Keelham Primary Report

A SMALL SCHOOL WITH BIG IDEAS KEELHAM PRIMARY SCHOOL

PROJECT DELIVERED AND SUPPORTED BY

An interim study of the impact of implementing digital technology throughout Keelham Primary School An independent research project by Dr Fiona Aubrey-Smith

Report Contents 3

Scope

4

The Context

5

Project Intentions

6

The Process

9

Impact - interim findings

15

Exploring the Detail

19

The Essential Role of Coaching and CPD

21

Classroom Reality

22

Impact - Early Years Foundation Stage

24

Impact - Key Stage 1

26

Impact - Lower Key Stage 2

29

Impact - Upper Key Stage 2

31

Digital Decisions

36

Insight - considering writing vs typing

37

Insight - Children’s Perspectives

39

Conclusion

Scope This report outlines the findings of an interim study exploring the impact of the introduction of a digital provision package at Keelham Primary School. The study will conclude at the end of academic year 2024/25.

This report looks at the first 4 months of the implementation of that digital package and focuses primarily on educational intentions and consequent insights seen after initial adoption.

With a strong, aspirational vision from the headteacher, supported by funding for implementation and leading specialist EdTech provider Elementary Technology, the project represents an excellent opportunity to explore causal impact - from a qualitative and a quantitative perspective.

Robert Hunter, Headteacher, comments... 

“Starting from the moment we announced plans for this project to the team, the impact we have seen has been truly transformational - in all areas of our school.

I’m incredibly proud of what we’re achieving together”

Dr Fiona Aubrey Smith comments... 

"The huge strength of the approach taken to this project is the focus on supporting learners, teachers, leaders and communities”

The Context

Keelham Primary School is a small primary school with 117 children aged 3-11 in 4 mixed year group classes. Despite being located in a rural setting surrounded by fields, Keelham’s site has limited internal and external space.

However, every part of the site is put to good use through creative thinking about utilisation of what is available. The visionary headteacher has been in post since 2021, and the school was last inspected in 2023, with particular praise given to the quality of educational provision, the curriculum, children’s personal development and behaviour and inclusive support[1].

Whilst it is important to be cautious when making comparisons between schools, particularly where small numbers are involved, DfE data[2] indicates that Keelham has a higher than average number of children with SEN (20% v 13%), lower than average number of FSM (8.5% v 29.5%), and broadly average workforce[3].

The headteacher knows every child by name and holds meaningful personal conversations with each child that draw upon their personal circumstances. This reflects the intentional family-style culture across the school and staffing body.

For example, on entering each classroom it is not always obvious where the teacher is because they choose to sit with children rather than in a power-position at the front.

This approach has a notable positive impact on classroom behaviour, relationships and overall implicit messaging about the purpose of the school and all those within it.

[1] Ofsted (2023) https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/21/107438 [2] https://www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/107438/keelham-primaryschool/absence-and-pupil-population [3] https://schools-financial-benchmarking.service.gov.uk/School?urn=107438#dashboard

j

i

Project Intentions The introduction of Keelham’s digital package is a government funded initiative exploring how technology supports resilience, sustainability, and effective education in a school.

The introduction of the digital infrastructure and digital classroom provision sits within this broader context.

However, in designing a strategic plan, and operationalising that through a wish list, Keelham school leadership made a deliberate decision to focus on the quality of provision for children, via their teachers.

For example, the headteacher invited all staff to surface their insights and ideas in relation to questions such as: What will benefit your children, your classroom, and make you more confident in what you provide in your classroom?

What would enable children to capture their understanding across the whole curriculum better?

Where can we increase classroom efficiency and therefore capacity for supporting learning?

How can we utilise all the spaces that we have around the school site - including corners and corridors, outdoors and indoors?

What opportunities are there to bring the curriculum to life more vividly?

On a very small school site with space just for a handful of parents, what should meaningful parental engagement look like?

What are the key features of great provision in our school for each year group and how can we build on that?

The Process Elementary Technology, a national supplier of technology into education, were chosen to support the project after a public tender exercise.

They worked Keelham Primary School through their technology roadmap; a formula they apply to projects to ensure best value.

Using

Planning Choosing

Buying

IMPACT

Planning Elementary Technology visited the school to undertake their Classroom Healthcheck® - a large and detailed data set to fully understand their status quo with technology; hardware, software and teacher and pupil experience.

They also worked to define where the school wanted to be with technology in 3-5 years.

Choosing Based on these findings, the headteacher, Business Manager and a classroom teacher visited the Elementary Technology Experience Centre for a hands-on workshop to scope out the options.

It was essential the views of all core stakeholders from the school were considered, as each have their own needs, challenges and priorities. 





By the end of the session, it was agreed which technology and which services would best enable success on their vision and objectives. The key was the school was able to make a fully informed choice with confidence, based on knowledge and experience.

The technology solutions addressed within this impact report include the following: SMART Board MX Series interactive displays SMART Notebook and Lumio software A shared iPad per two pupils, stored in charging trolleys Teacher laptops, in addition to static desktop PCs in each classroom Wireless classroom visualisers Voice reinforcement technology for teachers Interactive Tables for Early Years including EYFS curriculum mapped software These solutions are supported with a long term training, CPD and coaching plan, delivered by Elementary Technology.

The school has also implemented other technology to support school management and communications, their school hall, safeguarding and lockdowns, hybrid meetings and similar. These are not included in the report scope.

Buying The project was compliant as a result of a public tender exercise which had taken place.

While the transactions were being actioned, the initial phase of classroom technology installation, setup and testing was planned during half term ready for the teachers’ return. 





Using It was important all staff at Keelham Primary School had confidence and belief in the use of their new technology. This long term journey was planned in phases.

The initial phase took place on the Monday after half term during INSET. All staff were invited to the Elementary Technology Experience Centre nearby in Leeds for a full day, to undertake a hands-on onboarding and training workshop.

This was hosted by Christine Mayers, Head of Education & Training at Elementary Technology.

Through experience, Elementary Technology understood the value of recap and reinforcement, particularly when this takes place in the familiar environment of their classroom. 





Therefore Christine Mayers then undertook a full day of one-to-one coaching in the school, visiting each classroom for support, tips, advice and ideas in the moment.

This was consolidated by an hour session after school, discussing and understanding successes and challenges and agreeing next steps.

“A lot of the training has been in-class, during lessons, supporting teachers with ideas before the lesson and then supporting in the lesson itself.

