Modality of Instruction in Interpreter Education: An
Exploration of Policy
Suzanne Ehrlich, Dawn M. Wessling
Sign Language Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, Winter 2018, pp. 225-239 (Article)
Published by Gallaudet University Press
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2018.0033
For additional information about this article
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/717009
Access provided at 3 Oct 2019 01:07 GMT from Texas Tech. University
SUZA N N E EHRLIC H A N D
D AWN M. W ESSLIN G
Modality of Instruction
in Interpreter Education:
An Exploration of Policy
Abstract
This study examined the modality of instruction among signed language interpreter education programs in the United States. Faculty
members were surveyed to assess their rationale and implementation of language policies within their respective programs. Modality
of instruction encompasses spoken languages, signed languages, or
a combination of both of these modalities. The researchers identified types of programs based on degree level and language used for
instruction. A survey was distributed to identify language use during
instructional interactions with interpreting students, with special attention paid to sign language interpreting programs. Results of this
study indicated faculty members’ choice of language of instruction
was primarily driven by course content. Other themes identified as
motivating factors for support (or not) of language policies for instructional purposes included student comprehension and program
needs.
Translation and inte rpreting students’ practical education ideally begins once students “have a ‘near perfect’ command of
their working languages” (Gile 2009, 220). Many academic programs
have shifted to a focus that delineates between teaching language and
Suzanne Ehrlich is an assistant professor in the University of North Florida’s
Educational Technology, Training, and Development program and has presented
­nationally and internationally on the topics of e-learning integration for interpreter
education. Dawn M. Wessling is an associate instructor and staff interpreter in the
American Sign Language/English interpreting program.
225
S i gn Language Studi e s Vol . 19 N o. 2 Wi nte r 2019
226 | Sign Lang uag e Studi e s
teaching interpreting (Sawyer 2004, 3). To further complicate matters,
the assumption that all interpreting students have the same level of
competency in their L1 may or may not be accurate. A variety of
strategies have been developed, from screening students prior to entry
into a program to testing students at critical points in their program of
study, as well as remediating deficiencies and incorporating a comprehensive examination at the conclusion of a student’s program of study.
Oftentimes, pedagogical decisions are rooted in “trial and ­error in the
classroom” rather than any grounding in empirical studies (Winston
2013, 179).
Students who are learning to interpret in signed languages are
acquiring languages that are produced using a different modality than
their spoken language(s). In many cases, students have not yet achieved
native-like fluency in the signed modality, yet they are acquiring skills
based on the process of interpreting (Walker and Shaw 2011). Studies
have indicated that for American Sign Language (ASL)-English interpreters the modality of a language is not impactful on the cognition
of that language (Corina and Vaid 1994). If the unspoken aim for
interpreter educators is to enhance interpreting student’s biliteracy in
all of their working languages, then achieving such biliteracy creates
challenges on several levels for both the student and for the interpreter
educator in determining how to best prepare students for their future
professional work. Language policies, the practice of creating policy to
favor one language over another or to enforce utilization of a particular language, have emerged as more common practice in interpreting
programs (Reagan 2010). If a language policy focuses primarily on
signed language, consideration should be given to the concept that
educators are teaching in a language in which some students may not
have sufficient fluency. This may be considered a practice that more
closely resembles status planning, rather than a clear effort to establish
a language policy (Reagan 2010).
Another concern for interpreting programs is the lack of employed qualified faculty who are deaf and use a signed language as
their native language (NL).1 Without a strong deaf faculty presence
in programs, interpreter educators are lead to encourage students to
engage in interactions in the local deaf community with the intent
that this will increase the students’ fluency in their nonnative lan-
Instruction Modality in Interpreter Education | 227
guage (L2) (Cenoz and Jessner 2000). This practice parallels well with
other language learning methods that encourage students to visit or
reside in another country that uses the student’s second target language (TL) in order to increase their fluency in that second language
(Gile 2009). The expectation of this study, and its results, is to foster
dialogue among individuals researching and working in interpreter
education regarding evidence-based decisions around language policies for instruction.
History of Interpreter Education
Interpreter education has a strong genesis in other fields that include
vocational rehabilitation and missionary preparation (Ball 2013). Originally, in the United States the first students enrolled in interpreting
programs entered with the expectation that they were already fluent
in ASL and English and were considered to be established biliterates.
