Australian Academic & Research Libraries

ISSN: 0004-8623 (Print) 1839-471X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarl20

iTell: Transliteracy and Digital Storytelling

Suzana Sukovic

To cite this article: Suzana Sukovic (2014) iTell: Transliteracy and Digital Storytelling, Australian
Academic & Research Libraries, 45:3, 205-229, DOI: 10.1080/00048623.2014.951114

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.951114

Published online: 03 Sep 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 617

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uarl20
Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 2014
Vol. 45, No. 3, 205–229, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.951114

iTell: Transliteracy and Digital Storytelling

Suzana Sukovic*

Learning Resource Centre, St. Vincent’s College, Potts Point, NSW 1335, Australia

This paper considers concepts of transliteracy and digital storytelling (DS), and reports
on the research findings of the DS project, iTell. The project involved the development
of digital stories based on a creative reading task and an investigation into transliteracy
and student engagement with learning in a high school setting. Findings indicate that
iTell provided an environment conducive to the development of transliteracy skills,
aided student engagement with learning and had some impact on participants beyond
the span of the project. The results are discussed in relation to transliteracy and DS,
which have attracted considerable interest in information and educational professions,
with scarce research-based evidence. The paper contributes to the literature about
transliteracy and DS, and provides some research evidence for their role in learning.
It further contributes to bridging a gap between discussions in the profession and
academic literature.
Keywords: transliteracy; digital storytelling; school libraries; education

Introduction
Where is the boundary between reading and writing in the digital environment? Where is
the line between text and image? If interactions with digital media blur academic
boundaries for experienced professors (Sukovic 2011a), what effect does it have on
younger generations who grew up with it? The digital storytelling (DS) project, iTell, was
formed against the backdrop of these questions during the Australian National Year of
Reading 2012. The project aimed to explore areas where different literacies meet and
blend, while contributing to discussions about the value of technology in learning, which
has often been promoted or disputed with little research-based evidence.
iTell involved work with high school students to develop their digital stories as a
response to fictional and historical texts. Creative reading – the creation of stories based
on reading or oral stories – was at the core of the project. iTell is based on concepts of
transliteracy and DS, which share a number of similarities:
. origins in an extensive use of technologies,
. focus on multimedia, multimodality and multiple literacies,
. exploration of new ways of learning and creating.
In this paper, DS and transliteracy will be considered in their own right and in relation
to the ideas of creativity and perspective. The main thrust of the paper is on the findings
arising from the project iTell.
It is useful to clarify the meaning of ‘reading’ and ‘literacy’ in the context of the study.
‘Reading’ refers to the act of examining and understanding the meaning of a written text.
‘Literacy’ is understood as a social practice as defined for purposes of the Australian
Curriculum:

*Email: suzana.sukovic@gmail.com

q 2014 Australian Library & Information Association

206 S. Sukovic

. . . students become literate as they develop the knowledge, skills and dispositions to interpret
and use language confidently for learning and communicating in and out of school and for
participating effectively in society. Literacy involves students in listening to, reading,
viewing, speaking, writing and creating oral, print, visual and digital texts, and using and
modifying language for different purposes in a range of contexts. (http://www.
australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/literacy/introduction/introduction)

Literature overview
Digital storytelling
DS is a term that loosely defines uses of well-known technologies to tell short, usually
personal, stories. Text, pictures and sound are combined to create presentations a few
minutes long. Digital stories are usually personal, but, even when they concern factual
material, there is a narrative (Ohler 2008).
Digital stories are used for different purposes. Institutions, including libraries and
community groups, utilise them to record memories of a community (for example,
Capture Wales, http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/arts/yourvideo/queries/ capturewales.shtml).
DS has been applied in the treatment of people recovering from trauma and adverse life
events to aid reflection. Educational institutions from preschool to university use DS to
engage with learners and tap into multiple intelligences and literacies (Frazel 2010; Ohler
2008). DS has capacity to engage students in learning about complex ideas, as Opperman
(Opperman 2008, 178) observed:
The format of the digital story allows the compression of complex ideas through the use of
multiple media . . . For students, digital stories have proven to be a powerful medium to
express their voice with intellectual depth in a form other than writing.
Storytelling and emotional engagement create a learning space for students to develop
a personal connection with complex theories (Benmayor 2008; Coventry 2008; Opperman
2008). As a pedagogical tool, DS ‘brings the creator/student and the viewer together in a
dialogue around the nature of representation, meaning, and authority embedded in imagery
and narrative’ (Fletcher and Cambre 2009, 115). According to Coventry (2008), the use of
multiple modalities and less familiar form of communication through multimedia is likely
to enhance learning.
DS can be successfully used to meet educational standards (Frazel 2010; Ohler 2008)
and to make writing composition more visible, while enriching student experience with
writing (Opperman 2008). In the JISC DS project Reflect 2.0 (Sandars 2009), students
reported that multimedia helped them to be reflective and they appreciated the opportunity
to be creative. Their tutors noted that DS enhanced reflective learning for students who did
not have a preference for writing.
DS has been described as a powerful educational tool to build confidence and establish
a sense of a community and collaboration (Benmayor 2008; Leon 2008). Gregori-Signes
(2008) discusses the usefulness of DS in a languages classroom setting, pointing out that it
helps students to make themselves heard.

Transliteracy and creativity

Transliteracy is a relatively new concept. It appears at a time when questions about work,
recreation and cultural traditions, in increasingly complex information and communi-
cation environments, are advancing from all directions. In the library and information
field, the adequacy of a well-established concept of information literacy has been
 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 207

questioned, particularly among professionals. Studies of information literacy point out the
complexity of the phenomenon (Lloyd 2010) and the reasons to discuss information
literacies in the plural (Limberg, Sundin, and Talja 2012). Mackey and Jacobson (2011)
proposed the concept of ‘metaliteracy’ as an overarching concept connecting a range of
literacies. The idea of ‘multiliteracies’, based on Gardner’s theory of multiple
intelligences (Tyner 1998), has had some influence in education. Numerous models of
digital, media and information literacy have been proposed for implementation in schools
and adult education institutions.
Transliteracy originated in Alan Liu’s Transliteracies Project at the University of
California in 2005. Sue Thomas developed the concept further with the Production and
Research in Transliteracy (PART) group at De Montfort University. In their paper,
Thomas et al. (2007) presented transliteracy as the concept which captures dynamic
relationships between different types of literacies, technologies, and social and cultural
contexts. Transliteracy was defined as ‘the ability to read, write and interact across a range
of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV,
radio and film, to digital social networks’ (Thomas et al. 2007).
Transliteracy can co-exist with concepts or models which deal with categories of
skills and their application in different environments because it takes a different
approach. Transliteracy is about fluidity of movement across the field – between a range
of contexts, modalities, technologies and genres. It is concerned ‘with mapping
meaning across different media and not about developing particular literacies about
various media’ (Ipri 2010, 532). As PART explained, transliteracy is about ‘the shift in
emphasis from static monologue to dynamic dialogue suggested by participatory
narratives; the practices and politics of collaboration . . . and the existence of a “group
creativity” or “intelligence”’ (Thomas et al. 2007, Networking the book, para 5 – 6).
Hull, Stornaiuolo, and Sahni (2010, 87) stress that ‘the term can be usefully extended to
capture the construction, use, and movement of texts across communicative and
geographical spaces’.
For the movement ‘across’, ‘through’ and ‘beyond’ suggested by prefix ‘trans’, it is
necessary not only to master multiple literacies, but also to develop the adaptability and
flexibility necessary for learning and work in a fast-changing environment. The exact
configuration of skills, modes and technologies depends on the context.
The idea of transliteracy as a theory of fluid literacies has arisen at a time of ongoing
discussions about creativity and innovation. Robinson (2011), for example, has been a vocal
proponent of fostering creativity in education while Zhao (2012) has presented a series of
keynote addresses across the globe, promoting his approach to reformation of schools to
foster an innovative learner. Libraries are playing a significant role in supporting the
creativity of clients and thinking of their own creative transformation. For example,
Peabody Institute Library Creativity Lab (http://www.peabodylibrary.org/creativitylab/),
Harvard Library Innovation Lab (http://librarylab.law.harvard.edu/) and some Australian
academic libraries (Booth, Schofield, and Tiffen 2012; Sukovic 2011b; Sukovic, Litting,
and England 2011) have been active in defining a library role in the culture of innovation.
An ability to make meaningful connections between disparate ideas and to apply
existing knowledge in new ways are key aspects of creativity. Transliteracy as an idea of a
fluid movement between a range of contexts is conceptually related to the notion of
creativity. While an ability to work ‘across’ the field does not necessarily make one
creative, it is nonetheless a powerful enabler of creativity. For education and library and
information studies, transliteracy provides a promising framework for bringing together
some key concerns and ideas.
208 S. Sukovic

