Finally, write a 300-word reflection on the overall study visit experience and how it has contributed to your journey as an information professional
The ETL512 Study Visits to West Moreton Anglican College (WMAC), Lake Tuggeranong College (LTC), State Library Victoria’s Rare Book Collection (SLV), and Bundaberg Regional Libraries (BRL) have opened my eyes to the variety of work available to information professionals and revealed that the skills developed in one setting are transferable to a myriad of others.
My virtual visits to WMAC and LTC were incredibly relevant to my chosen pathway as a high school teacher-librarian. They inspired me with wonderful ideas to incorporate into my future practice by connecting our work developing reading for pleasure and information with our promotions and role advocacy. WMAC’s idea of getting students and staff involved in the CBCA Shadow Judging by linking nominated texts to different KLAs was something I hadn’t previously encountered, and is a wonderful way of linking the library’s work with faculty curricula to promote literary learning. LTC’s staff provided several excellent ideas to build a reading culture by forming strong relationships with students and staff. All staff in each virtual visit emphasised the importance of knowing our users and building strong relationships, and it was inspiring to see practical suggestions for successful implementation which could help me build my library’s profile and promote the value of my resources and services to students, staff, and parents.
The SLV visit was to a setting I hadn’t previously considered, but Wee’s work in collection and exhibition curation sounds quite interesting as a possible future pathway if I decide to leave the education sector. His point about the usefulness of pedagogical knowledge in his library was heartening, as was his point regarding the transfer of skills to different positions. I’m now inspired to experiment with object and digital exhibitions in my own library.
My visit to BRL paired beautifully with my upcoming workplace learning at a local council library and cemented this as a possible future pathway if I leave education. I was inspired by Harris’ emphasis on integrating new technologies into his programs and his passion for ensuring accessibility, diversity, and inclusivity for all users; as a result, I plan to create my own Gamers’ Club and investigate Virtual Reality for my library programs. This visit highlighted the value of creating strong partnerships between local and school libraries, and in future I aim to work closely with our local library network to ensure maximum benefits for my learning community.
How can we take the perception of the TL’s role from the keeper and stamper of books in the quiet place to something different?
I think it’s fair to say that as a profession teacher-librarians have an image problem. Way back at the start of this degree I wrote about Bonanno’s keynote speech in which she described teacher-librarians as an ‘invisible profession’ (Lysaught, August 29 2021a) and the misconception that the library is purely about books (Lysaught, August 29 2021b). A 2021 study revealed that in the US, teacher-librarian numbers declined 20% in the past decade (Ingram, July 19, 2021), and this trend of shrinking school libraries is being replicated in Australia (Tidball, February 10, 2023) alongside stagnating or declining budgets, staffing levels, and staff engagement or support (Softlink, 2022, p.6-7).
Maybe, like a good dancer, we make our work look effortless. Maybe too much of what we do is in the background of busy teachers’ days. One thing that’s for sure is that we need to work on improving our visibility and perceived value to our school community if we are to ensure the future of our profession (Weisburg, 2020).
Moir, Hattie and Jansen (2014, p.37) identified a number of key attributes that teachers perceived as important for leaders:
They also state that “Trust is often best developed in team environments, as then there is opportunity for collaboration and shared decision-making, especially when there is a common focus on improving teaching and learning” (p.39). Bush and Glover (2014, p.554) also discuss the idea of leadership as influence rather than stemming from formal authority, which suits teacher-librarians since we often lack official leadership positions in school hierarchies. Both discussions relate beautifully to the work of the teacher-librarian as literacy expert and information specialist, and they highlight a key way that teacher-librarians can both improve their visibility and their perceived value to their school community through collaborative programming, teaching, and assessment which supports the work of time-poor classroom teachers.
The work of Crippen and Willows (2019, p.174) highlights the 10 characteristics of servant-leaders, and teacher-librarians are uniquely placed to assist healing for colleagues overburdened by heavy workloads, administrivia, and poor student behaviour: “Through their actions as servant leaders they are facilitating a healing process and followers often look to them for support when times are difficult or something traumatic has occurred (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2007).” Teacher-librarians can also exhibit the persuasion trait of servant-leaders: “Supovitz (2018) also describes how teacher leaders use strategies such as leading by example, earning their colleagues trust and encouraging and collaborating with their peers.”
