Home PublicationsL&LIssuesVolume 26 (1998-1999) March (No. 6)

Using Hypermedia in Response-Based Literature Classrooms

A Critical Review of Commercial Applications

By Karen Swan and Carla Meskill
National Center for Research on Literature Teaching and Learning,
University at Albany

Reprinted from the Journal of Research on Computing in Education
vol. 29 no. 2
Winter 1996
Copyright © 1996 International Society for Technology in Education

Preparation of this article was supported under the Educational Research and Development Center Program (Grant Number R117G10015) as administered by the Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings and opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the funding agency. A copy of Multimedia Literature Applications Database, which runs in a Windows environment, and copies of the center’s reports on the Multimedia and Literature Teaching and Learning Project can be obtained by writing or calling the National Center for Research on Literature Teaching and Learning at the University at Albany School of Education, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222; 518/442-5026.

Abstract

Response-based literature teaching and learning regards readers as active meaning-makers, and therefore emphasizes the importance of teaching and learning the processes of literary understanding, which are viewed as both socially and personally mediated. Many of the qualities of hypermedia suggest that it may be well suited for supporting such approaches. The National Center for Research on Literature Teaching and Learning’s ongoing Multimedia and Literature Teaching and Learning Project is concerned with systematically exploring this idea. The project’s first stage, detailed in this article, involved reviewing commercial multimedia literature applications from a response-based perspective. This article describes criteria developed for evaluating applications from that perspective, as well as the program acquisition and evaluation process. Findings suggest that the hypermedia literature applications currently commercially available, although technologically quite good and perhaps supportive of text-based pedagogies, are not inherently supportive of response-based literature teaching and learning. They do, however, provide indications of how such applications could be developed to do so.

There is growing recognition among educators of the need for establishing practical pedagogical approaches that facilitate the development of diverse problem-solving and critical-thinking abilities. “Literary understanding” is that form of thinking that is characteristically divergent and inward. It is thought focused on “personal meanings, understandings of human situations and the complex web of relationships embedded in them” (Langer, 1993, p. 3). Literary understanding is thus seen as an important form of critical thought distinct from “scientific reasoning,” which is characterized as convergent, objective, and logical. Indeed, scholars (e.g., Britton, 1970, 1983; Bruner, 1986) have suggested that these two forms of thinking represent two important ways in which people make sense and construct meaning about the world, and that, as such, both are necessary for mature thought.

Although a great deal of attention and activity in the educational community has been focused on the development of critical-thinking skills, such efforts have tended to be unidirectional. Critical thinking has traditionally been defined by the properties of scientific reasoning; therefore, most critical-thinking curricula have been confined to the development of scientific reasoning. Deeply embedded in the tradition of the English language arts, for example, is a text-based set of beliefs that holds that there are “common images, evocations, and responses to a literary piece that all good readers experience, hence, that “certain approved interpretations of particular phrases, lines, or themes … need to be learned” (Langer, 1993). Such beliefs have led to the development of literature curricula that emphasize “objective” readings of the text that converge on sanctioned interpretations in its instructional goals and assessment procedures. In short, literature curricula typically promote “scientific,” not “literary,” understanding (Applebee, 1990).

Response-based approaches to teaching and learning literature (Bleich, 1978; Holland, 1975; Iser, 1978; Langer, 1991; Tompkins, 1980) provide alternatives to objectifying literature; that is, they promote alternative, nonscientific models of problem solving and critical thinking. Traditional approaches to literature teaching champion the close readings of texts and “correct” interpretations. Response-based theorists regard readers as active meaning-makers whose personal experiences affect their interpretations of literary works. Response-based pedagogies encourage the exploration of multiple perspectives and the construction of defensible interpretations that make the quality of the students’ critical and creative thinking the focus of assessment. They place student-generated questions at the center of learning, encouraging a “problem-finding” as well as a problem-solving approach to critical thinking, thereby emphasizing the importance of teaching and learning the processes of literary understanding, which are viewed as both socially and personally mediated.