It means that we focus exactly on what we need, what the children need, what they are working on, and all the little things that go into making that a success”

IMPACT - interim findings Methodology The data generation for this study took place April - July 2024, and included research interviews with the headteacher, school business manager, all 4 teachers and 2 governors.

Research observations were carried out in every classroom and involved 1:1 and small group conversations with children from Nursery through to Year 6.

In addition, teachers and the headteacher completed 45 ‘daily dip’ surveys capturing practice over time, and 73/116 children were surveyed (adult-led surveys for Nursery-KS1, and independently completed surveys for KS2 children).

Complementing this participant data, documentary data (e.g. School Development Plan, MIS reports, digital usage metrics and implementation plans), and 6 research interviews with Elementary Technology staff (project lead and training lead) were conducted.

Interim Findings There are limitations about the findings that can be extracted 3 months after the implementation of any new intervention and so this report focuses specifically on: (a) the comparison between pre-project intentions and early actions and perceptions (i.e. how do teachers and children’s early feedback compare with the school’s original intentions) (b) early indicators of likely sustainable impact (i.e. what small scale benefits are being seen which look likely to convert into larger benefits over time) (c) illustrations of impactful practice, and the extraction of key ingredients which have led to these individual examples.

The headteacher explains: “You want children going into the classroom with a smile on their face, excited about learning ... about what they’re going to be over the next couple of weeks, feeling able to showcase their individual talents - and being able to have the tools to be able to do that.

It’s about the fabric of the school, not just the curriculum offer”.

Some of this, as the school business manager highlighted, is about the efficient use of existing capacity and skillset...

The Business Manager comments: ““Digital tools should, over time, bring efficiencies for both teachers and children.

For teachers, this should mean that their capacity is freed up to work on what is most impactful for their role, which is providing targeted support for the children in their class”.

Some measurable impacts With efficiencies in mind, there have been some very quick improvements made, even within a 3 month timeframe.

Use of a new 75" SMART Board MX Series classroom display vs previous 70" SMART Board E70 equates to power saving 1,035kWh over the 5 year warranty of the technology.

A reduction of 4,140kWh across the school saving £1,159.20 SMART Board E70 70" uses 280Wh for 6 hours per day over 195 days x 5 years = 1,638kWh. Reported cost per kWh is £0.28 = £458.64 SMART Board MX 75" uses 103Wh for 6 hours per day over 195 days x 5 years = 603kWh . Reported cost per kWh of £0.28 = £174.87

Exchanging traditional paper worksheet based tasks (e.g. quizzes, matching, sorting, sequencing, classifying, annotating) to Lumio based interactive versions of the same task on individual iPads creates approximate print cost savings of £585 per classroom per year plus £75 on associated exercise books = £660 for a class of 30 pupils per year.

School reports 1 printed worksheet at 70% colour (avg £0.05pp) per child per lesson for 2 out of 4 lessons in a day (195 days per school year) = 390 printed pages = £19.50 per child, with the 390 worksheets stuck into an 80pp exercise book = 5 books, costing £0.50 per book = £2.50 per child. Calculations based on NoR of 117 of which 16 in EY with approx 50% reduction in paper-based activity = (101*£19.50 = £1,969.50 + £9.75*16 = £156 = total indicative saving of £2,125.50

Environmentally, this reduction in worksheets and exercise books equates to the saving of 730 trees over a pupil’s time at Keelham.

Printing 45,000 fewer sheets of paper per year saves £360 on paper annually Assuming 390 worksheets plus 390 exercise book pages that the worksheets are stuck to, for 117 children across 8 years of education at Keelham, based on 1 tree equating to 10,000 sheets of paper. Paper costs assume £0.008 per sheet (£20 for 5 x 500 sheets).

Power consumption of pupil devices is approximately neutral vs reduction in power consumption of printing. Reducing photocopying by 2 worksheets per day per child, equates to saving 20kWh of electricity per year. iPads used for 30 mins per pupil per day equates to power consumption of 21kWh The photocopier uses 0.8kWh whilst photocopying, at 30 pages per minute = 1,800 pages per hour. 1,800 sheets = 0.8kWh, and 45,630 pages = 25.294 kWh. An iPad uses 0.015kWh over 8 hrs (16 x 30min sessions) = 0.18kWh over 195 days x 117 pupils = 21.39kWh

Classroom capacity for learning through swapping of paper based worksheet tasks (taking roughly 25 minutes) to Lumio equivalents using individual iPads (taking roughly 10 minutes) creates approximately 3 ½ days of learning capacity per child per year, equating to about a month of additional learning time over a child’s primary education.

Teachers reported spending 15 minutes setting up computers prior to any lesson using them. Use of managed iPads means this need has been removed freeing up approximately 3 ½ days of time per teacher per year, as well as the consequent benefit of teachers being more likely to use the technology because the time burden has been removed. Additionally, reducing use of paper worksheets frees up 15 mins of printing and preparation time per teacher per day, equating to nearly 50hrs per year

TRUST CONFIDENCE RELIABILITY WORKLOAD CAPACITY

The introduction of reliable, new equipment was noted by staff as creating a notable workload reduction as a result of not having to report issues and then wait for them to be fixed - an approximated time saving of 2 school days of teacher capacity per school year.

Teachers reported a workload reduction where teaching assistants were able to use an iPad to deliver interventions (e.g. a White Rose maths presentation to a small group of 3 children), instead of the teacher having to edit a PowerPoint by deleting all the answers and printing a slide per page for them to annotate - with associated time savings of approximately 2 school days per year.

3 children per year group (year 1-6) with interventions 3 times per week, using 5 printed sheets per intervention = 270 pages x £0.08 per black and white sheet = £21.60. Staff time 15 minutes editing and printing/photocopying per intervention.

The shift from previous ways of working to Lumio based lesson inputs are generally reported as roughly time neutral, with time invested in learning new tools and features, balanced by time savings in the reusing of material and the efficiency of access and classroom intervention or marking. Teacher reported time saving ranged from 25-50% time savings in relation to preparation and lesson resourcing.

Visualisers in every classroom has resulted in headteacher monitoring observing a much higher volume of teacher modelling of practical tasks both written and physical. Teachers report a more efficient use of classroom time with misconceptions addressed through modelled worked examples on the visualiser, creating less duplication (i.e. the teacher repeating modelling several times for individual children seated around the classroom). Teachers reported being able to cover more content in a lesson as a result of this increased capacity and efficiency.

The importance of teacher wellbeing Being mindful at all times of teacher wellbeing and professional satisfaction is an essential role for school leaders. The introduction of technology at Keelham Primary School has had a measurable impact in these areas.

