Learni M edi and Technol ng, a ogy I
SSN :17439884 ( nt 1743Pri )
9892 ( nlne)J
O i ournalhom epage:ht p: / w w . andf i com / oi cj 20 t /w t onlne. l / em

Al earni desi f st ng gn or udent
-gener ed di t at gi al st oryt lng eli M at hew Kearney t To ci e t s art cl M at hew Kearney ( t hi i e: t 2011)A l ni desi f st ear ng gn or udent gener ed at di t st gial oryt lng,Learni M edi and Technol eli ng, a ogy,36: 1692,
188,D O I
:
10.
1080/
17439884.
2011.
553623
To lnk to thi arti e: ht p:/ doiorg/ 1080/ i s cl t / dx. .
10.
17439884.
2011.
553623

Publshed onlne:14 Apr 2011. i i

Subm i your artcl t t s j t i e o hi ournal

Ar i e vi s:1332 tcl ew

Vi r at ar i es ew el ed tcl

Cii ar i es:6 Vi cii ar i es tng tcl ew tng t cl

Ful Ter s & Condii l m tons ofaccess and use can be f ound at ht p: / w w .andf i com / i j t /w t onlne. acton/ournalnf m aton?j nal
I or i our Code=cj 20 em D ow nl oad by:[ i esex U ni siy]
M ddl ver t

D at 02 Febr e: uary 2016,At 11:
: 17

Learning, Media and Technology
Vol. 36, No. 2, June 2011, 169–188

A learning design for student-generated digital storytelling
Matthew Kearney*
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney, New South
Wales, Australia
(Received 16 December 2010; accepted 7 January 2011)
CJEM_A_553623.sgm
Taylor and Francis

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

shirleya@uow.edu.au
Dr
0
3000002011
36 ShirleyAgostinho
Taylor
2011 & (print)/1743-9892 (online)
Original Article
1743-9884Media
Learning,Francisand Technology
10.1080/17439884.2011.553623

The literature on digital video in education emphasises the use of prefabricated, instructional-style video assets. Learning designs for supporting the use of these expert-generated video products have been developed. However, there has been a paucity of pedagogical frameworks for facilitating specific genres of learner-generated video projects.
Informed by two studies, this article describes the development of a learning design for a popular genre: learner-generated digital storytelling.
A particular learning design representation is used to present a structured description of an approach to digital storytelling, and issues are raised relating to future iterations of the design.
Keywords: learning design; learner-generated digital storytelling; video production Intr oduction
The value of learner-generated digital video projects (referred to subsequently as ‘DV tasks’ or ‘DV projects’) has been espoused by numerous education researchers (e.g., Schuck and Kearney 2004; Shewbridge and Berge 2004).
These constructionist learning tasks (Harel and Papert 1991) can enhance a wide range of learning outcomes from the development of traditional and new literacy skills to affective benefits. They can support a rich, authentic learning experience, encouraging student autonomy and ownership, and meaningful student roles and interactions, especially when students are given an opportunity to discuss and celebrate their products with a relevant audience (Kearney and Schuck 2006). However, formalised pedagogical frameworks are needed to help teachers leverage these worthwhile outcomes in these often complex, open-ended tasks. Expert teaching and learning practices with DV tasks need to be documented in a consistent and reusable form so that they can be adapted to different learning environments. These forms of documentation, describing well-researched sequences of activities and interactions supporting students’
*Email: matthew.kearney@uts.edu.au
ISSN 1743-9884 print/ISSN 1743-9892 online
© 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2011.553623 http://www.informaworld.com Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