Langer (1990) breaks literary understanding into four stances people take when engaged in reading for literary purposes:

1. Being out and stepping in. In this stance, readers make initial contacts with the genre, content, structure, and language of the text by using prior knowledge and surface features of the text to get sufficient information to begin to build envisionment. With literature, readers try to make initial acquaintance with the characters, plot, and setting, and how they interrelate. They use information from the text in concert with their background knowledge to get enough information to “step in.”
2. Being in and moving through. In this stance, readers are immersed in the text world, using both text knowledge and background knowledge to develop meaning. They take new information and immediately use it to go beyond what they already understand, asking questions about motivation, causality, and implications.
3. Stepping out and rethinking what one knows. In this stance, readers use their text knowledge to reflect on personal knowledge. They use what they read in text to reflect on their own lives, on the lives of others, or on the human condition. Whereas the previous stance was primarily concerned with shared text knowledge and discourse around it, this stance is primarily concerned with private knowledge and personal reflections.

4. Stepping back and objectifying the experience. In this stance, readers distance themselves from the text world, reflecting on and reacting to both the content and the experience. They objectify the text, judge it, and relate it to other texts or experiences. This evaluation and generalization is based on their notions of the specific genres as well as the content they learned or the literary experiences they engaged in from the reading.

Ideally, response-based pedagogies support each of these stances.

Although response-based theories are generally accepted by scholars in English departments and schools of education alike, response-based pedagogies have yet to become common practice. One impediment to the widespread adoption of response-based practice is the traditional structure of the classroom itself. That structure—in particular, its linearity; its hierarchical lines of authority; and its emphasis on scientific reasoning, individualism, and canon—is rooted in the evolution of print as the dominant medium of communication (Eisenstein, 1979; McLuhan, 1963; Purves, 1990). It seems possible, then, that the classroom use of media other than printed texts might result in environments more supportive of response-based teaching and learning. One compelling potential alternative is hypermedia.

Hypermedia combines a variety of media—text, graphics, still photographs, animations, sound, and video—in nonlinear computer-based environments with which users can interact. There are several reasons to believe that hypermedia might provide a promising alternative to text, including the following:

1. Hypermedia supports independent learning through student control of information and events (Milheim, 1988), and can thus promote student-centered learning. Indeed, teaching and learning in computer-based classrooms has been shown to be more student-centered than teaching and learning in traditional text-based classrooms (Swan & Mitrani, 1991).
2. Hypermedia has proved a powerful catalyst for cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Webb, 1983). As such, it can enhance socially mediated learning processes.
3. Hypermedia supports constructionist (Papert, 1993) views of learning, which hold that learning takes place when students actively and collectively build internal knowledge structures. Computer-based representations can make this process explicit, thus increasing the likelihood that students will internalize what they learn (Salomon, 1988; Scarmadalia & Bereiter, 1991).
4. Hypermedia supports multiple representations of knowledge and nonlinear domain analyses (Spiro & Jehng, 1990). Hypermedia can make accessible the extensive amount of information from which multiple meanings and interpretations evolve (Duffy & Knuth, 1989).
5. The visual and aural elements of hypermedia support diverse learning styles (Spoehr, 1992). These same elements make hypermedia a rich and engaging learning environment, contributing to high levels of motivation and involvement (Chomsky, 1990).
6. Finally, the use of hypermedia creates an opportunity for teachers to recast their own understanding of the role of text in the teaching and learning of literature and, accordingly, their own beliefs about and roles in that teaching and learning.
   

Indeed, many contemporary scholars believe that hypermedia is ideally suited for response-based approaches to the teaching, learning, and assessment of literary understanding (Bolter, 1991; Landow, 1992), but such notions have yet to be systematically explored.

The National Center for Research on Literature Teaching and Learning’s ongoing Multimedia and Literature Teaching and Learning Project is concerned with exploring the attributes of hypermedia that support response-based literature teaching and learning and the concomitant development of literary understanding. Although, certainly, other approaches to literature instruction are commonly taken, some of which are probably the more common approaches taken in language arts classrooms, the project is more narrowly focused on the potential use of hypermedia in response-based literature teaching and learning. It is focused thus not only because it is part of a larger effort that is similarly focused on response-based literature instruction, but because, to be theory-based, software evaluation and development can only focus on a single theory at a time. Response-based theory, then, provides a basis, a lens if you will, through which the use of hypermedia for literature teaching and learning can be explored. It is certainly not the only lens, but it is the lens adopted by this project.