Perspective
The development of meaning and applications of a range of skills, inherent in both DS and
transliteracy, is field-specific and defined by a particular perspective. The idea of a fresh
perspective in a particular context is also essential for understanding creativity.
In this section, the focus is on a particular understanding of perspective as discussed in
the field of psychology. Gestalt psychology and therapy in particular provide some
background for a teaching technique used in iTell. The German word gestalt can be loosely
translated as ‘whole’, meaning ‘something which is experienced as a singularity although it
is composed of distinct elements’ (Latner 2000, 19). One of the central concepts in Gestalt
psychology is the field perspective, which conceives phenomena as part of network of
connections called ‘the field’. Proponents of Gestalt therapy see inanimate objects and
phenomena as actors with a will on their own. A way of capturing different elements and
giving them a voice in Gestalt therapy is the ‘empty chair’ technique, whereby an object, a
dream character, or a person from someone’s life ‘takes a sit’ in the chair. The person who
wants to confront the meanings of a certain relationship, memory or dream answers as the
object/character/person in the chair, acting out the roles of participants in the particular
situation or dream. This technique was described by Joslyn (1975), Tobin (1975) and
Zinker (1992), among many others who wrote about Gestalt therapy. The same technique
has been occasionally used by actors when workshopping theatre productions.
The Gestalt understanding of the field is significant for understanding the context in
which one acts as a transliterate person. Applications of the Gestalt technique have a
potential to open new perspectives and, possibly, aid creative approaches.

Knowledge gap
Discussions about transliteracy and DS, although usually disconnected, reveal common
interests in bridging different literacies and cultural meanings and experiences. Shifts in
authority, interest in local experiences, and collaborative learning and knowledge building
are shared by authors who write about both concepts (Benmayor 2008; Fletcher and
Cambre 2009; Ipri 2010). The process of integrating personal meanings in collective
knowledge building depends on the articulation of a sense of a perspective and an ability to
see how pieces contribute to the collaborative construction of a puzzle.
DS and transliteracy have attracted a considerable interest from professional
communities, but there is very little research into either phenomenon. DS projects have
rarely been evaluated (Fletcher and Cambre 2009), and Ipri (2010, 533) has noted that as
far as transliteracy is concerned, ‘not much work exists in the scholarly record, especially
within library scholarship, although there has been lively debate and discussion via
informal channels . . . ’ Moreover, possible connections between DS and print-based forms
of writing and reading have not been explored.
iTell was developed to address the gap between practice and research-based insights
and to consider potential links between DS, transliteracy and creativity. Based in a school
library, the project is situated as an overlap between library and educational work.

iTell
Approach and aims
iTell was developed by the author at St. Vincent’s College, Potts Point (Sydney,
Australia), an independent girls’ high school. The intention was to explore different forms
of reading and writing while boosting student creativity and interest in reading. Students
 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 209

were invited to think about a story or a book they liked and focus on something that
intrigued them in that story, but which was not explored by the author, such as a different
perspective, a less developed character or an alternative ending. Alternatively, they could
tell an oral story through DS or create an original text.
The aims of the project were to:
. promote student engagement with a range of oral, written, fictional and non-fictional
texts in a variety of genres and media formats,
. promote transliteracy,
. contribute to individual learning,
. promote an investigative and creative learning environment,
. critically evaluate the impact of the project.
In the following section, the methodology and methods applied in the research are
described. The findings are discussed within several subsections relating to a survey about
students’ prior learning, organisaton of iTell, engagement with learning, development of
transliteracy skills and the impact of iTell on students.

Methodology and methods

The project was developed in the framework of action research, a well-established
methodological approach in education (Holly, Arhar, and Kasten 2009). iTell was
delivered in cycles of workshops, beginning with introducing students to DS and ending
with a completion of instruction and, in most cases, published digital stories. At the end of
each cycle, experiences and adjustments were considered for the next cycle. iTell cycles
coincided with cycles of action research, namely planning, acting, observing and reflecting
(https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/images/actreslg.gif).
Research questions and related methods are outlined in Table 1. The research
questions concerned three areas:
. students’ engagement with learning,
. the development of transliteracy skills,
. any impact on students after the project.

Participants
iTell participants were students in Years 7– 10 (12 – 16 years of age). The initial group was
identified by the College Executive from two distinct groups: gifted and talented students
in Years 8– 10, and a group of Indigenous boarders in Year 10. Following the first cycle,
iTell was made available to other students.
Some students volunteered to participate because of their interest in and aptitude for
creative work, while others joined iTell because the programme was recommended by
their friends. In a number of cases, students were perceived as disengaged from learning in
the classroom by teachers who believed that an alternative form of learning may be
beneficial for them, and were thereby encouraged to participate. The participation in iTell
was voluntary for day students, but compulsory for boarders.
Although the college is an independent school in a central part of Sydney, iTell
participants came from the city and regional areas. A wide range of abilities and academic
achievements was represented, as well as a variety of socio-economic backgrounds.
Table 2 shows the number of students who participated in the programme and in data
gathering. Altogether, 34 students participated in iTell, which includes only the girls who
had a major involvement with the programme.
210 S. Sukovic

Table 1. Research questions and data-gathering methods.

Research questions Data-gathering methods
Engagement
Are students engaged with texts and learning during the project? Observation
How are they engaging? Students’ self-report (surveys,
interviews)
Work samples
Feedback

Development of transliteracy skills

Which skills, if any, are developed during the project and how? Observation
Students’ self-report
Work samples
Feedback

Which enablers or inhibitors have affected skill development? Observation

Students’ self-report
Feedback from teachers

Impact
Does the project have any effect on students’ literacy skills and Survey and feedback from
learning? teachers
School reports

Do students demonstrate their developing transliteracy skills Students’ self-report

outside the project and how? Feedback from teachers

Do students demonstrate enhanced engagement with texts and Students’ self-report

learning outside the project? Feedback from teachers
Observation

Table 2. Number of participants and their output.

