A Case Study Evaluation of a Formal ASL-English Mentorship Program

ID: 4046
School: School of Language, Education, and Culture
Program: Interpreting and Translation
Status: Completed
Start date: March 2020
End Date: November 2021

Description

Across the United States, many ASL-English interpreters engage in mentoring to improve their skills; however, few structured programs have reported on assessments of their program efficacy. This study conducted a program evaluation of one track of an ASL-English interpreting mentorship program using a case study method to address two research questions: 1) How do participants in a formal, time-specific, distance mentorship program rate the helpfulness of each of the mentorship program’s activities and interventions to their overall language and interpreting skill development? 2) How do participants in a formal, time-specific, distance mentorship program rate their confidence in the value of the mentorship program in improving their overall language and interpreting skills? The study adopted a constructivist and interpretivist qualitative orientation guided by logic modeling, a widely used program evaluation model. The primary participants in this study consisted of eight novice, state-certified, or EIPA rated, ASL-English interpreters participating in an eight-month grant-funded mentorship track focused on advancing their state certification to the professional level. In addition, data was gathered from the mentorship program director, ASL language mentors, and ASL-English interpreter mentors. Multiple data collection techniques were employed including questionnaires, surveys, and document review. The data was coded and analyzed to assess perspectives of participants on the helpfulness of the mentorship program’s activities and interventions and the level of language and interpreting skill confidence that participants experienced while in the mentorship. The ultimate aim of the study was to provide empirical data to be used by ASL-English interpreter mentorship programs to create more effective programming.

Principal investigators

Priorities addressed

Funding sources