Skip to content

Graphic Organizers

Principle · All principles
Evidence · 34 claims (16 for, 16 mixed, 2 against) · 44 studies (18 causal, 11 review, 9 quant-synthesis, 3 theoretical, 1 associational, 1 qualitative, 1 design), q1–q4 · 12 of 44 report an effect size · 23 claims rest on one study

Conditional relationship

This page owns the visual form of making a structure explicit: what kind of diagram to use, who builds it, and what the learner does with it. For a learner meeting material whose ideas relate in a definite structure (a sequence, a hierarchy, a comparison, a cause-and-effect chain, a cycle, a narrative, a network of concepts) and who does not yet hold that structure (a novice on this material, whatever their standing in the wider domain), a node-and-link or tabular display whose layout mirrors the structure is expected to improve comprehension and retention of that material (immediate-performance, conceptual-understanding) compared with the same material as text, a list or an outline alone. The gain is expected to be larger when the learner does something with the organizer (completes it, builds it, explains its links, rebuilds it from memory) than when they only look at it, provided the building task does not swamp them.

The relationship is conditional on four things. Fit: whether the organizer's structure matches the content and the task the learner will later face. Who builds it, against the learner's expertise: a provided organizer, a partly completed one or one built from scratch. What the learner does with it: explains, writes, discusses or retrieves from it, or only fills in labels. The comparison: an organizer beats reading alone more reliably than it beats an equally generative alternative such as retrieval practice.

What the evidence tests, and what it does not. Two meta-analyses test one form of the relationship, concept and knowledge maps, against text, lists, outlines and other instruction, from Grade 4 to postsecondary, and find a moderate average benefit (below). Small designs test story maps with primary-age readers. No claim in the wiki tests the other common forms (compare-contrast matrices, cause-effect chains, sequence charts, writing-planning organizers) as such, or partly completed organizers, or a plan for fading the organizer across sessions; the one study recorded on format mismatch used bar graphs, not graphic organizers. The default design below is therefore a set of labelled proposals around a tested core.

How the converted neighbours sit beside this: Clear Structure holds the general relationship that making an organization explicit (signals, previews, organizers, matching graphics) helps learners without an organization of their own; this page is the graphic case inside it and does not repeat its signalling evidence. Activation holds organizers used before instruction to connect new material to what the learner already knows (advance organizers). Chunking holds the size of units and where their boundaries fall; an organizer shows how those units relate. Self-Explanation and Retrieval Practice hold the two activities this page recommends doing with an organizer.

Default design, while the relationship is untested

The earlier page's guidance, kept as a concrete design a designer can act on and revise. Each step says what evidence stands behind it.

