Knowing-Being-Doing with Digital Stories: Affective and Collective Potentialities in the Higher Education Classroom
Saved in:
| Title: | Knowing-Being-Doing with Digital Stories: Affective and Collective Potentialities in the Higher Education Classroom |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Eva Neely (ORCID |
| Source: | Pedagogy, Culture and Society. 2025 33(2):541-559. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Story Telling, Technology Uses in Education, Educational Technology, Electronic Learning, Student Evaluation, Evaluation Methods, College Students, Foreign Countries, Creativity |
| Geographic Terms: | New Zealand |
| DOI: | 10.1080/14681366.2023.2249905 |
| ISSN: | 1468-1366 1747-5104 |
| Abstract: | Creative assessments hold the potential to counter outcome-oriented and utilitarian approaches to teaching, characteristic of neoliberal academia. This paper explores the potentialities of digital stories as one form of creative assessment that may help rupture normative ways of teaching-learning and engaging with affective pedagogies. The authors are a group of teacher-learners who engaged with digital stories as a part of teaching-learning assemblages at two universities in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Drawing on our collective dialogue and writings, this paper explores the potentialities of breaking 'dichotomies', including personal/academic, good/bad affect, and certainty/uncertainty. The ways in which digital story assessments can unsettle but also affirm teaching-learning assemblages are explored. Various moments of glow from the authors' reflections on engaging with digital stories as teacher-learners are followed to consider affective pedagogies for the 21st century. Through openly sharing vulnerabilities between students and teachers the paper affirms, imagines, and creates openings for pedagogical praxis. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1468696 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGfCXS3dFm2BikfvGU1Djl6AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGznJNym8zgvtXevnAIBEICBm-3vO_3NqDvtjAuRAf9Nc1HC_7sjzOFIqIMosRdlUJ5wuhKwMw-vZNeZPJp35ZkXuxNtjuUfSbNe7CUQBD9-5DZZXHnh9cBVfvhVISb340dcL292B6sUjWH555xjK8fpuDj7SW5_iWVt63HHAAsKtctR5wR0JNU4Q1_d0udTeC-lAGKkUeTqDRHFaDjhcZbiRZHBNct8-s1Iqian Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0183029875;nt901mar.25;2025Feb17.01:44;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183029875-1">Knowing-being-doing with digital stories: affective and collective potentialities in the higher education classroom </title> <p>Creative assessments hold the potential to counter outcome-oriented and utilitarian approaches to teaching, characteristic of neoliberal academia. This paper explores the potentialities of digital stories as one form of creative assessment that may help rupture normative ways of teaching-learning and engaging with affective pedagogies. The authors are a group of teacher-learners who engaged with digital stories as a part of teaching-learning assemblages at two universities in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Drawing on our collective dialogue and writings, this paper explores the potentialities of breaking 'dichotomies', including personal/academic, good/bad affect, and certainty/uncertainty. The ways in which digital story assessments can unsettle but also affirm teaching-learning assemblages are explored. Various moments of glow from the authors' reflections on engaging with digital stories as teacher-learners are followed to consider affective pedagogies for the 21&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; century. Through openly sharing vulnerabilities between students and teachers the paper affirms, imagines, and creates openings for pedagogical praxis.</p> <p>Keywords: Affective pedagogies; digital stories; assessment; assemblages; creative</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In the 2023 neoliberal university, perhaps particularly in Western contexts, students have been trained to orient to assignments as discrete tasks that they must perform 'correctly' to secure the grades they need for their next steps (Thiele, Górska, and Türer [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref1">47</reflink>]). This mode of orienting to assessment is reaffirmed by an emphasis on page margins, font size, and whether or not students can use the personal pronoun 'I' in their writing. Questions about assignments often begin on day one of class and commonly centre around 'getting it right'. Difference is avoided and finding comfort in sameness of thinking and performance is often the desired goal. These ways of engaging with assessment start early and become more intense as the stakes increase.</p> <p>Even in academic environments emphasising student learning, students primarily complete standard types of assessments. Throughout their degrees, students develop expertise in writing essays, annotated bibliographies, literature reviews, and completing various tests or exams. While the specifics shift depending on the discipline and instructor, social science students learn the 'rules of the game' for engaging with these kinds of assignments through their study. As much as instructors may emphasise the value of the learning process, students are often concerned about performance on assessments; their concern remains 'winning the game' versus consolidating knowledge. These are, evidently, generalisations. Importantly, we do not wish to invite criticism of students or teachers for aligning with this emphasis – it is ingrained in the very fabric of 'how to do' academia.</p> <p>Orienting to difference differently (Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref2">14</reflink>]; Rice, Cook, and Bailey [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref3">40</reflink>]) may offer opportunities to break the cycle of outcome-focused academia. Critical posthuman and new materialist work challenges neoliberal higher education in a range of ways. It attunes to difference over identity, relations over meanings, moves beyond the bounded individual, and enables greater focus on the eclectic emergence of people, places and things over a linear learning journey towards an end. From a critical posthumanist stance, we can transcend cognitive individualism and think of subjectivity as dispersed, comprised of human and non-human, as 'materially embedded and embodied, differential, affective and relational' (Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref4">13</reflink>], 11). Within higher education learning assemblages, this offers an opportunity to notice and place value on the 'self' as continually entangled with the materiality and affectivity of the world.</p> <p>Assessments, as a core building block of course work and 'achievement', provide a potential tool by which embedded, embodied, affective, and relational pedagogical practice could break such a cycle. Rupturing this cycle from within encourages students to avoid falling into fail/achieve, right/wrong orientations. Scholars in critical posthumanism challenge binary categories, arguing that such binaries constrain what we think is possible, limit imaginative alternatives to the status quo by 'essentializing dichotomous definitions of reality' (Keating [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref5">30</reflink>], 7), and anchor us heavily in positions of opposition. Thinking with critical posthuman and new materialist theories offers exciting potentialities for those who wish to re-think difference as non-binary and affirmative (Bozalek and Zembylas [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>]; Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]; Rice, Cook, and Bailey [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref8">40</reflink>]). It also invites consideration of how, in participating in a) designing; b) creating; and c) assessing student work, both instructor and student are entangled in broader webs of knowledge-ings, affect, power, history, and embodiment.</p> <p>Considering this entanglement may help us to enliven the learning assemblage by removing the emphasis from an individual student 'self' achieving a correct answer, promoting instead the vitality of the capacities in learning tasks. Critical posthumanism and new materialism ask us to think-feel-wonder about modes of assessment and engagement with knowledges that make these considerations come alive and foreground the productivity and affirmative nature of difference (Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref9">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref10">13</reflink>]). In this article, we engage with critical posthumanism to explore a digital story assessment the authors all participated in as either 'teachers' or 'learners'. Our aim was to engage with each other in exploring learning assemblages through the embedded, embodied, affective and relational accounts of digital story encounters. In the following section we explore an alignment between an affirmative approach to difference and affective pedagogies, setting the stage for a consideration of digital stories as active actants in learning assemblages. As we write (here and as the piece progresses) we introduce aspects of critical posthumanism to flesh out the vitality of learning assemblages.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-3">Affirmative and affective pedagogies</hd> <p>An affirmative orientation to difference invites a pedagogical shift towards affective pedagogies. Generating a binary or dichotomy between these pedagogies and 'mainstream' pedagogies may feel counter-intuitive to this orientation, where difference is not necessarily better or oppositional, but simply <emph>difference</emph>. However, we do feel that it is helpful to explicitly outline the ways in which commonly-practiced pedagogies may constrain capacities in existing modes of teaching-learning. For the purposes of clarity, we will refer to dominant pedagogies as 'utilitarian pedagogies', drawing on those who have theorised pedagogical difference before us.