Month: August 2022

ETL533 Assessment 2 Part B: Critical Reflection of Digital Literature Experiences

Leave a comment

In the light of your readings and your experience of different digital literatures write a critical reflection which considers the following issues:
• What makes a good digital text, what counts as one, and what purpose do digital texts serve?
• Compare your experience of reading digital texts with reading print.
• Choose the digital text you most enjoyed and discuss how you might incorporate it into a program at your institution.

As my research into digital literature has progressed, my understandings have simultaneously narrowed and blurred regarding this nebulous topic. I have encountered numerous definitions, categories, and subcategories in my research, including the commonly repeated broad distinction between the digital and the digitised (Strickland, n.d., para. 3; Hayles, 2007, para.10; Bourchardon & Heckman, 2012, p.1; Heckman & O’Sullivan, 2018, para.4). 

Many attempts to define digital literature have focused on what it is not. For instance, electronic literature is not something that can be printed (Strickland, n.d., para.3; Sargeant, 2015, p.455; Wright, 2019, para.2), thereby excluding e-books which digitise existing print texts (Writerful Books, n.d., para.10) as ‘paper-under-glass’ texts (Allan, 2017, p.22) which, while popular with publishers, do not take advantage of many potential features offered by emerging digital platforms (McGeehan et al., 2018, p.62-63). However, excluding these texts from discussions about digital literature arguably ignores their popularity and potential as learning and engagement tools, especially in schools; after all, this unit is called ‘Literature in Digital Environments’ and not ‘Digital Literature’ for a reason, and it would be unwise to eliminate digitised texts from discussion altogether. I personally prefer to read digitised e-books due to the ability to increase font size and define unknown words, yet my favoured features were missing from many of the digital texts I’ve explored so far (Lysaught, 2022a).

Other definitions focus on common features of digital texts, such as their exploitation of digital characteristics (Bourchardon & Heckman, 2012, p.1), their inherent multimodality (Walker et al., 2010, p.219; Mills & Levido, 2011, p.80; Heckman & O’Sullivan, 2018, para.11) or the way they use interactivity and connectivity to position the audience in the process of either constructing meaning or constructing the text itself (Serafini, 2013, p.403; Walsh, 2013, p.181; Bell, 2016, p.295-296; Wall, 2016, p.35; Allan, 2017, p.23-24). These multidimensional features allow readers a different experience to that of reading a traditional unidimensional printed text, with some research suggesting that changes to reading speed and navigation in digital environments can affect comprehension and memory (Jabr, 2013, para.10, 20). Lending data and anecdotal discussions in my school suggest printed texts have maintained their top position as preferred reading materials amongst both staff and students, though this may have more to do with digital poverty, lack of exposure and competing distractions on devices than the potential offered by digital texts.

Another useful categorical framework I used to structured my reviews resulted from my early combination (Lysaught, 2022b, para.2-3) of Allan (2017, p.22-23) and Unsworth’s (2006, p.2-3) distinctions between recontextualised or digitised literary texts, enhanced app or electronically augmented texts, and ‘born digital’ texts. However, my increased exposure to digital literature revealed that often digital narratives defy simplistics attempts at categorisation, with all three reviewed texts blurring boundaries depending on whose definition one applied (Lysaught, 2022c, 2022d, 2022e).

Inspired by my reviewed texts, I decided to play with the multimodal potential offered by this blog to create a word-cloud of my notes so far. Several key ideas emerge, including: a focus on the relationship between readers, authors, teachers and the act of reading; the relationship between technology and meaning-making processes; and new literacies focused on mixed media and formats such as digital devices and internet platforms.

As a result of this research, I conclude that quality digital literature involves the interplay of three core elements: multimodality, interactivity, and connectivity (whether to the world or content of the text and/or to other users and platforms). Early attempts to construct an evaluative criteria (Lysaught, 2022f) have solidified into the criteria below:

😍 = yes, love it!

🤔 = hmm … somewhat?

👎 = not really/not evident

Arguably, defining digital literature is less important in school contexts than how it can be used to support the needs, interests and abilities of the school community. I discussed in each review how these texts could effectively support teaching and learning in my school community (Lysaught, 2022c, 2022d, 2022e). Early in my journey I posited that teacher-librarians could be invaluable in aligning new pedagogies with innovative digital narratives to support time-poor staff (Lysaught, 2022g, 2022b). Anecdotal evidence suggests that digital literature is a powerful tool for engaging students as readers (Lysaught, 2022h). Moving forward, I am interested in harnessing digital literature and its associated social networking to motivate reluctant students (Lysaught, 2022a) as part of my Year 7 Wide Reading Program.

 

 

747 words.

Reference list:

Allan, C. (2017). Digital fiction: ‘Unruly object’ or literary artefact? English in Australia, 52(2), 21-27.

Bell, A. (2016). Interactional metalepsis and unnatural narratology. Narrative, 24(3), 294-310.

Bourchardon, S., & Heckman, D. (2012). Digital manipulability and digital literature. Electronic Book Review.

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.

Jabr, F. (2013, April 11). The reading brain in the digital age: The science of paper versus screens. Scientific American.

