Introduction

Deaf and hard of hearing pupils and students require a special approach in education, which requires the presence of an interpreter or mastery of sign language by the teacher himself (Schwartz et al., 2022). In addition to a special approach in formal and informal education, it is necessary that deaf and hard of hearing people using sign language can fully exist in working, public and cultural life (Schick et al., 2006). The bridge of communication between hearing people and deaf signers is precisely the sign language interpreter (Vojtechovský, 2024; Young et al., 2019). Sign language interpreters allow deaf population to participate in everyday activities concerning domains such as healthcare service (Shuler et al., 2014), workplace (Young et al., 2019), and else. Therefore, it is necessary to expand interpreter services and anchor their role in legal regulations.

For instance, the recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe “Protection of sign languages in the Member States” states that “many Member States have introduced programs to support sign languages. Although all experience points to a shortage of sign language interpreters, this reinforces the strength of the demand for them…” (CoE, 2003). For example, Finland, with a population of about 5 million, has about 3000 deaf sign language users who need interpreting services (and other groups using interpreting services are e.g., the hearing-impaired elderly, about 4500 people in total) and about 600 sign language interpreters in work or education environments, social and public services and within leisure activities (Martikainen et al. 2018). Slovak Sign Language and Czech Sign Language belong to minority languages, and Slovakia with a similar population (5 million) has up to 4000 deaf users of sign language and only about 30 professional interpreters (R. Vojtechovský, personal estimate and also national sources, e.g., https://www.lexika.sk/blog/tlmocenie-slovenskeho-posunkoveho-jazyka/). In the Czech Republic (10 million inhabitants), these numbers are about 10,000 (users) and 70 (interpreters), as reported by Wheatley and Pabsch (2012), but the exact current number cannot be verified from available sources. However, we would like to point out that the number of 15,000 sign language users in Slovakia stated in this book is clearly overestimated. This is also reflected in the Resolution of the European Parliament on sign language and professional sign language interpreters, the aim of which is to improve the quality of interpreting and increase the number of sign language interpreters (EP, 2016).

Even in the 1960s, sign language interpreting was considered the exclusive domain of deaf family and friends, while e.g., the first sign language interpreting course in Sweden was six weeks long and started in 1969 (Tiselius, 2022). Today, it has become both an academic subject and a professional activity, with more than 100 sign language interpreter programs at universities (Marschark et al., 2005). The demand for qualified interpreters in various areas of life (from education to culture to legal services) is constantly increasing, which is also in line with the recommendations of the Convention of the United Nations on the rights of persons with disabilities (UN, 2006).

In the Slovak Republic, the first university sign language study program was accredited at Trnava University, entitled Slovak Language in Deaf Communication from autumn 2020 as a four-year professionally oriented bachelor’s program. The first graduates completed their studies in 2024 (see also supplementary Table S1A). The study program at Charles University (Czech Republic) called Czech in Communication of the Deaf was launched in the fall of 1998 as a four-year bachelor’s program and since 2000 as a three-year bachelor’s program. Since 2020, it has been named Languages and Communication of the Deaf (see also supplementary Table S1B). In addition to the bachelor’s program, the university offers a master’s program under the original name Czech in Communication of the Deaf. For comparison, teaching and training for sign language interpreters in Swiss German sign language developments since 1985 have resulted in the current bachelor level (Shores et al., 2014).

As the topic of interpreting sign language gains increasing attention, studies concerning students’ attitudes towards university degrees in interpreting are still lacking for Slovak Sign Language and Czech Sign Language. Moreover, a comparison of study programs for these two languages has never been conducted before. Therefore, the goal of this survey was to find out, through an anonymous questionnaire, the opinions of future sign language interpreters on the areas of practical interpretation and understanding, satisfaction with the study program, and with the conditions of study in individual grades. Since the study of sign language is demanding and therefore not a mass field, in order to compare international experiences, we approached students of bachelor’s programs in Slovakia (Slovak Republic) and Czechia (Czech Republic).

