Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Impact of Hypertext On Processes of Reading and Writing: Davida Charney
The Impact of Hypertext On Processes of Reading and Writing: Davida Charney
Davida Charney
Department of English
small units such as sentences and paragraphs, all the way to grand
structures that clearly signal shifts between parts (van Dijk and
Kintsch; Kieras ÒInitial MentionÓ; Frase). But apart from any natural
pages that we generally read in order, from the top down and from left
to right.
1
rather than taking the traditional form of linear blocks of prose, these
individual bits of text and even whole documents. ii Thus far, the most
from a citation in one article to the cited work, or to any of the authorÕs
Jef Raskin and others have noted, there is as yet a good deal of ÒhypeÓ in
hypertext and its full impact will not be felt in most English
how we write, how we read, how we teach these skills, and even how we
2
a system that allows writers to create electronically linked ÒnotecardsÓ
into a coherent draft (Irish and Trigg; Catlin, Bush, and Yankelovich).
experienced and novice computer users who may seek the ÒsameÓ
advice, which more expert computer users may bypass completely. Or,
3
rather than leaving the choices to the users themselves, hypertexts may
manual would ideally be suitable for all users, from novices to experts
(and for novices whose skills develop over time) and for a variety of
printed manuals and reduce the high costs of printing and reprinting.
documents of all kinds and to allow people Òto access information in the
sequence, volume, and format that best suits their needs at the timeÓ
4
array of interconnected texts, graphics, and commentary, exploring
sketched above follow from certain assumptions about how people read
or should read. The belief that readers can select for themselves which
best what information they need and in what order they should read it.
The goal of creating paths for different readers assumes that hypertext
ÒrightÓ set of paths and direct each reader onto the appropriate one. The
are meaningful and important, and what types of texts can or ought to
problems hypertexts may pose for readers and writers. The purpose of
5
hypertext designers must consider if they are to serve readers and
writers effectively.
(Slatin). I focus here on readers with more complex motives, those who
integrate what they have learned with what they already know. These
Such hypertexts are currently least well developed, but are also those
scholars.
hypertext, and has been carried forward in various forms to the present
to have been quite advanced for his time, current hypertext proponents
6
tend to misrepresent modern-day cognitive psychological perspectives
on information processing.
opposite may in fact be true. What people hear and see is not imported
that human beings can only attend to a small number of things at any
one time, regardless of whether these are ideas recalled from prior
been heard or seen or imagined. Further, the things that people attend
to shift over time; as they recall other ideas or observe new things,
7
Òinactive.Ó The shifting of attention imposes a kind of linearity or
time. But the students did not enter in those same configurations--their
advance to organize the students while they are out in the hall (as the
not mean that the best formats in which to read or write are also
network.
8
careful sequencing of ideas, may not reflect constraints of the print
medium so much as the needs of readers and writers who depend on the
text to help them sequence the flow of ideas through focal attention
e f f e c t i v e l y .iv
the information in the text (Kintsch and van Dijk; van Dijk and Kintsch;
text reuse, develop, elaborate on, and inter-relate the same arguments,
the text is more cohesive. The more cohesive the text, the easier it is for
that is, with no obvious link to the surrounding sentences, they must
more of the arguments, or they must infer some link between the
9
and effort. Working from the assumption that only propositions
and remember than others. Bruce Britton and Sami GŸlgšz have
recently gone even further, using Kintsch and van DijkÕs model to
model has evolved over the years. In its original form (Kintsch and van
work (van Dijk and Kintsch), Kintsch fleshed out various parts of the
model in order to account for other kinds of information that readers call
His current position (ÒThe Role of KnowledgeÓ) extends the model still
10
effect of the text itself on the construction of the text base and therefore
their connection to one another largely determine how well and how
and new information with what they already know (Felker et al.; Kieras
GŸlgšz). Second, since readers use high-level ideas to tie portions of the
text together, these should be explicitly stated early in the text and they
should be clearly signaled so that readers can easily recall them as the
and Flammer; Glynn and DiVesta; Mayer, Cook and Dyck; Wilhite).