Lysaught, D. (2022a, August 13). ETL533 3.2 Exploring digital forms. All you read is love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/08/13/etl533-3-2-exploring-digital-forms/

Lysaught, D. (2022b, August 7). ETL533 2.3: Challenges of using digital literature in the classroom. All you read is love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/08/07/etl533-2-3-challenges-of-using-digital-literature-in-the-classroom/

Lysaught, D. (2022c, August 28). ETL533 Assessment 2 Part A: Review 1 – Over the Top by The Canadian War Museum (n.d.). All you read is love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/08/28/etl533-assessment-2-part-a-review-1-over-the-top-by-the-canadian-war-museum-n-d/

Lysaught, D. (2022d, August 28). ETL533 Assessment 2 Part A: Review 2 – iPoe by iClassics Collection (2012-2015). All you read is love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/08/28/etl533-assessment-2-part-a-review-2-ipoe-by-iclassics-collection-2012-2015/

Lysaught, D. (2022e, August 28). ETL533 Assessment 2 Part A: Review 3 – Dracula Daily by Matt Kirkland (2021). All you read is love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/08/28/etl533-assessment-2-part-a-review-3-dracula-daily-by-matt-kirkland-2021/

Lysaught, D. (2022f, August 14). ETL533 Evaluating digital literature: Deeper considerations. All you read is love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/08/14/etl533-evaluating-digital-literature-deeper-considerations/

Lysaught, D. (2022g, July 19). ETL533 Evaluating digitally reproduced stories. All you read is love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/07/19/etl533-1-2-evaluating-digitally-reproduced-stories/

Lysaught, D. (2022h, July 25). ETL533 Assessment 1: Online reflective journal blog task. All you read is love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/07/25/etl533-assessment-1-online-reflective-journal-blog-task/

McGeehan, C., Chambers, S., & Nowakowski, J. (2018). Just because it’s digital, doesn’t mean it’s good: Evaluating digital picture books. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(2), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1399488

Mills, K.A., & Levido, A. (2011). iPed: pedagogy for digital text production. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 80-91.

Sargeant, B. (2015). What is an ebook? What is a book app? And why should we care? An analysis of contemporary digital picture books. Children’s Literature in Education, 46(4), 454-466.

Serafini, F., Kachorsky, D. & Aguilera, E. (2015). Picture books 2.0: Transmedial features across narrative platforms. Journal of Children’s Literature, 41(2), 16-24.

Strickland, S. (n.d.). Born digital. Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69224/born-digital

Unsworth, L. (2006). E-literature for children: Enhancing digital literacy learning. Routledge.

Walker, S., Jameson, J., & Ryan, M. (2010). Skills and strategies for e-learning in a participatory culture (Ch. 15). In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham, & S. Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age: How learners are shaping their own experiences (pp. 212-224). New York, NY: Routledge

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.

Walsh, M. (2013). Literature in a digital environment (Ch. 13). In L. McDonald (Ed.), A literature companion for teachers. Marrickville, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association Australia (PETAA).

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

Writerful Books (n.d.). New $10,000 digital literature award. https://writerfulbooks.com/digital-literature-award/

ETL533 Assessment 2 Part A: Review 3 – Dracula Daily by Matt Kirkland (2021).

Leave a comment

Dracula Daily (Kirkland, 2021) is an excellent example of a recontextualised or digitised literary text (Lysaught, 2022a). Kirkland has updated Stoker’s original 1897 Dracula for modern readers by recontextualising it as a narrative delivered episodically via a free email subscription. Dracula Daily conforms to many definitions of digitised works (Strickland, n.d.; Hayles, 2007, para.10; Bourchardon & Heckman, 2012, p1; Heckman & O’Sullivan, 2018, para.4), since Stoker’s original was conceived for the print medium. It might also be designated as a ‘paper-under-glass’ text (Allan, 2017, p.22). However, Kirkland’s recontextualisation cleverly utilises many features of the digital environment to enhance readers’ understanding, which is a key consideration when evaluating digital literature (Lysaught, 2022b) and not unique to ‘born digital’ texts.

Firstly, the novel’s content is largely unchanged, but Kirkland enhances the original’s epistolary form by delivering the narrative gradually to subscribers’ inboxes on the date each event occurred (Kirkland, 2022, para.1), helping readers build a sense of time. In the original, it feels like the characters speed through the plot. Dracula Daily is delivered in instalments from May to November, allowing readers to gain a sense of just how much time passes. This also builds on the original’s suspense – a key element of the Gothic genre, since readers must await the next instalment instead of reading ahead. Although this chronological delivery loses some of the original’s dramatic irony, footnotes in misordered entries remind readers of key plot points while the reader’s anticipation of the next portion emulates the characters’ anticipation as they put together the clues about Dracula. While not technically an interactive feature – an element important to digital literature (Lysaught, 2022b) – this digitised recontextualisation allows readers to form a closer vicarious connection to the characters and events than the original. 

Secondly, innovative use of email technology evokes the optimistic modernity present in Stoker’s novel. One of the key tensions in the original is the dichotomy between the modern and the traditional. By updating Stoker’s printed text to a digital environment, Kirkland has recaptured the sense of technological innovation that Mina, Jonathan and the others champion through their use of now-outdated communicative developments such as short-hand, phonographs, typewriters, and telegraphs.

