Although I experimented with different options to present back to my peers, I settled on a chronological presentation of my work using a 7-point storytelling format (Wells, 2010). This structure allows me to best illustrate my research journey, while also being reflective of the theme of storytelling. I also wanted to keep my presentation accessible and given that this includes a number of visuals I wanted to keep the underlying format clean and without any major distractions.
I added an interactive element to my presentation by enabling by allowing listeners or readers to scan a QR code (slide 28) and explore some of the storytelling elements and stories in more detail online.
The presentation includes an appendix (slides 30 – 50) for anyone interested in exploring some of the full questionnaire data and more detailed findings.
The preliminary feedback I received on my ethics form during a group tutorial was positive. Changes I made before submitting my final form included making my research question more reflective of my own agency as a practitioner. I also reviewed my preliminary set of questions and rephrased a number of questions to make the overall set more critical and less leading. For example, I rephrased one of the questions from how students might feel connected, to how they might feel disconnected during the exercise. By not presuming that student partners would feel connected and by flipping the question, this then gave me an opportunity to double-check students’ understanding of the question and their response. It also then allowed for students to give a more ‘negative’ response if they so wished. I reviewed the remaining questions with this in mind, making some further changes. I then added additional opportunities for student partners to expand on their responses to likert questions on page 2 of the questionnaire and made my request for open-ended responses at the end of the survey more explicit. In the instructions, I also highlighted to students to read questions carefully, as I did not want them to skim over questions and misunderstand them.
I have included here my signed off (via Moodle) Ethical Enquiry Form.
Following on from the formal and final feedback I received on my ethical enquiry form, I revisited the order of questions once more and reviewed some of the phrasing of my questions to eliminate any ambiguity and clarify specific questions.
For example, I was asked about the notion of an activity ‘making’ someone feel a specific way, which made me think about the agency of my participants in the process. I rephrased my final set of questions to reflect this.
I also had a closer look at the idea of ‘trigger warnings’, which are commonly used but can also evoke negative feelings for students. The feedback I received made me reconsider the use of an explicit ‘trigger warning’, review project risks, and decide to take a softer approach. The final draft of my project information took this into account by explicitly talking about the possibly of strong feelings and emotions arising in the project, however I did no longer label these messages with a specific ‘trigger warning’. I also included a more explicit project etiquette and forms of support, including support with studying online, within the project invitation and documentation.
I wanted to make sure that the research would take place in a supportive environment, even though the learning activities themselves were designed to creatively challenge student partners. Macfarlane (2003, p.59) writes that while we want to make students into critical thinkers, “it is important to establish a clear, stable and supportive environment in which this enquiry can take place”.
Bibliography
Macfarlane, B. (2003). Teaching with Integrity : The Ethics of Higher Education Practice. [online] London: Taylor & Francis Group. Available at: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ual/detail.action?docID=182731.
My final project documentation included gathering a total of 24 hours worth of student partner contributions. Due to the asynchronous nature of my research activity, I was able to collect data from some students while others were still in the process of working through their learning activities. This let me to delve into data analysis in a more or less organic progress during which reviewed some of my data, while already evaluation other strands of data, which Miles and Huberman (1994, p.10) would label as ‘three concurrent flows of activity: data collection, data reduction, and data display’ leading to the drawing / verifying of conclusions.
Figure 1.4: Components of Data Analysis: Interactive Model (Miles and Hubermann, 1994, p.12)
In reality, this process took on a more ‘messy’ form of research, which included a lot of doubt, reassessing, reevaluating, reducing data in a number of ways before coming to a final conclusion, all the way leaving the door open to return to some of the collected data. According to Cook (2009, p. 289) this messy area of research is a “vital element in transformational research” that can be facilitative, and I have tried to embrace this character of my analysis.
Throughout my project evaluation, I tried to tie final conclusions to my original research question, ‘How can I enable a sense of connectedness among creative students through digital storytelling?’. Nevertheless, I was able to gather additional findings to support my practice, which I thought important to note as well.
As I previously mentioned, I had collected and grouped data into distinct groups and undertook a thematic analysis and a narrative analysis on students’ activity contributions, as well as an evaluation of their feedback submitted via an online questionnaire. Secondary findings included student engagement, including student communications, as part of their usual engagement as part of their student partner roles.
Summary conclusions
Returning to my original research questions, I was able to make the following, overarching conclusions.
Connectedness and Individuality
Most, but not all students want to be connected to each other.
A narrative review of students’ stories showed that stories that diverged from the ‘established’ pattern, showed more creativity, diversity and individuality.
In contrast, stories that showed less creativity, diversity and individuality, showed a stronger connectedness to other stories within the group, I.e. the more connectedness students showed, the less individual were their responses.
I was successful, therefore, to enable a sense of connectedness among creative students through the digital storytelling activity, however where the activity was more successful, it did so at the cost of people’s individual stories, I.e. their personal identities.