</p> <p>Utilitarian pedagogies are the cornerstone of neoliberal universities. Within these pedagogies there is a focus on achieving a particular outcome, instrumentalizing all actions, including human relationships, and re-orienting learning as consumption towards an obtainable end (Bayley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]). Rote university practices are fundamentally hostile to affective pedagogies and fail to nurture meaningful citizenship to its full potential (Bozalek, Zembylas, and Tronto [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]). In this performance-driven, outcome-oriented push, there are gaps, cracks and opportunities to re-ignite and counter, to explore how we can subversively 'do' pedagogy in our classrooms (Ainsworth and Bell [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]; Hickey-Moody [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>]; Patience [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref15">36</reflink>]; Ramos and Roberts [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref16">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Radicalising the neoliberal university and working affirmatively with difference requires pedagogies that can attend to such demands (Greenstein [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>]). Typically, these are pedagogies that depart from the banking model of education (Friere's notion elaborated in Greenstein [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref18">24</reflink>]) and Kantian notions of ethics which call for universals or singularities. In our work, we seek embodied, embedded, and relational pedagogies that can attend to affect in its human and non-human multiplicities and reach beyond the boundaries of the rational cognitive individual (Bozalek et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref19">7</reflink>]; Ramos and Roberts [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref20">39</reflink>]). As white teachers living and working on colonised grounds, we also take seriously our role in decolonising pedagogical practices (Forsyth [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref21">19</reflink>]; Ramos and Roberts [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref22">39</reflink>]), which we humbly and cautiously attempt to engage with through our affective orientation. Learning, then, becomes an emergent capacity of affects, bodies, materials and place that re-orient us towards doing teachings differently. We combine an orientation to critical posthumanisms (Barad [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>]; Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>]) with political care ethics (Tronto [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref25">49</reflink>]) to emphasise response-ability, materiality, and embodied learning. '[R]esponse-ability refers to the ability or capacity to respond' (Bozalek and Zembylas [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>], 27) – it is an ethical way of thinking through our responsiveness and engagement with others' becomings. Others before us have productively engaged with these ways of thinking through bodies, affects, place, and material in ways that have inspired us. For instance, Bozalek et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]) read Tronto, Barad and Haraway's relational ontologies to attune to what attentiveness and responsiveness in enacting pedagogies do. They engaged diffractively with the text – that is, they 'put care and posthuman ethics into conversation with each other' (<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref28">97</reflink>), considering differences and resonances in the texts in relation to pedagogical praxis. They emphasise the ongoing entanglement of learning assemblages and how attention and action are continuously co-constructed. They tie in their teaching practice-ings to show how pedagogy emerges in 'learning-with, doing-with, making-with, and becoming-with each other' (Bozalek et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>], 106).</p> <p>Bozalek et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>]) emphasise the need to practice response-able pedagogies as a teacher. Response-able pedagogies also attune to affect and its workings, where 'affective pedagogy is as much about feelings and emotions as it is about learning outcomes' (Patience [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>], 57). Engaging with affective pedagogies (AP) reconfigures transactionally-oriented teacher-student relationships, for instance inviting love, mutual valuing, and wholeheartedness into the learning assemblage. This also enables us to explore relationships between humans and non-humans and to consider what is 'in-between' students, teachers, learning tasks, assessments, broader social contexts, and micro-spheres of higher education. Considering the in-between – pausing, slowing down, looking for connections, considering disconnects, challenging binaries, inviting affect – can provide a counter-move against the acceleration and instrumentalizing of higher education as we unlearn and re-connect within our learning assemblages (Thiele, Górska, and Türer [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref32">47</reflink>]). Following Freire, we consider the teacher's principal role 'to be caring' (Freire [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref33">20</reflink>]) while recognising that care itself is tricky, ambivalent, and can be either good or oppressive – or sometimes both at once (Puig de la Bellacasa [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref34">38</reflink>]). Liston and Jim ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]) explain that '[love] is a creative, critical, and disruptive force' (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>) in the educational process because it has the potential 'to fuel our intent to act against the barriers that block an abundant and engaged approach to teaching and learning' (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>). Those of us authors who inhabit the 'teacher' role emphasise affect and emotion in the classroom, in how we engage, work and practice in our pedagogies. We contend that it is most possible to engage in these kinds of affective pedagogies in attuned environments in which we strive to enable students to feel safe; to create these spaces, we engage in work to welcome affect and emotion.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-4">Digital stories in higher education</hd> <p>Given the constraints of higher education in the context of neoliberalism and utilitarian pedagogies, introducing 'creative' assignments that embed choice can be a challenge. Students may feel they are facing a trick question. No matter how detailed the instructions are, these kinds of assignments can induce worry among students. When a choice is introduced, so too is risk – and for students, taking the risk of doing things <emph>differently</emph> may feel like a risk of doing things <emph>wrong</emph>. This interpretation of risk is, arguably, grounded in an orientation to difference that frames difference as bad/wrong; to be avoided at all costs. It also promotes a dichotomy or binary way of thinking: that there are polarised modes of doing. This mode of thinking reflects a liberal humanist orientation to difference that presents it as Other (Fineman [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]). The 'solution' to difference, then, is individual overcoming (Rice, Cook, and Bailey [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref39">40</reflink>]; Viscardis et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref40">51</reflink>]). In the context of a utilitarian pedagogy, the student is framed as needing to individually overcome difference to deliver a singularly correct outcome. Alternatively, an affective and critical posthuman orientation can productively explore modes of learning that offer uncertain and unfolding pathways, to invite students to experience learning differently. Here, we explore how assessments like digital stories offer the potential to shift learning assemblages into this direction.</p> <p>Digital storytelling has a rich history of use in higher education settings across subject areas and foci, and been closely linked to social-justice-oriented pedagogical approaches (Gachago and Stewart [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]; Rice and Mündel [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref42">41</reflink>]; Stewart and Ivala [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref43">46</reflink>]). In the context of higher education, digital storytelling has been beneficial for helping students grasp complex theories. By exploring theory in relation to lived experience, students can often understand complex ideas more concretely and dig into sensitive topics (Benmayor [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref44">5</reflink>]; Gachago and Stewart [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>]; Hurst [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref46">29</reflink>]; Vaughn and Leon [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref47">50</reflink>]). Brushwood Rose ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref48">15</reflink>]) suggests that, as storytellers work through the process of building their stories and (re)watching them, they learn about their subjectivities. When the stage is set for a thoughtful, slower-paced engagement with these experiences, there is arguably more room for students to feel more supported in bringing these experiences into the classroom. Done well, digital storytelling is not an invitation to lay bare the most challenging experiences a person has had. To enable digital storytelling to be a 'safe and empowering space for cross-cultural collaboration and learning' (Benmayor [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref49">5</reflink>], 188) trust must be built between instructor(s) and student(s); this is part and parcel of doing digital storytelling in a 'response-able' way (Gachago and Stewart [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref50">21</reflink>])</p> <p>Of course, storytellers sometimes do regret the stories they have told. Embedded in social justice-oriented digital storytelling – both in and beyond the higher education context – is the idea that the story one tells represents an experience <emph>as the person is telling it;</emph> it is not meant to represent a stable or fixed-forever subjectivity. This process-based view of telling engages a vision of subjectivity where difference is expected, productive, and affirming (Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref51">11</reflink>]). Here, making digital stories is helpful 'for bringing into being that which we might be coming to express and understand about our subjectivities and social identities through our ongoing encounters with the world' (Rice and Mündel [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref52">41</reflink>], 216).