I. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAM:

• to recommend funding of innovative proposals from faculty for computing hardware and software through a campuswide, peer review process

II. ASSUMPTIONS OF THE PROGRAM:

• an institution focusing on instruction will apply limited resources first to instructional activities, with research and convenience requests ranked lower,

• the fundamental needs of the faculty are being met outside of this process; that is, given the broad range of potential requests for computing technology, from simple terminal access to the VAX to innovative, multimedia courseware, this process emphasizes (but is not necessarily restricted to) the more innovative,

• the program has attached to it a specific budget which confirms the potential of the process for the proposer, and that this budget can be augmented with matching funds given to individuals (e.g., Faculty Development) or contributed by extramural sources,

• the program will be more attractive to proposers and will have greater prominence within and outside of the campus community if it is given a name.

III. PROPOSAL PROCESS:

Each academic year, the Director of Academic Computing will issue a call for proposals for software and hardware by circulating a form and cover letter to all faculty. The cover letter will clearly indicate a firm deadline by which time completed proposals must be submitted to the Director of Academic Computing. Faculty should be given at least one month to complete the proposal. Only faculty of the College may submit proposals for support. Proposals may come from groups of faculty members that cut across departmental lines.

Departmental notification for comment:

Proposals must be circulated among the faculty of the proposer's department. Department chairs or their designates may provide written comments, endorsements, commitments of support, as appropriate. It is the responsibility of faculty proposers to confirm that the proposal reaches the Director by the specified deadline.

Campuswide peer review:

The Director will, in collaboration with ICS staff, "prereview" each proposal. No proposal can be denied funding during this preliminary review. The goal of the "prereview" is to make certain that each proposal goes forward fully prepared to address the criteria of the Program. Recommendations for changes, if any, will be made to the faculty proposer; revisions to the proposal will be made by the proposer and returned to the Director.

Proposals will be reviewed by an ad hoc subcommittee approved by the CPC. At least four faculty members will be selected, two elected by general vote of the faculty and two appointed by the CPC. Every attempt will be made to attain representation on the committee from each of the four academic divisions of the College. Other members of the subcommittee will include the Director and Assistant Director of Academic Computing (both voting).

The subcommittee will critically examine the proposals from a collegiate rather than a departmental or disciplinary perspective. Reviews and recommendations will focus on the instructional functionality of the proposals. Areas of particular emphasis include, but are not limited to, extent of student access, integration into the curriculum, use of computing in disciplines which have not been involved in computing in the past, and evidence of a strong commitment to instructional enhancement. It is desirable that a project affect as many students as possible however it is vital to point out that class size is relative: a large class in one discipline might be small in another. No discipline or department will be denied support based solely on numbers of students provided access to computing. Recommendations will be based on the merits of each proposal without emphasis on even distribution of funds across all departments. Reviews and recommendations will also take into consideration the technical soundness of a proposal, the associated budget, and the proposal's impact on other facilities of the College.

The subcommittee's recommendations for funding will be presented to ICS for action; members of the Curricular Policy Committee (CPC) will be notified of the final recommendations. The subcommittee will make available to each proposer written, summary comments on which the final recommendation was based.

IV. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES:

Proposals will be submitted on forms which are designed to minimize the time required to file a proposal while providing sufficient information for evaluation. The proposal will include statements of:

• broad, instructional goals of the project

• specific objectives (courses involved, departmental curricula)

• how these objectives will be achieved (including technical details of the project: what hardware and/or software are being requested, if known)

• what students are to be served

• project milestones and timetable

• estimates of longterm maintenance needs, supply requirements

Each proposal will identify an individual on the College faculty to serve as a responsible project director. This does not preclude collaborative proposals which are encouraged both within and among departments. Proposers should attempt to coordinate their proposals to whatever extent they deem appropriate so that functional overlap and duplication of effort is minimized. Also, proposers should submit separate proposals for each functionally unrelated computing need.

V. EVALUATION OF SUPPORTED REQUESTS

Funded projects will be evaluated by the Director of Academic Computing at selected milestones in order to determine:

1. if the instructional goals of the project are being achieved,

2. if there are outstanding technical or user needs which can be met through additional support by ICS staff,

3. if the effort has created the potential for new or more extensive applications of computing technology in the curriculum.

VI. DISSEMINATION OF PROJECT RESULTS

Project directors will be expected to disseminate information on the accomplishments of their projects. This requirement can be met in several ways; a brief article in Fortnightly, a seminar presentation on or off campus, a demonstration at a conference, etc. Some smaller FILT awards support basic efforts for which this reporting of progress can be waived by the Director of Academic Computing.