Connectedness and Flexibility
Feedback made clear that the more flexible parts of the learning activity, including its asynchronous design, pushed students to work more independently and at times in isolation; this made it more difficult to establish a sense of connectedness.
Connectedness and Collaboration
Where the storytelling activity created opportunities for collaboration, students were able to better connect with each other.
Connectedness and Engagement
Connectedness among students requires engagement.
Students require a purpose, incentive and a sense of urgency to engage.
Student engagement can be supported through communications and nudges.
Elements of play can contribute to student engagement.
Detailed findings: thematic analysis
Through a thematic analysis of data that student partners contributed to their learning activity in Padlet, I was able to confirm that several different contributions aligned to similar themes. I have included here some of the categories under which student contributions were formed.
Architecture
Catalysts
Critique of others
Darkness
Genre
Location
Motivations / goals
Missing / without
Outdoors
Personal characteristics
Position
Physical experience or description
Roles
Searching
Scary stories
Societal regulations
State of mind
Time
Seeing thematic connections across the activity, also meant that students started to connect to each other through the activity. Similar narrative strands then also appeared in student partners’ final story contributions in Miro.
Particularly where students began to collaborate, such as reviewing and liking each other’s contributions, further levels of connectedness were established.
I facilitated a staff session that looked at a redacted set of this data to confirm some of the themes listed here.
Detailed findings: narrative analysis
Reviewing student partners’ contributions in Miro, I was able to establish a number of findings, chiefly that stories showed many structural similarities with the initial example provided:
Due to the length and nature of the stories, all stories had a fast-paced narrative.
Several of the narratives had a focus on time-based events
Stories had set characters / roles that we were able to see again and again
Stories focused on plot changes, rather than explored different genres, characters, etc.
All stories were ‘hero journey stories’, talking about the main character’s quest and concerns.
They highlighted individuals and individual development, rather than a cast of characters or any wider societal development, things around the individual.
Stories replicated the idea of the ‘diamond in the rough’, a misunderstood, hidden talent, stereotypical artist, and a ‘nobody understands me’ sentiment.
The stories highlighted how much leeway students felt comfortable to take from the original story.
Detailed findings: activity evaluation feedback
Looking at the overall feedback, the overarching experiment of implementing a storytelling activity to support connectedness among students can be deemed successful, I.e. the experiment worked.
The majority of students thought the storytelling activity made them want to be part of a community of students.
The majority of students partners felt like the storytelling activity allowed them to contribute to a community of students.
The storytelling activity made the majority of student partners feel connected to some / any of the other students.
An asynchronous activity was able to connect students online.
The structure of activity worked and students particularly liked Padlet
I have included here some of the anonymised and redacted student partner feedback in support of my overall findings.
Project Evaluation Question No. 4: The storytelling activity made me feel connected to some / any of the other students.
“The story represents a journey, me and most of my peers are currently experiencing. Writing the experience down, and incorporating their experiences made me feel more connected with them and see overlaps.”
“The activity has made me feel connected as i could read the responses of other students both on miro and padlet and get an idea of how they were thinking of the same and i was aware that we were all working on the same task but approaching it in different ways ehich made me feel connected to a larger network of students.”
“By the time I did the task another person had already added their story to the Miro board. Despite never meeting that person in real life or speaking to them I know that their practice resolves around architecture and they are specifically interested in urban architecture just by reading their story on Miro. Since the task asks us to springboard off another story it is very likely that each person will at least read 2-3 other people’s story before writing their own and in this way get a rough idea about each other’s practices.”
“I feel like the ‘origin story’ reflects the feelings that many art students would experience at some point. It tapped into some insights which frequently occur, leading to the question of whether what you create has any value at all. The way to deal with these insights and doubts is different for everyone: humour, openness to others, searching for help and striving to improve or, on the extreme side, loneliness and withdrawal. So, I think, that storytelling is a safe and detached way to deal with those feelings.”
“The Padlet not only allows me to write and share my own thoughts but also enables me to browse the other students’ thoughts, which makes me feel connected to other students. Even though we didn’t talk face-to-face, we had a meeting of the minds.”
“Because it was interesting seeing how other people wrote and what they decided to write about. It made me feel like I knew them better.”
Project Evaluation Question No. 15: In 2-5 sentences, please describe your experience and feelings of participating in the storytelling activity.
“I felt that this was a fun, open and not intimidating task. It is an easy way to get to know other people’s practice and interests. This was not necessarily a challenge but I approached the task in a manner to tell an interesting/fun story that was loosely related to my practice. My core approach was to write a fun story and not give an accurate detailed written explanation of my practice. So if the key aspect of this task was to get to know other students, their personalities, and maybe learn a bit about their practice I feel that it works really well. But if the core reason for the task was to learn about other student’s practices I do not think that this was the most effective way. On a different note I felt that the Padlet was a helpful as a brief browse through it helps generate some initial ideas on what to write.”