This consideration influenced the design of interpreter education programs during the early stages of the field’s development, resulting in
curricula that primarily focused on teaching interpreting skills rather
than solidifying language skills. Of additional importance is that these
early programs had a strong vocational focus in that they were more
often geared toward workforce readiness. The aim of these programs
at their inception was to develop interpreters who were ready to enter
the workforce immediately upon graduation.
From the historic beginning of interpreter education in 1948
rooted in religious interpreting to the current practice today, educators have had to adjust their focus from teaching interpreting to
building language competency (Ball 2013). A recent shift of interpreting programs implementing an approach of teaching primarily in a
signed modality appears to be resulting in a decreased emphasis on the
students’ spoken language skills. To complicate this issue further, interpreter educators may not be heritage users of ASL, nor may they have
the pedagogical foundation to effectively teach a second language,
despite their qualifications to teach interpreting. McDermid’s (2009)
study of interpreting programs in Canada found that their programs
often separate the faculty by those who teach language and those who
teach interpreting. Regardless, interpreting programs are still cognizant
of the language deficits, in both spoken and signed modalities, yet may
228 | Sign L ang uag e Studi e s
have teaching philosophies that include no formal stance on language
policy, and instead may use various approaches such as total immersion
and bilingual/bicultural approaches.
There are currently about 170 interpreter education programs
throughout the United States, ranging from certificate-level to
doctoral­-degree programs. The most comprehensive framework for
interpreter education curricular standards was produced by the Conference of Interpreter Trainers operated by the Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education (CCIE 2014). CCIE’s standards address
several areas including faculty qualifications, assessment of student
language competency, knowledge of interpreting studies, continuing
development of language fluency, and field experience requirements.
Missing among these competencies is how to teach language within
an interpreting program (Napier 2006). There is a dearth of evidencebased research to support practices regarding language learning in the
context of pursuing an interpreter education certificate or degree.
Curricula Design and Philosophy
McDermid (2009) identifies three categories of curriculum: explicit,
implicit, and null, within interpreter education programs. Foundational
skills in ASL are typically part of an explicit curriculum that includes
specific course sequencing throughout the program of study, while
attainment of native-like fluency may be a part of the implicit curriculum. The implicit curriculum is similar to what Sawyer (2004)
identifies as the hidden curriculum that “instills values and beliefs
that shape future members of the professional community” (42). Examples of the ways in which the implicit curriculum may be applied
to language learning is evident in how students are encouraged to
be involved in deaf community events; directing students to socialize with deaf people outside of interpreting practice. Of concern is
the null curriculum, or that which is not taught in programs of study.
One example McDermid (2009) suggests is in regard to programs
not teaching transliteration. Other examples of null curriculum might
either include DeafBlind interpreting, working with deaf interpreters,
or pro-tactile/haptic interpreting strategies as there are few programs
that teach this beyond introduction. Determinations regarding the
type of content taught within a program of study are typically based
Instruction Modality in Interpreter Education | 229
on the skills that are in greatest demand immediately upon entering
the workforce and less focus is given to skills that are less common to
everyday exercise in general practice.
Second Language Teaching and Learning
Second language acquisition is well researched and examines both
the study of individuals learning a second language and the cognitive processes involved in learning a second language (Saville-Troike
2006). Acquisition of a signed language as a second language follows
the same cognitive processes as learning a second spoken language
(Woll 2012). The cognitive anatomy for “language processing is not
determined by the auditory input modality” and so one might think
that modality should not determine language proficiency (Campbell,
MacSweeney, and Waters 2008, 5). The modality of languages does
not appear to suggest differences in the ability to learn them, but the
process for learning a signed language is often different from spoken
languages (Williams 2011). Students may be instructed in their NL or
in the TL, or in some combination of both.
A chapter by Rosen and colleagues (2014) suggests that students
learning ASL gain greater vocabulary retention through a “voice-off ”
approach or through the TL method of instruction. However, some
of these students benefited from a mixed method of NL/TL teaching, depending on individual learning styles, which includes visual or
auditory processing styles. The least effective modality for vocabulary
learning was “voice-on.” Furthermore, they suggested that educators
must “. . . appreciate and ascertain the diversity of language processing
schemas employed by their learners prior to selecting the language
of instruction in their classrooms” (170). This may indicate that the
selection of modality for instruction should be fluid and dependent
upon the students’ needs rather than the educator’s preference or
program language policy.
