Before undertaking the task to review digital literature (DL), I had not actively engaged with it or sought it out but now realise that I have been reading and interacting with DL for some time. My first step then, was determining what DL is. I have discussed various definitions in previous blogs (Curtis, 2022a, 2022c). By further considering Groth’s (2018) and Wiesen’s (2022) viewpoints I understand DL cannot exist outside of the digital world in the same form so an eBook is not DL, nor are many websites and apps. I understand that the author needs to utilise the opportunities of the digital format they choose to use to create DL. Categorising DL seems to be more challenging, as they often fall into multiple categories. Rowland (2022) argues that DL is anything that sits in between eBooks and video games and offers up genres like twitterature, hypertext, generators and video poetry. This is not a comprehensive list, as a google search will find examples such as interactive fiction, documentaries, locative fiction, etc. It seems far easier to define what DL is not, rather than what it is.
If that is what a piece of digital literature is, what makes a piece of digital literature good? Rowland (2022) suggests that the format of a literary work is less important than the feelings and responses that the author is trying to convey or illicit. Given that a reader or users response to any given piece of DL is going to be affected by their own experiences and bias, deciding whether a DL text has literary merit is most likely going to be subjective. There have been some attempts to create criteria to assess the quality of DL for children (Yokota & Teale, 2014; McGeehan, et.al., 2018), but to date there are no hard and fast rules set down to evaluate DL as a whole. This is in part, due to the relatively young nature of DL, but also to its fluidity as it continues to evolve as new digital tools become available.
DL is becoming increasingly interactive and concern has been expressed that the added features will distract readers, especially young ones, from the true purpose of reading in the first place (Flood, 2012; Lamb, 2011). It is certainly a concern worth investigating; particularly for educational settings that are considering integrating DL into their curriculum. Recent research summarised by Allcott (2021), indicates that readers engage with electronic print (e-print) differently to paper print (p-print), with readers of e-print more likely to browse and scan, spending less time on in-depth, concentrated and sustained reading. It was also suggested that students reading e-print used less study strategies. These findings certainly describe how I interact with e-print and p-print. I often print off important reading so that I can focus more and take notes.
Conversely, Allcott (2021) summarises articles that suggest DLs that have been carefully designed, so that its features are meaningful, has no negative impact and can increase engagement for reluctant readers and actually improves their confidence. There are proponents on both sides of the digital fence, so which side should educators align themselves? If the DL that students are exposed to is curated carefully, with thought given to the literary content, author intent and the value of the digital features, there is no reason DL should not be used in the classroom. Given the increased focus within curriculums on building student’s ICT capabilities, (Australian Curriculum, n.d.), not exposing them to DL would make it quite challenging to teach students how to effectively navigate the online world and critically evaluate what they find.
Of the three pieces of DL I reviewed recently, Ninette: Thin is Never Thin Enough, Reading Eggs and Seven Deadly Digital Sins, the only one that is suitable for use within a primary school setting is Reading Eggs. Given that this is already in wide use across schools in Australia and across the world (Blake eLeaning, n.d.), I will instead discuss how Seven Deadly Digital Sins (SDDS) (Smith, n.d.) could be utilised as a tool for high school students. For an in-depth look, either visit the site itself or read my review (Curtis, 2022b). Students would be encouraged to explore and engage with SDDS before defining their own examples of digital ‘sins’ relevant to themselves and peers. These could be posted anonymously via padlet or other sharing tool and then discussed collectively. The main goal of this learning sequence would be for students to critically evaluate their own digital life and whether or not it is having an impact on their real-world lives or the digital and real-world lives of others.
My experience with DL has been mostly rewarding, and I can see how quality pieces can be truly engaging and elevate the experience of reading to another level. However, if I am interacting, viewing and listening as well as reading, can I still be called a reader, or am I something else?
References
Allcott, L. (2021, October 11). Reading on-screen vs reading in print: What’s the difference for learning? National Library of New Zealand. https://natlib.govt.nz/blog/posts/reading-on-screen-vs-reading-in-print-whats-the-difference-for-learning
Australian Curriculum. (n.d.). Information and communication technology (ICT) capability (version 8.4). https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/
Blake eLearning. (n.d.) About Reading Eggs. https://readingeggs.com.au/info/about_readingeggs/
Curtis, J. (2022a, July 24). Digital literature – A whole new world. The Rabbit Hole. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/therabbithole/2022/07/24/digital-literature-a-whole-new-world/
Curtis, J. (2022b, August 22). Digital literature review – Seven digital deadly sins. The Rabbit Hole. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/therabbithole/2022/08/21/digital-literature-review-seven-digital-deadly-sins/
Curtis, J. (2022c, August 12). Evaluating digital literature. The Rabbit Hole. https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/therabbithole/2022/08/12/evaluating-digital-literature/
Flood, A. (2012, June 8). Enhanced ebooks are bad for children finds American study. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jun/07/enhanced-ebooks-bad-for-children
Groth, S. (2018, May 20). Still defining digital literature. The Writing Platform. http://thewritingplatform.com/2018/05/still-defining-digital-literature/
Lamb, A. (2011). Reading redefined for a transmedia universe. Learning and Leading with Technology, 39(3), 12-17.
McGeehan, C., Chambers, S., & Nowakowski, J. (2018). Just because it’s digital, doesn’t mean it’s good: Evaluating digital picture books. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(2), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1399488
Rowland, R. (2021, July 8). What is digital literature? Understanding the genre. Book Riot. https://bookriot.com/digital-literature/
Smith, A. (Producer). (n.d.). Seven digital deadly sins. NFB Digital Studio. http://digital-deadly-sins.theguardian.com/#/Grid
Wiesen, G. (2022). What is electronic literature? Language Humanities. https://www.languagehumanities.org/what-is-electronic-literature.htm
Yokota, J., & Teale, 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.