</p> <p>Instructors design digital storytelling-based assessments in different ways. While some approaches to integrating digital storytelling into higher education contexts involve <emph>watching</emph> or otherwise engaging with digital stories (Conlon, Smart, and McIntosh [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref53">16</reflink>]; Grange and Miller [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref54">23</reflink>]) we focus here on approaches used in courses where students <emph>create</emph> stories. For some, the digital storytelling task spans the semester (e.g., Vaughn and Leon [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref55">50</reflink>]). This method invites students to begin visioning their story from the first class. It often includes a story circle, technical instruction, storyboarding, feedback rounds, time spent working independently and/or with peers, and a screening at the end of the course. Some have situated this approach within critical, feminist, and participatory pedagogies, doing this work in collaboration with community organisations (e.g., Hurst [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>]). Others offer more flexibility around the digital storytelling process, inviting students to engage with offered resources at their convenience. Digital storytelling has also been used in ways that invite students to engage with various aspects of digital storytelling rather than developing one digital story across a semester, for instance, using digital technologies for writing, dialogic, and production exercises (e.g., Schmoelz [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref57">43</reflink>])</p> <p>There are benefits and drawbacks to these approaches. Structured approaches embed more support and enable instructors to work closely with students. They tend to suit smaller courses where more one-to-one support and large or smaller group story circles and screenings are feasible. More hands-off approaches may be more appropriate for larger or less fully resourced courses where it would not be practical to work directly with each student, and postgraduate courses, where students may desire greater flexibility. For the latter approach to 'work', a degree of choice for the student is arguably required – e.g., letting them choose a different modality should digital storytelling feel too daunting a task. In a digital world where many make short films every day on TikTok and Instagram, many students may feel relatively comfortable with the technology associated with digital storytelling – sometimes to a greater degree than the instructor!</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-5">Our contexts</hd> <p>We approach this writing from various positionalities. At the time of writing, two of us were lecturers, one a PhD student and course tutor, and two students (one undergraduate, one postgraduate). We were all situated in large universities in Aotearoa, New Zealand. We all identify as white, cis-gender, hetero women, three of us from Aotearoa, one from Canada and one from the United States, both having lived in Aotearoa for the past few years. We offer brief comments about the contexts in which the assessments we are orienting to in this paper below. In this paper, we are not analysing the content of the assessments, however, but rather engaging with our experiences of teaching and/or learning in these pedagogical contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-6">First digital story context</hd> <p>The first course we draw on (EN, LM, KS) is taught at a large capital city university in Aotearoa, New Zealand. The assessment is situated in a second-year health promotion foundations course that Author 1 has taught since 2019 and is taught over a 12-week semester. The typical class size ranges between 50 and 60 students. In the course EN (as lecturer) and LM (as tutor) teach, students are asked to choose a health promotion issue and illustrate its complexity by narrating a character's story. Students are invited to select a topic and story known to them or to make up one (we encourage students to draw on some elements of lived experience to avoid past pitfalls such as stereotyping). They identify social determinants and offer a health promotion solution to help address this issue upstream. KS was a student in the course in 2021.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-7">Second digital story context</hd> <p>The second course we draw on (AL, SS) is a distance learning course taught at a large, multi-campus university in Aotearoa, New Zealand. The assessment is situated in a postgraduate course in health psychology taught over a 12-week semester. AL designed the assessment and taught three sections of this course from 2020 to 2022. SS was a student on the course. The typical class size ranges from 30–80 students; this large range was impacted by the pandemic when more students enrolled in the university's distance offerings. This assessment involves reflective writing about course readings, which situate health and illness in a broader social context. Following reflections, students select a 'creative medium' to reflect on their learning during the course; one option is digital storytelling.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-8">Reflexivity, afflexivity, and diffraction as method</hd> <p>EN and AL began to discuss shared experiences of digital stories as assessment after several years of teaching them. We were intrigued by the areas of connection and disconnection between our contexts, as well as the joys and challenges of trying to work in ways that exceed the typical capacities and structures of neoliberal academia. After several discussions, EN suggested that we might work together to explore these experiences in a paper. Because we held 'teacher' positions in these courses (though we would argue that we often learned a great deal teaching these courses), we wanted to involve students and teaching assistants in the work. We reached out to the teaching assistant from digital story context one, and two former students who had completed digital stories, one from each of the two courses. EN and AL set out some orienting questions and provocations to start a discussion with all authors and we all met together via Zoom to start our work together. These orienting questions were: What can the digital story (henceforth DS) do in the relationships between students and teachers? What can the DS do in the relationships students have to their learning? What can the DS do in the relationships between students? What can the DS do in the relationship students develop in their understandings of what health/health promotion is?</p> <p>Following the meeting, each author wrote a reflection about their thoughts, emotions, sensations, and, broadly, experiences, in relation to the DS assessment and their positionalities and contexts. EN and AL then met again several times to explore the reflections, including a longer in-person meeting where we followed the 'glow' (Maclure [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref58">33</reflink>]) in the reflections and developed our theorising. We shared our analytic writing back with all authors, who contributed their reactions to and thoughts about what we had developed.</p> <p>In engaging with the reflections, we sought to move beyond static subject/object distinctions. Practically, this meant turning our attention specifically towards affective and material engagement with the digital. This moved us towards an afflexive approach (Setchell et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref59">44</reflink>]) an attempt to tap into the affective atmospheres of the digital story encounters, versus a more content-oriented approach. As we engaged with the reflections, we listened to (or read for) the surfacing of emotions, tapping collectively into our 'ability and ... willingness to move' (Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref60">12</reflink>], 44) and be moved by the digital story encounters (Ohlsson [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>]). Our engagement might also be termed diffractive, as we explored what phenomena <emph>do</emph> and what they are <emph>connected to</emph>, rather than what they <emph>are</emph> (Barad [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>]). Diffraction describes how waves (e.g., water, sound, light) 'combine when they overlap and the apparent bending and spreading out of waves when they do encounter an obstruction' (Barad [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>], 28). As we worked together, we diffractively read through our differences in written accounts and followed how these amplified or nullified each other (e.g., what touched me about her words, how do these collide and ripple off of mine?). We explored what differences emerged from our encounters in becoming-with digital stories and each other, and hope these continuing waves are rippling in your direction through your encounters with this paper. While the representational (e.g., what is 'in' the stories and assignment descriptions, in terms of content and process description) figured to an extent in the writings we explored, we were most interested in and attuned to the affective and non-human aspects of the assemblage (e.g., how we felt and which affects were circulating in the assemblage, what technologies do in these encounters...). We aimed to explore the distributed agencies that emerged in the digital story encounters with a focus on what lingered in-between. We wondered what such a digital story assessment can do and whether it is a tool to foster, open up and embrace health as affective, emotional and embodied in teacher-student-learning-health-assemblages.