Reading is also easier when the text reminds readers of relevant points
11
structures (especially when the text announces its structure explicitly),
the easiest texts to read are those that follow a familiar structural
about what portions of a text to read and in what order, compound the
frameworks called ÒschemasÓ that they call on as they read new texts of
type of text, readers invoke their schema for that genre, and use it to
memories. People often rely on the structure of the text and the
12
drop out--either it is never linked to the mental representation of the
(Bartlett).
for the elements in a system. As Catherine Smith points out in her essay
provided early in the text, such as the title or the initial sentences. The
remainder of the text then may either fulfill the expectations raised by
for readers, especially those to whom the subject matter (or Òdomain of
13
problem/solution) but actually developed according to another (e.g.,
texts, including both readers who were familiar and unfamiliar with the
subject matter (Òdomain expertsÓ and ÒnovicesÓ). She found that the
time and attention and thereby influencing what information they are
likeliest to remember. But the way a text is organized can also influence
the textual effects that Joseph Grimes has termed ÒstagingÓ--how easy it
is for readers to reflect on the ideas they have read, to juggle and
compare them, to see how they relate to one another and to other ideas
14
strategy, the Òdivided pattern,Ó uses the objects as superordinate terms,
may each have a specific interest in one criterion or another (e.g., cost,
keep track of their similarities and differences. The text itself does little
15
to push the reader to create these interconnections (though the reader
object (through the costly switching process). Schnotz studied how these
the text and make accurate comparisons between the objects. He found,
these texts remembered more and were better able to make sophisticated
with the topics significantly affected their ability to cope with the two
objects.
sequences, raise significant issues for both readers and writers. For
make? Will those with little domain knowledge realize that an object-
16
Implications of Cognitive Models of Reading for Hypertext
Given the cognitive view of the reading process just described, it is easy
to see what potential problems hypertext may raise for readers, for the
they read and the sequence in which they read it. Along with greater
control, of course, comes a greater burden for the readers, who must now
locate the information they need and relate it to other facts in the
c u e s .vii
may present, especially for readers who are unfamiliar with the
concepts in the text. They report informal evidence that users become
result, readers lose track of where they are in the network (and where
they have been), and often read a great deal of material that is
shown to pose significant problems for users. Stephen Kerr cites one
knew that Òthe information was in there somewhereÓ (333). Half the
17
before finding the information they wanted. While recognizing the
processes.
hypertext, one without predefined paths, who must choose what links to
relevant to some particular issue. First, given that the reader must
choose what to look at, she may never see all the ÒrightÓ information,
either because she canÕt find it or because, for some reason, she fails to
select it. Second, even if she does see the ÒrightÓ information, she may
has already read or is yet to read. If she does not see it in conjunction
with other relevant information, she may have to expend great effort to
so, she is likely quite literally to miss the point. Third, she may see a
spent time reading it. Finally, the reader may lose a sense of the
integrity of any given text in the network since she may be unaware of
18
attributing the ideas correctly to their sources. In short, in addition to
However, research is available, some using printed texts and some on-
line materials, that does address the specific issues raised in this case:
Can readers make appropriate selections of what and how much to read?
information is best for them, that they can tell when they have read
However, the evidence suggests that readers are not very good at
assessing the adequacy of the knowledge they have read and are even
decide how much to read, stop too soon. In his study, adults with
19
presented in a hierarchical network that organized the steps according
steps. Kieras found that the participants tended to stop reading before
and distilled main ideas. Students who were allowed to select at will
comprehension tests than students who were guided through all of the
aids. In fact, the free-selection group performed more poorly than other
students who read the printed version of the linear text without any
aids.
school children, they are consistent with KierasÕs results with adults.
