Month: July 2022

ETL533 2.1: Literature in the classroom

Leave a comment

Think about your own journey as an educator – what has changed in your teaching practice over the course of your career with regards to technology use and literature? Is that change embedded at a core level, or is it a matter of changing tools?

As I completed the readings for this topic, I was struck by how many of the websites, tools or apps discussed by the authors are now superseded or simply unavailable. Adobe Flash, for instance, was an interesting tool with potential that is no longer supported, causing many of my early teaching resources to be redundant. 

We’ve also moved from the 1:1 device arrangement made possible by the Digital Education Revolution funding to banks of devices which consist of outdated and slow technology to be shared among classes. At the start of my career in 2011 we were excited by the possibility of these 1:1 devices which, although not without their own challenges (such as student distraction and technical difficulties), allowed teachers to broaden their lessons beyond the traditional written page. We spent a lot of time reconfiguring our teaching and learning programs, only for the device roll-out to be discontinued. Due to the simultaneous release of the new Australian Curriculum (and several successive new syllabi) we never had the time to revisit our programs in the depth required to do these new circumstances and changing technological landscape justice. 

While we are constantly encouraged to utilise technology to engage our students, in my experience there is still little training, time, and support for staff to do so. I feel like we’re constantly playing catch-up, and as a result I feel that we often neglect fundamental aspects of digital literacy. One of our Deputies recently purchased two class sets of iPads that can be booked via the library and shared amongst students. He has also organised for one of our Year 7 classes to be a ‘Tech Elect’ class which focuses on the use of technology (especially student-owned 1:1 iPads) as a tool for learning across all subjects. This is definitely an exciting development which has the potential to be beneficial for our students and teaching staff. However, the incorporation of these devices has not been without significant logistical and pedagogical challenges, and excludes students without the financial ability and technological understanding required to participate. Our students often lack the fundamentals of traditional literacy needed as a foundation for exploring digital texts (Leu et. al., 2011; Combes, 2016), and despite their status as ‘digital natives’ often don’t have the ability or knowledge to navigate these rapidly evolving digital spaces effectively; sadly, as teachers, we often lack these skills too.

 

Combes, B. (2016). Digital literacy: A new flavour of literacy or something different?Synergy, 14(1). Retrieved from https://www.slav.vic.edu.au/index.php/Synergy/article/view/v14120163

Leu, D. J. et al (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5-14. Doi: 10.1598/JAAL.55.1.1

ETL533 Assessment 1: Online Reflective Journal Blog Task

1 Comment

Using your readings and interaction with the subject to date, develop a statement about your current knowledge and understanding of concepts and practices in digital literature environments, tools and uses, within the context of your work or professional circumstances.

As I start ETL533, I’m already struck by its relevance to my experiences as a secondary English teacher. Digital literature is exciting and full of potential, but also fraught with uncertainty due to its complexity and relative obscurity when contrasted with the traditional literary forms familiar to classroom teachers. 

Even understanding the definition of digital literature is more complex than it first appears. Rowland (2021, para.2) notes that digital literature is difficult to determine, while Heckman and O’Sullivan state that it is “ambiguous because it is amorphous” (2018, para.1), evolving as new technologies, forms, and uses emerge. Hayles defines electronic literature as “digital born” (2007, para.10), while the Electronic Literature Organization states it combines literary elements alongside computer technology (Rowland, 2021, para.2) – though this seems outdated, since computers aren’t the only (or even the most popular) tool used to create and access digital resources. I personally like Groth’s focus on digital literature showcasing innovation and creativity via technology (Groth, via Rowland, 2021, para.3). However, users should be aware of the distinction between “the digitised and digital literature” (Heckman & O’Sullivan, 2018, para.4), with traditional printed texts which have been digitised (e.g. eBooks) often not making the cut as digital literature (Wright, 2019, para.2).

