Creative Videomaking in Diverse Primary Classrooms: Using Drama and Technology to Enhance Oral and Digital Literacy

Abstract

Digital pedagogies have significant potential to enhance classroom learning, and teachers are increasingly seeking ways to integrate these approaches. Combining video with drama provides students with opportunities to explore technology while expressing themselves through dramatic performance. This article presents a qualitative case study exploring the use of creative videomaking as a literacy strategy in an upper primary class at a high-diversity Australian school. The research explored different forms of literacy involved in collaborative videomaking, as well as benefits and challenges associated with this approach. Thematic analysis of observations, interviews, and student videos identified collaborative drama and videomaking as an engaging and inclusive pedagogy for diverse learners. Benefits included a strong focus on oral and visual communication and an authentic use of digital technologies. Written literacy would have benefitted from separate sessions targeting scriptwriting, however, and although critical digital topics captured students’ interest, these also needed more time than was allocated. Other challenges included increased self-consciousness for some students when recording their voices, limitations of filming in a classroom, and additional time needed for lesson preparation. Further findings showed drama strategies were particularly useful for improving at-risk students’ confidence and sense of identity as learners and speakers of English. Overall, integrating videomaking into literacy instruction effectively fostered multimodal and technological literacy, creativity, and identity for diverse students.

1. Introduction

Diversity is a key characteristic of contemporary education, with cultural diversity, linguistic diversity, and neurodiversity increasingly on the rise (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2017, 2018; Payant & Kim, 2022). Although diversity is an asset to school environments, teachers must grapple with designing learning that is inclusive and accessible to a broad range of learners (Ryan et al., 2022). Videomaking pedagogy is one approach that can fuse multimodal literacy and creative drama with digital technology to develop content knowledge in ways that are appealing to diverse learners. To better understand how teachers might use creative and collaborative videomaking as routine literacy pedagogy in culturally and linguistically heterogeneous classrooms, this research sought to answer the following questions:

(1)

In what ways does collaborative videomaking foster primary students’ multimodal, digital, and creative literacies?

(2)

What are the perceived challenges and advantages of using this pedagogy during weekly classroom literacy sessions?

This introductory literature review outlines current research linking digital videomaking with diversity, multiliteracies, and critical digital practices. It also discusses wider findings on creativity in schools and the usefulness of drama.

1.1. Videomaking for Learning in Diverse Contexts

Videomaking pedagogy has been linked to numerous learning benefits (Bruce, 2009; Drotner, 2020; Miller, 2013; Reyna et al., 2018; Towndrow & Kogut, 2020). Research by Reyna et al. (2018) found that collating and representing materials on-screen served to reinforce subject area content knowledge. Bruce (2009) similarly asserted that the strong emphasis on visual representation in videomaking made concepts more accessible for high school students. Further advantages of videomaking methods relate to their embodied and social aspects (Drotner, 2020; Miller, 2013; Towndrow & Kogut, 2020). Miller (2013) emphasised how performing on camera productively activates students’ bodies and voices in expressive ways to communicate their ideas. The act of filming requires that students move away from their desks to frame shots and explore locations. These active characteristics are a more intuitive style of learning for children who might struggle with prolonged concentration or sitting still. Drotner (2020) pointed to the intensely collaborative nature of Danish primary school children’s video content creation, with filming often being marked by playful interactions—or ‘affinity spaces’—as well as reflexive thinking and problem-solving. For diverse learners, these effects of video pedagogy help make learning more appealing and inclusive. Group creativity helps children develop social bonds by collaborating on work that they find intrinsically pleasurable. In addition, as Staley and Freeman (2017) argued, video methods centralise the voice of the creator and can nurture a greater sense of agency for marginalised students who feel a sense of alienation from curriculum content due to language or social barriers. Towndrow and Kogut (2020) similarly proposed that videomaking is empowering for students due to its emphasis on self-representation and self-expression.

The technological aspects of videomaking offer further advantages for diverse students. Digital software can enable differentiations which were not previously possible and technology can support teachers to deliver targeted pedagogical adjustments (Edyburn et al., 2017; Leach, 2017; Pilgrim & Ward, 2017). Videomaking tools such as speech-to-text/text-to-speech, enlarging words and images, and adjusting volume and playback speeds can help enable more customisable learning experiences. Audio–visual technology also provides immediate feedback to guide students’ improvement. When children see and hear themselves speaking on camera, they can self-assess and re-record to modify their presentation (Nair & Md Yunus, 2022). This is a unique attribute of presenting on-screen and one which promotes self-directed learning in the area of oral language.

1.2. Videomaking as Multiliteracies Learning

Videomaking practices enact numerous forms of literacy with the most emphasised being visual and digital literacy. Multiliteracies (Cazden et al., 1999) is a term which encompasses these various forms whilst also emphasising critical understandings of the media landscape as an important aspect of becoming ‘literate’. In the videomaking context, multiliteracy theories make explicit all the various elements, or “modes” (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001), of communication that exist in a video text. As Bull and Anstey (2018) have articulated, these modes might include imagery, sound, speech, gesture, and written text, all of which have unique semantic qualities. Multiliteracies pedagogy can teach children how to manipulate each of these elements to create effective multimedia texts, even from a young age. Gattenhof and Dezuanni (2015) explored the use of iPads to create digital stories with early years children in Australia. Their findings pointed to the usefulness of creative digital media for prompting storytelling and fostering composition skills. The authors argued that the blending of textual elements with oral and visual communication acted as multisensory literacy learning, though they advised that adults should guide young children through active questioning to maximise learning effects.

Visual literacy is intrinsic to videomaking processes. Visual media has its own unique “language” conveyed through composition, perspective, symbolism, and colour. Callow (2023) has described visual literacy as the ability to interpret a text’s affective and compositional elements to accurately determine its overall message. The internet provides classrooms with access to an immense variety of images for analysis. These images can then be downloaded and incorporated into digital video texts. Filming processes also develop visual literacy when framing subjects and editing content for maximum impact. Henry (2024) termed these types of learnings “moving image literacy”, advocating for short filmmaking as a method to teach concepts such as story, setting, sound, colour, and character on-screen. For linguistically diverse learners, activities involving pictures and visuals offer valuable comprehension support (Herrero & Vanderschelden, 2019).

Digital literacy is also an embedded aspect of videomaking and is a rapidly growing priority for educators (Churchill, 2020; Price-Dennis et al., 2015). Digital competence in schools can be characterised by students’ ability to conduct online research, use file creation and sharing platforms, and represent information through multimedia texts. Digital mediamaking is an engaging avenue to foster these skills in the school years. Churchill (2020) reported on a study detailing the use of digital storytelling with mobile devices to teach digital literacy in a primary school in Hong Kong. Findings from this study suggested that digital skills were effectively encouraged when students researched and created content on topics that interested them and received peer feedback on their works in-progress. Price-Dennis et al. (2015) closely examined the language arts work that took place in a 5th grade classroom in the United States. The authors sought to identify how digital literacy practices such as podcasting and stop-motion animation promoted inclusivity. Three pathways toward inclusive digital literacy were identified: (1) working in a community of learners, (2) using digital tools to make curriculum accessible, and (3) linking academic goals with real-world platforms. As Beauchamp (2017) has reminded, however, digital literacy is comprised of more than procedural knowledge. Simply teaching students how to operate or programme a digital device does not adequately equip them with literate understandings of digital realms.

Critical digital literacy has a distinct role to play in multiliteracies pedagogies. These approaches actively encourage learners to not just use technology, but also critically appraise its influence on our lives (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Research by Tao et al. (2022) suggested that primary children with higher levels of critical digital literacy were less likely to become victims of cyberbullying. Iivari et al. (2024) shared findings from a project that involved a class of 11- to 12-year-old children in drama and prototype model-making to imagine solutions to cyberbullying. These authors recommended providing a supportive environment to discuss sensitive issues such as power and its potential misuses. They also advocate for scaffolding young learners’ critical knowledge, encouraging them to not only view the world through a critical lens but also to envision a more just society. Aside from online safety concerns, critical digital literacy can help teach children about ethical behaviours and citizenship online, and to understand that there are varying levels of accuracy and accountability to the information they come across (Dezuanni, 2021). These discussions can be incorporated alongside digital mediamaking to help foster students’ critical digital literacy.

