Transcript Interactive Fiction: New Literacy Learning

Let me tell you all about it!
By: Deb Kozdras
References
Begin Your Journey
Hmm…so many choices…so little time
New Literacies
Hypertext
Questions
Research Themes
Educational Implications
References
EXIT
Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack (2004) New
Literacies are multiple in nature at three
levels:
1) Meaning is represented with multiple
media forms
2) Internet and other ICT’s offer multiple
tools to construct many forms of
communication
3) Students require (and develop) “new
literacies” skills as they encounter info
from multiple social and cultural contexts
from around the world.
Is Hypertext a New Literacy or
more like narrative
storytelling?
 Pre-Guttenberg writing.
 Earliest forms of interactive
stories and entertainment:
was myth. And storytellers
didn’t just recite, the entire
community would re-enact in
the forms of rituals.
(Campbell, 1949)
 Story developed based on
choices and storytelling
changes in the sequence.
Miller (2004) likens digital
storytelling to these preprinting press stories.
EXIT
Hypertext fiction is found mostly online and in the form of CD Roms. This genre is
characterized by non-linearity and reader interaction. The reader typically chooses links
to move from one node of text to the next; thereby co-designing a story.
•Theodor H. Nelson, a computer visionary and activist first referred to a form of electronic
text as hypertext, noting, “ by hypertext, I mean non-sequential writing—text that branches
and allows choices to the reader, best read at an interactive screen. As popularly conceived,
this is a series of text chunks connected by links, which offer the reader different pathways.”
•The first hypertext fictions were published prior to the development of the World Wide
Web, using software such as Storyspace and Hypercard. Michael Joyce's Afternoon, a story,
(1991) is generally considered the first hypertext fiction.
•Snyder (1997, p 6) Afternoon as:
“An intricate web of narratives, places, paths and ‘yields’, that is, words and phrases whose
evocative resonances readers can pursue by using a mouse to highlight them on the computer
screen. Afternoon is a fiction that changes every time it is read. It invites the reader to
circulate digressively among a matrix of characters and events that are never quite what they
seemed on first presentation.”
EXIT
Fall into a Wonderland
of Hypertext Fiction with
Alice…
Others use a
“Choose Your Own
Adventure” format.
IF Interactive Fiction is a text
adventure and was a precursor
to video games.
Some forms of
interactive
fiction are more
like video
games.
Others invite writers to continue the tale…
EXIT
Landow (2006) noted a paradigm shift in terms of hypertext and literary
theory in terms of Postmodern Instructional Design:
 He discussed Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes (literary and cultural
theory) and Theodor Nelson and Andries van Dam (computer theory).
 Landow stated that we must “abandon conceptual systems founded on
ideas of center, margin, hierarchy, and linearity and replace them by ones
of multilinearity, nodes, links and networks. Almost all parties [notably the
four mentioned above] to this paradigm shift, which marks a revolution in
human thought, see electronic writing as a direct response to the
strengths and weaknesses of the printed book, one of the major
landmarks in the history of human thought.”

Hypertext has no beginning or ending, no center or margin, etc. When
electronic text is linked or when one node is copy-pasted into another or if
texts are semantically linked for a specific purpose, the notion of
hierarchy of importance evaporates. Reading begins somewhere and the
wreaders construct their own sequence and sometimes even endings.
EXIT



Is hypertext a new “genre?” Dillon (2002).
What are the major themes in research on
writing hypertext?
What are the educational implications, both in
terms of possibilities and challenges?
EXIT






Due to the novelty of hypertext writing, much research has
been descriptive, comparing hypertext to traditional text.
Recently, research has focused on cognitive processes.
Also, new research focuses on students writing hypertexts
in collaborative environments.
Research in hypertext supports socially constructed
knowledge.
Literacy/Technology researchers have been researching
the “New Literacies” implications of hypertext.
Much theoretical research is focused on hypertext as
critical literacy.
EXIT








