Deaf Student–Interpreter Relationships and Feedback Practices in K-12 Mainstream Deaf Education

Abstract

This study explores Deaf individuals’ and sign language interpreters’ perspectives on what it is like to work together in K-12 education. A group of 41 formerly mainstreamed Deaf individuals and interpreters offers insights into interactional dynamics (e.g., the deaf student–interpreter relationship) that influence interpreters’ work, deaf students’ participation and learning, and feedback practices. This study illustrates the significance of the deaf student–interpreter relationship and suggests a correlation between this relationship and deaf students’ participation and positioning in mainstream classrooms. In addition, the findings suggest a correlation between the deaf student–interpreter relationship and feedback practices in mainstream education. Finally, this study finds that deaf students do not always know that they can engage in feedback conversations with interpreters or know how to engage interpreters to ask for what they need to learn. This article concludes with considerations and recommendations for the deaf education and interpreter education communities.

From the early days of mainstreaming deaf students, discourse regarding deaf education has often centered on accessibility issues, the effectiveness of interpreted instruction, and deaf students’ academic achievement (Kurz, Hauser, & Schick, 2015; Marschark, Sapere, Convertino, & Seewagen, 2005; Saur, Layne, Hurley, & Opton, 1986; Stinson & Antia, 1999; Stinson, Elliot, & Kelly, 2017; Stinson, Elliot, Kelly, & Liu, 2009; Winston, 2004; Zawolkow & DeFiore, 1986). Nevertheless, little is known or understood about what it is like for deaf students and interpreters to work together in the mainstream.

This qualitative study examines Deaf individuals’ and interpreters’ perspectives on interpreting services in the K-12 setting. Specifically, this paper examines what it is like for deaf students and interpreters to work together in K-12 education.

Literature Review

Perspectives on Interpreting in Educational Settings

Mainstream deaf education and educational interpreting have been studied since the 1980s (Saur et al., 1986; Zawolkow & DeFiore, 1986). Research on interpreting in educational settings has primarily focused on the following: the effectiveness of interpreted instruction; the amount of information deaf students understand or remember from interpreted lectures; barriers that exist in the mainstream setting; and comparisons between interpreted lectures and other support services, such as captioning or text alternatives (Kurz et al., 2015; Marschark et al., 2005; Stinson et al., 2009; Stinson et al., 2017; Winston, 2004). Few studies have examined the perspectives of those participating in an interpreted education (Kurz & Langer, 2004; Napier & Barker, 2004; Napier & Rohan, 2007; Powell, Hyde, & Punch, 2013; Russell & McLeod, 2009). The sparse previous literature regarding perspectives suffers from multiple limitations (Kurz & Langer, 2004; Napier & Barker, 2004; Napier & Rohan, 2007; Oliva, 2012; Oliva & Lytle, 2014; Russell & McLeod, 2009). For one thing, many of the data are anecdotal. For another, most of the studies are dated and urge further exploration. A final limitation is that the majority focus on the post-secondary setting.

Kurz and Langer (2004), Langer (2004), Napier and Barker (2004), and Russell and McLeod (2009) have all examined perspectives of those participating in an interpreted education. Napier and Barker (2004) elicited deaf university students’ perceptions of post-secondary educational interpreting in Australia. Four deaf students participated in a panel discussion to share their perceptions of and preferences among university interpreters—perceptions of their skills and qualifications—and preferences about their interpreting styles—interpretation or transliteration (Napier & Barker, 2004). Napier and Barker (2004) found the following interpreter attributes essential to the post-secondary setting: rapport with students, professionalism, and content knowledge and skill.

Kurz and Langer’s (2004) contribution to the field of deaf education and educational interpreting was groundbreaking, as they were the first to examine K-12 students’ perceptions of [or opinions about] educational interpreting. The researchers interviewed 20 formerly and currently mainstreamed K-12 deaf students (and their parents) to examine their perspectives on educational interpreting. The participants described what it is like for deaf students going through school with an interpreter, remarking particularly on the following: understanding and having learning mediated by interpreters, classroom participation, and monitoring and working with interpreters to ensure that they understand and accurately represent them to their peers (Kurz & Langer, 2004). Thus, Kurz and Langer conclude that interpreting services impact student satisfaction in the classroom (2004). Furthermore, they find that interpreters’ skill, preparation, professional development, and rapport with other classroom participants impact student satisfaction (Kurz & Langer, 2004). Kurz and Langer (2004) further suggested that the field of deaf education and educational interpreting would benefit from looking at the mainstream experience from the multiple vantage points of interpreters, teachers, parents, and deaf students.

Like Kurz and Langer (2004), Russell and McLeod (2009) investigate educational interpreting in the K-12 setting. However, unlike their predecessors, they investigate it from multiple vantages. These authors interviewed 15 deaf students, 2 deaf–blind students, 13 interpreters, 10 parents, 56 regular classroom teachers, 46 teachers of the deaf and special education teachers, and 4 administrators. Deaf student responses emphasized the importance of the interpreter’s ability to facilitate classroom lectures, group discussions, and social interactions (Russell & McLeod, 2009). These skills directly impacted deaf students’ participation in the class, ability to learn, and overall efficacy and satisfaction level (Russell & McLeod, 2009). It is important to note that although there were interpreter participants, the authors reported only student, teacher, and administrative perceptions. Their study illustrates the underrepresentation and underreporting of the interpreters’ voice in current literature.

In contrast to Russell and McLeod (2009), Langer (2004) examined only educational interpreters’ perspectives toward educational interpreting. Langer reported on issues interpreters face in the K-12 setting. She did so by first following an interpreter discussion group’s posts and then conducting interviews with 19 interpreters from that group (Langer, 2004). The interpreters in her study described what it is like to work in the K-12 mainstream setting. They revealed three main issues: (1) formation of the interpreter’s role, (2) communication breakdown between teachers and interpreters, and (3) control of physical location and workspace in the school setting (Langer, 2004). In revealing three main issues, these interpreters discussed their more basic needs: (1) the desire to be viewed as professionals, (2) the need for their voices to be heard, (3) the need for support, and (4) the need for collaboration to better support deaf students in the mainstream (2004). Considering the interpreters’ perspective is imperative in understanding their actions in mainstream classrooms.

These studies suggest that further exploration into the mainstream experience from multiple vantage points, including interpreters and deaf students, would benefit the fields of deaf education, educational interpreting, and interpreter education and is warranted. Accordingly, this study considers both interpreters’ and Deaf perspectives on K-12 educational interpreting.

