Digital Storytelling in Sports Narrations: Employing Audiovisual Tools in Sport Journalism Higher Education Course
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents an innovative pedagogical experience and analyzes its impact on the training process from the perspective of Journalism students. This approach is interesting and original. The results obtained are significant and add new data that allow the advancement of knowledge in the field of journalism education.
The structure of the manuscript is correct and appropriate for a scientific article. However, in my opinion section 1.2 is unnecessary and should be removed. This section is not linked to the research questions and objectives. In my opinion that the research is carried out within the framework of sports journalism is indifferent and does not affect the approach of the research or the results obtained. What is really important is the pedagogical experience and its impact on the students. Taking into account that the length of the manuscript is high and that the contribution of this section is insufficient, it should be removed. The explanations provided at the beginning of section 2 are sufficient.
The literature review is adequate. However, it could be enriched with some references on the perceptions of Journalism students about the training skills linked to undergraduate programs in this field. See, for example: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/download/44311/41869
The methodology is described precisely and in detail. The applied techniques are appropriate to answer the research questions. However, it would be interesting if the authors indicate in the manuscript the digital stories of the students are the result of an individual or collective work. It would also be interesting to provide the reasons that explain why less than half of the students participated in this pedagogical experience. It should be explained why the survey was also distributed to students who did not participate in this pedagogical experience. Doesn't this imply an alteration of the results when considering the participants or non-participants at the same level? This must be explained and justified because is a critical point that may question the validity of the data obtained. Finally, the authors should provide more information about the characteristics of the digital stories prepared by the students (what were they like?).
In the results section, the labels with the data of each of the categories in the figures should be included. Now this information is not offered.
The presentation of quantitative results is too descriptive. Greater doses of interpretation of the data obtained should be incorporated into the analysis. In this way, the authors will avoid falling into the "and so what?" effect when the readers read this section.
The content of the initial part of section 3.2 does not correspond to the presentation of results because is related to the procedure of application of the focus groups. Therefore, this part should be transferred to the methodology section. This section should start at section 3.2.1
In the discussion, not all RQs compare the findings obtained with the results of previous research. This should be corrected.
Author Response
The manuscript presents an innovative pedagogical experience and analyzes its impact on the training process from the perspective of Journalism students. This approach is interesting and original. The results obtained are significant and add new data that allow the advancement of knowledge in the field of journalism education.
Answer: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for these motivating words which make them keep working hard.
The structure of the manuscript is correct and appropriate for a scientific article. However, in my opinion section 1.2 is unnecessary and should be removed. This section is not linked to the research questions and objectives. In my opinion that the research is carried out within the framework of sports journalism is indifferent and does not affect the approach of the research or the results obtained. What is really important is the pedagogical experience and its impact on the students. Taking into account that the length of the manuscript is high and that the contribution of this section is insufficient, it should be removed. The explanations provided at the beginning of section 2 are sufficient.
Answer: The authors have considered the reviewer’s comment and they agree that section 1.2 could be removed.
The literature review is adequate. However, it could be enriched with some references on the perceptions of Journalism students about the training skills linked to undergraduate programs in this field. See, for example: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/HICS/article/download/44311/41869
Answer: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestion to enrich the literature review section. Their search has been extended and more references were added. Specifically, they found very interesting the recommended research which gave them more data on the subject and was used to strengthen their points (page 4).
The impact of the changing nature of news dissemination is a factor from which the journalist can be benefited since there are many opportunities to publish in forms and platforms for these devices and get rapidly known [25]. In this aspect, Casero-Ripollés, et al. (2013) state that although journalism students consider as preferred work to be positioned as a salaried professional, the contemporary journalism professionals value the ability to identify business opportunities in the new digital context and the training capacity in that context should be strengthened to improve the adaptation of journalism to the new social and economic context.