In interpreting programs where the second language is another
spoken language, students will often live and learn within a country
where the TL is in the majority. Conversely, there is no “deaf ” country
that will facilitate natural learning for signed languages and students
often learn in a classroom and through contrived interactions with the
deaf community. The Signing Naturally curriculum is used by many
230 | Sign L ang uag e Studi e s
programs in the United States and suggests a functional-notional approach to teaching ASL (Smith, Lentz, and Mikos 2008). This concept
uses contextually authentic situations in order to guide students in
their understanding of how the language functions within particular
settings. Smith, Lentz, and Mikos’s (2008) curriculum for postsecondary programs recommends lesson objectives to teach signed languages,
with an aim of acquiring the TL as it is used in conversational (i.e.,
informal) contexts, rather than preparing students to become fluent
in all registers of the language. This results in a reduction of exposure
to other critical aspects of language development and fluency in their
second language, and in some cases an erroneous self-determination
of fluency. As Bienvenu (2014) suggests, interpreters and interpreter
educators may not have the same working definition of what it means
to be bilingual in a signed and spoken language exchange.
In many areas of the United States, students may already be bilinguals of spoken languages, namely Spanish and English.This additional
spoken language fluency is not formally incorporated in any interpreting programs within the United States, although there are several
resources available through the National Consortium of Interpreter
Education Centers (2014). In addition to these resources, there are
existing qualification exams such as the Texas Board for Evaluation of
Interpreters that assess for trilingual interpreting skills (Texas Department of Health and Human Services 2016).
Curricula Decisions in Interpreter Education
One issue within contemporary work for signed language interpreting
is the readiness to work gap of graduates from interpreter education
programs. Despite continuous improvement to curricula and increasing numbers of empirically based teaching practices, many students
are graduating without certification from associate, baccalaureate, or
master’s level programs (Williams 2011).While this is not an indication
that students are not qualified and well prepared, it does propose a potential issue in determining their ability to provide adequate services
from a consumer perspective (Steinberg, Sullivan, and Loew 1998).
Lack of proficiency in ASL is often cited as one reason for the gap
from school to work (Quinto-Pozos 2005). Curriculum design and
enhanced skill development across an entire program are also con-
Instruction Modality in Interpreter Education | 231
cerns in interpreter education programs (Cokely 2005; Humphrey and
­Alcorn 2007). Consideration must also be given to the high failure
rate (70 percent) for the current iteration of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) National Interpreter Certification Interview
and Performance Exam (RID 2014). The written portion of the RID
test has a much lower failure rate (16 percent). This might suggest that
interpreter education programs are preparing their students for the
work only in theory but not in practice or application.
Methods of instruction in interpreter education programs in the
United States have recently moved toward a full-immersion approach,
which is an effort to teach using only signed language, primarily ASL.
The effort to immerse students in one of the TLs (i.e., ASL) overlooks
the need for practice to gain fluency in both languages. The idea of
using one modality during instruction reinforces a narrow assumption regarding modality and directionality.There is an unspoken belief
that much of interpreting directionality will be into ASL. To further
complicate matters, delivering new content to students in this second
language may decrease the efficacy of their learning. While this may
be viewed as an attempt to mimic the language immersion experience
that has been effective in second language learning for spoken languages, it begs the question as to whether students are fluent enough
to receive and comprehend such information. There are few universities that can offer a true immersion experience in signed language that
resembles a visit to another country, as noted earlier. However, such an
immersive environment can be experienced at Gallaudet University
or the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, where the university
and its students use ASL as their primary language in all facets of
campus life.
Historically, at the inception of interpreting programs in the 1980s,
programs were built on the preconceived notion that students entering interpreting programs would have a foundational level of knowledge in ASL. Often those who were already involved with the deaf
community as either family or friends of deaf community members,
sought to further their education in interpreting. Throughout the
decades, programs have shifted to accepting and attracting students
who have a general interest in the profession, but may have no prior
language exposure or cultural knowledge as it pertains to the deaf
232 | Sign L ang uag e Studi e s
community. This shift in program recruitment and acceptance has
created a new challenge for associate-level programs, whose brief
window of learning (typically two years), creates an unexpected and
often challenging paradigm in which students are learning a second
language while concurrently studying to become interpreters of that
language. Without the necessary fluency to operate in their second
language, students were often frustrated by their lack of fluency resulting in attrition, or even the prospect of entering the workforce
underqualified and ill-prepared.
