Interpreting Skills
This Interpreting Skills webpage demonstrates my skill to produce interpretations that supports student success and inclusion in various educational settings. The interpreting products are shaped by the educational team member's efforts and the educational theories and practices behind these efforts (C5).
Additionally, the products show my ability to base the interpretations on ethical decision-making, systems thinking, professional guidelines, educational team members' roles and responsibilities, and students' needs (C6). By combining technical skills with practical professional knowledge and decision-making, the interpretations and associated documentation show my ability to produce accurate and effective interpreting services to different deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing consumers present in educational environments.
School Interpreting Series (SIS) Standards
SIS Competency 5
Enact interpreting and other related services guided by the educational system, framed by learning theories, and influenced by the practices of the educational team in support of each student’s access and interactions. (Knowledge & Skill)
SIS Competency 6
Implement decision-making as a Related Service Provider that is based on educational, professional, and ethical frameworks. (Skill)
This page includes interpretations for:​
​
​​
This page also includes a review of my initial EIPA feedback, an overarching assessment of the interpreting skills, an overarching reflection, and references.​
​
This page centers on my interpreting work across grade levels and within adult interactions in the school system. It begins with contextual grounding in my initial EIPA: Performance results, which I completed prior to beginning SIS coursework. The interpreting artifacts that follow are presented within that developmental context. For each sample, I provide preparation details, analysis of the interpreting product, and targeted reflection. The page concludes with an overarching assessment of patterns across the samples and a reflection on my growth throughout the process of compiling and refining this work.
​
This page demonstrates SIS Competencies 5 and 6. While technical interpreting skill is essential for effective classroom access, school interpreters must also implement those skills within the educational system and in alignment with professional and ethical frameworks. Effective practice requires decision-making that reflects service designations, instructional goals, collaboration with educational team members, and awareness of institutional structures. The artifacts included here illustrate how my interpreting decisions increasingly reflect these broader educational considerations in support of student access and participation.
Initial EIPA: Performance Feedback
As a recipient of an academic scholarship through the Office of Special Education Program and the Preparing School Interpreter (PSI) Project at the University of Northern Colorado, I was able to take the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) the summer before entering the concentration in School Interpreting. The EIPA includes both a written and a performance component; the results presented here reflect the performance portion. The EIPA assesses an interpreter’s ability to interpret classroom discourse from spoken English into sign language and from sign language into spoken English. (EIPA, n.d.)
The National Association of Interpreters in Education (NAIE) recommends that qualified school interpreters earn a minimum EIPA score of 4.0 out of 5.0 or hold national certification (NAIE, 2019). While not all states have adopted this guideline, my home state of Washington recently passed legislation raising the minimum required EIPA score from 3.5 to 4.0 (NAIE, 2025). This change represents an important step toward improving access for deaf and hard of hearing students, and it is my hope that more states continue to raise standards for school interpreters.​​
I took the EIPA in the summer of 2024, prior to beginning the SIS coursework and upper-division classes at UNC as part of the PSI Project. At the time, I had been enrolled in formal interpreting skills courses for only about 2 weeks. As a result, the experience was both challenging and memorable. Taking the EIPA provided an external evaluation of my language and interpreting abilities, which was later reviewed with me by an EIPA expert and a PSI Project member. The following feedback summarizes my initial results.
​
Roman I: Voice-to-Sign
-
​Areas of Strength: Use of space, sentence boundaries and types, non-manual markers, verb agreement, and matching student register were effective when information was less complex and dense.
-
Areas to Improve: As discourse became more complex, elements such as prosody, register (particularly the teacher’s), stress and emphasis, and deeper analysis of the overall message intent were less consistent. Continued development in representing model space, using classifiers, verb agreement, and comparative or contrastive space to depict objects, topics, and their relationships would strengthen interpretations overall.
-
Because much of my work in K–12 settings will occur in the voice-to-sign modality, maintaining and strengthening these skills will be essential. While this feedback reflects an early stage in my development, it also highlights patterns that occasionally still appear in my work and remain areas for continued growth.
​​
Roman II: Sign-to-Voice
-
Areas of Strength: Strengths included effective use of sentence types, ability to understand and match the signer’s register, generally strong comprehension, and accurate fingerspelling. Most ideas were complete, and vocal and intonational features were emerging, including the use of stress to emphasize key information.