The project’s first stage, which is detailed in this article, involved reviewing existing commercial hypermedia applications for the teaching and learning of literature from a response-based perspective. A major objective of this phase of the project was to develop criteria to help teachers and developers think about hypermedia from such a perspective. These criteria were used to review commercial hypermedia literature applications and their role in response-based teaching and learning. We also wished to isolate specific features and hypermedia tools that might support response-based pedagogies. Practical outcomes of this stage of the project were the acquisition of a large number of the commercially available hypermedia literature applications, the creation of a preview center where teachers can explore such programs, and the development of a database of response-based reviews of hypermedia literature applications.

The sections that follow describe the criteria developed for evaluating hypermedia literature applications from a response-based perspective and the program acquisition and evaluation process. A descriptive overview of programs reviewed at the elementary and high school levels is given. General findings of the reviews are summarized, both in terms of program features and evaluation criteria. The implications of those findings for literature teaching and learning and for hypermedia development are then discussed with respect to Langer’s (1990) four stances in literary understanding.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Criteria for evaluating hypermedia literature programs were developed by a group of 10 graduate students of both literature education and instructional technology, together with the project directors (the authors) and the directors of the literature center. Seven evaluative categories were established during a series of five focus group sessions. It was decided that, although responses within each category (except classroom use) would include ratings on a 10-point scale for comparative purposes, reviews would be essentially narrative in form to encourage the same kind of critical thinking about the hypermedia applications that we would hope they would encourage about literature. Responses were thus purposefully descriptive and open-ended to allow both for individual perceptions and unanticipated findings. Within this framework, however, reviewers were asked to answer specific questions and look for particular features or kinds of features in each of the evaluative categories (see Appendix A). Group members also decided to add a descriptive cover sheet (to include such items as hardware and software requirements, target population, subject areas covered, cost, publisher, etc.) and a program description (see Appendix A) to make the evaluations, and the database containing them, more useful to practicing teachers. Indeed, the database we developed can be searched and sorted according to the former characteristics. The seven evaluative categories, however, remain the focus of this phase of the research. These fall roughly into three groupings—(a) technical concerns, (b) response-based considerations, and (c) classroom issues.

Technical Concerns

It is entirely possible that a hypermedia literature application might be excellent from an instructional technology viewpoint, but deal with literature in a manner that is not at all response-based. Group members wanted to distinguish between the two. The first three evaluative categories—content clarity, technical quality, and use of technology—relate to hypermedia in general. These initial categories examine the general quality of programs without considering them from a response-based perspective. Evaluators were asked to provide narrative discussions of the application they were reviewing from each perspective and then to rate that program on a scale of 1 to 10 for each category.

Content Clarity. Content clarity is concerned with the general accuracy, completeness, and appropriateness of an application for the given population. It is also concerned with whether the structure of a program and its use of hypermedia are appropriate to its content.

Technical Quality. This category is concerned with a program’s user interface; in particular, with its navigational systems, its use of multimedia, and its ease of use. This category also asks whether a given application’s use of multimedia is intrinsic (serves to enhance content) or extrinsic (decorative), and whether it is aesthetically pleasing overall.

Use of Technology. This category is concerned with whether an application makes good use of hypermedia technologies or whether its content could be presented just as well, or better, using more conventional means. It is particularly concerned with the hypermedia aspects of particular applications, but also recognizes such uniquely computer-based functions as nonlinearity, internal coaching, construction tools, and student management.

Response-Based Considerations

There is some reason to believe that a unique characteristic of the computing medium is its ability to represent cognitive processes in ways that support their internalization as habits of thought (Papert, 1983; Salomon, 1981; Swan & Black, 1993). This category specifically considers how the formal aspects of hypermedia literature applications might support or detract from a response-based perspective. The four criteria in it —what counts as knowledge, the role of the text, the role of the student, and the role of the teacher—are thus concerned with whether or not existing hypermedia programs represent literary works in ways that might support Langer’s (1990) four stances. Evaluators were asked to provide narrative discussions of the application they were reviewing for each category and to provide each with a rating on a scale of 1 to 10.

