By: Deb Kozdras

Let me tell you all about it!

Begin Your JourneyReferences

Hmm…so many choices…so little time

New Literacies

Hypertext

Questions

Research Themes

Educational Implications

References

EXIT

Is Hypertext a New Literacy or more like narrative storytelling?

Pre-Guttenberg writing. Earliest forms of interactive

stories and entertainment: was myth. And storytellers didn’t just recite, the entire community would re-enact in the forms of rituals. (Campbell, 1949)

Story developed based on choices and storytelling changes in the sequence. Miller (2004) likens digital storytelling to these pre-printing press stories.

Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack (2004) New Literacies are multiple in nature at three levels:

1) Meaning is represented with multiple media forms

2) Internet and other ICT’s offer multiple tools to construct many forms of communication

3) Students require (and develop) “new literacies” skills as they encounter info from multiple social and cultural contexts from around the world.

EXIT

Hypertext fiction is found mostly online and in the form of CD Roms. This genre is characterized by non-linearity and reader interaction. The reader typically chooses links to move from one node of text to the next; thereby co-designing a story.

•Theodor H. Nelson, a computer visionary and activist first referred to a form of electronic text as hypertext, noting, “ by hypertext, I mean non-sequential writing—text that branches and allows choices to the reader, best read at an interactive screen. As popularly conceived, this is a series of text chunks connected by links, which offer the reader different pathways.”•The first hypertext fictions were published prior to the development of the World Wide Web, using software such as Storyspace and Hypercard. Michael Joyce's Afternoon, a story, (1991) is generally considered the first hypertext fiction.•Snyder (1997, p 6) Afternoon as:“An intricate web of narratives, places, paths and ‘yields’, that is, words and phrases whose evocative resonances readers can pursue by using a mouse to highlight them on the computer screen. Afternoon is a fiction that changes every time it is read. It invites the reader to circulate digressively among a matrix of characters and events that are never quite what they seemed on first presentation.”

EXIT

Fall into a Wonderland of Hypertext Fiction

with Alice…

Some forms of interactive fiction are more like video games.

Others use a“Choose Your OwnAdventure” format.

IF Interactive Fiction is a text adventure and was a precursor to video games.

Others invite writers to continue the tale…

EXIT

Landow (2006) noted a paradigm shift in terms of hypertext and literary theory in terms of Postmodern Instructional Design:

He discussed Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes (literary and cultural theory) and Theodor Nelson and Andries van Dam (computer theory).

Landow stated that we must “abandon conceptual systems founded on ideas of center, margin, hierarchy, and linearity and replace them by ones of multilinearity, nodes, links and networks. Almost all parties [notably the four mentioned above] to this paradigm shift, which marks a revolution in human thought, see electronic writing as a direct response to the strengths and weaknesses of the printed book, one of the major landmarks in the history of human thought.”

Hypertext has no beginning or ending, no center or margin, etc. When electronic text is linked or when one node is copy-pasted into another or if texts are semantically linked for a specific purpose, the notion of hierarchy of importance evaporates. Reading begins somewhere and the wreaders construct their own sequence and sometimes even endings.

EXIT

Is hypertext a new “genre?” Dillon (2002). What are the major themes in research on

writing hypertext? What are the educational implications, both in

terms of possibilities and challenges?

EXIT

Due to the novelty of hypertext writing, much research has been descriptive, comparing hypertext to traditional text.

Recently, research has focused on cognitive processes. Also, new research focuses on students

writing hypertexts in collaborative environments. Research in hypertext supports

socially constructed knowledge. Literacy/Technology researchers have been researching

the “New Literacies” implications of hypertext. Much theoretical research is focused on hypertext as

critical literacy.

EXIT

Hypertext as “Wreading.” Bromme & Stahl (2002). Hayes-Roth (1998) “character-based interactive story systems that require the

same artistic goals of fiction in traditional media: joy, rapture and enlightenment.”

Kozdras & Haunstetter (2005) comparison of hypertext fiction to traditional text. Design structures: With and without a spine. Samsel, J., & Wimberley, D.

