Hardware Acquisition – Ethan Ozinga
The district in which I am currently employed – Cuyahoga Falls City School District – recently passed a massive levy to build a new, state of the art, 6 through 12 campus. The district just broke ground at the beginning of October, and they have been working tirelessly since. While this is very exciting, it is also a little nerve racking regarding the current tech that the district has in the buildings. It is estimated that the new facilities will be completed at the beginning of the 2025 – 2026 school year, and although no one will come out and say it, we all know that the district is going to be very reluctant to spend money on things leading up to the opening of the new facilities. For this reason, I decided to share some information with you from my experiences being involved in the technology aspect of this project over the last several months. The district will be purchasing an extremely large amount of hardware devices over the next three years, and I am very curious to see how that process unfolds.
In mid-July, the head of the technology department for the district invited me to attend a technology meeting with all the parties involved in the design of the new facilities. The meeting was composed of our district superintendent and other administrators, the architecture firm, the construction company, a technology consulting company, the head of the tech department for the district, and two classroom teachers – me and a high school science teacher. It was very interesting being a part of the conversations about the technology in the new buildings. Most of the conversations were regarding classroom technology. There were three options on the table:
1. Interactive ViewSonic board – 80 inches, touchscreen, Airplay compatible.
2. Non-Interactive ViewSonic board – 80 inches, no touchscreen, Airplay compatible.
3. Standard 4K projector – 100-inch display, casting device directly connected to the projector to allow Airplay.
The standard 4K is the cheapest option, the non-interactive ViewSonic is a close second, and the interactive ViewSonic board is the most expensive by far, costing almost four times that of the noninteractive ViewSonic board. Another very interesting factor is that if the district decides to purchase the standard 4K projectors, then it could afford to purchase iPads for the teachers which, for me, was a HUGE selling point.
This spring, the technology director is planning on reaching out to the vendors for these pieces of hardware and will be setting up demos in the middle school and high school buildings to test out these three different setups. Information will be collected, and a decision will be made from there. I am very curious to see how many teachers share my opinion, and how many teachers prefer to go with a ViewSonic setup. It is quite intimidating to think that this decision will be the technology going in EVERY classroom and will be there for the foreseeable future.
Comment by Tristan Silver
Loved getting a glimpse into a large-scale school technology project from someone who has direct experience being involved with it! Although it is useful to read about what projects are being undertaken in other states, I appreciate being able to learn about a project happening right now within Ohio through your contribution. Your comment regarding educators’ expectation that the district will be reluctant to make technology purchases leading up to the opening of the new buildings gave me pause, though. I can understand this large project affecting the purchases approved at the current schools within your district if everything was being purchased from one budget, but is there not already a budget set aside for technology purchases for the current buildings? This could just be another unexpected difference between public libraries and schools, but I find it odd that the technology budget would be so variable. For example, the library system where I work has been remodeling all 20+ branches over the past several years. However, because those projects have a dedicated budget separate from the budget for branch purchases, I have not felt that this has effected the technology purchases at my location.
Comment by Morgan Dorsky
This real life example of the complexities of choosing an appropraite hardware for a large district is so helpful! When determining which hardware is best, thinking about things like cost, practicality, usability, and training are so imperative! I love the real-world example of how this is happening in a local district and the types of considerations that need to be made. I also think it's important to note the time frame in which this change is software is occuring. This process often takes years, requires additional funding in the way of levies and grants, and is not simple or quick to roll out and I appreciate that you so dilligently and desciptively explained that!
Comment by Kelli Mohn
I am interested to hear what technology ends up being selected. I also find it interesting that only two teachers were selected to be a part of this meeting. Did they have other meetings with additional teachers? It is difficult to accept that why the district believes that the thoughts of only two teachers are representative of the entire 6-12 teaching staff. I am also curious how many other districts are currently upgrading their technology and considering interactive touch screens. These seem to me to be the new "must have" technology, much like SmartBoards were 10 years ago. My district has slowly been rolling out ViewSonic boards for the last 3 years and will continue to do so for the next several years. For example, my specific building only received 10 screens for the 22-23 school year but we have approximately 40 classrooms with boards that still need replaced. How long will it take us to replace the remaining SmartBoards? Will the original ViewSonics stay as current as the last ones replaced? How long will these boards last before there is a need to replace them again?
Written by Emily Burns
In 2022, Luke Edwards created a comparison of the current best Virtual Reality (VR) headsets for classroom use. As an educator, who uses VR in my classroom, I hope to be part of the purchasing committee for a new classroom set of VR Goggles. My middle school has a set of ClassVR Goggles, which are noted on Edward's "best headsets" list but are not the most user-friendly. The software is built into the headsets and provides many options for educators, but their technical support is not very helpful, from previous experience. My school is looking to purchase a second set of VR Goggles, possibly from a different brand. While English and math classes may not be the primary targets of VR, science, and history classes are perfect subjects for VR focus. Edwards' evaluation options for various headsets has strengthened my opinions about which would be most valued in the classroom setting.
Writing this article for techlearning.com, Edwards' provides the reasons to buy and avoid specific VR headsets for the classroom. He also includes software options that could pair with various headsets. The Google Cardboard is the most affordable choice of the options he investigates. This under $25 option may be cheap, but the user must have a smartphone to make the VR experience happen. Therefore, this would not be practical for a middle school classroom. Even today, many students do not have a smartphone. Therefore, I cannot envision my district choosing this option to purchase for our middle school. Another alternative would be to purchase Redbox VR. This system is similar to my school's VR Goggles, ClassVR, except that Redbox VR was created to work with Google Expeditions. This program is a history teacher's dream, so my choice would be to purchase the Redbox VR Goggles for my school.
It is necessary to evaluate the other VR hardware that Edwards describes in his article. The three different options on Edwards' list are Windows Mixed Reality Goggles, Apple AR, and Vive Cosmos Goggles. All have their benefits. The Windows Mixed Reality Headsets have Augmented Reality features that would allow students to experience real-world scenarios and scenes. This feature would have significant benefits, but these headsets are pricy, making them unrealistic for many districts to purchase. Apple AR is another option without a headset; a tablet would be needed. This option would be great for students who may get dizzy while wearing headsets since the screen would be held rather than close to the eyes. Purchasing tablets in addition to the AR/VR software is costly and would not be an option for my district. Lastly, the Vive Cosmos are beneficial for immersive gaming. Since gaming would not be the focus of educational lessons, these expensive headsets are not a viable option for my school. In conclusion, there are many great options for VR/AR headsets available for educational settings. The decision of which is best for each district depends on needs, cost, and preference.
References:
Edwards, L. (2022, October 20). Best VR headsets for Schools. TechLearningMagazine. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https://www.techlearning.com/buying-guides/best-vr-and-ar-systems-for-schools
Comment by Ethan Ozinga
Virtual reality headsets have always been very intriguing for me. Your website entry was very helpful to narrow down pros and cons of some of the popular VR headsets. My middle school has a set of VR headsets that we aquired a few years ago by one of the technology specialists in the district. There was a lot of excitement around these headsets when we first aquired them, but unfortunately they don't get much use anymore. I would be curious as to why this is the case. I am not sure which headsets they are, but when we first got them we were able to demo them at a staff meeting and they were very interesting and extremely interactive. My biggest struggle with the VR headsets is that I never know how to implement them in a math classroom. Has anyone in this class had any success with VR implementation in a math setting?