An educational professional, especially a teacher librarian, has a unique set of responsibilities in digital environments – first, to lead through informed evaluation, judicious selection, and provision of access to learning resources. To add to that, they must then find ways to effectively communicate their findings directly to students, and to staff members in order to make them aware of the resources’ benefits for students but also how to use them to support and enhance their teaching. And then there is the creation of resources in the digital environment, which is perhaps the most time-consuming but – dare I say it – fun part!
Evaluating digital resources was an area I started this semester with many question marks about. I started by narrowing my definition of ‘evaluation’ down to two main spheres – an artefact’s effect size in terms of achieving learning outcomes (which is generally the primary reason for which an educator selects resources), and its capacity to engage an audience (Langford, 12th July, 2025).
Effectiveness at engaging an audience does not necessarily mean a digital resource holds them in captivated awe of the animation and entertaining interactive elements. The greatest deepening I’ve had in my definition of a resource’s ‘engagement factor’ is in the way it ‘connects the dots’ between prior and new knowledge, between peers, within groups (families, classes, etc.), and between physical and digital resources. The potential for this multi-faceted boundary crossing is immense, and necessary in a primary school setting (Bjorgen, 2010).
One of the best finds for assessing a resource’s potential across several of these domains, and that I have used with far greater effect this semester, is the VEBB tool (Norwegian Reading Center – University of Stavinger, 2025). I used this to some effect in my reviews of digital literature (Langford, August 23rd, 2025; Langford, August 24th, 2025; Langford, August 26th, 2025) but know now that its scope is limited for many educators. I have since found that synthesis of the engagement factors listed within the VEBB alongside criteria of my own development that are better suited to the K-12 space has increased my ability to critically evaluate a wider range of resources found in the digital environment (especially examples of digital storytelling) for their use in the classroom.
There is also a flip side of the role of education professionals, wherein they become creators. When we find that purpose-specific, quality resources do not exist within the digital environment, teacher librarians in particular are ideally poised to craft artefacts that bridge that gap.
Teacher librarians (educators in general) are the gurus of Puendetura’s (2011) Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition framework for using digital technologies and supporting digital literacy in the classroom. We know that the choice to use digital storytelling in our teaching does not mean using every brand-new publishing tool presented to us, without considering effect size. We can instead select the best tools from the many available (digital and physical) for producing texts that have specific purposes (Lamb, 2011).
That is not to say we do not remain open to (or do not need to) learn about new platforms – but it does mean prioritising use of a well-established tool and unlocking a new functionality, or redefining how we present it, or linking digital and physical resources if it is going to create an experience that better serves the needs of our students (Langford, 26th July, 2025).
During the conceptualisation period of creating my digital narrative, feedback from my peers was varied on my proposal to do just that (Langford, 25th August, 2025). My proposed tool, Google Slides, was simultaneously praised for its ease of editing, while also being decried as clunky and difficult to integrate interactivity with. As a result, I decided to reframe the way I anticipated the artefact being used and the outcome it was designed to achieve. The result was a more widely usable resource that still allowed me to experiment with certain functionalities.
Peer feedback indicated that they thought the initial subject I had chosen (makerspace induction) was a useful, valid one as well, and I am considering the suggestions given about other platforms that might suit the purpose. This will define how I expand my skillset to create a suite of makerspace-oriented digital stories with more complex interactive features (suitable for an older audience who are less likely to be distracted by them when using the resource independently).
The future is alight with potential for education professionals in the digital environment!
References
Bjørgen, A. (2010). Boundary crossing and learning identities – digital storytelling in primary schools. Seminar.net, 6(2), 161-178. https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.2429
Lamb, A. (2011). Reading redefined for a transmedia universe: Once upon a time, reading was as simple and straightforward as decoding words on a page. No more. Digital age technologies have made such an impact on the way we interact with content that the old definitions of reading and books no longer apply. Learning and leading with technology, 39(3), 12-17. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/8636/39-3.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Langford, A. (2025, 12th July). Digital Literature – It’s A Spectrum. Read Reflect Reimagine. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/readreflectreimagine/2025/07/12/digital-literature-its-a-spectrum/
Langford, A. (2025, 26th July). Changes In My Practice. Read Reflect Reimagine. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/readreflectreimagine/2025/07/26/changes-in-my-practice/
Langford, A. (2025, 23rd August). Review of The Wetlands. Read Reflect Reimagine. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/readreflectreimagine/2025/08/23/review-of-the-wetlands/
Langford, A. (2025, 24th August). Review of Arthur’s Teacher Trouble. Read Reflect Reimagine. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/readreflectreimagine/2025/08/24/review-of-arthurs-teacher-trouble/
Langford, A. (2025, 25th August). Digital Storytelling Proposal Assessment 1 Part B. Read Reflect Reimagine. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/readreflectreimagine/2025/08/25/digital-storytelling-proposal-assessment-1-part-b/
Langford, A. (2025, 26th August). Review of Where In Space Is Carmen Sandiego?. Read Reflect Reimagine. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/readreflectreimagine/2025/08/26/review-where-in-space-is-carmen-sandiego/
Norwegian Reading Centre – University of Stavanger. (2025). VEBB – Educational evaluation of picture book apps for shared dialogue/conversation-based reading. Norwegian Reading Centre – University of Stavanger. https://vebb.uis.no/
Puentedura, R. (2011). A brief introduction to TPCK and SAMR. Hippasus. http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2011/12/08/BriefIntroTPCKSAMR.pdf