The workshop on Digital Curriculum Development at the 2005 International Digital Media and Arts Association Conference highlighted the major challenges facing digital media and digital art programs. Though some discussion focused on teaching technology, funding programs and issues with promotion and tenure in a new discipline, the workshop discussion could be divided into three key questions:
(1) What does it mean to be digital?, (2) Is digital media or digital arts inherently interdisciplinary? and (3) Is there an agreed upon core curriculum?

What does it mean to be digital?

Since the inception of the International Digital Media and Arts Association (iDMAa), one key challenge has been to create a definition for Digital Media and Digital Arts that would encapsulate the breadth of digital education programs. In 2003, the newly formed board of directors of iDMAa identified four core concepts in an attempt to define digital media and digital art. Based on these four core concepts, digital media and digital arts curriculum generally centers around: (1) creativity and design, (2) storytelling and meaning creation, (3) interactivity and (4) production and management. What makes these core concepts uniquely digital? Is it merely the act of digitization (see Kawamato, 2003; Rutenbeck, 2004), or is there something digital adds to the traditional concepts of media and the arts that can be further defined? Defining digital divides into three main camps. The first camp focuses on the technical means of production, as in this definition of digital media from one participating university: “The binary intermediary used for the creation, storage, and transmission of content” (Blair & Rutenbeck, 2004, p. 56). The second camp centers on integration and the collaborative nature of digital media, as in the definition of digital media from the State University System of Florida: “Digital Media is a discipline based on the creative convergence of art, science and technology for human expression, communication and social interaction” (2001, p. 2). The third camp seeks to identify the expected outcome of digital media, as in this definition from the Communication department at the University of Washington: “For this degree program, digital media are defined as any medium that uses digital interactive technologies as the engine for communication” (http://www.com.washington.edu/Program/MC/MC_Digital/ faq. html). The ultimate challenge is to find a definition that bridges these three camps and truly separates digital education from other similar disciplines.

Is digital media or digital arts inherently interdisciplinary?

Much of the discussions concerning digital education centers on the interdisciplinary nature of digital media and digital arts (Beardon, 2002; Madrazo, 2004; Schell, 2003; Sefton-Green, 2002; Steinheider, 2004). Most digital media and digital arts programs have their origins in some interdisciplinary collaboration between faculty members from different disciplines, if not in some coordination between a number of distinct academic departments within a university. The 2004 iDMAa digital education workshop survey revealed that Art, Architecture, Business, Communication Arts, Communication Studies, Engineering, Journalism, Mass Communication, Math & Computer Science, Music, Studio Art, Telecommunications, Theatre and Visual Arts & Dance departments have worked together at various universities to develop digital media and digital arts curricula (Blair & Rutenbeck, 2004). Yet there seems to be a “dialectical tension” between the interdisciplinary and the disciplinary. In the workshop participants noted the pressures to regress back into more established departments. The issues of sharing faculty and resources between departments and colleges, and well as the question of who counts the students in their program, were cited as pressures fighting against the interdisciplinarity of digital media and digital arts. In reference to sharing faculty lines with other departments, one participant stated, “Half a position is no position at all. When the budget gets tight, interdisciplinary programs are the first to go.” Some programs have successfully maintained an interdisciplinary program using external funds, while others have responded to the demand to merge with an existing department by forming a new Digital Media or Digital Arts department. In time a dominant model for digital media and digital arts academic structure will emerge, but until then the uncertainty expressed in the workshop seems destined to remain.

Is there an agreed upon core curriculum?

Throughout the workshop participants asked whether there is an agreed upon core curriculum in digital media or digital arts. The short answer to the question is no, there is no set core curriculum. While some similarities exist, digital programs vary so much in the scope and the focus of their curricula that an “agreed upon core curriculum” seems unattainable. When the participants were pressed to create a list of concepts that might be included in a core digital curriculum, the results are as follows:

• Designing for interactivity
• Technology
• Story and/or message
• Digital Literacy? Technological Literacy? Visual Literacy?
• Philosophy of Digital Media and Digital Art
• The ability to work in collaboration
• Writing

Yet even this loose list of core concepts shows a bias toward digital media over digital art. The core concepts seem linked to the expected outcome of the program. Is the goal of the program skills acquisition building toward a capstone project? This seems to be the dominant model for organizing digital curricula. Or is the goal job placement? Or is the goal of a digital media or digital arts education something else? The challenge in digital education, and for the International Digital Media and Arts Association is to identify the core concepts vital to a successful digital media or digital arts program, regardless of their Digital Media and Arts Curriculum Development: Defining Digital emphasis. What key concepts are necessary whether the program focuses on 3D animation and digital video or whether the program focuses on programming development for interactive games?

The workshop posed as many questions as it answered, which is to be expected in a young discipline. The number of participants and their respective backgrounds also narrowed the scope of the workshop. One of the goals of iDMAa is to broaden the scope of this discussion and compile useful data to further the discussions concerning digital curriculum development. As a result of this workshop, iDMAa is conducting a program survey to gain a better understanding of who we are and what we do. If you would like to participate in this survey, please contact Michael Murphy, coordinator of the iDMAa Curriculum special interest group at .

References:

Beardon, Colin. (2002). “The digital Bauhaus: Aesthetics, politics and technology.” Digital Creativity, 13(4), 169-179.
Blair, Chris A. and Jeffrey B. Rutenbeck. (2004). “Digital media and arts education: A first look.” The International Digital Media and Arts Association Journal, 1(2), 55-58.
Kawamoto, Kevin. (2003). Media and society in the digital age. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Madrazo, L. (2004). “Understanding the image in the digital culture: the quest for an interdisciplinary and collaborative education.” Ed Media Proceedings World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications, 2, 1487-1494.
________. (2005). “M.C. digital media program.” Department of Communication, University of Washington. [On-line]. Available: http://www.com. washington.edu/ Program/MC/MC_Digital/faq.html
Rutenbeck, Jeffrey B. (2004). “Middletown media studies: Catching glimpse of post-media complexity.” The International Digital Media and Arts Association Journal, 1(1), 63-66.
Schell, Jesse. (2003). “Entertainment Computing: Shaping an Entertaining Future at Carnegie Mellon.” IEEE Computer, 36(8), 96-98. Sefton-Green, Julian. (2002). A framework for digital arts and the curriculum. In J.
Sefton-Green (Ed.), Young People, Creativity and New Technologies: The challenge of digital arts (pp. 146-154). London: Routledge.
State University System of Florida. (2001). Digital Media Education Coordination Group: Report to the Florida Legislature. [On-line]. Available: http:// www.fldcu.org/asa/ DigitalMediaEdGroup/DMECGFinalReport.pdf
Steinheider, Brigitte and George Legrady. (2004). “Interdisciplinary collaboration in digital media arts: A psychological perspective on the production process.” Leonardo, 37(4), 315-321.