The baccalaureate experience in interpreter education in the
United States was conceived as one way to meet the challenges
­(Annarino and Stauffer 2010). This education shift is further supported by the requirement that a prospective test-taker must possess
a bachelor’s degree before they may sit for the RID Certification
Performance Exam. The goals of this shift were to increase language
exposure and extend time in the program for students by one or two
more years, beyond the limited time in the associate-level, thus allowing for greater depth in language learning. The notion was rooted in
an anticipation that a more comprehensive experience provided by a
bachelor’s program could bridge the existing language learning gap in
fluency that has been identified as an issue in interpreting programs
(Annarino and Stauffer 2010).
Research concerning interpreting students’ experiences, their readiness to work postgraduation, and the challenges of acquiring a second
language has been in existence for well over a decade. One response
by some interpreter educators during this period of development may
be attributed to the creation of a language policy in which educators
are to use a monolingual approach, using ASL as the only language
of instruction. With the emerging trend of instituting language policies, our study has sought to investigate the motivation behind this
pedagogical change, and the decision-making processes of programs
that institute specific language policies regarding the language of instruction, which includes any empirical reasoning that might have
influenced these decisions.
Methods
The data were collected using an electronic survey via Qualtrics software (2016), and included demographic information, such as geo-
Instruction Modality in Interpreter Education | 233
graphical information regarding the educator’s teaching location,
faculty rank, program type, and graduation rates. The survey consisted
of seven questions that primarily focused on the decision-making
behind language of instruction in teaching interpreting in USbased institutions. The survey was distributed to both associate- and
baccalaureate­-level signed language interpreter education programs.
The survey yielded forty-three responses, however only thirty-one
respondents completed all questions.
The survey questions were developed to gather data regarding
the rationale and considerations made when determining which language modality was used to teach interpreting courses (i.e., whether
a spoken and/or signed language was chosen). The survey data also
captured subjective assessments of faculty member’s use of language
in the classroom from the student perspective.The survey was emailed
to programs listed in the RID database and, employing the snowball
sampling method, links to the survey were posted via social media
(Atkinson and Flint 2001). This snowball effect yielded a majority of
responses from programs in the United States and a few responses
from outside of the United States.
Discussion
The survey data of the respondents (N = 31) revealed an even distribution of modality use in the classroom (signed or spoken) as well as
motivation and reasoning for using a particular modality. The survey
data examined six items including: (1) length of program, (2) language
of instruction policy, (3) rationale for policy, (4) graduation rate, (5)
professional role of survey participant, and (6) location of participant.
Of the respondents, approximately 72.41 percent were faculty responsible for direct instruction. However, this study’s survey data revealed
that these practices in signed language programs suggest that there is
great variety in what methods educators are actually employing to
enhance language fluency. One area of particular interest is determining which of these are existing practices within a program and which
are evidence-based practices (see Winston 2013). Existing practices are
those that may not be formal whereas evidence-based practices are
formalized and informed by current trends and research.
One of the most notable data points from the survey respondents
was that there was a somewhat even division between programs with
234 | Sign L ang uag e Studi e s
F i g ure 1. Survey question: Does your program have a requisite or mandated language of
instruction?
and without an explicit language policy. As seen in figure 1, fourteen of the thirty-one survey respondents reported having a language
policy of instruction, which is slightly less than half. For those with
a formal language policy in place, only signed language was selected
as the requisite language of instruction (see figure 1). Whether or not
programs had a policy in place, the educators selected several different
rationales for this decision.The survey data indicated that policies were
or were not implemented for such factors including:
•
•
•
•
•
Language use dependent on content (59.26 percent)
Student language needs and comprehension (14.81 percent)
Other (11.11 percent)
Instructor choice (7.41 percent)
Program needs (7.41 percent)
Respondents were able to provide additional comments via the ­“other”
response selection. These responses related language of instruction to
instructors’ levels of competency in the language. Additional responses
suggested students may not have the same level of comprehension in
ASL as they do when using spoken English. Of interest is the lack
of responses that suggested that language policies were implemented
in order to provide access for deaf faculty in the work environment.
Instruction Modality in Interpreter Education | 235
This may be due to deaf faculty often teaching only language courses
(McDermid 2009).
