Miscommunication in Interpreted Classroom Interaction

Abstract

Miscommunication or confusion can and does occur between deaf and hearing people when using sign language interpreters in university classrooms. In order to examine this I videotaped thirty-two hours of classroom sessions and with the help of colleagues transcribed and analyzed the spoken and signed language utterances for discrepancies between what was said by the hearing members of each class and what was transmitted to and understood by the deaf student. I found that numerous misunderstandings led directly to confusion on the part of the deaf student. These instances of confusion occurred with the greatest frequency when interpreters were unfamiliar with the subject they were interpreting and/or were required to interpret diagrams or verbal descriptions. The data also showed that the deaf students experienced difficulty looking at the board and at the interpreter simultaneously. In this paper I examine these two problem areas in depth and suggest strategies for reducing miscommunication in university classes.

Cognitive Underpinnings of Learning by Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students

“…Students who have less content knowledge relating to a lecture-the situation of most deaf students-will particularly benefi t from combined materials (Gellevij et al, 2002;Mayer & Morena, 1998). This opportunity is not available to DHH learners, however, because of their dependence on visual reception of language through sign language, real-time text, or speechreading; see Johnson, 1991). Thus, while there is evidence that concurrent, multimodal information processing is advantageous for learning, multimedia classrooms functionally require consecutive processing by deaf students, alternating their attention between instructor/interpreters and visual materials, a situation known to impede learning.…”

First Encounters: Repair Sequences in Cross‐Signing

“…In signed languages, non‐manual signals (albeit of a specific kind) are also used as open‐class forms of repair initiation. Depending on the language background of the receiver, such signals may include a raised or furrowed brow, a wrinkling of the nose, or blinking (Dively, ; Johnson, ). In this context of non‐manual backchanneling, a blank expression combined with holding or freezing of the hands can be taken to signal trouble in seeing or understanding (Manrique & Enfield, ).…”

<b>An historical overview of signed language interpreting research: Featuring highlights of personal research</b><br>DOI: 10.5007/2175-7968.2010v2n26p63

“…Various studies have investigated elements of university SLI, including the potential for miscommunication between hearing and deaf people in university classrooms when an interpreter is used (Johnson, 1991); and the strategies used by lecturers, deaf students, hearing students, and interpreters to fulfil their roles in the learning process (Harrington, 2000(Harrington, , 2001(Harrington, , 2005Leeson & Foley-Cave, 2007); plus my own work which will be discussed in section 4.0. The demands for interpreters to work in a range of educational settings, particularly higher education, has led to calls for more consistency and quality in interpreter education, training and accreditation (J.…”