Graphic Organizers and Visual Aids (Attention)¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 8 claims (7 for, 1 against) · 20 studies (8 causal, 7 quant-synthesis, 4 review, 1 associational), q2–q4 · 5 of 20 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

Graphic organizers and visual aids structure content spatially — through mind maps, advance organizers, comparison matrices, flowcharts, and diagrams — so that learners can see which information matters and how it relates. As an attention strategy, the organizer functions as a pre-selection device: it directs the learner's limited attentional resources toward essential relationships rather than surface details.

Design Implications¶

Graphic organizers work by externalizing structure, reducing the working-memory burden of holding relationships in mind while processing new content Chunking reduces working memory load. [+M]. Their attentional value comes from emphasis: visually highlighting what is central directs selective attention and improves later recall of emphasized content Relevancy of emphasis directs attention. [+M]. Combining verbal and visual representations supports dual coding, producing better recall than either channel alone Media combinations affect recall and retention. [+M]. Meta-analytic evidence shows knowledge maps and similar graphic organizers outperform text-only or list formats for retention, with the largest gains when learners actively construct the organizer rather than only study a provided one [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A clear analysis of the content's structure (hierarchy, sequence, comparison, cause–effect) so the organizer type matches the relationships being taught
• Explicit instruction in how to read and use the organizer — learners unfamiliar with a format need modeling (Advance Organizers)
• For maximal benefit, a step where learners complete or construct the organizer themselves rather than passively receiving it (Practice)
• A clear analysis of the content's relational structure (hierarchy, sequence, comparison, cause–effect) so the organizer type matches the content
• Brief instruction in how to read and use the organizer — learners unfamiliar with a format need modeling before it helps
• Analysis of the content's underlying structure before selecting an organizer type

Constraints¶

• Poorly designed organizers with excessive boxes, colors, or cross-links add extraneous load and depress learning [~M] — visual complexity must be pruned, not accumulated
• Provided (completed) organizers can encourage shallow copying; learners who fill them in without generating connections show smaller gains [~M]
• Mismatched structure harms comprehension: a hierarchical map applied to non-hierarchical content distorts the relationships [~M]
• Benefits shrink for learners with high prior knowledge, who can impose structure on text themselves and may find the organizer redundant [~M]
• Pre-filled organizers viewed passively yield smaller gains than learner-completed ones; the attention benefit collapses when learners do not process the structure [~M]
• Poorly matched organizer types (e.g., a linear flowchart for comparative content) add extraneous processing rather than reducing it [-M]
• Overly dense or cluttered visuals increase cognitive load and split attention Cognitive overload degrades learning. [-S]
• Learners with strong prior knowledge may find organizers redundant, and rigid templates can constrain learners who would benefit from generating their own structure [~W]
• Overly complex or decorative graphics add extraneous load and depress learning [~S] — a cluttered organizer is worse than none
• Provided organizers can encourage shallow copying; learners who generate their own organizer often learn more than those given one [~S], though generation costs time and can overload novices
• Poorly matched to content structure (e.g., a linear timeline for a causal system), organizers can instill a misleading model of the domain [-M]
• Learners with strong prior knowledge may find organizers redundant and gain little [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Advance organizers presented before text to prime relevant schema (Advance Organizers)
• Partially completed organizers that learners finish during instruction, fading support over time
• Learner-constructed maps (concept mapping) as an active-learning and assessment activity
• Signal-enhanced materials — headings, color-coding, and callouts embedded in existing texts or slides rather than separate artifacts
• Provided vs. learner-generated: give a completed organizer as an advance organizer before instruction, or a partial one to complete during it; learner-constructed maps (e.g., concept mapping) trade guidance for generative processing
• Static vs. animated: animated diagrams help for dynamic processes; static diagrams suffice for structural relationships
• Color-coding and highlighting: effective when the color scheme is consistent and semantically meaningful (e.g., one color per claim type), ineffective when arbitrary
• Instructor-provided organizers: efficient for novices; use as a framing device before or during instruction
• Learner-generated organizers (concept mapping, Annotating): deeper processing; pair with Self-Explanation prompts to avoid mechanical copying Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+M]
• Partially completed ("skeleton") organizers: a middle path that structures without doing the work — a form of Fading
• Cooperative mapping: pairs or groups negotiate the organizer, surfacing disagreements about relationships

