A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure

This is the html version of the file http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.89.9217&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

These search terms have been highlighted:

theories

hypertext

Page 1

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure

A paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. December 4, 2002.

This paper is available online at: htttp://www.oakland.edu/~mceneane/

John E. McEneaney, Oakland University

mceneane@oakland.edu

Text structure has long been an important element in theoretical and empirical investigations of

reading. It has been used to specify the content and character of text passages, as a basis for

scoring comprehension and recall of readers, and to generalize empirical research results (Meyer,

1985). Structure has also assumed a central role in studies of hypertext, traditionally defined as

“non-linear” written or pictorial material (Nelson, 1965, p. 93). Moreover, given the explicit

representation of large-scale structure in hypertext, researchers have been able to define a variety

of qualitative (Canter, Rivers, & Storrs, 1985; Bernstein, 1998) and quantitative measures to

assess document structure (Botafogo, Rivlin, & Shneiderman, 1992) and navigation

(McEneaney, 2001). While text structure theory has advanced our understanding of reading in

print, however, structural methods have found only limited application in empirical studies of

hypertext, despite studies suggesting that complexity can impede comprehension (e.g., Edwards

& Hardman, 1989; Cockburn & Jones, 1996). If we hope to better understand the nature of

structure in hypertext and readers’ efforts to comprehend it, one natural place to begin this effort

is with concepts developed in our print tradition to assess how these constructs might contribute

to our understanding of hypertext.

Hypertext, however, poses special problems for existing models of text structure (e.g. Graesser,

1981; Meyer, 1985; Kintsch & van Dyke, 1978.) One problem is that branching in hypertext

undermines the concept of a single common text structure that all readers encounter, resulting in

a multidimensional structure that introduces different possible readings. This multi-dimensional

structure, commonly represented as a network of nodes and links, represents a virtual structure

(Rosenberg, 1996; Park, 1998) defining possible readings of a text, while each individual reading

of a hypertext is based on a specific episodic structure resulting from one reader’s navigational

choices within the larger virtual structure. But, as noted, admitting multiple potential structures

within a larger virtual text conflicts with the notion of a unitary text structure, leading to serious

problems in our efforts to transfer what we know about print structure to hypertext. What is the

structure of a text, if we must abandon the concept of a single unifying structure? And if we

cannot establish a “standard” structure how should we speak of semantic or rhetorical structures,

the comprehension of readers, or the generalization of research findings?

The purpose of this paper is to outline a more general theory of hypertext structure, to describe

how elements of the model have been applied in some recent empirical studies, to suggest

additional empirical evaluations useful in testing and extending the model, and consider some

implications and applications of the proposed model for reading theory and practice in electronic

reading environments. Finally, and perhaps most important of all, I hope to demonstrate that the

proposed model can be considered an extension of Rosenblatt’s (1978; 1994) transactional

model of reading, a model that currently serves as a foundation for a great deal of productive

work in literacy studies.

Page 2

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 2 of 12

Overview

At the core of transactional theory (Rosenblatt, 1978, 1994) is the notion that meaning is

produced in a transaction of a reader with a text. In contrast with more traditional models, which

typically “locate” meaning within the text and conceive of reading as the extraction of that

meaning, transactional theory defines meanings as rooted in a reader’s personal experience in

reading (i.e., the evocation), subject to personal reflection and self-awareness (i.e., the response)

and shaped by our efforts to articulate and explain our understanding so that we can share our

experiences with others (i.e., the interpretation.) Moreover, while acknowledging what is unique

and personal in the reading event, transactional theory also defines larger social meanings as

emergent properties of the experiences of many readers through the application of methods

guided by the principle of “warranted assertability” (Dewey, 1938). Although the problem of

structure differs in important ways from problems related to meaning in hypertext, there are

some striking correspondences across these two problems. A transactional view of text structure,

for example, requires us to reject the notion of structure as a property of text in the same way this

theory rejects the notion that meaning is a property of text. More specifically, it requires “a

dynamic reader- as well as text-oriented understanding of rhetorical or critical terms such as

form or structure. (Rosenblatt, 1994, p. 91)” In a transactional view, therefore, text structure

(like meaning) is generated in a specific reading transaction and the problem of validating claims

concerning broader shared structures also requires warrants that are grounded in social mediated

processes.

