Buckingham (2007) describes the BETT fair as an “educational-technological complex” and as an “alliance between public and private interests” taking a largely critical view of the technology contained within. Written of the 2006 fair, he questions how “genuinely innovative” a lot of the products at the fair are, calling some of them “only superficially different to their non-technological counterparts”. Furthermore, Buckingham muses that much of the educational content contained within these products is merely a repackaging of the curriculum.

From my perspective, it seems as though a lot of this is still true. I visited BETT in January 2017, seen here transforming education:

and here in glorious high definition, some very interesting products on show:

The fair itself sounds similar in set up to 2006: a huge, sprawling education technology extravaganza full of marketing opportunities and free pens. It was a lot to take in at first and navigating the crowd is slow going. Choosing which products to pay interest to was difficult even as a student teacher. Luckily, most booths pay little attention to you once they find this out, making it easier to move freely! To visit while representing a school, more importantly a school’s ICT budget, would be a lot more exhausting, I fear, but as someone carrying the intention to bare this responsibility in the future, I walked sceptically but with a keen interest in the potential technological experiences available.

A big however, however, Buckingham’s experiences are from over 10 years ago. The technology available has changed dramatically since then. The booths present in 2017 touted alternate / virtual realities, faster, more accurate touchscreens, panoramic interactive whiteboards, 3D projection, child-friendly programming software and robotics, with many championing years of educational research as evidence of their products worth. Buckingham argued that the technology he witnessed, in and of itself, may not be enough of a motivator with limited actual learning taking place but I would oppose this by saying that some of the hardware on offer here was very impressive and any children present seemed to be having quite positive experiences to say the least. For example, Lego Education’s behemoth of a booth showcased their latest products that realise an effective combination of simple programming, robotics and Lego that children can engage and have fun with while learning basic computing skills.

It should be said that technological advances do not necessarily equate to better learning, certainly several of the observable virtual reality worlds created were merely what one might call “interactive worksheets”. Via headsets such as Samsung Gear VR (which uses your smartphone as a screen), the Oculus Rift and others, you simply move a cursor, looking at a particular area of your surroundings to select the correct answer of a multiple choice question. It is a 3D environment restricted by a 2D plane. I cannot help but think that this software is capable of dreaming a little bigger. Imagine a program that allowed pupils to really experience historical events, the extinction of the dinosaurs, the eruption of Mt Vesuvius, the Battle of Hastings, geographical marvels, mathematical discoveries or distant planets. Maybe we are some years off a fully interactive virtual environment, malleable to our every educational whim but it is exciting to hope that this may be available in mainstream schools in the future and it certainly appears as if that is where we are heading.

Hey wait! Here is a great article on the benefits and barriers facing VR in schools from this year (click the pic):

It features pretty comprehensive information and advice on a variety of different VR technologies from Sevenoaks School in England. The most interesting section to me was actually incorporating it into lessons, the writer highlights that we are “moving away from simply ‘learning’ a subject or topic to ‘feeling’ the content.” I think this is a very important point. Traditionally, in order to achieve this level of immersion in educational content you might have to go on school trips or settle for props / objects brought into school. Like no other time in education, practitioners have the ability to “allow a student to explore, to experience or to be involved in something, as if they are actually present in that environment or place.”

Aaaaaand here’s a possibility you could explore, depending on your budget:

Filled with custom curriculum content (over 500 resources it says) from natural disasters to historical events to….hold up, it’s almost as if they just read my last paragraph and created this thing exactly….weird. It’s certainly not cheap (£2000 for 8 headsets and the content is subscription!) but comes with full training, free demos and lesson plans. Expect more companies like this to pop up over the next few years. Further excitement.

Another important note is that, since Buckingham went, the National Curriculum has been updated significantly in ICT, embracing computing in a huge way. The products available to encourage and develop children in this area are plentiful. A brief account of last year’s BETT by Tim Head (here) describes the positive direction we are going in as practitioners of ICT education. Products such as the microbit, Raspberry Pi and various Bluetooth controlled bots (check this video out, further excitement!)

are becoming more innovative, cheaper, more beneficial to pupils with each passing year. I agree with Tim that it is a very exciting time for computing and education.

Stepping back and looking at BETT critically, it is hard to argue with: “The line that separates benevolent, authentic concern for student learning enrichment from self-interested entrepreneurship is difficult to ascertain (Daniel Menchik, 2004 in Buckingham, 2007). The market here is obviously very lucrative, questionable educational benefits blot the landscape and I imagine a cautious primary teacher would have their work cut out to find a convincingly effective educational needle in the BETT haystack. However, my experience was mostly positive and one I hope to repeat in a more professional capacity in the future simply because the technology is so exciting.

I feel that BETT 2017 may well have attempted, with some success, to alleviate some of Buckingham’s earlier concerns and moved “discussion forwards beyond superficial fascination with technology for its own sake and towards a more critical engagement with questions of learning, communication and culture.” For all the brash marketing and overwhelming hanger environment, the innovation, imagination and sheer fun of it all is undeniable. I greatly anticipate my future as an ICT teacher!