RESPONSES OF LISTENER-VIEWERS IN DIGITAL STORYTELLING:

COLLABORATIONS IN THE INTERMEDIATE CLASSROOM

AND THE MIDDLE SCHOOL LIBRARY

by

Rebecca J. Morris

Bachelor of Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2000

Master of Library and Information Science, University of Pittsburgh, 2004

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

School of Library and Information Sciences in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

University of Pittsburgh

2011
 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

School of Information Sciences

This dissertation was presented

by

Rebecca J. Morris

It was defended on

July 22, 2011

and approved by

Leanne Bowler, Assistant Professor, School of Information Sciences

Christinger Tomer, Associate Professor, School of Information Sciences

Elizabeth Figa, Associate Professor, Department of Library and Information Sciences,

College of Information, University of North Texas

Dissertation Advisor: Mary Kay Biagini, Associate Professor, School of Information Sciences

ii
Copyright © by Rebecca J. Morris

2011

iii
 RESPONSES OF LISTENER-VIEWERS IN DIGITAL STORYTELLING:
COLLABORATIONS IN THE INTERMEDIATE CLASSROOM
AND THE MIDDLE SCHOOL LIBRARY

Rebecca J. Morris, B.S., M.L.I.S.

University of Pittsburgh, 2011

Storytelling in its traditional form, with active participation by tellers and listeners, is a valuable

model for contemporary library and classroom experiences. Digital storytelling expands

opportunities for storytelling in libraries, and reflects a continuity of innovative library services

for children and students. For this study, “digital storytelling” is defined as a short, multimedia

presentation of a story, created by students, under the guidance of school librarians or teachers.

Because much of the literature and practice of digital storytelling emphasizes the creator, or

teller, this research examines the response of the “listener-viewers” to explore and support in a

digital environment the interactions afforded to audiences of traditional, live storytelling. This

research study is a mixed methods investigation centered upon participant-observation of digital

storytelling in intermediate classroom and middle school library settings. The research findings

show six prominent themes representing how students respond to and engage in digital

storytelling, presented in the study in a conceptual model. The themes are Engagement, Action,

Emotions, Learning, Similar Experiences, and Next Steps. Key components of digital

storytelling as a classroom and school library activity are the “self” as a viewer of digital

storytelling, formative and summative viewing practices, and how classroom teachers and school

librarians teach and facilitate digital storytelling, including integration of technology and

information literacies and collaboration.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 STORYTELLING AS RELATED TO THE MISSION OF LIBRARY

SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS ..................................................... 1

1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................... 4

1.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF TRADITIONAL STORYTELLING .......................... 7

1.5 UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL STORYTELLING ........................................... 11

1.5.1 Characteristics of Digital Storytelling ............................................................. 11

1.5.2 Defining Digital Storytelling ........................................................................... 13

1.5.3 Examples of Digital Storytelling ..................................................................... 14

1.5.4 Digital Storytelling and Traditional Storytelling ............................................. 18

1.5.5 Use of Storytelling- and School-Related Terms and Conventions in This Study

20

2.0 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 23

2.1 NEED FOR RESEARCH ON LISTENER-VIEWER RESPONSES IN DIGITAL

STORYTELLING EVENTS IN SCHOOL LIBRARY AND CLASSROOM SETTINGS 23

2.1.1 Traditional Storytelling as Event ..................................................................... 23

v
 2.1.2 Digital Storytelling as Storytelling Event ........................................................ 25

2.2 FOCUS ON AUTHOR-CREATOR IN DIGITAL STORYTELLING

PRACTICE AND RESEARCH ........................................................................................... 27

2.2.1 Focus on Author-Creator in Digital Storytelling Practice ............................... 27

2.2.2 Research about Digital Storytelling................................................................. 28

2.2.3 Theoretical Models of Digital Storytelling...................................................... 31

2.3 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: RESPONSE TO TEXTS .......................... 31

2.3.1 Responding to and Interpreting Texts ............................................................. 32

2.3.2 Kinesthetic Responses to Texts ....................................................................... 34

2.3.3 Trance and Transportation ............................................................................... 35

2.3.4 Connecting Listener-Viewers through Digital Literacies ................................ 37

2.4 CHILDREN’S MEDIA USE AND DIGITAL LEARNING............................... 39

2.4.1 Children’s Media Use ...................................................................................... 39

2.4.2 School Curriculum and Standards Related to Digital Storytelling .................. 41

3.0 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 43

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 43

3.2 RESEARCH OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 43

3.2.1 Study Population.............................................................................................. 46

3.2.2 Professional Background of the Researcher .................................................... 47

3.3 DATA COLLECTION AND RATIONALE....................................................... 48

3.3.1 Participant-Observation in the Classroom and Library ................................... 48

3.3.2 Surveys ............................................................................................................ 50

3.3.3 Focus Groups ................................................................................................... 53

vi
 3.3.4 Interviews with Teachers and Librarians......................................................... 54

3.3.5 Teaching and Learning Artifacts ..................................................................... 55

3.4 SCHOOL SITES AND STUDENT ACTIVITIES .............................................. 56

3.4.1 Preparing to Conduct Research in K-12 Schools and Seeking Permission ..... 56

3.4.2 School 1: Grade 6 Ancient China Photo Story ................................................ 59

3.4.2.1 School 1: Participants and School Setting ............................................ 59

3.4.2.2 School 1: Educator Collaboration in Planning and Teaching ............... 63

3.4.2.3 School 1: Observation of Digital Storytelling Project Development .... 65

3.4.2.4 School 1: Observation of Digital Storytelling Performance Day ......... 68

3.4.3 School 2: Grades 4-5 Book Trailers ................................................................ 68

3.4.3.1 School 2: Participants and School Setting ............................................ 68

3.4.3.2 School 2: Educator Collaboration in Planning and Teaching ............... 69

3.4.3.3 School 2: Observation of Digital Storytelling Project Development .... 71

3.4.3.4 School 2: Observation of Digital Storytelling Performance Day ......... 73

3.4.4 School 3: Grade 7 Team Podcast ..................................................................... 74

3.4.4.1 School 3: Participants and School Setting ............................................ 74

3.4.4.2 School 3: Educator Collaboration in Planning and Teaching ............... 75

3.4.4.3 School 3: Observations of Digital Storytelling Project Development .. 77

3.4.4.4 School 3: Observations of Digital Storytelling Performance Day ........ 78

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 78

3.5.1 Coding and Data Analysis ............................................................................... 78

3.5.2 Trustworthiness ............................................................................................... 82

3.5.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 83

vii
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: STUDY FINDINGS: RESPONSES OF LISTENER-

VIEWERS.................................................................................................................................... 86

4.1 RESEARCH QUESTION 1: HOW DO STUDENT LISTENER-VIEWERS

RESPOND TO AND ENGAGE IN DIGITAL STORYTELLING IN THE

INTERMEDIATE CLASSROOM AND MIDDLE SCHOOL LIBRARY? ....................... 86

4.1.1 Participant-Observation in Intermediate and Middle School Settings ............ 87

4.1.2 Responses to Work-In-Progress Viewing of Digital Storytelling ................... 90

4.1.2.1 Kinesthetic Viewing and Editing On-the-Fly ....................................... 93

4.1.2.2 Student Terminology for Works-in Progress ........................................ 95

4.1.2.3 Peer Sharing and Peer Teaching ........................................................... 97

4.1.3 Student-Creators and Their Listener-Viewers ................................................. 98

4.1.4 Student Engagement in Creating Digital Storytelling ..................................... 99

4.1.5 Performance Day Viewing in the Classroom and Library ............................ 104

4.1.6 Conceptual Model of Student Engagement and Responses to Performances of

Digital Storytelling ..................................................................................................... 110

4.1.6.1 Engagement ......................................................................................... 113

4.1.6.2 Actions ................................................................................................ 117

4.1.6.3 Emotions ............................................................................................. 119

4.1.6.4 Learning .............................................................................................. 121

4.1.6.5 Similar Experiences ............................................................................ 122

4.1.6.6 Next Steps ........................................................................................... 124

viii
 4.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 2: HOW DO STUDENT LISTENER-VIEWER

RESPONSES CHARACTERIZE DIGITAL STORYTELLING AS A CLASSROOM AND

SCHOOL LIBRARY ACTIVITY? .................................................................................... 124

4.2.1 Students’ Understanding of Storytelling and Digital Storytelling................. 125

4.2.2 Teaching and Facilitating Digital Storytelling .............................................. 127

4.2.2.1 Teacher Strategies for Supporting Student Skill Development in

Technology, Information Literacy, and Literacy Learning ............................... 129

4.2.2.2 Students’ Technology, Information Literacy, and Literacy Skills ...... 131

4.2.3 Collaboration: Teacher and Librarians, Teachers and Teachers ................... 132

4.2.4 Evaluation and Self-Evaluation in Classroom and School Library Digital

Storytelling ................................................................................................................. 133

5.0 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 140

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................. 140

5.2 INTERPRETATIONS OF CONCLUSIONS BASED ON GUIDING

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS ................................................................................... 143

5.2.1 Mackey’s Kinesthetic Modes of Viewing and Listening .............................. 143

5.2.2 Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory ................................................................ 144

5.2.3 Sturm’s Storylistening Trance ....................................................................... 146

5.2.4 Georges’ Storytelling as Event and Maguire’s Sounds and Sensibilities ...... 148

5.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND FACILITATING DIGITAL

STORYTELLING .............................................................................................................. 149

5.4 LESSONS LEARNED IN CONDUCTING THE STUDY............................... 150

5.5 NEXT RESEARCH DIRECTIONS .................................................................. 152

ix
 5.5.1 Topics for Further Investigation .................................................................... 152

5.5.1.1 Group Dynamics in K-12 Digital Storytelling .................................... 153

5.5.1.2 Taking Digital Storytelling Outside the Classroom ............................ 154

5.5.1.3 Additional Areas for Future Study of Digital Storytelling in Classrooms

and School Libraries .......................................................................................... 155

5.5.2 Digital Storytelling in a Broader Research Context ...................................... 157

APPENDIX A : SURVEY INSTRUMENTS .......................................................................... 158

APPENDIX B : SELECTED DATA ....................................................................................... 172

APPENDIX C : CODING SCHEME ...................................................................................... 181

APPENDIX D : IRB AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION.............................................. 184

NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 202

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. AASL Standards for the 21st-Century Learner relevant to digital storytelling in the

intermediate classroom and middle school library. ........................................................................ 6

Table 2. Roles and behaviors of storyteller and listener in traditional storytelling. ....................... 9

Table 3. Characteristics and examples of digital storytelling. ...................................................... 17

Table 4. Comparison of traditional storytelling and digital storytelling. ...................................... 19

Table 5. Sequence of research activities with students and teachers/librarians at each school site.

....................................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 6. Scenarios, participants, and number of days spent observing at each of the three school

sites. “Observation Days” column includes digital storytelling project development and

performance days. ......................................................................................................................... 46

Table 7. Time frame of performance days, survey and focus group. ........................................... 53

Table 8. Researcher roles and examples of interactions with students. ........................................ 88

Table 9. Student terminology for technology activities, with invented words and their

conventions in boldface type. ....................................................................................................... 96

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Computer lab in Mrs. Auburn's school library, School 1. ............................................. 62

Figure 2. Alternate view of School 1 library computer lab, with school library shelving and

student seating in the background. The bookshelves on the left (with the plants, above the

computers) form one wall of the classroom teaching space. ........................................................ 62

Figure 3. School library teaching area, School 1. ......................................................................... 63

Figure 4. School 2, Ms. Black's technology classroom. ............................................................... 71

Figure 5. Alternate view, School 2, Ms. Black's technology classroom....................................... 72

Figure 6. Screen capture of Photo Story, used by students at School 1. ....................................... 91

Figure 7. Pink paper covers on computer screens, Ms. Black’s strategy for maintaining student

attention when giving instructions. ............................................................................................. 103

Figure 8. Library space for performance day of Ancient China Photo Story projects. The librarian

is seated on a desk at the far end of the first row, and she is opening the students’ project files

from a laptop on the cart. ............................................................................................................ 105

Figure 9. Student seating for School 1 performance day. The whiteboard where the stories were

projected is just out of the frame, at right. .................................................................................. 105

Figure 10. In School 2, the students viewed the digital book trailers by gathering around

individual computers................................................................................................................... 106

xii
Figure 11. During the School 2 performances, students stood and knelt around the computers to

view the digital book trailers. They moved from computer to computer as a group to view the

different projects. ........................................................................................................................ 107

Figure 12. Students set up the projector and laptop for the performance of the Green Team

podcast. ....................................................................................................................................... 108

Figure 13. Seventh grade students watch the Green Team podcast at School 3. ........................ 108

Figure 14. Conceptual model of responses of digital storytelling. ............................................. 112

Figure 15. Tommy's self-evaluation of his contributions to his group's digital book trailer:

“Music. I worked so hard.” ......................................................................................................... 137

Figure 16. Allison's self-evaluations: "I would get a bigger group because it is hard with so few

people,” "It's fun and hard,” and “I enjoyed doing it and it was fun working with [classmate].”

..................................................................................................................................................... 138

Figure 17. Casey's self-evaluations: "Yes, I helped [classmate] understand iMovie more," "I

would get songs from iTunes to put on the video," and "I [heart] it! It was so much fun! I hope

we do it again," along with her number scores of "4.5" and "5555555!" ................................... 138

Figure 18. Melissa's self-evaluations: "The why you should read. It was a bit sloppy" and "I

loved learning how to do IMovie and garage Band." ................................................................. 139

xiii
 PREFACE

Style

This dissertation uses The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition. Citations follow the Notes and

Bibliography format.

xiv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful for the guidance and wisdom of many individuals in the completion of this

dissertation. Thank you to my Dissertation Chair, Mary Kay Biagini, for guiding me toward

starting the PhD program, for having faith in me and providing opportunities for me to learn and

grow, and for being a model of excellence in school library education. To my committee,

Leanne Bowler, Chris Tomer, and Elizabeth Figa, thank you for your wise counsel, your

encouragement, and your enthusiasm for my work. Thank you to the SIS faculty and my

doctoral student colleagues for challenging me and inspiring my work in academe.

My co-instructors at the University of Pittsburgh – Sally Myers, D’nis Lynch, Joe Prince, and

Patrick Hickey – you are all stars, and your students are so fortunate to have had the chance to

learn from you. It has been my pleasure to teach with you and to learn from your example.

Thank you to the teachers, librarians, students, and school principals who welcomed me into

their schools for this study. You are all doing amazing things. To my colleagues from my days

as a teacher and librarian – I miss you all the time and still think that you have the best job in the

world: teaching kids every day.

Finally, to my friends and especially to my family, I couldn’t have accomplished this without

your support, patience, and love. Mom, Dad, Babcia and Judge, Aunt Sandy, Lori, and Jim –

computer expert extraordinaire and best brother in the world – thank you and I love you.

xv
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 STORYTELLING AS RELATED TO THE MISSION OF LIBRARY SERVICES

FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS

Building a context for a study of digital storytelling prompts reflection on the story of

humankind, as storytelling and narrative have origins among the first forms of human

communication. Through story, humans explained and questioned the Earth and its phenomena,

their relationships to one another, and their place in the world. Storytelling has a rich tradition,

notably in history, literature, religion, and (in the modern era) folk art, but it has also evolved and

expanded to assume a dynamic, contemporary presence across settings and functions. Diverse

fields as distinct as medicine, religion, business, government, education, and information employ

and experiment with storytelling and digital storytelling to investigate problems, interpret texts,

consider perspectives, and describe events. For this study, “digital storytelling” will be defined

as a short, multimedia presentation of a story, created by a student in a guided (not independent)

setting. Characteristics and examples of digital storytelling projects are described in greater

detail in the chapters that follow.

Librarians who tell stories, particularly those who serve children in schools and public

libraries, stand on the shoulders of giants–the first children’s librarians, who were talented

storytellers, but also visionaries and fierce advocates for children’s services. In the late 1800s

1
and early 1900s, children’s librarians hosted story hours in urban public libraries. Children’s

librarians such as Effie Lee Power in Cleveland and, later in her career, St. Louis, and Charlotte

Keith Bissell in Pittsburgh, and storytelling programming supervisors such as Anna Cogswell

Tyler in Brooklyn led a new movement in librarianship, focusing attention and services on the

unique needs of children. 1 Their endeavors required not only knowledge of books and literature,

but also a creative and thoughtful approach to interacting with children. 2 Children’s librarians

engaged the children in the library space for specific moments in time by telling captivating

stories, but they also inspired enjoyment of and dedication to reading and information activities

that lasted in the children long after the stories had come to an end.

Though the history of storytelling and the path of storytelling in libraries are topics

worthy of attention and study, this research centers on modern storytelling-related activities in

libraries–specifically, the practice of “digital storytelling.” Although storytelling in the

traditional oral form is still practiced in school and public libraries (among numerous other

settings), digital storytelling is a newer form of storytelling that is expanding opportunities for

storytelling in libraries, while at the same time reflecting a continuity of innovative library

services for children and students. Digital storytelling is an example of the 21st century iteration

of the historical mission of children’s library programs, which then, and still, supports literacy,

captures the imagination, and establishes dispositions of lifelong learning. These outcomes are

emphasized in the current mission of school librarians, as articulated by the American

Association of School Librarians (AASL), a division of the American Library Association

(ALA). Central to this mission is “empower[ing] students to be critical thinkers, enthusiastic

readers, skillful researchers, and ethical users of information.” 3 The themes of innovation,

2
reading, and literacy are also part of the Core Organizational Values and Strategic Plan of the

Association for Library Services for Children (ALSC, also a division of ALA). 4

1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

This dissertation presents research questions designed to study student listener-viewers of digital

storytelling in intermediate and middle school settings. The questions are as follows:

(1) How do student listener-viewers respond to and engage in digital storytelling in school

library/classroom activities in the intermediate classroom and middle school library?

(2) How do the student listener-viewer responses characterize digital storytelling as a

storytelling activity in the school library/classroom?

This research study is a mixed methods study, primarily an ethnographic approach, with

participant-observation of digital storytelling in intermediate classroom and middle school

library settings. The study is a mixed methods design, with the recursive, “observing, noting,

reading, thinking, observing, and noting” that Heath and Street assert represent the process of

data collection in ethnographic research. 5 The research questions and methods are examined in

greater detail in Chapter 3, Methodology.

Storytelling in its traditional form is a rich, strong model for contemporary library and

classroom storytelling experiences. Through reading, teaching, researching, and writing about

storytelling in libraries and the future of storytelling in libraries, I developed research questions

3
to study digital storytelling through the lens of more traditional storytelling. Digital storytelling

has the potential to provide a rich storytelling and listening/viewing experience. This study

examines the response of the audience, termed “listener-viewers,” in digital storytelling projects,

in order to explore and support in a digital setting the listener benefits inherent to the traditional,

live storytelling model.

There are three main sources of theory from which I have developed the foundation for

this research: (1) Louise Rosenblatt’s theory of transactional response to reading, known more

commonly as reader response theory, 6 (2) Margaret Mackey’s theory of literacies across

multimedia texts, 7 and (3) Brian Sturm’s theory of the “storylistening trance.” 8 Two essays on

classical understanding of storytelling shaped my application of the theory, and provided

inspiration and reference points for the research questions. These are the 1969 essay by Robert

A. Georges, “Toward an Understanding of Storytelling Events,” 9 and the 1988 essay by

storyteller Jack Maguire, “Sounds and Sensibilities: Storytelling as an Educational Process.” 10 A

review of these writings and additional literature across several disciplines is presented in

Chapter 2. The findings of this study as interpreted through these theoretical frameworks are

presented in Chapter 5.

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

The listener-viewer in digital storytelling is important to study for numerous reasons. Most

importantly, this study shifts the emphasis from the creators of digital stories to the listener-

viewers. As described further in Chapter 2, much of the research on digital storytelling projects

focuses on the creator. In order to investigate and characterize digital storytelling as a

4
storytelling activity in the school library and classroom, this study attends to the listener-viewers’

experiences.

The findings of this research, presented in depth in Chapter 4, can add to a fairly small

body of literature on digital storytelling in library and information science, and contribute to

developing a theory or a model of the role of the listener/viewer in digital storytelling. As Brian

Sturm’s research demonstrates, there are conditions that support the engaged, focused state of the

storylistening trance with potential applications in the classroom setting. 11 In terms of applied

research, the findings can inform librarians and teachers who teach digital storytelling by

providing an increased understanding of the listener experience, and insights on the value of

viewing and listening to digital storytelling for learning. Included in Chapter 5 are

recommendations for teachers and librarians to support effectively the listener-viewer experience

in classroom and school library digital storytelling. This study will contribute to teaching and

new media studies, as well as provide a sustainable line of research in storytelling in the

information sciences.

The American Association for School Librarians Standards for the 21st-Century Learner,

makes clear connections between learning in curricular subjects and the creative expression of

ideas, and as such, digital storytelling is a valuable forum for relevant, authentic study of the

development of 21st-century skills in K-12 students. There are several Standards for the 21st

Century Learner relevant to this study, as listed in Table 1. The Standards are arranged into four

categories, which describe what “learners use skills, resources, and tools to” do. 12 The Standards

are listed at the left side of Table 1. Within each Standard are Skills, Dispositions in Action,

Responsibilities, and Self-Assessment Strategies; those most relevant to digital storytelling are

identified at the right.

5
Table 1. AASL Standards for the 21st-Century Learner relevant to digital storytelling in the

intermediate classroom and middle school library.

Standards 1-4 Skills, Dispositions in Action, Responsibilities, and Self-Assessment

Strategies
Standard 1 1.2 Dispositions in Action:
1.2.3 Demonstrate creativity by using multiple resources and formats
Inquire, think 1.3 Responsibilities
critically, and 1.3.1 Respect copyright/intellectual property rights of creators and producers.
gain knowledge. 1.3.4 Contribute to the exchange of ideas within the learning community.
1.3.5 Use information technology responsibly.
1.4 Self-Assessment Strategies
1.4.4 Seek appropriate help when needed
Standard 2 2.1 Skills
2.1.2 Organize knowledge so that it is useful.
Draw 2.1.4 Use technology and other information tools to analyze and organize
conclusions, information.
make informed 2.1.6 Use the writing process, media and visual literacy, and technology
decisions, apply skills to create products that express new understandings.
knowledge to 2.2 Dispositions in Action
new situations, 2.2.4 Demonstrate personal productivity by completing products to express
and create new learning.
knowledge.
Standard 3 3.1 Skills
3.1.1 Participate and collaborate as members of a social and intellectual
Share network of learners.
knowledge and 3.1.3 Use writing and speaking skills to communicate new understandings
participate effectively.
ethically and 3.1.4 Use technology and other information tools to organize and display
productively as knowledge and understanding in ways that others can view, use, and assess.
members of our 3.1.6 Use information and technology ethically and responsibly.
democratic 3.2 Dispositions in Action
society. 3.2.1 Demonstrate leadership and confidence by presenting ideas to others in
both formal and informal situations.
3.2.2 Show social responsibility by participating actively with others in
learning situations and by contributing questions and ideas during group
discussions.
3.2.3 Demonstrate teamwork by working productively with others.
3.3 Responsibilities
3.3.4 Create products that apply to authentic, real-world contexts.
3.3.5 Contribute to the exchange of ideas within and beyond the learning
community.
3.4 Self-Assessment Strategies
3.4.2 Assess the quality and effectiveness of the learning product.

6
Standard 4 4.1 Skills
4.1.3 Respond to literature and creative expressions of ideas in various
Pursue Personal formats and genres.
and Aesthetic 4.1.5 Connect ideas to own interests and previous knowledge and experience.
Growth 4.1.8 Use creative and artistic formats to express personal learning.
4.3 Responsibilities
4.3.1 Participate in the social exchange of ideas, both electronically and in
person.
4.4.5 Develop personal criteria for gauging how effectively own ideas are
expressed.

1.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF TRADITIONAL STORYTELLING

An examination of traditional storytelling helps to illuminate the differences between traditional

storytelling and digital storytelling. Key components of this discussion are writings on

storytelling from storytelling organizations (primarily the National Storytelling Network, or

NSN) and professional texts on storytelling, with a brief look at the growing popularity of

storytelling in different forms. It is important to note that literature on storytelling reflects its

interdisciplinary nature. As storyteller and scholar Jo Radner explains in a 2004 panel of

storytelling faculty members and storytellers, storytelling is a field engaged in a self-reflective

process of articulating its boundaries and developing research scholarship. 13

According to the National Storytelling Network, a definition of storytelling for

practitioners is “the interactive art of using words and actions to reveal the elements and images

of a story while encouraging the listener’s imagination.” 14 Further, NSN establishes that

storytelling is interactive, and that “the responses of the listeners influence the telling of the

story. In fact, storytelling emerges from the interaction and cooperative, coordinated efforts of

7
teller and audience.” 15 This level of interaction fosters immediacy and a tight connection

between the teller and the audience.

NSN affirms that storytelling is intended to capture the imagination of the listener, a state

constructed by the listener’s participation in the storytelling event:

The storytelling listener’s role is to actively create the vivid, multi-sensory images,
actions, characters, and events—the reality—of the story in his or her mind, based on the
performance by the teller and on the listener’s own past experiences, beliefs, and
understandings. The completed story happens in the mind of the listener, a unique and
personalized individual. The listener becomes, therefore, a co-creator of the story as
experienced. 16

Thus, NSN identifies a very clear and active role for the listener in a storytelling setting.

Storytelling instructor and children’s librarian Carol Birch emphasizes the dialogic nature of

successful storytelling; in fact, she considers it an expectation of a storytelling audience that their

presence “help[s] to create a singular occasion,” an iteration of a storytelling experience that

cannot be duplicated. 17 Storyteller and author Margaret Read MacDonald refers to storytelling

as “an audience-shaped art form,” in which “the tale is only one part of the story event.” 18 Table

2 presents roles of storyteller and listener in traditional storytelling.

8
 Table 2. Roles and behaviors of storyteller and listener in traditional storytelling.

Storyteller Listener

Creates trust in the listener, creates sense of Trusts the storyteller, feels sense of rapport
and rapport with the listener
Creates and stimulates mental images for Sees images of the story in the mind’s eye
the listener through storytelling through referential and experiential
interpretations
Tells a story with these components: Listens to and follows the story, as listener,
characters, intent, actions, struggles, and enters into dialog with teller
details; 19 as teller, enters into dialog with
listener
Tells a story live, usually in the same room Listens to a live story, usually in the same
as the listeners room as the teller
Performs gestures or movements, uses body Observes the teller’s use of gestures,
language, uses props to support telling the movements, body language, and props as part
story of the listening and viewing experience
Provides opportunities for interaction, Responds to teller’s invitation (which may be
participation, response, dialogue; in turn, overt or less explicit) to participate vocally,
responds to listeners’ responses and with actions, in other observable ways, such as
reactions body language
Adjusts and improvises content, pace, Demonstrates needs through feedback,
timing, vocabulary, dialog according to observable behaviors (e.g., eye contact) and/or
listeners’ responses and needs of the inherent qualities (e.g., age)
audience; connects this audience with this
story 20
Creates and participates in a unique, Creates and participates in a unique, singular
singular storytelling experience via his orstorytelling experience in a time and place via
his or her listening role in the storytelling
her telling role in the storytelling process
process
Provides the focal point of a shared, live Becomes part of a group of listeners and part
experience for the audience of the community in the space
Performance and dramatic appeal may calm Show or feel emotional response or connection
or energize the audience 21

Other requisite qualities of storytelling, according to NSN, are that it uses words and

actions or vocalizations (distinguishing storytelling from dance and mime), and that it presents a

story, though what constitutes a “story” may differ among cultures. 22 Storyteller and author
9
Kendall Haven defines story as, “a detailed, character-based narration of a character’s struggles

to overcome obstacles and reach an important goal.” 23 Haven differentiates stories from

narratives. Stories can be narratives, but narratives are not necessarily all stories, as narratives

may also be more plot-based or information-based accounts that leave the connections of

context, meaning, and relevance to the reader. 24

There are new dimensions to storytelling in libraries and in culture today, including a

heightened interest in storytelling for all age groups and new forums for storytelling. Traditional

storytelling has a dynamic, national and local presence in the United States, with state liaisons of

the National Storytelling Network in every state; popular national and regional festivals such as

the National Storytelling Festival in Jonesborough, Tennessee; Tellabration, a worldwide

storytelling event held in libraries, community centers, and schools each November; and Special

Interest Groups of NSN that support storytelling in higher education, healing professions,

organizations, for youth, and in religious settings. 25 Versions of storytelling have made their

mark in popular culture in such programs as the stage show and podcast, The Moth 26, as well as

the NPR program and podcast This American Life, 27 and in StoryCorps, often heard on NPR, a

traveling program that invites families and friends to record personal interviews, which are

facilitated by StoryCorps staff, professionally recorded, then added to a Library of Congress

collection. 28

Storytellers Bill Mooney and David Holt, storytellers and authors of The Storyteller’s

Guide, maintain the mantra, “stories aren’t stories until they’re told” in explaining the value of

telling stories to help us understand ourselves and one another. 29 Storytelling in diverse forms

attracts an audience growing accustomed to user-created, Web 2.0-type interactions, and digital

storytelling synthesizes qualities of polished, stage storytelling with the accessible, personalized

10
nature of popular storytelling offerings, venues and formats. For these reasons, digital

storytelling is an area of growing emphasis in public library programming, especially

programming for young people, and it has also grown in popularity in learning activities in

school libraries and K-12 classrooms. 30

1.5 UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL STORYTELLING

1.5.1 Characteristics of Digital Storytelling

The level of complexity of the story and the interpretations of “digital” range widely in digital

storytelling activities, from a narrated photo montage, to video clips with text captions, to Skype-

situated readings of picture books. Robin identifies several applications of digital storytelling in

the K-12 classroom, including personal narratives, informational or instructional stories

(including those developed by teachers to illustrate content), and stories that recount historical

events. 31 Both of Haven’s aforementioned classifications of “stories” and “narratives” are found

in examples of digital storytelling.

“Digital storytelling” is a term used across disciplines, from education to entertainment 32–not

just in libraries–and the definitions and descriptions vary just as widely. Elements common

across applications of the term are as follows:

• Use of “off-the-shelf” technology to create and display the digital story

• Story or narrative framework

• Use of multimedia–photos, video, music, audio, narration, and/or images

11
 • Some level of personalization by the author(s)/creator(s)

• Small-scale productions that are short in length

• Development under the supervision of an expert, teacher, or facilitator

The concept of digital storytelling as a product of “off-the-shelf” technology and the

work of non-professionals is critical in distinguishing digital storytelling from a short film or

movie. In their book Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary

Communication (Hodder Arnold, 2001), Kress and Van Leeuewen describe a continuum of

communication “strata” that people employ to express and process meaning. Their illustration of

everyday conversation versus the work of professional voiceover specialist is a helpful reference

for understanding digital storytelling. In everyday conversation, people incorporate fairly

seamlessly the different skills, or strata, required to make and understand speech. These include

discourse (socially situated knowledge), design (conceptualization), and production (articulation

of the event). However, a piece performed by a professional voiceover specialist represents a

division of labor among professionals, in which experts provide such components as content for

the production (discourse), script writing and research (design), and sound engineering

(production). 33

In this comparison, digital storytelling is akin to everyday conversation, where non-

experts combine different strata to communicate ideas, images, stories, and narratives. Although

students in a classroom setting may share the work and the stories may take the shape of a

“film,” the division of labor is not among professionals, which distinguishes digital storytelling

from feature films or movies, even those that may be short in length. Another common (though

12
not requisite) aspect of classroom or library-situated digital storytelling is the “showcase” or in-

person performance, with the audience and creators of the project together in the same space.

1.5.2 Defining Digital Storytelling

Selected definitions of digital storytelling vary from organizations and practitioners, and the

distinctions among them reflect their objectives and contexts. The University of Houston

maintains a website entitled, “Educational Uses of Digital Storytelling,” which defines digital

storytelling as

“the practice of using computer-based tools to tell stories. As with traditional storytelling,
most digital stories focus on a specific topic and contain a particular point of view.”

The website offers cross-disciplinary examples of digital storytelling as a teaching tool, though

most of the examples seem to present teacher-created work that would be used for instruction on

a topic, such as kitchen and food-themed vocabulary and grammar for ESL learners. The site

provides rubrics and guidance for assessing K-12 student-created digital storytelling projects. 34

Kelly Czarnecki, Teen Librarian, ImaginOn, Public Library of Charlotte and

Mecklenberg County, describes digital storytelling as “the act of using sound, images, and video

to form a narrative” in the ALA TechSource Library Technology Reports edition, “Digital

Storytelling in Practice.” 35 This definition reflects Czarnecki’s broad approach to digital

storytelling as it is used in public libraries, academic libraries, and museums.

Leslie Rule, Producing Supervisor of the Center for Digital Media at KQED, a public

television and radio network in Northern California, presents a definition that focuses on the

media and communicative elements, with digital storytelling as,

13
 “the modern expression of the ancient art of storytelling. Digital stories derive their
power by weaving images, music, narrative and voice together, thereby giving deep
dimension and vivid color to characters, situations, experiences, and insights.”

