Looking back at my opening blog (Zincke, 2023a), I realised I was trying to tame digital literature into something familiar. My feeling digital literature could be seen on a continuum with innovations in print was supported by reading both the Hayles (2008) and Rettberg (2018) books. Yet, in writing my reviews, I was mindful not to trap digital texts within an analogue paradigm, since “to see electronic literature only through the lens of print is, in a significant sense, not to see it all” (Hayles, 2008, p. 3). Hayles (2008) encourages a new criticism of electronic literature and evaluation was a key theme of the course. I outlined (Zincke, 2023b) how it might be misguided to ask digital literature to do everything print does and more. Consequently, in my reviews, I found myself seeking what was unique about digital literature. This mindset influenced my assessment two, where I attempted to divorce an existing project from its print model.

In discussing assessment two, some students appeared anxious about platform choice, whilst many proposals concerned making resources. In response, I reflected on how we sometimes limit students by focusing on a specific tool (Zincke, 2023c). By choosing Padlet over Book Creator, I wanted to push the platform into the background and encourage learners to use their preferred tools. I am now wondering how more of my school’s digital literacy projects can increase choice and equity through an asset-based model as discussed by Smeda et al. (2014). I was inspired by Tolisano’s (2014, 2015) examples of learners’ digital projects so creating a model, rather than a resource, became my orientation. My post-task reflection (Zincke, 2023d) showed an appreciation for both the difficulties and the benefits of the experience. I now feel embracing a digital mindset is less about resource generation than clearing a space for learner creativity, not only will this bridge academic and real-world learning for students (Walker et al., 2010), it will also represent professional development for educators.

Exploring digital texts challenged and broadened my own definitions of literature. I was especially pleased to nurture a new appreciation of webcomics. In a pre-task post (Zincke, 2023e), I owned my prejudices and became enthused by research supporting the value of this form. I have already taken this back to my classes, sharing my reading, and discussing stories they enjoy. Yet, my post (Zincke, 2023f) about games showed I was not ready to accept these as literature. Perhaps the answer lies in liminal forms such as Porpentine’s, With Those We Love Alive (Charity Heartscape, 2014), which bridge texts and games. I also noted how students sometimes devalue their own digital reading (Zincke, 2023g). In response, I’m planning to use digital texts in library sessions to explore our ideas of reading and literature together.

The feedback on my proposal refined my ideas and intentions. I weighed Croft’s (2023) comment that I needed a clearer sense of narrative. For Alexander (2011, p. 13) story is partly defined by sequence. Indeed, locative narratives often take a sequential ‘walking tour’ approach (Rettberg, 2018, p. 187). I considered switching to creating overlays in Google Maps. However, the familiarity with Padlet, privacy issues in sharing Google maps, and the complications of adding another element made this unwieldy. I also thought about students numbering texts chronologically, but this privileged those who had lived in the same location longer. In the end, I tied my works together thematically and with a repeated phrase, to provide some cohesion. I felt comfortable that my task, although at risk of being “story pieces” (Alexander, 2011, p. 13), did meet the criteria of having an audience in mind and an emotional context (Alexander, 2011, p. 13).

Wei’s (2023) comments spurred me to make sharing integral. Exploring peer work in my reading also led to a reconsideration of whether to have individual or group maps. Eventually, I settled on both by letting students choose one post to port to the shared map and not grading these. In hindsight, I was letting concerns of comparison, something especially challenging for indigenous students (Sukovic, 2014), overshadow the social aspects of digital projects.

Both Wei (2023) and Pearson (2023) suggested linking to external or third-party media. Interrogating my feelings on these points led to a better justification of the project. Firstly, students may not find media of their locations and either let this, rather than personal connection, guide their choices or simply use generic media. These outcomes conflict with the autobiographical purpose of the project. Secondly, our students already have many tasks in other subjects where they source media responsibly. Getting out and recording would generate interest and engage their existing expertise. Rettberg (2018, p. 185) argues the value of locative narratives partly derives from them being personalised cartography, After weighing the benefits, I became convinced that purely student-generated media not only enriched the project but was true to the learning intentions.

References

Alexander, B. (2011). The new digital storytelling: Creating narratives with new media. ABC-CLIO.

Charity Heartscape, P. (2014) With those we love alive. https://xrafstar.monster/games/twine/wtwla/

Croft, T. (2023, September 8). This sounds like a great idea, Andrew, and your proposal demonstrates a clear purpose and audience… [Comment on “Digital storytelling topic proposal: Padlet maps for creative writing”]. Digilitaz. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/digilitaz/2023/08/17/digital-storytelling-topic-proposal-padlet-maps-for-creative-writing/#comments

Hayles, N. K. (2008). Electronic literature: New horizons for the literary. University of Notre Dame Press.

Pearson, J. (2023, September 13). I feel the students will enjoy this task. Particularly starting with a map and building from there… [Comment on “Digital storytelling topic proposal: Padlet maps for creative writing”]. Digilitaz. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/digilitaz/2023/08/17/digital-storytelling-topic-proposal-padlet-maps-for-creative-writing/#comments

Rettberg, S. (2018). Electronic literature. John Wiley & Sons.

Smeda, N., Dakich, E., & Sharda, N. (2014). The effectiveness of digital storytelling in the classrooms: a comprehensive study. Smart Learning Environments, 1, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0006-3

Sukovic, S. (2014). iTell: Transliteracy and Digital Storytelling. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 45(3), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.951114

Tolisano, S. R. (2014). Global project: Visualize poetry around the world. Langwitches.  https://langwitches.org/blog/2014/08/31/global-project-visualize-poetry-around-the-world/

Tolisano, S. R. (2015). Digital storytelling: What it is… And… What it is not. Langwitches.  https://langwitches.org/blog/2015/08/18/digital-storytelling-what-it-is-and-what-it-is-not/

Walker, S., Jameson, J., & Ryan, M. (2010). Skills and strategies for e-learning in a participatory culture (Ch. 15). In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham, & S. Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age: How learners are shaping their own experiences (pp. 212-224). Routledge.

Wei, Y. (2023, September 12). It’s encouraging to see you refine an existing unit and make use of geo-tagging in Padlet Maps… [Comment on “Digital storytelling topic proposal: Padlet maps for creative writing”]. Digilitaz. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/digilitaz/2023/08/17/digital-storytelling-topic-proposal-padlet-maps-for-creative-writing/#comments

Zincke, A. [akzincke] (2023a, July 8). Introduction module – blog prompt. Digilitaz. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/digilitaz/2023/07/08/introduction-module-blog-prompt/

Zincke, A. (2023b, July 17). Concerns over evaluating digital narratives [Online discussion comment]. Interact 2. https://interact2.csu.edu

Zincke, A. (2023c, September 12). Two examples of digital tools and learning [Online discussion comment]. Interact 2. https://interact2.csu.edu

Zincke, A. (2023d, September 18). Reflecting on creating a digital story [Online discussion comment]. Interact 2. https://interact2.csu.edu

Zincke, A. (2023e, July 17). An interest in webtoons [Online discussion comment]. Interact 2. https://interact2.csu.edu

Zincke, A. [akzincke] (2023f, July 8). Trying out some games. Digilitaz. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/digilitaz/2023/07/24/trying-out-some-games/

Zincke, A. [akzincke] (2023g, August 21). A quick post-assessment reflection. Digilitaz. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/digilitaz/2023/08/21/a-quick-post-assessment-reflection/