Through staff surveys in June and July 2024 (n=35), the following was identified

97%

54%

36%

of new digital practices

of activities were contributing

of activities were improving

increase level of professional

to a reduction in their

sense of wellbeing or lowering

satisfaction and enjoyment

workload

anxiety in relation to their role

91%

73%

91%

of activities increasing their

of activities increasing the

of activities contributing to

capacity to support children’s

quality of their professional

improving classroom culture

learning

knowledge

and relationships with children

These indicators are all known to contribute to improved staff retention [4].

[4] https://home.edurio.com/resources/insights/staff-retention-by-role

The pupils - the reason we’re all here...

As part of the research, we engaged with pupils directly on both a qualitative and quantitative basis. We also asked staff to make specific observations about the impact technology was having on pupils.

61% felt that digital tools enabled them to complete tasks more efficiently 26% did not feel that tool choice made a difference to them 12% felt that the digital versions took them longer Survey of pupils at Keelham Primary School (n=117)

When surveyed about their classroom digital experiences in June and July 2024 (n=45), teaching staff at Keelham perceived that...

94%

77%

78%

of activities were improving

of activities were creating a

of activities were creating

children’s motivation,

positive impact on classroom

higher levels of challenge in

concentration and

behaviour

the curriculum

85%

81%

85%

of activities resulted in greater

of activities resulted in higher

of activities resulted in greater

progress being made within

levels of attainment within

inclusion within classroom

lessons

that specific lesson or learning

practice

understanding of task content

objective

Additionally, 81% of activities encouraged higher quality oracy - further detail about these activities can be found later in this report.

56% of children (n=117) felt that the use of digital tools directly increased task specific motivation and made them want to try harder on that task.

“It makes learning less stressful which makes it less difficult to do stuff” “The technology makes me feel like I want to learn more” And to capture this into observed behaviour, the headteacher comments: “Children are now running to get into the classroom because it’s become more interactive - they can’t wait see what they are going to be learning about”.

Exploring the Detail There are a number of lines of inquiry that were probed during this short study, each of which are outlined below with early insights, 4 months after the introduction of the digital package.

Ambitions & Appropriateness In schools that introduce an ecosystem based around pupil devices, there are often concerns that using digital in school might reduce the quality of children’s written work or social skills.

There is however, an anomaly in framing conversations more widely around the use of digital in classrooms. Namely, that the introduction of digital, particularly 1:1, does not automatically dictate that children will be spending all of their time using the devices or working in isolation, any more than the presence of books, pencils or exercise books mean that children will spend all their time using those tools or working collaboratively.

The entire process is dependent upon leadership direction and the classroom teacher identifying what the children are going to be learning and how best to support that both in terms of lesson planning, and flexibility within the lesson itself.

During research interviews with colleagues conducted in April 2024, staff surfaced a healthy apprehension at the beginning of this project alongside their enthusiasm for introducing digital, reflecting a strategic and mindful approach to provision.

Thematic analysis surfaced a number of themes including: Appropriateness of digital tools to support Early Years children, where gross and fine motor skills, social and emotional development are seen as particularly important in terms of underpinning wider Early Learning Goals[5]. e.g.

“A lot of uses of technology in schools are just not appropriate for Early Years - often it’s text based stuff that our children won’t be able to access meaningfully, or even if there’s no text it’s often just so low in terms of expectations it’s not worth using” The appropriateness of digital tools in addressing the known gap between teacher capacity and the capacity required to meet children’s individual needs. e.g.

“At the moment, children are forced to be dependent on the teacher for feedback, or their next step, or a specific resource or intervention. When is it appropriate for technology to help them and when should it still be the teacher meeting that need?”

The mismatch between use of digital in children’s lives in and out of school. e.g.

“Children are just so frustrated when they see technology being used at home and in their wider lives, and then they come into school and it’s like a special treat to use it rather than a tool that’s just a part of their everyday classroom experience… The disconnect makes them wonder the purpose of school actually is” The role of digital tools in making better use of classroom time. e.g.

“Having digital tools in the classroom allows learners to make better use of their time. Why would you have 11 year olds cutting and sticking and taking 25 minutes to do a sorting task when they could do it digitally in 5 minutes - it’s not a good use of learning time is it?

That time could be spent on moving on to more challenging content, or an intervention if they have misunderstood something, or applying their new knowledge. Why would you deliberately waste children’s learning time?”

The relationship between technology and talking. e.g.

“We don’t want children just to be on the iPads and to stop talking to each other and only interact with the device. That’s really important. We want technology to make learning better than what we already do not worse, so it’s about working out what problems we can solve, and what opportunities there are that we can’t already do”.

[5] DfE (2023) Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Framework. London.

Teacher influences Wider research demonstrates the complex influences that affect teacher’s thinking about when to use digital or non digital tools, which stems partly from a tapestry of personal influences, and partly from their understanding about the context they are working in (Aubrey-Smith & Twining, 2024[6]).

It is important to note therefore that a wide range of influences directly affect variance in consequent practice - even when teachers are all working within the same school, and with access to consistent technology provision.

This can be seen through the ways that staff at Keelham spoke individually about their personal intentions for the use of digital, within the overarching direction that had been set collectively by the staff body.

Why do teachers use technology?

How does this vary?

Aspirations about solving problems and overcoming barriers e.g.

“I like problem solving, and there are all kinds of problems in learning that we can solve with the digital tools that are out there, like teachers not having enough time to help every child with their specific needs, or SEN children who find traditional activities a barrier, or anxious children being really self conscious in class and dread being asked a question”

Aspirations about opening up new possibilities e.g.

“I’m keen to make learning more exciting for the children in my class. It’s been really frustrating up to now because you can see all kinds of things that are possible - for example, in history or geography making podcasts or documentaries - things that encourage oracy within subjects. But if the technology is not there you are so limited in where you can actually take things”.

Aspirations about purpose and the role of school e.g.

“As the children are getting older they question why we are learning x and you need to be able to explain - showing a real purpose and a real endpoint. They see adults doing all of this digitally in the real world and wonder why they are not being taught that” “I want the technology to help teaching - our prep, planning that kind of thing easing our workload not adding to it. But I also want it to make a difference to children - make their learning feel more fun and interesting - them enjoying school is the ultimate goal”

Variance in both digital skills and teaching experience e.g.