What Counts as Knowledge? This category is concerned with whether a program represents knowledge as (a) constructed or static and (b) evolving or canonical. In this category, review teams were asked whether a program was capable of incorporating students’ responses to a work of literature, whether it included multiple perspectives on that work, whether it promoted linkages between the text and students’ experiences, and whether it encouraged an analytic or an exploratory approach to literary understanding.

The Role of the Text. This category refers to the way meaning is represented in relationship to the text. Many hypermedia literature applications offer pop-up definitions or interpretations from text that is clicked on. Review teams were concerned that too much focus on this sort of function could lead students to see meaning as residing in the text rather than as something they can construct themselves. In this category, therefore, evaluators were asked whether multiple meanings or interpretations were given and whether a program made some provision for students to develop their own interpretations of the work.

The Role of the Students. This category asks whether students are empowered or constrained by an application’s design. This category considers the degree of student control over a program, whether a program contains tools for student construction, and whether and how a program validates students’ responses to the literary work. In this category, evaluators were also asked whether a program might support student discourse about the work.

The Role of the Teacher. This category is concerned with whether a teacher is empowered or constrained by a program. It considers whether and how a program can be modified by a teacher, whether it includes teacher materials and internal management tools, and whether or not a program promotes student-teacher discourse and interaction.

Classroom Issues

Although the Multimedia and Literature Teaching and Learning Project is primarily concerned with how the design of hypermedia materials can support response-based approaches to literature education, how such materials are used will ultimately determine their effectiveness. Bad materials can be used well; good materials can be used poorly. Group members felt, therefore, that a category should be included that dealt with classroom use. Because such usage is essentially a function of teacher creativity and not inherent in the applications, however, no ratings were elicited for this category. Evaluators were simply asked to discuss actual or potential classroom use.

The category “Classroom Use,” then, is concerned with how a hypermedia application might be used in a classroom to support literary understanding. Evaluators were asked to provide ideas for using each program and to discuss whether a program could be effectively used individually, by small groups, and with an entire class. If they had used a program with students, evaluators were asked to comment on its effectiveness.

PROGRAM ACQUISITION AND EVALUATION

Applications for review were identified through a detailed search of listings dedicated to hypermedia materials, such as the Multimedia and Videodisc Compendium (Pollack, 1994) and Multimedia ’94 (Educational Resources, 1994), and of vendor catalogs that included educational hypermedia. For the purposes of this study, hypermedia literature applications were defined as computer-based programs that included at least one nontext medium (other than simple computer graphics) and that dealt with literary works as literature. Thus, laserdiscs containing film treatments of literary works with minimal computer interface were not included, nor were language-arts-skills programs.

It is perhaps revealing to note that, compared with other content areas, such as science and social studies, relatively few programs were found that satisfied these criteria, making a comprehensive review easy to undertake. Publishers were contacted; most agreed to send us review copies of their products. Through this process, we identified 54 hypermedia literature programs or program series, and acquired and reviewed 45 of them for this study. Because we were able to evaluate such a high percentage of the available applications, we are confident that our analyses are based on a representative sample.

The applications we acquired were evaluated by 25 graduate students of literature education or instructional technology. Most were practicing teachers. Each evaluator was given two programs to evaluate and asked to spend some time exploring each. They were then to complete a written content analysis of both programs by responding to the questions in each criterion (see Appendix A) while viewing them, and to provide numerical ratings for each of the first seven criteria according to such analyses. The written evaluations were collected and reviewed for consistency by a group of four graduate students, at which time some changes were made in ratings that were inconsistent with responses to content questions or with the general consensus concerning such ratings. The narrative responses to the various categories were very helpful in this regard, but, in some cases, the group had to look again at the applications themselves. The evaluations were then again reviewed by the project directors who made some changes of their own. Finally, the evaluations were collated and summarized by the project directors.

