Programme

The conference is split into two themes, d/Deaf education and educational interpreting. As well as the key note, each theme will have further formal sessions, as well as informal session which run throughout the conference.

The conference environment will be open one week before the conference starts, for reading only, so that delegates can read and view the various presentations and papers. The conference itself will be open for contributions from Wednesday 6th February to 8am (GMT) to 8am (GMT) Sunday 10th February 2008. The environment will remain accessible for reading only, so that delegates can catch up on anything they missed, for a further four weeks after the 10th.

For further information on how the conference works, see the FAQ section.

Please click on the presentation titles for more information.

[We are also very pleased to announce a late addition to the programme: Using Wimba to Provide Equal Access of Information to Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in On-line courses by Dr. Sam Slike and Ms. Pam Berman from Bloomsburg University. This demonstrates using live web casting supported by closed captioning and an interpreter, to provide online course content]

Please click on the presentation title for more information.

Theme One: Deaf Education

Key note presentation: Language and Learning by Deaf Students by Loes Wauters, Marc Marschark, Patricia Sapere and Carol Convertino

This presentation will consider ways in which deaf students' language comprehension skills influence their academic achievement and learning at-large. Issues of direct versus mediated (interpreted) instruction, face-to-face language comprehension skills of deaf students who vary and their signed and spoken communication skills, and the cognitive foundations of language and learning will be considered. Apparent differences between deaf and hearing learners are examined in light of specific challenges in educational contexts. In particular, recent research demonstrating that the historical challenges of deaf students in the domain of reading are matched by similar difficulties in learning via sign language are discussed both in terms of their larger impact on deaf education (pedagogy and politics) and ways in which they broaden our understanding of language, cognition, and achievement in deaf individuals.

Back to top

A Deaf Student’s Perspective on Mainstream Education by Dawn Watts

This workshop is presented by a Deaf adult speaker who was educated in a mainstream setting in Cleveland, Ohio. She uses her personal life experiences, both struggles and successes, to help interpreters understand the feelings and perspectives of the deaf students they work with and so be able to develop a more positive relationship. The goal of the workshop is to allow interpreters to see classroom as Deaf students do, thus allowing the interpreter to be more effective in providing the students with access to the communication in the classroom. Issues discussed during this workshop include learning how to read Deaf student's body language, learning, and strategies for dealing with negative student attitudes.

Back to top

The use of sign language in examinations for Deaf students in Higher Education by Kath Mowe, Lynne Barnes and Maureen Nicholson

This paper will look at the realities of using British Sign Language for examinations in Higher Education. Whilst this practice appears to be becoming commonplace within HEIs, there is also evidence to suggest that there is currently no standard procedure for this practice. With this in mind, the authors undertook a small piece of experimental action research in autumn 2006 which involved an analysis of the differences between the use of interpreting and translation processes in exam settings.

This paper will explore of some of the pragmatic issues arising from three examination scenarios;

a) Written exam paper, written responses, interpreter present for sight translation of questions if required.
b) Written paper, interpreter present for sight translation of questions, signed response interpreted in spoken language, answers recorded in writing by subject expert amanuensis.
c) Paper translated into sign language in electronic format,
answers signed and recorded onto electronic format. Written translation provided post exam.

In addition we will discuss some of the wider implications of undertaking examinations in British Sign Language. This will encompass training for students, guidelines for course leaders and the feasibility of developing policy documents to standardise this practice across the sector.

It is hoped this will generate further academic debate and interest in this recent area of research in HE.

Back to top

SigAm - The bilingual education of deaf project by Knut Saltnes

The Signo Foundation, Norway, and the Amity Foundation, China, run a joint project for supporting deaf education in China. The project is called:
SigAm - bilingual education of deaf.

The project aims to introduce sign language as the main language in deaf education. The first project school was located in the Jiangsu province and started at the Nanjing school for deaf in 2002. Today the number of schools has increased to 8 in three provinces. The education authorities in all three provinces are engaged in the project and considered as one of the main factors for success.

The paper will present the project from the beginning and describe
challenges and solutions, results and students progress. We will also try
to present cultural diversity between Norway and China in the field of
Education.

The presentation for the Supporting Deaf Conference will be a summary of the SigAm project and experts from both countries will contribute to the
final presentation. The presentation will be written and presented by Knut
Rune Saltnes at the conference.

Back to top

Ten years of bilingual deaf education in Norway - where are we? by Arnfinn Muruvik Vonen

In 1997, the Norwegian government put into force a new article of the Regulation the the Compulsory School, giving deaf children the individual legal right to sign language tuition and, thereby, to bilingual education involving Norwegian Sign Language and Norwegian. This paper reports on the background for the breakthrough in 1997, but its main focus is on the situation we face today. Issues to be treated include teachers' competence (most of whom are hearing), school placement (few children now go to special schools), and discourses of cochlear implants (approximately 90% of profoundly deaf children get implants). Special attention will be given to the learning conditions offered by the classroom. Suggested background reading: Pp 63-65 ("Norway", by SE Ohna and AM Vonen) of R Swanwick & S Gregory: Sign bilingual education - policy and practice, Douglas McLean Publishing, Coleford, Gloucestershire, 2007.