Diverse learners also benefit from the expanded understandings of what can be regarded as a ‘text’ in a multiliteracies classroom. Alongside traditional printed books, content such as social media, cartoons, video texts, and drama performances are encouraged to be included in the literacy space. This can help educators create learning experiences around students’ own authentic points of interest, thereby supporting more inclusivity in high-diversity contexts (Watts-Taffe, 2022). These broader conceptions of literacy can also help re-position diverse learners out of the ‘deficit-view’ model of traditional written literacy, where they may perceive themselves as poorly performing, into a more affirming model which empowers them as creative designers of multimedia content (Payant & Kim, 2022).

There are caveats, however, to encouraging the wider use of screen-based methods with young learners. Numerous studies link prolonged exposure to screens with negative outcomes such as emotional and behavioural disorders, language delays, and a decline in working memory. (Karani et al., 2022; Massaroni et al., 2024; Neophytou et al., 2021; Sarvajna et al., 2024). Massaroni et al. (2024) have noted that some of these adverse associations might be mediated by collaborative, interactive engagement with screen media. Nonetheless, there is a clear need to educate children about resisting excessive screen usage to avoid these harmful effects. Further cautions include Posavec’s (2020) argument that inconsistent initial training impacts the quality of teachers’ use of digital pedagogies. Additionally, Apps et al. (2022) have argued that students using ICT for learning exhibited a tendency to copy and paste content and were, therefore, only superficially engaging with the subject matter. Bearing these pitfalls in mind, it is nonetheless clear that ICT and digital media learning have a significant role to play in contemporary education.

1.3. Drama for Expressive and Creative Confidence

The need for creativity and innovation to cope with global challenges is widely acknowledged, with government policies highlighting creative thinking as critical intellectual capital (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019; World Economic Forum, 2020). The World Economic Forum (2020) has ranked creativity among the top ten job skills for 2025. Education systems around the world are seeking ways to foster these skills in schools (Paek & Bao, 2023; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019). Studies on creativity emphasise the significant role of the environment in fostering creative behaviours (Richardson & Mishra, 2018; Runco, 2014; Soh, 2017), yet school structures and routines are not currently designed in ways that foster creative thinking and experimentation (Beghetto, 2021; Craft et al., 2001). Paek and Bao (2023) asserted that a substantial portion of students’ creative potential remains untapped in most schools. Aside from educational infrastructure, socioeconomic status can be an additional barrier to enhancing creativity outcomes (Acar et al., 2023; Castillo-Vergara et al., 2018). This points to a clear need for teachers in disadvantaged areas to understand how to foster creative mindsets and practices.

Thomson and Hall (2023) reported on their survey of arts-rich schools in the United Kingdom, finding that immersion in arts pedagogy had positive effects on students’ engagement with creativity both in and out of school. Drama is one such pedagogy, with strong links to creativity and learning outcomes (Dunn et al., 2012; Hetland & Winner, 2001; Mavroudis, 2020; Piazzoli, 2018; Walker, 2023). Drama methods encourage students to step into other people’s perspectives and empathise with their experiences. The ability to adopt multiple perspectives in this manner is a recognised attribute of creative people (Knutson & Okada, 2021; Velcu-Laitinen, 2022). Improvisation and idea-generation are also widely used in drama pedagogy, with students being encouraged to push out of their comfort zone and present their understandings in unusual ways. Drama contexts prize originality and risk-taking, aspects of the creative mindset that are not well-suited to more traditional learning environments (Beghetto, 2021). Drama also cultivates trust and collaboration among students as they work together to create imaginary worlds (Mavroudis, 2020).

For diverse learners, incorporating drama into activities can help to more explicitly convey learning concepts. Drama expressively recruits our voices and bodies to communicate ideas which can aid comprehension and literacy development for additional language learners (Beaumont, 2020, 2022; Dunn et al., 2012; Hetland & Winner, 2001; Piazzoli, 2018; Walker, 2023). As Piazzoli (2018) has argued, drama supports language learners’ confidence and spoken fluency. The collaborative performance experiences of drama pedagogy can encourage additional language students to engage in spoken language as they are supported by peers, scripts, and rehearsals (Dunn et al., 2012). Drama methods can also help foster social skills and a sense of inclusion for physically and cognitively diverse students (Kilinc et al., 2017; Kramer & Ploesch, 2022).

2. Materials and Methods

Qualitative case study was the methodology used in this research. The strength of case study is its close observation of phenomena in their natural setting (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Merriam, 1998). Classrooms are dynamic spaces characterised by numerous context-dependent factors (Radford, 2006). These influences make it difficult to establish clear causal relationships between variables in school-based research (Thomas, 2021). As a result, case study methodology is widely used in education to understand how pedagogical innovations function in authentic settings. In this project, case study methods were applied to understand (1) how collaborative videomaking could be used to teach multimodal, critical digital, and creative literacies in a diverse and low socioeconomic primary context, and (2) the challenges and advantages of teachers’ use of this pedagogy within the realistic constraints of 1-hour weekly literacy sessions.

2.1. Informing Theories of the Research

There were two key theories that underpinned investigations, both of which highlight the benefits of group creativity. The first was Seymour Papert’s Constructionism (Papert & Harel, 1991). Inspired by a visual arts class where he observed students deeply engaged in hands-on and collaborative learning, Papert sought to replicate this type of experimentation and shared creativity in his own subject area of mathematics (Peppler et al., 2023). The resulting theory of Constructionism highlights the material and physical aspects of knowledge acquisition, proposing that engagement and understanding are deepened when students transform abstract concepts into tangible forms and then exhibit these to a wider audience outside of their classroom. There were clear parallels between this perspective and the work that took place during the research. Constructionist analysis framed students’ videomaking processes as “tinkering” with ideas in material form (Jarrett & Jafri, 2020). This occurred when students shifted content in editing timelines, experimented with different graphics and emojis, or chose between various shots and takes. Creating their narratives in the form of videos required students to concretise literacy and storytelling concepts into tangible multimedia artefacts. According to the Constructionist viewpoint, when students watched and gave feedback on each other’s works-in-progress, they were engaging in shared communities of practice. The end-of-term ‘film festival’, where the students screened their works for other classes, also provided learners with an authentic exhibition opportunity.

Sociocultural Creativity Theory [SCT] was a second theoretical lens used during analysis. Vygotsky’s (1930/2004, 1931/1998); (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978) studies on imagination and the social development of the mind laid the groundwork for sociocultural perspectives. SCT emphasizes the impact of the environment on creativity, viewing it as both a cultural and cognitive phenomenon. This view broadens the concept of creativity beyond individual specialists to include networked systems of amateur creators (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Glăveanu, 2020). Adopting SCT concepts as a frame of reference during analysis helped sharpen perceptions of student creativity during this research.

Glăveanu (2020) put forward four propositions regarding sociocultural creativity which were particularly useful when observing group videomaking processes. The first proposition is that “differences of perspective increase creative potential” (Glăveanu, 2020, p. 1). This concept was supported by observations in this case study. When students worked in groups on their films, they were frequently required to negotiate between multiple opinions to settle upon the ‘best’ idea. Glăveanu’s second proposition was that “exchanging positions and perspectives, within and between individuals, fosters creative processes” (Glăveanu, 2020, p. 1). Following on from this comes a third proposition that such exchanges “result in perspectives that reveal previously unperceived affordances” (Glăveanu, 2020, p. 1). Observations of collaborative video pedagogy saw both these dynamics in action as group members continually transitioned between performing, filming, and editing. This engagement with numerous people, perspectives, and roles broadened the creative choices and ideas available to students as they worked on their films.

The fourth understanding of sociocultural creativity described by Glăveanu is “the affordances of material objects, or of unique idea combinations guide the development of novel perspectives in creative work” (Glăveanu, 2020, p. 1). This idea brings into consideration the technology that students use to create their films. Technological affordances of iPads created opportunities that would not have been possible if students had been working with phones, laptops, or pen and paper. iPads have an in-built camera and microphone, easy-to-use editing apps, and a large enough screen to enable a group of students to view content at the same time. This combination of qualities was crucial to the effective implementation of videomaking in a group context. Furthermore, the pastiche-like effects of the app students used enabled unique idea combinations. Layering images, sound, footage, text, and music created a novel genre of short film—partly live-action and partly still images with narration and sound effects. These features of group videomaking pedagogy once again aligned with Glăveanu’s descriptions of sociocultural creativity.

