Just Between Us

Just Between Us: Professional Journal Sharing

Megan M. Seipke-Dame

Winter Term 2022

High School Classroom

Dr. Elisa Maroney

Just Between Us

Just Between Us: Professional Journal Sharing

Megan M. Seipke-Dame

Abstract

The focus of the action research paper is to study the impact of journaling between job sharing

interpreters. Correlations between journaling and student performance was analyzed, as were

correlations between journaling and the professional relationship of the job-sharing interpreters.

Two primary methods of data collection were implemented: professional journaling, which

included documentation of personal thoughts and a survey for the purpose of collecting feedback

from each of the interpreters. Implications and next steps for further research are discussed as

well.

Key words: teaming, journaling, relationships, communication, deaf, outcomes

2
 Table of Contents

Abstract..........................................................................................................................................2

Introduction....................................................................................................................................4

Literature Review..........................................................................................................................5

Method............................................................................................................................................6

Results and Discussion..................................................................................................................7

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................8

References.......................................................................................................................................9

Appendix A: Student Progress...................................................................................................11

Appendix B: Field Notes.............................................................................................................12

Appendix C: Professional Journal.............................................................................................17

Appendix D: Survey....................................................................................................................23

3
Just Between Us

Introduction

Action research has not come naturally to me as a new researcher. I fumbled through several

potential research topics before finally settling on a concept that felt feasible. While the

designed action research focuses on my practice as an educational interpreter, I needed the

willing involvement of a colleague, which was granted.

My project looks at the effectiveness of information sharing when interpreters are engaged in job

sharing. Different than team interpreting, job sharing involves two interpreters sharing an

assignment, one as the starting interpreter and one as the relief. I work in a building that utilizes

block scheduling. Students have classes for 90 minutes every other day. There are times when

scheduling requires two interpreters split the class, each working a 45-minute shift. This practice

can be jarring for both the incoming interpreter, who is walking into the middle of a lesson, and

the DHH student, who is experiencing interrupted classroom discourse, the interpreters’ lack of

knowledge related to key vocabulary used in the opposite half of the class, and the interpreters’

lack of knowledge related to the classroom schedule and events, such as student presentations.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing information sharing

practices on both student outcomes and the interpreters’ working relationship. As part of the

study, I also attempt to isolate factors that may have a negative impact on job sharing. My goal is

to identify approaches to improving communication with the other interpreter and answer the

following questions: Can these strategies improve the quality of interpreting services and smooth

the transition between interpreters? Will these strategies have a positive impact on student

outcomes? Will these strategies have a positive impact on the interpreters’ working relationship?

4
 Literature Review

Every interpreting assignment has a series of demands. Dean and Pollard (2013) identify four

categories: environmental, interpersonal, paralinguistic, and intrapersonal (p. 5). Their work has

provided the theoretical framework for my research and, in designing the project, special

attention was given to the environmental and intrapersonal demands of this assignment since job

sharing is not the typical approach to team interpreting.

The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf suggests that interpreters working as a team “are

actively engaged in the process” and that the “support is necessary to enhance the team’s

performance and assure accurate communication takes place” which “may include assuring

appropriate and timely transitions” (RID, 1997, p. 1). Similarly, it has been suggested elsewhere

that this can be accomplished through written notes between team members. These notes have

the added benefit of team members investing in one another and “strengthening the professional

relationship between the interpreters” (Russell, 2011, p. 4).

Communication in the workplace is one of the most important facets of working relationships. A

breakdown in communication can have serious consequences and there are many barriers that

can lead to a breakdown (Adu-oppong, 2014). Not surprisingly, these barriers fall into the same

categories of demands identified by Dean and Pollard (2013).

When interpreters experience these breakdowns, it does not just impact them; rather, the

individual for whom the interpreter is providing service suffers as well. The question then

becomes whether there are strategies interpreters can use to support students and student

outcomes. Effective communication and scaffolded information are two such strategies

5
Just Between Us

(Easterbrooks, 2012) which can be improved by implementing effective teaming strategies (RID,

1997; Russell, 2011).

Method

The method developed for this study involved several steps for data collection. First, both

interpreters shared a notebook and the lecture packet distributed by the classroom teacher.

Within the pages, we wrote discussion points, key vocabulary, interpreting strategies for new

content, and lecture notes for content delivered in our respective halves of the class.

