Stance, navigation, and reader response in expository hypertext

Journal of Literacy Research

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-45

  McEneaney, John E ^a   Li, Ledong ^a   Allen, Kris ^a   Guzniczak, Lizabeth ^a  

^a OAKLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 75149131579     PISSN: 1086296X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10862960802695081     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Anderson, R. C. (2004). Role of reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 594-606). Newark, DE: IRA.
2. AT&T. (2006). Graphviz 1.3 [Computer software]. Murray Hill, NJ: Lucent Technologies. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.graphviz.org
3. Barab, S. A., Bowdish, B. E., Young, M. F., & Owen, S. V. (1996). Understanding kiosk navigation: Using log files to capture hypermedia searches. Instructional Science, 24, 377-395.
4. Beishuizen, J., Stoutjesdijk, E., & Van Putten, K. (1994). Studying textbooks: Effects of learning styles, study task, and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 4, 151-174.
5. Benton, M. G. (1983). Secondary worlds. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16, 68-75.
6. Bernstein, M. (1998). Patterns of hypertext. In K. Grøbaek, E. Mylonas, & F. M. Shipman, III (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Hypertext Conference of the Association for Computing Machinery, (pp. 21-29). New York: ACM.
7. Botafogo, R. A., Rivlin, E., & Shneiderman, B. (1992). Structural analysis of hypertexts: Identifying hierarchies and useful metrics. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 10(2), 142-180.
8. Bransford, J. D. (2004). Schema activation and schema acquisition: Comments on Richard C. Anderson's remarks. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 607-619). Newark, DE: IRA.
9. Britton, J. N. (1982). Prospect and retrospect. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
10. Britton, J. N. (1984). Viewpoints: The distinction between participant and spectator role in language in research and practice. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 320-331.
11. Canter, D., Rivers, R., & Storrs, G. (1985). Characterizing user navigation through complex data structures. Behaviour and Information Technology, 4(2), 93-102.
12. Chen, C. (1997). Structuralizing and visualizing the WWW by generalised similarity analysis. In M. Bernstein, L. Carr, & K. Østerbye (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Hypertext-Hypertext 97, 177-186. New York: ACM.
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE Computer, 20(9), 17-41.
15. Corcoran, B. (1987). Teachers creating readers. In B. Corcoran & E. Evans (Eds.), Readers, texts, teachers (pp. 41-74). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
16. Coulston, C., & Vitolo, T. M. (2001). A hypertext metric based on huffman coding. In K. Grøbaek, H. Davis, Y. Douglas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Hypertext Conference of the Association for Computing Machinery (pp. 21-29). New York: ACM.
17. Cox, C., & Many, J. (1989, March). Stance towards a literary work: Applying the transactional theory to children'sresponses. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
18. Cox, C., & Many, J. (1992). Reader stance towards a literary work: Applying the transactional theory to children's responses. Reading Psychology, 13(1), 37-72.
19. Cunninghan, J. W., & Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Epistemology and reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1),36-60.
20. De Bra, P., Houben, G., & Kornatzky, Y. (1995). A formal approach to analyzing the browsing semantics of hypertext. In J. M. Bower (Ed.), Proceedings of Computation and Neural Systems (CNS94) (pp. 78-89). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
22. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press.
23. Edwards, D. M., & Hardman, L. (1989). Lost in hyperspace: Cognitive mapping and navigation in a hypertext environment. In R. McAleese (Ed.), Hypertext: Theory into practice (pp. 90-105). Oxford: Intellect Limited.
24. Egan, D. E., Remde, J. R., Gomez, L. M., Landauer, T. K., Eberhardt, J., & Lochbaum, C. C. (1989). Formative design-evaluation of SuperBook. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 7(1),30-57.
25. Ercikan, K., & Roth, W. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23.
26. Fish, S. F. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27. Fish, S. F. (1987). Change. South Atlantic Quarterly, 86, 423-442.
28. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
29. Guzniczak, L. (2004, December). Analysis of reader stance and efferent focus in eleven studies. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
30. Guzniczak, L., & Allen, K. (2005, December). Reader stance and navigation in hypertext. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
31. Gwizdka, J., & Spence, I. (2005, May). Predicting outcomes of web navigation. Paper presented at the 14th International World Wide Web Conference, Chiba, Japan.
32. Handley-More, D., Deitz, J., Billingsley, F. F., & Coggins, T. E. (2003). Facilitating written work using computer word processing and word prediction. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(2),139-151.
33. Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 520-561.
34. Herder, E. (2002). Metrics for the adaptation of site structure. In N. Henze (Ed.), Proceedings of the German Workshop on Adaptivity and User Modeling in Interactive Systems (ABIS02) (pp. 22-26). Hannover, Germany.
35. Huffman, L. E. (1996). What's in it for you? A student-directed text preview (open to suggestion). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(1), 56-57.
36. Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
37. Iser, W. (1980a). Interaction between text and reader. In S. R. Suleiman & I. Crosman (Eds.), The Reader in the text (pp. 106-119). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38. Iser, W. (1980b). The reading process: A phenomenological approach. In J. P. Tompkins (Ed.), Reader-response criticism (pp. 50-69). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39. Joiner, R., & Issroff, K. (2003). Tracing success: Graphical methods for analysing successful collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 41(4), 369-378.
40. Kalczynski, P. J., Senecal, S., & Nantel, J. (2006). Predicting on-line task completion with clickstream complexity measures: A graph-based approach. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 10(3), 123-143.
41. Karolides, N. J. (1999). Theory and practice: An interview with Louise M. Rosenblatt. Language Arts, 77(2), 158-170.
42. Laing, S. P., & Kamhi, A. G. (2002). The use of think-aloud protocols to compare inferencing abilities in average and below-average readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 436-447.
43. Landow, G. P. (1992). Hypertext. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
44. Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25, 117-131.
45. Lawless, K. A., Brown, S. W., Mills, R., & Mayall, H. J. (2003). Knowledge, interest, recall, and navigation: A look at hypertext processing. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(3), 911-934.
46. Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1993, October). Assessment of students' navigation and comprehensionof a hypertext document. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.
47. Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1998). Domain knowledge, interest, and hypertext navigation: A study of individual differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7, 51-70.
48. Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, vol. 3 (pp. 743-770). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. 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. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th ed. (pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: IRA.
50. Li Nim-Yu, K. (1990, July). Writing with pen or computer? A study on ESL secondary school learners. Paper presented at the Annual World Conference on Computers in Education, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED322720).
51. Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and assessment in teaching (7th Ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
52. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 615-629.
53. Many, J. E. (1991). The effects of stance and age level on children's literary response. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(1), 61-85.
54. Many, J. E., & Anderson, D. (1992). The effect of grade and stance on reader's intertextual and autobiographical responses to literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(4), 60-69.
55. Many, J. E., & Wiseman, D. L. (1992). The effects of aesthetic and efferent teaching approaches on undergraduate students' responses to literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 66-83.
56. Many, J. E., Wiseman, D. L., & Altieri, J. (1996). Exploring the influences of literature approaches on children's stance when responding on their response complexity. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 17, 1-41.
57. McDonald, J. E., Paap, K. R., & McDonald, D. R. (1990). Hypertext perspectives: Using Pathfinder to build hypertext systems. In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 197-212). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
58. McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. J. (1996). Disorientation in hypertext: The effects of three text structures on navigation performance. Applied Ergonomics, 27(1), 61-68.
59. McEneaney, J. E. (1999). Visualizing and assessing navigation in hypertext. In K. Tochtermann, J. Westbomke, U. Wiil, & J. Leggett (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Hypertext Conference of the Association for Computing Machinery (pp. 61-70). New York: ACM Press.
60. McEneaney, J. E. (2000a). Ink to link: A hypertext history in 36 nodes. Reading Online [Online]. Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREFD/articles/mceneaney2/index.html.
61. McEneaney, J. E. (2000b). Navigational correlates of comprehension in hypertext. In K. Anderson & F. Shipman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Hypertext Conference of the Association for Computing Machinery (pp. 254-255). New York: ACM Press.
62. McEneaney, J. E. (2001). Graphic and numerical methods to assess navigation in hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 761-786.
63. McEneaney, J. E. (2003a). A transactional theory of hypertext structure. 52nd Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 272-284). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
64. McEneaney, J. E. (2003b). Does hypertext disadvantage less-able readers? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 1-12.
65. McEneaney, J. E. (2006). Agent-based literacy theory. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(3), 352-371.
66. Mukherjea, S., & Foley, J. D. (1995). Visualizing the World Wide Web with the Navigational View Builder. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 27(6), 1075-1087.
