Digital storytelling in Australia

Abstract

This project explored the experiences of a small sample (N = 6) of Australian academics with the use of digital storytelling as a pedagogical tool in higher education contexts. This article describes two case studies of academic uses of digital storytelling, along with interpretive analysis of six semi-structured interviews of academics working within media and communication studies and their reflections on the potential of digital storytelling to enhance student learning and the student experience. Three consistent themes emerged, based around issues of definition, the need for ‘constructive alignment’, and resource and planning requirements. Academics regarded digital storytelling as a complement to, not a substitute for, conventional methods of learning and assessment such as the critical research essay. Overall, reservations exist regarding the promise of digital storytelling as a pedagogical tool that some academics have recently claimed for it.

Keywords

Australia digital storytelling ICT interviews multimedia applications pedagogy

Introduction

In June 2008 a special issue of Arts and Humanities in Higher Education (AHHE) showcased significant work and reflection by a number of North American university scholars on digital storytelling as a pedagogical tool. Contributors to the ‘forum’ described a range of academic contexts in which digital storytelling is being used, provided overviews of institutional histories of its application, and gave concrete advice, examples and references to resources on how digital storytelling can be integrated effectively into tertiary education environments. Contributors made a number of claims and predictions about the future of digital storytelling in university teaching, and specifically teaching in the arts and humanities: namely that it offers ‘a powerful medium for students to represent a theoretically informed understanding of texts and contexts in a form other than “traditional” writing’ (Coventry, 2008a: 166); that it will become a ‘signature pedagogy’ for the ‘New Humanities’ in the twenty-first century (Benmayor, 2008: 188); and that it will ‘transform the educational experience’ (Leon, 2008: 220). The contributions to the special issue of AHHE belong to an expanding literature on digital storytelling and its utility in higher education teaching that to date has gained its main impetus from scholarship originating in the United States. This work complements the growing body of scholarship from around the world on the diffusion and utility of digital storytelling in a range of educational and community contexts (Hartley and McWilliam, 2009)

The underlying premise of such work is that technology is rapidly transforming society, culture and consciousness. According to this view, visual culture and computing technology have developed so rapidly that traditional teaching methodologies, especially in the arts and humanities, have become anomalous for many contemporary university students. The embrace of multimedia and digital technologies is considered, then, to be a legitimate and indeed necessary strategy for university educators to ensure the relevance of their subject disciplines, to engage with contemporary students and to enhance their learning outcomes (Daley, 2003; Kellner, 2008; Schreibman et al., 2004; Siemens and Schreibman, 2007; Ulmer, 2006). Digital storytelling, it is claimed by writers like those who contributed to the AHHE special issue, is an example of the kind of methodology that contemporary tertiary educators should consider engaging with to promote authentic learning connections with their students. The present study contributes to a small but growing pool of published research articles about the way Australian academics are taking up this challenge, specifically with reference to their use of digital storytelling (Burgess, 2006; Hartley and McWilliam, 2009; Hartley et al., 2008; Klaebe and Bolland, 2007).

In mid-2008 the first author became interested in digital storytelling and its potential as a pedagogical tool for undergraduate teaching in literary studies. Enrolled in a postgraduate coursework degree on university teaching and learning, he teamed up with the second author to collaborate on a small research project to ascertain the popularity of digital storytelling amongst other Australian university academics, especially those in the arts and humanities, and to survey the range of experiences and applications to which digital storytelling was being applied. The outcomes of this research collaboration were intended to satisfy the course requirements, as well as to inform the first author’s efforts in introducing digital storytelling to a new unit on contemporary Australian literature and film. While, as noted above, a growing body of work and resources exists on how to use digital storytelling in educational contexts, the methodology is one that neither author had experienced in their work and interactions with other university colleagues. The study thus set out to explore if and how digital storytelling is being used by Australian academics and to understand the key issues (practices and practicalities, perceived benefits and costs, and so on) that Australian academics perceive with regard to digital storytelling as a pedagogical tool.

While a minor purpose of the current study was to gauge the level of enthusiasm for digital storytelling in Australian higher education contexts, the researchers were particularly interested in addressing three main issues: Australian academics’ experiences in using digital storytelling; how academics define and apply digital storytelling in their classrooms; and the perceived benefits and costs, the ‘pros and cons’, of digital storytelling as a pedagogical and/or research tool. To these ends, the researchers surveyed a small sample of Australian academics who have used digital storytelling as a teaching and/or research tool. It would seem that, while there is growing enthusiasm for digital storytelling in Australia, there are questions around its definition, its uses and its perceived benefits. The results reported here are by no means comprehensive: at best they map out issues to be addressed by further research on, and application of, digital storytelling in Australian university classrooms.

Definition: what is digital storytelling?

Digital storytelling emerged in California in the late 1980s as a method employed by community theatre workers to enable the recording, production, and dissemination of stories (Lambert, 2009). Digital storytelling was considered a novel way of expressing vernacular or ‘grassroots’ culture: the public culture that is not represented by the various institutions of the mass media and entertainment industries (Burgess, 2006). Digital storytelling developed in a milieu of arts practitioners committed to the democratization of culture: to empowering and giving voice to individuals and groups traditionally silenced, marginalized, or ignored by mainstream culture. Since its inception, digital storytelling has developed in a number of ways, shaped by advances in personal computing and recording technology, and by its use in a range of academic and non-academic contexts.

