AV Technology - October 2008 - (Page 41)

audio, microphones, control — in most rooms. Auditoriums have lecterns with touchscreens, full audio, a document camera, and Smart Technologies’ Sympodium annotation. Casework rooms have a smaller podium, computer, and full sound. We’re doing a pilot on Tegrity, Echo 360, and Apple Podcast Producer classroom capture so students can get a full online classroom experience. Ritchie: The basic expectation is presentation capabilities with at least minimal levels of connectivity with laptops and video. Some have videoconferencing, audience response, interactive annotation such as Sympodium, and an electronic whiteboard. We use Epson and InFocus projectors. Shure wireless microphones have proven to work well in our “RF soup” environment. We try to have gear that gets us to a tiered level of standardization that allows users to move logically to more complex systems as needed. Bradley: Basically, we want solutions that are plug and play, and not just cool technology. Computer-connected, ceiling-mounted data/video projectors, four ceiling speakers, a centralized control system that’s easily accessible, and wireless access are some of the key pieces. When complete, the systems are going to be slightly different in each of the high schools, but all result from a lot of testing, research, planning, and stakeholder input. Given all the smart classroom configuration options and price ranges, how did you go about selecting your solution? Bialas: What’s guided us is putting in foolproof systems anyone can work anywhere in the company; products tied to a control system that’s easy to program; and spaces that generate minimal tech support calls. Over time, the expectation of technology in training and meeting spaces will become ubiquitous. It’ll be a utility, like electricity, that’s there at the flip of a switch. Corkum: One guiding part of our approach is not to just randomly throw technology around. But while we have room standards, we don’t lock ourselves into a rigid set of equipment. We’ve developed a set of procedures for the requesting, design, installation, and operation, and a committee reviews technology requests. Ultimately, it’s all about the students and using the various technologies to make learning exciting and accessible. october 2008 | AV TECHNOLOGY | 41 Ritchie: The decision to go with smart classrooms was made at the school’s upper levels. There was a push for classroom technology ubiquity — making sure that all teachers can instruct using the same basic technology in the same room setting. From that point down decisions about specific technology were made by tech managers and faculty. Bradley: When our first “smart classroom” high school opened in 1999, it was assumed it would be laden with technology from day one. That didn’t happen. But as we learned more and technology took hold, we knew we wanted smart rooms. A tech committee saw smart classroom technology in action at California State University, and started mapping out an approach [for us]. It was pieced together over three years. Tom Zind is a freelance writer based in Lee’s Summit, Mo. He can be reached at tomzind@att.net. http://www.edirol.com/v8p10 http://www.edirol.com/v8p10

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of AV Technology - October 2008

AV Technology - October 2008 Contents Precedent Corporate: Residential AV Does Not Equal Commercial AV Government: Funding Problems? Education: DIY ISP.EDU, Part Two The Cost of Bandwidth Star Grounding Wars Understanding IoIP How to Equip a Smart Classroom Two Rooms With A View From Primitive to Professional Product Review:�Visionary Solutions AVN 420 Encoder Product Spotlight: Document Cameras New Products Ad Index AV MO: Using Infrared Microphones

AV Technology - October 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.