2.2. Context of the Research

The video pedagogy observed during this case study was part of an on-site professional development programme being undertaken by classroom teachers. Funded and administered by an arts hub within the Catholic school system in Sydney, Australia, the programme was designed to support teachers in developing creative ICT pedagogies by modelling strategies during weekly sessions in their classrooms. Involvement in the programme was voluntary and free for interested schools and teachers. Running over two terms, this professional training was accredited by the New South Wales Education Standards Authority, a state-run body within the Department of Education.

The research site was a primary school with a culturally diverse student population in a lower socioeconomic region of Sydney. The school had a low to medium score of 1042 as its Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority, 2023). Census data (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021) indicated the median household income for the surrounding area was $2107 per week, slightly above the national average of $1746. English was the sole language in less than half, 47.6%, of local households. Although 50.4% of residents were Australian-born, 61.8% had both parents born overseas.

2.3. Participants

The study took place in two upper primary classrooms and participants included both the classroom teachers, here referred to by the pseudonyms ‘Geoff’ and ‘Kaye’ to protect their anonymity. Geoff was in his early thirties with eight years of teaching experience. He often stayed late at work, led learning teams within the school, and contributed to extracurricular events. During workshops, Geoff balanced a playful rapport with students with a firm approach to classroom management. His own creative flair was made evident by a humorous character he performed in class videos and by creating his own sample video to experiment with the editing software before the programme began. Kaye was in her mid-forties with 24 years of teaching experience. She had previously taught Creative and Performing Arts but transitioned to classroom teaching as she wanted a change. Kaye faced personal challenges during the research, occasionally requiring time away from school. In her post-programme interview, she emphasised the importance of structure and consistency, especially for supporting students with high needs and challenging home lives.

There were four students who also participated in the study. These children were interviewed in a focus group at the end of the programme. Their teachers suggested these children as potential participants due to their being additional language learners who represented various levels of achievement in literacy. Their names have been changed for privacy. ‘Jalil’, aged 10, from South Sudan, was a high achiever when responding verbally in class but he struggled with written English. ‘Kassim’, aged 10, of Lebanese descent, eagerly participated in drama activities during the programme but rarely contributed to class discussions. ‘Amado’, aged 11, from the Philippines, faced significant challenges with learning and concentration across subjects. ‘Razi’, aged 11, also from the Philippines, was a confident and engaged learner during workshops and discussions but she struggled with anxiety, which sometimes hindered her drama participation. She described feeling nervous when too many people were watching her speak or perform.

Ethics approval for this research was granted under protocol number 2021/744. Significant ethical considerations arose from working with young people whose parents’ first language was not English. To address this, information and consent forms were adapted to ensure accessibility. Parents were further supported through verbal explanations and discussions facilitated by school staff and classroom teachers, ensuring they fully understood the aims and parameters of the research.

2.4. The Videomaking Pedagogy

The video programmes involved groups of three to four students working together to create multimedia narratives using iPads and the editing software ‘Clips’ (Clips app for iOS is 3.1.7, released on 9 May 2024). These videos blended live-action performance and voice-over narratives with images and footage sourced from online. Each class co-constructed comedic storylines where their school was facing a so-called crisis. Live-action scenes were shot involving all students in the class in whole-group sequences, with teachers working as directors and camera operators. Geoff and Kaye also appeared in some scenes of their class videos. At times, students would be invited to film sequences and call camera shots themselves. These moments helped model basic filmmaking skills for the rest of the class.

Each class worked on a slightly different structure as plotlines for the short films were co-devised at the beginning of the programme. Film ideas that came from the students during these brainstorming sessions mostly involved comic catastrophes, with ideas such as a ‘zombie apocalypse’ or scenarios where their school got destroyed proving highly popular. These ideas were then pared down and adapted, taking into consideration what would be possible in terms of timeframe and access to costumes and effects. The first group devised a story where a class of students are all led to believe that a meteor is heading straight for their school. The students erupt into a fit of panic only to discover that the meteor scare was just a prank by their mischievous teacher. As the class all chase after him in fury, a final twist reveals that a real meteor is in fact zooming through space towards their school. It lands directly on their teacher, Geoff, incinerating him into a pile of ashes. The angry students see what has happened, then give a shrug of indifference and walk off. The storyline of the second class begins with a fire scare in the school. This quickly escalates into a humorously dramatic overreaction from people and celebrities all over the world. Multiple fire trucks come rushing and celebrities weep in fear of the children’s lives. In the end, the ‘fire’ turns out to be a small blaze in a wastepaper bin which is quickly and calmly put out by their teacher, Kaye. The film concludes with another student rushing into class screaming about the school being hit by a flood and everyone exclaiming the final punchline, “Not again!?”.

Elements of these stories that could not be filmed live due to their elaborate nature, such as zooming meteors, fire trucks, and celebrities, were instead depicted using found footage or images that were laid over with voice-over narration and sound effects. All these modes were able to be combined in simple video timelines using the software Clips. This application allowed for the layering of filters, graphics, and music onto video content. It also had an optional speech-to-text function which showed on-screen subtitles of the voice-over narration. Students learned how to navigate the software, how to source and import content, and to how assemble these into engaging video narratives. There were theoretical elements delivered alongside these practical skills. In some lessons, students analysed camera angles in scenes from popular children’s TV shows or discussed the ethical and legal considerations of sharing and re-purposing materials found online.

Each session would begin with creative drama activities designed to build performance skills and confidence. These activities included simple improvisational games to foster students’ generative creativity and lateral thinking. Short group drama activities were also used to help build social connections within each class. Following on from this, students and teachers would film whole-class live-action scenes, or students would download and edit content that they had sourced online. Other parts of the programme involved students working with their videomaking groups to record voice-over narrations for their films. These audio recordings took place in a small anteroom next to their classroom, away from the noise of the open workspace.

2.5. Data Sources

The data sources of the research comprised interviews with participants, observational field notes, audio recordings of teachers’ weekly meetings, and students’ final video works. The teacher interview and student focus group were conducted to capture participants’ perceptions and experiences. These data provided insights into participants’ memories and beliefs about videomaking as classroom learning. Teachers received their questions in advance to give them time to craft how they wanted to respond. Questions for teachers focused on what they had noticed about students’ work and engagement during the programme, and what challenges and benefits they perceived about the pedagogy. The focus group interview with students required careful ethical consideration due to the inherent power imbalance of an adult researcher working with young people. To maintain ethical standards, the students were interviewed altogether and the focus group took place during school at a time of minimal disruption. Questions for students focused on what they thought about using videomaking for learning, how they experienced group filmmaking processes, and how they would describe their levels of confidence with editing technology after the programme.

The programme was delivered during 1-hour weekly lessons over two school terms. Observational field notes were taken from seven out of the eleven workshops conducted. These notes were both descriptive and reflective, capturing the activities of each class along with any notable behaviours, events, or conversations. To help minimise bias, these notes focused on description rather than interpretation. The teacher planning meetings were held immediately after workshops, typically during recess if the classroom teachers were not on playground duty or preparing for other urgent tasks. A total of seven meetings were audio-recorded. These recordings captured teachers’ immediate thoughts and reflections on the lessons that had just transpired, sharing their feelings and responses fresh from classroom experiences. The student-created videos were also included in the data set. Unlike the data based on participants’ memories and perceptions, these videos gave direct insight into the students’ actual output and capabilities by the end of the programme.