170

M. Kearney

learning experiences, are referred to as learning designs or pedagogical frameworks in this article (less formalised, more descriptive advice is referred to as guidelines).
Guidelines are emerging around good practice with expert-generated, instructional video. For example, the Digital Artefacts for Learning Engagement (DiAL-e) framework (http://dial-e.net/) supports educators in identifying suitable ways to engage learners with externally produced ‘video assets’ and other digital resources (Burden and Atkinson 2008), while good practice with video-based cases have also been explored (e.g., see Barnett, 2006). However, more work is needed to develop and document research-based principles of good teaching practices with learner-generated video tasks. Guidelines for supporting learner-generated DV production tend to have a technical focus, often influenced by the professional film-making tradition, with less emphasis on important educational issues such as teacher roles, peer learning structures and support for reflective processes.
Pioneering efforts to develop pedagogical frameworks for supporting learning with student-generated DV tasks have recently emerged. In an early example, Theodosakis (2001) espouses five phases (and associated teacher strategies) for film-making in the classroom: development, pre-production, production, post-production and distribution. A number of recent projects have emerged focusing on specific genres of DV tasks. Wong, Mishra,
Koehler and Siebenthal provide a rationale and discuss guidelines for supporting student-generated iVideos (‘idea videos’), especially in the context of teacher education. These advocacy-style videos are short, two-minute DVs designed ‘to evoke powerful experiences about educative ideas’ (2007, 1).
Group learning strategies, formative feedback procedures and a ‘coach/ mentor’ teacher role are important elements of their guidelines. Cooper, Kosta,
Lockyer and Brown (2007) describe a learning design to support multi-literacy development for K-12 students working with learner-generated journalistic
DV tasks. Their design focuses on analysis, construction and deconstruction activities. Analysis activities include students interpreting a variety of media images and comparing news stories across media types. Construction activities include creating a script and editing a DV news item using professional footage, and also creating their own news item. Deconstruction activities include presentations to the class and comparison of students’ new items. More recently, Hoban (2009) describes a four-stage learning design underpinning learner-generated slow motion animations (or ‘slowmations’). The stages include planning, storyboarding, construction and reconstruction.
This article introduces an emerging learning design for supporting another specific genre of learner-generated DV projects – digital storytelling
(Lambert 2010). The design draws on two recent studies that sought to gain an understanding of the way in which teachers and students interact and learn through these projects; one from a K-12 context (Schuck and Kearney 2004), and one from a teacher education context (Kearney 2009). Although there

Learning, Media and Technology

171

were other foci in these studies, they provided an opportunity to test and refine notions of good teaching practice, informed by relevant literature and critical collaborative reflection among subject and pedagogical experts. The article presents a formal representation of the resulting learning design for student-generated digital storytelling and flags potential directions for future iterations. Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

Backgr ound
Learner-generated digital storytelling
A burgeoning genre of learner-generated DV tasks is digital storytelling.
These tasks combine the tradition of oral storytelling with twenty-first-century multimedia and communications tools. Unlike oral stories, they are permanent and can be disseminated widely, making them accessible for reflection and critique (Davis 2004). In this article, we refer to the form of digital storytelling defined by the Centre for Digital Storytelling in Berkeley, California (Lambert
2010). This definition of digital storytelling integrates photographs, music, video (optional) and especially the voice of the narrator into a brief (two–six minutes) piece, typically with a strong emotional content. (Hence, they are fundamentally different from similar genres such as the previously mentioned journalistic DV tasks, as they are more economic in detail and often autobiographical.) Robin (2006) discusses three sub-genres of learner-generated digital storytelling, namely: personal narratives (the main type used in our study), historical documentaries and stories that inform or instruct. Nilsson (2008) uses a similar taxonomy of digital storytelling tasks, describing four ‘subgenres’: descriptive (usually personal) stories, argumentative (or advocacy) stories, dramatic and poetic stories.
Use of digital storytelling has been discussed in other fields but has only recently been reported in higher education (e.g., Tendero 2006). For example, in a growing literature base underpinned by a ‘teachers as designer’ philosophy (Koehler and Mishra 2005), there is a significant body of work illuminating learning benefits for pre-service teachers from the process of constructing and sharing these narratives. A common theme in this area includes the facilitation of reflection on experience (e.g., McDrury and Alterio 2002). These authors usually draw upon the work of scholars such as Schon (1983) and
¨
Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985) to explain the potential power of digital storytelling tasks for prospective teachers’ development as reflective practitioners. Digital storytelling tasks can also help pre-service teachers’ personal and professional identity development (Tendero 2006). A key to these benefits is the emotional content emphasised in these tasks.
Other benefits are reported in recent literature, ranging from the development of academic skills such as critical thinking, report writing and research skills to digital, oral and written literacies (Ohler 2006). Overall, this literature

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

172

M. Kearney

base points to digital storytelling tasks as a valuable, transformative tool for learning in a range of curriculum and discipline contexts.
Staff and students also need to be aware of the intellectual property issues that arise if digital stories include copyrighted media (ELI 2007). Langran
(2005) provides helpful guidance, but the interpretation of educational ‘fair use’ of media in these types of projects is widely varied and often debated.
Teachers need to proceed cautiously in collaboration with intellectual property and copyright experts.
Digital storytelling tasks are accompanied by pedagogical challenges, yet there has been minimal attention paid to aspects such as the teacher’s role, peer learning structures and assessment procedures in the relevant literature on learner-generated digital storytelling. Digital storytelling tasks are typically open-ended, ill-defined and hence more challenging for students, who may be familiar with more traditional written tasks. Given this divergent and openended nature, it is helpful if digital storytelling activities are framed carefully and explicitly tied to the core content and process goals encompassed in the curriculum (Hofer and Swan 2006). Assessing digital storytelling tasks is a major challenge for teachers, particularly as it encompasses a range of skills, processes and content goals. They can be difficult to assess because the digital stories may integrate skills from a range of disciplines, particularly those that relate to creativity components. Use of appropriate instruments such as assessment rubrics has been recommended. Given these types of challenges, a generic learning design underpinning digital storytelling tasks is warranted.
Revisiting a pedagogical framework for facilitating DV tasks
In 2004, Schuck and Kearney conducted a qualitative research study investigating practices with DV tasks in five Australian K-12 schools. Data on teachers’ and students’ practices were collected and analysed from a socio-cultural perspective, in which the interactions of the group, their past experiences and beliefs, and the impact of being researched were all seen as part of the research data. A detailed description of the methodology is presented in Schuck and
Kearney (2004). Over 60 different student-generated DV projects were part of the data in the study, with the majority of projects (77% of cases) involving students’ use of DV as a communication tool (as distinct from an observation or analysis tool – see Schuck and Kearney 2004, 80) to basically convey messages, ideas, reflections or information. These projects often involved students acting in roles in a variety of film genres such as news items, interviews, advertisements and music clips. Findings indicated that well-designed, student-generated DV projects encouraged student engagement and autonomous learner roles, plus a wide range of other valuable learning outcomes, including traditional and new literacy skills. The projects shared characteristics of being student-centred and context-rich and encouraged active group participation. DV tasks were seen to provide students with flexibility and choice,