  1. Name the structure before choosing the shape. Decide what relation the learner must grasp, then pick a display that mirrors it: a flow chart or timeline for a sequence, a tree for a hierarchy, a matrix for a comparison, a chain for causes and effects, a cycle diagram for a cycle, a story map for a narrative, a concept map for a network of related concepts. If no shape fits, use a sparse outline or let learners sketch their own rather than forcing the content into a template. Matching is untested for graphic organizers; nearest evidence: high-school physics students recalled and solved better on the tasks matching the hierarchy they had been given (A hierarchical organization facilitates tasks only when matched to the task domain [~M]), and university students recalled bar-graph data better when the recall format matched the studied one, a small effect that the content's theme could override (Recall from bar graphs is more accurate when the recall format matches the studied graph format, a small effect that the content's thematic emphasis can override [~M]).
  2. Keep each view lean. For learners new to the material, show about five top-level nodes or rows per view, with labelled links, and split a larger structure into linked views (an overview, then one view per branch). The number is an untested proposal; the reason is the limit on what learners can hold at once (Chunking reduces working memory load by grouping information into fewer, more meaningful units. [+S], whose more recent estimate is three to five chunks for novel material, a memory finding, not a test of organizer size) and an author's warning that heavier demands in mapping tasks can be counterproductive (Placing heavier cognitive demands on learners can be counterproductive in mapping tasks [~W], an interpretation, not a tested result).
  3. Model the organizer once, aloud (5–10 minutes). Fill in one organizer in front of learners on an example, saying why this shape fits this content and how you decide what goes in each node and on each link. Untested as a step; from the earlier page. Building the map jointly, teacher and students together, beat teacher-built and student-built mapping for Egyptian EFL university students in one five-month experiment (Teacher-student interactive semantic mapping produced higher EFL reading comprehension posttest scores than teacher-initiated and student-mediated semantic mapping [+M]).
  4. Early sessions: give the organizer, complete or partly complete. With material new to the learners, provide a finished organizer alongside the text, or one with the main nodes filled in and the links or examples left for the learner (about a third to a half of the cells blank; untested proposal). Studying a provided map beat studying text, lists or outlines in one meta-analysis (Graphic Organizers Support Novice Comprehension [+S]), and in three experiments with college readers provided organizers gave better transfer than learner-built ones (Learner-constructed graphic organizers are not shown to outperform provided ones: the one direct test, with college readers, favoured provided organizers on transfer [~M], whose evidence runs against its title). No claim tests partly completed organizers.
  5. Make every organizer lead to explanation or use. After completing or studying an organizer, ask the learner to explain two or three links ("why does this arrow point here?", "what would change if this cell changed?") and then use the organizer for something: a summary, a paragraph, a discussion answer, a solution. Carried from a neighbouring finding: prompting learners to explain while studying improves learning (Prompting learners to self-explain improves understanding and problem solving on immediate tests by a moderate average amount, with little evidence yet on delayed or classroom gains. [+S], across tasks, not tested with organizers). An organizer filled in and put away is the earlier page's "one-off worksheet".
  6. Middle sessions: learners build it, with a scaffold. Once learners complete partial organizers accurately, have them build their own from a given list of concepts or a blank template of the right shape, working in pairs where possible, then compare with a reference organizer and fix differences. Building maps was associated with a larger benefit than studying them in a meta-analysis's moderator analysis (Concept mapping improves learning over most comparison conditions by a moderate average amount, but not over time-matched retrieval practice [+S]), but that compares each against its own controls, and the one head-to-head test found the opposite for college readers when construction was most demanding (step 4). Building with a peer is reported second-hand to beat building alone (Collaborative concept mapping enhances learning more than individual concept mapping [+W]).
  7. Then build it from memory. When the goal includes remembering the material later, have learners build or complete the organizer with the text closed, then open the text and correct it. Creating maps without viewing the texts gave better one-week short-answer performance than creating them while studying (The same quizzing or concept-mapping activity produces more learning when done without viewing the material [+M], reported second-hand). If remembering is the only goal, plain recall may serve better than mapping with the text open (Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative study techniques, including concept mapping [-M]).
  8. Late sessions: learners choose the shape, then work without one. Give new material with no organizer and ask learners to choose a shape, say why it fits, and build it; then set tasks that need the structure with no organizer at all. Move a learner on when they choose a fitting shape and explain why on two consecutive new texts or problems (untested proposal). With primary readers, a story map taught by model–lead–test and then withdrawn left comprehension gains that held after the maps were removed (Story Mapping Improves Comprehension [+M], two small designs).
  9. Dose and arc across a unit. A default arc for a unit of four to six sessions: organizer work of 10–20 minutes a session (not the whole lesson); session 1 modelled and provided; sessions 2–3 partly completed, with explanation prompts; sessions 4–5 learner-built from a concept list, in pairs, then from memory; the final session a learner-chosen shape on new material, and one task without an organizer. A learner who meets the step 8 criterion early skips ahead; one whose partial organizers are mostly wrong stays on provided organizers for another session. Repeat the arc with a new organizer type rather than reusing one template for everything. The arc, the durations and the thresholds are untested proposals.