67. Nielsen, J. (1989). The matters that really matter for hypertext usability. In R. M. Akscyn (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM conference on hypertext-Hypertext '89 (pp. 239-248). New York: ACM.
68. Nilsson, R. M., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). The effects of graphic organizers giving cues to the structure of a hypertext document on users' navigation strategies and performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(1), 1-26.
69. Nuvoli, G. (2000). Revision of texts with word-processing. Psychological Reports, 87(3, Pt. 2), 1139-1146.
70. Oliveira, M. C. F., Turine, M. A. S., & Masiero, P. C. (1997). A statechart-based model for hypermedia applications. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 19(1), 28-52.
71. Park, S. (1998). Structural properties of hypertext. Proceedings of the 9th Hypertext Conference of the Association for Computing Machinery (pp. 180-187). New York: ACM.
72. Pearson, P. D. (1999). A historically based review of preventingreading difficulties in young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 231-246.
73. Peterson, S. E. (1993). A comparison of student revisions when composing with pen and paper versus word processing. Computers in the Schools, 9(4), 55-69.
74. Pohl, M., & Purgathofer, P. (2004). Hypertext writing profiles and visualization. Computers and the Humanities, 38(1), 83-105.
75. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
76. Reinking, D. R. (2001). Multimedia and engaged reading in a digital world. In L. Verhoeven & C. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation (pp. 195-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
77. Rivlin, E., Botafogo, R., & Shneiderman, B. (1994). Navigating in hyperspace:Designing a structurebased toolbox. Communications of the ACM, 37(2), 87-96.
78. Rosenberg, J. (1996). The structure of hypertext activity. In D. Stats (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Hypertext Conference of the Association for Computing Machinery (pp. 22-30). New York: ACM.
79. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York: Appleton-Century.
80. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1985). The transactional theory of the literary work. In C. R. Cooper (Ed.), Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature (pp. 33-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
81. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
82. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration. New York: Modern language Association.
83. Rosenblatt, L. M. (2004). The transactional model of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1363-1398). Newark, DE: IRA.
84. Rosenfeld, L., & Morville, P. (2002). Information architecture for the World Wide Web. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly & Associates.
85. Sanders, M. D. (1997). Why in the first-year course. Primus, 7(3), 208-212.
86. Scheuer, O., Mühlenbrock, M., & Melis, E. (2007). Results from action analysis in an interactive learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(2), 185-205.
87. Schroeder, E. E. (1994, February). Navigating through hypertext: Navigational technique, individual differences, and learning. Paper presented at the national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 760).
88. Shih, P., Muñoz, F., Sánchez, F., & Maté, R. (2004, August). Quantifying user-navigation patterns: A methodology proposal. Paper presented at the 28th International Congress of Psychology, Beijing, China.
89. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intra-class correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 420-428.
90. Smith, P. A. (1996). Towards a practical measure of hypertext usability. Interacting with Computers, 8(4),365-381.
91. Spires, H. A., Gallini, J. K., & Riggsbee, J. (1992). Effects of schema-based and text structurebased cues on prose comprehension in fourth graders. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 307-320.
92. Squire, J. R. (1964). The responses of adolescents while reading four short stories. Research Report No. 2, 1-65. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
93. Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Using research and reason in education: How teachers can use scientifically based research to make curricular & instructional decisions. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
94. Stotts, P. D., & Furuta, R. (1989). Petri-net-based hypertext: Document structure with browsing semantics. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 7(1), 3-29.
95. Stotts, P. D., Furuta, R., & Cabarrus, C. R. (1998). Hyperdocuments as automata: Verification of trace-based browsing properties by model checking. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 16(1),1-30.
96. Turine, M. A. S., Oliveira, M. C. F., & Masiero, P. C. (1997). A navigation-oriented hypertext model based on state charts. In M. Bernstein, L. Carr, & K. Østerbye (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Hypertext-Hypertext 97 (pp. 177-186). New York: ACM.
97. Van Dam, A. (1988). Hypertext '87 keynote address. Communications of the ACM, 31(7), 887-895.
98. Wenger, M. J., & Payne, D. G. (1996). Comprehensionand retention of nonlinear text: Considerations of working memory and material-appropriate processing. American Journal of Psychology, 109, 93-130.
99. Wiseman, D. L., & Many, J. E. (1992). The effects of aesthetic and efferent teaching approaches on undergraduate students' responses to literature. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(2), 66-83.