-
Areas of Improvement: Comprehension of more complex non-manual behaviors and ASL morphology was occasionally inaccurate. Sentence fragments appeared throughout the sample, and raters recommended allowing additional processing time before committing to interpretations. At times, speech production was monotone, indicating a need to more consistently reflect the speaker’s grammatical structure and emotional intent.
-
Based on these results, my sign-to-voice skills were stronger than my voice-to-sign skills. This pattern has continued to appear in feedback throughout my program. Anecdotally, I have also heard from practicing K–12 interpreters that sign-to-voice skills require intentional maintenance, as they may be used less frequently in different educational settings.
Roman III: Vocabulary
-
Areas of Strength: This Roman received my highest score by a considerable margin. Strengths included a wide and varied vocabulary, generally accurate and consistent fingerspelling, and clear production of numbers.
-
Areas of Improvement: Raters noted non-linguistic torso movements that should be reduced for clarity. Minimizing hesitations and improving prediction skills would support smoother, more fluent output. Fingerspelling was used in a manner more typical of social settings; adopting a more deliberate approach to highlight key academic terms will be an important skill to continue developing.
-
This feedback was encouraging, as it demonstrated a strong foundational vocabulary despite my limited interpreting experience at the time. While I continue to refine these skills, my deliberate practice has focused more heavily on other areas where growth is needed.​
​
Roman IV: Overall Factors
-
Areas of Strength: Connection with the student (represented by the camera) was reasonably consistent. Use of eye gaze, indexing, naming, and gender identification, though inconsistent, contributed positively when employed. A sense of the overall message was apparent when the discourse was less complex.
-
Areas of Improvement: Raters recommended focusing more on conceptual processing rather than word-for-word or sign-by-sign interpretation. As messages increased in length and complexity, interpretations tended to become more literal. Developing a clearer spatial map to track discourse referents would support cohesion and allow for more effective use of topicalization, classifiers, contrastive space, and pronominalization.
-
This Roman is particularly important, as it reflects the student’s overall access to the interpreted message. Improving this score is a primary goal for my next EIPA administration, and I believe targeted work in spatial mapping and conceptual accuracy will support growth in this area.
At the beginning of the Fall 2025 semester, I met with an EIPA expert to review my results. This conversation was invaluable, as it deepened my understanding of both the assessment itself and my developmental needs as an interpreter. When I first took the EIPA, I felt overwhelmed due to my limited experience and the novelty of formal interpreting assessment. Since then, through coursework and practice, I have gained greater confidence in my ability to prepare for and engage in the testing process.
​
I plan to retake the EIPA: Performance following my internship in Spring 2026 and look forward to documenting my continued growth. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to take the EIPA early in my training, as it provided concrete feedback that has meaningfully informed my deliberate practice and professional development throughout my final year in the program.
Elementary Interpretation
Spring 2025: This interpretation is a sample of my work in an elementary setting. Shelby is a third-grade student fluent in both English and sign language. She has a unilateral cochlear implant and has been involved in the Deaf community from a young age. She is performing at grade level and may be evaluated for the fourth-grade gifted program. Shelby uses an interpreter for instructional support but often works independently during small group activities.
​
Ms. Brown is an experienced third-grade teacher who regularly collaborates with interpreters and provides preparatory materials. The instructional objective of the lesson was to identify the main idea and supporting details through a comparison of frogs and toads. Students generated and justified their ideas independently, and Ms. Brown synthesized their responses into a visual web. This instructional structure required clear representation of justification language, accurate depiction of student contributions, and cohesive spatial organization as the web developed in real time.