2012 2013 Total
Number of participants for data gathering from observation
Number of students who participated in iTell 25 9 34
Number of students who completed iTell 20 9 29
Number of finished stories (including collaborative stories) 12 6 18
Number of participants for other forms of data gathering
Number of completed first survey (includes students who did not continue 29 NA 29
beyond initial session/s)
Number of completed second survey 16 NA 16
Total number of completed surveys 45
Number of interviewed students 8 1 9
Number of students in one focus group 7 NA 7
Total number of students – interviews and focus group 16

Data-gathering methods
A variety of data-gathering methods were used to ensure collection of relevant data and
enable triangulation. This was particularly important considering that the author played
multiple roles in the project as project and library manager, researcher and educator, so it
was important to minimise researcher bias.
 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 211

The initial survey was given to participants to collect information about their
learning. The survey included questions regarding students learning outside of the
classroom, their feeling of engagement with learning and their assessment of skills
relevant for DS.
The ‘one minute paper’ technique was used as an ice-breaker, to gain a sense of each
student’s approach to the new learning experience, and to introduce a process of reflection
to students. Students were asked to continue two sentences by writing brief comments on
‘post-it’ notes. The sentences were ‘I hope/I wish . . . ’ and ‘I hope not/I doubt . . . ’ (will
happen in iTell). Students who participated in iTell more than once were asked to write
what they liked and did not like in the previous workshops.
Ethnographic style notes were kept throughout the project, particularly to record
observations from iTell workshops. In order to ensure that a variety of observational
perspectives were recorded, a library staff member was asked to record her observations
about a cycle of iTell when major changes were introduced. The research notes also
recorded informal comments made by teachers, library staff, students and parents.
Students’ work samples were collected during workshops.
A second survey was given to students at the end of iTell workshops asking questions
about the skills and knowledge they developed in iTell and their sense of engagement with
learning.
Interviews with students were organised usually a few weeks after the last session in the
cycle. Every attempt was made to include as many students as possible. In semi-structured
interviews, students reflected on how the workshops were organised, on their learning,
engagement, interaction with others and the impact iTell had on them. Students were
interviewed individually with an exception of a number of girls who wanted to be
interviewed together. Interviews were recorded and transcribed.
A focus group was organised for iTell participants who were boarders at the college. They
preferred to be interviewed together and it was difficult to organise their individual
participation because of scheduling clashes. The author conducted the focus group while
two other members of library staff recorded observations. The focus group was recorded
on two devices and partially transcribed.
Feedback was gathered from a number of people at the college. In most cases, it was
informal feedback recorded as research notes. Because a large group of iTell participants
were in Year 8, a longer unstructured interview was conducted with the Year 8 Advisor.
Notes were taken during the interview.
School reports before and after iTell were inspected. Any indication of a distinct change
was discussed with a relevant teacher.

Data analysis
Data were analysed throughout the project. Early in the project, a decision was made to
deliver surveys in print form as it was the best way to ensure a good response rate. Surveys
were later entered on the survey tool, Survey Monkey to use data-analysis features of the
software.
The surveys used statements with responses on a 4-point Likert scale in both directions
to avoid participants’ automatic responses. For example, in a series of positive statements
about enjoyment and fun in iTell, there was the statement ‘I was bored’. In some instances, it
appeared that a negative evaluation (e.g. ‘agree’ with the statement ‘I was bored’) was a
result of incorrect interpretation of the statement, considering other answers by the same
respondent. The real meaning of the response was clarified with the student during the
212 S. Sukovic

interview. When interview data and direct clarification confirmed that the response was
made by accident, a corrected response was entered on Survey Monkey. In other cases,
when data were ambiguous, and there was no opportunity to seek a thoughtful clarification
or a response was anonymous, the answer was recorded as it was circled on the survey sheet.
Interviews and notes were firstly analysed to establish a rough coding system. NVivo
was used for further coding and refinement of the codes.

Ethical issues
The organisation of the project, including ethical issues, was discussed with members of
the College Executive at various stages of the project. A copy of the research application
form was submitted to the college at the beginning of the project. A detailed project
outline was sent to parents and caregivers asking for signed permission for their child’s
participation in the project. Students were reassured that their participation in research
would not affect their work in class. Indigenous students were encouraged to work on
traditional stories, which could have had ethical implications. However, students did not
use Indigenous stories.
Other ethical considerations concerned the protection of students’ privacy and
freedom of expression. A number of girls worked on stories about bullying and other
sensitive issues. The workshops were delivered in a way to enable a safe environment for
student expression. In this paper, initials do not correspond to student names to avoid any
connection with real people. Pseudonyms were not used to avoid cultural connotations.
Student stories were screened at school gatherings, published on the college website
and in a youth digital magazine, and entered into various competitions. Explicit
permissions were sought from students for the college screening. Additional permissions
were sought from parents for publication outside school.

Timeline
Most workshops and data gathering were conducted in 2012. iTell was offered once in
2013, when small-scale data gathering was employed to confirm and extend the existing
data. Initially an hour long session once a week after school, it became clear that short
sessions after school were not a suitable method of working on digital stories, which
require longer sessions. The subsequent sessions were organised according to the schedule
presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Workshop schedule.

Time iTell sessions for students ‘Train the trainer’
Term 1 2012 One hour sessions weekly
after school for 6 weeks
Term 2 2012 One afternoon (approx. 2 hours) DS workshop for staff (2 days)
– break – 2 whole – delivered by an outside trainer
days – follow-up after school
Term 3 2012 One afternoon (approx. 2 hours)
– break – 2 whole
days – follow-up after school
Term 3 2013 Three whole consecutive days
 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 213

Findings
The study findings are presented in relation to each student’s prior learning, organisation
of workshops, main research questions concerning student engagement, the development
of transliteracy skills and any impact of iTell.

Survey about students’ prior learning

The first survey aimed to develop some general understanding about student learning
practices outside school. Questions about their activities related to the week prior to the
time when the survey was completed. Answers reflected, to an extent, what was happening
at school at the time. This effect is lessened as study participants completed the survey at
different times.
Figure 1 shows that the majority of students read less than 2 hours a week for school,
but tended to write more, most likely because assignments were due during this period.
Creating content with technology included some work for school such as preparation of
Power Point presentations. Reading was by far the most popular activity with 41% of
respondents indicating that they read for more than 4 hours for pleasure and the same
proportion read more than four books a month (Figure 2). However, 34% of respondents
read less than an hour a week.
Engagement with learning at school and activities relevant for DS were considered by
asking whether students enjoyed these activities. Results presented in Figure 3 relate to
responses on a 4-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 4 indicating
strong agreement, therefore results above 2 indicate a positive response. Figure 3 shows
that participants rated all activities positively overall. General engagement with learning at
school was rated 2.7 on average and engagement with a student’s favourite subject was
very high, at 3.8.
Students’ assessment of own skills (i.e. writing, understanding texts, drawing, and
creating content by using technology) was on the positive side with little variation between
the skills – from 2.66 for drawing to 2.86 for understanding different texts.

Activities outside school

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

1 hour or less 1-2 hours 2-4 hours more than 4 hours

Figure 1. Activities outside school hours.

214 S. Sukovic

Figure 2. Number of books read a month.

Enjoy creating content using techn.

Enjoy drawing

Enjoy writing

Enjoy reading

I usually feel engaged when I do

extracurricular activities
I usually feel engaged when I do my
favourite subject at school
I usually feel engaged in learning at
school

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Figure 3. Engagement with learning.