Research Questions

By examining Deaf individuals’ and interpreters’ perspectives on interpreting services in the K-12 mainstream setting, this qualitative study examines what it is like for deaf individuals and interpreters to work together. Specifically, it explores interactional dynamics that influence interpreters’ work, deaf students’ participation and learning, and feedback practices.

The following questions guided this research:

• How do formerly K-12 mainstreamed Deaf signing students (ages 18–35) narrate and reflect upon their experiences using an interpreter as impacting their mainstream classroom/school experience?

• How do K-12 interpreters narrate, understand, explain, and reflect upon their impact on deaf students’ mainstream classroom/school experience?

Methods

For the reader, it is significant to understand the author’s positionality and goal to have a robust understanding of the methods used in this research. The author is a nationally certified interpreter (CI & NIC), an interpreter educator, and, at the time, was a PhD candidate. In 2017, the researcher conducted a study fulfilling her Doctoral program’s preliminary qualification exam. Her professional experience, coupled with this preliminary study, granted her access to several Deaf individuals who mainstreamed and expressed interest in participating in her future research. Thus, educational interpreting experience, past conversations with formerly mainstreamed Deaf individuals, and the findings of the preliminary research study led to the pursuit and design of this project.

This research study was conducted in fulfillment of the doctoral program in educational culture, policy, and society and approved by the Institutional Review Board at The State University of New York at Buffalo. Participants were Deaf individuals and interpreters who had experience in K-12 mainstream educational environments, and all gave informed consent to participate. Given the dearth of research on participant perspectives on educational interpreting, and the findings of the preliminary research study, this study aimed to serve, as the first in a series, to gain a general understanding of Deaf individuals’ and interpreters’ perceptions.

Participants

A total of 41 Deaf individuals and interpreters (18 and 23 respectively) participated in this research. All of the deaf participants self-identified as “Deaf” and were between 18–35, and were fully or partially educated in the K-12 mainstream setting. In addition, they received sign language interpreting services. All of the interpreters worked or had previously worked in mainstream K-12 classrooms.

Interpreter Participants

The interpreters in this study vary in the following ways: locale (variation in K-12 settings, by city and state), language proficiency, education (college degrees or graduate degrees), interpreting education/training, number of years of interpreting experience, certification, grade levels interpreted, defined role, and job responsibilities. The interpreters’ experiences ranged from elementary to secondary school graduation (e.g., vocational training programs, transitional programs, AP and Regents coursework, and extracurricular activities). Most of the interpreters had assignments in multiple schools, at multiple grade levels, and with multiple deaf students throughout their careers. Twenty-one of the interpreter participants worked within the state where recruitment occurred (throughout several regions); two interpreters worked out of state. Interpreters were either hired directly by school districts, assigned to a school through a local interpreting referral agency, or hired through organizations that provide schools with educational services. Third-party organizations hired most interpreter participants (e.g., interpreting agencies or educational organizations).

As the interpreters’ recruitment criteria were entirely based on experience interpreting in the K-12 environment, their experience level was unknown prior to the interviews. As a result, this study did not control for an equal number of experienced or newer practitioners. Nineteen of the interpreters have 10 or more years of interpreting experience. Eighteen interpreters report having worked primarily in the educational setting, while five report other settings such as medical or VRS as their primary work.

Two charts are included below for clarity and readability. The interpreter chart indicates certification status, years of interpreting experience, and whether their primary assignment was in the K-12 educational environment. Participants are listed in the order they were interviewed (Tables 1 and 2).

Deaf Participants

The Deaf individuals’ mainstream experiences ranged from part-time and full-time pre-school programs through secondary school graduation. Nine Deaf individuals report attending both a Deaf school and a mainstream school, while nine participants report being fully mainstreamed. Five of the Deaf participants were educated in the state where recruitment occurred, while nine were educated out of state. Additionally, four participants were educated in multiple states while growing up (including the state where recruitment occurred). Finally, 8 participants report that they come from Deaf families, while 10 are from hearing families.

As the Deaf individuals’ recruitment criteria were based primarily on receiving an interpreted education, factors including full- or part-time status, locale, families’ hearing status, or use of hearing assistive technology were unknown prior to the interviews. As a result, this study did not control for an equal number of fully or partially mainstreamed individuals. The Deaf participant chart below indicates age, family hearing status, and whether they mainstreamed fully or partially. Participants are listed in the order they were interviewed.

It is significant to note that there was variation in the schools discussed in this study. Schools ranged from elementary to secondary, rural to urban, and included charter schools, vocational schools, and transitional programs. Participants reported these schools having different levels of resources, including monetary, staffing, the number of deaf students enrolled, and the number of faculty members with experience working with deaf students and interpreters. Again, given the need to expand the literature on this topic, this study aimed to gain a general understanding of interpreters’ and Deaf individuals’ perspectives. Future research would do well to further stratify the sample of participants (e.g., by years of experience, age, full-time or part-time status) to delve deeper.

This study explores the perspectives and actions of interpreters and deaf students with experience in the K-12 mainstream setting. It is important to note that the Deaf individuals and interpreters interviewed were not paired together in schools. Therefore, their perceptions and anecdotes are not about each other.

Data Collection Procedures

The investigator engaged in snowball sampling, initially recruiting those in her professional network, then relying on those same people to recruit additional participants. Twelve out of 17 recommended individuals accepted the invitation to participate in this study. Two individuals initially accepted the invitation; however, they ultimately declined due to work and school conflicts. This study reports the findings of 38 semi-structured individual interviews and 2 focus group interviews regarding participants’ perspectives on interpreting services in the K-12 mainstream setting.

Individual Interviews

Two interview protocols were designed for this research: The Deaf participants (former students) and the other for the interpreters (see  Appendix A and  Appendix B). Reciprocal questions were posed to the two groups. For example, Deaf participants were asked to reflect on their rapport with interpreters and describe how that rapport was developed. Interpreters, in contrast, were asked to describe how they worked to develop rapport with deaf students. The semi-structured nature of the interviews allowed the interviewer to add, drop, adapt, or rephrase questions in response in real-time (Bodgan & Biklen, 2003). Once individuals consented to participate, they chose a date, time, and location (e.g., participants’ homes, coffee shops) for the interview in order to accommodate their schedules, transportation needs, privacy, and optimal comfort. Due to distance and difficulties with scheduling, some participants requested that the interview be conducted via video phone.

The researcher, a hearing certified interpreter, conducted all interviews in the communication modality chosen by the participant (e.g., speech, speech combined with sign, sign only). Interviews lasted 1 hr on average and were recorded (on a laptop that was password protected) to capture both speech and sign. After each interview, the researcher drafted reflective field notes. The field notes proved to be essential to data analysis. The author transcribed and punctuated data from all individual spoken interviews, interpreted (American Sign Language—ASL to English), and transcribed and punctuated data from all signed interviews. Numbers or pseudonyms were used to de-identify data (e.g., participant names or hometown names, respectively).

