By Ryan O’Connell Associate Editor The Educational Technology Office (ETO) discussed the Innovation in Teaching with Technology Grant, a program which awards a combined $30,000 to projects aimed at experimenting with methods of using technology for learning, Nov. 20. ETO Director Steven Courchesne led the panel, which also included brief testimony from Music Professor Christian Gentry, a current recipient of the grant, and jumping-off points for project ideas from Senior Instructional Technologist Mary MacDonald. Courchesne said the grant, which has been awarded since 2014, is undergoing a change this year to allow for more flexibility in what professors can propose. “It used to be that you needed to apply for bigger ticket items,” he said. “And the expectation was that we were helping you to buy technology. … One change that we are making to the grant is to allow for other types of projects.” He added a new type of project might be one where the technology may already be owned by the University, and the proposal outlines a new way to integrate that technology into the classroom. Courchesne said the grant has two pathways. The first is the same as it was in previous years, requiring faculty submit a proposal which spends between $5,000 and $20,000, typically on procuring new technology such as VR headsets. The second, newly introduced this year, requires a proposal to spend between only $750 and $1,500. In this model, $750 is paid to the faculty member proposing the change as compensation for their curriculum planning after completion of the class, and the other $750 may be allocated to software subscriptions, he added. Christian Gentry then spoke about his experience going through the grant request process. Gentry said this semester he is implementing a grant proposed last year, which was for equipment to create a podcasting studio in the Henry Whittemore Library for the Art & Music Department. “If you have an idea that requires certain technology or changing some things in order to teach better, the best thing is to start putting that [proposal] together now, but also to start talking with ETO about the process,” he said. Gentry added it’s important to first know the scope of the project. He used the podcasting lab as an example - an outline too general would say “we need more podcasts on campus,” and an outline too specific would clarify only students of the Art & Music Department could use the lab, he said. “Think of your stakeholders right away and who could benefit from your idea,” Gentry added. Gentry said his proposal has resulted in two studio spaces, each with a capacity of four people and all the equipment and room treatment required for a professional studio. He added he also brought on two interns who are acting as audio engineers, helping to finalize raw recordings from students in the studios. Gentry added scalability is also a big goal with the grant, and said English Professor Bartholomew Brinkman, who was also in attendance, had brought two of his RAMS 101 courses to the podcasting labs to learn the equipment. Brinkman said in reflections submitted by his students, the most common response was initial hesitancy, but then an enjoyment of using the equipment. “And it facilitated collaboration in a group and project management and just a lot of other things,” he added. Mary MacDonald then shared some brainstorming ideas for grant projects using readily available technology, which would be fit for the new $750 to $1,500 proposal model. These ideas included researching methods to increase engagement in a digital learning environment, creating AI-proof assignments, and incorporating new Canvas technologies - such as Lucid, a software similar to Google Jamboard - among many others. MacDonald said these were only rough ideas of topics that would be encouraged under the new reduced-cost proposal model. Courchesne then asked attendees about their ideas for the grant so the ETO could offer some early advice on their concepts. Professor of Communication, Media, & Performance Bob Oei-Clark asked about the logistics of using the grant to purchase more cameras for film production classes in the Communications Department. Oei-Clark said currently there are only three cameras shared by multiple classes, and this causes a number of problems. When using the cameras, “It’s kind of easy for some of them to hide, or the one student [with the camera] doesn’t share,” he said. Courchesne said even though that project might not benefit every student at FSU, it’s an example of one that aims to improve the classroom experience for dozens of students, and would still be worth submitting to ETO. He clarified grant proposals are judged on three main criteria - relevance and pedagogical factors, design, and sustainability - but even great proposals may not meet every bullet point in each category - “scalability possible” under sustainability, in this example. Courchesne fielded questions for the remainder of the event, which included the logistics of purchasing a fleet of high-level GPUs for the Center for Digital Humanities, the ability to propose two grant projects for completion in one semester, and back-up procedures, among others. He added the ETO is happy to speak and collaborate with anyone who has an idea for a grant, and he is the first point of contact for any questions. The deadline for submission to the Innovation in Teaching with Technology Grant is Jan. 16, 2025.