The methodology is described precisely and in detail. The applied techniques are appropriate to answer the research questions. However, it would be interesting if the authors indicate in the manuscript the digital stories of the students are the result of an individual or collective work.
Answer: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comment. The purpose of the project was to work individually as the personal opinions were sought. The point was every participant to go through all levels of the production. However, as mentioned in the manuscript they were allowed to share material. To clarify this part, the following text was added in the manuscript (page 5).
The students were asked to work in the project individually since the purpose was to receive personal opinions for every level of the production (concept and deployment).
It would also be interesting to provide the reasons that explain why less than half of the students participated in this pedagogical experience. It should be explained why the survey was also distributed to students who did not participate in this pedagogical experience. Doesn't this imply an alteration of the results when considering the participants or non-participants at the same level? This must be explained and justified because is a critical point that may question the validity of the data obtained. Finally, the authors should provide more information about the characteristics of the digital stories prepared by the students (what were they like?).
Answer: The authors are glad since they have been given the chance to elaborate more on their work through these remarks. In order to clarify all the issues in the reviewer’s comment, they have added the following texts in the corresponding parts of the revised manuscript.
Regarding the number of the students that created a video production: Twenty (n=23) digital stories were finally produced, which is less than half of the students enrolled in the course. However, this was somehow expected by the teachers since the students had not been involved in a similar educational procedure in the past and they were reluctant. Furthermore, as stated by themselves in the focus group discussions, they lacked the skills to perform such a task and that made them hesitant. Another factor that prohibited the participation was the covid-19 pandemic lockdown that made some of them lose their interest in the educational process. Finally, since the course is an elective one, some of the students, finally, chose not to complete it.
Regarding the reasons that the survey was distributed to students who did not participate in the pedagogical experience: The research was designed to be completed in three phases, which were as follows. Phase 1, involved the dissemination of the first questionnaire to all students which was used as a pilot survey. Phase 2, involved the main quantitative survey and Phase 3 involved the focus group interviews. In 2.1.1. Instruments, additions were made to clarify this procedure (page 10).
Regarding the number of the students that participated in the quantitative research (page 10): The number of the students that completed the survey was higher than the number of those delivering a video production, however, this does not constitute a problem in the analysis of the results since they all belong to the same population as students of the same course. Τhe questionnaire was used as exploratory tool and the researchers tried to see the general perceptions of the students, regardless of how many had already participated / decided to participate in the video production project. Furthermore, it had been assumed in advance that not all students would participate, however, the general perceptions of the population were sought and based on these the focus group questions were formulated.
Regarding the characteristics of the video production (page 9): Although the guidelines that were set initially concerned only team sports, finally, upon request by the students, the professors accepted other sports as well since the participation in the project was considered more important. Therefore, the sports selected to be presented were soccer, basketball, volleyball, beach volleyball, handball, American football, judo, skateboard, jiu-jitsu, wheelchair basketball, tennis, and synchronized swimming. In most of the productions the sport was analyzed in terms of regulations and only in four out of the 23 were presented historically. Regarding the creation of the videos, audiovisual material and photos found on the Internet were mainly used. There were cases that original material was shot and in one case the student used the computer camera to capture himself while explaining the regulations of the sport and inserted this video as a picture-in-picture technique while in two other cases, interviews with experts were conducted online. There was only one production that conducted an interview and shot b-roll material as well. To describe the visual content, voice over and animations, mainly in the form of moving titles were inserted, in some of the cases in combination. The students, to make more interesting their productions, used motion effects in presenting the static images and photos, thus making them more appealing. Finally, music was employed in all productions.
In the results section, the labels with the data of each of the categories in the figures should be included. Now this information is not offered.
Answer: The reviewer is right regarding the data in the figures. In the revised manuscript they were added.
The presentation of quantitative results is too descriptive. Greater doses of interpretation of the data obtained should be incorporated into the analysis. In this way, the authors will avoid falling into the "and so what?" effect when the readers read this section.