The researchers acknowledge the small sample size of the study,
however, the limitations in research surrounding interpreter education pedagogy may be due in part to the small number of interpreter
educators in the United States. A recent membership report indicates that the Conference of Interpreter Trainers has 309 members
(Doug Bowen-Bailey, CIT webmaster, personal communication, July
21, 2017). The hope is that this study will encourage more in-depth
research of interpreter educators and programmatic language policies
(both implicit and explicit) in order to better prepare interpreting
students for their future practice.
Upon the analysis of the data related to program graduation rates,
close to half of the respondents (48.28 percent) were unable to identify
the graduation rates for their students and selected unknown. Of those
who were able to report an estimated graduation rate (33.40 percent of
the respondents), the average graduation rate was reported to be 82.90
percent. Respondents’ who provided location indicated primarily in
the Americas (89.66 percent), with some representation from Europe
(6.90 percent) and Australia (3.45 percent).The international responses
were unexpected but yielded responses similar to those within the
Americas suggesting that there may be similarity between trends in
the Americas related to sign language interpreter preparation and
those that may be in existence in other parts of the globe.
Conclusion
The distinction between language immersion for experience and
language policy for pedagogical reasons bears further examination.
Clearly, the need to further students’ exposure and development in
both languages is of paramount importance in any interpreter education program. As interpreter education pedagogy seeks to enhance
practice that is evidence-based, we must also consider what other
evidence is needed to inform our decisions on language modality in
the interpreter education classroom. The impact of language of instruction on students’ retention and comprehension of course content
in the interpreter education classroom might be investigated through
qualitative and quantitative design to include ethnographic studies of
236 | Sign L ang uag e Studi e s
programs, focus groups with interpreter educators, interviews with
student interpreters, and discussions with deaf consumers of interpreting services, and longitudinal assessment of student outcomes.
Areas of additional investigation that would be valuable include
examination of the ways in which we orchestrate language experiences in the classroom to mimic authentic interaction. Coupling this
process with the limitation of the use of only one language to teach
a process that involves two language modalities seems counterintuitive. One might also investigate this phenomenon as it relates to the
creation of an artificial language learning environment.This study also
brought to light the need for further research as to whether students’
comprehension is statistically and substantially greater as a result of
a monolingual environment. Lastly, this research topic would benefit
from further comparative studies that highlight educational values
between artificial immersions within the classroom versus real community interactions as learning tools.
There is not a one-size-fits-all solution to any interpreter education program, as the individuality of each program and its curricular design provides a unique point of view that is rooted in local
deaf community needs and enhances the experiences of students.
A pedagogical philosophy embedded in differentiated instruction
­(Santangelo and Tomlinson 2009), seeks to maximize learning for
all students through diverse avenues of teaching and assessment (Iris
Center 2018). Linguistic diversity and flexibility are critical to supporting acceptance of language in the many forms it is represented.
By embracing this variety, interpreter educators will be encouraging
respect for all languages used by interpreters. This will provide for the
most effective solution for communication and ultimately all communities will be positively impacted, most especially the deaf community.
The suggestion that language policy should be dichotomous is not
beneficial to any of the stakeholders. Let the choice of the interpreter
educator not be one or the other, but rather that all languages are
valued and welcomed.
Note
1. The decision to use the lowercase form of deaf is done to acknowledge
that the people who use signed languages have discretion in how they wish
Instruction Modality in Interpreter Education | 237
to be identified (Woodward and Horejes 2016). Since we are not members
of this cultural group, it is not appropriate for us to decide their cultural
identity by capitalizing the term. Further, there are sub-groups within the
deaf community to include DeafBlind, LGBTQ, and ethnicity. The author
is using a generic lowercase term to encompass everyone.
References
Annarino, P., and S. Stauffer. 2010.AA-BA Partnerships: Creating New Value for
Interpreter Education Programs 2010. National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers (Monograph). Retrieved from: http://www.interpretereducation
.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Monograph.pdf.
Atkinson, R., and J. Flint. 2001. Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach Populations: Snowball Research Strategies. Social Research Update 33 (1): 1–4.
Ball, C. 2013. Legacies and Legends. History of Interpreter Education from 1800 to
the 21st Century. Alberta, Canada: Interpreter Consolidated.
Bienvenu, MJ. 2014. Bilingualism: Are Sign Language Interpreters Bilinguals?
Street Leverage. [Online Article]. Retrieved from https://www.streetleverage
.com/2015/05/bilingualism-are-sign-language-interpreters-bilinguals/.
Campbell, R., M. MacSweeney, and D. Waters. 2008. Sign Language and the
Brain. A Review. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 13 (1): 3–20.