FINDINGS

Summary of Program Descriptions

The 45 literature applications we reviewed were produced by 23 different publishers. The majority accessed multimedia from a CD-ROM (31), although some (10) used a combination of CD-ROM and laserdisc. A few (4) used only floppy disks. The majority of programs (24) were offered for dual platforms (Macintosh and PC computers), with the remainder evenly split between applications designed exclusively for Macintosh (11) and PC (10) computers. In general, the cost of these programs ranged between $25.00 and $100.00 for straight CD-ROM or floppy disk offerings, and between $200 and $300 for programs including a laserdisc. Two very extensive programs were considerably more expensive.

The applications we reviewed, then, were generally moderately priced and designed to be used on commonly available computers. These results indicate that publishers are trying to make hypermedia literature applications that can be used in ordinary classrooms. The bad news is that although the computers on which such applications will run are commonly available in offices, they are not yet commonly available in schools. Many of the teachers involved in our study tried to view the programs at their schools, only to return in frustration to our lab. Perhaps more importantly, even when teachers could find a computer in their school that could handle hypermedia, there was neither projection equipment nor the numbers of such computers available that would make it possible to use a hypermedia literature application with a whole class. The good news is that most computers now being sold are equipped with CD-ROM drives and, thus, can run the majority of applications we reviewed; the situation should improve as we learn to accept and incorporate the use of hypermedia into our classrooms.

Another good sign was that the programs we reviewed were evenly split between those designed for elementary and high school populations. Of the 45 programs we looked at, 22 were designed for elementary school students; 22 were designed for junior and senior high school students; and 1, a game, was targeted for both populations. Because we found quite a difference in approach between applications designed for elementary students and those designed for high school students, general descriptions of the programs in these two groupings are given separately in this section. For these purposes, we have grouped the game targeted for both populations with the high school applications. These general program descriptions are followed by discussions of findings on each of the specific criteria in the three general category groupings we developed.

Programs Designed for Elementary Students. Fully 19 of the 22 applications we reviewed that were designed for elementary students could be best described as talking books. At their most basic, these applications commonly presented stories as illustrated text in a linear, page-by-page fashion, with the full text read to the students. Almost all of them highlighted the text as it was read in phrases, but allowed users to click on single words to have them pronounced. Many also defined words on request, both in text and speech, and some defined elements of pictures. Almost half of the talking books we looked at included a non-English language option in which the text was presented and read in a language other than English, usually Spanish. Only one, however, offered a choice of readers other than by language (i.e., male or female and adult or child). Most also included sound effects and music, and many included animated illustrations. None of the elementary applications we reviewed included video clips. Only one of the talking book programs included any background information about the works presented. None included online features that encouraged student comments or interpretations of the works, although a few encouraged offline interpretive activities by presenting open-ended questions to be answered on paper, offering pictures that could be printed and colored, or suggesting extension activities in a teacher’s guide.

Student interaction with elementary-level talking books was, in most cases, constrained to a kind of enhanced page-turning capability, in which students could click on icons to turn pages; to access definitions, sound, and animations; or, in many instances, to access particular stories, chapters, or pages in the program. Nine of the applications included a print function that allowed students to print text or, more commonly, pictures. Six of the talking book programs we looked at also included interactive quizzes at the ends of chapters or works that tested students’ comprehension with multiple-choice questions with only one correct answer. Five included “interactive pages,” illustrations that students could explore by clicking on their different elements to find hidden animations. Most of these were extremely well drawn and animated and often quite whimsical. Three talking books encouraged students to manipulate the stories they were reading. For example, two allowed students to cut and paste text and pictures, to add text, and to color pictures, and one allowed students to add sound.