Back to top

Theme Two: Educational Interpreting

Keynote presentation: Educational interpreting and learning: What do we know? by Brenda Schick

Academic achievement continues to be a challenge for many students who are deaf or hard of hearing (d/hh) and language, cognitive, and literacy skills are often significantly delayed compared with hearing peers. For many d/hh students who are placed in a general education setting, educational interpreting services are required to provide access to the communication in the general education classroom.

It is a mantra within the interpreting profession that an interpretation is never the same as direct communication. However, there is evidence that both college students and kindergarden to 12th grade (K-12) students are able to learn new information, including abstract concepts, when provided through an interpretation rather than direct communication. This presentation will discuss what we know about learning within an interpreted education. It will also present a model of learning within an interpreted K-12 educational setting. Factors that may affect learning include: 1) the interpreters' skills, knowledge, and training; 2) the student's skills in language, reading, and interaction; and 3) classroom factors such as the accessibility of the classroom to interpretation, the access the interpreter has to classroom goals and content, and the ability to interact as a member of the educational team.

Boundary Issues in Educational Interpreting: Where do You Draw the line? by Richard Brumberg

At a forum at a college in metro-Atlanta, Georgia, USA, a panel of Deaf consumers and interpreters were invited to speak about different issues to help build relationships between the two parties (Deaf and Interpreting Community Forum, Georgia Perimeter College, Clarkston, GA, April 28, 2007). A common concern voiced by both parties was the topic of establishing boundaries. Nowhere is this issue more prevalent than in the educational setting (K-12 and post-secondary). Often times, when faced with a situation that crosses a boundary, educational interpreters will use ASL signs like BACK-OUT (of a situation), DRAW-THE-LINE (between me and the consumer), THINK-SELF (“It’s up to you.”) and NOT-MY-BUSINESS. Yet, when talking about necessities of educational settings, these very same interpreters will assert how critical it is to create rapports with the Deaf student(s) and hearing consumers. These two seemingly contradictory views leave the educational interpreter in a quandary.

What, then, is the balance between establishing healthy relationships and keeping your distance in the classroom setting? Where should interpreters draw the line? What kind of line should be drawn? This paper will explore this issue and offer possible solutions through a synthesis of established research and first-person experiences/responses. It suggests that the two beliefs may be able to co-exist if the boundary is in the right place and has the right flexibility. The paper will also focus on the language interpreters use and how word choice has a profound effect on boundary issues.

Back to top

Joint Presentation - Education of the Deaf: Mediated by Interpreters. Theory and Application and Practical Application of the Demand Control Schema* with Educational Interpreters by Patty Lessard and Kendra Keller

As in many countries, Deaf students in the U.S. fall under the provisions of Special Education. However, they are still required to meet the standards of high-stakes testing, i.e. exit requirements. By and large they are placed in regular education classrooms with support services, in particular, sign language interpreters. The inclusion of Deaf students in any regular education classroom means that they are in an environment where they do not share the language (in its spoken modality) with the majority of their peers and or teacher(s). It is the interpreter who must mediate this environment, and as a consequence, mediate their education.

The key to an effective mainstream education where an interpreter is provided, regardless of which country, lies in the qualifications of the interpreter. This paper proposes to explore the components of the signed language one must acquire/learn in order to become fluent (bi-lingual); therefore qualified to function as an educational interpreter. The intent is to give a brief overview of the minimum qualifications of interpreters, problem areas in interpreter training, and to generate questions as well as encourage discussion about the challenge of training individuals who will eventually work with deaf students in a myriad of educational environments.

Practical Application of the Demand Control Schema* with Educational Interpreters

A case study applying the Demand-Control Schema to the work of one interpreter in an educational setting will be presented. It will highlight Language and Transfer Competency, as well as some features of Subject Matter Competency pertaining to specialized vocabulary and concepts that were a challenge to interpret. The context of the interaction, communication goals of all participants in the interchange and both the interpreter and the deaf student's L1 and L2 are also discussed.

By engaging in a dialogue in which the interpreter recounts the situation, identifies challenges (demands), identifies the decisions (controls) or strategies used to address them, as well as potential alternate strategies, the interpreter gains awareness and becomes conscious of her work on a product level. She is engaged in a process to develop critical thinking skills, practice ethical decision-making, and identify further resources to more successfully complete future interpretations. Once exposed to this process, the interpreter was able to use the model that was learned through the dialogue and apply it to future texts. The case also reveals that she was able to engage in similar dialogues independently with her peers.

