Given the requirement for online submission inherent in digital storytelling, and a preference for working within Warwick-owned systems, there is a problem in tabula not accepting video as a submission method (and moodle having some problems with video types). Working with me on the Making History module, Richard Clay from the Academic Technology team has been piloting a system for the submission and marking of video and audio files through moodle (something which is not possible through tabula) through a service called mediastream. There were some problems with the service Rich was trialling, and we have moved to Planet EStream. Having something sustainable, easy-to-use, and well-documented in place is vital to spreading practices of digital storytelling or videocasting.

Warwick’s students, at least in History, don’t expect to hear about skills as part of their academic work – when I mentioned digital literacy and technical skills towards the start of a lecture, there was audible muttering (some positive, most not). Explaining both that we ALL, including academics, communicate through a variety of media, and that there is an intellectual difficulty in summarizing information in a shorter form, grabbed the majority of the room back. Though not all – “I didn’t study History to use computers” was one feedback comment from a student I evidently didn’t reach.

How to integrate this work into a wider curriculum is another area in which a variety of approaches are taken. A response from some departments at Warwick and elsewhere has been to integrate digital skills into first year core modules – ‘first year writing courses’ in US parlance, which Björk argues can be more effectively taught through digital tools and techniques than the traditional styles of teaching.[1] But, from my experience, doing it in a group of 12 with an engaged academic (me) is a LOT easier than in a team-taught module with 300 students and six tutors who’s level of engagement with the digital as a medium of communication, shall we say, varied. At-scale delivery needs discussion, particularly as it would be necessary for a broader integration into a curriculum which recognised progression in digital skills.

One model for taking this forward in the short term might be blended learning embedded within degree programmes, whether as part of core modules or sectioned off. As an example of this, I’ll be delivering a Certificate of Digital Literacy for Global Sustainable Development students. Half of this delivery will be online; half in discussion form with the students to connect their online (and more generic) literacies with their discipline of study. To scale this up, support from professional services would be required to both produce and update the online content and, most importantly, to help academics who do not share the digital competencies I have design ways of integrating the content into the curriculum.

Students want to know how they’ll be marked, above almost everything else. I find that deeply depressing, but that’s what they said. And, partly as a response to this and partly due to a lack of confidence, academics want guidance as to how to mark digital stories. Classics, for instance, would like a Faculty/Academy-board approved set of marking criteria (the ones I produced for Hellenistic World, based on practice elsewhere, are here). At other institutions a more common (and to my mind better) approach is to have a digital scholarship team in the Library help academics write rubrics for their course.

Something I only considered as a limitation on this project at the start, inclusivity, is actually enhanced by introducing different modes of assessment. That is not to deny that there is an issue with assuming that students have access to and practice with the relevant technology – as Warschauer and Matuchniak 2010 shows, this is a real issue (particularly for those who are evangelising about BYOD).[2] But, variations in assessment methods, which the type of digital literacy this project has engaged with encourage, actually brings benefits in terms of engagement too – as a representative from Disability Services made clear when I presented part of this project at the Teaching and Learning Showcase. Students with communication or learning differences, students from backgrounds which don’t include extensive schooling in how to write formal essays, and international students all found the introduction of a different assessment method beneficial.

Finally, I want to stress the alternatives to digital storytelling. I could equally have looked at other examples like the transmedia essay, encouraging students to write non-linear texts, or introducing students to simple computational methods (e.g. http://dh.obdurodon.org/description.xhtml). Or digital curation, using tools like scoop.it to practice “the art and science of searching, analysing, selecting, and organising content” (Antonio/Ruffley 2015).[3] Or collaborative research projects, many of which can be facilitated and improved through the integration of digital technology.[4] Or text encoding as part of literary skills.[5]. Or, as part of computer skills more directly, for instance there’s a ‘computational methods for humanists’ course at Pittsburgh, open to both UG and PG students, with no prerequisitves, which teaches XML and several related meta-languages from scratch, assessed 50% by a humanities-style research project, 50% on the computer/programming skills themselves.[6]