Publications

What this page holds

This is a short list, and it is short on purpose. It holds the publications from the No One Left Behind project that we have read in full and can point you at directly: one peer-reviewed evaluation and the European Commission's own record of the project. It is not a bibliography of everything the project produced between 2015 and 2017, and it does not try to be one. Deliverables, conference contributions and dissemination material from that period may well be findable elsewhere. They are not here because we have not opened them ourselves, and a reference list assembled from search results is worth very little.

We do not host copies of anything. Each entry links to the publisher and, where the licence allows it, to an open mirror as well. A file parked on this domain would drift out of date and gain you nothing: both items below are already free to read.

The Create@School evaluation

What it covers: how teachers and pupils in the Spanish pilot took to Pocket Code, Create@School and the teachers' Project Management Dashboard, measured with the Hassenzahl model and AttrakDiff surveys. What it does not cover, which is the part most often lost when the paper is cited at second hand: the two other pilot sites, and learning outcomes. It asks whether people found the tools practical, stimulating and attractive. It does not show that anyone learned more mathematics.

The pilot in question ran in two schools in the Andalusian cities of Úbeda and Puerto de Santa María. 308 pupils aged 8 to 17 worked with the tools across both cycles, 115 of them rated the experience, and 16 educators took part.

Ten authors, from Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, TU Graz and Nottingham Trent University. The remaining consortium members did not write it. That matters for attribution: this is a paper by three of the project's academic partners, not a statement issued by the project as a whole. It appeared on 24 July 2019, two years after the funded period ended.

Two links are given above because the version at the publisher is often unreachable. MDPI blocks a good deal of automated traffic and catches some institutional traffic with it, so a DOI that resolves for one reader returns nothing for the next. Europe PMC carries the same full text, and legitimately so, because the paper is CC BY 4.0. Cite the DOI, read at whichever of the two opens for you.

Our own coverage of this paper sits on two pages:the Spanish pilot schools, for what the trial was set up to do, and how it was rated, for what it reports and where it stops.

The project record

CORDIS is not a publication in the ordinary sense, but for anyone citing the funding rather than the findings it is the primary document, and it is where the project's own administrative record lives.

• Project No One Left Behind, CORDIS 645215
• Programme H2020-ICT-2014, topic ICT-21-2014
• Duration 1 January 2015 – 30 June 2017
• Total cost €3,082,741.25
• EU contribution €2,687,925.00
• Coordinator Grupo Empresarial INMARK (ES)

The six other consortium members were Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES), Technische Universität Graz (AT), Nottingham Trent University (UK), Hochschule der Medien (DE), GameCity (UK) and ZED Worldwide (ES). The record itself is atcordis.europa.eu/project/id/645215, and our summary of it is on the project page.

One caution if you are quoting the scale of the trials. CORDIS puts the planned scale at some 600 children across five schools; the published evaluation describes a two-cycle experiment reaching over 600 students from eight different schools. Both are project-level statements about the same project. We have no basis for choosing between them, so attribute whichever figure you use.

What is missing, and why

The evaluation states that three separate evaluation studies were planned, one per pilot site, because the three sites worked in different contexts. We have located one of them, the Spanish study listed above. The United Kingdom and Austrian studies are absent from this page because we have not found them, not because they do not exist. On a page like this that distinction is the whole point: a gap in our list is not evidence of a gap in the literature.

If you know where either was published, we would like to add it. There is no contact address on this site yet, so we cannot honestly ask you to write to one. A route to the editors will be published when there is a monitored one, and this page will change as soon as we have something verified to put on it.

The same rule applies to the paper's own reference list, which points to further work on the tools. We have not read those items and cannot vouch for what they contain, so they are not listed here. Adding a reference we have never opened would defeat the purpose of keeping this list.