“When I started teaching there was no technology. This is new to me. But I expect the children in my class to do things that are new to them every day. So why would I not expect the same of myself? I’ve got to learn new things too. But I think that’s a really good thing for the children to see - that I’m a learner too, and I don’t mind them knowing when I’m not sure what to do because they can see me work it out or

ask for help and then they know that everybody finds some things hard and that doesn’t mean we give up and don’t do it”

“SmartBoards came out before I was born, and so people expect me as a young teacher to know how to use all this technology. But it’s totally different from what I use at home so why would I know any more than older teachers? I’m learning the technology and teaching at the same time - it’s probably harder for me not easier”

“I’m not really a technology person. I know how to use an iPad at home but this is different. If our school wasn’t doing this project I would probably be shying away from using technology at all. Children have a lot of tech at home too - they do a lot of watching type stuff like YouTube, so it’s important to me to make sure that if they have access at school it’s purposeful - not just babysitting type stuff”

“I love technology and I used loads of it in my last school - I get really excited trying new things. But I want children to have balance. It’s not about using loads of technology all the time, it’s about developing a broad range of skills and then knowing what’s going to be most useful or helpful for that activity or task or learning”

As set out through the examples above, there is - as with most schools - variance of digital skills and teaching experiences, alongside a wide range of aspirations touching upon teaching and teacher tasks, learning and learner activities, the role of the school and the evolution of children’s knowledge.

Keelham’s choice to work with Elementary Technology - a technology supplier who both understood the unique school context, and could support the school meaningfully and sustainably, has been vital.

[6] Aubrey-Smith, F., & Twining, P., (2024) From EdTech to PedTech: Changing the way we think about digital technology. Routledge: London.

The Essential Role for Coaching and CPD Creating impact with technology, to a large extent, relies on the effective onboarding and ongoing coaching for users; be this from a colleague, a supplier or training provider, or one’s own research and development.

With this project, the provision of training is a core part of the role from Elementary Technology, planned and delivered by their Head of Education & Training.

The training plan has a range of delivery mechanisms: Initial Technology Onboarding A full day training workshop in the Elementary Technology Experience Centre One-to-one coaching during teaching time Group consolidation sessions - both live online and in person at the school ‘Train the Trainer’ sessions Ad hoc, remote support, notably on email and the telephone.

Additionally, SLT are kept appraised throughout - both in order to understand progress and ensure best use of time, and so they have insights into what this new technology is bringing to teachers, pupils and the school.

The role for coaching and CPD - comments from teachers “The atmosphere in the room was electric! The engagement from all staff was infectious because of the way that the tools and ideas were introduced. Staff were using the new technology and implementing training straight away, with ideas demonstrated by both the teachers and wider support team”

“A lot of the training has been in-class, during lessons, supporting teachers with ideas before the lesson and then supporting in the lesson itself. It means that we focus exactly on what we need, what the children need, what they are working on, and all the little things that go into making that a success”

“Training has been a steady drip feed. It’s not been about being bombarded with ideas, it’s just manageable small stages, so that we can really get to know how to do something in our classrooms and build confidence in that one thing before we move on.

It makes it exciting and maintains our excitement because we feel good so we want to know what else we can do and what else is possible”

“Our training has started from specific pedagogical priorities not an A-Z of what a tool does. That’s really important because then it’s relevant to what we are already trying to do so we can see how it helps us and helps our children”

“Elementary Technology have supported everyone - teachers and teaching assistants everyone has been part of this journey - which has made it all successful in the classroom because we’re all learning together and we can help and support and encourage and celebrate with each other. Everyone can have a go and everyone can ask questions or remind you if you forget something. Also, because we are all doing it together no-one gets left behind or no-one opts out of it - if we’re doing it as a school then we are all doing it right?”

“We always start with a conversation about what we’re already doing, what went well and what was a problem and then that’s where we start, so that we’re building on what’s actually happening in our classrooms. It takes the fear away. ”

Classroom Reality A number of mechanisms were used in order to explore classroom practice 2-3 months into the project. One of these mechanisms was the collation of 45 ‘daily dip’ online surveys from teachers and leaders which invited specific feedback about individual uses of the new digital package[7].

This data revealed that: 42% of digital practice related to teacher input at the beginning of a lesson (e.g. direct instruction, modelling, provision of stimulus) 30% of digital practice related to children’s tasks (e.g. digital artefact creation, digital inking/drawing/handwriting, digital matching or sorting tasks) 12% of digital practice related to supporting children’s learning through structured assessment or provision of intervention (e.g. digital quizzes, phonics programmes) 2% related to PPA tasks (e.g. lesson planning and resourcing) 14% of digital practice related to other kinds of activities As part of this study, research observations were carried out in every classroom. A number of examples are described below in order to illustrate the ways in which the provision of digital tools and careful teacher planning created a pedagogy-first approach to classroom practice.

The pedagogical implications are described within each example, such that it is possible to see where impact can start to be found.

[7] Conducted using Microsoft Forms to mirror the tools being learnt and used by Keelham staff

IMPACT Early Years Foundation Stage (Nursery & Reception) Children in Nursery and Reception were observed independently, confidently and fluidly using the PlayPanel[8] as part of their continuous provision.

The PlayPanel is a solution from Elementary Technology which includes a large software suite aligned to the Early Years curriculum. The technology has acted as a stimulus that encouraged both curiosity and social interactivity.

For example, nursery children chose apps which played songs whilst simultaneously showing pictures about those songs.

The children then sang along as a group, and pointed out parts of the song (e.g. characters) on the PlayPanel screen to each other.

Importantly, they were able to move around the child-height table and each touch the screen at the same time meaning they were each interacting with both sound and image simultaneously.

This is particularly important for children at this age, where it is vital that stimuli encourages purposeful social and emotional interactivity, particularly around speech and language development which has become a contemporary national issue.

Children in early years were also observed making use of an adjustable height interactive Smart whiteboard to carry out word and picture matching in pairs and small groups. Children swiped on-screen to match words with corresponding images, with instant reward when correct pairs were automatically moved into another area of the screen.

Critically, the same groups of children were repeating the same task multiple times, unconsciously benefiting from the principles of deliberate practice (Ericsson, 1993[9]).

The interactivity of the board was key to this - offering instant assessment and feedback, encouraging social interaction through democratised multi-person access, embedding accessibility (through sound, image and touch, as well as adjustable to

child-height), and providing adaptive stimulus (e.g. different word pairs for different stages of development).

This combination is very difficult (if possible at all) through traditional non-digital classroom activities.

A non-digital word-image matching task tends to be physical (thus encouraging isolated or parallel participation rather than social), and less motivating than a digital version (it is less common to see children repeat a laminated card sorting activity).

Importantly, from a pedagogical perspective, the non-digital equivalent of this simple task also tends to be less academically robust because of the way it tends to be deployed.