(1998). Schmidt (2005) noted that hypertext structure contains all traditional elements of

story, except instead of two turning points you have many decision points. Hypertext as “story, performance and game.” Wardrip-Fruin and Harrigan

(2004). Digital storytelling as cyberdrama. Hamlet on the Holodeck. Murray (1997). Luce-Kapler & Dobson (2005) found that college students had difficulty creating

meaning in hyperfiction. As regular readers and writers of traditional text, these students had preconceived notions. Writing hypertext requires teaching new skills, especially for readers and writers who have been conditioned to write with traditional methods.

EXIT

Braaksma et al (2002) discussed the cognitive processes used in structuring hypertexts. In traditional writing authors reorganize using linearization. Hypertext requires hierarchicalization or the placing of nodes into a hierarchical cognitive map.

Bromme & Stahl (2002) suggest that metacognitive activities known to influence quality of writing are stimulated in hypertext writing. Analysis and ordering of ideas are important in linear text but more often elicited in hypertext.

Jacobson & Spiro (1995) performed an experiment based on Cognitive Flexibility Theory and found that hypertext was helpful to teach students to handle information from different perspectives. They found strong effects on the transfer task, especially in hypertextual environments.

Dillon & Gabbard (1998) found that the effects of hypertext learning are limited to different tasks where learners need to find and change information. The effects also differ across learners depending on their ability level and learning style.

Landow (2006) noted that the very nature of hypertext requires active reading.

EXIT

Bereiter (2002) CSILE (Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environment). Process over product=greater knowledge transformation.

Erickson and Lehrer (1998) based analysis on Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1987) theory that knowledge-transforming writing results from interaction between the content problem space and rhetorical problem space.

Wolf (2002) found hypertext that emerged went beyond the plans and understanding of individual students in a cooperative environment. Problems included: (a) some users contribute more actively than others, enlarging their knowledge base, (b) not all new nodes are high quality, (c) the number of links becomes larger and potentially unwieldy, and (d) not all links make sense to all users because of their differing contexts.

Talamo & Fasula (2002) found children in a hypertext project showed more cooperation and interaction (than children in regular text project). They also used different skills for social organization of their work, in managing information and in creating the final good copy.

EXIT

Rouet (1994) concluded that even inexperienced students could benefit but that efficient use of hypertext requires specific skills.

Myers & Beach (2003) and Myers et al (1998) found that hypertexts afforded students the opportunities to use critical literacy - depending on the use of the technology by students and teachers.

Luce-Kapler & Dobson (2005). Noted that hypertext can “fracture our sense of literary space.”

McArthur (2006) Electronic technologies are changing forms by which people communicate with others and understand the world.

Purves (1998) The impact hypertext is historically equal to the invention of alphabetic writing and printing press. Visual and organizational features convey meaning beyond words. Visual imagery emphasis will de-emphasize importance of language to meaning. Hypertext will lead people to think in multilinear rather than linear/hierarchical ways. (Matriarchal vs patriarchal).

Coiro (2003) describes how today ’s readers need new skills to survive in the world of Internet and hypertext reading. Beyond hyperlinks, multi-media texts include far more potential complications than traditional paper text, including animated symbols, icons, audio and video clips, virtual reality environments…

EXIT

Bruce & Hogan (1998) argued that technology has different effects that depend upon how it is “embedded in a social context.” Teacher’s instructional methods, technology and student experiences will interact in ways that determine the effects of technology.

According to Hasset (2005), hypertext offers “ multiple perspectives, characterization, and subject matter. ” Readers of hypertext are forced to move beyond literal meanings.

Bolter (1998) Hypermedia will have revolutionary social effects on literacy for 2 reasons: 1) multilinear nature of hypertext changes the foundation of teaching writing-from coherent point of view with supporting arguments to presentation of multiple viewpoints. 2) places greater emphasis on visual images and verbal text.

