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/
Currently, Year 8 English students use Book Creator to produce a creative writing folio in response to poetry. They are advised to include autobiographical elements and connections to local neighbourhoods. The task addresses the literary, linguistic, and multimodal elements of the Year 8 curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2023). When first implemented, the project was novel, but Book Creator is now used for research tasks in other subjects. Many current student projects also appear limited by the mental model of a physical book, making the tool a substitution for an analogue product, something flagged as an issue in digital storytelling (Tolisano, 2015). Moving to Padlet maps would revitalise the task and provide increased learning benefits.
Example map (Zincke, 2023)
Using maps has both relevance and appropriacy for the task. Locative narratives embrace the ubiquity of mobile internet and are valued for connecting poetic responses to geography (Rettberg, 2020, p. 185). Importantly, Book Creator does not have a mobile app, whereas, with Padlet, everything can be done within the app and in situ. Additionally, students currently import generic media from the Book Creator library or Google searches, the latter often without permission. Insisting students collect their own authentic media on-site removes this issue and recognises “the ways people make meaning on the move” (Stornaiuolo et al., 2017, p85). Although maps and the mobile app would be new to learners, all students use Padlet in their Library lessons, providing familiarity and reducing the need for training common with digital tools (Deni & Zainal, 2018).
Example post with comment (Zincke, 2023)
Padlet will likely also activate and acknowledge students’ out-of-school skills in new ways. The Padlet ‘wall’ style of short posts breaks the limiting connection with print, shifting the task towards the social media experience. The advantage here is significant. Reports, research, and advice have highlighted the need for digital projects to use prior knowledge and activate transferable, real-world skills (Freeman et al., 2017, p. 14; Walsh, 2010; Kingsley, 2007). Moreover, connections to real-world use are also intrinsic to the Digital Literacy General Capability (DLGC) (ACARA, 2023b) and motivate students (Mills & Levido, 2011). Although Book Creator allows importing content from other sources, Padlet’s familiar mobile and posting model increases opportunities for demonstrating existing online skills, creating an asset-based task. Smeda et al. (2014) link this approach to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and suggest it supports migrant and low-literacy learners, both groups of interest at the school.
In the revised task, learners produce the same overall volume of work but are encouraged to create a greater number of shorter multimodal texts. Students will share their work throughout, another motivating factor in digital projects (Morra, 2013). Sharing also establishes a new attachment to the Creation and Exchanging element of the DLGC (ACARA, 2023b). Initially, students will record audio, image, and video from their neighbourhood, excluding identifying their home, for privacy reasons, and share this and their ideas for tools in group discussions. Next, they present work in progress, assisting and problem-solving in groups. Students will then submit their work to peer comments on their Padlet. Padlet has been recognised as a useful tool for peer work (Dollah et al., 2021; Nadeem, 2019; Ling et al., 2023). The comments model facilitates this, is familiar from social media, and presents an opportunity to encourage the prosocial behaviours and online etiquette aspects that strengthen digital storytelling and media tasks (McCusker, 2023; Kingsley, 2007). To assist, teachers should model positive commenting. After grading, in a project-capping stage, learners select one piece to be imported to a shared class map. As recommended (Kearney, 2011; Mills & Levido, 2011; Smeda et al., 2014), an illustrative model has been provided. However, teachers should create their own, engaging with the feedback and learning process, thereby modelling the collaborative and participatory dimensions important in digital tasks and lifelong learning (Snyder, 2009, p. 156; Jenkins et al., 2009).
Example privacy settings (Padlet, n.d.)
The ’secret’ setting in Padlet allows only those with the link to access the map and is perfect for working privately but also sharing. Walls can be turned back to private whenever students wish. Basic accounts are free, without advertising, and allow full access to all the tools. Students need an account to create a map and will be required (via a Padlet setting) to be logged in when commenting on others’ work. Students will be advised to turn off ‘reactions’ (likes, voting, stars, and grades) to their posts, as these invite comparisons.
Regarding possible barriers, some students cannot download phone apps, due to parental restrictions, and a minority do not have a phone. For the first group, parents should be contacted about the project to explain the benefits and rationale of the task. For the second, working with a parent’s phone is an option and, as all students are supplied with a laptop with camera, audio, and video recording tools, this could be an alternative.
References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2023a). English curriculum content 7-10 (Version 9). Australian Curriculum. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/downloads/learning-areas
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2023b). Digital literacy (Version 9). Australian Curriculum. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/downloads/general-capabilities
Deni, A. R. M., & Zainal, Z. I. (2018, October). Padlet as an educational tool: Pedagogical considerations and lessons learnt. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (pp. 156-162). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290511.3290512
Dollah, S., Sehuddin, M., & Sakkir, G. (2021). Motivating EFL learners to write using padlet application. ELT Worldwide, 8(2), 240-254.
Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., and Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN horizon report: 2017 K-12 edition. The New Media Consortium. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/182003/
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF
Kearney, M. (2011). A learning design for student-generated digital storytelling. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.553623
Kingsley, K. V. (2007). Empower diverse learners with educational technology and digital media. Intervention in school and clinic, 43(1), 52-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512070430010701
Ling, C. Y., Choy, D., & Wei Jhen, L. (2023). Impacts of a socio-cognitive and motivation-and-learning approach on students’ writing with a real audience. Education 3-13, 51(5), 850–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2021.2025129
McCusker, S. (2023). Ten powerful benefits of digital storytelling. EdTechTeacher. https://edtechteacher.org/10-powerful-benefits-of-digital-storytelling/
Mills, K. A., & Levido, A. (2011). iPed: Pedagogy for digital text production. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.65.1.11
Morra, S. (2013). Eight steps to great storytelling. EdTechTeacher. http://edtechteacher.org/8-steps-to-great-digital-storytelling-from-samantha-on-edudemic/
Nadeem, N. H. (2019). Students’ perceptions about the impact of using padlet on class engagement: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 9(4), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2019100105
Padlet. (n.d.) Padlet. https://padlet.com
Rettberg, S. (2020). Electronic literature. Polity Press.
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
Snyder, I. (2009). Shuffling towards the future: the enduring dominance of book culture in literacy education. In M. Baynham & M. Prinsloo (Eds.), The future of literacy studies (pp. 141-159). Palgrave Macmillan.
Stornaiuolo, A., Smith, A., & Phillips, N. C. (2017). Developing a transliteracies framework for a connected world. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(1), 68-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X16683419
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/
Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice? The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211-239.
Zincke, A. (2023). Creative writing folio. https://padlet.com/zinckea/creative-writing-folio-kp3fc6i4i0s3yyf5