For example, non-digital versions (matching laminated cards) tend to depend on an adult or ‘answer sheet’ for children to know if they are correct, which presents two problems.

First, is that it requires the capacity of another person - usually an adult - for formative assessment. This limits the amount of assessment that realistically takes place in relation to the activity - in classrooms of 30 children and 1 or 2 adults, it is simply not logistically possible for a teacher to check the answers every time a child completes the activity.

The solution in most classrooms tends to be either self-checking (which is not always accurate), or peer-checking (which creates another dependency model).

Consequently, children’s work is vulnerable to either not being assessed, or being assessed incorrectly, increasing the risk of unacknowledged misconceptions not being addressed and then those being embedded in children’s mental models of learning.

Within early years, children use a structured ‘Plan Do Review’ cycle with a specific structure guiding children through choosing from a range of stimulus, learning how to use the relevant space or resource, and then how to evaluate their experience. Simple digital photography displayed on one of the classroom Smartboards has enabled children to talk fluidly about their activities and for the teacher to be able to prompt specific reflection and metacognitive skill development.

“I used to get a pile of things on my desk that children had done, as they felt that they had to produce something to show evidence that they had done something purposeful.

Now, we can just capture a photo of them in action and then they can use that to talk about it. Children are talking more precisely and more meaningfully, and they are using key vocabulary now because of that”.

[8] https://www.elementaryuk.com/what-we-do/interactive-tables-for-eyfs [9] Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) “The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance”. Psychology Review (100), pp.363–406.

IMPACT Key Stage 1 (Year 1 and Year 2) In a key stage one classroom observation children in year one and two were working on one of three activities relating to recall of The Brontes story - either a Lumio matching game on iPads (recalling characters and their attributes), a handwriting task on paper (recalling events based on a photograph), or a story writing task on the Fun Table (writing to match a picture).

The different learning behaviours exhibited by the different groups in the classroom were notable.

For example, children using the Lumio matching task were noticeably working at a faster pace than children carrying out non-digital tasks resulting in increased curriculum coverage and progression during the lesson.

The digital efficiencies also opened up capacity for oracy development at the point of learning.

For example, children carrying out the iPad / Lumio matching task were highly efficient in the mechanics of the task and so their talk was about the character descriptions (i.e. subject specific dialogue). Children were exchanging ideas and comparing opinions from which new forms of understanding emerged - key features of social constructivist views about learning.

Children carrying out the handwriting task were also talking to each other, but the talk nearly exclusively pivoted around spellings and grammar rather than extended vocabulary or creative ideas.

Children using the PlayPanel to pair-write also talked together, but their talk tended to be more about planning ideas for their recall story - with the tone pivoting around evaluating and choosing ideas.

It may be helpful to compare the different types of talk observed in this example to a model such as Bloom’s (1956[10]) taxonomy in order to surface implications on children’s cognitive development.

For example, non-digital tasks in this classroom were associated with knowledge and application level thinking and talk, with both digital tasks associated with higher order evaluation and analysis level thinking and talk.

In addition, the digital tasks offered children the opportunity to benefit from interventions that cognitive scientists argue as making a significant impact on learning.

For example, during the matching activity, children talked about doing the task multiple times so that they improved their score (i.e. benefitting from task design that utilised deliberate practice and retrieval practice)[11] .

The children using the PlayPanel to write spoke about how they chose or disregarded words from the auto-suggest (i.e. utilising their early metacognitive skills)[12].

Both of these initially focus on what Bloom refers to as Knowledge and Application layers, but quickly move into Evaluation and Synthesis of prior learning and new ideas (i.e. higher order thinking skills).

[10] Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Vol. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

[11] Education Endowment Foundation (2021) Cognitive Science Approaches in the Classroom: A review of the evidence. Birmingham.

[12] Education Endowment Foundation (2021) Metacognition and Self Regulation. London.

IMPACT Lower Key Stage 2 (Year 3 and Year 4) The use of simple iPad features in Year 3 and Year 4 was observed as being a catalyst for the reconceptualising the possibilities within learning experiences.

For example, in a science lesson learning about circuits and circuit symbols, children were able to use practical science equipment to explore, test and refine their thinking about effective circuits.

Children were encouraged to work on their physical circuits individually, but to talk to their peers whilst doing so, with a deliberate emphasis on children learning from and with each other.

As part of this classroom mindset, the children were then asked to draw their circuit using scientific symbols on the Freeform app[13] on their iPad. Children then volunteered their drawings to be cast to the whole-class digital board so that peers could see different examples of drawn circuits.

These learner drawings were used to stimulate discussion about different ways of representing ideas, as well as gently address misconceptions (e.g. two different ways of drawing a symbol and highlighting the correct one). The discussion about accurate representation then led to a discovery phase whereby a child cast their camera feed to the class digital board, and in doing so, was able to demonstrate - from their table - their circuit working via live video feed.

Consequently, children took photos of their circuits and inserted their photo into their Freeform drawing and adding text captions. They were then able to compare their annotated photo with their symbol based drawing, and through formative assessment, evaluate the accuracy of their initial work. In addition, having seen the live video-feed cast to the front-of-class digital board, another discussion surfaced whereby children videocaptured their working circuit - demonstrating evidence of their practical task success and inserted this into the Freeform page alongside the text-annotated circuit photo, and the hand drawn symbol circuit representation. 

By the end of the lesson children had consequently created different types of circuit (light bulb and buzzer; with and without a switch), drawn them using symbols, correctly annotated parts of the circuit with word labels, and captured video evidence demonstrating their individual skill in doing so. The teacher was able to access all of these from their own iPad with one at-a-glance clickable view on every child’s work.

One of the adults in the room highlighted that, “You can’t do that with an exercise book!” - the significance of which should not be understated.

First, these were very simple tools - an iPad with the Freeform app used to capture touchscreen finger based drawings, the inbuilt camera for still and video images, ‘Screen Mirroring’ for casting to the front-of-class board, and Apple Classroom for the teacher to access individual children’s work.

These were all simple and intuitive pieces of technology, but the ways in which they were being used significantly enhanced the classroom experience for both children and teacher.

The children were able to capture and represent their learning in three different ways which encouraged their metacognition as they analysed similarities and differences between the representations and used those insights to identify their own misconceptions or opportunities for stretching their knowledge further. The teacher benefitted through the whole class, real-time visibility on every child’s work at the point of learning, thus targeting their own intervention with precision to children with in-themoment misconceptions or opportunities for greater depth probing.