Focus Group Interviews

Two focus group interviews were conducted to help clarify, confirm, and more deeply probe Deaf and interpreter perspectives (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Weis & Fine, 2000). The first group queried two interpreters; the second, two previously mainstreamed Deaf individuals. The researcher developed different interview protocols—one for each group—based on patterns noted in the individual interviews (see  Appendix C). Each focus group session lasted approximately 2 hr and produced roughly 15 pages of data.

Initially, the plan was to host two focus groups consisting of three to four participants. However, due to distance, repeated scheduling conflicts, and not wanting to facilitate and record focus group interviews partially in-person and remote (via video platform technology), the focus groups proceeded with those participants able to meet in person. Although not typical for focus group interviews, this small number ensured that participants were comfortable with each other and offered confidentiality.

The interpreter focus group consisted of one interpreter who participated in an individual interview and one who participated only in the focus group. Their focus group was conducted primarily in English (with some sign used to emphasize and clarify points) and recorded (on a laptop that was password protected).

The Deaf focus group consisted of two Deaf individuals who had already engaged in individual interviews. Their focus group was conducted using speech and sign and recorded.

The researcher moderated, facilitated, and recorded both group interviews. The small numbers and participant familiarity allowed the interviews to skip introductions and delve into the matter, asking everyone to discuss their background regarding the mainstream setting. This small setting also allowed participants to open up, reveal more information, and play off each other during the conversation.

As it was in the individual interviews, reciprocal questions were posed to the focus groups. For example, interpreters were asked to describe their role in showing students how to use interpreting services effectively. Deaf participants, in contrast, were asked to describe how they learned to work with interpreters.

Reflective field notes were drafted immediately following each focus group session. The two focus groups helped the researcher better understand the perspectives proffered in the individual interviews. As a result, the author began to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the deaf student–interpreter relationship, feedback practices, and what it is like for deaf students and interpreters to work together in the mainstream.

The author transcribed and punctuated the interpreters’ focus group data. The author also interpreted (ASL to English), transcribed, and punctuated the Deaf focus group data in written English form for readability. Numbers were used for participants, and pseudonyms for hometown locations and school or program names to de-identify the data.

Data Analysis

After completing the individual interviews, the researcher reviewed the data several times to better understand participants’ perspectives and emergent stories. Next, these data were uploaded into HyperRESEARCH, a qualitative research software program used to recognize patterns in the data. Once uploaded, the researcher coded all data with basic descriptors. These descriptors identified concepts woven throughout the interviews. Then, all data were read and re-read, line by line, and chunked into categories using common words, phrases, patterns, and topics (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 161). This constituted the initial round of coding. Examples of wide-ranging preliminary codes are “Rapport” and “In-servicing.”

Two doctoral students in the author’s cohort who do not know ASL or have much exposure to the Deaf community read approximately 25% of the coded transcripts. These colleagues did so in order to

1. help minimize any potential bias the author may have as an interpreter educator and practitioner,

2. ensure a minimum of 20% inter-reliability rate, and

3. agree upon codes.

Next, the words, patterns, and topics were further analyzed for patterns of relevance. Again, the researcher and her colleagues teased out, compared, agreed upon, and discussed these patterns. It was at this juncture that the formal codebook was developed. In the same manner, the author reviewed (categorized and coded) the remaining transcripts.

This initial coding round revealed the significance of the deaf student–interpreter relationship, which aligned with previous research studies. At this point, the researcher discovered that the deaf student–interpreter relationship serves as a teaching tool to educate deaf students about interpreting services.

The researcher reviewed all data by code. For example, on HyperRESEARCH, the researcher read through the segments “Rapport” and “In-servicing,” noting developing themes and subcategories into which each code could be narrowed down or merged. After reading and re-reading these data and notes, the author moved into the second coding round. At this stage, codes became more specific, using technical vocabulary related to the field of interpreting, and the content was further analyzed to understand the essence of the message. Examples of these revised codes include “Interactions” and “Role.” Again, the researcher conferred with her cohort, and at the end of the second round of analysis, approximately 59 codes were generated.

The second coding round revealed a correlation between the deaf student–interpreter relationship and feedback practices in mainstream education. In addition, the researcher discovered that formal education for deaf students regarding feedback and working with interpreters is uncommon.

At this point, using HyperRESEARCH, the author concentrated on those codes that occurred with the most significant frequency. The researcher continued to re-read these data and the field notes while thinking about emerging themes. Once the focus group sessions were completed, all data were uploaded to HyperRESEARCH and reviewed similarly.

The investigator began to reflect upon the body of data more comprehensively. She read and analyzed these data for the layered meaning within, asking herself questions such as, “What is the point these data are making? What are these data indicating?” Reflecting upon these data, and knowledge and experience in mainstreaming, deaf education, and educational interpreting in general, the data were then reorganized in HyperRESEARCH into interpretive groupings (e.g., The Deaf Student–Interpreter Relationship).

To interpret the data, the researcher searched for a framework that would allow consideration of both interpreters’ and deaf individuals’ perspectives. After reading, conferring, and reflecting, these data were reviewed through the lens of positioning theory, as defined by Harré and van Langenhove (1999) and adopted by Yoon (2008). Positioning theory is:

the concept of positioning which enables researchers to make sense of the dynamics of evolving social interactions--how persons position themselves and how they are positioned by others within a specific context. (as cited in Yoon, 2008, p. 498–499).

This framework allows for examining the mainstream setting regarding interactional classroom dynamics as it relates to how classroom participants view their roles and approaches to working with one another (Yoon, 2008). Two central modes comprise positioning theory:

1) Reflexive positioning, or self-positioning, is a positioning where one positions oneself and that guides the way in which they act and think about their roles, assignments, and duties in a given context. Individuals’ self-positioning is manifested in various discursive practices, which make possible a way of expressing one’s stance. (p. 499)

2) Interactive positioning is a position where the way in which what one person says (related to power and status) positions another. Unlike reflexive positioning, which does not offer details as to how and why the same person positions themselves differently in different contexts, interactive positioning fills the gap with the idea that the phenomena occur in relations to others. (p. 499)

In other words, reflexive positioning describes how individuals will position themselves differently in different contexts (i.e., whom they gravitate and align with) (Yoon, 2008, p. 499). On the other hand, interactive positioning is the concept of individuals being positioned by other individuals or groups and either limiting or extending what people can say or do (i.e., their level of engagement and participation) (Yoon, 2008, p. 499).

