Making Connections (Text-to-Self, Text-to-Text, Text-to-World)¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 7 claims (4 for, 2 mixed, 1 against) · 14 studies (6 review, 3 quant-synthesis, 2 causal, 2 theoretical, 1 associational), q1–q4 · 3 of 14 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

Making Connections is a comprehension strategy in which readers deliberately relate a text to three referents: their own experiences (text-to-self), other texts they have read (text-to-text), and events or knowledge in the wider world (text-to-world). It is usually introduced through instructor modeling — a Think-Aloud in which the teacher verbalizes a connection — followed by guided practice with prompts ("This reminds me of…"), and independent application through journals, annotation, or discussion. The strategy is a staple of comprehension-strategies instruction in the tradition of Reciprocal Teaching and transactional reading theory (Rosenblatt, 1978).

Design Implications¶

Connections work because they activate and integrate prior knowledge with new text content, supporting inference and elaboration Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S]. However, the quality of the connection matters more than its presence: connections must be elaborated and text-relevant to aid comprehension, not merely stated Relevancy of emphasis directs attention. [~M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A text with genuine points of contact for learners' experience and prior knowledge
• Instructor modeling of each connection type before independent use (Think-Aloud)
• Guiding questions or sentence stems for each connection type (e.g., "This reminds me of… because…")
• A recording structure: double-entry journal, connection web, or Annotating routine
• A forum for sharing connections (Class Discussion or peer pairs)
• A text worth connecting to, with enough thematic or experiential surface for all three connection types
• Instructor modeling of what a meaningful connection looks like, contrasted with a trivial one

Constraints¶

• Superficial or tangential connections ("I have a dog too") consume instructional time without deepening comprehension; learners need explicit criteria for relevant connections [-M]
• Text-to-self connections can pull attention away from the text itself, especially for narrative texts, shifting readers toward personal association rather than text-based inference [~M]
• Unmodeled, the strategy tends to produce formulaic responses; benefits depend on quality of demonstration and feedback [-W]
• For learners with little relevant background knowledge, forced connections add load without benefit Prior knowledge not related to performance. [~W]
• Superficial connections ("I have a dog too") do not improve comprehension and can consume reading time without benefit [~M] — without modeling, learners default to low-effort personal associations
• Text-to-self connections can pull attention away from the text itself; readers who over-personalize may substitute their own experience for the author's meaning, distorting comprehension [~W]
• For learners with little relevant experience (e.g., reading about unfamiliar cultures or historical periods), text-to-self prompts may frustrate rather than activate [~M]
• The strategy targets engagement and elaboration, not decoding or vocabulary; it will not remediate weak word recognition Automatic word recognition frees resources for comprehension. [-W] — learners still struggling at the word level need decoding support first

Implementation Variability¶

• Oral think-aloud modeling → shared whole-class charting → small-group discussion → independent journaling (gradual release)
• Written forms: connection logs, sticky-note annotation, double-entry journals
• Digital forms: social annotation platforms (e.g., Perusall) where learners post and reply to each other's connections
• Emphasis can shift by discipline: text-to-text dominates in literature study; text-to-world dominates in social studies and science
• Timing: pre-reading activation, during-reading annotation, or post-reading reflection and discussion
• Format: oral turn-and-talk, written journals, graphic organizers, or digital annotation tools
• Weighting: literature classes often emphasize text-to-text (intertextual themes); content-area classes emphasize text-to-world (application to current issues)
• Choice-based: learners select which connection type to pursue, supporting autonomy Autonomy supports intrinsic motivation. [+M]

Target Learners¶

• Elementary through secondary readers (grades 3–12), especially developing readers who read decodably but do not yet integrate text with background knowledge [+M]
• Multilingual learners, when connections are invited from their full linguistic and cultural repertoire [+W]
• Less useful for advanced readers who already integrate fluently; strategy instruction shows diminishing returns with expertise [~M]
• Upper elementary through secondary readers who have fluent decoding but need support constructing meaning
• Reluctant readers, for whom personal relevance increases engagement and persistence Self-efficacy predicts academic persistence. [+M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Reading comprehension: integration of text content with prior knowledge and inference-making Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S]
• Engagement and motivation: personal relevance increases task value Task value increases motivation and engagement. [+M]
• Intertextual reasoning: comparing themes, structures, and claims across texts
• Critical literacy: situating texts in social and historical context (text-to-world)
• Reading comprehension: integrating text with prior knowledge to build a situation model
• Critical literacy: text-to-world connections link texts to social and civic issues
• Intertextual reasoning: text-to-text connections build genre awareness and thematic comparison
• Reflective thinking: text-to-self connections support metacognitive and affective engagement

Instructions¶

1. Select and preview the text. Identify likely connection points and prepare prompts for each type (Activation of prior knowledge before reading).
2. Model with a think-aloud. Read a short passage aloud and verbalize one connection of each type, explaining why it helps understanding — not just that it exists (Think-Aloud).
3. Co-construct criteria. With learners, distinguish deep connections (elaborated, text-relevant) from surface ones; chart examples of each.
4. Guided practice. Learners mark connections while reading using sticky notes or an annotation code (Annotating), prompted by stems such as "This reminds me of…" and "This is like the article we read about…".
5. Share and elaborate. Peers exchange connections and push each other to explain how the connection clarifies the text (Class Discussion, Peer Discussion).
6. Apply independently. Learners write a short response built on their strongest connection, then evaluate which connection type deepened their understanding most (Application).

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — the pre-reading counterpart; connections extend activation into and beyond reading
• Reciprocal Teaching — packages connection-making with predicting, questioning, and clarifying in a peer-dialogue routine
• Question-Answer Relationships — complementary strategy for linking questions to text-based and knowledge-based sources
• Annotating Texts — the written medium through which connections are often recorded
• Annotating Text — a recording format that pairs naturally with connection-making during reading
• Question-Answer Relationships — complementary comprehension strategy focused on text-based rather than experience-based reasoning

Examples¶

• Mosaic of Thought comprehension curriculum (Keene & Zimmermann, 1997) — the source framework that popularized the three connection types in workshop-model reading instruction.
• Reading Rockets — published lesson sequences and think-aloud scripts for modeling text-to-self, text-to-text, and text-to-world connections in grades K–8.
• Perusall — social annotation platform where university students post connections as margin comments and respond to peers', making text-to-text and text-to-world links visible and discussable.
• IB Middle Years Programme language and literature units — formally assess students' ability to connect texts to personal, cultural, and global contexts.
• Reading workshop (grades 6–12): Students keep a three-column connection log while reading a novel; columns feed small-group discussion and a reflective essay.
• Newsela — Leveled news articles paired with prompts that invite text-to-world connections to current events.
• Facing History and Ourselves — Humanities curriculum that systematically connects texts to historical and contemporary world issues (text-to-world as the organizing move).

Key Sources¶

• Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader's workshop. Heinemann.
• Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
• 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
• Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513–555. doi:10.1086/461705
• Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.
• Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement (2nd ed.). Stenhouse.
• Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). International Reading Association.
• Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: An IES practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/14