When a condition is not met: if learners already explain the structure fluently before instruction, skip steps 3–5 and start at step 7 or 8; if many partial organizers come back wrong after modelling, return to a complete organizer and a second modelled example before asking for construction.

Fitting the design to a situation

The three facts that most change the decision:

  • What the learner already holds of this material's structure. A learner who can already say how the ideas relate needs little or no provided organizer and may be slowed by one; a learner who cannot needs the organizer given before being asked to build it. If unstated, ask: before instruction, can the learner sketch or explain how the main ideas fit together?
  • What the organizer is for: comprehension now, remembering later, or a product (writing, a plan, a solution). Each changes who builds it and when: studying a provided organizer for comprehension, building from memory for retention, a planning organizer for writing. If unstated, ask: what must the learner do, unaided, at the end, and when?
  • Whether the content has one clear structure, and whether the later task uses it. A template whose shape does not match the content or the task can mislead. If unstated, ask: what relation is central here (order, kind-of, comparison, cause, cycle), and will the assessment ask about that relation?
If the brief says… Then change… Basis
Learners are advanced on this material, or already explain its structure Drop the provided organizer; ask learners to sketch their own quickly, or use none; spend the time on application Graphic Organizers Support Novice Comprehension [~M] (in five studies each, low-ability learners gained from maps and high-ability learners did not; underpowered subsets); Instructional guidance that helps novices can become redundant or counterproductive as expertise grows. [~M] (a review, not tested on organizers)
Learners are child (primary age) reading stories, including learners with learning disabilities Use a story map (setting, characters, problem, goal, events, resolution), taught by modelling, leading and then testing; withdraw the map once accuracy holds Story Mapping Improves Comprehension [+M] (third and fourth graders; 22 and 6 students; no standardized effect size)
Learners are adult literacy learners, and the goal is writing Use a planning organizer matched to the genre (claim–reasons–evidence for argument, a sequence for narrative), modelled, then used before each draft, then dropped once the plan can be made in note form untested; from the earlier page and its sources on adult literacy writing, which no claim records
Goal is delayed-retention of the content After comprehension, have learners build or complete the organizer with the text closed, then check against the text; or replace some mapping time with free recall The same quizzing or concept-mapping activity produces more learning when done without viewing the material [+M] (second-hand); Concept mapping improves learning over most comparison conditions by a moderate average amount, but not over time-matched retrieval practice [~S] (with time matched, mapping beside the text lost to retrieval practice at one week, undergraduates)
Goal is conceptual-understanding or transfer from a demanding text, with novice readers Give a complete, author-built organizer with the text rather than asking for construction; add explanation prompts on its links Learner-constructed graphic organizers are not shown to outperform provided ones: the one direct test, with college readers, favoured provided organizers on transfer [~M] (college readers, three experiments; transfer favoured provided organizers)
Setting is online-self-paced, no teacher present Place the organizer next to the text it summarises (not on a separate page); give partial organizers with a reference version revealed after the learner submits; add one explanation question per organizer Adding relevant pictures or graphics to text improves learning from it, with a small pooled effect on reading comprehension, though whether dual coding explains the benefit is disputed [+M] (graphics added to text helped reading comprehension, elementary to adult; carried to organizers, which it did not isolate); the reveal-and-compare step is untested
classroom with a large group Have pairs build the organizer together; collect a few, project two that differ, and discuss which fits the content better and why Teacher-student interactive semantic mapping produced higher EFL reading comprehension posttest scores than teacher-initiated and student-mediated semantic mapping [+M] (EFL university students); Collaborative concept mapping enhances learning more than individual concept mapping [+W] (second-hand)
Learners read in a second language Build a semantic map of the text with the class before and during reading, the teacher drawing out students' contributions, over many sessions Teacher-student interactive semantic mapping produced higher EFL reading comprehension posttest scores than teacher-initiated and student-mediated semantic mapping [+M] (187 Egyptian EFL freshmen, 20 one-hour sessions)
Time is one session only Provide one organizer with the material, one completion task and one explanation prompt; do not ask for construction from scratch; record what an unaided check shows and do not claim retention untested proposal; construction costs time and load (Placing heavier cognitive demands on learners can be counterproductive in mapping tasks [~W])
The content has no single clear structure, or the assessment asks about a different relation than the organizer shows Do not force a template: use a sparse outline, or two organizers for two relations; align the organizer with the relation the assessment asks about A hierarchical organization facilitates tasks only when matched to the task domain [~M] (20 high-school physics students); Recall from bar graphs is more accurate when the recall format matches the studied graph format [~M] (bar graphs, university students; carried to organizers)
Stakes are high, or the assessment is unaided Judge readiness only on tasks done without the organizer; keep the organizer as a study and planning tool, not something that must be reproduced untested proposal
A dense organizer already exists (a course map, a 30-node concept map) Split it into an overview of about five nodes and one linked view per branch; reveal branches as they are taught untested; mechanism from Chunking reduces working memory load by grouping information into fewer, more meaningful units. [+M] (memory research, not organizer design)

