I have just finished reading eSchool News and the main article is about a new projector which will turn any wall into an interactive surface. Epson and Boxlight are pitching their “ potentially game-changing technology” at the education market. “ The development means schools no longer have to buy separate hardware to enjoy the benefits of IWBs, [...]]]>

I have just finished reading eSchool News and the main article is about a new projector which will turn any wall into an interactive surface. Epson and Boxlight are pitching their “ potentially game-changing technology” at the education market. “ The development means schools no longer have to buy separate hardware to enjoy the benefits of IWBs, whose interactive surface and ability to engage students have made them quite popular in classrooms.”

It sounds like Epson and Boxlight have fine tuned a Mimo type application. It also reminds me of the butchered Wii offerings of 2008. I am sure many homemade look alikes will surface on YouTube.

The article goes on to mention that RM Education have been brought into the frame by Epson and there is a possibility that the RM Easiteach interactive whiteboard software may be bundled with the projectors or offerd at an additional cost.

It sounds very like a re-tweaked version of the Boxlight ProjectoWrite LCD Interactive Presentation Projector which featured on the CESI Dublin site in October 2008. Interesting!!

Whatever happens there is a new kid on the block. The question is whether we should hold back on the purchase of conventional projectors until an Irish price is announced.

The  first attempt to export the content of the  CESI Dublin blog met with partial success.

I presume it is a matter of permissions as some of the contributors and authors posted privately and I will have to contact after mid-term break.

The  first attempt to export the content of the  CESI Dublin blog met with partial success.

I presume it is a matter of permissions as some of the contributors and authors posted privately and I will have to contact after mid-term break.

Special thanks to Linda Bates (lindabee), Liam Moore (gaaman), Mr Crilly (crilly), Olive Garton (gartono), Mary Cotter (mcotter) and

Many thanks to all the contributors, subscribers, and commenters.

I will import them one at a time and we will see how it goes.

Some of the financial chit-chat posted by teachers during summer 2007 was a sign of things to come.

The CESI Dublin site cost nothing but it was not seen as an asset to CESI. Admittedly, there was a time overhead involved in the management  and moderating of the site. Unfortunately, CESI members living and teaching in Dublin did not use the site. The vast majority of visitors and commenters were non-CESI members. In fact, it may be a sign of my age but I did not know the most of them so I could not verify them for posting purposes. I also did not share their  militant and separatists views.

The CESI Dublin site will remain intact just in case the Dublin Branch needs a web presence in the next 12 months. After all is said and done – IT IS FREE!

“Titles Only” appear because the posts are available to logged-on registered  members only.  The posts have  nothing to do with the eTwinning project hosted on the site  but have relevance to the education sector in general. The forum you referred to was taken offline last year due to lack of use. Try the CESI [...]]]>

“Titles Only” appear because the posts are available to logged-on registered  members only.  The posts have  nothing to do with the eTwinning project hosted on the site  but have relevance to the education sector in general. The forum you referred to was taken offline last year due to lack of use. Try the CESI Dublin site if you want a wider audience.

There is a forum on the CESI site but it is reserved for the executive at the moment – I think. I will get back to you on that one. It may be rolled to the great unwashed shortly.

A big thank you to Liam, Carmel and Kieron for their work winding up the Google Groups underpinning the “old branch sites”. I realise that these goups were their babies and it was difficult walk away from them. Only one Google Group is now functioning for the CESI Dublin Branch and all the members have been removed [...]]]>

A big thank you to Liam, Carmel and Kieron for their work winding up the Google Groups underpinning the “old branch sites”. I realise that these goups were their babies and it was difficult walk away from them. Only one Google Group is now functioning for the CESI Dublin Branch and all the members have been removed from the other groups as agreed last December.

I set up the CESI Dublin Branch Google Group last January as directed and the agreed six months have passed to facilitate the launch of the national CESI Google Group.

What now? All members will receive an invitation to join the group and the Google Groups promotion  logo will continue to be displayed on the website page to encourage browsers to join. The combined unique membership of the branch from all three sites was 513 on October 19th 2007.  However, only 191 of those members joined the various Google Groups over the last year and a half and some joined all three groups. Liam maintains that 29 members contributed to the groups and only 13 were regular “activists”.

The problem of “bogus teachers” has not gone away.

11 comments have been deleted in the last four days due to the presence of  ”unparlimentary language” and the use of bogus email addresses. There is no “F” in ICT.

Several registered users vetted the comments and deemed them unsuitable for publication on an education blog. This does not mean that [...]]]>

11 comments have been deleted in the last four days due to the presence of  ”unparlimentary language” and the use of bogus email addresses. There is no “F” in ICT.

Several registered users vetted the comments and deemed them unsuitable for publication on an education blog. This does not mean that I or anybody else does not agree with the sentiments expressed. Rather it is an exercise in responsible ownership and not blanket censorship as a number of anonymous commenters claimed. Had the people in question provided a genuine email address they would have been contacted and afforded the opportunity to submit their comments in more temperate language.