Taken together, these studies suggest that when readers are responsible
for selecting what text to read, they often omit important information
20
altogether, perhaps because they canÕt find it, they donÕt know itÕs there,
The view that readers can select for themselves which links in a
they need and in what order they should read it. Hypertext designers
their level of knowledge and their purpose for reading. In fact, little
different from those a writer or teacher might create, and what effects
may benefit from the active effort required to sequence reading material
for themselves.
students little control over the order of the passages. These included a
21
concepts, and an alphabetic sequence based on the concept headings.
study from an alphabetical list, read the passage, and then return to the
list to choose the next concept. One self-regulated system also provided a
determine how well they can cope with charting their own path
through a hypertext.
22
given a Òtable of contentsÓ for the cards, in which the topics were listed
either in random or logical order. They used the table of contents to pick
which card to read next. Mayer found no overall differences between the
participants were able to solve. Participants who had chosen their own
types of programming problems, while those who had read the text in
people to choose their own reading order Òmay result in deeper, more
presentedÓ (149).
itself with results that are largely consistent with those based on printed
materials.
and two on general interest topics--each about 1000 words long. The
third structural level (about half the text was presented in deeper
23
levels). A highlighted key-word in a main-level segment signalled the
asked to use normal, casual reading processes for the general interest
articles but to carefully study the technical texts. After reading both a
linear and a non-linear text, the students were asked to recall as much of
their preference for reading format. Gordon et al. found that for both
types of texts, students who read in the linear format remembered more
of the basic ideas and, for the general interest articles, assimilated more
for hypertext, Gordon and her colleagues have gone on to look for more
HypertextÓ).
24
topics in any order and as often as they wished. Then students answered
student read all four hypertexts, two in the first session and two a week
both grade levels, even with his very simple nonlinear structures. For
example, in only 35% of their selections did students pick the topic that
was most closely related to the one they had just read. Explicitly
study, however, that students can learn to cope with any hypertext
with practice. It may be that these students eventually figured out the
RouetÕs study indicates that students may have difficulty making their
25
MayerÕs studies hold out the promise that at least some students (those
effectively when they have chosen their own reading order, rather than
situations, participants in these studies knew that they had to read the
whole text, that everything they needed to learn for the test was in the
network, and that they needed to learn all of it, to make it all fit
puzzle: looking at the topics left on the list and guessing which one
would be best to read next. This is quite a different task from selectively
Gordon et al. was the text based on an integrated piece of prose; in the
se or to the very fact that the readers were forced to think about how to
sequence the text. That is, were the teacher-regulated orders deficient
26
Overall, then, these studies created conditions that encouraged the
thrived under these conditions, but not all of them. A task like this may
reading (though itÕs not yet certain that the benefits of these exercises
persist). However, for most purposes, readers are unlikely to devote the
time and energy necessary to fit all the pieces of a network together and
structures.
portions of a text, rather than having to read the whole thing. Carolyn
in which readers controlled both what to read and when to read it. Her
countries that were not identified by name. Facts about various aspects
that the user could pull out of a Òfile,Ó arrange on the screen, or refile.
Given a list of the countriesÕ names, the usersÕ task was to read and
many countries as possible within a set time period. These users, then,
27
had to select which cards to read, which ones to leave open, and how to
arrange them.
them opened very few entries at any one time--and accordingly, kept
their displays rather neat. These users read more total entries than
They identified few countries correctly, and took longer to do so. The
remaining participants, who kept many entries open at once, were more
systematic search strategies and used the screen display efficiently. The
FossÕs study reinforces the notion raised earlier that it is crucial for
because they were able to see enough facts at one time to make useful
comparisons and notice useful details. The participants who were more
worried about keeping neat displays may have read exactly the same
many people are not very good at regulating their selection and
28
created wildly messy screens; this was a strategy that seems not to have
cost them much in this task, but may well create problems in other
unfamiliar domain, Rouet showed that the effects were due to specific
the hypertext system. Taken together with the studies of Bonnie Meyer
not at all obvious to readers. If the goal of hypertext is to allow people Òto
access information in the sequence, volume, and format that best suits
their needs at the timeÓ (Grice 22), the results of these studies suggest
29
that a large proportion of hypertext users will need a good deal of
format of information.