In preparation, I reviewed videos of Deaf signers discussing main ideas and supporting details to observe how they utilized space and visually structured abstract concepts. This supported greater lexical flexibility and strengthened my ability to map discourse visually rather than defaulting to English-driven structure. I also considered Shelby’s language background and how to balance conceptual clarity with continued English development, particularly through sandwiching strategies, deliberate fingerspelling of academic terms, and intentional referencing during overlapping classroom discourse. Although this interpretation preceded my formal EIPA feedback, these preparation choices reflected emerging awareness of spatial mapping and discourse cohesion as areas of growth. Additionally, because my use of lag time had limited student participation in earlier work, I intentionally monitored processing time in this sample to better align with classroom turn-taking structures and preserve Shelby’s opportunity to engage alongside her peers. This decision reflects the interpreter’s responsibility to support equitable participation within the teacher’s established classroom flow and to align with the educational team’s goals for student engagement.​
​
At the time this interpretation was completed, my understanding of how interpreting strategies can intentionally support instructional objectives was still developing, as it preceded my completion of the Instructional Assessment. If revisiting this artifact now, I would more explicitly align discourse mapping and spatial organization with the teacher’s objective of identifying and justifying supporting details.
Video Language: English to ASL
Note: A brief recording glitch occurs at approximately 2:00, in which the interpretation video freezes for about 15 seconds. The stimulus continues, & the interpretation resumes immediately afterward.
Within the interpreting continuum, I primarily operated at the conceptual level in ASL while incorporating English-support strategies to reinforce academic vocabulary. I made deliberate choices regarding fingerspelling, expansion, contrastive space, role shifting, and referencing classroom materials. Although completed from a recording rather than live in the classroom, this sample reflects early integration of visual referencing strategies, such as mapping the teacher’s web spatially to mirror its development. In prior work, referencing visual materials in virtual settings had not come naturally, making this integration a meaningful stride in discourse management. For the student, this created a more cohesive learning experience by supporting effective attention between the interpreter and classroom materials, strengthening conceptual integration, and reducing cognitive load.
​
Instructor feedback highlighted the importance of tiered vocabulary analysis. Greater consistency in determining which academic terms require repeated fingerspelling and expansion would further strengthen conceptual clarity and support academic language development. Feedback also emphasized signposting and narration during instructional observation. These strategies support equitable access by clarifying turn-taking, classroom expectations, and teacher actions, particularly within Initiate–Respond–Evaluate (IRE) instructional structures. Integrating these approaches more consistently would further align interpreting decisions with instructional goals and Systems and Collaboration principles.
​
These considerations connect directly to EIPA Roman IV (Overall Factors), as spatial mapping, structural consistency, and discourse cohesion influence the predictability and comprehensibility of the interpreted message. When spatial relationships and justification language are clearly organized, students are better positioned to retain and integrate new academic concepts. This artifact captures an important developmental stage in strengthening those features prior to my subsequent deliberate Roman IV practice.​​
​
This interpretation serves as my showcase elementary sample because it demonstrates greater intentionality in preparation, improved lag-time management, early integration of instructional alignment strategies, and emerging control over spatial discourse mapping. It reflects meaningful growth in instructional responsiveness, discourse management, and systems-level awareness within a K–12 context, directly supporting SIS competencies in implementing decision-making as a Related Service Provider grounded in educational goals and established professional frameworks. It also demonstrates the enactment of interpreting services shaped by classroom instructional practices and team-established educational goals, as outlined in the student’s IEP, in support of equitable access and participation.
Middle School Interpretation - ASL to English
Spring 2025: This sample represents my ASL to English interpretation of an eighth-grade student’s persuasive presentation advocating for families of deaf children to learn sign language. The student is trilingual (English, Spanish, and ASL) and receives speech services as part of their IEP. The student has articulated goals of attending Gallaudet University and becoming an ASL teacher, reflecting strong alignment with Deaf culture despite limited family involvement. The persuasive nature of the assignment required accurate representation of rhetorical structure, emotional intensity, and identity-based positioning within the discourse.
Preparation for this interpretation was limited to reviewing a sample of the student’s signing in order to analyze discourse style, pacing, and rhetorical organization. A primary consideration was calibrating register and vocabulary to align with both the student’s age and the academic expectations of a persuasive classroom presentation. Observing a ninth-grade classroom the day prior challenged some of my assumptions about middle school discourse sophistication and prompted me to be more intentional about aligning my register choices. Ideally, collaboration with the student to co-construct message intent and confirm lexical preferences would have strengthened alignment and ownership; however, the prerecorded format prohibited that interaction.​
​
Middle school represents a critical stage for fostering student autonomy and developing effective collaboration with interpreters in preparation for postsecondary environments, a focus often reflected in IEP transition goals (see more on the Child and Language Development page). Given this student’s strong Deaf identity and conviction on the topic, consultation regarding rhetorical emphasis and audience positioning could have further supported message ownership. Although collaboration was not possible in this context, the experience reinforced the importance of engaging students in discussions about voice, audience, and representation whenever feasible in live settings.