Participants, questionnaire and statistics

Participants

Students of sign language interpreting from accredited study programs in the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic at the bachelor’s level were involved in the study. A basic description of these programs at Trnava University (Slovak Republic) and Charles University (Czech Republic) is presented in supplementary materials (Tables S1A and S1B). Students of all years were addressed, except for 1st year students at the CU Faculty of Arts, whose teaching did not take place in the standard mode after the tragic shooting (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67793962). The basic difference between the programs is the length of study: a 3-year bachelor’s program in the Czech Republic (the total number of respondents was 16, of which in individual grades n = 9 and 7) and a 4-year bachelor’s program in the Slovak Republic (the total number of respondents was 36, of which in individual grades n = 8, 7, 6 and 15). Opinions of students were collected using a questionnaire as mentioned below.

Independently of the survey of students’ opinions, the opinions and experiences of teachers of these study programs at both universities were surveyed through personal interviews.

Questionnaire for students

The questionnaire contained 46 questions with a Likert scale (from strongly agree to strongly disagree). In the initial part of the questionnaire, there were also questions asking for general information about the respondents (year of study, command of sign language before the study, etc.). The scaling questions were divided into 3 areas/dimensions: understanding and translation (21 questions, marked in the results as “practice”), the dimension of interest in sign language/contact with it (5 questions, marked in the results as “satisfaction”) and teaching/learning, equipment and aids (20 questions, marked in the results as “conditions”). The scores for each area were obtained as the sum of the answers to the questions belonging to the relevant dimension (5 points for the most positive attitude and 1 point for the most negative attitude, while the evaluation of some questions was “reversed” to achieve this goal, as explained in Table 1). The reliability of the questionnaire was high (α = 0.87).

Table 1 Comparison of the scores of all students at Trnava University/TU (n = 36) and Charles University/CU (n = 16) from individual questions (questions no. 1–21 belong to the area “practice”, no. 22–26 to the area “satisfaction” and no. 27–46 to the area “conditions”, as is shown in the graphs).
Full size table

Statistical analyses

The normality and homogeneity of the data was verified using the Shapiro-Wilkʼs test. Given the normal distribution of our data, we used Student’s t-test or univariate ANOVA with the so-called Tukey post-hoc test. Scores from individual tasks did not show a normal distribution, so we used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare means. Spearman’s correlation analysis (at 0.05 level) was performed to determine the relationship between the questions in the form of heat maps. Statistical analyses were conducted using XLSTAT (Addinsoft, New York, USA) and graphs were created in the GraphPad Prism version 10.2.3 for Windows (GraphPad Software, Boston, Massachusetts USA).

Results and discussion

Questionnaire results of students at Trnava University (TU, Slovak Republic)

A comparison of the three areas across individual year groups did not reveal significant differences, and among the analyzed dimensions, the highest score was observed for the area of “satisfaction” (Fig. 1A). An analysis of the questions within this dimension showed that all respondents rated the attractiveness of sign language and their satisfaction with the teaching rather positively or completely positively, although only about half of them reported regular contact with sign language outside of class (questions 22–26, supplementary Table S2). Further analysis of this question, along with the regarding sign language proficiency prior to university studies, revealed that both factors have a significantly positive influence on the “satisfaction” area (Fig. 1B, C). This suggests that the choice to study sign language interpreting is likely influenced by personal connections such as family members or friends. On the contrary, a survey in Turkey found that approximately 2/3 of pre-service teachers enrolled in a voluntary sign language course despite having no prior experience with it in their immediate environment (Akmeşe and Kayhan, 2017).

Fig. 1: Comparison of scores from individual areas (interpretation and understanding shown as practice, satisfaction with sign language shown as satisfaction and teaching, equipment and aids shown as conditions) at Trnava University/TU.
figure 1

(A) With regard to the year of study. (B) With regard to the answer to the question “Did you learn sign language already before starting university studies?” (C) With regard to the answer to the question “I regularly encounter sign language outside of teaching.” Data show mean values from individual areas ± SDs. Columns with the same letters are not significantly different by ANOVA (P > 0.05). * and *** indicate significant differences between groups at the 0.05 and 0.001 levels by Student’s t-test (ns indicates non-significant difference). See explanation in Table 1 for score calculation. The total number of respondents was 36, of which in individual grades n = 8, 7, 6 and 15.