Briefly, the transactional analysis of hypertext structure developed in this paper identifies three

distinct types of structure: virtual structures that specify what is possible, episodic structures,

that specify outcomes of specific reading transactions, and emergent structures that specify

broader shared structures that emerge from the accumulated transactions of multiple readers. In

the present context, virtual structure is defined by the nodes and links that make up a hypertext

and can be viewed as a property of the text itself. Episodic structure, on the other hand results

as a consequence of a specific transaction involving a reader and text, and corresponds to the

structure a reader creates during reading. Finally, emergent structures are abstracted structure

patterns, based on both episodic structures and agreed upon (i.e., warranted) methods for

collecting, organizing, and representing those collective structures.

Virtual structures in hypertext

The framework adopted in this analysis of hypertext structure is that of the traditional node-and-

link model of hypertext. Although not without drawbacks (e.g., Stotts & Furuta, 1989; Turine,

de Oliveira, & Masiero, 1997), this model of hypertext has proven to be a useful conceptual

framework from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. Central to this framework is the

formalization of a hypertext network with nodes representing content and links representing

structure. At least part of the popularity of the node and link model can be attributed to two

simple but powerful constructs in this model: adjacency matrices that are well suited to

mathematical analysis and labeled directed graphs (digraphs) that present structural information

in a readily interpreted visual form.

An adjacency matrix is a table that records each unique link in a hypertext document. Typically,

an adjacency matrix consists of a table of zeroes and ones with labeled rows and columns. A “1”

in cell (a,b) indicates there is a link from node “a” to node “b”. A “0” in a cell indicates that

there is no direct link between the two nodes. In Figure 1A, for instance, the two entries of “1”

Page 3

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 3 of 12

in the first row indicate that there is a direct link from node 0 to nodes 3 and 5. Zeroes appear in

all other positions in this row because no other direct links are present. Figure 1B illustrates the

digraph that corresponds to this adjacency matrix, demonstrating that the network consists of

eight nodes (numbered 0 - 7) and 13 links (the double-headed arrow connecting node 0 and node

3 represents two links.)

From

A. An adjacency matrix for the digraph

depicted in B.

B. A node and link representation of the

adjacency matrix presented in A.

Figure 1. An adjacency matrix (A) and its corresponding graphical representation (B).

Although the adjacency matrix and its corresponding digraph represent structure, they do so by

defining structural boundaries, and this is the sense in which they represent a virtual structure.

Virtual structures define a navigational space within which individual readers create episodic

structures by selecting pages as they navigate a hypertext. Typically, a node in a hypertext will

link to one or more other nodes in that hypertext. Inspection of Figure 1B, for example,

indicates that node 2 provides a link to node 4, and node 7 provides three different outbound

links, to nodes 1, 2, and 3. The freedom that hypertext provides readers at branching points (i.e.,

nodes with more than one link) means different readers can navigate a hypertext in different

ways. Moreover, as the number of nodes (or the rate of linking) increases, the range of possible

reader paths increases exponentially, creating a structural state space of considerable size within

even modestly sized hypertext documents.

By analogy with the concept of an adjacency matrix, a path matrix can be defined to represent

frequencies of transitions from each node to every other node within a given path (similar to that

proposed by Pirolli, Pitkow, & Rao, 1996). Moreover, just as the adjacency matrix yields a

corresponding digraph, a path matrix (see Figure 2B) also generates a path digraph (see Figure

2C) that displays the episodic structure defining an individual reading episode or path; the

episodic structure generated by a reader within a larger virtual structure can be formally

described and visually displayed. Moreover, if the hypertext under examination is closed, a path

matrix can be normalized by representing every node in the hypertext, regardless of whether it

appears in the path. As a result of this normalization, it is possible to sum individual user paths

creating aggregated path matrices that can be displayed to express emergent structures. The

normalizing expansion of the path matrix is achieved by inserting rows and columns filled with

Page 4

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 4 of 12

zeroes in the appropriate places in the path matrix so

that every node in the hypertext is represented in the

expanded path matrix (see Figure 2D). The net

result of this expansion is to embed the path within

the larger structure of the hypertext. The structural

features of the original path matrix are preserved

while establishing a normal form for all paths. As a

result of this normalization, individual path matrices

can be summed to yield group (i.e., emergent)

matrices.

