1. Reader Perceptions of Hypertext: Readability, Comprehension, and Viability Tracey A. Stuckey-Mickell COMS 547

2. Problem Statement Scholars disagree about the value of hypertext Very little research on general reader perceptions Reader perceptions are important –Different backgrounds –Expectations Account for reader AND scholar views

3. Study Purpose & Overview Examine students’ experiences with hypertext in terms of perceived readability, perceived comprehension, and overall viability Qualitative & quantitative methods via email survey

4. Research Questions 1.How do users of hypertext perceive the form in terms of difficulty? 2.Which form do users prefer—a multilinear hypertext form or traditional linear form? 3.What do users perceive as having the most impact on their ability to understand the main ideas of the hypertext document (e.g., multilinearity, background knowledge, etc.)?

5. Definitions Hypertext: –non-sequential text; users are free to navigate through connected ideas via links (Nelson, 1987) Perceived readability – reader’s perception of how easy or difficult Perceived comprehension –reader’s discernment of his or her own ability to understand Viability –usefulness or practicality as a valid format for the presentation of information

6. Method-Participants 14 graduate students and one undergraduate student From 25 to over 51 years of age Most participants were female (n=9) Most from CoE, Instructional Technology program (n=12)

7. Method-Data Collection Read an online hypertext document converted to hypertext format Participants answered a survey about reading experience (Likert-type/open- ended) Participants answered a demographics survey Via email

8. Method-Data Analysis Likert-type items –Descriptive statistics –Frequency of responses and trends Open-ended items –Examined for frequency of response and dominant themes

9. Findings Few perceived it as difficult reading (n=3) Background knowledge impacted positively –“… I had an underlying framework of personal experience…” “I had already read about this topic before…” Eight participants indicated a preference for hypertext –“…being able to link to unfamiliar concepts right away…” “Hypertext allowed me to follow what seemed relevant or interesting or logical at the time…”

10. Findings Hypertext links as source of confusion, distraction, or both –“I get too distracted and confused after clicking on all the links…” “…the hypertexts within the paragraphs, if used, made everything confusing.” “Hypertext almost forces the reader to ‘zig-zag’ through a text, and can become a confusing maze of ideas.”

11. Findings Hypertext as a optional reading technique –“…I tend to read using hypertext techniques.” “Both can be read in a linear fashion, if so desired.” Implications for hypertext design –“… if the text is arranged in a linear fashion where each perspective is on a different page and I could move quickly from one perspective to the next…” “To make linear documents have some of the advantages for non-linear documents, all one has to do is insert a table of contents and an index.”

12. Conclusions Hypertext is viable for most, but not in its true form (that Nelson intended) –Indexes, tables of content, lists of links, menus –Reduce likelihood of getting “lost” Flexibility and control is important –But does it affect meaning making? –How does structure relate to control? Links to outside information are appreciated –Only with adequate navigational skills

13. Conclusions Hypertext as poststructuralist medium –Do readers really want deconstruction? –Do they understand what is expected of them? Reader expectations influence how text is “read” –Do we want readers to simply “comprehend” a hypertext? –Break outside of old mold!!

14. Limitations and Future Research Nearly all instructional technology majors Structure of hypertext document used Experience level with hypertext Actual vs. perceived comprehension PI’s frame of mind –Same old mold??? Author------Transmission –Creation of diverse understandings from one document –Work OUTSIDE of old framework!!