 |
 |
|
|
 |
| thesis schmesis |
| thesis schmesis |
| thesis schmesis |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
| indrupili e-zine |
| what's going on with indrupili's lack of inspiration? frustrations, frustrations! |
| 23 June, 2003 Let's see...so far I have finished revising (again) the introduction but this time right on the money the question is. It's definitely on hypertextbooks and how the links and the nodes work together based on a scheme. The modification of Harmsze's scheme would be ideal in the sense that the criteria are more and less general for the scientific communication. More general in the sense that it covers the website construction of natural science hypertexts rather than just the journal, but more specific because it is scientific pedagogy. So, the million dollar question is: how do I show the relationships between links and nodes so that they would reflect the scientific rationality? Help! |
| May 27, 2003 The three chapters and the introduction were in. I haven't been able to fit in Carter's work very well because of his focus on argumentative text. It seems that the rethorical approach work better at the stage because the focus is on persuasion. The main question now is, how do I take out the essence of his study into my own? Here are just some of the suggestions: * use his statistical approach to the "richness" of the hypertext, especially on link-to-node ratio * compare the rhetorical approach with pragma-dialectical approach in the structuring of argumentation Hmm, there you go. I wonder if they will work? |