These interventions were not based on helicopter strategies or assumptions about children but instead were about live whole-class data visibility and real time insights in that lesson - something that is very difficult to achieve for all (rather than a bell curve majority) of children in a non-digital activity.

Furthermore, evidence of both process and outcome of the learning was captured for every child and available instantly to the teacher for the purposes of after-lesson planning, monitoring, assessment and reporting, and accountability.

Sometimes there are concerns about digital forms of learning making it difficult to provide evidence for monitoring and accountability purposes, but this example highlights how the digital version of an activity can provide additional insights (e.g. video demonstrations) without needing additional out-of-lesson teacher capacity.

There were some important ingredients that made this work.

First, familiarity with Freeform and casting without which the individual iPad use would have kept the children’s activities all isolated and working in parallel with each other.

It was the opportunity to cast and critically, to discuss, that extended children’s learning and corrected misconceptions.

Second, the classroom culture of experimenting, trying out ideas and discussing learning ‘in the moment’ rather than summatively, and that these learning behaviours were displayed and utilised by both teacher and children alike.

[13] https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/ipad/ipad9c59637d/ipados

IMPACT Upper Key Stage 2 (Year 5 and Year 6) Children in Year 5 and 6 children were observed developing their thinking and planning for writing based on the How to Train your Dragon book stimulus.

Following the teacher’s introduction and sharing of stimulus, children worked with talk partners to surface and explore ideas that they could incorporate into their own writing.

Following this, children each contributed to a whole-class shared collaborative board which allowed more confident children to capture a range of ideas (which the teacher then challenged them to extend and uplevel).

In parallel to this flurry of activity, reluctant writers were being able to observe initial peer contributions and utilise these to prompt and scaffold their own thinking. Ideas were paraphrased, used as launchpads, as well as contrasting or comparative ideas emerging from those initial contributions.

The output created by children was not just the duplication of ideas at different paces, but an organic collation of shared thinking across the diversity of the classroom - drawing upon what pedagogical beliefs about the pivotal role of socialised challenge being central to the development of understanding and learning.

As part of a retrieval practice strategy, the teacher provided a whole-class digitised recall quiz for children to complete simultaneously on their iPad, utilising Lumio.

Two parallel strands within this approach built upon children’s individual deliberate practice (explicit subject curriculum), alongside children’s sense of belonging to a learning community (hidden curriculum).

Lumio allows for a teacher to randomly assign children to teams of (e.g. groups of 5). The teacher then edited teams slightly to ensure an even spread of pupil characteristics (e.g.

GDS, SEND). The deliberate practice task was then gamified by means of teams aiming to be (a) quickest, and (b) have most correct answers.

Children did not move around the room to sit with their assigned teams, but completed their task in their previous seated positions, but did noticeably engage in eye contact and positive body language in acknowledgement of their teammates before they began the activity - thus building a sense of mutual accountability. All children notably focused intently on the task with a sense of ‘any team could win’ - as articulated by a number of children present.

At the end of the quiz, results were displayed on the Smartboard.

The teacher ensured a positive, purposeful learning experience because whilst team names were visible, children were anonymised - so the focus was on collective rather than individual when discussing correct answers and addressing any misconceptions - ensuring dignity was maintained throughout.

Second, that a deliberate focus was kept on the difference between the team who completed the quiz quickest (winners based on time), and the team who completed the quiz with the most correct answers (winners based on accuracy).

Discussion then explicitly identified the difference between the two approaches and that the accuracy result therefore won - keeping children’s focus on the content rather than the outcome.

Children were able to compare their own individual results with the whole class displayed results and were given the opportunity to discuss with their talk partner a self-prescribed development point - maintaining an emphasis that the benefit of the quiz was engaging, whole-class, active deliberate practice, rather than simply a game or competitive activity.

These illustrations provide examples of classroom practice approximately two months into the implementation process of a digital package of tools. As outlined above, each key stage utilised a package of tools in quite different ways - led by pedagogical approaches appropriate to the age and needs of children on those particular classrooms, and by the teacher’s own pedagogical beliefs about what effective support for learning looks like.

DIGITAL DECISIONS In each of the examples outlined above, teachers had made decisions about when to use digital tools, and when to use non-digital tools (e.g. talk, paper, books, physical resources).

In terms of understanding classroom perceptions about whether a learning task should be carried out digitally or non-digitally, it is important to consider the views of both teachers and learners.

Impactful uses are more likely where both share an understanding of why a particular approach is appropriate.

Children in key stage two at Keelham were asked about their preferences relating to written or digital ways of working and the view was insightful.

Surveying all key stage two children at Keelham (n=57) identified that 25% prefer to work entirely digitally 5% prefer to work entirely non-digitally 70% prefer a mix of both Survey of Key Stage 2 pupils at Keelham Primary School (n=57)

In early years and key stage one...

10% preferred working entirely digitally 20% preferred working entirely non-digitally 70% preferred a mix of both Survey of EYFS and Key Stage 1 pupils at Keelham Primary School

This is broadly consistent with other studies in terms of a majority preferring a mix.

For example, when the same question was asked of a multi-academy trust of schools (n=5,000), with 41% preferring to work entirely digitally, 5% preferred to work non-digitally, and 54% preferred a mix of both[14].

It is notable however, that when comparing this data across multiple schools or multiacademy trusts, the more that the digital provision is embedded in everyday practice, the lower the number of learners that prefer to work entirely non-digitally.

This may be a simple familiarity bias, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it is closely related to teacher confidence in allowing children autonomy within their learning, and children’s identities as incorporating digital practice in everyday practice.

It is important that this kind of data is probed further because within EdTech research more broadly, when asked about using digital, children and teachers typically use words such as: fun, engaging, exciting, quicker or more interactive which tends to result in a number of assumptions being made about classroom practice (i.e. that inversely, nondigital activities are boring, not engaging, slower and not interactive - which suggest quality of teaching and learning issues rather than digital/non-digital influence).

Therefore, during classroom observation at Keelham (June 2024), a range of children were asked to explain their thinking in order to probe further into their rationale.

[14] Aubrey-Smith, F., (2023) Changing Learning. Changing Lives: What happens when EdTech becomes PedTech? London.

Through thematic analysis, there were 4 distinct trends that emerged - each suggesting that children’s thinking stemmed around a particular pivot point:

1. The Dignity Pivot A majority of children - particularly in key stage two - spoke about how much they appreciated being able to take part in activities or access help without their peers knowing what they were getting right or wrong (e.g. whole class digital quiz tools with automated marking and feedback; anonymised collaboration boards).