Finally, Kirkland’s daily delivery and recontextualisation of Dracula in a digital format allows the expansion of the novel into other adjacent digital spaces. Towndrow and Kogut (2020, p.14, 148) argue that “digital storytelling is fundamentally an active social process” while Leu et al. (2011, p.6-8) posit that collaborative, social practices are one key difference between online and offline reading experiences. Likewise, Valenza and Stephens (2012, p.75-77) assert the relationship between author, reader, and text is evolving alongside the reading experience due to the rise of socially connected digital communities; Skaines agrees (2010, p.96, 102). Dracula Daily is popular on social media sites such as Twitter and Tumblr, with discussions expanding into new digital spaces and offering readers opportunities to connect with the text and other readers in ways Stoker could never have imagined. Stepanic (2022, p.2) notes Dracula Daily’s social media popularity taps into modern snark and meme culture. In an age of on-demand entertainment consumption, Dracula Daily harkens back to the days of ‘appointment viewing’ and allows for a flourishing “ecosystem” (Stepanic, 2022, p.2) of online content to develop, further enhancing readers’ engagement and interaction with the text in new contexts. It also democratises Stoker’s classic text, opening it up for interpretation and engagement with new audiences on new platforms.

Discussions about Dracula Daily on Twitter reveals that digital texts can move into adjacent digital spaces to enhance reader connectivity.

Likewise, Dracula Daily’s popularity on Tumblr democratises the original novel in digital spaces and keeps it relevant for modern audiences.

Dracula Daily reveals the potential for digital texts to move into adjacent online spaces and foster connection between readers and other texts, as seen through this meme.

However, this expansion into adjacent online spaces raises further questions around how we define and categorise digital texts. While I categorise Dracula Daily as a recontextualised or digitised literary text due to Kirkland’s transformation of the printed original to a digital environment, Kitson defines electronically augmented texts as ones where online resources expand opportunities for commentary, interpretation, and engagement  (2017, p.59). Dracula Daily could arguably be an electronically augmented text, highlighting the difficulty around defining nebulous digital literature. 

This text is certainly not without criticism. The email format and associated substack archive of past episodes is difficult to navigate, lacking the ability to move easily between posts. Kirkland’s digital reworking of Stoker’s original removes many peritextual elements which enhanced verisimilitude, such as the note explaining that all documents were truthful reflections of actual events. However, new peritextual features are added; each episode features funny captions which encourage the cynical, irreverent tone of the aforementioned online discussions and maintain the narrative’s relevance for modern audiences. 

The substack archive with its snarky, humorous subheading summaries of each episode’s content taps into modern attitudes towards reading.

Dracula Daily could potentially use more features offered by its new digital format, such as interactive maps, images, and sounds which could further enhance readers’ engagement and understanding. However, anecdotal discussions with students in my Year 11 English Extension class reveal it’s an engaging way to explore the original; recently I’ve enjoyed having my students run up excitedly to discuss the latest instalment. Dracula Daily could be a meaningful resource to study alongside Stoker’s Dracula, and can inspire similar recontextualisations with other texts as a learning activity to explore how we value literature and how responses to texts change over time.

 

 

814 words.

Reference list:

Allan, C. (2017). Digital fiction: ‘Unruly object’ or literary artefact? English in Australia, 52(2), 21-27.

Bourchardon, S., & Heckman, D. (2012). Digital manipulability and digital literature. Electronic Book Review.

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.

Kirkland, M. (2021). Archive. Dracula Daily. https://draculadaily.substack.com/archive

Kirkland, M. (2022). About. Dracula Daily. https://draculadaily.substack.com/about

Kitson, L. (2017). Exploring opportunities for literary literacy with e-literature: To infinity and beyond. Australian Literacy Educators’ Association. Literacy Learning, 23(2), 58-68.

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.

Lysaught, D. (2022a, August 7). ETL533 2.3: Challenges of using digital literature in the classroom. All You Read Is Love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/08/07/etl533-2-3-challenges-of-using-digital-literature-in-the-classroom/

Lysaught, D. (2022b, August 14). ETL533 Evaluating digital literature: Deeper considerations. All You Read Is Love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/08/14/etl533-evaluating-digital-literature-deeper-considerations/

Skaines, R. L. (2010). The shifting author-reader dynamic: online novel communities as a bridge from print to digital literature. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(1), 95–111.

Stepanic, S. (2022, May 20). ‘Dracula Daily’ reanimates the classic vampire novel for the age of memes and snark. The Conversation.

Strickland, S. (n.d.). Born digital. Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69224/born-digital

Towndrow, P. A., & Kogut, G. (2020). Digital storytelling for educative purposes: providing an evidence-base for classroom practice. Studies in Singapore Education: Research Innovation & Practice 1. Singapore: Springer.

Valenza, J. K., & Stephens, W. (2012). Reading remixed. Educational Leadership, 69(6), 75-78.

ETL533 Assessment 2 Part A: Review 2 – iPoe by iClassics Collection (2012-2015).