Episodic structures in hypertext

While virtual structures are defined by what is

possible in hypertext, episodic structures are defined

by the choices readers actually make during reading

events. In the formalism presented, a sequence of

nodes selected while reading defines a path that,

with appropriate transformations, yields numerical

metrics and structural displays. Significantly, not

only do these metrics and displays correlate with

hypertext reading measures (McEneaney, 2001),

they also provide a basis for conceptualizing and

interpreting individual reading events. In a

transactional sense, these episodic structures

represent the text as individual readers actually

experience it. As indicated in Figure 3, while the

variability of these structures is considerable, an

underlying visual logic is suggested. Patterns of

navigation range across a fairly well-defined visual

continuum with a shallow hierarchy at one end (A &

B) and a strongly linear pattern at the other (I & J).

Review of the episodic structures suggested that

subjects whose patterns were most linear had tended to assume a “passive” approach to using the

hypertext, relying on built-in structures similar to navigational strategies noted in other recent

studies that identify “passive vs. active” (Titus & Everett, 1996), “matching vs. exploration”

(Thiel & Műller, 1996), and “browsing vs. search” (Agosti, 1996) approaches, depending on

whether subjects rely on a built-in general strategy (i.e., passive, matching, and browsing

approaches) or seek out a less obvious, but potentially more relevant, structural framework to

support their use of hypertext (i.e., active, exploration, and search approaches). Specifically, it

appeared that these passive readers relied much more heavily on a “page turning” strategy that

followed a predetermined reading sequence embedded in “next” and previous” buttons, while

subjects generating more hierarchically organized structures adopted a strategic approach

leading to hierarchical patterns of movement with the table of contents and section-specific

index pages serving as the root and branch points in their paths (indicating repeated visits to

these pages during the reading episode.) Moreover, these results have more “local” analogs in

the literature on reading in print, with more effective readers typically adopting a more strategic,

A. Path = <6,30,6,37,6,15,16,6,21,6,21,30,6,23,24,6,35,6>.

from 6

15 16 21 23 24 30 35 37

B. Path matrix.

C. Path diagram.

from 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

D. Expanded path matrix for a portion (nodes 21-30) of the

path matrix (outlined within Figure 4B).

Figure 2. A path (A) and its corresponding path

matrix (B), path diagram (C), and expanded path

matrix for a subset of nodes (D).

Page 5

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 5 of 12

metacognitive approach to text, while less able readers tend to read with a poorly defined sense

of purpose or little critical engagement (e.g., Barton, 1997; Gourgey. 1999; Lifford, Byron, &

Jean Ziemian, 2000; Taraban, Rynearson, & Kerr, 2000).

While there continues to be a pressing need for detailed empirically-grounded theories of

navigation that focus on navigational particulars (McKnight, Dillon, & Richardson, 1993), there

is clearly also a need for a broader theory that can account for the ways people orient themselves

when faced with complex tasks. Studies cited above suggest a fundamental dispositional

characteristic that may lead some to more active engagement, while others are content to rely on

Figure 3. Episodic structures created by 10 different readers in the same hypertext.

Page 6

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 6 of 12

more generic strategies related to the way the text is presented (in this case, in the design of the

interface.) There is also evidence that this fundamental orientation can interact with a subject’s

capacity to self-regulate or manage learning, with the somewhat surprising result that less

effective self-regulators may actually benefit more from a passive orientation than they do from

an active one (Beishuizen, Stoutjesdijk, & Van Putten, 1994). Ultimately, understanding

particulars of reading in electronic environments is likely to require that we step back from

navigational details far enough to see the broader dispositions and foundational metacognitive

skills that people bring to reading and learning in hypertext.