In its broadest sense, the term ‘digital storytelling’ in education settings relates to the application of multimedia resources within learning environments for the production by students of multimedia narratives (Barrett, 2006; Benmayor, 2008; Bull and Kajder, 2005; Burgess, 2006; Coventry, 2008b; Kajder et al., 2005; Leon, 2008; Mellon, 1999; Oppermann, 2008; Robin, 2008; Tucker, 2006). Barbara Ganley states that ‘digital storytelling encompasses all narrative forms and processes produced and shared digitally, including narrative, image-only stories, internet radio stories and podcasting, and multimedia narrative integrating image, sound and perhaps text’ (Ganley, forthcoming). Digital stories can range in duration from 1 to 10 minutes in length. Such narratives range from photomontages accompanied by voiceover to video movies, and are created using inexpensive photography, video, and audio capture and editing software that is commonly packaged with new Windows-based and Apple computer hardware, such as Windows Media Maker, Photoshop, iMovie, or Acrobat. A number of websites offer instructions and guidance for producing digital stories (see, for example, websites hosted by the Centre for Digital Storytelling <http://www.storycenter.org/>, the Tech Head Stories site <http://www..tech-head.com/dstory.htm>, and the University of Houston <http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/>). Also, an increasing number of organizations offer instruction in digital storytelling on a commercial basis (see McWilliam, 2009, for the results of an online survey of 300 digital storytelling items that demonstrate the diffusion and diversity of applications).

The definition of digital storytelling presented here is necessarily broad, and in part this is due to the rapid rate of change in the nature and accessibility of technology that can be used in its production and consequently the level of production sophistication that can be attained by students. Two areas of definition, however, provide questions for reflection. The first is the question of aesthetics: what production standards can be expected of students working with digital technology? The second is the question of the subjective nature of the storytelling: how does the telling of a ‘personal story’ relate to the practice of critical reflection? Both of these questions relate to the broader issue of the applications of digital storytelling discussed in the next section, and recur throughout the reflections of those interviewed for this study and discussed below under ‘Results’.

Applications: what are the academic uses of digital storytelling?

Broadly speaking, digital storytelling is currently being used as an educational tool, a research method, a technique for community engagement and a therapeutic medium. In terms of its educational applications, academics have reported using digital storytelling in courses on literary studies, creative writing, American Studies, social and cultural history, teacher training, ESL and gender studies (Ganley and Vila, 2006; Klaebe and Bolland, 2007; Oppermann, 2008: 178–9). It is reported to be used increasingly by North American secondary school teachers in their classrooms (Dogan and Robin, 2008; Weiss et al., 2002) and is also being introduced to high school curricula in some Australian states (Tucker, 2006). It has been used in oral and public history projects (Klaebe et al., 2007; Meadows, 2003).

Perceived benefits

As noted above, a growing number of researchers have made claims for the benefits of digital storytelling in the classroom. The authors of the AHHE special edition asserted, amongst other things, that digital storytelling offers students tools to investigate ‘texts and contexts’ in non-traditional ways (Coventry, 2008a: 166). Digital storytelling, it was also claimed, can enhance students’ appreciation of theory. For Rina Benmayor, ‘the digital authoring process makes visible to students how theory emerges from personal experience and how theorizing is both intellectual and creative. … [It] helps to demystify theory and empower students to become theorizers of their own historical and cultural experiences’ (Benmayor, 2008: 200). Digital storytelling, it has also been claimed, facilitates intellectual engagement for students new to academic writing, and for those who experience problems with the conventions of academic writing. In this respect, digital storytelling can complement traditional assessment methods such as critical essay writing (Opperman, 2008). A further theme to emerge from the literature on uses of digital storytelling in the university classroom is that it helps to ‘build a collaborative community and promotes plurality while developing multimedia literacy skills, creative thinking and a new mode of academic discourse suited to the times in which we live’ (Ganley, forthcoming).

In recent research conducted by Bulent Dogan and Bernard Robin (2008) with a group of high school teachers who had undertaken training workshops in digital storytelling, teachers’ perceptions of the value of the digital storytelling process for students support the positive assertions made in the AHHE special edition. The teachers who implemented digital storytelling in their classroom activities reported significantly higher levels of student engagement and motivation. They also believed that their students displayed improved technical, presentational, research and organizational skills, and improved in their writing skills.

Interestingly, while all the teachers who undertook training in digital storytelling reported positive responses to the techniques and the experience, less than half of the group subsequently introduced the technology into their classroom. The greatest barriers to implementation reported appeared to be technical in nature: lack of access to hardware, software and technology. While Dogan and Robin’s (2008) study group is very different to the sample of educators who participated in the current study, lack of time and resources was frequently stated by the participants in the present study to be a barrier to the use of digital storytelling in university classrooms.