Another area where teacher-librarians can shift the perception of the school community is in the space surrounding emerging or rapidly changing technologies. A 2016 article notes that “By virtue of their training, relationships, systems knowledge, and instructional roles … teacher librarians are ideally suited to lead, teach, and support students and teachers in 21st century schools” (Digital Promise, 2016). Digital literature has the potential to move students from passive consumers to active creators of content while engaging them with the process and ethics of digital content creation (Lysaught, October 4 2022), and Artificial Intelligence is another emerging space where teacher-librarians can position themselves as experts to increase their visibility and perceived value (Lysaught, March 5 2023). It is imperative that we stay current with new and developing technologies to best position ourselves as experts in this field. Our expertise in copyright and the ethics of digital tools alongside our ability to connect the General Capabilities to specific learning programs is invaluable – however, we need to ensure that we’re promoting our abilities in this area and marketing collaborative teaching and planning as a benefit to time-poor teachers rather than just another thing to add to their plates.
Weisburg (2020) argues that while there are numerous barriers to showcasing our value, as a profession we have no other option. We must make it a priority to develop our visibility and promote our value to our school community or we run the risk of becoming obsolete. Weisburg suggests that teacher-librarians should start by looking for ways to showcase what we’re already doing; social media posts, visible displays, and staff emails can promote this work among the school community, while annual library reports can increase the perception of our professionalism and showcase for senior leaders much of the behind the scenes work that goes into running a library (Lysaught, March 5 2023). Weisburg’s suggestion about speaking at P&C meetings is another interesting one which links well to our aforementioned technology expertise. The most crucial aspect of Weisburg’s article for me was the concept of “chopportunities” – “challenges that can be turned into an opportunity.” So much of what affects the library is decided without our input and while it can be tempting to fall into the “why bother?” disheartened state of mind, for our own protection (and sanity!) reframing these issues as “chopportunities” can be a way to reclaim some sense of agency and showcase the benefits we provide to our school communities.
References:
Bush, T. & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership and Management, 34(5), 553-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680
Crippen, C. & Willows, J. (2019). Connecting teacher leadership and servant leadership: A synergistic partnership. Journal of Leadership Education, 18(2), pp. 171-180. https://journalofleadershiped.org/jole_articles/connecting-teacher-leadership-and-servant-leadership-a-synergistic-partnership/
Digital Promise (2016). The new librarian: Leaders in the digital age. In SCIS Connections, (96). https://www.scisdata.com/connections/issue-96/the-new-librarian-leaders-in-the-digital-age/
Moir, S., Hattie, J. & Jansen, C. (2014). Teacher perspectives of ‘effective’ leadership in schools. Australian Educational Leader, 36(4), 36-40.
Softlink (2022). 2022 Australian and New Zealand school library survey report. https://www.softlinkint.com/resources/reports-and-whitepapers/
Weisburg, H. K. (2020). Leadership: There is no other option. Synergy, 18(1). https://slav.vic.edu.au/index.php/Synergy/article/view/369/364
My understanding of digital literature has grown significantly over the last few months. From my early definitions to the creation of my own narrative, I’ve gained a solid understanding of what digital literature is, why it’s beneficial and how it can be implemented to support my school.
My preliminary definitions of digital literature focused on the distinction between the digital and the digitised (Lysaught, 2022, July 19; Lysaught, 2022, July 25). As my research progressed I consolidated these distinctions by combining Unsworth’s (2006, p.2-3) and Allan’s (2017, p.22-23) categories (Lysaught, 2022, August 7). Like my peers (Curtis, 2022, July 19), I believe digital literature should be quality and meet community needs, which led me to consider what makes quality digital literature (Lysaught, 2022, August 14) and to design my own evaluation criteria where I determined three key aspects: multimodality, interactivity, and connectivity (Lysaught, 2022, August 28). Self-evaluations and peer feedback reveals – despite the amateur multimodal features – mine’s an effective, quality text suitable for its intended purpose and audience:
Evaluation of The Shakespeare Chronicles
However, defining digital literature is arguably less important to teacher-librarians than understanding how to incorporate it effectively. Digital literature provides exciting opportunities to move students from passive consumers to active creators of content (Morra, 2013, para.2; Kitson, 2017, p.66), and as new technologies and communication tools emerge, students require new literacies to ensure they’re critically consuming and ethically creating texts (Walker et al., 2010, p.214-216; Kearney, 2011, p.169; Leu, 2011, p.6-8; Mills & Levido, 2011, p.80-81, 89; Leu et al., 2015, p.139-140; Serafini et al., 2015, p.23; Combes, 2016, p.4). In 2009 students spent an average four hours a day online (Weigel, 2009, p.38); by 2015 US teens consumed between 6-9 hours of media a day (Common Sense Media, 2015, para.6), while Australian teens now spend an average of 14.4 hours a week online (eSafety Commissioner, 2021, p.4). Digital literature therefore harnesses our students’ preferences and familiarity with technological platforms (Figueiredo & Bidarra, 2015, p.323; Skaines, 2010, p.100-104; Stepanic, 2022, p.2; Weigel, 2009, P.38). Digital literature incorporating interactivity, multimodality, and connectivity can develop ‘nöogenic narratives’ wherein personal growth is achieved by viewing our lives as a story (Hall, 2012, p.97), a key element of the English syllabus (NSW Standards Authority, 2019, p.10). Research shows that educators can exploit digital narratives to create meaningful and authentic learning opportunities for students to create personal and academic growth (Bjørgen, 2010, p.171-172; Dockter et al., 2010, p.419; Hall, 2012, p.99; Reid, 2013, p.38-41; Smeda et al., 2014, p.19; Sukovic, 2014, p.222-226).