Leave a comment

iPoe by iClassics Collection is a wonderful example of the second category of digital text defined by both Unsworth and Allan (Lysaught, 2022): an enhanced app or electronically augmented text. 

Published across three volumes between 2012-2015 for Apple and Android devices, iPoe is a creative augmentation of several Edgar Allan Poe texts alongside contextual information and details about the app designing process. Each volume recontextualises Poe’s original texts alongside interactive illustrations, music, and sound effects which effectively utilise the multimodal and interactive potential of digital environments to enhance the reader’s experience and understanding. This resource would suit our Year 8 unit on suspenseful stories, therefore I’ll focus on two texts relevant to this unit: The Tell-Tale Heart (vol.1) and The Raven (vol.2).

Unsworth defines electronically augmented literary texts as those which take traditionally published print texts and augment them with digital resources to “enhance and extend” the original (2006, p.2). This can be through the addition of digital features such as interactivity and multimodality (Walsh, 2013, p.187) or supplementary digital resources designed to extend commentary, discussion, and interpretation of the text (Kitson, 2017, p.59). Arguably, iPoe features both. Allan (2017, p.22) defines narrative apps as digital, interactive remediations of print narratives – a category into which iPoe seems to fit nicely. However, as with my other reviews (Lysaught, 2022), looking at iPoe from different angles raises questions regarding definition and categorisation of digital texts. Much like the paradoxical ‘ship of Theseus’, I wonder how much has to be changed before it is considered a new, ‘born digital’ text in its own right, since the combination of iPoe’s multimodal and supplementary features greatly enhanced my experience of Poe’s stories, especially through the app’s original artwork and soundtrack. Furthermore, iPoe could fit Unsworth’s sub-category of a linear e-narrative digitally originating text (2006, p.3-4), since it presents an illustrated traditional, linear narrative on screen. Clearly defining digital literature is not so clear!

The interactive multimodal features of iPoe are testament to the transformative potential of literature in digital environments. The iClassics website claims 85 minutes of original soundtrack by Teo Grimalt and Miquel Tejada, 185 sound effects and 95 original interactive illustrations by David G. Forés (iClassics Productions, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c) – reflecting that ‘authorship’ in digital contexts is often shared (Bowler et al., 2012, p.43). 

In The Raven, readers can touch the titular bird to hear it croak ‘Nevermore’, while their understanding of Gothic metonymy and atmosphere is enhanced through other sound effects such the knocking on the door, the fire’s crackling, the hinges creaking, and the wind’s howling. In one dramatic moment, touching the raven led to a shift in camera focus to the ponderous protagonist, while in another readers are invited to touch Lenore’s portrait; the subsequent cracking glass emphasised the protagonist’s fracturing mental state. Likewise, the penultimate image of the protagonist wavering alongside Lenore’s ephemeral ghost was a brilliant representation of grief.

Readers are invited to touch the characters, resulting in a perspective shift.

The ‘camera’ focus shifts to the ponderous protagonist.

Readers are invited to touch the photograph, with the ensuing cracking of the glass acting as an effective visual symbol of the protagonist’s fracturing state of mind.

The protagonist beseeches the reader, inviting their interaction…

… only to be reminded that he is forever haunted by Lenore’s ephemeral ghost.

These multimodal features similarly enhanced my experience reading The Tell-Tale Heart. The old man’s eye shifted into a vulture’s, supplementing the written text with the visuals. The interactive image of the old man, shivering under the reader’s watchful gaze, accentuated his fragility and aligned the reader with the protagonist’s perspective, as did the dark page where text could only be partially illuminated by moving the reader’s finger. The masterful soundtrack underscored the climactic moment of murder through its overwhelming crescendo and fading heartbeat. I experienced genuine discomfort as I watched a dolly zoom of the protagonist murdering the old man before literally turning his gaze to me. The protagonist’s increasing paranoia was stressed with visuals and associated sound effects, particularly when I was invited to touch a close-up of his panicked eyes. His final admission of guilt was brought to life through these multimodal elements – when readers touch the still-beating heart, bloody fingerprints appear on the page.

In this point of view shot, readers assume the position of the insane protagonist as he silently watches the fearful old man.

Readers are encouraged to run their finger over the screen, illuminating the text like the protagonist’s lamp illuminates the room.

The reader’s finger falls upon the old man’s ‘vulture’ eye – much like the protagonist’s lamp, emphasising the horror.

The reader watches as the protagonist murders the struggling old man …

… only to have the protagonist’s murderous gaze fall upon the reader!

Bloody fingerprints follow the protagonist’s confession.

Interactive, multimodal elements are supported by mobile features such as gyro-perspective, flash, and vibration ((iClassics Productions, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c), though I didn’t notice these to any great extent. Also, while some multimodal elements greatly enhanced my reading experience, others were distracting, such as the initial photo and the dismembered corpse in The Tell-Tale Heart. However, the contextual information amplified my understanding of Poe’s life, times, and works (James & Kock, 2013), p.108). 