Organisation of iTell
All workshops were delivered by library staff. The author led all workshops, except when
the external trainer guided students in whole-day sessions in Term 2, 2012. Depending on
the number of students in the workshop, and the stage of their work, there were up to three
trainers/librarians available to provide individual assistance.
Simple, readily available software was used to create stories – Audacity for recording
and sound editing, Windows Moviemaker and any image editor. iTell students normally
used Photoshop as it was available on school computers.
A cycle of iTell typically started with a 2-hour introductory session. During the first
session, students played a game to explore a sense of a story perspective. The author
dubbed it Gestalt game as it is based on ideas from Gestalt psychology. In iTell, students
 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 215

worked with well-known fairy tales such as Cinderella or Goldilocks and the Three
Bears. The game started with a demonstration of how the story might look from the
perspective of an animal or object. The students were asking questions of a ‘mouse’ in
Cinderella or a ‘bowl’ in Goldilocks. Afterwards they participated in a dramatised
version of the story in which at least one student in each group would play the role of an
animal or object. Whole day workshops had a structure common for DS workshops,
including a ‘story circle’ in which students read story drafts to the group and commented
on each other’s stories.
The students preferred the timing of workshops when they were run over longer
periods, as opposed to 1 hour after school. Some comments were specifically made about
the break between an introductory session and whole-day workshops. Although there was
a danger of losing momentum, it was beneficial as an opportunity to think about stories.
Speed of delivery was mostly appropriate, although a number of girls reported needing
more time. The group size was approximately 15 students. In general, the atmosphere and
the way students worked in iTell felt very different from a typical classroom:
iTell is very different from other classes – less instruction, lot more creative space, lot more
fun. (C.)

. . . it’s very different in the number of teachers and the age gap of the girls . . . They have
exams you have to work for. But in iTell you’re only really working for that digital story. It’s
nothing quite pressuring about it except that you have to get it done. But, yeah, it’s different
and it’s not because you still have the goal, but on how it’s treated with the activities and the
people who are invited. (N.)
Students also commented on how they enjoyed participating in surveys and interviews:
‘It makes you think what happened, what you’ve done’. (V.)

Engagement with learning

Data about student engagement were gathered by combining a range of research methods.
Observation data indicated that the girls were engaged in their work. They worked on their
stories independently and there was usually no need to remind them to stay focused. Quite
often students worked through breaks and started setting up for the next activity before the
bell announced the next period.
The final survey gauged the participant’s sense of engagement by asking questions
about feelings of enjoyment and boredom. All respondents agreed and strongly agreed

It was time well spent

I was bored

It was fun

I was interested...

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Figure 4. How participants enjoyed iTell.

216 S. Sukovic

I enjoyed...

working with others

putting my story together.

recording a story.

working with images.

writing.
looking at my story or a book in a different
way.
learning about digital stories.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Figure 5. How participants enjoyed activities.

with the statements indicating enjoyment with iTell in general (Figure 4) and the main type
of activities in particular (Figure 5). The overall sense of engagement was on par with the
engagement with a favourite subject.
Positive responses to the statement ‘It was time well spent’ are particularly interesting
in the view of previous responses at the very beginning of iTell. In the ‘one minute paper’,
many students stated their concerns that they would waste their time and doubted that iTell
would be enjoyable. After a couple of cycles of iTell, significantly fewer students were
reiterating these doubts, most likely because they had heard from their friends that iTell
was not ‘boring’ or a ‘waste of time’. In subsequent cycles, ‘one minute papers’ expressed
more enthusiasm and students’ hopes that their work would be of a high quality or that
computers would operate properly.
The group of boarders for whom iTell was compulsory had, at times, a different sense
of engagement from other students. They were in the first group of participants and
responded very well initially. The major issue for this group occurred on the first whole-
day workshop, which happened to be on a Sunday. For College boarders, Sunday is usually
the only day in the week when they can spend several hours on their own outside school.
The fact that they had to stay at school for iTell, in addition to some communication issues
around preparations for the day, made this group very angry and disengaged on the day.
Instructors worked hard to overcome their resistance. Once they began working, one of the
instructors was dedicated to them for the rest of the day. In the focus group, they
commented positively on how they left the workshop and returned: ‘Then we came back
and got into it’. In subsequent workshops, the group worked well, even if not always in a
focused manner. It is worth noting a response from student O., who was the most
rebellious on the Sunday and later engaged only with iTell activities that interested her.
She was also disengaged from school in general during that period. O. completed the
second iTell survey at the end of the cycle and provided a very positive feedback with the
comment, ‘It turned to be fun in the end’.
Factors that aided students’ engagement were atmosphere, peers, and self-motivation
and interest. At the same time, peer influence for the closely connected group of boarders
and issues around interest were occasionally inhibiting factors. These factors are explained
in some detail as follows:
 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 217

Atmosphere. A sense of creativity and playfulness was established early in iTell by a

range of activities, such as games. The organisation of workshops was perceived as
different from the classroom and thus more conducive to creativity. Observations
indicated that the participants’ ability to move freely and sit in any way they liked made
them more relaxed and more likely to stay focused.
Peers. Interaction with the peers was a constant theme in interviews with the girls. Peers
were very important in spreading the word about iTell and keeping each other engaged in
the activities. For some, the unfamiliar group was a cause for initial nervousness:
. . . Just because I didn’t really know what I was doing and I didn’t really know any of the girls
so that was a bit nerve-wracking, but once we came and we started doing the story, I found that
I really enjoyed myself. (M.)
It helped when I had girls my age there that I could talk to if I got so bored of my story . . . —
and get them to listen to it and listen to theirs and just have a break from the whole story. (N.)
In the case of boarders, peers with strong personalities sometimes had a negative
impact on group members who remained disengaged even when they appeared ready for
work.
Interest and self-motivation. Most girls were interested in a range of activities, but many
had their favourite activity when they felt most engaged. The repetitive search for
copyright-free material, on the other hand, was frustrating for some students.
I really liked when we were recording on Audacity and we were like minimising the noise and
all that . . . Like, setting the whole thing up and getting all the timing right and adding the
music. Yeah, they are my favourite parts. (V.)
I liked writing the stories. I liked looking at the stories and choosing which story to do. (N.)
What I disliked was finding the photos that always got me so sleepy and I’d sit there on, like, a
whole school day and finding photo after photo and the music. (N.)
Self-motivation, derived from a sense of broader purpose, was important to some students:
I wanted it to be like the best it could be, but I guess I could have made it a bit better. (B.)
I thought it was just another way to improve my skills and . . . things like that for future
with school and university and those sorts of things. I thought it would be a really good
opportunity. (L.)
Similarly, a sense that activities did not relate to personal interests or a future direction
was disengaging: ‘It’s not my thing, I don’t read books, I don’t do anything on the
computer that’s all technical and smart like that’ (U.).
Competing demands on student time and thoughts of other things students wanted to
do were inhibiting to self-motivation and interest in the work at hand. There was also an
issue of being organised and focused on a large project:
At some points, to be honest, I got really annoyed because . . . let’s say it was a Tuesday and
Tuesdays are my favourite days on my timetable and we’d be doing this thing and I’d be
missing out on Art or something when we had to finish the thing and I’d get really
frustrated . . . And when we got given those whole days, you really had to get it done in that
day. And I found I felt that I mucked around a little bit and I kind of wish maybe next term I’ll
stay a bit more organised. (N.)

Development of transliteracy skills

Student responses regarding the development of their learning were very positive.
The majority agreed or strongly agreed with the statements about their learning (Figure 6).
218 S. Sukovic

I feel I know how to make a digital story.

I developed my skills in using technology.

I understand better how to use my voice to

tell a story.

I understand better how to use pictures to

tell a story.

I learnt something new about writing.

Now I know what digital stories are.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Figure 6. Participants’ assessment of their learning.