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

Learning, Media and Technology

173

usually creating a strong sense of ownership, self-regulation and self-esteem benefits, and personal interest in topics. Students projected their personalities in unique, creative ways, particularly when they were aware of their peers as the target audience for their productions. Further details of findings are reported elsewhere (Kearney and Schuck 2006; Schuck and Kearney 2008).
Data were collected from a variety of stages in the DV production process as students made movies in a range of contexts and genres. These stages ranged from the initial brainstorming and storyboarding stages through to the important presentation and dissemination stages. Principles of good practice emerged from this data, as summarised in Table 1 (from Schuck and Kearney
2004, 84). This summary includes suggestions for teaching strategies and peer support structures at each stage of the DV production process.
The pedagogical framework (see Table 1) emphasises the importance of initial development of ideas and storyboarding stages, as well as of teacher scaffolding and modelling. For example, some teachers in our study used segments of past students’ work or commercial movies to make pertinent points, spark ideas for new projects and model appropriate language. A wide degree of choice enhanced student ownership of their projects; including choice of content, roles and, if appropriate, film genre. The choice of student peers as the target audience was a major source of student motivation in our study, and it encouraged use of humour and appropriate language in their final production. Mind maps and other organisers were used as a planning tool to brainstorm ideas and for the storyboard. Students were made accountable for their final storyboard and were prepared for ‘re-storyboarding’ – editing and re-editing their plan before filming.
The teachers in our study encouraged the students to take a playful approach to their filming and editing and set up open-ended activities for students to discover their own mistakes and learn from them. The immediate feedback students received when they reviewed their films, as well as the ability to later edit their mistakes, helped students and teachers feel comfortable with this open-ended approach to learning. The autonomous style of learning supported by these open-ended tasks required a significant degree of flexibility from the teacher as students created their own learning pathways at their own pace. Indeed, most of the effective lessons we observed involved the teacher displaying a high degree of flexibility in the classroom to support student initiatives and self-direction.
An important part of this pedagogical framework concerned the final stages of the DV project: celebrating and sharing the students’ final products and conducting discussions around these artefacts. These presentations provided crucial opportunities for meaningful class discussions centred on the intended learning outcomes of the projects. The teacher’s role here in mediating and directing this discussion was crucial.
Finally, formative assessment procedures were recommended in almost every stage of this pedagogical framework to address learning outcomes.

6. Editing

5. Filming

4. Preparation for filming

Allocation and rotation of roles.
Group meetings to assess progress and share perspectives. Collaborative mind maps.
Group meetings to assess progress and share perspectives. Groups negotiate own roles based on own expertise/interest. Formulate plan to swap and rotate roles through project. Discussion of necessary teamwork skills.

Peer learning structures

Use of peer tutoring/‘expert’ system for skills support. Possible collaboration in roles (e.g., two people share a role) and possible rotation of roles.
Peer assessment of film quality.
Scaffolding from teacher. (e.g., some media elements – Possible collaboration with OR feedback from clips, photos, sounds, etc. – could be supplied by online filming communities. teacher or from external sources – especially for younger learners.)
Give formative teacher assessment (including informal observations) and advice on re-filming and re-editing of scenes.

Scaffolding, e.g., suggestions for purpose, ideas for genre, content, audience, roles, etc.
If possible, support student choice of genre, film content and context.
Modelling of films from teacher, other experts and previous students.
Modelling of relevant language.
Encourage use of mind maps to inform storyboard.
Modelling of storyboards from teacher, other experts and previous students.
Students have to ‘sell’ storyboard to teacher (formative assessment of storyboard) or peers before filming, and if necessary, editing it.
Facilitate student preparation of scripts, props, costumes, lighting, etc.
Modelling of relevant language.
Modelling of filming techniques.
Give formative teacher assessment (including informal observations) of film quality.

