoring or as part of mas-ter's degree programs. Graduates of IEPs may locate work in these settings that require specialized knowledge. However, doing so is typically beyond the scope of their abilities (Walker and Shaw 2011). As student interpreters are still developing their self-assessment skills post-graduation, working with unconscious incompetence in settings one is ill-prepared for impacts customers profoundly (Bontempo and Napier 2007).

The current state of interpreter education includes layers of com-plexity It involves systems with intersecting variables that include the Deaf community, IHEs, state and national organizations, varying state defmitions of "qualified," and changes in the student population; each of these with overlapping issues across agencies, with varying perspectives on andragogy and a lack of agreement surrounding de-sired outcomes. Cabrera and Cabrera (2015) defmed this as a wicked problem, or "the mismatch between how real-world systems work and how we think they should work." (p. 12).

To investigate the current state of interpreter education, the fol-lowing research questions guided this investigation of the current state of interpreting education:

1. As of the beginning of 2022, how many programs offer degrees in ASL-English interpretation, and what types of degrees were offered?

2. What program changes occurred between 2019 and 2022 (preand postpandemic)?

3. What transfer information was available to students completing a two-year degree and seeking to enroll in a four-year interpreter education degree program?

4. What data were available on programs that offer interpreting spe-cializations, such as interpreting in mental health settings, medical settings, educational settings, etc?

5. How were IEPs described on college websites?

6. What percentage of IEPs hold accreditation from the CCIE?

Method

To document active IEPs and degrees offered in the United States, the authors conducted an exhaustive search of publicly available website data and publications from professional organizations in the field of interpreting and thousands of public website pages from colleges and universities. Professional organizations included the the RID, the CIT, the CCIE, and the National Association of the Deaf, among others.

Data were collected during two time periods: fall 2019 and spring 2022. For initial data collection (2019), the authors used the CIT and RID interpreter program directory tools to initially create a matrix of programs by state. Inclusion criteria included postsecondary programs that (a) were focused on ASL-English interpretation at public and private IHEs, (b) were active and accepting students at the time of data collection, and (c) offered certificate (defined here as eigh-teen credits or more with knowledge- and skills-based coursework), associate's (e.g., associate's of applied arts/sciences and associate's of arts/sciences), bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degrees. Programs that offered certificates or degrees focused only on ASL, Deaf studies or Deaf education-with no interpreting emphasis-were excluded from counts. Grant training programs not tied to a degree offering were also excluded.

Programs were included based on the institution's defmition of the type of degree and if the coursework aligned with the name of the major; that is, they were prima facie focused on interpreting. Of note, certificate programs varied widely and were difficult to categorize. A small number of IHEs offered interpreting minors that were as low as twelve to fifteen credits. These minors were excluded as they did not meet the criteria to be considered as certificates. Programs with "inverted majors," in which the student takes liberal arts and other coursework related to prior learning and future goals but receives no additional training in the major, were also excluded.

First-round data analysis in 2019 focused on identifying programs based on the criteria above and excluding inactive programs. In many cases, it was not possible to determine whether programs were active from their websites, so authors contacted the university, including, for example, the program administrators with knowledge of those programs. From the remaining programs identified as active, authors systematically reviewed program websites to gather data addressing each of the six research questions. Where program data we re missing or unclear, this was noted and subsequently cross-checked by the research team using web-based resources previously described. Simple frequencies were calculated in second-round analyses, and data were reviewed recursively for accuracy In spring 2022, data were reviewed and analyzed so authors could calculate frequencies and changes from 2019 based on impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. Good faith efforts were made to accurately document all active programs and de-gree offerings using the same approach to data collection and analysis that occurred in 2019. This was challenging considering the extreme variability in the information publicly available on websites. A limited amount of information regarding changes to specific programs or degree offerings was available on the websites.

Results

The following results provide fmdings for the six research questions investigated. At times, the researchers found multiple data sources for a single question. Hundreds of hours were spent reviewing and compiling data that provided the following results. In addition, the researchers participated in multiple checks for the consistency of results across time and across researchers to support the reliability of the fmdings.