Hypertext as “Wreading.” Bromme & Stahl (2002).
Hayes-Roth (1998) “character-based interactive story systems that require the
same artistic goals of fiction in traditional media: joy, rapture and
enlightenment.”
Kozdras & Haunstetter (2005) comparison of hypertext fiction to traditional text.
Design structures: With and without a spine. Samsel, J., & Wimberley, D.
(1998).
Schmidt (2005) noted that hypertext structure contains all traditional elements
of story, except instead of two turning points you have many decision
points.
Hypertext as “story, performance and game.” Wardrip-Fruin and Harrigan
(2004).
Digital storytelling as cyberdrama. Hamlet on the Holodeck. Murray (1997).
Luce-Kapler & Dobson (2005) found that college students had difficulty creating
meaning in hyperfiction. As regular readers and writers of traditional text, these
students had preconceived notions. Writing hypertext requires teaching new
skills, especially for readers and writers who have been conditioned to
write with traditional methods.
EXIT





Braaksma et al (2002) discussed the cognitive processes used in
structuring hypertexts. In traditional writing authors reorganize using
linearization. Hypertext requires hierarchicalization or the placing of
nodes into a hierarchical cognitive map.
Bromme & Stahl (2002) suggest that metacognitive activities known to
influence quality of writing are stimulated in hypertext writing. Analysis
and ordering of ideas are important in linear text but more often
elicited in hypertext.
Jacobson & Spiro (1995) performed an experiment based on Cognitive
Flexibility Theory and found that hypertext was helpful to teach students
to handle information from different perspectives. They found strong
effects on the transfer task, especially in hypertextual environments.
Dillon & Gabbard (1998) found that the effects of hypertext learning are
limited to different tasks where learners need to find and change
information. The effects also differ across learners depending on their
ability level and learning style.
Landow (2006) noted that the very nature of hypertext requires active
reading.
EXIT




Bereiter (2002) CSILE (Computer-Supported Intentional Learning
Environment). Process over product=greater knowledge transformation.
Erickson and Lehrer (1998) based analysis on Bereiter and Scardamalia’s
(1987) theory that knowledge-transforming writing results from interaction
between the content problem space and rhetorical problem space.
Wolf (2002) found hypertext that emerged went beyond the plans and
understanding of individual students in a cooperative environment.
Problems included: (a) some users contribute more actively than others,
enlarging their knowledge base, (b) not all new nodes are high quality, (c)
the number of links becomes larger and potentially unwieldy, and (d) not all
links make sense to all users because of their differing contexts.
Talamo & Fasula (2002) found children in a hypertext project showed more
cooperation and interaction (than children in regular text project). They
also used different skills for social organization of their work, in managing
information and in creating the final good copy.
EXIT






Rouet (1994) concluded that even inexperienced students could benefit but that
efficient use of hypertext requires specific skills.
Myers & Beach (2003) and Myers et al (1998) found that hypertexts afforded
students the opportunities to use critical literacy - depending on the use of the
technology by students and teachers.
Luce-Kapler & Dobson (2005). Noted that hypertext can “fracture our sense of
literary space.”
McArthur (2006) Electronic technologies are changing forms by which people
communicate with others and understand the world.
Purves (1998) The impact hypertext is historically equal to the invention of
alphabetic writing and printing press. Visual and organizational features
convey meaning beyond words. Visual imagery emphasis will de-emphasize
importance of language to meaning. Hypertext will lead people to think in
multilinear rather than linear/hierarchical ways. (Matriarchal vs patriarchal).
Coiro (2003) describes how today ’s readers need new skills to survive in the
world of Internet and hypertext reading. Beyond hyperlinks, multi-media texts
include far more potential complications than traditional paper text,
including animated symbols, icons, audio and video clips, virtual reality
environments…
EXIT





Bruce & Hogan (1998) argued that technology has different effects that depend
upon how it is “embedded in a social context.” Teacher’s instructional
methods, technology and student experiences will interact in ways that determine
the effects of technology.
According to Hasset (2005), hypertext offers “ multiple perspectives,
characterization, and subject matter. ” Readers of hypertext are forced to
move beyond literal meanings.
Bolter (1998) Hypermedia will have revolutionary social effects on literacy for 2
reasons: 1) multilinear nature of hypertext changes the foundation of teaching
writing-from coherent point of view with supporting arguments to presentation of
multiple viewpoints. 2) places greater emphasis on visual images and verbal text.
Callow (2003) found that technical skills are not enough for students working
with electronic multimedia. Students need to understand why they are using
certain colors, layouts, and images and how these elements factor in to what they
are trying to communicate.
Day (1998) noted that students writing in hypertextual environments have access
to a “living database” of virtual communities of people who have similar
interests. Using this network helps them gain experience for writing for real
audiences and in socially constructing knowledge.
EXIT