Yoon (2008) applied positioning theory to classroom teachers’ positioning in classes with linguistic minority students. She suggests that teachers, albeit intentionally or unintentionally, position students positively or negatively, consequently encouraging or limiting students’ sense of themselves as learners (Yoon, 2008, p. 499). Her findings also suggest a correlation between teachers’ positioning and students’ different participation levels and their positioning of themselves as powerful or powerless students (Yoon, 2008).

By way of example, in classrooms where teachers position themselves as teachers for all students, participation and engagement are increased (Yoon, 2008). Conversely, in classrooms where teachers position themselves as teachers for some students or as content teachers and not all students, participation is limited, and students may be disengaged (Yoon, 2008).

Positioning theory provided insights for analyzing how interpreters and deaf students work together and how their approaches were related to deaf students’ possibilities for learning, engagement, interaction, and participation. In addition, this framework allowed the author to interpret interactional dynamics regarding mainstream deaf education.

The author continued drafting notes and outlined points and concepts that seemed significant. She also continued to work with her cohort and participated in feedback sessions as she drafted her findings. Finally, the author worked with a Deaf colleague, an interpreter educator, and a researcher to receive feedback on the research reporting.

Results

It is important to reiterate that the goal of this project was to gain a general understanding of interpreters’ and Deaf individuals’ perspectives on interpreting services in the K-12 setting. Specifically, about what it is like to work together in the mainstream. Also, it is necessary to remember that these participants were not paired together in schools. As discussed in the Methods section, interpreters and Deaf individuals were asked reciprocal questions during interviews. However, since these participants were not paired together, their counterpart’s perspective is unavailable to corroborate their account. Therefore, it is essential to remember that when reading the results.

Initial Positioning

Interpreters

Interpreters were asked to describe themselves as practitioners. Across interpreter interviews, participants describe themselves (i.e., their reflexive positioning) as interpreters for the school community (e.g., the deaf student, the faculty and staff, the classroom teachers, and the hearing students). Interpreter participants explain that they are responsible for linguistic and cultural mediation in the mainstream setting. In addition, interpreters’ reflexive positioning includes educating deaf students on the use of interpreting services, the interpreting process, and working with interpreters.

Deaf

When describing what it is like to enter the mainstream, participants suggest that deaf students are disadvantaged. It became evident across narratives that orientations, formal training, and workshops to teach deaf students how to navigate the mainstream setting or how best to capitalize on interpreting services are scarce. For example, participants state that learning to use interpreting services is “not a skill that was taught [in the mainstream].”

One Deaf individual captures participants’ views, “They [deaf students] are already two steps behind. Accommodating the class, the teacher, and the content.” Participants indicate that this lack of orientation, training, and support allows the mainstream system to interactively position deaf students as disadvantaged and marginalized.

Participants suggest that this places an undue burden on deaf students and interpreters. Interpreters are often solely responsible for orienting or educating deaf students on using interpreting services. Deaf students must simultaneously adapt to the mainstream (dominant English speaking, hearing culture) while learning to use interpreting services, work with interpreters, and learn curriculum content. It is important to note that participants make no mention of other members of the educational team (e.g., parents, teachers of the deaf, special education coordinators) educating deaf students about working with interpreters.

Notwithstanding the scarcity of formal orientation or training, positive reflections regarding the mainstream experience came from participants who feel they had strong and successful relationships with deaf students and or interpreters. Conversely, the more negative reflections came from participants that had unsuccessful or strained relationships with deaf students or interpreters, or relationships that caused additional barriers for deaf students.

The Deaf Student–Interpreter Relationship

The most salient point woven throughout the participants’ narratives is the significance of the deaf student–interpreter relationship. Aligning with previous research (Kurz & Langer, 2004; Napier & Barker, 2004; Napier & Rohan, 2007), this study finds that the relationship is principal to satisfaction and success in the mainstream.

This research finds that participants interactively position interpreters and deaf students as educational partners when describing this relationship. They also indicate that this relationship is the foundation of the mainstream experience and the basis of deaf students’ support. For example, one Deaf participant says, “the interpreters I liked most cared about me as a person. It was not just a job. They were nurturing...warm, and supportive.” Another Deaf participant emphasizes that “I would not be where I am today, who I am as a person, if not for them [the interpreters]. They were always there for me. They were not just an interpreter. They were a friend.” As one interpreter puts it,

[the relationship] Definitely makes or breaks the entire school year for them and me. If the student and I do not connect, they are much less likely to use my services, whether they need them or not. If they do not trust me and like me, they will choose not to look at me whenever possible.

The implication here is that the personal connection undergirds the professional relationship. For deaf students, a strong relationship with the interpreter supports their social, emotional, and educational needs in the mainstream setting. For interpreters, the personal relationship supports the professional pairing. In other words, the relationship facilitates deaf students’ participation levels and learning through interpreted instruction.

Education in interpreting services

Interpreting participants indicate that the relationship is the foundation of how they educate students about using interpreting services. For example, one interpreter best explains:

I tell the deaf student, I am going to interpret everything the teacher and the other students say. If there is something specific you want to make sure I catch, something really important to you, let me know. Like if this one student is your partner on a project, and you want to make sure you always know what that student is saying, let me know. If interpreting everything is too distracting to you, let me know. I like to give options and scenarios. If you prefer that I point at equations on the board rather than sign them, that is cool; I can do that. If you prefer that I sign them, let me know. If you want me to pause more often than the teacher does so you can take notes, I can do that. Often, no one has presented the deaf student with their options...especially if they are in middle school...and no one has thought them old enough to make those decisions on their own. A 5th or 6th-grade student is perfectly capable of deciding some of those things, but they may not know it is an option. This is true, even with kids younger than that.

This excerpt illustrates how interpreters develop and maintain a trusting and supportive relationship with deaf students through collaborative conversation (e.g., asking questions, prompting, providing options, and being open to student responses). This example also exemplifies how interpreters educate deaf students on using and making decisions about their interpreting services. In addition, this example demonstrates how interpreters use the relationship to interactively position deaf students, increasing their participation and engagement (e.g., direct the interpreter whose comments to prioritize, take their notes while attending to the lesson, or access social information). This study finds that the deaf student–interpreter relationship serves to educate and position deaf students in mainstream classrooms.

Similarly, when discussing how to use or make decisions about interpreting services, Deaf participants refer to informal and collaborative conversations with interpreters.

