Financial Concerns

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 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.