Her discussion of digital storytelling appeared in a 2010 article in Knowledge Quest, the

publication of the American Association for School Librarians, and the article emphasizes the

ease and accessibility of digital storytelling activities for school librarians and the potential for

digital storytelling to foster authentic, personal, powerful storytelling opportunities for

students. 36

1.5.3 Examples of Digital Storytelling

Identification of genres of digital storytelling is an area of need in terms of research. Some ad

hoc categories and examples of digital storytelling applications include the following:

• In-person, live telling, recorded in a digital format (recorded on video and posted

to Youtube or Vimeo)

• Digital book trailers (Animoto)

• Personal narratives (iMovie, Photostory)

• Storytelling via digital library resources (International Children’s Digital Library)

• Informational/content-oriented storytelling (Movie Maker)

• Text or audio-recorded narration of images, drawings, or photos (Voicethread,

Storybird)

14
 The Center for Digital Storytelling, led by Joe Lambert, emphasizes the personal narrative

quality of digital storytelling in this definition: “a short, first-person video-narrative created by

combining recorded voice, still and moving images, and music or other sounds.” Projects

facilitated by Center for Digital Storytelling follow a format that builds personal narratives,

mostly with adults, although a Youth section of example stories is presented on the Center’s

website. 37

Bernajean Porter’s Digitales program also highlights the personal narrative, although her

teaching services are directed more toward K-12 teachers and the educational setting, with tools

and resources for sharing digital storytelling with children after participating in her workshops

and trainings. Porter’s website explains that “each digital story uses a personal or family

experience to develop a living memory with a moral, an a-ha awareness, or a specific lesson

learned” and her method of digital storytelling features still photos, narration, and music. 38

Two examples illustrate the breadth of activities known as digital storytelling according to

the author, creator, or organization. First, “Celebrate Oklahoma Voices,” in which stories are

primarily comprised of still photos with narration, is “a statewide digital storytelling project

empowering learners to become digital witnesses, archiving local oral history and sharing that

history safely on the global stage of the Internet.” Themes to note in this project are

empowerment, community, and oral history, and adults, teens, and children are participants. 39 In

a district-wide digital storytelling initiative of Kamehameha Middle School in Hawaii,

curriculum-related digital stories feature students in videos on plants, animals, and the

environment. 40

Following a different interpretation of digital storytelling, Storybird is a social, creative, slide

show-type format for making “short, visual stories that you make with family and friends to

15
share.” 41 The site was featured in the American Association of School Librarians’ 2010 Top 25

Best Websites for Teaching and Learning under the category of Digital Storytelling, along with

two other sites. 42 Jing, http://www.techsmith.com/jing/, allows users to capture and share screen

captures of what they are doing on their computer monitors. The International Children’s Digital

Library, http://en.childrenslibrary.org/, is a non-profit foundation and collaboration with the

University of Maryland that provides free online access to digital children’s books. As the

diverse examples of “digital storytelling” demonstrate, this is a practice with numerous

interpretations and applications. Some additional examples of digital storytelling applications in

K-12 settings are presented in Table 3.

16
 Table 3. Characteristics and examples of digital storytelling.

Digital Storytelling Subject Area(s) and Collaboration Reference

Characteristic(s) Grade Level(s) with Librarian
Described?
Multimedia: images, Art education No Chung 43
photos, video; script;
storyboard; Photo Story K-12; undergraduate
software
Story elements; Writing No Sylvester and
photographs, clip art, other Greenidge 44
graphics; multimedia, Elementary
narration; storyboard;
citing sources; teacher-
facilitated
3-5 minutes videos; pre- English No Kadjer 45
writing exercise; artifact
searching, storyboarding; Secondary
personal narratives;
revisions; digital
construction; screening of
stories; teacher-facilitated
Photo Story software, Cross-curricular: No Sadik 46
teacher-facilitated; student- weather, modern history,
selected subject matter; science, Greek
multimedia content mythology

Secondary
Storyboarding, student- Myths and legends, No Ohler 47
selected topics, teacher and character education
expert-facilitated, video
and student drawings Elementary

As mentioned, for this study, “digital storytelling” is a short, multimedia presentation of a

story, created by a student in a guided (not independent) setting. Digital storytelling is

considered a multimodal text, which here means that more than one format of text is presented,

e.g., words, video, images, music, and voice-over, and that shifting among multiple modes of

17
interaction with the text is required to engage with it, including reading, listening, and viewing

and/or watching. “Media” is the content, i.e., a digital media, and “mode” is the means of

accessing it, i.e., reading, viewing, and listening.

1.5.4 Digital Storytelling and Traditional Storytelling

The format and modes of telling and listening to traditional and digital storytelling differ, yet

some critical aspects of storytelling remain consistent between the two forms. The strongest

similarity rests in the presentation of a story or narrative. The most apparent distinction is that,

in most cases, traditional storytelling is presented via live teller or tellers in the same physical

space as a live audience, and digital storytelling is presented via digital multimedia, and the

teller, or author-creator, may or may not be present for the performance. Table 4 below lists

other characteristics of traditional storytelling as compared to characteristics of digital

storytelling.

18
 Table 4. Comparison of traditional storytelling and digital storytelling.

Traditional Storytelling Digital Storytelling

Storyteller and listener or audience Storyteller/creator and listener-viewer

Length varies from approximately 4-5 Length is usually 3-5 minutes, possibly longer
minutes to 45 minutes-one hour
Includes story or narrative Includes story or narrative

Presented by live teller Presented electronically, on a screen

Performance occurs in group setting Performance can be in a group setting or

individual setting
Story is told through words, vocal Story is told through images, photographs,
inflections, gestures, body language, sound, music, videos in a multimedia,
movements, musical instruments, and/or electronic presentation
props
Audience can interact, participate, give Story is presented in a fixed finished medium,
feedback to teller; teller can adjust and teller and audience cannot change the course of
change according to feedback received the story during the story. Potential for
exchanges between teller and audience during
live screenings.
No technology skills or equipment required Technology skills and equipment required to
to produce or view produce and view
Teller provides verbal descriptions and Creator presents images directly on screen
listeners create images in mind’s eye

19
1.5.5 Use of Storytelling- and School-Related Terms and Conventions in This Study

It is helpful to the reader to know how some terms and phrases are used in this dissertation. The

definitions and applications of “digital storytelling” and “traditional storytelling” (also referred

to as “live storytelling,” “face-to-face storytelling,” or just “storytelling”) are explored in depth

in Chapter 2. “Digital stories” and “digital storytelling projects” are used here interchangeably

to describe the product of the students’ work, e.g., their Photo Story presentations and iMovies.

These applications are described further in Chapter 3. In some contexts, the terms “story” and

“video” refer to the digital storytelling projects, and the students and teachers at School 3 prefer

the word “podcast” for their work in digital storytelling.

“Teller” is the person telling a story in a live, traditional format. To incorporate the

technology and design skills required to create digital stories, in this study, the term for teller in a

digital story is the “author-creator.” Indeed, the many tasks of the author-creator are difficult to

articulate with one phrase; perhaps one of the students in the study had the right idea by referring

to one group of author-creators as “the makers,” explaining that he liked a particular story

because “the makers put in a lot of funny things.”

In live, face-to-face storytelling, the person or persons hearing the story are the audience

or the listeners. In this study, the audience of digital storytelling is described as the “listener-

viewer.” I used “performance” in this study to describe the sharing of the completed digital

storytelling projects in the classroom and school library. “Performance” captures the spirit of a

live storytelling performance, whereas other possible references, such as “viewing” or

“watching,” seem flat and not an accurate depiction of the experience.

20
 Individuals in the school environment are the students, teachers and school librarians,

principals, administrators, and paraprofessionals. In the collaborative activities described in this

study, “classroom teacher” is used to describe the subject area teacher, such as the sixth grade

social studies teacher in School 1 and the seventh grade language arts teacher in School 3.

School librarians are also “teachers” by profession and via their status as teaching faculty per

their school or district’s teacher contract, though here, they are primarily referred to as “school

librarians” to help clarify roles and responsibilities in the projects.

The school principal is the leader directly in charge of the activities, students, and

personnel of a school building. The term “administration” includes school principals, but

“administrators” can also include district level personnel, such as the superintendent, director of

curriculum, or a technology administrator or director. A paraprofessional is a school staff

member who provides classroom support to a class or individuals within a class. This job is

sometimes known as a classroom aide or teacher’s aide.

When I started analyzing the data, I kept the school settings straight in my mind by

referring to them as “School 1,” “School 2,” and “School 3,” which reflected the chronological

order of when the projects began at each school. For consistency, I maintained the use of these

names in the writing, with appropriate context and descriptors to help the readers understand

which setting is being described. The names of the teachers and students in the study are

pseudonyms, in order to maintain confidentiality. I am “the researcher” in the instances in which

a transcript excerpt makes such a reference. Finally, in quoting students’ responses as students

wrote them, I used brackets [such as this example] to note a corrected spelling, which helps

maintain readability of this document but acknowledges the original content of the student

21
response. There are some instances where I did not correct for spelling to illustrate a point, and

these are specified within the text.

22
 2.0 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Education practitioners, including teachers, librarians, principals, and technology administrators,

contribute much of the writing on digital storytelling; although some empirical studies do

provide evidence of digital storytelling in practice, including several dissertations in the past six

years (2004-2010) dealing with digital storytelling in education, including the K-12 setting, after

school programs, and adult education. This literature review incorporates essays on traditional

storytelling, research studies, literature of practice, and theoretical foundations.

2.1 NEED FOR RESEARCH ON LISTENER-VIEWER RESPONSES IN DIGITAL

STORYTELLING EVENTS IN SCHOOL LIBRARY AND CLASSROOM SETTINGS

2.1.1 Traditional Storytelling as Event

A significant illustration of the social, interactive quality of traditional storytelling is Robert

Georges’ 1969 essay, “Toward an Understanding of Storytelling Events.” Georges, Professor

Emeritus in Humanities at UCLA, wrote that there are four, interrelated postulates that come

together to create a holistic, “complex communicative event identified as a ‘storytelling

event.’” 48 Georges posits that (1) every storytelling event is a communicative event, with at least

one decoder and at least one encoder sharing direct, person-to-person communication. Next, (2),

23
every storytelling event is a social experience, with the social identities of storyteller and story

listener becoming, for the course of the event, the most prominent of the social identities

maintained by the people involved. Further, (3), every storytelling event is unique, occurring

only once in time and space in a setting of particular social relationships and forces. Finally, (4),

storytelling events exhibit degrees and kinds of similarities, by which members of a society can

use cultural values to group certain storytelling events. 49

Georges uses these postulates to reject research notions that listeners are passive actors in

storytelling events; that stories should remain static as they are reproduced from teller to teller

and event to event; and that variations in stories represent accidental diversions. Georges asserts

that the relationships and settings of each storytelling event meld into a moment that cannot be

replicated:

“the total message of any given storytelling event is generated and shaped by and exists
because of a specific storyteller and specific story listeners whose interactions constitute
a network of social interrelationships that is unique to a particular storytelling event.” 50

Author and storyteller Jack Maguire presents another set of storytelling characteristics in

an essay about the educational process that is storytelling. Before explicating the benefits of

storytelling, he asserts his disdain for the term “storytelling,” lamenting its inadequacy in

describing the range of activities it entails, including, “listening, imagining, caring, judging,

reading, adapting, creating, observing, remembering, and planning.” 51 In the first of his set of

storytelling benefits, Maguire emphasizes that storytelling fosters direct, positive effects between

human beings, and traces early forms of storytelling to ancient teachers, who not only made

content relevant for their students through stories, but made the teaching process more enjoyable

for themselves. Maguire also suggests that storytelling permits knowledge to take on a human

24
form, distinct from the written word, which motivates listeners to think more actively and

critically than when reading.

The next major benefit of storytelling that Maguire describes is that storytelling allows

for the listener’s imagination to enter into the story via “the mind’s eye.” Choices about the

appearance of characters, details of settings, and choreography of interactions are in the hands, or

more accurately, the minds, of the listeners. Maguire worries that a media-saturated world

threatens people’s ability to construct personal images, which is a facility he believes supports

encounters with subject-area materials in the school setting. Finally, Maguire maintains that

storytelling is by nature loose, rough-hewn, and accessible. It is not perfect, which allows

listeners to fill in gaps and moments of a teller’s pause or stumble. 52

As a matter of context, Georges’ writing was published in the Journal of American

Folklore (a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Folklore Society, University of

Illinois Press) and Maguire’s article comes from the Children’s Literature Association Quarterly

(a peer-reviewed academic journal sponsored by the Children’s Literature Association and

published by The Johns Hopkins University Press).

2.1.2 Digital Storytelling as Storytelling Event

Upon review of Georges’ and Maguire’s storytelling characteristics, and considering other

descriptions of the art and tradition of storytelling, it seems possible that digital storytelling may

not “hold up” in a test for essential characteristics of storytelling, particularly from the side of the

listener or viewer. It becomes clear when comparing examples of digital storytelling to these

qualities of traditional storytelling, that there are distinct differences in the potential for

interaction described by both Georges and Maguire, as well as in the “on-the-fly” changes and

25
space for imagination that characterize Maguire’s vision of storytelling. In digital storytelling,

the performance, or end product, of the story is usually presented in a fixed, finished medium.

As such, it seems that the audience involvement and response in digital storytelling would differ

from the interactive, dialogic nature of oral storytelling as it is experienced live and as it is

described in classic storytelling literature. With so much focus on the user, it seems that the role

of the listener, so critical in traditional storytelling, is somewhat overlooked in digital storytelling

events.

Many school and library-based digital storytelling activities include a group viewing of

digital stories with the storyteller(s) in the room. In a study of middle-schoolers in an after-

school digital storytelling program, Roche-Smith explains that seeing peers receive clapping and

attention for screening digital storytelling projects in a group setting motivated one student who

had previously exhibited only minimal efforts in his own digital storytelling project, to share his

writing, create detailed stories, and increase his concentration. 53 In Hug’s study of adolescent

girls in an after-school club, the group viewing was open to friends and family, and this “public”

aspect of the viewing motivated some girls to present less personal stories; other girls elected not

to have their stories included in the viewing. 54

In these group viewing settings, the storyteller does not typically have the opportunity to

adjust the telling to fit the audience response, as would be possible in traditional storytelling. As

part of this same relationship, the listener-viewers of digital storytelling aren’t afforded the

opportunity to participate or react, at least in a dialogic manner. Indeed, Maguire borrows

sociologist Marshall McLuhan’s term “cool medium” to compare reading and storytelling,

though, as described below, reading theorist Louise Rosenblatt would likely argue against the

idea that the reading is as “inflexible, one-way” as Maguire contends. Nonetheless, the person-

26
to-person dimension of live storytelling is not embodied in reading, nor, arguably, in digital

versions of storytelling.

A fitting concept to apply to the live, imperfect nature of traditional storytelling is

“fidelity.” Returning to Kress and Van Leeuwen’s scenario of the voiceover specialist working

as part of a professional team that allocates the strata, or communication elements, of discourse,

design, and production, there is a fourth strata that they identify – distribution. It is the task of

the sound engineers to create a recorded piece with “high fidelity,” a faithful iteration of the

professionally engineered sound for public distribution. 55 Applying this concept to storytelling,

it could be argued that a strength of traditional, live storytelling is in fact its “low fidelity,” that

storytelling events cannot be replicated precisely, and that the flexible, dynamic nature of the

storytelling allows the teller to adapt a story for maximum engagement from a particular

audience and context.

2.2 FOCUS ON AUTHOR-CREATOR IN DIGITAL STORYTELLING PRACTICE

AND RESEARCH

2.2.1 Focus on Author-Creator in Digital Storytelling Practice

A common emphasis in digital storytelling programs – perhaps with the exception of theater-

based showcases of digital storytelling as described by Lambert in his book about the Center for

Digital Storytelling 56 –is on the role of the creator. In a similar fashion, many school

library/classroom activities assign the learning objective to the creator of the digital story, and

many other digital stories, such as StoryCorps, also focus upon the role of the author/teller, with

27
little attention to who the listener is, what the expectations for the listener are, and what the

intended or observed responses of the listener might be. In this respect, digital storytelling is an

example of a Web 2.0 tool; it is user-created, user-driven content, and outside a structured setting

(such as a class assignment), there is little requirement for form, length, or quality. That open-

endedness creates some of the very appeal and accessibility of digital storytelling to young

people. Yet, as mentioned, most storytelling texts contend that a listener is a requisite element of

a storytelling experience and that storytelling is a social process.

It is fair to note that digital media presents new options for collaborative work and shared

authorship, which may introduce altogether new forms of audience involvement in storytelling.

As in traditional storytelling, the roles and experiences of digital storytelling audiences vary

according to the setting or context, and depend on the style and objective of the teller or

program. Digital storytelling programs are offered across settings and age groups that exhibit

distinctive characteristics of audience response.

2.2.2 Research about Digital Storytelling

From a classroom teaching perspective, digital storytelling can be an accessible and productive

use of educational technology because it utilizes technology that is increasingly affordable and

fairly simple to learn, and combines the technology with storytelling and story writing skills that

teachers teach as part of the regular curriculum. 57 The added component of multimedia in digital

storytelling, according to Lambert, is similar to that of a prop in a traditional storytelling

performance: the prop enhances the telling, but the story is the most important part. 58

28
 Studies on the use of digital storytelling in the K-12 setting can be classifiable into

several categories. Across the following categories, research studies and doctoral dissertations

share a focus on the authorship and creative process of the development of the story:

• A tool to teach a curricular area, with stories created by the students or by the teacher

• A way to teach story elements, such as plot, characters, and setting or writing, including

revision techniques

• An activity around which a community and identity develop, such as a technology club for

girls 59

• Virtual environments for telling stories, such as Second Life 60

• Personal narratives in the spirit of the Center for Digital Storytelling 61

Research on digital storytelling with adults also identifies qualities of empowerment and

transformation, including interviews presented by Lambert with individuals who work with

digital storytelling and global cultural activism and victims of domestic violence 62; digital

storytelling as a participatory media practice for Chinese immigrants in California 63; and digital

storytelling as way to foster self-understanding and dialog across groups of migrants in Dublin,

Ireland. 64 Digital storytelling’s capacity to support agency and civic action in young people is

discussed by Erstad and Silseth, in that the process allows young people to “learn how to use

technology to make their own voice heard and the opportunity to use knowledge and experience

acquired outside of school in the process of becoming citizens.” 65

Carey studied a second grade class in a year-long ethnographic research study, and she

reported that, “multimodal instruction, based on a social semiotic approach to literacy learning,

29
offered many modes of meaning making that fostered student engagement.” 66 Ochsner found

that making didactic digital movies helped middle school students to learn science content. 67

Roche-Smith studied middle-school students in a technology-intensive after-school

program, and found that digital storytelling became a means for the students to construct and

express new understandings of themselves and to communicate with each other. 68 Hathorn

studied the same program through a different lens: benefits for the African-American male. She

studied elementary and middle school students in the after-school program, and concluded that

the digital storytelling program helped students to gain language learning, technology skills, and

technical skills vocabulary, in addition to self-confidence in technology use. 69 Hug studied an

after-school technology program for adolescent girls and found that the girls used the technology

to create personal stories and stories told from a distance, and that although the girls became

capable users of the digital storytelling technology, they did not identify themselves as expert

users; rather, the technology was “invisible” and the story was the main focus. 70

Stojke conducted a study of four middle school students at a summer writing clinic, and

she found that digital storytelling helped the students to make substantial revisions in their

writing, including “adding, deleting, and rearranging text.” 71 Li studied a digital storytelling

program with adults, in association with the Chinese American Culture Association in the San

Gabriel Valley in Southern California, and found that the project was empowering for the

participants both in the process of creating the stories and in the “pride and collective efficacy”

in the finished product, which was made available to the local community through screenings,

donations of the stories, and posting on the Internet. 72

30
2.2.3 Theoretical Models of Digital Storytelling

Theoretical frameworks for digital storytelling are limited. Schäfer developed a reference model

for digital storytelling as part of her doctoral thesis at Technische Universität Berlin. The model,

which she calls “Dimension Star,” is intended for categorization and comparison of digital

storytelling applications. How a story is developed in terms of origin, construction, stage,

interaction, and appeal designates its placement into five categories: Media Repositories, Story

Structures, Conversational Storytelling, Emergent Stories, and Dynamic Story Generation. 73

Instructional Technology Professor Bernard Robin writes about the need for a theoretical

framework to use in investigating the value of digital storytelling and other multimedia activities

in K-12 classrooms. Robin includes digital storytelling as one of several components of

instructional technology in the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge theory (which he

credits Pierson, Mishra, Koehler and others with developing), a theory which integrates

technology, content knowledge, and pedagogy and seems most pertinent to teacher education. 74

At this time, there appears to be no theoretical framework of digital storytelling in a library and

information science context.

2.3 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: RESPONSE TO TEXTS

This section considers theoretical works on responses to stories and multimodal texts, in order to

provide a basis for comparison to digital storytelling experiences. For this study, digital

storytelling is considered to be a multimodal text. As described previously, a multimodal text is

the presentation of more than one format of text, e.g., words, video, images, music, and voice-

31
over, with a shifting among multiple modes of interaction with the text needed to engage with it,

e.g., reading, listening, and viewing and/or watching. The term “modal” in place of “media” (as

in “multimedia”) encompasses the actions and skills required of the reader/listener/viewer, rather

than just describing the formats. Erstad and Silseth explain that a multimodal text is complex in

the way it is constructed and in how it is “read.” In creating a multimodal text, different kinds of

resources are combined, such as the sounds, images, and text in a digital story. To read, view,

and engage with the multimodal text as a product, a semiotic, or sign-reading, analysis involved,

according to Erstad and Silseth. 75

2.3.1 Responding to and Interpreting Texts

Louise Rosenblatt is a reading theorist who is known for writing and research about “reader

response,” or “transactional response to reading,” and her research forms one theoretical basis

for this investigation of storytelling response. Although the format of storytelling is not a

“reading experience,” much of Rosenblatt’s work involves the interpretation of texts, which

arguably, storytelling events are. 76 Rosenblatt believed that reading is a transaction between

reader and text, and that it is a dynamic, not passive, relationship. She explains that “the reader

brings to the text a ‘reservoir’ of past experiences with language and the world,” and she uses the

term “reservoir” frequently in her writing to describe how readers approach a text. 77

Margaret Mackey and other writers have used the term “palimpsest” to describe a similar

quality of readers. An ancient palimpsest was like a version of an Etch-a-Sketch toy, a scroll that

could be written on, scraped off, and written on again over the remnants of past writings. 78

Readers bring unique palimpsests to texts, with the potential to produce diverse understandings

of what is read according to personal life experiences. 79 In other words, each reader’s

32
experiences with reading and with life create unique layers upon which new understandings are

developed. As such, multiple readers can read the “same” text and understand it differently

according to their “palimpsests.”

Rosenblatt’s work is relevant to the interpretation of the students’ engagement in digital

stories. Rosenblatt compares the “cocktail party phenomenon” to reading, in that in a crowded

room, an individual can effectively attend to only one conversation at a time, while the rest of the

room takes on a hum of background noise. Though not in a manner that can necessarily be

controlled, an individual enacts a similar skill when he reads, focusing attention, organizing

meaning, and working back and forth among different areas of consciousness. 80 How readers

attend to a text determines where they appear on Rosenblatt’s model for reading–the continuum

of efferent and aesthetic reading. Attention also has to do with what happens after the reading.

Efferent reading, from the Latin “efferre,” to carry away, is related to what readers take away

from the experience. A stance of efferent reading is reading for facts and information, “concepts

to be retained, ideas to be tested, actions to be performed after the reading.” 81 Aesthetic reading

is about the poetic experience of reading, the here and now, the lived moment. The same reader

may approach different texts, or even the same texts, from different points on the continuum, at

different times. 82

Donald Braid, Professor of English, Folklore, and Anthropology at Butler University uses

the terms “referential” and “experiential” to describe how listeners extract meaning and

coherence when hearing personal narratives. Listeners use real-life experiences, the experiential,

to recontextualize that which they hear in terms of what they know. This process, which Braid

describes as an active, repeating framing of new information and projections of what is about to

33
happen, helps the listener follow what is happening in the narrative. He explains that the

dynamic processing of states of mind is what engages a listener. 83

In reading, Rosenblatt describes this process as “a complex, nonlinear, recursive, self-

correcting transaction,” though her description doesn’t necessarily fit neatly in the experiential

and referential categories that Braid identifies. Braid’s referential meaning, in contrast, is that

which is outside the lived experience. It is also pertinent to note here that Braid refers to reader

response theory, that of literary critic Stanley Fish in particular, to help analyze listener-response,

much in the way that I am attempting to do with the current study. 84

Joe Lambert explains that context determines what the listener “hears,” and that which is

“heard” is an outcome of two simultaneous processes: the environmental/external stimuli, and

the private, internal hearing in the mind. 85 Rosenblatt writes about a related concept, with regard

to the public and private aspects of reading. The public aspect is the scientific denotation of the

text; the private aspect is the ongoing, interpretive, personalized version of a text that a reader

dynamically shapes in the process of reading. 86 This simultaneous process of being in front of

the same “text” as other readers or viewers, while living a different experience, is quite

complicated to capture in a research setting, but the research design, as described below, is

intended to explore both components of this process, as much as is feasible within this

investigation.

2.3.2 Kinesthetic Responses to Texts

Margaret Mackey writes about the physicality of the multimedia reading/viewing/listening

experience, which also connects to the experience of digital storytelling. This idea of a response

as a kinesthetic state of being is an interesting theoretical approach for the current study. In

34
Mackey’s book Literacies across Media: Playing the Text (Routledge, 2nd Edition, 2007), an

additional perspective comes from Collins, who argues that reader response is a hybrid space;

readers create images at the direction of the writer, and these images are not so much dictated as

facilitated and inspired. Mackey’s theory may be applied to the digital storytelling experience as

well. 87 She also writes about attention in the context of her study of students’ reading of

multimedia texts. She emphasizes that human attention is finite, and that individuals concentrate

on only one thing at a time, though they can switch very quickly among tasks. As Mackey

explains, “attaining, sustaining, and directing attention is a major thrust of any text, whether

designed for aesthetic, informational, or commercial purposes.” 88 The attention of the student

listener-viewers is important in this study, as the multimodal format of digital storytelling places

particular demands on the attention of the listener-viewers. Different kinds of attention are

required for reading and for listening, and within those activities, the purposes for reading and

listening also influence how individuals pay attention.

2.3.3 Trance and Transportation

Brian Sturm, professor and storyteller at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, researches

and writes about the “storylistening trance,” a state of mind into which listeners enter during a

storytelling experience. 89 Extending this theory into digital storytelling experiences makes

sense, as the components of storytelling form the basis for digital storytelling projects, though to

varying extents. Sturm’s theory is shaped in part on Rosenblatt’s theory, particularly her

differentiation between the “text,” which is created by the author, and “the poem,” which is

formed by the reader’s experience with the text. Sturm also bases his research on studies of

consciousness, including structuralist, functionalist, behaviorist, and constructivist perspectives,

35
with constructivist as the primary reference point for his work. Sturm identified six categories to

represent the listener’s experience with the storylistening trance: realism, lack of awareness of

surroundings or other mental processes, engaged receptive channels, control, placeness, and time

distortion. These categories emerged from Sturm’s participant-observation during storytelling

festivals and interviews with listeners ranging from young people to the elderly. 90

Of note here are the implications that Sturm identifies for teachers and school librarians,

namely, enlightening what is happening in the mind of “the involved student,” the term Sturm

uses to describe “a child in a classroom who is lost in thought over a particular math problem or

a student in the library media center deeply engrossed in a story, a computer game, or a difficult

information search.” He also relates contributing factors of the storylistening trance to methods

for engaging students in learning. For example, a teacher can use situated, authentic learning and

novelty, provide physical and emotional comfort, and develop rapport to engage students in

learning. 91

Sturm has identified influences on the trance state, that which allow or inhibit the trance.

The storyteller, story, environment, and listener affect the trance according to these qualities;

note that the categories are my own and not Sturm’s:

• Storyteller: style, involvement, rapport, ability

• Story: content, rhythm

• Environment: distractions and recency of the storytelling

• Listener: novelty/familiarity, activation of memories, training or social role,

expectations, comfort, and preferences 92

36
 Green, Brock, and Kaufman, in the journal Communication Theory, identify

“transportation into narrative worlds” as an outcome of enjoyable experiences with media, and

there are aspects of their transportation theory that are similar to Sturm’s storylistening trance.

For example, they report listeners becoming emotionally involved in a story, having the feeling

that they are really “there,” and losing track of time. 93 An important connection between the

work of Green, Brock, and Kaufman and the current research is transportation’s effect on

enjoyment, which can inspire listeners and viewers to seek out similar activities in the future.

2.3.4 Connecting Listener-Viewers through Digital Literacies

Lambert maintains that understanding the author’s intent is not easy when viewing a story via the

Internet, which could be the setting of some viewings of digital storytelling. He identifies that

“communities of context” are needed to support understanding of the author’s intent. 94 Although

the digital storytelling format developed by Lambert and colleagues at the Center for Digital

Storytelling (particularly Dana Atchley, who along with Lambert is credited in many sources

with creating digital storytelling) typically includes a performance of the story in a group setting,

with directed debriefing and feedback, it is not clear that all digital storytelling takes place with

such attention to the context of the performance or the viewing of the story.

Even though Lambert’s work is directed primarily toward adult learners, his discussion of

the value of digital storytelling in effectively developing digital literacies is quite relevant to K-

12 settings and supports the use of digital storytelling in the classroom. He explains that in his

experience in over fifteen years of teaching digital storytelling, that the form of project-based

learning within the context of personal narrative supports the learning of multimedia

technologies. Further, even when the goal is to convey information (as a student might do in a

37
curriculum-related story), the personal voice of digital storytelling adds meaning, as the creator

is describing her “version of events and realizations.” 95 Lambert believes that digital storytelling

connects the creator of the story to the content; the current study seeks to investigate where the

listener-viewer fits in this relationship, and how the listener-viewer characterizes digital

storytelling.

Storyteller Kendall Haven’s book, Story Proof: The Science behind the Startling Power

of Story (Libraries Unlimited, 2007), compiles research findings on the brain, learning, and story

to argue that human minds are wired for story. Haven presents vast findings from science,

educational psychology, neurology, psychology, medicine, and other fields to support his thesis

that story is the most effective way to learn. He organizes the cognitive and neural research

studies into the following eight themes: comprehension, logical thinking and general (cross-

curricular) learning, creating meaning from narrative, motivation to learn (and to pay attention),

building a sense of community and involvement, literacy and language mastery, writing, and

memory. All of the studies address the effect of story on the “receiver” of the story, which

Haven exemplifies with practical applications, such as, “placing key concepts and information

within the structure of stories provides motivation to absorb and learn material by creating

context and relevance more efficiently than other narrative forms.” 96

Thus, the wide, diverse use of digital storytelling in the K-12 classroom setting and in

other contexts with young people, considered along with digital storytelling literature that

emphasizes the creator/author, not the listener-viewer, sets up a relevant focus for this

investigation. The lens of existing theoretical frameworks for reader and listener responses will

support effectively this exploration of how listener-viewers respond to and engage in digital

storytelling and how digital storytelling is characterized as a storytelling activity in the

38
intermediate classroom and middle school library. The remaining sections of this chapter

provide background into the media lives of children and state educational standards on which

some of the classroom activities in this study were based.

2.4 CHILDREN’S MEDIA USE AND DIGITAL LEARNING

2.4.1 Children’s Media Use

In studying students’ use of technology and information resources at school, it is helpful to

consider young people’s overall use of technology and information. The January 2010 Kaiser

Family Foundation Report, Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds, 97

examines the amount of time that children spent interacting with media, a phenomenon perhaps

best described by the title of the related New York Times article, “If Your Kids Are Awake,

They’re Probably Online.” 98 According to the Kaiser report, children ages 8 to 18 spend up to 7

hours and 38 minutes hours a day engaged in media activities, a figure that increases to 10 hours

and 45 minutes and when adding in media that young people view, play, and interact with

simultaneously.

The Kaiser report notes that every type of media usage has increased in the past 10 years

for 8 to 18- year olds, except for reading. Examples of increases in media usage in the years

2004-2009 are as follows: 24 minutes of increased time per day for video games, 27 minutes

more per day for computers, and 47 minutes more per day for music and audio. The Generation

M2 study also reported on ownership of “gadgets.” In 2009, 76% of children ages 8 to 18 owned

iPods or .mp3 players (up from 58% from 2004); 66% owned a cell phone (up from 39%

39
ownership in 2004); 59% owned a handheld video game player; and 29% owned a laptop

computer. 99

Researchers in diverse disciplines are studying learning in the context of digital media.

Among these studies is the Digital Youth Project led by Mizuko Ito. This large-scale, three-year

study of the media use of youth found that children and young adults rely heavily on digital

media for social interaction, and for some, to pursue interests such as gaming, creative writing,

and video editing in online communities. The researchers describe the types of youth media

activities according to three categories: Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out, which

reflect successively deeper levels of involvement in consuming and constructing specialized

knowledge. 100

In Language and Literacy Learning in the Digital Age (Routledge, 2011) Gee and Hayes

examine the learning that takes place within popular culture, and in particular, they identify a

type of learning that is “deep, complex, and knowledge-producing,” which they term “passionate

affinity-based learning.” 101 This type of learning shares some qualities of “Geeking Out” as

described by Ito et al, 102 and it occurs in “passionate affinity spaces” that may exist in a brick-

and-mortar location, in a virtual space, or both. Gee and Hayes name seven qualities of

passionate affinity-based learning. First, shared interests and not credentials bring the learners

together, and the learners have a deep passion for the subject. All participants can be producers

of knowledge and not just consumers, and leadership roles are flexible and changing. Different

members of the spaces have varied areas of specialization and follow different trajectories of

learning, and though some members become experts, learning is perpetual and ongoing in the

space. 103

40
2.4.2 School Curriculum and Standards Related to Digital Storytelling

Academic standards documents and school and state-level curricula address the prominence of

technology in 21st century learning. The most recent standards document developed by the

American Association of School Librarians (AASL) is the 2007 Standards for the 21st Century

Learner, in which AASL expands information literacy beyond “the ability to find and use

information,” which was the definition presented in the 1988 and 1998 versions of Information

Power, which were previously guiding documents for school librarians. 104 In the 2007 Standards

and accompanying implementation documents Standards for the 21st-Century Learner in Action

(ALA, 2009) and Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Programs (ALA, 2009),

multiple literacies and affective elements, termed “dispositions,” form a richer, more dynamic

picture of learning outcomes, an update that corresponds more closely with research in

information seeking behavior. 105 The new standards also reflect a more global perspective,

based upon the idea that knowledge is socially constructed, and that collaboration, real world

connections, and diverse perspectives are integral parts of learning.

