Page 11 - THE Journal, April/May 2017

service desk, and we didn’t have any way of helping them because we didn’t have a contracted partner to work with to give them assistance. And we definitely didn’t have the resources to support them.”
Dunn formed a committee with the functional groups — teaching, facilities
and IT — to evaluate options and decide
on a solution that met the needs of all those parties. The “academic folks” sought something interactive to mesh with the
way they wanted to do learning and teach- ing. “So right off the bat that pretty much eliminated the entire marketplace that did not have an interactive projector solution,” he said. Next, the facilities people were very concerned about doing a “proper install.” Their questions focused on the implications in terms of making sure “the electrical was in the proper place and that a proper instal- lation was taking place in terms of building codes.” IT wanted to make sure the system chosen could be supported internally and by the vendor.
From there the committee set out
to understand the differences between interactive panels, projectors and interactive projectors. The ultra-short-throw projectors appealed for several reasons. “We did not want something that was mounted in the center of the classroom because we wanted to minimize the cable runs in the ceilings,” Dunn said. “We also wanted something
that was cost efficient and that was able to project to a wide area and had an integrated speaker inside.”
Taking all of those “factors” into account, Dunn said, enabled his group to choose a solution that aligned to the goals of the school system, “one that’s technically sound, academically sound and supported and properly installed.” The selection was the Epson BrightLink 595Wi Interactive WXGA 3LCD Projector.
That model met the requirements, he noted, and “added a few more that we were also able to take advantage of,” including
a five-year warranty for the hardware and lamp replacement.
From an installation standpoint, the projector didn’t require lengthy cable runs. “It could be mounted very snug to the wall
and have a short run either just behind the wall or along the wall, so it was an easier in- stall from the beginning,” Dunn said. Also, because the projector projected directly onto the surface that was already there (such as a dry-erase board), it didn’t require a “physical board” to be installed onto the wall, thereby preserving the usage of the dry-erase board when the projector isn’t needed. “We were able to have both sets of functionality in one solution as opposed
to mounting a board that took up space,” he explained. The nature of the ultra- short-throw minimized the shadow cast
on teachers when they were presenting up front and reduced the lamp glare on their faces. Another “extra” was how quiet the unit was. “They have a low heat signature,” Dunn said. “You don’t hear the fan running loudly.” The units are wireless and include “every conceivable connection” — Ethernet, HDMI and USB.
To simplify how teachers work with the projectors, IT installed wall plates with con- trol systems behind their desks. Using Epson network moderator software, instructors can switch control of the presentation to a stu- dent. Content can come from a smartphone, tablet, camera, DVD player or PC. The same control center allows the teacher to raise and lower the volume of audio.
Best of all, added Dunn, the teachers who were moved from other equipment, whether interactive whiteboards or clickers,
can still use the software they’re used to — Promethean World, Smart Notebook or something else.
“The teachers who never had anything in their classrooms love it because now they have something. The teachers that had other equipment before — they love it because we have this solution in place that we support, that we’re going to maintain and that we’re going to upgrade when the time comes,” Dunn said. “We’re going to ensure that you can get replacement lamps quickly. We’re going to ensure that our vendor does the work instead of the school custodian that’s called into service a lot of the time.”
When it comes to making the interactive choice, Fulton didn’t go lampless, nor did it choose interactive flat panels. But it did choose a solution that aligned with the learning and teaching objectives of the school system and that also promised to improve staff productivity. The only way to do that, he added, is to have “those conversations” with groups outside of IT “so you know what the expectations are and what is needed in order to meet the goals of the district.”
Dian Schaffhauser is senior contributing editor for THE Journal and Campus Technology magazines.
Interactive whiteboards have rapidly lost ground to interactive flat panels, which now dominate the education market and seem to have the momentum for further gains.
APRIL/MAY 2017 | 11