Program Numbers

The first research question asked about the number and type of de-grees offered (e.g., certificate, associate's degree, bachelor's degree, or graduate degree) in ASL-English interpreting. Table 1 illustrates the results of the number of programs offering degrees in ASL-English interpreting. As of 2022, the associate's degree still makes up most programs (n = 68), closely foliowed by the bachelor's degree (n = 54). This fmding aligned with the research that IEPs were previously viewed as trades-based "training" rather than an academie approach to preparing practice professionals (Garrett and Girardin 2019; Winston and Monikowski 2013).

The 166 interpreting degrees identified in this study were located nationwide at 126 different institutions (see the appendix), with some universities offering more than one certificate or degree. The National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers (NCIEC 2010), funded by grants from the US Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Training of Interpreters Program CFDA #84.160A and 84.160B, identified ten certificate programs, seventy-eight associate's programs, and thirty-nine bachelor's programs. Re-markably this 2022 data compiled by the authors demonstrated that certificate programs have increased by twenty-six, associate's programs have reduced by seven, and bachelor's degree programs have increased by fifteen.

The terminology used to describe programs varied widely by IEP. Certificate programs (n = 36) included different explanations for the term certificate. Of the total number of certificate programs, 8 percent (three of thirty-six) awarded a standalone preservice certificate intended as preparation for students without interpreting experi-ence seeking entry into the interpreting field. In contrast, 22 percent (eight of thirty-six) had degree prerequisites for a specialized certificate program, similar to continuing education in a specific area. The remaining programs (twenty-five of thirty-six) included names and descriptions that were inconsistent, unclear, or difficult to categorize. One program of note was titled a "certification program," which is typically associated with the RID national certification credential.

Forty-two of the fifty U.S. states have at least one IEP (see table 2). The eight states in which an IEP was not identified were Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming. Notably one state offered only a certificate program, while all the other states with programs had at least one or more programs that resulted in at least a two-year degree. The states with the highest number of degree offerings included California with twenty-three (eight certificate, twelve associate's, and three bachelor's), Texas with fourteen (two certificate, ten associate's, and two bachelor's), and New York with eleven (five certificate, two associate's, three bachelor's, and one master's). Table 2 details the number and type of degrees offered in each state. A full listing of each of the IEPs included in this data is found in the appendix.

Data gathering was challenged by variations regarding how IEPs were represented by various organizations. For example, some organi-zations listed an IEP, and when that program's website was reviewed, it was determined that the degree was a related discipline, such as communication, Deaf studies, or linguistics. Some of these programs did have credits related to interpreting coursework, and the number of credits between different IHEs varied. One degree program listed the following (paraphrased to maintain the confidentiality of the program): "This program helps to prepare students to pursue a bachelor of arts or master of arts degree in the profession of audiology, deaf education, interpreting, and speech-language pathology." A catalog review showed that students were expected to take ASL skills courses, knowledge-based courses, and an interpreting practicum but did not include any interpreting skills courses.

Changes Between 2019-2022

The second research question investigated the changes in programs and interpreting degrees offered between 2019 and 2022. This study was initially conducted in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. Much changed during the ensuing years; therefore, the researchers replicated the original study in 2022. The following includes a discussion of the changes in IEPs between 2019 and 2022.

In the three years between the initial study (2019) and the fol-low-up study (2022), the status of ten interpreting degree offerings changed. Two certificates, seven associate's degrees, one bachelor's degree, and two master's degrees were discontinued, eliminated, or listed as inactive. Some of the associate's programs with status changes happened in states with well-established bachelor's degree interpreting programs. Of note, one bachelor's degree program ceased by 2022 because the IHE permanently closed. Patterns observed in this study were consistent with those in other degree programs nationwide. The COVID-19 pandemic left a lasting impact on the higher education system, including declining enrollment, reduced state funding, and uncertain budget constraints (National Conference of State Legis-latures 2021). While this study sought to document increases and decreases in the number and type of IEP programs, the data available did not provide information as to what changes might have occurred as a result of student and faculty experiences.