2.6. Analysis

Thematic analysis was conducted and, as per Braun and Clarke (2019), findings were synthesised around a handful of key themes. A grounded theory approach was used during coding with several rounds taking place. Transcripts and notes were broken down line-by-line, and each segment was assigned a code. These initial codes described the key attributes of the accompanying excerpts. Following Charmaz’s (2007) guidance, these first-round codes were dynamically written in gerund form. For instance, this excerpt from the teacher interview “and you don’t like to put on a complaint face in front of the kids in front of others, so we just shut up and do the work and that’s not healthy that’s not good” was coded as “putting students before self”. This first round produced an initial set of 668 codes. These were then grouped and abstracted through subsequent rounds of coding into higher-level, overarching themes. For example, “putting students before self” was later included in one of the abstracted themes of “teacher burnout”. Driving themes were identified based on their frequency and consistency across the data set. Using this granular approach to coding ensured that the thematic categories which emerged were tightly drawn from the data themselves. These categories were then visualised into a mind map which was used to establish links between different phenomena and to distinguish between contexts, strategies, and consequences of the pedagogy.

2.7. Limitations

Observing the pedagogy in only two classrooms and working with such a small sample of four students and two teachers limits the findings of this research. There may be transferability to other class contexts with similar characteristics but application to broader populations is not possible. Acting as both a researcher and a teacher in the programmes is another limitation due to the increased possibility of personal bias. To help combat this, multiple data points were used, along with peer scrutiny of the research.

3. Results

3.1. Research Question 1—In What Ways Does Collaborative Videomaking Foster Primary Students’ Multimodal, Digital and Creative Literacies?

3.1.1. Multimodal Literacy Finding 1—Oracy Was Effectively Encouraged Through Recorded Narration

Findings around multimodal literacy showed that drama and videomaking pedagogy created multiple opportunities for engagement with spoken language. Recording voice-over narrations concentrated students’ attention on speaking and listening in purposeful and authentic work. Teachers highlighted how video creation enhanced opportunities to practice these skills. Geoff reflected that while “speaking and listening … [are] an explicit 1/3 of our English syllabus”, he acknowledged that “trying to monitor [oracy] for the kids, it’s often one of the ones we forget about”. He saw the pedagogy addressing this gap by exploring “How do we intentionally speak? How do we intentionally listen? That was part of those videos”. Additionally, Geoff valued the concrete feedback videomaking provided on students’ listening abilities, noting “You hear some of the voice overs and you [notice] are the kids listening to the volume of [how] they’re speaking? So [it was] good informal data when listening back to those”. Some additional language learner students, however, were hesitant about video narration as they felt self-conscious about their English skills. Field notes from one of the workshops documented that: “Je mentioned she did not think her English was very good and that’s why she was shy to speak. Kr—a confident kid with a lot of ’front’—is also uncharacteristically shy about narrating”. These notes also observed that “it was not uncommon to hear this from children, some were fine, confident and eager, but many were embarrassed—unless it was choral reading”. Choral reading was an effective solution for shyer students, as narrating in unison with other group members alleviated their sense of insecurity. Geoff noted that, overall, the engaging nature of video creation had a motivational influence for students, saying “there are certain skills where they [say] ’Oh I don’t wanna speak’ or ’I don’t do that’ but at the end of the day [videomaking is effective because] it’s for a purpose that is exciting and engaging”.

Field notes echoed Geoff’s observation, though at times there appeared to be contrasting dynamics driving children’s motivation—either positive or negative self-concept. An example of being negatively motivated to invest effort on narration could be seen with Amado, one of the research participants. During the programme, I observed that he struggled with learning concepts and was often disengaged from activities if they required being seated for too long or concentrating on abstract topics. When the time came for Amado to narrate part of his group’s video, however, he became very focused, insisting on re-recording his voiceover several times to improve fluency and expression. I initially regarded this as a beneficial effect of the pedagogy, encouraging a higher level of engagement from a struggling learner. During the student focus group, however, it became clear the motivation for Amado to improve his spoken language was stemming from a sense of shame, as he believed that he “sounded like a two-year old”. Hearing one’s own voice fosters a stronger sense of self-consciousness than reading one’s own writing, with the act of recording introducing a self-presentation element that could be either discouraging or motivating. For Razi, another one of the participants, the pedagogy enabled her to excel in spoken presentation in a manner that was not possible with a live audience due to her high levels of anxiety. In the student focus group, Razi expressed a preference for recorded narration, explaining that she felt more confident without a class full of “eyes that just stare at me”. In the post-programme interview, Geoff noted that while Razi normally achieved high grades in class, she received “near a D for speaking” in a recent assessment because she struggled to present live “without her anxiety going through the roof”. For this additional language student, being able to pre-record her narration reduced anxiety and fostered confidence giving her greater aesthetic control and a sense of self-mastery.

3.1.2. Multimodal Literacy Finding 2—Visual Literacy Effectively Encouraged by Filming, Content Selection, and Editing Processes

The pedagogy encouraged visual literacy development as students had to carefully match images, effects, and subtitles to their narrations, ensuring coherence and accuracy in their video texts. Learners also had to source specific visuals online, such as images of a zooming meteor and cartoon images of burning buildings. These activities promoted discussions on visual literacy concepts such as quality image selection and subject placement, as well as the effective use of features such as filters and emojis available in the app. Visual literacy skills were also strengthened during the editing process. To edit their films, students had to make choices between numerous takes and finesse transitions between clips through repeated reviewing and refinement. Classroom teacher, Kaye, noted that this helped reinforce the literacy concepts of drafting and revising, commenting that “We’re always saying edit, edit, edit, make it work better [with students’ writing]. Well, they kind of did [that process with the videos]”. Kaye also said the process felt more authentic because the children were motivated to revise their videos themselves. Unlike during written work, learners “didn’t just do it to tick a box. We were editing it and as they went along [they’d say] ‘Oh no, I didn’t like that. I wanna take that bit out …” Students’ critical reflections on the effectiveness of their videos were evident during the focus group. Amado expressed frustration with his group’s use of a red filter to represent fire in their film, saying, “It makes no sense. You know how there’s the filter that makes this fire everywhere? It’s just like, a little fire, that makes no sense … Why can’t we just get [an image of] a house and put…a fire…in one of the…windows?”. Kassim was bothered by continuity errors in characters’ clothing. As the films were shot over multiple weeks, students’ uniforms changed slightly between some of the shots. “If I could change one thing … probably [it would be] … you know when in the clip when we all change our clothes”. This level of concern with the final product indicated critical engagement with visual literacy from two students who were not typically invested in classroom learning.

3.1.3. Multimodal Literacy Finding 3—Written Literacy Needed More Time and Explicit Scaffolding in a Low-Literacy Environment

Scriptwriting was not a prominent feature of videomaking in this research. Despite the intention for students to collaboratively write their voice-over narrations, many found it difficult to write in the dynamic, exaggerated style required by the comic genre of the films. More confident writers generated expressive narrative texts such as: “Cars sped over the road, as every fire truck in the entire universe came speeding faster than light to the burning school!” For these students, writing and narrating gave them the chance to use expressive language, comedy, and exaggeration to tell their story. Other students, however, struggled. Some groups thought they needed to use many adjectives—a technique they are often taught in primary schools to encourage descriptive writing. In a low-literacy environment, however, this led to ineffective sentences such as, “We were sitting in a peaceful, tranquil, blissful library reading when suddenly …” After the first attempt at scriptwriting, it became clear that the video scripts needed more explicit modelling for lower-literacy students. Given time constraints, an adjustment was suggested where scripts would be provided for some struggling students. Although the ideal procedure would have been for all groups to write their own texts, a decision was made to supply pre-written prompts to those who needed them. As Geoff noted, “I know it sounds awful and [scriptwriting] would be good for them to do [but] I think … when we’re focusing on the oracy side of things, that [providing them with scripts] would promote [more expression]”.

3.1.4. Critical Digital Literacy Finding 1—Technological Digital Literacy Effectively Strengthened by Videomaking

Findings showed video production was effective at developing technological digital literacy. The programme created numerous opportunities to practice finding, downloading, and importing content, as well as recording and importing audio files. Students learned how to navigate Clips, the editing software, and they also developed technical filmmaking knowledge. This included learning how to adjust shot size, how to edit for meaning and mood, and how to select high-resolution images and control audio and lighting. Additional technical skills were controlling pacing by adjusting clip length and implementing smoother transitions by cutting between shots on specific character movements. Field notes observed that students were “highly engaged in editing and proud of their work”. Geoff appreciated this engagement and was keen to continue using Clips, as it “keeps in touch with the skills [they have learnt]”. He was pleasantly surprised by the students’ technical literacy, saying that “some of [their videos] were a lot crisper than what I had thought [they would be]”. Kaye also commented that she was impressed by what students could achieve “with a device in front of them”.