However, logistical issues around cost, access, and other required technology should also be considered when evaluating digital texts for school libraries (Lysaught, 2022a). The app bundle cost $8.99 on the Apple Store, expensive to replicate on 1:1 devices. Aural elements required additional headphones and were fiddly, while constant review pop-ups interrupted immersion. Also, I couldn’t adjust the font size or define unknown words –  favoured features of digitised texts. Overall, I greatly enjoyed iPoe since it effectively utilised the multimodal and interactive potential of the digital format to enhance my understanding and engagement, especially compared with other gimmicky narrative apps such as Alice for the iPad (Lysaught, 2022b).

 

 

821 words.

Reference list:

Allan, C. (2017). Digital fiction: ‘Unruly object’ or literary artefact? English in Australia, 52(2), 21-27.

Bowler, L., Morris, R., Cheng, I-L., Al-Issa, R., Romine, B., & Leiberling, L. (2012). Multimodal stories: LIS students explore reading, literacy, and library service through the lens of “The 39 Clues”. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 53(1), 32-48.

iClassics Productions (2018a). Deliciously dark, devilishly fun. http://iclassicscollection.com/en/project/ipoe1/

iClassics Productions (2018b). Ravings of love & death. http://iclassicscollection.com/en/project/ipoe2/

iClassics Productions (2018c). The master of macabre returns. http://iclassicscollection.com/en/project/ipoe3/

James, R. & de Kock, L. (2013). The digital David and the Gutenberg Goliath: The rise of the enhanced e-book. English Academy Review: Southern African Journal of English Studies, 30(1), 107-123.

Kitson, L. (2017). Exploring opportunities for literary literacy with e-literature: To infinity and beyond. Australian Literacy Educators’ Association. Literacy Learning, 23(2), 58-68.

Lysaught, D. (2022a, August 14). ETL533 Evaluating Digital Literature: Deeper Considerations. All you read is love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/08/14/etl533-evaluating-digital-literature-deeper-considerations/

Lysaught, D. (2022b, August 13). ETL533 3.2: Exploring Digital Forms. All you read is love. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/allyoureadislove/2022/08/13/etl533-3-2-exploring-digital-forms/

Unsworth, L. (2006). E-literature for children: Enhancing digital literacy learning. Routledge.

Walsh, M. (2013). Literature in a digital environment (Ch. 13). In L. McDonald (Ed.), A literature companion for teachers. Marrickville, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association Australia (PETAA).

ETL533 Assessment 2 Part A: Review 1 – Over the Top by The Canadian War Museum (n.d.)

Leave a comment

Unsworth’s (2006, p.2-3) and Allan’s (2017, p.22-23) three main categories of digital texts provided me with a structural framework for this assessment. As such, each review will focus on one format of digital literature:

  1. A recontextualised or digitised literary text
  2. An enhanced app or electronically augmented text
  3. A ‘born digital’ text.

Over The Top by the Canadian War Museum is a fine example of the third category. This digitally originating narrative updates the choose-your-own-adventure format, allowing readers to electronically explore life in World War I trenches. Multimodal moving visuals and sound effects support readers’ understanding of the 1916 Battle of the Somme, as do interactive choices leading to a variety of possible outcomes and emphasising the difficult decisions faced by soldiers. Based on eyewitness historical accounts, Over The Top successfully utilises digital features to teach students about conditions in WWI while simultaneously developing their empathy and literacy skills. 

‘Born digital’ texts are created for and on digital devices and mix different systems and media to make meaning for their audience (Di Rosario, n.d., 1:10-1:59; Hayles, 2007, para.10; Kitson, 2017, p.59): “if it could possibly be printed out, it isn’t e-lit” (Strickland, n.d., para.3). Over The Top is a browser-based interactive narrative which cannot be printed, thus fitting the definition of a ‘born digital’ text. Unsworth further subdivides digitally originating texts (2006, p.3-4), and Over The Top’s features potentially fall into his hypermedia narrative sub-category due to its combination of hyperlinks, text, and images. However, its prominent interactivity raises questions about the distinction between digital literature and games (Strickland, n.d., para.4, 8; Sargeant, 2015, p.461-463; Kitson, 2017, p.59, 66). Hayles notes that in games users interpret in order to configure while digital narratives allow the user to configure in order to interpret  (2007, para.16); as such, Over The Top is not a game. As with the other three texts examined for this task (Lysaught, 2022), attempts to categorise Over The Top reveal that defining digital literature is no easy task.

Lambert (2012, p.37-38) notes that a key component of the Center for Digital Storyteling’s definition of digital stories is reader participation and ownership of a text. Over The Top successfully utilises what I consider the three core elements of digital literature – mutlimodality, interactivity, and connectivity (Lysaught, 2022) – to ensure active participation in the text’s construction. It begins with the option to enter the reader’s name alongside a friend’s name; this personalisation creates immediate connection between reader and text, allowing for stronger vicarious engagement with the narrative’s content.