Target Learners¶

• Novices who cannot yet distinguish central from peripheral information in a domain Relevancy of emphasis directs attention. [+M]
• Learners with limited working-memory capacity who benefit from externalized structure Chunking reduces working memory load. [+M]
• Less beneficial for advanced learners, who may experience redundancy effects [~M]
• Novices who cannot yet distinguish central from peripheral information in a domain Advance organizers improve learning. [+M]
• Less beneficial for experts, who already impose structure and may find provided organizers redundant [~W]
• Younger learners and English language learners, for whom visual structure reduces language-processing demands
• Less beneficial for experts, who already possess the organizing schema [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Selective attention: identifying the key ideas and relationships in complex material
• Relational knowledge: comparing, sequencing, and classifying content
• Retention of structured information Media combinations affect recall and retention. [+M]
• Comprehension of relational content: hierarchies, processes, comparisons, cause–effect chains
• Selective attention: identifying key ideas in dense text or multimedia
• Retention of structured knowledge Dual coding improves recall. [+M]
• Relational knowledge: seeing how concepts connect, compare, and hierarchize
• Text comprehension and summarization: extracting macro-structure from extended material
• Retention of key facts and relationships embedded in a structure
• Less suited to skill automatization or open-ended creative production

Instructions¶

1. Analyze the content to determine its dominant structure (hierarchy, sequence, comparison, cycle).
2. Select an organizer type that matches that structure; keep the design minimal (Cognitive Load Management).
3. Present the organizer before or during instruction as an advance organizer, modeling how to read it (Advance Organizers).
4. Have learners complete or construct the organizer themselves, then check it against a reference version (Practice).
5. Fade the organizer as learners internalize the structure, eventually asking them to generate their own from raw material.

Related Strategies¶

• Advance Organizers — the pre-instructional variant of this strategy, priming schema before exposure
• Chunking — the underlying load-reduction mechanism that organizers enact
• Annotating — a complementary attention strategy operating on the text itself rather than a separate visual artifact
• Text Marking and Highlighting — the text-embedded form of visual signaling
• Activating Prior Knowledge — organizers can serve as the activation surface, making existing schemas visible before new content lands
• Chunking Information — organizers are the visual enactment of chunking: grouping related items into a single structured unit
• Note-Taking Structures — structured notes (Cornell, matrices) are learner-generated organizers applied to lectures and readings
• Provide concept maps and hypermaps so learners see conceptual relationships and their own location in the system

Examples¶

• Inspiration / Kidspiration (https://www.inspiration.com) — concept-mapping software widely used in K–12 for learner-constructed graphic organizers across content areas.
• Comparison matrices in history instruction — a grid with civilizations as rows and institutions (religion, economy, government) as columns directs attention to comparable features across cases; multiple contrasting cases presented in such a matrix support abstraction of shared principles Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction. [+M]
• Khan Academy unit maps (https://www.khanacademy.org) — visual course maps showing lesson hierarchy, orienting learners to where the current lesson sits in the unit's structure.
• Inspiration / Kidspiration (https://www.inspiration.com) — concept-mapping software used in K–12 classrooms for learner-constructed graphic organizers across content areas.
• Story maps in reading instruction — narrative element charts (setting, characters, problem, resolution) that direct attention to story structure; widely used in explicit comprehension curricula.
• Comparison matrices in science instruction — a grid organizing variables, conditions, and outcomes across experiments, used to focus attention on what differs between conditions rather than prose re-reading.
• Reading Rockets — published library of story maps, comparison charts, and concept frames used in K– literacy instruction.
• Inspiration Software / Kidspiration — concept-mapping tools widely used in schools for learner-generated webs and diagrams.

Key Sources¶

• Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448. doi:10.3102/00346543076003413
• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511811678
• Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455–467. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.455
• 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
• Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction (4th ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119239086
• Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001