efficiently from one end of the plane to the other, performing a set of
repair. This solution assumes that designers can anticipate the set of
necessary paths and can reliably determine which readers need which
path.
to readersÕ needs, the type of text being incorporated into the network,
and the choices that the hypertext system itself allows. The best
30
hypertexts of one small set of documents, six articles from the
linked, both within any one system and across systems. Alschuler
hypertexts if no two systems produce the same result from a set of source
texts and even the texts in any one given system are subject to erratic
treatment?
conditions, can anticipate all the paths that readers may wish to create
the readerÕs prior knowledge of the domain, the readerÕs task or purpose
for reading, the readerÕs Òlearning style,Ó and the nature of the
these are issues that only experimentation with hypertexts can resolve;
31
should take into account, not to discourage the development of
hypertexts altogether.
Others have raised the issue of what kinds of texts can be or should
Darrell Raymond and Frank Tompa note that, because converting a text
structure? When the answer is yes, the document will gain from
documentÓ (146, original emphasis). Despite the sense that texts with
hypertext, these are the very sorts of texts that many hypertext
for dealing with the world. This reliance on predictable patterns creates
32
in long-term memory (a process that depends on sustained or repeated
loss of things that donÕt easily fit) are both strongly conservative forces.
leaps and connections between disparate texts, facts, and images, thus
value and interest to those who initially make them. However, once the
wants to store the convoluted trail of associations that led up to them, let
alone those that led nowhere. Such trails are probably of even lesser
prose,Ó prose that reflects the writerÕs process of coming to terms with a
set of ideas but that may bear little relationship to his or her final
rather than fostering truly original insights, this process may simply
33
(usually the teacher or a fellow student) had in mind when creating a
efforts to make sense of the text and even with more limited and
system that only allows readers to choose among a fixed set of paths
creating the ÒrightÓ paths and steering the right readers onto them. In
34
from these theories a wealth of practical advice to convey to writers--
how to deal with hypertexts--especially those that push the limits with
face. Much work remains to fulfill the promise of hypertext for readers
and writers.
more research is needed. The critical issues fall into two broad
the reading process. The first order of business may be to create, and
involving a range of kinds of text. Like FossÕs study, some should contain
fictionÓ writers who are designing literary works specifically for the
complex networks yet exist for scholarly literatures, such as books and
35
presented in hypertext environments and, for those that are
provide appropriate discourse cues, cues that will help readers decide
what to read, how much to read, and when to read the rich array of
teachers, and software designers to ensure that they promote the work of
REFERENCES
Barrett, Edward, ed. Text, ConText, and HyperText. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1988.
36
Beeman, William, Kenneth Anderson, Gail Bader, James Larkin, Anne
North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Ed. John Smith, Frank Halasz, Nicole
1989. 67-88.
(1991): 329-345.
Bush, Vannever. ÒAs We May Think.Ó The Atlantic 176.1 (July 1945): 101-
108.
for the Computer. Ed. Edward Barrett. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988.
93-110.
-----. ÒHypertext and Intelligent Interfaces for Text Retrieval.Ó The Society of
37
Catlin, Timothy, Paulette Bush, and Nicole Yankelovich. ÒInterNote:
(1987): 17-41.
38
Foss, Carolyn. Detecting Lost Users: Empirical Studies on Browsing Hypertext
P s y c h o l o g y 69 (1977): 89-95.
Gordon, Sallie, Jill Gustavel, Jana Moore, and Jon Hankey. ÒThe Effects of
1976.
39
Harpold, Terence. ÒHypertext and Hypermedia: A Selected Bibliography.Ó
Dorsey, 1978.
Information. Ed. Edward Barrett. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989. 45-
58.
148-161.