Methodology

Participants in the current study were recruited from a pool of Australian academics who have demonstrated a use of, or interest in, digital storytelling in academic contexts. Initially academics who had presented papers at an international conference on digital storytelling in 2006 were approached. A number of these people agreed to participate and in turn recommended colleagues who were then approached by the researchers. In total six academics agreed to participate. A qualitative case study approach was employed (Yin, 1993, 2003). Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone with participants at a time nominated by them. Interviews lasted between 30 and 75 minutes; with the explicit consent of the participants, all interviews were digitally recorded. Core interview questions addressed participants’ experiences with digital storytelling; their motivation for including digital storytelling in their units; perceived strengths and weaknesses of the format; and evaluation undertaken. Case studies were constructed around these questions from two of the interviews. Following thematic analysis of all interviews, selected sections of the interview that reflect the core emergent themes (beyond the original line of enquiry) were transcribed as exemplars. Where necessary, participants were recontacted for clarification or follow-up on certain points or statements.

Interviewees’ experiences with digital storytelling were not consistent. While some had used digital storytelling in their classrooms (see Case Studies 1 and 2), most had used aspects of digital storytelling techniques in their teaching only along with other applications of new media technologies, or had used digital storytelling in other contexts, or had taken a critical perspective with respect to digital storytelling in the context of their work on applications of new media. The researchers found it difficult to access very many academics in Australia who were currently using the method. The comments and reflections offered below may help to explain this, but it must be stressed that the data presented here are qualitative and based on a limited, ‘opportunity sample’ (Cohen et al., 2000: 102). The researchers do not make any claims for the generalizability of these data. Nevertheless it is hoped that the questions and thoughts reported will provide guiding questions for future research. Hence, while the emergent themes apply only to the six Australian academics interviewed, the discussion is framed as carrying hypothetical implications for the state of digital storytelling in Australia.

Results

Case Study 1: Digital storytelling in a postgraduate coursework subject

Interviewee 1 is a lecturer in media and communications studies who introduced digital storytelling into a postgraduate applied research methods coursework unit in semester 1, 2006. Digital storytelling was introduced to address students’ concerns about the way the study context was being delivered; international students in particular were not fully satisfied with the former methods of content delivery. The course teaches students how to create digital stories, to acquire the skills to train others and to use digital stories in their professional lives. The approach taken towards digital storytelling reflects the definitions, methods and applications articulated by international authorities on digital storytelling such as Joe Lambert (2002) and Daniel Meadows (2003).

The course has an enrolment of approximately 12 students per semester. Students are introduced to digital storytelling at the start of semester through course materials and examples of previous student work. They are required to complete three pieces for assessment: two written pieces (involving an essay on digital storytelling, research essay, and/or proposal for a digital storytelling workshop) and the digital story. The digital storytelling project comprises 40% of the total semester grade. Students are expected to produce an audiovisual presentation of between one and three minutes in length, with a 100–250-word scripted/recorded voiceover and 12–25 accompanying images.

Students undertake training workshops in the use of software and equipment. These workshops are supported by seminars in which different media contexts and practices are examined, as well as project management skills for digital storytelling with particular emphasis on copyright and intellectual property issues. Students complete a log that leads them through the various production stages. Currently being developed are a log document and an accompanying set of instructions on how to progress through and towards the expected stages and milestones.

Students may work independently on their project or in groups if they desire; most students to date have chosen to work independently on their project. A rubric for assessment criteria is applied to the projects. Students usually share their stories with selected peers and change or adapt the stories in response to these viewings before submitting their work for assessment. Completed projects are viewed in class at a public event to which members of the university and wider community are invited.

The second (and final) written work for assessment gives students the option of producing a proposal for their own digital storytelling workshop. This activity reflects the course’s ambition to encourage the propagation of digital storytelling as an accepted method in the students’ postgraduate careers.

Evaluation is an important part of the programme, and points are scheduled for reflection and student feedback. Feedback is elicited in relation to students’ experiences of the learning process, and to their opinions on the appropriateness of digital storytelling as a learning methodology. For example, at the end of each class students are asked for written feedback on their responses to class activities and whether it met their expectations. Student feedback, according to Interviewee 1, has so far been very positive. The plan to develop detailed do-it-youself tools was an initiative that responded directly to concerns and recommendations made during the student feedback process. Moreover Interviewee 1 felt that students had demonstrated significant changes in learning following the introduction of digital storytelling and were producing work of a very high standard.

According to Interviewee 1, successful implementation of digital storytelling requires from the instructor: technical expertise and support, a willingness and ability to meet students in terms of their existing digital expertise, and an ability to create a learning environment conducive to students working as co-learners. ‘You can really demonstrate how co-operation works’.

Interviewee 1 reported the strengths of using digital storytelling to include the opportunities for students’ creative expression, the positive valuing of students’ life experiences and the employment of a co-operative learning approach to study. Digital storytelling is a particularly valuable tool for international students, especially those from non-English-speaking backgrounds for whom English literacy is an issue. The reported potential limitations of digital storytelling primarily involved the need for targeted resources, training and support. ‘It’s not cheap. … It’s a resource issue. … It has to be done well.’