Although their responses cannot be directly compared with the assessment of their skills in
the first survey, all data suggest improved self-confidence in transliteracy skills.
Figure 7 presents students’ responses about their learning experiences. Although all
responses were positive, particularly highly rated were guidance and opportunities for
creativity.
This section provides further details about students’ learning experiences. It includes
an overview of findings relating to the development of IT skills, modes of expression and
communication, and inhibitors and enablers of skill development.

IT skills
Students developed computer skills gradually during the workshop and expressed a sense
of satisfaction in learning something new. Even if they had used some of the programmes
before, they felt more confident after participating in iTell.
Yeah it was ALL new to me. Like I’ve done movies and stuff but I’ve never done something
like that. (H.)

I had an opportunity to be creative.

I feel I had enough guidance.

I am happy with my story.

This type of activity suits me.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Figure 7. Participants’ responses about their learning experience.

 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 219

I particularly liked the way that I learned a lot more stuff. If I hadn’t done that, I wouldn’t have
known how to use a lot of the computer things. (T.)
I think we did a bit of work together and then just myself just going home and doing some
work I got a lot more confident in it. I’d used it (Photoshop) before in design and tech, I think
in year 8, and things like that but, yeah, not a lot. (N.)
An important part of applying software skills was file organisation. All students were
told how they could manage the files. Some managed their work easily while others learnt
by their own mistakes.

Writing, visual expression and modes of communication

Writing was either a particularly rewarding or challenging part of DS. Students had to
write a very short piece – around 200 words – and think of different ways of
communicating their message. None had previously attempted such a condensed form of
writing. A number of students commented that focusing on different perspectives was new
and very interesting to them.
For confident writers, experimentation with a new genre opened new possibilities: ‘But
I think it does open up a new type of writing for me. I learned a different type of style
maybe even’. M., a senior student who made this comment, had experience in participating
in writing competitions:
I’ve been developing my own style and things like that. But when we talked a bit more about
perspectives, that was really interesting because a lot of it I hadn’t really thought of before . . .
I have tried to write short stories before and I find it really difficult trying to get it all in, so this
was a good exercise just trying to do that and condensing it all down so we could just make a
story out of it.
The short form was helpful in dealing with obstacles in writing. N. commented how
she wrote a lot, but usually did not finish her stories, ‘whereas with this it was the
perfect length to kind of look at your story, but make sure that you didn’t lose sight of
it’. For B., writing was a less enjoyable part of the process, but experimenting with
short text types with some guidance was helpful. Others found it hard to change writing
habits.
Free writing was an ice-breaking technique used in the first iTell cycle. Students were
invited to spend a few minutes writing whatever came to their mind with no attempt to
regulate the writing stream. Some students, both proficient and reluctant writers, continued
working with their first stories for a long time, some even till the end of their involvement
with iTell.
Storyboards and visual elements are integral parts of DS. Some reluctant writers used
storyboards with zero, or minimal, text. These visual stories were sometimes quite
complex and appeared to symbolically deal with personal issues.
Working with images focused student attention on details and different ways of
communicating. It also focused attention on efficiency in writing:
I think I can write probably better because, you know, you have to put more detail and
that stories don’t need to have every single little detail. Especially when you are writing
short stories. And that short stories are just as effective as long stories, even maybe
more. (J.)
Images served as a guide sometimes. V. commented: ‘I think the pictures probably
helped me to write more. Like, little details in the pictures, you can expand on them’.
Student J. added: ‘It makes it easier with the pictures. Cos in my stories I am always like
220 S. Sukovic

“and blah-blah with his yellow pants and blue top”, but if you have a photo of it, you don’t
have to say that.’
D. wrote two stories and chose one that was more suitable for combining with visual
elements. She said she always had problems with cutting her writing down, but it helped
when she understood how she could communicate with images and words simultaneously.
Students reflected on different ways of communicating and the meaning of different
media and genres. A few students commented how DS is a more reflective genre than film:
. . . with digital stories I can be a lot more dramatic. And, yeah, quite philosophical with digital
stories, like I was with (book character). It was very dramatic. (N.)
I didn’t really understand what they (digital stories) were at all before we started, but now that
I’ve made one I can see how much easier it is and it’s just another good way to communicate
with people. (M.)

Inhibitors and enablers in learning

Inhibitors. There were four major issues which inhibited student learning at times:
technical, organisation of work, students’ confidence and negative aspects of group
cohesion. Technical issues were mainly related to slow computers or incompatible
platforms as students attempted to work on PCs in combination with Apple applications.
The issue with organisation of own work is twofold. Some students had other
commitments during the school day so they were leaving iTell workshops frequently
enough to impede the progress of their stories. For others, the issue of work organisation
relates to students’ perception that they were not as efficient as they wished. A number of
students mentioned how they wished they had more time. Some felt stressed when they
tried to finish everything on time, especially when they were working to present at events,
but there was also a recognition that working to deadlines can have a positive effect.
Issues of confidence were limiting for students who felt they could not achieve in
certain areas and therefore did not try at all or compared themselves unfavourably with
others. Less confident writers among Indigenous students did not seek help with writing,
but readily asked for advice when they had problems with technology or accepted
suggestions when working with images. It appears that some of the less confident students
disengaged to mask their lack of confidence: ‘And theirs (stories) were so perfect . . . And
ours is just . . . ’ said one of the students. ‘Ours’ refers to their collaborative story. One of
the students who worked well in iTell commented on her final result during the focus
group:
P.: It was ok. But I always compare my stories with M.’s (a high achieving student). They are
so smart and good at everything.
Other voices: They are good at it because they want to do it.
They enjoy it.
Enablers. The creative reading task, activities, guidance and social aspects of learning
were viewed as particularly helpful by the students. The task itself, and the way it was
approached, was accepted very well. Some students were intrigued by the notion of
perspectives in the story and felt it allowed them to explore what interested them in the
text. For students who were less confident in their writing abilities, having a book as the
basis made the task more manageable. T. did not have a high opinion of her writing skills,
but did not find writing in iTell difficult. She commented: ‘Yeah . . . I probably wouldn’t
have been able to do it as well if I hadn’t have read a book or based it on any book.’
 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 221