All of the talking books, then, were uniformly centered on the reading of highlighted text, indicating that publishers view the teaching and learning of literature at the elementary level as little more than the teaching and learning of reading. Although some of the applications we reviewed seemed well suited to such tasks, this ubiquitous association of sound and text tends to focus students on decoding processes, rather than on thinking and responding to literature. A common focus on content comprehension and the lack of interest in interpretation, literary devices, authors, and background information are further indications of a bias toward skills-based instruction. Although not surprising, because it mirrors common practice, this pedagogical approach is nonetheless disappointing. One could hope that the introduction of hypermedia into literature teaching and learning might provide the opportunity to break with traditional practice. Computers support not only individualized instruction, but individualized responses. The valuing of students’ own meaning-making at this level could introduce habits of thought that would provide a solid foundation for the development of literary understanding. A preoccupation with low level interpretation with only one correct meaning, on the other hand, creates habits of thought that must be broken before students can develop literary understanding.

The three non-talking book elementary applications we looked at were quite various and therefore defy classification. One was an adventure-type game in which players explored an imaginary environment and picked up objects that they were then supposed to return to appropriate nursery rhyme characters. When an object was returned to the correct character, the nursery rhyme was recited. The other two applications might be best described as story makers, which, although they included story examples, were primarily devoted to assembly of a variety of elements by students to create their own stories. One of these was primarily text-based; essentially a kind of word processor with predefined elements including pictures. The other was oriented toward sound and animated elements linked with text.

Programs Designed for High School Students. Although the elementary hypermedia literature applications we looked at made more extensive use of the computer’s sound and graphics capabilities than did the high school applications we reviewed. The latter made greater use of its nonlinear linking capabilities and interactive video technologies. They also exhibited a difference and a greater diversity in pedagogical approach. Although some (6) of these applications could best be classified as books on computer, they were not talking books. We also found programs whose approaches most resembled those of databases (7), hypertexts (2), hypermedia (6), and problem-solving games (2). Each of these is described in the following paragraphs.

The high school hypermedia literature applications most similar to the elementary programs discussed in the previous section might be best described as books on computer. Like their elementary-level counterparts, these programs presented the full text of collected or single works on the computer screen, and most also had the capacity to access definitions of selected words. Like talking books, they were essentially linear, with student interaction limited, for the most part, to electronic page-turning. Many also included interactive questions and answers and reproducible offline exercises similar to those found in the elementary applications. On the other hand, although a few of these books on computer included audio readings of selected passages, unlike the bulk of elementary applications, none offered a complete reading and none highlighted the text as it was read. The books on computer were also more likely to at least minimally value student interpretations by providing online note-taking capabilities, and less likely to provide high-quality illustrations and animations.

A second category we found among high school applications was databases. These programs provided book notes or the complete texts of collected or single works, in addition to background information on authors and texts and a variety of database functions for searching, collecting, and printing the information they contain. Most of these applications also included note-taking capabilities, and a few included interactive questions and answers and offline exercises. Some also included rudimentary illustrations, but applications included in this category, like the books on computer, were all essentially text-based.

The two high school hypermedia literature applications we categorized as hypertexts, although they too contained rudimentary graphics and sound, were also essentially text-based. Programs in this category differed from those designated databases in that they did not include typical database functions. Instead, they included extensive built-in links between entries. Both of the applications in this category were focused on background information about a single author and his works, and, although they included selected passages from such works, did not provide the complete texts of any. Both provided online note-taking capabilities, and one could be extended by students or teachers who wanted to add to the information it contained.

The six applications categorized as hypermedia linked the complete texts of particular works to background information and video segments presented on laserdisc. Five of these applications linked computer-based materials to movies on laserdisc, and one provided multiple readings by various actors and multiple interpretations by various scholars of the five works it covered. All of the hypermedia applications we reviewed provided extensive online background information on authors, historical context, literary devices, and literary analysis; all provided extensive teacher materials including suggestions for activities to be undertaken before, during, and after reading the particular text; and most included open-ended questions presented online but designed to be answered offline. Many of the hypermedia applications also included various online activities including a game, an opinion survey, and a chart maker, and two could be extended and altered by teachers or students. None included note-taking capabilities.