Part of the difficulty in defining digital literature is that understandings of traditional literature are also hotly debated (Krystal, 2014, para.1). When exploring this concept with my English Extension students, I often show them a variety of different definitions:

Screenshot from my introductory “Texts, Culture and Values” PowerPoint

We have great fun discussing what counts as “lasting artistic merit” and whose values are evident in the judgment of texts as “beautiful” or “excellent”. I imagine many traditional defenders of the Western Literary Canon would find it difficult to accept that digital literature meets these criteria, despite their potential as tools to engage and extend students in our classrooms (Wall, 2016, p.35). Yet these preconceived notions of what constitutes ‘literature’ also extend to our students. Hayles argues that readers approach texts with expectations formed by their knowledge of print works, and “electronic literature tests the boundaries of the literary and challenges us to re-think our assumptions of what literature can do and be” (2007, para.11). Clearly, the emergence of digital literature requires a paradigm shift as we expand our understanding of literature to include new forms reliant on new technologies and literacies. 

Yet where do we draw the line? If wordless picture books can count as literature, then why not immersive games with textual elements, such as The Witcher 3 or Horizon: Zero Dawn? Hayles notes that the line is far from clear, but perhaps depends on the ways users configure or interpret texts: “with games the user interprets in order to configure, whereas in works whose primary interest is narrative, the user configures in order to interpret” (2007, para.16).

The Witcher 3 allows players to explore and read in-game books – often with cheeky intertextual nods to pop culture. But is it digital literature?

Another challenge in pinning down digital literature emerges from the plethora of potential forms such storytelling can take. In addition to those listed previously (Lysaught, 2022, para.2-5), Rowland (2021) discusses four types of digital literature:

  1. Twitterature
  2. Hypertext
  3. Generators
  4. Video poetry

Several of my Year 10 students have recently raved about Markiplier, who uses YouTube to create exciting, interactive choose-your-own-adventure style narratives. 

As my students’ obsession reveals, digital storytelling can be a powerful way of engaging today’s students.

 

Words: 550

 

Reference list:

Hayles, K. (2007). Electronic literature: What is it? https://www.eliterature.org/pad/elp.html

Heckman, D., O’Sullivan, J. (2018). Electronic literature: Contexts and poetics. Literary Studies in the Digital Age: An Evolving Anthology. https://dlsanthology.mla.hcommons.org/electronic-literature-contexts-and-poetics/

Krystal, A. (2014, March). What is literature? In defense of the canon. Harper’s Magazine. https://harpers.org/archive/2014/03/what-is-literature/1/

Rowland, R. (2021, July 8). What is digital literature? Understanding the genre. Book Riot. https://bookriot.com/digital-literature/

Wall, J. (2016). Children’s literature in the digital world: How does multimodality support affective, aesthetic and critical response to narrative? by Alyson Simpson and Maureen Walsh. An extended abstract by June Wall. Scan 35(3), 34-36.

Wright, D. T. H. (2019, July 10). From Twitterbots to VR: 10 of the best examples of digital literature. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/from-twitterbots-to-vr-10-of-the-best-examples-of-digital-literature-110099

ETL533 1.2: Evaluating Digitally Reproduced Stories

Leave a comment

After completing the readings from Module 1.2, consider your understanding of ways of evaluating digital narratives in this forum. What are some similarities and differences you identify in the readings? What are the key elements involved in evaluating digital narratives? 

Digital narratives are, simply put, narratives that are told and/or originate in digital forms. Lamb (2011) identified 5 different types of electronic reading environments:

  • ebooks,
  • interactive storybooks,
  • reference databases,
  • hypertext and interactive fiction, and
  • transmedia storytelling.

This contrasts with Unsworth’s three main categories of electronic literature (cited in Walsh, 2013):

  • electronically augmented texts,
  • recontextualised literary texts, and
  • digitally originated texts (including eStories for early readers, linear enarratives, enarratives and interactive story contexts, hyptertext narratives, hypermedia narratives and electronic game narratives).

Clearly, the landscape for digital storytelling is quite complex!

However, Jabr (2013) identified several issues around the different ways we process and remember information on the screen versus on a page, noting that screens drain more of our mental resources and can be more difficult to navigate. Leu et. al. (2015) likewise noted that students’ online reading skills are often limited. McGeehan et. al. (2018) noted that despite the availability of varied, innovative digital features, many publishers fail to use them effectively or use them in ways which deepen conceptual knowledge. I would argue that effective incorporation of digital narratives therefore needs a two-pronged approach, relying on the production of quality, effective digital narratives (an aspect that is often in the hands of publishers) alongside the best-practice utilisation of these resources by teachers. As such, this could be a key area where qualified teacher-librarians could step in to serve their school community by aligning new pedagogies with innovative digital narratives to serve the needs of their students and staff.