Full size image

The lowest score of all three areas was found in the “practice” area, which indicates the respondents’ self-reflection and anonymous admission of possible shortcomings (Fig. 1A). Although it is surprising that first and last year students are similarly self-critical, the absence of a difference between them may result from the assumption that they have a different idea of what skills they should have and especially before coming to real interpreting practice: this assumption is supported by student evaluation (study average), which is significantly better for 4th year students (grade 1.16 = A vs. 2.03 = C, P < 0.01). Within the individual questions in this area, it was a surprising finding that the majority of respondents (55%) prefer interpreting from spoken to sign language and not vice versa (less than 20%, Table S2), which was also confirmed by the negative correlation between these questions (questions 1 and 8, see supplementary Fig. S1A): a negative correlation was also shown by questions 5 and 13 focused on the difficulty of the sign-spoken language translation direction (Fig. S1A). This confirms that hearing students feel more comfortable when translating into sign language and therefore it is necessary to focus on increasing their own confidence when translating from sign language into spoken language. The ease of translating into sign language can arise from its modality making it possible to express various grammatical categories simultaneously. The focal point of the gesture space is more difficult for hearing people to visually perceive simultaneously with peripheral vision, since non-manual means expressed by facial expressions contain several mainly grammatical meanings and the movement of hands is perceived peripherally (Herrmann and Steinbach, 2013 and the references therein). Hearing students primarily rely on auditory perception rather than complex visual perception. From the point of view of the practical activity of the interpreter, a significantly positive correlation was found among TU students between the fluency of interpreting into sign language (question 6) and the use of an informal sign register (question 21), which can confirm the sufficient range of hours of practical teaching (Fig. S1A and Table S1A). The use of an informal register (Johnston and Schembri, 2007) or even a lower variety (Twilhaar and van den Bogaerde, 2016) is characteristic of family or friendly environments and at less formal events. The difference between them can be manifested in gestures (Vojtechovský et al., 2024). On the contrary, the negative correlation (Fig. S1A) between the understanding of a deaf person during a conversation in sign language (only 37.5% of respondents) and difficulties in understanding a conversation between two deaf people (up to 56% of respondents, Table S2) emphasizes the need to modify practical teaching, as practical subjects’ interpretations at TU are conducted only by deaf teachers.

Technical and material teaching conditions are the basis for successful studies. TU students reported highly positive scores in the “conditions” area (Fig. 1A). The majority of respondents consider classroom equipment and communication devices to be sufficient (63 and 78%, questions 30 and 31, Table S2) and understand the importance of these devices in teaching sign language (question 39, Table S2). Although the above-mentioned preference of students for translation from spoken to sign language was rather expected, a surprising finding was the preference of the majority of respondents for teaching sign language without the use of voice and teaching by a deaf lecturer (91 and 100% of respondents, questions 28 and 46, Table S2). Standard IT equipment is used in teaching at TU, especially a data projector for displaying video recordings and visual materials, a camera with a tripod for capturing students’ gestural speech and then analyzing it. As part of the tasks, students learn how to technically work with video recordings and use special software to record gestures with special symbols (SignWriting).

Questionnaire results of students at Charles University (CU, Czech Republic)

In line with the results from TU, the three monitored areas/dimensions did not differ across grades of CU students (Fig. 2A). However, unlike TU, no marked differences were found between prior contact with sign language outside of teaching/before studies and these three areas (Fig. 2B, C). Given that sign language interpreting is a highly specialized field, the “satisfaction” dimension received the highest score (Fig. 2A) and the individual questions within this dimension (22–26, Table S2) were positively evaluated by most or all respondents, which is also reflected in the significantly positive correlations observed for these questions (Fig. S1B).