The final two high school hypermedia applications we reviewed were problem-solving games, ostensibly linked to literary works. In both games, students were asked to explore simulated environments and collect clues to solve a mystery. The mysteries were not related to the works on which the games were based. Both games were highly interactive and contained excellent graphics and sound, including digitized video segments. Both allowed students to copy information into a notebook, but did not allow student-generated entries. And, although they encouraged a kind of critical thinking, that thinking was convergent and focused on one correct solution to each mystery.

In general, the high school applications we reviewed were much more concerned with literature—interpretations, context, authors, literary devices, and analyses—than were their elementary-level counterparts. They were also more likely to provide for at least note-taking on the part of students. In tone, however, and, more importantly perhaps, in form, these applications focused on single “correct” interpretations and analyses. They shared the text-centered approach to literature teaching and learning similar to that found in most high schools. Again, although one might have hoped that more software authors would have taken greater advantage of some of the potential response-based technical features of hypermedia, considering the conservative nature of the publishing industry, it is not surprising that they did not.

Technical Concerns

Technical concerns have to do with the general quality of hypermedia literature applications without regard for their relationships to response-based pedagogy. Evaluators generally rated the programs we looked at quite high (M = 7.26 overall) on the three criteria in this category—content clarity (M = 7.88), technical quality
(M = 7.18), and use of technology (M = 6.69). High school applications were rated slightly higher than elementary applications (M = 7.51 vs. M = 7.00), but not appreciably so. The results indicate that commercially available applications are generally of good quality. Evaluators judged the majority of programs to be accurate, age-appropriate, and relevant to existing curricula by virtue of the literary works selected. Specific findings for each criteria are detailed in the following sections. The ratings for these concerns were broken into the following groupings.

• 1–4: Poor.
• 5–7: Adequate.
• 8–10: Good to excellent.

Half of the elementary programs reviewed focused on fairy tales (9) and fables (2), with such programs about equally divided between anthologies and single stories. The elementary-level game was, similarly, based on Mother Goose rhymes. Although the reason for the numbers of such traditional works is related to copyright considerations, simple, familiar stories and rhymes are potentially excellent vehicles for beginning literary discussions. Five elementary applications were somewhat similarly based on existing picture books adapted for the computer, making them suitable for individualized reading classrooms or as motivation for individual literary experiences. Indeed, teachers who observed students using such programs universally commented on the interest they generated in the print versions of the texts. The final elementary program, and the only one that included references to literary concerns, was linked to a commercial reading series.

All but two of the high school hypermedia literature applications we reviewed were based on book-length works among those most frequently taught in high school English classes (Applebee, 1989) or on authors and works common to the seven major literature anthologies used in such classes (Applebee, 1991). All of these could thus be incorporated into high school literature classes without any change in existing curricula. The two remaining applications were the problem-solving games, which, as previously stated, were not particularly literary in approach.

Evaluators found the average hypermedia literature program to be of generally high technical quality (M = 7.18), indicating that most were fairly easy to use and lacking in technical problems. Elementary applications were rated slightly higher (M = 7.45) than high school applications (M = 6.91) on this criterion, probably because of their basic simplicity. Evaluators had difficulty using the more complicated functions of some high school programs. These tended to require more complex and specific hardware configurations, making them sometimes difficult to install and run. It was generally agreed, however, that such problems will disappear as multimedia equipment becomes more standardized and its usage more common. Indeed, evaluators were generally pleased with the multimedia aspects of the programs they reviewed, in particular, with their computer graphics and video segments.

Nevertheless, evaluators generally agreed that the average program they reviewed did make good use of the technologies it incorporated (M = 6.69). High school applications were rated a good deal higher (M = 7.52) on this criterion than elementary applications (M = 5.86), because it was generally felt that, in many cases, talking books could just as well be on tape as on computer, and that neither could fully replace a live reader. The most highly rated applications in terms of technology usage were the high school level hypermedia applications (M = 8.11), probably because of the high quality of the video they accessed, but also because many had extensive nonlinear linking and tools for student or teacher construction. Indeed, the evaluators agreed that unless nonprint media substantially enhanced a text, most teachers and students could easily do without it. Some features viewed positively in this regard included interactive pages; search, cut and paste, and print functions; nonlinear linking; note-taking capability.

Copyright © 1999, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.