Many people are concerned that because the ESSE:I was developed by the SEE Center that it is only for those people who use SEE. This is absolutely not true! The evaluation is given for any sign system used: ASL, PSE on the English side or CASE, PSE on the ASL side, SE, or SEE. We use 5 evaluators for each evaluation and the evaluators are all people who have worked in the educational setting (administrators, teachers, interpreters, speech therapists who use sign, counselors who use signs, etc.), who are hearing an deaf and hard of hearing. We feel that is important that they understand the difference of interpreting in the educational setting vs. freelance interpreting within the deaf community. The perspective evaluators are first tested on their knowledge of signs and their ability to receptively understand signing in more than one sign system. When they pass the portion, then they go through a very stringent training addressing the importance of everyone understanding what it take to reach the various ratings that are given (1 - no read to interpret to 5 - Excellent). First, I think it is important to everyone to know that the SEE Center was the first to recognize the fact that interpreting in the educational setting (K-12) is very different than interpreting in the deaf community as a free lance interpreter. As early as the 70's we wrote articles pertaining to educational interpreting (K-12) being different and provided training for interpreters working in the educational setting through out the country and internationally. Also, we felt there was a need for developing some kind of tool that would evaluate sign skills pertaining to interpreting in the classroom (K thru 12). We received a three-year Federal Grant in the late 80's and early 90's to do this. Three years of conducted. We are really proud of our excellent reliability and validity rating results. We found the use of five panelists was necessary for the highest reliability of ratings. The calculation of correlations based on three panelists had consistently yielded lower reliability. The vast majority who were part of this research, felt that the evaluation process was realistic representation of classroom situations and obtained a good sample of their skills, and they agreed with the ratings assigned by the panelists. We still receive reports stating this. The EIPA and ESSE:I are the only tests I know of that really test or evaluate the interpreters' skill in the educational setting (K-12). For the Expressive component both of them use stimulus tapes of actual classroom settings to which the interpreters interpret while being videotaped. The EIPA just recently changed to this format; previously they let the interpreter send video of themselves while interpreting in the classroom. In both you are able to choose on what level you want to be tested, elementary, middle school or high school. In the EIPA, I believe you need to choose in which mode you will interpret, in the ESSE:I we tell them to do what they do and the panel will tell them what mode they are using. We find that many times, people do not know what mode they are using, and are surprised when they are told they are combining modes or using something different than they thought. This can be a real eye opener. The videos then are reviewed by three evaluators for EIPA and five evaluators for the ESSE:I. We send an eight to twelve page comprehensive report to each evaluatee with their scores in five different categories and the comments from each of the evaluators. The comments tell in which areas they did well and point out where improvement is needed plus some pointers on how to improve these areas. Our receptive evaluations are quite different. The EIPA has a sign to voice component, in which you pick the mode of signing you prefer. Some people feel this is very important because it shows how well you can voice for your student. The ESSE:I has a two hour written evaluation, in which you are tested in three different modes, PSE, SEE and ASL. You are only expected to pass in one of the modes, not all three. However, the people who have taken this have reported back that it was important for them to know if they knew more than one mode. Many do pass more than one mode and it shows up to their certificate that they receive. We feel the written portion really tells you whether you are able to understand what the student is signing and if you caught all the concepts expressed. You receive a separate report for this component, that shows the number of signs you were able to understand and whether you understood the full concept. We have found that many people can receive a high score in signs they knew, but did not understand fully what was being said. We do have a sign to voice component but have not used it at this time. As you can see, there are many similarities and some differences. The one concern that I did voice to Debbie and to Amber was that here are indications that some of the E.I.P.A.'s criteria to SEE Interpreters are not the same as ours. We have been in touch with Boys Town on this matter and hope we can resolve this situation. It's too hard that other states couldn't follow what we have done in California. We have accepted all four tools, RID, ACCI, EIPA and ESSE:I, and have left it up to the individuals to pick the test they wanted, depending where and what field they will be doing their interpreting. To my knowledge (here in California) the ESSE:I has been the most widely used since the new law has been made in 2002. We appreciate all the work and effort put forth to make sure the SEE Interpreters as well as ASL, PSE, CASE, SE interpreters are evaluated fairly. This goes for all the people who also are diligently working on helping to get people to understand what it takes to become a truly professional Educational Interpreter. We need to put aside our own biases and accept all the different modes of interpreting. The need of the deaf/hh students are what must be met. The interpreters' goal is to fully meet those using whatever mode the student requires. So, we need good evaluation procedures to assure that we treat all the sign systems equally.
|
|
|