The state-level education body in Pennsylvania is the Pennsylvania Department of

Education (PDE). In twelve subject areas, PDE mandates academic standards, or “benchmark

measures that define what students should know and be able to do at specified grade levels

beginning in grade 3, and these standards serve “as the basis for curriculum and instruction in

Pennsylvania's public schools.” 106 One of the twelve subject areas is Science and Technology,

for which state standards were adopted in 2002.

In 2010, Pennsylvania replaced two of its sets of subject area standards, “Mathematics”

and “Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking,” with the Common Core State Standards – Math

and Common Core State Standards – English Language Arts. 107 According to the Common Core

41
State Standards Initiative website, the Common Core is a “state-led effort to establish a shared

set of clear educational standards for English language arts and mathematics that states can

voluntarily adopt.” 108 In the Key Design Considerations of the English Language Arts

Standards, it is explained that “the need to conduct research and to produce and consume media

is embedded into every aspect of today’s curriculum” and as such, information and technology

skills are not treated separately, but incorporated throughout the standards. 109

42
 3.0 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The research questions for this mixed-methods study are as follows:

(1) How do student listener-viewers respond to and engage in digital storytelling in school

library/classroom activities in the intermediate classroom and middle school library?

(2) How do the student listener-viewer responses characterize digital storytelling as a

storytelling activity in the school library/classroom?

This chapter explains how the methodology was designed and implemented to investigate these

questions.

3.2 RESEARCH OVERVIEW

This study incorporates several methods of qualitative research. The foundation of the project is

an ethnographically-oriented, participant-observer approach applied in three intermediate and

43
middle school classroom settings, with student surveys, focus groups, teacher and librarian

interviews, and learning artifacts as the other components.

Research studies in library and information science support the use of mixed methods.

For example, Agosto and Hughes-Hassell’s study of everyday life information seeking behaviors

of urban teens employed methods of written surveys, audio journals, written activity logs, digital

photographs taken by participants, and semi-structured group interviews. Agosto and Hughes-

Hassell assert that the mixed methods approach allowed the young people in their study to

communicate in ways that met their personal preferences. 110

The “tween day” information behavior studies by Meyers, Fisher, and Marcoux also

utilized mixed methods, including a focus group, interviews, and a WebQuest, to study tweens.

These authors emphasize that doing research “with” youth, rather than “on” youth, provides an

experience that is engaging and empowering for the participants and offers meaningful

interactions with adults and peers. 111

In this study, the length of time for the classroom-based activities depended upon the

lesson plans and classroom/school schedules, so I visited each classroom as a participant-

observer for durations unique to each classroom setting. The number of days spent observing

ranged from six (School 3, grade 7) to thirteen (School 1, grade 6). This relatively short-term,

event-based method of ethnography has been called “focused ethnography,” a method

characterized by short-ranged field visits, intensive, multimedia data collection (such as audio,

photos, and video), and a focused attention on a particular aspect of the participants’ activities. 112

In this case, that focus is on the listener-viewer response.

Following the development of the digital storytelling and the viewing of the students’

stories at each school site, I conducted a survey with all of the students in the participating

44
classes and shared focus-group discussions with a group of 6-8 randomly selected students from

each class. I also interviewed the teachers and librarians and collected learning materials from

the activities. Table 5 shows the sequence of research activities at each school site.

Table 5. Sequence of research activities with students and teachers/librarians at

each school site.

1. Permission process, identification of classes for participation

2. Observation of students during the development of digital storytelling projects.
Instruction led or facilitated by classroom teacher and school librarian.
3. Observation of students during “performance day” viewing of digital stories.
4. Written survey of all participating students as soon after viewing as possible, depending
on school and class schedule
5. Focus-group of 6-8 students
6. Face-to-face interviews with classroom teacher and school librarian
7. Collect learning materials from teachers and students

Additional data for the study included photographs and video of the classroom space and

the students during digital storytelling performance, the students’ digital stories (in the form of

media files), and the teachers’ classroom materials (handouts and rubrics). These artifacts are

described further below. Table 6 provides the scenario for each setting, including the subject

area in which the digital storytelling was implemented, the type of activity, the number of

student and educator participants, and the number of days spent observing the project

development and viewing digital storytelling.

45
 Table 6. Scenarios, participants, and number of days spent observing at each of the
three school sites. “Observation Days” column includes digital storytelling project
development and performance days.
School Grades Subject Activity Students Educators in Observation
Levels and Area in Study Study Days
Ages
1 Grade 6, Social Ancient 15 1 teacher 13
ages 11-12 Studies China 1 school
Photo librarian
Story 1 para-
professional
2 Grades 4-5, Technology/ Digital 17 1 teacher 10
ages 9-11 Language Book
Arts Trailers /
iMovie
3 Grade 7, Language Team 22 1 teacher 6
ages 12-13 Arts Podcast/ 1 school
iMovie librarian

3.2.1 Study Population

The study population is students from classes in three Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-area schools in

the intermediate and middle school grade levels. The three school sites were selected by

convenience sample, a nonprobability sample in which the researcher selects from groups that

are readily available for study. 113 The study focuses on the students’ activities in series of digital

storytelling lessons or activities for intermediate and middle-school students, taught or facilitated

by teachers and school librarians working in collaboration. As described in more depth in the

sections that follow, the three sites in the study included students in grade 6, who were ages 11

and 12 (School 1), a mixed-grade level classroom of grades four and five, with students ranging

from age 9 to age 11 (School 2), and grade 7, in which the students were 12 and 13 (School 3).

46
 In order to answer how students listen and respond to digital storytelling in the

intermediate and middle school classroom and school library setting, I wanted to study the events

of the classroom in as natural and authentic a setting as possible, rather than via experimental

design. As the researcher, my role did not involve the development of the lessons, but rather the

investigation of digital storytelling as it was currently being used in a school setting.

3.2.2 Professional Background of the Researcher

My PhD studies at the University of Pittsburgh spanned the years from 2008 to 2011. During

each semester of my doctoral studies and dissertation research, I taught or co-taught face-to-face

and online graduate courses in the School Library Certification Program at the University of

Pittsburgh.

Prior to matriculating as a full-time student in the doctoral program, I worked for eight

years in K-12 education. I taught first grade for four years in a suburban Pittsburgh school

district, then I worked for four years in a different suburban district, also in the Greater

Pittsburgh area, as the middle school librarian for students in grades six, seven, and eight. In

addition to my work as a professional educator, I also have fifteen years of work and volunteer

experience with students of diverse cultural backgrounds, ages preschool through high school, in

urban, rural, and suburban settings. These activities included substitute teaching and K-12

classroom experiences, community and university-based children’s dance and theater

internships, high school marching band and elementary/junior high baton twirling corps

instruction, day care employment, public library program presentations, and community outreach

programs.

47
 3.3 DATA COLLECTION AND RATIONALE

Three different school settings provided a rich body of data for analysis. In this application of an

ethnographic approach, the opportunity to observe more than one implementation of digital

storytelling provides a range of listener-viewer experiences to answer the research questions and

allows for a manageable set of data.

With this type of study, largely exploratory in nature with an aim to characterize the

listener-viewer response and how it is represented in this type of classroom or library activity,

there are additional advantages to having three schools, including a range of independent and

teacher-led projects, different ages and ability levels within the intermediate and middle school

grade levels, varying levels of comfort and familiarity with technology, several software

applications and computer operating systems, varied classroom structures and approaches to

teaching and learning, diverse genres and purposes of digital storytelling, and distinct formats for

the viewing of the completed digital storytelling projects. As Heath and Street describe, there is

“immense variability as well as stability” across cultural contexts, and this was very true of the

classrooms that I visited. 114

3.3.1 Participant-Observation in the Classroom and Library

In an ethnographic approach, the researcher studies a group through immersion in the setting and

by using several data collection methods. 115 Gay, Mills, and Airasian identify as data sources for

ethnography observations, interviews, and review of documents, which represent several

components of the approach in my study. 116 In this approach, the researcher is a participant-

observer who has the opportunity to “hear, see, and begin to experience reality as the participants

48
do.” 117 Characteristics of ethnographic research in the educational setting include the

presentation of “an accurate reflection of participants’ behaviors and perspectives;” “an emphasis

on exploring the nature of particular social phenomena” rather than testing out hypotheses; and

the collection of data through field work experiences. 118 Participant-observers have the

opportunity to develop insights about the culture and relationships with the participants, which

may enrich the research. 119

Situating myself in the classroom learning environment for the duration of the digital

storytelling project – not just the sharing of the finished products, even though that aspect was

initially my focus – was necessary for accurate understanding of the research setting. Observing

students throughout the whole activity helped to establish context, which Professor of Education

Joseph Kincheloe described as a critically important attribute of qualitative research, particularly

educational research, as “human experience is shaped in particular contexts and cannot be

understood if removed from those contexts.” 120 Erstad and Silseth employed a similar stance in

their study of eighth-grade digital storytelling in a school in Norway, in which they emphasized

the importance of “analyz[ing] the use of technologies within the context in which it [was] being

applied.” 121 Even Robert A. Georges 1960s research on storytelling corroborates the attempt to

study as natural a setting as possible; he points out the value of “captur[ing] the wholeness” of

“natural field situations.” 122

During the observation phase, descriptive and reflective information about the setting was

recorded via field notes, which describe as accurately and comprehensively as possible the

activities in the research setting. 123 The use of field notes as a data source support the self-

reporting provided via the survey, focus group, and teacher and librarian interviews. The field

notes reflect my observations of what teachers and students did and said during the digital

49
storytelling projects, including the teachers’ instruction and interaction with students; students’

collaborative and individual activities on the computers and in the library and classroom;

discussion among students and my exchanges with students; student behaviors during the class

sessions and when viewing the digital stories; and classroom and technology arrangements and

equipment. Additional data supporting the field notes were photographs and video of the

students and classroom spaces during the performances of the digital stories.

In addition to observations of behavior, the field notes also included information as to

how the performances spaces were set up, as proximity of the sound, volume, and arrangement

also affect listening and who responds and how. 124 Information regarding the class and school

schedules and environments were also part of the field notes.

3.3.2 Surveys

The survey instrument was used in this study to collect some information on the students’

background knowledge of storytelling and digital storytelling, their typical computer and gaming

use, and their experiences with this digital storytelling project at school. It should be noted that

surveys are not a typical instrument for an ethnographic study, and that although this study uses

some ethnographic methods (like participant-observation), the survey is part of this study’s

mixed methods design.

The survey questions in this study were designed to gather sufficient data to support the

exploration of the research questions, while at the same time being interesting enough for the

students to want to answer, not too difficult to read or answer, and not excessively lengthy,

because the surveys were distributed during a class period. The questions follow Converse and

Presser’s recommendations to create questions in straightforward language, to ask about a

50
narrow reference period, and to ask specific questions. 125 The privacy inherent in a written

survey was intended to offer students the opportunity to answer questions about their peers’

digital stories without making their responses known to the group. The study includes open-

ended and closed-ended questions. Closed-ended questions generated specific responses with

the same frame of reference for all of the students, with a uniformity of responses. 126 The survey

is included in Appendix A, along with a separate version of the survey that maps the research

questions to relevant theory.

The initial design of the study included a pre-test of the survey instrument, in the format

of a “participating pretest,” in which respondents understand that the exercise is a practice run,

designed to gather feedback on the survey questions. 127 A pre-test also provides the researcher

the opportunity to test the task difficulty, the flow of the questions, the order of the questions,

and the respondents’ interest and attention. 128 As described in Section 3.3, Data Collection, this

component of the study was not conducted, an outcome of the process of finding schools for

study participation.

The survey and also the focus group (described in the following section) were conducted

as soon as possible following the viewing of the digital stories, in order to prevent students from

forgetting their reactions to what they saw and heard. For School 1, the students participated in

the viewing, survey, and focus group on four successive school days, with a weekend in between

viewing days one and two. At School 2 (book trailers), the students viewed the videos and did

the survey immediately following; the focus group was held the next school day, which was a

Monday after the Friday performance day. For School 3 (Green Team podcast), the students

watched the video and responded to the survey immediately after; the focus group was held the

next day. Note that two separate focus groups were conducted for School 3, due to the class

51
schedule of two of the three students who made the (one) digital storytelling video for this study

site. Additional information about how the study was conducted at this school site is presented

in Section 3.4.4.

Asking the students directly about their experience as listener-viewers helped me to learn

about those aspects of their viewing experience that I could not observe directly. Like reading,

viewing digital media is an activity with public and private components. As Mackey explains,

“much of engagement with texts is not only private but also silent and invisible.” 129 Thus, it was

helpful to ask students about their response via survey questions and focus group questions,

which each opened up different aspects of the listener-viewer experience. Table 7 presents

information about when the surveys and focus groups were conducted.

52
 Table 7. Time frame of performance days, survey and focus group.

School & Performance Days Survey Day Focus Group

Project
School 1 2 class periods, Friday & Part of 1 class period Part of 1 class period
Monday
Ancient For 13 students: Three days after
China Photo Next school day after last Day after Monday performance day
Story work day performance day

For 2 students:
Two days after Monday
performance day
School 2 Part of 1 class period, Part of 1 class period, Part of 1 class period,
Friday Friday Monday
Digital Book
Trailers Afternoon of last work Immediately following Next school day after
day performances. performance/survey day.
School 3 Part of 1 class period Part of 1 class period Part of one class period

Team 2 separate occasions Immediately following For 8 students: day after

Podcast class performance performance
1st performance:
Class of 20 students For 2 students: same day
as small group
2nd performance: performance
Small group, 2 students

3.3.3 Focus Groups

Jacob recommends that for children, a focus group take no longer than one-and-a-half hours 130;

the focus group sessions in this study ranged from 12 to 22 minutes, with a group of 6-8

randomly selected students at each school site. The open-ended format of the focus-group

allowed for informal discussion, elaboration on topics, and spring-boarding of ideas from one

53
student to another. It is possible that the focus group format allows students at the intermediate

and middle-school level to share more thoughts than they might “feel like” writing, particularly

in an informal conversation scenario. In all three focus group discussions, there was a period of

adjustment to this conversational setting, including clarification from me that the discussion was

not part of a graded classroom assignment and that the students did not have to raise their hands

to be “called on” to participate.

The social atmosphere may have encouraged new thinking by the students. I attempted

to foster a comfortable setting, with chairs in a circle at two schools, and tables pushed together

to sit around at one school. The natural, relaxed atmosphere is a strength of the focus-group

technique, as is the socially-oriented setting. 131 According to Morgan, focus groups used in

combination with participant-observation can be especially helpful in gaining access to the study

population and may help the researcher to affirm developing conclusions. 132 Jacob notes that

applications of focus groups include “building excitement about a topic from the spontaneous

combination of participants’ comments” and “providing an opportunity for facilitator and

participants to develop meaning and learn more about a topic,” both of which were beneficial to

this study. 133

3.3.4 Interviews with Teachers and Librarians

I conducted face-to-face interviews and one phone interview with the teachers and school

librarians who planned and facilitated the learning activities, with the rationale that they may

present insights that the students did not provide, as well serve as triangulation for the

observations, survey responses, and focus group responses. A structured, open-ended format

was used to interview the teachers and librarians. The open-ended response platform allows for

54
“detailed responses and elaboration on questions in ways [not] anticipated,” and the interview

format allows for the participants to share attitudes, feelings, concerns, and perspectives on the

experience. 134

I conducted the interviews at the conclusion of the projects in each of the three schools,

and the interview questions are listed in Appendix A. I inquired about the planning of the

activity and why the teachers elected to use digital storytelling, as well as asked for general

reflections on the project, their perceptions of students’ engagement as creators and listener-

viewers, collaborative components of the lesson, and aspects to keep or change for next time.

3.3.5 Teaching and Learning Artifacts

Additional data sources for the study included the teachers’ and librarians’ classroom teaching

materials, such as Ms. Black’s evaluation rubric for the book trailers and Mrs. Pearl’s topic list

about subjects for the Ancient China unit. The nature and design of each project differed; as

such, the materials representing each activity were different. The classroom teachers’ materials

included handouts, rubrics, topic lists, and self-evaluations. These documents served as

supporting artifacts for the study, providing a starting point for discussion with the participants

and a source for interpretation and reference during data analysis. These are included in

Appendix B.

Another important piece research data for this study is the digital storytelling projects.

The projects were not analyzed in terms of quality or content in the way that the classroom

teacher and school librarian would assess them; instead, they were used as a reference to help

illuminate and clarify the comments made by the students. For example, when a student from

School 1 referred to a “star” transition in one of the videos, I could access this video to find and

55
review the star. Likewise, as students described other images, music, sound effects, and voice-

overs, having the digital stories at hand supported more thorough analysis.

3.4 SCHOOL SITES AND STUDENT ACTIVITIES

3.4.1 Preparing to Conduct Research in K-12 Schools and Seeking Permission

The teachers and activities in the study were selected through professional contacts and the

following three factors:

(1) The teachers and librarians were planning to teach or facilitate a digital storytelling

activity with their students as part of the regular school curriculum in the Spring 2011

school year;

(2) The school district administration permitted me to conduct the study as part of these

existing learning activities;

(3) The permission process (administrative level and parent consent) would work with the

schedule of the planned digital storytelling lesson.

In the proposal for this research study, I indicated that I would seek two study sites and one

pre-test site where I would test one data collection tool, the student survey. The timing and

permissions process resulted in three actual study sites with no pre-test site.

I shared informal discussions with teachers and librarians at seven potential school sites

beginning in December 2010. At two potential sites, the librarians were planning digital

56
storytelling lessons that would have been potential research opportunities, but both were

scheduled too soon to obtain the required administrative approval process and parent consent. I

did not pursue the formal permission process with these districts. I received official Institutional

Review Board approval from the University of Pittsburgh in February 2011, at which point I

initiated the formal permission process with five other schools and districts, hoping to attain

permission to conduct the pre-test and research study at a total of three sites. I also obtained

updated criminal history and child abuse clearances required for working with students in school

districts in the state of Pennsylvania, per the Pennsylvania Department of Education guidelines.

At a district where I asked to conduct the pre-test, the middle school building principal

declined outright, stating district policy that no dissertation studies were to be conducted in their

schools. Through email and phone discussions with a different school district’s administration

(the superintendent and assistant superintendent), I learned that permission for a research study

required discussion by a standing school board committee and, upon approval of the committee,

a vote of approval by the school board. The meeting schedule of the committee would not have

allowed for approval in time for the activities that the school librarian was planning for digital

storytelling, so I decided not to go further with the process at that school.

Through contacts with the librarians, principals, and teachers in three other schools, I was

able to identify teachers and librarians who were planning digital storytelling, in districts where

the administration seemed receptive to a research study, and where the permission process could

be conducted in a timeframe that suited the planned digital storytelling activities. After the

school administration permissions were obtained and the teachers and librarians agreed to

participate, the teachers and librarians selected the classes (i.e., the groups of students) that were

invited to take part in the study.

57
 School 1 was the first school setting where I obtained approval from the district to proceed

with the parent consent process. The school librarian, classroom teacher, and I coordinated the

distribution and collection of consent forms, and then started the project, while the permission

processes were still in the final stages in the other schools.

In finding a classroom and teacher to work with at School 2, I found that I had to adjust the

age range of the students that I initially expected to observe. I set out with middle school –

typically grades 6-8 or 5-8 – as my target population, but when a librarian colleague at this K-8

school connected me with her school’s technology teacher, it happened to be that the digital

storytelling lesson she was planning was for a mixed, grades 4/5 classroom. This modification to

the age range of students in the study was submitted and approved by IRB.

The School 2 teacher and school director requested a deletion of the mention of “a small

school supplies gift” that students would receive for participation from the parent consent form

and student assent form, in keeping with school philosophy about intrinsic motivation. They

explained that I could give the children the gift, but that they did not want this information

available going into the study, to prevent students from participating in order to get a reward. I

submitted and received approval for this IRB modification request, and the updated versions of

the forms were used with Schools 2 and 3. Both versions are included in Appendix D.

Another additional document requested by a school district was a research study

summary (to accompany the letters of invitation and consent) for review during the school board

approval vote; this summary is included in Appendix D. All invitations and consent forms are

also in Appendix D, including the student assent form, which was strongly recommended by IRB

even though all of the student participants were under the assent form-required age of 14.

58
 In the process of learning how challenging it was to obtain permission to conduct

research in a K-12 school, I went forward with permission processes for three digital storytelling

projects, hoping that at least two would be approved in the schools. With three complex

permissions processes in various stages of approval, at schools where teachers and librarians

were willing to help me with the study, it turned out that I didn’t end up with a pre-test site.

Once I had two schools approved, I was reluctant to stop a permission process already in

progress at the third school or ask to change my request and proposal by asking to do just the

pre-test instead of observe digital storytelling project that the teacher was anticipating that I

would observe.

3.4.2 School 1: Grade 6 Ancient China Photo Story

3.4.2.1 School 1: Participants and School Setting

School 1 was a sixth grade class of 15 students in a suburban, public middle school that houses

just under 1500 students in grades five through eight, a grade level configuration in its first year

for the district. The school was previously a 6-9 building. The school is classified as a Large

middle school by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The NCES figures

describe the student population as 60.3% African-American, 37.6% White, and less than 1%

Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan, and Hispanic. The class demographics

reflected that of the school. Fifty-three percent of the student body is eligible for free or reduced

lunch. 135

The classroom teacher in this collaborative project is Mrs. Pearl (a pseudonym), who has

been teaching for 33 years, 20 in her current sixth grade social studies position. The middle

school librarian, Mrs. Auburn (a pseudonym), has been teaching for 13 years, 10.5 of which have

59
been in her current position. Mrs. Auburn has a combination fixed and flexible teaching

schedule in the library, with fifth grade library classes in a fixed schedule (35 classes per week)

and some class periods for collaborative teaching with classroom teachers and student visits to

the library.

The class in this study was a group of fifteen students, nine male and six female. In self-

reported information on the survey, 14 students reported that they or their families have a

computer at home. One student skipped the question, though all fifteen students reported that

they use computers at home, for amounts of time ranging from five to ten minutes to “at least

five hours” and “twelve hours.” Only two students reported the same amounts of time – less

than 10 minutes a day and 30-60 minutes a day. The other students reported unique responses

for this group, one, two, three, four-to-five, and five hours, and one student reported 12.

Four students wrote an open response with describing their usage with such remarks as

“once when I get home and later after dinner.” One student reported using the computer “when I

get bored of playing the Xbox 360,” thus separating computer time from game time, although 12

of 15 respondents reported that they play games on the computer. One student skipped the

question about computer time.

Other high-frequency responses on the computer activities checklist were listening to

music (15 of 15 or 100%), watching Youtube (14 of 15, or 93.3%), and “talking to my friends”

(13 of 15 or 86.7%). Ten students in this group of children ages 11 and 12 indicated that they

use Facebook, a social media application with condition “you will not use Facebook if you are

under 13” as an item within their privacy policy. Only one student reported checking school

assignments, and two students reported reading news and making artwork.

60
 Thirteen of the fifteen reported owning a handheld video game player or a gaming

system; eight students considered themselves “gamers” and seven did not; and ten of the fifteen

said that they played a video game “yesterday,” a question that it turned out amused the students,

and they brought up it up again in the focus group. One of the students informed me that on the

focus group day, he had also played a video game “yesterday.”

The library space is arranged into two computer labs and a teaching area, each set apart

by bookshelves. The teaching area and the lab where students worked on this project are shown

in Figures 1, 2, and 3. The library also has a kiosk-style grouping of three computers, a

couch/comfortable chair area, and several tables for small groups. There are 14,304 titles and

18,312 volumes in the library collection, as reported by the library secretary/secondary education

technology coordinator. There are several offices and storage areas accessed through the library,

some of which are part of the library and some that are used by other departments.

61
 Figure 1. Computer lab in Mrs. Auburn's school library, School 1.

Figure 2. Alternate view of School 1 library computer lab, with school library
shelving and student seating in the background. The bookshelves on the left (with the
plants, above the computers) form one wall of the classroom teaching space.

62
 Figure 3. School library teaching area, School 1.

3.4.2.2 School 1: Educator Collaboration in Planning and Teaching

This digital storytelling project was a very structured activity, planned by Mrs. Auburn and Mrs.

Pearl to implement with the Ancient China unit in the social studies curriculum, using Photo

Story software, with selected, readily available research tools and particular timing during the

school year. This project was the second digital storytelling activity that Mrs. Auburn and Mrs.

Pearl developed together. Two years prior, they facilitated a project with students in the gifted

program, who created a Photo Story project that they had the opportunity to share at a state

educational technology conference.

Photo Story is a free Microsoft product, described as follows on the product download

website:
63
 Create slideshows using your digital photos. With a single click, you can touch-up, crop,
or rotate pictures. Add stunning special effects, soundtracks, and your own voice
narration to your photo stories. Then, personalize them with titles and captions. Small file
sizes make it easy to send your photo stories in an e-mail. Watch them on your TV, a
computer, or a Windows Mobile–based portable device. 136

The classroom teacher, Mrs. Pearl, explained that “it [the Photo Story project] was

something I had not even thought about doing until the idea was brought to me by Mrs. Auburn.”

Mrs. Pearl recounted that upon demonstrating a Photo Story project to the current class of

students,

“they were excited - the more they saw, the more they liked. The more they wanted to do
it, and even this class happens after lunch, and after lunch they would come directly
down and line up right away. They were anxious to come down. This was exciting for
them.”

In this collaborative classroom/library project, each student designed his or her own

PhotoStory about one topic in Ancient China. The Photo Story projects contained images and

student-narrated audio, presented in a timed, slide show format. Some students also included

special transitions from one image to the next, image effects (such as a watercolor blur effect),

and sound effects, which was primarily music from the Photo Story music selections.

In this project, the teacher assigned each student a topic from the textbook unit on

Ancient China. The students developed and viewed digital stories in place of the textbook

reading and related activities for this unit, with the exception of the geography section in the

book, which they read in class. Mrs. Pearl explained that she selected topics that she would

highlight if she were teaching from the book and also that were well-represented in the resources,

namely books in the library, the reference database World Book Online, and the website,

www.mrdonn.org 137. She noted that she “made it pretty simple for them to find materials.” Mrs.

64
Pearl led the portions of the class that covered note taking, writing a draft, and how much

information was required. Mrs. Auburn presented the research and technology instruction in the

lesson, including finding library books with the students, using the online research resources, and

teaching the students how to use Photo Story.

This social studies class regularly met every day during the class period directly after

lunch, from 1:30 PM to 2:10 PM, although six days of the 15-day project took place during state

standardized testing days. During this portion of the project, the class periods were shortened

from forty minutes to twenty minutes as part of an adjusted school schedule. Each day of the

project, the students reported to their classroom first, and walked to the library together with

Mrs. Pearl.

3.4.2.3 School 1: Observation of Digital Storytelling Project Development

On an average day in this project, after the students arrived in the library, they gathered either in

the teaching area in the library (which happened more in the beginning of the project), or seated

in the library computer lab. Mrs. Pearl did not assign seats, but she did require that the students

sit with one computer in between them.

Students spent seven full class periods (about 40 minutes, with travel time from their

classroom) and six abbreviated class periods (during state testing days) on this project. The

students’ tasks in creating this Photo Story project were very sequential and fairly parallel across

the class at first, with more fluid movement between tasks and differentiated activities among the

students as they neared completion. According to the instructions from Mrs. Auburn and Mrs.

Pearl, students found information from library books and online resources first and took notes.

Then they selected pictures from research databases and Google Images, downloaded them, and

imported them in Photo Story, where they sequenced the images via drag-and-drop interface.

65
Last, the students wrote a script from their notes, in accordance with the order of the images.

Theoretically, the next step here would be to narrate and record the script, but the compilation

and narration phase was when students started to preview their works-in-progress and recognize

that they needed different pictures or more pictures, or that they didn’t have enough information

to talk about one of their images.

I observed a few instances when students considered their listener-viewers during this

work-in-progress viewing. For example, after watching Trey’s Photo Story about the terra cotta

army, I asked him how people would know that his story was “done” (as his video ended without

any indication of a conclusion). Trey explained that he would say, “I'm done!” (emphatically)

and Brian, who had been leaning over to watch, chimed in to add, “you could also say ‘the end.’”

The rest of the exchange went as follows:

Researcher: What was your favorite thing you learned? Maybe you could end with that.

Trey: That their faces were all different colors. I didn't even know that!

(PA announcements start)

Trey writes this information about the faces.

Trey: I'm done.

Mrs. Pearl collects some papers, instructs those who have not yet finished scripts to take

them home. Compliments Nick, who has finished his script. Trey says to her that he read

his whole thing to [the researcher] and she said it was good. Researcher and Mrs. Pearl

comment on how hard Trey has worked.

66
 By Day 7 of the project, students started recording audio, and this was the point where

students started to require more one-on-one assistance from the teachers and paraprofessionals,

and when they started to use other spaces in the library to work, particularly to take advantage of

a quieter background away from the class during recording. As the students developed more of a

continuous piece that could be viewed or listened to from beginning to end, they started to watch

one another’s projects from where they were sitting in the main lab, or when they were working

in small groups on audio in the second library computer lab (and they weren’t been monitored as

closely by their teachers), they called to each other to watch their videos.

Students helped one another occasionally at School 1, such as when Kaya had some

trouble recording her audio:

Kaya: I’m having a hard time with this.

Kaya and Tanya are working the computers at the kiosk (high table), with one empty

computer between them.

Researcher to Tanya: Do you want to help her?

Tanya: Yes. Let’s help the people of the world.

By Day 9 of the project, some students had finished, so these students read alone or together on

the library’s “comfy” chairs or couches, or looked around for new library books. There were

three days at the end of the project during which some students were working and some students

were finished.

67
3.4.2.4 School 1: Observation of Digital Storytelling Performance Day

The performances of the completed Photo Story projects took place over the span of two school

days, a Friday and a Monday. The students viewed the projects from the teaching area in the

library, with the videos projected on an interactive white board. I video recorded the students as

they watched the projects, and I also took several digital photographs. The librarian saved the

students’ completed projects to a flash drive for me. Further discussion of the performance day

is presented in Chapter 4.

3.4.3 School 2: Grades 4-5 Book Trailers

3.4.3.1 School 2: Participants and School Setting

School 2 is an independent urban school with grades K-8 in one building. The school is

comprised of several arrangements of self-contained or multi-grade level, multi-age level

classrooms, depending on the grade level. The class selected for this study was a fourth and fifth

grade class, in which the students self-reported ages of 9, 10, and 11 years old. Eighteen

students participated in the development of the digital stories, and 17 were part of the viewing

and survey group. In the class group, there were 9 males and 9 females. Students in the class

represented diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

On the survey, 15 of 17 students reported having a computer at home, and two students

skipped this question, but all 17 responded to the next question about how much they use the

computer at home. Three students reported infrequent use (“not much” or “once/twice a

month”), four reported between 10 and 20 minutes a day, four reported between 30 and 60

minutes a day (though here, one wrote in “except for my mom”), and three reported 60 minutes a

day. One student reported spending 60 to 90 minutes per day on the computer at home.

68
 With the students at School 2, the most commonly reported activities on the computer

were finding facts for school (13 of 17, 76.5%), gaming (12 of 17, 70.6%) and email (12 of 17,

70.6%). It is worth noting that many students in the School 2 had Gmail accounts, and they

frequently opened Gmail and emailed files to themselves as a way of saving and transporting

files. Ten of the students (58.8%) reported watching videos on Youtube. Fifteen of the

seventeen shared that they own a game system or handheld video game player, and their view of

themselves as “gamers” was almost perfectly split: nine responded that they were, and eight

responded that they were not. Six students reported infrequent regular use (from no use at all to

15 minutes every other day). Four students said that they play for 30 minutes a day; one reported

an hour per day; one reported 60 to 90 minutes; one reported two hours and one reported 2 to 3

hours per day.

Students from School 2 used the open-ended format of the “how often do you play video

games” to offer numerous qualifying statements about their game play, in some instances very

possibly like they might have been parroting phrases from their parents – for example: “I do not

play video games I have sports” and “one to two hours but only on weekends.”

3.4.3.2 School 2: Educator Collaboration in Planning and Teaching

My professional connection to this school was the school librarian, who directed my inquiry

about digital storytelling to the school’s technology teacher, who had an upcoming digital

storytelling project in her classroom. When I contacted the technology teacher, Ms. Black (a

pseudonym), she was in the process of coordinating a project with the grades 4/5 classroom

teachers. In this project, the students in the three grade 4/5 technology classes would develop

digital book trailers featuring novels that they had read in language arts. Ms. Black is the

technology teacher for grades K-8, and she has been teaching for 12 years.

69
 Ms. Black teaches the students in each of the three grade 4/5 classes one time per

week, for one hour and ten minutes per session. The three classroom teachers and Ms. Black

collaborated to plan the lesson and communicate to the families my potential involvement as a

researcher, but Ms. Black was the teacher who was responsible for the implementation and

teaching of the lessons. The letter to the students’ parents describing the project is included in

Appendix D.

This activity took place over a period of twelve weeks, generally with one session per

week from 10:30 to 11:40 AM, though it turned out that I observed on ten occasions, due to

classes missed for school functions such as the school musical and days off from school. One

class of students was the primary group for the observations and research activities, but there

were a few additional students (all of whom had parent consent to participate) who joined the

class for some work time on their stories, as well as for the viewing day, survey, and (for some of

them) the focus group. This occurred as a result of a school environment in which there was

some fluidity to the students’ class schedules. Students moved among teachers and rooms for

different times of the day and different subject areas, a function of the multi-grade level

arrangement, certain subject areas taught by the teachers, and the school’s overall climate and

organization.