Just, Marcel, and Patricia Carpenter. The Psychology of Reading and Language
Kieras, David. The Role of Prior Knowledge in Operating Equipment from Written
40
-----. ÒA Model of Reader Strategies for Abstracting Main Ideas from Simple
182.
-----, and Teun van Dijk. ÒToward a Model of Text Comprehension and
1982. 509-520.
Maki, Ruth. ÒMemory for Script Actions: Effects of Relevance and Detail
-----, Linda K. Cook, and Jennifer L. Dyck. ÒTechniques that Help Readers Build
41
Meyer, Bonnie J. F. ÒText Dimensions and Cognitive Processing.Ó Learning and
Meyer, Bonnie J. F., and Roy O. Freedle. ÒEffects of Discourse Type on Recall.Ó
Pittsburgh, PA. Ed. Norman Meyrowitz. New York: ACM, 1989. 259-
267.
-----, David Kaufer, Rick Chimera, and Terilyn Gillespie. ÒThe Notes Program:
-----, David Kaufer, Gary Keim, and Terilyn Gillespie. The Comments Program:
42
Pea, Roy D., and D. Midian Kurland. ÒCognitive Technologies for Writing.Ó
North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Ed. John Smith, Frank Halasz, Nicole
1989. 325-330.
Raymond, Darrell R., and Frank W. Tompa. ÒHypertext and the New Oxford
Robertson, G. Kamilla, Don McCracken, and Alan Newell. The ZOG Approach to
1979.
Rose, Mike. ÒNarrowing the Mind and Page: Remedial Writers and Cognitive
267-302.
43
-----, ÒInteractive Text Processing by Inexperienced (Hyper-) Readers.Ó
260.
Wiley, 1981.
81.
Schwarz, Maria N., and August Flammer. ÒText Structure and Title--Effects
B e h a v i o r 20 (1981): 61-66.
44
Chapel Hill. Ed. John Smith, Frank Halasz, Nicole Yankelovich, Mayer
(1989): 58-84.
Whiteside, John, Sandra Jones, Paula Levy, and Dennis Wixon. ÒUser
April 14-18, 1985, San Francisco, CA. Eds. Lorraine Borman and Bill
45
Wilhite, Stephen. ÒHeadings as Memory Facilitators.Ó Practical Aspects of
Williams and P. Holt. Worcester, Great Britain: Billing and Sons. 90-
124.
Yankelovich, Nicole, Norman Meyrowitz, and Andries van Dam. ÒReading and
and HyperText: Writing with and for the Computer. Ed. Edward Barrett.
1989, Pittsburgh, PA. Ed. Norman Meyrowitz. New York: ACM, 1989.
1-14.
i This essay develops and extends ideas first presented at Hypertext Õ87 (Charney,
ÒComprehending Non-Linear TextÓ). The research was generously supported by a Penn State
Research Initiation Grant and by Tektronix Inc. I am grateful to Christine Neuwirth, Rich
Carlson, and Mark Detweiler for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
ii There is an extensive and growing literature on hypertexts. For a history and overview,
memory and learning, see Bransford. Many of the issues to be raised here are also discussed by
46
Just and Carpenter and by Sanford and Garrod, who all focus on those aspects of cognition that
relate to reading. For a brief review of the history of cognitive psychology, see Hayes.