Degree Transferability

The third research question investigated the transfer process for stu-dents who have completed a two-year IEP and wish to enter a four-year IEP. This question reviewed options listed on each program's website that covered transfer options or institutional partnerships. Across the degrees offered, 20 percent (thirty-three of 166) of websites discussed transfer options, articulation agreements, or other partnerships. Most programs with these options did not have an articulation agreement but rather listed specific courses for a student to complete rather than partnerships. Some program websites listed specific uni-versities where certain courses could be transferred by noting a specific course acceptable for pursuing a particular major at the specific institution. Often, students were directed to major in something other than interpretation, such as Communications.

Of the fewer than ten partnerships or articulation agreements identified, there was a lack of consistency regarding defmitions of terminology and process, which may confuse students. The time be-tween transfer and graduation was unclear, as was if the associate's degree was primarily ASL and the bachelor's degree was primarily interpreting. Admissions screenings versus direct transfer options were also rarely mentioned. There were a few collaborative partnerships, as described by Ballentine and colleagues (2022), which included an articulation agreement, shared curriculum, coordinated program screenings using the same tooi, an educational plan for students for each semester of the program across both IHEs, and collaborative advising. In comparison, the NCIEC report (2010) identified that

42 percent (n = ~30) of the associate's programs reported articulation agreements in place (Cokely and Winston 2010). This number ap-pears to either be unavailable or significantly lower by 2022.

Specializations

The fourth research question inquired into the data available on the number of programs that offer specialization. This analysis showed that 11 percent (nineteen of 166) of degrees offered included specializations on their public-facing website (table 3), the most com-mon of which was educational interpreting (n = 12). This may be due to grant funding available for preparing school personnel. The least-common specialization listed was DeafBlind interpreting. Most specializations were part of a postgraduation certificate program or a standalone certificate program for experienced interpreters, with the exception of educational interpreting, which was included in ten undergraduate and two graduate degrees. This fmding may be influ-enced by the Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) federal funding available to increase the quality and quantity of related service providers, such as educational interpreters, for students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Program Description

The fifth research question inquired how each college website por-trayed and described the IEP. The researchers examined multiple ele-ments across public program websites, and two variables were included in this review: (a) diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) depicted on the website and (b) the description of program outcomes.

DEI. Across the public IEP websites of 126 institutions offering the 166 degrees, DEI was addressed in various ways with most programs (106 out of 126), including a diversity statement, displaying images and videos that included individuals of diverse backgrounds, and resources to support diverse students. Some institutions provided resources for students of diverse backgrounds, including professional training op-portunities for diverse students, clubs that support underrepresented students, website links with relevant content, and scholarships available to students of various backgrounds. Some websites appeared to limit diversity to the Deaf community (e.g., activities calendar) and ethnicity and race (e.g., Hispanic-serving institution). Few mentioned intersectional ties that might encompass one's identity. Three programs offered advanced training opportunities for working interpreters with a focus on serving people of diverse backgrounds. Other than these items identified, there was little else on websites that directly addressed diversity. Overall, 84 percent (106 of 126) of programs at IHEs in-cluded some diversity in their messaging about their IEPs.

Program Outcomes. Postgraduation outcome data provides students with information regarding program quality and opportunities for employability and provides the interpreting field with vital statistics. Out of the 126 IEPs identified, only one institution listed statistics that showed state or national certification pass rates of graduates. This may be due to privacy regulations or that students do not always communicate with program faculty or leadership after graduating and earning certification. Several programs described timelines for earn-ing state or national credentials, spanning one to five years. Several programs also included tests to pursue postgraduation, including local evaluation/licensure, state quality assurance screening, EIPA writ-ten and performance tests, and the Center for Assessment of Sign Language Interpreting Generalist Exams including the Fundamentals of Interpreting Exam and Ethics and Cultural Responsiveness Exam (i.e., National Interpreter Certification [NIC]). Notably, less than five IEPs mentioned the NIC Performance Exam. The fact that only one program included statistics on program outcomes was consistent with Holmes (2020), who noted that less than two-thirds of program leaders who participated in his study maintained data on the outcomes of their program.