Emergent structures in hypertext

As noted earlier, the methods used to generate individual episodic structures also support the

summation of these structures into larger emergent structures that represent a generalized

navigational pattern for groups of readers. In its most basic (and generally least informative)

form, an emergent structure simply sums all episodic structures generated by individuals within a

group. The problem with a simple summation of episodic structures, however, is that a single

link is not “representative” in any significant sense of larger patterns and may, in fact, simply

reflect idiosyncratic navigation or error (e.g., unintended link selection.) Moreover, display of

all link traversals typically undermines the visual utility of the emergent structure display by

swamping it with unique or rarely used paths (as is evident in Figure 4A.) Emergent structures

can, however, be screened to remove random sources of noise and idiosyncratic pathways by

setting a threshold value that must be met in order for a link traversal to be displayed. In

addition, by gradually increasing a threshold value, it becomes possible to define a series of

progressively more abstract structures, as illustrated in the sequence of displays in Figure 4.

Emergent structures in Figure 4 are drawn from a study that simulates consumer decision

making. Subjects “purchased” modular housing using a moderately complex hypermedia system

comparable in size to the one used in generating the episodic structures displayed in Figure 3.

Figure 4A illustrates the emergent structure that results when the link traversal threshold is set to

zero. By setting the threshold to this value, every link traversal used by every subject is

depicted, resulting in a very complex network of paths, some of which depend on only a single

path. Setting a link traversal threshold to progressively larger values, however, winnows unique

or rarely used paths, while retaining paths that are repeatedly used. In effect, the link traversal

threshold reveals an emergent structure in the same way that trails in a wood or across a grassy

field are revealed – through the accumulated action of many individuals. Moreover, as is

apparent in these illustrations, these progressively abstracted emergent structures more clearly

illustrate roles that nodes and other larger-scale structures play in the navigation of readers as a

group. Node 2 clearly serves as a gateway to the larger structure, while node 3 serves as a

primary index node for a shallow hierarchy of structurally related nodes. Nodes 6 and 26 also

serve as index nodes for smaller navigational hierarchies, while other nodes (e.g., node 83) serve

as bridges or other functional links connecting otherwise distinct areas of the larger structure.

It is also interesting to note that two features of the sequence of displays in Figure 4 seem to

suggest both that it is important that the exploration of emergent structures not be prematurely

curtailed, and that there seems to be a “natural” technique for recognizing when further increases

in threshold values may no longer be useful. Specifically, at least one quite distinct navigational

pattern (the linear sequence defined by nodes 19 to 24 in Figure 4E) only becomes obvious after

the threshold reaches a fairly high level, indicating that lower frequency patterns may mask those

Page 7

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 7 of 12

of a higher frequency until a threshold is applied that effectively removes those of lower

frequency.

Moreover, as the threshold is gradually increased, there appears to come a point where nodes or

small networks of nodes begin to become isolated from the main structure (see nodes 22 and 23

in Figure 4F), suggesting that the integrity of the larger structure has been compromised and that

A. Traversal threshold = 0.

B. Traversal threshold = 5.

C. Traversal threshold = 10.

D. Traversal threshold = 15.

E. Traversal threshold = 20.

F. Traversal threshold = 25.

Figure 4. Emergent structures based on six different link traversal threshold values.

Page 8

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 8 of 12

further increases in the threshold value are not likely to be productive. Finally, in response to

possible concerns related to the display tool used (Ellson, Koutsofios, & North, 1998), it is

relevant to note that, although the form of display that has been adopted (the hierarchical

embedding in Figure 5A) plays a role in defining some visual qualities of these structures,

alternative forms of display (Figure 5B) demonstrate similar structural patterns, suggesting that

the observed structures are not simply artifacts of the display, but rather reflect inherent features

of the data set.