However, educators must carefully consider the purpose of integrating digital narratives into their programmes. While research reveals digital texts’ benefits supporting young, emerging, or struggling readers and developing transliteracy (Tackvic, 2012, p.428; Cahill & McGill-Franzen, 2013, p.32-33; Matthews, 2014, p.29; McGeehan et al., 2018, p.58), others raise issues regarding reading comprehension, retention, and attention (Cull, 2011, para.35-38; Goodwin, 2013, p.79; Jabr, 2013, p.5-30; McGuire, 2015, para.30-35). Technology should be used as a meaningful tool, not just as a gimmick. Monsen (2016) explored the idea that we are “quintessentially cyborgs” due to the symbiotic relationship between humanity and technology. My research into digital learning frameworks such as the SAMR model (Lysaught, 2022, August 6) revealed that effective implementation of technology should not replace, but co-exist with and supplement existing print literacies. Printed choose-your-own-adventure narratives arguably improve literacy (Chooseco & Hofmann, 2016, para. 8-9) and can be updated using digital features to form powerful digital texts (Farber, 2015, para.1-2). Thus, my own digital narrative was designed as an immersive, interactive, multimodal resource to develop students’ understanding of life in Shakespearean England while supplementing traditional print resources and online information sources.
Throughout ETL533 I have examined how I currently incorporate digital literature into our school and considered ways to increase this in future (Lysaught, 2022, July 31; Lysaught, 2022, August 7; Lysaught, 2022, August 13). As discussed with my peers (Macey, 2022, September 24; Barnett, 2022, September 27; Facey, 2022, September 29) difficulties arise surrounding cost-effectiveness, storage, access, and user preferences that often impede digital literature’s success in schools. Despite these challenges, after creating my own digital narrative I strongly believe that student-created digital texts can enhance their own learning and connections to content, and integrate well with Guided Inquiry units and literary learning (Lysaught, 2022, January 27; Lysaught, 2022, August 14; Lysaught, 2022, September 3; Lysaught, 2022, September 16). Peer feedback also supports this (Lysaught, 2022, September 3). Due to this unit I am more aware of my students’ discussions around digital literature (Lysaught, 2022, July 25; Lysaught, 2022, August 28), revealing these are powerful texts with which students are already engaging. Literature in digital environments allows teacher-librarians to show our value to our school community, as we can support time-poor staff as they include more captivating, rich resources and utilise digital narratives to support our students with various interests and literacy needs.
Do you know what type of lending models and licences are available for the distribution of literary resources? Have you considered the challenges involved for education/libraries with digital literature licensing agreements? What are some issues involved in DRM, and how can they best be handled?
Once upon a time before I began my teaching career in 2011 I was lucky enough to work at a bookstore. We sold physical books as well as CDs of audiobooks. Life was simple. Life was grand.
Technology has dramatically changed the publishing landscape and while increased accessibility and functionality are definite benefits to readers, new lending models, licences and DRMs have irrefutably complicated the situation for schools and libraries.
We currently pay over $3000 each year to provide our students access to a variety of e-books and audiobooks as part of the Wheeler’s consortium. While it was popular during the period of online learning, it’s less popular now and not exactly what I’d call cost-efficient. We’ve had students request certain books on the Wheeler’s e-platform, but the price of these digital resources is significantly higher than if we were to purchase a physical copy, and we lose access to the resource if we drop our subscription. We’re also having issues with security, since our shared iPads are logging in the first user and not allowing new students to login. If we move to another service we’d be faced with different licencing and DRM models. And if I encourage students to create their own personal accounts for services like Amazon Kindle, it’s wonderful that they can link their Goodreads account and become socially connected, but also problematic that their data is being tracked and potentially sold.
