The idea of producing a systematic review of TEL originated as a formalised extension to supplement the literature review chapter in our recently published book: Savage, M & Barnett, A (2017) Technology Enhanced Learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage, St Albans, Critical Publishing. The book aimed to appeal to a range of professionals working in an early years context and Chapter 3: ‘Key debates and research evidence’ focused on a range of topics in an accessible style generated from the “baffling array of contradictory messages in the popular media” (p. 17). The themes included: challenging the digital natives concept; childhood obesity; screen time, mobile technology, TV and violent video games; digital play; traditional skills versus digital capability; digital childhoods and; technology versus creativity.

Approaching a literature review in a more systematic way meant identifying parameters such as what to include and considering search criteria. Although chapter 2 of the book focuses specifically on the meaning of TEL, a working definition was still needed in order to establish clear criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. The first attempt at this involved using the three characteristics of effective learning from the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) curriculum. A vacation research assistant (VRS) was employed to help retrieve sources using search phrases directly linked to the three characteristics e.g. ‘digital technology and active learning’. More than 200 sources were retrieved from educational databases and Google. This was a good start but ultimately most of these sources were discarded as not meeting the range of inclusion criteria.

Following completion of the VRS support, a more comprehensive and focused search was undertaken, limited to peer reviewed academic research articles, which has resulted in the addition of another 135 sources. The characteristics of effective learning turned out to be ineffective as search criteria. It has been rare to locate articles where these characteristics are a clear focus. Also, the research articles retrieved are from a wide range of countries which include different curricular and principles of effective practice. This has ultimately meant modifying the inclusion criteria by adopting a more inclusive and general interpretation of the meaning of technology enhanced learning.

Rather than take the same themes as in the book, the approach of the systematic review was initially to focus on different types of technology in relation to enhancement of learning across different areas of learning in an international context. The aim was to identify up to 10 key articles per theme focusing on 1/type of technology, 2/enhancement and 3/area of learning. This has not surprisingly in hindsight turned out to be an overly ambitious aim, at least in the short to medium term. What has actually been achieved so far is a focus which starts with the range of type of technology. This includes ‘programmable, interactive toys and robotics’; ‘hand held touch screen technology, iPad related’; ‘cameras inc. photography, video & audio; ‘digital games’; ‘teachers’ technology use’ and; ‘general positive and negative perspectives on digital technology’.

So far, the main progress with the review is in the ‘Programmable, interactive toys and robotics’ category, subdivided into a number of key themes with a range of between two and eight articles located per theme. The approach has been to produce data reduction grids for focusing on methodological topics such as sample size, research paradigm, aims and methods. The focus on results is being undertaken separately. It is envisaged that the systematic review will continue to be developed on an ongoing basis. Sources are being added to a zotero database which is able to be made available to students with an interest in technology enhanced learning in the early years.

I am excited to have emerged from two intensive but inspirational days at Pi Towers, the Raspberry Pi offices in Cambridge, as a Raspberry Pi Certified Educator.

 The free Picademy training was some of the best CPD I have ever attended, with its emphasis on immersive learning through play, and on celebrating successes but accepting failures as learning opportunities too.
 
The Raspberry Pi Foundation is an educational charity based in the UK that owns the company who produce the tiny, low-priced but surprisingly powerful Raspberry Pi computer. Connect a pi to a monitor, keyboard and mouse and you can do just about anything that you can with a desktop. You can also connect all kinds of devices to it to control physical objects and make computing projects using lights, sounds, sensors and motors. You can even use it to send cameras up into space.
 
On the first Picademy day we began by introducing ourselves and sharing how we were feeling. Quite a few owned up to being a little nervous about their own skills. However, we were encouraged to jump straight in and immerse ourselves in the possibilities for digital making. There was no time to be timid as we sped through a day of hands-on workshops which gave us a feel for what could be achieved with the pi and its various add-ons or ‘hats’ as they are known. Highlights from these taster sessions included:

• connecting LEDs and buzzers to the GPIO
• making music with Sonic Pi
• controlling a motor with an Explorer Hat
• making a pixel that rolls when you tilt a Sense Hat
• taking selfies with a button-controlled pi camera.