In this digital storytelling project, the students used iMovie, a Mac-based movie editing

product, to develop “book trailers” in the style of cinematic coming attractions trailers, for novels

that they had read in language arts. The Apple website describes iMovie as easy, drag and drop

moviemaking. 138

70
3.4.3.3 School 2: Observation of Digital Storytelling Project Development

The technology class met in Ms. Black’s computer lab/classroom, which has 28 iMac (desktop-

style) computers, numbered 1-28, an LCD projector and printer. The classroom was set up with

computers on long tables, in an arrangement resembling a capital letter “I,” with short rows of

computers at opposite ends of the classroom, connected by long tables of computers in the

middle, with some additional tables for working and for materials from ongoing projects. The

student chairs in this classroom rolled and swiveled, a feature unique to this setting among the

three settings in the study. Figures 4 and 5 show the classroom arrangement of Ms. Black’s

technology classroom.

Figure 4. School 2, Ms. Black's technology classroom.

71
 Figure 5. Alternate view, School 2, Ms. Black's technology classroom.

The students selected their novels for the book trailers and they also selected their groups.

Over the course of the 3-month project, the students developed their book trailers mostly during

their technology classes, with some time outside of class during extra time in the school day.

Ms. Black guided the students through the project with a mini-lesson at the beginning of each

class period. This teaching segment included instruction on the book trailer development (such

as a lesson on how to make titles or transitions) and more generally applicable technology skills

(such as how to save files to a flash drive). The students generally worked at a pace that suited

their groups’ needs and working styles, with each group attending to different elements of the

project on a particular day. For example, during one class period, students in different book

trailer groups may have been recording narration, finding pictures, editing sound, or typing text,

72
and sometimes this variety was evident within groups, with students working on different pieces

of the project individually or subgroups, at multiple computer stations.

Students moved about the room, and actually, around the school, with a fair amount of

freedom; without hall passes or much question, Ms. Black granted permission for students’

occasional requests to go to the library, classrooms, or lockers to retrieve books, flash drives, or

other materials, and in a few cases towards the end of the project, to film a video sequence or

take pictures. In the technology classroom, students worked excitedly and noisily, though

largely with attention to the task at hand. Many students seemed very comfortable and even

affectionate with each other, at times leaning, hugging, and sharing chairs, and frequently

laughing, joking, and smiling.

3.4.3.4 School 2: Observation of Digital Storytelling Performance Day

On the day that we viewed the completed book trailers, several students had just finished their

projects that morning, and several of them had not yet saved the files for portability (they were

still in project form). Because of this and the nearing end of the school year, we viewed the

projects on individual computers around the classroom. As described in more depth in Chapter

4, the students gathered around each computer to view the projects, which were located on the

computers by the students who made them. The students huddled close together to watch, and

they viewed the digital book trailers in basically the same contexts in which they had produced

the projects.

73
3.4.4 School 3: Grade 7 Team Podcast

3.4.4.1 School 3: Participants and School Setting

School 3 is a seventh grade language arts class in a suburban middle school that houses grades 6-

8. The enrollment of the school is 474, as reported by the school librarian (via her circulation

and student management software). The student body at School 3 is primarily White, with less

than three percent students who are American Indian/Alaskan, Asian/Pacific Islander, African-

American, and Hispanic, according to information from the National Center for Education

Statistics.139 The class that I observed was actually more diverse than the general student body.

Twenty-two and one-half percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch.

This digital storytelling project was a small group project completed primarily by three

students upon the request of their teacher, Mrs. Silver (a pseudonym), though some of the

activities were shared with the full class of students, including some initial brainstorming and the

viewing of the completed story at the end. This instance of digital storytelling, or podcasting, as

the teachers and students in this class call it, was something that the students did voluntarily,

apart from assigned, graded activities in the classroom.

The three students who made the podcast were Anthony, Abby, and Regan

(pseudonyms). Abby was a student in the class that Mrs. Silver selected to be the participants in

the study, and Anthony and Regan were also students of Mrs. Silver’s, but they had language arts

during a different class period. The 20 students in the language arts class in the study

participated in a brainstorming session at the outset of the project. The same 20 students became

the audience for the showing of the completed Green Team podcast, and the students in the

survey and focus group were also from this class.

74
 In the survey, the students self-reported ages of 12 and 13. Nineteen of the twenty

students who took the survey answered yes to having a computer at home, and one student

skipped the question. The students reported a wide range of amount of time spent using the

computer at home, with responses from zero time to five or six hours. The most-reported range

was 15 to 20 minutes (by seven students), followed by one hour (four students). The students’

most frequent computer activities as reported were listening to music (17 students, 85%) and

watching Youtube (16 students, 80%). Gaming was checked on the list for 14 students, or 70%,

the same figure as “talking to my friends.”

Nineteen of twenty students shared that they had a video game system or handheld

gaming device, and thirteen students (65%) described themselves as “gamers,” the same

percentage of students who noted that they had played a game “yesterday.” When asked about

how much time per day they play video games, three students reported that they don’t play at all,

two reported ten minutes or less of playing time a day, four reported 30 to 45 minutes, and nine

reported an hour or more of video game play per day. Some students wrote in a wide range for

themselves, perhaps considering variation in their days, such as reports of zero to two hours, one

to three hours, and two to six hours, with the latter two ranges included in the group of nine who

reported an hour or more a day.

3.4.4.2 School 3: Educator Collaboration in Planning and Teaching

The language arts classroom teacher, Mrs. Silver, and the school librarian, Ms. Copper (a

pseudonym), reported that they work together frequently to plan and support students’

technology-related projects. Mrs. Silver has been a teacher for fourteen years, and Ms. Copper

has been teaching for eight and one-half years, three as the librarian at this school. Sometimes

the collaborative activities are part of a whole class lesson and sometimes the teacher and

75
librarian act as guides and facilitators of independent or small group technology-related projects,

such as the podcast in the current study and a recent, non-school sponsored video competition. I

observed and the teachers shared in their interviews that their collaboration is flexible and

informal, and that brief emails and phone calls between classroom and library are often their

means of connecting.

In this podcast project, the learning activities took place in Mrs. Silver’s language arts

classroom and in the school library. Mrs. Copper, the school librarian, reported that the school

library has 8,295 titles and 9,903 copies in the collection, with 30 laptops and seven desktop

computers. The students completed their small group work – the development of the iMovie

podcast – in the library, and the whole group activities took place in Mrs. Silver’s classroom,

where the classroom has student desks and chairs that the teacher rearranges for different

groupings and activities, a teacher desktop computer, and laptop computer with LCD projector.

Mrs. Silver also has access to a cart of laptops that she shares with the other members of her

seventh grade cross-curricular teaching team, the Green Team (a pseudonym), though the cart

was next door in another classroom during my visits to the school.

The Green Team was the subject of the students’ podcasting, or digital storytelling,

activity. Mrs. Silver and another teacher from the Green Team had recently presented a session

on their team model at a state conference on middle schools, and they had invited a small group

of students (three) to create a podcast that the teachers could take along and share during their

presentation. This student perspective on what it was like to be a part of the Green Team was a

success at the conference, so the Green Team teachers, led by Mrs. Silver, thought that such a

video would be beneficial for incoming sixth graders (next year’s new seventh graders) to learn

about seventh grade, the teachers and classes, and life on the Green Team. So the project

76
development that I had the opportunity to observe was “Version 2.0” of this Green Team

Podcast, an extended version of the conference video, adapted to incorporate content to share

with next year’s Green Team.

3.4.4.3 School 3: Observations of Digital Storytelling Project Development

My observations of the whole group of Mrs. Silver’s language arts students involved a

brainstorming session (over the course of one class period) to start the project and a performance

day at the end of the project. I observed the three students who created the podcast during four

class periods over a two-week span. The students, Anthony, Abby, and Regan, worked on the

project during “tutorial time” at the school. Tutorial is a daily class period during which students

can do homework (as in a traditional study hall), receive tutoring from their Green Team

teachers, or participate in elective music classes. Due to the flexible nature of this class period,

different combinations of the three students worked on the project on different days, depending

on what other tasks or classes required their participation, such as tutoring or music.

Because I did not observe the students during the initial, “Version 1.0” project, my field

notes began with the brainstorming session in the class and the students’ first efforts to edit and

adapt the video for next year’s sixth graders. Mrs. Silver did share with me that the three

students developed the first version of the video over the course of about ten class periods, with

some additional time dedicated to editing and final touches at the end.

Usually the students and I met in their classroom, then we walked together to the library,

where Abby, Anthony, and Regan worked on their podcast. They used iMovie on one Mac

laptop computer and they saved their work directly on that computer. They used the webcam on

the computer for all of their live video, and all of the acting and editing that I observed took

77
place in the library, though some of the original video scenes were filmed in the classroom or

elsewhere in the school.

3.4.4.4 School 3: Observations of Digital Storytelling Performance Day

I observed two performance days at School 3, one main performance of Abby, Anthony, and

Regan’s Green Team podcast with the class, and one smaller performance on a different day with

just Anthony and Regan, during their tutorial time. The class performance was set up in Mrs.

Silver’s classroom, with students watching from their desks, arranged in rows, with the podcast

projected on to a roll-down screen from a LCD/laptop on a cart. We did some rearranging of the

room that day, as the desks were originally arranged in a big circle for discussion. The students

in the class took the survey immediately following the podcast, and the focus group took place

the next day.

Anthony and Regan watched part of their movie, then when Internet problems interfered

with the Youtube stream, they paused to talk to me about the focus group questions, and then

they concluded their viewing after, when the wireless signal was functioning again. Additional

discussion of the observations and student engagement is presented in Chapter 4.

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS

3.5.1 Coding and Data Analysis

During and following my observation time in the schools, I read and re-read the field notes and

survey responses, transcribed and reviewed the student focus group and teacher interview

78
comments, viewed video of the performances, and imported the field notes and video into QSR

NVivo qualitative analysis software for coding (Version 9, 2011). Following the surveys at the

schools, I also imported the survey responses into NVivo. The organization and analysis of data

were ongoing processes throughout the study, an approach that was supported by the staggered

start of the three projects in the schools.

The data were collected and coded for emergent categories, or in vivo codes, those

themes which emerge in real-life data. 140 The interpretation of data by categorization into

themes is a characteristic of ethnographic study. 141 In analyzing the data, I followed an iterative

approach to the coding, described in more detail in the following section. I then studied the

coded data using several approaches. In NVivo, the term “node” is used to describe a code. I

conducted queries of each parent node and child node (the broad and specific categories of the

node hierarchy, described further in the next section) to study the related actions, discussion, and

context. I marked relationships among the nodes; for example, engagement (how students attend

and to what they attend) is related to actions (how students demonstrate attention) and emotions

(what students say they feel when they are attending). In another example, in reviewing the

nodes related to the creation of digital stories, I noticed that students called upon familiar or

similar experiences and terminology when creating and viewing digital storytelling, such as the

student who pretended to be a drive-thru restaurant employee when testing the audio equipment.

Therefore, the nodes of student terminology and similar experiences demonstrated a relationship,

and this connection is represented in the conceptual model presented in Chapter 4.

I interrogated the data through repeated reviews and refining of codes (as coding shapes

data analysis) and study of the relationship among nodes through code queries, as well as via text

queries and word frequency queries, which I studied in several formats (tag clouds, word trees,

79
tree maps, and cluster analyses) as a way to find relationships and themes in the data. Reviewing

the findings through the multiple theoretical perspectives of Rosenblatt, Mackey, and Sturm

supported analysis of the results. Interpretation of the findings through the theoretical

framework is presented in Chapter 5.

Miles and Huberman explain that in qualitative research, “coding drives ongoing data

collection.” Coding is an iterative process, with repeated reviews of data and both deductive and

inductive analysis. 142 Because this study is exploratory in nature, there was not an existing

coding scheme to apply to the data. I developed my own coding scheme for data analysis, which

is described below, and this scheme is also presented in Appendix C.

I reviewed and coded the data in broad, general categories first, with operational, quickly

identifiable codes. 143 In the first review and coding of data, these “parent” codes included the

following categories:

• Student(s) create(s) digital story

• Student(s) view(s) completed stories

• Teachers

• Researcher roles

These codes identified actions and discussions of the students, teachers, librarians, and

adult facilitators, as well as my activities as the researcher. The “researcher role” codes were

similar to the system used by Solomon in her dissertation on digital storytelling among first

graders. 144

80
 After the first round of coding, I added “child” categories as a second level hierarchy of

the “parent” categories listed above. These child codes described more specific attributes of the

tasks. For example, under the parent code “student(s) create(s) digital story,” child codes

included “student research and information gathering approaches” and “student views work-in-

progress.” In the iterative process of coding, I added third- and fourth-level codes to some

categories of the hierarchy, to represent even more granular aspects of the activities.

The development and analysis of the coding scheme helped to shape the themes and

conceptual model presented in the study findings in Chapter 4. For example, the following set of

codes pertains to those digital story features which draw students’ attention:

• Student(s) view completed stories (parent code)

o Features of digital stories which draw student attention (first-level child code)

 Relevant to student(s) (second-level child code)

 Placeness, realism (second-level child code)

 Images and special effects (second-level child code)

 Friends, peers (second-level child code)

 Boring (second-level child code)

For the review and analysis of the videos of students watching the completed stories, I

developed a set of codes to document students’ behaviors as they watched the digital storytelling

projects. The codes for this section included such descriptions as “laugh,” “touch or lean on

student,” and “tap or bounce,” and I generated the codes through my field notes and through

repeated reviews of the videos.

81
 The child-level codes for the teacher activities reflected whether the actions and dialog

were direct instructional steps, such as demonstrating how to use iMovie or Photo Story, or

guidance and facilitation, such as when Ms. Copper provided resources and space in the library

for the School 3 Green Team podcast. I also coded for classroom management strategies, such

as when Mrs. Pearl collected student notes at the end of each class period, as the classroom

management of the teachers was a key factor in the children’s behavior and their approach to

developing and viewing the stories. Components of the project that would inform best practices

for digital storytelling were coded as “recommendations for teaching and facilitating.”

After the first round of coding, I added the child-level codes described above, and I also

added a parent-level code for “general research study and report notes.” I used this code to

denote topics such as survey logistics in the classrooms and “quotable” phrases. Gorman and

Clayton remind researchers to pull quotations that are “particularly illustrative or poignant,

because exact quotations lend authority to the case description, as well as humanize the study

narrative.” 145 In reviewing my field notes, I noticed that I had recorded numerous school and

environmental factors, such as ringing bells, PA announcements, scheduling concerns, and state

testing, so I added the parent-level code “school environment, class structure, schedule” to help

organize and study these factors.

3.5.2 Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness was established though methods of triangulation (checking for consistency

among the data collection methods), member checking (checking accuracy of my understanding

with the students and teachers), and peer debriefing (sharing and discussing findings with a

82
colleague). These approaches were used to help ensure complete and credible findings. 146 An

example of triangulation among data sources is the following:

• Analysis of themes show that students in all three settings commented that music

made them pay attention to the stories.

• In the teacher interview, a teacher (Ms. Black) described students’ interest in

creating music on Garage Band.

• During the digital storytelling performances, students smiled, danced and bounced

to the beat when they heard music.

For the practice of member checking, I repeated what I thought I heard participants say

(for confirmation) and asked questions to ensure that I understood what they were doing or

saying. In terms of peer debriefing, I shared my ongoing findings with my dissertation adviser to

discuss the processes of collecting and analyzing data.

3.5.3 Limitations

This exploratory approach affords a holistic look at the experience of the listener-viewer in

digital storytelling and more generally, a view of how digital storytelling is structured and

carried out in a classroom and school library setting. Because I worked with teachers and

librarians who had already selected the digital storytelling activities, as the researcher, I did not

serve a role in choosing the software or genre of the digital storytelling activity. In all three

settings in this study, the teachers and librarians facilitated digital storytelling as an informational

text, and not as a work of fiction, which is perhaps a more typical and familiar storytelling genre.

83
As such, the genre itself may be considered a limitation, in that all three study groups of students

and teachers used digital storytelling as a platform for information. The results of the current

research will support and reveal focal points for future studies, including potential experimental

research designs which may encompass additional genres of digital storytelling.

In terms of parameters, this study is about digital storytelling as a storytelling activity in

the school library/classroom. The study is not measurement of learning outcomes or student

achievement, though this could be a direction for future study. The study does not evaluate or

formally compare digital storytelling applications, nor is the study designed to evaluate teachers’

and librarians’ methods of implementing digital storytelling. The questions in the survey

instrument relating to students’ computer and video game use were included to provide

background about the students’ technology use, not to show correlation or cause and effect

between these activities and digital storytelling.

This study is about classroom engagement and responses, not psychology or

consciousness. With that note in mind, it is difficult to identify and observe “engagement.” The

behavior that an individual demonstrates may or may not accurately reflect engagement with a

text or video. It is a challenge to isolate engagement from learning, memory, and other aspects

that influence students’ reporting of the multimodal experience of digital storytelling.

Connections between digital storytelling and information visualization are beyond the scope of

this study.

As described, an ethnographic orientation is one of the means of investigating how digital

storytelling is really being used in school library/classrooms. A limitation of the participant-

observer approach is the potential to lose objectivity in the research setting (observer bias), or

that participants will behave differently with an observer in the room (observer effect). 147 There

84
is a potential for observer bias due to the convenience method of sampling, i.e., through

professional contacts. The focused ethnographic approach seems suited to observing this type of

learning activity, though length of time spent observing in each setting (which differed according

to the activity) could be considered a limitation. The splitting of performance days and

survey/focus group days in some instances could be a limiting factor.

85
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: STUDY FINDINGS: RESPONSES OF LISTENER-VIEWERS

4.1 RESEARCH QUESTION 1: HOW DO STUDENT LISTENER-VIEWERS

RESPOND TO AND ENGAGE IN DIGITAL STORYTELLING IN THE

INTERMEDIATE CLASSROOM AND MIDDLE SCHOOL LIBRARY?

In preparing to conduct this study, I anticipated that watching the “performance” part of the

digital storytelling process would be the stage at which I could observe the students’ body

language as they viewed the stories, where they turned their attention and why, what they were

doing as they watched, and what they said during and after the digital stories. However, there

were additional dimensions that I had not anticipated with regard to the students’ viewing,

particularly in terms of their dual roles as both creators and audience in the digital storytelling

process.

In classroom and library digital storytelling, the roles of storyteller and audience are not

as clear-cut as in traditional storytelling. In this context, students assume dual roles as creators

and viewers. The most frequent and important “viewer” or audience for digital storytelling

seems to be the self, as shown by the students in their work-in-progress viewing and editing

processes. Just as the line between creator and audience is difficult to ascertain, the processes of

creating a story and viewing a performance of the story are also less defined and less separated

than in traditional storytelling. Students viewed their stories and often, their peers’ stories,

86
throughout the development process – not just at the “end.” It may be appropriate to designate

two stages of the “performance” of digital storytelling: formative performance, or the work-in-

progress viewing, and summative performance, the viewing of the story after the digital file has

been converted from a project, or editable file, to a movie file, which can no longer be changed.

The following sections (subsections of 4.1) present the results for Research Question 1,

regarding student responses to digital storytelling. Throughout the discussion, aspects of the

classroom environment and teacher and student interactions are described, as these factors are

very closely related to how digital storytelling functions in the classroom and school library.

This discussion concludes with the presentation of a conceptual model of student responses to

digital storytelling in the classroom and school library (in subsection 4.16).

4.1.1 Participant-Observation in Intermediate and Middle School Settings

In the participant-observer, ethnographic component of the study, I first observed the classroom

teacher, school librarian, and students in the instruction and development of the digital

storytelling projects at each school – not only in the listening and viewing portion at the end – in

order to gain a sense of the classroom dynamics, context, and learning environment. This

component of the observations and data analysis was critical in understanding how digital

storytelling is practiced as a classroom and school library activity. Studying how the students

developed their projects was particularly important in reaching conclusions related to when

students view digital stories, especially during the editing phase, and how these activities connect

to the traditional storytelling model. Watching the story development process also informed

recommendations for facilitating digital storytelling in schools and libraries, and this is explored

in greater depth in Chapter 5.

87
 I came to understand through the research process that being a “participant-observer” in

an intermediate/middle school technology setting meant involvement at different levels in the

students’ digital storytelling. As described in the data analysis section, I coded my interactions

as “researcher roles,” and the roles that emerged were conversation, tech help and

troubleshooting, and consultant. Examples of the interactions typical of each role are presented

in Table 8.

Table 8. Researcher roles and examples of interactions with students.

Researcher Role Examples of Interactions with Students at School 1,

Ancient China Photo Story
Conversation Researcher: How are you doing?
Trey: Good. Want to see my Photostory?
Researcher: Yes.
Trey: It's about the Terra Cotta army. They guard the tomb
and they have horses. They're clay people and no two faces
look alike.

Tech Help and Troubleshooting Nick to Researcher: All my pictures got deleted.

He is looking at a photo of a Buddhist temple.

While trying to find Nick’s image folder, Researcher to Nick:

How many facts do you have?

Nick: 7.

Researcher: What do you know about Buddhism?

Nick: They worship one god.

Researcher: It's a religion, right?

Nick: Yeah and it's one of the most important in the world.

After looking for his folder of images, Researcher realizes

88
 that Nick was absent the previous day, and he did not make
an image folder with the class. In addition, Nick is not
logged in under his name. Researcher asks Nick to log out
and log back in with his user name and password.

After he does so, the screen shows puppy wallpaper.

Nick: Now it's me.

He types in www.google.com, goes to Google Images.

Consultant Calvin to Researcher: Does this look like a panda attacking?

(pointing to photo of panda with teeth bared).

Researcher: Why do you want him attacking?

Chris: To show how he protects his cubs.

Researcher: Then I think that photo looks like the panda is

going to attack.

In addition to roles that developed as I interacted with the students, another researcher

role that I encountered was an educator-to-educator consulting and peer reflecting role that I was

invited to share with the technology teacher at School 2, where the students created digital book

trailers. After most of the classroom lessons at this school, Ms. Black invited me to stay for

discussion, sometimes over lunch, at which time she would ask for my perspective on the day’s

activities. She inquired about any observations that I wanted to share, how the children were

progressing, and any student behaviors that might be helpful for her to know about as the

classroom teacher.

Interacting with students and teachers as a participant-observer allowed me to get to

know them and learn about their work, though I was careful to resist my teacher instincts to

intervene with directions and guidance, especially regarding student behavior of an off-task

89
nature. I offered assistance as requested by the students and teachers, and though my influence

and presence were part of the classroom activities and thus the research findings, I attempted as

much as possible to observe and participate in the course of events and the children’s tendencies

as they naturally progressed.

4.1.2 Responses to Work-In-Progress Viewing of Digital Storytelling

There was a significant amount of viewing during the developing and editing process across all

three settings, but particularly with the students who used iMovie, who were the fourth and fifth

graders who made digital book trailers at School 2 and the seventh grade team podcast at School

3. The students at School 1 also previewed their Photo Story projects, but with a less

complicated interface and fewer effects to work with, more often they selected frames for editing

directly from the navigation panel, rather than watching the images from beginning to end. A

screen capture of Photo Story is presented in Figure 6. The iMovie application is visible on the

computer screen from the image of School 2 in Figure 5.

90
 Figure 6. Screen capture of Photo Story, used by students at School 1.

Many students from School 2 and School 3 followed a production process in which they

would add a new frame, transition, scene, or sound, and then they would “play” and watch that

new segment (most common with the School 3 students, whose video was about seven minutes

long) or watch the whole video from the beginning (most common with the School 2 students,

whose book trailers averaged 2-3 minutes in length). Work-in-progress viewing happened

individually and within the project group, when students reviewed frames they themselves had

completed so far, as well as across groups, when author-creators shared their ongoing work with

classmates who weren’t part of the project team.

91
 Viewing the work-in-progress either as a preview video or by clicking frame-by-frame

provided an evaluation tool and a form of enjoyment for the students. For example, here, Tanya

at School 1 has just recorded her narration of her story on Marco Polo, and she listens to the

playback.

Tanya records her script (reading from her lined paper, take #1) for about 45 seconds, and
after pausing for a moment, she stops recording.
Researcher: What do you think? (as Tanya plays back the audio in her headphones)
Tanya: That was not good.
Researcher: Why?
Tanya: It sounded like a robot.
Tanya records again (#2), not stopping between slides. She does one long take.
Researcher: Did you like it this time?
Tanya: Yeah.
Researcher: What’s better?
Tanya: I did it more straight. (She moves her hand to show a smooth motion).
Tanya adds “by Tanya M” to the title.
Tanya: I did the whole story on one picture. She reviews the pictures and sound.
Tanya: I’m one off. I forgot one stupid fact.
Researcher: Do you need to write it down?
Tanya: No, I’ll just delete it [an image of Marco Polo]. I already got one of him.
She records again (take #3).
Tanya: Done. Perfect.
Tanya has done one take (straight through the script without stopping) three times.
She plays the story back on headphone.
Tanya watches full story.
Tanya: Yes, I’m smart.

92
4.1.2.1 Kinesthetic Viewing and Editing On-the-Fly

In addition to viewing with a critical eye and ear, students seemed to enjoy watching the frames

that they had completed so far, or at School 2, even the sound waves of their sound tracks in

Garage Band. Around the time that the peer teaching of Garage Band was spreading through

Ms. Black’s class at School 2, I realized that I had to expand my concept of listening and

viewing in digital storytelling, as students didn’t just listen to sounds and watch images – they

experienced the stories kinesthetically. The School 2 students “watched” music, some with

noses practically pressed to the computer screen, intent on the movement of the sound waves,

and when viewing and listening to their projects during editing, they danced, hopped in their

seats, played air guitar, moved to the beat, twisted in their spinning chairs, and showed their

happiness or displeasure with fist pumps, hugs, jumping up and down, and exaggerated arm-

flailing and pushing their chairs-on-wheels back from the tables.

At School 3, this work-in-progress viewing was particularly integral to the development

of the content of the team podcast, possibly because this project consisted primarily of student

acting. The students rarely worked from a script, choosing instead to just act out a scene, watch

it, and decide to keep or re-do the scene according to how they thought it turned out. They even

vocalized this process as they worked. For example, this exchange happened when Anthony and

Regan were filming a segment on a pre-writing exercise called “Big I,”

Anthony: What am I doing?

Regan: Wing it.

93
 Similar extemporaneous performances were part of some students’ work at School 2. For

example, two students working on a book trailer for Because of Winn-Dixie narrated a section of

their trailer by recording their voices in iMovie with no script or notes. When they wanted to

change something, either because of what they heard on the playback or right away after a take,

they just recorded it again, and did so at least four times.

Simultaneous viewing, editing, and addition of content often characterized the work of

the School 3 students. For example, in this exchange, Regan tried to call Anthony over from his

seat on a library beanbag chair to join her to view what they had filmed so far, and she casually

made edits and added to the piece while she watched and waited for him to join her:

Regan: Ready to view the whole thing? From where we started?

She adds a capital letter to a word in a text box.

Regan: I wonder if we can add clip art. Probably not.

She opens PhotoBooth and takes four pictures of herself in succession, holding a book

open. She chooses an Andy Warhol-like silk screen treatment and takes a still

image/screen capture of that.

Regan goes through the music choices in iMovie.

Regan: Now we can add text.

Anthony is filling out a paper for another class.

Regan: Anthony come here.

The bell rings and they clean up to go.

94
 Anthony, Regan, and Abby’s expertise with iMovie technology was unique among the

schools, and their perspective as “veteran” listener-viewers and author-creators was evident in

their conversation with me and their focus group responses.

4.1.2.2 Student Terminology for Works-in Progress

Terminology became an intriguing aspect of observing and talking to students as they made and

watched digital storytelling. They used a blend of phrases often spoken by their teachers and

their best descriptions of what they were doing. For purposes of the current study, noticing this

language helps in understanding student engagement as participants in digital storytelling. In

future research, student technology language could be a rich area for discourse analysis. Some

examples of student terminology are presented in Table 9.

95
 Table 9. Student terminology for technology activities, with invented words and

their conventions in boldface type.

Student Comments Technology-Related Actions and Steps

My favorite thing is panda bears and I couldn't The student can go to the Google website
even see one good picture. I can go up on Google
and look that up.
One of my friends wanted to do that, so we like, I The students made a video
was directing it and we made this video camera
and we tried to post it on Facebook and it was
hilarious.
In my thingy I almost messed up cause I was like “Thingy” is the Photo Story
reading, and forgot about changing the slides, so
I'm like . . .
Can we make our Microsoft now or should we Student is referring to getting started with
get more information? I already got all the Photo Story
information from World Book.

I don't know what else I can get on. Student is referring to what resources he
should search next

Student asks about "audio voicing us?" Student asks about the audio recording of
Researcher: Yes, I am going to audio voice you. Is the focus group
that ok? I'm going to put this [audio recorder]
mmm . . . I think we can put this here. It will
probably be ok.
How do we drag this Garage Band thing over to Student is trying to import an .mp3 file into
iMovie? iMovie
You can adjust it on there. You can like, de- , like Student answers a question about adjusting
make the background volume less, or the music sound on iMovie
less.
Regan reviews the existing video and sets up the Regan describes her iMovie project to a
program to film. student in the library
Another student asks her what she’s doing, and
she replies “podcasting.” He asks what it’s
about, and she says that “we’re just adding to it.”
Regan: Stupid. (talking to computer) Regan’s Mac laptop froze and she was
Researcher: What’s the matter? unable to move the cursor
Regan: Mouse got glitched up.
She restarts the computer.

96
4.1.2.3 Peer Sharing and Peer Teaching

Peer sharing and peer teaching were evident in all three settings in the editing phase of project

development of digital stories. At School 1, where the students were experiencing Photo Story

for the first time, some of the features that the students figured out for themselves, such as music

and transitions, spread through the group through sharing and teaching. For example,

Brian finds Chinese-sounding music in Photo Story.

Researcher: Why did you pick that one?

Brian: Um, so like it will go with the story, with like, what they listened to and what they

did.

Brian goes over to Nina to tell her about the Chinese music. Brian puts on headphones to

listen to Nina’s story, then he takes them off after a few seconds.

Nina: You gotta listen to the whole thing.

Brian: That’ll take forever.

He listens to the whole thing anyway.

At School 2, the spinning chairs on wheels seemed to facilitate students’ discussion

across project groups and within their groups with students working at different computers.

Students often called to each other and wheeled across the floor, sliding in and out of different

computer stations in their chairs, as well as walking around to visit other stations, and Ms. Black

permitted this movement about the room. More than once at School 2, students announced their

“worry” about how something was going to sound as part of their request to have classmates

97
listen to their soundtrack in Garage Band, and they also queried classmates for what they need to

add next. For example,

Laura is working in Garage Band. She creates some music and calls Jamie over to listen.

Laura: What else can I add?

Jamie: Piano.

Laura: Yeah, I don’t have any piano.

In Ricki Goldman-Segall’s writing on digital ethnography, she likens students’

tendencies to share or work alone in technology endeavors to “hedgehogs and foxes,” which she

explains is a borrowed reference from Isaiah Berlin’s writing, The Hedgehox and the Fox:

Tolstoy’s View of History. According to Goldman-Segall, kids who are foxes scamper about the

room watching and learning, and in watching others work, they think about and re-envision their

own projects, inspired by fluidity and new ideas. Kids who are hedgehogs burrow away and

keep to themselves while they work, holding off on sharing until the work is completed, in order

to allow their creativity to flow uninterrupted and to keep their initial vision undisturbed. 148

4.1.3 Student-Creators and Their Listener-Viewers

Mrs. Silver at School 3 explained to the three podcasters that there would be two specific

audiences for the Green Team podcast. The first audience was attendees at the middle school

conference where Mrs. Silver presented about the team teaching concept, and then, for the

version that I observed, the second target was to introduce the Green Team to incoming sixth

graders. Consideration of how viewers might react to the digital stories was evident on a few

98
occasions in the three schools, mostly as part of informal self-evaluation talk from the students,

such as making sure a project wasn’t so long that it would bore the listeners.

4.1.4 Student Engagement in Creating Digital Storytelling

Although the focus of the current study is students’ responses as listeners and viewers of digital

storytelling, it is important to address the students’ dual roles as audience and author-creators in

order to help understand this activity in the classroom and library setting. On self-evaluations in

Ms. Black’s class and in conversation, many students voiced their enjoyment of the projects,

including some enthusiastic comments of “I love it!” “I enjoyed doing it,” “It’s fun,” and “I hope

we do it again.” Not all students assigned the highest possible 5 for their enjoyment of the

activity on the self-evaluation in Ms. Black’s class, and a few mentioned how iMovie and the

book trailers were both fun and hard. Some comments that expressed dislike or disappointment

corresponded to negative experiences with the topic or group members, such as the 3 that Emma

gave for her enjoyment, accompanied by a resolution for next time to “do a different book” and

“choose a book I really like.” Another student who gave a 5 for his enjoyment of the activity

still noted that what he would do differently next time was “not work with [classmate].” The

students’ positive and negative feedback is valuable in crafting recommendations for best

practices in school and library digital storytelling.

In coding the field notes from all three schools for “student motivation, engagement, and

enjoyment,” a range of behaviors and direct comments suggest that students are interested and

motivated by digital storytelling as author-creators. For example, time seemed to pass quickly

for students working on their projects at School 1 and School 3. Upon hearing his teacher’s

announcement that there were ten minutes remaining to work, a student from School 1 asked,

99
“Ten minutes? We just got here.” Several times at School 3, the students took 10-15 minutes to

get organized to record their podcast, and became so involved that they worked through the end

of the 40 minute class period and asked their next period teachers to let them stay and work. (In

most cases, they were permitted to do so).