Within the interpreting continuum, this work reflects a conceptually faithful ASL to English interpretation with deliberate attention to preserving persuasive tone and rhetorical arc. Strengths include alignment with the student’s affect and strategic use of vocal emphasis to mirror persuasive escalation. Cultural mediation was employed to clarify concepts for audiences with limited familiarity with ASL, while remaining faithful to the student’s intent. This attention to audience experience supported a more equitable evaluation of the student’s skills within the assignment context and reinforced the student’s overall credibility. At times, increased processing demands led to brief moments of reduced fluency or less natural lexical phrasing; however, overall message coherence and argument structure were maintained.
​
Although I did not have access to the full IEP at the time, revisiting this interpretation after developing a stronger understanding of IEP processes and related service considerations has prompted more intentional reflection on how to balance vocal clarity with a faithful representation of the student’s expressive style. If speech goals addressed expressive language development, particular care would be required to avoid over-normalizing the student’s language while still producing a coherent English interpretation. In live settings, access to goal documentation and direct collaboration would support more nuanced decision-making in this area. More broadly, this experience reinforced the importance of consistently considering how related service goals may shape interpreting decisions, even when they are not immediately visible in the assignment.
​
In reviewing this interpretation through the lens of EIPA Roman II, I can identify a tendency to preserve overall argument structure while compressing explanatory detail, illustrative examples, and rhetorical repetition under increased cognitive load. In managing lag and prioritizing fluency, I moved up the Gish (1987) scale, shifting from rich ASL discourse to more generalized English phrasing. While primary meaning, tone, and persuasive intent remained intact, some rhetorical richness was reduced, potentially diminishing the emotional impact and persuasive force of the student’s presentation. Continued development of processing efficiency will support my ability to retain layered explanations and emotional intensity without sacrificing pacing, which will, in turn, strengthen Roman II performance.
​
This artifact serves as my showcase middle school ASL to English sample because it demonstrates controlled rhetorical voicing, calibrated cultural mediation, and emerging awareness of how IEP considerations intersect with discourse representation. It reflects meaningful growth in managing persuasive tone, sustaining argument structure under load, and integrating systems-level awareness into voicing decisions. This directly supports SIS competencies in implementing decision-making as a Related Service Provider grounded in educational and professional frameworks, and in enacting and interpreting services that honor student voice and access within school-based contexts.
.png)
Video Language: ASL to English
Middle School Interpretation - English to Sign
Fall 2025: This sample represents an English to Sign sample prepared for a lesson on photosynthesis. The seventh-grade student’s IEP specified transliteration services with integration of visual and ASL features. The instructional objective required comprehension of academic science vocabulary and cause-and-effect processes. Given the IEP designation, I intentionally approached this assignment within a transliteration framework, maintaining English-based word order and mouthing while incorporating visual supports and conceptual anchoring drawn from prior instruction and the teacher’s materials.
Preparation for this lesson included structured pre-teaching assignments that introduced vocabulary and foundational concepts before the lesson. These materials are featured on my Roles and Responsibilities page under the Tutoring section. Engaging in the full cycle of pre-teach and subsequent interpretation significantly informed my approach. Because shared conceptual groundwork had been established, I was able to refrain from unnecessary expansion during the lesson and instead focus on maintaining pacing and transliteration accuracy, reinforcing previously introduced concepts while preserving instructional flow.