From a simple start where we were challenged to make a flashing LED, we progressed to using Python to code traffic lights and making music with concurrent loops. We explored time lapse photography, designed flashing emojis with coloured pixels and combined motors with craft materials to make all kinds of spinning contraptions. My favourite was a random spinner based on ‘he loves me/he loves me not’. It was quite a day!
 
Day one ended with us brainstorming ideas for projects for day two. Our hosts did a great job of grouping these into themes. Then we all went off for a lovely meal and drinks in Cambridge.
 
On the morning of Day 2 James Robinson gave us an account of Skycademy which involves teams launching balloons and computers 35,000 metres into the stratosphere to take pictures from the edge of space. Awesome!
 
Then they let us organise ourselves into working groups with similar interests to spend the rest of the day creating and coding. Magically this worked! It reminded me how important it is for us to let go of our learners sometimes and let them take control of their own learning journeys.
 
My team of six included educators from Cyprus, Italy and England. Our idea was to make a robot with a camera attached that might form the basis of some STEM projects with a real world aspect to them. We split into two groups of three with some of us making and coding the robot and the others setting up the camera to tweet photos. There was a tense moment when we used remote access software to combine the code into one program to control our robot explorer and tweet images from our invented ‘Planet Pi’. And then a round of high fives when it worked! Our other ideas were to send the robot to tweet images from inside a badger set or to make a simulation of a disaster rescue scenario. There was a real sense of achievement from being part of a team intensely engaged in solving challenges together.
 
All the groups captured the progress of their projects using Twitter and the tweeted images and videos made an excellent platform for show and tell.  Other projects included a theremin (a gesture controlled musical instrument), remote controls for the temperature and humidity of a vivarium, a Lego colour sorting machine, a person counter and a photo finish line for a sports event, a Minecraft game, a musical lightshow, and an automatic picture editing device.
 
At the end of the day, Eben Upton, the founder of the Raspberry Pi Foundation, presented us with certificates and badges.
 
It was fantastic to spend two days with a bunch of super-enthusiastic and imaginative people who are all passionate about computing, and I was reminded how exhilarating project-based learning can be. Along with the many new skills and new friends, the two days refreshed my ideas about what good learning looks and feels like. I am resolved to keep my computing sessions full of tinkering and teamwork.

 
Another key aspect of Picademy is its sense of community and I am honoured to become part of the pi family of creative digital makers. Well done to the Picademy team for inspiring a diverse group of educators to join forces, put their fears aside and be brave coders.
 
Helen is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Northampton, where she is curriculum lead for primary computing and programme lead for the online Postgraduate Certificate in Primary Computing, which can be studied at a distance to gain masters credits.  
 

In the News

Unlocking the potential of technology: BBC News has a gallery of photos illustrating the use of mobile devices around the world. The photos show how Mozilla and One Laptop per Child are making some inroads into the online world. Given that, so far, there has been little effort by any electable group to tell us how their policies will further the effective use of edtech in education, perhaps it's time for schools and universities to sign on to this kind of philanthropic schemes. 


The smartphone is eventually going to die ... OMG! This article looks through a glass darkly to make us think about how the physical format of our digital devices is so malleable that before too long the options available to educators keen on edtech will be both extraordinary (e.g. augmented reality using discreet headwear), perhaps creepy (e.g. 'wearables' embedded in clothing that act like a smartphone but are essentially invisible) or a bit 'out there' but literally mind changing (e.,g. 'neural lace').
 

Standing up for university based teacher training and education: There has been a systematic denigration of university-based teacher education for decades but nothing so serious as in recent years following the whining of Gove and his even more annoying sycophants, some of whom seem to get more than their fair share of column space in the TES.  Time to fight back? The critics of university-based teacher education like to position themselves as the true beacons of light guiding the future of education. How do they do it? One method is to claim that only they, the critics, know  both the 'correct' way to do research (a code for 'clinical trial' models) and that they are the true arbiters of what will count as meaningful results.

A twist on wearables?:  Not a very smart move really but the technology is interesting. Students cheat by bringing in their text book (an allowed resource) but having spent time writing margin notes in ultra-violet ink. Invisible to the naked eye, the notes are visible under an ultra-violet torch. Student got caught (unsurprising - the torch is a bit of give away!) but perhaps wearables may make this sort of thing easier to do while being harder to detect.