When it comes to evaluating what counts as a quality digital narrative, I would argue that many of the criteria for selecting print resources still apply to digital texts: does this resource serve the learning and leisure needs and interests of our school community? However, there are added layers of logistical complexity when considering the incorporation of digital narratives into our school library collections, and teacher-librarians should also consider how they can store, access, and utilise these resources alongside budgetary concerns.

ETL505 Assessment 3 Part C: Genrefication Essay

Leave a comment

The literature provides good arguments for arranging primary school library collections by genres. Is this also the case for high school library collections? Choose two of the advantages and disadvantages mentioned in the literature and critically discuss these in relation to arranging a high school library collection by genres.

When deciding to genrefy a high-school library’s collection, teacher-librarians should consider the multiple roles a library performs within a school community, the specific needs of their adolescent users, and which aspects of genrefication (if any) best suit these purposes and user needs. While genrefication has gained popularity amongst practitioners for its ability to increase circulation and promote lifelong reading habits, issues around logistics and lack of standardised organisation remain.

Genrefication is a relatively new topic in information sciences (Outhouse, 2017, p.43). Broadly speaking, genrefication constitutes organising resources by a system other than the traditional Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) (Outhouse, 2017, p.44). Organisation can be based on resources’ formats, literacy levels, subject headings (such as those assigned by SCIS), or literary genres (Wall, 2019, p.11). Genrefication exists on a spectrum, from labelling books in their original DDC location, to separating ‘mini-collections’ in distinct displays, to completely reorganising the layout and position of resources (National Library of New Zealand, n.d., para.33-36; Gray, 2019, p.25; Wall, 2019, p.11). There is also an imbalance in the treatment of fiction and non-fiction collections in genrefication discussions, with greater emphasis on its benefits to fiction collections (Wall, 2019, p.11).

School librarians espouse numerous benefits to genrefying their collections. Increased circulation statistics are cited as one crucial benefit (Gray, 2019, p.18-22). Many practitioners claim that genrefication has made their collections more accessible and more appealing (Davenport, 2017, p.7; Dawson, 2019, p.23; Mathur, 2019, p.6; Wall, 2019, p.14; Davenport, 2021, p.12). Hider (2018, p.24) argues that effective information resource description should help users obtain information, and librarians should therefore understand their users’ specific needs. In high-schools, when student pleasure-reading declines (Dickenson, 2014, p.10), genrefying fiction can be a game-changer. Many teenagers prefer to browse to find interesting and relevant resources (Bessman Taylor et. al., 2019, p.862); therefore, organising fiction according to similar subjects or themes is a useful way to promote positive reading habits in adolescents. Pleasure-reading has numerous academic and social benefits which overcome socio-economic disadvantage (Krashen, 2011, p.1-9), and research shows that access to reading materials increases adolescents’ reading motivation (Manuel and Carter, 2015, p.126). Therefore, genrefication supports adolescent information behaviours, encouraging browsing and selection of resources relevant to their needs, interests, and abilities.

While reading promotion is one aspect of high-school librarianship, promoting information literacy is also crucial. Forsaking standardised methods of organisation like the DDC is a frequent objection to genrefication (Gray, 2019, p.23; Wall, 2019, p.13) since students require the skills to navigate standardised systems utilised by most libraries worldwide. Greater emphasis is placed on genrefication’s benefits to fiction than on non-fiction collections, possibly because the DDC already groups similar resources by discipline to facilitate browsing (Hider, 2017, p.193). However, Outhouse (2017, p.36) argues the DDC is not a browsable system for today’s students due to its technical nature. The DDC has been described as a ‘secret code’ that students today do not understand (LaGarde, 2018, para.10). Outhouse (2017, p.41-42) argues that one of the DDC’s faults is that it is difficult for young children to search effectively due to its reliance on mathematical knowledge and seemingly unrelated subject order; high-school students with poor numeracy or pre-existing negative perceptions about the library would likewise be frustrated by its complicated numerical classification system. Some high-school teacher-librarians have therefore partially genrefied their non-fiction resources to support specific subject areas such as English, or to support specific groups of students, such as senior students (Dawson, 2019, p.23).

