This paper examines the involvement of sixteen undergraduate students across four disciplines in a practice-led research project to create the “Once Upon a Time in Palestine” XR documentary by exploring how they performed when given complex challenges, to create this novel and complex practice-led research project. The students were trained and mentored but also were trusted to work under minimal supervision. This created a high level of engagement with the expectation of high-quality output and presented the students with opportunities not afforded to them within the rigid structure of their academic programs. This paper examines the engagement of the students, and their willingness to learn new technologies and apply this learning to produce high quality output under tight deadlines with minimal supervision and the value of interdisciplinary collaboration across multiple fields of study. The paper concludes that while there was a steep learning curve, the students were able to achieve high-level engagement and produce professional results within the specified deadlines, using the latest technological advances in the field, while learning new skills outside their academic program and also enhancing the outcome of the successful project.
BaconE. (2015). Practice-led research, the ethnographer and unearthing knowledge: crossing the thresholds. In Proceedings of Minding the Gap: Writing Across Thresholds and Fault Lines, the 19th conference of the Australasian association of writing programs (Vol. 30). Wellington New Zealand.
2.
BartelsG.DubinaI. N.CampbellD. F.McGrathJ.CarayannisE. G. (2019). Collaborative creativity and creative collaboration as future work paradigms: A philosophical conception and real practices: A case study of the practical case of the banff centre. In The future of education and labor (pp. 97–116). Springer.
3.
BochnerA. P.AdamsT. E. (2020). Autoethnography as applied communication research. In The handbook of applied communication research (pp. 707–729). Wiley Online Library.
4.
BurnsC.ChopraS. (2017). A meta-analysis of the effect of industry engagement on student learning in undergraduate programs. Journal of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering, 33(1), 1.
5.
ChevalierJ. M.BucklesD. J. (2019). Participatory action research: Theory and methods for engaged inquiry. Routledge.
6.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass.
7.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row.
8.
EllisG. D.VoelklJ. E.MorrisC. (1994). Measurement and analysis issues with explanation of variance in daily experience using the flow model. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(4), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1994.11969966
9.
GunawardenaS.WeberR.AgostoD. E. (2010). Finding that special someone: Interdisciplinary collaboration in an academic context. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 51(4), 210–221.
10.
HearnG. N.TacchiJ. A.FothM.LennieJ. (2009). Action research and new media: Concepts, methods and cases. Hampton Press.
11.
HeroL. M.LindforsE. (2019). Students’ learning experience in a multidisciplinary innovation project. Education+Training, 61(4), 500–522. Emerald Publishing Limited.
12.
IbrahimZ.Al-HoorieA. H. (2019). Shared, sustained flow: Triggering motivation with collaborative projects. ELT Journal, 73(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy025
13.
JacksonS. A.CsikszentmihalyiM. (1999). Flow in sports. Human Kinetics.
KerriganS.McIntyreP. (2019). Practitioner centred methodological approaches to creative media practice research. Media Practice and Education, 20(3), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2018.1464733
16.
KolbS. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators. Journal of emerging trends in educational research and policy studies, 3(1), 83–86.
17.
KratzS. J.KeatingM.WiseK. (2016). Strategic directions in practice-led research: Rethinking research models in the creative arts. In 2016 Australian Council of University Art and Design Schools (ACUADS) Conference (pp. 1–14).
18.
LattucaL. R.KnightD.SeifertT. A.ReasonR. D.LiuQ. (2017). Examining the impact of interdisciplinary programs on student learning. Innovative Higher Education, 42(4), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9393-z
Le RouxC. S. (2017). Exploring rigour in autoethnographic research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1140965
21.
MaherS.KerriganS. (2019). Digital disruption and innovation in distribution: Opportunities for research-based filmmaking in the new global screen ecology. In The palgrave handbook of screen production (pp. 347–362). Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
MandernachB. J. (2015). Assessment of student engagement in higher education: A synthesis of literature and assessment tools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12(2).
23.
MonetaG. B. (2012). On the measurement and conceptualization of flow. In Advances in flow research (pp. 23–50). Springer.
OhJ. E.HoJ. C.ShawC.ChanJ. (2018). Engaging creative media students’ motivation: The influence of autonomy, peer relationships, and opportunities in the industry. World Journal of Education, 8(6), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v8n6p1
26.
QuickeJ. (2010). Narrative strategies in educational research: Reflections on a critical autoethnography. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650791003741582
27.
ShankenE. A. (2005). Artists in industry and the academy: Collaborative research, interdisciplinary scholarship and the creation and interpretation of hybrid forms. Leonardo, 38(5), 415–418. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon.2005.38.5.415
28.
SmythR.BossuC.StaggA. (2016). Toward an open empowered learning model of pedagogy in higher education. In Open learning and formal credentialing in higher education: Curriculum models and institutional policies (pp. 205–222). IGI Global.
29.
StarrL. J. (2010). The use of autoethnography in educational research: Locating who we are in what we do. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education/Revue Canadienne des Jeunes Chercheures et Chercheurs en Éducation, 3(1).
30.
TacchiJ. A.SlaterD.HearnG. N. (2003). Ethnographic action research: A user’s handbook. Unesco.
31.
TamariS. (2003). The Vagabond Café and Jerusalem’s prince of idleness. Jerusalem Quarterly File, 19, 31.
32.
TamariS. (2008). Mountain against the sea: Essays on Palestinian society and culture. Univ of California Press.
33.
TamariS.TurjmanI. S. (2011). Year of the locust: A soldier’s diary and the erasure of Palestine’s Ottoman past. Univ of California Press.
34.
TurnerL.ShortN. P.GrantA.AdamsT. E.(Eds.). (2018). International perspectives on autoethnographic research and practice. Routledge.
35.
Van den HoutJ. J.DavisO. C.WalraveB. (2016). The application of team flow theory. In Flow experience (pp. 233–247). Springer.
36.
WalfordG. (2020). What is worthwhile auto-ethnography? Research in the age of the selfie. Ethnography and Education, 1–13.
37.
WilsonJ. (2017). Artists in the university: Positioning artistic research in higher education. Springer.
38.
WlodkowskiR. J. (2018). An overview of intrinsic motivation, flow, and vital engagement. In Living a motivated life (pp. 159–164). Brill Sense.