Fig. 2: Comparison of scores from individual areas (interpretation and understanding shown as practice, satisfaction with sign language shown as satisfaction and teaching, equipment and aids shown as conditions) at Charles University/CU.
figure 2

(A) With regard to the year of study. (B) With regard to the answer to the question “Did you learn sign language already before starting university studies?” (C) With regard to the answer to the question “I regularly encounter sign language outside of teaching.” Data show mean values from individual areas ± SDs and ns indicates non-significant difference (based on the Student’s t-test). See explanation in Table 1 for score calculation. The total number of respondents was 16, of which in individual grades n = 9 and 7.

Full size image

The lowest score in the “practice” area, similar to TU, reflects students’ self-critical assessment. However, nearly half or half of the students were unable to comment on whether they prefer interpreting from sign to spoken language or vice versa (questions 1 and 8, Table S3). Similarly, 37 and 56% of students could not evaluate the difficulty of interpreting direction (questions 5 and 13), although 43% of respondents agreed that interpreting from sign language is more demanding (Table S3). These findings are consistent with previous research indicating that interpreters tend to be more successful when interpreting into Czech Sign Language (Pešková, 2022). As at TU, significant negative correlations were identified between these pairs of questions (Fig. S1B).

Throughout their studies, students gradually become familiar with the interpreting process. However, self-monitoring, especially during simultaneous interpreting, requires advanced interpreting skills consisting of sufficient cognitive capacity (Ďoubalová, 2019). Due to their gradual exposure to interpreting process and limited experience with self-monitoring, students often refrained from responding to questions concerning interpreting difficulty and directional preferences (question 6 and 17, Table S3). Additionally, up to 75% of students gave a neutral response to the question about sign language register (question 21, Table S3), likely due to the fact that registers in Czech Sign Language have not yet been formally described.

In the “conditions” area, 50% and 62.5% of respondents consider classroom and communication equipment to be sufficient (questions 30 and 31, Table S3). This includes access to interpreting laboratory and studio equipment such as computers, projectors, cameras, chroma keying backgrounds, lighting, and more. In today’s era of rapidly evolving technologies, students often supplement institutional resources with their own devices and commonly available software/applications. Students regularly work with recordings of speeches in Czech Sign Language, Czech language or other textual/visual materials.

The majority of respondents also rather or completely agree with the practice of teaching sign language without the use of voice and with instruction led by a deaf lecturer (100 and 75%, questions 28 and 46, Table S3). The predominance of deaf teachers was evaluated positively, and students expressed interest in greater variability among Czech Sign Language users. Such variability includes not only regional differences but also social ones (Hynková Dingová, 2017). This aspect holds potential for students to develop both formal and informal register of sign language, while also helping to minimize the gap between their perceived language competence in classroom settings (generally rated positively) and in real-life communication with deaf individuals (often rated negatively).

Comparison of attitudes of Czech and Slovak students

As mentioned above, TU students more clearly indicated interpreting from sign to spoken language as more demanding. This perception led to a statistically significant difference between TU and CU in questions related to the “practice” dimension (question 5, p = 0.0086 and question 13, p = 0.0164; Table 1). CU students also scored significantly lower on questions related to interpreting into sign language and understanding the deaf (questions 9 and 10, Table S1), resulting in an overall difference in the sum of these questions (Fig. 3). However, it is worth noting that the smaller number of CU respondents may have contributed to a more sensitive statistical difference.

Fig. 3: Comparison of scores of all students of Trnava University/TU (n = 36) and Charles University/CU (n = 16) from individual areas (interpretation and understanding shown as practice, satisfaction with sign language shown as satisfaction and teaching, equipment and aids shown as conditions).
figure 3

Data show mean values from individual areas ± SDs. * and *** indicate significant differences between groups at the 0.05 and 0.001 levels by Student’s t test (ns indicates non-significant difference). See explanation in Table 1 for score calculation.