Case Study 2: Digital storytelling in an undergraduate creative writing subject

Interviewee 2 is a lecturer in creative writing who has incorporated digital storytelling into second- and third-year level undergraduate writing units for the past three years. Motivation for the incorporation of digital storytelling into the unit was both philosophical – introducing students to a citizen media tool – and institutional, with the faculty encouraging an undergraduate application of digital storytelling. Interviewee 2 indicated that the definition of digital storytelling applied within the unit had broadened over the last three years, from a traditional, self-reflective, autobiographical form to a much more open form in which students were ‘welcome to produce anything they wanted, provided it was low-tech in construction, using still images, royalty-free music’ with or without narration. Interviewee 2 felt that this expansion of definition mirrored changes in practitioner usage and experimentation outside the unit.

In the latest iteration of the unit, students complete a digital storytelling project for 30% of their final grade. The remaining 60% of the assessment is shared between another creative piece, in-class presentation and peer critique. Students also submit a 500-word rationale of their goals for the piece and how these have been achieved. The unit has enrolments of approximately 60 students, who are introduced to digital storytelling in workshop groups of up to 20 students each. The three-hour computer laboratory-based workshops include time for students to work on their projects with the support of the lecturer. One strategy used to deal with the challenge posed by the range of students’ technological skills is to try to pair higher-skilled students with those who lack skills so that they may peer assist each other; Interviewee 2 noted that ‘students are normally quite generous with that kind of thing’.

Students are presented with a range of examples in class to demonstrate the qualities of digital storytelling and to chart its historical development. As part of the process, students are asked independently to find a digital story they like and to share their reasons for their opinions on the class discussion board.

In keeping with the way that digital storytelling is presented as a citizen media tool, the software that students use is free or included with standard operating systems: Windows Media Maker, Audacity (for sound editing) and Photoshop. However, students are free to use whatever software they can access and/or prefer. Additional equipment, such as still cameras and microphones, is available from the department’s audiovisual section. Interviewee 2 noted that the biggest technical challenge faced by students was the capture and editing of good-quality audio. Digital stories are marked, with the aid of a rubric, on the visual aesthetic and narrative of the piece, the aim being a ‘scrapbook aesthetic’.

One weakness identified with digital storytelling as a learning tool was that, for some students, the additional technological skills to be learned might be ‘disproportionate’ to the benefit derived from the digital story production process. However, this possibility is tempered by the move to using simpler and more readily accessible software, and by one of the key strengths of digital storytelling as identified in the context of this particular course: that it represents a vocationally relevant and applicable skill. Additionally, digital storytelling allows students to develop a creative piece with visual, auditory and narrative elements common to film and other multimedia work, in a more accessible medium. Interviewee 2 reported that, on formal unit evaluations, students rate this unit amongst the top five or so units within the faculty, reflecting, in Interviewee 2’s view, the vocational relevance of the unit.

Critical reflections

All of the interviewees in this study expressed a strong commitment to, and belief in, the clear benefits for student learning that the methods associated with digital storytelling bring. The type and range of benefits for student learning articulated by participants are consistent with those reported elsewhere in the literature. In the following section we focus primarily on the main issues that participants raised in relation to digital storytelling and that are of direct relevance to any attempt to implement this technique within tertiary education: the nature of digital storytelling as a pedagogical tool; the need for ‘constructive alignment’ (Biggs and Tang, 2007); and the necessity for resources and support.

The problem of definition: what Is digital storytelling?

Given the range of contexts in which participants have been using this methodology, it is perhaps not unexpected that they defined ‘digital storytelling' in different ways. Definitions were used by interviewees to describe their activities, or to distance or distinguish themselves or their work from particular practices that have recently developed under the ‘digital storytelling’ category. Four of the six participants expressed concerns that the traditional conception of digital storytelling as an autobiographical piece with narration over still imagery, identified with Daniel Meadows’ work and the BBC model, had become conservative and was restrictive for them in their practice. ‘Personally I think the form is strait-jacketed by too rigorous a definition of it’ (Interviewee 2). ‘It’s become very conservative: the whole idea of digital storytelling’ (Interviewee 6). One participant distinguished their own practice from conventional digital storytelling: ‘A lot of the digital storytelling I’ve seen … it’s got a real narrative of personal discovery and affirmation. … We don’t do that’ (Interviewee 5). However, interestingly, participants also described their practice in a way that shared similarities with other interviewees using digital storytelling, as ‘mainly producing academic content; it can be personal, creative, anecdotal, associative and poetic, but it is usually around some kind of academic problem that they’re exploring’ (Interviewee 5). The concerns seemed to centre on what the interviewees perceived as the a-theoretical origins of digital storytelling, in comparison to other theorists’ work in the area of new media, such as that of Ulmer (Interviewee 3), and its association with personal and community empowerment, and ‘very normative, very ego-psychology, very white Anglo-Saxon [traditions] … all about resolution [and] narrative closure’ (Interviewee 5).

