Just as there is a great body of academic literature attempting to both define literature and determine the qualities of good print literature, there is a growing body of work attempting a similar feat in the field of digital literature. Some recent research discussed below reach similar conclusions in their efforts to evaluate digital literature.
McGeehan, Chambers and Nowakowski (2018) proposed a rubric to enable teachers to evaluate the quality of a digital narrative for use in the classroom. The rubric is based on points recommended by Yokota and Teale in 2014 (p. 60). Appendix A shows the rubric with the following categories posed as five questions:
- Is the text appropriately presented in digital format?
- Does the text take advantage of features the digital world allows beyond what is possible in print?
- Do any supplementary features align with the text?
- Do the features support basic concepts of print?
- Do the digital features used support reader’s acquisition of words or comprehension?
Each category has several criteria attached and is given a score. The total score can then be calculated wherein a score of 13-15 out of 15 denotes an excellent digital text.
It is interesting to note that the rubric seems to assess how well the text has been executed as a digital experience e.g., whether the digital features are used well to enhance the experience and thereby reading comprehension. However, apart from asking if the features support concepts of print such as fonts, left to right reading orientation, page turning etc., there is no specific criterion or category aimed at evaluating the ‘narrative’ or ‘storytelling’ contribution of the text. The text might tick all the boxes and achieve a perfect numerical score – however, if the students are not interested in the story, or the story is not applicable to the curriculum requirements, then it is not an effective digital narrative, especially not for a classroom setting.
Yokota and Teale (2014) propose five questions to use when evaluating digital texts. Interestingly, McGeehan, Chambers and Nowakowski (2018) have utilised almost the exact same questions (above) wherein the ‘digital-ness’ of the story is the factor in question. However, Yokota and Teale do make the distinction that digital narratives, like print narratives, should also meet three fundamental standards (p. 580):
- Is the story well told, according to literary standards?
- Is the language of the text skilfully crafted?
- Are illustrations artistically skilful, and do they work well with the text to illuminate, extend, and/or co-create the story as a whole? The illustrations and text as a whole must be the appropriate size for the device or software in use.
Furthermore, Yokota and Teale address essential points regarding age and content appropriateness. Whilst the authors do focus on the appropriateness of sound effects and voice of the narrator, the point is part of a much larger issue. Teachers and educators must adhere to national guidelines when selecting content for student use. Whilst more traditional media formats such as films and television and even games must be rated according to the Australian Classification system, newer forms of media such as literature in digital environments, should be scrutinised before being selected for classroom use (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, n.d.).
Of course, a key component of literature is narrative. Whether true or fictitious, or somewhere in between, a narrative is a story. It is the account of events, experiences, and details. It also encompasses the way the story is told (Literary Terms, n.d.). Narrative analysis can be used to analyse narrative print texts to evaluate their quality. Robledo (2019) attempts to use methods of narrative analysis prescribed to print texts to evaluate an electronic Literature text as a literary work. Robledo analyses the first chapter of the interactive App Pry according to structure, narration, characterisation, space, and time (Figure 1). However, Robledo points out that through each aspect of analysis, further methodologies are needed to fully analyse the text due to the multimodal nature of the text and the interaction of the reader. This insight further strengthens the notion that digital literature is literature and has the potential to be analysed as such; however, traditional methods of analysis are lacking and therefore, digital works must be evaluated both as literary works and as digital works. Furthermore, the successful interplay of these two features is crucial.
A literature Companion for Teachers suggests a similar approach to the previous academic texts discussed (Walsh, 2013). Walsh posits whether e-literature can be considered literature and questions whether traditional criteria such as ‘characterisation, setting, themes, style, vocabulary’ and their links with multimodal elements should be the basis in which e-lit is assessed. The author goes on to highlight that the most important feature of digital literature to consider is ‘whether they communicate meaning that reflects on human experience combined with aesthetic value’ (p. 182). The Companion goes on to list some qualities of good literature, followed by some features of digital narratives. These two lists are then aggregated to form the basis of analysis for evaluating a digital narrative which is then demonstrated using the popular text Inanimate Alice. Walsh argues that a synergy between the digital and literary elements must exist, for the text to be considered a good digital narrative (Figure 2).
Importantly, the Companion, by its nature for use by teachers, suggests that these evaluations can be discussed and conducted with students. Many discussion questions are listed as examples of how teachers can evaluate digital texts with their students to encourage a deeper engagement with the texts and their formats. Digital texts should aim to meet and exceed literary standards expected of print texts. Furthermore, the digital nature and features of the text should aim to enhance the storytelling and learning experience. The digital aspects must be integral to the experience and rather than merely providing ‘bells and whistles’ which can often be counterintuitively distracting. The digital qualities of the text must also be age, context, and content appropriate. Furthermore, the text must be suited to the curriculum and class context and important to the teaching and learning experience.
The chapter concludes by highlighting the crucial point, interestingly not addressed in the other texts discussed above, that ‘literature is in the hands of its readers; reader responses, interactions and reconstructions’ (p. 194). Digital texts, like their print predecessors the text must be interesting for students to read, learn from, experience, and enjoy. Without interest and engagement, even digital literature of the highest quality becomes irrelevant.
References
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. (n.d.) What we classify. Retrieved August 15, 2021 from https://www.classification.gov.au/classification-ratings/what-we-classify
Literary Terms. (n.d.) Narrative. Retrieved August 15, 2021 from https://literaryterms.net/narrative/
McGeehan, C., Chambers, S., & Nowakowski, J. (2018). Just because it’s digital, doesn’t mean it’s good: Evaluating digital picture books. Journal of Learning in Teacher Education, 34(2), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.139948
Robledo, Y. d. G. (2019). Analysing e-lit as work of literature: Is it possible? Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics, 42(4), 109-115.
[Untitled screenshot from Inanimate Alice]. (n.d.). https://inanimatealice.com/
[Untitled screenshot from Pry]. (n.d.). https://www.pocketgamer.com/games/024162/pry/screenshots/
Walsh, M. (2013). Literature in a digital environment (Ch. 13). In L. McDonald (Ed.), A literature companion for teachers. Primary English Teaching Association Australia (PETAA).
Yokota, J., & Teale, W.H. (2014). Picture books and the digital world: Educators making informed choices. The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 577-585. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1262