Ten of the twelve rows cite a claim. The expertise, story-map, retention and conceptual-understanding rows rest on claims that test organizers or maps directly; the online, large-class, second-language and mismatch rows carry neighbouring findings (graphics in text, semantic mapping with EFL students, peer mapping reported second-hand, hierarchies in physics, bar graphs) to this setting and say so; the one-session and dense-organizer rows are untested proposals that cite a claim only for a limit or a mechanism. The writing and stakes rows are untested proposals.

Observation, state and explanation

What can be observed is what the learner produces with an organizer under stated conditions: which organizer (provided, partial, blank, chosen by the learner), with the text open or closed, which nodes and links are filled and how, which links they can explain, the time taken, and what they then do with it (the summary, paragraph or solution). "Understands the structure" and "has internalized the organizer" are inferred states. A neatly completed organizer shows that the cells were filled; it does not show that the learner sees why they relate.

Response Plausible explanations Observation that could change the interpretation
Every cell filled correctly, but the learner cannot explain a link Copied phrases from the text into slots; the template carried the structure; the explanation is blocked by language rather than understanding Ask for one link explained in their own words, or shown by pointing and gesture; give a closed-book completion of the same organizer.
Builds an organizer of the wrong shape (a list where a chain was needed) Does not see the relation; has seen only one template and reuses it; the content genuinely supports two structures Ask what relation the material is about, and give two candidate shapes to choose between with a reason.
Good organizer, weak summary or essay written from it Organizer and writing task need different structures; difficulty is in writing, not comprehension; the organizer was not consulted Compare the essay's order with the organizer's; ask the learner to write one paragraph per branch with the organizer in view.
Partial organizers mostly wrong after modelling Material too far beyond the learner; the model showed the answer but not the decisions; too many blanks at once Give a complete organizer and ask for explanation of two links; then a partial with fewer blanks.
Builds rich organizers but remembers little a week later Mapping was done with the text open, so little was retrieved; time went on layout Compare a closed-book rebuild with an open-book one on the next unit and test both at a delay.
An advanced learner ignores the provided organizer or works slower with it The organizer is redundant for them; it conflicts with their own organization of the material Ask them to sketch their own and compare; give the next text without an organizer and check the outcome.

These rows are proposals, untested with learners as diagnostics. A probe is itself practice and can change what it measures, so record each one.

Evidence and qualifications

Learners, materials and outcomes differ across these claims (primary readers with stories, college readers with textbook passages, undergraduates with science texts, meta-analyses spanning Grade 4 to postsecondary), so do not rank them by effect size. Most outcomes are immediate or one-week tests on researcher-designed instruments. None tests partly completed organizers, writing-planning organizers, or fading an organizer across a unit.

The evidence by question

Further evidence, not yet read against this model

Claims on neighbouring questions, found while rewriting this page. Each is cited in the default design or the situation table above for one step only; none has been read against the whole model.