Deaf Individual: I worked well with the interpreters. I would tell the interpreter what I wanted to know about and what I wanted to ignore. For example, if the interpreter asked if I wanted to see the conversations happening before class, I tended to ignore that stuff. But, if they asked me, and I did want to know, I would say yes, and they would go ahead and interpret it.

Deaf Individual: With my [cochlear] implants, I used the interpreter until I could hear well enough. Then, I used the interpreters as a just in case. They were my backup. I would listen, but I would tell the interpreters that if I do not understand or look to you, that means start interpreting. They were always there for my backup.

Deaf individuals highlight these instances where they perceive this approach as effective and beneficial.

These interactions demonstrate how interpreters educate deaf students based on their relationships and encourage them to decide about their services. Interpreters interviewed emphasize that these informal conversations occur as needed to negotiate how they would work together to position the student in their environment. It is important to note that when interpreters and deaf students view themselves as learning partners, openly and continuously communicate, and give and receive feedback, deaf students are positioned as active, empowered, and capable students. In addition, participants view these deaf student-interpreting pairings as strong, supportive, and successful.

Informal and formative feedback

Interpreter participants agree that feedback is an essential component of the interpreting process and assume responsibility for educating deaf students on it to learn how to work with interpreters. Therefore, interpreters innately discuss feedback when discussing their work with deaf students.

Across interpreter interviews, respondents suggest that the deaf student–interpreter dyad relationship serves as a foundation for monitoring student comprehension, which leads to modeling feedback practices, educating deaf students on providing feedback, and even prompting them to engage in feedback conversations. Interpreters explain how they check for understanding, ask questions, offer suggestions, discuss interpreted situations, initiate feedback conversations, and educate students about feedback.

Interpreter: Locker room talk [profanity, explicit content, etc.]; it was all that stuff. It was definitely an oh how would the interpreter sign this?...To start to let the student have more say about how things like that were interpreted. Based on what he wanted to accomplish. After that happening, it was talking to him and asking, what do you want me to do in these situations? We knew it was going to come up, and we had to have that conversation. Most of the time I would sign it, and sometimes he would say fingerspell it. I would adjust based on the feedback from him.

Interpreter: Sometimes, in the beginning [of the school year], the interpreter just gets in there [and interprets everything]. Then, as you read facial expressions, or [to the deaf student] I noticed you did not look at me at all. I did have one time where the student was like, you know, maybe next time, if I need you, I will flag you down. That kind of thing. I was always fine with that.

Interpreters explain that a solid relationship is essential for comfortably sharing feedback. As the passages above show, interpreters informally and repeatedly model feedback practices (e.g., asking probing questions to tease out information regarding what deaf students want from the interpreter). These data indicate that interpreters believe this informal approach encourages deaf students to engage in feedback conversations comfortably. However, interpreter participants acknowledge that this approach, although relaxed, is also reactive. Conversations happen after issues are suspected or identified.

This research examined the formation, nature, and significance of the deaf student–interpreter relationship. A solid personal connection undergirds robust and successful professional pairings as perceived by participants.

Still, it is significant to note that the implication here is that deaf students receiving an interpreted education are expected to make countless decisions about their services (during every interaction). In essence, deaf students are expected to ask and tell interpreters (adults in professional positions) what and how to do their job to accommodate their needs. On top of that, deaf students are tasked with this without receiving formalized training.

The following section will discuss the converse, the instances where the deaf student–interpreter relationship is perceived as unsuccessful or a barrier to access and participation in the mainstream. In so doing, the next section will emphasize this gap in deaf student support.

A Paradoxical Relationship

When discussing the deaf student–interpreter relationship, Deaf participants suggest that it is at times paradoxical, creating additional or unintentional barriers for deaf students. The following examples demonstrate Deaf participants’ struggles regarding their relationship with interpreters.

Deaf Individual: If we had downtime in the class, like a break, I would try to go over and talk to a few students. The interpreter would follow me. I would tell them that I did not need them, and the interpreter would tell me that I did. Sometimes the interpreter inserted themselves into the conversation or tried to start conversations with other students. That was uncomfortable for others. I mean it is an adult. Students would smile and nod but be hands-off...I did not know I could do something about it.

Deaf Individual: The interpreter was a very sweet woman, and she had a good heart, but she was flashy. She had these very long nails. It was hard for me to understand her. I tried and struggled. My class grade suffered. I struggled because I did not want to hurt her feelings. I really just put up with not understanding. I kept wondering if it was me or if it was the interpretation.

The first example illustrates how interpreters can create social barriers for deaf students. Also, this passage illustrates the consequences deaf students face when interpreters do not recognize, receive, or honor deaf students’ decisions. The interpreter’s behavior was perceived negatively and as hovering and intrusive. This behavior did draw unwanted attention to the student. In addition, participants perceived this behavior as highly restrictive and as negatively affecting the individual’s ability to feel a part of the class, participate, and interact with peers.

The second example illustrates how interpreters can create academic and linguistic barriers. This situation demonstrates how deaf students may prioritize the interpreters’ feelings and maintain the dyad relationship ahead of their educational needs and grades and subsequently position themselves as powerless, disengaged, and unable to participate.

These interactions represent unsuccessful professional pairings or relationships that caused additional barriers as perceived by participants. An implication here is that for deaf students, there is no clear separation between an interpreter (the individual) and the service provided by the interpreter (i.e., an interpreter’s actions or the interpreted product). In other words, for deaf students, interpreters’ actions are taken personally, and feedback is perceived to be personal.

A paradoxical relationship with regard to feedback

Deaf participants concede that providing feedback to interpreters regarding examples like the ones cited above (e.g., long nails, when to interpret, and when not to) could be helpful. However, there is also fear that providing feedback could lead to reprisals. For example, one Deaf individual says, “students should not have to be afraid that the interpreter will be mad at them for what they say.”

Deaf participants provide reasons for not providing feedback to interpreters. Deaf individuals reveal, “I was shy, and I did not know how to go about it [giving feedback]”, and “No one gave me that ability or knowledge.”

This study finds that deaf students do not always know that they can engage in feedback conversations with interpreters or how to engage and ask for what they need. Furthermore, this study finds that students are not guaranteed tools and resources to address and resolve interpreting issues.

Third-Party Arbitration

Deaf students uncomfortable with offering feedback to interpreters directly frequently engage in third-party mediation in the form of parents or school personnel. Deaf participants did explain that they did not want to address interpreting issues with their interpreters. Instead, several Deaf participants mention going to a third-party (e.g., parents or school personnel such as a service or interpreting coordinator) to share concerns about interpreting services and elicit support, advice, or change. For example, one participant states, “I do not think I gave direct feedback. I told my parents, and then they advocated for me.” According to this research, third-party arbitration serves as the primary avenue for providing feedback on interpreting services, source of conflict resolution, and quality assurance for mainstreamed deaf students. Deaf participants cite the third-party avenue as a comfortable and empowering approach to resolving issues.