All activities were perceived as interesting and useful. Games were often mentioned as
particularly enjoyable and helpful:
My favourite one, one with the Goldilocks, when we all had to be different pieces of furniture
and we gave them a personality where it’s like you walk in, you think of a story and you only
think of the, not even the animal characters – you only think of the human ones – so it was
good to look at the inanimate objects. And think, “Oh, okay, well . . . what does the pencil case
feel like when (character in her digital story) is walking around the house”. It was nice start.
That one was one that I found most effective in a way. (N.)
The students appreciated that the library staff provided knowledgeable guidance
without being prescriptive:
They (librarians) were saying “you could use this” and also how they liked the repetition and
how I could use more or less of that and so I didn’t go over the top when it came to dramatic
finishes . . . I liked how it was merely just suggestions so you could write them down and say,
“Okay, so well, I’ve got three suggestions for this I can use. I can either add more repetition
and create this effect or add less repetition and create this effect”. So you got to choose which
way your story could go while still getting advice. (N.)
Librarian guidance through difficult sections, followed by independent work, helped
students to learn. D. commented how it was confusing for her to organise numerous files,
but she had lots of help and, in the end, felt confident with the process. T. commented on
the use of software: ‘I knew how to – kind of – use it. I could have made my own movie.
But with all the teachers (sic! librarians) help it really helped when you got stuck, so now
I know how to do that’. Although providing guidance and allowing students to do the work
is a well-recognised teaching practice, students identified it as a distinct feature of their
experience in iTell.
The social aspects of learning were particularly powerful enablers in learning.
The physical setting encouraged free movement, grouping and choosing the right distance
for an individual reinforced positive interactions. An integral part of developing digital
stories is the story circle, which sets the tone of open discussion, constructive criticism and
respect. Further work and watching each other’s stories encourage relationships of ‘critical
friends’:
I liked it because one of my favourite activities was when we had the group discussions
and we’d each read out our stories and we’d say, “Okay, well, I like this and you can change
this” and everyone was as critical as they could be. And it was none of this fluffy it’s-really-
good kind of stuff – “Oh, it’s really goood!” (exaggerated tone). It was actual critical
information. (N.)
For more introverted or self-reliant students who are normally reluctant to seek advice,
the group atmosphere encouraged them to ask questions:
. . . a lot of the time I find that I just work by myself and, if I’m not sure, I try to work it out by
myself . . . Just because it’s more of a group atmosphere and the story circle and things like
that where we sat around and talked about things – it was really – it felt like a really
productive exercise. (M.)
A very important aspect of the learning environment is an easy flow of ideas and
opportunities to learn from and solve problems with different people. Writing is normally
a solitary process, and a number of students commented that it was important for them to
have ready access to people who could provide feedback. Advanced writers, as well as
those who felt they struggled, felt that the group situation was very helpful:
. . . that was good because you need other people to help you. Cos you all work as one
basically just making different stories. (T.)
222 S. Sukovic

They help me to write in a different way and it was also fun listening to their stories as well.
I mean, if I was all by myself, I don’t think I would be able to do it as easily. I would be stuck.
Still. (B.)
When you’ve got other students around you, you feel a lot more comfortable in the
atmosphere, like you’ve got the librarians that you can talk to for adult guidance or you can
ask your peers . . . And also as working with more students meant more movies to look at. (N.)
The group of boarders worked on a collaborative story and, unwittingly, modelled an
admirable collaboration. A number of other students commented in interviews how they
would like to try a collaborative story and reflected on the value of individual work versus
collaboration. When asked how she felt about having to abandon some of her ideas, M.
answered: ‘I think that’s alright sometimes because you have to compromise, but you
come out with a different story at the end, something you might never have thought of by
yourself.’ J. and V. commented on how they would like to try a collaborative story because
‘that would be really fun’. V. joined the next round of iTell with a friend when they worked
on a joint story, which was told in two voices from the perspective of two characters.
Although students enjoyed peer input, they also appreciated some independence. E.
commented about how the whole group worked: ‘It felt good, definitely did . . . I guess . . .
how we were all separated, I guess that gave us almost some room to breathe or
something’. A. commented on the importance of receiving input from other girls, but she
also appreciated opportunity to ‘find her own voice’.

Impact of iTell on students

Several months after the workshops, iTell seemed to have had a positive impact on the
social skills and interactions, development of transliteracy skills and learning in general,
and the sense of pride and confidence of the participants.

Social skills and interactions

Experience of working in a mixed age group was new to most students in iTell. Some of
them talked about initial social anxieties and how they established a new sense of
connection with different year groups. J. and V. talked about this experience in an
interview in which they participated together:
J.: As soon as I saw a massive group I was like, “Oh, I don’t know, I don’t know many of these
girls” . . . Probably it was going to be just Year 8s, 9s, 10s everyone in their little groups.
But . . . I didn’t feel we were all like in our own little groups, year groups. We were all talking
to each other and it was so much fun.
V.: I don’t know. I liked meeting the new girls from other years. But, again, it’s sort of easier
to work with people that you know. Like, in Y8.
J.: But sometimes you don’t want easier. Sometimes you don’t want to work with people you
already know, you want to meet new people. And, this time, just listening to everyone else.
For other students, vertical grouping was also a new and positive experience. M., an
older student, was happy to spend time with younger girls.
The experience of working in iTell had some beneficial impact on students who
suffered communication difficulties or friendship problems. A number of students worked
with stories about bullying, which seemed to allow them to explore some of the issues in a
safe and less personal way. It also seemed that the type of interactions they had in iTell had
a positive influence on their social skills outside the workshop. The Year 8 Advisor
 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 223

commented on how one student, who tended to be very impulsive, behaved in a more
measured and thoughtful way after the workshops. The Advisor was interested in
experiences students had in iTell and commented on how she could see that this girl
applied the techniques and ground rules of story circle in other interactions in the weeks
after the workshops.
One of the students worked in iTell mainly on her own and with the librarians.
The student demonstrated strong anxiety the first time that she screened her story in
iTell. However, she was very relaxed later when iTell stories were screened for the
rest of the school. In her interview, the girl seemed to be at ease when she commented
on her initial anxiety when her story was screened for the first time. She was
subsequently encouraged to join library clubs and has remained very active in library
activities. Several months after iTell, in the new school year, she spends most of her
free time in the library, usually in conversation with library staff and other students,
appearing much more engaged and relaxed. With no knowledge of her involvement
with iTell, a teacher has commented how the girl appears transformed in a
positive way since the end of the previous year, which coincides with her participation
in iTell.

Application of transliteracy skills and learning

An educational project which taps into a variety of skills provides a number of access
points for engagement with learning to students with different interests. Students may be
willing to join the project to work on a particular task, but they discover in the process that
they can do more than they thought. Their reflection upon their learning regularly included
ideas on how they can apply new skills and insights. For one Year 8 student, iTell provided
an entry point into reading for pleasure and she could easily identify how it had affected
her learning:
I never would have thought I could do things like this because I’m not a very good person at
writing or reading much. And this sort of helped me. Now I read a lot more and that’s basically
what I liked about iTell . . . I always thought reading was really boring, but now it’s opened my
eyes that it’s not and it’ll help me with my spelling as well because I’ll learn new words and
stuff so that should be good (T.)
A number of students commented on how they developed new computer skills and an
understanding of the digital environment. Topics such as copyright, which do not normally
capture a student’s attention in class, have become much more interesting with a real
purpose of learning. Students who chose to use images protected by Copyright were not
able to publish their work, which then served as a real-life lesson.
From the whole thing I probably gained using . . . skills in using those different technologies
like the Audacity and Windows Live Moviemaker. And knowing what’s Copyright and what’s
not Copyright. So probably . . . that’s really helpful with assignments and projects. (V.)
It was nice to finally look at how much you take off the Internet that is actually copyrighted so,
if you really think about it, you don’t have much that is copyright free or stuff that people will
make copyright free. (N.)
Opportunities to be creative were appreciated by students. D. thrived in an
environment where she could be creative for an extended period of time. B. commented
that iTell helped her to develop her creativity and apply new communication skills after
the programme. Among other examples of creativity, B. mentioned her decorative work.
When asked how iTell helped her with decorations, B. answered:
224 S. Sukovic

Well, it helps me with what I’m imagining, just to put it visually and show others without me
having to explain it. So I could just think of a story, make a comic, do a digital story.
Students demonstrated retention of DS skills several months after the workshop.
A. participated in a large research project in the library 5 months after iTell and made a
digital story as a way of presenting her group’s work. She proposed this form of
presentation and prepared a short digital story with ease. A couple of years after the project,
A. used visual storytelling for her major work in one of her Higher School Certificate
subjects. Other students who participated in more than one round of iTell demonstrated an
ability and confidence in applying the skills developed several months earlier.
For some students, iTell had a strong personal impact. For one of the girls who
achieved a major recognition for her digital story, the whole experience was so powerful
that she decided she wanted to become a director: ‘Since I’ve had this experience of iTell,
I guess, it kind of turned me to wanting to be a director.’ (E.)
In the case of J., the impact of iTell was observable in a number of different ways. J.
participated in two rounds of iTell. She joined the programme as a typical disengaged Year
8 student. After initial doubts about iTell, she worked well and finished the programme on
a high note (Figure 8). I. was present in the panel discussion for an adult audience,
The Future of Writing, when some of iTell stories were screened. She was engaged by the
presentations of guest speakers and later commented on how much she enjoyed them.