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-9">Breaking 'dichotomies'</hd> <p>As we engaged with distributed agencies, we found ourselves traversing several dichotomies. Across our writings and through discussion, we encountered a bringing together of time and space. Looking at what lies in-between, we configured connections – to the digital stories, to each other, to our pasts, to our presents, and to our futures – across discursive and material entanglements. These connections were inflected with differences, as well, including differences in learning mode, positionality, level of study and location. As such, connections were laden with multiplicities, vulnerabilities, and ambiguities. In times of reduced attendance and face-to-face opportunities, we saw echoes of how different modes of assessment stand to build increased relationalities across the human and non-human, even with our students who may be less present in our classrooms. In reflections from authors in 'teacher' positions in particular, we encountered our desires to push into new ways of learning that drive personal and/or 'professional' development. From authors in 'student' positions, we observed the tensions between striving for academic excellence and moving into a place that enables connection between the personal and the theoretical. Throughout our engagement, we returned time and again to the question: how does this type of assessment affect? In pursuing this line of thought, we wondered whether and how DS might enable ways through dichotomies that surfaced for us. Below, we explore our teaching and learning through DS.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-10">Personal/Academic</hd> <p>The Western education system teaches that an artificial separation exists between 'academic' and 'personal'; this is set in place early on in neoliberal learning contexts. From high school, or perhaps even sooner, students are taught to extract affect, context, positionality, and relationships from their academic work. This separation persists in overt and subtle ways; students are encouraged to 'be objective' and take a stance in their writing that removes subjectivity (in all senses of the word) from the ideas they are developing on the page. While we notice this dichotomy in operation in various coursework assignments, we have found that this dichotomisation inserts itself into the learning assemblage, actualising hesitancy, scepticism, and even fear or shame in doing creative assignments. As LM put it, 'We do not look through the digital to decipher what lies underneath it but use the digital story to tap into what lies beyond our structured human academic selves'. We may even query the ways in which we are taught to configure ourselves as bounded selves that can be split <emph>into</emph> academic <emph>or</emph> personal. Considering the digital story as a vital third force here offers the potential to break this down – to re-structure (or un-structure) this perspective on self or subjectivity.</p> <p>The three of us in the 'educator' position in this work (EN, AL, and LM, though we also question those boundaries) reflected on what doing this work brought up for us in relationship to who and what we are becoming in relations. EN, for instance, wrote about how 'Every time I start a class, I still feel the anxiousness I felt when I started university. Feeling so small, and the uni so big, I wasn't sure if I could meet expectations'. Such resonances connect us with echoes of our past becomings and invite entanglement between past-present-future and self-in-relation-to-the-world. Blurring these boundaries invites creativity into the classroom; we feel pulled towards teaching practices that disrupt or enliven learning assemblages.</p> <p>In order to facilitate this disruption and difference, we find ourselves becoming in ways that invite explicit acknowledgement of our entanglements with the world. For instance, in reflecting on the experience of being a student, EN began to break the personal/academic dichotomy by reflecting on her affective modes of being as she teaches:</p> <p>I want them to see Eva, mother-human-teacher-woman, imperfect just like they are, with some worries and anxiety, just like them. Through my sharing, I hope to bring this to them, affect them, make them feel me differently than a robotic information sharer at the front.</p> <p>EN explicitly contrasted the mode of 'robotic information sharer', a construction of academic lecturer that we have sometimes felt is expected of us in this space, with a more permeable and open mode of being/becoming. In doing so, she also makes space for students to engage similarly with their becomings – an invitation that we have noticed can be somewhat challenging for students to take up. EN's response-ability in relation to students becomes through sharing, through challenging the 'robotic information sharer' mode of teaching; through being-becoming and through feeling. As we have noted throughout this piece, our courses are not the only learning environments students encounter; those histories and learnings also entwine with wider learning assemblages.</p> <p>The two of us in the 'student, position in this work (KS and SS) reflected on the challenges of navigating vulnerability in relationship to difference. KS, in her reflection, described the digital story assignment as feeling 'exceedingly difficult because it did not fit the mould of what we normally had to do for an assignment'. She positioned herself as needing to 'switch hats' as she adjusted to the discomfort the assignment brought up, needing to navigate a place of non-knowing dissimilar to that she had experienced in previous assignments. In her reflection, KS brought up this idea of having learned how to learn (and perform) in a particular way; to leverage an academic mode that follows 'a checkbox marking rubric' that could be mastered. The contrast between styles of learning was clear:</p> <p>When I was engaging with my learning that I knew I could fit into the algorithm, it became less about learning the content and more about ticking the boxes. I became somewhat detached from it [...] Instead, I had to look to what I knew, in terms of personal experience, to produce this piece of work.</p> <p>A 'purely academic', or even algorithmic approach to learning became untenable in an assignment that demanded otherwise. Of course, the question may arise from instructors about what marking this kind of work means – about how to enact 'fairness' within the context of work that moves beyond an assessment of achievement of particular criteria on a rubric. As we will discuss, there is also discomfort in marking work that lays bare some of the entanglements students have with the world; following the flows of neoliberal, utilitarian academia invites us to consider, how in this assemblage, students may feel that their personhood is being evaluated. Indeed, SS noted: 'This was unsettling, as it felt like I would be critiqued more for "who" I was, rather than the quality of the knowledge I had gained'. In this statement, SS comments on the disruption of this approach, subtly configuring dominant approaches to assessment as assessing 'the quality of knowledge' and 'this' (the digital story assessment) as potentially inviting a critique of '"who" I was'. From the vantage point of authors who are positioned as teachers in this assemblage we can reassure students that we are not critiquing their personhood, and indeed that the assessment task may even destabilise the idea of a fixed or bounded personhood. However, affect can and will inflect the assemblage, including fear and uncertainty. What the learning assemblage can become hinges on ever-moving and unpredictable nodes that refuse to be fixed in time. This level of uncertainty, in turn, impacts our becomings as teacher-learnings in both exciting and uncomfortable ways.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-11">Affect as 'Good' or 'Bad'</hd> <p>The temptation to configure discomfort, shame, and fear as 'bad' affects arises, particularly when we think through the affective – and logistical – challenge of marking these kinds of assignments without making students feel unduly vulnerable. However, the increased affectivity generated through creative assignments need not necessarily be configured as 'bad' at all. Indeed, we all experienced an array of affective exchanges throughout the process of reflection that ushered in shifts in the learning assemblages.</p> <p>AL articulated the affectivity that arises in this pedagogical praxis through the metaphor of a knot. Describing an embodied sense of a knot she experienced in teaching contexts, she grappled with affectivity in the (virtual) classroom, thinking through how others before her taught her to find peace in uncertainty:</p> <p>Wrapped around these fragments is the glow of golden yarn spun by my mentors-in-uncertainty. This golden yarn tracks a trail around the knot of anxiety, reminding me that there is no single best way to do things. As I untangle the knot, I strive to communicate this tension and hold, in its fibers, the reflections of students' refracted anxieties. Sometimes the knot will absorb these refractions, integrating them into a cushioned ball of ease. Other times, the fragments seep out, and I fail to contain the multitudes.</p> <p>In configuring the visceral materiality of emotion through considering the knot and its doings, we might consider how 'who we were' is still entangled with 'who we are' and 'who we are in the process of becoming'. Barad ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>]) refers to the ways in which the past is not 'gone' or even really 'past' as spacetimematterings. Spacetimematterings 'produc[e] material-cultural worlds through the intra-actions between human and nonhuman (matter) that also recognises that time is entangled with space and matter' (Scantlebury et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref65">42</reflink>], 1). Untangling the knot and its refractions, AL was confronted with her own uncertainties as past and present and relations and contexts enfolded into each other. As she wrote, the knot was capacious to an extent, 'absorb[ing] these refractions' of spacetimemattering, but the refractions also escaped and seeped out at times. Rather than configuring these affects as held <emph>within</emph> AL, thinking through the knot in this way materialises the affective echoes of teaching praxis. These affective echoes also materialise in relation to care; care is a 'living terrain' here, rather than 'a form of unmediated work of love accomplished by idealised carer' (Puig de la Bellacasa [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref66">38</reflink>], 8). Indeed, AL is neither enacting ideal carer nor performing care 'perfectly'; in becoming-with care, she is moving and moved by learners, affects (anxieties, fears, hopes), embodied memory, and more.