Evaluative Criteria for 2024-2025 Discipline Specific Projects
Evaluating members Student Technology Fee Oversight Committee, a ten-member group chaired by the Provost or his/her designee and including the Executive Vice President & Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Information Officer, and the President of the Faculty Senate, and six students, including the Student Body President, the Speaker of the Student Government Senate, the President of the Student Government Graduate School College Council, and three other students to be nominated by the Student Body President.
The following information is used to determine the order in which applications are discussed by the STF Committee. The ranking is not a direct determinant of final funding decisions.
1. Persuasiveness of concept in enhancing learning, teaching, and/or student experience (20 pts.) – The proposal is compelling in its presentation of the need for the proposed project and of its value to students. It clearly indicates how the project will directly benefit students.
2. Convincing justification for appropriateness of technology to accomplish the stated goals of the project (15 pts.) – The proposal presents a compelling case for the appropriateness of the technology for which funding is sought; the technology is pertinent to the goals of the project, will enhance student learning, and has currency and a useful life commensurate with the costs entailed.
3. Degree of innovation of the proposal and its ability to affect student success (15 pts.) – The proposal is convincing in bringing new, state of the art technology that will engage students, enhance teaching and learning, and has the ability to transform student success.
4. Number and range of students who would benefit from the proposed project (10 pts.) – The proposal, if implemented, will benefit significant numbers of students. Projects that exemplify the principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number” relative to the level and discipline of study, are generally more highly rated than projects that benefit only a small and narrowly defined group of students. Consideration will be given to the impact specific course initiatives will have on student progression to degree.
5. Rank given by Dean of College or Vice President (10 pts.) – Dean/Vice Presidents’ rankings are given significant, but not always decisive, weight in final funding decisions made by the Student Technology Fee Oversight Committee. For full consideration, deans/vice presidents should provide a justification as to why the proposal was ranked as it was.
6. Value of Investment (10 pts.) – The proposal presents a compelling case that the benefits of the project are commensurate with the investment and impact not only the college/department, but the University as a whole.
7. Clarity of budget presentation (10 pts.) – The budget and justification are clear; the budget justification clarifies issues that may not be self-explanatory in the budget itself. All foreseeable costs should be included.
- Undergraduate student employees’ salaries, must not exceed 10% of the total budget of the project.
- Renovations and infrastructure costs must not exceed 20% of a project’s total budget (e.g., electrical upgrades, architectural renovations, HVAC modifications, acquisition, and installation of network connectivity [fiber optics, hubs, nodes, penetrations, and the like], etc.)
- Furniture costs must not exceed 10% of a project’s total budget.
8. Rank given by the Provost’s Office (10 pts.) – Degree to which the proposed project will positively impact objectives in LSU’s Strategic Plan 2025 Agenda as evaluated by the Provost’s Office.
All documents must be submitted through Moodle by October 28, 2024, by noon.