Living within the digital woods…

My first blog post for ETL533 used the subheading: Into the digital woods (Kimball, 2022, July 25), to refer to the current digital landscape with its hidden treasures and traps. My views, knowledge and understanding of digital environments and texts have certainly expanded throughout this subject. I’ve consolidated my view that the plethora of technological tools in our educational settings today have created a paradoxical scenario; where teaching and learning can be ‘easier’, yet also more complicated (Kimball, 2022, August 10). Consequently, my perspective that educators and teacher-librarians (TLs) have vital roles to play, as selectors and mediators of digital literature, has also been strengthened.

Quality and content of digital texts is paramount, regardless of format, given the fluidity and rapidly evolving nature of digital media (Groth, 2018). Educators must apply our own critical literacy skills; by using relevant criteria to select appropriate, quality resources for school contexts (Kimball, 2022, July 24). Yokota & Teale’s (2014) selection criteria was a useful springboard for considering digital literature for students. For Assessment 2, I decided on eight criteria: literary merit, aesthetic quality, representation, digital enhancements and extras, access, navigation, security and advertising, and authorship (Kimball, 2022, August 22). Adapted from Kluver (as cited in Kucirkova, 2018), the University of Stavanger (2019), and Walsh (2013), I applied these to my own digital text for our final assessment.

Throughout ETL533, I have re-worked my definition of digital literature.  After engaging with a variety of innovative texts for Assessment 2, I questioned the suitability of non-linear texts for younger students, as well as the novelty factor of others, which can be engaging yet distracting from storylines. Recent research emphasizes that quality digital texts embed multimedia aligned to the story, rather than novel features that distract from meaning-making (Furenes et al., 2021, p. 507; McGeehan et al., 2018, p.64). Content is clearly key to the quality of a digital text. Thus, my shifting definition of digital literature now includes print-born texts such as enhanced ebooks, which include rich language and supportive interactive content (Kimball, 2022, August 22).

The creation of my own enhanced ebook enabled me to apply digital literacy skills, and my professional views on digital literature for students. It was fun to dabble in a range of tools, as I experimented with Canva, Microsoft Sway and Google systems, as recommended by students in comments posted on the Assessment 3 Padlet. I ended up working with PowerPoint and Google Slides, and while I had to abandon my initial choice of Canva, due to limitations with audio, I was quite pleased with the final product. However, I was unable to create truly synchronised text and audio – text highlighted as the poem is narrated – an enhancement known to support readers with developing literacy skills (Kucirkova, 2018, p.19; Roskos et al., 2014, p.5).

Feedback on Assessment 3 – from Louise, Jacob and Rebecca – included positive comments about incorporating Indigenous perspectives and poetry into a digital resource. Unfortunately, I ran into a barrier with regards to Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights (ICIPR). I understood that I could use Oodgeroo’s Ballad of the Totems (1970/2008), her drawing of a carpet snake, and a photograph of Oodgeroo, if appropriately attributed and for educational purposes, under Fair Dealing (National Copyright Unit, n.d.-a) and the Statutory Text and Artistic Works Licence s 113P (National Copyright Unit, n.d.-b.). However, consultation with relevant First Nations groups is the ethical approach for incorporating Indigenous content, even though there is no specific legislation in Australia that recognises ICIPR (National Copyright Unit, n.d.-c). I’m still waiting to hear from Oodgeroo’s family, as to whether I have their permission to use her work and image.

Prompted by Louise’s feedback for my project (2022, September 8), I intended to use Canva classes to share my ebook, while I was still working with Canva. While PowerPoint may not be as sophisticated as other tools, it is easy to share within my Education Queensland context. It was also the medium through which my school shared learning from home resources during the COVID-19 lockdowns, as not all classes have BYO devices. I decided to use a Padlet Wall to encourage social interaction, after feedback from Krystal, as a new communication format for my students to try, in a supported and safe online context.

Quality digital literature has the potential to support and extend children’s digital and traditional literacy skills. Implementing new digital mediums, however, requires significant support for educators, given the various associated challenges. Financial and physical support from governments – digital infrastructure and human resources – are essential to address the substantial investment of time and money required for educators and TLs to properly embed innovative tools and learning. We are already living and working within the ‘digital woods’; by strengthening advocacy for state school and library settings, and increasing collaboration with educational professionals, educators and TLs can continue to source treasures, reveal traps, and provide directions on how to make meaning from new digital texts.

References

Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A Comparison of Children’s Reading on Paper Versus Screen: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 483–517. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998074

Groth, S. (2018). Still defining digital literature. The Writing Platform. https://thewritingplatform.com/2018/05/still-defining-digital-literature/

Kucirkova, N. (2018). How and Why to Read and Create Children’s Digital Books: A Guide for Primary Practitioners. UCL Press.

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.

National Copyright Unit. (n.d.-a). Copyright basics. SmartCopying. https://smartcopying.edu.au/guidelines/copyright-basics/copyright-exceptions/

National Copyright Unit. (n.d.-b). Educational licences. SmartCopying. https://smartcopying.edu.au/educational-licences/

National Copyright Unit. (n.d.-c). Copyright basics. SmartCopying. https://smartcopying.edu.au/guidelines/copyright-basics/indigenous-cultural-and-intellectual-property-rights/

Oodgeroo, N. (2008). My People (4^th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. (Original work published 1970)

Roskos, K., Burstein, K., Shang, Y., & Gray, E. (2014). Young children’s engagement with e-books at school: Does device matter? SAGE Open.

University of Stavanger. (2019). Best practice design. Children’s Digital Books. https://www.childrensdigitalbooks.com/design/

Walsh, M. (2013).  Literature in a digital environment. In L. McDonald, A literature companion for teachers (pp. 181-185). Primary English Teaching Association.

Yokota, J. & Teale, W. H. (2014). Picture books and the digital world: educators making informed choices.  The Reading Teacher, 34(6).