</p> <p>While engaging in creative assignments has certainly raised anxiety for students – anxieties that must be held in some way – there are ways to consider the generativity of this kind of affectivity. The fragments that seep out in these encounters might be drawn together to create something new, perhaps something that helps shift inscribed roles of 'teacher' and 'student' by throwing the linearity of time up in the air. By reframing affectivity as neither good nor bad, there is the opportunity to engage with the potentiality of affect to shift learning assemblages. Returning to LM's assertion about how digital stories can allow us to tap into the in-between or fullness of our entanglements, we might think about the affectivity in LM's reflection:</p> <p>It taps into my regrets, perhaps. Regretting the ultra-success-driven-be-at-the-top-the-system-works-for-me thinking that somehow landed me into a student position and tutor position that seeks to disrupt those normative ways of being and knowing. And pride. Proud that I can be a part of the un-learning for these students who struggle through this assessment. And conflict. Conflicted in the way that their work, their feelings, their more-than-humanness gets quantified into a mark that 'validates'.</p> <p>In this excerpt, LM tangles up regret, pride, and conflict. Being a tutor on a course with a digital storytelling assignment brought up this affective stew for LM, who thought through her past and present and continued to grapple with the affectivity that arises through navigating these multiple subjectivities in relation to the tasks at hand. While one 'read' might imbue feelings of sadness about the regret and conflict LM experienced into the reflection, she also entangles these with <emph>pride</emph> – pride that she explicitly links to the conflict and regret of being tied up in normative systems earlier in her learning.</p> <p>Inviting affect into the classroom is more salient than ever in the context of COVID-19 and increased online learning. LM also explored the ways in which she connected with students through their stories in an otherwise disconnected semester replete with Zoom calls. Likewise, EN shared how the affectivity of the stories actualised a sense of touch, of closeness even with those students who had not been present throughout the semester:</p> <p>Watching the stories as agencies in students' learning assemblages invites me into their space, touches me, increases the flows between student and teacher. What I also find intriguing is how much this can connect me to students who have been less present in the classroom, yet just as much engaged and entrenched in this project.</p> <p>This touch was produced through human and non-human affects, such as images, videos, words (sometimes poetic), difference, and music; students, stories, spaces, materials, also touch affectively. For instance, LM noted in her reflection that sounds 'are difficult to place or articulate why they raise the hairs on my arms. Those things that are beyond words. After all, words are just a human construction'. In configuring words as 'a human construction' the human is arguably re-centred as dictating what is made intelligible, through language. In a way, words are then juxtaposed with sensory experiences ('raise the hairs on my arms') which are configured as a metaphor to capture embodied experiences and explore affective connections between people and material objects (Thorpe et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref67">48</reflink>]). In looking at the things 'beyond words' and tapping into the sensory provoked by the digital, we noted here an entanglement between the digital, the human, and the story.</p> <p>Bringing affect into the classroom and embracing affectivity in all its shades, including that which moves us in directions that feel hopeful and those that drive us into moments of self-questioning, is, of course, not without risk. But, as EN notes, 'with greater risk and freedom comes greater growth'. Indeed, even from a student perspective, wherein this affect often felt scary, unsettledness, and vulnerability could lead to deep learning. SS shared: 'Although making the digital story was a vulnerable exercise, it meant that I had intensely engaged with the material in the course and felt more connected to the learning'. SS demonstrates how the learning materials become-with her as vital matter holding immense agency over the learning assemblage; the learning materials can thus hold greater potency when they become more entangled. While often framed as 'bad', vulnerability can also invite care; thinking about care also leads to a consideration of interdependence as a foundational part of care ethics (Miller [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref68">34</reflink>]). SS's 'intense engagement' might be read, then, as provoking a kind of caring in relation to the material, in this instance, again bringing in the importance of the non-human actors ('the material') involved in these pedagogies.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-12">Uncertainty/Certainty</hd> <p>Learning and teaching in neoliberal settings often implicate right/wrong-ness in producing work. There is a striving towards 'mastery' and 'getting it right' to gain a sense of competence across knowledge clusters. Increasingly though, universities have turned to talk about 'lifelong learners', and there is some realisation in so doing, at least on the surface, that learning is never complete, and we are always one step behind learning the next thing. The rubric, a tool we have already touched on, materialises as the agent of 'rightness'; staying close to the rubric can communicate a sense of stability and safety. Most assessments in social science neoliberal higher education contexts draw on the disembodied, rational mind that develops and acquires academic skills. Tapping into emotions brings uncertainty, and many students can feel discomfort and dis-ease in engaging more fully with their embodiment. However, this wobbly and insecure feeling can produce new affective encounters and result in shifts (e.g., shifts from not being a 'creative person' was unsettled through the creation of a unique and creative digital story).</p> <p>The digital storytelling assessment challenged the boundaries between certainty and uncertainty itself – it pushed us as educator-learners into vulnerable moments of re-membering and re-living. As we write this article, we are currently in a new round of digital stories in our courses, a new round of feeling, sensing, crying, and awing. The entangled spacetimematterings re-emerge, re-configure, and re-connect each time a digital story is played. They also re-asserted themselves as we wrote the text, as we edited and responded to reviewer comments, and in the future reader's engagement with our words. Digital stories act to disrupt our experiences in more ways than other assessments have and fold themselves into each new encounter through their vital affective materiality. Such rupturing to notions of certainty in one's role or expertise is a productive destabilisation, as AL noted:</p> <p>I've always learned best when I am forced to move beyond my boundaries, into discomfort zones – when I push into the tangled webs of theory and emerge feeling slightly disoriented as the landscape has fundamentally shifted and changed.</p> <p>Discomfort is brought about in uncertain circumstances; the less familiar we feel, the more threatened our ability to succeed in a task (Boler and Zembylas [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>]). We think through these encounters we have had with students and their digital stories, the affective intensity felt in KS's and SS's accounts, of how much that uncertainty unsettled. We think about discomfort as generative, a task worth pursuing, and worth experiencing in the 21<sups>st</sups> century which is full of so many uncertainties. If we are training our students to succeed, we need to assemble safe spaces to experience uncertainty and sit with this discomfort, bringing them into the here and now, enmeshed across time and place and always already unfinished. Digital stories and other creative assessments are agentic. They enable our pursuit of uncertain, affective pedagogies, which in turn invite us to sit with ambiguity rather than aiming for mastery. In her reflection, EN acknowledged that affective pedagogies do, in fact, not 'bring' emotions into the room; they are always already there.</p> <p>Are we even 'bringing' it into the room through this, or are we just simply allowing it to surface, noticing it, flowing with it?</p> <p>In an era of increasing disparities, trauma, and uncertainties, should we not be held accountable for making space for affect in our classrooms? We think through differences that teachers may be able to bring; the affects, flows, uncertainties, and knowings that surface at the interface of teacher-student-classroom-feeling. What wealth of uncertainties do we bring into the room as academics? When we openly acknowledge the affective power of uncertainties and let (some) of these surface, who can we become together? Where does care feature in this assemblage and how does it transform? We find that this opening up, sharing, and translating into assessments, holds great potential for fostering our ability to feel accomplished with our work but also affected and able to embrace the idea that we are always becoming, always vulnerable, and always critical of anyone who gives the impression that anything in this world is certain.</p> <p>Collective uncertainty can linger and aggravate or lighten the affective load placed upon by a task that seems daunting. Through relationally embedded pedagogy, students come to know each other and strengthen relationalities in learning assemblages. KS described the digital story as initially constructed as a 'common enemy' that 'everyone tried to navigate in different ways'. She added:</p> <p>It was scary sending one another the digital stories because no one really knew what they were doing. It was scary because there was no real understanding of what success looked like for this. We knew what to look for in a good essay or a good lab report, but this was something new.