Deaf Individual: I did not want to hurt her feelings. I kept wondering if it was me or if it was the interpretation. Finally, I talked with the interpreter coordinator and told them it was not working. They put in another interpreter, which was way better and a big improvement. It was not like a formal conversation. I wish it had been. I was a teen. I did not understand advocacy.

Deaf Individual: The first interpreter they placed me with for softball had no facial expression. I wanted to say something to the interpreter, but I was shy, and I did not know how to go about it. After the season had started, the [interpreting] coordinator checked in with me to see if everything was going all right. I told her everything was fine, but she did not believe it. She brought me in to meet with her one-on-one, and I was then able to tell her what I wanted, what was working, and what was not. So, from then on, if I did have any issues with an interpreter, I would go speak with the coordinator...For example, during a test, I would see a teacher saying something to a student, and I would want to know what was happening. The interpreter would not say anything because it did not apply to me. Still, if others could hear, I want to be in the know. I would have asked the interpreter, and if they were not paying attention, they might go ask the teacher what was said. Again, I want to be in the know. What if somebody asked a question and it was a question I had been thinking of.

If I did not feel comfortable having the interpreter there or wanted to change interpreters, I would go to her [the coordinator]. Also, I think it was weekly; we would have a Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) come in. All of the deaf students using interpreting services would meet. This was our chance to give feedback, to say what we needed for things to improve. It was a chance to meet without the interpreters there. We could be there in private. Wait, maybe it was not weekly; it might have been like monthly or bi-monthly. It was a chance to meet in private with the CDI, not be embarrassed, and talk about what we needed. We knew our names would not be brought up. The CDI would then share this feedback with the rest of the department. It helped improve communication in high school. I liked that.

These comments highlight several significant points. First off, these situations demonstrate how the personal deaf student–interpreter relationship limited respondents’ engagement, participation, and development of a positive identity as a learner until third-party intervention, which affected the professional pairing. These examples also reveal that for deaf students sharing feedback with a third party allows them to ensure service quality while maintaining personal relationships with interpreters. In particular, the situation where a CDI worked with deaf students demonstrates how third-party intervention could include the Deaf community, respond to deaf students’ needs, and empower them to interact directly and participate more fully in the school community.

These examples also illustrate why the deaf student–interpreter relationship, coupled with a lack of training and understanding in feedback, can prohibit deaf students from directly addressing issues about interpreting services with interpreters. This research finds that the lack of proper training and proactive feedback measures constitute gaps in supporting mainstreamed deaf students.

While it is good that students find a way to address interpreting issues, participants suggest that as future adult consumers of interpreting services, ultimately, deaf students should learn to do so without third-party mediation. In addition, the participants suggest that feedback and conflict resolution are essential skills to learn. For example, one Deaf participant states:

It is always better to do it directly. They [the interpreter] cannot improve or change if they do not know. I have matured, and now I know that constructive criticism is meant to be helpful, but I did not know when I was younger.

Feedback and third-party arbitration were the topics of interest that differed vastly between Deaf and interpreter participants. As previously mentioned, Deaf participants did reveal that they prioritized their rapport with the interpreter over their services’ quality and accuracy. Deaf participants share that a third-party mediator, in essence, removes the “personal” aspect from the situation, allowing them to maintain both their personal and professional relationships with interpreters. The following section will describe the interpreters’ perception of feedback and their relationship with deaf students.

Interpreters’ perspective on feedback

When discussing feedback as a part of the interpreting process, respondents state that feedback starts with interpreters being honest regarding their skills. They also suggest that interpreters should be “open and receptive to feedback.” In addition, participants in this study suggest that interpreters should be willing to incorporate student feedback and address their concerns. At the same time, interpreter participants emphasize that responding to feedback is a process that can, itself, build trust with deaf students.

In their interviews, interpreters share their belief that feedback in an educational setting needs to be two-way. Just as interpreters need to be open and receptive to student feedback, students also need to be open and receptive to interpreter feedback in order for interpreters to do their job effectively.

Take, for example, student complaints about interpreters not understanding them. Suppose it is the case that an interpreter struggles to understand a student because the student “signs one-handed,” with “pens in hand,” or even “slumped over a desk.” In that case, the student needs to be responsive to interpreter feedback about not doing those things that make understanding difficult. In the case of this specific example, the interpreter informant explained that conversations ensued (both directly and mediated through third parties) to elaborate on how best the student and interpreter could partner to improve service quality. While this is a promising step, formal instruction regarding students’ role in the feedback loop is additionally warranted.

The interviewed interpreters view themselves as deaf students’ educational partners and prefer to work directly with students to resolve issues, build trust, and strengthen professional relationships. Thus, although a third-party intervention (for deaf students) may help maintain the personal relationship between student and interpreter, interpreters frequently feel it may inadvertently compromise the professional relationship. Interpreter informants indicate that third-party feedback should be reserved for use only after attempted direct feedback. This is a significant point of difference with deaf students, who do not see it this way. This stark difference in perspective illustrates a significant gap in support for both deaf students and interpreters.

This section has shown that the deaf student–interpreter dyad relationship can sometimes be paradoxical. It is a foundation for an educational partnership and learning, yet it can inhibit deaf students from participating or addressing service issues with interpreters. To deaf students, there is no clear separation between the personal and professional relationship with interpreters. Thus, for deaf students who are ill-prepared, uncomfortable, or unaware that they can engage in feedback conversations, the third-party avenue removes the personal relationship from the professional service to maintain it. However, for interpreters, using a third party (initially) eliminates an essential component of the interpreting process and the professional relationship.

Discussion

This research highlights the narratives of formerly mainstreamed deaf students and interpreters working in the K-12 educational setting. Specifically, these narratives highlight interactional dynamics (e.g., the deaf student-interpreter relationship) that influence interpreters’ work, deaf students’ participation and learning, and feedback practices (e.g., feedback conversations or third-party intervention).

This study brings Deaf individuals and interpreters to the forefront of the conversation and contributes to our knowledge of interactional classroom dynamics via positioning theory. This lens is an illuminating way to view and understand the deaf student–interpreter relationship and the gaps in both parties’ support. This concept has not been applied to mainstream deaf education, nor has it been tied to the interpreter-deaf student dyad relationship. Thus, this research extends the use of positioning theory. The findings are helpful for the deaf education and interpreter education communities and provide considerations and suggestions.