1. Developing ideas
Define film purpose and target audience, film genre, content and context. Students research content.
2. Storyboard/scripting
3. Re-storyboarding

Teacher strategies

Stage

Table 1. Pedagogical framework for learner-generated digital video projects (Schuck and Kearney 2004, 84).

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

174
M. Kearney

Teacher strategies

Give formative teacher assessment (including informal observations) and possibly encourage re-filming of scenes. Mediate small-group discussions of film content or film-making process.
8. General class/school
Mediate small-group discussions of film content or presentation film-making process to extend/review/probe concept
Celebration of Product! and skill development
Reflect and discuss
Use feedback from audience to inform teacher
Class/school peers and assessment – summative teacher assessment of task teacher as main audience. Encourage student reflection (e.g., use of journal, eportfolio).
9. Dissemination and
Use product for reporting to parents (including studentpublication. lead parent–teacher conferences). Use product to
(CD/web/email/TV)
promote subject/class/school. Use product for intraAudience now becomes or inter-school film festival, competition or TV peers external to class show. (include international),
Share with an online community; possible feedback other teachers, parents, from outside experts. wider school, local or international community.

7. Small-group viewing
Reflect and discuss
Students’ own group as main audience.

Stage

Table 1. (Continued).

Possible use of film as vehicle for communication/cultural exchange/sharing of perspectives with peers outside class.
Possible use of videos as peer conversational artefacts in online communities.

Roles allocated to group for presentation.
Peer assessment and feedback.
Roles allocated to audience to encourage audience participation.
Discuss and share perspectives.

Peer assessment.
Discuss and share perspectives.
Possible collaboration with OR feedback from online filming communities.

Peer learning structures

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

Learning, Media and Technology
175

176

M. Kearney

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

These included peer assessment and encouragement of group discussion and sharing of perspectives at all stages of the process. Teacher observation and feedback were also crucial, especially in the important early stages of the process. For example, to assess language development in foreign language classes, teachers needed to be active observers of students’ learning conversations and writing.
A lear ning design for student-gener ated digital stor ytelling tasks
In 2008, the author carried out another qualitative research study investigating potential roles of learner-generated DV projects incorporating the digital storytelling genre. This project explored aspects relating to the use of digital storytelling in a teacher education context, particularly with respect to suitable pedagogical approaches, student assessment (especially portfolio assessment), and ethical and intellectual property issues. Participants in this study were 11 volunteer pre-service primary education students at an Australian university. Data included student and staff questionnaire responses, student focus groups, staff interviews, observation and artefact analysis (the students’ digital stories). One of the main contexts of the study centred on the use of digital stories for e-portfolio development and support of teacher reflection as the student-teachers communicated the ‘story of their learning’ and professional development. Their digital stories helped them to present their learning journeys in compelling ways and enhanced the synthesis and analysis of the learning experiences associated with their portfolio artefacts.
The digital stories also became an object of reflection in their own right
(Kearney 2009).
Like our earlier 2004 study, data were collected from a variety of stages in the video production process as learners (the student teachers) designed and created their digital stories. Although the study primarily focused on the preservice teachers’ professional learning (Kearney 2009) in their role as
‘teacher-designers’ (Koehler and Mishra 2005), feedback and critical collaborative reflection (Bullough and Gitlin 1991) among the researcher and critical friends of the project (academics from Teacher Education) assisted in formation of principles of good practice, building on our previous pedagogical framework for student-generated DV projects (shown in Table 1). Informed further by relevant literature and support websites, a learning design for learner-generated digital storytelling tasks emerged, represented by a graphic formalism in Table 2. Although it is text-based and tabular in style, the structure of the notation system used in this formal representation is based on the visual learning design representation system espoused by Agostinho, Harper,
Oliver, Hedberg and Wills (2008). The table is divided into three categories: resources – digital facilities that learners interact with, tasks – activities the learners participate in, and supports – usually teacher-mediated procedures assisting learners’ engagement with resources and tasks (Agostinho, Oliver,

Table 2. Learner-generated digital storytelling: Visual learning design representation.

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

Learning, Media and Technology
177

Table 2. (Continued).

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

178
M. Kearney

Table 2. (Continued).