</p> <p>Despite the uncertainty around <emph>what</emph> was expected of them, KS described students working together and reviewing each other's work more than she had seen before. She contrasted this with most of her other assessments in which 'it was easy (easier) to learn the rules, to get it done, and hand it in'. As her 'teacher' EN observed, students do present discomfort, but students' learning 'intra-acts to produce ways of thinking and emerging relationally' that appears to have a dampening effect on the class. The students' 'uncertainty [therewith] becomes more distributed and dissipates more, which offers comfort'.</p> <p>The fusion of the personal and the academic, and students' increasing awareness that they were indeed embodied brains and embrained bodies (Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref70">13</reflink>]) able to learn as such, can affect positively by reducing the fear of 'doing it wrong'. Instead, students come to 'understand that they are not just learners, but also holders of knowledge and personal experience' (KS). For KS, as a health promotion student, this resonated with her in how they were taught that people are holders of their own expertise and should be included as experts of their own lives in health promotion planning. Digital stories as a 'tool for [student] empowerment' (SS) hold affective potentialities for building stronger relations in student-learning assemblages and enabling students to work and, hopefully, thrive despite uncertainty.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-13">Towards more creative and speculative pedagogic potentialities</hd> <p>We explored the potentialities for digital stories as one form of creative assessment seeking to rupture normative ways of learning and destabilising teacher-student-learning assemblages. Through our afflexive/reflective/diffractive writings and dialogue, we felt through how digital stories were key actants in breaking traditional dichotomies in neoliberal higher education and gave rise to diverse intersections of affective multiplicities in learning and teaching encounters. By 'staying with the trouble' (Haraway [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref71">25</reflink>]) we moved through discomfort, uncertainties, and confusion, engaging with potentialities for learning and becoming-with students. In her work with a feminist theory class using digital stories, Hurst ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref72">29</reflink>]) explores the intense embodied emotions the story creation elicits in her students. She quotes one of her students who talked about the digital story as going 'deeper ... you're not just superficially absorbing the material, it's your life (Jane)' (<reflink idref="bib243" id="ref73">243</reflink>). This deeper, embodied, emotional learning that Hurst observes connects with our encounters in this paper. As students, and teachers, we produced varied accounts of deep touch through the digital story. Digital stories gave us space to slow down, decelerate what was usually accelerated, and engage with affect intensive learning opportunities in which students could find comfort in discomfort, just-enough-certainty through uncertainty and satisfaction in the process, not only the outcome. Similarly, engaging in creative assessments and attuning to affect in our pedagogies stripped those of us in the 'teacher' position of certainty about how things would unfold making ambiguity and ambivalence a constant in the classroom. Such volatility is rewarding and keeps us humble in our own certainty of how we enact our pedagogies.</p> <p>The traversing of binaries helped build new relationalities that offer intriguing opportunities for affecting students differently. We noted an emergence of posthuman subjectivities that appeared 'materially embedded and embodied, differential, affective and relational' (Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref74">13</reflink>], 11). The digital story acted to disrupt notions of identity categories and offered more fluid and partial conceptions of subjectivity. The disorientation caused by engaging in the creative assessment offered a generative unfolding of becoming-artist, becoming-creative, and breaking through past boundaries that made students self-categorise as good/bad in digital technologies/art/narratives. Offering students new opportunities to become-with uncertainty in creative realms holds potential for pedagogues to affect students differently in their learning journeys.</p> <p>Benmayor ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref75">5</reflink>]) writes of digital stories as a 'pedagogical watershed' (<reflink idref="bib200" id="ref76">200</reflink>) with its potential for students to create through the flesh. By 'theorising from the flesh' (Benmayor [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref77">5</reflink>], 190), students and teachers forged ways to engage with learning and each other in new ways that also seemed to lead to deeper and longer-lasting learning. We extended this notion here through our shared endeavour to articulate, feel and write together in attuning to collective affective threads that emerged in our learning assemblages. Not only are students able to become theorists of their experiences, but as we have come to think-know-feel through our writing, so too can teachers become-with their students' personal/academic sharings. From a 'teaching' perspective, we (EN, AL, LM) were able to relationally stabilise and feel encouraged to further pursue our own uncertainties and vulnerabilities in engaging with each other over creative assessments (Mackay and Tymon [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref78">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Constrained by our cultural homogeneity in this paper, we were unable to truly tap deeply into the diverse cultural knowledges digital story assessments can elicit. Though being touched by past students' digital stories, and witnessing the opening up of diverse cultural storying, there is a need to become-with this knowledge across intersectional encounters. The multiplicity of 'creative languages' that digital stories provide; writing, voice, sound and image; offer avenues for tapping into and challenging hegemonic knowledges and norms (Benmayor [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref79">5</reflink>]; Hokowhitu [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref80">28</reflink>]) One key area where digital storytelling and other creative pedagogical praxis offers an opportunity for engagement with this challenging is in recognising the potential for decolonial praxis. As non-Indigenous teachers working with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, it is not our place to claim Indigenous ways of doing-being-knowing. However, we do see our posthuman theorising of such assessments as an opportunity to draw affective threads and create space for re-claiming of knowledges in the neoliberal university. A part of this work involves acknowledging that posthuman theories have been critiqued for failing to recognise Indigenous knowledges as fore-bearers to 'new' material methods (Hokowhitu [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]). As health academics and practitioners deeply committed to social justice, we consider the revitalisation of Indigenous knowledges, by and for Indigenous scholars, as paramount in higher education contexts. From our culturally privileged vantage points, as we work with and through digital storytelling we seek to continually engage with knowledges through storytelling – digital or otherwise – and the entangling of subjectivity, space, time, relationships, and technologies of telling.</p> <p>Alongside affective entanglements, the digital story also fuelled curiosity through its relation to the real over the hypothetical, enabling students and teachers to go beyond surface-level, disembodied learning. Digital stories legitimised the opening of affective flows and fuelled aliveness in learning encounters which opens horizons to imagine what is possible with and through learning assemblages. Ramos and Roberts ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref82">39</reflink>]) suggest that 'wonder' (akin to the curiosity we encountered) can act as a feminist pedagogy to 'disrupt a disembodied rationality' (<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref83">36</reflink>) and 'create spaces in our classrooms where critical self-reflection and critical intellectual and embodied engagement can emerge' (<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref84">28</reflink>). We suggest that digital stories may be drawn upon to create 'wondrous' pedagogical practices as alternative ways of knowing-being-doing. Precisely, Ramos and Roberts ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref85">39</reflink>]) assert that to claim mastery of knowledge is to 'kill the possibility of wonder' and invite us to be content with the inability to ever 'fully know'. Through our digital story assessment, we invite students to linger in the spaces between knowing, feeling, and doing; and therewith often ignite discomfort and uncertainty; producing growth through the engagement with discomfort and emotions, also seen in other creative assessments (e.g., see Dawkins [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref86">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>In affective pedagogies, such as those we engage in this article, students often draw on personal stories for their coursework and can dig up haunted pasts that disrupt. This 'aliveness' of learning assemblages can also produce 'too much' affect and cause affective forces to fester and disrupt students' perceived linear learning journey. Our experience has been that this results in generative therapeutic engagement, evidenced through students' assessment reflection once they have completed their digital stories. Although potentially more 'risky', concealing and ignoring affect in the classroom seems to us an irresponsible endeavour. Affective encounters persist, brew and accumulate, resulting in potential affective knots in students' ability to move forward. We have found that curating safe spaces for dialogue in relationally-rich learning environments has proven a productive way to accommodate such student discomfort. Through holding space, this initial festering often results in much larger gains, and students emerge from this activity with greater pride, satisfaction and imprinted embodied knowing. We suggest that carefully designed creative (digital story) assessments can hold the 'reflexive power of narrative' (Harrison, Burke, and Clarke [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref87">26</reflink>]) for and in students' lives, and act as a mode of resistance to neoliberal, hegemonic discourses (Pilcher [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref88">37</reflink>]). It is important to emphasise that care-full and engaged pedagogical encountering-with-students is necessary to ensure that no disturbing ruptures go unnoticed.