Thank you for everyone who participated in and shared the USU Bi-Bi Program priorities survey! Dr. Karen Munoz complied the data and presents the information in the following PDF.
When I looked at the data, I had a few questions so I asked Dr. Munoz and Dean Smith. Some of their answers also cover a question asked during the survey period. Below I’ve listed out some questions and answers relating to the survey and the survey results.
Question:
I’m a little frustrated with this wording on the survey… they HAD a good program and it feels like they aren’t acknowledging that or looking to what was already in place. “At Utah State University we are commencing a strategic planning process to see what kind of programming would be valuable and feasible moving forward to meet this need.”
Why not say what they want to improve and what are our priorities? I guess one of my priorities now becomes to keep the values and strategies the program has taught for 30 years IN PLACE. We don’t need a completely new program! We need the program to stay in place. Improvements are fine, but a complete attempt to rebuild what was already there will fall short. How do we help them see that what was already in place is what we need???
Answer:
While there are lots of great things already in place within the Bi-Bi program as it is now, to try and point to specific weak spots might mean calling out individuals and distract from the real goal here — to have a great Bilingual/Bicultural program. Rather than focus solely on improvements, the Strategic Planning Process is opening up the scope to include all possibilities.
This opportunity for new possibilities isn’t meant to be a direct critique of the curriculum or the instructors. It is meant to ensure that going forward documentation of curriculum effectiveness is properly gathered and on hand for any necessary accreditation processes. It is recognizing that even under the best circumstances any curriculum is not beyond examination and consideration. Without occasionally opening windows and airing things out, we aren’t ever really as confident that things really are on the cutting edge of Deaf culture and ASL teaching strategies. As administrators we’re not positioning ourselves as the experts. We are simply using this as an opportunity to look at and evaluate the program. This survey is the first step.
As a note, it has been pointed out that within the Deaf community, the idea of making “upgrades” is sometimes seen as replacing valued language and culture with “technological advances”. That is not our intention here. The thought is simply that over the decades, surely we have learned how to more effectively, efficiently, and meaningfully teach ASL, deaf culture, and so on within a Bi-Bi educational context. As a leading higher education institution, we should be on the cutting edge of this. If we already are, then we can move forward with confidence. If there is room for improvement as things are evaluated by expert stakeholders, then we make the program even better.
Question
If a topic receives more responses — like more people are talking about curriculum items — does that get a higher priority than an administrative concern?
Answer
No. The popularity of a topic doesn’t mean it’s more important. This survey was not meant to put these priorities in any certain order.
Question
Will all of these priorities be considered?
Answer
All of these priorities are valuable, but some are more possible than others. That’s why this is just the first step. As we move forward we will continue to involve more stakeholders (people who are involved in some aspect of the program) who will be able to help ensure these priorities become possibilities and eventual realities. You are all important in that process. Please stay connected and involved.
Got other questions about the survey results? Other questions about the program? Send them to contact@hellobibi.org
Hello Bibi 