Over The Top invites personalisation and immersive interactivity

This vicarious engagement is furthered by the use of second person ‘you’, a common feature of traditional choose-your-own-adventure narratives (Morse, 2019, para.9-16). An optional narrator’s voice-over reads the written text to the audience, supporting a wide range of literacy ability levels. Moving images are supplemented by sound effects such as the wind and explosions to further enhance engagement and understanding. Hyperlinks encourage readers to define unfamiliar words such as ‘dugout’ or ‘duck-board’, developing their understanding of historical metalanguage. Walsh (2013, p.187) notes that non-linear story progression is a feature made possible in digital environments; navigation between pages in Over The Top is easy, as readers can click arrows to advance the story or move backwards, while multiple possible endings expand on traditional linear narrative structures. If the reader’s ‘character’ dies, they are invited to replay and explore the outcomes of different choices, promoting multiple read-throughs and supporting what Bell calls interactional media-specific metalepsis wherein multiple reading paths encourage multiple analytical perspectives by the reader, leading to their immersion in narrative content and new interpretations in new contexts (2016, p.295-6). This non-linear reading behaviour taps into trends regarding engagement with texts in digital environments, as both Cull (2011, para.58) and Liu (2005, p.707) note that non-linear reading has increased and is affecting the way readers understand and interact with digital texts. 

Readers are presented with multimodal image, sound, and text to support their understanding.

Readers must choose to progress the story, inviting interactional media-specific metalepsis which promotes immersion.

The outcome of choice 1: the reader lives and continues to progress with the story.

Strong textual features supported by visuals and sound elements enhance immersion.

Readers are invited to replay.

Logistically, this is an easy to access, free resource that is suitable for a variety of literacy abilities. It is supported by teacher notes and, despite its focus on the Canadian experience, has strong links to the current NSW History Stage 5 topic Australians at War (WWI), while its excellent literary qualities support use in English classrooms. Teachers would need to have access to a bank of laptop or desktop devices to utilise this resource in the classroom and would find it a useful digital narrative to use in conjunction with other historical sources. 

 

 

732 words.

Reference List:

Allan, C. (2017). Digital fiction: ‘Unruly object’ or literary artefact? English in Australia, 52(2), 21-27.

Bell, A. (2016). Interactional metalepsis and unnatural narratology. Narrative, 24(3), 294-310.

Canadian War Museum (n.d.). Over the top. https://www.warmuseum.ca/overthetop/

Cull, B. W. (2011). Reading revolutions: online digital text and implications for reading in academe. First Monday, 16(6). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3340/2985

Di Rosario, G. (n.d.). Are pixels the future of literature? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CAaoWcknvM

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

Kitson, L. (2017). Exploring opportunities for literary literacy with e-literature: To infinity and beyond. Australian Literacy Educators’ Association. Literacy Learning, 23(2), 58-68.

Lambert, J. (2012). Digital storytelling: capturing lives, creating community. Routledge.

Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700-712.

Lysaught, D. (2022). ???. All you read is love.

Morse, L. (2019, November 30). How to write a choose-your-own-adventure story: all protagonist POV, all the time. Medium.
https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-write-a-choose-your-own-adventure-story-9d353fa84ce4

Sargeant, B. (2015). What is an ebook? What is a book app? And why should we care? An analysis of contemporary digital picture books. Children’s Literature in Education, 46(4), 454-466.

Strickland, S. (n.d.). Born digital. Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69224/born-digital

Unsworth, L. (2006). E-literature for children: Enhancing digital literacy learning. Routledge.

Walsh, M. (2013). Literature in a digital environment (Ch. 13). In L. McDonald (Ed.), A literature companion for teachers. Marrickville, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association Australia (PETAA).

ETL533 Evaluating Digital Literature: Deeper Considerations

Leave a comment

As I’m preparing to review my three chosen digital literature texts for Assessment 2, I thought it would be a beneficial exercise to reconsider how to evaluate digital literature in light of my developing understandings and ongoing research. 

So, what makes a good digital literature text?

To answer this question, I’ve examined some of the judging criteria for digital literary awards. Here’s a run-down of some of my findings:

  • Woollahra Municipal Council (n.d.) states that winners of its Digital Innovation category should be works “where digital technology is used in an innovative way to enhance written storytelling” and which “seamlessly integrate digital elements in the story in a new and dynamic way to generate mood, tone and genre.”
    • In the Judges Comments, one of the judges of the 2021 winner wrote: “the innovative elements included with the story aided my appreciation and enjoyment of the work. The idea that new digital technologies can be employed by writers presents them with a new balancing act. How do they introduce the right digital enhancements, ones that aid the reading experience, that support and expand the experience of imagining or understanding a story? […] The innovative aspects were relevant and exciting and seamlessly part of the story.” 
  • In their report on the 2016/2017 Queensland University of Technology Digital Literature Award, Writerful Books (n.d.) stated that “Works that demonstrate innovation and creativity in storytelling, combined use of media or interactive features will be highly regarded.” 
  • The Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC, n.d.) listed the following evaluation criteria for their Excellence in Early Learning Digital Media Award:
    • Effective utilization of selected platform(s)
    • Meets high aesthetic and technical standards
    • The skills required to navigate the media should be appropriate and suitably challenging for the intended audience
    • Facilitates active and creative use by children ages 2-8 in exemplary ways
    • Respects the early learning audience’s intelligence and imagination by offering a  rich and diverse experience
    • Allows for meaningful joint media engagement, co-viewing, shared play  experiences and/or guided play
    • Media reflects/embodies its stated mission and purpose
  • While the Electronic Literature Organization (2001) outlined the following criteria for its 2001 award: 
    • Innovative use of electronic techniques and enhancements.
    • Literary quality, understood as being related to print and electronic traditions of fiction and poetry, respectively.
    • Quality and accessibility of interface design.
    • Collections will be accepted if they are intended to be read holistically as a single work.