Figure 8. Part of J.’s ‘one minute paper’ and final survey.

 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 225

A change of J.’s attitude towards learning was observed by teachers immediately after
iTell. J.’s end of year school report noted an improvement in attitude and academic results.
In the following year, academic improvement resulted in her inclusion in the school’s
gifted and talented programme. Since iTell, J. has participated in other writing
programmes and activities run by the school library and, at times, spent considerable time
and effort working on some of her written pieces outside school.

Pride, achievement and confidence

iTell stories were screened on a number of occasions such as whole school assemblies,
lunchtime in the library and the previously mentioned event The future of writing.
The school has rich tradition of video production with the Snippets Film Festival at the end
of year showcasing students’ work. The judges are usually film professionals, making the
Most Creative Award a proud achievement for one iTell participant. Some of the students’
stories were also published in the electronic youth magazine SpineOut and entered into
competitions outside school. All stories suitable for public viewing were published on the
College website.
The students have rarely commented on the presentation of their work, but it certainly
had some bearing on their sense of accomplishment. A couple of students said how the
audience response at the Snippets festival made them feel happy about their work. Another
group of students commented on how their stories were screened in an English class and
were well received by their peers. A sense of iTell community was extended through
sharing stories with other friends, who often commented that they enjoyed it when iTell
participants used images of each other for their stories. Those who did not complete their
work felt they missed out.
Students not only felt a sense of personal accomplishment, but they also recognised the
achievements of their peers. V. and J. commented on what the boarders accomplished with
their participation in the programme. V. mentioned that the boarders seemed less engaged
than the rest of the group. When asked whether it bothered them, they responded:
J.: Not so much that you would get up and leave but, in the end, when you saw their video, it
was like, “Oh, I hope they are happy they came here now” . . .
V.: Yeah . . .
J.: . . . they see what they can all do. Like, look at that! You, guys, did that . . .
V.: . . . It was pretty cool.
J.: . . . you are proud of yourself.
Although the boarders have never expressed their pride, it is most likely that they felt
some sense of achievement. Many of them were very nervous before the first public
screening, but appeared much more relaxed and confident afterwards. A number of
teachers congratulated them on their work and commented on the creativity and quality of
the final result. They agreed to put final touches on their story before sending it to a
competition outside school, and at least one of them used the DS skills at school.
A number of girls talked about gaining confidence in their own voice. M., for example,
mentioned a few times how she gained confidence:
Even just doing it now I feel a bit more confident. Once I saw the story when it was finished
and I had the music and the images, you don’t really notice as much. But when you first do it
you’re a bit intimidated just to hear your own voice there.
226 S. Sukovic

New possibilities for future work, skill development and social connections were a
common thread in student reflections. Two years after the first iTell workshops, students
ask, not whether, but when iTell is going be offered again, indicating a sense of ownership
and expectation.

Discussion
It is well known to any educator that learning situations are complex and influenced by
many factors. Student experience in iTell is shaped by a whole spectrum of environmental
characteristics from learning activities, space, sitting arrangements, other participants,
sharing food, to personal motivation. In a novel learning situation, which requires a great
deal of openness and an ability to combine a range of skills, it is critically important to
develop a sense of freedom and refreshing change as well as a safe environment for
personal expression. It is plausible that the space, movement and scheduling are
particularly important when the aim is to encourage connections and fluid movement
between a range of tools and modalities as is the case with transliteracy and DS. In her
investigation of space for transliteracy and creativity, Thomas (2013) noted Pullinger’s
observation that space for transliteracy would need to be transdisciplinary and to
encourage people to work on their own as well as to provide opportunities for interaction.
Students often commented on the importance of exposure to different ideas, and the ability
to work both alone and in collaboration with others. A learning environment created in
iTell workshops to promote creativity and transliteracy encourages collaboration. The way
students worked together, their interest in creating collaborative stories and their reflection
on the importance of social aspects of their experience, all support the idea that
collaboration is an intrinsic part of transliteracy. The availability of a long period of time is
also critically important for allowing students to become immersed in a different world of
learning.
A variety of activities to support different aspects of story development and
transliterate behaviours are needed to provide sufficient stimuli and opportunities for
learning and creativity. The lack of assessment, or even a structured classroom task,
promoted student self-motivation in the case of iTell; possibly because telling one’s own
story was perceived as sufficiently rewarding. It is also possible that the reflective space of
DS encouraged students to maintain their internal drive. A sense of pride in one’s own
work when it was presented to others contributed to maintaining self-motivation.
In iTell, stories were generated from personal creative interpretation by using
multimedia, requiring a big leap from more commonly used writing tasks in the class.
It appears that the iTell setting prepared students sufficiently to make this leap without
perceiving it is a scary challenge. Games played an important role in relaxing the students
while priming them for the task ahead. The Gestalt game was a potent technique in
unlocking creativity and insights into hidden perspectives within the narrative. It is likely
that the technique aided the recognition of personal meanings and opened a reflective
space in which students could deal with personal issues.
Telling stories, even if they are based on books, is a personal and often emotional
experience. Listening to other people’s stories and making constructive comments extend
student ability to listen and empathise, adding another layer to student literacy skills.
Robinson analysed how education supports the development of creativity and found that
one of the key issues is that
[t]he cultivation of feeling has long been marginalized by academic education . . .
The conventional academic curriculum largely ignores the importance of developing the
 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 227

“soft skills” such as an ability to listen and to empathize. This is not a coincidence or an
oversight. It is a structural feature of academicism. (Robinson 2011, 177– 178)
A move away from cognitive approaches and the recognition of body and emotions as
sources of knowledge have been discussed in information literature (Limberg, Sundin, and
Talja 2012; Lloyd 2010; Nahl and Bilal 2007; Sukovic 2011a). A framework in which
emotions, personal views and reflection are invited has the capacity to cultivate long
neglected aspects of human experience for information and educational purposes. iTell
supports findings from other studies that DS has ability to bring emotions into learning in a
constructive way.
Learning in an environment which encourages transliteracy seems to enable not only
a transfer of skills, but also a transfer of engagement. Bridging spaces can become safe
areas for exploration. For many students in iTell, a range of tools, tasks and modes of
expression provided alternative entries into areas they may have preferred to avoid.
By entering a narrative through drawing, or discovering the beauty of reading through
storytelling with multimedia, students engaged with activities they once found
unappealing. Often they discovered a new aptitude. For those who wished to deal with
issues of bullying, it was helpful that the book was standing between student’s personal
experiences and the outside world, providing a safe space for reflection. When educators
provide connecting spaces for the transfer of skills, insights and modalities, students can
find the niche that fits them.
The experience of iTell supports the view that DS encourages complex insights.
Examining a well-known story from a different angle sheds new light on many aspects of
the text, encouraging complex analysis. Graham and Hebert (2010) stress the importance
of writing about read texts to improve literacy. DS enables a higher order thinking about
texts by giving students the opportunity to not only explore new forms of writing, but also
construct their own meaning.
As one of very few studies providing research-based evidence for an understanding of
transliteracy, iTell raises a number of questions and possibilities for further investigation.
For example, it is likely that the novelty of DS would be exhausted if used regularly, but
there are enough possible variations of DS and multimedia that their potential could be
exploited further. iTell students had a variety of socio-economic backgrounds and
abilities, but it will be worthwhile to compare results with a different group of participants.
For example, although previous research involving university students of both sexes did
not report differences between young men and women, it would be interesting to carry out
this study with teenage boys.
Findings from iTell indicate a strong synergy between DS and transliteracy. The
provision of opportunities for development and application of transliteracy seems to be a
particularly promising area for library and information research and practice.