Video Language: English to Sign
Within the interpreting continuum, this work reflects a deliberate attempt to operate within English-based transliteration rather than conceptually restructured ASL interpretation. I made intentional choices to preserve English syntax and mouthing while selectively incorporating spatial organization aligned with the teacher’s PowerPoint visuals. For example, during the explanation of the hamburger image, I structured space to mirror the visual representation, reinforcing the content without shifting into full ASL discourse mapping. This approach supported consistency between the spoken instruction, visual materials, and interpreted output, promoting predictability for the student within the product. Although areas for growth remain, particularly in flow and pacing, this artifact represents a meaningful developmental point in grounding decision-making in documented service requirements rather than intuition alone
This interpretation also prompted clarification regarding the distinction between ASL interpretation and English-based transliteration. While I approached the assignment through an IEP-informed transliteration lens, instructor feedback identified moments where my product shifted toward ASL discourse structure rather than maintaining English syntax. In reviewing the work, I can identify instances in which conceptual restructuring and compression aligned more closely with interpretation than with strict transliteration. This experience reinforced the importance of structural consistency when operating within a transliteration framework and highlighted that service labels such as “transliteration with ASL features” require a clear operational definition to guide consistent interpretive choices.​​​
​
These considerations connect directly to EIPA Roman IV (Overall Factors), which evaluates overall cohesion and conceptual integrity. Maintaining structural consistency within a transliteration framework supports predictability and stability in the linguistic product the student receives. Conversely, unintentional shifts between transliteration and ASL discourse patterns can reduce structural cohesion, even when individual utterances remain accurate. Ensuring alignment between IEP designation and linguistic output, therefore, directly influences the integrity and accessibility of the interpreted message.
​
This artifact serves as a showcase sample because it demonstrates deliberate continuum positioning, integration of pre-teach preparation into real-time production, and emerging skill in aligning interpreting strategy with documented service specifications. It reflects growth in implementing service decisions grounded in IEP documentation and professional frameworks, while enacting interpreting strategies shaped by instructional goals and team-defined practices to support student access and participation.
High School Interpretation
Fall 2024: The work below represents a secondary-level interpretation completed in Fall 2024. The student consumer is a ninth grader from a multigenerational Deaf family who uses ASL as her primary language. She is mainstreamed with interpreting services and has no additional documented disabilities. Given her linguistic background and educational placement, I made language choices that aligned closely with conceptually accurate ASL, without the need for additional linguistic modification or English-based support strategies.
​
Having previously worked with this material, I began preparation by re-warming vocabulary and reviewing key conceptual content. During this process, I noticed that my lexical and structural choices closely mirrored those in an earlier interpretation of similar material, indicating a degree of habitual patterning in my discourse mapping. To expand my range, I reviewed classmates’ recordings to observe alternative spatial organization, lexical variation, and role-shifting strategies. Exposure to varied approaches increased my interpretive flexibility and informed more deliberate decision-making. A primary goal for this iteration was to improve processing speed and reduce lag time compared to earlier recordings, which I supported through targeted practice with additional source materials in order to better align with the pacing demands of a secondary classroom.
Video Language: English to ASL
At this stage in my development, managing cognitive load remained a significant area of growth. Much of my cognitive effort was devoted to core interpreting processes, such as analysis, reformulation, and production. As these processes become more automatic, greater capacity can be allocated to higher-level discourse considerations, including instructional alignment, spatial cohesion, and student engagement. During this interpretation, those higher-level elements were present but occasionally diminished under increased processing demands. Notable strengths include effective alignment with the teacher’s tone and energy, contributing to classroom congruence, and the purposeful use of ASL discourse strategies, such as role-shifting, to clearly differentiate speakers and maintain conceptual clarity for the student. This alignment supports the student’s ability to follow multi-speaker interactions and remain integrated within whole-class discussion.
​
This interpretation reflects patterns identified in my EIPA feedback, particularly in Romans I, III, and IV. Completed shortly after the assessment, it demonstrates emerging awareness of prosody, pacing, and discourse cohesion as developmental focus areas. Continued refinement of prosodic control and structural pacing will strengthen message organization and directly influence Roman IV (Overall Factors), as cohesive discourse enhances the lesson accessibility and supports the student’s ability to track increasingly complex academic content over time.
​
This artifact serves as my showcase secondary ASL interpretation at this stage of training because it demonstrates expanding interpretive flexibility, increased awareness of habitual discourse patterns, and emerging control over prosody and spatial management. It reflects growth in implementing service decisions grounded in educational and professional frameworks, while enacting ASL interpretation shaped by high school instructional structures in support of student access and interaction.