Full size image

In questions concerning fluency in interpreting into sign language and the use of informal register (questions 6 and 21), TU students achieved higher scores. This may be attributed to a greater number of hours dedicated to practical subjects (cf. Tables S1A and S1B). A similarly significant difference in favor of TU was also found in questions related to understanding the deaf and their conversation (question 10 and 15, Table 1). These differences can also be explained by the varied allocation of hours for practical teaching and/or the involvement of both hearing and deaf teachers in the programs. Therefore, the opinions of the teachers themselves regarding the practical aspects of interpreting practice were also sought and are presented in the next chapter. A goal for future research will be to verify these findings through direct assessment of students’ interpreting skills.

In the “satisfaction” dimension, no significant differences were found between TU and CU students (Fig. 3), supporting the assumption that personal motivation (particularly exposure to sign language outside of formal teaching) is the main driver for studying sign language interpreting (cf. relevant questions in Tables S2 and S3).

In the “conditions” area, a slight but statistically significant difference was observed between the two universities (Fig. 3). Among the individual questions, the extent of practical teaching (question 44) emerged as particularly critical, where 47% of TU students, compared to only 6.25% of CU students, considered it rather or completely sufficient (Tables S2 and S3). The difference can be attributed to the varying program lengths; TU offers a four-year program, while CU offers a three-year program. At CU, third-year students are required to complete at least 120 h of interpreting and translation practice. Of these, 90–100 h involve observation of various interpreting and translation situations, while 20–30 h involve direct interpreting/translation under the supervision of experienced interpreters. During their second and third years, CU students also take both theoretical and practical interpreting courses, with compulsory practical courses comprising 72 h of direct learning per year. Additionally, students participate in various projects to enhance their interpreting skills. Although CU students express some dissatisfaction with the amount of practical training, teachers generally consider it sufficient, as students are also indirectly exposed to real interpreting situations throughout their studies. Optional courses include excursions to deaf organizations. Based on student feedback, it may be beneficial to introduce occasional block seminars, language stays, and summer schools to further develop knowledge, experience, and language/interpreting competencies beyond standard teaching.

At TU, students complete a 12 h of observation-based practice at 12 different external sites. In the second and third years, they undertake 36 h of fieldwork, visiting institutions or events for the deaf. Direct interpreting practice begins in the third year and continues into the fourth. In the practical interpreting course, students first complete 48 h of interpreting various scenarios from/to Slovak Sign Language. In the subsequent semester, they engage in 96 h of interpreting model situations in the classroom under the supervision of a teacher and professional interpreter. In the final semester, they undergo 120 h of individual interpreting practice (84 h of fieldwork and 36 h of peer-reviewed evaluation sessions).

Both CU and TU also organize extracurricular activities aimed at enhancing students’ language and interpreting skills, including meetings with deaf individuals and attendance at events for the deaf.

What are the teachers’ opinions and experiences?

Teaching at TU is provided by 7 permanent teachers, 5 of whom are deaf. At CU, teaching is provided by 10 permanent teachers, 3 of whom are deaf. In some cases, teaching at CU is also carried out by external employees from other institutes or departments.

Teachers at both institutions agree that interpreting from spoken language into sign language is generally easier for students than the reverse. This is attributed to the audio-oral modality of spoken language, which is more familiar and accessible to hearing students. Consequently, it is more natural for them to translate from spoken language to sign language, which is characterized as a visual-motor language.

Both TU and CU teachers acknowledge a fundamental disparity: while incoming students are typically expected to have at least a B2 proficiency in the spoken national language, students entering Deaf Studies programs often begin without any prior knowledge of the national sign language. As a result, instruction places strong emphasis first on the perception and comprehension, and only subsequently on interpreting. The acquisition of interpreting skills represents a significant physical, mental, and temporal challenge for students.

According to the graduate profile of both programs, students are expected to be capable of working as interpreters or translators for deaf signers. The imbalance in students’ proficiency levels between the national spoken language and the national sign language necessitates a focus on field practice alongside theoretical instruction. The teachers consider these practical experiences essential, as they allow students to actively engage with the deaf community and build authentic relationships, which are crucial for their future roles as interpreters. The experiences of TU and CU teachers support previous findings that social interaction is vital not only for developing linguistic competence in sign language, but also for building sociolinguistic, sociocultural and communicative competences (McKee and Mckee, 1992).