*A brief explanation of the schema as developed by Robyn Dean and
Dr. Robert Pollard, will be provided.

Back to top

Leveraging Communication Access Solutions as a Team by Margie English and Brandon Arthur

Communications depend on delivery of the message and how it is received by the recipient. The objective is to lay out the communication access options available to supervisors, employees and communication access practitioners (interpreters or realtime writers) in the educational setting with consideration to their culture, experience and the location.

Presenters will discuss how cultural sensitivity, credentials, proper facility and logistical management will contribute to successful communication outcomes among these team members. It will be important to consider the credentials carried by interpreters and realtime writers as they contribute to the exchange.

A review will be made to consider credentials of these interpreters and realtime writers and their significance. An examination will be made of the current issues and trends and other emerging technologies that are available as a communication access option.

A portion of this presentation will also observe the needs of each component of the team: the interpreter, the CART writer, the hearing instructor and class mates and the deaf/hard of hearing student and various possible combinations of the above. Great impact can be achieved with an understanding of the cultural needs of each person involved, as well as the layout of the room and the facility.

This understanding of the needs of these involved in this environment requires some visualization. Accomplishing effective communications will take into consideration the objective and the layout of the meeting, as well as the desired results. We will look at several case scenarios of what may happen when applying one or more factors to each possibility. Some personal narratives will also be shared.

Back to top

The Role of Qualified Notetakers in Higher Education: An Emerging Profession? by Melanie Thorley

This paper is a modification of one of two pilot studies I undertook as part of my Doctorate in Education. As an experienced and qualified note-taker working within higher education, I am aware of how little research has been undertaken in this area, especially from a note-takers perspective. Fellow members (13) of the Association of Note-taking Professionals (ANP) completed a semi-structured questionnaire to ascertain their perspectives on how they regard themselves and other language support professionals.

The paper is a combination of self-reflection as a researcher practitioner in this field, the results of the questionnaires and a considerable literature review. The ethical implications were minimal as all co-researchers were self-selected, anonymous and over 18 years old. All 13 of the co-researchers regarded themselves as professional and strived to provide comprehensive notes for the students they support. In addition, the majority of questionnaires addressed the backward trend of employing undergraduates to provide notes, rather than experienced qualified note-takers.

Obtaining a university education may be one way for D/deaf adults to gain employment and equality/inclusion in wider society. Utilising the support provided by qualified note-takers could be one method to gain access to lectures and seminars. Providing qualified support staff could be viewed as 'anticipatory adjustments' as set out by various Acts/and or legislation (Disability Discrimination Act, Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, Disability Equality Duty etc.).

Back to top

Educational Interpreting – Multiple Perceptions about our Work by Debra Russell

This presentation describes preliminary data from a Canadian study of interpreting in educational settings where the perspectives of consumers were gathered via surveys and interviews. Deaf students, teachers, administrators, interpreters and parents were invited to share their views on the interpreter mediated education experience. These multiple perspectives, when examined, offer us much to reflect upon in terms of our interpreting skills, interactions with other members of the educational community, and sense of professionalism.

These findings reveal that students are increasingly aware of our strengths and our weaknesses, and if asked, would like to have input into school hiring practices and scheduling processes. The results also show that administrators and teachers struggle to understand the nature of our work, and that the ways we interact with them can have a dramatic impact on how they perceive the Deaf students. Finally, parents expressed concern about how little they really know about the ways in which interpreting impacts their child’s education. These multiple perspectives challenge us to address gaps in our education and on-going professional development, and to improve school culture by opening up the dialogue that can lead to team building and service enhancement.

Back to top

Educational Interpreting in Nigeria: an Assessment of Development by Pawlos Kassu Abebe

The paper is an assessment of the present state of educational interpreting for the deaf in Nigeria. A brief history of deaf education and sign language in Nigeria is presented under the introduction. The present state of educational interpreting in Nigeria is highlighted. The number of deaf students vis-à-vis available interpreters in post secondary institutions which have significant number of deaf students in their admission list, is discussed.

Factors responsible for the present unimpressive state of educational interpreting such as: non-availability of one accepted form of sign language, non-availability of training institution for prospective sign language interpreters, lack of certifying body and standardized criteria for evaluating competence, ignorance of sign language as a formal language by the general public and non- recognition of interpreting as a profession will be discussed. The paper concludes that except where experts in the area within and outside Nigeria volunteer to collaborate with training institutions to produce professional interpreters and promote the need for interpreters, the present state of educational interpreting in Nigeria may take longer than it should to reach the desired level.

Back to top

Disclaimer: Programme may be subject to change. Whilst we make every possible effort to replace any presenters who are unable to participate, we cannot be held responsible for circumstances beyond our control.