Most IEP websites approached the description of outcomes with ambiguous statements. For example, "work readiness" was addressed by describing settings where graduates could work; the most com-mon were educational, community and video relay Some websites included working in Deaf-related fields as paraeducators, teachers, or mentors of interpre te rs and included advanced interpreting in health-care or legal settings. Fewer than five institutions listed language flu-ency as an expected program outcome. Only two program websites commented on the need for continuing professional development postgraduation.

Program Accreditation

The final research question inquired into the percentage of IEPs that hold CCIE accreditation. Currently 14 percent of IHEs with an interpreter education program hold CCIE accreditation (eighteen accredited programs across 126 IHEs). Most are at the bachelor's de-gree level (n = 15), and few are at the associate's degree level (n = 3). Of all the bachelor's degrees offered as of 2022, only 28 percent (fifteen of fifty-four) hold CCIE accreditation; of all the associate's degrees offered as of 2022, only 4 percent (three of sixty-eight) were accredited at the time of this publication.

Discussion

The result of this data shows that overall, there has been an increase in IEPs and degrees offered since 2010. As the field of interpreter education continues to move toward a four-year degree as the Standard for new practitioners entering the field, there has been an increase in four-year programs from thirty-nine to fifty-four. This increase of fifteen bachelor's degrees offered benefits the field. As this movement has been underway the two-year programs have remained. In 2010, there were seventy-eight two-year programs; in 2019, seventy-five were identified. Then, in 2022, the number dropped to sixty-eight.

The change between 2019 and 2022 is likely related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2019, the number of two-year programs has remained relatively stable, with an overall decrease of seven. It is interesting to note that the number of certificate programs increased by twenty-six between 2010 and 2022. Three of the programs are preservice certificates, and eight specialized certificates are of an advanced nature and include degree prerequisites. The descriptions of the rest of the certificate programs were unclear and difficult to categorize. If those programs are also preservice programs, then this would represent a move in the wrong direction for interpreter education.

For over forty years, interpreter educators have recommended that becoming a proficient entry-level interpreter practitioner requires at least a bachelor's degree and likely a master's degree (Ball 2013; Witter-Merithew and Johnson 2005). Regardless, two-year degrees are still the majority of programs. The increase in bachelor's degrees is encouraging. Less encouraging is that several preservice programs are still offered at the certificate level. This perpetuates the notion that ASL-English interpretation is a trade that can be quickly learned rather than a complex cognitive process requiring advanced linguistic and cultural knowledge.

Regarding consistency of curricular content, data from this study affirmed publications identifying a need for more consistency across degree offerings. Published databases that list Communications and Deaf studies degrees as interpreter education and the terminology used to describe the programs were widely inconsistent. Additionally the strong presence of trades-based versus practice-profession language and educational practices in the preparation of interpreters was still apparent in 2022. ASL-English interpretation is a highly skilied prac-tice profession requiring extensive education across knowledge, skills, and attitudes and ongoing training with supervised field experience. Nearly twenty years have passed since Witter-Merithew and Johnson (2005) published the seminal work that listed thirty-four entry-to-practice competencies as the minimal knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for interpreters entering the field. Embedding these competencies in the curriculum of an IEP would strengthen outcomes and prepare a program for applying to become accredited. A review of the CCIE accreditation standards (Commission on Collegiate Interprater Education 2019) demonstrates that these competencies are a significant part of the curricular content expectations.

The data reviewed demonstrated that student experiences are var-ied within and between programs. This includes student outcomes and transfer options. Students looking for an IEP who find published databases that list Communications and Deaf studies degrees as interprater education could enroll in a program that would not prepare them for the field. The terminology used to describe IEPs was widely inconsistent. In some instances, the word certification was written so that a reader could assume that upon completion, a graduate was then professionally "certified." Overall, outcomes for graduates were largely unclear. Several programs listed employment opportunities for new graduates that do not align with the reality of the profession. This may be one reason so few programs publish the certification rates of graduates. These findings indicate that programs may portray and describe themselves in a manner that aligns with program goals but might need to be more consistent with research and reality.