Czech research on the expectations of deaf signers regarding interpreting services has showed that deaf clients often perceive shortcomings in the signing of novice interpreters (Richterová, 2008). The self-evaluations of students in this study align with previous findings among Czech Sign Language interpreters, indicating a tendency toward higher quality interpretations from spoken Czech into Czech Sign Language, and greater self-confidence when expressing themselves in Czech Sign Language as a foreign language (Pešková, 2022). Similar tendencies have been observed in other languages (Van Dijk et al., 2011; Wang and Napier, 2015). This is particularly interesting when compared to interpreters of spoken languages, for whom higher-quality output is typically expected in their native language. In contrast, sign language interpreting appears to favor the opposite direction; toward the (non-native) sign language.

Teachers at both universities believe that students’ uncertainty when interpreting from sign language into their native spoken language may be caused by several factors:

  • imbalance of practical experience: there may be fewer opportunities for students to practice interpreting from sign language into spoken language than the reverse.

  • challenges with visual materials: teaching materials often rely on visual imagery, which can be difficult to interpret for students who are still developing fluency in the three-dimensional visual-spatial nature of sign language. These students must invest significant effort to become proficient in face-to-face communication with deaf individuals and in accurately identifying gestures based on hand movement, position, orientation, and shape (McKee and Mckee, 1992).

  • complexity of grammatical components: some elements of sign language grammar are visually subtle and can be hard to distinguish. For example, facial non-manual means convey a wide range of specific grammatical meanings and are often produced simultaneously with grammatical and lexical gestures. These non-manual components are easily overlooked or misinterpreted by students (Pivac, 2009).

Despite these challenges, graduates from TU and CU are expected to attain a B2 level in sign language proficiency, which, according to the Reference Framework for Sign Languages (NPICR), qualifies them to communicate effectively in both general and professional contexts. At this level, students “can produce texts that relate to concrete and abstract general topics that he/she encounters in his/her personal, social, educational, work and professional life, including professionally oriented topics in his/her field”.

Conclusions

This study presents the first comprehensive survey of student opinions and satisfaction regarding sign language interpreting education at Trnava University in Slovakia and Charles University in the Czech Republic. Using an extensive questionnaire, we investigated three key areas: interpreting and comprehension (“practice”), motivation and engagement with sign language (“satisfaction”), and educational support and resources (“conditions”).

The results revealed both consistent and divergent trends. A strong alignment was found in the “satisfaction” dimension, suggesting that students at both universities are similarly motivated and positively influenced by exposure to sign language outside the classroom. However, notable differences emerged in the areas of “practice” and “conditions”, likely influenced by structural differences in the programs, particularly the length of study (4 years at TU vs. 3 years at CU) and the allocation of practical training hours.

The most significant disparity was observed in student satisfaction with the extent of practical teaching. While nearly half (47%) of TU students rated their practical preparation as sufficient, only 6.25% of CU students did so. Despite the shared expectation that graduates reach a B2 level in sign language proficiency according to the CEFR, most students enter the program with no prior knowledge of sign language. These findings underscore the need for more balanced and intensive practical training, especially in interpreting from sign language into spoken language, which students consistently reported as more difficult. Interestingly, a high proportion of students expressed a preference for sign language instruction without the use of voice and favored having deaf lecturers (75–100% agreement). This highlights the value students place on immersive, authentic learning environments and exposure to diverse users of sign language.

Another noteworthy insight is the reversal of the usual interpreting direction preference: unlike spoken language interpreters who typically prefer working into their native language, sign language interpreting students found it easier to interpret from spoken to sign language. This emphasizes the importance of adjusting practical training to build confidence and competence in both interpreting directions, particularly from sign to spoken language.

To better prepare students for real-world interpreting scenarios, it is essential to increase opportunities for authentic engagement with the deaf community, incorporate informal learning settings, and offer more varied and immersive practical experiences throughout their studies. These measures can help bridge the gap between classroom learning and real-life communication, ultimately strengthening students’ readiness for professional interpreting roles.