Some students took a playful approach to what was for them a novel experience of

recording their voices on a headset. Tanya at School 1 checked her microphone sound by

pretending to be a McDonald’s drive-thru employee, placing the headset on her head and saying,

“Welcome to McDonald’s, may I take your order, please . . .” She continued to hold a back-and-

forth conversation with herself, placing an order for curly fries, until Mrs. Auburn gave her a

signal that that was enough talking for the sound check. When the sound came through

successfully, Tanya smiled and commented, “I sound smart!”

School 2 students also found a chance to play as they learned how to use Garage Band to

add music to their book trailers. As Ms. Black recounted,

And it was interesting to note that they completely veered off of the idea at some point of
doing the song, just for the book trailer, and started to use it as a device for recording
their own voices just singing songs . . . Just having fun, and that's ok. I'm totally ok with
that, that they were enjoying technology.

Mackey uses the term “text tinkering” to describe an “initial, playful” level of

engagement with a text, which she observed in her studies of students’ exploration of multimedia

texts. She proposes that tinkering may serve different ends, according to the user’s

determination of the salience and purpose of a task. Play might form a preliminary, overview-

type engagement that provides orientation to a format, or it might actually be the intended

endpoint of engagement for a reader content to play, rather than pursue deeper engagement. 149

100
 At School 3, where small groups of students frequently make podcasts for class and for

fun, lots of exposure and experimentation with technology supports confidence and skill

development, as described this way by Mrs. Silver:

I'm so excited that they know how to use the technology, and that they're willing to use
the technology and they're not afraid of the technology. Because I don't think it's always
been that way.

In a separate interview, Ms. Copper, the librarian at School 3, explains how the students continue

to make podcasts for fun, even after class assignments have ended:

Oh my goodness. Yeah. And it's funny, [be]cause I still have - she's [Mrs. Silver] done
with her projects, but I still have kids coming in, and I let them. Like, they want to go and
create different podcasts for random things. Like, I'm trying to think - oh. Mrs. Silver’s
team's doing this decades dance party. And some of the kids want to create, just on their
own, a podcast from whatever decade they have.

Ms. Copper also recounted how students often came to the library during tutorial (study

hall time), after they ate lunch, or even while they ate lunch, to work on podcasts in the library.

The School 3 teachers’ support of students’ experimentation with technology corresponds to the

recommendations of Ito et al in the Digital Youth Project to honor the learning opportunities that

come through digital experimentation. 150 The podcasters in School 3 – Regan, Anthony, and

Abby – might even be described as “passionate affinity learners,” to apply Gee and Hayes’ term,

or perhaps on their way to such a characterization, with their dedicated to video editing outside

of class and their self-described enjoyment of watching student-created videos like theirs at

home, to pick up tips and offer critique. 151

101
 All five teachers and librarians in the study reported a high level of student engagement

and motivation in the development of digital storytelling projects, and this finding triangulates

with my observations and the students’ direct comments. As Mrs. Silver noted, other teachers

also connected the students’ motivation with skill development and confidence. For example,

Mrs. Auburn comments on the intangibles of the Ancient China Photo Story:

Well, I think it gave them some independence in working with a project. You know, they
sat at their own computer, and actually, I thought we were going to have to kind of hover
over them when they recorded. And they just jumped right into that on their own. They
didn't need us there at all, really. And I thought that was great.

Mrs. Pearl, the sixth grade classroom teacher at School 3, recalled during our interview that her

class was lined up at the door at the start of her class each day, ready to go to the library for

digital storytelling.

A different aspect of engagement is body language, and in my observations in the

classroom and library, students showed through posture, actions, and facial expressions that they

were engaged in their work on the digital storytelling projects. On the very first day of work at

School 2, students were eager to begin their project while Ms. Black was demonstrating iMovie,

talking excitedly and sticking their heads under the pink paper covering the computer screens

(pictured in Figure 7), which students were instructed to keep down when the teacher was

teaching.

102
 Figure 7. Pink paper covers on computer screens, Ms. Black’s strategy for
maintaining student attention when giving instructions.

In a group of five girls at School 2 working on a book trailer for Frindle, I observed that

on different occasions throughout the project, the students engaged in active discussion, joking,

and debate; they worked on one or two computers together, standing, kneeling, and sitting in

close proximity to each other, sometimes leaning or draping arms around one another, usually

with lots of close-up examination and pointing and touching of the screen; and excited reaches

for the mouse to do something with the project.

Numerous aspects of the digital storytelling experience required the superlative,

according to the students, including:

• PhotoBooth is awesome! (after seeing this Apple picture-taking application for the first

time)

103
 • It was good. It was fantastic. It was awesome. (reporting on an updated version of their

book trailer after figuring out how to add a favorite song)

• Yes! (several fifth graders in unison, upon learning from their teachers that they will get

to use iMovie again in sixth grade)

• Oh my gosh, this sounds like video game music! (hearing a Garage Band mix for the first

time)

4.1.5 Performance Day Viewing in the Classroom and Library

The performance day arrangements of seating, technology for viewing, and process of sharing

stories differed by school setting. Photographs of the classroom and library spaces and

arrangements for the performance component of each school are presented in Figures 8-13.

At School 1, the sixth grade students were seated in rows of chairs in a semi-circle

configuration, as shown in Figures 8 and 9. The Photo Story files were opened by the librarian

on one laptop on a cart, via networked drive, and sound was projected through external computer

speakers. The order of the presentations was largely random, as Mrs. Auburn opened files as

they were listed in the folder, though at times, some students asked for theirs to be shown next.

The Photo Story projects were displayed on an interactive white board, via LCD projector

mounted on the ceiling. The lights were dimmed, though the whiteboard was positioned in front

of the windows, which let in natural light. This teaching area in the library is open to the rest of

the library, with bookshelves defining the space.

104
 Figure 8. Library space for performance day of Ancient China Photo Story projects.
The librarian is seated on a desk at the far end of the first row, and she is opening the
students’ project files from a laptop on the cart.

Figure 9. Student seating for School 1 performance day. The whiteboard where the
stories were projected is just out of the frame, at right.

105
 On School 2’s performance day, the fourth and fifth graders gathered around individual

computers in the technology classroom, and they moved from computer to computer, depending

on where the files were stored. iMovie files can be saved for viewing on other machines, but the

students and Ms. Black hadn’t completed this phase yet. Some students knelt and some students

stood to watch the digital book trailers, and they gathered close together to watch, as shown in

Figure 10. The students opened and played their own groups’ projects within iMovie, via the

hard drives of each computer, and the class viewed the videos directly on the computer screens,

with sound from the computers. The order of presentations was based in part on moving from

one computer to another one nearby in the classroom, and in part on which students requested to

be next. The classroom lights were on, and the classroom door was closed.

Figure 10. In School 2, the students viewed the digital book trailers by gathering
around individual computers.

106
 Figure 11. During the School 2 performances, students stood and knelt around the
computers to view the digital book trailers. They moved from computer to computer as a
group to view the different projects.

For the performance of the podcast at School 3, the seventh graders were seated at their

(individual) desks in the language arts classroom, with laptop computers on the desks for taking

the survey after viewing. The students’ podcast was presented on the roll-down screen, projected

from an LCD projectors and laptop on a cart. The language arts teacher started the video from

Youtube. The classroom lights were dimmed, and the classroom door was closed. School 3’s

performance set-up is pictured in Figures 12 and 13.

107
 Figure 12. Students set up the projector and laptop for the performance of the
Green Team podcast.

Figure 13. Seventh grade students watch the Green Team podcast at School 3.

As described in Chapter 3, the amount of time spent creating and viewing the digital

stories varied by setting, but common to all three settings was that the amount of time dedicated

108
to the performance of the stories was less than that spent creating the stories. The breakdown of

time spent creating and time dedicated to the performances is presented in Table 10; it is

important to note that this table does not include students’ informal viewing time, which was

recorded anecdotally but not measured.

109
 Table 10. Amount of time spent making digital storytelling and listening and
viewing digital storytelling.
School Class Sessions Spent Class Sessions Spent

Creating Digital Storytelling Listening to and Viewing

Projects Digital Storytelling

School 1 – Ancient China 11 class periods 2 class periods

Photo Story

School 2 – Digital Book 9 class periods 1 class period

Trailers

School 3 – Team Podcast 10 class periods (for Version Part of 1 class period

1.0, prior to my study)

+ 4 class periods during my

study

= 14 class periods

4.1.6 Conceptual Model of Student Engagement and Responses to Performances of

Digital Storytelling

Mackey notes that “listening affects the body as well as the mind,” 152 and observations of the

students as they listened and viewed the digital stories were critical in shaping the findings of

this study. The analysis of classroom observations and information provided directly from the

students and teachers, showed some anticipated and some surprising responses and ways of

110
engaging that were similar across the three school settings, as well as interactions and responses

unique to each setting.

Upon review of the coded data, six categories of student response emerged:

• What draws students’ attention

• What students do

• How students feel

• What students learn and get out of digital storytelling

• What experiences students think are similar

• What students want to do next

From these categories, I developed themes and a conceptual model that describes the

essence of responses to digital storytelling in the school library and classroom. This conceptual

model, presented in Figure 14 below, synthesizes the findings of Question 1 of this research

study (about student response and engagement), and will be used to extract new study questions,

to apply to practice, and to contribute to research on digital storytelling.

111
 Viewing
Similar Experiences

Digital Actions Next

Engagement Learning
Story Steps
Emotions

Creating
Similar Experiences

Figure 14. Conceptual model of responses of digital storytelling.

“Digital Story” forms the first piece of the conceptual model. This area of the model

represents the story, which the students create and view. The students’ dual roles of creators and

tellers and the fluid nature of this process are represented in the model. “Engagement” captures

students’ responses to such story characteristics as personal relevance, entertainment value,

story, sound, images, and whether their friends appear in or made the video. Also included in the

theme of engagement are those aspects that caused students to become less engaged, such as

featured they disliked and stories they described as boring.

Engagement is demonstrated by “Actions” - the students’ body language, comments,

interactions with each other, and other observable ways of engaging in performances of digital

storytelling. Actions reveal and represent “Emotions,” the part of the model which encompasses

the students’ emotional reactions to viewing and, to some extent, creating digital stories,
112
including pride, shyness, embarrassment, happiness, and social connections with peers. Actions

and Emotions are related, and because they happen simultaneously, these two components of the

model are presented in parallel positions.

“Learning” represents the content knowledge and technology/information literacy skill

development supported by engagement, as well as less tangible learning, such as the opportunity

to experience visual and auditory modalities, establishing a sense of belonging, and having

something to share. Learning and the next stage of the model, “Similar Experiences,” are

processes which shape and inform one another in a fluid, continual way. Similar Experiences,

which can originate within or outside classroom digital storytelling, demonstrate students’

evolving process of understanding digital storytelling and how they relate digital storytelling to

familiar activities, such as recording voices as part of video games and watching movie trailers,

Youtube, and comedy shows.

“Next steps” represents immediate and longer-term aspirations, such as suggestions of

new topics for digital stories and hopes to try more advanced digital storytelling. In the model,

Next Steps connects back to Digital Story, Viewing and Creating, and then to Engagement, as

Next Steps lead to new digital storytelling experiences. The following sections explain each of

the themes in further detail.

4.1.6.1 Engagement

Based on analysis of my observations and the feedback that students provided in the survey and

focus group, students paid attention to digital storytelling features and approaches that appealed

to them, such as funny moments or action sequences, but they also provided so much detail on

what they didn’t like that it can be argued that they also paid fair attention to what they did not

like (or maybe the other way around – that something unpleasant drew their attention), such as

113
“annoying sounds,” excessive background noise, blurry pictures, and breathy or stuffed up-

sounding voices in the narration.

Many of the changes that students suggested to improve the digital stories were related to

aspects that would help them understand the piece better, including clearer explanations, better

sound and volume, and adjusted pace. One student at School 2 described in the focus group how

he has to pay attention when he doesn’t understand in order to try and understand the story

better, and one student in the survey reported concentrating on “The Giver, because it was

confusing.” Several students related pace of the story to their understanding, describing a

preference for a slower pace or the need to slow down because “it makes more sense this way,”

and noting that a slower pace allowed them to think about what was going on, to hear all the

details, and to hear clearly. Some students did qualify their notes on slowing down with

warnings about going too slow; for example, “I don't like things to be going too fast, but I also

don't want things to drag on all the time” and “because when they go too fast I can’t hear what

they’re saying and when they go slow it take[s] a longer time.” Another student also addressed

this balance of content and efficiency: “I want to finish it but I want to catch the details.”

Although most comments about pace described being able to hear, one student in the

School 2 survey mentioned having time to read text on the screen, noting that with a slow story,

“I can read the words” but that his preferred pace is “[in between] because I can read it and it is

not going too fast.” With students in grades 4 and 5, School 2’s group was the youngest of the

three settings, so developing reading skills may be a part of this student’s preference for the pace

of a story.

114
 In all three schools, students indicated widely varied preferences for pace. Although

some students explained a preference for slower or medium pace to help them think, hear, and

understand, others conveyed that a faster pace “kept me paying attention”

Sound seemed to be a prevalent concern at School 1, where in an open-ended survey

question, 5 out of 9 students who named something to change gave some version of “talk louder”

or turn up the volume, and two thought that music should be added. More students, eight,

mentioned some version of needing to “hear it better” in the open-ended survey question about

what they didn’t like, and two mentioned music. In terms of sound, the volume was limited in

that setting to the maximum level on the external computer speakers, and in the large, open

library space, it was a concern to the students, as well as to Mrs. Pearl, who described in the

interview that, “they [the students] couldn't hear it.”

Music was not a feature of Photo Story that Mrs. Auburn taught directly at School 1, and

the same was true for Ms. Black at School 2 with Garage Band and iMovie. As such, the music

that appeared in the videos was the outcome of students teaching themselves or learning from

their peers, and yet, it was one of the features that that caused the most observable responses and

garnered discussion in the focus groups and comments in the surveys.

As Mrs. Silver of School 3 explains, “the kids that are watching, you know, they are

tough critics,” and this statement was easily confirmed with the students’ comments in the

survey and focus groups. Although Students in School 1 assumed a very familiar and candid

approach to their focus group and seemed to hold little back in the way of constructive feedback

(even unprompted for such responses), the surveys of School 2 and School 3 students revealed

more features they didn’t like than they reported in their respective focus groups, including

comments on such components as the acting, sound effects (a hummed version of the Harry

115
Potter theme song was especially polarizing in School 2), as well as length and image quality.

Students attended to and remembered very clearly what they considered unfavorable aspects of

their peers’ performances, such as stuffed-up sounding or breathy voices, “mess-ups,” and

narrations in voices that were too loud or too soft.

Despite the honest critiques of peers, students from all three schools reported that they

liked seeing their friends and hearing their friends’ voices, and this connection drew their

attention. A School 1 student responded thus to the survey question about what made her pay

attention: “Yes. [When] I heard my [friend’s] voice when [her] digital story came up.” A School

2 student explained in the focus group that the digital book trailers were “like movie trailers, but

like watching a movie, with an actor, that was like your friend.”

Personal relevance was important; as one School 3 student recalled, “it seemed like they

were talking to me.” Other attention-getters among the students were pictures and images

(especially at School 1), funny parts, action sequences (especially at School 2), and at School 3,

students reported paying attention to the authority of their classmates in the video, in a way, fact-

checking the content of the project about the Green Team.

Some of the same qualities that appealed to students when they viewed completed stories

were apparent when they made the stories, which is a logical connection. For example, “what

they feel” and “what makes them pay attention” both encompass aspects of personal relevance

and interest in and reactions to seeing themselves. Students devoted time to making themselves

a noticeable part of the videos, even when the stories weren’t necessarily about them. School 2

students included credits with their names, which seemed to take on more of a priority than

citations of images and information, as well as photos of the author-creators, and at both Schools

2 and 3, students included “bloopers,” or outtakes of mistakes in their acting and narration.

116
 At School 3, Anthony, Regan, and Abby acted out the credits, introducing themselves

and saying “thanks for watching the podcast,” at which point two students watching the video

performance lifted up their heads from their desks, where they were leaning. Then the outtakes

appeared, and students watching the video smiled, laughed, looked at each other, and shifted in

their seats after being fairly still.

Bloopers became somewhat of an epidemic at School 2, with some students including

actual outtakes of mistakes in recording, and then students started recording “fake bloopers,” in

which they would intentionally do something silly or flub the script. In survey questions about

what they would change about the stories and what they liked and didn’t really like, some

students reacted positively to the bloopers, expressing that they were funny and that they wished

they had added bloopers to their stories, but other students critiqued the authenticity of the

bloopers, noting “less bloopers, more trailer” and “too many bloopers (the lightning thief) they

weren't real so I didn't feel any funny part in it.”

4.1.6.2 Actions

As described previously, intermediate and middle school students exhibited kinesthetic watching

and listening behaviors during project development. Movements were more subtle at some

schools during the performances of digital storytelling, but students did show a variety of

physical forms of response. In School 1 (Ancient China Photo Story), students were seated in

chairs (without wheels), and when they moved, they moved mostly their feet or upper bodies

(tapping or shaking feet, nodding or moving heads side-to-side or looking around). At School 2

(iMovie book trailers), the students were gathered around the computer screens, and the most

observable actions were (as stories started), jostling to see the screen, followed by bouncing or

tapping, dancing, talking, looking around or at certain people, and in some cases, touching the

117
computer keyboard. At School 3 (iMovie team podcast), students were seated in chairs at their

desks, and the most apparent actions were alternating between leaning on the desks and sitting

back in the chairs, occasional looking around (left and right or behind them), and soft talking.

Some students expressed some frustration or reaction to sitting still for the performances.

Asked on the survey about what they wanted to do next after watching the stories, one School 2

student (grade 4 or 5) said, “Play outside. I was feeling energetic!” A student at School 1

justified a preference for a fast-paced story with the explanation that “[I] really [don’t] like to sit

down and stay still.”

Students’ shifts in posture were another type of observable behavior. Typical stances for

viewing varied in each room and across the three settings, as each had different seating and

viewing arrangements for the students. I noticed students’ eye contact with the screen,

sometimes brief and interrupted by looking away at classmates, teachers, or around the room and

sometimes in long periods of gaze. Other observable student behaviors during the performances

included laughter, sighing or deep breaths, talking to classmates, smiling, turning around in

chairs (for Schools 1 and 3, where students sat in chairs for the performances), clapping, and

yawning. The full list of types of recorded behaviors is in Appendix C. In some instances, what

the students were responding to was easily discernible, such as music, narrated phrases, or acting

by students in the piece. Other responses, particularly facial expressions, sometimes reflected

students’ reactions to viewing their own work, a connection I could make as a result of my time

spent in the classrooms during the project development. During their own stories, some

behaviors included smiling, looking up at the ceiling, looking around the room, and talking.

118
4.1.6.3 Emotions

Students and teachers provided information in the interviews and surveys that help to illuminate

what they were feeling while they viewed and listened to the performances. Students and

teachers specifically pointed out a type of response likely not attainable through traditional, face-

to-face storytelling: students’ reactions to viewing their own digital storytelling. In live

storytelling, the teller does not have the opportunity to experience the storytelling in the same

way as the audience, due to his or her role as the teller. However in digital storytelling, apart

from the insight inherent to viewing something students themselves made, author-creators

experienced the performances of digital storytelling in basically the same way as the rest of the

audience.

Students expressed a range of emotions, including embarrassment, shyness, and pride.

Some students wrote that their own was their favorite on the survey, which wasn’t actually an

option I had thought about in designing the survey, and some students asked me directly if it was

ok “to say mine was my favorite.” In this survey question at School 1, two students responded

“mine” and one student wrote (uncorrected for conventions), “i liked my storyteller my story

teller was on confucius i liked my storyteller because my music matched with my story.........”

indicating an element that she appreciated – the music and how it went with the story – and also

bringing to mind with the phrase “my storyteller” the previous discussion about student

terminology and how they understand and talk about digital storytelling. On the survey question

about how their favorite stories made them feel, a School 1 student wrote, in all capital letters,

“YES IT MADE ME PROUD OF MY WORK.”

At School 2, a student explained in the survey that his or her favorite was “mine because

I made it” and a different student described that her favorite part of her favorite story was

119
specific effect in her story, an animated, customized globe. With just three students as the

author-creators of the Green Team Podcast at School 3, fewer responses dealt with a student’s

own story as her or her favorite, though some students noticed when they appeared in scenes in

the video (not corrected for conventions): “I was thinking when i seen my self ‘Theres

me!!!!!!!!!’”

The personal relevance factor in a story about the students’ middle school team, also

connected to what draws students attention, generated some emotional response related to the

students’ feelings of being part of the Green Team. For example, of the nineteen responses to

the survey question about whether their favorite story (in this case, the only story) made them

feel any particular way, nine students wrote responses that describing feeling happy, good, lucky,

or excited to be on the Green Team, including, “made me feel good I was in such a supportive

team” and “it made me excited for the Green Team even though I’m already on it.” Eight

responses showed that watching the video made them feel nothing in particular, or the same.

In the focus group interview, School 3 seventh grader and team podcast creator-author

Regan explains how it feels to watch one of her videos, revealing in her comment some

perspective as a student who makes many podcasts, or digital stories:

Regan: It's kind of cool, cause if it's a good one, you're like - yeah. That's my video. But
if it's a bad one, you're just like, oh god. Here we go.

Students’ feelings in the experience of digital storytelling were described by their teachers, such

as this comment from Mrs. Silver at School 3 about a mix of pride and embarrassment among

her students:

120
 Mrs. Silver: Yeah, the kids watching their own - they get a little embarassed. (laughs). I
mean, they're excited, they want everybody to see it, but they get a little embarassed, but
at the same time, they're so proud of what they've done.

According to Mrs. Pearl at School 1, the shyness in watching digital storytelling is typical of her

sixth graders:

Mrs. Pearl: I think they were, sometimes, a little shy when it came up, and they giggled
and kind of hide their faces, but I think that's not uncommon for this age group.

Some students directly addressed feelings of embarrassment; for example, one School 1 student

explained that what she wanted to do next after watching digital storytelling was “[disappear]

mine was the MOST giggled at.”

4.1.6.4 Learning

After viewing the digital stories, students remembered facts from their classmates’ stories and

their own work, and they recalled and described these mostly at a level of learning that could be

described as knowledge or comprehension on Bloom’s taxonomy, such as correct finger

placement for using chopsticks, their animal sign on the Chinese zodiac, and facts about the

polio vaccine, which were actually part of a digital story that students in School 3 watched

outside of the research study. 153

In addition to this fact-based learning reported by the students (though, to be clear, not

evaluated formally in this study), the students also self-reported and I observed application of

skills in technology that reflect higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, such as application and

analysis. For the students in School 1 and School 2, all of the Photo Story and iMovie

development was new, so students learned each component of the digital storytelling production

121
process. They practiced and applied skills to navigate the interface, import images, sequence

frames, add text, and record narration, as well as a variety of other skills in applying transitions

and effects, depending on which software application they used and which features the students

incorporated. They analyzed content independent of any teacher instruction, as in the critical

stance portrayed by the “fact checkers” in the Green Team podcast performance.

In my initial development of the conceptual model, I included the phrase “what they got

out of it” to address those outcomes outside of instructional objectives (related to content and

technology skill development), and teachers and students shared responses that helped me to

understand this part of digital storytelling in the classroom and library. For example, students

also gained enjoyment and relaxation from watching digital storytelling. Mrs. Pearl at School 1

described that an opportunity to “do something on the computer that people would appreciate”

was an intangible outcome that she hoped students would gain. Ms. Copper and Mrs. Silver

explained how students feel a sense of belonging to a group in their podcasting efforts. Ms.

Copper traced a student’s social growth back to his valued role as a technology expert in a

podcasting group, and Mrs. Silver shared her observation that students step out of typical roles as

leaders and followers to honor skill sets and share the work.

4.1.6.5 Similar Experiences

The focus group questions on what experiences students think are similar to digital storytelling

elicited some intriguing responses, such as this one from Trey, Louis and Brian at School 1:

Researcher: Can you think of an experience that's similar to watching a digital story?

Trey: Yes. Doing it in real life.

Researcher: Ok. Doing what in real life?

122
 Louis: Or doing it in a book.

Trey: Reading that thing, or watching.

Researcher: What were you going to say, Brian?

Brian: Or, in a book. Like writing. Doing it.

These students recognize, as participants in digital storytelling, that there is a blending of media,

modalities and literacies, even if these activities are not named as such. Students also compared

the voice narration part of digital storytelling to games they play on the videogame system, Xbox

Live and the handheld game system, Nintendo DS, experiences which they may have tapped into

when recording their scripts. As some students’ use (or misuse) of technology-related

terminology indicates, students may notice less about the distinctions in names and attend more

to the activity that the technology enables, much in the way that Don Tapscott describe in his

book Grown Up Digital (McGraw Hill, 2009), quoting MIT epistemology professor Idit Harel:

“For the kids, it’s like using a pencil. Parents don’t talk about pencils, they talk about
writing. And kids don’t talk about technology – they talk about playing, building a Web
site, writing a friend, about the rainforest.” 154

At School 2, students likened digital storytelling to watching movie trailers and comedy

shows, perhaps the inspiration for their affinity for bloopers, and some students also talked about

wanting to try making their own movie trailers in iMovie next time, rather than book trailers.

Students crossed and jumped around media forms for inspiration and ideas.

123
4.1.6.6 Next Steps

After developing and viewing the digital stories, students expressed interest in pursuing more

digital storytelling, some with specific ideas for the stories they wanted to tell. Several students

at School 1 suggested making autobiographies and Photo Stories about famous people. School 2

students said (in the survey) that watching the stories made them want to read the book (that was

shown in the book trailer), read the book again or read a sequel.

For their next digital storytelling projects, some students wanted their school librarians to

“make it more advance[d].” or “take it to a new level.” Students at all three schools wrote and

talked about having more opportunities in general, in different classes and related to different

subjects, and suggesting that “our teachers give us assignments more often that we can do a

podcast with.” Some students even identified past class events suitable for digital storytelling,

such as a School 1 student who said in the focus group that “when we had Black History Month .

. . ., you could, we could have done a PhotoStory on that.” The Next Steps section of the model

incorporates the current digital storytelling experiences, which shape the experiences to follow.

4.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 2: HOW DO STUDENT LISTENER-VIEWER

RESPONSES CHARACTERIZE DIGITAL STORYTELLING AS A CLASSROOM AND

SCHOOL LIBRARY ACTIVITY?

The most notable characteristic of classroom and school library digital storytelling is that the

students assume two roles: author-creators and listener-viewers, and a significant portion of

viewing in this context takes the form of viewing one’s own work. This dual responsibility leads

to increased opportunities for feedback, sharing, and learning, as evidenced by the works-in-

124
progress storytelling and peer teaching. Although the social context of the classroom seemingly

creates an audience-at-the-ready for storytelling performances, the social context of classroom

and library storytelling encompasses a closeness, familiarity, and peer dynamic that can be

supportive or scary, or at times, just embarrassing, for students. The emotions and personal

relevance that students feel to their work and that of their classmates suggests the need to foster a

supportive environment for sharing digital storytelling.

Students and teachers are exploring digital storytelling projects and teaching through

lenses, references, and methods that they already know, and this process is described in the

following sections, including how students understand digital storytelling in relation to other

forms of storytelling, how teachers and librarians instruct and teach digital storytelling in the

classroom and school library, factors related to collaboration in digital storytelling, and forms of

evaluation in the digital storytelling activities in this study. As in the previous section, 4.1, how

teachers, librarians, and student interact and work in the classroom context are described, as this

these elements are essential in describing digital storytelling in classroom and school library

settings.

4.2.1 Students’ Understanding of Storytelling and Digital Storytelling

As demonstrated in the previous section with the anecdote about Brian, Trey, and Louis and their

consideration of experiences similar to digital storytelling, students recognize familiar activities

in the experience of digital storytelling, and they articulated this evolving understanding in the

survey and focus groups. Students provided thorough and specific definitions of “storytelling

without the digital part” in the survey, and their responses emphasized concepts of talking,

telling, reading, making up a story as a person tells it, and “reading the story to a live audience,”

125
as described by a School 3 student. One student said that storytelling without the digital part was

“boring.” Students remembered hearing about storytelling at school, the school library, the

public library, at home, at festivals, and at bookstores. Some students associated storytelling (not

digital storytelling) with being a young child. For example, students provided the following

perspectives on storytelling:

• “When I was little my mom read me [storytells] so she was [storytelling] me.” (survey

response, seventh grader at School 3)

• “I have heard about storytelling from when I was little and my parents would read to me

little stories that would teach me lessons” (survey response, seventh grader at School 3)

• “I have [heard] about story telling in preschool” (survey response, sixth grader, School 1)

Students represented their understanding of the “digital” in digital storytelling with phrases

such as the following: on a video, on a recording, on a TV screen, electronic, technology, and

one student said that with digital storytelling, “you put it on a big screen and put music behind

it.” Several students at each school replied “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure” when asked what

“digital” meant in a digital story.

When asked if they had ever made a digital storytelling project before (at the conclusion of

the projects), three students from Schools 1 and 2 (where all students participated in the projects)

said no, which reveals another example of students’ developing understanding of technology

terms, or more importantly, their understanding of terms that their teachers and librarians use.

In considering how digital storytelling and reading a story in a book might be related, some

students defined boundaries, as in “digital stories can have music stories can’t.” Although the

126
survey question did not ask students to choose one form over the other, several students made

some evaluations, such as, “the books have more information and the digital had not that much”

and “they both tell a story, but a regular story can explain more things.” In contrast, a student at

School 1 explained that “they are the same by telling us information about the story the

difference is digital can tell us more information.”

Attending not to information but to imagination, a seventh grader at School 3 wrote of digital

storytelling and stories in books, “they are the same because they talk about one topic. They are

different because they give you the images and I don’t like that as much as imagining the places

myself,” a phrase reminiscent of Maguire’s belief in the importance of imagination in

storytelling. 155

4.2.2 Teaching and Facilitating Digital Storytelling

The teachers in this study identified numerous reasons for implementing digital storytelling in

their classrooms. For Mrs. Pearl at School 1, digital storytelling was selected as a strategy to

engage lower academic performing students, as “something on the computer that’s not a game

and not a PowerPoint,” as well as an alternative method to teaching a unit from the textbook. In

keeping with this objective, Photo Story was selected by Mrs. Auburn as an application that she

described as having less bells and whistles and an emphasis on content.

For Ms. Black at School 2, an intermediate classroom teacher approached her with an

idea for a project dealing with novels, and Ms. Black decided to use the Apple programs that she

had available for the digital book project. For Mrs. Silver at School 3, the podcast was a means

of conveying the student perspective on life on the Green Team.

127
 Factors such as school schedules, class time, class size, technology resources affected the

teaching and facilitation of digital storytelling in the school context, and some of these concerns

affected the project development and performances. As described, noise and volume issues were

a problem at School 1, where schedules were also a concern, as several of the class periods in

School 1 were abbreviated to accommodate the state testing period in the month of March.

Students at School 3 asked teachers to allow them to continue working past “the bell” to allow

them to finish sequences they were editing, and even in School 2, with nine or ten one-hour and

ten minute class periods, students still expressed a need at the end of the project for more time to

finish and make changes, and as described, many students hadn’t yet saved their files as

“movies” when the performance day arrived.

The model of presenting digital stories one-by-one as class presentations was represented

in Schools 1 and 2, and this was an area for continued consideration for Ms. Black in her plans to

implement digital storytelling in the future:

Ms. Black: I really felt like they could have used better instruction from me in terms of
what does it take to be a better listener, and what's the value in that. I'm sorry that I didn't
do that more. And of course the issue of respect.

The challenge of developing a performance scenario that fits available time, space, and

supervision of students, along with addressing the need to foster a feeling of a safe space for

sharing, is one of the most important characteristics of digital storytelling in school and library

settings, yet one that is critical, to help students cope with feelings of embarrassment or shyness,

or as the previously mentioned School 1 student described, perhaps to prevent having students

feel like they want to disappear.

128
 Another unique distinction between traditional storytelling and digital storytelling in the

library or classroom setting is that traditional, classroom- or library-situated storytelling is

usually presented by adults, either the teachers or librarians themselves, or an invited guest

storyteller, to an audience of students, patrons, or other listeners. The nature of digital

storytelling in the library or classroom is that the creation of the stories by the students is a major

focus, and necessarily, time and instruction are required to develop the stories. The time spent

making stories can be considerable, depending on the design of the activity and the teachers’

objectives, as well as the complexity of the software application and the students’ familiarity

with it, and their overall technology and information literacy skills.

4.2.2.1 Teacher Strategies for Supporting Student Skill Development in Technology,

Information Literacy, and Literacy Learning

Teachers implemented strategies to help their students learn and practice the technology,

information literacy, and literacy skills required to create and view digital stories. Ms. Black,

who teaches technology at School 2, used clear directions, simple terminology, and modeling

and repetition. When demonstrating a skill, Ms. Black often told the students, “covers down,”

meaning that students were to cover their monitors with the pink laminated construction paper

attached to each one, which minimized distractions from looking at screens while she talked.

She checked in on students’ progress frequently during large group instruction and during group

work time, offering to help again and again. Often, Ms. Black modeled a skill using the teacher

computer (and LCD projector) then provided time for guided practice. She incorporated many

kid-friendly phrases into the guided practice, such as “let me know if you don’t have a right

click” (referring to Apple mouses with one button), “you have 10 minutes to be the driver, then

pass the mouse” (in giving instructions to take turns), and “.jpgs mean pictures.” At the

129
beginning of iMovie instruction, she introduced features and tasks in small increments,

sometimes giving students a countdown (such as 5-4-3-2-1) to complete a step individually

before moving on to the demonstration of the next step. She also instructed students to repeat

essential steps out loud in choral response, such as “File, Save as. Repeat after me. File, Save

as.”

