Making Connections¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (1 for, 1 mixed) · 7 studies (2 causal, 2 quant-synthesis, 2 review, 1 associational), q2–q4 · 1 of 7 report an effect size

Description¶

Making connections is a strategy in which learners deliberately relate new material to what they already know — to their own experiences (text-to-self), to other texts or domains (text-to-text), or to real-world events and situations (text-to-world). It is carried out through prompts, discussion, or structured activities that require learners to generate the link themselves rather than having it supplied, converting new information from isolated facts into a networked knowledge structure.

Design Implications¶

Connection-making works because new information is encoded more durably and retrieved more flexibly when it is integrated into existing schemas; the act of generating a link is itself a form of elaborative processing Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S]. The strategy depends on the learner actually possessing relevant prior knowledge to connect to — instruction should first activate that knowledge, then prompt connections to it Activation. Connections generated by the learner outperform connections merely presented to them, because generation forces retrieval and elaboration rather than passive recognition.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Activated and accessible prior knowledge relevant to the new material (Activating Prior Knowledge)
• Prompts that specify the kind of connection sought (self, text, world) rather than asking vaguely to "relate this to something"
• Time and structure for learners to articulate connections aloud, in writing, or through Annotating
• Instructor follow-up that evaluates the accuracy of connections, since a plausible-but-wrong link can entrench misconceptions

Constraints¶

• Learners with impoverished or inaccurate prior knowledge cannot make productive connections and may fabricate superficial or erroneous links [~M]
• Connections to personal experience can anchor understanding in idiosyncratic, non-generalizable cases if not bridged to the disciplinary concept
• Overly open prompts ("make a connection") yield low-quality responses from novices; specificity of the prompt drives quality
• When working memory is already loaded, generating connections competes with comprehension of the material itself Chunking reduces working memory load. [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Elaborative interrogation: learners answer "why is this true?" questions about statements, forcing links to prior knowledge
• Analogy mapping: instructor supplies a familiar analog and learners map its structure onto the new concept (Analogies)
• Text-connection protocols: during reading, learners mark passages as text-to-self, text-to-text, or text-to-world and justify each mark
• Cross-domain linking: learners identify structural parallels between the current topic and a previously studied topic or discipline

Target Learners¶

• Learners with moderate prior knowledge benefit most — enough knowledge to connect to, but not so integrated that connections are automatic Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S]
• Novices need instructor-supplied analogs or advance organizers first, since unguided connection-making exceeds their available knowledge structure
• Very knowledgeable learners gain less, as they spontaneously make connections without prompting [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Conceptual understanding: integrating new ideas into existing knowledge networks
• Transfer: building multiple retrieval routes so knowledge can be applied in novel contexts
• Reading comprehension: constructing a coherent situation model of a text
• Retention: elaborative encoding that supports long-term recall

Instructions¶

1. Activate relevant prior knowledge before introducing new material (Activating Prior Knowledge, Advance Organizers)
2. Present the new concept or text in a chunked, comprehensible form (Chunking)
3. Prompt learners to generate connections of a specified type — to their experience, to other texts or topics, or to world events — and to explain why the connection holds (Self-Explanation if available; otherwise structured questioning)
4. Have learners record connections visibly through annotation or a connection log (Annotating)
5. Discuss and evaluate connections as a group, correcting misconceptions and highlighting the most structurally informative links
6. Revisit and refine connections as understanding deepens, replacing idiosyncratic links with disciplinary ones

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — the prerequisite step; connections can only be made to knowledge that is accessible
• Analogical Reasoning — the principled form of text-to-text connection, mapping structure from a familiar to an unfamiliar domain
• Directly teach students when, why, and how to elaborate on new information

Examples¶

• Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown) — small-group reading routine in which students take turns questioning, summarizing, clarifying, and predicting, with explicit "connect this to…" prompts during discussion
• Elaborative interrogation in science — students study a physics principle by answering "why does this make sense given what I know about X?" for each statement, linking new laws to previously mastered ones
• Text-connection journals in literature courses — students annotate novels with text-to-self and text-to-world entries, then revise them after seminar discussion to distinguish personal resonance from textual evidence

Key Sources¶

• 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
• 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
• Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 291–300. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.291
• Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• 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