A few weeks ago I had one of our Learning and Support Teachers approach me about getting an audiobook for one of our year 8 teachers to play to her class while they read the physical novel, so that she could wander the room dealing with behaviour issues instead of being stuck reading to the class. Whaddayaknow – it was impossible to source a copy of this text as an audiobook! If we had, we’d have been faced with issues around access (what device to play it on? How long do we have access to it? Do we need a subscription?) and if we wanted to create our own audiobook of the teacher recording herself reading, we’d be in violation of copyright laws. Call me old-fashioned, but I just wanted a CD audiobook that the English staff could keep in their book room to accompany the class set of novels.
Sometimes I really miss the good old days!
Why did the judge consider Google’s Book search project to be transformative? What are some of the possible benefits and possible issues with such a project? What are some differences between Fair Use (US copyright law) and Fair Dealing (Australian copyright law)?
As so often appears to be the case with new developments in technology, Google Books is simultaneously democratising and ultra-capitalistic. Google’s aim of bringing literature and research to the masses is a wonderful equiliser which increases access to quality resources, but isn’t purely altruistic or without benefit to the corporate giant behind the move since they stand to profit from advertising and potential future subscription models. I’m no lawyer, but it seems that Google is prevailing on a technicality – namely, that according to US laws a class action must be brought by a ‘class’ or group with similar facts (in this case, I think this refers to similar losses). If I’m understanding this case correctly, the ‘injuries’ or financial losses by the authors involved in the class action are potentially not similar enough for them to be counted as a class, which means that each individual author would have to sue Google separately – and who has the time, money, and resources to go up in a David vs. Googliath battle like this? Google Books is also an internationally accessed resource affecting international authors, though it seems like this case is being decided in US courts under US laws. Since Australia’s Fair Dealing provisions seem more prescriptive than the USA’s Fair Use laws, I wonder what the implications will be for local publishers. I’m also concerned about the possibility that in future, Google can restrict access to these materials again in the name of profit or lock users in to access via certain devices (which, of course, will also financially benefit Google!).
Working titles:Shakespeare’s Age and Stage OR The Shakespeare Chronicles OR Shakespeare Transformed
Topic: This digital storytelling project aims to help secondary students understand Shakespeare’s life and times through an interactive, multimodal choose-your-own-adventure digital narrative.
Platform/tool: Canva
Rationale:
This digital narrative is intended to support the EHS Stage 4 English unit Shakespeare’s Bawdy Mouth, where students explore Elizabethan England to gain an understanding of Shakespeare’s context and works. It could also be used as revision for Stage 5 or 6 English students studying a variety of Shakespearean plays.
In this choose-your-own-adventure narrative, students will follow the adventures of a young actor in Shakespeare’s theatre company, The Lord Chamberlain’s Men, as they prepare for the opening night of Macbeth in 1606. Students will be presented with choices to guide the narrative and learn about Shakespeare’s life and times. It aims to utilise the three elements of quality digital literature I’ve previously identified – interactivity, multimodality, and connectivity – to support students’ developing understandings.
Ideally, this resource will also function as a research pathfinder, as student’s choices will be supplemented by hyperlinks to external resources in order to support literary learning and develop their information literacy skills. Currently, students are assessed on their knowledge of this unit via their composition of three diary entries from the perspective of someone in Shakespeare’s time. Students could potentially use this narrative as a model for their own digital diary entries, thus updating the task for a digital environment and supporting student learning needs in the 21st century.
I initially investigated PowerPoint and Microsoft Sway for this task but chose to use Canva for a variety of reasons. I enjoyed using Microsoft Sway but its inability to link between pages meant that it wasn’t viable for a hyperlinked choose-your-own-adventure narrative. I am proficient with PowerPoint and could utilise many of its features to construct a hyperlinked narrative, but felt that Canva was easier and more appealing for Stage 4 students due to its user-friendly interface, cloud storage, collaborative potential and its wide database of images and graphics. It is also free to access for NSW Department of Education students via their student portal. However, I am finding it difficult to inset audio to different slides since Canva is limited to one audio file per design.
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.
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 (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).
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:
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).
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/
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.
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).
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:
Translational = focus on automation, consumption of digital knowledge
Transformational = focus on production and contribution of digital knowledge
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
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
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:
Twitterature
Hypertext
Generators
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
Throughout ETL533 I have examined how I currently incorporate digital literature into our school and considered ways to increase this in future (