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

Learning, Media and Technology
179

Notes: The following abbreviations are used: DS: digital story, DV: digital video, f2f: face-to-face, LMS: Learning Management System, CC: Creative
Commons.
1Example, Centre for Digital Storytelling: http://www.storycenter.org/index1.html; University of Houston DS site: http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/
2
Example, see Lambert (2010).
3Example, see Robin (2006).
4If a main purpose of personal DS task is to support student reflection (e.g., part of portfolio), emphasise emotional connection (Lambert, 2010), encourage positive affective state (Boud et al. 1985) and encourage a supportive environment where learners can safely express themselves (Boud and Walker 1998)
5Example, desktop-based software such as iMovie, Moviemaker and Photostory; web-based applications such as Jaycut.
6
Example, see Johnson, Levine and Smith (2008) and Rich and Hannafin (2009).
7Example, partner faculties/local/international film communities.
8
Example, faculty presentation, (internal) gala night, film festival and local DS competitions.
9Example, Y ouTube, TeacherTube, wikis and blogs.
10Example, staff from other faculties/institutions; international peers and staff; local or international community, outside experts.
11Example, in Y ouTube or TeacherTube communities
12Example, via video sharing site such as TeacherTube, community-based film festival, national and international DS competitions, etc.
13Example, see McKillop (2005).

Table 2. (Continued).

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

180
M. Kearney

Learning, Media and Technology

181

Harper, Hedberg and Wills 2002). Arrows in the representation depict the sequence of activities and interactions between these three categories.
Apart from reiterating the crucial mediation role of the teacher at key points in the sequence, other features of this learning design (see Table 2) include: ●

●

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

●
●

●

●

Identification and modelling of appropriate digital storytelling ‘categories’ (e.g., see Robin 2006) and modelling of exemplary digital stories from relevant contexts (Stage 1).
Emphasis on support of students’ affective domain, especially for reflection purposes (Stages 1 and 4).
Sharing of perspectives in a ‘mini-conference’ session (Stage 1).
Explicit support for use of own or Creative Commons licensed media
(with correct attributions) for projects to help avoid copyright issues, especially if publishing stories in public web-based galleries and forums
(Stage 1).
Mediation of class-based and online discussions (possibly with international colleagues) stimulated by students’ digital stories (Stage 4).
More opportunities for students to review and change their work as necessary after teacher-facilitated class discussions and peer feedback
(Stage 3).

Due to the typically individual nature of the student-teachers’ digital stories, the initial 2004 pedagogical framework (see Table 1) had to be refined to cater for these types of more personal DV tasks. Indeed, with portfolio development and teacher reflection as a main focus in the recent study (Kearney 2009), pertinent teacher strategies relating to reflective practice were included.
Key teacher and peer interactions and review processes were again highlighted in this new pedagogical framework. As discussed in Kearney (2009), significant learning opportunities again emerged in the final distribution stage of the process: celebrating and sharing the students’ final products and conducting (face-to-face and online) discussion around these artefacts. These presentations provided significant opportunities for learning conversations, fostering peer critique and further student–teacher dialogue. The importance of the teacher’s role here in mediating and directing this discussion cannot be over-emphasised, as these discussions and subsequent reflective opportunities potentially determined the overall quality of learning outcomes and professional growth.
Another development was the use of online galleries and communities to promote online interactions. There are a growing number of web-based outlets for DVs, and the pedagogical affordances of these spaces need to be carefully evaluated before selecting a suitable platform for dissemination
(e.g., facilities for peer and expert discussion). Seven participants from our study chose to display their digital story in the project’s online gallery (via

182

M. Kearney

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

http://teacherenarratives.wetpaint.com/) for viewing and comment by other pre-service teacher peers (and other experts) around the world.
Discussion
A learning design for learner-generated digital storytelling tasks has emerged, drawing on data from two recently completed studies focusing on learnergenerated DV tasks in both K-12 and teacher education contexts (Kearney
2009; Schuck and Kearney 2004) and from an iterative cycle of consultation with the literature and critical collaborative reflection among subject and pedagogical experts. Although there were other foci in these two studies, they leveraged the opportunity to test and refine notions of good practice.
The learning design discussed in this article is by no means prescriptive – while such a pedagogical framework provides a guide to structure learning experiences for learner-generated digital storytelling tasks, account still needs to be taken of learners’ specific characteristics and needs, the environments in which the learning could potentially take place and the preferences and characteristics of teachers, including their epistemological beliefs. Like any teaching role, expertise is needed in mediating the learning experience. For example, the DV products in both our studies became ‘“things to think with”, constructed objects which foster dialogue and discussion’ (Freidus and
Hlubinka 2002, 24). There were opportunities for peer critique (Jenkins and
Lonsdale 2007) and student–teacher dialogue, and these discussions involved both formative feedback (e.g., on the learners’ script and also pilot versions of their DVs) and summative feedback (e.g., final showcase sessions). Class discussions in both studies often emphasised the fundamental importance of the ‘teacher as listener’ role (Russell 2005) in reflective dialogue. These types of complex, spontaneous ‘teaching moments’ are difficult to capture, describe and document in a visual learning design representation such as the one presented in this article – particularly one with such large granularity. To help teachers and researchers interpret and make sense of such extensive learning design representations, associated case studies and rich descriptions of teaching episodes embedded in real teaching contexts are needed.
Dissemination and publishing of students’ digital storytelling video products needs careful consideration to maximise peer learning opportunities, and there are an increasing number of outlets at this final stage, including school film festivals, external film competitions, international cultural exchanges and web-based TV shows. An interesting development here is the use of online galleries and DV communities (e.g., see Ugoretz and Theilheimer 2006) to promote reflective online interactions. McKillop (2005) discusses interesting extensions here. Firstly, the notion of responding to a published digital story in video mode: ‘responding to stories with a similar story is a most common way to respond’ (p. 6). Indeed, this is easily facilitated in video-based galleries such as YouTube and TeacherTube, where people can make video-based