</p> <p>It was also evident that such work can be felt more deeply when critiqued, which raises questions on grading such assessments. We are constantly re-working appropriate ways to honour the complexity and heterogeneity of digital stories. We find ourselves frequently moving leftfield when students' work defies the marking rubric yet affectively touches on so much. We are exploring new ways of approaching grading, such as ungrading (Gorichanaz [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref89">22</reflink>]) or developing embodied and affective grading practices.</p> <p>We continue to seek (micro)pedagogical practices, like the use, and collective dialogue/reflection of digital stories, to transform and build solidarities through small, everyday activisms in the academy. In her writings, AL noted:</p> <p>Just like I don't imagine I've made strong marks on all students' lives, I don't imagine that single assignments make for fundamental changes in higher educational environments. But if I am able to make even micro shifts in the academic rhizome, I feel my presence here has been worth it.</p> <p>'Micro shifts in the academic rhizome' also materialised through our shared work in this article. Affirming, connecting, dreaming, imagining and creating were welcome counter practices to entrenched academic practices we encounter. Talking, writing, thinking and becoming-with each other in embodied and embedded ways offers time for 'doing' academia differently through the 'establishment of mutual trust, for the discovery of common interests and values, as well as for the consolidation and meaningful practice of critical friendship' (Sotiropoulou and Cranston [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref90">45</reflink>], 16). Digital stories and the collective work we engaged in here thus offered a meaningful a '"care-full" way to play the academic game' (Sotiropoulou and Cranston [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref91">45</reflink>]). These shifts in the academic rhizome are constantly becoming as potentialities of knowing-being-doing.</p> <hd id="AN0183029875-14">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0183029875-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ainsworth, S., and H. Bell. 2020. " Affective Knowledge versus Affective Pedagogy: The Case of Native Grammar Learning." Cambridge Journal of Education 50 (5): 597 – 614. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1751072.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref23" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, UK : Duke University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref36" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barad, K. 2014. " Diffracting Diffraction: Cutting Together-Apart." Parallax 20 (3): 168 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bayley, A. 2018. Posthuman Pedagogies in Practice: Arts Based Approaches for Developing Participatory Futures. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70978-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref44" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Benmayor, R. 2008. " Digital Storytelling as a Signature Pedagogy for the New Humanities." Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7 (2): 188 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022208088648.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref69" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boler, M., and M. Zembylas. 2003. " Discomforting Truths: The Emotional Terrain of Understanding Difference." In Pedagogies of Difference: Rethinking Education for Social Change, edited by P. Trifonas, 107 – 130. New York : RoutledgeFalmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref19" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bozalek, V., R. Braidotti, T. Shefer, and M. Zembylas. 2018. Socially Just Pedagogies: Posthumanist, Feminist and Materialist Perspectives in Higher Education. Bloomsbery. https://doi.org/10.5840/eip2021221/29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref6" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bozalek, V., and M. Zembylas. 2017. " Diffraction or Reflection? Sketching the Contours of Two Methodologies in Educational Research." International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 30 (2): 111 – 127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1201166.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref26" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bozalek, V., and M. Zembylas. 2021. " Towards a 'Response-Able' Pedagogy Across Higher Education Institutions in Post-Apartheid South Africa: An Ethics-Political Analysis." In Posthuman and Political Care Ethics: Reconfiguring Higher Education Pedagogies, edited by V. Bozalek, M. Zembylas, and J. Tronto, 27 – 37. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bozalek, V., M. Zembylas, and J. Tronto. 2021. " Introduction." In Posthuman and Political Care Ethics: Reconfiguring Higher Education Pedagogies, edited by V. Bozalek, M. Zembylas, and J. Tronto, 1 – 12. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braidotti, R. 2013. The Posthuman. Cambridge, UK : Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braidotti, R. 2019a. " A Theoretical Framework for the Critical Posthumanities." Theory, Culture and Society 36 (6): 31 – 61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276418771486.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braidotti, R. 2019b. Posthuman Knowledge. Cambridge, UK : Polity.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braidotti, R. 2020. " "We" are in This Together, but We are Not One and the Same." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 17 (4): 465 – 469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-10017-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brushwood Rose, C. 2009. " The (Im)possibilities of Self Representation: Exploring the Limits of Storytelling in the Digital Stories of Women and Girls." Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education 16 (2): 211 – 220. https://doi.org/10.1080/13586840902863194.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conlon, M. M. M., F. Smart, and G. McIntosh. 2020. " Does Technology Flatten Authenticity? Exploring the Use of Digital Storytelling as a Learning Tool in Mental Health Nurse Education." Technology, Pedagogy &amp; Education 29 (3): 269 – 278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1760127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dawkins, R. 2021. " Reflecting on the Ethical Terrain of University Students' Narrative Non-Fiction Podcasts and Exploring the Value of Emotion and Discomfort in Higher Education." Pedagogy Culture &amp; Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1990987.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fineman, M. A. 2017. " Vulnerability and Inevitable Inequality." Oslo Law Review 4 (3): 133 – 149. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2017-03-02.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forsyth, H. 2017. " Ata: An Indigenous Knowledge Based Pedagogical Approach to Teaching." Universal Journal of Educational Research 5 (10): 1729 – 1735. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.051009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire, P. 2013. Pedagogy of Freedom - Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. Lanham, MD : Rowman &amp; Littlefield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gachago, D., and K. Stewart. 2020. " Response-Able Digital Storytelling to Reimagine Higher Education Classroom Practices." In Posthuman and Political Care Ethics for Reconfiguring Higher Education Pedagogies, edited by V. Bozalek, M. Zembylas, and J. Tronto, 123 – 136. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorichanaz, T. 2022 May. " "It Made Me Feel Like It Was Okay to Be wrong": Student Experiences with Ungrading ". Active Learning in Higher Education. 146978742210936. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221093640</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grange, C., and A. Miller. 2018. " Teaching Introduction to Psychology: Promoting Student Learning Using Digital Storytelling and Community Engagement." International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 30 (1): 172 – 183. <ulink href="http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/">http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenstein, A. 2015. Radical Inclusive Education: Disability, Teaching, and Struggles for Liberation. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haraway, D. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham : Duke University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison, N., J. Burke, and I. Clarke. 2020. " Employment and Further Study Outcomes for Care-Experienced Graduates in the UK." Teaching in Higher Education 83 (2): 357 – 378. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1786046.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hickey-Moody, A. 2013. " Affect as Method: Feelings, Aesthetics and Affective Pedagogy." In Deleuze and Research Methodologies, edited by R. Coleman and J. Ringrose, 79 – 95. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hokowhitu, B. 2021. " Indigenous Materialisms and Disciplinary Colonialism." Somatechnics 11 (2): 157 – 173. https://doi.org/10.3366/soma.2021.0349.