Re: Computer Projection in The Classroom
During the 1995-1996 Academic year the Educational Technology
Committee is committed to improving student and faculty access
to network resources that can be integrated into course
curriculum. In addition, we hope to provide rapid and
flexible responses to other student and faculty needs. At
the end of spring term, a small survey concerning computer
projection in classrooms was sent out by the Registrar to all faculty.
That survey generated 176 responses of which 154
were both positive and enthusiastic. Members of the committee
together with representatives of the physical plant, the computing
center and the registrars office waited until the two hottest
afternoons of the summer and then went on a campus wide tour
of various classrooms. In addition to noticing the wide
variation in air conditioning efficiencies, the group carried
projection equipment with them and evaluated the projection
and lighting qualities of each room. Based on this experience,
together with survey input, we have selected the following 6 rooms
to equip:
Most of these rooms will require minimal rennovation. Please note that Columbia 150, PLC 180 and Pacific 123 are not being considered at this time. Columbia 150 and PLC 180 are basically too large and require quite expensive solutions in order to acheive a projected screen size that is readable by all. In the case of Columbia 150, multiple projection surfaces are required for full audience viewing. We understand that the current systems installed in those two rooms are not very useable. We wish to avoid making the same mistake in the rooms selected above. Pacific 123 does not have enough back focal distance and would require major room rennovation to enable projection. Hence these three rooms are longer term projects. For a general assessment of a large number of classrooms that were considered please look at
We anticipate that funding for this equipment will come from a variety of sources: 1) The Educational Resource student fee funds, 2) Cost sharing from the deans and 3) Physical plant funds. The educational resource fee funds will be used to purchase a high quality overhead and a networked computing platform, and a cabinet to permanently house the equipment. We anticipate that minor room modification costs will be borne out by the physical plant. As there is insufficient money in the current ed tech budget, the actual projection device will have to be obtained through a cost-share arrangment with the deans. Our ideal model is one where individual departments, through this arrangment, have their own LCD panel (or equivalent) which can be brought to class and cabled to the existing networked platform. A useful reference on computer projection systems can be found at
To help coordinate the process, the committee needs your help at this time. Of the rooms identified above, we need to know if faculty assigned to that room over the academic year have an interest in using the proposed computer projection. While it is impossible to satisfy all, we wish to reach concensus on three key issues:
2. The resolution of LCD panel or equivalent. That is, if your predominate application that you wish to project is 640x480 then that's the kind of panel you should invest in. The pricing differential is significant. Below I list 3 basic options:
3. Whether individual faculty in your department would plan on bringing their own laptop instead of using the networked platform installed in the room. This is important because not all lap tops work with all LCD panels so we need to identify compatibility conflicts.
4. Would your faculty be more likely to use the facility if there was support staff available to setup the equipment prior to each class session?
5. Does your department and faculty see these classroom upgrades as a high priority in your instructional equipment needs and how does this relate to your curriculum planning for the next two years?
Feedback can be done via e-mail to
General comments or discussion can be done via the USENET news group
Thank you for your help. The members of the 1995-1996 Educational Technology Committee are the following:
Greg Bothun, Professor, Physics (nuts@moo2)
Deborah Carver, Knight Library (dcarver@oregon)
Georgeanne Cooper, Coordinator, TEP (gcooper@oregon)
Jim Crosswhite, Assistant Professor, English (jcross@oregon)
Mitch Davis, Asst. Professor, Law (mwdavis@law)
Art Farley, Professor, Computer \& Info Sciences (art@cs)
Tim Gleason, Assoc. Professor, Journalism \& Communication (tgleason@oregon)
Kathy Heerema, Asst. Director, Microcmoputer Center (heerema@oregon)
JQ Johnson,, Academic Ed Coordinator, Library (jqj@darkwing)
Zach Kelton, ASUO Vice President (zkelton@gladstone)
Steve Kevan, Profesor, Physics (kevan@oregon)
Chris Luebkeman, Asst. Professor, Architecture (chrisl@aaa)
Nancy Melone, Asst. Professor, Management (nmelone@oregon)
Cleven Mmari, Student (major: Computer \& Info Sciences) (cmmari@gladstone)
Dale Smith,Asst. Director, Network Services (dsmith@phloem)
Jeff Stolet, Assoc. Professor, Music (stolet@oregon)
Jerry Tindal, Assoc. Professor, Special Ed (geraldt@oregon)
Dan Udovic, Assoc. Professor \& Head, Biology (udovic@oregon)