Callow (2003) found that technical skills are not enough for students working with electronic multimedia. Students need to understand why they are using certain colors, layouts, and images and how these elements factor in to what they are trying to communicate.

Day (1998) noted that students writing in hypertextual environments have access to a “living database” of virtual communities of people who have similar interests. Using this network helps them gain experience for writing for real audiences and in socially constructing knowledge.

EXIT

Myers & Beach (2001) noted the following essential critical literacy skills elicited by the nature of hypertext: immersing into the activities of the social world; identifying concerns, issues and conflicts; contextualizing and recontextualizing ideas into a new hypertext; representing through symbols (personal or symbolic); critiquing how the social world privileges particular beliefs or values; and, transforming one’s own words and actions in terms of identity, relationships and values.

Inman (2004) discussed the “cyborg responsibility” or antiresponsibility: “To be responsible on cyborg terms is to resist typical explanations or interpretations of responsibility. Instead, it is to ask critical questions about issues and experiences in the computers and writing community, no matter the degree to which an individual is personally invested in anything being questioned. It is to find value in arguments for and against any project or initiative, rather than one or the other and it is to think about who’s silent in any conversations as well as who’s speaking. Cyborg responsibility is about creating conflict amid consensus and pushing issues beyond their scope. It promises to open spaces for diversity and inclusiveness …and relies on individuals willing to make professional and personal sacrifices for the betterment of the future.

Landow (2006) described a paradigm shift in terms of hypertext and literary theory. Noted that Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes (literary and critical theory) Theodor Nelson, and Andries van Dam (computing) all argue we must “abandon conceptual systems founded on ideas of center, margin, hierarchy, and linearity and replace them by ones of multilinearity, nodes, links and networks. Almost all parties to this paradigm shift, which marks a revolution in human thought, see electronic writing as a direct response to the strengths and weaknesses of the printed book, one of the major landmarks in the history of human thought”

EXIT

Hypertext fiction is a new and exciting form of writing with many possibilities and challenges. Theorists have also discussed the need for future research.

RecommendationsChallenges

Future ResearchPotentialities

EXIT

Birkerts (1994) noted that the transition of the book to electronic hypertext could eventually alter the ways in which we use language and that there is potential of a “dumbing-down” of discourse throughout society. He questioned the non-permanence of electronic text-if the original author cannot pen words onto a permanent piece of paper, what happens to those original meanings once they are in cyberspace? How do we filter text against garbage and unwanted changes?

Corio (2003) stated that new literacies, involved with Internet reading in particular, tend to overwhelm and confuse people who were taught how to read, comprehend, and use conventional print.

Landow (2006) said that future research should involve finding ways to prevent readers from becoming confused and disoriented. In linear text one can search for the desired text earlier and later but in hypermedia, a nonlinear environment, one can get lost. Landow’s studies found that 56 percent of the readers said, “I was often confused about where I was”

Jacob Neilsen (2000) noted one of the biggest usability problems with hypertext is the users risk of disorientation…linking is not enough.

Luce-Kapler & Dobson (2005). Noted that hypertext can “fracture our sense of literary space.” We must find a way to teach e-literature so that our students don’t give up, getting lost in ambiguity. Continued experience writing with hypertext forms could help students become more tolerant of the ambiguity and disorientation they feel.

Back to Educational Implications EXIT

Nielsen (2000) noted that writing for the web is different from writing for print and the following considerations should inform style: 79% of writers scan the page instead of reading word-for-word (keep it simple); and, reading from the computer is 25% slower than from paper (keep it brief). Therefore, he recommends that you split documents into multiple hyperlinked short nodes, using clear language and 50% less text.

Luce-Kapler & Dobson (2005) described a way of helping students navigate hypertext would be through a comparison with print literature aimed at recognizing what Bolter (2001) calls “remediation.”

Lehrer, Erickson, & Connell (1994) recommended a design model, asking students to plan, transform, evaluate and revise hypertext documents, noting nine design skills necessary for hypertext writing.