For me it felt a lot like … it didn’t seem to be grounded in a strong theoretical framework, in the way that Ulmer’s work was. Ulmer’s work is grounded in poststructuralism, so for me, it felt more like an academic approach, whereas a lot of [digital storytelling] stuff that I’ve seen, it is very social, and very much about community building, and probably more applicable for that sort of stuff … (Interviewee 3)

Barbara Ganley, a North American academic who uses digital storytelling in her writing classes, addresses this issue explicitly, and in a manner that reflects the ideas of a number of this study’s participants. In her view, digital stories produced in an educational context should convey:

an argument rather than a personal story, or specific point in a larger argument being developed primarily in text … students need to distinguish between the intensely personal narrative and the more distanced one, the use of their voice to express their own story and their voice to express their point of view based on research and analysis. (Ganley, forthcoming)

It became clear that participants had different understandings of the term ‘digital storytelling’. Some participants even expressed scepticism about the term, and stated that they did not see themselves as using digital storytelling per se. Yet, when they described their own practices, they gave accounts of methodologies that seemed to fall within the range of practices that have become known collectively by that term. The issue at stake here appears to be the manner in which digital storytelling can be adapted as a method of intellectual critical reflection and engagement. The word ‘storytelling’ seems to invite a range of interpretations and potential ambiguities. In particular, interviewees in this sample seemed at pains to distance their educational practice from any conception of storytelling, and consequently their teaching, as a narrative tool for therapeutic or ‘transformational’ ends (Benmayor, 2008: 189).

Application: the need for constructive alignment

The overarching theme that emerged from participants regarding the use of digital storytelling in a higher education context was the need for constructive alignment (Biggs and Tang, 2007): that digital storytelling, as a learning activity or as assessment, needs to be consistent with the intended learning outcomes. ‘For me [digital storytelling] is more about how do we use these tools that we are constantly engaged with to learn differently or to validate a particular kind of learning style which is more in tune with the technologies that we use’ (Interviewee 3). ‘The teaching and learning model has to fit the context’ (Interviewee 4). ‘Learning outcomes [with digital storytelling] can be much more appropriate to the students’ needs’ (Interviewee 6).

Participants were resistant to the ‘unthinking’ use of new technologies: ‘definitely not just for the sake of it’ (Interviewee 5). They saw digital technologies as providing opportunities for students to express different kinds of understanding, and to express their understanding in different ways. At the same time, adoption of digital storytelling and other alternative assessments involving electronic media did not represent a rejection of the value of traditional forms of literacy, or conventional methods of assessment. ‘[Digital storytelling is] great as a supplement, one way of communicating what you’ve learned on a topic, alongside an essay’ (Interviewee 4). ‘In some instances … getting them to articulate in some kind of verbal form exactly what they understand by a concept or to be able to cogently argue a case, I still think the essay is the best format. I don’t see it as an either/or. I think it has to be a subtle combination of the two, based on that premise, “What medium is going to best serve the outcome of what you want the students to demonstrate?”’ (Interviewee 5).

Participants identified certain learning outcomes and student experiences as being possible with digital storytelling – such as multimodal communication and collaboration – that could not necessarily be achieved though the writing of standard essays. ‘There is really interesting thinking that goes on in the classroom around cooperative approaches to production and to producing knowledge which are very hard to really tap into in an applied kind of way …’ (Interviewee 1). Of particular significance was participants’ feeling that digital storytelling represented a truly student-centred approach to teaching and learning. While the breadth of definitions of digital storytelling offered shows that digital storytelling in an academic context does not have to focus on autobiographical detail, it provides students with an opportunity to speak about academic ideas in their own language, using personal associations and their strengths in visual literacy. Digital storytelling is a way of ‘valuing [the] life experiences of the students’ (Interviewee 1). ‘It’s about validating what they bring to the classroom and what they know and helping them connect that to more accepted forms of academic knowledge’ (Interviewee 3).

At the same time, participants acknowledged the need to support students through what is often, in an academic setting, an unfamiliar process. Interviewees 2, 3, 5 and 6 all incorporated into their practice opportunities and/or expectations that students ‘explain’ their creative work (through rationales, or artists’ statements, etc), in part to reduce students’ anxiety in relation to the learning and assessment process.

Thus, for the academics interviewed, digital storytelling provides a medium for student cultivation and expression of styles of thought not possible with traditional forms of written assessment. However, it was also clear that these academics believe strongly in using the medium thoughtfully and reflexively to determine where and how it can best elicit and support appropriate student learning and development.

Pros and cons: quality, resources and support

Consistent with participants’ focus on constructive alignment as the guiding principle in determining the applicability of digital storytelling or other new media to a learning or assessment context, participants’ expectations of the quality and visual aesthetics of the output depended on the context and the learning objectives.

Interviewees 3 and 4 focused on the functioning of the digital story or creative piece and its ability to communicate ideas and/or argument. The most significant weakness that Interviewee 3 identified in using new media in an academic setting was that students may not embrace the medium critically: ‘sometimes too much time is spent on the construction and not [enough] on the ideas’. In general, while a particular type of visual aesthetic was required for the work – participants referred to the ‘grunge aesthetic’ (Interviewee 3) or the ‘scrapbook aesthetic’ (Interviewee 2) – broadcast quality was not the goal. ‘In some ways [students’ well-developed visual literacy] can be a hindrance, because they’re approaching it thinking “TV looks like this” … whereas I’m saying, “That’s not what it’s about here”’ (Interviewee 5).