First, this study confirms and extends previous research emphasizing the significance of the deaf student–interpreter relationship (Kurz & Langer, 2004; Napier & Barker, 2004; Napier & Rohan, 2007). Deaf students’ relationships with interpreters are considered paramount to satisfaction in the mainstream. The relationship serves as a foundation for educating deaf students on using and making decisions regarding interpreting services and learning through an interpreted education.

This research extends the discussion by suggesting that the personal connection undergirds the professional relationship. The data suggest that perceptions regarding the deaf student–interpreter relationship correlate to deaf students’ perceived participation and positioning in mainstream classrooms. That is deaf students’ positioning of themselves as either empowered and engaged or powerless and disengaged students. For example, experiences where the communication and collaboration between interpreters and deaf students were encouraged, and interpreters could honor requests and preferences were perceived as empowering and engaging. Conversely, when the professional pairing was perceived as unsuccessful or a barrier, interactions were described as unfavorable and restricting.

Second, research has not examined feedback practices between deaf students and interpreters in K-12 education. This study breaks ground in understanding how the deaf student–interpreter dyad relationship intersects with mainstream education feedback practices (or lack thereof). While the relationship provides an essential foundation for learning in the mainstream, it can prevent deaf students from delivering critical feedback and wind up in the way of deaf student self-advocacy. This study finds that deaf students do not always know that they can engage in feedback conversations with interpreters or know how to engage interpreters to ask for what they need to learn.

Third, this research highlights gaps in support for deaf students and interpreters, including the lack of formal orientation or training for deaf students in using interpreting services or working with interpreters. Primarily, this study highlights the lack of training for deaf students regarding feedback, oversight or quality assurance regarding feedback practices, and deaf student–interpreter dyads in engaging in feedback conversations.

Data suggest that the immediate takeaway for the deaf education community is to consider the role of feedback between deaf students and interpreters in the public school system:

• How it is taught or discussed with students (informally or formally)

• How it is addressed

• What oversight is available to ensure deaf students have an avenue to express concerns, issues, or preferences.

Data also suggest that a third-party mediator may be necessary because deaf students, worried about compromising their relationship with interpreters, often prefer such mediation. The deaf education community would do well to consider educational team members’ roles (e.g., teachers of the deaf, interpreter coordinators) regarding monitoring or supervising deaf student–interpreter pairings and/or establishing feedback protocols.

However, in the long term, this study shines a light on gaps that collaboration and integration of the Deaf community into public education could fill. For example, one takeaway is to consider sustainable and proactive solutions to fill these gaps, such as orienting deaf students into the mainstream and providing training in how to best leverage interpreting services, working with interpreters, and feedback practices among dyads. This could include Deaf adults (e.g., Deaf interpreters and professionals with consumer experience and formerly mainstreamed individuals) mentoring or, with interpreters, providing training to deaf students entering the mainstream. Another possibility is to have Deaf individuals and interpreters work with deaf student–interpreter dyads in the mainstream to develop feedback practices. Conversations between deaf students and interpreters about interpreting, offering, and implementing feedback will bolster the deaf student–interpreter relationship and enhance the mainstream experience.

For the interpreter education community, the takeaway is to consider how to prepare interpreters who want to work in K-12 education to adapt to the diverse needs of deaf students and the mainstream setting. In so doing, interpreter educators would do well to consider feedback’s place in the interpreting curriculum and how to encourage effective feedback practices. In other words, how to incorporate and emphasize feedback throughout the curriculum, including but not limited to: what feedback is and is not; its purpose and function; types of feedback such as self, peer, instructor or supervisor, or consumer provided; feedback criteria; how to engage in feedback conversations; and how to incorporate feedback into the work.

Interpreter educators should also consider the following: literature about feedback, specifically consumer feedback, for students to refer to and read; live in-class interpreting assignments and authentic learning environments (e.g., educational field trips) where students would be able to interpret and engage in feedback conversations with Deaf individuals; and opportunities to work with deaf teaching/learning assistants (i.e., deaf students on campus) who could observe then engage in feedback conversations with interpreting students.

Although this research provides a glimpse into the deaf student–interpreter dyad relationship and feedback practices, the participant viewpoints expressed in this study may not reflect all deaf students’ or interpreters’ experiences. Therefore, future research should continue this work and further examine interactional classroom dynamics through interviews and observations of current deaf student–interpreter teams in the mainstream. In addition, to fully understand this nuanced relationship and its impact on the mainstream experience, it would be beneficial to observe and discuss the same experiences perceived by both the student and the interpreter, essentially keeping deaf students and interpreters in the conversation.

The perspectives shared in this study provide the deaf education and interpreter education communities with greater insight into what it is like for deaf students and interpreters to work together in the K-12 setting. In addition, this research provides interpreters with insight into how deaf students perceive the relationship and feedback and vice versa, which is a catalyst for discussion. Furthermore, this study’s findings call for a shift toward more proactive system orientation and readiness measures prior to deaf students entering the mainstream and for interpreter preparation. For example, given the significance of the deaf student–interpreter relationship, the proactive measures discussed in this article (e.g., training for deaf students and emphasizing feedback in interpreter training curriculums) will bolster the relationship and positively impact the mainstream experience. Implementing the recommendations from this research will better prepare interpreters entering the field and allow for better outcomes for deaf students, ultimately empowering Deaf individuals to be more effective consumers of interpreting services lifelong.

Conflicts of Interest

I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

References

Appendix A

Interview Protocol for Deaf Formerly Mainstreamed Students.

Background

1. Tell me about your family?

2. How would you describe where you grew up (town/community)?

3. How and why was it decided that you would attend a mainstream school? How old were you?

4. How was your family involved in your education?

5. Tell me about your mainstream school: how many students were in the school, your grade, on average, how many students were in your classes?

Prior to Start of School & During School

1. How did you feel about attending a mainstream school?

2. How did you identify at that age? D/deaf, etc.?

3. Did you see the school, and/or meet the faculty, educational team before starting school?

4. What type of training/orientation did the faculty receive, if any that you know of, on Deaf culture/deaf education? What would you have wanted them to know?

5. When did you meet the classroom teacher and other members of the educational team?

6. What support services did you have? How did you feel about having support services, an interpreter?

7. When did you meet the interpreter? What were your initial impressions of the interpreter? Why do you think you had these initial impressions?

8. What expectations did you have of the interpreter? Did you communicate those expectations early on? How so?

9. How would you describe your rapport with the interpreter?

10. How would you describe your rapport with teachers/staff?

11. How would you describe yourself as a student?

12. How did it feel to use the interpreter in class? How do you think having the interpreter in the classroom impacted your educational experience?