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

Learning, Media and Technology

183

responses to already published videos. Secondly, she suggests students making a final ‘what I learnt’ overall response in which they think about what they have learned from the initial video and from responses to it. This could easily be done in online galleries using facilities such as the discussion forum in WetPaint. Students need to take ownership of this type of gallery to empower them and provide them with a collective voice; potentially forming a sense of ‘metastory’ – a story of the collected stories (of the group) with connected emerging themes (McKillop 2005).
The next cycle in the development and refinement of this learning design for digital storytelling will incorporate further evaluation – involving teachers, students and feedback from professional learning communities such as the
Learning Activity Management System (LAMS) community (Dalziel 2007).
This process will inform refined documentation of this learning design representation and also support the creation of accessible, malleable ‘e-templates’ for other teachers to use in a similar fashion to the e-templates created by
Kearney and Wright (2002) for the multimedia-based POE design. Indeed, the
LAMS pedagogical planner (Cameron 2008) holds promise to support the sharing of effective pedagogy and content as well as a user-friendly system for re-use and enactment of specific contextualised learning designs. The learning design representation presented in this article (in Table 2), plus these (LAMSbased) templates and associated pedagogical notes, will then be used as a starting point – or at least a ‘talking point’ – for teachers wanting to adapt this learning design to inform their context-specific digital storytelling tasks.
This article raises three main issues about documenting learning designs, relating to language used in the documentation, granularity of designs and associated emerging technologies. Firstly, digital storytelling draws on a variety of disciplinary traditions and is relevant to a wide range of curriculum areas. This wide appeal creates further challenges for documenting and accurately communicating the digital storytelling learning design – the language used to describe it (or any representation of a learning design in the area of student-generated DV projects) not only needs to be faithful to the filmmaking tradition but also needs to be easily interpreted by an audience from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds.
The second issue concerns learning designs with a large granularity. It is challenging to ‘do justice’ to these rich, potentially authentic digital storytelling tasks and document all variables succinctly in a graphic learning design representation. Unlike many learning designs documented in the literature, digital storytelling tasks are open-ended and constructionist in nature, with a long timeline for completion, and are enacted in both online and face-to-face settings. Hence, there is a wide range of possible pedagogical variations that need describing at all steps of the design, as well as a plethora of ethical and legal issues that also need consideration. For this reason, the system of representation formalism used to document the learning design in this article (see
Table 2) became less graphical and more text-based (including use of footnotes

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

184

M. Kearney

and bullet points). In future developments of this learning design, it may be helpful to further reduce the granularity by considering subtle variations in designs for different digital storytelling sub-genres (personal, instructional, historical, etc.) This reduction in granularity should enhance clarity of documentation and relevant teaching notes. For example, the teacher strategies for supporting the crucial reflective processes involved in e-portfolios (‘telling a story of personal learning’) are unique to this particular type of digital storytelling task; instructional (or advocacy) and historical digital storytelling tasks require an extra level of research into a topic in the early phase of the process and are more likely to be created in groups in contrast to personal digital storytelling tasks.
The third issue concerns the dynamic nature of learning designs involving rapidly changing technologies such as DV. Further work exploring the affordances of emerging technologies such as collaborative online editing
(Blackall 2008), ‘deep tagging’ of video (creating direct links to small parts of a video – see Johnson, Levine and Smith 2008) and annotated video (Rich and Hannafin 2009) is needed. Fresh investigations should explore how these capabilities might contribute to more interactive formats of the video medium
(e.g., see Girod, Bell and Mishra 2007) and new pedagogical strategies. For example, the ability to hyperlink sections of text-based documents to reference key frames of learners’ digital stories opens up a range of opportunities for e-portfolio tasks. Applications such as Videopaper, or free web-services such as Viddler, can assist learners in making these explicit links to exact points in their digital stories, potentially creating new possibilities for scholarly discussion and reflection around learners’ digital story artefacts. Indeed, further research is needed to investigate fruitful links between digital stories, portfolio assessment and reflective online dialogue – for example, in Web 2.0 communities (Albion 2008). In this way, the learning design presented in this article needs to be considered as an evolving design in order to stay relevant in the field and to cater for the reciprocal relationship between emerging educational technologies and pedagogical approaches (Salomon and Almog
1998).
Conclusion
The literature points to digital storytelling tasks as a valuable, transformative tool for learners in a range of curriculum and discipline contexts, and the learning design described in this article will foster sound pedagogical approaches associated with these complex and often time-consuming tasks. The digital storytelling genre comes with its own unique characteristics. These tasks are often autobiographical and use succinct multi-modal communications to provoke a strong sense of emotion. As scholars become more familiar with relevant emerging technologies and pedagogies, this genre of student-generated DV is expected to find favour across the curriculum.