Answer: According to the reviewer’s comment, in the revised manuscript, interpretations on the quantitative results were added in the corresponding parts.
Usefulness of journalistic skills (page 13): As derived of these findings, and through the authors’ knowledge on the school’s curriculum, the students’ firm belief on the journalistic skills is positioned on the basic undoubted skills of the profession. As they have not been in the market yet and they have not been acquainted with audiovisual technologies in their courses these results were somewhat expected.
Preferred medium to work in (page 14): This finding reveals an inconsistency in the students’ perceptions, which, however, may be interpreted since the population of the current research is mainly consisted of students in the third year of study that most of them have not yet worked or even joint the practice program of the school. Through the practice program, which is offered in the fourth year of study the students may work in media organizations as paid journalists in real situations. Their opinion on the professional skills after this procedure is altered.
Audiovisual equipment handling (page 15): These values indicate the wide adoption of audiovisual equipment as part of the everyday activities of the participants. The extended use of social media and the forms of the material that are used for communicating their news (audio and video included), along with the ease-of-use of contemporary devices, mainly smartphones, lead to this widespread usage.
Watching sports videos (page 15): This finding is in accordance with the results of [6] where it was also observed that despite the opportunity offered for a more personalized viewing experience, the participants seem less interested in traditional TV’s content in all screens.
Watching specific teams’ channels (page 16): These results are in line to the ECA (2020) findings. According to the primary consumer research that was carried out in seven markets (UK, Spain, Germany, Poland, Netherlands, India and Brazil), more than half fans (52.6%) consider that “Football clubs and organisations should invest in more digital content” (49% in UK and 54% in Spain). Although 88% of all football fans follow football news all the time to make sure they are fully updated, 68% state that they prefer watching football live at a stadium than watching on the TV.
Reasons for enrolling the module (page 17): The distribution of the results is totally understandable as more than half of the answers are related to those who are interested in sports (either as athletes or fans) and sports reporting. As mentioned in the Materials and Methods section, this course is the only one offered in a Greek University, therefore, for those interested in this field it provides the opportunity to acquire high level knowledge on the subject. The rest of the answers are more or less related to the general perspectives of the students when enrolling on elective courses.
The content of the initial part of section 3.2 does not correspond to the presentation of results because is related to the procedure of application of the focus groups. Therefore, this part should be transferred to the methodology section. This section should start at section 3.2.1
Answer: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comment/suggestion. Section 3.2 has been transferred to the methodology section (page 10, 2.1.1. Instruments).
In the discussion, not all RQs compare the findings obtained with the results of previous research. This should be corrected.
Answer: To enhance and clarify further the discussion part of the manuscript, the section has been reformed and additional content regarding other studies in the broader research area was inserted (page 25-28).
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper reveals an interesting topic of learning by creating a topical video production. The authors present the experience of implementation of digital storytelling at the course of the Sports Journalism module.
The research consists of the quantitative and qualitative parts and reveals many aspects of the students' experience. However, the research questions are simplified, do not cover the many aspects of video creation that are explored. Indicating that students rate an assignment as "interesting" and "useful" is not the main result of the study. A deeper and more detailed analysis of the students' experience gained is needed.
Also, it will be beneficial to present the result of this assignment from the point of view of teachers.
To assess the pedagogical experiment, the authors need to show what is the meaning of this task at the course. It is especially interesting how digital storytelling relates to the "Usefulness of journalistic skills" - the assessment of which is presented in the study, but the connection with the task is not shown.
Author Response
The paper reveals an interesting topic of learning by creating a topical video production. The authors present the experience of implementation of digital storytelling at the course of the Sports Journalism module.
Answer: We are thankful for the positive feedback of the reviewer along with the respective constructive comments, which were taken into consideration in the revised manuscript.