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurst, R. A. J. 2014. " A 'Journey in Feminist Theory Together': The Doing Feminist Theory Through Digital Video Project." Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 13 (4): 333 – 347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214545921.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keating, A. L. 2012. Transformation Now!: Toward a Post-Oppositional Politics of Change. Urbana : University of Illinois Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liston, D., and G. Jim. 2003. Teaching, Learning, and Loving: Reclaiming Passion in Educational Practice, In edited by, D. Liston and J. Garrison. New York : Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203465622.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mackay, M., and A. Tymon. 2013. " Working with Uncertainty to Support the Teaching of Critical Reflection." Teaching in Higher Education 18 (6): 643 – 655. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.774355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maclure, M. 2013. " The Wonder of Data." Cultural Studies - Critical Methodologies 13 (4): 228 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708613487863.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, S. C. 2020. " From Vulnerability to Precariousness: Examining the Moral Foundations of Care Ethics." International Journal of Philosophical Studies 28 (5): 644 – 661. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2020.1804239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ohlsson, J. 2013. " Team Learning: Collective Reflection Processes in Teacher Teams." Journal of Workplace Learning 25 (5): 296 – 309. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-Feb-2012-0011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patience, A. 2008. " The Art of Loving in the Classroom: A Defence of Affective Pedagogy." Australian Journal of Teacher Education 33 (2): 55 – 67. https://doi.org/10.14221/AJTE.2008V33N2.4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pilcher, K. 2017. " Politicising the 'Personal': The Resistant Potential of Creative Pedagogies in Teaching and Learning 'Sensitive' Issues." Teaching in Higher Education 22 (8): 975 – 990. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1332030.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 2017. Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More Than Human Worlds. Minneapolis : Minnesota University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramos, F., and L. Roberts. 2021. " Wonder as Feminist Pedagogy: Disrupting Feminist Complicity with Coloniality." Feminist Review 128 (1): 28 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/01417789211013702.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rice, C., K. Cook, and K. A. Bailey. 2020. " Difference-Attuned Witnessing: Risks and Potentialities of Arts-Based Research." Feminism &amp; Psychology 31 (3): 345 – 365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353520955142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rice, C., and I. Mündel. 2018. " Storymaking as Methodology." Canadian Review of Sociology 55 (2): 211 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scantlebury, K., A. T. Danielsson, A. Hussénius, A. Gullberg, and A. Andersson. 2019. " Using Spacetimemattering to Engage Science Education with Matter and Material Feminism." In Material Practice and Materiality: Too Long Ignored in Science Education, edited by C. Milne and K. Scantlebury, 39 – 50. Switzerland : Cham.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmoelz, A. 2018. " Enabling Co-Creativity Through Digital Storytelling in Education." Thinking Skills and Creativity 28 (June): 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setchell, J., R. Olson, M. Turpin, N. Costa, T. Barlott, K. O'Halloran, B. Wigginton, and P. Hodges. 2021. " Afflexivity in Post-Qualitative Inquiry: Prioritising Affect and Reflexivity in the Evaluation of a Health Information Website." Health Sociology Review 30 (3): 323 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2021.1976068.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sotiropoulou, P., and S. Cranston. 2022. " Critical Friendship: An Alternative, 'Care-Full' Way to Play the Academic Game." Gender, Place &amp; Culture. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2022.2069684.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart, K. D., and E. Ivala. 2017. " Silence, Voice, and 'Other Languages': Digital Storytelling as a Site for Resistance and Restoration in a South African Higher Education Classroom." British Journal of Educational Technology 48 (5): 1164 – 1175. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12540.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thiele, K., M. Górska, and P. Türer. 2020. " Relation(al) Matters: Vulnerable Pedagogies, Care, and Carriance as (S)air-Ful(l)ness in Higher Education." In Posthuman and Political Care Ethics: Reconfiguring Higher Education Pedagogies, edited by M. Z. Vivienne Bozalek and J. Tronto, 51 – 64. New York : Taylor &amp; Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorpe, H., A. Jeffrey, S. Fullagar, and N. Ahmad. 2022. " "We Seek Those Moments of togetherness": Digital Intimacies, Virtual Touch and Becoming Community in Pandemic Times." Feminist Media Studies 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2022.2112738.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tronto, J. 1993. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, M. P., and D. Leon. 2021. " The Personal is Political Art: Using Digital Storytelling to Teach Sociology of Sexualities." Teaching Sociology 49 (3): 245 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X211022459.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viscardis, K., V. P. Carla Rice, A. Underhill, N. Changfoot, and E. Chandler. 2019. " Difference within and Without: Health Care Providers' Engagement with Disability Arts." Qualitative Health Research 29 (9): 1287 – 1298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318808252.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Eva Neely; Andrea LaMarre; Liz McKibben; Katie Sharp and Shirley Simons</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib243" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib200" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref90"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1468696 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Knowing-Being-Doing with Digital Stories: Affective and Collective Potentialities in the Higher Education Classroom – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eva+Neely%22">Eva Neely</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9491-6631">0000-0001-9491-6631</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrea+LaMarre%22">Andrea LaMarre</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3031-1419">0000-0003-3031-1419</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Liz+McKibben%22">Liz McKibben</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katie+Sharp%22">Katie Sharp</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shirley+Simons%22">Shirley Simons</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Pedagogy%2C+Culture+and+Society%22"><i>Pedagogy, Culture and Society</i></searchLink>. 2025 33(2):541-559. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 19 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Story+Telling%22">Story Telling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Learning%22">Electronic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+Zealand%22">New Zealand</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/14681366.2023.2249905 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1468-1366<br />1747-5104 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Creative assessments hold the potential to counter outcome-oriented and utilitarian approaches to teaching, characteristic of neoliberal academia. This paper explores the potentialities of digital stories as one form of creative assessment that may help rupture normative ways of teaching-learning and engaging with affective pedagogies. The authors are a group of teacher-learners who engaged with digital stories as a part of teaching-learning assemblages at two universities in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Drawing on our collective dialogue and writings, this paper explores the potentialities of breaking 'dichotomies', including personal/academic, good/bad affect, and certainty/uncertainty. The ways in which digital story assessments can unsettle but also affirm teaching-learning assemblages are explored. Various moments of glow from the authors' reflections on engaging with digital stories as teacher-learners are followed to consider affective pedagogies for the 21st century. Through openly sharing vulnerabilities between students and teachers the paper affirms, imagines, and creates openings for pedagogical praxis. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1468696 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1468696 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/14681366.2023.2249905 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 19 StartPage: 541 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Story Telling Type: general – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Technology Type: general – SubjectFull: Electronic Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: College Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Creativity Type: general – SubjectFull: New Zealand Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Knowing-Being-Doing with Digital Stories: Affective and Collective Potentialities in the Higher Education Classroom Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Eva Neely – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Andrea LaMarre – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Liz McKibben – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Katie Sharp – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Shirley Simons IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1468-1366 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1747-5104 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 33 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Pedagogy, Culture and Society Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