Interpretations and implications

The techniques and analyses that have been presented offer a framework that distinguishes

among three different types of hypertext structure, all of which may play important roles in

thinking about how readers understand and use hypertext. A virtual structure represents

structural potential in the sense that it defines boundaries within which readers are constrained to

operate without specifying how any given reader actually chooses to read. Episodic structures,

on the other hand, are created by individual readers within the boundaries of the larger virtual

structure during a specific reading episode and thus represent the structure a reader actually

experiences. Finally, emergent structures represent larger social patterns of hypertext use that

can serve either to reveal structurally distinct general patterns of a given hypertext, or distinctive

patterns of use by different groups of hypertext readers (McEneaney, 2001).

Although these techniques and the analyses they support are rooted in a formal framework

developed independently of transactional theory, there are compelling reasons, both theoretical

and applied, for concluding that the correspondences of transactional theory and hypertext

structure described above are not simply random points of contact but represent genuine

A. Hierarchical display of a structure

(reproduction of Figure 4E.)

B. Alternative display of the structure displayed

in A (undirected spring embedding.)

Figure 5. A comparison of hierarchical (A) and spring embedded (B) displays based on the same

emergent structure, suggesting that these structural patterns are not an artifact of the display

type.

Page 9

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 9 of 12

theoretical overlap. Other work that adopts a specifically literary focus (like transactional

theory) has, for instance, noted similar correspondences between literary theory and recently

developed technologies of reading and writing including, but not limited to, hypertext. Critical

theorists, in particular, have argued that features we associate with text are not intrinsic to text

itself and represent unfortunate and "thoroughly unnatural (McArthur, 1986, p. 69)" artifacts of

the technologies of traditional print (i.e., the book). Others have advocated we "abandon

conceptual systems founded upon ideas of center, margin, hierarchy, and linearity and replace

them with ones of multilinearity, nodes, links, and textual networks (Landow, 1992, p. 2)."

"What is unnatural in print will become natural in the electronic medium" because hypertext

literally embodies poststructuralist conceptions of the open text (Bolter, 1990, p. 143). "Critical

theory promises to theorize hypertext, and hypertext promises to embody and thereby test

aspects of theory, particularly those concerning textuality, narrative, and the roles or functions of

reader and writer (Landow, 1992, p. 3)." Perhaps, however, conceptual and theoretical

productivity represents the best test of the marriage of formalism and literary theory advocated.

That is, what kind of utility can transactional theory and the theory of structure outlined above

contribute to one another?

From a technical perspective, transactional theory provides an interpretive framework for

thinking about hypertext that is rooted in a broader theory of human action that addresses what is

a significant and conspicuous absence in a great deal of theoretical work: the human context that

makes hypertext meaningful. Although there are some notable exceptions (see e.g., Bernstein,

1998; Andersen, 1997; Marshall, 1998), most theoretical work in hypertext tends to focus on

defining systems that adhere to formal properties that are deemed mathematically or technically

desirable or are simply presumed to connect with reader experiences on broad generally unstated

principles (e.g., a simpler interface is easier to use). Studies of readers in traditional print,

however, suggest that a reliance on common sense can be dangerous, with experimental

outcomes that sometimes point to counterintuitive results. Although common sense might

suggest simpler texts are easier to read, simplifying modifications may not help and can even

reduce readability (e.g., Klare, 1984; Pearson & Camperell, 1981; Davison & Kantor, 1982) and

that providing readers adjunct “aids” has the potential to interfere with rather than promote

comprehension. Although effective application of technology requires technically sound

foundations, unless we can relate these technologies to the ways human readers and writers think

about their objectives, our theories of hypertext are almost certain to miss their mark.

Conversely, as the quote from Landow (1992, p. 3) cited above points out, systematically

defined and concretely implemented technologies of reading and writing have the potential to

both reveal and test otherwise inaccessible elements of transactional theory.

