Connecting¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 9 studies (5 quant-synthesis, 3 causal, 1 associational), q2–q4 · 3 of 9 report an effect size

Description¶

Connecting involves relating a current problem or text to prior knowledge and experiences. It asks learners if the current problem reminds them of any other problem they have solved and how they solved it — for example, "Does this remind you of another math problem? What did you do then?" The strategy operationalizes schema theory: new information is comprehensible and memorable only when it can be assimilated into existing knowledge structures Ausubel's advance-organizer research shows meaningful verbal learning depends on anchoring new material to relevant prior concepts. [+S].

Design Implications¶

Connecting activates prior knowledge before or during new learning, which improves comprehension and retention because learners encode new material relationally rather than as isolated facts Contextual prerequisites: the same passage is comprehensible and memorable only when learners possess the relevant schema. [+S]. The connection must be genuine, not superficial — prompts that surface relevant knowledge improve learning, while generic "think about your experience" prompts often activate irrelevant material.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Sufficient prior knowledge and experiences to draw connections from
• Prompts that specify which prior knowledge is relevant ("How is this like the mixture problems we solved?") rather than open-ended recall
• Time for learners to articulate the connection — Self-Explanation or brief written/verbal linking statements

Constraints¶

• Learners lacking relevant prior knowledge cannot connect; the prompt then wastes time or activates misconceptions Prior knowledge is the strongest single predictor of new learning, so its absence is a genuine bottleneck rather than a minor difficulty. [-S]
• Inaccurate or partial prior knowledge can be activated and strengthened, entrenching misconceptions — connections to flawed analogies transfer the flaws
• Superficial analogies ("this is like sports because it has rules") consume time without supporting the target schema [~M]
• Prompts that overload working memory by requiring learners to hold both the new problem and a retrieved one can add extraneous load for novices [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Teacher-prompted ("Does this remind you of a problem we've seen?") vs. self-initiated (learners habitually ask themselves the question)
• Personal connections (own life experiences) vs. disciplinary connections (prior problems, texts, or cases in the domain)
• Embedded in worked examples, Case Studies, or Analogies rather than delivered as standalone prompts

Target Learners¶

• Learners with moderate prior knowledge, who have something to retrieve and benefit from cueing Prior knowledge is the strongest predictor of new learning. [+S]
• Learners who benefit from relating content to their own lives — personalization increases task value and engagement
• Novices with thin domain knowledge need teacher-supplied connections (analogies, advance organizers) rather than self-generated ones [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Comprehension: interpreting new material in terms of existing schemas
• Transfer: recognizing when a familiar strategy applies to a new problem
• Retention: relational encoding produces more durable memory than rote encoding Spaced and meaningful retrieval strengthens retention. [+S]

Instructions¶

1. Before new material, surface relevant prior knowledge with a targeted prompt or Advance Organizers ("Remember the sharing problems we solved last week?")
2. Present the new problem or text, then ask the connecting question: "Does this remind you of another problem? How did you solve it?"
3. Have learners articulate the link aloud or in writing — pair with Self-Explanation to make the mapping explicit Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S]
4. Follow with Practice on the new problem type, and Provide Feedback on whether the connection learners drew was apt
5. Fade the prompts over time so learners internalize the habit of asking the connecting question themselves

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — the broader family; connecting is the problem-focused variant that asks learners to map a current task onto a remembered one
• Analogical Reasoning — the underlying mechanism when the connection is between structurally similar problems

Affordances¶

• Activation — connecting enacts this principle by prompting retrieval of relevant schemas at the moment they are needed for encoding
• Cognitive Load Management — a well-chosen connection supplies a ready-made schema, reducing the search and inference a novice would otherwise perform from scratch
• Analogies — when learners lack the experience to connect on their own, a teacher-supplied analogy performs the same linking function

Related Elements¶

• Recall Prior Knowledge — the retrieval step that supplies the material for the connection
• Practice — connections are consolidated when learners apply the retrieved strategy to the new problem
• Provide Feedback — confirms or corrects whether the connection learners drew is structurally valid
• Analogies — teacher-supplied connections for learners who cannot generate their own
• Advance Organizers — a pre-structured connection delivered before the new material

Patterns That Use This Element¶

• Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI for Math) — children's informal problem-solving experience is the explicit foundation for formal instruction
• Anchored Instruction — the anchor is a shared experience to which subsequent problems connect

Examples¶

• A teacher introducing ratio problems asks, "Does this remind you of the sharing problems we solved last week? What did you do first there?" — learners retrieve the partitive-division schema before tackling the new format.
• Cognitively Guided Instruction — teachers elicit how students would solve a word problem using their own informal strategies, then connect those strategies to formal notation.
• In a reading class, students relate a character's dilemma to a personal experience before analyzing the text, improving comprehension and recall of narrative structure.

Key Sources¶

• Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267–272. doi:10.1037/h0046669
• Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (2003). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145. doi:10.2307/1170673
• Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3