Second, several of the data collection forms from Alber (2010) were adapted and utilized. Data

collected with these tools included student progress, illustrated by the current grade in the class,

at the beginning, middle, and end of the month in which data was collected, documented

observations throughout the class, personal thoughts related to the process of journaling and

information sharing, and a survey taken by my relief interpreter and myself. As the designer of

the study and the survey, there is an explicit bias to seeing the benefits of information sharing.

That said, I took the survey to compare my experience with that of my relief interpreter.

The survey was developed in Google Forms and included a consent form. Questions on the

survey asked about perceptions and experience related to notebook and information sharing, the

impact our practice had upon our working relationship, our transitions, and service provision.

Data was collected from January 31, 2022, until February 28, 2022. This time frame was the first

month of the second semester. As such, the grade earned by the student at the conclusion of

semester one was the starting data point for student progress.

6
 Results and Discussion

During the month of data collection, there was a measurable change in student performance.

Student Performance

Percent (Grade)

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

28-Jan 18-Feb 28-Feb2

Results of the survey indicate similar experiences by my relief interpreter and myself.

Interpreter Experience Ease of Feeling of Understanding Schedule

(notebook) Transition Disorientation of Key Vocab Surprises
Megan Very Good Rarely Excellent Rarely
Beneficial
Relief Beneficial Good Sometimes Good Rarely

Interpreter Quality of Quality of Quality of Quality of Overall

Relationship Relationship Service Service Experience
Before After Provision Provision
Journaling Journaling Before After
Megan Fair Good Good Excellent Excellent
Relief Good Excellent Fair Excellent Excellent

I noted several entries documenting comments by the student that the new unit being studied was

easier. This makes me question the correlation between journaling and student improvement.

Other data of note is the frequency of my relief interpreter’s absences. Given the responsibilities

this individual has within the district, there were several occurrences of job sharing with a sub.

7
Just Between Us

This had a detrimental effect on the quality of my data collection as I was unable to collect data

from these individuals. There were limited opportunities for collection due to block scheduling

and losing dates due to absences added constraints.

Journaling went well when we were able to engage in the practice. We had the opportunity to

discuss our progress on two occasions and each noted the improvement in transition and the

decreased time needed to become oriented to the content.

Whether information sharing and journaling has a positive impact on student learning and

outcomes is inconclusive; however, there does appear to be a correlation between

communication and several other outcomes. The quality of one’s working relationship and the

service provision appear to benefit as does the interpreter’s ability to navigate the needs of the

assignment. For this reason, I will be adopting this as a continued feature of my practice.

Conclusion

This study was done in a truncated time frame and faced several hurdles along the way that

limited data collection. There were several personal benefits to this study. I have learned that my

professional practice benefits from open communication when working closely with others.

While I have long felt that inconsistency in the classroom is detrimental to the student, the gaps

in my data suggest this is a founded concern as a substitute interpreter will have these same gaps

in knowledge.

This researcher recommends that further research involves increased data sets. This would

include longer time periods for data collection, multiple colleagues, DHH students, and class

8
subjects. Results of these studies can inform approaches to interpreter preparation and continuing

education for those working in the field.

References

Adu-Oppong, A. A., & Agyin-Birikorang, E. (2014). Communication in the workplace:

Guidelines for improving effectiveness. Global journal of commerce & management

perspective, 3(5), 208-213. COMMUNICATION-IN-THE-WORKPLACE-

GUIDELINES-FOR-IMPROVING-EFFECTIVENESS.pdf (researchgate.net)

Alber, S. M. (2010). A toolkit for action research. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 15200

NBN Way, PO Box 191, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214-0191.

Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2013). The demand control schema: Interpreting as a practice

profession. CreateSpace.

Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stephenson, B. H. (2012). Clues from research: effective instructional

strategies leading to positive outcomes for students who are deaf or hard of

hearing. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 13, 44-49.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ976482.pdf

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. (1997). Team interpreting. Standard Practice Paper.

Team_Interpreting_SPP(1).pdf - Google Drive

9
Just Between Us

Russell, D. (2011). Team interpreting: Best practices. MAVLI Newsletter, 3, 1-5. Microsoft Word

- 2011-07 Team Interpreting Best Practices Article by Debra Russell.docx (avlic.ca)

10
Appendix A: Student Progress

11
Just Between Us

Appendix B: Field Notes

12
13
Just Between Us

14
15
Just Between Us

16
Appendix C: Professional Journal

17
Just Between Us

18
19
Just Between Us

20
21
Just Between Us

22
23
Just Between Us

Appendix D: Survey

24
25
Just Between Us

26
27
Just Between Us

28