Adult Interpretation
Fall 2025: The work below represents an interpretation within the school system between adults. The scenario involved a hearing grandmother touring a Deaf school as she considered enrollment for her kindergarten-aged grandchild. During the visit, representatives from the school, including the Kindergarten teacher, Student Support Liaison, and Resource Coordinator, discussed bilingual instruction and school programming. This setting required navigation of multiple adult stakeholders with differing goals, perspectives, and institutional roles. As the interpreter functioning within a school system, my role required balancing institutional messaging, family understanding, and cultural mediation in a way that upheld equitable access for all participants.
​​
In preparation, I reviewed the prompt and analyzed each participant’s likely objectives and cultural frameworks in order to anticipate potential areas requiring cultural mediation. I applied systems-level thinking to anticipate how institutional priorities, family expectations, and bilingual educational philosophy might influence discourse, and how my interpreting decisions could support clarity and alignment among stakeholders within the school’s service structure.
This interpretation was completed during a semester in which external professional stressors significantly impacted my cognitive bandwidth. While preparation time and creative flexibility were occasionally constrained during this period, this assignment marked a turning point in my approach. Rather than focusing on performance anxiety, I intentionally returned to foundational interpreting values such as flexibility, responsiveness, and presence. This shift enabled greater effectiveness and marked one of the semester's strongest products. Returning to foundational interpreting principles allowed me to re-center my decision-making within professional and ethical frameworks rather than reactive processing, and strengthened my ability to maintain role clarity and discourse stability in a multi-party setting.​
Video Language: ASL to English
There were moments when comprehension challenges led to reduced fluency, including brief pauses and occasional unnatural phrasing in English. In those instances, I prioritized preservation of primary meaning over stylistic precision. Despite these moments, the speaker’s core intent remained intact. A notable strength of this interpretation was alignment with the Kindergarten teacher’s affect and prosody, which supported relationship building within the interaction. Additionally, I employed effective controls to manage turn-taking in the recorded format, advocating for pauses when needed to maintain accuracy. While live discourse management would require different strategies, this experience strengthened my confidence in requesting what is necessary to produce effective work.
​
​If revisiting this interpretation, I would refine the vocabulary to better reflect the specialized discourse of early literacy and phonics instruction. Although my lexical choices were appropriate, greater specificity would have elevated the overall product and better mirrored the professional register of early childhood education contexts.
​
This interpretation relates to EIPA Roman II, particularly in the areas of register, prosody, and discourse fidelity. While the product aligned with the consumers’ tone and professional register, moments of increased cognitive load led to compression of explanatory detail, including shortened elaborative clauses, reduced repetition, and fewer illustrative examples. These shifts were not evident to me during production but became clear upon review. In attempting to reduce lag and maintain fluency, I prioritized synchrony and structural clarity, preserving core meaning but slightly reducing rhetorical richness. In an institutional tour setting, this compression could subtly affect how fully family members grasp the nuances of program philosophy and instructional practice. Continued work to increase processing efficiency will support my ability to retain layered explanations and nuance without sacrificing pacing, thereby strengthening Roman II performance.
​
This artifact serves as my showcase adult school-based interpretation because it demonstrates systems-level awareness, stakeholder navigation, and emerging skill in managing cognitive load within institutional discourse. It reflects growth in implementing decision-making as a Related Service Provider grounded in educational structures. Additionally, it demonstrates enactment of interpreting services shaped by institutional roles and school-based discourse norms in support of equitable access and participation.
Overarching Assessment of Interpreting Skills
Throughout the SIS coursework, my most significant growth has been in developing a systems-informed lens for interpreting within educational settings. Earlier in my training, my decision-making was largely language-driven, focused primarily on lexical accuracy, structural choices, and fluency. As my understanding of school systems deepened, particularly regarding IEPs, instructional frameworks, and team roles, my decision-making began to shift. Interpreting choices are now informed not only by linguistic equivalence but also by service designations, instructional objectives, student language preferences, and the broader educational context. This shift reflects a move from language-centered production toward interpreting decisions informed by how classroom instruction, service documentation, and student access intersect. As a result, I now approach classroom discourse with greater confidence in aligning my choices with documented services and instructional goals. This means that my work functions as an integrated component of the student’s educational plan rather than solely as a linguistic product.