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

Learning, Media and Technology

185

This article highlights some challenges in documenting learning designs of this nature. There is a tension between producing a succinct representation and over-simplifying the complex nature of the learning activities involved in tasks such as digital storytelling tasks. Documentation needs to effectively capture the intricate nature of teaching, and an optimum level of granularity is needed before subtle variations in teaching approaches can be meaningfully communicated. Supplementary case studies and context-rich descriptions will facilitate this process. Representations of designs in domains such as filmmaking need to use carefully selected language that clearly communicates principles to an audience from a potentially wide range of disciplinary backgrounds.
Finally, designs involving rapidly changing technologies such as DV are essentially fluid and dynamic in nature and regular revisions are needed to explore and document future pedagogical developments.

Notes on contr ibutor
Matthew Kearney is a member of UTS: Education’s Centre for Research in Learning
& Change. His main research interests are in the area of technology-mediated learning in K-12 and teacher education contexts. He has been a team leader or co-researcher in funded e-learning research and development projects in collaboration with industry, government and professional organisations, including Apple Computers Australia,
Electroboard, ASISTM (Australian School Innovation in Science, Technology and
Mathematics), NSWDET (New South Wales Department of Education and Training) and ascilite (Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education). He has participated in several projects involving the development and use of learning designs, especially in the area of science learning. He blogs at http://learningconversations.edublogs.org/.

References
Agostinho, S., B. Harper, R. Oliver, J. Hedberg, and S. Wills. 2008. A visual learning design representation to facilitate dissemination and reuse of innovative pedagogical strategies in university teaching. In Handbook of visual languages for instructional design: Theories and practices, ed. L. Botturi and T. Stubbs, 380–93.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Agostinho, S., R. Oliver, B. Harper, H. Hedberg, and S. Wills. 2002. A tool to evaluate the potential for an ICT-based learning design to foster ‘high-quality learning’. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education ‘Winds of change in the sea of learning’, ed. A. Williamson, C. Gunn, A. Young, and T. Clear, 29–38.
Auckland: UNITEC Institute of Technology.
Albion, P. 2008. Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action.
Computers in the Schools 25, nos. 3–4: 181–98.
Barnett, M. 2006. Using a web-based professional development system to support pre-service teachers in examining authentic classroom practice. Journal of
Technology & Teacher Education 14, no. 4: 701–29.
Blackall, L. 2008. Using collaborative video for e-learning. In STRIDE handbook
08: E-learning, ed. S. Mishra, 76–83. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