Two interviewees using digital storytelling in their teaching had strong impressions of the labour- and resource-intensiveness of the commitment required. Interviewee 1 was concerned about the applicability of digital storytelling to an undergraduate teaching context. It was felt that the pressures on undergraduate teaching and the requirements for using digital storytelling prohibited its effective use with undergraduates. Despite the success of Interviewee 1’s pilot program in the postgraduate stream, digital storytelling was not being implemented elsewhere in their faculty because it was not seen as an appropriate pedagogy, especially at undergraduate levels where class sizes and constraints on resources prohibited its use. ‘The only way that I could explore it as a teaching and learning strategy and platform was in a postgraduate context’ (Interviewee 1). For this interviewee, the allocation of resources and the attainment of standards of quality were inescapably linked to successful learning outcomes for students. ‘I think it’s got to be done well. In order for students to have a good experience I think you do have to tip resources into it, otherwise it is not digital storytelling as such, … you’re just using a different medium to complete an assignment’ (Interviewee 1). Interviewee 3 also stressed the importance of adequate allocation of resources. ‘It is intensive … it is not something you just do lightly. Even having to deal with the [Information Technology Services] department and having to worry about whether your computers are working, or whether your lab is set up correctly, these are things you really have to think through because they can impact terribly if they’re not right’ (Interviewee 3). It was believed that students had to be supported, with software, resources and guidance, to achieve a quality of output that they would not be able to achieve on their own, in order to benefit from the process: ‘I just don’t think you get there if you do it on the cheap’ (Interviewee 1).

In contrast, because digital storytelling is incorporated into Interviewee 2’s unit as an example of a citizen media tool, it is appropriate that readily available software and simple skills are used in production. In relation to the commitment in time and resources required to develop a unit incorporating digital storytelling, Interviewee 2 stated that ‘it wasn’t particularly onerous really. Obviously you have to design all of the production materials, but I didn’t find it any more onerous than having to write a unit around Shakespeare, or anything like that’. Interviewee 2 stressed that individual attention is important but, even in that regard, most individual assistance was provided during workshops. It was suggested that paid student assistance would be a method for managing the demands of students requiring high levels of support, such as those unfamiliar with the basic technology, rather than using lecturer time to address these non-academic needs.

One reason for the differing views of the applicability of digital storytelling in undergraduate contexts may arise from the institutional support received by the participants. Interviewee 2 works within an institution with very high levels of support for digital storytelling: materially and, importantly, culturally. In contrast, other participants operated in institutions with lower levels of support. For instance, although Interviewee 3 commented that colleagues were supportive, it appeared that academic management had difficulty recognizing the preparation required in innovative forms of delivery, such as workshops and mixed delivery (resources, online communication and extended tutorials) in place of standard lectures. Overall, it was felt that at most institutions digital storytelling was not encouraged or embraced much beyond the creative media faculties.

Summary

The case studies served to highlight features that shape interviewees’ implementation of, and approach to, digital storytelling. These included the way in which digital storytelling is defined; class size and composition; and the availability and perceived importance of resources. Shared themes in the case studies included recognition of the need for individual support and the value placed on the educational and vocational relevance of the task and on the opportunity presented for collaboration and co-learning.

The emergent themes of the interviews were definition, constructive alignment and resources. There were, for example, variations in the meaning of the term ‘digital storytelling’. Yet all participants stressed that the incorporation of digital storytelling must serve clearly defined educational purposes. ‘I don’t consider myself to be someone who teaches technology; I teach ideas’ (Interviewee 3). Moreover, the relevance of digital technologies to students’ careers was generally viewed as a significant benefit and a signal consideration in the decision to implement digital storytelling in a university course. Finally, while participants were not unanimous regarding the centrality of resources to the success of digital storytelling, it was apparent that adequate allocation of resources and appropriate planning and support were significant concerns for them in their implementation of digital storytelling in a higher education context.

Conclusion

Digital storytelling has been developing over the last decade as a communication, teaching, research and personal reflection tool. There is a growing volume of literature on its application emerging from North America, the UK, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere. In Australia, as in other places, there is a Digital Storytelling Network whose members include primary and high school teachers, as well as teachers working within the post-secondary Adult and Vocational Education and Training sector. There are a number of institutions and companies that provide training and/or consultancies on the applications of digital storytelling in a variety of contexts. A small number of academics are using digital storytelling in conjunction with community engagement and public history projects. Why does it appear, then, that it has been taken up by so few Australian university academics as a legitimate and useful teaching and learning tool?

That question can be answered in a number of ways. First, however, it must be made clear that this study was never intended as a comprehensive survey of the uptake of digital storytelling in Australian university teaching. Given the size and nature of the sample – that it is a self-selected, opportunity sample – the researchers caution against over-generalizing the views and reflections expressed by the participants in this study. Nevertheless, given the difficulty encountered in locating subjects for this study, and in the light of the opinions voiced by the interviewees, all of them experts in their field, it would seem that there has been relatively little uptake of digital storytelling in Australian university teaching contexts.

