10 March 2004 
Noon, Faculty House


Attending: Bob Cadmus, David Ellison, Martha Voyles, Vince Eckhart, Bill Francis, Helen Scott, Terri Phipps


Committee approved minutes of 25 February as distributed.

Update on revised ACUP, including the Draft Virtual Communities Policy
Bill Francis reported that no one came to the open forum on VC's held last week.  He invited the SACC and John 
Stone for comments.  John Stone sent comments, which the ISC discussed (below).


John was pleased that paragraph III.A.4 (of the 21 July 2003 ACUP revision) was removed.  (This was the section 
that the ISC also wanted removed.)  This paragraph concerned ACM standards for websites, in particular, that 
sites have a statement of security level and name someone who is responsible for the site.  This is a difficult 
protocol to follow in lab-based courses as they change so frequently.  The draft policy has language addressing 
periods for test projects, though after a reasonable length of time, the sites must add a statement of security and 
responsibility.


John questioned the purpose of having a virtual community policy at all, as did at least one member of ISC (Eckhart).  
John Stone argued that the general computer-use policy and other standing policies should be sufficient to prevent 
abuses.  Bill Francis argued that a separate VC policy is necessary, as the ACUP does not mention alumni accounts 
or outside users.  The draft virtual community policy accommodates these kinds of accounts.  Further, Bill argued that 
users of virtual communities need to know who is responsible for managing accounts and what level of security they 
can expect.  On the issue of whether codes of conduct currently in place could cover abuses, etc., that the virtual 
community (VC) policy addresses, Bill argued that because the VC policy is more explicit and specific to virtual 
communities, users are more likely to read its conduct rules.


Bill explained-when the subject came up in discussion-the proposed policy that if school groups get a Plan, the Plan 
must be open to any student, as stated in the general computer use policy.  The VC policy highlights this requirement.  
The group Plan must name a specific person to be responsible, not just the group.


There was a suggestion from some on the ISC to merge the virtual community policy with the ACUP.  While this in
many ways would be preferred, ITS would prefer to keep the two separate at this time, as they are both evolving.


Bill explored administrative computing-specifically in the alumni office-to see if their virtual community model could be 
used on the academic computing side, but there is no direct counterpart.  The alumni system uses a listserv, which is 
very different from virtual communities.


Vince will contact the Dean confirming approval of the deletion of III.A.4, and re-affirming that ISC does not feel that 
virtual communities fall under their purview of instructional computing.  ISC recommends that any forthcoming SACC 
comments on the draft policies be considered.




Models for curricular development

The ISC discussed Eckhart's 
notes on alternative models of providing internal curricular-development support (below, edited as per the 
ISC's suggestions).


A. What we do now, i.e.
1)   The ISC (a committee of voting faculty plus non-voting faculty and administrators) and/or the Associate Deans' 
Office solicit proposals that involve
 i.      course development (stipends, ancillary costs)
 ii.      course related field trips
 iii.      interdisciplinary/interdepartmental connections (faculty-faculty tutorials, reading groups, discussion groups)
 iv.      instructor professional development  (e.g., short courses, pedagogical conferences)
 v.      summer skill-development workshops (writing, oral skills) 
    (The above approach targets individual faculty and groups of faculty, but not departments.)
2)   The Administration, support offices and groups (College Services, ITS, CTS), and Library faculty and staff 
devise and implement strategies and structures (e.g., Technology Discovery Center) to support teaching innovation, 
usually related to technology.
3)   Multiple-institution initiatives support faculty and staff development (e.g., ACM, MITC).
4)   Extramural grants support particular initiatives (e.g., Freeman, Lilly, HHMI).
5)   Are there aspects of our current approach that the above list omits?


    B.  What else we could do
1)   Drop the ISC budget and grants process, allocate resources to departments.  (But what about concentrations 
and collaborations?)
2)   Eliminate the stipend portions of awards, and allocate those resources to faculty salaries.  Give grants for 
courses, workshops, supplies, travel, and other expenses.  
3)    Drop all curriculum development funding, but allow support for many faculty per year to attend courses, 
workshops, courses, etc. that concern pedagogy, not just scholarship.
4)    Target specific areas of curricular development funding for particular years or multi-year periods.
5)    Do what we do now, but support departmental curriculum revisions, too.
6)    Other ideas?


In discussion the following points arose.


1. It would be problematic to drop the ISC budget and grants process and allocate resources to departments and 
concentrations.  This model is similar to the manner in which funds were allocated in the past.  Under this past
 model, some areas received funds but didn't use them (or used them to fund marginal projects just because the 
money was there), while other areas were not able to fund projects because they didn't have enough funds.  
Having a central body allocate resources across the board created a much more level field.


2. If funds were allocated for expenses rather than stipends, it is likely that ISC could fund more field trips, 
second conferences, and individual or collaborative projects, besides supporting or encouraging new pedagogy.


3.  Stipends are very small when compared to the amount of energy required to complete projects. 


4.  Faculty pay taxes on stipends, but would not pay taxes on awards given on an expense basis.


5. Current policy is that proposed second trips for pedagogy come to ISC for review.  First trips and second trips 
for scholarship go to CSFS.


6. College policy states that all book purchases should be made through the Library.  However, in some instances, 
such as for curricular development, it may be argued that faculty should make their own purchases with the 
understanding that the books will be owned by the College, not the individual, and as such would be given to the 
Library holdings once their projects were complete.  Any proposal in which books are requested needs to justify 
why library holdings are not adequate.  This discussion was tabled until a future meeting.  Whatever the ISC 
recommends will be included in the year-end report.  Any policy decisions in this matter will be the responsibility 
of the next ISC.


Summer Workshops
Helen Scott proposed a change in the stipend for facilitators of Reading Workshops from $1150 to $650.  
Participants will receive materials but not a stipend.  No change in stipend structure is proposed for course 
development workshops.