Myers & Beach (2001) noted the following essential critical literacy skills elicited by the
nature of hypertext: immersing into the activities of the social world; identifying concerns,
issues and conflicts; contextualizing and recontextualizing ideas into a new hypertext;
representing through symbols (personal or symbolic); critiquing how the social world
privileges particular beliefs or values; and, transforming one’s own words and actions in
terms of identity, relationships and values.
Inman (2004) discussed the “cyborg responsibility” or antiresponsibility: “To be
responsible on cyborg terms is to resist typical explanations or interpretations of
responsibility. Instead, it is to ask critical questions about issues and experiences in the
computers and writing community, no matter the degree to which an individual is personally
invested in anything being questioned. It is to find value in arguments for and against any
project or initiative, rather than one or the other and it is to think about who’s silent in any
conversations as well as who’s speaking. Cyborg responsibility is about creating conflict
amid consensus and pushing issues beyond their scope. It promises to open spaces for
diversity and inclusiveness …and relies on individuals willing to make professional and
personal sacrifices for the betterment of the future.
Landow (2006) described a paradigm shift in terms of hypertext and literary theory. Noted
that Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes (literary and critical theory) Theodor Nelson, and
Andries van Dam (computing) all argue we must “abandon conceptual systems founded on
ideas of center, margin, hierarchy, and linearity and replace them by ones of multilinearity,
nodes, links and networks. Almost all parties to this paradigm shift, which marks a
revolution in human thought, see electronic writing as a direct response to the strengths
and weaknesses of the printed book, one of the major landmarks in the history of human
thought”
EXIT
Hypertext fiction is a new and exciting form of writing with many
possibilities and challenges. Theorists have also discussed the need
for future research.
Challenges
Recommendations
Potentialities
Future Research
EXIT





Birkerts (1994) noted that the transition of the book to electronic hypertext could
eventually alter the ways in which we use language and that there is potential of a
“dumbing-down” of discourse throughout society. He questioned the nonpermanence of electronic text-if the original author cannot pen words onto a
permanent piece of paper, what happens to those original meanings once they are
in cyberspace? How do we filter text against garbage and unwanted changes?
Corio (2003) stated that new literacies, involved with Internet reading in particular,
tend to overwhelm and confuse people who were taught how to read,
comprehend, and use conventional print.
Landow (2006) said that future research should involve finding ways to
prevent readers from becoming confused and disoriented. In linear text one
can search for the desired text earlier and later but in hypermedia, a nonlinear
environment, one can get lost. Landow’s studies found that 56 percent of the
readers said, “I was often confused about where I was”
Jacob Neilsen (2000) noted one of the biggest usability problems with hypertext
is the users risk of disorientation…linking is not enough.
Luce-Kapler & Dobson (2005). Noted that hypertext can “fracture our sense of
literary space.” We must find a way to teach e-literature so that our students
don’t give up, getting lost in ambiguity. Continued experience writing with
hypertext forms could help students become more tolerant of the ambiguity and
disorientation they feel.
Back to Educational Implications
EXIT






Nielsen (2000) noted that writing for the web is different from writing for print and the
following considerations should inform style: 79% of writers scan the page instead of
reading word-for-word (keep it simple); and, reading from the computer is 25% slower than
from paper (keep it brief). Therefore, he recommends that you split documents into multiple
hyperlinked short nodes, using clear language and 50% less text.
Luce-Kapler & Dobson (2005) described a way of helping students navigate hypertext
would be through a comparison with print literature aimed at recognizing what Bolter
(2001) calls “remediation.”
Lehrer, Erickson, & Connell (1994) recommended a design model, asking students to
plan, transform, evaluate and revise hypertext documents, noting nine design skills
necessary for hypertext writing.
Visual rhetoric is becoming an increasingly relevant aspect of hypertext integration.
According to Kostelenick (1989) visual rhetoric includes: “the ability of the writer to achieve
the purpose of a document through visual communication at any level: for example, through
the choice of typeface (Courier, Helvetica) of graphic cues (bullets, lines, icons), of textual
arrangements (lists, flow charts, trees), of data displays (a pie chart, line graph), even the
color, shape and size of a page (p. 77).
Samsel & Wimberly (1998) recommend a series of design link structures to help writers
assemble nodes and semantic links for texts.
Due to the fact that many hypertexts are constructed from a computer perspective, not from
a literary stance, there have been problems with interest and readability. Hayes-Roth
(1998) described seven traits essential to character-driven interactive fiction: these traits
are illustrated in the Alice in Wonderland.
Back to Educational Implications
EXIT