Ms. Black attended to the students’ affective needs as part of their skill development. For

example, as students practiced a step in iMovie, she asked, “Is anyone here upset and needs

help?” Ms. Black also encouraged students to help each other, and her students explored various

ways of sharing and peer teaching, as previously described.

At the beginning of the Ancient China Photo Story project, Mrs. Auburn demonstrated

the steps for each day’s work on a demonstration computer (a desktop with the image projected

on to the wall). This was a short portion of the class, not usually more than five minutes, and

students attended to the demonstration with eye contact and little talking, perhaps because of the

novelty of this project for them. After the teaching part, Mrs. Auburn, Mrs. Pearl, and Mrs.

Kelly, the paraprofessional, provided one-on-one assistance with script writing, file saving and

access, and steps of Photo Story. For this library project, Mrs. Pearl’s class rules were in effect,

including staying seated, and although students did not have assigned seats, they were seated

with an empty computer in between them, or as she called it, “do a computer, skip a computer.”

Mrs. Pearl helped students to stay organized for this research project by collecting their notes and

scripts at the end of each class (so that students couldn’t lose them). Mrs. Pearl, Mrs. Auburn,

and Ms. Black gave 10-minute, 5-minute, and 2-minute warnings as the end of class approached,

accompanied by reminders to save work.

130
 At School 3, I observed fewer direct teaching strategies from Mrs. Silver and Ms.

Copper, as their roles involved more facilitation, though the independence, trust, and technology

guidance that they provided supported the students’ work.

Teachers at School 1 and 2 intervened in off-task behavior, including talking, silliness,

and a few instances of mishandling or misusing technology equipment, including this comment

by Mrs. Pearl, “can we please keep our face off the keyboard?” and this caution by Ms. Black,

“I’m hearing something that does not make me happy,” referring to banging on a keyboard from

a student who was unable to log into his account. Students at Schools 1 and 2 used user names

and passwords to access their folders and files, and on one occasion at School 2, Ms. Black’s

students received notices to change their passwords, and she spent a few moments explaining

how to choose and remember a password.

4.2.2.2 Students’ Technology, Information Literacy, and Literacy Skills

Students exhibited a range of strengths and needs in the technology, information literacy, and

literacy skills required to use technology resources to create digital stories. Although the Photo

Story and iMovie applications were new for many students, the foundation for effective use of

these tools comes from such skills as reading, manual dexterity and hand-eye coordination (using

the mouse and keyboarding), saving and accessing files, downloading images, navigating

computer interfaces (using menus and windows).

Students learned technology through trial-and-error as well as via teacher instruction.

For example, when a system-wide problem at School 1 caused all computers to shut down

suddenly, most of the students lost everything that they had done that day, as few of them had

saved their work. Some students demonstrated more developed skills than their classmates,

which could be related to the quality of story produced, and perhaps, the responses that listener-

131
viewers gave. The librarian at School 3, Ms. Copper, pointed out that the students learn

Windows-based computer applications in their technology classes at school, but they were

primarily self-taught in their podcasting activities on the Mac laptop: “They’re not afraid to try

new things . . . and they're not afraid to go and you know, navigate and figure things out. . . I

would have thought that some of them would have been more hesitant, and it wasn't like that at

all.”

4.2.3 Collaboration: Teacher and Librarians, Teachers and Teachers

Collaboration was a common quality of the three school projects, though at varied levels. The

collaborative process at School 2 (book trailers) took place primarily in the idea generating and

planning, in that the classroom teachers and Ms. Black decided to connect the iMovie project in

the technology class with novels that the students had read in their language arts class. The

teaching process was carried out on an individual basis by Ms. Black.

At School 2, Mrs. Pearl emphasized that her collaboration with Mrs. Auburn, the school

librarian, was essential to the project’s planning and implementation. As she explained it, Mrs.

Pearl handled the social studies aspects of the project – deciding on the curricular area and the

topics that she wanted students to research – and Mrs. Auburn took responsibility for the library

resources and technology, which was for Mrs. Pearl an area for which she especially appreciated

the support and expertise of her colleague. She describes their collaboration this way, “Find

somebody with the strength that you don't have.”

At School 3, Mrs. Silver’s and Ms. Copper’s collaboration was very fluid and open,

though it was a relationship that both teachers recognized and appreciated. Here, Mrs. Silver

132
describes her hopes for continuing the podcasting next school year, and she also acknowledges

the support of the school’s technology department.

Mrs. Silver: As long as I have the technology and the help available to me, because my
tech guys play a really big role in this, my librarian plays a really big role in this, I
couldn't do it without them at all. I mean, the kids do a lot, and honestly, I'm a facilitator.
I mean, I really don't do much. I watch, you know, I listen, I encourage, my librarian
helps out a lot with resources, and my tech guys are able to work with us whenever there
is a problem and there are problems a lot of times that they fix. So as long as we have all
those components, I'm going to definitely do it next year.

4.2.4 Evaluation and Self-Evaluation in Classroom and School Library Digital

Storytelling

Of the three digital storytelling projects, two were evaluated and graded by the teachers: School

1 (Ancient China Photo Story) and School 2 (digital book trailers). The School 3 project was a

voluntary student activity for a small group, facilitated by the teacher and librarian, and as such,

the students did not receive a grade. Only Ms. Black’s lesson at School 2 incorporated a formal

student self-evaluation, but students at all three schools took part in or talked about self-

reflection to some extent, in most cases informally, during the development of the projects and

upon viewing the completed digital storytelling. As described previously, the students’ work-in-

progress viewing and editing was largely based upon frequent, quick reviews of their own work,

with self-assessments and determinations of content needed and changes and additions to make.

Student comments and reactions to viewing their own completed work are examined as part of

the previous discussion on engagement and response.

At School 1, Mrs. Pearl evaluated the students on their participation and completion of

the digital storytelling projects, and she reported that all fifteen students received an A. In

133
accordance with the sixth grade social studies curriculum, Mrs. Pearl administered the unit test

on Ancient China to assess their understanding of the content. I did not observe any classroom

discussion of the grading process or the students’ test taking. In my observations of the sixth

graders in Mrs. Pearl’s class, I didn’t observe any instances of Mrs. Pearl instructing students on

the grading process, and I noted only one occasion when students mentioned the grade they

hoped to earn. In that situation, two female students in the class, Tanya and Kaya, had just

recorded the narration of their Photo Story projects. From my field notes, their interaction went

as follows:

Tanya puts on the headphones to watch and listen to the final version of Kaya's Photo
Story.

Tanya claps and moves her head while she watches and listens, then wipes her eyes as
actual tears drip – but then she explains that “when she stares really long she can make
her eyes dry.”

When she listens and watches she looks like she is listening to music.

Tanya pats Kaya on the back.

Kaya: I want something that people can watch and not get bored cause we have to watch
a lot of them.

Researcher: So what did you do?

Kaya: Funny voices. I’m going for a B!

Tanya: I’m going for an A.

Researcher: What else did you do so people don’t get bored?

Kaya: I kept it short.

Tanya: Yeah.

Kaya: It’s only like a minute and twelve seconds.

134
As described in the previous sections on students viewing their works-in-progress and their

completed projects, there were occasions when students from School 1 (as well as in the other

two schools) considered their listener-viewers and what they might think of their work, and they

also expressed evaluative comments of their own work, but grading of the projects was not a

dominant focus for the students or one expressed by the teachers. Interestingly, Kaya and

Tanya’s exchange about grading suggests awareness of how classmates may perceive their work,

and unprompted by the teacher or researcher, these students connected the listener-viewer

responses and their grades. Although it would be difficult to assess students’ work on the

response of their peers, this finding might suggest that some form of peer evaluation would be

meaningful and helpful to students in classroom and library digital storytelling.

At School 2, Ms. Black used a scoring rubric that she developed via Rubistar (an online

rubric development tool) to assess the students’ work as groups (one rubric per group project),

and her students also completed individual self-evaluations. These documents are included in

Appendix B.

Ms. Black explained the scoring rubric to the students, section by section, on the seventh

work day of the project. The rubric had eight categories: Editing, Basic Elements, Collaboration

and Contribution, Content and Theme, Documentation, Images, Above and Beyond, and Overall.

Four levels of descriptors were given for each category, with scores of 4, 3, 2, or 1 possible

depending on the level of success in that area. A score of 4 represented the highest level of

completion and achievement, and the skills in the 3, 2, and 1 categories listed the same general

expectations as a 4, qualified with terms such as “some,” “okay,” “most,” or “partly.”

Portions of Ms. Black’s explanation of the rubric (recorded via field notes) are as

follows:

135
 Ms. Black’s rubric is a Rubistar-based rubric. She shows the rubric.

Ms. Black: if you’re ever seen a rubric before, raise your hand.

Nearly everyone raises hands.

Ms. Black explains Editing area of the rubric first. She pauses to help a student adjust the
height of a chair. She reads from the document.

The second rubric category is Basic Elements. The descriptor for the highest possible
points is “Best of All Worlds.”

Ms. Black explains that this would be given: If you could do everything right. I don’t
expect you to.

Third category is Collaboration and Contribution.

Ms. Black: This is the area that I’m most concerned with. You’re responsible for
everyone in your group, not just yourself.

Fourth Category is Content and Theme. Ms. Black talks about matching the book with
appropriate mood/theme:

Ms. Black: A serious theme should not be like a ride at Kennywood [local amusement
park].

Ms. Black uses Number the Stars as an example.

Ms. Black talks about relevance to today’s world.

Ms. Black: What kind of conflicts exist? Maybe show in your book trailers.

Ms. Black mentioned some examples from ongoing projects to help illustrate the descriptors of

the rubric, such as how a light-hearted segment of the book trailer for The Giver, in which

students recorded themselves popping in and out of the frame, probably did not correspond

appropriately with the more serious themes of this book. Ms. Black concluded the discussion

with explanation of the categories, Documentation, Images, Above and Beyond, and Overall.

136
 According to the rubric, a score of 4 in “Above and Beyond” could be earned when

“parts of the book trailer are unique, demonstrate great effort, and succeed in making the book

trailer better.” I asked Ms. Black after the lesson if “Above and Beyond” was a school-wide

assessment approach or just hers, and she explained that it is something that she does.

Ms. Black’s student self-evaluation is included in Appendix B. Students completed the

self-evaluations on their last work day of the project, at the beginning of the class period.

Students were asked to reflect in a few lines on their contributions to the group project, their

efforts in helping group members, what they might do differently if they could do it over again,

and what they would like their parents to know about the project. Completed evaluations from

some of the students were collected as part of the artifacts for this study, and selections from

these evaluations are presented in Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18.

Figure 15. Tommy's self-evaluation of his contributions to his group's digital book
trailer: “Music. I worked so hard.”

137
 Figure 16. Allison's self-evaluations: "I would get a bigger group because it is hard
with so few people,” "It's fun and hard,” and “I enjoyed doing it and it was fun working
with [classmate].”

Figure 17. Casey's self-evaluations: "Yes, I helped [classmate] understand iMovie

more," "I would get songs from iTunes to put on the video," and "I [heart] it! It was so
much fun! I hope we do it again," along with her number scores of "4.5" and "5555555!"

138
 Figure 18. Melissa's self-evaluations: "The why you should read. It was a bit sloppy"
and "I loved learning how to do IMovie and garage Band."

In this open-ended evaluation, the students identified aspects of the project that mattered

to them, including some of the same listener-viewer dimensions that I hoped to learn about in the

study, such as the role of music and students’ interest in the process of digital storytelling. (It

should be noted that the students did not see the survey questions – which do mention music –

until several days after this self-evaluation). With such positive feedback and enjoyment of

digital storytelling as reported by the students and teachers across the three schools (as described

in the interviews and surveys), it is worth learning about all aspects of the practice to keep

strengthening aspects that have appeal, and to build the engagement and enjoyment of parts of

the project that were less interesting or in need of improvement.

139
 5.0 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

In conclusion, this investigation found six prevalent themes which describe the essence of the

listener-viewer response in digital storytelling in the intermediate classroom and middle school

library. These themes are Engagement, Action, Emotions, Learning, Similar Experiences, and

Next Steps, and the relationships among the themes are suggested in a conceptual model.

Further, the findings identify qualities that characterize the listener-viewer response in digital

storytelling in these settings, most significantly, that the social context of school and library

storytelling and students’ dual roles as author-creators and listener-viewers results in works-in-

progress (or formative) storytelling, peer teaching, and the need to foster a supportive

environment for sharing digital storytelling. Teachers employed strategies for supporting student

learning in digital storytelling, including developmentally appropriate technology instruction and

classroom management, collaboration, and student self-evaluation tools.

In Language and Learning in the Digital Age, Gee and Hayes demonstrate the significant

differences between the writing that young people produce online – such as a fan fiction writer’s

post to her readers – full of abbreviations, emoticons, run-ons and sentence fragments, and

selective use of capitalization, versus the staid, formal reading that students encounter in school

textbooks. 156 I observed how students produce digital content as they constructed their stories,

140
and to some extent, I observed the students’ approach to writing through their survey responses.

Students used phrases such as these to respond to questions, pasted here exactly as they appeared

in the survey:

• r3gul@r story r3ading

• digital stories are more personal and telling you like it is!!! :)

• idk

• it was cool.:D

This language – both in how it is written and the information it conveys – represents a

small component of students’ ease in digital communications. As national studies like those of

Kaiser and Pew indicate, and as my time with the students corroborates, even with occasional

frustrations and diverse developmental differences in skills, students work, play, listen, question,

and learn in a digital world. Digital storytelling is a way of letting kids “speak” in a language

that they’re still learning, but one that they’re comfortable exploring and one that allows them to

connect with each other. Whether the digital stories were awesome, annoying, or in-between (as

described by the children), the students listened and responded to their peers’ stories with

attention, kinesthetic engagement, and detailed recollections afterward. With digital storytelling

as a current, common learning activity in classrooms and school libraries, this research shows

that students “get” this type of storytelling as listener-viewers. Through the findings presented

here, I have suggested implications for teaching and facilitating digital storytelling to support

students as listener-viewers, as well as several new research directions which can extend the

current research.

141
 Heath and Street stress that ethnographic research requires wide, interdisciplinary reading

and a “zig zag” style of going back and forth between reviewing literature, spending time in the

field, and returning to literature. 157 Although my work did not follow all the tenets of their

ethnographic methods, this fluidity certainly characterized my time with the teachers and

students and my ongoing, iterative reading and analysis. Attempting to understand my research

questions in action, in real life contexts of students, teachers, and technology, required some

deconstructing of my questions and observations into many fields of study.

I recognized adolescent development issues, such as peer influence and varied levels of

developmental readiness for cooperation and fine motor skills. I saw educational theory and

policy in motion, as represented by class size, teacher schedules, technology and resources, and

state testing. I observed familiar themes of teaching and learning, including classroom

management, diverse student needs, assessment, and collaboration among colleagues. These

topics were critical considerations for my investigation, and actually none of them even dealt

directly with digital media, school libraries, or storytelling, though these were the areas I entered

the study prepared to reference. I found that I returned to this literature and also branched out

into related areas, such as communication and into different kinds of ethnography, including

digital ethnography, to help me understand what I was seeing and how to study it more deeply.

142
 5.2 INTERPRETATIONS OF CONCLUSIONS BASED ON GUIDING

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

5.2.1 Mackey’s Kinesthetic Modes of Viewing and Listening

One lens for my analysis regarding the level of engagement of students in this study was

Mackey’s concept of text tinkering; were the students viewing the digital stories in a playful,

superficial mode, or were they attending at a deeper level to the content and story? 158 As

presented in Chapter 4, it seems that both kinds of viewing were involved in classroom and

library digital storytelling. Play was a part of the project development process, and students

experimented and played with recording and playback of sound and images to help guide their

editing processes, and they also showed playful as well as more serious attention to the

performances of digital stories, sometimes (as it appeared through their body language)

alternating back-and-forth in one story.

Mackey explains that “listening reverberates in the cavities of the body,” and that “music

. . . has a quality which can command our attention in a way that print on a page cannot do.” 159

Students in the three schools demonstrated that music in the digital stories captured their

attention through their dancing, bouncing, and air guitar playing; through comments about music

preferences throughout the surveys and focus groups; and in School 2, through the students’ time

spent developing and playing with music for their stories.

In Literacies across Media: Playing the Text, Mackey suggests that texts that combine

modalities, such as pictures and reading or pictures and audio, create a “physicality of the

experience” which is inherent in the production of meaning. 160 The range of media that

comprise digital stories and the range of modalities that digital stories demand of listener-

143
viewers reflect this physicality of the experience, demonstrated by the students in this study in

their project development as well as during the performances.

5.2.2 Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory

Rosenblatt’s transactional theory also provided a basis for interpretation of student engagement

with the digital stories, with regard to how they interacted with the stories as “texts,” and in

particular, whether they viewed the stories in moments of lived experience, representing the

aesthetic end of the reading spectrum, or from efferent, informational orientations, attending to

the concepts and ideas presented in the story. I believe that listening and viewing digital stories

are dynamic processes similar to Rosenblatt’s interpretation of reading as a dynamic process.

The students’ responses in the survey and focus group suggest that both kinds of interaction with

the digital story “text” were involved. 161 As in Rosenblatt’s “cocktail party phenomenon” – the

metaphor for how readers attend to and interact with certain elements of text – the research

findings suggest that student listener-viewers showed a transactional approach to digital

162
storytelling, attending to and interacting with certain aspects of the stories.

For example, as presented in the conceptual model of the essence of school and library

digital storytelling, stories with personal relevance drew students’ attention and inspired

emotional responses. One such story was Felicia’s story about the Chinese Zodiac (at School 1),

in which she used a question and answer format to review each animal of the zodiac and the

personality qualities of each sign. During this digital story, the students in the audience

demonstrated active engagement through leaning forward, smiling, and talking in response to the

Felicia’s voice in the video when she asked about birth years and zodiac animals. It appeared

that students were enjoying this experience and interacting with the story as a text – waiting to

144
hear their signs, reacting to the list of personality traits, and in some cases, affirming what they

heard. In the focus group, the students described the story as entertaining and they recalled

Felicia’s loud, clear voice. An approach for future research about transactional experiences with

digital storytelling may be to involve students in watching themselves react (on video) to a

performance of a digital story, to help inform what it was they were thinking and experiencing as

they viewed the “text,” or the digital story. The responses could then be coded for aesthetic and

efferent viewing.

In terms of efferent viewing, the findings suggest that some students watched with an

orientation for learning and information. After they viewed the stories, students recalled varied

facts about the subjects of the videos, which may suggest as they watched the performances, they

interacted with the text from the efferent end of the continuum. In surveys and focus groups,

students shared that they learned that dragons have five toes, that the Ancient Chinese made ice

cream from rice and snow, that the Green Team offers tutoring on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and

which authors wrote certain books. In an example of applying learning in a new setting, a

student recounted in the School 1 focus group that she read a story about the Terra Cotta army in

her reading book, and that her classmate Trey could have used that information for his project.

The study findings also suggest that in the formative, or work-in-progress viewing of their own

stories, students may have assumed an efferent stance. They viewed with a critical eye in the

editing mode, which may be considered a form of efferent interaction with the text, “taking

away” from the experience that information required to make adjustments and changes in their

work. As noted above with regard to aesthetic viewing, it may be possible learn more about

efferent interaction with digital story “texts” by involving the listener-viewers in an analysis

145
process; here, in the editing phase, perhaps a think-aloud protocol would be effective in learning

more about how the student is interacting with the digital story text.

In what may represent an efferent response specific to digital storytelling, students also

viewed their peers’ stories with an orientation toward the media itself, expressing curiosity about

technical aspects of the presentation. For example, they reacted to certain effects with attention

and engagement, and reported later that they wanted to learn how to do something (such as make

a watercolor effect or add music) for the next time they made a digital story. This attention to

the technique and “how-to” of classroom and library digital storytelling might be unique among

storytelling practices. Unless an audience member at a stage or library storytelling event

happened to be a storyteller himself or herself, or maybe possessed a natural curiosity for the

practice, it is probably not a common response to wonder how a storyteller “did something”

during the process of viewing the performance. Watching and interacting with the digital story

with a curiosity about specific techniques – as the students brought up in all three schools – may

be a characteristic that distinguishes school digital storytelling from other forms of storytelling.

5.2.3 Sturm’s Storylistening Trance

I found that my initial “look-for’s” for gauging a state of trance – eye contact, posture, facial

expressions – were perhaps better suited for confirming what the students reported as those

features which made them pay attention to the stories. Attention and trance are not the same

state of consciousness, and as I realized upon the first few digital storytelling performances at

School 1, it is challenging to distinguish between students who might be experiencing some

trance, as in a state of high engagement, and students who stared deeply but were actually

experiencing boredom.

146
 Nonetheless, several aspects of Sturm’s storylistening theory were represented in some

way, and with the findings of this study uncovering more about how listener-viewer response

works in the classroom and school library context, perhaps more of these elements can be the

subject of more focused investigation. For example, without prompting, several students in

School 1 made comments in the survey about “imagining myself there” and “being there” in the

Ancient China Photo Stories, responses that relate to Sturm’s characteristics of placeness and

realism. 163 Students also reported emotional responses, such as happiness and concern, a level of

engagement which corresponds to Sturm’s trance characteristic of engaged emotional

channels. 164

Sturm describes the skill of the storyteller as one influence on the storylistening trance,

and this is another potentially applicable area for student digital storytelling. As described in

Chapter 4, students demonstrated ranges of abilities in using technology to make stories, and the

resulting digital stories may reflect that same range in skill. Listener-viewers may engage more

deeply in stories that reflect a higher quality of production, but as the findings here also show,

students attended to less effective uses of the technology, too.

As Green, Brock and Kaufman contend in their writing on transportation theory, a

potential consequence of enjoyment – which itself is an outcome of transportation into story

worlds – is that individuals may seek out additional, similar experiences. 165 This is also a

potential benefit of classroom and school library digital storytelling: students may seek out other

experiences in producing and consuming digital media, which supports their information literacy

and technology skills.

147
5.2.4 Georges’ Storytelling as Event and Maguire’s Sounds and Sensibilities

As demonstrated in the three classroom settings, digital storytelling can become a shared event,

like Georges’ characterization of traditional face-to-face storytelling, 166 though dynamic, live

interaction takes on different forms in digital storytelling, and the interaction happens during

parts of the storytelling process beyond the finished performance of the story. Georges’

assertion that storytelling is a social, communicative experience held true in varying degrees at

the three schools. Although the arrangement of the performance spaces and teacher expectations

for behavior potentially influenced what social behaviors students exhibited, social context was a

central component of the storytelling event.

Teachers and students even revealed some ways of making digital storytelling more like

traditional, face-to-face storytelling. In the project development phase, for example, students

showed pieces of the stories to classmates and requested feedback, such as the students

“worried” about Garage Band soundtracks at School 2 and Nina, who made Brian listen and

watch her whole Photo Story at School 1, despite his protests that it would take too long.

The spaces, gaps, and imperfections that Maguire values in rough-hewn, live storytelling

were more evident than I anticipated in the finished digital stories, especially in portions of

digital stories narrated or acted out by students, and as an audience, the students reacted to

classmates’ (and their own) pauses, stumbles, and “mess-ups” (as the student called them) much

in the way that an audience might for a live teller – with giggles, looks around the room, and

perhaps, with imaginative forays into the mind’s eye, which Maguire emphasizes is one of the

benefits of storytelling. 167

148
 5.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND FACILITATING DIGITAL

STORYTELLING

There are numerous findings of this study of benefit to teachers and librarians who wish

to facilitate digital storytelling with their students. Placing digital storytelling in the classroom

context, with eyes open to the possibilities and strengths of traditional storytelling, affords some

challenges and great opportunities. As teachers and librarians encounter and try out new

approaches to teaching and learning and integrate new resources into their classrooms and

libraries, student learning remains the central objective. The teachers and librarians in this study

explained that they utilized digital storytelling to strengthen learning, not just because it is an

exciting tool, and through the findings of this study, I have suggested here some additional ways

to continue and expand effective use of digital storytelling with students.

There are cultural patterns to learning, teaching, and functioning in a school environment,

and one of these is the common model of concluding a project with a sharing or reporting out

day. Teachers get to see completed projects, and students get to share what they did and see the

work of their peers, as well as practice speaking in front of a group. I observed this model in all

three schools, possibly even as an outcome of my interest in watching the students’ reactions to

digital storytelling, but I have also observed and facilitated this scenario in many other

classrooms.

Digital storytelling can also happen in this manner of “stand up and present, next student,

next project, next team,” – but, in assessing this approach with traditional storytelling as a model,

it can be argued that there is a lack of sharing between teller and audience. In face-to-face

storytelling, the exchange and feedback between the teller and the audience happens at the

performance. The possibilities for this interaction are changed – though not eliminated – with

149
digital storytelling, so one way to compensate for the changed dynamic is to redistribute and

balance out the sharing so that it happens throughout the time that students are making their

stories, not just at the end. Students in all three settings did this naturally through peer sharing,

and teachers and librarians can enhance and support this practice by suggesting that students

share their work throughout the project, if that style suits the students’ needs and preferences.

Student responses indicate that in addition to any content knowledge or story experience

that they might enjoy or attend to in a digital story, they also want to know about the process of

making the story, which was something not represented in studies of listeners in traditional

storytelling. Librarians and teachers can take advantage of this curiosity and the power of peers

to support skill development in the classroom, perhaps via peer teaching.

5.4 LESSONS LEARNED IN CONDUCTING THE STUDY

There are numerous “lessons learned” from conducting this exploratory research study of

classroom and school library digital storytelling. These lessons will inform the studies that

follow this investigation. First, as described previously, there was not an existing coding system

to implement in this study, so as the researcher, I developed codes to use in analyzing the data.

Intercoder reliability, in which “’blind review coders . . . apply the definitions to data to check

for consistency in meanings and application,” could be implemented in future studies to ensure

that the codes accurately reflect the events being described, and that consistent coding is being

applied. 168 Additional research and exploration can be conducted with regard to the specificity

and functionality of the codes used to describe classroom and school library digital storytelling.

150
 The importance of the “self” as a viewer of digital storytelling was not anticipated going

into this study, and this is both one of the most intriguing findings of the study and a lesson to

shape future studies, including the methods employed to study digital storytelling. As described

previously, one way to learn about “the self” as viewer may be to include students in the analysis

of their efferent and aesthetic responses to digital storytelling. Other approaches may be to

include focus group or survey questions relating to the self as viewer, and to develop more well-

defined data codes about the self as viewer for analysis of data

As an exploratory study of ongoing classroom activities, replication of this study may be

challenging, first in terms of the classroom activities and the students taking part, and second,

with regard to the technology involved in the lessons. The classroom teachers and librarians in

this study were selected in part because of their plans to incorporate digital storytelling in the

2010-2011 school year. To study additional digital storytelling activities with these librarians

and teachers in an upcoming school year may mean that different students would be involved, or

that the subject areas, genres of digital storytelling, or technology resources might not be the

same. With regard to technology, the school computers and the digital storytelling software may

have undergone updates or changes, which could create variation in the activities as designed by

the teachers and librarians.

Another lesson learned in this study regards the survey instrument. Due to the

availability of computers for these activities, I decided to have the students complete the survey

using the online survey tool, Survey Monkey. At two of the schools, Schools 1 and 3, the

students seemed interested in the novelty of this survey tool and they completed the questions

with little observable frustration or difficulty. At School 2, however, which was the setting with

the youngest children in the study (ages 9-11), the students’ keyboarding skills seemed to slow

151
down their progress and create some difficulty for them. In future studies, I will consider the

keyboarding skills of the students as a factor in implementing any written response instrument,

and use a traditional, paper-and-pencil format as needed.

Another survey component to adjust for next time pertains to students’ activities during

the school week versus over the weekend. Many students wrote-in large spans of variation in

their time spent playing video games or using the computer, and this data would likely be better

understood and more effectively analyzed if the questions separated weekday and weekend

habits.

5.5 NEXT RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

5.5.1 Topics for Further Investigation

The findings of this study open up numerous topics for further investigation, which is a fruitful

outcome of research intended to characterize digital storytelling in classrooms and school

libraries. In other words, figuring out what this practice is and how it works in classroom and

library environments supports the articulation of rich questions for new study. Some of these

new areas of inquiry relate to the listener-viewer focus of the current study, and some research

directions relate to the development of digital storytelling, as influenced by my observations of

the students at work in making their stories.

152
5.5.1.1 Group Dynamics in K-12 Digital Storytelling

Upon studying the students’ collaboration to create digital storytelling projects at School 2

(digital book trailers) and School 3 (team podcast), it is clear that group dynamics are a

significant component of classroom and library-based digital storytelling. Sometimes, as in the

School 3 team podcast group, the three students were familiar with one another’s areas of skill,

they edited and filmed in a fluid, productive way, and they supported one another’s creative

process by honoring ideas and helping implement them. In other situations, such as the group of

five students creating the Number the Stars digital book trailer at School 2, the number of

students in the group seemed to pose problems in terms of time on task; tension about who got to

do “fun tasks,” e.g., working with music in Garage Band, and who got “stuck” with more boring

or laborious tasks, such as creating a citations page. Thus, a topic of potential future study is

how children work collaboratively in partners, and in groups of varying sizes – three, four, or

other numbers, to construct and view digital storytelling projects.

From my observations, some possible characteristics to explore are the identification of

tasks to complete and the assigning of responsibility for working on the story components

(according to students’ needs assessment or the teachers’, or a combination thereof); how

students go about their research or information gathering approaches and how that process fits in

with the story development (simultaneous, separate, in what sequence); leaders, followers, and

other roles in groups and how these roles develop; how collaboration affects the creative process;

how students view and assess their works-in-progress and how they might fulfill roles of teller

and audience for each other in this process; and how the number of students in the group

influences the group’s ability to work together.

153
 Studying the group process in developing digital storytelling in classrooms and school

libraries could be an appropriate investigation for collaboration with researchers in education or

sociology of education. Another angle of this line of inquiry is studying how students work as

they develop individual digital stories, including how (or whether) they seek out peers to preview

or provide feedback. Learning how students work can support the identification of productive

strategies to meet students’ preferences and help them to create good digital storytelling

products.

Peer teaching in digital storytelling seems a rich area for more studies. There is power in

knowledge, and students who had knowledge of tools and tricks in iMovie and Garage Band

were sought after by their classmates for advice and instructions, and these students were also

identified by the teachers as go-to people for help and assistance. As such, the role of peer

teaching in digital storytelling may be examined further, as well as students’ habits and

preferences for teacher-led instruction, peer teaching, learning by observing peers, and self-

teaching and learning. Peer evaluation or feedback may also bring interesting dimensions into

classroom and library digital storytelling, as well as studies of self-assessment. Applying

Goldman-Segall’s “hedgehogs and foxes” interpretation of students’ work in technology projects

may be a useful approach to studying peer teaching and peer sharing in digital storytelling. 169

5.5.1.2 Taking Digital Storytelling Outside the Classroom

Although much of this work focuses on digital storytelling in the classroom and library,

portability and sharing outside of class were still brought up interviews, mostly by the teachers.

The librarian at School 3 emphasized sharing with friends and family outside of school as a

positive aspect of digital storytelling and she mentioned burning CDs for students to take home

from a digital storytelling project with another class. Ms. Black’s self-evaluation at School 2

154
asked students to share what they wanted their parents to know about their experience with

iMovie.

Although Regan from School 3 explained that she has shown her podcasts to her parents,

she also noted that she does not show them to friends outside of school, even though the videos

are posted to Youtube on Mrs. Silver’s class channel. Sharing of media files is certainly an

accessible and available option, and as such, digital storytelling can be a way to share stories

with people outside the classroom. How to share and with whom to share, including how to deal

with privacy, are topics for further study.

5.5.1.3 Additional Areas for Future Study of Digital Storytelling in Classrooms and School

Libraries

Noted above were aspects of social and peer relationships in developing digital stories, and how

these relationships affect viewing is also worthy of study. What contexts and groupings of

students and teachers support students’ confidence and comfort in sharing their work? How can

teachers and librarians help reluctant presenters, support sharing, and create safe environments

for students?

Another area of need is the identification and study of genres of digital storytelling, such

as subject area-based (social studies, language arts), personal narrative, and fictional (folk tales,

literary tales, retellings of familiar stories) and how varied genres influence the response of

listener-viewers. As described in the limitations, motivations for some of the student behaviors

during the performances are a challenge to understand, as crossed arms or sighs might seem to

indicate boredom, but it is not reliable to make such assumptions. In future research designs, one

way to investigate physical response more deeply may be to involve the participants in viewing

the video, and invite them to reflect on what they were doing.

155
 Relationships between author-creators and listener-viewers can be examined further, as to

how creator-authors consider their listener-viewers, and potentially, how, if given the

opportunity, author-creators might change or adapt stories after performances, according to

listener-viewer responses. Author-creator intentions would also make an interesting study; for

example, when the students made fake outtakes at School 2, was their intention to entertain their

classmates, or to make something for themselves to watch?

In the intermediate and middle school context, an important area for continued study is

the learning outcomes of listener-viewers. It was not part of this study to analyze the students in

Mrs. Pearl’s class on how they performed on a textbook-based test after viewing their classmates

Photo Story projects (and not learning directly from the textbook), but I am curious about this

connection and how learning is or is not supported through viewing student-created digital

stories. Extending this study beyond the intermediate and middle school grade levels into studies

with students in primary or high school grades would be valuable for investigating the current

questions about listener-viewer response, as well as the other topics addressed in this section.

The developmental needs and academic skills of students across grade levels may reveal

different aspects of the listener-viewer experience in digital storytelling. Another possible

direction for new research is taking the study out of the school library setting and into the public

library to learn about listener-viewers in digital storytelling in that context.