One potential explanation relates to the unanticipated contention that emerged over what defines ‘digital storytelling’ in Australian HE contexts. All six interviewees reflected on the definition of digital storytelling and on how their own practice deviated from or followed what they understood ‘digital storytelling’ to be. Many of the definitions discussed were heavily value-laden. There was a definite sense that some academics felt uncomfortable with the associations of the traditional conception of digital storytelling and, in fact, with the connotations of the ‘storytelling’ element in the label itself. The label ‘digital storytelling’ carries with it a rich and valuable history of community-building and personal and community empowerment. More recently there has been frequent discussion about the therapeutic potential of digital storytelling that appears to be making even some community practitioners of digital storytelling uncomfortable. Translated into a higher educational context, this history and potential for ‘transformational’ outcomes may come across as just so much ‘emotional baggage’ and be regarded as either secondary, inconsequential or inappropriate. Certainly there are areas within the higher educational context in which exploration of personal narratives or stories is appropriate, but the association of the term ‘digital storytelling’ with therapeutic objectives has the potential to alienate some academics. It may be that it is time for academics to carve out a new definition of digital storytelling specific to its application in a higher educational setting, or perhaps to adopt new terminology that sits more comfortably or captures more effectively their engagement with the medium. One could even propose a shift in terminology as simple as ‘digital response’ or ‘digital critique’, which might more adequately fit with academics’ usage of this flexible multimedia tool.

The second likely explanation for the limited uptake of digital storytelling in higher education relates to the need for support and resources. The two participants most engaged in using digital storytelling described themselves as working within a supportive institutional environment. Both cultural and material support are required for effective implementation. It is a challenge for most academics to find the time and energy to institute significant curriculum and assessment changes, particularly those that involve innovative teaching and learning methods. When innovative teaching also requires additional ongoing resources (such as computer laboratories and information technology support), institutional support is essential for success. It may be that some Australian academics may simply not have the support to incorporate a resource-intensive learning activity such as digital storytelling into their teaching. The conclusion reached by educational researchers Sue Johnston and Coralie McCormack ten years ago in relation to the uptake of informational technology in the university classroom, that most teaching staff ‘require extensive educational and technical support before they will change their teaching’ (Johnston and McCormack, 1996) is reflected in the views of the participants in the present study.

The challenges and caveats expressed here about the implementation of digital storytelling as an educational pedagogy are broadly consistent with recent work in this field. In a survey of relevant literature Lowenthal canvasses a number of issues relating to the implementation of digital storytelling in the classroom. These include the time required to undertake such projects; the necessity of training for teachers; the importance of alignment with curricula goals; the need for clearly articulated goals and structures; the importance of awareness of the emotional sensitivities of students; the problems associated with access to digital hardware and software; and the challenges of appropriately assessing individual digital storytelling projects (Lowenthal, 2009). The survey conducted here reinforces Lowenthal’s conclusions.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the techniques and practices that currently fall under the umbrella term ‘digital storytelling’ offer great potential for higher education teaching, especially in the arts and humanities. Whether digital storytelling will become a ‘signature pedagogy’ (Benmayor, 2008: 188) only time will tell. However, the incorporation of digital and new media technologies into the university classroom is clearly underway and will become of signal importance to the way students learn and teachers teach in the twenty-first century. The reflections discussed in this article suggest significant issues and concerns that any academic must consider when implementing new technologies and methodologies. In particular, the first named author’s planning and development of a new unit on contemporary Australian literature and film have been greatly enhanced by the experiences related so generously by the study participants. The authors intend to take what they have learnt from this study to develop a clear evaluation program for this implementation and to report the results of that program in due course in order to contribute to our growing understanding of the benefits, costs and impacts of new technologies in the arts and humanities.

We might as well embrace it and play and be productive about it instead of resisting it for the wrong reasons. Resist it for the right reasons. Resist blackboard, resist those ridiculous impositions of flexible learning that have nothing to do with student-centred learning, don’t resist the things that might make learning a more interesting and pleasurable experience. (Interviewee 3)

These kinds of technologies allow for new kinds of academic practices. They’re not better; they’re not worse. They’re different. (Interviewee 5)

Footnotes

Biographical Notes

robert clarke teaches Australian and Modernist literature in the School of English, Journalism, and European Languages at the University of Tasmania, Australia. He is editor of Celebrity Colonialism: Fame, Power and Representation in Colonial and Postcolonial Cultures (Cambridge Scholars, 2009) and ‘Travel and Celebrity Culture’ (special issue of Postcolonial Studies, 12.2.2009). He has published articles and reviews in a number of international journals including Studies in Travel Writing, Journal of Australian Studies, Journeys: the International Journal of Travel and Travel Writing, Jouvert, M/C Review and Australian Literary Studies. He is currently doing research into contemporary Australian travel writing and representations of Aboriginality. Address: Faculty of Arts, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1340, Launceston, Tasmania 7250 Australia. [email: Robert.Clarke@utas.edu.au].

andrea adam is a lecturer in the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching, University of Tasmania. She coordinates the university’s UniStart program, an academic development transition program for new students, and is co-editor of the university’s Teaching Matters conference publications. Her research interests span psychophysiology and teaching in psychology, and the exploration of academic development, first year and transition issues in higher education. Her recent publications include an investigation into ‘The effect of emotional and attentional load on attentional startle modulation’ in International Journal of Psychophysiology, 74. Address: Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 133, Hobart, Tas., 7015, Australia. [email: andrea.adam@utas.edu.au]

References

Barrett

(2006) ‘Researching and evaluating digital storytelling as a deep learning tool’. Available at http://electronicportfolios.org/portfolios/SITEStorytelling2006.pdf (accessed 31 August 2008).