This finding is consistent with other studies, and for children this sense of dignity is intrinsically tied to their sense of wellbeing - that the classroom is a safe, purposeful and supportive space - inclusive both academically, socially and emotionally.

Logistically, it can be very difficult for teachers to provide complete privacy and discretion for children within a classroom environment using traditional methods - particularly in a national landscape which encourages very public practical engagement (e.g. cold calling).

Wider studies of both children and adult behaviour (e.g. Hanish et al., 2016[15]) reflect that learners generally do not like answering formative or summative based assessment questions in front of a peer group unless they already have the reassurance of their response being socially acceptable to either their peers and/or the person asking the question (usually the teacher).

However, research in this space indicates that this is not about reluctance around the assessment or task itself, but a reflection that for most, speaking in front a peer group is not about the content, but about how that peer group responds (ranging from peer social acceptance or teacher praise, through to peer group derision or a public teacher reprimand). Hendrick et al., (2016)[16] found that the way in which teachers respond to a child’s answer directly impacts hierarchy within peer ecology (i.e. social dynamics).

Mitigations often put in place in classrooms (e.g. working walls, phone-a-friend tactics, think-pair-share) help to some extent, but appear to impact the content of the answers given (i.e. check the content is correct before saying it to the teacher) rather than reducing learner social anxiety (i.e. needing to verbalise something that may impact peer perception).

Notably, in this study at Keelham, 79% of key stage two children stated explicitly that the use of digital technology makes a specific difference to how they feel about coming to school.

79% of key stage two children stated explicitly that the use of digital technology makes a specific difference to how they feel about coming to school

KEY INSIGHT: Digital tools offer a combination of ingredients to support learning that are unlikely to be possible in non-digital formats.

Specifically, whole-class active participation in a task (which may be specifically targeted to evidence of individual prior attainment), and which provides real-time formative assessment data to teachers who are then empowered to adapt their teaching with targeted intervention.

It is strongly recommended that teachers consider which data (insights) they would like to know about individuals, groups or classes during lessons or activities, and which digital tools may be able to offer these insights.

[15] Hanish, L., Martin, C., Miller, C., Fabes, R., DeLay, D., Updegraff, K., (2016) Handbook of Social Influences in School Contexts: Social-Emotional, Motivation and Cognitive Outcomes. Routledge: London.

[16] Marloes M.H.G. Hendrickx, M.Tim Mainhard, Henrike J. Boor-Klip, Antonius H.M. Cillessen, Mieke Brekelmans, (2016) “Social dynamics in the classroom: Teacher support and conflict and the peer ecology”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, pp.30-40.

2. The Assessment Pivot A majority of the children who preferred handwritten work explained that they were aware that summative assessments are typically in written form and so the children themselves felt that writing based stamina was an important skill to develop.

There was a clear relationship between end of key stage national assessments being nondigital, and therefore other in-school assessments also being non-digital by means of practice. In other words, children believed that ‘test scores matter’ and therefore the process of how the test took place would impact the test score, and thus informed how children viewed the skills that they needed (e.g. handwriting stamina). This is consistent with other studies that explore children’s perceptions around summative assessment.

KEY INSIGHT: There is currently a significant body of work underway by exam bodies and those leading on national assessment strategies to consider the role of digital in future assessments.

The direction of travel is likely to offer some choice of digital or non-digital which will be important in order to reflect children’s needs and preferences. It is not as simple as children preferring to work either digitally or non-digitally.

It is strongly recommended that teachers explore the perceptions of children in their own classrooms beyond simple surface level questions about digital v non-digital experiences.

3. The Social Pivot Many children at Keelham spoke about social elements of their learning and the ways in which digital and non-digital vehicles for learning either encouraged or prevented that socialisation.

For example, children valued the opportunity to view ideas and work examples from peers - although notably, did not necessarily feel the need to know ‘who’ that work was from (i.e. there was rarely a preference between named and anonymised access).

Thematic analysis identified that children’s perceptions about the value of digital visibility was about benefiting from task or cultural reassurance (i.e. am I doing the right thing?), feeling part of a collective group (i.e. I’m not the only one doing this), sharing creative solutions or approaches (i.e. I can use other people’s suggestions to help me), and gathering ideas which stretched their own thinking (i.e. I can challenge myself by using that idea).

Similarly, children from Nursery through to Year 6 very much valued group or team activities (e.g. collaborative idea board creation, team quizzes, paired digital sorting/matching, group discussion about digital imagery etc). As one child beautifully summarised, “We get to connect with each other [meaningfully] and that makes us happier”.

This sense of happiness in the classroom is often overlooked or treated simplistically by technology-centric impact research studies. However, the presence of peer oriented social interaction for Gen Alpha (i.e. children born after 2010) is particularly important within education for a generation whose formative years were shaped by Covid restrictions (Fidan, 2022[17]).

Furthermore, wider research argues the case the importance of social connection and cohesion from both a pedagogical and wellbeing perspective, with known consequences on learning outcomes and wider lifelong trajectories (e.g. Lave & Wenger, 1991; Filby, 2023).

KEY INSIGHT: The current generation of school aged children (Gen Alpha) place significant importance on social interaction and social relationships with their peer group and this has a direct impact on their learning processes and outcomes. It is strongly recommended that teachers utilise this insight when planning classroom activities and when providing different forms of interactivity or feedback.

[17] Fidan, A. (2022), "The Effect of Attitudes by Generations X, Y, Z, Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta on Children", Yerdelen, B.K., Elbeyoğlu, K., Sirkeci, O., Işıkçı, Y.M., Grima, S. and Dalli Gonzi, R.E. (Ed.) Being a Child in a Global World, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 17-33.

INSIGHT: Considering writing v typing Digital activities require a range of different digital skills - swiping, pressing buttons, scrolling, click-hold, and so forth. However, many require typing and so this aspect was considered further.

Crucial to understanding the impact of typed versus handwritten word based work is the speed at which a child records their ideas (i.e. produces the written work / digital document).

The average typing speed of a child aged between 7-11 years old ranges from 20-30 words per minute, with 80-90% accuracy when doing so (Honaker[18]). For the same age group, this compares to a handwriting speed of approximately 8-16 words per minute for writing composition (Amundson, 1995[19]), 17-24 for on timed copywriting (Graham et al., 1998[20]), and 7-10 words per minute for presentation handwriting (Findenque et al., 1986[21]). As Pisha (1993[22]), highlights however, there is a ceiling on handwriting speed because as speed increase, legibility decreases.

At first glance, there appears to be a small benefit to typing (20-30 wpm) compared to handwriting (8-16 wpm) when comparing similar tasks (QIAT, 2023[23]). However, it is important to consider how this changes for children over time, underpinned by effective digital skill development.