3.1.5. Critical Digital Literacy Finding 2—Critical Understandings Only Superficially Activated Alongside Videomaking Processes

Parts of these lessons touched on critical digital literacy concepts including ethical sharing of content, privacy and cyber safety, and copyright considerations. Due to time constraints, however, these topics were not taught with their intended level of depth. One workshop involved a small group discussion of ethical dilemmas related to digital technology. The dilemmas posed included asking if it would be ethical to use footage from a real-life house fire in a comic video, or how they would react if a friend who was not allowed on social media asked for their login details, or what they would do if they were sent an embarrassing video footage of someone from their year group. Students were highly engaged during this session. Field noted reported that students “leaned in, with little chatter amongst themselves and a real interest to know more”. The use of these dilemma cards sparked thoughtful ethical discussions around the issues raised. In other workshops, critical literacy concepts emerged organically through the videomaking process. For example, as students sourced still images online for their videos, learnings arose around copyright and appropriation online. Discussion about the theft of children’s data by unscrupulous apps and the notion of a ‘digital footprint’ also came up during the programme, with field notes reporting that “students seemed genuinely interested, with some sharing personal experiences about using online content”. Despite these opportunities, time limitations meant that critical literacy could not be explored with the depth this important topic deserves. Planned sessions on digital ethics and copyright had to be cut short due to the pressure of completing filming tasks within a limited timeframe. Field notes from one session recorded that we “didn’t linger too long on [the critical literacy] part of the lesson, as there was much practical work still to be done”. During this case study, video pedagogy created good opportunities to embed learning about critical digital literacy within an authentic context, but the need to prioritise practical work meant that these discussions were not a major focus of the programme.

3.1.6. Creativity Finding 1—Drama Supported Expressive Confidence and Creative Idea Generation

Findings around creativity showed that drama was useful for encouraging students’ lateral thinking and expressive confidence. Before the video programme started, field notes recorded that Geoff believed students needed to be “brought out of their shell” because they were often hesitant to engage and share their ideas. This led to the decision to include a significant amount of drama in the programme. These activities revealed several students’ hidden talents in drama and performance. After the first workshop, Kaye observed how drama helped her more introverted students, saying she could “see certain people where it’s gonna bring them out of their shell”. In a later teacher meeting, Kaye was surprised to learn that Kassim, a quiet student who often stammers, had volunteered for a lead role in Geoff’s class. Upon hearing this, she commented “Kassim? Oh, wow! Awesome, okay”. When asked in the student focus group what he enjoyed about the programme, Kassim said “my favourite thing was acting… it was fun ‘cos you can express your feelings in a way”. This response reflected what both teachers had noted—that drama helped shy students gain confidence in front of an audience.

Risk-taking and idea generation were also identified by teachers as key areas of need in these classrooms. Field notes recorded that Geoff and Kaye wanted to “get students expressing themselves more freely in the classroom rather than feeling inhibited or afraid of getting the answer ‘wrong’”. Risk-avoidant mindsets can negatively impact learning and creativity. Geoff found this attribute concerning, saying “I’m like, ‘Have a go! Who cares, right? We’re here let’s go for it’ [but] they’re not risk-taking”. This issue was not limited to English and drama. Kaye observed that “it was the same” in a previous Maths activity, where students’ fear of making mistakes prevented them from attempting answers. Aside from risk-taking, creative idea generation was also under-developed in these classes. Notes from the first workshop observed that “when coming up with video ideas, [students] needed quite a lot of support from teachers”. Later in the programme, our team considered using student interviews as a final sequence in the short films to encourage more student input. Despite the simple question-and-answer format, Geoff and Kaye anticipated that students would struggle with generating ideas. Geoff noted “when we’re doing the [interviews] … It’s coming up with the questions …”. I asked if he meant “coming up with ideas and…content?”, and Kaye confirmed, “yes”. Drama activities helped encourage idea generation by provoking improvised responses from children. In the post-programme interview, Geoff reflected that drama “brings out those creative juices … and let’s be honest they probably don’t get any other avenue to really do that. And that’s … our fault … but that … ‘silliness’ is good for them because they’re able to explore”. While Geoff viewed it as the teachers’ “fault” that students had limited exposure to creative pedagogies, it appeared to be a broader issue within the school. Field notes from the final session described a conversation with the school principal, who was actively trying to hire a Creative and Performing Arts [CAPA] specialist. The notes recalled the principal saying she was “desperate to find a CAPA teacher of any kind to enrich the work at the school”.

3.1.7. Creativity Finding 2—Creative Problem-Solving Enabled by Video Technology

While generative and language-based creativity was underdeveloped in these Year 6 classes, video pedagogy encouraged creative technical solutions from students. Like other arts processes, videomaking presents challenges or ‘problems’ that require solving. Students found creative ways to work around these limitations to achieve desired outcomes. One example came from Razi’s group, who wanted a sound effect for their footage of a meteor heading towards Earth. As they could not import the specific sound they wanted, the group created the effect themselves by vocally emulating a high-speed zooming noise. This added to the comedic impact and was a source of pride for the students. When I asked how they came up with it, Razi said—“Yeah, that was my idea! … It’s funny, it’s funny I like it”. Another innovative solution involved students who wanted closing credits with music. This function was not available within the Clips app itself, but the students discovered how to create this for themselves. As Geoff explained in the final teacher meeting, “they… screen recorded… a [YouTube] video that had two black bars over the top…cropped it… [screen captured] the audio … then overlaid the text on top”. He was impressed by their approach, saying students were “creative with how they were able to crop [and] edit”. Geoff saw potential for future project where “there could be extensions…[and] they could utilize [these creative] skills”.

3.1.8. Creativity Finding 3—Creative Input Hampered by Explicit Scaffolding in Low Literacy Environment

Explicit guidance is key to quality literacy pedagogy, but data from this research indicated overemphasis on providing scaffolding and templates unintentionally limited student creativity. Explicit literacy teaching includes sentence starters, model texts, and joint construction, where teachers and students co-write examples. These approaches are widely encouraged to support additional language learners. Geoff explained that “showing what the end result looks like before you start … I think … the clearer you are with the expectation the easier it gets”. Kaye agreed, noting that open-ended tasks were difficult for her students because “they need more structure … and when that’s not reiterated to them, then they tend to lose sight of what they’re meant to be doing, or how they are meant to interact with each other … they need that explicit [instruction]”. As literacy levels were low for many of these students, numerous scaffolds were introduced throughout the programme. These learning supports included script prompts for narrations and photographic shot lists to help with sequencing content in their video timelines. While these supports were useful, they came at the cost of allowing opportunities for more student-led creativity. With so much of the work being heavily scaffolded for learners, field notes recorded a sense of disappointment in the limited amount of student ideation present in the final videos. Some learners instinctively sought to experiment by filming additional scenes. In a teacher meeting after one workshop, we commented on a group who had spontaneously filmed extra footage of students running out of the ‘burning’ school. Although they later deleted this footage, the students’ decision to shoot it without having been asked revealed a natural interest to further explore filming and acting. Creating more opportunities for this form of open-ended exploration would have enhanced the creative aspects of the videomaking observed in this research. Over-reliance on structured examples and templates took away the chance for students to come up with their own ideas. Additionally, a wide-spread use of heavy scaffolding at the school enabled a pervasive culture of risk-aversion which also stifled creativity.

3.1.9. Creativity Finding 4—Collaborative Creativity Enhanced Final Products but Encouraged Distracting Behaviours

Data showed that collaboration had both positive and negative effects during videomaking. Working with group members sparked creativity and innovation, as described previously with students making vocal sound effects or circumventing technical limitations within the software. Creative collaboration also supported less confident learners to express themselves in ways they would not have done if working alone, as shown by the use of choral reading for shyer students. Children in the focus group responded positively to working with each other’s ideas. Razi appreciated “how everybody can pitch in their ideas and make something really creative”. Jalil detailed his group’s collaborative contributions, saying that “Jy told us [what] to do … but then I wrote it … [and] all the emojis … that was… Gb”. He was surprised by how well they worked together, admitting that he “would have thought … when we started it, like maybe … one person was gonna hog the iPad and not let anyone use it. So, I’m surprised that we all worked together”.