One frequently cited disadvantage of genrefication relates to the logistics of such reorganisation. Rearranging sections of a collection, let alone the entire library, takes time, effort, money, and training to ensure effective organisation and cataloguing of the changes (Gray, 2019, p.24; Mathur, 2019, p.6; Wall, 2019, p.14). However, LaGarde argues that if we value improving our users’ reading experiences and volume, then genrefication is worth prioritising (2018, para.26). Yet it must be stated that by replacing the ‘secret code’ of the DDC with genre classifications such as those assigned by SCIS, teacher-librarians might just be replacing one code with another, and replacing the standardised DDC subject groupings with another, non-standardised genre grouping (such as SCIS categories) might not suit all texts and users (Hamm, 2019, para.1; Wall, 2019, p.14), especially considering recent trends towards genre-blending (Barone, 2010, p.15-17). The ongoing flexibility needed to maintain a genrefied collection and keep it up-to-date with teen reading needs and expectations might be more than some teacher-librarians are willing or capable of providing.

Teacher-librarians considering genrefying their own collections should thus weigh the benefits to their specific clientele against the logistical realities of such an undertaking. They may choose to genrefy ‘mini-collections’ or to label resources in their current DDC position, using SCIS categories and user input as a guide. Ultimately teacher-librarians must use their technical expertise alongside their knowledge of their specific users’ needs, abilities, and interests to make the right decision for their context.

 

Reference List

Barone, D. M. (2010). Children’s literature in the classroom: Engaging lifelong readers. Guildford Publications.

Bessman Taylor, J., Hora, A., Steege Krueger, K. (2019). Self-selecting books in a children’s fiction collection arranged by genre. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(3), 852-865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617743088

Davenport, S. (2017). Genrefying the fiction collection. Connections, 102(3), 6-7. https://www.scisdata.com/media/1511/connections102.pdf

Davenport, S. (2021). Genrefication 3.5 years later: Reflections. Connections, 117(2), 12-13. https://www.scisdata.com/media/2283/scis_connections_117_web.pdf

Dawson, T. (2019). Genrefying nonfiction at Parkes High School. Scan, 38(2). https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/professional-learning/scan/past-issues/vol-38–2019/make-a-difference-mad-spotlight-on-teacher-librarians#tabs1

Dickenson, D. (2014). Children and reading: literature review. University of Western Sydney, Australian Government, and Australia Council for the Arts.

Gray, M. (2019). Genre fiction collections in Australian school libraries. Scan, 38(10). https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/professional-learning/scan/past-issues/vol-38–2019/genre-fiction-collections-in-australian-school-libraries

Hamm, S. (August 5, 2019). Why I chose not to genrify the fiction section. Teen Services Underground [blog]. https://www.teenservicesunderground.com/why-i-chose-not-to-genrify-the-fiction-section/

Hider, P. (2018). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata (2nd ed.). London: Facet.

Krashen, S. D. (2011). Free voluntary reading. ABC-CLIO, LLC.

LaGarde, J. (October 24, 2018). Genrefying your collection without changing call numbers. The Adventures of Library Girl [blog]. https://www.librarygirl.net/post/genrefying-your-collection-without-changing-call-numbers

Manuel, J., & Carter, D. (2015). Current and historical perspectives on Australian teenagers’ reading practices and preferences. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 38(2), 115-128.

Mathur, P. (2019). Genrefication @ The Kings’ School Senior Library. Scan, 38(9). https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/professional-learning/scan/past-issues/vol-38–2019/genrefication—the-kings-school-senior-library

National Library of New Zealand (n.d.). Arranging library fiction by genre. https://natlib.govt.nz/schools/reading-engagement/libraries-supporting-readers/arranging-library-fiction-by-genre

Outhouse, A. R. K. (2017). Genrefication: Introducing and explaining the exponential trend in public and school libraries. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/masters_papers/kk91fq479

Wall, J. (2019). Genrefication in NSW public school libraries: A discussion paper. Scan, 38(10). https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/professional-learning/scan/past-issues/vol-38–2019/genrefication-in-nsw-public-school-libraries