Conclusions:

This list is certainly not exhaustive, but I feel that they’ve helped me deepen my understanding of how to evaluate quality digital literature. The comments above support the idea that good digital literature includes texts where:

  • The form supports the function. Innovation should not be used in a gimmicky way; the digital format’s multimodality, interactivity and potential for further connection (to further information or other readers) should support the responder in understanding the key ideas of the text.
  • Responders are positioned not just as passive receivers of information, but as active participants in content and knowledge construction through the use of interactive, immersive and/or socially connected features.
  • Navigation is appropriate to the texts’ function and the abilities of the responder.

The transmedial features examined in Serafini et. al. (2015) also provide a useful framework for evaluating the multimodal aspects of digital literature:

  • Visual images
  • Sound effects, music, voice
  • Textual elements
  • Paratextual and peritextual elements
  • Navigational elements
  • Transitions

I would also argue that traditional concepts of quality literature (discussed previously) such as “superior or lasting artistic merit” or “high and lasting artistic value” still apply.

Likewise, in a school library digital literature resources can still be evaluated against selection criteria for traditional print texts which consider the resource’s relevance and suitability for a school’s learning community (discussed here and here):

  • Does the resource meet the needs and interests of students, staff and/or parents?
  • Does the resource have curriculum links? Can it be incorporated as a literary learning strategy?
  • Is the content of the resource appropriate to the developmental and ability levels of users?

Finally, I believe that logistics must also be considered when considering the use of digital literature resources in the context of a school library:

  • Cost
  • Storage
  • Access
  • Other required technology e.g. iPads, software downloads, headphones
  • Cataloguing and collection management
  • Data and privacy issues

 

 

 

Association for Library Service to Children [ALSC] (n.d.). Welcome to the Excellence in Early Learning Digital Media Award home page. https://www.ala.org/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/EELDM

Electronic Literature Organization (2001). Judging criteria.

Serafini, F., Kachorsky, D. & Aguilera, E. (2015). Picture books 2.0: Transmedial features across narrative platforms. Journal of Children’s Literature, 41(2), 16-24.

Woollahra Municipal Council (n.d.). Woollahra Digital Literary Award. https://www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au/news/articles/newly-expanded-woollahra-digital-literary-award-calling-for-entries

Woollahra Municipal Council (n.d.). Past winners of the Woollahra Digital Literary Award: 2021 Winners. https://www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au/library/whats_on/digital_literary_award/past_winners

Writerful Books (n.d.). New $10,000 digital literature award. https://writerfulbooks.com/digital-literature-award/

ETL533 3.2: Exploring Digital Forms

Leave a comment
Explore innovative digital literature sites. What did you enjoy most? How could you incorporate social networking sites for literature organisation and access, such as Inside a Dog, GoodReads or LibraryThing into your practice?

 

This week I explored a few of the immersive multimedia journalism resources such as K’gari and My Grandmother’s Lingo, and thought that they could be an interesting way to engage students with non-fiction texts and current affairs (typically perceived as ‘boring’ by many teens). I personally found that the multimodal, immersive nature of these resources helped me remember the key points and allowed me to connect the information in the articles to my prior knowledge and experiences very effectively.

I also looked into Beowulf in 100 Tweets, which I thought was a fantastic resource that I could easily incorporate into my Year 11 English Extension program where we look at the relationship between texts, cultures and values. I think that my students would respond well to a similar learning activity where they could take one of the texts we study and recontextualise it as a tweet or social media post to explore the ways that context affects response over time. Beowulf in 100 Tweets also linked really nicely to one that my students showed me this week: Dracula Daily, where the epistolary form of the original novel is harnessed by networking technologies such as email, Tumblr and Twitter. While anecdotal, the conversations in my classroom suggest that these types of recontextualised literary texts can be powerful and engaging learning tools.

There were some resources that I enjoyed less, however. War Horse (the app for the iPad) had a timeline along with some interesting links, videos, and interviews to help readers understand the context, but the text itself was just a digitised version of the print novel (with an accompanying audio version). I didn’t feel that this app utilised the immersive, interactive possibilities afforded by the format to enhance reader experience or support the function of the text as effectively as it could have. Likewise, Alice for the iPad seemed rather gimmicky and its ‘interactive’ elements were distracting rather than elevating my understanding and enjoyment.

I like the idea of incorporating social networking sites into my practice, since it expands my students’ sense of connection to the world of the text and allows them to feel a sense of belonging with other readers. I personally have experimented with tracking my reading journey this year via Instagram, GoodReads and The Storygraph App. While I like the way these resources use my data to help me reflect on my reading preferences and connect me with similar books and readers, I am concerned about the privacy implications of encouraging their use in my classrooms by my students, though it would be a great opportunity to discuss digital citizenship. They also take a lot of time to keep up to date, and you can see from my Instagram experiment that it has fallen by the wayside.