​
In earlier work included on this page, such as the High School sample, my focus centered primarily on lexical accuracy and structurally complete ASL output. While the language was generally accurate, less attention was given to how discourse features, such as prosodic emphasis or spatial organization, could reinforce instructional goals. This linguistically focused approach sometimes resulted in access that was structurally accurate but less instructionally transparent, as discourse organization and emphasis did not consistently mirror the teacher’s prioritization of key concepts. In later samples, my decision-making shows greater integration with the educational context. For example, in the Middle School English to Sign sample, I intentionally grounded transliteration choices in the student’s IEP designation, trying to align the product more closely with documented service expectations. Similarly, in the Elementary sample, I calibrated my lag time to preserve the students’ ability to participate in whole-group discussion, demonstrating increased awareness of how interpreting decisions affects classroom interaction. Without intentional calibration of lag time and instructional alignment, opportunities for real-time participation could be reduced, as delayed access may limit the student’s ability to enter peer discussion alongside classmates. These shifts indicate a shift from prioritizing linguistic completeness to supporting participation and instructional alignment within the broader school environment.
​
Across these artifacts, I can see growth in how I apply professional frameworks such as Role-Space Theory (Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014) and the Demand-Control Schema (Dean & Pollard, 2013) in real time. In recorded settings, I demonstrated increased awareness of my role in managing discourse, particularly through intentional pacing and turn-taking controls, such as pausing to preserve accuracy and coherence. In live educational environments, this awareness extends to considerations of interpreter placement, collaboration with team members, and the relational positioning necessary to support visual access and participation. Through the lens of the Demand-Control Schema, the artifacts reveal patterns in my decision-making when choosing how to address issues that arise. I also identified a consistent pattern in my ASL to English work: when cognitive load increased, I tended to compress explanatory detail in order to maintain fluency and structural clarity. While this control often preserved core meaning, it sometimes reduced rhetorical richness and illustrative nuance. Recognizing this pattern has strengthened my ability to evaluate whether simplification is strategically necessary or driven by processing comfort. Moving forward, my goal is to increase processing efficiency so that I can retain layered explanation and affect without sacrificing pacing, ensuring that my controls remain responsive to situational demands rather than to internal pressure. (Dean & Pollard, 2013; Llewellyn-Jones & Lee, 2014)
​
Another pattern that emerges across my work is the ongoing development of knowledge-rich and knowledge-lean ASL features as described by Taylor (2017). Knowledge-rich features, such as classifiers, spatial mapping, and prosodic organization, directly influence discourse cohesion and overall message clarity. When these features are less fully integrated, cohesion across extended stretches of discourse can weaken, making it more difficult for students to perceive how ideas connect within the larger lesson. Strengthening these features supports growth in EIPA Roman IV, as spatial organization and cohesive discourse directly impact instructional clarity and continuity for the student. At the same time, knowledge-lean features such as lexicon precision, fingerspelling clarity, and number production require continued attention, particularly under conditions of cognitive load. In moments of increased demand, these foundational skills may show subtle instability, such as reduced fluency or hesitation in production. Such hesitation can introduce uncertainty about new vocabulary or numerical information, potentially disrupting conceptual integration in the lesson. Recognizing how both categories function under stress allows me to target deliberate practice more precisely and distinguish between linguistic breakdown and processing-related strain in future work.
​
Overall, my interpreting skills have expanded both technically and in my ability to integrate educational goals and service considerations into the interpreting product. Moving forward, my deliberate practice will remain targeted toward specific areas of growth, particularly processing efficiency, discourse analysis, and predictive skills. Strengthening memory, anticipation, and real-time analysis will allow for deeper processing without sacrificing fluency. While the transition into professional practice will continue to shape this development, I am approaching it intentionally and with a clearer understanding of how to evaluate and refine my work. As a new practitioner, it can be overwhelming to recognize the breadth of skills still developing; however, reflecting on these artifacts makes visible the progress already achieved and provides a clear direction for continued growth.