DEI issues were present on many websites. While it is encourag-ing that 84 percent of IHEs with IEPs displayed images of diverse individuals or addressed diversity, some might question the substance of what was provided, as it was mainly images and statements. How much curricular content is relevant to the needs of diverse learners needs to be clarified. Programs should consider ways to demonstrate support or activities that increase the diversity of interpraters in the field. Further, programs, especially non-CCIE-accredited ones, should proactively maintain and publish postprogram outcomes to provide stakeholders with knowledge about the program's quality. While many IEPs exist across the nation, disparities also raise essential consider-ations. Clear defmitions and consistency across IEPs will ensure that interprater education identifies and implements changes that better support students through effective education addressing the diverse needs of users of interpreting services.

Several IEPs promoted specialized courses, programs, and training. Some of these were for students who had already completed a degree in interpretation. However, many programs promoted education as an entry-level employment position for graduates. While often the case, these graduates must be well prepared for this work. Nearly every website that listed employment opportunities for students listed educational interpreting as an option for graduates. Unfortunately a minimal number of programs (n = 12) offered a specialization in educational interpreting despite the fact that the majority of graduates from IEPs begin work in schools as interpreters (Cogen and Cokely 2015). After the Suprème Court decision in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (2023) and the National Association of Interpreters in Education (NAIE) published a joint statement that included: Interpreting in educational settings requires highly specialized, ad-vanced skills as well as knowledge of ASL, English, interpreting, and education in order to promote a free and appropriate public education for Deaf children. Educational interpreting is not and should never be considered an entry-level position, nor should it be rel-egated to novice interpreters or paraprofessionals without the appropriate training and specialized skills and abilities needed to interpret effectively for Deaf children. It is the responsibility of interpreting programs in colleges and universities to ensure that interpreters are adequately prepared to work in educational settings. (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf 2023)

It could be argued that IEPs who condone new graduates starting in K-12 schools without providing specialized instruction in the complex linguistic, academie, and socioemotional needs of Deaf students are, in fact, doing those children a grave disservice while perpetuat-ing the illusion of equitable access (Caselli, Hall, and Henner 2020; Girardin 2023; Johnson et al. 2023; Williamson 2020).

CCIE Accreditation

This study did not identify the reasons why so few programs are ac-credited, but the first step toward greater consistency in interpreter education is for more programs to become accredited. It is a lengthy time-consuming process with a significant fmancial investment from the institution, and it may be the first step toward improving the overall state of interpreter education in ways that benefit students and, sub-sequently those with whom they work upon graduation. As the field seeks to improve interpreter education to benefit the Deaf community

who relies on quality interpreting services, IEP stakeholders should consider why so few IEPs pursue accreditation and the potential impacts on interpreting students and, ultimately, Deaf consumers.

Limitations

Limitations include the possibility of unidentified IEPs and the in-formation being limited to public-facing websites. This study had a narrowed focus on programs and degrees offered in the United States and did not include Canada. This potentially limits the generaliz-ability of the study's fmdings to different contexts in other countries (Lochmiller and Lester 2017).

Time constraints limited the duration of the examination of programs to once in 2019 and again in 2022. These reviews provided snapshots into this dynamic data set. Yearly analyses might have provided more specific information to help understand why specific programs closed and the impact of those program closures.

Finally, this study was a document review and only interacted with program leaders when requesting clarification on specific website content. Data were collected at a time when most educators at IHEs were overwhelmed with managing emergency remote education during a pandemic or returning to campus with restrictions. Survey data would have been challenging to gather during this time. The researchers acknowledge that the websites were not the complete picture of any program or degree, as they provide the public face of a program for the purpose of recruitment, communication with current students regarding the program, and catalog and curriculum information. Additional contact with each program leader through surveys or interviews would have provided more in-depth content.

Recommendations

The ultimate purpose of this study was to conduct a critical examination of IEPs in the United States to understand the state of inter-preter education better, reflect on current trends and the impact on stakeholders, and strengthen interpreter education through additional information. The field of interpreter education would benefit from additional research in this area, including a quantifiable research project that compares the student outcomes between two- and four-year programs to determine if there is a difference. In addition, further research should examine IEP leaders' work in interpreter education in areas such as program outcomes and curriculum changes for the next generation of interpreting students.