“The [Padlet] and activity form, were very well structured and engaging. It made me wonder, and feel excited about learning something new. The resources used were organised and made me feel like I was discovering new and interesting pieces of information.”
“Engaging in the storytelling activity was a gratifying experience, fostering a sense of connection with fellow students. While the anonymity of responses occasionally left me uncertain whether they came from peers or staff, the consistent guidance and clear delineation of each process stage provided a reassuring structure. The playful nature of the project added an enjoyable dimension, contributing to an overall positive and collaborative atmosphere.”
Additional findings showed that the playfulness of the activity supported connectedness. Commenting on this, one student partner stated that “It was thoroughly engaging. I felt invited to contribute and bring my capabilities to the activity.” – Project Evaluation Question No. 8 and No. 9: The playfulness of the storytelling activity discouraged me from participating in the activity.
On access, none of the participants thought that it was difficult to take part in the activity and all student partners thought that the activity was fully accessible. Most student partners thought the activity felt inclusive to them.
Detailed findings: disconnectedness
Activity feedback also showed that there was some room for improvement specifically around activity design.
Project Evaluation Question No. 6: There were elements of the storytelling activity that made me feel disconnected from some / any of the other students.
Student partners thought that they could be more connected.
Some student partners did not want to contribute anonymously, “having the names of the student would make me feel more connected to them”.
Some students thought the activity could have been better as a ‘live’ activity: “I personally feel that this activity would have more impact if done at once by all students (maybe during a lecture) as opposed to doing it individually.”
Some students likened a lack of interaction with a lack in connectedness: “Almost none of us left each other comments and likes [on Padlet], and interaction was rather lacking.”
Project Evaluation Question No. 11: I felt unable to express myself freely as part of the storytelling activity.
Responses to students’ ability to freely express themselves were mixed, highlighting a possible need for further research.
One student also highlighted the presence of a language barrier. “The aspect I found challenging is the language of expressions. I felt conscious of how to write and whether what I intended to say would be understood in the same way as I wanted.” – Project Evaluation Question No. 15: In 2-5 sentences, please describe your experience and feelings of participating in the storytelling activity.
Detailed findings: communications
As I launched my research, I realised that I would be inadvertently gathering data that could be interesting to consider as part of my process and process evaluation. This is merely the type of data that I would usually consider as part of my usual engagement with students anyway, and the type of data that students are aware they supply when engaging in day-to-day activities. For example, when writing to students via email and Teams, I could see students engaging with my communications in different ways, e.g. through responses and likes.
Screenshot from Teams with one of my communications and students engaging with this, redacted.
I began to monitor these responses and then started to adapt my communications accordingly. For example, communications that were more informal and communications that expressed an urgency to complete tasks received better engagement from students. I also then began to keep a detailed log of all my students communications, allowing me to refer back to previous communications and compare what worked better.
The gathering of this additional information sat outside of the my formal project methodology, informed the way I conducted the research, led to some additional findings, and has enabled me to reflect on the way I will engage with student partners in the future.
Suggestions for further activity development
Provide students with additional story examples to which to respond, providing them with the opportunity to create a wider range of different stories and allowing for further freedom to express themselves and their identities; this may also resolve a strong power imbalance between academic and student. It may be worth considering having students co-design the initial story examples.
Further encourage students to make use of different types of media, creating additional diversity within the exercise, and elminating word limits.
Remove anonymity of the activity.
Create opportunities for students to contribute to the research synchronously, also creating a further sense of urgency and engagement among students.
Opportunities for further research
The project presents several avenues of further research.
Considering power dynamics between student partners and organiser that are present in the activity design, I.e. myself as the academic.
Analyse a different of student contributions over time, I.e. across different intakes of student partners, and compare how stories develop, how a community of students develops over time.
Further research the collective nature of the activity and outputs.
Next steps
Firstly, I am planning to present findings back to student partners involved in the project, on the basis of the co-design and partnership.
I am also planning to developed a revised activity as a standard activity for all student partners enrolling in the UAL Online student partner programme moving forward. Due to the timescales of the project and the alignment of the activity to the academic calendar and annual student intake, I am planning to take this work forward in the next term.
In addition, I am planning to highlight the project and project results to our online learning design community and collaborate with the learning design team to find opportunities to embed a revised activity within future online courses, potentially during student induction.
There will also be opportunities for me to embed some of my findings within my ongoing engagement with students. For example, I am planning to apply some of the communications techniques that were successful in the project as part of my day-to-day activities and projects with students and student partners.
Longterm, I am also keen to further research collective storytelling approaches, pedagogies and research techniques that may help me design and deliver additional research projects and write about these.
Bibliography
Cook, T. (2009). The purpose of mess in action research: Building rigour though a messy turn. Educational Action Research, 17(2), pp.277–291. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790902914241.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. [online] Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U4lU_-wJ5QEC&lpg [Accessed 20 Dec. 2023].