The potentialities for critical literacy are enormous. When
students are able to create their own knowledge base
through the manipulation of a variety of nodes, they are
living critical literacy.
The very nature of hypertext requires higher level thinking
skills, seeing the world through different perspectives and
active reading—analysis and ordering of ideas are naturally
elicited in hypertext. Wreading requires organization of
materials into a hierarchy.
The writing of hypertext is naturally socially constructed
and often requires collaborative work. Research in this area
has only just begun.
Back to Educational Implications
EXIT



Experimental study has just begun. Case and experimental studies show
that composing hypermedia requires high-level cognitive processes and
can help to develop these processes. Cognitive processes are similar to
those required for writing: setting goals, considering audience needs,
generating and organizing content, evaluating and revising. Continued
research is necessary to understand cognitive processes in more
detail and develop effective classroom environments that include
hypermedia composing. (Bromme & Stahl, 2002)
Future research on the impact of hypertext should focus on specific
genre areas to find where learning is optimized.
Research in the area of the benefits and drawbacks of the use of
hypertext in education is necessary. This medium should be
investigated not only for the benefits in terms of traditional literacy skills—
such as vocabulary and comprehension—but also for the way
technology is changing the way we read and write in a digitallyinspired society.
Back to Educational Implications
EXIT
References
Baker, E. A., Rozendal, M. S. & Whitenack, J. W. (2000). Audience awareness in a technology-rich elementary
classroom. Journal of literacy Research, 32, 395-419,
Bereiter, C. (2002). Emergent Versus Presentational Hypertext. In R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and
learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia M. (1987). The psychology of written expression. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg Elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age. Retrieved June 29, 2005 from:
http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/nn/bdbirk.htm
Bolter, J. D. (1998). Hypertext and the question of visual literacy. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R. D.
Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and technology (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Braaksma et al (2002). Learning to compose hypertext and llinear text: Transfer or interference? In R. Bromme & E.
Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier
Science Ltd.
Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2002). Writing and learning: Hypertext as a renewal of an old and close relationship –
Introduction and overview. In R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and
empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2002). Learning by producing hypertext from reader perspectives: Cognitive flexibility theory
reconsidered. In R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical
approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Bruce, B. C., & Hogan, M. P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D.
Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and technology (pp. 3-13).
Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Callow, J. (2003, April). Talking about visual texts with students. Reading Online, 6(8). Available:
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=callow/index.html
Day, M. (1998). Writing in the matrix: Students tapping the living database on the computer network. In J. R. Galin & J.
Latchaw (Eds.), The dialogic classroom: Teachers integrating computer technology, pedagogy, and
research…..National Council of Teachers of English.
Dillon,A. (2002). Writing as design: Hypermedia and the shape of information space. In R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.),
Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Dillon, A. & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research
literature on learner comprehension, control and style. Review of Educational Research 68(3), 322-349
EXIT
References cont.
Erickson, J., & Lehrer, R. (1998). The evolution of critical standards as students design hypermedia documents.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 351-386.
Erickson, J., & Lehrer, R. (2000). What’s in a link?: Student conceptions of the rhetoric of association in hypermedia
composition. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2, pp. 197-226). Mahway,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Fransecky & Debes. (1972). International Visual Literacy Association. Retrieved August 29, 2005 from,
http://www.ivla.org/organization/whatis.htm
Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Gee, J.P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from
http://www.academiccolob.org/resources/docoments/Game%20Paper.pdf