Objective and learner-valued goal

The designer's objective is usually a capability on the content (explaining how its parts relate, writing an organised answer, solving a problem that uses the structure) at a stated horizon, without the organizer present. The organizer is a means; a completed organizer is not the outcome. Ask separately what the learner wants: to get through a hard reading, to have something to revise from, to plan an essay they must hand in, or to finish the worksheet. Agreement and divergence are both observations. A learner who values a revision sheet may want complete, provided organizers they can keep, while the designer wants them to build one from memory; both can be served if the rebuilt organizer becomes the revision sheet.

For example, an adult literacy learner may want to write a letter of complaint to a landlord, while the session objective is identifying main ideas and supporting details in a short article. A main-idea organizer for the article serves the designer's objective; the same shape used to plan the learner's own letter tests whether it serves theirs. Record both.

What would revise this model?

The expectation should weaken if studies of organizers other than concept maps (matrices, sequence and cause-effect charts, writing planners), against text-only or equally generative comparisons with time matched, show no advantage on aligned outcomes. If partly completed organizers do no better than complete ones, or worse, step 4's proposal should go. If the low-ability advantage in the concept-map subsets fails to replicate, and the advance-organizer pattern (larger gains for higher-ability learners) holds for graphic organizers too, the novice condition should be rewritten. If, with time matched, building from memory does no better than recall without an organizer, the organizer adds nothing for retention and should be kept for comprehension and planning only. Do not protect the model by calling every failure "the wrong template" or "not enough modelling" after the fact.

A filled-in organizer, immediate comprehension, delayed retention, transfer and use in the learner's own task are separate claims. The present evidence sets no organizer size, no proportion of blanks, and no criterion for withdrawing the organizer.

Claims

  • Creating Visual Representations — graphic organizers are one concrete form of visual externalization.
  • Metaphors & Analogies — organizers can help make analogical or conceptual relationships visible.
  • Process-Based Writing — organizers often support planning, sequencing, and revision in writing.
  • Pre-Reading Questioning — organizers can structure anticipation and comprehension before or during reading.
  • Clear Structure — the general relationship that making an organization explicit helps; graphic organizers are its visual case.
  • Activation — organizers given before instruction to connect new material with prior knowledge.
  • Chunking — unit size and boundaries; an organizer shows how the units relate.
  • Self-Explanation — explaining an organizer's links is the activity this page pairs with it.
  • Retrieval Practice — rebuilding an organizer from memory is a retrieval task.

Examples

Key Sources

  • Hall, T., & Strangman, N. (2002). Graphic organizers. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
  • Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Beth, A., Odom, S., Hsieh, Y. P., & Vanderveen, A. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial graphic organizer. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.2.103-111
  • Singleton, S. M., & Filce, H. G. (2015). Graphic organizers for secondary students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48(2), 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915605799
  • MacArthur, C. A., & Lembo, L. (2009). Strategy instruction in writing for adult literacy learners. Reading and Writing, 22(9), 1021-1039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9142-x
  • Using Graphic Organizers in Instruction: A Review of Research and Teacher Practice. (1998). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED427095
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1984). Semantic relationships and structural knowledge acquisition in introductory psychology. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED258538
Page metadata
Field Value
type principle
id graphic-organizers
aliases graphic-organizers-scaffold-comprehension-principle, semantic-mapping-principle
title Graphic Organizers
description For learners who do not yet hold a material's structure, a diagram whose layout matches that structure, provided first and later built and explained by the learner, is expected to improve comprehension and retention over text alone; concept-map meta-analyses test this for node-link maps, and no claim tests other organizer forms, partial organizers or fading.
status review
canonical True
generated by claude/unspecified on 2026-10-05
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 5 — robinson-2006, singleton-2015, macarthur-2009, using-graphic-organizers-in-instruction-a-review-of-research-and-teacher-practice-1998, jonassen-1984

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.