The research consists of the quantitative and qualitative parts and reveals many aspects of the students' experience. However, the research questions are simplified, do not cover the many aspects of video creation that are explored. Indicating that students rate an assignment as "interesting" and "useful" is not the main result of the study. A deeper and more detailed analysis of the students' experience gained is needed.
Answer: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for pointing out these issues. The RQs have been rephrased as follows to cover as many of the aspects delt in the research (page 2).
RQ1: Which are the journalistic skills that are considered as most important by undergraduate students of sports journalism module?
RQ2: How is an innovative pedagogical procedure, which involves the concept, research and deployment of a digital storytelling production, evaluated by the students of sports journalism module?
RQ3: How is the lived experience of a digital storytelling production perceived by the students of sports journalism module and in which aspects does it detect? Is the element of bonus grading involved in that perception?
RQ4: Through the lived experience of the digital storytelling production and having probably confronted encountered problems, which audiovisual features are evaluated as significant by the students-creators for the comprehension of story?
Furthermore, more detailed analysis of the students’ experience was carried out in the discussion section of the revised manuscript (page 25-28).
Also, it will be beneficial to present the result of this assignment from the point of view of teachers.
Answer: According to the reviewer’s comment, the following text has been added in the discussion section of the revised manuscript (page 28).
Through the interaction with the students during the research, from the discussions that followed, the emails that were exchanged and from the focus group interviews, they mutually realized that: the trainee journalists found the project interesting, motivating, they acted individually and proceeded with the production of the video with satisfaction. It was indicated to the researchers that the participants had either acquired or developed existing skills (e.g., audio and video editing, writing and storytelling), they applied journalistic practices (e.g., primary research, source verification, use of the ap-propriate material from the internet) and worked in newsroom conditions with time constraints. In moments of inspiration and creativity, they were involved in non-popular sports (S1b-2), sports for the disabled, women's sports, relatively unpopular sports for the Greek audience and were adaptive to the situations as they turned their car into a studio, the smart phone into an auto queue device (S3a- 95) or capturing themselves through the computer cameras. The students seem to seek the practice and the field approach to cover the divide that often exists between theory and workplace reality. The researchers concluded that the hybrid teaching attempt was enthusiastically accepted by students, was described as "innovative" (S1b-152) and was proposed as a form of educational practice in other modules as well. Therefore, through this novel pedagogical research project, they confirmed their perception regarding the need of transforming teaching methodologies to reach the newer generations and engage the students creatively in the learning process. Digital literacy acquisition can be achieved via enjoyable learning activities through experience and practice that at the end provide enhanced learning despite any difficulties encountered. In this aspect, digital story-telling was proved a valuable educational tool, that encompassed digital media literacy with expression of creativity and promoted students’ engagement in the module.
To assess the pedagogical experiment, the authors need to show what is the meaning of this task at the course. It is especially interesting how digital storytelling relates to the "Usefulness of journalistic skills" - the assessment of which is presented in the study, but the connection with the task is not shown.
Answer: The reviewer is right regarding the point of the endeavor. In the revised manuscript the following text has been added (page 5).
As the participants were students in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications, this project was totally related to their future professional needs. Initially, they had to find a topic and to perform research around it via many sources (interviews with experts, web sources, etc.), evaluate and select the applicable content as an employed journalist would do. Afterwards, they had to write the story by determining its purpose and selecting the emotional tone, furthermore they had to make it last until the duration that was set for the production; this procedure involves extensive text editing. In parallel, they had to find or shoot/record the audiovisual material that would be used for the visualization of their story, comprehending the correct usage of each part, and finally to combine all the elements along with the inclusion of graphics via the employment of video editing techniques thus producing a digital story. Following this path, they would have to practice on the journalistic skills they have acquired in the School and bridge the theoretical/practical divide.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The modifications introduced by the authors respond satisfactorily to my comments, suggestions and concerns. In its current version, the manuscript can be accepted for publication. I congratulate the authors for their work and applaud their efforts to improve their paper.
