Graphic Organizers¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 9 claims (5 for, 2 mixed, 2 against) · 26 studies (10 causal, 7 quant-synthesis, 7 review, 1 associational, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 6 of 26 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

A graphic organizer is a visual-spatial representation of content — concept maps, matrices, flowcharts, hierarchies, Venn diagrams — that externalizes the relationships among ideas in a topic. The instructor may provide a completed organizer, a partially completed one for learners to fill in, or only the frame, with learners constructing the content themselves. Because the display makes relational structure visible, it complements linear text or lecture rather than merely decorating it.

Design Implications¶

Graphic organizers exploit the visual channel to convey relational information that would otherwise impose heavy working-memory demands on verbal processing Chunking reduces working memory load. [+M]. Meta-analytic evidence shows knowledge maps and similar spatial displays improve learning and transfer relative to text-only conditions, particularly when the organizer highlights the same structure the learner must acquire Graphic organizers improve learning relative to text-only conditions. [+M]. The dual-channel benefit is strongest when the visual genuinely encodes relationships rather than repeating the text verbatim Dual coding improves recall. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A clear analysis of the target content's structure (hierarchy, sequence, comparison, cause–effect) so the organizer type matches the relationships being taught
• Explicit instruction in how to read — and, later, how to construct — the organizer format
• Integration with text or instruction: the organizer should be referenced, not presented as a standalone artifact
• A clear analysis of the content's underlying structure (hierarchical, sequential, comparative, causal) so the organizer type matches the relationships being taught
• For learner-generated organizers: explicit instruction in how to identify and label relationships between concepts, not just how to draw boxes
• Prompts that require learners to elaborate on links (e.g., "explain why these two connect") rather than merely place terms

Constraints¶

• Provided organizers can produce passive copying; learners who fill in a supplied map without generating connections learn less than those who construct their own Learner-generated organizers outperform studying provided ones for deeper learning. [~M]
• A poorly matched organizer type (e.g., a linear flowchart for comparative content) can impose a misleading structure and harm learning [-M]
• Overly dense organizers with decorative graphics add extraneous load rather than reducing it Cognitive overload degrades learning. [-M]
• Benefits shrink for learners with strong prior knowledge, who already hold a structure and may find the supplied one redundant [~M]
• Completing a pre-made organizer by copying or filling blanks can become a low-level transcription task with little elaboration Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [-M]
• Learners with high prior knowledge may gain little from provided organizers and can be slowed by redundant visual processing Guidance becomes less effective — and can reverse — as expertise grows. [~M]
• Overly dense or decorative organizers add extraneous load rather than reducing it Reducing extraneous load improves learning. [-M]
• Organizers impose a single structure on content; for ill-structured domains, a fixed map can mislead — multiple representations are preferable Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction. [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Advance organizer: presented before instruction to activate prior knowledge and set expectations (Advance Organizers)
• Partial/faded: instructor supplies the frame and some nodes; learners complete the rest, then eventually build maps from scratch
• Learner-generated: students construct their own maps as a summarization or study activity (Annotating in visual form)
• Collaborative: groups negotiate a shared map, surfacing disagreements about relationships
• Advance organizer (instructor-provided, before instruction): primes structure and prior knowledge
• During-instruction organizer: built incrementally with the class, modeling how structure emerges
• Learner-constructed concept map (after instruction): functions as an elaboration and assessment task; scoring should reward quality of labeled relationships
• Comparison matrix: particularly effective for categorization objectives, outperforming linear notes for relational recall Organizers that preserve relational structure improve recall. [+M]

Target Learners¶

• Novices who lack a mental structure for the topic and benefit from seeing relationships pre-organized Graphic organizers improve learning relative to text-only conditions. [+M]
• Struggling readers and English learners, for whom the visual channel reduces language-processing load [+M]
• Less beneficial for experts, who may find the imposed structure constraining [~M]
• Struggling readers and learners with weaker text-processing skills, for whom the visual channel provides an alternative access route Media combinations affect recall and retention. [+M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Conceptual understanding: seeing how ideas relate (hierarchies, taxonomies, cause–effect chains)
• Knowledge organization: restructuring fragmented facts into coherent schemas
• Comprehension monitoring: using the map to check whether the whole structure has been grasped
• Conceptual understanding: seeing how ideas relate, not just what they are
• Knowledge organization: building well-structured schemas for retrieval
• Comparative analysis: discriminating among similar concepts via matrices and Venn diagrams
• Metacognitive summarization: learner-generated maps as a comprehension check

Instructions¶

1. Analyze the content to identify its dominant structure (comparison, hierarchy, sequence, cycle) and select a matching organizer type.
2. Introduce the organizer before or early in instruction as an Advance Organizer, connecting it to prior knowledge Activating prior knowledge improves learning. [+M].
3. Model how to read the organizer, narrating what each spatial relationship means (Think-Aloud).
4. Fade responsibility: move from completed organizer → partially completed → learner-constructed, so learners generate the connections themselves Learner-generated organizers outperform studying provided ones for deeper learning. [+M].
5. Have learners use the organizer for retrieval practice — reconstructing it from memory — rather than only as a reference display.

Related Strategies¶

• Advance Organizers — the before-instruction use of an organizer to scaffold incoming information
• Concept Mapping — learner-generated node-and-link construction, the most demanding organizer variant
• Chunking — organizers group information into meaningful units, enacting chunking visually
• Teacher-provided graphic map as review
• Annotating — a complementary text-marking strategy; organizers restructure, annotation highlights
• Case Studies — organizers can scaffold case analysis by structuring what to extract
• Student-generated mapping exercise
• Provide concept maps and hypermaps so learners see conceptual relationships and their own location in the system

Examples¶

• Concept Attainment — organizers such as T-charts of examples and non-examples support hypothesis testing about category membership.
• Direct Instruction — structured lesson templates routinely include a visual advance organizer summarizing the lesson's structure.
• Inspiration/Kidspiration — commercial concept-mapping software used in K–12 classrooms for brainstorming and pre-writing organizers.
• Popplet — collaborative mind-mapping tool; students co-construct shared maps, enacting the collaborative variant.
• Inspiration / Kidspiration (https://www.inspiration.com) — widely used K–12 concept-mapping software; students build diagrams that convert to outlines, linking visual and linear forms.
• IHMC CmapTools (https://cmap.ihmc.us) — free concept-mapping tool developed from Novak's concept mapping research program; supports scored, collaborative maps.
• Frayer Model — a four-quadrant organizer (definition, characteristics, examples, non-examples) used in vocabulary instruction; the non-example quadrant sharpens concept boundaries.
• History comparison matrices — having students complete a matrix comparing causes of two revolutions before writing an essay, improving the relational quality of the resulting arguments.

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
• 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
• Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01.
• Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia Learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316941355
• Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. https://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/theory-of-concept-maps
• 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
• Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4