The field of interpreter education needs to universally implement a curriculum that prepares graduates for professional work and achiev-ing credentials. This requires changes to the curriculum to incorpo-rate research publications that standardize delivery across the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes. More specifically, interpreter education needs to make changes to better prepare interpreters for one of the main settings where interpreters are employed: the K-12 educational school system. The other significant area of employment, video-relay service companies, have extensively established employee training programs. Most public school systems do not. To best serve Deaf and hard of hearing children, postgraduation continuing education and supervision should be implemented everywhere. Programs with limited funds might consider applying for funding from their state education department to implement this or apply for one of the federal personnel preparation grants. Alternatively they could adopt publicly available curricula developed through several grant-funded projects.

Organizations that list IEPs on their websites should vet the programs to ensure they are, in fact, IEPs. When they do not have the resources to do so, they should state clearly on their website that the programs have been self-reported and guide students to resources that help them identify programs accurately. One excellent resource is the CCIE, and organizations might prioritize promoting CCIE-accredited programs.

Layers of factors influencing programs compound the complexity of the work of interpreter education. However, the influences of the system cannot be an excuse but a reminder of how multiple elements need improvement to create systematic change to improve the quality of services delivered to Deaf and nondeaf consumers, advance professional standards, and benefit the next generation of interpreters seeking to enter the field.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of two individuals for contributing to this project, (a) Cynthia Fisher, interpreter and educa-tor, for collaborating in the collection of data in 2022 and copresent-ing in 2022, and (b) Marissa Gomez-Wall, an interpreting student for contributing her time to supporting our team on this project.

References

References

Annual Reference Issue. 2019. American Annah of the Deaf 164 (2): 282-93.

Annual Reference Issue. 2022. American Annah of the Deaf 167(2): 211-22.

Ball, C. 2013. Legacies and Legends: History of Interpreter Education from 1800 to the 2ist Century. Interpreting Consolidated.

Ballentine, P., B. Garrett, S. Faltinson, and M. Stricklen. 2022. Enhancing Language Proficiency in Today's Interpreting Student: A Model of Collaboration between a Traditional Two-Year ITP and a Four-Year Bachelor's Degree Interpreting Program. Paper presented at 2022 Conference of the Interpreter Trainers, Ring of Prussia, PA.

Beal, J. 2020. University American Sign Fanguage (ASF) Second Fanguage Fearners: Receptive and Expressive ASF Performance. Journal oflnterpre-tation 28 (1): 1-27. https://digitalcommons.unf.edU/joi/vol28/issl/l.

Beal, J., N. Scheetz, J. Frussell, A. McAUister, andj. Fistman . 2018. University American Sign Fanguage Fearners: Fongitudinal Self- and Faculty Evalua-tion Ratings. Journal of Interpretation 26 (1): 1-27. https://digitalcommons .unf.edu/joi/vol26/issl/5/.

Bontempo, K., andj. Napier. 2007. Mind the Gap!: A Skills Analysis of Sign Fanguage Interpreters. The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1 (2): 275-99.

Bozkurt, A., I. Jung, J. Xiao, V Vladimirschi, R. Schuwer, G. Egorov, and S. Fambert. 2020. A Global Outlook to the Interruption of Education Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Navigating in a Fime of Uncertainty and Crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education 15 (1): 1-26. https://doi.org /10.5281/zenodo.3878572.

Cabrera, D. and F. Cabrera. 2015. Systems Thinking Made Simple: New Hope for Solving Wicked Problems (2nd ed.). Plectica PubHshing.

Caselli, N. W. Hall, andj. Henner. 2020. American Sign Fanguage Interpreters in Public Schools: An Illusion of Inclusion Fhat Perpetuates Fanguage Deprivation. Maternal Child Health 24 (11): 1323-29. https:// doi.org/10.1007/sl0995-020-02975-7.

