Commencing this unit with a rudimentary knowledge of digital literature has necessitated a steep learning curve to achieve a greater understanding of this broad topic. The first learnings involved redefining the concept of reading and books from the sense-making of text and text repositories to include multimedia, interactive elements and other components such as social media (Lamb, 2011; Unsworth, 2006; Walsh, 2012). By extension, this redefinition also redefines the concept of literacy (Leu et al., 2011). Many universities and future-looking industry groups now recognise digital or transmedia literacy as a desirable graduate attribute or essential workplace skill for the future (Clarke, 2018; Davies, Fidler, & Gorbis, 2011; World Economic Forum, 2018). This form of literacy involves the location and critical evaluation of source information which must be taught by educators at all levels (Bawden, 2008).
The debate on devices and platforms which facilitate reading on screens versus traditional books, confirmed some of my long-held beliefs. Beliefs such as the phenomenal mental energy required for screen reading and the attitudes people approach reading on devices (Jabr, 2013). However, the current discussion is not whether to use the digital environment but rather how to use it. Previously I have used the TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) and SAMR (Puentedura, 2012) framework in pedagogical decision-making. The iPED pedagogy by Mills and Levido (2011), contains some similarities to TPACK and SAMR. However, it introduced a more useful framework when using digital literature particularly within the challenge and share categories to achieve our pedagogy goals. Each of these models and frameworks uses the familiar mantra of pedagogy before technology we need to follow as educators. Similarly, this mantra was also a theme through the works of Hall (2012); Walsh (2012) and Unsworth (2006).
While many of the resources related to the K-12 school environment, I found myself drawing synergies between these and the adult education environment, and considering how I could apply their learnings in my situation. Searches for scholarly articles on digital literature and their use within Paramedicine revealed few existed. However, extending the search to the closely aligned profession of Medicine proved fruitful in identifying seminal authors such as Kottow and Kottow (2002). Continuing the review of literature led to the breadth of digital literature pedagogy within medicine including teaching ethics, clinical practice and communication skills (Arntfield, Slesar, Dickson, & Charon, 2013; Holmgren, Fuks, Boudreau, Sparks, & Kreiswirth, 2011; Johna & Rahman, 2011; Kottow & Kottow, 2002; Rowe, 2012). This unit of study has brought to the fore the under-utilisation of digital literature storytelling within Paramedicine and the potential to use this medium to support students in areas known to be challenging, (Rhodes & Milby, 2007)(See Part A for further discussion). Additionally, using the storytelling as a form of pedagogy would also assist learners identifying as Indigenous as this is a culturally appropriate and traditional Indigenous teaching method (Goerke & Kickett, 2013). The under-utilisation of storytelling within paramedicine is ironic considering the traditional pedagogical approach in the profession relied on case-based story-telling, as intimated by Lord (2003).
One of the challenges of using lecturer created resources is upskilling staff in both the pedagogy and technology. Often university and VET staff are content matter experts but may possess varying levels of pedagogical and technology knowledge (tvo.org, 2013). The time commitment for upskilling can be substantial as I found first-hand when learning new software to create the learning resource. A preferred simple to use digital authoring tool was available for use within my organisation, but it would not have been useful in this situation due to the inability to share it outside of the network. This is an example of security concerns of an organisation over-riding the usefulness of the tool (Selwyn, 2016).
While I’ve created a considerable number of videos which align to the substitution or augmentation level of the SAMR framework (Puentedura, 2012), I found the eight steps to great storytelling by Morra (2013) useful in keeping this larger digital literature project on track. Some steps were repeated in the creation process, but this is also part of the documented cycle in resource creation and education in general.
With inherent requirements for the Paramedic course being the student has no significant deficiencies in vision or hearing, I found it challenging to consider accessibility issues when assessing digital literature resources. Reading the complex questions posed in the digital versus traditional literature debate by Jabr (2013) prompted further research in this subject. As part of the searches, a more in-depth assessment tool resource by Mune and Agee (2015) was located and adapted for assessment two. The comprehensive table is a starting point to consider the affordances of an artefact in the areas of pedagogy, various forms of media (including text) and the requirements of the web content accessibility guidelines (W3C, 2018) and will be utilised in the future.