Hayes-Roth, B. (1998). Character-based interactive story systems. Retrieved February 2, 2005, from
http://www.computer.org/intelligent/ex1998/pdf/x6012.pdf
Inman, J. (2004). Computers and writing: The cyborg era. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Jacobson & Spiro, 1995 Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge:
An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational computing Research, 12(4), 301-333
Kostlenick, Charles. (1989). Visual rhetoric: a reader oriented approach to graphics and designs. The Technical
Writing Teacher, 16, 77-87
Kozdras, D., & Haunstetter, D. (2005, November). Interactive Fiction and Hypermedia: Literacy Instructional
Implications. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the College Reading Association, Savannah, GA.
Landow, G.P. (2006). Hypertext 3.0: Critical Theory and New Media in an Era of Globalization. Baltimore, ML: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Lehrer, R., Erickson, J., & Connell, T. (1994). Learning by designing hypermedia documents. Computers in the
Schools, 10, 227-254.
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. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical
Models and Processes of Reading. (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Available: http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=leu
Luce-Kapler, R., & Dobson, T. (2005, May/June). In search of a story: Reading and writing e-literature. Reading
Online, 8(6). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HRED=luce-kapler/index.html
EXIT
References cont.
MacArthur, C. A. (2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In (Eds. C. A. MacArthur,
S. Grahan, and J. Fitzgerals) Handbook of Writing Research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Miller, C. H. (2004). Digital storytelling: A creator’s guide to interactive entertainment. Burlington, MA: Focal Press.
Montfort, N. (2003). Toward a Theory of Interactive Fiction. IF Theory. Retrieved January 3, 2005, from
http://nickm.com/if/toward.html
Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York: Free Press.
Myers, J. & Beach, R. (2001, March). Hypermedia authoring as critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 44(6). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/jaal/301_Column/index.html
Myers, H., Hammett, R., & McKillop, A.M. (1998). Opportunities for critical literacy and pedagogy in student-authored
hypermedia. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and
technology (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Purves, A. (1998). Flies in the web of hypertext. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.),
Handbook of Literacy and technology (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Rouet J. F. (1994). Question answering and learning with hypertext. Lessons from Learning, 46, 39-52
Samsel, J., & Wimberley, D. (1998). Writing for interactive media. New York, NY: Allworth Press.
Schmidt, V. L (2005). Story Structure Architect: A writer’s guide to building dramatic situations and compelling
characters. Cincinnati, OH: Writer’s Digest Books
Talamo, A., & Fasula, A. (2002). Opening windows in each other’s minds: Social sharing of hypertext models. In R.
Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches. Kidlington,
Oxford: Elsevier Science
Wardrip-Fruin, N., & Harrigan, P. (2004) First person: New media as story, performance and game. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Whithaus, C. (2005). Teaching and evaluating writing in the age of computers and high-stakes testing. Mahway, New
Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Wolf, K. (2002). Sleepy Links, Collaborative Grading and Trails—Shaping hypertext structures by usage processes.
In R. Bromme & E. Stahl (Eds.), Writing hypertext and learning: Conceptual and empirical approaches.
Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
EXIT
FEATURE
TRADITIONAL NARRATIVE TEXTS
HYPERTEXT FICTION
Usually one author
Reader as co-author
Usually linear, following story structure, one thing
after another
Postmodern text—most often not a linear plot.
Choices and links provide multiple paths.
Often 1st or 3rd
Often 2nd person
Ending
Usually a conclusion or a sense of closure
Multiple endings. Sometimes “neverending.”
Setting
Mostly in single place and time, except for time
travel, flashbacks and multiple viewpoints.
Multiple settings due to choices to move within
text: forward, backward, different storylines.
Publication
Hard copy
Sometimes available as ebooks.
CD Rom, video game-like, Ebooks, online
Media
Words and sometimes pictures.
Some have sound and pop-ups
Multiple media can be present, including sound,
video, writing tools, and motion.
Medium
Paper
Digital: virtual or CD/DVD
Reading
Usually once
Many paths lead to multiple reading
Author decides reader’s path through text
Reader has some autonomy in choosing path
through text.
Readers cannot change the text.
Some stories allow readers to change or add to
text.
Author
Plot
Point of View
Author-Reader
Reader
Back to
Compare…
EXIT