CCIE. 2014. Accreditation Standards 2014. Retrieved from http://ccie
-accreditation.org.
Cenoz, J., and U. Jessner, eds. 2000. English in Europe:The Acquisition of a Third
Language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cokely, D. 2005. Curriculum Revision in the Twenty-First Century. In
­Advances in Teaching Sign Language Interpreters, ed. C. B. Roy, 1–21. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Corina, D. P., and J. Vaid. 1994. Lateralization for Shadowing Words versus
Signs: A Study of ASL-English Interpreters. In Bridging the Gap. E
­ mpirical
Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. S. Lambert and B. Moser-­Mercer,
237–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. 2009. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hoza, J. 2010. Principles and Practice: Teaching Team Interpreting as Collaboration and Interdependence. Connecting Our World 3.
Humphrey, J. H., and B. J. Alcorn. 2007. So You Want to Be an Interpreter? An
Introduction to Sign Language Interpreting. Benton, WA: H&H.
Iris Center. 2018. Differentiated Instruction: Maximizing the Learning of All
Students. Retrieved from https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/di/.
McDermid, C. 2009. The Ontological Beliefs and Curriculum Design of
Canadian Interpreter and ASL Educators. International Journal of Interpreter
Education 1:7–32.
238 | Sign L ang uag e Studi e s
Napier, J. 2006. Effectively Teaching Discourse to Sign Language Interpreting
Students. Language, Culture and Curriculum 19 (3): 251–65.
National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers. 2014. Tri­lingual Interpreting. Retrieved from http://www.interpretereducation.org/specialization
/aslspanishenglish/.
Qualtrics [computer software]. November 2016. Provo, UT: Qualtrics.
Quinto-Pozos, D. 2005. Factors that Influence the Acquisition of ASL for
Interpreting Students. In Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice, ed. M. Marschark, R. Peterson, and
E. A. Winston, 159–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reagan,T. 2010. Language Policy for Sign Languages.Washington, DC: ­Gallaudet
University Press.
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. 2014. NIC Validity, Reliability, and Candidate Report. Alexandria, VA: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.
Rosen, R., M. DeLouise, A. Boyle, and K. Daley. 2014. Native Language,
Target Language, and the Teaching and Learning of American Sign Language. In Teaching and Learning Sign Languages. International Perspectives
and Practices, ed. R. Rosen, D. McKee, and R. McKee, 145–74. New York:
Palgrave-Macmillan.
Santangelo, T., and C. A. Tomlinson. 2009. The Application of Differentiated
Instruction in Postsecondary Environments: Benefits, Challenges, and
Future Directions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education 20 (3): 307–23.
Saville-Troike, M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
­Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, D. S. 2004. Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculum and
Assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Smith, C., E. Lentz, and K. Mikos. 2008. Signing Naturally.Teacher’s Curriculum
Guide. Units 1–6. San Diego: DawnSignPress.
Steinberg, A. G.,V. J. Sullivan, and R. C. Loew. 1998. Cultural and Linguistic
Barriers to Mental Health Service Access:The Deaf Consumer’s Perspective. American Journal of Psychiatry 155 (7): 982–84.
Texas Department of Health and Human Services. 2016. Board for Evaluation
of Interpreters[website]. Retrieved from https://hhs.texas.gov/about-hhs
/leadership/advisory-committees/board-evaluation-interpreters-bei.
Walker, J., and S. Shaw. 2011. Interpreter Readiness for Specialized Settings. ­Journal
of Interpretation 21 (1), article 8. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons
.unf.edu/joi/vol21/iss1/8/.
Williams, C. L. 2011. Sojourners of the Master Mentor Program: A Study
of Effective Practice PhD. diss., Capella University. ProQuest (AAT
3464682).
Instruction Modality in Interpreter Education | 239
Winston, E. 2013. Infusing Evidence into Interpreting Education. In Evolving Paradigms in Interpreter Education, ed. E. Winston and C. Monikowski,
164–87. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Woll, B. 2012. Second Language Acquisition of Sign Language. In Encyclopedia
of Applied Linguistics, ed. C. A. Chapelle. Chichester, UK:Wiley-Blackwell.
Woodward, J., and T. P. Horejes. 2016. deaf/Deaf: Origins and Usage. In The
Deaf Studies Encyclopedia, ed. G. Gertz and P. Boudreault, 284–87. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.