iv Some hypertext proponents assume that these cognitive limitations somehow result from
the limited forms of writing available through print technology. They believe that a revolution
in technology will lead to a revolution in cognitive capacity--on analogy with the advances
presumed to have taken place when oral cultures became literate. In fact, many researchers
have concluded that literacy did not change human cognitive capacity, but rather how that
capacity is used (for general discussions, see Borland and Rose). In particular, technology is
unlikely to influence the way in which we visually process written texts (or auditorially
process speech), both of which are linear (for reviews of relevant research, see Just and
Carpenter). We read in linear sequences of words and sentences. Hypertext may change which
sequences are available--and may well impose more frequent decision points for which
v The shift in burden also has consequences for writers. Carlson (ÒIncorporating FeedbackÓ)
raises the issue of whether and how writers can create segments of text that will make sense to
any reader who encounters them, without knowing what previous segments he or she has read:
Ò...since nodes may be ÔthreadedÕ into different paths, they must be reusable, requiring research
into the requisites (as well as the effects) of free-standing, rhetorically ÔneutralÕ proseÓ (96). The
concept of Òrhetorically ÔneutralÕ proseÓ is one that many rhetoricians, such as Mary Beth Debs
vi In fact, the mechanism that Kintsch adopts, spreading activation within a network with
links of various strengths, in effect functionally reproduces the evocation of a schema. It works
by activating a set of propositions that are most strongly linked to some other proposition--
for the activation of additional, less predictable kinds of knowledge and associations. It is
evident from the recent research literature that cognitive psychologists do not take KintschÕs
47
current position as rendering the terms ÒscriptÓ or ÒschemaÓ meaningless--researchers who
cite and build on KintschÕs 1988 article continue to explore how schemas and scripts influence
vii A more familiar and analogous case of the increased burdens imposed by technological
ÒliberationÓ is the advent of desk-top publishing. Such systems do indeed free writers to make
their own choices concerning details of typography, page layout, graphics, and the like.
However, the price of greater control to individual writers is the responsibility (and sometimes
the sheer necessity) of acquiring some expertise in effective graphic design and printing.
viii Of course some of these problems apply to conventional printed text too. People donÕt have
to (and donÕt) obediently read in order (Charney, ÒA Study in Rhetorical ReadingÓ). Active
readers often break out of a linear order to seek an overview of the paper--perhaps by reading the
abstract, introduction and conclusion and then skimming over the headings and looking at
diagrams and tables. Depending on their purpose, they may content themselves with an
overview constructed from skimming for the main points of each paragraph, or only read
sections relevant to their goal. The point is that hypertext makes the situation much worse.
Readers of printed texts can scan the page or thumb through the text to see how much is there, to
see whether anything further down the page looks important or useful, or to see how much
elaboration the writer considers it worthwhile to include. This is a lot harder to do in hypertext
because readers must consciously choose to look at something (i.e., by clicking a button),
because new information may displace other information on the screen, and because making
such a choice may make it harder to get back to where the reader started.
of Òcognitive styleÓ that are based on a personÕs strategies of visual perception, and that
purportedly reflect the manner in which he or she attempts to solve problems. ÒField
independentÓ people are characterized as more individualistic, more self-motivating, and less
dependent on external cues than Òfield dependentÓ learners. For a review and critique of field
48
dependence/independence, see Rose. Such measures of cognitive style may be most reliable, as
here, when they are used in conjunction with correlating measures of individual differences.
x While Foss examined important issues and reported interesting observations, the
and analysis of the results. The number of subjects in the study was small (n=10) and no
inferential statistics were reported. It is therefore impossible to tell whether the differences
xi As the research described here suggests, a readerÕs (or writerÕs) tolerance for the confusion
on their reasons for reading, their cognitive abilities and familiarity with the content area,
their deadlines, the type of texts involved, and so on. Many people enjoy some confusion when
they read a modern novel--but not when they read a political treatise or an instruction manual.
Hypertext, of course, has effects that go beyond thwarting comprehension on the most basic
level. Elsewhere in this volume Stuart Moulthrop and Nancy Kaplan describe other
consequences--some positive and some clearly negative--of the deliberate use of hypertext to
break down the boundaries between writer and reader, between previously autonomous texts,
and between texts and interpretations. Their purpose was both playful and didactic--to
encourage students to become active, ÒstrongÓ readers of any text, even those presented in a
seemingly closed, authoritative, linear, hard cover publication. As they discovered (and as
Johndan Johnson-Eilola remarks in his essay), hypertext may subvert even these intentions--
49