ETL533 2.3: Challenges of using digital literature in the classroom

Leave a comment

There is an enormous difference between facility with technology and being able to engage with the content of digital literature as a consumer or a creator. What are some ways (small or large) you could alter your pedagogy to ensure technology and digital literature is embedded in your educational practices?

In this week’s readings I liked the distinction made by Allan (2017) between the different types of digital fiction:

1. eBooks or “paper-under-glass” texts;

2. Narrative or enhanced apps; and

3. “Born digital” multimodal narratives.

This distinction fit nicely with Unsworth’s classifications (via Walsh, 2013) from the Module 1 readings, where he identified three main categories of e-literature:

1. Recontextualised literary texts;

2. Electronically augmented literary texts; and

3. Digitally originated texts.

This also links with previous discussions I’ve read about what counts as digital literature, which emphasise the difference between “the digitised and digital literature” (for more on this, please feel free to check out my blog post).

In our school we have a virtual library with eBooks and audiobooks that our students, staff and parents can engage with, but it’s an expensive subscription (last year’s invoice was over $3000 – more than a third of our yearly budget!) with logistical issues around promotion and access. It also falls into the digitised, ‘paper-under-glass’ or ‘recontextualised literary texts’ category where technology facilitates access rather than exists as an innovative and inherent aspect of the texts. While it was a useful resource during last year’s lockdowns, data suggests that average use each month is down on last year’s figures. This year our school removed the DEAR (Drop Everything and Read) program, so I’ve been trialing a Wide Reading Program with a few Year 7 classes (initially 4, now dropped back to 2). Given Foley’s (2012) findings about student engagement with ebooks, it might be worthwhile creating activities for the Wide Reading Program which target and promote our virtual library.

One of the texts I’ve been investigating for the second assessment is the iPoe app by iClassics Collection. From my engagement with this app so far, it appears to fall under the ‘enhanced app’ or ‘electronically augmented literary text’ categories outlined above. I chose this because a) Poe is awesome fun and b) we have a Year 8 unit on suspenseful stories that this would work well with. I had a great time exploring this app and playing with its features, designed to immerse the reader with the texts’ Gothic emotions, settings, and atmosphere. I think this is a resource that could work really well with our Year 8 unit, though it cost $8.99 for all three volumes/apps, therefore presenting a financial and logistical issue for faculties with tight budgets.

This week I also had a little play with Microsoft Sway, in an attempt to create my own ‘born digital’ narrative in preparation for the final assessment. One of my projects this year has been to build up the Student Media Team I introduced to the school last year, and Microsoft Sway was one of the tools we were investigating for our student-designed newsletter. While it has many useful features and is (mostly) user-friendly, one issue I found while playing with it is that this tool lacks the ability to link to content within the Sway, and thus might not work for my intended ‘choose your own adventure’ style narrative. However, this investigation did remind me that for larger projects teachers might have, it takes time to find the right tools with the right features for their vision. While wonderful guides exist (such as http://www.schrockguide.net/bloomin-apps.html and https://instructionaldesignbykelly.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/the-evolution-of-blooms-taxonomy-and-how-it-applies-to-teachers-today/ from this week’s readings) these take time to investigate and, given the current educational climate, this is time that many teachers simply cannot spare. This is where an innovative, technologically current teacher-librarian could be an invaluable resource for time-poor teachers!

 

 

Allan, C. (2017). Digital fiction: ‘Unruly object’ or literary artefact? English in Australia, 52(2), 21-27.

Foley, C. (2012). Ebooks for leisure and learning. Scan, 31, pp. 6-14.

Walsh, M. (2013). Literature in a digital environment (Ch. 13). In L. McDonald (Ed.), A literature companion for teachers. Marrickville, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association Australia (PETAA).

ETL533 2.2: Digital Learning Frameworks

Leave a comment

For my own future purposes, I thought it would be a good idea to create a summary of various frameworks designed to help educators incorporate technology into their practice.

Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy is familiar to many teachers, and has been updated for digital environments:

Kelly (2016).

 

Another way of looking at Bloom’s Taxonomy in the digital world is provided by Schrock, who adjusts the conceptual stages so that they all feed into the higher-order tasks surrounding the creation of new content:

 

Schrock (n.d.).

 

Schrock also compares their view of the updated Bloom’s Taxonomy to the SAMR model:

Schrock (n.d.).

The T3 Framework identifies three stages of digital learning:

  1. Translational = focus on automation, consumption of digital knowledge
  2. Transformational = focus on production and contribution of digital knowledge
  3. Transcendent = focus on inquiry design and social entrepreneurship

 

 

Finally, there is the TPACK model, which “attempts to identify the nature of knowledge required by teachers for technology integration in their teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted and situated nature of teacher knowledge”:

http://tpack.org

 

 

 

Kelly (2016 March 1). The evolution of Bloom’s Taxonomy. https://instructionaldesignbykelly.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/the-evolution-of-blooms-taxonomy-and-how-it-applies-to-teachers-today/

Schrock, K. (n.d.). Bloomin’ apps. Retrieved from http://www.schrockguide.net/bloomin-apps.html

tpack.org