13. How would you describe your rapport and interactions with peers, the classroom teacher, and the interpreter? Did this change over the time that you were in the schools? How? Why do you think that this was the case?

14. How were the academics at your school? Which courses did you find most challenging and why? Which did you find to be the easiest and why? How did using an interpreter aid or hinder your performance in these classes?

Outside of Class/After Class

1. If you had a problem, concern, issue, how was that handled? Where did you turn for help/guidance about it? Did this change over the course of your time in the school? Was there an avenue to express concern and/or report what worked well?

2. How often would you check in with the interpreter (ask for feedback/give feedback)? Did this change over time? How did that type of conversation go?

3. How was the social scene at school? Did it revolve around school organized activities, sports, or parties?

General Reflections

1. What does inclusion mean to you?

2. Would you describe your school as inclusive? Why/why not? What would have made it more inclusive?

3. What was your favorite/least favorite class? Why? Who was your favorite/least favorite teacher? Why?

4. Tell me about a time you really appreciated having the use of interpreting services. Why was it beneficial?

5. Tell me about a time you did not want to use interpreting services. Why did not you want them there?

6. How do you negotiate issues of cultural mediation in the classroom?

7. What did you like/dislike about the interpreter?

8. What qualities would you have liked to see in the interpreter?

9. What makes a good educational interpreter?

10. What is your overall impression of the mainstream setting? What did you like the most? What did you like the least?

11. How did you learn the things you needed to learn in the mainstream?

12. How do you identify now—D/deaf? How did your educational experience influence your identity?

13. Is there anything else you’d like to add about your mainstream experience?

Appendix B

Interview Protocol for Interpreters.

Background

1. How long have you been interpreting and how did you get into the field?

2. What training did you have?

3. How did you get into educational interpreting?

4. How long have you been in educational interpreting?

5. How would you describe yourself as an interpreter?

6. Do you hold any interpreting degrees/certifications?

7. How do you feel you fit within/among the Deaf community—insider/outsider, advocate, ally, helper, etc.?

General Reflections

1. What does inclusion mean to you?

2. Of the schools you have worked in, tell me which was most inclusive and why? Least inclusive and why?

3. In terms of the social scene, how would you describe the mainstream environment for deaf students?

4. Tell me about the best/worst classroom you worked in. What made it so? What type of prep work was requested/afforded? What did prep look like?

5. Tell me about your best interpreting K-12 experience. Why was it the best?

6. Tell me about your worst interpreting K-12 experience. Why was it so bad?

7. How do you negotiate issues of cultural mediation through educational interpreting?

8. Did you feel you were a member of the educational team? Why or why not?

9. What makes for a good rapport between interpreter and student and interpreter and other members of the educational team?

10. What skills/qualities do you feel a K-12 educational interpreter should possess? Why?

11. What makes a good educational interpreter?

12. What is your overall impression of the mainstream setting? What did you like the most? What did you like the least? If there are specific things that you think need to be changed, what would they be? Do you think this will happen? Why or why not?

13. How did you learn the things you needed to learn in the mainstream?

Pre-Interpreting

Prior to start of class/Prep

1. As an educational interpreter, were you hired by a district? Or, was it contracted through an agency and/or third party?

2. What type of prep, preliminary information, and/or orientation did you receive for or about the school, faculty, and or the DHH student prior to the first day of school?

3. What types of classes, typically, are you scheduled to interpret for?

4. Who was a part of the educational team and when did you first meet them?

5. What was that first meeting between you and the rest of the educational team like?

6. How would you describe your rapport and interactions among other members of the team?

7. When did you first meet the DHH student?

8. What was that first meeting like?

9. How would describe your rapport and interactions with the DHH student?

10. How do you prep with other members of the team? How often?

11. How do you prep for the day\lesson\unit? How often?

12. How do you prep/confer with the DHH student?

While Interpreting

In the Classroom

1. How do you think your presence in the classroom impacted the deaf student? Their experience with academics, friends, inclusion, etc.?

2. (Follow up to 22) How long, on average, does it take for everyone to stop starring at the interpreter? How is this handled? How do you see your role as impacting the student’s position in the classroom and school?

3. How would you describe your typical school day schedule?

4. How would you describe your rapport and interactions with the DHH student, the classroom teacher, and the other students?

5. When prep was off/not helpful, and/or the plan went array/plan B, how do you typically respond? How do you work with the classroom teacher and DHH student at those times?

6. What is your process management like?

7. How was turn taking, class discussion, question/answer sessions, partner/group work, distractions, side conversations, and comments handled?

8. How was inattentiveness or behavior addressed?

9. When the source message or target message was not understood and/or misunderstood, how was that handled?

10. If you were aware of a problem the DHH student was having, how was that handled?

Post-Interpreting

Reflect

1. How often would you check in with the DHH student (ask for feedback/give feedback)?

2. How did that type of conversation go?

3. How would you work to apply the feedback?

4. How often would you check in with the classroom teacher (feedback give/receive)?

5. How did that type of conversation go?

6. How would you work to apply the feedback?

7. How did you approach any issues or potential problems with the DHH student?

8. How did you approach any issues or potential problems with the classroom teacher?

9. How did you approach any issues or potential problems with other members of the educational team?

10. What type of contact did you have with the team, including parents?

Appendix CInterview Protocol for Focus Groups

Interpreters

1. How would you describe yourself as an interpreter?

2. Tell me about the most rewarding assignment as a K-12 interpreter? The least rewarding?

3. How do you balance between days/assignments where you feel useful and fulfilled and other times where you are back up/supporting/not being used/challenged?

4. How do you find that balance of being an adult on the team, yet allowing the student to have off days like their hearing peers?

5. Think back to times where you felt you had the ability to make decisions and were trusted to do so? What about the times you felt you were not able to make decisions? And/or the decisions were challenged?

6. As the interpreter, how would you describe your role in showing students how to use the interpreter effectively? How do you work with them so they work better with you? Talking to you? Feedback? Needs? Logistics?

7. How did you work with so many different staff/faculty members? How did you learn to do that?

8. How did having multiple deaf students and interpreters in the district impact the environment?

9. How do you feel faculty and students perceived you?

Deaf Individuals

1. Tell me about a time you were happy to have an interpreter present?

2. Tell me about a time you were not happy to have an interpreter present?

3. How did you learn how to most effectively work with and use the interpreter?

4. How did you identify in school? Did the perceptions of others at school play a part in that identification?

5. How did the mainstream setting prepare you for working in/with the hearing world (i.e., requesting services/finances/identifying/passing?)