#2 Why Teaching Math Without Activating Background Knowledge Is Like Starting a Movie Halfway Through (And Then Blaming the Audience for Being Confused)
Imagine walking into a movie 45 minutes late. You don’t know who anyone is. Someone is yelling. Something is on fire. And everyone else seems emotionally invested. You lean over and whisper, “Wait… why are they mad?”
That’s what math class feels like for a lot of students. We often begin lessons with, “Today we’re learning the algorithm.” But students are thinking:
What does this even represent?
Have I seen this idea before?
Am I already behind and no one noticed?
Then we’re surprised when they memorize steps, forget them tomorrow, and decide they’re “bad at math.”
They’re not bad at math.
They just missed the backstory.
Research Is Clear: What Students Already Know Is Doing the Heavy Lifting
Decades of research show that learning is driven as much by prior experience as by instruction itself.
Fisher, Frey, and Lapp (2012) explain it plainly:
“Learning is controlled as much by the experiences students bring to the learning situation as it is by the way the information is presented.”
Stephanie Wessels (2012) adds that background knowledge is not static — it is continuously shaped by academic experiences, social and cultural practices, emotions, and real-world encounters
And students rely on that knowledge to develop, expand, and refine meaning, not just remember facts. In other words background knowledge isn’t “extra.” It’s the foundation.
Here’s the problem. Educational practices often assume the presence of background knowledge instead of checking for it.
Fisher and colleagues note that students arrive with uneven experiences, partial understandings, gaps, or deeply held misconceptions. And sometimes, the knowledge they activate is irrelevant or misapplied, which can actually interfere with learning if it isn’t surfaced and examined.
Wessels emphasizes something even more important. When students struggle, the issue is often a lack of background knowledge—not ability.
But instead of investigating what students know, we often move straight to procedures and practice. That’s like handing someone IKEA instructions and saying, “Don’t worry. You’ll figure it out as you go.”
Why Skipping Sense-Making Creates Long-Term Problems
When students don’t get time to explain their thinking, argue ideas, and connect concepts to lived experiences, they don’t build understanding — they build workarounds.
Fisher, Frey, and Lapp (2012) explain that misconceptions are not simple mistakes. They are fundamental errors in reasoning that students use to interpret everything that comes next.
Wessels (2012) reinforces this by showing that students need multiple opportunities to discuss relationships among concepts and connect new ideas to what they already know — especially students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Without this phase algorithms feel random, vocabulary feels foreign, confidence erodes and math becomes something to survive, not understand.
Why We Start with Existing Knowledge Before the Game or Activity
In every Empower All Math Minds lesson guide, the work begins before the game. Not because the game isn’t powerful —but because the game is most powerful after students have surfaced their thinking, discussions have revealed misconceptions, and all students have the accurate background knowledge needed to play the game, practice skills and extend their thinking.
To accomplish this we intentionally ask questions that reveal existing ideas, invite disagreement and justification, encourage explanations in students’ own words and make room for cultural, linguistic, and real-life connections. This mirrors what Wessels (20012) describes as bringing knowledge “to the surface where it is ready to be applied, used to stimulate questions, and build interest.”
And it reflects Fisher et al.’s emphasis on conversation, peer discussion, and argumentation as essential to building durable understanding.
For Parents
If your child says:
“They just showed us how to do it”
“I don’t understand the steps and why we are supposed to do them”
“I forgot what to do”
Statements like that may not be a motivation issue. It may point to the need to build on things they understand. Here are kinds of question you could ask:
“What did you talk about before learning the steps?”
“Explain to me what you understand and what is confusing?”
“Can you think of something that is similar to what you are learning?”
When students can connect math to what they already know, research shows they retain it longer, use it more flexibly, and engage more deeply.
For Teachers: This Is About Permission, Not Pressure
This is not a critique of teachers. It’s a critique of systems that reward speed over sense-making. Both articles emphasize that good teaching is contextual — it adapts to students’ histories, experiences, language, and culture.
Slowing down to activate background knowledge, work through misconceptions, and build existing conceptions to develop greater understanding does the following:
saves time later
reduces reteaching
empowers students to practice better and master the concepts
And most importantly, students can engage in strategic mathematical play in ways that enables them to consider ways to improve play and naturally motivates them to take on more challenging math relationships
Context Is the Plot
Background knowledge isn’t the preview.
It’s the plot.
When we rush past it, students try to follow the action without understanding the story.
When we slow down and build it, students enter the math game knowing why moves matter, how ideas connect, and what they’re trying to accomplish.
That’s when math stops feeling random—and starts feeling meaningful.
References
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Building and activating students’ background knowledge: It's what they already know that counts: Teachers must assess and build on the background knowledge students possess. Middle School Journal, 43(3), 22-31.
Wessels, S. (2012). The importance of activating and building knowledge.