Stance, Navigation, & Reader Response in Expository Hypertext John McEneaney, Ledong Li, Kris Allen, & Lizabeth Guzniczak Department of Reading and Language Arts Oakland University {mceneane, 11li, kjallen,

What is the study about? Transactional theory has been an important framework for thinking about reading but.. Research has focused almost exclusively on aesthetic reading, and Reading technologies are changing the ways we think about and practice reading. We seek to apply transactional theory and theory from hypertext research in exploring online reading.

Research Questions 1)Can short text prompts induce more aesthetic and more efferent reader stance? 2)Does reader stance influence navigation or response on recall and essay measures? 3)Are there associations between navigational patterns and reader response measures? 4)Are there changes in reading rates or navigation strategies during the reading episode?

Empirical Studies of Reader Stance Rosenblatt 1995 & 2004 (trans theory) Squire 1964 (7 types of stance) Cox & Many 1989/1992 (SR & UR scales) Many 1991 (4 th, 6 th, & 8 th graders) Many & Wiseman 1992 (3 rd graders) Wiseman & Many 1992 (undergraduates) Many, Wiseman, & Altieri 1996 (3 rd graders with stance-specific prompts)

Studies of Hypertext Navigation Bernstein 1998 (patterns of navigation) McEneaney 1999 (path stratum/compactness) Lawless, Mills, & Brown 2002 (knowedge seekers, feature explorers, apathetic users) McEneaney 2003 (do strategies change) Lawless, Brown, Mills, & Mayall 2003(reader variables influence navigation)

Hypertext Structure: Virtual Structure

Hypertext Structure: Episodic Structure

Hypertext Structure: Emergent Structure Emergent structure of more successful readers. Emergent structure of less successful readers.

Conclusions from the Review Instruction influences reader stance Prompts also influence stance but … Stance-specific prompts may be useful Stance and understanding rating scales have good reliability and are widely used We can and should pursue specific quantitative questions about stance Hypertext theory provides theoretical and practical tools to address these questions

Method (Both Studies) Subjects: 59/10 & 125/22 education students Task: Read a hypertext (aesthetic or efferent prompt) Material: 36-node hypertext on history of HT Recall Assessment: 72 or 36 item T/F measure Essay Assessment: Response to reading prompt 1)Can short text prompts induce more aesthetic and more efferent reader stance? (GLM ANOVAs) 2)Does reader stance influence navigation or response on recall and essay measures? (GLM MANOVAs with follow-up ANOVAs) 3)Are there associations between navigational patterns and reader response measures? (Pearson correlations) 4)Are there changes in reading rates or navigation strategies during the reading episode? (Repeated measures ANOVAs)

Hypertext Reading Material

Reliability Analyses Are the rating scales reliable measures? (Yes) Study 1 Stance rating reliability =.824 Understanding rating reliability =.925 Study 2 Stance rating reliability =.760 Understanding rating reliability =.94

Can short text prompts induce more aesthetic and more efferent reader stance? (Yes) Independent variable: Prompt Dependent variable: Essay stance rating The aesthetic prompt leads readers to produce more aesthetic responses in their essays. Study 1: (F(1,67) = , p <.001,  2 =.434) Study 2: (F(1,144) = , p <.001,  2 =.343)

Does reader stance influence navigation or response on recall and essay measures? (GLM MANOVAs with follow-up ANOVAs) Independent variable: Stance prompt Navigation variables: Stratum, path score, pages Response variables: SR, UR, recall, essay & notes words Study 1: Aesthetic readers read more pages (1), had higher UR scores (2) and wrote more notes 93). 1: (F(1,67) = 4.486, p =.038,  2 =.121) 2: (F(1,65) = , p =.001,  2 =.156) 3: (F(1,65) = 7.799, p =.007,  2 =.107) Study 2: Efferent readers read more pages (1), but aesthetic readers relied more on the built-in path (2), and had higher UR scores (3). 1: (F(1,144) = 5.963, p =.016,  2 =.040) 2: (F(1,144) = 6.338, p =.013,  2 =.042) 3: (F(1,144) = 8.547, p =.005,  2 =.056)

Visualizing Episodic Structure

Are there associations between navigational patterns and reader response measures? (Yes and No) Navigation variables: Stratum, path score, pages Response variables: SR, UR, recall, essay & notes words Study 1: Path score correlates negatively with essay words (r=-.296, p=.013) and notes words (r= -.245, p=.042) Study 2: Path score correlates positively with path stratum (r=.186, p=.025), stance rating (r=.226, p=.006) and understanding (r=.215, p=.009) Other previously observed correlations were not replicated.

Are there changes in reading rates or navigation strategies during the reading episode? Study 1 No significant difference in rate, and No significant difference in stratum, but effect size is large and power is low. Study 2 Significant difference in rate, and Significant difference in stratum, effect size is small but power is good.

General Conclusions 1.Reader stance is predictably influenced by text prompts. 2.Aesthetic readers generate higher UR scores. 3.Correlations between reading performance and episodic structures in prior work were not replicated. 4.Reading rates increased during reading sessions. 5.Reader navigation became more linear during reading. 6.Aesthetic readers made more extensive use of a built-in path than efferent readers.

Implications and Directions for Future Research Understanding navigation probably requires consideration of virtual, episodic, & emergent structures. It may be useful to consider navigation as an element of an online theory of reading (i.e., R H = R N X R P ). Reader rate and navigation suggest a “text previewing” strategy that might be useful for novice HT readers. HT designers should consider reader variables such as stance as they appear to influence use of the interface. What is the relationship between virtual, episodic, & emergent structures? How do readers navigate and respond in literary hypertext?