Caspersen, J., andJ.-C Smeby. 2020. Placement Fraining and Fearning Outcomes in Social Work Education. Studies in Higher Education 46 (12): 2650-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1750583.

Cates, D. M. 2021. Patterns in EIPA Test Scores and Implications for Interpreter Education. Journal of Interpretation 23 (1): 1-31. https://digitalcommons.unf ,edu/joi/vol29/issl/6/

Cogen, C, and D. Cokely. 2015. Preparing Interpreten for Tomorrow: Report on a Study ofEmerging Trends in Interpreting and Implications for Interpreter Education. National Interpreter Education Center, https://drive.google.com /file/d/0B3DKvZMflFLdU0olMlJYR01TczQ/view.

Cokely, D. 2005. Shifting Positionality: A Critical Examination of the Turning Point in the Relationship of the Interpreters and the Deaf Com-munity. In Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directionsfor Research and Practice, ed. M. Marschark, R. Peterson, and E. A. Winston, 3-28. Oxford University Press.

Cokely, D., and E. Winston. 2010. Interpreter Education Programs Needs Assess-ment Trends Analysis. National Interpreter Education Center. http://www .interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/IEPTrends Report-FINAL.pdf.

Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education. 2024. Accreditation Standards-2019. Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education. https://www.ccie-accreditation.org/standards.html.

Fant, L. 1990. Silver Threads: A Personal Look at the First 25Years of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. RID Press.

Fitzmaurice, S. 2010. Teaching Goals of Interpreter Educators. International Journal of Interpreter Education 6 (2): 14-26.

Fitzmaurice, S. 2017. Unregulated Autonomy: Uncredentialed Educational Interpreters in Rural Schools. American Annals of the Deaf 162 (3): 253-64. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2017.0024.

Fitzmaurice, S. 2020. Educational Interpreters and the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Journal of Interpretation 28 (2): 1-13. https://digitalcomnions.unf.edu /joi/vol28/iss2/l.

Gamache, K. 2018. "Investigating the Impact of ASL Proficiency Levels on ASL-English Interpretation." PhD diss., Gallaudet University.

Garrett, B., and E. Girardin. 2019. American Sign Language Competency: Comparing Student Readiness for Entry into a Four-Year Interpreter Degree Program. International Journal of Interpreter Education 11 (1): 20-32. https://open.clemson.edu/ijie/volll/issl/4/.

Garrett, B., and E. Girardin. 2020. Embracing the Next Generation of Interpreters: A Call to Action for the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. Journal of Interpretation 28 (2): 1-13. https://digitalconimons.unf ,edu/joi/vol28/iss2/2/.

Girardin, E. 2023. "American Sign Language Fluency: A Foundational Competency for Future School Interpreters." PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University. JScholarship. http://jhir.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/68429.

Halley, M., D. Wessling, and S. Sargent. 2022. Virtual and Viral: Shifts in Sign Language Interpreter Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Interpretation 30 (1): 5. https://digitalconinions.unf.edu/joi/vol30 /issl/5.

Holmes, M. 2020. Toward Standard Interpreter Education Program Admis-sion Criteria. International Journal of Interpreter Education 12 (1): 24-42. https://open.clem.son.edu/ijie/voll2/issl/4/

Jennings-Arey, R. L. (2020) Self-Directedness among American Sign Lan-gauge Learners. Sign Language Studies. 20 (2): 301-333.

Johnson, L., M. Taylor B. Schick, S. Brown, and L. Bolster. 2018. Com-plexities in Educational Interpreting: An Investigation into Patterns of Practice. Interpreting Consolidated.

Johnson, L., M. Taylor, B. Schick, S. Brown, L. Bolster, and E. Girardin. 2023. Complexities in Educational Interpreting: An Investigation into Patterns of Practice. (2nd ed.). Interpreting Consolidated.

Kurz, K., B. Schick, and P Hauser. 2015. Deaf Children's Science Content Learning in Direct Instruction Versus Interpreted Instruction. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities 18 (1): 23-27.

Kurz, K., andj. Hill. 2018. The Heart of Interpreting from Deaf Perspec-tives. In DeafEyes on Interpreting, ed. T. K. Holcomb and D. H. Smith, 58-76. Gallaudet University Press.

