Structural Aspects of Constructing Meaning From Text

By Susan R. Goldman, J. Rakestraw. 2000

256 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a441a5ecd716e21bf9256a20efc93efbc4438d38

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

3. RESEARCH ON TEACHING READING (2004, background): “…for rhetorical patterns in texts, topic sentences, sentence-initial phrases, anaphoric linkages, and definite reference to prior text ideas; and awareness of the role of various grammatical structures to build coherence in text interpretation (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000).”
An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction. (2014, background): “An extensive literature in text processing research, reviewed by Goldman and Rakestraw (2000), underscores the importance of these strategies for teaching text structure.”
Comprehending and Learning From Internet Sources: Processing Patterns of Better and Poorer Learners (2012, background): “Making these connections may also be more challenging in multiple-text contexts because single texts frequently contain cues that signal relationships among different parts of the text (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000).”
Making the Very Most of Classroom Read‐Alouds to Promote Comprehension and Vocabulary (2008, background): ““Text structures” are frames that identify important information and connections between ideas (Dickson, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1998; Englert & Mariage, 1991, 1992; Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Williams, 2005).”
The Snowball Phenomenon: Spread of Ways of Talking and Ways of Thinking Across Groups of Children (2001, methodology): “Generalizing from research on other types of schemas or discourse structures (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000), we hypothesize that an argument schema (a) enables discussion participants to organize argument-relevant information, (b) enables retrieval of argument-relevant…”
Reading to Learn: Effects of Combined Strategy Instruction on High School Students (2004, background): “Hence, to derive meaning from text, readers rely on both text-driven and knowledge-driven processes (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000).”
Text Coherence and Readability (2003, background): “Awareness of how to identify and use structures in expository text is particularly helpful for learning situations in which readers have low levels of knowledge about the content domain of the text (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000; Meyer, 1984).”
Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension (2010, background): “Other research has shown that readers’ awareness of text genre and structure may facilitate text comprehension (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000), and source information, for example regarding text type and publisher, can be considered an important indication of a text’s genre and structure.”
SARA: A Text-Based and Reader-Based Theory of Signaling (2008, background): “Signaling has little effect on text processing if readers do not need the support (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000; Meyer, 1985; Meyer et al., 1980).”
Relations Between Adolescents' Text Processing and Reasoning (2005, background): “…layout of the text), the meaning of the text itself (textbase), and the interpretation or model of the world referred to by the text (mental or situation model; cf. Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000; Graesser, Gernsbacher, & Goldman, 1997; Kintsch, 1998; Perfetti, 1989; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983).”
The Role of Reader Characteristics in Processing and Learning From Informational Text (2009, background): “In addition, relevant prior knowledge can include knowledge of text conventions or text structures (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000) or familiarity with the task required by the research protocol (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995).”
Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument (2001, methodology): “Generalizing from research on other schemas or discourse structures (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000), we hypothesize that an argument schema enables organization and retrieval of argument-relevant information, facilitates argument construction and repair, and provides the basis…”
Dealing With Uncertainty: Readers' Memory for and Use of Conflicting Information From Science Texts as Function of Presentation Format and Source Expertise (2013, background): “…(e.g., whereas, although) and lexical cue phrases (e.g., as an example, on the other hand), which readers may interpret as processing instructions to guide their integration processes (Britton, 1994; Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000; Kamalski et al., 2008; Noordman & Vonk, 1997; Sanders & Noordman, 2000).”
Instruction in Reading Comprehension for Primary-Grade Students (2005, background): “But children have not had sufficient experience to be able to use these structures with ease, and sometimes they do not even recognize opportunities for using them to enhance their comprehension (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000).”
Increasing Higher Level Language Skills to Improve Reading Comprehension (2011, background): “Expository text is viewed as more difficult than narrative text (Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000) and generally contains more unfamiliar vocabulary and concepts and is less directly related to students’ personal experiences.”