Overarching Reflection
Creating this page was one of the more challenging aspects of this website. Reflecting on why that was, I realized I initially feared that acknowledging growth would undermine professional credibility. The nature of this page, which asks for the best interpretations across grade levels, made me feel as though I needed to present perfectly polished work without clearly acknowledging that I am still a developing practitioner. It was uncomfortable to share recorded samples that represent specific moments in time, knowing that my skills continue to evolve and that my current work may already look different.
Through this process, I began to understand that I am allowed to be a developing practitioner and demonstrate competence at the same time. Professionalism does not require presenting myself as fully formed; rather, it requires presenting my work honestly, analyzing it thoughtfully, and committing to continued growth. I can be authentic about where I am in the field as long as I remain intentional about improving. This shift in perspective allowed me to focus less on defending why each artifact deserved inclusion and more on what I learned from each one and how it reflected my development within the SIS competencies.
Previous feedback on this page noted that I was overly self-critical. Revising this page required me to adopt a more professional lens when discussing both strengths and areas for growth. Instead of framing developing skills as deficiencies, I now view them as part of a deliberate learning trajectory. This change is reflected in how I analyze my work: more analytically, less defensively, and with clearer connections to instructional goals, documented services, and professional frameworks, all of which align with the 5th and 6th SIS competencies.
Creating and compiling this page clarified what professionalism looks like for me as a new school interpreter. It means actively seeking feedback, accepting only work that aligns with my current qualifications, and engaging in continuous, targeted, deliberate practice. It means seeking mentorship, collaborating with educational professionals, and grounding decisions in documented services and classroom objectives. These behaviors align directly with the 5th and 6th SIS competencies, particularly implementing decision-making as a Related Service Provider and enacting services shaped by educational systems and team structures.
My strengths include applying systems-level thinking, conducting reflective analysis, and revising my work in response to feedback. These strengths position me to contribute effectively in collaborative educational environments where interpreters must integrate linguistic skills with instructional awareness. My ongoing challenges include processing efficiency, retention of rich explanatory detail under cognitive load, and continued development of advanced discourse features. These areas will require sustained deliberate practice, particularly as I transition into full-time professional settings.
​
​Because of this growth, I now integrate IEP information into my interpreting decisions, communicate proactively with teachers about lesson objectives, intentionally monitor lag time and its impact on student participation, and seek clarification when service expectations are unclear. This allows students greater opportunity to participate, receive interpretations aligned with their instructional goals, and experience more predictable classroom discourse. It also strengthens my collaboration with educational teams by clarifying my role within the broader educational system and supporting reflective dialogue with mentors and colleagues. As a result, I enter professional practice with clearly articulated competencies and a disciplined commitment to continued growth.
Ultimately, this page represents both who I am now and the direction I am moving. I am not presenting myself as finished; I am presenting myself as intentional. I have learned that authenticity, when paired with disciplined growth and ethical decision-making, strengthens rather than undermines professional credibility. As I move forward into professional practice, I intend to continue refining my skills through mentorship, collaboration, and targeted practice, understanding that becoming is not a weakness but a fundamental part of the profession.
​
References
Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2013). The demand control schema: Interpreting as a practice profession (First Edition). CreateSpace Independence Publ.
Platform.
​EIPA Classroom Interpreting. (n.d.) Assessments. https://www.classroominterpreting.org/assessments
​
Gish, S. (1987). I understood all of the words, but I missed the point: A goal-to-detail/detail-to-goal strategy for text analysis. In M. L. McIntire (Ed.), New
dimensions in interpreter education, curriculum, and instruction (pp. 125–137). RID Publications.
​
Llewellyn-Jones, P., & Lee, R. G. (2014, July 24). Redefining the role of the community interpreter: The concept of role-space. SLI Press.
​
National Association of Interpreters in Education [NAIE]. (2019). Professional guidelines for interpreting in educational settings (1st ed.).
​
National Association of Interpreters in Education [NAIE]. (2025). Washington: Standards for permanent credential. https://naiedu.org/washington/
​​​
PSI Project. (2024). About the PSI project. University of Northern Colorado. https://www.unco.edu/psiproject/about-psi/#sis-competencies
​
​Taylor, M. (2017). Interpretation skills: English to American Sign Language. (2nd ed.) Interpreting Consolidated.
​​