In this study, two types of digital storytelling applications were used, but there are dozens

of applications for digital storytelling. How different applications suit the classroom and library

setting and how students respond to different applications can be explored. The structure of

classroom and library digital storytelling - tightly structured or more flexible, with teacher

156
guidance and instruction (like Schools 1 and 2) or with teacher facilitation and independent

student work (like School 3) – is an area that may also relate to listener-response.

5.5.2 Digital Storytelling in a Broader Research Context

Digital storytelling is one example – albeit, with many iterations – of a multimedia, multi-modal

learning, information, and storytelling activity for children, tweens, and teens. The current study

examines how one aspect of digital storytelling – the listener-viewer response – operates in the

classroom and school library setting. Focused investigations like this one of multimodal and

multimedia learning strategies will inform effective implementation of guiding curriculum and

standards documents, such as the Standards for the 21st-Century Learner. In all of the schools

that I visited, technology was available and at varied levels of readiness and skill, teachers and

students were willing to teach and learn with the technology. Continued research in digital

storytelling, gaming, and other new media will support meaningful application of technology in

learning, the results of which equip students to use information creatively, independently, and

ethically, now and in the diverse contexts in which they will interact, communicate, work, and

play.

157
 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

A.1 STUDENT SURVEY

Questions for Student Written Survey:

Please answer the following questions about you. This part also asks a few questions about
using computers and a few on storytelling. It’s ok if digital storytelling is new to you.

A. Demographic and Background Information

1. How old are you?

2. Are you male or female?

3. Where have you seen or heard about storytelling?

4. Have you heard of digital storytelling before? Where?

5. What do you think the “digital” in digital storytelling means?

6. For you, what is “storytelling” without the “digital” part?

7. Have you ever made a digital storytelling project or a digital story? Where?

8. Have you ever watched someone else’s digital story or digital storytelling project? Where?

9. Do you (or your family) have a computer at home?

10. About how much time per day do you use the computer at home?

11. What kind of activities do you do on the computer at home?

(provide examples as prompts: instant messaging, finding facts for school, checking

assignments from my teacher, finding information for myself, watching Youtube, listening to

158
 music, watching TV shows, blogging, talking to my friends, emailing, Skyping,

Facebooking, making artwork, gaming, uploading pictures, looking for pictures, reading

news)

12. Do you have a video game system or handheld video game player?

13. Do you think of yourself as a “gamer” (or “video gamer”)?

14. About how much time do you spend playing video games per day?

15. Did you play a video game yesterday?

B. After Listening to/Viewing Digital Storytelling

Answer these questions about the digital stories that you just watched. Some questions are
multiple choice and some questions ask you to write what you want to say. For a few
questions, “does not apply” is a choice. Pick this answer if the question or possible choices
for answering don’t seem to match what you saw. For example, if the question asks about
the sound in a story and the story you’re thinking of didn’t have sound in it, choose “does
not apply.”

1. Think of a favorite story of the ones you just viewed. What did you like about it and why?

2. In your FAVORITE digital story, how much did you like the . . .

Story

Music

Other sounds (not music)

Images (photos or illustrations)

Narration (voice-over)

Text (words) on the screen

Design elements (transitions, fading, colors, special effects)

(Responses: I don’t remember it - I didn’t like it at all – it was ok – I liked it - I liked it a lot –

does not apply)

159
3. In your FAVORITE digital story, what do you remember about these things? For example,

for “story,” you might say, “it was about a girl who wanted to try out for a team.” For

images, you might say, “there were photos and a few drawings.”

Story

Music

Other sounds (not music)

Images

Narration (student voice-over)

Text (words) on the screen

Design elements (transitions, fading, colors, special effects)

(Response choices: open response or “I don’t remember this part”)

4. These are some other things I liked about my favorite story and other good stories:

5. Thinking about your FAVORITE digital story, did the digital story make you feel any

particular way?

6. Thinking about your FAVORITE digital story, were you doing anything (in your mind) while

listening to the story?

7. Did you notice anything going on around you in the room while you were viewing the

stories? What did you notice?

8. What is something that you learned in one of the digital stories? What helps you remember

this?

9. When you view a digital story, what pace or speed do you prefer, and why? (For example,

do you like a fast-paced story or a story that moves more slowly, and why?)

160
10. When telling a story like this, through images, sounds, and words, put in order how important

these things are in telling a story.

(1 = most important)

Story

Music

Other sounds (not music)

Narration or student voice-over

Words on the screen

Images, graphics, or pictures

Design elements (transitions, fading in and out, colors, special effects)

11. Thinking about the story that wasn’t your favorite, why do you think it wasn’t a favorite?

12. In viewing someone else’s story, I didn’t really like when the story had . . .

13. For a story that wasn’t one of your favorites , do you think this was because

(Check as many as you want)

It was too hard for me to understand

It wasn’t told in an interesting way or it was boring

I wasn’t interested in the topic or I didn’t like the topic

It had too much stuff: images, music, special effects

It didn’t have enough stuff: images, music, special effects

I didn’t like the images

Some other reason: write what you think here

14. Did you feel like you were concentrating really hard as you watched any particular story?

What do you think made you want to pay attention?

161
15. If you could change something about any of the stories, what would you change?

16. If you could change something about any of the digital stories, would you change any of

these elements? How?

Prompts:

Music–change it, add it, take it away

Pace–faster/slower

Pictures or images-fewer, more, bigger, smaller, use other pictures instead

Change this about the story that was told:

Change something else:

17. After you watched the stories, what did you want to do next?

18. After you watched the stories, did you want to do any of these things?

Prompts: Watch another digital story, make my own digital story, learn about this topic:

_____, talk to _________, ask someone about ________do something else,

19. What would you like your librarian to do next with digital storytelling in your school

library?

20. Think about the digital stories you just viewed, and think about stories you read in books.

How do digital stories and stories in books compare? (In other words, how are they the same

or different?)

162
 A.2 STUDENT SURVEY MAPPED TO THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Selected Questions from Student Survey, Mapped to Theory

B. After Listening to/Viewing Digital Storytelling

1. Think of a favorite story of the ones you just viewed. What did you like about it and why?

2. In your FAVORITE digital story, how much did you like the . . .

Story

Music

Other sounds (not music)

Images (photos or illustrations)

Narration (voice-over)

Text (words) on the screen

Design elements (transitions, fading, colors, special effects)

(Responses: I don’t remember it - I didn’t like it at all – it was ok – I liked it - I liked it a

lot – does not apply)

Music has the capacity to grab the attention and stick in the mind 170; as such, the factors of

whether there is music in the story or not, what type of music is selected, and if the music is

familiar, may affect the students’ engagement and also how readily they recall a story.

163
3. In your FAVORITE digital story, what do you remember about these things? For

example, for “story,” you might say, “it was about a girl who wanted to try out for a

team.” For images, you might say, “there were photos and a few drawings.”

Story

Music

Other sounds (not music)

Images

Narration (student voice-over)

Text (words) on the screen

Design elements (transitions, fading, colors, special effects)

(Response choices: open response or “I don’t remember this part”)

This question may reveal connections to students’ engagement; they may be more engaged

with stories they liked, so that finding out the qualities of favored stories may be helpful. As

in the next question, this topic also may address the students’ ability to follow the story (if a

story they can follow is one that they like). This topic also connects to aspects of experiential

meaning-making, that is, how much thinking and recontextualizing171 is required to follow

the events.

4. These are some other things I liked about my favorite story and other good stories:

5. Thinking about your FAVORITE digital story, did the digital story make you feel any

particular way?

164
 This question reflects Sturm’s findings that storylistening trance experiences include engaged

receptive channels, including an emotional response. 172

6. Thinking about your FAVORITE digital story, were you doing anything (in your mind)

while listening to the story?

This may provide insight as to the attention of the student and factors of distraction, which is

an effect described by Sturm. 173

7. Did you notice anything going on around you in the room while you were viewing the

stories? What did you notice?

This question also addresses the factor of attention and possibly may reveal characteristics of

digital storytelling engagement

8. What is something that you learned in one of the digital stories? What helps you

remember this?

This question may shed light on whether students approached the story from an efferent or

aesthetic stance. It may also indicate whether multimedia components engaged students.

9. When you view a digital story, what pace or speed do you prefer, and why? (For

example, do you like a fast-paced story or a story that moves more slowly, and why?)

This question deals with the students’ ability to follow the story, which connects to aspects of

experiential meaning-making, that is, how much thinking and recontextualizing 174 is required

to follow the events.

165
10. When telling a story like this, through images, sounds, and words, put in order how

important these things are in telling a story.

(1 = most important)

Story

Music

Other sounds (not music)

Narration or student voice-over

Words on the screen

Images, graphics, or pictures

Design elements (transitions, fading in and out, colors, special effects)

This question relates to the multimedia nature of the digital story and will help provide

insight on those aspects which drew the students’ attention.

11. Thinking about the story that wasn’t your favorite, why do you think it wasn’t a favorite?

This question may relate to several components of the digital storytelling experience,

including the complexity of a multimodal experience and the reader/viewer’s transaction

with the text.

12. In viewing someone else’s story, I didn’t really like when the story had . . .

13. For a story that wasn’t one of your favorites , do you think this was because

(Check as many as you want)

166
 It was too hard for me to understand

It wasn’t told in an interesting way or it was boring

I wasn’t interested in the topic or I didn’t like the topic

It had too much stuff: images, music, special effects

It didn’t have enough stuff: images, music, special effects

I didn’t like the images

Some other reason: write what you think here

This question may relate to several components of the digital storytelling experience,

including the complexity of a multimodal experience and the reader/viewer’s transaction

with the text.

14. Did you feel like you were concentrating really hard as you watched any particular story?

What do you think made you want to pay attention?

15. If you could change something about any of the stories, what would you change?

This question may provide insight as to whether the student felt involved or engaged in the

story and may suggest ways to enhance response or involvement.

16. If you could change something about any of the digital stories, would you change any of

these elements? How?

Prompts:

Music–change it, add it, take it away

Pace–faster/slower

167
 Pictures or images-fewer, more, bigger, smaller, use other pictures instead

Change this about the story that was told:

Change something else:

17. After you watched the stories, what did you want to do next?

This question may reveal efferent qualities of the students’ experience with the stories, i.e., what

they take away – perhaps questions, interests, or areas to investigate. Depending on the topic of

the digital story, this question may show a call to action; perhaps students want to do or make

something as a result of what they saw or learned.

18. After you watched the stories, did you want to do any of these things?

Prompts: Watch another digital story, make my own digital story, learn about this topic:

_____, talk to _________, ask someone about ________do something else

19. What would you like your librarian to do next with digital storytelling in your school

library?

20. Think about the digital stories you just viewed, and think about stories you read in books.

How do digital stories and stories in books compare? (In other words, how are they the same

or different?)

168
 A.3 STUDENT FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS AND SCRIPT

Focus Group Script and Questions

A. Welcome and introductions, explanation of the process and purpose of today’s focus
group. The process will start with this introduction, demonstration and testing of the
audio recording equipment, then questions and discussion, and a time for conclusion and
an opportunity for participants to offer any additional information. The purpose of the
focus group is to obtain feedback from the students on their experiences as listener-
viewers in digital storytelling.

B. Questions for the focus group

1. The survey asked about things you like to see and hear when listening to and viewing a

digital story. Can you talk more about your answer?

2. What special effects did you notice in the digital stories? Which ones did you like or not

like?

3. One of the survey questions asked about stories that really made you concentrate or pay

attention. Tell me about what makes you pay attention to a digital story.

4. What did you do while you watched the stories?

5. What did you notice around you when you watched the stories?

6. Did the story make you think of questions to ask the person who made it, maybe about

the story itself, or how they put it together? What questions would you ask a person

whose story you watched?

7. One of the survey questions asked what would you like your librarian to do next with

digital storytelling in your school library. Can you talk more about that?

8. Can you think of an experience that is similar to watching a digital story?

9. What words would you use to describe how it feels to watch a digital story?

169
 10. What experiences did you have as a listener-viewer that the survey didn’t ask you about?

C. Concluding remarks from the researcher, invitation for any additional comments from
students, and thanks for participating in the focus group.

170
 A.4 TEACHER AND LIBRARIAN INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Teacher and Librarian Interview Questions

1. Talk about this digital storytelling lesson in your classroom.

2. Why did you decide to use digital storytelling for this lesson?

3. Did you consult any standards documents (academic standards for subject area, library

standards, other standards) in planning this lesson?

4. Were there specific parts of the teaching and planning that you were responsible for, as you

worked with your colleague? Can you talk about the process of planning to teach this

lesson?

5. What other experiences do you have with digital storytelling?

6. What training or professional development do you have in the area of digital storytelling?

7. What is your perception of the students’ engagement in creating digital stories?

8. What is your perception of the students’ engagement in listening and viewing digital stories?

9. When you planned this lesson, were there “intangibles” that you hoped students would gain,

in addition to the learning of the content? Can you describe these attributes?

10. Will you teach digital storytelling again? What would you keep or change about the lesson?

11. Is there anything else you would like to describe or reflect on regarding this digital

storytelling project? Do you have any insights you would like to share regarding the role of

the listener-viewer in digital storytelling in your classroom?

171
 APPENDIX B: SELECTED DATA

B.1 RESEARCH ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE

Task Date

Dissertation Proposal Defense November 2010

Identification of school sites for study November 2010-February 2011

Revisions to study, survey instruments, December 2010-January 2011

invitations, consent forms, per committee

instructions

For study: Teacher and librarian agreement November 2010-February 2011

to participate, identification of appropriate

digital storytelling project in curriculum,

selection of class for the study

School district permission (3 sites) December 2010-February 2011

Institutional Review Board application and December 2010-February 2011,

approval modifications in March and May

Distribute and collect parent/child and January 2011-March 2011

teacher/librarian consent forms (3 sites)

172
Revision of survey questions, according to January 2011 (approximately mid-January)

pre-test feedback and analysis

Digital storytelling projects in schools February-May 2011

Observation of students during digital Number of days in each school site, depend

storytelling project development and on lesson plans; about one hour per day

viewing

Administered on performance day or as

Written survey soon as possible; about 30 minutes

Conducted on performance day or as soon

Focus group as possible, about 20 minutes

Conducted on performance day or as soon

Teacher-librarian interviews as possible, about one hour

Data organization February-May 2011

Data analysis February-July 2011

Writing May-July 2011

173
 B.2 CLASSROOM HANDOUTS AND TEACHING MATERIALS

School 1

Mrs. Pearl’s Topics and Subtopics

This topic and subtopic list on “Ancestor Worship” is a sample of one of the 15 topic and

subtopic lists that Mrs. Pearl developed. Each student received his or her own. The remaining

topics were Geography, Great Wall of China, Terra Cotta Army, Silk Road, Marco Polo, Chinese

New Year and Traditions, Qin Dynasty, Chinese Food and Chopsticks, Giant Panda, Confucius,

Buddhism, Dragon Lore, Animals of the Zodiac, and Achievements and Inventions.

174
School 2 Ms. Black’s Teacher Lesson Plan

175
School 2 Student Work Log (blank)

176
School 2 Student Self-Evaluation (blank)

177
School 2 Student Planning Document (blank)

178
School 2 Rubric

179
180
 APPENDIX C: CODING SCHEME

CODES USED IN NVIVO QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS SOFTWARE

teachers (parent code, level 1)

teacher's instruction or facilitation of digital storytelling (child codes, level 2)

teacher collaboration
recommendations for teaching and facilitating
classroom management
adult facilitators
students create digital story (parent code, level 1)

student-creator considers listener-viewer response (child code, level 2)

student views or listens to work-in-progress (child code, level 2)
peer teaching (child codes, level 3)
noise and volume issues in recording and viewing
kinesthetic watching and listening
student terminology (child codes, level 2)
student self-evaluation or reflection
student research and information gathering approaches
student reading and writing skills
student motivation, engagement and enjoyment
student computer skills
choice of topic
student(s) view(s) completed story (parent code, level 1)

what to do next with digital storytelling (child codes, level 2)

learning
kinesthetic watching and listening
video codes (child code, level 3)
yawn (child codes, level 4)
touch or lean on student
touch computer or technology equipment

181
 tap or bounce
talk
talk to teacher or librarian
talk to self
talk to particular student
talk to general group
smile
sigh or deep breath
shush student
shift in posture
shake head
roll eyes
put head down
play with or manipulate something
move away from group
look down
look at researcher
look at particular student(s)
look around room
laugh
gasp
fidget (several movements in a row - hands, body, looking around)
dance
clap
features of digital stories which draw student attention (child code, level 2)
relevant to student(s) (child codes, level 3)
placeness, realism
images and special effects
friends, peers
boring
experiences similar to digital storytelling (child code, level 2)
emotional responses (child code, level 2)
shy or embarrassed (child codes, level 3)
pride, own story was favorite
funny, humorous, laugh, entertaining, bloopers
classroom set-up for viewing digital stories
school environment, class structure, schedule (parent code, level 1)

researcher roles (parent code, level 1)

researcher's role, watch student story (child codes, level 2)
researcher's role, tech help and troubleshooting
researcher's role, conversation
researcher's role, consultant
general research study and report notes (parent code, level 1)

182
survey logistics (child codes, level 2)
quotable

183
 APPENDIX D: IRB AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION

D.1 TEACHER AND LIBRARIAN INVITATION (ALL SCHOOLS)

601 IS Building
135 North Bellefield Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15260

Dear Teacher and Librarian,

Thank you for welcoming me into your classroom and school library to conduct the research
study, Responses of Listener-Viewers in Digital Storytelling in the Middle School Library.
This study has been approved by the district and building administration and by the University of
Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. You are invited to participate in a face-to-face interview
as part of this study. Your participation is voluntary.

In this study, the students will develop digital storytelling projects in a classroom/school
library activity that is part of the regular curriculum. Digital storytelling is a short, student-made
multimedia story with photos or illustrations, music, and/or narration. Digital storytelling is used
in K-12 education to help students develop technology and information literacy skills and
content area knowledge. I am interested in learning how middle school students respond as
listener-viewers to digital storytelling. This research will help teachers and school librarians
develop best practices for teaching and using digital storytelling in the curriculum to support
student learning.

To help you understand the context of this study, I am doing this research as part of my
dissertation, as I work toward completing my PhD in Library and Information Science. I am a
former elementary classroom teacher and middle school librarian in the Pittsburgh area. I am
mindful of the importance of your responsibilities as an educator, and it is my intention to
provide an experience that may provide interesting insights for you and your students who
participate, without taking away learning time.

184
 Please see the attached pages for further details, sample interview topics, and an official
consent form to complete if you decide that you would like to participate. Please feel free to
contact me if you have questions about the study. You can submit completed consent forms to
me.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Morris, MLIS, PhD Candidate & Teaching Fellow

Library and Information Science Program and School Library Certification Program
School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh
Phone: 412-400-8692 Email: rjm68@pitt.edu or rmorris1855@gmail.com

185
 D.2 SCHOOL DISTRICT PERMISSION

School Administrator Permission, Schools 1, 2, and 3

601 IS Building
135 North Bellefield Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15260

(School Information)

Dear Xxxxxx:

I am writing to request the permission of your school building administration to visit and observe
a class in your school as part of my dissertation research in Library and Information Science. I
am a former elementary classroom teacher and middle school librarian in the Pittsburgh area, and
I am working toward completing my PhD at the University of Pittsburgh. I selected your school
as a possible study location through my professional relationship with your school librarian, Ms.
XXX.

In this study, I am interested in observing and interviewing students and teachers

involved in digital storytelling projects. As you may know, digital storytelling is used in K-12
education to help students develop technology and information literacy skills and content area
knowledge. Digital storytelling is a short, student-made multimedia story with photos or
illustrations, music, and/or narration. The lesson that I want to observe has been designed by
teacher Ms. XXX in collaboration with a classroom teacher as part of the school curriculum, and
it does not involve an experimental design. The steps of my study are listed below. Steps 2-6
would take place at your school. The number of days I would visit depends on the teacher’s
lesson plans and school schedule, but I anticipate that the lesson and study activities will take
about 5-7 class periods.

8. Pre-test of survey instrument with students who are not in one of the two study settings
9. Observation of students during the development of digital storytelling projects.
Instruction led by classroom teacher.
10. Observation of students during viewing of digital stories.
11. Written survey of all participating students as soon after viewing as possible, same day if
school schedule allows (about 20 minutes)
12. Focus-group of 6-8 students (about 30 minutes)
13. Face-to-face interview with teacher (about 45 minutes)

186
 I am interested in learning how students respond as listener-viewers to digital
storytelling. I have attached here sample survey and interview topics for your reference. This
research will help teachers and school librarians develop best practices for teaching and using
digital storytelling in the curriculum to support student learning. As a former K-12 teacher, I am
mindful of the importance of students’ learning time, and it is my intention to provide an
experience that may provide interesting insights for the teachers and students, without significant
interruption to the school day.

This study has been approved by my dissertation committee at the University of

Pittsburgh, School of Information Science and by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional
Review Board (IRB). As part of the research study requirements, I must provide documentation
of permission from building administration to conduct my study at your school. I have attached
here my current clearances and also my curriculum vitae for your review.

If you grant your permission for me to do my research at xxx School, a signed statement
like the attached sample below (on school letterhead) would provide sufficient documentation for
me to submit to the University of Pittsburgh IRB. The next step after receiving permission will
be to distribute letters of invitation and consent forms, which I have ready to send at the
appropriate time.

Please feel free to contact me by phone (412-400-8692) or email

(rmorris1855@gmail.com or rjm68@pitt.edu) if you have questions about the study or if you
would like any additional information from me.
Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Rebecca Morris, MLIS, PhD Candidate & Teaching Fellow

Library and Information Science Program and School Library Certification Program
School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh
Phone: 412-400-8692 Email: rjm68@pitt.edu or rmorris1855@gmail.com

(Page 2)
Response of Listener-Viewers in Digital Storytelling in the Middle School Library
Rebecca Morris, University of Pittsburgh

Sample Statement of Permission

(Please attach other documents required by school district, as applicable).

On behalf of (school name/district name), I grant permission to Rebecca Morris, PhD Candidate
at the University of Pittsburgh, to conduct the study, Responses of Listener-Viewers in the
Middle School Library, at this school. I understand that school district permission is required to
meet the requirements of University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for this study.

_______________________________________________________________________
Printed Name of Person Granting Permission Role of Person Granting Permission

187
______________________________________________________________________________
Signature Date

Sample Student Survey Questions:

- Did you feel like you were concentrating really hard on any particular story? What do you
think made you want to pay attention?

- Think of a favorite story of the ones you just viewed. What did you like about it and why?

Sample Student Focus Group Questions:

- One of the survey questions asked what would you like your librarian to do next with digital
storytelling in your school library. Can you talk more about that?

- What special effects did you notice in the digital stories? Which ones did you like or not
like? Why?

Sample Teacher/Librarian Interview Questions:

-What experiences do you have with digital storytelling?

-What is your perception of the students’ engagement in listening to and viewing digital
stories?

Research Study Summary Requested by School 2 School Board

Research Study Information for xxx School Board

March 7, 2011

Study Title: Response of Listener-Viewers in Digital Storytelling in the Middle School

Library
In this study, I am interested in observing and interviewing students and teachers involved in
digital storytelling projects. As you may know, digital storytelling is used in K-12 education to
help students develop technology and information literacy skills and content area knowledge.
Digital storytelling is a short, student-created multimedia story with photos or illustrations,
music, and/or narration. The lesson that I want to observe has been designed by the classroom
teacher as part of the school curriculum, and it does not involve an experimental design. The
steps of my study are listed below. The number of days I would visit depends on the teachers’
lesson plans and school schedule, but I anticipate that the lesson and study activities will take
about 5-6 class periods.

188
Sequence of Activities:

1. Observation of students during the development of digital storytelling projects. Instruction

led by classroom teacher, xxx

2. Observation of students during presentation/viewing of their digital stories. Instruction led

by classroom teacher, xxx

3. Written survey of all participating students soon after viewing, same day if school schedule
allows (about 20-25 minutes)

4. Focus-group of 6-8 students (about 30-40 minutes)

5. Face-to-face interview with classroom teacher (about 45 minutes)

189
 D.3 TEACHER AND LIBRARIAN CONSENT

TITLE: Responses of Listener-Viewers in Digital Storytelling in the Middle School Library

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
Rebecca J. Morris, School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh
601 IS Building, 135 North Bellefield Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Phone: 412-400-8692; Email: rjm68@pitt.edu or rmorris1855@gmail.com

FACULTY MENTOR:
Dr. Mary Kay Biagini, School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh
601B IS Building, 135 North Bellefield Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Phone: 412-624-5138; Email: mkbiagini@sis.pitt.edu

Why is this study being done?

The purpose of this research is to study how middle school students respond as listener-viewers
to a classroom activity known as “digital storytelling.” Digital storytelling is a short, student-
made multimedia story with photos or illustrations, music, and/or narration. Digital storytelling
is used in K-12 education to help students develop technology and information literacy skills and
content area knowledge. In this study, the students will develop digital storytelling projects in a
classroom/library activity that is part of the regular curriculum.

This research will help teachers and school librarians develop best practices for teaching and
using digital storytelling in the curriculum to support student learning. In addition, the research
will help contribute to literature on digital storytelling in library and information science.

Who is being asked to take part in this study?

The teachers and librarians who are facilitating the digital storytelling projects that are being
studied in the Responses of Listener-Viewers in Digital Storytelling in the Middle School
Library research are being asked to take part. Teachers and librarians from another middle
school class in the Pittsburgh area are also invited to take part in a similar version of the study at
their school. All of the teachers and librarians facilitating the digital storytelling projects are
invited to participate.

What are the procedures of this study?

If you agree to participate in this research study, you will take part in a face-to-face interview
with the Principal Investigator (Rebecca Morris) following the student activities in the digital
storytelling project. The interview will be audio recorded in order to aid in accurate
transcription.

190
The following are sample interview questions:
-What experiences do you have with digital storytelling?
-What is your perception of the students’ engagement in listening to and viewing digital stories?
How will my eligibility for the study be determined?
All teachers and librarians of the class selected for the study are invited to participate.

What are the possible risks and discomforts of this study?

The potential risks for individuals who participate in this study are minimal. A breach of
confidentiality is a possible risk as well though the researcher will do everything she can to
maintain confidentiality throughout your participation in this study. You should understand that
you are free to stop the study and withdraw your consent in the study at any time. The researcher
has been trained to maintain privacy.

Will my I benefit from taking part in this study?

There is no direct benefit or guarantee for participation in the study. You will have the
opportunity to provide information that will help to build more effective methods for instruction
in information technology and information literacy skills, which is a potential indirect benefit of
the study.

Are there any costs to me if I participate in this study?

There are no costs to you for participating in this study.

How much will I be paid for completing this study?

There is no compensation involved in this study.

Will anyone know that I am taking part in this study?

All records pertaining to your involvement in this study are kept strictly confidential (private).
Your identity will not be associated with any survey documents or reports of the study, nor will
the name of the school be revealed in any description or publications of this research. Comments
from the interview may be used in my dissertation and related articles, but identifying
information will be removed and pseudonyms will be used instead.

In unusual cases, your research records may be released in response to an order from a court of
law. It is also possible that authorized representatives from the University of Pittsburgh Research
Conduct and Compliance Office or the University of Pittsburgh IRB may review your data for
the purpose of monitoring the conduct of this study.

Is my participation in this study voluntary?

Yes, your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may refuse to take part in it, or
stop participating at any time, even after signing this form. Your decision will not affect your
relationship with the University of Pittsburgh, nor will you lose any benefits that you might be
eligible for because of your decision. You may be withdrawn from the study at any time by the
investigators: for example, if you were subsequently found to meet any of the study criteria that
would exclude him/her from participating.

191
How can I get more information about this study?
If you have any further questions about this research study, you may contact the investigator
listed at the beginning of this consent form. If you have any questions about your rights as a
research subject, please contact the Human Subjects Protection Advocate at the University of
Pittsburgh IRB Office, 1.866.212.2668.

SUBJECT’S CERTIFICATION
I have read the consent form for this study and any questions I had, including explanation of all
terminology, have been answered to my satisfaction.

I understand that I am encouraged to ask questions about any aspect of this research study during
the course of this study, and that those questions will be answered by the researchers listed on the
first page of this form.

I understand that my participation in this study is voluntary and that I am free to refuse to
participate or to withdraw my consent and discontinue my participation in this study at any time.

I agree to participate in this study.

I will receive a copy of this consent form.

__________________________________________________________
Printed Name of Participant

_____________________________________ ______________________
Signature of Participant Date

CERTIFICATION OF INFORMED CONSENT

I certify that I have explained the nature and purpose of this research study to the above-named
individual(s), and I have discussed the potential benefits and possible risks of study participation.
Any questions the individual(s) have about this study have been answered, and we will always be
available to address future questions, concerns or complaints as they arise. I further certify that
no research component of this protocol was begun until after this consent form was signed.

___Rebecca Morris________________ __Principal Investigator_____

Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent Role in Research Study

_________________________________ ____________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

192
 D.4 PARENT INVITATION

D.4.1 Teacher Cover Letters for Parent Invitation

Schools 1 and 3, Written by Rebecca Morris

February 2011

Dear Parents and Guardians,

The enclosed letter is an invitation for your child to participate in a research study. The study is
being conducted by Rebecca Morris, a PhD Candidate at the University of Pittsburgh. Ms.
Morris is a former first grade teacher and school librarian in the Pittsburgh area, and her research
interest is student learning in the middle school library.

The research activities involve observation of a classroom activity taught by the teacher and
librarian, with interview and a survey for the students afterward. The learning activities have
been designed by your child’s classroom teacher (me) and the school librarian, not the
researcher. The activities are part of the regular school curriculum and this is not an
experimental learning activity. Participation is voluntary, and your choice to have your child
participate or not has no effect on his or her grade. More details about the study are included in
the letter from Ms. Morris.

This study has been approved by school district administration and the University of Pittsburgh.
Please contact me or Ms. Morris (contact information included in the enclosed letter) if you have
any questions or concerns.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

193
School 2, Written by classroom teacher

3/19/11

Dear Parents & Guardians,

Through discussion and collaboration, the 4/5 teachers and the technology teacher have created a
sequence of lessons to integrate technology into the Reading/Language Arts curriculum. As we
work on the Book Report and Literature Circles, we are having the students create Book Trailers.
These are similar to the movie trailer advertisements. Students will be focusing on the same
concepts in making these as we are emphasizing in class.

Coincidentally, as research proposal came our way that was looking at just such a sequence of
lessons.

We invite your child to be included in the study, as it won’t impact or interrupt the regular
curriculum.

More information is attached from the researcher, Ms. Rebecca Morris.

We would appreciate your signatures on the pages attached.

Your child will also sign similar papers once you have returned your signed papers.

Additional questions can be directed to:

Ms. XXX, Technology Teacher
Ms. XXX, Classroom Teacher

Thank You!

194
 D.5 PARENT CONSENT

TITLE: Responses of Listener-Viewers in Digital Storytelling in the Middle School Library

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
Rebecca J. Morris
Library and Information Science PhD Program
School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh
135 North Bellefield Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Phone: 412.400.8692; E-mail: rjm68@pitt.edu or rmorris1855@gmail.com

FACULTY MENTOR
Dr. Mary Kay Biagini, School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh
601B IS Building, 135 North Bellefield Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Phone: 412-624-5138; Email: mkbiagini@sis.pitt.edu

Why is this study being done?

The purpose of this research is to study how middle school students respond as listener-viewers
to a classroom activity known as “digital storytelling.” Digital storytelling is a short, student-
made multimedia story with photos or illustrations, music, and/or narration. Digital storytelling
is used in K-12 education to help students develop technology and information literacy skills and
content area knowledge. In this study, the students will develop digital storytelling projects in a
classroom/library activity that is part of the regular curriculum. This research will help teachers
and school librarians develop best practices for teaching and using digital storytelling in the
curriculum to support student learning.

Who is being asked to take part in this study?

Students from your child’s class are being asked to participate in this study. Students from
another middle school class in the Pittsburgh area are also invited to take part in a similar version
of the study at their school. All students in each of the two classes will be invited to take part.

What are the procedures of this study?

If you agree to allow your child to participate in this research study, your child will be take part
in two, possibly three, activities to accompany a planned instructional lesson in the classroom.
Please note that the classroom lesson has been developed by the classroom teacher and school
librarian, and it is not specifically designed as a research study activity. The Principal
Investigator (PI) is Rebecca Morris, a former classroom teacher and former school librarian in
the Pittsburgh area.

195
CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION
Ms. Morris will be present in the room as an observer during the instruction and project
development phase. Participants and non-participants will take part in the same curricular
content and lesson; additional components for participants are the survey interview and possibly
the focus group. During the sharing of projects, Ms. Morris will observe and video record the
student-participants as a group while they view the digital storytelling projects.

During this phase, the Ms. Morris will record general observations on how the students watched
the digital stories – for example, if they watched while sharing reactions with classmates and if
the stories captured their attention. The digital storytelling projects will be part of the research
data.

SURVEY
In the next phase, students will be asked to respond to written survey questions about what it was
like to view classmates’ digital storytelling projects. The survey will take about 20-30 minutes
to complete. Sample questions from the survey are as follows:

- Did you feel like you were concentrating really hard on any particular story? What do
you think made you want to pay attention?

- Think of a favorite story of the ones you just viewed. What did you like about it and
why?

FOCUS GROUP
A small group of 6-8 students will be randomly selected to participate in the last phase of the
study, a focus group session of about 30 minutes. Students in the focus group will be asked
questions about what it was like to view classmates’ digital storytelling projects. The focus
group will be audio-recorded. Sample questions from the focus group are as follows:

- One of the survey questions asked what would you like your librarian to do next with digital
storytelling in your school library. Can you talk more about that?