Other similar studies[24] have found that children in Year 1 have a mean handwriting speed of 15 words per minute compared to a mean typing speed of 6 words per minute.

However, by Year 6, children have a mean handwriting speed of 21 words per minute compared to a mean typing speed of 33 words per minute.

In other words, the relationship between handwriting and typing speeds is reversed. It may be therefore, that as children’s digital skills increase (i.e. as they learn to type quicker), the time spent recording their work (i.e. handwriting or typing), should evolve.

However, to compare like-for-like speeds only addresses pace of production, and does not take into account the process of producing a piece of work (e.g. the planning that children do - responding to stimulus, idea creation, vocabulary development - and the editing and publishing of work). This is where examining the learning over time is important. Similarly, the pace element is also only one part of a wider landscape about what children perceive the purpose of a written outcome to be.

For example, one child at Keelham explained that:

“On paper you can make your handwriting neat, but on technology you can learn a lot of stuff about what you are writing as you write it”

This highlights the interactive nature of typing (e.g. real-time spelling feedback, opportunity to edit without reducing the presentation of the final product).

[18] Honaker, DeLana. (1999) Handwriting and Keyboarding Legibility/Speed of 5th-8th grade students, a pilot study. Unpublished manuscript.

[19] Amundson, S. J. (1995) Evaluation tool of children’s handwriting. O.T. Kids: Alaska.

[20] Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998) “Development of handwriting speed and legibility in grades 1-9”. Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 42-52.

[21] Findenque, A., Smith, M. & Sullivan, G. (1986) Keyboarding: The issues today. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Extending the Human Mind Conference. University of Oregon.

[22] Pisha, B. (1993) Rates of development of keyboarding skills in elementary aged children with and without learning disabilities. www.cast.org [23] QIAT (2023) Handwriting and Keyboarding rates.

[24] Aubrey-Smith, F., (2023) Changing Learning. Changing Lives: What happens when EdTech becomes PedTech? An independent review of LEO Academy Trust.

INSIGHT: Children’s Perspectives During both observations and surveys, children at Keelham were asked about the digital tools that they had begun to use (April - July 2024). Children from Nursery through to Year 6 talked nearly unanimously about their excitement about the new digital technology that had been introduced to their classroom and their initial feelings about it being ‘fun’.

Importantly, as a result of the whole-school focus and the expectation of using the digital technology through a pedagogy-first approach, children were also able to begin to articulate aspects which they already considered as helping support their learning, just two months into the project.

There were a number of trends seen, including children’s preference for different tools. Some examples: Tools which provide real-time individualised feedback

e.g. Blooket quizzes on individual iPads, individual Lumio activities on iPads “It makes me competitive with myself. I did the quiz and got 11 [out of 20] and I wanted to do it again so that I got a higher score. I wouldn’t have bothered doing that if it was on a worksheet because it feels like a lot of effort. So it makes me smarter because it makes me want to do it again but better.”

Tools which provide increased access to information or detail e.g. teacher use of the visualiser, live-casting of children’s Freeform diagrams The child’s perspective: “We used the visualiser to look really closely at the caterpillars. We could really see them up close through the visualiser on the screen and it helps me to see things that I couldn’t see before. We can see it together and talk about it together” The teacher’s perspective: ”The visualiser was used to show the class caterpillars and this reinforced key vocabulary from the past few weeks. We saw the caterpillars wriggling around, the food that had been eaten and the shedding of the caterpillars skin as they got bigger. This allowed the children to develop their understanding of key concepts through first hand experiences and allowed all the children to view the caterpillars and engage with discussion… As the caterpillars are not to be moved and touched by the children it allowed the children to see them up close and created an exciting and memorable moment for learning. We will continue viewing the caterpillars each week and have been discussing changes that we have observed, reinforcing learning and embedding key concepts and vocabulary..”

Tools which provided multi sensory or multi media stimulus e.g. Lumio on the Smartboard, or use of the Fun Table “I like that there are pictures, and sounds that go with the pictures, so it feels like it’s a real thing and it makes me want to know more about it.”

Tools which produced artefacts with a lifespan beyond the lesson e.g. Keynote, Video “In RE, we used Keynote on the iPads instead of worksheets - it was so much fun because it wasn’t just going to get stuck in a book or a folder after and ignored. It made it feel like it was worth doing” It is relatively early in the implementation journey to surface deeper insights into children’s perceptions as their experiences are still subject to perceptions around novelty and exploration which often tend to forefront enjoyment, engagement and motivation.

These are critically important in terms of children’s learning, but should be foundational features in any classroom with or without digital. Therefore, to surface more meaningful insights requires a period of familiarity to take place, such that both children and adults cease to see the digital tools as ‘different’, and for new normalised ways of working to become embedded.

At that stage, it is easier to surface metacognitive insights; reflecting sustainable changes to the processes of learning, learner identities, classroom cultures and so forth.

With these kinds of insights it is possible to then make comparison between the school’s overarching vision and the extent to which digital is sustainably impacting everyday normal school practice for every child and adult.

CONCLUSION The technologies being used at Keelham Primary School will be familiar to most schools.

Yet the impact seen at Keelham after just 3 months is arguably more than many schools see after 3 years.

So what are the key ingredients and what can others learn from this?

1) Keelham’s digital journey is rooted firmly in a vision about making learning, teaching, leadership, administration and community engagement more effective.

This creates a very clear and tangible set of goals.

2) The school vision drives clear school development priorities, with the whole school team actively contributing to discussion and planning at every stage.

This ensures whole-staff engagement, and encourages peer-to-peer support throughout planning, training, and evaluation.

3) School leaders chose to work with a supplier - Elementary Technology - who invested time and energy in meaningfully understanding the current and future priorities of the school, and the unique characteristics of the community.

As a result, the planning, choosing and investing in technology pivoted around Keelham’s specific needs and aspirations and set the scene for a rapid impact trajectory.

4) The adoption of digital tools has been structured around specific learning and teaching strategies, with bespoke training - led by an outstanding educator from Elementary Technology - focused on classroom reality.

Training has been ‘little and often’, regularly classroom based (e.g. team teaching in lessons), and always starting with the teacher and school priorities.

5) At every stage, the Keelham Primary School staff and children reflect on what went well and why, what opportunities for improvement are and how those could be addressed.

The embedding of metacognition across both children and adults permeates classroom practice as well as professional learning and decision making. This ensures forwardfacing, ever-improving positive impact on the whole school community.