Aside from these benefits, the use of collaboration also caused some challenges. Despite saying that she enjoyed sharing creative input with her group mates, Razi also described collaborating as “the hardest part … not everybody likes the same ideas. So … you’ve got to figure out a way to make those ideas [work] so that everybody can agree”. Working in groups with a single iPad led to conflicts over who controlled the device. Field notes observed that “some students reported not being given a chance to edit on the devices because their teammates always wanted to use it”. It was also hard for learners to stay engaged when not directly interacting with iPads during the editing process. As Jalil noted, some students were “just walking around doing their own thing … I think most kids just use[d] this time to like slack off and just walk around”. Data indicated that streaming of classes negatively impacted creative collaboration. The Year 6 cohort was split according to ability, meaning a majority of learners in Kaye’s class were restless and harder to engage. Early field notes recorded that this “class was much more unsettled and chatty. Whole class discussions took longer as behaviour and [student] chat needed to be addressed several times”. Jalil echoed this, saying “in Mrs T’s class a lot of kids [were] … noisy, more than usual … so that [made it] hard”. Teachers regretted streaming students as this made group videomaking more difficult to implement in the lower-achieving class. Despite these challenges, however, students and teachers saw collaborative creativity as an overall beneficial aspect of video pedagogy.

3.2. Research Question 2—What Are the Perceived Challenges and Advantages of Using This Pedagogy During Weekly Classroom Literacy Sessions?

3.2.1. Challenges Finding 1—Difficulties of Recording in Classroom Environment

Applying filming protocols in a classroom environment posed some challenges. Sound quality was difficult to control when multiple small-group projects were underway at the same time. As Jalil noted, “it was a hard place to find where to do your narration … ‘cos in Mrs T’s class a lot of kids are, like, noisy … It was very hard”. These issues were reduced when students could access a second learning space to record narrations separately. Another solution was to shoot group scenes involving all students at the same time. Continuity was another challenge. Since filming took place over several weeks, there were noticeable changes in student uniforms or there would be children that were suddenly missing from whole class scenes. Kassim recalled a scene where some characters appeared to have “changed clothes”, while Jalil noted that “there was like a lot of people … missing”. Since these were student-made learning artefacts, such issues were not major concerns, but they did reflect the limitations of filming in a classroom setting. Time constraints were also prevalent during the programme. Student understandings about videomaking were enhanced when they could review and reflect on each other’s works-in-process, but this element took up significant time. Filming large group scenes provided humourous and highly effective segments of the final videos, but this aspect was also very time consuming. Ten seconds of edited action took approximately 30 min to shoot. Field notes reflected this on several occasions, recalling that there was “no time for analysis”, or that shooting was “once again, slightly rushed”. Additional time was also needed in-between sessions for teachers to download, label, and file shots so that they were easily accessible for learners. These aspects called into question how realistic it would be for busy classroom teachers to implement the pedagogy on a regular basis. Future iterations of videomaking programmes would benefit from simplification, as large investments of time are not always feasible during regular teaching.

3.2.2. Challenges Finding 2—Resourcing and Access Issues When Working with Digital Devices

Technical issues frequently disrupted access to files and platforms during the video programme. Sharing devices across year groups meant students often had to log into drives previously used by others, causing access problems. Despite hopes that the programme would help develop file-sharing skills, ongoing difficulties with Google Drive and Google Classroom prevented this. While the use of iPads for learning about digital file management offered potential benefits, connectivity across school platforms was not yet seamless enough to make these a viable learning outcome at the upper primary level. Administrative demands, such as organizing access to iPads, allocating devices, labelling them, and ensuring they were charged each week, were also a feature of using devices for learning. Teachers had to coordinate with the central IT team to install Clips software and remove in-built time limits that were placed on the devices. Some iPads had older versions of the editing software which caused interface differences that confused students. Managing content across multiple storage locations was another issue with some clips being misplaced which delayed progress. These were all small but persistent challenges related to the use of device-based pedagogy. One-on-one time with teachers was another resource that was limited. Demonstrating technical steps on an iPad was most effectively performed in small groups rather than in front of the whole class. This hands-on approach, typical of arts-based workshops, was time-consuming. Field notes described the work as “relatively hands on, with teachers needing to frequently support the children during [the] editing and recording phase”. While teachers assisted one group, other students had to be on standby, delaying their progress. This frustrated some students as they were frequently left waiting for someone to help. The video programme also required more than one teacher to assist with supervision. During filming, groups worked simultaneously in various spaces in and out of the classroom. Field notes reflected that having two teachers “allow[ed] children to find quiet places, outside the shared learning space, to go and record narration”. This student-led, open approach was an aspect that Kaye struggled with, reflecting that her students “need…structure”. Although moving through different spaces and filming outdoors was valued by learners, these aspects made the class environment more unsettled and difficult to manage for teachers.

3.2.3. Challenges Finding 3—Difficulties with Supervising Online Spaces

Online searches by young students required pre-planning from teachers. Due to the comically ‘catastrophic’ nature of the storylines, students had to search for images of ‘explosions’ or ‘burning buildings’. To protect them from potentially disturbing footage of real-world tragedies, students were instructed to add the word ‘cartoon’ to their search prompts or were given pre-downloaded footage to work with. Although this led to fruitful critical digital literacy discussions around the ethical re-purposing of content, it also added yet another layer of forethought and planning to the programme. Encouraging further time online when some students were already overly exposed was also a concern. Geoff noted that one of his students “plays Minecraft all night” at home, and reflected on the negative impact of internet culture on learning, as “you’ve got kids who are speaking in meme language and … in shorthand, colloquial terms, based on TikTok and whatever [viral] trends [are happening] … and that’s what gets them excited … [So when] you … try to deconstruct a history lesson and tell them how to analyse a piece of primary or secondary source footage [they struggle] … It’s not that they don’t want to do it … it’s the fact that their [language] context for the last ten years has been technology and consuming [social media] for large amounts of time”. Geoff also discussed the challenge of monitoring children’s device use, saying, “we put hands up today about how many people have a mobile phone. I’d say probably 95% of the kids do … The kids are too smart, they’ll create an Outlook account, they’ll create a Gmail account … parents don’t know … And then they’re consuming that [content unsupervised]”. Given this context, there are legitimate questions to be asked around giving children even more time on digital devices while they are in school.

3.2.4. Challenges Finding 4—Narration Disadvantaged Some Additional Language Students

The use of expressive narration in the Year 6 videos was valuable for oracy pedagogy but had mixed impacts on additional language learners. Some children felt nervous about their English skills and were hesitant to record their narrations. Students made comments that their “English isn’t that good”. One additional language learner, who was eager to perform in live-action scenes and often joked around with teachers and classmates, became unsure when recording his voice. Similarly, another student, despite being a strong communicator in spoken language, believed her English was “not good enough” for narration. Although teachers should encourage students to go beyond their self-perceived limits, this finding suggests that certain learning modes may advantage or disadvantage specific groups. Expressive narration can enhance speaking and listening skills but should be carefully introduced for students lacking confidence in English.