Benmayor

(2008) Digital storytelling as a signature pedagogy for the new humanities, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7(1): 188–204.

Biggs

J. B.

Tang

C. S.-K.

(2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Bull

Kajder

(2005) Digital storytelling in the language arts classroom, Learning and Leading with Technology 32(4): 46–9.

Burgess

(2006) Hearing ordinary voices: Cultural studies, vernacular creativity and digital storytelling, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 20(2): 201–14.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2000) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge Falmer.

Coventry

(2008a) Cross-currents of pedagogy and technology: A forum on digital storytelling and cultural critique – Introduction, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7(2): 165–70.

Coventry

(2008b) Engaging gender: Student application of theory through digital storytelling, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7(1): 205–19.

Daley

(2003) Expanding the concept of literacy, Educause Review 37(March/April): 169–88.

10.

Dogan

Robin

(2008) ‘Implementation of digital storytelling in the classroom by teachers trained in a digital storytelling workshop’. Available at http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/pdfs/Dogan-DS-Research-2008.pdf (accessed 1 November 2008).

11.

Ganley

(forthcoming) ‘Community, communication and creativity: Digital storytelling in the liberal arts classroom’, in O'Connell

(ed.) Teaching with Multimedia: Pedagogy in the Websphere. Cresskill: Hampton Press.

12.

Ganley

Vila

(2006) Digital stories in the liberal arts environment: Educational media communities at the margins, in Hipfl

Hug

(eds) Media Communities. pp. 321–36, New York: Waxmann.

13.

Hartley

McWilliam

(eds) (2009). Story Circle: Digital Storytelling Around the World. London: John Wiley.

14.

Hartley

McWilliam

Burgess

Banks

(2008) The uses of multimedia: three digital literacy case studies, Media International Australia 128: 59–72.

15.

Johnston

McCormack

(1996) Integrating information technology into university teaching: identifying the needs and providing the support, International Journal of Educational Management 10(5): 36–42.

16.

Kajder

Bull

Albaugh

(2005) Constructing digital stories, Learning and Leading with Technology 32(5): 40–2.

17.

Kellner

(2008) ‘New media and new literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium’. Available at http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/kellner/newmedia.html (accessed 1 November 2008).

18.

Klaebe

Bolland

(2007) ‘Text meets technology’. Available at http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00010869/01/10869..pdf (accessed 20 October 2008).

19.

Klaebe

Foth

Burgess

Bilandzic

(2007) Digital storytelling and history lines: Community engagement in a master-planned development’. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM ’07), Brisbane.

20.

Lambert

(2002) Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Communities. Berkeley, CA: Centre for Digital Storytelling.

21.

Lambert

(2009) Where it all started: The Center for Digital Storytelling in California, in Hartley

McWilliam

(eds) Story Circle: Digital Storytelling Around the World. pp. 79–80, London: John Wiley.

22.

Leon

S. M.

(2008) Slowing down, talking back, and moving forward: some reflections on digital storytelling in the humanities curriculum, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7(1): 220–3.

23.

Lowenthal

(2009) ‘Digital storytelling in education: an emerging institutional technology?’, in Hartley

McWilliam

(eds) Story Circle: Digital Storytelling Around the World. pp. 252–9, London: John Wiley.

24.

McWilliam

(2009) The global diffusion of a community media practice: digital storytelling online, in Hartley

McWilliam

(eds) Story Circle: Digital Storytelling Around the World. pp. 37–75, London: John Wiley.

25.

Meadows

(2003) Digital storytelling: Research-based practice in new media, Visual Communication 2(2): 189–93.

26.

Mellon

C. A.

(1999) Digital storytelling: Effective learning through the internet, Educational Technology 39(2): 46–50.

27.

Oppermann

(2008) Digital storytelling and American studies: Critical trajectories from the emotional to the epistemological, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7(2): 171–87.

28.

Robin

B. R.

(2008) Digital storytelling: a powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom, Theory into Practice 47(3): 220–8.

29.

Schreibman

Siemens

Unsworth

(eds) (2004). A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell.

30.

Siemens

Schreibman

(eds) (2007). The Companion to Digital Literary Studies. Oxford: Blackwell.

31.

Tucker

(2006) First person singular: the power of digital storytelling, Screen Education 42: 54–7.

32.

Ulmer

(2006) Internet Invention: From Literacy to Electracy. New York: Longman.

33.

Weiss

T. M.

Benmayor

O’Leary

Enyon

(2002) Digital technologies and pedagogies, Social Justice 29(4): 153–67.

34.

Yin

R. K.

(1993) Applications of Case Study Research. Newbury Park: SAGE.

35.

Yin

R. K.

(2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.