Visual rhetoric is becoming an increasingly relevant aspect of hypertext integration. According to Kostelenick (1989) visual rhetoric includes: “the ability of the writer to achieve the purpose of a document through visual communication at any level: for example, through the choice of typeface (Courier, Helvetica) of graphic cues (bullets, lines, icons), of textual arrangements (lists, flow charts, trees), of data displays (a pie chart, line graph), even the color, shape and size of a page (p. 77).

Samsel & Wimberly (1998) recommend a series of design link structures to help writers assemble nodes and semantic links for texts.

Due to the fact that many hypertexts are constructed from a computer perspective, not from a literary stance, there have been problems with interest and readability. Hayes-Roth (1998) described seven traits essential to character-driven interactive fiction: these traits are illustrated in the Alice in Wonderland.

Back to Educational Implications EXIT

The potentialities for critical literacy are enormous. When students are able to create their own knowledge base through the manipulation of a variety of nodes, they are living critical literacy.

The very nature of hypertext requires higher level thinking skills, seeing the world through different perspectives and active reading—analysis and ordering of ideas are naturally elicited in hypertext. Wreading requires organization of materials into a hierarchy.

The writing of hypertext is naturally socially constructed and often requires collaborative work. Research in this area has only just begun.

Back to Educational Implications EXIT

Experimental study has just begun. Case and experimental studies show that composing hypermedia requires high-level cognitive processes and can help to develop these processes. Cognitive processes are similar to those required for writing: setting goals, considering audience needs, generating and organizing content, evaluating and revising. Continued research is necessary to understand cognitive processes in more detail and develop effective classroom environments that include hypermedia composing. (Bromme & Stahl, 2002)

Future research on the impact of hypertext should focus on specific genre areas to find where learning is optimized.

Research in the area of the benefits and drawbacks of the use of hypertext in education is necessary. This medium should be investigated not only for the benefits in terms of traditional literacy skills—such as vocabulary and comprehension—but also for the way technology is changing the way we read and write in a digitally-inspired society.

Back to Educational Implications EXIT

ReferencesBaker, E. A., Rozendal, M. S. & Whitenack, J. W. (2000). Audience awareness in a technology-rich elementary

classroom. Journal of literacy Research, 32, 395-419,Bereiter, C. (2002). Emergent Versus Presentational Hypertext. In R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and

learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia M. (1987). The psychology of written expression. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg Elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age. Retrieved June 29, 2005 from:

http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/nn/bdbirk.htmBolter, J. D. (1998). Hypertext and the question of visual literacy. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R. D.

Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and technology (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.Braaksma et al (2002). Learning to compose hypertext and llinear text: Transfer or interference? In R. Bromme & E.

Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2002). Writing and learning: Hypertext as a renewal of an old and close relationship – Introduction and overview. In R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2002). Learning by producing hypertext from reader perspectives: Cognitive flexibility theory reconsidered. In R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Bruce, B. C., & Hogan, M. P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and technology (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

Callow, J. (2003, April). Talking about visual texts with students. Reading Online, 6(8). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=callow/index.html

Day, M. (1998). Writing in the matrix: Students tapping the living database on the computer network. In J. R. Galin & J. Latchaw (Eds.), The dialogic classroom: Teachers integrating computer technology, pedagogy, and research…..National Council of Teachers of English.

Dillon,A. (2002). Writing as design: Hypermedia and the shape of information space. In R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Dillon, A. & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control and style. Review of Educational Research 68(3), 322-349

EXIT

References cont.Erickson, J., & Lehrer, R. (1998). The evolution of critical standards as students design hypermedia documents.