The three types of hypertext structure that have been defined provide one instance where

technology can serve to clarify transactional theory. Although the notions of openness and

constraint play a central role in Rosenblatt’s thinking (see particularly chapter 5 in Rosenblatt,

1994), these concepts remain largely inaccessible within the uniquely personal experiences of

individual readers where “context guides the reader in the process of selecting out - from the

range of inner possibilities - the kinds of responses, referential and affective, that are appropriate

[my emphasis] (1994, p. 75).” Hypertext, however, takes a small but significant aspect

proportion of those “inner” possibilities and externalizes them in the form of hypertext links.

Virtual structure in a hypertext introduces a more specific and concrete use of the terms

“openness” and “constraint” where it becomes both theoretically and empirically meaningful to

Page 10

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 10 of 12

ask about the relative openness and constraint of different texts. Episodic structures provide a

window on the transaction itself, presenting an artifact that is directly derived from the reading

transaction, supporting both quantitative and qualitative interpretations. Finally, emergent

structures serve to reveal the openness and constraint of texts from a broader social perspective

that is so important in transactional theory’s response to the problem of interpretive relativism.

Emergent structures also provide a concrete basis for empirically defining “normative” readings

and comparing the readings of different readers in ways that address Rosenblatt’s requirement

that comparisons be based on explicitly defined standards of adequacy (1994, p. 124.)

The interpretive scheme described earlier regarding readers’ general orientation to hypertext (i.e.

active vs. passive) also has a suggestive overlap with the concept of stance and can provide a

basis for a concrete interpretive framework for thinking about structural artifacts of stance in

electronic reading environments. For example, one interpretation of the benefit provided by

more hierarchical episodic structures in the studies displayed in Figure 3 is that the readers who

produced these structures selected a more task-appropriate efferent stance and were not induced

by features of the interface (e.g., next and back buttons) to adopt a more “narrative” (i.e.,

aesthetic) approach in their reading. Rosenblatt’s view of stance, with relatively minor

modification, can be applied as a broader explanatory framework for what McEneaney (2001)

has termed a general “orienting strategy subjects adopt when faced with a complex cognitive

task. (p. 780)” in attempting to account for persistently observed patterns in the ways readers use

hypertext.

Summary and conclusions

This article defines a theoretical framework that integrates transactional theory (Rosenblatt,

1994a, 1994b, 1995) with recently developed formal methods that support the analysis of reader

navigation in hypertext (McEneaney, 1999; 2000; 2001). Transactional theory provides the

larger framework within which formal analysis of reader navigation in hypertext is situated. The

concept of reader stance is proposed as one way to account for persistent general patterns of

reader navigation in hypertext that have been widely reported but still elude principled

explanation. Transactional theory suggests interpretations for three distinct types of hypertext

structure. Virtual structures represent the openness and constraint of a hypertext by defining

boundaries within which readers operate. An episodic structure represents a reading pattern

generated by an individual in a specific reading episode. Emergent structures define larger

social patterns based on aggregations of episodic structures that can serve as normative

structures based on a given population of readers. Although the framework proposed is

preliminary, transactional theory appears to provide a productive framework for formal

techniques that support conceptualizing and analyzing hypertext structure.

References

Agosti, M. (1996). An overview of hypertext. In M. Agosti & A. Smeaton (Eds.), Information retrieval

and hypertext. Boston: Kluwer Academic publishers.

Andersoen, P. B. (1997). A theory of computer semiotics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barton, M. L. (1997). Addressing the literacy crisis: Teaching reading in the content areas. NASSP

Bulletin, 81(587), 22-30.

Beishuizen, J., Stoutjesdijk, E., & Van Putten, K. (1994). Studying textbooks: Effects of learning styles,

study task, and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 4, 151-174.

Bernstein, M. (1998). Patterns of hypertext. Proceedings of the 9th Hypertext Conference of the Association

for Computing Machinery, 21-29. New York: ACM.

Page 11

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 11 of 12

Bolter, J. D. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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.

Canter, D., Rivers, R., & Storrs, G. (1985). Characterizing user navigation through complex data structures.