Conclusion
The DS project, iTell, indicated that similar programmes could provide opportunities
to enhance students’ engagement and transliteracy skills. Inhibiting factors in learning
were problems with technology, students’ organisation of work, student confidence
and negative aspects of group cohesion. Helpful factors in developing transliteracy
skills were the creative reading task, a range of activities, knowledgeable but non-
prescriptive guidance and learning with peers. Although iTell had a limited time span,
it had many positive effects on students’ skills, engagement with learning and social
skills.
228 S. Sukovic

iTell points to an alignment between DS and transliteracy, indicating that the creation
of ‘bridging zones’ may provide opportunities for engagement with learning,
experimentation and reflection. Very importantly, it may provide ways of bridging
cognitive with emotional and corporal ways of knowing.

Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without a generous support of Fay Gurr, the Principal at
St. Vincent’s College, Potts Point. Katherine Rogerson, Alycia Bailey and Lyndal Rose, all staff at
the College Learning Resource Centre at the time, made a significant contribution by assisting with
the project. Thanks are also due to Kirsty McGeoch who worked with us in the initial stages of the
project, and to anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. iTell stories are available from
http://stvincents.nsw.edu.au/learning/learning-resource-centre/projects/itell/

Funding
This work was supported by the Australian Library and Information Association [Research Award
2012].

Notes on contributor
Dr Suzana Sukovic has an extensive professional experience in the information industry, mainly in
the academic sector. Her experience includes academic research and teaching. Suzana has published
papers on issues related to technology in scholarly research, and on innovation and creativity in
libraries. Transliteracy is her main work interest these days. Suzana is currently the Head of the
Learning Resource Centre at St. Vincent’s College, Potts Point and Co-Chair of the ALIA Research
Advisory Committee. She also leads the ALIA LARK (Library Applied Research Kollektive) group.

References
Benmayor, Rina. 2008. “Digital Storytelling as a Signature Pedagogy for the New Humanities.” Arts
and Humanities in Higher Education 7 (2): 188– 204.
Booth, Mal, Sally Schofield, and Belinda Tiffen. 2012. “Change and Our Future at UTS Library: It’s
Not Just About Technology.” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 43 (1): 32– 45. doi:10.
1080/00048623.2012.10700621
Coventry, Michael. 2008. “Engaging Gender: Student Application of Theory Throught Digital
Storytelling.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7 (2): 205– 218.
Fletcher, Christopher, and Carolina Cambre. 2009. “Digital Storytelling and Implicated Scholarship
in the Classroom.” Journal of Canadian Studies 43 (1): 109–130.
Frazel, Midge. 2010. Digital Storytelling: Guide for Educators. Eugene, OR: International Society
for Technology in Education.
Graham, S., and Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing can Improve
Reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education.
Gregori-Signes, Carmen. 2008. “Integrating the Old and the New: Digital Storytelling in the EFL
Language Classroom.” GRETA Journal 16 (1&2): 43 –49.
Holly, Mary Louise, Joanne M. Arhar, and Wendy C. Kasten. 2009. Action Research for Teachers:
Traveling the Yellow Brick Road. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hull, Glynda A., Amy Stornaiuolo, and Urvashi Sahni. 2010. “Cultural Citizenship and
Cosmopolitan Practice: Global Youth Communication Online.” English Education 42 (4):
331– 367.
Ipri, Tom. 2010. “Introducing Transliteracy: What Does It Mean to Academic Libraries?” College &
Research Libraries News 71 (10): 532– 533, 567.
Joslyn, Marc. 1975. “Figure/Ground: Gestalt/Zen.” In Gestalt Is, edited by J. O. Stevens. Moab, UT:
Real People Press.
 Australian Academic & Research Libraries 229

Latner, Joel. 2000. “The Theory of Gestalt Therapy.” In Gestalt Therapy: Perspectives and
Applications, edited by E. C. Nevis. Cambridge, MA: GestaltPress.
Leon, Sharon 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 (2): 220– 223.
Limberg, Louise, Olof Sundin, and Sanna Talja. 2012. “Three Theoretical Perspectives on
Information Literacy.” Human IT 11 (2): 93 – 130.
Lloyd, Annemaree. 2010. Information Literacy Landscapes: Information Literacy in Education,
Workplace and Everyday Contexts. Oxford: Chandos.
Mackey, Thomas P., and Trudi E. Jacobson. 2011. “Reframing Information Literacy as a
Metaliteracy.” College & Research Libraries 72 (1): 62 – 78.
Nahl, Diane, and Dania Bilal, eds. 2007. Information and Emotion: The Emergent Affective
Paradigm in Information Behaviour Research and Theory. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Ohler, Jason. 2008. Digital Storytelling in the Classroom: New Media Pathways to Literacy,
Learning, and Creativity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Opperman, Matthias. 2008. “Digital Storytelling and American Studies: Critical Trajectories From
the Emotional to the Epistemological.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7 (2):
171– 186.
Robinson, Ken. 2011. Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative. Fully rev. and updated ed. Oxford:
Capstone.
Sandars, John. 2009. “Reflect 2.0: Using Digital Storytelling to Develop Reflective Learning by the
Use of Next Generation Technologies and Practices (Final Report).” University of Leeds.
Accessed July 29, 2014. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/
usersandinnovation/reflectfinalreport.pdf
Sukovic, Suzana. 2011a. “E-Texts in Research Projects in the Humanities.” In Advances in
Librarianship, Vol. 33, edited by A. Woodsworth. Bingley: Emerald Group. Accessed July 29,
2014. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/7261
Sukovic, Suzana. 2011b. “Strategically Creative: A Case of the Library Planning Process.” Journal
of Organisational Transformation & Social Change 8 (3). Accessed July 29, 2014. http://hdl.
handle.net/2123/8570
Sukovic, Suzana, David Litting, and Ashley England. 2011. “Playing with The Future: Library
Engagement and Change.” Australian Academic & Research Libraries 42 (2): 70 – 87. Accessed
July 29, 2014. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/8254
Thomas, Sue. 2013. “Making a Space: Transliteracy and Creativity.” Digital Creativity 24 (3):
182– 190.
Thomas, Sue, Chris Joseph, Jess Laccetti, Bruce Mason, Simon Mills, Simon Perril, and
Kate Pullinger. 2007. “Transliteracy: Crossing Divides.” First Monday 12 (12). http://dx.doi.
org/10.5210/fm.v12i12.2060
Tobin, Stephen A. 1975. “Saying Goodbye.” In Gestalt Is, edited by S. Andreas and F. S. Perls.
Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Tyner, Kathleen. 1998. Literacy in a Digital World: Teaching and Learning in Age of Information.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zhao, Yong. 2012. World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Enterpreneurial Students.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Zinker, Joseph C. 1992. “Dreamwork as Theatre.” In Gestalt Voices, edited by E. W. L. Smith.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.