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 351-386.Erickson, J., & Lehrer, R. (2000). What’s in a link?: Student conceptions of the rhetoric of association in hypermedia

composition. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2, pp. 197-226). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fransecky & Debes. (1972). International Visual Literacy Association. Retrieved August 29, 2005 from, http://www.ivla.org/organization/whatis.htm

Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.Gee, J.P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from

http://www.academiccolob.org/resources/docoments/Game%20Paper.pdfHayes-Roth, B. (1998). Character-based interactive story systems. Retrieved February 2, 2005, from

http://www.computer.org/intelligent/ex1998/pdf/x6012.pdfInman, J. (2004). Computers and writing: The cyborg era. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Jacobson & Spiro, 1995 Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge:

An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational computing Research, 12(4), 301-333Kostlenick, Charles. (1989). Visual rhetoric: a reader oriented approach to graphics and designs. The Technical

Writing Teacher, 16, 77-87Kozdras, D., & Haunstetter, D. (2005, November). Interactive Fiction and Hypermedia: Literacy Instructional

Implications. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the College Reading Association, Savannah, GA. Landow, G.P. (2006). Hypertext 3.0: Critical Theory and New Media in an Era of Globalization. Baltimore, ML: Johns

Hopkins University Press.Lehrer, R., Erickson, J., & Connell, T. (1994). Learning by designing hypermedia documents. Computers in the

Schools, 10, 227-254.Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L. & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the

Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Available: http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=leu

Luce-Kapler, R., & Dobson, T. (2005, May/June). In search of a story: Reading and writing e-literature. Reading Online, 8(6). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HRED=luce-kapler/index.html

EXIT

References cont.

MacArthur, C. A. (2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In (Eds. C. A. MacArthur, S. Grahan, and J. Fitzgerals) Handbook of Writing Research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Miller, C. H. (2004). Digital storytelling: A creator’s guide to interactive entertainment. Burlington, MA: Focal Press.Montfort, N. (2003). Toward a Theory of Interactive Fiction. IF Theory. Retrieved January 3, 2005, from

http://nickm.com/if/toward.htmlMurray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York: Free Press.Myers, J. & Beach, R. (2001, March). Hypermedia authoring as critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 44(6). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/jaal/3-01_Column/index.html

Myers, H., Hammett, R., & McKillop, A.M. (1998). Opportunities for critical literacy and pedagogy in student-authored hypermedia. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and technology (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

Purves, A. (1998). Flies in the web of hypertext. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and technology (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

Rouet J. F. (1994). Question answering and learning with hypertext. Lessons from Learning, 46, 39-52Samsel, J., & Wimberley, D. (1998). Writing for interactive media. New York, NY: Allworth Press.Schmidt, V. L (2005). Story Structure Architect: A writer’s guide to building dramatic situations and compelling

characters. Cincinnati, OH: Writer’s Digest BooksTalamo, A., & Fasula, A. (2002). Opening windows in each other’s minds: Social sharing of hypertext models. In R.

Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science

Wardrip-Fruin, N., & Harrigan, P. (2004) First person: New media as story, performance and game. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Whithaus, C. (2005). Teaching and evaluating writing in the age of computers and high-stakes testing . Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Wolf, K. (2002). Sleepy Links, Collaborative Grading and Trails—Shaping hypertext structures by usage processes. In R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

EXIT

FEATURE TRADITIONAL NARRATIVE TEXTS HYPERTEXT FICTION

Author Usually one author Reader as co-author

Plot Usually linear, following story structure, one thing after another

Postmodern text—most often not a linear plot. Choices and links provide multiple paths.

Point of View Often 1st or 3rd Often 2nd person

Ending Usually a conclusion or a sense of closure Multiple endings. Sometimes “neverending.”

Setting Mostly in single place and time, except for time travel, flashbacks and multiple viewpoints.

Multiple settings due to choices to move within text: forward, backward, different storylines.

Publication Hard copySometimes available as ebooks.

CD Rom, video game-like, Ebooks, online

Media Words and sometimes pictures.Some have sound and pop-ups

Multiple media can be present, including sound, video, writing tools, and motion.

Medium Paper Digital: virtual or CD/DVD

Reading Usually once Many paths lead to multiple reading

Author-Reader Author decides reader’s path through text Reader has some autonomy in choosing path through text.

Reader Readers cannot change the text. Some stories allow readers to change or add to text.

Back to Compare… EXIT