Logistics

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/