3.2.5. Advantages Finding 1—Engagement Was Heightened by Using Videomaking for Literacy Learning

Post-programme interviews highlighted videomaking as an effective way to capture students’ interest. This was partly due to the novelty of using digital devices, but also because they simply enjoyed working with drama and creative digital media. Field notes from one of the workshops described learners as “highly engaged…[with] many actively listening as filming concepts were explained”. Despite having varied levels of skill and understanding, students consistently showed excitement in learning about digital video editing. Geoff described the pedagogy as “something that they will want to be challenged by, and it is challenging them, but … at the end of the day it’s for a purpose that is exciting and engaging”. Enthusiasm for videomaking extended beyond class. In the post-programme interview, Geoff remarked that students discussed their videos outside of workshops, saying “the best feedback I can give is that they’d talk about [the videos] when we weren’t doing literacy … and usually when that type of thing transcends the literacy block and goes into other aspects of conversation you know you’ve hit something. Which writing sometimes doesn’t do, you know. No one’s talking about what they’re writing … in literacy at the moment”. Students in the focus group affirmed their enjoyment of videomaking. Kassim thought it was “really fun”, and Razi agreed, saying that it was “not boring” like other schoolwork. She described that, usually, “many students are kind of bored … I don’t wanna be mean to our teachers but … sometimes … in class it can get a little bit … boring… I’d rate Video Literacy—on a scale of 1 to 5—I’d rate it on a 5. Because it’s … a new way to learn”. Jalil agreed, saying “like in class, maybe if the teacher’s talking, I might not even listen … but when we do visual literacy, I’m … interested … It was a unique style of teaching. [Showing] kids how to build up their editing skills”. Amado was a learner who found it difficult to focus during class, but video pedagogy provided a platform where he could experience success. Throughout the programme, Amado was eager to share his progress with teachers. In the focus group, he described videomaking as “fun…especially the editing”. A further sign of engagement was the unexpected addition of extra footage in some of the videos. Although the classes had limited opportunities to film themselves, students did so anyway. Adding extra components to their films signalled their sense of investment in the final product. This was evident at the end of the programme when children demonstrated a sense of accomplishment after sharing their final works. Many students went out of their way to thank their teachers saying they felt “proud”. Jalil expressed gratitude for “discovering [his] own abilities”.

3.2.6. Advantages Finding 2—Videomaking Was an Accessible Form of Knowledge Presentation

The classes in this study were made up of very diverse cohorts. Many of these learners were dealing with language barriers, emotional volatility related to family stress, or general distractedness and lack of impulse control in class. Videomaking was a very “hands-on” approach to learning which was particularly beneficial for learners who found traditional literacy work challenging. Geoff noted that many of his students’ achievement levels were two years behind the expected benchmarks for their age group. A majority of his class received “Ds, Es and Fs” on standardised literacy tests. Several children were very reluctant to write or sit still, and listening for long periods was also difficult. Filming processes, however, were able to engage students of all abilities. Performing in whole-class scenes was a highly entertaining and inclusive aspect of the work. Students laughed over and over again as they watched footage of themselves and their classmates pretending to be in a mass panic or chasing angrily after their teacher. Editing was another film process that was accessible for many different learners. Notes from one workshop recorded that “by the end, even the struggling children had something saved ready for next week”. As visual and digital skills are more accessible than complex linguistic concepts, videomaking provided an entry point for students struggling with literacy. Findings indicate that collaborative videomaking helped draw reluctant or disadvantaged learners into curriculum content.

3.2.7. Advantages Finding 3—Students Viewed Content Creation as Relevant to Their Lives Beyond School

The videos students made in this programme were similar to the digital content they engaged with outside of class. This aspect contributed to the effectiveness of videomaking as a teaching tool. Teachers had noted students’ deep investment in social media, with Kaye commenting that “as you’re talking … as you’re explaining exactly where this [learning] is going … [a student is] there doing a TikTok dance”. As previously described, Geoff expressed concerns that students were “speaking in meme language … based on TikTok and … [online] trends and that’s what gets them excited”. Field notes from one workshop reflected students’ interest in digital media, describing that they were “leaning into the discussion, with little chatter amongst themselves and a real interest to know more or to share their opinions”. In the focus group, Razi shared her prior experience with videomaking, saying she had “already… made some [videos] … a little bit … before. But none of them were really edited so [they were] … really raw”. Jalil described how the programme helped him improve, saying that he “liked it because it helped me build … editing skills … I find [editing] confusing. But … this program [has] helped me”. He said videomaking appealed to him because “when the class did [this] work, I was actually interested. ‘Cos these are … outside skills that kids nowadays like doing … ‘cos like writing a book … it’s not what kids wanna do these days. They wanna edit”. His comment underscores students’ perception of videomaking as a strong part of youth culture and something that is relevant to their personal lives.

3.2.8. Advantages Finding 4—Students Orchestrated Complex Multimodal Literacy During Video Processes

Videomaking effectively engaged multiple modes of communication simultaneously. Filming and photographic elements demanded visual and technical skills. Performing and narrating required body language, vocal expression, and audience awareness. Editing involved precision, timing, and an understanding of how to manipulate pace. Music and graphics selection called for aesthetic judgement and considerations of mood and messaging. Further skills explicitly taught during the programme included how to speak directly to the camera to establish a connection with an audience, as well as how to control gaze and body language for clearer communication. Additional to these multimodal literacy processes, teachers also saw metacognitive potential in using videomaking for ‘assessment as learning’. Geoff suggested setting up a tripod in the classroom so students could record video learning diaries in an upcoming history programme. Findings from this study indicated that videomaking promoted sophisticated multimodal literacy development and encouraged students’ ability to express meaning using a variety of semiotic resources.

4. Discussion

During thematic analysis, the above findings on video pedagogy were synthesised into four overarching themes, with each of these representing multiple impacts of videomaking in a diverse primary context:

• THEME 1—Videomaking as flexible and multifaceted literacy
• THEME 2—Digital pedagogy for inclusion and access
• THEME 3—Creativity as stimulus for thinking and learning
• THEME 4—Influence of identity and relationships

Figure 1 represents a working model of how these elements intersect in a classroom environment.

4.1. THEME 1—Videomaking as Flexible and Multifaceted Literacy

Close investigation of video pedagogy indicated that this approach has potential as a flexible approach to literacy. This adaptability is significant, as teachers in the study expressed a desire to continue using videomaking, but in a simpler form than what was used during the research programme. Their desire to simplify the structure of the video texts was in large part due to the extra time that filming and editing took to implement, along with the delays caused by technical issues. This finding echoes Dooley and Dezuanni’s (2015) description of iPad-based learning as “pedagogically expensive”, due to the increased demands on time and resources. Similarly, Posavec’s (2020) research identified technical issues, curriculum conflicts, and insufficient resources as major barriers to the effective integration of digital tools in primary schools. These are systemic factors which are not easy to solve. Nonetheless, classroom teacher Geoff expressed interest in continuing to use video to build on the technical digital skills that students were developing. He was also keen to capitalize on the increased engagement that this medium fostered, suggesting the possible use of video diaries as a way for students to monitor their own learning. As video texts involve working with a variety of communication modes—editing visuals, adding sound, performing for camera, recording voice overs—teachers might easily select just one or two of these as the focus of a media literacy programme. This allows for flexibility in how the pedagogy is implemented so that teachers can adapt video work according to the knowledge and resources available to them.

The study also confirmed the multiple forms of literacy embedded in videomaking. Oral language was identified as the primary skill developed during the programme. Recording narrations taught speaking and listening in a meaningful context which succeeded in engaging normally reluctant learners. While the motivational effect of videomaking on student oracy was high, there were some inconsistencies. A small number of students found recording themselves intimidating, citing shyness, lack of confidence in their English, or dissatisfaction with the sound of their voices. Incorporating drama activities and adaptations like choral narration helped ease the discomfort of less confident speakers. As the introduction of generative AI triggers an increasing use of interactive and oral assessments, encouraging shy learners like these to persist with developing their personal communication skills will have growing significance in education. Visual literacy was another key learning outcome. Working so intensively with visual content meant that learnings about this mode were easily embedded throughout the programme. Examples included teaching children how to select quality images online and how to edit for smoother transitions to enhance the viewer experience. Technical digital literacy was also effectively developed as students consistently engaged with the editing software to record and compose their films. Apps et al. (2022) have noted that Australian students generally demonstrate lower-than-expected digital literacy levels. Accordingly, wider use of creative video making as classroom learning would serve as a boon for fostering these capabilities.

Critical digital literacy was embedded in parts of the videomaking programme, but findings pointed to the difficulty of spending adequate time on these aspects. Critical understandings are best taught through dialogic discussion and debate. Although students demonstrated clear interest in these topics, teaching them in the context of a one-hour weekly videomaking workshop meant that the practical demands of filmmaking often took precedence over thoughtful whole class discussions. It is crucial for schools to help children develop their media information literacy. The ability to navigate increasingly polarised and inauthentic digital worlds holds real impacts for students’ health, wellbeing, and future civic engagement. These are important and fast evolving topics. Although some critical understandings were embedded alongside videomaking, findings showed that a more meaningful investment of time would have enhanced the teaching of critical digital literacy with appropriate depth.