Behaviour and Information Technology, 4(2), 93-102.

Cockburn, A. & Jones, S. (1996). Which way now? Analysing and easing inadequacies in WWW

navigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 105-129.

Davison, A. & Kantor, R. N. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case

study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 187-209.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

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. Oxford: Intellect

Limited.

Ellson, J., Koutsofios, E., & North, S. (1998). GraphViz 1.3 [Computer software]. Murray hill, NJ:

Lucent Technologies. Available: http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/

Gourgey, A. F. (1999). Teaching Reading from a Metacognitive Perspective: Theory and Classroom

Experiences. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 30(1), 85-93.

Graesser, A. C. & Goodman, S. M. (1985). Implicit knowledge, question answering, and the representation

of expository text. In Bruce K. Britton & John B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 109-

172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kintsch, W. & van Dyjk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.

Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.

Klare, G. R. (1984). Readability. In P. David Pearson, Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, & Peter Mosenthal

(Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman.

Landow, G. P. (1992). Hypertext. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lifford, J., Byron, B. E., Jean Ziemian, C. (2000) Reading, responding, reflecting. English Journal,

89(4), 46-57

Marshall, C. C. (1998). Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM

Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, 40-49. New York: ACM Press.

McArthur, T. (1986). Worlds of reference: Lexicography, learning, and language from the clay tablet to

the computer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKnight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (1990). A comparison of linear and hypertext formats in

information retrieval. In R. McAleese & C. Green (Eds.), Hypertext: State of the art (pp. 10-19).

Oxford: Intellect.

McEneaney, J. E. (2001). Graphic and numerical methods to assess navigation in hypertext. International

Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 761-786.

McEneaney, J. E. (2000). Navigational correlates of comprehension in hypertext. In Ken Anderson &

Frank Shipman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Hypertext Conference of the Association for

Computing Machinery. New York, NY: ACM Press.

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, NY: ACM Press.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In Bruce K. Britton & John B.

Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nelson, T. H. (1965). A file structure for the complex, the changing, and the indeterminate. Proceedings of

the 20th ACM National Conference, 84-100. New York: ACM.

Park, S. (1998). Structural properties of hypertext. Proceedings of the 9th Hypertext Conference of the

Association for Computing Machinery, 180-187. New York: ACM.

Pearson, P. D. & Camperell, K. (1981). Comprehension of text structures. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.),

Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pirolli, P., Pitkow, J., & Rao, R. (1996). Silk from a sow’s ear: Extracting usable structures from the web

Page 12

A Transactional Theory of Hypertext Structure - Page 12 of 12

[On-line]. Available: http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi96/proceedings/papers/Pirolli2/pp2.html.

Rosenberg, J. (1996). The structure of hypertext activity. Proceedings of the 7th Hypertext Conference of the

Association for Computing Machinery, 22-30. New York: ACM.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The transactional model of reading and writing. In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha

Rapp Ruddell, & Harry Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE: IRA.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Stotts, P. D. & Furuta, R. Petri-net-based hypertext: Document structure with browsing semantics. ACM

Transactions on Information Systems, 7(1), 3-29.

Taraban, R., Rynearson, K., Kerr, M. S. (2000). Metacognition and Freshman Academic Performance.

Journal of Developmental Education, 24(1), 12-20.

Thiel, U. & Műller, A. (1996). “Why was this item retrieved?”: New ways to explore retrieval results. In

M. Agosti & A. Smeaton (Eds.), Information retrieval and hypertext. Boston: Kluwer Academic

publishers.

Titus, P. A. & Everett, P. B. (1996). Consumer wayfinding tasks, strategies, and errors: An exploratory

field study. Psychology and Marketing, 13, 265-290.

Turine, M. A. S., Oliveira, M. C. F., & Masiero, P. C. (1997). A navigation-oriented hypertext model

based on state charts. In Mark Bernstein, Leslie Carr, & Kasper Østerbye (Eds.), Proceedings of the

Eighth ACM Conference on Hypertext - Hypertext 97, 177-186. New York: ACM.