Lochmiller, C, and Lester, J. 2017. An Introduction to Educational Research: Connecting Methods to Practice. Sage Publications.

McDermid, C. 2009. Two Cultures, One Programme: Deaf Professors as Subaltern? Deafness and Education International 11 (4): 221-49.

Mo, Y, and S. Hale. 2014. Translation and Interpreter Education and Training: Student Voices. International Journal of Interpreter Education 6 (1): 19-24.

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2021. Eligher Education Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19). NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/education /higher-education-responses-to-coronavirus-covid-19.

National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers. (2010). Interpreter Education Programs Needs Assessment Trends Report. Northeastern University.

Perez v Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. 142. 2023. https://www.supremecourt ,gov/opinions/22pdf/598uslr8_lb72.pdf

Preparing School Interpreters Project, n.d. PSI Project: An OSEP Grant. University of Northern Colorado. https://www.unco.edu/psiproject/.

Prozesky, D.,, M. Molwantwa, O. Nkomazana, and M. Kebaetse. 2019. Intern Preparedness for the CanMEDS Roles and the Dunning-Kruger Effect: A Survey. BMC Medical Education 19:1-13. https://doi.org /10.1186/sl2909-019-1836-z.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. 2021. Annual Report-2021 RID https://rid.org/2021-annual-report/.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. 2023. RID and NAIE Joint Statement on Perez v. Sturgis County Schools System. RID. https://rid.org/wp-content /uploads/2023/05/SCOTUS-Rulmg-on-Schools-and-ADA-for -Interpreters.pdf.

Schick, B., K. Williams, and H. Kupermintz. 2006. Look Who's Being Left Behind: Educational Interpreters and Access to Education for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 11 (1): 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enj007.

Snyder, I., and C. McDermid. 2019. Comparison of Novice Signers and Novice ASL-English Interpreters. Sign Language Studies 19 (14): 519-64. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2019.0012.

Stauffer, L. 2011. ASL Students' Ability to Self-Assess ASL Competency Journal of Interpretation 21 (1): 80-95. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi /vol21/issl/7.

Volk, C. 2014. Sign Language Interpreter Education: Time for a National Call to Action. Street Leverage. https://streetleverage.com/2014/10/sign-language -interpreter-education-time-for-a-national-call-to-action/.

Walker, J., and S. Shaw. 2011. Interpreter Preparedness for Specialized Settings. Journal of Interpretation 21 (1): 1-13. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi /vol21/issl/8.

Webb, S., andj. Napier. 2015. Job Demands and Resources: An Exploration of Sign Language Interpreter Educators'Experiences. International Journal of Interpreter Education 7 (1): 23-33. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi /viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=ijie.

Weirick, W 2021. The Educational Interpreter Supervision and Support Survey: Part 1. American Annals of the Deaf 166 (3): 284-308.

West Oyedele, E. 2015. "Persistence of African-American/Black Signed Language Interpreters in the United States: The importance of Culture and Capital." MA thesis, Western Oregon University

Williamson, A. 2020. "Deaf Students' Experience of Engagement in a Me-diated Education: It Is What It Is." PhD diss., Gallaudet University. Publication No. 28257482.

Willoughby L., and C. Sell. 2019. Studying Sign Language: What Are Hearing Adults Doing Outside of a Class? Sign Language Studies 19 (3): 453-78. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2019.0004.

Winston, E., and C. Monikowski. 2013. Evolving Paradigms in Interpreter Education. Gallaudet University Press.

Witter-Merithew, A., and L. Johnson. 2004. Market Disorder Within the Field of Sign Language Interpreting: Professionalization Implications. Journal of Interpretation. 12 (1): 95-119.

Witter-Merithew, A., and L. Johnson. 2005. Toward Competent Practice: Con-versations with Stakeholders. RID Press.

Witter-Merithew, A., and B. Nicodemus. 2010. Toward the Intentional Development of Interpreter Specialization: An Examination of Two Case Studies. Journal of Interpretation 20 (1): 55-76.