186

M. Kearney

Open University. http://webserver.ignou.ac.in/institute/STRIDE_Hb8_webCD/
STRIDE_Hb8_Full.pdf (accessed February 1, 2010).
Boud, D., R. Keogh, and D. Walker. 1985. Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In Reflection: Turning experience into learning, ed. D. Boud, R. Keogh, and D. Walker, 18–40. New York: Nichols Publishing Company.
Boud, D., and D. Walker. 1998. Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education 23, no. 2: 191–206.
Bullough, R., and A. Gitlin. 1991. Educative communities and the development of the reflective practitioner. In Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education, ed. R. Tabachnich and K. Zeichner, 35–56. London: Falmer Press.
Burden, K., and S. Atkinson. 2008. Beyond content: Developing transferable learning designs with digital video archives. In Proceedings of Ed-Media 2008 World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, ed. J. Luca and E. Weippl, 4041–50. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Cameron, L. 2008. Developing a pedagogical planner. In Designing for learning:
Post-conference reflections, ed. S. Walker, M. Ryan, and R. Teed, 53–66.
London: University of Greenwich.
Cooper, N., L. Kosta, L. Lockyer, and I. Brown. 2007. Making news today: Content creation in the classroom. In Proceedings of Apple University Consortium 2007
Conference ‘Contribute, Communicate, Collaborate’, ed. M. Docherty, 11–19. http://www.auc.edu.au/myfiles/uploads/Conference/AUC_Conference_2007_ Proceedings.pdf.
Dalziel, J. 2007. Building communities of designers. In Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning, ed. H. Beetham and R. Sharpe,
193–206. New York: Routledge.
Davis, A. 2004. Co-authoring identity: Digital storytelling in an urban middle school.
THEN, no. 1. http://thenjournal.org/feature/61/.
ELI, 2007. 7 Things you should know about digital storytelling. http:// connect.educause.edu/Library/ELI/7ThingsYouShouldKnowAbout/39398 (accessed November 25, 2008).
Freidus, N., and M. Hlubinka. 2002. Digital storytelling for reflective practice in communities of learners. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin 23, no. 2: 24–6.
Girod, M., J. Bell, and P. Mishra. 2007. Using digital video to re-think teaching practices. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 24, no. 1: 23–9.
Harel, I., and S. Papert, eds. 1991. Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Hoban, G. 2009. Facilitating learner-generated animations with slowmation. In
Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: Issues, applications and technologies, ed. L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, and B. Harper,
312–29. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hofer, M., and K.O. Swan. 2006. Digital storytelling: Moving from promise to practice. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education International Conference 2006, ed. C. Crawford et al., 679–84. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Jenkins, M., and J. Lonsdale. 2007. Evaluating the effectiveness of digital storytelling for student reflection. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning.
Proceedings Ascilite, Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au.conferences/ singapore07/procs/jenkins.pdf. Johnson, L., A. Levine, and R. Smith. 2008. The Horizon Report: 2008 Australia–
New Zealand Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kearney, M. 2009. Investigating digital storytelling and portfolios in teacher education. In Proceedings of Ed-Media 2009 World Conference on Educational

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

Learning, Media and Technology

187

Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, ed. C. Fulford and G.
Siemens, 1987–96. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Kearney, M., and S. Schuck. 2006. Spotlight on authentic learning: Student developed digital video projects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 22, no. 2: 189–208.
Kearney, M., and R. Wright. 2002. Predict–observe–explain eShell. http:// www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/tools/info/T3/index.html (accessed September
3, 2007).
Koehler, M., and P. Mishra. 2005. Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 21, no. 3: 94–102.
Lambert, J. 2010. Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating community. 3rd ed.
Berkeley, CA: Digital Diner Press.
Langran, E. 2005. Copyright in the digital age and its impact on classrooms. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International
Conference 2005, ed. C. Crawford et al., 1982–5. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
McDrury, J., and M. Alterio. 2002. Learning through storytelling in higher education: Using reflection and experience to improve learning. London: Kogan Page.
McKillop, C. 2005. Storytelling grows up: Using storytelling as a reflective tool in higher education. Paper presented at the Scottish Educational Research
Association conference (SERA 2005), November 24–26, in Perth, Scotland.
Nilsson, M. 2008. Digital storytelling as a tool in education. In Handbook of research on digital information technologies: Innovations, methods, and ethical issues, ed. T. Hansson, 131–45. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Ohler, J. 2006. The world of digital storytelling. Educational Leadership 63, no. 4:
44–7.
Rich, P., and M. Hannafin. 2009. Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education 60, no. 1: 52–67.
Robin, B. 2006. The educational uses of digital storytelling. In Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International
Conference 2006, ed. C. Crawford et al., 709–16. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Russell, T. 2005. Can reflective practice be taught? Reflective Practice 6, no. 2:
199–204.
Salomon, G., and T. Almog. 1998. Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record 100, no. 2: 222–41.
Schon, D.A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
¨
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Schuck, S., and M. Kearney. 2004. Students in the director’s Seat: Teaching and learning with student-generated video. Sydney: University of Technology,
Sydney. http://www.ed-dev.uts.edu.au/teachered/research/dvproject/home.html
(accessed September 16, 2009).
Schuck, S., and M. Kearney. 2008. Classroom-based use of two educational technologies: A sociocultural perspective. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education 8, no. 4: 394–406.
Shewbridge, W., and Z. Berge. 2004. The role of theory and technology in learning video production: The challenge of change. International Journal on E-learning
3, no. 1: 31–9.
Tendero, A. 2006. Facing versions of the self: The effects of digital storytelling on
English education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 6, no. 2: 174–94.
Theodosakis, N. 2001. The director in the classroom: How filmmaking inspires learning. San Diego, CA: Tech4Learning.

188

M. Kearney

Downloaded by [Middlesex University] at 11:17 02 February 2016

Ugoretz, J., and R. Theilheimer. 2006. Making meaning from meaning making:
Digital stories in teacher education and the liberal arts. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference
2006, ed. C. Crawford et al., 737–41. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Wong, D., P. Mishra, M.J. Koehler, and S. Siebenthal. 2007. Teacher as filmmaker: iVideos, technology education, and professional development. In Technology in the college classroom, ed. M. Girod and J. Steed, 181–95. Stillwater, OK: New
Forums Press.