- What special effects did you notice in the digital stories? Which ones did you like or not
like? Why?

How will my child’s eligibility for the study be determined?

All students of the selected class are invited to participate.

What are the possible risks and discomforts of this study?

The potential risks for individuals who participate in this study are minimal and may include
possible frustration if a student encounters difficulty describing his or her thoughts on digital
storytelling to the researcher. A breach of confidentiality is a possible risk as well though the
researcher will do everything she can to maintain confidentiality of your child throughout her/his
participation in this study. You should understand that your child is free to stop the study and
withdraw his or her consent in the study at any time. The researcher has been trained to maintain
privacy.

196
Will my child benefit from taking part in this study?
There is no direct benefit or guarantee for participation in the study. Your child will have the
opportunity to provide information that will help to build more effective methods for instruction
in information technology and information literacy skills, which is a potential indirect benefit of
the study.

Are there any costs to my family if my child participates in this study?

There are no costs to you or your child for participating in this study.

How much will my child be paid for completing this study?

If your child completes the interview session, s/he will receive a small school supplies gift from
the researcher. If s/he leaves the study early, s/he will also receive the items for participating.
(Note: As explained in Chapter 3, this section about being paid was included in the original
consent form approved by IRB and it was used for School 1. Per request from School 2, a
modified version was approved by IRB and used with Schools 2 and 3).

Will anyone know that my child is taking part in this study?

All records pertaining to your child’s involvement in this study are kept strictly confidential
(private). Your child’s identity will not be associated with any survey documents or reports of
the study, nor will the name of the school be revealed in any description or publications of this
research. Words that your child says during the project may be used in my dissertation and
related articles, but identifying information will be removed and pseudonyms will be used
instead.

In unusual cases, your child’s research records may be released in response to an order from a
court of law. It is also possible that authorized representatives from the University of Pittsburgh
Research Conduct and Compliance Office may review your child’s data for the purpose of
monitoring the conduct of this study.

Is my child’s participation in this study voluntary?

Yes, your child’s participation in this study is completely voluntary. You or your child may
refuse to take part in it, or stop participating at any time, even after signing this form. Your
decision will not affect your/your child’s relationship with the University of Pittsburgh or your
child’s school, nor will you/your child lose any benefits that you might be eligible for because of
your decision. Your child may be withdrawn from the study at any time by the investigators: for
example, if s/he were subsequently found to meet any of the study criteria that would exclude
him/her from participating.

How can I get more information about this study?

If you have any further questions about this research study, you may contact the investigator
listed at the beginning of this consent form. If you have any questions about your rights as a
research subject, please contact the Human Subjects Protection Advocate at the University of
Pittsburgh IRB Office, 1.866.212.2668.

197
Responses of Listener-Viewers in Digital Storytelling in the Middle School Library

SUBJECT’S CERTIFICATION
I have read the consent form for this study and any questions I had, including explanation of all
terminology, have been answered to my satisfaction.

I understand that I am encouraged to ask questions about any aspect of this research study during
the course of this study, and that those questions will be answered by the researchers listed on the
first page of this form.

I understand that my child’s participation in this study is voluntary and that I am free to refuse to
participate or to withdraw my consent and discontinue my child’s participation in this study at
any time.

I agree for my child to participate in this study. I will receive a copy of this consent form.

________________________________________________________
Printed Name of Child

I understand that, as a minor (age less than 18 years), the above-named child is not permitted to
participate in this research study without my consent. Therefore, by signing this form, I give
my consent for her/his participation in this research study.

______________________________________ ____________________________
Parent’s Name (Print) Relationship to Participant (Child)
_____________________________________ ____________________________
Parent’s Name (Print) Relationship to Participant (Child)
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Signature of Parent Signature of Parent

CERTIFICATION OF INFORMED CONSENT

I certify that I have explained the nature and purpose of this research study to the above-named
individual(s), and I have discussed the potential benefits and possible risks of study participation.
Any questions the individual(s) have about this study have been answered, and we will always be
available to address future questions, concerns or complaints as they arise. I further certify that
no research component of this protocol was begun until after this consent form was signed.

___Rebecca Morris__________________ __Principal Investigator_

Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent Role in Research Study

_________________________________ ____________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

198
 D.6 STUDENT ASSENT

TITLE: Responses of Listener-Viewers in Digital Storytelling in the Middle School Library

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
Rebecca J. Morris, Library and Information Science PhD Program
School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh

FACULTY MENTOR
Dr. Mary Kay Biagini, School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh

Why is this study being done?

This study is being done to learn how middle school students like you respond as viewers in a
school activity called “digital storytelling.” You’ll be making digital storytelling projects with
your teacher and librarian in school. This research will help teachers and school librarians
develop the best ways to teach digital storytelling to help kids learn. The researcher is Ms.
Morris, who used to be a school librarian and classroom teacher.

Who is being asked to take part in this study?

Students from your class are being asked to participate. Students from another middle school
class in the Pittsburgh area are also invited to take part in a similar version at their school. All
students in each of the two classes will be invited to take part.

What’s going to happen in this study?

As a regular part of school, you’re going to make a digital story with your teacher and librarian.
The researcher, Ms. Morris, will be in your classroom to watch the students as a group while you
learn about and make your digital story. Ms. Morris will do a video recording, just of the part of
the lesson when you get to watch everyone’s stories. If you participate in the study, you’ll also
be invited to answer some survey questions about digital storytelling and you might be asked to
join a small group discussion to talk more. This small group is called a focus group.

One survey question is this:

- Think of a favorite story of the ones you just viewed. What did you like about it and why?

One focus group question is this:

- What special effects did you notice in the digital stories? Which ones did you like or not
like? Why?

199
Here are some other important things to know about this study:

- All students of your class class are invited to participate.

- Answering survey questions and focus group questions doesn’t have anything to do with
your grades in school, and no extra homework or assignments are required.
- Ms. Morris won’t use your name in any research from this study.
- You can stop participating in the study at any time.
- There is no cost to participate and you won’t get paid.
- You’ll get a small school supplies gift for participating, even if you don’t do the whole
study.

(Note: As explained in Chapter 3, this section about being paid was included in the original
consent form approved by IRB and it was used for School 1. Per request from School 2, a
modified version was approved by IRB and used with Schools 2 and 3).

- This study is voluntary, which means it’s up to you whether you do it or not. Student who
do the study also have to have parent permission. (Parents and guardians have a separate
form to fill out).

How can I get more information about this study?

If you have questions, check with your parents or guardians about contacting the investigator
listed at the beginning of this form. Parents and guardians also have more details about the study
in their consent form. The number to call is the Human Subjects Protection Advocate at the
University of Pittsburgh IRB Office, 1.866.212.2668.

Responses of Listener-Viewers in Digital Storytelling in the Middle School Library

ASSENT: FOR PARTICIPANTS

This research has been explained to me, and I agree to participate.

___________________________________________
Printed Name of Student

_______________________________ ____________
Signature of Student Date

CERTIFICATION OF INFORMED CONSENT

I certify that I have explained the nature and purpose of this research study to the above-named
individual(s), and I have discussed the potential benefits and possible risks of study participation.
Any questions the individual(s) have about this study have been answered, and we will always be
available to address future questions, concerns or complaints as they arise. I further certify that

200
no research component of this protocol was begun until after this consent form was signed.

__Rebecca Morris__________________ __Principal Investigator_

Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent Role in Research Study

_________________________________ ____________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

201
 NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

NOTES

1
Greene and Del Negro, Storytelling: Art and Technique.
2
Kimball, Jenkins, and Hearne, “Effie Louise Power: Librarian, Educator, Author.”
3
AASL, Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs, 8.
4
Association for Library Service to Children, “ALSC Strategic Plan, 2006-2011.”
5
Heath and Street, Ethnography: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research, National
Conference on Research in Language and Literacy:33.
6
Rosenblatt, Making Meaning with Texts; Rosenblatt, The Reader, The Text, The Poem: The
Transactional Theory of the Literary Work.
7
Mackey, Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text.
8
Sturm, “The Enchanted Imagination: Storytelling’s Power to Entrance Listeners”; Sturm, “The
‘Storylistening’ Trance Experience.”
9
Georges, “Toward an Understanding of Storytelling Events.”
10
Maguire, “Sounds and Sensibilities: Storytelling as an Educational Process.”
11
Sturm, “The Enchanted Imagination: Storytelling’s Power to Entrance Listeners.”
12
AASL, Standards for the 21st-Century Learner.
13
Radner, et al, “Visions for Storytelling Studies: Why, How, and For Whom?”.
14
National Storytelling Network, “What Is Storytelling?”.
15
Ibid.

202
16
“National Storytelling Network.”
17
Birch, “Who Says? The Storyteller as Narrator,” 107.
18
MacDonald, The Storyteller’s Start-Up Book: Finding, Learning, Performing, and Using
Folktales, 93, 31.
19
Haven, Story Proof: The Science Behind the Startling Power of Story.
20
Lipman, Improving Your Storytelling: Beyond the Basics for All Who Tell Stories in Work or
Play.
21
MacDonald, The Storyteller’s Start-Up Book: Finding, Learning, Performing, and Using
Folktales.
22
National Storytelling Network, “What Is Storytelling?”.
23
Haven, Story Proof: The Science Behind the Startling Power of Story, 79.
24
Haven, Story Proof: The Science Behind the Startling Power of Story.
25
National Storytelling Network, “Special Interest & Discussion Groups.”
26
The Moth, “The Moth - Live Storytelling Performances.”
27
WBEZ Alliance, Inc. and Ira Glass, “This American Life.”
28
Kniffel, “Everyday Existence.”
29
Mooney and Holt, The Storyteller’s Guide, 9.
30
Farmer, “Using technology for storytelling: Tools for children”; Robin, “Digital Storytelling:
A Powerful Technology Tool for the 21st Century Class...”; Rule, “Digital Storytelling: Never
Has Storytelling Been So Easy or So Powerful.”
31
Robin, “Digital Storytelling: A Powerful Technology Tool for the 21st Century Class...”
32
Miller, Digital Storytelling: A Creator’s Guide to Interactive Entertainment; Ohler, Digital
Storytelling in the Classroom: New Media Pathways to Literacy.
33
Kress and Van Leeuwen, Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary
Communication.
34
“Educational Uses of Digital Storytelling.”
35
Czarnecki, “Digital Storytelling in Practice.”

203
36
Rule, “Digital Storytelling: Never Has Storytelling Been So Easy or So Powerful.”
37
“CDS: Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community.”
38
Porter, “DigiTales: The Art of Telling Digital Stories.”
39
Fryer, “Celebrate Oklahoma Voices! A Learning Community Empowering Digital Witnesses
of Oklahoma Oral History.”
40
Kamehameha Schools, “Integrating Digital Storytelling in Your Classroom Resources.”
41
Storybird, Inc., “About Us: A Peek Inside Storybird.”
42
American Association of School Librarians, “Top 25 Best Websites for Teaching and
Learning.”
43
Chung, “Art Education Technology: Digital Storytelling.”
44
Sylvester and Greenidge, “Digital Storytelling: Extending the Potential for Struggling
Writers.”
45
Kajder, “Enter Here: Personal Narrative and Digital Storytelling.”
46
Sadik, “Digital Storytelling: A Meaningful Technology-Integrated Apporach for Engaged
Student Learning.”
47
Ohler, Digital Storytelling in the Classroom: New Media Pathways to Literacy.
48
Georges, “Toward an Understanding of Storytelling Events,” 317.
49
Ibid., 317-319.
50
Ibid., 324.
51
Maguire, “Sounds and Sensibilities: Storytelling as an Educational Process,” 6.
52
Maguire, “Sounds and Sensibilities: Storytelling as an Educational Process.”
53
Roche-Smith, “Multiple Literacies, New Pedagogy: Emerging Notions of Oneself and Others
in a Digital Storytelling After-School Program for Middle School Students.”
54
Hug, “Developing Technological Fluency in a Community of Digital Storytelling Practice:
Girls Becoming Tech-Savvy.”
55
Kress and Van Leeuwen, Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary
Communication.

204
56
Lambert, Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community.
57
Robin, “Digital Storytelling: A Powerful Technology Tool for the 21st Century Class...”
58
Lambert, Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community.
59
Hug, “Developing Technological Fluency in a Community of Digital Storytelling Practice:
Girls Becoming Tech-Savvy.”
60
Porter, “Digital Storytelling in Second Life.”
61
Center for Digital Storytelling, “Center for Digital Storytelling.”
62
Lambert, Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community.
63
Li, “Digital Storytelling as Participatory Media Practice for Empowerment: The Case of the
Chinese Immigrants in the San Gabriel Valley.”
64
Alexandra, “Digital Storytelling as Transformative Practice: Critical Analysis and Creative
Expression in the Representation of Migration in Ireland.”
65
Erstad and Silseth, “Agency in Digital Storytelling: Challenging the Educational Context,”
218.
66
Carey, “Implications for Literacy Learning as Urban Second Graders Engage in Digital
Storytelling,” 146.
67
Ochsner, “Lights, Camera, Action Research: The Effects of Didactic Digital Movie Making on
Students’ Twenty-First Century Learning Skills and Science Content in the Middle School
Classroom.”
68
Roche-Smith, “Multiple Literacies, New Pedagogy: Emerging Notions of Oneself and Others
in a Digital Storytelling After-School Program for Middle School Students.”
69
Hathorn, “Effective Literacy Education for the Inner City African American Male: Key
Elements of a Technology-Based Program.”
70
Hug, “Developing Technological Fluency in a Community of Digital Storytelling Practice:
Girls Becoming Tech-Savvy.”
71
Stojke, “Digital Storytelling as a Tool for Revision,” 84.
72
Li, “Digital Storytelling as Participatory Media Practice for Empowerment: The Case of the
Chinese Immigrants in the San Gabriel Valley.”
73
Schafer, Investigations on Digital Storytelling: The Development of a Reference Model.

205
74
Robin, “Digital Storytelling: A Powerful Technology Tool for the 21st Century Class...”
75
Erstad and Silseth, “Agency in Digital Storytelling: Challenging the Educational Context.”
76
Rosenblatt, The Reader, The Text, The Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work.
77
Rosenblatt, Making Meaning with Texts, 91.
78
NOVA, “The Archimedes Palimpsest.”
79
Mackey, “Strip Mines in the Garden: Old Stories, New Formats, and the Challenge of
Change.”
80
Rosenblatt, Making Meaning with Texts.
81
Rosenblatt, The Reader, The Text, The Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work,
24.
82
Rosenblatt, The Reader, The Text, The Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work.
83
Braid, “Personal Narrative and Experiential Meaning.”
84
Ibid.
85
Lambert, Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community.
86
Rosenblatt, Making Meaning with Texts.
87
Mackey, Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text.
88
Ibid., 10.
89
Sturm, “The ‘Storylistening’ Trance Experience.”
90
Sturm, “The Enchanted Imagination: Storytelling’s Power to Entrance Listeners.”
91
Ibid.
92
Sturm, “The ‘Storylistening’ Trance Experience”; Sturm, “The Enchanted Imagination:
Storytelling’s Power to Entrance Listeners.”
93
Green, Brock, and Kaufman, “Understanding Media Enjoyment: The Role of Transportation
Into Narrative Worlds.”
94
Lambert, Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community, 139.
95
Ibid., 49.

206
96
Haven, Story Proof: The Science Behind the Startling Power of Story, 109.
97
Rideout, Foehr, and Roberts, “Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-olds.”
98
Lewin, “If Your Kids Are Awake, They’re Probably Online.”
99
Rideout, Foehr, and Roberts, “Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-olds.”
100
Ito et al., Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth
Project.
101
Gee and Hayes, Language and Literacy in the Digital Age, 69.
102
Ito et al., Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth
Project.
103
Gee and Hayes, Language and Literacy in the Digital Age.
104
American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications
and Technology, Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning.
105
AASL, Standards for the 21st-Century Learner.
106
Pennsylvania Department of Education, “State Academic Standards.”
107
Ibid.
108
Common Core Standards Initiative, “Common Core State Standards Initiative Frequently
Asked Questions.”
109
Common Core Standards Initiative, “Common Core State Standards - English Language
Arts,” 4.
110
Agosto and Hughes-Hassell, “Toward a Model of the Everyday Life Information Needs of
Urban Teenagers, Part 1: Theoretical Model”; Agosto and Hughes-Hassell, “Toward a Model of
the Everyday Life Information Needs of Urban Teenagers, Part 2: Empirical Model.”
111
Meyers, Fisher, and Marcoux, “Studying the Everyday Information Behavior of Tweens:
Notes from the Field”; Meyers, Fisher, and Marcoux, “Making Sense of an Information World:
The Everyday-Life Information Behavior of Preteens.”
112
Knoblauch, “Focused Ethnography.”
113
Herek, “Introduction to Sampling”; Babbie, The Practice of Social Research.
114
Heath and Street, Ethnography: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research, National
Conference on Research in Language and Literacy:3.

207
115
Marshall and Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research.
116
Gay, Mills, and Airasian, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Applications.
117
Marshall and Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research, 140.
118
Gay, Mills, and Airasian, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Applications, 406.
119
Gay, Mills, and Airasian, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Applications.
120
Kincheloe, Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment, 144-
145.
121
Erstad and Silseth, “Agency in Digital Storytelling: Challenging the Educational Context,”
220.
122
Georges, “Toward an Understanding of Storytelling Events,” 327.
123
Gay, Mills, and Airasian, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Applications.
124
Mackey, Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text.
125
Converse and Presser, Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire.
126
Ibid.; Babbie, The Practice of Social Research.
127
Converse and Presser, Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire.
128
Ibid.
129
Mackey, Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text.
130
Jacob, “How to Conduct a Focus Group: Training Module #2.”
131
Marshall and Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research.
132
Ibid.
133
Jacob, “How to Conduct a Focus Group: Training Module #2,” 1.
134
Gay, Mills, and Airasian, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Applications, 371.

208
135
National Center for Education Statistics, “National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
Home Page.”
136
Microsoft, “Download Details Microsoft Download Center Photo Story 3 for Windows.”
137
“MrDonn.org Social Studies.”
138
Apple, “iLife: iMovie: Turn Your Home Video into Your Favorite Films.”
139
National Center for Education Statistics, “National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
Home Page.”
140
Marshall and Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research.
141
Gay, Mills, and Airasian, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Applications.
142
Miles and Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis, 65.
143
Miles and Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis.
144
Solomon, “The Need for (Digital) Story: First Graders Using Digital Tools to Tell Stories.”
145
Gorman and Clayton, Qualitative Research for the Information Professional: A Practical
Handbook, 212.
146
Marshall and Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research.
147
Gay, Mills, and Airasian, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and
Applications.
148
Goldman-Segall, Points of Viewing Children’s Thinking: A Digital Ethnographer’s Journey.
149
Mackey, Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text, 25.
150
Ito et al., Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth
Project.
151
Gee and Hayes, Language and Literacy in the Digital Age.
152
Mackey, Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text, 10.
153
Overbaugh and Schultz, “Bloom’s Taxonomy.”
154
Tapscott, Grown Up Digital.
155
Maguire, “Sounds and Sensibilities: Storytelling as an Educational Process.”

209
156
Gee and Hayes, Language and Literacy in the Digital Age.
157
Heath and Street, Ethnography: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research.
158
Mackey, Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text.
159
Ibid., 10-11.
160
Ibid., 131.
161
Rosenblatt, The Reader, The Text, The Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work.
162
Ibid.; Rosenblatt, Literature as Exploration.
163
Sturm, “The ‘Storylistening’ Trance Experience”; Sturm, “The Enchanted Imagination:
Storytelling’s Power to Entrance Listeners.”
164
Sturm, “The ‘Storylistening’ Trance Experience.”
165
Green, Brock, and Kaufman, “Understanding Media Enjoyment: The Role of Transportation
Into Narrative Worlds.”
166
Georges, “Toward an Understanding of Storytelling Events.”
167
Maguire, “Sounds and Sensibilities: Storytelling as an Educational Process.”
168
Marshall and Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research, 221.
169
Goldman-Segall, Points of Viewing Children’s Thinking: A Digital Ethnographer’s Journey.
170
Mackey, Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text.
171
Braid, “Personal Narrative and Experiential Meaning.”
172
Sturm, “The ‘Storylistening’ Trance Experience.”
173
Ibid.; Sturm, “The Enchanted Imagination: Storytelling’s Power to Entrance Listeners.”
174
Braid, “Personal Narrative and Experiential Meaning.”

210
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

AASL. Empowering Learners: Guidelines for School Library Media Programs. Chicago: ALA,
2009.
———. Standards for the 21st-Century Learner. Chicago: ALA, 2007.
Agosto, Denise E., and Sandra Hughes-Hassell. “Toward a Model of the Everyday Life
Information Needs of Urban Teenagers, Part 1: Theoretical Model.” Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology 57, no. 10 (2006): 1394-1403.
———. “Toward a Model of the Everyday Life Information Needs of Urban Teenagers, Part 2:
Empirical Model.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 57, no. 11 (2006): 1418-1426.
Alexandra, Darcy. “Digital Storytelling as Transformative Practice: Critical Analysis and
Creative Expression in the Representation of Migration in Ireland.” Journal of Media
Practice 9, no. 2 (2008): 101-112.
American Association of School Librarians. “Top 25 Best Websites for Teaching and Learning.”
AASL, 2010.
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/bestlist/bestwebsitestop25
.cfm#digitalstory.
American Association of School Librarians, and Association for Educational Communications
and Technology. Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning. Chicago: ALA,
1998.
Apple. “iLife: iMovie: Turn Your Home Video into Your Favorite Films.” Apple.com, 2011.
http://www.apple.com/ilife/imovie/what-is.html.
Association for Library Service to Children. “ALSC Strategic Plan, 2006-2011.” www.ala.org,
2010. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alsc/aboutalsc/stratplan/index.cfm.
Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research. Eleventh. Belmont, CA: Thompson-Wadsworth,
2007.
Birch, Carol L. “Who Says? The Storyteller as Narrator.” In Who Says? Essays on Pivotal Issues
in Contemporary Storytelling, edited by Carol L. Birch and Melissa A. Heckler. Little
Rock, AK: August House Publishers, Inc., 1996.
Braid, Donald. “Personal Narrative and Experiential Meaning.” Journal of American Folklore
109, no. 431 (1996): 5-30.
“CDS: Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community”, n.d.
http://www.storycenter.org/book.html.
Carey, Jane. “Implications for Literacy Learning as Urban Second Graders Engage in Digital
Storytelling”. EdD Diss, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2009.
www.proquest.com.
Center for Digital Storytelling. “Center for Digital Storytelling”, n.d.
http://www.storycenter.org/index1.html.

211
Chung, Sheng Kuan. “Art Education Technology: Digital Storytelling.” Art Education 60, no. 2
(March 2007): 17-22.
Common Core Standards Initiative. “Common Core State Standards - English Language Arts”,
2010. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
———. “Common Core State Standards Initiative Frequently Asked Questions.” Common Core
State Standards Initiative, 2010. http://www.corestandards.org/frequently-asked-
questions.
Converse, Jean, and Stanley Presser. Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized
Questionnaire. Vol. 63. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 7. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 1986.
Czarnecki, Kelly. “Digital Storytelling in Practice.” ALA Technology Reports 45, no. 7. ALA
Library Technology Reports (October 2009).
“Educational Uses of Digital Storytelling”, n.d. http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/.
Erstad, Ola, and Kenneth Silseth. “Agency in Digital Storytelling: Challenging the Educational
Context.” In Digital Storytelling: Mediatized Stories: Self-representations in New Media,
52:213-232. Digital Formations. Washington, D.C./Baltimore: Peter Lang, 2008.
Farmer, Lesley. “Using technology for storytelling: Tools for children.” New Review of
Children’s Literature and Librarianship 10, no. 2 (2004): 155-168.
Fryer, Wesley. “Celebrate Oklahoma Voices! A Learning Community Empowering Digital
Witnesses of Oklahoma Oral History.” Celebrate Oklahoma Voices, 2010.
http://lc.celebrateoklahoma.us/.
Gay, L.R., Geoffrey E. Mills, and Peter Airasian. Educational Research: Competencies for
Analysis and Applications. 9th ed. Columbus, OH: Pearson, 2009.
Gee, James Paul, and Elisabeth R. Hayes. Language and Literacy in the Digital Age. New York:
Routledge, 2011.
Georges, Robert. “Toward an Understanding of Storytelling Events.” The Journal of American
Folklore 82, no. 326 (December 1969): 313-328.
Goldman-Segall, Ricki. Points of Viewing Children’s Thinking: A Digital Ethnographer’s
Journey. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.
Gorman, G.E., and Peter Clayton. Qualitative Research for the Information Professional: A
Practical Handbook. Second. London: Facet Publishing, 2005.
Green, Melanie C., Timothy C. Brock, and Geoff F. Kaufman. “Understanding Media
Enjoyment: The Role of Transportation Into Narrative Worlds.” Communication Theory
14, no. 4 (November 2004): 311-327.
Greene, Ellin, and Janice M Del Negro. Storytelling: Art and Technique. Fourth Edition. Denver:
Libraries Unlimited, 2010.
Hathorn, Pauline Pearson. “Effective Literacy Education for the Inner City African American
Male: Key Elements of a Technology-Based Program”. EdD Diss, University of
California, Berkeley, 2005. www.proquest.com.
Haven, Kendall. Story Proof: The Science Behind the Startling Power of Story. Westport, CT:
Libraries Unlimited, 2007.
Heath, Shirley Brice, and Brian V. Street. Ethnography: Approaches to Language and Literacy
Research. Vol. National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2008.

212
Herek, Gregory M. “Introduction to Sampling.” psychology.ucdavis.edu, 2009.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/fact_sample.html.
Hug, Sarah. “Developing Technological Fluency in a Community of Digital Storytelling
Practice: Girls Becoming Tech-Savvy”. PhD Diss, University of Colorado at Boulder,
2007. www.proquest.com.
Ito, Mizuko, Heather Horst, Matteo Bittanti, danah boyd, Becky Herr-Stephenson, Patricia G.
Lange, C.J. Pascoe, and Laura Robinson. Living and Learning with New Media:
Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project. The John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning, November 2008.
www.macfound.org.
Jacob, W. James. “How to Conduct a Focus Group: Training Module #2”. Global Education and
Leadership Institute, 2005.
Kajder, Sara B. “Enter Here: Personal Narrative and Digital Storytelling.” English Journal 93,
no. 3 (January 2004): 64-68.
Kamehameha Schools. “Integrating Digital Storytelling in Your Classroom Resources.”
Integrating Digital Storytelling in Your Classroom, 2004. http://its.ksbe.edu/dst/.
Kimball, Melanie A., Christine A Jenkins, and Betsy Hearne. “Effie Louise Power: Librarian,
Educator, Author.” Library Trends 52, no. 4 (Spring 2004): 924-951.
Kincheloe, Joe. Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment.
Philadelphia: The Falmer Press, 1991.
Kniffel, Leonard. “Everyday Existence”, April 12, 2010.
http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/features/04112010/everyday-existence.
Knoblauch, Hubert. “Focused Ethnography.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6, no. 3
(September 2005): Article 3.
Kress, Gunther, and Theo Van Leeuwen. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of
Contemporary Communication. London: Hodder Arnold, 2001.
Lambert, Joe. Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community. Second. Berkeley,
CA: Digital Diner Press, 2006.
Lewin, Tamar. “If Your Kids Are Awake, They’re Probably Online.” The New York Times,
January 20, 2010, sec. Education.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20wired.html.
Li, Ying. “Digital Storytelling as Participatory Media Practice for Empowerment: The Case of
the Chinese Immigrants in the San Gabriel Valley”. PhD Diss, University of Southern
California, 2007. www.proquest.com.
Lipman, Doug. Improving Your Storytelling: Beyond the Basics for All Who Tell Stories in
Work or Play. Atlanta: August House Publishers, Inc., 1999.
MITRE Digest. “Storytelling: The Oldest Art Helps New Science.” MITRE, May 2002.
http://www.mitre.org/news/digest/archives/2002/storytelling.html.
MacDonald, Margaret Read. The Storyteller’s Start-Up Book: Finding, Learning, Performing,
and Using Folktales. Atlanta: August House Publishers, Inc., 1993.
Mackey, Margaret. Literacies Across Media: Playing the Text. Second. New York: Routledge,
2007.
———. “Strip Mines in the Garden: Old Stories, New Formats, and the Challenge of Change.”
Children’s Literature in Education 27, no. 1 (March 1996): 3-22.

213
Maguire, Jack. “Sounds and Sensibilities: Storytelling as an Educational Process.” Children’s
Literature Association Quarterly 13, no. 1 (1988): 6-9.
Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman, eds. Designing Qualitative Research. Fifth.
Washington, D.C.: Sage, 2011.
Meyers, Eric M., Karen E. Fisher, and Elizabeth Marcoux. “Making Sense of an Information
World: The Everyday-Life Information Behavior of Preteens.” Library Quarterly 79, no.
3 (2009): 301-341.
———. “Studying the Everyday Information Behavior of Tweens: Notes from the Field.”
Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007): 310-331.
Microsoft. “Download Details Microsoft Download Center Photo Story 3 for Windows.”
Microsoft Download Center, 2011.
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=11132.
Miles, Matthew B., and A. M. Huberman. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 1994.
Miller, Carolyn Handler. Digital Storytelling: A Creator’s Guide to Interactive Entertainment.
Second. Boston: Focal Press, 2008.
Mooney, Bill, and David Holt, eds. The Storyteller’s Guide. Little Rock, AK: August House
Publishers, Inc., 1996.
“MrDonn.org Social Studies.” Mrdonn.org, n.d. http://www.mrdonn.org/.
NOVA. “The Archimedes Palimpsest.” PBS, September 2003.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/palimpsest.html.
National Center for Education Statistics, (first). “National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) Home Page.” National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2011.
http://nces.ed.gov/.
“National Storytelling Network”, n.d.
http://www.storynet.org/resources/knowledgebank/whatisstorytelling.html.
National Storytelling Network. “Special Interest & Discussion Groups.” National Storytelling
Network, n.d. http://www.storynet.org/about/groups.html.
———. “What Is Storytelling?” National Storytelling Network, n.d.
http://www.storynet.org/resources/knowledgebank/whatisstorytelling.html.
Ochsner, Karl. “Lights, Camera, Action Research: The Effects of Didactic Digital Movie Making
on Students’ Twenty-First Century Learning Skills and Science Content in the Middle
School Classroom”. EdD Diss, Arizona State University, 2010. www.proquest.com.
Ohler, Jason. Digital Storytelling in the Classroom: New Media Pathways to Literacy. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.
Overbaugh, Richard C., and Lynn Schultz. “Bloom’s Taxonomy.” Darden College of Education,
Old Dominion University, n.d.
http://www.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. “State Academic Standards.” Pennsylvania Department
of Education, 2011.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/state_academic_standards/1972
1.
Porter, Bernajean. “DigiTales: The Art of Telling Digital Stories.” Digitales, 2004.
http://www.digitales.us/about/index.php.

214
———. “Digital Storytelling in Second Life.” Learning and Leading with Technology (May
2010): 26-27.
Radner, et al, Jo. “Visions for Storytelling Studies: Why, How, and For Whom?” Storytelling,
Self, Society 1, no. 1 (Fall 2004): 8-27.
Rideout, Victoria J., Ulla G. Foehr, and Donald F. Roberts. “Generation M: Media in the Lives
of 8-18 Year-olds.” Kaiser Family Foundation, January 2010.
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia030905pkg.cfm.
Robin, Bernard R. “Digital Storytelling: A Powerful Technology Tool for the 21st Century
Class...” Theory Into Practice 47, no. 3 (2008).
Roche-Smith, Jeeva Ratna. “Multiple Literacies, New Pedagogy: Emerging Notions of Oneself
and Others in a Digital Storytelling After-School Program for Middle School Students”.
PhD Diss, University of California, Berkeley, 2004. http://www.proquest.com.
Rosenblatt, Louise. Literature as Exploration. Fifth. New York: The Modern Language
Association of America, 1995.
———. Making Meaning with Texts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2005.
———. The Reader, The Text, The Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1978.
Rule, Leslie. “Digital Storytelling: Never Has Storytelling Been So Easy or So Powerful.”
Knowledge Quest 38, no. 4 (April 2010): 56-57.
Sadik, Alan. “Digital Storytelling: A Meaningful Technology-Integrated Apporach for Engaged
Student Learning.” Educational Technology Research and Development 56 (2008): 487-
506.
Schafer, Leonie. Investigations on Digital Storytelling: The Development of a Reference Model.
Saarbrücken, Germany; La Vergne, TN: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller; Lightning Source, Inc.,
2008.
Solomon, Marva Jeanine. “The Need for (Digital) Story: First Graders Using Digital Tools to
Tell Stories”. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, 2010.
Stojke, Anne Elizabeth. “Digital Storytelling as a Tool for Revision”. PhD Diss, Oakland
University, 2009. www.proquest.com.
Storybird, Inc. “About Us: A Peek Inside Storybird.” Storybird, 2010.
http://storybird.com/books/about-us-a-peek-inside-storybird/.
Sturm, Brian W. “The Enchanted Imagination: Storytelling’s Power to Entrance Listeners.”
School Library Media Research 2 (1999).
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume2
1999/vol2sturm.cfm.
———. “The ‘Storylistening’ Trance Experience.” The Journal of American Folklore 113, no.
449 (Summer 2000): 287-304.
Sylvester, Ruth, and Wendy Greenidge. “Digital Storytelling: Extending the Potential for
Struggling Writers.” The Reading Teacher 63, no. 4 (2009): 284-295.
Tapscott, Don. Grown Up Digital. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
The Moth. “The Moth - Live Storytelling Performances”, 2010. http://www.themoth.org/.
WBEZ Alliance, Inc., and Ira Glass. “This American Life.” This American Life, 2010.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/.

215