4.2. THEME 2—Digital Pedagogy for Inclusion and Access

Video work helped draw the interest of a range of students with diverse languages and learning abilities. Many students in these classes faced cognitive, cultural, or language barriers to learning. Introducing video technology and hands-on learning experiences offered alternative pathways for these students to grasp narrative literacy concepts. Working with images and embodied language was more intuitive for these students than working with written text. Unlike print media, digital technology allowed for differentiations such as speech-to-text, text-to-speech, repeat viewing, and adjusting the pace of audio–visual content. All these factors helped make these forms of learning easier to differentiate. Rao and Skouge (2015) have argued that multimedia technologies support interaction and expression in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts. Similarly, Oakley et al. (2020) highlighted how creative media apps improve literacy by providing opportunities for a wide range of students, including those with lower skill levels, to express themselves. Both these studies align with the findings of this research, where students who were accustomed to attaining D to F grades in written literacy expressed their sense of pride in the final videos they created. Teachers were surprised by the skill that some learners demonstrated in putting their films together. Experiencing success in the classroom is crucial for keeping children engaged in the longer-term project of schooling. Findings indicated that videomaking may have potential to help diverse or marginalised students express their capabilities in academic contexts. This was demonstrated by the case of Amado who, despite challenges with traditional learning, found motivation and success with video-based tasks.

4.3. THEME 3—Creativity as Stimulus for Thinking and Learning

The students in this research had challenges with creative idea generation, particularly during the scriptwriting components of the programme. This difficulty was observed in field notes and was commented on by Geoff and Kaye who identified it as generally characteristic of their classes. A distinction emerged in this study, however, between language-based and non-language-based creativity. Students may have had trouble coming up with storyline ideas, but they demonstrated creative problem-solving during technical tasks by designing methods to overcome software limitations. This form of creativity may not be captured by traditional language-dependent assessments and further research into how varying forms of creative thought and activity can be fostered in schools is warranted. Findings also indicated that reliance on heavy scaffolding for low-literacy students limited their opportunities for creative input. Scaffolding itself is not necessarily a deterrent to creativity, but a balance of structure and creativity is important to maintain if learners are to develop creative thinking and problem-solving skills. Blikstein et al. (2017) found that detailed instruction at the start of a session placed students in a fixed mindset, hindering creativity, whereas open-ended instruction promoted more cognitive arousal and flexibility. This aligns with observations from this research, where heavily scaffolded instruction unintentionally suppressed opportunities for students to ideate independently. These effects underscore a need for increased use of creative teaching strategies in poverty-affected, low-literacy contexts with limited access to the Arts and arts experiences.

4.4. THEME 4—Influence of Identity and Relationships

Identity emerged as a key influence when working with children from diverse and low socioeconomic backgrounds. For the learners in this study, their sense of identity was closely tied to representational aspects of video pedagogy. Video work was able to motivate students who typically struggled with engagement and comprehension as this approach allowed them to see and hear themselves on screen. Recording narration and performances provided immediate feedback and enabled students to refine their delivery through multiple takes. Research on digital storytelling supports the view that such approaches empower students by offering them an accessible means of presenting themselves and what they know (Johnson & Kendrick, 2017). Relationships and peer collaboration were also significant during the videomaking. Peer relationships were essential as students worked closely together during production processes. While collaboration sometimes led to conflicts and frustration, it also provided valuable opportunities for students to practice social skills like negotiation and compromise. The school in this research was part of a low socioeconomic community. In environments such as this, teacher relationships play a particularly important role in supporting student success. Children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds face greater risks to their cognitive, emotional, and physical wellbeing. Brown et al. (2019) linked these risks to elevated stress levels due to poverty-related factors such as under-resourced neighbourhoods, family instability, and harsher discipline at home. These factors emphasise the need to design learning experiences that build students’ confidence and self-belief. Many of the children observed in this case study exhibited risk-averse behaviours, lacking the confidence to openly express their ideas. Findings indicated that increased use of play-based, lateral thinking activities and creative literacy pedagogies may help develop greater assurance and creative self-concept for poverty-affected students.

Becoming literate is a complex process that interweaves formal knowledge about language with cultural access, life experience, and purposeful interactions with a broad range of media and text types. This study highlighted the usefulness of videomaking for fostering audio–visual media skills and early critical learnings about the internet. The pedagogy is not, however, an appropriate replacement for the teaching of complex written literacy. Writing is an art that benefits from extended practice alongside wide reading and close textual analysis. Video production cannot emulate these methods. The pedagogy can, however, provide a high engagement platform to present the products of children’s written literacy learnings. Students in this research expressed being more drawn to working with video than they were to ‘normal’ classroom activities. For schools that are low socio-economic, low literacy and language diverse, approaches that generate intrinsic motivation have great value. In these contexts, teachers cannot rely on external influences such as family norms or community expectations of educational engagement to help shepherd learners towards work they find difficult or uninspiring. Combining traditional methods with more creative and accessible approaches such as drama and videomaking can offer a more enticing pathway to literacy for these learners.

Videomaking did present a number of challenges during the study. Issues associated with the pedagogy included managing noise during recordings, time spent solving technical issues with iPads, and the need for extra teacher support in workshop-style learning. Using this approach requires more time and resources than are typically available to teachers during routine weekly literacy lessons. The challenges encountered were further exacerbated by the context of working in an under-resourced school where classes progressed relatively slowly due to high behavioural and learning needs. The teachers in this study were already overburdened and exhausted. Adding further administrative demands to their intensive daily work schedules was noted as a dissuading factor for future uptake of video pedagogy as delivered during the research programme. Teachers did, however, express interest in using videomaking in simpler ways. This was due to the notable increase in engagement that videomaking generated, even from their most challenging students.

5. Conclusions

This case study sought to understand how collaborative videomaking could be used to teach multimodal, critical digital, and creative literacies in a diverse and low socioeconomic primary context, and to identify the challenges and advantages of using this approach within routine weekly literacy sessions. Findings indicated that videomaking was effective for encouraging oral and aural language skills, as well as visual literacy. Written modes of literacy were less intrinsic to the pedagogy and were not effectively developed though videomaking processes. Learning about technology through digital video production was well-perceived by teachers and students. Although some important critical digital literacy concepts were touched on during the programme, these would have benefitted from more dedicated time and attention. Creative literacies were fostered by incorporating drama and collaborative creativity, and by the problem-solving inevitably required during filmmaking. Challenges of working with video related to the significant investment of time needed to film complex video narratives and to prepare materials for these lessons. Access to additional staff and teaching spaces was also necessary so groups could record narrations without background noise or having to film in locations other than the classroom. Advantages of the pedagogy included its ability to engage both high-achieving and reluctant learners through creative performance and media making. Video production made classroom learning accessible to diverse students and was valued by participants who saw it as authentically relevant to their lives outside of school.

Recommendations for future video programmes include giving greater focus to scriptwriting before recording begins. This would allow time to share model texts and teach explicit techniques to encourage more effective script development and refinement. Another recommendation would be to explore narrative or documentary ideas that were based on critical literacy themes such as privacy, cyberbullying, or misinformation. This would help embed deeper exploration of these topics within the practical work of video production. The films created during this research were relatively complex, and future iterations of the pedagogy would benefit from using a smaller number of visual components to help reduce the time needed to complete editing. Teachers that are interested to incorporate drama and videomaking pedagogy should experiment with the format of video texts to make production processes manageable within their available resources.

Findings from this research indicate that fusing creativity and technology with literacy pedagogy has many potential benefits for primary classrooms. Combining drama and videomaking encourages spoken fluency and develops visual and technological literacies. With the use of oral and multimodal assessments on the rise in schools and universities, fostering these capabilities will support diverse students to feel more confident to speak their mind and share their thinking in creative ways. Overall, video pedagogy offered meaningful opportunities to enhance engagement by making learning accessible and by activating creative and technological literacies.