This unit of study sparked further research and a realisation of how lacking digital literature is within the field of Paramedicine. Through my role, I intend to increase the number of resources within our VET and HE units and it is likely this will become a field of research in which I’m involved.
References
Arntfield, S. L., Slesar, K., Dickson, J., & Charon, R. (2013). Narrative medicine as a means of training medical students toward residency competencies. Patient Education and Counseling, 91(3), 280-286. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.01.014
Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In (Vol. 30, pp. 17-32).
Clarke, M. (2018). Rethinking graduate employability: the role of capital, individual attributes and context. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1923-1937. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1294152
Davies, A., Fidler, D., & Gorbis, M. (2011). Future work skills 2020. Retrieved from Palo Alto, CA: http://www.iftf.org/uploads/media/SR-1382A_UPRI_future_work_skills_sm.pdf
Goerke, V., & Kickett, M. (2013). Working towards the assurance of graduate attributes for Indigenous cultural competency: The case for alignment between policy, professional development and curriculum processes. In The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives (Vol. 12, pp. 61–81).
Hall, T. (2012). Digital renaissance: The creative potential of narrative technology in education. . In (Vol. 3, pp. 4): Creative Education.
Holmgren, L., Fuks, A., Boudreau, D., Sparks, T., & Kreiswirth, M. (2011). Terminology and praxis: Clarifying the scope of narrative in medicine. Literature and Medicine, 29(2), 246-273.
Jabr, F. (2013). The reading brain in the digital age: The science of paper versus screens. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/
Johna, S., & Rahman, S. (2011). Humanity before science: Narrative medicine, clinical practice, and medical education. The Permanente journal, 15(4), 92. doi:10.7812/TPP/11-111
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Kottow, M., & Kottow, A. (2002). Literary narrative in medical practice. Medical Humanities, 28(1), 41. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/mh.28.1.41
Lamb, A. (2011). Reading redefined for a transmedia universe. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(3), 12-17.
Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., O’Byrne, W. I., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett-Cacopardo, H., . . . Forzani, E. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: expanding the literacy and learning curriculum.(commentatry (essay). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5. doi:10.1598/JAAL.55.1.1
Lord, B. (2003). The development of a degree qualification for paramedics at Charles Sturt University. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 1(1).
Mills, K. A., & Levido, A. (2011). iPed: Peagogy for digital text production. Reading Teacher, 65(1), 80-91. doi:10.1598/RT.65.1.11
Morra, S. (2013, 30 may). 8 Steps to great digital storytelling. Retrieved from https://edtechteacher.org/8-steps-to-great-digital-storytelling-from-samantha-on-edudemic/
Mune, C., & Agee, A. (2015). Ebook showdown: Evaluating academic ebook platforms from a user perspective. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2015/Mune_Agee.pdf
Puentedura, R. (2012, 3 September, 2012). Building upon SAMR. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/09/03/BuildingUponSAMR.pdf
Rhodes, J. A., & Milby, T. M. (2007). Teacher created electronic books: integrating technology to support readers with disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 61(3), 255-259. doi:10.1598/RT.61.3.6
Rowe, M. (2012). The use of assisted performance within an online social network to develop reflective reasoning in undergraduate physiotherapy students. Medical Teacher, 34(7), e469-e475. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.668634
Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Oxford: Polity Press.
tvo.org (Producer). (2013, 27 July, 2019). Learning 2030: From books to screen. Learning 2030. [Video]
Unsworth, L. (2006). E-literature for children enhancing digital literacy learning. London ;: Routledge.
W3C. (2018). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
Walsh, M. (2012). Literature in a digital environment. In A literature companion for teachers (Vol. 34).
World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2018
